Kiev Is Burning

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Fair enough, if they put a camera on it, then they can get data back. Throwing away a Starlink antenna has to add a lot to the cost of a throw away drone though.

Pretty sure that the cost of allowing the enemy's air force to rampage unhindered might be more than the cost of satellite datalinks, but opinions may differ.

An unconfirmed report this evening that the score is now Kinzhals 5, F-16's 0.

Quote

I am arguing that if you have to expend a  $100,000 worth of equipment at the mere attempt of an act of recon, yes it is a pricey business model. If Shahed is a one way UAV with a flight performance lower than that of a biplane, then it would probably be more apt to say you are trading a hundred $100,000 UAVs for the opportunity to kill an F-35

I think the general pattern is that most of the Shaheds will always be cheap low cost versions to suck up AD, and that any upgraded ones will only be a fraction of the strike package total...

 

Edited September 27 by glenn239

[txtree99]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Doesn't take an ISR expert to figure out that a Shahed drone hooked up to Starlink, (in the future, whatever the Sino-Russian equivalent to Starlink shall be) is a pretty cheap way to hunt ground targets great distances behind enemy lines. 

Can’t tell you how the cyber group would love this.   Unencrypted internet access.   

[Josh]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Doesn't take an ISR expert to figure out that a Shahed drone hooked up to Starlink, (in the future, whatever the Sino-Russian equivalent to Starlink shall be) is a pretty cheap way to hunt ground targets great distances behind enemy lines. 

There is no Chinese equivalent to Starlink and Russia can barely keep its navigation satellites in orbit. Of the 24 active satellites, a third are past there expected lifetimes. Untypical think Elon is biting the hang that feeds him, Russia is not using Starlink in NATO countries, even assuming one way drones were cost effective.

 

Can you imagine how many one way drones NATO could throw at Russia, on top of stealth bombers and long range missiles? Imagine if all the missiles Russia fears now were launched on day one with NATO, as they likely would be.

[Josh]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I've no idea either way, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Russians are not bluffing.  Might even be in their interests to let Ukraine have it with some tactical nuclear about 2 days before the US election in November.  Imagine, if you will, the pieces of shit in the US main stream media whining like bitches that Putin was interfering in an election by scaring US voters into casting their lot for Trump.  :^)

Imagine the blowback four years later if Trump was seen to visibly suck Putin off. Plus Biden gets three months to do what he wants before hand.

 

I bet he would give and green light everything.

Edited September 27 by Josh

[seahawk]

With Trump this conflict will be over in a few months. He will not waste US money on this stupid war. Russia will win, order will be restored, sanctions will be dropped, trade will flow again. Everybody wins.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

With Trump this conflict will be over in a few months. He will not waste US money on this stupid war. Russia will win, order will be restored, sanctions will be dropped, trade will flow again. Everybody wins.

Well Trump and Russia would win.

is anyone going to speak up to show how Trump would stand up to Putin? Do we have any takers? 

Edited September 27 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, mkenny said:

Yep, just like they were bluffing when they said they would invade. 

Im sorry, I thought the cheap seats, of which you currently inhabit, were bellowing at us that Russia would never been so stupid as to invade, and we were all fascists for saying so?

Granted YOU didnt say, that because you are a recent arrival, but that is the mantle you have inherited whether you appreciate it or not.

Putin goes for low hanging fruit. I do not believe he would have invaded if he knew the west would support Ukraine, or he would be here over 2 and a half years later. The idea he is going to start a nuclear war when he still thinks he is going to win is an interesting one, particularly as he is drafting members of Strategic Rocket Forces into Infantry, and his brand new missiles are blowing up in the silo's.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Imagine the blowback four years later if Trump was seen to visibly suck Putin off. Plus Biden gets three months to do what he wants before hand.

 

I pets would give and green light everything.

You want long range cruise? You got it. You want White Phosphorous? You got it. You want 2000 tanks, you got it'. etc etc etc.

Ironically, that might actually be enought to make Putin seek a political settlement.

[Soren Ras]

59 minutes ago, Josh said:

Well Trump and Russia would win.

is anyone going to speak up to show how Trump would stand up to Putin? Do we have any takers? 

The moment Trump is in the White House, any signal that the US is weak and ineffectual will translate into Trump being weak and ineffectual, and this would only be exacerbated once it turns out that the Russians are not going to stop the war in short order just because Trump says so. 

I expect at that point that someone will tell Trump that letting the Ukrainians handle the weapons and the dying is actually a pretty great deal for the US, and he may well discover that this is in fact a brilliant idea that he will claim as his own, and involved zero US casualties, unlike Biden's BAD Afghanistan disaster. And then, just as Biden continued Trumps' policy towards China, it will turn out that Trump will continue Biden's policy towards the Ukraine war. 

Not saying this is in any ways certain, but I do think it is plausible. Of course, it might require Zelensky grovelling in another perfect phone call, but that is easy enough. 

 

--
Soren

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, Soren Ras said:

The moment Trump is in the White House, any signal that the US is weak and ineffectual will translate into Trump being weak and ineffectual, and this would only be exacerbated once it turns out that the Russians are not going to stop the war in short order just because Trump says so. 

I expect at that point that someone will tell Trump that letting the Ukrainians handle the weapons and the dying is actually a pretty great deal for the US, and he may well discover that this is in fact a brilliant idea that he will claim as his own, and involved zero US casualties, unlike Biden's BAD Afghanistan disaster. And then, just as Biden continued Trumps' policy towards China, it will turn out that Trump will continue Biden's policy towards the Ukraine war. 

Not saying this is in any ways certain, but I do think it is plausible. Of course, it might require Zelensky grovelling in another perfect phone call, but that is easy enough. 

 

--
Soren

I cant see it. Trump has famously said that when he gets into the White House, he is going to do things his own way, and stop listening to advisors. Because famously it was the Generals that stopped him doing the things he really wanted to do, like leaving NATO.

Besides, just stepping into the White House after what he is said, the damage is done. He is going to be met by challenges he wont want to meet all across the globe, as all the worlds tyrants figure out America is now headed by an appeaser, and want to see what they can get out of it. Hostage taking in Iran will go up. China will increasingly strongarm Taiwan. Third rate bit players, like Venezuela, might try and do silly things, like open a Chinese military base.

What Trump does when he gets in is irrelevant. Its the message of weakness, of appeasement, that would take years to fix, if ever. It says the American people dont care about the world in which they live, fuck you, lets withdraw everywhere. And with that kind of narrative behind him, Trump, whatever his advisors say, will have no choice.

That isnt certain either. But I think it rather likely im afraid.

[seahawk]

Message of weakness or message of strength? It would be a sign of strength to tell the Europeans to handle their own crap and concentrate US resources on US interests. The Europeans are as much a threat to US jobs as the Chinese and much more so than the Russians and Trump will bring the jobs back to the US.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Imagine the world where the US leaves NATO, and the Europeans, piqued to say the least, put a tarrif on the import of American weaponry into Europe and seriously embarks on  developing its own defence technology. There are nearly 100 million more people in Europe, and unlike the US, does not have a mountain of debt that retards defence investment. Not doing so is because the US is low hanging fruit. If we chose to do so of course, then we could, and I daresay probably would. Why invest in US security, when they are no longer willing to invest in ours?

The net result of the US leaving NATO will be a threat to American defence industrial sector jobs on the world stage. But of course, im sure everyone seriously thought about this and already knows this. Why, im sure every idea Donald Trump with has been carefully thought out and soundboarded in front of truly smart people that know what they are doing.

[seahawk]

Guess how long Europe's economy after the US market is closed to them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The US market has less and less relevance to Europe. Pacific is where its at these days.

I think a crisis is probably just the thing to finally weld Europe together. Strategically I think that is not going to be in the Ameican long term interest, but again, im sure this has all be costed and well considered.

[mkenny]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im sorry, I thought the cheap seats, of which you currently inhabit, were bellowing at us that Russia would never been so stupid as to invade, and we were all fascists for saying so?

Granted YOU didnt say, that because you are a recent arrival, but that is the mantle you have inherited whether you appreciate it or not.

Putin goes for low hanging fruit. I do not believe he would have invaded if he knew the west would support Ukraine, or he would be here over 2 and a half years later. The idea he is going to start a nuclear war when he still thinks he is going to win is an interesting one, particularly as he is drafting members of Strategic Rocket Forces into Infantry, and his brand new missiles are blowing up in the silo's.

That is what I said.  Russia would not dare invade Ukraine and we know they are bluffing.................

[Stuart Galbraith]

I never thought Putin was bluffing, not for an Instant. I know he is bluffing now, because NATO supplied missiles have been impacting Russia for nearly a year. Where is the mushroom cloud? I want my money back....

[Josh]

8 hours ago, Soren Ras said:

The moment Trump is in the White House, any signal that the US is weak and ineffectual will translate into Trump being weak and ineffectual, and this would only be exacerbated once it turns out that the Russians are not going to stop the war in short order just because Trump says so. 

I expect at that point that someone will tell Trump that letting the Ukrainians handle the weapons and the dying is actually a pretty great deal for the US, and he may well discover that this is in fact a brilliant idea that he will claim as his own, and involved zero US casualties, unlike Biden's BAD Afghanistan disaster. And then, just as Biden continued Trumps' policy towards China, it will turn out that Trump will continue Biden's policy towards the Ukraine war. 

Not saying this is in any ways certain, but I do think it is plausible. Of course, it might require Zelensky grovelling in another perfect phone call, but that is easy enough. 

 

--
Soren

Well his statements just this week indicate he will end U.S. involvement. I think that is a better gauge than your fan fiction.

 

Also you see to be assuming there will be anyone remotely competent in the same room as Trump. I would posit that the turnover in his last administration is not a strong sign, and that like a third world dictator, he values loyalty far over competence. Also the majority of his last cabinet is literally on the record as saying he is unfit for the presidency.

Dress it up any way you like; a Trump victory means Ukraine is being handed to Russia.

Edited September 27 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, it means America washes its hands. There are other possiblities, particularly among Eastern Europeans that dont want their security pissed down the drain.

And that is when its going to get REALLY dangerous.

[glenn239]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

There is no Chinese equivalent to Starlink

Not yet.

Quote

Can you imagine how many one way drones NATO could throw at Russia, on top of stealth bombers and long range missiles? Imagine if all the missiles Russia fears now were launched on day one with NATO, as they likely would be.

I think we agree that each side has the capacity to eliminate one anothers' air forces, navies, and production capacity, as well as to take out the others' lackey satraps wholesale, all this while keeping civliian casualties at an acceptably low level for the first exchanges.   Where we differ is that for the life of me I cannot understand your rush to get things to that point.  

Edited September 27 by glenn239

[urbanoid]

6 hours ago, mkenny said:

That is what I said.  Russia would not dare invade Ukraine and we know they are bluffing.................

That the Russians are 'bluffing' was mostly an argument of those who weren't particularly keen on supporting Ukraine between 2014 and 2022, to 'keep the peace'. Pathetic weaklings.

Edited September 27 by urbanoid

[mkenny]

5 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

That the Russians are 'bluffing' was mostly an argument of those who weren't particularly keen on supporting Ukraine between 2014 and 2022

No. it was the argument of those like Stewart who desperately wanted to start WW3.

[Murph]

There is a point here:

 

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, mkenny said:

No. it was the argument of those like Stewart who desperately wanted to start WW3.

Bluffing as in 'won't invade Ukraine'. We had few doubts here, the Ukrainians even less. 

Russian fat cats aren't going to die in a nuclear fire or spend the rest of their lives in a bunker under the Urals because they can't have Ukraine, so yeah, in this case they are bluffing. Ukraine war doesn't affect their personal lives too badly, some are likely even getting richer off it, nuclear war is another thing altogether.

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, Murph said:

There is a point here:

 

Nah, that's surrender-monkeyism, plain and simple.

Russia was defeated on its own soil during Crimean war, Russia was defeated on 'almost' its own soil during the Russo-Japanese war, Russia was defeated in 1920 in Poland and because of that didn't manage to 'bring the red banner to the walls of Berlin and Paris'. 

Nobody here is talking about conquering Russia and overthrowing Mr. Putin, the only thing on the table is 'merely' supporting a country resisting Russian invasion.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, Murph said:

There is a point here:

 

This is the man that fucked the Soviet Union.

This is the man that fucked Nazi Germany.

This is the man that fucked the Kaiser.

This is the man that fucked the ottomans.

Point made?