Roman Alymov Posted December 4, 2023 Posted December 4, 2023 5 minutes ago, jmsaari said: Shaped charge to puncture through frozen layer, enlarge the hole a bit manually with steel bar if need be, and a few kilos of ANFO below the frost layer in the hole is the only sensible way to dig trenches in frozen ground...
Roman Alymov Posted December 4, 2023 Posted December 4, 2023 ATGMs vs. (ruins of) water tower https://t.me/c/1688853451/135688
Strannik Posted December 4, 2023 Posted December 4, 2023 (edited) I recall someone was proclaiming the small beachhead on the left side of Dnieper to be valuable for ZSU - here is a BBC account of some soldier's stories. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67565508 Edited December 4, 2023 by Strannik
MiGG0 Posted December 4, 2023 Posted December 4, 2023 49 minutes ago, Strannik said: I recall someone was proclaiming the small beachhead on the left side of Dnieper to be valuable for ZSU - here is a BBC account of some soldier's stories. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67565508 I think it was common opinion here that UKR crossing is just feint to draw RUS forces to act against it. Pure logic just says that UKR dont have any better changes to supply it forces otherside than RUS had. And RUS had lot larger ”bridgehead” before they withdrew.
Roman Alymov Posted December 4, 2023 Posted December 4, 2023 1 minute ago, MiGG0 said: I think it was common opinion here that UKR crossing is just feint to draw RUS forces to act against it. Pure logic just says that UKR dont have any better changes to supply it forces otherside than RUS had. And RUS had lot larger ”bridgehead” before they withdrew. The problem of Krynki is, pro-Ukr artillery and drone operators on high industrial right bank of Dniper got much more places to hide in buildings than pro-Russian artillery (and forces in general) on relatively low, fkat and agrarian left bank. So pro-Rus forces are taking disproportinate losses - so it is stalemate: pro-Ukrainians can't move further from Krynki (the place their speedbats could relativelt safely reach by Konka river) while pro-Russians can't push them into the river. Video of pro-Ukr boat hit by unguided(!) 152mm shell on full speed - this is relatively rare case, most of boats go through safely https://t.me/boris_rozhin/105270
glenn239 Posted December 4, 2023 Posted December 4, 2023 On 12/2/2023 at 12:37 PM, Josh said: HIMARS was quite decisive. I don’t think it would be over hyped to say it had a strategic level effect - I don’t think either the Kharkiv or Kherson offensives could have occurred without them. I think the USAF would bring a lot more volume and a much deeper reach than a couple dozen artillery systems. Agreed that HIMARS has proven the most effective thing so far sent. It has not been decisive, nor is there reason to suppose the two offensives you mention were dependent for their success upon it. In terms of the USAF, we have yet to even establish that it can replace the already lost Ukrainian early war heavy artillery capability of around 7,000 shells a day, let alone move the needle to the level of ejecting Russia from Donbas. Quote Su-57 is currently outnumbered nearly 100:1 by NATO fifth generation aircraft and there is little prospect of that situation improving. If they want to try to fly clear across Poland of Scandinavia, that will save NATO some time and trouble finding them on their side of the border. Google says the total number of F-35's built is about 1,000, the total of F-22's produced is about 190. Production continues at a rate of about 160 a year, so maybe about 2,000 total jets towards the end of the decade vs. maybe about 100 Russian jets, about a 20 to 1 ratio. However, most of the USAF 5th Gen fighters will be pinned facing the Chinese air force, so the Russian jet will be outnumbered maybe about 5:1 by Western 5th Gen aircraft. But this assumes no Chinese reinforcements are to be had. If China comes in, then it'll be more like a 1:1 ratio. So, your estimate is about two orders of magnitude off from the actual worst case NATO scenario. Quote Ok, when the S70 enters full rate production, you have your long range stealth UAV. I think you’ll be waiting awhile. Looks like maybe about 100 in service by the end of the decade, serial production starting 2024 or 2025. Quote If the MiGs loiter around running a racetrack like they likely are now, yeah I think they will be fired upon before they know they are even being tracked. Not sure how close an F-22 can get to the front lines before the LF radars start sniffing it out its general location. 100 miles maybe? Whatever the answer is, the MIG-31's will be positioned far enough behind the LF network to not be surprised. Quote If they race in and out again, I expect they can survive a lot longer, but they aren’t going to be providing a persistent CAP or significantly expanding ground based radar coverage. Who said anything about 'persistent CAP'? I didn't, nor should you unless this is that Scooby-Doo movie we talked about. The MIG-31 is an interceptor, an ambush predator. Against Ukraine, it does CAP patrols because the few Ukrainian jets surviving fly so rarely that the Russians have to have standing patrols on hand to hope to do business against the 1 or 3 sorties they risk a day. What we are talking about is a NATO air campaign of thousands of sorties a day all along a 1,500km front. This huge total of sorties done from dozens of bases all over Europe being watched by thousands of pro-Russian spies with cell phones, hundreds of civilian radars, all sorts of resources pulling in data to predict where and when NATO strikes will hit. I think the A-50's and MIG-31's will be coming up suddenly, by surprise, light up, and then in conjunction with the 40N6's, they will shoot down anything in the kill box 250 miles deep. Then, just as fast, they will retreat at high speed. Maybe the F-22's are in a position to do something about that. Maybe they aren't, but the way that the strikes will occur will not be from standing CAP patrols. Quote I think NATO airpower can destroy Russian logistics pretty easily. Actually bombing troops probably wouldn’t have to happen on a particularly large scale. The goal isn’t to invade Russia, the goal is to put them on there side of the border and keep them there. I think that NATO has no chance of interdicting Russian logistics to the level that Ukraine can then eject Russian troops from Donbas. Reach the Black Sea? Sure. Retake Crimea? Maybe. Quote Ah, I think this conversation is a big misunderstanding. I am discussing a hypothetical Russia-NATO conflict post Ukraine war involving Russia invading a NATO country. I don’t believe NATO will take any military action against Russia under any other circumstances. You are proposing a hypothetical scenario where the Russians will initiate a war with NATO, but at the same time, you are somehow assuming the Russians will not be prepared for a war with NATO that they themselves just initiated. This is muddled, contradictory thinking. If the Russians initiate a war with NATO it will be, as I said, after years of feverish preparations to allow their drone and missile forces to neutralize NATO airpower. If the Russians are at war and are unprepared, then it will be because NATO, not Russia, initiated the conflict. In which case a massive Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean intervention to bolster Russia will happen.
Yama Posted December 4, 2023 Posted December 4, 2023 On 12/3/2023 at 6:02 PM, BansheeOne said: I remain dubious based just upon the usual "sneak into no-ones land and pose with an abandoned AFV" pictures, but Oryx agrees it was captured; of course they have been accused of low standards of proof for losses themselves. Anyway, if correct that would make the third high-profile Western vehicle captured by Russia after one each AMX-10 RC and CV9040. AMX-10 goes into 'curiosities' section of Kubinka collection... Didn't Oryx announce earlier that they'd quit loss listings? They still in business?
crazyinsane105 Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 The Washington Post has provided an analysis of the preparations for the Ukrainian counteroffensive. It details the distinctions between the Ukrainian strategy and the perspectives of the US and the West. Although Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi insisted on operations along the entire front line, the United States and the West were leaning toward a surgical counterattack, specifically to cut off Russia from occupied Crimea. Source: The Washington Post Quote: "On 15 June, in a conference room at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, flanked by top US commanders, sat around a table with his Ukrainian counterpart, who was joined by aides from Kyiv. The room was heavy with an air of frustration. Austin, in his deliberate baritone, asked Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov about Ukraine’s decision-making in the opening days of its long-awaited counteroffensive, pressing him on why his forces weren’t using Western-supplied mine-clearing equipment to enable a larger, mechanised assault, or using smoke to conceal their advances. Despite Russia’s thick defensive lines, Austin said, the Kremlin’s troops weren’t invincible." According to Reznikov, military leaders in Ukraine made these choices. However, he pointed out that every time the Ukrainian armoured vehicles tried to advance, they were annihilated by Russian artillery, drones, and helicopters. "Without air support, he said, the only option was to use artillery to shell Russian lines, dismount from the targeted vehicles and proceed on foot." Details: After speaking with over thirty senior officials from Ukraine, the US, and Europe, the outlet released its analysis of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. ADVERTISEMENT Two sections make up the analysis. The report's second section discusses the conflict between Washington and Kyiv as well as the battle that was fought on the ground in the summer and fall. Certain officials discussed sensitive matters while maintaining their anonymity. It is being noted that as winter drew near and the front line freezes, Ukraine's top military leaders realised that the war was coming to a halt. The Ukrainian, American, and UK militaries conducted eight significant tabletop war games to create an offensive strategy. However, it should be noted that Washington underestimated the extent to which Ukrainian troops could quickly be trained to become combat forces in the Western tradition, particularly in the absence of air support for Kyiv. ADVERTISEMENT In order to stop Russia from further solidifying its position, the Pentagon intended for the offensive to start in the middle of April. The Ukrainians paused, adamant that they needed more training and weapons before they were prepared. With the troops and weapons that Ukraine possessed, the US military was confident that a mechanised frontal attack on the Russian front line was feasible. Further modelling indicated that, at most, Kyiv's forces could reach the Sea of Azov and cut off Russian troops in the south in 60–90 days. It was along this southern axis that the United States promoted a concentrated offensive. According to US intelligence, there was a 50/50 chance that the offensive would succeed. It is reported that currently morale in Ukraine is weakening, and international attention has shifted to the Middle East. ADVERTISEMENT In almost every sector of the front, expectations and results diverged: "Together, all these factors make victory for Ukraine far less likely than years of war and destruction." During a late fall 2022 conference call, after Kyiv had retaken territories to the north and south, Austin spoke with General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and asked him what he would need for a spring offensive. Zaluzhnyi replied that he needed 1,000 armoured vehicles and nine new brigades prepared in Germany and ready for battle. Austin responded that it was nearly impossible, according to an official with knowledge of the conversation. ADVERTISEMENT According to Western officials, Ukraine should have focused its forces on a single strategic objective: launching a massive assault through Russian-held territory to the Sea of Azov, thereby severing the Kremlin's land route from Russia to Crimea. The US was certain that this would not succeed. The most optimistic scenario gave Ukraine between sixty and ninety days to block the land bridge. There was also a fierce and bloody battle during the drills, with between 30% and 40% of the soldiers and equipment lost. US military officers saw that casualties were far less than anticipated during major battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. ADVERTISEMENT US officials also believe more Ukrainian troops will eventually die if Kyiv fails to mount a decisive offensive and the conflict turns into a protracted war of attrition. War-gaming, according to a senior Ukrainian military official, "doesn’t work." The war being fought by Ukrainian soldiers is unlike any other that NATO forces have encountered. It is a major conventional conflict without the air superiority that the US military has enjoyed in every modern conflict it has been involved in. World War I-style trenches are being blocked by ubiquitous drones and other futuristic tools. There are also different views between the United States and Ukraine on holding Bakhmut, where Ukrainian forces have long maintained a significant presence: "Zaluzhnyi maintained more forces near Bakhmut than he did in the south, including the country’s most experienced units, US officials observed with frustration." A senior UK official claimed that Zaluzhnyi intended to cause Russia trouble due to the front's enormous length. The Ukrainian general sought to reduce the fighting strength of the considerably larger Russian occupation forces, who were not familiar with the terrain and were already having issues with morale and logistics. ADVERTISEMENT Western officials saw problems with this approach. Western military doctrine dictated a concentrated push. However, the Americans and the West gave way. One senior US official said: "They know the terrain. It’s not our war. And we had to kind of sit back into that." In February, Jake Sullivan, President Biden's national security adviser, convened the administration's top national security officials to review the counteroffensive plan. Sullivan wondered if Washington and its partners could successfully prepare Ukraine to break through Russia's heavily fortified defenses. ADVERTISEMENT Milley then showed the potential directions of attack and deployment of Ukrainian and Russian forces. He and Austin explained their conclusion by saying that "Ukraine, to be successful, needed to fight a different way." This was told by one senior US administration official who was directly involved in the planning. The United States and the West were concerned that the counteroffensive did not begin in May, which allowed the Russians to build an extensive line of defense. At the same time, frustration of a different kind was growing in Ukraine. A former senior Ukrainian official said the operation was planned to begin in May, but "many things happened." In particular, the promised equipment was delivered late or arrived unsuitable for warfare. ADVERTISEMENT American officials strongly denied that the Ukrainians had not received all the weapons they had been promised. The Americans admitted that the list of wishes from Ukraine could be much larger, but by the beginning of the offensive, they received about two dozen Mine Clearing Line Charge launchers (MCLCs), more than 40 mine rollers and excavators, 1,000 Bangalore torpedoes, and more than 80,000 smoke grenades. Zaluzhnyi had requested 1,000 armoured vehicles; the Pentagon ultimately delivered 1,500. In April, at a meeting at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Zaluzhnyi's deputy, Mykhailo Zabrodskyi, emotionally turned to Austin and those present: "We’re sorry, but some of the vehicles we received are unfit for combat… Bradleys and Leopards had broken or missing tracks. German Marder fighting vehicles lacked radio sets; they were nothing more than iron boxes with tracks." Austin looked at the two men seated beside him: Lieutenant General Antonio Aguto, who led the Security Assistance Group-Ukraine, and General Christopher Cavoli, the senior US commander for Europe. They promised to check it. The Pentagon concluded that Ukrainian forces failed to properly handle all equipment after receiving it. Austin instructed Aguto to work more intensively with Ukrainian colleagues in terms of maintenance. Early in June, the counteroffensive finally got underway. While some Ukrainian units made quick progress, retaking villages in Zaporizhzhia Oblast south of Velyka Novosilka, in other areas Ukrainian forces were not fully protected from Russian firepower, even with the use of Western weapons and training.
crazyinsane105 Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 Lloyd Austin, Head of the Pentagon, was informed during his visit that Ukraine requires 17 million shells and that US$350-400 billion worth of force and resources will be essential to liberate the country. Source: War versus politics. What goes on between Zelenskyy and Zaluzhnyi, an article by Ukrainska Pravda Quote: "According to Ukrainska Pravda, the calculations of the General Staff show that to fulfil the task of the president to liberate the entire territory of Ukraine requires forces and means for US$350-400 billion." ADVERTISEMENT Details: The General Staff shared some planning ideas with Austin during his visit to Kyiv in November. Quote: "Austin was told about the need for 17 million shells. He, to put it mildly, was stunned, because you wouldn’t be able to collect so many shells all over the world." In addition, according to the source, Austin also said that Zaluzhnyi complained to him about the intervention of the President’s Office: "Austin then told us that Zaluzhnyi complained about how everyone impeded him – the President’s Office, this one, that one. Well, it is clear that the president also learned about such conversations. And they do not cultivate trust." At the same time, the President’s Office is inclined to believe that the dismissal of Zaluzhnyi will contribute to his political career. ADVERTISEMENT The sources of the Ukrainska Pravda from Zelenskyy’s entourage on Bankova Street understand this well, so a significant part of the team of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is categorically against the resignation of the current Commander-in-Chief.
crazyinsane105 Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 Things didn't go according to plan, Ukraine's Commander-in-Chief had to change tactics – WP on counteroffensive Ukrainska Pravda Mon, December 4, 2023 at 7:59 AM CST The Washington Post published a long article about the counteroffensive, according to which Ukraine did not gain much, as things did not go according to plan at first. Thus, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, had to change his tactics despite US officials’ advice. Source: The Washington Post (WP) with reference to sources among US officials and the Ukrainian army Details: WP published a two-part story on the counteroffensive based on interviews with more than 30 Ukrainian and US officials, as well as more than 20 officers and soldiers on the front line. Some officers and soldiers spoke about military operations on condition of anonymity. WP stated that the 47th Separate Mechanised Brigade was supposed to launch a counteroffensive on 7 June to advance almost nine miles to the village of Robotyne in the first 24 hours, with the aim of liberating Melitopol and cutting off Russian supply routes. However, things didn't go according to plan. The density of the minefields and attacks exceeded all expectations, the losses of soldiers and equipment were too significant, and many fighters experienced the shock of battle for the first time and retreated to regroup to rejoin the bloody battle. "It was hellfire," said Oleh Sentsov, a platoon commander with the 47th Brigade. On the fourth day, General Zaluzhnyi saw burned Western military equipment: American Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, German Leopard tanks, and demining vehicles covered the battlefield. The number of killed and wounded undermined morale. ADVERTISEMENT A senior Ukrainian military officer said that Zaluzhnyi ordered his troops to suspend the attack before all of the limited Ukrainian weapons were destroyed. Instead of attempting to break through the Russian defences with a large-scale, mechanised attack backed by artillery fire, as his American counterparts had advised, Zaluzhnyi decided that Ukrainian soldiers would go on foot in small groups of 10, a process that would save equipment and lives but would be much slower. Months of planning with the United States were thrown away on that fourth day – and the already belated counteroffensive, designed to reach the Sea of Azov within two to three months, came to a near standstill. Instead of making a 9-mile (nearly 14.5 kilometres) breakthrough on the first day, the Ukrainians have advanced about 12 miles (19.3 kilometres) inland in the nearly six months since June and liberated several villages. It even took more than two days to liberate Robotyne, and Melitopol is still out of reach. ADVERTISEMENT WP's main conclusions based on reports of the campaign include the following: Seventy percent of troops in one of the brigades leading the counteroffensive, and equipped with the newest Western weapons, entered battle with no combat experience. Ukraine’s setbacks on the battlefield led to rifts with the United States over how best to cut through deep Russian defenses. The commander of U.S. forces in Europe couldn’t get in touch with Ukraine’s top commander for weeks in the early part of the campaign amid tension over the American’s second-guessing of battlefield decisions. Each side blamed the other for mistakes or miscalculations. U.S. military officials concluded that Ukraine had fallen short in basic military tactics, including the use of ground reconnaissance to understand the density of minefields. Ukrainian officials said the Americans didn’t seem to comprehend how attack drones and other technology had transformed the battlefield. In all, Ukraine has retaken only about 200 square miles of territory, at a cost of thousands of dead and wounded and billions in Western military aid in 2023 alone. Quote: "Nearly six months after the counteroffensive began, the campaign has become a war of incremental gains." Details: WP noted that in January, five months before the start of the counteroffensive, General Mark Milley, the then Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited the soldiers of the 47th Brigade, who were to become the main breakthrough force, at a training ground in Germany. Upon learning that most of them had no combat experience, Milley told the American instructors: "Give them everything you have got here." ADVERTISEMENT In the spring, the 47th Brigade returned to Ukraine, and in early May it was redeployed closer to the frontline, but they were never ordered to attack. Many in the unit felt that the element of surprise had been lost and that the Russians knew where the forces were coming from. In the end, the territorial lines remained almost unchanged in June 2023. Milley and other senior US officers involved in the planning of the offensive urged the Ukrainians to concentrate their forces at one key point in Zaporizhzhia Oblast, while the Ukrainian plan was to attack on three fronts and contain Russian forces. The Ukrainian command planned that the offensive was to go south along two different routes to the Sea of Azov, as well as in Ukraine’s east around the besieged city of Bakhmut. ADVERTISEMENT Some Ukrainian soldiers believed that American instructors did not understand the scale of the conflict with a more powerful enemy. A soldier from the 47th Brigade who goes by the alias Joker said that the Americans did not take into account the presence of a huge number of drones, fortifications, minefields, etc., and initially did not even want to integrate the use of drones into their existing training programmes. The US programme had its advantages, such as in-depth cold weather training and the ability to adjust artillery fire, but much was discarded when the bullets started flying, he said. "We had to improve tactics during the battle itself. We couldn't use it the way we were taught," said Joker. ADVERTISEMENT In addition, WP stated that when the President of Ukraine was asked during a meeting with the NATO Secretary General in late September why his military continued to deploy so many forces to the east and not to the south, Volodymyr Zelenskyy replied that if the Russians lose the east, they will lose the war. The WP source said that Zelenskyy acknowledged that there are different views among some of his commanders. But most senior Ukrainian military officers continued to believe that deploying more troops to one section of the front would not lead to a breakthrough. Repeated Russian attempts to capture Avdiivka confirmed the warnings of the Ukrainian command.
MiGG0 Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 11 hours ago, Roman Alymov said: The problem of Krynki is, pro-Ukr artillery and drone operators on high industrial right bank of Dniper got much more places to hide in buildings than pro-Russian artillery (and forces in general) on relatively low, fkat and agrarian left bank. So pro-Rus forces are taking disproportinate losses - so it is stalemate: pro-Ukrainians can't move further from Krynki (the place their speedbats could relativelt safely reach by Konka river) while pro-Russians can't push them into the river. Video of pro-Ukr boat hit by unguided(!) 152mm shell on full speed - this is relatively rare case, most of boats go through safely https://t.me/boris_rozhin/105270 Yeah, thats is why UKR do it and try to lure more RUS near it (this point RUS has not taken bait). On other hand RUS can use artillery/FABS so that those just reaches UKR beachhead and causing sitatuation where UKR is hard to respond. It is costing lot to UKR aswell to keep that beachead like that BBC article points.
Roman Alymov Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 1 hour ago, MiGG0 said: Yeah, thats is why UKR do it and try to lure more RUS near it (this point RUS has not taken bait). On other hand RUS can use artillery/FABS so that those just reaches UKR beachhead and causing sitatuation where UKR is hard to respond. It is costing lot to UKR aswell to keep that beachead like that BBC article points. "Ukr" are not decision makers - NATO/West are, and exchanging the lifes/lims of mobilized UkrMarines (de-facto Russians who were unlucky to be on wrong side of internal USSR administrative boeders when USSR was fragmented by its ruling elites) on Russian Army artillery pieces and aviation flight hours, with Soviet-built infrastructure destroyed in process, is nice deal for them ("the best national defense spending I think we’ve ever done."(c) Senator Mitt Romney.
ink Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 It's behind a paywall, but WaPo recently reported that around 90% of the money spent "on Ukraine" actually stays in the US. So, yeah, nobody needs to worry about Zelensky's yachts. But also, bit of a blinder played by the West there - sure wrong-footed the Russians anyway. So far, at least.
Stefan Kotsch Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said: "Ukr" are not decision makers - NATO/West are The war was started by Russia only because Russia wanted to be the sole decision maker in the Russian Empire within the borders of 1945. The fact that Ukrainians are able to make their own decisions does not occur in Russian minds. Russian arrogance.
mkenny Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said: The fact that Ukrainians are able to make their own decisions does not occur in Russian minds. Russian arrogance. Correct. After The USA, Britain and Germany decided they did not want a deal between Russia and Ukraine in 2022 this decision was made known to Zelensky and he then decided it was in his personal best interest to do their bidding, sorry I mean suddenly decided that 'Ukrainians are able to make their own decisions' and those decisions would always come from NATO. The superior 'war-winning game-changing high-tech Western wunder-waffen would ensure a swift and decisive summer offensive that would see the Russians abandon all of their shovels and flee back to the motherland. Over half a million casualties later it appears to be working out well-for him at least. . Edited December 5, 2023 by mkenny
Roman Alymov Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 6 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said: The war was started by Russia only because Russia wanted to be the sole decision maker in the Russian Empire within the borders of 1945. Unfortunatelly, it is not true. It will take replacing pro-Western ruling elite in Russia for our leadership to start acting in Russian interests. And in reality Russian gas is still going to Europe (via Ukraine) and our Gov is paying Kiev for that - while getting nothing in return. Effectively it means "more than half the economy’s demand" of Austria is free (as there is no indication money paid are reaching Russia's state bubget) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-04/russian-gas-glut-shows-austria-still-in-kremlin-s-energy-orbit So Russia is not only pumping free NG to West, but is also paying for transportation. Why such generosity? For simple reason of Russian elite still begging for some sort of a deal that would allow them personally to return to the status of comprador managers ruling Russia for West's sake they have enjoyed for decades.
Roman Alymov Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 6 minutes ago, mkenny said: Correct. After The USA, Britain and Germany decided they did not want a deal between Russia and Ukraine in 2022 this decision was made known to Zelensky and he then decided it was in his personal best interest to do their bidding, sorry I mean suddenly decided that 'Ukrainians are able to make their own decisions'. Over half a million casualties later it appears to be working out well-for him at least. . "Half a million" figure is too high (if it is only KIA). With WIA is is probably bigger.
Stefan Kotsch Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 I can't take this seriously anymore. Sorry.
Strannik Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said: The fact that Ukrainians are able to make their own decisions does not occur in Russian minds. Russian arrogance. Yes, we all remember how Ukes were making decisions in the Nuland - Pyatt call: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp
Josh Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 (edited) I'll skip the back and forth addressing every detail as I lack the energy and think we disagree on a higher level anyway. 17 hours ago, glenn239 said: You are proposing a hypothetical scenario where the Russians will initiate a war with NATO, but at the same time, you are somehow assuming the Russians will not be prepared for a war with NATO that they themselves just initiated. Only one of my posts even mentions the likelihood of a Russian attack on NATO, and I stated the odds are very low for the near - medium term. Russia already has a war consuming all of its production and will take years to rebuild its forces once that war ends (my personal WAG, 2025). As for how prepared they will be - how prepared were they for Ukraine? History is full of examples of countries making massive misjudgments concerning their military capability or political position, and we have an example in Russia that is only ~20 months old. 17 hours ago, glenn239 said: This is muddled, contradictory thinking. If the Russians initiate a war with NATO it will be, as I said, after years of feverish preparations to allow their drone and missile forces to neutralize NATO airpower. My posts concerned the hypothetical situation, not the chances of such an event occurring. Please directly quote my posts if you are going to discuss them. 17 hours ago, glenn239 said: If the Russians are at war and are unprepared, then it will be because NATO, not Russia, initiated the conflict. Again, the mediocre performance of Russian forces in Georgia and the near disaster in Ukraine don't point to a system that consistent makes good decisions concerning what it is and isn't capable of. 17 hours ago, glenn239 said: In which case a massive Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean intervention to bolster Russia will happen. I'm aware of your fantasies concerning a global unified front against the west, as opposed to the reality that these are all countries with their own goals and foreign policies that in general don't include expending resources to support the sinking ship that is Russia. My final word on the subject is that you seem to conjure new capabilities for Russia that don't currently exist and treat them as hard fact where as I list current NATO capabilities and existing platforms and production rates, and programs of record that will almost certainly enter service within a few years. You also assume some kind of new binding anti-west alliance will come to Russia's aide in a war, rather than simply attempt to take local advantage of any opportunities such a conflict might create. I don't think Russia will attack NATO barring a ground shaking change in the geopolitical status quo, but if it does so this decade in would likely be roundly defeated conventionally (I'm assuming US involvement in that case). I won't attempt to predict the outcome of a nuclear first use. Edited December 5, 2023 by Josh
Stefan Kotsch Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Strannik said: 4 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said: The fact that Ukrainians are able to make their own decisions does not occur in Russian minds. Russian arrogance. Yes, we all remember how Ukes were making decisions in the Nuland - Pyatt call: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp How Ukes what? Please quote a very specific passage. (but there isn't one...) However. I don't see any protests against the West anywhere in Ukraine. But fiercer resistance to Russia. Is it possible that the Russian state model is extremely unattractive? So Ukrainians make their own decisions. Edited December 5, 2023 by Stefan Kotsch
mandeb48 Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 Summary of losses for the Ukrainian side in November: https://t.me/s/Rubric_lossesvsu
crazyinsane105 Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 5 hours ago, ink said: It's behind a paywall, but WaPo recently reported that around 90% of the money spent "on Ukraine" actually stays in the US. So, yeah, nobody needs to worry about Zelensky's yachts. But also, bit of a blinder played by the West there - sure wrong-footed the Russians anyway. So far, at least. Almost entire money comes from stockpiles of US equipment being sent to Ukraine. We aren’t handing them plane loads of money like many people think.
ink Posted December 5, 2023 Posted December 5, 2023 44 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said: Almost entire money comes from stockpiles of US equipment being sent to Ukraine. We aren’t handing them plane loads of money like many people think. I know, I've been saying it for years. I can just see it isn't sinking in for some people so I figured I'd keep harping on about it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now