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

[fitpOsitive]

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

Russia may launch a major offensive in coming weeks, but Ukraine says it has troops and resources to repel the attack.

www.aljazeera.com

Mission completed = Ukraine destroyed.​

 

[casual]

Would love to see how much fall out those 30 nukes will blow over to Poland and blow back to Moscow if Russia actually used them. Fall out will not stay with Ukraine you know that. right?

The issue with nuke has been debated over and over again, too big of a nuke you will blow back to Poland, Romania, Belarus and Russia itself, too small you may as well stick with thermobaric weapon, and finally, you would need to be really naive to think the West will let Russia to use nuke without any consequence.

It's a different matrix of threaten to use nuke or escalate before and after you had used it, because if you say that BEFORE you use them, there is a chance you will not use them, but when you say that after you use them, there are no chance you will not use them, because they were already USED. The threat matrix is different, that's why the question is not whether the west will response if and when Russia use nuke, but rather will Russia want to escalate to that stage for them to use nuke.

Western countries already used the leverage they have on Russia short of war. There's no much more consequence left to impose on Russia. Also, 30 nukes is overkill. 1-2 is enough to win. Nuclear fallout is definitely bad but wind does blow into Russia from Ukraine so it doesn't effect Russia if nukes are used in the right season. Russia won't nuke if it can win with conventional means. Otherwise, I predicted they will choose nuke over a loss.

 

[ziaulislam]

Western countries already used the leverage they have on Russia short of war. There's no much more consequence left to impose on Russia. Also, 30 nukes is overkill. 1-2 is enough to win. Nuclear fallout is definitely bad but wind does blow into Russia from Ukraine so it doesn't effect Russia if nukes are used in the right season. Russia won't nuke if it can win with conventional means. Otherwise, I predicted they will choose nuke over a loss.

There are not much fall out with small tactical nukes.
After all check out how many nukes were tested back in 1960s

Putin will launch full scale invasion and if he fails he will use tactical nukes

 

[Ahmadbhutta01]

I don't think the West will supply Ukraine a number of aircraft that large that would have a maintenance and operational problem. You are probably talking about 1 to 2 squadron.


Dude, Russian MIG got shit on every which way (got trashed in Middle East, Vietnam War, Korean War and even the War in Ukraine) did it ever dissuade country from buying MIG??

Dude try them with su35 and su57 let's see the results , even the Ukrainian pilots documented on videos said su27 is better than f16

There are not much fall out with small tactical nukes.
After all check out how many nukes were tested back in 1960s

Putin will launch full scale invasion and if he fails he will use tactical nukes

Tactical nukes are the way to go , Slava cocaine zelenskie thinks he can have whatever he wants with west putting dollars into his account, trust me when the dust is settled he might leave for Israel or else where

 

[jhungary]

Western countries already used the leverage they have on Russia short of war. There's no much more consequence left to impose on Russia. Also, 30 nukes is overkill. 1-2 is enough to win. Nuclear fallout is definitely bad but wind does blow into Russia from Ukraine so it doesn't effect Russia if nukes are used in the right season. Russia won't nuke if it can win with conventional means. Otherwise, I predicted they will choose nuke over a loss.

1 to 2 nuke won't win. You are talking about doing 40-60k damage to a 700k armed force if you use 1 to 2 sub 40 kt device. That is if Ukraine bunch up their force. Given 1 of them can take out about 15 sq kilometer area. That's a small area, you are talking about 1 to 2 division worth max. The entire frontline in Ukraine is roughly 1230km. Which mean 1 or 2 you are talking about < 1% of the frontline. How does that even make a different?

And you will sure as hell bring in NATO response, again, NATO will not just stand by and let Russia use nuke, they will response conventionally, because you can't threaten to use nuke WHEN YOU HAD ALREADY USED THEM, which mean from No Fly Zone to Boots on the Ground, Russia would lose if they use nuke. Like the no fly zone imposed on Iraq post 1991 and in Bosnia. Every Russian target in Ukraine will be legitimize to attack, and if Russia can't deal with Ukrainian Air Force, they will certainly be destroyed by NATO Air Force conventionally.

And if this is the case 60k casualty to end this war in Ukraine favor is actually a blessing, because they will have more if they were grinding away with Russia. They probably already lost twice that much already.

Dude try them with su35 and su57 let's see the results , even the Ukrainian pilots documented on videos said su27 is better than f16


Tactical nukes are the way to go , Slava cocaine zelenskie thinks he can have whatever he wants with west putting dollars into his account, trust me when the dust is settled he might leave for Israel or else where

You do know Russia already losing Su-35 even without F-16, Patriot Missile, right??

And Su-57?? lol........dude, you are pretty delusional.

 

[SQ8]

1 to 2 nuke won't win. You are talking about doing 40-60k damage to a 700k armed force if you use 1 to 2 sub 40 kt device. That is if Ukraine bunch up their force. Given 1 of them can take out about 15 sq kilometer area. That's a small area, you are talking about 1 to 2 division worth.

And you will sure as hell bring in NATO response, again, NATO will not just stand by and let Russia use nuke, they will response conventionally, because you can't threaten to use nuke WHEN YOU HAD ALREADY USED THEM, which mean from No Fly Zone to Boots on the Ground, Russia would lose if they use nuke. Like the no fly zone imposed on Iraq post 1991 and in Bosnia. Every Russian target in Ukraine will be legitimize to attack, and if Russia can't deal with Ukrainian Air Force, they will certainly be destroyed by NATO Air Force conventionally.

And if this is the case 60k casualty to end this war in Ukraine favor is actually a blessing, because they will have more if they were grinding away with Russia. They probably already lost twice that much already.


You do know Russia already losing Su-35 even without F-16, Patriot Missile, right??

And Su-57?? lol........dude, you are pretty delusional.

It may feel odd, but post Ukraine faith in Russian aircraft has dwindled considerably from the gains they had “achieved” over Syria.

Now, Egypt is rethinking its Mig-35s, the Indians are de-Russianing their MKis even further and no other customer remains for them besides NK. All probably not the fault of the equipment as much as of the Russian warfighter - what absolutely useless leadership their poor troops have.

 

[jhungary]

It may feel odd, but post Ukraine faith in Russian aircraft has dwindled considerably from the gains they had “achieved” over Syria.

Now, Egypt is rethinking its Mig-35s, the Indians are de-Russianing their MKis even further and no other customer remains for them besides NK. All probably not the fault of the equipment as much as of the Russian warfighter - what absolutely useless leadership their poor troops have.

Well, as I said, how equipment perform is largely unaffected to their sale, because in some case, choice is not available to them. Egypt or India has choices so they will probably move away from Russian equipment seeing how they perform in Ukraine. But the same luxury cannot be afforded in African country or North Korea, they are going to get stuck with Russian gear until the Chinese available to them.

On the other hand, of the 3 branches, the blame they can lay on leadership is probably the least with the Air Force.

 

[K_Bin_W]

Mission completed = Ukraine destroyed.​

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

 

[casual]

1 to 2 nuke won't win. You are talking about doing 40-60k damage to a 700k armed force if you use 1 to 2 sub 40 kt device. That is if Ukraine bunch up their force. Given 1 of them can take out about 15 sq kilometer area. That's a small area, you are talking about 1 to 2 division worth max. The entire frontline in Ukraine is roughly 1230km. Which mean 1 or 2 you are talking about < 1% of the frontline. How does that even make a different?

And you will sure as hell bring in NATO response, again, NATO will not just stand by and let Russia use nuke, they will response conventionally, because you can't threaten to use nuke WHEN YOU HAD ALREADY USED THEM, which mean from No Fly Zone to Boots on the Ground, Russia would lose if they use nuke. Like the no fly zone imposed on Iraq post 1991 and in Bosnia. Every Russian target in Ukraine will be legitimize to attack, and if Russia can't deal with Ukrainian Air Force, they will certainly be destroyed by NATO Air Force conventionally.

And if this is the case 60k casualty to end this war in Ukraine favor is actually a blessing, because they will have more if they were grinding away with Russia. They probably already lost twice that much already.


You do know Russia already losing Su-35 even without F-16, Patriot Missile, right??

And Su-57?? lol........dude, you are pretty delusional.

Russia would target cities. Two nukes had lead to Japanese surrender. And if two isn't enough, Russia has a couple thousand more. And I don't think since the conflict already escalated into nuclear war, their threats of nuclear war is much more potent. NATO won't do anything beyond more sanctions

 

[jhungary]

Russia would target cities. Two nukes had lead to Japanese surrender. And if two isn't enough, Russia has a couple thousand more. And I don't think since the conflict already escalated into nuclear war, their threats of nuclear war is much more potent. NATO won't do anything beyond more sanctions

Japan surrendered because they lost 50% of their armed force and Soviet Union is going to war with them, not because the US levelled 2 city.

There are more than 2 City that was completely destroyed (Sieverodonetsk, Kherson, Izyum, Kupiansk, Mariupol just to name a few) and already twice the number of losses happened to Ukrainian Army, if that 2 nuke would have make them surrendered, they would have done it a long time ago.

And you are naive to think NATO wouldn't do anything, that's rightly because Russia already had used nuke, NATO would think there are nothing Russia will not do, they are literally crossing the Rubicon, which mean by then it would have been NATO interest to end this war as soon as possible. Because anytime that drag on you are facing more possibility of Russian using more nuke, and that not just applies to Ukrainian War, it also applies to future war. And your response is, NATO would do nothing....Why?

Nuke are a good thing to use for bluff, but when you actually used it, you can't really bluff with nuke anymore.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Give them F-15s and F-35s. Old junk will not survive Russian air defense and it’s AF.

Old junk will definitely survive Russian air defenses, seeing how easily suicide drones hit their strategic bomber bases 600km inside Russia

Japan surrendered because they lost 50% of their armed force and Soviet Union is going to war with them, not because the US levelled 2 city.

There are more than 2 City that was completely destroyed (Sieverodonetsk, Kherson, Izyum, Kupiansk, Mariupol just to name a few) and already twice the number of losses happened to Ukrainian Army, if that 2 nuke would have make them surrendered, they would have done it a long time ago.

Combination of the two. Japan surrendered because they couldn't do anything to stop those nukes.

 

[casual]

Japan surrendered because they lost 50% of their armed force and Soviet Union is going to war with them, not because the US levelled 2 city.

There are more than 2 City that was completely destroyed (Sieverodonetsk, Kherson, Izyum, Kupiansk, Mariupol just to name a few) and already twice the number of losses happened to Ukrainian Army, if that 2 nuke would have make them surrendered, they would have done it a long time ago.

And you are naive to think NATO wouldn't do anything, that's rightly because Russia already had used nuke, NATO would think there are nothing Russia will not do, they are literally crossing the Rubicon, which mean by then it would have been NATO interest to end this war as soon as possible. Because anytime that drag on you are facing more possibility of Russian using more nuke, and that not just applies to Ukrainian War, it also applies to future war. And your response is, NATO would do nothing....Why?

Nuke are a good thing to use for bluff, but when you actually used it, you can't really bluff with nuke anymore.

Russia is not at war with NATO. If Russia nukes Ukraine, it doesn't mean they crossed the Rubicon. NATO would not do anything because they are sane.

 

[jhungary]

Russia is not at war with NATO. If Russia nukes Ukraine, it doesn't mean they crossed the Rubicon. NATO would not do anything because they are sane.

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

 

[jhungary]

Old junk will definitely survive Russian air defenses, seeing how easily suicide drones hit their strategic bomber bases 600km inside Russia


Combination of the two. Japan surrendered because they couldn't do anything to stop those nukes.

Well, there are couple of other reason to be exact

I think by that stage, Imperial Japanese Government probably had already see no ways to turn the ties, I mean other than depending on divine intervention that probably would never came, there aren't anything Japanese can do to turn the battle in Japanese favor, the US had already captured Okinawa by that point, the only thing Japanese can do is to relocate their troop in manchuria back to mainland and put it on homeland defence, but with Soviet joining the war on Allied side, that sheer number would not be enough for a probably combine US/Soviet assault, and the result would be undoubtedly a seperation of japan like Korea.

I would say the reason of Japanese surrender is a complex factor, but if I was asked directly whether the nuke itself make Japan surrender, I would think most WW2 historian would have said no

 

[SQ8]

Well, as I said, how equipment perform is largely unaffected to their sale, because in some case, choice is not available to them. Egypt or India has choices so they will probably move away from Russian equipment seeing how they perform in Ukraine. But the same luxury cannot be afforded in African country or North Korea, they are going to get stuck with Russian gear until the Chinese available to them.

On the other hand, of the 3 branches, the blame they can lay on leadership is probably the least with the Air Force.

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