Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[Relic]

God damn it WW3 is here.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858245261610381374

View attachment 72144

Lol no it's not. That's patently absurd. If NATO got involved the Russian military would be slapped into submission within weeks. Nobody is using a nuclear weapon so let's forget that nonsense.

The Ukrainian Army, supported by 200,000 NATO troops and all the equipment they bring to the fight, supported by NATO air power and Russian air assets that Russia has very little capability of countering effectively, would bring this war to a conclusion pretty quickly.

 

[blackjack]

Lol no it's not. That's patently absurd. If NATO got involved the Russian military would be slapped into submission within weeks. Nobody is using a nuclear weapon so let's forget that nonsense.

The Ukrainian Army, supported by 200,000 NATO troops and all the equipment they bring to the fight, supported by NATO air power and Russian air assets that Russia has very little capability of countering effectively, would bring this war to a conclusion pretty quickly.

Lets see if some countries have any weapons, Poland might be a little challenge but the islamic states of France and Germany would be a little more easy. Keep in mind Europe barely has any production for military equipment and you need power and energy or mostly from Russia to produce ammunition, vehicles and all that good shit. I dont think its a great idea to send greenhorns from NATO that are wondering why they are getting sent to defend some 3rd world shithole against a million russian soldiers with 10 times less artillery.

 

[Relic]

I can't believe it took them like 2 in a half year to finally come to this decision. (which many people online perceive that as desperation)
the next variables are.

1. how much ATACMs, shorm shadow and jassms can get produced?
2. How much will be given in 2 months assuming Trump puts a halt?
3. What air defenses are present in density?
4. Time period of when deliveries will happen? The longer it drags the more effective Russian air defenses would be giving more time for interceptions depending on the gains they make on Ukraine for each day which increased dramatically this month and will do so the next following months.
5. Will the deliveries get immediately targeted in Ukraine since most of Russia's massive strikes were only periodic.

Only countermeasures now is probably increased drone/aircraft surveillance with satellite imagery to target MLRS systems before they strike and maybe a more denser air defense network than before that allowed some of their air defense launchers to get destroyed by a barrages of missiles.

This is a "nothing burger"....

It's been telegrpahed for months, like many other calculated decisions by the West. Ukraine no longer has large quantities of ATACMS, SCALP-EG and Stormshadow. GMLRS and JSOW are mid range weapons that will do nothing to impact Russian assets and infrastructure. JASSM was never approved for transfer, which furthers adds to the lack of long range Western weapons in the inventory.

USA strategically waited for months to allow Russia to reposition it's long range strike aircraft and enhance the air defense at their bases. The impact of this decision will be minimal barring a significant surge of standoff weapons for Ukraine, which I very much doubt happens at this point.

This decision has only now been made because North Korea is actively joining the war and USA is looking to help Ukraine create balance.

If Ukraine had 500 long range cruise missiles and ATACMS in their inventory, this would be something real. My guess is that as of right now they have maybe 100 (non-domestic) long range strike weapons at their disposal. That includes a combination of Stormshadow, SCALP-EG and ATACMs.

 

[blackjack]

This is a "nothing burger"....

It's been telegrpahed for months, like many other calculated decisions by the West. Ukraine no longer has large quantities of ATACMS, SCALP-EG and Stormshadow. GMLRS and JSOW are mid range weapons that will do nothing to impact Russian assets and infrastructure. JASSM was never approved for transfer, which furthers adds to the lack of long range Western weapons in the inventory.

USA strategically waited for months to allow Russia to reposition it's long range strike aircraft and enhance the air defense at their bases. The impact of this decision will be minimal barring a significant surge of standoff weapons for Ukraine, which I very much doubt happens at this point.

This decision has only now been made because North Korea is actively joining the war and USA is looking to help Ukraine create balance.

If Ukraine had 500 long range cruise missiles and ATACMS in their inventory, this would be something real. My guess is that as of right now they have maybe 100 (non-domestic) long range strike weapons at their disposal. That includes a combination of Stormshadow, SCALP-EG and ATACMs.

more than 450 ATACMs were fired in operation Iraq freedom and war ended on a late date. You might need a little more than 500 that you are requesting assuming their positions don't get targeted and that they can get through a way denser modern air defense network.

 

[Relic]

Lets see if some countries have any weapons, Poland might be a little challenge but the islamic states of France and Germany would be a little more easy. Keep in mind Europe barely has any production for military equipment and you need power and energy or mostly from Russia to produce ammunition, vehicles and all that good shit. I dont think its a great idea to send greenhorns from NATO that are wondering why they are getting sent to defend some 3rd world shithole against a million russian soldiers with 10 times less artillery.

You don't want to believe me, and that's fine, but the Russian Army is in the worst shape it's been I decade. The majority of their active army is built from conscripts with little to no training. They've lost most of their best MBTs and are increasingly using old T-72s and a high number of ancient T-62s. They've lost so many BMPs that BTR-82s have become their most common "IFV" to transfer troops. Their self-propelled artillery has been hammered and they are increasingly using old D-30s, D-20s and now we're seeing very old M-46s joining the fight.

The Russian Army wants no part of a combined NATO Army that has not lost 1% of it's active fighting force and is actually significantly stronger now than it was before the Russian invasion.

Not to mention, I'll say it again... Russia has absolutely no answer to NATO's air power or Naval supremacy.

 

[Relic]

more than 450 ATACMs were fired in operation Iraq freedom and war ended on a late date. You might need a little more than 500 that you are requesting assuming their positions don't get targeted and that they can get through a way denser modern air defense network.

500 is simply a number I put out to have an immediate impact on the Russians and blunt their current offensive. It's not a war winning quantity. There is no realistic war winning quantity. If we agree that nukes are not getting used, there is no silver bullet for either side in this war.

 

[blackjack]

You don't want to believe me, and that's fine, but the Russian Army is in the worst shape it's been I decade. The majority of their active army is built of conscripts withe little to know training. They've lost most of their best MBTs and are increasingly using old T-72s and a high number of ancient T-62s. They've lost so many BMPs that BTR-82s have become their most common "IFV" to transfer troops. Their self-propelled artillery has been hammered and they are increasing using old D-30s, D-20s and now we're seeing very old M-46s joining the fight.

The Russian Army wants no part of a combined NATO Army that has not lost 1% of it's active fighting force and is actually significantly stronger now than it was before the Russian invasion.

Not to mention, I'll say it again... Russia has absolutely no answer to NATO's air power or Naval supremacy.

This article is from like a month ago.
https://dzen.ru/a/ZurkBaaPODQW0C0N
The decree comes into force on December 1. The staffing level of the Russian Armed Forces will now be 2,389,130 people, including 1.5 million military personnel (almost 900 thousand more are civilian personnel: drivers, medical workers, cooks, psychologists and representatives of other specialties).

This is already the third increase in the Russian army's staff since the beginning of the Central Military District. In August 2022, Vladimir Putin signed a decree to increase the staffing level by 137 thousand servicemen, and in December 2023 - by another 170 thousand.

Ukrainians and Russians have actual experience in a modern warfare battlefield, Most of NATO battles have been with countries where people use AKs and flip flops. Also, Ukrainians and Russians have this strong belief that this country is theirs to a NATO soldier they are just fighting for some 3rd world shithole that dragged them in this mess(morale is always important for war). Russians' troops have constantly been rotated. Also based on shell, artillery and rocket production it still seems that Russia still outproduces NATO. With these factors in mind, I think it's safe to say who gets more casualties and deaths. Production for T-90s, latest BMPs, howitzers and MLRS systems have not stopped while they use the rest of their soviet stockpile in this war.

AFAIK I dont think there will be that much willing participants to join the NATO military especially with the shortages those countries talk about in terms of manpower before the Ukraine war(now there will be less participation to join NATO because of a possible conflict now with Russia)

I don't think Iran cared about blowing up some F-35s in Israel like Russia with way more missiles than Iran would care if they blew up airbases. The same with ships getting blown up with torpedoes, cruise missiles, zircons and khinzals.

 

[blackjack]

500 is simply a number I put out to have an immediate impact on the Russians and blunt their current offensive. It's not a war winning quantity. There is no realistic war winning quantity. If we agree that nukes are not getting used, there is no silver bullet for either side in this war.

The only thing that can blunt Russia's current offensive is for them to receive more equipment and artillery. I dont think it would be a strategic choice to use ATACMs missiles on spread out foot soldiers firing these missiles like MLRS systems.

 

[Relic]

The only thing that can blunt Russia's current offensive is for them to receive more equipment and artillery. I dont think it would be a strategic choice to use ATACMs missiles on spread out foot soldiers firing these missiles like MLRS systems.

That's not what you would use ATACMS and cruise missiles for in order to degrade an offensive... the heart of an offensive is logistics. It's by far the most important factor in your ability to sustain an offensive effort. That means command and control centers, ammunition stockpiles, air defense systems and expensive RADARS, rear medical facilities and repair facilities and infrastructure used to support the infrastructure such as fuel depots... Those are the sites you target with balistic and cruise missiles to complicate an offensive.

155mm artillery, FPV Drones, GMLRS and AASM and JDAM are more than capable of handling Infantry concentrations. Ukraine has proven that time and again.

 

[blackjack]

That's not what you would use ATACMS and cruise missiles for in order to degrade an offensive... the heart of an offensive is logistics. It's by far the most important factor in your ability to sustain an offensive effort. That means command and control centers, ammunition stockpiles, air defense systems and expensive RADARS, rear medical facilities and repair facilities and infrastructure used to support the infrastructure such as fuel depots... Those are the sites you target with balistic and cruise missiles to complicate an offensive.

155mm artillery, FPV Drones, GMLRS and AASM and JDAM are more than capable of handling Infantry concentrations. Ukraine has proven that time and again.

hmm, I guess its in Russias hand to either 1.ignore the strikes as in not enough long range missiles either getting intercepted or a small supply given like last time to leave much of an impact. 2. blow up NATO command locations in retaliations depending on its severity. WW3 is trending all over the internet making it look like the biden administration will be blamed for it, lets see if they will follow through when the deliveries begin.
Edit: some news https://tass.com/world/1873761

WASHINGTON, November 17. /TASS/. The US next president, Donald Trump, may review his predecessor’s decision to authorize the use of US-supplied long-range missiles to strike inside Russia, a member of Trump’s transition team who asked not to be named told TASS.

"I suspect most everything will be under review. The United States has only one president at any given time. Until the afternoon of January 20, 2025, that president is Joe Biden. Authorizing the use of those missiles was his decision, but not for much longer," he said when asked whether Biden’s decision could be reviewed by Trump when he takes office in January 2025.

Earlier in the day, The New York Times reported that US President Joe Biden has allowed to use US-supplied long-range missiles, known as the Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, to strike inside Russia.

The Pentagon, however, refused to comment on these reports, while the White House and the Department of State have not yet responded to TASS’ inquiry.


Republican Trump defeated his Democratic rival, current US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the November 5 presidential election. Apart from that, the Republican Party took control of the Senate and is also expected to gain a majority in the House of Representatives. Trump’s inauguration is set for January 20, 2025.

I think we will just have to wait until the purchase is made and the transfer heads to Ukraine 1st.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL31675.pdf

doesn't he have to get approval from a republican dominated congress?

 

[blackjack]

I also have some good additional points to make on why this could be a political stunt.

1. it doesn't make sense to give them the missiles now if they did nothing for 2.5 years for Ukraine, you would still look like assholes to the world for not supplying the missiles earlier which could have resulted in less casualties for Ukraine. You will make the world know that the war is not going according to what plans you had.

2. I think the US is being a little too kind to let the world know and Russia that they will strike their territory. Like you will prepare the Russians to set up their air defenses a certain way and let their surveillance increase with drones and aircrafts where to look to strike those long range missiles before they get used. I feel like you could maximize damage to Russia if you didn't announce shit and made the missile transfers silent.

3. Is it a part of the 6 billion dollar package deal which I am assuming the amount will require Congress approval? It was a bitch earlier to get republicans to sign the 61 billion dollar deal until they also decided to change the bill into supporting Israel. If the President can pass multi-million-dollar bill deals without congress approval (I dont know if they can or cant) than the amount of missiles supplied will be small because of their costs where Russia can just eat the punches like they always had during the war and continue on like its an average day.

I think this move could just be used to say to a world wide audience hey we did what we can for ukraine so blame Trump if he does nothing about it later. I think this is all important information until we see the results

Edit: didn't most of those articles say they will use the missiles to strike Kursk? Like that's a little way too specific in letting the Russians know.

 

[Relic]

We really need to see USA start announcing some sizeable packages as soon as this week. Biden still has about $4.3 Billion usd worth of Presidential Drawdown Aurthority and $2.1 Billion usd worth of USAI that has been approved by Congress, at his disposal.

I want to see a $1.2 Billion usd package announced this week with the following in it...

- 200x Bradley M2-ODS IFV
- 200x M113 APCs
- 36x M109A6 Paladin
- PAC 2/3 Patriot Missiles
- AIM-120C AMRAAM Missiles
- AIM-9M/X Sidewinder Missiles
- AIM-7 / RIM-7 Missiles
- GMLRS / ATACMS
- JDAMS
- JSOWS
- 155mm Artillery Shells
- 105mm Artillery Shells
- 60mm Mortar Rounds
- 81mm Mortar Rounds
- 120mm Mortar Rounds
- Javelin ATGMs
- TOW Missiles
- Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missiles
- Small Arms
- Small Arms Ammunition

Immediately after sending a package such as this, they have to start working on the next one immediately. None of the money authorized by Congress can go to waste.

 

[Relic]

Holy crap, Andrew Perpetua and his team just dropped another list of geolocated and visually confirmed losses for Russia and Ukraine as they dig themselves out of the more than 1000 videos they received.

Below are the losses for each side on November 14th and November 15th.

Russian two day losses

Air Defense
1x 9K33 OSA

Artillery
1x 2A65 MSTA-B
3x MT-12 Rapira
3x D-20
5x D-30
1x M-46
2x BM-21
1x 2B9-Vasilek

Main Battle Tanks
15x T-72
4x T-80
2x T-62

Infantry Fighting Vehicles
1x BMD-4M
9x BMP-2
6x BMP-3
2x BMP-1
11x BTR-82

Armored Personnel Carriers
3x Tigr-M
2x BTR-D
5x MT-LB
2x Z-STS Akhmat

Military Trucks
6x Ural
5x Kamaz
7x Other

Civilian Vehicles
11x ATV
67x Civilian

Ukrainian two days losses

Air Defense
Nil

Artillery
1x 2S22 Bohdana
2x D-30
1x D-44

Main Battle Tanks
5x T-64
1x T-72
1x Leopard 1A5

Infantry Fighting Vehicles
4x BMP-1
1x BMP-2
1x CV9040
1x YPR-765

Armored Personnel Carriers
2x Stryker
1x MT-LB
3x M113
10x HMMWV
2x Kozak-2M1
1x Kozak-7
4x Senator
1x VAB
1x M113
2x Kirpi
1x Gurkha

Military Trucks
2x Ural
2x Other

Civilian Vehicles
34x Civilian Vehicles

Andrew Perpetua (@andrewperpetua.bsky.social)

Here are losses I could identify for the 15th. 246 💀 7767 👻 in 85 past days #SkullThrone Sources: losses.ukrdailyupdate.com

bsky.app

Andrew Perpetua (@andrewperpetua.bsky.social)

Losses I could identify for the 14th losses.ukrdailyupdate.com 126 💀 7521 👻 in 84 past days #SkullThrone

bsky.app

 

[SilverMachine]

You don't want to believe me, and that's fine, but the Russian Army is in the worst shape it's been I decade.

This doesn't seem...accurate. They've been faring a lot better since the restructure a little into this war after initially being pretty damn ineffective. Yes, they've lost a lot of stuff, but nothing that can't be replaced with a production machine now kicked into higher gear. And a male population not even like a quarter of the way to full troop mobilization potential.

No doubt NATO would stomp Russia in some hypothetical open direct conflict. I don't think anyone here's said otherwise? It's also neither here or there, because this won't get to the point of an open direct conflict between Russia and NATO. The restructured Russian military is absolutely fit-for-purpose for grinding down Ukraine the rest of the way into capitulation of the eastern third though, and potentially taking Moldova and asserting even more control over Belarus, assuming that's the height of Putin's aims here. If he's dumb enough to take a swing at Poland then he's royally fucked, but I've never bought that as being on the cards. Putin's a grade-A fucker, but he's not stupid, he knows the line, and he knows what he can and can't get away with. Ukraine he can and will get away with. Just not further.

 

[Huelague]

No doubt NATO would stomp Russia in some hypothetical open direct conflict. I don't think anyone here's said otherwise?

With or without Nukes?

 

[Samba]

With or without Nukes?

When nukes are fired, it is game over for everyone...

 

[blackjack]

This doesn't seem...accurate. They've been faring a lot better since the restructure a little into this war after initially being pretty damn ineffective. Yes, they've lost a lot of stuff, but nothing that can't be replaced with a production machine now kicked into higher gear. And a male population not even like a quarter of the way to full troop mobilization potential.

No doubt NATO would stomp Russia in some hypothetical open direct conflict. I don't think anyone here's said otherwise? It's also neither here or there, because this won't get to the point of an open direct conflict between Russia and NATO. The restructured Russian military is absolutely fit-for-purpose for grinding down Ukraine the rest of the way into capitulation of the eastern third though, and potentially taking Moldova and asserting even more control over Belarus, assuming that's the height of Putin's aims here. If he's dumb enough to take a swing at Poland then he's royally fucked, but I've never bought that as being on the cards. Putin's a grade-A fucker, but he's not stupid, he knows the line, and he knows what he can and can't get away with. Ukraine he can and will get away with. Just not further.

You know I think the most important thing from you and among many other users here is having to explain to me what kind of magical powers NATO has that Ukraine doesn't in which the casualty and death rate would be lower if NATO got involved instead of hiding behind the Ukrainians as useful meat shields? I mean there has to be some kind of reason for the idea to be worshipped like a religious belief so there has to be useful sources and statistics that you have to confirm?

1.They have never fought a near peer adversary that has strategic command structures just 3rd world countries wearing flips flops and using AKs. And the Ukrainians they have openly stated they trained and gave intelligence to have experience they dont. They will have to start experiencing actual high pace warfare or start to experience taking lives which most probably havent done before compared to the russians and ukrainians in this conflict. The risks for greenhorns getting killed will always be higher than those that have experienced in this conflict to survive.

2. Many NATO countries have experienced a very high shortage of recruitment. Do you geniunely think more civilians would want to join the military now to fight over a million battle hardened soldiers that have the firepower advantage?

3. I have noticed some users updating this thread with what Ukraine receives. I but I have never seen you update this thread on how much NATO can outproduce Russia. I am assuming your mindset with many other users here is that these conflicts are more about NATO/Ukrainian foot soldiers being Rambos than the fact most of the causes of casualties and deaths of this war are done by drones and artillery with rockets and shells. The country with firepower advantage always has the least casualty and death rates.

4. Morale is important to. Ukrainians and Russians have a reason to fight this war. Most NATO soldiers will be contemplating why they have to die for some Jews ruling a 3rd world country they dont care about. You have a higher chance of these soldiers' going AWOL since most western countries are not corrupt enough as Ukraine to force them to fight.

5. You need fuel for energy and a fuck load of energy consuming plants to start production for ammunition and equipment which is why Ukraine to this day still has a shortage and Europe like the Czech initiave they cant find enough shells.

The only thing NATO has more than Ukraine in Europe are aircrafts, some long range missiles with ships and submarines. US has to give a specific amount and not too much of their inventory in case the Chinese will find it in their advantage to visit Taiwan. But even so Russia has more accurate and sophisticated missiles than what Iran has used to hit airbases in Israel. And Russia has a pretty large submarine fleet of different classes that are loaded with cruise missiles, BMs and scramjets. Russia might even use more drones and missile strikes on NATO if NATO got involved because their productions numbers of what they have and what they have used so far suggests that.

Edit: the strikes will probably be just limited to Kursk is what the current claims are.

and Le Figaro is already retracting their statements on the storm shadow missiles.

 

[SilverMachine]

Without, Hue. Clearly NATO's far superior qualitatively to what Russia brings to the table. I don't know about quantity-wise, haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the US alone is around 1 million-ish personnel. If Russia's somewhere over 2 and under 3, then I'd figure all of western Europe combined is going to make up the difference and overtake Russia's numbers. Plus, again, all the shit they have is better.

Thing is, it won't come to that, because while Putin's unlikely to say "fuck it" and blow up the planet (his generals etc would kill him and stop him pre-emptively anyway), he's still more likely to than the US/UK/France is, and both he and they know that. We'll never risk an open fight with Russia - even though we'd win - because it's just too risky in the first place, and secondly our civilians would be way less tolerant of a fight like that than the average Rooskie is. No appetite for it. He calls our bluff, he's right on calling it out, which is why he gets Ukraine.

Blackjack, what even is your point there? That Ukraine's somehow...more powerful than NATO, or even individual NATO countries? C'mon. They're more battle-hardened recently (I...guess the US/UK guys might have something to say about that though), but the cost-benefit of that is they're all ehausted & undermanned, using western scraps to fight with. It's an insane position to take. Even not having had a fight in forever, Poland would absolutely buttfuck Ukraine in some one-to-one fight, let alone the big countries to their west coming into a Ukraine comparison.

Such a weird thing to bring up, too. I'm obviously...not for NATO countries coming into the fight against Russia, that'd be apocalyptic stupidity.