ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

I think it’s exceptionally difficult to navigate when both sides are engaged in deception campaigns. It just appears that the Russians may be a bit less sophisticated in their methods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hwk23
The answer to your NATO question changes the equation that leads to your other questions. Sarkozy (soon headed to prison for crimes related to taking Russian money) and Merkel (one of Russia's favorite business partners) blocked Ukraine from joining NATO back in 2008. Had UKR been a member of NATO for the past 12 or 13 years, there would have been no invasion in 2014 or 2022 and we would't be talking about sending weapons sooner.
Right, that was my point.
 
So far it appears pretty much all the western weapons delivered have made it to the front and it appears money pouring in is going to the war effort not grifters, so perhaps it’s right for the previous story to be revised.

How many of those “corruption” stories were actually pro-Russian disinformation and propaganda? One has to wonder in retrospect.
I have read there are special operators present in Ukraine including Brits and I think US, playing point guard making sure the incoming weapons get distributed out to where they should be. If not, they are surely next door in Poland doing something similar.
 
How many of those “corruption” stories were actually pro-Russian disinformation and propaganda? One has to wonder in retrospect.
Whatever doesn't fit your world view must be Russian propaganda. Aren't Russians the reason Hillary lost to?
 
Whatever doesn't fit your world view must be Russian propaganda. Aren't Russians the reason Hillary lost to?
Questioning whether there was Russian propaganda to grease the skids for, and to cover up, its incremental chomping away at Ukraine is hardly grist for an argument that whatever doesn't fit one's world view must be Russian propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: win4jj and torbee
Questioning whether there was Russian propaganda to grease the skids for, and to cover up, its incremental chomping away at Ukraine is hardly grist for an argument that whatever doesn't fit one's world view must be Russian propaganda.
No but it's a constant theme for some. Earlier another poster was trying to imply Russian bots are moving the Ukraine story to the 2nd page of the news.
 
No but it's a constant theme for some. Earlier another poster was trying to imply Russian bots are moving the Ukraine story to the 2nd page of the news.
I might have missed that in the previous 29,450 posts, but that is relevant to what I just posted (Russia trying to make its life easier while being a bad actor), even if not true. It is not relevant to an argument that whatever doesn't fit one's world view must be Russian propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Whatever doesn't fit your world view must be Russian propaganda. Aren't Russians the reason Hillary lost to?
You are aware that every western democracy on the globe has been an active target of Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns for decades, right? Or are you just insanely naive?

Hillary Clinton lost because she was a horrible candidate with way too much negative baggage -- some deserved, some not -- with a small assist from Russian disinfo, but not enough to be a game changer.
 
Is the ammunition dump hits going to make a significant difference in the war? This has been a logistical war throughout that Ukraine has been fighting, which they are winning handily on that front, will this be another game changer or just a nuisance to Russia?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80 and h-hawk
Is the ammunition dump hits going to make a significant difference in the war? This has been a logistical war throughout that Ukraine has been fighting, which they are winning handily on that front, will this be another game changer or just a nuisance to Russia?
It appears to already be impacting Russia's ability to hit Ukrainian targets:

 
Is the ammunition dump hits going to make a significant difference in the war? This has been a logistical war throughout that Ukraine has been fighting, which they are winning handily on that front, will this be another game changer or just a nuisance to Russia?
I think what is happening as exemplified by the surgical strikes on ammo dumps and military commands and barracks from just a handful of the new HIMARS can in fact turn war IF we send a bunch more. Russia is for sure rattled.

I would add too, a conventional war in Europe between NATO and Russia would have been like watching Alabama play an NAIA football team.
 


"Excalibur was developed as a longer-ranged alternative to conventional artillery shells, with GPS guidance for improved accuracy.[4] Excalibur has a range of approximately 40 to 57 kilometres (25 to 35 mi) depending on configuration, with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft).[5][6][7][8][9] The extended range is achieved through the use of folding glide fins, which allow the projectile to glide from the top of a ballistic arc towards the target.


The munition was co-developed by United States-based Raytheon Missile Systems (guidance system) and the Swedish BAE Systems Bofors (body, base, ballistics and payload).[4] Excalibur is used to minimize collateral damage, for targets beyond the range of standard munitions, for precise firing within 150 metres (490 ft) of friendly troops, or when firing in a straight line from the launching cannon is limited by terrain.[4][10]

Initial combat experience with Excalibur in Iraq in the summer of 2007 was highly successful, with 92% of rounds falling within 4 metres (13 ft) of the target. Its performance was so impressive that the U.S. Army planned to increase production to 150 rounds per month from the previous 18 rounds per month.[11][12] In 2012, Excalibur rounds reached new record ranges in combat of 36 kilometers.[13]

Excalibur is compatible with the British AS-90 SPG, Swedish Archer Artillery System, South African G6 howitzer and the United States M109A6 Paladin self-propelled 155 mm howitzer, M198 howitzer and M777 Lightweight Howitzer." WIKI
 
The answer to your NATO question changes the equation that leads to your other questions. Sarkozy (soon headed to prison for crimes related to taking Russian money) and Merkel (one of Russia's favorite business partners) blocked Ukraine from joining NATO back in 2008. Had UKR been a member of NATO for the past 12 or 13 years, there would have been no invasion in 2014 or 2022 and we would't be talking about sending weapons sooner.
That’s because Sarkozy and Merkel understood that would have meant a Russian invasion in 2008.

Neocons get back in the White House on 2021. Within months they’re making public statements about Ukraine joining NATO and Russia makes statements about what they’ll do in response.

If you wanted a proxy war with Russia, is there a better method than the one pursued by the White House since 2021?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hwk23
That’s because Sarkozy and Merkel understood that would have meant a Russian invasion in 2008.

Neocons get back in the White House on 2021. Within months they’re making public statements about Ukraine joining NATO and Russia makes statements about what they’ll do in response.

If you wanted a proxy war with Russia, is there a better method than the one pursued by the White House since 2021?
It's more complicated than just Nato, but Nato would be enough. The neocons in Washington are influential, especially on Ukraine, and they know this.

"Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

—Memo from William Burns, US ambassador to Moscow to US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, April 2008, days after NATO announced that it would admit Ukraine as a member

 
Time to work over Crimea.

"Ukraine is negotiating with the United States on the supply of long-range missiles for the HIMARS MLRS, capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 300 km, - Fedor Venislavsky, member of the Rada Committee on National Security and Defense.?

 
"According to a video published by the 10th Separate Mountain Assault Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on July 11, 2022, the Czech Republic has delivered modernized version of its RM-70 122mm MLRS Multiple Launch Rocket Systems designed and manufactured by the company Excalibur Army."


"In 2022, the Ukrainian army had already received from the Czech Republic a batch of 20 RM-70 122mm MLRS of the first generation. According to the video, Czech Republic has now delivered an undisclosed number of RM-70 Vampir, which is a modernized version of the RM-70.

The new modernized version of the RM-70, called RM-70 Vampir is based on the new Tatra T-815-7 8x8 military truck chassis fitted with a an armored cabin providing ballistic protection against firing of small arms and artillery shell splinters. The modernization of the MLRS will also include a new modern weapon control and aiming system, a fire control system with a ballistic computer, new inertial navigation with GPC systems, communication and data communication systems, and the ability to control the weapon system directly from the vehicle cabin or remotely.

The modernized RM-70 Vampir MLRS is able to fire all the standard 122mmm rockets as well as Czech rockets including HE-FRAG (High Explosive Fragmentation), incendiary, smoke, and illumination rockets. It can fire a full salvo of 40 rockets in less than 30 seconds. The highly explosive fragmentation rockets feature collapsible stabilizers and can engage targets within the maximum range of 20.3 km."
 
"The M270A1 &A2 variants are both capable of utilizing all currently fielded MLRS variants, and the #ATACMS. This includes the Guided MLRS with a maximum range of 84 km. The A2 variant will also be capable of firing the 150 km Extended Range #GMLRS which will be fielded next year."
FXG5_drVUAARk6H

 
It's more complicated than just Nato, but Nato would be enough. The neocons in Washington are influential, especially on Ukraine, and they know this.

"Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

—Memo from William Burns, US ambassador to Moscow to US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, April 2008, days after NATO announced that it would admit Ukraine as a member

Huh, and here I thought we should take Putin and his talking heads at their word that this was about Russia taking back what Russia thinks is Russia's.
 
Huh, and here I thought we should take Putin and his talking heads at their word that this was about Russia taking back what Russia thinks is Russia's.
Do you think the neocons assumed he was bluffing about Ukraine membership in NATO being a ‘red line’, or did they intend to provoke the previously declared (and broadly understood) response?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT