Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 581

On September 15 2023 01:29 KwarK wrote:

The fact that he’s been actively turning it on and off is proof that up until now he has been personally responsible for how it was used. If he’d just left it on and done nothing then he could deny responsibility by saying that he has a policy of not reviewing and approving specific usages. He’s trying to have his cake and eat it too. If you don’t want responsibility then don’t actively assume that responsibility. It’s not hard.

On September 15 2023 04:45 Yurie wrote:
One thing to note regarding Poland. They have a triple guarantee with the UK and France added to the US one.

Russia's behavior does signal that a nuclear program now is a good idea. Unless Russia wins soon, then they will have a lot of veterans and could pivot that army somewhere else.

Russian admirals knew they had a problem.

This summer, the Ukrainian air force’s sole bomber unit—the 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade—began arming its 1970s-vintage Sukhoi Su-24s with British-made Storm Shadows and ex-French SCALPs: stealthy, subsonic cruise missiles each with a nearly 200-mile range.

Su-24s firing Storm Shadows and SCALPs began plucking at the Russian army’s logistical system in occupied southern Ukraine, striking depots, repair yards and bridges.

The staff of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet—30 large warships scattered across ports in southern Russia and occupied Crimea—sensed their vessels might be the next targets. They began painting elaborate camouflage on some ships, hoping the paint would confuse the cruise missiles’ imaging-infrared sensors.

The admirals were right to be worried. They were wrong to assume a little paint would protect their ships. On Wednesday morning, Ukrainian bomber crews fired a volley of Storm Shadow or SCALP cruise missiles at the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol, in southern Crimea.

Ukrainian forces already had cleared a path for the missiles by blowing up, with a modified navy anti-ship missile, the Russian air force’s long-range S-400 air-defense battery in western Crimea—and by sending commandos to dismantle Russian sensors on a pair of captured Ukrainian oil platforms in the waters west of Crimea.

There was no stopping the 7th TAB’s cruise missiles as they streaked right through the remains of Russia’s Crimean air-defenses on Wednesday and struck a drydock belonging to the Black Sea Fleet’s 13th Ship Repair Plant in Sevastopol.

The two ships in the drydock—a Ropucha-class amphibious ship and a Kilo-class submarine—burned through the night. In the morning, imaging satellites spotted two roasted hulks: proof both vessels likely were beyond repair.

Ukrainian air force commander Lt. Gen. Mykola Oleschuk praised the bomber crews. “While the occupiers … are still recovering from nighttime explosions in Sevastopol, I would like to thank the pilots of the air force of the armed forces of Ukraine for their excellent combat work,” Oleschuk wrote on Telegram.

The raid was the culmination of months of effort by Ukraine and its allies to arm the bomber regiment’s Sukhois, reduce Russian defenses and then strike when two valuable ships were most vulnerable: when they were out of the water.

In 19 months of hard fighting with an enemy that has no major warships, the Black Sea Fleet has lost a cruiser, three amphibious ships, a submarine, a supply ship and several patrol boats and landing craft. It cannot make good these losses as long as the war continues and Turkey prohibits the passage of warships through the Bosphorous Strait into the Black Sea.

And the losses almost certainly will continue. The Ukrainians have proved they can strike Russian warships in ports in both Crimea and Russia proper. No port is safe for what remains of the Black Sea Fleet.

On September 15 2023 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Poland having nukes can only ever be a good thing for global stability. The whole idea that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing is very dumb and perhaps even disinformation.

All countries with active, functional nukes, have always, and will always, retain their borders. If your sovereignty is ever threatened, you "may as well" use a nuke, even if it means mutually assured destruction, because there's no benefit to just rolling over and being conquered.

I think we can all agree Ukraine agreeing to give up their nukes was amazingly stupid.

"I know I will only use nukes for self defense, so if you are saying the same is true for you, then we have nothing to worry about, so I have no reason to give up my nukes if you are keeping yours" should have been the end of the discussion.

There is no logical reason to try to disarm a country unless:

1: They have expressed an intention to strike first

2: You want to invade them without worrying about retaliation in the form of nukes

I think the only real downside to nukes is the fringe case of a nation collapsing and some shitty folks inheriting the nukes. But so far we've only seen that happen in the case of Russia picking up the pieces left behind by the USSR.

On September 15 2023 09:32 JimmiC wrote:
Is there any source that talks about the cost of the losses? With Russia in the last week losing two of their fanciest mobile radar jammers, the air defence system, sub and landing ship plus whatever else, I wonder how much that costs?

@mohdoo maybe not fill out, but maybe they style they did in 2014. Are we sure Ukraine would have nuked over that? People redlines are always moving. I do not disagree Ukraine would be better off with them. I do not know if Russia would have attacked somewhere else or no where. I just do not think it is a “safer” world if everyone has them. I’m more in the camp that the west should be giving all that Ukraine needs conventionally to defeat Russia because I do not believe they will use their nukes offensively. And I believe if Russia losses and is way worse off that will deter major countries from war for a long time.

On September 15 2023 10:15 Mohdoo wrote:
China redraws a lot of maps and yet Taiwan exists. It is one of their favorite things to do, much like final warnings. That can't be compared to a military occupation where the previous user of the land has not had control for years.

If China rolls a huge military over their border to seize land from Russia, host their own elections for that land, and formally take steps to incorporate it into their country, that would qualify. No such thing has happened to a nuclear power.

On September 15 2023 10:38 JimmiC wrote:
Who other than Ukraine has that happened too in the last 40 years?

On September 15 2023 13:59 Ardias wrote:

UK. Falklands war.

On September 15 2023 15:02 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Not sure Afghanistan having nukes would've been a good thing though. Iraq, possibly, even though wmd was the reason for invading, them actually having had wmd might have dissuaded the invasion. But then post-saddam chaos (whether from natural causes at a later point in time or otherwise) kinda points in the direction of 'not unlikely that IS gets a nuke' and that would've been bad. Basically yeah Ukraine having nukes would prolly have worked out better for them (unless crimea still happens and they retaliate with nukes and get nukes more in return), but there are way too many potentially unstable countries for 'all countries should have nukes' to be a remotely attractive option.

On September 15 2023 16:05 Zaros wrote:


A large part of the instability is most countries outside Europe and the Americas are not actually countries. They are colonial borders largely drawn up by France and Britain or an empire e.g Russia or China.

Afghanistan is the perfect example, there’s no real unity, shared culture or history. It’s the land between British India, Iran and Russian Central Asia that no one wanted or could directly control