4 4
SkyDekker

Ukraine

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I can't see any NATO country allowing the firing of missiles from their soil.

Surely not. But Ukrainians can fire missiles from their own soil and thus far no one seems concerned with giving them any arms we can get together. 

Share this post


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

Surely not. But Ukrainians can fire missiles from their own soil and thus far no one seems concerned with giving them any arms we can get together. 

Yes, for some reason there seems to be a line there. It is not seen as an act of war to supply Ukraine with deadly hardware. I guess it is all a matter of how we think the Russians will react. We believe that if we shoot at them they may go ballistic. Literally. It is not impossible that they may do so anyway. May you live in interesting times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

I think it is only a matter of time before Russia takes total control of Ukraine.

The Door #2 result.

If he then decides to take the Baltics, what should the west do?

Thoughts?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Putin has said that the break-up of the USSR was the worst event of the 20th century.

Share this post


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

Hi folks,

I think it is only a matter of time before Russia takes total control of Ukraine.

The Door #2 result.

If he then decides to take the Baltics, what should the west do?

Thoughts?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Putin has said that the break-up of the USSR was the worst event of the 20th century.

Jerry, they are all full members of NATO. The treaty would obligate us all to defend them. And we would.

Share this post


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

Jerry, they are all full members of NATO. The treaty would obligate us all to defend them. And we would.

Hi Ken,

I agree with your first two sentences; not so much the 3rd.

The vast majority of treaties that existed in 1938-39 were worthless.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, for some reason there seems to be a line there. It is not seen as an act of war to supply Ukraine with deadly hardware. I guess it is all a matter of how we think the Russians will react. We believe that if we shoot at them they may go ballistic. Literally. It is not impossible that they may do so anyway. May you live in interesting times.

I didn't take Brents idea as being only Polish batteries fired from Polish soil, or Slovakian for that matter. I also have absolutely no idea how hard it would be to come up with old Russian anti-aircraft systems and get them to Ukraine. I have no idea how many such systems Ukraine has now. Maybe we have some older easier to learn systems we can send. For certain, no one thinks sending Javelins and Stingers complete with made in America stickers by the C-17 load is crossing a line so why not anti-aircraft systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Jerry, they are all full members of NATO. The treaty would obligate us all to defend them. And we would.

Yes

1 minute ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

I agree with your first two sentences; not so much the 3rd.

The vast majority of treaties that existed in 1938-39 were worthless.

Jerry Baumchen

'Fifteen years ago, NATO opened its doors to the Baltic states(2004). In the United States this momentous historical decision is commonly framed either as one of the greatest U.S. foreign policy achievements or an ill-advised move that diluted the alliance by taking on indefensible nations. Meanwhile, Russian contemporary discourse on this matter revolves around broken Western promises not to expand the alliance towards its borders."

For certain NATO would defend the Baltic states. The US, Canada and the UK have military forces there now.

Share this post


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

Hi Ken,

I agree with your first two sentences; not so much the 3rd.

The vast majority of treaties that existed in 1938-39 were worthless.

Jerry Baumchen

Judging by the reaction so far to the current events I feel fairly certain that Putin will have to assume we would honour the treaty. Or at the very least he would have to consider it possible. He had no real reason to think we would defend Ukraine, and he was only partly correct. Invading NATO countries is not something he could even contemplate unless somehow Russia were to become much more powerful that it is now, or the west much weaker.

Share this post


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

For certain, no one thinks sending Javelins and Stingers complete with made in America stickers by the C-17 load is crossing a line so why not anti-aircraft systems?

Because more capable systems are also more complex and would require lots of training. Ukranian units have only previously operated older Buk systems, so things like Patriot batteries and other anti-aircraft systems are a whole different world to that. But man-portable missiles like Stingers are designed to be easy to operate and require little training.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it time to review a bit of history. From the WP DECEMBER 1, 1991

"AMERICANS WILL always consider the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the ultimate act of international treachery, a blow delivered without warning. But the prevailing Japanese view has always explained the attack in quite different terms, portraying it as a predictable response to American actions that left Japan mortally vulnerable and with no alternative but to strike.

In the Japanese view, these U.S. actions centered on oil. As in most conflicts of this war-scarred century, oil was a major factor in World War II, a precious resource that shaped everything from global strategy to theatre military operations to tactical maneuvering at the battlefield level."

From the Japanese point of view the oil embargo was an American effort to strangle Japan. The embargo was a direct result of Japanese military adventurism. Putin has already stated that the western response are "acts of war".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Because more capable systems are also more complex and would require lots of training. Ukranian units have only previously operated older Buk systems, so things like Patriot batteries and other anti-aircraft systems are a whole different world to that. But man-portable missiles like Stingers are designed to be easy to operate and require little training.

Sure, I understand. The musing was about if such older SAM systems were available. To be frank, it wouldn't shock me to learn we had a few dozen warehoused against the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, metalslug said:

I don't think the Russians would make a distinction between Polish AA weapons & personnel inside Ukraine, or missiles fired from Poland at Russian aircraft over Ukrainian airspace. If such an engagement occurs, Poland would be in a de-facto state of war with Russia, probably not something they want.

Russia has already said that today. They said any nation involved with maintaining any no-fly zone would be seen as an active participant in the war. Which is what I said from the beginning, any no-fly zone will draw NATO into the conflict completely. Any other ideas are naïve.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Any other ideas are naïve.

Mr. Putin, we're going to be placing missiles along the borders, but they're just for humanitarian purposes. </sarcasm> The no-fly zone made it to Putin and he said it would be considered an act of war. At some point, he's going to consider supplying munitions to the Ukraine the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Mr. Putin, we're going to be placing missiles along the borders, but they're just for humanitarian purposes. </sarcasm> The no-fly zone made it to Putin and he said it would be considered an act of war. At some point, he's going to consider supplying munitions to the Ukraine the same.

Come on, that's not the idea. Read #482 and #487. The idea is anti-aircraft operated on Ukrainian soil by Ukrainians. Now you might be right that Putin will eventually state that supplying pencils and apples to Ukraine is an act of war but unless you have a crystal ball lets work with what we have. No one, except you thus far, is suggesting actions that might trigger article 5. I think that until we're told it's an act of war we do everything we can which includes supplying any anti aircraft systems the Ukrainians can actually use. If Putin is dumb enough to tell the United States we need to stop then I guess we will get to see what happens when a  narcissistic megalomaniac with nuclear weapons gets told no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Mr. Putin, we're going to be placing missiles along the borders, but they're just for humanitarian purposes. </sarcasm> The no-fly zone made it to Putin and he said it would be considered an act of war. At some point, he's going to consider supplying munitions to the Ukraine the same.

“Mr Putin we are establishing a buffer zone to reduce the chance of an accidental engagement between NATO and Russia.”
It is naive to believe Putin needs a legitimate reason for escalation.  After all, he justified the invasion as a quest to denazify the jewish leadership of Ukraine 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“Mr Putin we are establishing a buffer zone to reduce the chance of an accidental engagement between NATO and Russia.”
It is naive to believe Putin needs a legitimate reason for escalation.  After all, he justified the invasion as a quest to denazify the jewish leadership of Ukraine 

Yes.

 

Share this post


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

I think that until we're told it's an act of war we do everything we can which includes supplying any anti aircraft systems the Ukrainians can actually use.

That is exactly what is happening. Large quantities.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/04/ukraine-funneling-weapons-military-aid-00014189#:~:text=The weapons deliveries — missiles%2C small,locations along the front lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
14 minutes ago, airdvr said:

We need Charlie Wilson back.

Hi airdvr,

It is a good thought. 

However, I feel it is ridiculous to compare Afghanistan with Ukraine.  Afghanistan is very mountainous; that gave them a lot of caves to hide in for safety.  Ukraine is mostly flat farmland; not a lot of places to be safe.

On the other hand, if the west gives Ukraine a LOT of military supplies, maybe it would work.  Don't count on it, though.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  One thing the Afghanees did was to occasionally take a dead Russian prisoner & skin him.  Then they left him for his comrades to find him.  This scared them a lot; as it should.  Tactics like that can be very demoralizing for your fellow troops.

 

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Hi Ken,

I truly hope efforts like this will work.

However, from your link:  The mission is reminiscent of the “rat lines” . . .  referring to a purported secret CIA effort to funnel weapons from neighboring countries to opposition forces in Syria a decade ago.

And, what is the current status of those opposition forces in Syria?

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

From our recent history:  From Grozny to Aleppo to Ukraine

 

Russia answers resistance with firepower. Rather than send in men to fight from house to house and room to room, their military doctrine calls for a bombardment by heavy weapons and from the air to destroy their enemies.

 In Chechnya, Russia's answer was to use its firepower. In a few weeks, artillery and air strikes reduced the centre of Grozny, a typical concrete and steel Soviet city, to rubble.

 Mr Putin's decision to intervene in Syria saved the regime of Bashar al-Assad and took a big step towards his objective of restoring Russia as a world power. Two decisive victories over rebels in Syria, vitally important for the regime, were delivered by the ruthless use of Russian firepower.

From Grozny to Aleppo to Ukraine, Russia meets resistance with more firepower - BBC News

I see no difference in Ukraine's future.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


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

Hi folks,

From our recent history:  From Grozny to Aleppo to Ukraine

 

Russia answers resistance with firepower. Rather than send in men to fight from house to house and room to room, their military doctrine calls for a bombardment by heavy weapons and from the air to destroy their enemies.

 In Chechnya, Russia's answer was to use its firepower. In a few weeks, artillery and air strikes reduced the centre of Grozny, a typical concrete and steel Soviet city, to rubble.

 Mr Putin's decision to intervene in Syria saved the regime of Bashar al-Assad and took a big step towards his objective of restoring Russia as a world power. Two decisive victories over rebels in Syria, vitally important for the regime, were delivered by the ruthless use of Russian firepower.

From Grozny to Aleppo to Ukraine, Russia meets resistance with more firepower - BBC News

I see no difference in Ukraine's future.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Grozny and Syria did not have the population, topography or support that Ukraine has. And Russia did not suffer the level of sanctions they are now being subjected to. I expect things to turn out much differently.  The longer this goes the worse it looks for Putin

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.

4 4