Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
Ok for the purposes of discussion, 10 f16s in unsecured airspace are inconsequential and should be regarded as having zero material affect on the battle field.
That should’ve been obvious from the start
It won't be just ten, and presumably (if a sensible policy is followed) they won't be used, or even based where the Russians can strike their airfields, until a significant force is developed and ready to go.
Whether anyone's yet thought sufficiently about missile defence of the airfields, I don't know.
The US doesn’t deploy those assets unless it’s safe. They prob don’t want to give the Russians a chance to test their drones out agains f16s either
Imagine the Russians learn how to counter a fighter jet with a commercial drone??
Ukraine will probably be deploying them very shortly after they are ready. Ukraine isn't in a position to sit on assets because they are afraid of losing them.
10 is a good estimate for how many Ukraine will have this summer/end of year.
As much as I’d like them to win, I’m not seeing it anymore, though I honestly have largely checked out of following things. What’s the path to victory in your eyes at this point and what does victory mean?
There are experts who claim that another Ukrainian offensive is possible, but I personally don't see it. Ukraine has really messed up their mobilization, it finally happened way too late. I also think that this mobilization will be the final amount that Ukraine is able to muster.
I personally think the most likely outcome is both sides wear themselves out. This results in a frozen conflict or a meaningless truce and we do this all again after 10 or so years.
Does Russia have a history of doing that?
Yes
There are experts who claim that another Ukrainian offensive is possible, but I personally don't see it. Ukraine has really messed up their mobilization, it finally happened way too late. I also think that this mobilization will be the final amount that Ukraine is able to muster.
I personally think the most likely outcome is both sides wear themselves out. This results in a frozen conflict or a meaningless truce and we do this all again afte
Sounds about right.
decent article by CNN (this is happening more and more often lately) on the new Ukrainian draft law.
the picture is really bleak for us, the law isn't necessarily going to achieve what we hope and it's an ulterior significant cost paid by Ukrainian citizens
Ukraine will probably be deploying them very shortly after they are ready. Ukraine isn't in a position to sit on assets because they are afraid of losing them.
10 is a good estimate for how many Ukraine will have this summer/end of year.
That will be the first batch. Don't know the systems fit on these ex-Dutch and Danish aircraft (or whether the US is secretly approving upgrades for them), but they should add a fair bit of capability. For one thing, the US has been supplying the AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile for years, but when this is carried by obsolescent Ukrainian MiGs the pilot needs an iPad on his knee to make the missile work and its modes are restricted. After an initial period of success in destroying Russian radars, the Russians are now able to detect a HARM launch and switch off, so the missile has to home on 'last known position', which seldom results in a decisive hit. The F-16 should improve matters.
It's notable, and a little surprising, that the Russians have never so far been able to impose complete air supremacy over Ukraine or wipe out the Ukrainian air force, even as things stand. (Western anti-air missile systems, and the fact that the Russians can't afford to replace lost jets, probably have a lot to do with that.) Ukraine of course wants 150 F-16s, which they're unlikely to get, but the number available may be of significant use. The long delivery time will be mainly due to pilot and ground-crew training (and possibly covert upgrades).
I totally agree with you, I was asking about the first batch because we are likely to see them very soon and that will give a lot of info about how the rest of the planes will be used. I think I read somewhere that Ukraine can expect something like 60 F16s donated, although that might have gone down. That is going to be much later, probably 2026 at the earliest though. Ukraine is also planning to purchase some, honestly I'm not sure if that's worth it.
F16s will add a lot of capability, especially if they get access to something like SLAM-ER (or whatever equivalent is actually being produced). Whoever is helping Ukraine with the migs is pretty much just welding the missiles on. F16 will have a lot of capabilities and be extremely useful... eventually.
Obviously I don't think f16s will be sat on because it's too dangerous to fly, but I do think that the pilots will begin with shooting down missiles from the relative safety of being far from the front lines, with some limited HARM, ad and a2a ambushes.
Although Ukraine has been taking some extreme risks lately, so if they're in a position where they have to be extremely risk tolerant then it's possible that f16s are going to be performing far more dangerous missions soon after we see them. On top of that risk tolerance, the risk tolerance itself has already led to some (imo) extremely stupid losses from things like using artillery for shoot and scoot, which once again might mean f16s need to be used in more dangerous situations because the previous risky missions have increased the need for airstrikes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/26/world...
Moscow is again amassing forces near the border, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine warned. His comments came as officials said that a Russian strike had killed at least 16 people in Kharkiv.
Good news on the front of NATO countries military expenses.
The Russian threat (and perhaps Trump requests to fulfill obligations?) has pushed many countries to increase defense spending, with several now over the 2% threshold
We triangulate through Kyrghizistan to keep trading with Russia
for each country the gap is what is going to Russia
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/30/polit...
Biden gives Ukraine permission to carry out limited strikes within Russia using US weapons
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/30/polit...
Biden gives Ukraine permission to carry out limited strikes within Russia using US weapons
Are you still holding this thread to the narrative that this isn't a proxy war for the US and the west versus Russia thru Ukraine?
I can't possibly answer that question since it's built on the false narrative that I was ever holding the thread to any narrative.
You can believe whatever false thing you want to believe, explaining why and how what you believe is wrong does not mean you have to change your mind.
I can't possibly answer that question since it's built on the false narrative that I was ever holding the thread to any narrative.
You can believe whatever false thing you want to believe, explaining why and how what you believe is wrong does not mean you have to change your mind.
Its a proxy war. And you defended the argument extensively that its not.
(and then the thread vanished)
Yes, I defended my view extensively while you complained that I was enforcing my opinion which I obviously was not since at any point you were allowed to state your opinion and argue it. Instead of backing up your argument with facts or evidence you chose to complain that my facts and evidence were "enforcing" my argument on the thread through a mod privilege which does not exist. It's unfortunate your time away from the thread has not helped you to realize this.
If you are implying that I closed the thread due to people disagreeing with me then lol.
The answer to this is the same as it was minutes ago when you asked.
Or can we discuss the proxy nature of it now?
You can discuss any false premise that you want as long as the mods allow it. (I am not mod here as you've been told many times.) I can explain how it is false.
Oh it was closed?
Deleted.
Now I'm confused what you point you were trying to imply.
Yes lets go over how its false that this is a proxy war between the west and russia where the west is pushing on putin using ukraine as its proxy.
BGP Is this a proxy war as of NOW, yes or no
Well, mainly it would seem this is a war of conquest, where Russia has invaded and is actively capturing parts of Ukraine, with no intention of ever giving back. And Ukraine's main motivation is to hold onto as much land as possible.
If you want to argue that there are ulterior geopolitical considerations motivating Russia and Western nations supporting Ukraine, that is fine. But I think it also important to acknowledge that Russia is the one that invaded Ukraine and has captured Ukranian land; and if it wasn't for that there would be no war at all.
Correct. We've been over this before. It ended up being that the definition of "proxy war" that was being used was so loose that only helping an ally out of pure altruism could not be considered a proxy war. Furthermore Russia is just as easily fighting a "proxy war" for N Korea and Iran, which is obviously ridiculous.
