Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Isn't there a saying
Best defence is going offensive ?

The tiny difference is, the saying goes like "The best defense is a good offense". As far as we understand it this clearly means that it is a defensive answer to a new or existing offense.
So, after a foreign attack, counter-attack immediately to surprise the attacker.

The Ukraine did not attack Russia. And Putin's invasion is an offense, to Ukraine.
Nor did NATO attack. NATO is a defensive alliance. It will DEFEND. It did not directly answer the Putin-invasion of Ukraine since the Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Russia attacked the Ukraine, which is an independent state. But of course you know this.

The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation. Markus

Ouch. What about those three suitcases, and that one nutcase Putin?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Kptlt. Neuerburg

This song seems oddly relevant now for some reason...

"When everyone dances Tropak and speaks russian, this is a [russian] paradise, who doesn't believe that off with their heads"

What a find

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

What about those three suitcases.

When I read this

The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation.

It made me wonder...hey I have in my thread read about some suitcases.

Maybe it's nothing but hearsay about these suitcases-Well I don't know I assume what is written on the page I linked to-on the military doctrine must be correct.

Markus

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"When everyone dances Tropak and speaks russian, this is a [russian] paradise, who doesn't believe that off with their heads"

What a find

Sounds like "The Squad".

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Good question. In the past it was russian strategy to saw off small parts off Finland decade for decade "legally", but this stopped after 1990.
Now? I think not nuclear. Him believing the west will be too frightened to use the bomb to stop them, if they attack conventionally. Now it is your guess what you think will stop him.

A lot of folks believed that it was mainly the nuclear deterrent which kept the Soviet hordes on the other side of the Fulda gap back in the Cold War. They had like a 10 to 1 superiority in conventional forces. I think what stopped them is believing we'd use tactical nukes against them if they invaded the west.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by August

A lot of folks believed that it was mainly the nuclear deterrent which kept the Soviet hordes on the other side of the Fulda gap back in the Cold War. They had like a 10 to 1 superiority in conventional forces. I think what stopped them is believing we'd use tactical nukes against them if they invaded the west.

That may well be plausible. It may be the combination of that and the development of lethal anti tank weapons to counter the superior numbers on the other side of the iron curtain. The A-10 Thunderbolt or " warthog " was developed and fielded in 1972. The Thunderbolts abilities are well known on both sides of the fence. Hell Fire anti tank weapons were also developed in 1974.

Throw in the fielding of the Cobra attack helicopters developed in 1965 which served as a platform for delivering these weapons on the battlefield. I believe these weapon systems and others and their capabilities against armor and tanks may have served as a deterrent as well.

[August]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

That may well be plausible. It may be the combination of that and the development of lethal anti tank weapons to counter the superior numbers on the other side of the iron curtain. The A-10 Thunderbolt or " warthog " was developed and fielded in 1972. The Thunderbolts abilities are well known on both sides of the fence. Hell Fire anti tank weapons were also developed in 1974.

Throw in the fielding of the Cobra attack helicopters developed in 1965 which served as a platform for delivering these weapons on the battlefield. I believe these weapon systems and others and their capabilities against armor and tanks may have served as a deterrent as well.

When I was stationed over there with the Army back in the late 70's we used to joke that we were the "Line In The Dirt". The line you draw in front of an antagonist and dare them to step over.

Trouble is in the ensuing fight the line is almost always wiped out.

Our whole mission there was, in the event of war, to slow the Soviets down enough for reinforcements coming over from the states to still have at least some of Europe to fight back from once they got over there and drew prepositioned equipment stashed in warehouses around western Europe, assuming the enemy didn't blow it up first. Some plan huh?

Course hindsight is 20-20 and now we know that the Red Army was not the military juggernaut that we imagined it was. But at the time the use of short range tactical nukes at choke points like Fulda to stop them was very much on the table and they knew it too. That's why they were always trying to get us to sign that no first use pledge and we wouldn't.

[Armistead]

Would you survive a nuclear blast? I'm on the edge of 3rd degree burns if not sheltered, so I'd probably survive and... then die from the fallout later. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?...jLy2V9pCnuH0UE

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes. Trump does not matter for him. Nor Biden or anyone else. Helping to bring Trump onto the American gameboard was just a supportive manouver, it consumes much of America's attention and distracts it and destabiliies and erodes and paralysis it in the longtrmr form within, see how the parties block each other from any useful legislation. I have given up completely to think that there were triggers or incentives involved in Putin' decision. That he attacks Ukraine I now think was pretty much inevitable, and probably since already before 2014.

Maybe even if the Ukraine were a NATO member.

Yes, I don't think any president or negotiations other than letting Putin have what he wants would stop him now. I think he's getting old and he intends to restore as much as the old Soviet Bloc as he can before he dies. His ego will see it come to fruition or his ego will start WW3 if any nation tries to stop it. Damn the consequences for Russia or the world. It's about his personality, not Russia. This is what I fear is going on with him. I think the only hope is someone in his inner circle takes him out.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by August

When I was stationed over there with the Army back in the late 70's we used to joke that we were the "Line In The Dirt". The line you draw in front of an antagonist and dare them to step over.

Trouble is in the ensuing fight the line is almost always wiped out.

Our whole mission there was, in the event of war, to slow the Soviets down enough for reinforcements coming over from the states to still have at least some of Europe to fight back from once they got over there and drew prepositioned equipment stashed in warehouses around western Europe, assuming the enemy didn't blow it up first. Some plan huh?

Course hindsight is 20-20 and now we know that the Red Army was not the military juggernaut that we imagined it was. But at the time the use of short range tactical nukes at choke points like Fulda to stop them was very much on the table and they knew it too. That's why they were always trying to get us to sign that no first use pledge and we wouldn't.

I still feel it's a conglomeration of factors. However, since you were in Europe during that time, you would have an understanding of the various doctrines that governed the use of tactical nukes and artillery shells and warfare in general. I think a lot of the European countries, Germany in particular in addition to England would have given the Soviets more than they bargained for then in a conventional war and would now as well. It goes without saying both France and England are nuclear powers. I had friends that were stationed in the U.K and also Germany. It was a stressful time for all concerned. Being with the Army then, you would have a better understanding than most of how deadly effective the Cobra and Super Cobra variants are in addition to the Apache and long bow variants with regards to attack helicopters.

The Germans and English also had fine pilots and France had the Mirage aircraft along with the Rafale In capable hands, they remain a formidable opponent. The Israeli's showed that in the six day war of 1967 using a mix of F-4 Phantoms, Mirages, A-4 skyhawks and other aircraft. They battled again in 1973 in the Yom Kippur and 2 other times before that.

[Skybird]

Its illogical to think the Sowjets would have allowed NATO to wear down their conventional forces and only then when they got bogged down they would have started to try turning the helm around by using nukes.

They would have started with nukes in the first to neutralise those variables where NATO was stronger, namely the techncial and training quality as well as better maintenance rate of its air forces (which were numerically inferior, and very much so, and quiet some pilots from that era voiced doubts in books they later wrote that the technology advantage alone would have compensated for the inferior numbers).

For Germany, there would have been no resuce anyway. In every scenario Germany would have been turned into a total destruction zone, much more complete than after WW2. Even if the Russians would have been thrown back, the price for it would have been the destruction of Germany. I find it hard to consider that as a "rescue".

Many of the modern systems on Western sides got just introduced and where the first generation of their technolgy. Thermals were not as sharp as today, so where NVGs, missiles were not as reliable and deadly. Widepsread equipment like the infamous agile Leopard-1 tank got outgunned by the T-72 big bumms that was dersigned to overocme the Leopard-1, the first Leopard 2s existed in extremely small quantities, the M60A3 was slower than the M1 that repalced it buzt still was the work hors eof the US forces, and the M1 was the first generation M1, not the modern versions of today. NATO would have owned the night, the Pact probably the day.

We never needed to find out how it would have gone, but I take none of the two possible endings as granted. And the centre of Europe always would have been totally destroyed. And nukes used on airfields and harbours would have been the weapons that had opened the war.

And since this is so, a war under no circumstances would ever have made any sense: MAD looming overhead. And both sides knew it.

[Skybird]

Ukraine says 66000 men from abroad have come to Ukraine to fight for it, the military says that equals 12 additionalcombat briagdes. Usually , so sdaid tV some days ago, they let in mostly men with miliary experience, and I assume it mostly are Urkainians living in other countries.

Ukrainian speakers also say the demoralization level amongst Russians were very high, it happens on a frequent base that they throw away weapons and move away.

The Pentagon says the Russian, military leadership is impressed by the ukrainian resiotenc,e and I did not understands this to be a gallant compliment, but that the Ukrainains have left some serious marks in the Russian military leadership' self-understanding and confidence. It seems they really were absolutely clueless on what they embarked on. US secnbrrtety Blinken said he absolutely sees a realistic chance that the Ukraine could win this war. But the blood toll and destruction that have to be suffered, will be immense, and the war could drag on for long.


Its also said by the Americans that the Ukraine managed to keep a surprjsingly huge part of their air force intact, although it suffered losses. This is one of the biggest surprises for me. The 101 of attack wars reads: gain air superiority before anything else. The Russians seem to have messed up the translation?!


And the mayor of Mariupol reports that although there should have been a negotiated seize-fire in place and the opening of a humanitarian corridor so that civilians could flee from the city, the Russians are still shelling the city at all fronts.

[tmccarthy]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Possible. But even then, why not obliterate the convoy, i do not think they are made of deceptive rubber material. Some drones would suffice.


re Skybird "©Putin fake news", the new hip brand

Yeah, I don't know why? I was expecting to see a lot more from drones at the start, especially from Ukraine.

After reviewing about every interesting looking video I could find from the Azerbaijan-Armenian war shortly after it ended. And seeing how the Armenians appeared to pretty much have been massacred to the point drones were used to hunt down and obliterate individual soldiers hiding in fox holes.

My first reaction (overly simplified and sarcastic of coarse) was "well it looks like tanks are now obsolete." AND "being a human and alive on a battlefield is obsolete to!"

[Skybird]

I assume the Ukrainians would attack the convoy if they could or think it were the wise thing to do.

Conclusion: they can'T, or an unknown factor we do not know speaks against it.

I could for example imagine that the convoy is heavy in AA units. Or that a later trap is prepared. Or the Ukrainian air force is not capable of attacking it there, were it sits. Or there is greater need for the ressources somewhere else. Or they have ammo shortages.

BTW, those Turkish drones they are using, TB-2, are no miracle weapons, and they also do not have a million of them. Wikipedia says they had 9 at the beginning of the war, with 12 more ordered. Pro-Russian sources say two of these drones already got shot down on day one of the Russian invasion. They carry not more than 150 kg in payload, thats not really a gunship's payload. Pro-Russian sources say two of these drones already got shot down on day one of the Russian invasion. The real strength of these drones are they beat the market competion by aggressive pricing, and can linger around autarkly and stay in the air for 24 hours. But they carry just one bomb or two missiles.

[Skybird]

Not war relevant, but an insight into the "cold civil war" inside Russian civil society.

https://www.dw.com/en/beethoven-and-...ded/a-60996710

Reports are mounting that the Russians not only ignore the seize-fire for Mariupol and continue to shell the city at all fronts, but that they lay targetted fire right on the agreed humanitarian corridors. Ukrainian authorites in place have called off the evacuation and tell people to return as fast as possible and stay in the city instead.

The pro-Putin Russian scum apparently does not want to run out of slaughtering lambs whose bloody corpses they can show the Ukrainian population to demoralise it further.

Also growing are rumours Putin wants to impose nationwide martial law. Not in the Ukraine - but Russia. Also that he wants to close the borders and locking Russians in.


edit:

Oh look, BBC and CNN in Russia are already gone.