Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Kakrime t1_j10aag9 wrote

Beware of the wishfull thinking. The fact that belarus is shit, or that people there could revel, or that russia could be weak and not able to atack from belarus could be true, but right now it is wishfull thinking. The only safe behavior in this situaion is to arm Ukraine wih atacms and heavy weapons as soon as possible and prepare for an attack from belarus, even if many people or experts consider it low chance. We cannot afford fail in here and have to be prepared for the worst esceranio. Even if in the end belraus doenst attack, the situation if there is an attack would be serious enough as to consider some kind of comments laughting at this posibility as russian trolls.

34

ChemistryVirtual t1_j10c568 wrote

This is exactly what Russia wants, splitting the Ukrainian defences among the southern conflict and creating a new one in the north weakening the defences in the south so to continue plundering along the Black Sea on to Transnistria.

9

jackp0t789 t1_j10cl6q wrote

If they wanted to push towards Transnistria, they wouldn't have retreated from their one bridgehead on the west bank of the Dnieper.

7

Kakrime t1_j10cv5q wrote

If they atack from belarus probably they would go to towards Lutks Rivne etc

1

jackp0t789 t1_j10d2ac wrote

They can barely move a few hundred meters a day in Donbass...

unless Ukraine leaves that entire strip entirely undefended, they aren't going to do much better up there.

2

Kakrime t1_j10fwk5 wrote

Right now, no. In some months who knows

2

ttkciar t1_j10xsqy wrote

Is there much choice?

If S-400 is positioned on Ukraine's Belarus border, on Ukraine's Russian border, and in Crimea, then between their overlapping areas of coverage there will be nowhere in all of Ukraine where anything can fly that cannot be immediately shot down (except maybe F-35; it might be sufficiently stealthed to avoid detection by S-400, but the Ukrainians don't have that aircraft).

To avoid that situation, the S-400 emplacements would have to be neutralized.

4

ttkciar t1_j10znhn wrote

Relatedly, this prompted me to look up ground-to-ground anti-radiation missile systems, and afaict the only such systems that exist are China's B-611MR and Israel's Keres (a ground launching system for AGM-78).

That seems like a pretty grievous oversight. Without a ground-to-ground anti-radiation capability, what are a military's options for attacking S-400 other than overrunning it with tanks or getting close enough with a sufficiently well-stealthed aircraft to launch air-to-ground anti-radiation missiles?

2

Incandescent_Lass t1_j11bhls wrote

Waste a bunch of cheap drones until you get your lock, then pop open the expensive bottles.

6

Kakrime t1_j10cibn wrote

If Ukraine had atacms in the border with belarus there would be need to splitt nothing. When the trops concentrate in the north you just blow them.

1

fffyhhiurfgghh t1_j12pfdv wrote

So Russia has already failed in this exact strategy during the early war. Why would this same strategy work again?

1

autotldr t1_j105t9f wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)


> WARSAW, Poland - Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has announced the S-400 air defense systems and Iskander missiles the country has received from Russia have been put "On combat duty."

> "Today, we put on combat duty the S-400 complex, which you handed over to Belarus, and, most importantly, the Iskander complex, which you also, having promised it six months ago, handed over to us," Lukashenko said, as quoted in a statement released by the Russian president's office.

> The Institute for the Study of War, a U.S. think tank, said in a recent analysis that "Lukashenko uses the rhetoric of defending Belarusian borders against the West and NATO in an effort to avoid participating in the Russian invasion of Ukraine."


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Lukashenko^#1 Belarusian^#2 Russian^#3 Minsk^#4 NATO^#5

4

clauderbaugh t1_j11qt6l wrote

How is it that a coalition of the willing can come together and shove Saddam Heusen’s army out of Kuwait when they get invaded but we can’t help Ukraine by doing the exact same thing?

2

fence_sitter t1_j11taw2 wrote

Wrong Iraq conflict... Coalition of the Willing was Bush (43) illegal war of false pretenses of WMD.

Desert Storm was Bush (41) response to a UN mandate to free Kuwait.

4