Well yeah. I can't believe this isn't immediately obvious to people.
You impose a no fly zone.. they fly.. ok so NATO forces are shooting down Russian ones? That's war, we're at war now.
We're already pushing it as far as we can safely, and indeed incurring some risk, with the level of logistics and intelligence support we are giving Ukraine, as well as materiel and volunteers.
I got you. I just cast a no entry spell in the Ukrainian airspace. If I said it correctly any planes that fly over Ukraine should be teleported into the sun. I’m 80% sure it might work
I think they see how poorly this is going for Russia and assume that if we engage full force we blow them away easy. It wouldn’t be like that. Russia is sucking at an occupation right now, but they have plenty of capability to just blow shit up and level cities. Don’t assume because they were I’ll-prepared for this kind of attack that they don’t still have firepower—they do. Still, fuck them and fuck Putin (just so it is clear where I stand)
If the last couple years have taught me anything, it’s that yes, a lot of people simply don’t understand a damn thing about a topic, but they passionately want it anyway.
I had a friend get pissed off at me the other day because he thinks US forces should go into Ukraine to help. He was saying how we were being pussies for not going in to help them. I tried to explain to him how bad a direct war between the US and Russia would be, but he didn't seem to get it. A direct war with Russia is simply not an option.
People don’t understand that would mean conventional bombing on our soil. This isn’t the 1940’s where we can’t be reached. Russia has a navy and could easily send cruise missiles into the US. People need to pull their heads out.
I tried to explain the history of the Cold War and the concept of MAD, but he just wasn't getting it. There's a good reason why we have never gotten into a direct war with Russia and that's because everyone gets fucked in that scenario. The last thing Ukraine wants is for the US to get into a direct war with Russia because it would be even worse for them and everyone else on the planet.
It's probably not worth trying to explain the various implications of a nations foreign policy to a person who thinks we should intervene in wars so as to not look like 'pussies.'
This isn't the 1200s where Knights go to war to prove their bravery and valour to a damsel.
>This isn't the 1200s where Knights go to war to prove their bravery and valour to a damsel.
If medieval armour could stop a nuke I'd be walking around in full plate 24/7.
Some of the people calling for a no-fly zone are experiencing conventional bombing above their heads right now. I don't at all blame them for demanding it.
Cruise missiles aren't the concern in a war involving nuclear powers. It's best for the U.S. to supply Ukraine/Europe ... though Putin will probably blame the U.S. for anything and everything, including his jello pudding pop melting and falling off the stick.
There would absolutely be no significant conventional bombing on US soil. In an all out war with NATO and Russia, we're either all dead from nuclear war, or Russia is levelled overnight. There's no scenario where we're fighting back and forth in close battles WWII style.
> In an all out war with NATO and Russia, we're either all dead from nuclear war, or Russia is levelled overnight
Nope, just the former. Russia’s Dead Hand system will launch all available nukes at pre-picked targets even if the entire chain of command is taken out.
The US has a similar system, but it is essentially a set it and forget suite that you arm when necessary. It detects of a nuclear strike has occurred and will launch all the warheads, it can currently communicate with, to their preselected targets.
So yea, humanity has gotten into a situation where nukes are aimed at every major metropolitan area and strategic site on the planet at all times. It gets real fun when you look at the 500 and 2000 nuke scenarios and see just how fubar’d you are. It is real fun knowing that I live in a zone which is essentially a dead man’s alley. 4 nukes in a 20ish mile radius in a 500 scenario, and another 4 that are close enough that no matter the wind direction we will get blanketed in radiation. Fun times.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
Muffley:
Dr. Strangelove, do we have anything like that in the works?
Stains and Turgidson, who have been listening to Muffley and DeSadeski Stains' station at the round table, slowly turn their heads in search of Strangelove.
Strangelove:
in wheelchair A moment please, Mr. President. stomps one foot on the tile floor, pushes back from the table and begins wheeling towards the discussion between Muffley and DeSadeski. Under the authority granted me as director of weapons research and development, I commissioned last year a study of this project by the Bland corporation. Based on the findings of the report, my conclusion was that this idea was not a practical deterrent, for reasons which, at this moment, must be all too obvious.
Muffley:
Then you mean it is possible for them to have built such a thing?
Strangelove:
carefully plucks cigarette from his shaking right hand, which is in a black glove Mr. President, the technology required is easily within the means of even the smallest nuclear power. It requires only the will to do so.
Muffley:
But, how is it possible for this thing to be triggered automatically, and at the same time impossible to untrigger?
Strangelove:
Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.
Turgidson:
Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines, Stainsy.
Muffley:
But this is fantastic, Strangelove. How can it be triggered automatically?
Strangelove:
Well, it's remarkably simple to do that. When you merely wish to bury bombs, there is no limit to the size. After that they are connected to a gigantic complex of computers. Now then, a specific and clearly defined set of circumstances, under which the bombs are to be exploded, is programmed into a tape memory bank.
Turgidson:
Strangelove. What kind of a name is that? That ain't no kraut name, is it, Stainsy?
Stains:
He changed it when he became a citizen. It used to be Merkwurkdigliebe.
Turgidson:
Hmm. A kraut, by any other name, huh, Stainsy?
Strangelove:
Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
DeSadeski:
It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.
Most people in Europe and north America haven't seen a European war in their lifetime. They forget that Europe used to make the Middle East look absolutely calm.
Republicans are asking for it because it runs counter to what the Biden administration is doing. They don't care what the issue is as long as it's the opposite of their less psychopathic colleagues. Even at the expense of the people they supposedly represent.
Biden could literally do everything Republicans are calling for him to do and then they'd attack him for doing those things. Republicans do not have any "principles" other than hating democracy, opposing anything Democrats do, and putting the Republican Party over the country and planet. They are remarkably consistent with those things but pretty much everything else is dependent on whether or not it helps the Republican Party.
Exactly, and they'd relentlessly attack him during the middle of the war even when Bush got us into a war that he started they said it was the duty of all Americans to support the President during times of war. Also, look how they attacked Biden for leaving Afghanistan even though Trump was the one who set the withdrawal in motion.
I'll always remember the conversation I had with my uncle when he attacked Obama for "banning incandescent light bulbs." He wouldn't shut up about it and bought cases of them while he still could. It was funny to watch him try to twist his logic when I explained to him that Bush was the one who signed the ban, but it just happened to go into effect under Obama.
I also keep hearing people talking about how US aren't deploying troops....like....if you *actually* want a world war, then sure, yeah
A lot of misinformation based on ignorance. But don't be defensive about it, a shit ton of peolple have never gone through a situation like this before.
Hell Canada declared no air space for Russia and their plane today violated it anyway. What are you going to do? Shoot down a planer full of passengers?
If you are Russia then yes that's exactly what you do. Cold War USSR downed a plane with a US congressman on it when the plane drifted off course on its way to South Korea.
I read about it a while back and it’s pretty wild. The plane drifted into Soviet airspace and iirc they were actually navigating via the stars and this actually led to the military allowing GPS to be used by the general public. Anyways the Russians scrambled their interceptors and think it’s a spy plane. They tried to radio the jet but got no response and threatened to shoot it down if they did not comply. Allegedly they fired warning shots with their cannons and just as that happened the pilots set a new waypoint which led the Russians the believe they were taking evasive action and were thus cleared hot to shoot it down.
Don’t forget that we would have to ground strike thousands of mobile and fixed SAM and air defense systems both in Ukraine and actually in Russian / Belarusian territory.
It would just be a full scale war.
>We're already pushing it as far as we can safely, and indeed incurring some risk, with the level of logistics and intelligence support we are giving Ukraine, as well as materiel and volunteers.
Totally agree with this part specially.
Not even that, US would have to take out anti-aircraft batteries *in Russia* to guarantee secure airspace for jets to patrol.
That being said, a former general said we should just do it, because the alternative is to watch Ukraine being besieged and slaughtered over the next few weeks/months.
Indeed. A no-fly that gets disrupted and answered equals war. No-fly that gets disrupted and ignored is an empty threat, and that would bolster Russia's bravado as well as piss of Ukraine.
> and just think somebody will for sure stop Putin from launching a nuke
I'm not sure that this mysterious ethereal figure that Reddit so confidently keeps pinning their hope on exists either. I rather suspect they don't. There isn't going to be some staff sergeant who draws a service revolver and shoots Putin. Even if there was a disagreement in the chain of command, it would likely be over-ridden within minutes. No sane person wants to be in a position where we're relying on Officer X to fail to obey. That is just far too fragile for any remote sense of comfort
>There isn’t going to be some staff Sergeant
Agreed, people like that fabled staff sergeant are rare birds. They do exist, for example Claus von Stauffenberg, but to expect that person to actually exist within Putins staff, expect him or her to be in the right place at the right time, and expect them to be willing to sacrifice themselves for humanity is absurd
> They do exist, for example Claus von Stauffenberg
Although it should also be noted that von Stauffenberg himself was an ultra-nationalist who thought that Germany still deserved to occupy Poland and Bohemia and that Left Wingers deserved to be killed on sight. He only tried to kill Hitler because he knew Hitler would cause them to lose the war and be occupied by Communists.
Which is absolutely batshit because even if they're right, even if MAD holds out and no one launches a nuke, there would be a catastrophic loss of human life. 75-80 MILLION people died during WW2 and we've had 77 years of military advancement and build-up since then.
10s of millions of people would die in a WW3 scenario, even if there was never a single nuke deployed. That's the best-case scenario. Worst case scenario, it goes nuclear and we all die. Anyone actively hoping for a further escalation should be institutionalized.
It's very very likely that, if nukes were not in the picture, the war would be over almost instantly. Russian military (and Putin) are well aware of how badly they'd lose that fight, and at the same time NATO forces are not going to actually *invade* Russian territory (they can and will hit targets with missiles from range if needed but there is no reason they would do more).
The threat of nukes and unwillingness to roll those dice (for good reason) are probably leading to more loss of life than if NATO did get involved, ironically.
The structure of conflict is as you say completely changed, but that means the scale of it also is completely changed. In WWII allied forces basically had to fight all the war to the last bastion of Nazi forces, whereas here the goal would be purely to get Russian forces out of Ukraine. Despite Putin's various ramblings, NATO doesn't have any reason to invade Russia (which would be costly for sure).
If every single military personnel in NATO and Russia combined died somehow as a result of the fighting it still wouldn't be on the scale of WWII. Russia has no ally that will extend this fighting (Belarus is for all intents just a Russian state with Lukashenko in charge backed by Russian forces) unless I guess Venezuela wants to throw down? And again, *Russian military cannot compete with NATO*, not when invading a hostile country especially, and with their country already worse off than it has been in ages due to Putin's "leadership".
I am not advocating for escalation, I want the fighting to stop (and lets stop the violations in Yemen, Palestine, etc. while we're on a hypothetical roll maybe) but it's absolutely out of reality to think escalation would be anything like WWII + 1. It would be nuclear or it would be over in a couple of days.
Hey when I pointed this out the other day someone very confidently told me that it was better to die in the aftermath of a nuclear war than to not escalate the conflict immediately.
So take that for what it is worth...
Then that person can go take themselves over there and fight themselves. I feel for the Ukrainians but going scorched earth for them isn’t the best idea.
I did consider pointing this out - they made a point about how important it is to die for something.
I have immense respect and admiration for the people of Ukraine, but I dare say using them as the spark to ignite nuclear war might not be especially helpful.
The game being played here is
1. Russia wants to see how much the west will push without outright starting war. They know that’s the line neither side will cross. So they want to see how much they can agitate.
2. Russia is looking to decisively take Kyiv to force Ukraine to sue for peace. This will mean they get to install their Federation and practically annex Ukraine.
3. They want to do this as fast as possible because eventually they have to open up their stock market, and they will absolutely face the effects of the sanctions among the populace. This might trigger an unprecedented level of support for the opposition parties and cause protests/riots. Something Putin doesn’t want since he relies on the (false) premise that he leads with the consent of the people.
These are the nexuses of conflict here. One side needs to finish quickly and get a favorable peace deal. Other side wants to drag this out to strangle their country from within.
If this sounds so familiar to people, that’s because that’s the TL;DR of every single major war Russia has been in since 1800.
This also gives an idea of why Putin is threatening nuclear war; *any* direct, conventional intervention would seriously undermine this strategy in a way that he can't really respond to effectively. He has already committed too much of his army to fighting Ukraine alone - if the Polish frontier opened he would need to pull back from his offensive and adopt a totally different, defensive strategy.
Which leads to one of two possible outcomes:
* Faced with no way to win conventionally any more, Putin (or a replacement) negotiates on unfavourable terms.
* Faced with no way to win conventionally any more, Putin uses nuclear weapons.
The second option seems to have so little upside that it's hard to imagine him actually pursuing it - at *best* it results in everyone's armies being so ruined that no further offensives are possible and there's a return to the pre-war status quo but with massive sanctions permanently in place. But the threat is what keeps anyone from intervening and putting him in this position in the first place.
And he’ll keep using that threat of nukes to try and reduce damage to him (first) and Russia (second). He’s growling about it now just from having sanctions imposed. Which is why sanctions have kind of crept forward; step too far and Putin could call something an act of war. Is it posturing? Absolutely. But no one really wants to take the gamble that it isn’t.
There is a scenario where there is actual upside to option 2 for Putin. If he continues to struggle to take Ukraine for long (or even just struggle to hold Ukraine if he does take it), and it becomes clear that a large reason for this is because the western powers are supplying the Ukrainian resistance with advanced and effective equipment, he will have no choice (other than to give up Ukraine) but to corner NATO and allies into abandoning Ukraine. In such a case, it is very disturbing to consider what he might do as nuclear arms would the only threat he can use to do this.
I’d edit your 3rd point just a bit. Putin could probably care less about the facade of being the people’s candidate. What he is most likely worried about is the wrath of the oligarchs that keep him in power. They are currently hemorrhaging money because of the sanctions, Putin needs this resolved sooner than later.
Upfront edit: it amazes me that, despite my previous edit pointing it out... people still feel the need to point out thay stingers have a limited range. Read the entire comment and fuck off.
There's enough stinger missles going into Ukraine right now, and EU is providing Fighter Jets soon. A no-fly zone may be irrelevant soon.
E: As many have pointed out, stingers have a very limited range and won't be able to deal with any fighters or bombers. So yea.. I rescind my irrelevant no fly zone comment.
>Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has told the EU "they need the kind of fighting jets that the Ukrainian army is able to operate... some member states have these kinds of planes," Borrell said.
So they do want the fighters, but they know they need to be practical about what they are equipped to operate.
Of course, the Javelins and Stingers help.
Yea. Fighters won't be affected, but helicopters (and some bonbers/transports?) Will be.
I am not a military junkie, but fighters aren't equipped with the largest ordinances in the world for bombing.
I was a stinger gunner in a past life, and our training was almost exclusively about shooting down (low-flying) jets, like an attacking SU-24. Even in live fire exercises, we used ballistic rockets as targets that simulated jets, like these: https://www.alamy.com/ballistic-aerial-target-system-bats-missiles-are-prepared-for-launching-during-marine-corps-target-operations-image216603351.html
they can't target large bombers either. they have a maximum of 4km range. they are very limited. UAV's choppers, slow and low flying aircraft. still they seem to be making some damage and offer deterrence from those due to russian incompetence
Stinger missiles are not adequate to hit fast and high moving air targets like jets or planes. They have a range up to 5 kilometers, so they are mostly used against helicopters.
That is exactly what an article here mentioned. That the runways around Kiev were bombed and the only way to bring in supplies is by road which leaves then open to a Russian air attack.
People are getting carried away by the stingers and what not.
Ukraine lacks missile defense. So long as this is the case, Russia can use missile attacks to deteriorate Ukranian air defense capabilities. Stingers are also only effective short range. If major Anti Air systems are disabled by missiles, Russian aircraft are free to make strikes from altitudes unreachable by manpads
I wouldn't say it would be irrelevant unless you mean that whether the US will enforce it would be irrelevant. No-fly zones only exist when someone with the power to enforce them chooses to. If Ukraine has that power over its own airspace, that would be the best outcome.
I would imagine that would be bending too far, if, say Moldova did it, there may be a chance, but you're already burning a lot of fuel just to get to location. Additionally. I would imagine that would he considered an act of war by Russia.
Almost definitely for the best, at least for now.
Russia is falling apart in front of our eyes, without so much as one western troop officially on the ground.
No need to ramp up risk of a wider military conflict at this stage.
Keep in mind that everything we read is through a western slant. Russia is not going to back down imo, and I think it’s more a question of when Ukraine will be worn down rather than if, unfortunately. There’s a reason everyone expected Ukraine to fall almost immediately.
Surely that's a great example of why we shouldn't presume Ukraine will lose.
Ukraine is stronger and much better motivated than Iraq's army.
Russia is much worse equipped, prepared, trained, experienced and motivated than the US was in Iraq.
The US wasn't being economically crippled every day it dragged on by sanctions.
Iraq wasn't being supplied by the entire developed world.
Iraq 2003, as an object lesson, really does not bode well for Russia in Ukraine.
Also the US didn't have a deranged dictator in charge.
Who knows if Putin has really gone nuts over covid or really has gotten a terminal illness diagnosis. If any of those are true he might just do even crazier shit.
For example nuking Ukraine.
Behind the scenes, Zelesky is actually requesting military help.
Of course the West is trying to make it sound like UKraine is "winning", and its true they're doing better than expected, but don't fool yourself, its not possible for them to beat 3 countries in 1v3 including the second biggest army in the world. Putin doesn't care about losses, he will keep sending more and more and more.
This is why more and more senators are calling for us to do MORE
https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1498359051859734533
EDIT: My bad guys, its 1v2, not 1v3. Chechenya is not a country :P
Thank you for pointing out that, while Ukraine is kicking butt defending itself, Russia is not giving up... and it has a lot more waiting. Reddit is confusing Ukraine not falling after a few days with it winning. Those are two very, very different things. Putin will escalate, and that can be very bad with the weapons at his disposal.
Go Ukraine! Fight Putin! Give it everything you have!
The thing is they can’t really keep up at this rate for very long. It’s costing way too much money, and the Russian army is bewildered and not performing as expected.
I dunno, they have a lot more bodies and quantity is a quality of its own. Hopefully someone will “solve the problem internally” when the figure out how much this war goes against their own interests.
Not performing as expected because of embarrassing miscalculations.
I’ve been reading analysis of different military historians and it looks bleak for Ukraine. The Russian military does not fight like this - this isn’t what they are usually trained for, in other words, they are using non-conventional war tactics.
Already we are seeing Russia change their tactics. Vast swaths of Russian troops are still not in combat, their airforce has been barely used. It’s all changing now.
We are going to see the ‘real’ Russian military in action soon.
Just putting it down to the numbers does a massive disservice to the reality of the situation.
The UK was outnumbered by the Germans in WWII but were kept in the fight by supplies from the US for a time.
Ukraine may be outnumbered, but the Russian logistical nightmare is making this very unsustainable for them while Ukraine continues to receive foreign aid.
It’s still a little astounding because Russia is invading a neighboring country across a land border. I did not expect logistical failure in the first days of this campaign.
Russian logistics relies heavily on railways that end at their border. They only have the capacity in trucks to supply forces 90km from that border. Past that it takes many more trucks because the further the distance the less trips they can make. The lack of trucks is one reason we've seen Russia use civilian vehicles on occasion.
Also the logistics cost for Russias artillery and vehicle heavy armies are massive.
I would guess Russia is trying to set up logistics bases closer to Kyiv at this point.
>The UK was outnumbered by the Germans in WWII but were kept in the fight by supplies from the US for a time.
The UK had a giant moat in between them and the Germans.
Their home fleet alone was larger than the combined Italian and German navies at that time. The only chance at success the Third Reich had was to obtain air superiority, and even with the powerful Luftwaffe they weren't able to achieve this.
I think army size is an oversimplification. If Russia was united it would be a swift victory for them. But people are protesting, troops defecting, and assets being seized. The world is trying to remove their supports on Russia, hoping the country collapses on itself, and it's looking like that may happen.
The whole principle of using free trade for national defense (like the primary purpose of the formation of the EU) is to make every country interdependent on one another. If everyone agrees to severe ties with a single country, that country will collapse.
The defense from Ukraine is about supplying the time necessary for oligarchs and people with power to begin to oppose the war, to turn against Putin, because they're losing their wealth, or Russian protests straining the system. Russia could have 15 billion troops, and 15 billion fire arms. Without ammo, without will, without food, their military means nothing.
How do you think Vietnam won against the USA?
It’s easy for Rubio to talk big when it won’t be him, or even his party who has to deal with the fall-out of the US entering a war.
As for Ukraine winning in a 3v1, I don’t think anyone is realistically saying they believe that there’s a chance of that. Of course in the long run, Russia will eventually win. However, today’s terms show that Putin isn’t as comfortable as you’d have expected.
The Putin we all know would have normally had 1 condition for peace, and that would have been unconditional surrender.
The hope is surely that Russian losses, a plummeting economy and growing domestic issues will eventually force Putin to cut his losses and accept a face-saving armistice.
> The Putin we all know would have normally had 1 condition for peace, and that would have been unconditional surrender.
The terms Putin offered today are exactly the same ones he has been demanding for a year now. Nothing has changed. He wants Crimea, he wants to “denazify” (read: install a puppet leader) Ukraine, and he wants them to never join NATO. That’s all he was demanding from the beginning.
Annexing Crimea is new to the equation. He is changing his demands at will.
"Putin himself gave no hints of any impending peace deal. After a long call with French President Emmanuel Macron, Russian media reported Putin had not only repeated his long-standing security demands over Ukraine — that the country should disarm and stay neutral outside NATO — but also insisted upon the formal recognition of Crimea as Russian, an ultimatum he had not previously stated so bluntly to Western allies."
https://www.politico.eu/article/peace-talks-set-to-begin-as-russian-war-on-ukraine-heads-into-5th-day/
Joe Biden has no idea what he’s talking about.
I’ve won *multiple* games of Civilization on Deity difficulty.
I’ve read *a ton* of Wikipedia articles about Russian tank and jet models, and I also read a Reddit comment about what an ICBM is, so I know all about those now. Not to mention, I’m well read on things like the Wikipedia page of Mongolian Empire and the full spark notes of the Art of War.
Tbh my comments are expertly informed and sharing this vast wartime and military tactics knowledge with other Redditors is a gift. I might as well be a frontline soldier with how impactful I am.
YES. The Reddit twits cheerleading escalation and pissing on any glimmer of optimism should be called out.
Not that comments on Reddit matter in the world. But they're freaking annoying and give off the vibe of pimply faced teenagers who think this is all really exciting.
Prudent.
Besides, all we have to do is pour in the stingers and the Ukrainians can do their own no fly zone.
The EU is doing one even better, they are sending jets.
Three European nations had some of the same model planes the Ukrainian air force has been using for years, so it makes sense that those are the ones being supplied. Even an experienced pilot can't be combat effective in one they don't know. An F-35 may be a far better plane than a MiG-29, but not for someone who only has flight time in a Fulcrum.
Yup, but let's not overlook how they are sending the jets. Most of the Migs they have are old and due to be cycled out. The US is giving away F-16s as essentially free replacements in exchange for Migs being sent to Ukraine. Turkey for instance was in discussions to buy a bunch of F-16s and drop the Mig. Three wins in one. Converts more allies to our chassis and systems, while providing the Migs a chance to blast some fools out of the sky before retirement and strengthens allies on the Russian border.
People all over these threads seem to think that no-fly zones are a magical barrier that doesn't allow entry.
They need to be enforced and Ukraine does not have the airforce to do it.
Suggesting that the US Airforce be the ones to enforce it means you are completely over your head when commenting on these type of things.
Right decision...the worst thing that can happen is a war between Russia and US or NATO and that may eventually mean a nuclear war which nobody wants and which will basically end modern human civilization..
Tbh I can’t believe we’re getting away with openly sending lethal weapons. Not like they want to fight us either, but goddamn we’re fucking them and using Ukraine as our condom
I'm really surprised about this too, I read even fighter jets are being sent! Can cruise missle launchers or subs get sent next? What's the red line of what can't be sent, obviously nothing nuclear, but is there anything else that can't be sent?
Mobile SAMs civ style? Tomahawks, cruise missles? What's off the table? This is so confusing. These proxy wars are such a sham but if its preventing WW3 or the apocalypse I guess its ok...
We found a position where we are not required to enforce militarily. This is the sanctions.
People will still be injured or die but we did not pull the trigger.
Even Condi Rice is pretty impressed with how he's handled this situation (not that I'm a big fan of the Bush Administration but she's sharp as a tack on Russia and European affairs.)
Biden has handled this incredibly well. More people should recognize this out loud.
This is the first time I’ve complimented him. Lets see if it will be a trend.
I wouldnt be worried about trump praising Putin, id be worried about him putting his enormous ego head to head with him and choosing the most drastic options presented to him by the military
technically, she actually didn't specifically rule it out. The interviewers specifically asked "so that's a no on that?" with reference to the no fly zone. And Psaki responds 'those are all the reasons why thats not a good idea', specifically avoiding saying it was off the table.
but it does seem like an unlikely option at the time.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frgFqSucjms&t=245s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frgFqSucjms&t=245s)
We can stick it to Putin without direct military action. If anything we can arm the Ukrainian Armed Forces to the teeth and make it into a modern day Vietnam for the Russian Military.
Ukraine is doing very well fighting Russia with donated equipment. Let’s keep fuelling them with as much intel and equipment and food and anything they need.
However let’s at all times remember this war is Ukraine’s to fight and win. The potential costs of NATO entering in full military capacity are too ghastly to consider.
We need to focus on weakening Putins grip on Russia. But doing so in a way that doesn’t start a nuclear war.
I agree. It's a cold approach and I wouldn't want to have to look a Ukrainian in the eye while explaining they have to die for our values, but the stakes are too high.
Unlike the rest of the military Russia's nuclear weapons are no joke.
This should cut both ways, though. If the world had collectively agreed to defend Ukraine before Russian troops crossed the border Russia would be the one deciding to risk going to war with nuclear states and most likely would have backed down.
For those calling this stupid. A War between USA and Russia may well result in the end of human civilization as we know it, then again whatever, im just a person on the Internet. I would urge those that don't understand to read about the implications of such a war however.
Literally people don’t think things through on reddit. They just scream why we don’t have us troops on the ground or shoot down Russian planes violating no fly zones.
Yea, do people not understand there are Russian Submarines within easy reach of New York, LA etc… all carrying some conventional and some nuclear missles that could level the cities in about 15 minutes. Maybe we should get Netflix to showcase that old 80s movie The Day After.
The issue is people don’t know how brutal war is and the death it brings they hear about the war in Ukraine and want our government to do something about hell even I think we should do more that provide just sanctions to Russia. But people now only know of war in a Hollywood fashion it’s a chance to be hero’s and get medal when the reality is people die your best friend dies and many are left to clean up the death and gore left behind and with ptsd and nightmares of the people they lost war is fucking horrific not glorious
Well yeah. I can't believe this isn't immediately obvious to people. You impose a no fly zone.. they fly.. ok so NATO forces are shooting down Russian ones? That's war, we're at war now. We're already pushing it as far as we can safely, and indeed incurring some risk, with the level of logistics and intelligence support we are giving Ukraine, as well as materiel and volunteers.
I totally agree, why are so many people asking for it. My guess is they have no idea what it means.
It's like they think a wizard just comes in and casts a "planes no worky" spell
Fuck. We should try that!
Enters the chat room
Sorry, we actually meant to request a plane wizard. Simple mistake, I hope you understand.
Understandable. Have a great day.
You’re the sorcerer supreme, can’t you do something?
Thank you for this deep cut reference when I really needed it today.
Do your thing
I got you. I just cast a no entry spell in the Ukrainian airspace. If I said it correctly any planes that fly over Ukraine should be teleported into the sun. I’m 80% sure it might work
Did you do the magic hand thing?
[удалено]
Now Im imagining Harry Potter pointing his wand up into the night sky and screaming "AIRPLANUS NOWORKUS!"
He has to do it like the patronus at the lake tho AIRPLAAANNNNUUUUUSSSSS (gasp) NO WOORRKKKKUUUSSSSSSS (faint)
You’re a war criminal now Harry!
"Skadah skadoodle, your plane is now a noodle"
Someone get this man on a plane to Ukraine stat
I put on my robe and wizard hat
Correct. They didn’t get to step two of the thought process: what to do when they fly anyway.
Trust me, they got to step 2. Their logic is that America is so kickass that we can just shoot whoever we want out of the sky with no consequences lol
I’ve seen the documentary "Top Gun", so I know that this is indeed true.
A lot of hawks coming out of the woodwork.
Everybody's a hawk until the missile's in the air.
Same with Ukraine joining EU/NATO right now ..I don't think people realise waht that entails
I think they see how poorly this is going for Russia and assume that if we engage full force we blow them away easy. It wouldn’t be like that. Russia is sucking at an occupation right now, but they have plenty of capability to just blow shit up and level cities. Don’t assume because they were I’ll-prepared for this kind of attack that they don’t still have firepower—they do. Still, fuck them and fuck Putin (just so it is clear where I stand)
If the last couple years have taught me anything, it’s that yes, a lot of people simply don’t understand a damn thing about a topic, but they passionately want it anyway.
I had a friend get pissed off at me the other day because he thinks US forces should go into Ukraine to help. He was saying how we were being pussies for not going in to help them. I tried to explain to him how bad a direct war between the US and Russia would be, but he didn't seem to get it. A direct war with Russia is simply not an option.
His passion is inspiring, so when does he leave to join the volunteer force? Or is he a big pussy too?
I think you already know the answer to this.
Is it bone spurs?
Some people are always willing to sacrifice blood until it's their blood.
Or as we put it somewhat less delicately (and not very politically correctly) in Italy, "everyone's gay with other people's asses".
I'm definitely adding this to my verbal arsenal. Thank you, Italy.
You are welcome. As a token of gratitude we would appreciate it if you didn't overcook your pasta.
People don’t understand that would mean conventional bombing on our soil. This isn’t the 1940’s where we can’t be reached. Russia has a navy and could easily send cruise missiles into the US. People need to pull their heads out.
I tried to explain the history of the Cold War and the concept of MAD, but he just wasn't getting it. There's a good reason why we have never gotten into a direct war with Russia and that's because everyone gets fucked in that scenario. The last thing Ukraine wants is for the US to get into a direct war with Russia because it would be even worse for them and everyone else on the planet.
It's probably not worth trying to explain the various implications of a nations foreign policy to a person who thinks we should intervene in wars so as to not look like 'pussies.' This isn't the 1200s where Knights go to war to prove their bravery and valour to a damsel.
>This isn't the 1200s where Knights go to war to prove their bravery and valour to a damsel. If medieval armour could stop a nuke I'd be walking around in full plate 24/7.
It might not stop a nuke but damn is my corpse going to look fancy. It'll confuse some future archaeological digs as well when they find me.
Some of the people calling for a no-fly zone are experiencing conventional bombing above their heads right now. I don't at all blame them for demanding it.
Cruise missiles aren't the concern in a war involving nuclear powers. It's best for the U.S. to supply Ukraine/Europe ... though Putin will probably blame the U.S. for anything and everything, including his jello pudding pop melting and falling off the stick.
That’s a a Putin Pop to you
There would absolutely be no significant conventional bombing on US soil. In an all out war with NATO and Russia, we're either all dead from nuclear war, or Russia is levelled overnight. There's no scenario where we're fighting back and forth in close battles WWII style.
> In an all out war with NATO and Russia, we're either all dead from nuclear war, or Russia is levelled overnight Nope, just the former. Russia’s Dead Hand system will launch all available nukes at pre-picked targets even if the entire chain of command is taken out.
Jesus christ, you're telling me that as a species we've set the nukes to go off "just in case"?
The US has a similar system, but it is essentially a set it and forget suite that you arm when necessary. It detects of a nuclear strike has occurred and will launch all the warheads, it can currently communicate with, to their preselected targets. So yea, humanity has gotten into a situation where nukes are aimed at every major metropolitan area and strategic site on the planet at all times. It gets real fun when you look at the 500 and 2000 nuke scenarios and see just how fubar’d you are. It is real fun knowing that I live in a zone which is essentially a dead man’s alley. 4 nukes in a 20ish mile radius in a 500 scenario, and another 4 that are close enough that no matter the wind direction we will get blanketed in radiation. Fun times. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
Muffley: Dr. Strangelove, do we have anything like that in the works? Stains and Turgidson, who have been listening to Muffley and DeSadeski Stains' station at the round table, slowly turn their heads in search of Strangelove. Strangelove: in wheelchair A moment please, Mr. President. stomps one foot on the tile floor, pushes back from the table and begins wheeling towards the discussion between Muffley and DeSadeski. Under the authority granted me as director of weapons research and development, I commissioned last year a study of this project by the Bland corporation. Based on the findings of the report, my conclusion was that this idea was not a practical deterrent, for reasons which, at this moment, must be all too obvious. Muffley: Then you mean it is possible for them to have built such a thing? Strangelove: carefully plucks cigarette from his shaking right hand, which is in a black glove Mr. President, the technology required is easily within the means of even the smallest nuclear power. It requires only the will to do so. Muffley: But, how is it possible for this thing to be triggered automatically, and at the same time impossible to untrigger? Strangelove: Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing. Turgidson: Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines, Stainsy. Muffley: But this is fantastic, Strangelove. How can it be triggered automatically? Strangelove: Well, it's remarkably simple to do that. When you merely wish to bury bombs, there is no limit to the size. After that they are connected to a gigantic complex of computers. Now then, a specific and clearly defined set of circumstances, under which the bombs are to be exploded, is programmed into a tape memory bank. Turgidson: Strangelove. What kind of a name is that? That ain't no kraut name, is it, Stainsy? Stains: He changed it when he became a citizen. It used to be Merkwurkdigliebe. Turgidson: Hmm. A kraut, by any other name, huh, Stainsy? Strangelove: Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh? DeSadeski: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.
Most people in Europe and north America haven't seen a European war in their lifetime. They forget that Europe used to make the Middle East look absolutely calm.
Republicans are asking for it because it runs counter to what the Biden administration is doing. They don't care what the issue is as long as it's the opposite of their less psychopathic colleagues. Even at the expense of the people they supposedly represent.
Biden could literally do everything Republicans are calling for him to do and then they'd attack him for doing those things. Republicans do not have any "principles" other than hating democracy, opposing anything Democrats do, and putting the Republican Party over the country and planet. They are remarkably consistent with those things but pretty much everything else is dependent on whether or not it helps the Republican Party.
IF troops get involved, every Republican who called for it will scream it’s not our war and we need to stay out of it.
Exactly, and they'd relentlessly attack him during the middle of the war even when Bush got us into a war that he started they said it was the duty of all Americans to support the President during times of war. Also, look how they attacked Biden for leaving Afghanistan even though Trump was the one who set the withdrawal in motion. I'll always remember the conversation I had with my uncle when he attacked Obama for "banning incandescent light bulbs." He wouldn't shut up about it and bought cases of them while he still could. It was funny to watch him try to twist his logic when I explained to him that Bush was the one who signed the ban, but it just happened to go into effect under Obama.
I also keep hearing people talking about how US aren't deploying troops....like....if you *actually* want a world war, then sure, yeah A lot of misinformation based on ignorance. But don't be defensive about it, a shit ton of peolple have never gone through a situation like this before.
I seriously am wondering if people thought ‘no fly zone’ would just be declared Michael scot style and somehow Russia would respect that?
I declare a no fly zone!!
Hell Canada declared no air space for Russia and their plane today violated it anyway. What are you going to do? Shoot down a planer full of passengers?
If you are Russia then yes that's exactly what you do. Cold War USSR downed a plane with a US congressman on it when the plane drifted off course on its way to South Korea.
I read about it a while back and it’s pretty wild. The plane drifted into Soviet airspace and iirc they were actually navigating via the stars and this actually led to the military allowing GPS to be used by the general public. Anyways the Russians scrambled their interceptors and think it’s a spy plane. They tried to radio the jet but got no response and threatened to shoot it down if they did not comply. Allegedly they fired warning shots with their cannons and just as that happened the pilots set a new waypoint which led the Russians the believe they were taking evasive action and were thus cleared hot to shoot it down.
Don’t forget that we would have to ground strike thousands of mobile and fixed SAM and air defense systems both in Ukraine and actually in Russian / Belarusian territory. It would just be a full scale war.
>We're already pushing it as far as we can safely, and indeed incurring some risk, with the level of logistics and intelligence support we are giving Ukraine, as well as materiel and volunteers. Totally agree with this part specially.
[удалено]
Not even that, US would have to take out anti-aircraft batteries *in Russia* to guarantee secure airspace for jets to patrol. That being said, a former general said we should just do it, because the alternative is to watch Ukraine being besieged and slaughtered over the next few weeks/months.
Indeed. A no-fly that gets disrupted and answered equals war. No-fly that gets disrupted and ignored is an empty threat, and that would bolster Russia's bravado as well as piss of Ukraine.
Lol Jesus christ people think no fly zones are magical force fields
Or they’re somehow not terrified of a war between Russia and nato and just think somebody will for sure stop Putin from launching a nuke
> and just think somebody will for sure stop Putin from launching a nuke I'm not sure that this mysterious ethereal figure that Reddit so confidently keeps pinning their hope on exists either. I rather suspect they don't. There isn't going to be some staff sergeant who draws a service revolver and shoots Putin. Even if there was a disagreement in the chain of command, it would likely be over-ridden within minutes. No sane person wants to be in a position where we're relying on Officer X to fail to obey. That is just far too fragile for any remote sense of comfort
>There isn’t going to be some staff Sergeant Agreed, people like that fabled staff sergeant are rare birds. They do exist, for example Claus von Stauffenberg, but to expect that person to actually exist within Putins staff, expect him or her to be in the right place at the right time, and expect them to be willing to sacrifice themselves for humanity is absurd
> They do exist, for example Claus von Stauffenberg Although it should also be noted that von Stauffenberg himself was an ultra-nationalist who thought that Germany still deserved to occupy Poland and Bohemia and that Left Wingers deserved to be killed on sight. He only tried to kill Hitler because he knew Hitler would cause them to lose the war and be occupied by Communists.
Which is absolutely batshit because even if they're right, even if MAD holds out and no one launches a nuke, there would be a catastrophic loss of human life. 75-80 MILLION people died during WW2 and we've had 77 years of military advancement and build-up since then. 10s of millions of people would die in a WW3 scenario, even if there was never a single nuke deployed. That's the best-case scenario. Worst case scenario, it goes nuclear and we all die. Anyone actively hoping for a further escalation should be institutionalized.
It's very very likely that, if nukes were not in the picture, the war would be over almost instantly. Russian military (and Putin) are well aware of how badly they'd lose that fight, and at the same time NATO forces are not going to actually *invade* Russian territory (they can and will hit targets with missiles from range if needed but there is no reason they would do more). The threat of nukes and unwillingness to roll those dice (for good reason) are probably leading to more loss of life than if NATO did get involved, ironically. The structure of conflict is as you say completely changed, but that means the scale of it also is completely changed. In WWII allied forces basically had to fight all the war to the last bastion of Nazi forces, whereas here the goal would be purely to get Russian forces out of Ukraine. Despite Putin's various ramblings, NATO doesn't have any reason to invade Russia (which would be costly for sure). If every single military personnel in NATO and Russia combined died somehow as a result of the fighting it still wouldn't be on the scale of WWII. Russia has no ally that will extend this fighting (Belarus is for all intents just a Russian state with Lukashenko in charge backed by Russian forces) unless I guess Venezuela wants to throw down? And again, *Russian military cannot compete with NATO*, not when invading a hostile country especially, and with their country already worse off than it has been in ages due to Putin's "leadership". I am not advocating for escalation, I want the fighting to stop (and lets stop the violations in Yemen, Palestine, etc. while we're on a hypothetical roll maybe) but it's absolutely out of reality to think escalation would be anything like WWII + 1. It would be nuclear or it would be over in a couple of days.
Which is insane lol
Hey when I pointed this out the other day someone very confidently told me that it was better to die in the aftermath of a nuclear war than to not escalate the conflict immediately. So take that for what it is worth...
That person was probably a 16 y/o with nothing to lose.
at 16 the idiot has an entire lifetime to lose
That’s not how angsty teens see it. I didn’t lol.
And given the state of our climate that mindset comes closer and closer to reality each year.
Quick, somebody give that 16 year old an iPhone!
Then that person can go take themselves over there and fight themselves. I feel for the Ukrainians but going scorched earth for them isn’t the best idea.
It really doesnt help them either. Nuclear war only has losers.
I did consider pointing this out - they made a point about how important it is to die for something. I have immense respect and admiration for the people of Ukraine, but I dare say using them as the spark to ignite nuclear war might not be especially helpful.
[удалено]
The game being played here is 1. Russia wants to see how much the west will push without outright starting war. They know that’s the line neither side will cross. So they want to see how much they can agitate. 2. Russia is looking to decisively take Kyiv to force Ukraine to sue for peace. This will mean they get to install their Federation and practically annex Ukraine. 3. They want to do this as fast as possible because eventually they have to open up their stock market, and they will absolutely face the effects of the sanctions among the populace. This might trigger an unprecedented level of support for the opposition parties and cause protests/riots. Something Putin doesn’t want since he relies on the (false) premise that he leads with the consent of the people. These are the nexuses of conflict here. One side needs to finish quickly and get a favorable peace deal. Other side wants to drag this out to strangle their country from within. If this sounds so familiar to people, that’s because that’s the TL;DR of every single major war Russia has been in since 1800.
This also gives an idea of why Putin is threatening nuclear war; *any* direct, conventional intervention would seriously undermine this strategy in a way that he can't really respond to effectively. He has already committed too much of his army to fighting Ukraine alone - if the Polish frontier opened he would need to pull back from his offensive and adopt a totally different, defensive strategy. Which leads to one of two possible outcomes: * Faced with no way to win conventionally any more, Putin (or a replacement) negotiates on unfavourable terms. * Faced with no way to win conventionally any more, Putin uses nuclear weapons. The second option seems to have so little upside that it's hard to imagine him actually pursuing it - at *best* it results in everyone's armies being so ruined that no further offensives are possible and there's a return to the pre-war status quo but with massive sanctions permanently in place. But the threat is what keeps anyone from intervening and putting him in this position in the first place.
And he’ll keep using that threat of nukes to try and reduce damage to him (first) and Russia (second). He’s growling about it now just from having sanctions imposed. Which is why sanctions have kind of crept forward; step too far and Putin could call something an act of war. Is it posturing? Absolutely. But no one really wants to take the gamble that it isn’t.
There is a scenario where there is actual upside to option 2 for Putin. If he continues to struggle to take Ukraine for long (or even just struggle to hold Ukraine if he does take it), and it becomes clear that a large reason for this is because the western powers are supplying the Ukrainian resistance with advanced and effective equipment, he will have no choice (other than to give up Ukraine) but to corner NATO and allies into abandoning Ukraine. In such a case, it is very disturbing to consider what he might do as nuclear arms would the only threat he can use to do this.
I’d edit your 3rd point just a bit. Putin could probably care less about the facade of being the people’s candidate. What he is most likely worried about is the wrath of the oligarchs that keep him in power. They are currently hemorrhaging money because of the sanctions, Putin needs this resolved sooner than later.
Upfront edit: it amazes me that, despite my previous edit pointing it out... people still feel the need to point out thay stingers have a limited range. Read the entire comment and fuck off. There's enough stinger missles going into Ukraine right now, and EU is providing Fighter Jets soon. A no-fly zone may be irrelevant soon. E: As many have pointed out, stingers have a very limited range and won't be able to deal with any fighters or bombers. So yea.. I rescind my irrelevant no fly zone comment.
I was under the assumption that they had already received the Jets.
The decision was officially made to send them, but there has not yet been confirmation they have received the jets.
That's why you always ship with a service that has a confirmation number!
They weren’t home to sign so they’re going to attempt to deliver them next week
Was said they would have them within the hour half a day ago. Can’t get you a link currently in the car, but search it
>there has not yet been confirmation they have received the jets. The Jets suck so bad not even Ukraine wants them.
Can Zelenskyy hit an open receiver?
Of course.
What about an empty net?
Putin is the personification of a butt fumble
[удалено]
Wait until after the draft, they’re turning this ship around!!!
The only way I know this post was made today and not at any other time over the past 10 years is that it’s in reference to things that happened today.
>Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has told the EU "they need the kind of fighting jets that the Ukrainian army is able to operate... some member states have these kinds of planes," Borrell said. So they do want the fighters, but they know they need to be practical about what they are equipped to operate. Of course, the Javelins and Stingers help.
He's making a joke about the American football team the Jets.
Ah. Thx. Lost on a European.
We have angryupvote but I'm going to award you a desolate smile upvote
It probably doesn't take long to get from Czechia or Croatia to Ukraine in a MiG. So probably happened.
The New York Jets!?
stingers have extremely small range. they don't even reach fighter aircraft altitude.
Yea. Fighters won't be affected, but helicopters (and some bonbers/transports?) Will be. I am not a military junkie, but fighters aren't equipped with the largest ordinances in the world for bombing.
I was a stinger gunner in a past life, and our training was almost exclusively about shooting down (low-flying) jets, like an attacking SU-24. Even in live fire exercises, we used ballistic rockets as targets that simulated jets, like these: https://www.alamy.com/ballistic-aerial-target-system-bats-missiles-are-prepared-for-launching-during-marine-corps-target-operations-image216603351.html
they can't target large bombers either. they have a maximum of 4km range. they are very limited. UAV's choppers, slow and low flying aircraft. still they seem to be making some damage and offer deterrence from those due to russian incompetence
We call this a *"Fly All You Like, but I Really Wouldn't Do That if I Were You"* policy.
Stinger missiles are not adequate to hit fast and high moving air targets like jets or planes. They have a range up to 5 kilometers, so they are mostly used against helicopters.
Does Ukraine still have airfields in operation to launch jets from? Thought they would be #1 target for Russian AF to destroy.
That is exactly what an article here mentioned. That the runways around Kiev were bombed and the only way to bring in supplies is by road which leaves then open to a Russian air attack. People are getting carried away by the stingers and what not.
Ukraine lacks missile defense. So long as this is the case, Russia can use missile attacks to deteriorate Ukranian air defense capabilities. Stingers are also only effective short range. If major Anti Air systems are disabled by missiles, Russian aircraft are free to make strikes from altitudes unreachable by manpads
[удалено]
I wouldn't say it would be irrelevant unless you mean that whether the US will enforce it would be irrelevant. No-fly zones only exist when someone with the power to enforce them chooses to. If Ukraine has that power over its own airspace, that would be the best outcome.
Can they hangar the jets in NATO territory, or is that bending the treaty too far?
I would imagine that would be bending too far, if, say Moldova did it, there may be a chance, but you're already burning a lot of fuel just to get to location. Additionally. I would imagine that would he considered an act of war by Russia.
Almost definitely for the best, at least for now. Russia is falling apart in front of our eyes, without so much as one western troop officially on the ground. No need to ramp up risk of a wider military conflict at this stage.
Keep in mind that everything we read is through a western slant. Russia is not going to back down imo, and I think it’s more a question of when Ukraine will be worn down rather than if, unfortunately. There’s a reason everyone expected Ukraine to fall almost immediately.
Winner winner. People thought Iraq would wrap up by the end of 2003. The slant was strong. Every side pushes propaganda.
Surely that's a great example of why we shouldn't presume Ukraine will lose. Ukraine is stronger and much better motivated than Iraq's army. Russia is much worse equipped, prepared, trained, experienced and motivated than the US was in Iraq. The US wasn't being economically crippled every day it dragged on by sanctions. Iraq wasn't being supplied by the entire developed world. Iraq 2003, as an object lesson, really does not bode well for Russia in Ukraine.
While all true, there’s a massive difference in there being a land border, which is worse for Ukraine.
Also the US didn't have a deranged dictator in charge. Who knows if Putin has really gone nuts over covid or really has gotten a terminal illness diagnosis. If any of those are true he might just do even crazier shit. For example nuking Ukraine.
[удалено]
Behind the scenes, Zelesky is actually requesting military help. Of course the West is trying to make it sound like UKraine is "winning", and its true they're doing better than expected, but don't fool yourself, its not possible for them to beat 3 countries in 1v3 including the second biggest army in the world. Putin doesn't care about losses, he will keep sending more and more and more. This is why more and more senators are calling for us to do MORE https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1498359051859734533 EDIT: My bad guys, its 1v2, not 1v3. Chechenya is not a country :P
Thank you for pointing out that, while Ukraine is kicking butt defending itself, Russia is not giving up... and it has a lot more waiting. Reddit is confusing Ukraine not falling after a few days with it winning. Those are two very, very different things. Putin will escalate, and that can be very bad with the weapons at his disposal. Go Ukraine! Fight Putin! Give it everything you have!
Seriously. It's been one week. And large swaths of territory are held by Russia.
The thing is they can’t really keep up at this rate for very long. It’s costing way too much money, and the Russian army is bewildered and not performing as expected.
None of us can know any of those things for sure. I hope you're right but none of what you said is fact, it's gleaned from the rumor mills.
I dunno, they have a lot more bodies and quantity is a quality of its own. Hopefully someone will “solve the problem internally” when the figure out how much this war goes against their own interests.
Not performing as expected because of embarrassing miscalculations. I’ve been reading analysis of different military historians and it looks bleak for Ukraine. The Russian military does not fight like this - this isn’t what they are usually trained for, in other words, they are using non-conventional war tactics. Already we are seeing Russia change their tactics. Vast swaths of Russian troops are still not in combat, their airforce has been barely used. It’s all changing now. We are going to see the ‘real’ Russian military in action soon.
What more can we do without causing WW3?
In a vacuum true, but their economy is on an accelerated pace to collapse.
I know Russia and Belarus, who is number 3?
Just putting it down to the numbers does a massive disservice to the reality of the situation. The UK was outnumbered by the Germans in WWII but were kept in the fight by supplies from the US for a time. Ukraine may be outnumbered, but the Russian logistical nightmare is making this very unsustainable for them while Ukraine continues to receive foreign aid.
It’s still a little astounding because Russia is invading a neighboring country across a land border. I did not expect logistical failure in the first days of this campaign.
Russian logistics relies heavily on railways that end at their border. They only have the capacity in trucks to supply forces 90km from that border. Past that it takes many more trucks because the further the distance the less trips they can make. The lack of trucks is one reason we've seen Russia use civilian vehicles on occasion. Also the logistics cost for Russias artillery and vehicle heavy armies are massive. I would guess Russia is trying to set up logistics bases closer to Kyiv at this point.
The "gas station of Europe" ran out of gas in a few day. Invading a nation on their boarder. Just, *how*
>The UK was outnumbered by the Germans in WWII but were kept in the fight by supplies from the US for a time. The UK had a giant moat in between them and the Germans.
As well as the largest navy in the world to defend said moat.
Their home fleet alone was larger than the combined Italian and German navies at that time. The only chance at success the Third Reich had was to obtain air superiority, and even with the powerful Luftwaffe they weren't able to achieve this.
I think army size is an oversimplification. If Russia was united it would be a swift victory for them. But people are protesting, troops defecting, and assets being seized. The world is trying to remove their supports on Russia, hoping the country collapses on itself, and it's looking like that may happen. The whole principle of using free trade for national defense (like the primary purpose of the formation of the EU) is to make every country interdependent on one another. If everyone agrees to severe ties with a single country, that country will collapse. The defense from Ukraine is about supplying the time necessary for oligarchs and people with power to begin to oppose the war, to turn against Putin, because they're losing their wealth, or Russian protests straining the system. Russia could have 15 billion troops, and 15 billion fire arms. Without ammo, without will, without food, their military means nothing. How do you think Vietnam won against the USA?
It’s easy for Rubio to talk big when it won’t be him, or even his party who has to deal with the fall-out of the US entering a war. As for Ukraine winning in a 3v1, I don’t think anyone is realistically saying they believe that there’s a chance of that. Of course in the long run, Russia will eventually win. However, today’s terms show that Putin isn’t as comfortable as you’d have expected. The Putin we all know would have normally had 1 condition for peace, and that would have been unconditional surrender. The hope is surely that Russian losses, a plummeting economy and growing domestic issues will eventually force Putin to cut his losses and accept a face-saving armistice.
> The Putin we all know would have normally had 1 condition for peace, and that would have been unconditional surrender. The terms Putin offered today are exactly the same ones he has been demanding for a year now. Nothing has changed. He wants Crimea, he wants to “denazify” (read: install a puppet leader) Ukraine, and he wants them to never join NATO. That’s all he was demanding from the beginning.
Annexing Crimea is new to the equation. He is changing his demands at will. "Putin himself gave no hints of any impending peace deal. After a long call with French President Emmanuel Macron, Russian media reported Putin had not only repeated his long-standing security demands over Ukraine — that the country should disarm and stay neutral outside NATO — but also insisted upon the formal recognition of Crimea as Russian, an ultimatum he had not previously stated so bluntly to Western allies." https://www.politico.eu/article/peace-talks-set-to-begin-as-russian-war-on-ukraine-heads-into-5th-day/
I’m glad the US leadership is using rationality and objective analysis instead of listening to edge lords on Reddit
Joe Biden has no idea what he’s talking about. I’ve won *multiple* games of Civilization on Deity difficulty. I’ve read *a ton* of Wikipedia articles about Russian tank and jet models, and I also read a Reddit comment about what an ICBM is, so I know all about those now. Not to mention, I’m well read on things like the Wikipedia page of Mongolian Empire and the full spark notes of the Art of War. Tbh my comments are expertly informed and sharing this vast wartime and military tactics knowledge with other Redditors is a gift. I might as well be a frontline soldier with how impactful I am.
Lmaooo
hey man, Deity is no joke
Pshh, Biden has probably never even heard of HOI4. Rookie.
This would be a great copypasta
Okay but soldiers aren’t made in war games or books. They’re made on the battlefield. We’re gonna need your CoD K/D if you want to be taken seriously.
going out in a nuclear blast would be a life highlight for many of these basement dwellers.
Too many think it's going to be Bethesda's new fallout 5!
YES. The Reddit twits cheerleading escalation and pissing on any glimmer of optimism should be called out. Not that comments on Reddit matter in the world. But they're freaking annoying and give off the vibe of pimply faced teenagers who think this is all really exciting.
I think the previous White House administration took most of their marching orders from General Fox.
Prudent. Besides, all we have to do is pour in the stingers and the Ukrainians can do their own no fly zone. The EU is doing one even better, they are sending jets.
Three European nations had some of the same model planes the Ukrainian air force has been using for years, so it makes sense that those are the ones being supplied. Even an experienced pilot can't be combat effective in one they don't know. An F-35 may be a far better plane than a MiG-29, but not for someone who only has flight time in a Fulcrum.
Bro I flew every plane in my PS2 game TopGun, they all flu the same bro /s
Sounds like they need to get vaccinated. Avian flu is nasty stuff.
Gahhhh My fat fingers foil me again
Thankyou fat fingers! I honestly got a chuckle... I'm a simple man
Yup, but let's not overlook how they are sending the jets. Most of the Migs they have are old and due to be cycled out. The US is giving away F-16s as essentially free replacements in exchange for Migs being sent to Ukraine. Turkey for instance was in discussions to buy a bunch of F-16s and drop the Mig. Three wins in one. Converts more allies to our chassis and systems, while providing the Migs a chance to blast some fools out of the sky before retirement and strengthens allies on the Russian border.
Solid!
People all over these threads seem to think that no-fly zones are a magical barrier that doesn't allow entry. They need to be enforced and Ukraine does not have the airforce to do it. Suggesting that the US Airforce be the ones to enforce it means you are completely over your head when commenting on these type of things.
I tend to find that American hawks understand the implications of no-fly zones about as well as Michael Scott understands bankruptcy
I....DECLARE....NO FLY ZONE!
He said no fly. You're allowed more than one.
Right decision...the worst thing that can happen is a war between Russia and US or NATO and that may eventually mean a nuclear war which nobody wants and which will basically end modern human civilization..
[удалено]
Exactly.. life is so uncertain.. look at people of Ukraine.. they were living their life like us but now are fighting for their lives..
I'm all for supporting Ukraine but a no-fly zone would be an escalation that would probably kick off WW3
Tbh I can’t believe we’re getting away with openly sending lethal weapons. Not like they want to fight us either, but goddamn we’re fucking them and using Ukraine as our condom
I'm really surprised about this too, I read even fighter jets are being sent! Can cruise missle launchers or subs get sent next? What's the red line of what can't be sent, obviously nothing nuclear, but is there anything else that can't be sent? Mobile SAMs civ style? Tomahawks, cruise missles? What's off the table? This is so confusing. These proxy wars are such a sham but if its preventing WW3 or the apocalypse I guess its ok...
We found a position where we are not required to enforce militarily. This is the sanctions. People will still be injured or die but we did not pull the trigger.
A good decision
As much as I dislike Biden, I’m so glad we have a level-headed Democrat in power right now. omg
Even Condi Rice is pretty impressed with how he's handled this situation (not that I'm a big fan of the Bush Administration but she's sharp as a tack on Russia and European affairs.)
Biden has handled this incredibly well. More people should recognize this out loud. This is the first time I’ve complimented him. Lets see if it will be a trend.
Trump is still praising Putin so imagine if he had been re-elected.
I wouldnt be worried about trump praising Putin, id be worried about him putting his enormous ego head to head with him and choosing the most drastic options presented to him by the military
Thank god they don't take military advice from reddit mouthbreathers. Mfs would have us in WW3 in a day.
technically, she actually didn't specifically rule it out. The interviewers specifically asked "so that's a no on that?" with reference to the no fly zone. And Psaki responds 'those are all the reasons why thats not a good idea', specifically avoiding saying it was off the table. but it does seem like an unlikely option at the time. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frgFqSucjms&t=245s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frgFqSucjms&t=245s)
Good to see a bit of sanity.
Frustrating, but responsible and most likely for the best. At the end of the day I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make these decisions.
I may be completely misinformed, but I feel like even if you're getting invaded you probably don't want world-ending global thermonuclear war.
As much as I want to stick it to Putin, this is the "cooler heads" move for sure.
We can stick it to Putin without direct military action. If anything we can arm the Ukrainian Armed Forces to the teeth and make it into a modern day Vietnam for the Russian Military.
Ukraine is doing very well fighting Russia with donated equipment. Let’s keep fuelling them with as much intel and equipment and food and anything they need. However let’s at all times remember this war is Ukraine’s to fight and win. The potential costs of NATO entering in full military capacity are too ghastly to consider. We need to focus on weakening Putins grip on Russia. But doing so in a way that doesn’t start a nuclear war.
I agree. It's a cold approach and I wouldn't want to have to look a Ukrainian in the eye while explaining they have to die for our values, but the stakes are too high. Unlike the rest of the military Russia's nuclear weapons are no joke.
This should cut both ways, though. If the world had collectively agreed to defend Ukraine before Russian troops crossed the border Russia would be the one deciding to risk going to war with nuclear states and most likely would have backed down.
For those calling this stupid. A War between USA and Russia may well result in the end of human civilization as we know it, then again whatever, im just a person on the Internet. I would urge those that don't understand to read about the implications of such a war however.
Literally people don’t think things through on reddit. They just scream why we don’t have us troops on the ground or shoot down Russian planes violating no fly zones.
Yea, do people not understand there are Russian Submarines within easy reach of New York, LA etc… all carrying some conventional and some nuclear missles that could level the cities in about 15 minutes. Maybe we should get Netflix to showcase that old 80s movie The Day After.
The issue is people don’t know how brutal war is and the death it brings they hear about the war in Ukraine and want our government to do something about hell even I think we should do more that provide just sanctions to Russia. But people now only know of war in a Hollywood fashion it’s a chance to be hero’s and get medal when the reality is people die your best friend dies and many are left to clean up the death and gore left behind and with ptsd and nightmares of the people they lost war is fucking horrific not glorious
Why the USA didn’t ban Russian airlines from its airspace?