Even with a Biden Admin there would be plenty of hawks eager to turn the screws to Putin in all sorts of creative ways to halt the Russian military. I would imagine those options aren't completely off the table either... but for now the admin has decided that those options come with too much risk.
1. Victoria Nuland, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs said: “I saw that announcement by the government of Poland as I was literally driving here today. So to my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they plan to give these planes to us.” The proposal to transfer fighters to Ukraine, looks dead in the ditch.
2. If Russia didn’t have 150 million people, a big piece of global commodity export, a massive military and Vladimir Putin did not have his hands on the nuclear trigger of thousands of nuclear weapons, this would not worry me that much. The Russian Army also had to adapt its campaign in Ukraine, which moved from the use of light forces to achieve objectives. Given the level of Ukrainian resistance, this has changed back to a methodical campaign of attrition — the cities of Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Sumy and Mariupol remain encircled by Russian forces and continue to suffer heavy Russian shelling.
3. Any "Limited No Fly Zone" idea is a backdoor path to war with Russia — with potential for nuclear escalation. Americans need to debate whether it is in NATO’s interests here justify that risk. However, a No-Fry Zone has been implemented by McDonalds — "McDonald's has decided to temporarily close all our restaurants in Russia and pause all operations in the market," CEO Chris Kempczinski said.
4. From the start, Vladimir Putin has made clear that this is a war of escalation. He threatens to be more destructive even if that means resorting to a nuclear weapon. Or to put it another way, escalate to descalate.
(a) Pre-war estimates suggest Russia had amassed about 125 battalion tactical groups on the Ukrainian border out of 168 available. This means 43 more could theoretically be added into Ukraine.
(b) War games after in the wake of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine have suggested that Putin would probably use a nuclear weapon if he concludes that his regime is threatened — a more likely option would be a sudden nuclear test or a high-altitude nuclear detonation that damages the electrical grid over a major Ukrainian city. If the war drags on without a Russian victory, some believe that Putin will eventually use a tactical nuclear weapon (detonated outside of NATO jurisdiction) to extract a favourable settlement.
Актуальная карта военных действий на 08.03.2022 Сегодня снова был объявлен режим тишины, и снова эвакуация везде провалилась. Видимо, по этой причине на линиях фронта опять тихо. Ну почти. До режима тишины, ночью, было несколько ударов в районе Житомира, Киева и Краматорска. Выстрелы сегодня...
t.me
Kiev.
A civilian car was shot up in Kiev, occupants allegedly killed. It's unclear who did it.
Вооруженные неизвестные растреляли машину в Киеве Вооруженные неизвестные растреляли машину мирных жителей в пригороде Киева. Машина с убитым простояла все утро. @anna_news
Богдановка (Броварской р-н), БТР-82А ВС РФ едет по улицам. Ну, с Чернигова и Сум помощь Киеву уже точно не придёт. С востока город отсечён практически полностью, ждём развития.
‼️ВКС России нанесли мощные авиаудары в районе Балаклеи, где расположены крупнейшие склады вооружений ВСУ Местные сообщают, что пролетело 2 самолёта и скинули 3 бомбы. Харьковская область. t.me/RVvoenkor
A destroyed Ukrainian S-300PS TEL near Kherson. The context makes me wonder about the date of the footage. I doubt Ukrainian SAMs are rolling around Kherson roads at this time.
Обломки штурмовика Су-25 ВВС Украины, сбитого в Херсонской области Предполагается, что это один из тех двух украинских штурмовиков, которые сбили российские силы ПВО 6 марта в Херсонской области. Подробнее об этом в нашем материале @anna_news
t.me
A destroyed Ukrainian column in Kherson. It looks to be mostly trucks, but I can see an MBT in the distance in the end. Not sure whose or what type.
ВС РФ продолжают стягивать войска для полной блокады Николаева. Местные жители села Кандыбино запечатлели колонну ВС РФ, направляющуюся для блокирования города с севера. Одновременно возобновились бои в Корабельном районе Николаева и н.п.Балабановка: ВС РФ наступают со стороны Прибугского и...
t.me
Reports out of Snegirevka, Nikolaev region, Russian supply column, followed by troops.
⚡Российский бронепоезд обеспечил эвакуацию 248 иностранцев, в том числе 40 украинцев, из Херсонской области в Крым. Военнослужащие организовали безопасный выезд для граждан Турции, Египта, Азербайджана, Пакистана, Швеции, Италии, Бразилии, Индии и Марокко. В дальнейшем будет решаться вопрос по...
t.me
Reports of large numbers of Ukrainian wounded soldiers arriving at hospitals in Odessa.
❗️ СМИ Одессы сообщают, что в Одесский военный госпиталь ежедневно привозят раненых бандеровцев. Как сообщают врачи, мест нет,все забито,нет лекарств. Администрация города от этих проблем открестилась.
t.me
Allegedly a Ukrainian territorial defense officer from the 124th territorial defense bde was captured by Russian state security forces while trying to access a stash of weapons and explosives.
ЄС надає Україні новий пакет фінансової підтримки у розмірі 1,5 млрд євро в межах пакету макрофінансової допомоги, - повідомила президентка Єврокомісія Урсула фон дер Ляєн https://t.me/operativnoZSU
t.me
It appears one Ukrainian tank lost near Mariupol' had no explosives in their ERA tiles.
⚡️Украинские танкисты под Мариуполем воевали с муляжами динамической защиты. Оба танка в Гнутово были выведены из строя военнослужащими 9 полка НМ ДНР с помощью старого, доброго РПГ-7.
t.me
Donetsk radio is transmitting propaganda telling Ukrainian forces to put down their weapons and exit Mariupol' using a humanitarian corridor.
Прислал подписчик из Мариуполя. По Донецкой радиостанции в Мариуполе звучат вот такие сообщения для оставшихся украинских военных. Никому не нужно лишнее кровопролитие.
t.me
A civilian female from Volnovahka claims she and her son voted for the DNR in the referendum, and her son was threatened by Ukrainian fighters for it. Interesting to note is that they are speaking Ukrainian.
Эксклюзив! Местная жительница Волновахи на украинском языке рассказывает, что они с сыном голосовали за ДНР, за что сына хотели расстрелять украинские боевики.
t.me
LDNR Front.
Sokol'niki village in LNR territory has been completely destroyed by the fighting. The person filming claims it was Ukrainian forces.
Pensions are being issued by rebel authorities in Granitnoe village. How quickly essential service can be restored is a big part of keeping the locals content.
Последствия удара по военному общежитию в Житомире.
t.me
Ukrainian border guard has captured men fleeing the draft. They are giving them flowers in celebration (ironically) of March 8th, international women's day.
⚡️Уничтожение зенитной установки и бронетехники ударными вертолетами Ка-52 во время спецоперации на Украине. Экипажи армейской авиации ВКС России успешно выполняют свои задачи, в том числе ночью и в любые погодные условия. @opersvodki
t.me
An abandoned Russian Reostat artillery recon vehicle for the VDV, location unknown.
Украина применяет иностранное оружие против Вооружённых Сил России 72-я механизированная бригада ВСУ использует в ходе специальной операции, проводимой ВС РФ, поставленные Данией противотанковые гранатометы M72 Enhanced Capacity, Великобританией - противотанковые управляемые ракеты NLAW и...
t.me
Russian National Guard from Chechnya in Ukraine, location unknown. They appear to be operating a captured Ukrainian Varta armored car.
⚡️В Харьков к нацистскому батальону Азов прибыли гранатометы NLAW и НАТОвские инструкторы (в подарок)
t.me
A Tu-141 Soviet-era UAV was downed in Ukraine. Unclear whose, though the last known operator of the type was Ukraine, not Russia. But it's plausible Russia returned them to service and is using them as decoys.
Коллеги, судя по всему, это обломки оперативно-тактического разведывательного БПЛА Ту-141 «Стриж». В этих обломках «Стрижа» выдает как неплохо сохранившийся ТРД КР-17А, так и характерная для Ту-141 задняя "лыжа". Данные БПЛА уже давно были сняты с вооружения российской и украинской армий...
t.me
Sescha airbase, 160kms from Ukraine. 42 AN-2 biplanes are sitting there, along with Il-22PP, Il-76s and Il-20M. It's possible Russia has picked up Azerbaijan's playbook regarding using unmanned An-2s to get the enemy to reveal their air defense positions. Imagery is from March 3rd.
Вот пример типичного представителя территориальной обороны, одна штука. В наличии немецкий противотанковый гранатомет Panzerfaust 3. Информация от производителя в обзоре гранатомета: Специалисты фирмы Dynamit Nobel убеждены, что эффективное применение гранатомётов Panzerfaust 3 невозможно...
So "official" forces carrying out operations meant to terrorize a population are not terrorists, but military forces fighting for some geopolitical reasons are? So where the US soldiers in Iraq terrorists? What about the highly trained NZSAS fighters that New Zealand sent to Afghanistan? The Afghani's never asked ISAF to come to occupy their country for over a decade.
So is a major power exercising force for their geopolitical aims terrorism, or does that only count when you don't agree with their aims?
Actually you will find that the Afghanistan war is legal under Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN Charter. So NZ military involvement in Afghanistan was perfectly legal. If you care to check your history you will find that the US was subject to a mass terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on 11/9/2001 and Mohammed bin Laden and his followers were tracked to Afghanistan. When the then Taliban government refused to handover bin Laden and co after being requested to by the US government, an ultimatum was served which the Afghani government ignored, so the US and allied forces invaded in October 2001. On 5/12/2001 the UNSC unanimously adopted UNSC Resolution Number 1378, which authorised ISAF. NZDF and NZ Police were present under that authorisation.
1. Toptob’s post contains deliberate factual errors and he knows the drill for this wrist slap. This is his 2nd ‘red text’ warning for going off-topic in this thread and his 3rd time getting warning points (and for violating rule 11).
So "official" forces carrying out operations meant to terrorize a population are not terrorists, but military forces fighting for some geopolitical reasons are? So where the US soldiers in Iraq terrorists? What about the highly trained NZSAS fighters that New Zealand sent to Afghanistan? The Afghani's never asked ISAF to come to occupy their country for over a decade.
So is a major power exercising force for their geopolitical aims terrorism, or does that only count when you don't agree with their aims?
Actually you will find that the Afghanistan war is legal under Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN Charter. So NZ military involvement in Afghanistan was perfectly legal. If you care to check your history you will find that the US was subject to a mass terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on 11/9/2001 and Mohammed bin Laden and his followers were tracked to Afghanistan. When the then Taliban government refused to handover bin Laden and co after being requested to by the US government, an ultimatum was served which the Afghani government ignored, so the US and allied forces invaded in October 2001. On 5/12/2001 the UNSC unanimously adopted UNSC Resolution Number 1378, which authorised ISAF. NZDF and NZ Police were present under that authorisation.
2. Another moderator, ngatimozart, provided factual corrections to Toptob’s post on NZDF’s legal mandate to operate in Afghanistan. I note that deliberately posting false info is trolling, given the fact that the UN Security Council has passed a number of relevant resolutions on Iraq, in particular 1500 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1557 (2004), 1619 (2005), 1700 (2006), 1770 (2007), 1830 (2008), 1883 (2009), 1936 (2010), 2001 (2011), 2061 (2012), 2110 (2013), 2169 (2014), 2233 (2015), 2299 (2016), 2379 (2017), 2421 (2018), 2522 (2020) and reiterating resolution 2107 (2013) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, and as set forth in 2367 (2017), and 2576 (2021). The last UNSC resolution renewed the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) till 27 May 2022.
3. @JGCAC, no offence taken. If you don’t like moderation, we can ban you as a next step. The Moderators have spoken — observe the forum rules, follow the directions given or face sanctions.
I'm very curious what has happened to all of the Russian soldiers. There are an insane number of photos of abandoned and/or immobilised Russian vehicles of various kinds, and the only footage I've seen was a barn full of them talking about being forced to sign resignation/discharge papers -
I'm very curious what has happened to all of the Russian soldiers. There are an insane number of photos of abandoned and/or immobilised Russian vehicles of various kinds, and the only footage I've seen was a barn full of them talking about being forced to sign resignation/discharge papers -
It's a great question. I suspect a lot of vehicles are being abandoned due to technical malfunctions, or after taking relatively minor damage but losing mobility. Russian evacuator services are failing miserably. Which means there probably aren't that many bodies, and the soldiers would presumably leave with the rest of their unit. But it really remains to be seen. Russia admitted to 498 KIA but that was day ago, and likely understated. We may have to wait for more information, possibly even the end of the war. Censorship inside Russia has also been dialed up.
Actually you will find that the Afghanistan war is legal under Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN Charter. So NZ military involvement in Afghanistan was perfectly legal. If you care to check your history you will find that the US was subject to a mass terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on 11/9/2001 and Mohammed bin Laden and his followers were tracked to Afghanistan. When the then Taliban government refused to handover bin Laden and co after being requested to by the US government, an ultimatum was served which the Afghani government ignored, so the US and allied forces invaded in October 2001. On 5/12/2001 the UNSC unanimously adopted UNSC Resolution Number 1378, which authorised ISAF. NZDF and NZ Police were present under that authorisation.
Mod edit: Text deleted. Any further off topic political discussion on UNSC will be deleted. Directed at no one in particular, we remind all that the onus is on the poster to be factual and correct. Deliberately using false info is trolling.
Neither the Syrians or the Russians have attempted to use the S400 against Israel so we don't really have any information on how effective it would be. Israel would definitely overcome it in my opinion (and then prob teach Assad some lesson for daring to use it). How many Aircraft they would lose before overcoming it is an unanswered question.
Relations between Russia and Israel are nowhere near dire enough that Russia is going to attack Israeli Assets with the S400.
Israel does not provide air defence coverage to the whole of Syria, only specific areas. Targets hit by Israel.are not in.areas covered by the Russians. Also, we really can't say for sure that Israel's ability to penetrate Syrian airspace gives a real indication of the effectiveness of any AD system given that whatever AD systems the Syrians have may not be deployed in the way they should be, as part of an integrated and layered GBAD.
How are Israel and Syria related to a Ukraine thread?
If the center of debate is S-400 in the context of Ukraine, then I'll throw my 2 cents in:
I've said in the past Russia would be mistaken to insert all its troops into Ukraine. The US officially claimed it did, and I believe that is a tactical mistake. It now leaves the vast majority of Russia's combat units in a limbo. Whatever retreats for R&R is not going to be nearly as effective in either material, training, or morale, as before.
I think the same would be true for any advanced air defense system - particularly the S-400. If they enter Ukrainian territory to close the airspace and avoid LoS limitations, they risk losing too many systems, leaving Russia vulnerable.
Russia's relatively massive arsenal of long range air defenses is most simply explained by the limited size of its air force, and the air force's limited capabilities.
It would seriously bite into its ability to monitor and defend its airspace, either along the borders and above its cities.
That said, Russia is not doing as bad as many make it to be. Its massive losses are not even 10% of what it currently has in Ukraine.
The flip side of the coin is that if Russia enters its S-400 units into Ukraine, it would be a sign that Ukraine might be nearing capitulation.
How are Israel and Syria related to a Ukraine thread?
If the center of debate is S-400 in the context of Ukraine, then I'll throw my 2 cents in:
I've said in the past Russia would be mistaken to insert all its troops into Ukraine. The US officially claimed it did, and I believe that is a tactical mistake. It now leaves the vast majority of Russia's combat units in a limbo. Whatever retreats for R&R is not going to be nearly as effective in either material, training, or morale, as before.
I think the same would be true for any advanced air defense system - particularly the S-400. If they enter Ukrainian territory to close the airspace and avoid LoS limitations, they risk losing too many systems, leaving Russia vulnerable.
Russia's relatively massive arsenal of long range air defenses is most simply explained by the limited size of its air force, and the air force's limited capabilities.
It would seriously bite into its ability to monitor and defend its airspace, either along the borders and above its cities.
That said, Russia is not doing as bad as many make it to be. Its massive losses are not even 10% of what it currently has in Ukraine.
The flip side of the coin is that if Russia enters its S-400 units into Ukraine, it would be a sign that Ukraine might be nearing capitulation.
Indeed and we have to ask why? From the onset did the Russians actually have a coordinated/integrated plan to use air power in conjunction with the ground invasion? When the invasion started was Russian air power tasked with neutralising Ukrainian air power or was tasked with providing - limited support to.ground forces, as well as conducting strikes on various strategic targets? Also, the Ukrainian air force is indeed still flying but how effectively is it performing and is it actually playing a part in preventing the Russians from deploying air power as they would like?
It seems to me that more often than not tanks are a liability. If you're driving in a tank it's dead obvious where you are and you can be easily shot especially if the enemy has heat-seaking missiles and your tank does not have heat-masking equipment. I realize it may be the case that not every infantry unit has anti-tank missiles but still. Whereas if you're a solider and hiding behind some tree, it seems to me that you are much more difficult to gun down. According to this website
(usual caveats about the easiness of faking pictures) 51 tanks have been destroyed or damaged and 71 have been captured. Suppose the Russians have 3000 tanks in the field, and suppose that 80% of a 4 man crew becomes casulaties then that's a 3.25% chance of becoming a casualty (152*4*.8)/(3000*4) = .0325. Now let's try to figure out the likelihood of becoming a casulty if you're not in a tank. I've seen estimates of the number of Russian casulties at around 3000, (of course I don't believe the Ukrainians who put the number at 11,000). If there have been 390 tank casaulties then there have been 2600 non-tank casulties. There are reports that now 100% of the entire 190,000 +/- 10,000 troops are now in the field though I frankly find that hard to believe. In any case, I'm obliged to defer to expert opinion. So, if there were 3000 tanks and 4 men per tank, that equals 12000 men in tanks and 178,000 men not in tanks. The casualty rate of non-tank soldiers would then be 2600/178,000 which is 1.46%. However, we have to keep in mind that I have not been able to factor in the casulties of the other clunky vehicles. Of course, you need some vehicles in order to conquer a country but it seems to me that the ratios the Russians are using is not the correct one.
All of this reminds me of the line from Lawrence of Arabic where Lawrence says that the desert is an ocean on which no oar is dipped and on this ocean the Arabs go where they please and strike where they please. It seems that that is what the Ukrainians are doing except this time it is the woods. That is at least how things are portrayed in this video
Again, I don't want to be naive. I realize these videos are selected for their propaganda purposes and they are designed to show the Ukrainians in a positive light and make the war look adventurous, just as Lawrence of Arabia was used as a figure to show the more heroic aspects of WWI. That being said, I think the calculations point to tanks being a liability or at least not used properly.
It seems to me that more often than not tanks are a liability. If you're driving in a tank it's dead obvious where you are and you can be easily shot especially if the enemy has heat-seaking missiles and your tank does not have heat-masking equipment.
Depends on the operational circumstances. The terrain, how the tanks are deployed, the support together from other combat arms, etc. Any piece of equipment can be a liability if not deployed and supported in the proper manner.
It seems to me that more often than not tanks are a liability. If you're driving in a tank it's dead obvious where you are and you can be easily shot especially if the enemy has heat-seaking missiles and your tank does not have heat-masking equipment.
Be honest.
Is this a "tank obsolete because missile" argument?
Are you now advocating against tanks?
I need to know so I can roll my eyes the appropriate amount.
EDIT: Know what? Let's make this educational. Today we'll write a simple python script.
Python:
list_of_weapons=['infantryman',
'tank',
'helicopter',
'ship',
'rifle',
'anti tank missile',
'anti air missile',
'anti ship missile'
]
your_old_argument = 'tank is obsolete because of X'
for i in range(len(list_of_weapons)):
new_argument = your_old_argument.replace('X', list_of_weapons[i])
I will let others decide on how valid this troop occupation analysis is but if it is reasonably accurate then Russia has a real problem. Furthermore if urban area destruction becomes more extensive than assumed and the insurgency is effective, the situation will be even more difficult. Probably increases the chance Putin might resort to using a nuke to send a message.
1. Victoria Nuland, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs said: “I saw that announcement by the government of Poland as I was literally driving here today. So to my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they plan to give these planes to us.” The proposal to transfer fighters to Ukraine, looks dead in the ditch.
2. If Russia didn’t have 150 million people, a big piece of global commodity export, a massive military and Vladimir Putin did not have his hands on the nuclear trigger of thousands of nuclear weapons, this would not worry me that much. The Russian Army also had to adapt its campaign in Ukraine, which moved from the use of light forces to achieve objectives. Given the level of Ukrainian resistance, this has changed back to a methodical campaign of attrition — the cities of Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Sumy and Mariupol remain encircled by Russian forces and continue to suffer heavy Russian shelling.
3. Any "Limited No Fly Zone" idea is a backdoor path to war with Russia — with potential for nuclear escalation. Americans need to debate whether it is in NATO’s interests here justify that risk. However, a No-Fry Zone has been implemented by McDonalds — "McDonald's has decided to temporarily close all our restaurants in Russia and pause all operations in the market," CEO Chris Kempczinski said.
4. From the start, Vladimir Putin has made clear that this is a war of escalation. He threatens to be more destructive even if that means resorting to a nuclear weapon. Or to put it another way, escalate to descalate.
(a) Pre-war estimates suggest Russia had amassed about 125 battalion tactical groups on the Ukrainian border out of 168 available. This means 43 more could theoretically be added into Ukraine.
(b) War games after in the wake of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine have suggested that Putin would probably use a nuclear weapon if he concludes that his regime is threatened — a more likely option would be a sudden nuclear test or a high-altitude nuclear detonation that damages the electrical grid over a major Ukrainian city. If the war drags on without a Russian victory, some believe that Putin will eventually use a tactical nuclear weapon (detonated outside of NATO jurisdiction) to extract a favourable settlement.
I was concerned when Victoria Nuland and Jake Sullivan were appointed to such high positions of influence, and confess that very early on I wondered whether Nuland's appointment was one among many of the inputs into the equation when Putin decided to pursue his present course. I'm sure you and others here know very well who Nuland is and her past policy and actions in Ukraine, but for those new to following this, when a media outlet firmly on the left is this critical of a choice made by a president with a D after his name -- well, it's like the cheerleaders at an American football game booing their team's coach for his choice of field goal kicker:
LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
mediabiasfactcheck.com
There have been several posts here about whether the Biden administration has an end game and if so, what it might be. Given the players (especially Victoria Nuland and Jake Sullivan) and past history, I have been concerned about this from the beginning. What was the end game in Ukraine in 2014? Whatever one might speculate it was, in reality it did not turn out so well.
What was the end game in Libya? Even I, hardly a specialist in that part of the world, could see from the very beginning that Libya would end up a failed state with various warlords fighting it out for many years to come. What was the purpose of turning Libya into a failed state? I can make a few guesses, but don't want to detail the thread. If the true desired outcome was the publicly touted one, could they really be more ignorant than little old me? Really? And then there's Syria -- what on earth was their end game there? Again, if as publicly stated, incredibly naive and doomed to failure in my opinion, but will not elaborate for the sake of brevity. There are other examples (Egypt, etc.), but I'll stop there.
Wesley Clark suddenly coming out of the woodwork and making so many media appearances also concerns me. There has been little to no interest in what he had to say for the past 20 years, whichever party was in power. Now suddenly, he's popping up again and again in the media.
For the record, I am not being partisan or even political here. If the current president had an R after his name and appointed certain top advisors I would be equally concerned.
The initial intention wasn't to turn it into a failed state. After Gadaffi started suppressing a rebellion the West decided he had to go. Gadaffi of course went full.circle; from a tyrant and enemy of the West, to a friend and partner [after he gave up.his WMD programme], back to tyrant and enemy of the West again. The West was under the illusion that a Libyan population which was grateful to be rid of the ''Colonel'' would be transformed into liberal democrats and would be all to eager to form a Western friendly democratic government.
It was overlooked by the West, that like in Iraq with Saddam, in Libya it was Gadaffi who held the country together. Libya under Gadaffi.was certainly not democratic but was a wealthy country with a high standard of living
Different players had slightly different end games. The West wanted a ''democratic'' Syria which which would be friendly to Israel, would sever ties with Iran and would be less Russia friendly. The Gulf Arabs couldn't care less about democracy and saw Syria mainly from the lens of the Sunni/Shia Cold War being fought against Iran. Doing away with Assad and replacing him with a Sunni dominated government would have weakened and further isolated Iran.
I was concerned when Victoria Nuland and Jake Sullivan were appointed to such high positions of influence, and confess that very early on I wondered whether Nuland's appointment was one among many of the inputs into the equation when Putin decided to pursue his present course. I'm sure you and others here know very well who Nuland is and her past policy and actions in Ukraine, but for those new to following this, when a media outlet firmly on the left is this critical of a choice made by a president with a D after his name -- well, it's like the cheerleaders at an American football game booing their team's coach for his choice of field goal kicker:
I personally share such concerns as well, same with some scandals involving the last administration on the issue of Ukraine. I listened to her full congressional testimony yesterday, quite interesting. One interesting question was raised regarding Ukraine's "Biological Research Facilities." I was not aware Ukraine had such facilities, nor do I know how many facilities there are. I wonder how many facilities are there? Were any U.S. funded and how much sensitive material is in those facilities? If any were indeed U.S. funded, or had further involvement either way, one should think the United States would've or should've safeguarded such sensitive material well before the invasion commenced. I'm more concerned about the possibility of any battles taking place near any biological facilities, especially if they're really sensitive. After all, we already witnessed a skirmish at a Nuclear Power Plant.
Here's an excerpt of yesterday's testimony. I noticed she sort of dodged the initial question "Does Ukraine have Chemical or Biological Weapons?" Not saying they do at all.
I very curious about Russian AA as well. the Ukrainian air force is still flying but not in large numbers and they have lost units to Russian AA.
Ukraine has also successfully shotdown a few russian high end fighters- A couple of SU-34s and Su-30s ( Dont know the actual number) and they used even older Soviet AA systems. And I have seen a lot of videos of Russia making Ukranian AAs high priority targets.
So we know the Russian AAs work to an extent. So maybe the problem is Russian AA is very bad at Friend and Foe recognition and they are too scared to use it as they are afraid they will shootdown their own planes?
Syria is a curiosity as well, Are the S-300s of the Syrian military uselss or are they forbidden from using them against Israel by the Russians?
I was hoping this conflict would finally shed some light into the actual capabilities of Russian tech, but so far its the same story, too many clouds.
I am afraid that the only way we will really get any proper info on Russian systems is if India or China ever take part in a large enough conflict(someting I hope neither countries ever do).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
