Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Hopefully the difference between an army whose weapons, ammo, soldier training, motivation and morale has constantly got better, and an army that is just getting worse in the same categories, will continue to get exposed in the battlefront. The UA has about two months to make significant gains (Nova Kakjovka in order to cut Crimea, increase the pressure on Kherson, Lugansk and maybe Zaporizhzhia), and then hope that the winter takes a toll in Russia's excessively extended and poorly supplied frontlines. Forcing the collapse of RF looks like the way to go.
 
Not that it matters much but some interesting votes nonetheless.

 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...


I know that some pieces of hardware can sure have extreme longevity and that Syrian rebels were seen using the first successful assault rifle from WW2. But seriously, I don't think I would want to want to drag hardware and ordnance out of the Smithsonian if I had to fight against a foreign enemy.
 
Last edited:
RedDevilQuebecois said:
I know that some pieces of hardware can sure have extreme longevity and that Syrian rebels were seen using the first successful assault rifle from WW2. But seriously, I don't think I would want to want to drag hardware and ordnance out the Smithsonian if I had to fight against a foreign enemy.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine who lived in Russia for some years told me that he was told that the Russian armed forces had thousands of vintage tanks covered in oil in bunkers and warehouses. I have no idea about the oil thing. Probably helps them not rust.
 
frostbite said:
All these "important thinkers" fail to consider that Russia invaded Ukraine exactly because Ukraine did not join NATO! That was the main failure of the West, that Germany and France did not accept Ukraine into NATO. If Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008, we would never have a war, as we did not have a war in the Baltic States that also have a lot of Russians in their population.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if Ukraine accession into NATO in 2008 was realistic regardless of what western countries did. All the former Eastern Bloc countries that joined NATO after 1990, as far as I can find it, had overwhelming public support for it, while Ukrainian public was consistently against it.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
I know that some pieces of hardware can sure have extreme longevity and that Syrian rebels were seen using the first successful assault rifle from WW2. But seriously, I don't think I would want to want to drag hardware and ordnance out of the Smithsonian if I had to fight against a foreign enemy.
Click to expand...

The B-52 first flew in 1952 and is planned to continue service for another 30 years. It's been upgraded to the point that it's basically the Ship of Theseus at this point, minus the air frame. Russian artillery from Stalingrad probably wasn't intended to be used again though.
 
Lemoor said:
I'm not sure if Ukraine accession into NATO in 2008 was realistic regardless of what western countries did. All the former Eastern Bloc countries that joined NATO after 1990, as far as I can find it, had overwhelming public support for it, while Ukrainian public was consistently against it.
Click to expand...

Why was it realistic for Lithuania and not for Ukraine? In my opinion, (in retrospect of course), Ukraine joining NATO in 2008 would have saved us from many deaths, destruction and economic problems today. Bush, Obama, McCain all supported it. Merkel and Sarkozy did not want it. Unfortunately, Bush was not able to change Merkel's mind. If Merkel had supported Ukraine in 2008, history would be very different today. Unfortunately, Merkel made a lot of mistakes, with Ukraine, with Georgia, with Russia, with Greece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrai...kraine_to_join_the_NATO_Membership_Action_Plan

"US President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. senator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO."

Here are some details of the failed negotiations:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html
 
I'm guessing the entire southern front will collapse once the Ukrainians retake Kherson city and surround the Russians from the south.

 
dal said:
I see the end game here as Ukraine taking everything back with russia still having the official position that the four regions are still theres.

Really unlikely Russia uses nuclear weapons even when they lose crimea.

Of course Ukraine could stop at Crimea if pressured by the west however I think the west want them to take Crimea as-well because Zelensky’s rhetoric on Crimea has changed massively since the start of the war when he wanted Russian troops to withdraw to pre February boundaries.

It’s all or nothing here.
Click to expand...

I can't see this as being an end game for the Russians. Putin will certainly not capitulate by starting a war that sees him lose land. It would weaken him at home, which is a non-starter for him.
 
RoyH1 said:
A friend of mine who lived in Russia for some years told me that he was told that the Russian armed forces had thousands of vintage tanks covered in oil in bunkers and warehouses. I have no idea about the oil thing. Probably helps them not rust.
Click to expand...
It's gives them richer flavour, we also do the same with pickles.
 
Great news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63236367


Ukraine's Nato-led allies have announced deliveries of advanced air defence weapons to Kyiv, after a spate of Russian missile strikes.

The weaponry promised by the UK, Canada, France and the Netherlands includes missiles and radars. The US earlier made a similar pledge. One high-tech system from Germany is already in Ukraine.

The pledges come as Ukraine's allies from 50 countries meet at Nato headquarters in Brussels.

Kyiv hailed the summit as "historic".
 
frostbite said:
Why was it realistic for Lithuania and not for Ukraine? In my opinion, (in retrospect of course), Ukraine joining NATO in 2008 would have saved us from many deaths, destruction and economic problems today. Bush, Obama, McCain all supported it. Merkel and Sarkozy did not want it.
Click to expand...
Because in 2003 Lithuanian public was supporting NATO accession, while in 2008 Ukrainian public was against it. Finding primary sources from that period is a bit of a pain, since most links to press releases are dead, but this RAND testimony quotes a 75% support in Lithuania at the time and Wikipedia has a set of polls gauging the Ukrainian sentiment and it's never positive before 2014.
 
dove said:
Not that it matters much but some interesting votes nonetheless.

Click to expand...

They have been consistently voting against Russia in the UN, but refusing to put sanctions and just a week ago their foreign minister signed a deal with Lavrov. Essentially opposing Russia rhetorically but keeping the good relations with them in things that matter (UN voting does not matter).
 
buchansleftleg said:
If they are just going with big straight line trenches then that is suicidal. That's a tactic that was abandoned early in WW1. Just drop some Fuel Air explosive and watch it roll down the line.
Click to expand...

Yep.

"Napalm is legal to use on the battlefield under international law. Its use against "concentrations of civilians" is a war crime."
 
buchansleftleg said:
If they are just going with big straight line trenches then that is suicidal. That's a tactic that was abandoned early in WW1. Just drop some Fuel Air explosive and watch it roll down the line.
Click to expand...
If they want to sit in those trenches you would be right. But to me it looks more like they do this to block the way, especially for fast and light vehicles. Ukrainian special forces use those to get behind the Russian lines and wreak havoc there, making them stop and a point where the Russians can detect them and open fire is actually the right thing to do.
 
stefan92 said:
If they want to sit in those trenches you would be right. But to me it looks more like they do this to block the way, especially for fast and light vehicles. Ukrainian special forces use those to get behind the Russian lines and wreak havoc there, making them stop and a point where the Russians can detect them and open fire is actually the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
In the first one I think there’s a zig zag trench in the top left. That large ditch is 100% to stop vehicles and concentrate them on any crossings they build. Russia seem a woeful army but they aren’t completely insane to build long, wide and straight open trenches.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Can someone explain to me how those sick pro-Kremlin fecks dare to show their faces when almost all of Europe are hating their guts at the moment?
Click to expand...

I can’t quite make out who these people are - whether actual Russians or old Czechs who are nostalgic of the iron curtain days.
 
frostbite said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war.html

Ukraine Offensive Will Push Through Winter, U.S. Defense Chief Says

The “deliberate cruelty” of Russia’s latest bombardment has made the West more determined to help Ukraine, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III said.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the Ukrainians make enough progress before the snow becomes a factor, where they would then be well positioned to flush the remaining Russians out of the south given their lack of logistical support.
 
Missile strike in Belgorod. There were reports/videos a few days ago of russian air defence striking their own rockets fired towards Ukraine, possibly the same thing happened again just now the debris actually landed inside the city. Or it just failed to launch properly.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.