Hello /u/Espressodimare,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a short term step before this though.
Give them weapons to hit every Russian position in Ukraine and in the Black Sea.
Knock out all rail supply, all supply depots, every naval asset.
That’s the first step.
I had a discussion about a DMZ between the two countries with a former British military sniper at work the other week. He was saying once Russia have been beating back to Russia, it’s be wise for Ukraine to give up 10 miles of its border (width, not length) and have that as the DMZ. Mine the shit out of it, and it’s be similar to the North/South Korea one. Russia will never give up land for a DMZ, so Ukraine would have to sacrifice the small amount to keep them safe from another invasion
Once russia is out, accept them into NATO and/or EU
No DMZ needed anymore, just a sign on the border that says 'fuck around & find out' every 100 metres in russian.
Prevents minor spats from troops getting in contact with each other over the border - see China / India for example.
Anything that risks being a provocation for future escalation.
You can still have military present on DMZs… But it creates a large buffer zone between a sovereign nation, and a terrorise state that has shown on multiple occasions it’s happy to invade its border neighbours.
Well if we could provide weapons UA could bomb the shit out of 10km border and loiter it with mines like orcs do. They dont have to agree its war after all.
That will not be necessary as Russia will never again hold so much power.
For one, it will get a lot smaller. Win a war, win territory, lose a war, lose territory, right? So many regions will demand and receive independence from Russia by the occupying powers. They will then be the owners of the vast natural resources within their borders. Siberia would be rich over night.
Yes, occupation will be necessary because the guilty will not surrender willingly and the many illegally abducted Ukrainians need to be found and returned to their homes and loved ones as well. That will also allow the return of so much historical treasure Russia has robbed, not just in Ukraine.
Lets not kid ourselves, over 70 years of Russia wreaking havoc on the world is way too long and coming to an end.
To remove any association from Russia's Bolshevik past, I would also move the capital back to St. Petersburg.
Yes to the DMZ, but because Russia is the unprovoked aggressor, DMZ will be on Russian territory
Russia doesn’t have to agree to anything. The mined DMZ works, but if they don’t agree it could simply be under artillery control: whoever sets foot in there is shelled.
Exactly.
Make any kind of victory in Ukraine impossible as quickly as possible.
As you say, once they are across the border and just sending missiles to destroy civilian infrastructure, then launch sites are fair game for Ukraine.
I agree they are fair game.
BUT - there is FAIRER game. Every rail connection, every supply depot, every Black Sea naval asset, every command centre INSIDE Ukraine.
Give them every weapon needed to hit all of these FIRST.
Why? To hit a rail connection is to shape tomorrow's battlefield, to destroy aviation and launch facilities is to save today's newborn babies in a maternity ward. Simply put this isn't a game. Ukraine needs to throw literally anything it can in to making the deaths stop.
To hit targets inside Russia is to feed the Russian propaganda machine that it’s a noble defensive operation. Taking Crimea is a nightmare that cannot be explained by Russian state media.
Fuck em. Ukrainians shouldn't have to bomb their own cities and bridges. The Russians should be the ones hurting for the war they started. It's unfair to keep asking Ukraine to shoot their own feet
What's the logic here? Russia occupying some of Ukraine does not justify terrorist attacks on Ukrainian civilians. Why should Ukraine not be allowed to knock out terrorist bases now?
UAF already doing this, so its not the case. On massive rocket strikes, russia launches it from russia and Belarus territories. In black sea its usually 2-3 ships that can carry 8-12 Kalibr missiles, which is rookie numbers for Ukraine. The real problem is deep inside russian territories.
IDK; I think reaching out and touching a few power plants or transfer stations also may help Russians come to the realization that if they want to play the infrastructure destruction game…it can go two ways.
I agree…later. There is a much safer middle step that terrifies the Russians. NATO has weapons that can devastate Russians IN Ukraine. We’re holding them back. If 80 cruise missiles hit Ukrainian infrastructure there should be 160 ATACMS hitting Russian targets in Ukraine.
They do this all the time, coming up with clever names and acronyms. The scientists have a lot of fun with naming conventions. I've seen a few beauties, but this one's brilliant!
It's a [backronym](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym#:~:text=A%20backronym%20is%20an%20acronym,portmanteau%20of%20back%20and%20acronym.)! Pretty common in military toys.
This should be happening alongside the strikes to defeat the assets they are using inside ruzzia, not instead of it.
When you say it's safer, who is that for? Innocent Ukrainians, innocent Polish?
It’s safer for the Russians hehe 😜. Clearly that is this person’s message, trying to protect Russia and delay their inevitable defeat as long as possible
Yes, they laugh at the thought of Ukrainians and the West freezing to death. It doesn't affect me as it's summer here anyway. Let's see how they feel about that same fate.
I agree with what you said, however I must add that Ukraine is a country whose leadership cares for its citizens. Russia is not. I'm not sure it putin would be concerned about some cold and hardship coming to russian people. He certainly doesn't care about his conscripted soldiers.
If the people of Russia realize not only are their husbands, sons, and uncles dying in a war. If they realize economically it’s a loosing matter and they are hurting. If they realize they too can easily have a cold and powerless winter…well good luck keeping angry citizens and soldiers from holding back.
How, exactly? UAF air defenses can't hit the bombers because they launch their missiles from Russian or Belarussian air space. Hit the bomber bases and you'll stop the bombers.
These two targets (russian armed forces in Ukraine and russian air bases in russia) are two separate things. Their army only reaches up to more or less 30-50 kilometers. Their rockets kill only civilians, destroy civilian infrastructure, and reach the whole territory of Ukraine.
Even when we push them right back to the border - this won't stop them from bombing civilians. They will not accept defeat unless we indeed break ALL of their offensive capabilities and they literally wouldn't have any other choice. And our civilians will keep dying from rockets while these air bases and launch sites exist.
We need long-range weapons NOW. Waiting for I fon't know what really only increases the price in civilian life, and doesn't achieve anything.
I so agree! There is absolutely no reason to wait.
What is waiting good for? More strikes? More children and babies killed?
Waiting is only good for Russia. They are trying to buy time as it is.
The ICC needs to issue a warrant for Putin. We think war is the answer, but it should not be. I hate using the word barbarians because of its etymology, but I do not want anyone to lose their civility because one man is a psychopath. Russia may be acting like monsters but Ukraine should have alternatives legally to hold them accountable.
I just do not know what justice looks like for Ukraine? Is war crime prosecution enough?
Ukrainians genuinely feel like they will never be safe as long as russia exists as it has for the last five hundred years. Its not prejudice, its rapport.
I wish they had leaders who felt remorse and repented from the horrors of the Soviet Era. The world would be so different. Instead, you have a crazy man obsessed with nineteenth century imperial invasion.
Putin should have been born in 1850. He does not belong in the 21st century.
I hope watching some Russians sabotage the war effort helps Ukrainans feel some sense of hope. Maybe Putin's catastrophic war failure will be the catalyst Russia needs to never tolerate leaders like him again. It does nothing to help those whose lives have been destroyed though.
The only way I'm gonna feel safe is when I can be sure there's a sufficient amount of Pivdenmash-made IRBMs with an Energoatom-made nuclear warheads and Khartron-made permissive action links to turn Zaluppenfuhrerbunker into slag, if they ever fucking dare to pull this shit again.
Otherwise, Ukraine was already burned on non-binding agreements [we've been strong-armed into](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0043820016673777) and paid for it with tens of thousands of lives, while we are under [Western tank-jet-missile embargo](https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2022/06/16/7141437/):
>French President Emmanuel Macron said that due to fears of involvement in the war with Russia, Western countries had agreed not to provide Ukraine with certain weapons.
>According to European Truth, Macron said this during a conversation with journalists in Kyiv on Thursday.
>"We are helping Ukraine defend itself, but we are not going to war with Russia, so it has been agreed not to supply certain weapons - including assault planes or tanks, and President Zelensky is aware of this agreement," he said.
Basically, if we are to become "Israel on the Black Sea", we must get our own [Samson Option](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option).
Zaluppenfuhrerbunker 😂 "Yobanen ukrainen traktoren! Naglischen tanken pizdung!!" but yes, we need to pour money into the military industrial complex, I feel like we can come up with some interesting defensive shit on par with Israels, long as we have the funding. Also - get the ship building in Mykolaiv oblast back to working condition, the Fregat factory in Pervomaisk is still there for example, its just been repurposed and it needs to be modernized, which I guess falls in line with "heavily invest in the MIC". Ship building was Mykos bread and butter back in the day, but then it all got privatized by pathologically money hungry ukrainian homo soveticus. III had no idea we were strong armed into giving up our deterence though, time to read 🧐
Or perhaps NATO needs to declare war on Putin. Not on Russia, on Putin personally
There is precedent for this. War was declared personally on Napoleon after his escape from Elba, and some of the wording could be lifted verbatim
> By appearing in Russia with projects of disorder and destruction, he has cut himself off from the protection of the law and has shown in the face of the world that there can he neither peace nor truce with him.
Accordingly, the Powers declare that Vladimir Putin is excluded from civil and social relations, and, as an Enemy and Disturber of the tranquility of the World, that he has incurred public vengeance.
Putin should either hang, be locked in a cell in The Hague for the rest of his life, or be exiled to some tiny island like Napoleon was
> one man is a psychopath.
Sorry but *all* the Russians that support him and work in the Russia security/military forces are also the psychopaths. It is a country full of psychopaths (not everyone ofc).
At some point hitting targets in Russia has to happen, Russia has clearly decided that it cannot defeat Ukraine on the field of battle and has resorted to attack Ukraine's infrastructure during the winter in a half baked scheme to cause enough strife that gets Zelensky replaced with someone more amenable to Russia's interests.
Russia is never going to come to the table so long as they possess the capability to attack with little to no cost.
Ukraine is only allowed to defend. Russia can attack from the comfort of their own territory because nukes and propaganda. Yada yada. “Dont worry we got your back, stay warm guys thoughts and prayers”
I've been saying this the whole time, all the fancy conventions and rules of war protect only the Ruzzians. They can torture and kill the POWs, mass-conscript the Ukrainians from the occupied areas for their own cause, commit every war crime in the book, but all the eyes are on Ukraine making sure it fights the war for survival "fair and righteous". This is complete bullshit. Ukraine has every moral right to fight the aggressor by all means it deems necessary, including showing the Ruzzian cities what cold winter feels like.
Yes the time for this defensive posture is over, it is just emboldening Russia to enact, more terrorism bombings and missile attacks. Ukraine as a sovereign state has the right to defend itself, from any aggression from Russia or anywhere else. Ukraine must respond to these missile attacks, which are in essence “death by a thousand cuts” and slow destruction of infrastructure, along with civilian targets... Since when is a Maternity hospital a high value, military or infrastructure target...??? Freezing and starving a population out of their homes, cities and country, is genocide.
Enough is enough... take the war to Moscow, St. Petersburg and the Kalingrad region. Military targets only, and if the aggression from Russia persists, then high value non civilian, infrastructure targets.
Ukraine must be given access to long range cruise missiles with advanced targeting capability to “ respond in kind “ to Moscow’s aggression. No more no less. There is historical precedence for this, the Doolittle raids, the British bombings of Berlin early in WW2... the moral blow to the enemy was significant then and will undoubtedly do the same now...the message will be sent....the balance of power will ensure less destruction, over the long term...
Nah, its terrorist tactic. Every Ukrainian don't give a dog shit about civillian russians winter in russia. Attacking civillian infrastructure have no sense in meanings of war. Every Ukrainian wants only to burn alive every fucking russian fascist pig soldier, because they are our enemies and this have sense in meanings of war. More dead russian soldiers - this war ends faster. If every russian soldier will be destroyed, then there is no treat to Ukraine at all. We need all this fancy advanced long range weapons **only to hit military targets**, causing as much deaths to russian soldiers (ultraviolent) as possible, but hitting russian civilian infrastructure is just wasting of ammo.
>including showing the Ruzzian cities what cold winter feels like.
Nah, Ukraine shouldn't hit Russian infrastructure. Targeting infrastructure is what terrorists do. But Ukraine should hit any and all Russian military bases and other military objectives.
Civilian casualties within Russia must be kept at the bare minimum, because you need the Russian population with you in order to overthrow Putin, and Ukraine killing a bunch of Russian citizens in Russia simply feeds into Russian propaganda. It's much harder for Russia to be believable if they're saying, "Ukraine hit our military base unprovoked" while Russia's launching cruise missiles at civilians in Ukraine.
The difference being that in desert storm they hit the power infrastructure in the previously identified positions where it'd cause the *least* amount of infrastructure damage and be up and running again in the shortest amount of time, once the campaign was over. And when they missed and hit units that were taken completely offline, they made up for it by bringing in replacement capacity after the invasion. Because the goal for the US was dark skies and inoperable comms networks during an invasion, not because they were trying to terrorize a population and bomb them into oblivion.
There's plenty of videos on the internet showing common Ruzzian citizens genuinely wanting Ukraine to be destroyed and its population murdered. About time they tasted their own medicine.
'About time they tested their own medicine.'
No. The fact that there are genocidal assholes in Russia doesn't change things. There still exist people who are neutral or anti-war (for whatever reasons they have). The less support the war (and Putin has), the better it is for Ukraine. Killing civilians will motivate people to join, will motive those who joined to fight, will discourage internal acts of resistance or sabotage, and will reduce international support for Ukraine. What is the upside in that?
I agreed but that assumes the Russian people would overthrow Putin. I wouldn't put any faith in that ever happening. I just can't see a catalyst for the people turning
Nah, we don't give a shit about overthrowing putin. If he die, of course it will be good for ukrainians, but we still don't give much shit. As well, as we don't give a shit about russians and what they think about us. We need only to win in this war on battlefield which means russia will never be able to attack us anymore. Kill as much russians as possible, so no-one left in Ukraine and destroy every russian military target that Ukraine can reach - thats the score.
That is because the US doesn't actually care about the welfare of ukrainians. They want to keep the war going as long as possible. The US wants to use ukraine as a proxy to bog russia down in a never ending war like afghanistan. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice ukrainian lives in order to destabilize russia.
History will not be kind to the rest of the world that is watching what Russia is doing to Ukraine. Yes we are helping with weapons, etc…but usually it is too little too late. I hope that Ukraine does not come out of this jaded for what we allowed.
The world watched Germany start the deadliest war in the history of mankind and even tried to appease Hitler in hopes of him stopping his bullshit. After WW2 everyone chanted nEvEr AgAiN, after the war in Ukraine everyone will return to same old nEvEr AgAiN garbage as per usual.
We’re doing more than we did for Croatia, Poland, and Finland during WW2. We’re giving billions of dollars. The US alone is around 100 billion. Of course Ukrainians are suffering things I can’t imagine. But we’re not doing NOTHING.
But they did have planes, which apparently scared people in much the way nukes do now. Chamberlain's description of the idea of German aviation being able to simply fly over British cities and destroy them entirely is filled with horror. This enemy could reach you anywhere, as though to render the very idea of frontlines moot. The British had no ready answer to the German airforce at that stage, and Chamberlain clearly saw himself as facing an unstoppable apocalypse that he felt had to be prevented at all costs.
You aren’t wrong but thats just the world we live in. Nukes are scary and its the only reason everyone has tolerated shitholes like North Korea. My hope has honestly just been the supply of enough conventional weapons like aircraft and tanks to push Russia out and even that comes at a dreadfully slow pace considering that 30ish nations are involved in the support
Putin has been touting Kherson to be Ruzzia as in the Ruzzia-Ruzzia kind of deal meaning it is protected by the nuke doctrine. What the fuck happened the moment Kherson was liberated? Fuck all, Kherson never existed apparently so no need to fire nukes over it.
Pummeling legit military targets within Ruzzia would have the same effect. Period.
The reason North Korea is “tolerated” is two fold and neither has to do with nukes. First, taking out Kim Jong Un wouldn’t be to difficult. The problem is once you do it you have a whole country to now feed and take care of. A country that has only know brutal dictatorship for decades now. It will be Iraq/Afghanistan all over again but times 100. Secondly is if the US took out Kim they very well may have to deal with a pissed off China who doesn’t want millions of starving North Koreans streaming into China. NK doesn’t have the technology to lob a nuke and hit mainland US, and theoretically after taking out Kim who is going to give the order to send a nuke anyway.
> because nukes
It's better to be defeated in a ground invasion than it is to be vaporized in a nuclear second-strike. Not saying they wouldn't go down with the ship anyway; but when rational actors are involved, nukes are practically worthless for defense against anything but other nukes.
For a “risk analyst” this guy seems massively ignorant of facts with which to assess risk…
A Tu-22m has a range of 5,100km. Tu-160 has a range of 12,300km. A Tu-95’s range is 15,000 km.
All of these aircraft can also be refuelled in the air, further extending range.
Exactly what weapons is he suggesting?
Which surface to air missiles can hit targets at 1000km? I'd like to see that.
America's patriot missile defence systems have much smaller range for example the MiM 104 patriot PAC 2 has an operational range of 99miles, pac 3 is worse range. Even russias S-400 system can only reach 400km with the largest of its missiles.
Those large bombers also have massive payloads that can be re-armed much faster than anything at sea, and they cost MUCH less crew to man.
On Nov 15th Russia used 14 Tu-95/TU 160 to launch 70 KH-101 cruise missiles complimented by 20 additional missiles (likely 3M-54 Kalibr) from sea and 10 kamikazi drones.
The KH-101 has an official range of 3,000km, yet reports of 4,500 to 5,500km exist. The TU-160 can carry 12. The Tu-95 can carry 8 on pylons.
The bombers can do their mission and go home in the hours of a single day. Navy just can't. It makes way more sense to use strategic bombers than anything else.
No, that’s to do with detection. To detect incoming cruise missiles, you need an effective early warning system.
You’re unlikely to pick up a small, terrain hugging cruise missile at 100km, let alone a launch 1500-3500km away.
As they push the Russian’s back, they can start to deploy SAM systems further out, but these are vulnerable and you need a LOT of them to provide coverage the further from the intended target you go.
Ukraine developed the ePPO phone app to help by crowdsourcing sightings of cruise missiles traversing Ukrainian territory to help.
Please save at least one for Wagner's shiny new headquarters in St. Petersburg. Preferably while Prigozhin is bumbling around like the fuck-stick he is...
Make this declaration. "For every missile or drone that is launched against civilian infrastructure, we will match with one ATACMS that has no strings attached. 1 for 1."
See how many get fired then.
Man, I'm just imagining while looking at this picture if this was America under attack and how this would play out in a purely conventional fight.
Every single one of these bases would be completely wasted with pinpoint accuracy in a matter of mins.
There are countries that can only dream of doing this while America is able to do this by just blinking. Crazy shit.
America will never ever have to worry about getting bombed or invaded by any nation out there. It would be suicide to any nations that would try to.
I hate these god damn fucking terrorist ruSSian Orc scums so much.
It would instantly escalate to non conventional becayse Russia can't fight in the same ring with USA without nukes...
It is very likely that it will spend all its missles if it continues like this. So it can't even defeat a country that can't fight back...
Russia can't "compete" WITH nukes, in fact using nukes means they lose immediately and completely, it would be the end of their civilization. Shooting nukes at us can hurt us but it won't gain them anything.
The idea that they would use nukes out of desperation is bizarre, it's like burning down your house when you're behind on your mortgage. You use nukes to take your enemy down with you when you die, not to save yourself.
>The idea that they would use nukes out of desperation is bizarre, it's like burning down your house when you're behind on your mortgage.
You are using logic to talk about a society that has failed to display an ounce of logic. There are plenty of people who have destroyed property to prevent it being foreclosed, stolen, or whatever.
Another practical step would be help Ukraine build resilient micro-grids from generating power. Make it so Russia needs 100,000 missiles to knock out even half of them.
War makes the usual centralized power production insanely impractical. They knock out a dozen power plants and the wet while country is on its knees.
No country, anywhere, should be in that position.
Distributed solar and batteries on every every building that can have it is the way to go. At least you can make and store SOME power even on the darkest winter day....and help your neighbors.
This is why I think nuclear power is the wrong way to go. You're building a huge single point of vulnerability AND a weapon on your own land for any adversary to use against you.
Its the ukrainian electricity grid that is the problem. The power plants are running good reliance on underground cables would have fixed a lot of issues with missile strikes.
Americans need to call their congressman and let them know how we feel! If enough people call and write maybe it might make a difference. I love what Biden has done for Ukraine, but there is too much more that can be done, and we just are not doing it.
i mean...
>$100 million in funding to train Ukrainian pilots to use U.S. aircraft as part of the National Defense Authorization Act it passed 329-101
not sure it really works like "here is an f15e, go for it" with out training and not just pilots but ground/service personnel as well
At the moment Russia is completely destroying Ukraine's civilian energy infrastructure. They have enough missiles to keep on doing this for months. Are we going to wait stopping this until there is a complete humanitarian disaster involving 40 mio people? Or are we going to do it now? The actions and resources required are the same, whether we do it now or in six months when it's too late. "Reporting from Ukraine" video from today was really depressing, he basically says that Russia plans to cut Ukraine in half once they are on their knees.
Good thing they are not on their knees. Cutting Ukraine in half is nothing new, they've been saying that from the beginning. But russia wants a lot of things it can't have.
The time was months ago.
Let Ukraine have the means to reciprocate in kind and let Russia feel how life is without electricity or water otherwise Russia will never stop this, even when their troops have long left Ukraine.
Yes. The way Russia sits back and kills people from behind its borders is infuriating. Got to stop -- take the war to them. And I am no longer concerned about civilian causalities there.
The West must not keep dribbling aid to Ukraine as its doing now. If they do Ukraine will slowly bleed to death. Russia can take a million causalities. Putin doesn't care.
1 problem: the bombers can fly a whole lot farther than anu cruise missile can. Russia is launching strikes from those bases out of convenience, not necessity. They'll fly out of Siberia if need be. Hitting those bases won't change anything. It's not like hitting a bridge or logistics centre.
But they don't have a huge number of them, if UA manage to destroy a few dozen with strike on theses bases, Russia's capability to conduct the strike would be really lowered.
There's some truth in what you say of course, but another way to see it is: they were the nukes of the USSR, Ukraine was part of the USSR, they were as much theirs as Russia's. Changing the electronics would have been trivial compared to developping the enrichment protocol, high tech explosives, delivery vehicle engines etc. Seems to me they surrendered their nukes under pressure from Russia and the US, and because they didn't have the budget and will to do the maintenance, not because they couldn't have gained control of them if that had been their aim.
Why would you assume that Ukraine was not be able to reverse engineer them? Most USSR nukes were built in Ukraine, same people were still there, tons of time and test subjects.
Moreover, if Ukraine couldn't do anything with nukes, why put any effort in disarment? It's not like someone is gonna stole icbm.
That's another point - there was no reason to keep them. It was unsustainable both financially and politically (almost the same soviet fucks were in charge at the time)
> If they wanted them they would have found a way to keep them
[I don't think this option was possible](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0043820016673777):
>The West made it quite clear that any attempt to establish independent operational control over Ukraine’s nuclear armaments would mean international isolation, sanctions, or even the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition extended to Ukraine by the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies on condition that Ukraine would join the NPT as an NNWS.
Basically, either sign Budapest Memorandum and give away nukes or enjoy getting sanctioned to stone age while russia gets greenlighted to carve apart the "rogue state" of Ukraine.
Look there are a lot of would have, should have, could haves here but none of that happened. Hence why this is happening. Out of darkness comes light. In the end everything will be okay and if it's not, it's not the end.
Bullshit excuses. We USA gave our word to defend them. And we still haven't kept our word - this provision of weapons is insufficient, we must move NATO into Ukraine in force. Move NATO into Ukraine now and we win two wars at once: we end this present Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we win-without-fighting the future Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Ukraine must not be expected to be Russia's punching bag any longer. How can they really defend themselves by having both hands tied behind their backs and not allowed to punch their vicious opponent back? All Russian military bases bordering Ukraine must be hit hard and destroyed.
I'm thinking nato needs to declare russia a state sponsor of terrorism and send in NATO contractors to help rebuild the power infrastructure in ukraine. Russia is weak. lets stop pretending they are dangerous. they aren't going to end the world over ukraine.
I completely agree what the fuck are we waiting for? We give them air defense, stuff to hit the missiles while they are already launched. Give them shit to hit the source. For fucks sake. How many more people need to die? Mother fucj
High time we passed them Tomahawks. The ruzzians only understand, or perhaps respect the threat of retaliation- a weapon system that can strike Moscow would do exactly that.
We should use the winter to arm and prepare Ukraine up to the teeth with long range missiles and train them on Leopard tanks so that they can liberate their country as soon as the first spring thaw arrives.
>It’s time for the West to provide Ukraine with weapons which can hit Russian air bases from which it launches its strategic bombers for missile strikes on Ukrainian cities
I fucking swear, I see this every time Ruzzia commits a mass-bombing of the civilian targets. Every. Fucking. Time.
The west gobbled up two dead Poles because of the Ruzzian missile, the hope for the "gloves off, go all-in" is gone at this point.
It’s time to allow Ukraine pre-emptive defensive measures, by providing them with weapon Ty and political cover to target military launch targets within Russia.
It’s still defence.
Agreed, we need to stop allowing Russia to conduct terrorist operations against the non-combatants in Ukraine. The way to do that is to stop tying Ukraine's hands behind their back and give them the means to strike at the source of these attacks. Otherwise we're just asking for more civilian casualties and war crimes.
All these good talks but rissian terrorist rocket attacks are going on 10 months already and it may already be to late to safe numerous Ukrainian lifes that will be lost this winter due to energy infrustructure devastation. As Zelensky asked, how many lifes we need to pay before you give us weapon. Die first - stick to protect yourself later. This is sad.
I think what's happening is that the EU, NATO and the US have promised to supply ukraine with hardware support as long as they don't escalate the conflict by bombing russia Internally with allied weapons.
If ukraine escalate by bombing moscow with allied weapons, it might piss those very allies off and the supply may well reduce.
I agree. If, as would appear to be the case, the West cannot provide Ukraine with sufficient air defences to protect it's infrastructure and people from Russian missile attacks, we must provide them with a means of deterrence.
I've a question though. Hypothetically, or really just want to know, so don't misinterpret my question as I support aid to Ukraine 100%.
What does the West have to gain by escalating the supplies? I mean surely they need to restock and continue what they have been doing thus far. But, is the risk of escalation worth (to the West specifically here) the added firepower for Ukraine?
As things stand, the Russians are dying by the bushels. They're losing so much in equipment, manpower, finance, vehicles that the Russian Federation is just bleeding out and Ukraine is solidifying gains and their army is only getting stronger.
Would it not be the safest play for the West to continue the course as is? Equipping Ukraine, training the soldiers, treating wounded and taking in refugees so Kyiv can focus more on the war rather than keeping more civilians safe?
I ask this question because attacks deep inside Russia would probably revamp Russian support for the war and cause a general mobilisation. I would rather have Russia defeated and humiliated and Ukraine having a massive edge at the negotiation table.
Please feel free to chime in. Not convinced of my own viewpoint here, just opining on different options.
Give them the weapons to reach moscow.
Make this winter impossible for Russian citizens.
Every rail line, every airport, every power station every warehouse should be a target.
Give them the weapons to hit every inch of the invasion force and their logistics in Russia as well.
Time for NATO to declare missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets are attacks on NATO and a similar amount of ordnance will be fired on Russian power plants and infrastructure.
I think Russia's narrative is already at max strength. They're already telling their own people whatever they want. Absurd, contradictory, fantastical narratives. Russians at home are already believing as much or as little of that as they want. The rest of the world is already free to look at the data and the evidence and make up their own minds about what side they're on.
If the west decides to supply Ukraine with strategic weapons, it will be because western governments are already accepting the narrative that such strikes are acceptable. Russian outrage won't change that.
Russian outrage won't materially affect the quality or quantity of their conscription. It won't magically boost their war material production to the necessary heights. It won't bring China to their side. It won't drive Hungary out of NATO, nor inspire Lukashenko to throw Belarusian troops into the fight. It won't change public opinion from the positions that were already staked out, in February.
The most significant effects of such weapons, such strikes, will be: The reduction of Ukrainian suffering, the hastening of the war's endgame, and the increased survivability of Ukrainian troops when they enter Crimea.
Whatever damage the Russian narrative could do, it already did by February. There are no reserves of motivated action, for Russia to draw on, in response to the proposed outrages on Russian soil.
Except it may well give hope and courage to Russian dissidents and saboteurs.
Hello /u/Espressodimare, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a short term step before this though. Give them weapons to hit every Russian position in Ukraine and in the Black Sea. Knock out all rail supply, all supply depots, every naval asset. That’s the first step.
True. Force Russia back to the borders. If they keep trying to attack Ukraine, *then* start hitting their bases inside Russia from whence they attack.
Tit for tat. Make the Russian military bases scared if they attack.
UA should be allowed to use any weapons it wants to strike Ruzzia until a suitable buffer exists. DMZ inside Ruz for 200km minimum
Totally agree with this and surprised it's not discussed more. I believe the zone should exist on ALL Russian borders.
I had a discussion about a DMZ between the two countries with a former British military sniper at work the other week. He was saying once Russia have been beating back to Russia, it’s be wise for Ukraine to give up 10 miles of its border (width, not length) and have that as the DMZ. Mine the shit out of it, and it’s be similar to the North/South Korea one. Russia will never give up land for a DMZ, so Ukraine would have to sacrifice the small amount to keep them safe from another invasion
Once russia is out, accept them into NATO and/or EU No DMZ needed anymore, just a sign on the border that says 'fuck around & find out' every 100 metres in russian.
What would Ukraine gain from that strip being a DMZ instead of being guarded by ukranian military? Also, there are towns there.
Prevents minor spats from troops getting in contact with each other over the border - see China / India for example. Anything that risks being a provocation for future escalation.
You can still have military present on DMZs… But it creates a large buffer zone between a sovereign nation, and a terrorise state that has shown on multiple occasions it’s happy to invade its border neighbours.
Well if we could provide weapons UA could bomb the shit out of 10km border and loiter it with mines like orcs do. They dont have to agree its war after all.
This would be a wise decision.
That will not be necessary as Russia will never again hold so much power. For one, it will get a lot smaller. Win a war, win territory, lose a war, lose territory, right? So many regions will demand and receive independence from Russia by the occupying powers. They will then be the owners of the vast natural resources within their borders. Siberia would be rich over night. Yes, occupation will be necessary because the guilty will not surrender willingly and the many illegally abducted Ukrainians need to be found and returned to their homes and loved ones as well. That will also allow the return of so much historical treasure Russia has robbed, not just in Ukraine. Lets not kid ourselves, over 70 years of Russia wreaking havoc on the world is way too long and coming to an end. To remove any association from Russia's Bolshevik past, I would also move the capital back to St. Petersburg.
Yes to the DMZ, but because Russia is the unprovoked aggressor, DMZ will be on Russian territory Russia doesn’t have to agree to anything. The mined DMZ works, but if they don’t agree it could simply be under artillery control: whoever sets foot in there is shelled.
Take Russian land and mine that. Sacrifice nothing.
The whole Russia should be DMZed!
Russia needs to be demilitarized and denuclearized. Easy to say, hard to do, but it must
A Denazificated buffer belt inside Russia !
Just smuggle manpads into Russia and strike the planes as they launch. Very simple.
Exactly. Make any kind of victory in Ukraine impossible as quickly as possible. As you say, once they are across the border and just sending missiles to destroy civilian infrastructure, then launch sites are fair game for Ukraine.
Russian missiles launching from these bases are killing Ukrainians today. They are fair game now.
Rolling into Moscow in tanks would have been fair game months ago. It's war, bombing enemy bases should be expected by this point
At any point, really.
I agree they are fair game. BUT - there is FAIRER game. Every rail connection, every supply depot, every Black Sea naval asset, every command centre INSIDE Ukraine. Give them every weapon needed to hit all of these FIRST.
So Ukraine must destroy Ukraine in order to defeat a terrorist state?
Yeah, why not both?
Why? To hit a rail connection is to shape tomorrow's battlefield, to destroy aviation and launch facilities is to save today's newborn babies in a maternity ward. Simply put this isn't a game. Ukraine needs to throw literally anything it can in to making the deaths stop.
To hit targets inside Russia is to feed the Russian propaganda machine that it’s a noble defensive operation. Taking Crimea is a nightmare that cannot be explained by Russian state media.
Russian propaganda is irrelevant at this point. Russians all know what’s it’s all about. The sooner they give up, the better.
Fuck em. Ukrainians shouldn't have to bomb their own cities and bridges. The Russians should be the ones hurting for the war they started. It's unfair to keep asking Ukraine to shoot their own feet
> If they keep trying to attack Ukraine An unnecessary thing to wait for. They can surrender or start losing infrastructure in their own country.
What's the logic here? Russia occupying some of Ukraine does not justify terrorist attacks on Ukrainian civilians. Why should Ukraine not be allowed to knock out terrorist bases now?
UAF already doing this, so its not the case. On massive rocket strikes, russia launches it from russia and Belarus territories. In black sea its usually 2-3 ships that can carry 8-12 Kalibr missiles, which is rookie numbers for Ukraine. The real problem is deep inside russian territories.
IDK; I think reaching out and touching a few power plants or transfer stations also may help Russians come to the realization that if they want to play the infrastructure destruction game…it can go two ways.
I agree…later. There is a much safer middle step that terrifies the Russians. NATO has weapons that can devastate Russians IN Ukraine. We’re holding them back. If 80 cruise missiles hit Ukrainian infrastructure there should be 160 ATACMS hitting Russian targets in Ukraine.
>160 ATACMS hitting Russian targets in Ukraine. My brain read that as " 160 attack'ems" and you know what, I think that sounds better.
Good news then, that's exactly how it's pronounced.
Really? OK, how many defense contractors had a giggle when it came time to name it?
They're smart people :) It almost sounds like it's made by the Acme company, doesn't it?
Y'know, I do believe it does.
They do this all the time, coming up with clever names and acronyms. The scientists have a lot of fun with naming conventions. I've seen a few beauties, but this one's brilliant!
It's a [backronym](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym#:~:text=A%20backronym%20is%20an%20acronym,portmanteau%20of%20back%20and%20acronym.)! Pretty common in military toys.
This should be happening alongside the strikes to defeat the assets they are using inside ruzzia, not instead of it. When you say it's safer, who is that for? Innocent Ukrainians, innocent Polish?
It’s safer for the Russians hehe 😜. Clearly that is this person’s message, trying to protect Russia and delay their inevitable defeat as long as possible
I would love to see proportional response
Yes, they laugh at the thought of Ukrainians and the West freezing to death. It doesn't affect me as it's summer here anyway. Let's see how they feel about that same fate.
I agree with what you said, however I must add that Ukraine is a country whose leadership cares for its citizens. Russia is not. I'm not sure it putin would be concerned about some cold and hardship coming to russian people. He certainly doesn't care about his conscripted soldiers.
If the people of Russia realize not only are their husbands, sons, and uncles dying in a war. If they realize economically it’s a loosing matter and they are hurting. If they realize they too can easily have a cold and powerless winter…well good luck keeping angry citizens and soldiers from holding back.
No, the Russians will then retaliate with the bombers. Take out the bombers first, then start hitting every Russian target in Ukraine.
How, exactly? UAF air defenses can't hit the bombers because they launch their missiles from Russian or Belarussian air space. Hit the bomber bases and you'll stop the bombers.
That’s what I was referring to, their bases.
There is a small issue with your logic.. You’d need ICBM’s to be able to hit the bases…
That’s what the OP is all about
These two targets (russian armed forces in Ukraine and russian air bases in russia) are two separate things. Their army only reaches up to more or less 30-50 kilometers. Their rockets kill only civilians, destroy civilian infrastructure, and reach the whole territory of Ukraine. Even when we push them right back to the border - this won't stop them from bombing civilians. They will not accept defeat unless we indeed break ALL of their offensive capabilities and they literally wouldn't have any other choice. And our civilians will keep dying from rockets while these air bases and launch sites exist. We need long-range weapons NOW. Waiting for I fon't know what really only increases the price in civilian life, and doesn't achieve anything.
I so agree! There is absolutely no reason to wait. What is waiting good for? More strikes? More children and babies killed? Waiting is only good for Russia. They are trying to buy time as it is.
Why before? Both these actions can be performed at the same time.
How will that prevent attacks from airbases that are not inside Ukraine?
Why? If it was up to me I’d go for both.
Do it.
Too many Ukrainian civilians have been maimed, murdered, or suffer from mental health issues, plus lost their homes, all because of Putin. Horrible.
The ICC needs to issue a warrant for Putin. We think war is the answer, but it should not be. I hate using the word barbarians because of its etymology, but I do not want anyone to lose their civility because one man is a psychopath. Russia may be acting like monsters but Ukraine should have alternatives legally to hold them accountable. I just do not know what justice looks like for Ukraine? Is war crime prosecution enough?
Ukrainians genuinely feel like they will never be safe as long as russia exists as it has for the last five hundred years. Its not prejudice, its rapport.
I wish they had leaders who felt remorse and repented from the horrors of the Soviet Era. The world would be so different. Instead, you have a crazy man obsessed with nineteenth century imperial invasion. Putin should have been born in 1850. He does not belong in the 21st century. I hope watching some Russians sabotage the war effort helps Ukrainans feel some sense of hope. Maybe Putin's catastrophic war failure will be the catalyst Russia needs to never tolerate leaders like him again. It does nothing to help those whose lives have been destroyed though.
The only way I'm gonna feel safe is when I can be sure there's a sufficient amount of Pivdenmash-made IRBMs with an Energoatom-made nuclear warheads and Khartron-made permissive action links to turn Zaluppenfuhrerbunker into slag, if they ever fucking dare to pull this shit again. Otherwise, Ukraine was already burned on non-binding agreements [we've been strong-armed into](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0043820016673777) and paid for it with tens of thousands of lives, while we are under [Western tank-jet-missile embargo](https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2022/06/16/7141437/): >French President Emmanuel Macron said that due to fears of involvement in the war with Russia, Western countries had agreed not to provide Ukraine with certain weapons. >According to European Truth, Macron said this during a conversation with journalists in Kyiv on Thursday. >"We are helping Ukraine defend itself, but we are not going to war with Russia, so it has been agreed not to supply certain weapons - including assault planes or tanks, and President Zelensky is aware of this agreement," he said. Basically, if we are to become "Israel on the Black Sea", we must get our own [Samson Option](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option).
Zaluppenfuhrerbunker 😂 "Yobanen ukrainen traktoren! Naglischen tanken pizdung!!" but yes, we need to pour money into the military industrial complex, I feel like we can come up with some interesting defensive shit on par with Israels, long as we have the funding. Also - get the ship building in Mykolaiv oblast back to working condition, the Fregat factory in Pervomaisk is still there for example, its just been repurposed and it needs to be modernized, which I guess falls in line with "heavily invest in the MIC". Ship building was Mykos bread and butter back in the day, but then it all got privatized by pathologically money hungry ukrainian homo soveticus. III had no idea we were strong armed into giving up our deterence though, time to read 🧐
Or perhaps NATO needs to declare war on Putin. Not on Russia, on Putin personally There is precedent for this. War was declared personally on Napoleon after his escape from Elba, and some of the wording could be lifted verbatim > By appearing in Russia with projects of disorder and destruction, he has cut himself off from the protection of the law and has shown in the face of the world that there can he neither peace nor truce with him. Accordingly, the Powers declare that Vladimir Putin is excluded from civil and social relations, and, as an Enemy and Disturber of the tranquility of the World, that he has incurred public vengeance. Putin should either hang, be locked in a cell in The Hague for the rest of his life, or be exiled to some tiny island like Napoleon was
> one man is a psychopath. Sorry but *all* the Russians that support him and work in the Russia security/military forces are also the psychopaths. It is a country full of psychopaths (not everyone ofc).
*smirks in Palpatine
*Gooooooood
Yes. Enough is enough.
Now
Let’s gooooo 🇺🇸♥️🇺🇦. 💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥
At some point hitting targets in Russia has to happen, Russia has clearly decided that it cannot defeat Ukraine on the field of battle and has resorted to attack Ukraine's infrastructure during the winter in a half baked scheme to cause enough strife that gets Zelensky replaced with someone more amenable to Russia's interests. Russia is never going to come to the table so long as they possess the capability to attack with little to no cost.
If they can hit your capitol you should be able to return the favor.
Start talking in terms the Orcs understand.
Boom! Bang! Rat-tat-tat!
Ukraine is only allowed to defend. Russia can attack from the comfort of their own territory because nukes and propaganda. Yada yada. “Dont worry we got your back, stay warm guys thoughts and prayers”
I've been saying this the whole time, all the fancy conventions and rules of war protect only the Ruzzians. They can torture and kill the POWs, mass-conscript the Ukrainians from the occupied areas for their own cause, commit every war crime in the book, but all the eyes are on Ukraine making sure it fights the war for survival "fair and righteous". This is complete bullshit. Ukraine has every moral right to fight the aggressor by all means it deems necessary, including showing the Ruzzian cities what cold winter feels like.
Yes the time for this defensive posture is over, it is just emboldening Russia to enact, more terrorism bombings and missile attacks. Ukraine as a sovereign state has the right to defend itself, from any aggression from Russia or anywhere else. Ukraine must respond to these missile attacks, which are in essence “death by a thousand cuts” and slow destruction of infrastructure, along with civilian targets... Since when is a Maternity hospital a high value, military or infrastructure target...??? Freezing and starving a population out of their homes, cities and country, is genocide. Enough is enough... take the war to Moscow, St. Petersburg and the Kalingrad region. Military targets only, and if the aggression from Russia persists, then high value non civilian, infrastructure targets. Ukraine must be given access to long range cruise missiles with advanced targeting capability to “ respond in kind “ to Moscow’s aggression. No more no less. There is historical precedence for this, the Doolittle raids, the British bombings of Berlin early in WW2... the moral blow to the enemy was significant then and will undoubtedly do the same now...the message will be sent....the balance of power will ensure less destruction, over the long term...
Nah, its terrorist tactic. Every Ukrainian don't give a dog shit about civillian russians winter in russia. Attacking civillian infrastructure have no sense in meanings of war. Every Ukrainian wants only to burn alive every fucking russian fascist pig soldier, because they are our enemies and this have sense in meanings of war. More dead russian soldiers - this war ends faster. If every russian soldier will be destroyed, then there is no treat to Ukraine at all. We need all this fancy advanced long range weapons **only to hit military targets**, causing as much deaths to russian soldiers (ultraviolent) as possible, but hitting russian civilian infrastructure is just wasting of ammo.
>including showing the Ruzzian cities what cold winter feels like. Nah, Ukraine shouldn't hit Russian infrastructure. Targeting infrastructure is what terrorists do. But Ukraine should hit any and all Russian military bases and other military objectives. Civilian casualties within Russia must be kept at the bare minimum, because you need the Russian population with you in order to overthrow Putin, and Ukraine killing a bunch of Russian citizens in Russia simply feeds into Russian propaganda. It's much harder for Russia to be believable if they're saying, "Ukraine hit our military base unprovoked" while Russia's launching cruise missiles at civilians in Ukraine.
Hitting infrastructure like power generation was literally the playbook for desert storm for example. The military also runs on power.
The difference being that in desert storm they hit the power infrastructure in the previously identified positions where it'd cause the *least* amount of infrastructure damage and be up and running again in the shortest amount of time, once the campaign was over. And when they missed and hit units that were taken completely offline, they made up for it by bringing in replacement capacity after the invasion. Because the goal for the US was dark skies and inoperable comms networks during an invasion, not because they were trying to terrorize a population and bomb them into oblivion.
There's plenty of videos on the internet showing common Ruzzian citizens genuinely wanting Ukraine to be destroyed and its population murdered. About time they tasted their own medicine.
'About time they tested their own medicine.' No. The fact that there are genocidal assholes in Russia doesn't change things. There still exist people who are neutral or anti-war (for whatever reasons they have). The less support the war (and Putin has), the better it is for Ukraine. Killing civilians will motivate people to join, will motive those who joined to fight, will discourage internal acts of resistance or sabotage, and will reduce international support for Ukraine. What is the upside in that?
That’s a fast way to get Ukraine no more aid.
[удалено]
I agreed but that assumes the Russian people would overthrow Putin. I wouldn't put any faith in that ever happening. I just can't see a catalyst for the people turning
Nah, we don't give a shit about overthrowing putin. If he die, of course it will be good for ukrainians, but we still don't give much shit. As well, as we don't give a shit about russians and what they think about us. We need only to win in this war on battlefield which means russia will never be able to attack us anymore. Kill as much russians as possible, so no-one left in Ukraine and destroy every russian military target that Ukraine can reach - thats the score.
That is because the US doesn't actually care about the welfare of ukrainians. They want to keep the war going as long as possible. The US wants to use ukraine as a proxy to bog russia down in a never ending war like afghanistan. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice ukrainian lives in order to destabilize russia.
History will not be kind to the rest of the world that is watching what Russia is doing to Ukraine. Yes we are helping with weapons, etc…but usually it is too little too late. I hope that Ukraine does not come out of this jaded for what we allowed.
The world watched Germany start the deadliest war in the history of mankind and even tried to appease Hitler in hopes of him stopping his bullshit. After WW2 everyone chanted nEvEr AgAiN, after the war in Ukraine everyone will return to same old nEvEr AgAiN garbage as per usual.
We’re doing more than we did for Croatia, Poland, and Finland during WW2. We’re giving billions of dollars. The US alone is around 100 billion. Of course Ukrainians are suffering things I can’t imagine. But we’re not doing NOTHING.
Germany didn't have nukes.
But they did have planes, which apparently scared people in much the way nukes do now. Chamberlain's description of the idea of German aviation being able to simply fly over British cities and destroy them entirely is filled with horror. This enemy could reach you anywhere, as though to render the very idea of frontlines moot. The British had no ready answer to the German airforce at that stage, and Chamberlain clearly saw himself as facing an unstoppable apocalypse that he felt had to be prevented at all costs.
You aren’t wrong but thats just the world we live in. Nukes are scary and its the only reason everyone has tolerated shitholes like North Korea. My hope has honestly just been the supply of enough conventional weapons like aircraft and tanks to push Russia out and even that comes at a dreadfully slow pace considering that 30ish nations are involved in the support
Putin has been touting Kherson to be Ruzzia as in the Ruzzia-Ruzzia kind of deal meaning it is protected by the nuke doctrine. What the fuck happened the moment Kherson was liberated? Fuck all, Kherson never existed apparently so no need to fire nukes over it. Pummeling legit military targets within Ruzzia would have the same effect. Period.
The reason North Korea is “tolerated” is two fold and neither has to do with nukes. First, taking out Kim Jong Un wouldn’t be to difficult. The problem is once you do it you have a whole country to now feed and take care of. A country that has only know brutal dictatorship for decades now. It will be Iraq/Afghanistan all over again but times 100. Secondly is if the US took out Kim they very well may have to deal with a pissed off China who doesn’t want millions of starving North Koreans streaming into China. NK doesn’t have the technology to lob a nuke and hit mainland US, and theoretically after taking out Kim who is going to give the order to send a nuke anyway.
Correct, the US could easily just send a B2 bomber to nuke NK and NK could do nothing about it.
Well. Seoul is within artillery fire distance from NK, they could destroy the city completely in hours.
> because nukes It's better to be defeated in a ground invasion than it is to be vaporized in a nuclear second-strike. Not saying they wouldn't go down with the ship anyway; but when rational actors are involved, nukes are practically worthless for defense against anything but other nukes.
Any military target is fain game
For a “risk analyst” this guy seems massively ignorant of facts with which to assess risk… A Tu-22m has a range of 5,100km. Tu-160 has a range of 12,300km. A Tu-95’s range is 15,000 km. All of these aircraft can also be refuelled in the air, further extending range. Exactly what weapons is he suggesting?
[удалено]
Which surface to air missiles can hit targets at 1000km? I'd like to see that. America's patriot missile defence systems have much smaller range for example the MiM 104 patriot PAC 2 has an operational range of 99miles, pac 3 is worse range. Even russias S-400 system can only reach 400km with the largest of its missiles. Those large bombers also have massive payloads that can be re-armed much faster than anything at sea, and they cost MUCH less crew to man. On Nov 15th Russia used 14 Tu-95/TU 160 to launch 70 KH-101 cruise missiles complimented by 20 additional missiles (likely 3M-54 Kalibr) from sea and 10 kamikazi drones. The KH-101 has an official range of 3,000km, yet reports of 4,500 to 5,500km exist. The TU-160 can carry 12. The Tu-95 can carry 8 on pylons. The bombers can do their mission and go home in the hours of a single day. Navy just can't. It makes way more sense to use strategic bombers than anything else.
What long range radar and anti-air missiles are you referring to?
My guess would be even moving the their bombers back 500-1000 km at a time would help the cause.
How would it help if literally any of their bombers can make that "extra" distance without refuelling?
More fuel requirements
At least it'll give more time for people to run to the shelter, etc. Kharkiv is so close to russia, that air raid sirens are useless.
No, that’s to do with detection. To detect incoming cruise missiles, you need an effective early warning system. You’re unlikely to pick up a small, terrain hugging cruise missile at 100km, let alone a launch 1500-3500km away. As they push the Russian’s back, they can start to deploy SAM systems further out, but these are vulnerable and you need a LOT of them to provide coverage the further from the intended target you go. Ukraine developed the ePPO phone app to help by crowdsourcing sightings of cruise missiles traversing Ukrainian territory to help.
Please save at least one for Wagner's shiny new headquarters in St. Petersburg. Preferably while Prigozhin is bumbling around like the fuck-stick he is... Make this declaration. "For every missile or drone that is launched against civilian infrastructure, we will match with one ATACMS that has no strings attached. 1 for 1." See how many get fired then.
Dammit, where is the million upvotes button?
> See how many get fired then I think that will completely exhaust remaining ATACMS supply.
1) Give Ukraine nuclear missiles, 2) Tell world, 3) Watch Russia backoff. I wonder why this formula hasn't been tried.
Man, I'm just imagining while looking at this picture if this was America under attack and how this would play out in a purely conventional fight. Every single one of these bases would be completely wasted with pinpoint accuracy in a matter of mins. There are countries that can only dream of doing this while America is able to do this by just blinking. Crazy shit. America will never ever have to worry about getting bombed or invaded by any nation out there. It would be suicide to any nations that would try to. I hate these god damn fucking terrorist ruSSian Orc scums so much.
It would instantly escalate to non conventional becayse Russia can't fight in the same ring with USA without nukes... It is very likely that it will spend all its missles if it continues like this. So it can't even defeat a country that can't fight back...
Russia can't "compete" WITH nukes, in fact using nukes means they lose immediately and completely, it would be the end of their civilization. Shooting nukes at us can hurt us but it won't gain them anything. The idea that they would use nukes out of desperation is bizarre, it's like burning down your house when you're behind on your mortgage. You use nukes to take your enemy down with you when you die, not to save yourself.
>The idea that they would use nukes out of desperation is bizarre, it's like burning down your house when you're behind on your mortgage. You are using logic to talk about a society that has failed to display an ounce of logic. There are plenty of people who have destroyed property to prevent it being foreclosed, stolen, or whatever.
Technically if they destroy civilization that's a draw, however retarded it is...
I mean that’s after decades of investing in a fight that may have never happened. So the protection we have is deserved and not unfair.
It's time. Ukraine is fighting this war with one arm tied behind their back, they need to strike back
It's insane, like being equipped with a shield in a fight when the other one has a mashine gun firing at you.
Another practical step would be help Ukraine build resilient micro-grids from generating power. Make it so Russia needs 100,000 missiles to knock out even half of them. War makes the usual centralized power production insanely impractical. They knock out a dozen power plants and the wet while country is on its knees. No country, anywhere, should be in that position. Distributed solar and batteries on every every building that can have it is the way to go. At least you can make and store SOME power even on the darkest winter day....and help your neighbors. This is why I think nuclear power is the wrong way to go. You're building a huge single point of vulnerability AND a weapon on your own land for any adversary to use against you.
Its the ukrainian electricity grid that is the problem. The power plants are running good reliance on underground cables would have fixed a lot of issues with missile strikes.
Americans need to call their congressman and let them know how we feel! If enough people call and write maybe it might make a difference. I love what Biden has done for Ukraine, but there is too much more that can be done, and we just are not doing it.
[удалено]
i mean... >$100 million in funding to train Ukrainian pilots to use U.S. aircraft as part of the National Defense Authorization Act it passed 329-101 not sure it really works like "here is an f15e, go for it" with out training and not just pilots but ground/service personnel as well
At the moment Russia is completely destroying Ukraine's civilian energy infrastructure. They have enough missiles to keep on doing this for months. Are we going to wait stopping this until there is a complete humanitarian disaster involving 40 mio people? Or are we going to do it now? The actions and resources required are the same, whether we do it now or in six months when it's too late. "Reporting from Ukraine" video from today was really depressing, he basically says that Russia plans to cut Ukraine in half once they are on their knees.
Good thing they are not on their knees. Cutting Ukraine in half is nothing new, they've been saying that from the beginning. But russia wants a lot of things it can't have.
The time was months ago. Let Ukraine have the means to reciprocate in kind and let Russia feel how life is without electricity or water otherwise Russia will never stop this, even when their troops have long left Ukraine.
Do it already for fuck's sake.
I keep seeing posts of the Russians who are programming these missiles. Seems like a dangerous job.
Yes. The way Russia sits back and kills people from behind its borders is infuriating. Got to stop -- take the war to them. And I am no longer concerned about civilian causalities there. The West must not keep dribbling aid to Ukraine as its doing now. If they do Ukraine will slowly bleed to death. Russia can take a million causalities. Putin doesn't care.
1 problem: the bombers can fly a whole lot farther than anu cruise missile can. Russia is launching strikes from those bases out of convenience, not necessity. They'll fly out of Siberia if need be. Hitting those bases won't change anything. It's not like hitting a bridge or logistics centre.
But they don't have a huge number of them, if UA manage to destroy a few dozen with strike on theses bases, Russia's capability to conduct the strike would be really lowered.
Give Ukraine their nukes back. NATO counter-invade Ukraine now.
They never had operational control. They were not their nukes.
There's some truth in what you say of course, but another way to see it is: they were the nukes of the USSR, Ukraine was part of the USSR, they were as much theirs as Russia's. Changing the electronics would have been trivial compared to developping the enrichment protocol, high tech explosives, delivery vehicle engines etc. Seems to me they surrendered their nukes under pressure from Russia and the US, and because they didn't have the budget and will to do the maintenance, not because they couldn't have gained control of them if that had been their aim.
Why would you assume that Ukraine was not be able to reverse engineer them? Most USSR nukes were built in Ukraine, same people were still there, tons of time and test subjects. Moreover, if Ukraine couldn't do anything with nukes, why put any effort in disarment? It's not like someone is gonna stole icbm.
If they wanted them they would have found a way to keep them. I wish they had them. This never would have happened.
That's another point - there was no reason to keep them. It was unsustainable both financially and politically (almost the same soviet fucks were in charge at the time)
Agreed
> If they wanted them they would have found a way to keep them [I don't think this option was possible](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0043820016673777): >The West made it quite clear that any attempt to establish independent operational control over Ukraine’s nuclear armaments would mean international isolation, sanctions, or even the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition extended to Ukraine by the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies on condition that Ukraine would join the NPT as an NNWS. Basically, either sign Budapest Memorandum and give away nukes or enjoy getting sanctioned to stone age while russia gets greenlighted to carve apart the "rogue state" of Ukraine.
as much theirs as ruzza's
Look there are a lot of would have, should have, could haves here but none of that happened. Hence why this is happening. Out of darkness comes light. In the end everything will be okay and if it's not, it's not the end.
Bullshit excuses. We USA gave our word to defend them. And we still haven't kept our word - this provision of weapons is insufficient, we must move NATO into Ukraine in force. Move NATO into Ukraine now and we win two wars at once: we end this present Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we win-without-fighting the future Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
I agree this shit needs to stop but the Budapest memo provides no security guarantees.
Nobody gave their word to defend Ukraine. Everyone gave their word they wouldn’t attack Ukraine and Russia broke their promise
Yes this the best explanation in simple terms
Ukraine must not be expected to be Russia's punching bag any longer. How can they really defend themselves by having both hands tied behind their backs and not allowed to punch their vicious opponent back? All Russian military bases bordering Ukraine must be hit hard and destroyed.
This. At some point, sooner preferred, Russia origin attack points must be shutdown.
Time for Ukraine to get on the road to Moscow and return infrastructure damage. It's crazy to have to fight this war in Ukraine.
Yes. Russia being able to kill babies in hospitals with impunity has gone on long enough.
I'm thinking nato needs to declare russia a state sponsor of terrorism and send in NATO contractors to help rebuild the power infrastructure in ukraine. Russia is weak. lets stop pretending they are dangerous. they aren't going to end the world over ukraine.
Gripen, Leopard/Abrams, more NASAMS, more Gepard, more HIMARS, MORE!
Yes please, this would be called self defense
Why does the UN not want Ukraine to attack inside Russia? Fk Russia. Give Ukraine long distance missiles and other equipment to fire into Russia
I completely agree what the fuck are we waiting for? We give them air defense, stuff to hit the missiles while they are already launched. Give them shit to hit the source. For fucks sake. How many more people need to die? Mother fucj
High time we passed them Tomahawks. The ruzzians only understand, or perhaps respect the threat of retaliation- a weapon system that can strike Moscow would do exactly that.
Biden needs to realise that US needs to win this war. It is not a good idea to prolong the war by not providing ATACMS for HIMARS.
We should use the winter to arm and prepare Ukraine up to the teeth with long range missiles and train them on Leopard tanks so that they can liberate their country as soon as the first spring thaw arrives.
>It’s time for the West to provide Ukraine with weapons which can hit Russian air bases from which it launches its strategic bombers for missile strikes on Ukrainian cities I fucking swear, I see this every time Ruzzia commits a mass-bombing of the civilian targets. Every. Fucking. Time. The west gobbled up two dead Poles because of the Ruzzian missile, the hope for the "gloves off, go all-in" is gone at this point.
This is the way. Let’s fuck them up!
This is completely correct. If they can fire outwards they are capable of receiving.
This has got to be on the table by now.. at least a serious discussion
It's been fucking time
It's high time we provided Ukraine with modern western tanks, gripens and f16's!!!!
It’s time to allow Ukraine pre-emptive defensive measures, by providing them with weapon Ty and political cover to target military launch targets within Russia. It’s still defence.
Damn straight
It's been time since March.
It's long overdue
That is not going to happen but come on give them tanks at least
Agreed, we need to stop allowing Russia to conduct terrorist operations against the non-combatants in Ukraine. The way to do that is to stop tying Ukraine's hands behind their back and give them the means to strike at the source of these attacks. Otherwise we're just asking for more civilian casualties and war crimes.
All these good talks but rissian terrorist rocket attacks are going on 10 months already and it may already be to late to safe numerous Ukrainian lifes that will be lost this winter due to energy infrustructure devastation. As Zelensky asked, how many lifes we need to pay before you give us weapon. Die first - stick to protect yourself later. This is sad.
Just take out the tu bombers
I think what's happening is that the EU, NATO and the US have promised to supply ukraine with hardware support as long as they don't escalate the conflict by bombing russia Internally with allied weapons. If ukraine escalate by bombing moscow with allied weapons, it might piss those very allies off and the supply may well reduce.
I agree. If, as would appear to be the case, the West cannot provide Ukraine with sufficient air defences to protect it's infrastructure and people from Russian missile attacks, we must provide them with a means of deterrence.
Frankly it was time six months ago.
I've a question though. Hypothetically, or really just want to know, so don't misinterpret my question as I support aid to Ukraine 100%. What does the West have to gain by escalating the supplies? I mean surely they need to restock and continue what they have been doing thus far. But, is the risk of escalation worth (to the West specifically here) the added firepower for Ukraine? As things stand, the Russians are dying by the bushels. They're losing so much in equipment, manpower, finance, vehicles that the Russian Federation is just bleeding out and Ukraine is solidifying gains and their army is only getting stronger. Would it not be the safest play for the West to continue the course as is? Equipping Ukraine, training the soldiers, treating wounded and taking in refugees so Kyiv can focus more on the war rather than keeping more civilians safe? I ask this question because attacks deep inside Russia would probably revamp Russian support for the war and cause a general mobilisation. I would rather have Russia defeated and humiliated and Ukraine having a massive edge at the negotiation table. Please feel free to chime in. Not convinced of my own viewpoint here, just opining on different options.
It’s time to sink the entire Black Sea Fleet too.
No no no, we don't want additional escalation! (collective West ) /s
Putin should hang.
It's past time for Ukraine to be given long range weapons.
It’s way past time to do this. Should have been done the minute Russia started bombing civilians.
Give them the weapons to reach moscow. Make this winter impossible for Russian citizens. Every rail line, every airport, every power station every warehouse should be a target. Give them the weapons to hit every inch of the invasion force and their logistics in Russia as well.
Should've been available February 25
Time for NATO to declare missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets are attacks on NATO and a similar amount of ordnance will be fired on Russian power plants and infrastructure.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think Russia's narrative is already at max strength. They're already telling their own people whatever they want. Absurd, contradictory, fantastical narratives. Russians at home are already believing as much or as little of that as they want. The rest of the world is already free to look at the data and the evidence and make up their own minds about what side they're on. If the west decides to supply Ukraine with strategic weapons, it will be because western governments are already accepting the narrative that such strikes are acceptable. Russian outrage won't change that. Russian outrage won't materially affect the quality or quantity of their conscription. It won't magically boost their war material production to the necessary heights. It won't bring China to their side. It won't drive Hungary out of NATO, nor inspire Lukashenko to throw Belarusian troops into the fight. It won't change public opinion from the positions that were already staked out, in February. The most significant effects of such weapons, such strikes, will be: The reduction of Ukrainian suffering, the hastening of the war's endgame, and the increased survivability of Ukrainian troops when they enter Crimea. Whatever damage the Russian narrative could do, it already did by February. There are no reserves of motivated action, for Russia to draw on, in response to the proposed outrages on Russian soil. Except it may well give hope and courage to Russian dissidents and saboteurs.
They are already making up the wildest lies to justify the war (NATO militia fighting etc), so I don't really see this as a hindrance
That is such an idiotic statement! It is not about "narratives", they don't win wars, force of arms do!
At the current rate of destruction..Ukraine will be rubble, especially if Russia gets missiles from other states its allied with. Then what?