One former escalating taboo after the other are being broken in quick
succession, seems to be a headlong rush to do everything besides
actively participating in thee war.
Tanks, aircraft, a major taboo for nearly a year ,, Now, its just a
matter of how many and how quickly we can give them. Long range
missiles, cluster bombs ,, Unthinkable ! Up till about now, now the only
talk is who can give them the most the quickest.

Not likely the Bolsheviks will appreciate being upstaged by the French,
and the pressure will be on to flood Ukraine with US missiles in the
next mega Bolshevik aid package.

Russia says they will retaliate, take counter measures, but outside of
bombing another ice cream parlor, there is nothing they can do about it.
Unless they can interdict supply lines, these munitions will be raining
down on their heads shortly.
Would not be surprised if they shortly fly in munitions direct to
Ukraine, may in fact already be doing that, so weak is the Russian position.
This very weakness is in fact what is encouraging the mongers to send
in ever more advanced and capable weaponry, it is developing into a
viscous circle, which the mongers hope will lead to Russian collapse.

Then what ? They probably don't quite have that part worked out yet,
making plans for next month these days is way too much to ask for.

[I know I know, some people just don't want to hear anything about
Russian weakness, it is all a calculated gambit by the brilliant
strategist Putin to lull us into a false sense of security, you see !]

Facts are facts, supply interdiction is one of the most simple and basic
elements of warfare, if your enemy cannot be supplied whether internal
or external, and you can supply yourself, then you win.

Putin would love to interdict, Putin needs to interdict. It would change
the entire dynamic of the conflict in Russias favor, obviously. But he
can't, not from lack of will, but from lacks of means - And the NATO
mongers are taking full advantage of that, and are flinging it right in
his face on a daily and increasing basis.

```````````````````

France's Emmanuel Macron agrees to send crucial long-range missiles to
Ukraine that White House claims would spark further escalation with Russia

Paris will send SCALPS, a long-range missile that can hit targets
more than 155 miles away
The French president confirmed the move at the start of a two-day
NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania
U.S. officials have repeatedly refused to send its long-range
weapons, known as ATACMS, because they fear it would provoke Vladimir Putin

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12286539/France-HUMILIATES-Joe-Biden-Emmanuel-Macron-agrees-send-crucial-long-range-missiles-Ukraine.html

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:02:52 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> pointed to:

> Paris will send SCALPS, a long-range missile that can hit
> targets more than 155 miles away

It's "SCALP" not "SCALPS", and more correctly "SCALP-EG".

SCALP-EG are just rebadged Storm Shadow missiles which the UK has already supplied so it doesn't amount to an increase in capability, though it does mean Ukraine will have more of them.

Unfortunately Russia appear to be pretty good at intercepting them. Claims of how many they have taken out are no doubt exaggerated but we do know for sure they shot one down intact a week ago which is already being analysed in Moscow.

The MoD were denying Russia had shot any down but India has become quite worried about the French variant they have; "Moscow's recent success against the Storm missiles demonstrated that India's SCALP missiles can be easily neutralised in a war scenario if New Delhi's adversary were to use Russian-built missiles".

One suggestion is Ukraine has already burnt-through what the UK supplied in May and that's why France has to supply replacements. They are apparently only getting 50 so it's a rather limited resource.

The question must be why they don't seem to have had much impact during the counter-offensive so far and whether having more will help them much either.

Biden isn't happy as he needs the firework party to drag out for as long as possible. He knows it's "so what now?" once they have all been used up and Russia isn't defeated.

The Happy Hippy wrote:

>
> Biden isn't happy as he needs the firework party to drag out for as long as possible. He knows it's "so what now?" once they have all been used up and Russia isn't defeated.

Didn't hear anyone suggest that a small shipment of missiles from UK &
France would defeat Russia - You are just making shit up as you go [as
usual]

I think the biggest bonus for Ukraine is the accelerated creep of
sending more and more advanced, capable weapons, which I got into in the
OP and you ignored [along with the near complete lack of Russian
interdiction, which itself is a major enabler of indulging Zelensy].

It sets a precedent, and they can go on to the next formerly unthinkable
demand, perhaps a fully equipped "surplus" submarine or donated AWACS.
We get dragged further in and committed, which is the real overall goal,
not blowing up Russian supply dumps which does of course help tactically
but is not going to "defeat Russia".

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:02:52 -0400, JeSSe wrote:

> One former escalating taboo after the other are being broken in quick
> succession, seems to be a headlong rush to do everything besides
> actively participating in thee war.
> Tanks, aircraft, a major taboo for nearly a year ,, Now, its just a
> matter of how many and how quickly we can give them. Long range
> missiles, cluster bombs ,, Unthinkable ! Up till about now, now the only
> talk is who can give them the most the quickest.
>
> Not likely the Bolsheviks will appreciate being upstaged by the French,
> and the pressure will be on to flood Ukraine with US missiles in the
> next mega Bolshevik aid package.
>
> Russia says they will retaliate, take counter measures, but outside of
> bombing another ice cream parlor, there is nothing they can do about it.
> Unless they can interdict supply lines, these munitions will be raining
> down on their heads shortly.
> Would not be surprised if they shortly fly in munitions direct to
> Ukraine, may in fact already be doing that, so weak is the Russian
> position.
> This very weakness is in fact what is encouraging the mongers to send
> in ever more advanced and capable weaponry, it is developing into a
> viscous circle, which the mongers hope will lead to Russian collapse.
>
> Then what ? They probably don't quite have that part worked out yet,
> making plans for next month these days is way too much to ask for.
>
> [I know I know, some people just don't want to hear anything about
> Russian weakness, it is all a calculated gambit by the brilliant
> strategist Putin to lull us into a false sense of security, you see !]
>
> Facts are facts, supply interdiction is one of the most simple and basic
> elements of warfare, if your enemy cannot be supplied whether internal
> or external, and you can supply yourself, then you win.
>
> Putin would love to interdict, Putin needs to interdict. It would change
> the entire dynamic of the conflict in Russias favor, obviously. But he
> can't, not from lack of will, but from lacks of means - And the NATO
> mongers are taking full advantage of that, and are flinging it right in
> his face on a daily and increasing basis.
>
> ```````````````````
>

I don't know how weak Russia is but they don't seem to be 100% stable.
They're top-heavy and Putin will be holding up a lot of others who will
hang from the lamp posts with him if he goes down.

It's cetainly not a great situation. If Ukraine loses we end up in a
potentially dangerous new age, if Russia gets humiliated they'll want to
re-arm massively to show strength and we end up in a potentially dangerous
new age.

The situation needs unwinding back to the beginning and an actual deal
sorting out rather than a defeat.

>
> France's Emmanuel Macron agrees to send crucial long-range missiles to
> Ukraine that White House claims would spark further escalation with
> Russia
>
> Paris will send SCALPS, a long-range missile that can hit targets
> more than 155 miles away
> The French president confirmed the move at the start of a two-day
> NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania
> U.S. officials have repeatedly refused to send its long-range
> weapons, known as ATACMS, because they fear it would provoke Vladimir
> Putin
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12286539/France-HUMILIATES-Joe-
Biden-Emmanuel-Macron-agrees-send-crucial-long-range-missiles-Ukraine.html

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:17:58 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't know how weak Russia is but they don't seem to be 100%
> stable. They're top-heavy and Putin will be holding up a lot of
> others who will hang from the lamp posts with him if he goes down.
>
> It's cetainly not a great situation. If Ukraine loses we end up in a
> potentially dangerous new age, if Russia gets humiliated they'll want
> to re-arm massively to show strength and we end up in a potentially
> dangerous new age.
>
> The situation needs unwinding back to the beginning and an actual
> deal sorting out rather than a defeat.

But what's the beginning and what sort of deal do you envision ?

Is the beginning 2012 before Obama and Biden set about taking Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence ?

Is it 2014 when Obama and Biden had taken Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence but Russia had annexed Crimea to bring her back into it ?

Is it 2021, before the invasion, when things were more settled apart from Kiev's opposition to eastern Ukraine having autonomy or independence ?

Russia isn't going to give up Crimea. We had accepted that in 2014 when we settled for "we get Ukraine, they keep Crimea", were happy with that for the best part a decade.

Russia likewise isn't going to surrender eastern Ukraine to Kiev's genocidal oppression.

The best peace deal there can be is that Russia withdraws from the south and gets to keep eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

Zelensky was happy to accept that in early 2022 before Biden made sure that wouldn't be a possibility.

Are you ?

You appear to be accepting that defeat of Russia is an unachievable goal but yoy also deem anything but Russia's defeat as a win for Russia a defeat for us. So what outcome would be acceptable to you ?

The possibilities, as they always have been, are -

1) The conflict brings about World War III.

2) The conflict becomes a never-ending war.

3) Russia controls the entirety of Ukraine.

4) Russia settles for holding southern and eastern Ukraine, Crimea.

5) Russia settles for holding eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

6) Russia settles for holding Crimea.

7) Russia surrenders Crimea.

8) Russia as we know her ceases to be.

TWP wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:02:52 -0400, JeSSe wrote:
>
>> One former escalating taboo after the other are being broken in quick
>> succession, seems to be a headlong rush to do everything besides
>> actively participating in thee war.
>> Tanks, aircraft, a major taboo for nearly a year ,, Now, its just a
>> matter of how many and how quickly we can give them. Long range
>> missiles, cluster bombs ,, Unthinkable ! Up till about now, now the only
>> talk is who can give them the most the quickest.
>>
>> Not likely the Bolsheviks will appreciate being upstaged by the French,
>> and the pressure will be on to flood Ukraine with US missiles in the
>> next mega Bolshevik aid package.
>>
>> Russia says they will retaliate, take counter measures, but outside of
>> bombing another ice cream parlor, there is nothing they can do about it.
>> Unless they can interdict supply lines, these munitions will be raining
>> down on their heads shortly.
>> Would not be surprised if they shortly fly in munitions direct to
>> Ukraine, may in fact already be doing that, so weak is the Russian
>> position.
>> This very weakness is in fact what is encouraging the mongers to send
>> in ever more advanced and capable weaponry, it is developing into a
>> viscous circle, which the mongers hope will lead to Russian collapse.
>>
>> Then what ? They probably don't quite have that part worked out yet,
>> making plans for next month these days is way too much to ask for.
>>
>> [I know I know, some people just don't want to hear anything about
>> Russian weakness, it is all a calculated gambit by the brilliant
>> strategist Putin to lull us into a false sense of security, you see !]
>>
>> Facts are facts, supply interdiction is one of the most simple and basic
>> elements of warfare, if your enemy cannot be supplied whether internal
>> or external, and you can supply yourself, then you win.
>>
>> Putin would love to interdict, Putin needs to interdict. It would change
>> the entire dynamic of the conflict in Russias favor, obviously. But he
>> can't, not from lack of will, but from lacks of means - And the NATO
>> mongers are taking full advantage of that, and are flinging it right in
>> his face on a daily and increasing basis.
>>
>> ```````````````````
>>
>
> I don't know how weak Russia is but they don't seem to be 100% stable.
> They're top-heavy and Putin will be holding up a lot of others who will
> hang from the lamp posts with him if he goes down.
>
> It's cetainly not a great situation. If Ukraine loses we end up in a
> potentially dangerous new age, if Russia gets humiliated they'll want to
> re-arm massively to show strength and we end up in a potentially dangerous
> new age.
>
> The situation needs unwinding back to the beginning and an actual deal
> sorting out rather than a defeat.

If Russia could wreck supply lines with Poland, they would.
The fact that they don't is really all the proof of weakness that is needed.
We have a former "super power" that can't even dominate an area a few
100 miles from their capital, and cannot subdue a country less than 1/5
their size directly on their border ,, Cannot stop or even impede the
continuous flow of weapons that are keeping their adversary alive, the
weakness is glaring.

The only option for rewinding is for all Russian forces to retreat out
of Ukrainian territory back into Russia, whereupon Putrid will obviously
be in a much worse position than he started before the invasion, when
everyone believed he would steam roll over the entire country in weeks.

Russia is wrecked, am not overjoyed about that but it is a debacle
brought about by 1 bald man, the consequences for his piss poor
decisions and actions will not and should not be pretty.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

JeSSe wrote:

> Not likely the Bolsheviks will appreciate being upstaged by the French,
> and the pressure will be on to flood Ukraine with US missiles in the
> next mega Bolshevik aid package.

Well now, that didn't take long - Just send the next truck load of
Tshirts straight to me ,, And the dems were worried that Trump would
speed walk us into WW3, sheesh

`````````````

Biden now admits he is considering giving Ukraine long-range missiles
capable of reaching Russia AND Crimea on top of cluster bombs: President
promises to get more artillery shells to Zelenksy as quickly as possible

Biden confirmed Wednesday he is considering sending longer-range
missiles to Ukraine that have the capacity to reach Russia and Crimea
Comes as critics are reeling over sending Kyiv controversial
cluster munitions, which are used by Russia but banned in 100 different
countries
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky briefed Biden on the
counteroffensive

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12293075/Biden-considering-giving-Ukraine-long-range-missiles-capable-reaching-Russia.html

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.