And hope that we don't get Putin II to replace him.I don't want to lay down for bullies, either, but I just don't see a winning move here, other than Putin dying.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And hope that we don't get Putin II to replace him.I don't want to lay down for bullies, either, but I just don't see a winning move here, other than Putin dying.
Yep.... if nuclear weapons start flying nobody wins except China who will sit back and watch us destroy each other.I'm not a boomer, but I am just barely old enough to have drills and warnings in school about the evil empire.
I don't know how I'm being unclear here. I'm not proposing laying down for the man. I'm just pointing out that standing up to him could get us all blown up, and that's a real possibility that we need to plan for, and make a part of our strategy.
So the hawk in me says to respond to a tactical nuclear strike with one of our own. That could escalate rather quickly and really I think the Europeans might be a problem there. With tactical nukes being exchanged, I would think Berlin in particular might be a bit squeamish with that response.If we militarily respond in Russia, we risk escalating a nuclear conflict.
If we got to that point, I would attack them too. That's just me.Yep.... if nuclear weapons start flying nobody wins except China who will sit back and watch us destroy each other.
Ennnhhhhh . . . I'm not so sure about this statement. There've been strong rumors the man is sick and might not survive anyway . . . what makes us think he's rational in the sense that westerners would use it?We have to assume he's a rational actor.
I’m sure he thought it was rational at the start. He probably thought his military was much more capable than it actually was.Ennnhhhhh . . . I'm not so sure about this statement. There've been strong rumors the man is sick and might not survive anyway . . . what makes us think he's rational in the sense that westerners would use it?
Nothing about the war in Ukraine is rational, is it?
Seizing Russian territory would escalate this thing to a point where we don't want to go.So the hawk in me says to respond to a tactical nuclear strike with one of our own. That could escalate rather quickly and really I think the Europeans might be a problem there. With tactical nukes being exchanged, I would think Berlin in particular might be a bit squeamish with that response.
So my ante would be to overrun Kaliningrad. Remove that piece of Russia from the NATO rear. Invade, demand the military there throw down their weapons and let them March back to Russia unmolested, or be destroyed.
It is a forceful but measured response that would be a territorial and strategic loss for the Russians. I would probably also start to supply the Ukrainians with conventional medium range ballistic missiles. If Moscow is going to use tactical nukes against the Ukrainians, then Moscow should face some conventional strikes to terrorize its populace as well....
They have said they would respond to us with nukes if we get involved at all. If I am taking that risk, I am doing more than launching airstrikes in Ukraine. If they are willing to light off any nuclear weapon, we have to be willing to push really far conventionally. And Kaliningrad was only ceded to the Soviets after WW2. It was German before that. It is also their only port in the Baltic that does not ice over.Seizing Russian territory would escalate this thing to a point where we don't want to go.
As long as they keep any nukes within Ukraine, use air power to clear the skies over Ukraine and bomb the hell out of their fixed locations. Or, as I mentioned earlier, I hope we're training Ukranian pilots on F-16s so we can send a boatload to them and let the Ukranian's do it.
This is the playbook for proxy wars. Using tactical nukes would kill as many Russian troops as Ukranian, assuming they use it in combat areas. If they set off a nuke in the western part, that would change the calculus some.
A company of Rangers could seize Kaliningrad based on what I’ve seen of the Russian military capabilities.So the hawk in me says to respond to a tactical nuclear strike with one of our own. That could escalate rather quickly and really I think the Europeans might be a problem there. With tactical nukes being exchanged, I would think Berlin in particular might be a bit squeamish with that response.
So my ante would be to overrun Kaliningrad. Remove that piece of Russia from the NATO rear. Invade, demand the military there throw down their weapons and let them March back to Russia unmolested, or be destroyed.
It is a forceful but measured response that would be a territorial and strategic loss for the Russians. I would probably also start to supply the Ukrainians with conventional medium range ballistic missiles. If Moscow is going to use tactical nukes against the Ukrainians, then Moscow should face some conventional strikes to terrorize its populace as well....
I am not even really interested in killing them, just put down your weapons and leave please. I am not convinced they would even be willing to stand and fight a NATO opponent right now.A company of Rangers could seize Kaliningrad based on what I’ve seen of the Russian military capabilities.
They could make the same argument about Ukraine - it was Russian until the 1990s.They have said they would respond to us with nukes if we get involved at all. If I am taking that risk, I am doing more than launching airstrikes in Ukraine. If they are willing to light off any nuclear weapon, we have to be willing to push really far conventionally. And Kaliningrad was only ceded to the Soviets after WW2. It was German before that. It is also their only port in the Baltic that does not ice over.
If I were them I would be inclined to light off another nuclear weapon if the only response was to bomb their fixed locations in Ukraine.
A company? No. But with air support, it wouldn't take many.A company of Rangers could seize Kaliningrad based on what I’ve seen of the Russian military capabilities.
In military terms, Seize does not have to mean killing. The term for that is Destroy.I am not even really interested in killing them, just put down your weapons and leave please. I am not convinced they would even be willing to stand and fight a NATO opponent right now.
They're not going to just let us walk in. Killing is part of the game.I am not even really interested in killing them, just put down your weapons and leave please. I am not convinced they would even be willing to stand and fight a NATO opponent right now.
Yeah I know, but I think if you roll tanks in there without the understanding that they are leaving, there will be destroying that occurs. 😉In military terms, Seize does not have to mean killing. The term for that is Destroy.
I think Russia is on the brink of being a failed state. If nuclear weapons are let off, I am not wholly convinced that their military is going to be fully on board with going down with Putin.They're not going to just let us walk in. Killing is part of the game.
No, I'm not, either. I think someone in their command will either ignore or countermand an order to fire off a nuke.I think Russia is on the brink of being a failed state. If nuclear weapons are let off, I am not wholly convinced that their military is going to be fully on board with going down with Putin.
Agreed.I think Russia is on the brink of being a failed state. If nuclear weapons are let off, I am not wholly convinced that their military is going to be fully on board with going down with Putin.
I said it way-back-when in this thread but I’ll say/rephrase again:I think Russia is on the brink of being a failed state. If nuclear weapons are let off, I am not wholly convinced that their military is going to be fully on board with going down with Putin.
That’s scaryI said it way-back-when in this thread but I’ll say/rephrase again:
- I suspect Russia does not have the same controls and segregation of responsibilities to launch that we have here
- It only takes a couple of henchmen with guns to the head of the “approvers’ kids heads” for them to approve a launch - it doesn’t take Russian patriots to do it
That’s ****in life in the real world.That’s scary
No, for sure. No argument there. I am saying after that hypothetical scenario occurs, I think that there would possibly be many Russian units who would be willing to just surrender as opposed to die for Putin at that point.I said it way-back-when in this thread but I’ll say/rephrase again:
- I suspect Russia does not have the same controls and segregation of responsibilities to launch that we have here
- It only takes a couple of henchmen with guns to the head of the “approvers’ kids heads” for them to approve a launch - it doesn’t take Russian patriots to do it
Ukraine has dropped leaflets on Russian positions, telling them how to surrender.No, for sure. No argument there. I am saying after that hypothetical scenario occurs, I think that there would possibly be many Russian units who would be willing to just surrender as opposed to die for Putin at that point.
Just in time to be mobilized.
A company of Rangers could seize Kaliningrad based on what I’ve seen of the Russian military capabilities.
I remember doing the duck under the desk drill in grade school a couple times.I"m sure that was very scary for you, DANC.
But I laid awake plenty of nights scared to death of dying in a nuclear blast from the Russians and the end of all life as we know it. Watch The Day After when you are 11 years old and you certainly "know the feeling" of the threat of nuclear war. Listen to and read talking heads telling you how that crazy, senile, cowboy, war-monger Reagan is going to kill us all. I remember it well.
I remember doing them in the 80s, but I think by that time it was more about tornadoes than nukes.I remember doing the duck under the desk drill in grade school a couple times.
I doubt Russian soldiers will view former Ukrainian provinces in the same light as Mother Russia.While it is clear Russia's army has sucked, they did against Finland in 39-40. They got their act together against the Germans. I suspect today's Russian army would fight a lot harder against foreign invaders than as a foreign invader.
I think that is part of why Putin wants the areas annexed.
Not looking good.
Video of Russian soldiers supposedly telling presumed recruits that while the military provides military things, like guns and armour, they have to provide everything else, like sleeping bags and medicine and first aid.
He tells them first aid kits are sold out everywhere and to check the cars of friends and relatives. He then tells them to contact female family members for pads and tampons, implying those are sold out too, to use on wounds.
The absolute desperate state of the Russian army. Quantity over quality is just a recipe for failure. - Latest News
2,474 points • 376 comments9gag.com
If true; it's fantastic news, indicating that the sanctions are having a big effect on their ability to wage war. They were making a lot of money from the Europeans esp Germans, but it seems they can't get what they need despite that.
A Russian buddy of mine told me that even in pre-invasion times, Russian soldiers were forced to buy not only everyday stuff but things like military boots, winter/summer uniforms etc.
And if a system doesn’t work during peace, it's most unlikely to now -- esp when you have an additional 300k (or a million?) forced conscripts coming through the pipeline ASAP.
Beginning of the end?
Dear Vlad,
We are offering you this unique opportunity to retire to one of our elite one-room condominiums. All meals and utilities are covered. This unique opportunity awaits your response.
Sincerely,
The Hague
Russia is the new France?
When they lose is going to be really dangerous. Returning losing armies have been bad for Russia in the past.Russia is the new France?
What are we going to sloganeer, "Freedom dressing" instead of "Freedom fries"?
I read where Finland was considering closing its borders to Russians…not sure if it happenedRussia is calling up 300,000 reserves. Assuming all are used in Ukraine, this is a 150% increase. Ukraine has no effective counter. Barring a lot of foreigners wanting to go, Ukraine is tapped out.
On the more positive side, those 300,000 are mostly leaving jobs. This is bound to impact the Russian economy. Chances are their morale will not be the best, they were quite probably happy to be civilians or they would have volunteered. Also Russia will struggle to supply them. Yes, undoubtedly many will be working in supply the fact is Russia has had a shortage of dependable trucks and equipment. The Russian army isn't built to survive on supplies hand carried like the North Vietnamese Army was.