Ukraine - Russia Conflict

Love Milley’s response- “We don’t know if we can recover the drone, but we don’t want to get into a shooting war with Russia, so like, we aren’t gonna do anything.”

The other fun statement to explore- how DARE the Russians intercept a foreign superpower’s AC over waters that border their country! That’s aggression! (Meanwhile we clacked an Iranian drone offer Syria same day sooooooooooo).

Are people saying the second part?

Seems like business as usual.
 
Give them the max negative points for allowing Moscow to recover the wreckage, claiming it’s not worth retrieving themselves since they “deleted the software” off the drone.

Since it's not like they (China, Iran, Russia, etc) don't have other MQ-9s that have crashed previously in various other places and that anything of any real value was probably deleted on the way down and the crew probably nose-dived the thing into the drink, the Soviets are probably going to wind up collecting scrap metal and not much more. Other than the potentially bad optics, there's really not much point in collecting the wreckage.
 
Are people saying the second part?

Seems like business as usual.
Oh yeah, it's been great. So many "OH MY GOD THEY SHOT OUR DRONE DOWN WE NEED TO SHOOT DOWN RUSSIAN AIRPLANESE" takes it's been fantastic. It's your classic warmongering, but now it's just on the other side of the fence. The "Ukraine pin/Putin is LITERALLY HITLER" crowd has been clamoring for US to engage kinetically since this started, this is just another brick in the wall.
Since it's not like they (China, Iran, Russia, etc) don't have other MQ-9s that have crashed previously in various other places and that anything of any real value was probably deleted on the way down and the crew probably nose-dived the thing into the drink, the Soviets are probably going to wind up collecting scrap metal and not much more. Other than the potentially bad optics, there's really not much point in collecting the wreckage.
I am going to disagree with you super hard. As a dude that understands the value of personnel and sensitive item recovery (and you, a guy that knows that solemn promise from the other side)- it's not just about getting the stuff back. Whether the ball/systems/data were intact or they weren't- that's not the point.

The point is showing American service men and women that no matter what, and no matter where- if we have an asset that goes down, the first hands on are going to be Americans.

Tactically, sure- maybe the value of said wreckage wasn't a ton and we are so rich we can dunk a $32M asset and do nothing in return. But what happens when it's a manned asset? We just gonna say, "Well, those folks have SERE training if they lived, and we can delete the data from the plane", that will be a huge shot to the morale and willingness of the folks flying the planes to expose themselves to the risks that could be. As I am sure you know.
 
My favorite take (from idiots) have been the "that was actually an F-15 in the video, and we're being lied to so we go into war!" Usually followed up with something about biolabs/burisma.
Like, I get we've Maybe started war under false pretenses before, but thats clearly a SU-27 in that video.
Dude, super clear it wasn't a 15, you're spot on.
 
We had an elementary school, Thunderbolt Elementary in Fleming Island, that used to have a Su-27 as the school's logo. I pointed this out to one of their teachers (we went to high school together) and the school has since changed their logo to an F/A-18. Maybe I helped, maybe I didn't, but damn...a Sukhoi in a town that used to have F-18's, A-4's, F-8's, etc.? Never mind that the school took its name from the P-47 Thunderbolt, but I digress.

Imagine not being smart enough to use a search engine.
 
I am going to disagree with you super hard. As a dude that understands the value of personnel and sensitive item recovery (and you, a guy that knows that solemn promise from the other side)- it's not just about getting the stuff back. Whether the ball/systems/data were intact or they weren't- that's not the point.

The point is showing American service men and women that no matter what, and no matter where- if we have an asset that goes down, the first hands on are going to be Americans.

Tactically, sure- maybe the value of said wreckage wasn't a ton and we are so rich we can dunk a $32M asset and do nothing in return. But what happens when it's a manned asset? We just gonna say, "Well, those folks have SERE training if they lived, and we can delete the data from the plane", that will be a huge shot to the morale and willingness of the folks flying the planes to expose themselves to the risks that could be. As I am sure you know.
First, let me say that I am well aware of and greatly appreciate that solemn promise. All of us are. We are all very grateful the whole system is there for us. It speaks volumes to the character and values of our nation. So thank you for that—it was and is a huge deal to the me and to everyone I ever flew with.

. . . and now I’m gonna disagree with you.

This was not a manned asset.

This is not the first MQ-9 wreckage our enemies have ever acquired. MQ-9s have either crashed or been shot down all over the Middle East. Nor is it the first asset we’ve ever left for our enemies to acquire.

Further, parking a recovery ship and escorts a hundred miles off an active warzone that has already seen multiple cases of target mis-identification and engagement from both combatants all to avoid a potentially bad optic is a pretty big ask. All the more so when a friendly press (for once!) will simply twist whatever propaganda the Russians come up with from the recovered wreckage to fit the western narrative.

Not that anyone’s asking me, but I’m gonna need a lot more reward to offset that heaping pile of risk before I sign off on it.
 
First, let me say that I am well aware of and greatly appreciate that solemn promise. All of us are. We are all very grateful the whole system is there for us. It speaks volumes to the character and values of our nation. So thank you for that—it was and is a huge deal to the me and to everyone I ever flew with.

. . . and now I’m gonna disagree with you.

This was not a manned asset.

This is not the first MQ-9 wreckage our enemies have ever acquired. MQ-9s have either crashed or been shot down all over the Middle East. Nor is it the first asset we’ve ever left for our enemies to acquire.

Further, parking a recovery ship and escorts a hundred miles off an active warzone that has already seen multiple cases of target mis-identification and engagement from both combatants all to avoid a potentially bad optic is a pretty big ask. All the more so when a friendly press (for once!) will simply twist whatever propaganda the Russians come up with from the recovered wreckage to fit the western narrative.

Not that anyone’s asking me, but I’m gonna need a lot more reward to offset that heaping pile of risk before I sign off on it.
All good, and I understand what you're saying. I think you're missing the forest for the trees here; I don't like the response or the precedence it's setting. Recovering the drone is a show of strength, not a tactical decision of risk vs reward.

When Gen Milley gets on TV and openly says, "Hey, cool, you took out one of our planes- but we don't want to get into a shooting war", that's a bad thing. And it sets a bad precedence, because it moves the Overton window ever so slightly.

"We (America) can go anywhere, any time to get our assets back" > "Well, it's pretty ok if someone shoots down our planes as long as their unmanned "(we are here) > "Ok, but seriously, stop scrambling fighters to interdict our manned assets; we aren't going to do anything about it but quit it" > "We are now going to engage in full scale DTACC shooting war because one of your planes clipped/shot down a manned asset."

It's the slippery slope of deterrence (which absolutely cannot happen without real consequence) we are currently experiencing. You damage our planes, we decimate one of your bases. That prevents further incursions. Leave the guy in question out of it- but when you make the call to lob some liberation devices at enemy of America just before you sit down to chocolate cake with a pacing challenge world leader, that establishes boundaries and deters future threats.

We fell all over ourselves to scramble teams of people to recover a spy balloon that was nothing more of a distraction, and apparently "happened all the time", with what ROI, again? But this act of aggression in international airspace gets- a press conference and some finger wagging?

Sort of reminds me of, "Listen, Jack- if Russia just has a little incursion, who knows what we will do? You know?"

ETA- to your point about "not the first time", I am not disagreeing. But timing is everything- it would be a very good time to show that American strength on the world's stage. Obviously my opinion.
 
All good, and I understand what you're saying. I think you're missing the forest for the trees here; I don't like the response or the precedence it's setting. Recovering the drone is a show of strength, not a tactical decision of risk vs reward.

When Gen Milley gets on TV and openly says, "Hey, cool, you took out one of our planes- but we don't want to get into a shooting war", that's a bad thing. And it sets a bad precedence, because it moves the Overton window ever so slightly.

"We (America) can go anywhere, any time to get our assets back" > "Well, it's pretty ok if someone shoots down our planes as long as their unmanned "(we are here) > "Ok, but seriously, stop scrambling fighters to interdict our manned assets; we aren't going to do anything about it but quit it" > "We are now going to engage in full scale DTACC shooting war because one of your planes clipped/shot down a manned asset."

It's the slippery slope of deterrence (which absolutely cannot happen without real consequence) we are currently experiencing. You damage our planes, we decimate one of your bases. That prevents further incursions. Leave the guy in question out of it- but when you make the call to lob some liberation devices at enemy of America just before you sit down to chocolate cake with a pacing challenge world leader, that establishes boundaries and deters future threats.

We fell all over ourselves to scramble teams of people to recover a spy balloon that was nothing more of a distraction, and apparently "happened all the time", with what ROI, again? But this act of aggression in international airspace gets- a press conference and some finger wagging?

Sort of reminds me of, "Listen, Jack- if Russia just has a little incursion, who knows what we will do? You know?"

ETA- to your point about "not the first time", I am not disagreeing. But timing is everything- it would be a very good time to show that American strength on the world's stage. Obviously my opinion.
Milley is a fucking perfumed princess.Maybe he should ask China for permission.
 
I might well be missing your forest--but I don't think I'm the only one distracted by the trees. Deterrence can be done--but it needs to be done with by a respected leader with skill, agility and authority.

I'd love for any of you to tell me who in the current administration has those attributes with both the political clout and the intestinal fortitude to use them.
 
I cannot believe how bad he and Austin have been. Pretty wild to watch/reflect on.
La Lloyd was a diversity pick, just like KJP. Not Obviously Lloyd was relatively competent...but I remember the Army celebrating the all African American command team way back before we had to make press releases about that shit...or maybe the Army started the trend with 18 Airborne Corps? Doing diversity shit to get clicks?

Milley was probably one of Trump's worst decisions.

Oh yeah, it's been great. So many "OH MY GOD THEY SHOT OUR DRONE DOWN WE NEED TO SHOOT DOWN RUSSIAN AIRPLANESE" takes it's been fantastic. It's your classic warmongering, but now it's just on the other side of the fence. The "Ukraine pin/Putin is LITERALLY HITLER" crowd has been clamoring for US to engage kinetically since this started, this is just another brick in the wall.

I am going to disagree with you super hard. As a dude that understands the value of personnel and sensitive item recovery (and you, a guy that knows that solemn promise from the other side)- it's not just about getting the stuff back. Whether the ball/systems/data were intact or they weren't- that's not the point.

The point is showing American service men and women that no matter what, and no matter where- if we have an asset that goes down, the first hands on are going to be Americans.

Tactically, sure- maybe the value of said wreckage wasn't a ton and we are so rich we can dunk a $32M asset and do nothing in return. But what happens when it's a manned asset? We just gonna say, "Well, those folks have SERE training if they lived, and we can delete the data from the plane", that will be a huge shot to the morale and willingness of the folks flying the planes to expose themselves to the risks that could be. As I am sure you know.

Hey brother, I don't think we do that anymore, especially not with this clown show.
 
Last edited:
Anyone read Mandarin? Video of small munitions, mortars and something else, captured in Ukraine.


Google translate of tweet headline:
The "superpower" helps the "Second Army of the World" to defeat Ukraine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine showed ammunition from China, which was contaminated in the army of the rF. China is as bloody shit as rF. For the year, the RF has used up all the reserves of the huge military-industrial complex of the USSR and its own, Chinese supplies will no longer save.
 
Back
Top