Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[TheGreatBuzz]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

Thoughts on enforcing no fly zone?

What do I want to do or do I think we should do?

 

I want to go in and kick Russian ass back to their border like we did in Kuwait.  
 

I think we should do some middle missile strikes.  As for a no fly zone, I think that would be similar to boots on the ground which we shouldn’t do.  Though we should keep providing material support to Ukraine so they can fight against Russian air forces.  
 

Now if Russia starts upping the game by just trying to level Ukraine cities like some are saying is possible if they keep meeting this level resistance, I think we should push hard for NATO (which basically means us) to put forces on the ground under the flag of protecting civilians from being killed.  Make it more of a humanitarian mission using violence against Russia forces as needed.  But the big thing is stopping at the Russian border.

Edited February 26, 2022 by The Almighty Buzz
Autocorrect

[PeterMP]

I'll also say that standing for Kiev is nice symbolically, but if you are the Ukraine getting encircled at Kiev is a mistake.

 

They should (potentially have) drawn back, stretched Russian supply lines, and put themselves closer to where they can be re-supplied by NATO (towards Romania and/or Poland).

 

(From google, Kiev is only a 100 km from the Belarus border and only 380 from the Russian border.)

[NickyJ]

The talk about us lobbing missiles at Russian troops is crazy talk. If any country started launching cruise missiles at our troops with their own military, we'd consider it an act of war. Doesn't matter whose country we're in or why we're there. American missiles, launched from American rocket launchers on American ships or trucks or whatever = American intervention and America entering the war.

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Looks like the second post in this thread was pretty prophetic about the way it would go...

 

For those observing "early signs of victory" a reminder it took US mil and allies 3 weeks to reach Baghdad. And that was a thorough military ass whooping. 

 

The President is handling this in a good way. No need for bombs or missiles at this point. And a commitment of US troops beyond where they already are would be foolish. 

 

This isn't a TV show where we see how it turns out after one weekend of binge watching. We should use elements of national power besides military(diplomatic, information, economic) to the maximum extent. If military becomes an unavoidable necessity then we'll whack them in pretty short order... but at significant cost

 

Yeah but Baghdad is further from where our troop massed (Kuwait) than Russia is to Kiev, and we got slowed down by a sand storm.

 

We didn't try to take Baghdad the first day of the war.

 

Who knows if the number of Russian dead coming out of Ukraine are correct but if they are in comparison fewer than 200 coalition troops died in the invasion component of the Iraq war.  Even if the numbers are pretty far off, if they've even lost 1000 men that's a big deal.

[visionary]

 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

The talk about us lobbing missiles at Russian troops is crazy talk. If any country started launching cruise missiles at our troops with their own military, we'd consider it an act of war. Doesn't matter whose country we're in or why we're there. American missiles, launched from American rocket launchers on American ships or trucks or whatever = American intervention and America entering the war.

That’s ok. i think everyone understands that. 
 

i think the point is Putin got caught with his pants down. The idea of a full scale with Russia cause they retaliate has died down a bit - whether incorrectly so or not, it seems lots of people are a bit surprised at how it’s gone so far. 

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

The talk about us lobbing missiles at Russian troops is crazy talk. If any country started launching cruise missiles at our troops with their own military, we'd consider it an act of war. Doesn't matter whose country we're in or why we're there. American missiles, launched from American rocket launchers on American ships or trucks or whatever = American intervention and America entering the war.

 

This just isn't historically true.

 

There is no doubt that during the Korean war we fought Russian pilots in Russian planes.  We didn't consider it an act of war by Russia.  There were also Russians in Vietnam and there are certainly rumors that Russians manned anti-air craft installations using Russian equipment in North Vietnam (and therefore likely shot down US pilots).  And we didn't consider it an act of war.

 

Russia might consider it an act of war from the US and broaden the conflict.  But they might not.  But we can certainly point at places in history where they've done similar things that didn't result in us directly attacking Russia.

Edited February 26, 2022 by PeterMP

[FrFan]

Europeans could hire mercs, Academi/Blackwater were in Donbass in 2014.

Edited February 26, 2022 by FrFan

[Ball Security]

1 minute ago, FrFan said:

Europeans could hire mercs, Academi/Blackwater were in Donbass in 2014.

Erik Prince is likely pro-Putin though.

[Barry.Randolphe]

The answer here is that NATO countries send their special forces under the cover of darkness to reinforce Ukrainian lines and help provide ground guidance.

[tshile]

Tucker Carlson discussing  crisis and why do we hate Putin: …. Did he manufacture covid and cause a world wide ondemic? ….

 

omg does your dog whistle get any louder

 

Carlson: … does he eat dogs?

 

omg it does. Holy ****. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I think it’s always weird that countries don’t view sending lethal weapons to the enemy as an attack on their military.

 

Im surprised Russia isn’t threatening other countries who are giving weapons to Ukraine…

[Cooked Crack]

 

Surprisingly not from a Glenn Youngkin friend.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

It would depend on how you would do this.  I wouldn’t want to put any of our pilots in harms way.  That’s why I think we should stick to sea-based missile strikes.  Doesn’t put us in harms way and only striking locations that the rightful government asks us to.  Seems like Russian forces are already struggling enough, wouldn’t take much to put them on their heals.

 

I stand corrected, this does seem safer pegging them from international waters then flying into contested airspace.

 

Having said what's to stop Russia from attacking our navy in the Black Sea?  Isn't any US military intervention possible to cause US casualties and with your point being how to limit that with understanding once we do that the risk can no longer be zero, right?

 

Not saying you are wrong, seeking clarification on expectations of doing what you suggested via ships versus what I suggested via planes. Because I was thinking more B-2s then fighter jets (shoulda been more clear in my compromise proposal).

Edited February 26, 2022 by Renegade7

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think it’s always weird that countries don’t view sending lethal weapons to the enemy as an attack on their military.

 

Im surprised Russia isn’t threatening other countries who are giving weapons to Ukraine…

 

It is just some of the historical rules of war and norms.

 

Like I said above, there's no doubt that we fought Russians and Chinese (China called them volunteers) in the Korean war.   And there were some of both in Vietnam (though there was less clear direct US/Russian and Chinese interactions in Vietnam).

 

If Russia starts threatening countries that are aiding the Ukraine, they will be acting well out of historical norms, will lose even more global support, and even countries like China will distance themselves from Russia.

[NickyJ]

50 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

This just isn't historically true.

 

There is no doubt that during the Korean war we fought Russian pilots in Russian planes.  We didn't consider it an act of war by Russia.  There were also Russians in Vietnam and there are certainly rumors that Russians manned anti-air craft installations using Russian equipment in North Vietnam (and therefore likely shot down US pilots).  And we didn't consider it an act of war.

 

Russia might consider it an act of war from the US and broaden the conflict.  But they might not.  But we can certainly point at places in history where they've done similar things that didn't result in us directly attacking Russia.

Were the Russian pilots in the Korean war fighting in planes with Russian emblems on the wings, launched from Russian airstrips? A group of people putting on another country's uniform to "volunteer" to fight in another country's military is different from a military using its own ships, tanks, and aircraft still emblazoned with its own flags to participate in combat. For it to not be America officially entering the war, we'd have to gift Ukraine the ships the rockets are launched from, the trucks the rockets are launched from, put any ground launched weapons in Ukrainian territory before it's used, and deck them out in Ukrainian colors, wear Ukrainian uniforms, etc.

Edited February 26, 2022 by NickyJ

[steve09ru]

Probably already posted https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-official-issues-stark-threats-130450444.html

[FrFan]

 

[PeterMP]

29 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I stand corrected, this does seem safer pegging them from international waters then flying into contested airspace.

 

Having said what's to stop Russia from attacking our navy in the Black Sea?  Isn't any US military intervention possible to cause US casualties and with your point being how to limit that with understanding once we do that the risk can no longer be zero, right?

 

Not saying you are wrong, seeking clarification on expectations of doing what you suggested via ships versus what I suggested via planes. Because I was thinking more B-2s then fighter jets (shoulda been more clear in my compromise proposal).

 

Any US intervention can potentially cause US casualties.  It is possible even what we are doing now (supplying Ukraine weapons while sanctioning Russia) could be considered an act of war and result in a Russian strike against the US.  That would be extremely unprecedented, but you can't say the risks are 0.  Especially if you think Putin is having a decline in critical thinking.

 

The question is always what is the benefit vs. the risk.  Including the US public's response.  Even a B-2 can potentially be shot down and presumably Russia has active anti-aircraft defenses in the area.  They could always claim they didn't know what they are shooting at.  Moving something to directly attack some of our ships would require a different direct action than an airplane over Ukraine.  It is much harder to credibly damage a US ship in the black sea. 

  

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This isn't about trying to dictate what should happen here, Ukraine is begging us to send troops right now.  The response should be "where and how", not taking over their own military's decision making for them.

 

I regret agreeing with Obama about Syria, and by time I realized I was wrong, it was too late.  Agree with Biden if you want, that doesn't mean he's right or assure what he's doing will work.

To my knowledge, the Ukraine hasn't been a direct and public request for troops.

 

Did you see that somewhere?

Edited February 26, 2022 by PeterMP

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Having said what's to stop Russia from attacking our navy in the Black Sea?

Us whooping that ass.

[Captain Wiggles]

I forgot the good Klitschko was the mayor if Kyiv.

 

https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/33363582/former-heavyweight-champion-vitali-klitschko-plans-fight-ukraine-brother?platform=amp

[FrFan]

 

[PeterMP]

14 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

Were the Russian pilots in the Korean war fighting in planes with Russian emblems on the wings, launched from Russian airstrips? A group of people putting on another country's uniform to "volunteer" to fight in another country's military is different from a military using its own ships, tanks, and aircraft still emblazoned with its own flags to participate in combat. For it to not be America officially entering the war, we'd have to gift Ukraine the ships the rockets are launched from. Deck them out in Ukrainian colors, wear Ukrainian uniforms, etc.

 

The situations aren't identical, but they certainly aren't completely different.  There would be no actual Americans in Ukraine.

 

Taking Renegade's suggestion, would it be better to have B-2 pilots "volunteer" and us to gift them B-2s and bombs and have them operate out of a Ukrainian airport?

 

I'm not sure which Russia would respond more aggressively to and with.

 

Whether that's where you draw the line or where Russia would draw the line isn't at all clear.

 

But that seems to be a pretty thin and magic line to draw.

 

But foreign nationals killing Americans using equipment generated from that foreign country isn't unprecedented in wars involving Americans, and we didn't choose to broaden the conflict when that happened.

Edited February 26, 2022 by PeterMP

[Going Commando]

This war has Vietnam written all over it for Russia.  They're invading a massive country with a large population with a resistance that will be heavily supported by their geopolitical enemies.  There is no clear political objective and it's unpopular at home.  This is going to be a boondoggle for them, and a tragedy in how many lives it will cost.

 

I wanted to speculate on the Russian point of view motivating this invasion, and the analogy for a similar situation from an American perspective I came up with is this:

 

Imagine we go through the most wrenching political and economic upheaval in our national history.  California and the southwest and Texas all break away from the U.S. as our union dissolves.  There is a massive public health crisis and a man's life expectancy drops by over ten years and our death rate overtakes our birth rate, further destabilizing our society and economy.  Our fledgling democracy is crushed by the rise of an oligarchy and we become a failed state.  Now imagine China forms a powerful anti-American alliance with Mexico and Canada, and begins inviting most of those former states into it.  Texas decides it wants to join and is officially recognized as an aspiring member by China.  How would we respond?

[NickyJ]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The situations aren't identical, but they certainly aren't completely different.  There would be no actual Americans in Ukraine.

 

Taking Renegade's suggestion, would it be better to have B-2 pilots "volunteer" and us to gift them B-2s and bombs and have them operate out of a Ukrainian airport?

 

I'm not sure which Russia would respond more aggressively to and with.

 

Whether that's where you draw the line or where Russia would draw the line isn't at all clear.

If B-2 was piloted by volunteers in Ukrainian uniforms and flew from a Ukrainian airport with Ukrainian air force emblems, that would be 100% okay, and I think Russia would consider it okay as well. Ukrainian air space is a war zone, and any hunk of metal with Russian or Ukrainian emblems on it inside the war zone is fair game to get shot. Flying foreign colors from foreign air space into the war zone to kill some people and then fly out again is a no-go, and makes it hell for whichever country let warplanes and vehicles use their territory for combat.

Edited February 26, 2022 by NickyJ