Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3

a reply to: firerescue

It wasn't that long ago we were talking about Russia attacking a nuclear plant as a line no one should cross.

What do we say if Ukraine does it?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think they should go after Russia's pipeline infrastructure and maybe other infrastructure too.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think they should go after Russia's pipeline infrastructure and maybe other infrastructure too.

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

Funny how no one remembers that in the Gaza war. Civilian targets aren't automatically off limits and aren't automatically war crimes. It depends on a lot of factors.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think they should go after Russia's pipeline infrastructure and maybe other infrastructure too.

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

Funny how no one remembers that in the Gaza war. Civilian targets aren't automatically off limits and aren't automatically war crimes. It depends on a lot of factors.

True, but doesn't it stand to reason that cutting off Putin's profits is the smart way to go.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think they should go after Russia's pipeline infrastructure and maybe other infrastructure too.

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

Funny how no one remembers that in the Gaza war. Civilian targets aren't automatically off limits and aren't automatically war crimes. It depends on a lot of factors.

True, but doesn't it stand to reason that cutting off Putin's profits is the smart way to go.

I did say they're legitimate targets.

If only the West was on board with hitting Putin where it hurts.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think they should go after Russia's pipeline infrastructure and maybe other infrastructure too.

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

Funny how no one remembers that in the Gaza war. Civilian targets aren't automatically off limits and aren't automatically war crimes. It depends on a lot of factors.

True, but doesn't it stand to reason that cutting off Putin's profits is the smart way to go.

I did say they're legitimate targets.

If only the West was on board with hitting Putin where it hurts.

I think they are by giving Ukraine F16s, am I right?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

If someone had invaded my country I personally would consider almost anything a legitimate target in retaliation.
Obviously deliberately targeting civilian populations is a bit of a no-no nowadays......but anything else would be fine in my book.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

If someone had invaded my country I personally would consider almost anything a legitimate target in retaliation.
Obviously deliberately targeting civilian populations is a bit of a no-no nowadays......but anything else would be fine in my book.

I would mostly agree. But international law applies equally to the attacking and the attacked.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

If someone had invaded my country I personally would consider almost anything a legitimate target in retaliation.
Obviously deliberately targeting civilian populations is a bit of a no-no nowadays......but anything else would be fine in my book.

I would mostly agree. But international law applies equally to the attacking and the attacked.

International law seems to be a lame duck, IMO.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think they should go after Russia's pipeline infrastructure and maybe other infrastructure too.

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

Funny how no one remembers that in the Gaza war. Civilian targets aren't automatically off limits and aren't automatically war crimes. It depends on a lot of factors.

True, but doesn't it stand to reason that cutting off Putin's profits is the smart way to go.

I did say they're legitimate targets.

If only the West was on board with hitting Putin where it hurts.

I think they are by giving Ukraine F16s, am I right?

We're still scolding Ukraine not to launch attacks into Russia with equipment we provide them. And every analysis I've seen is that this number of 16s will help Ukraine with air superiority and close air support, but isn't gonna significantly change the balance of power.

They are no threat to Putin's hold on power, no.

A more lucrative energy target for Kyiv is to blow up the pipeline heading toward western Europe. Attacking a nuclear energy plant will only bring bad press and diplomatic pressure.

Cheers

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I've thought a good option for Ukraine to draw Russian troops out of their territory is to permanently occupy bordering parts of Russia. That will shift Putin's priorities, and, make him look less omnipotent to the Russian people. Take the war to Russia and make the Kremlin dance to Kyiv's tune.

Yes, though it remains to be seen if they can permanently occupy Russian territory. That certainly makes more sense to me than the way Ukraine held on to Krynky so long, on the east bank of the Dnipro, near Kherson.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
Prigozhin, by most accounts, was the deadliest bullet in that gun, and when he made his move it was barely a whimper. There were "experts" giddy on cable news about how this was it, Putin was done. Biggest foot in mouth moment I've seen in years.

That was a confusing mess, but Prigozhin said he wasn't trying to depose Putin, it was Shoigu and Gerasimov he was after. Nonetheless, Putin didn't appreciate it and he was worried enough to order excavators to dig trenches in the highways to Moscow to prevent Prigozhin's forces from going there.

If anything Putin has consolidated his hold on power. The West's token sanctions were also carefully crafted to avoid really hitting him much, which no one ever wants to talk about and ask why?

I thought it was obvious, but as much as the Ukraine war seems like hell, it's not nearly as much of a disaster as would happen if Russia collapses and control of their nuclear weapons is lost. So sanctions are not aimed as much at destroying Putin personally as they are at reducing his ability to fund the war and to employ advanced technologies like precision guided munitions. But he probably does have more control over the media now, allowing him to bombard his people with whatever propaganda he wants and limit access to other sources. Russia is even in the process of banning youtube. I hear Russians will probably lose youtube access by the end of the year. (though a few VPNs may still be legal in Russia and that might be a loophole, but even the legal VPNs might be state run and monitored. They have a list of illegal VPNs in Russia.)

ETA: Now, of course, the revisionists act like Prigozhin was never a threat to Putin and him failing doesn't mean anything. That's definitely not what was said at the time.

That's not the way I remember it, in fact it was Prigozhin himself who said at the time he wasn't after Putin, he was after Shoigu and Gerasimov. Here's an article from back then saying something like that:

Wagner’s march on Moscow does not spell Putin’s downfall

When Prigozhin resurfaced two days later, he claimed what he called the “march of justice” was just a protest against Russia’s military top brass, not a coup attempt.

In other words, he wasn't trying to overthrow Putin, and if you listened to all his rants right before that, they were always about Shoigu and Gerasimov, not about Putin.

Despite that, some media sources tried to spin it as threatening Putin and I think Putin himself felt threatened.
I would also note that Prigozhin was only stopped though negotiations, not by force, so we don't really know how it would have played out if he kept going to Moscow.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
a reply to: firerescue

It wasn't that long ago we were talking about Russia attacking a nuclear plant as a line no one should cross.

What do we say if Ukraine does it?

Ukraine isn't going to attack the nuclear plant. But if they instill a little uncertainty and let Russians think what's fair for the Russians is fair for Ukraine, that may actually serve a purpose without actually attacking the plant. Just make Russia nervous and feel like they are not as in control as they thought, of their own territory.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think they should go after Russia's pipeline infrastructure and maybe other infrastructure too.

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

Funny how no one remembers that in the Gaza war. Civilian targets aren't automatically off limits and aren't automatically war crimes. It depends on a lot of factors.

True, but doesn't it stand to reason that cutting off Putin's profits is the smart way to go.

I did say they're legitimate targets.

If only the West was on board with hitting Putin where it hurts.

I think they are by giving Ukraine F16s, am I right?

We're still scolding Ukraine not to launch attacks into Russia with equipment we provide them. And every analysis I've seen is that this number of 16s will help Ukraine with air superiority and close air support, but isn't gonna significantly change the balance of power.

They are no threat to Putin's hold on power, no.

Well I was listening to an independent guy in his car (over there) giving his two cents about all of this and he thinks the dozens more F-16s coming down the pipeline coupled with their excellent drone army can inflict great damage. Who knows until they try, right?

Remember people, this is not an invasion. It's a special military operation aimed at protecting and liberating Ukrainian speaking Russians from the bloody Nazi Moscow regime. Freedom for Kursk! Let's grant Kursk People's Republic long deserved autonomy.

a reply to: twistedpuppy

Kursk obviously needs de-Nazifying. Probably bioweapons labs, too.

a reply to: quintessentone

How come Ukrainian war planes can fly into Russia, apparently unmolested?

Must be embarrassing for Russians.

Anyone know what type?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think they should go after Russia's pipeline infrastructure and maybe other infrastructure too.

Such targets, even though they are civilian infrastructure, are legitimate military targets.

Funny how no one remembers that in the Gaza war. Civilian targets aren't automatically off limits and aren't automatically war crimes. It depends on a lot of factors.

True, but doesn't it stand to reason that cutting off Putin's profits is the smart way to go.

I did say they're legitimate targets.

If only the West was on board with hitting Putin where it hurts.

I think they are by giving Ukraine F16s, am I right?

We're still scolding Ukraine not to launch attacks into Russia with equipment we provide them. And every analysis I've seen is that this number of 16s will help Ukraine with air superiority and close air support, but isn't gonna significantly change the balance of power.

They are no threat to Putin's hold on power, no.

Well I was listening to an independent guy in his car (over there) giving his two cents about all of this and he thinks the dozens more F-16s coming down the pipeline coupled with their excellent drone army can inflict great damage. Who knows until they try, right?

Also there’s further development and chatter that Tom Cruise will be heading the squadron for Top Gun 3: Cruise to Kursk.

I think the most responsible thing to do is for Russia to unconditionally cede control of Kursk to Ukraine so they can prevent any needless bloodshed.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
I think the most responsible thing to do is for Russia to unconditionally cede control of Kursk to Ukraine so they can prevent any needless bloodshed.

They should cede the entire oblast to Ukraine, not just the part Ukraine controls! But maybe that should happen after Ukraine conducts a fake annexation vote in the small part they control.

a reply to: Imhere

Doesn't seem that he will be needed?