"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (4 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

You couldn't have made this stuff up. If anyone said before the invasion started, that the Russian Air Force would rely on basic low grade civilian GPS, I would have wanted to know what they were smoking.
The SU34 cockpit looks quite modern.
 
You couldn't have made this stuff up. If anyone said before the invasion started, that the Russian Air Force would rely on basic low grade civilian GPS, I would have wanted to know what they were smoking.
The SU34 cockpit looks quite modern.
As far as I know the su-34 picture is from the Syrian war, and maybe the su-25 too. But somebody else reported that civilian GPS have been found on the wreckage of some Russian planes in Ukraine too.
 
So what does Russia have in mind in the way of "future reprisals" for Poland, a "special operation" to root out Nazis there, too?

I'm pretty sure Poland isn't going to lose any sleep over Russia's threats.
I think the key word is highlighted have in mind in the way of "future reprisals" for Poland,

There will have to be an order of priority, as Putin now has Future reprisals for

Poland,
Finland and Sweden (almost certainly)
Australia
Japan (for increasing its Navy and operating around some disputed islands)
UK
Rest of Europe

I don't think he has actually threatened the USA, but he has enough to be going on with and I don't think the others are quaking in their boots
 
Any military ship belonging to belligerent nations that are not registered to the Black Sea prior to the start of hostilities, are not allowed passage under Artical 19, however, Turkey currently will not allow any warships to transit the straights.

This might give a better idea of what's going on:
 

The Montreux Convention prevents any combat vessel belonging to a belligerent at war from entering the Black Sea unless the vessel's home port is there. So any Russian Naval vessel should be prevented from entering.
 
According to the Montreux Convention, unless NATO being at war the total tonnage of warships by non-belligerent parties to enter the Black-Sea can't exceed 15,000 tonnes.
So theoretically the USA could send and "lend" an amphibious war ship to Ukraine - but I don't think it would be long afloat if used by the Ukrainians.
 
Last edited:
Loving the last quote from the Finnish President:

Finnish President Sauli Niinisto was asked about whether his country joining Nato would provoke Russia.

He reminded the press conference that this was "not the first time we are discussing Nato".

"In the end of last year they [Russia] stated that Finland and Sweden can't join Nato – they demanded that Nato doesn't take new members," he says.

The Finish president said this changed the picture as Russia was stating that Finland and Sweden did not have their "own will", and the Russian invasion on 24 February also changes the picture.

"They are ready to attack their neighbouring country, so... my response would be that 'you caused this – look at the mirror'," he says.



For those not tracking, UK PM Boris Johnson is visiting Sweden and Finland today to put in place agreements whereby the UK agrees to to cooperate militarily with either nation if they're attacked, including providing military forces. These agreements are being put in place to cover the period of transition if either Sweden or Finland decide to join NATO. Essentially, it means the UK is providing security guarantees to both nations until they come under the NATO umbrella.
 
Last edited:
May we add:
Israel (for having Putin apologize)
Turkey (for selling TB2 to Ukraine)
Canada (for being on the other side of the Arctic)
All 3 Baltic States (for being next to Russia)
And I guess anyone in this list (including US) Unfriendly Countries List - Wikipedia
 
The Montreux Convention prevents any combat vessel belonging to a belligerent at war from entering the Black Sea unless the vessel's home port is there. So any Russian Naval vessel should be prevented from entering.
So....... if we want to get the UNF a submarine or three, this is the only way....







I jest of course, but more seriously Narco-type midget subs could be shipped overland. It's too bad the Ukrainians didn't keep up maintenance on their single Foxtrot class, and asked to buy Romania's Kilo while they're at it. It all comes down to money of course. The last picture above is of an Upholder/Victoria class SSK, I bet the Ukrainians could put those four 1980s boats to better use than the RCN.

 
Last edited:
I love that song.
 
i think scoring direct hit of the BMP running at full speed shown on movie it is something requiring lot more than just lucky day, especially that it wasn't just sole example but it was at least 4 vehicles hit with similar precision
There is no context to the video posted.
 
It might if the U.S. and the U.K. loaned a couple of ASW and anti-aircraft frigates.
I think we might have a bunch available.
 
I don't think there's a problem. The first 3 pictures are obviously of buses. No problem.
 
What I really wanted to know was, does an amphibious assault ship circumvent the no aircraft carrier rule?
The no aircraft carrier rule is not part of the formal terms.


But the 15,000-ton limit that IS in the formal terms would restrict us to something the size of HTMS Chakri Naruebet

Anyways.... the UNF doesn't need an aircraft carrier. They need midget submarines that can approach Sevastopol and sink Russian warships whilst in port.
 

Users who are viewing this thread