Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[WhiteNight]

I would believe the USA destroyed the Nordstream pipeline. It makes way more sense that America destroyed it rather then Russia. Russia's entire leverage over Germany relied on them being able to maintain the gas flow. Russia blowing up the pipeline would make no sense as it would be like cutting off their nose to spite the face.

Conversely, the USA had every incentive to destroy Nordstream. The US had been bitching about Germanies cozy relationship with Russia for years prior to Trump getting up in front of the UN and calling the Germans retards for relying on Russia for Gas. Destroying Nord Stream accomplished two things. It cut the cord between the EU and Russia, and also forced them into a position where they had to pick a side. Do they call out the Americans for doing it, or do they fall in line.

They fell in line.

None of us can know whodunnit, but the argument that it must be the Americans considers only first-order effects. Yes America doesn't like the pipeline, but blowing it up would be a huge gamble with limited payoff (the pipelines weren't in use anyway, and Germany was showing no signs of giving in to Russia). If the op were discovered, then even if the German govt sheepishly ignores it, there would be anger and riots in Germany that could affect elections and threaten the alliance.

Anders Puck Nielsen's video was shared here last year:

I think his argument is convincing, but he does omit one detail: Destroying the pipeline benefits Putin personally. Many Russian oligarchs would like the war to end so they can go back to selling gas to Europe, and they may start getting ideas that if Putin is out of the way, NS and NS2 can start making them money again. With that off the table, Putin's position is more secure.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I strongly doubt the alleged capabilities of modern anti-air missile batteries, at least if they aren't backed up by the level of situational awareness and responsiveness other assets give militaries like America's or Israel's. The S- series has not exactly made the most of the chances provided to show its worth in Syria and Ukraine. Israel routinely did whatever it wanted in Syrian airspace until Russia threw a big enough tantrum that the IAF decided to fly over Lebanese airspace and shoot missiles from there instead. Which they still blow up what they want to blow up around Damascus with. Sure, that's using F-35s, the worst plane ever made that Israel somehow manages to make useful, but Russian anti-air systems used by both sides in Ukraine have been... kinda meh at best. Ukrainian air force is still flying ground-attack sorties in 1970s and 1980s Su- models modernized up to maybe early 1990s levels. Russian planes, most of which are at the same level or a little better of modernization, are still carrying out missions successfully as well. The Russians lose a couple planes a week, maybe a couple more some weeks, maybe only one or two or none, big fucking deal. That's not gonna knock the Russian air force for a loop any time soon, or ever

Maybe the technology is amazing, but the supporting infrastructure (communications and shit) is ass, or the doctrine is ass, or the training is ass, or the soldiers are just plain ass because they're drunken slavniggers, but muh S-over 9000s sure aren't the overpowering weapon they were made out to be. Fly low and fast and you have a good chance of making it home, old rules against AA radar still seem to apply. Neither side has the stuff to try the American way, go after the launchers as hard as you can, so they try to not get hit by them instead and have been doing a decent job of it

Used judiciously I think the A-10 could deliver good service in the hands of Samuyil Hydenskyy

The US Air Force has a vested interest in seeing the A-10 die. Its inter agency politics sadly. The US Army has such a love affair with the A-10 they want to keep it and make it an Army platform like the AH-64's. Which is a bridge too far for the Air Force who will not tolerate the ground pounders having fixed wing aircraft. The A-10 remains a drain for the air force in the interim. It does not, ostensibly, have a role, and they want to get rid of it for their next generation wunderwaffen F-35's which can do literally everything and anything. So they say.

Personally I think there is deep concern in the Air Force that the Ukraine War is precisely the war an A-10 is meant to fight. A flying tank capable of massacring infantry with BRRT, and dropping heavy ordinance on tanks at range? Its ideal. Which is why the US will never give Ukraine A-10's. The last thing the US Air Force wants is their most hated platform getting more good press, after they went to all the trouble to finally killing the program. The A-10 is cursed with something the US Air Force can never forgive. They were forced to put...pilots...in the things because the...ugh...ARMY...insisted they keep it. Gross and icky. Every good air force general washes his hands the moment the A-10 is even mentioned.

 

[Snekposter]

The US Air Force has a vested interest in seeing the A-10 die. Its inter agency politics sadly. The US Army has such a love affair with the A-10 they want to keep it and make it an Army platform like the AH-64's. Which is a bridge too far for the Air Force who will not tolerate the ground pounders having fixed wing aircraft. The A-10 remains a drain for the air force in the interim. It does not, ostensibly, have a role, and they want to get rid of it for their next generation wunderwaffen F-35's which can do literally everything and anything. So they say.

Personally I think there is deep concern in the Air Force that the Ukraine War is precisely the war an A-10 is meant to fight. A flying tank capable of massacring infantry with BRRT, and dropping heavy ordinance on tanks at range? Its ideal. Which is why the US will never give Ukraine A-10's. The last thing the US Air Force wants is their most hated platform getting more good press, after they went to all the trouble to finally killing the program. The A-10 is cursed with something the US Air Force can never forgive. They were forced to put...pilots...in the things because the...ugh...ARMY...insisted they keep it. Gross and icky. Every good air force general washes his hands the moment the A-10 is even mentioned.

The USAF has hated CAS ever since the days of the bomber mafia at the start of WW2.

 

[Clownish]

The official Azov Youtube channel uploaded a documentary about the battle of Mariupol.
English subs.

 

[Pocket Dragoon]

I would believe the USA destroyed the Nordstream pipeline. It makes way more sense that America destroyed it rather then Russia. Russia's entire leverage over Germany relied on them being able to maintain the gas flow. Russia blowing up the pipeline would make no sense as it would be like cutting off their nose to spite the face.

Conversely, the USA had every incentive to destroy Nordstream. The US had been bitching about Germanies cozy relationship with Russia for years prior to Trump getting up in front of the UN and calling the Germans retards for relying on Russia for Gas. Destroying Nord Stream accomplished two things. It cut the cord between the EU and Russia, and also forced them into a position where they had to pick a side. Do they call out the Americans for doing it, or do they fall in line.

They fell in line.

My personal theory is that Ukraine did it with something like explosive ROVs, although still with some USN/RN help; but all we did was provide some logistical support, surveil the area & keep an eye on the Russians, and feed the data to Ukrainian UDTs on rented Polish trawlers (with Poland's knowledge & approval because their new Beer-Stream 1 pipeline was also ready).

But even with that many layers of plausible deniability, NATO & the US wouldn't let them claim it to keep Putin from flipping the board & going full retard. And if Ukraine had claimed full responsibility without any US subs involved, Putin wouldn't have believed it anyways, so it was easier & safer for everyone to admit nothing & deny everything.

Still, I'd think it'd be incredibly hard for Ukraine to keep from bragging about it, unless their explosive ROV/UDT program is kept small & dark, and one doesn't end up on a Sevastopol or Konigsberg/Kaliningrad shoreline.

 

[MG-34]

Russia continues to make reference materials for the inevitable sequel to the Death of Stalin movie.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

My personal theory is that Ukraine did it with something like explosive ROVs

There was also some 'unexplained explosions' on pipelines far in ruzzian soil. I bet this can be a ruzzian job after all.

Also - NS wasn't used long before it was smashed. I trully think you guys give too much attention to this incident.

 

[Ghostse]

I would believe the USA destroyed the Nordstream pipeline. It makes way more sense that America destroyed it rather then Russia. Russia's entire leverage over Germany relied on them being able to maintain the gas flow. Russia blowing up the pipeline would make no sense as it would be like cutting off their nose to spite the face.

Conversely, the USA had every incentive to destroy Nordstream. The US had been bitching about Germanies cozy relationship with Russia for years prior to Trump getting up in front of the UN and calling the Germans retards for relying on Russia for Gas. Destroying Nord Stream accomplished two things. It cut the cord between the EU and Russia, and also forced them into a position where they had to pick a side. Do they call out the Americans for doing it, or do they fall in line.

They fell in line.

It cut the cord between the EU and Russia

It didn't. NS1 is still online and delivering. NS1 could supply all of germany & netherlands for heating (and some power generation) needs. The extra capacity of NS2 was to more cheaply deliver to the Yugoslav & central euro market, and also to allow for NS1 to be offlined for maintenance/upgrades without low distruption.

If both 1&2 had gone down, I'd maybe believe it was forcing the Eurocucks to sack up by burning your boats Cortez style.

I'll say again:
Russia was poised to get BTFO when NS2 came online due to non-delivery penalties because NS2 was called out in sanctions, NS1 transport has not yet been sanctioned (except by the price caps which NS1 deliveries are well under). The pipeline being blown up allows Russia to claim Acts of God and Other Disasters and get out of the steepest non-deliverable penalties.
Due to the way natural gas is metered, they can also send gas to their subsidiaries at the delivery terminal and reroute the overages. Due to the high-trust natural of bulk hydrocarbon, this sanctions dodge won't be noticed until there is an audit which will be years if ever.

Additionally, we've seen Russia's go-to strategy seems to be "Square off. Call your opponent out with harsh language. Make fist, remembering to keep your thumb outside. pivot hips to gain power, keep your wrist straight and punch yourself square in the dick, repeatedly." so dumb moves made in a fit of pique seems to be the go-to order of the day. Again, Nord Stream is still pumping, Russia was in a position to continue to squeeze the eurocucks.

 

[Ghostse]

I strongly doubt the alleged capabilities of modern anti-air missile batteries, at least if they aren't backed up by the level of situational awareness and responsiveness other assets give militaries like America's or Israel's.

Yes but also no; Remember Russia is making kills with R-50, an anti-ship missile that was thought to lack the maneuverability to take down anything more agile than an AWACS. Russia solved this problem by just launching a dozen or so of them.
So while yes, the S-300 batteries are manned by slavs with crippling vodka addictions, there are just so fucking many.

The S- series has not exactly made the most of the chances provided to show its worth in Syria and Ukraine. Israel routinely did whatever it wanted in Syrian airspace until Russia threw a big enough tantrum that the IAF decided to fly over Lebanese airspace and shoot missiles from there instead. Which they still blow up what they want to blow up around Damascus with. Sure, that's using F-35s, the worst plane ever made that Israel somehow manages to make useful, but Russian anti-air systems used by both sides in Ukraine have been... kinda meh at best.

Syria is in a spot where they would like nothing better than to curbstomp the Jews, but they are 0 for 3 (ok technically 0-1-2) against das juden and they weren't engaged in a civil war. Israel is also being very picky with targets, sticking to only that which can reasonably be said to be related hezbollah.
If Syria were to down an F-35, they would be open to massive retaliation from the IAF. What they really want is a severely damaged F-35.

Maybe the technology is amazing, but the supporting infrastructure (communications and shit) is ass, or the doctrine is ass, or the training is ass, or the soldiers are just plain ass because they're drunken slavniggers, but muh S-over 9000s sure aren't the overpowering weapon they were made out to be.
[ ... ]
Used judiciously I think the A-10 could deliver good service in the hands of Samuyil Hydenskyy

The S-3/400s are underperforming immensely, partly because they don't dare leave their RADARs on for very long (kek) and partly because the crews are slavs. But again, there are so many of them, that doesn't matter. And the S-400s can operate safely from in or near Russia proper.

But the S-300s are only part of the story. Most of the kills on Ukrainian aircraft have been Air-to-Air, something that A-10 struggles with; remember in the scenario the A-X was developed for the assumption that NATO had air supremacy but it was having issues turning that supremacy into burning tanks.

The US Air Force has a vested interest in seeing the A-10 die. Its inter agency politics sadly. The US Army has such a love affair with the A-10 they want to keep it and make it an Army platform like the AH-64's. Which is a bridge too far for the Air Force who will not tolerate the ground pounders having fixed wing aircraft. The A-10 remains a drain for the air force in the interim. It does not, ostensibly, have a role, and they want to get rid of it for their next generation wunderwaffen F-35's which can do literally everything and anything. So they say.

Personally I think there is deep concern in the Air Force that the Ukraine War is precisely the war an A-10 is meant to fight. A flying tank capable of massacring infantry with BRRT, and dropping heavy ordinance on tanks at range? Its ideal. Which is why the US will never give Ukraine A-10's. The last thing the US Air Force wants is their most hated platform getting more good press, after they went to all the trouble to finally killing the program. The A-10 is cursed with something the US Air Force can never forgive. They were forced to put...pilots...in the things because the...ugh...ARMY...insisted they keep it. Gross and icky. Every good air force general washes his hands the moment the A-10 is even mentioned.

like any american, I love the A-10 but it is in need of a replacement; and just to be clear I'll say it again, the F-35 "Its equally garbage at every role" is not it.

The slow loiter for COIN in low-intensity conflicts need to go to something like the A-29 (and it needs a bigger gun), but the A-29 can'rt operate in a peer conflict, and the prissy queens in the Chairforce brass need to accept that the F-35 is not a CAS platform for a peer-conflict. You don't need your CAS to be super-sonic but a 420 mph top speed won't cut it.

 

[teriyakiburns]

like any american, I love the A-10 but it is in need of a replacement; and just to be clear I'll say it again, the F-35 "Its equally garbage at every role" is not it.

The slow loiter for COIN in low-intensity conflicts need to go to something like the A-29 (and it needs a bigger gun), but the A-29 can'rt operate in a peer conflict, and the prissy queens in the Chairforce brass need to accept that the F-35 is not a CAS platform for a peer-conflict. You don't need your CAS to be super-sonic but a 420 mph top speed won't cut it.

A relatively cheap drone with a fat cannon, a couple of rocket pods, and a huge loiter time would be ideal for CAS, but they seem to be hampered by the same problem as the Warthog: They have fixed wings, so the chairforce claims ownership. The RAF has done the same thing here. Cost, of course, would be the other problem with this idea, but that might be mitigated if they were mass produced on the assumption that a lot of them might not come back.

 

[CaptainAutism69]

The only positive thing about the A-10 is the brrrrrrrrrrrr noise. Don't care if it kills things or burns in manpad fire, as long as there's brrrrrrrrrrzt.
But alas, the sources for it going to Ukraine are dubious at best, and it would be lucky to squirt out brr before it's rekt by layered air defence.
Brrrrrrrrrrtz

 

[Uranus Pink]

The A-X program implemented in the late 70ies with the full expectation there won't be much or if any air superiority covering them. Nevermind air supremacy which the concept didn't exist until after Desert Storm. At best Warpac fighters and interceptors will be too busy dealing with their NATO counterparts and trying to stop NATO bombers from leaking through.

 

[DumbDude43]

theres two possibilities regarding nord stream
either the americans did it to cut ties between germany and russia
or the russians did it to blame america for it and sow dissent in the west
i dont think anybody else could have done it, especially not ukraine itself, cause i really doubt that ukraine even has the capability to pull off underwater gayops in the baltic sea

 

[Fortyone]

A few pics of the Recent Russian losses around Vuhledar, I'll upload some more videos later. This is from the same area where they ran over several of their own soldiers, as seen here:

There is also some videos of a Tos-1 thermobaric rocket launcher being catastrophically destroyed and at least 3 Ur-77 meteorits (basically a vehicle that launches a huge explosive nearby to clear mines/destroy buildings) being destryoed as well

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

Yet Russia has kinda sunk its teeth in them, and it's nearly impossible to see it let go, especially of Crimea.

Like pit bull and a toddler, good luck with that.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Sy hersh is probably a Russian media friend but he might be telling the truth about The Nordstream pipeline. I mean we're talking about the US government here would you really put it past the American government to use Special operations soldiers to blow up a Pipeline illegally so they can help an ally gain a political advantage.

Yes, but he still needs to provide the evidence.
The gas pipes are Russian property, if I understand correctly. Private property, but in Russia that does not mean much.
This event would be perceived by much of the planet as a direct US attack on Russia, and only the fear of a WW would stop Russia from retaliating in full.
Hence, such allegations and accusations, that could easily lead to severe escalation and direct conflict between nuclear powers, must always come with evidence. Can't have idiots essentially being at the "I made it up" stage. Always evidence for claims.

 

[No. 7 cat]

https://youtu.be/94bqk8cB9iQ

Perun asking if the Russian invasion is a strategic error. Grand Strategy meditation. Only started watching.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

either the americans did it to cut ties between germany and russia

Not a case - even without NS 1 and NS 2 they can still push gas through other pipelines.

Euro is infested by them. It is impossible to cut off Germoney without blowing up at least 3-5 of it in land.

A few pics of the Recent Russian losses around Vuhledar, I'll upload some more videos later.

Muh bigga offenzzive der ruzzland.

 

[teriyakiburns]

theres two possibilities regarding nord stream
either the americans did it to cut ties between germany and russia
or the russians did it to blame america for it and sow dissent in the west
i dont think anybody else could have done it, especially not ukraine itself, cause i really doubt that ukraine even has the capability to pull off underwater gayops in the baltic sea

There's a third: poor maintenance. Russia spent several weeks claiming that they were having difficulty with the pumping stations at their end. At the time everyone just assumed it was a convenient lie to keep the gas cut off, as a negotiating tactic, but it could have been a genuine, serious problem that they were trying to downplay as just a minor pumping station issue. If it were sabotage, I'd lean toward Russia carrying it out as a (very successful) psyop, but I'd rather believe it was a combo of bad timing and circumstances beyond anyone's control.

 

[Fougaro]

Any economics nerds here? Lots of posts about Russias economy flourishing even though they lost a big market, prices are down and large assets of theirs have been frozen

Been seeing tons of videos/texts that shows the annual Russian budget, it shows a reduce of total revenue by 35% ( which is quite extreme ) and a rise in expenditure of like 56%
Is this true? Or is it just someone analyzing and not the actual russian budget?

If true, it really shows how fucked they are

Joke answer: Russia made more money due to a combination of increased exports (energy, food, fertiliser etc.) and decreased imports (mostly technology). The revenue they get from the Chinese and Indians (and Arabs IIRC) is, even at a discount, more than what they usually got from the Euroids. Russia's economy is by no means flourishing, but it's enough to keep on keeping on for now.

Serious answer: Putin's administration entered a partnership with Raid Shadow Legends. Russia's economy will soon be big enough to make anime real. That isn't even taking the revenues Russia is expected to make from the sales from Atomic Heart into account.