astuteman wrote:

It's uncomfortable and perhaps even scary, but we absolutely have to call Putin's bluff, and be hard-over about it too.
We have to make it absolutely clear to him that there is no winning scenario whatever he threatens to do.
That is NOT the same as being a "western power mad warmonger". It the opposite actually.

Being wet and pansy is virtually guaranteed to end up with more people being killed and displaced than taking the hard line.
I think there's plenty of examples in history to support that

marcelh wrote:

There is a lot of room between “not frightened” and the enthusiasm some people over here are talking about nukes. This war is escalating beyond the Cuba crisis.

bikerthai wrote:

Kind of perverse, but I see one way to prevent use of tactical nuke is a long grind of a war with Ukraine slowly degrading the Russian army drip by drip until they get tired and go home.

A sudden offensive that smash the Russian line causing chaos would more likely cause panic and bring the nukes in to play.

bt

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

There is a lot of room between “not frightened” and the enthusiasm some people over here are talking about nukes. This war is escalating beyond the Cuba crisis.

Nobody here is talking about it with "enthusiasm". We merely decide how serious the threat really is. How many times have the Russians made this threat? Yet, they've never said in concrete terms what threat would cause them to use nukes. That's because they don't even know.

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

There is a lot of room between “not frightened” and the enthusiasm some people over here are talking about nukes. This war is escalating beyond the Cuba crisis.

Nobody here is talking about it with "enthusiasm". We merely decide how serious the threat really is. How many times have the Russians made this threat? Yet, they've never said in concrete terms what threat would cause them to use nukes. That's because they don't even know.

marcelh wrote:

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

There is a lot of room between “not frightened” and the enthusiasm some people over here are talking about nukes. This war is escalating beyond the Cuba crisis.

Nobody here is talking about it with "enthusiasm". We merely decide how serious the threat really is. How many times have the Russians made this threat? Yet, they've never said in concrete terms what threat would cause them to use nukes. That's because they don't even know.

The Russians haven’t been cornered yet, especially at the Ukrainian front. At the moment they have the opinion they are cornered, don’t be surprised they are going to use tactical nukes one way or another.

marcelh wrote:

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

There is a lot of room between “not frightened” and the enthusiasm some people over here are talking about nukes. This war is escalating beyond the Cuba crisis.

Nobody here is talking about it with "enthusiasm". We merely decide how serious the threat really is. How many times have the Russians made this threat? Yet, they've never said in concrete terms what threat would cause them to use nukes. That's because they don't even know.

The Russians haven’t been cornered yet, especially at the Ukrainian front. At the moment they have the opinion they are cornered, don’t be surprised they are going to use tactical nukes one way or another.

marcelh wrote:

The Russians haven’t been cornered yet, especially at the Ukrainian front. At the moment they have the opinion they are cornered, don’t be surprised they are going to use tactical nukes one way or another.

cpd wrote:

marcelh wrote:

cpd wrote:

I don’t believe in all that nonsense, when you are gone that’s it.

These types are just playing it up for the international audience, if it really happened they would be terrified.

They don’t scare me.

Let me guess: you aren’t in Europe?

I’m well within reach of Russian ICBMs and my country is supplying weapons (including artillery), so we are just as much a potential target as you are.

can’t even walk, so if it all goes wrong there will be no running to fallout bunkers (which we don’t have here anyway).

Worrying about Russian nuclear blackmail just encourages them more. If it happens, that’s it and Russia will also be a smoking radioactive mess as well. Mr Putin, do you want to take that chance?

Putin might not be around for that much longer:

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/un ... f400b52ab1

Look at the photo of him at the massive table, he looks in very poor health.

marcelh wrote:

cpd wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Let me guess: you aren’t in Europe?

I’m well within reach of Russian ICBMs and my country is supplying weapons (including artillery), so we are just as much a potential target as you are.

Never heard of tactical nukes? If those are going to be deployed and we have an atmospheric stream from the south East, a huge part of Europe is under threat of nuclear fall-out. That is much more a threat and something you don’t have to worry about.

can’t even walk, so if it all goes wrong there will be no running to fallout bunkers (which we don’t have here anyway).

Worrying about Russian nuclear blackmail just encourages them more. If it happens, that’s it and Russia will also be a smoking radioactive mess as well. Mr Putin, do you want to take that chance?

IMHO only thinking about nuclear ICBMs makes it clear you miss the whole picture. But agree to disagree.

Putin might not be around for that much longer:

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/un ... f400b52ab1

Look at the photo of him at the massive table, he looks in very poor health.

And what (who) is the alternative? Is there a viable crown prince who is “acceptable”?

marcelh wrote:

And what (who) is the alternative? Is there a viable crown prince who is “acceptable”?

marcelh wrote:

we have an atmospheric stream from the south East, a huge part of Europe is under threat of nuclear fall-out.

johns624 wrote:

You don't let your adversary determine what you do or don't do. If you do, you're constantly reacting instead of being proactive.

The Kvitnik is a 152 mm guided shell, while there is also a Kvitnik-E 155 mm export version, which was first publicly revealed in 2007.

bikerthai wrote:

I was wondering how Ukrainian artillery seemed to be able to get pin point hit on Russian armour.

Apparently here is the answer.

https://militaryleak.com/2022/04/02/ukr ... ition/?amp

The Kvitnik is a 152 mm guided shell, while there is also a Kvitnik-E 155 mm export version, which was first publicly revealed in 2007.

So they can also make the 155mm version. Perfect for the new tubes they will be getting.

bt

alberchico wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexLuck9/status/1519708072750776326

Another attack in Russia by Ukrainian forces ???

Ukrainians operating behind enemy lines have blown up an important railway bridge used by the Russians to ferry military supplies from Crimea to occupation forces in Melitopol

POTUS requesting another $33 billion for #Ukraine

"Addt'l security assistance will put urgently needed equipment into the hands of Ukraine's military & police...ammunition, armored vehicles, small arms,
demining assistance & unmanned aircraft systems" per Biden

PixelPilot wrote:

I saw a twitter thread this morning showing 7x 747 (Kalitta, Atlas & National) en route to Rzeszow with military stuff. Just from the US and all in the air.
russia has no way of resupplying just to catch up with the flow of new weapons going to Ukraine unless China or some other 3rd party starts contributing.
I honestly believe they will run out of options due to supply issues. Only question is what will they do when that happens.

Vintage wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

I saw a twitter thread this morning showing 7x 747 (Kalitta, Atlas & National) en route to Rzeszow with military stuff. Just from the US and all in the air.
russia has no way of resupplying just to catch up with the flow of new weapons going to Ukraine unless China or some other 3rd party starts contributing.
I honestly believe they will run out of options due to supply issues. Only question is what will they do when that happens.

There is a continuous stream of freighters landing at Rzeszow Jasionka Airport and there has been such for the last two months.

Two days ago, in another forum, someone logged the incoming flights into Rzeszow Jasionka, and the potential cargo amounted to two million pounds. That's a thousand tons of high value war material. It is worthy to note that on that day (Tuesday); no C5bs showed up, and they have been regulars lately.

This of course doesn't include the material that arrives by truck and rail from Western Europe.

Vintage wrote:

Right now there an apparently lost Silk Way West Airlines 747 flying Frankfort - Baku that is over the Black Sea heading straight into the Crimean peninsula after flying through Romanian and Ukrainian airspace. If the Captain looks off to his left he may get to see tracers.


(Boeing 747-4R7F Registration 4K-SW800)

WoW he just made landfall.

ReverseFlow wrote:

There is also a Russian air force IL-62MK flying over the eastern Black Sea possibly to Crimea. Not seen that as visible before.

https://fr24.com/2ba88079

Vintage wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

There is also a Russian air force IL-62MK flying over the eastern Black Sea possibly to Crimea. Not seen that as visible before.

https://fr24.com/2ba88079

Yea, odd flight path for that one too.

The Silk Way 747 continues on. He was 200 miles north of the rest of the traffic flow.

Vintage wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

There is also a Russian air force IL-62MK flying over the eastern Black Sea possibly to Crimea. Not seen that as visible before.

https://fr24.com/2ba88079

Yea, odd flight path for that one too.

The Silk Way 747 continues on. He was 200 miles north of the test if the traffic flow.

Vintage wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

There is also a Russian air force IL-62MK flying over the eastern Black Sea possibly to Crimea. Not seen that as visible before.

https://fr24.com/2ba88079

Yea, odd flight path for that one too.

The Silk Way 747 continues on. He was 200 miles north of the rest of the traffic flow.

alberchico wrote:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1519560504712253440.html

This informative thread explains why Putin hasn't declared war and fully mobilized Russia, he simply can't.

Braybuddy wrote:

Interesting outburst on Russian TV:
https://mobile.twitter.com/carlbildt/st ... 1372968960

Vintage wrote:

This is inexplicable; If FR24 was projecting the flight path (after the transponder was shut off?) why would FR24 have it make a 20° left turn at that point? At the time it was over Crimea, it was a normal line, not a black dashed line.

Braybuddy wrote:

This article in today's Moscow Times is very interesting, and gives us an insight into what seems to be going on behind the scenes in Moscow. It would seem not everyone is on the same page as Putin, and cracks are starting to appear at the highest levels. No wonder he's been looking pretty stressed lately:

"Russia’s military believes that limiting the war’s initial goals is a serious error. They now argue that Russia is not fighting Ukraine, but NATO. Senior officers have therefore concluded that the Western alliance is fighting all out . . . while its own forces operate under peacetime constraints like a bar on airstrikes against some key areas of Ukraine’s infrastructure. In short, the military now demands all-out war, including mobilization. The frustration is becoming so intense that it has spilled over into the public space.  Alexander Arutyunov (aka, the blogger RAZVEDOS), a well-known veteran of Spetsnaz of the National Guard, made a video plea to Putin: "Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, please decide, are we fighting a war or are we masturbating?" He demanded a massive escalation, with a choice of airstrikes on Ukrainian infrastructure or an end to the war."

And, disturbingly:

"The author expressed optimism that the Russian air force will be able to staunch the flow of Western supplies but warned that further Ukrainian victories “will almost certainly prompt the use of nuclear weapons” against targets in Ukraine. Privately, the army, and even the secret services, have been heard to blame not only the Fifth Service of the FSB for misinforming the president, but also the president himself for making a bad call on changing the military strategy. Does it matter? It matters a lot. This is the very first time the siloviki are putting distance between themselves and the president. Which opens up all sorts of possibilities."

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/04/ ... ces-a77508

cpd wrote:

NATO isn’t going all out yet.

It hasn’t used tactical nukes yet. Continual Russian provocation is pointless.

What if we had some semi official media channels in the west talking up nuclear conflict like the Russians do, daily….

Russia raised the alarm over "acts of terrorism" in Moldova's Moscow-backed breakaway region of Transnistria after separatist authorities reported several attacks there this week.

"We are alarmed by the escalation of tensions in Transnistria," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during her weekly briefing, pointing to reports of shootings and explosions.

"We regard these actions as acts of terrorism aimed at destabilising the situation in the region and expect a thorough and objective investigation," Zakharova added.

She said Russia "strongly condemns" attempts to involve Transnistria in the conflict in neighboring Ukraine, where Moscow has been conducting a military operation for more than two months.

Zakharova also dismissed a "sensational statement" from Ukraine about Russian peacekeepers and Transnistrian conscripts preparing "for some offensive actions."

marcelh wrote:

cpd wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Let me guess: you aren’t in Europe?

I’m well within reach of Russian ICBMs and my country is supplying weapons (including artillery), so we are just as much a potential target as you are.

Never heard of tactical nukes? If those are going to be deployed and we have an atmospheric stream from the south East, a huge part of Europe is under threat of nuclear fall-out. That is much more a threat and something you don’t have to worry about.

johns624 wrote:

You don't let your adversary determine what you do or don't do. If you do, you're constantly reacting instead of being proactive.

marcelh wrote:

johns624 wrote:

You don't let your adversary determine what you do or don't do. If you do, you're constantly reacting instead of being proactive.

An American talking about “being proactive”… we’ve seen that a lot after the end of the Cold War and it was a huge success.

art wrote:

marcelh wrote:

johns624 wrote:

You don't let your adversary determine what you do or don't do. If you do, you're constantly reacting instead of being proactive.

An American talking about “being proactive”… we’ve seen that a lot after the end of the Cold War and it was a huge success.

What #johns624 said was true, though, wasn't it? Very much so in the context of the Ukraine. We have a situation in which if this were a golf match between two players, Putin would be dictating what clubs his opponent was allowed to use.

The United Kingdom has confirmed that it’s sending Brimstone precision-guided missiles to Ukraine, as part of a steadily expanding supply of weapons the country is providing to help resist the Russian invasion, which is now in its 64th day. Interestingly, accounts from British officials and media are currently at odds as to whether the missiles being supplied are intended as anti-ship weapons, for attacking ground targets, or perhaps even both.

a British government official, James Heappey, the U.K.’s armed forces minister, has confirmed that “hundreds” of Brimstone missiles will be sent to Ukraine, where the first examples should arrive in the “next few weeks.”

marcelh wrote:

When I watch/read the recent US rhetoric, this war isn’t about defending Ukraine anymore, but to emasculate the Russians