Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 5

[paulrockliffe]

Report today in the press that after Ukraine snuck that Patriot forward and downed 5 aircraft over Russia a few weeks ago both the US and Germany went mental and that's why it hasn't happened again, and also why Russia is able to fly planes to the border, launch glide bombs at Kharkiv and fk off home again the tts. How many more civilians need to be blown up in supermarkets?

In other news, the US is refusing to sign-off various bits of kit going to Ukraine, kit that Sweden has on it's Grippen's that were going to Ukraine, so those aren't happening now. Of course Sweden isn't restricting the use of their kit so they would have been able to shoot down stuff over Russia, whereas the F16s that might show up eventually won't be able to do that.

So no matter how good those F16s are, they can't achieve air superiority anywhere in Ukraine that is in range of missiles fired from planes that can stay in Russia because they can't be shot down.

The whole thing is pathetic, naive and embarrassing.

[hidetheelephants]

FFS.

[paulw123]

paulrockliffe said:

Report today in the press that after Ukraine snuck that Patriot forward and downed 5 aircraft over Russia a few weeks ago both the US and Germany went mental and that's why it hasn't happened again, and also why Russia is able to fly planes to the border, launch glide bombs at Kharkiv and fk off home again the tts. How many more civilians need to be blown up in supermarkets?

In other news, the US is refusing to sign-off various bits of kit going to Ukraine, kit that Sweden has on it's Grippen's that were going to Ukraine, so those aren't happening now. Of course Sweden isn't restricting the use of their kit so they would have been able to shoot down stuff over Russia, whereas the F16s that might show up eventually won't be able to do that.

So no matter how good those F16s are, they can't achieve air superiority anywhere in Ukraine that is in range of missiles fired from planes that can stay in Russia because they can't be shot down.

The whole thing is pathetic, naive and embarrassing.

Ukraine have had one hand tied behind their backs since the invasion, whilst their brave young men and civilians are killed, it's disgusting behaviour by the cowards concerned.

[The Gauge]

Talksteer said:

We don't know it's SF and in fact I would doubt that is who you'd send.

I'm not allowed to say whether I'm SAS or not, and I'm not allowed to talk about whether we are in Ukraine or not, so please dont ask me to say.

[martynr]

paulw123 said:

paulrockliffe said:

Report today in the press that after Ukraine snuck that Patriot forward and downed 5 aircraft over Russia a few weeks ago both the US and Germany went mental and that's why it hasn't happened again, and also why Russia is able to fly planes to the border, launch glide bombs at Kharkiv and fk off home again the tts. How many more civilians need to be blown up in supermarkets?

In other news, the US is refusing to sign-off various bits of kit going to Ukraine, kit that Sweden has on it's Grippen's that were going to Ukraine, so those aren't happening now. Of course Sweden isn't restricting the use of their kit so they would have been able to shoot down stuff over Russia, whereas the F16s that might show up eventually won't be able to do that.

So no matter how good those F16s are, they can't achieve air superiority anywhere in Ukraine that is in range of missiles fired from planes that can stay in Russia because they can't be shot down.

The whole thing is pathetic, naive and embarrassing.

Ukraine have had one hand tied behind their backs since the invasion, whilst their brave young men and civilians are killed, it's disgusting behaviour by the cowards concerned.

More like both hands behind their back. This could have been done and dusted in 2022 more or less, but US backed out... And now NATO has no shells they could supply...

[Oliver Hardy]

BBC report on the news seem to suggest Russia is gaining and has learnt how to deal with Ukrainian forces?

Also it suggest these backing Ukraine are loosing interest.

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Wednesday 29th May 00:27

[BikeBikeBIke]

Oliver Hardy said:

BBC report on the news seem to suggest Russia is gaining and has learnt how to deal with Ukrainian forces?

Also it suggest these backing Ukraine are loosing interest.

I sense America is going to be more isolationist regardless of who wins the Election.

Europe? When it comes to a choice between permanantly homing millions of Ukranian Refugees or properly supporting Ukraine there will only be one choice. The likes of Poland aren't going to want Russia on their border either.

Also let's not forget this is peak Russia. Their military budget drops next year.

Plus the Russian offensive is pretty uninspiring. They're going nowhere at great cost.

So things look pretty bleak for Ukraine but I'm still thinking this is gonna freeze somewhere well in the East of Ukraine amd Russia won't get to Odessa.

[isaldiri]

paulrockliffe said:

Report today in the press that after Ukraine snuck that Patriot forward and downed 5 aircraft over Russia a few weeks ago both the US and Germany went mental and that's why it hasn't happened again, and also why Russia is able to fly planes to the border, launch glide bombs at Kharkiv and fk off home again the tts. How many more civilians need to be blown up in supermarkets?

In other news, the US is refusing to sign-off various bits of kit going to Ukraine, kit that Sweden has on it's Grippen's that were going to Ukraine, so those aren't happening now. Of course Sweden isn't restricting the use of their kit so they would have been able to shoot down stuff over Russia, whereas the F16s that might show up eventually won't be able to do that.

So no matter how good those F16s are, they can't achieve air superiority anywhere in Ukraine that is in range of missiles fired from planes that can stay in Russia because they can't be shot down.

The whole thing is pathetic, naive and embarrassing.

Weren't there quite a few posts near the end of the last thread stating that the US had allowed Ukraine to strike targets into Russia?

[Cheib]

There’s been some talk that both Blinken and Johnson (he who objected/obstructed the $60bil aid package so long) are both pro the US allowing their weapons to be used to attack Russian forces within Russia itself. I think that needs to happen for Ukraine to have any chance in this war.

Europe also needs to get its st together and understand the consequences for the whole of Europe if Russia wins….that requires the nations that are doing very,very little compared to their economic potential to step up. Eg Italy, Belgium, Spain, Austria etc The EU is giving massive financial aid to Ukraine but unfortunately they need to do much more with weapons system. The Europeans have apparently been blocking the seizing if the $300 bil of Russian assets frozen in the European financial system….maybe they need to think a bit harder about that.

[BrettMRC]

In short, no one really knows who is being told what.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Oliver Hardy said:

BBC report on the news seem to suggest Russia is gaining and has learnt how to deal with Ukrainian forces?

Also it suggest these backing Ukraine are loosing interest.

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Wednesday 29th May 00:27

Russia can stick this out for years. Its already been a decade, 2 full war.

[sugerbear]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oliver Hardy said:

BBC report on the news seem to suggest Russia is gaining and has learnt how to deal with Ukrainian forces?

Also it suggest these backing Ukraine are loosing interest.

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Wednesday 29th May 00:27

Russia can stick this out for years. Its already been a decade, 2 full war.

Maybe that is exactly what the US wants. A constant and steady war where they can feed enough weapons (most end of life) to just about keep Ukraine afloat but not enough to allow them to make any major push back. There will be a constant destruction of Russian weapons and personnel until at some point Putin is deposed or dies leaving a very much depleted Russia. The war in Ukraine stretches Russia in other regions (Africa/Iran) where the US wants to dominate.

At least that is what it feels like and given their interference in other countries not entirely unrealistic.

[BikeBikeBIke]

BrettMRC said:

In short, no one really knows who is being told what.

This. It's reported all over that Ukraine are forbidden from strikes in Russia with US weapons but they've already done it, a lot.

We have no idea what the ROE are, I suspect they're a lot more nuanced than "don't hit Russia".

[Adam.]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Nobody wants Russian Gas.

Europe are buying our gas elsewhere and China don't want to make the same mistake as Europe and become dependant on Russian gas.
Buy our gas so we can invade you and blackmail you put of fighting back is not a good marketing strategy.

https://x.com/AgatheDemarais/status/17953492862861...

An over-simplification but they certainly have issues

good article here:
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications...

[daveco]

sugerbear said:

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oliver Hardy said:

BBC report on the news seem to suggest Russia is gaining and has learnt how to deal with Ukrainian forces?

Also it suggest these backing Ukraine are loosing interest.

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Wednesday 29th May 00:27

Russia can stick this out for years. Its already been a decade, 2 full war.

Maybe that is exactly what the US wants. A constant and steady war where they can feed enough weapons (most end of life) to just about keep Ukraine afloat but not enough to allow them to make any major push back. There will be a constant destruction of Russian weapons and personnel until at some point Putin is deposed or dies leaving a very much depleted Russia. The war in Ukraine stretches Russia in other regions (Africa/Iran) where the US wants to dominate.

At least that is what it feels like and given their interference in other countries not entirely unrealistic.

This is what I think too.

You'd have to assume that US has the best satellite intel/intel available, which clearly shows that Russia are taking heavy losses on just about every day of this war so far.

Better to bleed them dry over 5-10 years than to defeat them quickly, as that sort of humiliation would be weaponised politically by the Russian media/politicians.

[paua]

daveco said:

sugerbear said:

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oliver Hardy said:

BBC report on the news seem to suggest Russia is gaining and has learnt how to deal with Ukrainian forces?

Also it suggest these backing Ukraine are loosing interest.

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Wednesday 29th May 00:27

Russia can stick this out for years. Its already been a decade, 2 full war.

Maybe that is exactly what the US wants. A constant and steady war where they can feed enough weapons (most end of life) to just about keep Ukraine afloat but not enough to allow them to make any major push back. There will be a constant destruction of Russian weapons and personnel until at some point Putin is deposed or dies leaving a very much depleted Russia. The war in Ukraine stretches Russia in other regions (Africa/Iran) where the US wants to dominate.

At least that is what it feels like and given their interference in other countries not entirely unrealistic.

This is what I think too.

You'd have to assume that US has the best satellite intel/intel available, which clearly shows that Russia are taking heavy losses on just about every day of this war so far.

Better to bleed them dry over 5-10 years than to defeat them quickly, as that sort of humiliation would be weaponised politically by the Russian media/politicians.

You may well be right, however, there's a dreadful & overlooked, human cost in your analyses. I'd prefer proper engagement/ get it over & done with. russia needs humiliated.

[paulrockliffe]

isaldiri said:

Weren't there quite a few posts near the end of the last thread stating that the US had allowed Ukraine to strike targets into Russia?

There were, but it was almost immediately clarified and rowed back from. What was said was that they're Ukraine's weapons now, they can do what they want with them. That's obviously true, but the quote didn't say they could do what they want with them without consequence.

No one is stopping Ukraine developing an aircraft-mounted ATACMS thingy and going on a suicide mission to drop one on the Kremlin, but if they do anything like that they won't see another US made bit of kit delivered.

We know the US haven't said that at all because if they had there would be 10s of downed jets, videos of barracks inside Russia being flattened by ATACMS and that supermarket in Kharkiv would still be standing.

[crofty1984]

daveco said:

sugerbear said:

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oliver Hardy said:

BBC report on the news seem to suggest Russia is gaining and has learnt how to deal with Ukrainian forces?

Also it suggest these backing Ukraine are loosing interest.

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Wednesday 29th May 00:27

Russia can stick this out for years. Its already been a decade, 2 full war.

Maybe that is exactly what the US wants. A constant and steady war where they can feed enough weapons (most end of life) to just about keep Ukraine afloat but not enough to allow them to make any major push back. There will be a constant destruction of Russian weapons and personnel until at some point Putin is deposed or dies leaving a very much depleted Russia. The war in Ukraine stretches Russia in other regions (Africa/Iran) where the US wants to dominate.

At least that is what it feels like and given their interference in other countries not entirely unrealistic.

This is what I think too.

You'd have to assume that US has the best satellite intel/intel available, which clearly shows that Russia are taking heavy losses on just about every day of this war so far.

Better to bleed them dry over 5-10 years than to defeat them quickly, as that sort of humiliation would be weaponised politically by the Russian media/politicians.

Go Team America. Very easy for them to spend Ukranian lives to their own benefit. I'd like to think you're wrong, but fear you're not.

[paulrockliffe]

daveco said:

This is what I think too.

You'd have to assume that US has the best satellite intel/intel available, which clearly shows that Russia are taking heavy losses on just about every day of this war so far.

Better to bleed them dry over 5-10 years than to defeat them quickly, as that sort of humiliation would be weaponised politically by the Russian media/politicians.

I'd love that to be true, regardless of the obvious and concentrated human cost it may even be the best option, who knows.

But I'm fairly sure the calculation is no more nuanced than, "Ukraine can't lose, but Russia can't either." What we're seeing is the US bumbling from one side of that to the other and back again, rather than anything you could describe as strategic.

See the Afghanistan withdrawal for details. See the Red Sea fiasco for details. Have a look at that pier in Gaza for details. If it's still above water this morning?

The strategic approach would see the US and France pushing Russia out of Africa and they'd have been kicked out of Syria long ago, with the ultimate aim of seeing the Black Sea fleet completely sunk by Ukraine, the Baltic fleet stuck in port and the shadow fleet confiscated. Russian's kicked out of Europe and largely left to play on their own where they can't bother anyone else. Transnistria and Kaliningrad unviable. Instead we see random Russian civilian ships bottom-dredging on top of undersea cables in the Baltic, GPS jamming all over the Baltic, sabotage across Europe and everyone pretending it isn't happening.

[crofty1984]

The Gauge said:

Talksteer said:

We don't know it's SF and in fact I would doubt that is who you'd send.

I'm not allowed to say whether I'm SAS or not, and I'm not allowed to talk about whether we are in Ukraine or not, so please dont ask me to say.

In the spirit of contributing to this thread, I am able to confirm whether I'm in the SAS or not.

I'm not. You're welcome.