You tell us? What is that?agent-maroon said:
"Vestibulo atactic syndrome"
Sounds like nerve gas, no?
***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]
7,974,235 Views |
48545 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by Waffledynamics
Means that they can't keep their balance. Usually nerve agents paralyze your respiratory muscles. So I dunno for sure...
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thanks.agent-maroon said:
Means that they can't keep their balance. Usually nerve agents paralyze your respiratory muscles. So I dunno for sure...
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 11, 2022
Slovakia’s Prime Minister says MiG-29 transfer to Ukraine is back on the table.
At a press conference today, Eduard Heger said that the renewed discussions about NATO providing Ukraine with MiG-29 jets have been triggered by “how Russia behaves”.
Source in comments. pic.twitter.com/xF2I3rR9Pt
🔺 NEW: A “Stalinist” mass purge of Russian secret intelligence is under way after more than 100 agents were removed from their jobs and the head of the department responsible for Ukraine was sent to prison https://t.co/QgfENfjgkN
— The Times (@thetimes) April 11, 2022
More on Ukraine's need for additional armor for the coming battle in Donbas.
I think more tanks are certainly needed, but eastern Ukraine is not the unobstructed steppe it was back in World War II. Today it is far more urbanized with many towns and villages to turn into fortified strong points, and the Javelin has a 2 1/2 mile range to target armor out in those open spaces.
TANKS
I think more tanks are certainly needed, but eastern Ukraine is not the unobstructed steppe it was back in World War II. Today it is far more urbanized with many towns and villages to turn into fortified strong points, and the Javelin has a 2 1/2 mile range to target armor out in those open spaces.
TANKS
Infantry can't attack easily to take back territory. They would be subject to artillery and only move slowly. For Ukraine to make offensives, they'd need some ability to penetrate enemy lines and maneuver into rear areas and force them to withdraw or be overrun or encircled.
Interesting. NATO member Turkey is not permitting transit.I checked and Romania has some frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, etc. Guess they are laying low or they have been caught outside of the Black Sea.txags92 said:Turkey is not letting any warships transit from the Med into the Black Sea.sclaff said:Why doesn't NATO do some minesweeping in the Black Sea off of Nato member Romania's coast ?MeatDr said:This comes after Claims that Finland and Sweden who both have Large Baltic Seas Coasts will be joining the NATO Alliance as soon as next month.
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) April 11, 2022
Turkey is allowing ships to pass as long as their home port is in the Black Sea.sclaff said:Interesting. NATO member Turkey is not permitting transit.I checked and Romania has some frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, etc. Guess they are laying low or they have been caught outside of the Black Sea.txags92 said:Turkey is not letting any warships transit from the Med into the Black Sea.sclaff said:Why doesn't NATO do some minesweeping in the Black Sea off of Nato member Romania's coast ?MeatDr said:This comes after Claims that Finland and Sweden who both have Large Baltic Seas Coasts will be joining the NATO Alliance as soon as next month.
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) April 11, 2022
Company I-1, Ord-Ords '85 -12thFan and Websider-
https://instagr.am/p/CcJUwDHPVCG
I hope to God the Ukes are armed to the teeth with drones, and can efficiently take back territory.Quote:
"Trench warfare is everything we learned in school about it. It is filthy and not fit for human being to live inside. Trenches keep soldiers safe from bullets from rifles and machine guns but do nothing when artillery comes.
Even worse when enemies are using drones or missiles now. When you hear something in the air the best you can do is lay down and hope they hit a different group of soldiers than yours.
I served in the army long before this. Since 2014 the first time we were invaded. I have not been in trenches since 2021. I moved to a job that would keep me out of them. I know soldiers are in trenches now. Both ours and theirs. I'm glad I'm not there."
- Ukrainian Veteran. Invasion of Ukraine. April 7th, 2022.
"NATO member Turkey" hasn't been acting in the interests of NATO for quite some time now. They got cut out of the F35 program for buying Russian S400 anti aircraft systems.sclaff said:Interesting. NATO member Turkey is not permitting transit.I checked and Romania has some frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, etc. Guess they are laying low or they have been caught outside of the Black Sea.txags92 said:Turkey is not letting any warships transit from the Med into the Black Sea.sclaff said:Why doesn't NATO do some minesweeping in the Black Sea off of Nato member Romania's coast ?MeatDr said:This comes after Claims that Finland and Sweden who both have Large Baltic Seas Coasts will be joining the NATO Alliance as soon as next month.
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) April 11, 2022
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
Some soldiers do have critical thinking skills. 140 left from his battalion and it seems as many as 130 of those quit.
And this is the equivalent of giving a muderous bully a free pass to do anything he wants.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you never know if they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln.
This been posted yet?
⚡️German defense consortium Rheinmetall stated it was ready to send 50 Leopard 1 tanks and up to 60 Marder IFVs - Handelsblatt pic.twitter.com/R9aRtbNr1v
— UkraineWorld (@ukraine_world) April 11, 2022
I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
Yea I think A lot of people who accuse people of being 'pro Russian' don't seem to grasp this point.GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you never know if they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln.
This hasn't been uploaded in a while. Figured I'd throw it out.
GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
How confident are you that Putin's appetite is permanently satisfied if you sacrifice the Ukrainian people to appease him?
agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
I'm saddened to say this but I have to agree. The Russian Federation has been on the decline and if guys like Peter Zeihan are correct (mind you in 2014 he predicted a Russian Ukrainian war in 2022 in his book "The Accidental Superpower "), the Federation is done by 2040-50. The question is what happens with their last gasp.
We get directly involved, tactical nukes are highly likely when NATO forces push into Russia. From what we have seen of their forces, that is the only way they stop us. However, no involvement only delays the inevitable.
I think the Western hope was to stay out of the war and let the clock run out. Which may be true but what happens when all the factions rise out of the ashes all armed with their share of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. Additionally, you can't convince me otherwise that some of those warheads end up going to the highest bidder to line some generals pocket. That's standard operating procedure in that part of the world. It's no longer if nuclear war, it's when.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I honestly don't know.Rossticus said:GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
How confident are you that Putin's appetite is permanently satisfied if you sacrifice the Ukrainian people to appease him?
GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
I'm curious what the response to a nuke to Norfolk would be.
I assume we don't just go nuking because that's how the world ends but would we just unleash everything we have shy of nukes on Russia and go from there?
This is why I'm a big fan of doing what we can to bleed Russia dry. Keeping American boots off the ground but be ready if it comes to that. I'm still not willing to send Americans to die for Ukraine but we should do what we can to make it hurt for Putin.
Given the substantial losses in the Ukraine debacle, isn't it pretty much nukes or nothing for Putin if he wants to continue with conquest? He won't live long enough to replace his previous troops & equipment to their previous levels.Rossticus said:GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
How confident are you that Putin's appetite is permanently satisfied if you sacrifice the Ukrainian people to appease him?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
GarryowenAg said:I honestly don't know.Rossticus said:GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
How confident are you that Putin's appetite is permanently satisfied if you sacrifice the Ukrainian people to appease him?
Then we have a problem. Is there a line, when crossed, at which the risk inherent to opposing Russia is finally worth it? Is Tallinn or Helsinki REALLY worth Norfolk? Once millions have already been sacrificed then maybe further offerings to Russia will become easier to stomach.
We've won this game of chicken against Russia before and we did it with strength, conviction, and clarity of purpose. I don't believe that Russia stops advancing forward as long as America is willing to move backward.
We can defeat Russia here and now without having to put boots on the ground or planes in the sky. Just give Ukraine what they need. If you really want to put an end to the risk of direct US involvement then this is your opportunity.
But that's just my opinion. Maybe Putin and Russia will change their stripes.
ADDITIONAL EDIT:
If you truly want to be able to execute a full pivot from Europe to Asia (which is of absolute necessity) then you need to facilitate a sufficiently thorough defeat of the Russian military to allow for future containment by Europe exclusively.
Current events have precipitated extremely favorable conditions by which to ensure such an outcome and an opportunity that should be thoroughly capitalized on. Failure to do so will prove to be a critical error should conflict emerge between the US and China.
If that really is the trade (and not a place like Sevastopol), then a nuclear exchange is inevitable.GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
agent-maroon said:Given the substantial losses in the Ukraine debacle, isn't it pretty much nukes or nothing for Putin if he wants to continue with conquest? He won't live long enough to replace his previous troops & equipment to their previous levels.Rossticus said:GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
How confident are you that Putin's appetite is permanently satisfied if you sacrifice the Ukrainian people to appease him?
Maybe. Maybe not. It all depends on what degree of support he REALLY has domestically and if he could sell an (fabricated) existential threat from the US and Europe such that he'd be able to execute a mass conscription.
Equipment is another matter and I'm not certain if he could eventually overcome his current short term limitations in a couple of years or not.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the eventual end of Putin does not guarantee the end of the problem. Maybe things get better. Maybe things get worse.
Agreed!Rossticus said:
We can defeat Russia here and now without having to put boots on the ground or planes in the sky. Just give Ukraine what they need. If you really want to put an end to the risk of direct US involvement then this is your opportunity.
For someone with real experience....with GPS + drones + laser range finders, for hitting stationary targets, this should pretty much be cake, right? It'd just be physics with gun + position and target + position....
I understand shoot and scoot and why motorized artillery would be a much more difficult target to hit, but with drones and night vision or FLIR we're talking about a stand off operation. And if the Ukes have motorize artillery then....they should be slaying the RU's.
What am I missing, just range of engagement or a lack of either equipped drones or less than accurate intel?
I understand shoot and scoot and why motorized artillery would be a much more difficult target to hit, but with drones and night vision or FLIR we're talking about a stand off operation. And if the Ukes have motorize artillery then....they should be slaying the RU's.
What am I missing, just range of engagement or a lack of either equipped drones or less than accurate intel?
Rumors that a rail line to the SE of Belgorod has been attacked. Pending confirmation.
Interesting thread.
Full thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1513692863216816128.html
Full thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1513692863216816128.html
To establish a quantitative baseline, see this article and this video. From them we can see that prewar Ukraine had 51 maneuver brigades - 33 regular army and 18 national guard paramilitary.https://t.co/V7WmMtLLMN
— Armchair Warlord (@ArmchairW) April 12, 2022
https://t.co/Irvk142iau
agsalaska said:Yea I think A lot of people who accuse people of being 'pro Russian' don't seem to grasp this point.GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
Concur. The flippant dismissal of the idea of nuclear weapon employment is foolish. I think too many folks automatically think of strategic nukes weapon systems while not grasping the fact that there are nuances to nuclear weapons usage within a broader conflict.
The defenders of #Mariupol from the 26th Marine Brigade stated that they will hold the defense of the city to the last man.
— Canadian Ukrainian Volunteer 🇺🇦🇨🇦✊🏻 (@CanadianUkrain1) April 12, 2022
"We have not left our positions and we remain loyal until the end," the Marines said.
Glory to #Ukraine ✊🏻🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/1bRhZ7HxnG
Jock 07 said:agsalaska said:Yea I think A lot of people who accuse people of being 'pro Russian' don't seem to grasp this point.GarryowenAg said:I won't say you're wrong. The biggest point I'll drive home tonight is, are we be willing to save Kyiv if it meant losing Norfolk?agsalaska said:Actually It seems inevitable to me.GarryowenAg said:
I participated in a round table discussion with some state dept folks today at Fort Leavenworth. Can't go into much details on a public forum, but they basically said the US and NATO are deterred from escalating too much due to a legit fear Putin will use nukes. I've been on the skeptical side that nukes were out of the question until today.
Concur. The flippant dismissal of the idea of nuclear weapon employment is foolish. I think too many folks automatically think of strategic nukes weapon systems while not grasping the fact that there are nuances to nuclear weapons usage within a broader conflict.
The nuance is that Russian doctrine dictates they use theater level tactical nukes if they're at irrevocable risk of losing but feel that they can, via employment, tip the scales and force the other side to back down. Escalation to force deescalation.
That doesn't mean you acquiesce to ensure that Russia never loses. Weakness increases the likelihood that Russia will escalate, not the inverse.
If Russia deploys nukes against Ukraine, no country will ever do business again with them. Russia may win the battle with Ukraine, but the entire developed world will shun them forever.
And that's not just doing business, but preventing trade. That's the death.
And that's not just doing business, but preventing trade. That's the death.
Featured Stories
See All
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Florida Slam Dunk' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Keys to the Game: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Luke Evangelist
41:06
20h ago
4.0k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Tom Schuberth