Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

sferrin

Junior Member
Registered Member
This has been the pattern of the U.S. posturing. We pick an event that is highly unlikely to happen, draw a redline around it and claim that we will rain thunder and lightning on the Russians if it happens.

There is no military advantage for using tactical nukes. Cannons and bombs are not only cheaper, but also work far better in this situation.
Taking a thousand step back, let's say the Russians did use tactical nukes in Ukraine, I highly doubt it would cause NATO to enter the war. NATO will be even less likely to go to war with a nation that is willing to take this step.
Appeasement is never the smart way to treat a bully. If Putin wants to open Pandora's Box maybe Sevastopol gets glassed for his trouble. Hell, by what we're seeing in Ukraine the West wouldn't even need nukes. The West, and US in particular, has one weakness and it's the fact that the Democrats are in power for now.
 
Last edited:

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Appeasement is never the smart way to treat a bully. If Putin wants to open Pandora's Box maybe Sevastopol gets glassed for his trouble. Hell, by what we're seeing in Ukraine the West wouldn't even need nukes. The West, and US in particular, has one weakness and it's the fact that the Democrats are in power for now.
What do you think would happen after that?
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Appeasement is never the smart way to treat a bully. If Putin wants to open Pandora's Box maybe Sevastopol gets glassed for his trouble. Hell, by what we're seeing in Ukraine the West wouldn't even need nukes. The West, and US in particular, has one weakness and it's the fact that the Democrats are in power for now.
LMAO the appeasement was from Russia to US since 2008. You're right it didn't work, Putin should've intervened in 2015 with heavy weapons and taken entire Donbas.

Instead by allowing the problem to fester and for Mariupol to be recaptured by Ukraine after just 1 APC got shot up, it gave the Ukrainians the wrong impression that Russia was weak and going to hold back.

One moment of weakness over allowing 1 APC getting shot to withdraw from Mariupol made it such that 7 years later destroying the entire city became necessary. So Russia won't make that same mistake again.

An attack on Sevastopol will be seen as a direct attack on a Russian federal subject. Hope you're ready for what's coming if you try.

One thing is known: Russian ballistic missiles don't fail in tests, and they test every year.
 

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
Appeasement is never the smart way to treat a bully. If Putin wants to open Pandora's Box maybe Sevastopol gets glassed for his trouble. Hell, by what we're seeing in Ukraine the West wouldn't even need nukes. The West, and US in particular, has one weakness and it's the fact that the Democrats are in power for now.
So, if we nuke Sevastopol, and the Russians retaliate, and the likelihood of their retaliation is very high, will you offer your own residence as ground zero for their retaliation?
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Even the ISW stated such regarding the encirclement:
"We are unable to corroborate most of these claims, particularly the claimed encirclement of large groups of Russian forces or the liberation of Irpin. The head of the Kyiv Oblast military administration stated on March 22 that Russian forces still controlled Bucha and Hostomel, that Ukrainian forces could conduct only local counterattacks, and that Ukrainian troops were preparing for a larger offensive operation—all of which would suggest that Ukrainian troops have likely not yet encircled Russian troops in these areas.[7] These Ukrainian claims may reflect the expectation that the Ukrainian counteroffensive will continue and cut off Russian forces currently in the Irpin salient. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and update our assessment and map if and when we find clear corroborating evidence of these claimed Ukrainian advances."

I think they should have left the part with Russian losses out of their assessment entirely. Just too speculative at the moment and most likely grossly exaggerated even from somewhat reputable sources. But that's just my opinion hence the "controversial" head line.
I saw the disclaimer. But there's no point in putting that if you're going to base all your assessments off it.
People here have to remember that the assessments are done from sources filled to the brink with misinformation and fog of war inaccuracies. ISW doesn't have direct inside access to the military command of either sides with 100% accurate information of current forces and operations. That would be totally unreasonable of us to demand. They are just trying their best to make some sense out of the same sources available to the rest of us. I think they do an overall decent job.
As many of us here have pointed out, we are only getting one side of the story. There is very little information coming out of Russia, because it is all being censored.

If they had any integrity they would point out that the claims being parroted by politicians & mainstream media make zero sense and are likely part of a government orchestrated information warfare campaign. If anything they are harming the Ukrainian cause as it isn't showing how desperate their situation really is.

Instead they're playing along with the fairytale that Ukraine divisions can appear out of nowhere and encircle the enemy with no air support, Ukrainians can achieve a 10-1 K/D ratio despite inferior firepower, Russian soldiers are all demoralised with frostbite and running each other over with tanks while the Ukrainians are all celebrating and making tiktok videos. Putting an asterisk at the end and saying this may not be 100% accurate doesn't make it okay. It's one thing for the general public to swallow all this propaganda, but for people who are supposed to know better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top