Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

[Roger Wilco]

I'm also willing to entertain that most Russian equipment is not scrupulously and meticulosity maintained to the highest standards as rough conditions would require it be.

Just saw this

https://twitter.com/x/status/1499164271900774400

 

[amd6502]

Latest intel shared was that the advance on Kyiv from the north has progressed little. Probably due to a myriad of factors like desertions, failed equipment, drone missiles, blown bridges, ambushes, etc. They can't get off the road because the mud will get them (as countless pics of stuck equipment have proved). Russians are clearly making better progress in the south though.

Hopefully the development is better on the diplomatic front. Ukranian mud is quite the stuff of the universe. Imho, it doesn't need more blood of any type. and the reality is that there is pretty much zero chance that Russians will abandon its existence via an almost 70 year old structure of MAD by allowing NATO on its doorstep. For those that have a hard time comprehending this, imagine if Russia moved just 10% of its nuclear arsenal to Cuba, giving our nuclear strategic defense forces (eg Norad) completely inadequate time to respond to a crippling strike. Add to this future technology such ECM blinding detection of launches and trajectories of ballistic missiles, this makes a clear case that this isn't a flexible issue. Right now there clearly is a flooding of weapons such as infantry manpads and guided anti-armor rockets. All this will do is spill more blood on Ukranian mud, from both sides.

 

[Spicedaddy]

Hopefully the development is better on the diplomatic front. Ukranian mud is quite the stuff of the universe. Imho, it doesn't need more blood of any type. and the reality is that there is pretty much zero chance that Russians will abandon its existence via an almost 70 year old structure of MAD by allowing NATO on its doorstep. For those that have a hard time comprehending this, imagine if Russia moved just 10% of its nuclear arsenal to Cuba, giving our nuclear strategic defense forces (eg Norad) completely inadequate time to respond to a crippling strike. Add to this future technology such ECM blinding detection of launches and trajectories of ballistic missiles, this makes a clear case that this isn't a flexible issue. Right now there clearly is a flooding of weapons such as infantry manpads and guided anti-armor rockets. All this will do is spill more blood on Ukranian mud, from both sides.

The way things are going, Ukraine just needs to hold another week and the Putin regime will collapse.

 

[quikah]

Hopefully the development is better on the diplomatic front. Ukranian mud is quite the stuff of the universe. Imho, it doesn't need more blood of any type. and the reality is that there is pretty much zero chance that Russians will abandon its existence via an almost 70 year old structure of MAD by allowing NATO on its doorstep.

NATO has been on its doorstep for almost 20 years (Baltic states).

 

[RnR_au]

NATO has been on its doorstep for almost 20 years (Baltic states).

And Russia helped sort out the borders so that it could happen.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

It's genuinely amazing that, when talking about NATO expansion, NATO's the only side with any agency. Like Russia's just sat there and watched it happen, instead of being damn near the entire reason NATO is still a thing.

 

[Meghan54]

Hopefully the development is better on the diplomatic front. Ukranian mud is quite the stuff of the universe. Imho, it doesn't need more blood of any type. and the reality is that there is pretty much zero chance that Russians will abandon its existence via an almost 70 year old structure of MAD by allowing NATO on its doorstep. For those that have a hard time comprehending this, imagine if Russia moved just 10% of its nuclear arsenal to Cuba, giving our nuclear strategic defense forces (eg Norad) completely inadequate time to respond to a crippling strike. Add to this future technology such ECM blinding detection of launches and trajectories of ballistic missiles, this makes a clear case that this isn't a flexible issue. Right now there clearly is a flooding of weapons such as infantry manpads and guided anti-armor rockets. All this will do is spill more blood on Ukranian mud, from both sides.

So, let’s dissect this. Since 1997, Lithuania, Hungary, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria all joining NATO weren’t enough to get Russia to act militarily, but Ukraine just contemplating joining NATO was it?

Really? 13 countries actually joining was just peachy keen but “Never Ukraine” I guess…for some untold “secret” reason.

And no really convincing argument can really be made when you have 13 countries joining over the last two decades without Russia throwing a hissy fit like is happening in Ukraine. So what took so long for Russia to “feel” threatened? Not like NATO suddenly popped up.

 

[RnR_au]

It's genuinely amazing that, when talking about NATO expansion, NATO's the only side with any agency. Like Russia's just sat there and watched it happen, instead of being damn near the entire reason NATO is still a thing.

There was even talk of Russia joining NATO at one point.

 

[amd6502]

The way things are going, Ukraine just needs to hold another week and the Putin regime will collapse.

I would say it's going to be closer to two weeks to flatten this curve. To those still struggling with this, take a step back, chill out to Paul Joseph Watson red pills, and then watch the 1998 true-man show (not in any particular order, or try all six different combinations/sequences). Given enough repetition, just about everyone should eventually get it.


.

 

[Meghan54]

I would say it's going to be closer to two weeks to flatten this curve. To those still struggling with this, take a step back, chill out to Paul Joseph Watson red pills, and then watch the 1998 true-man show (not in any particular order, or try all six different combinations/sequences). Given enough repetition, just about everyone should eventually get it.


.

Yep…Putin apologist bot. Condescending, too…so typical.

You still have yet to put forth any rational reason why 13 nations joining NATO over the last two decades, nations that share borders with Russia, never caused Russia to attempt to “liberate” those states…while Ukraine not joining NATO made Putin attack.

 

[Dave_5k]

Hopefully the development is better on the diplomatic front. Ukranian mud is quite the stuff of the universe. Imho, it doesn't need more blood of any type. and the reality is that there is pretty much zero chance that Russians will abandon its existence via an almost 70 year old structure of MAD by allowing NATO on its doorstep. For those that have a hard time comprehending this, imagine if Russia moved just 10% of its nuclear arsenal to Cuba, giving our nuclear strategic defense forces (eg Norad) completely inadequate time to respond to a crippling strike. Add to this future technology such ECM blinding detection of launches and trajectories of ballistic missiles, this makes a clear case that this isn't a flexible issue. Right now there clearly is a flooding of weapons such as infantry manpads and guided anti-armor rockets. All this will do is spill more blood on Ukranian mud, from both sides.

Ukraine unilaterally disarmed all nukes, and is a compliant member of the non proliferation treaty. This was in exchange for a guarantee that US and Russia would respect its sovereign territory. A treaty Putin has repeatedly violated.

There was precisely zero chance of this Ukraine nuke status changing, claims to the contrary are clearly Russia planted talking points. There was also no near term appetite to have Ukraine join NATO, and even if it did a decade or so from now, it would never have hosted nukes.

Putin has at no point signaled any interest in diplomacy, short of delusions about unconditional surrender of Ukraine and dismantling NATO from Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, Putin is progressing toward putting nuke cruise missiles banned by the INF treaty into Belarus, yet another treaty he blatantly violated, putting difficult to track nukes within a few minutes of most European capitals, and potentially under the launch control of yet another dictator in violation of the non proliferation treaty. It is quite clear the sole issue undermining stability - Putin.

 

[Zorba]

Hopefully the development is better on the diplomatic front. Ukranian mud is quite the stuff of the universe. Imho, it doesn't need more blood of any type. and the reality is that there is pretty much zero chance that Russians will abandon its existence via an almost 70 year old structure of MAD by allowing NATO on its doorstep. For those that have a hard time comprehending this, imagine if Russia moved just 10% of its nuclear arsenal to Cuba, giving our nuclear strategic defense forces (eg Norad) completely inadequate time to respond to a crippling strike. Add to this future technology such ECM blinding detection of launches and trajectories of ballistic missiles, this makes a clear case that this isn't a flexible issue. Right now there clearly is a flooding of weapons such as infantry manpads and guided anti-armor rockets. All this will do is spill more blood on Ukranian mud, from both sides.

Just because NATO is there doesn't mean nukes would be.

 

[amd6502]

So, let’s dissect this. Since 1997, Lithuania, Hungary, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria all joining NATO weren’t enough to get Russia to act militarily, but Ukraine just contemplating joining NATO was it?

Really? 13 countries actually joining was just peachy keen but “Never Ukraine” I guess…for some untold “secret” reason.

And no really convincing argument can really be made when you have 13 countries joining over the last two decades without Russia throwing a hissy fit like is happening in Ukraine. So what took so long for Russia to “feel” threatened? Not like NATO suddenly popped up.

Because of proximity to Moscow, Latvia and Estonia would be an issue if they went nuclear. The very level terrain of these northern Baltics doesn't make them a much smaller threat if those were to ever have NATO troops build up in large numbers.

 

[Zorba]

Ukraine unilaterally disarmed all nukes, and is a compliant member of the non proliferation treaty. This was in exchange for a guarantee that US and Russia would respect its sovereign territory. A treaty Putin has repeatedly violated.

There was precisely zero chance of this Ukraine nuke status changing, claims to the contrary are clearly Russia planted talking points. There was also no near term appetite to have Ukraine join NATO, and even if it did a decade or so from now, it would never have hosted nukes.

Putin has at no point signaled any interest in diplomacy, short of delusions about unconditional surrender of Ukraine and dismantling NATO from Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, Putin is progressing toward putting nuke cruise missiles banned by the INF treaty into Belarus, yet another treaty he blatantly violated, putting difficult to track nukes within a few minutes of most European capitals, and potentially under the launch control of yet another dictator in violation of the non proliferation treaty. It is quite clear the sole issue undermining stability - Putin.

To be fair, Trump killed the INF treaty. I'm sure because Putin wanted him to.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hopefully the development is better on the diplomatic front. Ukranian mud is quite the stuff of the universe. Imho, it doesn't need more blood of any type. and the reality is that there is pretty much zero chance that Russians will abandon its existence via an almost 70 year old structure of MAD by allowing NATO on its doorstep.

All Russia had to do, for continued existence, is not attack the West.
We were continuing to integrate and become friendly coexisting civilizations.
Their lust for the blood of innocents has put an end to 80 years of peace.

Only way forward now is a surrender, or this fire will not stop until until they have all burned.

 

[amd6502]

Just because NATO is there doesn't mean nukes would be.

It seems like that would be a matter of time. There were NATO non-expansion accords already broken, with a trend of greater and greater boldness. What is the point of continually ratcheting the tension this way?

 

[Meghan54]

Because of proximity to Moscow, Latvia and Estonia would be an issue if they went nuclear. The very level terrain of these northern Baltics doesn't make them a much smaller threat if those were to ever have NATO troops build up in large numbers.

Still no rational reason given, I see. The proximity of Moscow to any of those NATO members is irrelevant, given what a cruise missile can accomplish these days.

 

[amd6502]

To be fair, Trump killed the INF treaty. I'm sure because Putin wanted him to.

I don't see the evidence that Putin wanted the INF treaty to be broken. But I feel like this is an important point.

 

[amd6502]

Still no rational reason given, I see. The proximity of Moscow to any of those NATO members is irrelevant, given what a cruise missile can accomplish these days.

Cruise missiles aren't really the main problem; I think most cruise are subsonic speeds (relatively slow subsonic at that) and have a somewhat faster "last mile" terminal stage. Ballistic missiles and near future hypersonic missiles are more of the problem. They won't provide enough time for a sane response. That's why you have 60+ years of MAD structure coming apart.

 

[Dave_5k]

To be fair, Trump killed the INF treaty. I'm sure because Putin wanted him to.

I don't see the evidence that Putin wanted the INF treaty to be broken. But I feel like this is an important point.

After 5 odd years of trying to get Russia to comply, and failing, this is one Trump was handed a good excuse to cancel. See the 9M729 (SSC-8) history.

9M729 (SSC-8) | Missile Threat

The SSC-8 is a Russian ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 2,500 km. Its development prompted the 2019 U.S. withdrawel from the 1987 INF Treaty.

missilethreat.csis.org

 

[Dave_5k]

Cruise missiles aren't really the main problem; I think most cruise are subsonic speeds (relatively slow subsonic at that) and have a somewhat faster "last mile" terminal stage. Ballistic missiles and near future hypersonic missiles are more of the problem. They won't provide enough time for a sane response. That's why you have 60+ years of MAD structure coming apart.

Fair, the SSC-8 is indeed slower than I thought

 

[amd6502]

After 5 odd years of trying to get Russia to comply, and failing, this is one Trump was handed a good excuse to cancel. See the 9M729 (SSC-8) history.

9M729 (SSC-8) | Missile Threat

The SSC-8 is a Russian ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 2,500 km. Its development prompted the 2019 U.S. withdrawel from the 1987 INF Treaty.

missilethreat.csis.org

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this and will need to research some of this background info. I actually really don't especially like researching military weapons of insanity but because of recent developments feel like I'm forced to look at these things; brings back flashback memories of the early pandemic.

From wikipedia:

The United States has argued that the 9M728/9M729 (SSC-X-7/SSC-X-8) cruise missiles used by Iskander-K violates the INF Treaty because their estimated range is beyond 500 km.

This is pretty depressing topic we are all facing, independent on what side of the political fency you are. I'm definitely done for the night, adios.

 

[Meghan54]

Cruise missiles aren't really the main problem; I think most cruise are subsonic speeds (relatively slow subsonic at that) and have a somewhat faster "last mile" terminal stage. Ballistic missiles and near future hypersonic missiles are more of the problem. They won't provide enough time for a sane response. That's why you have 60+ years of MAD structure coming apart.

Again, why is Ukraine different than the rest of the Baltic nations which joined NATO? This is the underlying question. What’s the rationale as to why Russia was fine with NATO allied countries on its borders for decades yet Ukraine is being attacked because….? And it ain’t cause of nukes or NATO membership.

 

[Roger Wilco]

If Russian troops are sabotaging their own ground vehicles, I wonder what they’re doing to the Air Force…

 

[kage69]

Get the word out!