Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2
Discussion
fblm said:
hidetheelephants said:
I assume he's there to oversee the theft of all the grain.Not a very good video, but reportedly shows a manpad missile taking out a Russian helicopter probably a martlet due to the lack of smoke from the rocket,
the helicopter appears to be flying higher than it should, its basically a dot on the screen but the troops cheer and the dot heads towards the ground.
the helicopter appears to be flying higher than it should, its basically a dot on the screen but the troops cheer and the dot heads towards the ground.
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
Not the first time they have done thishttps://baykartech.com/en/press/turkish-defense-fi...
NATO to increase NATO Response Forces to 300k from 40k:
https://news.sky.com/story/nato-to-significantly-i...
https://news.sky.com/story/nato-to-significantly-i...
MOTORVATOR said:
UNSC emergency meeting tomorrow which should be interesting.
Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Why do you think they feel the need to answer to the satisfaction of the international community? They'll bluster, they'll lie, they might even say it didn't happen or that the shopping centre was bombed by the Ukrainians. They couldn't give a flying fk about the other members of the security council.Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
vonuber said:
NATO to increase NATO Response Forces to 300k from 40k:
https://news.sky.com/story/nato-to-significantly-i...
That's a sure fire way of stopping Putin trying anything in eastern Europe...hopefully. https://news.sky.com/story/nato-to-significantly-i...
pinchmeimdreamin said:
vonuber said:
Their were a couple of RAF Eurofighters floating about as well turning the Transponders on and off randomly Turn it back on again five minutes later when it is well inside Romanian airspace.
deckster said:
Why do you think they feel the need to answer to the satisfaction of the international community? They'll bluster, they'll lie, they might even say it didn't happen or that the shopping centre was bombed by the Ukrainians. They couldn't give a flying fk about the other members of the security council.
For the most part, the feeling is mutual. It’s a process that they need to go through.
deckster said:
MOTORVATOR said:
UNSC emergency meeting tomorrow which should be interesting.
Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Why do you think they feel the need to answer to the satisfaction of the international community? They'll bluster, they'll lie, they might even say it didn't happen or that the shopping centre was bombed by the Ukrainians. They couldn't give a flying fk about the other members of the security council.Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
MOTORVATOR said:
deckster said:
MOTORVATOR said:
UNSC emergency meeting tomorrow which should be interesting.
Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Why do you think they feel the need to answer to the satisfaction of the international community? They'll bluster, they'll lie, they might even say it didn't happen or that the shopping centre was bombed by the Ukrainians. They couldn't give a flying fk about the other members of the security council.Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
JNW1 said:
MOTORVATOR said:
deckster said:
MOTORVATOR said:
UNSC emergency meeting tomorrow which should be interesting.
Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Why do you think they feel the need to answer to the satisfaction of the international community? They'll bluster, they'll lie, they might even say it didn't happen or that the shopping centre was bombed by the Ukrainians. They couldn't give a flying fk about the other members of the security council.Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Article 27(3) of the UN Charter establishes the only limitation to a Council member participating in a vote in the Security Council: “in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.” Although
this limitation applies in equal measure to all Council members, it is interesting that the very article that enshrines the veto also
institutes the only restriction to its use.
Or alternatively remove them as permanent members as they have never been formally agreed as successors to the Soviet Union.
pingu393 said:
The F35s could get the Russians excited by flying at max speed towards the Black Sea and turning the transponder off at the appropriate time.
Turn it back on again five minutes later when it is well inside Romanian airspace.
All the F35 in the area will be wearing Lundberg Lens (radar reflectors) to provide a nice and clear radar cross section.Turn it back on again five minutes later when it is well inside Romanian airspace.
There's no value in giving the Russians practice at tracking the latest stealth aircraft.
MOTORVATOR said:
JNW1 said:
MOTORVATOR said:
deckster said:
MOTORVATOR said:
UNSC emergency meeting tomorrow which should be interesting.
Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Why do you think they feel the need to answer to the satisfaction of the international community? They'll bluster, they'll lie, they might even say it didn't happen or that the shopping centre was bombed by the Ukrainians. They couldn't give a flying fk about the other members of the security council.Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Article 27(3) of the UN Charter establishes the only limitation to a Council member participating in a vote in the Security Council: “in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.” Although
this limitation applies in equal measure to all Council members, it is interesting that the very article that enshrines the veto also
institutes the only restriction to its use.
Or alternatively remove them as permanent members as they have never been formally agreed as successors to the Soviet Union.
JNW1 said:
MOTORVATOR said:
JNW1 said:
MOTORVATOR said:
deckster said:
MOTORVATOR said:
UNSC emergency meeting tomorrow which should be interesting.
Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Why do you think they feel the need to answer to the satisfaction of the international community? They'll bluster, they'll lie, they might even say it didn't happen or that the shopping centre was bombed by the Ukrainians. They couldn't give a flying fk about the other members of the security council.Direct questions will be asked of Russia no doubt and usual bluster will follow but unsure how they can possibly answer this one to the satisfaction of the international community?
Article 27(3) of the UN Charter establishes the only limitation to a Council member participating in a vote in the Security Council: “in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.” Although
this limitation applies in equal measure to all Council members, it is interesting that the very article that enshrines the veto also
institutes the only restriction to its use.
Or alternatively remove them as permanent members as they have never been formally agreed as successors to the Soviet Union.
Lot more chance of that happening if they have the backing of UN to do so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff