What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

kingQamaR

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 14, 2017
3,044
-5
2,953
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
then why has this same US lost every war since you and i were born? just fact checkingbro.


It depends.

If by “wars” you mean protracted, asymmetrical counter-insurgency operations like Afghanistan, I don’t think the US (or any other conventional force) has a good enough track record of winning to say they don’t win anymore is a bit of long stretch

Salam qamar
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
26,571
142
24,672
Country
United States
Location
United States
It depends.

If by “wars” you mean protracted, asymmetrical counter-insurgency operations like Afghanistan, I don’t think the US (or any other conventional force) has a good enough track record of winning to say they don’t win anymore is a bit of long stretch

Salam qamar
That is a reasonable argument. However, this is a military oriented forum and unfortunately, most participants do not have military experience, which leaves personal biases and prejudices, not knowledge and experience, as basis for commentaries. He is content to believe that the US military is a 'loser' military. Let him be.
 

Wergeland

FULL MEMBER
Feb 4, 2022
1,037
0
1,618
Country
Norway
Location
Norway
The US is expanding NATO “geographically” to reach the borders of Russia because it is simply planning to deprive the Russians of their ballistic capabilities from the fixed bases on the Russian land..

When the US missile shield is installed in Ukraine, Poland, Sweden and Finland, it can can easily hit any Russian missile in the 1st stage, which is the ascent stage of the ballistic missile, or at most at the beginning of the 2nd stage. The ballistic transition stage.. In these stages, the interception success rate exceeds 95% Estimated due to the weakness of the missile in terms of acceleration or ability to move away from the lower orbit of the Earth, as does a missile such as Satan I or the new Sarmat (Satan II), where it departs from the lower orbit of the Earth and heads to the poles of the Earth, from which it is inferred on the target and revolves around the pole of the Earth until it reaches directly above it...

This is a simplified explanation of the importance of the geographical expansion of NATO to the proximity to Russia..

On the other hand.. It is very clear that the Russian ballistic missiles constitute a great source of concern for the US and the EU, because of which all the past years were invested in forming and expanding the NATO alliance in order to neutralize this danger or at least reduce it.

It mean that despite its large bases in Europe and its proximity to the borders of Russia, the US still does not feel completely safe.. and for a good reason beyond its capabilities; The area of Russia is more than 17 million km. The Russians can simply rely on the bases in the city of Yekaterinburg, which is tens of thousands of kilometers from the European borders, or even the Ural region in central Russia.

Russia is not the size of France or Britain, because its area is very large, and it can launch the Topol or Sarmat missile at distances that are impossible for the American missile shield to intercept..

Then this question arises: why do some countries justify all of America's actions and its provocation to the Russians near their borders?..and when Russia intervenes to protect its national security, it is demonized..

The matter is similar to all the wars that the US carried out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and many other lands, but it is different now because the Russians are not weak like those countries..

So as a neutral and rational person, I prefer that there will be a multipolar world on this planet as nature made the north and south pole to balance things out and insure polarity and thus equilibrium..

I agree with the rationale of power balance.
MAD crates stability. Thats a fact.
 

RescueRanger

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Sep 20, 2008
11,321
167
22,639
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
1653122897639.png

Caption: A bird nest and laid an egg on the sill of a destroyed apartment in Kharkiv.
 

Hassan Al-Somal

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 18, 2015
3,803
0
6,138
Country
Somalia
Location
Somalia
Russian Foreign Ministry: We will start a new phase of our military operations in Ukraine..



The ruble jumped as much as 9% against the euro, hitting its strongest level since June 2015. The ruble is by far the best performing currency in 2022..

View attachment 845996


Russia demanding all gas sales to Europe based on the Ruble has strengthened its currency. The West has frozen Russian assets in their financial institutions and imposed sanctions on Russia, thinking they would cripple the Russian economy.

In return, Putin demanded all Russian gas sales to Europe would be done based on the Ruble. He's also demanded all mineral and food sales to EU would be done on the Ruble as well. This is where the strength that you see on the Ruble comes from. Today, every transaction between Russia and EU and other countries, except China, is based on the Ruble.

He's also made deals with China, the largest economy in the world, where Russia is selling more hydrocarbons based on the Yuan. Having this trade outside of US Dollar and Euro is another blow against the "fiat money".

The English-speaking world's effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has really backfired on them. It seems Ukraine and the rest of EU have chosen to be the sacrificial lamb here.

This war is about saving the "fiat money" and the system that suffocates many countries and peoples. It looks like Putin and his Russian nation are the ones who are successfully resisting it.
 
Last edited:

A.P. Richelieu

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 20, 2013
6,167
6
4,015
Country
Sweden
Location
Sweden
The International Committee of the Red Cross rejects that contention. It is explicit about white phosphorous having to be considered a potential weapon according to the treaty.

Why, is explained in minute detail under the below link by the ICRC's competent official, using pristine rational argumentation:


When it comes to the exegesis of a treaty, to what the formulation of its provisions implies in practice, the words of a legal expert carry superior weight.

And this basically confirms the point about legal experts insisting that white phosphorous does fall under the restrictions applying to incendiary weapons the moment it is actually used as one, rather then as a mere smoke generating tool.

The link simply confirms that Incendiary Weapons fall under the treaty of Incendiary Weapons.

”If munitions containing white phosphorous are used to mark military targets or to spread smoke then their use is regulated by the basic rules of international humanitarian law.”

I.E., they are not subject to the treaty on Incendiary Weapons.
 

kingQamaR

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 14, 2017
3,044
-5
2,953
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
That is a reasonable argument. However, this is a military oriented forum and unfortunately, most participants do not have military experience, which leaves personal biases and prejudices, not knowledge and experience, as basis for commentaries. He is content to believe that the US military is a 'loser' military. Let him be.

Since WWII, it is true, the US hasn't “won” any wars, at least not in the traditional sense. The thing is, the US in this time period has been so far above beyond all military contenders that it hasn't been necessary for you to go to war in the traditional sense. You have rivals, but no challengers. All of your military engagements have been policy wars, dictated by treaty or interest. It is not necessary to “win” such wars, just to convince all other combatants to stop fighting
 

MeFishToo

FULL MEMBER
May 14, 2022
297
0
152
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
Russia demanding all gas sales to Europe based on the Ruble has strengthened its currency. The West has frozen Russian assets in their financial institutions and imposed sanctions on Russia, thinking they would cripple the Russian economy.

In return, Putin demanded all Russian gas sales to Europe would be done based on the Ruble. He's also demanded all mineral and food sales to EU would be done on the Ruble as well. This is where the strength that you see on the Ruble comes from. Today, every transaction between Russia and EU and other countries, except China, is based on the Ruble.

He's also made deals with China, the largest economy in the world, where Russia is selling more hydrocarbons based on the Yuan. Having this trade outside of US Dollar and Euro is another blow against the "fiat money".

The English-speaking world's effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has really backfired on them. It seems Ukraine and the rest of EU have chosen to be the sacrificial lamb here.

This war is about saving the "fiat money" and the system that suffocates many countries and peoples. It looks like Putin and his Russian nation are the ones who are successfully resisting it.
The current “strenght” of the ruble is a facade. Its Russia manipulating the market and manufacturing demands for a currency nobody wants. Putin is taking an enormous risk using its biggest revenue, which is gas, as a bargaining chip to uphold this bridge for the ruble. If he insist that gas is payed in ruble, it will lead to renegotiation of contracts, and that will definitely lead to drastic reductions of the amount of gas being exported to the west - and possibly a total collaps of the the ruble and the russian economy.
 
Last edited:

Viet

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 18, 2012
25,898
0
18,742
Country
Viet Nam
Location
Germany
And we can make Russian areas with more than a 1ppl per km² areas radioactive just like the Chernobyl's Red Forrest for the next 25,000 years : big arsenals mean that you can do airbursts with very small fallouts, destruction is maximized but you can re-use areas after 2-3 weeks... A medium nuke power like us would be way more nasty :
1. We understate our real arsenal
2. It is optimized to maximize fallouts : a 100 kilotons one is designed to kill as much as a 1 megaton one, no through thermal effect, but through acute radiation syndrome
8dv1.jpg

3. If we have to use it, we won't do airbursts: surface burst may do only half the damages but anything into the fireball is neutron-activated, and at n millions of °C (I've heard about as high as 400M °C), all the crap gets airborne in the shroom, and again, we're speaking about enhanced radiation effect nukes, not your Nukemap's "standard" thermonuclear, and from recoupment of stuff I could learn about in the old days I was "subterranean" in areas you wander in wearing a Hazmat type B and a dosimeter, although not said publicly because of the ecologists, these are very probably "salted" bombs...

You've got it, the worst case scenario may not forcefully being the cretin of the Kremlin with his firecrackers doing big booms at 10,000-20,000 ft altitude, it's small ones used in surface bursts... Or big ones too... In fact, the results would look like the infamous 1956 nuke war plans except that rule out all the areas that pulled out from Russo/Soviet sphere and move the strikes into what's left : the 1st implies less than 200 blasts
gf53.jpg

The 2nd about 500-550
ks0r.jpg


So, you know, with already 320 MIRVs at sea 24/7/365 in peace time, which are doubled in case of tensions added with the ALCMs getting prepositionned
So, you know, when STATE-OWNED Rossiya-1 TV does Russian "humour" with such nuclear threats when their Waffen-SS orcs are murderind, raping Ukrainians at the same they're destroying and looting their homes and real-estate.
Moreover, Rossiya-1 are liars : the RS-28 "Satan-II" are set to replace the 46 R-36M2 "Satan" in the silos of the 13th Red Banner Rocket Division at Yasny, Orenburg Oblast and of the 62nd Rocket Division at Uzhur, Krasnoyarsk Krai, all with 10x 1Mt MIRVs, all the R-36M2 Mod.6 with a single 20Mt warhead were decommissioned in 2009 and the combustible likely burnt as fuel in NPPs
is8k.jpg

Well, did you noticed how Bobo is loudmouthed while Macron speaks softly? Meanwhile, the 4 Triomphant-class submarines are at sea, the EC91 Gascogne's Rafales are not on their "home" base and IMHO, into 3 months, there was more time than it is needed to put what's in cocoon storage or maintenance back to active service and replace SCALP or MdCN conventional warheads with something else, then, I can't tell if there are still tactical ones available but there were rumours that the Exocet ASM could receive a tactical-nuke as soon as the early 80's. I didn't verified if the CVN is at sea and if its transponder is on or off
And now the nasty part, the M51.3 has received the 3rd gen stealth ONERA's DEMR boss spoke about in 2009 since Hune 2020, Rafales are being upgraded to the F4 standard for 1 year+ now and the first to receive upgrades are always the EC91 and the Navy's squadrons since they carry the ASMPA-R, so forget about detecting these all even using the 29B6 Konteyner or the Voronezh radars, the fleet of Soviet spy sats are long gone and even if there were SAR radars, these would detect nothing, MdCN, SCALP and ASMPA-R are stealth although neither using 2nd gen like Rafale F3 or French navy vessels nor 3rd gen as M51.3 or Rafale F4, so their presence may be spotted under some conditions you will update the cruise missile's waypoints in order to avoid these.

Now don't ask me what's left in storage/set to be dismantled, I have no idea, but I'm not the only one to estimate that 350-500 would be realistic, this would imply a total arsenal of about 1000-1200 warheads available under a month [any way, even the peace-time "active" arsenal can already hurt very badly) and it's been more than a month since Vladolf Putler said he was Putin ruSSian strategic forces in alert, so make no mistake, France is in "DEFCON2" and if the Kremlin's Gremlin dares to attack an EU country, he perfectly knows about EU's constitution art 42.7, he perfectly knows about the French doctrine which implies that even a conventional war would meet a nuclear response, and he perfectly knows that it has been extended to the EU, and since that his friend Marine Le Pen hasn't been elected, there's no way to see France giving up this doctrine or pull out from NATO, or even pulling out from integrated command again [any way, French strategic forces are NOT part of NATO, moreover, her party is on the razor's edge and her too, they're in a judiciary turmoil, even the EU is suing them]...
gxxw.jpg

So yup, even if not hammered in the MSM, Finland is absolutely under the French nuclear umbrella, so is Cyprus, in case of Ankara's Gollum forgot about it, as well as the Baltic States and you will notice that there is no silo in France, then, since all has switched to optic fiber, forget about breaking the command chain with EMP.
Then yeah, Putler can surely wipeout France and the UK with his firecrackers, but with what would be left of ruSSia, added with an agricultural zone rendered radioactive for thousands of years, well, how long those in the Moscow's or St.Pete's subways dug 100m below the surface will survive? Even he ruSSian army's rations are long pas shelves dates, 20% of its budget is embezzled, ruSSia is corrupted from the top to the bottom, so don't expect civilian defense going better, you can be sure that if there was stockpiles of canned food in subways' storage, these are gone for long, and I don't think there are hydroponics. Expect something like Enki Bilal's "Bunker Palace Hotel" for the elites which will end TARFU in it, and add a good 600-1000 rad/h on the surface...

Now, if you want to wipe out, it's not a few of Putler's firecrackers : with a 1 megaton airburst, you can expect
such damages:
(you may have to re-detonate as it will show up as a surface burst, thus minimizing the wipe-out features by about 50%)...
When Rossiya-1 one brags about a single Sarmat wiping out the UK, this is utter BS !!! If the wind helps, the 10x 1 megaton MIRVs may cover about 20,000-30,000 km² at 1 rad/h, but the usual winds are not so fallout-spread friendly.
This is not wiping out, it's making it radioactive with surface blasts :lol: If you truly want to wipe out the UK, you need to use cose to 500x 1 Megaton warheads, in other terms, the whole fleet of 46 R-36M2which NATO calls "Satan" or its upcoming successor, the RS-28 Sarmat which NATO calls "Satan-II", or you'd need about 500 Topol-M with a single warhead, thus there are only 60 silo-based Topol-M and 18 TELs...
320px-19-03-2012-Parade-rehearsal_-_Topol-M.jpg

There are only 36 road mobile older Topols which are being phased out
320px-Moscow_Parad_2008_Ballist.jpg

for the RS-24 Yars which is MIRVed: 136 road-mobile and 14 silo-based missiles are deployed
320px-PC-24_%C2%AB%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%81%C2%BB.JPG

This implies you're no more in a city-buster strategy.
Frankly, when the Sarmat/Sineva factory did burn a few years ago, I believed Putin had grown a brain and did his McNamara, but ruSSian style...
Since the Sarmat is to finally replace the R-36M2, and according to the fact he's wiping out cities again while proffering nuclear threats, unfortunately, he obviously didn't broke up with the Soviet/Nazi barbarian issues of terrorizing populations...
The bulk of the arsenal is submarine based, with 5 Borei and a Typhoon totally 100 RSM-56 Bulava with 6 MIRVs each (600 warheads), and 7 Delta IV with a total of 112 R-29RMU Sineva and so 448 MIRVs
But considering that the Sinevas as well as the R-36 Tsyklon or the Sarmat are liquid-fuelled, don't bet on a 100% launch success, if some dude didn't managed to sell the fuel :lol: When you know that in St.Pete, the best Vodka is sold by the Ru-Air Force dudes and analysis have shown there is kerosene in, I'd definitively avoid vodka sold by the submariners or by the 13th and 62nd rocket divisions: you probably have hydrazine in :lol:
They're not even able to put ERA bricks on their tanks, the body armours are so long past shelf-dates that non-AP rounds pierce through, and visibly, if the Arena active protection system works, the 1600+ tanks and 3000+ IFV/APC destroyed by Ukraine didn't received it more than ERA, while, during latest Hezbollah attack into Israel, the two Kornet-E launched against an Israeli MRAP were intercepted by Trophy LV...

Oh, BTW, Turkey complains that S-400 is barely useless... So, you know, I use the word "firecrackers" deliberately about ruZZian nuclear arsenal... Oh, for sure, it may do some damages, but you can be near certain that the French arsenal, and maybe even the Israeli arsenal if Colin Powell and Jimmy Carter didn't lied, can hurt freaking bad, much badly than many are willing to think...

As we are, the fully loaded 100Mt Tsar Bomba in a surface burst would have spread fallouts over about 500,000km² with about 1.1km³ of ground vaporized and made radioactive with a mushroom cloud between 40 and 53km altitude... Imagine that, since the location is classified, and likely in some bunker, some wise ruSSian general targets this bunker with a Topol-M in a surface burst... 30t of mil-grade Pu239 at 20 kt/kg=> 600 megatons, add 1 NPP for less than 10,000km² with, for the most of them, 4x 3.8GWth reactors and it's impossible to estimate the quantity of antimatter in storage, the only thing is that with 10µg, it's said having enough energy to go to Mars and back, and 1g = 43 kilotons => 2150x more powerful than Pu239...

I'd be very careful if I was into using nuclear weapons against France which is the most denuclearized country on the planet: there might be some unwanted side effects like a nuclear winter, a nuclear disaster of apocalyptical proportions, who knows, maybe a gigantic hole in the Earth's crust of the level of the Oruanui VEI-8 eruption if not worse, some dude at the Large Hadron Collider may even decide to lift all securities and unleash a small blackhole which will grow and grow at the point after some time it will eat the solar system or more...

So, as you see, I definitively do not fear Putler's arsenal, he's a nuclear clown, ruSSia is a paper tiger
82fi.jpg

and I'm positive with a direct NATO intervention in Ukraine to kick his orcs out, period!
He can always use one of his firecrackers as a dildo, he'll surely enjoy it more than Hermann Goering enjoyed what his great dane dog had to offer...
Talking of nuclear war between super powers.
Even a nuclear war between India and Pakistan can end the world including all humans on earth as we know it.
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
13,348
110
16,497
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
then why has this same US lost every war since you and i were born? just fact checkingbro.

Maybe you are confused about objectives of a war and what can be regarded as victory in a war?

Every war has a core political objective. If it is accomplished then it is victory.

Let me give you some examples.

1. Korean War (1950 - 1953) was fought to liberate and restore South Korea:


Core political objective was accomplished. This is victory.

2. Operation Desert Storm (1991) was launched to liberate and restore Kuwait:






Core political objective was accomplished. This is victory.

3. Operation Allied Force (1999) was launched to liberate Kosovo:




Core political objective was accomplished. This is victory.

4. Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003 - 2011) was launched to close the chapter of Saddam regime in Iraq.








Core political objective was accomplished. This is victory.

There are other examples but the above will do.

I am rather surprised that some living in US do not study and understand these themes and developments. Distant observers have to point out the obvious.

Modern warfare is not necessarily about invading and annexing another state in classical sense. Americans did this to Mexico back in 1800s.
 

Wergeland

FULL MEMBER
Feb 4, 2022
1,037
0
1,618
Country
Norway
Location
Norway
Maybe you are confused about objectives of a war and what can be regarded as victory in a war?

Every war has a core political objective. If it is accomplished then it is victory.

Let me give you some examples.

1. Korean War (1950 - 1953) was fought to liberate and restore South Korea:


Core political objective was accomplished. This is victory.

2. Operation Desert Storm (1991) was launched to liberate and restore Kuwait:






Core political objective was accomplished. This is victory.

3. Operation Allied Force (1999) was launched to launched to liberate Kosovo:




Core political objective was accomplished. This is victory.

4. Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003 - 2011) was launched to close the chapter of Saddam regime in Iraq.








Core political objective was accomplished. This is victory.

There are other examples but the above will do.

I am rather surprised that some living in US do not study and understand these themes and developments. Distant observers have to point out the obvious.

Modern warfare is not necessarily about invading and annexing another state in classical sense. Americans did this to Mexico back in 1800s.

You are right.

Then the question is what was the rationale behind the core objectives. Were they achieved?

Example:
Iraq War Won because core objective of Saddam government removal was achieved.

If the rationale was to further US interest and make America stronger. Did the result really play out the way it was anticipated.

The next question is: Should it matter?

Even in the darkest cloud there is a silver lining. Hopefully this is it.

Well the pipe is singing other tunes rather quickly. What happened?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 10, Members: 4, Guests: 6)


Top Bottom