sherpa

Drones are effective until the drone target, with some anti air capability, gets annoyed by them. At that point, they are paper airplanes. They are really slow. They have very limited weapon payload capability. They have no defensive capability, no maneuverability, and can be jammed.

Sure. Thinking back, and as an adversary, having fought all US forces and a number of other countries, the only time I ever fought Harriers was off Kadena, and only once. Didn't see a lot of your guys.

Thanks for the response. I taught and fought the Soviet Air Force to our guys for years, and you are correct. The issue isn't us vs. them The issue is why are they not using their obvious advantage over the Ukrainians?

No I don't, and I'll respectfully answer. Whoever is running this operation for the Russians, and I assume based on Russian current history, is that it is being run from the Kremlin. The Russian Air Force has near peer capability with the US. Not as good, but not more than one generation behind. They are well equipped and well trained. They lack US capability in coordinating force and coordinating all assets. They also lack the independence that US pilots have, being far more dependent on ground control. Anyway, for whatever reason, they are not using their capability, which would overwhelm the Ukraine. If the US was running this thing, the first day would be an absolute onslaught of air power that would have wiped out the air defense system of the enemy, resulting in not air superiority, but air supremacy, meaning they could conduct ground operations with no air threat. US pilots have a bond with our ground guys, which is, essentially, we can't do what you do from here, but we will ensure that you can do it without being bothered, and we will be over you the whole time. The Russians had this capability, but I think they didn't want the video of that operation, thinking they could get this done with much less mess. Clearly, that hasn't worked. As horrible as this human tragedy is, the incompetence is a gift for the west.

A few points. I get by your pic in front of a Harrier that you may know something about military stuff. After sea duty, I got into the Pacific Fleet Adversary Squadron, the is the Navy equivalent of the US Air Force aggressors. You may know what that involved, but for those that don't, we studied Soviet tactics and deployed them against US and other countries air forces. A few points from a guy who has a bit of experience in this. There is no real proof that his "helos and fighters have been getting shot out of the sky by Stingers." I am very skeptical of that. The new Stingers are far more capable, but they have very limited altitude capability, roughly 16,000'. Very lethal for slow movers and helos, but not much of a serious threat for the front line Russian fighters. We never took shoulder stuff as much of a threat, and if the Russians front line fighters are getting shot down by them, they are idiots, which they weren't in their recent action in Syria. I don't believe it. The "ghost of Kyiv, " is pure fiction. the original video was a computer graphic entry. Nice propaganda, but silly.

The only emotion is laughter.

I think it's his first war.

I think we got enough game film on them in Syria, a short time ago. The Russian reluctance to use its Air Force to their capability seems like an attempt to not lose the PR battle, but they are grossly beyond that now. Reading sanctions/air space prohibitions and a host of other responses against them from the rest of the world is like trying to read the school closing list on a snowy day on the south.

What is most interesting is that he has not used his air advantage, which is huge and would be a game changer. Perhaps he was overconfident is his four prong ground forces, a strategy which hasn't worked at all. Using his air force to its significant capability would tip the scales immediately, but it would be very messy, and whatever blowback he thought he would get from his invasion would pale if he turned the Russian Air Force loose.

Absolutely, and that is why the domestic response is so important. Fortunately, the threat to Russia and the Putin regime is not military. Nobody is threatening the Russian citizen. That might trigger a response we don't want to consider. If his regime is simply eroded internally, which by next week or next month has a much greater probability, that option is removed.

I never start threads, but i think the other one is getting off target, and descending into a Trump/Biden thing, which I am not interested in. What is a reasonable conclusion regarding this Russian adventure into the Ukraine? My view is that Putin has committed political suicide; probably not on the domestic level, but internationally, he is done. I don't think that there is any chance he tries to expand beyond this disaster. I think he has galvanized the international community on the need to separate from Russian trade re the energy market. I believe he has given NATO a booster shot, to include tempting some other nations to join. I don't think they will, but I think they will lean far more in that direction than a month ago. Specifically, I don't think the Ukrainians will ever agree to be subservient to a Putin puppet government, no matter the outcome of this. I think the rest of the world will support them in opposition, and make the "occupation" impossible, not that any Russian occupation has ever worked. I think this is the end of the Russian dream to ever restore a Soviet style, centralized nation. I think this will impact China negatively as well, though not immediately apparent, but eventually. Further, though I think the next few days/weeks will be a rough watch, I think Putin has accelerated us to a better time. On the periphery, I really hope that the world's people get some realistic energy supply view.

Nobody dropped the ball. Russians chose their leader, his vector and are going to live with the results.

Ya. I say so, as would anyone else who knows a thing about what you are suggesting.

Idiotic. Sorry for the lack of tact, but you continue to post stuff that is absolutely crazy.

Agree, and makes the ensuing occupation far more difficult. Installing a puppet gov that is successful and does Putin's bidding seems impossible. Support for the Ukraine now extends far beyond western democracies, NATO or any other political consortium. He has isolated his country in a manner almost impossible to imagine. His problem, among others, is that his own people will know it.

I couldn't agree more. I have been very suspicious of claims made because lack of evidence and the fact that what is claimed makes no military sense. Either Putin/Russian are the stupidest strategists in history, or something else is up. This "Ghost" thing seems to be a recreation of the Jude Law character in "Enemy at the Gates," and pops up the second day. The "shootdown" of two transports, one which is claimed to have been carrying dozens of paratroopers makes no military sense. If you are going to do a para drop, and those troops are being carried in a slow moving "grape," which is the term used by tacair guys in the US to indicate something more than an easy target, you escort it with at least four fighters. Two would stay with it to defend against fighter interventions, and two to accelerated ahead and clear the target area, a tactic called a Mig sweep. Either the Russians are fighting the most stupid war in history, or this stuff is pretty suspicious. Regarding this thread, the suggestion that drones could handle the Russian ground forces is preposterous, but when posted from a guy who seems to be watching his first war, not surprising. The "game day thread" approach lacks nothing but a "push 'em back. Push 'em back way back" cheerleader thing. On a good note, I think this is the end of Putin. This is so one sided in the international public opinion perspective, that he is done. Hopefully, he doesn't do anything really stupid in the endgame.

The friends have been hugged for years. Well before Trump.

There is a difference between "asking to pay more," and asking a country to live up to its agreed to obligations. Regarding you suggestion that it was done behind closed doors, that has been going on for years. Trump wasn't the first. I pointed out the real consequences of the failure of NATO allies to keep up their promises, and those realities are real. I am reminded of a flag US Army guy who was asked by someone what it would be like going to war without French support. His response was that; "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." The fact is that by failing to live up to agreed to obligations, some nations, with the absolute omission of the UK, are becoming accordions. Tanking. Command and Control. Electronic Warfare. Combat Search and Rescue. Airlift capability. Logistics support. Intel in the satellite and signal intel ops. Special Forces. Navy. It goes on and on, and two NATO "partners" are bearing the burden, which results, as I have posted and which you conveniently avoid, in huge effects on mission planning and likely casualties.

Your entire post is an end NATO suggestion. Some might think that is a bad idea. Further, the US never wanted control of Europe. Thus we never occupy land after a confrontation. NATO was formed to establish a coalition front among democracies against post WWII Soviet expansion after the Potsdam conference, and the US' interest was in establishing a situation where we didn't have to sacrifice another generation of our young men in successfully attempting to save Europe from itself, and its repeated habit of killing each other in land grab attempt. I'd be glad to get out, but given events of the past two weeks, that is less likely. None of that has anything to do with the legitimate suggestion that the us asks other NATO members to live up to their agreements.

I saw that, and God love the German allies, but I immediately thought of Sgt. Shultz.

Trump is a clown. That's the way he "negotiates," by threatening to kill a situation in an effort to get the other side to move. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the US was going to exit NATO. This is not a dictatorship, and for you to even think that was anything other than trying to get the other deadbeat members to live up to their agreement is, well-I won't use the word you called me. Look at NATO. Look at their capabilities, if yu even have the ability to understand such things. Where is the command and control coming from, ie AWACS/Early Warning? Where is the airlift capability coming from? (Here's an anecdotal. Years ago, France was enduring a killer heat wave and drought in its' southern region. They hadn't the internal ability to supply the region, so they asked the US and we did. That was their own citizens in their own country). No publicity, just handled. Where is the electronic countermeasure capability coming from, you know, the defensive forces required to protect their strike aircraft? Where is the airborne tanker capability coming from? The point is that the repeated failure to keep up created a huge disparity in capability, and anyone who knows anything about strike planning or combat air defense is well aware of the consequeces. But........Maybe I'm just ignorant.

Hey BillSTime. Your post is such a bizarre item that I'm not going to quote it. Instead I'll respond to the accusation made here: "Trump was hellbent on destroying NATO and used financing NATO as a red herring to discredit and delegitimize NATO because ignorant people like you would buy it hook line and sinker." "Ignorant people" like me? Have you ever planned a strike? Have you ever looked at NATO capability and actually tried to plan a reasonable military option? Here's a clue. The difference between individual capability in NATO was disproportionate and getting worse. That has a huge impact on planning a joint response to a serious threat. I cannot stand Trump, but the disparity in individual NATO capability, brought about by failure to abide by agreed funding, was grossly obvious and would have had significant negative results. If that makes me "ignorant," so be it.

Of course you did. HIs complaint was "factual," had existed for years, and should have been voiced by other Administrations across the NATO horizon.

I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything Trump had a responsibility to the US taxpayer to ask other countries to abide by agreements and pay their agreed portion. France, Turkey Italy, Germany and Canada weren't. The claim is somehow made that the individual, as the elected representative of his country is responsible for weakening the alliance, while being burdened with a disproportionate amount of the bill., but those not paying their share are not weakening the alliance. Ya. that makes sense. Canada, by the way, as of 2016, was the lowest contributor as a % of GDP, which was the understanding, so they, of course, should have the greatest leverage in criticizing. At some point we may even get somebody to call out the uselessness of the UN, another burden we disproportionally fund. But we're a ways away from that.

Gosh why would Trump do that? Should the fact that France, Germany, Turkey, Italy and Canada weren't living up to their agreements gone unmentioned after years of this? It was about time somebody mentioned it. NATO will coalesce over this hideous invasion if it comes to that. Heck, even Finland and Sweden, non NATO countries are aligning