Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[Dirty Larry]

It's been covered before but the truth of it is the US doesn't really have a whole lot left to offer at the negotiating table. What can we realistically promise?

Withdrawing from NATO comes to mind. Trump has been sending signals that he believes Europe should defend themselves, and it looks like Vivek will be in his ear so it’s not a zero percent chance it could come up in peace talks.

 

[Kola]

That would stop the fighting (if we actually did it) and appease Russia enough for them to call it a day.

Nope, because ukrop neo-nazis would start shelling the next day. That's why russians are also insisting on demilitarizing Ukraine and dismantling those units.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

It's been covered before but the truth of it is the US doesn't really have a whole lot left to offer at the negotiating table. What can we realistically promise? Withdraw from funding Ukraine's fight, stop providing up-to-the-minute intelligence data and satellite imaging, end all sanctions, unfreeze Russian accounts in the US, return money stolen from them, and invite Russia back into the banking system?

None of that is really all that appealing to Russia. They're winning anyway, so they're happy to watch us bankrupt ourselves funding the losing side of the war. They seem to be doing just fine despite Ukraine's access to "cheat mode"-level intelligence data. Sanctions didn't do much to harm them. The stolen money sucks, but they've partnered up with other allies and created an entirely alternative banking system (BRICS) that we're not invited to, so what do they care if we "invite" them back?

About all we can realistically do that would actually get Russia's attention is to whisper into Zalinsky's ear to make him shut up, sue for peace, and accept losing the territory Russia has already claimed. That would stop the fighting (if we actually did it) and appease Russia enough for them to call it a day. That's really all we have though, and Russia doesn't need it ... it'd just be a shortcut to victory that kills fewer people.

Trump's goal--and one that happens to align with Globohomo--is to break BRICS in some way. Don't think it'll be the tariffs and that's done for protectionist reasons, so probably making SWIFT an actual neutral payment processor, so people will trust it again. Saudi Arabia is the weak link that the US can exploit, but I don't think it's as weak as Trump needs it to be because his reign is so short and nations need long-term agreements.

 

[warhammerautist]

Ukraine has longer range MLRS systems than the HIMARS and tornado-s.

 

[Gondolindrim]

Nope, because ukrop neo-nazis would start shelling the next day. That's why russians are also insisting on demilitarizing Ukraine and dismantling those units.

Nazism is a suicide cult after all. If they can't win, they'll kill as many people as they possibly can before going down.

 

[Betonhaus]

Ukraine has longer range MLRS systems than the HIMARS and tornado-s.
View attachment 6632171

I wonder if it's just longer range on paper, or the aim is shit.

It's been covered before but the truth of it is the US doesn't really have a whole lot left to offer at the negotiating table. What can we realistically promise? Withdraw from funding Ukraine's fight, stop providing up-to-the-minute intelligence data and satellite imaging, end all sanctions, unfreeze Russian accounts in the US, return money stolen from them, and invite Russia back into the banking system?

None of that is really all that appealing to Russia. They're winning anyway, so they're happy to watch us bankrupt ourselves funding the losing side of the war. They seem to be doing just fine despite Ukraine's access to "cheat mode"-level intelligence data. Sanctions didn't do much to harm them. The stolen money sucks, but they've partnered up with other allies and created an entirely alternative banking system (BRICS) that we're not invited to, so what do they care if we "invite" them back?

About all we can realistically do that would actually get Russia's attention is to whisper into Zalinsky's ear to make him shut up, sue for peace, and accept losing the territory Russia has already claimed. That would stop the fighting (if we actually did it) and appease Russia enough for them to call it a day. That's really all we have though, and Russia doesn't need it ... it'd just be a shortcut to victory that kills fewer people.

Any action of Trump would require rebuilding the MIC and firing all the idiots and corrupt politicians. He doesn't have the leverage to do so, but he could just wait for the US army to fuck up so badly that the people will be demanding Trump rebuild it. Anything Trump would do is hampered by the fact that the US army is a joke and a bully and currently amounts to lettle else.

 

[Echo_Doge]

What are the chances that once Trump gets in power and sees the internal reports about the expenses and casualties of the war, he flips out at everyone involved because the current situation is far worse then if Ukraine surrender led two years ago? He probably has just cause to refuse to increase spending over the minimum the Democrats forced by law and tells them to figure it out.

I think that once he sees the real numbers, he might make the feds release them instead of the made-up ones they've been putting out so far.

That could probably be a wakeup call for people who think Ukraine has any chance of "Winning" this war.

 

[jje100010001]

I think that once he sees the real numbers, he might make the feds release them instead of the made-up ones they've been putting out so far.

That could probably be a wakeup call for people who think Ukraine has any chance of "Winning" this war.

My question is how they would reconcile the two narratives without blowing a hole into the US's credibility for normies?

My guess is that either the number stays unmentioned in MSM, that he tries to blame it all on the Democrats, or that the US spins up a narrative that Ukraine has been feeding it the wrong numbers.

 

[namelesstacotruck]

I wonder if it's just longer range on paper, or the aim is shit.

HIMARS works through GPS precision targeting from what I understand. Its usefulness seems questionable against a peer opponent that can shoot down satellites and would if things got serious. Russia has gotten their hands on a few destroyed ones at this point and likely enough to reverse engineer.

Russia has satellites too. No reason I can see why they couldn't make one and make it shoot farther. All it would take is make sure the rockets are slightly larger and have more fuel to hit that milestone.

 

[Betonhaus]

My question is how they would reconcile the two narratives without blowing a hole into the US's credibility for normies?

My guess is that either the number stays unmentioned in MSM, that he tries to blame it all on the Democrats, or that the US spins up a narrative that Ukraine has been feeding it the wrong numbers.

Blaming the Ukraine would be ideal, if not for the massive amount of evidence that America is deeply involved enough to know what's actually going on.
The MSM hiding it won't last long if Trump can tell people directly using live streams.
Blaming the Democrats is ideal, but they might try to turn it around as Trump lying about the numbers to slander them and demoralize the army so Russia wins despite "being on the backfoot" or some nonsense like that. It's not really possible for the US army to avoid the blame for this colossal use of cannon fodder, but blaming those in charge gives Trump the ammunition to clean the army out starting from the top.

HIMARS works through GPS precision targeting from what I understand. Its usefulness seems questionable against a peer opponent that can shoot down satellites and would if things got serious. Russia has gotten their hands on a few destroyed ones at this point and likely enough to reverse engineer.

Russia has satellites too. No reason I can see why they couldn't make one and make it shoot farther. All it would take is make sure the rockets are slightly larger and have more fuel to hit that milestone.

Russia has gps blocking systems in place tho, don't they? Don't those make gps guided missiles useless?

 

[namelesstacotruck]

Russia has gps blocking systems in place tho, don't they? Don't those make gps guided missiles useless?

This is my understanding yeah, but only if they tried to use it where those systems were in place and active. HIMARS is a weapon system that exists to bully countries weaker than you like I said. The real question is if UKRAINE has gps blocking systems, and if using those blocking systems even helps them sense I would imagine it would glow heavily and become a drone strike target. And also if the blocking system hurts Ukraine given so much American tech is based on gps systems and having control of the EW space. ( you thought their reliance on air superiority in their doctrines was bad....).

 

[Legato]

Ukraine has longer range MLRS systems than the HIMARS and tornado-s.
View attachment 6632171

What sim is this from?

 

[namelesstacotruck]

Russia has gps blocking systems in place tho, don't they? Don't those make gps guided missiles useless?

This is also assuming these are real and not just HIMARS with the serial numbers filed off so America wont be blamed when Zelensky tries to deep strike Russian territory.

 

[Echo_Doge]

the US spins up a narrative that Ukraine has been feeding it the wrong numbers.

This would probably be the one they go with. It would probably be used to justify why funding gets cut.

Russia has gps blocking systems in place tho, don't they? Don't those make gps guided missiles useless?

Pretty sure there are other ways they can give targeting and guidance information to the missiles, so they aren't completely useless. It probably requires drone/aircraft/ground forces to spot the target for them.

It definitely hurts the range and precision on them and puts the spotters at risk, though.

 

[quaawaa]

HIMARS works through GPS precision targeting from what I understand. Its usefulness seems questionable against a peer opponent that can shoot down satellites and would if things got serious. Russia has gotten their hands on a few destroyed ones at this point and likely enough to reverse engineer.

HIMARS is a launcher that can launch a wide variety of munitions; it's not a missile. Its GPS-assisted missiles also have inertial navigation so they'll still work without GPS but with reduced accuracy at long range.

 

[ZMOT]

Blaming the Ukraine would be ideal, if not for the massive amount of evidence that America is deeply involved enough to know what's actually going on.
The MSM hiding it won't last long if Trump can tell people directly using live streams.
Blaming the Democrats is ideal, but they might try to turn it around as Trump lying about the numbers to slander them and demoralize the army so Russia wins despite "being on the backfoot" or some nonsense like that. It's not really possible for the US army to avoid the blame for this colossal use of cannon fodder, but blaming those in charge gives Trump the ammunition to clean the army out starting from the top.

trump already has enough cause with the afghanistan fuckup, iirc he already announced everyone involved will get fired, and his opinion about milley is no secret either.

 

[namelesstacotruck]

HIMARS is a launcher that can launch a wide variety of munitions; it's not a missile. Its GPS-assisted missiles also have inertial navigation so they'll still work without GPS but with reduced accuracy at long range.

Maybe im missing something but i thought the gps munitions giving it range that beat counterfire and was also hyper accurate was the big deal about HIMARS. Yeah you can use it as a artillery platform but thats not at all cost effective.

 

[Yak-130 Mitten]

Ukraine has longer range MLRS systems than the HIMARS and tornado-s.
View attachment 6632171

Hey, thats great!

On an unrelated note, here is my girlfriend.

 

[Lookie-lou]

Pretty sure there are other ways they can give targeting and guidance information to the missiles, so they aren't completely useless. It probably requires drone/aircraft/ground forces to spot the target for them.

It definitely hurts the range and precision on them and puts the spotters at risk, though.

Yeah, Laser pointer targetting by drones, which is what I recall Russia has been using with Krasnopol guided 152mm shells, and now rocket assisted shells. Only way to jam their accuracy is to shoot down the tiny little drone up on high, not something easy to cope with.

Himars and Excalibur are GPS guided and have had their effectiveness drop off a cliff due to that getting fuzzed out by russian EW. Tornado S Glonass guided rockets seem to be working fine as Ukrainian EW is a lot weaker, well a lot more sparse for that sort of stuff.

 

[Male Idiot]

Does the hoholmars has to be a gps system?

If they just want it to shoot into russian territory with.... some accuracy, gps may not be needed.

Unless I am retarded the Himars was about precision strikes, but what if Azov-kun just wants to hit the general area katyusha style, but from longer range?

Do they need gps for hitting lets say an oil facility or city?
Not saying that will do much beside making Igor mad, but if goatherders in a getto can oy vey the Shekel Dome of Invinciblity with enough bottle rockets...