[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

raymondo said:

We just heard from a friend in Zaporizhzhia city that the government announced yesterday they expect all men between 25 and 60 to report for mobilisation - this will be put into law within one month.
(I have not yet searched online for an official statement to confirm this)
One might expect certain people/ professions may be excused, but that was the blanket statement.

Our friends' community is terrified...of losing remaining husbands and sons to a war they fear they no longer have a chance of winning .

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

Clamp said "Our boots on the ground. Our pilots in the air. Only this will stop Russia."

I don't agree with that. If Ukraine were to surrender, they're basically signing their own death warrants. If they don't, then Russia have to advance 800 miles, and provide supply lines of 800 miles to support their troops. It's difficult to imagine Russia managing that, and certainly not in a few months.

Click to expand...

peterward said:

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

Korea, Afghanistan, and Vietnam had the same level of nuclear deterrent as Russia has today?

Vietnam. In 1970’s?

Click to expand...

Braggfan said:

I think you may have misinterpreted his comments there. I think he was saying that Russia's nuclear threat isn't a guarantee they'll win, and he compared it to the USA. Because the USA fought in Korea, Afghanistan and Vietnam, and had a comparable nuclear threat to Russia, but the USA had to withdraw from those conflicts.

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

No. I’ve understood. The idea that Vietnam had a “comparable nuclear threat” to modern day Russia remains laughable.

Click to expand...

Braggfan said:

He doesn't say that

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

Okay.

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

I see your point. My


Korea, Afghanistan, and Vietnam had the same level of nuclear deterrent as Russia has today?

Vietnam. In 1970’s?

The man is talking nonsense.

The rest is pure conjecture.

Click to expand...

Braggfan said:

I think you may have misinterpreted his comments there. I think he was saying that Russia's nuclear threat isn't a guarantee they'll win, and he compared it to the USA. Because the USA fought in Korea, Afghanistan and Vietnam, and had a comparable nuclear threat to Russia, but the USA had to withdraw from those conflicts.

Click to expand...

Eric the meek said:

Don't forget the Russian economy, a subject which none of us have really focused on, but which IMO, will probably be what finally pulls the plug on Russia's war. The clock is ticking. Russia's war economy is not sustainable, as they don't receive any income from the one-use products of it - weapons. North Korea and Iran are willing to provide weapons all the while the bills are being paid, but when the money runs out? Some Youtubers (e.g. Joe Blogs) predict it collapsing soon. Others (e.g. Peter Zeihan) predict 5-8 years). The Russian political elite may have their own predictions.

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

Okay.

Click to expand...

peterward said:

It doesn't say that mate it says USA had comparable Nuclear arms threat in 1970s as Russia has today, but that didn't stop them from leaving and losing in varying degrees in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Braggfan said:

That's what i thought he was saying. Maybe "i" didn't word my reply very well. Apologies if that's the case.

I was just trying to point out he didn't say "Vietnam had a comparable nuclear threat".

Click to expand...

peterward said:

2 days ago, the draft bill on mobilisation was approved by Rada with something like 400 ammendments, yes age lowered to 25 from 27. It's true

Click to expand...

peterward said:

I was replying to Clampy and agreeing with you, in quoting both!

Click to expand...

fly high said:

I read it the same as Braggfan, even though USA had nuclear weapons they lost against states which didn't. Just because Russia has nuclear weapons doesn't mean they will win.

Click to expand...

peterward said:

Click to expand...

Eric the meek said:

I think this article is very good news.

Not because of the content, which may or may not come true.

But because it has been published.

IMO, publication is likely to have been predicated on the approval of the Chinese Communist Party.

Click to expand...

raymondo said:

I was thinking the same.
Do you think it may be partly propaganda.... a warning to Russia, maybe a warning that China isn't going to continue to 100% back Russia in this venture?

Click to expand...