Not any scarier than the breakup of the Soviet Union itself.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Russia clearly lacking infantry fighting vehicles/tanks at this point now, otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing such suicidal attacks (pictured in the tweet below):
At least he didnt fall from a window.
Alright.
You seemed so dumbfounded by the notion that Greece faked its economy. I just gave you a source. Never said Germany itself is perfect.
I wouldn't make too much noise on this as I think it was German bankers that they hired to cook the books and Germany knew and possibly directed the Greeks in the doing of it.
Greek entry into the Euro was a political decision and a fraud committed on the people in the EU.
True, though maybe the only difference back then was Russia was on board to convince countries to give up the nukes they found themselves in possession of after independence.
Without the benefit of hindsight, something we all have, the breakup of the Soviet Union absolutely WAS a scary and volatile time. Things turned out alright (for most of the Warsaw Pact states at least), but that was by no means guaranteed.
I’m not saying that that risk means we should try to stop that happening, but we should be aware of the potential of internal armed conflict in a nuclear power, rather than dismiss it.
Gazprom started blackmailing Ukraine with gas as soon as Ukraine got their first pro-Western president and you need to be blind not to see a political background to those actions (especially with hindsight). So the whole "Ukraine stealing German gas" thing was completely invented by Kremlin. It was obviously beneficial for Germany to not get into that beef and just secure the gas supply to their country. But to double down on that decision (to proceed with Nord Stream 2) after 2014 just shows what a morally bankrupt leaders you had at the time.
This could be the reason why they’re launching the attack on their foot:
It’s only visually confirmed, the true figure probably at least 30% larger. These are simply stupid numbers and no way does Russia have much left in stock what would be in working condition.
German intelligence alarmed by Ukrainian losses, according to Guardian reporting.
Which is precisely why they need better weapons.
Germany is the country of Satan is his point.
Does not work. The F16 like most US made systems are in need for control in suplylines and infrastructure. The Ukraine can not operate US jets or Eurofighers or Rafale.
The only realistic chance for jets are the Swedish Gripen; planes made to be used from streets and low level control (easy to maintain).
Quite interesting how we went from "Tanks are obsolete, easy pickings for drones and ATGMs" back in April to "Ukraine urgently needs more tanks" 9 months later. This war continues to transform and surprise. I was myself quite sceptical about the future of large infantry pushes supported by tanks and IFVs in this modern era, after Russia suffered terrible loses in the early stage of the war in the push for Kyiv. Trench warfare in 2023 was not what I anticipated.
I'm also shocked how NATO countries have been slow to anticipate and react to the change in the Russian posture from blitzkrieg to long, grinding war. There comes a point where a decision has to be made: Are we willing to support Ukraine long term until their victory and if yes, why not give them the tools they need to win earlier? The sooner this ends, the less costly it will be for everyone (including Russia).
Ukraine's backers need to change their posture too. Identify what Ukraine needs to win, what of that can be realistically delivered, then provide it in significant (not token) numbers through lend-lease programs and finally but very importantly... ramp up military production significantly in order to replace the equipment donated and allow for continuous deliveries to Ukraine. Then the message might get through to Russia that this war is unwinnable for them. At the moment, they think they can grind Ukraine down and outlast the resolve of the West to support it. The fact Ukraine still can't match Russia in basic shell artillery batteries and munitions, is kind of scandalous. There's hundreds if not thousands of old 155mm type arty systems in NATO storage. The US has 800+ M109s in cold storage alone.
I'm also shocked how NATO countries have been slow to anticipate and react to the change in the Russian posture from blitzkrieg to long, grinding war. There comes a point where a decision has to be made: Are we willing to support Ukraine long term until their victory and if yes, why not give them the tools they need to win earlier? The sooner this ends, the less costly it will be for everyone (including Russia).
Ukraine's backers need to change their posture too. Identify what Ukraine needs to win, what of that can be realistically delivered, then provide it in significant (not token) numbers through lend-lease programs and finally but very importantly... ramp up military production significantly in order to replace the equipment donated and allow for continuous deliveries to Ukraine. Then the message might get through to Russia that this war is unwinnable for them. At the moment, they think they can grind Ukraine down and outlast the resolve of the West to support it. The fact Ukraine still can't match Russia in basic shell artillery batteries and munitions, is kind of scandalous. There's hundreds if not thousands of old 155mm type arty systems in NATO storage. The US has 800+ M109s in cold storage alone.
Last edited:
No one with credibility was claiming that tanks are obsolete though. The likes of Kofman and Rob Lee have emphasized that tanks are still valuable.
The dynamics on the ground re: trench warfare and the use of infantry and armor are simply down to a lack of available weapons for both sides. For instance, if jets were apart of Ukraine's equation (and Russian SAMs weren't a part of Russia's) things would be very different. Beyond the needless death and destruction, this conflict is a good test case for how belligerents with limited resources will fight over the next few years.
Ironically, we are still dealing with the knock on effects of the breakup since this entire conflict now is merely a late stage ripple effect of waning Russian power.
Because it's not just about tanks, it's about modern tanks. There is a big difference between soviet trash and modern NATO equipment. A modern western tank is a mega weapon if you can not penetrate it while it kills the enemy from miles away.
NATO anticipated the situation to perfection because this is the exact reason why Russia is not winning. They provided the means to keep the scum losing. As far as why not more, it's because the West, Europe in particular, did not keep enough weapons in storage.
This is exactly what is happening. The more systems are being made ready the more they are delivered.
Telegram is a cesspool of propaganda. When looking up this story, the feed quickly filled up with pro Prighozyn content.
According to this, around 20-25% of the RA forces are from Wagner. This isn't very good news for Russia as it probably has effects in the chain of command, the forces motivation and morale, possible rivalries between regular forces and Wagners, etc. I imagine there's room for Ukraine to exploit this, from strategic battle planning to propaganda.
Is something relevant happening in the battlefront? From what I understand Bahkmut/Soledar has been a meat grinder for a couple of months now, but I had expected to see some advances from the UA in Kherson, Zaporzhizhia and the Lugansk region by now. Or maybe the winter is making any advances imposible.
Putin must really be bricking it at this point
Not directly related but nevertheless shows what Hungary has turned to:
Actually, when you think about this, it’s even more important for the west to support Ukraine as Hungary might end up outside of Nato/EU in the near future under Russian rule.
Actually, when you think about this, it’s even more important for the west to support Ukraine as Hungary might end up outside of Nato/EU in the near future under Russian rule.
Tanks are still the best form of protection from enemy fire during offensive maneuvers, until someone comes up with something better tanks won't become obsolete. Also old tanks like the T-72 equipped with just normal steel armor and very limited fire on the move capabilities is not comparable to modern tanks.
Europe had 8 years to prepare for this after the initial invasion in 2014 and in most countries nothing was done, the politicians that where in power during this time are the ones to blame for this. If Europe would have taken the security threat from Russia seriously back then and built up a trustworthy defense the full scale invasion would probably never have happened and even if it did happen we would at least be able to assist Ukraine properly.
In the whole Europe, there are only Leopard tanks? no other country manufacture a decent type of tank?
Both the British and the French have a very capable modern tank, but only they use it in Europe.
Half of Europe has a version of the Leopard tank. It’s the NATO war horse. Spare parts and maintenance would be much easier to do if it’s released by the Germans
There are others modern tanks like the British Challenger 2 (440 built) and the French Leclerc (700+ built, 450 of those went to UAE) but as you can see they have only been produced in relatively small numbers. There have been over 3600 Leopard 2 tanks built of which around 2000 are in service with European countries so there isn't really any other viable option available in Europe.
Oh, I understand that it would be easier and probably better quality. And probably it would be better for standardization to have 1 type supply for tanks (Leopard), 1 type of fighters (F-16), 1 type of air defenses, 1 type of armored vehicles, etc... for standardization.
But I am sure that Ukraine would gladly accept brittish and french tanks if the leopard is not coming.
Also, if 10-15 countries decide unilaterally to send their Leopards, I don't think Germany would say a thing. Would look like the bad guy and also would lose money
It really depends on who is doing the fighting. If one were fighting a global power like the US or China, tanks would be of little use in protecting the opposition since they would simply get obliterated through air power. Fortunately, the Russians are incompetent and increasingly lacking in resources in this regard.
Totally agree btw.
No matter what you are being bombed with you still have a higher chance of survival inside a tank compared to any other type of vehicle. If you are fighting the US or China there is probably only one outcome but I still think a tank offers the best protection.
Is this in reference to Scholz saying a Polish jogger complimented his cautiousness?
If fighting the US or China, they would establish air superiority and air supremacy on day one and would easily pick off any military vehicles on the ground. The only way to fight them would be to scatter and form an insurgency as a means to counter the inevitable ground war (such as in Iraq/Afghanistan etc). Armor would be reduced to becoming magnets of death.
Last edited:
Its crazy what’s happened there. 2 days into the war, when the airborne troops thought they were in the process of taking those airports around Kiev, I can’t believe he’d have predicted this in his worst nightmares
Yes.