magnkarl Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 8 minutes ago, villa89 said: Over 100K Ukrainian Soliders dead, at least twice that dead in the Russian army/mercenary groups. Isn't that what the UN was designed to stop? Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, sidcow said: What do you think the UN should do to stop this? I don’t know the answer, but have they done anything of any use in this conflict? I just googled what they “do” Quote The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 and committed to maintaining international peace and security; developing friendly relations among nations; promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. The UN Edited February 22, 2023 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 7 minutes ago, Genie said: I don’t know the answer, but have they done anything of any use in this conflict? I just googled what they “do” The UN Russia and China have the power to veto UN action. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Russia and China have the power to veto UN action. Makes them a bit powerless in scenarios like this then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 13 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Source? Sorry, Killed or Injured BEEB Quote The most senior US general estimates that around 100,000 Russian and 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or injured in the war in Ukraine. Gen Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, also suggested that around 40,000 civilians had died after being caught up in the conflict. The estimates are the highest offered yet by a Western official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Russia and China have the power to veto UN action. The veto power makes the whole organisation completely pointless. It should be disbanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 6 minutes ago, Genie said: Makes them a bit powerless in scenarios like this then. 5 minutes ago, villa89 said: The veto power makes the whole organisation completely pointless. It should be disbanded. The veto works two ways. It stops one political view being dominant, it stops communism being dominant and it stops neo capitalism being dominant. It allows China to veto action against Russia. But it also stops (for instance) Northern Ireland being flooded with Armenian peace keepers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2023 22 minutes ago, villa89 said: The veto power makes the whole organisation completely pointless. It should be disbanded. So because they can't control one rogue state it should be disbanded and the other 99% for work it does should cease because it can't solve this one thing. Very odd point of view. Villa lost on Saturday, might as well just disband the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phily85 Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, sidcow said: So because they can't control one rogue state it should be disbanded and the other 99% for work it does should cease because it can't solve this one thing. Very odd point of view. Villa lost on Saturday, might as well just disband the club. You dont go into on topic much do you Edited February 22, 2023 by phily85 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, phily85 said: You dont go into on topic much do you Nope 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2023 The UN is only as powerful as it's members want it to be. Mauritania, a pretty minor country in the scale of things, was monitored and pressured by the UN for decades over the fact it basically still has an old fashioned slave trade. They made a few sops to combating it, but ultimately just carried on, and ignored the UN. Now, bearing that in mind, even setting aside the veto issue, the UN isn't going to do anything to step in on a conflict the scale of something involving Russia, and no members would want it to either. It exists in this context to be a talking shop, with some coordination efforts, and to help pick up the pieces when it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 What I dont understand is that since WW II everybody knows how important it is to control the sky and also that on the ground you have to have superior/more tanks than the enemy,yet NATO is still mucking about as far as planes and tanks are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2023 11 minutes ago, PussEKatt said: What I dont understand is that since WW II everybody knows how important it is to control the sky and also that on the ground you have to have superior/more tanks than the enemy,yet NATO is still mucking about as far as planes and tanks are concerned. I don't know. What this war seems to have illustrated is that aircraft and tanks are very susceptible to anti tank and anti aircraft systems, even handheld portable ones. A smaller number of vastly superior tanks and stealth fighters may well be the best option. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2023 20 minutes ago, sidcow said: I don't know. What this war seems to have illustrated is that aircraft and tanks are very susceptible to anti tank and anti aircraft systems, even handheld portable ones. A smaller number of vastly superior tanks and stealth fighters may well be the best option. I think things are a bit more nuanced than that. Air superiority is key, and what we're learning is that you need overwhelming force to achieve it. Neither side has overwhelming force, so neither side has air superiority. Due to this lack, all aircraft are extremely vulnerable. If you have air superiority then aircraft are pretty much invulnerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2023 20 minutes ago, Anthony said: I think things are a bit more nuanced than that. Air superiority is key, and what we're learning is that you need overwhelming force to achieve it. Neither side has overwhelming force, so neither side has air superiority. Due to this lack, all aircraft are extremely vulnerable. If you have air superiority then aircraft are pretty much invulnerable. I think Russia has air superiority in the traditional sense, they have overwhelmingly more aircraft and better aircraft than Ukraine. What's stopping them is anti aircraft systems so going back to the OP, aircraft themselves are not the driver here. You could argue developing significantly more anti aircraft systems is the most import. Then you would only need a handful of "invisible" stealth aircraft to rule the skies if they avoid the oppositions anti aircraft systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) Seems to me that several countries, including the UK wanted to support Ukraine but also thought it was in their best interest to provide the minimal required support to drag the conflict out as long as possible rather than giving Ukraine capabilities to halt Russia in their tracks within weeks. Whether that's for the direct economic benefits of not giving so much aid to Ukraine, or for the longterm gain of Russia being far more economically damaged by a protracted war, or a combination of both. Edited February 22, 2023 by Davkaus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Seems to me that several countries, including the UK wanted to support Ukraine but also thought it was in their best interest to provide the minimal required support to drag the conflict out as long as possible rather than giving Ukraine capabilities to halt Russia in their tracks within weeks. Whether that's for the direct economic benefits of not giving so much aid to Ukraine, or for the longterm gain of Russia being far more economically damaged by a protracted war, or a combination of both. I think this discussion was had a few pages back but I don’t think the Ukraine support has been as planned out as you are implying. I think we have been feeling our way into this war and only getting more confident about what to supply as time has gone on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 3 minutes ago, LondonLax said: I think this discussion was had a few pages back but I don’t think the Ukraine support has been as planned out as you are implying. I think we have been feeling our way into this war and only getting more confident about what to supply as time has gone on. But even now “the West” could supply enough hardware to obliterate Russia but aren’t. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 22, 2023 Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, Genie said: But even now “the West” could supply enough hardware to obliterate Russia but aren’t. Not whilst retaining enough stock to protect their own borders too. Only the US has lots of spare kit. Everyone else is mainly cobbling together equipment from reserves. Those reserves need to be modified, maintained, have equipment removed etc before it can be sent The Challenger 2s we'll be sending will be from the stock that isn't going to be updated to Challenger 3 but we need to keep enough CH2s to defend UK interests and maintain a path to the Ch3 upgrades It really isn't as simple as, we've got loads of kit, just send it to Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 22, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) It's not as simple as we've got all these weapons, here take these and some of those nice shiny planes too. There's training considerations, various contractual considerations (from various angles - the UK for instance can't just send a bunch of planes to Ukraine if we aren't the sole interested party in those planes - i.e. we can be as dead set on giving Ukraine Eurofighters or F35s (we aren't but for arguments sake...) we can't because we either developed those with co-partners or bought them from allies who maintain an interest in what happens to them, who has them, etc)), secrets concerns, legislative concerns, etc etc. And what is needed to maintain home protection. And then there's the balancing act of how much support can be given, without either escalating the conflict or making it worse, or whether the Russians/NATO itself would essentially view certain extents of aid being given as meaning it de facto was a NATO involved war. That's a balancing act and a half. Extrapolate out for various other angles... It's more complicated than sending over huge crates and containers of cutting edge gear. Edited February 22, 2023 by Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts