Ukraine Forever

[Maithanet]

22 minutes ago, 3CityApache said:

PiS is in power for two terms now, before that there were two terms of pro-EU democrats. It's a high fucking time we tell them fuck you once and for all. 

I hope you're right.  When is that election?

[3CityApache]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I hope you're right.  When is that election?

Autumn. No specific date set yet. Probably around October.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nm

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, 3CityApache said:

Autumn. No specific date set yet. Probably around October.

Oof, that's a while if we're waiting on that to get Ukraine much needed help.

[3CityApache]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Oof, that's a while if we're waiting on that to get Ukraine much needed help.

True, that's when they might need to count on US/UK's help. Hopefully not longer.

[broken one]

15 hours ago, 3CityApache said:

PiS is in power for two terms now, before that there were two terms of pro-EU democrats. It's a high fucking time we tell them fuck you once and for all. 

I would not count on it. Moreover, to win the elections means to lose the next for PiS. The one who wins will have to cut cut cut. I think it might be better if they win now again, as it will likely lead to their ultimate discredit and downfall. I expect stagflation and financial disaster soon.

Dunno about Florida, but the case here is "just give me more money, I do not care for anything else" and PiS is dropping dough from a helicopter.

[3CityApache]

1 hour ago, broken one said:

I would not count on it. Moreover, to win the elections means to lose the next for PiS.

Our society is too divided and polarized for it not to happen anyway I'm afraid. But I don't think they will be able to form a government after election. They would have to get more votes than any poll gives them now, in almost a year from now, in the environment of high inflation and low growth. But then again, there is no low bar our people are able not to meet.

[Werthead]

Putin whingeing about US nuclear weapons in Turkey, which makes me wonder if he's angling for a repeat of the 1962 deal which ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not sure that would go down well with Turkey though.

Putin has also reiterated that Russia will not resort to a nuclear first strike during this conflict, presumably to appease China and maybe in return for China agreeing to ignore the price cap on Russian energy.

[The Anti-Targ]

And Putin's word is good on this first strike matter?

I think the only thing that can stay Putin's hand is if Nato unequivocally says any Russian nuclear strikes anywhere will be seen as Putin declaring war on all of Europe, and thus Nato. Which means an immediate and substantial direct military response against Russia from Nato countries. And even then I have my doubts.

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And Putin's word is good on this first strike matter?

I think the only thing that can stay Putin's hand is if Nato unequivocally says any Russian nuclear strikes anywhere will be seen as Putin declaring war on all of Europe, and thus Nato. Which means an immediate and substantial direct military response against Russia from Nato countries. And even then I have my doubts.

I am also sceptical but there has been a serious rowing back on language from Russian officials and from Putin himself in the last three months, from when things were seriously heated back around the mobilisation order. I think the Russians feel they have various escalatory options to pursue before going that far, and I think the US made it incredibly clear to them that if they do deploy a tactical WMD in Ukraine, that would entail a direct military response by NATO against Russia in Ukraine that would leave Russia's campaign in Ukraine in complete ruins, so there would be no material military gain to Russia from taking that step. As long as Russia believes that calculus, I think that should hold as a deterrent, especially combined with heavy advice from their own allies that this would also be a bad move.

[Darzin]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And Putin's word is good on this first strike matter?

I think the only thing that can stay Putin's hand is if Nato unequivocally says any Russian nuclear strikes anywhere will be seen as Putin declaring war on all of Europe, and thus Nato. Which means an immediate and substantial direct military response against Russia from Nato countries. And even then I have my doubts.

I think so both the US and China felt the need to caution Russia, and the Russians have changed their rhetoric significantly. I'm hoping we get the full story in 10 or 20  years because I imagine the backchannel conversations would be fascinating. Regardless Putin taking nukes off the table comes as a response to pressure and threats not from his goodwill so I think we can trust it. 

[Werthead]

Ukraine has begun escalating artillery and HIMARS attacks aimed towards Melitopol. Russian military positions around the town have been hit hard and Russian air defences have engaged ballistic missiles (of which Ukraine appears to be in short supply).

No sign of a follow-up ground offensive. The Russians have heavily fortified Melitopol in expectation of an assault, so whether this is it, or the Ukrainians are "pulling a Kherson" by feinting towards Melitopol and attacking elsewhere remains unclear.

[Wilbur]

Russian diplomats appear to continue speaking loudly despite the fact that they carry only the smallest of sticks.

Here is the result in Kazakhstan:

 

[Wade1865]

The most interesting aspect of this war is how drones (especially civilian-grade versions) are being used; e.g., (WARNING, implied violence) this.

[The Anti-Targ]

Is interesting the right word for it? I guess similar to rule 34, there is kind of a rule 1 when it comes to technology: if a technology exits in real life, or can be imagined, then there will be an application for it in warfare.

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is interesting the right word for it? I guess similar to rule 34, there is kind of a rule 1 when it comes to technology: if a technology exits in real life, or can be imagined, then there will be an application for it in warfare.

The Anti-Targ -- yes, of course. Though, you do understand I was speaking for myself, right? It should have been self-evident. Of course, not everyone finds the evolution of all things warfare interesting, especially on a thread dedicated to the most interesting ongoing war.

[JGP]

Every now and then I thank God, or send a word up [or whatever] that Trump lost in 2020.

Could you imagine. This conflict would've been over already, maybe, and what. Moldova underway?

Whew. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, JGP said:

Every now and then I thank God, or send a word up [or whatever] that Trump lost in 2020.

Could you imagine. This conflict would've been over already, maybe, and what. Moldova underway?

Whew. 

My suspicion is that if Trump won in 2020 the US would not be particularly helpful in Ukraine but Europe would have been significantly more escalatory. I don't think Ukraine would have lost per se, but they'd be in a much worse position depending a lot on how much intel and non-equipment resources the US donated. 

Germany would have also likely been less useful overall and been sucking at the tit of the gas of Russia more. Sanctions would almost certainly not have happened. Weirdly that likely means that inflation wouldn't have been as much an issue either. 

[Werthead]

Given that current AA systems are intercepting 80%+ of Russia's missiles, Patriot should ramp that up considerably and reduce the effectiveness of hitting civilian targets considerably.

There is a risk, though. Putting out Patriot batteries - which are very easy to detect (their output lights up radars like a motherfucker) - may invite Russia to hit them with anything they have, including any hypersonics they left going spare. Deploying Patriots to Ukraine may be just inviting to get them blown to pieces. Proving that Russian hypersonics can overcome Patriot would be an immense prestige win for Russia's military, and could spark dissatisfaction in those countries that have bought into Patriot.

The United States successfully test-fired another round of its own hypersonic missiles this week, closing the slight lead that Russia had built up in that area, probably much more rapidly than Russia had anticipated. Also, Russia's hypersonics are something of a bodge job (being adapted ground-launched ballistic missiles), whilst the US and China's are the real deal, so they may even now be ahead of the Russian curve.

[The Anti-Targ]

I guess it's better for Ukraine if Russia aims missiles at patriot anti-missile batteries than aiming them at civilians and civilian infrastructure. So if nothing else, please deploy patriot systems to the Ukraine so that it gives Russia more purely military targets to have to shoot at. There may be the added benefit of patriot systems making Russian missile strikes ineffective while they remain operational.