9 ms·

Their main propaganda news channel has already said (incorrectly) that they are already fighting NATO and US troops in the breakaway areas. Is it time to make

Their main propaganda news channel has already said (incorrectly) that they are already fighting NATO and US troops in the breakaway areas. Is it time to make this a reality? I really don't see it ending without it happening. russia has shown that it has no regard for the suffering of any troops of any nationality. So purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict.

yrgulation 4y ago
Nein. Germany will block it. See, its very convenient to have a weak east europe.
- durnygbur 4y ago
  Their automotive industry and demography are on catastrophic crossroads, ~100 mln of people and the land between Germany and Russia are just such convenient resources.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    Their automotive industry depends on east europe, and is a massive source of pollution and clocked cars. Some countries tried banning old german cars but obviously the eu “threatened” them with “sanctions”. So its not just the resources they are after but also their pockets and health. Just here on this forum you can see many express disdain at east europeans, more than any other group of people, instead of acting like actual allies. Perhaps poland’s idea of germany paying its debt to east europe is not such a bad idea and should be taken care of in full force once this war is over.
    - eternalban 4y ago
      It is interesting how neither the Russians nor the West delves on to what extent this whole affair is about Germany, and the role Germany played in all this. Even now, the official narratives involving Germany focus on foot dragging on arming, stuff like that, whereas the actual geopolitical story is so much more 'interesting'. Btw, history calls with a rude interruption to remind that the Germans were also the first to give the Yugoslavian civil war a nice big push to get it going. https://apnews.com/article/f07f4162e6bb20a7039c69d10e526a62 https://apnews.com/article/f07f4162e6bb20a7039c69d10e526a62 p.s. EU (Germany+France) + Russia + China as foundational to next layer BRI + BRICS, countering "Anglo-Saxon" Empire of Waters. This is what the war is actually about. Take out the Schnaps and get Schroeder and Merkle drunk and they will tell you all about it. :-) [preemptive p.s.s. Yes, of course, but that's why NS2 had to be stopped.]
      - yrgulation 4y ago
        > It is interesting how neither the Russians nor the West delves on to what extent this whole affair is about Germany, and the role Germany played in all this. And thats fine, because the issue is neither russia not the west. The issue is east europe, the region of it thats sandwiched between russia and central europe (germany). Just to be clear, my aim is not germans but german politics which find it extremely convenient that a weak east europe cant compete with germany. In regards to croatia and slovenia, and pretty much all other east eu countries, indeed germany has a good humanitarian track record and has been a steady supporter of democratisation of these countries. But somehow it managed to block their development through excessive regulation, and excessive chauvinism. There is no debate about east europe on here where a person from that country doesnt throw in corruption and poverty, none of which are on a scale as bad as so dominate every.single.discussion. Americans dont exhibit the same behaviour when it comes to india, yet india is far poorer and far more corrupt than any east eu country, yet germans always poop on poland, hungary, romania, and so on. A very inhibitive approach in my view, and very non allied like behaviour.
        apurtbapurt 4y ago
        The EU is an alliance of shared interests and some very basic shared ideals. We are allies, not soulmates or lovers. That is not intended to defend people who speak ill of their neighbours. Bad manners are always ugly. Just pointing out that being nice is not a prerequisite for being a useful and even so.ewhat dependable ally.
agd 4y ago
> Is it time to make this a reality? That feels like it would increase the risk of nuclear escalation and strengthen domestic Russian support for the war.
_V_ 4y ago
I'd guess that this will end much sooner than it will come to pure population numbers on RUS/UA side of things. But the prospect of full blown WW3 is now much more real than it was a month ago, that's for sure.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  World war? Between what systems of alliance? Does China want to stand with Russia? Esp. if nukes fly as Russia has threatened, what nation will ally themselves with Russia in a full-scale global conflict?
  - _V_ 4y ago
    If I had to guess (and I'm really hoping that I'm wrong) I'd say that RUS will use small tactical nuclear weapons on UA which will trigger NATO response. Either direct on indirect but with such impact that it will not matter so RUS will escalate the conflict with NATO. China is a question but I'd say that noone is benefiting from WW3 apart from perhaps military industry. So I don't really believe China will be too happy because they have a lot going on internally and they don't really need aditional problems that RUS will inevitably cause them. But as I said: I really hope that time will prove me wrong.
    - piva00 4y ago
      > I'd say that noone is benefiting from WW3 apart from perhaps military industry. What do you mean? If nuclear escalation happens and WW3 is triggered there is absolutely no world for the military industry to benefit from. Weapons will be required, of course, so production will continue but there would be no semblance of economy or governments as we know them now. Nukes flying are world-ending, at least the human world and societies we currently experience. There's no profit to be made in total global mayhem.
      - _V_ 4y ago
        World war by itself would benefit military industry directly. That's not saying that they wish for WW3 in any means as the destruction (or crippling) of society would be huge and it would take many years to recover. WW3 does not necessarily mean nukes at all. I personally think - based on how Russian generals used the military funding to enrich themselves - that most of the Russian nukes are not operational. They might have some low-yield "tactical" nukes (something like nuclear grenades). And I seriously doubt that US would use theirs since as soon as you use nukes, everyone will and after that there is no winner anymore.
ralphhughes 4y ago
>Their main propaganda news channel has already said (incorrectly) that they are already fighting NATO and US troops in the breakaway areas. Thats interesting, I'm not doubting you but I would like to see the original source if possible, got a link?
- TheWoodsy 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1571712271063072773 https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/157171227106307277...
  - ralphhughes 4y ago
    Thanks, someone is doing a useful service translating Russian TV for the rest of us!
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Julia Davis tracks russian media. One of the examples of that is here: https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1571654410232811521 https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/157165441023281152...
- orwin 4y ago
  Stratpol vidéos in France are entertaining, but you can find on Twitter Russian media pundits talking about 'Nato army' and stuff . Some ironically (hopefully he won't fall off his window).
rozab 4y ago
What are you talking about? Ukraine has clearly demonstrated its ability to make significant territorial gains in the previous weeks. How on earth are you drawing this conclusion?
- s8s8discourse 4y ago
  I presume he is thinking on the basis of Russia deploying another 200,000 troops and the effect that may have on undoing the gains of late (whether it will or not is another matter...). Extending that thought process, if a partial mobilisation realises 200,000 troops to fight, then the next logical step after that fails is a full mobilisation with pundits suggesting up to 1,000,000 "soldiers". There is some merit in thinking that the sheer size of Russia means they can just keep churning out men for a zerg rush at a rate exceeding that which Ukraine can deal with, at a cost:benefit ratio acceptable for Russia but crushing for Ukraine.
  - trhway 4y ago
    >Russia deploying another 200,000 troops It is a very hard task even to just deploy, let alone with any gain. In February after months and months of training Russia has deployed to Ukraine about that number of the best forces it had (like Kantemirovskaya tank division). We've seen how it went. The newly mobilized forces, even after 2-3 months of announced training, will be an order of magnitude worse with worse hardware (that if China doesn't help - there is a reason Putin made the announcement right after the Shanghai Organization summit, may be China promised something, though that would most probably accelerate US hardware to Ukraine). Deploying such forces to a battlefield, especially a one like in Ukraine - as they say it is much more harsh than even Chechen war - one risks loosing them as they come. For now Russia announced plans to use them initially in the 2nd/3rd lines of defense. As an example - during recent Harkiv counter-offensive by Ukraine Russia was trying to stop Ukraine by throwing in significant new, recently recruited, additional forces without any staging, battle order forming, etc. - those forces were just destroyed as they came by Ukraine as a result. Giving Ukraine more and better weapons will nullify any Russian number advantage and thus is the shortest path to end this war.
_ph_ 4y ago
The Ukraine can do it, if it gets supplied with the weapons to do it. Even with the weapons they got so far, they managed to hurt the Russian military a lot - hence the mobilization. They got some very powerful weapons, but still limited in number and choice. Just delivering long-range ammunition for HIMARS in large numbers might be enough to break any Russian offensive as all supply and all fixed positions were easy targets. The Ukraine needs a lot of that, more air defense (the German Gepards seem to work quite well) and of course some main battle tanks. There is no need for NATO troops to get directly involved as long as there is enough supply for the Ukraine (Poland still has a bunch of Mig 29 which could be immediately be used by the Ukraine).
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  Doesn't Ukraine have a lot more to lose over time? Russia can just flatten the terrain, or ultimately nuke. The reverse isn't possible.
  - deelly 4y ago
    And?
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    > Doesn't Ukraine have a lot more to lose over time? It seems most Ukrainians agree that the worst would be to live under Russian dictatorship. Maybe they have experience in this area.
  - _V_ 4y ago
    UA fights for its national identitiy - they ultimately have everything to lose.
  - vandreas2 4y ago
    There's no 'just' in flattening a terrain or nuking.
  - ChildOfChaos 4y ago
    It seems that way to me. I'm not sure what the western forces game plan is and i'm not sure they actually want to help Ukraine too much, I think they are walking the fine line of wanting to hurt Russia enough and see what happens, but they don't want to truly arm Ukraine because if Russia really loses, they might just nuke.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
>Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict. Ukrainian equipment is getting better with western donations while russian one is effectively running out of it. The newly mobilized units won't have anything better than soviet-era versions of T-72 and T-80, BMP-1 and D-20 howitzer, not even talking about T-62M. Ammo, missle and protective equipment already is getting really low. Meanwhile, there are serious signals from US to provide M1A1 Abrams sooner than later. This measure rather aims to prevent looming crushing defeat.
- tatersolid 4y ago
  I don’t think any NATO nation will send much in the way of tanks. Tanks are a giant target on a modern battlefield. As superior as the latest Abrams might be to most other tanks, anti-tank weaponry is far better and fairly cheap these days. The Russians are “fighting the last war” again, expecting numerical superiority in armor and artillery to win. It isn’t working.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    > I don’t think any NATO nation will send much in the way of tanks. Tanks are a giant target on a modern battlefield. As superior as the latest Abrams might be to most other tanks, anti-tank weaponry is far better and fairly cheap these days. Latest Ukrainian offensive disproves your notion. Maneuver warfare still works and can be employed by capable troops. And this was with done with relative parity of equipment - situation would look way different if Ukraine had order of magnitude better western tanks.
  - megous 4y ago
    What? NATO nations already sent hundreds of tanks.
grnmamba 4y ago
A direct war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear and cause tens of millions of casualties in the best case If you want to go and fight, do it yourself
- koonsolo 4y ago
  Why? India is fighting China over a border conflict, no nukes used. Why would you think NATO securing Ukraine would end in a nuclear war? It's not as if either NATO or Russia is attacking on the others soil. Ukraine is neither NATO nor Russia, so there is no reason to claim it would be a direct conflict.
  - fellellor 4y ago
    Fighting is a stretch. It’s fisticuffs. Sometimes involves the use of melee weapons. There are agreements in place banning the use of firearms.
belorn 4y ago
> Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict. If I look at other conflicts, especially in the middle east, population numbers aren't everything. Occupying a territory cost money and people the longer it last unless the occupation is willing to commit genocide and eradicate everyone who lives there. Ukraine is also a very large country, and even with the goal of lebensraum, it will take time for Russia to move Russians settlers over there so that they don't need to spread their military to uphold control over all the land. Ukraine on the other hand can focus their military on the conflict border without needing to keep troops behind to prevent insurgence.
koonsolo 4y ago
Russians are very inconsistent in their lying. On one hand they say they are already fighting NATO troops, and on the other hand they say that NATO needs to stay away else they will use all means possible. I was in favour that NATO would secure the skies, but that is now too late I guess. Ukraine didn't even receive the latest and best equipment such as battle tanks. Once they receive those (I'm confident they will), it will make it easier for them to retake land.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  > I was in favour that NATO would secure the skies 'Securing' skies is a term that has been repeated a lot but in practice it means potentially shooting down Russian aircrafts to 'secure' a corridor. This would mean a NATO member doing an act of war against Russia _without_ the purpose of defending a NATO member state. The main argument is where do you draw the line? Why did NATO not provide air support for Georgia in South Ossetia, or for Crimea in 2014 but now does so for Donetsk in 2022? In my opinion doing so would just give Russian propaganda a stronger argument that NATO is intended on attacking Russia rather than securing it's member states.
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    Just because we closed our eyes in the past doesn't mean we need to continue doing that. It's the straw that breaks the camels back. Shooting down Russian airplanes over Ukrainian territory when they are literally bombing Ukraine is not "an act of war against Russia". That's a bit of a far stretch don't you think? If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO".
    - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
      > If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO". That is literally a casus belli. It very much is an act of war.
      - 4y ago
BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
> Is it time to make this a reality? Nobody is going to directly engage a global nuclear superpower in armed conflict unless they are literally being invaded. > purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict. Successful invasions and occupations are not decided "purely from a population perspective".
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Oh, so why did "Korean" and "Vietnamese" pilots suddenly started speaking russian when they were shot down? USSR directly engaged USA, China did the same in Korean War.
  - rjtavares 4y ago
    There are already US citizens fighting Russia in Ukraine. As long as there's plausible (or honest) deniability, USA and Russia aren't directly engaging in combat.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      >There are already US citizens fighting Russia in Ukraine. Those aren't active US serviceman.
baskire 4y ago
MrRiddle 4y ago
pjc50 4y ago
Troops are almost irrelevant, Russia are running out of materiel. And I'm not convinced they have the power structure necessary to make a human wave approach work; this isn't 1940s USSR. Men will catch on that their guns also work on their own officers. Not only that, an approach that doesn't have enough vehicles simply cannot work. They're limited to moving a few miles a day; how are they going to be supplied with food, let alone enough ammunition?
tim333 4y ago
>purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail Ukraine has a long waiting list of people wanting to fight, Russia has been having to recruit in prisons as there is a shortage or Russians wanting to go be cannon fodder. This mobilization is supposed to help that but even so I'm not sure Russia has much of a manpower advantage. Also with modern weaponry sending out crap unmotivated troops doesn't work that well - one of the first groups of prisoners sent out just surrendered to Ukraine en mass.

yrgulation 4y ago

Nein. Germany will block it. See, its very convenient to have a weak east europe.

durnygbur 4y ago
Their automotive industry and demography are on catastrophic crossroads, ~100 mln of people and the land between Germany and Russia are just such convenient resources.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- yrgulation 4y ago
  Their automotive industry depends on east europe, and is a massive source of pollution and clocked cars. Some countries tried banning old german cars but obviously the eu “threatened” them with “sanctions”. So its not just the resources they are after but also their pockets and health. Just here on this forum you can see many express disdain at east europeans, more than any other group of people, instead of acting like actual allies. Perhaps poland’s idea of germany paying its debt to east europe is not such a bad idea and should be taken care of in full force once this war is over.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    It is interesting how neither the Russians nor the West delves on to what extent this whole affair is about Germany, and the role Germany played in all this. Even now, the official narratives involving Germany focus on foot dragging on arming, stuff like that, whereas the actual geopolitical story is so much more 'interesting'. Btw, history calls with a rude interruption to remind that the Germans were also the first to give the Yugoslavian civil war a nice big push to get it going. https://apnews.com/article/f07f4162e6bb20a7039c69d10e526a62 https://apnews.com/article/f07f4162e6bb20a7039c69d10e526a62 p.s. EU (Germany+France) + Russia + China as foundational to next layer BRI + BRICS, countering "Anglo-Saxon" Empire of Waters. This is what the war is actually about. Take out the Schnaps and get Schroeder and Merkle drunk and they will tell you all about it. :-) [preemptive p.s.s. Yes, of course, but that's why NS2 had to be stopped.]
    - yrgulation 4y ago
      > It is interesting how neither the Russians nor the West delves on to what extent this whole affair is about Germany, and the role Germany played in all this. And thats fine, because the issue is neither russia not the west. The issue is east europe, the region of it thats sandwiched between russia and central europe (germany). Just to be clear, my aim is not germans but german politics which find it extremely convenient that a weak east europe cant compete with germany. In regards to croatia and slovenia, and pretty much all other east eu countries, indeed germany has a good humanitarian track record and has been a steady supporter of democratisation of these countries. But somehow it managed to block their development through excessive regulation, and excessive chauvinism. There is no debate about east europe on here where a person from that country doesnt throw in corruption and poverty, none of which are on a scale as bad as so dominate every.single.discussion. Americans dont exhibit the same behaviour when it comes to india, yet india is far poorer and far more corrupt than any east eu country, yet germans always poop on poland, hungary, romania, and so on. A very inhibitive approach in my view, and very non allied like behaviour.
      - apurtbapurt 4y ago
        The EU is an alliance of shared interests and some very basic shared ideals. We are allies, not soulmates or lovers. That is not intended to defend people who speak ill of their neighbours. Bad manners are always ugly. Just pointing out that being nice is not a prerequisite for being a useful and even so.ewhat dependable ally.

agd 4y ago

> Is it time to make this a reality? That feels like it would increase the risk of nuclear escalation and strengthen domestic Russian support for the war.

_V_ 4y ago

I'd guess that this will end much sooner than it will come to pure population numbers on RUS/UA side of things. But the prospect of full blown WW3 is now much more real than it was a month ago, that's for sure.

threatofrain 4y ago
World war? Between what systems of alliance? Does China want to stand with Russia? Esp. if nukes fly as Russia has threatened, what nation will ally themselves with Russia in a full-scale global conflict?
- _V_ 4y ago
  If I had to guess (and I'm really hoping that I'm wrong) I'd say that RUS will use small tactical nuclear weapons on UA which will trigger NATO response. Either direct on indirect but with such impact that it will not matter so RUS will escalate the conflict with NATO. China is a question but I'd say that noone is benefiting from WW3 apart from perhaps military industry. So I don't really believe China will be too happy because they have a lot going on internally and they don't really need aditional problems that RUS will inevitably cause them. But as I said: I really hope that time will prove me wrong.
  - piva00 4y ago
    > I'd say that noone is benefiting from WW3 apart from perhaps military industry. What do you mean? If nuclear escalation happens and WW3 is triggered there is absolutely no world for the military industry to benefit from. Weapons will be required, of course, so production will continue but there would be no semblance of economy or governments as we know them now. Nukes flying are world-ending, at least the human world and societies we currently experience. There's no profit to be made in total global mayhem.
    - _V_ 4y ago
      World war by itself would benefit military industry directly. That's not saying that they wish for WW3 in any means as the destruction (or crippling) of society would be huge and it would take many years to recover. WW3 does not necessarily mean nukes at all. I personally think - based on how Russian generals used the military funding to enrich themselves - that most of the Russian nukes are not operational. They might have some low-yield "tactical" nukes (something like nuclear grenades). And I seriously doubt that US would use theirs since as soon as you use nukes, everyone will and after that there is no winner anymore.

ralphhughes 4y ago

>Their main propaganda news channel has already said (incorrectly) that they are already fighting NATO and US troops in the breakaway areas. Thats interesting, I'm not doubting you but I would like to see the original source if possible, got a link?

TheWoodsy 4y ago
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1571712271063072773 https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/157171227106307277...
- ralphhughes 4y ago
  Thanks, someone is doing a useful service translating Russian TV for the rest of us!
KptMarchewa 4y ago
Julia Davis tracks russian media. One of the examples of that is here: https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1571654410232811521 https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/157165441023281152...
orwin 4y ago
Stratpol vidéos in France are entertaining, but you can find on Twitter Russian media pundits talking about 'Nato army' and stuff . Some ironically (hopefully he won't fall off his window).

rozab 4y ago

What are you talking about? Ukraine has clearly demonstrated its ability to make significant territorial gains in the previous weeks. How on earth are you drawing this conclusion?

s8s8discourse 4y ago
I presume he is thinking on the basis of Russia deploying another 200,000 troops and the effect that may have on undoing the gains of late (whether it will or not is another matter...). Extending that thought process, if a partial mobilisation realises 200,000 troops to fight, then the next logical step after that fails is a full mobilisation with pundits suggesting up to 1,000,000 "soldiers". There is some merit in thinking that the sheer size of Russia means they can just keep churning out men for a zerg rush at a rate exceeding that which Ukraine can deal with, at a cost:benefit ratio acceptable for Russia but crushing for Ukraine.
- trhway 4y ago
  >Russia deploying another 200,000 troops It is a very hard task even to just deploy, let alone with any gain. In February after months and months of training Russia has deployed to Ukraine about that number of the best forces it had (like Kantemirovskaya tank division). We've seen how it went. The newly mobilized forces, even after 2-3 months of announced training, will be an order of magnitude worse with worse hardware (that if China doesn't help - there is a reason Putin made the announcement right after the Shanghai Organization summit, may be China promised something, though that would most probably accelerate US hardware to Ukraine). Deploying such forces to a battlefield, especially a one like in Ukraine - as they say it is much more harsh than even Chechen war - one risks loosing them as they come. For now Russia announced plans to use them initially in the 2nd/3rd lines of defense. As an example - during recent Harkiv counter-offensive by Ukraine Russia was trying to stop Ukraine by throwing in significant new, recently recruited, additional forces without any staging, battle order forming, etc. - those forces were just destroyed as they came by Ukraine as a result. Giving Ukraine more and better weapons will nullify any Russian number advantage and thus is the shortest path to end this war.

_ph_ 4y ago

The Ukraine can do it, if it gets supplied with the weapons to do it. Even with the weapons they got so far, they managed to hurt the Russian military a lot - hence the mobilization. They got some very powerful weapons, but still limited in number and choice. Just delivering long-range ammunition for HIMARS in large numbers might be enough to break any Russian offensive as all supply and all fixed positions were easy targets. The Ukraine needs a lot of that, more air defense (the German Gepards seem to work quite well) and of course some main battle tanks. There is no need for NATO troops to get directly involved as long as there is enough supply for the Ukraine (Poland still has a bunch of Mig 29 which could be immediately be used by the Ukraine).

the_gipsy 4y ago
Doesn't Ukraine have a lot more to lose over time? Russia can just flatten the terrain, or ultimately nuke. The reverse isn't possible.
- deelly 4y ago
  And?
- koonsolo 4y ago
  > Doesn't Ukraine have a lot more to lose over time? It seems most Ukrainians agree that the worst would be to live under Russian dictatorship. Maybe they have experience in this area.
- _V_ 4y ago
  UA fights for its national identitiy - they ultimately have everything to lose.
- vandreas2 4y ago
  There's no 'just' in flattening a terrain or nuking.
- ChildOfChaos 4y ago
  It seems that way to me. I'm not sure what the western forces game plan is and i'm not sure they actually want to help Ukraine too much, I think they are walking the fine line of wanting to hurt Russia enough and see what happens, but they don't want to truly arm Ukraine because if Russia really loses, they might just nuke.

KptMarchewa 4y ago

>Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict. Ukrainian equipment is getting better with western donations while russian one is effectively running out of it. The newly mobilized units won't have anything better than soviet-era versions of T-72 and T-80, BMP-1 and D-20 howitzer, not even talking about T-62M. Ammo, missle and protective equipment already is getting really low. Meanwhile, there are serious signals from US to provide M1A1 Abrams sooner than later. This measure rather aims to prevent looming crushing defeat.

tatersolid 4y ago
I don’t think any NATO nation will send much in the way of tanks. Tanks are a giant target on a modern battlefield. As superior as the latest Abrams might be to most other tanks, anti-tank weaponry is far better and fairly cheap these days. The Russians are “fighting the last war” again, expecting numerical superiority in armor and artillery to win. It isn’t working.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  > I don’t think any NATO nation will send much in the way of tanks. Tanks are a giant target on a modern battlefield. As superior as the latest Abrams might be to most other tanks, anti-tank weaponry is far better and fairly cheap these days. Latest Ukrainian offensive disproves your notion. Maneuver warfare still works and can be employed by capable troops. And this was with done with relative parity of equipment - situation would look way different if Ukraine had order of magnitude better western tanks.
- megous 4y ago
  What? NATO nations already sent hundreds of tanks.

grnmamba 4y ago

A direct war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear and cause tens of millions of casualties in the best case If you want to go and fight, do it yourself

koonsolo 4y ago
Why? India is fighting China over a border conflict, no nukes used. Why would you think NATO securing Ukraine would end in a nuclear war? It's not as if either NATO or Russia is attacking on the others soil. Ukraine is neither NATO nor Russia, so there is no reason to claim it would be a direct conflict.
- fellellor 4y ago
  Fighting is a stretch. It’s fisticuffs. Sometimes involves the use of melee weapons. There are agreements in place banning the use of firearms.

belorn 4y ago

> Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict. If I look at other conflicts, especially in the middle east, population numbers aren't everything. Occupying a territory cost money and people the longer it last unless the occupation is willing to commit genocide and eradicate everyone who lives there. Ukraine is also a very large country, and even with the goal of lebensraum, it will take time for Russia to move Russians settlers over there so that they don't need to spread their military to uphold control over all the land. Ukraine on the other hand can focus their military on the conflict border without needing to keep troops behind to prevent insurgence.

koonsolo 4y ago

Russians are very inconsistent in their lying. On one hand they say they are already fighting NATO troops, and on the other hand they say that NATO needs to stay away else they will use all means possible. I was in favour that NATO would secure the skies, but that is now too late I guess. Ukraine didn't even receive the latest and best equipment such as battle tanks. Once they receive those (I'm confident they will), it will make it easier for them to retake land.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago
> I was in favour that NATO would secure the skies 'Securing' skies is a term that has been repeated a lot but in practice it means potentially shooting down Russian aircrafts to 'secure' a corridor. This would mean a NATO member doing an act of war against Russia _without_ the purpose of defending a NATO member state. The main argument is where do you draw the line? Why did NATO not provide air support for Georgia in South Ossetia, or for Crimea in 2014 but now does so for Donetsk in 2022? In my opinion doing so would just give Russian propaganda a stronger argument that NATO is intended on attacking Russia rather than securing it's member states.
- koonsolo 4y ago
  Just because we closed our eyes in the past doesn't mean we need to continue doing that. It's the straw that breaks the camels back. Shooting down Russian airplanes over Ukrainian territory when they are literally bombing Ukraine is not "an act of war against Russia". That's a bit of a far stretch don't you think? If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO".
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    > If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO". That is literally a casus belli. It very much is an act of war.
    - 4y ago

BaculumMeumEst 4y ago

> Is it time to make this a reality? Nobody is going to directly engage a global nuclear superpower in armed conflict unless they are literally being invaded. > purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict. Successful invasions and occupations are not decided "purely from a population perspective".

KptMarchewa 4y ago
Oh, so why did "Korean" and "Vietnamese" pilots suddenly started speaking russian when they were shot down? USSR directly engaged USA, China did the same in Korean War.
- rjtavares 4y ago
  There are already US citizens fighting Russia in Ukraine. As long as there's plausible (or honest) deniability, USA and Russia aren't directly engaging in combat.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    >There are already US citizens fighting Russia in Ukraine. Those aren't active US serviceman.

baskire 4y ago

MrRiddle 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago

Troops are almost irrelevant, Russia are running out of materiel. And I'm not convinced they have the power structure necessary to make a human wave approach work; this isn't 1940s USSR. Men will catch on that their guns also work on their own officers. Not only that, an approach that doesn't have enough vehicles simply cannot work. They're limited to moving a few miles a day; how are they going to be supplied with food, let alone enough ammunition?

tim333 4y ago

>purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail Ukraine has a long waiting list of people wanting to fight, Russia has been having to recruit in prisons as there is a shortage or Russians wanting to go be cannon fodder. This mobilization is supposed to help that but even so I'm not sure Russia has much of a manpower advantage. Also with modern weaponry sending out crap unmotivated troops doesn't work that well - one of the first groups of prisoners sent out just surrendered to Ukraine en mass.