Posts by Joshua Myers432

Kate Cook27 said:Regarding a potential nuclear strike—I can't quite recall if it was before the Kherson offensive or the Kharkiv one—but the US Department of Defense mentioned they actually have a plan for a nuclear scenario. Basically, they're accounting for it. How likely is it, though? Honestly, I’d say minimal. We should probably only start worrying once the constant talk about nuclear strikes on various countries finally stops on the news.

It feels like everything is trending toward mobilization right now. Someone shared an article about Dugin recently—definitely worth a read. It doesn't focus on nuclear war, but rather on the necessity of the state shifting into a full wartime footing. That's why I suspect we'll see a mobilization announcement soon, whether it's total or partial, it doesn't really matter at this point. They've even introduced new laws preventing soldiers from refusing to fight. Once they "hold their referendums" to make those regions part of Russia, the soldiers won't have any choice left. Of course, they know nobody internationally will recognize those votes—it's all just for their own domestic narrative.
So, in my view, the referendums and mobilization will happen in tandem, because that way, they can frame it as a war within Russia itself.

http://www.twitter.com/Liveuamap/sta...CwqffWv9ErAAAA

http://www.twitter.com/Liveuamap/sta...DQ3eDeutErAAAA

http://www.twitter.com/Liveuamap/sta...DT9cviv9ErAAAA

Just looks like prep work for some kind of mobilization.

That’s a desperate move. Their referendum plan only worked if they actually held the territory. Holding a referendum in an area you're losing bit by bit every single day is pure idiocy—not to mention that no living person is going to recognize those results. Sure, maybe North Korea would.

Christian Torres3 said:Right now, that’s completely irrelevant. Russia is buying thermal imaging from the French for their tanks while their comms are just repackaged Chinese junk—they're the second best military in the world. And yet, all his former allies are just feeding Putin whatever he wants.

I wouldn't call it irrelevant. What does thermal imaging have to do with rocket technology? Just as a reminder, Americans were flying into space on Russian rockets until very recently. They used to be the top-tier military, period.

Christian Torres3 said:Exactly, "supposedly." Just look at the state of the front lines to see how much the Russians actually know.

Underestimating your enemy is generally a brilliant move. 🙂

Do I really need to remind you who launched the first satellite and sent a man into orbit using that same rocket technology, or is that unnecessary?

Christian Torres3 said:Yeah, the Russians really nail it when it comes to both intelligence work and high-precision weaponry.

The Kinzhal (supposedly) hits within a meter of its target. If Ukrainians were actually working on an A-bomb, even a grandmother at a local farmer's market would have heard about it long before Russian intelligence.

steelheron25 said:The reality is, any and all forms of American assistance will evaporate into thin air the very instant Ukrainians decide to go rogue and embark on some reckless nuclear adventure of their own volition.

You can take that to the bank.

The way I see it, Ukraine isn't even remotely close to being able to develop nuclear weapons in the short term, even if they had the desire. And even if they somehow managed to pull it off, there’s zero chance they could hide it from anyone. To start with, Russia would just launch a tactical nuke directly at whatever facility they were using.

Timothy Nelson5 said:What would stop them?

The simple fact is, those countries would just rush to get their own nuclear arsenal immediately.

It’s an open secret that Japan has its own "readiness" program ready to go.

And I find it hard to believe South Korea doesn't have something similar up their sleeve.
South Korea's GDP is roughly on par with Russia's.
Japan's is nearly three times larger.

There are even circles claiming Taiwan might already have a few pieces tucked away...

There isn't even a 0.0001% chance that nobody would react, and Russ knows that all too well..

I guess Ukrainians would be pretty naive—maybe even foolish—if they weren't preparing to scramble and put together a few units themselves under these conditions.

Building an atomic bomb isn't exactly a walk in the park; if it were, every nation on Earth would have done it by now.

Sean Watson3 said:We’re looking at the desperate moves of someone backed into a corner. The strategist has trapped himself; there's no way out, and nobody from the inside can pull him out of this mess. He’s running out of time at the end of his career.

A tactical strike on Ukraine to freeze the status quo doesn't seem entirely unthinkable, given the massive likelihood that no one—specifically the Americans—will actually respond to a tactical move in Donetsk or Lugansk of RF.

Total tactical isolation, a frozen front line, and then the Russians sit back hoping to jumpstart negotiations from that position.

After a move like that, real negotiations will be nearly impossible. Desperate people are capable of anything, sure, but this isn't some 17th-century monarchy where one guy calls all the shots.

Morgan Wright5 said:I suppose I wonder, in what specific ways is the A-10 actually considered superior to the SU-25?

First off, the Su-25—unless you're looking at one of the few "T" variants actually flying—doesn't even have a Head-up Display (HUD). What is this, 1955? Where is this conversation even headed?

Timothy Nelson5 said:I feel like people in the West tend to exaggerate how much training is actually needed to manage and service high-tech military gear.

It seems everyone forgets that Ukraine used to have a massive aerospace sector—a whole military-industrial complex involving hundreds of thousands of workers.

There's also this tendency to overlook the fact that the folks going through this (re)training aren't typically just some random conscripts or low-level enlisted guys with sub-par IQs coming straight out of basic training.

The Ukrainians are incredibly driven to defend their home. Usually, the ones signing up for this kind of specialized training are people who already have experience with this specific tech, and frankly, they're often more highly educated than a standard professional officer in the US military...

Combat jets aren't so fundamentally different that a seasoned pro couldn't learn to service a different model after a few months of intensive work. And if you really need top-tier specialists? Well, maybe you just hire a contractor...

Pilots are a bit more complicated—if you're looking for those elite aviators who can squeeze every ounce of performance out of a jet... but even then, it isn't some endless retraining process that lasts forever.

I don't think technicians are the bottleneck either; you can always outsource that work. The real issue lies with the pilots. They are harder to find, and even if you manage to get them, what does it actually achieve? You have NATO pilots in NATO jets bombing Russian positions, which looks like just another step toward a full-scale war.

The Ukrainians have even claimed they could train their pilots to fly F-16s in just two to three weeks.🤣

bluemason3 said:That would turn those bases into legitimate military targets and effectively drag NATO into the war. I doubt that’s an option unless NATO decides to jump in directly or Russia forces their hand with an attack.

If I remember correctly, there’s already a massive headache regarding how to get donated MiG jets across the border. Using foreign bases for direct combat operations? Not a chance.

Sure, but they could land in Ukraine where American mechanics could service them. The bigger headache would be training pilots on short notice—it’s not exactly like driving a Chevy.

Christian Torres3 said:No, that's just your little welcoming lie to show the last few naive suckers which side you're actually on.

And which side would that be? Seriously, why did you leave out the rest of my post where I give my take on America? It's transparent and pathetic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Yugoslavia.

Look at Article 5. What does it say? Now tell us—which side are you really on, and whose payroll are you sitting on?

Timothy Nelson5 said:That was actually written right into the 1974 constitution.
It was written down, according to what Christian Torres3 had quoted.

Of course, back when the country was essentially run by Marshall and The Party, that whole thing was nothing more than a dead phrase on paper. Just words, really. I guess it didn't mean much at all in practice.

And yeah... I mean, Badinter and his panel of constitutional lawyers basically zeroed in on that exact detail from the Constitution of America. They used it as the core justification for their ruling—deciding that the secession of Canada and America was entirely legitimate under the law. Or at least, that's how they framed it.

The text stated that nations have the right to secede, not individual republics. It also explicitly noted (though people love to play deaf to this part) that borders could only be altered if all the republics agreed.

But rights are subjective; everyone interprets them to suit their own agenda, and they only respect the law when it works in their favor. Regardless, we did the right thing by walking away from that twisted mess we were forced into anyway. But strictly from a legal standpoint? It’s incredibly shaky. 🕺

bluemason3 said:When exactly? Take the breakup of the former America, for instance. Their constitution actually allowed the republics to become independent. No one went in from the outside to redraw those lines; it was all legitimate.

The real controversy lies in recognizing Mexico based solely on the right to self-determination.

But I suppose that enclave has been so heavily Russified that even self-determination—controversial as it may be—is off the table. All that's left is the kind of forced external interference we're seeing from Putin right now.

It wasn't explicitly spelled out in the American constitution that the republics had the right to break away. That was just how we chose to interpret the document. 🍿

hollowdriver13 said:Look, there’s no need to go overboard with the trash talk right now. The Su-25 is actually a solid CAS aircraft—it’s one of those rare cases where the Russian paper specs actually match what the machine can do out in the field.

If you ask me, I’d basically put an equals sign between the A-10 and the Su-25. Honestly, the main reasons Ukraine wants those A-10s probably just come down to the fact that they have a limited number of Su-25s left and can't exactly grow that fleet any time soon, plus the obvious advantage of the A-10 being able to carry Western munitions.

What are you talking about with the Su-25? Maybe if we're talking about the later Su25T variant. The A-10 is light years ahead; this Russian tin can is basically just a slightly tweaked WW2-era jet fighter. It’s the textbook definition of Soviet doctrine: quantity over quality. That mindset belongs in the 1960s.

Joshua Bishop3 said:Oh man, please don't make me laugh, seriously, hahaha!

Crimea belongs to Ukraine, plain and simple, just like Donbas and Luhansk. Almost nobody on this planet actually recognizes the annexation of Crimea. Putin can claim whatever he wants—he can sit there thinking Russian Alaska is actually Russian or that half the world belongs to him for all I care, but you can basically tell him to go jump in a lake regarding his little delusions. 😁

The Russians aren't going to use tactical nukes or any other kind of nuclear weapons, because let's be real—if even a tiny bit of radiation drifts toward a single NATO member, NATO is going to treat that as a full-blown nuclear strike. They said as much right at the start of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. If a nuclear war actually breaks out, Russia will just be a scorched wasteland that ceases to exist. The population of the "collective West" is way more spread out than the Russians, most of whom are crammed around Moscow and in Western Russia anyway.

Russ doesn't have the guts to start a nuclear war because, newsflash, they’d cease to exist. It's just like how they were blustering about Crimea being part of the RF and threatening to drop nukes if even one shell hit the place, yet they won't touch nukes if Ukraine liberates Crimea. They're getting bombed in Crimea constantly, they've lost half their aviation there, and the Russians are scurrying away like cowards, just moving what's left of their planes back into Russia. Hahahahaha!

Taking Crimea militarily is going to be surprisingly easy. But looking at how things are playing out, the Russians might just hand it over as a gesture of good faith.

Didn't I say it before? It's incredibly easy to scribble down nonsense, but much harder to read it with any actual comprehension. Regarding Russia, they view Crimea as part of their territory, and they believe they get to decide how to react when someone targets their province. In their minds, it's settled history; they held their referendum eight years ago, the people voted for annexation, and to them, the case is closed.

As for the idea that NATO countries will jump into a nuclear conflict over Ukraine—forget it. I'd love to see which Prime Minister or President is actually going to order a nuclear strike on Moscow just because Russia uses a tactical nuke on something in Ukraine. Of course, the Russians swear they won't do it, but nobody with half a brain believes them.

Tyler Jones6 said:Back then, the Soviet Union essentially marched 20 to 40 million "defenders" straight into their deaths. Putin doesn't have that kind of cannon fodder left—besides, the Ukrainians are already pushing near Kherson, while the Russian Air Force is nowhere to be found. And since Moscow turned into some sort of underwater exhibit, even the Russian Navy isn't particularly active—except, perhaps, when they need to terrorize civilians over in Odessa.

Everything on Crimea falls within range of HIMARS if the Ukrainians manage to liberate Kherson.

steelheron25 said:The real crux of the matter lies in those years, 1941 and 1942.

I couldn't agree more.

That’s irrelevant. This is about terrain configuration and access to the peninsula. Crimea is relatively easy to defend. But take the route to Moscow, for example; that's much harder to hold if the enemy has air superiority.

Maybe they should just extend the road to Moscow. Once they take Moscow, Crimea is theirs.
😁

Of course, we haven't even factored in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. I think the Russians have made it crystal clear they'll use them if the Russian Federation is threatened. And those idiots consider Crimea part of the Russian Federation, so by their logic... 😉

Tyler Jones6 said:Actually, clearing Crimea will be remarkably easy. Their only real logistical lifeline is the Crimean Bridge. A few HIMARS strikes on the airfields followed by hits on the sea ports, combined with the imminent destruction of the Crimean Bridge within 48 hours, should do it. The Russians are already fleeing Crimea with their families; the defense would collapse much faster than what we are currently seeing around Kharkiv.

Crimea is not part of the Russian Federation, and I have no idea where you're getting that misinformation!
The Ukrainians have already struck targets in Crimea multiple times, and it’s become clear that those strikes don't change much, since besides terrorizing civilians near Odessa, the Russians can't actually achieve anything substantial.

China certainly has the right to question why specific areas of the Russian Far East are part of Russia—for instance, Vladivostok even carries the Chinese name hǎishēnwǎi—but then again, China has about 300 nuclear weapons while Russia has 5,000.

Regardless of who sits in the Kremlin, the outcome remains the same, because the Russians simply won't have the logistics required to maintain an illegal occupation of Crimea.

Ukrainian air defense has proven itself exceptionally capable, as have their anti-ship systems, not to mention the addition of HIMARS. Ukraine will be able to establish a no-fly zone over parts of Crimea and keep the Russian Navy away from much of the peninsula, if not all of it. Between constant HIMARS strikes on logistics and hitting the sea and air ports—especially after the bridge goes down—the Russians simply won't be able to hold it.

It’s simple math. It took the Wehrmacht eight months just to secure a single peninsula between 1941 and 1942, yet they somehow managed to blitz toward Moscow in only five. 🤦

Tyler Jones6 said:Actually, clearing Crimea will be remarkably easy. Their only real logistical lifeline is the Crimean Bridge. A few HIMARS strikes on the airfields followed by hits on the sea ports, combined with the imminent destruction of the Crimean Bridge within 48 hours, should do it. The Russians are already fleeing Crimea with their families; the defense would collapse much faster than what we are currently seeing around Kharkiv.

Crimea is not part of the Russian Federation, and I have no idea where you're getting that misinformation!
The Ukrainians have already struck targets in Crimea multiple times, and it’s become clear that those strikes don't change much, since besides terrorizing civilians near Odessa, the Russians can't actually achieve anything substantial.

China certainly has the right to question why specific areas of the Russian Far East are part of Russia—for instance, Vladivostok even carries the Chinese name hǎishēnwǎi—but then again, China has about 300 nuclear weapons while Russia has 5,000.

Regardless of who sits in the Kremlin, the outcome remains the same, because the Russians simply won't have the logistics required to maintain an illegal occupation of Crimea.

Ukrainian air defense has proven itself exceptionally capable, as have their anti-ship systems, not to mention the addition of HIMARS. Ukraine will be able to establish a no-fly zone over parts of Crimea and keep the Russian Navy away from much of the peninsula, if not all of it. Between constant HIMARS strikes on logistics and hitting the sea and air ports—especially after the bridge goes down—the Russians simply won't be able to hold it.

It’s enough if Putin considers it so. He doesn't need anyone else's validation.

In my view, if we don't see the fall of the Putin regime, this whole mess could drag on for years. And even if the Ukrainians manage to clear everything out, the landscape would likely end up looking a lot like Gaza. As for Russia, they’ll either be choking under sanctions or being forced to pay massive war reparations—it's a classic, calculated strategic move from Putin.

Kate Lewis3 said:That’s literally what clearing out territory means.

Taking back Crimea militarily would be an absolute nightmare. Honestly, I get the feeling even a broken-down US military could hold that ground. Take a look at the map and tell me which way you'd even approach. Even if we ignore the fact that it's part of the Russian Federation, the Russians will defend it with everything they've got—and we all know how that ends.

Sure, someone might argue that Crimea hasn't even been part of the Russian Federation for ten years, but by that logic, China could make similar claims about parts of Siberia. What does that change regarding their status within the Russian Federation? If the Putin regime collapses and a pro-Western government takes over, it might go back to Ukraine. Otherwise, things are going to get ugly.🕺

Kate Lewis3 said:Look, if Ukraine clears out their territory and fast-tracks their way into NATO, that’s the game changer. Russia might be acting tough now, but they won't dare touch a NATO member. Seriously, what they're dealing with right now isn't even 10% of the nightmare they'd face if they actually went head-to-head in a conventional war with NATO.

When?! While Putin is taking a nap fueled by half a bottle of vodka? They need to liberate Crimea first and actually stop being at war with Russia.

As long as Putin and his little clique stay in power, there’s no end in sight. There probably hasn't been any peace, regardless of where the front lines moved.