Videos like this, of failed missiles launches are coming out daily now. I wonder if the Russians have been forced to start using missiles that are to old and thats the reason we are seeing so many failed launches.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
I was under the impression that you try to use your oldest stuff up first when it comes to ammo and missiles. Maybe that's with the caveat "as long as it seems like it is in good condition" and they've now scrapped the caveat I suppose.
Seems plausible to me and would indicate that the rumuors are true that Russia is slowly running out of ammo.
The US is stopping the sale of all chips to Russia which will prevent them from using anything but dumb bombs.
I’d imagine that you try to use the oldest equipment that still has a valid expiration date and these may be the ammo that’s long out if commission.
That tweet is not entirely accurate. We still have no idea if he's filmed any critical infrastructure, energy or otherwise.
Pretty Shamefull even if it wasnt a big demonstration.
You are absolutly correct, LIFO should be the normal procedure when it comes to any type of ammunition.
Maybe the people in charge of renewing the missile stocks have relabeled old missiles meant for decommisioning as new and pocketed the money meant for the new ones. With the levels of corruption in the Russian army, I don't think something like that would be out of the qustion. This would mean that the missiles they are using now, the ones that are supposed to be the newest are infact the oldest.
It's interesting how quickly misinformation spreads. That tweet is now on the front page of Reddit after it got posted /r/UkrainianConflict, with the headline of that post making the same mistake. There are now probably a whole lot of people who take it as fact that a Russian spy was caught filming energy infrastructure in Norway. Which just might be true, but we don't actually know that yet. It really shows the power of social media.
There are relatively highly upvoted comments explaining the mistake, but the vast majority of people are simply going to read the headline and move on. That story is now going to be hard to change.
Incidentally a second Russian citizen was detained yesterday, and this one filmed airports and military equipment with drones (some helicopters, for example). It seems like it was definitely the right move to up security. Recently (right after the Baltic Sea sabotage) the home guard was tasked with guarding critical gas/oil infrastructure, which had been up to the police before then:
Reports that the Kherson offensive resumed this morning after an operational pause.
It's interesting how diplomacy and foreign relations work.
You can supply an endless amount of weapons and other equipment. You can teach people how to shoot, and you can tell them where and who to shoot. That's all fine, but if you're the one pulling the trigger then you're at war.
Personally I don't really see a big distinction, but it matters a lot.
You can supply an endless amount of weapons and other equipment. You can teach people how to shoot, and you can tell them where and who to shoot. That's all fine, but if you're the one pulling the trigger then you're at war.
Personally I don't really see a big distinction, but it matters a lot.
Seeriously, you don't see a difference ?
World War One in colour:
I think in a different era we'd have soldiers from a dozen other countries in Ukraine, people would volunteer en masse. Which would likely bring in Russian allies and boom, a world war.
Not a substantial one, no. It doesn't matter as long as it's accepted as a substantial difference among the countries involved, though.
Just one thing to comment from your previous post, provided intelligence does not equal "telling them who to shoot". Or you are in the belief that US Generals control all Ukrainian military which would basically echo what they are saying on Russian state TV.
Interesting to read that French President Macron has stated that in the event that Russia launches a nuclear weapon against Ukraine, France would not respond with their own nuclear weapon.
This takes away part of the the basis of having nuclear weapons. That being the threat posed by having it and the threat of using it.
This takes away part of the the basis of having nuclear weapons. That being the threat posed by having it and the threat of using it.
Meh, France would use nukes if they themselves got nuked.
My specific issue with that comment from Macron, and shared by experts that I follow, is actually saying it out loud. But it seemed to be aimed at domestic audiences.
Not really because it's not France being attacked or a Nato member.
NATO outright said they wouldn’t nuke but would “decimate militarily” Russia if they did, which is exactly what you would expect to be the case. Not sure Macron keeps getting pelters for it mind.
I suspect Macron has said it for public reasssurance that we're not all going to have a spicy firey death in apocalypse.
MAD is a doctrine that works but when you actually get down to it, I have never thought we'd just fire right back at the enemy and end everything everywhere.
MAD is a doctrine that works but when you actually get down to it, I have never thought we'd just fire right back at the enemy and end everything everywhere.
Yeah, what does that actually mean though? We (the West/Nato) are officially at war? Or we send absolutely every possible weapon to aid Ukraine?
It means every RU military asset outside of Russia mainland they can find they hit. That includes the entire Black Sea fleet that is not in harbour .
I doubt it means the fleet. I reckon it "just" means anything in Ukraine, which is still a whole lot of stuff. Attacking the fleet in international waters is a declaration of war, while an aerial intervention on Ukrainian territory might not be. Russia is obviously going to refer to it as one, but they already do that, and what really matters is what they really think (and they clearly don't actually think they are at war with NATO right now).
The nuclear deterrrent isn't "use a nuke and get nuked", it's "nuke us and get nuked". Of course, using a nuke has thankfully become such an incredible taboo that even a tactical nuke in Ukraine (not a NATO/EU member) is still crossing a line and would warrant a drastic response. But nuking Russia means a nuclear war, so that will never happen short of a nuclear attack on a nuclear power.
The fact that it's being mentioned is pretty unnerving. I know people in their 40s/50s will probably say this is what it was like during the 80s Cold War but it's not something that I want to grow accustomed to.
I don’t know, I doubt that the general public are supposed to know. It’ll be whatever NATO generals and leadership decide it is, and it’s a threat that Russia are going to take incredibly seriously.
I’m not going to sit here and play armchair general because the only people who know are inside locked rooms with far more intelligence on the active situation than you or I.
Is that really the point though.
Putin is continually threatening the use of his nuclear weapons against Ukraine. And NATO has said that it takes the threat seriously.
So why would one of the 3 nuclear powers that form the bulk of the NATO alliance supporting Ukraine against Russia reveal his intentions.
The more things change…
The world was never bandying about threats of nukes in the 80s like now, it was more of an understood & accepted threat / MAD. It was a severely Cold War during that decade & it had its share of episodes which unnerved the Soviet Union (Able Archer being one, Reagan’s joke laughably being another), but I cannot recall any overt declarations & threats as we have been hearing now.
Last edited:
Depending on the intelligence, no, that's true, but if the intelligence is "hey, some people you might want dead are at this location", then ...
I'm not talking about giving orders on who they have to shoot.
I reckon the UK would launch if the US did. We don't really have a fully independent nuclear deterrent so we are likely tied in to the American response anyhow.
Because French nukes wouldn't be part of the response. NATO can respond proportionally without getting radioactive. And if nukes are needed, French nukes won't be, US has plenty.
NATO and the US have for months been making it very clear behind the scenes to Russia what the reaction would be to a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine.
Nobody should for a second believe that the West would answer a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine with nukes of their own. For one thing, Russia has such an arsenal of tactical nukes precisely because NATO has an overwhelming firepower advantage in conventional weaponry. NATO doesn't need to respond with nukes, because they can destroy the Russian army without them. And they would never answer with strategic nukes, because that would be world war 3 and nuclear holocaust.
Yeah this, I think the deal is that we effectively need American co-operation (permission?) to operate Trident. So potentially could hold off joining in, but would need them to enable us if we wanted to. We would obviously get involved though.
I don’t think Russia will launch a nuke (tactical or otherwise) at Ukraine, as it really doesn’t serve a purpose. The reason why the yanks/NATO don’t have tactical nukes is that their conventional arsenal serves the same purpose without the necessity of using “WMDs” - MOAB being an example. Therefore, Russia would only invite a conventional response with no ability to truly escalate beyond an attack on NATO countries that’ll only invite a relatively immediate loss. A strategic nuke at that point would be game over for everyone - fecks the point of being a trillionaire Russian leader if you can’t do anything and your nation doesn’t exist. Lastly, China obviously does not want a nuclear war.
I really hope sense prevails sooner rather than later and Russia somehow reverse ferrets and comes to its senses. The obsession with a multipolar world (i.e. Russia is a superpower) is holding the world to ransom by diverting time and energy to potential war. Far greater issues at stake.
Heard this a lot last day or 2, I disagree. He is literally just stating something that should be obvious, but evidently isn’t. The US and NATO have already said exactly the same thing.
He’s said it just to calm down the casual observers who think this has a chance of escalating to nuclear war, of whom there are many.
It's not really revealing anything it's already fairly obvious if Russia Nukes Ukraine NATO aren't going to nuke Russia triggering armageddon and they aren't going to nuke Russian forces in Ukraine. The message they seem to be sending out and want Russia to understand is if Russia uses a tactical nuke they will really be fighting NATO and their military and bases in Crimea will be wiped out.
Happy to learn otherwise but I think the reason why people say the UK nuclear deterrent is not independent is because they assume it uses US satellites for navigation and targeting, although it actually uses starlight, night and day.
Obviously long-term the UK would rely on US technical support, but not initially.
Although the UK is kind of dependent in one way because if the US did launch then their enemy would likely hit the UK anyway just in case. But in the ludicrously unlikely scenario where the UK wanted to bomb someone the US didn't, it could, if that makes sense.
A few (2 or 3) newly mobilized soldiers have opened fire on their own during training. At least 11 people are dead (more deaths get reported with every minute).
Another wonderful case of well-planned mobilization.
Another wonderful case of well-planned mobilization.