[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: Eight

[Snowygerry]

He may well be an unwitting accomplice, he is all too obvious a suspect, this is Mossad level of infiltration.

 

[Kyriakos]

Military analysts here note that Russia is bound by international treaties to have those nuclear bombers remain visible (to satellite), for reasons of preventing nuclear alarm (you need to know that they have not taken off, been relocated etc). So this brings another parameter to the hit, which clearly utilized intelligence by third countries (most likely Britain).
But even naming it in US media as "(Russia's) Pearl Harbor", does the opposite of allowing it to be celebrated in the US.

 

[saamohod]

Military analysts here note that Russia is bound by international treaties to have those nuclear bombers remain visible (to satellite)

I saw military analysts yesterday saying that Russia abandoned those treaties in 2023.
In any case, if Russia wants to save its nuclear-capable bombers they shouldn't be using them for attacking Ukraine with conventional missiles on almost daily basis.

 

[saamohod]

Crimean bridge struck again.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1929859622799643032

 

[Kyriakos]

I saw military analysts yesterday saying that Russia abandoned those treaties in 2023.
In any case, if Russia wants to save its nuclear-capable bombers they shouldn't be using them for attacking Ukraine with conventional missiles on almost daily basis.

How likely is that when the bombers (from the videos) were in open airfields? (no cover).

 

[saamohod]

How likely is that when the bombers (from the videos) were in open airfields?

well, unlike some species of birds who spend months in flight without landing, aircraft need significant time on the ground.
Or are you implying that those bombers should've been intercepted by drones in the air in the very moment they were heading towards Ukraine armed with missiles, in order to prove to Putin's simps around the world that there is no war crime, no treaty breach etc?
Forgive my sarcasm, I'm struggling to see your point.

 

[Verbose]

How likely is that when the bombers (from the videos) were in open airfields? (no cover).

Russia had already moved them away from Ukraine pretty much as far as possible. They were supposedly at a safe distance from Ukranian retaliation. And Russia only needs about three of them, on a daily basis, to keep up the current level of the barrages it is sending into Ukranian towns and cities.

Any of them that can be targeted are the most legitimate targets imaginable.

 

[Snowygerry]

Military analysts here note that Russia is bound by international treaties to have those nuclear bombers remain visible (to satellite), for reasons of preventing nuclear alarm (you need to know that they have not taken off, been relocated etc). So this brings another parameter to the hit, which clearly utilized intelligence by third countries (most likely Britain).
But even naming it in US media as "(Russia's) Pearl Harbor", does the opposite of allowing it to be celebrated in the US.

Obviously threatening nuclear war twice every week somewhat invalidates all the Cold War customs we had before. Those treaties were only between the US and the Soviet Union btw., no one else is bound by them.

This is the new, multipolar world order you all asked for, hope you enjoy it

 

[amadeus]

To answer that - do you know any examples when two countries officially recognize border between them, and the rest of the world draws it differently?

This actually did happen when Iraq and Saudi Arabia agreed in 1981 to dissolve the Saudi-Iraqi neutral zone. However, neither party submitted the agreement to the UN, thus resulting in the rest of the world continuing to draw the diamond-shaped piece of desert on maps not knowing the two had settled the matter.

 

[Gedemon]

Military analysts here note that Russia is bound by international treaties to have those nuclear bombers remain visible (to satellite), for reasons of preventing nuclear alarm (you need to know that they have not taken off, been relocated etc). So this brings another parameter to the hit, which clearly utilized intelligence by third countries (most likely Britain).

They left that treaty two years ago, some journalist have not done their job before parroting the Russian talking points (this was parroted in France too)

Only thing Russia has said it would still follow is the limitations on numbers, and one of the reason to quit it was in fact to prevent the US surveillance of Russia strategic assets.

Russia to keep observing New START limits on nuclear delivery vehicles — top brass

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said earlier on Wednesday that Russia would keep observing central quantitative limits under the New START treaty and the ballistic missile launch notification agreement in order to maintain strategic stability

tass.com

But even naming it in US media as "(Russia's) Pearl Harbor", does the opposite of allowing it to be celebrated in the US.

The expression comes from Russian bloggers, and it's not innocent, they know that part of History.

Russia’s ‘Pearl Harbor’ How pro-war Telegram channels are reacting to Ukraine’s drone attack on Russian air bases — Meduza

Over the weekend, Ukraine’s Security Service conducted a massive, sophisticated drone attack targeting airfields in five regions of Russia. According to the agency, “Operation Spiderweb” destroyed 41 aircraft (though these numbers haven’t been independently confirmed). Russia’s pro-war...

meduza.io

On whether this was ‘Russia’s Pearl Harbor’​

Z-blogger Roman Alekhin​

This is Russia’s Pearl Harbor. Let’s hope the response is the same as America’s response to the attack on Pearl Harbor — or even tougher.

Oleg Tsaryov, former Donbas separatist leader (wanted in Ukraine)​

For some reason, a lot of people think we’re bound to hit back hard now — after all, our strategic aviation has taken a serious blow. They say this is our Russian “Pearl Harbor,” and that we’ll respond just as forcefully as the U.S. did back then.

But I don’t see it that way. Our Black Sea Fleet has already suffered massive damage — it doesn’t get much worse than that. And what happened then? Did we strike back then?

 

[Kyriakos]

They left that treaty two years ago

If so (which was obv also what Saamohod said), it would make zero sense that the nuclear bombers were left out in the open. At least a treaty which requires you to have them exposed to satellite would explain it.
Those are strategic nuclear bombers, so one can't just shrug it off to Russia doing inane stuff.

 

[Snowygerry]

They were not "nuclear bombers" they are used to lob ordinary cruise missiles at Ukraine daily and thus perfectly legitimate targets.

By now you must have noticed that fear-mongering is highly ineffective. It only encourages the resistance.

 

[Kyriakos]

They were not "nuclear bombers" they are used to lob ordinary cruise missiles at Ukraine daily and thus perfectly legitimate targets.

By now you must have noticed that fear-mongering is highly ineffective. It only encourages the resistance.

No, they are nuclear bombers - just haven't been used to carry out nuking missions against Ukraine (used with conventional weapons there). A plane needs certain traits/capabilities to be designated as what they are, it's not defined by what they may carry at mission x.

 

[Sarin]

If so (which was obv also what Saamohod said), it would make zero sense that the nuclear bombers were left out in the open. At least a treaty which requires you to have them exposed to satellite would explain it.
Those are strategic nuclear bombers, so one can't just shrug it off to Russia doing inane stuff.

Russia only withdrew from treaty in 2023, at that time it was already at war. Sparing the funds to build the hangars was simply not a priority, Russia thought that distance is enough.

 

[Kyriakos]

Russia only withdrew from treaty in 2023, at that time it was already at war. Sparing the funds to build the hangars was simply not a priority, Russia thought that distance is enough.

Wiki says that while Russia suspended participation from the treaty, it did not withdraw from it:

New START - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So it appears that it is still bound by it and thus this was the far likelier reason its strategic nuclear bombers had no hangar.
(also @Gedemon , @saamohod )

 

[Snowygerry]

No, they are nuclear bombers - just haven't been used to carry out nuking missions against Ukraine (used with conventional weapons there). A plane needs certain traits/capabilities to be designated as what they are, it's not defined by what they may carry at mission x.

By that logic every Belgian F16 is a "nuclear bomber". And so will be every F35.

Nuclear Bomb Capability, Stealth Made Belgium Select F-35 Over Eurofighter

Nuclear Bomb Capability, Stealth Made Belgium Select F-35 Over Eurofighter

www.defensemirror.com

 

[EvaDK]

Russian air force assets being stored in the open, has nothing to do with international treaties. They have no hangers. Blame ultra-nationalism, generational propaganda and blind faith in defense capabilities that don't actually exist. Also, I bet some Russian air force generals would rather use the funds for another yacht in a Turkish harbor, than spend them on hangars or bunkers for aircraft.

The US keeps the majority of its B-1, B-2 and B-52 fleet in hangars.

-----------

I'm reading a new story on the Kerch Bridge being hit with an underwater explosive charge this morning.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14775649/Ukraine-Putin-Kerch-bridge-Crimea-attack.html

PS @saamohod got it first

 

[Gedemon]

If so (which was obv also what Saamohod said), it would make zero sense that the nuclear bombers were left out in the open. At least a treaty which requires you to have them exposed to satellite would explain it.
Those are strategic nuclear bombers, so one can't just shrug it off to Russia doing inane stuff.

Please discuss the actual source of information. I can't believe you're going so far into pure speculations to deny reality while there could be many reasons why Russian bombers were not protected (like: no one was ever attacked like that before)

I'm pretty sure all nation with strategic bombers must be thinking very hard about how to counter that now.

 

[Gedemon]

Wiki says that while Russia suspended participation from the treaty, it did not withdraw from it:

New START - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 733458
So it appears that it is still bound by it and thus this was the far likelier reason its strategic nuclear bombers had no hangar.
(also @Gedemon , @saamohod )

I already posted that information (that they've taken the engagement to keep the limits in numbers)

you'll find no sources about keeping them in the open (they suspended the treaty to prevent the information to be used by the US), while US bombers are under protections, and were already under the treaty.

 

[Snowygerry]

(...)

I'm pretty sure all nation with strategic bombers must be thinking very hard about how to counter that now.

Not just those with strategic bombers, any target can be hit like that...

To be fair, professionals already knew that, in Russia they were only reading Pravda apparently

Abqaiq–Khurais attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The military spokesman said that the Sept. 14 attacks came after a "careful intelligence operation, prior monitoring and cooperation from honorable and freedom-seeking people within the kingdom".The use of operatives inside Saudi Arabia would appear to address some of the technical objections about how the Houthis could have struck targets at such a distance.