‘Mission completed’: Ukraine minister says warplanes on the way

[casual]

NATO werenn't at war with Russia either, I am not talking about NATO go into Russia.

And if NATO wouldn't do anything then, they wouldn't supply arms in PUBLIC to Ukraine....We can concluded just because of that, that NATO have vested interest in Ukraine. Again, the only reason why NATO will not directly involve now is because the threat of using nuke, and you are saying once the Russian did use nuke and NATO would do nothing??

That's not a logical response bud

Ukraine is not NATO. Using nuke on Ukraine is not the same as using nuke on NATO. Attack on Russia by NATO will still never happen due to threat of MAD. This doesn't change.

 

[jhungary]

Ukraine is not NATO. Using nuke on Ukraine is not the same as using nuke on NATO. Attack on Russia by NATO will still never happen due to threat of MAD. This doesn't change.

If your argument hold, then why NATO provide arms to Ukraine to fight off Russia

NATO IS INVOLVED in this war with Russia anyway you want to put it. The amount of Advance of Weapon NATO send to Ukraine is as good as Ukraine being in NATO themselves, if that did not proof there is a vested interest between Ukraine and NATO, then I don't know what will.

And on the other hand, you already risk MAD if you use nuke whether or not you use it on NATO, because again, if the world is going to just condemn, then why other country have nuke? It's one thing you say you will use it, that's a threat, you will treat it seriously because you don't want the other side to use it. it's another thing to actually use it, because that would become an action. Once you have used it. then what next? There are no next, because you can't go up on the threat level, everything else is below nuke. which mean you have already used that trump card, and you are expected to be served with consequence (all in past tense) which mean if you do that,. there are pretty much NOTHING YOU WILL NOT DO. And in this case, there are more urge to end this before it goes out of hand.

There is a reason why Russia is in the shit since last June and have been saying they will be using nuke but didn't. You expected consequence when you do that particular action, you do that, the entire world turn on you, which mean you have to think if that worth it to use nuke.

Even then, no synergy of ops - still living like its the 80’s meat grinder.

Ground War? Yes.

I cannot comment on anything else.

 

[casual]

If your argument hold, then why NATO provide arms to Ukraine to fight off Russia

NATO IS INVOLVED in this war with Russia anyway you want to put it. The amount of Advance of Weapon NATO send to Ukraine is as good as Ukraine being in NATO themselves, if that did not proof there is a vested interest between Ukraine and NATO, then I don't know what will.

And on the other hand, you already risk MAD if you use nuke whether or not you use it on NATO, because again, if the world is going to just condemn, then why other country have nuke? It's one thing you say you will use it, that's a threat, you will treat it seriously because you don't want the other side to use it. it's another thing to actually use it, because that would become an action. Once you have used it. then what next? There are no next, because you can't go up on the threat level, everything else is below nuke. which mean you have already used that trump card, and you are expected to be served with consequence (all in past tense) which mean if you do that,. there are pretty much NOTHING YOU WILL NOT DO. And in this case, there are more urge to end this before it goes out of hand.

There is a reason why Russia is in the shit since last June and have been saying they will be using nuke but didn't. You expected consequence when you do that particular action, you do that, the entire world turn on you, which mean you have to think if that worth it to use nuke.


Ground War? Yes.

I cannot comment on anything else.

providing weapons does not mean NATO is directly involved. Russia nuking Ukraine is not MAD, just Ukraine getting nuked. NATO attacking Russia is MAD. What part of this do you not understand.

 

[jhungary]

providing weapons does not mean NATO is directly involved. Russia nuking Ukraine is not MAD, just Ukraine getting nuked. NATO attacking Russia is MAD. What part of this do you not understand.

I never said NATO is "Directly" involved. I said by sending weapon, NATO is involved in the war with Russia, what stop NATO from being "DIRECTLY" involved is the threat that Russia may be using nuke. That's probably the only thing why NATO is not involved directly.

Again, it does not make sense for NATO to say after Russia used nuke "Okay, so you use nuke, we are going to back off." You don't, because in risk assessment sense, you no longer expected anything else from Russia, the bomb has already been used, then what is the point of scaring they may have used it?

The entire idea of you cannot threaten to do the stuff that YOU HAVE ALREADY DID. When you use nuke, that level of deterrence is NOT going to exist anymore, because you have already used it, there are no if, when or buts about it. Which part of this do you not understand??

 

[Brainsucker]

The problem is, if Ukraine use NATO aircraft, and they come from Poland airbase, then Russian can claim that strike as a direct attack from NATO to Russia. That will complicated the situation.

 

[jhungary]

The problem is, if Ukraine use NATO aircraft, and they come from Poland airbase, then Russian can claim that strike as a direct attack from NATO to Russia. That will complicated the situation.\

That can be said with everything the west supplies, how do you know it was a Ukrainian behind that HIMARS launcher? How do you know it was Ukrainian behind those Western Tanks and Artillery. While aircraft strike can be track, so you will know what flew from where, but you will not know whether or not the person inside that cockpit is a NATO pilot or Ukrainian Pilot, hell, you couldn't even know if the US repainted every one of their M1 Abrams into Ukraine color of send the first armour division into Ukraine and fight as if they were Ukrainian...

That is why when NATO did send them the weapon, Russian have to assume NATO is directly involved, of course in the western perspective, it wasn't, but Russia wouldn't see that as is.

 

[Viet]

The problem is, if Ukraine use NATO aircraft, and they come from Poland airbase, then Russian can claim that strike as a direct attack from NATO to Russia. That will complicated the situation.

that’s not how it works. Even in wars people have to follow rules. Ukraine pilots will take the aircraft from Poland and fly them to Ukraine. As long as no NATO pilots fly to Ukraine, NATO is not war combatant. The Russians can claim everything they want but they can’t change the rules as they please. Human should have some manners when killing each others.

The rules in wars are stated in “Haager Landkriegsordnung of 1907”. The rules define who are combatants, the way to treat war prisoners, forbid of destruction of civil infrastructure, etc. It follows by Geneva convention and many others.

 

[fitpOsitive]

It already is - Not much is left, most of the infra is destroyed.

Same like Syria. Country after country. Weak countries will be destroyed first. Then will come other countries... And sure they will.

 

[Brainsucker]

That can be said with everything the west supplies, how do you know it was a Ukrainian behind that HIMARS launcher? How do you know it was Ukrainian behind those Western Tanks and Artillery. While aircraft strike can be track, so you will know what flew from where, but you will not know whether or not the person inside that cockpit is a NATO pilot or Ukrainian Pilot, hell, you couldn't even know if the US repainted every one of their M1 Abrams into Ukraine color of send the first armour division into Ukraine and fight as if they were Ukrainian...

That is why when NATO did send them the weapon, Russian have to assume NATO is directly involved, of course in the western perspective, it wasn't, but Russia wouldn't see that as is.

That's different. Because HIMARS launchers strike from Ukraine land. But if a NATO aircraft come from Poland or other NATO countries airbase, then Russia will think that it is a formal direct NATO attack to Russia.

 

[jhungary]

That's different. Because HIMARS launchers strike from Ukraine land. But if a NATO aircraft come from Poland or other NATO countries airbase, then Russia will think that it is a formal direct NATO attack to Russia.

You can track those aircraft from where they were launched and where they flew. Anyone have high power radar can do that.

NATO cannot slip in a quickie and launch a few strike inside Poland without Russia notice, well, their Air Defence is laughable, but it won't be that incompetent....

Again, it would more likely if the USAF 57 Fighter Wing currently in Germany deployed to Ukraine disguised as the aircraft that were transferred to Ukraine and paint it with Ukrainian roundel and flew NATO combat mission from Ukraine. That is more likely than flying them directly from Poland and expect Russia didn't pick that up

 

[Trango Towers]

Talking about nukes. By that logic Putin can throw nukes left and right if any future invasion is not going well as planned. Why USSR didn’t throw nukes before leaving Afghanistan?
Even if Putin drops nukes in Ukraine, 94 percent Ukraine would continue to fight until the bitter end, only 6 percent would surrender. That shows a recent poll.

US, UK certainly won’t nuke Russia Ukraine is not part of the nato.

If Russia uses nukes I am pretty sure the western countries would run arming with nukes.

And certainly lots of eastern countries from Japan, Korea, Australia, Vietnam as well.

Exactly 94%? Ummm. Let's see where u git that number from?

 

[jhungary]

Exactly 94%? Ummm. Let's see where u git that number from?

Think he meant this report

Spotlight Ukraine - Munich Security Conference

The Munich Security Conference (MSC) is the world's leading forum for debating the most pressing challenges to international security.

securityconference.org

It's 95% not 94% by the way. 91% said if Russia uses nuke at Black Sea, 89% said if Russia use nuke in Ukraine

 

[Trango Towers]

Think he meant this report

Spotlight Ukraine - Munich Security Conference

The Munich Security Conference (MSC) is the world's leading forum for debating the most pressing challenges to international security.

securityconference.org

It's 95% not 94% by the way. 91% said if Russia uses nuke at Black Sea, 89% said if Russia use nuke in Ukraine

It's the same as Ukraine is winning on tiktok but keeps losing ground

 

[casual]

YOU HAVE ALREADY DID.

NOT ON NATO.

 

[jhungary]

NOT ON NATO.

It didn't matter whether or not they did it to NATO, you are talking about Response vs Nuclear Response (AKA MAD), just because Russia didn't nuke NATO does not mean NATO will not response, because the next up if they (NATO) let it fly will be they are going to nuke NATO to see if NATO is going to response, which is something NATO cannot be allowed to happen to simple see if they are going to response, meaning they (Again, NATO) would have to nip it in the bud

As a former US Army Officer, and working under NATO command, if Russia uses nuke in non-NATO country, the STANDARD NATO response will be sending in NATO Peacekeeper all the way up to No Fly Zone impose on said Non-NATO country. That's the standard response, and if Nuke are used on NATO soil, the standard response is MAD.

Just because Russia nuke non-NATO and NATO would not use Nuke back in kind, does not mean they will sit on their arse and do nothing, the threat matrix has changed, and that would warrant a response. How hard is it for you to understand this?

It's the same as Ukraine is winning on tiktok but keeps losing ground

Oh, I must have missed when Russia had won the war.

And they are losing ground again now because Russia had already started the offensive, that's what you will get if you put 300,000 or whatever number of new troop into battle, in fact, the progress on Russian gaining ground is not good at all, It take them 1 month to take Optyne, 28 days to take Soledar, and they still can't get Bakhmut which they started this entire offensive since last July. All 3 are relatively small town if you compare to Kramatosk and Slovinsk