Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[gearhog]

Germany pissed off the Brits today by revealing British soldiers are, in fact, already on the ground in Ukraine and helping the Ukr army launch long-range cruise missiles against Russia.

https://news.yahoo.com/british-soldiers-ukraine-helping-fire-195700593.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANthDvD7fFcnt40QA9svzNDCwc4UHmwd50vlnHruuR61ggiElu8UYv40vyJHe-WP6rwtK8swSSWMnl9GPVOHxyXSFKTx5mECVDXDTUOtSLlfa3RgPcJE6Q_ckCq9nebLncS1z3SHQo1flxAO-D2coNTlDb3fZdbbUfFh1QC6hFM6

 

[Lord Ratner]

11 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

You aren’t!?

No. I thought the whole point was America shouldn't be meddling in European affairs.

Now the European countries are deciding they don't want to tolerate Russian expansionism in their back yard. That's their choice, right? But you're against that too? So countries should be able to defend themselves without external assistance, or be taken by whoever decides to invade. That'll play out well 😂🤣

So now you're not an America First isolationist, you're just pro-Russian.

You've always had the weakest arguments on this board, but this is a particularly interesting development.

Edited February 29 by Lord Ratner

[Prosuper]

On 2/27/2024 at 8:56 PM, fire4effect said:

Tanker friend of mine said those are the doors that are supposed to open during an ammo cook off, its out of action but repairable and the crew should have survived. There is a US Abrams video during the Thunder run through Baghdad that got hit and we saw the crew jumping out of it, some of them on fire dousing themselves with bottled water. 

[BashiChuni]

42 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

No. I thought the whole point was America shouldn't be meddling in European affairs.

Now the European countries are deciding they don't want to tolerate Russian expansionism in their back yard. That's their choice, right? But you're against that too? So countries should be able to defend themselves without external assistance, or be taken by whoever decides to invade. That'll play out well 😂🤣

So now you're not an America First isolationist, you're just pro-Russian.

You've always had the weakest arguments on this board, but this is a particularly interesting development.

but we ARE meddling. we're attached to a little boys club called NATO. and if NATO troops get overrun and fucked up in Ukraine then what do you think will happen?!

and once again Ukraine is NOT NATO.

if europe wants to fuck around and find out IRT russia have at it, but don't drag our country into it.

my arguments were correct about COVID. i assume they will be correct about ukraine.

[Lord Ratner]

17 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

but we ARE meddling. we're attached to a little boys club called NATO. and if NATO troops get overrun and fucked up in Ukraine then what do you think will happen?!

and once again Ukraine is NOT NATO.

if europe wants to fuck around and find out IRT russia have at it, but don't drag our country into it.

my arguments were correct about COVID. i assume they will be correct about ukraine.

Being right about covid is like being right against a flat earther. Not a very high bar.

 

So now your argument is that because the European countries are a part of NATO, they are not allowed to engage in military conflict outside of the alliance without the permission of the US? Or of all NATO countries combined?

So basically the existence of NATO means, non-nato countries are expressly excluded from any form of direct military support from NATO countries, because that would, in your opinion, necessitate the intervention of NATO as a whole, including the US.

What a fantastically interesting argument, and then why wouldn't Russia want other countries excluded from joining NATO? Not only are they not part of the alliance that Russia overtly hates, but they are now fair game for conquest because NATO countries cannot defend non-nato countries by your logic, regardless of their regional interests in the war.

 

Now, if you want to make an argument that the United States should declare ahead of time that they will not invoke Article 5 if NATO ground forces participating *in* Ukraine are attacked *on* Ukrainian soil, that's a more reasonable position.

 

But your arguments is the best advertisement I've heard yet for other countries joining NATO. If you don't join NATO, there are literally no circumstances under which friendly NATO countries will intervene on your behalf. You're on your own, good luck.

 

You're just arguing for pure isolationism. That doesn't have an impressive track record.

[BashiChuni]

22 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Being right about covid is like being right against a flat earther. Not a very high bar.

Valid. but i was still right.

 

 

You're just arguing for pure isolationism. That doesn't have an impressive track record.

not pure isolationism. i'm arguing this isn't nato's fight. ukraine isn't nato. US foreign policy post WWII has a disastrous track record. not sure why you put so much faith in US "intervention"

 

[BashiChuni]

look man bottom line is this:

if NATO commits troops into ukraine WW3 is on. is that what you want? i dont.

pretty incredible how careless the pro-intervention crowd is.

[Lord Ratner]

11 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

look man bottom line is this:

if NATO commits troops into ukraine WW3 is on. is that what you want? i dont.

pretty incredible how careless the pro-intervention crowd is.

But it is Europe's fight, yes? So France and Poland have an interest and right to participate as they see fit? Or does NATO membership mean the US dictates everything?

 

I don't want it, but I'm much more sanguine about it. WWIII is inevitable. The details are flexible but the catastrophic nature is not. I would rather get it over with while we are morally weak but physically strong, rather than both morally and physically weak. Another decade or two of "peace" and I think we will look much more like the European countries do today. I don't want to give China any more advantage than they already have.

 

Interventionism doesn't have a bad track record, weak commitment does. Our intervening in world war II led to a pretty incredible period of prosperity and calm. South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Israel, and even Taiwan are evidence. Righteous intervention can yield good results. Fucking around in the Middle East without a goal or real leadership is proof that mindless intervention can be catastrophic.

 

Let's not forget that the Western governments had no interest in intervening in Ukraine with military support. It was only when the populations expressed shocking and very loud support for the Ukrainian cause that the politicians jumped on board. Everybody assumed that after 20 years of pointless wars the citizenship would be permanently biased against any form of intervention, but the cartoonishly evil nature of the Russian invasion hit a part of the human psyche that we forgot we had.

 

Before world war II the youth of that generation were all hot and bothered over the Oxford pledge, yet when the actual war came, that generation became the "GI generation" and then the "greatest generation" and formed a sense of community that they rode to the grave.

 

[uhhello]

Perfectly sums up 90% of our NATO partners.  

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

But it is Europe's fight, yes? So France and Poland have an interest and right to participate as they see fit? Or does NATO membership mean the US dictates everything?

So, hypothetically, if a NATO country were to send troops into Ukraine and kill Russian soldiers and in response Russia then retaliates by striking that NATO country, would that invoke the NATO charter?

[Lawman]

So, hypothetically, if a NATO country were to send troops into Ukraine and kill Russian soldiers and in response Russia then retaliates by striking that NATO country, would that invoke the NATO charter?

You guys realize we’ve had combat observers, intel officers, and assistance trainers preceding our participation in every conflict since the First World War right?

Like we had people in England during the blitz, we had people observing Japanese action, the Russians had people take active part in combat that we know about in Korea.

This isn’t new. And the ones of you acting shocked are either doing it for effect or have clearly never worked in a FID or similar capacity. We had strict rules when I was doing it, we were not direct combatants. Nobody was under any confusion that me or anybody on our team getting killed by some hostile combatant was going to suddenly trigger the US into a war. Likewise it didn’t do anything when we slaughtered a bunch of Russians in Syria.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So, hypothetically, if a NATO country were to send troops into Ukraine and kill Russian soldiers and in response Russia then retaliates by striking that NATO country, would that invoke the NATO charter?

If they (let's say France) only kill Russian soldiers in Ukraine, then Russia has no basis to attack France. If France launches attacks into Russia, then it's game on for Russia to attack France, but NATO should not have to join in.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

If they (let's say France) only kill Russian soldiers in Ukraine, then Russia has no basis to attack France. If France launches attacks into Russia, then it's game on for Russia to attack France, but NATO should not have to join in.

Ummm, we invaded Iraq because we said Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat due to their WMDs.  Wars tend to escalate at times, and for what we think are stupid reasons.  Just saying this as a response to your “no basis” as we had no basis to invade Iraq, but I still spent a year deployed there.

So seriously, if a NATO country deploys combat troops to Ukraine and kills Russian troops and Putin believes their best response is to attack said NATO country to keep that from continuing to happen, does this invoke the charter?

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Ummm, we invaded Iraq because we said Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat due to their WMDs.  Wars tend to escalate at times, and for what we think are stupid reasons.  Just saying this as a response to your “no basis” as we had no basis to invade Iraq, but I still spent a year deployed there.

So seriously, if a NATO country deploys combat troops to Ukraine and kills Russian troops and Putin believes their best response is to attack said NATO country to keep that from continuing to happen, does this invoke the charter?

I don't think I implied anywhere that Iraq made sense. It didn't.

 

To your second point, yes.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't think I implied anywhere that Iraq made sense. It didn't.

 

To your second point, yes.

Which is why I used the example that something doesn’t need to make sense for it to happen/not happen…if Putin feels NATO country X is intentionally killing his troops when he didn’t want to fight NATO country X,  then don’t be surprised how he reacts.  

And I appreciate your candid answer…which is why I’ll follow up then with:  Let’s not poke the bear just because we’re confident in the end we can kill the bear if it gets pissed off and does something aggressive.  There’s a reason NATO won’t allow Ukraine to join at this current moment.

[Lawman]

Which is why I used the example that something doesn’t need to make sense for it to happen/not happen…if Putin feels NATO country X is intentionally killing his troops when he didn’t want to fight NATO country X,  then don’t be surprised how he reacts.  
And I appreciate your candid answer…which is why I’ll follow up then with:  Let’s not poke the bear just because we’re confident in the end we can kill the bear if it gets pissed off and does something aggressive.  There’s a reason NATO won’t allow Ukraine to join at this current moment.

How do you square that with the fact that not one but two NATO countries have in recent past (since he started aggressively annexing places) killed his troops. If you’re making the assumption that any provocative or challenging act could result in Putin acting irrationally, than everything from sanctions to Atlantic Resolve could be viewed as an overtly hostile justification to act, but that presumes Putin to be psychotically irrational or act in a way that all historic precedent says won’t occur.

You have to make a long series of specific assumptions/action within this hypothetical simulation that is neither happening nor in any immediate future going to happen (direct deployment of combat formations). It’s not like 2nd Stryker is in the motor pool at Rose Barracks getting ready to reinforce some beleaguered Ukrainian mech brigade. And the attempt to paint the mere presence of any uniformed personnel in any capacity to be the equivalent of that as an act of provocation accidental or otherwise is just a false comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

On 2/29/2024 at 10:38 AM, BashiChuni said:

look man bottom line is this:

if NATO commits troops into ukraine WW3 is on. is that what you want? i dont.

Apparently you haven't noticed, but WW3 is already on.  Now it's all about the roll we (USA) is going to play in it.  My guess is we reprise our WWII showing and stiff arm it until even the far left and far right isolationist in our country can't ignore it any more.  Then we hit heavy.  In WWII terms, it's 1938-39.  

How we should play in it is, and should be, hotly debated.  But ignoring that international hostilities (remember your DIME levers of power?) have already commenced is flat-out ignorant.  This thing is happening whether you want it to or not.  At least acknowledge that fact.  The sooner you move on to the solution phase, the less it will cognitively hurt.

I don't want it either.  No one should.  But thanks to the likes of Putin, Xi, Kim, Khamenei, Biden, and others it's happening.  Gotta take the world as it is, not as we want it to be.

Edited March 1 by FourFans

[BashiChuni]

ww3 is not already on. if you think that you're a fool.

the US killed the negotiated settlement at the start of the war thru our puppet boris johnson. the war hawks in this government WANT war with russia and they will do everything in their power to cause it.

we are bumbling right into a disaster.

[FourFans]

4 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

ww3 is not already on. if you think that you're a fool.

the US killed the negotiated settlement at the start of the war thru our puppet boris johnson. the war hawks in this government WANT war with russia and they will do everything in their power to cause it.

we are bumbling right into a disaster.

Have you ever considered that just because we're not involved (officially) yet, that WWIII can still have started?  It's on full bore in Eastern Europe.  It's on with Diplo, Info, and Econ with China N. Korea and Iran (almost Mil with Iran as well).

Two questions: When do you think WWII started?  What is your tripwire to believe WWIII has started?  Please bear in mind that the USA is not the only belligerent. 

Fully agree that we're headed right for disaster, especially if Biden is re-elected...but it's looking just as bad if Trump is elected too...

Edited March 1 by FourFans

[BashiChuni]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-says-ukraine-courage-white-161856540.html

 

UH OH THE POPE IS A RUSSIAN AGENT NOW!

[BashiChuni]

victoria nuland out as undersecretary. not looking good for the ukranian hawks in DC

[Clark Griswold]

Air to ground news

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-BB1jFMjO
 

Could you adapt a Stinger (or similar type missile) to provide a short range defense to these stand off weapons?  
Considering these are relatively inexpensive and deployed in decent numbers you would need a defense against them similar in cost to avoid an economic exchange imbalance

[Smokin]

Highly unlikely.  One, it would be very difficult to see the bombs from the ground until it was really too late.  Two, by the time you could see it and intercept it, the bomb would practically be at the target already.  Three, the miss distance you could cause with a MANPAD would likely be insignificant.  Unlikely to cause the bomb to cook off, best case you could cause a fin failure.  Even if it worked perfectly, I doubt you would really achieve much and you would have wasted a SAM that would be better used against the target they're intended to shoot.

[Lawman]

Air to ground news
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-BB1jFMjO
 
Could you adapt a Stinger (or similar type missile) to provide a short range defense to these stand off weapons?  
Considering these are relatively inexpensive and deployed in decent numbers you would need a defense against them similar in cost to avoid an economic exchange imbalance

Nowhere near enough thermal energy to grant any sort of reliable track. Time from standby to active and searching the the right direction would require a magic level of situational awareness. Also not enough range to permit a reliable distance of intercept.

I know people brief like a manpads is like a little ~5km wide 10k foot threat bubble just sitting on the battlefield, but they aren’t nearly as effective as the video games make them seem. I like to send pilots out to observe the ADA guys from their perspective. It’s mostly a tool of attrition to kill people dumb enough to hang around close, or a system to ambush predictable targets on established air corridors.


Now a system like Coyote? Probably better suited as this is exactly what it is designed to be, an expendable suicidal drone. But you still need donors and command and control architecture that may or may not be available at scale for them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, Lawman said:

Nowhere near enough thermal energy to grant any sort of reliable track. Time from standby to active and searching the the right direction would require a magic level of situational awareness. Also not enough range to permit a reliable distance of intercept.

I know people brief like a manpads is like a little ~5km wide 10k foot threat bubble just sitting on the battlefield, but they aren’t nearly as effective as the video games make them seem. I like to send pilots out to observe the ADA guys from their perspective. It’s mostly a tool of attrition to kill people dumb enough to hang around close, or a system to ambush predictable targets on established air corridors.

Now a system like Coyote? Probably better suited as this is exactly what it is designed to be, an expendable suicidal drone. But you still need donors and command and control architecture that may or may not be available at scale for them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good stuff, not the right system then but the idea, a relatively cheap per shot system matched with a Hail Mary short range system (DE, guided AAA, suicide drone)

Edited March 12 by Clark Griswold