Ukraine War

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

We have quite a few "Americans" on this board who also blame America.  They're called Republicans. 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

21 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

We have quite a few "Americans" on this board who also blame America.  They're called Republicans. 

And they want desperately to re-elect Putin’s biggest fan and turn us into Russia. 

[TreatyOak 17381]

I actually feel slightly better today about the state of the world than I did two months ago.

I felt a lot of fear about the Russians and Chinese employing frightening weapons, manipulative campaigns and technology to further control and divide the free world.  

Now, we get confirmation that at least the Russians are exposed as a bunch of moronic, laughably stupid, incompetent cheeseballs who couldn't manage  to tie their own shoes.

As someone aptly stated here, it would be quite funny if they weren't so busy murdering the good people of Ukraine. 

 

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Horseshoe theory evidence keeps piling up.  Americans are now more anti-American than Western Europeans on the question of who is at fault for this war.

I bet if you included the polled country in each poll, you’d get some pings.  Some number of Germans think it’s Germany’s fault and so on. Some people always think it’s always about them.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I bet if you included the polled country in each poll, you’d get some pings.  Some number of Germans think it’s Germany’s fault and so on. Some people always think it’s always about them.  

There are always self flagellators out there 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

20 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I bet if you included the polled country in each poll, you’d get some pings.  Some number of Germans think it’s Germany’s fault and so on. Some people always think it’s always about them.  

I’ll bet you’d have to survey a pretty large sample in order to get some pings. Does Germany have a major news network that peddles Russian propaganda and defends their aggression? I know they have a neo-Nazi movement, but would they blame Germany for Russia’s de-Nazification assault on a sovereign Ukraine? I don’t think the response would be statistically significant. Poll enough people and you’ll find someone saying anything. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’ll bet you’d have to survey a pretty large sample in order to get some pings. Does Germany have a major news network that peddles Russian propaganda and defends their aggression? I know they have a neo-Nazi movement, but would they blame Germany for Russia’s de-Nazification assault on a sovereign Ukraine? I don’t think the response would be statistically significant. Poll enough people and you’ll find someone saying anything. 

i think for whoever supports the out-of-power party, they'll be motivated to think it is their fault.  here, the Rs think it is our fault because it is convenient to do so.  I imagine the analogue appears in a lot of places.

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

5 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i think for whoever supports the out-of-power party, they'll be motivated to think it is their fault.  here, the Rs think it is our fault because it is convenient to do so.  I imagine the analogue appears in a lot of places.

That and because Fox News openly peddles Russian propaganda and TFG worshiped Putin and wanted us to leave NATO. And because he has supporters who wear t-shirts that say they’d rather be Russian than Democrats.

Edited April 18, 2022 by WhatTheBuck

[TreatyOak 17381]

53 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’ll bet you’d have to survey a pretty large sample in order to get some pings. Does Germany have a major news network that peddles Russian propaganda and defends their aggression? I know they have a neo-Nazi movement, but would they blame Germany for Russia’s de-Nazification assault on a sovereign Ukraine? I don’t think the response would be statistically significant. Poll enough people and you’ll find someone saying anything. 

Germany has a fairly robust neo-Nazi movement. In fact, they even had their assault on their capital building during COVID lockdowns. 
Not sure they have anything as mainstream bizarre as Fox News, but they do have a lot of underground communication networks. 

[956 Worldwide 35594]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I bet if you included the polled country in each poll, you’d get some pings.  Some number of Germans think it’s Germany’s fault and so on. Some people always think it’s always about them.  

I think that NATO and the U.S. have such different numbers in America because most Americans don’t really know what NATO is.

I don’t think you’d see anything like our numbers.  And you underestimate the long-standing deep knee-jerk “blame the U.S.” stance in much of Europe. Had you run this poll on 20 Feb and asked “who is to blame for tensions, you would have (did, actually) see high numbers of “blame the U.S.” The brutal war slapped Europeans back to reality about who the problem is in a way it didn’t for Americans, the war is much more visceral here. 

[RomaVicta 30592]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And they want desperately to re-elect Putin’s biggest fan and turn us into Russia. 

It's the only way to keep us from turning socialist/communist! Don't you see?

I used to be amused by irony deafness. Now I'm resigned to the fact it will kill our republic.

[Gil Bang 26240]

22 hours ago, Macanudo said:

I would take John Stewart in a heartbeat over anyone currently in politics.

I'd like Franken back.

[Gil Bang 26240]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

 

as in it was taken by a Russian sailor and he wasn't supposed to be recording? I'm not sure I get the significance of the last part

[kevwun 16438]

and why are there 2 ships on fire in the video?  That would indicate another was hit.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

My heart soars like the hawk seeing such images.

[RomaVicta 30592]

31 minutes ago, kevwun said:

and why are there 2 ships on fire in the video?  That would indicate another was hit.

Yea, I have my doubts about that video. The Moscow was the biggest sheep in the area. The burning vessel doesn't look any bigger than the other vessel that may be burning nearby.

The poor quality always makes me think of bigfoot and UFO video. 

Ukraine supposedly used two or more drones to distract Russian airdefences. Seems like one of them should have been able to get some sort of an image. Also, those are international water, so we or someone could have used a spyplane. It's so rare that something so important happens without ten different videos.

On second analysis, blow the whole thing up to full screen and stop at :03. I don't think it's two vessels, I think it is one vessel that has broken into two fiery hulks. The outlines of the two floating objects are not uniform or streamlined. The one on the right's left side looks jagged and not like the bow of an intact ship.

I now wonder if it is a shot of the Moscow from a ship coming to help. The two things on fire might add up to a vessel as large as the Moscow.

I'm glad the Ukes sank it, but, as I said in an earlier post, I pity sailors on a burning ship. If the explosion did break the Moscow in two, the horrors aboard the dying ship must have been considerable. Such it is for fucking around and finding out. 

Fuck Russia and Putin.

Edited April 18, 2022 by RomaVicta

[Gil Bang 26240]

 

[RomaVicta 30592]

For dumbasses like me who don't know what FSB is: Wiki

Quote

The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB RF; Russian: Федеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации (ФСБ РФ), tr. Federal'naya sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii, IPA: [fʲɪdʲɪˈralʲnəjə ˈsluʐbə bʲɪzɐˈpasnəstʲɪ rɐˈsʲijskəj fʲɪdʲɪˈratsɨɪ]) is the principal security agency of Russia and the main successor agency to the Soviet Union's KGB

.............

In 2022, several current and former officials described the FSB as less effective than the KGB, describing it as "rife with corruption, beset by bureaucratic bloat and ultimately out of touch."^[

 

[jimmyjazz 47205]

I'm not a big fan of #Anonymous, but FAFO.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of Anonymous, at least it's an ethos.

[Biff Tannen 46168]

5 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Down to Gorky Park?

[bolverk 30326]

Mouthpiece for Biden propaganda... That's some loaded language for the "news only' thread.

Quote

 

White House Stands By Not Sending Troops to Ukraine, Breaking With Coons
BY ALEXANDRA HUTZLER ON 4/18/22 AT 6:35 PM EDT

The White House said Monday it disagrees with Democratic Senator Chris Coons' assessment that U.S. officials need to discuss the possibility that American troops may eventually be needed in the Russia-Ukraine war.

"Senator Coons is a close friend of the president's and the administration, and we just respectfully disagree with his proposal," press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters at the daily press briefing. "The president has no plans to send troops to fight a war with Russia. He doesn't think that's in our national security interests."

 

 

[Gatorubet 30720]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Down to Gorky Park?

Gorky. Itchycoo.  MacArthur. Same-same. 

 

[Biff Tannen 46168]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Mouthpiece for Biden propaganda... That's some loaded language for the "news only' thread.

 

lol national review

[Hookah Horns 3089]

Looks like there was a huge strike on the Mariupol alamo/steel plant. 

[TreatyOak 17381]

4 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Yea, I have my doubts about that video. The Moscow was the biggest sheep in the area. The burning vessel doesn't look any bigger than the other vessel that may be burning nearby.

The poor quality always makes me think of bigfoot and UFO video. 

Ukraine supposedly used two or more drones to distract Russian airdefences. Seems like one of them should have been able to get some sort of an image. Also, those are international water, so we or someone could have used a spyplane. It's so rare that something so important happens without ten different videos.

On second analysis, blow the whole thing up to full screen and stop at :03. I don't think it's two vessels, I think it is one vessel that has broken into two fiery hulks. The outlines of the two floating objects are not uniform or streamlined. The one on the right's left side looks jagged and not like the bow of an intact ship.

I now wonder if it is a shot of the Moscow from a ship coming to help. The two things on fire might add up to a vessel as large as the Moscow.

I'm glad the Ukes sank it, but, as I said in an earlier post, I pity sailors on a burning ship. If the explosion did break the Moscow in two, the horrors aboard the dying ship must have been considerable. Such it is for fucking around and finding out. 

Fuck Russia and Putin.

On BBC World News, their naval expert confirmed that that video is of the Moskva. EDIT: As I recall, he said you can see the doors to the helicopter pad left open so it looks like some brave commander got the efff out of there. 

To your other point, Ukraine/Nato may indeed have a video but may not want to share. 

Daily Mail did share this supposed satellite image of the explosion: 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by TreatyOak

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

15 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Looks like there was a huge strike on the Mariupol alamo/steel plant. 

That’s where the last defenders are holed up, running low on ammunition, and refusing to surrender. The reporting I heard was that the Russians gave them a deadline to surrender but that deadline came and went. This could turn out badly for those brave men.

The whole thing is just sickening. Congrats, Russkies, you captured Mariupol but not before completely destroying it. Every building is an empty shell. It’s completely unlivable. If you think it’s your territory, are you going to pay to rebuild it?

[Neonmoon 38130]

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you think it’s your territory, are you going to pay to rebuild it?

Have you seen the rest of Russia? 

[Scheiss Meister 8471]

How are they going to pay to rebuild it?

[Brisketexan 106900]

How are they going to pay to rebuild it?

With money. Except not money. Is potato.

[cactusflinthead 27627]

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by cactusflinthead

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Looks like there was a huge strike on the Mariupol alamo/steel plant. 

Just heard on BBC News that in addition to the soldiers there, about 1,000 civilians are sheltering in bunkers beneath the plant.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

10 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

That dotard/Zelenskyy clip is crying out for the theme from Curb. 

Nance is a fucking badass. Hope he stays safe because the good guys need him here too.

[RomaVicta 30592]

Russia's Eastern Offensive has begun. Washington Post.

Quote

 

MONDAY

Russia appears to have launched its long-anticipated large-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine, officials said Monday, after Moscow stepped up missiles attacks, including one on the western city of Lviv that killed at least seven — the city’s first fatalities since the war began.

Moscow has for weeks been amassing troops and supplies in preparation for its renewed assault on the Donbas region, which became the Kremlin’s primary focus after its forces failed to capture Kyiv during the first phase of the invasion. “It can now be stated that the Russian troops have begun the battle for Donbas, for which they have been preparing for a long time,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. “A very large part of the entire Russian army is now focused on this offensive.”

Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s national security and defense council, said Russia attacked along nearly the entire front line in Donbas and Kharkiv, breaking through in two small cities. “Fortunately, our military is holding on,” Danilov said. The Pentagon did not contradict the Ukrainian assessment but took a more cautious approach, with spokesman John Kirby saying the Russians “are shaping and setting the conditions for future offensive operations.”

TUESDAY

Russia declared Tuesday that the “next phase” of the war in Ukraine was underway, kicking off a major assault on key areas in the east — while giving Ukrainian holdout forces in Mariupol a new deadline to surrender. Ukraine’s Defense Ministry also warned that Russia has “intensified” its offensive, which appears designed to create a land corridor linking Russian-annexed Crimea to eastern Ukraine.

Hours after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russian troops “have begun the battle for Donbas,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced Moscow would seek the “complete liberation” of Donetsk and Luhansk in the east. Luhansk’s regional governor said Tuesday that the eastern city of Kreminna is now “under the control” of Russian forces. Control of Kreminna could allow Russia to advance toward Kramatorsk, capital of the Donbas region. Russia’s assault is also coalescing around the Kharkiv region.

I don't think I missed this being posted. 

I wonder if NATO launched a huge volley of missiles and drones against the Russian Army in a limited lightning strike that ended almost as soon as it began would Putin really even have the time to consider nuclear action. I'm also getting itchy again about setting a goal of driving the Russians out of Ukraine with no intention of invading Russia (First Gulf War parameters) then unleashing NATO air power and special forces in Ukraine.

To gain? Russia would not be a threat to its neighbors for a generation or more after the damage to their conventional army. 

It's just so tempting.

 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Just heard on BBC News that in addition to the soldiers there, about 1,000 civilians are sheltering in bunkers beneath the plant.

And there's no more food, much less medicine. I can't even imagine how uncomfortable, terrifying and miserable that must be. Just awful. 

And if there are only 1k civilians, then the number of dead is staggering - my understanding was there was like 100-200k remaining there and not many have been able to escape. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Russia's Eastern Offensive has begun. Washington Post.

I don't think I missed this being posted. 

I wonder if NATO launched a huge volley of missiles and drones against the Russian Army in a limited lightning strike that ended almost as soon as it began would Putin really even have the time to consider nuclear action. I'm also getting itchy again about setting a goal of driving the Russians out of Ukraine with no intention of invading Russia (First Gulf War parameters) then unleashing NATO air power and special forces in Ukraine.

To gain? Russia would not be a threat to its neighbors for a generation or more after the damage to their conventional army. 

It's just so tempting.

 

So you're only going after what's in The Ukraine, and negating the fact Putin controls a nuclear arsenal ?  Knocking out those Ukrainian forces doesn;'t restrict any other moves he might consider.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Russia's Eastern Offensive has begun. Washington Post.

I don't think I missed this being posted. 

I wonder if NATO launched a huge volley of missiles and drones against the Russian Army in a limited lightning strike that ended almost as soon as it began would Putin really even have the time to consider nuclear action. I'm also getting itchy again about setting a goal of driving the Russians out of Ukraine with no intention of invading Russia (First Gulf War parameters) then unleashing NATO air power and special forces in Ukraine.

To gain? Russia would not be a threat to its neighbors for a generation or more after the damage to their conventional army. 

It's just so tempting.

 

WWIII probably says hello

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

12 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

And there's no more food, much less medicine. I can't even imagine how uncomfortable, terrifying and miserable that must be. Just awful. 

And if there are only 1k civilians, then the number of dead is staggering - my understanding was there was like 100-200k remaining there and not many have been able to escape. 

Later on Morning Joe they gave a greater number. I want to say 2,000. I’m sure it’s hard to get accurate information out of there. But this was referring just to civilians at the plant, not in the city. I thought even 1,000 seemed like a large number to be sheltering at the plant. 

[RomaVicta 30592]

53 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So you're only going after what's in The Ukraine, and negating the fact Putin controls a nuclear arsenal ?  Knocking out those Ukrainian forces doesn;'t restrict any other moves he might consider.

I thought we could assume that a person discussing strategy was aware of and considering the possibility of nuclear war. It's obvious.

That explains why the action I describe would be swift and clearly limited in its aim. Don't forget the "mutual" in mutual assured destruction. That, I think, protects the US from an ICBM attack and NATO from a nuclear attack. It may not limit Putin from using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but what would he gain?

Ukraine would have the most to lose. Any US or NATO action should be discussed with them. They may refuse outside forces to save the eastern areas because they don't want to be the full-scale battleground between NATO and Russia.

West Germany developed that same attitude in the last decade of the Cold War. No matter who triumphed, Germany would be destroyed. Same could be true for Ukraine.

Edited April 19, 2022 by RomaVicta

[immamac 44354]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I thought we could assume that a person discussing strategy was aware of and considering the possibility of nuclear war. It's obvious.

That explains why the action I describe would be swift and clearly limited in its aim. Don't forget the "mutual" in mutual assured destruction. That, I think, protects the US from an ICBM attack and NATO from a nuclear attack. It may not limit Putin from using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but what would he gain?

Ukraine would have the most to lose. Any US or NATO action should be discussed with them. They may refuse outside forces to save the eastern areas because they don't want to be the full-scale battleground between NATO and Russia.

West Germany developed that same attitude in the last decade of the Cold War. No matter who triumphed, Germany would be destroyed. Same could be true for Ukraine.

Russia uses nukes and China is officially out on supporting them as is India. Russia will become a worldwide pariah overnight and that's the only solution as anything else will kill most everyone on the planet within days. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

56 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I thought we could assume that a person discussing strategy was aware of and considering the possibility of nuclear war. It's obvious.

That explains why the action I describe would be swift and clearly limited in its aim. Don't forget the "mutual" in mutual assured destruction. That, I think, protects the US from an ICBM attack and NATO from a nuclear attack. It may not limit Putin from using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but what would he gain?

Ukraine would have the most to lose. Any US or NATO action should be discussed with them. They may refuse outside forces to save the eastern areas because they don't want to be the full-scale battleground between NATO and Russia.

West Germany developed that same attitude in the last decade of the Cold War. No matter who triumphed, Germany would be destroyed. Same could be true for Ukraine.

The speed has nothing to do with it in my opinion. It's the act.  It threatens the survival of Russia as Putin, and his generals might rightly see it, and that's when nukes become the next weapon used.  The use nukes tactical or not is an escalation that I would not want to have to address.

I am assuming you're talking about striking those forces only in Ukraine, which does pose a conundrum for Putin. Not an attack on the Motherland, but that all depends on how he sees it.  It would be a bold gambit, surpassing Cuban missiles crisis proportions, and actions.

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

I thought we could assume that a person discussing strategy was aware of and considering the possibility of nuclear war. It's obvious.

That explains why the action I describe would be swift and clearly limited in its aim. Don't forget the "mutual" in mutual assured destruction. That, I think, protects the US from an ICBM attack and NATO from a nuclear attack. It may not limit Putin from using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but what would he gain?

Ukraine would have the most to lose. Any US or NATO action should be discussed with them. They may refuse outside forces to save the eastern areas because they don't want to be the full-scale battleground between NATO and Russia.

West Germany developed that same attitude in the last decade of the Cold War. No matter who triumphed, Germany would be destroyed. Same could be true for Ukraine.

The speed has nothing to do with it in my opinion. It's the act.  It threatens the survival of Russia as Putin, and his generals might rightly see it, and that's when nukes become the next weapon used.  The use nukes tactical or not is an escalation that I would not want to have to address.

I am assuming you're talking about striking those forces only in Ukraine, which does pose a conundrum for Putin. Not an attack on the Motherland, but that all depends on how he sees it.  It would be a bold gambit, surpassing Cuban missiles crisis proportions, and actions.

 

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Russia uses nukes and China is officially out on supporting them as is India. Russia will become a worldwide pariah overnight and that's the only solution as anything else will kill most everyone on the planet within days. 

Doesn't answer the question of does he or does he not use them.  That level of Russian roulette has not been seen since the Cuban missile crisis, and would actually be surpassing it's level of danger

Edited April 19, 2022 by Onboard 2.0

[immamac 44354]

22 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The speed has nothing to do with it in my opinion. It's the act.  It threatens the survival of Russia as Putin, and his generals might rightly see it, and that's when nukes become the next weapon used.  The use nukes tactical or not is an escalation that I would not want to have to address.

I am assuming you're talking about striking those forces only in Ukraine, which does pose a conundrum for Putin. Not an attack on the Motherland, but that all depends on how he sees it.  It would be a bold gambit, surpassing Cuban missiles crisis proportions, and actions.

 

Doesn't answer the question of does he or does he not use them.  That level of Russian roulette has not been seen since the Cuban missile crisis, and would actually be surpassing it's level of danger

We won't retaliate with strategic nukes for a tactical nuke in a non NATO country. Get your head out of your ass. 

China isn't trying to fucking die for no reason at all and neither is India. They all know that MAD isn't just the 2 countries launching nukes it's the whole fucking planet. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

21 minutes ago, immamac said:

We won't retaliate with strategic nukes for a tactical nuke in a non NATO country. Get your head out of your ass. 

China isn't trying to fucking die for no reason at all and neither is India. They all know that MAD isn't just the 2 countries launching nukes it's the whole fucking planet. 

I'm sorry, you're cavalierly talking about the use of nukes, and I have my head up my ass ?  

[Brisketexan 106900]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sorry, you're cavalierly talking about the use of nukes, and I have my head up my ass ?  

Hey man, you duck and cover your way, I'll duck and cover my way.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hey man, you duck and cover your way, I'll duck and cover my way.

I prefer to see what's goin g on. And I

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hey man, you duck and cover your way, I'll duck and cover my way.

Heheheheh, I prefer to see what's going on.

 

The deployment of tactical nukes anywhere is a gambit that pushes the world clock to about 10 seconds before midnight.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Onboard 2.0

[956 Worldwide 35594]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The speed has nothing to do with it in my opinion. It's the act.  It threatens the survival of Russia as Putin, and his generals might rightly see it, and that's when nukes become the next weapon used.  The use nukes tactical or not is an escalation that I would not want to have to address.

I am assuming you're talking about striking those forces only in Ukraine, which does pose a conundrum for Putin. Not an attack on the Motherland, but that all depends on how he sees it.  It would be a bold gambit, surpassing Cuban missiles crisis proportions, and actions.

 

Doesn't answer the question of does he or does he not use them.  That level of Russian roulette has not been seen since the Cuban missile crisis, and would actually be surpassing it's level of danger

Militarily, we don’t have the capability to do it that way. The weapons just aren’t in our arsenal. At the range we are talking about, (Polish border to Donbas is over 1,000 km) you are talking about using air-launched cruise missiles (the Black Sea is closed to NATO warships for all real purposes) and the type of drones you’d be sending would be the large systems like Reapers. 
 

You don’t shoot cruise missiles at individual tanks and vehicles and ground forces, those weapons are designed to target critical infrastructure and facilities.  Drones like the Reaper are designed to fly in big, lazy circles over Afghanistan and people who can’t shoot them down— the Air Force will tell you they aren’t survivable in contested air space. They fly slow, you’re launching them from a long way away, and you’ll be seen doing it.  And it will invite a conventional strike against the staging areas before it moves nuclear. 
 

Destroying Russia’s conventional forces in Ukraine can only be done the hard way— like Ukraine is doing it. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Militarily, we don’t have the capability to do it that way. The weapons just aren’t in our arsenal. At the range we are talking about, (Polish border to Donbas is over 1,000 km) you are talking about using air-launched cruise missiles (the Black Sea is closed to NATO warships for all real purposes) and the type of drones you’d be sending would be the large systems like Reapers. 
 

You don’t shoot cruise missiles at individual tanks and vehicles and ground forces, those weapons are designed to target critical infrastructure and facilities.  Drones like the Reaper are designed to fly in big, lazy circles over Afghanistan and people who can’t shoot them down— the Air Force will tell you they aren’t survivable in contested air space. They fly slow, you’re launching them from a long way away, and you’ll be seen doing it.  And it will invite a conventional strike against the staging areas before it moves nuclear. 
 

Destroying Russia’s conventional forces in Ukraine can only be done the hard way— like Ukraine is doing it. 

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not even advocating that tactic.  Nor am I saying we'd definitively move into a nuclear conflict if battlefield/ tactical nukes were used by Russia.  Any overt offensive move by the west would be an invitation to the escalation of the war.  

How far is Putin willing to go in this fucked up Soviet era, glory days, seeking mission of his ?  That's the $64,000 question.