User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/10/2024 10:57:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: So the NATO alliance is grouped together, but we will just ignore the obvious military collective Russia has built? If it were just Russia then your point would be worth something, but it's not. Russia by itself was weak against NATO from day 1, so I'm not sure how any of that matters. They aren't rolling on NATO alone. Iran and China aren’t able to project power into Europe. Russia would struggle to at this point. Russias military, as it becomes optimized for fighting Ukraine, becomes less optimized to fight NATO. They are in a weaker position now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2024 11:02:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: But it hasn't. China is providing aid, but limited. We're providing aid, but limited. Either China on the US could decisively end this war for our preferred proxy with large, direct involvement. The question is who’s going to blink first? Wild times. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2024 11:09:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Capta]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: Interesting news. Gentlemen? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: The old (LoBrau) thread was aggressively moderated by the mods in order to try to keep it on track because lots of people complained about people trolling or trying to derail the thread. The moderation essentially took two forms. One was to boot people who were just posting pro-Russian stuff. The other was to avoid the thread being derailed by constant arguments about Trump, politics, etc. Eventually, the new thread was created because too many people were unhappy with the strict moderation of the old thread. Since then, the OP (LoBrau) of the old thread requested that aggressive moderation of the old thread ends, which we have been happy to implement. Ultimately, nobody WANTED strict moderation to keep trolls out and to keep the thread from being derailed. The mods HATE having to spent tons of time babysitting threads like this, and would much rather NOT have to deal with it. The mods and staff are thrilled to NOT have to deal with it. Unfortunately, by the time that word got out that mods were no longer aggressively moderating the old thread, I think most people had become accustomed to the new thread, and people never really returned to it. It's a shame, and I would love to see it return to prominence. Interesting news. Gentlemen? If all bans were lifted and the moderation standard matched this thread it’s certainly still a viable topic. My concerns would be: -posters lured back and then moderation changes again, perhaps selectively or stealthily. -as the OP is fairly limited, there will always be an option for “creatively strict interpretation” of “on-topic.” -The realities of the world situation are matching up better and better every day with this thread, whether that’s the “big-picture” connections between the Russia-Iran-China, or just straight news on China. Yes, the Ukraine war is still the most important feature of “proto-WW3”, however, this thread is built to do both Ukraine and the big picture, and does so well. We’re nearly at 500 pages and at some point it will be 5,000 pages. I firmly believe this thread is (already) the next Ukraine War thread. It certainly wouldn’t offend me if posting resumed, but I tend to think that the thread (not the topic) has been basically obsoleted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2024 11:18:21 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: If all bans were lifted and the moderation standard matched this thread it’s certainly still a viable thread. My concerns would be: -posters lured back and then moderation changes again, perhaps selectively or stealthily. -as the OP is fairly limited, there will always be an option for “creatively strict interpretation” of “on-topic.” -The realities of the world situation are matching up better and better every day with this thread, whether that’s the “big-picture” connections between the Russia-Iran-China, or just straight news on China. Yes, the Ukraine war is still the most important feature of “proto-WW3”, however, this thread is built to do both Ukraine and the big picture, and does so well. We’re nearly at 500 pages and at some point it will be 5,000 pages. I firmly believe this thread is (already) the next Ukraine War thread. It certainly wouldn’t offend me if posting resumed, but I tend to think that the thread (not the topic) has been basically obsoleted. That would require giving trust to people who lost it. Why should we? Why go back to that thread when this one is working? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2024 11:22:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: If all bans were lifted and the moderation standard matched this thread it’s certainly still a viable thread. My concerns would be: -posters lured back and then moderation changes again, perhaps selectively or stealthily. -as the OP is fairly limited, there will always be an option for “creatively strict interpretation” of “on-topic.” -The realities of the world situation are matching up better and better every day with this thread, whether that’s the “big-picture” connections between the Russia-Iran-China, or just straight news on China. Yes, the Ukraine war is still the most important feature of “proto-WW3”, however, this thread is built to do both Ukraine and the big picture, and does so well. We’re nearly at 500 pages and at some point it will be 5,000 pages. I firmly believe this thread is (already) the next Ukraine War thread. It certainly wouldn’t offend me if posting resumed, but I tend to think that the thread (not the topic) has been basically obsoleted. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By Prime: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: The old (LoBrau) thread was aggressively moderated by the mods in order to try to keep it on track because lots of people complained about people trolling or trying to derail the thread. The moderation essentially took two forms. One was to boot people who were just posting pro-Russian stuff. The other was to avoid the thread being derailed by constant arguments about Trump, politics, etc. Eventually, the new thread was created because too many people were unhappy with the strict moderation of the old thread. Since then, the OP (LoBrau) of the old thread requested that aggressive moderation of the old thread ends, which we have been happy to implement. Ultimately, nobody WANTED strict moderation to keep trolls out and to keep the thread from being derailed. The mods HATE having to spent tons of time babysitting threads like this, and would much rather NOT have to deal with it. The mods and staff are thrilled to NOT have to deal with it. Unfortunately, by the time that word got out that mods were no longer aggressively moderating the old thread, I think most people had become accustomed to the new thread, and people never really returned to it. It's a shame, and I would love to see it return to prominence. Interesting news. Gentlemen? If all bans were lifted and the moderation standard matched this thread it’s certainly still a viable thread. My concerns would be: -posters lured back and then moderation changes again, perhaps selectively or stealthily. -as the OP is fairly limited, there will always be an option for “creatively strict interpretation” of “on-topic.” -The realities of the world situation are matching up better and better every day with this thread, whether that’s the “big-picture” connections between the Russia-Iran-China, or just straight news on China. Yes, the Ukraine war is still the most important feature of “proto-WW3”, however, this thread is built to do both Ukraine and the big picture, and does so well. We’re nearly at 500 pages and at some point it will be 5,000 pages. I firmly believe this thread is (already) the next Ukraine War thread. It certainly wouldn’t offend me if posting resumed, but I tend to think that the thread (not the topic) has been basically obsoleted. I would also point out that the convergence of all of these conflicts and the integration of the Iranians, Chinese and Russians over the last two years have made it almost impossible to separate these conflicts due to the amount of overlap. For example, If the Uke SBU starts scwacking Russian and Iranian assets in Syria and Africa in cooperation with the Izzys, does that qualify? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2024 11:46:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: I would also point out that the convergence of all of these conflicts and the integration of the Iranians, Chinese and Russians over the last two years have made it almost impossible to separate these conflicts due to the amount of overlap. For example, If the Uke SBU starts scwacking Russian and Iranian assets in Syria and Africa in cooperation with the Izzys, does that qualify? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By Prime: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: The old (LoBrau) thread was aggressively moderated by the mods in order to try to keep it on track because lots of people complained about people trolling or trying to derail the thread. The moderation essentially took two forms. One was to boot people who were just posting pro-Russian stuff. The other was to avoid the thread being derailed by constant arguments about Trump, politics, etc. Eventually, the new thread was created because too many people were unhappy with the strict moderation of the old thread. Since then, the OP (LoBrau) of the old thread requested that aggressive moderation of the old thread ends, which we have been happy to implement. Ultimately, nobody WANTED strict moderation to keep trolls out and to keep the thread from being derailed. The mods HATE having to spent tons of time babysitting threads like this, and would much rather NOT have to deal with it. The mods and staff are thrilled to NOT have to deal with it. Unfortunately, by the time that word got out that mods were no longer aggressively moderating the old thread, I think most people had become accustomed to the new thread, and people never really returned to it. It's a shame, and I would love to see it return to prominence. Interesting news. Gentlemen? If all bans were lifted and the moderation standard matched this thread it’s certainly still a viable thread. My concerns would be: -posters lured back and then moderation changes again, perhaps selectively or stealthily. -as the OP is fairly limited, there will always be an option for “creatively strict interpretation” of “on-topic.” -The realities of the world situation are matching up better and better every day with this thread, whether that’s the “big-picture” connections between the Russia-Iran-China, or just straight news on China. Yes, the Ukraine war is still the most important feature of “proto-WW3”, however, this thread is built to do both Ukraine and the big picture, and does so well. We’re nearly at 500 pages and at some point it will be 5,000 pages. I firmly believe this thread is (already) the next Ukraine War thread. It certainly wouldn’t offend me if posting resumed, but I tend to think that the thread (not the topic) has been basically obsoleted. I would also point out that the convergence of all of these conflicts and the integration of the Iranians, Chinese and Russians over the last two years have made it almost impossible to separate these conflicts due to the amount of overlap. For example, If the Uke SBU starts scwacking Russian and Iranian assets in Syria and Africa in cooperation with the Izzys, does that qualify? Exactly, at this point it’s like saying in 1942 that you need two threads, one for the German-Russian war and one for the Italian-English war. It’s already coalescing into Axis vs Allies, it’s just a matter of time before it goes hot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2024 11:54:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Capta]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: That would require giving trust to people who lost it. Why should we? Why go back to that thread when this one is working? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By Capta: If all bans were lifted and the moderation standard matched this thread it’s certainly still a viable thread. My concerns would be: -posters lured back and then moderation changes again, perhaps selectively or stealthily. -as the OP is fairly limited, there will always be an option for “creatively strict interpretation” of “on-topic.” -The realities of the world situation are matching up better and better every day with this thread, whether that’s the “big-picture” connections between the Russia-Iran-China, or just straight news on China. Yes, the Ukraine war is still the most important feature of “proto-WW3”, however, this thread is built to do both Ukraine and the big picture, and does so well. We’re nearly at 500 pages and at some point it will be 5,000 pages. I firmly believe this thread is (already) the next Ukraine War thread. It certainly wouldn’t offend me if posting resumed, but I tend to think that the thread (not the topic) has been basically obsoleted. That would require giving trust to people who lost it. Why should we? Why go back to that thread when this one is working? First I think the Ukraine thread (as a thread) is obsolete or nearly so, which is a goddam shame. Second, I agree. I have a bad taste in my mouth about the conduct that led to that, and I’m sure others do as well. A lot of members poured hundreds (thousands) of hours of personal time and effort into it. Not just the big posters like me or Prime, but the average poster, the people who bring valuable expertise out of the blue, the lurkers, and everyone who read it for news. Massive effort was put into it, all free content for ARFCOM. Didn’t matter, “for reasons.”  Everyone here is an adult. We are all capable today of discussing tough subjects politely and professionally. We were capable a year ago of discussing tough subjects politely and professionally, and in fact we were discussing it politely and professionally. (Mostly.) Then the option was taken out of our hands in order to prevent the discussion. I’m not going back, even if I were unbanned. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 12:21:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CarmelBytheSea]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Iran and China aren’t able to project power into Europe. Russia would struggle to at this point. Russias military, as it becomes optimized for fighting Ukraine, becomes less optimized to fight NATO. They are in a weaker position now. There’s a reason Europe pressured Biden to try to incorporate Iran’s ballistic program into revitalizing JCPOA which Iran flatly refused. As fucked up as Moscow is they could wreck Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania’s economy with a salvo hence why the Baltics are so invested. Moscow won’t, at least as long as the USA is not involved with China in a war but if you assume Europe is in a strong position without the USA then we’re at polar opposite views on NATO https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019/12/5/iran-rejects-eu-powers-letter-to-un-as-desperate-falsehood   https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1251072   
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 12:59:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: There’s a reason Europe pressured Biden to try to incorporate Iran’s ballistic program into revitalizing JCPOA which Iran flatly refused. As fucked up as Moscow is they could wreck Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania’s economy with a salvo hence why the Baltics are so invested. Moscow won’t, at least as long as the USA is not involved with China in a war but if you assume Europe is in a strong position without the USA then we’re at polar opposite views on NATO Russia can shit in the pool and make a lot of people unhappy or dead but actually seizing territory beyond the Baltics is beyond them, holding territory in the Baltics would likely be beyond them for that matter. The longer Russia fights in Ukraine the less capable their military is of fighting against NATO because it’s oriented towards positional warfare on the ground and not Naval or Aerial combat. Fun fact, three of Russias four fleets are within rocket artillery range of NATO now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:03:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CarmelBytheSea]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Russia can shit in the pool and make a lot of people unhappy or dead but actually seizing territory beyond the Baltics is beyond them, holding territory in the Baltics would likely be beyond them for that matter. The longer Russia fights in Ukraine the less capable their military is of fighting against NATO because it’s oriented towards positional warfare on the ground and not Naval or Aerial combat. Fun fact, three of Russias four fleets are within rocket artillery range of NATO now. European NATO has air, meh shrugs over naval but without the USA I guarantee European NATO would struggle to do shit. Moldova is likely still on Moscow’s wish list. But hey, if China kicks off then we’ll find out whether Europe can manage Serbia/Kosovo and the Baltics on their own and debating in a thread would be irrelevant https://breakingdefense.com/2024/07/ticking-clock-northern-nato-defense-chiefs-see-ever-closing-window-to-prepare-for-russia/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:07:59 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: European NATO has air, meh shrugs over naval but without the USA I guarantee European NATO would struggle to do shit. Moldova is likely still on Moscow’s wish list. But hey, if China kicks off then we’ll find out whether Europe can manage Serbia/Kosovo and the Baltics on their own and debating in a thread would be irrelevant The likely outcome is a stalemate in the ground and Russia takes a pounding from the air. I don’t know what they would gain. By the time Russia rebuilds Poland will have received a lot of their Korean orders and US missiles. Iran? In WW3 they get nuked and bypassed. They need to stay well below the threshold for open war. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:10:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: I assumed they eventually would. Despite it's age, HAWK is a very good system with a well-trained crew. They were on the beaches during the missile crisis. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:12:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CarmelBytheSea]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The likely outcome is a stalemate in the ground and Russia takes a pounding from the air. I don’t know what they would gain. By the time Russia rebuilds Poland will have received a lot of their Korean orders and US missiles. Iran? In WW3 they get nuked and bypassed. They need to stay well below the threshold for open war. We’ll find out soon enough how this unfolds https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/baltic-states-want-more-nato-they-wont-get-all-they-seek-2022-06-15/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:16:03 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: We’ll find out soon enough how this unfolds I’m convinced that it’ll be lost by weak leaders without any real resistance. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:17:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The likely outcome is a stalemate in the ground and Russia takes a pounding from the air. I don’t know what they would gain. By the time Russia rebuilds Poland will have received a lot of their Korean orders and US missiles. Iran? In WW3 they get nuked and bypassed. They need to stay well below the threshold for open war. Iran doesn't need to invade Europe. They own most of the cards in the middle east and like it or not, we would be significantly wrapped up there if they moved. This isn't a binary WW3 scenario. That would be dumb for them to wait for that, which is why they won't. They can engage independently and tie us up for a year or two burning tons of our resources in a conventional conflict. If they start a mobilization required conflict at the same time as Korea we are fucked. China is sitting at the end of literally everything ready to take it all and they don't need to leave their side of the planet to do so. You are describing a game that none of them have decided to play at this point, while still trying to insist they will abide by the rules of that game. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:25:04 AM EDT
[#16]
Iran is the least concerning of the four enemy powers involved. It’s isolated and under the right political circumstances turning the key and taking them off the board is politically palatable. If the Middle East can’t produce oil in the aftermath and Russia can’t deliver it the US controls most of the POL in the world as well as most of the available food.
I don’t see a leadership class that is willing to take actions for Americas benefit that results in them not being able to vacation abroad, however. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:29:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CarmelBytheSea]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Iran is the least concerning of the four enemy powers involved. It’s isolated and under the right political circumstances turning the key and taking them off the board is politically palatable. If the Middle East can’t produce oil in the aftermath and Russia can’t deliver it the US controls most of the POL in the world as well as most of the available food. I don’t see a leadership class that is willing to take actions for Americas benefit that results in them not being able to vacation abroad, however. 3 Euro countries appear to disagree https://www.gov.uk/government/news/iran-joint-statement-by-france-germany-and-united-kingdom#:~:text=Statement%20by%20the%20governments%20of,further%20expand%20its%20nuclear%20programme  https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/europeans-plan-keep-ballistic-missile-sanctions-iran-2023-06-28/ 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:33:28 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Iran is the least concerning of the four enemy powers involved. It’s isolated and under the right political circumstances turning the key and taking them off the board is politically palatable. If the Middle East can’t produce oil in the aftermath and Russia can’t deliver it the US controls most of the POL in the world as well as most of the available food. I don’t see a leadership class that is willing to take actions for Americas benefit that results in them not being able to vacation abroad, however. If they attack Israel and KSA we are going to war, which we are absolutely not ready for past sitting in the gulf wasting missiles indefinitely. It's almost as if we are already doing that at Iran's behest, running down the meter on the exact things we need to counter China. They are not 4 separate problems, they are four sides to one problem. The world looking at this through the wrong lense, as you are now, is how we got so deep into the hole they already started digging. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:36:01 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: 3 Euro countries appear to disagree https://www.gov.uk/government/news/iran-joint-statement-by-france-germany-and-united-kingdom#:~:text=Statement%20by%20the%20governments%20of,further%20expand%20its%20nuclear%20programme https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/IMG_2509-3319037.jpg https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/europeans-plan-keep-ballistic-missile-sanctions-iran-2023-06-28/ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/IMG_2513-3319038.jpg How is that to the contrary of what I said? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:36:37 AM EDT
[#20]
Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Iran and China aren’t able to project power into Europe. Iran and China are capable of projecting MWE into Russia to fight in Europe at any time they would like to do so right now. They don't need to establish their own beach head. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:39:41 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: If they attack Israel and KSA we are going to war, which we are absolutely not ready for past sitting in the gulf wasting missiles indefinitely. It's almost as if we are already doing that at Iran's behest, running down the meter on the exact things we need to counter China. They are not 4 separate problems, they are four sides to one problem. The world looking at this through the wrong lense, as you are now, is how we got so deep into the hole they already started digging. They are four related problems and the closer they choose to relate to each other the more they are one problem. Iran is the easiest of the four to deter, but they are used to us being pussies and so the likelihood that they get farther past our threshold for action than they ever intended is high. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:46:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: How is that to the contrary of what I said? First I agree with Daemon but second I’ll answer that after you clarify the 4 powers you’re referring to given the thread title features only 3 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:46:29 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: If they attack Israel and KSA we are going to war, which we are absolutely not ready for past sitting in the gulf wasting missiles indefinitely. It's almost as if we are already doing that at Iran's behest, running down the meter on the exact things we need to counter China. They are not 4 separate problems, they are four sides to one problem. The world looking at this through the wrong lense, as you are now, is how we got so deep into the hole they already started digging. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Iran is the least concerning of the four enemy powers involved. It’s isolated and under the right political circumstances turning the key and taking them off the board is politically palatable. If the Middle East can’t produce oil in the aftermath and Russia can’t deliver it the US controls most of the POL in the world as well as most of the available food. I don’t see a leadership class that is willing to take actions for Americas benefit that results in them not being able to vacation abroad, however. If they attack Israel and KSA we are going to war, which we are absolutely not ready for past sitting in the gulf wasting missiles indefinitely. It's almost as if we are already doing that at Iran's behest, running down the meter on the exact things we need to counter China. They are not 4 separate problems, they are four sides to one problem. The world looking at this through the wrong lense, as you are now, is how we got so deep into the hole they already started digging. I think that, realistically speaking, a true world war entailing Iran, North Korea, and China all going hot at once is going to also entail nuclear usage. Quite a bit of it, in fact. At that point, I think discussions regarding things like supply of GMLRS and 155mm are going to be irrelevant. I've argued for going on a decade at this point that the vision of all out conflict between nuclear armed great powers that somehow doesn't involve nuclear use is pure fantasy. This is also why most of the wars the US military has actually fought since WW2 have been small wars. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:55:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: First I agree with Daemon but second I’ll answer that after you clarify the 4 powers you’re referring to given the thread title features only 3 The three named plus North Korea. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:56:58 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Unfortunately this is not an accurate representation of events. As the issue is now in public discussion by members and staff, I take it we can be candid. This is the full story about what happened and why: This all started because at the time, progress of the US Congressional aid bill was under discussion, with a relative handful of Republicans obstructing aid. Obviously, if the outcome of the US aid bill is likely to determine the outcome of the war, it is pertinent to the thread. I feel confident in saying that the large majority of posters, even Trump supporters, were in favor of discussing the issue and even holding Republican politicians accountable for their positions on this matter. Then on about page 5380, a moderator posted the following: ”The topic, from the beginning of this thread, has been current events of the War in Ukraine. It has been moderated that way from the beginning. It will continue to be. Please keep your posts on topic.” This was not true. The thread had never been moderated like that; aid topics and aid politics were discussed from the very beginning - Javelin, NLAW, tanks, F-16s Patriots, money, and so on. The moderator then immediately started deleting posts left and right, and issuing account warnings. As to the actual reason this started happening, soon after his initial redefinition of what could be discussed, he posted the following: “This thread from the beginning has been about the Ukraine/Russia War, and in-theater events… …Now, because many want the congressional bill passed, it's what some want to argue about. There have been a bunch of anti-republican, anti-trump, domestic border, comments posted around this issue.” The real reason behind the new policy is in large font above. Any discussion or even mention of the aid bill, even to the extent of linking an article where the aid bill was mentioned tangentially, resulted in posts deleted, warnings, and bans. The moderator even edited posts to remove mentions of the aid bill from within larger articles posted which were not about the aid bill. He claimed that “any mention of aid is off topic.” HOWEVER: At precisely the same time he started this campaign, three well-known “fuck Ukrainers” came in and engaged in a multi-day, multi-page thread slide about how aid was too expensive, the Ukrainians were misusing/stealing it anyway, it was all wasted, and on and on. This was apparently “on topic”. None of those posts were deleted, no one was warned or banned, and it continued to be treated by the moderator as “on topic” to criticize the idea of US/Western aid to Ukraine. Another issue which was (and still is) discussed frequently is the Biden administration’s opposition to/slow-walking of aid deemed “escalatory”, his cowardice and incompetence regarding the inadequate level of support - just enough to keep Ukraine alive, and so on. This was mentioned so often that it’s a truism. And that was also “on topic” and was not deleted or warnings or bans issued. There was a clear double standard of which aid topics could be discussed. Argued against giving any aid at all - on topic. Reflected poorly on the Biden administration - on topic. Reflected poorly on the Republican House/Trump - off-topic, under penalty of deletion, account-warning, and thread-banning. By the effective end of the Ukraine thread, at least a couple dozen members had been thread-banned “for off-topic posts about aid”, and who knows how many account warnings had been issued. Some people were thread-banned with no warning issued, and 1 or 2 members (M35Ben) were actually site-banned for calling out the moderator on this policy. Myself and other contributors like Prime and Almighty Tallest tried to save the thread to the very end, over the course of many weeks. The first time I wrote staff about the issues (which staff member that is I will not name, however, you would know him) I was flat-out ignored. No answer. The second time (after I was thread-banned) I at least got an answer. Unfortunately, the long and short of that answer was “the moderator is doing what we want him to do.” Again, staff was made *well aware* of how the thread was being moderated, and that it was destroying the thread. Yet it continued. It wasn’t frank and open discussion on a tough topic that destroyed the Ukraine thread - it was mod/staff effort to prevent and slant that discussion that destroyed the thread. I even spoke to the thread OP, who was unaware that the thread was being moderated in that manner, did not support it, and didn’t want his thread to end. The staff told him “he didn’t have a say in how the thread was moderated.” The OP told me this personally. Only after the thread was gutted and abandoned to trolls did any alleged change in moderation occur - which would hard to gauge since posting had fallen to nearly zero and a large number of regular posters were already banned. From talking to several people who shall be nameless (including both posters and some mods and/or staff) who had gotten various pieces of information from mods/staff, I was able to get some more insight into the situation. Basically, mods and/or staff took the opinion that, because for two years they had “protected” the thread against the GD “fuck Ukraine” trolls, that they had a say over what could be talked about, and if they didn’t like what was said, then they had the right to censor it and issue warnings and bans against members. The 5500-page epic Ukraine thread was intentionally killed by mods/staff 100% in an attempt to shield Trump and a handful of Republicans from discussion/criticism over the aid issue. This is why the OP is written with an extensive and explicit list of “what is on topic” and “what the thread is/is not rules.” We did not want to give mods/staff any reason to claim they had a say over the discussion because they were “protecting” the thread from trolls, and we did not want staff to be able to claim that something was “off topic” because they didn’t like it politically. This is why I will not allow ON TOPIC criticism of Trump, Biden, or anyone else to be driven out of the thread because someone - anyone - doesn’t like it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By walkinginadangerzone: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By fervid_dryfire: If my posting rights were reinstated I'd go back to that thread. I still have a tab of it open, right next to this one. Hope abounds for some unlocking to happen and activity there again- it's a 5,000-page thread!...it shouldn't go to waste. Go see the thread now; it's mostly a ghost town. It was wrong to moderate that great thread into the ground- apparently some mods clearly don't appreciate the consequences when they make huge thread-wrecking decisions by taking things too far. Moderation powers should be wielded like a scalpel, not a freaking broadsword, or claymore. That's my rant; no poll incoming.  Mods don't act without approval of staff, that's been stated on a number of occasions. I don't know why that thread was allowed to be literally moderated to death, but that's what happened. Keeping election talk out along with trolls was a good thing. But there was much more than that going on. The weird thing is that it wasn't always like that. The first 15-18 months of that thread went just fine with an occasional troll getting booted. Then something happened and it completely changed. Oh well. I still think that thread stands as an excellent comprehensive resource for the first 18 months of the 2022 invasion. It's too bad it can't be catalogued and indexed with a table of contents. I wonder if Subnet or Goatboy could extract the entire thread and make an archive of it. It would be great to do topical searches of it. Heck, I'd like to find one of the songs that got posted in early 2022. You'll asked for it to be moderated more heavily. You'll got what you'll wanted, even if it was unknowingly asking for a safe space. The old (LoBrau) thread was aggressively moderated by the mods in order to try to keep it on track because lots of people complained about people trolling or trying to derail the thread. The moderation essentially took two forms. One was to boot people who were just posting pro-Russian stuff. The other was to avoid the thread being derailed by constant arguments about Trump, politics, etc. Eventually, the new thread was created because too many people were unhappy with the strict moderation of the old thread. Since then, the OP (LoBrau) of the old thread requested that aggressive moderation of the old thread ends, which we have been happy to implement. Ultimately, nobody WANTED strict moderation to keep trolls out and to keep the thread from being derailed. The mods HATE having to spent tons of time babysitting threads like this, and would much rather NOT have to deal with it. The mods and staff are thrilled to NOT have to deal with it. Unfortunately, by the time that word got out that mods were no longer aggressively moderating the old thread, I think most people had become accustomed to the new thread, and people never really returned to it. It's a shame, and I would love to see it return to prominence. Unfortunately this is not an accurate representation of events. As the issue is now in public discussion by members and staff, I take it we can be candid. This is the full story about what happened and why: This all started because at the time, progress of the US Congressional aid bill was under discussion, with a relative handful of Republicans obstructing aid. Obviously, if the outcome of the US aid bill is likely to determine the outcome of the war, it is pertinent to the thread. I feel confident in saying that the large majority of posters, even Trump supporters, were in favor of discussing the issue and even holding Republican politicians accountable for their positions on this matter. Then on about page 5380, a moderator posted the following: ”The topic, from the beginning of this thread, has been current events of the War in Ukraine. It has been moderated that way from the beginning. It will continue to be. Please keep your posts on topic.” This was not true. The thread had never been moderated like that; aid topics and aid politics were discussed from the very beginning - Javelin, NLAW, tanks, F-16s Patriots, money, and so on. The moderator then immediately started deleting posts left and right, and issuing account warnings. As to the actual reason this started happening, soon after his initial redefinition of what could be discussed, he posted the following: “This thread from the beginning has been about the Ukraine/Russia War, and in-theater events… …Now, because many want the congressional bill passed, it's what some want to argue about. There have been a bunch of anti-republican, anti-trump, domestic border, comments posted around this issue.” The real reason behind the new policy is in large font above. Any discussion or even mention of the aid bill, even to the extent of linking an article where the aid bill was mentioned tangentially, resulted in posts deleted, warnings, and bans. The moderator even edited posts to remove mentions of the aid bill from within larger articles posted which were not about the aid bill. He claimed that “any mention of aid is off topic.” HOWEVER: At precisely the same time he started this campaign, three well-known “fuck Ukrainers” came in and engaged in a multi-day, multi-page thread slide about how aid was too expensive, the Ukrainians were misusing/stealing it anyway, it was all wasted, and on and on. This was apparently “on topic”. None of those posts were deleted, no one was warned or banned, and it continued to be treated by the moderator as “on topic” to criticize the idea of US/Western aid to Ukraine. Another issue which was (and still is) discussed frequently is the Biden administration’s opposition to/slow-walking of aid deemed “escalatory”, his cowardice and incompetence regarding the inadequate level of support - just enough to keep Ukraine alive, and so on. This was mentioned so often that it’s a truism. And that was also “on topic” and was not deleted or warnings or bans issued. There was a clear double standard of which aid topics could be discussed. Argued against giving any aid at all - on topic. Reflected poorly on the Biden administration - on topic. Reflected poorly on the Republican House/Trump - off-topic, under penalty of deletion, account-warning, and thread-banning. By the effective end of the Ukraine thread, at least a couple dozen members had been thread-banned “for off-topic posts about aid”, and who knows how many account warnings had been issued. Some people were thread-banned with no warning issued, and 1 or 2 members (M35Ben) were actually site-banned for calling out the moderator on this policy. Myself and other contributors like Prime and Almighty Tallest tried to save the thread to the very end, over the course of many weeks. The first time I wrote staff about the issues (which staff member that is I will not name, however, you would know him) I was flat-out ignored. No answer. The second time (after I was thread-banned) I at least got an answer. Unfortunately, the long and short of that answer was “the moderator is doing what we want him to do.” Again, staff was made *well aware* of how the thread was being moderated, and that it was destroying the thread. Yet it continued. It wasn’t frank and open discussion on a tough topic that destroyed the Ukraine thread - it was mod/staff effort to prevent and slant that discussion that destroyed the thread. I even spoke to the thread OP, who was unaware that the thread was being moderated in that manner, did not support it, and didn’t want his thread to end. The staff told him “he didn’t have a say in how the thread was moderated.” The OP told me this personally. Only after the thread was gutted and abandoned to trolls did any alleged change in moderation occur - which would hard to gauge since posting had fallen to nearly zero and a large number of regular posters were already banned. From talking to several people who shall be nameless (including both posters and some mods and/or staff) who had gotten various pieces of information from mods/staff, I was able to get some more insight into the situation. Basically, mods and/or staff took the opinion that, because for two years they had “protected” the thread against the GD “fuck Ukraine” trolls, that they had a say over what could be talked about, and if they didn’t like what was said, then they had the right to censor it and issue warnings and bans against members. The 5500-page epic Ukraine thread was intentionally killed by mods/staff 100% in an attempt to shield Trump and a handful of Republicans from discussion/criticism over the aid issue. This is why the OP is written with an extensive and explicit list of “what is on topic” and “what the thread is/is not rules.” We did not want to give mods/staff any reason to claim they had a say over the discussion because they were “protecting” the thread from trolls, and we did not want staff to be able to claim that something was “off topic” because they didn’t like it politically. This is why I will not allow ON TOPIC criticism of Trump, Biden, or anyone else to be driven out of the thread because someone - anyone - doesn’t like it. Read posts from a few pages before 4677 and after. You'll were asking mods to do something about the other posters you'll were duking it out with over opinions in other ukie threads and the main thread. Site staff obliged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 1:59:04 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: I think that, realistically speaking, a true world war entailing Iran, North Korea, and China all going hot at once is going to also entail nuclear usage. Quite a bit of it, in fact. At that point, I think discussions regarding things like supply of GMLRS and 155mm are going to be irrelevant. I've argued for going on a decade at this point that the vision of all out conflict between nuclear armed great powers that somehow doesn't involve nuclear use is pure fantasy. This is also why most of the wars the US military has actually fought since WW2 have been small wars. That’s why on day one you take Iran off the board. While the other guys are still getting into place. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 2:01:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CarmelBytheSea]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The three named plus North Korea. Which is what I figured Europe has been more concerned with the Middle East and Iran than North Korea for some time and my reply was to your post “least” after I posted the caveat of NATO without the USA The USA is a Pacific nation bordered on the Pacific Ocean hence our involvement in East Asia - there are no NATO nor Euro infantry brigades currently in South Korea. Germany floated a couple ships recently by Taiwan to reinforce its plea to China to keep the status quo on Taiwan but outside of France only Britain has any ongoing but very small presence in the Pacific. But there are NATO units in Iraq and NATO members with ships in the Red Sea and Mideast. So North Korea is the “least” of the 4 for Europe / NATO without the USA {repeated edits cause I’m not feeling well plus my usual issues with autocorrect and not proof reading} |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 2:02:42 AM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 2:09:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Iran and China are capable of projecting MWE into Russia to fight in Europe at any time they would like to do so right now. They don't need to establish their own beach head. Iran has five potential corridors through which to project power. 1. Via air. Easily shut down. 2. Through Armenia and Georgia. Both unlikely to be agreed to and in the case of all out war the Turks will sever it. 3. Through Azerbaijan. As above except Azeris are even less likely to get along with Iran. 4. Caspian Sea. Again, subject to veto by Turkey or via airpower. 5. Through Turkmenistan. Strongest option but still vulnerable and I’m not sure why the Turkmenistanis would agree. Chinese logistics overland to Russia would be difficult but feasible. Whether they feel they have the bandwidth to do that is another question. It’s important to coerce indies into taking back disputed territories if they do this, that would be the time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 2:10:23 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Which is what I figured Iran has been more concerned with the Middle East and Iran than North Korea for some time and my reply was to your post “least” after I posted the caveat of NATO without the USA The USA is a Pacific nation bordered on the Pacific Ocean hence our involvement in East Asia - there are no NATO nor Euro infantry brigades currently in South Korea. Germany floated a couple ships recently by Taiwan to reinforce its plea to China to keep the status quo on Taiwan but outside of France only Britain has any ongoing tough very small presence in the Pacific. But there are NATO units in Iraq and NATO members with ships in the Red Sea and Mideast. So North Korea is the “least” of the 4 for Europe / NATO without the USA Ah, I agree with you there, I meant that Iran was the least concern for the US. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 2:44:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Iran has five potential corridors through which to project power. 1. Via air. Easily shut down. 2. Through Armenia and Georgia. Both unlikely to be agreed to and in the case of all out war the Turks will sever it. 3. Through Azerbaijan. As above except Azeris are even less likely to get along with Iran. 4. Caspian Sea. Again, subject to veto by Turkey or via airpower. 5. Through Turkmenistan. Strongest option but still vulnerable and I’m not sure why the Turkmenistanis would agree. Chinese logistics overland to Russia would be difficult but feasible. Whether they feel they have the bandwidth to do that is another question. It’s important to coerce indies into taking back disputed territories if they do this, that would be the time. They are literally pulling it off right now. With that said Armenia and Georgia could both be steamrolled by Russia and Iran at any time. I'm also not sure why you think the Turkmen would be agnostic, they are literally aligning with both China and Russia right now. Even so, this European conflict tangent is irrelevant and had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion until you shoehorned it in. Our problems with China/Korea/Iran have little to nothing to do with taking Europe. Their goal is to marginalize the west by closing off and controlling Asia and the middle east. Running Europe dry of all functional military capability is just a means to secure that end. Russia is fighting Ukraine, not NATO. There is almost zero chance they will engage NATO at any point in the future minus actual WW3. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 2:57:35 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Ah, I agree with you there, I meant that Iran was the least concern for the US. The major factors the US is concerned going off both Team Biden and Team Trump policy are the status of Iran’s nuclear program {to a lesser degree it’s long term ballistic program trajectory} and Israel {less so for Team Biden compared to Team Trump} outside of the more routine goals of terrorism, trade stability and the usual stuff. Iran is fucking itself by letting members of its government makes boasts about nuclear weapons potential contrary to official statements of non pursuit of a weapon program and violations raised by the UN’s IAEA that are still not explained by Tehran as well as Iran removing monitoring cameras and blocking inspectors. Iran has fucked around so much that previously lenient Europe is now pressuring Team Biden to get on board with pressure on Iran. When the Euros are stomping their feet you know there’s a problem.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:02:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CarmelBytheSea]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXDU92LW4AAqWnJ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 Same for USA speaking of Mike Pompeo as regards General Soleimani but Iran Mullahs will take a long term approach. Ever since their war with Iraq they’ve opted for asymmetric over conventional to the point they try to shoe horn it into situations it doesn’t work. I don’t doubt they’ll eventually do something but how is that much different than their 1979-2024 previous activities |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:09:09 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: They are literally pulling it off right now. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: They are literally pulling it off right now. Because leadership here doesn’t have the balls to stop them. Iran has more to lose from regional war than we do. We should treat them like our bitch. We are led by people who can’t credibly deter such people. Look at how the establishment pissed itself when Trump killed Soleimani. Doing something of substance here is unthinkable to them. With that said Armenia and Georgia could both be steamrolled by Russia and Iran at any time. I'm also not sure why you think the Turkmen would be agnostic, they are literally aligning with both China and Russia right now. Armenia and Georgia could also be rolled by the US or Turkey or both. In a third world war it would be a small action. But as I said in a third world war just destroy Irans forces with nuclear weapons and let the Sunnis fight over the rubble. Turkmenistan, again, Iran moving forces north is only a worry in a third world war, and at that point they have a lot to lose. Even so, this European conflict tangent is irrelevant and had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion until you shoehorned it in. Our problems with China/Korea/Iran have little to nothing to do with taking Europe. Their goal is to marginalize the west by closing off and controlling Asia and the middle east. Running Europe dry of all functional military capability is just a means to secure that end. Russia is fighting Ukraine, not NATO. There is almost zero chance they will engage NATO at any point in the future minus actual WW3. Europe isn’t useful to the US during a war with China. They’ll mostly stay studiously neutral. Probably try to avoid article five when China attacks inside the US. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:15:29 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Same for USA speaking of Mike Pompeo as regards General Soleimani but Iran Mullahs will take a long term approach. Ever since their war with Iraq they’ve opted for asymmetric over conventional to the point they try to show horn it into situations it doesn’t work. I don’t doubt they’ll eventually do something but how is that much different than their 1979-2024 previous activities THIS is why the solution with Iran is nearly unrestrained belligerence. Shoot down their transports, sink ships, destroy their drone factories and then tell them to skin that smoke wagon and get to work. Now or never. You get inspectors or we both launch our nuclear weapons and God decides who is right. They’d back down in a heartbeat if they thought they were dealing with someone who was willing and able to end them but instead we’ve given them decades of appeasement. Our threshold for action is higher than they need it to be for them to do their work. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:16:29 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: The major factors the US is concerned going off both Team Biden and Team Trump policy are the status of Iran’s nuclear program {to a lesser degree it’s long term ballistic program trajectory} and Israel {less so for Team Biden compared to Team Trump} outside of the more routine goals of terrorism, trade stability and the usual stuff. Iran is fucking itself by letting members of its government makes boasts about nuclear weapons potential contrary to official statements of non pursuit of a weapon program and violations raised by the UN’s IAEA that are still not explained by Tehran as well as Iran removing monitoring cameras and blocking inspectors. Iran has fucked around so much that previously lenient Europe is now pressuring Team Biden to get on board with pressure on Iran. When the Euros are stomping their feet you know there’s a problem. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/IMG_2494-3319060.jpg The one thing the US needed to do is get European agreement that we are to use nuclear weapons to destroy an Iranian nuclear arsenal, should one be created. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:19:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Europe isn’t useful to the US during a war with China. They’ll mostly stay studiously neutral. Probably try to avoid article five when China attacks inside the US. This entire tangent you created isn't useful to this discussion. It does help highlight the question of why we give a fuck about Europe in the first place, which we probably shouldn't. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:25:53 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The one thing the US needed to do is get European agreement that we are to use nuclear weapons to destroy an Iranian nuclear arsenal, should one be created. Europe is pretty squeamish on nukes, I doubt they’d be okay with that. Plus the European public would probably have a meltdown if Israel used nukes.  Trump NATO comments spark Europe nuclear debate | DW News  Macron unveils nuclear doctrine, warns EU ‘cannot remain spectators’ in arms race |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:34:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CarmelBytheSea]
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:38:39 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Europe is pretty squeamish on nukes, I doubt they’d be okay with that. Plus the European public would probably have a meltdown if Israel used nukes.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SbNC3fK7Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47xjob-IL8oThat’s why you make that agreement early when everyone can say it wasn’t considered possible then that we would actually have to do it. It was just a threat. Then they backed us into a corner. Now they only idiots and true believers pretend that Iran isn’t seeking the bomb it’s too late. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 3:57:25 AM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 4:00:59 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: That’s why you make that agreement early when everyone can say it wasn’t considered possible then that we would actually have to do it. It was just a threat. Then they backed us into a corner. Now they only idiots and true believers pretend that Iran isn’t seeking the bomb it’s too late. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Europe is pretty squeamish on nukes, I doubt they’d be okay with that. Plus the European public would probably have a meltdown if Israel used nukes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SbNC3fK7Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47xjob-IL8oThat’s why you make that agreement early when everyone can say it wasn’t considered possible then that we would actually have to do it. It was just a threat. Then they backed us into a corner. Now they only idiots and true believers pretend that Iran isn’t seeking the bomb it’s too late. There's a issue that's often left out in GD. For instance NL cannot just start making it's own nukes due to agreements with America, America controls the nukes that are (not confirmed or denied, nudge nudge wink wink) stationed here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 4:18:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iggy1337: There's an issue that's often left out in GD. For instance NL cannot just start making it's own nukes due to agreements with America, America controls the nukes that are (not confirmed or denied, nudge nudge wink wink) stationed here. Nuclear sharing was a way to get buy in for nonproliferation. Nonproliferation either needs to be enforced or it’s dead. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 4:18:47 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Iranian ballistic missiles have been getting tested for years in a LSCO environment against western systems via KSA, with multiple engagements against us as well. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: For the Iranians too. They can test their missiles in a real war against modern countermeassures. Iranian ballistic missiles have been getting tested for years in a LSCO environment against western systems via KSA, with multiple engagements against us as well. Isn't this testing a constant process? The EW systems in UA are different, I guess they can and will learn from the use of their missiles there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 4:23:34 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4xGM300m: Isn't this testing a constant process? The EW systems in UA are different, I guess they can and will learn from the use of their missiles there. More use always equates more data, especially in a more dynamic environment. However, I guess my point was that they aren't exactly unproven in the face of western countermeasures. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 4:57:47 AM EDT
[#46]
   Ukrainian air defense forces are among the best and most experienced in the world. They have to shoot down different types of air targets almost every day: from cruise missiles to ballistic missiles, as well as several types of drones Unfortunately, not everything depends on people. Sometimes a banal lack of funds becomes an obstacle. Therefore, we thank all partners who help Ukraine to counter the terrorism of the aggressor country and the killing of Ukrainians. And we need more help. So that the number of downed missiles and drones approaches the maximum. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 5:13:26 AM EDT
[#47]
Murmansk airport is closed. According to SHOT, flights are temporarily restricted due to the threat of a drone attack The airport has not been accepting flights since 9:30. Several flights from Arkhangelsk are delayed. UPD: temporary flight restrictions have also been introduced at Apatity airport. https://t.me/shot_shot/71391 Two Ukrainian UAVs were shot down in the Murmansk region near the village of Vysoky. Preliminary, the Ukrainian Armed Forces tried to attack the Olenya airfield with A-22 Flying Fox type UAVs. Against this background, the authorities introduced temporary restrictions on the operation of the Murmansk airport. The air harbor is temporarily not accepting or sending flights. UPD. The airport in Apatity has also been temporarily closed. https://t.me/mash/57514 Three drones have been preliminarily destroyed in the Murmansk region. Now all airports in the region — in Murmansk and Apatity — have suspended flights Enemy UAV raids are being carried out on the Murmansk region, the governor said. Air defense is working to destroy them, and necessary measures are being taken to improve security. https://t.me/shot_shot/71398 One of the UAVs spotted in the Murmansk region was flying from Norway. According to SHOT, it was spotted around 11:00. Preliminary, it was flying towards the Olenya airfield. Two and a half hours before that, two more UAVs were spotted in the sky over the Murmansk region, flying from the Arkhangelsk region. The air defense system was working on them. https://t.me/shot_shot/71399 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 5:14:31 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: 4. Caspian Sea. Again, subject to veto by Turkey or via airpower. Turkey has a veto in the Caspian Sea??  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 5:26:54 AM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2024 5:30:24 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4xGM300m: Turkey has a veto in the Caspian Sea?? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4xGM300m: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: 4. Caspian Sea. Again, subject to veto by Turkey or via airpower. Turkey has a veto in the Caspian Sea?? If they choose, no one can stop them. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
