Farrage on NATO

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The only answer to this conflict is, Ukraine and the west must grind him down until his own people turn on him, all the while keeping in mind is he crazy enough to push the button i don't think he is
 
Russia wanting a buffer zone is an understatement...it's essential for the defence of Russia and for them to have a good defence of their own territory from ground attack/invasion and access to strategic ports to project their Naval power. Russia is still living with a mindset that they must be strong and powerful and that Russia somehow is entitled to have a huge empire at its disposal and the decline of Russia over the last 100 years or so, maybe longer, is a problem for Russians. So Putin is still trying to reclaim the glory days of the Empire.

And of course appeasement never works...been tried many times through history and has failed every time with disastrous consequences...so though it is true that the expansion of the EU and NATO is the cause of Putins actions, that is not to say it is NATO or the EU's fault..in the same way that the way Germany was treated after WW1 led to the rise of the Nazi's and Hitler, but you cant really say it is their fault - the fault lies totally with the Nazi's and Hitler.

There is another angle to this meaning it is essential we send a message that tin pot dictators like Putin cannot be seen to be getting away with their actions and being rewarded in any way...that is that other tin pot dictators, and one non-tin pot dictator in particular, are watching and seeing this as a test of the international communities response to such actions. In particular China will be watching and taking notes as it ponders its own invasion of Taiwan and its ever increasing attempts to take control of other territories. If we dont stand upto Putin then the chances of China escalating their own boarder disputes is low, but if we are passive in our response then that will encourage China to be more proactive. So a huge part of this is posturing.
I agree we have to push Russia back as our livelihood depends on this. However, this one is much more serious than Brexit and we cannot afford mistakes if we want to exist.
I read an opinion from our military that Russia won't use nuclear weapon, but they have never properly substantiated by any good evidence, just a speculation. In contrast, there is a lot of direct warning that it will happen. Do you know that there is not enough bunkers for all of us in the UK? And, even though the first Russian nuclear strike is likely to be limited, meaning that most of the population won't be hit immediately, we will have lots of polluted territories.
After Brexit, "making Brexit a success", "oven-ready Brexit deal" and Liz Truss' "growth plan" promises I want to see evidence, not just words. And the implementation of sanctions against Russia only tells me our politicians do not fully understand the repercussions of their actions
Meanwhile, Serbia is preparing for the worst - we know that he is friend of Putin and Xi, so he might be spreading fear on behalf of his friends, but I still find it disturbing
 
If this chat is just about NATO, what are they doing to protect the people in Palestine. What about Syria, Yemen, why stop at Ukraine. Why not discuss all the current wars. Never mind talking about the past wars that have been a disaster. Over 1 million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan was another disaster..
Unfortunately We are hell bent and seem to be hard wired to destroy each other.
 
If this chat is just about NATO, what are they doing to protect the people in Palestine. What about Syria, Yemen, why stop at Ukraine. Why not discuss all the current wars. Never mind talking about the past wars that have been a disaster. Over 1 million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan was another disaster..
Unfortunately We are hell bent and seem to be hard wired to destroy each other.
You are correct and further highlights the failures of the UN to stop conflict and suffering
 
Well ultimately lives will be lost anyway...you just need to decide which course of action minimises the loss of life and appeasement always leads to an escalation and much larger and more entrenched problems down the line that ultimately costs orders of magnitude higher levels of lost lives.

Imagine if we hadn't tried to appease Hitler by sacrificing Czechoslovakia and there was earlier posturing from the USA and other European nations ahead of WW2...maybe, just maybe WW2 might have been avoided....Who knows, we're talking about parallel universes here. Not to mention if we were not so passive about Putins annexing of Crimea.

Economic sanctions rarely succeed and just draw out problems and conflicts and hurt the people of the nations they are applied to rather than the dictators and people in charge who live a life of luxury and can be twisted by their leaders as the whole world being against them. Not working in Russia, haven't been working with Iran....Better to deal head on. Negotiations only work when backed up with the ultimate threat, so however you decide to solve big international problems you need a strong posturing of force to back you up and show you mean business in case things do get nasty, especially when you're dealing with tin pot dictators like Putin...ultimately he will only respect someone if they are wielding a bigger stick than he.

The UN...well that organisation has been in significant decline for decades and has been thoroughly discredited. Part of the reason why we have alot of the issues we have in the world right now is as a direct result of the US pulling out of its leading role on the international stage, despite clear errors and miscalculations in the past they maintained a level of stability that we don't have anymore and leaving it to the UN and other nations to deal with...or not as the case actually is resulting in rogue nations feeling emboldened.....even encouraged.

As for Russia's nuclear capability...while I wouldn't want to take this gamble, I suspect it no longer has one. Given the decrepit state of the Russian military and the poor state of its equipment I'd not be surprised if all the nukes Russia has are duds. They need alot of maintenance, they're not weapons you can just put on the shelf of years and then suddenly pull off the shelf, blow off the dust and deploy. And even if the warheads are good, the ability of them to be able to deploy them will be much depleted...they don't have the planes, don't have the subs and god knows how reliable their ICBMs would be. But having said that it only needs one to get through.

Bunkers wont save you from a nuclear war...nuclear fall out is a thing of the past, we have fusion bombs now, not fission bombs so the whole nuclear fall out is not a thing so no need for bunkers...bunkers wont save you. Yes the world would be devastated from the shear mega-tonnage of the blasts, but it wouldn't be a radioactive wasteland as was depicted in the 60's from the use of fission bombs. Also the chances of an intercontinental nuclear exchange is not very likely.....when they talk about Putin using nukes, its smaller tactical battlefield weapons rather than ICBMs in a last ditch effort to win a conflict. Still a big no-no, but not the big city destroying weapons that people envisage.

I'm laughing at the extraordinary mental gymnastics needed to bring Brexit into this. The EU has been harmed far more than the UK from Putins actions and subsequent sanctions...which are partly so ineffective because of the exposure of the EU to Putin, especially Germany who still pays Putin billion of euros a day for gas, if not directly the indirectly...but we all love a bit of virtue signalling....we export our problems so we can hold our hands up and say we're not part of the problem.
 
If this chat is just about NATO, what are they doing to protect the people in Palestine. What about Syria, Yemen, why stop at Ukraine. Why not discuss all the current wars. Never mind talking about the past wars that have been a disaster. Over 1 million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan was another disaster..
Unfortunately We are hell bent and seem to be hard wired to destroy each other.
Erm....the UN has been a big supporter of Hamas and has facilitated, aided and abetted Hamas in its persecution of the Palestinian people...The UN is a tool of Hamas in that particular conflict. It's part of the problem and should be nowhere near the solution. And why would NATO be involved in the conflict in Palestine...It's the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Its role is to prevent nuclear war with Russia.

We have had alot of disastrous military campaigns over the years....though political incompetence does not mean the intentions were not just. Like I say better to head things off directly...Yemen and Syria, and indeed Gaza, would all have been avoided if we had tackled Iran directly. Appeasement always leads to more lost life not less.
 
The only answer to this conflict is, Ukraine and the west must grind him down until his own people turn on him, all the while keeping in mind is he crazy enough to push the button i don't think he is
Zelenski is running out of people... I find it strange that he cannot recruit people (mercenaries) from abroad, perhaps he should raise the wage. However, I would think Putin will do something else like providing a submarine to houthis with torpedoes or missiles that forced "Dwight Eisenhower" from Red Sea
 
If this chat is just about NATO, what are they doing to protect the people in Palestine. What about Syria, Yemen, why stop at Ukraine. Why not discuss all the current wars. Never mind talking about the past wars that have been a disaster. Over 1 million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan was another disaster..
Unfortunately We are hell bent and seem to be hard wired to destroy each other.

NATO is mainly concerned about threats to NATO countries.

While wars in the Middle East might cause some economic disruption they aren't likely to migrate in to NATO territory. The war in Ukraine is obviously on the border of multiple NATO countries, and has followed a period of escalation.

If Russia had been unchecked in taking Kyiv back in 2022 then we'd be eventually looking at incursions into NATO countries too.
 
Negotiations only work when backed up with the ultimate threat, so however you decide to solve big international problems you need a strong posturing of force to back you up and show you mean business in case things do get nasty, especially when you're dealing with tin pot dictators like Putin...ultimately he will only respect someone if they are wielding a bigger stick than he.

As for Russia's nuclear capability...while I wouldn't want to take this gamble, I suspect it no longer has one. Given the decrepit state of the Russian military and the poor state of its equipment I'd not be surprised if all the nukes Russia has are duds. They need alot of maintenance, they're not weapons you can just put on the shelf of years and then suddenly pull off the shelf, blow off the dust and deploy. And even if the warheads are good, the ability of them to be able to deploy them will be much depleted...they don't have the planes, don't have the subs and god knows how reliable their ICBMs would be. But having said that it only needs one to get through.
I see it differently - only negotiations worked with Putin. For example, Russia is in military alliance with Armenia. However, Azeri president had very long productive negotiations with Putin and came to an agreement that Russian military did not get into the conflict in Nagornyj Karabakh.
About nuclear capability - do you know that even USA buys Russian rocket engines? And Russia produces around a third of enriched uranium globally and both the USA and EU are buying enriched uranium from Russia even now. We do not know how many submarines with nuclear warheads are sitting just next to our shores. For a comparison, Putin was concerned that a hypersonic missile launched from Ukraine would hit Moscow within 7 minutes; Russian air defence, the largest in the world (because of military doctrine), would not have enough time to intercept it, it would be a guaranteed hit. A missile fired from sea will reach us even faster. And it is not only submarines - Russia gave up its trains with nuclear warheads because they developed nuclear rocket launchers hidden in sea containers. So, they can put them on any cargo ship, so any cargo ship can be a floating nuclear weapon launch pad
NATO air defence depends on fighter jets, therefore US could not shoot down Chinese spy baloons that flew over their territory, if you saw the news (I think it was 1-2 years ago)
And you are right about difficulties to maintenan of nuclear weapons. However, most of Russian nuclear stock is in storage, only around a third is deployed for active duty. And do not forget that Russia utilised circa 88% of Soviet nuclear warheads. Do you think they utilised brand new ones? They are in better shape than British https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
 
Again i do not wish to breach security protocols here but if you think that Russia does not have the ability to launch a nuclear warhead then i would respectfully suggest you are mistaken.

Russia have a large stockpile and once the treaty expires you will see a large increase in NEW nuclear weapons.

Again keeping this very high level but the design of reactors used in the former Soviet Union are dual purpose, not just to generate power, do the sums look how many reactors they have and calculate how much erm product that will produce (deliberately avoiding certain terminology)

Cast your mind back to the last 2 Russian Space launches, the US warned this could be delivering nuclear weapons to space installations now IF this was the case given the lack of propulsion needed to deliver from space this means anywhere in the globe is within reach.

The Russian naval fleet is vast and not fully accounted for, but they are a genuine and credible threat i can assure you we do not spend time and money to monitor this for nothing! We have 4 boats only one at sea at anytime that is common fact, again not wanting to breach security protocols. Russia are currently constructing new subs as we speak , so they are clearly committed to supporting this delivery method as submarines are extremely effective and almost impossible to detect until they launched. This is not old tech sitting on the shelf, this is brand new equipment still coming into service.

Also Russia would not likely nuke the UK directly they have teased the underwater nuclear device that can create and massive tsunami, this would damage out ability to respond and doubt we would ever see it coming.

Not trying to create fear but do not underestimate Russia's ability to launch a war head tho i doubt they would as they know its a one way ticket, also no one has ever actually seen what the current generation of nuclear warheads actually do, they have been simulated, but never a full scale test of the current generation in anger
 
Again i do not wish to breach security protocols here but if you think that Russia does not have the ability to launch a nuclear warhead then i would respectfully suggest you are mistaken.

Russia have a large stockpile and once the treaty expires you will see a large increase in NEW nuclear weapons.

Again keeping this very high level but the design of reactors used in the former Soviet Union are dual purpose, not just to generate power, do the sums look how many reactors they have and calculate how much erm product that will produce (deliberately avoiding certain terminology)

Cast your mind back to the last 2 Russian Space launches, the US warned this could be delivering nuclear weapons to space installations now IF this was the case given the lack of propulsion needed to deliver from space this means anywhere in the globe is within reach.

The Russian naval fleet is vast and not fully accounted for, but they are a genuine and credible threat i can assure you we do not spend time and money to monitor this for nothing! We have 4 boats only one at sea at anytime that is common fact, again not wanting to breach security protocols. Russia are currently constructing new subs as we speak , so they are clearly committed to supporting this delivery method as submarines are extremely effective and almost impossible to detect until they launched. This is not old tech sitting on the shelf, this is brand new equipment still coming into service.

Also Russia would not likely nuke the UK directly they have teased the underwater nuclear device that can create and massive tsunami, this would damage out ability to respond and doubt we would ever see it coming.

Not trying to create fear but do not underestimate Russia's ability to launch a war head tho i doubt they would as they know its a one way ticket, also no one has ever actually seen what the current generation of nuclear warheads actually do, they have been simulated, but never a full scale test of the current generation in anger
I like to keep neutrality, so now I will jump into another side saying Russia is weak :)
Yes, tectonic weapon was theorised by Sakharov, famous Soviet dissident and opposition to Communist regime. Theoretically, it can wipe out the western coast of the USA and sink Netherlands. However, it is not proven - Armenians spred gossips that the 1988 earthquake in Leninakan and Spitak was tectonic weapons testing gone wrong, but I never saw any evidence
Russian navy was nearly always in bad shape. They, I believe, only twice in their entire history got to the second place. However, the current war shows how vulnerable it is. They cannot build large modern frigates or aircraft carriers. Even Soviet aircraft carriers were far worse than US. However, Russian submarines are a different story - there are whole cities in Russia who are now going back to live as they start building the largest submarines in the world. This may bankrupt Russia in a long run
We need to force Putin, like Saddam, to give up weapons of mass destructions first, and only then we can deal with him. A civil war in Russia may do it. However, it will be hard as Putin knows how to deal with armed opposition

Another argument that Putin won't use nuclear weapons is comparison with nazis who did not use chemical weapons - why Nazi did not use chemical weapons? Gebels said that if the nazis had to leave, they would shut the door loudly meaning their final blow will be devastating to us - they had very large stockpile of chemical and bacteriological weapons. However, they concluded that only the initial deployment will give good results as USSR and ally troops stopped carrying gas masks and PPE, but then they would quickly supply them back and the effect would be minimal. And then the engagement would become much more cruel with allies bombing Germany with chemical weapons as revenge
 
Do you know that there is not enough bunkers for all of us in the UK? And, even though the first Russian nuclear strike is likely to be limited, meaning that most of the population won't be hit immediately, we will have lots of polluted territories.

I have a feeling if he targets South Cumbria -

1719321998825.png



1719321901274.png
 
The war in Ukraine will be won or lost in Europe. If the west give Ukraine enough shells, drones, himars, scalps and air defence systems Russia will fail. The introduction of F16s is I believe a side show. What's the point of an F16 if it has nothing to fire.
On the manpower front. Russia is now importing fighters from africa and the middle east (verified). They are in the enviable position of having used up all their convicts and although unverified, a report came out last week that they are stopping the tactic of sending migrants to the Finnish boarder and are conscripting them for the front line.
Ukraine can't do this. Ukraine must play by the rules set out by the west. Case in point Kharkiv. Russia could mass thousands of troops and artillery on their side of the boarder but Ukraine was not allowed to strike them.
Nigel Farage often talks about things he knows nought about. He is nothing more than a shock jock. A dangerous shock Jock. This is because he is very persuasive to people that look for someone else to blame for their misfortune.

The biggest danger to the Ukraine and Europe is the rise of the far right.
 
Anyone seen Johnson around? He was using Ukraine as a flag to wave. Interesting he has nothing to say about farage's beliefs, perhaps he is afraid he wouldn't get invited to any more parties in Perugia.
 
Turns out the war time leader Farridge has the highest approval of is Chamberlain. Imagine saying that a democratic country shouldn't have the ability to plough its own furrow because it's neighbour doesn't like it. But consistent. Look at theeaders he aligns himself with they're all as drunk on Russian state vodka as him.

Have never been able to stand the bloke, this just adds to it.
 
Interesting video about the state of all current tanks
 
Interesting video about the state of all current tanks


Again i will be careful what i say here as this directly impacts my role, the video is correct in some areas not so in others.

yes the the NATO tanks listed are big lumbering brutes that in the right environment are lethal, but they were designed for certain battles paces and if honest a very different era and type of combat. Remember these tanks were designed to survive nuclear attack and the complexity that goes with that.

Also the tanks gifted are not the latest spec, they were functional but not the most up to date, fair to say this applies to all the tanks mentioned.

The video only touched on it but the range and accuracy is light years ahead of the soviet designs, crucially the NATO spec tanks are survivable, by that I mean they can withstand a direct attack and allow the crew to escape, they are not designed to be indestructible, that is just not viable, they are designed to offer occupants they best chance of survival. In an ideal world if one of these tanks take fire they can shift and move position and crucially fire on the move, that is the basis of their design. This whole philosophy does not work when you alter the working environment and the conditions shown are challenging and yes maybe the NATO spec is wrong for this application, but the occupants have every chance of surviving unlike the lighter soviet designs, so its a trade off.

Russia understood this and early on left older tanks in certain areas with no intention on moving then, just using them as artillery guns (by doing this they reduced the size of the tank crew and could spread them thinner)

The much maligned Ajax mentioned in the video is technically and armoured vehicle and does not posses the firepower of its bigger brothers, even if it had been ready I doubt it would have been deployed tbh. It is not designed as main battle tank and would be cannon fodder to be used as one.

Its a fair challenge but not sure what in short term we can do to overcome.

It will never happen but if the US gifted a squadron of A10 Thunderbolts to Ukraine they could reek havoc as to be blunt use a cold war tank buster to bust cold war soviet tanks would be devastating, despite being an old design ground troops love them as they operate close to ground and chew up everything in their path, for this environment they could be nigh on perfect but its one toy the US will not share.
 
It will never happen but if the US gifted a squadron of A10 Thunderbolts to Ukraine they could reek havoc as to be blunt use a cold war tank buster to bust cold war soviet tanks would be devastating, despite being an old design ground troops love them as they operate close to ground and chew up everything in their path, for this environment they could be nigh on perfect but its one toy the US will not share.
I thought A10 are due to be decommissioned, why not give them away?
I also watched one video that claimed a competing design that lost in tender to A10 was stolen by USSR and converted to Su-25
 

Latest posts

Back
Top