Quote from: paxmao on Today at 07:08:59 PM

Quote from: DaRude on Today at 06:53:52 PM

[...]

Seriously paxmao, you're now happy about attacks on ballistic missile early warning system? Are things already that bad that you're cheering for a global nuclear annihilation?

I am not happy about anything related to this war. I am point out something that does change the balance. Are you happy about Ruzzia hitting the power stations required to keep the Ukrainians warm in winter?

Quote from: Branko on Today at 06:22:50 PM

[...]

Those radars are insignificant for current war, which is another sign that attacks are directed by UK/USA and probably preparation for nuclear assault on Russia
They serve as early warning against intercontinental ballistic missiles
Now, imagine if attack on such objects get falsely flagged as nuclear attack and Russia responds nuking England, how would you like it?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-strike-russian-nuclear-radar-163845828.html

“Not a wise decision on the part of Ukraine,” said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear arsenal expert at the Federation of American Scientists. “Bombers and military sites in general are different because they’re used to attack Ukraine.”

Thord Are Iversen, a Norwegian military analyst, said striking a part of Russia’s nuclear-warning system was “not a particularly good idea… especially in times of tension.”

“It’s in everyone’s best interest that Russia’s ballistic missile warning system works well,” he said.

1. Everyone seems an expert on how Ukraine should fight. I am sure you can find someone saying the oposite. But saying is saying and does not bring the radars up.
2. I am not sure what types of "experts" are these that do not know that ATCAMS are ballistic missiles, so those radars are relevant to the war clearly. Unfortunately, they are also relevant for other things.

I almost agree with the last sentence though - well, not to everyone's interest. Ukraine does not have nukes, so nothing will be coming from them.

As said, if Ruzzia cannot afford to lose this and other infrastructure they can leave Ukraine and start figuring out how to pay reparations.

Edited to note: The radars destroyed point to the south. I leave to you why did Ukraine hit those and not the northern ones.

All wars are tragedies for people. As far as power grid, world allowed NATO to set the unfortunate precedent on this, so it'd be appropriate to use NATO justification with slight adjustment for current events

Quote from: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/050499kosovo-nato.html

"We realize the inconvenience that may be caused to the ~~Yugoslav~~Ukrainian people, but it up to ~~Milosevic~~ Zelenskyy to decide how he wants to use his remaining energy resources: on his tanks or on his people," Shea [NATO spokesman] said.

But how does this changes the balance exactly? Pretty sure an attack on the early warning system is one of the justifications to launching a nuclear strike. Thinking that you can take out Russian nuclear early warning system (with attempted justification to launch few ATACMS to ex Ukrainian controlled territory) is not just gambling with your own population but with the whole worlds. If some 3rd state (that Russia sends weapons to) took out US's nuclear early warning system, I'm sure we'd all be glowing green now, Russia is showing great constraint on all of this.