[W:#23,579]Ukraine War Thread

[JANFU]

Zelenskyy telling Bulgarian president about the war.During the meeting of the delegations, Radev said that there is "no military solution" to the war in Ukraine and that "more and more weapons will not solve the problem." In response, Zelenskyy asked how Bulgaria would act."Would you say, 'Putin, please take over the territory of Bulgaria?' No, you will not compromise your independence. It is your right not to support aid to Ukraine. But I would really like you to understand me correctly," he said.

 

[marduc]

Yes let's get WW3 really going. What are we waiting for right?

So you think a no fly zone over Ukraine's territory is a precipice that could initiate WW3?

 

[JANFU]

Ukraine’s top military officials began rallying for U.S.-made cluster munitions that had been sitting on the shelf for years back in August 2022, as the back-and-forth artillery war with Russia began to drain Western ammunition stockpiles and U.S.-built 155 mm howitzers faced significant overuse. The outcry to send the cluster munition variant—which are far more highly explosive than standard artillery rounds and were first fielded during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union’s numerical superiority in a tank advance on NATO soil—only increased as Russia hunkered down into fortified defenses to prepare for Ukraine’s counteroffensive.

“Given the fact that [Russia] will rely more and more on manpower proportionate to other arms, cluster munitions become more and more important,” said Mykola Bielieskov, a research fellow at Ukraine’s National Institute for Strategic Studies, which advises the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “Plus, it’s a good way to preserve high-explosive 155 mm shells.”

Biden Set to OK Cluster Munitions for Ukraine

The decision to send the controversial weapons comes after months of knife fights within the U.S. administration.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[JANFU]

So you think a no fly zone over Ukraine's territory is a precipice that could initiate WW3?

Yes

 

[911Sparky]

That is the crux of the matter. History will be rolled back thousands of years to when local strong men would lead armies in, conquer a couple of villages or towns and run off with their women and children.
Allowing Russia to roll in, steal 20% of Ukraine and take Ukrainian citizens off to become forcibly nativised is a recipe for this happening elsewhere in the world.

The Russians act like rabid animals and should be disposed of as such.

 

[NWRatCon]

Why Ukraine's strategy terrifies the Russian army​

 

[justoneman]

So you think a no fly zone over Ukraine's territory is a precipice that could initiate WW3?

Obviously the US shooting down Russian jets (or vice versa) is the start of WW3.

 

[Variant]

So you think a no fly zone over Ukraine's territory is a precipice that could initiate WW3?

Enforcing a no fly zone over Ukraine would need to mean we would be willing and able to strike anti air positions inside of Russia.

So, we can't do it if we are unwilling to strike targets inside of Russia. Not to mention that Russia has been provoking even our drones in the area, so it would likely lead to at least a conventional war between NATO and Russia.

 

[NWRatCon]

So you think a no fly zone over Ukraine's territory is a precipice that could initiate WW3?

Yes

Here's why I don't think so.

It should start with protection of critical civilian infrastructure - like power stations. Nowhere near the front, initially. But near NATO territory on the Western border. And, protection of shipping locations - like Odesa and Kherson, and the routes to the Mediterranean. That is for humanitarian aid, and the interests of the world. International control of the ZNPP. Specific locations that the world can understand. Make it hard for Russia to protest, but do it anyway.

Once that is established, it might need to be expanded for logistical reasons. Say, all of the sea areas west of the Crimean peninsula. The protection of Moldova, too, perhaps.

Then, of course, if Russia violates that airspace... well, then there will have to be sanctions and other repercussions. Impoundment of Russian commercial traffic.

But, I think that the international community lost an opportunity after the Kakhovka dam breach. They should have taken action then, to push international aid to the affected area. Do it, and prevent Russia from doing anything about it - because they can't. A no fly zone would have been a natural adjunct to that activity.

Finally, I have stated numerous times in this thread, it is a false assertion that this "could initiate WW3". That has already started, we just don't acknowledge it as such, yet.

 

[justoneman]

Finally, I have stated numerous times in this thread, it is a false assertion that this "could initiate WW3". That has already started, we just don't acknowledge it as such, yet.

Crazy talk. Pure warmongering.

 

[maxparrish]

They should have been there in the fall, I think that was when Ukraine asked
Country leaders getting their respective sexual organs in a twist, while Russia uses that uses them, Ukraine uses them, and they asked
Not approving this quickly is just plain stupid

It has been militarily stupid, especially as the Russians have been using the equivalent all along. But I suspect there has been an unrealistic over sensitivity to "bad conventional weapons" , things that 'feel' wrong ... somehow.

The result has been western incrementalism, the goal to do no more than what is absolutely necessary in the hopes it will be sufficient When that doesn't happen, the allies try a little more and when that does not work, they do it again and again. And, of course, incrementalism gives he enemy more time to mobilize its larger population, to build fortress lines, to create large minefields, to compile stocks, to pull more equipment from retired dumps and refurbish them, and to learn from their mistakes.

I'm not saying that incrementalism can't compel an enemy to sue for peace on unfavorable terms, but it is unlikely if the enemy can dig deeper and last longer than you can. And unless and until Russia starts suffering domestically, I am not so sure that Ukraine's willingness to take endless killing and destruction of Ukraine itself will hold up.

 

[marduc]

Yes

Obviously the US shooting down Russian jets (or vice versa) is the start of WW3.

Enforcing a no fly zone over Ukraine would need to mean we would be willing and able to strike anti air positions inside of Russia.

So, we can't do it if we are unwilling to strike targets inside of Russia. Not to mention that Russia has been provoking even our drones in the area, so it would likely lead to at least a conventional war between NATO and Russia.

IMO it is a high stakes game of chicken that nobody is willing to play; however in the current state of affairs and Russia's weakened position and exposed Achilles heel, they would in fact back down and realize that going nuclear assures their annihilation. It is all bluster.

A conventional war would be lopsided given the current investments.

Granted as an arm chair general that is a much easier call to make from here than throwing the dice when the fate of civilizations as we know it hinges on that toss.

 

[Variant]

IMO it is a high stakes game of chicken that nobody is willing to play; however in the current state of affairs and Russia's weakened position and exposed Achilles heel, they would in fact back down and realize that going nuclear assures their annihilation. It is all bluster.

A conventional war would be lopsided given the current investments.

Granted as an arm chair general that is a much easier call to make from here than throwing the dice when the fate of civilizations as we know it hinges on that toss.

I'm saying that enforcing a no fly zone requires acts of war if the other side doesn't simply give up immediately.

Or, you could enforce it in such a way that our pilots would always be at risk because we don't fly with active anti-air aimed at us.

Once at war the threat of escalation past conventional goes up exponentially.

We've been pretty clear that we're not interested in being at war with Russia and have been ignoring their attempts at provocation for some time now.

 

[marduc]

I'm saying that enforcing a no fly zone requires acts of war if the other side doesn't simply give up immediately.

Or, you could enforce it in such a way that our pilots would always be at risk because we don't fly with active anti-air aimed at us.

Once at war the threat of escalation past conventional goes up exponentially.

We've been pretty clear that we're not interested in being at war with Russia and have been ignoring their attempts at provocation for some time now.

and that is the high stakes game of chicken I was referring to.

It will not happen because the will to play that game is not there. That is precisely the calculus that Russia counted on when they initially invaded.

I apologize for taking this thread on a temporary hypothetical tangent.

 

[maxparrish]

Here's why I don't think so.

It should start with protection of critical civilian infrastructure - like power stations. Nowhere near the front, initially. But near NATO territory on the Western border. And, protection of shipping locations - like Odesa and Kherson, and the routes to the Mediterranean. That is for humanitarian aid, and the interests of the world. International control of the ZNPP. Specific locations that the world can understand. Make it hard for Russia to protest, but do it anyway.

Once that is established, it might need to be expanded for logistical reasons. Say, all of the sea areas west of the Crimean peninsula. The protection of Moldova, too, perhaps.

Then, of course, if Russia violates that airspace... well, then there will have to be sanctions and other repercussions. Impoundment of Russian commercial traffic.

But, I think that the international community lost an opportunity after the Kakhovka dam breach. They should have taken action then, to push international aid to the affected area. Do it, and prevent Russia from doing anything about it - because they can't. A no fly zone would have been a natural adjunct to that activity.

Finally, I have stated numerous times in this thread, it is a false assertion that this "could initiate WW3". That has already started, we just don't acknowledge it as such, yet.

Without attempting to dissect specifics, I agree that there have been missed opportunities to justify a no fly zone over some parts of Ukraine. Upon the wars outset to protect civilian refugees, during the wholesale destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure during the winter missile blitz, and after the dam destruction when Russia started shelling rescue workers. Any of them provides a justification.

However, how much could it have helped Ukraine? The US no fly zone would never have extended over the front lines, so would the US risk attacking Russian artillery units guilty of shelling evacuation corridors? Those shelling the flooded zone where rescuers worked?

I'm thinking its major benefit would be to fly over the rest country where the ground war was not in progress. In that role, they could have assisted in the shooting down of cruise missiles.

So in sum, used in that manner I doubt it would have not caused WW3.

 

[justoneman]

and that is the high stakes game of chicken I was referring to.

It will not happen because the will to play that game is not there. That is precisely the calculus that Russia counted on when they initially invaded.

I apologize for taking this thread on a temporary hypothetical tangent.

It is not a tangent. It is at the heart of it all.

 

[marduc]

It is not a tangent. It is at the heart of it all.

The bluff needs called in my layman's opinion. Russia is all bluster and no spine

 

[maxparrish]

View attachment 67455466

Hopefully 50 a day will drive the orcs away.

 

[justoneman]

The bluff needs called in my layman's opinion. Russia is all bluster and no spine

So now you want the US to directly fight Russia. You are just like all of the other warmongers here playing armchair general.

 

[maxparrish]

Enforcing a no fly zone over Ukraine would need to mean we would be willing and able to strike anti air positions inside of Russia.

So, we can't do it if we are unwilling to strike targets inside of Russia. Not to mention that Russia has been provoking even our drones in the area, so it would likely lead to at least a conventional war between NATO and Russia.

A good point that I overlooked.

 

[Variant]

and that is the high stakes game of chicken I was referring to.

It will not happen because the will to play that game is not there. That is precisely the calculus that Russia counted on when they initially invaded.

I don't think Russia calculated very well at all. They probably got it right that the US wasn't going to get directly involved without a lot of provocation though.

I apologize for taking this thread on a temporary hypothetical tangent.

It feels germane to the discussion.

 

[maxparrish]

Biden Set to OK Cluster Munitions for Ukraine

The decision to send the controversial weapons comes after months of knife fights within the U.S. administration.

foreignpolicy.com

What many don't understand is that, as you quoted, this is a very old request and NOT just because the cluster munitions would be far more effective.

The unsolved problem for the war's outset has been the lack of, or shortage of, certain munitions and weapons platforms. One reason many pressed for planes, atacms, and clusters was that they could serve to mitigate the inability of the west to provide adequate munitions, not just in 155mm but also Soviet calibers.

Sitting on the shelf are up to 2 million shells in 155mm that have not be recycled or retired (in 2010 there were around 5 million cluster shells). Needless to say, Ukraines solution to its shell shortage for western guns was always there, and finally they may be able to double or triple the monthly usages of 155mm. Imagine if they had 4x the shells on a monthly basis for years more...

We shall see...

 

[NWRatCon]

and that is the high stakes game of chicken I was referring to.

It will not happen because the will to play that game is not there. That is precisely the calculus that Russia counted on when they initially invaded.

I apologize for taking this thread on a temporary hypothetical tangent.

Worth the discussion, in my view.

 

[justoneman]

Worth the discussion, in my view.

You believe we are in WW3 the US against Russia.

 

[NWRatCon]

What many don't understand is that, as you quoted, this is a very old request and NOT just because the cluster munitions would be far more effective.

The unsolved problem for the war's outset has been the lack of, or shortage of, certain munitions and weapons platforms. One reason many pressed for planes, atacms, and clusters was that they could serve to mitigate the inability of the west to provide adequate munitions, not just in 155mm but also Soviet calibers.

Sitting on the shelf are up to 2 million shells in 155mm that have not be recycled or retired (in 2010 there were around 5 million cluster shells). Needless to say, Ukraines solution to its shell shortage for western guns was always there, and finally they may be able to double or triple the monthly usages of 155mm. Imagine if they had 4x the shells on a monthly basis for years more...

We shall see...

Another advantage is, all of those submunitions can be used on drones in direct-strike mode. Each warhead has dozens of bomblets that are, effectively, grenades.

Also, Ukraine has used RAAMS effectively already. This is no different.