Has anyone seen the picture where puppet man accidentally revealed the Russian plan to invade Moldova via Ukraine?
Source: Belarus Security Council meeting, about 18:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCWbpwfA1WI
Has anyone seen the picture where puppet man accidentally revealed the Russian plan to invade Moldova via Ukraine?
Source: Belarus Security Council meeting, about 18:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCWbpwfA1WI
Crazy thought…. Could we be seeing a rope-a-dope with their actions? Appearing to be inept but dangerous enough to drag NATO and the US into a ground conflict then unleash their actual might, destroying the most effective forces there? Their subs could keep our forces pinned to North America and we just don’t have the airlift capacity to move enough troops and materials across the pond, especially with an active Sam sites in the area. Those big c-17’s make a very large target.
I highly doubt it, but these crazy berkeleyers are crazy.
In reply to Mr_Asa :
That area of Moldova is called Transnistria and apparently it's super ultra pro-Russian breakaway state. So if Russia came a-knocking, they glad would join the Soviet ReUnion. Problem there is that Romania very much wants to reunify with Moldova. Russia rolls in there and Romania might take that as a threat and Romania is NATO.
I am going to go with crazy on that one Bob 
Russia is not that powerful of a country economically (about the same as Texas or Florida economy). I certainly don't know the actual numbers, but I am sure the intel community has a very good idea of what Russia actually has. The real question is how functional is what they have or claim to have is. Some of that has already been shown to be less then great.
I see the real danger of Put Put getting so frustrated he pushes a button he should not (e.g. tac nukes). This would create a whole bunch of difficult questions. As far as nukes in general though, Put Put still needs to go through generals to do that. Yes, he has quite literally killed those that are not fully loyal, but much of their loyalty is based on wealth transfer, which is a bit suspect now. So, maybe, the generals are not quite as motivated to do the extreme than you might think.
We need to see how he reacts to not getting (hopefully) Keiv first. That will say a lot, and very much could be more escalation of tactics. Of course, that longer this takes, the more western help has a chance to take effect. It's entirely possible he is running low on the "good stuff" (both in equipment and personnel).
bobzilla said:Crazy thought…. Could we be seeing a rope-a-dope with their actions? Appearing to be inept but dangerous enough to drag NATO and the US into a ground conflict then unleash their actual might, destroying the most effective forces there? Their subs could keep our forces pinned to North America and we just don’t have the airlift capacity to move enough troops and materials across the pond, especially with an active Sam sites in the area. Those big c-17’s make a very large target.
I highly doubt it, but these crazy berkeleyers are crazy.
I've had a LOT of conspiracy theories float through my head, at least one of them politically motivated enough that I can't post it here. That one makes as much sense as any. My only thought against it is I'm still convinced their economy is about to collapse (pre sanctions) and nothing stimulates patriotism and money flowing like a good old fashioned bloodbath.
NickD said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
That area of Moldova is called Transnistria and apparently it's super ultra pro-Russian breakaway state. So if Russia came a-knocking, they glad would join the Soviet ReUnion. Problem there is that Romania very much wants to reunify with Moldova. Russia rolls in there and Romania might take that as a threat and Romania is NATO.
On the map I look at, that area is already shown under Russian control. I was wondering why. Not sure if they actually have any control, but it is shown that way.
In reply to bobzilla :
To be fair, this is a country with an economy equivalent to that of some of our larger states (albeit equipped with nuclear weapons) who’s military consists of mainly of conscripts. Their special forces are well trained and well equipped but that only speaks to a portion of the total forces. At some point they will need to factor in basic economics and risk vs reward into the equation.
As far as sea power, their one aircraft carrier needs to be escorted by ocean going tugs due to frequent propulsion failures. During the 80’s their quantity of submarines was significantly larger than ours however only a fraction of them were capable of heading to sea at any given time while the majority of our fleet was either ready to head to sea on short notice or actively on patrol. I doubt this situation has improved in the past 30 odd years. Even the older classes of our boats were very capable vs Soviet equipment at that time. Improved Los Angeles class and the even more capable Virginia class would have a significant advantage. The two Seawolf boats in fast attack configuration are without question the most capable fast attack submarines ever produced but too expensive to build in quantity even with the US military budget.
It’s difficult to say if there’s some type of ploy here, it’s been said that he plays chess while we play checkers many times so it is a possibility. Then again, what if all the generals told him what he wanted to hear fearing repercussions for telling the truth and he really has overplayed his hand and exposed himself for everyone to see?
PS: Shout out to everyone for excellent discussion and input on this subject from a variety of perspectives. Y’all are a well read and informative group.
aircooled said:NickD said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
That area of Moldova is called Transnistria and apparently it's super ultra pro-Russian breakaway state. So if Russia came a-knocking, they glad would join the Soviet ReUnion. Problem there is that Romania very much wants to reunify with Moldova. Russia rolls in there and Romania might take that as a threat and Romania is NATO.
On the map I look at, that area is already shown under Russian control. I was wondering why. Not sure if they actually have any control, but it is shown that way.
Being part of Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic, Transnistrians did not want to leave the Soviets even if Moldova chose to depart from the communist union. So they established the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, which later changed its name to Transnistria. There have been about 1500 Russian troops stationed there for decades. Their flag has the hammer and sickles on it, and their second flag (yeah, the have two) is literally just the Russian flag. There are statues of Vladimir Lenin all over the place. The only places that officially recognize it are other pro-Russian breakaway states like Abkhazia and South Ossettia. After the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Transnistrian parliament’s president asked to join Moscow. Transnistria also has its own president, parliament, currency and military separate from Moldova. It's a weird Cold War relic.
If they take Ukraine, Transnistria will jump in bed immediately, but honestly I'm kind of surprised they didn't launch an assault from there as a pincer move. Then again, Russia's military has historically struggled with anything more complicated than full frontal assault with overwhelming numbers.
John Welsh said:I read headlines like:
Ford suspends operations in Russia until further notice. There are similar from Apple as well as no shipments from UPS/FedEx.
What this then reminds me is there will be a lot of "out of work" Russians. No money, no fun and no where to go makes for restless peoples. It is possible they will direct that anger to the West but I more bet they direct that anger to Mother Russia.
Could get ugly inside!
If only there were a way for the workers to seize the means of production, or something.
Nahhhh. Russian leadership, no matter the political science in place, can be condensed down to a punchline from an episode of Mama's Family: The scum will rise to the top.
aircooled said:NickD said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
That area of Moldova is called Transnistria and apparently it's super ultra pro-Russian breakaway state. So if Russia came a-knocking, they glad would join the Soviet ReUnion. Problem there is that Romania very much wants to reunify with Moldova. Russia rolls in there and Romania might take that as a threat and Romania is NATO.
On the map I look at, that area is already shown under Russian control. I was wondering why. Not sure if they actually have any control, but it is shown that way.
I'll try to find the video, I think it is one of Simon Whistler's. If that is Transnistria, they are not really pro Russian so much as pro USSR, to the point that it could be considered the last remaining part of it.
So, remember the concern that Russia had sent their C or D squad into Ukraine and the A squad was coming along in that convoy?
I don't think that's an issue.
Beer Baron said:In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Yup. This is clearly all a misplay and escalation resulting from poor political planning by western leaders.
A better statesman would have gotten a political agreement that would have secured Peace in Our Time!
/sarcasm
BullE36 M3. A better judge of character would have avoided the problem until Putin was either incapacitated or assassinated. Ukraine is getting blasted because we called Putin's bluff. To continue the awkward neighbor analogy, this is neighbor 3 going hard on the thriving neighbor and said thieving neighbor robbing another neighbor.
I swear, this is a really E36 M3ty analogy. I also swear, I think Russia is 100 pct wrong here, and yes, since I found out the Ukrainians pronounce their capital city as once syllable, I've started to say it that way.
Mr_Asa said:So, remember the concern that Russia had sent their C or D squad into Ukraine and the A squad was coming along in that convoy?
I don't think that's an issue.
The irony of a major gas exporters army running out of fuel en route to war is not lost on me.
Mr_Asa said:So, remember the concern that Russia had sent their C or D squad into Ukraine and the A squad was coming along in that convoy?
I don't think that's an issue.
Russia has loved to use their size as a defensive measure, fall way back and stretch out the enemy supply lines and then hit back hard when they falter. But that's a double-edged sword, the same thing happens to them when they go on the offensive. And like I said on the last page, the Belarusian rail network, which is key to their logistics right now, has been brought to a screeching halt by Anonymous and Belarusian protestors/saboteurs.
If we take that report that 02 posted as correctly, some things make more sense. If the Russians believed that they could capture Eastern and Southern Ukraine fairly easily, that would give them a buffer state, control of the black sea and a land bridge to that part of Moldova. They didn't count on the Ukrainians resisting so much and the West standing up to them (cause they didn't with Georgia, Ukraine or Syria). Also it would explain that map the Belarusian idiot showed.
So I guess the really question, is how the hell do we all get off of this thing without it going pear shaped anymore then it already has?
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Best quote from that NPR piece:
about 80% of the estimated 190,000 Russian troops that rimmed Ukraine
sounds like there's no shortage of tossed salad
Two of the oligarchs have broken ranks and spoken out against the war. Sounds like they were never strongly for the war and now that the financial nooses are tightening, they really want out.
volvoclearinghouse said:BullE36 M3. A better judge of character would have avoided the problem until Putin was either incapacitated or assassinated.....
Possibly, but I think unlikely. He has literally done similar things twice before. No one "called his bluff" so to speak then. He did it anyway.
I am not sure there is a winning strategy that we can clearly say would have worked, even with some hindsight. I honestly suspect the only way that likely would have cut this off would have been to put western troops on the ground. This would have been a very bold move and potentially very risky move, but is a bit of a mute point, because there was ZERO chance any of the western countries would have taken this risk. If Put Put called that challenge, it could go very bad, very fast.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:So what would the penalty be if Ukraine strategically excised the Russian gas lines that run through their country?
I know it would seriously disrupt Europe's supply but it would be a significant financial and moral blow to the Russians.
I posed a similar question a few pages back. The reality is there are a number of lines that carry the gas. One of the big ones runs through Ukraine, but there is certainly capacity outside of Ukraine.
Indeed. This was the plan since before December. He was relying on some BS madeupium reasons, and when intelligence (British, I thought?) called him out on it, he went full Thelma and Louise anyway, figuring that he could still just away with it with mob style threats of cutting off supplies to Western Europe. And then the West said "nah, we good" and cut them off themselves, sweeping the leg on that little threat.
Now his only tactic left is to whine that the West forced him to do this, because if there is one thing that Putin is known for it's doing what the West wants him to do...
I also am getting all the irony that his anti aircraft units apparently will not fire on Ukrainian craft because they're all Russian sourced, so the risk of friendly fire is too great. I also have a feeling that whatever targeting systems they have are optimized for Western craft.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:Mr_Asa said:So, remember the concern that Russia had sent their C or D squad into Ukraine and the A squad was coming along in that convoy?
I don't think that's an issue.
The irony of a major gas exporters army running out of fuel en route to war is not lost on me.
I hadn't thought of that, but that's some funny E36 M3 right there.
Isn't there a bunch of mothballed Warthogs around? They would have a the columns and railways shut down in short order and the motivation of any conscript force.
Financed as rogue merc. force by one of the oligarchs?
I've always loved Flying markings.
http://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/P-40-640x300.jpg
In reply to fastoldfart :
Who would fly them?
Even relatively simple prop fighter pilots needed a few weeks of familiarization. One can't just hop in and brrrt.
aircooled said:volvoclearinghouse said:BullE36 M3. A better judge of character would have avoided the problem until Putin was either incapacitated or assassinated.....
Possibly, but I think unlikely. He has literally done similar things twice before. No one "called his bluff" so to speak then. He did it anyway.
I am not sure there is a winning strategy that we can clearly say would have worked, even with some hindsight. I honestly suspect the only way that likely would have cut this off would have been to put western troops on the ground. This would have been a very bold move and potentially very risky move, but is a bit of a mute point, because there was ZERO chance any of the western countries would have taken this risk. If Put Put called that challenge, it could go very bad, very fast.
I suspect we'd need to go back to the 90's and the alter the west's policy of benign neglect toward post-Soviet Russia to have any reasonable chance of preventing something like this from happening. Of course, it should have been obvious after the 2005 Super Bowl ring incident that Putin was not someone who could be negotiated with in good faith, if it wasn't obvious beforehand.
As for the two oligarchs coming out against the war, I bet most or all of them were against it from the start, but none were willing to step out of line.
In reply to fastoldfart :
The Su-25 Grachs that Poland is sending them were the Russian equivalent to an A-10. Designed for close ground support, lots of fuselage armor (like double that of an A-10), big damn gun that pukes a lot of bullets very fast, and lots of hardpoints for different loadouts. They're lighter and smaller than an A-10, so they're lots faster (around 170mph faster) and more manueverable. Only downside is the Soviets put both engines awful close together, so one missile has a good chance of wiping both engines out. The Su-25 is arguably the better plane (pains me to admit), it's just that the A-10 has more shock and awe value and is such a sexy bitch.
You'll need to log in to post.
