User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/5/2023 11:27:48 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Good. NATO or nukes. That shouldn’t be an idle threat either. A nuclearized Ukraine has a lot of downside for Europe and NATO that they would probably like to avoid. Ukraine has leverage here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By HIPPO: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/9rt5sZj-59.gif They should. And this should come as a surprise to no one who has paid any attention to the last 30 years of history. Ukraine HAD nukes it inherited from the USSR. It gave up its nukes and became neutral in exchange for solemn promises not to invade them or otherwise attack them. And look how that turned out. If you're going to be a neutral, you must be extremely well armed (read: Nukes). Especially if Russia is your next door neighbor. And yes, Ukraine was neutral no matter what RT claims. Why do you think Finland and Sweden have abandoned neutrality? Its because neutrality is no longer a guarantee against Russian aggression. Russia is very likely to attack you anyways. Neutrality just means you'll face them alone. And these days, that means having nukes. Frankly, I think Japan and South Korea (and Australia too, for that matter) should develop nukes, too. There's no guarantee America will be there to save them when the PRC decides to flip the table over in the Pacific. Good. NATO or nukes. That shouldn’t be an idle threat either. A nuclearized Ukraine has a lot of downside for Europe and NATO that they would probably like to avoid. Ukraine has leverage here. I've been saying this since the thread was in triple-digit page numbers. Ukraine will have nuclear protection after this conflict, period. Even if they lose, whatever is left of Ukraine will either be a full NATO member under the US/UK/French nuclear shield, or they'll have their own nukes. The whole reason Russia has no fear in this aggression is because Ukraine gave up their nukes in 1994 for flimsy promises of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. If Ukraine had kept their nukes with a use policy like Russia's, when the existence of the state is threatened, Russia could not have launched this invasion. Ukraine is not going to be bullied like that again. And that's the real blow. Nuclear non-proliferation took a huge hit with this mess. Of the two options, I think NATO is the more likely because of just that. If non-proliferation is to remain an international goal, Ukraine has to be in NATO. 'Cause they'll get their own damn nukes if they're not, undermining the non-proliferation agenda for decades. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2023 11:31:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Personal prayer room? Has Prigozhin gone Mohammedan? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By RockNwood: Warlords gots needs too! https://twitter.com/gwarworin/status/1676733083440107520 https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/494438/IMG_1904-2875087.jpg Personal prayer room? Has Prigozhin gone Mohammedan? Orthodox is serious bizness. You'll never see Simonyan without that cross on her neck. That interview with Aussie journalist and Russian medic, that guy cited religion and defending his faith as a key reason for fighting, he wanted his kids to have a better world with less sin. We mock them for propaganda, but they really believe they're fighting on the side of righteousness and godliness. The godless nazi holhols have to be purged to defend Russia. They believe it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2023 11:37:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Has UKR found the weak spot yet so they can start the "real offensive"?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2023 11:39:23 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stgdz: Jdams, harms, and that radar signature spoofing missile all started showing up before any announcements There’s more secrecy with weapons that represent an actual change in tactics and capabilities. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2023 11:40:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillydilly: To this day, I still don’t understand why this type of shit is always blasted within the media. Ever heard of element of surprise? The Russians don’t need to know every single development of Western assistance the moment something gets sent over there. Ffs… Because shaping narratives is apparantly more important than fighting a war. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2023 11:43:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: DPICM against trenches will SEEM like a wonder weapon because it can do WAY more damage than a single unitary round. Are the Rooshins using them already? if not can they be expected to start using them if UKR does? If they're already using them what could the Rooshins escalate to in order to asnwer them? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2023 11:52:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: They should. And this should come as a surprise to no one who has paid any attention to the last 30 years of history. Ukraine HAD nukes it inherited from the USSR. It gave up its nukes and became neutral in exchange for solemn promises not to invade them or otherwise attack them. And look how that turned out. If you're going to be a neutral, you must be extremely well armed (read: Nukes). Especially if Russia is your next door neighbor. And yes, Ukraine was neutral no matter what RT claims. Why do you think Finland and Sweden have abandoned neutrality? Its because neutrality is no longer a guarantee against Russian aggression. Russia is very likely to attack you anyways. Neutrality just means you'll face them alone. And these days, that means having nukes. Frankly, I think Japan and South Korea (and Australia too, for that matter) should develop nukes, too. There's no guarantee America will be there to save them when the PRC decides to flip the table over in the Pacific. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By HIPPO: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/9rt5sZj-59.gif They should. And this should come as a surprise to no one who has paid any attention to the last 30 years of history. Ukraine HAD nukes it inherited from the USSR. It gave up its nukes and became neutral in exchange for solemn promises not to invade them or otherwise attack them. And look how that turned out. If you're going to be a neutral, you must be extremely well armed (read: Nukes). Especially if Russia is your next door neighbor. And yes, Ukraine was neutral no matter what RT claims. Why do you think Finland and Sweden have abandoned neutrality? Its because neutrality is no longer a guarantee against Russian aggression. Russia is very likely to attack you anyways. Neutrality just means you'll face them alone. And these days, that means having nukes. Frankly, I think Japan and South Korea (and Australia too, for that matter) should develop nukes, too. There's no guarantee America will be there to save them when the PRC decides to flip the table over in the Pacific. Unfortunately, the legacy of the Obama and Biden administrations will be the functional end of Nuclear Nonproliferation. Once Iran has a nuke AND combined with the examples of Libya and Ukraine as what happens when a country gives up nukes, all the "cool kids" will rush to field their own nukes. Japan, South Korea, Ukraine and Taiwan could start nuclear weapons program tomorrow and have functional devices in 18-24 months. Saudi Arabia, Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia could potentially field nukes within 2-3 years after that. It will definitely be interesting times! Like, as in 50% or more of our future Active Army force structure being dedicated to Air Defense/Missile Interdiction "interesting". Good time to invest in certain MiC stocks and purchase rural real estate a significant distance from major cities, major military/dual use installations and significant civilian infrastructure.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2023 11:54:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Unfortunately, the legacy of the Obama and Biden administrations will be the functional end of Nuclear Nonproliferation. Once Iran has a nuke AND combined with the examples of Libya and Ukraine as what happens when a country gives up nukes, all the "cool kids" will rush to field their own nukes. Japan, South Korea, Ukraine and Taiwan could start nuclear weapons program tomorrow and have functional devices in 18-24 months. Saudi Arabia, Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia could potentially field nukes within 2-3 years after that. It will definitely be interesting times! Like, as in 50% or more of our future Active Army force structure being dedicated to Air Defense/Missile Interdiction "interesting". Good time to invest in certain MiC stocks and purchase rural real estate a significant distance from major cities, major military/dual use installations and significant civilian infrastructure. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By HIPPO: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/9rt5sZj-59.gif They should. And this should come as a surprise to no one who has paid any attention to the last 30 years of history. Ukraine HAD nukes it inherited from the USSR. It gave up its nukes and became neutral in exchange for solemn promises not to invade them or otherwise attack them. And look how that turned out. If you're going to be a neutral, you must be extremely well armed (read: Nukes). Especially if Russia is your next door neighbor. And yes, Ukraine was neutral no matter what RT claims. Why do you think Finland and Sweden have abandoned neutrality? Its because neutrality is no longer a guarantee against Russian aggression. Russia is very likely to attack you anyways. Neutrality just means you'll face them alone. And these days, that means having nukes. Frankly, I think Japan and South Korea (and Australia too, for that matter) should develop nukes, too. There's no guarantee America will be there to save them when the PRC decides to flip the table over in the Pacific. Unfortunately, the legacy of the Obama and Biden administrations will be the functional end of Nuclear Nonproliferation. Once Iran has a nuke AND combined with the examples of Libya and Ukraine as what happens when a country gives up nukes, all the "cool kids" will rush to field their own nukes. Japan, South Korea, Ukraine and Taiwan could start nuclear weapons program tomorrow and have functional devices in 18-24 months. Saudi Arabia, Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia could potentially field nukes within 2-3 years after that. It will definitely be interesting times! Like, as in 50% or more of our future Active Army force structure being dedicated to Air Defense/Missile Interdiction "interesting". Good time to invest in certain MiC stocks and purchase rural real estate a significant distance from major cities, major military/dual use installations and significant civilian infrastructure. Make Civil Defense Great Again!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:14:50 AM EDT
[#9]
Has this been posted? Washington Post story about thought leaders in Russia increasing their rhetoric for a nuclear strike, even a nuclear strike on a NATO target.
Wagner rebellion raises doubts about stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal months of nuclear posturing by Putin and other senior Russian officials, and a new debate among Moscow analysts on using a nuclear weapon on a NATO country, have raised doubts about whether Putin really provides the stability necessary to avoid an atomic Armageddon — or if he is the risk they should fear most. ... in recent weeks the drumbeat has intensified, with some well-connected Russian strategic analysts and think tank experts openly proclaiming the “necessity” for Moscow to carry out a preemptive tactical nuclear strike on a NATO country, like Poland — to avoid defeat in the war on Ukraine and to revive Western terror of Russia’s nuclear might. ... Karaganov argued the risk of a retaliatory nuclear strike on Russia, and nuclear Armageddon, “can be reduced to an absolute minimum.” No sane American president would put the United States at risk by “sacrificing conditional Boston for conditional Poznań,” he wrote, referring to a city in Poland. That Russian sources can openly publish crap like this highlights a huge diplomatic failure by western leaders, US in particular. The President with other key leaders should have had a stern sit-down, quietly, out of public view, with Lavrov and some Russian MoD leader(s) to make very clear that such a move would mean the end of Russian government as currently constituted. US/NATO don't even need to resort to nukes to crush Russia. If they think the struggle in Ukraine looks bad now, think how the Russian people would react if their leaders provoked a Russian defeat similar to the defeat of Germany in WWII. We wouldn't need to resort to a nuclear counterattack; such a move would be an immediate NATO article V trigger, and Russia's military is so weakened they cannot hope to even slow down a western invasion of Russia. Poland would have Kaliningrad secured in 36 hours, the Kremlin would have a NATO flag over it in 72, and that picture would hit every TV screen in Russia. That's what a Russian nuclear attack on Europe would provoke. Putin should make sure idiots like Karaganov and his ilk get no publication or exposure, and the government should shame them completely for spouting such outrageous crap. If they want a multi-polar world, they need to be LESS aggressive, not more. Idiots. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:18:25 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: I've been saying this since the thread was in triple-digit page numbers. Ukraine will have nuclear protection after this conflict, period. Even if they lose, whatever is left of Ukraine will either be a full NATO member under the US/UK/French nuclear shield, or they'll have their own nukes. The whole reason Russia has no fear in this aggression is because Ukraine gave up their nukes in 1994 for flimsy promises of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. If Ukraine had kept their nukes with a use policy like Russia's, when the existence of the state is threatened, Russia could not have launched this invasion. Ukraine is not going to be bullied like that again. And that's the real blow. Nuclear non-proliferation took a huge hit with this mess. Of the two options, I think NATO is the more likely because of just that. If non-proliferation is to remain an international goal, Ukraine has to be in NATO. 'Cause they'll get their own damn nukes if they're not, undermining the non-proliferation agenda for decades. I don't see why they can't be in NATO and have nukes. That's what I would shoot for if I were in charge if Ukraine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:22:07 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: I don't see why they can't be in NATO and have nukes. That's what I would shoot for if I were in charge if Ukraine. One or more (almost certainly more) current NATO member will make it conditional. Drop nuclear ambitions or we veto your admittance. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:27:06 AM EDT
[#12]
As I've stated many, many pages ago, the rooshins THINK they have the infrastructure to ensure that they are the LEAST annihilated country remaining after a full nuclear exchange. It does not matter if they are not, it only matters that they think they will be and thus are willing to roll those dice if push comes to shove.
That Cristal likely tastes just as good in a deep bunker with a high end hooker as it did on their seized super yacht in the Mediterranean sun... We're literally playing Rooshin roulette with an even more retarded Charles Manson... Many of our most prolific posters on the subject of this conflict are either ethnic Ukranians/Russians, married to Ukranians/Russians, or fucking Ukrainians.Russians. They're emotionally invested. I am none of the above and I'm personally not willing to burn down the world over this nonsense as horrific as it may be for those living in it. Solly bout dat Slava Whateva! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Has this been posted? Washington Post story about thought leaders in Russia increasing their rhetoric for a nuclear strike, even a nuclear strike on a NATO target. Wagner rebellion raises doubts about stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal Bold added. That Russian sources can openly publish crap like this highlights a huge diplomatic failure by western leaders, US in particular. The President with other key leaders should have had a stern sit-down, quietly, out of public view, with Lavrov and some Russian MoD leader(s) to make very clear that such a move would mean the end of Russian government as currently constituted. US/NATO don't even need to resort to nukes to crush Russia. If they think the struggle in Ukraine looks bad now, think how the Russian people would react if their leaders provoked a Russian defeat similar to the defeat of Germany in WWII. We wouldn't need to resort to a nuclear counterattack; such a move would be an immediate NATO article V trigger, and Russia's military is so weakened they cannot hope to even slow down a western invasion of Russia. Poland would have Kaliningrad secured in 36 hours, the Kremlin would have a NATO flag over it in 72, and that picture would hit every TV screen in Russia. That's what a Russian nuclear attack on Europe would provoke. Putin should make sure idiots like Karaganov and his ilk get no publication or exposure, and the government should shame them completely for spouting such outrageous crap. If they want a multi-polar world, they need to be LESS aggressive, not more. Idiots. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:44:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: YesChef]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0Sef9DXgCQM_dP?format=jpg&name=large
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203719/IMG_3344-2874658.jpg The flight of two FAB-500 aerial bombs with the UPMK module on the video of the Russian Su-34 pilot. Fortunately, some of the aerial bombs do not go off and just fall, like, for example, the one near Gulyaipol. Video
Is that just, taped on? ETA I am dumb, clearly it’s for EOD |
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:46:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: gatetraveller]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Has UKR found the weak spot yet so they can start the "real offensive"? It's a good thing you weren't in charge during World War Two, or any other war. Wars and their duration. Hint, they usually take multiple years to finish. Ukraine will attack when they think the time is right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:48:12 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: One or more (almost certainly more) current NATO member will make it conditional. Drop nuclear ambitions or we veto your admittance. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By bigstick61: I don't see why they can't be in NATO and have nukes. That's what I would shoot for if I were in charge if Ukraine. One or more (almost certainly more) current NATO member will make it conditional. Drop nuclear ambitions or we veto your admittance. Which ones and why? I could see Hungary vetoing regardless. Turkey might be an asshole about it, too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:50:07 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gatetraveller: It's a good thing you weren't in charge during World War Two, or any other war. Wars and their duration. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gatetraveller: Originally Posted By juan223: Has UKR found the weak spot yet so they can start the "real offensive"? It's a good thing you weren't in charge during World War Two, or any other war. Wars and their duration. Fact that we are talking about a Ukrainian offensive while watching the Russians on their back foot scrambling to avoid a full on rout says the offensive has been going well for some time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:52:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boedy: Fact that we are talking about a Ukrainian offensive while watching the Russians on their back foot scrambling to avoid a full on rout says the offensive has been going well for some time. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boedy: Originally Posted By gatetraveller: Originally Posted By juan223: Has UKR found the weak spot yet so they can start the "real offensive"? It's a good thing you weren't in charge during World War Two, or any other war. Wars and their duration. Fact that we are talking about a Ukrainian offensive while watching the Russians on their back foot scrambling to avoid a full on rout says the offensive has been going well for some time. T-55 will bring glorious victory over Capitalist running pig dog Abrams and Leopard! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 12:59:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: juan223]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gatetraveller: It's a good thing you weren't in charge during World War Two, or any other war. Wars and their duration. Hint, they usually take multiple years to finish. Ukraine will attack when they think the time is right. #1 They're the ones foolsihly saying what they have commited vs their reserves and that those reserves plan to exploit any weakness. #2 Some armies have time, they don't appear to have that luxury. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:03:28 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By borderpatrol: Biden is blocking him because being our nation's representative to NATO would be a threat to Biden's re-election campaign should B. Hodges decide to run. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By borderpatrol: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: well the narrative I've been hearing has nothing to do with Biden. #1.) Stoltenberg is the safe choice. No learning curve, and people trust him. #1A.) The first major war in Europe since NATO was founded; nobody wants to change horses in the middle of this thing. #2.) The French are mainly sharply opposed to Wallace because Britain is not part of the EU. It doesn't matter if Ben Wallace or Jesus Christ is NATO SecGen. NATO cannot compel the US to give the "Go" on F-16 jets. So blocking him because Biden fears the selling of F-16s will happen, doesn't seem valid to me. Biden is blocking him because being our nation's representative to NATO would be a threat to Biden's re-election campaign should B. Hodges decide to run. If Ben Hodges ran I’d be going door to door for that guy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:03:29 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boedy: Fact that we are talking about a Ukrainian offensive while watching the Russians on their back foot scrambling to avoid a full on rout says the offensive has been going well for some time. In that case the domes of the Kremlin will be in sight of the Ukranian vanguard units any day now! Glory to Ukraine! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:04:47 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lightning_P38: We have been over this, Hunter has been exposed, the Russians cannot possibly have anything as compromising as his father bragging about shutting down an investigation of Hunter, nor him in bed smoking crack with a hooker. No matter what they have, it won't be any worse than that. We have all seen it, it is now public record, and nobody who matters cares. Biden is a flake, he goes whichever way the wind blows, and as long as he doesn't change his name to Trump, the press, department of justice and the Democrat voters just don't care. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lightning_P38: Originally Posted By Capta: Plus, EXTREMELY likely that Russia has kompromat on Hunter at least and probably both. Best way around that is for Hunter to get exposed. We have all seen it, it is now public record, and nobody who matters cares. Biden is a flake, he goes whichever way the wind blows, and as long as he doesn't change his name to Trump, the press, department of justice and the Democrat voters just don't care. Holy crap, it can get WAY worse than that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:13:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Has this been posted? Washington Post story about thought leaders in Russia increasing their rhetoric for a nuclear strike, even a nuclear strike on a NATO target. Wagner rebellion raises doubts about stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal Bold added. That Russian sources can openly publish crap like this highlights a huge diplomatic failure by western leaders, US in particular. The President with other key leaders should have had a stern sit-down, quietly, out of public view, with Lavrov and some Russian MoD leader(s) to make very clear that such a move would mean the end of Russian government as currently constituted. US/NATO don't even need to resort to nukes to crush Russia. If they think the struggle in Ukraine looks bad now, think how the Russian people would react if their leaders provoked a Russian defeat similar to the defeat of Germany in WWII. We wouldn't need to resort to a nuclear counterattack; such a move would be an immediate NATO article V trigger, and Russia's military is so weakened they cannot hope to even slow down a western invasion of Russia. Poland would have Kaliningrad secured in 36 hours, the Kremlin would have a NATO flag over it in 72, and that picture would hit every TV screen in Russia. That's what a Russian nuclear attack on Europe would provoke. Putin should make sure idiots like Karaganov and his ilk get no publication or exposure, and the government should shame them completely for spouting such outrageous crap. If they want a multi-polar world, they need to be LESS aggressive, not more. Idiots.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:18:37 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: Avdiyivka https://twitter.com/stepangronk/status/1676781661797904384
Five days “old”.
Needed a second drone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:25:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: Which ones and why? I could see Hungary vetoing regardless. Turkey might be an asshole about it, too. The USA, UK, and France are signatories to the Non-proliferation Treaty. According to that treaty, the only 5 nations on planet earth that are allowed to have nukes are USA, UK, France, Soviet Union, and China. I think every member of NATO aside from the USA, UK, and France is a signatory to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, pledged to forever forswear the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Personally, I think its a stupid treaty that has only enabled authoritarian shitholes to bully their neighbors. But we're not going to reverse 50 years of "no one else is allowed to have nukes" policy for Ukraine just because Russia is asshole. Then you've got countries like Germany that were in the process of beating even their conventional swords into plowshares, a great many of whose citizens actively despise even nuclear power (to the point that they've almost completely abandoned it), and are palpably disgusted that Ukraine had the gall to not lose quickly so they could keep buying cheap Russian gas. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:26:05 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: #1 They're the ones foolsihly saying what they have commited vs their reserves and that those reserves plan to exploit any weakness. #2 Some armies have time, they don't appear to have that luxury. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Originally Posted By gatetraveller: It's a good thing you weren't in charge during World War Two, or any other war. Wars and their duration. Hint, they usually take multiple years to finish. Ukraine will attack when they think the time is right. #1 They're the ones foolsihly saying what they have commited vs their reserves and that those reserves plan to exploit any weakness. #2 Some armies have time, they don't appear to have that luxury. If the status quo is maintained (China doesn't supply significant material support, the US and Europe hold steady, and Russia doesn't pop a nuke or something equally stupid) I think time is on Ukraine's side. The downside for Ukraine, of course, is that Russia is still extracting a toll on them every day in death and suffering. But at least for the time being, Ukraine has some leeway to decide when and how to take the fight to Russia. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:39:45 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: In that case the domes of the Kremlin will be in sight of the Ukranian vanguard units any day now! Glory to Ukraine! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Originally Posted By Boedy: Fact that we are talking about a Ukrainian offensive while watching the Russians on their back foot scrambling to avoid a full on rout says the offensive has been going well for some time. In that case the domes of the Kremlin will be in sight of the Ukranian vanguard units any day now! Glory to Ukraine! 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:50:20 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: If Ben Hodges ran I’d be going door to door for that guy. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By borderpatrol: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: well the narrative I've been hearing has nothing to do with Biden. #1.) Stoltenberg is the safe choice. No learning curve, and people trust him. #1A.) The first major war in Europe since NATO was founded; nobody wants to change horses in the middle of this thing. #2.) The French are mainly sharply opposed to Wallace because Britain is not part of the EU. It doesn't matter if Ben Wallace or Jesus Christ is NATO SecGen. NATO cannot compel the US to give the "Go" on F-16 jets. So blocking him because Biden fears the selling of F-16s will happen, doesn't seem valid to me. Biden is blocking him because being our nation's representative to NATO would be a threat to Biden's re-election campaign should B. Hodges decide to run. If Ben Hodges ran I’d be going door to door for that guy. The Tories will probably lose big in the next UK Elections, they don’t want a lame duck who doesn’t even speak for his own country anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:50:55 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gatetraveller: It's a good thing you weren't in charge during World War Two, or any other war. Wars and their duration. Hint, they usually take multiple years to finish. Ukraine will attack when they think the time is right. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 1:56:30 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: Just the latest vatnik du jour. not even very good at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:01:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Ryan_Ruck]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: Originally Posted By juan223: Originally Posted By Boedy: Fact that we are talking about a Ukrainian offensive while watching the Russians on their back foot scrambling to avoid a full on rout says the offensive has been going well for some time. In that case the domes of the Kremlin will be in sight of the Ukranian vanguard units any day now! Glory to Ukraine! He thinks people don't see his low level trolling but it's been pretty obvious for a while. He's just not as out and proud as some of the others to get the boot from the thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:02:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tiberius: The Tories will probably lose big in the next UK Elections, they don't want a lame duck who doesn't even speak for his own country anymore. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tiberius: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By borderpatrol: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: well the narrative I've been hearing has nothing to do with Biden. #1.) Stoltenberg is the safe choice. No learning curve, and people trust him. #1A.) The first major war in Europe since NATO was founded; nobody wants to change horses in the middle of this thing. #2.) The French are mainly sharply opposed to Wallace because Britain is not part of the EU. It doesn't matter if Ben Wallace or Jesus Christ is NATO SecGen. NATO cannot compel the US to give the "Go" on F-16 jets. So blocking him because Biden fears the selling of F-16s will happen, doesn't seem valid to me. Biden is blocking him because being our nation's representative to NATO would be a threat to Biden's re-election campaign should B. Hodges decide to run. If Ben Hodges ran I'd be going door to door for that guy. The Tories will probably lose big in the next UK Elections, they don't want a lame duck who doesn't even speak for his own country anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:10:05 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Ruck: He thinks people don't see his low level trolling but it's been pretty obvious for a while. He's just not as out and proud (June was last month) as some of the others to get the boot from the thread. Not subscribing to a groupthink circlejerk is hardly "trolling" Many here feel that western support for UKR is ramping up but I think it's winding down, the political clock on it surely is. I still predict that RUS ends up retaining pretty much most of the areas it wanted to originally hold and the can gets kicked down the road for future generations to deal with. UKR survives as a country, just a smaller one than before. A tale as old as time itself... There will be no "unconditional surrender" with regards to RUS, nor will all of UKR be absorbed by RUS as a result of the current conflict. Hate away, but that's my prediction that's free of the emotional attachements others seem to have with regards to this war. I'm no fan of an aggressive Russia but I AM a fan of logic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:11:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: The USA, UK, and France are signatories to the Non-proliferation Treaty. According to that treaty, the only 5 nations on planet earth that are allowed to have nukes are USA, UK, France, Soviet Union, and China. I think every member of NATO aside from the USA, UK, and France is a signatory to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, pledged to forever forswear the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Personally, I think its a stupid treaty that has only enabled authoritarian shitholes to bully their neighbors. But we're not going to reverse 50 years of "no one else is allowed to have nukes" policy for Ukraine just because Russia is asshole. Then you've got countries like Germany that were in the process of beating even their conventional swords into plowshares, a great many of whose citizens actively despise even nuclear power (to the point that they've almost completely abandoned it), and are palpably disgusted that Ukraine had the gall to not lose quickly so they could keep buying cheap Russian gas. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By bigstick61: Which ones and why? I could see Hungary vetoing regardless. Turkey might be an asshole about it, too. The USA, UK, and France are signatories to the Non-proliferation Treaty. According to that treaty, the only 5 nations on planet earth that are allowed to have nukes are USA, UK, France, Soviet Union, and China. I think every member of NATO aside from the USA, UK, and France is a signatory to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, pledged to forever forswear the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Personally, I think its a stupid treaty that has only enabled authoritarian shitholes to bully their neighbors. But we're not going to reverse 50 years of "no one else is allowed to have nukes" policy for Ukraine just because Russia is asshole. Then you've got countries like Germany that were in the process of beating even their conventional swords into plowshares, a great many of whose citizens actively despise even nuclear power (to the point that they've almost completely abandoned it), and are palpably disgusted that Ukraine had the gall to not lose quickly so they could keep buying cheap Russian gas. Is Ukraine a signatory? If not, what does that even matter? Are those countries obligated to punish non-signatories in pursuit of non-proliferation? Did the U.S. ratify that stupid thing, or just sign it? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:16:40 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Not subscribing to a groupthink circlejerk is hardly "trolling" Many here feel that western support for UKR is ramping up but I think it's winding down, the political clock on it surely is. I still predict that RUS ends up retaining pretty much most of the areas it wanted to originally hold and the can gets kicked down the road for future generations to deal with. UKR survives as a country, just a smaller one than before. A tale as old as time itself... There will be no "unconditional surrender" with regards to RUS, nor will all of UKR be absorbed by RUS as a result of the current conflict. Hate away, but that's my prediction that's free of the emotional attachements others seem to have with regards to this war. I'm no fan of an aggressive Russia but I AM a fan of logic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Originally Posted By Ryan_Ruck: He thinks people don't see his low level trolling but it's been pretty obvious for a while. He's just not as out and proud (June was last month) as some of the others to get the boot from the thread. Not subscribing to a groupthink circlejerk is hardly "trolling" Many here feel that western support for UKR is ramping up but I think it's winding down, the political clock on it surely is. I still predict that RUS ends up retaining pretty much most of the areas it wanted to originally hold and the can gets kicked down the road for future generations to deal with. UKR survives as a country, just a smaller one than before. A tale as old as time itself... There will be no "unconditional surrender" with regards to RUS, nor will all of UKR be absorbed by RUS as a result of the current conflict. Hate away, but that's my prediction that's free of the emotional attachements others seem to have with regards to this war. I'm no fan of an aggressive Russia but I AM a fan of logic. Victory is possible without unconditional surrender. It's not needed to achieve Ukraine's aims |
|
|
|
IRL
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:22:00 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
IRL
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:23:31 AM EDT
[#36]
9 Anti aircraft is huge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:23:57 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By YesChef: Is that just, taped on? ETA I am dumb, clearly it’s for EOD Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By YesChef: Originally Posted By Prime: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0Sef9DXgCQM_dP?format=jpg&name=large
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203719/IMG_3344-2874658.jpg The flight of two FAB-500 aerial bombs with the UPMK module on the video of the Russian Su-34 pilot. Fortunately, some of the aerial bombs do not go off and just fall, like, for example, the one near Gulyaipol. Video
Is that just, taped on? ETA I am dumb, clearly it’s for EOD With Russia you just never know 😂. Could be a new design feature because the fuses no longer work. Could be mobik maintenance trying for extra explodey, or could be EOD disposal. About a 33% chance either way. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:27:40 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: Victory is possible without unconditional surrender. It's not needed to achieve Ukraine's aims Their aims at this point are primarily survival as a nation and recovery of occupied lands at best. I am not the one here that bandied about the 'unconditional surrender' nonsense. IF Ukraine could recover their lands without dragging the rest of the world into the war that would be great, I'm just not sure they have the staying power to get it done. There is no doubt that man for man they currently outclass the Russians when it comes to soldiers, but then again so did the Germans... it's simply a math problem at this point. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:30:29 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: Is Ukraine a signatory? If not, what does that even matter? Are those countries obligated to punish non-signatories in pursuit of non-proliferation? Did the U.S. ratify that stupid thing, or just sign it? Yes. Ukraine is a signatory. And yes, the USA both signed and senate ratified it back in the 60s. I'm not saying I agree with it. I am saying it seems highly unlikely we're going to abrogate it or otherwise reverse course on non-proliferation. Personally, I think the treaty has been an utter failure at its stated goals. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:32:30 AM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:34:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Ryan_Ruck]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Not subscribing to a groupthink circlejerk is hardly "trolling" Many here feel that western support for UKR is ramping up but I think it's winding down, the political clock on it surely is. I still predict that RUS ends up retaining pretty much most of the areas it wanted to originally hold and the can gets kicked down the road for future generations to deal with. UKR survives as a country, just a smaller one than before. A tale as old as time itself... There will be no "unconditional surrender" with regards to RUS, nor will all of UKR be absorbed by RUS as a result of the current conflict. Hate away, but that's my prediction that's free of the emotional attachements others seem to have with regards to this war. I'm no fan of an aggressive Russia but I AM a fan of logic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Originally Posted By Ryan_Ruck: He thinks people don't see his low level trolling but it's been pretty obvious for a while. He's just not as out and proud (June was last month) as some of the others to get the boot from the thread. Not subscribing to a groupthink circlejerk is hardly "trolling" Many here feel that western support for UKR is ramping up but I think it's winding down, the political clock on it surely is. I still predict that RUS ends up retaining pretty much most of the areas it wanted to originally hold and the can gets kicked down the road for future generations to deal with. UKR survives as a country, just a smaller one than before. A tale as old as time itself... There will be no "unconditional surrender" with regards to RUS, nor will all of UKR be absorbed by RUS as a result of the current conflict. Hate away, but that's my prediction that's free of the emotional attachements others seem to have with regards to this war. I'm no fan of an aggressive Russia but I AM a fan of logic. To what "groupthink circlejerk" are you referring? And I'm not referring to having a dissenting opinion either. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:59:03 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Has this been posted? Washington Post story about thought leaders in Russia increasing their rhetoric for a nuclear strike, even a nuclear strike on a NATO target. Wagner rebellion raises doubts about stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal Bold added. That Russian sources can openly publish crap like this highlights a huge diplomatic failure by western leaders, US in particular. The President with other key leaders should have had a stern sit-down, quietly, out of public view, with Lavrov and some Russian MoD leader(s) to make very clear that such a move would mean the end of Russian government as currently constituted. US/NATO don't even need to resort to nukes to crush Russia. If they think the struggle in Ukraine looks bad now, think how the Russian people would react if their leaders provoked a Russian defeat similar to the defeat of Germany in WWII. We wouldn't need to resort to a nuclear counterattack; such a move would be an immediate NATO article V trigger, and Russia's military is so weakened they cannot hope to even slow down a western invasion of Russia. Poland would have Kaliningrad secured in 36 hours, the Kremlin would have a NATO flag over it in 72, and that picture would hit every TV screen in Russia. That's what a Russian nuclear attack on Europe would provoke. Putin should make sure idiots like Karaganov and his ilk get no publication or exposure, and the government should shame them completely for spouting such outrageous crap. If they want a multi-polar world, they need to be LESS aggressive, not more. Idiots. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Has this been posted? Washington Post story about thought leaders in Russia increasing their rhetoric for a nuclear strike, even a nuclear strike on a NATO target. Wagner rebellion raises doubts about stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal months of nuclear posturing by Putin and other senior Russian officials, and a new debate among Moscow analysts on using a nuclear weapon on a NATO country, have raised doubts about whether Putin really provides the stability necessary to avoid an atomic Armageddon — or if he is the risk they should fear most. ... in recent weeks the drumbeat has intensified, with some well-connected Russian strategic analysts and think tank experts openly proclaiming the “necessity” for Moscow to carry out a preemptive tactical nuclear strike on a NATO country, like Poland — to avoid defeat in the war on Ukraine and to revive Western terror of Russia’s nuclear might. ... Karaganov argued the risk of a retaliatory nuclear strike on Russia, and nuclear Armageddon, “can be reduced to an absolute minimum.” No sane American president would put the United States at risk by “sacrificing conditional Boston for conditional Poznań,” he wrote, referring to a city in Poland. That Russian sources can openly publish crap like this highlights a huge diplomatic failure by western leaders, US in particular. The President with other key leaders should have had a stern sit-down, quietly, out of public view, with Lavrov and some Russian MoD leader(s) to make very clear that such a move would mean the end of Russian government as currently constituted. US/NATO don't even need to resort to nukes to crush Russia. If they think the struggle in Ukraine looks bad now, think how the Russian people would react if their leaders provoked a Russian defeat similar to the defeat of Germany in WWII. We wouldn't need to resort to a nuclear counterattack; such a move would be an immediate NATO article V trigger, and Russia's military is so weakened they cannot hope to even slow down a western invasion of Russia. Poland would have Kaliningrad secured in 36 hours, the Kremlin would have a NATO flag over it in 72, and that picture would hit every TV screen in Russia. That's what a Russian nuclear attack on Europe would provoke. Putin should make sure idiots like Karaganov and his ilk get no publication or exposure, and the government should shame them completely for spouting such outrageous crap. If they want a multi-polar world, they need to be LESS aggressive, not more. Idiots. I basically agree with you. Exactly what the situation is and why, is unknown at our level. I still think we’re boiling the frog, others disagree. However I agree that a side-effect of boiling the frog is that we have not properly deterred Russia. Actually I think the failure is two-way. Russia has gone all-in on the barbaric behavior and the nuke-wanking IMO in the hopes that they will outlast the west and the west will eventually back down. I don’t think that will actually happen, so it is a mistaken tactic by Russia. Furthermore, their barbaric behavior and nuke-wanking has probably hardened the west’s resolve and made more likely a situation where the west believes it has to act preemptively. Russia believes it is deterring the west when it probably isn’t, and may actually be provoking the west. The West believes it is either boiling the frog or managing escalation, but in either case has not responded forcefully enough to deter Russia from increasingly irrational and dangerous behavior. Things we need to do: 1)Russia will be held totally responsible for any meltdown at ZNPP. No PR games, no “whodunnit” bullshit. This means war with NATO. 2)ATACMS and DPICM tomorrow, in quantity. Don’t like it? Get the fuck out of Ukraine. 3)Seized assets transferred to holding funds for Ukraine. Don’t like it? Tough shit, it’s done. You’ll never see that money again. 4)Wagner designated a terrorist organization, with coordinated mass attacks to exterminate Wagner outside Russia. Russia understands only force and we haven’t spoken that language clearly enough yet for them to understand us. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 2:59:10 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockNwood:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/494438/IMG_1910-2875489.jpg These air support memes never get old with me IMO, while Ukraine having F-16s now would allow for much better Western weapons integration, they ultimately would be still be operating within the same threat limits as their Fulcrums and Flankers because of the missile engagement envelopes of the S300/400s. Ukraine should instead be lobbying harder for SRBMs and cruise missiles of any kind as they're simpler to operate and have less of a learning curve and maintenance requirement. But more importantly, they can make a difference faster than waiting on an entirely new jet, training, logistics, etc. I was hoping the success of the Storm Shadows would force us to donate old Tomahawks but sadly nothing  It's also unfortunate that no one seems to field a cruise missile or ballistic missile with an anti-radiation seeker head to take out the S300/S400s too. Being able to open up the airspace would most likely expedite the panic of Russian forces on the ground who are used to having high-end, long-range aerial denial capabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 3:08:05 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: I don't see why they can't be in NATO and have nukes. That's what I would shoot for if I were in charge if Ukraine. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: I've been saying this since the thread was in triple-digit page numbers. Ukraine will have nuclear protection after this conflict, period. Even if they lose, whatever is left of Ukraine will either be a full NATO member under the US/UK/French nuclear shield, or they'll have their own nukes. The whole reason Russia has no fear in this aggression is because Ukraine gave up their nukes in 1994 for flimsy promises of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. If Ukraine had kept their nukes with a use policy like Russia's, when the existence of the state is threatened, Russia could not have launched this invasion. Ukraine is not going to be bullied like that again. And that's the real blow. Nuclear non-proliferation took a huge hit with this mess. Of the two options, I think NATO is the more likely because of just that. If non-proliferation is to remain an international goal, Ukraine has to be in NATO. 'Cause they'll get their own damn nukes if they're not, undermining the non-proliferation agenda for decades. I don't see why they can't be in NATO and have nukes. That's what I would shoot for if I were in charge if Ukraine. A few reasons I can think of why either Europe, the US, or NATO don’t want a nuclear Ukraine: -UK and France want to preserve their monopoly and influence over the mid-tier powers in Europe. -US wants to preserve role as the 900 pound gorilla -NATO wants to preserve the Article 5 selling point, which let’s be honest rests on nukes. -EU doesn’t want nuclear proliferation which could get out of hand and possibly lead to the re-ignition of internal rivalries and conflicts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 3:18:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: I basically agree with you. Exactly what the situation is and why, is unknown at our level. I still think we’re boiling the frog, others disagree. However I agree that a side-effect of boiling the frog is that we have not properly deterred Russia. Actually I think the failure is two-way. Russia has gone all-in on the barbaric behavior and the nuke-wanking IMO in the hopes that they will outlast the west and the west will eventually back down. I don’t think that will actually happen, so it is a mistaken tactic by Russia. Furthermore, their barbaric behavior and nuke-wanking has probably hardened the west’s resolve and made more likely a situation where the west believes it has to act preemptively. Russia believes it is deterring the west when it probably isn’t, and may actually be provoking the west. The West believes it is either boiling the frog or managing escalation, but in either case has not responded forcefully enough to deter Russia from increasingly irrational and dangerous behavior. Things we need to do: 1)Russia will be held totally responsible for any meltdown at ZNPP. No PR games, no “whodunnit” bullshit. This means war with NATO. 2)ATACMS and DPICM tomorrow, in quantity. Don’t like it? Get the fuck out of Ukraine. 3)Seized assets transferred to holding funds for Ukraine. Don’t like it? Tough shit, it’s done. You’ll never see that money again. 4)Wagner designated a terrorist organization, with coordinated mass attacks to exterminate Wagner outside Russia. Russia understands only force and we haven’t spoken that language clearly enough yet for them to understand us. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Has this been posted? Washington Post story about thought leaders in Russia increasing their rhetoric for a nuclear strike, even a nuclear strike on a NATO target. Wagner rebellion raises doubts about stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal months of nuclear posturing by Putin and other senior Russian officials, and a new debate among Moscow analysts on using a nuclear weapon on a NATO country, have raised doubts about whether Putin really provides the stability necessary to avoid an atomic Armageddon — or if he is the risk they should fear most. ... in recent weeks the drumbeat has intensified, with some well-connected Russian strategic analysts and think tank experts openly proclaiming the “necessity” for Moscow to carry out a preemptive tactical nuclear strike on a NATO country, like Poland — to avoid defeat in the war on Ukraine and to revive Western terror of Russia’s nuclear might. ... Karaganov argued the risk of a retaliatory nuclear strike on Russia, and nuclear Armageddon, “can be reduced to an absolute minimum.” No sane American president would put the United States at risk by “sacrificing conditional Boston for conditional Poznań,” he wrote, referring to a city in Poland. That Russian sources can openly publish crap like this highlights a huge diplomatic failure by western leaders, US in particular. The President with other key leaders should have had a stern sit-down, quietly, out of public view, with Lavrov and some Russian MoD leader(s) to make very clear that such a move would mean the end of Russian government as currently constituted. US/NATO don't even need to resort to nukes to crush Russia. If they think the struggle in Ukraine looks bad now, think how the Russian people would react if their leaders provoked a Russian defeat similar to the defeat of Germany in WWII. We wouldn't need to resort to a nuclear counterattack; such a move would be an immediate NATO article V trigger, and Russia's military is so weakened they cannot hope to even slow down a western invasion of Russia. Poland would have Kaliningrad secured in 36 hours, the Kremlin would have a NATO flag over it in 72, and that picture would hit every TV screen in Russia. That's what a Russian nuclear attack on Europe would provoke. Putin should make sure idiots like Karaganov and his ilk get no publication or exposure, and the government should shame them completely for spouting such outrageous crap. If they want a multi-polar world, they need to be LESS aggressive, not more. Idiots. I basically agree with you. Exactly what the situation is and why, is unknown at our level. I still think we’re boiling the frog, others disagree. However I agree that a side-effect of boiling the frog is that we have not properly deterred Russia. Actually I think the failure is two-way. Russia has gone all-in on the barbaric behavior and the nuke-wanking IMO in the hopes that they will outlast the west and the west will eventually back down. I don’t think that will actually happen, so it is a mistaken tactic by Russia. Furthermore, their barbaric behavior and nuke-wanking has probably hardened the west’s resolve and made more likely a situation where the west believes it has to act preemptively. Russia believes it is deterring the west when it probably isn’t, and may actually be provoking the west. The West believes it is either boiling the frog or managing escalation, but in either case has not responded forcefully enough to deter Russia from increasingly irrational and dangerous behavior. Things we need to do: 1)Russia will be held totally responsible for any meltdown at ZNPP. No PR games, no “whodunnit” bullshit. This means war with NATO. 2)ATACMS and DPICM tomorrow, in quantity. Don’t like it? Get the fuck out of Ukraine. 3)Seized assets transferred to holding funds for Ukraine. Don’t like it? Tough shit, it’s done. You’ll never see that money again. 4)Wagner designated a terrorist organization, with coordinated mass attacks to exterminate Wagner outside Russia. Russia understands only force and we haven’t spoken that language clearly enough yet for them to understand us. Absolute perfection. Thank you for stating it so well! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 3:23:56 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Brok3n: These air support memes never get old with me IMO, while Ukraine having F-16s now would allow for much better Western weapons integration, they ultimately would be still be operating within the same threat limits as their Fulcrums and Flankers because of the missile engagement envelopes of the S300/400s. Ukraine should instead be lobbying harder for SRBMs and cruise missiles of any kind as they're simpler to operate and have less of a learning curve and maintenance requirement. But more importantly, they can make a difference faster than waiting on an entirely new jet, training, logistics, etc. I was hoping the success of the Storm Shadows would force us to donate old Tomahawks but sadly nothing It's also unfortunate that no one seems to field a cruise missile or ballistic missile with an anti-radiation seeker head to take out the S300/S400s too. Being able to open up the airspace would most likely expedite the panic of Russian forces on the ground who are used to having high-end, long-range aerial denial capabilities.Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Brok3n: Originally Posted By RockNwood:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/494438/IMG_1910-2875489.jpg These air support memes never get old with me IMO, while Ukraine having F-16s now would allow for much better Western weapons integration, they ultimately would be still be operating within the same threat limits as their Fulcrums and Flankers because of the missile engagement envelopes of the S300/400s. Ukraine should instead be lobbying harder for SRBMs and cruise missiles of any kind as they're simpler to operate and have less of a learning curve and maintenance requirement. But more importantly, they can make a difference faster than waiting on an entirely new jet, training, logistics, etc. I was hoping the success of the Storm Shadows would force us to donate old Tomahawks but sadly nothing It's also unfortunate that no one seems to field a cruise missile or ballistic missile with an anti-radiation seeker head to take out the S300/S400s too. Being able to open up the airspace would most likely expedite the panic of Russian forces on the ground who are used to having high-end, long-range aerial denial capabilities.Agree they need everything in greater quantity. Storm Shadow, ATACMS, DPICM, Patriot, NASAM, and I believe Tomahawks and SM-6 from TELs. Right now they have many times more pilots than aircraft. F-16s can at least give those pilots their own aircraft and have more sorties in the air. It will also allow them to use AIM-120 and I believe JDAM-ER. Not a wonder weapon but a crucial tool to add pressure from another vector. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 3:27:06 AM EDT
[#47]
Great news in the East
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 3:31:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: RockNwood]
[#48]
Good news for civilization! Russia is dying!
Peter Zeihan has talked frequently about Russia having the worst demographics in the world. Yea!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 3:55:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Video of a torture room
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2023 4:01:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: BillofRights]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Not subscribing to a groupthink circlejerk is hardly "trolling" Many here feel that western support for UKR is ramping up but I think it's winding down, the political clock on it surely is. I still predict that RUS ends up retaining pretty much most of the areas it wanted to originally hold and the can gets kicked down the road for future generations to deal with. UKR survives as a country, just a smaller one than before. A tale as old as time itself... There will be no "unconditional surrender" with regards to RUS, nor will all of UKR be absorbed by RUS as a result of the current conflict. Hate away, but that's my prediction that's free of the emotional attachements others seem to have with regards to this war. I'm no fan of an aggressive Russia but I AM a fan of logic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By juan223: Originally Posted By Ryan_Ruck: He thinks people don't see his low level trolling but it's been pretty obvious for a while. He's just not as out and proud (June was last month) as some of the others to get the boot from the thread. Not subscribing to a groupthink circlejerk is hardly "trolling" Many here feel that western support for UKR is ramping up but I think it's winding down, the political clock on it surely is. I still predict that RUS ends up retaining pretty much most of the areas it wanted to originally hold and the can gets kicked down the road for future generations to deal with. UKR survives as a country, just a smaller one than before. A tale as old as time itself... There will be no "unconditional surrender" with regards to RUS, nor will all of UKR be absorbed by RUS as a result of the current conflict. Hate away, but that's my prediction that's free of the emotional attachements others seem to have with regards to this war. I'm no fan of an aggressive Russia but I AM a fan of logic. It’s clear from your last several posts, that you’re scared shitless, and reacting purely from that emotion; ie. Fear. It paralyzes any rationality you may have had. Picture a World, where America gives in, to every world power willing to wave the Nuclear Saber. I understand your fear, but even if you hate the war, and even if we hate the expense involved, Russia has to be stopped here, and now, BECAUSE they made those nuclear threats. |
|
|
|
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.
