michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,714 
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 13, 2024 21:12:19 GMT
It would be interesting to know if all the people in this channel who are Pro-War think that it is a good idea if the UK goes it alone and allows Storm Shadows to be used to target inside of Russia. From what I understand the UK/NATO has to be directly involved in the targeting of these missiles which is why it seems very controversial to the Russians - who have said it will be an act of War. well I think you'll be waiting a long time to find someone here who is "Pro-War" amongst those you clearly intended to refer to. All the pro-war people seem to be on the side of Putin, since it is his war and one he could stop tomorrow. On the second point: that's hilarious. Supplying ATGMs was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying Leopards/Abrams/Challenger tanks was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying Bradleys/Marders etc. was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying HIMARS (with restricted range) was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying F16s was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). So it seems perhaps a teeny weeny little bit likely that Putin has other reasons why he doesn't want Ukr to be supplied with Western weapons. For any use. Of any sort. Rather than a sudden aversion to this scenario specifically. FWIW, I am far from certain, and believe it most likely is not correct, that "UK/NATO has to be directly involved in the targeting..." in the sense it is intended. If they were, then one could very reasonably argue that the line of "being at war" had already been crossed, since UK/Fr personnel (in particular) would have been involved directly in targeting Russian military forces from the moment Storm Shadow and SCALP were handed over. So I think that is unlikely. But I understand that it is a line that has been pushed for months in Putin friendly channels. Actual evidence of it would of course be interesting. They may be dependent on broader US/NATO systems for successful on-target delivery for all I know/don't know. Maybe. Speaking as an anti-war person. I think if the brakes are going to be taken off to allow ANY targeting inside Russia within the full range of Storm Shadow, then I think it should not be done alone. It should be accompanied by the French allowing same for SCALP, and also a similar gesture from the US w.r.t. ATCAMS long range variants. I have no problem with the UK being a champion for this, but I think it has to have multi-partner cover. In a way I did not feel was necessary for e.g. Challenger or Storm Shadow with restrictions. EDIT: And I'd also like to see Germany supply Taurus, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. You make several points - one of which is a good one but I'll come to that. First, your second paragraph really does repeat western media. The multiple red lines being crossed doesn't prove anything. History does not always predict the future. We won't know if this is the last red line or the last straw if you will until its too late. The extent of NATOs involvement or not in bombing targets deep inside Russia is pretty important. It sounds like you don't know (and nor do I). The UK has clearly made itself enemy number one for Russia. If they are going to attack any NATO country, I would suggest we are the most vulnrable. Germany who initially wanted to offer some old helmets to Ukraine is terrified which is why they won't give any Taurus. We are the biggest single problem for Russia as we donate what we have and more importantly persuade other countries to step up. On one level this might be a good thing if it supports Ukraine but why should our PM put our population at the greatest risk? Like you, I would want to see the UK act in unison with its allies. However I would _not_ want it to "champion" anything - do that with others too. So back to "scare mongering". What would happen if Russia exploded a tsar bomba in the north sea knocking out a few fishing boats and fishermen (sorry fishers). What next? Or what if it sent 200 conventual-tipped missiles into a few UK military bases killing 30 troops and injuring 100 more ? What next ? Neither are enough to provoke a nuclear response from NATO I would think. SO what next? We attack a random town and/or military facilities deep in Russia?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 13, 2024 21:13:51 GMT
It would be interesting to know if all the people in this channel who are Pro-War think that it is a good idea if the UK goes it alone and allows Storm Shadows to be used to target inside of Russia. From what I understand the UK/NATO has to be directly involved in the targeting of these missiles which is why it seems very controversial to the Russians - who have said it will be an act of War. On the second point: that's hilarious. Supplying ATGMs was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying Leopards/Abrams/Challenger tanks was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying Bradleys/Marders etc. was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying HIMARS (with restricted range) was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying F16s was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). I was watching Sky news last night, and one of the media comentators was listing the times that Putin has threatened dire consequences if NATO does something (about 5 instances covering the items you have mentioned). Each time his red line was crossed he did nothing - he's just full of rhetoric and b*llsh*t.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 13, 2024 21:28:41 GMT
I could see Russia declaring war on the UK Declaring* war on a NATO member would last about thirty seconds. It's been two and a half years since he started his nice, easy, no-sweat invasion of next door. Be settled by the weekend, he thought. And still, he's not actually getting anywhere, even in the fringe bits. How long do you think he'd last against the grown-ups? Even Vlad's not quite so stupid as to launch a suicidal nuclear attack. Mutually. Assured. Destruction. He might have the satisfaction of watching the first one hit home. Perhaps. But that warm glow would last seconds before being replaced by a much warmer glow. Even if he launched just a single warhead at somewhere fairly minor, and the west didn't launch a nuclear retaliation, he knows damn well that his best chance of surviving the day would be to be sat in a prison cell in The Hague. * - obvs, not just actually chin-wagging, but doing something about it.I would be very cautious on such things as 'how long will he last against the grown ups' The grown ups dont have a lot to fight with. Bar the US, whose focus is a little distracted and would need to get stuff into theatre, then the cupboard is quite bare, and as yet not adapted to the changes in warfare that the Ukr conflict has highlighted. The Russian attacks do now have serious momentum, they have evolved effective tactics and are causing serious problems for the Ukrainians However, on the OP, turn on the news ... lead headline is Starmer in Washington so its not going to be a unilateral authorisation of attacks into Russia ... the US is also expected to allow long range weapons to be used ... there will still be restrictions, military targets only ie the air bases used to hit Ukr, no infrastructure targets ( Ukr is hitting them quite effectively anyway)
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 13, 2024 21:37:04 GMT
Declaring* war on a NATO member would last about thirty seconds. It's been two and a half years since he started his nice, easy, no-sweat invasion of next door. Be settled by the weekend, he thought. And still, he's not actually getting anywhere, even in the fringe bits. How long do you think he'd last against the grown-ups? Even Vlad's not quite so stupid as to launch a suicidal nuclear attack. Mutually. Assured. Destruction. He might have the satisfaction of watching the first one hit home. Perhaps. But that warm glow would last seconds before being replaced by a much warmer glow. Even if he launched just a single warhead at somewhere fairly minor, and the west didn't launch a nuclear retaliation, he knows damn well that his best chance of surviving the day would be to be sat in a prison cell in The Hague. * - obvs, not just actually chin-wagging, but doing something about it.I would be very cautious on such things as 'how long will he last against the grown ups' The grown ups dont have a lot to fight with. Bar the US, whose focus is a little distracted and would need to get stuff into theatre, then the cupboard is quite bare, and as yet not adapted to the changes in warfare that the Ukr conflict has highlighted. The Russian attacks do now have serious momentum, they have evolved effective tactics and are causing serious problems for the Ukrainians However, on the OP, turn on the news ... lead headline is Starmer in Washington so its not going to be a unilateral authorisation of attacks into Russia ... the US is also expected to allow long range weapons to be used ... there will still be restrictions, military targets only ie the air bases used to hit Ukr, no infrastructure targets ( Ukr is hitting them quite effectively anyway) The perception is, is it not, that it's the UK that persuaded them?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 13, 2024 21:47:12 GMT
well I think you'll be waiting a long time to find someone here who is "Pro-War" amongst those you clearly intended to refer to. All the pro-war people seem to be on the side of Putin, since it is his war and one he could stop tomorrow. On the second point: that's hilarious. Supplying ATGMs was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying Leopards/Abrams/Challenger tanks was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying Bradleys/Marders etc. was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying HIMARS (with restricted range) was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). Supplying F16s was 'very controversial' (to the Russians). So it seems perhaps a teeny weeny little bit likely that Putin has other reasons why he doesn't want Ukr to be supplied with Western weapons. For any use. Of any sort. Rather than a sudden aversion to this scenario specifically. FWIW, I am far from certain, and believe it most likely is not correct, that "UK/NATO has to be directly involved in the targeting..." in the sense it is intended. If they were, then one could very reasonably argue that the line of "being at war" had already been crossed, since UK/Fr personnel (in particular) would have been involved directly in targeting Russian military forces from the moment Storm Shadow and SCALP were handed over. So I think that is unlikely. But I understand that it is a line that has been pushed for months in Putin friendly channels. Actual evidence of it would of course be interesting. They may be dependent on broader US/NATO systems for successful on-target delivery for all I know/don't know. Maybe. Speaking as an anti-war person. I think if the brakes are going to be taken off to allow ANY targeting inside Russia within the full range of Storm Shadow, then I think it should not be done alone. It should be accompanied by the French allowing same for SCALP, and also a similar gesture from the US w.r.t. ATCAMS long range variants. I have no problem with the UK being a champion for this, but I think it has to have multi-partner cover. In a way I did not feel was necessary for e.g. Challenger or Storm Shadow with restrictions. EDIT: And I'd also like to see Germany supply Taurus, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. You make several points - one of which is a good one but I'll come to that. First, your second paragraph really does repeat western media. The multiple red lines being crossed doesn't prove anything. History does not always predict the future. We won't know if this is the last red line or the last straw if you will until its too late....... I didn't say it did. You should re-read what I wrote, without applying confirmational bias. Read the second para in conjunction with the 3rd para. I've not made any statement about previous form dictating future form, nor whether that meant this was just another 'bluffers red line'. I was quite specific in highlighting the OPs specific assertion that I was responding to. Which was not whether it was a 'red line' or 'just another red line'.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 13, 2024 21:50:31 GMT
Declaring* war on a NATO member would last about thirty seconds. It's been two and a half years since he started his nice, easy, no-sweat invasion of next door. Be settled by the weekend, he thought. And still, he's not actually getting anywhere, even in the fringe bits. How long do you think he'd last against the grown-ups? Even Vlad's not quite so stupid as to launch a suicidal nuclear attack. Mutually. Assured. Destruction. He might have the satisfaction of watching the first one hit home. Perhaps. But that warm glow would last seconds before being replaced by a much warmer glow. Even if he launched just a single warhead at somewhere fairly minor, and the west didn't launch a nuclear retaliation, he knows damn well that his best chance of surviving the day would be to be sat in a prison cell in The Hague. * - obvs, not just actually chin-wagging, but doing something about it.I would be very cautious on such things as 'how long will he last against the grown ups' The grown ups dont have a lot to fight with. Bar the US, whose focus is a little distracted and would need to get stuff into theatre, then the cupboard is quite bare, and as yet not adapted to the changes in warfare that the Ukr conflict has highlighted. The Russian attacks do now have serious momentum, they have evolved effective tactics and are causing serious problems for the Ukrainians However, on the OP, turn on the news ... lead headline is Starmer in Washington so its not going to be a unilateral authorisation of attacks into Russia ... the US is also expected to allow long range weapons to be used ... there will still be restrictions, military targets only ie the air bases used to hit Ukr, no infrastructure targets ( Ukr is hitting them quite effectively anyway) not sure whether you are up to speed/date. That was the rumour 24 hours ago and more recently. However as of about 30-60 minutes ago, shortly before the formal meeting the US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby made a public statement that the US is not planning any change in the limits it has placed on Ukraine's use of US-made weapons to hit Russian territory.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 13, 2024 21:51:46 GMT
I would be very cautious on such things as 'how long will he last against the grown ups' The grown ups dont have a lot to fight with. Bar the US, whose focus is a little distracted and would need to get stuff into theatre, then the cupboard is quite bare, and as yet not adapted to the changes in warfare that the Ukr conflict has highlighted. The Russian attacks do now have serious momentum, they have evolved effective tactics and are causing serious problems for the Ukrainians However, on the OP, turn on the news ... lead headline is Starmer in Washington so its not going to be a unilateral authorisation of attacks into Russia ... the US is also expected to allow long range weapons to be used ... there will still be restrictions, military targets only ie the air bases used to hit Ukr, no infrastructure targets ( Ukr is hitting them quite effectively anyway) The perception is, is it not, that it's the UK that persuaded them? Not from anyone thats informed ... more likely the French or N Eastern Europeans who are much more aggressive but that doesn't fit with the propaganda narrative. The UK isn't the lead anymore but Putin is still sore that the UK was the initial driver of resistance & supplied much of the training & MAPATS that stopped the initial cake walk so we are always going to be the bogeyman. US, Poles & Germans far bigger weapons contributors.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,034
Likes: 5,154
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 13, 2024 21:52:52 GMT
Which was not whether it was a 'red line' or 'just another red line'.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,034
Likes: 5,154
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 13, 2024 21:55:57 GMT
...but Putin is still sore that the UK was the initial driver of resistance I thought the line was that Putin was ready to negotiate a withdrawal and retreat within days of actually invading, until Johnson waded in and put a stop to the peace, forcing Putin into a war he really didn't want but is still fighting enthusiastically <checks notes> more than two years past the end of Johnson's long-disgraced premiership...?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 13, 2024 22:03:31 GMT
I would be very cautious on such things as 'how long will he last against the grown ups' The grown ups dont have a lot to fight with. Bar the US, whose focus is a little distracted and would need to get stuff into theatre, then the cupboard is quite bare, and as yet not adapted to the changes in warfare that the Ukr conflict has highlighted. The Russian attacks do now have serious momentum, they have evolved effective tactics and are causing serious problems for the Ukrainians However, on the OP, turn on the news ... lead headline is Starmer in Washington so its not going to be a unilateral authorisation of attacks into Russia ... the US is also expected to allow long range weapons to be used ... there will still be restrictions, military targets only ie the air bases used to hit Ukr, no infrastructure targets ( Ukr is hitting them quite effectively anyway) not sure whether you are up to speed/date. That was the rumour 24 hours ago and more recently. However as of about 30-60 minutes ago, shortly before the formal meeting the US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby made a public statement that the US is not planning any change in the limits it has placed on Ukraine's use of US-made weapons to hit Russian territory. Yeah, watch this space ... the US of course has already authorised the use of weapons on targets in Russia ... the key words are 'long range' ... somewhat open to interpretation ... many of the airbases aren't at long range.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 13, 2024 22:06:21 GMT
...but Putin is still sore that the UK was the initial driver of resistance I thought the line was that Putin was ready to negotiate a withdrawal and retreat within days of actually invading, until Johnson waded in and put a stop to the peace, forcing Putin into a war he really didn't want but is still fighting enthusiastically <checks notes> more than two years past the end of Johnson's long-disgraced premiership...? Same line, just extended ... I did write that bit but then deleted to avoid propogating
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 789
Member is Online
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Sept 14, 2024 7:22:51 GMT
Declaring* war on a NATO member would last about thirty seconds. It's been two and a half years since he started his nice, easy, no-sweat invasion of next door. Be settled by the weekend, he thought. And still, he's not actually getting anywhere, even in the fringe bits. How long do you think he'd last against the grown-ups? Even Vlad's not quite so stupid as to launch a suicidal nuclear attack. Mutually. Assured. Destruction. He might have the satisfaction of watching the first one hit home. Perhaps. But that warm glow would last seconds before being replaced by a much warmer glow. Even if he launched just a single warhead at somewhere fairly minor, and the west didn't launch a nuclear retaliation, he knows damn well that his best chance of surviving the day would be to be sat in a prison cell in The Hague. * - obvs, not just actually chin-wagging, but doing something about it.I would be very cautious on such things as 'how long will he last against the grown ups' The grown ups dont have a lot to fight with. Bar the US, whose focus is a little distracted and would need to get stuff into theatre, then the cupboard is quite bare, and as yet not adapted to the changes in warfare that the Ukr conflict has highlighted. The Russian attacks do now have serious momentum, they have evolved effective tactics and are causing serious problems for the Ukrainians However, on the OP, turn on the news ... lead headline is Starmer in Washington so its not going to be a unilateral authorisation of attacks into Russia ... the US is also expected to allow long range weapons to be used ... there will still be restrictions, military targets only ie the air bases used to hit Ukr, no infrastructure targets ( Ukr is hitting them quite effectively anyway) The use of these weapons will not do anything other than provoke Russia and cause political problems with the hardliners within Russia who think Putin needs to be a lot more aggressive. The use of these missiles within Russia itself will not do anything to change the direction of the conflict which is why the Pentagon seems to be against it. I suspect the consequences of this will be Russia will provide advanced anti ship missiles to anti western factions in the middle east, directly target the Satellites used in the targeting of missiles or possibly do some kind of major cyber attack on the UK. Starmer giving the green light for these weapons to be used is not in the interest of the UK population * and he is only doing it to please his masters in Washington. * - Or even in the interest of the people of Ukraine since they going to be the first to receive any retaliation from the Russians
|
|
k6
Posts: 266
Likes: 161
|
Post by k6 on Sept 14, 2024 8:09:11 GMT
I would be very cautious on such things as 'how long will he last against the grown ups' The grown ups dont have a lot to fight with. Bar the US, whose focus is a little distracted and would need to get stuff into theatre, then the cupboard is quite bare, and as yet not adapted to the changes in warfare that the Ukr conflict has highlighted. The Russian attacks do now have serious momentum, they have evolved effective tactics and are causing serious problems for the Ukrainians However, on the OP, turn on the news ... lead headline is Starmer in Washington so its not going to be a unilateral authorisation of attacks into Russia ... the US is also expected to allow long range weapons to be used ... there will still be restrictions, military targets only ie the air bases used to hit Ukr, no infrastructure targets ( Ukr is hitting them quite effectively anyway) The use of these weapons will not do anything other than provoke Russia and cause political problems with the hardliners within Russia who think Putin needs to be a lot more aggressive. The use of these missiles within Russia itself will not do anything to change the direction of the conflict which is why the Pentagon seems to be against it. I suspect the consequences of this will be Russia will provide advanced anti ship missiles to anti western factions in the middle east, directly target the Satellites used in the targeting of missiles or possibly do some kind of major cyber attack on the UK. Starmer giving the green light for these weapons to be used is not in the interest of the UK population * and he is only doing it to please his masters in Washington. * - Or even in the interest of the people of Ukraine since they going to be the first to receive any retaliation from the Russians The use of these weapons will do exactly opposite to your opinion. You serve same rhetoric as what does russia propaganda. "or possibly do some kind of major cyber attack on the UK" - very important to mention UK here since we are UK platform. Scaremongering continues. "not in the interest of the UK population" - really ? "and he is only doing it to please his masters in Washington." - well, some have their own masters, angrysaveruk ?
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 789
Member is Online
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Sept 14, 2024 10:36:01 GMT
The use of these weapons will not do anything other than provoke Russia and cause political problems with the hardliners within Russia who think Putin needs to be a lot more aggressive. The use of these missiles within Russia itself will not do anything to change the direction of the conflict which is why the Pentagon seems to be against it. I suspect the consequences of this will be Russia will provide advanced anti ship missiles to anti western factions in the middle east, directly target the Satellites used in the targeting of missiles or possibly do some kind of major cyber attack on the UK. Starmer giving the green light for these weapons to be used is not in the interest of the UK population * and he is only doing it to please his masters in Washington. * - Or even in the interest of the people of Ukraine since they going to be the first to receive any retaliation from the Russians The use of these weapons will do exactly opposite to your opinion. You serve same rhetoric as what does russia propaganda. "or possibly do some kind of major cyber attack on the UK" - very important to mention UK here since we are UK platform. Scaremongering continues. "not in the interest of the UK population" - really ? "and he is only doing it to please his masters in Washington." - well, some have their own masters, angrysaveruk ? I do not think it is scaremongering to suggest that if the UK green lights the use of long range missiles into Russia there will be some kind of retaliation. I would argue that Putin will have no choice but to make some kind of response - even if he does not want to. What his response will be I can only speculate, I do not expect he will order a direct missile strike on the UK - at least I hope not. There is very good reasons why Germany has refused to even send long range missiles to Ukraine. Firing UK missiles directly into mainland Russia is an extremely dangerous step in my opinion and the Russians have said will be viewed totally differently from NATO involvement in the Proxy war in Ukraine and the use of NATO missiles to attack Russian targets in Ukraine. To make a comparison I would say the difference would be the involvement of China in the Vietnam war and their attacks on US targets in Vietnam via the Viet Cong Proxy compared to China providing missile to the Viet Cong to directly target US military basis within the US * * - one of the unspoken rule of the various proxy wars between the super powers so far seems to have been they do not directly or indirectly target each others territory and confine their involvement to the country in which the proxy war is taking place.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,034
Likes: 5,154
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 14, 2024 11:00:41 GMT
...the Proxy war in Ukraine... If it's a proxy war, then presumably Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a proxy invasion of NATO territory? In which case, surely invoking Article 5 would be justified? Ukraine attacking inside Russia does not sit comfortably with me, necessarily. I'd prefer if they were continuing to defend their own territory. BUT... if the attacks inside Russia are limited to denying Russia the capability of attacking, destroying the airbases etc, then I'm reasonably happy. It is, however, rank hypocrisy of Russia to whinge about being invaded.
|
|
