6 ms·

It's been long time coming, Russia needs to be dealt with. Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles, let them attack the oil fields, powerplants, re

by ajuc 2y ago

It's been long time coming, Russia needs to be dealt with. Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles, let them attack the oil fields, powerplants, refineries etc. Seize the shadow fleet tankers. Sanction Russia for real. It will be cheaper and safer than the alternative. If we did this 2 years ago this war would be over by now and hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't die for no reason. Every month of delay makes the costs higher and larger-scale war more likely.

zkid18 2y ago
I wonder who you are referring to when you say "we"
- dagenleg 2y ago
  I think the poster refers to NATO countries. Considering you are a Russian citizen, it's safe to say you're not included in this "we". Although frankly I think you would also benefit in the end.
trhway 2y ago
>Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles while it would make a lot of pain to Russia, it wouldn't change the strategic situation. Russia is ok with taking the pain (more precisely Putin and his ilk are ok with subjecting Russia to the pain) You need strategic hits, a knock-out, making it physically impossible for them to continue as it is the only language they currently understand. So, for example, Russia has like 10K of S-300/400 missiles. That is key part of the strategic defense of Russia (notice how Russia recently had a hysteric meltdown when just one drone hit their strategic defense radar thus slightly impacting their defense against ICBMs/etc. and also notice that just a drone was able to hit such a valuable target) Ukraine can build several thousands of large drones (cheap, simple, like say German V-1, can be built for less than $5000 each including modern navigation, Germans built 20K of V-1 in year in just one factory inside the mountain) and fire them to the targets in Russia choosing routes, altitudes and targets such that Russia would have to use S-300/400 instead of say shorter range BUK/Tor/Pantsir (Russia is big and most of the coverage is naturally by the S-300/400). After several thousands of such drones Russia would be put into impossible situation - either to let those large drones (original V-1 had 850kg warhead, ie. double that of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow/SCALP) fly and hit the targets or to run out of strategic air defense.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Hmm. Can Russia really not build counter-drones with the same capabilities? Or is your suggestion more of "do something along these lines, choosing specifically something Russia cannot currently defend against and complete this attack before Russia even knows it needs to build the factory to make the counter drones to defend against it"?
  - trhway 2y ago
    counter-drones for 650km/h drones (taking V-1 as an example) is basically supersonic air defense missiles, much more costly and complicated and take more time and resources to build (and requires radars/launchers/etc. in addition to the missiles - all that is cost and complexity and there is very limited production capacity for that hardware). And to cover even just European part of Russia isn't really possible with short-range ones. So, you need something fast and long-range and being able to hit moving target in the air. And even if short rage were enough - I don't see Pantsir missile price, and the TOR missile is $800K. S-300 is much north of it. So even if all your drones, say 20K drones, which cost you $100M, were to be shot down just by TOR/Pantsir, your enemy is out at least, bare minimum, $10B - and to build all these missiles significant portion of military production capacity should be dedicated to it (basically no way to build 20K such missiles in a year, and also hitting each target 100% by one missile is not real). If you look at the map you'll see a strategic problem of Russia waiting to be exploited (and no plausibly possible factory building would help to prevent it) - when moving from the Ukraine/Russia border the Russian territory becomes more and more vast, and there is no good way to defend it from mass cheap attacks.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Ah, so it's an inherently asymmetrical force, with the advantage to Ukraine to perform the attack? It can't just be defended against by pairing (or even 10-to-1-swarming) identical V1-class drones from Russia to be used as interceptors?
      - trhway 2y ago
surfingdino 2y ago
I'd add to that confiscation of all property in Europe owned by private and corporate owners of Russian origin (houses, securities, cars, jewellery, works of art, etc.), including those who have acquired European citizenship/residence permits after 1939, their families, next of kin, spouses, partners, children, and grandchildren, including those still to be born. Send them back on foot to Moscow, revoke their non-Russian citizenship, and do not allow them to ever obtain European citizenship or residence permit.
- ajuc 2y ago
  > Send them back on foot to Moscow, revoke their non-Russian citizenship Eh, why? Most of them escaped russia because they didn't liked Putin. I know a few such Russians in Poland (with Polish citizenship too).
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    Oh, those poor Russians. If they loose something they cherish maybe they will want to change their own country and run it in some sane fashion without being a constant threat to its neighbours. If they stay in the West they'll bang on about Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and be a constant vector for Russian propaganda.
- cpursley 2y ago
  This is insane clown town stuff and echos "not-see" ideology. One of the core tenants of western democracy is we don't do collective punishment (racial, language, cultural or otherwise).
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    It's been done to a limited extent by Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania already https://vm.ee/en/news/government-restricts-entry-estonia-russian-nationals-18-august https://vm.ee/en/news/government-restricts-entry-estonia-rus... https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2050380/latvia-to-ask-thousands-of-russian-citizens-to-leave-the-country#:~:text=Following%20Russia's%20full%2Dscale%20invasion,a%20mandatory%20Latvian%20language%20exam https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2050380/latvia-to-a.... https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2050524/lithuania-deems-1-164-belarusian-and-russian-nationals-a-threat-revokes-residence-permits-and-visas https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2050524/lithuania-d... As you can see it can be done, is being done, and ought to be done across the whole of EU given the number of unexplained fires and explosions of factories, warehouses, and shopping centres in Europe, explosives planted in packages sent via DHL, an attempt to assassinate the CEO of Rheinmetal, cutting undersea cables, and disruption of GPS signal used by civil aviation.
riku_iki 2y ago
> Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles I think the main worry is that Putin will start using tactical nukes, they already changed their policy about that.
- ajuc 2y ago
  Their policy is to do whatever putin wants, they were never particularly strict about their policies (for example half the things Prigozhyn did were against the Russian law). Policy changes are just posturing. Also - tactical nukes won't significantly change anything on the battlefield. There are no big concentrations of troops in this war. It's 20 guys storming a village defended by 100 guys repeat 100 times in a month. If you want to nuke 100 guys to get that village - sure, it could work. Will be hard to establish a base there, but you can kill these 100 guys. But then 3 km further there are other guys. You'll nuke them too?
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    > Also - tactical nukes won't significantly change anything on the battlefield. its not about Ukrainian battlefield, its more if western missiles will be destroying Russian infra, Putin will strike objects/bases/infra in Eastern Europe, he was very clear about it during initial invasion message.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      Putin was very clear the last 10 times too :) About western tanks, military jets, etc. It's all bullshit. Out of all the things Putin won't do - nuking NATO is the first.
      - riku_iki 2y ago
        Ukraine is receiving outdated, underequiped and limited inventory. I won't be surprised if there are some direct negotiations with Russia about what is allowed and what is not. There is line after which Putin will launch nukes, destruction of major foundational infra totally could be it: 1. Putin will want to suppress Nato from further steps. 2. Population will likely demand this as an act of revenge. 3. There will be some self defense justification. It won't be massive attack, first nuke to be launched on Ukrainian infra, and second on some EU military base, after which NATO will stop and suck it up(likely after first nuke) if Trump won't decide to escalate which is very unlikely.
bradley13 2y ago
This. You cannot fight a purely defensive war, you must attack the enemy's logistics and command infrastructure. These are slways behind the ftont lines.

by ajuc 2y ago

zkid18 2y ago

I wonder who you are referring to when you say "we"

dagenleg 2y ago
I think the poster refers to NATO countries. Considering you are a Russian citizen, it's safe to say you're not included in this "we". Although frankly I think you would also benefit in the end.

trhway 2y ago

>Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles while it would make a lot of pain to Russia, it wouldn't change the strategic situation. Russia is ok with taking the pain (more precisely Putin and his ilk are ok with subjecting Russia to the pain) You need strategic hits, a knock-out, making it physically impossible for them to continue as it is the only language they currently understand. So, for example, Russia has like 10K of S-300/400 missiles. That is key part of the strategic defense of Russia (notice how Russia recently had a hysteric meltdown when just one drone hit their strategic defense radar thus slightly impacting their defense against ICBMs/etc. and also notice that just a drone was able to hit such a valuable target) Ukraine can build several thousands of large drones (cheap, simple, like say German V-1, can be built for less than $5000 each including modern navigation, Germans built 20K of V-1 in year in just one factory inside the mountain) and fire them to the targets in Russia choosing routes, altitudes and targets such that Russia would have to use S-300/400 instead of say shorter range BUK/Tor/Pantsir (Russia is big and most of the coverage is naturally by the S-300/400). After several thousands of such drones Russia would be put into impossible situation - either to let those large drones (original V-1 had 850kg warhead, ie. double that of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow/SCALP) fly and hit the targets or to run out of strategic air defense.

ben_w 2y ago
Hmm. Can Russia really not build counter-drones with the same capabilities? Or is your suggestion more of "do something along these lines, choosing specifically something Russia cannot currently defend against and complete this attack before Russia even knows it needs to build the factory to make the counter drones to defend against it"?
- trhway 2y ago
  counter-drones for 650km/h drones (taking V-1 as an example) is basically supersonic air defense missiles, much more costly and complicated and take more time and resources to build (and requires radars/launchers/etc. in addition to the missiles - all that is cost and complexity and there is very limited production capacity for that hardware). And to cover even just European part of Russia isn't really possible with short-range ones. So, you need something fast and long-range and being able to hit moving target in the air. And even if short rage were enough - I don't see Pantsir missile price, and the TOR missile is $800K. S-300 is much north of it. So even if all your drones, say 20K drones, which cost you $100M, were to be shot down just by TOR/Pantsir, your enemy is out at least, bare minimum, $10B - and to build all these missiles significant portion of military production capacity should be dedicated to it (basically no way to build 20K such missiles in a year, and also hitting each target 100% by one missile is not real). If you look at the map you'll see a strategic problem of Russia waiting to be exploited (and no plausibly possible factory building would help to prevent it) - when moving from the Ukraine/Russia border the Russian territory becomes more and more vast, and there is no good way to defend it from mass cheap attacks.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Ah, so it's an inherently asymmetrical force, with the advantage to Ukraine to perform the attack? It can't just be defended against by pairing (or even 10-to-1-swarming) identical V1-class drones from Russia to be used as interceptors?
    - trhway 2y ago

surfingdino 2y ago

I'd add to that confiscation of all property in Europe owned by private and corporate owners of Russian origin (houses, securities, cars, jewellery, works of art, etc.), including those who have acquired European citizenship/residence permits after 1939, their families, next of kin, spouses, partners, children, and grandchildren, including those still to be born. Send them back on foot to Moscow, revoke their non-Russian citizenship, and do not allow them to ever obtain European citizenship or residence permit.

ajuc 2y ago
> Send them back on foot to Moscow, revoke their non-Russian citizenship Eh, why? Most of them escaped russia because they didn't liked Putin. I know a few such Russians in Poland (with Polish citizenship too).
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Oh, those poor Russians. If they loose something they cherish maybe they will want to change their own country and run it in some sane fashion without being a constant threat to its neighbours. If they stay in the West they'll bang on about Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and be a constant vector for Russian propaganda.
cpursley 2y ago
This is insane clown town stuff and echos "not-see" ideology. One of the core tenants of western democracy is we don't do collective punishment (racial, language, cultural or otherwise).
- surfingdino 2y ago
  It's been done to a limited extent by Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania already https://vm.ee/en/news/government-restricts-entry-estonia-russian-nationals-18-august https://vm.ee/en/news/government-restricts-entry-estonia-rus... https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2050380/latvia-to-ask-thousands-of-russian-citizens-to-leave-the-country#:~:text=Following%20Russia's%20full%2Dscale%20invasion,a%20mandatory%20Latvian%20language%20exam https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2050380/latvia-to-a.... https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2050524/lithuania-deems-1-164-belarusian-and-russian-nationals-a-threat-revokes-residence-permits-and-visas https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2050524/lithuania-d... As you can see it can be done, is being done, and ought to be done across the whole of EU given the number of unexplained fires and explosions of factories, warehouses, and shopping centres in Europe, explosives planted in packages sent via DHL, an attempt to assassinate the CEO of Rheinmetal, cutting undersea cables, and disruption of GPS signal used by civil aviation.

riku_iki 2y ago

> Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles I think the main worry is that Putin will start using tactical nukes, they already changed their policy about that.

ajuc 2y ago
Their policy is to do whatever putin wants, they were never particularly strict about their policies (for example half the things Prigozhyn did were against the Russian law). Policy changes are just posturing. Also - tactical nukes won't significantly change anything on the battlefield. There are no big concentrations of troops in this war. It's 20 guys storming a village defended by 100 guys repeat 100 times in a month. If you want to nuke 100 guys to get that village - sure, it could work. Will be hard to establish a base there, but you can kill these 100 guys. But then 3 km further there are other guys. You'll nuke them too?
- riku_iki 2y ago
  > Also - tactical nukes won't significantly change anything on the battlefield. its not about Ukrainian battlefield, its more if western missiles will be destroying Russian infra, Putin will strike objects/bases/infra in Eastern Europe, he was very clear about it during initial invasion message.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    Putin was very clear the last 10 times too :) About western tanks, military jets, etc. It's all bullshit. Out of all the things Putin won't do - nuking NATO is the first.
    - riku_iki 2y ago
      Ukraine is receiving outdated, underequiped and limited inventory. I won't be surprised if there are some direct negotiations with Russia about what is allowed and what is not. There is line after which Putin will launch nukes, destruction of major foundational infra totally could be it: 1. Putin will want to suppress Nato from further steps. 2. Population will likely demand this as an act of revenge. 3. There will be some self defense justification. It won't be massive attack, first nuke to be launched on Ukrainian infra, and second on some EU military base, after which NATO will stop and suck it up(likely after first nuke) if Trump won't decide to escalate which is very unlikely.

bradley13 2y ago

This. You cannot fight a purely defensive war, you must attack the enemy's logistics and command infrastructure. These are slways behind the ftont lines.