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 August 20 2023 02:56 Sent. wrote: There is a group of people who refuse to believe it was a suicide truck because they have this weird image of Ukrainians being righteous knights of freedom and tolerance who would never do anything that's morally questionable.
I fail to see how it matters. A missile or a drone exploding a bridge and killing some civilians is the exact same level of morally questionable as putting bombs in a truck. It's a valid military target, and as much as it sucks, sometimes military targets comes with expected civilians casualties.
Let's flip it on its head: Is it more ok for Russia to bomb hospitals with missiles than if they had put C4 on a truck and ran it into the building? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldn't dictate the morality of the results
Lets flip this on its head. The only way Al Qaeda could reach the United States in 2001 was through hijacking and slamming planes into the Pentagon besides other things. Lets be real here, is it more ok to shoot a missile at a legitimate military target or crash a plane into it? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldnt dictate the morality of the result i.e. the nobel cause of global jihad. As much as it sucks, military and economic targets sometimes come with expected civillian casualties.
Slava Ukraini being the new Allahu Akbar is the way a free and democratic society expresses their moral superiority over societies bound by outdated dogma like International Law. Its almost as if completely backing 100% everything and anything someone does gives them a God complex where they start believing that they are above the morality of regular humans.
The Twin towers weren't a military target. Whether Al Qaeda used a plane or missile matters none; thousands of civilians died in a direct attack meant to kill thousands of civilians and incur terror on the civilian population. So no, it's not more ok to purposefully shoot a civilian target with a missile than suicide.
But I understand your wish to defend it as such due to the numerous Russian missiles that have purposefully been targeting civilians. And I will absolutely claim moral superiority over using a van to blow up a military target with civilian casualties over using missiles to target civilians with no military benefits
A state actor deceiving multiple European countries, as well as their private citizens and companies to transport 21 tonnes of explosives over multiple state lines and no one in those countries knowing the goods were 21 tonnes of explosives is not something a state does. This might come as a shock for you but these are not things functional societies bound by moral norms do.
If that truck exploaded in Romania with a 21 tonne blast or in transit through Sofia while keeping the Romanian and Bulgarian governments in the dark what then? You dont smuggle 21t of explosives into countries, period. Rouge intelligence agencies doing this without anyone from the government knowing and bragging about it should be concerning for everyone. How is this even a conversation we are having?
What about Nordstream? What happens when they admit to that too?
This is some epic levels of hypotheticals and whataboutism, that in no way actually has any roots in reality. How about we stick to what actually happened? Ukraine blew up a bridge, nothing more, nothing less. It's a military target that incurred civilian casualties because it's unavoidable in war. The means to their ends is literally inconsequential; the truck didn't blow up in Romania, it blew up on the bridge. Or do you want to argue "what ifs" about Russian missiles while we're at it? "What if one veers off course and hits the wrong target?". This level of incompetence is clearly much much worse than using a surgical attack that actually reaches its intended target
On August 21 2023 19:14 zeo wrote: You dont smuggle 21t of explosives into countries, period.
Hahahahaha. Why the fuck not? Do you not realise these countries are at war? Do you at all understand the concept of sabotage? I think someone needs to read up on WW2 history. According to you, the sinking of SS Donau was completely unethical; they smuggled in explosives after all!
On August 21 2023 19:14 zeo wrote: How is this even a conversation we are having?
A question we're all asking ourselves. It's outright bizarre seeing Russian sympathisers try to argue that missile attacks on civilian targets on a country they invaded is somehow completely ok, but using a truck to blow up a military target to defend yourself somehow is not... The logic leap of some of these arguments makes me feel like I'm living in bizarro-land
You sound like your hyperventilating while I'm reading this, you need to slow down and read what you are quoting. Whataboutism? What? Posting about a direct quote from Ukrainian intelligence services is not whataboutism, you talking about WW2 and Norwegian slave ships for Jews might be though. But I'm not that argumentaly bankrupt to start calling any relevant situations or happenings older than 2 months whataboutism.
Writing out the details (in their own words) of how a Ukrainian intelligence agency planned a terrorist style attack on a bridge is 'sticking to what happened'. The mental gymnastics you need to go through to convince yourself acting like ISIS and bragging about it is somehow justified goes above and beyond what can be considered 'rational human thought'. Again, your erratic writing style, fits of hahaha's seem to indicate that you don't know how to deal with this information and your first reaction is to lash out with any logical fallacy that comes to mind. Like you went searched for a randomizer on google.
Think about what you are saying. You are defending every act of terror.
Medvedev calls for the complete destruction of the Kyiv regime and says that the war is about Russia's self-preservation. Also says that the goal is to install a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, even if it takes decades to accomplish.
"In particularly sharp words, Medvedev said that any return of the current regime in Kiev should not be allowed, adding, “Only ashes should remain of it.” He stressed that Russia will either destroy Ukraine’s “hostile leadership” or the “collective West” will tear Russia apart. Medvedev also expressed confidence that the West’s sanctions would not prevent Russia’s goals. He called the defeat of the West and Ukraine “inevitable,” as ntv reported."
Western Media Faces Ukraine’s Failures: Offensive Grinds on with No Plan-B
Update on the conflict in Ukraine for August 21, 2023:
- As Ukraine’s offensive struggles in its 3rd month to cross the Russian security zone and reach the first of several defensive lines, Russian forces around Kupiansk have begun reversing Ukraine’s territorial gains made in last year’s Ukrainian offensive;
- The Western media citing Western political and military leaders as well as previously optimistic Western analysts now admit how implausible Ukraine’s offensive plans actually were as blame begins to be traded;
- Despite a growing grip on reality, there is still talk about “wonder weapons” changing the tide of the fighting including continued talk about the delivery of US-made F-16 warplanes which face all the difficulties that NATO main battle tanks faced, preventing Ukraine from using them effectively on the battlefield;
- Russia will most likely continue its methodical advance across the battlefield after Ukraine’s offensive fully exhausts itself rather than launching its own “big-arrow” offensive;
The main issue that tanks are facing is that the ground is covered with anti tank mines and they can't clear those easily due to the presighted artillery covering the minefield. If your argument is that western aircraft will face the same issues as western tanks I wonder if you're really understanding what aircraft are and how they work. They're actually able to go around the anti tank mines.
Ukraine's offensive is continuing its slow, steady, grinding progress per the plan. No quantity of youtube videos will change reality.
The strength of these defense lines is not at all a reason to stop fighting. They protect something very valuable. That's a good reason to continue pushing until the defenses can be breached. If or when that is accomplished, it would likely result in a sudden collapse of key parts of Russia's logistics. This makes it a concrete and realistic goal, not something vague and unattainable like, say, "destroying ISIS".
However, F-16s will indeed face the worrisome challenge of getting blown to bits by mine fields on the ground. Ukraine is planning to drag its planes through muddy fields towards final victory, which is a fairly well established war tactic that's been referenced in many history books. Other more conceptual ideas are plus-sized battle tanks strapped on ICBMs being fired straight into St. Petersburg, as well as successfully establishing a moon base by the 24th of August to then - as Sun Tzu was famously quoted - "teabag them backwards ass b***es with our space canons and send them back to their prehistoric caves".
I heard that Ukraine were planning to purchase a fleet of superbikes on which some heroes are to be employed to drag mines onto entrenched Russian positions.
May have been a mistake to introduce the military leadership to professional BW VoDs
I'm sure the F-16s will be primarily used defensively and as launch platforms for different missiles to be delivered in the future. Too much effort in training and logistics to have them primarily dogfight or be used in tradfitional ground attack roles. Russian AA missile systems like the S300/400 are pretty formidable against those planes.
The MIGs Ukraine has need custom adapters for modern NATO missiles (not sure about the Polish MIGs though), they made it work with the Stormshadow at least. But the F-16 platform opens up a whole new world of ready to use modern NATO cruise and anti air missiles from different allies to support Ukraine with. That's a gamechanger, not the F-16 by itself.
On August 22 2023 20:18 r00ty wrote: I'm sure the F-16s will be primarily used defensively and as launch platforms for different missiles to be delivered in the future. Too much effort in training and logistics to have them primarily dogfight or be used in tradfitional ground attack roles. Russian AA missile systems like the S300/400 are pretty formidable against those planes.
The MIGs Ukraine has need custom adapters for modern NATO missiles (not sure about the Polish MIGs though), they made it work with the Stormshadow at least. But the F-16 platform opens up a whole new world of ready to use modern NATO cruise and anti air missiles from different allies to support Ukraine with. That's a gamechanger, not the F-16 by itself.
Depends on what you mean by dogfighting. If your idea is 'guns' and passing each other at wingtip level, then that would indeed be a ridiculously waste (Not to say that the F16 isn't actually incredibly good at dogfighting due to its ability to conserving energy really well tho, it is. It just isn't super realistic scenario on the modern battlefield).
What the F16s give primarily is indeed the added range of its platform and the NATO missiles it can fit. This means that it can use air-to-ground missiles from a much safer range, but also, importantly, be a threat to Russian fixed-wings, who as we recall became a massive pain in Ukraine's ass back when the initial counterattack happened, as they are also able to operate in a space outside of Ukraine's AA at the front (mostly, I think 1 or 2 got shot down if I recall correctly).
On August 22 2023 20:18 r00ty wrote: I'm sure the F-16s will be primarily used defensively and as launch platforms for different missiles to be delivered in the future. Too much effort in training and logistics to have them primarily dogfight or be used in tradfitional ground attack roles. Russian AA missile systems like the S300/400 are pretty formidable against those planes.
The MIGs Ukraine has need custom adapters for modern NATO missiles (not sure about the Polish MIGs though), they made it work with the Stormshadow at least. But the F-16 platform opens up a whole new world of ready to use modern NATO cruise and anti air missiles from different allies to support Ukraine with. That's a gamechanger, not the F-16 by itself.
Depends on what you mean by dogfighting. If your idea is 'guns' and passing each other at wingtip level, then that would indeed be a ridiculously waste (Not to say that the F16 isn't actually incredibly good at dogfighting due to its ability to conserving energy really well tho, it is. It just isn't super realistic scenario on the modern battlefield).
What the F16s give primarily is indeed the added range of its platform and the NATO missiles it can fit. This means that it can use air-to-ground missiles from a much safer range, but also, importantly, be a threat to Russian fixed-wings, who as we recall became a massive pain in Ukraine's ass back when the initial counterattack happened, as they are also able to operate in a space outside of Ukraine's AA at the front (mostly, I think 1 or 2 got shot down if I recall correctly).
Yeah, dogfighting doesn't really exist anymore, who detects whom first and has the better missiles/counter measures and pilot/user is the game. But same as Russia, Ukraine will use the jets primarily as launching platforms outside of ground based AA range. IF modern air to ground or even cruise missiles will be supplied in numbers (which the delivery of the F-16s is a strong indicator for), Russias logistics are in trouble next year.
On August 22 2023 18:07 KwarK wrote: The main issue that tanks are facing is that the ground is covered with anti tank mines and they can't clear those easily due to the presighted artillery covering the minefield. If your argument is that western aircraft will face the same issues as western tanks I wonder if you're really understanding what aircraft are and how they work. They're actually able to go around the anti tank mines.
Ukraine's offensive is continuing its slow, steady, grinding progress per the plan. No quantity of youtube videos will change reality.
My main argument is that NATO has thrown 40k+ bodies into this "counter offensive" and they haven't even reached the first offensive zone. This idea that Ukraine can punch through Russia's defense is absurd, and it's getting people killed, for no reason.
Y'all might think I'm the bad guy for being pro Russia, but from the beginning, back in February of last year, I could do basic math and I knew that Russia had more people and more industrial output, and Ukraine never stood a chance. And I knew this would end however and whenever Russia wanted it too.
Douglas MacGregor just went on Tucker Carlson's show and said, according to his sources on the ground, that Ukraine has lost 400,000 people in combat since the start of the SMO. And that it was clear that the Minsk accords were just a time buying tactic to give the Ukrainians more time to mount an offensive against Russia.
MacGregor goes onto to say that the Russian machine that has been mobilized to defend itself can't be beat by NATO, even if the Americans and co go in on the ground. Which would then necessitate a nuclear response from NATO, which would trigger that scene from Terminator 2 where everyone dies in a nuclear holocaust.
So, in short, my argument is that NATO needs to just give up on their aspirations of toppling the Russian government, and that we should live in peace, for the sake of all life on earth.
On August 22 2023 18:07 KwarK wrote: The main issue that tanks are facing is that the ground is covered with anti tank mines and they can't clear those easily due to the presighted artillery covering the minefield. If your argument is that western aircraft will face the same issues as western tanks I wonder if you're really understanding what aircraft are and how they work. They're actually able to go around the anti tank mines.
Ukraine's offensive is continuing its slow, steady, grinding progress per the plan. No quantity of youtube videos will change reality.
My main argument is that NATO has thrown 40k+ bodies into this "counter offensive" and they haven't even reached the first offensive zone. This idea that Ukraine can punch through Russia's defense is absurd, and it's getting people killed, for no reason.
Y'all might think I'm the bad guy for being pro Russia, but from the beginning, back in February of last year, I could do basic math and I knew that Russia had more people and more industrial output, and Ukraine never stood a chance. And I knew this would end however and whenever Russia wanted it too.
Douglas MacGregor just went on Tucker Carlson's show and said, according to his sources on the ground, that Ukraine has lost 400,000 people in combat since the start of the SMO. And that it was clear that the Minsk accords were just a time buying tactic to give the Ukrainians more time to mount an offensive against Russia.
MacGregor goes onto to say that the Russian machine that has been mobilized to defend itself can't be beat by NATO, even if the Americans and co go in on the ground. Which would then necessitate a nuclear response from NATO, which would trigger that scene from Terminator 2 where everyone dies in a nuclear holocaust.
So, in short, my argument is that NATO needs to just give up on their aspirations of toppling the Russian government, and that we should live in peace, for the sake of all life on earth.
Everyone was in favor of living in peace. Well, everyone except for Russia, who invaded their neighbour in an unprovoked war of aggression.
You conveniently ignore the industrial side of things. Modern warfare is industrial. People are involved, yes, but force multipliers through weapons produced by industry are huge. And if you really think that NATO can't match Russia in production, you are deep in a strange rabbit hole.
Also, Tucker Carlson and his ilk are basically the least place i would look at for unbiased information. People who go there go there for a reason. That reason is to do some sort of propaganda. In this case, pro-russian propaganda. Douglas MacGregor, from a basic google, doesn't sound like a top-level source. He is a retiredcolonel, which a short google shows me is a mid-level officer (OF-5 of 10 in Nato), fairly far from the top. Why do we listen to this random dude?
The idea that Nato cannot match Russia in industrial production is absurd, and the idea that Ukraine has already lost does not seem to fit reality at all.
And yeah, the fact that you use the russian propaganda term "Special military operation" for their war says a lot, too. This is a war. A war of aggression. By Russia. Or call it an invasion, that would also work.
and that we should live in peace, for the sake of all life on earth.
I agree. So why isn't this directed at Russia who were the ones who broke the peace after all? 'All I want is peace.' A piece of Crimea, piece of Kherson, a piece of Kiev... and maybe a piece of Lviv after all.
On August 22 2023 18:07 KwarK wrote: The main issue that tanks are facing is that the ground is covered with anti tank mines and they can't clear those easily due to the presighted artillery covering the minefield. If your argument is that western aircraft will face the same issues as western tanks I wonder if you're really understanding what aircraft are and how they work. They're actually able to go around the anti tank mines.
Ukraine's offensive is continuing its slow, steady, grinding progress per the plan. No quantity of youtube videos will change reality.
My main argument is that NATO has thrown 40k+ bodies into this "counter offensive" and they haven't even reached the first offensive zone. This idea that Ukraine can punch through Russia's defense is absurd, and it's getting people killed, for no reason.
Y'all might think I'm the bad guy for being pro Russia, but from the beginning, back in February of last year, I could do basic math and I knew that Russia had more people and more industrial output, and Ukraine never stood a chance. And I knew this would end however and whenever Russia wanted it too.
Douglas MacGregor just went on Tucker Carlson's show and said, according to his sources on the ground, that Ukraine has lost 400,000 people in combat since the start of the SMO. And that it was clear that the Minsk accords were just a time buying tactic to give the Ukrainians more time to mount an offensive against Russia.
MacGregor goes onto to say that the Russian machine that has been mobilized to defend itself can't be beat by NATO, even if the Americans and co go in on the ground. Which would then necessitate a nuclear response from NATO, which would trigger that scene from Terminator 2 where everyone dies in a nuclear holocaust.
So, in short, my argument is that NATO needs to just give up on their aspirations of toppling the Russian government, and that we should live in peace, for the sake of all life on earth.
"The Russian machine that has been mobilized to defend itself" That's impressively idiotic, even for your standards.
On August 22 2023 18:07 KwarK wrote: The main issue that tanks are facing is that the ground is covered with anti tank mines and they can't clear those easily due to the presighted artillery covering the minefield. If your argument is that western aircraft will face the same issues as western tanks I wonder if you're really understanding what aircraft are and how they work. They're actually able to go around the anti tank mines.
Ukraine's offensive is continuing its slow, steady, grinding progress per the plan. No quantity of youtube videos will change reality.
My main argument is that NATO has thrown 40k+ bodies into this "counter offensive" and they haven't even reached the first offensive zone. This idea that Ukraine can punch through Russia's defense is absurd, and it's getting people killed, for no reason.
Y'all might think I'm the bad guy for being pro Russia, but from the beginning, back in February of last year, I could do basic math and I knew that Russia had more people and more industrial output, and Ukraine never stood a chance. And I knew this would end however and whenever Russia wanted it too.
Douglas MacGregor just went on Tucker Carlson's show and said, according to his sources on the ground, that Ukraine has lost 400,000 people in combat since the start of the SMO. And that it was clear that the Minsk accords were just a time buying tactic to give the Ukrainians more time to mount an offensive against Russia.
MacGregor goes onto to say that the Russian machine that has been mobilized to defend itself can't be beat by NATO, even if the Americans and co go in on the ground. Which would then necessitate a nuclear response from NATO, which would trigger that scene from Terminator 2 where everyone dies in a nuclear holocaust.
So, in short, my argument is that NATO needs to just give up on their aspirations of toppling the Russian government, and that we should live in peace, for the sake of all life on earth.
NATO is not even fighting in this offensive, let alone throwing 40k bodies.
Several pages ago I posted a video showing that literally every claim made by MacGregor during the first year of the war was utterly wrong. Kyiv was supposed to fall within weeks, Ukrainians were getting into cauldrons across the whole front, Russia was supposed to launch an unstoppable winter offensive, the Ukrainian society was on the brink of collapsing due to Russia's attacks on the infrastructure. None of that was real. Why do you keep posting this crap?
CaptainWaffle rooting for the underdog :D Good for him.
The equation is simple. Russians respond to power. NATO is not involved and does not want to be for obvious reasons.
CaptainWaffle: Those numbers you get from are absurdly fake. Reason being that the conflict would have already ended.
Also you seems not to be able to make a distinction between dead and wounded.
Be Pro-Russian all you want, just don't expect not to be challenged when creating your own alternative reality. Brave of you to raise your head out of your information bubble though. Point for that.
On August 22 2023 20:18 r00ty wrote: I'm sure the F-16s will be primarily used defensively and as launch platforms for different missiles to be delivered in the future. Too much effort in training and logistics to have them primarily dogfight or be used in tradfitional ground attack roles. Russian AA missile systems like the S300/400 are pretty formidable against those planes.
The MIGs Ukraine has need custom adapters for modern NATO missiles (not sure about the Polish MIGs though), they made it work with the Stormshadow at least. But the F-16 platform opens up a whole new world of ready to use modern NATO cruise and anti air missiles from different allies to support Ukraine with. That's a gamechanger, not the F-16 by itself.
Depends on what you mean by dogfighting. If your idea is 'guns' and passing each other at wingtip level, then that would indeed be a ridiculously waste (Not to say that the F16 isn't actually incredibly good at dogfighting due to its ability to conserving energy really well tho, it is. It just isn't super realistic scenario on the modern battlefield).
What the F16s give primarily is indeed the added range of its platform and the NATO missiles it can fit. This means that it can use air-to-ground missiles from a much safer range, but also, importantly, be a threat to Russian fixed-wings, who as we recall became a massive pain in Ukraine's ass back when the initial counterattack happened, as they are also able to operate in a space outside of Ukraine's AA at the front (mostly, I think 1 or 2 got shot down if I recall correctly).
Yeah, dogfighting doesn't really exist anymore, who detects whom first and has the better missiles/counter measures and pilot/user is the game. But same as Russia, Ukraine will use the jets primarily as launching platforms outside of ground based AA range. IF modern air to ground or even cruise missiles will be supplied in numbers (which the delivery of the F-16s is a strong indicator for), Russias logistics are in trouble next year.
One of the main uses I've heard discussed is anti helicopter. Having a high altitude anti air launch platform with long range. Helicopters is one of the many issues facing Ukrainian offensives. They keep low enough that the long ranged anti air can't target them and a few squads assaulting trenches are light on anti air.
For that to work they would need to be provided extreme range anti air to win the airplane wars to stay up. Last I heard Ukraine had shorter range air to air missiles and thus can't operate near the front, even if you disregard the excellent Russian ground to air pieces.
Update on the territorial changes since May 20th 2023.
Dark blue is Ukrainian advance. Dark red is Russian advance.
Usual disclaimer: this is my work, and it's only a very amateurish and sloppy attempt at making sense of the changes over the last three months or so. The advances on either side could be either exaggerated or diminished compared to reality. I'm relying on a fairly simplified method of drawing the lines and the maps are also fairly simplified (and I can't confirm that balkan mapping's data presentation method hasn't changed, so I don't know for sure whether or not I'm comparing oranges to oranges).
EPT
![[image loading]](https://bilderhochladen.at/uploads/ecf8480cf5overlay_-_karte_zz._mai_zzzz_&_zz._august_zzzz_-_balkan_mapping.png)
