Poll: Election 2019
Total Members Polled: 1601
Discussion
JagLover said:
motco said:
I know it was a while ago, but people were saying that the British forces would simply chuck the Argentinians out of the Falklands in a few days, if not hours. It proved to be quite a task didn't it?
It does show however the limitations of conscript armies in fighting professional armies. Without much in the way of air support the British forces were able to defeat numerical superior conscript formations. At Goose green for example a numerically inferior British force attacked an entrenched Argentine force and inflicted over twice their own losses and captured 961 on top.
You cannot simply look at the size of the Russian army and say they would simply roll over everything when many of their soldiers would have had only a few months proper training at best.
JustALooseScrew said:
Red 4 said:
Other European forces stats are available but I think it's fair to say the Ruskies would overrun Europe
To what gain? Sell us more gas? Invade to live in a warmer climate? Why would they?I'm not saying Russia will invade Europe. I don't think they will but their posturing - especially concerning The Baltic States is plain to see.
Russia want to seen as a global Superpower again and we have commitments to these states. I'm just saying it is a dangerous game.
Realistically, if they wanted to invade Latvia, for example, they could and there would be very little the European nations, on their own, could do to stop them.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 7th December 15:37
Red 4 said:
JustALooseScrew said:
Red 4 said:
Other European forces stats are available but I think it's fair to say the Ruskies would overrun Europe
To what gain? Sell us more gas? Invade to live in a warmer climate? Why would they?I'm not saying Russia will invade Europe. I don't think they will but their posturing - especially concerning The Baltic States is plain to see.
Russia want to seen as a global Superpower again and we have commitments to these states. I'm just saying it is a dangerous game.
Realistically, if they wanted to Latvia for example they could and there would be very little the European nations, on their own, could do to stop them.
I haven't got a clue what think, it's like searching for the one cardamom seed in a plate full of spaghetti, I doubt many of us really see the big picture.
Red 4 said:
JagLover said:
It does show however the limitations of conscript armies in fighting professional armies.
Without much in the way of air support the British forces were able to defeat numerical superior conscript formations. At Goose green for example a numerically inferior British force attacked an entrenched Argentine force and inflicted over twice their own losses and captured 961 on top.
You cannot simply look at the size of the Russian army and say they would simply roll over everything when many of their soldiers would have had only a few months proper training at best.
Russia - Active military 900,000Without much in the way of air support the British forces were able to defeat numerical superior conscript formations. At Goose green for example a numerically inferior British force attacked an entrenched Argentine force and inflicted over twice their own losses and captured 961 on top.
You cannot simply look at the size of the Russian army and say they would simply roll over everything when many of their soldiers would have had only a few months proper training at best.
UK - Active military 148,000
France - Active military 203,000
Germany - Active military 179,000
Other European forces stats are available but I think it's fair to say the Ruskies would overrun Europe.
Until the Yanks came to the rescue;
US - Active military 1.36 million.
Until the Ruskies brought in their reserves of 2 million.
Do not underestimate the might of Russian forces.
It is immense.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 7th December 14:42
Or the Americans, how did Vietnam go?
Numbers one thing, but sustaining an overseas offensive something else.
The communist Russia is long dead and buried. You have to think of Russia as a mob ruled state of capitalists at the top, with a powerless population who get their head kicked in if they cause trouble.
The only reason you will get any war like activities, is to generate profits for the boys at the top.
It's too much of a risk to their way of life to push anything meaningful, which is why they now spend their time disrupting the west in a cyber war, for s
ts and giggles. It's what people like that do when they are bored.
The only reason you will get any war like activities, is to generate profits for the boys at the top.
It's too much of a risk to their way of life to push anything meaningful, which is why they now spend their time disrupting the west in a cyber war, for s
ts and giggles. It's what people like that do when they are bored.Helicopter123 said:
How did they get on in Afghanistan again, with all that might?
Or the Americans, how did Vietnam go?
Numbers one thing, but sustaining an overseas offensive something else.
Very different wars to any that would take place in Europe. IMO.Or the Americans, how did Vietnam go?
Numbers one thing, but sustaining an overseas offensive something else.
Different type of enemy, different theatre, different rules, etc.
It would be ground forces v ground forces mainly.
Did I mention how strong the Russian Air Force is ?
Don't think it consists entirely of antique Bears that do the odd fly-by off our coast.
FN2TypeR said:
Red 4 said:
Over running Europe isn't projecting power though, is it ?
It's over running a land mass that borders Russia.
I agree it would cause huge problems for logistics and problems with the resistance of the general population , etc but if we are playing Top Trumps armies the Russians win hands down.
That's exactly what it would be, yesIt's over running a land mass that borders Russia.
I agree it would cause huge problems for logistics and problems with the resistance of the general population , etc but if we are playing Top Trumps armies the Russians win hands down.
Edited by JagLover on Saturday 7th December 16:31
fesuvious said:
'Russia' is far from stupid.
Ukraine is @4th largest food producer. The interest there was fairly clear.
Russia will seek to gain/steal/acquire whatever it needs to further its own wellbeing.
Destabilisation of stronger countries andd especially those that it has 'beef' with suits its interests.
After that, simply ask 'What does Russia need next?'
(I don't have that answer)
Russia most likely doesn't want any further EU incursions Eastward, that is making them twitchy. They'll probably be delighted Brexit is happening - with the resultant loss of income for the EU as a whole, they'll be over the moon if the Euro destabilized as it'll focus attention inward rather than towards expansion, beyond that, who knows, they're Russian.Ukraine is @4th largest food producer. The interest there was fairly clear.
Russia will seek to gain/steal/acquire whatever it needs to further its own wellbeing.
Destabilisation of stronger countries andd especially those that it has 'beef' with suits its interests.
After that, simply ask 'What does Russia need next?'
(I don't have that answer)
fesuvious said:
'Russia' is far from stupid.
Ukraine is @4th largest food producer. The interest there was fairly clear.
Russia will seek to gain/steal/acquire whatever it needs to further its own wellbeing.
Destabilisation of stronger countries andd especially those that it has 'beef' with suits its interests.
After that, simply ask 'What does Russia need next?'
(I don't have that answer)
Well it's certainly not more land, or more restive, conquered people in eastern Europe.Ukraine is @4th largest food producer. The interest there was fairly clear.
Russia will seek to gain/steal/acquire whatever it needs to further its own wellbeing.
Destabilisation of stronger countries andd especially those that it has 'beef' with suits its interests.
After that, simply ask 'What does Russia need next?'
(I don't have that answer)
I wish we would drop this obsession with Russia. All kinds of people say all kinds of things about our elections, on every type of media. It's the job of politicians to win the arguments and persuade people to vote for them, not police who says what and what foreign bogeyman supports who.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Well it's certainly not more land, or more restive, conquered people in eastern Europe.
I wish we would drop this obsession with Russia. All kinds of people say all kinds of things about our elections, on every type of media. It's the job of politicians to win the arguments and persuade people to vote for them, not police who says what and what foreign bogeyman supports who.
The "obsession with Russia is very valid. I agree not in Cold War levels of expansionism but the fact the place is a Gangster State and is thus extremely unpredictable and dangerous to world stability. (Doing what the West wants)I wish we would drop this obsession with Russia. All kinds of people say all kinds of things about our elections, on every type of media. It's the job of politicians to win the arguments and persuade people to vote for them, not police who says what and what foreign bogeyman supports who.
Dont like rolls said:
The "obsession with Russia is very valid. I agree not in Cold War levels of expansionism but the fact the place is a Gangster State and is thus extremely unpredictable and dangerous to world stability. (Doing what the West wants)
Why? What are they going to do? There may be valid reasons to point out certain actions of the Russian state and Russian individuals but the idea that our democracy is being undermined by a concerted effort to destabilise the west emanating from a few social media posts seems to be a comfort blanket for inept politicians. The idea that this is a threat to our robust and mature democracy is an insult to the electorate.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Why? What are they going to do?
There may be valid reasons to point out certain actions of the Russian state and Russian individuals but the idea that our democracy is being undermined by a concerted effort to destabilise the west emanating from a few social media posts seems to be a comfort blanket for inept politicians. The idea that this is a threat to our robust and mature democracy is an insult to the electorate.
On the influence, i do not disagree with you. On principle I do not like Gangster States that spread deadly toxins in our Cities and kill innocent people. PLUS loads of other sThere may be valid reasons to point out certain actions of the Russian state and Russian individuals but the idea that our democracy is being undermined by a concerted effort to destabilise the west emanating from a few social media posts seems to be a comfort blanket for inept politicians. The idea that this is a threat to our robust and mature democracy is an insult to the electorate.
t they do.Welshbeef said:
Latest Telegraph poll puts majority down to 14sears wheeeas guardian is saying polls extending to 14%
Clearly trying to drive their reading
I’d wager hung again with DUP backing Torys again. Which if it happens makes it utterly shocking.
The polls are all over the shop. Some with substantial Tory leads (+13%), others with leads in or around 6-7% Clearly trying to drive their reading
I’d wager hung again with DUP backing Torys again. Which if it happens makes it utterly shocking.
(Hung parliament territory). I suspect none of them (bar possibly the 1 Yougov poll still to come) are accurate: too much variation and small sample sizes.
I suspect there will be a lot of squeaky bums on Thursday at 10pm.
Welshbeef said:
Latest Telegraph poll puts majority down to 14sears wheeeas guardian is saying polls extending to 14%
Clearly trying to drive their reading
I’d wager hung again with DUP backing Torys again. Which if it happens makes it utterly shocking.
I think the result will be similar to 2015 restoring the very small majority Teresa May threw awayClearly trying to drive their reading
I’d wager hung again with DUP backing Torys again. Which if it happens makes it utterly shocking.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff