The War in the Ukraine

tamsen_ikard said:

I don't understand this logic that if Russia uses Nukes, then Nato enters the War. What is the logic behind it. Is the logic from Nato perspective, How dare Russia uses Nukes in Ukraine, so i am going to send my conventional troops into Ukraine so that they get hit by more Nukes? Or is the logic, I am going to nuke Russia in response?

Click to expand...

There is no logic because those are just words.

They simply know that Russia does not plan to use nukes in Ukraine and therefore they can portrait this “macho” talking.

The only useful use of nukes in Ukraine would be precisely in the context of a NATO deployment, to destroy airfields in western Ukraine

In the current context nukes would not add nothing since Ukraine troops are scattered. Of course Russia could use a nuke to destroy let’s say Chasov Yar and speed their advance one month, but polluting the territory that they consider Russia and that is included in Russian constitution

Proton said:

Not explicitly.

Well, if Russia sees Ukraine as a NATO/US proxy, then Russia should see attacks on it's early warning system as preparations for nuclear strikes by NATO/The US?
And if Russias second strike capabilities are crippled while NATO seem to be preparing strikes against it, the obvious course of action would be to launch strikes first?

I might be missing some nuances, but it seems like Ukraine - whether it acts on NATO behalf, or on its own - is priming the world for nuclear apocalypse.
What kind of redundancy does Russia have in terms of early warning, before things become critical?

Click to expand...

Well it is not early warning but in theory they have the Dead Hand system to assure second strike in case of the leadership in Moscow destroyed.

This wouldn’t help if Russian nukes are destroyed by the attack, but I suppose is not so easy to know where the launchers are and so on.
And anyway they have nuclear subs.

I guess Russian second strike capabilities are enough to deter any attack from NATO.
Even a very reduced Russian second strike would let NATO countries very diminished and ready to be taken over by China.

So I think calm minds will prevail in NATO.

But I do agree about Ukraine priming the world for apocalypse.
This is the problem of proxies, you need the craziest fanatics to be ready to die for your cause, and those can be difficult to control and prone to ruthless attitudes

Personally, I don't think strategic nukes will be used but I do think tactical nukes will be used on the Dniper bridges to prevent Polish troops from reaching Donbas. Russia ain't going to lose millions of men fighting Polish army. That's just dumb.

Santamaria said:

Well it is not early warning but in theory they have the Dead Hand system to assure second strike in case of the leadership in Moscow destroyed.

This wouldn’t help if Russian nukes are destroyed by the attack, but I suppose is not so easy to know where the launchers are and so on.
And anyway they have nuclear subs.

I guess Russian second strike capabilities are enough to deter any attack from NATO.
Even a very reduced Russian second strike would let NATO countries very diminished and ready to be taken over by China.

So I think calm minds will prevail in NATO.

But I do agree about Ukraine priming the world for apocalypse.
This is the problem of proxies, you need the craziest fanatics to be ready to die for your cause, and those can be difficult to control and prone to ruthless attitudes

Click to expand...

The NATO-perspective should be much simpler, as they know whether Ukraine is clearing the way for a first strike on their behalf or if Ukraine is simply acting on its own.

But Russia can only see that these conditions are created, they don't know the intent and will have to make assumptions.
They probably asked NATO to stop these Ukrainian attacks, and if they stop that should be the end of it.
If they continue, Russia may eventually conclude this is coordinated with NATO and a first strike is imminent.


This is simply unprecedented; there's never been clear indications of a first strike being prepared before. NATO has every reason to strongarm Ukraine into abandoning this campaign unless it's actually committed to strike.

Tam said:

Another attempt to attack a Voronezh-M radar gets shot down this time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Both radars attacked by Ukraine are not even aimed at them:

For NATO this is particularly interesting and I really see no reason for some of the organization's leadership to be afraid of these attacks, as the possibility of escalation would be a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine, a condition that NATO has already made clear would be the step towards NATO's official entry into the war or the Russians continuing to do what they always do when they suffer setbacks, taking off their bombers and attacking Ukrainian cities, but leaving Russia's nuclear capacity degraded temporarily or for a very long period.

Russia installing anti drone protection over 'critical infrastructure ' such as these gas substations in Moscow.


Captured Canadian MRAP Rochelle Senator from Volchansk.


FABs arrive on Ukrainian positions in Urozhayne. These might also be possibly UMPB, as these tend to arrive in small clusters.


FABs arrive at Hlyboke, at the Kharkhiv sector.


Ukrainian FPV drone shot and destroyed by good old shotgun.


Grad MLRS and Snov radar taken out by Lancets in the Kharkhiv front.


Tank fire from the 291st Regiment hitting Ukrainian positions beyond Rabotino.


FABs arrive at a Ukrainian stronghold near Liptsy.


Ukrainian counterattack in Krasnogorovka goes bad when a shelter where Ukrainian troops are hiding gets entered by an FPV drone.


Bradley in the Sokol area gets hit by an FPV drone.


Tyulpan crew at the office.


Lancet takes out another Ukrainian guntrak with a Zu-23-2.


The 110th Artillery Brigade bombards Ukrainian positions in Krasnogorovka, now limited to the residential area to the north.


Compilation of some Lancet attacks in the northern front.


Straight winged FPV drone (Lancet? Scalpel? New Drone) hits a shelter being used by Ukrainian troops.


Russian assault in progress. Russian tank firing point blank at a Ukrainian fortification.

Russian military personnel spoke about the use of the ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft artillery mount in Ukraine to combat drones. The ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun is capable of hitting targets at a range of up to 3 km.

Footage of the impact of the Russian kamikaze drone "Lancet-51" on the Ukrainian 155-mm self-propelled gun "Bogdan" on the T815-7T3RC1 (8x8) chassis. In total, 4 self-propelled guns were destroyed by drones in a week; two more self-propelled guns will also be shown at the end of the video. The Bogdana self-propelled gun comes in four types, on the MAZ-6317, Tatra 815-7, Kraz chassis and with an armored cab from the Ukrainian Armored Vehicles company. Currently, 6 self-propelled guns are produced per month. The Bogdana self-propelled gun has a rate of fire of 5 rounds per minute, a firing range of up to 30 km, and an Excalibur active-missile projectile of up to 50 km. Carryable ammunition - 20 shells. The time to bring the self-propelled gun into combat position is 1.5 minutes. As a result of a strike by the Lancet-51 drone, in the area of the village of Borshchevaya, Kharkov region, a fire started in the Bogdan self-propelled gun that destroyed the installation.

France to send instructors to Ukraine to train Ukrainian soldiers, Syrskyi says​

Kyiv has asked the U.S. and other NATO countries to help train 150,000 soldiers closer to the front lines, according to the New York Times.

Click to expand...

This will encourage more and more countries to send instructor soldiers to Ukraine.

Sinnavuuty said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This will encourage more and more countries to send instructor soldiers to Ukraine.

Click to expand...

But will they survive in The long term though, will NATO be any stronger if these instructors end up blown by Drones and will France be any more safer with less of there own soldiers