Russian special military operation in Ukraine #56

Broski wrote:

Arrow wrote:Democratic leader in the US House of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries did not rule out sending troops to Ukraine.

According to him, intervention may be required if Kyiv loses.

I can only hope it's true. The only way this war ends is either to the last Ukrainian or when 1000's of NATO troops are being shipped home in body bags every week. I much prefer the latter.

The question then becomes, how many bodies are you willing to spend for the russians? because their KIA will sky rocket if US forces enter the conflict official of course we will also take heavy losses.

If your thinking "the gov wont be able to tolerate the losses"

oh they will, trust me on that because they are just barking the orders and won't care about the guys they send to fight of course they would make public statements saying so but behind the scenes they wouldn't give a shit.

US ain't Ukraine, thats a whole different beast.

@Seig Heil

US ain't Ukraine, thats a whole different beast.

Beast?!! Man you have a very short attention span!

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

The question then becomes, how many bodies are you willing to spend for the russians? because their KIA will sky rocket if US forces enter the conflict official of course we will also take heavy losses.

If your thinking "the gov wont be able to tolerate the losses"

oh they will, trust me on that because they are just barking the orders and won't care about the guys they send to fight of course they would make public statements saying so but behind the scenes they wouldn't give a shit.

US ain't Ukraine, thats a whole different beast.

If the US enters, it's 1.5 million Russians vs 300k NATO

Russia will not treat NATO infrastructure like Ukraine

It will treat US forces like Idlib or Mosul

And it will raze european cities to the ground and start killing NATO ISR assets, bases, and hubs

Don't mistake the SMO for a real war

It's just funny that NATO really believes Ukraine is representative of a war

It's the most humanitarian war fought in history

More of a hostage crisis than a war

Anyway, take a look at Kiev, Kharkov Odessa etc.

That's not how cities look in a war

Now go take a look at Mosul, Idlib, or Gaza, and you will see what a war looks like

Now ask yourself this, do you really believe you are watching anything even remotely close to a serious war?

ALAMO wrote:

I have only one thought about the matter, and it will be sociology.
Yes, US citizen is so much brainwashed.
They don't get that.
Imagine being raised in a country, where you are to sing the anthem twice a day and hail the flag since you are some 5 or 6 y/o.
There is nothing wrong in teaching patriotism, but it jumps out of the box.
They really think of being the best country in the whole of the world.They really don't know the world around - hardly visiting anywhere further that the next by county.
"We don't need to travel because we are already facing the best!"
Understanding that there are much more wealthy, free, educated, cared societies in the world - and there are a lot of them - turns on a stupor.
Clear, mental stupor.
Can't even judge them much for that, really.

Yeah , more of the kneeling to the anthem would help them understand a bit,  I guess Tik Tok will help them understand it little by little

Anyway the good cop bad cop routine works on them

Putin has the nuclear Arsenal and the army

Xi comes bearing nice gifts and tidings in comparison

An offer they can't refuse

What's funny is, Xi flies to Paris, the western media describes it as "two empires in negotiations"

I understand the flattery - but get real, this shit is not a negotiation,  nor is there any cooperation,  and there's only one master and one slave in this relationship

The deal is this, you accept defeat in Ukraine, Taiwan,  Middle East

And you get cheap goods shipped to Rotterdam via NSR and NTSC , the red sea is closed due to renovations

And instead of McDs appearing everywhere,  you can have BYD, Temu, Tik Tok and Alibaba to take care of your inflation

Kind of the reverse of WEF

You will buy from China and you will like it

GarryB wrote:
Of course if you are going to put stuff on your tanks that you would put the same or more on your mine clearing vehicles too... they will be a high priority target for enemy snipers and ATGM operators and drone operators too.

Tanks are already high-value targets and a priority on the battlefield, so why not add more protection, especially when mobility is no longer required here ?

Arrow wrote:Democratic leader in the US House of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries did not rule out sending troops to Ukraine.

According to him, intervention may be required if Kyiv loses.

Americans ain't dumb enough for that (yet)

But I'm still holding out hope for French, we got some actual potential there

Well gents, Kharkov is starting slowly and inconspicuous

Syrsky pulled the reserves and sent them to Chasov Yar and Ocheretino

Time for Group N to start rolling

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
The question then becomes, how many bodies are you willing to spend for the russians? because their KIA will sky rocket if US forces enter the conflict official of course we will also take heavy losses.

Depends on how exactly would USA enter the war

Strolling into Ukraine shooting gallery and giving Ruskies open invitation to roast them all at leisure with everything up to and including nukes consequence free? Not too many Ruskie bodies in that scenario

Full size USA vs Russia WW3? That would be a lot of Ruskie bodies definitely but it's also something USA would not be doing due to whole everyone back home dying horribly thing

Both of which is why USA will not be going into this particular slaughterhouse

ALAMO wrote:

They can describe it in any way they want - but the ground will stay.
What Xi have heard - again - was that URope can't handle a fair competition with China, so is asking them to back down from the URope market.

It is not even funny anymore.
They didn't even start yet!!
Scary them by sanctions?  
Good luck! EU industry without China will cease to exist. As easy as that.
I will tell you all a funny story.
Chinese car industry is invading URope.
A stronghold of the car industry, right?
Well ... I am just looking for a car now.
Forget the real prices, let's focus on the cars - pieces.
For the price of a car I drive now - and don't want to degrade the segment - I can buy TWO China branded cars.
Same level.
Better equipped.
TWO.
They will just burn the EU car business, and put some salt on top.

Klaus Schwab has some serious issues if he hopes that they will share everything in the west

Temu and Alibaba have other ideas

Ah Alamo your funny as always

Are you that arrogant to think forces will not be redeployed, additional forces raised etc? do you think this will not quickly escalate to full blown war between us?. Also the russians cannot stop Ukraine from lobbing missiles and drones into the country and their bases and this is just ukraine, how are they supposed to stand up to US strikes lol.

How a US and Russian conflict would work out in Ukraine is hard to say sure, it could go in any direction and thats the problem here there is waaaaay to much unknown to be making claims, but its asinine and idoitic to think we would merely roll in there with those limited forces. Initial maybe but those numbers would climb and climb.

Your problem is your acting all knowingly and full of BS assumptions, buddy you are no expert your like everyone here an arm chair expert because fanboys like your comments here you think you know what your speaking about lol.

So don't preach to me because I just roll my eyes at it.

I personally do noit think US forces will roll into Ukraine but in the event we do, thats just thge first wave of many coming

PapaDragon wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
The question then becomes, how many bodies are you willing to spend for the russians? because their KIA will sky rocket if US forces enter the conflict official of course we will also take heavy losses.

Depends on how exactly would USA enter the war

Strolling into Ukraine shooting gallery and giving Ruskies open invitation to roast them all at leisure with everything up to and including nukes consequence free? Not too many Ruskie bodies in that scenario

Full size USA vs Russia WW3? That would be a lot of Ruskie bodies definitely but it's also something USA would not be doing due to whole everyone back home dying horribly thing

Both of which is why USA will not be going into this particular slaughterhouse

Unless US forces try to enter Russia proper nukes aren't on the table.

That said we have the range to counter and means to deal with Russian strikes.

Though I generally agree with what you mean, the problem is it will only escalate.

They bomb us? we will respond and hit them, rinse and repeat and it will merely lead to massive build up of forces and more.

It will not end with just 20k guys, it may start with that but more weapons, systems and strikes will be used as time goes on bomber forces will be employed and make no mistake we can hit russian anywhere and if they cannot fully defend their airspace from ukraine how in the hell are they soupposed to do it from us?.

Thats the problem here is the fanboys think it will be some small thing, Naw will start small but get bigger and bigger.

I do not think the U.S. will go in directly due to the risk of a nuclear war.


Albeit with Biden in charge you never know for sure.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:

I do not think the U.S. will go in directly due to the risk of a nuclear war.


Albeit with Biden in charge you never know for sure.

I personally do not either, advisors sure, and command staff okay but proper troops naw.

The politicians here love to pound their chest and say tough words.

But acting like if we did and the Russians would steam roll us is just pure fanboy delusion.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Ah Alamo your funny as always

Are you that arrogant to think forces will not be redeployed, additional forces raised etc? do you think this will not quickly escalate to full blown war between us?. Also the russians cannot stop Ukraine from lobbing missiles and drones into the country and their bases and this is just ukraine, how are they supposed to stand up to US strikes lol.

Lol Ukraine has the best Air Defenses in NATO and they lose the most critical infrastructure,

How is NATO going to stand up to Russian strikes lol

seigsolovyov wrote:

How a US and Russian conflict would work out in Ukraine is hard to say sure, it could go in any direction and thats the problem here there is waaaaay to much unknown to be making claims, but its asinine and idoitic to think we would merely roll in there with those limited forces. Initial maybe but those numbers would climb and climb.

From where? There's not any sufficient troops to do that, and it would mean leaving bases in Japan and South Korea - that's not happening , and a draft in the US ain't happening either

So no , US will have less manpower

seigsolovyov wrote:
Your problem is your acting all knowingly and full of BS assumptions, buddy you are no expert your like everyone here an arm chair expert because fanboys like your comments here you think you know what your speaking about lol.

So don't preach to me because I just roll my eyes at it.

I personally do noit think US forces will roll into Ukraine but in the event we do, thats just thge first wave of many coming

Lol even during Vietnam,  mobilization didn't win the war for the US and they still lost

Russia with a manpower advantage and far more capability to kill and maim US troops can do that on a far more expanded scale

The US is a paper tiger

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Unless US forces try to enter Russia proper nukes aren't on the table.

That said we have the range to counter and means to deal with Russian strikes.

Though I generally agree with what you mean, the problem is it will only escalate.

They bomb us? we will respond and hit them, rinse and repeat and it will merely lead to massive build up of forces and more.

It will not end with just 20k guys, it may start with that but more weapons, systems and strikes will be used as time goes on bomber forces will be employed and make no mistake we can hit russian anywhere and if they cannot fully defend their airspace from ukraine how in the hell are they soupposed to do it from us?.

Thats the problem here is the fanboys think it will be some small thing, Naw will start small but get bigger and bigger.

Russia can hit Rovaniemi, Constanta, Redzikowo and the US will only hit back in Ukraine

Finland, Poland and Romania are not the US, and they will only respond in 3rd country territory

Any strike on Russia proper and the US gets hit in response

So no, it wouldn't escalate just because NATO starts losing airbases and depots

NATO would have to respond only in 3rd countries where Russian troops are

And given the small footprint, there's not a whole lot of targets to choose from

You can take the risk of hitting Russia, but just know you will get hit on your territory in return

And the only reason Russia has casualties is because it didn't turn Ukrainian cities into Gaza or Mosul

It can very much easily do that and lower the casualty count

Again, Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Romania are not Russian people , so there's no point in trying to save their civilians or infrastructure

It would all get razed fast

ALAMO wrote:Hollywood is the sole murican Wuderwaffe.

I just find it hilarious that westerners point at the SMO as an indication of anything

First off, if Russia wanted to,  it could absolutely raze all Ukrainian cities into rubble, and clear out the remainder via assaults

It could also shoot down the ISR assets flying around Ukraine with ease

The fact that Ukraine can land one off hits on irrelevant targets means that it would be far worse once satellites and ISR planes start going down

The delusion is that because Russia is fighting and using a policy of preserving Ukro infrastructure, that it does not have the capability to

That's just flat out wrong

In actuality Russia deliberately didn't target those infrastructure, and allowed C4ISR to keep working

The fact they have success in those conditions means that they would do 1000x better if they apply the rules of war to those same targets

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Unless US forces try to enter Russia proper nukes aren't on the table.

and strikes on Russian territories is ok? and after each strike on AUG goes down? it does sound kinda escalation isnt it?

That said we have the range to counter and means to deal with Russian strikes.

the same as Patriots against Kinzhals in Kiev?

It will not end with just 20k guys, it may start with that but more weapons, systems and strikes will be used as time goes on bomber forces will be employed and make no mistake we can hit russian anywhere and if they cannot fully defend their airspace from ukraine how in the hell are they soupposed to do it from us?.

tbh you couldn't defend your bases neither from Iraqi resistance nor Talibs so how would you suppose to protect your bomber locations from Russian missiles?