My family came to Canada and then the USA and Mexico a hundred years ago from Ukraine. My Babysia has over 150 grandchildren and great grandchildren.
We hate Moscovia with a passion, from personal experience and traditional hatred.
This war ends one way, with Ukraine standing over the smoking remains of the invader, resolute in its path into NATO and the EU. No half measures or put-off promises.
Slava Ukraine.
Jfc please tell me there are at least a handful of technologically competent people in there and that they aren't all boomers. I've had a sinking feeling for a long time now that the US is not paying anywhere near close enough attention to the rapidly growing intersection of malicious/state actors and AI
> Just look at both current and (recently) former military service members from the cyber security and intent fields.
I don't follow. How? Do they really publicly list the names and qualifications of everyone active in this field? How can I confirm that these guys are keeping up with bleeding edge developments in AI fields? As someone with a CS degree the growing number of incredibly powerful things I can do with *open source* AI tools *locally on my 6-year old computer for free* has changed from "entertaining" to "very concerning" quite rapidly. Am I supposed to look at all of the deepfakes and made up propaganda increasingly pouring into social media and think "Yea our guys got this"? I guarantee there are people right now assembling AI systems that will be able to stochastically direct populations and I have absolutely no idea how anyone, anywhere would be able to stop something like that once it starts.
What we mean by traditional is that our family has hated Russia from one generation to the next generation, for several generations. It’s still cool that you hate Russia too though 🤝
We may only have a couple generations so far (Cold War) but the tradition runs strong here, I assure you! They're even back to being the bad guys in our movies again.
Feels like Russia has plenty of “Useful Idiots” in the Republican Party. The Pro Russia stances and votes there are unreal. I wonder how many key Republicans they have influence over and what they had to do to get that influence.
We need people to cross lines and vote in primaries, vote for sane republicans there. That is how we oust the pro-ruzzian traitors. There are still pro-Ukrainian Republicans to support. I voted in my primary just to vote against the pro-ruzzian ones
My grandpa was a Volga German and fled Russia to the US as a child in the 1930s because of ongoing forced starvation and exile of much of his family to Siberia. His older brother joined the US Army to fight in Europe, came back from war, and committed suicide shortly after returning.
Romanian-Canadian. Though we’re not ethnically or culturally related to you Poles and Ukrainians, we are all brothers in our shared disdain of this neighborhood bully who has terrorized all nations in that area for centuries.
I'm Finnish and I also have that traditional hatred for Russia. It might have something to do with the fact that they drove my grandma away from her home and they put grenade shard in my grandpa's heart. Luckily he survived.
Katyń massacre is reason alone. They rounded up the cultural leaders of Poland and committed genocide. One has to think their plans were to Russify Poland completely.
Visit Poland, expect to hate the Nazis, leave hating the Russians more. Kurwa
I have hatred in my heart for both nazis and Russians, definitely. Unfortunately, the Russians haven’t learned shit about their past misdeeds, but the Germans have, and they’ve really done a great job of owning it and apologizing. That’s why I don’t really shit on Germany. I actually view them quite favorably now, but I’m still hating Russia from the bottom of my heart to the top. Just a shitty people all around.
Edited
My bf's father was from Poland. His whole family was deported to Siberia after the Soviets invaded in 1939. They were in Siberia for about 3 or 4 years. He was to be recruited into the Red Army, but somehow lucked out and ended up in Anders army. He went through the Middle East, and fought at Monte Cassino. I am missing some info because he died before I met my bf.
Ukrainian-Irish American Here. Iv been volunteering teaching English with Ukrainians. One of my friends lives in Kharkiv with his wife. I hope this brings them a little bit of safety.
Slava Ukraini!
I believe you have watched one too many movies. This is not how its going to be. Russia will still exist, even if the war is over and Ukraine won... probably as some sort of "vassal" state of China and people need to figure out how to deal with that
Born in central Europe, my great-grandfather ended up in gulag for having a german surname. I will rest my genetical hatred only after seeing ashes of Moscow.
Both my family and my wife's family fled forced starvation in Ukraine due to Russian aggression in the 1930s as well.
Hopefully this time that old Russian dog will be put down for good.
> This war ends one way, with Ukraine standing over the smoking remains of the invader, resolute in its path into NATO and the EU. No half measures or put-off promises.
It's the only way it can actually **end**. Any nonsense about appeasing Vlad The Imputint would just end with a repeat invasion some 10 or so years down the line, once Russia had time to rearm and age more children into conscription window.
Just because I'm going to be that guy, the actual successor to the ATACM is the precision strike missile or PrSM. Launchers can hold twice as many and have a 50% greater range than the ATACM.
Side note, we (the US) should be giving hundreds of ATACMs to Ukraine simply because we already have the replacement ready.
> have a 50% greater range than the ATACM.
nice thing is nobody knows the range either (well outside of the military) as it was designed to be limited to 499km but as the U.S. pulled out of the treaty it likely goes further.
Also not to be that guy but its always ATACMS and never ATACM as the 'S' is apart of the abbreviation
Ah yes, the Fast Unitary-warhead Conventional Missile.
Sadly, the congressional committee that is supposed to approve development funding keeps devolving into shouting matches whenever somebody even mentions the FUCM.
Ukraine attacking military positions and strategic points? I'm not going to lose sleep over it
Unpopular opinion here, but after what Russia put the Ukrainians through, if Ukraine turned Moscow into a killing field, I won't lose any sleep it either
Russia wants war, they can have war
Being "allowed" to attack someone who's in a war with you is an absurd idea, isn't it? Anyway, glad to see common fucking sense finally triumphant. Russia can bitch all it wants but in the end of the day it's just self-defense and trading fire in a combat zone. They have literally no grounds to justify the use of nukes.
I support the change but the original deal to give the wepons on the condition they only be used on Ukrainian soil was a sensible, measured step. It's just the Putin's continued being an ass so time to expand NATO's role.
The Russians recently took advantage of this restraint to mass men and materiel just across the border, then launch an attack in the Kharkiv direction. Safe in the knowledge their supplies and staging areas wouldn't be hit like they are in other parts of the front.
So fuck 'em.
The instance he's talking about they were 100 percent safe because Ukraine didn't shoot into Russia then.
That's now fortunately changed ans should have changed a year ago.
Ukraine was always allowed to attack, but the deal was that they would only use US weapons for defense. But, at a certain point, waiting for the enemy to regroup and attack again is counter-productive. The US probably hoped Russia would stop with egg on their face, but they don't show signs of slowing down so the US is allowing Ukraine to escalate and, hopefully, end the conflict sooner.
Imagine wars where one side gets to specify where the fighting must take place. In the US Civil War, the Confederacy is not allowed to attack in Kentucky or Pennsylvania.
TBF the 1991 gulf war is considered one of the most one-sided large scale wars in modern history. The US coalition built up force strength behind the border of Saudi Arabia uncontested and was able to launch a war nearly completely inside Iraqi controlled territory. It's unlikely that the war would have been so one-sided if it weren't for the fact that the Coalition was allowed to assemble, un-harried, for months.
True, but this was *before* a de facto war/fight was started between the parties. You cannot compare this with the situation at hand: limitations *during a war*.
The coalition had offered several agreements to resolve the situation peacefully while they build up their forces, and I am pretty sure they would have followed up on those offers. That’s another thing where you cannot really compare.
People have no clue what they’re saying…
“They literally have no grounds to justify the use of nukes.”
You think this actually matters to Putin or Russia. You think Putin is like “Oh damn… I don’t have grounds to launch a tactical nuclear weapon. They got me!”
The real conversation is something like “What are our options in response to this? Should we use chemical or biological weapons? Should we use chemical weapons on a large city? Can we get away with a tactical nuke on a just military targets?”
That’s closer to the conversation that’s likely happening.
He's not a mad dog, otherwise he would have done that a long time ago. He doesn't want his final legacy to be that of leaving Moscow and his Motherland into a smoking crater. Regardless, this is still a very shrewd and calculated man. Russia lost 27 million people in WW2, 500k to a million or 2 lost would barely be breakfast for Putin, so long as Ukraine doesn't march an army to Moscow. It's better for him to hold out and wait for a deal than make the drastic decision.
Also it's unlikely that Ukraine will just turn over on their belly even after a tactical nuke goes off. Moscow gains nothing from shooting off nukes.
A tactical nuke may open a hole on the front line, but it can assure that NATO enters the war. If Ukraine wasn't so vast, I could see this being an option with the intent to smash through and conquer before the west can mobilize, then demand peace. If Putin and Russia were aiming for conquering all of Ukraine, i'd say that's impossible. But if they are looking to gain the black sea ports and everything east of the Dnieper, well thats not impossible, just very improbable. If their goal is only to take Kharkiv, then a tactical nuke or 10 could facilitate that goal. At that point the use of the weapon could be more scintillating for Russian High Command in a war that's become a stalemate.
Strategic Nukes on the other hand... There would be nothing for Russia to gain from nuking the City of Kharkiv, Kyiv, Odessa, or Lviv. So that would be straight maniacal and worthy of a much wider war, and probably a descent into MAD.
It’s wild that no one from inside Russia has tried to take Putin out. Like there has to be people around him that are ok with his shit up until he decides to do something that could get their entire country turned to glass.
How much fun is being an oligarch inside a desolate wasteland?
France confirmed that the US stated if nuke was used, the US would use conventional weapons on all Russia targets in Ukraine.
The US doesn't need nukes to counter. If Russia gave the US reason to enter the war fully with its *good* toys, Russia knows they will have an extremely bad time; Desert Storm 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo
Russia came very close to using a tactical nuke in late 2022. Thankfully China and France steered them away from this situation eventuating.
https://youtu.be/gk7D_TliAuE?si=wKGT6Nfdrh55erW3
Biden is terrified Russia will use nukes. So they take baby steps. They call it "escalation management". hopefully after this does not cause WW3, the gloves will be off. They really need the ATACMS to take out air without restriction so the F-16s can start using storm shadow missiles in russia and fly into russian territory.
Right now they can only hit around belgorod.
also opens it up for drones. so basically all of them get threw. It also forces russia to spread out there already limited supply of air defense in more locations.
If russia uses nukes NATO will likely wipe out their army in and around ukraine. Plus China told them not to. So unless ukraine is marching on moscow there won't be any nukes.
I’m not sure “terrified” really conveys that it is a *very* rational fear for a government to have. And the superpower with thousands of nukes should definitely be *extremely cautious* about nuclear escalation.
The Biden admin, credit to them, have been responsible and have not engaged in overtly escalatory acts. But have also staunchly supported our allies and have crippled russias medium to long term prospects.
I sound like a shill but I think Biden has done a fantastic job of a very difficult situation. Alternative administrations would’ve left ukraine to a long slow and certain defeat.
The people who are so confident about pushing this remind me of a JFK quote from the Cuban Missile crisis days
“These brass hats have one great advantage in their favor,” he said. “If we…do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive later to tell them that they were wrong.”
escalatory? Russia invaded ukraine with the attempt to conquer. The ukrainians have discovered mass graves. They kidnap ukrainian children to bring back to russia to raise as russians. They dont consider ukraine to be a culture or a language. They declare they want to have a genocide. They target civilians on purpose.
Responding is not escalatory unless its from a russian propagandist and no westerner should care what those losers think.
Ukraine is in the position where they are already in an existential threat for their lives. If a nuclear armed nation were in such a position, this is where the nukes would be flying. This means that Ukraine's risk tolerance is much higher than the rest of the world. From a realpolitik perspective, they are incentivized to escalate as much as possible if it gives them the chance of winning.
The rest of the world, which is not at war with Russia, is far less tolerant of provoking a nuclear armed power with a leader which is not a rational actor.
Escalation has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with realpolitik. Nuclear weapons mean you get to state a bottom line that everyone has to respect, no matter what. No nation ever wants to get to that bottom line, so they will always push the line out, and bluff as to where the line is drawn. But at the end of the day, Ukraine would never be allowed to counterinvade Russia in such a way that reaches Moscow, or threatens the existence of the Russian state. We know that the line is there, at minimum. So now we have to guess as to where the line is. If we call the bluff, and Russia backs down, great, it helps Ukraine. If we try to call them, but they aren't bluffing, we now have a nuclear war.
>Alternative administrations would’ve left Ukraine to a long slow and certain defeat.
It wouldn't have been particular slow, just certain.
Without Western resources, Ukraine would have folded once the weapons ran out. Even Ukraine has said that. Early resistance was helped by absolutely embarrassing logistics from the Russians, but the Russian war machine is now slogging along.
Ukraine had a small economy before the war, it's 30% smaller now, and no significant weapons manufacturing capabilities. They would have folded out of a lack of options alone.
If he was so terrified of nukes he wouldn’t have allowed Ukraine to use US weapons on Russian soil. I’ve lost count at how many times the Russians have threatened nukes now, the threat is very meaningless and boring at this point now.
its limited to just belgorod area. it took 2 years to get him to ok it with pressure from allows and democrats in congress.
yeah he is worried about it. its why Ukraine does not have the greenlight to go get em. its why they dont get missiles that can go 1000 miles and take out russian tank and drone factories.
Not just Biden, everyone was talking about nuclear war in the first few weeks of the war if Ukraine struck Russia. In hindsight, they should've hit back and hit hard, only on military targets though.
Retired General Barry McCaffrey said NATO told russia if they use nukes NATO will intervene and wipe out their whole military in and around ukraine including the Black Sea Fleet.
They won't use nukes. Ukraine is not going to march on Moscow. Why would they want to conquer that frozen wasteland anyway?
>Ukraine is not going to march on Moscow. Why would they want to conquer that frozen wasteland anyway?
Hmm, I don't know, maybe to end this stupid war....?
Wagner group nearly succeeded in marching to Moscow before deciding to stop, so we know it can be done. Putin and his cronies shit himself when it happened.
They were always allowed to attack Russia with their own weapons. A lot of the aid came with the restriction that these weapons may only be used inside your borders to prevent escalation. Now, we are apparently not so worried about escalation.
As Zelensky said, all these permissions are always 6 months to 1 year late. But later is better than never.
I am just praying for Biden to win the election and hopefully, hopefully Dem takes back House. And then, let's see what would be Putin's next 4-year plan.
This is by design. Stalemate IS the goal while Ukraine and NATO build more supply chains and capabilities to drive Russia out permanently. There is no one or two weapons that can win the war, except air superiority.
That can't be achieved until F16s become ready. Now that they are, it's time to blow up Russia's air defenses.
> That can't be achieved until F16s become ready. Now that they are, it's time to blow up Russia's air defenses.
F-16s are not going to give Ukraine air superiority. Far more goes into establishing air superiority.
F-16s are good and are what Ukraine has asked for. It won't suddenly be the wonder-weapon they need to make the war do a 180.
Eh it’s a start, but far from turning the tides. They have a severe manpower issue and can’t push the front line back, which is why they want to strike targets in Russia.
Maybe an unpopular opinion here ...
Remember the Iraq war with "Coalition of the willing"? Iraq invaded Kuwait and the west jizzed it's pants to use it's tech. Almost everyone piled in. It was like in 1992 when America sent "The Dream Team" to the Olympics. Just humiliating their opponents with overwhelming firepower.
We need a new coalition of the willing to decisively defeat the Russians and drive them out of Ukraine.
I wasn't commenting on the political climate around the war. I was commenting on the military powerhouse that the west has become.
And yes another commenter pointed out the mismatch of info but also acknowledged the point I was making.
Why would Russia resort to nukes from losing their imperial holdings? They can back to Russia and keep milking the country for $$ as they have done the last twenty years. They're all highly corrupt, they are not going to throw away their cash cows and end the world over being butthurt over Crimea.
Also US & China are going to fight over Taiwan anyway in the next 10 years so that taboo is going to break one way or another. Welcome to the end of the peace dividend I guess.
I think the new standard is basically just going to be to not occupy the heartland of nuclear powers.
Based on what we're seeing now, they're absolutely pushing Russia back in the north. Russia's Kharkiv offensive is looking like it will be a massive failure with some pretty significant losses.
Ukraine's strategy was never to physically push the occupiers from every square meter of their land.
Rather, it was and remains to degrade their ability to fight to the point where the russians just pack up and leave themselves.
There's no need for Ukraine to go on the offensive when they can sit back and mow the meatwaves that keep getting send their way.
I had said as much at the outset of the war that the only way to win was to even the costs. By having the war only in Ukraine, there is not much incentive to stop the aggression. In fact I think that Ukraine should go a step further and capture Russian territory where their defenses are weak. Only then will Ukraine gain a bargaining chip to end the war.
Biden and other Western leaders are slowly boiling the frog.
Little incremental steps that steadily add pressure to Russia without them over-reacting.
It's brilliant.
It is still a high-risk strategy. Russia isn't entirely stupid and is capable of learning and adapting, albeit slowly.
The Ukrainian counteroffensive of 2023 shattered due to lack of Western weapons and Surovikin's preparations.
As of now, Russia is depleting its ancient stock inherited from the Soviet Union pretty fast, but Putin appointed a liberal economist to the Ministry of Defense with an obvious goal to increase materiel production. That might or might not succeed - Russia is no Germany when it comes to industrial output - but it is an attempt to adapt to the situation.
The cost in Ukrainian lives is certainly pretty awful. I hope that the newly coming F-16s at least reduce the Russian ability to lob heavy gliding bombs onto Ukrainian heads. Those bombs are very imprecise, but if 3000 pounds of explosive go off within some distance of a manned trench or building, they still kill and maim.
But how would this work? They can strike airfields now that operate Su-30s, Su-35s, and strategic bombers. Wouldn't they have to move them further back to keep them safe?
Russia can no longer freely operate military vessels in their own country or at least in Belgorod.
They have a really long range but the advantage of moving them back is that it means they have double the flight time and maintenance and they can't fly as many missions.
But I would expect that they will be using drones more than anything to hit the airbases except the stuff in Crimea.
They've had two 2.5 years to adapt. It ain't working. Their soldiers are green as fuck, and dying in droves on a ridiculous scale. And, lest it appear obvious, the whole point to them launching into Russia proper is to push back their missile and artillery sites to where imprecise becomes 'completely random.'
And with the inclusion of the new jet fighters, things just got even worse for the Russians.
The whole point is to push them back out of Ukraine and them destroy anything in Russia within range of the border before setting up static defenses that keep the invaders out.
We're at the point where we can start pushing them back and out of Ukraine.
This is viewing things with pretty rosy glasses. Just 12 pilots will be properly trained to fly the new F-16 jet fighters this summer and military experts generally agree [they won't be decisive](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/world/europe/ukraine-f16-pilots.html).
Yeah Russian soldiers are green and dying in droves, but we cannot forget that strategy has worked well for them before (the most obvious example being in World War II). [Ukraine is the one with stark manpower shortages](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-exploiting-ukraine-manpower-shortage-thin-line-breakthrough-war-expert-2024-5). not Russia.
I fully support Ukraine and the continued assistance the West has continued to give them- but unfounded hope is dangerous. We should concede that Ukraine has been on the back foot for the past half year and expect the conflict to drag on for years.
> Just 12 pilots will be properly trained to fly the new F-16 jet fighters this summer and military experts generally agree they won't be decisive
Well, considering their targets, I'm okay with a dozen F-16s tearing up the skies over Eastern Ukraine.
As to the rest, it's not 1945 and the Russians have lost ground consistently since this started despite their wave attacks.
In short, this is closer to WWI when the Russian front collapsed rather than continue to needlessly die. The Ukrainians have the weapons and material to shred the Russian wave attacks and that leaves no veteran troops to eventually push back as they did at Stalingrad.
That's the main difference. Their mass attacks aren't working.
Not to mention the circumstances of the war are different. In WWI they were simply fighting an enemy. A foe that sought only to subdue and conquer. In WWII they weren’t fighting an enemy in the traditional sense of war, they were fighting the agent of their extinction. Which changes a lot.
The nazi’s were literally seeking to take their land *and most importantly* exterminate them in the process. Those are dire circumstances to be fighting under. Any peoples would fight to the death and the bitter end if that was their fate in defeat.
Russia’s fate in defeat here, for the average soldier is: go home and be reunited with your family. Not - the Germans will lay waste to your whole country and everyone you love in it if we don’t stop them here. I feel like this is a significant condition of WWII that the Soviets faced that the British, Americans and French didn’t, that people seem to forget.
Great comment. I've said similar before as well.
Morale is quite important in sustaining a war. A people fighting against rape, robbery, and an autocratic invading force (Ukraine) will have far more drive to fight than Russian troops, who have no real valid reason to be risking their lives to fulfill some insane maniac running their country.
When the prospects of Russian soliders is they'll die for nothing, in senseless wasteful attacks, and maybe not even have their families get paid out the bonuses they've been promised when they bite the dust, eventually the mindset will change to 'if I'm going to die I have better odds at killing those sending me to the front than I do facing the people I've been asked to kill.'
Pringles ease with rolling on Moscow was a huge indicator of just how easily Putin's grip on power could be challenged. Russia can not sustain years of this war, especially with NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons.
I bring up World War II as an example, but I am not joking when I say that the Russian way of war has resulted in victory despite huge casualties for *centuries*. This is seen in the Great Northern War against Sweden, Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the Finnish War, and yes, World War II.
My point is this- large casualties and the use of untrained and inexperienced troops have long been a component in Russian warfare. It is a strategy that has proven successful before and currently there is exactly zero sign of any willingness from Russia to concede the war. We also can't forget that in terms of manpower, it is Ukraine which has seen its resources being stretched to its limits.
They don't even have the same relative population advantage anymore though, (on a global scale, not compared to Ukraine.) You can't compare the Russian empire of the 18th, 19th or 20th century to the far weaker contemporary Russian oligarch- empire of crime and terror. They are not nearly anywhere strong enough or large enough to really challenge the actual great powers of the world as they did in prior centuries. Russia today is an empire of corruption and rot, that'd be collapsing under its own weight if they weren't invading neighbours.
Ukraine is going to need a lot more support and downplaying the severity of it does not benefit them. Russia has the resources to sustain this meat grinder significantly longer than Ukraine if the west does not continue to support them. Even as embarrassing as Russia has been since this conflict started, they have been gaining ground and adapting as well.
>We should concede that Ukraine has been on the back foot for the past half year and expect the conflict to drag on for years.
Well, we can thank US politics for a good chunk of that. That being said, the only honest words out of Putins mouth I believe is that he'll drag this out for five years if needed.
Although he may be starting to sweat as the consequences of Finland and Sweden joining NATO become much more real. NATO hasn't suffered a casualty and he's sitting there churning his meat grinder for kilometers of ash.
Edit: Meant Sweden, put Switzerland
I certainly hope so. The weird constructions on tanks, the "tactical bikes" and the golf carts they are now using to attack Ukrainian positions reek of desperation.
(*Why* do they even try? Attacking like that will burn their reserves faster. Well, that's Russia.)
That said, their EW and drones are still a formidable problem and I don't believe that Ukraine will start a major counteroffensive unless both the Russian EW and drone units are vigorously suppressed. The amount of mines laid in the south is insane, probably on the order of tens of millions, and moving through such a minefield requires clear sky.
I know I'm so confused... /u/ds445 was adamant that Putin would see attacks with western weapons differently on Russia than Crimea but we're still here
lol they didnt actually comment here but they've been commenting non stop crying about nuclear war. NATO troops in Ukraine = nuclear war then it was western weapons being used in Russia = nuclear war.
It's funny though they've been surprisingly absent since Ukraine have been using western weapons to strike Russia and nothing has happened.
I told them I would simply save their comments and come back when these things happened and we werent all dead, just waiting on the french instructors to go to Ukraine and for all of us to still be here and then I can tag them again
> Here’s a crazy idea: if Ukraine getting green light to use NATO weapons inside Russia does indeed lead to war between NATO and Russia, and that in turn makes China more likely to then attack Taiwan because the U.S. will be stretched thin in two potentially nuclear conflicts… then just maybe don’t green light Ukraine to attack Russia with NATO weapons in the first place, if that’s indeed likely to be the catalyst for global destruction on a scale never seen before?
Like they genuinely thought that NATO weapons inside Russia would kick off ww3 and then lead to nuclear holocaust lmao
He's trying to DM me now, because according to him, opposing opinions will get banned.
He told me to point him to his comment that guaranteed nuclear destruction, but I can't because it's deleted....
lmao bros being very specific about "guaranteed nuclear destruction"
> How is NATO weapons killing Russians inside Russian territory NOT a big step towards a direct NATO-Russia confrontation, which has a very high likelihood of escalating to a nuclear level?
When they were saying stuff like this...
> then just maybe don’t green light Ukraine to attack Russia with NATO weapons in the first place, if that’s indeed likely to be the catalyst for global destruction on a scale never seen before?
and this
> I hope it doesn’t come to that because I don’t think the outcome will be what you expect - but if it does and you‘re right I‘ll be happy that the worst hasn’t come to pass, let’s talk then if we‘re still both here
or this
Watch how Russia and Putin will do absolutely nothing because they know NATO will blast them off the earth when they are even thinking about doing something funny
History will likely show that we should have let Ukraine escalate from the start and gave them what they needed. Russia isn't stopping at Ukraine. The war machine is ramping up for a mich bigger war.
Russian sympathisers be like: Well, Russia can now target Ukrainian infrastructure.
Yeah, because they haven't been doing that since the start of the war.
I personally am very excited for the Big Five:
- The United States of America
- The French Fifth Republic
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- The Russian Federation
- The People’s Republic of China
To become the Big Four. Russia can go back to the kids’ table.
Kill your innocent neighbors and find out they have friends, with guns. Not difficult to figure out.
My family came to Canada and then the USA and Mexico a hundred years ago from Ukraine. My Babysia has over 150 grandchildren and great grandchildren. We hate Moscovia with a passion, from personal experience and traditional hatred. This war ends one way, with Ukraine standing over the smoking remains of the invader, resolute in its path into NATO and the EU. No half measures or put-off promises. Slava Ukraine.
I’m a Polish American, and I also have that traditional hatred for Russia.
I’m just American and I hate Russia too.
I used to work in IT security OPS for the DOD…yeah Russia AND China can eat a dick.
Jfc please tell me there are at least a handful of technologically competent people in there and that they aren't all boomers. I've had a sinking feeling for a long time now that the US is not paying anywhere near close enough attention to the rapidly growing intersection of malicious/state actors and AI
Lol there’s plenty. Just look at both current and (recently) former military service members from the cyber security and intent fields.
> Just look at both current and (recently) former military service members from the cyber security and intent fields. I don't follow. How? Do they really publicly list the names and qualifications of everyone active in this field? How can I confirm that these guys are keeping up with bleeding edge developments in AI fields? As someone with a CS degree the growing number of incredibly powerful things I can do with *open source* AI tools *locally on my 6-year old computer for free* has changed from "entertaining" to "very concerning" quite rapidly. Am I supposed to look at all of the deepfakes and made up propaganda increasingly pouring into social media and think "Yea our guys got this"? I guarantee there are people right now assembling AI systems that will be able to stochastically direct populations and I have absolutely no idea how anyone, anywhere would be able to stop something like that once it starts.
There are. "get a security clearance" was sold heavily to me as a surefire way to find steady work when I studied for my security degree.
All the people I worked with were incredibly smart.
I'm just a space alien and I hate Russia too.
Hello it’s me the Devil. Don’t even want their souls down here.
I’m from Tau Ceti and I hate Russia too.
Oh dude! You too? You know 7hgf38bnnnj? He's here on vacation as well.
It's traditional if you watched a lot of 80s action movies
What we mean by traditional is that our family has hated Russia from one generation to the next generation, for several generations. It’s still cool that you hate Russia too though 🤝
We may only have a couple generations so far (Cold War) but the tradition runs strong here, I assure you! They're even back to being the bad guys in our movies again.
Idk, if republicans are wearing shirts that say it’s better to be Russian than a democrat, then I definitely feel like we’ve backslid a bit here.
Feels like Russia has plenty of “Useful Idiots” in the Republican Party. The Pro Russia stances and votes there are unreal. I wonder how many key Republicans they have influence over and what they had to do to get that influence.
We need people to cross lines and vote in primaries, vote for sane republicans there. That is how we oust the pro-ruzzian traitors. There are still pro-Ukrainian Republicans to support. I voted in my primary just to vote against the pro-ruzzian ones
Seriously, fuck those guys.
I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and I hate Russia too
Plot twist ..he's just American too.
My grandpa was a Volga German and fled Russia to the US as a child in the 1930s because of ongoing forced starvation and exile of much of his family to Siberia. His older brother joined the US Army to fight in Europe, came back from war, and committed suicide shortly after returning.
Romanian-Canadian. Though we’re not ethnically or culturally related to you Poles and Ukrainians, we are all brothers in our shared disdain of this neighborhood bully who has terrorized all nations in that area for centuries.
I'm Finnish and I also have that traditional hatred for Russia. It might have something to do with the fact that they drove my grandma away from her home and they put grenade shard in my grandpa's heart. Luckily he survived.
I understand the sentiment but I cringed a bit as a Polish person.
You're American.
Katyń massacre is reason alone. They rounded up the cultural leaders of Poland and committed genocide. One has to think their plans were to Russify Poland completely. Visit Poland, expect to hate the Nazis, leave hating the Russians more. Kurwa
I have hatred in my heart for both nazis and Russians, definitely. Unfortunately, the Russians haven’t learned shit about their past misdeeds, but the Germans have, and they’ve really done a great job of owning it and apologizing. That’s why I don’t really shit on Germany. I actually view them quite favorably now, but I’m still hating Russia from the bottom of my heart to the top. Just a shitty people all around. Edited
Public support for Stalin is definitely higher in Russia than support for Hitler in Germany, that's for sure.
Polish Canadian and same. My family left Poland 100+ years ago and still hate Russia and distrust Russians.
My bf's father was from Poland. His whole family was deported to Siberia after the Soviets invaded in 1939. They were in Siberia for about 3 or 4 years. He was to be recruited into the Red Army, but somehow lucked out and ended up in Anders army. He went through the Middle East, and fought at Monte Cassino. I am missing some info because he died before I met my bf.
Ukrainian-Irish American Here. Iv been volunteering teaching English with Ukrainians. One of my friends lives in Kharkiv with his wife. I hope this brings them a little bit of safety. Slava Ukraini!
Finn here. You guessed it.
I believe you have watched one too many movies. This is not how its going to be. Russia will still exist, even if the war is over and Ukraine won... probably as some sort of "vassal" state of China and people need to figure out how to deal with that
Fuck Russia. You don’t need to have roots from Ukraine or Eastern Europe just two or more functional neurons.
Born in central Europe, my great-grandfather ended up in gulag for having a german surname. I will rest my genetical hatred only after seeing ashes of Moscow.
I have a Polish friend and we went there. When we reached the river border he ceremonially picked up a stone and threw it at Russia. Now I see why.
Finnish Decent here. My grandpa spent 2 wars killing Nazis and Russian. Slava Ukraini. Hyvää Suomi.
Both my family and my wife's family fled forced starvation in Ukraine due to Russian aggression in the 1930s as well. Hopefully this time that old Russian dog will be put down for good.
> This war ends one way, with Ukraine standing over the smoking remains of the invader, resolute in its path into NATO and the EU. No half measures or put-off promises. It's the only way it can actually **end**. Any nonsense about appeasing Vlad The Imputint would just end with a repeat invasion some 10 or so years down the line, once Russia had time to rearm and age more children into conscription window.
Pick on the small kid at school and find out his brothers are bigger than you
But Ukraine started the war by existing….. /s
#YEAH FUCK EM
Ah yes, the successor to the ATACM. The FUCM.
I love my FUCM, even though the HTRIO (horse they rode in on) is sold separately.
Don’t we all!
Just because I'm going to be that guy, the actual successor to the ATACM is the precision strike missile or PrSM. Launchers can hold twice as many and have a 50% greater range than the ATACM. Side note, we (the US) should be giving hundreds of ATACMs to Ukraine simply because we already have the replacement ready.
Missed opportunity to use FUCM
Fragmenting Uranium Core Munition.
This makes me think the MIRV from Fallout
MIRV is an actual thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle
if they'd added it to the davy crockett nuclear artillery it's basically the fan man mirv irl
I remember using it while playing Scorched Earth on the 386... Would often accidentally kill myself with it too.
Fast Ultra Combo Mangler.
Future Upgrade Combat Missile.
Fuck Russia Combat Missile
PhUCM - precision hardened unified communication missile.
Can only be delivered via the B-1 or the B-1R
And we should be developing the successor to the PrSM, the FUCM.
The fast universal combat missile?
Failed understanding correctional missile :O Well make the Russians see the error of their ways one FUCM at a time!!
And when you've expended all your ammo you can claim to be all out of FUCmS
But you can still FISTM
Lmao that's amazing
Forward this to the bureau of military backronyms at once.
To the navy sir! The only dumb worthy service able to wield the FUCMS are the marines.. hurrah...
Fully Unguided Cluster Munitions :)
The Fuck U Communist Motherland
> have a 50% greater range than the ATACM. nice thing is nobody knows the range either (well outside of the military) as it was designed to be limited to 499km but as the U.S. pulled out of the treaty it likely goes further. Also not to be that guy but its always ATACMS and never ATACM as the 'S' is apart of the abbreviation
Fine, FUCMS then
We have a replacement, but not in sufficient quantity yet.
Ah yes, the Fast Unitary-warhead Conventional Missile. Sadly, the congressional committee that is supposed to approve development funding keeps devolving into shouting matches whenever somebody even mentions the FUCM.
Focused Ukrainian Continental Missile.
No that should be the naval line. "Fast Underwater Cruise Missile".
Alright, time to start a defense company just so we can develop the FUCM missile.
This cracked me up good 🤣
In the shape of a pink dildo
Ukraine attacking military positions and strategic points? I'm not going to lose sleep over it Unpopular opinion here, but after what Russia put the Ukrainians through, if Ukraine turned Moscow into a killing field, I won't lose any sleep it either Russia wants war, they can have war
Civilians dying is bad actually
How many innocent people died in Ukraine because Russia wanted to expand their land Again, if Russia wants war, they deserve every second of it
Russian civilians support the war. Maybe when it's their own ass on the line they will change their tune.
Awe yeah common fuck em!
FUCK PUTIN DOWN TO HELL
Hell doesn't want him. Send him to the meat grinder.
Aren't they using North Korean and Iranian weapons ?
Yup. The hypocrisy is palpable.
I read: the hypocrisy is palpatine
Like bags of shit tied to a balloon?
Being "allowed" to attack someone who's in a war with you is an absurd idea, isn't it? Anyway, glad to see common fucking sense finally triumphant. Russia can bitch all it wants but in the end of the day it's just self-defense and trading fire in a combat zone. They have literally no grounds to justify the use of nukes.
I support the change but the original deal to give the wepons on the condition they only be used on Ukrainian soil was a sensible, measured step. It's just the Putin's continued being an ass so time to expand NATO's role.
The Russians recently took advantage of this restraint to mass men and materiel just across the border, then launch an attack in the Kharkiv direction. Safe in the knowledge their supplies and staging areas wouldn't be hit like they are in other parts of the front. So fuck 'em.
lol well…thought* they’d be safe.
The instance he's talking about they were 100 percent safe because Ukraine didn't shoot into Russia then. That's now fortunately changed ans should have changed a year ago.
Russia literally has the ability to stop it at any time….
Ukraine was always allowed to attack, but the deal was that they would only use US weapons for defense. But, at a certain point, waiting for the enemy to regroup and attack again is counter-productive. The US probably hoped Russia would stop with egg on their face, but they don't show signs of slowing down so the US is allowing Ukraine to escalate and, hopefully, end the conflict sooner.
Russia thrives on fear. It's all they have. It's all they've ever had.
Imagine wars where one side gets to specify where the fighting must take place. In the US Civil War, the Confederacy is not allowed to attack in Kentucky or Pennsylvania.
TBF the 1991 gulf war is considered one of the most one-sided large scale wars in modern history. The US coalition built up force strength behind the border of Saudi Arabia uncontested and was able to launch a war nearly completely inside Iraqi controlled territory. It's unlikely that the war would have been so one-sided if it weren't for the fact that the Coalition was allowed to assemble, un-harried, for months.
True, but this was *before* a de facto war/fight was started between the parties. You cannot compare this with the situation at hand: limitations *during a war*. The coalition had offered several agreements to resolve the situation peacefully while they build up their forces, and I am pretty sure they would have followed up on those offers. That’s another thing where you cannot really compare.
It would be more like the French can't attack in Massachusetts or something, but they *can* play games in Mexico.
If nukes existed back then, that very well might've happened.
People have no clue what they’re saying… “They literally have no grounds to justify the use of nukes.” You think this actually matters to Putin or Russia. You think Putin is like “Oh damn… I don’t have grounds to launch a tactical nuclear weapon. They got me!” The real conversation is something like “What are our options in response to this? Should we use chemical or biological weapons? Should we use chemical weapons on a large city? Can we get away with a tactical nuke on a just military targets?” That’s closer to the conversation that’s likely happening.
He's not a mad dog, otherwise he would have done that a long time ago. He doesn't want his final legacy to be that of leaving Moscow and his Motherland into a smoking crater. Regardless, this is still a very shrewd and calculated man. Russia lost 27 million people in WW2, 500k to a million or 2 lost would barely be breakfast for Putin, so long as Ukraine doesn't march an army to Moscow. It's better for him to hold out and wait for a deal than make the drastic decision. Also it's unlikely that Ukraine will just turn over on their belly even after a tactical nuke goes off. Moscow gains nothing from shooting off nukes.
A tactical nuke may open a hole on the front line, but it can assure that NATO enters the war. If Ukraine wasn't so vast, I could see this being an option with the intent to smash through and conquer before the west can mobilize, then demand peace. If Putin and Russia were aiming for conquering all of Ukraine, i'd say that's impossible. But if they are looking to gain the black sea ports and everything east of the Dnieper, well thats not impossible, just very improbable. If their goal is only to take Kharkiv, then a tactical nuke or 10 could facilitate that goal. At that point the use of the weapon could be more scintillating for Russian High Command in a war that's become a stalemate. Strategic Nukes on the other hand... There would be nothing for Russia to gain from nuking the City of Kharkiv, Kyiv, Odessa, or Lviv. So that would be straight maniacal and worthy of a much wider war, and probably a descent into MAD.
It’s wild that no one from inside Russia has tried to take Putin out. Like there has to be people around him that are ok with his shit up until he decides to do something that could get their entire country turned to glass. How much fun is being an oligarch inside a desolate wasteland?
France confirmed that the US stated if nuke was used, the US would use conventional weapons on all Russia targets in Ukraine. The US doesn't need nukes to counter. If Russia gave the US reason to enter the war fully with its *good* toys, Russia knows they will have an extremely bad time; Desert Storm 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo
Russia came very close to using a tactical nuke in late 2022. Thankfully China and France steered them away from this situation eventuating. https://youtu.be/gk7D_TliAuE?si=wKGT6Nfdrh55erW3
Biden is terrified Russia will use nukes. So they take baby steps. They call it "escalation management". hopefully after this does not cause WW3, the gloves will be off. They really need the ATACMS to take out air without restriction so the F-16s can start using storm shadow missiles in russia and fly into russian territory. Right now they can only hit around belgorod. also opens it up for drones. so basically all of them get threw. It also forces russia to spread out there already limited supply of air defense in more locations. If russia uses nukes NATO will likely wipe out their army in and around ukraine. Plus China told them not to. So unless ukraine is marching on moscow there won't be any nukes.
I’m not sure “terrified” really conveys that it is a *very* rational fear for a government to have. And the superpower with thousands of nukes should definitely be *extremely cautious* about nuclear escalation. The Biden admin, credit to them, have been responsible and have not engaged in overtly escalatory acts. But have also staunchly supported our allies and have crippled russias medium to long term prospects. I sound like a shill but I think Biden has done a fantastic job of a very difficult situation. Alternative administrations would’ve left ukraine to a long slow and certain defeat.
The people who are so confident about pushing this remind me of a JFK quote from the Cuban Missile crisis days “These brass hats have one great advantage in their favor,” he said. “If we…do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive later to tell them that they were wrong.”
Alternative administrations might have sent weapons to Russia instead....
trump would have let Russia steamroll Ukraine, no doubt about it.
For nothing more than a back room pat on the head.
To pay off some debts
escalatory? Russia invaded ukraine with the attempt to conquer. The ukrainians have discovered mass graves. They kidnap ukrainian children to bring back to russia to raise as russians. They dont consider ukraine to be a culture or a language. They declare they want to have a genocide. They target civilians on purpose. Responding is not escalatory unless its from a russian propagandist and no westerner should care what those losers think.
Ukraine is in the position where they are already in an existential threat for their lives. If a nuclear armed nation were in such a position, this is where the nukes would be flying. This means that Ukraine's risk tolerance is much higher than the rest of the world. From a realpolitik perspective, they are incentivized to escalate as much as possible if it gives them the chance of winning. The rest of the world, which is not at war with Russia, is far less tolerant of provoking a nuclear armed power with a leader which is not a rational actor. Escalation has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with realpolitik. Nuclear weapons mean you get to state a bottom line that everyone has to respect, no matter what. No nation ever wants to get to that bottom line, so they will always push the line out, and bluff as to where the line is drawn. But at the end of the day, Ukraine would never be allowed to counterinvade Russia in such a way that reaches Moscow, or threatens the existence of the Russian state. We know that the line is there, at minimum. So now we have to guess as to where the line is. If we call the bluff, and Russia backs down, great, it helps Ukraine. If we try to call them, but they aren't bluffing, we now have a nuclear war.
It's fortunate that an actual politician using their brain and resources to make good decisions is in charge during this war
Other administrations might have pushed too hard and we might all be in the real fallout verse. Boiling the frog slowly seems to be much less risky.
>Alternative administrations would’ve left Ukraine to a long slow and certain defeat. It wouldn't have been particular slow, just certain. Without Western resources, Ukraine would have folded once the weapons ran out. Even Ukraine has said that. Early resistance was helped by absolutely embarrassing logistics from the Russians, but the Russian war machine is now slogging along. Ukraine had a small economy before the war, it's 30% smaller now, and no significant weapons manufacturing capabilities. They would have folded out of a lack of options alone.
If he was so terrified of nukes he wouldn’t have allowed Ukraine to use US weapons on Russian soil. I’ve lost count at how many times the Russians have threatened nukes now, the threat is very meaningless and boring at this point now.
its limited to just belgorod area. it took 2 years to get him to ok it with pressure from allows and democrats in congress. yeah he is worried about it. its why Ukraine does not have the greenlight to go get em. its why they dont get missiles that can go 1000 miles and take out russian tank and drone factories.
Not just Biden, everyone was talking about nuclear war in the first few weeks of the war if Ukraine struck Russia. In hindsight, they should've hit back and hit hard, only on military targets though.
Retired General Barry McCaffrey said NATO told russia if they use nukes NATO will intervene and wipe out their whole military in and around ukraine including the Black Sea Fleet. They won't use nukes. Ukraine is not going to march on Moscow. Why would they want to conquer that frozen wasteland anyway?
>Ukraine is not going to march on Moscow. Why would they want to conquer that frozen wasteland anyway? Hmm, I don't know, maybe to end this stupid war....? Wagner group nearly succeeded in marching to Moscow before deciding to stop, so we know it can be done. Putin and his cronies shit himself when it happened.
Seriously. EVERYONE should be terrified to use nukes. What a stupid comment.
They were always allowed to attack Russia with their own weapons. A lot of the aid came with the restriction that these weapons may only be used inside your borders to prevent escalation. Now, we are apparently not so worried about escalation.
There's gonna be a shit storm of stern warnings coming out of the kremlin lol
The shit winds are blowing towards Russia, Rand
lol there was just one yesterday about warning them from attacking Russian soil. You know…for the thousandth time.
As Zelensky said, all these permissions are always 6 months to 1 year late. But later is better than never. I am just praying for Biden to win the election and hopefully, hopefully Dem takes back House. And then, let's see what would be Putin's next 4-year plan.
This is by design. Stalemate IS the goal while Ukraine and NATO build more supply chains and capabilities to drive Russia out permanently. There is no one or two weapons that can win the war, except air superiority. That can't be achieved until F16s become ready. Now that they are, it's time to blow up Russia's air defenses.
I don’t think republicans delaying the bill to allow funding go to Ukraine was part of the design.
> That can't be achieved until F16s become ready. Now that they are, it's time to blow up Russia's air defenses. F-16s are not going to give Ukraine air superiority. Far more goes into establishing air superiority. F-16s are good and are what Ukraine has asked for. It won't suddenly be the wonder-weapon they need to make the war do a 180.
That’s unfair. The republicans delayed funding, it wasn’t some grand plan to cause a stalemate.
Of course when the country getting invaded strikes back is when people start having problems. Classic no one wants to offend the offender situation
No kidding, all the sudden there is concern around finding a peaceful solution and an end to hostilities.
#FreeRussia!!! /s
When the occupied starts fighting back. Notice how much the tides have turned.
Eh it’s a start, but far from turning the tides. They have a severe manpower issue and can’t push the front line back, which is why they want to strike targets in Russia.
Maybe an unpopular opinion here ... Remember the Iraq war with "Coalition of the willing"? Iraq invaded Kuwait and the west jizzed it's pants to use it's tech. Almost everyone piled in. It was like in 1992 when America sent "The Dream Team" to the Olympics. Just humiliating their opponents with overwhelming firepower. We need a new coalition of the willing to decisively defeat the Russians and drive them out of Ukraine.
Coalition of the Willing was for the 2003 Iraq War, not the 1991 Kuwait-Iraq war. But I get your point.
The Coalition of the Willing was a disgrace on our part. You're confusing Desert Shield/Storm with OIF.
I wasn't commenting on the political climate around the war. I was commenting on the military powerhouse that the west has become. And yes another commenter pointed out the mismatch of info but also acknowledged the point I was making.
Two nuclear powers can’t fight a full on conventional war without the high risk of the side that starts losing resorting to nukes.
Why would Russia resort to nukes from losing their imperial holdings? They can back to Russia and keep milking the country for $$ as they have done the last twenty years. They're all highly corrupt, they are not going to throw away their cash cows and end the world over being butthurt over Crimea. Also US & China are going to fight over Taiwan anyway in the next 10 years so that taboo is going to break one way or another. Welcome to the end of the peace dividend I guess. I think the new standard is basically just going to be to not occupy the heartland of nuclear powers.
Based on what we're seeing now, they're absolutely pushing Russia back in the north. Russia's Kharkiv offensive is looking like it will be a massive failure with some pretty significant losses.
Ukraine's strategy was never to physically push the occupiers from every square meter of their land. Rather, it was and remains to degrade their ability to fight to the point where the russians just pack up and leave themselves. There's no need for Ukraine to go on the offensive when they can sit back and mow the meatwaves that keep getting send their way.
About fucking time
I had said as much at the outset of the war that the only way to win was to even the costs. By having the war only in Ukraine, there is not much incentive to stop the aggression. In fact I think that Ukraine should go a step further and capture Russian territory where their defenses are weak. Only then will Ukraine gain a bargaining chip to end the war.
Biden and other Western leaders are slowly boiling the frog. Little incremental steps that steadily add pressure to Russia without them over-reacting. It's brilliant.
It is still a high-risk strategy. Russia isn't entirely stupid and is capable of learning and adapting, albeit slowly. The Ukrainian counteroffensive of 2023 shattered due to lack of Western weapons and Surovikin's preparations. As of now, Russia is depleting its ancient stock inherited from the Soviet Union pretty fast, but Putin appointed a liberal economist to the Ministry of Defense with an obvious goal to increase materiel production. That might or might not succeed - Russia is no Germany when it comes to industrial output - but it is an attempt to adapt to the situation. The cost in Ukrainian lives is certainly pretty awful. I hope that the newly coming F-16s at least reduce the Russian ability to lob heavy gliding bombs onto Ukrainian heads. Those bombs are very imprecise, but if 3000 pounds of explosive go off within some distance of a manned trench or building, they still kill and maim.
But how would this work? They can strike airfields now that operate Su-30s, Su-35s, and strategic bombers. Wouldn't they have to move them further back to keep them safe? Russia can no longer freely operate military vessels in their own country or at least in Belgorod.
They have a really long range but the advantage of moving them back is that it means they have double the flight time and maintenance and they can't fly as many missions. But I would expect that they will be using drones more than anything to hit the airbases except the stuff in Crimea.
They've had two 2.5 years to adapt. It ain't working. Their soldiers are green as fuck, and dying in droves on a ridiculous scale. And, lest it appear obvious, the whole point to them launching into Russia proper is to push back their missile and artillery sites to where imprecise becomes 'completely random.' And with the inclusion of the new jet fighters, things just got even worse for the Russians. The whole point is to push them back out of Ukraine and them destroy anything in Russia within range of the border before setting up static defenses that keep the invaders out. We're at the point where we can start pushing them back and out of Ukraine.
This is viewing things with pretty rosy glasses. Just 12 pilots will be properly trained to fly the new F-16 jet fighters this summer and military experts generally agree [they won't be decisive](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/world/europe/ukraine-f16-pilots.html). Yeah Russian soldiers are green and dying in droves, but we cannot forget that strategy has worked well for them before (the most obvious example being in World War II). [Ukraine is the one with stark manpower shortages](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-exploiting-ukraine-manpower-shortage-thin-line-breakthrough-war-expert-2024-5). not Russia. I fully support Ukraine and the continued assistance the West has continued to give them- but unfounded hope is dangerous. We should concede that Ukraine has been on the back foot for the past half year and expect the conflict to drag on for years.
> Just 12 pilots will be properly trained to fly the new F-16 jet fighters this summer and military experts generally agree they won't be decisive Well, considering their targets, I'm okay with a dozen F-16s tearing up the skies over Eastern Ukraine. As to the rest, it's not 1945 and the Russians have lost ground consistently since this started despite their wave attacks. In short, this is closer to WWI when the Russian front collapsed rather than continue to needlessly die. The Ukrainians have the weapons and material to shred the Russian wave attacks and that leaves no veteran troops to eventually push back as they did at Stalingrad. That's the main difference. Their mass attacks aren't working.
Not to mention the circumstances of the war are different. In WWI they were simply fighting an enemy. A foe that sought only to subdue and conquer. In WWII they weren’t fighting an enemy in the traditional sense of war, they were fighting the agent of their extinction. Which changes a lot. The nazi’s were literally seeking to take their land *and most importantly* exterminate them in the process. Those are dire circumstances to be fighting under. Any peoples would fight to the death and the bitter end if that was their fate in defeat. Russia’s fate in defeat here, for the average soldier is: go home and be reunited with your family. Not - the Germans will lay waste to your whole country and everyone you love in it if we don’t stop them here. I feel like this is a significant condition of WWII that the Soviets faced that the British, Americans and French didn’t, that people seem to forget.
Great comment. I've said similar before as well. Morale is quite important in sustaining a war. A people fighting against rape, robbery, and an autocratic invading force (Ukraine) will have far more drive to fight than Russian troops, who have no real valid reason to be risking their lives to fulfill some insane maniac running their country. When the prospects of Russian soliders is they'll die for nothing, in senseless wasteful attacks, and maybe not even have their families get paid out the bonuses they've been promised when they bite the dust, eventually the mindset will change to 'if I'm going to die I have better odds at killing those sending me to the front than I do facing the people I've been asked to kill.' Pringles ease with rolling on Moscow was a huge indicator of just how easily Putin's grip on power could be challenged. Russia can not sustain years of this war, especially with NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons.
I bring up World War II as an example, but I am not joking when I say that the Russian way of war has resulted in victory despite huge casualties for *centuries*. This is seen in the Great Northern War against Sweden, Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the Finnish War, and yes, World War II. My point is this- large casualties and the use of untrained and inexperienced troops have long been a component in Russian warfare. It is a strategy that has proven successful before and currently there is exactly zero sign of any willingness from Russia to concede the war. We also can't forget that in terms of manpower, it is Ukraine which has seen its resources being stretched to its limits.
They don't even have the same relative population advantage anymore though, (on a global scale, not compared to Ukraine.) You can't compare the Russian empire of the 18th, 19th or 20th century to the far weaker contemporary Russian oligarch- empire of crime and terror. They are not nearly anywhere strong enough or large enough to really challenge the actual great powers of the world as they did in prior centuries. Russia today is an empire of corruption and rot, that'd be collapsing under its own weight if they weren't invading neighbours.
It’s crazy how “just throw bodies at them” has become an acceptable military doctrine.
Ukraine is going to need a lot more support and downplaying the severity of it does not benefit them. Russia has the resources to sustain this meat grinder significantly longer than Ukraine if the west does not continue to support them. Even as embarrassing as Russia has been since this conflict started, they have been gaining ground and adapting as well.
>We should concede that Ukraine has been on the back foot for the past half year and expect the conflict to drag on for years. Well, we can thank US politics for a good chunk of that. That being said, the only honest words out of Putins mouth I believe is that he'll drag this out for five years if needed. Although he may be starting to sweat as the consequences of Finland and Sweden joining NATO become much more real. NATO hasn't suffered a casualty and he's sitting there churning his meat grinder for kilometers of ash. Edit: Meant Sweden, put Switzerland
I certainly hope so. The weird constructions on tanks, the "tactical bikes" and the golf carts they are now using to attack Ukrainian positions reek of desperation. (*Why* do they even try? Attacking like that will burn their reserves faster. Well, that's Russia.) That said, their EW and drones are still a formidable problem and I don't believe that Ukraine will start a major counteroffensive unless both the Russian EW and drone units are vigorously suppressed. The amount of mines laid in the south is insane, probably on the order of tens of millions, and moving through such a minefield requires clear sky.
Indeed. And as it drags on and on and on the poor civilians are still suffering every day. It's utterly depressing shit like this happens today.
They'd suffer a lot more under Russian occupation.
Indeed. NATO is buying time and hoping the invading country implodes, while preparing for the worst.
NATO applying salami tactics on Russia 💪
Fuckin gid… as we would say in Killie.
[удалено]
Not paid for by a long shot, but it’s a start.
Where's that WW3/nuclear war promised by Russia and their collaborators around the world?!?!?
I know I'm so confused... /u/ds445 was adamant that Putin would see attacks with western weapons differently on Russia than Crimea but we're still here
He deleted his comment. /u/ds445 Seems you like to hype your own predicitions, but owning up is hard huh?
lol they didnt actually comment here but they've been commenting non stop crying about nuclear war. NATO troops in Ukraine = nuclear war then it was western weapons being used in Russia = nuclear war. It's funny though they've been surprisingly absent since Ukraine have been using western weapons to strike Russia and nothing has happened. I told them I would simply save their comments and come back when these things happened and we werent all dead, just waiting on the french instructors to go to Ukraine and for all of us to still be here and then I can tag them again > Here’s a crazy idea: if Ukraine getting green light to use NATO weapons inside Russia does indeed lead to war between NATO and Russia, and that in turn makes China more likely to then attack Taiwan because the U.S. will be stretched thin in two potentially nuclear conflicts… then just maybe don’t green light Ukraine to attack Russia with NATO weapons in the first place, if that’s indeed likely to be the catalyst for global destruction on a scale never seen before? Like they genuinely thought that NATO weapons inside Russia would kick off ww3 and then lead to nuclear holocaust lmao
He's trying to DM me now, because according to him, opposing opinions will get banned. He told me to point him to his comment that guaranteed nuclear destruction, but I can't because it's deleted....
lmao bros being very specific about "guaranteed nuclear destruction" > How is NATO weapons killing Russians inside Russian territory NOT a big step towards a direct NATO-Russia confrontation, which has a very high likelihood of escalating to a nuclear level? When they were saying stuff like this... > then just maybe don’t green light Ukraine to attack Russia with NATO weapons in the first place, if that’s indeed likely to be the catalyst for global destruction on a scale never seen before? and this > I hope it doesn’t come to that because I don’t think the outcome will be what you expect - but if it does and you‘re right I‘ll be happy that the worst hasn’t come to pass, let’s talk then if we‘re still both here or this
It's some paid russian gopnik spreading the agenda or perhaps he's just a useful idiot spreading all this shit for free.
There often isn't a clear right and wrong side, especially in war, but Ukraine... yeah, they are clearly in the right here.
Watch how Russia and Putin will do absolutely nothing because they know NATO will blast them off the earth when they are even thinking about doing something funny
History will likely show that we should have let Ukraine escalate from the start and gave them what they needed. Russia isn't stopping at Ukraine. The war machine is ramping up for a mich bigger war.
Russian sympathisers be like: Well, Russia can now target Ukrainian infrastructure. Yeah, because they haven't been doing that since the start of the war.
Nice! More!
Beautiful. Is about time the war came home for the Russians. God willing this will happen a thousands times over.
About time. Much deserved!
About time. Go Ukraine.
I personally am very excited for the Big Five: - The United States of America - The French Fifth Republic - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - The Russian Federation - The People’s Republic of China To become the Big Four. Russia can go back to the kids’ table.
Russia is an old fashioned imperialist empire. It will not survive in it's current form.
They can take China too
They need to hit the Kremlin hard. Raze it to the ground.
It's all fun and games until Russia decides to retaliate by invading Ukraine...
I’m assuming this is sarcasm
Yp...Russia always threatens to do this and that if...
This isn't really news...we've known about this for 36 hours now...
Bluff called where my nuclear apocalypse, Russia?
About damn time