Russia invades Ukraine

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The bigger issue though isn't that the west can't supply what they need, the issue is that they dither for months. Take the F16s. They finally now decide that yes Ukraine can have them, but not until after the counteroffensive. Why? The decisions are too slow

There are a lot of moving parts though:

-they may have feared escalation from Russia if they provided them too soon.

-they may not have been confident that Ukraine was capable of defending the airfields where they'd be located. Because of the ground infrastructure and runway length needed for the F16, they would likely have to be more centralized in a few locations than Ukraine's current planes.

-they might not be confident that it'll make much of a difference. Most of the other "game changing" weapons (e.g. drones, HIMARS, Bradleys, Tanks, etc.) have helped, but haven't really changed the course of the war. F16s (and a lot of US weapons) are designed to operate as an integrated unit based on the assumption of overwhelming power to support them. On their own in a challenging environment like Ukraine, they may not be nearly as effective.


If you go off the assumption that the US wants to do everything in its power to help Ukraine, then yeah, the behavior makes no sense. But that's clearly not the position of the administration. They seem to want to help Ukraine, but absolutely not unconditionally. They're completely unwilling to compromise their own arsenal in any way and they're very cognizant of potential escalation. Basically, they seem to want to bleed Russia as cheaply as possible with no chance of escalation; in that light, their behavior makes sense.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That's not true. Ukraine isn't altruistically sacrificing themselves and their country to protect Europe. They are fighting a war to save their own country and people from Russia's invasion.



I don't think Germany has anything to fear from Russia. Germany is in NATO. Russia can't fight NATO.

I'm not suggesting Ukraine doesn't have it's own reasons for fighting, just that there's a large stake in Europe's security here.

Germany absolutely has something to fear from Russia (though not right now obviously) as does all of Europe. Russia is an expansionist state

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by opendoor

There are a lot of moving parts though:

-they may have feared escalation from Russia if they provided them too soon.

-they may not have been confident that Ukraine was capable of defending the airfields where they'd be located. Because of the ground infrastructure and runway length needed for the F16, they would likely have to be more centralized in a few locations than Ukraine's current planes.

-they might not be confident that it'll make much of a difference. Most of the other "game changing" weapons (e.g. drones, HIMARS, Bradleys, Tanks, etc.) have helped, but haven't really changed the course of the war. F16s (and a lot of US weapons) are designed to operate as an integrated unit based on the assumption of overwhelming power to support them. On their own in a challenging environment like Ukraine, they may not be nearly as effective.


If you go off the assumption that the US wants to do everything in its power to help Ukraine, then yeah, the behavior makes no sense. But that's clearly not the position of the administration. They seem to want to help Ukraine, but absolutely not unconditionally. They're completely unwilling to compromise their own arsenal in any way and they're very cognizant of potential escalation. Basically, they seem to want to bleed Russia as cheaply as possible with no chance of escalation; in that light, their behavior makes sense.

I agree with you, but the whole argument is wrong and based on a flawed assumption. By now they must realize that Putin is a rational actor that values self preservation above all else. When faced with a potential coup/mutiny he flew to his bunker and effectively pardoned the perpetrator for fear of reprisal. He avoids people to not get sick and notoriously had protocols requiring 2 weeks of isolation before visiting during COVID. Does this sound like a man willing to die in mutually assured destruction for his causes? No. That's ridiculous.

Putin's MO is clear. Start a confrontation in Syria and get away with it because the west was scared of escalation. Invade Georgia and get away with it because the west was scared of escalation. Annex Crimea and the west does nothing because it's scared of escalation. Meddle in western elections and get away with it because.... well, you get the point. There's literally dozens of examples here. Appeasement hasn't worked.

We were already told that Patriot systems couldn't be used by Ukraine because it needed to be integrated with other systems. Well it seems to be working fine.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I agree with you, but the whole argument is wrong and based on a flawed assumption. By now they must realize that Putin is a rational actor that values self preservation above all else. When faced with a potential coup/mutiny he flew to his bunker and effectively pardoned the perpetrator for fear of reprisal. He avoids people to not get sick and notoriously had protocols requiring 2 weeks of isolation before visiting during COVID. Does this sound like a man willing to die in mutually assured destruction for his causes? No. That's ridiculous.

Putin's MO is clear. Start a confrontation in Syria and get away with it because the west was scared of escalation. Invade Georgia and get away with it because the west was scared of escalation. Annex Crimea and the west does nothing because it's scared of escalation. Meddle in western elections and get away with it because.... well, you get the point. There's literally dozens of examples here. Appeasement hasn't worked.

We were already told that Patriot systems couldn't be used by Ukraine because it needed to be integrated with other systems. Well it seems to be working fine.

Sure, but the US doesn't really care enough to take any kind of risk. If they think they can bleed Russia with the less escalatory option, they're going to take it even if it hurts Ukraine.

People are continuously surprised at the slow pace of US arms supplies. But at a certain point, you just have to accept that it's totally intentional and not incompetence or lack of preparation. The US and its military have likely gone over the risks/benefits of each step a million times, and they probably think that even a tiny chance of escalation, regional destabilization, or compromising their own stocks isn't worth what will probably be only a marginal benefit to Ukraine's war effort.

And honestly, looking at it in a totally cynical way from the US's perspective, it's hard to argue with the results. They haven't spent a ton of money in the scheme of things, they've assisted Ukraine in neutering Russia as a conventional military threat, and they've generated hundreds of billions of dollars in business for US weapons contractors.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Well it looks like Russia may have already planted explosives on the ZNPP reactor. Things could get really ####ing crazy in the next few weeks if they blow it up and the fallout drifts to a NATO country

https://english.nv.ua/nation/russia-...-50336557.html

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Sure, but the US doesn't really care enough to take any kind of risk. If they think they can bleed Russia with the less escalatory option, they're going to take it even if it hurts Ukraine.

People are continuously surprised at the slow pace of US arms supplies. But at a certain point, you just have to accept that it's totally intentional and not incompetence or lack of preparation. The US and its military have likely gone over the risks/benefits of each step a million times, and they probably think that even a tiny chance of escalation, regional destabilization, or compromising their own stocks isn't worth what will probably be only a marginal benefit to Ukraine's war effort.

And honestly, looking at it in a totally cynical way from the US's perspective, it's hard to argue with the results. They haven't spent a ton of money in the scheme of things, they've assisted Ukraine in neutering Russia as a conventional military threat, and they've generated hundreds of billions of dollars in business for US weapons contractors.

I don't think that's it. They'd bleed Russia faster with better weapons. This isn't a military calculation, it is a political one (which is really even more cynical, really). The bet is that too much involvement won't be supported by the public and Biden fears the Republicans beating him over the head with videos of billions of dollars of F16's falling out of the sky. Germany really does have a population that fears escalation and won't support more. The only place that seems to have a political win by sending more is the UK. Remember the saga with the tanks? None of the countries wanted to face the domestic audience and declare they were going to send them until the UK provided cover.

They're all a bunch of chicken $#|+ politicians I think that want to simply provide the most they can without any fear of losing a vote

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Well it looks like Russia may have already planted explosives on the ZNPP reactor. Things could get really ####ing crazy in the next few weeks if they blow it up and the fallout drifts to a NATO country

https://english.nv.ua/nation/russia-...-50336557.html

Russia already blaming Ukraine for this.
https://www.barrons.com/news/kremlin...ation-4429da3a

Did that Senate bill in the US saying that "any nuclear incident in Ukraine with trigger NATO article 5" pass?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Well it looks like Russia may have already planted explosives on the ZNPP reactor. Things could get really ####ing crazy in the next few weeks if they blow it up and the fallout drifts to a NATO country

https://english.nv.ua/nation/russia-...-50336557.html

Silver's bomb shelter doesn't sound so crazy now, does it?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Russia already blaming Ukraine for this.
https://www.barrons.com/news/kremlin...ation-4429da3a

Did that Senate bill in the US saying that "any nuclear incident in Ukraine with trigger NATO article 5" pass?

If you go by certain online discussions on various websites, everytime the issue of the ZPP comes up, everyone seems to think that a nuclear incident there will result in a very declaration of article 5 by neighbors. But I have to see/read/hear any kind of solid statement back up by a legitimate news source that has a direct quote of any kind stating this by an actual NATO official. Everytime I have asked for a source, I get no response other than "someone heard it somewhere".

I don't believe that the senate bill has passed, or know if it even got taken seriously. As horrid as it sounds, I fully believe that the russians will take advantage of the extremely weak-assed western response to the Nova Khakovka dam's terrorist attack, and will do the same with the ZPP and it will have likely have a weak western response as well. Any excuse to brush it aside and avoid a direct confrontation.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Silver's bomb shelter doesn't sound so crazy now, does it?

It kinda does.

[Monahammer]

As the conversation in that thread went, it is pretty crazy to contemplate living beyond a nuclear holocaust. Many might not even wish that.

I hope that this situation doesnt evolve into one where we need to contemplate bomb shelters. I am essentially sitting on top of the KM terminal right now. Pretty sure I would be vapour.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Silver's bomb shelter doesn't sound so crazy now, does it?

He has one too? I figured the whacky guy in Bonavista was the only one...

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

As the conversation in that thread went, it is pretty crazy to contemplate living beyond a nuclear holocaust. Many might not even wish that.

I hope that this situation doesnt evolve into one where we need to contemplate bomb shelters. I am essentially sitting on top of the KM terminal right now. Pretty sure I would be vapour.

There are a bunch of nuke silos in Montana that are likely targets, so maybe the Russians miss and hit Calgary direct. I would welcome that, if it came to a nuclear exchange.

[Firebot]

The west set precedent by not reacting to the Nova Kakhovka Dam destruction which by any measure would be considered a WMD. Those 'who blew up the dam' news articles were nauseating.

Having the nuclear power plant be the red line (if it even is the true red line) just isn't strong enough of a deterrent because at that point the die is cast. The only action Russians answer to is brute force

Frankly I maintained all along and still maintain that Russia will eventually use a nuke, or at the very least blow up the plant.

Unfortunately, after months and months of saber rattling with the ZPP, I do believe this one is actually happening within the next few days. How will the west respond is critical. I just feel the confrontation is inevitable whether the west wants to accept it or not.

[Sol]

Unconfirmed reports that Russia is now using the chemical weapon lewisite in the battle for Bakhmut.


https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19108

[Firebot]

We must also think of the current situation in Russia on whether the unthinkable is going to happen or not.

Putin just survived a failed mutiny, that spooked him so much he allegedly fled the Kremlin that day.

Russia has already pretty much conceded southern Ukraine / Crimea using the scorched earth approach with the dam. This was the very first thing they took at the onset of the war opening the dam for water to reach Crimea. This was the one thing they could do, that was the most heinous act they could do outside of nukes and which was unlikely to trigger a response.

The counter offensive is slow, but moving, and we know that Ukraine has yet to use at least 2/3 of their forces, while Russia seemingly has rushed any reserves to the front.

They are on the brink of losing direct control of the ZPP.

Things are dire for Russia right now both on the warfront and at home.

Blowing up the power plant continues the scorched earth approach they have already shown capable of doing. Russia has just seen a very tepid reaction to the dam being blown up.

If Russia believes that the west is bluffing when it comes to article 5 being invoked, or believes that the west talking of winds is a sign of weakness in resolve, they will test this resolve. They are at this point.

And if the west doesn't act with this one, it emboldens to take the next step.

For Russia, this is a matter of Putin and his power surviving, nothing else. The state no longer matters. If Putin believes that the west wants to avoid MAD (nuclear war) at all costs, he may decide to test this theory if it can benefit him.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

There are a bunch of nuke silos in Montana that are likely targets, so maybe the Russians miss and hit Calgary direct. I would welcome that, if it came to a nuclear exchange.

What I'm wondering is, does Russia actually have the capability to hit North America anymore? Kyiv is shooting down everything Russia throws at it, including those "invincible" supersonic missiles, with Patriot systems that are almost 40 years old. My guess/hope is that by now the US would have something that could counter an ICBM

[karl262]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

What I'm wondering is, does Russia actually have the capability to hit North America anymore? Kyiv is shooting down everything Russia throws at it, including those "invincible" supersonic missiles, with Patriot systems that are almost 40 years old. My guess/hope is that by now the US would have something that could counter an ICBM

Also, how well would Russian nukes actually work these days?

I'm half expecting an unannounced nuclear test here soon.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

What I'm wondering is, does Russia actually have the capability to hit North America anymore? Kyiv is shooting down everything Russia throws at it, including those "invincible" supersonic missiles, with Patriot systems that are almost 40 years old. My guess/hope is that by now the US would have something that could counter an ICBM

My guess is that they probably do. But whatever the US/NATO have, it doesn't gently grab the ICBM with a nuclear warhead on it and neatly bring neatly to rest in on the ground. If the enemy launch 100 ICBM nukes at America and the Americans shoot them all down, well, we still ain't in great shape. In fact at that point, we might have wished the nukes detonated right on our heads.

Its a nasty business, this nuclear holocaust stuff.

[Zulu29]

If there is intel saying Russia is about to do this then NATO should deploy ground forces in Ukraine to defend it and let the Ukrainians do a full offensive with all their capacity. How can the world sit back and let this happen?