barbos
Contributor
No, Yaroslav Hunka and the Canuckistan Parliament.
-
Features
How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?
- Thread starter Harry Bosch
- Start date
Henry-Finland
Senior Member
I will write more later, but I have much to do just now.
Here is the latest:
I asked Google: "How many drone factories does Ukraine have?"
Answer:
"The result is that more than 200 registered companies—some industry insiders count more than 500 producers if you include smaller firms and volunteers in garages—now supply troops with hundreds of thousands of drones a month."
"How many drones does Ukraine build?"
Answer:
Ukraine ramps up arms production, can produce 4 million drones a year, Zelenskiy says. KYIV, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Ukraine can produce four million drones annually and is quickly ramping up its production of other weapons, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in comments authorised for publication on Wednesday.
--------------------------------------
If we think about "unmanned vehicles" as a drone and also from abroad, then there is much more:
Drones that can move:
- in the air (as we usually think about these).
- in water
- on land
- in mud
And also compinations of these abilities, e.g. 'on land and in water'.
I think I make a separate post about drones as soon as I get time.
Last edited:
Harry Bosch
Contributor
England is invading Russia? The redcoats are coming. The redcoats are coming. To Russia? Seriously? The English, like most of Europe would like to stop Russian imperialism. But rest easy tonight, there are no redcoats in Russia!
barbos
Contributor
GB have invaded Russia at least 2 times in the past. What we have now can also be described as invasion by GB (and the rest of "democratic" countries)
barbos
Contributor
No, that's not what they want.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
So the west should consider itself at war with Iran and North Korea because these countries are sending arms to Russia?
barbos
Contributor
Sure, why not. Even before the war with Russia the West was for all intents and purposes in the state of war with Iran and NK.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,546
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Rome keeps invading England. Perhaps the English should nuke Rome.
Well, Rome invaded England at least two times in the past, so that is the obvious conclusion to draw.
What is happening now can also be described as an invasion of England by the Roman Empire.
It certainly makes exactly as much sense to do that, as it does to describe Russia's invasion of Ukraine as "invasion by GB (and the rest of "democratic" countries)".
For the record, the last time British soldiers were in Russia as a fighting force was over a century ago; Literally nobody remains alive on either side who remembers this invasion, or the conflict if which it was a part, first hand. Neither of the sides in that conflict still exists: The Tsarist Empire lost and ceased to exist immediately, and the winners were the Bolsheviks, who went on to form the USSR, which ceased to exist thirty three years ago.
Great Britain has never invaded anyone. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any GB armed forces. GB is a geographical, not a political, entity.
The UK has armed forces, and the land warfare branch of these forces is called the British Army (never the Great British Army, or the Army of Great Britain; Great Britain is merely the largest of the British Isles from which the Army gets its name). This is an historical consequence of the formation of the British Army from the revolutionary 'Army of the New Model' in the 1640s, which was explicitly created to fight against the British monarch, ruler of all three British kingdoms at the time.
So while the other branch of the forces was called the Royal Navy, There was no "Royal Army" - or rather, there was, but it was defeated by the so called "British Army", which combined troops from two political entities in the British Isles, England and Scotland (Ireland being mostly royalist contributed very little), which did not unite as the "United Kingdom" for another seventy years. "British Army" is therefore a more a contraction of "British Isles Army"*, than of "Great British Army".
The British Army "keep deposing" King Charles. I rather doubt that the present King Charles is overly worried about the presence of the army at his various residences, however. Any more than Utin is genuinely concerned about "GB and the rest of the democratic countries" invading Russia.
* Even Thomas Fairfax baulked at calling it "The Army of the New Model of the Three Kingdoms of the British Isles", which would have been a bugger to fit on a banner.
Well, Rome invaded England at least two times in the past, so that is the obvious conclusion to draw.
What is happening now can also be described as an invasion of England by the Roman Empire.
It certainly makes exactly as much sense to do that, as it does to describe Russia's invasion of Ukraine as "invasion by GB (and the rest of "democratic" countries)".
For the record, the last time British soldiers were in Russia as a fighting force was over a century ago; Literally nobody remains alive on either side who remembers this invasion, or the conflict if which it was a part, first hand. Neither of the sides in that conflict still exists: The Tsarist Empire lost and ceased to exist immediately, and the winners were the Bolsheviks, who went on to form the USSR, which ceased to exist thirty three years ago.
Great Britain has never invaded anyone. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any GB armed forces. GB is a geographical, not a political, entity.
The UK has armed forces, and the land warfare branch of these forces is called the British Army (never the Great British Army, or the Army of Great Britain; Great Britain is merely the largest of the British Isles from which the Army gets its name). This is an historical consequence of the formation of the British Army from the revolutionary 'Army of the New Model' in the 1640s, which was explicitly created to fight against the British monarch, ruler of all three British kingdoms at the time.
So while the other branch of the forces was called the Royal Navy, There was no "Royal Army" - or rather, there was, but it was defeated by the so called "British Army", which combined troops from two political entities in the British Isles, England and Scotland (Ireland being mostly royalist contributed very little), which did not unite as the "United Kingdom" for another seventy years. "British Army" is therefore a more a contraction of "British Isles Army"*, than of "Great British Army".
The British Army "keep deposing" King Charles. I rather doubt that the present King Charles is overly worried about the presence of the army at his various residences, however. Any more than Utin is genuinely concerned about "GB and the rest of the democratic countries" invading Russia.
* Even Thomas Fairfax baulked at calling it "The Army of the New Model of the Three Kingdoms of the British Isles", which would have been a bugger to fit on a banner.
Last edited:
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 4,514
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
So, England “constantly” invade [sic] Russia?
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 4,514
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
Most people (not including you, obviously) use language in a consensual fashion. So when you say that England “hates Russia and constantly invade [sic] us,” could you point into an instance where England militarily breached the border of Russia? Also, military aid to Ukraine does NOT count as an invasion of Russia, because military aid is not an invasion, and Ukraine is NOT part of Russia.
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 4,514
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
There is one instance: the allied (including UK) military involvement in Russia in 1918-1920. And that’s it. That does not sound like “constantly,” but then again you live in a fantasy bubble of your Russian overlords’ making.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,546
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Technically, that failed intervention in the Russian civil war wasn't an invasion, as it was in support of, and by invitation of, the preexisting regime. Similarly, the British Army didn't invade France in 1914 (or in 1939), despite sending lots of soldiers on to French soil.
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 4,514
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
I believe the main reason for the intervention, at least initially, was to keep various munitions out of the hands of the Germans after the Brest/Litovsk treaty, but later included some efforts to repel the Bolsheviks. However that may have been, one could perhaps stretch the concept of “invasion” to count this as an “invasion” of Russia. I await from Barbos a list of England’s “constant” invasions of Russia, but will not hold my breath for it, as I prefer to live.
Henry-Finland
Senior Member
pood wrote:
"...could you point into an instance where England militarily breached the border of Russia?"
As a matter of fact; in 1854 when Finland was a part of Russia:
Wiki:
"Following the Russian victory in the Finnish War of 1808-1809, the Russians began to build the Bomarsund Fortress in Sund in 1832 in accordance with the orders of Tsar Nicholas I to strengthen the western border, however when the Crimean War began the Fortress was only half-finished, the Bommarsund Fortress surrendered to British forces, who demolished it. In the Treaty of Paris, it was concluded that the Åland islands is not to be fortified."
It was not a constant invasion, but I do not know if the nowadays Russo-Facists are still afraid of that event?
"...could you point into an instance where England militarily breached the border of Russia?"
As a matter of fact; in 1854 when Finland was a part of Russia:
Wiki:
"Following the Russian victory in the Finnish War of 1808-1809, the Russians began to build the Bomarsund Fortress in Sund in 1832 in accordance with the orders of Tsar Nicholas I to strengthen the western border, however when the Crimean War began the Fortress was only half-finished, the Bommarsund Fortress surrendered to British forces, who demolished it. In the Treaty of Paris, it was concluded that the Åland islands is not to be fortified."
It was not a constant invasion, but I do not know if the nowadays Russo-Facists are still afraid of that event?
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
There were some attempts to invade Russian territory by the Allies in the Crimean War as I recall. More importantly, however, Alexander II famously declared that "Crimea is not Russia" after being defeated in Crimea by the Allies. What says comrade barbos?
barbos
Contributor
Gladly - Crimean War.
Infographic: Only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain
This chart shows all the countries invaded by Britain throughout history.
www.statista.com
barbos
Contributor
I don't recall an the invitation. And by that logic was invited by previous regime into Ukraine.
barbos
Contributor
I don't recall that. You probably confuse the terms of the surrender with that.
barbos
Contributor
Yes, absolutely. This latest invasion by proxy is included.
Infographic: Only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain
This chart shows all the countries invaded by Britain throughout history.
www.statista.com
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,188
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
If you equate colonisation with invasion then certainly - referring to the chartGladly - Crimean War.
Infographic: Only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain
This chart shows all the countries invaded by Britain throughout history.