LMCane said:

---

if the Russkies really have 1100 tanks about to invade...

that is more tanks than we probably have in the entire US Army inventory!

---

Hopefully the Ukrainians bought a bunch of surplus A-10s that our military keeps saying they want to get rid of.

GAC06 said:

---

How many ports do you see?

---

Let me speed this along if I may.

There are 18 sea ports in Ukraine. Four of those ports are closed due to Russian occupation. One of the important ports is Odesa. Which is not under Russian control and on the Black Sea, west of Crimea.

Joes said:

---

txags92 said:

---

JobSecurity said:

---

There is essentially zero tactical or strategic rationale for Russia to launch any kind of large scale cyber attack on the US. They're literally about to fight a war. Maybe you could argue an impact if they went after our govt systems but not banking or anything that would impact civilians

---

Totally agree with this. Putin has bought his Hunter Biden originals and we are going to issue sternly worded condemnations of what he does, while issuing toothless sanctions and giving Ukraine meager amounts of weapons that will be mostly ineffective by the time they are and are distributed (if not shipped directly into Russian occupied locations by design). Public sentiment is against any US involvement, despite our agreements with Ukraine that we would help defend them if they gave up nukes. So why would Putin do anything to change that calculus by attacking the US in any way?

---

Exactly. We'll arm Russia like we did the Taliban. Might as well start sending weapons to China as well!

---

I think we're trying to arm Ukraine like we did the Taliban.

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

UK ready to launch retaliatory cyber-attacks on Russia, defence secretary tells MPs https://t.co/ENbBrRn2NO

— toomas hendrik ilves (@IlvesToomas) February 23, 2022

---

When you are actually going to do something you do it not announce it


BS from the UK

---

You do if you're announcing it for a strategic reason. That's not at all uncommon. You're looking to influence his behavior in some way for a reason but that doesn't preclude you from taking action. Telling him doesn't allow him to do anything about it necessarily unless he knows specifically the targets.

JobSecurity said:

---

There is essentially zero tactical or strategic rationale for Russia to launch any kind of large scale cyber attack on the US. They're literally about to fight a war. Maybe you could argue an impact if they went after our govt systems but not banking or anything that would impact civilians

---

yea, i wont begin to pretend like i can predict russian thinking, but historically speaking, attacking the USA at home to keep/get us out of international conflicts has been a counterproductive move

LMCane said:

---

if the Russkies really have 1100 tanks about to invade...

that is more tanks than we probably have in the entire US Army inventory!

---

Wiki says 2500 active tanks with 3000 in storage. Sounded cool though I guess.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Wouldn't be a really bad idea to destroy most of the infrastructure of the country your about to invade unless absolutely necessary?

I mean, you'll need that infrastructure to handle the existing population

---

Hitler and Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Mao Tse Tung

all say hold my beer brother Ag

---

I understand that. Just from a practicality standpoint- the Ukrainian army probably won't slow you down too much should you want to take the entire country.

Once you do take the country, you're now gonna be in charge of millions of people who still will need basic utility services.

So, why destroy infrastructure when doing so doesn't necessarily gain you a huge advantage and which you would then need to rebuild at a high cost?

If you're delayed longer than expected when taking Ukraine, then sure, blow it up.

---

You're assuming that the Russians care. The Kremlin has basically been saying for a week now that Ukrainians aren't people, an illegitimate country, and also has accused the Ukrainians of genocide in Donbas.

GAC06 said:

---

How many ports do you see?

---

You obviously aren't paying attention.

Russia has launched 30 warships of the Black Sea Fleet sortied from Sevastopol and Novorossiysk over the weekend. They have complete control of the Black Sea currently, I don't care if Ukraine has a million ports on the Black Sea they have NO NAVY TO DEFEND THEM against the Sevastopol Fleet. Russia has more naval ports on the Black Sea than Ukraine has ports of ANY kind Sevastopol (HQ), Feodosia (Crimea) Novorossiysk, Tuapse, Temryuk (Krasnodar Krai) Taganrog (Rostov Oblast)

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

How many ports do you see?

---

Let me speed this along if I may.

There are 18 sea ports in Ukraine. Four of those ports are closed due to Russian occupation. One of the important ports is Odesa. Which is not under Russian control and on the Black Sea, west of Crimea.

---

I guess if you are going to count the fishing port good luck defend them against the 30 warships Putin has in the Black sea currently.

Spin spin spin. They have no ports, but they have ports. They have no air force but they have an air force they have no navy but they have a navy.

Just stop. Read a while.

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

How many ports do you see?

---

Let me speed this along if I may.

There are 18 sea ports in Ukraine. Four of those ports are closed due to Russian occupation. One of the important ports is Odesa. Which is not under Russian control and on the Black Sea, west of Crimea.

---

I guess if you are going to count the fishing port good luck defend them against the 30 warships Putin has in the Black sea currently.

---

You said ports. You did not say effect navy or coastal defense. That's an entirely different subject matter. Words have meaning.

Now go troll, troll your boat somewhere else.

Might have been why the E-3 was hanging out in the area.

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 23, 2022

GAC06 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

if the Russkies really have 1100 tanks about to invade...

that is more tanks than we probably have in the entire US Army inventory!

---

Wiki says 2500 active tanks with 3000 in storage. Sounded cool though I guess.

---

Fun fact i just learned, in Desert Storm, our A-10s took out nearly 1,000 tanks, using half the number of A-10s we have today....

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

Might have been why the E-3 was hanging out in the area.

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 23, 2022

---

Why would the Russians need to probe Russian air defenses? I'm going to assume that is a typo...

javajaws said:

---

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

Might have been why the E-3 was hanging out in the area.

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 23, 2022

---

Why would the Russians need to probe Russian air defenses? I'm going to assume that is a typo...

---

Me too, I'm assuming they're trying to figure out what the Ukrainian air defense is. Russia testing out Russia makes no sense.

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

if the Russkies really have 1100 tanks about to invade...

that is more tanks than we probably have in the entire US Army inventory!

---

Wiki says 2500 active tanks with 3000 in storage. Sounded cool though I guess.

---

Fun fact i just learned, in Desert Storm, our A-10s took out nearly 1,000 tanks, using half the number of A-10s we have today....

---

Iraqis didn't have near the support for those tanks that Russia does. I wish we could just go in a knock 'em down like that.

Wow. Staff is smokin' the pro-Putin bullisht. Thanks Mods. Luv ya!

Rossticus said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

if the Russkies really have 1100 tanks about to invade...

that is more tanks than we probably have in the entire US Army inventory!

---

Wiki says 2500 active tanks with 3000 in storage. Sounded cool though I guess.

---

Fun fact i just learned, in Desert Storm, our A-10s took out nearly 1,000 tanks, using half the number of A-10s we have today....

---

Iraqis didn't have near the support for those tanks that Russia does. I wish we could just go in a knock 'em down like that.

---

yea, the story i read about 2 a-10 pilots that knocked out 23 tanks in a single day said in their first sortie of the day, the came in on a group of tanks and were surprised to find no anti-air at all coming their way. basically got to attack with impunity.

but that won't stop me from imagining those a-10s finding all those russian tanks lined up in a nice neat line on the roads...

LMCane said:

---

based on the picture I posted above demonstrating the deployments of opposing red and blue force...

the Ukes should blast all those 5 bridges into the dnieper

at least that would slow down the massive armor force approaching from the East (heading due West) and could buy Kiev a few additional days

then move their own forces to hold the Russian/Belarus forces coming from the North around Pripyet marshes

---

I imagine the Ukranian military leaders have extensively studied the German retreat from the Eastern Front in 43 & 44. Should be some lessons learned there. The Germans had a few successes in their defense / withdrawal / delay. Ultimately of course they were overwhelmed by numbers

W said:

---

LMCane said:

---

based on the picture I posted above demonstrating the deployments of opposing red and blue force...

the Ukes should blast all those 5 bridges into the dnieper

at least that would slow down the massive armor force approaching from the East (heading due West) and could buy Kiev a few additional days

then move their own forces to hold the Russian/Belarus forces coming from the North around Pripyet marshes

---

I imagine the Ukranian military leaders have extensively studied the German retreat from the Eastern Front in 43 & 44. Should be some lessons learned there. The Germans had a few successes in their defense / withdrawal / delay. Ultimately of course they were overwhelmed by numbers

---

the problem is that the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS were much better trained and motivated than the Ukrainian recruits

the Germans had superior equipment to the Soviets, while the Russians have MUCH better equipment than the Ukes do now

also air supremacy was relatively even, where Stuka with cannon would savage advancing Soviet tank columns

so here the Russians have overwhelming air superiority

there is not much analogy between 1944 and today- and even then the Russians won.

Every town a tank trap and sniper nest. Lots and lots of stuff planted to support guerilla actions. Mines like you said and tank/helicopter hunting teams. The Russians have moved a lot of armor in but if the Ukrainians can use their Javelins well it would at least bloody their nose.

LMCane said:

---

W said:

---

LMCane said:

---

based on the picture I posted above demonstrating the deployments of opposing red and blue force...

the Ukes should blast all those 5 bridges into the dnieper

at least that would slow down the massive armor force approaching from the East (heading due West) and could buy Kiev a few additional days

then move their own forces to hold the Russian/Belarus forces coming from the North around Pripyet marshes

---

I imagine the Ukranian military leaders have extensively studied the German retreat from the Eastern Front in 43 & 44. Should be some lessons learned there. The Germans had a few successes in their defense / withdrawal / delay. Ultimately of course they were overwhelmed by numbers

---

the problem is that the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS were much better trained and motivated than the Ukrainian recruits

the Germans had superior equipment to the Soviets, while the Russians have MUCH better equipment than the Ukes do now

also air supremacy was relatively even, where Stuka with cannon would savage advancing Soviet tank columns

so here the Russians have overwhelming air superiority

there is not much analogy between 1944 and today- and even then the Russians won.

---

Not to mention the space to do so. They made it painful every step of the way, thousands of kms. Ukraine does not have that space.

Ukraine, if it wants to fight, would have the best hope in urban street fighting. Which is also the worst kind of fighting in all aspects. Really an all or nothing style.

I really don't expect them to fight back much, if any. Strategies are irrelevant if there's no will.

1 hr ago.
Ukrainian FM Dmitro Kuleba: "We are negotiating with NATO on no-fly zone over our airspace."

— Fuat (@lilygrutcher) February 23, 2022

Donetsk People’s Republic head Denis Pushilin says Ukraine has to voluntarily leave the whole Donets region and disarm. Very little of what Pushilin says or does comes without Kremlin’s direct approval https://t.co/dqwHL9tTfy

— Pjotr Sauer (@PjotrSauer) February 23, 2022

aezmvp said:

---

Every town a tank trap and sniper nest. Lots and lots of stuff planted to support guerilla actions. Mines like you said and tank/helicopter hunting teams. The Russians have moved a lot of armor in but if the Ukrainians can use their Javelins well it would at least bloody their nose.

---

This has to be the equivalent of Viet Cong, Al Qaeda, Taliban, IS and every other low down brutal dirty "unfair" style of combat in a blender. With a dash of WW1 thrown in. Hell, start digging tunnels.

They HAVE to make this a bloody war of will. They can't go head to head with armament but they can shred the people. That's their only chance. Turn Ukraine into a Russian soldier's nightmare. Utter remorseless brutality. I hate it but there's no other option if they don't get substantive outside support.

BattleGrackle said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

UK ready to launch retaliatory cyber-attacks on Russia, defence secretary tells MPs https://t.co/ENbBrRn2NO

— toomas hendrik ilves (@IlvesToomas) February 23, 2022

---

I know all the governments are doing under the table cyber attacks, but would this be one of the first "officially sanctioned" cyber attacks?

---

I have a vague idea who controls the internet,
Who Controls The Internet? US Government Hands Over Control To ICANN
But the internet is combinations of wireless, satellite and land lines. Would it be possible for all lines of communication between the outside world and Russia be severed? This would effectively eliminate the potential for Russian mischief with the internet, banking and financial transactions.

I assume all the Russian communications to their military would be on secure military satellites.

Pardon my ignorance

Holy ***** That's huge. No fly zone, I mean. Would NATO enforce!?!?! Game changer if so. Would find out in a hurry how bad Russia wants this war.

Also virtually guarantees that we end up in this war on a significantly expanded scale. No way some Russian doesn't screw up and take a bird down with SAM.

Rossticus said:

---

Holy ***** That's huge. No fly zone, I mean. Would NATO enforce!?!?! Game changer if so. Also virtually guarantees that we end up in this war on a significantly expanded scale.

---

To much risk for escalation. I don't see this happening.

Maybe Kubela's idea of negotiating is asking for a no fly zone and NATO saying no thank you.

Rossticus said:

---

Holy ***** That's huge. No fly zone, I mean. Would NATO enforce!?!?! Game changer if so.

---

Unclear, that's the first report I've seen of that. If it is true and it actually happened (doubtful), then we/the US military is going to be the backbone of that. It also exponentially increases the likelihood of some Russian/separatist (really no difference) ****ing up and causing another international incident like MH17.

Rossticus said:

---

Holy ***** That's huge. No fly zone, I mean. Would NATO enforce!?!?! Game changer if so. Also virtually guarantees that we end up in this war on a significantly expanded scale.

---

The comment is a bit ambiguous...maybe they just mean keeping NATO planes out of Ukraine? So that they can shoot down anything that is in their airspace without worrying about hitting friendlies?

But if the intent is for NATO to keep out Russian air assets that would be a game changer...and not in a good way (if NATO agreed...I doubt they will).

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Holy ***** That's huge. No fly zone, I mean. Would NATO enforce!?!?! Game changer if so.

---

Unclear, that's the first report I've seen of that. If it is true and it actually happened (doubtful), then we/the US military is going to be the backbone of that. It also exponentially increases the likelihood of some Russian/separatist (really no difference) ****ing up and causing another international incident like MH17.

---

This is where we find out if NATO actually means some of the stuff they've been saying about firm resistance or if they're really telling Ukraine:

javajaws said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Holy ***** That's huge. No fly zone, I mean. Would NATO enforce!?!?! Game changer if so. Also virtually guarantees that we end up in this war on a significantly expanded scale.

---

The comment is a bit ambiguous...maybe they just mean keeping NATO planes out of Ukraine? So that they can shoot down anything that is in their airspace without worrying about hitting friendlies?

But if the intent is for NATO to keep out Russian air assets that would be a game changer...and not in a good way (if NATO agreed...I doubt they will).

---

Depends on if you believe that Putin has the balls to actually go to war with the West. If you want to test his true resolve this is the way to do it. If he's only taking what is easy then he could very well back down, ask to negotiate over Donetsk and Luhansk, and pull back.

Rumors of power and internet outage in Donetsk.

Rossticus said:

---

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Holy ***** That's huge. No fly zone, I mean. Would NATO enforce!?!?! Game changer if so.

---

Unclear, that's the first report I've seen of that. If it is true and it actually happened (doubtful), then we/the US military is going to be the backbone of that. It also exponentially increases the likelihood of some Russian/separatist (really no difference) ****ing up and causing another international incident like MH17.

---

This is where we find out if NATO actually means some of the stuff they've been saying about firm resistance or if they're really telling Ukraine:

---

To be fair, NATO has been pretty consistent in their message that NATO will not be fighting the Russians in Ukraine for some time now. I don't see that changing.