What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess this is why we saw Gulf & Israel alliance. The writing was on the wall with America's disengagement and new found cowardice. Now all countries under the so-called 'protection' of America will be looking for new alliances,
 
. .
The way NATO reacted to this war shows that these top countries are only good to fight the weakest countries like iraq, Afghanistan etc

Put up a strong one and they only go back to sanctions

Now as it’s clear to Ukrainians that no help is coming from outside they should join Russia fully

Why to stand and get a lot of people being getting killed?

All bluffs are out on no one’s coming

I don’t know how much it’s damaging to NATO
Best time when they are any country that we will protect you if you give up XYZ , no one is going to believe them

Interesting times ahead
There are some delusion western idiots who still believe in supapowa US and NATO. LOL..
 
.
Forget the Nukes? France is not a freaking god what is this UNSC shxt you are talking about? France is not formidble or a force to be reckoned? You sound like someone who has been living under a stone..

Iran is 10 times tougher to conquer then France in real life.. In truth both France and UK shouldn't be in UNSC but instead Pakistan and India who are geninuely stronger then both militarily that is a simple ground fact but just because they are angle-saxon they got admitted but militarily both are not formidble..

Do you really think France can defeat Pakisan in 1v1 or France can defeat India in 1v1? Or Britain vs India? Do you really think the British can overcome the Indians in this age and time? you gotta be kidding me bro.. This is not the 18-century.. India can make quick work of the British without getting out of the first gear.. There is scale to this
Somebody asked me the other day so I dug out the figures. Boy, did I get a shock!

The British Army is 82,000 strong. No, mistake - 86,000 strong, including 3,900 Gurkhas, as they spell it.

That looked odd - they got four regiments of Gurkhas at independence, and that should have been around 5 to 6,000 per regiment, around 20,000 to 24,000 Gurkha riflemen. Only 3,900?

So I checked the Indian Army figures.

40,000 Gorkhas. That's nearly half the strength of the entire British Army.

Somebody somewhere said the British would start a civil war in India and India (Indians) would pay them to come and settle things. Yeah, right.

Just for the record, the French Army is 120,000 strong.

You might ask, so, if numbers alone matter, how come the Pakistan Army has always fought the Indian Army to a standstill, without a major defeat other than Bangladesh, and a special case, Kargil? It's simple; the Pakistani soldier is as brave as the Indian soldier. He is better equipped. The Pakistani military has got its mind firmly wrapped around making complex manoeuvres successfully, with all arms involved. It has made mistakes teaming up armour and infantry, but things have changed. It has never made mistakes with its artillery, and it has never neglected its artillery arm.

Most important is the nagging fear in the minds of the Indian Army that China might get involved somewhere. The result is that the Army keeps a considerable number of divisions facing the PLA. When they go to war, Pakistan and India are at par, in terms of numbers. India will defeat Pakistan, or Pakistan will only defeat India, if one or the other of their respective command structures makes a sustained series of blunders.
 
.
Erdogan preache'n....
He is proving his loyalty after getting S400... lolz... He is more concerned about big defense contracts and joint ventures with the present Ukraine govt. Also, Turkey is Russians first tourist destination, earns huge foreign exchange.
 
Last edited:
. .
Somebody asked me the other day so I dug out the figures. Boy, did I get a shock!

The British Army is 82,000 strong. No, mistake - 86,000 strong, including 3,900 Gurkhas, as they spell it.

That looked odd - they got four regiments of Gurkhas at independence, and that should have been around 5 to 6,000 per regiment, around 20,000 to 24,000 Gurkha riflemen. Only 3,900?

So I checked the Indian Army figures.

40,000 Gorkhas. That's nearly half the strength of the entire British Army.

Somebody somewhere said the British would start a civil war in India and India (Indians) would pay them to come and settle things. Yeah, right.

Just for the record, the French Army is 120,000 strong.

You might ask, so, if numbers alone matter, how come the Pakistan Army has always fought the Indian Army to a standstill, without a major defeat other than Bangladesh, and a special case, Kargil? It's simple; the Pakistani soldier is as brave as the Indian soldier. He is better equipped. The Pakistani military has got its mind firmly wrapped around making complex manoeuvres successfully, with all arms involved. It has made mistakes teaming up armour and infantry, but things have changed. It has never made mistakes with its artillery, and it has never neglected its artillery arm.

Most important is the nagging fear in the minds of the Indian Army that China might get involved somewhere. The result is that the Army keeps a considerable number of divisions facing the PLA. When they go to war, Pakistan and India are at par, in terms of numbers. India will defeat Pakistan, or Pakistan will only defeat India, if one or the other of their respective command structures makes a sustained series of blunders.

There is no doubt that the average soldier in sub-continent is better mentally prepared as a warrior way more than most of these European countries post-WW2.
 
.
This war will strengthen China, if anything. If the Russian economy and military is weakened, China can influence it more easily. Same with the West.

Yes.
I am surprised a generally well informed person like @gambit would think China would be in a worse position after this. I bet all Chinese members here are in 7th Heaven with what's going on and I don't blame them on bit!
 
. .
The situation on the ground now:

1645799864889.png
 
.
Really? you're currently busy tearing yourselves apart over "what is a woman" and putting pink haired freaks into your military. How are you going to apply the "intelligence" you're picking up from the Russian invasion? to sit by and watch as China then takes Taiwan? America is done. You're toast.
 
.
Wut??? You have a source for this?

Some Vietnamese-language channel on Youtube, by oversea Vietnamese living in the US, which you may not understand. I believe most American Vietnamese do not care about this joke.

You may search by typing "Dao Minh Quan". There may be some English news about this.
 
.
Yes.
I am surprised a generally well informed person like @gambit would think China would be in a worse position after this. I bet all Chinese members here are in 7th Heaven with what's going on and I don't blame them on bit!

You are completely correct. 2 month ago, certain interest circles were quietly salivating with prospects of Russians getting stuck in Kazakhstan, but now this is a feast bigger than they dreamed of

Russia goes broke — cheap oil, and gas for us

Russia getting weak — outer northeast for us

West getting scared of Russia — easing of pressure on us
 
.
Somebody asked me the other day so I dug out the figures. Boy, did I get a shock!

The British Army is 82,000 strong. No, mistake - 86,000 strong, including 3,900 Gurkhas, as they spell it.

That looked odd - they got four regiments of Gurkhas at independence, and that should have been around 5 to 6,000 per regiment, around 20,000 to 24,000 Gurkha riflemen. Only 3,900?

So I checked the Indian Army figures.

40,000 Gorkhas. That's nearly half the strength of the entire British Army.

Somebody somewhere said the British would start a civil war in India and India (Indians) would pay them to come and settle things. Yeah, right.

Just for the record, the French Army is 120,000 strong.

You might ask, so, if numbers alone matter, how come the Pakistan Army has always fought the Indian Army to a standstill, without a major defeat other than Bangladesh, and a special case, Kargil? It's simple; the Pakistani soldier is as brave as the Indian soldier. He is better equipped. The Pakistani military has got its mind firmly wrapped around making complex manoeuvres successfully, with all arms involved. It has made mistakes teaming up armour and infantry, but things have changed. It has never made mistakes with its artillery, and it has never neglected its artillery arm.

Most important is the nagging fear in the minds of the Indian Army that China might get involved somewhere. The result is that the Army keeps a considerable number of divisions facing the PLA. When they go to war, Pakistan and India are at par, in terms of numbers. India will defeat Pakistan, or Pakistan will only defeat India, if one or the other of their respective command structures makes a sustained series of blunders.

Slightly O/T but this has more to do with the reality dawning on many states to modernize and "pick and mix" reducing human capital and investing in technology as force multipliers, a modern army in a cash strapped miserably age:

1645800033885.png
 
.
Mines should have been places, bridges blown up earlier, etc. Stingers and anti tank weapons are being used right now. The Russian forces are ignoring the towns and going fast for the objective which is Kiev.

From thousands of years of warfare experience, humans even now instinctively go for the kill: Kill the leadership and capture the capital city when invading. The rest often falls into place mostly due to the psychological affects. Often the pre-war resisting, determined population cheer for the invaders! And in case of Ukraine, the cultural/ethnic overlap makes Russia's job much easier than, say, Americans or the Soviets trying to 'win the hearts and minds' of Afghans.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom