Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
OK, they're doing a fine job without NATO troops, but where would they be without donations from various countries?
What's your point? No one said that the Ukranians would be where they are without NATO and allied support, not the least the Ukranians themselves that time and time again say how important this is and continue to be. They are begging for more military equipment, weapons and munition, in case you've missed that.

Not all is donations, mind you.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
The NY Times is reporting that the U.S. believes that "parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the car bomb attack near Moscow in August that killed Daria Dugina" and her father may have been the primary target.

It would be a bit odd if the FSB was correct or partially correct (the initial FSB reports looked fishy to me).

>>>WASHINGTON — United States intelligence agencies believe parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the car bomb attack near Moscow in August that killed Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist, an element of a covert campaign that U.S. officials fear could widen the conflict. . . . Some American officials suspect Ms. Dugina’s father, Aleksandr Dugin, a Russian ultranationalist, was the actual target of the operation, and that the operatives who carried it out believed he would be in the vehicle with his daughter. . . . The American officials who spoke about the intelligence did not disclose which elements of the Ukrainian government were believed to have authorized the mission, who carried out the attack, or whether President Volodymyr Zelensky had signed off on the mission. . . . Officials from the State Department, National Security Council, Pentagon and C.I.A. declined to comment on the intelligence assessment. . . . Russia’s domestic intelligence service, the F.S.B., blamed Ms. Dugina’s murder on Ukraine’s intelligence services. <<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Here's some more information. I haven't google-translated the entire article, but there's the first part:

>>>Radio Liberty found out from which military unit the train that stirred up the world was traveling, caught on video and received the nickname "nuclear train" from the light hand of the Western media. This is one of the bases of the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense responsible for the storage and transportation of nuclear weapons. In this part, under the guise of a regime of strict secrecy, for many years multimillion-dollar thefts were committed, the "income" from which was withdrawn abroad. However, experts believe that the appearance of the train in the video itself is hardly accidental - although it cannot be interpreted as a direct indication of Russia's intention to use nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine.<<<



 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
According to this, US intelligence relied too heavily on high-tech surveillance and underestimated the weaknesses in the Russian military caused by corruption.

>>>The CIA “got it completely wrong,” said one former senior U.S. intelligence official, who is knowledgeable about what the CIA was reporting when the Russian invasion began. “They thought Russia would win right away.” . . .

“There was no reporting on the corruption in the Russian system,” said the former senior intelligence official. “They missed it, and ignored any evidence of it.” . . .

The inability of the U.S. intelligence community to recognize the significance of Russian corruption appears to be the result of an over-reliance on technical intelligence. Before the war, high-tech satellites and surveillance systems allowed the U.S. to track the deployment of Russian troops, tanks, and planes, and to eavesdrop on Russian military officials, enabling U.S. intelligence to accurately predict the timing of the invasion. But it would have needed more human spies inside Russia to see that the Russian army and defense industries were deeply corrupt.<<<

 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
It seems that Russia is supplying Ukraine with a large number of tanks and armored vehicles.

>>>(2/4) Ukraine has likely captured at least 440 Russian Main Battle Tanks, and around 650 other armoured vehicles since the invasion. Over half of Ukraine’s currently fielded tank fleet potentially consists of captured vehicles.<<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
According to the ISW, the Iranian drones used by Russia have not been very effective, in part because Russia has been using them against civilian targets.

>>>Russia’s use of Iranian-made drones is not generating asymmetric effects the way the Ukrainian use of US-provided HIMARS systems has done and is unlikely to affect the course of the war significantly. The deputy chief of the Main Operational Department of the Ukrainian General Staff, Brigadier General Oleksiy Hromov, stated on October 6 that Russian forces have used a total of 86 Iranian Shahed-136 drones against Ukraine, 60% of which Ukrainian forces have already destroyed. As ISW reported yesterday, Russian forces do not appear to be focusing these drones on asymmetric nodes near the battlefield. They have used many drones against civilian targets in rear areas, likely hoping to generate nonlinear effects through terror. Such efforts are not succeeding. Ukrainian Air Force Command Spokesperson Yuri Ignat stated that the Russian army is increasingly using the Iranian-made drones to conserve its stock of high-precision missiles.[2] Russian forces have likely used a non-trivial percentage of the Shahed-136 supply so far if the claims of an anonymous US intelligence official at the end of August were correct that Iran would likely provide ”hundreds” of drones to Russia.<<< (emphasis added)

 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
According to the ISW, the Iranian drones used by Russia have not been very effective, in part because Russia has been using them against civilian targets.

>>>Russia’s use of Iranian-made drones is not generating asymmetric effects the way the Ukrainian use of US-provided HIMARS systems has done and is unlikely to affect the course of the war significantly. The deputy chief of the Main Operational Department of the Ukrainian General Staff, Brigadier General Oleksiy Hromov, stated on October 6 that Russian forces have used a total of 86 Iranian Shahed-136 drones against Ukraine, 60% of which Ukrainian forces have already destroyed. As ISW reported yesterday, Russian forces do not appear to be focusing these drones on asymmetric nodes near the battlefield. They have used many drones against civilian targets in rear areas, likely hoping to generate nonlinear effects through terror. Such efforts are not succeeding. Ukrainian Air Force Command Spokesperson Yuri Ignat stated that the Russian army is increasingly using the Iranian-made drones to conserve its stock of high-precision missiles.[2] Russian forces have likely used a non-trivial percentage of the Shahed-136 supply so far if the claims of an anonymous US intelligence official at the end of August were correct that Iran would likely provide ”hundreds” of drones to Russia.<<< (emphasis added)

The Russian military forces don't have the same intelligence info to hit fluid military targets nor the training or equipment, and this is partly why they so very often bomb hospitals, schools, kindergartens, apartments and other public buildings and infrastructure: It don't move and they have difficulties hitting military objects.

That said, Russians like mass killings (the more and younger, the merrier it is) of civilians when they go to war as seen in the former Soviet Union or Syria, as examples.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
There are many so-called "realists" (i.e. appeasers) that say that Ukraine should accept that the brutal invader Russia keeps some of their occupied territories in exchange for "peace" (who believe that Putin will honour that?).

It's refreshing to hear what the Prime Minister of Finland said when she was asked about a way for Russia out of the conflict: Russia should leave Ukraine. And then she laugh at the question, like, how dumb can you be?

 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
The Ukrainians are pressing their advantage hard, which is the right approach. There could be a rout of Russian forces from Ukraine in the near future.
The ghost of Churchill really has hung over this Ukrainian campaign. It is is as if Zelensky summoned the ghost of Churchill the moment the first tank crossed the Ukrainian border.

Now is a dangerous time as Putin only has nukes to throw to prevent defeat now. We have to react hard, and swiftly, to ANY deployment of nuclear weapon. I really hope Putin has clearly been sent that message.
Just how do we react hard and swiftly to Putin deploying a nuclear weapon? Without escalating the situation into full on global thermonuclear war.

If Putin is actually crazy enough to do that. And we escalate it. It's been nice knowing you amigos. This situation has escalated to a point of insanity all I can do is live each day as best as I can. Because we may not have many more left.

I can't wrap my mind around it anymore
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
This is such an important question I had to chew on it a little more

If Putin uses nukes in Ukraine I see 3 options for the West.

1: increase sanctions cap his oil. Send more money and weapons to Ukraine.

2: attack and destroy with Nato all Russian military operating in Ukraine and in that region. Not a direct attack on Russia itself. Secondary attack but with the hope it would deter Russia from taking any further nuclear action.

3: deploy a tactical nuke on Russian forces in the region of Ukraine. Once again sending a message of deterence on future nuclear action by Putin.

Obviously the West would like to avoid options 2 or 3 but may be put in a tough position of only option 1 if they feel that shows weakness in contrast to Putin taking such a devastating and horrific action against the people of Ukraine by using tactical nukes against them
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
I can't imagine this would be an easy decision for Putin. He's horrible an evil despot and both he and his Russia government heirarchy might be crazy but not suicidal. He wants to avoid options 2 and 3 if he can at all cost.

Also using tactical nukes wouldn't win him the war. Just freeze the lines and keep him from losing any more gains that he has made up to this point. So it's a whole Lotta risk for not a lot of gain.

Ah screw it makes my head hurt thinking about it. Going back to just living in the moment
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Parts of the Kerch Strait Bridge, bridging Russia with occupied Crimea, for cars have collapsed while the train rails (that runs parallel) still stands but with a burning train transporting fuels, so out of action for some time. Good news, and happy birthday Putin!

1665231451241.png


>>>An explosion tore through the sole bridge linking the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula to Russia, collapsing a part of the span into the sea and imperiling a primary supply route for Russian troops fighting in the south of Ukraine.

The 12-mile-long Kerch Strait Bridge is a cherished political project of President Vladimir V. Putin and had become a potent symbol of the claims that Mr. Putin makes to the peninsula, which his forces illegally seized from Ukraine in 2014. Mr. Putin presided over the opening of the bridge in 2018, personally driving a truck across.<<<

 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Parts of the Kerch Strait Bridge, bridging Russia with occupied Crimea, for cars have collapsed while the train rails (that runs parallel) still stands but with a burning train transporting fuels, so out of action for some time. Good news, and happy birthday Putin!

View attachment 58068

>>>An explosion tore through the sole bridge linking the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula to Russia, collapsing a part of the span into the sea and imperiling a primary supply route for Russian troops fighting in the south of Ukraine.

The 12-mile-long Kerch Strait Bridge is a cherished political project of President Vladimir V. Putin and had become a potent symbol of the claims that Mr. Putin makes to the peninsula, which his forces illegally seized from Ukraine in 2014. Mr. Putin presided over the opening of the bridge in 2018, personally driving a truck across.<<<

What a great picture compared to the TV shows.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
This is such an important question I had to chew on it a little more

If Putin uses nukes in Ukraine I see 3 options for the West.

1: increase sanctions cap his oil. Send more money and weapons to Ukraine.

2: attack and destroy with Nato all Russian military operating in Ukraine and in that region. Not a direct attack on Russia itself. Secondary attack but with the hope it would deter Russia from taking any further nuclear action.

3: deploy a tactical nuke on Russian forces in the region of Ukraine. Once again sending a message of deterence on future nuclear action by Putin.

Obviously the West would like to avoid options 2 or 3 but may be put in a tough position of only option 1 if they feel that shows weakness in contrast to Putin taking such a devastating and horrific action against the people of Ukraine by using tactical nukes against them
No, the West will not use Nukes against Russia unless he lobs one at the US, or a NATO country. What will happen is a devastating conventional attack on the Russian military and infra structure, especially command and control. As I say, if he lobs a nuke at any NATO country then all bets are off.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
No, the West will not use Nukes against Russia unless he lobs one at the US, or a NATO country. What will happen is a devastating conventional attack on the Russian military and infra structure, especially command and control. As I say, if he lobs a nuke at any NATO country then all bets are off.
Let's just pray no nukes are lobbed at all.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
This is such an important question I had to chew on it a little more

If Putin uses nukes in Ukraine I see 3 options for the West.

1: increase sanctions cap his oil. Send more money and weapons to Ukraine.

2: attack and destroy with Nato all Russian military operating in Ukraine and in that region. Not a direct attack on Russia itself. Secondary attack but with the hope it would deter Russia from taking any further nuclear action.

3: deploy a tactical nuke on Russian forces in the region of Ukraine. Once again sending a message of deterence on future nuclear action by Putin.

Obviously the West would like to avoid options 2 or 3 but may be put in a tough position of only option 1 if they feel that shows weakness in contrast to Putin taking such a devastating and horrific action against the people of Ukraine by using tactical nukes against them
There is always option 4 of launching a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia and try to disarm them as much as possible. Russia is essentially using a game of chicken against the world to launch an imperial war against a country that he considered much weaker. Why wait for Russia to use nukes?

The advantages of a pre-emptive nuclear attack:
  • A first strike by NATO will take a lot more Russian nukes out of commission than if we wait for a shooting war against Russia.
  • The use of jamming and sabotage would be much more effective in an offensive strike than in a defensive capacity.
  • If Russia's nuclear stockpile is anything like their regular military hardware, then it is probably in shambles, and we could destroy a lot of it before it can be made to be useful.
I am not trying to downplay just how horrific a nuclear war would be, but having an unstable leader in charge of the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons is an untenable situation. If there is a chance that we can take away that nuclear stockpile before any of it can be effectively used, we should take it, even if it means poisoning large swaths of Russia. If it were me, I would consider striking first and making sure the strike is so devastating that Russia wouldn't be able to build another nuke for decades.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
You’re serious? A first strike will not take out all of Russia’s nuclear weapons, and many will be left to be launched by them, for instance from submarines. Then there is the moral problem of causing tens/hundreds of millions deaths, both here and in Russia.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
This is such an important question I had to chew on it a little more

If Putin uses nukes in Ukraine I see 3 options for the West.

1: increase sanctions cap his oil. Send more money and weapons to Ukraine.

2: attack and destroy with Nato all Russian military operating in Ukraine and in that region. Not a direct attack on Russia itself. Secondary attack but with the hope it would deter Russia from taking any further nuclear action.

3: deploy a tactical nuke on Russian forces in the region of Ukraine. Once again sending a message of deterence on future nuclear action by Putin.

Obviously the West would like to avoid options 2 or 3 but may be put in a tough position of only option 1 if they feel that shows weakness in contrast to Putin taking such a devastating and horrific action against the people of Ukraine by using tactical nukes against them
One large, intense strike on Russian forces would likely cause them to lose the will to fight, especially if it's done in a way that they can see AND identify the aircraft as Western, from many places. They're already running from Ukrainian forces and haven't seen much about aircraft, but if Putin loses more forces because of discontent, he loses the war unless he has people who are as crazy and stupid as he is in his corner. His draft isn't working, he isn't paying them and the families are suffering.

Best thing for all is for him to eat a pill, Cynaide, or otherwise. Maybe someone could sneak up behind him and implant one of those little Ricin pellets in his leg.

I'm amazed that so many Russians have bought the BS Putin and The Party spew.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
A satellite image of the damaged Kerch Strait Bridge after the attack on Saturday. Reportedly the bridge now has some limited traffic.
1665316947676.png
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
There is always option 4 of launching a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia and try to disarm them as much as possible. Russia is essentially using a game of chicken against the world to launch an imperial war against a country that he considered much weaker. Why wait for Russia to use nukes?

The advantages of a pre-emptive nuclear attack:
  • A first strike by NATO will take a lot more Russian nukes out of commission than if we wait for a shooting war against Russia.
  • The use of jamming and sabotage would be much more effective in an offensive strike than in a defensive capacity.
  • If Russia's nuclear stockpile is anything like their regular military hardware, then it is probably in shambles, and we could destroy a lot of it before it can be made to be useful.
I am not trying to downplay just how horrific a nuclear war would be, but having an unstable leader in charge of the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons is an untenable situation. If there is a chance that we can take away that nuclear stockpile before any of it can be effectively used, we should take it, even if it means poisoning large swaths of Russia. If it were me, I would consider striking first and making sure the strike is so devastating that Russia wouldn't be able to build another nuke for decades.
I love you brother but what's insane to me is somehow people have forgotten the insanity of nuclear war. What your downplaying is simply that nuclear war is completely unwinnable for the human race. Not just the countries involved.

Even if you did launch a first preemptive strike against Russia they still would have enough of a response capability to end up destroying the entire planet. Most definitely the country that attacked them. Even if they only attacked that one country in retaliation the fallout to the environment would be catastrophic to the rest of the world.

I'd go into more detail on why what you just advocated for is complete insanity but if someone actually is crazy enough to try what you just stated it would be the end of humanity so what is the point.

The only reason Putin as unstable as he is still hasn't completely gone off his rocker is because even he still recognizes this.

Like I said I'm done even thinking about this it's so stupid. If we as a human race resort to nuclear war we don't deserve to be here anymore. Let something else evolve after what's left and have its chance.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top