International Russia/Ukraine Megathread V12

[San Marino]

When did Ukrainians agree to host/station NATO nukes on its soil?
In fact Ukrainians gave up their nuke arsenal for territory guarantees....it's almost like Russian promises and treaties don't mean anything...if Ukraine still had its nukes there would be no war.

Never. Not sure what you are asking here.

That is a fallacy. Thinking that countries with nukes will not go to war. Not a nuclear war, but a conventional one. India and Pakistan.

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at a political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties - Russia, United Kingdom, and the United Sates. It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine.

My point was the US told Cuba (and the USSR) it could not have nuclear missiles. Why not? It is a sovereign nation like Ukraine. It can make its own decisions, like Ukraine. Kennedy was ready to fight a war (possibly nuclear) with the Soviets if Cuba chose to have nuclear missiles pointed at the US. In 1961, prior to the Cuban incident, the US already had nuclear missiles (Jupiter) pointed at Moscow from Turkey and Italy.

Russia told Ukraine it did not want it to be part of NATO. For years it felt this was a threat. To not follow that path or it would likely lead to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. See the irony here. This, after Russia had already taken over Crimea in 2014 without any resistance.

 

[DEVILsSON]

Never. Not sure what you are asking here.

That is a fallacy. Thinking that countries with nukes will not go to war. Not a nuclear war, but a conventional one. India and Pakistan.

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at a political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties - Russia, United Kingdom, and the United Sates. It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine.

My point was the US told Cuba (and the USSR) it could not have nuclear missiles. Why not? It is a sovereign nation like Ukraine. It can make its own decisions, like Ukraine. Kennedy was ready to fight a war (possibly nuclear) with the Soviets if Cuba chose to have nuclear missiles pointed at the US. In 1961, prior to the Cuban incident, the US already had nuclear missiles (Jupiter) pointed at Moscow from Turkey and Italy.

Russia told Ukraine it did not want it to be part of NATO. For years it felt this was a threat. To not follow that path or it would likely lead to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. See the irony here. This, after Russia had already taken over Crimea in 2014 without any resistance.

These are disingenuous arguments.

There would be no war. Russia is much larger and Ukraine would stand no chance on its own so nuclear war would be its only chance thus there could never be a conventional war. As soon as Russia sends its columns to Ukraine as they did, Ukraine would launch nuclear warheads. Period. Maybe the first couple would be somewhere on areas like Belgorod and then in a full exchange it would be on Moscow and St. Petersberg. Knowing this, Russia would never go to war with a nuclear armed Ukraine.

The reason why Pakistan and India had minor skirmishes was because they are fairly evenly matched and neither one of them tried to invade the other. Cross border shots or whatever is not equivalent to what's happening to Ukraine and you know that.

You know full well Ukraine was not joining NATO. Ukraine was trying to join EU for more economic prosperity. Emperor Putin did not like that. You also know all the countless reasons provided for why Russia went to war and they are all bullshit. Even full on trolls stopped repeating them after a while.

Now back to feigning alternative neutrality.

 

[San Marino]

US ruled out their own twin blades helicopter due to reliability questions and performance issues to instead go with a plane like helicopter but is smaller and more cost effective Osprey and more reliable. This will replace the Blackhawk and another helicopter Bell V-280 Valor.

They are also in the process of replacing the Apache Helicopter with a version of the V-280 Valor.

Say it isn't so. This is a terrible platform. The Bell V-22 Osprey had/has a terrible record - mostly used by the U.S. Marine Corps.
Replacing the U.S. Army's Blackhawk and Apache helicopters with this 'crap' is a terrible idea.

 

[San Marino]

These are disingenuous arguments.

No, they are not.

There would be no war. Russia is much larger and Ukraine would stand no chance on its own so nuclear war would be its only chance thus there could never be a conventional war. As soon as Russia sends its columns to Ukraine as they did, Ukraine would launch nuclear warheads.

Then what? Russia launches a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Who comes out the winner?

You know full well Ukraine was not joining NATO. Ukraine was trying to join EU for more economic prosperity. Emperor Putin did not like that.

Ukraine was on a fast-track to joining NATO.
Why was NATO created? To counter any threats posed by the Soviet Union after WWII. Well, the USSR dissolved in 1991, and NATO should have disbanded itself shortly after. It was well on its way to doing just that until the conflict in Ukraine. It has now found new purpose and life.

 

[Denter]

As long as the aid keeps coming in and the weapons that UKR are receiving are getting better it seems they will win the war of attrition. As much Armor and ammo Russia did have this has been an intense war for almost a year and half and now even they are starting to conserve a bit.

I think relying on attrition isn't a good strategy. I think the retreat into claims of winning the attrition battle (by both sides) are an attempt to cover for the fact that ww2 style advances may no longer be possible with this technology.

 

[Denter]

These are disingenuous arguments.

There would be no war. Russia is much larger and Ukraine would stand no chance on its own so nuclear war would be its only chance thus there could never be a conventional war. As soon as Russia sends its columns to Ukraine as they did, Ukraine would launch nuclear warheads. Period. Maybe the first couple would be somewhere on areas like Belgorod and then in a full exchange it would be on Moscow and St. Petersberg. Knowing this, Russia would never go to war with a nuclear armed Ukraine.

The reason why Pakistan and India had minor skirmishes was because they are fairly evenly matched and neither one of them tried to invade the other. Cross border shots or whatever is not equivalent to what's happening to Ukraine and you know that.

You know full well Ukraine was not joining NATO. Ukraine was trying to join EU for more economic prosperity. Emperor Putin did not like that. You also know all the countless reasons provided for why Russia went to war and they are all bullshit. Even full on trolls stopped repeating them after a while.

Now back to feigning alternative neutrality.

I'm not saying that I buy the Nato argument (I think this war is about whose client state Ukraine gets to be) but it seems undeniable that Russia signaled for 15 years (or longer) that they would consider this a threat and act. If Ukraine (and Georgia) was not a serious candidate for NATO, why release the statement in 2008? Even over the objections of France and Germany? What was the point?

 

[DEVILsSON]

No, they are not.

Then what? Russia launches a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Who comes out the winner?

Ukraine was on a fast-track to joining NATO.
Why was NATO created? To counter any threats posed by the Soviet Union after WWII. Well, the USSR dissolved in 1991, and NATO should have disbanded itself shortly after. It was well on its way to doing just that until the conflict in Ukraine. It has now found new purpose and life.

No one comes out 'the winner' in a nuclear war that's the point, mutually assured destruction.

Ukraine was never on a fast track to joining NATO and you know it. Even now Ukraine is not on a fast track.

What Ukraine wants and the reality are very different things. Russia felt like it should get fast tracked to joining NATO but as you know that didn't happen.

Russia for all intents and purposes is still 76% of USSR and still possesses all the nukes USSR had. Russia has also demonstrated a propensity to invade its neighbors and absorb their territories. The only smaller nations it has not invaded have been the NATO members. Russia also uses extreme brutal force to keep its current republics.

You are correct prior to Putin's 2022 blunder, NATO was slowly shrinking and shriveling due to a lack of purpose.

 

[DEVILsSON]

I'm not saying that I buy the Nato argument (I think this war is about whose client state Ukraine gets to be) but it seems undeniable that Russia signaled for 15 years (or longer) that they would consider this a threat and act. If Ukraine (and Georgia) was not a serious candidate for NATO, why release the statement in 2008? Even over the objections of France and Germany? What was the point?

So Russia gets to run its mouth about anything and everything with their disinformation campaigns but Ukraine saying something is a step too far? Was Ukraine joining NATO something that Ukraine could do unilaterally? Was it a matter of saying some magic words?

In any case, any proposals to enter NATO were shelved in 2010. They were only reinstated in 2017 after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and began the Donbas war.

Russia got tired of having to pay for its naval base and also did not like Ukraine threatening to evict them among some practical reasons.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not saying that I buy the Nato argument (I think this war is about whose client state Ukraine gets to be) but it seems undeniable that Russia signaled for 15 years (or longer) that they would consider this a threat and act. If Ukraine (and Georgia) was not a serious candidate for NATO, why release the statement in 2008? Even over the objections of France and Germany? What was the point?

The idea that Russia felt threatened by something that didn't even happen was always silly, and it's not even what they usually run with. Putin has just never accepted Ukraine's right to exist, and then he was upset about Ukrainian sanctions against Medvedchuk's TV stations. I think rightists (and red-browns like Dore) see Putin as the Franco of this generation, though the fact that he's a corrupt thug mismanaging his country into the ground sort of undermines it.

 

[LMP]

No mate, you missed the whole point. I was referring to Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and how Kennedy was ready to go to war with the Soviet Union over the whole deal. Cuba had every right to have Soviet missiles in its soil. Plus, missiles could fly directly from the USSR into the US. The US already had nuclear missiles pointing at Moscow from Turkey and Italy. The US claiming the moral high ground when it had clearly started the whole 'nearby' threat against the USSR.

Everything you said in this post highlights how Russia is in the wrong with its Ukraine BS. Yet you are still Putins little cheerleader.

 

[GhostZ06]

Meanwhile, a Russian floating dock in Sevastopol sank, Hl Sutton reports.

What caused the sinking of that dock, known as PD-19 and near another one that sank four years ago with a submarine in it, is unknown, said Sutton.

In his tweet, Sutton said that reported explosions in Sevastopol, home of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, were unrelated to the dock sinking.

Those noises were related to training, occupation Governor of Sevastopol Mikhail Razvozhaev said Wednesday on his Telegram channel.

"The reason for the loud sounds (explosions, as they say in some channels) is that the Black Sea Higher Naval School named after P.S. Nakhimov conducted a training session...using rocket-propelled bombers," he said. "Everything is calm in the city."

 

[GhostZ06]

Speaking of Russian helicopters, for Ukraine to have any success against Russian aviation, short-range air defense systems (SHORADS) will have to play a role. The work of one such system, the U.S.-donated Humvee-based Avenger systems, was captured in this video below. So far, the U.S. has promised 20 of those systems to Ukraine, some of which are already in action. You can read more about what it brings to the table in our deep dive here.

The "largest" AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles, or AMRAAM missile contract to date was awarded Tuesday to RTX, formally Raytheon Technologies.

The $1.15 billion contract, awarded by the Air Force, was for AIM-120 D-3 and C-8 AMRAAM missiles, according to RTX. It provides for the production of the AMRAAM missiles, the AMRAAM Telemetry System, initial and field spares, and other production engineering support activities, according to the Pentagon.

This contract involves unclassified Foreign Military Sales to Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, which accounts for approximately 39% of the contract value, according to the Pentagon.

Ukraine has been using the missiles in the donated National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missiles Systems, or NASAMS. You can read more about that here.

“This is the largest AMRAAM missile contract to date and the fifth production lot of the highly advanced missiles developed under the Form, Fit, Function Refresh, also known as F3R, which updates both the missile's hardware and allows for Agile software upgrades, RTX said on its homepage.

 

[GhostZ06]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...fensive-slowed-by-72000-square-miles-of-mines

 

[Blayt7hh]

No, they are not.

Then what? Russia launches a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Who comes out the winner?

Ukraine was on a fast-track to joining NATO.
Why was NATO created? To counter any threats posed by the Soviet Union after WWII. Well, the USSR dissolved in 1991, and NATO should have disbanded itself shortly after. It was well on its way to doing just that until the conflict in Ukraine. It has now found new purpose and life.

And whose fault is that that NATO has a renewed purpose? Not Ukraine. Not Americas.

It’s bitterly ironic to accuse NATO and Ukraine of trying to put nukes on Russias border when Ukraine dismantled its nuclear weapons to keep the peace long ago. I also don’t know why you think they US wants to put nukes there. We don’t need nukes there to wipe out Russia

 

[Blayt7hh]

Everything you said in this post highlights how Russia is in the wrong with its Ukraine BS. Yet you are still Putins little cheerleader.

I don’t know why the Cuban middle crisis is being brought up. It was over 60 years ago and the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore.

 

[Denter]

So Russia gets to run its mouth about anything and everything with their disinformation campaigns but Ukraine saying something is a step too far? Was Ukraine joining NATO something that Ukraine could do unilaterally? Was it a matter of saying some magic words?

In any case, any proposals to enter NATO were shelved in 2010. They were only reinstated in 2017 after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and began the Donbas war.

Russia got tired of having to pay for its naval base and also did not like Ukraine threatening to evict them among some practical reasons.

Sounds about right.

 

[Denter]

The idea that Russia felt threatened by something that didn't even happen was always silly, and it's not even what they usually run with. Putin has just never accepted Ukraine's right to exist, and then he was upset about Ukrainian sanctions against Medvedchuk's TV stations. I think rightists (and red-browns like Dore) see Putin as the Franco of this generation, though the fact that he's a corrupt thug mismanaging his country into the ground sort of undermines it.

Ah yeah, the mismanagement of real incomes going up 500% and life expectancy going up by a decade is what incompetence looks like. You know there is a reason he has stayed popular in Russia.

I think the war was unnecessary and dumb, but I think everyone is working with incomplete information right now. I think we'll find out things that were going on in the lead up to this only decades from now.

 

[SandisLL]

spinmarino never had changed.
He 480 days in row didn't had changed and is pushing always the same bullshit about Ukraine.
I long ago had get that he is like some kind of simple computer program and there is only waste of time to attempt discuss with him.
__
Btw he is claiming that is U.S military vet and if it is reality then it is awful.
While not in so plain manner, he from all posters here is most hardcore U.S hater and ruSSia's advocate.......

 

[GhostZ06]

US ruled out their own twin blades helicopter due to reliability questions and performance issues to instead go with with a plane like helicopter but is smaller and more cost effective Osprey and more reliable. This will replace the Blackhawk and another helicopter Bell V-280 Valor.




They are also in the process of replacing the Apache Helicopter with a version of the V-280 Valor.

So it wont be a 1 for 1 replacement. 50% of the helicopter will be replaced by the V-280 which i think is smart. When you read the report, Army is going to need a reliable design with real advantages in range and speed. LM/Boeing, doing stupid shit to win. I see bell taking the win on both programs, 360 invictus is way better an over all reliable design.


Besides LM just got a huge helo contract, they'll get over it.




This is probably why it didnt win, lol look at the size of this thing.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...t-half-of-bells-but-lacked-info-to-back-it-up


besides i hope they don't win, Boeings' lies about how cheaply theyre products are, i think bell takes both programs.

 

[SandisLL]

If about the same EU membership Ukraine too will get very cold shower....
They just does know that Ukr today are nervous and europe needs that they will continue to maintain border control etc.

A lot of politicians in reality want to apply for Ukr the same standards as for Czech Republic and Baltic countries .... when they even were just " candidates " and Ukraine even in 2021 th didn't had reached standards level these mentioned countries had 6 years before (!) had been accepted in EU as full members.
Ukraine does have damn a lot of flaws and thank to God this week some politicians afforded openly mention just 2 from these, while we all know that they does have xxx things to improve.

Also other obstacles like fear that ukr export to EU will be more expensive and harsh reality that Ujr will milk EU subsidies funds till bottom.
Ppl are crying about Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, sadly Ukr IF will be accepted in EU as full member will ask xxx b each year decade in row....even if this war didn't happened.
Plus with war...
In reality I'm shocked about ukrainian officials and for a reason.
They should care about 1 thing: war!

Not to calculate sums after each strike etc and to tell Urzula: ohh, to reconstruct this it will cost xx b, this xxx b.

If they had brains they didn't such stuff and didn't had talked that are excepting to get from EU more than 1000b EUR for " reconstruction ".