How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

Netherlands allows Ukrainian forces to strike Russian targets with its weapons (msn.com)

[Battlefront.com]

11 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This is actually a really quite interesting point that I cant help but entirely agree with. I can only add that in my view they were forced into adapting for such small scale unit actions because their military is entirely incapable of doing anything more advanced, which was made clear with the failure of the BTG system and the actions of 2022. Still means a lot of inertia from the size of the military force compared to the AFU, not to mention some capability advantages, and it has to be admitted the Russians have proven resilient in maintaining such a system...though collapse could come quite suddenly given just how wasteful it is. 

You would still think them taking a few years to regroup, retrain and properly organise larger and more coordinated units would have yielded better results rather than the constant, incessant attacks by small units that get decimated for the occasional scrap of ground. I suppose they are under the belief that just a bit more pressure on the Ukrainians will have them collapse. Very reminiscent of the 'just one last push' mindset that's turning into a greater and greater sunken cost fallacy. 

We've had some very, very long discussions about this topic quite a few times, but not for a year or more as Russian tactics haven't changed very much.

The problems with their initial invasion were more to do with unreasonable expectations than anything else.  If you ask a 200k force to do the job of a 500k force, expect no significant resistance and get tenacious defenders, and plan for everything wrapping up in a couple of weeks tops... well... it just won't go very well no matter what.  No NATO force would do any better under the same conditions.

Specific to Russia, though, is that they screwed up the careful balance that the Soviets laid out.  They partially shifted to a NATO style approach without actually doing the hard bits.  It's like deciding that you're going to build a house with screws, but still only have a hammer.  Worse, thanks to corruption, half the timbers you were planning on screwing together aren't even there.  Neither are most of the screws.  And the hammers are from the 1940s.

How this is applicable to our current discussion is this...

The Russians have long since abandoned the notion that they can pull off a complex offensive maneuver.  Partly because they weren't well suited for it, but also because Ukraine's defenses were pretty nasty to run into.  There are exceptions, such as unmanned systems and EW, but for the most part Russia has returned to Soviet doctrine of blowing everything up and driving over the ruins into the enemy's rear, regardless of losses, and putting the defender into a difficult position.  It is something they know how to do and their forces are well designed for brute force operations.

And yet, brute force maneuver warfare isn't working.

We're still trying to figure out exactly why it isn't working, but the consensus here and other places is because a combination of ISR, unmanned systems, precision artillery, precision AT, and traditional defensive capabilities can degrade an attacking mechanized force faster than it can achieve what it traditionally could.

Russia has attempted to compensate for these losses by applying larger amounts of mechanized mass at one time.  This has generally lead to higher losses without a commensurate improvement in outcome.  To be glib, sending in a battalion means they lose a battalion to take 2 trenches instead of losing a company to take 1 trench.

This despite Russia trying all kinds of traditional means of paving the way for maneuver forces, such as insane amounts of artillery fire, massed infantry attacks to tie down the defenders, and of course "tank rushes" (to use a game term).  None of this works in any reasonable fashion. 

The best Russia has been able to do is wear out the defenders' ability to defend a particular line, which they then occupy along with piles of decomposing countrymen from the previous attacks.  The attacks are so costly that momentum is nearly impossible because there's nothing left to advance with and by the time there is Ukraine has dug in again.  The cycle repeats over again.

The conclusion I, and others, have come to is that there's really not much Russia can do given Ukraine's proven capabilities other than wearing them out through repeated attritional attacks.  Maneuver is just not possible.

On the other side, Ukraine has similar problems.  Russia will defend territory to the last man and then, somehow, find more last men.  Ukraine also doesn't have the ability to break through the Russian lines and have enough resources active to push further in.  At least not on a regular basis or on a large scale.  The previous Kharkiv and current Kursk attacks are exceptions to the rule and for very obvious reasons.  Maneuver warfare can still work if the defenders aren't up to defending and the attackers are very much up for attacking.  But not for very long because it's too easy to slow down a maneuver operation before it achieves too much.

OK, enough ramblings for one night

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

On 9/9/2024 at 9:44 AM, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Absolutely. A lot of what one can read now about the even more empty and dispersed battlefield is similar to the stuff from 1950-1970 about fighting under tactical nuke strikes

On the nuclear question, for those interested, a new paper is out on the topic.

https://interestingengineering.com/military/us-allies-edge-over-china-russia

Link is in the review article above.

It's published by the Pugwash people (btw, I used to go to Pugwash regularly as a young kid), so of necessity its thesis will be very disarmament-oriented but the paper is lavishly footnoted.

I am as interested in the strike capabilities described (putting very large amounts of BOOM!!! against a wide range of behind-the-battlefield targets) as I am in the 'strategic' balance issues.

[Tux]

16 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Finally, because I am so tired of the weak @ss arguments coming from some corners, how about I make the argument for what will need to happen in order to put tanks back in the game? It is not the drones, it is the C4ISR. Make an opponent deaf, dumb and blind - the laws of warfare get contained into local spaces. An ATGM or drone operator without a feed to broader ISR, or the ability to communicate what it is seeing, is in a small box a few kms a side. If a side can establish C4ISR superiority, while denying it to an opponent, they can negate the denial pressures and reestablish conditions for conventional manoeuvre. I have been writing this since early on:

Mass beats isolation, precision beats mass, massed precision beats everything.  If you want traditional conventional mass to work...create isolation and deny precision.

The problem with trying to create an environment within which tanks can flourish is that you almost invariably end up on the brink of creating an environment within which everything else can flourish, as well.  If you manage to isolate a cube in the enemy's front line as you describe then what's to stop 100 of your own FPVs from hovering over your advancing infantry/APCs, waiting to blow up any direct fire assets that reveal themselves?  How difficult does that have to be before a company of MBTs, with all its associated costs, actually becomes the preferred solution?

 

[Kraft]

2 hours ago, Tux said:

How difficult does that have to be before a company of MBTs, with all its associated costs, actually becomes the preferred solution?

I'd imagine something like Op Desert Storm would not have produced the results it did this way. 

As far as I know, despite the overwhelming air campaign there were still serious and numerous tank on tank engagements.

Imagine those engagements but the outdated T series now shoot at MRAPs and infantry in the desert, that have to wait for their FPVs to fly for kilometers.

------

Something I want to point out here that I see is often overlooked. The 'bunker buster' 155mm equivalent drones are HUGE. You can barely fit like two of them into a full size sprinter van. 

Taking out an enemy entrenched position is a lot easier and faster with a tank and a reload rate in seconds.

Edited September 10 by Kraft

[Kraft]

The first? crutch walking assault trooper

[The_Capt]

10 hours ago, Kraft said:

This much praised escalation management:

Nato escorting russian kamikaze drones for 100km through Romanian airspace after being informed of their presence by Ukrainian officials.

The drones then went on to explode in Odessa. 

-----

I just want to remind everyone of what putin did when ~300 of his wagner PMCs were slaughtered by American troops in syria 2018.

Absolutely nothing.

Allowing russian missiles and drones to freely transit through NATO airspace is not 'wise caution' it is cowardice ie election risk management and putin is well aware half of 'war weary' Europe* would yield other people's land on posturing alone. God forbid a war breaks out.

 

*Excluding the countries that would share a border with russia. Curious coincidence

As long as he is the only one willing to sacrifice half a million pawns for someone elses land and not Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, ..US etc, Latvia and co better build up that fortress wall because there will be no country X's conscripts dying to retake any of it. 

Just a: "whatever it takes"

Do you have a citation for this? Because when I do a quick search I do see airspace violation but strangely no mention of passively “escorting” Russian strikes to their targets. Or is this just your usual - “gotta slam the West at every moment in some weird logic of shaming, while in fact making it harder to sustain support the war?”

[Butschi]

29 minutes ago, Kraft said:

The first? crutch walking assault trooper

Are you certain that pic isn't AI generated? The left hand fingers look a bit off and that walking stick should have a different shadow, I think. Might be mistaken, though.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

On the nuclear question, for those interested, a new paper is out on the topic.

https://interestingengineering.com/military/us-allies-edge-over-china-russia

Link is in the review article above.

It's published by the Pugwash people (btw, I used to go to Pugwash regularly as a young kid), so of necessity its thesis will be very disarmament-oriented but the paper is lavishly footnoted.

I am as interested in the strike capabilities described (putting very large amounts of BOOM!!! against a wide range of behind-the-battlefield targets) as I am in the 'strategic' balance issues.

Not sure what the spin is but it is missing an entire leg of the triad that no amount of sexy stealth boom boom is going to fix:

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russia-submarine-capabilities/

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/china-submarine-capabilities/

Is this one of those “let’s get rid of nukes because we don’t need them” things? Analysis is pretty skewed and really optimistic for purpose.

[Kraft]

Just now, Butschi said:

Are you certain that pic isn't AI generated? The left hand fingers look a bit off and that walking stick should have a different shadow, I think. Might be mistaken, though.

The corpse is already in a very bloated stage, thats why I covered the face. 

 

[Offshoot]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Do you have a citation for this? Because when I do a quick search I do see airspace violation but strangely no mention of passively “escorting” Russian strikes to their targets. Or is this just your usual - “gotta slam the West at every moment in some weird logic of shaming, while in fact making it harder to sustain support the war?”

Assuming Reuters fact check info before publication - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romania-searching-possible-drone-fragments-after-russian-attack-ukraine-2024-09-08/

Quote

The Romanian defence ministry said the "radar supervision system identified and tracked the path of a drone which entered national airspace and then exited towards Ukraine".

Romania scrambled two F-16 fighter jets to monitor the incursion. Residents of the southeastern Romanian counties of Tulcea and Constanta were warned to take cover.

 

I will leave semantic quibbling over "escorting" and "monitoring" to others.

[billbindc]

7 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Assuming Reuters fact check info before publication - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romania-searching-possible-drone-fragments-after-russian-attack-ukraine-2024-09-08/

I will leave semantic quibbling over "escorting" and "monitoring" to others.

Escorting and monitoring are different in the way that 'grotesque insinuation' and 'description' are different. 

[Kraft]

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Do you have a citation for this? Because when I do a quick search I do see airspace violation but strangely no mention of passively “escorting” Russian strikes to their targets. Or is this just your usual - “gotta slam the West at every moment in some weird logic of shaming, while in fact making it harder to sustain support the war?”

?

 

[Holien]

4 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

will leave semantic quibbling over "escorting" and "monitoring" to others

Hmmm it's a choice for Romania to decide on air space violations.

Let's think through the actual process.

1. Identify that it's truly a Russian Drone.

2. Decide if it's a threat to your country.

3. Decide if it's safe to shoot down over your country.

4. Do all above and perhaps more in a quick enough timeframe before it exits your airspace.

In all of the above you need to discuss the political implications and unless you have given the planes clear remit it's going to take time...

Sounds like folk think stuff is easy.. it ain't.

[Kraft]

23 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Escorting and monitoring are different in the way that 'grotesque insinuation' and 'description' are different. 

Maybe it is a language barrier but to me both mean identical in practical fact, flying closeby from A to B, as in police escorting someone from someone's property. It was not meant as a 'protecting' meaning

Edited September 10 by Kraft

[Offshoot]

37 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Escorting and monitoring are different in the way that 'grotesque insinuation' and 'description' are different. 

Sure, but the important fact still remains that Romania allowed a drone to transit its airspace without doing anything substantial about it. I understand, as @Holien points out, that the situation is not as easy as it seems, but you might have thought, given prior events in Romania involving Russian drones, they would have clarified the legal situation by now, if at the least to better safeguard the well-being of their own citizens.

Edited September 10 by Offshoot

[Butschi]

2 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Maybe it is a language barrier but to me both mean identical in practical fact, flying closeby from A to B, as in escorting something from someone's property

Monitoring can mean anything from flying close by to tracking the thing with radar, I think.

Fair point about the meaning of escorting but it might also mean protecting the drone on its way which would be really ridiculous here.

Anyway, that article is really confusing and not very well written. The maybe most important part is this:

Quote

Romanian lawmakers plan to consider legislation at their current session on enabling Romania to shoot down drones invading the country's airspace in peacetime.

So, whatever you think is an appropriate reaction, this seems to be a legal, not a political issue (escalation or no escalation). Legally Romania apparently couldn't have shot down the drone.

[Lieutenant Ash]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-left-shaken-after-ukraine-carries-out-aerial-bombardment-on-moscow/ar-AA1qj7qK?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=1ac9adeed2b7416daec117995fd59990&ei=11

Ukrainian drone strikes in Russia overnight.

[Tux]

1 hour ago, Kraft said:

I'd imagine something like Op Desert Storm would not have produced the results it did this way. 

As far as I know, despite the overwhelming air campaign there were still serious and numerous tank on tank engagements.

Imagine those engagements but the outdated T series now shoot at MRAPs and infantry in the desert, that have to wait for their FPVs to fly for kilometers.

------

Something I want to point out here that I see is often overlooked. The 'bunker buster' 155mm equivalent drones are HUGE. You can barely fit like two of them into a full size sprinter van. 

Taking out an enemy entrenched position is a lot easier and faster with a tank and a reload rate in seconds.

I see your point but why do you assume the FPVs (or updated equivalents in this hypothetical future scenario) would have kms to fly?  If the likely position of defending forces (including tanks that have somehow hidden from your battlefield shaping efforts) is 3km in front then your FPVs hover 3km in front of your advance and can attack whatever reveals itself within seconds.

In general I don't think it's clear that a tank firing every few seconds (and the many-times-discussed overhead costs of creating, deploying and supporting said tank) would often be preferable to 100 (or more) attack drones constantly loitering overhead.

In order to justify the expense of MBTs in future I would want to convince myself that I am most likely to regret their absence if I decide against them.  Maybe instead of asking 'what are tanks being used for in Ukraine?' then, a more illuminating question would be 'are the combatants in Ukraine regularly experiencing setbacks specifically due to the absence of tanks (i.e. despite the presence of everything else but tanks)?'.

The sense I get is that tanks are useful where available in Ukraine but there don't seem to be many problems that only they can solve.  Am I wrong about that?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Kraft said:

Maybe it is a language barrier but to me both mean identical in practical fact, flying closeby from A to B, as in escorting something from someone's property. It was not meant as a 'protecting' meaning

Or maybe you are simply living up to the analytical standards that we have seen numerous times on this thread. This would be classified as misinformation as it is not an outright lie.

In military terms these are not "semantic quibbles". 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/escort

https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.php?term_id=1916

And while you may try and play the "me no speaky" card, it is pretty clear that you are well versed in the English language enough to jump on any opportunity to slag NATO and West no matter how tenuous the evidence.

Romania scrambled a couple fighters to "monitor" which is a key step in the targeting cycle - Phase 2 in fact as part of the overall ISR collection process.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2019/Borne-Targeting-Multi-domain/

You know, the part where a military machine makes sure that these are in fact drones and not a civilian aircraft? Next steps would have been determining capability response and the being granted authority to execute the mission. Considering that Romania, nor NATO, are in a state of war with Russia, shooting down Russian asset would be an escalation. 

So your version of events "NATO F16 are escorting Russian missiles in killing children in Odessa!! NATO Sux!!"

My version of events "Romania had an incursion into their airspace, responded. Details are vague as to where the drone/missile came down. No mention of Odessa or Ukrainian targets being struck. Another incident in Latvia. Diplomatic responses ongoing."

My assessment is that Russia either has really crappy ISR and drones they keep losing control of, or they are playing silly buggers on their borders because they can. If anything Russia may be trying to bait a NATO nation into a over-reaching response so that Putin can continue to push "NATO is invading" narrative.

You see the difference there? 

Edited September 10 by The_Capt

[Yet]

One (or two) things on the Dutch getting tanks.

The tanks were budgetted, not ordered. and yes in politics thats a huge difference. 

the Dutch new government was in a hurry to make a new budget. They were just installed with a half populist rookie-cabinet that doesnt need questions and have to show strength and security. So... What to budget?

- drones raises 1000 questions. 

which drones, what for, which producer, who is gonna fly them, where? will it be in my backyard? how to maintain and to store, where do they train? with explosives? so we need a new regiment is on existing teams? there is a personel shortage. etc. 

Artillery was the last bill and it didnt reach the newspapers. 

Marine had just been ordered (with a big fuzz), and F35 is already implemented. 

so yea Tanks and patriots are the easy budgeting. NL now leases the tanks from Germany, owning them represent raise any difficulties and is budgetary handy because it replaces the already budgetted leasing costs. All the supporting, training, maintenance etc is already in place. Strong gesture, no questions, handy budgetting. 

thats politics. 

Now i wonder what will be really on the order bill. Tanks or something that can be sold to the knowless mass (media) as a tank (see discussion around page 2000 :p) for sure. But if the army is smart they will decrease it and fit in 20% of the budget with extra ammunition, drones, and other needs -under the radar-.

 

 

 

[Kraft]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Considering that Romania, nor NATO, are in a state of war with Russia, shooting down Russia asset would be an escalation. 

It did not stop russia from downing an MQ-9 Reaper in international waters last year, did it? 

But downing russian drones in Nato airspace is stepping up the heat somehow? Is that the fabled escalation management? 

Quote

Čolaku emphasized that Romania reacted to the violation of the airspace in real time and monitored the situation with the help of F-16 fighter jets.

He added that the Romanian side was not obliged to take measures.

"If drones were aimed at Romanian territory, of course, our country would have intervened," the Romanian Prime Minister assured.

He called the incident a provocation designed to test the ability of countries neighboring Ukraine to respond to similar situations.

At least two Russian Shaheds entered Romanian airspace on the night of Sunday, September 8. The authorities of Romania sent a warning to mobile phones about the danger of objects falling to residents of Tulcea and Constanța, counties bordering Ukraine.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania called for respect for international law, in particular the inviolability of Romanian airspace, and confirmed its strong condemnation of the illegal attacks by the Russian Federation.

The leader of the main Romanian opposition party "Salvation of Romania Union" Elena Lasconi called on President Klaus Iohannis and Prime Minister Čolaka to explain the flight of Russian drones .

https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2024/09/9/7193822/

 

Does this sound like legal issues in downing of kamikaze drones or uncertainty wrt its peaceful intentions? Since so many hobby fliers are currently traversing the border in Cessna's for leasure at like 2 or 3 am?

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

 

Quote

or they are playing silly buggers on their borders because they can. If anything Russia may be trying to bait a NATO nation into a over-reaching response so that Putin can continue to push "NATO is invading" narrative.

You seem to be confusing the russian people. 

Nato is invading is propaganda for foreign audience.

It is not a common lie internally. Revisionism of the great russian empire is, the talk shows fantasise about landbridges to kaliningrad, russian soldiers die with "our borders are endless", "I only need the russian passport to visit the world" patches. 

They know and get told US bases get hit by iranian proxies, killing US soldiers and nothing happens.

The biggest threat to putin are even crazier fashists that want to conquer not just the old SSR

To russia, the US is an internally crumbling power in its last breaths that needs a little push to give up the world stage. 

Not a mortal threat that could invade any day. Downing of russian drones in nato airspace would just signal there are lines.. somewhere.. besides the destabilizing, spying, sabotage,..?

Quote

So your version of events "NATO F16 are escorting Russian missiles in killing children in Odessa!! NATO Sux!!"

 what a basis for a healthy discussion.

Since escorting is such a big issue, what does the sentence "the police escorted the drunkard from the premice" mean, they protected him? No, they moved him out - which is what I meant.

Edited September 10 by Kraft

[Battlefront.com]

42 minutes ago, Yet said:

One (or two) things on the Dutch getting tanks.

The tanks were budgetted, not ordered. and yes in politics thats a huge difference. 

the Dutch new government was in a hurry to make a new budget. They were just installed with a half populist rookie-cabinet that doesnt need questions and have to show strength and security. So... What to budget?

- drones raises 1000 questions. 

which drones, what for, which producer, who is gonna fly them, where? will it be in my backyard? how to maintain and to store, where do they train? with explosives? so we need a new regiment is on existing teams? there is a personel shortage. etc. 

Artillery was the last bill and it didnt reach the newspapers. 

Marine had just been ordered (with a big fuzz), and F35 is already implemented. 

so yea Tanks and patriots are the easy budgeting. NL now leases the tanks from Germany, owning them represent raise any difficulties and is budgetary handy because it replaces the already budgetted leasing costs. All the supporting, training, maintenance etc is already in place. Strong gesture, no questions, handy budgetting. 

thats politics. 

Now i wonder what will be really on the order bill. Tanks or something that can be sold to the knowless mass (media) as a tank (see discussion around page 2000 :p) for sure. But if the army is smart they will decrease it and fit in 20% of the budget with extra ammunition, drones, and other needs -under the radar-.

So you are saying that this decision to budget for tanks was a rushed political calculation based on no sound military analysis or defense spending prioritization?  Shocker.  I mean, total shocker!  I'm surprised nobody here figured this out already.  Oh wait... some did, including me

Seriously though, this is why I keep insisting that grabbing a superficial factoid and using that as if it has deep and relevant meaning is a very poor basis to support an argument.  Especially if it has anything to do with government spending priorities.  Governments are headed by civilians making decisions based on factors that are not always logical or even well founded.  Militaries are (in the West at least) headed by civilians appointed by those civilians.  The military working at the top of the militaries got appointed to those positions by the same civilians, and they are also dismissed by them when they don't get along.  The military's top echelon is not necessarily corrupt, but it is riddled with careerists who value their jobs more than their profession.

This is not to say the system NEVER works as it should, but it very often does not. 

For example, the US continues to fund "for profit" prisons in order to save money and have better outcomes, yet every single study produced by government and independent sources indicates it costs more and the outcomes are worse.  Objectively this something dramatic should change, but it doesn't because the people making the decisions are not acting in the best interests of the people they were elected to serve.  Whether they are corrupt or incompetent isn't really the issue.

So to ArmouredTopHat I'd say... please listen to people when they tell you putting "faith" in government decisions is, at best, a dicey proposition.  Similarly, think tanks and professionals should also be looked at hard for bias, previous track record, and who is funding them.  We saw ample evidence in 2022 that these "experts" didn't know what the Hell they were talking about.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Holien said:

Hmmm it's a choice for Romania to decide on air space violations.

Let's think through the actual process.

1. Identify that it's truly a Russian Drone.

2. Decide if it's a threat to your country.

3. Decide if it's safe to shoot down over your country.

4. Do all above and perhaps more in a quick enough timeframe before it exits your airspace.

In all of the above you need to discuss the political implications and unless you have given the planes clear remit it's going to take time...

Sounds like folk think stuff is easy.. it ain't.

I disagree.  It is extremely easy.

1.  Identify a drone flying in Romanian airspace

2.  Confirm it is not on any flight plan, Romanian or NATO authorized

3.  Continue to track it if it is, shoot it down if it isn't

There is *NO* obligation to hold fire and decide what the intention is.  International law is very clear that sovereign airspace can be defended by lethal means.  Whether it's smart to do that or not is up to the individual country in question.  My position is if the aircraft is manned the decision is complicated, if it isn't the decision should be "hit the red button EVERY TIME".

Steve

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, Kraft said:

It did not stop russia from downing an MQ-9 Reaper in international waters last year, did it? 

But downing russian drones in Nato airspace is stepping up the heat somehow? Is that the fabled escalation management? 

Does this sound like legal issues in downing of kamikaze drones or uncertainty wrt its peaceful intentions? Since so many hobby fliers are currently traversing the border in Cessna's for leasure at like 2 or 3 am?

You seem to be confusing the russian people. 

Nato is invading is propaganda for foreign audience.

It is not a common lie internally. Revisionism of the great russian empire is, the talk shows fantasise about landbridges to kaliningrad, russian soldiers die with "our borders are endless", "I only need the russian passport to visit the world" patches. 

They know and get told US bases get hit by iranian proxies, killing US soldiers and nothing happens.

The biggest threat to putin are even crazier fashists that want to conquer not just the old SSR

To russia, the US is an internally crumbling power in its last breaths that needs a little push to give up the world stage. 

Not a mortal threat that could invade any day. Downing of russian drones in nato airspace would just signal there are lines.. somewhere.. besides the destabilizing, spying, sabotage,..?

 what a basis for a healthy discussion.

Since escorting is such a big issue, what does the sentence "the police escorted the drunkard from the premice" mean, they protected him? No, they moved him out - which is what I meant.

From what you have contributed to this thread as of late, I think you are in no position to be shedding crocodile tears at the death of "heathy discussion".

As to your Romanian quote...well it sounds like you have a problem with Romania. The PM is technically correct, partially - Romania is not part of a no-fly zone over Ukraine and has no legal responsibility to protect Ukraine. Morally it is pretty crappy, and frankly Romania does have a responsibility for the integrity of its own airspace unless it has a pre-existing open skies agreement with Russia. 

None of this reflects NATO policy writ large nor does this incident constitute a gross violation of international law on Romania's part. As far as I can tell, you have completely made up strikes in Odessa coming from Romania (or Latvia). But hey we are looking for "healthy discussion".

Ah, so now the "NATO threat line" is for foreign consumption? And what are you basing this wisdom upon? We have seen numerous Russian media spooling out the 'NATO threat'. Russian MoD highlights dozens of "NATO vehicles" being blown up. But now it is entirely for a foreign audience...because you say so? I mean Putin does have an invested interest in selling this externally:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-accuses-nato-creating-security-threat-russia-asia-2024-06-20/

But Russian disinformation is a global campaign:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

He also noted NATO as one of the main reasons for this war in the first place:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/extracts-putins-speech-ukraine-2022-02-21/

And talking about strawmen...what does Iran have to do with all this? As to the "nothing happens":

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._bases_in_Iraq,_Jordan,_and_Syria_during_the_Israel–Hamas_war#:~:text=al-Tanf garrison.-,Al-Omar field,were killed and 18 injured.

Or is it in your theory of international relations that the US should have conducted strikes directly on Iran?

Just want to point out something that may lead us to a more healthy discussion. You do understand that the whole bloodthirsty Ukrainian schtick does absolutely nothing to help? I mean we all get the impulse. We sympathize. But irrational mis-informed Ukrainian outbursts that slag the West and basically demand WW3 to protect Ukraine, do nothing except drive support into the non-interventionist arms. The Ukrainian president and government do not behave this way, so it does not reflect the policies the Ukraine.

Finally, let me help with a ad hoc English lesson - escort means to protect. A policeman escorting a person from a premises is not only protecting the people in the bar, they are protecting the drunk as well. That is why they use the term "escort" and not "beat and drag" (how well police adhere to this is a matter of deep debate). What you "meant" is pretty clear, you are not subtle in your intent.

 So what I am asking is that you stop spinning, fabricating and mis-representing every piece of news about this war to support your foregone conclusions. This thread used to be about clear-headed analysis and assessment but as of late is being hijacked by special interest and mouthpieces. These have no interest in "healthy discussion" anymore than the MAGA clowns who blow through here occasionally. They are here to use this thread as a pulpit from which to preach dogma. They are easy to spot because they always say the same things and use every new piece of information to reinforce that dogma.