Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

The only thing they have parity on is nukes.

Even then, from what I’m reading, there’s hardly a consensus on what their capabilities actually are. I’ve seen a lot of people saying that they may have certain #’s, but it’s believe a significant portion are inoperable or not reliable due to tech and maintenance issues. 
 

(not that anyone suggested it’s worth finding out or anything…)

Edited February 25, 2022 by tshile

[Jabbyrwock]

1 hour ago, megared said:

The ability to launch ICBMs from planes, subs, trucks and rail means silos aren't much of a thing anymore.

 

I'm glad silos aren't a thing anymore.  It means what looks like vast silo fields that China is building near Yumen, Hami and Ordos in north central China in 2021 are actually something else: I'm thinking they are for large potted plants.

 

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/11/a-closer-look-at-chinas-missile-silo-construction/

 

...I mean...what does that pesky federation of American Scientists know anyway?  They should do their own research...everyone knows silos aren't a thing anymore. 

[DCSaints_fan]

Just now, NickyJ said:

What happened in Syria to say that the Russians got their clocks cleaned there? They went to prop up Assad, Assad remains propped up... Unless they somehow took lots of casualties, I'd say they achieved their goal.

I'm speaking specifically of the incident where they tried to attack a US base. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

Yeah a majority of soldiers weren't Russian, but there were a decent amount of "contractors" present

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

What happened in Syria to say that the Russians got their clocks cleaned there? They went to prop up Assad, Assad remains propped up... Unless they somehow took lots of casualties, I'd say they achieved their goal.

Russian forces engaged US military forces, using the Wagner Group, and got their asses nicked badly. 
 

it was a discussion many pages ago with a link to congressional testimony that involved that incident (but was more broadly about the Wagner Group and how Russia conducts covert ops in the modern day)

[Wildbunny]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Even then, from what I’m reading, there’s hardly a consensus on what their capabilities actually are. I’ve seen a lot of people saying that they may have certain #’s, but it’s believe a significant portion are inoperable or not reliable due to tech and maintenance issues. 
 

(not that anyone suggested it’s worth finding out or anything…)

I certainly did say that. Just because usually, nobody likes to tell dictators that their precious toys aren't working anymore. Everything's always fine for them. Everything's perfect and everything goes accordingly.

 

Still, I believe if Putin doesn't take control of Ukraine by the end of the week, it'll start to be a real problem for him because it won't go according to the plan.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Wildbunny

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

I'm glad silos aren't a thing anymore.  It means what looks like vast silo fields that China is building near Yumen, Hami and Ordos in north central China in 2021 are actually something else: I'm thinking they are for large potted plants.

 

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/11/a-closer-look-at-chinas-missile-silo-construction/

 

...I mean...what does that pesky federation of American Scientists know anyway?  They should do their own research...everyone knows silos aren't a thing anymore. 

I think his point was that we are not building silos all over Europe anymore because we have a cheaper and mobile capability. And the point he was responding to was that USA hasn’t expanded its nuclear capabilities citing no new silos being built. 
 

USA building silos all over Europe for nuclear capabilities isn’t a thing anymore. So citing that we haven’t built any recently isn’t good proof that we haven’t been expanding/changing our nuclear capabilities. 

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Still, I believe if Putin doesn't take control of Ukraine by the end of the week, it'll start to be a real problem for him because it won't go according to the plan.

Yeah. My uneducated and inexperience opinion on military situations… I would think the best case scenario is on the end of this ending as quickly as possible, and the worst case is on it dragging out. 
 

i think it’s possible the international community may change its mind. Which would require time to pass. 
 

No one’s going in to liberate Ukraine after it falls. But if this drags out for weeks, Ukraine will receive an influx of support. Guns and ammo, intelligence, equipment, food and medical supplies, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if air strikes against Russian assets happens as support, if it drags out long enough.

 

plus unrest in Russia will grow. 
 

it’s certainly not a good idea for him for it to drag out. 

[Jabbyrwock]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think his point was that we are not building silos all over Europe anymore because we have a cheaper and mobile capability. And the point he was responding to was that USA hasn’t expanded its nuclear capabilities citing no new silos being built. 
 

USA building silos all over Europe for nuclear capabilities isn’t a thing anymore. So citing that we haven’t built any recently isn’t good proof that we haven’t been expanding/changing our nuclear capabilities. 

 

Ah well then, I stand corrected.  Silos aren't a thing.  Carry on then.

[FrFan]

 

[NickyJ]

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

Russian forces engaged US military forces, using the Wagner Group, and got their asses nicked badly. 
 

it was a discussion many pages ago with a link to congressional testimony that involved that incident (but was more broadly about the Wagner Group and how Russia conducts covert ops in the modern day)

 

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think his point was that we are not building silos all over Europe anymore because we have a cheaper and mobile capability. And the point he was responding to was that USA hasn’t expanded its nuclear capabilities citing no new silos being built. 
 

USA building silos all over Europe for nuclear capabilities isn’t a thing anymore. So citing that we haven’t built any recently isn’t good proof that we haven’t been expanding/changing our nuclear capabilities. 

While it's true they got wiped out, I think the bigger lesson learned is that air support will always beat ground support when there's no anti-aircraft. I love America, and I think we can beat Russia one-on-one on our terms, but I think you're vastly underestimating them if you're viewing their entire military's strength based off of a government-aligned mercenary crew playing toy soldiers in the desert who brought AK-47's and T72's to an A10-Warthog fight.

Edited February 25, 2022 by NickyJ

[TheGreatBuzz]

[NickyJ]

A very good graph from Buzz above. Not to be the Debbie downer, but in my unprofessional estimation, we'd pretty much be cutting the American forces in half to guard against China. Still very much in our favor, but fighting half a world away still wouldn't be a pushover situation, though having the rest of NATO along for the ride should help with that.

[The Sisko]

5 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Russia has laws against Christianity, so I don’t know what this **** is talking about.

 

https://arriveministries.org/living-as-a-persecuted-christian-in-russia/

Russia doesn't have laws against Christianity. They have laws that severely limit anything outside of the Russian Orthodox Church. Putin doesn't give a crap about religion, but the Russian Orthodox Church is a nationalistic symbol helpful in marshaling support/compliance. That's why the Ukrainian Orthodox Church's splitting off was a big deal for him. So it's not Christianity in general, he's just kicking out JDubs and evangelicals. See, even a putz like Putin isn't all bad.😃

 

4 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

I wish Russia could detach itself from dictatorships leaders, because there's more links between Europe and Russia than everyone's wanting to admit. So I'm having a hard time seeing them as evil, though what they did clearly doesn't make them look like the good guys. So as much as I hate Putin for this, I also feel sad for those Russian people that will have to live through it.

 

To be fair, I could make the exact same assumption just replacing Russia with USA.

Your last sentence beat me to it. Most of the differences between Russia and the US are simply cosmetic, a matter of degree, and a factor of them being a bit further ahead in the autocracy timeline than we are. Putin's use of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Guardians of Putin party's continued use of US evangelicals are a good example. US Evangelical desires for a US version of Russia's Yarovaya law have been in the works for some time. We talk a good game but at the end of the day, we're simply a different flavor of oligarchy than Russia and China. Where they use brute force, we legitimize and cloak our repression in the halls of Congress, the WH, robes of the judiciary and police uniforms. Once Trump is re-elected, we'll start making our best efforts to catch up to them with less concern about appearances.

[China]

5 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Russia says it is ready to talk about peace according to CNBC… but then I looked on RT and they said the were open to holding peace talks in Belarus. Eh…

 

Putin ‘ready’ for talks with Ukraine in Minsk: Kremlin

 

The Kremlin has said President Vladimir Putin is ready to send a delegation to Belarus for talks with Ukraine, as Russian forces closed in on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, on the second day of Moscow’s invasion.

 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday the Russian leader is “ready” to send a high-level delegation “for talks with a Ukrainian delegation” to Belarusian capital Minsk, which has previously hosted rounds of peace talks over the Ukraine crisis.

 

He said Putin’s ally, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, told him that he would “create the conditions” for such a summit.

 

Russia has thousands of troops stationed in Belarus, and Ukraine said it was being attacked from several sides – including from Belarus.

 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had repeatedly called for talks with the Russian leader during a weeks-long diplomatic push in which Western countries tried to deter Putin from launching an attack.

 

Zelenskyy had made an initial proposal of talks in a speech addressed to Putin late on Wednesday, shortly before the Russian invasion.

 

He said at the time: “Ukraine’s security is linked to the security of its neighbours. That is why today we have to talk about security in the whole of Europe. That is our main goal – peace in Ukraine and the security of our citizens. For this, we are ready to talk to everyone, including you. In different formats and in any place.”

 

As Russian troops closed in on Kyiv on Friday, Zelenskyy issued a new statement urging talks.

 

“I would like to address the President of the Russian Federation once again. Fighting is going on all over Ukraine. Let’s sit down at the negotiating table to stop the deaths of people,” he said.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[MrSilverMaC]

my thoughts on some of the scenarios being discussed:
 

I don’t know that China would be so hot to jump into the fray of a U.S/russia conflict with a hostile India sitting next to them.

 

India probably has a top 3 Air Force (behind the U.S and Israel, and better than russia) and the same population size. I don’t know that China could handle India on its own, let alone them and us. They’ve had more than a couple border skirmishes in just the last 2 years alone I believe.

 

The problem for us in a conflict with russia right now is the fact that half of our country are traitorous ****bois. I think that’s the ace in the hole they believe have right now.

 

how many sitting senators and congressmen would be in their pocket? How many inbred trump voters would be willing to carry out terrorist acts, especially after the covid mask/test mandates and shutdowns.

 

I think we’d have more trouble with domestic unrest than we would with a conventional war with russia.

 

I think Europe really needs to take the lead, unfortunately they won’t.

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

A very good graph from Buzz above. Not to be the Debbie downer, but in my unprofessional estimation, we'd pretty much be cutting the American forces in half to guard against China. Still very much in our favor, but fighting half a world away still wouldn't be a pushover situation, though having the rest of NATO along for the ride should help with that.

I would hope a conflict with Russia doesn’t involve us invading Russia. That sounds like a loser even if we have the military advantage. 

[Captain Wiggles]

[The Sisko]

 

[RansomthePasserby]

34 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

The graphic shows 13,500 main battle tanks for Russia, but there should be an asterisk on that number since a large portion of those are old tech mothballed from the Soviet era. 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, megared said:

 

Guess it depends on what you believe.  Russia seems to believe it has 'more' than a defensive capability.  MK 41s can be used in both defensive and offensive postures.  So saying you're setting them up for defense when it's easy to change the configuration to fire Tomahawks isn't exactly a reassurance. 

 

Keep in mind there's treaties governing the use of land based missile systems, which NATO may or may not be following, depending on your vantage point.     

 

 

nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/2/pdf/200224-factsheet-nuclear-en.pdf

 

NATO has ~150 B61s deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey as part of its Nuclear Weapons Sharing Program.  

 

 

B61s (bombs not missiles) have been part of our nuclear sharing program for years.  And note, none of those countries are part of the more recent NATO expansion.

 

Also, I don't think there is a current treaty to be in violation of with respect to land based missiles.  Both us and Russia withdrew from the INF years ago.  With both sides saying the other had violated it and not happy that other people hadn't signed (especially China for us and other NATO countries for Russia).  But even that wasn't related to nuclear weapons for us.  Russia wasn't happy with our development of drones claiming they were essentially achieved the same objective as missiles.  

 

Sharing nuclear bombs and aircraft to deliver them under the deal isn't anything new and it has known about the Russians since they have been the Soviets.  It is something we do to keep European states from developing their own nuclear weapons.  And we haven't added any of the newer NATO countries to the list of countries we share them with.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by PeterMP

[Simmsy]

18 minutes ago, MrSilverMaC said:

The problem for us in a conflict with russia right now is the fact that half of our country are traitorous ****bois. I think that’s the ace in the hole they believe have right now.

I just saw a video of Ukrainians hunkered down in a train station...they're still wearing masks. Our country is too stupid.

[Wildbunny]

24 minutes ago, MrSilverMaC said:

my thoughts on some of the scenarios being discussed:
 

I don’t know that China would be so hot to jump into the fray of a U.S/russia conflict with a hostile India sitting next to them.

 

India probably has a top 3 Air Force (behind the U.S and Israel, and better than russia) and the same population size. I don’t know that China could handle India on its own, let alone them and us. They’ve had more than a couple border skirmishes in just the last 2 years alone I believe.

 

The problem for us in a conflict with russia right now is the fact that half of our country are traitorous ****bois. I think that’s the ace in the hole they believe have right now.

 

how many sitting senators and congressmen would be in their pocket? How many inbred trump voters would be willing to carry out terrorist acts, especially after the covid mask/test mandates and shutdowns.

 

I think we’d have more trouble with domestic unrest than we would with a conventional war with russia.

 

I think Europe really needs to take the lead, unfortunately they won’t.

Well, you can bet that if India make a move, Pakistan will as well against India. Those two hates each others.

 

Now, it's not that Europe won't, it's more like Europe just can't in fact. We've been dedicating ourselves at building economics and stuff (and we succeeded kinda poorly), and have left the military side of defense out of this. No army in Europe would stand a chance against Russia, we aren't forged that way. We can provide support, logistic, some type of guerillas tactics here and there. But full scale warfare is not our main thing at all.

 

But we aren't stripped of anything at all. There's still a possibility that somehow, western leaders are trying to delay the game and run out the clock for Putin. As his whole attention is focused on Ukraine, I believe western countries could move troops easily, within range, then say Hello! Now we're ready to crush ya. Not much is being said about the anonymous group. But Russian hackers are in it that's for sure. And I'd bet US hackers are on it and that somehow we're paying others as well to cripple Russia's networks so there nuclear weapons are an afterthought.

 

If that's what we're doing right now, then we'd be able to say "Hello M. Putin! Let's have a talk about Ukraine or you'll send you packing to Mars on an Elon Musk's flight that is waiting for you and your guys."

 

Purely guessing, as I'd hope we're just hiding our cards right now to make it stop and not play it like we did in 1939.

[Captain Wiggles]

Russias military budget isn't even $50 billion a year? Mayhaps instead of complaining about NATO countries not paying their fair share we could have diverted 5% of our defense budget to counter the Russkies and protect Europe. 😬

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Russias military budget isn't even $50 billion a year? Mayhaps instead of complaining about NATO countries not paying their fair share we could have diverted 5% of our defense budget to counter the Russkies and protect Europe. 😬

1). But "we" were operating under orders from Putin to weaken NATO. 

 

2). I would also be really cautious about ranking militaries based on dollars spent. It might lead to us vastly overrating our military, based on "look at how much money we threw at big corporations". 
 

Not saying that strictly using some other metric, like "numbers of cannon fodder" is a better metric. (Although I do think that's a factor. At least in some conflicts. This one might be one of them.)

 

Just saying that if (pulling numbers out of my ass) an F-35 costs 20 times as much as a Su-27, then our air power is 20 times higher. 

[tshile]

40 minutes ago, RansomthePasserby said:

The graphic shows 13,500 main battle tanks for Russia, but there should be an asterisk on that number since a large portion of those are old tech mothballed from the Soviet era. 

I was reading a write up on Ukrainian tanks vs Russian tanks. 
 

basically Ukrainian tanks are mostly old tech mothballed from the Soviet era. 
 

and the writer basically said:

few Ukrainian tanks will fire a shot before being destroy by their Russian counter-parts. 
 

Iraq had a lot of tanks too. They were old and didn’t fair well either.