War in Ukraine

#57,052
#57,052
Getting all X-files up in here, and not when it was good..

p7893720_b1t_v9_aa.jpg
 
#57,055
#57,055
Rasputin_Vol said:
Click to expand...


LOL... but they are talking about boots on the ground??? LOL....

American PMC "Mozart" retreats from Bakhmut and leaves Ukraine

The founder of the American PMC "Mozart" Andy Milburn said that the mercenaries were retreating from the Bakhmut they occupied and leaving the territory of Ukraine. In fact, this deprives the Armed Forces of Ukraine of support in the amount of almost an entire battalion (according to a number of data, there were up to 500 mercenaries of the Mozart PMC on the territory of Bakhmut - ed.).
Click to expand...

Americas answer to Russia’s Wagner Group PMC ‘leaving’ Ukraine amid chaos

Marek Kozubal: The wave of leaving the (Polish) army. MON sees no problem

Of course, there was no data on the departure of 15,900 soldiers on the board provided by Błaszczak. The ministry only provided the number, already very high, of leaving professional soldiers.

The Ministry of National Defense also announced that there are now 164,000 soldiers serving in the army. soldiers. It's just that he not only summed up professional soldiers and volunteers from the WOT, but also "inflated the statistics" by adding to it all those who volunteered for compulsory military service. students of military universities. Błaszczak claims that so many people are "under arms". Never before had soldiers been counted like this.
 
#57,056
#57,056
Rasputin_Vol said:
No different than the Syrians want the American out.
No different than the people of Donbas want the Kyiv regime to leave them alone.
No different than the Palestinians want to be left alone.
Click to expand...
Rasputin_Vol said:
Really, in an ideal situation, you shouldn't need to have foreign boots on your territory at any time. Assuming what you are saying is true that the French were initially invited, it is clear now that they are no longer invited right now. There was obviously some reason why they did a 180. was it a political change in the country? Did the French do something to antagonize the Malians?

But lets get back to the original comment you made that sparked my response...



When are we going to have countries that are more recognized for their diplomatic skills rather than military power? Lavrov just left Africa this past week and was treated like a rock star. Janet Yellen went to Africa lecturing them about sanctions on Russia.

The Europeans/US don't have an ounce of diplomatic skills.
Click to expand...
Maybe when a nation actually does diplomacy. Havent seen any real, consistent, examples.
 
#57,058
#57,058
Rasputin_Vol said:
They likely are doing that. No different than Ukraine being given leftover Mig-29s and other Soviet equipment last year and leftover NATO equipment now.

Why should Russia burn through all of their new stuff now when they can save their new stuff for the big one?
Click to expand...
The big one what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#57,061
#57,061
Septic said:
Do you think the US would send soldiers and marines without air superiority?
Click to expand...
Well hold on... are you suggesting that they would not send troops because they cannot establish air superiority? Or are you thinking that the US can establish it and would then send in troops?

Also, what else would you be sending in besides just "troops"? Are you sending tanks and all kinds of other equipment needed for combined fighting? Again, where are you going to land planes? Supply lines? How many troops are needed vs how many are available?
 
#57,063
#57,063
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well hold on... are you suggesting that they would not send troops because they cannot establish air superiority? Or are you thinking that the US can establish it and would then send in troops?

Also, what else would you be sending in besides just "troops"? Are you sending tanks and all kinds of other equipment needed for combined fighting? Again, where are you going to land planes? Supply lines? How many troops are needed vs how many are available?
Click to expand...
He’s stating the obvious Einstein. IF the US or NATO actually does enter the conflict then Russia’s Air Force and air defense network ceases to exist just before ground forces invade. And their own air defense network will shoot down those missiles Russia keeps killing civilians with. That’s because the US and NATO are actuality competent professional militaries unlike the third rate keystone cops from Moscow.

And no that doesn’t mean anyone wants the US or NATO involved or even thinks it’s likely but we all know you stooges will grab this and run with it anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Hunerwadel, BeardedVol and 3 others
#57,065
#57,065
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well hold on... are you suggesting that they would not send troops because they cannot establish air superiority? Or are you thinking that the US can establish it and would then send in troops?

Also, what else would you be sending in besides just "troops"? Are you sending tanks and all kinds of other equipment needed for combined fighting? Again, where are you going to land planes? Supply lines? How many troops are needed vs how many are available?
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting the US wouldn't send in troops in without air superiority.

NATO could have air superiority in 48 hours if it intervened directly. US Troops would not even be needed to mop up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Paper_Towel, BeardedVol and 2 others
#57,066
#57,066
NorthDallas40 said:
He’s stating the obvious Einstein. IF the US or NATO actually does enter the conflict then Russia’s Air Force and air defense network ceases to exist just before ground forces invade. And their own air defense network will shoot down those missiles Russia keeps killing civilians with. That’s because the US and NATO are actuality competent professional militaries unlike the third rate keystone cops from Moscow.

And no that doesn’t mean anyone wants the US or NATO involved or even thinks it’s likely but we all know you stooges will grab this and run with it anyway.
Click to expand...

Our Generals would **** it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#57,068
#57,068
NorthDallas40 said:
No they wouldn’t. And let’s face it the idiot Russians have set the bar pretty damn low.

But nobody should want the US or NATO an active combatant. Because that is the step where this goes to a nuclear exchange.
Click to expand...

Yeah they would. They would **** up the initial invasion trying to build individual legacies, we'd succeed but at an unnecessary cost in US soldiers lives all for the ego of and promotion of senior officers.
 
#57,069
#57,069
hog88 said:
Yeah they would. They would **** up the initial invasion trying to build individual legacies, we'd succeed but at an unnecessary cost in US soldiers lives all for the ego of and promotion of senior officers.
Click to expand...
I think you associate the Pentagon social club with the actual tactical and theater leadership too much. Just my opinion. But I also know you saw it first hand too 🤷‍♂️

Most of the tactical O5 and below people I dealt with seemed competent but let’s face it this was all R&D stuff. And I’ve stated how I feel about the PMO O5 and up people. Yeah don’t let them near a shooting conflict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#57,070
#57,070
Septic said:
Do you think the US would send soldiers and marines without air superiority?
Click to expand...

Septic said:
I'm suggesting the US wouldn't send in troops in without air superiority.

NATO could have air superiority in 48 hours if it intervened directly. US Troops would not even be needed to mop up.
Click to expand...

Why did you turn this into a discussion about air superiority? All I did was post a tweet about this former UK general wanting boots on the ground. Neither he nor I had mentioned anything about air superiority until you replied back. Non sequitur?
 
#57,071
#57,071
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why did you turn this into a discussion about air superiority? All I did was post a tweet about this former UK general wanting boots on the ground. Neither he nor I had mentioned anything about air superiority until you replied back. Non sequitur?
Click to expand...

You posted a tweet about 'boots on the ground' and I made a statement relating directly to that. The US would never commit troops while not providing 100% air support.

How is that non sequitur?

I get that it's an embarrassing fact that Russia has failed to win this war after preparing for years, and almost 12 months in is having to rely on DPRK munitions and mercenaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, InVOLuntary, tvolsfan and 2 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top