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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When you feel like you gotta have someone else’s property and they won’t give it to you, war, theft and genocide are the answers, if you’re a despot like Putin.

The war was started by NATO in 2014.

Why are you saying this? What are you basing it on?

His love of Putin?

 

[marc]

When you feel like you gotta have someone else’s property and they won’t give it to you, war, theft and genocide are the answers, if you’re a despot like Putin.

The war was started by NATO in 2014.

Why are you saying this? What are you basing it on?

Basing it on the same thinking where the rape victim is blamed? Ukraine was wearing that short skirt and low cut top, just asking to be invaded? How dare it flaunt its open grain fields and ports, teasing good decent countries. A red blooded patriarchy like Russia just couldn't help itself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

What nukes are you referring to?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You're the one painting planes. They're easily exposed by drones and they're exposed by the fact they never move.

Ukraine is building 3D decoys.

In many cases you've "hit" more systems than Ukraine even has.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Many locations, difficult to destroy. Now that we have subs and vehicle mounted missiles.

You miss the point.

What I'm saying is that if you have adequate second-strike capability there is no need for launch on warning. The only reason to launch on warning is if you think you won't have enough left to shoot back after riding out the incoming strike. We do not need a launch on warning policy so there's no reason to think we would take the risk of having such a policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(Note: For some reason following the embedded link is not working for me, but using the copy link works.)

Debris. As if it matters.
Question is, was this an actual ammo storage facility set up to isolate groups of munitions from one another or a big empty warehouse with everything mixed together? What would a Russian do?

The more you separate the munitions the safer it is against detonations whether by accident or malice, but the greater the security perimeter that needs to be guarded. Also, proper isolation requires construction of bunkers (you want the stuff stored so that if one part blows the ground keeps the blast wave from hitting the next part), something that takes time.

Is a vicious dog on a chain a peacekeeper? I guess if you're worried about insulting the dog owner.

Peacekeepers are welcomed in.

In this case, though, what has happened is that Russia did the same thing it did in Ukraine--backed an "independence" movement, then stepped in when said movement "invited" them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see Ukraine is benefitting from a 1970's era air defense system, the Improved Hawk. Ukrainian operators like the system although it is quite vulnerable to anti radar systems. I imagine if they sense such a threat they just hit the off switch, which works. At one time it was the standard intermediate air defense system for the US military. Probably lots of old systems to get rid of shooting down Ruski missiles and drones.

Yeah.

They keep building fancier and fancier missile systems designed to deal with the best systems that might be attacking. They're built to engage modern F/A aircraft that are going to be doing things like evading (trying to force the missile into a turn it can't make), hiding behind terrain and flying very near the ground on a tangent to the emitter (Doppler radar relies on speed difference--give it zero movement towards/away from the radar and it can't separate you from terrain) and otherwise trying to trick the missile.

However, what they are mostly actually shooting at are missiles that simply fly along up high. Sitting ducks other than they're usually going pretty fast. It simply doesn't need all the fancy stuff.

Israel already learned this lesson--the result is Iron Dome. In comparison to a modern SAM the missiles are shit. But they're shooting at stuff that is simply coming in ballistically, they don't need fancy. 100 pieces of shit with a 90% kill probability against sitting ducks but little capability against a modern fighter-attack aircraft vs 1 good missile that might be able to actually kill that fighter-attack.

And they're testing Iron Beam. Hopeless against the fighter-attack, but still decent performance against a nearby sitting duck for a few dollars a shot.

We have this obsession with building the best when in many cases quantity has a quality of it's own.

Look at SpaceX vs SLS. The Falcon 9 is substantially handicapped right out of the gate by the fact that it's a kerolox engine rather than hydrolox. You pay a fair penalty for that in terms of mass fraction. It takes considerably more fuel to put a pound in orbit with kerolox--but fuel is a very small percent of the total cost of a Falcon 9 launch. SpaceX deliberately set out to make an economical rocket rather than a "best" rocket.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a bigger problem. Russia has shifted their economy into a wartime economy, and are producing weapons at a high rate. The west has not shifted their economies into wartime economies. If we did we could crush Russia like a bug. But we haven't. Yes, Russia is trashing their economy in order to win this war. But over time Russia will grind down Ukraine. The west has already sent anything that is redundant. We're now cutting into our preparedness storages. But we're not increasing production. If the current situations keeps going Russia will, over time win. In the long long term, Russia will of course run out of money, and then it'll just implode (as happened to Russia in WWI).

This omits any comparison of our production vs their production.

If our peacetime production exceeds their wartime production it doesn't matter that they are in a wartime economy.

 

[aupmanyav]

Oh boy. You're repeating this nonsense again? Imperialist countries always put the blame for their expansion on third parties.

They do. Biden: "I am running the world."

Putin gives the highest Russian award to Modi - 'Order of St. Andrews'.
Russia will help India to construct 6 nuclear power stations.
Modi tells Putin that battle-grounds give no answers.

 

[aupmanyav]

What I'm saying is that if you have adequate second-strike capability there is no need for launch on warning. The only reason to launch on warning is if you think you won't have enough left to shoot back after riding out the incoming strike. We do not need a launch on warning policy so there's no reason to think we would take the risk of having such a policy.

India subscribes to 'no first-strike' policy.

 

[zorq]

What I'm saying is that if you have adequate second-strike capability there is no need for launch on warning. The only reason to launch on warning is if you think you won't have enough left to shoot back after riding out the incoming strike. We do not need a launch on warning policy so there's no reason to think we would take the risk of having such a policy.

India subscribes to 'no first-strike' policy.

Launch on warning (LOW), or fire on warning, is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation where a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack and while its missiles are still in the air, before detonation occurs. A launch on warning policy is NOT a first strike policy.

You seem to have lost the thread of thought. The US has no need to put nukes in Russia's back yard even in new NATO countries. Why? Because the conditions to fulfill "Mutually Assured Destruction" are fulfilled without moving any of our nukes. There is no need for Russia to feel nervous about nukes in their back yard because NATO nukes moved into Finland (or anywhere else) wouldn't actually escalate the threat to Russia. Why? Because, as we keep explaining to you, NATO is a defensive alliance and they also have a "no first strike" policy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a bigger problem. Russia has shifted their economy into a wartime economy, and are producing weapons at a high rate. The west has not shifted their economies into wartime economies. If we did we could crush Russia like a bug. But we haven't. Yes, Russia is trashing their economy in order to win this war. But over time Russia will grind down Ukraine. The west has already sent anything that is redundant. We're now cutting into our preparedness storages. But we're not increasing production. If the current situations keeps going Russia will, over time win. In the long long term, Russia will of course run out of money, and then it'll just implode (as happened to Russia in WWI).

This omits any comparison of our production vs their production.

If our peacetime production exceeds their wartime production it doesn't matter that they are in a wartime economy.

But our side doesn't. Russia has both more artillery pieces as well as more ammo than Ukraine.

And artillery is important. Artillery is a lot more important than war movies have us believe. It is a problem.

If Ukraine starts getting and usinf F-16's to get air superiority ans start taking out Russian artillery. Then things will change. But we're not their yet

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine

 

[aupmanyav]

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said India can play an important role in brokering peace in Ukraine by leveraging its historical ties with Russia.

US says India can spur end to Ukraine war as PM Modi, Putin flaunt ties

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said India can play an important role in brokering peace in Ukraine by leveraging its historical ties with Russia.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[aupmanyav]

Launch on warning (LOW), or fire on warning, is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation where a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack and while its missiles are still in the air, before detonation occurs. A launch on warning policy is NOT a first strike policy.

NATO is a defensive alliance and they also have a "no first strike" policy.

No. India has a clear 'no first strike' policy. We do not have a 'launch on warning' policy. India is a principled nation. We will stick to it.
BTW, Pakistan does not subscribe to NFU, and its leaders have threatened us with that.

"The concept is primarily invoked in reference to nuclear mutually assured destruction but has also been applied to chemical and biological warfare, as is the case of the official WMD policy of India.

China and India are currently the only two nuclear powers to formally maintain a no first use policy, adopting pledges in 1964 and 1998 respectively. Both NATO and a number of its member states have repeatedly rejected calls for adopting a NFU policy, as during the lifetime of the Soviet Union a pre-emptive nuclear strike was commonly argued as a key option to afford NATO a credible nuclear deterrent, compensating for the overwhelming conventional weapon superiority enjoyed by the Soviet Army in Eurasia."

No first use - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ha, ha for NATO.

 

[Elixir]

No

No what?
We know about India’s no first strike policy. But you seem quite ignorant of NATO’s.
Also, we shall see how that holds up when India is under immediate threat.

 

[TV and credit cards]

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said India can play an important role in brokering peace in Ukraine by leveraging its historical ties with Russia.

US says India can spur end to Ukraine war as PM Modi, Putin flaunt ties

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said India can play an important role in brokering peace in Ukraine by leveraging its historical ties with Russia.

www.indiatoday.in

No shit, Sherlock.
Can't you recognize soft propaganda when you read it? What is this story other than that main comment from Karine Jean-Pierre followed up by the various bullshit peace and tranquility comments by Modi? Nothing.
Modi's visit while Russia bombed a children's hospital is reprehensible. He should have turned and left just then. Putin insulted Modi by allowing, likely directing this action at the start of Modi's visit.
If Modi meant any of his nonviolent claptrap he'd back it up with something. Anything. Or is refusing to buy energy from Russia at a discounted price too violent an act for India?

 

[ZiprHead]

Russian stuff blowing up: Russia's elite 83rd Airborne Brigade reportedly decimated at Vovchansk

There are reports that Ukraine has carried out its first strikes with F-16s. There is no confirmation of this yet, so take it with a grain of salt. Also still unconfirmed is the Ukrainian strike on Russia’s big-ticket S-500 air-defense system in...

www.dailykos.com

There are reports that Ukraine has carried out its first strikes with F-16s.

There is no confirmation of this yet, so take it with a grain of salt. Also still unconfirmed is the Ukrainian strike on Russia’s big-ticket S-500 air-defense system in Crimea.

According to a well-regarded Ukrainian correspondent who writes under the pseudonym “Nikolaev Vanek,” the 83rd Airborne Brigade has retreated from Vovchansk after a costly three-week deployment.

“The entire 83rd Airborne Brigade is urgently withdrawn to the rear to restore combat capability,” Vanek wrote. “There are too many casualties, they can't fight, there are too many 500s.”
In Russian military parlance, a “code 500” is a soldier who refuses to fight.

If confirmed, it’s a stinging loss for the new Russian northern grouping of forces, which includes around seven regiments and brigades. And Russian losses in Vovchansk could get a lot worse, as the survivors of an entire battalion—that’s hundreds of troops—have been trapped in a chemical plant in central Vovchansk for two weeks.

A Russian deputy defense minister is quite a catch for French intelligence. Since Tatyana Shevtsova is sanctioned in the West we can only assume she is spilling her guts in exchange for asylum. They have to be shitting their collective pants at the Kremlin.

She was dismissed about two weeks ago and was rumored to be neck deep in corruption. I guess she decided to take her chances in the West rather than end up on a sidewalk after an accidental fall from a window.

 

[aupmanyav]

But you seem quite ignorant of NATO’s.
Also, we shall see how that holds up when India is under immediate threat.

What NATO does is its business. India will always stick to its words.

 

[aupmanyav]

Can't you recognize soft propaganda when you read it?
He should have turned and left just then.

Propaganda or fact. What was the reason that the White House spokeswomen even raised it?
Turning away never solves any problem. Government of India does not have the same views as that of NATO.

 

[zorq]

Can't you recognize soft propaganda when you read it?
He should have turned and left just then.

Propaganda or fact. What was the reason that the White House spokeswomen even raised it?
Turning away never solves any problem. Government of India does not have the same views as that of NATO.

Clearly! India seems to believe that criminals in the process of committing the most heinous of crimes should be rewarded with profitable trade deals. What a myopic policy.

And, BTW, you still haven't justified the accusation that NATO started the war in 2014.

I don't expect you to do so successfully, but you deserve the chance to defend your words or retract them. (Barbos has had years and countless opportunities to try, but always fails to offer anything that a rational person with a functional sense of morality would accept)