• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

UA-RU-NATO War | Discussions | Jun. 1st/Sep. 13th 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spyglass said:
Putin told Trump that he will have to respond to the attack.

So this really begs the question… why would Ukraine target the strategic nuclear fleet? It doesn’t really act in the interest of Ukraine, because Putin can still destroy the planet 100 times over, so realistically…. Who benefits from a weakened Russian strategic fleet?

NATO. That’s who. Using Ukraine as a proxy means that the U.S. has full on plausible deniability. It’s starting to seem that this Ukrainian strike wasn’t so random after all.
Click to expand...
Yeah complete denial obviously as the US isn't a member of nato. 🤣😂 you may need rethink that statement.
 
Spyglass said:
why would Ukraine target the strategic nuclear fleet? It doesn’t really act in the interest of Ukraine, because Putin can still destroy the planet 100 times over, so realistically….
Click to expand...
Absolutely incorrect. Destroying these bombers reduces the amount of cruise missiles that can hit Ukrainian cities and is of great strategic importance to Ukraine. These aren’t just for nuclear war.
 
Spyglass said:
Putin told Trump that he will have to respond to the attack.

So this really begs the question… why would Ukraine target the strategic nuclear fleet? It doesn’t really act in the interest of Ukraine, because Putin can still destroy the planet 100 times over, so realistically…. Who benefits from a weakened Russian strategic fleet?

NATO. That’s who. Using Ukraine as a proxy means that the U.S. has full on plausible deniability. It’s starting to seem that this Ukrainian strike wasn’t so random after all.
Click to expand...
The reason that the US has 'plausible deniability' is because they weren't told in advance. The reason that they weren't told in advance is because they can no longer be trusted.

Its a pretty damning indictment on how far the US has fallen in the eyes of the world.
 
Gaijin said:
Why should Ukraine, a country that has been invaded, act 'in the interests of the United States'? The arrogance is palpable.
Click to expand...
The arrogance that you do not have to work as a parter with other partner nations that have and continue to support you.
Remember the first lethal weapons Ukraine received was in Trumps 1st term.
That Biden in first year of his term cut defense aid to Ukraine that was budgeted from trumps last year.

I firmly support Ukraines right to defend itself. I also expect Ukraine to work with and listen to partners who have delivered before and are continuing to.
Allies engaged in mortal conflict with exceptionally high risk, nuclear potentially in this case, should be able to expect all participants not ignore the request of their partners.

This is all assuming it was requested in the first place which I do not know.
But if Ukraine is so righteous in their cause and they did, then they might consider the cost of losing one of its largest partners.

Putin is supposed to be the antagonist here yet I’m seeing as little cooperation from Zelinski as Putin.

I’ve stated my position here, send troops now! But that is not going to happen. The nation, my nation, will not stand for it. Nor will many of the Western European nations either. So are we going to blindly fund a war for another three years? Is there a war plan in that. Yet still possibly see Ukraine fall in the end?
Is that a strategic victory for the US.
Is that a strategic victory for Ukraine?
 
OReid said:
The arrogance that you do not have to work as a parter with other partner nations that have and continue to support you.
Remember the first lethal weapons Ukraine received was in Trumps 1st term.
That Biden in first year of his term cut defense aid to Ukraine that was budgeted from trumps last year.

I firmly support Ukraines right to defend itself. I also expect Ukraine to work with and listen to partners who have delivered before and are continuing to.
Allies engaged in mortal conflict with exceptionally high risk, nuclear potentially in this case, should be able to expect all participants not ignore the request of their partners.

This is all assuming it was requested in the first place which I do not know.
But if Ukraine is so righteous in their cause and they did, then they might consider the cost of losing one of its largest partners.

Putin is supposed to be the antagonist here yet I’m seeing as little cooperation from Zelinski as Putin.

I’ve stated my position here, send troops now! But that is not going to happen. The nation, my nation, will not stand for it. Nor will many of the Western European nations either. So are we going to blindly fund a war for another three years? Is there a war plan in that. Yet still possibly see Ukraine fall in the end?
Is that a strategic victory for the US.
Is that a strategic victory for Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Ukraine won't fall.
Neither will it win.
The only way out of this is through a negotiated settlement (or a massive expansion of the war drawing in NATO but that's a whole other kettle of fish and would require Russia to do something truly stupid).
Both sides are going to have to make concessions and, as yet, neither seem willing to do so. The only question is what will bring them to the point where they are willing to do so.
 
OReid said:
This is all assuming it was requested in the first place which I do not know.
But if Ukraine is so righteous in their cause and they did, then they might consider the cost of losing one of its largest partners.
Click to expand...
Exactly 👍👍
 
Gaijin said:
Ukraine won't fall.
Neither will it win.
The only way out of this is through a negotiated settlement (or a massive expansion of the war drawing in NATO but that's a whole other kettle of fish and would require Russia to do something truly stupid).
Both sides are going to have to make concessions and, as yet, neither seem willing to do so. The only question is what will bring them to the point where they are willing to do so.
Click to expand...
Nato won't enter even if Russia was about to take full control of Ukraine. Nato knows it isn't worth it . Proof exists today. Nato , US, individual European countries havn't entered Ukraine in uniform representing their own and won't simply because they know the result . Result = no good for them , no good for Russia, no good for the world.
 
Last edited:
7gtz said:

Trump admired Ukraine's "badass" attack, but worries what's next​

​

Pretty strong," Trump told one confidant, who relayed his remarks to Axios. ​

"He thought it was badass," a second source said of Trump's reaction.​

One Trump adviser said: "From an international perspective, you've got a chihuahua inflicting some real damage on a much bigger dog."​

One reason Ukraine's attack concerned the White House was that it targeted long-range bombers that can carry nuclear weapons and are a key part of Russia's nuclear deterrence. "This is a very dangerous point," the U.S. official said.
We want this war to end. We want it to de-escalate. So if Putin goes crazy in response, yeah, the president has concerns," another source who spoke to Trump said.
Click to expand...
@Torch @OReid Appears the U.S. doesn't really have objections to the attack. Trump even called it badass! However, it appears the White House is worried about Russia's response and Trump is concerned Putin might go crazy in retaliation. U.S. government officials called this "a very dangerous point."
 
7gtz said:
Absolutely incorrect. Destroying these bombers reduces the amount of cruise missiles that can hit Ukrainian cities and is of great strategic importance to Ukraine. These aren’t just for nuclear war.
Click to expand...
ok, I will be willing to agree with you that less bombers in general is a good thing for Ukraine. We can meet at the minds there.

However, for Ukraine it doesn’t really matter. Russia could launch a massive attack across all of Ukraine anytime they want. Conventional or otherwise. An attack large enough to destroy Ukrainian capabilities. Ukraine put a dent in Russia’s capability, but 67% of the fleet remaining is still enough to level Ukraine 10x over.

What this does is benefit NATO more than anything else. Russia vs. NATO has long been theorized, and if NATO is going to stand a chance at surviving a nuclear conflict, it would only make sense for a proxy to “remove” those assets from the battlefield in order to change the war gaming parameters.

That’s all I am saying here.
 
Spyglass said:
ok, I will be willing to agree with you that less bombers in general is a good thing for Ukraine. We can meet at the minds there.

However, for Ukraine it doesn’t really matter. Russia could launch a massive attack across all of Ukraine anytime they want. Conventional or otherwise. An attack large enough to destroy Ukrainian capabilities. Ukraine put a dent in Russia’s capability, but 67% of the fleet remaining is still enough to level Ukraine 10x over.

What this does is benefit NATO more than anything else. Russia vs. NATO has long been theorized, and if NATO is going to stand a chance at surviving a nuclear conflict, it would only make sense for a proxy to “remove” those assets from the battlefield in order to change the war gaming parameters.

That’s all I am saying here.
Click to expand...
Sure, what Ukraine did won't stop now all the attacks with strategic bomber rn. However, if they do it again, and again, then it could stop it. It's not because it doesn't stop Russia doing that RN that it's "useless", it's a step toward that.
 
7gtz said:

Trump admired Ukraine's "badass" attack, but worries what's next​

​

Pretty strong," Trump told one confidant, who relayed his remarks to Axios. ​

"He thought it was badass," a second source said of Trump's reaction.​

One Trump adviser said: "From an international perspective, you've got a chihuahua inflicting some real damage on a much bigger dog."​

One reason Ukraine's attack concerned the White House was that it targeted long-range bombers that can carry nuclear weapons and are a key part of Russia's nuclear deterrence. "This is a very dangerous point," the U.S. official said.
We want this war to end. We want it to de-escalate. So if Putin goes crazy in response, yeah, the president has concerns," another source who spoke to Trump said.
Click to expand...
Dunno if it's in the reports but Trump asked Putin not to retaliate.
In my opinion this is still less worrying of Kursk's oblast invasion, which was a clear breach of their the territorial integrity of their own policy.
Didn't nuke then, even less probable now.
We're keeping listening to the same things as in the last years from the russians, especially when it comes from their media, and how and when nuclear weapons should be used.

“I don't like it, I said don't do it, you shouldn't do it, you should stop it.”


Of course no one wise enough would go publicly and say over this...hey don't worry...nothing's gonna happen, because it would advertise that such an attack on your soil (ie. US, UK, France), would not lead to some sort of retaliation.
 
Onoya said:
Sure, what Ukraine did won't stop now all the attacks with strategic bomber rn. However, if they do it again, and again, then it could stop it. It's not because it doesn't stop Russia doing that RN that it's "useless", it's a step toward that.
Click to expand...
But if it happens again and again and again, Russia will have no choice but to go nuclear. The triad can’t be compromised in that way.

The idea of continuing to attack Russia’s nuclear triad is dumb at best.
 
Spyglass said:
@7gtz which part of my post do you disagree with? Would love to debate it.
Click to expand...
However, for Ukraine it doesn’t really matter. Russia could launch a massive attack across all of Ukraine anytime they want. Conventional or otherwise. An attack large enough to destroy Ukrainian capabilities. Ukraine put a dent in Russia’s capability, but 67% of the fleet remaining is still enough to level Ukraine 10x over.
Click to expand...
I disagree with several parts of your statement.

1) Russia has primarily attacked Ukraine with cruise missiles launched from these bombers. These bombers serve as MREs (as Torch explained in an earlier post) or missile range extenders, giving Russian cruise missiles greater range to hit deeper inside Ukraine. Point 3) is related to this.

2) 67% of the fleet is not operational. There are an unknown number of planes that are in maintenance or missing critical parts and aren't servicable. Secondly, Russia has to keep a good portion of these bombers available in case of nuclear war, too, they can't afford to commit their entire fleet to Ukraine. Ukraine has effectively halved Russia's fleet of bombers used to attack it. This matters, since with this dwindled capacity, Russia simply can't launch the same type of cruise missile barrages as they have previously.

3) Level Ukraine 10x over - that's a bit of a stretch IMO, Russia can't keep using larger missiles that do have the range to strike deep inside Ukraine from Russian territory due to sheer costs and the need to conserve them for NATO. Russia can't drain their entire stockpile, they need to deter NATO. For this purpose, they used cruise missiles instead - see point 1) as to why they have effectively lost a large chunk of their strike capabilities inside Ukraine.

4) Conventional or otherwise, you're right Russia could always nuke Ukraine. However that would come with unimaginable consequences and probably cause Europe to enter the war.

5) It's a step to deter Russia. By showing them what you're capable of and that you can target and destroy their strategic assets placed far from the border too. It's a security nightmare for them too, now having to check every commercial vehicle within a certain radius of airfields. It shows them they aren't untouchable, they can be attacked and Ukraine has the ability to inflict real, long-term damage to Russia.
 
7gtz said:
@Torch @OReid Appears the U.S. doesn't really have objections to the attack. Trump even called it badass! However, it appears the White House is worried about Russia's response and Trump is concerned Putin might go crazy in retaliation. U.S. government officials called this "a very dangerous point."
Click to expand...
Agreed I totally appreciate the audacity and success of the attack. It was GOAT level. My only point was having watched the fallout from it I was concerned it was counter to attempts to get Putin past his ego and personal existential fears to a negotiating table for real.

You know in the end Putin could have an aneurism and die and the new leader might sue for peace straight away. But the risk of escalation right now vs a negotiated peace is just concerning.

If and when the efforts at peace negotiations are spent and pointless. Then Trump is going to have to step up to the plate.

Three and half potentially nuclear escalatory conflicts are going on at the same is more than risky. It’s dangerous.

We all remember what almost happened during Able Archer when the Soviets almost misread a NATO exercise.

How many potential “misreads” are sliding past us everyday. There are no clear indications right now that any are preparing to launch a nuclear strike.
There are a host of nation state conflicts going on where a “misread” could easily occur.
 
7gtz said:
Assume you're talking about China-Taiwan, RU-NATO, India-Pakistan and Iran-Israel?
Click to expand...
Yeah throw in DPRK as well. It was an imprecise figurative number. I just figured it deserve a whole number yet. I wouldn’t categorize PRC/ROC as a direct nuclear threat currently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom