War NATO weighs no-fly zone over Ukraine amidst divided opinions - Estonia, the UK, Poland, Canada, Lithuania, and France have expressed readiness to extend their support, while the US and Germany remain opposed.

Estonia, the UK, Poland, Canada, Lithuania, and France have expressed readiness to extend their support, while the US and Germany remain opposed.

NATO member states are considering protecting the airspace over western Ukraine, reports BILD. While negotiations are ongoing, no final decision has been made yet.

Estonia, the UK, Poland, Canada, Lithuania, and France are willing to expand their support to Kyiv and potentially operate within Ukraine itself. The US and Germany are against such measures.

Current discussions encompass several areas, including training Ukrainian Armed Forces with NATO instructors in Ukraine.

Niko Lange, former head of the operational staff of the German Ministry of Defence, noted the practicality and cost-efficiency of sending NATO instructors to western Ukraine rather than having large numbers of Ukrainians travel across Europe for training. This point was also emphasized by Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis.

NATO countries, including the UK, Canada, and Estonia, are prepared to deliver arms and ammunition not just to the Ukrainian border but further along the frontline. Some Western nations are working on a "frontline logistics" concept.

The discussion includes protecting western Ukraine's airspace with NATO anti-aircraft systems, an initiative primarily supported by Poland, though no conclusive decision has been reached.

On May 21, President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that the NATO summit in Washington could decide on transferring seven Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine. He highlighted Ukraine's need for a significant number of such systems.

On May 24, Polish Foreign Ministry representative Pawel Wronski mentioned that Warsaw is considering using its own air defense systems to intercept Russian missiles over Ukraine.

Article Link

Archive

 

[Corpun]

Didn't they want this shit over Syria? Neocons really want their Cold War wet dreams of invading Moscow badly.

 

[Bloodthirsty Nosenigger]

Didn't they want this shit over Syria? Neocons really want their Cold War wet dreams of invading Moscow badly.

Yup.
Senator Leslie Nielsen over here, for example:

 

[St.Davis]

At that metric, Russian will be fighting in Ukraine until 2030.... Russia has probably lost 70,000 men in ~825 days in Ukraine.... Is Russia prepared to lose another 70,000?

What about 100,000?

How much longer can Russia sustain the war economy?

How many more ships, jets, tanks, howitzers, helicopters and trucks can Russia lose before it's offensive capability is so degraded it can't exploit a worn down Ukrainian military?

Is Ukraine having issues? Yes but it hasn't had a hundred thousand man plus mobilization yet.

The war will not end until 2025 at the earliest.

I think these figures, and these conclusions, are based on faulty reasoning and estimation.

The Ukraine has had to institute mass drafting (through multiple waves, which have grown to include retards and even REDDIT JANNIES). To my knowledge Russia had a draft near the beginning of the war, but most, if not all, troops in theatre now are contract soldiers. The Ukraine is having manpower shortages due to losses.

If we humour the point and say that Russia has lost 70,000 men, how many do you believe The Ukraine has lost? Do you believe that they've lost fewer, despite Russia having a massive artillery, armour, and airpower advantage? Russia really hasn't given the impression of being meaningfully hurt by being in a "war economy", so I'd say they can sustain this for however long they'd like.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

Is there some rule that says that in order to be a NATO member you need to have your brain scooped out and replaced by a bucket of horse apples?

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

Tale as old as... well, WWII at least. Yanks "supported" the allies to ensure the demolition of the economies of Europe and the US's place as the world's sole industrial power. Britain's end of the bargain included:

• Ridiculously usurious war loans that were finally paid off in 2006(!!)
• Gifting the US Britain's entire knowledge base of nuclear research, with the understanding that this would be reciprocated. Get told to eat shit after the US gets its side of the deal.
• Dismantling its empire basically at quiet gunpoint from the US after the war (The Suez crisis; The US pressuring Britain to surrender the truly native Falkland islands to the empty claim of junta-led Argentina; The CIA infiltrating British government positions to overthrow the prime minister of Australia over disagreements about US bases).

Thats down to the British catastrophically overestimating French military prowess and starting a war that it turned out they were hilariously unequipped to fight. Rather than take the L they went to a communist-infiltrated loanshark of a country and got what they fucking deserved.

Let's see what happens, but the answer is probably nothing. NATO is always at least 6 weeks behind the curve, they'll probably get serious right around the time Kiev is getting rocked.

 

[Unyielding Stupidity]

NATO countries, including the UK, Canada, and Estonia, are prepared to deliver arms and ammunition not just to the Ukrainian border but further along the frontline. Some Western nations are working on a "frontline logistics" concept.

The discussion includes protecting western Ukraine's airspace with NATO anti-aircraft systems, an initiative primarily supported by Poland, though no conclusive decision has been reached.

On May 21, President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that the NATO summit in Washington could decide on transferring seven Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine. He highlighted Ukraine's need for a significant number of such systems.

So basically, they're just throwing more equipment at Ukraine and hoping that one of them will be the wunderwaffen which wins them the war. Equipment that requires specially made ammo that's in extremely short supply and extremely expensive to produce, and which has a habit of breaking down. Issues that aren't a problem when you're the United States and can reliably trust your "just in time" logistics. But for Ukraine? These issues make this equipment less effective than desired at best, and downright useless at worst. Plus it's not like Ukraine even has the manpower spare to train with this equipment, if the levels of desperation that their conscription is reaching says anything.

Also lmao at that absolute dream team supplying the equipment for this plan; a decrepit relic of a superpower, the cuck state of the North, and one of the Baltic chihuahuas.

 

[The Tall Man]

hoping that one of them will be the wunderwaffen

No, they know what they are doing now is not winning anything. They also know what they are doing now is simply killing off Ukrainians and some Ruskies.
They know this weakens the West, they know this causes more inflation.

"The purpose of a system is what it does" -H. P. Lovecraft

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

Instead of starting this pointless conflict America should've just given Israel more money to finally solve the Islam problem once and for all. Would've been worth it to the Americans in the long run.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

VKS has been struggling to kill a handful of early-model MiG-29, even lower number of Su-27 and a literal dozen Su-24 Fencers for over two years now.

Dafuq are they gonna do against F-15s, Rafales and Eurofighter Typhoons?

 

[Doctor Love]

How many more ships, jets, tanks, howitzers, helicopters and trucks can Russia lose before it's offensive capability is so degraded it can't exploit a worn down Ukrainian military?

They have now built the necessary equipment to continually produce war materiel.

There is a slight issue with their procurement of certain things. Computers are still a little problematic for them.

But for every tank Russia loses, it can build another one. The sanctions left so many empty factories that they just repurposed them.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has lost most of its productivity and is limping on, using stockpiles and imports. Instead of exporting new materiel, we've exported our stocks - so in a war, we'd fare even poorer than Ukraine.

Russia has actively won in terms of war economy - they overtook Germany, economically, and are on-par with Japan. The only people who don't acknowledge that fact are the handful of Western countries who depend on the banking sector.

The US military took over Iraq in less than 35 days thousands of miles from home. Meanwhile it's Day 825 in the Russo-Ukranian War if you count from Feb 2022.....

If Ukraine was like Iraq, the Russians would have wiped it out in seven days, flat.

 

[Male Idiot]

I don't think they'll do dogfights. I think it has been mostly AA fire.

 

[Ghostse]

But for every tank Russia loses, it can build another one.

They have the potential but lack the capability. You're seeing T-62s and T-55s refurbed from soviet storage in frontline Russian units because the T-14 is vaporware and Russia lacks the ability to put out their latest T-72 variant at quantity.

But also keep in mind WWII Germany was able to make over 250 fighters a month until about a month before the final surrender - war economies don't slow, they collapse.

Anyway, the US is probably against the no-fly zone because Russia loses about a plane a month due to bad maintenance or pilot error, like this Su-35 from March.

https://t.me/vchkogpu/47098

 

[WonderWino]

What parts of Canada have the most hohols again?

Manitoba for some weird reason. Fair number in BC as well

Estonia, the UK, Poland, Canada, Lithuania, and France have expressed readiness to extend their support, while the US and Germany remain opposed.

Canada huh. Yeah good luck with that. Has NATO forgotten canadian soldiers can literally nope out of that one? By law without an actual declaration of war canadian soldiers cannot legally be ordered overseas without their consent. Any canadian soldiers overseas are there entirely voluntarily

Good luck getting canada to literally declare war against russia

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

Good luck getting canada to literally declare war against russia

Maybe they will if they find out there's a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia. Freeland can finally avenge her nazi grandpa.

 

[BelUwUga]

Tale as old as... well, WWII at least. Yanks "supported" the allies to ensure the demolition of the economies of Europe and the US's place as the world's sole industrial power. Britain's end of the bargain included:

• Ridiculously usurious war loans that were finally paid off in 2006(!!)
• Gifting the US Britain's entire knowledge base of nuclear research, with the understanding that this would be reciprocated. Get told to eat shit after the US gets its side of the deal.
• Dismantling its empire basically at quiet gunpoint from the US after the war (The Suez crisis; The US pressuring Britain to surrender the truly native Falkland islands to the empty claim of junta-led Argentina; The CIA infiltrating British government positions to overthrow the prime minister of Australia over disagreements about US bases).

Suffah Anglo*ds

 

[Ser Prize]

I have a better idea: End the war.

Too bad. People are getting too uppity in their home countries. Time for some globohomo culling.

 

[Falcos_Commisar]

VKS has been struggling to kill a handful of early-model MiG-29, even lower number of Su-27 and a literal dozen Su-24 Fencers for over two years now.

Dafuq are they gonna do against F-15s, Rafales and Eurofighter Typhoons?

Nothing as Ukraine won't be sent those.

The UAF has been using its jets as guided bomb and missile trucks. I doubt they get closer than 25km to the Frontline.

They have now built the necessary equipment to continually produce war materiel.

There is a slight issue with their procurement of certain things. Computers are still a little problematic for them.

But for every tank Russia loses, it can build another one. The sanctions left so many empty factories that they just repurposed them.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has lost most of its productivity and is limping on, using stockpiles and imports. Instead of exporting new materiel, we've exported our stocks - so in a war, we'd fare even poorer than Ukraine.

Russia has actively won in terms of war economy - they overtook Germany, economically, and are on-par with Japan. The only people who don't acknowledge that fact are the handful of Western countries who depend on the banking sector.


If Ukraine was like Iraq, the Russians would have wiped it out in seven days, flat.

Russia can make, roughly, 10-20 brand new tanks a month. That's the T-90M and I think they've JUST tried to restart T-80BVM production on Omsk. They can make a similar number of IFVs, maybe double that of APC.

Helicopters.... A few dozen a year

Jets.... Same, 30 to maybe 40 a year.

Howitzers.... A question mark as Russia was only making a few dozen brand new gun barrels a year for decades as they just kept refurbishing old Soviet stuff.

Trucks and armored cars, a lot more but those aren't Frontline combat vehicles.

Russian AFV stockpiles are predicted to run out by late 2025 at current draw rates.

I don't think they'll do dogfights. I think it has been mostly AA fire.

Correct, it's doubtful that more than 10 or so Ukrainian jets have been shot down by Russian jets vs dozens lost to AA fire.

They have the potential but lack the capability. You're seeing T-62s and T-55s refurbed from soviet storage in frontline Russian units because the T-14 is vaporware and Russia lacks the ability to put out their latest T-72 variant at quantity.

But also keep in mind WWII Germany was able to make over 250 fighters a month until about a month before the final surrender - war economies don't slow, they collapse.

Anyway, the US is probably against the no-fly zone because Russia loses about a plane a month due to bad maintenance or pilot error, like this Su-35 from March.

View attachment 6037816

https://t.me/vchkogpu/47098

Correct, Russia can make, roughly, 10-20 brand new tanks a month. That's the T-90M and I think they've JUST tried to restart T-80BVM production on Omsk.

The massive stockpiles will run dry by Fall 2025 if current trends hold.

 

[Doctor Love]

Correct, Russia can make, roughly, 10-20 brand new tanks a month. That's the T-90M and I think they've JUST tried to restart T-80BVM production on Omsk.

>Drops classified information as if it's self-evident

There's literally no reason to believe that number. Also, brand new tanks mean fuck-all. It is now a grinding match.

 

[Ghostse]

Correct, Russia can make, roughly, 10-20 brand new tanks a month. That's the T-90M and I think they've JUST tried to restart T-80BVM production on Omsk.

The massive stockpiles will run dry by Fall 2025 if current trends hold.

It is unlikely even 10-20 is all new construction tanks. The T-90 is just a rebranded T-72 and they are likely using stripped T-72 parts from mothballed tanks and T-72/T-90 parts from damaged tanks/putting new parts into salvaged tanks. The T-90M still relies on foreign components.

Russia has been attempting to restart T-80 production for a while, but I think that's probably going to be a dead end in the net-new tank production front; the T-80 was the most advanced soviet tank (read: could theoretically be made without western pig-dog sanctions affecting it) but due to political concerns a lot of its parts were made in Poland and Ukraine, countries disinclined to supply Russia with said parts at current. But they still have a couple thousand hulls in mothballs so it's probably worth the effort to even just get parts production and full-service online.

The real thing to contemplate is...
Unless a tank is completely destroyed (or captured) it can very likely be repaired. It might need to be shipped back to the factory, but it takes a lot to fully kill a tank. So the real question is less how many new tanks can Russia make, and more "how many tanks, regardless of % post-consumer material, can Russia's factories and repair depots supply to the front". And between outright lies, rosy fabrications of data, forged data for contract money, and actually believing their own propaganda, I don't think anyone actually knows that number.
However the fact there are un-modernized T-62s in Russian armor formations makes a body suspect that number is not positive to losses.

And I think we're watching the same youtubes, but portions of the stockpiles are likely to run dry. Arguably the most important parts which is the parts for Russia's 155mm guns - mostly barrels; the upper level BMPs are already gone from stockpiles iirc. But before those go completely dry, we're more likely to see more motocross and golfcart-borne assaults.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Nothing as Ukraine won't be sent those.

The UAF has been using its jets as guided bomb and missile trucks. I doubt they get closer than 25km to the Frontline.

I agree, I was discussing the hypothetical NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine which would include actual A-tier NATO air frames, not just alpha-model soviet birds and the forth-coming "any day now" F-16 (themselves likely old cold war models).

I find it highly dubious that a VKS which has struggled to sufficiently suppress a couple handfuls of old soviet birds, even if that suppression involves total destruction of anything resembling a runway, is going to magically pull some ace out its sleeve that can suppress every possible NATO airfield from the Polish-Ukrainian border all the way to fucking Ramstein Air Base.

Russia has failed to destroy an underdog air force for the last 2+ years, in spite of the element of surprise in the opening days of the invasion.
Why in the world should I believe they have some magic bullet up their ass that can do to a peer (if not overdog) combined air forces that they haven't already tried?

---
Now the above hypothetical scenario almost certainly won't happen, 1) because its a relatively no-name news source reporting a dubious telegram account. And 2) even if the source was legit, NATO "weighing the option" is a far cry from "NATO is going to grow a pair and actually do it".