What is your suggestion?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
So WW3 then.
Shooting down missiles wouldn't trigger anything. Shooting down planes is a totally different ballgame
I dont think NATO planes shooting down Russian missiles over Ukraine would be treated nicely by Putin.
This is discussion is purely academical and practically a no-go.
For NATO planes to protect the airspace of Ukraine they'd need to fly over Ukraine. You can't shoot down missiles over Ukraine while your planes are flying over Poland/Czechia/Moldova. There won't be enough time to detect and react to the incoming missiles. The area of Ukraine is littered with Russian and Ukrainian air-defences. Air-defences can tell friend from foe, but they can't tell you the nationality of the foe. Therefore NATO planes, like Ukrainian planes will become an immediate target for Russian SAMs. In order to operate freely and safely, they'll need first to neutralise Russian air-defences.
(Note: This is what closing an airspace involves. Bombing. Neutralising hostile ground targets that can pose a threat to your air dominance.)
If NATO-operated planes start bombing Russian SAM sites in Ukraine, then all bets are off. It's direct conflict between NATO and Russia then, and it cannot really be spun any other way.
For NATO planes to protect the airspace of Ukraine they'd need to fly over Ukraine. You can't shoot down missiles over Ukraine while your planes are flying over Poland/Czechia/Moldova. There won't be enough time to detect and react to the incoming missiles. The area of Ukraine is littered with Russian and Ukrainian air-defences. Air-defences can tell friend from foe, but they can't tell you the nationality of the foe. Therefore NATO planes, like Ukrainian planes will become an immediate target for Russian SAMs. In order to operate freely and safely, they'll need first to neutralise Russian air-defences.
(Note: This is what closing an airspace involves. Bombing. Neutralising hostile ground targets that can pose a threat to your air dominance.)
If NATO-operated planes start bombing Russian SAM sites in Ukraine, then all bets are off. It's direct conflict between NATO and Russia then, and it cannot really be spun any other way.
NATO getting directly involved within Ukraine would probably still mean the same outcome though
Since the start of the war and the first big campaign of "no fly zone" over Ukraine - the problem that rose up wasn't about that, more like what if Russia manages to shoot down NATO aircrafts, what "our" answer has to be to that - not what would Russia do, if we shoot down theirs.
Then start training and supplying these jets ASAP so that Ukrainians can do it by themselves. Why these are not on the table still?
But Russia fires these missiles from Caspian sea, and not from temporarily occupied regions anyway. I’m talking about simply shielding the skies of major cities without getting anywhere near the frontlines. Russia will run out of missiles eventually, no?
A better and more extensive AD network is the obvious answer here before you go any where near a discussion of NATO jets.
Ukraine is citing 88% success rate in shooting down the latest missile barrage, which is extremely good, but not enough. More systems are gradually being delivered, just slowly.
Ukraine is citing 88% success rate in shooting down the latest missile barrage, which is extremely good, but not enough. More systems are gradually being delivered, just slowly.
Also, you can always do the little green men tactics of Crimea and don’t have Nato badges on these jets.
Some hilarious suggestions in the last page
Problem is, that this would be quite obvious as NATO uses different planes than Ukraine. Although in generally I love the idea of striking Russia with their own tactics (Polands statement "somehow a bunch of T-72 disappeared from our storage" was brilliant stuff and the closest I'm aware of that NATO got to the little green men tactics).
That doesn't have anything to do with it. Those missiles are guided by GLONASS satellites against relatively static locations in Ukraine. They travel at Mach speeds. Even if you know a missile has been fired at you (say visual confirmation via satellites), you still need the missile to be eventually detected by a radar which will guide your intercepting missiles to them. Your intercepting missiles will have small radars of their own in their nose. However your radars are obstructed by earth's curvature and those cruise missiles fly low, in order to maximise stealth.
So your jets/AWACS will need to fly high in order to maximise their radar "view" (which makes the planes a target themselves) and they will still only be able to see those missiles relatively late, given the travelling speed of those missiles.
Some of those cities (Kharkiv, Zaporozhia, Mykolaiv) are only a few miles from the front and Russian air-defences. A plane flying over them, high enough to be able to detect and intercept cruise missiles, will be easily picked up by Russian radars and SAM sites in the area.
The rule of thumb is, if you can see something by radar it can likely see you back. And if what you're trying to detect is flying close to the earth's surface? Well you get the idea. Your jets would be visible to enemy radar and exposed, unless you neutralise their radars and SAM sites.
Last edited:
Or the fecker was just drunk.
The IRIS-T air defense system, provided by Germany earlier this month, worked today with 100% results, but more such systems are needed, - the spokesman of the Air Force Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Yuriy IgnatTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Air to air missiles uses either infrared or radar seekers to track their targets, neither of those systems would be able to tell the difference between a cruise missile and a fighter jet so picking and choosing what to shoot down isn't really an option.
Even if it was possible every NATO plane entering Ukrainian airspace would be targeted by Russian ground based air defences.
The only way NATO airforces would be able to protect Ukraine is to first suppress or destroy most of the Russian ground based air defences and then shut down the airspace over Ukraine completely and that means engaging any hostile targets in the area.
This is the exact view and mentality that Putin has worked so hard to foster in the west.
About the cruise missile attacks today: Russia fired 50 cruise missiles, 44 were intercepted, only 6 hit their targets.
Usually both the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian Fleet were used to launch cruise missiles, but this time only the Caspian Fleet was active. This creates questions about the state of the Black Sea Fleet after the attack on Sevastopol a few days ago.
Usually both the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian Fleet were used to launch cruise missiles, but this time only the Caspian Fleet was active. This creates questions about the state of the Black Sea Fleet after the attack on Sevastopol a few days ago.
Sea drones stronk
Courts have again said to release Yakunin, police still appealing. Not sure what the difference between today and Thursday is.
Decision says that the anti-Russian measures are illegal in Svalbard because of their discrimination laws, and it's also discovered that he was arrested for filming people doing sports.
https://direkte.vg.no/nyhetsdognet/...ovedlopet_row7_pos1&utm_medium=df-86-b201a007
Who are Russia's allies? They're alone, hardly a world war.
Playing slight devil's advocate here (and I understand the human desire to get involved and help, especially for the neighbouring countries of Ukraine) but how do people square a desire to see NATO (as opposed to individual countries helping with supplies etc ) get directly involved, by setting up a no-fly zone for instance, with the statement that NATO is a purely defensive alliance?
And before people come frothing at the mouth. Yes Putin is a scumbag and wrong. Yes I hope Ukraine win. Yes I don't mid supporting Ukraine. No I don't think NATO is a justification for this war etc etc etc.
And before people come frothing at the mouth. Yes Putin is a scumbag and wrong. Yes I hope Ukraine win. Yes I don't mid supporting Ukraine. No I don't think NATO is a justification for this war etc etc etc.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Easy. Ukraine is in the process to join NATO, assisting them before that formally happens wouldn't be an issue from my point of view.
It's a good point. I certainly can see no sort of Article 5 claim here. Technically the US and UK could justify some form of intervention on their part on the basis of the Budapest Memorandum. It's not clear cut but is a half-usable international law justification.
But any participation of NATO countries should then be on an individual sign-on basis by each country, not compelled by any of the NATO treaty aspects.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If civilians, neutrals and/or humanitarian forces are in danger, couldn't they use a reasoning similar to the one used in Yugoslavia in the 90s?
If you mean Operation Deny Flight, that was a NATO enforcement of a United Nations imposed no fly zone. And it didn’t mean shooting down Russian air craft in air to air combat.
If they want to be world police sure, if they want to be a purely defensive alliance no. NATO isn't a purely defensive alliance, of course, this is just an issue because some people for some reason feel the need to claim that it is. They do missions all over the world.
Kofman is the expert that said that Russia would be exhausted in 3 weeks?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't think any expert can predict what will happen in any degree
Because Ukraine is not Russia, Is not NATO doing anything to russia in russian territory but helping another nation to defend themselves in their territory.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yes, Putin is a scumbag and wrong. And he is a thug. If tomorrow NATO announces that he has one week to leave Ukraine, including Crimea, or the NATO air force will decimate all Russian forces inside Ukraine, then he would leave Ukraine and there will be no nukes, no WW3, no nothing. That's what thugs do, they push as far as they can, till a bigger thug appears.
Of course, this is not going to happen because the West is full of faux "leaders". And that's the reason Putin started all this, he actually thought the West would do even less, but that old guy Biden surprised him by giving a lot of money and guns to Ukraine. If it was up to the EU only, the Ukrainians would be decimated. (And Zelenskyy, the comedian, was a huge surprise, too. )
The silver lining is that Ukrainians might win alone, which will give them immense pride going forward, and hopefully they will be able to establish a stable democracy like the other countries in Europe. Unfortunately, they have paid an extremely heavy price because the West did very little, very slowly.
As I said earlier, there will be no such thing as WW3 happening here. Of course, nukes will destroy the world. But that's different than WW3 happening over this war. No one is joining the losing side, so the west (whoever they are) will just make sure of the weakening of the Russian military in this war and Putin will be fighting this alone.
The only concern here is Putin launching nukes.
The only concern here is Putin launching nukes.
No thanks, we already have one.
I would suggest "the West" have done quite a lot but rather slowly. With hindsight they should have reacted more like this in 2014 but then they were all bought and paid for with Russian money, it was a different time. The response has also been somewhat uneven between countries but most countries have at least been helping to a significant degree. The Germans for example have been very slow but they have implemented the sanctions, filled the gas reserves, sent their Iris-Ts, Panzerfausts and other equipment, I think they've sent money as well...it's not nothing.
Forget the nukes, without the nukes we'd have some other excuse for doing nothing. The Srebrenica massacre happened in July 1995 (with Dutch peacekeepers around), and NATO finally intervened only in 1999, four years later, after there was another war in Kosovo. Was anyone afraid that Milosevic will use nukes? Of course not, he didn't have any. It is just that the West is very very slow to intervene. There are "red lines" that actually mean nothing, like the time Assad used chemicals which was Obama's "red line". Obama did nothing, some meaningless sanctions.
To be fair to him, his following posts qualify that statement a bit and he wasn't that far wrong. Russia was an exhausted force and abandoned its entire operation in the North not long later.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
edit: It was actually 3 weeks almost to the day that they withdrew from Northern Ukraine
