Ukraine (28 Viewers)

[efil4stnias]

Every western country should have long range missiles on the table.

The should be " on pylons " under wings.

 

[efil4stnias]

They do not care about the devastating long term ecological effects, let alone what they're doing to an entire country.

Its the Russian way- if we cant have it, no one can.

So they figure if we are going to lose Ukraine, we do all we can to make it as inhospitable/inhabitable as we can.

You know, like Eastern Russia.

 

[rail]

Its the Russian way- if we cant have it, no one can.

So they figure if we are going to lose Ukraine, we do all we can to make it as inhospitable/inhabitable as we can.

You know, like Eastern Russia.

The analogy to a domestic violence perpetrator, among others, rings true.

 

[0rion]

This isn't a typical proxy war though. This is a case of Russia invading a sovereign nation, unjustly, and would be a huge threat to regional and global security. The atrocities Russia has been committing while awful are only a part of the larger problem of the invasion. Ukraine has welcomed any and all assistance from allies but they also understand NATO troops on the ground or NATO air support won't happen unless NATO formally enters the conflict.

It's really important that NATO stands by Ukraine as a firm ally and that Russia won't be allowed to just bully their way into Eastern Europe.

I think Ukraine has been holding their own to this point and I'm not aware of them asking NATO to directly intervene with boots on the ground. They have asked for a no fly zone, but for a lot of reasons, that's never been practical as you'd have to enforce it over Russian territory for it to be effective.

If Ukraine eventually gets to a tipping point where they truly need NATO to send personnel and fight alongside them officially, I'm sure NATO will be ready to step up.

If we're openly supporting them then why trickle arms in a little at a time? Truly give them everything they need....before they need it and not after. Just frustrating to watch us teeter on the fence.

 

[rail]

 

[rail]

Yep.

 

[efil4stnias]

Yep.

he is exactly right.

 

[DaveXA]

If we're openly supporting them then why trickle arms in a little at a time? Truly give them everything they need....before they need it and not after. Just frustrating to watch us teeter on the fence.

Except that's not what's happening. It's certainly not a trickle. And even if they wanted to, NATO can't just send everything at once. You send what Ukraine can actually use, and just enough of it. And you supply them steadily over a long enough period of time that give Ukraine the time necessary to train, get the necessary infrastructure and supply chain in place and build steadily based on their needs.

What they need when in a defensive posture as opposed to what they need for offensives are much different. It's really not a trickle either. Billions in weapons from the US and NATO have made way into Ukraine and more is coming. And keep in mind there has to be cooperation from NATO. That hasn't always had a united front for some of the more advanced weapons Ukraine has asked for, so those have a longer procurement cycle, or may not get sent at all.

It's super complicated even if there's 100% agreement on what should be done. Add the human and political element and I'm surprised we've gotten this much to Ukraine as it is.

I mean, I agree with you. I'd love to send a whole lot more, but one step at a time.

 

[Sailorsaint]

Except that's not what's happening. It's certainly not a trickle. And even if they wanted to, NATO can't just send everything at once. You send what Ukraine can actually use, and just enough of it. And you supply them steadily over a long enough period of time that give Ukraine the time necessary to train, get the necessary infrastructure and supply chain in place and build steadily based on their needs.

What they need when in a defensive posture as opposed to what they need for offensives are much different. It's really not a trickle either. Billions in weapons from the US and NATO have made way into Ukraine and more is coming. And keep in mind there has to be cooperation from NATO. That hasn't always had a united front for some of the more advanced weapons Ukraine has asked for, so those have a longer procurement cycle, or may not get sent at all.

It's super complicated even if there's 100% agreement on what should be done. Add the human and political element and I'm surprised we've gotten this much to Ukraine as it is.

I mean, I agree with you. I'd love to send a whole lot more, but one step at a time.

I think what he means by trickle is that we are sending the types of weapons that only serve the moment. We need to send them something that hurries the end to this atrocity. Send them ATACMS. Let them use those long range weapons to blow the Kerch bridge and be able to reach any and all military installations on UKR territory.

 

[efil4stnias]

 

[Crawdaddys]

Every western country should have long range missiles on the table.

Shouldn't be sending long range missiles to Ukraine. Should be sending them directly to Russia

 

[efil4stnias]

 

[0rion]

I think what he means by trickle is that we are sending the types of weapons that only serve the moment. We need to send them something that hurries the end to this atrocity. Send them ATACMS. Let them use those long range weapons to blow the Kerch bridge and be able to reach any and all military installations on UKR territory.

Correct....we hold out weapons that may have already put an end to this craziness. If we truly support them those weapons should've been available already. I know it's complicated but we have not been shy about our support of Ukraine so let's give them the best chance of ending this as early as possible.

 

[DaveXA]

I think what he means by trickle is that we are sending the types of weapons that only serve the moment. We need to send them something that hurries the end to this atrocity. Send them ATACMS. Let them use those long range weapons to blow the Kerch bridge and be able to reach any and all military installations on UKR territory.

I do agree with that. I think the political excuses have run out for Russia and it's clear that resisting them isn't enough and offensive weapons that can reach beyond the front lines are needed, so we're at a point where the weapons necessary to accomplish those ends need to be deployed.

That said, it's not as simple as saying yes and signing a piece of paper. There will be whole host of things that needs to happen to actually deploy such on the battlefield.

I certainly don't think it a lack of wanting to. The will is there. It takes time.

 

[SamAndreas]

Supposedly a Dutch engineer says on the top was blown. I have no idea how anyone could get in there to assess the damage that quick.

They don't have to get in there to assess the damage because it is obvious from photos taken from the air that the long powerhouse was broken by the explosives into huge dislodged chunks. Each chunk of dam and building above it being about as long as each turbine and generator in there was wide.

The typical dam under a powerhouse is a solid concrete thing with valves and tunnels to control the flow of water to the turbines. There are dry inspection and maintenance tunnels between the water filled flow tunnels so they can work the valves that control the water flow.

Placing explosives in those dry inspection tunnels would break the dam into chucks and the lake water would dislodge them from where they were.

And that is what we see from the air above, so that is very likely what happened to it.

It's a case that a typical dam powerhouse has the holes deep under it already in place to place explosives such as to destroy the dam by blowing it into well defined rectangular chunks. And then the lake water pressure will separate them.

It's a known vulnerably common to almost all hydro-power dams in the world.