Things are heating up in the Donbass

[holdover]

LoL @ WWIII.

Who the fuck is going to fight on Russia's side ?

This would look more like Desert Storm than a world war. It would be a complete one sided ass whooping.

It would look like a global nuclear war . First off Russia has more nukes than we do. They can devastate the entire country withen hours. #2 We are a air and maritime power, not a major land power. While it may be true we have a better trained army , Its difficult to replace the losses of highly trained experienced people . #3 the logistical problems are enormous. feeding an army would require 1-2 million meals a day , just for example. #4 The Chinese are not going to be real keen on the Idea of Nato on their border either. They would be forced to send troops to help stop the invaders, #5 nobody in thier right mind would start WW3 over Ukraine. its ridiculous on its face, Its not even an option , nobody is going to do it

 

[holdover]

I do not think so. Trump and Putin are pals, they see things very much the same as each other.

I am almost positive all this has been discussed between the two of them. They will both come out of these peace deals looking strong and bold.

Trump doesn't have much to bargain with , and all Putin has to do is say were are considering it and need time for a counter offer .

 

[holdover]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has firmly rejected any notion of territorial concessions ahead of high-stakes peace talks in Riyadh, calling such ideas "mere fantasies." Speaking before his departure to Saudi Arabia, Lavrov set the tone for the discussions, asserting that Russia would not concede any territories with Russian people on them. His comments come amidst growing tensions over the potential for peace negotiations between Russia and the U.S., with the looming possibility of a summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump. As diplomatic efforts intensify, Lavrov's resolute stance on territorial integrity underscores the hurdles facing any potential resolution to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

 

[spat]

It would look like a global nuclear war . First off Russia has more nukes than we do. They can devastate the entire country withen hours. #2 We are a air and maritime power, not a major land power. While it may be true we have a better trained army , Its difficult to replace the losses of highly trained experienced people . #3 the logistical problems are enormous. feeding an army would require 1-2 million meals a day , just for example. #4 The Chinese are not going to be real keen on the Idea of Nato on their border either. They would be forced to send troops to help stop the invaders, #5 nobody in thier right mind would start WW3 over Ukraine. its ridiculous on its face, Its not even an option , nobody is going to do it

China would send troops alright.

Right into Russia to grab as much territory as they could while the getting was good.

Russia *may* have more warheads, but they do not have effective working delivery mechanisms for more than a few hundred of them.

I would expect any war would start with conventional strikes disabling their ICBMs and their submarines would be sunk before they got word there *was* a war.

I don't think I need to explain why attempting to use bombers against NATO would be an utter failure.

This isn't the 1980s. Russia doesn't have a credible second strike capability anymore.


And I think you'll find that the US military is *by far* the most powerful land warfare machine in all of human history, and we absolutely have the logistics to support that invasion.

But, we wouldn't need it. Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill for *years* with little more than hand me down scraps from NATO. With NATO air support they could walk into Moscow without any assistance.

 

[Mosinitis]

Lavrov made a good case why EU riffraff should be kept away from the negotiation table as far as possible. He brought up a number of examples when EU leaders negotiated and signed agreements on Ukraine they didn't intended to keep and how this led to further escalation. Comparing their style to classic Gypsy con artists. A lot of Lavrov eloquence is lost in the translation.

 

[holdover]

China would send troops alright.

Right into Russia to grab as much territory as they could while the getting was good.

Russia *may* have more warheads, but they do not have effective working delivery mechanisms for more than a few hundred of them.

I would expect any war would start with conventional strikes disabling their ICBMs and their submarines would be sunk before they got word there *was* a war.

I don't think I need to explain why attempting to use bombers against NATO would be an utter failure.

This isn't the 1980s. Russia doesn't have a credible second strike capability anymore.


And I think you'll find that the US military is *by far* the most powerful land warfare machine in all of human history, and we absolutely have the logistics to support that invasion.

But, we wouldn't need it. Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill for *years* with little more than hand me down scraps from NATO. With NATO air support they could walk into Moscow without any assistance.

You do know they have nuclear capable subs off our coast right now right? Even one would cripple the US , so even if you dont get em all in one shot , game over. same for land based missles , they have thousands of them , trying to knock them out in one strike is a bit ambitious

You assume NATO air superiority on day one, thats not how its going to work , The russians have the best anti air missiles in the world bar none. they had to put their time money and scientists into it because even the Russians knew they didnt have the numbers to beat the west and had to compensate, The russian airforce wont come out and fight as you expect it would, they will stay behind a wall of air defense systems and strikes from there. it took a month to degrade the Iraqi air defense , it would take far longer with Russia


Im not sure your aware of the long range anti ship capability of the Russians , Logistics is not a for gone conclusion, This isnt Iraq, where we had a 6 month build up with no interference.

Let me say this, unit to unit The Americans outclass the Russians , as did the French German and Ukrainian army's the Russians have the home field advantage of short supply lines . There are limitations on our capabilities you know.

 

[spat]

You do know they have nuclear capable subs off our coast right now right? Even one would cripple the US , so even if you dont get em all in one shot , game over. same for land based missles , they have thousands of them , trying to knock them out in one strike is a bit ambitious

You assume NATO air superiority on day one, thats not how its going to work , The russians have the best anti air missiles in the world bar none. they had to put their time money and scientists into it because even the Russians knew they didnt have the numbers to beat the west and had to compensate, The russian airforce wont come out and fight as you expect it would, they will stay behind a wall of air defense systems and strikes from there. it took a month to degrade the Iraqi air defense , it would take far longer with Russia


Im not sure your aware of the long range anti ship capability of the Russians , Logistics is not a for gone conclusion, This isnt Iraq, where we had a 6 month build up with no interference.

Let me say this, unit to unit The Americans outclass the Russians , as did the French German and Ukrainian army's the Russians have the home field advantage of short supply lines . There are limitations on our capabilities you know.

The Russian subs would be sunk within minutes of the order being given by the white house.

Every one of them has a us attack sub following it every minute it's out from port.

If we were getting close to an actual war, they would probably each have 3.

The Russians have 11 ballistic missile submarines total. Typically only 1/3rd can be at sea at a time, and that's with US levels of maintainance.

We have 53 attack submarines to follow them. You do the math.


As for logistics, we had 6 months to build up for Desert Storm. We've spent 70 years preparing to fight Russia in Europe.

Most of the stuff for desert storm *came* from Europe.

And they only have 326 ICBMs, not thousands.

And while we might not have complete air supremacy on day one, conventional strike missions on every ICBM launch site would be the top priority, and casualties would be considered acceptable to eliminate them.

We may not be able to send in B52s on day one until the SEAD mission is complete, but B2s and F35s will absolutely eliminate those ICBMs.

I'm not sure what you think they're going to hide behind with their air defense.

 

[tirwin1]

The europeans will probably bitch and complain if any peace deal is made. However, there's not a thing they can do about it and its their own damn fault. The only weapon they have is the hot air coming out of their politician's mouths.

 

[spat]

The europeans will probably bitch and complain if any peace deal is made. However, there's not a thing they can do about it and its their own damn fault. The only weapon they have is the hot air coming out of their politician's mouths.

View attachment 257550

Western Europe pretending they're really part of NATO is like groupies pretending they're part of the band.

You may ride on the tour bus, but when it's time to go on stage you don't have a part to play.

 

[fresch]

Kabuki theater, will make a deal. Just who gets how much, U.S. going for raw minerals, Russia ? food production and slave labor.

 

[Mosinitis]

There will be no NATO troops in Ukraine. Not as a part of NATO, not as part of EU army, not as peace keepers, not as traveling circus. You don't plan long range missile attacks on Russian cities and then show up as peace keepers. Russians already stated that any such forces arriving in Ukraine will be made a priority target.

 

[Vapor]

Things are getting testy between Biden's puppet and Trump.

How long will Ukrain last without help from USAID