Russian Invasion of Ukraine 2022

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Well, of course it is. PGMs mean that any sort of movement in the open is incredibly risky, and modern weapons are so expensive that you'll be running out of them in short order.
Depends on type of PGMs. You're talking IR, laser or electro-optically guided missiles, or ATGMs if air defense or ambushes are not kept away. The common GPS guided bombs and missiles are very hard to use on moving targets, practically impossible unless they do stupid shit, like moving on a very predictable route with constant speed or crowding near a river crossing for a long time.
In any sort of World War 3 scenario, you'd have two weeks of modern warfare at best and then it would be back to World War 1 conditions: unguided munitions, infantry-centric armies and so on. And that is assuming nukes don't fly at all.
Only if it's one of those "fuck NATO, we won't spend 2% GDP on defense or even close" countries, obviously different countries maintain different stockpiles of munitions. Some are... definitely insufficient like that. Others, not so much.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Some Ukrainian Formations Transitioning to T-72 Tanks From T-64 based vehicles at least partially due to losses.



Finland to Donate Used Electrical Infrastructure Equipment to Ukraine.



Luxembourgish Humvee in Ukrainian Service. Apparently little Luxembourg has donated a disproportionate amount of equipment to Ukraine from their tiny military.



First Documented Loss of a Ukrainian ITEC Skif Recon UAV.



A Guards Motor Rifle Battalion Commander named Sergei Safonov Might've Taken Direct Part in the Murder of an Elderly Ukrainian Couple Including Stabbing an Elderly Woman to Death.

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Meanwhile 700 Kilometers From the Ukrainian Border, 400 Kilometers south of Moscow, another smoking accident in the depths of the freezing Russian Winter.







Engels Airbase Had an Explosion. Details are Sketchy but apparently two TU-95 Bombers were damaged, a fuel 'tanker' destroyed, and casualties ranging from two injured to three killed, six injured.


Alleged range of the alleged drone that Ukraine has allegedly domestically produced to allegedly carry out this ESCALATORY ATTACK.

 
Last edited:

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
How is it escalatory?

Russia has demonstrated they are willing to deep strike against infrastructure. What about attacking bomber capacity in response is escalatory...aside from making the Russians feel less safe.
That's a shot at a subset of commentators that seem to believe that the natural habitat of the Russo-Ukrainian war is Ukraine exclusively, and Ukraine striking back on Russian soil is a dangerous escalation.

The closest such people approach to having a point is if Ukraine uses US-supplied weaponry with range they would otherwise be incapable of, thus in theory the US is "attacking Russian soil by proxy". However if the strike in question was carried out by domestically produced stuff this argument has no purchase even if you agree with the logic.

[edit: previously, there were also the people afraid that such attacks would let Russia justify a full war declaration to its public and thus legally conscript massive numbers of soldiers, but the war/conscription has already happened.]
Is an escalation because they are bases used by nuclear capable planes. Any attack on these bases is considered equal to threatening the nuclear assets of the country.
You know what the response against that is, right?
:rolleyes: or that, I guess, if you're absolutely determined to see WWIII in danger of happening every time Russia stubs its toe kicking people around. The nuclear missile bases are fine. The nuclear submarines are fine, supposing Russia's still work. And this would be the nuclear bomber base furthest from the US, right?
 
Last edited:

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Czech Company Excalibur Restoring and Modernizing Ukrainian T-72 Tanks.



Lithuania Helping Repair and Restore Ukrainian PzH-2000 SPG's Originally Donated By Germany and Other NATO Powers.



German Supplied Ukrainian Gepard SPAAG Allegedly Shoots Down a Russian Cruise Missile.



Ukrainian Leleka-100 UAV Presumedly Survives a Russian MANPAD strike.



Russian Ka-52 Helicopter Gunship Shot Down by Ukrainian Forces.

 

planefag

A Flying Bundle of Sticks
Is an escalation because they are bases used by nuclear capable planes. Any attack on these bases is considered equal to threatening the nuclear assets of the country.
You know what the response against that is, right?

Anything that threatens the nuclear deterrent capability will make a nation-state very nervous for the obvious reason that the nuclear deterrent is a state's ultimate guarantee against existential destruction. (Note the recent tiff between Belgium and the UK over Belgium blocking the export of technology essential to the UK's nuclear deterrent capability.)

However, what you are suggesting is actual use of thermonuclear weapons against another sovereign state, which is not "defending the deterrent" but rather a "launch-on-warning" response; i.e. "use these assets right now or we lose them, because enemy missiles are in the air." To suggest that (repairable) damage to two (2) dual-use units of the least survivable, flexible and prompt leg of the nuclear triad (out of 72 total airframes; 55 Tu-95s and 17 Tu-160s) constitutes any serious threat to Russia's entire nuclear deterrent arsenal is fucking moronic. It is, in fact, just as fucking moronic as all the screaming from supposedly fully-grown adults who thought that there was literally any possibility of NATO going to war, much less full scale war involving unrestrained full exchanges of intercontinental thermonuclear-armed ballistic missiles, because a stray missile killed two (2) farmers in Poland.

For the love of our Savior Christ, stop spewing this peabrained bullshit.
 

planefag

A Flying Bundle of Sticks
In addition, "You're not allowed to defend yourself against dual-use units that we are actively using against you in their conventional capacity because that's escalating against our nuclear assets!" is one hell of a biased hot take.

One that's most likely shared by The Blob (foreign policy establishment thinkers in Washington, D.C.) given their dithering for months on sending HIMARS and even holding back a fucking dual use helicopter for fear it could be "used to strike the territory of a Great Power!"

I've seen Think Tank™ types opine that the strategic thinkers now in power in Washington - on either side of the civil/private revolving door - can't hold a flickering candle to the experts who wrote the books on deterrence theory at the height of the Cold War, and boy, it's not hard to see how right they are.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
One that's most likely shared by The Blob (foreign policy establishment thinkers in Washington, D.C.) given their dithering for months on sending HIMARS and even holding back a fucking dual use helicopter for fear it could be "used to strike the territory of a Great Power!"

It's a bit more nuanced when one Great Power is supplying dual use hardware to a state that's actively at war with another Great Power, because while proxy warfare has always been fair game, proxy warfare on a level that could be actually targeting a nuclear deterrent is much more fraught. Basically, it's the difference between, "Reactively taking out actively used dual-use assets" and "Proactively taking out Russia's nuclear bomber force en masse."

It's not wrong to tread carefully here.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
In addition, "You're not allowed to defend yourself against dual-use units that we are actively using against you in their conventional capacity because that's escalating against our nuclear assets!" is one hell of a biased hot take.
When two countries are at war every military asset belonging to both sides is a legitimate target.

The best way to keep a very valueable and hard to replace piece of strategic kit from getting damaged is to keep it too far away from the enemy for them to hit.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
It's a bit more nuanced when one Great Power is supplying dual use hardware to a state that's actively at war with another Great Power, because while proxy warfare has always been fair game, proxy warfare on a level that could be actually targeting a nuclear deterrent is much more fraught. Basically, it's the difference between, "Reactively taking out actively used dual-use assets" and "Proactively taking out Russia's nuclear bomber force en masse."

It's not wrong to tread carefully here.
Yeah, if Russia really cared about preserving their nuclear deterrent, those bombers would be staying on the other side of Ural mountains.
This is closer to US B-52's getting shot down over Vietnam.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
When two countries are at war every military asset belonging to both sides is a legitimate target.

That's not what anyone is arguing about. Strategic nuclear assets are absolutely legitimate targets, but that does not mean that targeting them for preemptive strikes isn't a hugely dangerous escalation because of what it implies.

Fortunately, that entire line is irrelevant because that isn't remotely what Ukraine is actually doing in this situation; they are targeting dual use assets that are currently active in the conventional role.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Breaking News... Reportedly the Ukainian Drone that Carried Out the Strike on the Russian Airbase Wasn't Domestically Produced Recently by Ukraine as I Initially Reported



Whoever provided these Drones to Ukraine will be reaping the whirlwind.


Tu-141 implies Russian manufacture. They may have been sitting in someone else's arsenal, but there are good odds it came from the Russians themselves.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top