Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[DogofWar1]

6 minutes ago, China said:

Any wagers on how long before this guy enjoys some polonium tea or is defenestrated?

 

Nah he was on last week throwing cold water on the idea that Russia had a bunch of reserves or the ability to quickly mobilize and arm a bunch of people.

 

Someone is giving this the green light.  They do a good job of making sure these propagandists are vetted before they are let on TV, and certainly they wouldn't be invited back after not towing the hard line unless someone wanted them back.

[China]

Russia Sends Most Advanced Tanks to Ukraine in Bid to Turn the Tide of War

 

Russia has sent a train of its latest T-90M "Proryv" tanks to troops stationed in Ukraine, according to the newspaper Izvestia.

 

The newspaper reported that Uralvagonzavod, a Russian company considered to be the world's largest battle tank manufacturer, has provided "a solemn dispatch of an echelon of T-90M Proryv tanks to the Russian Ministry of Defense."

 

The news was also reported by RIA Novosti, Russia's state-owned domestic news agency. The story was among the most popular on RIA Novosti's website for the day.

 

The tanks were put on a train and sent off to the front to the tune of "Farewell of the Slav," a Russian patriotic march written for the Slavic women who accompanied their husbands in the First Balkan war in 1912. The tanks were blessed by the rector of the church of Dimitry Donskoy, Archpriest John Bragin, in what was described as a "solemn ceremony" by RIA Novosti.

 

The news agency also reported that drawings and letters from the children of Uralvagonzavod's workers were put into the tanks as "symbols of our support for Russian soldiers, a sign of respect and faith in their courage."

 

Uralvagonzavod, which is based in Nizhny Tagil in the Sverdlovsk Oblast, is part of Rostec, a state-owned defense conglomerate.

 

The T-90M tank reportedly sent to the Ukrainian front is a model developed by the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering and is considered the most advanced version of the T-90 family of tanks.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

So, they didn't send their really good Army, the first time.  But now, months into the war, they're sending the really best.  

[gbear]

What's more, they are essentially doing this with a "called shot" type of approach.  We are telling you we are sending in the big guns now...They must believe/hope the result will be better.

 

If I am a parent of one of the 10k's of thousands of dead troops, I am pissed they sent my kid into a war zone without the support they could have sent.

[Larry]

Wondering if they're sending enough gas, food, and ammo, this time. 

[Riggo-toni]

https://www.engineerine.com/2022/03/how-powerful-is-russian-armys-t-90-tank.html?m=1#:~:text=The T-90 is the,most heavily equipped battle systems.

Here is Why the Russian T-90 Tank Sucks!

There are several reasons why the T-90 is a poor tank compared to current MBTs. The first is that its design is outdated. The T-90, as we have mentioned before, is an improved version of the t72, formerly known as the t72b.

 

A mix of T80 and other tank pieces have been combined together, and reactive armor has been put onto the end result; this is what the T-90 really is. The t72 was not built to have "box-out box-in" modifications like other tanks like the Abrams, making it difficult to update.

 

...Despite all of these improvements, there is still a glaring omission: The Range.

 

Today's tanks are capable of striking opposing tanks at a range of up to 5000 meters. But due to the inability to raise the cannon, the T-90 loses this battle.

 

The T-90 has also been proven to be a big failure in the Syrian civil war and recently in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

When Moscow intervened in Syria in 2015, the Syrian rebels had the American TOW-2A missiles, and here the big scandal happened. Many filmed videos show the Syrian rebels firing the TOW missiles onto the T-90 tank and knocking it out completely.

 

 

[FootballZombie]

If you want to hear the obstacles facing Finland and Sweden joining NATO explained to you like your 5, here is a great video. Keeps it very simple and easy to digest.

 

 

 

[China]

 

[China]

Russia uses new generation of laser weapons in Ukraine

 

Russia on Wednesday said it was using a new generation of powerful laser weapons in Ukraine to burn up drones, deploying some of Moscow's secret weapons to counter a flood of Western arms supplied to its former Soviet neighbour.

 

President Vladimir Putin in 2018 unveiled an array of new weapons including a new intercontinental ballistic missile, underwater nuclear drones, a supersonic weapon and a new laser weapon.

 

Little is known about the specifics of the new laser weapons. Putin mentioned one called Peresvet, named after a medieval Orthodox warrior monk Alexander Peresvet who perished in mortal combat.

 

Yury Borisov, the deputy prime minister in charge of military development, told a conference in Moscow that Peresvet was already being widely deployed and it could blind satellites up to 1,500 km above Earth.

 

He said, though, that there were already more powerful Russian systems than Peresvet that could burn up drones and other equipment. Borisov cited a test on Tuesday which he said had burned up a drone 5 km away within five seconds.

 

"If Peresvet blinds, then the new generation of laser weapons lead to the physical destruction of the target - thermal destruction, they burn up," Borisov told Russian state television.

Asked if such weapons were being used in Ukraine, Borisov said: "Yes. The first prototypes are already being used there." He said the weapon was called "Zadira".

 

Click on the link for the full article

[spjunkies]

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

 

[China]

Turkey’s leader says ‘no’ to Sweden and Finland’s NATO bid

 

Turkey will oppose Sweden and Finland joining NATO, the country’s president flatly stated in a video released Thursday, as Turkish officials emphasized Ankara’s security concerns.

 

“We have told our relevant friends we would say ‘no’ to Finland and Sweden’s entry into NATO, and we will continue on our path like this,” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a group of Turkish youths in the video for Commemoration of Atatürk, Youth and Sports Day, a national holiday.

 

Turkey’s approval of Finland and Sweden’s application to join the Western military alliance is crucial because NATO makes decisions by consensus. Each of its 30 member countries has the power to veto a membership bid.

 

Erdogan has said Turkey’s objection stems from its security concerns and grievances with Sweden’s — and to a lesser degree Finland’s — perceived support of the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, and an armed group in Syria that Turkey sees as an extension of the PKK. The conflict with the PKK has killed tens of thousands of people since 1984.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[CousinsCowgirl84]

does it matter that they become members though, I mean, we can choose to defend whoever we want and they have publicly said they want to be a part of NATO and not be neutral to Russia… 

[DCSaints_fan]

5 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

does it matter that they become members though, I mean, we can choose to defend whoever we want and they have publicly said they want to be a part of NATO and not be neutral to Russia… 

 

It slightly undermines NATO, and is therefore a minor win for Putin, if we have to form a separate alliance with Sweden and Finland b/c Turkey is blocking them.  The language of NATO is such that it is the "primary alliance" so it would seem like a consolation prize.

Edited May 19, 2022 by DCSaints_fan

[China]

Accordinf to McFaul, Turkey's approval is something negotiable:

 

 

[China]

Exclusive-U.S. aims to arm Ukraine with advanced anti-ship missiles to fight Russian blockade

 

The White House is working to put advanced anti-ship missiles in the hands of Ukrainian fighters to help defeat Russia's naval blockade, officials said, amid concerns more powerful weapons that could sink Russian warships would intensify the conflict.

 

Ukraine has made no secret it wants more advanced U.S. capabilities beyond its current inventory of artillery, Javelin and Stinger missiles, and other arms. Kyiv's list, for example, includes missiles that could push the Russian navy away from its Black Sea ports, allowing the restart of shipments of grain and other agricultural products worldwide.

 

Current and former U.S. officials and congressional sources have cited roadblocks to sending longer range, more powerful weapons to Ukraine that include lengthy training requirements, difficulties maintaining equipment, or concerns U.S. weaponry could be captured by Russian forces, in addition to the fear of escalation.

 

But three U.S. officials and two congressional sources said two types of powerful anti-ship missiles, the Harpoon made by Boeing and the Naval Strike Missile made by Kongsberg and Raytheon Technologies were in active consideration for either direct shipment to Ukraine, or through a transfer from a European ally that has the missiles.

 

In April, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy appealed to Portugal to provide the Ukrainian military with Harpoons, which have a range of up to almost 300 km.

 

But there are several issues keeping Ukraine from receiving the missiles. For one, there is limited availability of platforms to launch Harpoons from shore -- a technically challenging solution according to several officials -- as it is mostly a sea-based missile.

 

Two U.S. officials said the United States was working on potential solutions that included pulling a launcher off of a U.S. ship. Both missiles cost about $1.5 million per round, according to experts and industry executives.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Renegade7]

5 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

It slightly undermines NATO, and is therefore a minor win for Putin, if we have to form a separate alliance with Sweden and Finland b/c Turkey is blocking them.  The language of NATO is such that it is the "primary alliance" so it would seem like a consolation prize.

 

Yep, here we are, a military alliance where a member authoritarian country is blocking entry of democratic countries in their bid to defend themselves from an authoritarian country.  Exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind 😒

 

Quote

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world": it was George Washington's Farewell Address to us. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1970-07-01/entangling-alliances

 

Previous superpowers in human history either didn't have friends or enough strong ones to help them in the worst of times to help them avoid their demise.  

 

While it does make the US superpower unique in human history having alliances like NATO, this is yet another example of the price we pay for that.

 

TL;DR: kick Turkey out of NATO yesterday.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Renegade7

[PokerPacker]

I'd definitely take Finland and Sweden as allies over Turkey.  You want us to choose, Turkey?  You won't like the answer.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

TL;DR: kick Turkey out of NATO yesterday.

You, uh, do understand just how important Turkey is, to NATO, and the rest of the world?  

[Renegade7]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

You, uh, do understand just how important Turkey is, to NATO, and the rest of the world?  

 

Enlighten me. 

 

I'm personally sick of being in military alliances to defend countries that are the antithesis of what we are supposed to stand for as leaders of the free world. 

 

Please, explain to me how it's "worth it" and how NATO would fall apart without Turkey.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Enlighten me. 

 

I'm personally sick of being in military alliances to defend countries that are the antithesis of what we are supposed to stand for as leaders of the free world. 

 

Please, explain to me how it's "worth it" and how NATO would fall apart without Turkey.

Is that a goalpost in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?  
 

I didn't say "NATO would fall apart without Turkey". 
 

However, I am at least under the impression that Turkey does not allow Russian warships to travel between the Black Sea and the Med. Something which I believe is kinda important. 

[LD0506]

Ukraine is going to win

America’s heavy weapons will make the difference against the Russians

 

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/odds-now-favor-ukrainian-victory-russia/?fbclid=IwAR0PuK5riM7BCskSOATYb_hwidv5rtD1Z0SZ3jUoS73FX_OaFZTweUAalKc

[DogofWar1]

Why is Turkey important to NATO?

 

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

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

Is that a goalpost in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?  
 

I didn't say "NATO would fall apart without Turkey". 
 

 

Then don't bring up how important they are in context to the frustration I brought with having them in NATO and why.

 

Because this is exactly what the Founders warned us about:

 

Quote

Turkey enjoys a strong relationship with its maritime neighbors Russia and Ukraine, which are its biggest grain suppliers. Russia is Turkey’s primary energy supplier. Turkey has acquired a Russian-made air defense system, angering NATO members. Meanwhile, Turkey has upset Moscow by supplying Ukraine with armed drones. Turkey has called for Russian hostilities to cease, but it abstained from a February 25 vote on suspending Russia’s membership in most bodies of the Council of Europe.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jillgoldenziel/2022/03/02/how-turkeys-blocking-russia-from-the-black-sea-harms-neutral-states/amp/

 

1 hour ago, Larry said:

However, I am at least under the impression that Turkey does not allow Russian warships to travel between the Black Sea and the Med. Something which I believe is kinda important. 

 

I'm not buying them being out of NATO would make them change this stance, given they invoked a rationale that predates World War 2:

 

Quote

On Monday, Turkey invoked the Montreux Convention of 1936, which was designed to keep the peace in the Black Sea. The Straits of Bosporus and the Dardanelles are Turkish internal waters that connect the Black Sea and the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. In the 19th and 20th centuries, disputes repeatedly developed as world powers—especially Turkey, Russia, and their predecessor countries and empires—attempted to restrict warships from passing through these strategic chokepoints. The 1936 Montreux Convention was designed to balance Turkey’s rights over its internal waters with the international community’s rights and needs to use the straits and to keep the peace in the Black Sea. (The Montreaux Convention applies to the straits, and not the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), because it is a specialized law related to a specific area that was in force before the adoption of UNCLOS).

 

Not only that Turkey did it at the request of Ukraine, not NATO:

 

Quote

On February 25, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked Turkey to close the straits to Russian warships. Zelenskyy then thanked Turkey for deciding to close the straits to Russian warships on Twitter, reportedly forcing Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to make a decision. Within a day, Turkey called the conflict a “war,” essentially forcing itself to block the straits to belligerents. But on Monday, Turkey announced that it would close the strait to all warships, not just belligerent ones. Turkey made clear that warships would only be allowed to enter if returning to their home port.

 

But again, here we go with them complicating **** by trying to stay amicable with Russia while still in NATO:

 

Quote

Turkey’s balancing act could easily fall flat. Turkey could have easily blocked only belligerent—or Russian ships.  It likely chose to block all warships to avoid the appearance of taking sides against Russia. Turkey has advanced no rationale for feeling that it is in “imminent” danger of war that would allow it to block all warships from entering the straits. A NATO member’s essential announcement that it is “threatened with imminent danger of war,” could have consequences for the Alliance’s involvement in the conflict—especially if Russia chooses to press this point or use it to escalate. If Turkey is not at imminent danger of war, a neutral state could ostensibly sue it for blocking its navigational rights in the straits. Every neutral state will not give up its navigational rights to two of the world’s most strategic straits, especially if the war drags on.

 

Moreover, Turkey’s blocking the straits is only as good as its enforcement. So far, no Russian or Ukrainian ships have asked to enter the Black Sea during the conflict. If a Russian ship tries to enter, Turkey has now committed to blocking it. Doing so could escalation tensions with Russia, and in turn, between Russia and NATO. Meanwhile, if non-belligerent nations wish to position warships in the Black Sea—including NATO countries—Turkey’s position is that it will block them as well. To do so could inflame tensions between NATO and Turkey; not to do so could escalate conflict by showing that Turkey is taking a position against Russia. Allowing non-belligerent warships to pass would show that Turkey is unable or unwilling to police the straits—which would damage both Turkey’s reputation and possibly the future of a Convention that entrusts Turkey to keep the peace in the Black Sea.

 

They likely would've done this anyway given their complex relationship with the West and Russia. So kick them out, they clearly don't want any more part of this then they have to, and are getting in the way of trying to prevent this from spreading by blocking those Nordic countries from joining NATO.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Renegade7