Russia Ukraine Update Thread

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Then why did Putin state our NMD system did not affect Russia? As for testing, we can test till the sun burns out. There is nothing capable of stopping Russian ICBMs equipped with MIRVs.

Russia either needs to says this is a problem instead of using it as an excuse 20+ years down the road, and after saying it did not affect Russia.

This is why it does not affect Russia -

USSR/Russian Federation

RSD-10 Pioneer MIRV at the National Air and Space Museum

R-36 mod 4 (active, 10-14 warheads)
R-36 mod 5 (active, 10 warheads)
R-29R (active, 3 warheads)
R-29RK (active, 7 warheads)
MR-UR-100 Sotka (retired, 4 warheads)
UR-100N mod 3 (active, 6 warheads)
RSD-10 Pioneer (retired, 3 warheads)
R-39 Rif (retired, 10 warheads)
R-29RM Shtil (retired, 4 warheads)
RT-23 Molodets (retired, 10 warheads)
R-29RMU Sineva (active, 4 or 10 warheads)
RS-24 Yars (active, 3-6 warheads)
R-29RMU2 Layner (active, 4 or 12 warheads)
RSM-56 Bulava (active 6-10 warheads)
RS-28 Sarmat (active, 10-15 warheads)
RS-26 Rubezh (under development, 4 warheads)
BZhRK Barguzin (under development, 4-16 warheads)

United States and United Kingdom

UGM-133 Trident II (active, number of warheads classified)

United States

LGM-30 Minuteman III (active, 1-3 warheads, currently carries one warhead)
UGM-73 Poseidon (retired, 10 or 14 warheads)
UGM-96 Trident I (retired, 8 warheads)
LGM-118 Peacekeeper (retired, 10 warheads)
UGM-133 Trident II (active 8-14 warheads)

As you can see mutually assured destruction is still present and is not going away anytime soon.

China, France, India, Iran, Israel and Pakistan have a limited version of MIRVS.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey


It’s like two superpowers in a wrestling ring fighting over who gets to have the puppet president in the buffer country. a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok... so then that means both countries should butt out of Ukraine's affairs and let the separate and sovereign nation of Ukraine decide for themselves where they want their country to go and can decide for themselves who they want to ally with or what alliances to join.

Dont forget the Russians counter to NATO is CIS - The Commonwealth of Independent States. Going back to Putin and his czar fantasy the CIS was created by the Russian Empire and was not dropped until 1917 and communism. Putin was kind enough to resurrect it.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Air defense missles.

To defend against Iranian balistic missiles.

Tomahawks can't reach Iran from Poland.

And Iran missiles can reach where mister expert?

What are the areas the polish deployment is meant to protect?


They don’t have ICBMs

Europe was not keen on a US missile shield because it left them open to attack from Iran, whose missiles could hit Europe (violating UNSC resolutions on Iran's ballistic missile and nuke programs). This would be why it was deployed to Poland.

Also Russia uses the same nuclear triad the US uses. Our ABM missiles are good for single use launches. Russia uses Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVS), something our NMD could not stop.

You might be right, but they are continuing to evolve that platform and conduct testing with new systems to combat MIRVs and Russia perceives this as a threat as the missiles are 75 miles from their border which have been tested against ICBMs

Instead of promoting mutual vulnerability, which would in turn enhance stability, U.S. missile defenses are viewed as destabilizing By Russia and thats my point.
Its not promoting peace and, Iran are not as much a threat to Europe as the US would have you believe.

They STILL pose no threat to russia, and certainly no threat that would justify a large invasion of Ukraine.

The poland deployment was claimed by USA to contain Iran threat.

There has been no iranian threat in 10 years. No missiles fired at europe.

Russia clearly and plainly voiced their concerns about the deployments. And said it was a major issue for them.

So was it worth it? Russia feels provoked and antagonised by the deployment. Could it have been avoided? Yes

Was it needed? No.

You’re saying Russia shouldnt be concerned, how does that help exactly? Is that supposed to solve this
Conflict? No

Addressing Russia’s concerns will resolve
Conflict. But as long as the missiles stay, the arming of ukraine continues.... this conflict aint going no where. Let’s kick back and watch it disintegrate while bashing russia some more.

Because bashing russia saves lives /sarcasm

a reply to: Brassmonkey

The Russians provided arms to the 2 breakaway provinces in Ukraine.

So its ok if Russia does it?

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

The purpose of a deterrent is to "deter" a country, like Iran, from taking an action that will not work.

Actually its the thought process behind almost all creations for war. If we build A, then other countries, who have no ability to overcome the weapon in question, will think twice before acting.

Kind of like MADD.

Yes, Russia has nukes.
Yes, the US has nukes.

There would be absolutely no winner in a war that goes nuclear.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Still not a 'threat to russia'.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Polish air defense missiles are a threat to russia?

Or the fact that some countries aspire to join a defensive alliance meant to defend against a russian invasion, is a threat to russia?

Sounds pretty absurd.

Thanks for all the jibberish, but it doesn't contain any actual threat to russia.

There you are again... trying to apply logic.

So... Let's say:

- A gets hold of nukes.
- B responds in fear by also getting nukes to be able to respond
- A gets more nukes, to have the upper hand.
- B decides to do the same
- Now A decides to add defense systems that can down B's nukes.

Now tell me those defense systems aren't a threat OR could atleast be interpreted as one by B.

Who had nukes first in this world?

This is not being appologetic, but you clearly lack the abiltiy to put yourself in the shoes of the other party.

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Polish air defense missiles are a threat to russia?

Or the fact that some countries aspire to join a defensive alliance meant to defend against a russian invasion, is a threat to russia?

Sounds pretty absurd.

Thanks for all the jibberish, but it doesn't contain any actual threat to russia.

There you are again... trying to apply logic.

So... Let's say:

- A gets hold of nukes.
- B responds in fear by also getting nukes to be able to respond
- A gets more nukes, to have the upper hand.
- B decides to do the same
- Now A decides to add defense systems that can down B's nukes.

Now tell me those defense systems aren't a threat OR could atleast be interpreted as one by B.

Who had nukes first in this world?

This is not being appologetic, but you clearly lack the abiltiy to put yourself in the shoes of the other party.

How many missile launchers were installed in Poland?

How many ICBMs does russia have?

Not a threat to russia in any way.




For the sake of argument, let's say that russia actually is threatened in some way by the air defense missiles in Poland, how many Ukrainians will putin need to kill in order to eliminate that threat?

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
How can you make the assertion that US withdrawal from ABM treaty did not sour relations and impact Russia’s behaviour to other treaties in place?? As thats what I am asserting.

Because Putin said it was not a threat to Russia... unless he was lying? Was he? Also, under that treaty Russia actually had there own ABM shield for Moscow and as far as I know it is still in operation.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
Same way west placed sanctions on Russia, destabilising the ruble and Russia responds by demanding gas exports are paid for in rubles. Its the same thing. The treaties are different, but when one party is leaving a critical treaty that is having an adverse affect on how other parties continue the relationship.

The problem here is Russia trying to unilaterally dictate payment in Rubles, which is not what the contracts say (for European countries its in Euros). By doing this Russia is not only violating the treaties, but they are nullifying them.

As for sanctions. Russia decided to invade Ukraine. The West decided to not do business with Russia. Its not an act of war but life. Why should countries be forced to do business with Russia?

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
It’s a completely logical assertion to make on my part. Naturally you will defend Americas actions in withdrawing, but I know US experts that didn’t view it as a positive, or needed.

Kind of like Putins advisors and ministers who saw no reason to invade Ukraine and didnt support the action? Hell his personal assistant just quit because of the invasion of Ukraine. Withdrawing from the ABM treaty makes sense because the relevant agreements did not cover China (or any of the other declared nuke nations). As I said Putin did not see it as a threat to Russia. He only did recently because it was politically expedient. Russia violated the INF treaty and the US didnt withdraw from it until 2019, 11 years after Russia violated it.

I say this out of respect because I always love what you write and I learn alot from you but the second sentence is a StrawMan argument. I don’t understand why you were refuting a position I never made in the post. a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Yes I agree with you about Putin on resurrecting a czar fantasy empire. I keep hearing the media say he wants to bring back communism and the USSR but in his auto biography he rails against communism and the USSR and blames the fall of his country on those ideals. a reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
I saw an interview from the former President and he said he didn’t step down. He fled the country with his life because the protesters broke into the main building he was in and wanted to kill him. They doesn’t sound very Democratic to me. a reply to: Xcathdra

and as I said the RADA reverted back to the old constitution. Under it, by fleeing he abandoned his post and the Rada was within its authority to fill the vacant position.

As far as killing and undemocratic the same applies to deploying snipers to shoot cops and protestors, only for Russia to take them in and protect them. The former leader of Ukraine, after he fled to Russia, was actually pissed because Russia used it as a reason to invade Ukraine and seize Crimea. An action he did not support nor did he endorse it.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
I say this out of respect because I always love what you write and I learn alot from you but the second sentence is a StrawMan argument. I don’t understand why you were refuting a position I never made in the post. a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Wasn't intended as an arguement of any kind, just a statement of my position on the issue.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

He also said one of the greatest crimes was the collapse of the Soviet Union. He has now shut down all independent media (either closed them or spend 15 years in prison for reporting "false" info). The right to protest has been curtailed. The only way for russian citizens to get news is by way of state controlled media. Feel free to hop over to RT's website and see how its being reported.

The average russian citizen does not know whats going on in Ukraine.

On Friday 25 March, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced a shift of strategy in Ukraine to consolidate territory east of the Dnieper River, which forms a natural border. Russia intends to take Kharkov.




Last week it was leaked by Ukraine that Polish forces will cross the border into Western Ukraine.
To avert the need for a nuclear exchange Russia will annexe eastern Ukraine into a greater Donbas.
Lvov is likely to become the new capital of Ukraine.



Time is on Russia's side as NATO exhausts itself in a state of high alert.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Polish air defense missiles are a threat to russia?

Or the fact that some countries aspire to join a defensive alliance meant to defend against a russian invasion, is a threat to russia?

Sounds pretty absurd.

Thanks for all the jibberish, but it doesn't contain any actual threat to russia.

There you are again... trying to apply logic.

So... Let's say:

- A gets hold of nukes.
- B responds in fear by also getting nukes to be able to respond
- A gets more nukes, to have the upper hand.
- B decides to do the same
- Now A decides to add defense systems that can down B's nukes.

Now tell me those defense systems aren't a threat OR could atleast be interpreted as one by B.

Who had nukes first in this world?

This is not being appologetic, but you clearly lack the abiltiy to put yourself in the shoes of the other party.

How many missile launchers were installed in Poland?

How many ICBMs does russia have?

Not a threat to russia in any way.




For the sake of argument, let's say that russia actually is threatened in some way by the air defense missiles in Poland, how many Ukrainians will putin need to kill in order to eliminate that threat?

Well that's not the point is it? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you have to look how the other side can CHOOSE to interpret any amount of change in regards to posture or troop gathering.

This isn't really a debate about fairness or rational logic. We are way past that. The state Putin is in, he could threaten nuclear war if NATO put a single soldier with a rifle right on the border of Poland and Ukraine.

So, it really really really doens't matter what WE think is or is not a threat. We have to understand where Putin is coming from and tackle this differently.

Get this, Ukraine wants 1,000 missiles a day. 500 stingers and 500 Javelins.
The new Javelins cost about 250K each. The missile only for the stinger 120K.

The defense industry is handing out sales bonuses and complimentary beach condos to their employees.sarc

War is a racket. Who benefits? Someone always benefits and it is never the taxpayers.

a reply to: flice

Thousands of western operatives are and have been active in Ukraine

a reply to: Xcathdra

He has now shut down all independent media (either closed them or spend 15 years in prison for reporting "false" info). The right to protest has been curtailed. The only way for russian citizens to get news is by way of state controlled media.

That also describes Ukraine except I think they just kill protestors. Then again I doubt any are brave enough to protest. They have killed plenty of chickens to scare the monkeys even before the war.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Polish air defense missiles are a threat to russia?

Or the fact that some countries aspire to join a defensive alliance meant to defend against a russian invasion, is a threat to russia?

Sounds pretty absurd.

Thanks for all the jibberish, but it doesn't contain any actual threat to russia.

There you are again... trying to apply logic.

So... Let's say:

- A gets hold of nukes.
- B responds in fear by also getting nukes to be able to respond
- A gets more nukes, to have the upper hand.
- B decides to do the same
- Now A decides to add defense systems that can down B's nukes.

Now tell me those defense systems aren't a threat OR could atleast be interpreted as one by B.

Who had nukes first in this world?

This is not being appologetic, but you clearly lack the abiltiy to put yourself in the shoes of the other party.

How many missile launchers were installed in Poland?

How many ICBMs does russia have?

Not a threat to russia in any way.

For the sake of argument, let's say that russia actually is threatened in some way by the air defense missiles in Poland, how many Ukrainians will putin need to kill in order to eliminate that threat?

You distort the subject by oversimplifying Russia's objection to missiles in Poland.

US doctrine includes the use of nuclear first strike.

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the crises caused when Regan deployed the Pershing-ll missile to Germany and Tomahawk cruise missiles to England.

It gave Moscow less than 5 minute to decide whether to launch a retaliatory attack.
IT brought the whole world within 5 minutes of accidental nuclear war in the 1980s. It was an insane provocative act.

The Pershing -ll never stopped production and today it is still in production as the MDTT. basing missiles in Poland , or Ukraine is such a provocative act that nuclear war becomes inevitable.