How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

8 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

The US and Britain are backfilling for Poland at least. Not sure what Germany is doing.

Regarding armor? No they aren't. US and UK deployed their heavy units in Poland and the Baltics, but so did German ones, and our units/ reserves that were stripped of the T-72s didn't get any replacements yet. Poland ordered around 200 M1s some time ago, but those are to be new builds and delivered in subsequent years. Same for IFVs, BMP-1s are to be replaced by our indigenous Borsuk (Badger)  IFV, with first 50 to be received this year, and 100 or more per year in the future. Our MoD was in Korea lately and was even discussing some K21s as a stop-gap measure. 

As I said many times, some M1s (and M2s too!) would be great if we were to deliver our 230 PT-91s to Ukraine, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen, as some new modernization deals spanning 2 years were signed for those in recent weeks.

Having said that, regarding Marders and Leo1s Germans are definitely Scholzing around, all the produced excuses are just a fig leaf for a lack of political will.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Huba

[Calamine Waffles]

I don't think the US has the industrial capacity for the latest Abrams variants, though I guess they could send stuff out of deep storage.

The Germans were apparently announcing that they would send Marders to Greece in exchange for Greece sending in their BMPs, but apparently that was made without consulting with the Greeks first.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Calamine Waffles said:

I though the US is selling Abrams to the Poles?

Sure, but as I mentioned, those are new builds and not to be delivered anytime soon. Actually decision to go with M1 was very controversial as we already have 200+ Leo2, and it introduces 3rd completely new type to our inventory. Given how the situation is unfolding though, it seems it was a correct one. After M1 delivery (AFAIR around 2025), Poland intends to start production of local K2 derivative (probably just a license build), that will gradually replace all the other types in the future, starting with PT-91s. Probably this will be a joint venture with Ukraine, but it's too soon to really be sure of it at the moment.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

I don't consider myself the most pro russian guy but I can see why Russia feels threatened. Its not irrational, lets be honest.

On paper NATO is a defensive organization but its members have conducted and have been involved in the most wars and invasions since the end of WW2. Mainly US. NATO offcially has also intervened violently, bombing in the Balkans, Libya and waged war on Afghanistan for 20 years. So not a strictly defensive pact per se. The other most important member of NATO, (once Great) Britain, has been a colonial force for centuries, occupying and looting countries at will, and only recently has withdrawn from most of its distant colonized lands. Not a great record to be honest. France is not lagging that far behind on that matter and Germany has the most dark recent past of all of them and a special wound with Russia. So, yes not that aggressive anymore, but not a great criminal record if you want them for neighbours.   

US, the flagship and mastermind of NATO,  has bypassed UN council to invade sovereign states like Iraq with false pretext of WMD and has 750 military bases around the globe, thousands of miles beyond its borders. Its military spending is 10x times more than the second on the list. An alien observer coming from space would argue that these guys with the stars and stripes are everywhere, how can they complain of expansionism of others?   Russia is not nervous of NATO but of US army presence so close to its vital routes. Imagine a US base in Sevastopol (again distance from home:  

https://www.google.com/search?q=sevastopol+distance+from+US&oq=sevastopol+distance+from+US&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2.9435j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 )

completly blocking Russia way out to Bosporus and Mediterranean Sea. 

In this story Russians might seem the bad guys and we would probably not want to see them reaching the polish borders but from their POV and as an entity , they have probably sound reasons to not want NATO(US) presence that close to their home. This regardless of what we feel is moral or not.    

 

The only problem with this is that RU absolutely is a threat to its neighbors, while RU's neighbors couldn't possibly invade RU and win.  So those neighbors want to join NATO to survive.  This makes RU feelings feel hurty.  Tough s--t.  If RU wasn't a threat in the first place these nations wouldn't join NATO. 

So RU causes the problem then claims to be scared because of it.  It's totally backwards thinking.  If RU was a peaceful, trustworthy nation NATO wouldn't even exist. 

As has been said here a thousand times, if Lithuania/Estonia/Latvia weren't in NATO he would've attacked and annexed them long ago. 

Edit:  PanzerMartin -- no disrespect intended, I totally get that you were presenting an RU view.  Putin's aggressions over the last 20 years make it clear how distorted that view is. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by danfrodo
edit

[billbindc]

39 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

I don't consider myself the most pro russian guy but I can see why Russia feels threatened. Its not irrational, lets be honest.

(SNIP)

In this story Russians might seem the bad guys and we would probably not want to see them reaching the polish borders but from their POV and as an entity , they have probably sound reasons to not want NATO(US) presence that close to their home. This regardless of what we feel is moral or not.    

 

Until someone figures out how to annul Russia's ability to nuke any invading force...as is their stated doctrine...then any idea that Russia is legitimately under military threat is absurd. This is about a oligopoly/fascist system that is under *political* threat because it isn't able to produce an attractive governing model. That is *not* NATO or Ukraine's fault or problem.

[Huba]

5 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

The only problem with this is that RU absolutely is a threat to its neighbors, while RU's neighbors couldn't possibly invade RU and win.  So those neighbors want to join NATO to survive.  This makes RU feelings feel hurty.  Tough s--t.  If RU wasn't a threat in the first place these nations wouldn't join NATO. 

So RU causes the problem then claims to be scared because of it.  It's totally backwards thinking.  If RU was a peaceful, trustworthy nation NATO wouldn't even exist. 

As has been said here a thousand times, if Lithuania/Estonia/Latvia weren't in NATO he would've attacked and annexed them long ago. 

Exactly that. Nobody in Europe is thinking in categories of land acquisitions from the neighbours through armed force. This imperial insanity resides in Kremlin alone (OK, maybe in Istanbul a little, and in most farcical form in Budapest  ). Here's Putin from today, casually mentioning that lands that were never Russian at any point should by right belong to Russia anyway:

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Huba

[Calamine Waffles]

9 minutes ago, Huba said:

Sure, but as I mentioned, those are new builds and not to be delivered anytime soon. Actually decision to go with M1 was very controversial as we already have 200+ Leo2, and it introduces 3rd completely new type to our inventory. Given how the situation is unfolding though, it seems it was a correct one. After M1 delivery (AFAIR around 2025), Poland intends to start production of local K2 derivative (probably just a license build), that will gradually replace all the other types in the future, starting with PT-91s. Probably this will be a joint venture with Ukraine, but it's too soon to really be sure of it at the moment.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of Germany's ability to deliver.

I'm from Malaysia, so we do use the PT-91M. Seems to be a good tank for what it is.

[Centurian52]

On 6/6/2022 at 11:06 AM, Battlefront.com said:

First, my customary acknowledgement of a new poster and thanks for making a contribution.  Welcome!

You are very much correct about not knowing what a nation will accept for losses until that moment arrives.  Certainly Hitler and his advisors, military and sycophants alike, didn't expect the US to put up with large casualty counts.  They viewed the US as "soft" and the early performance in North Africa seemed to confirm their perception.  Oh boy did they call that one wrong

That being said, Western societies are very different than they were in the early 20th Century.  Large scale warfare has not happened since the end of WW2 for most nations.  Even for the US this is true, unless one argues that the Korean War is more like WW2 than Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan (I wouldn't argue that).  Conscription has also been done away with in most Western countries, which underscores societies' move away from warfare of the masses.

There are certainly scenarios that I think would cause contemporary Western societies to willingly put up with losing tens of thousands of soldiers on the battlefield, but not many.  Society would likely try to compromise its way out of such a conflict.  Certainly right now there's a strong minority that feels even sending weapons is too much burden to shoulder.  In fact, the previous US Admin, for the very first time since NATO's founding, introduced doubt that the US would comply with its Article 4 or 5 obligations if invoked by a NATO member.  In that light, let's not forget that the US tried to stay out of WW2 and only got into it because Japan attacked and Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on the US.

My point here is that it is fair to question how willing the West is to engage in large scale warfare that involves very large casualties.

Steve

I am trying very hard to catch up on this thread, but for now I'm still responding to points that were raised several days ago (I'm sure I'll catch up eventually).

My own 2 cents on the "how willing are countries to sustain casualties" issue is that, as far as I know, it is pretty normal to be shocked by the high casualty rates at the start of a major war. The recurring narrative I keep hearing about the opening stages of WW1 always includes a certain degree of shock by the public at the immense casualty lists, ditto with the American Civil War. But shock can only last so long. If the casualty rate remains constant, people become used to it. Shock can be sustained if each battle is exponentially bloodier than the last. But once it levels out, people become used to it again.

What is unthinkable now can become very thinkable later (one of the tragedies of human psychology). We are used to <10 casualties per day now because that was the casualty rate of the low intensity conflicts of the last 20 years. But if it came down to a major war with China, I think we would find ourselves more willing to endure hundreds of casualties per day than we might think right now. I do not want to discount the importance of context/stakes of course. The willingness to endure high casualties is clearly much greater when the stakes are higher than when the stakes are lower (if the stakes are existential we may be willing to endure any casualty rate, even thousands a day, to avoid annihilation, whereas any casualties at all may be too much if there is no tangible benefit to our interests). And duration seems to matter as well, though perhaps only because the stakes themselves change over time (what seemed important five years ago may no longer be important, so while the casualty rate may no longer be as shocking, it may nevertheless be less worth enduring), and/or because other costs to the society increase over time (being on a full war footing for several years is not great for an economy, so the standard of living of a population may visibly decrease over the course of a war, decreasing their willingness to tolerate the war).

The Dictator's Handbook (fantastic book if you are interested in politics) even argues that democratic countries are actually far more willing to endure long wars than autocratic countries, due to the differences in the incentive structures of democratic regimes as opposed to autocratic regimes (which is another point in favor of Ukraine winning a long war, on top of the economic considerations, and difference in stakes (existential for Ukraine, non-existential for Russia)). They are more casualty averse in the sense that they put a greater amount of effort into keeping casualties down, but not in the sense that high casualties are more likely to make them quit the fight. Both democratic and autocratic leaders are primarily interested in holding on to power. The difference is that autocratic leaders need money to maintain power (to pay off their key supporters), and wars cost a lot of money. Whereas democratic leaders need popularity to maintain power (to win elections), and conceding defeat in a war is usually very unpopular.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Centurian52

[Aragorn2002]

56 minutes ago, Huba said:

Regarding armor? No they aren't. US and UK deployed their heavy units in Poland and the Baltics, but so did German ones, and our units/ reserves that were stripped of the T-72s didn't get any replacements yet. Poland ordered around 200 M1s some time ago, but those are to be new builds and delivered in subsequent years. Same for IFVs, BMP-1s are to be replaced by our indigenous Borsuk (Badger)  IFV, with first 50 to be received this year, and 100 or more per year in the future. Our MoD was in Korea lately and was even discussing some K21s as a stop-gap measure. 

As I said many times, some M1s (and M2s too!) would be great if we were to deliver our 230 PT-91s to Ukraine, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen, as some new modernization deals spanning 2 years were signed for those in recent weeks.

Having said that, regarding Marders and Leo1s Germans are definitely Scholzing around, all the produced excuses are just a fig leaf for a lack of political will.

But is it? The Bundeswehr itself badly needs the equipment that's still left. Russia may not be able to beat Ukraine, but can still threaten the Baltic states. Even the shipment of a handful of PZH 2000's was difficult, since the German (and dutch) military argued that they couldn't be missed and would cause another weakening of it's hitting power. 

The war in Ukraine ain't far from over and nobody knows for sure where this will end. So personally I think the Germans are correct to give priority to the rearmament of the Bundeswehr and it's NATO allies. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[CHEqTRO]

NATO is indeed a threat to Russia, in the sense that any military or political entity is a threat to another just by existing. A Nato country has a lot of levereage over Russia than a non-one. Simultaneusly, the biggest threat from NATO is that it impides Russia to regain control over Eastern Europe and forces to be contained in their current borders. It seems that the general consensus in the high spheres of the Kremlin, which I fully agree with, is that Russia cannot survive the 21st century with its current borders/influence. Best case scenario they are turned into a junior partner in the european market, or get swallowed by the chinese one, or both simultanuosly. Worst case scenario, the impending economic troubles added with demographic issues and pressure from their neighbours provoques the collapse of the russian state into several small pieces.

I think people are mistaken in seing this war as just a localized colonial conquest by Russia. the point of this war was to mark the first step into turning back as a Great Power in Europe, with at least some of the influence, and economic power of the USSR. I do not think the plan has changed, only its timetable. The joining of another country into NATO marks the strangulation of possible russian power, and makes the aforementioned futures more likely, or atleast makes the return to great power more costly. In that regard NATO, together with China´s demographics and industrial power, are the biggest threat for the Russian state in the 21st Century, and that will not change no matter who is in control in Russia.

The idea that the Russians felt threathened by the possibility of US missiles in ukranian soil, as a lot of pro russian repeat, is indeed extremely stupid thought.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

But is it? The Bundeswehr itself badly needs the equipment that's still left. Russia may not be able to beat Ukraine, but can still threaten the Baltic states. Even the shipment of a handful of PZH 2000's was difficult, since the German (and dutch) military argued that they couldn't be missed and would cause another weakening of it's hitting power. 

I'd rather avoid another discussion about Germany's involvement, but I meant precisely Leo1 and Marders that are in storage.

[Probus]

3 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

I'm going to tentatively say the 1992 reference clip looks genuine. The twin tailed aircraft is an OV-10 Bronco and the plane shooting it down is an F-16 in what looks like the Venezuelan camouflage scheme, so the obvious guess is the coup attempt there that year.

Thanks @G.I. Joe. I thought something looked fishy.

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

  Remember, all the grumbling on the Ukrainian side is in the context of high motivation to keep the war going, all the grumbling on the Russian side is in the context of strategic demoralization.  All else being equal, my money goes on the side that has the will to win.  Especially if it's their home turf.

Steve

One of the most important observations of an NCO or Staff NCO has to be that complaining and grumbling are normal for any “good order” units. What you look for and pay attention to is when they stop complaining. That means that they’ve given up any hope of anything being changed. That’s when there’s trouble brewing and you have to correct the root causes.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

I don't consider myself the most pro russian guy but I can see why Russia feels threatened. Its not irrational, lets be honest.

I am honest and I think Russia's stated view is irrational or, at least, dishonest.  NATO and its expansion posed zero threat to a peaceful Russia.  Since Russia has repeatedly stated that it is a peaceful nation (cough-cough) then, factually, NATO posed no threat.

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

On paper NATO is a defensive organization but its members have conducted and have been involved in the most wars and invasions since the end of WW2.

A nation acting independent of NATO is, by definition, not NATO.  Therefore, this point is moot and your score card gets its first 0.

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

Mainly US. NATO offcially has also intervened violently, bombing in the Balkans, Libya and waged war on Afghanistan for 20 years. So not a strictly defensive pact per se.

Sure it was defensive.  Afghanistan hosted and assisted a non-state terrorist organization that attacked a NATO member.  Afghanistan was given an option of handing over the terrorists and getting out of the hosting business, it gave the US the middle finger.  A military response was fully justified.

The Balkans was a murderous war of genocide being waged by the rump Yugoslav state.  For years NATO did absolutely nothing, but eventually it went in as part of a peace deal which Russia participated in.  When Serbia started another war of genocide, this was deemed to be a threat to the NATO countries' interests and so they acted.  Again, in response to a murderous war and not because NATO woke up one day and decided to attack a peaceful country.

The civil war in Libya was creating a humanitarian catastrophe that was affecting several NATO countries, so once again a murderous war on its borders that NATO didn't start.

To summarize, the first is a clear attack on NATO.  Full stop, end of story.  The other two were countries on NATO's borders waging murderous wars and NATO belatedly and reluctantly tried to do something to stop it.  Given this, as long as Russia wasn't intent on waging a murderous war of aggression on NATO's borders then it had nothing to fear.  Your scorecard is now 0 and 2.

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

The other most important member of NATO, (once Great) Britain, has been a colonial force for centuries, occupying and looting countries at will, and only recently has withdrawn from most of its distant colonized lands. Not a great record to be honest. France is not lagging that far behind on that matter and Germany has the most dark recent past of all of them and a special wound with Russia. So, yes not that aggressive anymore, but not a great criminal record if you want them for neighbours.   

And has absolutely nothing to do with NATO.  So your scorecard is now 0 and 3.

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

US, the flagship and mastermind of NATO,  has bypassed UN council to invade sovereign states like Iraq with false pretext of WMD and has 750 military bases around the globe, thousands of miles beyond its borders. Its military spending is 10x times more than the second on the list. An alien observer coming from space would argue that these guys with the stars and stripes are everywhere, how can they complain of expansionism of others?  

Putting aside that the Soviet Union and Russia is even worse in this regard, it still isn't relevant to Russia's claim that NATO is a threat.  NATO is not the US and vice versa.  So your scorecard continues to look pretty grim at 0 and 4.

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

Russia is not nervous of NATO but of US army presence so close to its vital routes. Imagine a US base in Sevastopol (again distance from home:  

https://www.google.com/search?q=sevastopol+distance+from+US&oq=sevastopol+distance+from+US&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2.9435j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 )

completly blocking Russia way out to Bosporus and Mediterranean Sea. 

So you are saying that Finland and Sweden should be concerned about not being able to get out of the Baltic Sea?  I mean, there's all those evil NATO countries surrounding it with plenty of US forces there.  And oh boy is Switzerland screwed!  Why aren't they complaining loudly about evil NATO?  Cripes, why are 2 out of 3 joining NATO when obviously NATO is just a tool of repression against their national interests?

Your scorecard is now 0 and 5.

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

In this story Russians might seem the bad guys and we would probably not want to see them reaching the polish borders but from their POV and as an entity , they have probably sound reasons to not want NATO(US) presence that close to their home. This regardless of what we feel is moral or not.   

Russia absolutely has sound "reasons to not want NATO(US) presence that close to their home" because they intend to cause harm to their neighbors and would, if they had an opportunity to do so, invade NATO countries.

Let me be very clear.  There are two arguments that Russia could make:

1.  Russia is a peaceful country and fears NATO might some day decide it wants to invade Russia for some unspecified reason (resources?).

2.  Russia is a warmongering country that wants to invade its neighbors and subject them to slave status to an autocratic empire bent on world domination and is fears that NATO may defensively interfere with those goals.

Russia consistently makes Argument #1 even though the real reason is Argument #2. 

Russia's foreign policy is to expand into Europe by military force, NATO's collective foreign policy is to not let that happen.  Russia's is one of aggression, NATO's is one of defense.  It really is as simple as that.

Steve

[Vet 0369]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

I don't consider myself the most pro russian guy but I can see why Russia feels threatened. Its not irrational, lets be honest.

On paper NATO is a defensive organization but its members have conducted and have been involved in the most wars and invasions since the end of WW2. Mainly US. NATO offcially has also intervened violently, bombing in the Balkans, Libya and waged war on Afghanistan for 20 years. So not a strictly defensive pact per se. The other most important member of NATO, (once Great) Britain, has been a colonial force for centuries, occupying and looting countries at will, and only recently has withdrawn from most of its distant colonized lands. Not a great record to be honest. France is not lagging that far behind on that matter and Germany has the most dark recent past of all of them and a special wound with Russia. So, yes not that aggressive anymore, but not a great criminal record if you want them for neighbours.   

US, the flagship and mastermind of NATO,  has bypassed UN council to invade sovereign states like Iraq with false pretext of WMD and has 750 military bases around the globe, thousands of miles beyond its borders. Its military spending is 10x times more than the second on the list. An alien observer coming from space would argue that these guys with the stars and stripes are everywhere, how can they complain of expansionism of others?   Russia is not nervous of NATO but of US army presence so close to its vital routes. Imagine a US base in Sevastopol (again distance from home:  

https://www.google.com/search?q=sevastopol+distance+from+US&oq=sevastopol+distance+from+US&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2.9435j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 )

completly blocking Russia way out to Bosporus and Mediterranean Sea. 

In this story Russians might seem the bad guys and we would probably not want to see them reaching the polish borders but from their POV and as an entity , they have probably sound reasons to not want NATO(US) presence that close to their home. This regardless of what we feel is moral or not.    

 

I have always felt the Soviet/Russian paranoia is based on the facts that the French (Napoleon), the Germans (through the Middle Ages and WWI and WWII), the Swedes, the Finns, the British, and the U.S. have all invaded them (joint British/U.S. expeditionary force at Arcangel in support of the “White” Russians, and is probably just as justified as the fears of all their neighbors and the rest of Europe. However, Putin’s statements that he’s looking to rebuild the former Russian Empire and that Sweden and Finland were part of Russia lends credence to the concerns of all the countries that at any time were ruled by Russia. Of course he conveniently fails to note that the name of his country is derived from the name of the Swedish tribe (the Rus) that settled Kyiv and Novograd. 

[kraze]

2 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Ran out of the Relikt soft-case ERA, I guess.
 

 

Oi! me and me green boyz say rok is da 'ard armor - it meanz its da 'ard armor!

[danfrodo]

9 minutes ago, kraze said:

Oi! me and me green boyz say rok is da 'ard armor - it meanz its da 'ard armor!

I think Kraze has been watching Peaky Blinders. 

[danfrodo]

RU has had 20 years to make choices between military aggression, villainy, international crime & hostile political subversion versus peace, cooperation, and building trust.  It has continually chosen the former.  It's entire ruling class is an organized crime syndicate. 

And thinking about being a 'great power' is a century or more out of date.  what difference does that make to whether RU is prosperous and stable and happy?  NONE.

[Taranis]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

I think Kraze has been watching Peaky Blinders. 

Warhammer 40k  . Heretic !
 

11 minutes ago, kraze said:

Oi! me and me green boyz say rok is da 'ard armor - it meanz its da 'ard armor!

 Putin really chose the example he wants... Why not talking of Mongol invasion of 1238 or Polish–Lithuanian occupation of Moscow in 1612

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

I have always felt the Soviet/Russian paranoia is based on the facts that the French (Napoleon), the Germans (through the Middle Ages and WWI and WWII), the Swedes, the Finns, the British, and the U.S. have all invaded them (joint British/U.S. expeditionary force at Arcangel in support of the “White” Russians, and is probably just as justified as the fears of all their neighbors and the rest of Europe.

This is definitely true.  The Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation have had bad experiences with Europe, Japan, and the United States.  Going further back, Mongols, Vikings, and others too.  No doubt about it.  Just as many or Russia's neighbors have experience with Russian aggression and domination.  Poland, the Baltics, and Ukraine in particular.  And under the Soviet Union, a lot more.

More importantly, most of Russia's grievances of being invaded ranged between ancient history and pre WW2.  The nations that joined NATO had grievances against Russia that were either ongoing (such as Russian interference in Baltics post 1991) or were only a few years before.

Russia has also not explained why it should still be fearful of old habits when most of NATO's members had settled theirs. France and Germany, for example, have a long history of warfare against each other.  Yet guess what?  Both are members of NATO.  According to Russian logic, France and Germany are just waiting for their opportunity to invade each other because nations never change.

So while Russia has reasons to cite fearing others, it should also acknowledge that others have a real reason to fear Russia.  Which is why NATO was formed and it is why all ex-Soviet European countries beat on NATO's door until it was opened to them.

2 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

However, Putin’s statements that he’s looking to rebuild the former Russian Empire and that Sweden and Finland were part of Russia lends credence to the concerns of all the countries that at any time were ruled by Russia. Of course he conveniently fails to note that the name of his country is derived from the name of the Swedish tribe (the Rus) that settled Kyiv and Novograd. 

Heh, yeah.  Even more complicated with Ukraine because by Russia's logic Kyiv should be ruling over Moscow.

I don't really understand why people give Russia the benefit of the doubt.  Official Russian government position is the same as the Soviet one... we take what we want and we want a lot of what you have.

Steve

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

To say "so far no nuclear escalation has happened, so to think it can happen in the future is stupid" is unreasonable. That's just like the proverbial guy who jumps from a skyscraper and 2 floors before impact says: "Ha, so far nothing bad has happend!" Whether there is a threshold for escalation, and, if so, which, is something that probably only Putin himself knows. If at all because that implies some semblance of reasonable behaviour right up to the end.

I, for one, don't think we should let fear of that dictate what we do but it would be remiss to not at least keep in mind that the threat is real.

Re German tanks: Now you force me to defend Scholz again, I really don't like to do that. But did I miss US Abrams tanks or British Challengers being in Ukraine? At least in that regard, Germany is not the only country being on the catious side.

Well yes nuclear escalation can happen, but there are steps to escalation. stuff like mobilizing the nuclear fleet, placing it on higher alert, actually/pretending to prep for nuclear launch, raising of rhetoric, hell, even conventional attacks are escalatory and are part of the nuclear climb up, in that russia would for example, bomb Poland with a conventional weapon to warn it from pursuing further support of Ukraine or risk more serious, potential nuclear escalation. that Russia has refrained from it, indicates that they dont want to risk escalation, they cant afford to escalate as they lose more, and that they worry the west matches the escalation. 

[Taranis]

"A Ukrainian soldier takes position during fighting on the front line in the Sievierodonetsk region (Luhansk oblast), June 8, 2022. OLEKSANDR RATUSHNIAK / AP PHOTO"

[MSBoxer]

18 hours ago, Machor said:

More pics of that busted D-20:

 

Is it possible that RU blew the barrel before retreating?

 

[beardiebloke]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

What is unthinkable now can become very thinkable later (one of the tragedies of human psychology).

Been thinking this myself for a while now in the context of Ukraine and how it reminds me of Covid.  At first hundreds of deaths were a big deal, then thousands, tens of thousands, 100k+ etc. ... now people accept to tens of thousands indefinitely.  That acceptance may be right or wrong, just not something I really believed was possible without seeing it first hand.

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, MSBoxer said:

Is it possible that RU blew the barrel before retreating?

Possible, but doubtful.  First, Russians have shown very little interest in destroying their stuff when they abandon it.  Second, they would most likely have dropped an offensive grenade down the barrel.  The damage is clearly from a lot more than that.  Theoretically they could have put a round in the breach, blocked the barrel with something, attached a very long lanyard to the firing lever, and fired from a remote position.  Definitely no signs that they have the motivation for something like that.

Most likely scenario is premature detonation.

Steve