Kiev Is Burning

[Roman Alymov]

FPV drone vs. Finn XA-180 IFV (seems like it was towing some sort of SUV when hit) https://t.me/milinfolive/107360

[ex2cav]

18 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Javelins and NLAWS definitely were a pain, but even without them, the Ukrainians had a decent number of Stugna missiles that they used to obliterate Russian tanks.

But overall, biggest killer to Russian vehicles was drone directed artillery fire. 

If the Russians simply focused efforts in the south and east and didn’t care much of Kiev, they’d probably have been able to take a very large chunk of Ukraine east of the Dniper. Not to mention that at least back then, the Russians had more than enough capability to drop all 23 bridges that spanned the Dniper, hence cutting off Ukrainian forces from resupply. 
 

War would have been over much sooner if the Russians had more limited scope. Trying to pull off Kiev along with everything else, and that to with very limited numbers of men…it was a huge recipe for disaster 

Yeah, they never had enough forces to support all of their axes of advance. It reminded me a bit of the Finnish campaign in 39. I think a larger deal was the weather. The Russians couldn't maneuver at all. 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

It's a non sequitur for the subject at hand.

NATO was prepared to go nuclear first during the CW as well. 

NATO was the aggressor during the Cold War.

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As Plokhy and others have pointed out, the problem was not putting nuclear weapons in Cuba. It was no different from what America did. The difference was America had given the USSR some considerable notice before placing them, and Khrushchev had believed he would place them in Cuba before the Americans ...

The other difference was that US was arming and helping Cuban contras to invade at that exact moment.

 Did USSR do this to Turkey?

Yet another example that you are a "bad sport" and arguing with you is not worthy. 

Not to mention that it's not a Castro/Cuban crisis thread.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Strannik

[Roman Alymov]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, far from it. He is saying if he gets invaded, conventionally, 'then that would be the moment to eliminate this danger forever, in an act of the most legitimate self-defense. However harsh and terrible the solution, there would be no other.'

Basically, he is telling the USSR to respond to a conventional attack with an all out Thermonuclear war. Obliteration of the capitalist world in fact. Which, funnily enough, would be the only reason why the USA would conventionally invade Cuba, because Cuba was giving the USSR the capacity, for the first time since the nuclear age began, to actually do it.

So if he "gets invaded" by USA (with predictable outcome, since there was hardly any doubt that there was no way for Cuba to survive this invasion by nearby superpower, even with Soviet military contingent  on Cuba's side)  - he is supposed to ask Soviet leadership to do what, raise memorial for him after his certain death? No surprise he was asking Soviet Gov for nuclear attack,  on the basis "it is not just for us Cubans, entire world need that".

[Roman Alymov]

By the way, since "homocidal maniacs" mentioned 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/british-troops-could-sent-ukraine-31076453

"Rishi Sunak torpedoes Defence Secretary's plan to send British troops to Ukraine
The PM slapped down Defence Secretary Grant Shapps after he said he was holding talks with Army chiefs about moving a British-led training programme for Ukrainian troops to the war zone"

  Seems like no need to go for Castro to start nuclear war....

[Roman Alymov]

7 hours ago, seahawk said:

Good news. Slovakian elections saw a victory of a party that wants to end support to the Ukraine and return to normal relations with Russia. People are waking up!

Actually it is very bad news for Russia.

[Roman Alymov]

M777 muzzle brake blown - strange, can't imagine how it could happen.

https://t.me/milinfolive/107363

[mkenny]

2 hours ago, ex2cav said:

Yeah, they never had enough forces to support all of their axes of advance. It reminded me a bit of the Finnish campaign in 39. I think a larger deal was the weather. The Russians couldn't maneuver at all. 

Its often forgotten that the Finns lost this war and lost it badly. It cost them dearly.

[seahawk]

27 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Actually it is very bad news for Russia.

Please explain.

[Roman Alymov]

Scott Ritter version of events 

 

[Roman Alymov]

25 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Its often forgotten that the Finns lost this war and lost it badly. It cost them dearly.

Who cares about Finns when it comes to killing some Russians. As long as no British/US KIAs, it is money well invested, as we are told now. Many pro-Rissians believe Finns and Balts are next in line to go into meatgrinder, after pro-Ukrainians and Poles.

[Roman Alymov]

24 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Please explain.

All this "pro-Russian" political parties, politicians and even experts/commenters are used by "Appeasement of the West" party to delay urgent measures to mobilize Russia for war, sort of "look, we only need to wait for next elections/next budget/next winter/next political season and everything will be back to normal, we will negotiate some comfortable surrender terms and you will have your London palaces back". That is why Strelkov was calling Scott Ritter and Douglas McGregor paid agents of Kremlin (meaning "Appeasement of the West" party in Kremlin).

[Roman Alymov]

Drone video of missile strike on tank repair plant in Kharkov

https://t.me/sashakots/42529

[seahawk]

15 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

All this "pro-Russian" political parties, politicians and even experts/commenters are used by "Appeasement of the West" party to delay urgent measures to mobilize Russia for war, sort of "look, we only need to wait for next elections/next budget/next winter/next political season and everything will be back to normal, we will negotiate some comfortable surrender terms and you will have your London palaces back". That is why Strelkov was calling Scott Ritter and Douglas McGregor paid agents of Kremlin (meaning "Appeasement of the West" party in Kremlin).

That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, seahawk said:

That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.

Unfortunatelly, there is a stream of articles recently that could be used to please Russian top decision makers and convince them "everything is going good". Like this one

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/09/28/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-map-front-line.html

 

[JWB]

33 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Scott Ritter version of events 

 

Ritter needs to wear tin foil hat.

[JWB]

Give it a good kick.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

So if he "gets invaded" by USA (with predictable outcome, since there was hardly any doubt that there was no way for Cuba to survive this invasion by nearby superpower, even with Soviet military contingent  on Cuba's side)  - he is supposed to ask Soviet leadership to do what, raise memorial for him after his certain death? No surprise he was asking Soviet Gov for nuclear attack,  on the basis "it is not just for us Cubans, entire world need that".

 

Basically, he was asking your entire country to commit suicide just for his ego. Now im sure Havana cigars are worth dying for, but...

[Roman Alymov]

25 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Drone video of missile strike on tank repair plant in Kharkov

https://t.me/sashakots/42529

https://rybar.ru/piwigo/upload/2023/10/01/20231001151240-6496e82b.jpg

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Basically, he was asking your entire country to commit suicide just for his ego. Now im sure Havana cigars are worth dying for, but...

Isn't "article 5" myth is about entire West willing to commit mass suicide for the sake of crazy politicians playing with fire?

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, article 5 is about mutual defence, it says nothing about the inherent inevitablity of using nuclear weapons.

Oh sure, the Americans WANTED it to be interpreted that way for deterence purposes. But there as a lot of arguments between the West Germans and the Americans in the late 1960's about it, and there was essentially decoupling. It thence became 'flexible response'. The possiblity of using weapons remained, but it was very much an alliance choice, not down to a single irritable cuban with a drink problem.

[Perun]

Main theme of arguing between West Germans and US was not abbout using nukes on Soviets but how much nukes would be used on Germany soil

[Roman Alymov]

35 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, article 5 is about mutual defence, it says nothing about the inherent inevitablity of using nuclear weapons.

Come on, we both know use of nukes was unavoidable in superpower clash.

[Markus Becker]

22 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Ukraine already wasn’t expecting a significant attack towards Kiev anyways, it came as a surprise to them. 

No surprise. An attack in the mud season, through the Pinks Marshes and the refurbished Stalin Line? 

Madness!