Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[goingkinetic]

Thats not direct involvement. How is giving Javelin missiles different?

[goingkinetic]

The flying tigers had ROC roundels on them.

[BashiChuni]

lol

glad you're not making decisions.

 

[goingkinetic]

Copy you think this isn’t our fight and the Ukraine is expendable. I’ll ask the question you’ve refused to answer so far. What’s the line?

Edited March 2, 2022 by goingkinetic
I don’t spell good

[hockeydork]

 

Just now, goingkinetic said:

Copy you think this isn’t are fight and the Ukraine is expendable.

He is balancing the problem of not turning an arm wrestling match with Russia into a fight to the death between two nuclear powers. Nobody thinks Ukraine is expendable, but it needs to be in the history books that Ukraine fought to not be a part of Russia. Not that the Americans fought for Ukraine to not be a part of Russia. It is a distinct difference that matters, even tho it shouldn't. If America enters the fight, Putin will enter an entire new mode of aggression and destruction. If you think he cannot stand to be pushed back from Ukraine by Ukrainians, well he most definitely will not stand for the US being the ones to beat him back out of Ukraine. 

[brickhistory]

1 hour ago, hockeydork said:

If Putin nukes something over Ukraine well than he had already lost his mind and so be it, it was a matter of time anyways than. Moscow will get wiped off the face of the earth, people will die, and the world will cycle on. 

Who's nuclear forces will strike Moscow in your scenario?

Think that answer through...

[viper154]

38 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I think his conventional forces are now stretched very thin.  I've read reports of 200,000 troops dedicated to this effort.  Any Putin attacks into Western Europe would open a front I am not sure he can defend at this point. 

I remain dumbfounded at how poorly his forces and equipment have performed.  Mostly I am SHOCKED at how he has failed to integrated his air and land forces, they are almost operating as two independent operations.  As we all know very well, airpower used properly in close alignment with ground forces is a huge asymmetrical advantage.  It is almost as if he assumed his maneuver elements would be fully support be rotary wing and the Stingers have humbled that advantage.

I think he miscalculated Ukraine's motivation of its people, and especially it’s president. I’m guessing he figured after a day or two of fighting the president would flee, government collapse, and everyone just give up.
 

Russia has lots of armor in storage to replace its losses. While their Air Force has decent numbers on paper their FMC status is questionable at best. (I have no behind the scenes knowledge, just open source I have seen in the past) They degraded the Ukraine Air Force in the opening rounds, and Russian aircraft continued to fall from the skies via SAMs and Stingers. With a partially conscript army it’s easier to replace a couple thousand bodies than several hundred aircraft. Might as well save the jets in case this escalates and he needs to defend the boarders, and go old school, sacrifice the bodies, use artillery and long range missiles.  

[disgruntledemployee]

We play our role.  We send assistance, enact trade and financial pain, isolate, and gather allies to do the same.  We send the message that America will do anything for freedom and we will help, but we probably won't do that.  Then tell the rest of russia, the pain stops when Putin is gone, like, "Sorry, we'd love to work with you and do trade and all, but we can't work with a country that invades and is led by a bully."

[goingkinetic]

For hypothetical argument, what if he went into Finland? He has invaded two of his neighbors already. What if his replacement uses his same playbook? Wait it out? Discuss.

[hockeydork]

16 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Who's nuclear forces will strike Moscow in your scenario?

Think that answer through...

If he uses nukes I would say the gloves are off, wouldn't you?

[brickhistory]

4 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

If he uses nukes I would say the gloves are off, wouldn't you?

I've written, repeatedly in this thread, that A) I will not be surprised if Putin has his ass handed to him, he uses a tactical nuke inside Ukraine.  If third country parties use armed force against Russian forces, that prediction is doubled, but the mushroom cloud will be inside Ukraine.

B) What nuclear nation would trade any of their cities for one in Ukraine should Putin take that action?  If any outside nuclear nation retaliates against Moscow kinetically, especially nuclear, then the very large arsenal there will be used. 

Are you advocating trading Chicago for Kyiv?

Are you advocating for the post-explosion effects that will result from such an exchange?

Do not mistake my sentiments.  If Putin pulls a small nuclear trigger, he's toast literally.  His own folks will off him to try and contain this mess from WWIII with multiple nukes going off around the world.

The best scenario, if this goes that far, is that Putin gives the order to light up one in Ukraine and the nuclear forces refuse the order.

I don't see many scenarios where Putin comes out of this alive.  The trick is to limit the number of other people that run advance for his trip to hell.

[goingkinetic]

Do you believe in the nuclear umbrella? I realize Ukraine isn’t in it.

[bfargin]

There is no way Putin drops nukes (tactical or otherwise) in Ukraine!

 

So far the Russian troops seem to be diligently trying to minimize deaths. Putin is in the wrong to invade, but he fully outlined his reasoning and intent. 

 

goingkinetic is dropping some strong acid with the "war crimes" talk.

[hockeydork]

15 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

I've written, repeatedly in this thread, that A) I will not be surprised if Putin has his ass handed to him, he uses a tactical nuke inside Ukraine.  If third country parties use armed force against Russian forces, that prediction is doubled, but the mushroom cloud will be inside Ukraine.

B) What nuclear nation would trade any of their cities for one in Ukraine should Putin take that action?  If any outside nuclear nation retaliates against Moscow kinetically, especially nuclear, then the very large arsenal there will be used. 

Are you advocating trading Chicago for Kyiv?

Are you advocating for the post-explosion effects that will result from such an exchange?

Do not mistake my sentiments.  If Putin pulls a small nuclear trigger, he's toast literally.  His own folks will off him to try and contain this mess from WWIII with multiple nukes going off around the world.

The best scenario, if this goes that far, is that Putin gives the order to light up one in Ukraine and the nuclear forces refuse the order.

I don't see many scenarios where Putin comes out of this alive.  The trick is to limit the number of other people that run advance for his trip to hell.

I think you misread my post. I meant if he preemptively nuked say NYC because he was in tantrum mode over losing in Ukraine/sanctions/the West's help. If he uses a tactical nuke inside Ukraine, my policy would be a clear eye for an eye. You use one in Ukraine, expect one to be used against you in Ukraine. He would be breaking such a precedent that at that point, I think it would be justified to assassinate him, if he wasn't offed internally first. Let us hope Denzel is holding the button (couldn't refuse the Crimson Tide reference..). 

 

 

[hockeydork]

5 minutes ago, bfargin said:

There is no way Putin drops nukes (tactical or otherwise) in Ukraine!

 

So far the Russian troops seem to be diligently trying to minimize deaths. Putin is in the wrong to invade, but he fully outlined his reasoning and intent. 

 

goingkinetic is dropping some strong acid with the "war crimes" talk.

Depends if he starts losing. He'll def be willing to carpet bomb it to save his ego. If he starts that, expect longer range SAMs to start rolling into Ukraine, it won't only by Russian helo pilots dodging stingers at that point.  I have a feeling getting NASAMs or some other longer range system to the Ukrainians is already in the works behind the scenes. 

 

 

[waveshaper]

Pentagon Press Briefing (about an hour ago): Some caution being exercised on this crazy Nuke stuff.

'Such provocative rhetoric and possible changes to nuclear posture involving the most consequential weapons in our respective arsenals is unacceptable. The United States has not taken any similar steps. And so in an effort to demonstrate that we have no intention in engaging in any actions that can be misunderstood or misconstrued, the secretary of defense has directed that our Minuteman-III intercontinental ballistic missile test launch scheduled for this week to be postponed. 

Now, we did not take this decision lightly, but instead, to demonstrate that we are a responsible nuclear power. This is not a step backwards in our readiness, nor does it imply that we will necessarily cancel other routine activities to ensure a credible nuclear capability. We remain confident in our strategic posture, as we've said before, and our ability to defend the homeland and our allies and partners remains fully intact and ready. We recognize at this moment of tension how critical it is that both the United States and Russia bear in mind the risk of miscalculation, and take steps to reduce those risks.'

 Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby Holds a Press Briefing > U.S. Department of Defense > Transcript

[brickhistory]

9 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

I think you misread my post. I meant if he preemptively nuked say NYC because he was in tantrum mode over losing in Ukraine/sanctions/the West's help. If he uses a tactical nuke inside Ukraine, my policy would be a clear eye for an eye. You use one in Ukraine, expect one to be used against you in Ukraine. He would be breaking such a precedent that at that point, I think it would be justified to assassinate him, if he wasn't offed internally first. Let us hope Denzel is holding the button (couldn't refuse the Crimson Tide reference..). 

 

 

Roger...

And I found it easier to engage with you rather than the AS200 facts master.  I only have a foil to battle the Claymore broadsword of buzzwords so I declined the battle...

 

[xaarman]

I can’t see any country not try to develop or attain nuclear weapons. It seems that is the only deterrent from being attacked by another nuclear power. 
 

 

[goingkinetic]

17 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Roger...

And I found it easier to engage with you rather than the AS200 facts master.  I only have a foil to battle the Claymore broadsword of buzzwords so I declined the battle...

 

If you’re unwilling to trade chicago for kiev than I assume you wouldn’t trade Madrid for Chicago. If that is the case my next question is about the nuclear umbrella? If the answer is no I would argue that is isolationist. Its ok, stay in your intellectually superior ivory tower. I’m merely trying to debate viewpoints and not troll. You can call me AS200 buzzword master if you want.

[hockeydork]

5 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

If you’re unwilling to trade chicago for kiev than I assume you wouldn’t trade Madrid for Chicago. If that is the case my next question is about the nuclear umbrella? If the answer is no I would argue that is isolationist. Its ok, stay in your intellectually superior ivory tower. I’m merely trying to debate viewpoints and not troll. You can call me AS200 buzzword master if you want.

The difference is Ukraine is where the battle is now, it is currently a battlefield, Madrid and Chicago are not. If he nukes Madrid, all the birds will start flying man. We'll all be dead. 

[goingkinetic]

1 minute ago, hockeydork said:

The difference is Ukraine is where the battle is now, it is currently a battlefield, Madrid and Chicago are not. If he nukes Madrid, all the birds will start flying man. We'll all be dead. 

My fundamental question is where is the line. It’s ok to say NATO in which case your argument is valid. However, If I was a neighbor to Russia or China I’d be trying to buy every Rafale that France would sell me since American assurances to Georgia and Ukraine didn’t work out so well.

[brickhistory]

Having been to both Madrid and Chicago, I'd exchange them in a heartbeat.

Shipping might be cost prohibitive, however...

[hockeydork]

11 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

My fundamental question is where is the line. It’s ok to say NATO in which case your argument is valid. However, If I was a neighbor to Russia or China I’d be trying to buy every Rafale that France would sell me since American assurances to Georgia and Ukraine didn’t work out so well.

100 percent, any country that doesn't wanna be Putin or Xis bitch had better hit the weight room.

You also need to understand that just because the US is not intervening with bodies, doesn't mean that we are not in the process of now crushing Russia long term. Anybody who previously was anti-renewable domestic energy, sure as shit is probably scratching their head and reevaluating their side of that debate. Expect an acceleration off of fossil fuels, expect nobody to want to get involved with Russia, expect the Russian state to become an old rabid dog: you don't want to get near it, but its to slow and weak to hurt you. Than once these cold war soviet relics die out, maybe they'll undergo a revolution. I've always wanted to visit Moscow, maybe towards the end of my life things will have changed. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by hockeydork

[Smokin]

59 minutes ago, bfargin said:

There is no way Putin drops nukes (tactical or otherwise) in Ukraine!

 

So far the Russian troops seem to be diligently trying to minimize deaths. Putin is in the wrong to invade, but he fully outlined his reasoning and intent.

I really hope you're right, but I think the last 24 hours have shown that Putin is switching strategies and is no longer trying to minimize civilian deaths.  He's shelling major cities with absolutely zero military value other than avoiding urban combat.  But, even with that as an excuse, that's a poor one as history has shown that shelled cities are just as defend-able as intact ones.  That does not mean that nukes are a logical next step, but the war going poorly for him does not mean the war will continue to go relatively well for Ukrainian citizens.  On the contrary, the worse the war goes for Putin, the worse it is going to get.  This is an ego driven war and a totalitarian leader with an ego in a losing war is a dangerous thing.

[Mighty]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Who's nuclear forces will strike Moscow in your scenario?

Think that answer through...

Plot twist:

Pyongyang nukes Moscow off the map to demonstrate their capabilities and deeply rooted care for human rights. They open their borders, reunify as a United Korea where Kim is elected as the new country’s first President, and become a staunch ally of the west…all from a plan developed by now President-elect Rodman. China becomes a champion for workers rights and joins NATO, Hillary runs for President and loses again, and the sun sets on a peaceful Earth. Scene.