Regarding Ukraine's pleas to NATO to enforce a no fly zone...

The reluctance is stated as being down to fears of it escalating to a "wider conflict". Is this not a euphemism for it escalating to a "nuclear conflict".

I ask this because, looking at the sheer level of incompetence displayed by Russian military, the only thing that could hold back NATO allies using overwhelming force, superior tactical advantage, is surely that it would force and ever desperate Putin to use the Nuclear option.
If nuclear weapons did not exist, can anyone doubt that the US and NATO combined force would quickly overwhelm a demoralised, logistically weak and ineptly commanded Russian army? The supposed might of the Russian military has been seriously exposed as a myth here. The 'all the gear but no idea' quip often targeted, I believe, at the US military by the British Army in the days shortly after they joined in the war in Europe in 1942 seems more apt when applied to the current state of Russian forces .

 

Defending is a lot easier then attacking, you try and invade Russia and you end up like Germany and the French before them. I see the hawks are licking their lips and pushing for NATO- a purely defensive organisation as per its own charter - to become an offensive one. Kind of plays into the Russian narrative that they are the victim of an aggressive hostile exterior threat doesn’t it? General Sir Nick Parker in front of a parliamentary committee reckons it’s time for a smaller subset of NATO (ie. Not the French or Germans) who can go on the offensive - yes, more death and destruction with the added bonus of the real threat of nuclear holocaust, these mad b@stards would have us directly confronting Russia in Ukraine with our men and women - madness.

 

Could Putin be testing the waters ready for the real battle....that he thinks he can win...that battle and reasons unknown to anybody else but his close allies and of course the Yanks ....we the common man are not privy to what is actually taking place other than being the victims of it all.... the violence and bloodshed that is spilt is just deemed to be collateral damage which is factored in and accepted to be part of the war games that they play .....as they all strive to be top dog .....whilst the rest of us just want to live in peace and harmony with each other.

 

I would not expect NATO or anyone else for that matter to" invade Russia!" (which would almost guarantee a nuclear exchange and WW3) but simply drive the Russian invading forces out of Ukraine and protect the Ukraine airspace. Of course this could also provoke an extreme reaction from Putin, hence my OP. This could drag on for months

 

K haven't seen anyone suggest NATO invades Russia. I've seen a lot of people say it should defend Ukraine from the Russian invasion. You really do have a weird way of looking at this completely the opposite to everyone else.

People ask NATO to stop russian fighter jets illegally flaying in Ukraine bombing kids hospitals and your take on that is that it would be a NATO invasion. Invasion of what? Ukraine? After Ukraine ASKED them to?

This is like a company being broken into every night so hiring a security firm to patrol the building. According to you that is the security firm invading the burglars.

 

I think the problem is that to stop Russian jets flying over Ukraine, NATO jets would have to shoot them down, which in essence would constitute a declaration of war by the US or UK depending on whose jets were used. In your analogy, the security firm would be shooting the burglars.

 

They would be yes but they'd be doing it defensively not offensively.

The key thing to come out of this war is that we can no longer justify spending billions of pounds every year on a white elephant of a nuclear 'deterrent' when it is absolutely no deterrent at all when the opposition doesn't fear it.

 

The nuclear deterrent is preventing us from using conventional weapons to deter a war criminal. There is something that doesn't add up there.

 

I think the deterrent is to avoid being attacked, which has worked up to now. Any sane person would fear firing a nuclear weapon at a country that could retaliate likewise. Problem with Putin is that he seemingly would see the end of the world before admit defeat.

 

That's the thing isn't it. In the hands of a mad man nuclear weapons give you carte blanche to do anything you want. In the hands of a sane person they offer absolutely no protection.

 

Well Joe Biden did kind of mention "a new world order" and getting rid of Putin, doesn't sound like someone who's interested in "just" defending Ukraine to me, I know thats just jumping on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, its not like the US have a history of covert and overt policy of regime change is it? Well, except for the 72 times between 1948 and 1989 the US has tried to change other nations governments of course, but that was different, Joe didn't actual MEAN it this time.....

 

He said those things ON CAMERA, the regime change stats come from the WASHINGTON POST, and you are here gaslighting me?

 

You're making up stuff again to fit your own agenda again

 

In other news, the EU has signed a new GAS deal with the U.S to start with getting 10% of the gas it currently gets from Russia, to eventually remove all Russian gas, of course Biden regrets that eliminating Russian gas will have a cost for Europe, and profits for America, but thats ok because it puts "us" on a much stronger strategic footing he has said. so when your granny is freezing to death next winter at least you know its definitely not part of a big strategic game by the U.S to Balkanize Russia, oh no, its definitely about "freedom" in Ukraine....

 

I'm not saying anything you can't watch or read for yourself, go find what the general said, its on public record and filmed, its the exact opposite of "making stuff up".

 

nowhere have I read anything where anybody of importance has suggested NATO putting troops into Russia or Ukraine .
In fact NATO have resisted all peas from Ukraine for them to do so, as have they also refused pleas to give aircraft so that Russia couldn’t call it an escalation.
Biden wobbled on ad libbing in his own world but nobody took him seriously

 

I think Zelenskyy is playing the political game by going to every Parliament and asking for the no fly zone,he will know full well that Nato have told him they will not shoot down Russian aircraft, by being rejected at every appeal it removes one of Putin's excuses for non conventional escalation. The other aspect is that it's clear Russia does not enjoy air superiority in practise, the Russian airforce is not able to apply close air support for it's ground forces, but it is capable of standing off at distance and launching missiles from their own territory... and a no fly zone over Ukraine won't remove that.

 

According to the official Ukrainian Air Force twitter account in a long series of tweets yesterday:
- Russia;s airforce is many times larger then theirs and with much more advanced tech and therefore the Ukrainian airforce cannot close the skies over Ukraine, they are demanding Patriot missile systems and F-15s and F-16s from NATO. I think you are right though, they are probably underplaying their hand here to get what they want, I think Russia doesn't have free reign over the skies because even with Ukraines older Soviet era air defence systems theres still a good chance of getting shot down - they have Mobile SAM units and man portable systems such as Stingers. But it still doesn't fully explain Russian reticence to deploy more of its airforce - only about 70-80 combat jets had been used initially, whereas they have over 1000+ available.
I reckon probably along with what we've seen from the army side, they don't have as many planes capable of being combat ready as is assumed. Also, the inability to shift tactics has led to them continuing low altitude attacks, leading to large losses to those Stingers.
One thing is clearer - the delegation of really lethal systems into the hands of individual soldiers means that when defending you can stop tanks and planes with just a few well positioned and trained solders. In the past you drive a Abraham tank into Fallujah and the rocket propelled grenades of the Iraqi rebels is just bouncing off you, you drive a T-14 into a town in Ukraine and someone with a Shoulder firing Javelin is going to kill you.

 

Exactly and he is the main opposition. It's puttingl

Again I'll point out the absolute fécking obvious. RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE!!! the United states didn't invade Russia, the EU didnt invade russia, Joe biden or boris Johnson didn't invade Russia. Ukraine didn't invade Russia. RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE!!!!

If you can't understand why that makes Russia the bad guys (despite MANY Russians understanding that they are) then you're either a troll or frankly the biggest idiot this board has ever seen. And you've had some competition over the years.