Next Battle In Ukraine Tougher For Ukrainians!

[Rigby5]

Wow, you sure do blather about things you know nothing about!

First, the U.S. and NATO can easily afford the Anti-Tank weapons. Russia can not afford to send their best tanks to Ukraine, becuase Russia's economy is tiny. Russia may have some very advanced weaponry, but they don't have the economy to manufacture in mass quantities.

Russia lost ~600 tanks attacking Kyiv, so it's obvious that these anti-tank weapons are very effective.

Russia's attempt to capture Kyiv was a total failure that resulted in massive Russian casualties. So far it looks like the Ukrainians will destroy the Russian army in eastern Ukraine. The Russians haven't gained any ground since their recent attack began.

Not true.
The US and NATO can NOT afford these javelin missiles.
They are not just a rocket, but have sophisticated computer guidance and sensing system.
They cost about $120k each, and over half miss.

So far, Russia has not sent in a tank newer than a 1972, which means they are pretty much worthless.

You do not at all understand economics either.
The "cost" of weapons in Russia is essentially ZERO, because they do not pay anyone for them, but simply make them themselves.
They can make an almost unlimited number, depending on how much raw materials they want to invest.

You a misunderstand the over all strategic facts.
Russia has over 150k tanks, to have lost 0.4% of their tanks.

And no, there is no chance of the Ukrainians being able to continue to ambush the Russians in Eastern Ukraine.
That is because the natives there are going to be Russian instead of Ukrainian, so will pinpoint the location of any Ukrainian forces, the opposite of what happened in the west.
In the east, the Russians will be able to ambush the Ukrainians.

 

[Rigby5]

First, hypersonic speeds are 5x the speed of sound, so the sprint is a hypersonic missile.

Second, the sprint an interceptor missile, not an ICBM, but the fact that the U.S. has it for a long time shows that we've had hypersonic technology for a long time. Porting that technology to an ICBM won't take long.

Blanketing our air space with small nuclear detonations is a whole lot better than getting hit by ICBMs.

BTW - I noticed how you ignored the fact the the U.S> just tested a new hypersonic ICBM.

There is no "technology" from the Sprint AMB that can be used.
It got white hot in the short time in flight, and had no cooling system.
It was self destructive and very short lived.
Nothing about how it worked could be used for anything longer range.

Blanketing our air space with lots of small nuclear detonations is NOT better than getting hit by ICBMs that would still have gotten through anyway.
All the Sprint did was ensure the radiation level was totally fatal to everyone.
It was a suicide methodology.

Hypersonics are not at all a good idea.
All they do is make a "first strike" so much more successful, that it makes nuclear war more likely.
Noting remotely good about that.

 

[Rigby5]

In a war of attrition, economics matter the most. The U.S. in the worst of economic depressions is still a much stronger economy than Russia in the best of economic times.

The only advantage Russia has is it's people's ability to withstand economic suffering.

Wrong.
The US has a massive $40 trillion national debt, which we can barely keep up with the interest payments.
We are likely to go bankrupt any day now.
In which case the US will actually likely cease to exist.
We have so many enemies, that they would quickly destroy us utterly.
The US has very LITTLE economy compared to our debt.
We rely almost entirely on imports from other colonial possessions.
And all those countries are very tired of that abuse, and want to end it.

 

[Rigby5]

Putin has until May 9 to have some 'good' news about his 'Special Military Operation'. After that he's toast.

Putin doesn't have the independent authority to use nukes. Not surprisingly there are laws in Russia restricting the use of nukes.

Wrong.
The only way Putin can get into trouble with the politburo is he refuses to use tactical nukes.
As long as he does not interfere with the military, he is safe.
Zelensky, not so much.
He is toast.
There is no way he can survive this now that he deliberately caused all these deaths.

 

[Richard-H]

Not true.
The US and NATO can NOT afford these javelin missiles.
They are not just a rocket, but have sophisticated computer guidance and sensing system.
They cost about $120k each, and over half miss.

So far, Russia has not sent in a tank newer than a 1972, which means they are pretty much worthless.

You do not at all understand economics either.
The "cost" of weapons in Russia is essentially ZERO, because they do not pay anyone for them, but simply make them themselves.
They can make an almost unlimited number, depending on how much raw materials they want to invest.

You a misunderstand the over all strategic facts.
Russia has over 150k tanks, to have lost 0.4% of their tanks.

And no, there is no chance of the Ukrainians being able to continue to ambush the Russians in Eastern Ukraine.
That is because the natives there are going to be Russian instead of Ukrainian, so will pinpoint the location of any Ukrainian forces, the opposite of what happened in the west.
In the east, the Russians will be able to ambush the Ukrainians.

It's hilarious that you say Russia's cost for weapons is zero!



You know nothing of economics!!!!

So far Russian Ukrainians have been overwhelmingly supporting the Ukrainian government. The Russian have been destroying their homes.

 

[Richard-H]

Wrong.
The US has a massive $40 trillion national debt, which we can barely keep up with the interest payments.
We are likely to go bankrupt any day now.
In which case the US will actually likely cease to exist.
We have so many enemies, that they would quickly destroy us utterly.
The US has very LITTLE economy compared to our debt.
We rely almost entirely on imports from other colonial possessions.
And all those countries are very tired of that abuse, and want to end it.

The U.S. has the largest GDP of any nation. Only China comes close.

For as long as the U.S. is the world's currency reserve, and that's not going to change, there is no chance that that the U.S. government will default. The U.S. government can print as much money as it wants and pay down it's debt anytime.

Sounds like you've been eating up Russian propaganda. Too bad for you that it's almost all lies.

 

[Richard-H]

Wrong.
The only way Putin can get into trouble with the politburo is he refuses to use tactical nukes.
As long as he does not interfere with the military, he is safe.
Zelensky, not so much.
He is toast.
There is no way he can survive this now that he deliberately caused all these deaths.

First, there is no politburo anymore, dumbass.

Putin is interfering with the Russian military in a very big way.

Count on a major Ukrainian counter-offensive in early May. After May 9, Putin will soon be getting a 9mm retirement.

Zelensky will live a long life as an international super-hero.

 

[Donald H]

Both sides can and will afford to use their weapons. They were made for fighting WW3.

But both sides (America and Russia) are going to escalate to using their best and most effective weapons with the purpose of avoiding WW3.

Quantity considerations aside, we're going to learn which side has the most effective weapons, aircraft, ships, etc.

 

[Donald H]

First, there is no politburo anymore, dumbass.

Putin is interfering with the Russian military in a very big way.

Count on a major Ukrainian counter-offensive in early May. After May 9, Putin will soon be getting a 9mm retirement.

Zelensky will live a long life as an international super-hero.

Putin getting a bullet is one possible solution that can save the world. However, that would require accepting that it's all Putin's war and Russia wouldn't continue the fight.

You two need to stop fighting your armchair war.

 

[Richard-H]

Putin getting a bullet is one possible solution that can save the world. However, that would require accepting that it's all Putin's war and Russia wouldn't continue the fight.

You two need to stop fighting your armchair war.

Have you ever heard of WWI? Russians don't want this war. Once Putin is gone they'll negotiate peace and withdraw from Eastern Ukraine.

 

[Richard-H]

Both sides can and will afford to use their weapons. They were made for fighting WW3.

But both sides (America and Russia) are going to escalate to using their best and most effective weapons with the purpose of avoiding WW3.

Quantity considerations aside, we're going to learn which side has the most effective weapons, aircraft, ships, etc.

America & Russia will continue to use Ukraine for a battleground. Neither will use nukes. This will end when the Russian military & people have had enough.

So far it looks like NATO has the superior weaponry.

The Moskva was the most sophisticated weaponry that the Russians have. It wasn't just any ship. The fact that it was sunk shows how far ahead the West is.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Donald H
However, that would require accepting that it's all Putin's war and Russia wouldn't continue the fight.

Conceding the historical fact that Russia was already alarmed by the possibility of NATO expansion in 1991 when Putin was a nobody even in Saint Petersburg would reveal this is a russian national cause and completely destroy their argument this is a "putinist" war.

 

[Donald H]

America & Russia will continue to use Ukraine for a battleground. Neither will use nukes. This will end when the Russian military & people have had enough.

That could be true. But there's a large difference in the Russian military and the Russian people. I think you're on track with saying that America is depending on the Russian people rejecting Putin's war.
I'll suggest that it's Russia's war, and back that suggestion up with saying that it's America's war.

So far it looks like NATO has the superior weaponry.

Does it? You might be right. I honestly don't know yet. I've only heard suggestions that Russia has superior rocket technology and so that's an issue I would be interested in hearing otherwise.
Please understand that I'm not trying to fight an armchair war, I'm only being objective.

The Moskva was the most sophisticated weaponry that the Russians have. It wasn't just any ship. The fact that it was sunk shows how far ahead the West is.

I was under the impression that their missile cruiser that was sunk was of 70's vintage. Is it realistic to suggest that they don't have better?

If Russia's ships' defensive capabilities were employed and they failed, indeed Russia will be at a huge disadvantage.

Don't go back to the armchair war with me please. You and Rigby are among the very few voices of sanity on this board.

 

[Donald H]

Conceding the historical fact that Russia was already alarmed by the possibility of NATO expansion in 1991 when Putin was a nobody even in Saint Petersburg would reveal this is a russian national cause and completely destroy their argument this is a "putinist" war.

I agree but posing the argument was not what I considered appropriate then. The demonization of Putin and condending that it's his war is absolutely ridiculous, and not just for the reason you stated.

 

[Donald H]

Have you ever heard of WWI?

Stop that!

Russians don't want this war. Once Putin is gone they'll negotiate peace and withdraw from Eastern Ukraine.

I'm aware of that point you make. You've repeated it a few times.

I haven't accepted it because you've not said anything to convince me it's true. I hope you do!

1. It's not Putin's war, it's Russia's war.
2. Putin holds over 80% popularity and it's increased since the beginning of the war.
3. Russia's struggle is justified. (this isn't proof, it's only my talking point unless it's backed up with evidence)

I invite you to deal with any of the three, or anything else you feel is relevant.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Donald H
I agree but posing the argument was not what I considered appropriate then. The demonization of Putin and condending that it's his war is absolutely ridiculous, and not just for the reason you stated.

Demonization is definitely something to be avoided.

I wish people stopped viewing this war as a manicheist battle between good vs. evil. It's a clash between two legitimate issues:

Russia's national security and the right of self determination of eastern european countries (leaving american geopolitical interests aside for a moment, just for the sake of discussion).

 

[Donald H]

Demonization is definitely something to be avoided.

I wish people stopped viewing this war as a manicheist battle between good vs. evil. It's a clash between two legitimate issues:

Russia's national security and the right of self determination of eastern european countries (leaving american geopolitical interests aside for a moment, just for the sake of discussion).

I don't know the meaning of the word, 'manichiest'.
I only quickly googled and found 'Maniechism' to be a religion.

 

[Donald H]

Conceding the historical fact that Russia was already alarmed by the possibility of NATO expansion in 1991 when Putin was a nobody even in Saint Petersburg would reveal this is a russian national cause and completely destroy their argument this is a "putinist" war.

Also worth mentioning that Yeltsin attempted to find an answer in bringing Russia into the Nato alliance on the basis of Nato no longer being relevant after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
America wanted no part of that and now we all should understand why.

America doesn't want to deal with any competition from Russia or China.

 

[Stryder50]

The Ukrainian Air Force Just Got Bigger. It Seems Someone Gave Kyiv More MiG-29s.​

...
Amazingly considering the odds against them, Ukraine’s airmen have more flyable fighters today than they did in early April, according to U.S. Defense Department spokesman John Kirby.

Kyiv’s air force has “more operable fighter aircraft than they had two weeks ago,” Kirby told reporters Tuesday.

Donations of airplanes, and airplane parts, made it possible. “I would just say, without getting into what other nations are providing, that they have received additional platforms and parts to be able to increase their fleet size,” Kirby said.

It’s not hard to guess what Kirby was referring to. The governments of Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia weeks ago all signaled some degree of willingness to transfer to Ukraine old MiG-29s or spares for the same.
...

The Ukrainian Air Force Just Got Bigger. It Seems Someone Gave Kyiv More MiG-29s.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Donald H
I don't know the meaning of the word, 'manichiest'.
I only quickly googled and found 'Maniechism' to be a religion.

​

Noun[edit]
Manicheist (plural Manicheists)

1. Alternative form of Manichaean

Manicheist - Wiktionary

en.wiktionary.org

Manichaeism​

Manichaean theology taught a dualistic view of the world as a battle between good and evil.

Manichaeism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org