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

[barbos]

Because that is the kind of language that appeals to Americans. They think it displays power and authority

Are you implying that Biden is stealing Trump's scripts?
Add "thief" to the list of Biden's accomplishment.
1. Corrupt SOB
2. Senile SOB
3. War criminal
4. Pathological liar
4. And now a thief.

I think he is qualified as POTUS.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Stephanopaulus interview:
"I was also the guy who expanded NATO .. Not only that I am campaigning, but I am running the world."
the brag, blowhard, boaster, braggadocio, show-off, windbag (choose any word - dictionary.com).
Get some one else for leading USA. Neither Trump nor Biden are fit to lead USA.

It's cultural

Because that is the kind of language that appeals to Americans. They think it displays power and authority.

While for cultures like India and Scandinavia the same statements screams insecurity and overcompensating.

Biden is just using the language that appeals to his target audience. Which is the appropriate and smart thing to do. It's his job.

It's also not true. It's the new member states that expanded NATO. NATO is expanded by Russian threats and border countries pulling. Not USA pushing NATO. If any country can be given the credit for expanding NATO it's Russia.

Obviously USA isn't running the world. That's just dumb. But Americans loves those kinds of statements.

*Note - Aupy's quotes are pasted together from two different parts of the interview bringing the context here into question.


There were calls and meetings with Biden, Erdoğan, Niinistö, and Andersson. But calls and meetings are barely newsworthy. There were quotes regarding Biden's involvement with the process by a "European official" I've decided not to post as the individual is not named. How should Biden phrase this during a television interview set up for national consumption? Simply and to the point, perhaps to keep people from tuning out. And this is not unique to the United States.

Biden is likely referring to the call he made to Niinistö on Dec 13, 2021 raising the idea of joining NATO when Russia was amassing military equipment on the border. Then in March after the invasion began, Biden and Niinistö sitting in the Oval Office called your then PM Andersson to discuss it with her.
Then, with regards to Türkiye signing off, Biden intentionally backed off knowing if he kept the US in the middle of negotiations, Erdoğan would be asking for much more.
Just prior to the Madrid NATO summit in late June, 2022, Niinistö and Andersson thinking the time was right, requested Biden call Erdoğan to seal the deal.



And its not cultural. It's perception from outside the US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because they were offensive missiles pointed at us. Not anything to do with anybody's relations with Cuba.

Russia too fears that membership to NATO will lead to missiles pointed at Russia in those countries.

Elixir: 'They were talking with Russia for many years. It accomplished nothing.'
Aup.: Perhaps they went in with conditions not acceptable to Russia. That is not the correct way to talk.

Irrelevant as ICBMs are quite capable of filling the role these days. You can put enough boom with enough accuracy on top of a missile on the other side of the world, there's no need of local ones other than as deterrence for attacking the location that has them.

 

[bilby]

Because they were offensive missiles pointed at us. Not anything to do with anybody's relations with Cuba.

Russia too fears that membership to NATO will lead to missiles pointed at Russia in those countries.

Elixir: 'They were talking with Russia for many years. It accomplished nothing.'
Aup.: Perhaps they went in with conditions not acceptable to Russia. That is not the correct way to talk.

Irrelevant as ICBMs are quite capable of filling the role these days. You can put enough boom with enough accuracy on top of a missile on the other side of the world, there's no need of local ones other than as deterrence for attacking the location that has them.

That's true, if your opponent has the capability to launch quickly, or expects his ICBMs to survive a first strike.

If Russian systems are sufficiently slow and weak, nearby NATO missiles are a huge threat, as they might destroy Russia's retaliatory capability before they can launch it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If any country can be given the credit for expanding NATO it's Russia.

And considering that Russia is the only reason NATO exists it makes perfect sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To me, it's real simple equation: we should trade with countries that are friendly or neutral to us. If a country invades another country; they should be cut off.

OK. But sanctions do not work. Look at countries which have been put under sanctions.

IMF just inducted Russia into a list of "High Income" countries. I think sanctions worked pretty well, just not for the West.

That comes with a big gotcha--it's war spending that isn't reflected in people's standard of living.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ukraine Drone Attack Halts Key Russian Electrometallurgical Plant

Kamikaze drones targeted two major electrical substations in the Belgorod region: the Stary Oskol substation and the Metallurgicheskaya substation, one of the largest in Europe.

www.kyivpost.com

The de-energization caused all electric arc furnaces to stop, with the metal inside freezing. Restarting the plant will require extensive cleaning and replacement of arc elements, potentially taking several months.
Some workers believe new furnaces might be needed, and since the plant was built using German technology, German expertise may be required to resume operations

Promising.

That's going to be a big ouch for Russia. Things which have been kept hot for ages often suffer a lot of damage when they go cold.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the Ukraine war is about the newly discovered natural gas reserves in Ukraine. Putin had a near monopoly on selling gas to Germany.

What a surprise Putin only wants Luhansk, Doetsk and Crimea. The areas with the gas deposits.

I'm pretty sure this is the sum total of the reason for Putin attacking

Disagree--that's certainly a factor but I think it's also about regaining their lost prestige. He's been after the lost pieces for a long time now, but generally not quite so blatantly. The gas probably played a role on timing, but isn't the whole cause.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So Kiev regime moved their planes close to the line of contact. Russia destroyed 5 planes and damaged 3 in one strike.
That's gotta be the worth decision they have ever made. They brought Patriot for protection - did not help. Russian air defence are now shooting down Patriot missiles in the air (!!!!)

It was a very good decision on their part. You wasted missiles on decoys. Of course your military people aren't going to admit it but the reality is a lot of your "kills" are decoys. It works both ways but your decoys tend to not be as good and Ukraine for the most part isn't aiming long range strikes against things that move.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What a surprise Putin only wants Luhansk, Doetsk and Crimea. The areas with the gas deposits.

I do not know if Putin wants that. Of course, gas deposits are a welcome bonus, but perhaps because these areas have a Russian speaking majority.

Because Russia relocated people to the area in the past.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

EU commission called them peacekeepers.

Cite?

here:

They called them "peacekeepers" because that's what Russia calls them. They're really an occupying force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Article 5. NATO declares war on Russia.

Why? It's talking about putting missiles in Cuba, not about attacking anyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But what did his roommates grandmother's best friend say about it?

You must have missed recent russian nuclear sub visit to Cuba.

We noticed it. The sub whose tiles are falling apart. More Russian "maintenance" or did some idiot order it to go too fast?

In either case, with it's tiles damaged that sub wouldn't last long if someone was hunting it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a war between NATO and Russia, the remnants of your decrepit navy won't last long. Russia can't even deal with Ukraine's Sea Babies.

Your shiny and mighty Navy won't last much longer.

Check the naval doctrines.

Your naval strike doctrine is big, fast, long range, heavy missiles. They are launched either by ships or by land based heavy bombers. That limits your strike range to a few hundred miles around your fleet and a considerably greater distance from the land bases that operate the heavy bombers. Observe what's happening in Ukraine--most such missiles fired by either side are being shot down.

US strike doctrine is much smaller, slower, shorter range missiles that fly very, very low. Doesn't matter how good your SAMs are until you have line of sight on the target and against something like the Harpoon that's pretty short. But note that our missiles can be carried by naval aircraft. That means the US fleet can strike targets much farther away than the Russian fleet--sure, each missile isn't as fearsome but they'll actually get through. Look what happened to the Moskova--you couldn't successfully engage a paltry two missiles despite all the big, long range SAMs on that ship. And note that you have no naval equivalent to your A-50s, your defense problem is huge.

Your fleet's missiles will never do anything because you'll never get in range. All you have are the bombers and they're worthless without a target. Even if your satellites spot a carrier that doesn't mean you have data precise enough to shoot with hours later--to do that you have to get a radar in range and that means sending out recon aircraft that can neither hide nor defend themselves.

You built ships meant to fight, we built ships meant to defend the carrier so it's aircraft can fight. Who do you think has the better defense?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because they were offensive missiles pointed at us. Not anything to do with anybody's relations with Cuba.

Russia too fears that membership to NATO will lead to missiles pointed at Russia in those countries.

Elixir: 'They were talking with Russia for many years. It accomplished nothing.'
Aup.: Perhaps they went in with conditions not acceptable to Russia. That is not the correct way to talk.

Irrelevant as ICBMs are quite capable of filling the role these days. You can put enough boom with enough accuracy on top of a missile on the other side of the world, there's no need of local ones other than as deterrence for attacking the location that has them.

That's true, if your opponent has the capability to launch quickly, or expects his ICBMs to survive a first strike.

If Russian systems are sufficiently slow and weak, nearby NATO missiles are a huge threat, as they might destroy Russia's retaliatory capability before they can launch it.

The subject was Cuba. You might be right about the survivability of the Russian systems. They can actually field only one boomer and it's not at sea all the time.

However, if my job was to plot a first strike against Russia I wouldn't be looking at missiles nearby. The Russian missile fields are far from our allies. Instead, put a couple of boomers in the arctic and do depressed-trajectory shots at the missile fields from there. Not as accurate but with modern guidance systems that should be basically meaningless. And start it with what Russia feared in the Norwegian Missile Incident: An EMP strike. If you're plotting it far enough ahead you put the bomb in orbit (Russia has already torn up the nuclear treaties) and do the deorbit burn on our side of the world. If they even see that it's wrong (they probably won't) they won't know it's anything other than something falling out of orbit until it detonates.

 

[Elixir]

Perhaps they went in with conditions not acceptable to Russia.

Perhaps Russia had demands unreasonable to Ukranians, and thought they were so much bigger and more powerful, that they could force them upon Ukraine.

That is not the correct way to talk.

The "correct way to talk" is not something that you can dictate or even detect. And it CERTAINLY is not total capitulation to a genocidal maniac.
Neither is "the correct way to deal with an aggressive rogue nuclear State" under your purview.

 

[barbos]

Irrelevant as ICBMs are quite capable of filling the role these days.

Cool, why do you put nukes close to border than?

 

[barbos]

EU commission called them peacekeepers.

Cite?

here:

They called them "peacekeepers" because that's what Russia calls them. They're really an occupying force.

No, they were peacekeepers.

 

[barbos]

In a war between NATO and Russia, the remnants of your decrepit navy won't last long. Russia can't even deal with Ukraine's Sea Babies.

Your shiny and mighty Navy won't last much longer.

Check the naval doctrines.

Your naval strike doctrine is big, fast, long range, heavy missiles. They are launched either by ships or by land based heavy bombers. That limits your strike range to a few hundred miles around your fleet and a considerably greater distance from the land bases that operate the heavy bombers. Observe what's happening in Ukraine--most such missiles fired by either side are being shot down.

US strike doctrine is much smaller, slower, shorter range missiles that fly very, very low. Doesn't matter how good your SAMs are until you have line of sight on the target and against something like the Harpoon that's pretty short. But note that our missiles can be carried by naval aircraft. That means the US fleet can strike targets much farther away than the Russian fleet--sure, each missile isn't as fearsome but they'll actually get through. Look what happened to the Moskova--you couldn't successfully engage a paltry two missiles despite all the big, long range SAMs on that ship. And note that you have no naval equivalent to your A-50s, your defense problem is huge.

Your fleet's missiles will never do anything because you'll never get in range. All you have are the bombers and they're worthless without a target. Even if your satellites spot a carrier that doesn't mean you have data precise enough to shoot with hours later--to do that you have to get a radar in range and that means sending out recon aircraft that can neither hide nor defend themselves.

You built ships meant to fight, we built ships meant to defend the carrier so it's aircraft can fight. Who do you think has the better defense?!

Your surface fleet is useless against Russia or China.
It is useless against fucking houtie

 

[barbos]

It was a very good decision on their part. You wasted missiles on decoys. Of course your military people aren't going to admit it but the reality is a lot of your "kills" are decoys. It works both ways but your decoys tend to not be as good and Ukraine for the most part isn't aiming long range strikes against things that move.

You are drinking some fine liquid ukrainian BS.
Nope, these were not decoys. Nazis did try to paint planes on asphalt but with low flying drones it is easy to distinguish.
One of MPs admitted that these were planes.