Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I see no need to completely dismantle Russia. I do see an opportunity to forward the question of Russia decolonizing internal jurisdictions that it hasn’t managed to turn majority Russian, but actually making it a point for peace seems to be more a bargaining chip than a relevant wartime objective.
 
Russia makes threats, but in the end, they will not use nukes. Putin is crazy but not that crazy. He understands that the day he does that, Russian will cease to exist. Their population will go from millions to near zero in next no chance to defend itself against a counterstrike. Within minutes, hundreads of millions of Russians would die. Billions would die in the aftermath. They know that and will not resort to nukes. There is no such than as a contained nuclear war.

I understand the concern, but it will not happen.
 
How flexible should Ukraine be with the crazy-assed Russians who keep stealing part of their internationally recognized nation? (Retorical question; we hold very similar positions).

But I don't think there should be a coalition against Russia with TROOPS... No excuses for Putin or the oligarchs to launch a nuke at someone.
I like the current arrangement where the "coalition" provides training and equipment, and UDF kill Russians for the rest of the world.

We can outlast the Russians.... burn them to the ground economically and politically. UNTIL the Russian people "French Revolution" Putin and the oligarchs.

What WE NEED to be figuring out is how to go in and TAKE their nukes away once the state fails.
Russia is INCAPABLE of remaining a peaceful nation.

We should have FINISHED them off for good in the early 90s.
We need to be careful how far we push Russia if they are defeated. Humiliating the losers is never a good idea, as shown by the Treaty of Versaille and other unequal treaties. Decapitation of the regime can have disastrous consequences for stability, for example in Iraq and Libya.
Trying to to remove their nuclear weapons could (literally) backfire. We should also consider that a severly weakened Russia could lose control of its warheads, potentially creating problems elsewhere in the world. There's also the issue of the states which are currently propped up by Russia and may become unstable if Russia is weakened too much. Syria, Belarus, and Kazakhstan immediately spring to mind. Those in central Asia could fall under the sway of China, creating a new set of problems. We currently have a well-contained regional conflict. It would be an act of folly to allow the peace measures to export problems to other nations.
I think we need to keep Russia as a viable power, push for constitutional change and regime change as a precondition for the removal of sanctions, and assure border guarantees for all neighbouring countries and those where Russia has frozen conflicts.
 
I think this war can go on for a long time. Look at the Eastern Ukraine with Russia. That has been going on since 2014. First and foremost, is for Ukraine to neutralize the aerial bombardment as much as they can, so that they can begin some form of normalcy independent of what a weakened Russia can do.
 
I think this war can go on for a long time. Look at the Eastern Ukraine with Russia. That has been going on since 2014. First and foremost, is for Ukraine to neutralize the aerial bombardment as much as they can, so that they can begin some form of normalcy independent of what a weakened Russia can do.
I think it can but probably won’t. The stakes weren’t so high in 2014 and the international response wasn’t so strong. I remember President Obama talking about it in a State of the Union address and not having heard about it until then, as the world’s attention was focused firmly on Syria and the rise of ISIS.

Now that we’re not overextended in Afghanistan and the Levant, we can prioritize this situation highly and bring it to a conclusive end.
 
We need to be careful how far we push Russia if they are defeated. Humiliating the losers is never a good idea, as shown by the Treaty of Versaille and other unequal treaties. Decapitation of the regime can have disastrous consequences for stability, for example in Iraq and Libya.
Trying to to remove their nuclear weapons could (literally) backfire. We should also consider that a severly weakened Russia could lose control of its warheads, potentially creating problems elsewhere in the world. There's also the issue of the states which are currently propped up by Russia and may become unstable if Russia is weakened too much. Syria, Belarus, and Kazakhstan immediately spring to mind. Those in central Asia could fall under the sway of China, creating a new set of problems. We currently have a well-contained regional conflict. It would be an act of folly to allow the peace measures to export problems to other nations.
I think we need to keep Russia as a viable power, push for constitutional change and regime change as a precondition for the removal of sanctions, and assure border guarantees for all neighbouring countries and those where Russia has frozen conflicts.
When does a proxy war transition to a real war. Given NATO supplies all the hardware, ammo, training, maintenance, spare part, intelligience, consulting, money etc. Is the only distinction troops?
 
When does a proxy war transition to a real war. Given NATO supplies all the hardware, ammo, training, maintenance, spare part, intelligience, consulting, money etc. Is the only distinction troops?
I‘m not sure how this relates to my post. I was addressing how I think we should treat Russia post bellum rather than the nature of the current conflict.
 
We need to be careful how far we push Russia if they are defeated. Humiliating the losers is never a good idea, as shown by the Treaty of Versaille and other unequal treaties. Decapitation of the regime can have disastrous consequences for stability, for example in Iraq and Libya.
Trying to to remove their nuclear weapons could (literally) backfire. We should also consider that a severly weakened Russia could lose control of its warheads, potentially creating problems elsewhere in the world. There's also the issue of the states which are currently propped up by Russia and may become unstable if Russia is weakened too much. Syria, Belarus, and Kazakhstan immediately spring to mind. Those in central Asia could fall under the sway of China, creating a new set of problems. We currently have a well-contained regional conflict. It would be an act of folly to allow the peace measures to export problems to other nations.
I think we need to keep Russia as a viable power, push for constitutional change and regime change as a precondition for the removal of sanctions, and assure border guarantees for all neighbouring countries and those where Russia has frozen conflicts.

I agree that we need a well-reasoned plan for dealing with a decapitated Russia.... Russia WILL be decapitated.... from within or without.... matters not.
Which is specifically WHY I said we need to have a plan to secure all the nukes.

We actually have forces in the United States whose ONLY function in life is tracking where all the nukes are and war-gaming how to go get as many of them as possible if sh!t gets real and their security becomes (even more) questionable.

China is the NEXT issue... We need to get Russia OFF the playing board. because China is enslaving the world using its "Belt and Road" initiative, etc.
Russia is the LAST colonial empire on the planet. Time for it to be broken up. Belarus will go through the growing pains that the rest of Eastern Europe did after they lost the USSR backing AND threat of force.

Syria.... let it burn. Just keep the Russians and Iranians guessing.

As for the various -stans.... Without nukes, they are not a significant threat to anyone but their neighbors.

IRAN is who scares me.... Those crazy bastards WANT to "assist" the world in its journey to the END.... AKA: Total Destruction.
THAT regime has to go. We should have NEVER allowed militant Isalmists to govern ANY country.
 
Its amazing we can fly rockets for fun when on the other side of the planet they are doing it to kill people. And is it possible that our hobby and supporting companies that may or may not be involved are helping to keep both going. I certainly don’t condone war to justify our hobby but obviously our hobby does not contribute to war.

Can a kid grow up to love a hobby and then turn it into the worst bomb the planet has ever known???

Strange thought to contemplate.
 
Its amazing we can fly rockets for fun when on the other side of the planet they are doing it to kill people. And is it possible that our hobby and supporting companies that may or may not be involved are helping to keep both going. I certainly don’t condone war to justify our hobby but obviously our hobby does not contribute to war.

Can a kid grow up to love a hobby and then turn it into the worst bomb the planet has ever known???

Strange thought to contemplate.
No - our hobby has absolutely nothing to do with the killing overseas.
 
I think we need to be sending more than just "bullets and bombs" to UKR. Their infrastructure is heavily damaged. We (the world) need to be sending things to (at least) patch up the infrastructure. Things that could help provide clean water and power, for example. After the war, regardless of whomever wins, the country will be little more than heaps of gravel.
 
I think we need to be sending more than just "bullets and bombs" to UKR. Their infrastructure is heavily damaged. We (the world) need to be sending things to (at least) patch up the infrastructure. Things that could help provide clean water and power, for example. After the war, regardless of whomever wins, the country will be little more than heaps of gravel.
It doesn’t receive the same amount of press coverage, but we do:
“In the midst of Russia’s continued brutal attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Secretary of State Blinken announced today during a meeting of the G7+ on the margins of the NATO Ministerial in Bucharest that the United States government is providing over $53 million to support acquisition of critical electricity grid equipment. This equipment will be rapidly delivered to Ukraine on an emergency basis to help Ukrainians persevere through the winter. This supply package will include distribution transformers, circuit breakers, surge arresters, disconnectors, vehicles and other key equipment.”
And so do other countries:
“Norway signs agreement to provide NOK 1 billion to repair damaged infrastructure in Ukraine...”
A quick search for “what do we send to ukraine to repair infrastructure” shows the generosity of support.
 
It doesn’t receive the same amount of press coverage, but we do:
“In the midst of Russia’s continued brutal attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Secretary of State Blinken announced today during a meeting of the G7+ on the margins of the NATO Ministerial in Bucharest that the United States government is providing over $53 million to support acquisition of critical electricity grid equipment. This equipment will be rapidly delivered to Ukraine on an emergency basis to help Ukrainians persevere through the winter. This supply package will include distribution transformers, circuit breakers, surge arresters, disconnectors, vehicles and other key equipment.”
And so do other countries:
“Norway signs agreement to provide NOK 1 billion to repair damaged infrastructure in Ukraine...”
A quick search for “what do we send to ukraine to repair infrastructure” shows the generosity of support.
It’s a good investment. Closer economic ties and reassurance to other countries that might need to stand up to Russia in the future are both well worth this price tag.
 
I agree that we need a well-reasoned plan for dealing with a decapitated Russia.... Russia WILL be decapitated.... from within or without.... matters not.
Which is specifically WHY I said we need to have a plan to secure all the nukes.

We actually have forces in the United States whose ONLY function in life is tracking where all the nukes are and war-gaming how to go get as many of them as possible if sh!t gets real and their security becomes (even more) questionable.

China is the NEXT issue... We need to get Russia OFF the playing board. because China is enslaving the world using its "Belt and Road" initiative, etc.
Russia is the LAST colonial empire on the planet. Time for it to be broken up. Belarus will go through the growing pains that the rest of Eastern Europe did after they lost the USSR backing AND threat of force.

Syria.... let it burn. Just keep the Russians and Iranians guessing.

As for the various -stans.... Without nukes, they are not a significant threat to anyone but their neighbors.

IRAN is who scares me.... Those crazy bastards WANT to "assist" the world in its journey to the END.... AKA: Total Destruction.
THAT regime has to go. We should have NEVER allowed militant Isalmists to govern ANY country.
I guess its easier to hold such views on your side of the Atlantic than mine. America is separated from the Eurasian land mass by two large oceans. Life is a lot more complex in the Eurasian land mass. Everything is interconnected through trade, historical relationships, conflicting national interests and treaties.
Europe needs Russia as a stable neighbour. They have a long border with NATO and the western democracies and could cause a lot more trouble up to (and including) the next world war. There needs to be some sort of transition of power between regimes and not the sudden decaptiation of the Putin regime to maintain that stability.

I agree that China is a problem. China has already gained effective financial control of many countries , including resource rich ones in Africa. The land elements of Belt and Road makes the Stans part of their economic sphere of influence so they cannot be ignored. If the west is not economically and politically active in those areas we'll simply cede control of them to China and a weakened Russia. Kazakhstan is particularly important as its a buffer state between Russia and China, is supported by Russia, and is the launch site for the Russian space programme. Strategically we need a Russia capable of countering Chinese influence in the Stans, hence my opnions that post war Russia must remain stable, intact and credible as a world power.

I completely disagree with letting Syria burn. It borders Turkey which is a NATO country (but currently seems non-commital about this status). It borders Jordan, who have been a stabilising influence in the region. It borders Isreal, the only democracy in the region. It borders Iraq, whose oil resources and instability are well known. It's in a great locaton for expoerting problems to its neighbours. Mindul that Europe is reliant on the middle east for its oil, particularly if we're to abandon Russian oil, we need the establishment of stable governments in the middle east. If a weakened Russia withdraws from Syria we could see further instability in the country which could affect the flow of oil to western Europe. After decades of unstable governments, civil wars, international wars, ISIS and with a growing threat from Iran there is a desperate need for stability in the region, and I think the key to this is effective governments in Syria and Iraq.

Iran remains a major problem. The government is not Islamist in the traditional sense (that movement seems to based mainly in Sunni Islam) but its a Shi-ite theocracy. The Revolutionary Guard forms a state within a state and is far better funded and equipped than the national army. Unseating the regime will be messy, perhaps impossible. There are not many options for positive action against Iran without creating a whole new regional conflict as their Shi-ite support spreads into many countries in that region, not only the Arabic countries but also the Stans. Realistically the only option may be punitive sanctions while strengthening allies in the region, espcially Saudi Arabia. I think its a matter of containing the problem rather than solving it, and let internal tensions eventually bring down the government.
 
I guess its easier to hold such views on your side of the Atlantic than mine. America is separated from the Eurasian land mass by two large oceans. Life is a lot more complex in the Eurasian land mass. Everything is interconnected through trade, historical relationships, conflicting national interests and treaties.
Europe needs Russia as a stable neighbour. They have a long border with NATO and the western democracies and could cause a lot more trouble up to (and including) the next world war. There needs to be some sort of transition of power between regimes and not the sudden decaptiation of the Putin regime to maintain that stability.

I agree that China is a problem. China has already gained effective financial control of many countries , including resource rich ones in Africa. The land elements of Belt and Road makes the Stans part of their economic sphere of influence so they cannot be ignored. If the west is not economically and politically active in those areas we'll simply cede control of them to China and a weakened Russia. Kazakhstan is particularly important as its a buffer state between Russia and China, is supported by Russia, and is the launch site for the Russian space programme. Strategically we need a Russia capable of countering Chinese influence in the Stans, hence my opnions that post war Russia must remain stable, intact and credible as a world power.

I completely disagree with letting Syria burn. It borders Turkey which is a NATO country (but currently seems non-commital about this status). It borders Jordan, who have been a stabilising influence in the region. It borders Isreal, the only democracy in the region. It borders Iraq, whose oil resources and instability are well known. It's in a great locaton for expoerting problems to its neighbours. Mindul that Europe is reliant on the middle east for its oil, particularly if we're to abandon Russian oil, we need the establishment of stable governments in the middle east. If a weakened Russia withdraws from Syria we could see further instability in the country which could affect the flow of oil to western Europe. After decades of unstable governments, civil wars, international wars, ISIS and with a growing threat from Iran there is a desperate need for stability in the region, and I think the key to this is effective governments in Syria and Iraq.

Iran remains a major problem. The government is not Islamist in the traditional sense (that movement seems to based mainly in Sunni Islam) but its a Shi-ite theocracy. The Revolutionary Guard forms a state within a state and is far better funded and equipped than the national army. Unseating the regime will be messy, perhaps impossible. There are not many options for positive action against Iran without creating a whole new regional conflict as their Shi-ite support spreads into many countries in that region, not only the Arabic countries but also the Stans. Realistically the only option may be punitive sanctions while strengthening allies in the region, espcially Saudi Arabia. I think its a matter of containing the problem rather than solving it, and let internal tensions eventually bring down the government.

Shia and Sunni are simply different "brands" of Islam. They are ALL Islamists.

If you get Iran OUT of Syria, things get better. In fact, the more isolated we keep Iran, the better. If Iran stands up a nuke missile, Istael will erase them.
 
Shia and Sunni are simply different "brands" of Islam. They are ALL Islamists.

If you get Iran OUT of Syria, things get better. In fact, the more isolated we keep Iran, the better. If Iran stands up a nuke missile, Istael will erase them.
Suggested reading: 'A History of the Arab Peoples' by Albert Hourani. The hatred between Shia and Sunni runs deep. Political Islam, or Islamism, is very much rooted in the Sunni tradition.

Meanwhile in Ukraine....
 
Meanwhile in Ukraine....

Yes, back to Ukraine.

I read an interesting article a few days ago about the Biden Administration’s thinking on what a post-war Ukraine and Russia might look like. The article was based on an interview with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

The administration does not envision a “decapitation” of Russia. They are focusing on how to deter Russia in the future, not on regime change, although that might come.

One of the more interesting parts of the article to me was that thinking has shifted from last year on how to ensure Ukraine’s security going forward. Instead of a treaty-based article 5 type guarantee, they are now thinking more in terms of providing the means for Ukraine to defend itself. That’s part of why we have shifted to providing more advanced weapons systems, even when it will take a long time to implement them. Systems like Patriot missiles, M1 Abrams tanks, advanced fighter and fighter bombers, etc. might not be brought online fast enough to make a difference in this war, but they will make a difference in a stable peace in future years. It will provide long-term deterrence for Russia.

The US supports the goal of Ukraine regaining lost territory, and all eventual decisions regarding how and when to end the war and the conditions of the negotiated peace are up to Ukraine. But the article makes the point that many in Washington and in Kyiv think that retaking all of Crimea through military force might not necessarily be achievable, and an all-out offensive on Crimea might be a tripwire for nuclear escalation (although Blinken himself isn‘t as worried about that as some). Eventually Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, but there might need to be an interim status for Crimea in the short term.


Here is a gift link tp the article — no paywall. https://wapo.st/3WOvr0t
 
Look up “ Budhapest Memorandum “, if that isn’t a commitment nothing is.
If you are going to quote me, use the whole statement, not just pull whatever is convenient for you...unless your a journalist of course then you can take anything out of context as long as it meets your narrative.

We have been supportive of Ukraine and in the last year since the invasion began have definitely stepped up our commitment, from being supportive to providing actual material support, as well as intelligence and other means. Its also been a year since I made that statement, lots has changed.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of regime change, better to kill those responsible than soldiers who have no choice.
So lightning comes out of the sky tomorrow and kills Putin (an act of God, no one is responsible). Who replaces him? What will *their* policies be? I can kinda understand Putin's agenda (and DON"T read anything into this!) - "Make Russia great again!". He wants things the way they were when the USSR was seen as a great force in the world, not just an "also ran" like it is today.
 
Its amazing we can fly rockets for fun when on the other side of the planet they are doing it to kill people. And is it possible that our hobby and supporting companies that may or may not be involved are helping to keep both going. I certainly don’t condone war to justify our hobby but obviously our hobby does not contribute to war.

Can a kid grow up to love a hobby and then turn it into the worst bomb the planet has ever known???

Strange thought to contemplate.
All I gotta say is that if Skynet takes over, us rocketeers would probably have skill sets that are in high demand for the Resistance. 😆
 
All I gotta say is that if Skynet takes over, us rocketeers would probably have skill sets that are in high demand for the Resistance. 😆
Model and high-power rockets are really bad weapon systems. The payload deliverable is puny, the circular error probable is enormous, and launch sites take forever to set up while also being uniquely vulnerable.

Just look at Hamas’ “rockets”. They barely do any damage at all, then the IAF comes in with F-16s and pounds them back into the dirt.
 
Retired American general (sorry I forget his name) talking about 'classified' M1 tanks: "We could give Russia an M1 with a big red bow on it, and they still wouldn't be able to manufacture one in ten years."

Kinda cracked me up.
 
Model and high-power rockets are really bad weapon systems. The payload deliverable is puny, the circular error probable is enormous, and launch sites take forever to set up while also being uniquely vulnerable.

Just look at Hamas’ “rockets”. They barely do any damage at all, then the IAF comes in with F-16s and pounds them back into the dirt.

NEVER let your competition grow in technology, and you will never have to face defeat. People forget this.
 
Retired American general (sorry I forget his name) talking about 'classified' M1 tanks: "We could give Russia an M1 with a big red bow on it, and they still wouldn't be able to manufacture one in ten years."

Kinda cracked me up.
Absolute fact. They also cannot avoid a total collapse in oil and gas production that will take a decade AFTER regime change and stability is returned to restore. And that is WITH western help.
But dang it, and listen to me this time....

We MUST finish Russia OFF, for good, this time. Not another dime of foreign investment goes into a defeated Russia until she surrenders with accountability to OUR satisfaction ALL nuclear weapons, delivery systems, manufacturing systems, etc.)

Modern day in comfort without nukes, or stone age, with non-deliverable nukes.

Choose.
 
Back
Top