• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flo said:
Sorry, English isn't my primary language - I was thinking of members of the hierarchy who disapprove of the way Putin, Shoigu et al. are mismanaging the war, and actually wish to see an escalation.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, my previous reply was a little on the snarky side. I did understand your meaning. My view is that having some generals on his side wouldn't be enough to prosecute a war of conquest against a western-armed nation like Ukraine. He'd need to have the complete, vertically-integrated military-industrial complex under his authority. Multiple industries, all answering to him, all working in concert with the military to keep the war going. There's been no indication that Prigozhin has that kind of coalition among Moscow's captains of industry. He seems to survive on the strength of being Putin's pet, perhaps in a regime where the autocrat likes to keep his underlings fighting amongst themselves.
 
theprestige said:
Oh yay, another vote for letting Moscow use WMDs, because retaliating for that might encourage them to use more WMDs. Again I ask, why is it that only Moscow gets to use the threat of escalation as a deterrent to further aggression?
Click to expand...

The very post you are mocking here (I assume that's Turkeyghost's), answers that question: Because escalation would be irresponsible and counter-productive.

But go ahead and ask the question "again" while pretending you don't already know the answer.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
He is at very least clearly suggesting that we *threaten* to do so. Which would be an irresponsible thing to do if the US isn't prepared to actually do it in short order.
Click to expand...

True. I support Biden getting on TV and saying: Putin if you use a nuke in Ukraine, even if its tactically, even if its low yield. We will respond with an overwhelming nuclear strike against Russia. But ONLY if he means it.
 
lobosrul5 said:
True. I support Biden getting on TV and saying: Putin if you use a nuke in Ukraine, even if its tactically, even if its low yield. We will respond with an overwhelming nuclear strike against Russia. But ONLY if he means it.
Click to expand...

Under what authority would the US president unilaterally initiate total war against Russia when we the US has not been directly attacked?
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Under what authority would the US president unilaterally initiate total war against Russia when we the US has not been directly attacked?
Click to expand...

Oh legally speaking, he'd need the Senate to give him the authority. I'd put the odds at greater than even that they would. Illegally, there is actually nothing stopping the president from "pressing the button". He could be impeached and removed from office afterwards.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Oh legally speaking, he'd need the Senate to give him the authority. I'd put the odds at greater than even that they would. Illegally, there is actually nothing stopping the president from "pressing the button". He could be impeached and removed from office afterwards.
Click to expand...

Hopefully such an insane act would be met with noncompliance. It would be far more moral for someone to beat the President to death with the nuclear football than to assist him in unilaterally initiating nuclear holocaust.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Hopefully such an insane act would be met with noncompliance. It would be far more moral for someone to beat the President to death with the nuclear football than to assist him in unilaterally initiating nuclear holocaust.
Click to expand...

If Russia uses a nuke on Ukraine, they already started a nuclear holocaust. We have a moral obligation to make sure its the VERY LAST ******* TIME anyone uses a nuke in anger. After they use 1 nuke and the west doesn't respond OVERWHELMINGLY they will use more until Ukraine is a nuclear wasteland. When it is such, it will make at least sections of Poland and Romania uninhabitable. They will likely invoke "article 5". A conventional invasion of Russia in response will lead to a nuclear war anyways.

Theres the lesser, but also serious concern that it just emboldened every tin pot dictatorship to start a nuclear program. Because they can use them without fear of a retaliatory response.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
The very post you are mocking here (I assume that's Turkeyghost's), answers that question: Because escalation would be irresponsible and counter-productive.

But go ahead and ask the question "again" while pretending you don't already know the answer.
Click to expand...

It's easy to gamble with other people's money. At the risk of stating the obvious, this war has been absolutely devastating for Ukraine, even if they are "winning" it. Best case scenario at this point is akin to a Pyrrhic victory. Ukraine is losing an entire generation of mostly young men to defend their territory.

There's a uniquely American attitude to war that can only come from not having one take place on our soil in a very long time. It's a disaster that happens to other people overseas, the closest thing we have to skin in the game is sometimes our soldiers are at risk, but not our civilian populations or our territory.

Sure, let's do nuclear brinksmanship with Russia, it's not our necks on the line anyway and the US will be fine no matter what happens.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
It's easy to gamble with other people's money. At the risk of stating the obvious, this war has been absolutely devastating for Ukraine, even if they are "winning" it. Best case scenario at this point is akin to a Pyrrhic victory. Ukraine is losing an entire generation of mostly young men to defend their territory.

There's a uniquely American attitude to war that can only come from not having one take place on our soil in a very long time. It's a disaster that happens to other people overseas, the closest thing we have to skin in the game is sometimes our soldiers are at risk, but not our civilian populations or our territory.

Sure, let's do nuclear brinksmanship with Russia, it's not our necks on the line anyway and the US will be fine no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

I think the almost polar opposite view is correct. We haven't had a shooting war in the lower 48 in so long that we view war as less serious than we should. Its concerning to ME that so many Americans know little about whats going on in Ukraine, or kind of shrug their shoulders, or take the view that its halfway around the world, why would I care? Of course if anyone got troops on shore, and we weren't 100% positive that we could mop up their forces easily, and quickly we would obliterate them completely, entirely, and without hesitation.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
I think the almost polar opposite view is correct. We haven't had a shooting war in the lower 48 in so long that we view war as less serious than we should. Its concerning to ME that so many Americans know little about whats going on in Ukraine, or kind of shrug their shoulders, or take the view that its halfway around the world, why would I care?
Click to expand...

Americans don't care, at least not beyond the mildest concern, and Ukraine should be wary about that. Ukraine is fighting this war to defend themselves, and the US is helping to stick it to their adversary Russia. Often these interests closely overlap, but they are not the same and there may come times when they are at cross purposes.
 
I think a lot of this is about deterrence.

USA knows China is watching.
If we didn't come together with NATO and Ukraine to defend Ukraine, then China would already be landing in Taiwan.

This has to have set Chinese ambitions back about 20 years.
I mean, we haven't even utilized our air power, & we are sending 20 year old artillery, 40 year old AA Missile systems, tanks and IFVs to Ukraine.

They have to be scratching their head at the levels above theirs, our equipment is.

Note: we have also been testing our Rapid Dragon cargo plane delivered Cruise missle system near Taiwan... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCnOClfM6kk
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Americans don't care, at least not beyond the mildest concern, and Ukraine should be wary about that. Ukraine is fighting this war to defend themselves, and the US is helping to stick it to their adversary Russia. Often these interests closely overlap, but they are not the same and there may come times when they are at cross purposes.
Click to expand...

I think thats a big reason of why they are launching an offensive right now. The West might decide their interests don't align at some point, and poof all their support is gone.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I don't think theprestige is suggesting we fire off a nuke at this point :confused:

We're treating this as much less serious than we would've had Russia set off a low-yield nuke, yet its possible that the damage from blowing the dam is actually WORSE.

I had a convo with an engineer over the weekend and his comment was something like just as you can't be "a little pregnant", you cannot "blow a dam a little bit". They did this on purpose and intentionally. They created a humanitarian crisis to district Ukraine from their offensive. As for the drowned Russian soldiers, they were likely low value conscripts that Russia gives very little ***** about.

The response from the west is not even close to as harsh as it should be. I hope Biden says by Friday, something along the lines of "we just wanted to be really really sure that this was Russia, now that we are: ATACMS are on their way, and we'll be sending enough equipment to arm a new armored/mech battalion each month". And if not I'm all for a Congressional override.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.


Flo said:
What about the risk he manages to federate several militias and part of the army ?
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
I'm sorry, my previous reply was a little on the snarky side. I did understand your meaning. My view is that having some generals on his side wouldn't be enough to prosecute a war of conquest against a western-armed nation like Ukraine. He'd need to have the complete, vertically-integrated military-industrial complex under his authority. Multiple industries, all answering to him, all working in concert with the military to keep the war going. There's been no indication that Prigozhin has that kind of coalition among Moscow's captains of industry. He seems to survive on the strength of being Putin's pet, perhaps in a regime where the autocrat likes to keep his underlings fighting amongst themselves.
Click to expand...

Also remember that Prigozhin hasn't demonstrated much political acumen, being outplayed comprehensively by Shoigu.
 
quadraginta said:
Would Ukraine be better off if Prigozhin was running Russia? Would Russia?

Would we?

ETA: I'm not Just Asking Questions. I really have no idea, and would be interested in the opinions of those better informed than I am.
Click to expand...

Do you think he'd actually win?

No, I think a civil war between the Russians would give Ukraine the opportunity to expel them from its territory.
 
lobosrul5 said:
True. I support Biden getting on TV and saying: Putin if you use a nuke in Ukraine, even if its tactically, even if its low yield. We will respond with an overwhelming nuclear strike against Russia. But ONLY if he means it.
Click to expand...

An overwhelming conventional strike would solve the Ukraine war problem just fine. Western leaders have actually threatened this, if Moscow uses nukes. I'm saying, the same threat should hold good for other WMD use, such as blowing a major dam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom