quakerparrot67

Oh boo hoo, we have given so much to Ukraine, why not Europe give their "fair share"? Why must America lead...Are we not the world superpower? Are we not the best, strongest, most advanced military world-wide? Do we not have the strongest economy? Tell me how starving our ally of ammunition of cold war era shells does anything positive for our standing to compete with China. Tell me how illustrating that America cannot compete in a war of attrition with some of the decrepit remains of the Soviet Union somehow strengthens us to for a future competing with the world's factory (China). And I'm not being rhetorical, come here you supporter of Ukraine and Trump/Republican Party and tell me how America is benefitting from not funding artillery shells for Ukraine. I am sick and tired of seeing this notion existing, that the Republican Party/Trump will be stronger on China, on ensuring America will be safe when they can't fund goddamn cold war era shells for Ukraine. Am I being "political"? So sorry, but fair is fair, can't bash Europe without being fair to America.

Truly America is so stupid. We can't provide a tiny portion of our gdp to a cause most Americans are fine with, to which no American lives are at risk, to degrade the ability of a enemy, and strengthen our own standing in the world....and we are willingly throwing it away. Holy ****, why would any nation ally with us vs China.
We are starving our ally of life for literally no ****ing reason. No reason except as a favor to a certain someone. And no none of the flimsy excuses pass, most Americans, most senators, representatives support Ukraine or at least espouse sentiments to such.

As well as a asymmetric lift and drag profile

Except that we are literally at the point where a couple of people skipping their flu shots, eating some bad crab cakes, or losing their ability to tolerate the endless stupidity could flip the chamber to the Democrats. A two vote majority isn't really.
 

Or UKRAINIAN floating objects!

Lol
 

The disappearances have usually been accompanied by bright lights and loud noises. Could this be UFOs?

I have to admit, one thing that did make me nervous in the second year of this war is a complete lack of a coherent western strategy with respect to this war.  We throw stuff at Ukraine until their military looks like a traveling circus.  We have never articulated strategic objectives nor really outlined how we intend to achieve them.  And we definitely do not have a coherent 2-4 year plan on how to outlast Russia.  I suspect we applied western lenses (again) to last years summer offensive and assumed victory.  This makes me very nervous for post-war reconstruction, which may very well be just as messy and ad hoc.
This whole thing feels very “making it up as we go along” and we need to change that.

do you recall at all what happened in Bucha?  I mean FFS what exactly do you think is gonna happen with negotiations with Russia?  JFC people have such poor memories or just don't give a rat's a55 for reality when they have an agenda.

Seriously and @squatter can look here too.  For anyone advocating Ukraine pursuing peace negotiations or suing for peace - easy to say but no one in this camp has provided a coherent theory of what that would look like right now.
Let’s say “Ok, you guys are right. Ukraine is out of options here. There are no viable way for Ukraine to continue to prosecute this war.”  Ok, so what?  What would peace negotiations look like?  How exactly do you guys see these “peace negotiations” happening.  Every time I ask this question I get some hand waving but no one has yet to unpack just how any peace negotiations could end up in anything but weakened western influence and a more vulnerable Ukraine that Russia is going to exploit.  What peace negotiation, that Russia is going to accept - while, as we are continually reminded, Russia is still capable of waging offensives to take ground?  What possible leverage does the west or Ukraine have in guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and security.  Is Russia going to offer reparations?  How about war crimes prosecution?  Is Russia going to give up an inch of ground it has taken?  Are they going to push for recognition of Crimea and Donbas as Russian provinces.
This is what is so disingenuous about this line of advocacy - at best it is delusional liberal left “let’s give peace a chance”.  At worst is it far right BS designed to program failure into this entire war so that their presidential candidate can be “right all along”.  In both cases the idea of peace negotiations right now is an empty coffin where actual ideas on this war go to die.  We may very well need a negotiated end-state in this war, but suing for peace now, while on the back foot is going to embolden Putin and his regime…and is exactly what they are looking for in order to promote themselves “Look we brought them all to their knees”.
But let’s open the floor.  Please walk us through what a peace process would look like right now.  Let’s stop sideline heckling on won’t work and tell us what you think will work.

I mean these are fair points, and I am not in the "Yay us!" camp.  But frankly it is a small miracle that anything happened at all.  The West was woefully unprepared for this entire thing, and that is on us.
As for Ukraine.  Well if we are dolling out harsh but fair truths, they definitely could have been better prepared as well.  If I were living next door to Russia, I would make damned sure I had security guarantees that matter (oh wait, I do and we did).  I would also be working very hard, like Finland and Sweden just did, to make sure if I needed a quick entry into the western fold that I was ready for that.  Corruption and dithering happened inside the Ukraine government as well.
I think that no one on this side of this war was truly ready for what actually happened.  The West rallied and frankly pulled off the impossible, as did Ukraine - how quickly we forget the miracles of Mar '22.  I do not think it is fair to flush all that down the toilet now with revisionist history and hysteria.
The West continues to support Ukraine.  Billions in aid are still moving.  The US is putting on a shameful display of just how fragile its democracy is right now, and ignorant power hungry politicians are exploiting it for personal gain.  But I remain confident that 1) Ukraine will adapt.  They are leading modern warfare right now and learning incredibly fast, 2) The US and West will eventually get there - democracy does suck at times, but it is the best we have, and 3) Russian decline is occurring as a direct result of #1 and #2.  Their ability to be a threat is declining in the conventional space.
Hopefully this is a "darkest before dawn" situation and not the abyss that some insist it has become. 

Just stop it.  This war would be over in a day if the US and West fully slammed down...and then we would be dealing with the next war right behind it.  In what universe do you imagine Russia quietly skulking back over the border, avoiding all eye contact and gracefully accepting defeat if the West rolled in all the dice?
Should we support Ukraine, absolutely.  Should we fight this war for you, no freakin way.  Don't believe me?  Ok, let's take a look at the last time two nuclear powers got involved in a conventional war...oh wait, there really have not been any.
Closest we ever came was here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts
And this skirmish was within a year of Pakistan becoming a nuclear power (maybe).  So in human experience we have gone to incredible lengths to keep nuclear powers out of direct conventional wars...why do you suppose this is? 
Cut the "West is to cowardly" and "nukes are not a thing" BS because it clearly is an underlying calculation in this war and just because "you think so" is not going to change that.  

Bradleys are my favorite IFV now, if only they could take on T-90s in CMBS

I'll reply as well, ha!  @FlammenwerferX and I are still very much engaged in Metal on Metal.  It's pretty epic so far.  I think we are down to the last 17 minutes.
Around my other (3) PBEM's with @Fizou, RT, FB and BN, I have just really been enjoying FB and the new content.  It made me start the Aachen campaign...
In you go boys!

Ach - how have I missed Germany bashing day. Seufz...
Actually, yes. The parliament. Which is, for historical reasons, the way it is in Germany. The government can only petition the parliament to go to war. You would need a two-thirds majority which the current government doesn't have. Then that needs to be approved by the second chamber, too.
We made quite sure one person cannot start a war from Germany again.

Fixed it for you...
It would be like me saying that about America at the moment..
😉

In Putin's Russia, everyone puts in 110%.
What's so hard to understand?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/26/europe/sweden-nato-accession-hungary-intl/index.html
Sweden is finally in NATO 

To many people that matter are convinced that the world can be reset to the day before the Russian full scale invasion. The reluctance to admit that long term trajectories have changed permanently has still not been overcome. Defense spending is going to have to have higher for multiple decades, globalization is going to slowed, and perhaps reversed for decades. The secular cult of share holder value being the ONLY thing that matters is needs to be staked in the heart, permanently. Boeing being exhibit A on that one. Hopefully it won't take Ukraine falling, and Russia invading the Baltics to get the point across. Or maybe Trump wins and civilization takes a multi-century wrong turn into a dystopian nightmare.

Yeah, I was enjoying a beautiful clear night last summer on the Mediterranean coast of Spain, only to see a line of 5 satellites ascending, all in perfect line.
 

True on capacity/capability, however, this war is two years old.  Even if Russia was in denial for the first year, why did they not go for an overmatch mobilization a year ago?
I think Russia lacks the cohesive will to mass mobilize and Putin knows it.  This is why he is pulling wasters, criminals and merchs.  He cannot mobilize 2 million men without hitting the Russian people where they live.  He can’t do that without convincing them that they must fight or Russia is lost.  Even the most nationalistic twit in Russia can see that this is a discretionary expeditionary war.  Ukraine is not central to the survival of Russia as a nation state.  It is central to survival of Putin, but that only goes so far.
So back to western involvement - this is a tricky and slippery slope.  We know Putin is already saying we have divisions in Ukraine, but he also knows large swaths of the Russian people don’t believe the state information apparatus.  If we go and give them hard proof the costs could be significant, and I am not talking about nukes.  If Russia buys into this war fully we could see significant mobilization.  Given how fragile western support is, that could be a serious problem.
The horrible truth is that Ukraine is important, but not that important to a significant swath of the West.  The political levels in the West have been managing this pretty much from day 1.  The Russian invasion is an attack to global order but many westerners ask “ok, but what has the global order really done for me?”  And given the wing nut drive bys we have seen here on the forum trying to explain that to them is tilting at windmills.
So the western powers have been slowly leaning in and pushing envelopes.  Pushing hard enough to slowly boil Russia but not so hard as to get them unified.  And Russia has been doing the exact opposite - drag this thing out until we change the channel.  Make it look like Iraq or Afghanistan, even if it costs Russia another problem 100k dead.  And it will all come down to who gives out first.  In the West it will end with a whimper as we run back to NATO lines and shore up a new Iron Curtain.  For Russia it could be a brutal collapse with a lot of nuclear weapons in the wind (the other awkward reality those who want to see Russia collapse never seem to answer).
Down the middle of this entire mess is a very small window of “just enough, just in time” which I suspect we are really aiming at.

Means, motive, opportunity, risk.  Means, yes but stealth does not mean invisible so risk there.  Motive, may be a good way to send a message but Russia would need to know a western power did it or the message to “back off” is lost.  Opportunity, possibly.
Risk…madness.  We are talking about direct western military action against Russia.  That is an act of war.  The US or UK would need to be ready to get caught and essentially give Russia and their allies permission to escalate. I mean what would we do if Russians actually killed an AWAC trying to send us a message?  Given the risks, the demonstration itself is not worth it.  Sure we bag an A-50 but Putin get his dream scenario for convincing his own people that this whole thing is an existential war for Russia against western powers.  He can take this to China and Iran as a blank check and this whole thing becomes World Proxy War One.
Cool Tom Clancy novel plot line but entirely fictional.

A-50 and IL-22 were hit in a previous incident.

 
Yesterday, only A-50 was hit:

Yesterday, there was confusion over the number of planes and helicopters hit because initial yesterday's videos showed two separate fires and one witness claimed that one fire was caused by a helicopter.
Separately, some UKR channels claimed that IL-22 was also downed but later these claims disappeared (probably confused it with previous incident). Nobody else claimed IL-22 or anything else was hit. 
There is a small probability that the second fire was from another plane. But it is small.
Ae you sure you are capable of judging other's work if you missed these basic things? 

Thanks for the clarification, but you might consider thumbing down the ad hominem attacks a bit.