Russian special military operation in Ukraine #60

Karl Haushofer wrote:
Why are you asking me this? I don't make the decisions of our government.
But I think Finland is safe as long as Putin is in charge in Russia. What comes after him is another thing.

1. I am not asking you, I am explaining why you are mistaken in your judgments.
2. Your underestimation of Putin makes you almost indistinguishable from your government. You are literally trying to blame Putin for not starting a nuclear war.
3. In the end, it is precisely because of this way of thinking that Finland will disappear. A lot of people will die in the process.

An insane record of Russkie platoon rampage towards Yuzhnodobnasskaya-3 mine in the vicinity of Ugledar.

ALAMO wrote:

Isos wrote:
Not really. Soviet and chinese did much more during Vietnam war to help north vietnamese than the nato is doing for Ukraine today.

That is very good comment.
In general, there is a giant gap between the things that are being officially pretended to the real stance of the whole of the west.
Polish ruling "elites" are among the biggest Russkie eaters up there - but only as long as nobody says "checking".
Wired by suprice, it turns out that private opinions hardly represent the same level of shit.
Vovan and Lexus just scammed Sikorsky, who is a clear CIA asset. Yet even him, thinking that he conversates in private with Poroshenko, claimed all different than he speaks openly.
The very same situation was with president Duda at the same circumstances - he clearly bend over and admitted that there is not a single serious idea about any sort of war with Russkie.
In the Vietnam war, a whole WarPac supplied Vietnam with tons of equipment. Thousands - literally thousands - of trucks were delivered by Poland only.
WarPac military fought alongside the Vietnamese, and that was quite official - Polish air defense soldiers and officers were there operating both V-750 and S-125. Same applies to military pilots, all sort of instructors who trained Vietcong on the ground.
This war is much more scary in verbal sphere rather than in official.
And it is so only because of overflooding with information, both actual and figured out.

If you take all the delivries and divide by 30 months you end with something like 10 tanks, 10 SPG, 50 IFV, 1 fighter jet, 1 AD system, 500k shells on average per month. You don't win a war with such low figures.

The average delivries are pathetic compare to what soviet and chinese sent to Vietnames (more Mig were sent than nato sent tanks to Ukraine...).

That's why in my opinion NATO's goal is only to keep the war going but they have no real intentions behind other than burn their cash in their defence companies to flood pockets of their richest people.

Scorpius wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:
Why are you asking me this? I don't make the decisions of our government.
But I think Finland is safe as long as Putin is in charge in Russia. What comes after him is another thing.

1. I am not asking you, I am explaining why you are mistaken in your judgments.
2. Your underestimation of Putin makes you almost indistinguishable from your government. You are literally trying to blame Putin for not starting a nuclear war.
3. In the end, it is precisely because of this way of thinking that Finland will disappear. A lot of people will die in the process.

Talk about not only shooting the messenger, but threatening him with gang rape and a curse on his whole family. Will you chill out.

Maybe he's wrong about Finland specifically, but in general he is correct. Putin is seen in the West as weak and someone who can be pushed further. Whether he actually he is weak or isn't. You don't like that fact, but it is what it is.

Isos wrote:
If you take all the delivries and divide by 30 months you end with something like 10 tanks, 10 SPG, 50 IFV,  1 fighter jet, 1 AD system, 500k shells on average per month. You don't win a war with such low figures.

The average delivries are pathetic compare to what soviet and chinese sent to Vietnames (more Mig were sent than nato sent tanks to Ukraine...).

That's why in my opinion NATO's goal is only to keep the war going but they have no real intentions behind other than burn their cash in their defence companies to flood pockets of their richest people.

You and ALAMO are getting high off the anaesthesiologist's supply of copium again. Cut it out that stuff is not good for your brain.

What 10 tanks per month. They have easily supplied over 1000. Just the Western tanks add up to 100. Poland has supplied virtually all of its T-72 variants whether in operation or storage.
Or how do you think the Ukrainians still have tanks at all by now, 2.5 years into the war, at the pace they've been losing them?
The official figures don't mean anything. And that goes for all types of equipment and hardware.

And it was the Estonians who've said that every NATO country has personnel on the ground in the Ukraine. Every one, from Portugal to Albania. The country is flooded with those IRIS-T air defense systems - do you think it's Ukrainians operating them?

I also don't recall Soviet missile forces in Cuba actually opening fire on Miami and whatever other targets in the United States. But that's basically what's happening now, and about to be expanded further to all over Russia. Yeah, you might protest that the Soviet missiles in Cuba were nuclear armed, while the ATACMS and Storm Shadows are not - but in the future they could be. For all anyone in Russia knows, NATO has a mind to range it's targets and find weak spots but could bring in nuclear warheads later at any moment and combine that with the rest of its arsenal.

@flamming_python

So you recon Putin would be considered A REAL MAN if he unleashes nuclear annihilation because a couple of drones were launched from Finland with zero impact?

The line is drawn in the sand and the west took notice. Lets see if they change their minds and call Putin's bluff.

Isos wrote:
The average delivries are pathetic compare to what soviet and chinese sent to Vietnames (more Mig were sent than nato sent tanks to Ukraine...).

Back then Migs were simple and cheap to produce.

Mir wrote:@flamming_python

So you recon Putin would be considered A REAL MAN if he unleashes nuclear annihilation because a couple of drones were launched from Finland with zero impact?

The line is drawn in the sand and the west took notice. Lets see if they change their minds and call Putin's bluff.

If they did fly over Finland and Finland had allowed it then Russia should strike at Finland for sure. Not nuclear but destroy Finland airports and airforce bases. If they claim they didn't, then Russia should give final warning to force Finland hands to act against Ukraine or face punishment.

sepheronx wrote:If they did fly over Finland and Finland had allowed it then Russia should strike at Finland for sure. Not nuclear but destroy Finland airports and airforce bases.  If they claim they didn't, then Russia should give final warning to force Finland hands to act against Ukraine or face punishment.

Nothing was launched from Finland. End off with this whole non-story

US and Britain avoid direct conflict with Russia, by Andrey Rezchikov for VZGLYAD. 09.14.2024.

US and Britain in no hurry to escalate Ukrainian crisis.

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have maintained the ban on Ukraine launching Western missile strikes deep into Russian territory. The Pentagon previously stated that lifting the ban would not affect the situation on the battlefield. According to experts, the US and other NATO countries are afraid of being drawn into a direct conflict with Russia, which has clearly outlined its red line and promises to "respond in a way that will not seem like little."

The final statement following Friday's meeting between US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer did not include any words about allowing the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) to launch Western missile strikes deep into Russian territory. The release stated continued support for Ukraine, which "continues to defend itself against Russian aggression."

Before the meeting, Washington urged not to wait for decisions on strikes deep into Russia. As White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated, “there is no change in policy.” At the moment, Washington allows Kyiv to use American weapons for defensive strikes “within the sovereign territory of Ukraine,” that is, including Crimea and new Russian regions.

Asked earlier by reporters whether he would allow Ukraine to use the ATACMS long-range missiles, Biden said “we’re working on that right now.” A group of senior House Republicans also called for the ban to be lifted this week, saying in a letter to Biden that Ukraine’s options are currently limited.

According to Reuters, the Ukrainian authorities have given the US and UK a list of potential targets in Russia for strikes with Western weapons. Among them are military command and control centres, fuel and weapons depots. The UK authorities hope to secure US approval to use their missiles on targets deep inside Russian territory, while Paris may make such a decision on its own.

Last week, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin dismissed the idea that lifting restrictions on long-range missile strikes would make a difference on the battlefield. “There is no single capability that is going to be decisive in this campaign by itself,” the Pentagon chief told a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Germany.

According to him, the Ukrainian Armed Forces already have many capabilities for solving these problems, including through unmanned aerial vehicles.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently said that allowing Kiev to carry out long-range strikes would mean a NATO war with Russia. Ukraine has no specialists who could program missiles and guide them to targets using satellites. On Saturday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov promised Russia's response to possible supplies of long-range weapons for strikes deep into the country. According to him, the decision to allow strikes has been made, "all carte blanches and indulgences have been issued to Kiev's clients."

"We will react in such a way that it will not seem like little. There is an element of serious risk here, because the opponents in Washington, London, and other places clearly underestimate the degree of danger of the game they continue to play," the deputy minister added.

"Russia has been talking about red lines for a year, and now the president has clearly said that this is the line after which we will begin to counteract militarily, possibly on NATO territory. This story can be interpreted as if NATO tried to test the red line, we said what we would do specifically, and the West calmed down," says Stanislav Tkachenko, professor of the Department of European Studies at the Faculty of International Relations at St. Petersburg State University and an expert at the Valdai Club.

As the expert emphasized, long-range Western weapons have already been used in this conflict, “but most likely, NATO did not plan to use them against objects deep in Russia that have strategic significance, such as strategic aviation airfields or nuclear power plants.”

According to military experts, political formulations do not provide an unambiguous guarantee of a ban on the Ukrainian Armed Forces launching long-range missile strikes.

"The wording on the information agenda has changed. The US has put this issue out of the equation and will continue to pursue a policy that limits the use of Western weapons in Ukraine. But this wording allows for a broad interpretation.

Now the Americans say that restrictions on missile strikes deep into Russia remain. And if the use of missiles does begin, the West will say that this is in the "format of our general policy of supporting Ukraine," adds military expert Andrey Koshkin, head of the department of political analysis and socio-psychological processes at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics.

The source believes that the US may eventually lift the ban, as it did with the delivery of HIMARS MLRS, then M1 Abrams tanks, F-16 fighters and ATACMS missiles. All of these weapons are now in Ukraine. But the special military operation will continue in any case, because "Russia is solving its own problems."

"Remember how the issue of the possible transfer of ATACMS missiles to the Ukrainian Armed Forces was discussed in the information space. But in the end it turned out that the missiles have long been in Ukraine and are being launched," the speaker noted.

Tkachenko, on the contrary, is confident that this time Russia has made its position extremely clear that sanctions for long-range missile strikes “will lead to specific retaliatory actions.”

"ATACMS, Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG are already being used to strike Crimea. In fact, there was talk that they would be used against other territories. But skeptics say that this whole story is not worth a damn, because these missiles are already being used against Russia," the political scientist emphasized.

As Koshkin explained, Ukraine has already launched strikes deep into Russian territory, but with the use of high-tech missile weapons, the Pentagon and NATO states will be “drawn into the conflict.” “That’s the point. But the drawing in has already happened. Western specialists and mercenaries are working in Ukraine, helping commanders plan and conduct operations,” the retired colonel emphasized.

https://vz.ru/politics/2024/9/14/1287194.html

flamming_python wrote:

Isos wrote:
If you take all the delivries and divide by 30 months you end with something like 10 tanks, 10 SPG, 50 IFV,  1 fighter jet, 1 AD system, 500k shells on average per month. You don't win a war with such low figures.

The average delivries are pathetic compare to what soviet and chinese sent to Vietnames (more Mig were sent than nato sent tanks to Ukraine...).

That's why in my opinion NATO's goal is only to keep the war going but they have no real intentions behind other than burn their cash in their defence companies to flood pockets of their richest people.

You and ALAMO are getting high off the anaesthesiologist's supply of copium again. Cut it out that stuff is not good for your brain.

What 10 tanks per month. They have easily supplied over 1000. Just the Western tanks add up to 100. Poland has supplied virtually all of its T-72 variants whether in operation or storage.
Or how do you think the Ukrainians still have tanks at all by now, 2.5 years into the war, at the pace they've been losing them?
The official figures don't mean anything. And that goes for all ....

Lol.

Then enlight us. How come they still have tanks when western built are not delivered enither seen in huge quantity and soviet ones not produced anymore ?

Well, they don't have anything anymore. The soviet t-72 are coming to an end.

T-64 is gone for good since long time. Leo, challenger, Abrams are being taken away.


The very few video showing ukro tanks show 1 or 2 tanks here and there. They probably put in service the very old ones sitting in the open with spare parts from the destroyed ones.

The 600 or 700 t-72 that Poland sent brings the average to more than my estimate of 10-20 per months but they are shit since they've been out of service for most of them for a long time.

Overall the numbers are very low for anything they send. And if they send something its rusty soviet hardware or the oldest western equipement they can find in their stocks. Nago doesn't care about Ukraine and they don't do anything to see them win. They just send to keep the war going.

higurashihougi wrote:

Mir wrote:Law abiding Ukrainians just doing what the Chancellor demanded - working to make a living  

Now do we understand why European countries, despite their anti-immigrant rhetoric and anti-Russia rhetoric, do not really want to release Ukrainian refugees back to Ukraine ? Especially the ones that can be squeezed to the last drop in both high-end and low-end sectors ?

Immigrants have always been one of the most profitable source of income due to their precarious status that prevent them from demanding a worthy salary.

In Poland the Ukrainian fake refugees defraud a lot of money from the social assistance, and I have read they are also doing this in Germany and perhaps other countries.

flamming_python wrote:

sepheronx wrote:If they did fly over Finland and Finland had allowed it then Russia should strike at Finland for sure. Not nuclear but destroy Finland airports and airforce bases.  If they claim they didn't, then Russia should give final warning to force Finland hands to act against Ukraine or face punishment.

Nothing was launched from Finland. End off with this whole non-story

Then where did the drones come from?, you are now in a catch 22, The Russians themselves stated they tracked the drones from Finland.

So either you admit the MOD is lying which then brings into question what other claims they have made that are lies or you gotta follow suit with their claims.

If we look at this logically, The drones had to come from one of two places Finland or Norway, the types of drones used only had the range to go from one of those two countries, no where else and there is nod debating this fact

UNLESS you want to suggest Ukie forces are able to launch drones inside of russia proper. which brings up a massive security problem and concern.

There is also another big problem here, you know the naval base the drones where attacking? you know what that base houses? ICBM submarines, As you should know considering you are russian.

Russian Nuclear doctrine states any attack on their Nuclear submarines is considered a first strike under their Nuclear Doctrine.

I am admittedly unaware if any Missile Submarines are in port but if one was and it was...you know sunk.

That might have very well caused a very very real risk of a horror you don't want to imagine.

Scorpius wrote:

I hope you understand that this may turn out to be the last mistake at all and Finland will simply cease to exist, right?
Compared to Finland, Russia is a Leviathan against a small midge.  If a Leviathan is bitten by a midge, it will either not pay attention to it, or its response will be so disproportionate that the midge will be destroyed.
Currently, right now Finland is already paying with an economic recession for its hostile policy towards Russia. If they want to keep shooting themselves in the dick, well, Finland will probably cease to exist as a state in the coming decades.

You know they said the same thing about Ukraine right ?

Let’s focus on taking Kursk back and finishing Donbass

Then we can see about the so called leviathan

I said specifically if the submarine was sunk.

If I was in charge my response would have been.

"Okay Finland I am giving you three week notice any aircraft coming from your airspace that enters our will be downed, unless it has permission. Forntu duration of the war, due to this attack doesn't matter if you knew about it or not"

This gives you more then enough time to divert civilian flights away"

Then of course put out an intentional statement about it.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Then where did the drones come from?, you are now in a catch 22, The Russians themselves stated they tracked the drones from Finland.

So either you admit the MOD is lying which then brings into question what other claims they have made that are lies or you gotta follow suit with their claims.

If we look at this logically, The drones had to come from one of two places Finland or Norway, the types of drones used only had the range to go from one of those two countries, no where else and there is nod debating this fact

UNLESS you want to suggest Ukie forces are able to launch drones inside of russia proper. which brings up a massive security problem and concern.

There is also another big problem here, you know the naval base the drones where attacking? you know what that base houses? ICBM submarines, As you should know considering you are russian.

Russian Nuclear doctrine states any attack on their Nuclear submarines is considered a first strike under their Nuclear Doctrine.

I am admittedly unaware if any Missile Submarines are in port but if one was and it was...you know sunk.

That might have very well caused a very very real risk of a horror you don't want to imagine.

I must have missed the Russian MOD stating that the drones came from Finland.

Am I missing something here or did Finland just commit an act of war against Russia? Shouldn't there be a UN Security Council meeting right about now or something?

Until there is we can dismiss this whole thing. Unless you know what model drone it is then discussing its range here is a waste of time. Small Geran-2 drones can cover the whole of the Ukraine, it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that the Ukraine or its many NATO allies could have scraped together a lawnmower engine and some propellers themselves, and then launch it from Ukrainian territory.

flamming_python wrote:

I must have missed the Russian MOD stating that the drones came from Finland.

Am I missing something here or did Finland just commit an act of war against Russia? Shouldn't there be a UN Security Council meeting right about now or something?

Until there is we can dismiss this whole thing. Unless you know what model drone it is then discussing its range here is a waste of time. Small Geran-2 drones can cover the whole of the Ukraine, it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that the Ukraine or its many NATO allies could have scraped together a lawnmower engine and some propellers themselves, and then launch it from Ukrainian territory.

Drones that were downed around Murmansk are the Лютый type. Ukrainians claim 1000km range, while closest possible distance to Murmansk from Ukr border is around 1900km. There were speculations before that some were launched from Estonia and that they fly over Finland in order not to get discovered by Russian PVO.



One of the earlier attacks in Murmansk region when said  drone was shot down. I believe it was on August 20, or so.

https://t.me/infomil_live/9251

Well if they were then I don't see what's the problem with sending some drones back?

It seems like a ridiculously underwhelming pin-prick attack to risk a NATO-Russia war for.

I understand that they're testing the waters, but why launch anything from Finland to alert the Russians of a threat and not even have it capable of causing any damage?

Regardless, why isn't Russia calling together the security council over an act of war against it if that is the case?

There is also another big problem here, you know the naval base the drones where attacking? you know what that base houses? ICBM submarines, As you should know considering you are russian.

And what base is that? The Nuclear subs are based in Severodvinsk, which is quite a bit further than the Kola peninsula.