aristocrat Posted February 17 Posted February 17 17 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: I know some of our more brain dead posters are going to call me a warmonger or whatever, but hear me out. If Putin's current strategy works, and Russia keeps the ability to execute it after he dies... What incentive does the next Russian leader have to stop using it? His current strategy is working. Ukraine is at best just holding to a stalemate. They just lost a city and retreated. Hell Russia might not even want a peace agreement with how it’s going.
ChiGoose Posted February 17 Posted February 17 Here’s a good analysis of how the F-16 could change the environment in Ukraine: The air war over Ukraine
Doc Posted February 17 Posted February 17 36 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: I know some of our more brain dead posters are going to call me a warmonger or whatever, but hear me out. If Putin's current strategy works, and Russia keeps the ability to execute it after he dies... What incentive does the next Russian leader have to stop using it? Is this the "Putin/Russia is going to start invading NATO countries" again? 1
Tommy Callahan Posted February 17 Posted February 17 (edited) Nice propaganda piece. F-16s firing 350-pound AIM-120s still are at a range disadvantage compared to MiG-31s firing R-37Ms. And Russia is using mig 31s all over Ukraine. Those voices said the same about cluster munitions, tanks, and what not. Almost like a military industrial commercial. Edited February 17 by Tommy Callahan
US Egg Posted February 17 Posted February 17 2 hours ago, aristocrat said: except they have nukes. What happens if they fire the nukes? You’re talking about the end of the world Giving the Ukraine F-16’s raises that spectre, since they can carry nukes.
aristocrat Posted February 17 Posted February 17 28 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Here’s a good analysis of how the F-16 could change the environment in Ukraine: The air war over Ukraine We thought taking the super yachts would do it too lol. What happened to those things by the way? Wonder how much we’re paying to keep those babies docked up and maintained? And the private jets?
sherpa Posted February 17 Posted February 17 The F-16 is not a game changer. It gives them more ability with older AMRAAM missiles and HARM. The problem is that the efficacy of air warfare depends on integrated deployment of a number of things. Jamming and other electronic warfare components are an integral part, and they don't have it. Russian anti air defenses are significant and capable. The F-16 would not do well against them, so must be kept out of range or low enough to avoid detection. That would limit effectiveness. It would limit Russian air offensive capabilities, but that isn't what they are doing. They are doing what Russians always do, which is ground stuff.
ChiGoose Posted February 17 Posted February 17 1 hour ago, aristocrat said: We thought taking the super yachts would do it too lol. What happened to those things by the way? Wonder how much we’re paying to keep those babies docked up and maintained? And the private jets? Who thought taking the super yachts would end the war?
aristocrat Posted February 17 Posted February 17 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Who thought taking the super yachts would end the war? Lots of people. They thought it would turn the oligarchs against him and he’d back down.
ChiGoose Posted February 17 Posted February 17 1 hour ago, aristocrat said: Lots of people. They thought it would turn the oligarchs against him and he’d back down. I mean, there was a hope that it would cause friction with the oligarchs but there isn’t a “one weird trick” to end the war.
Coffeesforclosers Posted February 17 Posted February 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, aristocrat said: His current strategy is working. Ukraine is at best just holding to a stalemate. They just lost a city and retreated. Hell Russia might not even want a peace agreement with how it’s going. Right. So let's say Ukraine loses, and Russia swallows them up, but Putin dies. What incentives are their for his successor to aside Putin's toolkit, if it turns out it works? 4 hours ago, Doc said: Is this the "Putin/Russia is going to start invading NATO countries" again? Nope! Edited February 17 by Coffeesforclosers
Doc Posted February 17 Posted February 17 42 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Right. So let's say Ukraine loses, and Russia swallows them up, but Putin dies. What incentives are their for his successor to aside Putin's toolkit, if it turns out it works? Nope! Where are they going after Ukraine?
Coffeesforclosers Posted February 17 Posted February 17 2 hours ago, Doc said: Where are they going after Ukraine? Growing BRICS?
ChiGoose Posted February 17 Posted February 17 53 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Growing BRICS? Probably Moldova. They already have their little green men there in Transnistria. Also, if Ukraine falls because the West fails to support it, that gives the green light to China, Iran, and even North Korea.
aristocrat Posted February 18 Posted February 18 17 hours ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Right. So let's say Ukraine loses, and Russia swallows them up, but Putin dies. What incentives are their for his successor to aside Putin's toolkit, if it turns out it works? Nope! none.but that’s not what I said. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 18 Posted February 18 13 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Probably Moldova. They already have their little green men there in Transnistria. Also, if Ukraine falls because the West fails to support it, that gives the green light to China, Iran, and even North Korea. So the fate of the world and human civilizations is dependent on the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine? A place on Earth no American cared about until a few years ago. Thst's one possibility but I could generate lots of other potential outcomes most of which are more plausible. I recall previous experts issuing similiiar dire warnings in the Vietnam era. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 18 Posted February 18 (edited) 2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: So the fate of the world and human civilizations is dependent on the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine? A place on Earth no American cared about until a few years ago. Thst's one possibility but I could generate lots of other potential outcomes most of which are more plausible. I recall previous experts issuing similiiar dire warnings in the Vietnam era. Vietnam isn't bordering European NATO nations. interesting that the right was pro vietnam war and the left anti vietnam on the population level. For Ukraine, it's flipped. Edited February 18 by Joe Ferguson forever 1
ChiGoose Posted February 18 Posted February 18 4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: So the fate of the world and human civilizations is dependent on the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine? A place on Earth no American cared about until a few years ago. Thst's one possibility but I could generate lots of other potential outcomes most of which are more plausible. I recall previous experts issuing similiiar dire warnings in the Vietnam era. Not necessarily, but it's a very slippery slope to global chaos and potential war should Ukraine fall. The idea that Russia would just stop with Ukraine and other anti-Western powers would take no lesson from their success is just wish-casting and requires ignoring history and what we're currently seeing. Authoritarian powers are looking to test the commitment of the West to democracy and freedom. It's why China has been pushing the belt and road initiative, and it's why Russia has been interfering in elections in western countries. There's also a populist isolationist movement rising in America that would have us turn away from the world. ~80 years after we built a global ecosystem with us at the top, many in America would rather cede that responsibility to China or whoever else would grab it. Should we abandon Ukraine to Russia, it'll give the green light to whoever wishes to challenge us for global hegemony. Defending Ukraine requires us to risk none of our soldiers and just a fraction of our annual military budget to essentially destroy Russia's ability to make war. If we can't even rise to that, why would China think we'd intervene should it invade Taiwan? Would North Korea really believe that we would defend South Korea? Foreign adversaries are watching for weaknesses in our commitments and we seem happy to show them what they want to see. 1 3
Recommended Posts