As I've said since February we could have made a strong Western response from the get-go and challenged Russia directly. Said that we would defend Ukraine militarily, sent troops in and reinforced the border and stared down Putin and dared him to skin that smoke wagon. It would entail a significant risk of a nuclear confrontation and escalate the geopolitical temperature, but the most likely outcome would be Russia would back down. We didn't do that. Joe Biden got up and told Putin that if he invaded Ukraine, the US would not defend it. His calculation was to back down in the face of Russian aggression. And such an appeasement approach has its own risks and advantages, avoiding conflict and only surrendering territory and influence back to status quo ante. Whether or not that was wise, it was Biden's choice.

and then we got the worst of both worlds when we turned around and tried to prod on the conflict, give as much military support as needed to bleed Russia without stopping them, not enough to defend Ukraine but enough to plunge us into a nuclear standoff against Russia and risk direct NATO v Russia conflicts.

It was schizophrenic foreign policy then and it is now. Its very akin to what Obama did in Syria by arming the anti-Assad elements, first the pre-ISIS Sunnis and then the Al Qaeda aligned Sunnis and finally the Kurds to fight the Sunnis and give it back to Assad. We could have simply let Russia reclaim Syria from conflict in the first place, or we could have intervened directly and tried to seize control of another Afghan/Iraq quagmire. There are obvious reasons why the latter was a bad choice. But so was a bastardized middle path. Are we going to round out the historical parallel and be attacked by well armed international Nazi terrorists in the next few decades?

We're not dissuading Putin right now. He had his staredown with Biden last year and it was Biden who blinked. China is making hostile overtures towards Taiwan, India/Mexico/Israel/Pakistan/etc etc are all avoiding our calls, rather literally in the case of the KSA who wouldn't even pick up the phone for Biden. And we're only starting the economic turmoil that's focused squarely at breaking up the EU, again, just like the Syrian war aftermath. This has been a supreme geopolitical failure on our parts, and an avoidable one.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 16 2022 07:03pm

Not a rumor nor a "if": Russians start to evacuate ‘state institutions’ from Kherson region.

Seems about 5 more strikes on Kiev in the past few hours, more of the 'keep them rattled' variety, nothing sustained. Could be a preamble to a response to the Kherson offensive.

A strong western response could be construed either as a deterrent to Russia escalating the war or a provacation to escalating the war. At the moment it appears to be doing the latter, as what we are doing right now IS a strong western response (and has been for months).

This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 17 2022 01:08am

there is news of multiple drone strikes.

"Ukraine has reported a spate of Russian attacks withIranian-made Shahed-136 drones in recent weeks.

Iran denies supplying the drones to Russia, while the Kremlin has not commented."

was it Iran that was mentioned by the US around 5-6 months ago as having sold alot of drones to russia? its in this topic, but way way back. There were questions at the time as to whether the story was true or not but that if Russia did use alot of drones it would validate the news. can anyone remember ?

found this: https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2022/07/13/iranian-envoy-responds-to-us-claim-its-selling-drones-to-russia/

I mean, both sides will buy weapons off willing sellers, this is merely revisiting the claims made months ago (that Iran was supplying drones). i.e. unless someone wants to tell me this is complete horse shit - US claims that Iran sold Russia Drones some months ago, are now proven true.

This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 17 2022 04:10am

https://twitter.com/eminedzheppar/status/1581928914871779333

What do these drone strikes say about the Ukrainian supposed AA capabilities?
I mean, these are very slow moving, highly visible targets compared to aircraft or cruise missiles. They're meant to loiter in the air above soft targets not bypass anti-aircraft batteries. Their maximum airspeed is slower than my SUV's maximum ground speed, and they're striking right in the heart of Kiev in what should be the most heavily defended territory. Granted its still a cross section of ~10x10' and not a hot infrared target, but c'mon. And Ukraine lost a MIG to them a few days ago? What, did a zerg put two scourge on top of their starport and wait for it to pop out?

was a scourge the thing that looked like a scorpion that did that area of affect blinding red mist ? sorry its been so long.

are you guys wondering why iran is supporting russia?
or are you guys wondering why iran is supporting the enemy of his enemy?
or do you guys wonder why iran having superior drones?

nope, none of that. there was a debate argument in this topic around 3-6 months ago on whether a story that Iran was selling Russia drones was true or not. it got a bit heated (not too heated) and the conversation went:
if russia does not use drones (from iran) then it questions why the story was made by the US in the first place.

This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 17 2022 04:18am

I mean its basically the ATA version of these ATG drones, scourge is a small cheap air unit that suicide bombs at melee range for massive damage to one target, but are very easy to shoot down before they get in range

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 17 2022 04:20am