(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
I dont know posted:They failed to establish a land corridor, and Russian ships that get too close to the coast have a bad tendency of suddenly sinking. How will Russia even get people there? The 1500 Russian troops + X amount of locals will invade Ukraine and link up around Odessa. That was the original plan, it will surly work now!
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Fidelitious posted:I mean, CSTO is barely even a thing at this point, what is Russia possibly going to do for Transnistria. They can get a lot of their citizens killed for no gain, so that's something
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:51
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:They can send them a bunch of money that Transnistria won't be able to spend easily. Rupees!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
small butter posted:This is the one thought I keep having. Taking a pedantic moment here, but while that may be true for Poland (which has a decent population and military) but other NATO nations have been slacking a bit when it comes to keeping a useful standing army. NATO is all about collective defense--if you attack one you get the hammer. Offensive actions are not protected by the treaty (unless responding to an attack) so the nation doing it would be going it alone (albeit with heavy support from the MICs of the alliance). So it's more accurate to say that some select NATO countries could stomp Russia singlehanded. Russia's a paper tiger, but it's a paper tiger with a lot of meat to grind through and (still!) a lot of reserve equipment to shred. Estonia could not in any way threaten Russia on its lonesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
When Greece joins the fight, it’s over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:When
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Taking a pedantic moment here, but while that may be true for Poland (which has a decent population and military) but other NATO nations have been slacking a bit when it comes to keeping a useful standing army. NATO is all about collective defense--if you attack one you get the hammer. Offensive actions are not protected by the treaty (unless responding to an attack) so the nation doing it would be going it alone (albeit with heavy support from the MICs of the alliance). So it's more accurate to say that some select NATO countries could stomp Russia singlehanded. I think maybe small butter is exaggerating for comedic effect, not that Luxembourg is thinking of taking Russia's Third Rome title.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:When Greece joins the fight, it’s over. 'cause they stop shipping all the Russian oil and it runs out of money?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
What is the plan for Transnistria once Russian support is unavailable? I understand the only population left behind, are people devoted to integration with Russia and strongly believe it's going to happen at some point. Is Moldova willing to march troops across the territory? What options are there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think maybe small butter is exaggerating for comedic effect, not that Luxembourg is thinking of taking Russia's Third Rome title. What I meant was if almost any NATO country enters the war on Ukraine's side, not necessarily by itself without a drawn-out war already happening. I feel like a nudge like that would be devastating to Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
small butter posted:What I meant was if almost any NATO country enters the war on Ukraine's side, not necessarily by itself without a drawn-out war already happening. I feel like a nudge like that would be devastating to Russia. So, I think in the end this is probably not very true; because there's already hundreds of thousands of soldiers, an extra division isn't going to help Ukraine swiftly retake territory, a few dozen vehicles also isn't going to help. What would probably be disasterous for Russia is something like 100k ~10 divisions of troops, ~100 modern airframe ~1000 ifvs and ~300 modern afvs, hundreds of artillery systems and all of the logistics for that. This basically means like France, UK, maybe Poland, and of course the US are basically the only viable member NATO states who could help turn the tide. Most of the NATO members just don't have the active trained and equipped troops. Also the biggest issue is munition production; if France sends 3 divisions but there's no uptick in munition production then those troops are just manning trenches, sure its useful to rotate more troops around to the rear; but Ukraine needs so many shells. Presumably NATO is just donating the stocks they can "spare" and it would be different if they were directly involved, but this probably only buys Ukraine like 3-6 months of extra munitions before waiting for France, Germany, etc to ramp up production.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So, I think in the end this is probably not very true; because there's already hundreds of thousands of soldiers, an extra division isn't going to help Ukraine swiftly retake territory, a few dozen vehicles also isn't going to help. What would probably be disasterous for Russia is something like 100k ~10 divisions of troops, ~100 modern airframe ~1000 ifvs and ~300 modern afvs, hundreds of artillery systems and all of the logistics for that. The difference maker if a NATO country entered wouldn't be army divisions, it would be functional, well-funded, and sophisticated air power. I don't know enough to know what anti-air capabilities Russia has against a country that is trained to use modern western aircraft compared to the hodgepodge air force Ukraine is left with, but air power was always where NATO put its money, even back to the 70's and 80's. Someone asked last week what type of "weapon" Ukraine needs that it currently lacks that would make a day one difference. Someone correctly answered "American carrier battle group."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:What is the plan for Transnistria once Russian support is unavailable? Yeah I'd like to know this too. Wikipedia says there are about 300k citizens of Moldova in Transnistria, as well as about 150k Russian citizens. Based on this I speculate that even if the Russian military leaves Transnistria tomorrow and Moldova steps in and reasserts sovereignty, it might not go completely smoothly, since if an area of about 450k people has tens of thousands or possibly even hundreds of thousands of Putinists in it (note: these numbers are pure speculation by me), they might not be easy to persuade to peacefully accept the opposite of Putin and Russia as their rulers. This is of course Putin's goal - a kind of frozen conflict where it's not easy to live with all the Putinists and also not easy to kick them out without having to do some kind of horrible ethnic cleansing. The same situation as in Crimea, occupied areas of Ukraine, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and if Putin has his way, many, many other areas too
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
Is this thread heading into Clancychat territory or is the real world situation heading into Clancychat territory?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:31
|
|
|
Transnistria's population has almost halved since the fall of the USSR (from 680k in 1989 to 360k in 2023). It was losing 15-20k people a year for the last decade before even the 2022 invasion kicked off, I'm sure its doing even worse now. The Russian population has stayed broadly consistent throughout that decline, too - from 26.3% in 1989 to 29% in 2015. So they appear to be leaving in almost as large numbers as local Moldovans and Ukrainians. Within a couple decades (or sooner) it'll surely be completely unsustainable if that keeps up, even aside from any potential occupation by Moldova.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
I there is even less political support in NATO contries for sending troops to Ukraine now than there was in 2020. It's just not going to happen unless Russia actually invades Poland or something. I can't imagine any U.S. president even attempting to bring that up as a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Popete posted:I there is even less political support in NATO contries for sending troops to Ukraine now than there was in 2020. It's just not going to happen unless Russia actually invades Poland or something. i think unless russia really ratchets up attacks and tries to do another giant offensive like in the beginning. you might see that tick up. but its mostly gonna general sorta positive support of "send weapons and stuff to ukraine" of varying degrees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Is this thread heading into Clancychat territory or is the real world situation heading into Clancychat territory? The president of France said he would not "rule out" sending troops into Ukraine. At the start of the war and this thread that question was decidedly Clancychat. But while nearly all of Europe jumped to say they wouldn't do that, there have been a lot of discussions by European leaders on regular news about the possibility of direct war with Russia, which would have also qualified. But that is normal international discourse now, even if still very hypothetical, NATO countries and their citizens need to think of what new deterrents are necessary and what they are willing to do. Russia gaining ground in Ukraine combined with Trump threatening the integrity of NATO opens a lot of Clancy-esque possibilities for 2025. But also we're over 2 years into the war, the discussion and events are not moving like it was at the start. Popete posted:I can't imagine any U.S. president even attempting to bring that up as a possibility. I agree the US won't ever send troops into Ukraine, even if nukes happen they'll only respond with air and naval assets given the current US political climate. And then only if Biden has a 2nd term. I don't know how serious France is about the idea, it's good to float across for deterrence but it's hard to know where the line might be for them. It's possible they'd be willing to let Ukraine fall entirely and only respond if anyone else is attacked. Orthanc6 fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
I dont know posted:They failed to establish a land corridor, and Russian ships that get too close to the coast have a bad tendency of suddenly sinking. How will Russia even get people there? Dmitry Rogozin will combat test the Russian ODST program by himself
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Russia has proven itself so weak that Poland by itself intervening in the Ukraine war would win it outright. Eastern Europe won't have to do anything. Russia managed to chew through Ukrainian forces at Sievierodonetsk and Mariupol just fine. What finally stopped them was the arrival of HIMARS and shells from European and American depots and if Poland is cut off from those high tech weapons and factories, this completely changes their prospects. We are not talking about how the conflict will go in the first few months, but how it will look 2 years down the line when all pre-war storages are empty and the only important thing is how much equipment and ammo you can produce domestically or buy abroad to keep the upper hand in a grueling war of attrition. And don't expect any weapons or financial aid from Afd Germany(or at least not for Poland's side in the conflict).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Is this thread heading into Clancychat territory or is the real world situation heading into Clancychat territory? Are you talking about the Financial Times article? Wanted to post about it, but it's paywalled. Of course it is, it's possibly the biggest clickbait they could have dropped this year. People see the word "nuclear" and lose their goddamn mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
Serious question for the folks who feel like these recent statements from Western European countries indicate a willingness to put boots on the ground in Ukraine: What makes you think the leaders of these countries have the balls to actually do this? As opposed to the mixture of grotesque cowardice and callous disregard for human life and dignity that they've displayed so far, that is. I genuinely do not understand how anyone can look at the events of the last two years and think, "These countries that have been so reticent to do the things that will actually help win this war from afar will go slug it out with Russia in Ukraine and accept the steady flow of bodybags that would entail." Unless the mods deem this unacceptable Clancychat, then please explain this to me, because boy I would love to believe it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 21:59
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:The difference maker if a NATO country entered wouldn't be army divisions, it would be functional, well-funded, and sophisticated air power. I don't know enough to know what anti-air capabilities Russia has against a country that is trained to use modern western aircraft compared to the hodgepodge air force Ukraine is left with, but air power was always where NATO put its money, even back to the 70's and 80's. Someone asked last week what type of "weapon" Ukraine needs that it currently lacks that would make a day one difference. Someone correctly answered "American carrier battle group." Right, my point is this isn't just any NATO country, but like one of three possible nations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
Kestral posted:Serious question for the folks who feel like these recent statements from Western European countries indicate a willingness to put boots on the ground in Ukraine: What makes you think the leaders of these countries have the balls to actually do this? As opposed to the mixture of grotesque cowardice and callous disregard for human life and dignity that they've displayed so far, that is. France? Very debatable. Poland? They have a lot more motivation in this area as they have proximity to Russia and don't want to put up with even more fuckery by Putin if he were to annex Ukraine (or most of it). Still a longshot, but it's very much nonzero. It's one thing to sit out while Ukraine is holding its own or advancing, it's entirely another to do so while Ukraine is stalling or losing ground steadily. As bad as Russia's behavior is in most "western" nations where he selectively murders with impunity, it's many many times worse when you share a border with them and they want your stuff/a puppet government in your capital. Kalinigrad is bad enough; if they annex Belarus (or not) and have a presence in the south they'll be halfway surrounded by Russia or russian proxies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:France? Very debatable. What makes it debatable at all, in your view? What has France actually done - not said, but done - that suggests there is even the slightest chance they’ll engage in peer to peer warfare with Russia on behalf of Ukraine, on Ukrainian soil?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
Kestral posted:What makes it debatable at all, in your view? What has France actually done - not said, but done - that suggests there is even the slightest chance they’ll engage in peer to peer warfare with Russia on behalf of Ukraine, on Ukrainian soil? French boots on the ground, as it’s talked about now as far as I understand it, would be trainers and advisors, not Foreign Legion meatheads charging at the frontline in Bakhmut.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
Kestral posted:Serious question for the folks who feel like these recent statements from Western European countries indicate a willingness to put boots on the ground in Ukraine: What makes you think the leaders of these countries have the balls to actually do this? As opposed to the mixture of grotesque cowardice and callous disregard for human life and dignity that they've displayed so far, that is. The feeling I get especially from Macron's statements (and from the British guy's similar statements earlier) is that maybe they have kind of given up already, and are now saying that Ukraine is just gonna fall, mainly because of Trump, and after that there will be no other choice than to start the goddamn draft in all the major EU countries and go to war economy, since it's a given that Putin will seek to invade NATO countries such as Poland when he's done with Ukraine and there is no other way to stop him. Or, maybe they're trying to warn people that this will happen unless a lot more military aid can somehow be given as a matter of urgency. I don't know, the messaging doesn't seem super coherent. I do agree re military aid though, there needs to be billions more invested in all kinds of military production by pretty much every EU country, yesterday, and not just for Ukraine either since the USA will just throw their alliances in the trash and gently caress off. Europe needs to prepare properly, there's no more peace dividend available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:11
|
|
|
Kikas posted:Are you talking about the Financial Times article? Wanted to post about it, but it's paywalled. Of course it is, it's possibly the biggest clickbait they could have dropped this year. People see the word "nuclear" and lose their goddamn mind. No I'm talking about how you used to get probed if you mentioned the word "nuclear", or talked about giving Ukraine F22s/F35s or talked about sending NATO soldiers into the country or other nonsensical clancychat scenarios. Now it seems like anything goes because that idiot Macron suggested he might maybe put troops into Ukraine and the rest of the EU was like "Lol no". All we need now is for someone to say that Russia will get into some legion of doom alliance with China, NK, and Iran and they will all send their troops to Ukraine but that's ok because all the US needs to do is give Ukraine a couple carrier strike groups and then we will know this thread has gone full Reddit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Rupees! Live footage of Russia distributing the money: https://youtu.be/AkE3benR26M?t=221
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:47
|
|
|
Popete posted:I can't imagine any U.S. president even attempting to bring that up as a possibility. It's also explicitly contrary to the president's goal since before day one of the 2022 invasion. And the DOD today: quote:GEN. RYDER: Yeah, thanks, Missy. Well, just to be clear, we have no plans to send U.S. service members to fight in Ukraine. The president has been pretty clear on that and -- and that continues to be our position. https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...press-briefing/
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
Even if a U.S. president wanted to commit troops to Ukraine I can't think it would ever get approval from congress. The 20 years of Iraq/Afghanistan invasions that only just recently ended have made the idea of another foreign war completely unpalatable to the public, it would be massively unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:No I'm talking about how you used to get probed if you mentioned the word "nuclear", or talked about giving Ukraine F22s/F35s or talked about sending NATO soldiers into the country or other nonsensical clancychat scenarios. Now it seems like anything goes because that idiot Macron suggested he might maybe put troops into Ukraine and the rest of the EU was like "Lol no". All we need now is for someone to say that Russia will get into some legion of doom alliance with China, NK, and Iran and they will all send their troops to Ukraine but that's ok because all the US needs to do is give Ukraine a couple carrier strike groups and then we will know this thread has gone full Reddit. Yeah, why haven't the mods probed Macron yet?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:34
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:Yeah, why haven't the mods probed Macron yet?!? Only Cinci was a mod powerful enough to probe him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 06:10
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:Yeah, why haven't the mods probed Macron yet?!? Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 06:22
|
|
|
jaete posted:Yeah I'd like to know this too. Wikipedia says there are about 300k citizens of Moldova in Transnistria, as well as about 150k Russian citizens. Based on this I speculate that even if the Russian military leaves Transnistria tomorrow and Moldova steps in and reasserts sovereignty, it might not go completely smoothly, since if an area of about 450k people has tens of thousands or possibly even hundreds of thousands of Putinists in it (note: these numbers are pure speculation by me), they might not be easy to persuade to peacefully accept the opposite of Putin and Russia as their rulers. Thankfully most of the putinists really, really do not want to live in the shithole that russia is and have the classic russian apathy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 07:24
|
|
|
haddedam posted:Thankfully most of the putinists really, really do not want to live in the shithole that russia is and have the classic russian apathy. i mean it aint actually fun times living in transnistria. living in a tiny breakaway and mostly unrecognized state kinda sucks crimea at least has nice weather
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 07:33
|
|
|
Qtotonibudinibudet posted:i mean it aint actually fun times living in transnistria. living in a tiny breakaway and mostly unrecognized state kinda sucks Some people may prefer the world wide recognition gained from being featured in Rocky Horror Picture show over some nice weather.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 07:39
|
|
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Putin is going to gracefully decline Transnistria's request, to show the world (and Russian voters) what a reasonable statesman and peace-loving negotiating partner he is. All while the NATO hordes are slavering at the mouth getting ready to invade poor Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 08:19
|
|
|
haddedam posted:Some people may prefer the world wide recognition gained from being featured in Rocky Horror Picture show over some nice weather. That was Transylvania though, wasn't it? I've never heard of a definition of Transylvania that extended that far east
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
If you get a chance, this is a very good documentary for getting an insight into what life is like in transnistria for regular people, it follows a group of high school age kids over a summer break, depressing as hell, as you'd expect: https://kunstnerneshus.no/en/program/movies/transnistra
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 09:40
|
|