BREAKING: Russia will face “catastrophic consequences” if it deploys nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the US has warned Kremlin officials

[Arithmetic]

 

[DrBanneker]

What kind of military sortie are you basing your analysis on? Defense of their country, an advance on Ukraine, NATO, or against the US themselves?

The only tech that I'm aware of that is more advanced than the US's is hypersonic missiles. Their rocket tech is not far more advanced and of the military tech that they have it is most likely not maintained as it needs to be.

You being a logistics guy, you know all equipment needs to be properly maintained regularly or it does not work properly, and I imagine this goes for their guidance systems in many of their anti-air and ballistic missile systems. It's not build and forget.

This is one of the plethora of reasons they are failing in Ukraine because their logistics are in disarray. And because now they are sanctioned even heavier, they can't even get the components to build, rebuild, repair and maintain the equipment they have which is why they are trying to procure equipment from North Korea of all countries.

Honestly I think they thought Ukraine wouldn't get the help they had so most of their idea of fighting NATO would be after a Baltic or Ukraine invasion in defense mode. Either that or giving a favorite proxy like Iran the weapons to hurt us if that got hot. They know NATO was never going to invade Russia proper.

You are right, their logistics sucks and part of this I think is they never thought through a scenario where they would have to maintain long supply lines in enemy territory under attack.

The missiles and AA stuff is probably well maintained. Missiles just would need things like tests and gasket replacement after time since they only get used once. Mobile anti-aircraft is typical vehicle type maintenance. It was all probably good back in February but I bet their spares are running real low now, especially electronics components. To be honest, the AA stuff hasn't been used by Russia since Ukraine can't and won't send hostile aircraft into Russia airspace.

Their ground stuff was obviously poorly maintained and bad logistics/sanctions sealed the deal. If I had to guess, somebody was stealing the maintenance budget money and selling parts on the black market for cash. I bet half their supply depots had HUGE inventory shortfalls when they finally checked once this shyt popped off.

 

[DrBanneker]

There is literally no scenario where the Chinese or Russians would be able to deny the US naval and air superiority. If war broke out over Iran the US would achieve air superiority in 96 hours. Every SAM site and usable airfield would be destroyed in the first 48 hours.

I agree they could not contest air or naval superiority with planes or ships, but if your navy has to stay far from shore due to anti-ship missiles and you are losing dozens of planes in sorties, it ain't the kind of air or naval superiority you brag about.

If Iran was a cake walk like that we would have bombed them back during the Bush years. But it isn't that easy and a lot of this stuff is concealed or hardened. China cannot deny superiority in its waters yet but given them to the end of this decade and we will see.

In any case, the important thing is how many losses would the US be willing to take? One carrier down is 5,000 people. They don't have to sink the whole fleet to rattle the US's resolve.

 

[BlackJesus]

Russia pulled the when the US let it be known they ain’t playin

 

[DrBanneker]

I have absolutely no concerns about US air or naval power facing off in a conventional war vs Russia. Russia doesn’t have the logistics, training, and can’t generate the combat readiness needed to go against a NATO coalition.

On the tech side, ynlike Russia we actually know how to run SEAD and have airframes and tactics specifically created to counter S-300/400 type threats. Granted, the latter is still definitely top tier and would be a tough adversary.

In what theater and/or context? Yeah I think we would win eventually but if we think it is going to be a mop up like Gulf Wars I or II I think we are mistaken. How many men are we willing to sacrifice to beat the Russians? Granted if it was a hit at the Baltics we would have to defend NATO members but thinking we will walk away champions with 5k losses seems unrealistic. Unless we are fighting in a third area like Syria I don't see us getting out without heavy losses. That is not including the cyberattacks and hybrid war fukkery that might go on elsewhere.

 

[DrBanneker]

Yall nikkas who refuse to let go of the Putin boogeyman narrative disgust me.

Y'all could see that lil 5 ft tall cac getting beat down and stomped out right in front of you and you would still be standing there like " Putin ain't no joke, ya'll, just wait. "

I never thought he was a boogeyman or even a genius at statecraft. My concern is that people are at the opposite extreme and that all the sudden it is "obvious" the Russians are military pushovers and we should get reckless and act like they are bytches (minus the nukes). I mean people in this thread are bragging about punking everyone from Russia, to Iran, to China. Seriously?

Frederick the Great once said, "It's not enough to beat the Russians, you have to beat them dead". People are acting like this is over, Ukraine will march victoriously into Crimea, and Putin will get strangled in his sleep by his advisers. We will see.

 

[Vandelay]

Honestly I think they thought Ukraine wouldn't get the help they had so most of their idea of fighting NATO would be after a Baltic or Ukraine invasion in defense mode. Either that or giving a favorite proxy like Iran the weapons to hurt us if that got hot. They know NATO was never going to invade Russia proper.

You are right, their logistics sucks and part of this I think is they never thought through a scenario where they would have to maintain long supply lines in enemy territory under attack.

The missiles and AA stuff is probably well maintained. Missiles just would need things like tests and gasket replacement after time since they only get used once. Mobile anti-aircraft is typical vehicle type maintenance. It was all probably good back in February but I bet their spares are running real low now, especially electronics components. To be honest, the AA stuff hasn't been used by Russia since Ukraine can't and won't send hostile aircraft into Russia airspace.

Their ground stuff was obviously poorly maintained and bad logistics/sanctions sealed the deal. If I had to guess, somebody was stealing the maintenance budget money and selling parts on the black market for cash. I bet half their supply depots had HUGE inventory shortfalls when they finally checked once this shyt popped off.

100% they thought they would roll on Ukraine and it would be fast enough that the world wouldn't have time to react.

I'm not military strategist, and as a result some folks on here; mostly the pro-Russian contingent; think we shouldn't speak on this war. We're potentially on the precipice of WW3...so I'm following and I'm going to speak on it.

What I've read and watched, because Russia was corrupt; far more than the US; Russia has 2 major problems that defined their success in this war. 1, they have an echo-chamber of yes men who weren't correctly advising Putin the probability of success in this War. 2, a shyt load of money that should've been for maintenance and readiness was fukked off by corrupt military men. And because of this, they never could maintain air-superiority in Ukraine.

In identifying why the US is generally successful in their military campaigns, at least in their opening salvos, they always get air-superiority early.

I just can't accept that a military that's supposed to be as advanced as the world thought pre-invasion, couldn't achieve this in a country that's a third of the population, wildly disjointed and corrupt themselves, under-armed, landlocked because they don't have governance over Crimea...and of all things flat...Russia's tank division alone should've been able able to steam roll through Ukraine.

The first indicator to me that this war wasn't going right was they had a 40 mile long convoy rolling into the country. You don't need to be a military mind to know they were going to get picked apart easily.

My fear now is David Petraeus had a good interview on DW recently where he indicated that Ukraine has to join NATO, because any efforts to rebuild Ukraine without any guarantee on the security of that country will never get any outside investment to actually rebuild it. I always knew this war was never about NATO expansion, but real NATO expansion to Ukraine will definitely have irreversible consequences that Putin will be forced to escalate regardless if he was bluffing all along.

 

[Jean toomer]

100% they thought they would roll on Ukraine and it would be fast enough that the world wouldn't have time to react.

I'm not military strategist, and as a result some folks on here; mostly the pro-Russian contingent; think we shouldn't speak on this war. We're potentially on the precipice of WW3...so I'm following and I'm going to speak on it.

What I've read and watched, because Russia was corrupt; far more than the US; Russia has 2 major problems that defined their success in this war. 1, they have an echo-chamber of yes men who weren't correctly advising Putin the probability of success in this War. 2, a shyt load of money that should've been for maintenance and readiness was fukked off by corrupt military men. And because of this, they never could maintain air-superiority in Ukraine.

In identifying why the US is generally successful in their military campaigns, at least in their opening salvos, they always get air-superiority early.

I just can't accept that a military that's supposed to be as advanced as the world thought pre-invasion, couldn't achieve this in a country that's a third of the population, wildly disjointed and corrupt themselves, under-armed, landlocked because they don't have governance over Crimea...and of all things flat...Russia's tank division alone should've been able able to steam roll through Ukraine.

The first indicator to me that this war wasn't going right was they had a 40 mile long convoy rolling into the country. You don't need to be a military mind to know they were going to get picked apart easily.

My fear now is David Petraeus had a good interview on DW recently where he indicated that Ukraine has to join NATO, because any efforts to rebuild Ukraine without any guarantee on the security of that country will never get any outside investment to actually rebuild it. I always knew this war was never about NATO expansion, but real NATO expansion to Ukraine will definitely have irreversible consequences that Putin will be forced to escalate regardless if he was bluffing all along.

This guy is illegitimate

 

[Vandelay]

This guy is illegitimate

Listen to the message, not the messenger.

Who's going to rebuild Ukraine? Who's going to want to rebuild Ukraine with no insurance. No one is going to throw money down the toilet only for Russia to do this again in 5-7 years.

 

[Kaypain]

Welp been nice knowing you all

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Lord_nikon]

1.

 

[Lord_nikon]

Wrong thred

 

[Dave24]

No I have a healthy respect for Russians and Israelis for their love of killing with a smile.

@DrBanneker why was @The M.I.C. bushed for?

 

[CashmereThoughts]

Russia pulled the when the US let it be known they ain’t playin

U.S. still sending hundreds of millions monthly to the Kremlin for precious metals and allowing Putin to slaughter Ukrainians. Our govt ain’t doing nothing but playing and that’s why Russia Debo’d Crimea years ago