I'm sorry I can't. It's already full of contrarians.Go and stand in the naughty corner....NOW!!!
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Commander in Chief Valery Zaluzhny said today that there were 259 cruise missiles strikes and 395 cruise missiles were launched by RF.
We can assume that 136 missiles or 35% were intercepted or malfunctioned.
The grim reality is that Ukrainian stocks of SAMs go down without any prospects (so far) of getting foreign assistance.
RF can dig in, limit costly advances and continue to destroy cities and infrastructure with long-range weapons.
We can assume that 136 missiles or 35% were intercepted or malfunctioned.
The grim reality is that Ukrainian stocks of SAMs go down without any prospects (so far) of getting foreign assistance.
RF can dig in, limit costly advances and continue to destroy cities and infrastructure with long-range weapons.
buffnut453
Captain
Come to the dark side...we have cookies!
There are many alternatives. Some of these alternatives are used by several NATO members, but not by NATO itself.
No, shooting at anything Russian does not count as an act of war.
Just two well-known examples.
Battle of Khasham - Wikipedia
2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown - Wikipedia
Interesting for me is to know how many cruise missiles Russia has available.
buffnut453
Captain
There are many alternatives. Some of these alternatives are used by several NATO members, but not by NATO itself.
No, shooting at anything Russian does not count as an act of war.
Just two well-known examples.
Battle of Khasham - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown - Wikipedia
It rather depends on the political and operational context at the time. The Russians that were or were not hit in the Battle of Khasham were private military contractors and not the Russian military (back to the Kremlin's plausible deniability). For the Su-24 shootdown, the FENCER was (according to Turkey and the US) inside Turkish airspace and had been warned several times to alter course with no response.
As I noted previously, there are often incursions of Russian aircraft and ships into NATO airspace/waters that do not result in shooting events. Also, accidents do happen. Even in the current situation, I could see a one-off instance Russian fire into NATO territory being brushed off and not drawing a NATO response. What I CANNOT see, given the current crisis, is Russia meekly accepting any NATO member nation opening fire against ANY Russian asset (manned or otherwise). ANY shooting by a NATO member nation into Russian assets in Ukraine will almost certainly be declared by Putin as NATO aggression and, very likely, be labelled as an act of war.
It has not been confirmed yet. Most probably, exaggeration.
In the context of current events that is the way things are. It would also be in Russian interests to be able to label NATO as an aggressor as it could help
them to sway certain fence sitters toward them.
There are many alternatives. Some of these alternatives are used by several NATO members, but not by NATO itself.
No, shooting at anything Russian does not count as an act of war.
Just two well-known examples.
Battle of Khasham - Wikipedia
2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown - Wikipedia
Just because something does not count as an act of war does not mean Russia does not have to perceive it as one and retaliate by starting WW3. Putin will spin and label anything as NATO aggression.
Last edited:
The problem is that NATO bluntly and publicly refused to consider any reaction to this invasion except the "condemnation" and some token assistance. 10 days ago according to Zelensky, whole NATO support was 50 (fifty) tons of diesel oil. I did not see any rebuttals, so most probably, he was right.
There are other alternatives besides the "shooting by a NATO member nation into Russian assets in Ukraine". Everybody knows them. None has been implemented so far - by NATO. All real military assistance so far was done by individual agreements with several countries. And since last week - with a help of thousands of brave men who began to arrive in Ukraine from NATO member countries. But almost nothing was done by NATO as the organisation. Many in Ukraine consider that as a serious leadership crisis, if not paralysis. A striking contrast with the attitude and actions of the EU, whom we used to consider to be slow and "bureaucratic" in the worst meaning of the word. The EU is acting fast and decisively. Kudos to Ursula and others!
Call me a pessimist but now I think that Macron was right, calling NATO "brain dead".
Dimlee, I will say I understand your frustration. I really do.
Actually, it is very clear how much of the Ukrainian SAMs remains operational - for the Ukrainian military. And they do say they need more missiles. Who can know better? Same with the compatibility. Ukrainian experts can decide what exactly they need. President said to the foreign press: we know where compatible equipment is and we are ready to pay and deliver.
About the training. Yes, valid point. But this war lasts for almost three weeks and it might last for many months or years. No, I'm not kidding.
How many manhours are required to get the Patriot battery crew fully prepared? I have no idea, but forum members could provide some figures. The sooner the training begins, the better for everyone.
This is a good point. An interview I listened to today with a fellow who has followed this sort of situation for years as an analyst noted that all too often
things such as military aid are made available far too late. Sanctions have generally been too little too late as well.
He also stated that this time things are different in two ways.
First, sanctions have been imposed very quickly and are hitting hard because they are all in, not just a few around the edges.
Second, although individual countries have decided to supply weapons and other support, it is actually because NATO cannot officially
sanction such moves as again it can be construed as aggression by them.
President Macron derides NATO but is at the same time advocating for an 'EU' army which would take us into the realm of politics but suffice
to say it would be a dangerous thing to have instead of seperate sovereign nations looking to themselves and allied when necessary.
buffnut453
Captain
Dimlee,
I do understand your frustration but I'm afraid the "other alternatives" that "everybody knows" aren't very clear to me. NATO has zero forces under its control. All "NATO" forces are supplied by member nations. Including NATO HQ in any decision-making would simply slow things down...so it's better for member nations to work directly with Ukraine to speed deployment of resources.
NATO has mobilized the NATO Response Force (NRF) for the first time...ever. NATO members have increased the readiness of NRF forces, and we've also seen deployments and increased defensive patrols (e.g. CAPs, ISR etc).
However...this comes back to the question of what more can NATO do as an organization? It has no forces it can deploy. It only takes over military control if a member nation is attacked. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy and everything to do with the role and purpose behind NATO.
What do you want NATO (the organization) to do?
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
Yes the Ukrainian military knows how many SAMs they still have operational...I was simply responding to the point that nations should simply provide missiles to Ukraine. I have no problem with providing Ukraine with specific missiles that we know will actually work with their systems. But the devil is always in the details. Even small differences between systems can limit interoperability...which could mean all the effort to provide the missiles has zero operational benefit. I'm all for exploring those issues in detail to determine if more advanced missiles can be provided to Ukraine. I'd love to see more Russian aircraft being shot down. I just don't think it's as easy as everyone seems to think it is....and I base this on many years working systems interoperability and integration issues.
It's more complicated than that. Where will the training occur? In Ukraine or in a NATO member nation? Either approach provides a propaganda gift to Putin because it either puts NATO-member forces in Ukraine or has Ukrainian forces being trained inside NATO...both of which are golden messaging opportunities for Putin. Also, it's one thing to be able to operate the system. It's another thing entirely to operate it in a tactical environment. Larger systems like Patriot aren't well-suited to the type of shoot-and-scoot tactics that Ukraine needs to employ given that it's overmatched by Russian military strength. It takes a LOT of practice to be able to fight effectively with these systems and systems like Patriot that aren't particularly mobile simply become high-value targets for Russian air and ground forces.
Getting a SAM battery operational is one thing but ensuring it can integrate with the wider early warning network is entirely different. The response time for any SAM battery is a function of the degree of situational awareness that the battery possesses. Less situational awareness means reduced warning, which in turn equates to shorter practical engagement ranges. If you're reducing your engagement range, what's the point of having a "long range" SAM system?
Last edited:
Grandson312
Airman
In 2014, the Azov unit, by its own drill Sgt's, account ,was 50% Nazi. Their words, not mine. Their own official spokesperson claimed it was "only" 10-20%.
Volunteer Ukrainian unit includes Nazis
Some members of the Azov Brigade fighting separatists are accused of abuses.
www.usatoday.com
So is the word of their own representatives to be taken seriously? Was that Sgt. a Russian plant? The spokesperson as well? Possible, not likely. Were the avowed Nazis purged in the 8 years since?
Hard to say, but we do know that the Trump Administration specifically exempted them by name from receiving US Arms. US Senators from either party have mentioned this problem of Nazification in Ukraine and attempted to curtail it and draw attention to it.
All that I can say for certain is, the Right Sector in Ukraine is not a myth. The Azov Battalion does in fact use a Nazi Dark Sun and Panzer Swastika, in cheerful Ukrainian yellow-and-blue, and has expanded from 900 to 3,000 members since 2014, and is an official part of the Ukraine guard. The founders of Azov have made public statements that leave no room for interpretation, their own Officers have previously admitted to the problem, with no corrective measure even hinted at - so it seems reasonable to conclude there is something to it.
You can find numerous reports I do not know the validity of, alleging cease-fire violations by this very unit, numbering into the thousands, and statements of threats to Zelenskyy.
But there is so much Russian BS thrown into the mix - most notably perhaps a large number of very fake stories, investigated by Amnesty International surrounding a horrible event at Odesa - that it's impossible for us to know how bad the problem really is.
Anyway, I am not a Russian, but it's OK to be Russian.
The amount of Russophobic lemming behavior of "cancellation" is predictable, but still disheartening, and does nothing but play right into the hands of Putin propaganda. The net result of Russophobia is more confusion, chaos and death.
One example being Alexander Malofeev, classical pianist, who did in fact make statements against the war, but apparently not to the satisfaction of his censors. To expect Russian artists fearing for their families in Russia and Ukraine to make anti-Putin statements is extremely stupid and cruel, and again, only feeds Russian propaganda.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I've encoutered people like that in our Georgia too! 
