Stuart Galbraith

Well as far as Italy, my Grandfather fought there and there was 3 things that help up the advance. Firstly was mud, which you admittedly share in Ukraine. Secondly was Feldmarschall Kesselring. The Ukrainians are good, but they arent that good. Lastly was mountains, ruddy great mountains, not least Monte Casino. I need not point out that in Ukraine, for the most part where you fight at any rate, its as flat as a billiard table. So comparison can break down, not least because you did so much better in 1943 and 44 on all kinds of levels. As for your economy, It was savings that sustained this war. I agree you have not applied the full economic potential of Russia, but that to me in itself is revealing in why the Government doesnt do it. Im pretty sure the British Army in Kabul from the start of the British war, and were there till the end. Taking terrain wasnt the problem, the problem was maintaining security. As a bit player the British were beholden to American policies, not least the decision to withdraw. We can compare it to the Soviet Afghan war if you like? At least our troops werent getting hepatitis. We also didnt take at least 13000 casualties, if that wasnt cooked books like the Ukraine war was.

Did somoene say 'Tank Destroyer?'

Sure. Im just saying that whilst the breadth of their formations would undoubtedly be using Soviet hand me downs, their inablity to make at least the lead elements equipped with new equipment must be viewed criminally negligent. Certainly in artillery at least, which I think when this war is over is going to be judged a major failing.

Alright, once again, lets unpack it. I apologise for derailing the thread. 1 The full scale invasion of Ukraine failed to deliver a knockout blow. Because it wasnt intended to. That was plan B at best, and didnt even have an operational commander. Because they were not expecting the Ukrainians to resist. 2 The Ukrainian narrative, which I kind of believe, was that Russia had a plan A, a decapitation strike that would remove the Ukrainain Government. 3 Hostomel was apparently key to that effort. We are unclear precisely what role it played, whether the ground force was supposed to be the reinforcement, or whether there was supposed to be other airborne flown in. But it was judged at the time that they were supposed to use Hostomel as a FOB for flying troops around Kyiv, to take over the Government district. Capture/Kill Zelensky, destroy the Government and any coordinated means of resistance. Then the overland force (remember that big snake of vehickes that stalled outside Kyiv?) would link up. This is actually not wholly dissimilar to Operation Storm 333 that toppled the Afghan President, followed by flying in troops and an overland force to reinforce the light forces. The difference being, Amin was assainated first because Soviet troops were already present. This essentially reverses that process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333 4 When Hostomel fell apart, which seems to have been even more key to the operation than the taking of Kabul airport, the whole operation fell apart. And what you see ever since was plan B, which has been a fiasco. I guess the point im making is, we are not certain how the Kyiv operation was supposed to go down. What I present is speculation at best, and may well be wrong. But that the spearhead force was Spetsnaz, that Hostomel was clearly intended as a FOB, tells me that it was supposed to host aircraft flying around Kyiv. That far I think the Ukrainian speculation was spot on. And as for it being a disproportionately high losses, it was. No argument. But if it had worked as they appear to have intended, if they had taken down the Kyiv Government in a couple of days, wouldnt people be saying, just as they did Operation Storm 333 that it was a breathtaking operation, worthy of study? Comparable perhaps even to the feted Entebbe operation? BMD may well have proved itself as the ideal vehicle for this kind of role, but sat this battle out and hence was used in ways that didnt showcase its capablities. We judge it as a failure therefore. Judge it how it could have been used, and reflect it may well have done much better in that role. It conceivably might even have won the war, if it could have been brought into the fight in a timely manner.

Trump lost. The counts proved he lost, the legal bids proved he lost. By every accountable measure known to man, he lost, and to a first rate knucklehead at that, which makes it even worse. They didnt need to do anything. All they needed to do was sit back and let the process work out. It was Trump and his chuckle brothers that tried to upset the process. I love conspiracy theory as much as the next one, but the first rule of them is they actually have to make sense, and on no level it does. If the conspiracy was so elaborate they could defeat Trump with ease in 2020, then why didnt the same conspiracists succeed in 2024?

I really am not. Perhaps pretend im stupid, it should be easy for you. The media estate in the UK is a mess. There are no heroes, there is no perfect source to go to. The BBC used to be that, but it isnt anymore. However, I do find everyone else in the UK media estate stood around its grave lamenting how it died from getting things wrong, have not addressed several truths that are self evident. 1 They told us Brexit would be good for us. It wasnt. 2 They told us Boris Johnson would be good for the country. He wasnt. 3 They told us the Conservatives would solve the migrant crisis. In 14 years they didnt even get close. 4 They told us Liz Truss would save the country. In a month and a half she buggered up the economy and was gone. Isnt it just a LITTLE hypocritical with all those monumental mistakes, ones that lasted over a decade, that they are talking about the death of the BBC from a single entirely partial flawed report that hardly anyone watched? Certainly nobody in your country. A case in point that illustrates quite how cosy Government and the media became. No, the right wing media in the Uk have absolutely no place to lecture the BBC, nor anyone else. https://bylinetimes.com/2022/05/18/cummings-exposes-more-details-of-boris-johnsons-pact-with-right-wing-press-proprietors/ I dont need the BBC to tell me about January 6th. I was watching it live on CNN at the time,I formed my conclusions then and have not changed. I knew after Trumps speech there was going to be a riot. The American secret service knew there was going to be a riot. That the BBC poorly edited a report to try to tell me he was responsible changes nothing. He was responsible, because he was the president and they were all there for him. He told them to go, and when they started rioting, neglected to get in front of a camera to tell them to stop still hours later. He also neglected to call the national guard, even though his own congressmen were begging him to. What happened to 'The Buck Stops here?'

I thought Once Upon a time in America was a fine film, but not outstanding. That was till it was explained to me (particularly with some scenes that were foolishly cut out) that everything in the 'modern day' is an opium dream, pure guilt fuelled escapism. In his unconcous he is pretending he didnt kill Max and the gang at all, and he did. It is an outstanding film, Leones best Imho. Agree about Weld, but Woods doesnt get nearly enough credit for it either.

No. Im sick and tired of this 'We are the good guys, they are the inhuman enemy' crap on this site. If you wouldnt enjoy your relatives being talked of in such a fashion, then kindly put a sock in it. Its rote, and its boring. Yes, and there I completely agree with you. One doesnt have to dehumanize someone to say they are inadequate to the task at hand. Facts are in evidence, because unlike many of you Ive read up on the subject, and dont get spoonfed facts from Social media. Day to day running of MI5 is down to the Director General, not the Home office. Yes, the Home office can say 'dont share this', and MI5 will likely nod dutifully and do it under the counter. Its the way the system works. Not that MI5 are going to be the ones sharing the South American intelligence anyway. Its MI6, which comes under Yvette Cooper. Yes, she is pretty useless as well, but she isnt a lefty, and again, SIS is subject to the same 'yes sir, no sir' principle. Read Smileys people and you will see what I mean. Id argue its been a failing since Jimmy Carter. It used to be the case you had your National Security Advisor come from an intelligence background, but ever since Carter its been political appointees. Some have been good, many cant find their own arsehole with both hands. A mistake of yours we have copied, which is why Starmers National Security advisor was found to be forging links to the Russians behind Starmers back without telling anyone about it. Now THAT'S a real scandal you can get upset about. He has form too. He was the asshat that has managed to screw up the Chagos deal. https://english.alarabiya.net/amp/News/world/2025/11/12/kremlin-confirms-previous-contact-with-uk-national-security-advisor

You remember those words if he pulls the plug because he belatedly realises he is picking tasks for which is military isnt big enough. I give it 50/50 at this point. Again, I do find it amusing so many of you can eulogise Reagan and what he did, and can also eulogise a man whom is the exact opposite of everything Reagan stood for. And arent I the one continually lectured that the cold war was a waste of money?

And still the lesson doesnt sit.

Challenger 2 with Brimstone launcher.... https://www.army-technology.com/features/streetfighter-challenger-2/ It didnt go anywhere, but might actually be a good idea for those Challenger 2's that wont be upgraded to 3's.

On the contrary, I think Hostomel was conducted well, because as you can see from the video, 45th Brigade managed to push the Ukrainians back. If they had done it several hours earlier, then presumably there was a reinforcement plan in hand. Dont know what it was. I recall speculation at the time was there was at least a regiment of Airborne troops with BMD's on hand to be flown in. And then presumably another, and another. The screw up here was the air force. I think VDV did their job. I think they presumed there wouldnt be any Ukrainian forces there. Which might be another failing, intelligence. If you want a model at what they were probably planning, look at Kabul in 1979. Ive no doubt VDV could have pulled that off. But only if the initial force had the firepower to push back the Ukrainians quickly, and they did not. BMD's would likely have done that for them. Indeed, its the only conceivable use for such a lightly armoured vehicle with such huge firepower. Or they could have just foregone the Spetznaz assault entirely, and just drove onto the airfield with a BMD company and surprised the hell out of everyone. That was probably the best solution of all.

There Are also references to hillary having an affair with the staffer that killed himself. One has to be careful, Epsteinwas a liar, certainly in his emails about giuffre. Otoh, there is enough here to raise questions about Trump's claim about breaking off ties. There also seem to have been significant financial ties. And why did the Russians think Epstein was the man to see about Trump?

And this one shows Epstein explaining to the Russians how to deal with Trump.

Here is one where Steve Bannon talks to Epstein about Trump meeting Prince Andrew.