Right, I’m just saying that we, as the public, don’t really know what countermeasures we have in place against a nuclear attack, nor how different amounts of time to prepare will affect them.

Right, I’m just saying that we, as the public, don’t really know what countermeasures we have in place against a nuclear attack, nor how different amounts of time to prepare will affect them.
Yes. You don’t want advanced systems in a place where they are likely to be salvaged by your enemy. And this means Ukrainian pilots who have no experience. Even when the US sells weapons systems to most other countries, they are not equipped with top of the line electronics. Older stuff, sure. Not the same stuff US pilots would use.
Close air support is nothing like defeating an enemies radar system. Conducting a couple of air support missions with dumb bombs is nothing close to what they need to gain air superiority.
Glad to hear it. I wasn’t aware they were having any real success other than feel good raids.
This should be top of the list. The more Putin loses ground, the more he’s going to target civilian populations and things like infrastructure. Unfortunately, I don’t think he’d even pause to think about hitting a nuclear plant. Just another target to him.
That’s what I thought, so I was wondering what the worry was about them being destroyed. The whole idea behind them is shoot and scoot.
This sounds good, but Putin could hold onto territory for years. He doesn’t care about casualties and if all he does is strengthen defensive positions he can lob munitions at Ukraine all day long. It’s not like Russia has never done this before.
Also, I’m sure Ukraine figured out long ago that being the one that does the actual fighting in a proxy war is a terrible position to be in. Basically, they get enough training and weapons to kill wholesale lots of invaders, but not the weapons they actually could use to win. They’ve already been told they can’t use weapons inside Russia’s border. And everyone continues to refuse to give them longer range weapons. Unless there is a real policy change, and it can’t just be the US, Putin can probably hold his “annexed” territory as long as he can control his government. And he seems to be doing just fine in that regard.
They can do this because they have adequately suppressed enemy air defenses in those locations!
Putin is losing territory by the day, and losing his best weapons and best motivated and trained soldiers too. Ukraine is winning.
“Russians go the house?”
I apologize in advance if this has already been asked and for my ignorance.
I have looked at a few of the maps that have been provided. From how it appears to me, (excluding Crimea) Ukraine seems to have only taken back around 5% of land occupied by the Russians. I hope that I am way off but am I?
Not a hard problem to solve. Put the image up on a few social media sites, crowd-source the translation. Even if somehow you get inadequate response from a population as large and varied as NYC’s (including native speakers, multi-lingual citizens, and university language professors, I would think), people in other areas could pitch in.
A quick Google search tells me that NYC had 600k Russian speakers and 150k Ukrainian speakers. The NYPD is certain to have officers or employees fluent in both.
you know - these things don’t work linearly … they could probably take more land “cheaper”, but they are going for the supply routes e.g. railway intersections - which is bad news for russia in the mid-term, as everything gets so much more complicated form an organizational POV.
ANALOGY:… the first 20 min the Titanic showed little impact … then 20 min later something of an impact… then things get lopsided very fast and you cannot correct for it…
Get your Monty Python quotes right. It’s
“The people called Russianes they go the house.”
did some armchair analysis today and came up very pesimistic … here my rationale:
I really get the feeling that this is the gameplan … sadly .
Get your Monty Python quotes right. It’s
“The people called Russianes they go the house.”
Splitter!
They can do this because they have adequately suppressed enemy air defenses in those locations!
In a tiny spot, and that’s assuming there was air defense there in the first place. It’s nothing compared to where they can’t fly, which is most of the Russian held territory.
Putin is losing territory by the day, and losing his best weapons and best motivated and trained soldiers too. Ukraine is winning.
Ukraine is doing well, but they have still lost huge chunks of their territory. It’s not winning when a foreign army is holding onto great chunks of your land. And that’s not including Crimea, which Russia has held for 8 years.
It’s great that Ukraine is making some progress. Pretty much everyone here is happy and surprised at how well they have been doing. Let’s not oversell it and tell ourselves it’s all over but the crying. There is a long way to go yet and it’s not going to be an easy job, no matter how much you say it is. No matter what weapons we give them, it’s Ukrainians that are going to be spilling the blood.
Not a hard problem to solve
Nothing to solve, that doesn’t say anything. I’m sure in a few days some random CT nut will come up with a secret message. I assume it’s supposed to represent blood.
you know - these things don’t work linearly … they could probably take more land “cheaper”, but they are going for the supply routes e.g. railway intersections - which is bad news for russia in the mid-term, as everything gets so much more complicated form an organizational POV.
That’s interesting and I understand. I’m still curious about what percent of land has been retaken.
Another high ranking Russian official gone. Apparently an errant missile fell on his house.
Also a important Wagner commander dies.
From how it appears to me, (excluding Crimea) Ukraine seems to have only taken back around 5% of land occupied by the Russians.
That’s a complicated question to answer. You say you are excluding Crimea, but are you also excluding the parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts held by the separatists since 2014 as well? Are you including or excluding the territory Russia retrenched from (i.e. around Kyiv) when their offensive there became untenable and they decided to concentrate on the Donbas?
But anyway in June Zelenskyy said Russia occupied ~20% of Ukraine, variously reported as 47,000 or 48,000 sq. miles. Since mid-September they’ve purportedly taken maybe ~3,400 of those back. But I’m pretty sure Zelenskyy was including Crimea and the separatist areas. The DPR and LPR together covered ~8,500 sq miles, Crimea ~10,000.
So let’s say ~48,000 sq miles - ~18,500 = ~29,500 sq. miles seized by Russia since early 2022 and still held by June. So 3,4000/29,500 = 11.5%. 3,400/48,000 = 5% as you noted. But all of this is complicated by the land Russia took between June and September (some, not a lot) and also what they lost around Kyiv when they retreated before June - that might all be a wash, I don’t know.
It’s a shifting target because of land always being lost and gained from week to week.
Ballistic missile submarines have largely eliminated any need for instant “we need to launch our nukes now or we’ll lose them” retaliation strikes these days. The whole point of such submarines is that they buy you lots of time to think. You can ride out the enemy’s first strike and ponder your options, no need for a “Mr. President we need a decision in 10 minutes”.
The point of SSBNs is that it makes a crippling first strike impossible (i.e. MAD). That the whole US could be obliterated but SSBNs would still be out there somewhere to make the enemy pay for it.
I have looked at a few of the maps that have been provided. From how it appears to me, (excluding Crimea) Ukraine seems to have only taken back around 5% of land occupied by the Russians. I hope that I am way off but am I?
You are in for a surprise. Here is an animated map from day one to mid Sept. A big recapture after forcing a Russian retreat from Kiev, then mostly nibbling, then the big burst in early Sept.
Thanks @Tamerlane and @smithsb for the great answers.