I'm sorry I can't. It's already full of contrarians.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm sorry I can't. It's already full of contrarians.Go and stand in the naughty corner....NOW!!!
I'm sorry I can't. It's already full of contrarians.
There are many alternatives. Some of these alternatives are used by several NATO members, but not by NATO itself.@Admiral Beez, what's to "dislike" about my post? I'm not expressing an opinion. I'm stating a fact. You may not like how NATO is responding but the alternative is all-out war with Russia. Shooting at anything Russian counts as an act of war, hence my comment about ROE.
Interesting for me is to know how many cruise missiles Russia has available.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.
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.
It has not been confirmed yet. Most probably, exaggeration.This sounds like wishful thinking on our part and hero propaganda or to be fairer exaggeration on the Ukrainians. 200+ vehicles destroyed? That would take much of the available Ukrainian ATGWs. I hope it's true, but I'll wait for Western verification outside of Twitter. But hell anyways, go Ukraine!
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 helpIt 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.
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.
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.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.
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.It's not clear how much of the pre-war Ukrainian SAM inventory remains operationally viable. There's no point sending more missiles for existing Ukrainian SAM systems if the launchers and radars have already been destroyed or are inoperable. There's also the challenge of ensuring we're sending missiles that are 100% interoperable with the Ukrainian systems. Just because it says "S-300" on the box does not mean the exact missile variant will work with the launcher, radar etc...and I suspect the Russian manufacturers won't want to help answer those questions.
Any new long-range SAM systems that are not currently operated by Ukraine would simply become targets for Russian air and ground assets. SAMs are incredibly complex systems that require extensive training and integration with other systems (e.g. early warning). Until that level of operational proficiency and integration is achieved, the missile systems are just expensive boxes of electronics that can't threaten anything.
I guess that's me being a contrarian again.
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 oftenActually, 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.
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".
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.
Just a quick point about the so-called Nazis - President Zelensky's family save for one brother, was murdered by Nazis in WWII.
The one survivor, Zelensky's grandfather, fought the Germans during WWII.
Pretty sure that if there were actual Nazis in Ukraine, Zelensky would have dealt with the issue without needing Putin's help...