Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[CousinsCowgirl84]

This could just as easily help the United state dump old weapons stock and build up their military-industry base for the inevitable conflict. Are the weapons we are sending Ukraine the same as the ones we would be using against China? 
 

I agree that theirs aren’t rules in war but I guess the difference between Russia bombing civilians and Ukranisns using clusterbombs which have the capability to cause civilians harm long after the war is over is that we are the ones enabling them but we won’t necessarily have to deal with the costs.  I suppose it is like the gun shop that sells the Ak47 to the mass shooter in one regard, but obviously not a perfect example.

Edited July 8, 2023 by CousinsCowgirl84
Ga

[FootballZombie]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

This could just as easily help the United state dump old weapons stock and build up their military-industry base for the inevitable conflict. Are the weapons we are sending Ukraine the same as the ones we would be using against China? 

 

I've seen that idea touched on.

From what I have heard a lot of the cluster munitions were on the verge of expiring anyway. They are not good forever, and once they expire the dud rate goes up greatly.

 

Giving 'em to Ukraine saves us the trouble of de-commissioning them.

Given the war has only been going on for a relatively short time, I don't think a year and a half had much impact on whether to give them to Ukraine or not, but it is a baked in bonus.

 

 

 

All this weaponry, armor, vehicles and systems can't sit on the shelf forever and for free. They have to undergo maintenance and that costs time, space and money. Otherwise your army starts to look like Russia's. I don't doubt that there are a few pieces of hardware that we get to come out "ahead" via shipping it Ukraine for them to use. When they are eventually replaced the new item will be better and have a refreshed shelf life. Crude metaphor, but for some items its kinda like rotating stock.

[88Comrade2000]

8 hours ago, Bang said:

"illegal weapons of war" is such a stupid phrase anyway.

It's wholesale murder. Use anything to end it as quickly as possible. 

 

~Bang

Russia can launch nukes and that will end the war quickly.

[PokerPacker]

21 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Russia can launch nukes and that will end the war quickly.

Lots of things will end quickly.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Putin could die, not sure it would end it but will, I’d like to see what would happen.

[DCSaints_fan]

8 hours ago, Bang said:

Rules. War is a situation where 'reasonable people' have decided that the best answer to ___ problem is to kill as many people who disagree as possible. Take their land, maybe, steal their resources, maybe.
The entire thing is against every criminal statute in the entire world, including the so called 'sacred books'. 

 

It's absurd that there are rules. Even with the laws of unintended consequence. Making a decision not to use a weapon because of this reason is only common sense. All of war is unintended consequence. the whole 'what if' is on display. what if we kill the person who was destined to cure cancer, etc. etc.

There is no humane way to make war. None, even with "rules". 

 

~Bang

There is no way to wage war humanely, the rules are mostly about reciprocity and practicality.  

 

For instance, chemical weapons were banned mostly because the nations didn't want maimed soldiers coming home, who couldn't work and were a burden to social services. They would rather they just didn't come back at all.

[Gurgeh]

Going far back we have this example. Cynics at the time (and afterwards) believed the driving reason behind such rules was that leaders were concerned that battles would be so bloody they would run out of troops, so the creation of these rules allows armed conflicts to continue.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Declaration_of_1868

 

In 1863, the Russian Army had perfected a fulminating musketball that could explode when it hit a hard target and was designed to blow up powder magazines or ammunition wagons. At the same time several similar projectiles for the same purposes were developed in America, the best one known being the Gardiner's Explosive Bullet, and both sides used them in the US Civil War, inflicting horrible wounds when aimed at people, and that, in turn, caused a public backlash against the weapon. In 1867, Russians perfected an improved explosive musketball that would detonate on any impact after being fired, even soft targets like people or animals. Predicting the disastrous effect of such a discovery on diplomatic relations with their neighbors, Russia decided to negotiate a ban on the development, creation, and use of such weapons before a grisly arms race commenced

 

... The delegates affirmed that the only legitimate object of war should be to weaken the military force of the enemy, which could be sufficiently accomplished by the employment of highly destructive weapons. With that fact established, the delegates agreed to prohibit the use of less deadly explosives that might merely injure the combatants and thereby create prolonged suffering of such combatants.

 

The Great Powers agreed to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the use "by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grams (14 ounces avoirdupois), which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances." While the declaration bans the use of fragmenting, explosive, or incendiary small arms ammunition, it does not prohibit such ammunition for use in autocannon or artillery rounds.

 

 

 

[The Sisko]

On 7/7/2023 at 2:47 PM, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Does everyone still think Ukraine will take back its eastern territories and Crimea? Perhaps a best option involves Russia keeping the land it annexed and the remainder of Ukraine joining NATO?

I know it isn’t ideal, but we wouldn’t have to worry so much about Russia regrouping for further attacks, unless you think they might decide to attack Nato?

Russia can’t be allowed to keep Crimea. It allows them to choke off any Ukrainian exports sent via the Sea of Azov, and a significant part of the area to the west of Crimea. It would effectively leave Ukraine with only Odessa for shipping which semi-schtupps their economy. Aside from that, it rewards the kind of behavior the world doesn’t need more of.

 

I could see allowing Putie to keep a token chunk of Luhansk and a slight loosening of sanctions bc he has to come away from negotiations with something, but nothing substantial like Crimea or anything along the coast of the Sea of Azov.

 

On 7/7/2023 at 11:14 PM, FootballZombie said:

The other factor that makes me comfy sending over cluster munitions is the track record of the decision makers. The top brass has been so crazy effective at predicting what would be most needed to combat the future tide of war, I don't even question their judgement as to what is needed and when.

 

You can't just send everything. Not only will you over saturate the supply lines, you'll be providing stuff that is either unusable due to lack of training, or not optimal for the given situation.

 

Early on, it was all about simplicity, ease of use and rapid response. We shipped drones and various RPGs... and they changed the battlefield. 

 

While those did serious damage, they got crews up to speed on the next game-changer, HIMARS.

While those brew away Russian infrastructure, Ukraine was prepped to roll out new heavy armor, and Patriot defenses. Now their shooting down Kinzals.

 

The next "big-thing" will likely be the F-16s

 

 

If these guys tell me that now is the time to ship cluster munitions, rail-guns or space shuttles w/ miniguns attatched... They kinda earned blind faith from me.

 

 

Tomorrow they could announce that they are sending in "The Asset" and I would not bat an eye in terms of whether the time is now.

 

I’m not sure I entirely agree with this. Yes, at the outset, we were Johnny on the spot with the ATGMs, Stingers and later, the 777s. I’m going from memory, but I think we only gave them HIMARS and Patriots after it was apparent they were going to be in major trouble without it. We were being punks when it came to providing tanks and long range missile systems until the Brits led the way.

 

Our policy seems to be to dribble weapons to them over time so as to bleed the Russians out. However, there’s a reasonable risk that Biden will be  a one and done, so the time for that foolishness is over. They should have had the F-16s to go with this offensive. What we’ve done is train them on our aviation reliant doctrine, then sent their infantry and armor out without parity, let alone air superiority and unsurprisingly, the results have been less than spectacular.🙄 So yeah, the next best thing is cluster munitions for artillery and ATACMS. It’s the least we can do after screwing this part up. 

 

On 7/8/2023 at 10:33 AM, FootballZombie said:

 

I've seen that idea touched on.

From what I have heard a lot of the cluster munitions were on the verge of expiring anyway. They are not good forever, and once they expire the dud rate goes up greatly.

 

Giving 'em to Ukraine saves us the trouble of de-commissioning them.

Given the war has only been going on for a relatively short time, I don't think a year and a half had much impact on whether to give them to Ukraine or not, but it is a baked in bonus.

 

All this weaponry, armor, vehicles and systems can't sit on the shelf forever and for free. They have to undergo maintenance and that costs time, space and money. Otherwise your army starts to look like Russia's. I don't doubt that there are a few pieces of hardware that we get to come out "ahead" via shipping it Ukraine for them to use. When they are eventually replaced the new item will be better and have a refreshed shelf life. Crude metaphor, but for some items it’s kinda like rotating stock.

This is exactly what we and NATO have been doing. The Bradley’s, Strykers, Soviet-era equipment in use in Europe, and more were all systems being planned for replacement. In essence, we’ve neutered one of the world’s largest and, we thought, most technically advanced armies with our last generation stuff while accelerating the phase in of newer systems for ourselves and NATO allies.

 

This is why the argument about sending our money overseas to fight someone else’s war is partially unfounded. Simply put, a lot of the stuff we’re sending would have cost us money to decommission, so I’d imagine at least some of it may be saving us a few bucks, not costing us money. Aside from that, any eventual settlement will need to require payment from Russia to rebuild Ukraine.

[Barry.Randolphe]

Send them some A-10s next. Let them light up the Russian infantry/tanks....they're being retired soon, might as well get some more use out of them on the battlefield and strike some more fear in the Russians

[Wildbunny]

36 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

I could see allowing Putie to keep a token chunk of Luhansk and a slight loosening of sanctions bc he has to come away from negotiations with something, but nothing substantial like Crimea or anything along the coast of the Sea of Azov.

Being alive and still master of Russia is something and nothing else.

[FootballZombie]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

 

Our policy seems to be to dribble weapons to them over time so as to bleed the Russians out

 

I don't think that. What we have given them is purposeful and meant to have them fight the way we want them to fight and not on Russian soil.

 

I think by what we provided from the outset of the war it is clear that we have forced Ukraine to focus on re-takeing their land, not taking the fight into Russia and escalating the situation. By design, we have been providing weapons and training for the stuff Ukraine needs to fight within the boarders of Ukraine. By giving them HIMMARS w/ the smaller range ammunition, drones, tanks, and defensive patriot batteries their ability to strike deep into Russian territory is greatly limited. Their provided armory is not built to do that, b/c we didn't want them to do that. 

 

Every brass member on NATO knows for a fact what Ukraine would do w/ long range precision artillery, and modern fighter Jets so we were amazingly hesitant to give it to Ukraine. It did not match the parameters of the mission of the time. NATO wants them to defend and take back their land, not blow away targets in Russia proper. If we wanted Ukraine to have the ability to laze a target 300 miles away we could give them the capability tomorrow... but we did not want them to have such capability.

 

 

 

Fortunately, the winds are changing and we are opening up to it. We got F-16 programs underway, Britain is supplying longer range stormshadow missiles followed by the French long range missiles. This certainly re-opens the possibility of the US supplying stuff like ATACMS down the line. Ukraine's "range" is set to massively increase in short order.

 

 

It is hard for me to complain about the weapon strategy to this point as it has worked out relatively well. I think it was a good call when the process was implemented. Maybe moving forward Ukraine needs to be more able to reach out into Russia, and we are clearly starting to provide them the capability, but its hard to look at the results up to this point and not feel good about it.

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by FootballZombie

[DCSaints_fan]

1 hour ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

Send them some A-10s next. Let them light up the Russian infantry/tanks....they're being retired soon, might as well get some more use out of them on the battlefield and strike some more fear in the Russians

A-10s not very useful in contested airspace.  Flights would essentially be suicide missions.

 

Ukraine already has the SU-25 which is roughly equivalent

7 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

I don't think that. What we have given them is purposeful and meant to have them fight the way we want them to fight and not on Russian soil.

The way the Wagner just waltzed halfway to Moscow makes me think that Ukraine should have done the same.

[Barry.Randolphe]

18 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

A-10s not very useful in contested airspace.  Flights would essentially be suicide missions.

 

I didn't think there were dogfights going on anymore now that Ukraine has air defense capabilities built up since it is essentially a suicide mission for Russian pilots?

[TradeTheBeal!]

Turkey flexing.  Might have to drop in for some of that street food I see on instagram.

 

 

[Wildbunny]

22 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

It is hard for me to complain about the weapon strategy to this point as it has worked out relatively well. I think it was a good call when the process was implemented. Maybe moving forward Ukraine needs to be more able to reach out into Russia, and we are clearly starting to provide them the capability, but its hard to look at the results up to this point and not feel good about it.

So far our strategy has been quite schizophrenic. We want them to retake their lands and free themselves. That's good.

But we don't want them to invade or strike Russia's inside territory (which they already have done at time, drones, attacks on Bolgorov...).

 

I understand the point, but that is counterproductive as they aren't able to stop and disrupt supply lines. That's the key here for them to get back everything. If they find a way to stop that, they'll win, otherwise, this front will settle for a long time.

 

Also, we've been more than hesitant to put ourselves into full war mode. We've upgraded our ammos and weapons, but that's another point where we could go even further in production more and feeding them with more.

 

At this pace, I'm not expecting major progres from the Ukrainians before 2024/25...

[DCSaints_fan]

59 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

So far our strategy has been quite schizophrenic. We want them to retake their lands and free themselves. That's good.

But we don't want them to invade or strike Russia's inside territory (which they already have done at time, drones, attacks on Bolgorov...).

 

I understand the point, but that is counterproductive as they aren't able to stop and disrupt supply lines. That's the key here for them to get back everything. If they find a way to stop that, they'll win, otherwise, this front will settle for a long time.

 

Also, we've been more than hesitant to put ourselves into full war mode. We've upgraded our ammos and weapons, but that's another point where we could go even further in production more and feeding them with more.

 

At this pace, I'm not expecting major progres from the Ukrainians before 2024/25...

We haven't said they can't attack Russian soil.  We just don't want them to do it using our weapons.

 

I don't think Ukraine has ever officially taken responsibility for attacks on Russian soil.  

 

I agree that it is crossing the line a bit.  During the Cold War, the Soviet Union would provide weapons to countries like Korea and Vietnam, but not to attack targets on American soil.  I think even ships were off limits.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

 

I didn't think there were dogfights going on anymore now that Ukraine has air defense capabilities built up since it is essentially a suicide mission for Russian pilots?

Yes, aircraft getting near the front lines for either side is very dangerous nowadays.   Unless they fly very low, which is much easier for helicopters.  During the first few days of the counteroffensive, when that Ukranian column was wiped out it was a KA-52 that did most of the damage.   

Edited July 10, 2023 by DCSaints_fan

[PokerPacker]

2 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

We haven't said they can't attack Russian soil.  We just don't want them to do it using our weapons.

 

I don't think Ukraine has ever officially taken responsibility for attacks on Russian soil.  

 

I agree that it is crossing the line a bit.  During the Cold War, the Soviet Union would provide weapons to countries like Korea and Vietnam, but not to attack targets on American soil.  I think even ships were off limits.

That's only because those countries weren't capable of fighting on our soil.  They were keen to send Cuba some nukes to threaten us, however.

Edited July 11, 2023 by PokerPacker

[PleaseBlitz]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/10/turkey-nato-summit-eu-sweden/
 

Turkey drops opposition to Sweden’s NATO bid on eve of summit

 

Quote

VILNIUS, Lithuania — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday agreed to support Sweden’s NATO bid, a high-stakes, last-minute reversal that came after a year of obstruction and on the eve of a major alliance summit.

 

The deal, announced Monday in the Lithuanian capital, does not confer membership. But if Turkey and fellow holdout Hungary indeed ratify Swedish accession, NATO will grow, cementing a major shift in European security in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

 

“This is a historic day,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, expressing confidence that Erdogan would move quickly to have the Turkish legislature approve the ratification. Hungary has said it does not want to be last to ratify, and Stoltenberg said “that problem will be solved.”

 

President Biden welcomed the news, saying he looks forward to welcoming Sweden “as our 32nd NATO ally.”

 

[FootballZombie]

4 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Turkey drops opposition to Sweden’s NATO bid on eve of summit

 

We knew Turkey was gonna fold on this following their election, but its still good to hear.

 

Sweden will be in the NATO umbrella in short order.

Edited July 11, 2023 by FootballZombie

[China]

In Russia, the commander of the submarine “Krasnodar”, which launched “Calibre” over Ukraine, was shot

 

n Russia, the commander of the Krasnodar submarine, Stanislav Rzhitsky, was shot. His boat launched Kalibr cruise missiles over Ukraine, in particular, probably over Vinnytsia.

 

Russian media, with reference to the police, write that he was shot during a morning jog in Krasnodar. Rzytsky was shot several times in the back and chest.

 

He was also the deputy head of mobilization work in Krasnodar. The Baza channel writes that Rzhytsky was killed by four shots in the back. There are holes in the body of the deceased from 9 mm bullets. Probably, it was a killer.

 

Click on the link for the rest

[DCSaints_fan]

48 minutes ago, China said:

In Russia, the commander of the submarine “Krasnodar”, which launched “Calibre” over Ukraine, was shot

 

n Russia, the commander of the Krasnodar submarine, Stanislav Rzhitsky, was shot. His boat launched Kalibr cruise missiles over Ukraine, in particular, probably over Vinnytsia.

 

Russian media, with reference to the police, write that he was shot during a morning jog in Krasnodar. Rzytsky was shot several times in the back and chest.

 

He was also the deputy head of mobilization work in Krasnodar. The Baza channel writes that Rzhytsky was killed by four shots in the back. There are holes in the body of the deceased from 9 mm bullets. Probably, it was a killer.

 

Click on the link for the rest

Ukraine's claws are long and sharp, indeed

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Ukraine's claws are long and sharp, indeed

Yeah. My thought was "probably Ukraine, since he didn't fall out of a window."

[Gurgeh]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:18 PM, DCSaints_fan said:

 

 

Yes, aircraft getting near the front lines for either side is very dangerous nowadays.   Unless they fly very low, which is much easier for helicopters.  During the first few days of the counteroffensive, when that Ukranian column was wiped out it was a KA-52 that did most of the damage.   

 

Both the Ukrainian and Russian pilots know exactly where the ground based AA systems are and steer well clear of them. The greatest danger comes from the opposing air force, but there the advantage lies entirely with the Russians, who have more modern jets that are armed with AA missiles with twice the range of the Ukrainian planes. It's a similar story with the helicopters, who are staying well out of range of Stingers and the like.

 

[FootballZombie]

 

[Renegade7]

Most certainly not a halfway crook...