Ukraine
- Thread starter dogwatch
- Start date
chesirecat
Super Anarchist
They've already hit Novorossiysk and gearing up mass (rumors of a 1000) production of the drone boats plus they would control access through the straights. Along with Sebastapol it's Russia's only warm water port. Russia's last operational dry dock of any size is up near Murmask now a semi-permanent home for the long-suffering Admiral Kuznetsov. The large PD 50 floating dock no longer reliably floats so they have some serious naval maintenance problems there.
Most of the commentary I see focuses on the Ukraine war much like a video game, who is winning the minor skirmishes of the day, which side has plenty of health, ammo etc. But the level of military analysis in the media is beyond inept. When you get past the hoorah narrative, what is missing are the questions as to why Russia started this and what their overriding political objectives are- and what are the Western goals in response, if you take more than a moment to think then the bigger picture comes clearer. Take for example the contrasting approaches i.e the Iraq invasion, on day one the US commenced destroying civilian infrastructure, energy grids etc. The Russians if anything were very careful not to destroy any more than was minimally necessary for quite some time, we may argue that point but the recent attacks that destroyed 70% of Ukraines power grid capability took only hours to complete and over 9 months into the war, why the delay? The media response has been as expected; vacuous.
Nato going all in to defend democracy is delusional, we know this on some level. Anyone here keen to join up or get conscripted away from a comfy life, safe computer screens and head to Europe for some frozen trench warfare against a determined and tough enemy? Not me and forget about the Europeans they are just not going to do it in any significant numbers even if they could get trained and equipped in the 6-9 months that is takes to turn out a grunt.
There are geopolitical considerations that form a larger picture that can be very hard to see if you are stuck inside hoorah. Naval power is useless in a ground war, air power is significantly neutered by rocket tech- this is a real WW2 style ground war against a very tough opponent. As I said the US simply cannot fight this one and expect to win or if they do it will be extremely costly in blood and treasure. Nothing conspiratorial but there are nation states jostling for the advantage over Ukraine territory and resources, who knows what old scores are going to be settled as this plays out. Remember Europe is full of tribal and territorial resentments, however I dont have a crystal ball but I do wish the media would ask our low quality leaders what their end game is for us and our kids because at the moment they are spinning bullshit and I also think they are getting a bit nervous about the river of cash pouring into the most corrupt country in Europe regardless of the backhanders they might be getting. I hope they dont decide to augment it with our kids blood.
Nato going all in to defend democracy is delusional, we know this on some level. Anyone here keen to join up or get conscripted away from a comfy life, safe computer screens and head to Europe for some frozen trench warfare against a determined and tough enemy? Not me and forget about the Europeans they are just not going to do it in any significant numbers even if they could get trained and equipped in the 6-9 months that is takes to turn out a grunt.
There are geopolitical considerations that form a larger picture that can be very hard to see if you are stuck inside hoorah. Naval power is useless in a ground war, air power is significantly neutered by rocket tech- this is a real WW2 style ground war against a very tough opponent. As I said the US simply cannot fight this one and expect to win or if they do it will be extremely costly in blood and treasure. Nothing conspiratorial but there are nation states jostling for the advantage over Ukraine territory and resources, who knows what old scores are going to be settled as this plays out. Remember Europe is full of tribal and territorial resentments, however I dont have a crystal ball but I do wish the media would ask our low quality leaders what their end game is for us and our kids because at the moment they are spinning bullshit and I also think they are getting a bit nervous about the river of cash pouring into the most corrupt country in Europe regardless of the backhanders they might be getting. I hope they dont decide to augment it with our kids blood.
12 metre
Super Anarchist
Not going to argue your main points, but Russia is the most corrupt country in Europe. Granted Ukraine is not far behind but has been improving since 2011.
Unless of course you consider Russia to not be part of Europe.
phill_nz
Super Anarchist
pretty much all of that is not just poorly thought out but straight out wrong
im not going into each point there are far too many
LeoV
Super Anarchist
Laughable, Russia invaded a small country that was in economical hardship and badly organized due to Russian 2014 war and meddling in Ukraine. And got stopped.
Never advanced more then 100 km. Odessa naval landing stopped by a few mines. Kyiv advance stopped by arty half the Russian numbers. Took months to capture Mariopul.
Only Kherson as big city was captured due to treason.
And this brilliant troll thinks Russian small army could have attacked NATO with all their modern equipment and though small but better organized and trained armies and win.
The airforce capabilities alone...the missiles ready, the navy, the need to advance thousands of kilometers over thousands of kilometers of the front. Laughable.
Russia can attack NATO in Europe, do damage and advance, but quickly it would be decimated. Sure NATO countries will have to enlarge armies, more tanks, improve anti drone/missiles measures, larger stockpiles of long range ammo and much more short range ammo for arty. And lots of drones and cheap dummy missiles to overwhelm defence systems.
But best is to destroy their arty and supply before their short range can hit anything.
Never advanced more then 100 km. Odessa naval landing stopped by a few mines. Kyiv advance stopped by arty half the Russian numbers. Took months to capture Mariopul.
Only Kherson as big city was captured due to treason.
And this brilliant troll thinks Russian small army could have attacked NATO with all their modern equipment and though small but better organized and trained armies and win.
The airforce capabilities alone...the missiles ready, the navy, the need to advance thousands of kilometers over thousands of kilometers of the front. Laughable.
Russia can attack NATO in Europe, do damage and advance, but quickly it would be decimated. Sure NATO countries will have to enlarge armies, more tanks, improve anti drone/missiles measures, larger stockpiles of long range ammo and much more short range ammo for arty. And lots of drones and cheap dummy missiles to overwhelm defence systems.
But best is to destroy their arty and supply before their short range can hit anything.
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
I agree with you, but I will point out some of the bigger flaws
NATO European armed forces maybe comparatively small individually , but total about 2.2m personnel. More than Russian army and reserves (and more than USA)
NATO equipment and tactics have been shown to be better than Russian (RU has all but abandoned their BTG doctrine because they were getting smashed for example). A lot of that comes from Europe.
Neither navy or Air force's would be irrelevant if NATO were involved. Would take too long to explain why. Assuming something is unimportant because you don't understand it is one of the rankest forms of stupidity.
Rain Man
Super Anarchist
So Ukraine stopped Russia's invasion and regained a significant amount of territory with old equipment, but still you say "Ukraine as it was pre war is done, stick a fork into it." As they say, you have added 1 and 1 and got 3. Ukraine is about to get a bunch of new NATO stuff - and the US is thinking about Patriot and ATACMS to help with the missile attacks. 300K mobiks haven't made a shred of difference to the front line for Russia. Your conclusion does not appear to make sense with the information available today.
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
Look at any war in history. The country that attacks first makes ground initially. That is inevitable So did RU. But since then the movement has all been the other way. As you say, RU have deployed 300k more soldiers and they have made little difference. RU will struggle to deploy more because of equipment shortages.land if they do they will be badly trained
Whereas UKr are getting better trained troops, with better equipment
Whereas UKr are getting better trained troops, with better equipment
Lol, you're a bunch of funny guys! Suggest you read War by Carl von Clausewitz, then you will get an overview of the Ruskies tactics. The confidence you have in the EU and NATO is remarkable, but i just dont see any appetite or ability to grind out a full scale land war.
The comments here reveal supreme confidence in high tech to win this and assume a low casualty rate as per the recent expeditionary wars against poorly equipped tribals but if they deploy in Ukraine there will be blood and lots of it. Europe does not want WW3.
I dont have any dog in this fight so dont bother attacking me personally with troll and stupid etc, who wins is of no consequence, my thoughts are with the people who are getting slaughtered in the pointless delay getting to an armistice.
The comments here reveal supreme confidence in high tech to win this and assume a low casualty rate as per the recent expeditionary wars against poorly equipped tribals but if they deploy in Ukraine there will be blood and lots of it. Europe does not want WW3.
I dont have any dog in this fight so dont bother attacking me personally with troll and stupid etc, who wins is of no consequence, my thoughts are with the people who are getting slaughtered in the pointless delay getting to an armistice.
If I recall correctly he said they would use all means at their disposal if they were attacked, he did not mention nukes and they do not have a first strike policy. Pretty sure the US hawks are threatening to use "battlefield nukes" whatever they are...
links?
AnIdiot
Sock
Have to disagree with you there, in particular. There could be a wider debate about what winning means but if Putin's attempted seizure of Ukraine were successful, the consequences would be significant for many, many people around the world.
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
OK sure... NATO is limp and cowering before Russia, which too powerful to be resisted... that's why Ukraine with NATO assistance has stopped Russian advance and is rolling them back to their own border.
Point- NATO was formed to protect against aggression against a NATO member, not necessarily neighboring nation-states. So no, this is not "exactly" the scenario it was formed for.
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
wrong
