Jump to content

Assault on Kiev: Russian helicopters swoop above Ukraine's capital


Recommended Posts

Posted
11 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Nato was clear from the beginning that they could not enforce a no fly zone, the risk of all out WW3 being far too great especially when the madman upped the anti by putting the nukes on high alert level.

 

Its a very difficult debate to say whether they should enforce one.

One thing that is perplexing is that Russia still hasn't engaged its air force in Ukraine.

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, tgw said:

One thing that is perplexing is that Russia still hasn't engaged its air force in Ukraine.

I have read two possible reasons for this. Fear of AA missiles and lack of precision guided bombs and pilot training for them.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, tgw said:

One thing that is perplexing is that Russia still hasn't engaged its air force in Ukraine.

 

 

Yes agree, its a mystery, even the military experts are finding it hard to explain, just doesn't seem logical?

 

One personal thought, could it be that once they start using the full force of bombers and jet fighters then that could be a red line for NATO to enforce an air exclusion zone?

 

Why hasn’t Russia mobilised its vast air power against Ukraine?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are very many things happening in this un-provoked Russian invasion, and we can all take a guess according to our own outlook.

 

But rest assured one thing that absolutely is happening is the gathering and analysis of Russian military capabilities (or lack there of).

 

Russia cannot send its air force into the attack without revealing a great deal about its capabilities and also without the near certain loss/capture of Russian Air Force technology.

 

Putin sent poorly trained, poorly equipped conscripts instead to invade a nation he completely indeed estimated.

 

 

In a bitter and emotional speech, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has criticised NATO for refusing to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, saying it would allow Russia to continue escalating attacks from the air.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-05/nato-ukraine-no-fly-zone-explainer/100885236

  • Thanks 1
Posted

The floodgates of military aid for Ukraine appeared to burst open this week as European countries lined up to announce the delivery of tens of thousands of rockets aimed at striking Russian tanks and helicopters, along with other critical supplies.

 

The decision to ship the supplies by road into Ukraine has emerged as a remarkable wartime improvisation, made necessary by the inability to fly aid into the country; Russian jets and radar and air defense systems make flights almost impossible.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/04/ukraine-funneling-weapons-military-aid-00014189

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

In a bitter and emotional speech, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has criticised NATO for refusing to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, saying it would allow Russia to continue escalating attacks from the air.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-05/nato-ukraine-no-fly-zone-explainer/100885236

Blaiming Nato for not intervene in such a dramatic way, by accusing Nato, will not give him a positive effect. At really doesnt appeal to me, and if more think like me, he might loose credibility among Nato members citizens. 
 

We know there have been incidents and abuse from both sides in the conflict areas, but still doesnt give Putin right to invade, same as this is Not Natos war, and nobody should expect Nato to intervene with the war going on. Nato members do support Ukraine, and also do send modern weapons to Ukraine. We also allow our citizens to join their foreign army. 
 

Involving Nato will escalate the warcto a new level! Easy to say we should if there is no risk for them personally, and can sit safe in Thailand while a nuclear war in Europe is a possibillity.

  • Like 1
Posted
16 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

Don’t you think the best way to save lives on both sides would have been for Russia not to have invaded Ukraine in the first place? That would have saved the thousands of lives lost so far, don’t you think? And don’t you think the best way to save further loss of lives on both sides would be for the Russians to stop their illegal invasion and retreat back to their own country. I can guarantee you that would save many lives, on both sides, as you seem to be so keen on emphasizing.

In ans to your post. 

Firstly Russia has invaded Ukraine as predicted by anaylists.

Secondly it would stop the war loss of life obviously.

Thirdly of course it would be good for Russia to withdraw that as well is obvious but not in your world or the present one it ain't gonna happen mush. 

Posted
16 hours ago, coolcarer said:

Let me remind you what you said. It’s not about both sides it’s about Putin stopping now and nothing else. Your opinion is about stopping arms to Ukraine to stop the fight. Get it now Vlad?

 

“Yeah is it crazy and so odd to want to saves lives on both sides so just keep giving Ukraine arms to prolong the slaughter that make sense doesn't it. “

 

I don't see things your way and as I said about the Ukraine president he is calling for a No fly area what kind of idiot is that. 

  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

Looks like the Ukraine president has turned as well calling out NATO.

What he asks for shows he has no idea of what his doing. 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
32 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Blaiming Nato for not intervene in such a dramatic way, by accusing Nato, will not give him a positive effect. At really doesnt appeal to me, and if more think like me, he might loose credibility among Nato members citizens. 
 

We know there have been incidents and abuse from both sides in the conflict areas, but still doesnt give Putin right to invade, same as this is Not Natos war, and nobody should expect Nato to intervene with the war going on. Nato members do support Ukraine, and also do send modern weapons to Ukraine. We also allow our citizens to join their foreign army. 
 

Involving Nato will escalate the warcto a new level! Easy to say we should if there is no risk for them personally, and can sit safe in Thailand while a nuclear war in Europe is a possibillity.

Well let hope Ukraine stop there suicide mission and understands NATO cannot help them in there dia position.

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
Just now, Bkk Brian said:

"humans going to help other humans"

 

Ukraine: 'More than 100' people from Scotland volunteer to fight

 

One Scottish former soldier, Joe Stirling, served in Iraq and told the BBC's World at One programme that he planned to travel to Ukraine on Friday.

He said: "People need help. Countries and nationalities aside, its humans going to help other humans.

"If I was a bricklayer I'd go and build hospitals. If I was a doctor I'd go out and give people first aid. It just happens my trade is soldier, so I'm going out to fight."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60589580

 

 

 Reminiscent of the Spanish civil war. 

  • Like 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

No you see it as the easiest way to save lives is for Ukraine to surrender, I can link you to the posts on that if you like?

 

Putin’s ultimate wish is how you see it.

 

You’re right I see it a very different way, I see how the rest of the world sees it. Putin has to stop the invasion. 

So you can't see that if Ukraine were to surrender it would be the easiest way to save lives OK. 

 

Putin wish is not how I see it,  it's how he see's it what a strange thing to say. 

 

That's right I said you see it differently the only way this invasion is ganna stop is for Putin to be taken out or order out his forces. 

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Defending against an invader is a suicide "mission"? I'm sorry but this sentiment is deranged. In the extreme.

When the outcome is known, you withdraw, save civilian life, and regroup and organize from another place than running around in Urban places. He put his people at risk by doing so, and should show caring and strength by putting his people first, not blaiming Nato.

 

Most of Europeen countries did surrender during WW2 who could not meet the overwhelming forces by invasion, but they never gave up the fight.

 

It saved many civilians life!

  • Thanks 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Hummin said:

When the outcome is known, you withdraw, save civilian life, and regroup and organize from another place than running around in Urban places. He put his people at risk by doing so, and should show caring and strength by putting his people first, not blaiming Nato.

 

Most of Europeen countries did surrender during WW2 who could not meet the overwhelming forces by invasion, but they never gave up the fight.

 

It saved many civilians life!

The outcome is far from known. The Russian military is under performing to the extent that the Russian madman is now threatening use of nuclear weapons.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/no-youre-not-imagining-it-russias-army-is-inept.html

 

Military analysts have identified five main problems with the Russian attack: the failure to quickly replace the Ukraine government; not enough soldiers to cover three fronts in a country of 44 million; an inability to control the skies; poor coordination between the attacking forces; and fuel shortages.

“It is clear that the initial plan failed,” said Michael Shoebridge, the director of the Defence, Strategy and National Security Program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute

 

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/why-russia-s-military-strategy-is-failing-20220304-p5a1ov

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Chris.B said:

What is the point of quoting from a source that says you must be a subscriber?

 

I'm not a subscriber, I just pressed OK on the banner that said so. Anyway, I posted the bit I thought proved my point.

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The outcome is far from known. The Russian military is under performing to the extent that the Russian madman is now threatening use of nuclear weapons.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/no-youre-not-imagining-it-russias-army-is-inept.html

 

Military analysts have identified five main problems with the Russian attack: the failure to quickly replace the Ukraine government; not enough soldiers to cover three fronts in a country of 44 million; an inability to control the skies; poor coordination between the attacking forces; and fuel shortages.

“It is clear that the initial plan failed,” said Michael Shoebridge, the director of the Defence, Strategy and National Security Program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute

 

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/why-russia-s-military-strategy-is-failing-20220304-p5a1ov

Why is the Russian forces under performing.

Who said that Russia was going to use nuclear weapons.

Western military analysat. ????

  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

It is fairly unusual for a nation at war, to target primarily civilian areas. It would appear this is a Russian war declared on the women and children of Ukraine. Now, no matter how you view this war, that has to be considered exceptionally cruel, callous, evil, nasty and inhumane. And do these acts not fall under the category of war crimes?

3704f43c5a3faab519fc50d9ece0a258.jpeg

ukraine.JPG

Not really, since we see people being shot at who try to take pictures some more visual than others, and you tell me what you had been doing if you where the soldier se a movement, a reflection and you would think that was somebody who would try to kill you. This war going on in a city, among civilian’s so what to expect? 
 

one thing clear, Putin is a war crimminal, and I do not support him, Im just writing what I think based on my military training, my security traing, and my non active combat service experience. 
 

After seing burning soldiers on ground I believe most soldiers now, fight to survive, and then they will pull the trigger when they think it is me or them. 
 

quite alot of graphic pictures reminding them out on social media after attacks from light anti tank weapons like M72, and 84mm carl gustav that is supported and given by Nato members. The worst weapen to fear for a tank operator and its crew is anti tank weapens. Horrible death. I know, since I used to operate those weapons myself, and know how effective they can be. 

Posted
42 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

An idiot who wants to prevent indiscriminate bombing and an escalation of civilian deaths perhaps? The Russians have a poor track record when it comes to protecting civilians in war.

I’m wondering what anyone could find funny about that?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...