So Long And Thanks For All The Fish - Ukraine bombs Russian Nuclear Bombers

[hotsun]

19 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Maybe you should take a break or perhaps find a thread to follow where you actually understand the issues.  

It is dumb on purpose

[BLMFem]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r1jv0rn0ko

 

 

"The strategic missile-carrying bombers in question, the Tu-95, Tu-22, and Tu-160 are, he said, no longer in production. Repairing them will be difficult, replacing them impossible.

The loss of the supersonic Tu-160, he said, would be especially keenly felt.

"Today, the Russian Aerospace Forces lost not just two of their rarest aircraft, but truly two unicorns in the herd," he wrote."

 

[BLMFem]

9 minutes ago, hotsun said:

It is dumb on purpose

While for you it just comes naturally.

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

You seem to want everyone to ignore the fact that there was a genuine offer from Russia and that there still is.  You do this by pretending the offer by Russia required that Ukraine "effectively surrender" and was therefore no offer at all. You assume too much, I think. You're just begging the question. 

 

Just because there would supposedly be no guarantees does not make Russia's offer not a real offer. Hard or almost impossible to enforce, perhaps, but isn't enforcement of a contract always a problem?  Here, it's just a matter of degree. And of course, enforcement mechanisms do exist. Referral to the UN Security Council, for example. One of several available enforcement mechanisms that you would rather we all ignore. An effective solution would be problematic, to be sure, given the geopolitical backdrop, but we are, after all, talking about an agreement to end a war.  

You keep calling it a “genuine offer,” but facts require evidence — and you’ve provided none.
 

What exactly made it genuine? That Ukraine had to surrender territory? Trust the same regime that had just invaded, annexed land, violated the Budapest Memorandum and Minsk accords — and sent in unmarked Russian soldiers, the so-called “little green men,” to seize Crimea, with covert operatives to destabilize Donbas?
 

A peace offer that demands one side give up its sovereignty isn’t an offer — it’s an ultimatum. You can dress it up however you like, but without enforceability, reciprocity, or basic trust, it’s not diplomacy. It’s coercion with a press release.
 

And invoking the UN Security Council as your enforcement mechanism — when Russia holds veto power — doesn’t back up your case. It guts it.
 

A genuine offer doesn’t come with a loaded gun on the table.

[dinsdale]

22 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Tactically and strategically this makes it a lot more complicated for Russia to utilize their long range bombers (and other aircraft) for attacks against Ukraine.

The reason is that with this one masterful stroke Ukraine has shown that every airfield, military base. production facility in Russia is vulnerable to attack.

Russia can no longer just park aircraft on runways even though they're far away from Ukraine. They need to provide hardened shelters or risk losing these highly valuable and (in the short term) irreplaceable assets. This is time consuming and expensive.

 

There, hope that clears things up for you.

They rarely use these for strikes. Way to valuable of an asset. The SU-34 and SU-25 are the jets doing the most damage on the battlefield dropping FAB's from Russian controlled regions. Try not to make out you know what you talking about. As for just parking up aircraft on runways you once again show your ignorance. This was more than 4000 km away out of range of missiles and drones. Obviously not out of range of trucks carrying drones. Closer to the front precautions are taken. 

[Cameroni]

23 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/06/02/at-least-13-russian-strategic-aircraft-completely-destroyed/
 

7 billion of aircraft lost ,many can’t be replaced 

 

Lol, yes, I'm sure the Ukrainians carefully calculated depreciation of these Soviet era aircraft when they presented the figure. 

 

The toothfairy says "Hello".

 

Russia  will replace these planes quicker than you can say  "Hypersonic missile".

 

But 7 billion. Sure. Not at all Ukrainian propaganda.

[Tug]

Nice work Ukraine!hit them hard death to the fascist putin regime salva Ukraine!

[BLMFem]

9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

They rarely use these for strikes. Way to valuable of an asset. The SU-34 and SU-25 are the jets doing the most damage on the battlefield dropping FAB's from Russian controlled regions. Try not to make out you know what you talking about. As for just parking up aircraft on runways you once again show your ignorance. This was more than 4000 km away out of range of missiles and drones. Obviously not out of range of trucks carrying drones. Closer to the front precautions are taken. 

Look, I know I embarrassed you and that your ears are probably burning, but in such cases it's best to just slink away and not make it worse by such a lame respons.

Okay, buddy?

[BLMFem]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Lol, yes, I'm sure the Ukrainians carefully calculated depreciation of these Soviet era aircraft when they presented the figure. 

 

The toothfairy says "Hello".

 

Russia  will replace these planes quicker than you can say  "Hypersonic missile".

Replace them how and with what exactly?

[dinsdale]

14 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Look, I know I embarrassed you and that your ears are probably burning, but in such cases it's best to just slink away and not make it worse by such a lame respons.

Okay, buddy?

So basically you didn't know that these jets are very rarely used for strikes into Ukraine if at all for most of them and there are two other main jets for this as I explained and your reply is this. Great stuff. The jets hit are high asset intercontinental nuclear capable bombers. Absolutely no reason to put them at risk in this war. You don't know what you're talking about so stop talking about it.

[dinsdale]

12 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Replace them how and with what exactly?

 

Hypersonic intercontinental missiles.

[3NUMBAS]

The yank military takes note a bunch of saboteurs can wipe out several airdromes at little cost compared with pricy missiles ,easy Peasy

[ExpatOilWorker]

USA and Russia don’t park their strategic bombers like this out of complacency. This is a requirement of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which was signed in 2010 between USA and Russia and extends to 4th February 2026. The treaty demands both parties base ALL deployed strategic bombers equipped for nuclear armament at air bases where they are visible to National Technical Means of verification (satellite surveillance). No hangers, no nets. This is so the strategic deterrent systems can be counted and verified, by each counterparty. Scant chance of New START being renewed after this weekends events, and both nation’s strategic infrastructure will be fully exposed to similar drone attacks for another 8 months before either party can secure them, unless both parties rescind the arms reduction treaty. Quite the risk for US assets. If it is true that Ukraine did not inform the Whitehouse about this attack (which seems to be the case), US support inside the Whitehouse is probably gone for good now, because this puts Trump in an extremely difficult position. He can’t do a unilateral deal with Putin for domestic political reasons, so US assets are now fully exposed to this threat and will need new protection that doesn’t hinder satellite visibility. Probably US relationships with European governments will also suffer after this, quite a lot of diplomacy and cyber activity will be happening this week as everyone works out who knew what and when. All of this will be considered another irritating distraction in the Whitehouse, who want Europeans to take responsibility for this theatre so that US can pivot all attention to Taiwan / China.

[dinsdale]

3 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

The yank military takes note a bunch of saboteurs can wipe out several airdromes at little cost compared with pricy missiles ,easy Peasy

Several aerodromes wiped out. Are you sure? Sounds like something the BBC would say or Ukraine state media. Maybe you can support this comment.

[Cameroni]

Sae khalloh to ma liddle friend

 

Avangard: Hypersonic glide vehicle.

9M730 Burevestnik: Nuclear-powered cruise missile.

3M22 Zircon: Scramjet-powered hypersonic anti-ship missile.

Kh-47M2 Kinzhal: Hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile. 

Poseidon: Nuclear-capable unmanned underwater drone.

RS-28 Sarmat: Super-heavy, MIRV-equipped intercontinental ballistic missile.

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/will-putin-respond-to-ukraine-s-drone-strikes-with-super-weapon-list-of-weapons-not-used-by-russia-2025-06-02-992919

[TedG]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Sae khalloh to ma liddle friend

 

Avangard: Hypersonic glide vehicle.

9M730 Burevestnik: Nuclear-powered cruise missile.

3M22 Zircon: Scramjet-powered hypersonic anti-ship missile.

Kh-47M2 Kinzhal: Hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile. 

Poseidon: Nuclear-capable unmanned underwater drone.

RS-28 Sarmat: Super-heavy, MIRV-equipped intercontinental ballistic missile.

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/will-putin-respond-to-ukraine-s-drone-strikes-with-super-weapon-list-of-weapons-not-used-by-russia-2025-06-02-992919

That’s a huge expense to attack non military targets. 

[rabas]

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/fact-sheet-istanbul-protocol-draft-document-april-15-2022

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

No.

In the fourth round:

 

"By 16 March, Mykhailo Podoliak was assigned as the chief negotiator for the Ukrainian peace delegation, who indicated that peace negotiations of a 15-point plan would involve the retraction of Russian forces from their advanced positions in Ukraine, along with international guarantees for military support and alliance in case of renewed Russian military action, in return for Ukraine not pursuing further affiliation with NATO."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

 

That's what Ukraine wanted. "Security Guarantees". Biden, Kamala and Johnson knew this. They had zero intention to provide these. It's not that they couldn't. They simply were not prepared to go to war with Russia and risk nuclear annihilation over Ukraine NATO membership. 

 

So Biden sent Johnson to deliver the message to Zelensky: "Sign and you will not have the support of the US or  UK".  Just fight.

 

With those "security guarantees" the talks become meaningless. Zelensky then had to fight.

 

This is what happened.

 

Lie by omission again, and fog rebuttal ignoring my point. I address my original point, posted February 28 to wit:

 

.. it was never agreed, which exposes one Putin lie when he held up a draft and said Ukraine had signed it. He was referring to the head negotiator's initialing the draft.

.. The big lie was Putin's requirement that all guarantors must give unanimous written consent before anyone aids Ukraine against another Russian invasion. Duh. That required Russia to agree to being attacked. Another Putin fib, i.e., that there was ever a legitimate agreement, and why the West recommended not signing, but Ukraine already knew.

 

For your comfort, I again verified these facts by AI analysis including the below conclusions. I can PM you the full long analysis.

 

Claim: Russia’s Demand for Unanimous Consent Was a Deal-Breaker

 

AI Verdict: The claim that Russia’s demand for unanimous consent was a major obstacle is well-supported. This condition would have given Russia control over Ukraine’s defense, making the proposed security guarantees ineffective, which Ukraine and analysts recognized as a non-starter.

 

Evidence of the Demand: Multiple sources confirm Russia introduced a condition requiring unanimous consent from guarantor states (including Russia, the US, UK, China, France, etc.) for any military response to an attack on Ukraine. This appears in the April 2022 draft, as noted by Wikipedia, Foreign Affairs, and the Wall Street Journal. Ukraine rejected this, as it would allow Russia to block aid in the event of another invasion, rendering security guarantees meaningless. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/1/7444515/  https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/fact-sheet-istanbul-protocol-draft-document-april-15-2022

 

Claim: No Agreement Was Finalized, and Putin Lied About Ukraine Signing It

 

AI Verdict: The claim that no agreement was finalized and that Putin misrepresented a draft as signed is supported by primary accounts from Ukrainian negotiators and secondary analyses. The initialing of drafts is a procedural step, not evidence of a binding agreement.

 

Draft Status: The Istanbul Communiqué and subsequent drafts (e.g., April 15, 2022) were provisional documents, not finalized treaties. Ukrainian negotiator Davyd Arakhamia stated on November 24, 2023, that the Ukrainian delegation lacked the legal authority to sign a binding agreement, as this would have required a meeting between Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin. No such meeting occurred, and no final agreement was signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine  LOL your reference!

 

[BLMFem]

16 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Hypersonic intercontinental missiles.

ICBMs have always been hypersonic. You don't know what you're talking about so stop talking about it. 

[dinsdale]

12 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

ICBMs have always been hypersonic. You don't know what you're talking about so stop talking about it. 

Thanks. They are indeed. I should've have said hypersonic mid-range ballistic missiles. Thanks for the correction.

[Cameroni]

21 minutes ago, rabas said:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/fact-sheet-istanbul-protocol-draft-document-april-15-2022

 

Lie by omission again, and fog rebuttal ignoring my point. I address my original point, posted February 28 to wit:

 

.. it was never agreed, which exposes one Putin lie when he held up a draft and said Ukraine had signed it. He was referring to the head negotiator's initialing the draft.

.. The big lie was Putin's requirement that all guarantors must give unanimous written consent before anyone aids Ukraine against another Russian invasion. Duh. That required Russia to agree to being attacked. Another Putin fib, i.e., that there was ever a legitimate agreement, and why the West recommended not signing, but Ukraine already knew.

 

For your comfort, I again verified these facts by AI analysis including the below conclusions. I can PM you the full long analysis.

 

Claim: Russia’s Demand for Unanimous Consent Was a Deal-Breaker

 

AI Verdict: The claim that Russia’s demand for unanimous consent was a major obstacle is well-supported. This condition would have given Russia control over Ukraine’s defense, making the proposed security guarantees ineffective, which Uk

 

Evidence of the Demand: Multiple sources confirm Russia introduced a condition requiring unanimous consent from guarantor states (including Russia, the US, UK, China, France, etc.) for any military response to an attack on Ukraine. This appears in the April 2022 draft, as noted by Wikipedia, Foreign Affairs, and the Wall Street Journal. Ukraine rejected this, as it would allow Russia to block aid in the event of another invasion, rendering security guarantees meaningless. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/1/7444515/  https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/fact-sheet-istanbul-protocol-draft-document-april-15-2022

 

Claim: No Agreement Was Finalized, and Putin Lied About Ukraine Signing It

 

AI Verdict: The claim that no agreement was finalized and that Putin misrepresented a draft as signed is supported by primary accounts from Ukrainian negotiators and secondary analyses. The initialing of drafts is a procedural step, not evidence of a binding agreement.

 

Draft Status: The Istanbul Communiqué and subsequent drafts (e.g., April 15, 2022) were provisional documents, not finalized treaties. Ukrainian negotiator Davyd Arakhamia stated on November 24, 2023, that the Ukrainian delegation lacked the legal authority to sign a binding agreement, as this would have required a meeting between Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin. No such meeting occurred, and no final agreement was signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine  LOL your reference!

 

 

So you want to gloss over the fact that the head of the Ukrainian delegation is on record for stating that Boris Johnson flew to Kiev to tell Zelensky not to sign a peace treaty, but to fight instead, by quoting AI? Very disingenous, as everyone knows you can make AI say anything based on the question. One should never trust anyone arguing with AI, see below

 

Did Davyd Arakhamia state that Boris Johnson told Ukraine not to sign a peace treaty

ChatGPT said:

Yes, Davyd Arakhamia, a prominent Ukrainian lawmaker and ally of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has stated that former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised Ukraine against signing a peace agreement with Russia during negotiations in early 2022.The Guardian

 

In a November 2023 interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk, Arakhamia revealed that after returning from Istanbul, where preliminary peace talks were held, Johnson visited Kyiv and urged Ukrainian leaders not to sign any agreement with Russia, instead advising them to continue fighting. Arakhamia emphasized that Johnson's advice was not an order but rather a recommendation, and that Western allies, including the UK, had consistently advised against entering into security guarantees with Russia that were not credible at the time .Reddit+5Express+5Reddit+5Voice of America

 

Fact is, 3 days after Johnson flew to Kiev, the peace treaty was binned. Johnson, Biden and Co never had any intention to provide any security guarantees. They preferred to sacrifice Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, rather than put their own nations at risk.

[BLMFem]

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Thanks. They are indeed. I should've have said hypersonic mid-range ballistic missiles. Thanks for the correction.

 

You're welcome. So Russia will replace versatile platforms able to deliver a whole range of weapons with a one-trick-pony. Got it.

[dinsdale]

4 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

You're welcome. So Russia will replace versatile platforms able to deliver a whole range of weapons with a one-trick-pony. Got it.

Strategically it's a big hit but doesn't cripple Russia's strategic bomber fleet. It could've been a lot worse for Russia. Not all attacks succeeded. Seems only 30% got through. It won't change what's happening on the ground. Jets hit aren't frontline bombers/attack bombers. This is after all a ground war. 

[freedomnow]

Everyone be sure to know your nearest nuclear bunker and have back-up gas masks at home...

 

https://italomoderni.bandcamp.com/track/boys-from-brazil-we-dont-need-no-world-war-iii-facets-edit

 

Say your goodbyes before the internet is gone.

[jas007]

27 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

A peace offer that demands one side give up its sovereignty isn’t an offer — it’s an ultimatum. You can dress it up however you like, but without enforceability, reciprocity, or basic trust, it’s not diplomacy. It’s coercion with a press release.
 

And invoking the UN Security Council as your enforcement mechanism — when Russia holds veto power — doesn’t back up your case. It guts it.
 

A genuine offer doesn’t come with a loaded gun on the table.

You want to come across as someone who understands diplomacy, enforceability, and so on, but your response here demonstrates that you understand none of that or how things play out in the real world.  

 

First, you should understand how diplomacy typically operates when the issues include ending a war, and why the enforcement of any such agreement might well be problematic but not out of the question.  

 

It's not at all unusual for states to withhold security guarantees from an agreement for very real strategic concerns. When push comes to shove, as the US has so often demonstrated, countries will act in their own best interest.  Guarantees don't mean much these days. Do you understand game theory? Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma? Do you understand why the focus on Putin is a straw man argument and why that misses the point, in any event?

 

Ideally, guarantees operate as a deterrent because an aggressor would be unable to absolutely veto the guarantors from making good on their guarantees. The rational actor would therefore avoid the conflict.  But, as you've so aptly noted, enforcement would not come without roadblocks. In the case of a referral to the Security Council, by Putin himself or his representative at the UN. However, the UN is but one of several available enforcement mechanisms.  Moreover, the "loaded gun" analogy misses the mark. You're setting up an either/or situation that doesn't exist in the real world.  

 

Reciprocity and trust?  You must be kidding.  Look at the history of the conflict. Neither side can trust the other, and for good reasons.  Russia can't trust Ukraine, given its recent history of supposed violations of the Minsk Accords. And Ukraine certainly doesn't trust Russia. A Russia that continues to hold what Zelensky calls Ukrainian territory and an Ukraine that enters into a deal under duress?  In other words, it's a recipe for future trouble and that's not the goal of any agreement to end the war, is it?  

 

So, was there a genuine offer? Of course. Jut not an offer you like.  And I'm sure the offer may still be on the table, in spite of yesterday's drone strikes. 

 

 

[jas007]

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

This is a requirement of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which was signed in 2010 between USA and Russia and extends to 4th February 2026.

Didn't Putin suspend their agreement a few years ago? 

[rabas]

33 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Did Davyd Arakhamia state that Boris Johnson told Ukraine not to sign a peace treaty

 

 And, I have explained why three times now, with AI checks and many references.  Again you skip my point.

 

From your ChatGPT explanation:

 

Arakhamia emphasized that Johnson's advice was not an order but rather a recommendation, and that Western allies, including the UK, had consistently advised against entering into security guarantees with Russia that were not credible at the time .

Exactly.. and I have told you why they were not credible, because Putin.

 

[BLMFem]

34 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Strategically it's a big hit but doesn't cripple Russia's strategic bomber fleet. It could've been a lot worse for Russia. Not all attacks succeeded. Seems only 30% got through. It won't change what's happening on the ground. Jets hit aren't frontline bombers/attack bombers. This is after all a ground war. 

"Strategically it's a big hit but doesn't cripple Russia's strategic bomber fleet."

Oh really? If one third of all strategic bombers have been destroyed or damaged what do you call that - a mere inconvenience?

 

"It could've been a lot worse for Russia. Not all attacks succeeded. Seems only 30% got through."

Those are incredible numbers.

 

 "It won't change what's happening on the ground. Jets hit aren't frontline bombers/attack bombers."

Wrong. See attached reply from ChatGPT where I asked it "Were the strategic bombers that Ukraine just attacked used by the Russians in the war against Ukraine?"

 

"This is after all a ground war."

This is a ground war, an air war (remember the drones?), a naval war and a cyber war.

 

 

[Cameroni]

19 minutes ago, rabas said:

Arakhamia emphasized that Johnson's advice was not an order but rather a recommendation, and that Western allies, including the UK, had consistently advised against entering into security guarantees with Russia that were not credible at the time .

Exactly.. and I have told you why they were not credible, because Putin.

 

 

Their credibility was neither here nor there, Britan and the US never had any intention whatsoever to give such security gurantees.

 

Witness Trump refusing it even now.

 

Why would the US and UK risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine's NATO membership?

 

Obviously they'd  rather see Ukraine bleed dry. Zelensky had no choice when he was told the US and UK would not back the treaty.

[bubblegum]

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Name the MAGA folks that "prefer" Putins Russia over a "democracy"

You

[bubblegum]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

You want to come across as someone who understands diplomacy, enforceability, and so on, but your response here demonstrates that you understand none of that or how things play out in the real world.  

 

First, you should understand how diplomacy typically operates when the issues include ending a war, and why the enforcement of any such agreement might well be problematic but not out of the question.  

 

It's not at all unusual for states to withhold security guarantees from an agreement for very real strategic concerns. When push comes to shove, as the US has so often demonstrated, countries will act in their own best interest.  Guarantees don't mean much these days. Do you understand game theory? Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma? Do you understand why the focus on Putin is a straw man argument and why that misses the point, in any event?

 

Ideally, guarantees operate as a deterrent because an aggressor would be unable to absolutely veto the guarantors from making good on their guarantees. The rational actor would therefore avoid the conflict.  But, as you've so aptly noted, enforcement would not come without roadblocks. In the case of a referral to the Security Council, by Putin himself or his representative at the UN. However, the UN is but one of several available enforcement mechanisms.  Moreover, the "loaded gun" analogy misses the mark. You're setting up an either/or situation that doesn't exist in the real world.  

 

Reciprocity and trust?  You must be kidding.  Look at the history of the conflict. Neither side can trust the other, and for good reasons.  Russia can't trust Ukraine, given its recent history of supposed violations of the Minsk Accords. And Ukraine certainly doesn't trust Russia. A Russia that continues to hold what Zelensky calls Ukrainian territory and an Ukraine that enters into a deal under duress?  In other words, it's a recipe for future trouble and that's not the goal of any agreement to end the war, is it?  

 

So, was there a genuine offer? Of course. Jut not an offer you like.  And I'm sure the offer may still be on the table, in spite of yesterday's drone strikes. 

 

 

Wow and you get all this info straight from... huuuhhh?