Russia Masses Military Equipment Near Ukraine Borders: A Prologue to WWIII?

[DarkHunter]

6 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Russia has more nuclear bombs than the rest of the planet combined

That is not factually accurate at all.  Russia has approximately 47% and 47.8% of the worlds total nuclear warheads, America has between 42% and 42.7%.

10 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Russia can end this right now with one bomb dropped on Keiv.

No one singular nuclear bomb would end the war, even using multiple nuclear bombs wont end the war.  NATO made it extremely clear that the use of any nuclear weapons on Ukraine is a red line that if crossed will result in NATO getting directly involved in the war.  The reality is if any nation uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and there is no response from the world to go after the country then every treaty regarding WMDs has become meaningless instantly.

13 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Ukraine cannot win this war and no amount of postings military equipment and Twitter articles is gonna change that for them

Ukraine has a rather good chance of winning the war and pushing Russia out of all Ukranian territory.  In terms of population Russia is only approximately 3.3 times greater than Ukraine which isnt that an insurmountable difference.  In terms of productivity its irrelevant for Ukraine as long as they keep getting supplied by the west and Russian productivity is dropping rapidly and will continue to drop as they are cut off from much need parts and components.

[Unusual Tournament]

46 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

That is not factually accurate at all.  Russia has approximately 47% and 47.8% of the worlds total nuclear warheads, America has between 42% and 42.7%.

Hi DarkHunter,
 

TBH I didn’t really research my claim but in retrospect it wouldn’t be beyond the Russians to massively lie about having nuclear weapons. 
 

 

46 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

No one singular nuclear bomb would end the war, even using multiple nuclear bombs wont end the war.  NATO made it extremely clear that the use of any nuclear weapons on Ukraine is a red line that if crossed will result in NATO getting directly involved in the war.  The reality is if any nation uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression and there is no response from the world to go after the country then every treaty regarding WMDs has become meaningless instantly.

…I don’t know about that. It would certainly reset things and a great diplomatic rush and military potential escalation would dramatically cool things off. 
 

 

46 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Ukraine has a rather good chance of winning the war and pushing Russia out of all Ukranian territory.  In terms of population Russia is only approximately 3.3 times greater than Ukraine which isnt that an insurmountable difference.  In terms of productivity its irrelevant for Ukraine as long as they keep getting supplied by the west and Russian productivity is dropping rapidly and will continue to drop as they are cut off from much need parts and components.

Ukraine have done reall well to date. But it has been on the back of Russian ineptitude. If Russia does things differently then that’s another story

Edited January 18, 2023 by Unusual Tournament

[+Razman]

U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea (msn.com)

[DarkHunter]

14 hours ago, and-then said:

I state my opinions here and have never claimed to be an expert.  That is my right as a member.  No one is going to have their mind changed by anything I say.  The bottom line with me in this situation is that I do not trust the media that everyone else here seems to accept as coming from unquestionable sources.  They lied through their teeth for the last 6 years and I'll never believe their propaganda again.  You are convinced Russia can be pushed out, including Crimea, and my point is that if it were that likely, we wouldn't be seeing a near panic reaction coming from Kyiv over what they expect in the late winter to spring period.

You still avoided answering a very simple question, which is interesting given how you pushed and still push for an answer to your question about should NATO get involved if Russia did some miracle counter offensive.  Once again to ask the same question, how many times does colonel MacGregor have to be wrong with his predictions/statements about Ukraine before you admit he isnt a reliable source of information.  Honestly it seems you just have a grudge against the media along with the current administration and are more interested in quick and cheap domestic political points then anything else.

Nothing about Ukraine's request has been a panic reaction.  They have they been a bit emotional but that is understandable given the fact they are literally fighting for their survival as a political entity, cultural entity, and ethnic identity.  Given that Ukraine is fighting against what is essentially a genocidal war of extermination it's understandable that they might get a bit emotional with their requests.

14 hours ago, and-then said:

Your disagreement aside, IF the situation unfolds as I've mentioned, would YOU support NATO boots on the ground to preserve the western area of Ukraine?  Are you so convinced that Putin can be pushed out and expected to simply slink away?  I think that's a foolish assumption.  Time will tell, the only real question seems to be, how much more time are we willing to use Ukraine as a proxy to "get Putin".

The situation you keep describing is completely divorced from reality but as I have answered before I would support NATO troops entering Ukraine.  I would even go a step further and support a NATO invasion of Belarus and to completely destroy the Russian naval base in Syria.

The reality is as long as Russia itself isnt invaded it is insanely unlikely that Russia would ever use any nuclear weapons.  The high level of Russian corruption and the horrible state the standing Russian military has been in calls to question just how functional the entire Russian nuclear arsenal really is.  Nuclear weapons are not cheap or easy to maintain.  Russia attempting and having to face a significant amount of its nuclear arsenal failing would create far more problems for Russia then if Russia didnt use nuclear weapons at all if NATO enters Ukraine, invades Belarus, and/or destroys the Russian naval base in Syria.

Ironically there is a good possibility that NATO entering the war and actively defending Ukraine is the best possible outcome for Putin to survive and continue leading Russia.  NATO entering the war would give Putin an excuse for why Russia had to pull its military back to its borders, essentially a much needed face saving measure, along with allowing Putin to still appear as a strong man leader by claiming his threats of nuclear escalation and the might of the Russian military stopped NATO from entering and attacking Russia directly.  It would also give Putin cover and justification to heavily crack down on anyone who opposes or challenges him by claiming they are traitors and enemies of the Russian state who are collaborating with NATO.

If one believes that Putin is even remotely rational then there is no reason to believe Putin will immediately jump to using nuclear weapons as long as Russia itself is not attacked or invaded.

Decided to add this in after I posted, but the reason for invading Belarus comes from NATO war planners on how to indirectly attack Russia without backing Russia into a corner where they feel like nuclear weapons are their only chance of survival.  Some NATO war planners have even called for nuking the capital of Belarus if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Edited January 19, 2023 by DarkHunter

[Occult1]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Ironically there is a good possibility that NATO entering the war and actively defending Ukraine is the best possible outcome for Putin to survive and continue leading Russia.  NATO entering the war would give Putin an excuse for why Russia had to pull its military back to its borders, essentially a much needed face saving measure, along with allowing Putin to still appear as a strong man leader by claiming his threats of nuclear escalation and the might of the Russian military stopped NATO from entering and attacking Russia directly.  It would also give Putin cover and justification to heavily crack down on anyone who opposes or challenges him by claiming they are traitors and enemies of the Russian state who are collaborating with NATO.

There is no legal ground for NATO to intervene in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member.

There only reason NATO would intervene in Ukraine is to declare direct war with Russia. But then again, NATO is supposed to be a defensive Alliance.

There would need to be a rock-solid argument that the Russian intervention in Ukraine is impairing the freedom and security of one it's member that justifies starting WW3.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Occult1

[Gromdor]

22 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

There is no legal ground for NATO to intervene in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member.

There only reason NATO would intervene in Ukraine is to declare direct war with Russia. But then again, NATO is supposed to be a defensive Alliance.

There would need to be a rock-solid argument that the Russian intervention in Ukraine is impairing the freedom and security of one it's member that justifies starting WW3.

What was the justification Russia used?  We could use the same one.  We could go in to stop Nazis and if our guys come under fire from someone- say the Russians, then it would be self defense against pro-Nazi sympathizers trying to obstruct their mission.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

how many times does colonel MacGregor have to be wrong with his predictions/statements about Ukraine before you admit he isnt a reliable source of information.

You seem to be invested in Ukraine's victory, regardless the potential cost to the rest of the world.  I'm NOT.  I have no obligation to be interrogated about my beliefs by you or anyone else here.  I made it QUITE CLEAR that I'm no expert and that I am sharing my OPINIONS.  Not sure why having someone simply disagreeing with the party line here is cause to need to somehow prove their opinions are not only wrong but somehow suspect.  You and most of the other regular crowd here are totally convinced that Ukraine is going to win this.  So... why the need to try to tear down a dissenting OPINION?  

It's patently childish to need to discredit any opinion that deviates from what you believe but that's precisely where roughly 85% of the respondents here, are on this topic.  You believe he's a fool, good for you.  You have nothing to worry about then, eh?  Go team blue/yellow, and saliva unicorn, hoo rah...

[Duke Wellington]

8 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

I can be both. Yes I’m pretty amazing, I know. Being realistic by definition is taking in the facts. Playing devils advocate is a great way to accept facts. You should try it if only to show you’re not consumed with Ukraines war. Ukraine cannot win this war and no amount of postings military equipment and Twitter articles is gonna change that for them Helen. Russia has more nuclear bombs than the rest of the planet combined. America will not go nuclear for Ukraine. Russia can end this right now with one bomb dropped on Keiv. These are facts and dangerous times, Helen. 

Correct, one nuclear power will not suicide themselves to have a nuclear exchange with another to save Ukraine.

As neither side will back down, nukes will come. US, France, and UK, will not respond by nuking Russia. The only possible retaliation would be to give Ukraine nukes to nuke them back.

[Alchopwn]

12 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Strange that you say it isn’t happening and then the very next line you reaffirm exactly my point.

You mischaracterize my point.  To spell it out, I am not suggesting that there are no foreign line officers, but they are a tiny minority.  That was my point.

12 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

I have no proof other than a sharp increase in efficiency. A car doesn’t move from 10 miles an hour to 100 in a short period of time on its own accord. 

Even a model T ford can get up to maximum speed in 8 years.  In 2014 the UAF was pathetic and was almost no match for Russia.  Eight years later, Ukraine has changed and has been taking its military seriously.  Russia however has been resting on its laurels, and assumed Ukraine hadn't changed.

12 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Well your last paragraph is a real doozy. So it’s probable now the U.S. and UK provided specialists and experts but not during the last two paragraphs. 

Trainers are not line officers.  Intelligence provided by USA and UK is not the same as operational command and control.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

Correct, one nuclear power will not suicide themselves to have a nuclear exchange with another to save Ukraine.

As neither side will back down, nukes will come. US, France, and UK, will not respond by nuking Russia. The only possible retaliation would be to give Ukraine nukes to nuke them back.

Actually that’s no a bad idea. Give Ukraine, Poland and Romania nuclear weapons. 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

 

3 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Correct, one nuclear power will not suicide themselves to have a nuclear exchange with another to save Ukraine.

As neither side will back down, nukes will come. US, France, and UK, will not respond by nuking Russia. The only possible retaliation would be to give Ukraine nukes to nuke them back.

The US has openly and privately informed Russia of what consequences they would suffer if they used nukes in Ukraine. It wouldn’t be about the use of nukes in Ukraine—it would be about the use of nukes against an otherwise peaceful nation.

That being said, should the point come that Russia uses nukes against Ukraine I do believe that the entire world will suffer the consequences that come as a result. While the US/NATO would retaliate, Russia would respond in kind. Everybody will lose once a nuke is used, I think. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Nuclear Wessel

[godnodog]

10 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

 

Ukraine have done reall well to date. But it has been on the back of Russian ineptitude. If Russia does things differently then that’s another story

Russia lost too many of their best equipment, I have serious doubts about their ability to change the course of the war in a meaningful way.

[Unusual Tournament]

21 minutes ago, godnodog said:

Russia lost too many of their best equipment, I have serious doubts about their ability to change the course of the war in a meaningful way.

They were pummelled by Ukraine. Apparently they produce 3 times more missiles than America does. 

[godnodog]

14 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

They were pummelled by Ukraine. Apparently they produce 3 times more missiles than America does. 

In normal situation yes, without access to ships and other electronic components its doubtful but not impossible.

[Myles]

5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

What was the justification Russia used?  We could use the same one.  We could go in to stop Nazis and if our guys come under fire from someone- say the Russians, then it would be self defense against pro-Nazi sympathizers trying to obstruct their mission.

I don't think anyone wants to mimic what Russia did.

[DarkHunter]

France is now considering sending Leclerc tanks to Ukraine

[pellinore]

16 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I'm not saying anything. But I'm grinning.  

 

They are sadly not on the way to Ukraine. Too complex and difficult to maintain.

But Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy adviser, said the Pentagon still wasn’t prepared to meet Kyiv’s calls for gas-guzzling M1 Abrams main battle tanks.

“I just don’t think we’re there yet,” said Kahl, who had just returned from a trip to Ukraine. “The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive. It’s hard to train on. It has a jet engine.” 

But the key word may be "yet".

 Pentagon looks to shift dynamic in Ukraine war, without Abrams tanks – EURACTIV.com

Edited January 19, 2023 by pellinore

[pellinore]

 

[Myles]

25 minutes ago, pellinore said:

They are sadly not on the way to Ukraine. Too complex and difficult to maintain.

But Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy adviser, said the Pentagon still wasn’t prepared to meet Kyiv’s calls for gas-guzzling M1 Abrams main battle tanks.

“I just don’t think we’re there yet,” said Kahl, who had just returned from a trip to Ukraine. “The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive. It’s hard to train on. It has a jet engine.” 

But the key word may be "yet".

 Pentagon looks to shift dynamic in Ukraine war, without Abrams tanks – EURACTIV.com

 

 

President Biden's administration is poised to announce yet another massive military aid package for Ukraine on Friday, but it reportedly won't include M1 Abrams tanks.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/biden-admin-preparing-massive-military-package-ukraine-wont-send-abrams-tanks

[DarkHunter]

A lot of military aid packages getting announced today.  Baltic states are sending machine guns, helicopters, manpads, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns (really effective against drones), and artillery.  Denmark is sending self propelled howitzers.  Sweden is sending 50 IFVs and 155mm Archer self propelled howitzers.  On top of the Challenger 2 tanks and everything else they are sending the UK is sending 600 more brimstone missiles.  

I'm almost certainly missing stuff but a lot got announced in a short window.

[Occult1]

Ukrainian strikes on Crimea would be ‘extremely dangerous,’ Russia warns

''The Kremlin said on Thursday that Ukrainian strikes on Russian-annexed Crimea would be “extremely dangerous,” after the New York Times reported that U.S. officials were warming to the idea of helping Kyiv attack the peninsula.

Crimea, which is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, was seized by Moscow and declared annexed in 2014. President Vladimir Putin says the peninsula, like much of the Ukrainian land seized since February, is historically Russian.

[...]

“The mere discussion of allowing Ukraine to be supplied with arms that would allow it to attack Russian territory … is extremely dangerous.

“It would mean taking the conflict to a new level, which would not bode well for global and pan-European security.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/9421426/ukraine-crimea-strikes-russia-warning/

 

Is Russia implying nuke if Crimea is under attack? In any case, how long should this madness be allowed to go on?

Edited January 19, 2023 by Occult1

[Helen of Annoy]

9 hours ago, and-then said:

saliva unicorn, hoo rah...

It's eating you alive, huh?  Good. 

But it's not Ukraine's fault that the russian narrative which was apparently sold to you is being exposed as bull****. 

Don't be mad at Ukraine for not fitting into russian misinterpretation of reality, be mad at russian propagandists who lied to you.  

[Stiff]

28 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Crimea, which is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine

 

28 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Is Russia implying nuke if Crimea is under attack? In any case, how long should this madness be allowed to go on?

It can imply all it wants, it's not going to happen. They know full well that NATO would destroy them easily if they started using them. 

As for how long? As long as it takes until russia are defeated or withdraw. It really is that simple.

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

They are sadly not on the way to Ukraine. Too complex and difficult to maintain.

But Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy adviser, said the Pentagon still wasn’t prepared to meet Kyiv’s calls for gas-guzzling M1 Abrams main battle tanks.

“I just don’t think we’re there yet,” said Kahl, who had just returned from a trip to Ukraine. “The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive. It’s hard to train on. It has a jet engine.” 

But the key word may be "yet".

 Pentagon looks to shift dynamic in Ukraine war, without Abrams tanks – EURACTIV.com

They are not on their way to Ukraine, I know. Yet I find it very satisfying to see them on their way to the comfortable proximity of Ukraine, Belarussian border etc.  

[Helen of Annoy]