• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

UA-RU | May 1st-20th | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Travis The Dragon said:
What exactly does a declaration of war mean and how would it change things? What would happen as a result?
Click to expand...
Legally, Russia would be able to mobilize it's population, meaning Russia could draft them and augment its forced substantially. They'd be cannon fodder, but hey, what else are peasants good for?
 
Travis The Dragon said:
What exactly does a declaration of war mean and how would it change things? What would happen as a result?
Click to expand...
Result would be devastating to Ukraine. No more west support. Due to being cut off or officially involved in a legit war against Russia. Also he can throw as much as he likes at UKRAINE without interference. Unless someone steps up announced war with Russia.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Why would the West stop supporting Ukraine if Russia officially declares war?
Click to expand...
2 possible reasons.
1. Declaration of war could simply allow Russia to announce it is official war between Russia and Ukraine in that region. Any outside help will be responded to as a country or alliance going to war with Russia. And will be dealt with accordingly as a enemy/enemies attacking Russia. Now I know this has been said before but should it be officially declared it does change the situation and risks dramatically.
2. And more likely is Russia can simply throw as much as they need on Ukraine borders between Ukraine and West to cut off supply dramatically giving Russia a fast victory with Ukraine choking from lack of weapons supply. Russia can also announce a no fly zone. Refugees allowed out nothing comes in. Let's be real here. So far he has been very limited as to what he could do. War declaration removes limits. Which means nato alliance has a huge decision to make. War for a non nato country.?????
 
Last edited:
Now in saying that nato must seriously consider that should they declare war with Russia over Ukraine a non nato country which i find hard to see. They risk their civilian populations. Also if nato believe it would start conventionally , I think they will seriously underestimate Putins response. Nato declare war with Russia, Putin won't waste anytime with boots and hardware. He will simply launch nukes. Nato will seriously have to consider this high possibility.
It is one thing supplying weapons, it is a whole different situation with open war declaration.
 
alphaecho said:
And if Ukraine does not declare war, what happens?
Click to expand...
Nothing change, except even more less trained and less motivated young Russia men get sent to the front.

Don’t miss understand me about Russia males and their army. IF their was an actual invasion of Russia they would be tigers. But this is like the sixth time in two hundred years Russian czars have marched Russian army’s in the this region. And guess what it never sticks. The W Slavic nations continually throw them off. So meah not so much I want to die in Ukraine again.
 
The West isn't going to stop the support of Ukraine. They have called Russia's bluff every step of the way. Russia knows now to overstep NATO line is their doom. I honestly don't believe anyone in the chain of command in Russia will let Putin launch the nukes people here think he will. It would mean the end of Russia,, and sadly the world.

Russia doesn't launch nukes without their doom too. Unless they have some super secret EMP that renders the entire West arsenal useless which would need to encompass 3/4 of the world.
 
Araxen said:
The West isn't going to stop the support of Ukraine. They have called Russia's bluff every step of the way. Russia knows now to overstep NATO line is their doom. I honestly don't believe anyone in the chain of command in Russia will let Putin launch the nukes people here think he will. It would mean the end of Russia,, and sadly the world.

Russia doesn't launch nukes without their doom too. Unless they have some super secret EMP that renders the entire West arsenal useless which would need to encompass 3/4 of the world.
Click to expand...
Now you have totally lost me. 🤪
If Russia won't use nukes of fear of global destruction and oh even worse Russia being struck with nuclear retaliation, than surely no nuclear capable country would ever consider using nukes on another nuclear capable country. So if that is your belief than surely nukes in your mind will only be used against non nuclear capable countries. In which case your not here for concern of nuclear war? Fair enough just a great informative site to follow with no concern of defcon level. Each to their own. 😉🤝👍
Nuclear weapons the 100% full proof deterrence to ww3. I'm convinced. 🤣😂🤣😅🙄
 
Nukes are there for mad retaliation.
And could easily be argued there if your country is invaded and repelling the invader can’t be achieved conventionally.

Using nukes in a war of aggression you yourself started. While your own nation has still not been invaded? That a pretty serious change in any nations nuclear policy.,
Yeah they could use them but the likely hood is low.
The standard use for nukes has for 70yrs been deterrence.
If the acceptable use of nukes is allowed to be included in the winning of a conventional war of aggression you yourself started then we are truly screwed now or later.
Your argument with these suppositions is Russia won the day they decided to cross the boarder.

There is no justification or defense of this in the short or long run.
So do you bow to it now, or do you stand up to it.
Doing the former all but guarantees this offensive threat of nukes in a conventional land grab is legitimate and we will see it used again.

Regarding Russian military cutting off of supply flows from Poland in eastern Ukraine is I don’t think plausible. They would have done it already if they could have. But they can’t because they do not own the air.
The strategic implications of manpads and NLWS had once again changed the face of warfare. The various manpads can strike an air target up to 15000 fr.
it seems evident that if Russia could afford the loss of aircraft in any meaningful way they would have used it already.
But I don’t think they can, they don’t have enough aircraft to risk losing them.

So them declaring war to me only seems to be for domestic consumption.
When you look at the statements coming out of Eastern Europe, the Baltic’s Finland Poland even Germany.
They’ve seen enough they realize Russia’s aims doesn’t end with Ukraine

They literally have no choice because they’ve seen this play before and the have no choice.

Russia has used all of the worst diplomatic language to defend their case and their constant talk of Ruskiy Mir and fascist. Their is nothing new with any of it. It’s 80yr old Soviet nationalism.
And yes I still think their bluffing. I can say that I can afford to be wrong because I don’t make policy.

They could but it doesn’t change my opinion that they need confronted in this Inside Ukraine.
 
Araxen said:
The West isn't going to stop the support of Ukraine. They have called Russia's bluff every step of the way. Russia knows now to overstep NATO line is their doom. I honestly don't believe anyone in the chain of command in Russia will let Putin launch the nukes people here think he will. It would mean the end of Russia,, and sadly the world.

Russia doesn't launch nukes without their doom too. Unless they have some super secret EMP that renders the entire West arsenal useless which would need to encompass 3/4 of the world.
Click to expand...
I agree that a declaration of war on Ukraine by Russia would make no difference to NATO support. I don’t understand the argument that it would change anything in that respect.

But on the matter of using nuclear weapons, although I agree an all out direct strike on the west (which is what I think you mean?) is still very unlikely at the current time, that is not the only way to use nuclear weapons, and a more localised or limited use is more possible, I think. Not necessarily likely at the moment, but I think it is more plausible if things continue to go badly for Russia. That would in turn open all kinds of escalatory possibilities.

(I stayed away from the ‘strategic’ and ‘tactical’ definitions of nuclear weapons use, the more I’ve thought about it in recent weeks, I’ve started to have a problem with these terms - but that’s a discussion for another topic).
 
Obreid said:
Using nukes in a war of aggression you yourself started. While your own nation has still not been invaded? That a pretty serious change in any nations nuclear policy.,
Yeah they could use them but the likely hood is low.
Click to expand...
Likelihood is low but not zero.
 
DucknCover said:
Submarines armed with cruise missiles provide additional capabilities for a second or third nuclear strike or to overcome/overwhelm strategic missile defenses.
Click to expand...
Once again your attempt to blow things out of proportion reveals your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Those six subs are old diesel-electric boats. They *might* have small nuclear warheads on board, but they are not considered strategic assets due to their age. Their primary mission is going to be disrupting shipping if they get used at all.
 
I didn't know exactly where to put this, but since it's about Ukraine and Russia, I put it here. This is a pretty good video, long close to 90 minutes) rather cut and dry but informative. It's worth a look and listen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom