Ukraine and Only Ukraine. If it isn't about Ukraine then fuck off

12 metre

Super Anarchist
3,944
739
English Bay
So seriously, I said this a while ago and I think it's coming back to bite us...... but I said we should have admitted the UKR to NATO the next day and then dared the Russians to invade. We still should do this now to avoid a Nuke incident. I believe pooty's plan now is to annex the remaining territory they have now and then use that as a pretext to prevent the UKR from continuing the CO by blackmailing the west that they will use nukes to "defend" their "homeland".

The longer we let this go, the worse its going to get.
Who is we? The US? The US can't admit unilaterally.

Back in 2008 when Ukraine and Georgia applied for NATO membership, neither Ukraine or Georgia were offered a NATO MAP due to Germany and France: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/

Today, I believe Turkey would move to prevent it.
 
Last edited:

Mark_K

Super Anarchist
As reported by WaPo, this is "a few years" away. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/28/himars-ukraine/

(snip) This new tranche will take a “few years” to build and deliver, a senior U.S. defense official told reporters, underscoring efforts to provide for Ukraine’s long-term defense infrastructure while allies and partners speed tailored packages of equipment and ammunition for the most urgent needs. The HIMARS represents a “core component of Ukraine’s fighting force in the future,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the Pentagon.

Quantity can be a quality.
 

Rain Man

Super Anarchist
7,214
2,069
Wet coast.
Dear God- I don't ask for much, please PLEASE don't let this happen.
It is hard to believe that we are here, but here we are. The vast majority of humans are unaware of the threat, and watch The Kardashians instead of the news. So, if it happens, at least the last days of human civilization will have been filled with blissful ignorance.

There is little you and I can do about it at this point. I'm taking my dog for a walk.
 

Lark

Supper Anarchist
9,485
1,696
Ohio
It's interesting, but this entire thing was discussed ad nauseum during the Cold war as well. There were the usual alarmists who said the superior number of Russian tanks would roll over NATO as they pushed through the Fulda Gap in Germany and their like 5 to 1 numbers of Combat aircraft would overwhelm US and NATO defenses. THE #1 mantra in the US military, save for a lax period in the 70s after vietnam, was TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING. In the USAF fighter world, we were pretty confident that our training tactics and better tech would overcome the Soviet numbers.

I'm glad we stuck by our guns, so to speak, and didn't sacrifice quality for quantity.
The alarm thing always worked well for appropriations. Make the shuttle a military device with civilian co ownership. B1 bombers with a development lifetime many times longer than their service life. A lot is possible when we fear a superior enemy. We see similar stuff now regarding North Korea, even though the now technically advanced South alone could surely handle any aggression the antiquated North Korean military attempted. We are largely in agreement about the need for NATO to welcome Ukraine and the need for a large training budget.

As a history nerd, I can point to many weapons failures of multiple nations that were allowed to reach combat mostly because the weapons were 'too expensive to waste on tests' and 'too secret to use in training exercises', especially in real world conditions like bad weather without plenty of advanced notice. The flip side of quality over quantity is the fear secrecy allows contractors to replace high quality weapons with merely expensive ones. The US Navy, for example, was very adept at mounting super secret semi functional tech to flimsy barges while failing to train sailors on the basics of not getting rammed by slow commercial ships. After watching the Russian military, they seem to be rethinking their prior decisions.
 
Last edited:

Rain Man

Super Anarchist
7,214
2,069
Wet coast.
NATO should make it clear to Russia that any class of weapons used against the Ukraine will be provided to Ukraine to use against Russia's occupied territories in Ukraine. If Russia uses a tactical nuke, NATO will provide equivalent weapons to Ukraine.
 

Lark

Supper Anarchist
9,485
1,696
Ohio
NATO should make it clear to Russia that any class of weapons used against the Ukraine will be provided to Ukraine to use against Russia's occupied territories in Ukraine. If Russia uses a tactical nuke, NATO will provide equivalent weapons to Ukraine.
This is a clear violation of thr non proliferation treaties we have signed.
 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,103
Back to the desert

mikewof

mikewof
45,639
1,210
Hey @mikewof , how do you feel now about your boy putty and his compliance with the NPT now that he's threatening nuclear war??
They are still more NPT compliant than Britain and nobody said shit about Britain.

It was made very clear to Russia not to fuck around with nukes. Nothing was mentioned about using fuel-air explosives like we used in Afghanistan. I guess that is still on the table.
 

mikewof

mikewof
45,639
1,210
This is a clear violation of thr non proliferation treaties we have signed.

What specifically?

Britain's plan to divvy up their existing fissile stockpile and activate additional nukes is a violation.

But what is Russia's violation? Have they not met their reduction quotas? Have they increased their arsenal? Have they kept IAEA monitors off of their inspections?

I am not defending Russia here, they are wrong for using even the hint of nuclear use as a deterrent. But that is something that every nuclear member of the NPT other than France has done, it isn't contrary to the treaty as far as I know.
 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,103
Back to the desert
NATO should make it clear to Russia that any class of weapons used against the Ukraine will be provided to Ukraine to use against Russia's occupied territories in Ukraine. If Russia uses a tactical nuke, NATO will provide equivalent weapons to Ukraine.
Why TF would the UKR want to nuke their own territory??? If russian uses a nuke against the UKR, I'd say let them lob one at Moscow. In fact, I'd be OK if they borrowed a couple of B-2s and 6-9 B-61 Mod12s from us to use against Putin's bunker.

All Bravado aside.....My real question is what does the US, NATO and Europe do if Russia pops off a Nuke in the UKR?? I think Putin is betting on the Flop that the West folds out of fear of a Nuke exchange escalating and lets UKR twist in the wind. I hope not, but I have a strong suspicion that will happen. The Euros especially...... I fear they will go "Yanno, we liked our nice warm houses heated by Russian gas during the winter. And besides, what is Ukraine to us anyway? Maybe this little dust up isn't really our business anyway".
 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,103
Back to the desert
They are still more NPT compliant than Britain and nobody said shit about Britain.

It was made very clear to Russia not to fuck around with nukes. Nothing was mentioned about using fuel-air explosives like we used in Afghanistan. I guess that is still on the table.
I missed it. Is the UK PM going on National TV and saying they will use Nukes against France if they have to, and no she's Not Kidding?

Really, Mike?
 

FinnFish

Super Anarchist
3,906
423
Why TF would the UKR want to nuke their own territory??? If russian uses a nuke against the UKR, I'd say let them lob one at Moscow. In fact, I'd be OK if they borrowed a couple of B-2s and 6-9 B-61 Mod12s from us to use against Putin's bunker.
Should work if you're keen to sacrifice a few US cities on the EC.
 

Latest posts




Top