How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Eug85]

14 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

At some point in the next 12 months or less, we're going to see an entirely drone assault on a position and then hold it against counter-attack with only drones (+overwatch fires).

Not necessarily with Drones physically in the trenches (maybe apart from those BD dogs they're experimenting with - hello to @The_Capt's spider mines at last!), but using drones to both hit counter-attacking RUS soldiers and kill any that make it in.

All this without a single UKR soldier within 50m of the position.

It's a-comin'...

I think that a shot from RPGs made from a drone significantly reduces the effectiveness of grilles, chains and thin metal, which are sheathed with barn tanks. After all, a grenade released from RPG has a significantly higher speed and energy than a grenade on FPV

[Vet 0369]

On 9/8/2024 at 6:07 PM, sburke said:

One side note when we talk about military forces acquiring tanks as some kind of proof they still have value - The USMC decided to get rid of theirs.  Granted they are somewhat of a unique force mix but the Marine corp did supply a major component of the US forces in Iraq and is a larger active force than I think almost anyone in Europe maintains.

A few years ago, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and his planning staff determined that the next area of conflict that the USMC would be involved in, would be the South China Sea. They determined that there were two existing functions that would be pretty much useless in that type of conflict. Those two functions were armor and long-range artillery, due to the sizes of the islands and the distances between them. Basically, the USMC is returning to its original mission of “To seize and secure advanced Naval bases” that had been lost since the Korean Conflict. I’m sure they made the determination because the Commandant now has a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and is no longer controlled by the Navy.

Unlike many branches of the U.S. Military, the Marine Corps is attempting to structure itself to fight the NEXT war rather than the LAST war, and not to just secure more funding for a bloated organization!

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Legislative clarification is always a good thing, but all nations have the inherent right to defend their airspace.  Period.  The military also has an inherent legal right to defend itself against hostile intentions provided they are not themselves committing an illegal act (such as Russia has NO legal right to defend itself in Ukraine). 

The legal subtitles come into play mostly when the legitimate ability to defend is carried out in a way that is not justified.  For example, shooting at a legitimate target and missing, then having the missed ordnance land in another country's territory.  Or doing something really bad like shooting down a civilian aircraft by mistake, as both the Soviet Union and the United States did.

A nation has no legal obligation to protect the property of a foreign country violating its sovereign territory.  It could cause diplomatic and/or military conflicts, but that's different.

Steve

I think we are talking about different things here. I (and I think Reuters, too) am talking about what an army may or may not do according to the laws of the nation it belongs to. Especially during peace time there are usually a lot of restrictions placed upon an army. In Germany, e g. the Bundeswehr was forbidden to even help out during natural disasters - Helmut Schmidt famously broke the law when he ordered Bundeswehr helicopters to help during a great flood in Hamburg. The law was changed later. The Bundeswehr is still not allowed to do be used in most other capacities, like policing. I think the situation is similar in the US?

So what I'm saying is of course not that Romania as a nation is not allowed to defend itself but that the Romanian, air force or army, by Romanian law, might not be allowed to shoot down drones of a nation Romania is not at war with. At least that is what the Reuters article seems to suggest.

Yes, I agree that would be kind of weird but weirder laws exist and what the hell do I know about Romanian laws? EDIT: I would guess that things look different when/if said drone is clearly identified as a threat. Huh, don't we have an expert on the Romanian legal system here? We usually have experts for everything.

Edited September 10 by Butschi

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Eug85 said:

Oh my god, so I thought, due to obsolete laws, citizens of Western countries are absolutely defenseless against a sudden and massive strike by Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941. By the way, did anyone think about the drones of Kamikadze carrying miniature nuclear warheads? Once this role was played by artillery shooting nuclear shells. Today, drones like shared are able to do this much further and more precisely.

 

Eh? I have no idea whatsoever how you arrived at this train of thoughts coming from what I wrote...

[Eug85]

11 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Eh? I have no idea whatsoever how you arrived at this train of thoughts coming from what I wrote...

But if the country, according to the legislation, does not have the right to shoot down the air goals that invaded its airspace, then how will it prevent the death of its own citizens who will hit? Bad guys apply a mass blow to drones, and good guys can not answer, because according to their laws they do not have the right to shoot down these drones. Do I understand your logic correctly?

 

[MikeyD]

I (vaguely) recall a report, perhaps 20 years ago, of a large scale computer wargame to test out Donald Rumsfeld's 'transformational war' theories and  toys. The OPFOR side elected to overwhelm the blue force's defenses with drones. If memory serves, it caused such mayhem that they had to reset the game and told the OPFOR side to not do stuff like that. In theory we've known about a prospective drone war threat for a long time. But the conclusions were inconvenient to to policy being pursued at the time.

[sburke]

35 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

A few years ago, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and his planning staff determined that the next area of conflict that the USMC would be involved in, would be the South China Sea. They determined that there were two existing functions that would be pretty much useless in that type of conflict. Those two functions were armor and long-range artillery, due to the sizes of the islands and the distances between them. Basically, the USMC is returning to its original mission of “To seize and secure advanced Naval bases” that had been lost since the Korean Conflict. I’m sure they made the determination because the Commandant now has a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and is no longer controlled by the Navy.

Unlike many branches of the U.S. Military, the Marine Corps is attempting to structure itself to fight the NEXT war rather than the LAST war, and not to just secure more funding for a bloated organization!

yep saw that.  The only item that is a concern there is what if the next conflict is not the south china sea?  Predicting the next war is fraught with issues.  The likelihood of the next large scale engagement requiring the USMC is probably in the south china sea, however there is also a distinct possibility of engagements in either Africa or the Middle east.  The USMC has always provided the capability of projecting a ground force rapidly into an area of concern. (and still do - minus armor - not so much concerned with arty as there are alternatives with the air wing etc).  It seems the Marine command is either not concerned with either the possibility of other conflicts requiring their involvement or their capability and handling those other conflicts.  I don't doubt that it was considered. Interestingly it did not take long to actually validate that from the USMC site.

FRAG ORDER 01/2024 > Commandant of the Marine Corps > News (marines.mil)

Just some highlights of potential operations that looked interesting

Our most important campaigning event in support of deterring North Korean aggression, SSANG YONG, resumed in 2023 and involved an amphibious landing with elements of the ROKMC, 1st Marine Division, and the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). SSANG YONG 24 is planned for August 2024 to allow for the utilization of the America ARG (LHA 6) and 31st MEU.

This year, Exercise FREEZING WINDS will be the primary bilateral exercise between the Marine Corps and Finnish Navy and naval infantry forces. In addition to those exercises, Marines from 2d Marine Division conducted several HIMARS Rapid Infiltration (HIRAIN) events throughout the theater, including Finland, Poland, and Greece. These visible demonstrations of combat credibility and operational reach involve inserting HIMARS via fixed-wing aircraft, conducting fire missions using U.S. and NATO C2 architecture, and then extracting via fixed-wing aircraft.

Edited September 10 by sburke

[acrashb]

There's been a lot of talk here about a Russian regional military collapse, and some about the possibility of the same for the UA in some area of the front(s).
While I cannot validate the claims in this article, CNN is generally editorially friendly to Ukraine.

The article certainly paints a grim picture.  "Outgunned and outnumbered, Ukraine’s military is struggling with low morale and desertion"
"In just the first four months of 2024, prosecutors launched criminal proceedings against almost 19,000 soldiers who either abandoned their posts or deserted"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/08/europe/ukraine-military-morale-desertion-intl-cmd/index.html

 

[acrashb]

And, as @The_Capt predicted:

 

Edited September 10 by acrashb

[Vet 0369]

11 minutes ago, sburke said:

yep saw that.  The only item that is a concern there is what if the next conflict is not the south china sea?  Predicting the next war is fraught with issues.  The likelihood of the next large scale engagement requiring the USMC is probably in the south china sea, however there is also a distinct possibility of engagements in either Africa or the Middle east.  The USMC has always provided the capability of projecting a ground force rapidly into an area of concern. (and still do - minus armor - not so much concerned with arty as there are alternatives with the air wing etc).  It seems the Marine command is either not concerned with either the possibility of other conflicts requiring their involvement or their capability and handling those other conflicts.  I don't doubt that it was considered. Interestingly it did not take long to actually validate that from the USMC site.

FRAG ORDER 01/2024 > Commandant of the Marine Corps > News (marines.mil)

Just some highlights of potential operations that looked interesting

Our most important campaigning event in support of deterring North Korean aggression, SSANG YONG, resumed in 2023 and involved an amphibious landing with elements of the ROKMC, 1st Marine Division, and the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). SSANG YONG 24 is planned for August 2024 to allow for the utilization of the America ARG (LHA 6) and 31st MEU.

This year, Exercise FREEZING WINDS will be the primary bilateral exercise between the Marine Corps and Finnish Navy and naval infantry forces. In addition to those exercises, Marines from 2d Marine Division conducted several HIMARS Rapid Infiltration (HIRAIN) events throughout the theater, including Finland, Poland, and Greece. These visible demonstrations of combat credibility and operational reach involve inserting HIMARS via fixed-wing aircraft, conducting fire missions using U.S. and NATO C2 architecture, and then extracting via fixed-wing aircraft.

Having spent 12 years in the USMC and USMCR, five years in the Air Wing, and seven years in the Infantry, I’m pretty sure that the USMC Staff considered all the different scenarios that they could identify at the time, based on the mission they are given. Could that mission change? Absolutely! The USMC has been called “The President’s Own,” because they could be deployed anywhere in the world for up to 60-days without consent of Congress (that might have changed in the 44-years since I got out though).
 

I’m not surprised about the Joint Baltic Exercise with Finland The last unit in which I served was in the 4th Marine Division. At that time, the 4th Division (a Reserve Division by the way) was designated as the USMC Rapid Deployment Force, with the mission of the Defense of Northern Norway, so not much has changed there.

[ArmouredTopHat]

21 minutes ago, acrashb said:

And, as @The_Capt predicted:

 

This is not the first time we have seen drones with launchers on them.

In fact the Demon drone as shown here dates from at least as early as 2018!

https://www.bgp4.com/2018/08/21/rocket-launcher-drones-ukrainian-company-debuts-simple-rpg-7-rpg-22-26-anti-tank-drone/

I suspect there are some underlying issues as to why they are not more common compared to FPV suicide drones or even grenade droppers. 

[Kraft]

50 minutes ago, acrashb said:

And, as @The_Capt predicted:

 

These were tested already in 2023 against russian vehicles, the issues remain the weight trade off of a reusable drone holding the tube +battery for coming back against a simply more capable and reliable  selfmade kamikaze warhead. RPG-18 warheads are weak, I think even bigger launchers were attempted at the time not successfully

Aiming is significantly harder from a distance than simply flying into something, if you tilt the drone it flies backwards and is not stable obviously.

Where I see this having a real use - besides being just more economical cleanup of tracked vehicles - is against EW vehicles, these may have a chance to punch into the bubble. Id still put my money on optical wire and specialised frequency drones at this stage.

Edited September 10 by Kraft

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

I was specifically asking for other posts as you mentioned my posts as of late putting me in no position to shed crocodile tears. Feel free to reply in DM to not clog up this thread

Funnily enough I have a Nato flag on my wall. As I have said I do not think Nato protects these russian drones from whatever. Please do not read to much into escort, an escort at a bar also does not "protect" but accompany you. My point in the post was about red lines and how this signals weakness throughout the alliance.

You have been making sly and snide comments on western/US weakness for months:

 

 

This did not take a lot of work and there is a lot more. You are entitled to your opinion of course but for the love of god...go get an informed one.

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

I did not claim Nato is playing puppets.

I also did not claim there is an *obligation*. My question clearly asks if there *is* consultation / an overarching policy on how to proceed.

That any Nation can for itself decide to enact its airspace and it is not "dictated" by Nato is and already was clear to me. 

I find it hard to belive that Romanian armed forces would not be in direct line of communication with other Nato officials wrt this threat, as far as I know even Ukraine shares data on missiles and drones in with Nato - and gets Nato information to better combat these threats as they approach. Hence why these F-16s were likely already aware of these drones before they "popped up".

So you think that blips popped up on the radar and Romanian gave SHAPE a call to confirm? I am not sure it is clear to you at all. This is based on you slagging all of NATO over a Romanian decision not to shoot down some Russian drones. You are assuming Romania is plugged into US ISR architecture, which I am not so sure of to be honest.

Those F16 were scrambled to go collect information, get eyes on, and be ready to respond. Depending on Romanian ROEs, they might not be given authority to fire until they have positive identification. You are making a bunch of unfounded assumptions here.

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

Since you feel the need to accuse me again that I supposedly have done this "dozens of times" see the first part of my reply.

Two points, 1: Shahed drones are so slow they can be shot down by helicoper crews flying next to them and using the door gun. They cannot use terrain to mask themselfs efficiently. They are not a stealth interceptor suddenly popping up before an attack run. I find it hard to believe these F-16s were unable to catch them. These drones at max reach 180km/h, their cruise speed will be lower, especially since these traveled a long distance. 

2: the Romanian article states that these would have been neutralized had they been recognized as a threat to Romania - but they werent.

And Romania is a country roughly 500 x 600 kms long. Do you know the flight plan of those Shaheds? Did they dip into Romania for a few dozen kms? Do you know where those F16s scrambled from and time of flight. No, you do not. Did that stop you from throwing more wild accusations...no, it did not.

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

No but I imagine they get similar commands tied to weapon shipments as FSA in syria wrt TOWs or the Kurds wrt Turkey, what to engage and what not to engage on a macro scale.

Do not kill/provoke X with our weapons. Do not resell to Y. Not following will lead to funding shifting to group Z that we also support. If this doesnt work out Im sure there have also been cases of Motorola and Givi.

Ya, ok so here the depth of what you don't know but are willing to assume is just...well breathtaking really. I mean aid comes with some strings attached but for many groups Iran is just happy if they go out and sow chaos. For your scheme to have traction it would mean that Iran has some master campaign plan for the region. And we have seen no real evidence of this.

Your strawman is a terrible one.  There are a bunch of loosely tied militias who all agree that killing Americans is a good thing. Based on your position if the US does not declare open war on Iran every time one of them sparks up..."well it just goes to show." This is utter nonsense.

Look, you want to keep being Grandpa Simpson...go for it. But you are going to be challenged every time you do it. Let's focus on this last one and go from there:

1. NATO did not "approve" or "condone" or "control" whatever Romania did or did not do in this latest incident.

2. Romania did not gleefully escort drones anywhere. They scrambled to identify and monitor. We have zero idea if they were looking at shootdown options, how close they got to the drones, the political calculus or what actually happened. 

3. No evidence presented that those drones hit Odessa or any other Ukrainian target.

4. This is not evidence of NATO weakness or compliance. It is Romanian rules of engagement in a situation for which we have little details. 

5. Should Romania have some sort of engagement policy for Russian drones flying to strike Ukraine - absolutely. Will they or what constraints they have to deal with in doing this, be they internal or external...we again do not know.

Does all this somehow add up to NATO continually throwing Ukraine under the bus out of fear of mighty Russia? Not at all. Right now the US is actively supplying targeting data to Ukraine. That means the US is part of the Ukrainian killchain. The West is arming Ukraine continually. Not as fast as many would like. Not as deeply either, but you get what you paid for in western military and political bureaucracy. This is not personal in the least, it is just plain old inertia.

Does it help when posters slag and pick away at the West using wildly uninformed opinions and skewing of information...not at all.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, acrashb said:

There's been a lot of talk here about a Russian regional military collapse, and some about the possibility of the same for the UA in some area of the front(s).
While I cannot validate the claims in this article, CNN is generally editorially friendly to Ukraine.

The article certainly paints a grim picture.  "Outgunned and outnumbered, Ukraine’s military is struggling with low morale and desertion"
"In just the first four months of 2024, prosecutors launched criminal proceedings against almost 19,000 soldiers who either abandoned their posts or deserted"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/08/europe/ukraine-military-morale-desertion-intl-cmd/index.html

 

Damned race to the bottom. For both sides.

[MikeyD]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

The only item that is a concern there is what if the next conflict is not the south china sea?

It turned out it wasn't in the South China sea. I remember the tanks were across the border and rolling towards Kiev and 'TV pundits' were still claiming Russia wasn't this season's 'big threat' but China. Go back to the early posts on this thread, a fair number were like "But... but... but... CHINA!" Dudes, Russia started the biggest war on the European continent since WWII. That is this season's 'big threat'.

[Offshoot]

4 hours ago, billbindc said:

I think it's quite worthwhile to consider whether or not we have all the factors that go into the decision. We have no idea but we can certainly guess...judging by Romania's long coast on the Black Sea...what leeway is being allowed to other combatants in this war. Without that knowledge there is no way to know what the Romanian government is balancing against an errant drone or two that was probably not escorted to an Odessa it did not actually hit. 

Yes, there will always be things we don't know about. But what about the Latvian situation? From the Reuters article, Latvia appears to be asking for NATO to develop a policy for what should happen in such circumstances.

Quote

In Latvia, which borders both Russia and its close ally Belarus, President Edgars Rinkevics posted on social media platform X that his government sought a common NATO response.

Why has this not already been done 2.5 years into this war? (I can't remember the details, but didn't a Russian surveillance drone go for a wander and dive over southern Romania quite early on?) Did this scenario not occur to NATO, or is it caught in a bureaucratic imbroglio? Or is The_Capt right and it is considered escalatory not only to fire US/European missiles into Russia but also to shoot down Russian drones that wander into the airspace of NATO members?

[Jarran]

6 hours ago, Holien said:

This is interesting..

Why would Ukraine need spare parts for Gripen Jets?

Hi lurking Swede here. The packade include budgeting to produce spare parts for the JAS C/D version. This sets the conditions for future hand over of the planes without having to cannibalize existing planes for spare parts. There are currently no plans to transfere planes. This is so that they dont intervene with the F-16 deliveries.

[Jarran]

Here is the whole message from the Government, it's google translate so it might be some spelling errors etc:

New military support package that strengthens Ukraine's defense capabilities.
Published 09 September 2024

Today, September 9, the government has presented the 17th military support package to Ukraine. The package, worth 4.6 billion SEK, meets Ukraine's highest priority military needs and creates freedom of action for the future. It includes donation of equipment, direct procurement, equipment kits and financial donations.

With support package 17, Sweden has contributed SEK 48.1 billion in military support to Ukraine since Russia's brutal war of aggression began in February 2022. In 2024 alone, Sweden has contributed a total of SEK 25 billion in military support.

Procurement for donation
With package 17, Sweden enters a new phase of military support to Ukraine through a greater focus on production instead of donation. Support package 17 contains three major procurements of equipment that is a special priority for Ukraine. The procurements must be carried out by either the Swedish Armed Forces or the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (FMV). The value of these procurements totals approximately SEK 600 million.

Sweden has previously sent 50 combat vehicles 90 to Ukraine. These combat vehicles have been proven very useful by Ukraine and therefore an additional 40mm ammunition for these combat vehicles is to be procured for delivery to Ukraine.

Support package 16 included over 200 Pansarbandvang 302. (Armored tracked vehicle 302 APC) In order to give the Ukrainian units greater opportunity to act covertly, package 17 will include a procurement of camouflage equipment for these combat vehicles.

The Ukrainian need for smaller flying drones remains high. Therefore, the government intends to provide additional funds to support the needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in this area.

Strengthening the defense capability on the ground
Support package 17 also contains military equipment for ground combat to a value of approximately SEK 500 million. Ukraine has a very large need for anti-aircraft equipment due to Russia's attacks on civilian and military infrastructure. Sweden has previously handed over a number of different anti-aircraft robot systems and this package includes additional anti-aircraft robots of the Robot 70 type.

Ukraine has specifically requested anti-tank weapons and anti-tank mines to better operate against Russian mechanized units. The package therefore includes a number of pansarskott (AT4), grenade launchers (Carl Gustav) and anti tank mines.

The package also includes:

Protective masks and protective equipment to enable work/tasks in a contaminated environment
Ammunition for grenade launchers and grenade launchers fine caliber ammunition
Training materials for recruit training in Ukraine
Delivery of helmets and winter equipment for soldiers ahead of the coming winter
Reinforcement of the naval defense capability at sea
There is still a Russian threat to Ukrainian merchant shipping, and piloting of these ships regularly takes place via mine-cleared routes down towards the Bosphorus. In addition, extensive fighting is taking place along the front lines defined by rivers, where the Ukrainian Navy supports ground forces. The support package therefore contains material transfers of marine equipment to a value of SEK 500 million.

Ukraine's rivers are the subject of many military activities and the Swedish Stridsbåt 90 has been a welcome addition to the Ukrainian Navy. Support package 17 contains another six Stridsbåt 90 including a marine supply solution that will support the Ukrainian navy's maintenance unit to create endurance for the Swedish equipment. In order to be able to launch different types of boats after maintenance measures on land, two launching trailers that can handle several different types of boats, including Stridsbåt 90, are also handed over.

Material kits and financial donations
Material sets for JAS 39
At the moment, it is not relevant to transfer the JAS Gripen to Ukraine, as it would interfere with the introduction of the F-16. However, the government continues to work on creating the conditions to possibly support Ukraine with the JAS 39 Gripen at a later stage. In support package 17, this takes place by procuring equipment sets for the JAS 39 Gripen to a value of approximately SEK 2.3 billion.

Materiel kits are the parts of the JAS 39C/D used in the construction of the new JAS 39E. By procuring material sets, conditions are created to be able to donate a number of JAS 39C/D, instead of the material sets being dismantled from operational JAS 39C/D.

Financial donations
The support package contains roughly SEK 700 million for financial donations to funds and other multilateral initiatives in 2024. International initiatives where several nations create the conditions for larger procurements have proven to be effective. Within the area, there are both temporary multilateral initiatives relating to a particular materiel object, such as ammunition initiatives, to more permanent regular funds such as, for example, the British-led International Fund for Ukraine.

Edited September 10 by Jarran

[Butschi]

3 hours ago, Eug85 said:

But if the country, according to the legislation, does not have the right to shoot down the air goals that invaded its airspace, then how will it prevent the death of its own citizens who will hit? Bad guys apply a mass blow to drones, and good guys can not answer, because according to their laws they do not have the right to shoot down these drones. Do I understand your logic correctly?

 

How about you have a chat with someone who knows Romanian laws? Because I don't. Or with someone from Reuters. Because I did not write the article. It is not my logic. It might not even be Romanian logic. It is simply my interpretation of the article and me pointing out that stupid laws exist, that legislation is often lagging behind and that in peace time - yes, last time I looked Romania was still not at war with Russia - some nations restrict what their army is allowed to do. Period. Oh, and yeah, if such laws exists (I'm not saying they do!) then whoever would need to pull the trigger is legally forbidden to do so. To my understanding, that is how laws work. I didn't invent them.

I never said the article is right. I never said that Romanians should or do not have the right to defend their airspace from Russian drones. Please, everyone, can we come back to commenting on what people actually wrote and not what we think they wrote or should/shouldn't have written?

Edited September 10 by Butschi

[Kraft]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

You have been making sly and snide comments on western/US weakness for months:

1

2

3

This did not take a lot of work and there is a lot more. You are entitled to your opinion of course but for the love of god...go get an informed one.

So you think that blips popped up on the radar and Romanian gave SHAPE a call to confirm? I am not sure it is clear to you at all. This is based on you slagging all of NATO over a Romanian decision not to shoot down some Russian drones. You are assuming Romania is plugged into US ISR architecture, which I am not so sure of to be honest.

Those F16 were scrambled to go collect information, get eyes on, and be ready to respond. Depending on Romanian ROEs, they might not be given authority to fire until they have positive identification. You are making a bunch of unfounded assumptions here.

And Romania is a country roughly 500 x 600 kms long. Do you know the flight plan of those Shaheds? Did they dip into Romania for a few dozen kms? Do you know where those F16s scrambled from and time of flight. No, you do not. Did that stop you from throwing more wild accusations...no, it did not.

Ya, ok so here the depth of what you don't know but are willing to assume is just...well breathtaking really. I mean aid comes with some strings attached but for many groups Iran is just happy if they go out and sow chaos. For your scheme to have traction it would mean that Iran has some master campaign plan for the region. And we have seen no real evidence of this.

Your strawman is a terrible one.  There are a bunch of loosely tied militias who all agree that killing Americans is a good thing. Based on your position if the US does not declare open war on Iran every time one of them sparks up..."well it just goes to show." This is utter nonsense.

Look, you want to keep being Grandpa Simpson...go for it. But you are going to be challenged every time you do it. Let's focus on this last one and go from there:

1. NATO did not "approve" or "condone" or "control" whatever Romania did or did not do in this latest incident.

2. Romania did not gleefully escort drones anywhere. They scrambled to identify and monitor. We have zero idea if they were looking at shootdown options, how close they got to the drones, the political calculus or what actually happened. 

3. No evidence presented that those drones hit Odessa or any other Ukrainian target.

4. This is not evidence of NATO weakness or compliance. It is Romanian rules of engagement in a situation for which we have little details. 

5. Should Romania have some sort of engagement policy for Russian drones flying to strike Ukraine - absolutely. Will they or what constraints they have to deal with in doing this, be they internal or external...we again do not know.

Does all this somehow add up to NATO continually throwing Ukraine under the bus out of fear of mighty Russia? Not at all. Right now the US is actively supplying targeting data to Ukraine. That means the US is part of the Ukrainian killchain. The West is arming Ukraine continually. Not as fast as many would like. Not as deeply either, but you get what you paid for in western military and political bureaucracy. This is not personal in the least, it is just plain old inertia.

Does it help when posters slag and pick away at the West using wildly uninformed opinions and skewing of information...not at all.

well first of sorry@everyone here for this, I offered the DM approach.

To comment 1: you quoted me on this and I clarified that I was sarcastically responding to the post which asked me how its possible money could have been transmitted if russia is out of swift. I replied by making a comparison how US parts could be in russian missiles if its forbidden. 

I specifically included in my unanswered reply to you that this is not meant as a slide against US. As said then and said now: The topic of sanction evasion has been discussed already and I accept that this serves as an attempt to make it expensive for russia, not deny it. 

To 2: 

Quote

Am I remembering it right that the US warned Iran it would lead to consequences if ballistic missiles were sent to russia?

Funny regardless how Iran and NK are in no shape or form "drawn into" this war despite allowing russia to use its weapons to strike deep and hit (civilian) targets. Oh well.

Also, I wonder why the 6bil USD of leftover budget that expires this month has not been used yet, unless the reporting missed a big package? The last few were all in the <2-300ish mil USD range of kitchen sink maintanence.

And I remembered right, a legit question that if you have known why not answered?:

Today Biden admin did announce this, now long range strikes are possible and NK missiles are a given reason for this step. Mh.

It remains funny how NK and Iran havent been drawn into the war despite this being the main line of argument against removing restrictions from US. Watch how the US now also does not get drawn into it. The last question remains an open one, or am I missing aid packages? Because this was a serious question, I do not have an excel file with them.

How were these not legit questions at the time&now, please explain?

To comment 3:

By saying: Biden & Scholz, I am talking about them personally and I remain on the position that they are weak leaders. If you disagree with this we can discuss. 

To 4:

A news post clarifying that the "allowance to strike in russia" by US gov does not extent to ATACMS. I could have spared the "Biden got cold feet" comment, but thats literally all there is to this 1 liner news post answering a question raised beforehand when it was first announced that US allows strikes in russia.

To the 5th and last:

Quote

Lets not drag gender politics from twitter into this when so many more interesting things are happening.

I believe this will remain a missile/drone campaign to further reduce already low AD stocks in the west and divert attention, cause instability and uncertainty. 

Lets see how much AD the US suddenly has available if Israel asks for it.

What is the issue with this post?

Do you claim the US does not favor Israel? Should we compare the AD campaign the US offered when Iran sent missiles at Isreal? 

Quote

love of god...go get an informed one.

After claiming I poison the discussion. 

Quote

So you think that blips popped up on the radar and Romanian gave SHAPE a call to confirm? I am not sure it is clear to you at all. This is based on you slagging all of NATO over a Romanian decision not to shoot down some Russian drones. You are assuming Romania is plugged into US ISR architecture, which I am not so sure of to be honest.

Those F16 were scrambled to go collect information, get eyes on, and be ready to respond. Depending on Romanian ROEs, they might not be given authority to fire until they have positive identification. You are making a bunch of unfounded assumptions here.

Lets assume Ro F16s couldnt ID them.

How do they then knew they were A: russian, B: not targeting Romania and C : thus not a threat to be shot down - as quoted in the Romanian offical statement. 

Quote

And Romania is a country roughly 500 x 600 kms long. Do you know the flight plan of those Shaheds? Did they dip into Romania for a few dozen kms? Do you know where those F16s scrambled from and time of flight. No, you do not. Did that stop you from throwing more wild accusations...no, it did not.

Roughly the 130km line between the cities/towns that were given SMS emergency shelter advice.

Throwing wild accusations? 

Previous circumstances in which these have not been shot down include Romania, Latvia, Poland. Assuming this would have been different somehow without public discussion/ knowledge is the wild speculation here. 

Quote

Ya, ok so here the depth of what you don't know but are willing to assume is just...well breathtaking really. I mean aid comes with some strings attached but for many groups Iran is just happy if they go out and sow chaos. For your scheme to have traction it would mean that Iran has some master campaign plan for the region. And we have seen no real evidence of this.

Your ability to condescend exceeds your ability to predict the outcome of offensives. Iran has no plan? Are they throwing dice to determine their political goals?

You mean the trade interdiction is just per chance happening, and Israel is forced to expend its stockpiles of AD missiles and shells just randomly because suddenly all the supposedly loose chaos groups decided to band together and heat up the ME - not in Syria, Iraq but the only state US cares about?

Quote

1. NATO did not "approve" or "condone" or "control" whatever Romania did or did not do in this latest incident.

2. Romania did not gleefully escort drones anywhere. They scrambled to identify and monitor. We have zero idea if they were looking at shootdown options, how close they got to the drones, the political calculus or what actually happened. 

3. No evidence presented that those drones hit Odessa or any other Ukrainian target.

4. This is not evidence of NATO weakness or compliance. It is Romanian rules of engagement in a situation for which we have little details. 

5. Should Romania have some sort of engagement policy for Russian drones flying to strike Ukraine - absolutely. Will they or what constraints they have to deal with in doing this, be they internal or external...we again do not know.

1 yes thats what I said, they enforce their air. The actions would be in line with possible policies, discussed among a larger set of countries on how to deal with border crossings and minimise escalations.

2 "gleefully" who is putting words in my mouth? Jesus, I commented on this every time but I guess you just want to think so. 

The fact that this is not the *first* instance 2.7 years into the war would allow the reasonable assumption European border nations have discussed the ramifications and made policies. (Point 5)

By reading the official statement I posted you would read that Ro felt not obligated to shoot them down, as they were not intended for Ro. Not that they couldnt shoot them down or ID them. That anwers your uncertainty, I hope.

3 Yes, this became clear over the night. 

4 alone it does not, it exists within two decades of context, Grozny, Georgia, Red Lines in Syria, hundreds of dying children in the streets of Aleppo after rus/assad dropped gas. Obama: Nothing. Crimea "sanctions". Minsk1. Minsk2. Nothing. Nordstream 2, after Ilovaisk, DNR/LNR. ...

The simple fact a putin friendly politician has a coin toss chance of getting to steer the largest member of Nato? I will again exclude the known countries that do actually know whats on the line in this judgement. That they cannot act without the big Players.. Latvia/..will not risk political actions alone even if the country and every politician wants to and you know this.

Quote

Does all this somehow add up to NATO continually throwing Ukraine under the bus out of fear of mighty Russia? Not at all. Right now the US is actively supplying targeting data to Ukraine. That means the US is part of the Ukrainian killchain. The West is arming Ukraine continually. Not as fast as many would like. Not as deeply either, but you get what you paid for in western military and political bureaucracy. This is not personal in the least, it is just plain old inertia.

I disagree entirely on inertia. I have formulated it before so I will keep it short but the assistance is to keep the status quo and grind russia down and contain putin. Not make Ukraine win. If you disagree we can discuss.

My post on which this insanity of a conversation is born out of talks about "war weary" western Europe and not just russian drones. These drones and the response to them are a tiny part of the overal picture that forms putins decisions on whether Nato would be willing to spill a lot of blood for a few borders, far away to most. Or cave in and demand "peace" with conscessions.

They are a part of clear deterance so the perceived strengh & unity will be enough and the actual strengh never needed.

Edited September 10 by Kraft

[Butschi]

We are all a bit testy today (me too), how come?

Edited September 10 by Butschi

[Offshoot]

25 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Today Biden admin did announce this, now long range strikes are possible and NK missiles are a given reason for this step.

This is Visegrad so I had to double check and unfortunately this looks like a misrepresentation. McCaul is part of a group that has just called on the Biden administration to allow ATACM strikes inside Russia ( https://armedservices.house.gov/news/press-releases/rogers-mccaul-turner-kean-calvert-hudson-call-biden-harris-administration-lift ) but this does not mean that a decision has been made or that McCaul even has the authority to make such an announcement prior to Blinken going to Kyiv.

Biden is meeting Starmer, the UK PM, on the 13th to discuss this subject so it would also be surprising to make such an announcement before then ( https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/10/7474376/ ).

[The_Capt]

20 minutes ago, Kraft said:

How were these not legit questions at the time&now, please explain?

Just going to pick this one. Because they were not honest questions!! You were grandstanding to make your point that the West is idle, weak and not standing up to anyone. You did not genuinely ask a question, you rhetorically used one to make a statement...the same statement you have been making for months. And now you are playing the crippled dove in some weird attempt to say "I was only asking"

24 minutes ago, Kraft said:

the cities/towns that were given SMS emergency shelter advice.

Throwing wild accusations? 

Previous circumstances in which these have not been shot down include Romania, Latvia, Poland. Assuming this would have been different somehow without public discussion/ knowledge is the wild speculation here.

So drones along the Black Sea and Modovian border...so freakin what? You did not answer any of the other points. Where did those F16 come from? How much lead time did they have...not muhc as we are talking right by the border. 

28 minutes ago, Kraft said:

2 "gleefully" who is putting words in my mouth? Jesus, I commented on this every time but I guess you just want to think so. 

"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. "

This is an outright lie. You can try and play the "language barrier" all day long. Escort - even in the police sense - implies that Romania had control of those dumped them on Odessa. You bring this up to deride NATO escalation management. At least have the stones to own it.

31 minutes ago, Kraft said:

I disagree entirely on inertia. I have formulated it before so I will keep it short but the assistance is to keep the status quo and grind russia down and contain putin. Not make Ukraine win. 

The topper and frankly puts you in the same shed with John Kettler. So there is a Western conspiracy to keep this war going to "grind Russia down" and not actually achieve a level of victory for Ukraine?

Ok, beyond your overinflated highly uniformed opinion...what possible proof do you have of this. Wait...I know...NATO escorted Russian drones to Odessa...of course.

So here is what we do. I am going to put you onto an ignore list with kraze. You feel free to do the same with me. Then you can spin away at your hearts content.

[sburke]

31 minutes ago, Butschi said:

We are all a bit testy today (me too), how come?

I dunno, personally I am feeling pretty relaxed today - and I expect Elvis is too.  Eagles won last week and the 49ers sent the Jets packing last night! I particularly enjoyed the close up shot of Aaron Rodgers face after he threw that interception.

as a Meme it is pretty good.

Putin after realizing getting missiles from Iran meant UA just got thumbs up from US on strikes into Russia.

[Offshoot]

37 minutes ago, Butschi said:

We are all a bit testy today (me too), how come?

I knew when I hit send I should have edited out the word "quibble" (but it's a wonderful word, on par with brabble).