Born Hunter
-
Content Count
17,839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Born Hunter
-
New Mexico
-
Estonian merchant ship is believed to have hit a mine in the Black sea, now sunk. Cargo ship sinks off coast of Ukrainian port Odessa ‘after explosion’ WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Two crew members in life raft at sea while four others are unaccounted for
-
The most fantastic description of the KGB I've ever read! A bureau of traffic wardens! Not sure if he's a nationalist or just a patriot tbh. Would he f**k the common Russian to increase the power and greatness of the Russian state? Or is he acting to improve the security and wealth of the common Russian? Either way, yes, putting your country or people first and not apologising for it is admirable. Someone said it before, but the man is one of the great leaders of our time. History will remember him as a villain but greatness isn't really about being good or bad.
-
There's a clear disparity between the losses being reported by each side. I think a lot of the hardware is being destroyed after it is effectively abandoned, rather than in combat. There's an independent reporter in Kyiv now, reporting through his social media. Today he showed blood stains from a wrecked car in the city. But yeah, very few dead being photographed or filmed.
-
Yes, there are ballistic missile defence (BMD) systems. It's a difficult job with a less than perfect probability of success/kill. I don't think any countries BMDs are comprehensive enough to cope with hundreds of missiles attacking. Nuclear escalation is straight out of Russian de-escalation doctrine, oddly enough. Up the ante to scare the other side into de-escalation. Unfortunately that includes using battlefield nukes against a conventional NATO force on a neutral battlefield (eastern Europe) to scare us into negotiation. The obvious fear being, further escalation would be to
-
Thank you. I've no smart argument against your answer, lol. Just curious. Personally, I wouldn't want us to sit by and see Finland or Sweden invaded or attacked. But I think in the event of that, shit would be well and truly sideways and there really wouldn't be much in it. Tbh the new buzz phrase is 'grey zone war' aka 'below the threshold attack', and I think we're going to see a lot of this over the coming years. There are clear red lines that we need to be sure of and enforce, but there is a lot of scope for competition and attack below those. It's in this grey zone that the rule
-
I think you’re miles off mate tbh. I think he could very well attack and annex Baltic territory. He doesn’t need carrier strike groups (he does have one shit one), it’s on his doorstep and a huge amount of armour is what he would need and has. The Russian military has been underwhelming but it isn’t incapable of further conquest. It was a simple enough question I thought. If he does do any more would you back leathering him or not? No is an acceptable answer, lol. So is, not sure tbh.
-
That’s one of my points really. The easy answer is ‘a NATO member’, but do people really give anymore of a f**k about Estonia than they do Ukraine? Even though they’re a NATO member, in that event, are people really willing to stand up?
-
Why is it obvious? Based on the responses to this thread do you think everyone obviously supports NATO and article 5? Even the ones that do, is it obvious that they wouldn’t draw the line at a non-NATO state? Im genuinely interested in the views of what the threshold for action is. And I don’t think there’s consensus.
-
I won't hold you to it! Just curious...
-
I hear the arguments in favour of Putin's actions. I feel we just fundamentally disagree so no point in thrashing it out. What I would say then, is at what point for you all is the line drawn? There's an assumption that it ends with Ukraine, and hopefully it does. But having taken the Crimean peninsula and now in the process of the rest of Ukraine, if he continues then where do those of you with him stand on action? Hypothetically if he invades the baltics (NATO members)? Or the non-NATO Nordics? What about placing offensive strike weapons in occupied Ukraine? The examples are infini
-
That's what I mean. We ban companies from dealing with Russian companies which then creates supply chain problems. Costs go up, economic activity drops, tax returns drop etc etc. Economic wars hurt both parties. Incidentally, about a month ago, the company I work for, a very small company offering a niche service, was asked to tender for a huge contract in Ukraine. There's only two other service providers that offer what we do, one is Malaysian and one Russian. The Russian's were banned from operating in Ukraine (sanctions) which positioned us very strongly for being awarded the contract.
-
How much is bread now? Sorry, I'm not a labour politician, who're all in touch with the struggles of the common man. This shit will certainly cause economic hardship though. Sanctions work both ways.
-
Russian doctrine recognises the fact they can't match NATO/Western forces conventionally and so in a face off would use battlefield nukes to combat NATO forces. Genuinely, the risk of escalation to a full scale nuclear exchange is high if any NATO force gets involved properly. Whether they are under a NATO command or their own countries command. The real purpose of NATO, certainly before Bosnia, is not to police the world but to provide a defensive guarantee to deter aggression from non NATO states in the Northern Hemisphere. And so far it has worked. A conventionally weak Russi
-
What would you like NATO to do?
-
No idea, just saw it. Could be BS for all I know.
-
Login • Instagram WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been...
-
That’s from a few days ago at the start of the invasion. There’s one from today where they spank one, you see the hit and the crash. All the other choppers immediately start firing flares. Looks legit but who knows…
-
Yes. Ukraine are pleading for it and some, especially in the us believe we should be looking into it.
-
I’m a bit concerned that after the clusterfuck shitzkrieg we’ve seen, the yanks will get brave next time and actually kick off something serious! I can’t believe some on that side are entertaining the idea of a no fly zone!
-
No offence taken.
-
I agree, I think it’s all just an excuse. The latest one is they thought nato was helping Ukraine build nukes…
-
How does that work at this point? Like, what guarantees would Russia need to be sure that as soon as they’re out NATO doesn’t role in with, what we now know is, a far superior force. I’m not sure they’d accept any promises at this point. Trust is non existent. If Russia agreed to a ceasefire but not to leaving (as a guarantee) then that’s tantamount to a bloodless victory for them.
-
Escalation is a managed factor in all wars. It’s rarely as no limits all out fight. In the falklands the same was seen. The Vulcans didn’t flatten the Argentine mainland, the harriers flying combat air patrol didn’t shoot down argentine reconnaissance planes over the Atlantic as the task force steamed south. There’s consequences to actions that are perceived as disproportionate or excessive.
-
I’d suspect that the commanders expected Ukraine to just give up. I don’t think they expected that they might have to trash the place to win. Such an aggressive approach will only lead to a prolonged insurgency and more shit from the international community. They also have limited supplies of precision weapons and even now are largely using unguided stuff because it’s cheap and plentiful. Unguided munitions cause way more collateral. Anyway, it’s coming. They haven’t a choice.
