Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[FrFan]

 

 

Edit : video footages

 

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by FrFan

[ixcuincle]

There was a good thread on social media about the Russian army and how outdated it is.

 

 

 

Check what this guy has to say out.

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 

It also creates a situation where it increasingly becomes irresponsible for leaders of non-nuclear countries to not pursue their own weapon.  How much trust should non-nuclear NATO countries put in NATO responding to attacks by nuclear powers?  What about non-NATO allies like South Korea?  Could they really trust US to aid them against NK or China or do they need their own bomb as a deterrent?  If nuclear bombs allow psychos like Putin to run amuck, is the world actually safer if everyone just had the bomb? 

 

No matter the Ukraine outcome and whether intervention was the right/wrong call, we just turned back the clock on non-proliferation by not intervening.  Even in the most rosy scenario of Putin withdrawing, if Ukraine had the bomb, Russia would never have crossed the border in the first place.

 

And just to be explicit, the likely loss of inherence to non-proliferation policies comes with its own (long term) risks.

 

(And research shows humans are awful at assessing long term risks/costs and correctly integrating them when making decisions.)

 

Allowing Russia to destroy a non-NATO country that had nuclear weapons and gave them up and joined the non-proliferation treaty is going to come with long term costs.

Edited March 6, 2022 by PeterMP

[MrSilverMaC]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

I don't doubt that.

But that's still just peons that will need air support and stuff to be decisive on the battle ground.

They can be of a real valuable asset to the Ukrainian army, but they shouldn't be used as cannon fodder too.

 

But if in those vets you do have a bunch of vets air force pilots, with proper planes, that could change the tide a little bit.

The Ukrainians now have enough stingers to pretty much impose their own no-fly zone. If they don’t know how to do that themselves, the U.S/NATO vets about to enter the fight for their foreign legion will absolutely know how to. So they don’t need pilots to effect that.

 

People keep talking about no-fly zones but the russian af doesn’t seem to be doing much damage. I think what people really want/mean are air strikes against ground forces.

 

That’s another level, and at that point we might as well go all in.

 

One unfortunate side effect of russia showing how ineffectual their strategic planning is, is that china’s and any other bad-guys war i.q just jumped about 40 points.

 

Our logistical ability has been a hugely under appreciated factor in why the  U.S military is unmatched in the world and one I’m sure other countries will work to emulate after this debacle regardless of how it ends.

[Jabbyrwock]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 humans are awful at assessing long term risks/costs and correctly integrating them when making decisions.

 

Superficially this seems like a bad thing...but it enables, like, 90% of my sex life.

 

...yea...I guess still a bad thing...

 

...ladies

[China]

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

I'm really starting to wonder if the US/NATO suckered Russia into attackng Ukraine, knowing full well it was going to turn into this ****show ...

Maybe I've been watching too much John Mearsheimer and Ray McGovern ... 

Edited March 6, 2022 by DCSaints_fan

[spjunkies]

 

 

[China]

France accuses UK of ‘lack of humanity’ after 150 Ukraine refugees turned away at Calais

 

France has accused Britain of “lacking humanity” in helping fleeing Ukrainians join their families in the UK via the French port city of Calais.

 

French interior minister Gerald Darmanin, in a strongly-worded letter to his British counterpart Priti Patel, urged London to set up a proper consular presence in Calais to issue visas after 150 Ukrainians were turned away and asked to obtain visas at UK consulates in Paris or Brussels.

 

The French minister, in his letter, said the UK’s response was “completely unsuitable” and showed a “lack of humanity” towards refugees “in distress”, reported news agency AFP.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[spjunkies]

 

 

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, MrSilverMaC said:

The Ukrainians now have enough stingers to pretty much impose their own no-fly zone. If they don’t know how to do that themselves, the U.S/NATO vets about to enter the fight for their foreign legion will absolutely know how to. So they don’t need pilots to effect that.

 

People keep talking about no-fly zones but the russian af doesn’t seem to be doing much damage. I think what people really want/mean are air strikes against ground forces.

 

That’s another level, and at that point we might as well go all in.

 

One unfortunate side effect of russia showing how ineffectual their strategic planning is, is that china’s and any other bad-guys war i.q just jumped about 40 points.

 

Our logistical ability has been a hugely under appreciated factor in why the  U.S military is unmatched in the world and one I’m sure other countries will work to emulate after this debacle regardless of how it ends.

Those logistics problems seems to only happen in north Ukraine, not really in the south.

You have to wonder if all those troops that are unsupplied and full of conscripts are not just one decoy to fully concentrate enemy forces and international attention while they conquer the south/center of Ukraine to gain full control of the Sea of Azov, better control of the Black sea and central part of Ukraine that has tons of fertile lands.

 

That would be huge decoy, but Russian army can afford that. Getting Kyiv would be a bonus, but not really the main goal.

[Peregrine]

2 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Those logistics problems seems to only happen in north Ukraine, not really in the south.

You have to wonder if all those troops that are unsupplied and full of conscripts are not just one decoy to fully concentrate enemy forces and international attention while they conquer the south/center of Ukraine to gain full control of the Sea of Azov, better control of the Black sea and central part of Ukraine that has tons of fertile lands.

 

That would be huge decoy, but Russian army can afford that. Getting Kyiv would be a bonus, but not really the main goal.

I dont think theres anyway the main massive military incursion on the north is a planned diversion where they meant to bog down, die a lot, and not make much of any progress in 10 days.  Its just so bad for Russia that it looks like they werent trying hard enough.

 

The Russian army can not afford the losses they have taken in the north, they do not have enough fighting force to cover those losses in Ukraine, bring in more troops, and protect the east, Syria, and all of the immense other Russian borders.  Make no mistake, Kyiv is their main goal because they foolishly thing they can "cut off the head of the snake" there and be done.  They arent equipped to occupy Ukraine unless the country just gives in and obeys.  Which they are used to in Russia.

[FrFan]

 

 

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

I dont think theres anyway the main massive military incursion on the north is a planned diversion where they meant to bog down, die a lot, and not make much of any progress in 10 days.  Its just so bad for Russia that it looks like they werent trying hard enough.

 

The Russian army can not afford the losses they have taken in the north, they do not have enough fighting force to cover those losses in Ukraine, bring in more troops, and protect the east, Syria, and all of the immense other Russian borders.  Make no mistake, Kyiv is their main goal because they foolishly thing they can "cut off the head of the snake" there and be done.  They arent equipped to occupy Ukraine unless the country just gives in and obeys.  Which they are used to in Russia.

 

I'd generally agree that taking Kiev was the initial objective.  But it appears they thought that would happen quickly.

 

I do wonder if there hasn't been a change in plans after the first day or 2.  Bomb the major cities, force people to leave, depopulate much of the country, and take the territory in the south along the Black Sea.

 

Having a wider control of the Black Sea and more ports would be a pretty big gain by Russia.  If they can make it all away across, that also gives them access to a Moldova's (another non-NATO country) border.

 

A land-locked Ukraine surrounded by Russia and Belarus on 3 sides is going to struggle to be a successful state.

Edited March 6, 2022 by PeterMP

[FrFan]

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES: Today I witnessed Russian troops deliberately targeting civilians

Spoiler

 

 

Nuremberg 2.0

Edited March 6, 2022 by FrFan

[Larry]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

Having a wider control of the Black Sea and more ports would be a pretty big gain by Russia.  If they can make it all away across, that also gives them access to a Moldova's (another non-NATO country) border.

And cuts off Ukraine from being resupplied by sea. 

[FrFan]

#Japan's Ambassador to #Ukraine stayed in #Kyiv. He was brought from #Tokyo the samurai sword and the traditional armor of his great-grandfather. He said that the samurai must defend the country he is in! Glory to Japan! Glory to Ukraine!

 

Muscovites under the walls of the Kremlin chant "No to war!" The best people in the country!

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by FrFan

[FrFan]

 

[Switchgear]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-03-04/what-if-russia-loses

 

"Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a strategic blunder by invading Ukraine. He has misjudged the political tenor of the country, which was not waiting to be liberated by Russian soldiers. He has misjudged the United States, the European Union, and a number of countries—including Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea—all of which were capable of collective action before the war and all of which are now bent on Russia’s defeat in Ukraine. The United States and its allies and partners are imposing harsh costs on Moscow. Every war is a battle for public opinion, and Putin’s war in Ukraine has—in an age of mass-media imagery—associated Russia with an unprovoked attack on a peaceful neighbor, with mass humanitarian suffering, and with manifold war crimes. At every turn, the ensuing outrage will be an obstacle to Russian foreign policy in the future.

 

No less significant than Putin’s strategic error have been the Russian army’s tactical blunders. Bearing in mind the challenges of assessment in the early stages of a war, one can surely say that Russian planning and logistics were inadequate and that the lack of information given to soldiers and even to officers in the higher echelons was devastating to morale. The war was supposed to end quickly, with a lightning strike that would decapitate the Ukrainian government or cow it into surrender, after which Moscow would impose neutrality on Ukraine or establish a Russian suzerainty over the country. Minimal violence might have equaled minimal sanctions. Had the government fallen quickly, Putin could have claimed that he was right all along: because Ukraine had not been willing or able to defend itself, it was not a real country—just like he had said.

 

But Putin will be unable to win this war on his preferred terms. Indeed, there are several ways in which he could ultimately lose."

[Wildbunny]

 

Stupidity at its finest...

That guy is clearly an ad to beef up sanctions against Russia...

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I see the Ukrainian whooped his ass.

 

edit: oh, it’s in the tweet.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

I dont think theres anyway the main massive military incursion on the north is a planned diversion where they meant to bog down, die a lot, and not make much of any progress in 10 days.  Its just so bad for Russia that it looks like they werent trying hard enough.

 

The Russian army can not afford the losses they have taken in the north, they do not have enough fighting force to cover those losses in Ukraine, bring in more troops, and protect the east, Syria, and all of the immense other Russian borders.  Make no mistake, Kyiv is their main goal because they foolishly thing they can "cut off the head of the snake" there and be done.  They arent equipped to occupy Ukraine unless the country just gives in and obeys.  Which they are used to in Russia.

Russia has proved more than once that its best military strategy was to flood the enemy with expandables soldiers.

They could absolutely do that and sacrifice ten thousands of soldiers with no remorses at all. Putin and his generals could care less about public opinion about it.

 

Russian soldiers are here to die for the greater good of Mother Russia. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[spjunkies]