Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[Pods 7594]

5 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

1 minute ago, MillerEP said:

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Pods

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

^Might finally be leaking based on today's shelling, but they're trying to assess now.

Edited August 27, 2022 by MillerEP

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

^Found hanged

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

[MillerEP 30569]

^"Missed it" Accidentlyonpurpose?

Edited August 27, 2022 by MillerEP

[InkaUtexas 26349]

4 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

^"Missed it" Accidentlyonpurpose?

Funny about the drone. 

 

Concerning the S-300. I saw the report it had been moved back to Russia and thought the straits were closed to weapons and naval assets. WTF Turkey. 

[MillerEP 30569]

 

^Nice if true. This is where most of the senior Russians fled to when Kherson became a little too hot

 

[Fico 1791]

3 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

The Poles have always been badasses.  The geography of Poland makes defending Poland very difficult.  Germany and Russia have meddled in Polish politics for centuries, influencing and directing events to their individual and mutual benefit, but the Polish military has generally been top notch.  Read up on who saved Vienna from the Ottomans.

When I was a young Marine mortarman, we learned about the Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces.  The Poles were always mentioned as equal to the best Soviet and East German forces.  On top of that, Polish intelligence was the class of the Warsaw Pact, even better than the Stasi.  Don't sleep on the Poles.

Exactly. I'm just waiting for them to figure out how to put wings on their new tanks.

[atomheartbevo 90045]

3 hours ago, RPM said:

Yeah and that X37B in orbit will dim the lights in Moscow 20 minutes later.

I think if they go through with a nuke, China gets involved, Turkey shuts down the Straits to the Russians (nukes over the Black Sea could drift into Turkey) and we start seeing some really serious shit.  Complete economic isolation  

I think NATO opens the floodgates on weapons and training as well.

Oh, and Russia gets the terrorist designation.

[atomheartbevo 90045]

That volunteer 3rd Army Corps, if they were deployed as “ad hoc combined arms units”, that sound like an even crazier way of getting Russians killed.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-27

 

[atomheartbevo 90045]

Somebody mentioned Pisky earlier, it’s a small village the Russians never could take

 

[atomheartbevo 90045]

5 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

In most countries that have to do this, Older troops occupy territory. Fresh (young and trained) troops lead offensives. The question is do they have enough of the second group left. 

I don’t thin’ they do, otherwise we would have already seen them.

And there are reports of former Russian prisoners being killed in Ukraine and knowledge of their deaths making it back to Russia.

And Russia still can’t get off their peacetime footing and start mobilizing in earnest.  That’s the only way they are getting a lot of youngsters in the army.

[atomheartbevo 90045]

6 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You seem to know where this is headed. So tell me how this ends…?

I can think of several potential endgame scenarios, but everything comes down to manpower.  And lest we forget, Ukraine has about a third of the population that Russia has, and can mobilize far more troops to fight Russia.  Russia has a lot of security problems and areas to secure, that tie up hundreds of thousands of troops/personnel across Asia and the Middle East, as well as potentially taking over Belarus if things go down there, while Ukraine is focused on one enemy - Russia.

And we have to start off mentioning that Russia has a massive manpower problem, because it ties his hands and reduces his options.  They have demographic problems that have left them with a smaller pool of manpower to draw from than 10 years ago, and 10 years ago, they had a smaller pool of manpower to draw from than they did 20 and 30 years ago, etc.  This is why he’s combing through Russian prisons, why he begged for Syrians and Africans  to come fight, why he floated the ideas for North Koreans to come help.  It’s why he’s raising the cap to 60 year olds.

And he can’t mass mobilize, because that gets into all kinds of legal and constitutional mumbo jumbo, and more importantly, it’s going to get men and their families out into the streets in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, and Russia doesn’t have the manpower to put any massive protests down, because we already know that much of that manpower (the civilian federal security/police/etc.) is actually deployed to Ukraine.  To put it another way, if Putin could have figured out a way to go to a war footing without protests on a massive scale, he would have already done it months ago.

Ironically, going to a wartime footing would allow him to use conscripts in Ukraine on a large scale, but the professional/contract soldiers have born the brunt of the deaths, and with over 1,000+ confirmed officers being killed, which means the conscripts are going to be missing out on experienced officers.  And we’ve already seen evidence of rebelliousness from professional/contract soldiers.  Suddenly throwing in tens of thousands of conscripts would complicate things as many fled or sabotaged their own gear, etc.

All of that leaves a lot of scenarios, but I’m sticking to a few

1. Russia is driven out of all  Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.  100% worst-case scenario for Putin that puts his life/power in danger.  Even though he controls the security services and media, this will be too much for Russians and the oligarchs to stomach. Russia takes territory in 2014, successfully holds it, then he starts a war for more territory and loses everything.  

Is it possible?  Yes, but it’ll be slow going, but as more HIMARS and other systems come online with Ukraine, more and more Russian supply dumps and hardware is destroyed, air defenses are reduced, leaving Russian soldiers isolated and under-supplied. Putin will do everything he can to prevent this, because it’s the end of him.  He will take Russia to a formal war declaration, and he will start grabbing people off the streets of Moscow to feed his war machine, before he accepts this.  I feel like if WMDs are going to come into play, this is it.

2. Putin pulls back to pre-2022 areas and tries to get a cease-fire/armistice. Many in the West might be okay with this. This hurts Putin back home, since Russians will feel like they were lied to (his propagandists on state TV pump way too much sunshine), and it hurts him politically and with the oligarchs (who have lost a massive amount of overseas assets).  And there’s a shit-ton of Russians who will have lost family members, and you’ll have hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers who are pissed off because they were wounded or they felt their comrades died for nothing, etc.

Is it possible?  Putin might go for it, as he might be able to survive this since he controls the security services and media, but his security services are a few hundred thousand actual boots on the ground in a country of 140 million people.  And I doubt he could count on the military to back him in potential coups.  Putin can’t lose everything including the Crimea and survive, so this might be his actual red line, hence my comments about the WMDs above.

3. Putin tries to get a cease-fire/armistice with what Russia controls now in August of 2022.  Back in Russia, it’s Putin’s best scenario, because he can claim he built buffer zones around Crimea and the DPR/LPR and that he de-Nazified Ukraine. 

Is it possible?  No.  Ukraine will not allow that, nor will the West support it.  Ukraine has come too far and inflicted too many losses on Russia.  Ukraine will just bleed Russia dry in a way that Afghanistan and Vietnam never could to Russia or the US, because in those scenarios, both Russia and the US could just fly their troops home and be done.  Trying to retain what they have right now leaves them within range of Ukraine forces and artillery. The West will be happy to keep up supplies and keep Russia tied up there, and Ukraine will have too much momentum on their side over time.  How many years would the Russian public support death by a thousand paper cuts, when they are able to  access the footage of dead Russians on Telegram, and other social media, etc., unlike in Afghanistan when it was easier to cover up (but couldn’t be - Russian mothers were angry with Gorbachev, etc. and became a power).

It’s like dealing with the underpants gnomes.

Edited August 28, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[immamac 43557]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I can think of several potential endgame scenarios, but everything comes down to manpower.  And lest we forget, Ukraine has about a third of the population that Russia has, and can mobilize far more troops to fight Russia.  Russia has a lot of security problems and areas to secure, that tie up hundreds of thousands of troops/personnel across Asia and the Middle East, as well as potentially taking over Belarus if things go down there, while Ukraine is focused on one enemy - Russia.

And we have to start off mentioning that Russia has a massive manpower problem, because it ties his hands and reduces his options.  They have demographic problems that have left them with a smaller pool of manpower to draw from than 10 years ago, and 10 years ago, they had a smaller pool of manpower to draw from than they did 20 and 30 years ago, etc.  This is why he’s combing through Russian prisons, why he begged for Syrians and Africans  to come fight, why he floated the ideas for North Koreans to come help.  It’s why he’s raising the cap to 60 year olds.

And he can’t mass mobilize, because that gets into all kinds of legal and constitutional mumbo jumbo, and more importantly, it’s going to get men and their families out into the streets in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, and Russia doesn’t have the manpower to put any massive protests down, because we already know that much of that manpower (the civilian federal security/police/etc.) is actually deployed to Ukraine.  To put it another way, if Putin could have figured out a way to go to a war footing without protests on a massive scale, he would have already done it months ago.

Ironically, going to a wartime footing would allow him to use conscripts in Ukraine on a large scale, but the professional/contract soldiers have born the brunt of the deaths, and with over 1,000+ confirmed officers being killed, which means the conscripts are going to be missing out on experienced officers.  And we’ve already seen evidence of rebelliousness from professional/contract soldiers.  Suddenly throwing in tens of thousands of conscripts would complicate things as many fled or sabotaged their own gear, etc.

All of that leaves a lot of scenarios, but I’m sticking to a few

1. Russia is driven out of all  Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.  100% worst-case scenario for Putin that puts his life/power in danger.  Even though he controls the security services and media, this will be too much for Russians and the oligarchs to stomach. Russia takes territory in 2014, successfully holds it, then he starts a war for more territory and loses everything.  

Is it possible?  Yes, but it’ll be slow going, but as more HIMARS and other systems come online with Ukraine, more and more Russian supply dumps and hardware is destroyed, air defenses are reduced, leaving Russian soldiers isolated and under-supplied. Putin will do everything he can to prevent this, because it’s the end of him.  He will take Russia to a formal war declaration, and he will start grabbing people off the streets of Moscow to feed his war machine, before he accepts this.  I feel like if WMDs are going to come into play, this is it.

2. Putin pulls back to pre-2022 areas and tries to get a cease-fire/armistice. Many in the West might be okay with this. This hurts Putin back home, since Russians will feel like they were lied to (his propagandists on state TV pump way too much sunshine), and it hurts him politically and with the oligarchs (who have lost a massive amount of overseas assets).  And there’s a shit-ton of Russians who will have lost family members, and you’ll have hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers who are pissed off because they were wounded or they felt their comrades died for nothing, etc.

Is it possible?  Putin might go for it, as he might be able to survive this since he controls the security services and media, but his security services are a few hundred thousand actual boots on the ground in a country of 140 million people.  And I doubt he could count on the military to back him in potential coups.  Putin can’t lose everything including the Crimea and survive, so this might be his actual red line, hence my comments about the WMDs above.

3. Putin tries to get a cease-fire/armistice with what Russia controls now in August of 2022.  Back in Russia, it’s Putin’s best scenario, because he can claim he built buffer zones around Crimea and the DPR/LPR and that he de-Nazified Ukraine. 

Is it possible?  No.  Ukraine will not allow that, nor will the West support it.  Ukraine has come too far and inflicted too many losses on Russia.  Ukraine will just bleed Russia dry in a way that Afghanistan and Vietnam never could to Russia or the US, because in those scenarios, both Russia and the US could just fly their troops home and be done.  Trying to retain what they have right now leaves them within range of Ukraine forces and artillery. The West will be happy to keep up supplies and keep Russia tied up there, and Ukraine will have too much momentum on their side over time.  How many years would the Russian public support death by a thousand paper cuts, when they are able to  access the footage of dead Russians on Telegram, and other social media, etc., unlike in Afghanistan when it was easier to cover up (but couldn’t be - Russian mothers were angry with Gorbachev, etc. and became a power).

It’s like dealing with the underpants gnomes.

Zelensky has made it clear that 1 is the only option and every Ukrainian is willing to die before any of the other options. 

I think Russia gets to a certain point of weakness then does something truly stupid/desperate that actually triggers article 5. 

[atomheartbevo 90045]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

Zelensky has made it clear that 1 is the only option and every Ukrainian is willing to die before any of the other options. 

I think Russia gets to a certain point of weakness then does something truly stupid/desperate that actually triggers article 5. 

I think too many in the West might be comfortable with the pre-2022 areas, to the point where it could hamper supplies to Ukraine and make it hard to push Russia completely out of Crimea/etc., and Putin might try and draw some actual lines in the sand before he loses those territories.

I do think that if Russia gets pushed back to the pre-2022 occupied areas, Putin starts a serious game of chicken and things get crazy, because at that point, this is literally Putin’s survival we are talking about.

[NorthLoop 14302]

15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think too many in the West might be comfortable with the pre-2022 areas, to the point where it could hamper supplies to Ukraine and make it hard to push Russia completely out of Crimea/etc., and Putin might try and draw some actual lines in the sand before he loses those territories.

I do think that if Russia gets pushed back to the pre-2022 occupied areas, Putin starts a serious game of chicken and things get crazy, because at that point, this is literally Putin’s survival we are talking about.

I think this game of chicken has been going on since April, and Putin is losing it and also looking weaker and weaker. Aside from Germany I think everyone is tired of his shit and isn't gonna back down. 

[NorthLoop 14302]

Also.. I've thought this since the beginning... I think the endgame is him launching a nuke somewhere... Maybe over the Black Sea.. Maybe Kyiv. But wherever it is, it won't have the result he wants. He thinks everyone will back down, when in fact he will seal the fate of Russia forever. 

[Schulz2.0 29039]

 

[tx 3 putt 77925]

the only good russian is a dead russian 

[InkaUtexas 26349]

26 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

the only good russian is a dead russian 

what about on only fans? Oh wait..... 

[956 Worldwide 34913]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I can think of several potential endgame scenarios, but everything comes down to manpower.  And lest we forget, Ukraine has about a third of the population that Russia has, and can mobilize far more troops to fight Russia.  Russia has a lot of security problems and areas to secure, that tie up hundreds of thousands of troops/personnel across Asia and the Middle East, as well as potentially taking over Belarus if things go down there, while Ukraine is focused on one enemy - Russia.

And we have to start off mentioning that Russia has a massive manpower problem, because it ties his hands and reduces his options.  They have demographic problems that have left them with a smaller pool of manpower to draw from than 10 years ago, and 10 years ago, they had a smaller pool of manpower to draw from than they did 20 and 30 years ago, etc.  This is why he’s combing through Russian prisons, why he begged for Syrians and Africans  to come fight, why he floated the ideas for North Koreans to come help.  It’s why he’s raising the cap to 60 year olds.

And he can’t mass mobilize, because that gets into all kinds of legal and constitutional mumbo jumbo, and more importantly, it’s going to get men and their families out into the streets in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, and Russia doesn’t have the manpower to put any massive protests down, because we already know that much of that manpower (the civilian federal security/police/etc.) is actually deployed to Ukraine.  To put it another way, if Putin could have figured out a way to go to a war footing without protests on a massive scale, he would have already done it months ago.

Ironically, going to a wartime footing would allow him to use conscripts in Ukraine on a large scale, but the professional/contract soldiers have born the brunt of the deaths, and with over 1,000+ confirmed officers being killed, which means the conscripts are going to be missing out on experienced officers.  And we’ve already seen evidence of rebelliousness from professional/contract soldiers.  Suddenly throwing in tens of thousands of conscripts would complicate things as many fled or sabotaged their own gear, etc.

All of that leaves a lot of scenarios, but I’m sticking to a few

1. Russia is driven out of all  Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.  100% worst-case scenario for Putin that puts his life/power in danger.  Even though he controls the security services and media, this will be too much for Russians and the oligarchs to stomach. Russia takes territory in 2014, successfully holds it, then he starts a war for more territory and loses everything.  

Is it possible?  Yes, but it’ll be slow going, but as more HIMARS and other systems come online with Ukraine, more and more Russian supply dumps and hardware is destroyed, air defenses are reduced, leaving Russian soldiers isolated and under-supplied. Putin will do everything he can to prevent this, because it’s the end of him.  He will take Russia to a formal war declaration, and he will start grabbing people off the streets of Moscow to feed his war machine, before he accepts this.  I feel like if WMDs are going to come into play, this is it.

2. Putin pulls back to pre-2022 areas and tries to get a cease-fire/armistice. Many in the West might be okay with this. This hurts Putin back home, since Russians will feel like they were lied to (his propagandists on state TV pump way too much sunshine), and it hurts him politically and with the oligarchs (who have lost a massive amount of overseas assets).  And there’s a shit-ton of Russians who will have lost family members, and you’ll have hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers who are pissed off because they were wounded or they felt their comrades died for nothing, etc.

Is it possible?  Putin might go for it, as he might be able to survive this since he controls the security services and media, but his security services are a few hundred thousand actual boots on the ground in a country of 140 million people.  And I doubt he could count on the military to back him in potential coups.  Putin can’t lose everything including the Crimea and survive, so this might be his actual red line, hence my comments about the WMDs above.

3. Putin tries to get a cease-fire/armistice with what Russia controls now in August of 2022.  Back in Russia, it’s Putin’s best scenario, because he can claim he built buffer zones around Crimea and the DPR/LPR and that he de-Nazified Ukraine. 

Is it possible?  No.  Ukraine will not allow that, nor will the West support it.  Ukraine has come too far and inflicted too many losses on Russia.  Ukraine will just bleed Russia dry in a way that Afghanistan and Vietnam never could to Russia or the US, because in those scenarios, both Russia and the US could just fly their troops home and be done.  Trying to retain what they have right now leaves them within range of Ukraine forces and artillery. The West will be happy to keep up supplies and keep Russia tied up there, and Ukraine will have too much momentum on their side over time.  How many years would the Russian public support death by a thousand paper cuts, when they are able to  access the footage of dead Russians on Telegram, and other social media, etc., unlike in Afghanistan when it was easier to cover up (but couldn’t be - Russian mothers were angry with Gorbachev, etc. and became a power).

It’s like dealing with the underpants gnomes.

I completely agree with your assessment of Russia’s manpower issues and the structural problems with expanding that pool.  We think of the Red Army in World War II fighting an existential war with allies. That’s not at all similar to Russia today fighting a war of choice with no friends. 

I do think that Russia is going to attempt a run at solution (3).  That’s why all the referendum stuff is already in place. 

[Macanudo 13088]

1 hour ago, InkaUtexas said:

what about on only fans? Oh wait..... 

Those are dead on the inside.

[Schulz2.0 29039]

Lulz

 

[Sawbonz 27777]

4 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Lulz

 

They do this shit all the time to us

[utee94 15878]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

They do this shit all the time to us

Yup, and we both know we're not going to start a nuclear war over it.  

[Pato del Muerto 52865]

8 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

They make their flags out of asbestos?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

@atomheartbevo I agree those scenarios are the most likely, but I didn’t ask for likely scenarios. I asked how you think this ends.

In your original post you ignored a reality that you acknowledged in a subsequent post: this isn’t a war between Ukraine and Russia. You made a comment to the effect of “Ukraine won’t allow it.” 

This war is between the West and Russia, and it effectively ends the minute the West decides the cost is too high to bear.

We’re in a situation now where the Russians are dug in and UKR either isn’t capable or willing to accept the losses required to regain territory. So many of the strategists predicted the tide would turn this summer. They were wrong.

So where does that leave us?

Either something drastically changes tilting the balance on the battlefield or we’re in a stalemate.

I don’t foresee anything changing for the next couple of months which takes us into winter. So the question becomes which side can ride out this stalemate. You seem to think Putin/Russia are in a constant state of imminent collapse which seems to suggest you think a stalemate favors Ukraine. You’ve fantasized a lot about the Russian population rising up against Putin, etc. 

What you don’t talk about a lot is the risk (which in my opinion is higher) in the West:

IF large populations of Europe freeze this winter, support for this war from the West effectively ends. 

Ukraine’s ability to fight this war ends when the weapon shipments cease. Absent a constant supply of arms from the West, they lose all leverage at the negotiation table.

What happens then?

[956 Worldwide 34913]

5 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Lulz

 

One of the things that has been made clear is that Russia talks mad shit but won’t back it up. Putin likes being Vladimir Putin. Alive and president of a Russian Federation that isn’t glowing.  
 

They will take a lot more shit from NATO than they let on. 

[RockyMountainHighHorn 896]

I think the agreement should be that Russia gets 10 square miles of land that previously wasn’t theirs, and any animals on the land (hopefully pigs). Putin gets to go home saying he expanded Russia and got some food with it. While the ukr is happy they didn’t lose their land and gave Putin pigs as a symbol and they are secretly infected with some poison agent. Win win all around. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by RockyMountainHighHorn

[RockyMountainHighHorn 896]

TLDR-is there any scenario we send troops to Ukraine or is a missile shootout from us much more likely?
Was at a get together last night and have a conversation with a seemingly smart guy and he brought up an interesting question. If a nuke was dropped by rus or the power plant fails causing a disaster, would we retaliate with nukes or would we actually go over there? Basically we were debating what it would take for us to send troops there, not NATO troops, our RWB superheroes. Is there ever a possibility for that with how it is now or is it pretty clear that it would never happen and just turn into a warhead contest. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by RockyMountainHighHorn

[berlinerbaer 678]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be easier for UKR to push Russia out of Crimea than the East? If Kherson get's recaptured, then resupply of Crimea from the North gets much harder and then there's only the Kerch bridge to take out and the canal to dry up. 

[Bevo 13635]

7 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Am I the only one who thinks it would be easier for UKR to push Russia out of Crimea than the East? If Kherson get's recaptured, then resupply of Crimea from the North gets much harder and then there's only the Kerch bridge to take out and the canal to dry up. 

I don't have a read on the Russian population and what it would take for Putin to officially declare war and mobilize the Russian population for war. But Ukraine taking Crimea might be considered an act of war that allows Putin to declare war against Ukraine and mobilize its population for war.

[956 Worldwide 34913]

56 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

@atomheartbevo I agree those scenarios are the most likely, but I didn’t ask for likely scenarios. I asked how you think this ends.

In your original post you ignored a reality that you acknowledged in a subsequent post: this isn’t a war between Ukraine and Russia. You made a comment to the effect of “Ukraine won’t allow it.” 

This war is between the West and Russia, and it effectively ends the minute the West decides the cost is too high to bear.

We’re in a situation now where the Russians are dug in and UKR either isn’t capable or willing to accept the losses required to regain territory. So many of the strategists predicted the tide would turn this summer. They were wrong.

So where does that leave us?

Either something drastically changes tilting the balance on the battlefield or we’re in a stalemate.

I don’t foresee anything changing for the next couple of months which takes us into winter. So the question becomes which side can ride out this stalemate. You seem to think Putin/Russia are in a constant state of imminent collapse which seems to suggest you think a stalemate favors Ukraine. You’ve fantasized a lot about the Russian population rising up against Putin, etc. 

What you don’t talk about a lot is the risk (which in my opinion is higher) in the West:

IF large populations of Europe freeze this winter, support for this war from the West effectively ends. 

Ukraine’s ability to fight this war ends when the weapon shipments cease. Absent a constant supply of arms from the West, they lose all leverage at the negotiation table.

What happens then?

I think you’re misreading the room, and sorry for the long cat post.   First, let’s separate weapons shipments from sanctions and political pressure. Russia has rather less ability to influence the former (most important for Ukraine in the near to medium term) than the latter, no matter how cold Europe gets.

First, the major arms suppliers both in absolute and percentage of GDP terms are nations that are least susceptible to energy blackmail (US, UK) and/or completely frothing at the mouth and resistant to energy blackmail (Poland, the Baltics, Czechs, Finns).  Germany and France have been helpful, but the reality is that it’s US/UK/Polish weapons that are key to this fight.  And we’ve already telegraphed that we’re in it for the long haul. Our recent 3 billion package that engages industry contains lots of systems that won’t be delivered till 2023 and beyond. The UK is in a similar place and the Poles will send every gun they have then send rocks if it means they kill a Russian. Again, go to the Polish procurement— all that legacy equipment will end up in Ukraine.

Second, arms supplies are bilateral (not EU/NATO) decisions.  So the Germans and French have no arm to twist to make us or the Brits or the Eastern Europeans stop.  They just have diplomatic pressure and that would be really pushing a rock up hill given how much credibility they both lost. 
 

Russia has a rather better chance of freezing Europeans out of sanctions and into a more politically amenable place. But, there are structural issues working against them.  Unlike arms shipments, sanctions ARE EU-wide.  And that means you need consensus not only to create them, but to lift them.  So maybe the Germans get cold and block new sanctions packages, but the Poles and the Baltics aren’t lifting shit. 
 

Until the end of this year the Czechs hold the EU presidency and they are hawks.  They will be shaping the Union agenda and easing up on Russia is not on their agenda.  They’re trying to get a blanket Russian visa ban right now.  And they will resist any efforts to politically isolate Ukraine. 
 

Best case, Russia gets some symbolic visits from Macron and Olaf and they block new sanctions. Even that will be hard for them.  But Russia is turbo-fucked on weapons, if anything the big players will expand shipments and capabilities to make up for Western European footdragging.

We need to think about Russia’s “three day beheading campaign” as not only hubris-driven, but necessity driven. Why else would they go against all their alleged comparative advantage and abandon their steam-roller doctrine? Because in actuality, they aren’t set up to outlast Ukraine and the West.  “Never start a land war in Asia” may be the first classic geopolitical lesson. “Don’t bet your hopes on America running out of shit to shoot at you” is a good second. 

[956 Worldwide 34913]

33 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Am I the only one who thinks it would be easier for UKR to push Russia out of Crimea than the East? If Kherson get's recaptured, then resupply of Crimea from the North gets much harder and then there's only the Kerch bridge to take out and the canal to dry up. 

The Russians still control the Black Sea shipping lanes and ports and they’ve turned the peninsula into a big military base.  They are insensitive to civilian suffering and would be able bring in enough supplies to keep the troops fed by sea. Ukraine has no amphibious landing capacity. The isthmus of Perekop is 4 miles wide and any offensive from the mainland without air superiority would end in total disaster.  The East and south is far more favorable to an offensive that allows maneuver and to recapture and hold territory. 

[956 Worldwide 34913]

49 minutes ago, RockyMountainHighHorn said:

TLDR-is there any scenario we send troops to Ukraine or is a missile shootout from us much more likely?
Was at a get together last night and have a conversation with a seemingly smart guy and he brought up an interesting question. If a nuke was dropped by rus or the power plant fails causing a disaster, would we retaliate with nukes or would we actually go over there? Basically we were debating what it would take for us to send troops there, not NATO troops, our RWB superheroes. Is there ever a possibility for that with how it is now or is it pretty clear that it would never happen and just turn into a warhead contest. 

The most likely escalation would be: Russia drops a nuke or blows up the plant > NATO (US) air assets engage over Ukraine to impose a no-fly zone and/or help Ukraine gain ground> Russia retaliates or attempts to retaliate with a conventional strike against NATO-nation bases hosting those aircraft with their own missiles and aircraft> NATO (US) air assets attack Russian bases>Boom.

Very hard to see things escalating to the point of Russia vs. U.S. on the ground.  The two scenarios are really Russia giving up or the whole thing going up. 

[statsman 5497]

This is not just about Ukraine and Russia. It is also about China and Taiwan. The west needs to support Ukraine until victory or for as long as they are willing to fight. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by statsman