Kiev Is Burning

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Nope.

Well, maybe the AfD would be xenophobic enough to play that card, but it would undermine their claim that immediate peace negotiations are for the better of the poor Ukrainian people who are so suffering from this war of The West against defenseless, stronk Russia.

Well, I have trouble following their logic, as you can tell.

Well its politicians, they dont have to make sense of course...

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

 

I would suppose victory is what is desired. 

It think its a growing realisation, Putin doesnt want to come to terms. He wants victory, and the only way you stop people achieving victories is defeating them.

Its taken Joe Biden 1000 days to figure out what some of us gathered from Day one. Hopefully it wont take Trump that long, but who knows?

[MiGG0]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It think its a growing realisation, Putin doesnt want to come to terms. He wants victory, and the only way you stop people achieving victories is defeating them.

Its taken Joe Biden 1000 days to figure out what some of us gathered from Day one. Hopefully it wont take Trump that long, but who knows?

Some of you have not still figured out that defeating RUS need real war from west. Sending only weapons to UKR will not change out come otherway (it will just delay it). Entering real war with RUS will on other hand become very real scnario of Nuclear WWIII.

Edited November 19, 2024 by MiGG0

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

 

I would suppose victory is what is desired. 

Victory means global war. China and Russia will no longer bow to the Western powers.

[bfng3569]

4 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Some of you have not still figured out that defeating RUS need real war from west. Sending only weapons to UKR will not change out come otherway (it will just delay it). Entering real war with RUS will on other hand become very real scnario of Nuclear WWIII.

exactly.

its a numbers game for Russia, which they started out ahead in, now throw in imported NK troops.....

If the west wants Ukraine to 'win' the war, it means NATO boots on the ground.

[seahawk]

An invasion of Russia would be insane.

[MiGG0]

5 minutes ago, bfng3569 said:

exactly.

its a numbers game for Russia, which they started out ahead in, now throw in imported NK troops.....

If the west wants Ukraine to 'win' the war, it means NATO boots on the ground.

Even in that case calling most likely outcome of Nuclear WWIII a "win" is pretty far fetched, but tehn again, RUS didnt "win" eihter. 

[urbanoid]

No one has to 'invade Russia', just make sure there's enough firepower to turn those that keep coming into mincemeat. But maybe seriously this time, as the Western effort to date has been deeply unserious. Possibly even on purpose.

[Stuart Galbraith]

24 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Some of you have not still figured out that defeating RUS need real war from west. Sending only weapons to UKR will not change out come otherway (it will just delay it). Entering real war with RUS will on other hand become very real scnario of Nuclear WWIII.

I figured that out from day one. Its our esteemed leaders in the West that think that its not going to take involvement by ourselves. Hence the hand wringing about stand off missiles.

Here is my view, and ive presented it before. We are headed towards WW3 with Russia. Whether we do it over Ukraine, or whether we do it over the baltic states, it doesnt matter. We failed to deter Putin and unless we get lucky, someone novichoks hims, or he dies on the toilet like Elvis, or the Russian Army revolts and forms soldiers councils, its going to happen. He even told us this before the Ukraine war and, for once, I kinda believe him.

We can either choose to throw our lot in with one of Europes most powerful militaries (it fought the Russians to a halt, which is powerful in my book) or NATO does it by itself. But mark my works, with Putin or his cabal in charge, its coming. Whether we duck it now or now doesnt matter. Its coming down the track whether we do it now or later.

Handwringing about nuclear weapons is not helpful. Britain has something like 280 nuclear warheads, I think the French have slightly more, the Americans have several thousand. If Russia wants to start a nuclear war, its going to be a bad day for everyone, but its going to be a far, far worse day for them.

Of course, we can fall to our knees and go 'OMG, WW3!' on every post on twitter, but I hardly think thats helpful to think that way. Kennedy didnt do it, and neither did Reagan, and I see no reason why we shouldnt follow their example.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

No one has to 'invade Russia', just make sure there's enough firepower to turn those that keep coming into mincemeat. But maybe seriously this time, as the Western effort to date has been deeply unserious. Possibly even on purpose.

I wouldnt want to set a single foot in Russia, except perhaps special forces. They have nothing we want. OTOH, with stand off weapons, I think we have a damn good chance of destroying their military, without even setting foot in Russia. With weapons like Spear 3 coming down the pipe, the odds of an invasion are getting much worse. But we are I think running out of time.

Of course, that wont necessarily stop them trying, and thousands of our people will die in such circumstances. Hence why destroying them in Ukraine is a much more palatable option. Its much bigger, and their people have somewhere to run. The Balts dont.

I agree, I think Biden was taking the piss, and most of the Central Europeans could do more. Short of giving the Ukrainians frigates, I dont think there is much more we could do. Life expired Typhoons, maybe more logistics vehicles. We have given them our entire AS90 fleet, which tbh is not a bad commitment on our part, even if it leaves us Hors de combat as far as ground warfare is concerned for a few years. We did as much as we could, and its still not close to enough.

[Stuart Galbraith]

29 minutes ago, bfng3569 said:

exactly.

its a numbers game for Russia, which they started out ahead in, now throw in imported NK troops.....

If the west wants Ukraine to 'win' the war, it means NATO boots on the ground.

Maybe not even that. I think NATO airpower would be enough to swing this. TLAM strikes, B2 strikes, Typhoons with Brimstone. If they cant bring supplies forward over this winter, they are screwed.

If we had done that in 2022, this would be over by now. This crippling fear of escalation. If we are so scared of nuclear weapons, then you have to wonder why we have them, to allow ourselves not to be 'Finlandized'. Because its clearly not working.

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I wouldnt want to set a single foot in Russia, except perhaps special forces. They have nothing we want. OTOH, with stand off weapons, I think we have a damn good chance of destroying their military, without even setting foot in Russia. With weapons like Spear 3 coming down the pipe, the odds of an invasion are getting much worse. But we are I think running out of time.

Of course, that wont necessarily stop them trying, and thousands of our people will die in such circumstances. Hence why destroying them in Ukraine is a much more palatable option. Its much bigger, and their people have somewhere to run. The Balts dont.

I agree, I think Biden was taking the piss, and most of the Central Europeans could do more. Short of giving the Ukrainians frigates, I dont think there is much more we could do. Life expired Typhoons, maybe more logistics vehicles. We have given them our entire AS90 fleet, which tbh is not a bad commitment on our part, even if it leaves us Hors de combat as far as ground warfare is concerned for a few years. We did as much as we could, and its still not close to enough.

No, we (as in 'Europeans) didn't, not even close. What should have been announced in March 2023 at the latest was the gigantic MIC revitalisation program - by now Europe would be outproducing Russia by itself so much that the US involvement wouldn't even be particularly critical. If the USians did the same we'd be able to drop so much kit in Ukraine that Russia couldn't even dream to match that.

All this MIC expansion would also help Europe itself to rearm.

[Stuart Galbraith]

If you are arguing for Europe wide military plant enhancement, I dont disagree. OTOH, I dont think there is a European nation that isnt feeling the pinch right now.

Its all so very like 38, very depressing.

[mkenny]

18 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you are arguing for Europe wide military plant enhancement, I dont disagree. OTOH, I dont think there is a European nation that isnt feeling the pinch right now.

Its all so very like 38, very depressing.

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks."

That's how crazy you come across and that  is how crazy you are. 

[urbanoid]

[urbanoid]

19 hours ago, Yama said:

Last time this happened it was a derelict Chinese merchant vessel with incompetent crew...allegedly.

Uh, about that...

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks."

That's how crazy you come across and that  is how crazy you are. 

Lets just say someone holds you to a game of Russian roulette. They say you can do it now, or do it an hour later, no odds to them. But they will shoot you unless you play.

That is the absurdity of the point you are trying to make. You are pretending there is a real choice. Choice there is, but real? Hardly. We can put it off till we have some more weapons, and Russia has a chance to rearm. This is about as real a choice as we had at Munich, the difference then was, we had no concept we were putting a war off. And now we do.

So please, go piss up a rope.

[urbanoid]

As for the US weapons limitations put on Ukraine...

 

[glenn239]

28 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks."

That's how crazy you come across and that  is how crazy you are. 

The war hens are really clucking around here this morning.  I think they're finally starting to realize that the clock is ticking to January 20th, 2025. 

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

No one has to 'invade Russia', just make sure there's enough firepower to turn those that keep coming into mincemeat. But maybe seriously this time, as the Western effort to date has been deeply unserious. Possibly even on purpose.

It does not matter. Even if they would send all their wepons, UKR will run out of troop before RUS does. If there is NATO troops fighitng in UKR it will lead escalation cycle where eventually RUS start bombing NATO airfields, and NATO will respond in RUS etc. RUS cannot win conventional war against NATO so they will start use nukes in somepoint (probably in UKR first, but as this point ballistic missiles are flying all over nobody cannto be sure is that coming wiht nuclear warhead or not). They will not just end this war saying "Sorry we lost".

[urbanoid]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

It does not matter. Even if they would send all their wepons, UKR will run out of troop before RUS does. If there is NATO troops fighitng in UKR it will lead escalation cycle where eventually RUS start bombing NATO airfields, and NATO will respond in RUS etc. RUS cannot win conventional war against NATO so they will start use nukes in somepoint (probably in UKR first, but as this point ballistic missiles are flying all over nobody cannto be sure is that coming wiht nuclear warhead or not). They will not just end this war saying "Sorry we lost".

Lol, sure. Some of this would likely mean crossing Russian 69420th red line or sth.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, MiGG0 said:

It does not matter. Even if they would send all their wepons, UKR will run out of troop before RUS does. If there is NATO troops fighitng in UKR it will lead escalation cycle where eventually RUS start bombing NATO airfields, and NATO will respond in RUS etc. RUS cannot win conventional war against NATO so they will start use nukes in somepoint (probably in UKR first, but as this point ballistic missiles are flying all over nobody cannto be sure is that coming wiht nuclear warhead or not). They will not just end this war saying "Sorry we lost".

The reason why Ukraine is running out of troops, its reluctant to impress its younger generation. And small wonder, that generation is the future of it after the war is over. Its older people, 30s to 50's fighting this war. And they are almost used up.

This could be rectified, but it isnt. Largely for political reasons, just like Russia.

 

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I figured that out from day one. Its our esteemed leaders in the West that think that its not going to take involvement by ourselves. Hence the hand wringing about stand off missiles.

Here is my view, and ive presented it before. We are headed towards WW3 with Russia. Whether we do it over Ukraine, or whether we do it over the baltic states, it doesnt matter. We failed to deter Putin and unless we get lucky, someone novichoks hims, or he dies on the toilet like Elvis, or the Russian Army revolts and forms soldiers councils, its going to happen. He even told us this before the Ukraine war and, for once, I kinda believe him.

We can either choose to throw our lot in with one of Europes most powerful militaries (it fought the Russians to a halt, which is powerful in my book) or NATO does it by itself. But mark my works, with Putin or his cabal in charge, its coming. Whether we duck it now or now doesnt matter. Its coming down the track whether we do it now or later.

Handwringing about nuclear weapons is not helpful. Britain has something like 280 nuclear warheads, I think the French have slightly more, the Americans have several thousand. If Russia wants to start a nuclear war, its going to be a bad day for everyone, but its going to be a far, far worse day for them.

Of course, we can fall to our knees and go 'OMG, WW3!' on every post on twitter, but I hardly think thats helpful to think that way. Kennedy didnt do it, and neither did Reagan, and I see no reason why we shouldnt follow their example.

And that is where mainly disagree. Putin or RUS wont come after rest of europe after UKR simply because they know they cannot win against NATO (best possible outcome for them is "draw" in nuclear war)

[MiGG0]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The reason why Ukraine is running out of troops, its reluctant to impress its younger generation. And small wonder, that generation is the future of it after the war is over. Its older people, 30s to 50's fighting this war. And they are almost used up.

This could be rectified, but it isnt. Largely for political reasons, just like Russia.

 

Even if UKR would draft younger generations, RUS could do same and still outlast UKR. Outcome is still same.

Edited November 19, 2024 by MiGG0

[urbanoid]

Not if they are completely outmatched in the firepower department. The collective West could have easily made sure about that.