War in Ukraine

[LouderVol]

Most likely nobody in the Ukraine will have air superiority as the present war pieces sit. The Ukraine barely has AA at this point, and even than its not quite worth the chance for the Russians. There is no realistic way of accomplishing what you seek on the other side as the pieces are placed on the board.

There is no way of realistically fighting an air war on the Ukraine side of the board as its laid out. Its barely possible for the Russians in the current setup i.e. glide bombs and very limited Su-25 close air support.

stealth.

there has not been any indication that the current AA being used would be effective against the stealth capabilities of the west, particularly the US.

you spend a 2 weeks, a month, using stealth equipment to take out anything they can in controlled limited missions. Once the enemy is softened up you bring in the rest that has larger payloads and can run closer to the combat. you won't get everything, but you don't need to.

The Marines air power is about half the size of Russia's entire air fleet. our navy air fleet is larger than Russia's entire airforce. our land based air force is about 10x the navy airfleet. the one place the west would absolutely dominate, including production, is the air.

and then you throw in everyone else in the west, and it gets even uglier for Russia.

not saying that we would accept these losses, but the US could sustain 5:1 loss to kill ratio in the air and still have a larger air force than Russia.

 

[KB5252]

They're not working for my interests. I'm not an evil neocon.





Shouldn't they be worried about us as we're the ones in the center of all these conflicts? Your whole argument can be said of every country in the world in regards to the U.S. Which is what the evil neocons want.

Yeah, my opinion does say it all but I don't vote for Trump or anyone else. I mean do you vote for pedo ice cream man? You say you want a good discussion yet you bring up things that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Regardless, you can sign up today to promote and support your own interests. They're not my interests. If you really feel like this, you should join up and really prove it.

Russia could destroy all of the Ukraine yet you really haven't come up with any real reason why Americans should care, the United States has been killing people all over the world for no real reason. Why exactly do I give a **** about these stupid Ukrainians?

Let me get this right, we get a country into a fight than I'm support to care about them after they're destroyed? The U.S. only care about them because they are fighting them, its the equivalent of Michael Vick putting pit bulls into a cage to fight. Michael Vick didn't care about the dogs. What you are describing as far as I am concern is a lack of humanity i.e. evil.

So it's less evil to say you don't give a F!$? If Ukraine is destroyed?

And no I can't nor would vote for Biden.

We're no more or less in the middle of any of these conflicts than China or Russia is.

And, no I can't sign up today for a number of reasons.

We didn't get a country into a fight except for supporting their wishes to align with the West. I guess that alone is reason enough for them to ask die iyo.

And if your stance is simply saying we shouldn't help because we don't have the money to send I can get behind that. But you are taking it much further than that.

Not really sure what neo cons have to do with what is happening today. Perhaps your definition of neo con would help me.

 

[Rocky_Top_Vol13]

 

[LouderVol]

They won't have the support in the aftermath. The payments will stop coming which is all they got. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense.

Ukraine could have accepted peace early on before Russia had destroyed everything to need support in the aftermath.

And if they actually prefered the Russians they could have always accepted their offer in the first place to just ignore the western bribes.

 

[LouderVol]

That vote was 30+ years ago? Neither Country has changed in 30+ years?

Russian liberated areas in the Donbas voted a year ago, overwhelmingly, to join Russia. Which vote is more important, the one 30+ years ago or the one last year?

you mean the one that was held at gun point? The same one where the two options were leave Ukraine or join Russia, no third option to stay in Ukraine? The same one where the Russians kidnapped or killed all the local authorities before holding the vote? The same vote where the Russians actively removed tens of thousands of locals who weren't 100% behind their invasion and occupation?

if you ever has questioned the votes in our nation, there is absolutely zero reason to accept the facade of the elections held by Russia in those areas.

 

[BeardedVol]

CCP spouting nonsense.

 

[LouderVol]

You know what, why is it that Russia has been on our side in the majority of wars in USA history but yet are our enemies, but the Redcoat British are our allies?

under your logic we have fought the Russians in Korea, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq, probably Afghanistan. when they supplied those nations. plus another couple dozen straight up proxy wars. And then there is however you want to consider Operation Polar Bear in WW1 where we fought the commies.

we have only fought in two wars on the same side as the Russians, WW2 and the Boxer Rebellion. but we were never allied with them in either war.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Ukraine will never win. Nor did they ever have a chance to win.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So after watching this, can you tell me with a straight face that NATO is not at war with Russia?

 

[BeardedVol]

So after watching this, can you tell me with a straight face that NATO is not at war with Russia?

How many NATO soldiers have been killed?

How many NATO ships have been sunk?

How many NATO aircraft have been shot down?

 

[MG1968]

How many NATO soldiers have been killed?

How many NATO ships have been sunk?

How many NATO aircraft have been shot down?

Who is the NATO commander in charge of said NATO forces.

Where is the NATO declaration of hostilities directed at Russian forces inside the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine?

 

[PKT_VOL]

stealth.

there has not been any indication that the current AA being used would be effective against the stealth capabilities of the west, particularly the US.

you spend a 2 weeks, a month, using stealth equipment to take out anything they can in controlled limited missions. Once the enemy is softened up you bring in the rest that has larger payloads and can run closer to the combat. you won't get everything, but you don't need to.

The Marines air power is about half the size of Russia's entire air fleet. our navy air fleet is larger than Russia's entire airforce. our land based air force is about 10x the navy airfleet. the one place the west would absolutely dominate, including production, is the air.

and then you throw in everyone else in the west, and it gets even uglier for Russia.

not saying that we would accept these losses, but the US could sustain 5:1 loss to kill ratio in the air and still have a larger air force than Russia.

This is a pre-war assessment assuming the best on the Russian side.

Given the current state of the Russian airforce, navy, and air defense, it is not out of the question that the US/NATO would have complete air superiority over Ukraine within a week with little to no loses. The differences between the two right now are night and day.

 

[LouderVol]

This is a pre-war assessment assuming the best on the Russian side.

Given the current state of the Russian airforce, navy, and air defense, it is not out of the question that the US/NATO would have complete air superiority over Ukraine within a week with little to no loses. The differences between the two right now are night and day.

my assumption would be that we would have to establish air control over at least the border provinces of Russia to stop the glide bombs.

 

[LouderVol]

Yes, very serious. Those are the facts. You are a clown if you do not know that. And that isn't any CRT/DEI nonsense. It is basic US history.

what do you think they did in the Revolutionary War or the Civil War?

the revolutionary war they recognized our existence, as did everyone but Britain. they also said they would continue to trade with any port that wasn't actively blockaded. doesn't make them an ally.

in the Civil War 2 Russian squadrons separately visited New York City and San Francisco. stayed for about a week. and while here they were under the standard (of the time) maritime use agreement. where the russian ships would defend the US port if the port was attacked by another foreign nation while they were there. It wasn't a specific Russian stance, that was the requirement of the time to use any port by any nation. Russia was "special" because very few foreign militaries were willing to risk their ships while the host nation was actually at war. and it only lasted the duration of their stay.

you are way overstating their involvement to think that involvement made them any sort of ally.

 

[LSU-SIU]

So it's less evil to say you don't give a F!$? If Ukraine is destroyed?

And no I can't nor would vote for Biden.

We're no more or less in the middle of any of these conflicts than China or Russia is.

And, no I can't sign up today for a number of reasons.

We didn't get a country into a fight except for supporting their wishes to align with the West. I guess that alone is reason enough for them to ask die iyo.

And if your stance is simply saying we shouldn't help because we don't have the money to send I can get behind that. But you are taking it much further than that.

Not really sure what neo cons have to do with what is happening today. Perhaps your definition of neo con would help me.

When I say I don't care, that means I'm not willing to add to people's misery that is not my concern. Obviously Americans don't care as the United States has been bombing all kinds of people.

Why shouldn't I care for the Russians? Why should I care if the Ukraine loses and is destroyed?

We're no more or less in the middle of any of these conflicts than China or Russia is.

Your government is meddling in everyone's business, your post is one of leaving that out. These issue have nothing to do with the United States, other than to interfere.

And, no I can't sign up today for a number of reasons.

We didn't get a country into a fight except for supporting their wishes to align with the West. I guess that alone is reason enough for them to ask die iyo.

Yes, you can sign up, I don't know what you mean by "align", that is just a made up term in this context. They don't align with my interest, matter of fact, they were appear to be bribing the ice cream man.

And if your stance is simply saying we shouldn't help because we don't have the money to send I can get behind that. But you are taking it much further than that.

No, I'm saying its really none of our business and all we are doing is interfering around the world. Its not in my interest.

You still have not given any valid reason as to why me or other Americans should care. I would say if they do care, I would tell them to stop listening to the United States.

 

[LSU-SIU]

stealth.

there has not been any indication that the current AA being used would be effective against the stealth capabilities of the west, particularly the US.

you spend a 2 weeks, a month, using stealth equipment to take out anything they can in controlled limited missions. Once the enemy is softened up you bring in the rest that has larger payloads and can run closer to the combat. you won't get everything, but you don't need to.

The Marines air power is about half the size of Russia's entire air fleet. our navy air fleet is larger than Russia's entire airforce. our land based air force is about 10x the navy airfleet. the one place the west would absolutely dominate, including production, is the air.

and then you throw in everyone else in the west, and it gets even uglier for Russia.

not saying that we would accept these losses, but the US could sustain 5:1 loss to kill ratio in the air and still have a larger air force than Russia.

All irrelevant, those system if they could beat the S-400s (which its possible it can't) would have to operate from the Ukraine which would not be really possible in quantity or without many years of training, support and construction of facilities to maintain them - which would just get destroyed by long-range missiles.

The Marines air power is about half the size of Russia's entire air fleet. our navy air fleet is larger than Russia's entire airforce. our land based air force is about 10x the navy airfleet. the one place the west would absolutely dominate, including production, is the air.

Irrelevant, you could give the Ukraine the whole Air Force, Marine and Naval air fleet and it would have little to no use in this conflict as the chess board is currently laid out.

 

[LouderVol]

All irrelevant, those system if they could beat the S-400s (which its possible it can't) would have to operate from the Ukraine which would not be really possible in quantity or without many years of training, support and construction of facilities to maintain them - which would just get destroyed by long-range missiles.



Irrelevant, you could give the Ukraine the whole Air Force, Marine and Naval air fleet and it would have little to no use in this conflict as the chess board is currently laid out.

why would they have to operate from Ukraine? if the west is involved there are plenty of non-ukrainian airbases to use. even if it was just the US, we could park a carrier group in the Black Sea/Aegan or the Baltic and run sorties. Heck our bombers hit Iraq and Afghanistan from US airbases. with air refueling possible our entire air force could theoretically operate from US soil.

we aren't talking about giving Ukraine our air force. we are talking about the west getting involved in the fight. Ukraine would only be responsible for the stuff they have.

 

[LSU-SIU]

why would they have to operate from Ukraine? if the west is involved there are plenty of non-ukrainian airbases to use. even if it was just the US, we could park a carrier group in the Black Sea/Aegan or the Baltic and run sorties. Heck our bombers hit Iraq and Afghanistan from US airbases. with air refueling possible our entire air force could theoretically operate from US soil.

we aren't talking about giving Ukraine our air force. we are talking about the west getting involved in the fight. Ukraine would only be responsible for the stuff they have.

Any base (or ship) that the Ukraine or the United States uses for launching attacks would be target for Russia attack. What you are talking about is thermonuclear war.

What you are really talking about is moronic.

I'm trying to figure out if you are joking.

 

[LouderVol]

Any base (or ship) that the Ukraine or the United States uses for launching attacks would be target for Russia attack. What you are talking about is thermonuclear war.

What you are really talking about is moronic.

I'm trying to figure out if you are joking.

talking theoreticals. you suggested that it wouldn't matter if the west got involved it would be the same results as air power wouldn't work. we were talking about how it would.

of course they would be targets to attack. never claimed otherwise.

 

[LSU-SIU]

talking theoreticals. you suggested that it wouldn't matter if the west got involved it would be the same results as air power wouldn't work. we were talking about how it would.

of course they would be targets to attack. never claimed otherwise.

No, I said in the context of the battlefield there meaning operating under the Ukraine or from the Ukraine that no real weapon systems matter much. The timetable could be impacted.

Sure, if the United States wanted to start WW3 things would change, they would actually become meaningless there. I mean, you could give the Ukraine some nukes but it doesn't change the outcome much. The Ukraine wouldn't be destroyed, it would probably look more like glass.

Not sure what you are getting at.

I doubt any real impact from all of U.S. conventional forces either, meaning, Russia would just increase itself and doesn't have to travel half way around the world to fight. If you think the U.S. can really fight a conventional war on the borders of China or Russia, I think you would be gravely mistaken.

Most of these U.S. systems are borderline worthless in a real war, it really becomes a production war i.e. shells, bullets, bombs, etc. and being able to timely deliver them.

We're talking about dropping millions of tons of arms, to do that you can't be on the other side of the world. This is a tonnage war, a real war is about tonnage. This is a production war to produce the tonnage. To have a real impact on this war, the West would have to have the equivalent of WW2 immobilization, as the Russians would just escalate as well.

The war machine has only started.



The west can delay the time table but that is about all without some of outside factor, if you want to go to nuclear war which is what you are getting at.... I guess that is an option.

 

[KB5252]

You know what, why is it that Russia has been on our side in the majority of wars in USA history but yet are our enemies, but the Redcoat British are our allies?

This is patently false. The fact you've posted (regurgitated) this tells me you are reading some very specific information designed to disinform and distort history for purpose aka propaganda.

 

[MontyPython]

Ukraine could have accepted peace early on before Russia had destroyed everything to need support in the aftermath.

And if they actually prefered the Russians they could have always accepted their offer in the first place to just ignore the western bribes.

WTF are you talking about? "Accepted peace"? That's a load of crap right there.

The more precise description is "surrender". If you were Ukrainian, would you have simply surrendered to Russia? Simple question, yes or no.

 

[LouderVol]

No, I said in the context of the battlefield there meaning operating under the Ukraine or from the Ukraine that no real weapon systems matter much. The timetable could be impacted.

Sure, if the United States wanted to start WW3 things would change, they would actually become meaningless there. I mean, you could give the Ukraine some nukes but it doesn't change the outcome much. The Ukraine wouldn't be destroyed, it would probably look more like glass.

Not sure what you are getting at.

I doubt any real impact from all of U.S. conventional forces either, meaning, Russia would just increase itself and doesn't have to travel half way around the world to fight. If you think the U.S. can really fight a conventional war on the borders of China or Russia, I think you would be gravely mistaken.

Most of these U.S. systems are borderline worthless in a real war, it really becomes a production war i.e. shells, bullets, bombs, etc. and being able to timely deliver them.

We're talking about dropping millions of tons of arms, to do that you can't be on the other side of the world. This is a tonnage war, a real war is about tonnage. This is a production war to produce the tonnage. To have a real impact on this war, the West would have to have the equivalent of WW2 immobilization, as the Russians would just escalate as well.

The war machine has only started.



The west can delay the time table but that is about all without some of outside factor, if you want to go to nuclear war which is what you are getting at.... I guess that is an option.

We wouldn't have to maintain ourselves half way around the world, something we have shown an ability to do. we would have all of Europe. plenty of space to stage.

If you want to see tonnage I would suggest looking at our B-52s. there is a reason we maintain those BUFFs. we haven't used those tactics because we haven't had that type of enemy. carpet bombing didn't make much sense in the mountains against scattered troops. a nice line of trenches, some air fields, or other organized staging grounds that Ukraine has already been able to strike in Russia, our bombers are licking their chops. the A-10s, and most of our ground pounders would equal out that tonnage quickly, which is why winning the air war would be so important.

Russia is having to escalate to fight a neighbor with a pre war population of 40 million and a military smaller than Iraq. they have also had several rounds of conscriptions. Russia can't escalate forever. and just like Russia has the size, population benefit over Ukraine; the rest of Europe and the US have over Russia.

China won't be fighting Russia's war for them. they are too smart for that. they will pursue their own interests in the east, and wait to move into Russia until after Moscow had fallen. China has no military experience to pull from, yet alone staging a war on the other side of Asia. they would move in and seize the assets they wanted from Russia. Kinda like japan in WW2, they will also fight against the allies, but they will be selective in their theatres of operation.

 

[BeardedVol]

WTF are you talking about? "Accepted peace"? That's a load of crap right there.

The more precise description is "surrender". If you were Ukrainian, would you have simply surrendered to Russia? Simple question, yes or no.

The "peace" was broken in 2014 when Putin actually began the invasion.

2022 was just the escalation after 8 years of building up resources.

At that point Ukraine had the choice to defend themselves, or accept full Russian occupation, and forced client state status, the same as Belarus.

 

[LouderVol]

WTF are you talking about? "Accepted peace"? That's a load of crap right there.

The more precise description is "surrender". If you were Ukrainian, would you have simply surrendered to Russia? Simple question, yes or no.

calm the eff down dude. you are completely missing the context.

he was talking about the west's alleged control over Ukraine. i was pointing out with that post how it was illogical, based on the way's Ukraine could have avoided our control and the war if that was what was happening. never said ukraine should have accepted any of it.

stop being a partisan hack all the time and try to understand what you are reading, in context, before you lash out.