Ukraine - Russia Conflict

SpitfireV

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,282
Location
New Zealand
Oh yeah fuck sorry I rounded up 91% of a population into a broad statement and missed those 3% of Caucasus peoples. I hope that's to your satisfaction.
 

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
2,406
In true Soviet fashion, they're mobilizing additional troops that will most certainly be even more poorly trained and equipped than we've seen so far, just in time for winter. Good times ahead for those poor bastards.
 

pardus

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
10,517
So do we just commit to ending Russia at this point? That’s not hyperbole, I would also like the opinion of someone who has been on the ground.

I know we (America) have our skeletons in our closet regarding invading and generally interfering in the affairs of other nations. I do feel like, post OIF and OEF we have collectively said “that was a phase, our bad.”

Russia has been, for hundreds of years, doing shit like this. Is this when the West, plus’s maybe India, says it’s time to demilitarize?

@pardus and @Marauder06 (the resident professor) what do you guys think?
I fucking hate the Russians, but it's just not a practical scenario. They are uncivilized scum that just haven't advanced in mentality. The best thing I think we can do is wall the cunts off, make them change internally before we allow them back into the global club, but even that would require China et al being on board, and it would still take years, decades...
55 downed aircraft against what? 2000 launches? There comes a point where we have to acknowledge the system is obsolete and production needs to end. I think the stinger is there.

Do we have a newer generation manpad to replace it?
The big question is, how? They have a homogenised ethnical makeup so you can't do it like that. Same with religion and culture and language. They're all on the same page thinking wise so I reckon you'd just end up with a kind of Eurasian EU.

Interesting thought experiment.
Not quite, siberia is asian, then you have dagestan/Checnia etc... who are all muslim, there are several languages, though they all must learn Russian too.
I think the only practical possible scenario would be to break up the RU federation, but that would be a legitimate reason for Russia to use nukes preemptively according to their nuclear protocols.
In true Soviet fashion, they're mobilizing additional troops that will most certainly be even more poorly trained and equipped than we've seen so far, just in time for winter. Good times ahead for those poor bastards.
Their logistics are already in the shitter, introduce low moral troops into the mix, add civil unrest in Russia and it's a huge bloody mess. Putin is going to have to be very lucky if he wants to keep his job/head.
 

Jaknight

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2018
Messages
519
Maybe if enough of them die in Ukraine and the sanctions start to throttle the average Moscow resident The Russians themselves will get rid of their current government.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,750
Location
Not Afghanistan
I'm starting to wonder what Russia will run out of first: men or tanks. Doing some digging, the tank numbers (total before the war and total lost in the war) are all over the place, but you could make a case that a tenth of all tanks have been lost and well over that if you look at active tanks vs. those in storage. A tank in storage needs work to be operational...and time is finite. Some of those stored tanks will never run again AND you need them for parts thanks to sanctions hindering your ability to make new spares.

At some point Russia's operational units will be paper tigers if their armored vehicles are sent to the Ukraine to recoup losses. Russia's robbing Peter (or Pytor if you prefer) to pay Paul. Russia is flat out losing material faster than it can be replaced.
 

Salt USMC

Intel
SOF Support
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
3,232
Location
Washington, DC
I know I am late to the party, but I have some questions and comments.

Other then Tucker Carlson, which prominent conservatives are against helping the Ukraine?
Why does saying don't fund Ukraine automatically make one pro-Putin?

I am concerned about where all those stingers went early on. The West and (understandably) Ukraine were in full panic mode. The number of Stingers delivered, number of Stingers claimed to have been used and the number of downed Russian aircraft doesn't add up. For me this means:
1. The Stinger is obsolete and should be removed from our inventory, or
2. The Ukrainians just shot them off like fireworks, or
3. Many are sitting in someones private warehouse for sale on the Black Market when this is all over.

Option 3 is the one that worries me, and the Ukraine government will need to do some serious accountability soon.

Criticizing those who are more worried about the border then the Ukraine isn't productive. El Paso gets 1500 plus migrants every day, they are overwhelmed, so yeah that's a bigger issue and doesn't make you a Nazi or pro-Putin.

Obama, Trump, and Biden all have one thing in common, their SecDef's never came up with a long-term plan for switching to UK Armed Forces from Soviet to Western gear. DoD still comes up with bullshit excuses for withholding modern gear (it'll take too long to train them). Start training now and they will join the fight in a year (I don't see the war ending soon).

Does Putin go nuclear, escalate to deescalate was a known Soviet tactic, and I doubt that book was thrown away.

Airburst with the resulting EMP would devastate Western Europe.
I’m late to this reply, but Steve Brannon is another influencer in MAGA world who is stoutly against Ukraine. Not just aid to Ukraine, but the entire narrative of Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He’s one of those anti-NATO guys who also parroted the story about American bio-labs in Ukraine. He may not be hugely influential in mainstream Republican circles any more, but he’s very influential in the minds of hardcore MAGA voters.

Edit: Paul Gosar too, but that guy is just nuts
 

BloodStripe

Marine
SOF Support
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
4,178
Location
CONUS
SSMP
Military Mentor
In late August, Oryx published a report saying Belgium has no ground based air defenses to give Ukraine. That wasn’t a big shock. The big shock is they don’t have anything at all as a result of budget cuts. I’m not trying to turn this political, but it’s almost as if a few years ago a former US President pressed NATO countries to spend more on defense. Imagine how much better equipped Ukraine could be if they all actually spent to the agreed amount.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,750
Location
Not Afghanistan
In late August, Oryx published a report saying Belgium has no ground based air defenses to give Ukraine. That wasn’t a big shock. The big shock is they don’t have anything at all as a result of budget cuts. I’m not trying to turn this political, but it’s almost as if a few years ago a former US President pressed NATO countries to spend more on defense. Imagine how much better equipped Ukraine could be if they all actually spent to the agreed amount.

I'm trying to follow your argument. Belgium not living up to its NATO military funding pledge means they have nothing to donate to a non-NATO country?
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,386
Location
CONUS
I’m late to this reply, but Steve Brannon is another influencer in MAGA world who is stoutly against Ukraine. Not just aid to Ukraine, but the entire narrative of Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He’s one of those anti-NATO guys who also parroted the story about American bio-labs in Ukraine. He may not be hugely influential in mainstream Republican circles any more, but he’s very influential in the minds of hardcore MAGA voters.

Edit: Paul Gosar too, but that guy is just nuts
Is he "against Ukraine" or is he "against unchecked, unconditional, and unending support for the war in Ukraine?" I don't know because I don't follow the guy. But if being "against Ukraine" is the latter of the two, count me in that camp as well.

More importantly, being "against Ukraine" or "unending Afghanistan-style conflict in Ukraine" or whatever else is far different than being "pro-Putin," which was the original charge laid against some Republicans.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,386
Location
CONUS
I'm trying to follow your argument. Belgium not living up to its NATO military funding pledge means they have nothing to donate to a non-NATO country?
That's a really good point. At the same time, though, it's an indicator that NATO is free-riding their defense under the US military umbrella, and has been for a very long time.
 

BloodStripe

Marine
SOF Support
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
4,178
Location
CONUS
SSMP
Military Mentor
I'm trying to follow your argument. Belgium not living up to its NATO military funding pledge means they have nothing to donate to a non-NATO country?
Touché because I didn’t explain it. Actual war costs more than defense. Belgium has lived vicariously through NATO now for too long. Most seem to not remember life under or near Russian control, and unless more NATO countries want Russia in their backyard again, they are going to need to be supporting Ukraine until Russia is long gone.
 
Top