Russia Ukraine War 2022

[GaudaNaresh]

Threatening an attack is far far different from carrying out an attack on a Carrier group.. naive guy.. It's that simple..
A Soviet sub that is detectable to a carrier strike group and is in weapons range is a dead duck if it makes any move to fire a weapon.. So, it was all posturing.. If a sub wants to fire a weapon, you always remain undetectable..

as i said, only a fool makes a threat they are not prepared to carry out, especially when the threat is literally the biggest threat you can make to USA short of actually nuking it.
A threat is only a threat when you can percieve a threat. thats the whole point of threat display before an actual fight. Otherwise, its an ambush. The entire point of threat display before a fight, is to give the opposition an option to back down. Which is why we see threat displays in war and animal kingdom all the time- sometimes the adversary backs down, sometimes they dont and we have a fight. Its idiotic to think that a threat display automatically means lack of willingness to fight.

PS: it also makes sense to use threat display for mutually assured destruction, when you stand to lose less assets. Soviets, if they had attacked, would certainly sink the carrier group and would certainly have lost their 4-5 subs. Which is ALWAYS a winning trade-off vs an entire carrier group, in terms of manpower & asset value.
Its the equivalent of taking out a tank with an APC. So if you are in the position to do 'if i die, you die too' type of posturing with lesser assets, it actually ALWAYS makes sense to do a threat display before an attack. We also see this all and sundry in the animal kingdom.

 

[Master Chief]

as i said, only a fool makes a threat they are not prepared to carry out, especially when the threat is literally the biggest threat you can make to USA short of actually nuking it.
A threat is only a threat when you can percieve a threat. thats the whole point of threat display before an actual fight. Otherwise, its an ambush. The entire point of threat display before a fight, is to give the opposition an option to back down. Which is why we see threat displays in war and animal kingdom all the time- sometimes the adversary backs down, sometimes they dont and we have a fight. Its idiotic to think that a threat display automatically means lack of willingness to fight.

PS: it also makes sense to use threat display for mutually assured destruction, when you stand to lose less assets. Soviets, if they had attacked, would certainly sink the carrier group and would certainly have lost their 4-5 subs. Which is ALWAYS a winning trade-off vs an entire carrier group, in terms of manpower & asset value.
Its the equivalent of taking out a tank with an APC. So if you are in the position to do 'if i die, you die too' type of posturing with lesser assets, it actually ALWAYS makes sense to do a threat display before an attack. We also see this all and sundry in the animal kingdom.

Whether the Soviets would have carried out the threat is anybody guess.. But, when they had the opportunity to shed their own blood by attacking China, they chose not to, and it was Vietnam fighting alone in 1979..

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Whether the Soviets would have carried out the threat is anybody guess.. But, when they had the opportunity to shed their own blood by attacking China, they chose not to, and it was Vietnam fighting alone in 1979..

obviously anything that didnt happen, is anyone's guess to whether it could've happened.
It still doesn't change the fact that in serious circles, threatening an aircraft carrier group is NOT a bluff and isnt percieved as one.
Vietnam is a different calculus than India. India may be willing to shed blood for Bhutan but not for Vietnam and both are its friends.
So it is irrelevant what Soviets were willing to do for India in context of vietnam and vice versa.

 

[Master Chief]

Ukraine is headed for Syrian fate. Mark my words, the US is going to seek a quick resolution due to election year issues coming up next year ( biden needs this conflict gone or decided in USA's favour to curry votes and justify hundreds of billions spent on ukraine to the voters), which will lead to a fracturing of the Ukrainian army, ala Syrian rebel army style. Russia is going to capitalise on this, to build novorossiya, then use the splinters of kiev's armies against it in a dealocked war, much like USA did in Syria to keep Assad perpetually occupied.

A Syrian fate for Ukraine, means a heavily militarized anti Russian Ukraine. It means that Russia accepting the fact that it is not capable of achieving its original goal of Demilitarization of Ukraine.. But, if Russia succeeds in keeping the Crimean land bridge ( it looks like Ukraine won't be able to take this land back ), then they go back with concrete gains from the war, and an unassailable position in the Black sea.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

A Syrian fate for Ukraine, means a heavily militarized anti Russian Ukraine. It means that Russia accepting the fact that it is not capable of achieving its original goal of Demilitarization of Ukraine.. But, if Russia succeeds in keeping the Crimean land bridge ( it looks like Ukraine won't be able to take this land back ), then they go back with concrete gains from the war, and an unassailable position in the Black sea.

no, a syrian fate for Ukraine means Zelensky in the position of Assad, with his own army splintering into rebel groups under him, while part of his country is under occupation of the neighbour (in case of Syria, its turkey). You'll notice, turkish investment in syria, militarily, is minimal compared to their gains. because assad is busy fighting his own splinter army groups.

 

[Master Chief]

FUKUS

 

[GaudaNaresh]

FUKUS

soon it will turn into a FCUK US group. tee hee

 

[NutCracker]

Literally FAUKUS.. in Aussie accent

 

[DumbPilot]

that's such a weird metric lol

 

[Arjun Mk1A]

FUKUS

Damn. France with another surrender.

History Repeats again.

 

[NutCracker]

Damn. France with another surrender.

History Repeats again.

April fool

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Damn. France with another surrender.

History Repeats again.

how is this a surrender ?

 

[Chimpoo]

FUKUS

"It is understood that Canada will not be allowed to join FUKUS for common decency reasons."

What is the date of that "article"?

 

[indiatester]

The conclusion is still the same:
1. Soviet Union was not ready for "Shed own blood" for Vietnam or India.

2. US was not ready to "shed own blood" for potty Pakistan..

USSR did help India a lot in the security council through its vetos. That counts for something.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

man this video made me emotional, this puppet zelensky has destroyed Ukraine and it’s people

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Russia assumes UN Security Council presidency despite Ukrainian anger

Ukraine's foreign minister said Russia leading the UN Security Council is "the worst joke ever".

www.bbc.com

Russia assumes UN Security Council presidency despite Ukrainian anger

 

[LETHALFORCE]

North Korea accuses Ukraine of having nuclear ambitions

North Korea's Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of leader Kim Jong Un, accused Ukraine of calling for nuclear weapons, state media KCNA reported on Saturday, basing her assertion on an online petition in that country that has drawn under 1,000 signatures so far.

www.reuters.com

North Korea accuses Ukraine of having nuclear ambitions

 

[LETHALFORCE]

@indiatester

The west would love to point nukes at Russia and Belarus from Ukraine? This is the existential threat Russia fears.

 

[JBH22]

man this video made me emotional, this puppet zelensky has destroyed Ukraine and it’s people

When all this end, Zelensky has marked himself for the rest of his life. One day, we will get to read that he died accidently in his Miami resort.

 

[indiatester]

@indiatester

The west would love to point nukes at Russia and Belarus from Ukraine? This is the existential threat Russia fears.

While nukes do scare, they are there only to do that! Scare!!!

The actual action takes place like our neighbour wanted to do... bleed by 1000 cuts.

Since there is no natural boundary Russia cannot afford to have an anti-Russia government in Ukraine (Belarus too!)

Once a pro-western govt was established in Ukraine, they could see how the population was made anti-Russia. Soon, the attacks on Russian speaking citizens in Ukraine would creep into Russia itself and they would have been seen a 0.5 front apart from the military front due to new anti-Russia Ukraine.

Russia had no other choice IMO
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/