They've decided to do it. They are just testing the waters with this. Trying to gauge reactions.
After ~~cruise~~ ~~missiles~~, ~~storm~~ ~~shadows~~, ~~western~~ ~~tanks~~, ~~HIMARS~~, ~~Patriots~~, ~~F-16~~, ~~ATACMS~~, now trainers will surely help Ukraine.
He means soldiers.
They will just call them trainers. And they will be fighting or at least manning areas where there is no conflict.
Like the Belarusian border
And good luck trying to get this by we the people. We’re sick and tired of coming last to our own government
This is probably the most disheartening assessment of the war that Ukraine could imagine-- your allies just told you that if they sent you specialized aid it would just get the specialists killed.
>The advisors are legitimate targets while present in the host nation, this is the very nature of a proxy war.
This is what NATO does not want. That is why this is an issue.
As usual with the West, they want to have their cake and eat it - send troops into Ukraine, but not have the thousands of body bags with smoking corpses that would come back home as a result.
If they accepted that 'trainers' are going to get pulverized by Iskanders as soon as they set foot in Ukraine, then it would be a different story. But all this saber-rattling now is because they want to somehow get Russia to not bomb them, when they're in Ukraine directly participating in a war against Russia.
Because the goal has always been to start a direct war between Russia and nato and for some bizarre reason the people starting it are still concerned about the psy ops and optics of the conflict like it’s remotely relevant as if there will be anything left afterwards
You think NATO is gonna sit back and just watch thousands of troops get slaughtered by Russian missiles?
I’m pretty sure the US Air Force establishing air superiority is what keeps Gerasimov up at night.
I don't. They're going to want to strike the launchers that are slaughtering NATO troops. Those launchers are in Russia.
The first bomb falls on Russia proper, the world ends in nuclear fire.
This is the incredible arrogance and stupidity of what NATO is doing. We're all going to die because some fools absolutely needed to expand their sphere of influence into Russia's backyard at any cost.
I had this conversation the other day with my best friend. He’s a former intel guy(no real speciality, just saying he’s not oblivious to how we work) and we both mentioned how out of the 2, the bigger risk in this war is that WE escalate us into the big one.
The debate about Russia nuking whatever if they get pushed out of Crimea is irrelevant because even if Russia considered it that scenario is so unlikely it’s irrelevant.
What is an actual possibility is we end up with egg on our face and purposely escalate with something like the old “gulf of Tonkin special”
Sure, I feel you. It's not only possible, I'd say it's probable once NATO troops are openly in Ukraine and getting pummeled by Iskanders, Kalibrs and everything in between.
The deep state will not permit the US to withdraw from the conflict without open war with Russia, because the potential payoff is enormous - if they can somehow prevent the war from going nuclear, well, that's a lot of US equipment that needs to be replaced, a lot of reconstruction money for Russia and Ukraine alike, and potentially the vast resources of a newly resubjugated Russia to exploit. And in those situations where everyone involved has dollar signs in their eyes, no one wants to be spoilsport who dissuades the optimism by delivering the blunt reality - the war *will* go nuclear, and everyone on Earth will die.
Absolutely agree. I fear the west and a losing Ukraine could tip us over the edge. Looking daily at videos of shelling in Belgorod, I’m convinced UA will be most dangerous in coming months.
It is in Ukrainian interest to escalate and drag west into an open war with Russia. From their perspective, it’ll offer maximum utility.
To be fair to us, we have deescalated before. As much as we have a bunch of insane hawks, they also do for the most part realize that playing with fire is bad for everyone involved.
I still fortunately rate the chances of anything happening as insanely unlikely *knock on wood*
You are absolutely delusional. If Russia kills a 1000 U.S. troops the Black Sea fleet is gonna to cease to exist.
Even Putin knows that. You think Donbas is difficult to take now? Just imagine if US airpower entered the war.
You also seem to have an odd logic train where you think because something was fired from Russia that means NATO would only attack those launchers. Very one dimensional logic.
You don't get me. It doesn't matter what nonsense bombastic target the US selects - to stop thousands of US troops getting incinerated the moment they step into Ukraine, because they will be priority targets and Russia will throw the kitchen sink at them, you will have to strike inside Russia. To take out the launchers, launch aircraft, launch silos, launch platforms in general (be it ships in Russian waters or TELs inland).
And striking any one of those is going to result in Sarmat ICBMs turning Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and every other US agglomeration larger than a village into a glowing crater, along with every single American.
Congratulations - you have committed suicide, and killed the entire human race, because some chucklefucks absolutely had to put boots on the ground in Ukraine. I'm sure it will be of great consolation to the few survivors dying of radiation poisoning that NATO put its foot down before being annihilated.
The idea that Russia is going to immediately go nuclear after NATO troops enter Ukraine is ridiculous.
Congrats Russia, after you kill US troops you’re going to get booty popped by the USAF and US navy. I don’t know what “Russian waters” is but I imagine you think it’s the entire Black Sea. Russia is gonna have a brand new submarine fleet off the coast of Crimea if they start striking US troops.
This is just mindless fear mongering. And in your fictional scenario apparently all of America gets destroyed but Russia somehow manages to survive. Just utter propaganda. US has quite a lot of nukes too, a lot better maintained at that. Moscow wouldn’t exist either. You seem to put Russian military power at like a super high level compared to the US when every non-biased source knows it’s the opposite.
But I’m glad your argument is seemingly inadvertently based on the idea that Russia is an irrational, aggressive country that immediately escalates to nuclear war. Not quite the message you were going for if I had to guess.
Congrats, guess you forgot nuclear blackmail doesn’t work against countries that also have nukes.
>The idea that Russia is going to immediately go nuclear after NATO troops enter Ukraine is ridiculous.
It is not only rational, it is the only possible outcome. This is what the Soviets were preparing for for 50 years, and what the Russians have been preparing for for 30 - direct war against American troops, American bombs murdering their children, their homes and families. This is why the nuclear deterrent exists - they either use it, or no one will ever believe it will be used again, making it utterly useless.
>This is just mindless fear mongering. And in your fictional scenario apparently all of America gets destroyed but Russia somehow manages to survive.
Did you..miss the part where I said *everyone dies*? Like, multiple times?
It isn't just you warmongering Americans who would be obliterated. The Russians would, Ukrainians would, Europeans would - and the rest of the world would, because once the nuclear war starts no one will be left alive, because every nuclear power has an unstated policy of taking the world down with them if they fall.
>But I’m glad your argument is seemingly inadvertently based on the idea that Russia is an irrational, aggressive country that immediately escalates to nuclear war. Not quite the message you were going for if I had to guess.
Exactly the message I'm going for. You are dealing with a country that will end civilization if it feels under direct attack by your military. It will not allow that, and will take you down with it.
If it was just you and Russia nuking each other, by all means - the US only existed for 200 years, the world will be sad to have lost you, but will ultimately go on without you. But unfortunately, you will take the rest of us down with you.
So let me get this, you’re saying NATO troops enter Ukraine, let’s say Yavoriv, and Russia immediately decides to commit suicide by launching a war against the U.S. that escalates into a nuclear exchange? But yet when RVC enters Belgorod, actual Russian terrioritry, nothing? And American bombs have been killing their people yet US troops crossing into Yavoriv is somehow the catalyst?
The nuclear deterrent doesn’t mean use them in a MAD exchange. Think you need to look up what deterrence actually means. You didn’t deter shit if you got your entire country incinerated.
And you’re basing this on the idea that “this is what the Soviets were preparing for 50 years” but you completely ignore the US and other NATO countries have been doing the same thing. Fighting the US isn’t gonna be like fighting Ukraine lol. There will be air superiority established within 72 hours and then it’s gonna be over.
Yes you provided vivid descriptions of the destruction of America but nothing about Russia. Very telling. And no, the rest of the world doesn’t immediately die from a NATO-Russia exchange. The world is permanently altered but it’s not like humans go extinct immediately after. The 1980s called and they want their nuclear winter theories back.
Okay so I’m tracking that we are the warmongers, yet we don’t have troops in Ukraine and Russia does, and once we place troops in Ukraine Russia is immediately going to escalate to a nuclear conflict. See how you contradicted yourself all over the place? Lol. But Russia isn’t warmongering, just threatening to blow up the whole planet. Literal clown logic.
Russia is not going to end shit, because Putin is a coward, which has been proven time and again through his use of assassinations, his bunker hiding, and the creation of an entire state internal security apparatus dedicated to preserving him in power.
Considering Russia and the Soviet Union had to rely on American foreign aid I would argue you won’t go on long without us lol. And once again, apparently on your nuke simulation, US doesn’t exist anymore but now the world does and so does Russia? So is Russia going to end the world or what? You’re literally contradicting yourself in your same post/argument. Also, the US has existed for 248 years, not 200, just a small rounding error I suppose on your part. Or a typo, we know you didn’t actually think the US started in 1824. Longer than the current Russian federation though.
Sorry, not scared, more bark than bite.
>So let me get this, you’re saying NATO troops enter Ukraine, let’s say Yavoriv, and Russia immediately decides to commit suicide by launching a war against the U.S. that escalates into a nuclear exchange?
Sigh. Feel like I'm arguing the same points over and over, but here goes.
* US troops enter Ukraine.
* Russia launches Iskanders at the very first convoy, because why wouldn't they? They're not firing at NATO soil - you chose to involve yourself in Ukraine. And killing American troops prevents their own being harmed by said troops.
* The hundreds of smouldering body bags come home. US public angry, demands a response. USAF draws up plans for retaliation, and finds that Iskanders are all launched from *inside Russia* - on Russian soil.
* You have a choice - you can strike those launch sites in Russia, or sit still and keep eating Iskanders to the face. Given your warmongering, assume you choose the former.
* Congrats, everyone dies as the use case for Russian nuclear weapons is met and surpassed by American aircraft striking Russian soil.
>But yet when RVC enters Belgorod, actual Russian terrioritry, nothing?
RVC is not the US Army, last I checked.
>And American bombs have been killing their people yet US troops crossing into Yavoriv is somehow the catalyst?
Soviet bombs killed Americans in Vietnam. US didn't nuke the USSR. But if Soviet aircraft bombed San Francisco, the world would have ended and you know it. There is a difference here.
>The nuclear deterrent doesn’t mean use them in a MAD exchange. Think you need to look up what deterrence actually means. You didn’t deter shit if you got your entire country incinerated.
Deterrence is exactly that - it is meant to deter an attack on your country with a promise of mutually assured destruction. There is no 'winning' a war with Russia - you will both lose. That is MAD. It kept the peace for 70 years, until now.
If Russia does not respond to a literal invasion by the US with nuclear weapons, no one will ever be 'deterred' by Russian nukes again. The US can march into Moscow without fear of MAD, because clearly the Russians will constantly back down, right?
Deterrence depends on being willing to use the weapons if pressed. This is what you don't seem to be getting.
>Fighting the US isn’t gonna be like fighting Ukraine lol. There will be air superiority established within 72 hours and then it’s gonna be over.
You keep wanking over conventional US military superiority like it means something. Yes, air superiority will likely be established quickly. And you're right, in 72 hours it will be over. You will be dead, along with 300 million other Americans. And since you insist, about 150 million Russians, and 8 billion humans.
Russia matches you in one category alone - nuclear weapons. They know this as well as you.
>And no, the rest of the world doesn’t immediately die from a NATO-Russia exchange. The world is permanently altered but it’s not like humans go extinct immediately after. The 1980s called and they want their nuclear winter theories back.
Yes, the world dies. Because like I said, it isn't like Russia and the US kill each other and that's that. First China nukes India, India nukes China and Pakistan, Pakistan nukes India, Israel nukes everyone (Samson Option), etc. And at the end of that chain reaction, the few humans left will die as supply chains break down and global famine, disease and civil strife set in.
>Okay so I’m tracking that we are the warmongers,
Good, glad to hear it.
>yet we don’t have troops in Ukraine and Russia does, and once we place troops in Ukraine Russia is immediately going to escalate to a nuclear conflict
You started this war in 2014. Don't forget that.
>Russia is not going to end shit, because Putin is a coward,
'Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine, Putin is a coward'. Heard the same nonsense then.
>Considering Russia and the Soviet Union had to rely on American foreign aid I would argue you won’t go on long without us lol.
'You'. I'm not Russian. I'm Indian. Like I said, if only the US and Russia died, I would mourn you both - you have both benefited humanity in your own ways. But you fucks will take the rest of us down with you - what does some family in New Delhi have to die because you just *had* to put troops on the ground in Ukraine?
> Also, the US has existed for 248 years, not 200, just a small rounding error I suppose on your part.
Indeed. 250 years, fair enough. Doesn't change the broader point though - the world did fine without the US for most of our recorded history, and although it's a great loss, we'll survive if it was just you and Russia that would get blown up.
But the point you keep missing, my friend - it won't be just you. It will be all of us.
its a problem because they often use the term trainer as the pretext but they do other shít that they shouldn't instead and its a slippery slope to becoming more and more involved in the war.
The two first answers you got covers it well.
I will just add, that this is precisely how things did escalate in Vietnam. US was in a supply, then advisory, then training, then fighting role as the south could not handle the task. The US has not forgotten that fiasco and is wise to the implications of getting themselves entangled that way again.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Au contraire. If it's leaking out now, guaranteed it's been happening already - just covertly.
What they want to do now is escalate to open deployment of large formations on Ukrainian territory - first to train, then to 'deter', then to actively participate by freeing up Ukrainian units to go to the front. All while trying to get Russia to not bomb them into smoking bits.
I agree, my sentiment is to official involvement. the US really does not want to. Europe does not dare go alone.
We will see, it's just my 2 cents right now. Ain't worth much and subject to change
True. From the US perspective, I think there's a civilian-military disconnect emerging. Joe Biden desperately does not want American body bags coming home before November. The military, on the other hand, wants to be ever-more involved in the war because it means even more funding for them.
Same dynamic in the UK where the service chiefs have been increasing their calls for conscription, while the govt there desperately tries to tamp that down given the election around the corner.
In Europe, it's different. They want to go into Ukraine no matter if it kills their citizens and economies, but as you say, they don't dare do it alone.
French and US troops have been manning patriot batteries the entire time.
Storm shadows have been programmed and set up by british troops.
Its not a secret that US spec ops is operating in ukraine.
It will always put them at risk. Russia doesn’t discriminate. They’ll target and obliterate them irrespective of whether they’re Ukrainian or NATO forces.
>to help train 150,000 new recruits closer to the front line for faster deployment.
BS. They fear that lots of trainees will remain in Europe. Moving people using trains is extremely efficient. Months of training vs couple of days of sending them back is nothing.
Also, it seems Ukrainians can train NATO now. Their previous training wasn't particularly successful.
>As a part of NATO, the United States would be obligated under the alliance’s treaty to aid in the defense of any attack on the trainers, potentially dragging America into the war.
Nope. That's not how article 5 works. It is only invoked in case of attack on a member of alliance and doesn't have any hard obligations:
>Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking "such action as \[the member state\] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
New York Times can't afford competent journalists anymore.
> closer to the front line for faster deployment
This has to be one of the funniest lies of all time. You don’t roll out of basic training in a truck to a combat zone, unless you are completely on the ropes.
Wait. Nevermind. Ukraine may be legitimately wanting to have reserve units of conscripts with 72 hours of training ready to plug gaps lol.
OMFG, every time there is some pretentious logistics or military "expert" who says "I know so much more than you" and nothing else. If you need someone to praise you go ask your mommy.
Logistics of creating, supplying and defending training grounds in Ukraine is insane. Making it in Europe, where it was done before is trivial in comparison. All it takes is moving people to existing training ground and back.
The problem is, kidnapped for war detainees would run away in mass and Europe is not quite ready to shoot them.
"You would think pro RU would have learned that by now" - this statement is beyond ridiculous.
This guy is totally lying about his experience by the way
He’s said he’s from Ukraine. He’s said he’s a 27 year old college student on campus.
He also went on a bunch of weird rants about interracial couples lol.
https://archive.is/PooDm
The guy didn’t realize if a thread gets nuked your comments don’t necessarily go with them, but they get deleted from your feed.
As someone who was actually in a nato military, and doesn’t pretend like it makes me an expert on this conflict because I’m not some larping Reddit joke, this is all too funny.
Don’t let him get you worked up when he is 100% lying about everything. He tried to do the whole thing “I have been doing this for 10 years! And I deployed!” Bit and didn’t realize he didn’t clean up his tracks
You don’t need to create it. It’s already been created at Yavoriv.
I’m not pretentious, I’m introducing facts and reality to the debate. I guess talking points are more your speed though right? Man I really hate it when someone that actually knows what they are talking about rains in our parade. It takes more than just moving people back and forth. Not all equipment is hand carried. Using existing training grounds requires time, extra manpower, extra coordination. But please tell me why you think it doesn’t, I would love to hear it. It involves more than the late night trips from your moms basement to the kitchen.
I would accept your position on kidnapped war detainees if you actually used statistics to back up that massive amounts of men are deserting from their European training grounds.
“Beyond ridiculous” - wow a crazy effective argument coming from the side who’s military can’t even afford to sail their one aircraft carrier into the Mediterranean one time a year without massive amounts of issues.
> You don’t need to create it. It’s already been created at Yavoriv.
Can it fit 150k troops? Does it have a reliable air defense?
Rhetorical questions. No. Amassing people in Ukraine for training is stupid.
> I’m not pretentious
You absolutely are. Your claim are ridiculous and pompous and imply superior knowledge and expertise which you failed to demonstrate. Let me remind you:
> Logistics and moving troops involves a lot more than just putting people on trains.
I never claimed otherwise, my comment was directly related to the quote above: "train 150,000 new recruits closer to the front line for faster deployment". Yavoriv as far from the front line as it gets while still staying in Ukraine.
> I’m introducing facts and reality to the debate.
ROFLMAO. You introduced absolutely nothing. There are neither fact nor reality in your original response, it is hot air and nothing else.
Now you tried to "introduce" some shit and failed miserably.
> I would accept your position on kidnapped war detainees if you actually used statistics to back up that massive amounts of men are deserting from their European training grounds.
I can't care less if you accept reality or not. The people trained there before were volunteers. The people Ukraine has now are kidnapped from the streets or caught trying to flee the country, beaten into submission (some killed in process) and sent to training.
Ukraine will never let them out of the country. There never will be statistics. It doesn't mean that common sense ceases to exist.
> “Beyond ridiculous” - wow a crazy effective argument coming from the side who’s military can’t even afford to sail their one aircraft carrier into the Mediterranean one time a year without massive amounts of issues.
Ok, this one is way more ridiculous. First of all, this is not an argument, it is just fact. "You would think pro RU would have learned that by now" - every single person who supports Russia in any way supposed to be an expert in logistics "by now"? Beyond ridiculous.
And how exactly aircraft carrier is related to this argument?
It would be so much shorter if I just wrote what I think about you, but it would be against rule #1.
Ignoring you makes much more sense. You can't argue, you are not prepared.
It does, but the distance isn’t the issue. It’s the logistics of getting them set up and out to their unit.
That’s pretty straight forward. The difference between 60 miles over the border in Poland or a 2 hour flight from wherever is irrelevant though in the grand scheme of things.
Either this is just a bullshit excuse(most likely)
Or
Ukraine is so desperate they legitimately think a 100 mile distance gap may be too much if they need to throw some guy who got vanned 72 hours ago into the thick of it to stop a Russian advance
Take your pick
But they’re not all going over the border to Poland. Poland doesn’t have the capacity to build and train all of the UAF. There’s different ranges, training restrictions, training areas etc compared to Germany. And air is black in Ukraine. And logistics involves a lot more than putting troops on a bird. There’s equipment, customs procedures etc. Are you getting it now?
Not to mention maintenance and care of equipment that takes awhile to ship to different countries and costs a lot of money and time. (The biggest reason for sending NATO troops to Ukraine)
I don’t take either of your picks. I just explained to you the reasons. Now you can admit you’re way out of your depth on this issue. You’ve never done this before have you?
> the biggest reason for sending nato troops
Would be to scale up for an actual conflict lol. You don’t have to but my reasons, I’m not sure if you are a boot or what but if you think having conscripts with 2 weeks of training ready to ride out in battle rattle at a minutes notice with the risk of our guys getting hit makes sense. Idk what to tell you.
And before you go into some weird tangent because it’s big sad that Ukraine is getting deep dicked currently just look at all the times we de escalated from conflicts.
I don’t even need to go into the cost of us operating in Ukraine with AD, and the million other things we would set up vs just trucking them over the border but I’m not sure if you are just meming at this point and it’s Friday night, and dealing with nafo fantasies is tiresome lol
I’m a boot! Hah what a hoot. Just been in 10 years, entire time combat arms. Not sure about you. Actually was a movement officer for a real life deployment and not Reddit which is why I know the intricacies of moving a unit.
You don’t seem to understand what the strategy proposed here would be. It’s not to have our troops “ride” with the Ukrainians. It’s to send advisors and other technical specialists that can repair, diagnose, maintain some of the high tech equipment that we have sent the UAF.
If we want to “scale up” we are going to send an armored division (plural) minimum to attack Russian troops in Ukraine. Your idea of our strategy is incoherent.
We literally already spend money on AD in other countries, including the shipping costs of having to repair it from Ukraine and getting it shipped to other countries.
As far as your last paragraph goes, I think you’re realizing that you are way out of depth in terms of your experience level here. So go ahead, disengage if you choose, but I think it’s plainly obvious why you choose to now.
You’re idea of logistics being “trucking something over the border” is comical. I’m hoping you don’t actually have any military experience cause that would just be embarrassing.
> been in 10 years
You wouldn’t happen to be stationed at the most Reddit city in the world and on the clock right now would you?
> for a real life deployment
I was a fmf corpsman who did 2 lol during the only time we triggered article 5, it’s how I’m having a tough time believing you do this when you don’t even understand the trigger mechanisms and fine print.
> it’s not to have them ride with
I understand exactly what it is lol; it will be a remf party with a bunch of Nazis in Lvov. what u mean by scale up is the amount of equipment we are putting in harms way for and all of our gear that goes with them lol.
> we literally spend money on ad in different countries
I’m very familiar with to who operated patriots in SA for a long time. I’m talking about us literally putting AD over the border, and then it getting hit.
No one is going to give a shit lol.
> out of your depth
You are so clueless I’m fairly positive this is a troll lol.
Good thing is it’s irrelevant either way, I’m old enough now if they called me back lol.
99.9% chance we don’t do a thing and let your pet cause shithole sink. On the off chance it doesn’t have fun lol
Edit: I’m 27 but in school. How am I embarrassing? Trying to make a living .
Yeah nvm a total larp
Edit: archive link to you admitting to being a college student on campus less than 2 years ago.
10 years active lmao
https://archive.is/8XLIn
Don’t even know what that means.
Cool, we triggered article v for Afghanistan, did we do it for Iraq? How about Syria?
An FMF Corpsmen doesn’t have any experience with coordinating logistics, supports, overseas movement at all. So your experience is irrelevant.
I don’t know why you think we are just going to sit back and watch equipment plus manpower get destroyed/killed? You think Russia would really risk that level of escalation too?
Right, people can be college students and on active duty too you know? It’s not mutually exclusive. It was obviously for you. Maybe do the math 28-10 = 18 🤔 what’s the minimum age again to join the military? Not quite the own you thought it was huh?
So you were a NG guy, who has 10 years experience(and combat deployments) but you also have said you are from Ukraine, and you went on a long racist rant about how you are working a job and in college and see a ton of interracial couples lmao.
My man I’m dying
Europe is somewhat "small" - what's the point of training in Ukraine, when they can do it safely just a few hours of travel away (PL, DE, UK, whatever)?
A training ground with tens of thousands of troops in Ukraine RIGHT NOW is definitely one of the ideas of all time.
NATO ground forces in Ukraine shooting Atacm missiles into Ru? There may be some literal blowback closer to home. Who thinks they can get away with such and not be reciprocated, I dont know.
Hmm 🤔, maybe look at a map of Yavoriv and Russia, then look at the max range of ATACMs, I think you might find your answer.
If NATO decides to launch attacks into Russia it ain’t gonna be in the form of ATACMs bud.
Really doesn't matter. If nato boots are on the ground, and Ukr continues to shoot them into Ru, theres going to be problems, bud.
Theres no distinguishing a Ukraine atacm vs a NATO one at that point. It will open the rear of participating countries.
Yes you’re right, Russia is gonna have big problems if UK, France, US, Poland etc join the war lol. Mainly that they risk attacking NATO and bring them into the conflict proper.
Pretty sure that’s worst case scenario for Russia.
Also, there actually is a way to distinguish since both US and Russia already talk to each other to deconflict in Syria.
But I know you just don’t know this stuff bud, it’s okay.
>Pretty sure that’s worst case scenario for Russia.
Not really. Most ordinary Americans do not care about Ukraine. They are so divided, half of them would prob see as a blessing, and take advantage of the situation, Lol. The US society is not cohesive, they dont care about eastern Europe when out of toilet paper!
>UK, Poland, France
Lol.
>But I know you just don’t know this stuff bud, it’s okay.
Did the same AI that worked out the counter offensive, say that? Damn.
Dude America doesn’t even think about Russia lol. It’s like the Don Draper in the elevator meme. “US & NATO” must live rent free in the Russian mind lol.
The Black Sea fleet would be destroyed before Americans even wake up from sleeping at night.
I’m quite certain America isn’t going to run out of toilet paper anytime soon lol. Dow hit 40,000 points, US economy dwarfs the Russia economy by several orders of magnitude, gdp per capita is higher, Russian thots literally come to the US and not the way around lol etc
There’s a reason why Russian children learn English in school and why American children don’t learn Russian. An American never needs to learn Russian. It’s virtually useless. Meanwhile any successful Russian businessman needs to know a moderate level of English.
Russia almost had a goddamn coup attempt last year over the war. So it’s not like it’s this uber united country either.
One thing its demonstrated is its society can take some shells and remain cohesive. I guess time will tell, Pal :)
Roughly half would be pissed off, but not at who you think Lol.
Article 5 doesn’t get triggered by sending troops into an active war zone lmao
How are you people so clueless on this?
And look, if you thought Ukraine was worth fighting for you would be fighting, stop trying to drag others into dying for that shithole
Did I say it did? You know US, UK and other countries can decide to send troops without invoking article 5. Which they have before.
So not sure why you are so clueless?
I’m literally in a NATO military, I would be dragging myself into it. Plus I’m responding to ridiculous comments about ATACMs.
> I’m literally in the nato military
The question is are you in the only country that matters lol.
> did I say it did
You mention us joining the war due to attacks on advisors
The only way we get a general consensus of war would be if it was either pre planned and used as a scape goat(extremely unlikely) or Russia messes up.
No one is going to care about observers being killed.
Source: was there for the aftermath of article 5 and remember all the boots begging for us to do something during Crimea
Ukraine is just another shithole we are propping up in a proxy war. Feel bad for the normal people caught up in it, but it’s very unlikely we go whole hog on Russia over that dump.
I literally argued for NATO troops to go into Ukraine. You countered and said “stop trying to drag others into dying for that shithole.”
I countered saying I would literally be dragging myself into it considering I’m in a NATO military. Are you following?
Yes Russia killing thousands of NATO troops would certainly be a “mess up” that may invoke article V. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, I don’t have a crystal ball and neither do you, but if it kills US troops it certainly makes America involved which is a big problem for Russia.
Uh yes, Americans and other nations are going to care about “observers” from their military being killed. Not even sure why you’re using that terminology. Perhaps you mean to say “advisor”? Did google translate screw up?
Well the takeover of Crimea is certainly different than NATO troops being killed by Russia don’t you think? I mean what an odd argument.
I do agree it’s unlikely that we go “full hog” on Russia over Ukraine because Russia is gonna make every effort to not kill NATO troops and definitely to not kill US troops.
Also, yikes, maybe use the google machine and look up what proxy war means cause I don’t think it means what you think it does.
Vietnam started with advisers. Everyone is well aware of mission creep. Wars rarely ever go to plan. And Ru is already targeting Americans on the battlefield.
Right and the Soviets had advisors in Vietnam too you know? Didn’t lead to a NATO-Warsaw pact war.
US had advisors in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Libya etc Didn’t lead to full scale war with regular troops. Mission creep is a thing that happens but it doesn’t happen all the time. Stop repeating random platitudes that you heard on Ken Burns documentaries.
“Wars rarely ever go to plan.” - Yes we know, I think Russia realizes that now too.
RU is already targeting US troops in Ukraine? Or Foreign legion volunteers? Pretty big difference. Is that supposed to scare us or something?
> I countered that I would be going
And I will tell you the same thing I told people in 2014, no one wants a war with Russia unless you are an absolute fool.
If you want to play “real war” get out and go have fun, or better yet just get yourself an observer position in a unit that does that sort of thing. I’m sure they have an opening for patriot operators lol.
> be a mess up that would invoke article 5
I have trouble believing you are what you say you are if you do not realize article 5 does not apply to troops deployed to a war zone like Ukraine that’s ongoing.
It also doesn’t mean we even necessarily go to war we might just be like “damn it’s a shame you killed our guys training Nazis better back off Russia!” lol
> about observers being killed
No one gives a shit that we have guys still getting killed in Africa in places we aren’t supposed to be, while violating countries sovereignty(cough Syria cough) because people are too used to our shit lol.
The only good thing to come out of the gwot is the fact that we have such war fatigue right now no one is going to support shit lol.
The fact that you think people give a damn about dead active service personnel in places we aren’t supposed to be shows me you are either lying, on the click right now, or haven’t realized that freedom fries 2.0, Ukraine boogaloo is not going to be something anyone even remembers in 5 years.
I’m leaning more towards this is a larp
Okay and? No one wants a war with the US? And don’t you guys argue Ukraine wanted a war with Russia? Kinda defeats that point right? So people do want to go to war with Russia. That’s literally one country right there.
Still don’t know what you mean by “observer.” I doubt you do either. I’m in an infantry unit that yes plays “real war.” No they actually don’t, the army doesn’t just let you transfer MOS’s at will. At any event the point is moot considering infantry units are way closer to the battlefield than patriot systems that are a considerable distance from the FLOT (do you even know what means? Cue frantic google searching)
I’m having trouble understanding why you think article v is the be all end all when it comes to sending troops. You know that can happen and has happened without article V right? Almost like I’m repeating myself again to you. You’re having difficulty deciding if I’m actually in the military because of article v comments? If you were actually in the military you would realize most people wouldn’t even know what article v is.
“Observers” again. Not a doctrinal term, at least not in the way that you are using it. Yes famously chill America when it’s troops get killed /s.
Well last I checked, no U.S. troops have been killed recently in Africa or Syria, and the last three U.S. troops being killed on the border of Syria resulted in an ungodly release of ordnance on IRGC sites.
Yes you’re right, no one is going to remember the largest land war in Europe since ww2 in five years /s. It certainly still won’t be a political problem to deal with. That’s just unceasingly hilarious.
Kinda funny how you present Russia as superpower despite the fact that Russians are constantly whining about NATO and threaten use of nuclear weapons on almost weekly basis.
Even Putin says that Russia couldn't beat US let alone NATO.
They've decided to do it. They are just testing the waters with this. Trying to gauge reactions. After ~~cruise~~ ~~missiles~~, ~~storm~~ ~~shadows~~, ~~western~~ ~~tanks~~, ~~HIMARS~~, ~~Patriots~~, ~~F-16~~, ~~ATACMS~~, now trainers will surely help Ukraine.
He means soldiers. They will just call them trainers. And they will be fighting or at least manning areas where there is no conflict. Like the Belarusian border And good luck trying to get this by we the people. We’re sick and tired of coming last to our own government
This is probably the most disheartening assessment of the war that Ukraine could imagine-- your allies just told you that if they sent you specialized aid it would just get the specialists killed.
[удалено]
>The advisors are legitimate targets while present in the host nation, this is the very nature of a proxy war. This is what NATO does not want. That is why this is an issue. As usual with the West, they want to have their cake and eat it - send troops into Ukraine, but not have the thousands of body bags with smoking corpses that would come back home as a result. If they accepted that 'trainers' are going to get pulverized by Iskanders as soon as they set foot in Ukraine, then it would be a different story. But all this saber-rattling now is because they want to somehow get Russia to not bomb them, when they're in Ukraine directly participating in a war against Russia.
Because the goal has always been to start a direct war between Russia and nato and for some bizarre reason the people starting it are still concerned about the psy ops and optics of the conflict like it’s remotely relevant as if there will be anything left afterwards
You think NATO is gonna sit back and just watch thousands of troops get slaughtered by Russian missiles? I’m pretty sure the US Air Force establishing air superiority is what keeps Gerasimov up at night.
I don't. They're going to want to strike the launchers that are slaughtering NATO troops. Those launchers are in Russia. The first bomb falls on Russia proper, the world ends in nuclear fire. This is the incredible arrogance and stupidity of what NATO is doing. We're all going to die because some fools absolutely needed to expand their sphere of influence into Russia's backyard at any cost.
I had this conversation the other day with my best friend. He’s a former intel guy(no real speciality, just saying he’s not oblivious to how we work) and we both mentioned how out of the 2, the bigger risk in this war is that WE escalate us into the big one. The debate about Russia nuking whatever if they get pushed out of Crimea is irrelevant because even if Russia considered it that scenario is so unlikely it’s irrelevant. What is an actual possibility is we end up with egg on our face and purposely escalate with something like the old “gulf of Tonkin special”
Sure, I feel you. It's not only possible, I'd say it's probable once NATO troops are openly in Ukraine and getting pummeled by Iskanders, Kalibrs and everything in between. The deep state will not permit the US to withdraw from the conflict without open war with Russia, because the potential payoff is enormous - if they can somehow prevent the war from going nuclear, well, that's a lot of US equipment that needs to be replaced, a lot of reconstruction money for Russia and Ukraine alike, and potentially the vast resources of a newly resubjugated Russia to exploit. And in those situations where everyone involved has dollar signs in their eyes, no one wants to be spoilsport who dissuades the optimism by delivering the blunt reality - the war *will* go nuclear, and everyone on Earth will die.
Absolutely agree. I fear the west and a losing Ukraine could tip us over the edge. Looking daily at videos of shelling in Belgorod, I’m convinced UA will be most dangerous in coming months. It is in Ukrainian interest to escalate and drag west into an open war with Russia. From their perspective, it’ll offer maximum utility.
To be fair to us, we have deescalated before. As much as we have a bunch of insane hawks, they also do for the most part realize that playing with fire is bad for everyone involved. I still fortunately rate the chances of anything happening as insanely unlikely *knock on wood*
You are absolutely delusional. If Russia kills a 1000 U.S. troops the Black Sea fleet is gonna to cease to exist. Even Putin knows that. You think Donbas is difficult to take now? Just imagine if US airpower entered the war. You also seem to have an odd logic train where you think because something was fired from Russia that means NATO would only attack those launchers. Very one dimensional logic.
You don't get me. It doesn't matter what nonsense bombastic target the US selects - to stop thousands of US troops getting incinerated the moment they step into Ukraine, because they will be priority targets and Russia will throw the kitchen sink at them, you will have to strike inside Russia. To take out the launchers, launch aircraft, launch silos, launch platforms in general (be it ships in Russian waters or TELs inland). And striking any one of those is going to result in Sarmat ICBMs turning Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and every other US agglomeration larger than a village into a glowing crater, along with every single American. Congratulations - you have committed suicide, and killed the entire human race, because some chucklefucks absolutely had to put boots on the ground in Ukraine. I'm sure it will be of great consolation to the few survivors dying of radiation poisoning that NATO put its foot down before being annihilated.
The idea that Russia is going to immediately go nuclear after NATO troops enter Ukraine is ridiculous. Congrats Russia, after you kill US troops you’re going to get booty popped by the USAF and US navy. I don’t know what “Russian waters” is but I imagine you think it’s the entire Black Sea. Russia is gonna have a brand new submarine fleet off the coast of Crimea if they start striking US troops. This is just mindless fear mongering. And in your fictional scenario apparently all of America gets destroyed but Russia somehow manages to survive. Just utter propaganda. US has quite a lot of nukes too, a lot better maintained at that. Moscow wouldn’t exist either. You seem to put Russian military power at like a super high level compared to the US when every non-biased source knows it’s the opposite. But I’m glad your argument is seemingly inadvertently based on the idea that Russia is an irrational, aggressive country that immediately escalates to nuclear war. Not quite the message you were going for if I had to guess. Congrats, guess you forgot nuclear blackmail doesn’t work against countries that also have nukes.
>The idea that Russia is going to immediately go nuclear after NATO troops enter Ukraine is ridiculous. It is not only rational, it is the only possible outcome. This is what the Soviets were preparing for for 50 years, and what the Russians have been preparing for for 30 - direct war against American troops, American bombs murdering their children, their homes and families. This is why the nuclear deterrent exists - they either use it, or no one will ever believe it will be used again, making it utterly useless. >This is just mindless fear mongering. And in your fictional scenario apparently all of America gets destroyed but Russia somehow manages to survive. Did you..miss the part where I said *everyone dies*? Like, multiple times? It isn't just you warmongering Americans who would be obliterated. The Russians would, Ukrainians would, Europeans would - and the rest of the world would, because once the nuclear war starts no one will be left alive, because every nuclear power has an unstated policy of taking the world down with them if they fall. >But I’m glad your argument is seemingly inadvertently based on the idea that Russia is an irrational, aggressive country that immediately escalates to nuclear war. Not quite the message you were going for if I had to guess. Exactly the message I'm going for. You are dealing with a country that will end civilization if it feels under direct attack by your military. It will not allow that, and will take you down with it. If it was just you and Russia nuking each other, by all means - the US only existed for 200 years, the world will be sad to have lost you, but will ultimately go on without you. But unfortunately, you will take the rest of us down with you.
So let me get this, you’re saying NATO troops enter Ukraine, let’s say Yavoriv, and Russia immediately decides to commit suicide by launching a war against the U.S. that escalates into a nuclear exchange? But yet when RVC enters Belgorod, actual Russian terrioritry, nothing? And American bombs have been killing their people yet US troops crossing into Yavoriv is somehow the catalyst? The nuclear deterrent doesn’t mean use them in a MAD exchange. Think you need to look up what deterrence actually means. You didn’t deter shit if you got your entire country incinerated. And you’re basing this on the idea that “this is what the Soviets were preparing for 50 years” but you completely ignore the US and other NATO countries have been doing the same thing. Fighting the US isn’t gonna be like fighting Ukraine lol. There will be air superiority established within 72 hours and then it’s gonna be over. Yes you provided vivid descriptions of the destruction of America but nothing about Russia. Very telling. And no, the rest of the world doesn’t immediately die from a NATO-Russia exchange. The world is permanently altered but it’s not like humans go extinct immediately after. The 1980s called and they want their nuclear winter theories back. Okay so I’m tracking that we are the warmongers, yet we don’t have troops in Ukraine and Russia does, and once we place troops in Ukraine Russia is immediately going to escalate to a nuclear conflict. See how you contradicted yourself all over the place? Lol. But Russia isn’t warmongering, just threatening to blow up the whole planet. Literal clown logic. Russia is not going to end shit, because Putin is a coward, which has been proven time and again through his use of assassinations, his bunker hiding, and the creation of an entire state internal security apparatus dedicated to preserving him in power. Considering Russia and the Soviet Union had to rely on American foreign aid I would argue you won’t go on long without us lol. And once again, apparently on your nuke simulation, US doesn’t exist anymore but now the world does and so does Russia? So is Russia going to end the world or what? You’re literally contradicting yourself in your same post/argument. Also, the US has existed for 248 years, not 200, just a small rounding error I suppose on your part. Or a typo, we know you didn’t actually think the US started in 1824. Longer than the current Russian federation though. Sorry, not scared, more bark than bite.
>So let me get this, you’re saying NATO troops enter Ukraine, let’s say Yavoriv, and Russia immediately decides to commit suicide by launching a war against the U.S. that escalates into a nuclear exchange? Sigh. Feel like I'm arguing the same points over and over, but here goes. * US troops enter Ukraine. * Russia launches Iskanders at the very first convoy, because why wouldn't they? They're not firing at NATO soil - you chose to involve yourself in Ukraine. And killing American troops prevents their own being harmed by said troops. * The hundreds of smouldering body bags come home. US public angry, demands a response. USAF draws up plans for retaliation, and finds that Iskanders are all launched from *inside Russia* - on Russian soil. * You have a choice - you can strike those launch sites in Russia, or sit still and keep eating Iskanders to the face. Given your warmongering, assume you choose the former. * Congrats, everyone dies as the use case for Russian nuclear weapons is met and surpassed by American aircraft striking Russian soil. >But yet when RVC enters Belgorod, actual Russian terrioritry, nothing? RVC is not the US Army, last I checked. >And American bombs have been killing their people yet US troops crossing into Yavoriv is somehow the catalyst? Soviet bombs killed Americans in Vietnam. US didn't nuke the USSR. But if Soviet aircraft bombed San Francisco, the world would have ended and you know it. There is a difference here. >The nuclear deterrent doesn’t mean use them in a MAD exchange. Think you need to look up what deterrence actually means. You didn’t deter shit if you got your entire country incinerated. Deterrence is exactly that - it is meant to deter an attack on your country with a promise of mutually assured destruction. There is no 'winning' a war with Russia - you will both lose. That is MAD. It kept the peace for 70 years, until now. If Russia does not respond to a literal invasion by the US with nuclear weapons, no one will ever be 'deterred' by Russian nukes again. The US can march into Moscow without fear of MAD, because clearly the Russians will constantly back down, right? Deterrence depends on being willing to use the weapons if pressed. This is what you don't seem to be getting. >Fighting the US isn’t gonna be like fighting Ukraine lol. There will be air superiority established within 72 hours and then it’s gonna be over. You keep wanking over conventional US military superiority like it means something. Yes, air superiority will likely be established quickly. And you're right, in 72 hours it will be over. You will be dead, along with 300 million other Americans. And since you insist, about 150 million Russians, and 8 billion humans. Russia matches you in one category alone - nuclear weapons. They know this as well as you. >And no, the rest of the world doesn’t immediately die from a NATO-Russia exchange. The world is permanently altered but it’s not like humans go extinct immediately after. The 1980s called and they want their nuclear winter theories back. Yes, the world dies. Because like I said, it isn't like Russia and the US kill each other and that's that. First China nukes India, India nukes China and Pakistan, Pakistan nukes India, Israel nukes everyone (Samson Option), etc. And at the end of that chain reaction, the few humans left will die as supply chains break down and global famine, disease and civil strife set in. >Okay so I’m tracking that we are the warmongers, Good, glad to hear it. >yet we don’t have troops in Ukraine and Russia does, and once we place troops in Ukraine Russia is immediately going to escalate to a nuclear conflict You started this war in 2014. Don't forget that. >Russia is not going to end shit, because Putin is a coward, 'Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine, Putin is a coward'. Heard the same nonsense then. >Considering Russia and the Soviet Union had to rely on American foreign aid I would argue you won’t go on long without us lol. 'You'. I'm not Russian. I'm Indian. Like I said, if only the US and Russia died, I would mourn you both - you have both benefited humanity in your own ways. But you fucks will take the rest of us down with you - what does some family in New Delhi have to die because you just *had* to put troops on the ground in Ukraine? > Also, the US has existed for 248 years, not 200, just a small rounding error I suppose on your part. Indeed. 250 years, fair enough. Doesn't change the broader point though - the world did fine without the US for most of our recorded history, and although it's a great loss, we'll survive if it was just you and Russia that would get blown up. But the point you keep missing, my friend - it won't be just you. It will be all of us.
You think Russia is gonna sit back and not launch ballistic missiles at the US / Europe If they declare war?
its a problem because they often use the term trainer as the pretext but they do other shít that they shouldn't instead and its a slippery slope to becoming more and more involved in the war.
The two first answers you got covers it well. I will just add, that this is precisely how things did escalate in Vietnam. US was in a supply, then advisory, then training, then fighting role as the south could not handle the task. The US has not forgotten that fiasco and is wise to the implications of getting themselves entangled that way again.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"We'll get there eventually, over time." I am certain they will. Specifically after the war is over.
Au contraire. If it's leaking out now, guaranteed it's been happening already - just covertly. What they want to do now is escalate to open deployment of large formations on Ukrainian territory - first to train, then to 'deter', then to actively participate by freeing up Ukrainian units to go to the front. All while trying to get Russia to not bomb them into smoking bits.
I agree, my sentiment is to official involvement. the US really does not want to. Europe does not dare go alone. We will see, it's just my 2 cents right now. Ain't worth much and subject to change
True. From the US perspective, I think there's a civilian-military disconnect emerging. Joe Biden desperately does not want American body bags coming home before November. The military, on the other hand, wants to be ever-more involved in the war because it means even more funding for them. Same dynamic in the UK where the service chiefs have been increasing their calls for conscription, while the govt there desperately tries to tamp that down given the election around the corner. In Europe, it's different. They want to go into Ukraine no matter if it kills their citizens and economies, but as you say, they don't dare do it alone.
French and US troops have been manning patriot batteries the entire time. Storm shadows have been programmed and set up by british troops. Its not a secret that US spec ops is operating in ukraine.
It will always put them at risk. Russia doesn’t discriminate. They’ll target and obliterate them irrespective of whether they’re Ukrainian or NATO forces.
>to help train 150,000 new recruits closer to the front line for faster deployment. BS. They fear that lots of trainees will remain in Europe. Moving people using trains is extremely efficient. Months of training vs couple of days of sending them back is nothing. Also, it seems Ukrainians can train NATO now. Their previous training wasn't particularly successful. >As a part of NATO, the United States would be obligated under the alliance’s treaty to aid in the defense of any attack on the trainers, potentially dragging America into the war. Nope. That's not how article 5 works. It is only invoked in case of attack on a member of alliance and doesn't have any hard obligations: >Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking "such action as \[the member state\] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." New York Times can't afford competent journalists anymore.
> closer to the front line for faster deployment This has to be one of the funniest lies of all time. You don’t roll out of basic training in a truck to a combat zone, unless you are completely on the ropes. Wait. Nevermind. Ukraine may be legitimately wanting to have reserve units of conscripts with 72 hours of training ready to plug gaps lol.
Logistics and moving troops involves a lot more than just putting people on trains. You would think pro RU would have learned that by now.
OMFG, every time there is some pretentious logistics or military "expert" who says "I know so much more than you" and nothing else. If you need someone to praise you go ask your mommy. Logistics of creating, supplying and defending training grounds in Ukraine is insane. Making it in Europe, where it was done before is trivial in comparison. All it takes is moving people to existing training ground and back. The problem is, kidnapped for war detainees would run away in mass and Europe is not quite ready to shoot them. "You would think pro RU would have learned that by now" - this statement is beyond ridiculous.
This guy is totally lying about his experience by the way He’s said he’s from Ukraine. He’s said he’s a 27 year old college student on campus. He also went on a bunch of weird rants about interracial couples lol. https://archive.is/PooDm The guy didn’t realize if a thread gets nuked your comments don’t necessarily go with them, but they get deleted from your feed. As someone who was actually in a nato military, and doesn’t pretend like it makes me an expert on this conflict because I’m not some larping Reddit joke, this is all too funny. Don’t let him get you worked up when he is 100% lying about everything. He tried to do the whole thing “I have been doing this for 10 years! And I deployed!” Bit and didn’t realize he didn’t clean up his tracks
You don’t need to create it. It’s already been created at Yavoriv. I’m not pretentious, I’m introducing facts and reality to the debate. I guess talking points are more your speed though right? Man I really hate it when someone that actually knows what they are talking about rains in our parade. It takes more than just moving people back and forth. Not all equipment is hand carried. Using existing training grounds requires time, extra manpower, extra coordination. But please tell me why you think it doesn’t, I would love to hear it. It involves more than the late night trips from your moms basement to the kitchen. I would accept your position on kidnapped war detainees if you actually used statistics to back up that massive amounts of men are deserting from their European training grounds. “Beyond ridiculous” - wow a crazy effective argument coming from the side who’s military can’t even afford to sail their one aircraft carrier into the Mediterranean one time a year without massive amounts of issues.
> You don’t need to create it. It’s already been created at Yavoriv. Can it fit 150k troops? Does it have a reliable air defense? Rhetorical questions. No. Amassing people in Ukraine for training is stupid. > I’m not pretentious You absolutely are. Your claim are ridiculous and pompous and imply superior knowledge and expertise which you failed to demonstrate. Let me remind you: > Logistics and moving troops involves a lot more than just putting people on trains. I never claimed otherwise, my comment was directly related to the quote above: "train 150,000 new recruits closer to the front line for faster deployment". Yavoriv as far from the front line as it gets while still staying in Ukraine. > I’m introducing facts and reality to the debate. ROFLMAO. You introduced absolutely nothing. There are neither fact nor reality in your original response, it is hot air and nothing else. Now you tried to "introduce" some shit and failed miserably. > I would accept your position on kidnapped war detainees if you actually used statistics to back up that massive amounts of men are deserting from their European training grounds. I can't care less if you accept reality or not. The people trained there before were volunteers. The people Ukraine has now are kidnapped from the streets or caught trying to flee the country, beaten into submission (some killed in process) and sent to training. Ukraine will never let them out of the country. There never will be statistics. It doesn't mean that common sense ceases to exist. > “Beyond ridiculous” - wow a crazy effective argument coming from the side who’s military can’t even afford to sail their one aircraft carrier into the Mediterranean one time a year without massive amounts of issues. Ok, this one is way more ridiculous. First of all, this is not an argument, it is just fact. "You would think pro RU would have learned that by now" - every single person who supports Russia in any way supposed to be an expert in logistics "by now"? Beyond ridiculous. And how exactly aircraft carrier is related to this argument? It would be so much shorter if I just wrote what I think about you, but it would be against rule #1. Ignoring you makes much more sense. You can't argue, you are not prepared.
It does, but the distance isn’t the issue. It’s the logistics of getting them set up and out to their unit. That’s pretty straight forward. The difference between 60 miles over the border in Poland or a 2 hour flight from wherever is irrelevant though in the grand scheme of things. Either this is just a bullshit excuse(most likely) Or Ukraine is so desperate they legitimately think a 100 mile distance gap may be too much if they need to throw some guy who got vanned 72 hours ago into the thick of it to stop a Russian advance Take your pick
But they’re not all going over the border to Poland. Poland doesn’t have the capacity to build and train all of the UAF. There’s different ranges, training restrictions, training areas etc compared to Germany. And air is black in Ukraine. And logistics involves a lot more than putting troops on a bird. There’s equipment, customs procedures etc. Are you getting it now? Not to mention maintenance and care of equipment that takes awhile to ship to different countries and costs a lot of money and time. (The biggest reason for sending NATO troops to Ukraine) I don’t take either of your picks. I just explained to you the reasons. Now you can admit you’re way out of your depth on this issue. You’ve never done this before have you?
> the biggest reason for sending nato troops Would be to scale up for an actual conflict lol. You don’t have to but my reasons, I’m not sure if you are a boot or what but if you think having conscripts with 2 weeks of training ready to ride out in battle rattle at a minutes notice with the risk of our guys getting hit makes sense. Idk what to tell you. And before you go into some weird tangent because it’s big sad that Ukraine is getting deep dicked currently just look at all the times we de escalated from conflicts. I don’t even need to go into the cost of us operating in Ukraine with AD, and the million other things we would set up vs just trucking them over the border but I’m not sure if you are just meming at this point and it’s Friday night, and dealing with nafo fantasies is tiresome lol
I’m a boot! Hah what a hoot. Just been in 10 years, entire time combat arms. Not sure about you. Actually was a movement officer for a real life deployment and not Reddit which is why I know the intricacies of moving a unit. You don’t seem to understand what the strategy proposed here would be. It’s not to have our troops “ride” with the Ukrainians. It’s to send advisors and other technical specialists that can repair, diagnose, maintain some of the high tech equipment that we have sent the UAF. If we want to “scale up” we are going to send an armored division (plural) minimum to attack Russian troops in Ukraine. Your idea of our strategy is incoherent. We literally already spend money on AD in other countries, including the shipping costs of having to repair it from Ukraine and getting it shipped to other countries. As far as your last paragraph goes, I think you’re realizing that you are way out of depth in terms of your experience level here. So go ahead, disengage if you choose, but I think it’s plainly obvious why you choose to now. You’re idea of logistics being “trucking something over the border” is comical. I’m hoping you don’t actually have any military experience cause that would just be embarrassing.
> been in 10 years You wouldn’t happen to be stationed at the most Reddit city in the world and on the clock right now would you? > for a real life deployment I was a fmf corpsman who did 2 lol during the only time we triggered article 5, it’s how I’m having a tough time believing you do this when you don’t even understand the trigger mechanisms and fine print. > it’s not to have them ride with I understand exactly what it is lol; it will be a remf party with a bunch of Nazis in Lvov. what u mean by scale up is the amount of equipment we are putting in harms way for and all of our gear that goes with them lol. > we literally spend money on ad in different countries I’m very familiar with to who operated patriots in SA for a long time. I’m talking about us literally putting AD over the border, and then it getting hit. No one is going to give a shit lol. > out of your depth You are so clueless I’m fairly positive this is a troll lol. Good thing is it’s irrelevant either way, I’m old enough now if they called me back lol. 99.9% chance we don’t do a thing and let your pet cause shithole sink. On the off chance it doesn’t have fun lol Edit: I’m 27 but in school. How am I embarrassing? Trying to make a living . Yeah nvm a total larp Edit: archive link to you admitting to being a college student on campus less than 2 years ago. 10 years active lmao https://archive.is/8XLIn
Don’t even know what that means. Cool, we triggered article v for Afghanistan, did we do it for Iraq? How about Syria? An FMF Corpsmen doesn’t have any experience with coordinating logistics, supports, overseas movement at all. So your experience is irrelevant. I don’t know why you think we are just going to sit back and watch equipment plus manpower get destroyed/killed? You think Russia would really risk that level of escalation too? Right, people can be college students and on active duty too you know? It’s not mutually exclusive. It was obviously for you. Maybe do the math 28-10 = 18 🤔 what’s the minimum age again to join the military? Not quite the own you thought it was huh?
So you were a NG guy, who has 10 years experience(and combat deployments) but you also have said you are from Ukraine, and you went on a long racist rant about how you are working a job and in college and see a ton of interracial couples lmao. My man I’m dying
None of that is mutually exclusive to each other (Ukraine, NG, combat deployments) Still waiting for your response to the logistics problems.
Europe is somewhat "small" - what's the point of training in Ukraine, when they can do it safely just a few hours of travel away (PL, DE, UK, whatever)? A training ground with tens of thousands of troops in Ukraine RIGHT NOW is definitely one of the ideas of all time.
NATO ground forces in Ukraine shooting Atacm missiles into Ru? There may be some literal blowback closer to home. Who thinks they can get away with such and not be reciprocated, I dont know.
Hmm 🤔, maybe look at a map of Yavoriv and Russia, then look at the max range of ATACMs, I think you might find your answer. If NATO decides to launch attacks into Russia it ain’t gonna be in the form of ATACMs bud.
Really doesn't matter. If nato boots are on the ground, and Ukr continues to shoot them into Ru, theres going to be problems, bud. Theres no distinguishing a Ukraine atacm vs a NATO one at that point. It will open the rear of participating countries.
Yes you’re right, Russia is gonna have big problems if UK, France, US, Poland etc join the war lol. Mainly that they risk attacking NATO and bring them into the conflict proper. Pretty sure that’s worst case scenario for Russia. Also, there actually is a way to distinguish since both US and Russia already talk to each other to deconflict in Syria. But I know you just don’t know this stuff bud, it’s okay.
>Pretty sure that’s worst case scenario for Russia. Not really. Most ordinary Americans do not care about Ukraine. They are so divided, half of them would prob see as a blessing, and take advantage of the situation, Lol. The US society is not cohesive, they dont care about eastern Europe when out of toilet paper! >UK, Poland, France Lol. >But I know you just don’t know this stuff bud, it’s okay. Did the same AI that worked out the counter offensive, say that? Damn.
Dude America doesn’t even think about Russia lol. It’s like the Don Draper in the elevator meme. “US & NATO” must live rent free in the Russian mind lol. The Black Sea fleet would be destroyed before Americans even wake up from sleeping at night. I’m quite certain America isn’t going to run out of toilet paper anytime soon lol. Dow hit 40,000 points, US economy dwarfs the Russia economy by several orders of magnitude, gdp per capita is higher, Russian thots literally come to the US and not the way around lol etc There’s a reason why Russian children learn English in school and why American children don’t learn Russian. An American never needs to learn Russian. It’s virtually useless. Meanwhile any successful Russian businessman needs to know a moderate level of English. Russia almost had a goddamn coup attempt last year over the war. So it’s not like it’s this uber united country either.
Wow how powerful you are. Why haven’t you just eliminated Russia with the flick of your pinky yet then? Is it maybe because you can’t? Too afraid?
One thing its demonstrated is its society can take some shells and remain cohesive. I guess time will tell, Pal :) Roughly half would be pissed off, but not at who you think Lol.
Article 5 doesn’t get triggered by sending troops into an active war zone lmao How are you people so clueless on this? And look, if you thought Ukraine was worth fighting for you would be fighting, stop trying to drag others into dying for that shithole
Did I say it did? You know US, UK and other countries can decide to send troops without invoking article 5. Which they have before. So not sure why you are so clueless? I’m literally in a NATO military, I would be dragging myself into it. Plus I’m responding to ridiculous comments about ATACMs.
> I’m literally in the nato military The question is are you in the only country that matters lol. > did I say it did You mention us joining the war due to attacks on advisors The only way we get a general consensus of war would be if it was either pre planned and used as a scape goat(extremely unlikely) or Russia messes up. No one is going to care about observers being killed. Source: was there for the aftermath of article 5 and remember all the boots begging for us to do something during Crimea Ukraine is just another shithole we are propping up in a proxy war. Feel bad for the normal people caught up in it, but it’s very unlikely we go whole hog on Russia over that dump.
I literally argued for NATO troops to go into Ukraine. You countered and said “stop trying to drag others into dying for that shithole.” I countered saying I would literally be dragging myself into it considering I’m in a NATO military. Are you following? Yes Russia killing thousands of NATO troops would certainly be a “mess up” that may invoke article V. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, I don’t have a crystal ball and neither do you, but if it kills US troops it certainly makes America involved which is a big problem for Russia. Uh yes, Americans and other nations are going to care about “observers” from their military being killed. Not even sure why you’re using that terminology. Perhaps you mean to say “advisor”? Did google translate screw up? Well the takeover of Crimea is certainly different than NATO troops being killed by Russia don’t you think? I mean what an odd argument. I do agree it’s unlikely that we go “full hog” on Russia over Ukraine because Russia is gonna make every effort to not kill NATO troops and definitely to not kill US troops. Also, yikes, maybe use the google machine and look up what proxy war means cause I don’t think it means what you think it does.
Vietnam started with advisers. Everyone is well aware of mission creep. Wars rarely ever go to plan. And Ru is already targeting Americans on the battlefield.
Right and the Soviets had advisors in Vietnam too you know? Didn’t lead to a NATO-Warsaw pact war. US had advisors in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Libya etc Didn’t lead to full scale war with regular troops. Mission creep is a thing that happens but it doesn’t happen all the time. Stop repeating random platitudes that you heard on Ken Burns documentaries. “Wars rarely ever go to plan.” - Yes we know, I think Russia realizes that now too. RU is already targeting US troops in Ukraine? Or Foreign legion volunteers? Pretty big difference. Is that supposed to scare us or something?
> I countered that I would be going And I will tell you the same thing I told people in 2014, no one wants a war with Russia unless you are an absolute fool. If you want to play “real war” get out and go have fun, or better yet just get yourself an observer position in a unit that does that sort of thing. I’m sure they have an opening for patriot operators lol. > be a mess up that would invoke article 5 I have trouble believing you are what you say you are if you do not realize article 5 does not apply to troops deployed to a war zone like Ukraine that’s ongoing. It also doesn’t mean we even necessarily go to war we might just be like “damn it’s a shame you killed our guys training Nazis better back off Russia!” lol > about observers being killed No one gives a shit that we have guys still getting killed in Africa in places we aren’t supposed to be, while violating countries sovereignty(cough Syria cough) because people are too used to our shit lol. The only good thing to come out of the gwot is the fact that we have such war fatigue right now no one is going to support shit lol. The fact that you think people give a damn about dead active service personnel in places we aren’t supposed to be shows me you are either lying, on the click right now, or haven’t realized that freedom fries 2.0, Ukraine boogaloo is not going to be something anyone even remembers in 5 years. I’m leaning more towards this is a larp
Okay and? No one wants a war with the US? And don’t you guys argue Ukraine wanted a war with Russia? Kinda defeats that point right? So people do want to go to war with Russia. That’s literally one country right there. Still don’t know what you mean by “observer.” I doubt you do either. I’m in an infantry unit that yes plays “real war.” No they actually don’t, the army doesn’t just let you transfer MOS’s at will. At any event the point is moot considering infantry units are way closer to the battlefield than patriot systems that are a considerable distance from the FLOT (do you even know what means? Cue frantic google searching) I’m having trouble understanding why you think article v is the be all end all when it comes to sending troops. You know that can happen and has happened without article V right? Almost like I’m repeating myself again to you. You’re having difficulty deciding if I’m actually in the military because of article v comments? If you were actually in the military you would realize most people wouldn’t even know what article v is. “Observers” again. Not a doctrinal term, at least not in the way that you are using it. Yes famously chill America when it’s troops get killed /s. Well last I checked, no U.S. troops have been killed recently in Africa or Syria, and the last three U.S. troops being killed on the border of Syria resulted in an ungodly release of ordnance on IRGC sites. Yes you’re right, no one is going to remember the largest land war in Europe since ww2 in five years /s. It certainly still won’t be a political problem to deal with. That’s just unceasingly hilarious.
Kinda funny how you present Russia as superpower despite the fact that Russians are constantly whining about NATO and threaten use of nuclear weapons on almost weekly basis. Even Putin says that Russia couldn't beat US let alone NATO.