PGMs require a good bit of maintenance and routine testing. Sure they might have them in their inventory, but whether or not they work is a very real question.

3/14/2022 9:05:34 AM

I've been assuming the block busting is some combination of beating the populace into submission and negotiation leverage ("Be ashame if something happen to maternity ward, no?" /russian_accent). Would PGMs even be useful in that case? Seems like they would've been a lot more useful initially when the plan was shock n' awe, government collapse, liberation.

3/14/2022 3:19:15 PM

Is Ukraine going to get more jets?

3/14/2022 10:05:00 PM

Quote :

"I’m kinda surprised how much destruction Russia is doing."

Quote :

"I'm less surprised. It's straight out of their Chechnya playbook."

It IS the Russian playbook.

Hell they killed around 10-20% of the entire population of Afghanistan, I think.

They were famous for raping and pillaging and razing towns in WWII, too.

3/14/2022 10:30:34 PM

I don't think that even a lack of PGMs would explain the wanton destruction.

A modern (or even modern-ish) fighter or attack jet can deliver dumb bombs via CCIP. You roll in, put the "death dot" in your HUD on the target, and pickle. It isn't GPS/INS or LASER accurate, but they ought to be able more selective than they apparently are.

It looks to me like they're deliberately striking civilian targets as well as just blasting away with area weapons.

As far as aircraft...a few dozen Fulcrums certainly wouldn't hurt the Ukrainian cause, but I think they're fairly pinned down by Russian SA-20 and SA-21 coverage over much of the country. The Russians, in turn, appear to me to be relying much more on missiles and rockets/artillery than on their manned jets. Maybe because of the Ukrainian SA-10 threat? SA-10 is dated and shorter range compared to the -20/21, but it's still a bad ass SAM system.

This doesn't really seem to be much of an air war on either side.

3/14/2022 10:48:40 PM

I keep hearing how Russia hasn’t conquered the skys in Ukraine, jets wouldn’t help?

3/14/2022 11:15:19 PM

So do you guys think the US should directly intervene?

3/15/2022 8:38:02 AM

^^^ I mean, I agree that Russia is leaning into to the 'lets just cause wanton destruction' method, but I'm curious how much they're doing that because they're forced to. Surely they'd want to better selectively target things if that was the option? As for CCIP...maybe? US pilots obviously have top notch avionics packages and can do range runs with BDU-33s or similar to practice dropping dumb mk-82 bodies, can the Russians do the same?


^ No, continue supplying aid to include military equipment. If even once inch of Poland's terrority is infringed, then yes, NATO should enforce a no fly zone

3/15/2022 8:48:28 AM

Wish there was a way to do it without causing World War 3, 'cause this ain't right.

3/15/2022 8:49:33 AM

Not that my opinion matters for shit, because I wouldn't be able to fight in a war, but it is heartbreaking to helplessly watch what's happening in Ukraine.

3/15/2022 9:35:23 AM

I mean, that's the way it is with nuclear weapons I guess. In the 'good ol'days', it was an open secret that the Soviets were sending in their aircraft and pilots into the Korean war. Basically Soviet pilots would dress as Chinese pilots and only communicate over the radio in Chinese/Korean, however, they'd get flustered and slip in Russian swear words.

The US never pressed the issue and the Soviets offered denials. If either side escalated, there were fears it would go nuclear, certainly rumors that MacArthur wanted to go ahead and nuke something didn't help.

Russia started this thing off with Putin not so subtly suggesting he would nuke anyone that helped. It's unclear where exactly the redline is for him. Obviously, a no-fly zone is too close of a redline for NATO to want to try at this time. However, if some idiot pilot strays into Polish airspace, even if they don't drop munitions, it may be enough for NATO to say 'Look, we gave you a chance, now we're going to take steps to prevent it from happening again"

I think NATO redlines are basically
1. Any incursion into NATO air space
2. Any unsafe release of radioactive materials
3. A significant ramp of war crimes such as laying waste to a convoy of fleeing civilians, public executions, etc

I'm not a fan of NATO giving jets to Ukraine right now (certainly not any dumbshit idea like A-10s). It gives all sides a way out, Russia can say the US/NATO is too scared to fight them and Zelenskyy can say NATO isn't helping so he no longer wants to join (which is good for Putin too)

At this point, I think a 'successful' end to this is Ukraine ceding some land to Russia (DPR and LPR), Zelenskyy staying in power, and Ukraine saying they no longer want to join NATO, but keeps the option to join the EU.



[Edited on March 15, 2022 at 12:34 PM. Reason : a]

3/15/2022 12:27:47 PM

It ain't right!

3/15/2022 1:23:19 PM

has anyone discussed how beneficial it might be for us to prolong this as much as possible? of course the US doesnt care about the body count.

>tank russias economy as much as possible and see how much of their military junk gets blown up.
>see if china jumps in and how much theyre willing to bankroll, see them suffer similarly and pull out.
>both embarrassed and not a big deal militarily for a few decades.

im not saying this is accurate or what we're trying to do... im just wondering if the advantages have been explored. hopefully daaave doesnt latch onto this in his cheering for the badguys.

3/15/2022 1:25:02 PM

Increased uncertainty with the global gas/oil market doesn't seem worth it. I also don't see China willing to help that much, certainly not enough for them to suffer any kind of similar effects/embarrassment

3/15/2022 3:27:22 PM

Quote :

"I think NATO redlines are basically 1. Any incursion into NATO air space 2. Any unsafe release of radioactive materials 3. A significant ramp of war crimes such as laying waste to a convoy of fleeing civilians, public executions, etc "

Nah, I don't think any of these are redlines.

1. "Any incursion" is too broad. I don't think we're going to roll the dice on the survival of the species because one Russian pilot gets lost for a minute. It would have to be repeated or really egregious to trigger an intentional response. Emphasis on "intentional," because, as I've said from the beginning, someone overreacting in the moment because they see an invasion in what is actually just a mistake - that's your most likely route to WWIII.
2) Come on now, we notice Russia releasing radioactive materials unsafely all the time and we don't do anything about it. Nobody's gonna be happy if there's a whoopsidaisy at Chernobyl, but we're not sending in the tanks over it.
3) Even atrocities wouldn't be a red line, I think. Sad to say, but it's true. We've ignored them in a lot of countries that would have been a lot easier to deal with militarily than Russia is.

I think the only real red lines would be an outright invasion of a NATO country (maybe even Finland). Maybe the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Quote :

"has anyone discussed how beneficial it might be for us to prolong this as much as possible?"

Yes. On the previous page, I listed:

Quote :

"In descending order of probability, these are the possible benefits of prolonging the conflict: -Russia accomplishes all its objectives, but the unexpected military difficulty and staggering costs make it and other countries less likely to conduct offensive operations in the future (the second clause also applies to each of the following) -Russia achieves what Putin can technically describe as a military victory, but Ukraine remains independent and largely territorially intact -Military setbacks and sanctions cause Russian elites to oust Putin and end the war -Military setbacks, sanctions, antiwar movements, and existing unrest cause a popular revolution in Russia, ending the war"

3/15/2022 3:40:16 PM

to clarify, I mean a significant radiological event that has effects in neighboring countries. Driving too fast in the exclusion zone and kicking up radioactive dust isn't in that.

3/15/2022 4:10:36 PM

also last time chernobyl had an oopsie didnt like 75% of the bullshit land on belarus? not exactly feeling sorry for them.

something like 25% of their country is still completely closed because of it.

[Edited on March 15, 2022 at 5:43 PM. Reason : f]

3/15/2022 5:42:35 PM

Quote :

"So do you guys think the US should directly intervene?"

No. That's WWIII.

Quote :

"As for CCIP...maybe?"

I know Frogfoot has it. I would assume Fulcrum/Flanker/Fullback do, too. I can't imagine they wouldn't. It would require more training than punching GPS coordinates into their equivalent of a JDAM, but it's not like manual bombing where you have to be right on your parameters. They wouldn't accidentally hit whole neighborhoods with CCIP.

Quote :

"im not saying this is accurate or what we're trying to do... im just wondering if the advantages have been explored. "

I expect that all sorts of ways to exploit this have been thought about, but I can't imagine we want to deliberately prolong this the way you describe. Aside from the fact that there is an element of altruism and idealism--we're not purely Macchiavellian--none of those benefits are worth the costs and especially the risks here.

Quote :

"Nah, I don't think any of these are redlines. 1. "Any incursion" is too broad. I don't think we're going to roll the dice on the survival of the species because one Russian pilot gets lost for a minute. It would have to be repeated or really egregious to trigger an intentional response. Emphasis on "intentional," because, as I've said from the beginning, someone overreacting in the moment because they see an invasion in what is actually just a mistake - that's your most likely route to WWIII. 2) Come on now, we notice Russia releasing radioactive materials unsafely all the time and we don't do anything about it. Nobody's gonna be happy if there's a whoopsidaisy at Chernobyl, but we're not sending in the tanks over it. 3) Even atrocities wouldn't be a red line, I think. Sad to say, but it's true. We've ignored them in a lot of countries that would have been a lot easier to deal with militarily than Russia is. I think the only real red lines would be an outright invasion of a NATO country (maybe even Finland). Maybe the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine."

I more or less agree.

I think we (NATO countries) would shoot Russian jets penetrating NATO airspace--maaaybe not a quick oops (or plausible oops), but if it became habitual or flagrant, then yeah.

I think a deliberate strike--short of an outright invasion--of a NATO country would probably do it (not necessarily striking a western supply/armament convoy within Ukraine, but anything within a NATO country.)

I think that usage of nukes within Ukraine would probably do it. That would be a scary one. I don't know what the response would be to that. I expect that Russia doesn't either and doesn't care to find out via experimentation. Russian roulette, if you will. (hopefully that sort of scenario isn't mapped out doctrinally and compromised to Russia.)

Also, even if NATO got involved, there's a continuum...there is some ground between zero direct involvement and maximum conventional and/or nuclear response. I don't think we'll put one toe over that line unless we have to, because of the danger of escalation...and I don't think Russia wants to do anything that might provoke that. The danger is in miscalculation.

3/15/2022 7:45:01 PM

I have a feeling we’re headed towards a no fly zone. Russia is negotiating but seems like they’re overplaying their hand. Unless it’s completely propaganda seems like multiple Intelligence agencies are saying Russia is struggling to keep their poorly trained fighters fed and fueled.

If the US knew there was enough internal pushback against putin if he wanted to go nuclear they would do the no fly zone, and I think It’s only a matter of time until they figure that out. Putin has just been looking raggedy on video recently more than I’ve ever seen him. He honestly looks scared to me— he sees his legacy circling the drain.

3/17/2022 9:13:49 PM

His disposition along with reports of firing/jailing a ton of stuff...we sure he's a rational actor?

3/17/2022 9:35:46 PM

I'm thinking maybe he's terminal, and lashing out, trying to secure some kind of lasting legacy.

3/17/2022 10:05:35 PM

He's definitely securing a legacy.

Maybe a terminal illness or one in which the treatment requires immune suppression explains the massive physical separation between him and anyone else in the room.

3/17/2022 10:35:40 PM

Y’all follow this more closely than I do. But some of the stuff about Putin’s health failing feels kinda like wishful thinking. I know his appearance has changed and there does seem to be legitimate basis for rumors of his poor health. So I don’t know. *shrug*

3/18/2022 9:54:01 AM

Looks like there's some deals in place for S-300s to be given to Ukraine via Slovakia and we backfill with Patriots.

Russia says they won't allow it

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russia-will-not-allow-s-300-air-defence-system-transfer-to-ukraine-report-2830234

3/18/2022 12:10:18 PM

They don't tell us what to do!

3/18/2022 12:46:56 PM

Looks like Slovakia’s system is an SA-10 variant, and they only have 1 battery (supplied with 48 missiles). I was hoping they’d have a bunch of SA-20sz

Still, that’s a very dangerous SAM system…probably more useful for air defense than a few Fulcrums that they wouldn’t fly much (or that would be under severe threat from Russian SA-20/21 coverage).

3/18/2022 3:42:31 PM

bbhe, It's interesting how Russia thinks they won't allow it.

3/18/2022 4:01:33 PM

I mean, they can try to blow it up once it’s in country. (Duh).

3/18/2022 5:59:14 PM

Be a good way to test NATOs red line by attacking it a couple miles away from the border (outside of Ukraine)

3/18/2022 6:32:49 PM

yeah, but are they in any position to test NATO? That could change the rules of the game in a way they REALLY don't want. How many times have US officials said "every inch of NATO territory"? That might prevent one SAM system from entering Ukraine, at the cost of direct NATO military involvement in some fashion. Like, that could be the thing that serves up Vlad a no-fly zone and maybe a nasty rout of a Russian convoy or something.

I'm not saying they won't do it. I'm just saying there's little to gain and a lot to lose by pulling a stunt like that.

[Edited on March 18, 2022 at 10:24 PM. Reason : but that is bad for everyone except maybe Ukranians. We do not want armed conflict like that.]

3/18/2022 10:23:40 PM

How many tanks did Russia bring into Ukraine? Like ballpark. Supposedly 100+ destroyed, how many left?

3/19/2022 12:47:07 AM

I just did some searching…Forbes reported 1200 staged prior to the invasion.

Supposedly they’ve committed the entire pre-invasion staged force.

Lots of numbers floating around, but it looks like a credible number might be around 200 tanks destroyed or captured, and over 1000 tanks/trucks/armored vehicles destroyed or captured.

Russia may have lost more men, equipment, and senior leadership in a few weeks than we did in two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

3/19/2022 2:21:09 AM

We are so good or Afghanistan sucks so bad, or Russia sucks so bad and Ukraine is putting up a good fight against Russia?

3/19/2022 2:26:15 AM

Jesus, the Russians have had FIVE Generals killed (out of approx 20 deployed to Ukraine).

We have only had 2 Generals killed since 1972. One of those was in the Pentagon on 9/11, and the other was an insider threat suicide bombing.

[Edited on March 19, 2022 at 2:33 AM. Reason : ^i’d say all of the above except Afghans sucking ]

3/19/2022 2:32:50 AM

Afganistan resistance>Ukraine resistance?

Or equal? Who is more difficult adversary?

Or whoever is more battle tested is better? Ukranians 8 years since Crimea, Afghanis since 70’s?

Or apples/oranges?

[Edited on March 19, 2022 at 2:43 AM. Reason : How does their invasion of Ukraine compare to our invasion of Iraq? In first 1-2 months?]

3/19/2022 2:38:30 AM

1200 tanks? Out of how many? What is ballpark for US?

3/19/2022 3:01:37 AM

anyone know any rednecks cheering for russia? i do.

its almost worth a whole new thread.

3/19/2022 5:05:36 PM

What is the thought process, if we dare to call it that?

3/19/2022 5:50:01 PM

Yea I don't get why anyone outside of Russia or China or Belarus would root for Russia.

3/19/2022 10:04:14 PM

because fascists love fascism

3/19/2022 10:58:34 PM

Quote :

"the massive physical separation between him and anyone else in the room."

I have seen various theories about why he is so far away from his advisors, etc, but the one that makes the most sense to me is that he's paranoid about being poisoned. I'd imagaine when you give the order to poison other people so many times, you become a bit paranoid about it happening to you.

3/19/2022 11:54:50 PM

See: Mark Meadows

3/20/2022 8:45:28 AM

Did he get poisoned?!

3/20/2022 10:23:29 AM

http://ow.ly/9b5N50Inyfb

Uk and American Intel agencies now assessing that with the March on Kyiv faltering, Russia is just going to start shelling civilian areas in eastern ukraine (as grumpygop predicted earlier)

3/20/2022 11:05:18 AM

I predicted that too

3/20/2022 11:11:33 AM

you arent as eloquent

3/20/2022 11:28:07 AM

PWNT!

3/20/2022 11:38:13 AM

Quote :

"Afganistan resistance>Ukraine resistance? Or equal? Who is more difficult adversary? Or whoever is more battle tested is better? Ukranians 8 years since Crimea, Afghanis since 70’s? Or apples/oranges? [Edited on March 19, 2022 at 2:43 AM. Reason : How does their invasion of Ukraine compare to our invasion of Iraq? In first 1-2 months?] "

Short answer, I don't know. At the very least I'm not qualified to quantify that.

Quote :

"1200 tanks? Out of how many? What is ballpark for US?"

The only thing that I could find was 1848 M1 Abrams tanks were deployed for Desert Storm in 1991.

3/20/2022 1:58:45 PM

Comparing the Taliban resistance to Ukraine is very much "apples and oranges," for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is the fundamental approach of each.

The Taliban could put up very little resistance to the conventional military forces of the initial invasion, but conducted a much more effective long-term insurgency. Ukraine is conducting a more conventional defensive war, and so far has not had to rely heavily on insurgent tactics or strategy.

Even if Russia were to occupy large portions of Ukraine, thereby pushing them into an insurgent stance, it would still be apples and oranges. The "quality" of the resistance, to the extent it can be measured, is only part of the equation. Afghanistan's terrain is far more conducive to a long-term insurgency than Ukraine's; on the other hand, a Ukrainian resistance is far more likely to receive covert aid from outside powers.

3/21/2022 10:07:41 AM

Geography matters a lot. Just ask Vietnam.

3/21/2022 1:10:38 PM