|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Do you seriously have to ask if the UK, Nato or other UK allies will just swallow London, one of the biggest and most important cities in europe (the whole world really), being nuked and try to appease Russia?
What do you think would happen if Peking is getting nuked by Taiwan?
|
On June 27 2022 14:57 SSIII wrote:
Speaking on Russian's channel-1 television, Andrey Gurulyov, a state Duma politician, said London will be hit first if the blockage of the Russian exclave Kaliningrad let to war.
I watched the video, he said "We will destroy their satelites and 100% missile defence system.It will not be Warsaw or Paris or Berlin, the first to be hit will be London, it is crystal clear that the threat to the world comes from the Anglo-Saxons"
So I am just curious, since UK is neither European nor American, IF Russian dropped a tactical-nuclear-missile in London，will the the situation instantly cool down or will a real nuclear war begin?
Lol. They don't need to be in EU. They're (1) in NATO, and (2) a major nuclear power of their own. A "tactical" nuke on London, would basically trigger MAD.
|
Since this world and people in it gone totally mad and justify any war on principle "Russia is bad,and Nato is good when they go all around world and bombing and starting wars to help innocent peoplesi heard that on news" it just matter of time when nuclear war will hit us all and destroy earth. We as a human beings failed and im not feel sorry for us,i feel sorry for all animals that will be killed when that happen.
|
On June 27 2022 15:16 Velr wrote:
Do you seriously have to ask if the UK, Nato or other UK allies will just swallow London, one of the biggest and most important cities in europe (the whole world really), being nuked and try to appease Russia?
What do you think would happen if Peking is getting nuked by Taiwan?
That general seemed quite serious about it, and I think the Russians will do anything if they were pushed to the edge. I am talking about something that could possibly happen, not for kidding.
|
On June 27 2022 07:40 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 04:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On June 27 2022 04:38 Starlightsun wrote:On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well. What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1. Not sure if satire or not, given how delusional some people on this forum are. The only reason Ukr is able to hang on is because of massive external support. + Show Spoiler +There are a lot of reasons, why Ukraine is performing better in the war, than many expected, because they aren't taking a lot of factors into account. Bear in mind, I will be talking only about Ukraine's own factors, not Russian shortcomings. 1) Military budget. There are few factors in play. 1.1. Nominal or PPP (per purchasing power) spending. RvB posted an exellent article from WarontheRocks on the subject, I'll even pin a link to his post in case someone missed it due to being at the end of the page, I highly recommend this reading. https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27957801Now if we compare Ukraine's nominal GDP with PPP GDP Nominal (53rd place with 200 billion USD, i'll take IMF number) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)PPP (42nd with 600 billion, again IMF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)It's 3x difference. Add this to the fact that before the war Ukraine have mostly relied on domestically produced or modernized equipment, and didn't buy much stuff abroad, their spending was mostly domestic. So while the nominal Ukrainan defence budget is around 4-5 billion a year in the last 5 years (depending on the source) together with the difference between nominal and PPP GDP in Ukraine it gives actual military budget of something like 12-15 billion (probably even more), if we are talking about relative ability to supply, maintain and operate men and equpment in comparison with US, UK or Germany (whose nominal and PPP GDP is much more closer to each other, if not the same). 1.2. Even with PPP in mind, salaries in UA army are much lower than in, let's say, Bundeswehr. There is a read on UA military salaries (need Google translate though) in 2020-2021: https://myukraina.com.ua/finansy/zarplata/kakaya-budet-zarplata-kontraktnika-v-ukraine.htmlThere was a substantual (almost x2 multiplier) bonus for those who served on Donbass, but for those privates/NCOs in the rear average number is 300-400 USD a month. Considering x3 PPP modifier, you can compare it with other European militaries: https://euromil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Working-Paper-Major-GS-René-Schulz-with-Annex.pdfA read on European military salaries as of 2019 (PPP modificator included). It won't be the lowest, but still on the lower end. Which means that manpower is relatively cheap to maintain (in comparison with the likes of UK and Germany with their higher living standards) and more money may go on equipment. 1.3. Distribution of money. UA main focus is its ground forces. Air force is mostly maintained on operable level, without huge modernizations (and I'm not even talking about bringing in new models of planes or heavy SAM systems, even foreign-bought). Navy is maintained on a level of coastal mosquito fleet, with little to no upgrades at all. So in comparison, ground forces get a lion's share, which is not the case with most large EU militaries (even Germany spends a lot on it's Navy). 1.4. Production. UA, while producing some new equipment (like BTR-4, Stugna ATGM, or Neptune anti-ship missile) mostly spent money on maintenance and upgrade of already existing large stockpile of Soviet-era equipment. Which is much cheaper than producing new stuff (which again, huge EU militaries spend a lot of money on, and don't forget to add RnD into that). 1.5. Western aid. I believe most of the aid in terms of NATO training and equipment (both before and during the war) provided was not reflected in the figures of Ukrainian military budget (since it was aid financed by NATO members themselves). So these numbers add on top of the existing budget figures. TLDR: Ukraine can field much more men, guns and vehicles for the same buck, than US, UK or Germany. Not saying it will be the same quality, generally it won't, but it will be much larger numbers (and it actually were, even before the war UA ground forces numbered 145 000 men (according to Military Balance 2021) + 100 000 National Guard (which is, while considered "paramilitary" is basically a second, internal, army) against 63 000 in Bundeswehr Ground forces, despite Ukraine having 10 times less military budget. 2. Clear enemy. UA doesn't have any hypotetical scenarios of who they will probably fight, their enemy for last 8 years is unquestionably Russia, hence all training, battle plans, etc. are made around that. 3. Combat experience. In 2021 in Ukraine it was reported that there are 407 thousand Donbass veterans (and 787 thousand combat veterans overall, but this number includes WW2 and Afghanistan veterans). So it probably makes Ukraine 3rd country after US and Russia in terms of combat veteran numbers. For Russia the number is 1,5 million, didn't look up US numbers, but it will be top-1 for sure. But in Russia the last major war, which a lot of people came through was 2nd Chechen war, and it's hot phase ended 15 years ago, so most of them aren't serving. In Ukraine most of these 400 thousand men are in the trenches from the start, and these are people with combat experience against the same opponent they were facing before. That's why a month or so ago I was saying that UA probably has better infantry and artillery, because these two were the main tools of Donbass war after battle at Debaltsevo in 2015, so UA veterans are experienced exactly in this field. 4. Defences built during Donbass war. For 8 years Ukrainian army have been digging in, constructing defensive lines worthy of WW1, with multiple layers of trenches, firing positions, observation posts, minefields, barbed wire, whole concrete bunkers. One DPR tank commander said that he had to spend all HE ammo payload (it depends, but could be from 15 to 30 shells) of his tank to destroy just one of those. https://bmpvsu.ru/lines.phpHere is the good map of those. While in the north and south defence line was outflanked, it's depth is still helping UA to hold the ground. 5. Mass moblilization. Ukrainian army numbers are now range from 700 000 to 1 million, according to different UA official statements, so they currently outnumber Russians like 2-to-1, or even 3-to-1. 6. Well, Western aid. Money, weapons, intelligence, communication etc. Despite it being less than necessary for UA to change the course of the war at the moment, it's still helping a ton.
This is an excellent contribution and deserves more attention. To a large extent, UA success came from UA decisions, Western help was often secondary or late.
As for the default, it matters because RU has demonstrated the willingness to default (they could have stopped the invasion to avoid a default), and that will be priced into future loans to the govt. AND to private individuals for decades to come. Bye-bye diversification of the economy...
There's also a less-knows consequence, which is that investors can sue RU and ask for their assets abroad to be seized. This includes gas pipelines, diplomatic buildings, and more. Unless RU figures this out before investors get desperate, we might see a firesale of RU assets.
|
On June 27 2022 16:12 SSIII wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 15:16 Velr wrote:
Do you seriously have to ask if the UK, Nato or other UK allies will just swallow London, one of the biggest and most important cities in europe (the whole world really), being nuked and try to appease Russia?
What do you think would happen if Peking is getting nuked by Taiwan? That general seemed quite serious about it, and I think the Russians will do anything if they were pushed to the edge. I am talking about something that could possibly happen, not for kidding.
Yes but what makes you think the UK, Nato and all others would just submit to Russia? Appeasement doesn't work.
|
On June 27 2022 16:10 bracala wrote:
Since this world and people in it gone totally mad and justify any war on principle "Russia is bad,and Nato is good when they go all around world and bombing and starting wars to help innocent peoplesi heard that on news" it just matter of time when nuclear war will hit us all and destroy earth. We as a human beings failed and im not feel sorry for us,i feel sorry for all animals that will be killed when that happen.
So, just out of curiousity, what did you learn about the Serbian role in the Croatian war for Independence, the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War? Do you believe Serbia, or Serbians, deserved any of the blame for the conflicts?
|
On June 27 2022 16:10 bracala wrote:
Since this world and people in it gone totally mad and justify any war on principle "Russia is bad,and Nato is good when they go all around world and bombing and starting wars to help innocent peoplesi heard that on news" it just matter of time when nuclear war will hit us all and destroy earth. We as a human beings failed and im not feel sorry for us,i feel sorry for all animals that will be killed when that happen.
You're being dead silent about Serbian war crimes in the Kosovo war (which triggered NATO's intervention in the first place). I don't get the impression that you actually care about human suffering, and your outrage seems fabricated.
|
On June 27 2022 16:20 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 07:40 Ardias wrote:On June 27 2022 04:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On June 27 2022 04:38 Starlightsun wrote:On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well. What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1. Not sure if satire or not, given how delusional some people on this forum are. The only reason Ukr is able to hang on is because of massive external support. + Show Spoiler +There are a lot of reasons, why Ukraine is performing better in the war, than many expected, because they aren't taking a lot of factors into account. Bear in mind, I will be talking only about Ukraine's own factors, not Russian shortcomings. 1) Military budget. There are few factors in play. 1.1. Nominal or PPP (per purchasing power) spending. RvB posted an exellent article from WarontheRocks on the subject, I'll even pin a link to his post in case someone missed it due to being at the end of the page, I highly recommend this reading. https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27957801Now if we compare Ukraine's nominal GDP with PPP GDP Nominal (53rd place with 200 billion USD, i'll take IMF number) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)PPP (42nd with 600 billion, again IMF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)It's 3x difference. Add this to the fact that before the war Ukraine have mostly relied on domestically produced or modernized equipment, and didn't buy much stuff abroad, their spending was mostly domestic. So while the nominal Ukrainan defence budget is around 4-5 billion a year in the last 5 years (depending on the source) together with the difference between nominal and PPP GDP in Ukraine it gives actual military budget of something like 12-15 billion (probably even more), if we are talking about relative ability to supply, maintain and operate men and equpment in comparison with US, UK or Germany (whose nominal and PPP GDP is much more closer to each other, if not the same). 1.2. Even with PPP in mind, salaries in UA army are much lower than in, let's say, Bundeswehr. There is a read on UA military salaries (need Google translate though) in 2020-2021: https://myukraina.com.ua/finansy/zarplata/kakaya-budet-zarplata-kontraktnika-v-ukraine.htmlThere was a substantual (almost x2 multiplier) bonus for those who served on Donbass, but for those privates/NCOs in the rear average number is 300-400 USD a month. Considering x3 PPP modifier, you can compare it with other European militaries: https://euromil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Working-Paper-Major-GS-René-Schulz-with-Annex.pdfA read on European military salaries as of 2019 (PPP modificator included). It won't be the lowest, but still on the lower end. Which means that manpower is relatively cheap to maintain (in comparison with the likes of UK and Germany with their higher living standards) and more money may go on equipment. 1.3. Distribution of money. UA main focus is its ground forces. Air force is mostly maintained on operable level, without huge modernizations (and I'm not even talking about bringing in new models of planes or heavy SAM systems, even foreign-bought). Navy is maintained on a level of coastal mosquito fleet, with little to no upgrades at all. So in comparison, ground forces get a lion's share, which is not the case with most large EU militaries (even Germany spends a lot on it's Navy). 1.4. Production. UA, while producing some new equipment (like BTR-4, Stugna ATGM, or Neptune anti-ship missile) mostly spent money on maintenance and upgrade of already existing large stockpile of Soviet-era equipment. Which is much cheaper than producing new stuff (which again, huge EU militaries spend a lot of money on, and don't forget to add RnD into that). 1.5. Western aid. I believe most of the aid in terms of NATO training and equipment (both before and during the war) provided was not reflected in the figures of Ukrainian military budget (since it was aid financed by NATO members themselves). So these numbers add on top of the existing budget figures. TLDR: Ukraine can field much more men, guns and vehicles for the same buck, than US, UK or Germany. Not saying it will be the same quality, generally it won't, but it will be much larger numbers (and it actually were, even before the war UA ground forces numbered 145 000 men (according to Military Balance 2021) + 100 000 National Guard (which is, while considered "paramilitary" is basically a second, internal, army) against 63 000 in Bundeswehr Ground forces, despite Ukraine having 10 times less military budget. 2. Clear enemy. UA doesn't have any hypotetical scenarios of who they will probably fight, their enemy for last 8 years is unquestionably Russia, hence all training, battle plans, etc. are made around that. 3. Combat experience. In 2021 in Ukraine it was reported that there are 407 thousand Donbass veterans (and 787 thousand combat veterans overall, but this number includes WW2 and Afghanistan veterans). So it probably makes Ukraine 3rd country after US and Russia in terms of combat veteran numbers. For Russia the number is 1,5 million, didn't look up US numbers, but it will be top-1 for sure. But in Russia the last major war, which a lot of people came through was 2nd Chechen war, and it's hot phase ended 15 years ago, so most of them aren't serving. In Ukraine most of these 400 thousand men are in the trenches from the start, and these are people with combat experience against the same opponent they were facing before. That's why a month or so ago I was saying that UA probably has better infantry and artillery, because these two were the main tools of Donbass war after battle at Debaltsevo in 2015, so UA veterans are experienced exactly in this field. 4. Defences built during Donbass war. For 8 years Ukrainian army have been digging in, constructing defensive lines worthy of WW1, with multiple layers of trenches, firing positions, observation posts, minefields, barbed wire, whole concrete bunkers. One DPR tank commander said that he had to spend all HE ammo payload (it depends, but could be from 15 to 30 shells) of his tank to destroy just one of those. https://bmpvsu.ru/lines.phpHere is the good map of those. While in the north and south defence line was outflanked, it's depth is still helping UA to hold the ground. 5. Mass moblilization. Ukrainian army numbers are now range from 700 000 to 1 million, according to different UA official statements, so they currently outnumber Russians like 2-to-1, or even 3-to-1. 6. Well, Western aid. Money, weapons, intelligence, communication etc. Despite it being less than necessary for UA to change the course of the war at the moment, it's still helping a ton. This is an excellent contribution and deserves more attention. To a large extent, UA success came from UA decisions, Western help was often secondary or late. As for the default, it matters because RU has demonstrated the willingness to default (they could have stopped the invasion to avoid a default), and that will be priced into future loans to the govt. AND to private individuals for decades to come. Bye-bye diversification of the economy... There's also a less-knows consequence, which is that investors can sue RU and ask for their assets abroad to be seized. This includes gas pipelines, diplomatic buildings, and more. Unless RU figures this out before investors get desperate, we might see a firesale of RU assets.
Its not fair to say Russia wished to default. Rather, they were forced to default because the West refused to accept Russian repayments. I think it is an abuse of the financial system and it will just mean that people who lent money to Russia will never get it back. I wonder who is going to compensate them.
|
On June 27 2022 17:03 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 16:12 SSIII wrote:On June 27 2022 15:16 Velr wrote:
Do you seriously have to ask if the UK, Nato or other UK allies will just swallow London, one of the biggest and most important cities in europe (the whole world really), being nuked and try to appease Russia?
What do you think would happen if Peking is getting nuked by Taiwan? That general seemed quite serious about it, and I think the Russians will do anything if they were pushed to the edge. I am talking about something that could possibly happen, not for kidding. Yes but what makes you think the UK, Nato and all others would just submit to Russia? Appeasement doesn't work.
So you mean if Russians did that, a nuclear war which will probably wipe out the whole planet is a certainty?
|
On June 27 2022 17:45 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 16:20 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 27 2022 07:40 Ardias wrote:On June 27 2022 04:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On June 27 2022 04:38 Starlightsun wrote:On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well. What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1. Not sure if satire or not, given how delusional some people on this forum are. The only reason Ukr is able to hang on is because of massive external support. + Show Spoiler +There are a lot of reasons, why Ukraine is performing better in the war, than many expected, because they aren't taking a lot of factors into account. Bear in mind, I will be talking only about Ukraine's own factors, not Russian shortcomings. 1) Military budget. There are few factors in play. 1.1. Nominal or PPP (per purchasing power) spending. RvB posted an exellent article from WarontheRocks on the subject, I'll even pin a link to his post in case someone missed it due to being at the end of the page, I highly recommend this reading. https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27957801Now if we compare Ukraine's nominal GDP with PPP GDP Nominal (53rd place with 200 billion USD, i'll take IMF number) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)PPP (42nd with 600 billion, again IMF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)It's 3x difference. Add this to the fact that before the war Ukraine have mostly relied on domestically produced or modernized equipment, and didn't buy much stuff abroad, their spending was mostly domestic. So while the nominal Ukrainan defence budget is around 4-5 billion a year in the last 5 years (depending on the source) together with the difference between nominal and PPP GDP in Ukraine it gives actual military budget of something like 12-15 billion (probably even more), if we are talking about relative ability to supply, maintain and operate men and equpment in comparison with US, UK or Germany (whose nominal and PPP GDP is much more closer to each other, if not the same). 1.2. Even with PPP in mind, salaries in UA army are much lower than in, let's say, Bundeswehr. There is a read on UA military salaries (need Google translate though) in 2020-2021: https://myukraina.com.ua/finansy/zarplata/kakaya-budet-zarplata-kontraktnika-v-ukraine.htmlThere was a substantual (almost x2 multiplier) bonus for those who served on Donbass, but for those privates/NCOs in the rear average number is 300-400 USD a month. Considering x3 PPP modifier, you can compare it with other European militaries: https://euromil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Working-Paper-Major-GS-René-Schulz-with-Annex.pdfA read on European military salaries as of 2019 (PPP modificator included). It won't be the lowest, but still on the lower end. Which means that manpower is relatively cheap to maintain (in comparison with the likes of UK and Germany with their higher living standards) and more money may go on equipment. 1.3. Distribution of money. UA main focus is its ground forces. Air force is mostly maintained on operable level, without huge modernizations (and I'm not even talking about bringing in new models of planes or heavy SAM systems, even foreign-bought). Navy is maintained on a level of coastal mosquito fleet, with little to no upgrades at all. So in comparison, ground forces get a lion's share, which is not the case with most large EU militaries (even Germany spends a lot on it's Navy). 1.4. Production. UA, while producing some new equipment (like BTR-4, Stugna ATGM, or Neptune anti-ship missile) mostly spent money on maintenance and upgrade of already existing large stockpile of Soviet-era equipment. Which is much cheaper than producing new stuff (which again, huge EU militaries spend a lot of money on, and don't forget to add RnD into that). 1.5. Western aid. I believe most of the aid in terms of NATO training and equipment (both before and during the war) provided was not reflected in the figures of Ukrainian military budget (since it was aid financed by NATO members themselves). So these numbers add on top of the existing budget figures. TLDR: Ukraine can field much more men, guns and vehicles for the same buck, than US, UK or Germany. Not saying it will be the same quality, generally it won't, but it will be much larger numbers (and it actually were, even before the war UA ground forces numbered 145 000 men (according to Military Balance 2021) + 100 000 National Guard (which is, while considered "paramilitary" is basically a second, internal, army) against 63 000 in Bundeswehr Ground forces, despite Ukraine having 10 times less military budget. 2. Clear enemy. UA doesn't have any hypotetical scenarios of who they will probably fight, their enemy for last 8 years is unquestionably Russia, hence all training, battle plans, etc. are made around that. 3. Combat experience. In 2021 in Ukraine it was reported that there are 407 thousand Donbass veterans (and 787 thousand combat veterans overall, but this number includes WW2 and Afghanistan veterans). So it probably makes Ukraine 3rd country after US and Russia in terms of combat veteran numbers. For Russia the number is 1,5 million, didn't look up US numbers, but it will be top-1 for sure. But in Russia the last major war, which a lot of people came through was 2nd Chechen war, and it's hot phase ended 15 years ago, so most of them aren't serving. In Ukraine most of these 400 thousand men are in the trenches from the start, and these are people with combat experience against the same opponent they were facing before. That's why a month or so ago I was saying that UA probably has better infantry and artillery, because these two were the main tools of Donbass war after battle at Debaltsevo in 2015, so UA veterans are experienced exactly in this field. 4. Defences built during Donbass war. For 8 years Ukrainian army have been digging in, constructing defensive lines worthy of WW1, with multiple layers of trenches, firing positions, observation posts, minefields, barbed wire, whole concrete bunkers. One DPR tank commander said that he had to spend all HE ammo payload (it depends, but could be from 15 to 30 shells) of his tank to destroy just one of those. https://bmpvsu.ru/lines.phpHere is the good map of those. While in the north and south defence line was outflanked, it's depth is still helping UA to hold the ground. 5. Mass moblilization. Ukrainian army numbers are now range from 700 000 to 1 million, according to different UA official statements, so they currently outnumber Russians like 2-to-1, or even 3-to-1. 6. Well, Western aid. Money, weapons, intelligence, communication etc. Despite it being less than necessary for UA to change the course of the war at the moment, it's still helping a ton. This is an excellent contribution and deserves more attention. To a large extent, UA success came from UA decisions, Western help was often secondary or late. As for the default, it matters because RU has demonstrated the willingness to default (they could have stopped the invasion to avoid a default), and that will be priced into future loans to the govt. AND to private individuals for decades to come. Bye-bye diversification of the economy... There's also a less-knows consequence, which is that investors can sue RU and ask for their assets abroad to be seized. This includes gas pipelines, diplomatic buildings, and more. Unless RU figures this out before investors get desperate, we might see a firesale of RU assets. Its not fair to say Russia wished to default. Rather, they were forced to default because the West refused to accept Russian repayments. I think it is an abuse of the financial system and it will just mean that people who lent money to Russia will never get it back. I wonder who is going to compensate them.
Not fair? You are forced when you don't get options. If the option is to stop the invasion, you're not forced. Easy as that.
And RU is going to compensate its investors as usually, through international courts. RU will make a big show about not accepting their rulings. But as their assets are abroad, their options are limited.
The more RU fights, the worse their long-term outlook. So, expect a bunch of bluster, but RU will be doing everything it can behind the scenes to comply.
|
On June 27 2022 17:46 SSIII wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 17:03 Velr wrote:On June 27 2022 16:12 SSIII wrote:On June 27 2022 15:16 Velr wrote:
Do you seriously have to ask if the UK, Nato or other UK allies will just swallow London, one of the biggest and most important cities in europe (the whole world really), being nuked and try to appease Russia?
What do you think would happen if Peking is getting nuked by Taiwan? That general seemed quite serious about it, and I think the Russians will do anything if they were pushed to the edge. I am talking about something that could possibly happen, not for kidding. Yes but what makes you think the UK, Nato and all others would just submit to Russia? Appeasement doesn't work. So you mean if Russians did that, a nuclear war which will probably wipe out the whole planet is a certainty? Your aware that the UK also has nukes right?
The US or Nato has nothing to do with this question. MAD dictates that if you decide to drop a nuke on London Russia is already getting glassed before anyone else gets involved.
|
On June 27 2022 17:49 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 17:45 gobbledydook wrote:On June 27 2022 16:20 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 27 2022 07:40 Ardias wrote:On June 27 2022 04:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On June 27 2022 04:38 Starlightsun wrote:On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well. What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1. Not sure if satire or not, given how delusional some people on this forum are. The only reason Ukr is able to hang on is because of massive external support. + Show Spoiler +There are a lot of reasons, why Ukraine is performing better in the war, than many expected, because they aren't taking a lot of factors into account. Bear in mind, I will be talking only about Ukraine's own factors, not Russian shortcomings. 1) Military budget. There are few factors in play. 1.1. Nominal or PPP (per purchasing power) spending. RvB posted an exellent article from WarontheRocks on the subject, I'll even pin a link to his post in case someone missed it due to being at the end of the page, I highly recommend this reading. https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27957801Now if we compare Ukraine's nominal GDP with PPP GDP Nominal (53rd place with 200 billion USD, i'll take IMF number) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)PPP (42nd with 600 billion, again IMF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)It's 3x difference. Add this to the fact that before the war Ukraine have mostly relied on domestically produced or modernized equipment, and didn't buy much stuff abroad, their spending was mostly domestic. So while the nominal Ukrainan defence budget is around 4-5 billion a year in the last 5 years (depending on the source) together with the difference between nominal and PPP GDP in Ukraine it gives actual military budget of something like 12-15 billion (probably even more), if we are talking about relative ability to supply, maintain and operate men and equpment in comparison with US, UK or Germany (whose nominal and PPP GDP is much more closer to each other, if not the same). 1.2. Even with PPP in mind, salaries in UA army are much lower than in, let's say, Bundeswehr. There is a read on UA military salaries (need Google translate though) in 2020-2021: https://myukraina.com.ua/finansy/zarplata/kakaya-budet-zarplata-kontraktnika-v-ukraine.htmlThere was a substantual (almost x2 multiplier) bonus for those who served on Donbass, but for those privates/NCOs in the rear average number is 300-400 USD a month. Considering x3 PPP modifier, you can compare it with other European militaries: https://euromil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Working-Paper-Major-GS-René-Schulz-with-Annex.pdfA read on European military salaries as of 2019 (PPP modificator included). It won't be the lowest, but still on the lower end. Which means that manpower is relatively cheap to maintain (in comparison with the likes of UK and Germany with their higher living standards) and more money may go on equipment. 1.3. Distribution of money. UA main focus is its ground forces. Air force is mostly maintained on operable level, without huge modernizations (and I'm not even talking about bringing in new models of planes or heavy SAM systems, even foreign-bought). Navy is maintained on a level of coastal mosquito fleet, with little to no upgrades at all. So in comparison, ground forces get a lion's share, which is not the case with most large EU militaries (even Germany spends a lot on it's Navy). 1.4. Production. UA, while producing some new equipment (like BTR-4, Stugna ATGM, or Neptune anti-ship missile) mostly spent money on maintenance and upgrade of already existing large stockpile of Soviet-era equipment. Which is much cheaper than producing new stuff (which again, huge EU militaries spend a lot of money on, and don't forget to add RnD into that). 1.5. Western aid. I believe most of the aid in terms of NATO training and equipment (both before and during the war) provided was not reflected in the figures of Ukrainian military budget (since it was aid financed by NATO members themselves). So these numbers add on top of the existing budget figures. TLDR: Ukraine can field much more men, guns and vehicles for the same buck, than US, UK or Germany. Not saying it will be the same quality, generally it won't, but it will be much larger numbers (and it actually were, even before the war UA ground forces numbered 145 000 men (according to Military Balance 2021) + 100 000 National Guard (which is, while considered "paramilitary" is basically a second, internal, army) against 63 000 in Bundeswehr Ground forces, despite Ukraine having 10 times less military budget. 2. Clear enemy. UA doesn't have any hypotetical scenarios of who they will probably fight, their enemy for last 8 years is unquestionably Russia, hence all training, battle plans, etc. are made around that. 3. Combat experience. In 2021 in Ukraine it was reported that there are 407 thousand Donbass veterans (and 787 thousand combat veterans overall, but this number includes WW2 and Afghanistan veterans). So it probably makes Ukraine 3rd country after US and Russia in terms of combat veteran numbers. For Russia the number is 1,5 million, didn't look up US numbers, but it will be top-1 for sure. But in Russia the last major war, which a lot of people came through was 2nd Chechen war, and it's hot phase ended 15 years ago, so most of them aren't serving. In Ukraine most of these 400 thousand men are in the trenches from the start, and these are people with combat experience against the same opponent they were facing before. That's why a month or so ago I was saying that UA probably has better infantry and artillery, because these two were the main tools of Donbass war after battle at Debaltsevo in 2015, so UA veterans are experienced exactly in this field. 4. Defences built during Donbass war. For 8 years Ukrainian army have been digging in, constructing defensive lines worthy of WW1, with multiple layers of trenches, firing positions, observation posts, minefields, barbed wire, whole concrete bunkers. One DPR tank commander said that he had to spend all HE ammo payload (it depends, but could be from 15 to 30 shells) of his tank to destroy just one of those. https://bmpvsu.ru/lines.phpHere is the good map of those. While in the north and south defence line was outflanked, it's depth is still helping UA to hold the ground. 5. Mass moblilization. Ukrainian army numbers are now range from 700 000 to 1 million, according to different UA official statements, so they currently outnumber Russians like 2-to-1, or even 3-to-1. 6. Well, Western aid. Money, weapons, intelligence, communication etc. Despite it being less than necessary for UA to change the course of the war at the moment, it's still helping a ton. This is an excellent contribution and deserves more attention. To a large extent, UA success came from UA decisions, Western help was often secondary or late. As for the default, it matters because RU has demonstrated the willingness to default (they could have stopped the invasion to avoid a default), and that will be priced into future loans to the govt. AND to private individuals for decades to come. Bye-bye diversification of the economy... There's also a less-knows consequence, which is that investors can sue RU and ask for their assets abroad to be seized. This includes gas pipelines, diplomatic buildings, and more. Unless RU figures this out before investors get desperate, we might see a firesale of RU assets. Its not fair to say Russia wished to default. Rather, they were forced to default because the West refused to accept Russian repayments. I think it is an abuse of the financial system and it will just mean that people who lent money to Russia will never get it back. I wonder who is going to compensate them. Not fair? You are forced when you don't get options. If the option is to stop the invasion, you're not forced. Easy as that. And RU is going to compensate its investors as usually, through international courts. RU will make a big show about not accepting their rulings. But as their assets are abroad, their options are limited. The more RU fights, the worse their long-term outlook. So, expect a bunch of bluster, but RU will be doing everything it can behind the scenes to comply.
The thing was it was never agreed beforehand when making the loans that they would be subject to non payment in case of war. It was the West's decision to sanction Russia after the fact.
|
Folks should check out the Credit Slips blog for more info on the consequences of Russia’s default, they’ve been writing a lot on it these past weeks. Long story short, the default is potentially very consequential, especially with respect to bond holder and other financing agreements, but the extent depends on what bond holders and other creditors of Russia do next. If they seek out courts to enforce their rights under those agreements, there’s very little precedent to show what happens next.
|
On June 27 2022 17:29 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 16:10 bracala wrote:
Since this world and people in it gone totally mad and justify any war on principle "Russia is bad,and Nato is good when they go all around world and bombing and starting wars to help innocent peoplesi heard that on news" it just matter of time when nuclear war will hit us all and destroy earth. We as a human beings failed and im not feel sorry for us,i feel sorry for all animals that will be killed when that happen. So, just out of curiousity, what did you learn about the Serbian role in the Croatian war for Independence, the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War? Do you believe Serbia, or Serbians, deserved any of the blame for the conflicts?
Ofcourse blame for conflicts is on Serbian,Croatians,Bosnians mainly politicans...I never said Serbians is great,others is bad. I said innocent peoples die. Do you know how many innocent Serbian civilians are expelled from Bosnia and Croatia in 90s? How many of them is killed? Nobody talk about them but i suppose that is ok since USA and Nato is against Serbia.
Kosovo is special story,you read on news OVK is good guys but i told you they are terrorist. Google something about "Yellow house on Kosovo". They kidnapped so many peoples and took their organs. Can you imagine in Germany to exist in some part of country paramilitary organisation and they start to kill peoples and want independent. And USA said "you should give them independent or we will bomb you"?
Dont trust everything you heard on news you didnt live thru that and i really really hope you will never go through war.
|
On June 27 2022 18:31 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 17:49 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 27 2022 17:45 gobbledydook wrote:On June 27 2022 16:20 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 27 2022 07:40 Ardias wrote:On June 27 2022 04:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On June 27 2022 04:38 Starlightsun wrote:On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well. What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1. Not sure if satire or not, given how delusional some people on this forum are. The only reason Ukr is able to hang on is because of massive external support. + Show Spoiler +There are a lot of reasons, why Ukraine is performing better in the war, than many expected, because they aren't taking a lot of factors into account. Bear in mind, I will be talking only about Ukraine's own factors, not Russian shortcomings. 1) Military budget. There are few factors in play. 1.1. Nominal or PPP (per purchasing power) spending. RvB posted an exellent article from WarontheRocks on the subject, I'll even pin a link to his post in case someone missed it due to being at the end of the page, I highly recommend this reading. https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27957801Now if we compare Ukraine's nominal GDP with PPP GDP Nominal (53rd place with 200 billion USD, i'll take IMF number) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)PPP (42nd with 600 billion, again IMF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)It's 3x difference. Add this to the fact that before the war Ukraine have mostly relied on domestically produced or modernized equipment, and didn't buy much stuff abroad, their spending was mostly domestic. So while the nominal Ukrainan defence budget is around 4-5 billion a year in the last 5 years (depending on the source) together with the difference between nominal and PPP GDP in Ukraine it gives actual military budget of something like 12-15 billion (probably even more), if we are talking about relative ability to supply, maintain and operate men and equpment in comparison with US, UK or Germany (whose nominal and PPP GDP is much more closer to each other, if not the same). 1.2. Even with PPP in mind, salaries in UA army are much lower than in, let's say, Bundeswehr. There is a read on UA military salaries (need Google translate though) in 2020-2021: https://myukraina.com.ua/finansy/zarplata/kakaya-budet-zarplata-kontraktnika-v-ukraine.htmlThere was a substantual (almost x2 multiplier) bonus for those who served on Donbass, but for those privates/NCOs in the rear average number is 300-400 USD a month. Considering x3 PPP modifier, you can compare it with other European militaries: https://euromil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Working-Paper-Major-GS-René-Schulz-with-Annex.pdfA read on European military salaries as of 2019 (PPP modificator included). It won't be the lowest, but still on the lower end. Which means that manpower is relatively cheap to maintain (in comparison with the likes of UK and Germany with their higher living standards) and more money may go on equipment. 1.3. Distribution of money. UA main focus is its ground forces. Air force is mostly maintained on operable level, without huge modernizations (and I'm not even talking about bringing in new models of planes or heavy SAM systems, even foreign-bought). Navy is maintained on a level of coastal mosquito fleet, with little to no upgrades at all. So in comparison, ground forces get a lion's share, which is not the case with most large EU militaries (even Germany spends a lot on it's Navy). 1.4. Production. UA, while producing some new equipment (like BTR-4, Stugna ATGM, or Neptune anti-ship missile) mostly spent money on maintenance and upgrade of already existing large stockpile of Soviet-era equipment. Which is much cheaper than producing new stuff (which again, huge EU militaries spend a lot of money on, and don't forget to add RnD into that). 1.5. Western aid. I believe most of the aid in terms of NATO training and equipment (both before and during the war) provided was not reflected in the figures of Ukrainian military budget (since it was aid financed by NATO members themselves). So these numbers add on top of the existing budget figures. TLDR: Ukraine can field much more men, guns and vehicles for the same buck, than US, UK or Germany. Not saying it will be the same quality, generally it won't, but it will be much larger numbers (and it actually were, even before the war UA ground forces numbered 145 000 men (according to Military Balance 2021) + 100 000 National Guard (which is, while considered "paramilitary" is basically a second, internal, army) against 63 000 in Bundeswehr Ground forces, despite Ukraine having 10 times less military budget. 2. Clear enemy. UA doesn't have any hypotetical scenarios of who they will probably fight, their enemy for last 8 years is unquestionably Russia, hence all training, battle plans, etc. are made around that. 3. Combat experience. In 2021 in Ukraine it was reported that there are 407 thousand Donbass veterans (and 787 thousand combat veterans overall, but this number includes WW2 and Afghanistan veterans). So it probably makes Ukraine 3rd country after US and Russia in terms of combat veteran numbers. For Russia the number is 1,5 million, didn't look up US numbers, but it will be top-1 for sure. But in Russia the last major war, which a lot of people came through was 2nd Chechen war, and it's hot phase ended 15 years ago, so most of them aren't serving. In Ukraine most of these 400 thousand men are in the trenches from the start, and these are people with combat experience against the same opponent they were facing before. That's why a month or so ago I was saying that UA probably has better infantry and artillery, because these two were the main tools of Donbass war after battle at Debaltsevo in 2015, so UA veterans are experienced exactly in this field. 4. Defences built during Donbass war. For 8 years Ukrainian army have been digging in, constructing defensive lines worthy of WW1, with multiple layers of trenches, firing positions, observation posts, minefields, barbed wire, whole concrete bunkers. One DPR tank commander said that he had to spend all HE ammo payload (it depends, but could be from 15 to 30 shells) of his tank to destroy just one of those. https://bmpvsu.ru/lines.phpHere is the good map of those. While in the north and south defence line was outflanked, it's depth is still helping UA to hold the ground. 5. Mass moblilization. Ukrainian army numbers are now range from 700 000 to 1 million, according to different UA official statements, so they currently outnumber Russians like 2-to-1, or even 3-to-1. 6. Well, Western aid. Money, weapons, intelligence, communication etc. Despite it being less than necessary for UA to change the course of the war at the moment, it's still helping a ton. This is an excellent contribution and deserves more attention. To a large extent, UA success came from UA decisions, Western help was often secondary or late. As for the default, it matters because RU has demonstrated the willingness to default (they could have stopped the invasion to avoid a default), and that will be priced into future loans to the govt. AND to private individuals for decades to come. Bye-bye diversification of the economy... There's also a less-knows consequence, which is that investors can sue RU and ask for their assets abroad to be seized. This includes gas pipelines, diplomatic buildings, and more. Unless RU figures this out before investors get desperate, we might see a firesale of RU assets. Its not fair to say Russia wished to default. Rather, they were forced to default because the West refused to accept Russian repayments. I think it is an abuse of the financial system and it will just mean that people who lent money to Russia will never get it back. I wonder who is going to compensate them. Not fair? You are forced when you don't get options. If the option is to stop the invasion, you're not forced. Easy as that. And RU is going to compensate its investors as usually, through international courts. RU will make a big show about not accepting their rulings. But as their assets are abroad, their options are limited. The more RU fights, the worse their long-term outlook. So, expect a bunch of bluster, but RU will be doing everything it can behind the scenes to comply. The thing was it was never agreed beforehand when making the loans that they would be subject to non payment in case of war. It was the West's decision to sanction Russia after the fact.
I just don't understand the relevance. Things change all the time. Banks go bankrupt, interest rates change, transfer fees change. Your obligations to your bond holders don't just disappear because of them.
So, if you cannot honour your commitments, you're seen as a credit risk, and will be dealt with accordingly. And the holders of your commitments turn to courts to demand compensation.
Farvacola's link is a lengthy read.
|
On June 27 2022 19:16 bracala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 17:29 Broetchenholer wrote:On June 27 2022 16:10 bracala wrote:
Since this world and people in it gone totally mad and justify any war on principle "Russia is bad,and Nato is good when they go all around world and bombing and starting wars to help innocent peoplesi heard that on news" it just matter of time when nuclear war will hit us all and destroy earth. We as a human beings failed and im not feel sorry for us,i feel sorry for all animals that will be killed when that happen. So, just out of curiousity, what did you learn about the Serbian role in the Croatian war for Independence, the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War? Do you believe Serbia, or Serbians, deserved any of the blame for the conflicts? Ofcourse blame for conflicts is on Serbian,Croatians,Bosnians mainly politicans...I never said Serbians is great,others is bad. I said innocent peoples die. Do you know how many innocent Serbian civilians are expelled from Bosnia and Croatia in 90s? How many of them is killed? Nobody talk about them but i suppose that is ok since USA and Nato is against Serbia. Kosovo is special story,you read on news OVK is good guys but i told you they are terrorist. Google something about "Yellow house on Kosovo". They kidnapped so many peoples and took their organs. Can you imagine in Germany to exist in some part of country paramilitary organisation and they start to kill peoples and want independent. And USA said "you should give them independent or we will bomb you"? Dont trust everything you heard on news you didnt live thru that and i really really hope you will never go through war.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Of course I understand Serbians see Kosovans as terrorists, but the "west" (and I use this very loosely) saw them as freedom fighters, and recognized an independent Kosovo the minute it declared itself independent (although it is still not recognized as a state by the UN or plenty of countries around the world). As for a hypothetical where Bavaria declares independence and starts fighting against Germany... who knows, a lot will also depend on how the German Federal Government responds. If they decide to commit genocide against Bavarians, I'd expect international outrage, and most countries siding with Bavaria. If it's a limited response as in the "troubles" of the UK, Spain's response to ETA (post-dictatorship) where terrorists are dealt with through police, and the military is severely restrained, I'd expect more support for the Federal Government... but all of this is a severe derailment of the original point, which was that NATO supposedly intentionally bombed civilians, for which you have offered no proof whatsoever.
As for your "yellow house"... the very first hit when I type that into google is this: https://www.bbc.com/news/10166800
TLDR: there were multiple international investigations and 0 evidence was found to back this up. Stop believing your own fake news.
|
On June 27 2022 20:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 19:16 bracala wrote:On June 27 2022 17:29 Broetchenholer wrote:On June 27 2022 16:10 bracala wrote:
Since this world and people in it gone totally mad and justify any war on principle "Russia is bad,and Nato is good when they go all around world and bombing and starting wars to help innocent peoplesi heard that on news" it just matter of time when nuclear war will hit us all and destroy earth. We as a human beings failed and im not feel sorry for us,i feel sorry for all animals that will be killed when that happen. So, just out of curiousity, what did you learn about the Serbian role in the Croatian war for Independence, the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War? Do you believe Serbia, or Serbians, deserved any of the blame for the conflicts? Ofcourse blame for conflicts is on Serbian,Croatians,Bosnians mainly politicans...I never said Serbians is great,others is bad. I said innocent peoples die. Do you know how many innocent Serbian civilians are expelled from Bosnia and Croatia in 90s? How many of them is killed? Nobody talk about them but i suppose that is ok since USA and Nato is against Serbia. Kosovo is special story,you read on news OVK is good guys but i told you they are terrorist. Google something about "Yellow house on Kosovo". They kidnapped so many peoples and took their organs. Can you imagine in Germany to exist in some part of country paramilitary organisation and they start to kill peoples and want independent. And USA said "you should give them independent or we will bomb you"? Dont trust everything you heard on news you didnt live thru that and i really really hope you will never go through war. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Of course I understand Serbians see Kosovans as terrorists, but the "west" (and I use this very loosely) saw them as freedom fighters, and recognized an independent Kosovo the minute it declared itself independent (although it is still not recognized as a state by the UN or plenty of countries around the world). As for a hypothetical where Bavaria declares independence and starts fighting against Germany... who knows, a lot will also depend on how the German Federal Government responds. If they decide to commit genocide against Bavarians, I'd expect international outrage, and most countries siding with Bavaria. If it's a limited response as in the "troubles" of the UK, Spain's response to ETA (post-dictatorship) where terrorists are dealt with through police, and the military is severely restrained, I'd expect more support for the Federal Government... but all of this is a severe derailment of the original point, which was that NATO supposedly intentionally bombed civilians, for which you have offered no proof whatsoever. As for your "yellow house"... the very first hit when I type that into google is this: https://www.bbc.com/news/10166800TLDR: there were multiple international investigations and 0 evidence was found to back this up. Stop believing your own fake news.
I second this. It's off-topic anyway. And it's so old that ample information is available, including a UN International Criminal Tribunal report:
Conclusion:
On the basis of information available, the committee recommends that no investigation be commenced by the OTP in relation to the NATO bombing campaign or incidents occurring during the campaign.
|
On June 27 2022 18:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 17:46 SSIII wrote:On June 27 2022 17:03 Velr wrote:On June 27 2022 16:12 SSIII wrote:On June 27 2022 15:16 Velr wrote:
Do you seriously have to ask if the UK, Nato or other UK allies will just swallow London, one of the biggest and most important cities in europe (the whole world really), being nuked and try to appease Russia?
What do you think would happen if Peking is getting nuked by Taiwan? That general seemed quite serious about it, and I think the Russians will do anything if they were pushed to the edge. I am talking about something that could possibly happen, not for kidding. Yes but what makes you think the UK, Nato and all others would just submit to Russia? Appeasement doesn't work. So you mean if Russians did that, a nuclear war which will probably wipe out the whole planet is a certainty? Your aware that the UK also has nukes right? The US or Nato has nothing to do with this question. MAD dictates that if you decide to drop a nuke on London Russia is already getting glassed before anyone else gets involved.
I don't know how do you reach your conclusion. Russian nukes are much more advanced than that of the UK's right? And Russia is 70 times the size of UK right? So, in a 1on1 nuke war UK will be glassed before anyone else gets involved, right?
|
On June 27 2022 20:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 19:16 bracala wrote:On June 27 2022 17:29 Broetchenholer wrote:On June 27 2022 16:10 bracala wrote:
Since this world and people in it gone totally mad and justify any war on principle "Russia is bad,and Nato is good when they go all around world and bombing and starting wars to help innocent peoplesi heard that on news" it just matter of time when nuclear war will hit us all and destroy earth. We as a human beings failed and im not feel sorry for us,i feel sorry for all animals that will be killed when that happen. So, just out of curiousity, what did you learn about the Serbian role in the Croatian war for Independence, the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War? Do you believe Serbia, or Serbians, deserved any of the blame for the conflicts? Ofcourse blame for conflicts is on Serbian,Croatians,Bosnians mainly politicans...I never said Serbians is great,others is bad. I said innocent peoples die. Do you know how many innocent Serbian civilians are expelled from Bosnia and Croatia in 90s? How many of them is killed? Nobody talk about them but i suppose that is ok since USA and Nato is against Serbia. Kosovo is special story,you read on news OVK is good guys but i told you they are terrorist. Google something about "Yellow house on Kosovo". They kidnapped so many peoples and took their organs. Can you imagine in Germany to exist in some part of country paramilitary organisation and they start to kill peoples and want independent. And USA said "you should give them independent or we will bomb you"? Dont trust everything you heard on news you didnt live thru that and i really really hope you will never go through war. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Of course I understand Serbians see Kosovans as terrorists, but the "west" (and I use this very loosely) saw them as freedom fighters, and recognized an independent Kosovo the minute it declared itself independent (although it is still not recognized as a state by the UN or plenty of countries around the world). As for a hypothetical where Bavaria declares independence and starts fighting against Germany... who knows, a lot will also depend on how the German Federal Government responds. If they decide to commit genocide against Bavarians, I'd expect international outrage, and most countries siding with Bavaria. If it's a limited response as in the "troubles" of the UK, Spain's response to ETA (post-dictatorship) where terrorists are dealt with through police, and the military is severely restrained, I'd expect more support for the Federal Government... but all of this is a severe derailment of the original point, which was that NATO supposedly intentionally bombed civilians, for which you have offered no proof whatsoever. As for your "yellow house"... the very first hit when I type that into google is this: https://www.bbc.com/news/10166800TLDR: there were multiple international investigations and 0 evidence was found to back this up. Stop believing your own fake news.
lol yes i really expected to read in usa and england news about yellow house and crimes ovk terrorist did on Kosovo,are you serious. I also expected nato to admit they hit civil targets :D Bro its all good im thinking with my own head and i live here and i saw many things and meet many people who survived 90s in Croatia,Bosnia and Kosovo,dont need foreign news to tell me what happened in my house.
All best to you and yours and im out
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
