Tux

Wow. Another joke? I mean, yes it can. It’s up to the Russians whether they want to cross the next line and attack said drone but I’m not even arguing that the attack was unwarranted, I’m arguing that it was done in a reckless and stupid way. I feel like this isn’t a productive sub-thread though, so will probably leave things there. Oh and I meant to say it would have been a major international crisis if the SU-27 pilot had misjudged and gone down too, which he could easily have done if he made contact with the drone any more heavily than he actually did. My apologies if I wasn’t clear.

So you don’t think the two aircraft collided? If they did that tells us all we need to know about the distance between the two… The whole point is that when you get that close at that speed, the ‘agility’ of your aircraft becomes irrelevant. Whether you crash or not is largely down to chance (see my previous post re: turbulence). When you purposefully cede control of the situation like that, that’s reckless.

I assume this is a joke? One bit of turbulence and we have an ‘American drone purposefully rammed our peace-loving fighter jet’ international crisis on our hands…

That effect looks more like a partial loss of a digital signal than a camera malfunction to me but I am not in any way an expert on such matters. For me the outstanding aspect of this footage is the way the SU-27 approaches. We’ve all been assuming it would have been analogous to ‘tipping’ V-1s in 1944 (a dangerous enough manoeuvre in itself) but, if authentic, this footage shows it was nowhere near as controlled as that. The speed at which and aspect from which the SU-27 approaches both on the ‘fuel dump’ run and leading up to the apparent collision can only be described as extremely dangerous and reckless.

For the love of God don’t anybody show this to Scholz!

Are you being deliberately disingenuous to make a point or do you honestly think discussions about the ways in which Russia might split apart were common before this war started? Russia started a war. People on this board (amongst others) have assessed that as having been a bad idea and don’t think that Russia can win. The question is then raised: “what does Russia losing actually look like?” and a conversation follows which considers, among other things, what lines it might fracture along, if it fractures. The only way in which it can be considered to be “a goal in the West” is if it is adjudged to be the least bad option. Kind of like how driving into a tree might become a “goal” if the alternative is to go over a cliff edge. If Putin or Russians in general are truly afraid of westerners having that conversation then they should stop smashing their country’s future against the Ukrainian army and focus on making the Russian Federation into.. just.. *any* kind of good neighbour.

How many taxpayer dollars would it have cost the US not to have supported Ukraine? I don’t think the answer is zero…

A very clear description of what they were lacking (my bad for totally neglecting the obvious need to occupy the air yourself in an “Air Superiority” situation), followed by… …a very clear explanation of why! Thank you, both. (Love this place)

I always thought (perhaps wrongly) that Russia intended to lean more on powerful operational-level SAM systems to provide air superiority, while aircraft were primarily supposed to do their best Il-2 impressions and act as an extra-intimidating supplement to the Army’s artillery. If I’m right why do we think that’s failed? Off the top of my head I can’t think of too many confounding factors that Ukraine has been able to leverage against Russian S-400-type SAMs (notwithstanding what seemed like a sudden but fairly low-intensity campaign of HARMS use last summer). If I’m wrong then the reasons for failure have pretty much already been covered and I am happy to stand corrected (and duly educated).

While I (and I think most here) sympathise with your position here I think there may be a little bit getting ‘lost in translation’: “Beggars can’t be choosers” is a common phrase in English which is not meant to imply any additional offence to the “beggar” in question, to the extent that the word itself can be seen as derogatory. It’s just a pithy way of saying that people with no other choice shouldn’t be too critical of the form of assistance they get. “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is another one. Sorry if you knew that; I don’t mean to patronise. Ultimately though Butschi does have a point: there is no legal obligation on any European country to give Ukraine anything (as brainless and immoral as it would be for them not to). The people on this board will likely be sympathetic to your complaints about the rate of assistance offered but there are those who would take offence and use it to justify ceasing assistance altogether. It’s a bit like putting Wehrmacht insignia on your tank: ‘dark humour’ to you and your mates, forgivable foolishness to friends who understand your plight, gold dust to those who want ammunition to feed a propaganda war.

There’s also such a racket going on about MBTs I doubt anyone really notices much of what else gets committed any more… But I now see that point has already been made. That’ll teach me to shortcut reading the whole thread!

In the “Recommendations for Military Aid” category I’d have thought a key takeaway from this thread would have been the importance of winning the ‘drone war’ (‘dominating the dronesphere’?). I assume that’s covered somewhere in numbers 1 and 10, maybe?

This. Most would probably agree that joining the community of “The West” (assuming that’s what Ukraine truly aspires to) is about more than just using NATO weaponry and signing up for free trade and a defensive alliance: It’s about striving towards a culture of (among other things) openness, honesty and integrity and that absolutely means listening to what other peoples think of your national ‘heroes’. However what I would say is that that is *hard work*; those within a nation who champion this kind of process are continually accused by those who oppose it of hating their country, distorting historical context or pandering to ‘foreign’ sensibilities and that kind of cultural tension could be… you know… ‘tough’ when you’re fighting an existential war. So I guess I’m not sure Ukraine will have the collective emotional ‘bandwidth’ to tackle it right now. Regarding media showing Ukrainians ‘mocking’ those who claim they’re Nazis: in any country “black humour” is ripe for misrepresentation and being co-opted by tomorrow’s political opportunists. Ukraine will have to decide for themselves whether the morale benefits of tolerating/encouraging such humour are worth the definite political cost of its inevitable misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise).

Oh, for the love of… I mean, how many microseconds does it take a functional mind to realise the ridiculous and chaotic implications for a world in which that argument carried any weight? Apparently Macgregor himself was born in Philadelphia for crying out loud! I’m glad I didn’t watch that far.

Thank you for the information: I wasn’t sufficiently aware about the sensitivities that still exist between the two countries.

I can’t see why Ukraine would be excluded from the investigation but, in the meantime, is there any evidence to base that “very big suspicion” on? Sounds like unhelpful speculation to me. And I’m not buying NATO being that desperate to avoid an Article 4: nothing is going to force NATO to escalate any further than they want to or feel is appropriate anyway… It’s at times like this that I’m reminded that it’s always ok to say “I don’t know”, especially when the alternative is baseless and potentially harmful speculation (in either direction). We don’t know, yet, what the missile was. Waiting for the investigation to conclude is what we need to do.

c) missile malfunction..? d) accidental/mistaken launch? If it was a Russian missile there will be some response. At least enough of one that Russia should be quietly wary of risking it happening again.

It’s worth remembering as well that Poland isn’t some neutral neighbour who Ukraine have to avoid provoking. There are few countries in the world who are as supportive of Ukraine’s fight. In my opinion there’s no need to over-do the excuses, here: A plain, heartfelt apology and a high-ranking Ukrainian official visiting the bereaved families and willing to attend the funerals of those killed could easily undo the damage caused by yesterday’s premature denials and allow Ukraine to maintain its image as the mature and civilised party in this war. The Poles know very well why Ukraine had SAMs in the air. The best Ukrainian response now is to support Poland in their mourning and thank them for their ongoing support. If it was a Ukrainian missile, of course.

And if he’s surprised when that happens every time then maybe I’m wrong and the guy is just an idiot.

I recognise and agree with that narrative. For sure he has turned down better off-ramps in the past. What does he really think he can achieve *now*, though? There doesn’t seem to be any reason for even Putin to think his military campaign is still salvageable… But Occam’s razor, etc. I think you’re probably right.

Yes, as we know Russian propaganda has already used NATO involvement as at least a partial ‘excuse’ for poor performance to-date, despite the history of claiming they could flatten NATO on a whim. The problem is, as some have said before, ‘even Russians don’t really believe Russian propaganda’. Real footage of real NATO forces actually openly getting involved though? Withdraw what’s left of the armed forces (seven before they actually arrive) and cry foul play, deception and murderous intent… Anyway, I’m going to step back from the precipice of under-informed Muskian hubris and enjoy reading the ongoing gift that is this thread. As you were.

I’d argue this is already where things are headed, to be fair. Something needs to change the narrative somehow if it’s to be avoided.

Are we sure about 1.? Do we need to be careful about what we define as a ‘win’? Because the definition can and does change - he has already redefined it several times in this war. I mean I suppose he’s still trying to ‘win’ in the sense that he’s trying not to lose too hard… But I think at this point he may realise that staying alive and in power is the biggest ‘win’ still available to him. To my mind, if he has redefined ‘winning’ in that way then the answer to 2. may, in certain circumstances, have become “yes”. 3. If NATO used dirty tricks to win, then maybe? Is a long shot but he’s already lost, right? So *if* he realises that then the only choices he may have left are how to lose and who to. 4., 5.: being seen to *make* NATO enter the war with boots on the ground wouldn’t work. That would rightly be seen as his own foolish fault. NATO jumping in out of hatred for Russia, travelling to ‘Russian lands’ and going for the throat of a ‘distracted’ Russian armed forces however… that’s the stuff an oppression myth can feed off. I’m very aware I don’t (and can’t) have all the information needed to really make a case for this and I’m not sure whether I believe it myself. I just see so many people professing confusion at Russian actions that I can’t help thinking there might be another angle.

Noted, thanks AKD.

I mean, we all know that Putin couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, right? I learned a long time ago (mostly from discussions on this forum, to be honest!) to look at basically everything Putin does through the lens of Russian internal politics because that is where his power comes from and therefore where all of his motivations are rooted. That is the only stage on which his moves need to make any sort of sense.