|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On March 03 2022 22:50 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 22:34 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2022 22:27 Oukka wrote:
An Estonian cargo ship is sinking/has already sunk near Odessa. An explosion, apparently caused by hitting a mine. I've not seen any educated guesses/reporting of who had laid those mines.
Two crew members are on a life raft, four still missing.
How many third party ships have already been hit during the fighting? And was I being stupidly naive when I thought that it would be fairly easy to distinguish between civilian ships and military vessels, especially if those ships themselves are flying their normal colours are not refusing to answer radio calls or such?
Obviously this one is different with a mine, but the previous cases were various sorts of missles or gunfire. I imagine the main issue is the 'over the horizon' range of modern combat. By the time I can physically identify you are a cargo ship flying an Estonian flag, rather then a blip on a screen, you will have sunk my ship 100x over if your a hostile warship. That would make sense. But how is that compatible with general rules of engagement regarding knowing what you are pointing your weapons at? At least in theory ships should be only firing at targets they have identified to be hostile. Also friendly fire surely becomes an issue at some point if any blip on radar is a potential target, especially when operating under strict radio silence or similar. Appreciating the answer already and don't take the further questions as negative! I just don't have any understanding of how modern naval combat works.
It isn't really true tho. Modern ships use AIS, and you can positively identify civilian ships from well outside whatever effective combat range is. But if they are mining the black sea, AIS is, of course, irrelevant.
|
|
|
Confirmation that a major Russian General has been killed by Ukrainian forces. Putin was on TV calling him a hero.
|
On March 03 2022 23:45 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 23:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 03 2022 22:50 Oukka wrote:On March 03 2022 22:34 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2022 22:27 Oukka wrote:
An Estonian cargo ship is sinking/has already sunk near Odessa. An explosion, apparently caused by hitting a mine. I've not seen any educated guesses/reporting of who had laid those mines.
Two crew members are on a life raft, four still missing.
How many third party ships have already been hit during the fighting? And was I being stupidly naive when I thought that it would be fairly easy to distinguish between civilian ships and military vessels, especially if those ships themselves are flying their normal colours are not refusing to answer radio calls or such?
Obviously this one is different with a mine, but the previous cases were various sorts of missles or gunfire. I imagine the main issue is the 'over the horizon' range of modern combat. By the time I can physically identify you are a cargo ship flying an Estonian flag, rather then a blip on a screen, you will have sunk my ship 100x over if your a hostile warship. That would make sense. But how is that compatible with general rules of engagement regarding knowing what you are pointing your weapons at? At least in theory ships should be only firing at targets they have identified to be hostile. Also friendly fire surely becomes an issue at some point if any blip on radar is a potential target, especially when operating under strict radio silence or similar. Appreciating the answer already and don't take the further questions as negative! I just don't have any understanding of how modern naval combat works. Unsophisticated mines don't care about rules of engagement. There are some sophisticated ones though that can be programmed to do so. Ships operating under a strict "radio" or "no radar" emissions would not be able to fire a missile at a target as they have no way to detect and track targets, except by receiving information from an external source, but that still can create emissions which can be blurred by background emissions. Doubtful that Russian ships has sophisticated networking capability anyways. They can still defend themselves from missiles using passive sensors. Some ships have sophisticated communication intelligence ie "listening" capabilities. Interrogator "blips" are sent for IFF to "blip" a response back. Friendly fire is not a problem in that if you are trying to avoid detection you generally wouldn't be firing any missiles at targets of opportunity anyways. Running silent is normally due to a fixed mission plan, not as a general operation in an area. Search, identification and track are the most important steps before firing a missile, shaped by general intelligence. Thanks, this was illustrative! My short and unsophisticated take from it is that there is no reason for as many hits on third party vessels as we've seen. If someone fires a missile at a non-hostile ship they've either failed at identification, haven't done it at all or are firing at non-hostile targets on purpose. So not particularly different from land combat in that sense. Mines obviously being different in that after they've been laid they're there until cleared. Edit: are there conventions about use of mines at sea? About how/where they can be used, should they be communicated to other vessels etc? I haven't really been kept up to date over any hits on third party vessels, but firing on unidentified ships is not strictly speaking a failure of command. There is no reason why a civilian vessel will be unidentifiable. Russia appears to be making preparations for an amphibious assult onto Odessa. It can be the best course of action with the available infomation at the time, even if in hindsight it was the wrong one. Such is the fog of war. The radar horizon of a vessel of war will hardly ever exceed 50 km and there is utterly no legitimate reason for a civilian vessel to approach 100 km of Crimea or the Ukrainian coast right now, and any that do would have the permission and acknowledgement of Russia. Though of course aerial assets need not be constrained in range as much. As for mines, you'll have to ask an expert or search yourself, but minefields need not be declared legally, and declaring a fake minefield can be just as effective a deterrence to naval passage as laying one.
|
Love to see it. Wish he died sooner, but this is great too.
|
Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended
|
On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No.
Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia.
|
On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia.
Ah, yeah, good point. I heard some other people theorizing that Putin could go to Moldova next, but I have no idea how accurate that is
|
One thing I think is so silly is how countries giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow different than American soldiers actually fighting there. If someone asked for a gun to shoot someone else, and I gave them a gun to do that, I feel like I’m totally implicated and guilty. How is this viewed as any different lol
|
On March 04 2022 05:12 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. Ah, yeah, good point. I heard some other people theorizing that Putin could go to Moldova next, but I have no idea how accurate that is Moldova is below Ukraine and not a NATO member. Putin thinking 'in for a penny, in for a pound might aswell take that' is possible.
Not like he is going to get sanctioned more if he does.
|
On March 04 2022 05:13 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I think is so silly is how countries giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow different than American soldiers actually fighting there. If someone asked for a gun to shoot someone else, and I gave them a gun to do that, I feel like I’m totally implicated and guilty. How is this viewed as any different lol because its not our soldiers dying. That is a MASSIVE difference in public perception.
But yes we're walking a fine line with 'no were totally not fighting Russia' and I'm sure Putin is livid about it but realistically outside of starting ww3, there isn't a whole lot Putin can do about it.
|
On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia.
The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea.
I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice.
|
On March 04 2022 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:13 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I think is so silly is how countries giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow different than American soldiers actually fighting there. If someone asked for a gun to shoot someone else, and I gave them a gun to do that, I feel like I’m totally implicated and guilty. How is this viewed as any different lol because its not our soldiers dying. That is a MASSIVE difference in public perception. But yes we're walking a fine line with 'no were totally not fighting Russia' and I'm sure Putin is livid about it but realistically outside of starting ww3, there isn't a whole lot Putin can do about it.
But I'm talking about Russia's response. Why is Putin totally cool with us putting guns in the hands of Ukraine, but if our soldiers were to show up, suddenly it is nuclear holocaust?
|
On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice. Because NATO lives and dies by the idea that an attack on 1 is an attack on all.
The moment NATO decides to not honour article 5 the entire thing is dead and its every man for himself. Now ofcourse there is a chance this happens. Like there is a chance in MAD that the other side won't actually bring themselves to press the button to end the world.
But that is the big question NATO offers. They have said they are 'all in'. Are you going to fold and not attack or do you call and hope they were just bluffing.
Can you afford to if they aren't?
|
On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice.
Because if NATO members are attacked without reaction the whole thing might as well not exist. Putins knows that there will be war in this case. It is not at all comparable to the current situation and I really have no idea what is not to get about that.
|
On March 04 2022 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:13 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I think is so silly is how countries giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow different than American soldiers actually fighting there. If someone asked for a gun to shoot someone else, and I gave them a gun to do that, I feel like I’m totally implicated and guilty. How is this viewed as any different lol because its not our soldiers dying. That is a MASSIVE difference in public perception. But yes we're walking a fine line with 'no were totally not fighting Russia' and I'm sure Putin is livid about it but realistically outside of starting ww3, there isn't a whole lot Putin can do about it. But I'm talking about Russia's response. Why is Putin totally cool with us putting guns in the hands of Ukraine, but if our soldiers were to show up, suddenly it is nuclear holocaust? We don't know.
We don't know if Putin would go to war with NATO if our soldiers showed up. We chose not to try and find out by making it clear we would not directly militarily intervene.
That is the dangerous balancing game in a proxy war between superpowers. How far can we go supporting our ally before the other sides pushes the button. There is no real way to know where that line is until you crossed it and its to late. You do what you think you can get away with and hope your right.
And probably a lot of intelligence work back and forth to see how each side reacts to the varies moves being made.
|
On March 04 2022 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice. Because NATO lives and dies by the idea that an attack on 1 is an attack on all. The moment NATO decides to not honour article 5 the entire thing is dead and its every man for himself. Now ofcourse there is a chance this happens. Like there is a chance in MAD that the other side won't actually bring themselves to press the button. But that is the big question NATO offers. They have said they are 'all in'. Are you going to fold and not attack or do you call and hope they were just bluffing. Can you afford to if they aren't?
This is pretty much the point why every head of state, defense minister, etc is currently repeating the mantra of "we defend every inch of every NATO member" 5 times the day. It is also the point why everyone repeats again and again, that there won't be any direct intervention of NATO troops in Ukraine.
Everyone is doing their most to make the red line as bright and clear as possible and remove any blurriness or further discussion. (They can't beat Mohdoo though...)
And as stated multiple times: The NATO has good reason for their international task forces in those countries at risk to be so comically multinational. So nobody ever chickens out and everyone would have losses in an initial attack.
|
On March 04 2022 05:13 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I think is so silly is how countries giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow different than American soldiers actually fighting there. If someone asked for a gun to shoot someone else, and I gave them a gun to do that, I feel like I’m totally implicated and guilty. How is this viewed as any different lol
No american or NATO citizens are dying. No russians citizens are being killed by NATO or american troops.
|
On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice.
It's really quite simple. NATO not directly engaging to protect Ukraine has no bearing on its deterrent.
NATO not directly engaging to protect Estonia means most members no longer have any deterrent or any security.
This is why even though my country cares a lot more about Moldova than any NATO ally, we wouldn't intervene in a Russian invasion of Moldova but we would intervene in a Russian invasion of Estonia, the latter is a more direct existential threat for us.
|
On March 04 2022 05:30 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice. Because if NATO members are attacked without reaction the whole thing might as well not exist. Putins knows that there will be war in this case. It is not at all comparable to the current situation and I really have no idea what is not to get about that.
Isn't NATO no longer existing better than nuclear doomsday? Are we assuming Putin would nuke people less if it was due to NATO being attacked? What is the point of NATO sticking around if all of the members end up being nuked? I really feel like all the same logic applies. If the intention is to defend NATO allies and accept mutually assured destruction, we may as well also defend Ukraine.
The only way that NATO actually makes sense is if it is assumed NATO prevents MAD. If NATO does not prevent MAD, it is all pointless anyway. NATO may as well just defend Ukraine if it is assumed Russia would never nuke NATO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
