• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The Ukraine War thread

Very interesting development in Bakhmut. Looks like the Ukrainians counterattacked on the 9th and routed a number of Russian units. The head of Wagner Yevgeny Prigozhin even came out and publicly slated the regular Russian army for collapsing. His continued outbursts can no longer be dismissed as trolling or bluff, there seems to be a real breakdown in leadership amongst the various factions within the Russian military.

Meanwhile the Ukrainians continue with their preparation for the upcoming offensive by hammering fuel depots and derailing trains, I am still worried that we haven't seen much of the Russian airforce yet but we appear to be moving in the right direction.
 
Very interesting development in Bakhmut. Looks like the Ukrainians counterattacked on the 9th and routed a number of Russian units. The head of Wagner Yevgeny Prigozhin even came out and publicly slated the regular Russian army for collapsing. His continued outbursts can no longer be dismissed as trolling or bluff, there seems to be a real breakdown in leadership amongst the various factions within the Russian military.

Meanwhile the Ukrainians continue with their preparation for the upcoming offensive by hammering fuel depots and derailing trains, I am still worried that we haven't seen much of the Russian airforce yet but we appear to be moving in the right direction.

Have both sides not essentially denied airspace to their opponents?

[All Russians can do is launch stand-off munitions of seemingly dubious performance - and therefore of negligible impact on either tactical or strategical targets.]
 
Hmm, just seen the BBC headlines.

So stormshadow eh?

Dunno how they'll integrate that - unless they just accept they won't be able to do in-air re-targeting and program it before it goes on the rails.
 
Hmm, just seen the BBC headlines.

So stormshadow eh?

Dunno how they'll integrate that - unless they just accept they won't be able to do in-air re-targeting and program it before it goes on the rails.
Apparently they already have fitted it to Mig 29s.

Big rumours doing the rounds about Ukrainian attacks around Bakhmut. Lots of panicky telegram channels. Might be just a localised thing but let's wait and see
 
Hmm, just seen the BBC headlines.

So stormshadow eh?

Dunno how they'll integrate that - unless they just accept they won't be able to do in-air re-targeting and program it before it goes on the rails.
Suspect it's a nibble into longer-range missiles, and depending on how Russia reacts, the US might green-light something in big numbers - maybe something like ATACMS
 
The Trump administration was the first to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, the first to give them javelins and expelled over 60 Russian " diplomat's" after the Salisbury poisoning
Lethal aid? 🤣

Yeh and Trump also clearly tried to get Zelensky to dig dirt on Biden in exchange for it and got impeached for it. Doesn't matter how much he said "No Quid pro quo."
 
Lethal aid? 🤣

Yeh and Trump also clearly tried to get Zelensky to dig dirt on Biden in exchange for it and got impeached for it. Doesn't matter how much he said "No Quid pro quo."
Yeap lethal aid. The Obama administration didn't want to upset Russia. The then president of Ukraine asked Trump for a number of assets but especially javalins and stingers which Obama had refused and Trump provided them.

Lots of things can be levelled at Trump but he was a pretty strong president when it came to Russia. He demanded certain NATO nations increase their military budgets in line with NATO requirements (Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Hungary) and also warned certain European countries to not become dependent on Russian Gas (Germany, Italy and Hungary again) but was laughed at.....
 
Yeap lethal aid. The Obama administration didn't want to upset Russia. The then president of Ukraine asked Trump for a number of assets but especially javalins and stingers which Obama had refused and Trump provided them.

Lots of things can be levelled at Trump but he was a pretty strong president when it came to Russia. He demanded certain NATO nations increase their military budgets in line with NATO requirements (Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Hungary) and also warned certain European countries to not become dependent on Russian Gas (Germany, Italy and Hungary again) but was laughed at.....
Trump was 2 completely different characters simultaneously regarding Russia, which makes me think he was not the one making the decisions all the time. Every time he has spoken personally about Russia and Putin, he has praised them whilst criticising allies. He took the word of Putin over his own intelligence agencies and actually questioned whether Russia was involved in the Salisbury poisoning. Despite giving Ukraine aid, all his comments were pro-Russia and he spent more time verbally attacking Ukraine than he did Russia. He blackmailed Ukraine in a way he never did with Russia. He frequently parroted Russian propaganda.

Nope sorry, I don't buy it. I think the actions the US took against Russia were the proposals of Bolton, not Trump. Likewise his comments regarding gas supplies, pretty sure that was a Bolton thing too. Nothing about what Trump has said has been anti-Russian. His NATO comments weren't about European nations fighting Russia but were about the USA spending less, it was financial. He has frequently attacked European nations and rejoiced at Brexit. He made numerous attacks on Merkel and Macron in particular. His NATO comments had far more basis in financial whinging and Europe bashing than they did in any sort of anti-Russian ideal. Also the javelins sent to Ukraine were not donated, they were sold. As usual, Trump sees a way to make money and it later turns out, an attempt to get dirt on a political opponent.

I think you put way too much emphasis on Trumps appearance of being anti-Russian. It doesn't add up. Every anti-Russian action that the USA took, when Trump had to explain it, he was always dodging around trying not to criticise Russia. He never held back like that when talking about the European "allies". That to me strongly indicates he was being heavily directed to take those actions and was not in favour. It was the equivalent of a kid being told to say sorry. When Trump is punishing someone because he wants to, he doesn't moderate his speech and, if anything, embelishes it with lies. This NEVER happened any time he had to criticise Russia. Why would he suddenly be Mr diplomatic when discussing an enemy when he is perfectly happy to be Mr bull in a China shop on everything else. Hell look at how he talked about China when starting the trade war compared to how he talked about Russia. Trump was not strong on Russia at all.
 
Last edited:
Trump was 2 completely different characters simultaneously regarding Russia, which makes me think he was not the one making the decisions all the time. Every time he has spoken personally about Russia and Putin, he has praised them whilst criticising allies. He took the word of Putin over his own intelligence agencies and actually questioned whether Russia was involved in the Salisbury poisoning. Despite giving Ukraine aid, all his comments were pro-Russia and he spent more time verbally attacking Ukraine than he did Russia. He blackmailed Ukraine in a way he never did with Russia. He frequently parroted Russian propaganda.

Nope sorry, I don't buy it. I think the actions the US took against Russia were the proposals of Bolton, not Trump. Likewise his comments regarding gas supplies, pretty sure that was a Bolton thing too. Nothing about what Trump has said has been anti-Russian. His NATO comments weren't about European nations fighting Russia but were about the USA spending less, it was financial. He has frequently attacked European nations and rejoiced at Brexit. He made numerous attacks on Merkel and Macron in particular. His NATO comments had far more basis in financial whinging and Europe bashing than they did in any sort of anti-Russian ideal. Also the javelins sent to Ukraine were not donated, they were sold. As usual, Trump sees a way to make money and it later turns out, an attempt to get dirt on a political opponent.

I think you put way too much emphasis on Trumps appearance of being anti-Russian. It doesn't add up. Every anti-Russian action that the USA took, when Trump had to explain it, he was always dodging around trying not to criticise Russia. He never held back like that when talking about the European "allies". That to me strongly indicates he was being heavily directed to take those actions and was not in favour. It was the equivalent of a kid being told to say sorry. When Trump is punishing someone because he wants to, he doesn't moderate his speech and, if anything, embelishes it with lies. This NEVER happened any time he had to criticise Russia. Why would he suddenly be Mr diplomatic when discussing an enemy when he is perfectly happy to be Mr bull in a China shop on everything else. Hell look at how he talked about China when starting the trade war compared to how he talked about Russia. Trump was not strong on Russia at all.
Hey, I never said his motivation was pure and I'm certainly not going to die on a hill for Trump but if it hadn't been for the actions of his administration Kyiv very possibly would have fallen in the first months of Russia's invasion and he (or Bolton) was correct about Russian gas and military spending. Was there selfish reasons behind this? Yes, but why should American tax payers fund an organisation when members such as Germany are not prepared to pay their share and Europe's reliance on Russian gas emboldened Russia to take the actions it did.
 
Hey, I never said his motivation was pure and I'm certainly not going to die on a hill for Trump but if it hadn't been for the actions of his administration Kyiv very possibly would have fallen in the first months of Russia's invasion and he (or Bolton) was correct about Russian gas and military spending. Was there selfish reasons behind this? Yes, but why should American tax payers fund an organisation when members such as Germany are not prepared to pay their share and Europe's reliance on Russian gas emboldened Russia to take the actions it did.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not disputing the actions were correct, I'm disputing either the motives for them or the originator and real force behind it. Nothing about the actions that hindered Putin seem to have been Trumps ideas or things he was particularly behind from what I can see, therefore I see no reason he should get credit or that he could be trusted to continue fighting against Russia if he wins a second term. If anything a second term would likely be with an administration full of yes men and cultists. Such an administration would be very pro-Russia imo. Republicans have already been pushing for a reduction in aid to Ukraine.

This conflict has highlighted that European nations as a whole have become overly dependent on the USA for defence and are woefully prepared to defend themselves or support another against a hostile force. Whilst Trump reached the conclusion that EU NATO contribution was insufficient, I don't think he did so because he had even the slightest grasp of geo-politics or strategic thinking. The Trump administration doing anything anti-Russia was very much despite Trump rather than because of him IMO. Having said that, the Obama administration seemed very naïve in how they approached Russia, although still less than Europe.

Europe is sort of overly compensating from it's highly militaristic past and now trying to be the pacifist "can't we all play nice?" types. A noble sentiment to promote but they are only doing half of the "speak softly and carry a big stick" bit.
 

There may be some strategic reasoning but this seems a lot like the Ukrainian equivalent of the Blitz, Russia just trying to obliterate the capitol city and wasting lots of time and munitions on something that serves little military purpose. Whilst horrible for the people of Kiev, every missile fired at Kiev is a missile not fired at a strategic military target.
 

There may be some strategic reasoning but this seems a lot like the Ukrainian equivalent of the Blitz, Russia just trying to obliterate the capitol city and wasting lots of time and munitions on something that serves little military purpose. Whilst horrible for the people of Kiev, every missile fired at Kiev is a missile not fired at a strategic military target.
Apparently they did manage to destroy a patriot battery and hit a massive ammo dump in western Ukraine but you do have to question using its dwindling missile stock pile to hit pointless targets or they might be looking to neutralise the Ukrainian air defence by making them use up all their assets?
 

Latest posts

Top