Ukraine

[DMC]

Fact is, that russian main teritorial gains were during first 2 weeks of this war, and since april they are mainly losing territory. Is that a feeling?
Why was 18 himars enough to stop second army in the world?
That index is based solely on total numbers, and do not take into consideration quality.
Good thing, that war is no won by that ty index.

Quality is a subjective metric. Using common metrics, this is how the militaries of the world stack up. Besides, they are not considering the US as the supply side of the Ukrainian military but you probably are. So the point stands that Russia is ranked 2nd in the world in military firepower.

Do you think Ukraine would have launched a tactical nuke if they had one? I'd say probably so, but even more than that Putin wouldn't have attacked under those conditions. Ukraine is fighting a war where the attacker has somewhat restrained the attack to conventional warfare. That isn't the limit of Russia's arsenal however. The fact that the US is reluctant to give the appearance of going to war against Russia speaks to the power that Russia has militarily. Nuclear countries possess a very powerful deterrent. US didn't hesitate to attack Iraq, who did not attack the US, nor were they hesitant to go into other skirmishes. Russia is a different story.

[ElNono]

"there's no real political pressure on Putin to win an election"

We agree

It would be nice to see Russia collapse, if the NATO countries along with IAEA could secure the nuclear material and warheads before F Murray Abraham gets his hands on them.

Well, we do agree in that there's political pressure. Just don't think it translate to elections per se, which in Russia are as phony as they can be.

Political pressure in Russia looks more like factions of the FSB or the military being unhappy or blamed for failure, which sooner or later will start pointing fingers upstairs.

Russia is still primarily a fascist, military and authoritarian country. I don't think they'll be a popular revolution there. What's more likely is a military upraising or Putler accidentally falling face first from a 22 story building...

[ElNono]

I don't imagine Ukraine will be in the top 3. They'll get a lottery pick.

I can't imagine Russia being in the top 3 either, tbh... especially when it comes to weapon numbers and financial stability...

[DMC]

Well, we do agree in that there's political pressure. Just don't think it translate to elections per se, which in Russia are as phony as they can be.

Political pressure in Russia looks more like factions of the FSB or the military being unhappy or blamed for failure, which sooner or later will start pointing fingers upstairs.

Russia is still primarily a fascist, military and authoritarian country. I don't think they'll be a popular revolution there. What's more likely is a military upraising or Putler accidentally falling face first from a 22 story building...

Failure due to losing face over not fairing well in the battle and in the media, not failure due to losing thousands of Russians. If Putin lost 50K Russians and took Ukraine, the entire Kremlin and FSB would celebrate it as a huge victory.

I can't imagine Russia being in the top 3 either, tbh... especially when it comes to weapon numbers and financial stability...

Yet there they sit.

[ChumpDumper]

Seeing how Ukraine is begging for handouts in the dark with a dozen other countries sending support, I'd say it's holding on pretty well.



Facts don't care about your feelings. You can argue based on desired outcome all day, these stats are what they are.

Eh, what statistic?

They say power twice, so that's probably good.

[ElNono]

Failure due to losing face over not fairing well in the battle and in the media, not failure due to losing thousands of Russians. If Putin lost 50K Russians and took Ukraine, the entire Kremlin and FSB would celebrate it as a huge victory.

But the problem is that they did lose thousands of Russians and have very little to show for it.

And that overlooks that a coup is a lot easier to pull off if you have popular support behind it. It almost gives it certain validation.

So I wouldn't overlook the number of deaths, and the potential anger of the population, despite that they might not be able to achieve change by themselves.

Yet there they sit.

You mean they were sitting in January 2022... that's why I said I would be curious to see where they sit come January 2023...

[horseshue]

I can't imagine Russia being in the top 3 either, tbh... especially when it comes to weapon numbers and financial stability...

They are taking territory size into consideration, in that index. So by default they will always be high. Also, 12+k tanks and 1st place in that ranking, when in reality about one third of those tanks exists in real life. And that was in january. I wonder, is t-62 equal to abrams tank?
Still, they will be third next year, based on those ridiculous numbers and their nuclear arsenal, but performance is below top 10.

[spurraider21]

The clouds heard me, ergo you responded.

You directly responded to my quote. Well you’re still as dense as when you left

[ElNono]

They are taking territory size into consideration, in that index. So by default they will always be high. Also, 12+k tanks and 1st place in that ranking, when in reality about one third of those tanks exists in real life. And that was in january. I wonder, is t-62 equal to abrams tank?
Still, they will be third next year, based on those ridiculous numbers and their nuclear arsenal, but performance is below top 10.

Yeah, also total population, a meaningless number. Two things are certain: 1) they can't replace their antiquated materiel fast enough. 2) their economy is in the ter, and still heading downwards.

[DMC]

But the problem is that they did lose thousands of Russians and have very little to show for it.

And that overlooks that a coup is a lot easier to pull off if you have popular support behind it. It almost gives it certain validation.

So I wouldn't overlook the number of deaths, and the potential anger of the population, despite that they might not be able to achieve change by themselves.

I am not sure what your objection is to what I said. You seem to be in agreement that human cost isn't the issue in Russia (and many of the other top militaries) as much as the appearance of weakness globally. I don't think there will be a coup attempt in Russia. Never know though.

You mean they were sitting in January 2022... that's why I said I would be curious to see where they sit come January 2023...

That's where it was prior to escalation of the war. I doubt they lost an aircraft carrier or a nuclear sub.

What military do you think overtakes them in the standings? There seems to be a sizeable gap between the top 3 and number 4.

[DMC]

You directly responded to my quote. Well you’re still as dense as when you left

You're the one who called yourself "the clouds".

[ElNono]

I am not sure what your objection is to what I said. You seem to be in agreement that human cost isn't the issue in Russia (and many of the other top militaries) as much as the appearance of weakness globally. I don't think there will be a coup attempt in Russia. Never know though.

I disagree that human cost isn't an issue. Your argument is that it isn't an issue because the populace can't vote Putler our or raise up, but I don't think those are the only avenues for ousting Putler (as I explained before).

Not claiming it's going to happen, but I do think it's one of many factors that can push towards that.

That's where it was prior to escalation of the war. I doubt they lost an aircraft carrier or a nuclear sub.

What military do you think overtakes them in the standings? There seems to be a sizeable gap between the top 3 and number 4.

I think realistically all of them do, especially if nuclear is indeed off the table. The only superiority in that case is probably on the naval side.

[DMC]

I disagree that human cost isn't an issue. Your argument is that it isn't an issue because the populace can't vote Putler our or raise up, but I don't think those are the only avenues for ousting Putler (as I explained before).

Not claiming it's going to happen, but I do think it's one of many factors that can push towards that.

I didn't say it's not an issue. I said it's not "the" issue. If a coup were to happen in Russia, it wouldn't be about human lives. It would be about the uber wealthy losing money and the Kremlin losing face. Russia has a long history of not giving a about lives. If you can salve the mother with a pack of frozen fish... ?

I think realistically all of them do, especially if nuclear is indeed off the table. The only superiority in that case is probably on the naval side.

Why is nuclear off the table? It ensures you won't be invaded. Who is going to invade a nuclear country?

[pgardn]

Why is nuclear off the table? It ensures you won't be invaded. Who is going to invade a nuclear country?

An out of touch political leader who wants to keep his current status above all.

"If I go down, fk the world. The world needs to pay for this"

[ElNono]

I didn't say it's not an issue. I said it's not "the" issue. If a coup were to happen in Russia, it wouldn't be about human lives. It would be about the uber wealthy losing money and the Kremlin losing face. Russia has a long history of not giving a about lives. If you can salve the mother with a pack of frozen fish... ?

IMO, if a coup were to happen, it'll be a sum of factors, including loss of life. I do give you that Russia historically doesn't give a about lives (the Stalin doctrine).

Why is nuclear off the table? It ensures you won't be invaded. Who is going to invade a nuclear country?

The question in this case is who is going to use nuclear to invade another country, which is the situation here.

[DMC]

An out of touch political leader who wants to keep his current status above all.

"If I go down, fk the world. The world needs to pay for this"

Doesn't explain why nuclear capability isn't part of the military powers discussion.

[DMC]

IMO, if a coup were to happen, it'll be a sum of factors, including loss of life. I do give you that Russia historically doesn't give a about lives (the Stalin doctrine).



The question in this case is who is going to use nuclear to invade another country, which is the situation here.

Russia isn't using nuclear to invade, they are using it to stave off outside direct help.

[ElNono]

Russia isn't using nuclear to invade, they are using it to stave off outside direct help.

That definitely didn't work. The question is if they're going to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But they likely won't, because if they think they have it bad now in Ukraine, it can get a lot worse for them very quickly.

[pgardn]

Doesn't explain why nuclear capability isn't part of the military powers discussion.

My statement is clearly taken as a primary consideration by all.

[DMC]

That definitely didn't work. The question is if they're going to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But they likely won't, because if they think they have it bad now in Ukraine, it can get a lot worse for them very quickly.

It is working. The US doesn't have troops in the Ukraine or SAM batteries on the border, nor are they enforcing a NFZ.

Why no no-fly zone over Ukraine?

It is that distinct possibility of direct combat between nuclear armed nations — Russia and the U.S. — that has kept both President Biden and his allies from refusing to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. -CBS

The US enforced NFZs in other areas. If nuclear deterrence isn't a thing, why care about the possibility of direct combat with a nuclear armed nation?

So being a nuclear power has big rewards. It's why PRNK and Iraq want nukes. It almost guarantees you will not be attacked by another nuclear power.

[DMC]

My statement is clearly taken as a primary consideration by all.

Yeah.. no idea what you're talking about.

[Ef-man]

It is working. The US doesn't have troops in the Ukraine or SAM batteries on the border, nor are they enforcing a NFZ.

Why no no-fly zone over Ukraine?

It is that distinct possibility of direct combat between nuclear armed nations — Russia and the U.S. — that has kept both President Biden and his allies from refusing to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. -CBS

The US enforced NFZs in other areas. If nuclear deterrence isn't a thing, why care about the possibility of direct combat with a nuclear armed nation?

So being a nuclear power has big rewards. It's why PRNK and Iraq want nukes. It almost guarantees you will not be attacked by another nuclear power.

Iraq wants nukes???

You mean Iran, idiot!

Stick to yelling "Hodor, Hodor." You will sound more intelligent that way.

[ElNono]

It is working. The US doesn't have troops in the Ukraine or SAM batteries on the border, nor are they enforcing a NFZ.

Why no no-fly zone over Ukraine?

It is that distinct possibility of direct combat between nuclear armed nations — Russia and the U.S. — that has kept both President Biden and his allies from refusing to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. -CBS

The US enforced NFZs in other areas. If nuclear deterrence isn't a thing, why care about the possibility of direct combat with a nuclear armed nation?

So being a nuclear power has big rewards. It's why PRNK and Iraq want nukes. It almost guarantees you will not be attacked by another nuclear power.

No, it's not working. There's indeed direct outside help. Ukraine doesn't need US troops, they have their own, they need weapons, training, intel, etc which is exactly what all the western nations have directly provided, and they've been very open about it.

There's also no need for a NFZ considering Russia doesn't have air superiority either... who are you going to prevent from flying?

North Korea is a nuclear state already. Much like Israel and Pakistan, they're not officially recognized by NPT, but they've nuclear weapons. And nuclear deterrence is very overrated: see Israel for a country with nuclear capabilities still being attacked.

There are no guarantees. Should Russia use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, I can see NATO just simply using conventional air superiority to decimate whatever small chunk of Ukrainian land Russia is still holding. Like I said, it can only get worse for Russia.

[DMC]

No, it's not working. There's indeed direct outside help. Ukraine doesn't need US troops, they have their own, they need weapons, training, intel, etc which is exactly what all the western nations have directly provided, and they've been very open about it.

There's also no need for a NFZ considering Russia doesn't have air superiority either... who are you going to prevent from flying?

North Korea is a nuclear state already. Much like Israel and Pakistan, they're not officially recognized by NPT, but they've nuclear weapons. And nuclear deterrence is very overrated: see Israel for a country with nuclear capabilities still being attacked.

There are no guarantees. Should Russia use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, I can see NATO just simply using conventional air superiority to decimate whatever small chunk of Ukrainian land Russia is still holding. Like I said, it can only get worse for Russia.

They've been very open about not getting into direct combat with Russian soldiers/pilots. Ukraine has asked for NFZs but haven't gotten them. You seem to think they have everything they need yet they haven't repelled the attack.

No need for a NFZ but Ukraine requests it. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky called on the international community to implement a no-fly zone to protect civilians and deny the Russian air force the ability to gain air superiority. CSIS

Historically, the United States has established and supported no-fly zones in Bosnia, Libya, and Iraq through sustained operations, such as both Northern and Southern Watch as well as Provide Comfort. These examples, however, differ in three key ways from the proposed no-fly zones over Ukraine. First, in these historic examples, the United States established the boundaries of each no-fly zone over an aggressor nation rather than a nation that is being supported. Second, those offending nations did not possess nuclear weapons—more specifically tactical nuclear weapons as a means of escalation as is the case of Russia. Finally, those nations did not possess the kinetic or non-kinetic striking power to impose costs on the nations supporting the no-fly zones. -CSIS

The US doesn't want to piss off Russia to the point of going to war against them. You can call proxy war all day, there's lines they don't want to cross.

NK doesn't have ICBM capability so all they can do in response is nuke other Asians.

It can get worse for Ukraine as well. Time is the enemy for them.

[Ef-man]

That is one way to get attention.