3 3
SkyDekker

Ukraine

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Forgive me for not assuming there would be consensus on anything amongst our NATO allies except that weekends and holidays must be kept open. How about we toss #37 in it's entirety and replace it with: I would seek to convene an immediate Zoom call with all NATO members where we'd take a poll of who was ready, willing and able to commit and deploy significant combat forces, not marching bands and mess tents, to a joint venture designed to counter the Russian move into the Ukraine. I would suggest that we'd all commit 2 divisions each, 1 immediately, and equal amounts of combat attack aircraft and material. On agreement, and lot's of luck there, I'd suggest there was no reason for them to wait another metric minute for us to arrive pointing out that now would be a dandy time to waste that 40 mile long armored column advancing on Kyiv. Then, and only then would I start sending American soldiers.

You aren't arguing in good faith here. BIGUN (and myself) made comments around what we think should be done. You are arguing about what NATO might agree to doing. Those are two very different things. I certainly agree (and I think BIGUN as well) that there is no interest within NATO to get into direct conflict with Russia at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You aren't arguing in good faith here. BIGUN (and myself) made comments around what we think should be done. You are arguing about what NATO might agree to doing. Those are two very different things. I certainly agree (and I think BIGUN as well) that there is no interest within NATO to get into direct conflict with Russia at this point.

You are incorrect, sir. BIGUN specifically referenced collaboration with our NATO allies. Please reference his post #37 and his clarification of post #37 in post #361. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

You are incorrect, sir. BIGUN specifically referenced collaboration with our NATO allies. Please reference his post #37 and his clarification of post #37 in post #361. 

I know what BIGUN referenced. Let me rephrase the question for you then. Should NATO forces come to an agreement to actively enter Ukraine and fight against Russia, you agree that is the right course of action?

So far you have been hiding your opinion behind "NATO won't agree anyways".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
35 minutes ago, yoink said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/1499164245250002944?s=21
 

good thread here about the difficulties the Russian armored column is facing and why the time to strike it isn’t going to last forever.

Hi Will,

See Post #361 and Post #364.  There is a window of opportunity that should not be squandered.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I will not say that Russia is a paper-tiger; however, I wonder if they are as mighty as some think.  With the breakup of the USSR, we learned ( based upon what I read back then ) that they did not have as many ICBM's as we thought they had and many of those ICBM's were in terrible condition from a maintenance/ 'ready to go' position.  The other day, I read that Russia has only one aircraft carrier & it is in such poor condition that it now in port as not being sea-worthy.

Edited by JerryBaumchen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

IMO a big plus:  Russia invades Ukraine: Top Russian general killed, Zelenskyy asks West for more military aid - oregonlive.com

(Zelenskyy) said the world was too slow to offer support for Ukraine and prodded Western leaders to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine to deny access to the Russian warplanes.

 Zelenskyy charged that if the West remains reluctant to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine, it should at least provide Kyiv with warplanes.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Will,

See Post #361 and Post #364.  There is a window of opportunity that should not be squandered.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I will not say that Russia is a paper-tiger; however, I wonder if they are as mighty as some think.  With the breakup of the USSR, we learned ( based upon what I read back then ) that they did not have as many ICBM's as we thought they had and many of those ICBM's were in terrible condition from a maintenance/ 'ready to go' position.  The other day, I read that Russia has only one aircraft carrier & it is in such poor condition that it now in port as not being sea-worthy.

Just one is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

I know what BIGUN referenced. Let me rephrase the question for you then. Should NATO forces come to an agreement to actively enter Ukraine and fight against Russia, you agree that is the right course of action?

So far you have been hiding your opinion behind "NATO won't agree anyways".

You aren't rephrasing a question, you're asking initial questions and doing so in your inimitable abrasive fashion. No matter, I'll answer it: if NATO agreed to take action in Ukraine I would agree the United States should support and join our NATO allies in the venture even though it would not be in defense of a NATO country. However, I do not agree the the United States should allow itself to get sucked into an action that our NATO Allies or European partners are unwilling to step up and make the same sacrifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You aren't rephrasing a question, you're asking initial questions and doing so in your inimitable abrasive fashion.

In post #32 you ask "tell us what you would do". I rephrased that question for you, since you never answered it yourself. After asking the questions, all you did was hide behind "NATO wouldn't agree to it". If asking you to answer your own question is too abrasive for you, then you have likely been shielded a little too long.

13 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

if NATO agreed to take action in Ukraine I would agree the United States should support and join our NATO allies in the venture even though it would not be in defense of a NATO country. However, I do not agree the the United States should allow itself to get sucked into an action that our NATO Allies or European partners are unwilling to step up and make the same sacrifice.

Not sure you understand how NATO works. But for NATO to take action (outside of an article 5 response) it would have to be approved through the North Atlantic Council, of which the US is a member. Part of that process is the NAC deciding, generally based on already agreed upon principles, how each country would contribute.

Hence, all you have really said so far is that you believe the US should live up to their North Atlantic Treaty obligations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, airdvr said:

1 bad call can ruin a career...kinda like today.

Well, that was a doozy. And it's not unprecedented -- think of the mission controller when Columbia went down (it sank her). It's not unprecedented.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Will,

For what? 

As I posted:  Russia has only one aircraft carrier & it is in such poor condition that it is now in port as not being sea-worthy.

Jerry Baumchen

Sorry Jerry, I was referring to the nukes.

Lazy posting on my part.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

In post #32 you ask "tell us what you would do". I rephrased that question for you, since you never answered it yourself. After asking the questions, all you did was hide behind "NATO wouldn't agree to it". If asking you to answer your own question is too abrasive for you, then you have likely been shielded a little too long.

Not sure you understand how NATO works. But for NATO to take action (outside of an article 5 response) it would have to be approved through the North Atlantic Council, of which the US is a member. Part of that process is the NAC deciding, generally based on already agreed upon principles, how each country would contribute.

Hence, all you have really said so far is that you believe the US should live up to their North Atlantic Treaty obligations.

Brent was bloviating again about Biden so I was asking Brent what he would do. I guess, in your world, that implies that I knew exactly what I would do. Further, that misapprehension conferred on you the obligation to jump in and rephrase and redirect that question. Okay, then. 

My questions to BIGUN, not you but this is the internet, about what he would do caused him to remind me of his post #37. After that he and I were off to the races causing me to clarify that I'm not in every case opposed to US participation but rather loathe to be, once again, the go to nation of choice when the neighbor's dog is crapping in your yard.

Also, if you can make time to re-read my suggestions you'll, well probably not, see that they fit within our NATO obligations as much as ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Brent was bloviating again about Biden so I was asking Brent what he would do. I guess, in your world, that implies that I knew exactly what I would do.

Nah, just think that when you ask somebody a question you should be willing to answer the same question. Please point out where I said you should know exactly what to do. You are manufacturing "outrage".

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

My questions to BIGUN, not you but this is the internet,

Not seeing the irony that BIGUN answered a question you posed to Brent to start that conversation I guess, eh?

 

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Also, if you can make time to re-read my suggestions you'll, well probably not, see that they fit within our NATO obligations as much as ever.

Yes. If you take time to re-read my comment you'll, well probably not, see that I said exactly that. Because that is all you have said, that the US should follow the North Atlantic Treaty. That is all you have suggested so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

... I will not say that Russia is a paper-tiger; however, I wonder if they are as mighty as some think.  With the breakup of the USSR, we learned ( based upon what I read back then ) that they did not have as many ICBM's as we thought they had and many of those ICBM's were in terrible condition from a maintenance/ 'ready to go' position.  The other day, I read that Russia has only one aircraft carrier & it is in such poor condition that it now in port as not being sea-worthy.

Jerry! Such talk is counter-revolutionary. Anti- American. Russian and Chinese military power must be exaggerated at every corner. Otherwise the military industrial complex will be compromised.

No that's not the Russian A/C carrier burning after a NATO airstrike

"the first crash on Nov.14—where a MiG-29KUBR ran out of fuel and crashed into the Mediterranean—the aircraft was orbiting while deck crews attempted to fix a broken arresting cable that had become entangled with one or the three remaining wires. The cable had snapped when another MiG-29KR had landed safely onboard Kuznetsov—however, that aircraft had caught the fourth and last cable on deck. Meanwhile, the second crash on Dec. 5—this time involving a Su-33 Flanker—was also due to a snapped arresting gear cable...Kuznetsov does not have the ability to launch a tanker—or even buddy-refueller configured fighters."

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Nah, just think that when you ask somebody a question you should be willing to answer the same question. Please point out where I said you should know exactly what to do. You are manufacturing "outrage".

Not seeing the irony that BIGUN answered a question you posed to Brent to start that conversation I guess, eh?

 

Yes. If you take time to re-read my comment you'll, well probably not, see that I said exactly that. Because that is all you have said, that the US should follow the North Atlantic Treaty. That is all you have suggested so far.

I'm happy you have me on speed dial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, airdvr said:

I started watching a docuseries on old Nev.  Seems he wasn't all the idiot people thought he was.

Chamberlain gets an unfair bad rap for 1938.

(a) the UK was no more obliged to defend Czechoslovakia than the USA was.  There was no defense treaty (unlike with Poland in 1939). France, however, did have a treaty with Czech (since 1925).

(b) the Luftwaffe would have annihilated the RAF in 1938.  It was well equipped with Bf109 fighters and He111s, etc. following the Spanish Civil War.  At the time of Munich the RAF had only a single Spitfire squadron (#19) in service.   The Hurricane had only just entered service, and the RAF was still largely reliant on Gloster Gladiator biplanes which were way outclassed by the Bf109.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

There are some people everywhere who take the side of the authoritarian. In the US those people are almost exclusively R supporters.

Almost indeed. Are many here aware of Russell Bentley?  Several online links, all quite disturbing and at least one that paints him as a 'leftist'. (Heeey, he's pro-communism, anti-nazi, so he must be a lefty... ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely support Ukraine's position in this conflict, but I believe they do need to take care in maintaining 'clean hands'. There have been incidents of broadcast video of captured Russian soldiers lamenting their fate and dismay at their own Russian leaders. I wasn't previously aware myself but this apparently violates an aspect of law (Geneva convention?) that prohibits captured POW's being used for propaganda, regardless of it's truth. Additionally; Ukrainian Special Operations Force has vowed to not accept (and hence execute) surrendering Russian artillery forces if such surrenders should occur, again a potential violation of the convention. I empathise with their anger but if Ukraine hope to see Russian leadership prosecuted at a future date, it becomes important to stay clean themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

With the breakup of the USSR, we learned ( based upon what I read back then ) that they did not have as many ICBM's as we thought they had and many of those ICBM's were in terrible condition from a maintenance/ 'ready to go' position.

I also question the readiness of the missile fleet. On the other hand Russia is capable of repeated launches to the ISS. They could be using the profits from that to pay for upkeep of those other rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that US boots on the ground is not a good idea. It seems that if they were supplied with enough stinger missiles to neutralize the air attacks and equipment to eliminate the tanks, transports, etc. that would have a significant impact. The problem is, what would Putin then do. 

Richard Childress, NASCAR guy, is working to donate 1 million rounds of ammo. The logistics to do that are complex but if the NASCAR crowd gets behind his leadership no telling what could be accomplished. He says he has the production and delivery chain solved, just waiting on a waiver to take it out of the US. https://www.wxii12.com/article/richard-childress-to-send-ammunition-to-ukraine-to-help-during-russian-invasion/39303114#

If the reports of Russian soldiers surrendering are true then they are not the army they once were.

There are a few guys on Tik Tok providing real time information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

They could be using the profits from that to pay for Rogozin's salary.

FIFY.

They couldn't even complete the Vostochny spaceport (supposed to replace Baikonur) because the money has been stolen.

Then in addition to that, this year Rogozin has gotten a massive salary increase.

Whatever money they're using to maintain the ICBMs, it's probably not coming from their space launch service.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3