At a secret airfield in Eastern Europe, a multinational effort to send weapons to Ukraine proceeds at high speed

[Craig234]

i'm talking about the "freedom fighters" and all the stuff the allies are gonna funnel to the Ukrainians even if Russia takes cities/areas. they're not gonna just give up and this could turn into a Vietnam or Northern Ireland for a decade.

So was I. And there is huge devastation as they take the cities, as I said.

 

[Lafayette]

So was I. And there is huge devastation as they take the cities, as I said.

I am not sure that Putin understands the "shat" into which he's thrown Russia.

Things are going to ge A LOT WORSE in Russia and it could be so bad that someone will be pushed to get rid of him. And, surely he knows that and is taking precautions.

But, sooner or later, IT will happen.

Those that took advantage 20-years ago and sent their billions to other countries have already paid the price of Putin's recent excursion into the Ukraine. Their funds have been sequestered - and they are highly unlikely to get them back. They will be held in sequester and wait until a genuine democracy takes its place in Russia, whereupon they will be given back.

And it can't be soon enough ...

 

[Warcok]

I don't wanna bail Europe out of a 3rd civil war. Let them kill each other off so we can finally turn that continent into a medieval amusement park.

 

[Hypothetical]

uch as…?



So given this point, I assume that “needs to do as much as humanly and logically possible” would mean stopping the invasion in the immediate term. So what would that be?

heavier sanctions come to mind.

 

[Hypothetical]

If you mean American kids joining the massacre in the Ukraine then you are very, very wrong.

The US can do what everybody else is doing - helping the Ukraines defend their country by military-means.

But, that's all. As for Russia, with the total lock-down on everything by a corrupt and deranged person, it is up to the Russians to put the country right.

If they are up-to-it, which is a sad question to answer ...

i said logically possible , so no that does mean risking WW3 immediately.

however, if he continues to other countries that are in NATO, we are going to need to take a stand.

 

[Cardinal]

heavier sanctions come to mind.

Such as?

 

[Hypothetical]

Such as?

russian oil and natural gas to be included in our current sanctions.

 

[Cardinal]

russian oil and natural gas to be included in our current sanctions.

It's a nice thought, but where is Europe supposed to get their gas for heating? Remember we're talking in the immediate short term, not the long term.

 

[Hypothetical]

It's a nice thought, but where is Europe supposed to get their gas for heating? Remember we're talking in the immediate short term, not the long term.

oh and how do our sanctions affect Europe exactly? i said WE should sanction it. if they cannot yet, then they cannot yet... but they really ought to find a better provider for oil an natural gas pronto.

 

[Chomsky]

I am not as optimistic as you, but this the 12 day and the season of mud approaches... in 9 days it should arrive and if Russia has not taken Kiev by then, the Russian supply situation should worsen.

After looking at some rather detailed videos it is clearer to me why the Russians have had difficulties. In short:

-They inserted paratroopers deep into Ukraine, only to have them surrounded and often eliminated.
-They failed to knockout the air force.
-They failed to prevent easy movement of Ukrainian forces.
-They had poor coordination between top cover fighters and ground attack aircraft.
-They failed to knock out communications, or command and control.
-They weren't prepared, plans were slapped together, commanders didn't even know of the offensive till the order was issued to cross the border. Maps were not provided, channels are for radio are unencrypted, etc.
-Ukrainians do not concentrate forces till needed, keeping them dispersed to lessen chances of being destroyed by artillery or air.
-Ukrainians learned all the Russian tricks from their years of conflict in the eastern Ukraine.
-Ukrainians have their own tricks, such as cheap domestic produced drones with bombs...kamakasie's if you will.

The most egregious problem, however, is Russia's military structure. Because roads are problematical in much of Russia, the army is built around rail transport. The theory, for self defense, makes sense. Lots of rail lines in Russia, and railroad repair battalions attached to units. However, Russians have many fewer trucks, and fewer fuel trucks, than US military. Moreover, while the west uses 'pull' supply (units order what they need) Russians use 'push' supply (top command decides what units need and don't need, and it is sent to all regardless of their needs).

They dispatched convoy, four abreast, shoulder to shoulder with no return lane. Because of the low number of trucks, maximum distance from a railhead is less than 90 miles (or Km, not sure). Ukrainians have blown their own rail lines and bridges. And Ukrainians have made fuel trucks their priority target.

It's worked. Russians have tried disguising fuel trucks, Ukrainians quickly caught on and used social media to distribute instructions and photos on how to detect them. Worse yet, going off road even now is very difficult because of mud...exacerbated by intentionally flooded fields (and the Russian destruction of a dam...kinda stupid, eh?)

Limited on food, fuel, and ammo...lead units of the convoy have been checked, and the line repeatedly attacked along its length.

Wow!

There's a ton of research & data here! Thank you!

You have enough interesting material that you could easily start your own thread. Not that I'm saying you should. But yours is quite the post! Again, thank you for your contribution!

 

[maxparrish]

Wow!

There's a ton of research & data here! Thank you!

You have enough interesting material that you could easily start your own thread. Not that I'm saying you should. But yours is quite the post! Again, thank you for your contribution!

You're welcome.

 

[Chomsky]

I read some statistics. Putin has committed about half his tanks to Ukraine. Looks to be the older tanks too. I am sure that ratio is true for the rest of it as well.

That would be interesting, if true.

I've been seeing general headlines claiming Putin has placed 95% 'of his military' to Ukraine, though I have no idea what that means exactly.

I wonder why he sent the older equipment in? Perhaps to keep the good stuff for defense, just in case?

 

[Chomsky]

Thank you for posting this Chomsky, good to know. I remain hopeful for Ukraine.

You're welcome. Thanks for stopping by.

I was concerned I might be construed to be 'pimping my thread'. But as I was out & about in other areas of the forum, I felt their were a few posters such as yourself, given the posts I read, who might appreciate the OP source article.

 

[Chomsky]

I am not as optimistic as you, but this the 12 day and the season of mud approaches... in 9 days it should arrive and if Russia has not taken Kiev by then, the Russian supply situation should worsen.

After looking at some rather detailed videos it is clearer to me why the Russians have had difficulties. In short:

-They inserted paratroopers deep into Ukraine, only to have them surrounded and often eliminated.
-They failed to knockout the air force.
-They failed to prevent easy movement of Ukrainian forces.
-They had poor coordination between top cover fighters and ground attack aircraft.
-They failed to knock out communications, or command and control.
-They weren't prepared, plans were slapped together, commanders didn't even know of the offensive till the order was issued to cross the border. Maps were not provided, channels are for radio are unencrypted, etc.
-Ukrainians do not concentrate forces till needed, keeping them dispersed to lessen chances of being destroyed by artillery or air.
-Ukrainians learned all the Russian tricks from their years of conflict in the eastern Ukraine.
-Ukrainians have their own tricks, such as cheap domestic produced drones with bombs...kamakasie's if you will.

The most egregious problem, however, is Russia's military structure. Because roads are problematical in much of Russia, the army is built around rail transport. The theory, for self defense, makes sense. Lots of rail lines in Russia, and railroad repair battalions attached to units. However, Russians have many fewer trucks, and fewer fuel trucks, than US military. Moreover, while the west uses 'pull' supply (units order what they need) Russians use 'push' supply (top command decides what units need and don't need, and it is sent to all regardless of their needs).

They dispatched convoy, four abreast, shoulder to shoulder with no return lane. Because of the low number of trucks, maximum distance from a railhead is less than 90 miles (or Km, not sure). Ukrainians have blown their own rail lines and bridges. And Ukrainians have made fuel trucks their priority target.

It's worked. Russians have tried disguising fuel trucks, Ukrainians quickly caught on and used social media to distribute instructions and photos on how to detect them. Worse yet, going off road even now is very difficult because of mud...exacerbated by intentionally flooded fields (and the Russian destruction of a dam...kinda stupid, eh?)

Limited on food, fuel, and ammo...lead units of the convoy have been checked, and the line repeatedly attacked along its length.

Again, you've provided tons of data & insight. Thanks, again.

 

[Chomsky]

Fer cryin' out loud, how secret can it be or stay now that its existence has been revealed. Are Russia's satellites shut down? Is there no way for them to search for and detect the huge increase in flights to the secret airfield?

Just think of this: If the U.S. & NATO are copping to this stuff, imagine what they don't talk about?

 

[Rexedgar]

That would be interesting, if true.

I've been seeing general headlines claiming Putin has placed 95% 'of his military' to Ukraine, though I have no idea what that means exactly.

I wonder why he sent the older equipment in? Perhaps to keep the good stuff for defense, just in case?

I understood the 95% number to be the troops and support that Putin had built up around Ukraine. There are reports that it is 100% as of now.

 

[Chomsky]

They'd already suspect it and could already use whatever satellites they have. But even if they know where the base is, it's on NATO territory and they can't attack it, and it's near the western border where they don't have forces.

To say nothing of the political & military ramifications.

I think we now know why Putin increased his savagery the past days.

 

[Chomsky]

So the problems that NATO has giving Ukraine a "no-fly zone" due to our being unable to shoot down Russian planes at will has a benefit. Russia cannot shoot down, or shoot upon, NATO forces on NATO territory at will. I wonder if anyone will remember this the next time someone demands a "no-fly zone" to save Europe.

Interesting insight, NewfieMom!

 

[Chomsky]

Nah.
Pending any non-proliferation treaties they have signed, sovereign nations are free to do with their property as they please.
Free to donate it, free to sell it, and free to delay or even refrain from collecting payment if the buyer should be experiencing temporary financial issues.

No idea what the bolded has to do with my premise?

My reference to 'proxy war' is largely directed at Ukraine. I suspect Putin sees it this way, too.

 

[Chomsky]

WHY DID RUSSIA ATTACK THE UKRAINE?



We who? The US is NOT in a proxy war. Russia will never ever attack NATO so the legal basis for the US joining "the present mess" is simply non-existent. It is nonetheless a defensive measure against the Russian invasion of an independent country.

Which is why it's 'proxy war'!

The US and EU can help however by offering the means to defend itself to the existing government. As for Putin, he's a dead-duck but doesn't know it. Yet. Russia is diving into an economic-mess and wont recover for quite a while. (But, the Russians are still swayed by political-hype as before under Communism.)

Which, they seem to be doing.

The Ukraine is not a member of NATO. It does have an association agreement with NATO and therein is the reason that Russia has attacked the country. That agreement is to be found here.

Excerpt:


Which, if you ask me, is provocative and perhaps the reason why Russia attacked.

I still don't see the above as justification for Putin's attack.

Putin doesn't need excuse to annex territory; It's what he does.

As for the predation that happened once Russia had dropped the "Soviet Union", that key bit of Russian history can be found here: Stealing Russia Blind

Excerpt:


And Putin is not the only thief in Russia. All that capital (that escaped out of Russia) now being put under provisional seizure in the western-countries is sourced from the time the Soviet Union existed and upon closure was "wiped up" by a select group of individuals ...

PS: Worth a read if interested in historical background of the New Russia under Putin here: The man who fought to sanction Putin and Russian Oligarchs, with Bill Browder

Yes, agreed, the Putin administration, with the Oligarchs to varying degrees, can be best thought of as a criminal organization - I think.

Thanks not just for your opinion, but for your abundant use of reference & supporting documentation. I've only had a chance to skim your sources, but have bookmarked them. I'm partial to U of C in general, so that article is definitely on my reading list.

 

[Chomsky]

The US and Russia have had many proxy wars without it escalating to nuclear conflict. The problem here is that Putin has boxed himself in, where it's hard to see how he can continue in power.

Fair point, to which I agree could be possible.

 

[Chomsky]

TIME WILL TELL



As long as he controls the Russian military-arm, he controls the country ...

And time-after-time history tells us that such does not always last forever. The scheme just might make war slightly more inevitable as it did under Hitler.

But, though some might like to think that Putin is Russia's Hitler, that is not necessarily the whole truth. Let's remember that Putin "stole the Russian presidency" by doctoring the vote count. He's been winning the popular vote since the first "open" election in Russia (2002)? C'mon!

He thinks he's "glued" to the Russian-presidency for the rest of his life - but with the recent "financial closure" of Russian assets things may change very quickly. What does twenty-years (that he has been in power) mean in terms of the voting-constituency of Russia?

Unfortunately, Putin has a very good system of propaganda and information control in place.

How much of the truth, will the average Russian hear?

That there are a lot of very-young people who may question his obvious "stealth" of the Russian presidency! Also, the older people in their 30s/40s might be upset with what is going to happen to the Russian economy. (Of course they could blame the "European Union" but that wont help.)

Time will tell, as it always does ...

Ah, now I will play Devil's Advocate to my earlier statement above: It is very hard to stop the internet completely, and technically savvy young people may hold the key to disseminating information and effecting a change.

 

[Lutherf]

Fer cryin' out loud, how secret can it be or stay now that its existence has been revealed. Are Russia's satellites shut down? Is there no way for them to search for and detect the huge increase in flights to the secret airfield?

It's definitely secret. CNN says so.

 

[Chomsky]

There is much that goes on behind the scenes. This President can keep his mouth shut, no need to brag on the day.

It's not even to quell, 'bragging'. It is politics & security!

 

[Chomsky]

No matter what they take how are they gonna keep it?

Bingo!

That's the $64K question!