9 ms·

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 - h

by _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.
  - batmanturkey 4y ago
    Your statements are not backed up with either public communication or a lack of monetary support. In fact, the US just sent over a billion more $ in military aid. Think again.
    - ChildOfChaos 4y ago
      I understand, but I feel like they are monitoring the situation and making sure they walk that line clearly. Hence why they keep trickling the spending to them, they are monitoring and adjusting. They could have done much more and given way more, why those are large numbers, it's still not on the scale truly needed to defeat Russia. They still hold back plenty. They are obviously not going to say that directly in public, so public statements mean little.
      - batmanturkey 4y ago
        I don’t think it’s so tricky to analyze: they’ve deliberately sent weapons that are effective for liberation of Ukrainian territory and not sent weapons appropriate for conquesting Russia with. Germany has its own inner soul struggle regarding moving from a pacifist stance to being able to support Ukraine, but the UK and US support hasn’t been ambiguous in any way I see it. All of this could change in a second if Pooty either messes with Moldavia/Poland/Baltics or uses um unconventional weapons. I would not consider measured responses to be an open invitation for silliness
- danielheath 4y ago
  Nukes are a possibility, but MAD has stopped us all using them for many years so far. As far as conventional arms go: Russia has quite a few planes, tanks, and artillery; however, so long as the USA wills it, the Ukraine will have more anti-air missiles, more anti-tank munitions, and more long-range rockets. In any long-range fight, being able to locate your enemy is key; the pentagons ability to identify the location of Russian positions appears to be unsurpassed. So long as they are passing this intel to the Ukraine, along with long-range weapons to act on it, any attempt at a Russian advance will be done without access to local command/supply posts.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Does MAD really protect Ukraine? Edit: suppose the old man has properly lost it. If Putin drops a tactical nuke on a Ukranian military position, will Nato really respond in kind? Seems like damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
    - tough 4y ago
      well, be damned
    - rcxdude 4y ago
      It might not be MAD but there is a really strong incentive from everyone else to maintain the nuclear taboo. Russia can expect NATO to get directly involved in the conventional war as well as losing their remaining allies if they do that. Whether that leads to further escalation or not is up to them.
    - batmanturkey 4y ago
      Speculation city, and Biden did clarify precisely a response to that a few days ago. The strength of the response depends upon the relative strength of the attack. Putin has been threatening nuclear holocaust for months now, and he would be wise to not do foolish things from his petulant temper tendencies. Bullies can’t accept people standing up to them, but them typically show themselves to be spineless cowards when the medicine is returned in force. It’s kind of characteristic of how bullies are formed from weak oppressed victim types who go sour and decide inflicting pain downstream is some solution to what ails their souls.
- pjc50 4y ago
  It's not clear that they can "flatten" significant areas, they've already shown signs of being constrained by supply of ammunition. Especially since the US satellites can point out where the ammunition dumps are and the Ukranians can blow them up.
camjw 4y ago
Calling Ukraine "The Ukraine" is a Russian tactic to make Ukraine seem less like a country and more like a region. Quoting from wikipedia: > However, since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, [calling Ukraine "The Ukraine"] has become politicised and is now rarer, and style guides advise against its use. US ambassador William Taylor said that using "the Ukraine" implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  He's probably not trying to marginalize Ukraine. Billions of people grew up with that language, and it just takes time to get used to the change. The world used to call Argentina "The Argentine," but that changed, too. There are a number of similar examples in the last hundred years or so. Not everything is overnight, and your own link states that the change in terminology is both political, and recent. And while Wikipedia states the change was 1991, it's not like every person on the planet got a memo in the mail the next day letting them know what the new, approved, language is. For millions, it's still newish information.
- azangru 4y ago
  > Calling Ukraine "The Ukraine" is a Russian tactic... This is just wrong. If you search for the word Ukraine on the Russian government site kremlin.ru (there is an English-language version), you will find that this word is used there without the article. I am sure you'll get the same results if you search RT's web site. The article isn't the Russians' doing, especially given that there aren't any articles in most Slavic languages, including Russian. It is a historical happenstance of the English language, probably back from the time when the name Ukraine was perceived as meaning borderland. People using it probably do so because they learnt the word decades ago.
  - dandanua 4y ago
    Russians refer to Ukraine as a territory in their language by using preposition "на" instead of "в". They don't respect sovereignty of Ukraine in their language. "Ukraine" doesn't mean borderland, it's another Russian attitude with the aim to humiliate Ukrainian nation. You can also look at the map and see who is really a borderland of the civilized world.
orlp 4y ago
FYI "The Ukraine" is a term pushed by Russian influences to make you think of it as a region (literally translated "the borderlands") as opposed to a sovereign state. The country is just called Ukraine.

by _ph_ 4y ago

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.
- batmanturkey 4y ago
  Your statements are not backed up with either public communication or a lack of monetary support. In fact, the US just sent over a billion more $ in military aid. Think again.
  - ChildOfChaos 4y ago
    I understand, but I feel like they are monitoring the situation and making sure they walk that line clearly. Hence why they keep trickling the spending to them, they are monitoring and adjusting. They could have done much more and given way more, why those are large numbers, it's still not on the scale truly needed to defeat Russia. They still hold back plenty. They are obviously not going to say that directly in public, so public statements mean little.
    - batmanturkey 4y ago
      I don’t think it’s so tricky to analyze: they’ve deliberately sent weapons that are effective for liberation of Ukrainian territory and not sent weapons appropriate for conquesting Russia with. Germany has its own inner soul struggle regarding moving from a pacifist stance to being able to support Ukraine, but the UK and US support hasn’t been ambiguous in any way I see it. All of this could change in a second if Pooty either messes with Moldavia/Poland/Baltics or uses um unconventional weapons. I would not consider measured responses to be an open invitation for silliness
danielheath 4y ago
Nukes are a possibility, but MAD has stopped us all using them for many years so far. As far as conventional arms go: Russia has quite a few planes, tanks, and artillery; however, so long as the USA wills it, the Ukraine will have more anti-air missiles, more anti-tank munitions, and more long-range rockets. In any long-range fight, being able to locate your enemy is key; the pentagons ability to identify the location of Russian positions appears to be unsurpassed. So long as they are passing this intel to the Ukraine, along with long-range weapons to act on it, any attempt at a Russian advance will be done without access to local command/supply posts.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Does MAD really protect Ukraine? Edit: suppose the old man has properly lost it. If Putin drops a tactical nuke on a Ukranian military position, will Nato really respond in kind? Seems like damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
  - tough 4y ago
    well, be damned
  - rcxdude 4y ago
    It might not be MAD but there is a really strong incentive from everyone else to maintain the nuclear taboo. Russia can expect NATO to get directly involved in the conventional war as well as losing their remaining allies if they do that. Whether that leads to further escalation or not is up to them.
  - batmanturkey 4y ago
    Speculation city, and Biden did clarify precisely a response to that a few days ago. The strength of the response depends upon the relative strength of the attack. Putin has been threatening nuclear holocaust for months now, and he would be wise to not do foolish things from his petulant temper tendencies. Bullies can’t accept people standing up to them, but them typically show themselves to be spineless cowards when the medicine is returned in force. It’s kind of characteristic of how bullies are formed from weak oppressed victim types who go sour and decide inflicting pain downstream is some solution to what ails their souls.
pjc50 4y ago
It's not clear that they can "flatten" significant areas, they've already shown signs of being constrained by supply of ammunition. Especially since the US satellites can point out where the ammunition dumps are and the Ukranians can blow them up.

camjw 4y ago

Calling Ukraine "The Ukraine" is a Russian tactic to make Ukraine seem less like a country and more like a region. Quoting from wikipedia: > However, since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, [calling Ukraine "The Ukraine"] has become politicised and is now rarer, and style guides advise against its use. US ambassador William Taylor said that using "the Ukraine" implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.

reaperducer 4y ago
He's probably not trying to marginalize Ukraine. Billions of people grew up with that language, and it just takes time to get used to the change. The world used to call Argentina "The Argentine," but that changed, too. There are a number of similar examples in the last hundred years or so. Not everything is overnight, and your own link states that the change in terminology is both political, and recent. And while Wikipedia states the change was 1991, it's not like every person on the planet got a memo in the mail the next day letting them know what the new, approved, language is. For millions, it's still newish information.
azangru 4y ago
> Calling Ukraine "The Ukraine" is a Russian tactic... This is just wrong. If you search for the word Ukraine on the Russian government site kremlin.ru (there is an English-language version), you will find that this word is used there without the article. I am sure you'll get the same results if you search RT's web site. The article isn't the Russians' doing, especially given that there aren't any articles in most Slavic languages, including Russian. It is a historical happenstance of the English language, probably back from the time when the name Ukraine was perceived as meaning borderland. People using it probably do so because they learnt the word decades ago.
- dandanua 4y ago
  Russians refer to Ukraine as a territory in their language by using preposition "на" instead of "в". They don't respect sovereignty of Ukraine in their language. "Ukraine" doesn't mean borderland, it's another Russian attitude with the aim to humiliate Ukrainian nation. You can also look at the map and see who is really a borderland of the civilized world.

orlp 4y ago

FYI "The Ukraine" is a term pushed by Russian influences to make you think of it as a region (literally translated "the borderlands") as opposed to a sovereign state. The country is just called Ukraine.