EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 284
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11713 Posts
| ||
|
Artesimo
Germany565 Posts
On October 14 2022 01:49 Simberto wrote: So suddenly everyone is sending air defense systems to Ukraine at once? Do they need all of those? Given how saturated ukraine currently gets with missiles I'd say yeah, they will be of great use to avoid a lot of attrition. Not as useful for offensive operations of course. But since russia decided to escalate their attacks on the civilian population further I'd say they can really use them. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9267 Posts
On October 14 2022 01:49 Simberto wrote: So suddenly everyone is sending air defense systems to Ukraine at once? Do they need all of those? I heard in the news that Zelensky supposedly said Ukraine has only 10% of air defense it needs. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
r00ty
Germany1057 Posts
On October 14 2022 02:04 plasmidghost wrote: Is there a tactical advantage outside of helping Ukraine to moving all those air defense units there? As in, would this help stop any missile launches that could target deeper into Europe? I would assume not really, but I'm not sure I'm not aware of any modern active service systems being sent to Ukraine. The German one was produced for Egypt and arrangements were made. Don't worry, missile strikes "deeper into Europe" is a very unrealistic scenario. | ||
KwarK
United States43460 Posts
On October 14 2022 02:04 plasmidghost wrote: Is there a tactical advantage outside of helping Ukraine to moving all those air defense units there? As in, would this help stop any missile launches that could target deeper into Europe? I would assume not really, but I'm not sure The standard western doctrine for missile defence is to obtain overwhelming air superiority on day 1 of any conflict and to destroy the capability to launch missiles of the opponent. The west is not configured to fight a ground war without air superiority the way Ukraine is being forced, the military was built around wholly different capabilities and assumptions. That remains true, Europe doesn’t need missile defences, it has NATO and American aircraft carriers. It is, however, extremely useful to test the operational capabilities of these systems in real world conditions. The customers for western missile defence systems will most likely be buying them due to threats from nations buying Russian missiles. The data from this conflict will be invaluable for systems manufacturers. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On October 14 2022 02:41 KwarK wrote: The standard western doctrine for missile defence is to obtain overwhelming air superiority on day 1 of any conflict and to destroy the capability to launch missiles of the opponent. The west is not configured to fight a ground war without air superiority the way Ukraine is being forced, the military was built around wholly different capabilities and assumptions. That remains true, Europe doesn’t need missile defences, it has NATO and American aircraft carriers. It is, however, extremely useful to test the operational capabilities of these systems in real world conditions. The customers for western missile defence systems will most likely be buying them due to threats from nations buying Russian missiles. The data from this conflict will be invaluable for systems manufacturers. That must be the reason why 14 European nations (including Britain) signed the European Sky Shield initiative today regarding investing in a rather massive shared anti-air / missile defense network. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-13-nato-allies-aim-jointly-procure-air-defence-systems-2022-10-13/ | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22048 Posts
But that doesn't make Kwark wrong. Attacking the Eu means declaring war on Nato, and no one wants to open that can of worms. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43460 Posts
On October 14 2022 02:47 mahrgell wrote: That must be the reason why 14 European nations (including Britain) signed the European Sky Shield initiative today regarding investing in a rather massive shared anti-air / missile defense network. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-13-nato-allies-aim-jointly-procure-air-defence-systems-2022-10-13/ A shared missile defence network across a geographically contiguous allied region is a common sense cost saving efficiency proposal. It doesn’t make sense for individual nations with identical interests to duplicate the work. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14075 Posts
On October 14 2022 01:49 Simberto wrote: So suddenly everyone is sending air defense systems to Ukraine at once? Do they need all of those? The guy Putin just made in charge of the invasion is an Air force general known for carpet bombing Aleppo into dust. He started his tenure by having a massive series of missile strikes onto civilian infrastructure during busy communiting times for maximum terror. For as bad as we've seen from the Russians so far they've treated the war with baby gloves compared to how this new general treated Syria. You could theoretically use the air defence missiles in a strategic role like we've seen from the russians but they're woefully poor for that. Also all the Euro nations know exactly what Ukraine is doing with their stuff so I do not think that will come to pass. Air defence is the closest to defensive aid you can donate to, so the crowds that have been anxious about sending tanks or planes can help without going full Poland. | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
On October 12 2022 21:45 JimmiC wrote: The war did not break out, Russia invaded and surely this was not due to american influence. (Or do you think it was? If so why and how?) So then the question of bleeding out is do you think the world should have just let Russia win or should have they helped more to stop Russia? And how is the US against way more interests keeping it at the bleeding out stage? Finally who in the US is making these calls, while it may end up good for the US in the long term (a claim i would think is pretty up for debate) it is not in the short term and with elections around the corner it would not make sense for the dems. Heck the economic benifits might not hit for decades and most of the US politicians are in their 70s. Whos pulling the strings? I am okay with putting it like that. This is an aggressive and criminal act of aggression by Russia and obviously the USA did not start it. They probably even kinda feared it as they, at least officially, thought it would be a matter of a few days for Russia to overrun Ukraine. But as soon as it became apparent that this would not be the case the rhetoric and actions of the US have been aimed at prolonging the war to weaken Russia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61214176 There have been little efforts to find a peaceful solution other than "victory" for Ukraine, even though there are reports of peace talks happening. Don't you think the American rhetoric could be drastically different if they were really interested in finding a solution that would save as many people as possible? The pure demonization of Putin and Russians is working exactly against that. Well who is making foreign policy in the US? The president, the state department, the ministry of defence and so on. Usually supporting wars has been a boon in reelection, in this case u get the boon without the cost of American lives, which would be detrimental over time. Doesnt seem such a bad deal to me. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15727 Posts
Ukraine is: 1) Extremely resource rich 2) Plays nice with the West 3) Has a very competent military basically singularly focused on "take a shit on Russia" 4) is geographically perfectly positioned From a dollars and cents perspective, it just makes sense to dump buckets of weapons and money on Ukraine. They are not only a way to have someone else do the West's work to shove dicks in Russia's ass, but they are an efficient means to do so. They are effective and efficient. This is a huge win and it sounds like Europe is realizing leaning into this situation is a really good idea. Russia got desperate, started bombing a bunch of infrastructure, and now Ukraine is going to be 2nd only to Israel in missile defense. They just keep losing. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14075 Posts
On October 14 2022 03:11 RolleMcKnolle wrote: I am okay with putting it like that. This is an aggressive and criminal act of aggression by Russia and obviously the USA did not start it. They probably even kinda feared it as they, at least officially, thought it would be a matter of a few days for Russia to overrun Ukraine. But as soon as it became apparent that this would not be the case the rhetoric and actions of the US have been aimed at prolonging the war to weaken Russia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61214176 There have been little efforts to find a peaceful solution other than "victory" for Ukraine, even though there are reports of peace talks happening. Don't you think the American rhetoric could be drastically different if they were really interested in finding a solution that would save as many people as possible? The pure demonization of Putin and Russians is working exactly against that. Well who is making foreign policy in the US? The president, the state department, the ministry of defence and so on. Usually supporting wars has been a boon in reelection, in this case u get the boon without the cost of American lives, which would be detrimental over time. Doesnt seem such a bad deal to me. The efforts to find a peaceful solution has been going on for the last 8 years from when russia started their invasion of Ukraine. That its failed recently is because Europe has seen what happened the last time they appeased a warmongering dictator in Europe. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22048 Posts
On October 14 2022 03:11 RolleMcKnolle wrote: We know what happens when you appease aggressive imperialistic nations by letting them slowly absorb their neighbours, and not just the start of ww2 but as recent as Crimea.I am okay with putting it like that. This is an aggressive and criminal act of aggression by Russia and obviously the USA did not start it. They probably even kinda feared it as they, at least officially, thought it would be a matter of a few days for Russia to overrun Ukraine. But as soon as it became apparent that this would not be the case the rhetoric and actions of the US have been aimed at prolonging the war to weaken Russia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61214176 There have been little efforts to find a peaceful solution other than "victory" for Ukraine, even though there are reports of peace talks happening. Don't you think the American rhetoric could be drastically different if they were really interested in finding a solution that would save as many people as possible? The pure demonization of Putin and Russians is working exactly against that. Well who is making foreign policy in the US? The president, the state department, the ministry of defence and so on. Usually supporting wars has been a boon in reelection, in this case u get the boon without the cost of American lives, which would be detrimental over time. Doesnt seem such a bad deal to me. The reason no one is ok with peace until Ukraine entirely belongs to Ukraine again is because we know how the other scenario ends. Or rather, doesn't end. Its not about saving lives, its never been. Its about stopping an aggressive imperalistic nation on and near our border before they decide to try how far they can go against NATO itself and start WW3. We, hopefully, all know Russia would not stop with Ukraine. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5739 Posts
On October 14 2022 03:11 RolleMcKnolle wrote: I am okay with putting it like that. This is an aggressive and criminal act of aggression by Russia and obviously the USA did not start it. They probably even kinda feared it as they, at least officially, thought it would be a matter of a few days for Russia to overrun Ukraine. But as soon as it became apparent that this would not be the case the rhetoric and actions of the US have been aimed at prolonging the war to weaken Russia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61214176 There have been little efforts to find a peaceful solution other than "victory" for Ukraine, even though there are reports of peace talks happening. Don't you think the American rhetoric could be drastically different if they were really interested in finding a solution that would save as many people as possible? The pure demonization of Putin and Russians is working exactly against that. Well who is making foreign policy in the US? The president, the state department, the ministry of defence and so on. Usually supporting wars has been a boon in reelection, in this case u get the boon without the cost of American lives, which would be detrimental over time. Doesnt seem such a bad deal to me. How do you find a compromise between one side wanting lasting peace and the other wanting to genocide the former? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Vinekh
131 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43460 Posts
On October 14 2022 03:11 RolleMcKnolle wrote: I am okay with putting it like that. This is an aggressive and criminal act of aggression by Russia and obviously the USA did not start it. They probably even kinda feared it as they, at least officially, thought it would be a matter of a few days for Russia to overrun Ukraine. But as soon as it became apparent that this would not be the case the rhetoric and actions of the US have been aimed at prolonging the war to weaken Russia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61214176 There have been little efforts to find a peaceful solution other than "victory" for Ukraine, even though there are reports of peace talks happening. Don't you think the American rhetoric could be drastically different if they were really interested in finding a solution that would save as many people as possible? The pure demonization of Putin and Russians is working exactly against that. Well who is making foreign policy in the US? The president, the state department, the ministry of defence and so on. Usually supporting wars has been a boon in reelection, in this case u get the boon without the cost of American lives, which would be detrimental over time. Doesnt seem such a bad deal to me. Describe a peaceful solution. | ||
| ||
