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

Agreed. The Muh WWIII useful idiots need to unbunch their panties.

I am guessing @Bork Laser was using a short hand and meant that forgetting all the other issues, if tons of new top-of-the-line NATO hardware starts showing up in Ukraine, Russia might green-light the use (or more frequent use) of a wider array of bigger conventional weapons, and may get less discriminatory about what sort of targets they use it against.

I.e. Previously they were lobbing S-300 missles with AA payloads into neighborhoods. 400 F-16's arrive, and they might start putting thermobaric warheads on the next wave.
Yeah the nuke allegory wasn't a good one. What you said is more in line what I meant in that the better hardware that shows up in Ukraine, the less reason Russia has in holding back. I can only assume the reason they are holding back is because they have no way to replace those weapons when used because of all the sanctions. But if more and more NATO hardware starts showing up in quick and increasing numbers, Russia may say fuck it and just do more damage out of spite rather than any military value. It's something we've seen them do over and over. Look at Odesa today.

Will Putin use nukes? In some ways I doubt it. I believe once he decides nukes can be used, if if only tactical and even if only in Ukraine, Russia pretty much comes a pariah state. Even China and India can't ignore that. Not only that but I would seriously expect another challenge to his authority from someone in Russia. Nobody wants to die but this is especially true for rich Oligarchs. If Putin decides the big red button is the only way to win, then the Oligarchs may decide Putin has completely lost control of the situation and needs to go.

Ukraine is corrupt, but slowly reforming to become less so, and aspires to join the EU and NATO, democratic processes and proper judiciary and all, and it has a highly educated population with pretty normal European values.
It's not like the shitholes and religious fanatics the US supplied in the past. A big part of their population is now living and working in the EU and integrated better in a year than Muslims have in 40. I think the probability that Ukraine turns into some rogue anti-Western state is pretty much zero; this whole war is happening in the first place because the overwhelming majority of the population want to have a western lifestyle and civil liberties so much. They're fighting on their own accord too, not because some glowies tried to do nation building to turn them into something they're not, like what failed in A-stan or Iraq.
I'll concede to you on this. I doubt on Sept 11th, 2041 we'll have a plane hijacked by Ukraine crash into One World Trade. Still at same time, you do have to think forwards. Even if they never become an anti-western state, the last thing you want is the next guy after Zelensky or the next guy after the next guy realize he has all this shit laying around and he thinks he can use it as leverage. The Eastern States sometimes seem to flip flop on whether or not they like Western Ideals depending on economics and general relations with Western Europe.
 
I'll concede to you on this. I doubt on Sept 11th, 2041 we'll have a plane hijacked by Ukraine crash into One World Trade.
Somewhere is a writer for Call of Duty scribbling this down in his notebook
Wouldn't that be funny?

Off-topic but I only now noticed, @Vince McMahon bruh, I just realized we joined Farms 3 days apart, and it was your kiwi-birthday yesterday and mine is coming up 🥳
 
Somewhere is a writer for Call of Duty scribbling this down in his notebook
Wouldn't that be funny?

Off-topic but I only now noticed, @Vince McMahon bruh, I just realized we joined Farms 3 days apart, and it was your kiwi-birthday yesterday and mine is coming up 🥳
Someone will inevitably be grumpy about this not being Reddit (although, just as retarded sometimes), so I'll say beforehand: go back to plebbit.

Now that's out of the way - thanks! An important milestone in social retardation for the both of us.
 
I can only assume the reason they are holding back is because they have no way to replace those weapons when used because of all the sanctions. But if more and more NATO hardware starts showing up in quick and increasing numbers, Russia may say fuck it and just do more damage out of spite rather than any military value. It's something we've seen them do over and over. Look at Odesa today.

I try to avoid saying "holding back" becasue that's what coping vatniggers say (along with things like "KAWLDROON!" and "Mmm Putin's dick is just like chocolate") Russia is doing to cope with the fact that Russia is getting publicly pantsed on the world stage as their army performs worse than imagined.
But it is also very true Russia has a large section of its soviet-inherited arsenal, stuff that goes beyond normal battlefield weapons but stops short of NBC, that it hasn't deployed or fully deployed.

It hasn't done so for a couple reasons.
One is as you said: inability to replace said weapons. That's (part of) why the Russian Airforce hasn't just gone full saturation on Ukraine's airspace. They could just put up everything they've got that will fly and Ukraine couldn't stop them from flattening kiev crossing into Ukrainian airspace with enough ordinance to flatten Kiev - whether that ordinance would be dropped on-target and how much of it would actually explode is a whole other question. But if Russia did that, they would take eye-watering airframe losses that would take decades to replace (and that'd just be the ones crashing due to shit maintenance.)

Two, those are rainy day weapons. The day that NATO/US/EU actually starts acting like Russia pretends they do. Because despite all the memes and hope for better sense, if WWIII pops off good and proper, it isn't going to end that first day. And all those people you just irratiated won't die of cancer for a number of years. They have a lot of time to be very, very, VERY mad at you.
As I keep reminding everyone, Ukraine isn't a make-or-break moment for Russia. Putin maybe, but not Russia. There is no need to bring out the biggest guns.

Third... look at how much a of Joke Russia's vunderwaffen have turned out to be. The Pantsir and S-400 are papertigers, to say nothing of the comedy that was the Su-57. Half of the power of shit like Thermobaric rockets is the fear they cause because no one's seen them actually used in combat. If Russia did widescale deployment, and they under perform, or have very high dud/failure rates... their utility as deterrents falls sharply.

And finally, International opinion. In the current battle space, if Russia started blanketing Ukraine in cluster munitions, they are going to lose what few friends they have because Russia, being a larger more armed country doing the attacking, shouldn't need to resort to said terror tactics. Now if Ukraine is suddenly gifted 4000 latest-model Abrams tanks, suddenly Russian use of cluster munitions doesn't seem that out of line.
That also also means that the more non-traditional weapons Russia brings out, the more NATO can give Ukraine more support. Not just in weapons handed over, but in UN presure that can be brought to be bear. If Russia makes it hard enough to be their friend that even Winnie the Pooh won't let chinese companies violate sanctions, Russia's war effort is done.
 
You've sold us to Daddy Stalin in Yalta and Potsdam, excuse us if we still are a bit sore about it.
This a bit over simplified. For one thing when the post war maps were being drawn up FDR was on deaths door and Truman wasn't even invited to the party because he was just an icky vice president. A huge mistake in retrospect, and the US has been much better at involving Vice Presidents in big boy stuff since.

The other issue was Stalin reneged on the agreement to release the former occupier territories. Because of course he did, and Churchill knew he would, but just as FDR kicked the bucket the Brits had the brainwave of electing a socialist at the close of the war who promised them a boat load of free shit. These two factors had way more to do with how the following 5 years post World War 2 played out then a deliberate "selling out to Daddy Stalin".

By the time the West had its act together the Soviets had the nuke and the window to actually do something about Stalins betrayal had closed. Fortunately Truman did kick into gear at the close of the 40s l by cock blocking the Commies in Italy, Greece and Korea. So it didn't all go stalins way.
 
This a bit over simplified. For one thing when the post war maps were being drawn up FDR was on deaths door and Truman wasn't even invited to the party because he was just an icky vice president. A huge mistake in retrospect, and the US has been much better at involving Vice Presidents in big boy stuff since.

The other issue was Stalin reneged on the agreement to release the former occupier territories. Because of course he did, and Churchill knew he would, but just as FDR kicked the bucket the Brits had the brainwave of electing a socialist at the close of the war who promised them a boat load of free shit. These two factors had way more to do with how the following 5 years post World War 2 played out then a deliberate "selling out to Daddy Stalin".

By the time the West had its act together the Soviets had the nuke and the window to actually do something about Stalins betrayal had closed. Fortunately Truman did kick into gear at the close of the 40s l by cock blocking the Commies in Italy, Greece and Korea. So it didn't all go stalins way.
True. History is not black and white. But Eastern Europe had zero say in its fate until the end of 20th century. Imagine us being Poland size of a quarter of the continent. Great Powers shaping our future for the decades to come and we fell behind the Iron Curtain, where shit was scarce and not as fun.
 
@mindlessobserver Truman was another socialist albeit not quite the closet communist like FDR was. As not only Truman let Stalin keep Eastern Europe, Truman also backstabbed the Republic of China by siding with Mao. Pulling all of U.S. military forces out of Republic of China who had been there long before attack on Pearl Harbor. Ordering Japanese military in China to surrender to (communist) Chinese forces instead of American forces which had help armed the Maoists. Didn't do much of anything to prevent Soviet spies from continuing to steal U.S. atomic and nuclear secrets.

Cold War happened because Truman refused to do what needed to be done to stop communism in the Soviet Union and China in 1945.
 
Hindsight and the present have been judging him since the surrender of Germany during WWII by the people who were there. Condemnation of Truman began right then and there. Moreso after not winning the Korean War. Especially after firing McArthur and not replacing him with someone who's wanting to win. Like Lincoln had done after firing McChellen and later Burnside and then eventually promoting Grant to win the American Civil War.
 
Two, those are rainy day weapons. The day that NATO/US/EU actually starts acting like Russia pretends they do. Because despite all the memes and hope for better sense, if WWIII pops off good and proper, it isn't going to end that first day. And all those people you just irratiated won't die of cancer for a number of years. They have a lot of time to be very, very, VERY mad at you.
As I keep reminding everyone, Ukraine isn't a make-or-break moment for Russia. Putin maybe, but not Russia. There is no need to bring out the biggest guns.
You forgot that Bibi have Kiev iron dome system to boot, which have been effective downing munitions and drones alike
 
It's easy to judge with the benefit of almost a century of hindsight but in the moment I really don't see how Truman could have sold World War 3 mere months after concluding world War 2.
The Soviets were never our allies, and they helped start WWII by doing exactly what Hitler did. The moment the war in Europe became a Moral War is the moment where the US, her people, and her forces could do anything for that justification, including turning right around and demanding soviets to btfo before they get wiped to the only functional and frankly overwhelming global power in the world at that time. If we supported Eastern Europe like we did the West, which with the US's dummy thicc economy we certainly could spare some support, the cold war could have never been a thing, the soviet ideology stuck to Russia and maybe portions of China.
Remember, Russia lived only because the US was singlehandedly supporting it's entire infrastructure with not just lend-lease, but also everything needed to logistically support that lend-lease, from trucks to clothes to food. People forget about this because the majority of soviet command was made up of retarded sycophants who couldn't tell a truck to go from A to B without Stalin getting involved and being an idiot.
Funnily enough this hasn't changed in a century and Russians keep forgetting that it's literally every other country that's doing the actual work on making their anything function. Unironically one of the most pampered shitholes in human history. At least African countries have the decency to beg everyone else for food, Russians just expect to be catered to.
 
The copecage has a clip of a Ukrainian being assaulted by some angry vatnik after the hohol is mocking his wife for vacationing in the degenerate Collective West, Italy more specifically it seems.
What the people celebrating the assault do not seem to get is that the hohol only mildly provoked with words, and the vatnik acted by embracing inner-chimp, and he's in a foreign country without much love for his kind.
Let's see what justice has to say about it. Hopefully not a fine, we demand a few years of prison for physical assault. Hohol needs to go to legal medicine and get documentation that certifies his wounds or marks.
 
S-400 are papertigers
I'm going to go out on a limb and defend the S-400.
S-400 IS a really good SAM/AD system.
S-400 is NOT a magic shield wunderwaffen which automatically invalidates all aircraft/cruise missiles/ballistic missiles used against the AO its tasked with defending.

Half of the power of shit like Thermobaric rockets is the fear they cause because no one's seen them actually used in combat.
TOS-1A spam in Bakhmut would like a word with you
 
It's easy to judge with the benefit of almost a century of hindsight but in the moment I really don't see how Truman could have sold World War 3 mere months after concluding world War 2.
WW2 started because France and UK were guarantors of Polands independence. Free Poland was basically what millions of people died for when you boil it down and the result of that """victory""" was that it got occupied by people worse than Germans. You can't just kill half of Europe for a cause and 6 years later go "woops lol i guess technically germany lost so poland is safe XD!"

This war in Ukraine is a direct result of centuries of West not giving a shit about Eastern Europes warnings that Russians are literal snow niggers.
Every time Germany chimped out Bongs and frogs would be all over that shit, meanwhile Russia was genociding non-stop in the east and the only push-back they got for it during the last 300 years was the crimean "war".

Well now we have a war that the west can't close its eyes on, but i guarantee that after ukraine wins (theres legitimately no other outcome) eurofags will be tearing each other apart on who gets to "normalize" relationships with russia first, and the talks of "bringing them in into the big european family" will start. resulting in another Russian chimpout in 50 years.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and defend the S-400.
S-400 IS a really good SAM/AD system.
S-400 is NOT a magic shield wunderwaffen which automatically invalidates all aircraft/cruise missiles/ballistic missiles used against the AO its tasked with defending.
Got to admit S400s are good enough for targeting cruise missiles while other systems down sahid drones. Russian military tactic is lob everything and anything at civilian targets.

Russian helicopter and SU35s have limited life span due to smorgasbord of Air Defense system that back up S400, let's say patriot system
 
A longer read but very pertinent & concerning, as the dinosaur mentality regarding drones is definitely not unique to Ukraine. Luckily it seems that most are coming around to the concept, and the rest will either age-out of their positions (or hopefully get shit-canned first).

"If the UAV situation doesn't change, we'll be at the negotiating tables within a year" - FPV drones and their role in the war:
Every so often, a Kyiv tech specialist [in peacetime] with a nom-de-guerre of "Mazhor" ("the Glam Boy" – ed.) heads out to hunt. He gathers a team, loads his drones into the boot of a vehicle, and heads into the combat zone.
He’s not military personnel; he’s more like a freelance hunter. But Mazhor has no trouble reaching the front. The military guys know him and his capabilities.
"He does things that give you goosebumps," says aerial
reconnaissance specialist Sergey Gnezdilov, referring to Mazhor.
First, Mazhor surveys the area and shares new information with the brigades there. When he identifies an interesting target, the hunt begins for Russian military equipment, infantry concentrations, and surveillance systems.
Mazhor’s primary weapon is FPV drones.
FPV stands for First Person View. This name stems from the control principle of the quadcopter. The pilot receives a live video feed from the drone through goggles, allowing for significantly more precise control of the unmanned aircraft.


The drones are expendable, but the goggles and controller are reused.

The Ukrainian army only recently started using kamikazes drones, but they’re already gaining increasing importance in the war against Russia. It’s no wonder experts call it the largest drone war in history.
Why are FPV drones necessary, and what sets them apart from other quadcopters? Why are they considered one of the few means of attack that Ukraine does not depend on allies for? This article answers those questions.

Hunting for Russian tanks

"Mazhor" (In Ukraine, "Mazhor" is a common nickname for a person with wealthy relatives or coming from a wealthy background, usually also living a luxurious lifestyle – ed.) got his nom-de-guerre, not because he was wealthy, but because of his firearm.
In February 2022, when he was at a checkpoint on the Kyiv bypass, the territorial defence fighters had 5.45mm calibre rifles, while Mazhor, by chance, got a 7.62mm rifle. His friend Sasha, who was nearby, noticed the superior "toy" and rendered the verdict: "Alright, your nom-de-guerre is going to be Mazhor."
Sasha died in the winter, and in memory of his comrade, Mazhor decided to keep his nom-de-guerre. He continues to go by it, even though he has little money.

And the money wouldn’t hurt, either. Not because FPV drones are expensive. On the contrary, they’re one of the cheapest solutions for aerial attacks.
The price of one FPV drone is, on average, $300-400. But don’t forget that they’re kamikaze drones, otherwise known as suicide drones (There are also multiple-use FPVs which cost around the same as a kamikaze, but the author chose to focus on kamikaze FPVs – ed.), so those three hundred dollars are spent on a single flight.
"We all see those impressive videos of a drone flying and bam! It hits the target. Damn! You’re a skilled pilot if one out of five hits the mark. So the cost of this endeavour – God forbid," says Mazhor, confessing that he hits the target in one out of three cases.

The lenses on FPV drone cameras are typically cheap and unsuitable for detailed terrain exploration. Pilots rely on the data gathered by reconnaissance drones and sometimes ground reconnaissance markers. So, when sending their quadcopter on its final flight, they usually already know what they want to target.
Mazhor launches the drone only when he finds a truly "juicy" target: military equipment, infantry concentrations, and surveillance systems. It’s difficult to hit moving vehicles with artillery, infantry can disperse before a slower drone reaches them, and it’s challenging to destroy a surveillance camera on a thin pole using ammunition, even when dropped from a UAV. It’s much easier to crash into the camera.
Among the forms of warfare mentioned, the average civilian shows the least understanding of cameras. The Russian long-range video surveillance system Murom-M can detect a person at a distance of up to 10 km during the day and up to 4 km at night via its thermal camera.
It can be programmed with 30 points to monitor continuously, 24/7. When it detects an interesting object, it transmits the coordinates to the military, who can immediately open fire on the sector.

Mazhor recalls an operation in the Luhansk region. The Russians installed a camera on a telephone tower in one of the villages, monitoring from a strategically important height. When Ukrainian soldiers entered the area, the occupiers could see where their targets were and adjusted their fire accordingly.
Destroying the metal structure of the tower was challenging. That’s when Mazhor’s team came to the rescue. They found a convenient launching position, and within a few minutes the kamikaze drone had destroyed the Russian camera.
When discussing the effectiveness of FPV drones, people often use another comparison – a "bird" worth $300 can damage a tank worth several million dollars.
"If you hit the back compartment of the engine correctly, there's a 70% chance it will ignite," says a military drone pilot with the call sign "DJ," specializing in FPV. "For example, a tank comes out, it’s in action, and you fly towards it. You can at least hit the tracks, causing them to come off, and that’s it – the tank is immobilized, and now it can be finished off by artillery. Alternatively, you can launch another drone for the task."
Service person DJ hasn’t actually taken down tanks yet, but he has successfully targeted APCs.
Moreover, on YouTube, plenty of videos show quadcopter kamikazes chasing tanks. And among military personnel, there are many stories about cases where, in a particular combat zone, drones burnt down 40 enemy armoured vehicles in a month.

Other interesting targets for an FPV drone pilot are surveillance posts, anti-tank missile systems, tripod-mounted grenade launchers, and large-calibre machine guns. They can even infiltrate bunkers, which isn’t possible with a regular projectile.
Although an FPV drone is essentially a projectile, it is a guided one.
Another essential difference from the [DJI] "Mavic 3," which has already become "the classic" of the Ukrainian battlefield, is that the FPV drone is three times faster. This crewless aircraft effortlessly reaches speeds of up to 160 kilometres per hour. Depending on the amount of explosives installed on board, the speed may decrease, but it remains incredibly high.
Due to the enhanced speed and manoeuvrability, pilots control the drones using goggles, providing maximum immersion in the combat scene. However, the goggles prevent a pilot from seeing their immediate surroundings. That’s why a pilot usually needs a partner to ensure their safety.
In addition to simple cameras, FPV drones have weak batteries that only last a few minutes of flight. However, it is sufficient to reach the target. These quadcopters have another significant advantage over the Mavic 3. They are much more resistant to electronic warfare.
FPV drones use an analog video transmission system. Jamming this system is much more challenging, but the enemy can intercept the signal and see the same image as the operator. The intercept would pose a danger if the drone were to return to the pilot and expose the positions of Ukrainian fighters.
However, for this type of drone, it is a one-way journey.
"Mavic is already a classic. It is quite expensive, but it is a versatile drone designed to return," says aerial reconnaissance specialist Hnezdilov, who, given the chance, would erect a monument to the Mavic 3. "As for FPV... If we compare it to motorcycles, it would be like an amateur enduro bike that enthusiasts have assembled, and now they ride and show off their skills."

Where FPV drones are manufactured
Every day in dozens of Ukrainian garages, perhaps even hundreds, people are hammering, soldering, and adjusting the equipment. There are hundreds of people. They work both weekdays and weekends, all producing FPV drones.
To be more precise, it is not so much "production." Rather, it’s the assembly of the components, which are ordered separately. And the term "garage" is a general name used for small enterprises, a tribute to the times when craftsmen worked in garages. Nowadays, it is often not an actual garage but rather a house, office, former warehouse, or even a bunker.
FPV quadcopters are not complex devices: once you get used to them, you can assemble one in an evening.
"This field has evolved into a business. Right now, people are making big bucks from it in Ukraine," assures Mazhor. In his understanding, it’s a way to make money during the war.
From the manufacturers’ perspective, it is a business that saves the lives of Ukrainian soldiers.

– Russia indeed invests significant funds in this area. They import truckloads of components from China and simply hand them over to engineers, saying, "Start assembling!" Russia has quickly developed standardized ammunition for UAVs. Russian military personnel don’t need to assemble the ammunition themselves; they take it out of the box, attach it, and fly, says Lyubov Shipovych, the founder of the charitable foundation Dignitas Fund.
We talk to her at one of their enterprises. They are assembling a batch of 30 FPV drones that Shipovych will take to the front lines tomorrow. Eight hundred drones have been contracted from manufacturers, and 150 have already been delivered to soldiers.
The Ministry of Defence does not procure FPV drones. Fortunately, we have the Ministry of Digital Transformation, which partially substitutes for the Ministry of Defence. It purchases FPV drones as part of the Army of Drones project. It helps manufacturers obtain the operation permit (which allows them to purchase a specific type of UAV from the company officially – ed.). However, even to obtain this permit, some manufacturers undergo an approval process that takes up to three months.
One of the manufacturers who obtained the operational permit measures the number of filled documents not by copies but by kilograms. And he shares the most memorable question he encountered while filling out the paperwork: "the engine size in cubic centimetres" in a battery-powered electric drone.
In Maria Berlinska's view, people like this manufacturer are key figures in the country today. Not the president, ministers, or even the soldiers on the front line, but the engineers. Because they are the ones who can propose solutions that will save the lives of tens of thousands of people.
"The way I see it, the Ministry of Defence gives very little attention to what is happening in robotic unmanned technologies. There is no state policy at all," says Berlinska. "And the Ministry of Defence should come forward and say that this is our top priority, that we understand that this is the only thing that Ukraine can influence."
Let's be honest: what can we really influence? Can we buy HIMARS or F-16s for ourselves? Can we influence the number of Humvees that will be provided to us, or the number of anti-tank missile complexes? No, all we can do is plead for them. Currently, Ukraine’s only contribution to the war effort is people in uniforms. In reality, that’s about it."

According to Ms. Berlinska’s opinion, the state should take on the function of importing components for drones, thereby allowing engineers to focus on their tech tasks.
"What do we need to do? We need to have this issue under the personal control of the President. Beyond that, I do not have further suggestions. What else is there to do? Maybe seek solace and prayer in a church, hoping for divine intervention and guidance.
Losing time means losing the only irreplaceable resource we have – our people. After losing people, we cannot continue the war. If we do not approach this [war] from a technological standpoint, we are heading towards defeat, which may be labelled as a ceasefire.
I want to be mistaken, but I believe that at this rate, we will have to sit down at the negotiating table within a year."
***
As long as the state doesn’t pay due attention to drones, the primary suppliers of drones for the Ukrainian army are volunteers and charitable foundations.
But it’s not just that. Soldiers purchase drones with their own salaries, farmers chip in for UAVs for their fellow fighters, and former employers order copters for service personnel who used to be their work buddies not much more than a year prior.
Whenever he has the opportunity, the fighter DJ assembles FPV drones himself. He invests around 12,000-15,000 hryvnias ($300-400) of his own money monthly (the current salary of service personnel is approximately $800-900 for those working in the rear units and $2500-3500 for those fighting the enemy in direct day-to-day combat – ed.)
"When your unit is on the frontline, during an assault we might have two cases of "cargo-200" [casualty by death] who didn’t make it past a machine gun point, and a bunch of "cargo-300"s [casualty by injury]. It’s better to spend that 15,000 hryvnias on a drone, he says (Ukraine still uses Soviet codes for classifying casualties: Cargo 200 stands for "irrecoverable losses" (i.e., soldiers killed in action), while Cargo 300 is a code for the wounded soldiers – ed.)
On the eve of the publication of this article, DJ came under artillery fire. He was injured, and the ground control station for FPV drones was destroyed. Now the unit is fundraising for a replacement.
And in the meantime, if they are ordered to launch an assault, the soldiers must rely solely on their own resources.
(Archive)
 
Last edited:
Got to admit S400s are good enough for targeting cruise missiles while other systems down sahid drones. Russian military tactic is lob everything and anything at civilian targets.

Russian helicopter and SU35s have limited life span due to smorgasbord of Air Defense system that back up S400, let's say patriot system
Ukraine doesn't use S-400.
You are thinking of S-300, the more widespread older brother of S-400 for which it was ultimately derived.

S-400, which is admittedly largely just an upgraded S-300 with a few significant changes, was hyped by Russiaboos before the war as being some kind of magic anti-everything-that-flies shield which can not only shoot down Tomahawk & AGM-86 ALCM, but also F-22 and F-35 AND even the HARM/AARGM that gets fired at it!
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and defend the S-400.
S-400 IS a really good SAM/AD system.
S-400 is NOT a magic shield wunderwaffen which automatically invalidates all aircraft/cruise missiles/ballistic missiles used against the AO its tasked with defending.

I'm not saying either system is total garbage, but the performance of both was vastly, vastly over hyped to the point Russians believed their own lies and we saw S400 RADARs gettign HARM'd and Pantsirs getting drone'd.

The other issue the S400 has is the Russians really overselling how many systems they had.
 
2. There is a legitimate risk if they give too much and too fast, Russia will just go from broke and unleash the nukes. It's a very strange and very weird balancing act. NATO is trying to arm Ukraine in a way that doesn't escalate the situation. But to win the war, Ukraine needs to escalate the situation. If they want to take back Crimea, they 100% have to destroy that bridge. Thats the only way they are going to have a chance to survive pushing there. I'm sure it's been talked about here before but Crimea has always been one of the worst places to be the attacker in a war. It's ridiculously defensible, and even if you win, your going to lose a lot of people. You have to cut off that supply line otherwise the enemy is going to push you back.
Ukraine is corrupt, but slowly reforming to become less so, and aspires to join the EU and NATO, democratic processes and proper judiciary and all, and it has a highly educated population with pretty normal European values.
It's not like the shitholes and religious fanatics the US supplied in the past. A big part of their population is now living and working in the EU and integrated better in a year than Muslims have in 40. I think the probability that Ukraine turns into some rogue anti-Western state is pretty much zero; this whole war is happening in the first place because the overwhelming majority of the population want to have a western lifestyle and civil liberties so much. They're fighting on their own accord too, not because some glowies tried to do nation building to turn them into something they're not, like what failed in A-stan or Iraq.
I see people bring this up a lot. Especially ones who are against giving Ukraine weapons and money. Vatnigger or not. I doubt Ukraine will go from being the Mujahideen to Al-Qaeda. I don't say this being pro Ukraine or giving them weapons and money. But they aren't low IQ dune coon religious fanatics. Their chances of becoming anti-Western extremists are very small. I doubt even any of the Azov people would be an issue. Any problems they have would be with the Ukrainian government.
 
Back