War in Ukraine

[headhunter15]

 

[MontyPython]

 

[MontyPython]

The US estimates that as much as 8% to 10% of Russian military assets used in the invasion of Ukraine is now destroyed or inoperable, according to a US official familiar with the latest intelligence, APA reports citing CNN. The equipment lost includes tanks, aircraft, artillery and other military assets.

 

[tvolsfan]

Look I hate trump but that's nonsense. He poked Iran right in the eye. Killed high ranking terrorists and dared them to do something. He wasn't a useful idiot. It's absurd to look at the current Russia situation and blame him. Just be honest.

He was certainly tough on Iran. He was not tough on Russia. That said, I agree this current situation is not his fault. This is on the guy in Moscow.

 

[tvolsfan]

This is a gross oversimplification of Linetsky's argument. Before we consider arming an insurgency, we have an obligation to consider whether that insurgency is likely to achieve anything more than a Pyrrhic victory. If it's not, our aid will have a made the end result even worse for the people of Ukraine, however righteous our intentions.

We have a responsibility, too, to consider in whose hands the weapons we propose to supply may ultimately end up. If we don't have reasonable assurance that their use will be limited to the purposes for which we've given them, that's a real problem.

Finally, we have an obligation to avoid direct military conflict between nuclear powers. We should consider whether our delivery of military aid has the potential of drawing us unwittingly into direct conflict with another nuclear power.

By this guy’s logic, Philippe Pétain should have won a Nobel prize.

 

[0nelilreb]

I thought it was against the law to sell F-35s?

I may be wrong here but I think the ones we give to other countries aren’t the F-35s we have . I thought I read an article about them having different technologies in those we sell . The A-10 warthog is the only one ( that I know of ) , that just about every NATO country wants, and that is practical for them to sustain / operate, that we won’t give them .

 

[tvolsfan]

The Russian/Soviet anthem is fantastic, no doubt about that. Second only to France.

 

[luthervol]

This is a gross oversimplification of Linetsky's argument. Before we consider arming an insurgency, we have an obligation to consider whether that insurgency is likely to achieve anything more than a Pyrrhic victory. If it's not, our aid will have a made the end result even worse for the people of Ukraine, however righteous our intentions.

We have a responsibility, too, to consider in whose hands the weapons we propose to supply may ultimately end up. If we don't have reasonable assurance that their use will be limited to the purposes for which we've given them, that's a real problem.

Finally, we have an obligation to avoid direct military conflict between nuclear powers. We should consider whether our delivery of military aid has the potential of drawing us unwittingly into direct conflict with another nuclear power.

I understand all of those points.
There are horrible consequences in arming Ukraine, but the consequences of not arming them (which is the only alternative) are even worse.

Putin created a situation where there will be no good outcome. The choices he left people with all fall between horrible and catastrophic; a horrible choice often being the best available choice.

 

[0nelilreb]

I understand all of those points.
There are horrible consequences in arming Ukraine, but the consequences of not arming them (which is the only alternative) are even worse.

Putin created a situation where there will be no good outcome. The choices he left people with all fall between horrible and catastrophic; a horrible choice often being the best available choice.

Which do you consider “ the horrible choice “ and what makes you think that won’t be “the catastrophic one”?

 

[hog88]

Keep laughing...

Saudis, UAE Refuse To Take Biden's Calls To Discuss Ukraine Situation, Talk To Putin Instead | ZeroHedge

First, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro declined to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Then, India followed suit - as the Modi government attempted to balance its historic ties with Moscow and its strategic partnership with Washington.

Now, Saudi and UAE leaders are refusing to take Biden's calls as the US president tries to contain surging oil prices, according to the Wall Street Journal, which adds that the Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled "they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere."

Well that’s embarrassing

 

[NCFisher]

So there should be no hard rules of behavior? Should Israel have just turned the other cheek every time they were attacked instead of retaliating? If they had done that, Israel would probably have ceased to exist. It seems it's been a part of the American culture to stand up for others against a bully; but if the bully has teeth, it's different? At least most of us posting on this topic can identify the bully.

The difference between Israel vs the neighbors, and Ukraine vs Russia is that Israel's neighbors are not superpowers like Russia, China, and the US. If this were Ukraine against Romania or Poland, NATO would have been a non-issue, and the match would have been far more even. You think the US was wrong in our actions around the globe, and I won't argue against you, but why condemn US actions and not Russian? Your NATO argument as a threat to Russia is BS; Russia just doesn't want to have anything even resembling an even fight if they decide to grab a neighbor.

Akin to the 'no M. East peace without kowtowing to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians' refrain that paralyzed the world for decades. That's what the "experts" told us.

Until the guy (and his son-in-law) "a narciissistic, irrational, buffoon with limited knowledge of global affairs by our allies and as a useful idiot by our enemies" did just that. @luthervol And the guy who promised to be the most leftist president ever, viewed as a mature, preferred version of statesmanship by our allies and and a demonstrable weakling by our enemies from his JV time with Obama, immediately took a dump on the Abraham Accords. He pulled our military out of AF - before our citizens, Afghans who assisted us, our munitions and in-country intelligence then used to hunt them down AND leaving "our allies" hanging in the wind - after violating the agreement with the Taliban and lied to the world as they consumed the country, then blamed Trump. He AGAIN refused lethal aid to Ukraine, signaling a weak man with no policy of his own and again blames Trump. Neither he nor his admin speak of the Americans and assets we abandoned; a man who'd do that is certainly no ally to be relied upon, and that has been dawning on "our allies" since our trapdoor exit from AF.

I think it's our allies and this retread group of Obama NSA, State, and defense who don't understand global affairs, and are slave to orthodoxy.
To our allies "You chose poorly".

 

[Grand Vol]

Well that’s embarrassing

Right wing conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda!

Everyone knows Biden is the most popular President in history and nobody wouldn't take his calls.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Supposedly, power knocked out at Chernobyl. If true, this is the sort of event that could force NATO in.

 

[luthervol]

Which do you consider “ the horrible choice “ and what makes you think that won’t be “the catastrophic one”?

For guys in Ukraine: To send your wife and kids to a foreign country with nothing but a suitcase while you stay and defend your country against a much more powerful invader, with full knowledge that you very well may be killed in the process.
(This category also includes many women and elderly)
For women with children, the sick, the elderly: to flee the country you love while leaving your sons, husbands, brother, and fathers behind to fight and possibly die.
For the US: To provide arms to Ukraine so they have a chance to damage Russia enough that Russia is willing to negotiate.

 

[AirVol]

Former presidents traditionally show a little class in these tense situations and let the new guy manage the crisis, save the partisan sniping and politics for later.

But of course that jackass has to stick his nose in and beat his chest. What a completely dick move.

Nah, it’s called campaigning. Biden nor Obama criticized Trump when he was prez did they? Yeah that was a dick move.

 

[AirVol]

Former presidents traditionally show a little class in these tense situations and let the new guy manage the crisis, save the partisan sniping and politics for later.

But of course that jackass has to stick his nose in and beat his chest. What a completely dick move.

Nah, it’s called campaigning. Biden nor Obama criticized Trump when he was prez did they? Yeah that was a dick move.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

War in Ukraine: Russia soon unable to pay its debts, warns agency

 

[Sandman 423]

Former presidents traditionally show a little class in these tense situations and let the new guy manage the crisis, save the partisan sniping and politics for later.

But of course that jackass has to stick his nose in and beat his chest. What a completely dick move.

ex-presidents should go quietly into the night, but the last two haven't been able to grasp that they are no longer relevant.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

Twit took down zerohedge for a reason. It was spreading Russian propaganda. Putin was calling on the middle east to join his soldiers last I read. There is probably a lot more going there than you know.

 

[Weezy]

Supposedly, power knocked out at Chernobyl. If true, this is the sort of event that could force NATO in.

Chernobyl hasn't operated for 20 years. I don't know the details of what remains, but decay heat after 20 years is manageable. Fuel goes to casks with no active cooling after 4 years.

 

[Pacer92]

From what I can tell that publication is the epitome of Russian apologist. They make Tucker Carlson look like he's against Putin's action on this. And that's damn near impossible.

 

[MontyPython]

The UK is sending Ukraine more anti-tank weapons to defend against Russian troops, defense minister says

Britain is increasing its supply of weapons systems to Ukraine in “response to further acts of aggression by Russia,” UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace said Wednesday.

Britain has now supplied 3,615 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, and will also shortly be supplying a small consignment of Javelin anti-tank missiles, he told lawmakers in parliament.

Wallace said the “initial supply was to be 2,000 New Light anti-tank weapons, small arms and ammunition,” but that has been increased and the UK will continue to deliver more.

“We will shortly be starting the delivery of small consignment of anti-tank Javelin missiles,” he said adding that all weapons are considered to be “defensive systems,” and are “calibrated not to escalate to a strategic level.”​

​

The UK is also considering supplying Ukraine with Starstreak high velocity anti-air missiles “in response to their request. The ministry of defence believes that this system “will remain within the definition of defensive weapons, but will allow the accredit force to better defend their skies.”



Description

When used in the light or MANPADS role the Starstreak missile is transported in a sealed launch tube. This tube is attached to an aiming unit for firing. The operator tracks the target using the aiming unit's optically stabilized sight. The process of tracking the target allows the aiming unit to compute the right trajectory to bring the missile together with the target. The operator can indicate wind direction to the unit and, in the case of a long range target, provide superelevation. When the initial tracking is complete, the operator fires the missile by pressing a button.[6]

The missile then fires the first-stage rocket motor, which launches the missile from the tube – but burns out before leaving the tube to protect the operator. Four metres (thirteen feet) away from the operator, when the missile is a safe distance away, the second stage fires, which rapidly accelerates the missile to burn out velocity of more than Mach 4. As the second stage burns out, three dart sub-munitions are released.

The dart housing is made from a tungsten alloy. The darts are each 396 millimetres (15.6 in) long with a diameter of 22 millimetres (0.87 in) and weigh about 900 grams (32 oz). Around half the weight of each dart, approximately 450 g (16 oz), is its explosive charge, detonated by a delayed-action, impact activated fuze.[6] Each dart consists of a rotating fore-body with two canard fins attached to a non-rotating rear assembly which has four fins. The rear assembly of each dart also houses the electronics that guide the missile, including a rearwards facing sensor.

The darts do not home in on laser energy reflected from the target but instead the aiming unit projects two laser beams which paint a two dimensional matrix upon the target. The lasers are modulated and by examining these modulations the sub-munition's sensor can determine the dart's location within the matrix. The dart is then steered to keep it in the centre of the matrix. The sub-munitions steer by briefly decelerating the rotating fore-body with a clutch. The front wings then steer the missile in the appropriate direction. The three sub-munitions fly in a formation about 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) in radius, and have enough kinetic energy to manoeuvre to meet a target evading at 9 g at 7,000 metres (23,000 ft).[6]

Earlier laser guidance systems used a single beam that had to be kept on the target at all times, the missile homing in on laser energy reflected off the target, if it moved off the target, the reflection would end and guidance would be lost until the target was regained. The problem could be reduced by making the laser's beam wider, but only at the cost of lowering accuracy and reducing the amount of energy being reflected. Starstreak's system allows for the beam area to be much larger than the target while retaining pinpoint accuracy.

On impact with the target, a delayed action fuze is triggered. This gives time for the projectile to penetrate the target before the explosive warhead detonates. The tungsten housing is designed to fragment and produce maximum damage inside the target.[6]

A demonstration was conducted in September 1999 that showed the missile being used against an FV432 armoured personnel carrier, showing the missile's effectiveness as a surface-to-surface weapon.[6] Each sub-munition dart travelling at 4,500 km/h (1,200 m/s; 4,100 ft/s; 2,800 mph) has comparable kinetic energy to a shell from a Bofors 40 mm gun.[citation needed] However, it lacks the armour penetration capabilities of a purpose-built anti-tank guided missile or of a dual purpose missile (such as the Air Defence Anti-Tank System).

Advantages[edit]
Starstreak has a number of advantages over infrared homing guided, radar homing guided, and radio command guidance MCLOS/SACLOS (e.g. Blowpipe or Javelin) missiles:

• It cannot be jammed by infrared countermeasures or radar/radio countermeasures.[10]
• It cannot be suppressed with anti-radar missiles.[10]

# # #

Wouldn't want to be a Russian tank crew member these days.

 

[utvolpj]

That's manipulating data to fit a point wrt gas

 

[robbymoore94]

Tucker Carlson is trying to get ratings. Just like CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the media. They know their demo, and they cater to it. However, the media on both sides, have alienated the people in the middle. Most of them are tired of hearing the crap they are putting out. Most would like fact based news, not opinion based. This speaks to the division and conquering that I am pretty sure is going on, but that is another story altogether.

In my opinion, if you are going to sanction Russia, you have to do it fully. That means no oil. If that causes prices to go up in the meantime, it's the cost of doing business, and that cost is less than putting feet on the ground. Now, we do need to be more energy independent. Electric vehicles might be the answer long term, but when Elon Musk says we are not ready for that yet, I tend to believe him. He has a little bit of skin in the game. Find a way, maybe a pipeline, that will allow us to have enough oil to not rely on outside sources. Pass legislation, as bad as I hate to say it, that limits the price we as a nation have to pay per barrel if that company wants to do business in the United States. Continue to develop the technology to make alternative fuels feasible.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Thanks for answering my question, RDU VOL#14. I see that you have read it. I don't understand, though, how you've concluded that the author blames the West for any of Putin's actions. As I read it, the article is concerned with the potential ramifications of a particular course of action currently being advocated. It presupposes that Putin's violence is unacceptable.

I understand the point. I made the statement because the Russians reputation preceded them in this invasion. Sadly, it like they’ve never evolved. It might as well be 1942-45, as opposed to 2022. I don’t blame the Ukrainians for drawing the Russians into an urban environment. House to house, room to room fighting is a meat grinder and will be devastating for the entire country, potentially an entire continent and God forbid the World.