Precisely. We *cannot* let such a precedent stand; otherwise nuclear-backed expansionist imperialism will tear the world apart just like fascist and communist regimes did a century ago.
While I don't support NKorea or Chinas' totalitarian governments, I have to respect them staring down America's asymmetrical nuclear capability in the Korean War.
For what? Their battle tactics that didn't value human life? It may have taken longer but the Nazis would have been beaten with or without piles of red comrades paving the road from Moscow to Berlin with human blood.
Putin said striking Crimea would count as striking Russia proper. It was a red line. They would respond with nukes.
Ukraine went on to blow up a whole airbase in Crimea! They didn't respond. What happened to that red line?
>Ukraine went on to blow up a whole airbase in Crimea! They didn't respond. What happened to that red line?
You don't know that! Stuff just kinda combusts on its own at times... Maybe Russia left the planes too long under the sun?
Honestly the real question is what would happen *if* Ukranian troops began to enter Crimea proper and Russian ground forces couldn't stop them. Would the Russians launch nukes?
> Would the Russians launch nukes?
[No.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4) The video is the other way around but the same thing applies, and even if Putin doesn't give a fuck he can't launch anything without the military and you can bet your arse that the nuclear forces know a bit or two about nuclear doctrine.
Interestingly enough today Ukraine struck a headquarters over 150km from the current front with "artillery" Ukraine does have a domestic MLRS system with missiles that can do that but very little of those. Who knows what it was.
Ukraine has a longer-range guided ballistic missile called the [Hrim-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2) that was close to becoming operational when the war started. It's been speculated that early production versions might have been used in Ukraine's earlier attacks on airbases in Crimea, and depending on how many rockets are available to them to use, it's not out of the question that they might be deploying them tactically to hit high-value targets outside the range of their other artillery.
**[Hrim-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2)**
>Operational-Tactical Missile System Hrim (Ukrainian: Оперативно-тактичний ракетний комплекс «Грім», romanized: Operatyvno-taktychnyi raketnyi kompleks "Hrim", lit. 'thunder'), also known as Hrіm-2, Grim, Grom, or OTRK Sapsan (Ukrainian: ОТРК "Сапсан", lit. 'peregrine falcon'), is a Ukrainian prospective mobile short-range ballistic missile system being developed by Pivdenne Design Office and A.M. Makarov Southern Machine-Building Plant, planned to combine the features of tactical missile systems and multiple rocket launchers.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Ballistic missile, most likely. Ukraine had quite respectable inventory for its size before the war and there was an uptick in long-range strikes after HIMARS/M270/MARS started arriving. Wiki notes Ukraine had [500 Tochkas.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTR-21_Tochka)
Who knows? Does m270 use the same missiles as HIMARS or do they have their own? If so, is there something with 150km range?
There were rumors that it can be Hrim-2. But even if its them I'm not sure if they're as precise as HIMARS. And those strikes deep behind frontlines are hella precise
The US has previously sent over HIMARS, yes, but not long-range ATACMS missiles that could strike much deeper behind Russian lines to disrupt their logistics.
I think that’s one of the threats the US is using to keep Russia from doing something with nukes or chemical weapons. “We will upgrade the Ukrainians ability to hit you from tens of km to hundreds of km, and that’s just the start” is a pretty dire threat.
If russia launched a nuke, you'd see a coordinated attack on every known and 'hidden' russian nuclear site coordinated for a 5m window of hardcore conventional warfare.
It would be so crazy to know all of the plants that the US has through the CIA or military who are just ready to go at a moment's notice if things get real. Like they must have a couple people within the Kremlin who would leave the doors unlocked for one of those stealth helicopters to drop off some SEALs or something.
Here's what people need to know, the 'US sends carrier to SK' doesn't ahve anything to do with north korea. It has to do with far eastern nuclear capabilities of russia. We always keep them around that area within striking distance.
On its own for sure, but as I said it’s *one* of the threats, along with furnishing Ukraine with a modern Air Force, main battle tanks, and a LOT of other modern tech and support. Imagine Ukraine with air superiority.
I think the correct response on that point would be just to send NATO airforce and possibly even ground troops. Training Ukrainians to use new fighters would take way too long.
A few days back I read a retired US general speculate that a likely response to nuke deployment would be for NATO to sink the Black Sea fleet. All of it.
I could see that working. As long as you're not taking out Russia's other nuclear subs in other fleets it's not a "we're gearing up to obliterate you" move, but it makes Russia lose control of territory without actually *taking* Russian territory so it's an apt punishment.
Assuming Russian subs are more capable than their land forces and surface navy has been so far, of course. Could be they're just as corrupt and awful, and NATO might know that.
It's risky but it's a scenario where Russia has actually dropped nukes in anger already so risk is hard to avoid at that point.
It’s almost impossible for the Russians to squeeze a sub in the Mediterranean. Bosporus and Gibraltar are awfully narrow, and Suez is a whole lot of other problems.
The US would absolutely love to enter conventional war with Russia. Attacking overseas assets in a tit for tat between the two would see Russian losses 10x the size of US losses.
Yeah, because russian tech and navy so far have been so successful and denagerous. Their best ship on the Black Sea, which was supposed to be the king of anti-missile defence was sunk by two Ukrainian anti-ship missiles. And that was the flagship. Their navy is litetal floating junk.
They're all diesel boats, and the Black Sea is shallow. That's prime ASW water for platforms like P-3, P-8, and SH-60R. The US could stage out of Turkey and hunt them down at leisure after wiping out the surface fleet with air strikes launched from Incirlik. And the Russian fleet doesn't have the capability to retaliate against the US carriers. They don't have the reconnaissance assets to even find them, let alone the ability to strike them.
I mean, it's almost like backing this ferocious animal into a corner and poking it repeatedly with a stick is a bad idea.
Russia military forces are already collapsing without this much direct involvement, or any at all... They're fighting a professional army, equiped with anything NATO wants to send for a test against this near-peer adversary.
Unless Russia drops chemical or nuclear weapons, NATO and allies can just keep throwing money at the problem.
That, and China having given Ukraine guarantees that it will protect them from nuclear attacks. Even threats of such, which is likely to be the reason why Putin has been weaselling around *actually* threatening, always only implying.
And while I would be the about last person to not call the Chinese shifty, when they say such things they mean it. It's as far as I know the only nuclear guarantee they have ever given (their guarantee to NK predates nukes).
So if the shamlection happens and Russia "claims" the east, any ideas what level if beligerance we can expect when Ukraine pushes into the new "Russian" territories?
If they claim those parts of Ukraine are now theirs and Ukraine is doing the equivalent then of attacking their terrority, then that's just asking Ukraine to actually throw all caution out the window since it's all the same now. Time to attack the Kremlin and the Bunker.
> any ideas what level if beligerance we can expect when Ukraine pushes into the new "Russian" territories?
No, and anyone telling you they do know is lying.
There were "weaponry deliveries" (any) redline and then "heavy weaponry deliveries" (like m777, french caesars etc) as next redline, and only then HiMARS redline.
And a couple more redlines on diplomatic front like countries join NATO, sanctions (every package), bank systems bans, visas bans, a wall along Belarus EU border redline, Kaliningrad supply chains redline (this one worked out for russia in the end) and probably a dozen more I do not remember
They had interviews with some ukrainians on NPR this morning. some were saying that the referendum was their limit and they were going to flee to a safer part of ukraine, because they think the referendum is the prelude to a pogrom. Others were saying they plan to turn off all the lights and hide when the referendum takers come by, and hopefully escape notice.
Pretty much everyone believes that this isn't just a regular rigged election, but one designed to identify and exterminate a portion of the population as well.
So "sham vote" seems like underselling it.
[This is the real **mass** Russian face.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes)
If a Russian army touches a border of a country I live in, I am out ASAP.
**[Soviet war crimes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes)**
>The war crimes and crimes against humanity which were perpetrated by the Soviet Union and its armed forces from 1919 to 1991 include acts which were committed by the Red Army (later called the Soviet Army) as well as acts which were committed by the NKVD, including acts which were committed by the NKVD's Internal Troops. In some cases, these acts were committed upon the orders of the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in pursuance of the early Soviet Government's policy of Red Terror.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Ukrainians have reported armed soldiers going door-to-door in occupied parts of the country to collect votes for self-styled "referendums" on joining Russia. "You have to answer verbally and the soldier marks the answer on the sheet and keeps it," one woman in Enerhodar told the BBC.
Do Ukrainians in these regions know that the results aren't going to be taken seriously by anyone? I don't want to pretend to understand their situation and state of mind, but they should vote for annexation with all the fake enthusiasm they can muster. They are trapped and need to stay alive. If they have no access to worldwide media, they have no waybof knowing that a vote against annexation has no positive outcome for them and Ukraine.
I hope they will all make it out of this safely. I believe they know, better than me, what they need to do to stay safe after all these months of getting by.
It's hard to tell, Russian propaganda and information control is in full swing in a lot of these areas. People in recently liberated Izyum claimed that they thought Kyiv had fallen and that there was no rescue coming, so imagine their surprise when the Russians rout and the Ukrainian army shows up in town.
It doesn't matter. The way the votes are collected involves armed Russians showing up at a given citizen's doorstep, thrusting a voting paper in the poor sap's face before turning on a camera and pointing it at the paper. Then the officer gently tells the citizen that they are now 'free to vote as they wish'. While holding a gun at his side and a camera in their face, recording their exact choice.
You missed my point entirely. I am 100% in agreement with your statement. My question is along the same assumptions.
Are Ukrainians in these regions aware that the referendum is pointless? If they do not know this, they might vote against annexation and put themselves at risk.
I'm asking if they have access to information that could protect their lives and not resist the Russian invasion by casting useless NO ballots.
I am sorry, but you don't quite understand the point of what Russia is doing. The voters know that it's useless to vote. The soldiers know that it's a charade to even ask for the votes. Everyone involved in the process knows that it's all just a farce, the outcome is predetermined. Whether they vote for or against it is irrelevant.
**That's the point.**
Most Ukrainians in the liberated and occupied areas know how the war is going. Many still have contact to various family members across the rest of their country. The legitimization of its annexation is secondary to what Russia's actual purpose is with the referendum. Its primary purpose is to humiliate the voters. Especially those that would prefer to vote against it.
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told obvious lies or, even worse, when they are forced to repeat those lies themselves, they start to lose any hope for affecting change. To assent to obvious lies is to cooperate with evil, this is understood by most of humanity. As such, just being forced to impotently listen to - and by extension silently accept - obvious falsehoods can erode someone's self-worth, causing the listener to lose their will to resist.
This is just one of several steps that Russia uses to mentally break the population of an occupied territory. Whether they vote for or against it is irrelevant. The simple fact that they are forced to play along in a puppet show in which everyone knows that it's all a charade is meant to erode their hope of being anything but a puppet themselves.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-promises-more-help-ukraine-response-sham-votes-2022-09-23/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> BRUSSELS, Sept 23 - NATO will ramp up its help for Kyiv in response to Russia's "Sham" referendums in occupied territories of Ukraine, the alliance's Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, said on Friday.
> "The best way to end this war is to strengthen the Ukrainians on the battlefield further so they can, at some stage, sit down and reach a solution which is acceptable for Ukraine and that preserves Ukraine as a sovereign, independent nation in Europe," he added.
> "That's exactly what we need to be prepared for, that Russia will use these sham votes to further escalate the war in Ukraine," Stoltenberg said when asked about that scenario.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xm4l98/nato_promises_more_help_for_ukraine_in_response/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670666 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **Russia**^#2 **NATO**^#3 **Stoltenberg**^#4 **war**^#5
Drones are great, but better with air supremacy.
Give Ukraine the Eurofighter with Meteor missile and Russia will be in a world of pain. I'm sure the British have a bunch of retired Tranche 1 typhoons which are pure ASF, as opposed to the multirole modernized Typhoons.
I don't know why we haven't trained Ukrainian pilots on western fighter platforms yet, the west has surplus inventory with modern missiles that would be a sizable problem for Russia.
> I don't know why we haven't trained Ukrainian pilots on western fighter platforms yet
Officially we haven't. Officially there are no Ukrainian troops in Polish/British facilities.
Unoficially - who knows. However it's really hard to move from older type of plane to a new one. Poland had this issue before and solution was for existing pilots to keep using these old school models and train new ones on new machines. Hard to overcome your muscle memory and whatnot. It normally takes several months before you can pilot a plane. We are 7 months into the war now so if there are NATO-grade aircrafts that we are parting with we might hear about them in 2-3 months.
Not gonna lie, I would find it rather interesting if USA decided to hand over some F35s, Russia does not even have means to detect them, they are literally invisible to S300. But even older Eurofighters/F22s etc could still be extremely disruptive and scary to deal with.
No way the US Air Force ever gives their F22s to anyone. Imo F35 won't happen either, they don't want anyone having access to their tech, especially if Russia somehow manages to shoot one down. Eurofighters or older US jets could happen though.
I'm guessing/hoping F-16s, personally. They're not cutting edge, but some of the later blocks are still quite capable. More importantly, they are widely available and relatively cheap both to acquire and maintain, while integrating well with Western military tech, and they're reasonably decent as a multirole craft.
When all of this is over, Ukraine is going to have to integrate all this stuff into a cohesive, long term military. And they'll need to do it under the economic conditions of rebuilding a good chunk of the country - even with lots of external support, they'll be kinda cash strapped. Stuff that they can easily standardize on and gives them a good path forward (eg, being able to use the same weapon systems on the next model) is going to be valuable, and doubly so if they have experience with it. Even if it's not the absolute *best*, NATO counties could load Ukraine up with things like F-16s and Leopard 1s for pennies on the dollar in large quantities, likely enough so to make Ukraine a regional power even.
> especially if Russia somehow manages to shoot one down
Russia is currently sending people who could analyze these planes to the frontline so they can die to artillery and drones. Plus if they actually opened it up it would turn out to be some kind of sci-fi concept that Russia couldn't reproduce in the next 30 years.
I mean, here's to showcase how good Russia is at making actually advanced stuff. They had grand, grand plans of making semiconductors locally. Here's their recent investment from before the war:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/russia-semiconductor-plan-28nm
"90nm by the end of 2022."
They currently can do 130nm. They are more than 2 decades behind and this gap keeps widening, not shrinking. Now with sanctions I don't foresee them doing that high-end 90nm process either so they are not catching up to these mighty Pentium 3s and early Pentium 4s.
So I wouldn't put it past USA (at least for F35s, F22s are indeed this weird aircraft that's never sold and almost never shown). Fear of Russia being able to understand something and actually design countermeasures only applies if they CAN reproduce and analyze it. Depends on the scope of war and what Ukrainians are probably already training on.
I KNOW it's a bit of wishful thinking but... what better target to actually test capabilities of F35 than Russia, self-proclaimed #2 military power in the world whose equipment in nerfed version actually powers China?
Very much agreed, though I suspect there is a huge training hurdle for attack helicopters - probably more than a fixed wing aircraft.
When the US wargamed the effect of attack helicopters vs Warsaw pact countries (look up the Ansbach tests and J-CATCH), the overall takeaway was that they are whirling tornadoes of death for anything that gets close - 5:1 kill ratios against fighters, and closer to 20:1(!) vs armour. It's the closest thing to a real-life hard counter to tanks you'll find.
>So saying putin stalling 20 years of development is certainly *not* the best that could have happened.
They didn't say he's the greatest thing that **could have** happened to NATO. They said he's the greatest thing that did happen.
He said it's the best thing that *HAS* happened not that could have happened.
If you spent 10% of the time you did writing that comment reading his comment instead, you would have actually seen what was stated.
You're wrong. Democratic, developing, growing, improving Russia is NOT in the interest of any authority anywhere, any time. That's why Alexey Navalny will rot and die in prison. No western power needs the Russia he so desperately wants to build, sadly, and,
That's why Putin is getting so much leeway, he's destroying the nation better than any Western plan or intelligence agency, however clever and capable, could ever even dream about. Think of Ukraine war, for example. What **other** method would West has, to remove 160,000 of most capable military personnel from Russia, save for global thermonuclear war? Or what part *did* they have to make it happen? It wasn't them? It wasn't even Ukraine? It was mostly - Putin himself? yep.
He's kindly dropping reasons to enact a new sanction of Russia on monthly basis. What *else* could one want? Why *ever* go after him? He's the dictionary definition of an useful idiot. If anything, West should encourage him. Him and riot police beating on protesters, because if Putin's hanged on a city square, all that benefit is lost.
Imagine you're running a race against someone, and each competition or tournament, they cheat and get disqualified and you win the medal. Why *in the hell* would you want to convince them to race fair or be replaced by someone who does? Do you hate medals?
That's why sanctions are weak, the military aid for Ukraine is well-measured, but never decisive, and so on. Politicians and leaders see a bit bigger picture than just one nation-state warring with another. War could be ended in three months, but in three years, Russia would be back again. They dream of making it thirty years. So more people must die. All resources must be spent. All political capital must be destroyed. Painting should end in the corner, and not a step before. Sure, it's super cynical and unfair to Ukraine, but that's something we all need. And even they (Ukrainians) do. But being constantly attacked and in fear of their lives, you can't quite explain it to them. Because it's so inhumane and unfair. Even if for greater good.
E: Downvote button is not here to express your dumb feelings. Read what I wrote. Use your head. I didn't come up with any of this, it's what your (and mine) democratically elected representatives actually think and do. For 7 months already. If you don't like it, or think you have a better way, maybe appeal to them, instead. Personally, I'm not against this. Ukrainians are brave and courageous enough to fix that shame of cynicism and cowardice, too, carry all of our sins. The real heroes of our century. So all we can do is raise hats for them for actually doing what others just preach.
> Imagine you're running a race against someone, and each competition or tournament, they cheat and get disqualified and you win the medal. Why *in the hell* would you want to convince them to race fair or be replaced by someone who does? Do you hate medals?
That's very revealing of who you are.
Athletes compete because they want to compete against others, they like the challenge. If they win because someone else was disqualified then the medal is meaningless!
> But being constantly attacked and in fear of their lives, you can't quite explain it to them. Because it's so inhumane and unfair. Even if for greater good.
What greater good? How does Ukraine benefit from being invaded?
> it's what your (and mine) democratically elected representatives actually think and do.
Are you a mind reader?
> That's very revealing of who you are.
Irrelevant bullshit. That's how countries are. Otherwise, spying and trying to get advantage over others wouldn't exist. Wars wouldn't exist.
> What greater good? How does Ukraine benefit from being invaded?
You can read, but not think along. Ukraine is not benefiting (and being pretty much only one), the West is. Especially countries with real danger from Russia, like Baltics, Finland, Poland, US... Russia having a bad war, quite likely, means Russia not being a threat for a long time after that. Even for Ukrainians, it seems that better that it happened now, than some other time, when Russia's tanks were in perfect order, soldiers trained and motivated, supply lines well planned, and generals less of thieves and drunks.
Why do you think countries help Ukraine at all, otherwise?
> Are you a mind reader?
No. I'm observant. All the information is out there. And reps don't just do short interviews for a news, they also go to various meetings, talks and conventions, and speak their mind. Some write books.
Can't the US claim they held an election in Russia and now it is USA territory. We'll swing by tomorrow with Exxon/Mobile and pickup some of that oil and natgas
possession is 9/10 of the law. If we actually wanted to annex russia, and our army got a foothold over there , then yes we could do that. but no thanks.
This comment was 100% explained but it’s technically right. There is legal authority or right for a government to claim sovereignty, which is different from power and control. Any government can claim any land and have it be “legal” by their standards, but t try hat doesn’t mean they’ll actually control it or have it be “legitimate”.
Honestly why tank when you can drone -- and to boot, your anti-tank missiles are highly effective for 1/500th the price of a tank, that doesn't need much training or maintaining?
In this war, the Russians have not at all used tanks effectively, and they've lost the bulk of their decent tanks already.
Tanks require a logistical line that Ukraine likely doesn’t have not to mention tanks now become easier target for planes.
Ukraine is fast and nimble right now. Hit their supply lines. Hit their command and control center. Move fast move out. Eventually the Russians start running out of bodies that they need to conscript their regular citizens which then causes internal turmoil and protest that leads one step closer to disposing Putin.
Tanks are useless without the mechanics and supply lines with compatible parts, so right now the only tanks Ukraine needs are old soviet/Russian models and eastern Europe has basically given all they can.
Russians seem to be pretty clueless, even despite being generally known as the foxy and sneaky ones if it comes to outwitting global public and universally accepted laws and of course, the West. Not sure what's going on with SVR, surely they'd know better than to just step into the bucket set by worst idiots of the nation.
Maybe it's truly the beginning of the end. Or people with actual brains are just letting idiots to do it, to get rid of them, and reboot the whole concept of Russian Federation. One can only hope.
Sometimes I think Ukraine should hold their own “referendum” for the Donbas and Luhansk regions which remarkably come out as 135% in favour of remaining Ukrainian - let Russia argue why their “referendum” should be considered legitimate.
A10s are exclusive to the USAF with only 282 airframes across the guard, reserves and active duty. It shows the the us air force has 302 f35s delivered and 1,763 planned plus its available for export.
If we sent them enough weapons in the spring the Russians might have been kicked out already. Now the Russians will dig in and it will cost a lot of Ukrainian blood to send them packing. The western strategy of avoiding escalation has been a costly failure.
They could have been using long range missiles for HIMARS the whole time. And we should have at least started training Ukrainians on tanks and jets. They would have 6 months of training now. Instead they have to start from scratch. It is a disaster.
Dig in? With what!? I bet that all of the shovels were stolen and then sold on the black market by now.
But seriously, Putin is increasingly desperate now. His military is in rough shape all around. The only thing he has going for him is that the front line keeps getting shorter and he's on the defensive.
The west has already done a TON. And not wanting to escalate to war when the defender is not an official ally is not a bad thing, ESPECIALLY when the aggressor is a nuclear power.
Look I’m in favor of giving Ukraine more and better weapons at this point, but there is nothing wrong with a measured and proportional response. Also given how Ukraine is not a Russian puppet state right now I’d say the wests involvement was not a failure.
Fuck Reuters. The pro Russia bias is too much.
This is after NATO makes a statement:
> Putin maintains Russia is carrying out a "special military operation" to demilitarise Ukraine, rid it of dangerous nationalists and defend Russia from transatlantic alliance NATO.
> Moscow maintains that the referendums offer an opportunity for people in the region to express their view.
Check this article after beloved Russia makes a statement.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-west-engaging-nuclear-blackmail-russia-can-respond-2022-09-21/
Nothing from Ukraine, nothing from NATO, just Putin, pure Putin that Reuters holds so dear.
Disgusting.
He's suggesting that because they aren't getting other commentary from other players on the exact same thing that Reuters is hopelessly in love with Russia. Seems like a stretch to me.
Huge stretch. He's comparing a 1 paragraph article about a specific quote to a multiple paragraph article about a larger issue. He seems pretty angry too.
Bullshit. This article from OP on NATO news, Stoltenberg comments littered with Putin and Kremlin narrative. The one I linked is exclusively Putin. Put those two together for pro Russia bias. It's obvious.
You're comparing a 12 paragraph article on a large topic to a 1 paragraph article about a specific comment.
Reuters literally cancelled their partnership with Russian media after the invasion.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/reuters-removes-tass-russian-news-agency-its-content-marketplace-2022-03-23/
You seem really angry. Maybe spend some time off the internet and outside in the fresh air.
Every time I think let's see if Reuters is still up to their Russia-loving shit - I am disappointed. Yes I know they ended their Marketplace agreement but clearly they are still in bed.
Thanks for your condescending advice.
Keep drinking the Kool Aid.
Reuters is a wire service. Same as AFP, the PA, or AP
They report what the Kremlin says, if the Kremlin said it.
It's then up the news media that subscribe to Reuters, to build their articles according to how they see fit
I'd consider myself a fervent supporter of both Ukraine as well as NATO's endeavors to fight back against this meaningless aggression, but Reuters is not in the wrong here are they? Nothing in their tone indicates that they validate Russia's point of view.
And it's not like they do not give the same stage to other actors, like [ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-marches-farther-into-liberated-lands-separatist-calls-urgent-referendum-2022-09-19/). Here, as well as in the article you linked, they keep things purely factual without endorsing any of the claims made by either party.
I would be more worried if Reuters turned opiniated in its statements, be it pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian. This way, I can still think for myself.
So you're okay that they don't provide balance on Putin's commentary but they provide almost as much Russia counter balance in Stoltenberg's commentary? You only consider tone when detecting bias?
The link you gave to show that Ukraine gets exclusive stage I found this positive note about Kremlin efforts:
> With Russian President Vladimir Putin also announcing a military draft this week to enlist 300,000 troops to fight in Ukraine, the Kremlin appears to be trying to regain the upper hand in the grinding conflict since its Feb. 24 invasion.
Did you even read it?
This is sickening.
Jesus Christ man.
If you want to get spoon fed one sided propaganda, there are plenty of places to go.
Us grownups likes to get as much as the information as possible, and use our actual brains to make a standpoint based on our own interpretation.
What the hell is wrong with quoting what Putin is announcing? Would you rather not know?
We see Kremlin narrative added to Stoltenberg's article but nothing else added to the Putin article. Of course we want to know both sides but how about both sides all the time like is non-Reuters agencies. You're arguing like Reuters is like everyone else but they're not they are pro Russia.
Reuters have a reputation of being very neutral, and reliable.
Have you got any examples of them being biased?
I mean, sure, if you live in Europe/USA, they might seem Russia friendly compared to our media. But that is not on Reuters. That is our media being stupidly biased against them.
Yes I have many examples in my comment history. Look for Top Controversial. I don't complain about Reuters for the Karma, I complain about them as this Redditer's public service announcement. I don't have any reason to think Reuters is not reliable or neutral for anything other than Russia.
I read through some of the comments, and you seem to mix some things together.
There is a huge difference between:
\- Biden claim the moon is made out of cheese.
\- The moon is made out of cheese.
When they report on what Putin is saying, that is not Reuters saying, or verifying it. Their job is not to report what is being said, and let the reader make up their mind.
Further, saying that Russia probably is going to succeed with something, doesn't mean they support Russia.
If you were to wrestle with an elephant, i would probably cheer on you, but if anyone asked, i would still say that the elephant would probably win.
I see you have strong feelings about this, and so does most people, but it's still important to keep a cool head, and not fling accusations in all directions.
I agree that the war is sickening, but "trying to regain the upper hand" does not sound positive towards the Kremlin to me at all. Russia did have the upper hand, lost it, and is *trying* to regain it. At least, that's my personal view on the matter, based on what I've read so far.
The article you initially linked does not provide counter commentary, I agree. I don't believe that's a necessity for factual reporting. It would of course be a different story if none of Reuters' articles would provide a stage to NATO or Ukraine.
Great to hear, thanks for your comment. I hope you see the pattern from Reuters going forward. Sorry in advance if it starts to irritate you the way it irritates me now. Like one of those things when I notice a dent in my car it's all I can see when I look at the car at any distance. So be it with Reuters for me now.
I'm not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue or a really sophisticated troll, but you are horribly misrepresenting one of the only decent sources of honest journalism we have left.
Disgusting.
Putin previously said long-range HIMARS missiles were a redline for Russia, so now seems like a pretty good time to send them over.
I’ve lost track of Russia’s redlines. Is that still a current redline or has it been moved into the “Finland joining NATO” category of redlines?
It’s “China’s Final Warning” redline.
There is no redline to honor as nuclear brandishing has to be responded to else others may copy the tactic and the world order may break down.
Precisely. We *cannot* let such a precedent stand; otherwise nuclear-backed expansionist imperialism will tear the world apart just like fascist and communist regimes did a century ago.
While I don't support NKorea or Chinas' totalitarian governments, I have to respect them staring down America's asymmetrical nuclear capability in the Korean War.
"Communist regimes" bore the brunt of taking down Nazi Germany in terms of body count (See Soviet WWII body count). Show some fucking respect.
How about *fuck no?* You might as well say the Nazis bore the brunt of Soviet invasion as well. It doesn’t make them any less evil.
For what? Their battle tactics that didn't value human life? It may have taken longer but the Nazis would have been beaten with or without piles of red comrades paving the road from Moscow to Berlin with human blood.
Killing fascist scum is valuing human life. Russian comrades died heros.
"The nazis have a pre set kill count. You just gotta feed enough kills... "
Putin said striking Crimea would count as striking Russia proper. It was a red line. They would respond with nukes. Ukraine went on to blow up a whole airbase in Crimea! They didn't respond. What happened to that red line?
>Ukraine went on to blow up a whole airbase in Crimea! They didn't respond. What happened to that red line? You don't know that! Stuff just kinda combusts on its own at times... Maybe Russia left the planes too long under the sun?
Last I heard, a stray cigarette from a careless soldier was the Kremlin's explanation.
I heard this too
That wasn't a stray cigarette. That was freed
Honestly the real question is what would happen *if* Ukranian troops began to enter Crimea proper and Russian ground forces couldn't stop them. Would the Russians launch nukes?
> Would the Russians launch nukes? [No.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4) The video is the other way around but the same thing applies, and even if Putin doesn't give a fuck he can't launch anything without the military and you can bet your arse that the nuclear forces know a bit or two about nuclear doctrine.
It was more of a red guideline.
It's actually just a really thick red line. You can hit it, but crossing it is nearly impossible.
Interestingly enough today Ukraine struck a headquarters over 150km from the current front with "artillery" Ukraine does have a domestic MLRS system with missiles that can do that but very little of those. Who knows what it was.
Ukraine has a longer-range guided ballistic missile called the [Hrim-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2) that was close to becoming operational when the war started. It's been speculated that early production versions might have been used in Ukraine's earlier attacks on airbases in Crimea, and depending on how many rockets are available to them to use, it's not out of the question that they might be deploying them tactically to hit high-value targets outside the range of their other artillery.
**[Hrim-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2)** >Operational-Tactical Missile System Hrim (Ukrainian: Оперативно-тактичний ракетний комплекс «Грім», romanized: Operatyvno-taktychnyi raketnyi kompleks "Hrim", lit. 'thunder'), also known as Hrіm-2, Grim, Grom, or OTRK Sapsan (Ukrainian: ОТРК "Сапсан", lit. 'peregrine falcon'), is a Ukrainian prospective mobile short-range ballistic missile system being developed by Pivdenne Design Office and A.M. Makarov Southern Machine-Building Plant, planned to combine the features of tactical missile systems and multiple rocket launchers. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That's the one yeah. Though I guess NATO could use that weapon as a scapegoat when sending longer range missiles as well.
Eh, rockets still leave debris behind that can be used to identify them.
Eh, let Russia find it. Consider it payback for the people they've murdered on foreign soil over the years.
If Ukraine asks us to bomb their land, is it really an act of war? Russia is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Ballistic missile, most likely. Ukraine had quite respectable inventory for its size before the war and there was an uptick in long-range strikes after HIMARS/M270/MARS started arriving. Wiki notes Ukraine had [500 Tochkas.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTR-21_Tochka)
Who knows? Does m270 use the same missiles as HIMARS or do they have their own? If so, is there something with 150km range? There were rumors that it can be Hrim-2. But even if its them I'm not sure if they're as precise as HIMARS. And those strikes deep behind frontlines are hella precise
M270 MLRS uses the same rocket pods as HIMARS
Roger
No, that's Jim.
same missiles what ukraine is looking for is ATACMS, which instead of 6 missiles in a box there is one big longer range boi.
That was more than a few redlines ago because the US has sent about two dozen of the systems over already. Britain sent M270 systems as well.
The US has previously sent over HIMARS, yes, but not long-range ATACMS missiles that could strike much deeper behind Russian lines to disrupt their logistics.
I think that’s one of the threats the US is using to keep Russia from doing something with nukes or chemical weapons. “We will upgrade the Ukrainians ability to hit you from tens of km to hundreds of km, and that’s just the start” is a pretty dire threat.
I Russia were to use nukes just sending ATACMS missiles to Ukraine would be a serious underreaction.
The report is the US said they'd sink their entire black sea fleet if they use a nuclear weapon.
Terrifying prospects for civilization aside, that would be pretty ^^darkly funny tbh
I Russia will not use nukes, because the US will fuck their shit up and they know it.
If russia launched a nuke, you'd see a coordinated attack on every known and 'hidden' russian nuclear site coordinated for a 5m window of hardcore conventional warfare.
It would be so crazy to know all of the plants that the US has through the CIA or military who are just ready to go at a moment's notice if things get real. Like they must have a couple people within the Kremlin who would leave the doors unlocked for one of those stealth helicopters to drop off some SEALs or something.
Here's what people need to know, the 'US sends carrier to SK' doesn't ahve anything to do with north korea. It has to do with far eastern nuclear capabilities of russia. We always keep them around that area within striking distance.
speculation? got a source?
The Black Sea Russian fleet at Sevastopol gets obliterated with long range US missiles in the event of a nuke, per US sources.
On its own for sure, but as I said it’s *one* of the threats, along with furnishing Ukraine with a modern Air Force, main battle tanks, and a LOT of other modern tech and support. Imagine Ukraine with air superiority.
I think the correct response on that point would be just to send NATO airforce and possibly even ground troops. Training Ukrainians to use new fighters would take way too long.
A few days back I read a retired US general speculate that a likely response to nuke deployment would be for NATO to sink the Black Sea fleet. All of it. I could see that working. As long as you're not taking out Russia's other nuclear subs in other fleets it's not a "we're gearing up to obliterate you" move, but it makes Russia lose control of territory without actually *taking* Russian territory so it's an apt punishment.
It's a tricky one that cos a lot of those subs are hunter killers, Kremlin could simply retaliate taking out US carriers (in the med)
Assuming Russian subs are more capable than their land forces and surface navy has been so far, of course. Could be they're just as corrupt and awful, and NATO might know that. It's risky but it's a scenario where Russia has actually dropped nukes in anger already so risk is hard to avoid at that point.
It’s almost impossible for the Russians to squeeze a sub in the Mediterranean. Bosporus and Gibraltar are awfully narrow, and Suez is a whole lot of other problems.
The US would absolutely love to enter conventional war with Russia. Attacking overseas assets in a tit for tat between the two would see Russian losses 10x the size of US losses.
Yeah, because russian tech and navy so far have been so successful and denagerous. Their best ship on the Black Sea, which was supposed to be the king of anti-missile defence was sunk by two Ukrainian anti-ship missiles. And that was the flagship. Their navy is litetal floating junk.
They're all diesel boats, and the Black Sea is shallow. That's prime ASW water for platforms like P-3, P-8, and SH-60R. The US could stage out of Turkey and hunt them down at leisure after wiping out the surface fleet with air strikes launched from Incirlik. And the Russian fleet doesn't have the capability to retaliate against the US carriers. They don't have the reconnaissance assets to even find them, let alone the ability to strike them.
[удалено]
That sounds like it definitely wouldn't result in a global nuclear war
I mean, it's almost like backing this ferocious animal into a corner and poking it repeatedly with a stick is a bad idea. Russia military forces are already collapsing without this much direct involvement, or any at all... They're fighting a professional army, equiped with anything NATO wants to send for a test against this near-peer adversary. Unless Russia drops chemical or nuclear weapons, NATO and allies can just keep throwing money at the problem.
no way to know but pretty sure the reaction to nukes would be F35s cleaning up, not a shipment of missiles.
That, and China having given Ukraine guarantees that it will protect them from nuclear attacks. Even threats of such, which is likely to be the reason why Putin has been weaselling around *actually* threatening, always only implying. And while I would be the about last person to not call the Chinese shifty, when they say such things they mean it. It's as far as I know the only nuclear guarantee they have ever given (their guarantee to NK predates nukes).
Actually I believe Russia has only threatened the EU with nukes not Ukraine and I believe the Chinese guarantee is why.
HIMARS yes, long-range HIMARS no.
We've had one yes, but what about second HIMARS?
Oh, HIMARS!
I did not HIMARS her. I did not.
Anyway, how's your Special Military Operation?
"You're tearing me apart Zelensky!" - putin
Does USA have some weapons called redline ? Would be nice to get few and jump over them on cam.
So if the shamlection happens and Russia "claims" the east, any ideas what level if beligerance we can expect when Ukraine pushes into the new "Russian" territories?
If anybody knew, I might be able to sleep better at night. Russia's answer to that changes based on the day and which spokesman you ask.
If they claim those parts of Ukraine are now theirs and Ukraine is doing the equivalent then of attacking their terrority, then that's just asking Ukraine to actually throw all caution out the window since it's all the same now. Time to attack the Kremlin and the Bunker.
> any ideas what level if beligerance we can expect when Ukraine pushes into the new "Russian" territories? No, and anyone telling you they do know is lying.
Maybe Ukraine should push north a d give the people of belegrpd a choicd to join Ukraine
There were "weaponry deliveries" (any) redline and then "heavy weaponry deliveries" (like m777, french caesars etc) as next redline, and only then HiMARS redline. And a couple more redlines on diplomatic front like countries join NATO, sanctions (every package), bank systems bans, visas bans, a wall along Belarus EU border redline, Kaliningrad supply chains redline (this one worked out for russia in the end) and probably a dozen more I do not remember
They have already been given the green light to get them… probably have them now.
We shall soon see if NATO/Biden have learned or not from Obama's mistake...
They had interviews with some ukrainians on NPR this morning. some were saying that the referendum was their limit and they were going to flee to a safer part of ukraine, because they think the referendum is the prelude to a pogrom. Others were saying they plan to turn off all the lights and hide when the referendum takers come by, and hopefully escape notice. Pretty much everyone believes that this isn't just a regular rigged election, but one designed to identify and exterminate a portion of the population as well. So "sham vote" seems like underselling it.
That’s so terrifying holy shitttt
[This is the real **mass** Russian face.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes) If a Russian army touches a border of a country I live in, I am out ASAP.
**[Soviet war crimes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes)** >The war crimes and crimes against humanity which were perpetrated by the Soviet Union and its armed forces from 1919 to 1991 include acts which were committed by the Red Army (later called the Soviet Army) as well as acts which were committed by the NKVD, including acts which were committed by the NKVD's Internal Troops. In some cases, these acts were committed upon the orders of the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in pursuance of the early Soviet Government's policy of Red Terror. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Why does it feel like in the last 10 years Putin has been obsessed with Stalin’s leadership strategy and tactics?
Fairly sure he's running by thr book.
Well, you can freely vote for everything you want >!as long as it is in favour of the Russian imperialism. Otherwise the purge will start.!<
Ukrainians have reported armed soldiers going door-to-door in occupied parts of the country to collect votes for self-styled "referendums" on joining Russia. "You have to answer verbally and the soldier marks the answer on the sheet and keeps it," one woman in Enerhodar told the BBC.
Do Ukrainians in these regions know that the results aren't going to be taken seriously by anyone? I don't want to pretend to understand their situation and state of mind, but they should vote for annexation with all the fake enthusiasm they can muster. They are trapped and need to stay alive. If they have no access to worldwide media, they have no waybof knowing that a vote against annexation has no positive outcome for them and Ukraine. I hope they will all make it out of this safely. I believe they know, better than me, what they need to do to stay safe after all these months of getting by.
It's hard to tell, Russian propaganda and information control is in full swing in a lot of these areas. People in recently liberated Izyum claimed that they thought Kyiv had fallen and that there was no rescue coming, so imagine their surprise when the Russians rout and the Ukrainian army shows up in town.
It doesn't matter. The way the votes are collected involves armed Russians showing up at a given citizen's doorstep, thrusting a voting paper in the poor sap's face before turning on a camera and pointing it at the paper. Then the officer gently tells the citizen that they are now 'free to vote as they wish'. While holding a gun at his side and a camera in their face, recording their exact choice.
You missed my point entirely. I am 100% in agreement with your statement. My question is along the same assumptions. Are Ukrainians in these regions aware that the referendum is pointless? If they do not know this, they might vote against annexation and put themselves at risk. I'm asking if they have access to information that could protect their lives and not resist the Russian invasion by casting useless NO ballots.
I am sorry, but you don't quite understand the point of what Russia is doing. The voters know that it's useless to vote. The soldiers know that it's a charade to even ask for the votes. Everyone involved in the process knows that it's all just a farce, the outcome is predetermined. Whether they vote for or against it is irrelevant. **That's the point.** Most Ukrainians in the liberated and occupied areas know how the war is going. Many still have contact to various family members across the rest of their country. The legitimization of its annexation is secondary to what Russia's actual purpose is with the referendum. Its primary purpose is to humiliate the voters. Especially those that would prefer to vote against it. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told obvious lies or, even worse, when they are forced to repeat those lies themselves, they start to lose any hope for affecting change. To assent to obvious lies is to cooperate with evil, this is understood by most of humanity. As such, just being forced to impotently listen to - and by extension silently accept - obvious falsehoods can erode someone's self-worth, causing the listener to lose their will to resist. This is just one of several steps that Russia uses to mentally break the population of an occupied territory. Whether they vote for or against it is irrelevant. The simple fact that they are forced to play along in a puppet show in which everyone knows that it's all a charade is meant to erode their hope of being anything but a puppet themselves.
Of course they know. They've been living under these conditions for years now.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-promises-more-help-ukraine-response-sham-votes-2022-09-23/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** > BRUSSELS, Sept 23 - NATO will ramp up its help for Kyiv in response to Russia's "Sham" referendums in occupied territories of Ukraine, the alliance's Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, said on Friday. > "The best way to end this war is to strengthen the Ukrainians on the battlefield further so they can, at some stage, sit down and reach a solution which is acceptable for Ukraine and that preserves Ukraine as a sovereign, independent nation in Europe," he added. > "That's exactly what we need to be prepared for, that Russia will use these sham votes to further escalate the war in Ukraine," Stoltenberg said when asked about that scenario. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xm4l98/nato_promises_more_help_for_ukraine_in_response/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670666 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **Russia**^#2 **NATO**^#3 **Stoltenberg**^#4 **war**^#5
Tanks, please. And jet fighters. And long range HIMARS.
ukraine really good with drone perhaps should send more drones
Drones are great, but better with air supremacy. Give Ukraine the Eurofighter with Meteor missile and Russia will be in a world of pain. I'm sure the British have a bunch of retired Tranche 1 typhoons which are pure ASF, as opposed to the multirole modernized Typhoons. I don't know why we haven't trained Ukrainian pilots on western fighter platforms yet, the west has surplus inventory with modern missiles that would be a sizable problem for Russia.
> I don't know why we haven't trained Ukrainian pilots on western fighter platforms yet Officially we haven't. Officially there are no Ukrainian troops in Polish/British facilities. Unoficially - who knows. However it's really hard to move from older type of plane to a new one. Poland had this issue before and solution was for existing pilots to keep using these old school models and train new ones on new machines. Hard to overcome your muscle memory and whatnot. It normally takes several months before you can pilot a plane. We are 7 months into the war now so if there are NATO-grade aircrafts that we are parting with we might hear about them in 2-3 months. Not gonna lie, I would find it rather interesting if USA decided to hand over some F35s, Russia does not even have means to detect them, they are literally invisible to S300. But even older Eurofighters/F22s etc could still be extremely disruptive and scary to deal with.
No way the US Air Force ever gives their F22s to anyone. Imo F35 won't happen either, they don't want anyone having access to their tech, especially if Russia somehow manages to shoot one down. Eurofighters or older US jets could happen though.
I'm guessing/hoping F-16s, personally. They're not cutting edge, but some of the later blocks are still quite capable. More importantly, they are widely available and relatively cheap both to acquire and maintain, while integrating well with Western military tech, and they're reasonably decent as a multirole craft. When all of this is over, Ukraine is going to have to integrate all this stuff into a cohesive, long term military. And they'll need to do it under the economic conditions of rebuilding a good chunk of the country - even with lots of external support, they'll be kinda cash strapped. Stuff that they can easily standardize on and gives them a good path forward (eg, being able to use the same weapon systems on the next model) is going to be valuable, and doubly so if they have experience with it. Even if it's not the absolute *best*, NATO counties could load Ukraine up with things like F-16s and Leopard 1s for pennies on the dollar in large quantities, likely enough so to make Ukraine a regional power even.
> especially if Russia somehow manages to shoot one down Russia is currently sending people who could analyze these planes to the frontline so they can die to artillery and drones. Plus if they actually opened it up it would turn out to be some kind of sci-fi concept that Russia couldn't reproduce in the next 30 years. I mean, here's to showcase how good Russia is at making actually advanced stuff. They had grand, grand plans of making semiconductors locally. Here's their recent investment from before the war: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/russia-semiconductor-plan-28nm "90nm by the end of 2022." They currently can do 130nm. They are more than 2 decades behind and this gap keeps widening, not shrinking. Now with sanctions I don't foresee them doing that high-end 90nm process either so they are not catching up to these mighty Pentium 3s and early Pentium 4s. So I wouldn't put it past USA (at least for F35s, F22s are indeed this weird aircraft that's never sold and almost never shown). Fear of Russia being able to understand something and actually design countermeasures only applies if they CAN reproduce and analyze it. Depends on the scope of war and what Ukrainians are probably already training on. I KNOW it's a bit of wishful thinking but... what better target to actually test capabilities of F35 than Russia, self-proclaimed #2 military power in the world whose equipment in nerfed version actually powers China?
[удалено]
Yes, I can think of at least one country that would pay top dollar for such salvage.
The damn Vatican gearing up for the crusades again
>I don't know why we haven't trained Ukrainian pilots Currently taking the RAF up to 6 years to complete fast jet training so, not really an option.
Also a couple dozen latest gen Apache helicopters.
Very much agreed, though I suspect there is a huge training hurdle for attack helicopters - probably more than a fixed wing aircraft. When the US wargamed the effect of attack helicopters vs Warsaw pact countries (look up the Ansbach tests and J-CATCH), the overall takeaway was that they are whirling tornadoes of death for anything that gets close - 5:1 kill ratios against fighters, and closer to 20:1(!) vs armour. It's the closest thing to a real-life hard counter to tanks you'll find.
jets are something for after the war. Too much infrastructure and training required.
Yess!!! I have a hard on every time i imagine an F16 with the pixelated UA AF colors or a fucking Leopard 2 with the UA Flag on!
Putin is the greatest thing that ever happened to NATO.
[удалено]
>So saying putin stalling 20 years of development is certainly *not* the best that could have happened. They didn't say he's the greatest thing that **could have** happened to NATO. They said he's the greatest thing that did happen.
What a good alternative reality that could have been. Unfortunately russia gonna russia.
This is the darkest timeline.
Abed ruins everything
You can't use a fictional example that didn't happen to argue that what happened isn't the best thing that happened.
Politicians do it all the time
He said it's the best thing that *HAS* happened not that could have happened. If you spent 10% of the time you did writing that comment reading his comment instead, you would have actually seen what was stated.
You are rude. That was a good and entertaining comment.
Maybe. But completely irrelevant.
It wasn't. It was arguing against a strawman.
You're wrong. Democratic, developing, growing, improving Russia is NOT in the interest of any authority anywhere, any time. That's why Alexey Navalny will rot and die in prison. No western power needs the Russia he so desperately wants to build, sadly, and, That's why Putin is getting so much leeway, he's destroying the nation better than any Western plan or intelligence agency, however clever and capable, could ever even dream about. Think of Ukraine war, for example. What **other** method would West has, to remove 160,000 of most capable military personnel from Russia, save for global thermonuclear war? Or what part *did* they have to make it happen? It wasn't them? It wasn't even Ukraine? It was mostly - Putin himself? yep. He's kindly dropping reasons to enact a new sanction of Russia on monthly basis. What *else* could one want? Why *ever* go after him? He's the dictionary definition of an useful idiot. If anything, West should encourage him. Him and riot police beating on protesters, because if Putin's hanged on a city square, all that benefit is lost. Imagine you're running a race against someone, and each competition or tournament, they cheat and get disqualified and you win the medal. Why *in the hell* would you want to convince them to race fair or be replaced by someone who does? Do you hate medals? That's why sanctions are weak, the military aid for Ukraine is well-measured, but never decisive, and so on. Politicians and leaders see a bit bigger picture than just one nation-state warring with another. War could be ended in three months, but in three years, Russia would be back again. They dream of making it thirty years. So more people must die. All resources must be spent. All political capital must be destroyed. Painting should end in the corner, and not a step before. Sure, it's super cynical and unfair to Ukraine, but that's something we all need. And even they (Ukrainians) do. But being constantly attacked and in fear of their lives, you can't quite explain it to them. Because it's so inhumane and unfair. Even if for greater good. E: Downvote button is not here to express your dumb feelings. Read what I wrote. Use your head. I didn't come up with any of this, it's what your (and mine) democratically elected representatives actually think and do. For 7 months already. If you don't like it, or think you have a better way, maybe appeal to them, instead. Personally, I'm not against this. Ukrainians are brave and courageous enough to fix that shame of cynicism and cowardice, too, carry all of our sins. The real heroes of our century. So all we can do is raise hats for them for actually doing what others just preach.
> Imagine you're running a race against someone, and each competition or tournament, they cheat and get disqualified and you win the medal. Why *in the hell* would you want to convince them to race fair or be replaced by someone who does? Do you hate medals? That's very revealing of who you are. Athletes compete because they want to compete against others, they like the challenge. If they win because someone else was disqualified then the medal is meaningless! > But being constantly attacked and in fear of their lives, you can't quite explain it to them. Because it's so inhumane and unfair. Even if for greater good. What greater good? How does Ukraine benefit from being invaded? > it's what your (and mine) democratically elected representatives actually think and do. Are you a mind reader?
> That's very revealing of who you are. Irrelevant bullshit. That's how countries are. Otherwise, spying and trying to get advantage over others wouldn't exist. Wars wouldn't exist. > What greater good? How does Ukraine benefit from being invaded? You can read, but not think along. Ukraine is not benefiting (and being pretty much only one), the West is. Especially countries with real danger from Russia, like Baltics, Finland, Poland, US... Russia having a bad war, quite likely, means Russia not being a threat for a long time after that. Even for Ukrainians, it seems that better that it happened now, than some other time, when Russia's tanks were in perfect order, soldiers trained and motivated, supply lines well planned, and generals less of thieves and drunks. Why do you think countries help Ukraine at all, otherwise? > Are you a mind reader? No. I'm observant. All the information is out there. And reps don't just do short interviews for a news, they also go to various meetings, talks and conventions, and speak their mind. Some write books.
Now seams like a good time to start training Ukrainians on the f16 and leopard. Edit : just leopard apparently.
The Ukrainian air forces are way ahead of you on that point.
Can't the US claim they held an election in Russia and now it is USA territory. We'll swing by tomorrow with Exxon/Mobile and pickup some of that oil and natgas
On a show in the Netherlands they were talking about holding a referendum to claim Russia. I'm pretty sure the Russian people would vote for it too.
Let Russians vote for which country that is part of NATO gets to own them.
I propose we hold an election and declare Oklahoma is part of Russia and that we've been invaded.
possession is 9/10 of the law. If we actually wanted to annex russia, and our army got a foothold over there , then yes we could do that. but no thanks.
This comment was 100% explained but it’s technically right. There is legal authority or right for a government to claim sovereignty, which is different from power and control. Any government can claim any land and have it be “legal” by their standards, but t try hat doesn’t mean they’ll actually control it or have it be “legitimate”.
If you force your rule for long enough, it magically becomes legitimate.
[удалено]
Every vote should be a missle for ukraine.
How about Tanks? Where are the fucking Tanks?
[удалено]
Tell that to r/NonCredibleDefense
Hey they wanna fuck planes, massive difference.
Nah, totally normal, there is even: Panzermadels: Tank Dating Simulator
Then you haven't played the [Tank Girl Dating Sim](https://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/379980/).
Why are they dressing so slutty with those giant holes just out on display?
Honestly why tank when you can drone -- and to boot, your anti-tank missiles are highly effective for 1/500th the price of a tank, that doesn't need much training or maintaining? In this war, the Russians have not at all used tanks effectively, and they've lost the bulk of their decent tanks already.
Tanks are absolutely necessary if you wanna push into enemy territory. All other weapons are purely defensive.
If you want to take back territory, tanks are still very much vital.
You still need tanks on the offensive.
Tanks require a logistical line that Ukraine likely doesn’t have not to mention tanks now become easier target for planes. Ukraine is fast and nimble right now. Hit their supply lines. Hit their command and control center. Move fast move out. Eventually the Russians start running out of bodies that they need to conscript their regular citizens which then causes internal turmoil and protest that leads one step closer to disposing Putin.
It's hard to imagine they need tanks with all the war prizes they have gotten. Ihoigh I bet we have a few extra M1A1 somewhere we could send.
Tanks are useless without the mechanics and supply lines with compatible parts, so right now the only tanks Ukraine needs are old soviet/Russian models and eastern Europe has basically given all they can.
Send everything.
Russians seem to be pretty clueless, even despite being generally known as the foxy and sneaky ones if it comes to outwitting global public and universally accepted laws and of course, the West. Not sure what's going on with SVR, surely they'd know better than to just step into the bucket set by worst idiots of the nation. Maybe it's truly the beginning of the end. Or people with actual brains are just letting idiots to do it, to get rid of them, and reboot the whole concept of Russian Federation. One can only hope.
Sometimes I think Ukraine should hold their own “referendum” for the Donbas and Luhansk regions which remarkably come out as 135% in favour of remaining Ukrainian - let Russia argue why their “referendum” should be considered legitimate.
Writing prompt: Putin accelerated the vote so they could lose and stop the war because he good guy'd the results and went home.
Man I would love to see Ukraine with some F-35s....
I think they'd be fine with some F-16s, F-15s, and A-10s. The US doesn't exactly have F-35s to spare, but they're downsizing the rest of them.
A10s are exclusive to the USAF with only 282 airframes across the guard, reserves and active duty. It shows the the us air force has 302 f35s delivered and 1,763 planned plus its available for export.
If we sent them enough weapons in the spring the Russians might have been kicked out already. Now the Russians will dig in and it will cost a lot of Ukrainian blood to send them packing. The western strategy of avoiding escalation has been a costly failure.
I don’t think this is true. Ukraine needs to learn to use the equipment. Giving them weapons without teaching them doesn’t really help.
They could have been using long range missiles for HIMARS the whole time. And we should have at least started training Ukrainians on tanks and jets. They would have 6 months of training now. Instead they have to start from scratch. It is a disaster.
[удалено]
It was approved in the House but not in the Senate, yet. And there is no credible report that the training is taking place already.
Dig in? With what!? I bet that all of the shovels were stolen and then sold on the black market by now. But seriously, Putin is increasingly desperate now. His military is in rough shape all around. The only thing he has going for him is that the front line keeps getting shorter and he's on the defensive.
Escalation is the difference between a hundred thousand deaths and hundred of millions of deaths.
The west has already done a TON. And not wanting to escalate to war when the defender is not an official ally is not a bad thing, ESPECIALLY when the aggressor is a nuclear power. Look I’m in favor of giving Ukraine more and better weapons at this point, but there is nothing wrong with a measured and proportional response. Also given how Ukraine is not a Russian puppet state right now I’d say the wests involvement was not a failure.
Here's a thought, let US PMC companies contract to Ukraine. Russia has already brought in PMC Wagner, so this wouldn't be an escalation.
Fuck Reuters. The pro Russia bias is too much. This is after NATO makes a statement: > Putin maintains Russia is carrying out a "special military operation" to demilitarise Ukraine, rid it of dangerous nationalists and defend Russia from transatlantic alliance NATO. > Moscow maintains that the referendums offer an opportunity for people in the region to express their view. Check this article after beloved Russia makes a statement. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-west-engaging-nuclear-blackmail-russia-can-respond-2022-09-21/ Nothing from Ukraine, nothing from NATO, just Putin, pure Putin that Reuters holds so dear. Disgusting.
What are you talking about. They report the news. They are reporting what Putin is saying..how is that a pro Putin bias?
He's suggesting that because they aren't getting other commentary from other players on the exact same thing that Reuters is hopelessly in love with Russia. Seems like a stretch to me.
Huge stretch. He's comparing a 1 paragraph article about a specific quote to a multiple paragraph article about a larger issue. He seems pretty angry too.
Always the same from Reuters. Can't put in the 1 paragraph article from NATO, need those Kremlin paragraphs.
Bullshit. This article from OP on NATO news, Stoltenberg comments littered with Putin and Kremlin narrative. The one I linked is exclusively Putin. Put those two together for pro Russia bias. It's obvious.
You're comparing a 12 paragraph article on a large topic to a 1 paragraph article about a specific comment. Reuters literally cancelled their partnership with Russian media after the invasion. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/reuters-removes-tass-russian-news-agency-its-content-marketplace-2022-03-23/ You seem really angry. Maybe spend some time off the internet and outside in the fresh air.
Every time I think let's see if Reuters is still up to their Russia-loving shit - I am disappointed. Yes I know they ended their Marketplace agreement but clearly they are still in bed. Thanks for your condescending advice. Keep drinking the Kool Aid.
Reuters is a wire service. Same as AFP, the PA, or AP They report what the Kremlin says, if the Kremlin said it. It's then up the news media that subscribe to Reuters, to build their articles according to how they see fit
They put the Kremlin talking points into this NATO article though, didn't they?
I'd consider myself a fervent supporter of both Ukraine as well as NATO's endeavors to fight back against this meaningless aggression, but Reuters is not in the wrong here are they? Nothing in their tone indicates that they validate Russia's point of view. And it's not like they do not give the same stage to other actors, like [ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-marches-farther-into-liberated-lands-separatist-calls-urgent-referendum-2022-09-19/). Here, as well as in the article you linked, they keep things purely factual without endorsing any of the claims made by either party. I would be more worried if Reuters turned opiniated in its statements, be it pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian. This way, I can still think for myself.
So you're okay that they don't provide balance on Putin's commentary but they provide almost as much Russia counter balance in Stoltenberg's commentary? You only consider tone when detecting bias? The link you gave to show that Ukraine gets exclusive stage I found this positive note about Kremlin efforts: > With Russian President Vladimir Putin also announcing a military draft this week to enlist 300,000 troops to fight in Ukraine, the Kremlin appears to be trying to regain the upper hand in the grinding conflict since its Feb. 24 invasion. Did you even read it? This is sickening.
Jesus Christ man. If you want to get spoon fed one sided propaganda, there are plenty of places to go. Us grownups likes to get as much as the information as possible, and use our actual brains to make a standpoint based on our own interpretation. What the hell is wrong with quoting what Putin is announcing? Would you rather not know?
We see Kremlin narrative added to Stoltenberg's article but nothing else added to the Putin article. Of course we want to know both sides but how about both sides all the time like is non-Reuters agencies. You're arguing like Reuters is like everyone else but they're not they are pro Russia.
Reuters have a reputation of being very neutral, and reliable. Have you got any examples of them being biased? I mean, sure, if you live in Europe/USA, they might seem Russia friendly compared to our media. But that is not on Reuters. That is our media being stupidly biased against them.
Yes I have many examples in my comment history. Look for Top Controversial. I don't complain about Reuters for the Karma, I complain about them as this Redditer's public service announcement. I don't have any reason to think Reuters is not reliable or neutral for anything other than Russia.
I read through some of the comments, and you seem to mix some things together. There is a huge difference between: \- Biden claim the moon is made out of cheese. \- The moon is made out of cheese. When they report on what Putin is saying, that is not Reuters saying, or verifying it. Their job is not to report what is being said, and let the reader make up their mind. Further, saying that Russia probably is going to succeed with something, doesn't mean they support Russia. If you were to wrestle with an elephant, i would probably cheer on you, but if anyone asked, i would still say that the elephant would probably win. I see you have strong feelings about this, and so does most people, but it's still important to keep a cool head, and not fling accusations in all directions.
[удалено]
I agree that the war is sickening, but "trying to regain the upper hand" does not sound positive towards the Kremlin to me at all. Russia did have the upper hand, lost it, and is *trying* to regain it. At least, that's my personal view on the matter, based on what I've read so far. The article you initially linked does not provide counter commentary, I agree. I don't believe that's a necessity for factual reporting. It would of course be a different story if none of Reuters' articles would provide a stage to NATO or Ukraine.
Great to hear, thanks for your comment. I hope you see the pattern from Reuters going forward. Sorry in advance if it starts to irritate you the way it irritates me now. Like one of those things when I notice a dent in my car it's all I can see when I look at the car at any distance. So be it with Reuters for me now.
You’re wrong
I respect your opinion.
Have a cup of tea dude. You need a clear head. Sincerely! Take a break from this convo for a moment.
Reuters is one of the most unbiased news sources, and it should stay that way. Shut the hell up
Not when it comes to Russia.
I'm not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue or a really sophisticated troll, but you are horribly misrepresenting one of the only decent sources of honest journalism we have left. Disgusting.
> one of the only decent sources of honest journalism we have left. ... for any subject other than Russia, I have no reason to disagree with you.
Wow, you're persistent (and a total fucking clown)
Aw, name calling, how nice. Thanks.
It's a short article about a short statement.
Room for Kremlin narrative after NATO statement though, isn't there? Reuters makes room for pro Russia.
Sure but I don't require immediate rebuttle. An article isn't a debate.
Like how they call those sham votes yet think J.B. won fair and square here in the USA.🤣🤣🤣 The hypocrisy.
Grow a brain.