How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[TV and credit cards]

The only escalation that I see now is for Biden to send longer distance missiles.

That would be a good start. Zelensky can also announce that if anymore missile strikes occur within Ukraine against non military targets or in Kiev then he will reciprocate by bombing inside Russia and perhaps Moscow. Put the ball squarely in Poostain's court on the world stage of public opinion.

Longer range missiles can be used to hit Russian GLOCs deeper in to the Donbas and Crimea leaving their untrained forces with even less support and enabling Ukrainian forces to drive deeper and faster.
I wouldn't mind seeing NATO protect Ukraine's northern border but that's not likely to happen. I know Russia is sending troops to Belarus which is likely a subterfuge. Imagine if Russia tried an attack from the north again and got humiliated a second time. And I really don't think they have the equipment to support any kind of an offensive from the north. It's just designed to tie up some of Ukraine's assets.

What is really needed is for India and China to make strong statements against Russia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have downloaded this video and changed the frames between 00:01:12 and 00:02:07 to show in slow motion. Instead of running for just under one second they now take almost eight. I am inclined to believe the explosion was done using the boat that emerges from under the bridge just as semi-trailer passes overhead. It is only a guess, though. The boat may have been only coincidentally under the bridge at the exact moment the explosion was effected by other means.

The water ignores the boom. Therefore the boom wasn't in or next to the water.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Crimea bridge is a crucial supply line for the Russian front. Especially if Luhansk and Donetsk are ever retaken

Rail road bridge yes. But ukro-terrorists were not able to damage it.
Also, you need to look at the map.

1) Bridges are quite valid military targets. A strike on a military target isn't terrorism.

2) We saw part of the road tossed aside by the boom. How can you pretend it wasn't damaged? The only question is how much damage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, "so well" is a giant exageration.

No, it's not. Russia was expected to win in a short campaign back in February. That such a small nation has not only been effective in resisting Russian military might, but has now begun to drive back the invaders, is a far better outcome than anyone expected.

If anything, "so well" is an understatement. The vaunted Russian military machine are being shown to be utterly incompetent and ridiculous at every level.

They've always been bad. I ran into a video a few days ago talking about a jetliner crash that took out a lot of the Russian navy high command. Oops, all those officials wanted to bring back their shopping and wouldn't listen to the pilots complaining about overloading the airplane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, "so well" is a giant exageration.

No, it's not. Russia was expected to win in a short campaign back in February. That such a small nation has not only been effective in resisting Russian military might, but has now begun to drive back the invaders, is a far better outcome than anyone expected.

If anything, "so well" is an understatement. The vaunted Russian military machine are being shown to be utterly incompetent and ridiculous at every level.

Russia technically won. Ukrainian Army have been utterly destroyed. What you have now is NATO manned by ukro-drones using NATO weapons.
And even so, NATO progress in Ukraine is still very limited. Most of the drug-induced attacks by NATO is repelled with horrendous losses on ukrainian side.

Countries being armed by other countries has been a very real part of war for quite a while. And you have not done anything like destroyed the Ukrainian army. And note they're fighting with a lot of Russian weapons also--they have more armor now than at the start of hostilities, you've been the supplier.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The Crimea bridge is a crucial supply line for the Russian front. Especially if Luhansk and Donetsk are ever retaken

Rail road bridge yes. But ukro-terrorists were not able to damage it.
Also, you need to look at the map.

1) Bridges are quite valid military targets. A strike on a military target isn't terrorism.

2) We saw part of the road tossed aside by the boom. How can you pretend it wasn't damaged? The only question is how much damage.

They’ll send trains of increasing weight across it. Have some guy in a little punt underneath watching to see how much spalled concrete falls off. Inspection complete.

 

[Patooka]

Which in my view means Ukraine needs to escalate.

LOL, the only way the Ukraine escalates is if the USA lobs even more billions of dollars of "aid".

It has already been explained why your snide remarks are dishonest partisan shite. If you just want to post random shit without interacting (the literal definition of troll), could you at least be more creative? You sound like someone who is okay with Republicans starting trillion dollar wars, but get their panties in a twist when Dark Brandon spends 0.4% of that combating fascism. That's 13 year old edgelord logic right there.

 

[steve_bank]

Could the bridge bombing be a false flag operation?

 

[steve_bank]

Which in my view means Ukraine needs to escalate.

LOL, the only way the Ukraine escalates is if the USA lobs even more billions of dollars of "aid".

I have never been an overt loud flag waver.

'Id say in in this are pissing on America and what we and others went throufh in WWII and what we are now trying to protect..

Unless you support a fascist wannabe like Trump who praises Putin and the leader of China.

Trump is pissing on western values and systems.

 

[ZiprHead]

Could the bridge bombing be a false flag operation?

Highly doubtful to me.

 

[Ford]

Well, "so well" is a giant exageration.

No, it's not. Russia was expected to win in a short campaign back in February. That such a small nation has not only been effective in resisting Russian military might, but has now begun to drive back the invaders, is a far better outcome than anyone expected.

If anything, "so well" is an understatement. The vaunted Russian military machine are being shown to be utterly incompetent and ridiculous at every level.

Russia technically won. Ukrainian Army have been utterly destroyed. What you have now is NATO manned by ukro-drones using NATO weapons.
And even so, NATO progress in Ukraine is still very limited. Most of the drug-induced attacks by NATO is repelled with horrendous losses on ukrainian side.

Countries being armed by other countries has been a very real part of war for quite a while. And you have not done anything like destroyed the Ukrainian army. And note they're fighting with a lot of Russian weapons also--they have more armor now than at the start of hostilities, you've been the supplier.

Ukraine doesn't just have NATO weapons and confiscated broke-ass Russian tanks. They have years of training by US and other Western nations. Russia has always been a "just throw some more guys at the problem" proposition, but the US took a lot of the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, distilled them down into tactics, and used them (and other hard-won ideas) to revamp the Ukrainian armed forces from the ground up. For example, Ukrainians can make battlefield decisions on the fly. The enemy did something unexpected or showed up with more guys? Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Russia gets surprised by a Ukrainian tactic they haven't encountered? The battlefield commander has to send a request up the chain of command and wait for a general to mull it over and then say "just send in more guys."

In the news reports and analyses of the recent offenses that have put the Russians back on their heels, there's usually a line like "and then the Ukrainians did something nobody expected." They're better trained, better equipped, and most importantly are constantly evaluating and evolving their tactics. Russia is just relying on good old fashioned attrition, hoping that Ukraine runs out of guys before they do.

 

[bilby]

For those of you wondering how the fuck tiny Ukraine can do so well against Russia. It's because of intel.

Well, "so well" is a giant exageration. But it's true ukro-nazis are completely dependent on US, including supply of "meth" for their "drones".

Actually, the largest supplier of weapons for Ukrainians have been Russia! More than 50% of their tanks are now captured from Russia!

At least now there is the tacit admission that Barbos needs to actually make a delineation between "urkanian Nazis" and "Nazis in general". If they didn't participate in this special pleading, they would miss that MOST of the Nazis happen to be Russian

Like the tanks, most of the Nazis in Ukraine are probably captured from Russian forces too.

 

[Patooka]

Could the bridge bombing be a false flag operation?

Pretty certain Russia loses much more than what it gains from such a thing.

 

[steve_bank]

Could the bridge bombing be a false flag operation?

Pretty certain Russia loses much more than what it gains from such a thing.

Hitler used a false flag to justify invading Poland.

Putin blowing up the bridge is a good rt ionization, for him, to rain destruction on Ukraine. Just a thought.

Maybe extreme nationalists.

 

[Jayjay]

Could the bridge bombing be a false flag operation?

Pretty certain Russia loses much more than what it gains from such a thing.

Hitler used a false flag to justify invading Poland.

Putin blowing up the bridge is a good rt ionization, for him, to rain destruction on Ukraine. Just a thought.

Maybe extreme nationalists.

There's no way. The bridge is too important for logistics, and it was Putin's personal pet project. If Putin wanted to stage a false flag attack, he could've done it in many ways that would not be as detrimental to morale or infrastructure.

Apartment bombing in Moscow or St. Petersburg, for example.

But it's not as if Putin needs a reason to rain destruction on Ukraine, as he's been doing it for the past 6 months already, and his propagandists have been calling for destroying all civilian infrastructure and "sending Ukraine to the 18th century" for a while now.

 

[Hermit]

I have downloaded this video and changed the frames between 00:01:12 and 00:02:07 to show in slow motion. Instead of running for just under one second they now take almost eight. I am inclined to believe the explosion was done using the boat that emerges from under the bridge just as semi-trailer passes overhead. It is only a guess, though. The boat may have been only coincidentally under the bridge at the exact moment the explosion was effected by other means.

The water ignores the boom. Therefore the boom wasn't in or next to the water.

The biggest objection to the explosion having taken place below the bridge is the lack of damage to the substructure. I would expect it to be substantially mangled. It is not.

That said, the photo could be of a section adjacent to the one where the putative explosion from below might have occurred. The concrete pylons would have protected it from the direct effects of the blast. I'd like to see the underside of the section on the other side of the pylon this photo was taken from.

On the other hand, I would expect a massive explosion on the road surface to leave at least some very noticeable cratering. There appears to be none at all. The scorching could have stemmed from subsequent fires.

What I would not expect from a road surface explosion, is the sideways move of two of its sections.

Whatever. As I mentioned before, I'm just guessing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like how Putin gets upset when a bridge is attacked, (a legitimate military target) calls the attackers terrorists (blowing up a bridge during war is NOT an act of terrorism) and responds by shooting a bunch of rockets into civilian areas, which is an act of terrorism. Putin is completely shameless. This guy has to go.

And if those launches are originating in Russia they are legitimate targets and the Ukrainians ought to target them.

I think that's a terrible idea. The last thing we want is NATO attacks (yes, the Ukrainian army is at this point a front for NATO) inside (what the average Russian perceives as) attacks on Russia. We want Russians to keep thinking Putin is the bad guy. We don't want Putin to be able to rally his people in defense of the motherland. It doesn't matter how dirty Putin fights. Ukraine has got to keep it clean.

The moment Russian public opinion swings to support for the war, then Ukraine will truly be fucked. And most of Europe = WW3

 

[Patooka]

yes, the Ukrainian army is at this point a front for NATO

How so?

 

[DrZoidberg]

yes, the Ukrainian army is at this point a front for NATO

How so?

Without NATO support Ukraine would have fallen apart a long time ago. They're fed NATO military intel. The importance of that cannot be overstated. They're given cutting edge rockets and missiles defense systems of the sole purpose to deny Russia any edge it might have. NATO countries is giving Ukraine exactly what equipment and strategic support which they need to fight Russia.

No, there's no NATO boots on the ground. But Ukraine isn't a small country. They don't need NATO boots on the ground. What they need is equipment and strategic help. Which is what they're getting.

The Ukraine war is IMHO at this point a proxy war between Russia and USA.

 

[Patooka]

Without NATO support Ukraine would have fallen apart a long time ago.

Ukraine stopped Russia's march to Kiev well before the US opened the floodgates of arms. Sure, things would have looked different, but I'm not sure Ukraine was the pushover everyone thought it was going to be. Nobody was even discussing supplying meaningful amounts of arms until Ukraine showed they actually had a chance of winning - which suggest an innate ability at the very least.

And that's not including the occupation element. The US didn't have problems in Iraq until Mission Accomplished occurred. Russia never even got to that stage when the wheels started falling off. And the pre-empt the "Russia would have just genocided Ukraine at the first hint of insurgency", argument - that would have accelerated aid in Ukraine. Too much of the world's grain flows through that nation for governments to be apathetic about it.

No, there's no NATO boots on the ground. But Ukraine isn't a small country. They don't need NATO boots on the ground. What they need is equipment and strategic help. Which is what they're getting.

Agreed, but casually dismissing the Ukrainian military as just a cats paw for NATO is pretty inaccurate. It's kinda like saying WWII was just a proxy war between Germany and the US until Pearl Harbour because of Lend Lease. A gross oversimplification that glosses over so many key elements it's far more wrong than right.

Simply put, calling 38 brigades of armour and infantry and a further 9 brigades of artillery a "front army" is not an accurate description. I might have to do some more googling, but I'm pretty certain no other Western European military is even remotely as big.