Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Kallisto]

Or it'd have Russia immediately cease all military aggression since that'd article 5 would kick in.

Leaving that up to chance is just an insane viewpoint to have.

[Kralljin]

Or it'd have Russia immediately cease all military aggression since that'd article 5 would kick in.

That's wishful thinking and Russia might actually extend their terror campaign to nations that they would be formally at war with.

No Nation in europe will take a gamble on whether Putin will completely pull back because Nato will intervene.

[Cerilis]

Aren't they already fighting NATO according to their propaganda?

[Shadowferal]

Leaving that up to chance is just an insane viewpoint to have.

I'm not encouraging it, just looking at it.
Right now the problem is contained, but at Ukrainian expense.

[zorkuus]

The way things look for Ukraine's NATO membership: Fucking forget it until June this year. Turkey will elect a president then. Let's hope for the best. If things turn out fine, it will only leave the Bonsai Duce* stalling Ukraine's membership and he's already under a lot of EU pressure to behave; maybe when it's only him the West will finally turn the screws enough to make him relent.

But once NATO finds the balls to admit a country in a dispute with Russia, they should also take Georgia and Moldova for good measure.

Please stop with this. It's idealistic nonsense. It's well meaning but doesn't work in real life unfortunately.
NATO is a defensive pact. As such it tries to avoid war as much as possible. Admitting a country into its ranks which immediately drags NATO into war is the opposite of that.

Did I mention it's a defensive pact? Not a "let's help everyone" pact.

[Kallisto]

Please stop with this. It's idealistic nonsense. It's well meaning but doesn't work in real life unfortunately.
NATO is a defensive pact. As such it tries to avoid war as much as possible. Admitting a country into its ranks which immediately drags NATO into war is the opposite of that.

Did I mention it's a defensive pact? Not a "let's help everyone" pact.

I mean people are not even doing the "Let's help everyone." part either. Ukraine isn't actually a unique situation when it comes to missile attacks on civilian targets and all the other heinous crimes Russia is doing. The unique part about it is that it is happening in Europe. Yemen for example has been having this situation happening to it (Civilian targets, hospitals, return attacks when emergancy services arrive, men rounded up and shot etc) by Saudis yet people don't even give it a second thought.

Most of the loudest though seem to be from people in Eastern Europe, so I can emphasise their reasoning. They had decades of being under the Soviet's thumb and rightfully mistrust at best Moscow. Likely justified worry they would be next. Honestly I doubt it, since even during the Soviet times the biggest rule that Soviets had was "No matter what do not antagonize NATO.". Even when the Soviets when into Czechoslovakia after the leaders tried to split from Moscow that was the first rule, not to put themselves in a position for a shooting match. Russia is not the Soviet Union as much Putin wishes it was, it struggling with the easy part of the Ukraine war (the invasion), even if it made its way to Lviv and Odesa it would have the biggest of nightmares holding on as you have the least complient populace occupied since the Germans found out how non complient Yugoslavs and Greeks were in WW2. That's almost a 3-4 soldiers per civilian needed to keep the populace in check scenario and Russia just doesn't have the numbers for it.

As for national leaders it's all the power game and knocking down what was thought to be a near peer without escalation to war is one of the best means to win the international game of poker were everyone cheats and lies. Leaving a 3 way match into a 2 way match with better odds for the West (well the US mostly but aligned interests and all that for Europe and few others) and China.

[Gabriel]

So the ruskis are now installing Pantsir systems on the roofs' of buildings in Moscow.

[Iphie]

So the ruskis are now installing Pantsir systems on the roofs' of buildings in Moscow.

It's more useful than having them strapped to ships in the black sea...

[Belize]

So the ruskis are now installing Pantsir systems on the roofs' of buildings in Moscow.

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Pf1tGDQ.png[G]

What are the chances they shoot down one of their own planes

[Gabriel]

What are the chances they shoot down one of their own planes

Assuming they won't just fall through the ceiling...

[DarkTZeratul]

What are the chances they shoot down one of their own planes

That's ridiculous. It'd take a spectacular level of incompetence to shoot down one of your own planes over your own country in a war where you're invading someone else.

So I'd give it about 50-50 odds.

[Santti]

So the ruskis are now installing Pantsir systems on the roofs' of buildings in Moscow.

Oh wow. I can't help but wonder why, though? It says Anti-Aircraft, can it shoot down missiles? Can't imagine Ukraine sending planes anywhere near Moscow. Seems a little panicky and foolish to me. It's not going to send a pretty picture to Russians, plus, I'm not sure Ukraine would strike Moscow either way, even if they had the ability. International support for Ukraine would likely suffer for it. There are probably better, militarily relevant targets for such missiles as well.

[Elder Millennial]

And at that, both of those are very modern systems.

The PzH2000 can also do this.

Pretty much any modern self propelled artillery with an autoloader can do this as the fire control systems adjust the aim for simultaneous hits. The PzH2k can drop like 10 to 13 rounds (depending on range) on the same spot at a time, taking up about a minute to fire them off. Tho it's usually used in 3 round bursts that are shot off in like 10 seconds, the guns are very rarely used to fire off more than that for several reasons. If 3 rounds weren't enough to kill something, 10 probably won't do the trick either, it burns through ammo, and the 155mm artillery ammo isn't exactly what we'd call abundant, and it burns through barrels, servicing this stuff is expensive and spare parts aren't that abundant either, it's been a problem with the PhZ2k.

The advantage of a system like Archer over the Phz2K is that it's much much lighter (weights about half of a PhZ). So it does better on road (especially on country and dirt roads as tracked vehicles tend to rip that up), easier to move around, service, take apart etc.

They aren't necessarily better than the PhZs, but they are a good addition, especially from a logistics point of view. It will also allow the Ukrainians to pull some of the PhZs off the line, and have them fixed, it will also allow them to focus the PhZs out in the boonies in mud fields and forests where the wheels on the Archer might not do that well.

I've been getting increasingly annoyed by how the media seems to be obsessed with the buzzword "game changer". Nothing is a "game changer", the term has become a meaningless tautology that is thrown at every weapon, weapon system, sanction etc with the implication that this thing will substantially alter the nature of this conflict and will be "the thing" that brings Ukraine final victory.

Yes, these systems have each altered the conditions of the war and the conditions on the battlefield, but none of them will single handed send the Russians packing. The fact remains that this conflict will still have to be duked out in the mud and on the streets and what each of these system will do is to level the playing field and possibly finally tilt the scale in Ukraine's favor, but the media touting every single fucking gun, missile, anti air thing, anti tank thing, car, truck, armor vehicle etc as some magical super weapon is getting real problematic as people who don't understand how this works are becoming frustrated and confused about Ukraine not having won yet despite all these magical "game changing" weapons they were being given.

I remember it was the White House back around March that started using the term, (it's a super popular buzzword in the defense industry) but then the media took it and ran with it and it has become a really worn out term that's now actually causing more harm than good on the long run.

These unrealistic expectations around "game changers" also tie into how the public perception shifts from "Ukraine is winning" to "Ukraine is losing" every single time if Ukraine is not actively winning large battles or taking huge chunks of ground. Like this whole Soledar debacle, it's a small tactical victory...at best...hell even finally taking Bakhmut would only be a small tactical victory, but the Ukrainians are now in this catch 22 situation where they have to be constantly worried about public perception in the west turning against them if they dare do a strategic or tactical retreat, which might actually on the long term be hugely favorable for Ukraine.

I'm honestly getting increasingly concerned that the Ukrainians are getting too invested in Bakhmut due to PR concerns.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh wow. I can't help but wonder why, though? It says Anti-Aircraft, can it shoot down missiles? Can't imagine Ukraine sending planes anywhere near Moscow. Seems a little panicky and foolish to me. It's not going to send a pretty picture to Russians, plus, I'm not sure Ukraine would strike Moscow either way, even if they had the ability. International support for Ukraine would likely suffer for it. There are probably better, militarily relevant targets for such missiles as well.

The fact that they could hit Engels shows that they have something that can reach Moscow.

Could the Ukrainians hit Moscow? Probably.

Would government buildings in Moscow be a legitimate target? Arguably yes.

Would the Ukrainians actually risk hitting civilians in a major urban center inside Russia? I don't think so.

This is either part of some Russian false flag thing, or is just meant to instill the fear of the "Barbarians at the gates" into the Russian public in an effort to frame this whole thing as an existential conflict.

[Canpinter]

No way Ukraine risks potentially causing civilian casualties in Russia. They can't afford to lose any support from western powers.

[Gorsameth]

I don't think Ukraine would do it either, but the fact Russia feels the need to put additional AA defences in Moscow sure makes it seem like Russia is somewhat scared, justified or not.

[jonnysensible]

I don't think Ukraine would do it either, but the fact Russia feels the need to put additional AA defences in Moscow sure makes it seem like Russia is somewhat scared, justified or not.

internal coup protection

[Makabreska]

internal coup protection

Gotta be mindful of dem air threats!

[Iphie]

Gotta be mindful of dem air threats!

Look, I'm NOT saying Wanker SS has access to planes, but I did hear some of those wankers were flying sorties in Ukraine...

[Kallisto]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was a private purchase from an oligarch either, paranoid about something. Don't those missiles only have a range of something like 10 miles as well?

[YUPPIE]

Moscow itself has nothing to fear. Nothing will attack or get into the sanctuary of Moscow.

That's Russia's greatest advantage.