Jump to content

How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?


Probus

Recommended Posts

On 2/22/2022 at 8:38 AM, Probus said:

What are your thoughts on a no fly zone? 

Ukraine is asking for one now, but no-fly zone will mean direct conflict between NATO and Russia and possibly lead to WW3, so not going to happen.

following on Twitter looks like the Russian strategy is to capture airfields around Kiev, ferry troops in and capture the capital, presumably to put a puppet regime in place. Pretty risky thing to do unless you have total air superiority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

FOrtunately NATO did expand eastward so he can't attack the Baltic states w/o running into a real military, which I don't think he's gonna like facing

There's a lot of work that needs to be done, especially for the European members of NATO. Personally I wouldn't mind sitting in the cold for the rest of this winter AND sell my car as long as our 'leaders' learned their lessons now and start to re-arm like hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Holien,

When analyzing the Correlation of Forces, at a strategic level anyway, it isn't merely a force comparison. It includes such things as will to fight by the attacked and any potential supporters--at both a leadership and societal level. Weak, compromised or both opposition leaders, especially at the super power level, are a huge help to a nation planning to invade another.  Ref the US, consider the difference between JFK and JB--night and day to put it mildly, so for purposes of the discussion, you don't need to invoke Alt Right in order to contest the point. If you don't like that one, how about Chamberlan and Churchill in terms of their strength as leaders. Can you imagine how WW II would've gone for the British with Chamberlain as the wartime PM. 

danfrodo,

Putin doesn't have to invade in order to trigger Article 5, all he to do is attack a member nation, in any number of ways, including, these days, cyber attack and terrorism.

Regards,

John Kettler

The North Atlantic Treaty

Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949


Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 1

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great posts, folks, these are really insightful for me for the most part. 

Emotionally I so very much want a no fly zone.  Rational me agrees w Sgt Joch, it could escalate very badly.

And yeah, Aragorn, Putin has really shown the world that conventional land war is a real possibility in europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

Great posts, folks, these are really insightful for me for the most part. 

Emotionally I so very much want a no fly zone.  Rational me agrees w Sgt Joch, it could escalate very badly.

And yeah, Aragorn, Putin has really shown the world that conventional land war is a real possibility in europe.

Absolutely, Dan, it's a huge mistake to trust on nukes. Same as chemical weapons in 1939 they will not prevent war. Especially not the sneaky way war is waged nowadays. We have to sober up and realize much more is at stake than Ukraine, a country which suffered so much already out of the hands of Moscow and will soon vanish again in terror and show trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Locals reported Ukrainian troops recaptured a bridge to Kherson

In Hostomel our troops are trying to retake the airfield. 18 Il-76 from Pskov already should come, probably they will drop paratroopers or supply. Several jets heard over my house, but because of darkness and clouds I don't know what side they were

 

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

Putin has really shown the world that conventional land war is a real possibility in europe.

I wish that this was all this was.  The "winning" international order, established after WW2 and outlasted the Soviet version, was a deal that we all agreed to, for the most part.  "The rules" were pretty simple, a community of nations will work to create stability and make money.  Sure we still have rogue states and random a##holes, but they were on the margins.  All the great powers largely agreed, particularly after the end of the Cold War to a "deal" that they would all behave like grown ups.  The problem was that the global pecking order did not sit well with some but we thought we could manage that.  And the rules got bent sometimes, we even tried to live with that.

This breaks the system at a fundamental level.  Russia has opted out, and Russia is not North Korea, or Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Or more bluntly, a global power with enough nuclear weapons to push us into a civilization re-set, just went rogue and dared the rest of us to do something about it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

This all makes me so angry and I too, emotionally, want a No-Fly Zone or for NATO to hit back and hard!  Anything to help the Ukrainian Army and their people!!

It's horrifying and I hate the helplessness of watching this go down.  I am happy, however, that the Javelins are working.  

I just wish...

It's too late for all that. Besides, we are not capable of such action and the risks are simply too big. What matters now is to accept a new Cold War is upon us and has been for years. 

And then to think we had them on their knees in 1989....

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

Correct. Frankly, I think this is an important thread. So, I am loath to lock it. If people start going down that road I will just give them short vacations from posting, without prior warning, rather than lock it. 

Thank you, sir!  The thread is important, but if I can refrain from injecting US politics into this, all should be able.   There are waayyy too many other places for that...  NOT HERE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

This breaks the system at a fundamental level.  Russia has opted out, and Russia is not North Korea, or Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Or more bluntly, a global power with enough nuclear weapons to push us into a civilization re-set, just went rogue and dared the rest of us to do something about it.  

IMO this opens up a lot of interesting questions about the Cold War. Did it really end in 1989 or did it just transform into something else? Take a pause for a few years and then kick back off? Was the Cold War really about Communism vs. Captialism at all or is it an east v. west thing, freedom vs. authoritarianism, or heartland vs. rimland issue (drawing a page from the oft forgotten Sir Halford MacKinder). How you come down on it shapes what you see this as. Is this something new and totally unprecedented, or a bloody variation on the Hungary 1956, Prauge 1968 pattern? To put it another way, did Putin just write a new 'Putin Doctrine' regarding Russian foreign policy, or is he now reasserting the old 'Brezhnev doctrine' that said that Eastern Europe had to maintain ideological consistency with Moscow? My own feelings: Welcome to Cold War 2.0. Same as Cold War 1.0 except everything is stupider and the weapons are way cooler. 

Also regarding recent fighting over Chernobyl exclusion zone, is this the first time that an army has conducted active combat operations on an irradiated battlefield? I wonder what kinds of safety precautions both sides have been using. I know that "the zone" isn't as bad as people make it seem these days, but still.... Id at least be worried about the bloodsuckers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Holien said:

@John Kettler and others this thread is not a place for that discussion. I humbly suggest that this thread be kept free of such discussion so we can just focus on what is happening now in Ukraine. 

You want to talk about those issues fire up another thread and good luck in keeping it unlocked!!!

Holien,

Said precisely enough to make my point. Have zero intention of continuing that line of discussion.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Also I dont understand why this bridge wasn't demolished the night of the attack. Seems like a major oversight, especially because it doesn't seem like Ukraine put up much of a fight south of the river line. 

It's a tough thing to plan to destroy your own infrastructure, I am guessing they decided it is better to have it in place. In hindsight they might regret that choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, akd said:

Russian armor crossing over Dnieper bridge at Kherson under fire:

 

My kingdom for a Go Pro! As it is, the res is so low that it's very hard to tell where and how much artillery fire is coming in. For sure I saw a shell splash near one of the bridge piers and a possible airburst over the bridge as well. Looks as if there might be shells detonating on the far end of the bridge, but it could also be Russian smoke. Based on what little I see, would say that Ukrainian fire on the bridge could, at best, be called harassing fire.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Also I dont understand why this bridge wasn't demolished the night of the attack. Seems like a major oversight, especially because it doesn't seem like Ukraine put up much of a fight south of the river line. 

+1  Should have been rigged with demo to be destroyed if necessary.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...