2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

[Officer of Engineers]

I do not agree with everything in this article, but I do wonder. Would things have worked out better if Ukraine had been told in clear terms that they were on their own?

NATO troops will not confront Russia in the UKR. How much clearer can that be? Zelensky would not listen to anyone but himself and his yes men feeding him his delusions of grandeur.

[astralis]

speaking of orcs:

Do I let the Orcs eat my wife and kids because I'm too far away killing Orcs? I cannot answer for every one but I'm damned sure I need to get them out of harm's way before I start doing stupid.

https://twitter.com/kylieatwood/stat...05691748540426

====

thus far it looks like the Russians gambled on a swift collapse in morale. they took a number of high-risk/high-reward moves that have largely failed in the teeth of tenacious Ukrainian resistance.

now they will probably take another swing and utilize firepower (read artillery and thermobarics). this time they're probably not going to try "shock and awe", but rather try to bomb resistance into submission.

[Albany Rifles]

It looks like the Ghost of Kyiv is a fraudulent story, some War Thunder asshole made it up for clicks.

Yeah...looked too good to be true but that entire post is I put up is an interesting look at misinformation.

[Albany Rifles]

Not surprising. The whole mythos behind it read like an Ace Combat game. Can't help but admit it was a compelling story though.

I could have seen one sortie but not sure on repeated.

[Officer of Engineers]

Tag, you're it.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russ...skirts-2787601

[Albany Rifles]

https://www.theamericanconservative....ussia-ukraine/

I do not agree with everything in this article, but I do wonder. Would things have worked out better if Ukraine had been told in clear terms that they were on their own? The West could not and would not support them in a confrontation with Russia. Perhaps that may have let the Ukrainians work out a deal with Russia with more realistic expectations; the author mentions 'Finlandization'; without it coming to this.

We and other Allies can support up to the point of putting NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. Weapons, munitions, intelligence, cyber, logistics, medevac...name it. But no engaging in combat by NATO forces.

And I for one would welcome Finland & Sweden into NATO with open arms.


And as for Russia threatening Finland...somewhere Simo Häyhä is smiling.

[Officer of Engineers]

And I for one would welcome Finland & Sweden into NATO with open arms.

Oh hell NO, we don't need to add another 20,000 NATO Stock Numbers for Swedish hockey equipment.

[Albany Rifles]

speaking of orcs:



https://twitter.com/kylieatwood/stat...05691748540426

====

thus far it looks like the Russians gambled on a swift collapse in morale. they took a number of high-risk/high-reward moves that have largely failed in the teeth of tenacious Ukrainian resistance.

now they will probably take another swing and utilize firepower (read artillery and thermobarics). this time they're probably not going to try "shock and awe", but rather try to bomb resistance into submission.

Good analysis.

[Double Edge]

Things have certainly precipitated much more than I expected. CIA got it right. A number of commentators I listened to did not.

The argument I'm hearing is the present situation suits both the US & Russia.

The Russians have Ukraine under some kind of control and have defused the challenge they were facing.

The US has unified Europe thereby isolating Russia and can now refocus on the Indo Pacific and China.

[tantalus]

Were there any meaningful gurantees given to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes in 1994?

[Double Edge]

Your rhetoric is not matching.

On one hand, you're arguing anything the West concedes here to Russia will be closely watched by China, which I agree with.

On the other hand in this post, you're saying we should join up with the Russians here to have them on our side for future relations with China. Well how without conceding and thereby looking weak? India can definitely be cozy with the Russians if they want as part of their Chinese deterrence strategy. It's not really an option for NATO states at this point while sticking up for the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

I'm saying outcomes are not good for either west or Russia in this scenario.

India cannot cozy up to Russia any longer. There will be pressure to join a camp sooner or later. I don't know how this will play out.

In any case Russia believes its the kingmaker in any contest between the US & China and will be playing both.

If you wanted to stand for Ukraine's territorial integrity than a no NATO understanding would have provided that.

Right now Putin is going to create a buffer between Russia & Ukraine.

Whether he wants more remains to be seen.

[Double Edge]

Boo hoo hoo, poor Russia. Sounds almost like poor India instead.

What has the west done for Ukraine ?

If Putin wanted to demonstrate that then he has succeeded.

What EXACTLY does Ukraine get by joining NATO now eh ? Sanctions meant squat. The Donbas will be the buffer now.

Although Trump would probably be all for throwing them to the wolves. To hell with them as they didn't give me what I wanted.

Open question whether this would have happened under Trump ? interesting question.

See, Trump had a good equation with Putin. Offering exactly nothing yet keeping things quiet.

Kept the middle east quiet too. Now you can focus on China. That is good management.

[InExile]

I'm saying outcomes are not good for either west or Russia in this scenario.

India cannot cozy up to Russia any longer. There will be pressure to join a camp sooner or later. I don't know how this will play out.

In any case Russia believes its the kingmaker in any contest between the US & China and will be playing both.

If you wanted to stand for Ukraine's territorial integrity than a no NATO understanding would have provided that.

Right now Putin is going to create a buffer between Russia & Ukraine.

Whether he wants more remains to be seen.

India definitely has tread a fine line here. On one hand it cannot afford to alienate the US and its informal alliance or atleast growing cooperation in the so called Quad against China.

But it cannot afford a hostile Russia to the north either, from whom it still buys most of its military equipment. Given the Chinese and Pakistan are already close allies and the Pakistanis are attempting to cozy up to the Russians, I think the statements by Indian leaders since the invasion are quite expected. Basically, inoffensive statements calling for peace, returning to dialogue etc.

[Double Edge]

India definitely has tread a fine line here. On one hand it cannot afford to alienate the US and its informal alliance or atleast growing cooperation in the so called Quad against China.

But it cannot afford a hostile Russia to the north either, from whom it still buys most of its military equipment. Given the Chinese and Pakistan are already close allies and the Pakistanis are attempting to cozy up to the Russians, I think the statements by Indian leaders since the invasion are quite expected. Basically, inoffensive statements calling for peace, returning to dialogue etc.

Bharatanatyam

All those contortions is how a former diplomat put it.

[tbm3fan]

Not true for the nukes. We had one more device and within 6 months 10-20 devices. Op DOWNFALL was obsolete right after Hiroshima. MacArthur, after he stopped being pissed off about being kept in the dark about the nukes, asked when he could get some. The ideas were endless, everyone being ignorant about fallout. A Japanese opposed landing? Nuke it open.

Also, you're ignoring Stalin's entry into the war. If there is one army that scares the shit of the IJA, it's the Red Army. They saw the butcher's bill at Berlin and got a taste of it in Manchuria. There was zero doubt that Stalin was fully prepared to bleed each and every single Japanese and there was nothing the IJA could do to stop him.

Had to check my history being that I had learned the stuff back in the late 60s and early 70s about the A bombs where I thought we only had two. Research showed more available in a few weeks.

Stalin's entry I don't think changes much. The Japanese equated surrender with being defeated and the ultimate disgrace. I don't see them ever surrendering given the IJA's strong desire to fight to the last man which meant they weren't defeated in their mind. Fanaticism would have been off the charts. If not for Hirohito, in my opinion anyway, they would have never laid down their arms. Of course we also know Stalin had no qualms sacrificing each and every Soviet soldier.

I kind of derailing the thread although TH has been kind enough not to look cross-eyed at me...