Assault on Kiev: Russian helicopters swoop above Ukraine's capital

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

As this war drags on, I'm starting to wonder if the US/NATO position of no direct engagement is a wise tactic.  This fear of Putin "potentially employing nukes" just seems to paralyze allies of the Ukraine.  And knowing Putin, the guy will do anything he can get away with.  He seems to be getting away with quite a lot. 

 

For example, the no-fly zone.  Some general on CNN had mentioned that if a no-fly zone was employed and a US jet was to shoot down a Russian jet, what's Russia going to do about it?  Attack the US?  I don't think so.  Anyways, we just have to wait and see what the US/NATO leadership decides to do as the war atrocities keep piling up.

I believe Putin is in a must not lose situation for his own sake and will eventually use banned weapons over and above those he has already used like mines and cluster bombs. For the West, Putin is in a must not win situation and so should roll the dice now and impose a no fly zone over Ukraine. Ukraine's defences already prevent Putin from achieving his goals which will inevitably push the West into a hard decision.

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

As this war drags on, I'm starting to wonder if the US/NATO position of no direct engagement is a wise tactic.  This fear of Putin "potentially employing nukes" just seems to paralyze allies of the Ukraine.  And knowing Putin, the guy will do anything he can get away with.  He seems to be getting away with quite a lot. 

 

For example, the no-fly zone.  Some general on CNN had mentioned that if a no-fly zone was employed and a US jet was to shoot down a Russian jet, what's Russia going to do about it?  Attack the US?  I don't think so.  Anyways, we just have to wait and see what the US/NATO leadership decides to do as the war atrocities keep piling up.

I was wondering just this morning. Putin still insists on calling this a Special Operation. So how about NATO follows up with its own Special Operation in Ukraine. If they can stop Russia using its veto in the UN Security council then the other option is send in UN peace keeping troops with power to defend themselves.

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I believe Putin is in a must not lose situation for his own sake and will eventually use banned weapons over and above those he has already used like mines and cluster bombs. For the West, Putin is in a must not win situation and so should roll the dice now and impose a no fly zone over Ukraine. Ukraine's defences already prevent Putin from achieving his goals which will inevitably push the West into a hard decision.

There should be a poll or a survey , *Are your political leanings Left wing or Right wing , and would you like another World war*

  Seems like people from a certain political persuasion really want another World war 

[Berkshire]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There should be a poll or a survey , *Are your political leanings Left wing or Right wing , and would you like another World war*

  Seems like people from a certain political persuasion really want another World war 

You're not framing this accurately.  It's not left or right, but rather Pro-Putin or Anti-Putin.  It does appear the Pro-Putin wing in the US is a rather small contingent of extreme right-wing nutters.  So you may have a point there. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

You're not framing this accurately.  It's not left or right, but rather Pro-Putin or Anti-Putin.  It does appear the Pro-Putin wing in the US is a rather small contingent of extreme right-wing nutters.  So you may have a point there. 

Its not a case of being either "Pro Putin " or "Anti Putin " , its being in the category of not wanting another World War . 

   Do you consider that not wanting a World War to be a "Right -wing nutter" stance on the situation ?

[Kwasaki]

40 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

As this war drags on, I'm starting to wonder if the US/NATO position of no direct engagement is a wise tactic.  This fear of Putin "potentially employing nukes" just seems to paralyze allies of the Ukraine.  And knowing Putin, the guy will do anything he can get away with.  He seems to be getting away with quite a lot. 

 

For example, the no-fly zone.  Some general on CNN had mentioned that if a no-fly zone was employed and a US jet was to shoot down a Russian jet, what's Russia going to do about it?  Attack the US?  I don't think so.  Anyways, we just have to wait and see what the US/NATO leadership decides to do as the war atrocities keep piling up.

Why don't the US set up a no fly zone then. 

[Berkshire]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its not a case of being either "Pro Putin " or "Anti Putin " , its being in the category of not wanting another World War . 

   Do you consider that not wanting a World War to be a "Right -wing nutter" stance on the situation ?

I don't know one person who wants a World War.  Your suggestion that anyone who supports the Ukrainian's fighting for their homeland as wanting a World War is just ridiculous. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

I don't know one person who wants a World War.  Your suggestion that anyone who supports the Ukrainian's fighting for their homeland as wanting a World War is just ridiculous. 

NATO imposing no fly zones in Ukraine would trigger a World War . 

[Berkshire]

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Why don't the US set up a no fly zone then. 

Do you not follow the news?  This suggestion was floated long ago and the reason why NATO/USA didn't go along was because they didn't want to escalate the conflict.  But Putin's continuing actions may yet change their minds. 

[Berkshire]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

NATO imposing no fly zones in Ukraine would trigger a World War . 

Maybe, maybe not.  World leaders will have to weigh that risk against Russia's campaign of slaughtering thousands of innocent people. 

[Kwasaki]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

Do you not follow the news?  This suggestion was floated long ago and the reason why NATO/USA didn't go along was because they didn't want to escalate the conflict.  But Putin's continuing actions may yet change their minds. 

They won't they will only supply Ukraine with fighter planes & drones while Putin is still in power. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

Maybe, maybe not.  World leaders will have to weigh that risk against Russia's campaign of slaughtering thousands of innocent people. 

World leaders haven't got involved in other wars when "thousands of innocents were getting slaughtered" and there's no reason for them to get involved in this war 

[Mac Mickmanus]

53 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

 

For example, the no-fly zone.  Some general on CNN had mentioned that if a no-fly zone was employed and a US jet was to shoot down a Russian jet, what's Russia going to do about it?  Attack the US?  I don't think so.  Anyways, we just have to wait and see what the US/NATO leadership decides to do as the war atrocities keep piling up.

Russia would shoot down NATO jets and bomb the missile launchers and attack the source of whatever shot sown the Russian jet  

[tgw]

45 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There should be a poll or a survey , *Are your political leanings Left wing or Right wing , and would you like another World war*

  Seems like people from a certain political persuasion really want another World war 

my opinion is that the best chances of avoiding or at least postponing WW3 for a long time is to stop Putin right now. Giving him Donbass would be a win for Putin.

Not only would this encourage Putin and his successors to pursue that kind of tactics (hello Transnistria, the rest of Georgia, Kasakstan, etc. ) but other countries will take note of the West's weakness and act accordingly (hello China in Taiwan, hello North Korea ...).

 

So Putin needs to be stopped now, he must not get Donbass, not pass go, not collect 200$. Only the go to jail card is for him.

 

And although I'm scared f*ckless, I increasingly think that the West should risk it.

Edited April 19, 2022 by tgw

[Chris.B]

Ukraine to 'leave Russian pilots quaking' with new British missile launchers

UKRAINE will "leave Russian pilots quaking" thanks to new armoured missile launchers supplied by Britain.

The Stormer launchers can fire out 17 Starstreak missiles to unleash hell on low-flying jets and helicopters. The 13-tonne weapons can be loaded onto C-17 transport planes and flown to the war in days. They only require a crew of three and will allow the Ukrainian army to advance at 50mph, unleash hell, and then quickly manoeuvre away.

 

 

 

Daily Express

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

Totally agree. Like I said in previous posts, there are no lows that Putin/Russia won’t stoop to, and shame is not a word that you will find in their dictionary.

Yes and as Garry Kasparov pointed out that doesn't mean that Ukraine or the west are or need to be pure as the driven snow angels either. Obviously no humans are. But we know total evil when we see it.

[tgw]

16 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

They won't they will only supply Ukraine with fighter planes & drones while Putin is still in power. 

Putin and likeminded successors.

[Berkshire]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Russia would shoot down NATO jets and bomb the missile launchers and attack the source of whatever shot sown the Russian jet  

I take it you're not a military strategist.  If Russia did that....let's just say it would not be a wise move.  Russia can barely handle a little country like Ukraine.  And you think they want to confront NATO?  The US alone has forward deployed military presence in Germany, Japan, etc.  It wouldn't take much to wipe out all of Russia's main military bases.  But it won't get to that. 

[Kwasaki]

10 minutes ago, tgw said:

Putin and likeminded successors.

Well I was thinking more along the lines that if Putin is replaced it will be by Russia's that want the war stopped.

[Mac Mickmanus]

14 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I take it you're not a military strategist.  If Russia did that....let's just say it would not be a wise move.  Russia can barely handle a little country like Ukraine.  And you think they want to confront NATO?  The US alone has forward deployed military presence in Germany, Japan, etc.  It wouldn't take much to wipe out all of Russia's main military bases.  But it won't get to that. 

The USA's recent interventions in Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan didnt end to well  and attacking Russia military's bases wouldn't put an end to the war , it would cause an escalation and reprisals 

[Berkshire]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The USA's recent interventions in Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan didnt end to well  and attacking Russia military's bases wouldn't put an end to the war , it would cause an escalation and reprisals 

Man, we're going around in circles.  The point is Russia won't attack NATO assets because they know what the consequences will be.  They're raining missiles down on Ukraine because there is no consequences for their actions.  NATO can change that.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Man, we're going around in circles.  The point is Russia won't attack NATO assets because they know what the consequences will be.  They're raining missiles down on Ukraine because there is no consequences for their actions.  NATO can change that.

Well that is reassuring to know , My concern is to avoid a World War . 

If you can give a guarantee that Putin would not respond to a NATO attack , then that's a game changer . 

   Are you 100 % sure that there will be no consequences if NATO bombed Russia ?

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There should be a poll or a survey , *Are your political leanings Left wing or Right wing , and would you like another World war*

  Seems like people from a certain political persuasion really want another World war 

What a ridiculous post. Who in that poll would vote for yes they want a world war apart from extremists who want the world to end?

 

Yes I class Putin as one of those extremists: "To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside - if you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history."

 

Regarding a no fly zone

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 74 percent of Americans across the political spectrum said they supported a no-fly zone to protect Ukraine. But there’s a problem here: most people don’t seem to know what a no-fly zone actually is and what it would entail.

 

America would most likely build up to a no-fly zone by destroying the Russian military’s substantial anti-aircraft batteries in Belarus and Russia so that American pilots could fly without the constant threat of being shot down, violating Russia’s sovereignty and bombing Russian military bases outside of Ukraine would also result in direct conflict.

 

To boil it down, implementing a no-fly zone would amount to a declaration of war with Russia. Anyway A US defence official pointed to Russia’s missile attack on Sunday on a base in western Ukraine as an example. The Russians fired about two dozen cruise missiles from aircraft flying over Russian territory at the time.

 

So a no fly zone would be useless in situations like that.

 

The west needs to stop Putin with all other measures available, those have already been discussed and posted.

[Berkshire]

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well that is reassuring to know , My concern is to avoid a World War . 

If you can give a guarantee that Putin would not respond to a NATO attack , then that's a game changer . 

   Are you 100 % sure that there will be no consequences if NATO bombed Russia ?

Are you 100% sure that if there was a Russia/Ukraine peace treaty, that Putin wouldn't violate it?  Come on. 

 

As tgw suggested, if you're really concerned about a World War, stopping Putin now may be the best option. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

Are you 100% sure that if there was a Russia/Ukraine peace treaty, that Putin wouldn't violate it?  Come on. 

 

As tgw suggested, if you're really concerned about a World War, stopping Putin now may be the best option. 

Have a World War to stop a World war ?

I can see a problem with that logic 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There should be a poll or a survey , *Are your political leanings Left wing or Right wing , and would you like another World war*

  Seems like people from a certain political persuasion really want another World war 

Or there could be a poll or survey, *Are your political leanings Left wing or Right wing , and do you want the world to cower before Putin and give in to his every demand*

 

Seems like people from a certain political persuasion really want to cave in to Putin.  Funny, there was a time when conservatives and Republicans took a hard line against that sort of thing.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its not a case of being either "Pro Putin " or "Anti Putin " , its being in the category of not wanting another World War . 

   Do you consider that not wanting a World War to be a "Right -wing nutter" stance on the situation ?

Do you think rewarding nuclear blackmail makes the world safer, or leads to more nuclear blackmail and more nations acquiring nuclear weapons so they can do the same?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

World leaders haven't got involved in other wars when "thousands of innocents were getting slaughtered" and there's no reason for them to get involved in this war 

World leaders haven't got involved in distant wars in which thousands were slaughtered and it wasn't clear there was a viable "good guy" side to support. 

 

This is a war in which a corrupt autocrat is attempting to eliminate a democratic nation on NATO's borders. 

[coolcarer]

34 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well that is reassuring to know , My concern is to avoid a World War . 

If you can give a guarantee that Putin would not respond to a NATO attack , then that's a game changer . 

   Are you 100 % sure that there will be no consequences if NATO bombed Russia ?

What exactly are you arguing for? Do you want Ukraine to throw up a white flag, concede its territory and country for an evil aggressor who has murdered civilians and raped women and children? There is still rule of law here and these crimes will be rewarded with a victory to Putin.

 

So what is your solution?

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The USA's recent interventions in Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan didnt end to well  and attacking Russia military's bases wouldn't put an end to the war , it would cause an escalation and reprisals 

The Vietnam war ended half a century ago in a very different world.

 

In Afghanistan and the second Iraq war the USA attempted to impose a government on the defeated countries the people weren't familiar with, didn't support, and that did not take into account the tribal traditions of governance in those countries.  It was a stupid thing to do.

 

In the first Iraq war the US led coalition crushed Saddam Hussein's military, forced a withdrawal from Kuwait, and then left Iraq to sort out the aftermath. 

 

If it comes to NATO and Russia shooting at each other with conventional weapons, I expect a similar outcome.  However I don't think things will escalate to that degree unless Putin does something really stupid, such as launching attacks on NATO territory or using tactical nuclear weapons.