Ukraine Situation - Should We Be Worried?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 28 Feb 24 1.12pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
I've worked with Ukrainians in Wales, who are of fighting age. I've worked with several too but I guess it's all well and good to think you'd willingly fight and die for your country, but perhaps somewhat different when faced with the reality.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Ouzo Dan 28 Feb 24 4.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Benefits for Ukrainian refugees are being cut here which is seeing alot of Ukrainians head home. Whilst I remain sympathetic to those Ukrainians who have genuinely been affected by this war (I myself at the start of the war took in refugees) it does stick in the throat just how many Military age Ukrainian men & women I see here rolling about in brand new Chelsea tractors enjoying the winter season at the expense of the average tax payer.. I cant remember if I have told this story before but I'll post again as its relevant to Ukraine and this thread. Around the time Russia had almost encircled Kyiv & effectively ran out of fuel leaving a miles long convoy just sat there on the side of the road. We had a Ukrainian man arrive at our door looking for a place to to stay for the night, He was roughly 6ft, around 22yrs old he'd clearly scrambled over barb wire to get out of the country, his jacket, trousers even shoes were pretty torn up & he looked like he had not eaten/slept in a couple of days. Looking back on that encounter now I'm convinced he was a fleeing soldier & was suffering with shock. Edited by Ouzo Dan (28 Feb 2024 4.55pm)
Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Hrolf The Ganger  28 Feb 24 5.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It seems fairly clear to me that supplying Ukraine with arms is a relatively cheap way to degrade Russia's military capability and force them to spend on replacements. Putin seems happy to sacrifice as many Russian soldiers as it takes, and that could ultimately be his undoing. Meanwhile, the US has enormous military capability and the capacity to ramp up production of military hardware if necessary. Europe has limited capability but combined with the US and other allies would be more than a match for Russia. Putin must know this, and so he will try and just nibble at the edges and hope that the allied powers want to avoid a full on confrontation, knowing that it would risk a nuclear war.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 28 Feb 24 5.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It seems fairly clear to me that supplying Ukraine with arms is a relatively cheap way to degrade Russia's military capability and force them to spend on replacements. Putin seems happy to sacrifice as many Russian soldiers as it takes, and that could ultimately be his undoing. Meanwhile, the US has enormous military capability and the capacity to ramp up production of military hardware if necessary. Europe has limited capability but combined with the US and other allies would be more than a match for Russia. Putin must know this, and so he will try and just nibble at the edges and hope that the allied powers want to avoid a full on confrontation, knowing that it would risk a nuclear war. I was thinking the Russian deaths could have quite a sudden effect in the end. I suppose the worrying part is it's always unknown what that effect might be. I heard there are more hardline than Putin in the wings.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| snytaxx London 28 Feb 24 5.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It seems fairly clear to me that supplying Ukraine with arms is a relatively cheap way to degrade Russia's military capability and force them to spend on replacements. Putin seems happy to sacrifice as many Russian soldiers as it takes, and that could ultimately be his undoing. Meanwhile, the US has enormous military capability and the capacity to ramp up production of military hardware if necessary. Europe has limited capability but combined with the US and other allies would be more than a match for Russia. Putin must know this, and so he will try and just nibble at the edges and hope that the allied powers want to avoid a full on confrontation, knowing that it would risk a nuclear war. This this and this! I don't think people realise just how much of a quagmire Russia has got itself into. The only way Russia gets out of this is if essentially the West lets it get away with what is akin to genocide. This is why Putin is desperate to portray this war as a forgone conclusion which is obsurd because if it was ever going to be such a push over for Russia, why is it two years in with no end in sight? Basically, Russia only win's if we let them. Letting them is not in our interests no matter how people try to spin it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ouzo Dan 28 Feb 24 6.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by snytaxx
Next up ammo, If Russia is doing so well why is it buying shells from North Korea, Drones and missles from Iran? I thought Russia's war economy could provide for all no? Artillery is probably the most important piece of equipment in this war. NATO will run dry of shells long before Russia. You need to understand Russian military doctrine its deliberately cheap and faster to manufacture, its also considerably easier to use thus reduces troop training time considerably. Compare that to Western equipment whilst demonstrably better it costs infinitely more, takes longer to manufacture and takes longer to be trained on. Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition with western equipment. I maintain Russia's end game is the Dnieper river. Originally posted by snytaxx
Finally even with the band aid on ammo, Russia is bleeding through its MBTs and IFVs at a almost 3:1 ratio. Eventually the Soviet stock pile runs dry, If the fields full of T-72s and T-90s are there just for instant activation. Why is Russia fielding T-62s and T-55s which are over 60 years old in some cases? Russia is suffering a higher casualty rate with its tanks because they are the ones pushing, assaulting forces as a rule of thumb will always take higher casualties than the defensive opfor. I have said before, Ukraine is flat, if you're going to storm a trench it usually involves covering featureless flat land, if your unit is lucky enough to survive the anti tank/personnel mines, Anti tank missiles, drones, artillery fire etc you now need to breech a heavily fortified trench with dug in heavily armed soldiers shooting back. f*** that... watch this (probably not safe for work) As for the older T60/70's they're being used behind the front lines as Artillery simply point the turret up and lob shells onto your target, whilst not as good as a proper artillery it seems to work reasonably well. Originally posted by snytaxx
Why is the latest Russian tech such as the SU-57 or T-14 Armata not being deployed to Ukraine? I guess Russia doesnt need them yet, I suspect they're holding this stuff in reserve as they feel something bigger is on the horizon. Originally posted by snytaxx Please continue to tell me how Russia and Russians is / are having a lovely time.
Sanctions seem to be affecting the West far more than Russia.
Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ouzo Dan 28 Feb 24 6.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
I was thinking the Russian deaths could have quite a sudden effect in the end. I suppose the worrying part is it's always unknown what that effect might be. I heard there are more hardline than Putin in the wings. Theres alot of propaganda surrounding Russian meat waves.
Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Feb 24 7.35pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
There's just been a complete lack of reality by European politicians over what is possible since the start of the war. Putin correctly calculated that the cost of beating Russia would be massive, the risk also massive and the gain minimal. To beat Russia they would have to go all in....which was madness....Instead they did what they have done since WW2 and relied upon the US to provide the lion's share of everything. Because the US has basically been paying for their defence since WW2. Russia is currently in a war economy..I believe that's something like 40 percent of income spent on war....If Europe was serious about fighting Russia it would also go to a war economy....So bye bye pension, bye bye welfare....there would be riots. No politician in Europe is willingly going to do that for a threat that none of them actually believe in. They were only interested in half measures and lower risk for obvious reasons like cost and war threat. This is the frustrating thing about those cheering on the war and rejecting the negotiation in 22. There is zero upside for us in carrying on the war. The people cheering it on have either watched too much Dad's Army (which I also love) or have a pathological hatred of Russia which is more than willing to back others to pointlessly die fighting it rather than themselves. They spent too much time listening to news anchors and intelligence talking heads on telly selling them the pup and not enough actually looking at the lay of the land so to speak. The US aren't interested in beating Russia, they are interested in weakening Russia, selling us their energy and money for their arms manufactures all without going to war with it. As a plan it's failed significantly longer term as they now have a Russia/China axis and a much stronger BRICs which very much sees them as an enemy to break rather than purely a trade block. In short there was never going to be the consensus to go all in on Ukraine v Russia. That was noted at the start but ignored. Hence all we have is a giant disaster with everyone finger pointing at everybody else. The worse outcome of all those available bar the terminal one. I blame Biden and Johnson and the rest of the group thinkers for finding a hole and instead of covering it up, digging all the way down to hell. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Feb 2024 7.49pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| snytaxx London 28 Feb 24 8.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Blimey...I did what I wanted to avoid and wrote a long response. Let's not make a habit of it as I'm actually quite busy in life at the moment. To be fair I think this kind of conversation does your opinion alot more service than just sharing alt right twitter videos, so kudos to you for taking the time - it is appreciated. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yes, Russia is winning. If you have been following the actual battlefield situation you'd surely know that. Russia's population size is something like three times Ukraine and that's ignoring that Ukraine has had significant population flight compared to Russia. So that means all that Russia has to do is match Ukraine in combat and not collapse financially and it wins. So I do follow the situation on the battlefield, mostly Reddit and Twitter. I draw a very different conclusion based on a different metrics which I think you have omitted. Firstly manpower which you have highlighted above. Russia does have significantly more manpower on paper yes, its also true Ukraine needs more manpower also true (more on this later). However as mentioned to another poster, while Russia has the numbers of paper, do they have them in real life? By that I mean currently they are working their way through foriegn 'volunteers', the prison population, ethnic minorties and poorest in russian society. Eventually given Russia has around 400,000 KIA and wounded (US estimates), those people run out. What happens when Russia starts calling up middle class Moscowvites? As another poster points on here "people are happy to go along with the war until they arent". If Russia finally wants to 'finish off' Ukraine it will need more men, those men have to come from somewhere, just because they exist on a census document doesnt mean they are politically viable for Putin to call up. Moving on to population flight. Its definitely true to say Ukraine is losing people, over 20k as of november 23 according to the BBC. However considering Ukraine has much stricter exit controls at it's borders, this is nothing compared to what Russia is experiencing. Even if you multiply the BBC's estimates by ten, you still end up with less than half of what Russia itself has recorded in terms of its male population exodus (sources available on request). These are not just potential soliders also , these are some of the most educated people in Russia, vital to Russia's economy. They will be unlikely to come back while the war drags on. For each year this drags on, the likelihood that some of these people do not come back increases. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The advantages for Russia stack up, I could go through them all but the most obvious one aside population is that it has far more artillery and shells than Ukraine/Nato and....and as most battlefield casualties are from artillery...whatever the causality figure is for Russia it'll be higher for Ukraine. Russia's production capacity and alliances mean that it can...in my estimation....carry on without massively suffering for over two more years. I have to be honest and I don't think Ukraine has another year left in it....Not unless Nato gets involved and America really dips into its pockets...even then it just doesn't have the manpower. Moving on to equipment. How can you say that Russia is in a good place when it comes to shells and munitions? If this genuinely is the case, why is it buying shells from North Korea, drones and missles from Iran? Can I ask what specific evidence you have that Russian production lines will be able to replenish it's stock piles should this war go on for another 2-3 years? Also, if Russia buying from NK and Iran is seen as acceptable for Russia, could the argument not be made that by supplying Ukraine, the west is also slowly wearing down NK and Iran's ability to wage war as they sell their stock piles to Russia adding greater incentive to support Ukraine? Secondly I have to disagree on the casualty figures also. While Ukraine will downplay its casualties, its always easier in war to defend then it is the attack. If Russia is to win this war it has to attack. Attacking generally speaking generates more casualties then defending. I appeciate there is little point really going over this point as we really don't have accurate data and will likely have to agree to disagree. But one thing Russia cannot hide is equipment loses. I mention in a previous post Russian's verified equipment loses vs Ukraine (about 3:1 - again happy to repost links). I find it very unlikely that Russia is somehow loosing waay more equipment but somehow less people. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I've always said that there is a win scenario for Nato/Ukraine but that it comes at quite a cost and not a little risk and its that cost that most governments aren't prepared to pay considering that in truth they know a negotiation is how this ends. Regardless most of the sophisticated and/or long range weaponry and capabilities that Ukraine has are from Nato and their successes that they have with those...are mainly Nato's. Personally I suspect that Nato have been operating far more in Ukraine than they have admitted to....We won't find out until later no doubt. For example what's the chances that the guys operating those Himars are Ukrainians?. I suspect not that high. If those reports about 10 Russian aircraft are true, then that's Patriot systems being moved close to the front, which is a considerable risk with a multibillion system. Russia claim to have knocked out two of them over the week....as with all of these claims none of us can be sure without proper evidence (and even that can be faked now).....though you seem to take one side's claims as kosher. I think the belief that 'Ukraine should have negiotiated', leaving aside the reasons why this was never really an option is somewhat understandable if the country really was doomed. Again, only time will tell, but given Russia has only managed marginal gains around Bakhmut and Avdiivka in 9 months of fighting I cannot see them being able to capture the rest of Ukraine in a year. Currently they are fighting on the most favourable terrian in areas which are claimed to be 'most pro Russian'. I guess set a reminder in a year and we can come back on this one? As for Nato involvement, sorry to say I think this is mostly a Russian cope line. Why risk going to Ukraine and potentially dying then you can just fly a Ukrainian to the west and teach them from the confides of a classroom? It's no scret that NATO wants to help Ukraine, its no secret the West provides intelligence to Ukraine. Why the is idea of Ukrainians learning to use Western equipment you can evidently see them training on in the West so alien? The only reason I can think of is it hurts Russian pride to know that their army is being bogged down by a handful of Ukrainian Himar operators and it helps play into the falsehood of 'we are fighting all of nato' which the Kremlin constantly tells it's populace and hilariously some people in the west actually buy! Finally the recent shoot down of significant quantities of Russia aircraft is mainly down to the Russian airforces surge to gain local air superiority over over Avdiivka. It's not yet clear what shot these aircraft down, however given the Russians are claiming they shot some of them down by themselves via friendly fire (whoopsie), I wouldn't bet too much money on Ukrainian wunderwaffe more than reliable Russian incompetance. Again I refer you to Oryx which only counts visually confirmed losses and admissions from Russia / Ukraine as to their own loses (i.e. they won't add something unless verified or the side who previously owns in admits to losing it). Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I think I could have rephased that better. I didn't mean that Macron said that precise thing, what I meant was that he recognised that Ukraine didn't have the troop numbers to succeed against Russia....it would have to take most out of the economy, which would then economically collapse as it's being kept afloat as it is on loans anyway. Europe is waiting for the US to financially keep Ukraine in the war....even though 60 billion is bare bones. Europe, as a whole, is looking to limit its financial exposure to Ukraine, the 50 billion they just gave is over four years and is about only a quarter of what Ukraine really needs to run properly.....All this was wholly predictable at the start....it was a US state department project from the start that they are roped into it....now rather dangerously. No doubt Ukraine is feeling the pinch financially, most nations at war do. However I think you have failed to really take into account several things. Firstly, Ukraine has gone a great job of reopening its revenue streams, mainly that of the black sea. Russia's blockade of the city is basically over and a third of its fleet sits on the bottom with the rest of the fleet fleeing Crimea for the relative safety of the NovoRossiysk. Secondly economic collapse (assuming you are right) is unlikely to somehow mean that Russia will just win. Yemen has been at war for 10 years, it has arguably completely financially collapsed and did so a long time ago. It fights on. Depending on how exactly Ukraine chooses to fight the war based on its war goals will depend on how long it is able to prolong the fight. For me, the main issue for Ukraine is it needs more men. Essentially it needs concription, how they do this is not yet decided and likely unpopular. Solving this will be the key to Ukrainian survival that is Ukraines weakness right now. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It's a bit more nuanced than that. The Ukrainian population has been told for two years that Ukraine will win. Similar to both Russian and Western media alternative views against war policies has been largely kept off the mainstream. So the expectation within these populations is high. However, unlike you I wager that if the Ukrainian public were given a chance to end the war now I think they would take it. The elections have been suspended for three years and everybody says that it's the constitution..Well, this didn't stop the US pushing pretty hard for an election in Ukraine and the reality is that Zelensky wouldn't have it.....that's because Zelensky isn't as popular as the western media makes out.....He came to power promising peace with Russia and instead just did whatever the US told him to. Could you provide me any evidence for this? I cannot find a single poll which polls less then 70% for 'keep fighting'. Perhaps once Kyiv order conscription this scenario might be a step closer to fruition. Until then, doubtful. The point about elections I think is also inaccurate and above all totally moot. Firstly the only people in the US who have asked for Zelensky to have elections are the MAGA bunch in congress who would still be opposed to aid even if Ukraine did hold elections making them a total waste of time and money (which Ukraine desperately needs according to you). Secondly, how would Ukraine even hold free and fair elections when part of the country is under occupation, the electoral register will be a total mess given war refugees, it would require Ukrainians to gather in close proximity making them vulnerable to Russian attacks and detractors like yourself would just claim they are illegitimate anyway? Do you think Russia would pause the war for a day? Tell you what, why not allow NATO in to run the war on Ukraines behalf for the day so we can get the Ukrainians out to the polls. That way you could have an election and half the Russian military (if not more) would be a smouldering wreck! Originally posted by Stirlingsays
In terms of Russia, Putin has made it clear that the best offer for Ukraine was in 2022 and that it won't get those terms again. In fact, the recent announcement by the head of Nato that Ukraine will join it (not sure he can decide that without the next president agreeing)....well, anyway that pretty much ensures that Russia isn't going to stop now if Ukraine is going to continue to be used to threaten it.
Assuming it's true, which I highly doubt. Why should ukraine have believed it? Russia has promised to uphold Ukrainian soveriegnty directly three times prior (and broke its promises each time) and indirectly at least four times just off the top of my head (more broken promises). The only thing that will likely stop Putin from attacking Ukraine will be security guarantues from NATO given the UK and USA bottled their international commitments and you'd heavily oppose this, option B which would be if Putin physically cannot continue the war because he is no longer in office or Russia loses. Your argument here also just accepts the Russian position that NATO expansion is a threat to it when in reality Russia only dislikes NATO becuase it is a solid stopper on Russian aggression. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Costly to Russia? Sure, however it's costly to Europe and ruinous to Ukraine....It's now a massive financial liability that will lose its independence regardless of how the war ends. Using your manpower argument here for a moment. Russia's GDP is 1.8 Trillion USD (rounded up) and sits about 11th in the world. NATO has a combined GDP of close to 50 Trillion USD. Nato has not lost anyone in this war. Meaning the cost from dead and wounded is $0 Russia will have to deal with its dead, wounded and brain drain for years to come. Russia has lost (visually) about 3 times as much equipment as Ukraine of which not all of Ukraines equipment is NATO donated. Are you genuinely going to tell me that this war is somehow more costly to NATO than it is to Russia? Like please answer this point, do you genuinely believe that? As for Ukraine, sure like assume you are right about they become economically reliant on the EU for decades to come. That is still better than having your entire country and culture dissolved by Russia, to compare the two are equally bad is extremely dishonest. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
However, the war is existential for Ukraine and Russia. The idea that you can convince Russia to leave Ukraine is fantasy. It's just not going to happen. That kind of thinking rejected the peace process. As mentioned, we in the West don't need to convince Putin to leave ukraine. Creating Russian loses so high that not even the Kremlins propaganda machine can conceal the cost is how you get Russia to leave Ukraine. Putin knows he screwed up, he just needs you to believe that he didn't, something he appears to have suceeded in unfortunately. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I think this is a good question. Initially...if you were bored enough...at the start of this thread I was quite favourable to Ukraine's position. It was only late on that my position changed once I had looked into both positions quite deeply. However, that doesn't change the fact that I've always disagreed with Russia's decision to invade Ukraine. They invaded Ukraine under a complete wrong impression of what it would lead to. You can say that again! Originally posted by Stirlingsays
However, the rights and wrongs of how the war came to be? On that I've always agreed more with the Russia position on that. From a utilitarian perspective...a practical reality perspective I consider the lead up to this war to be totally irrational and ruinous. Stupid group think....follow the leader politics....similar as with covid. I dont expect you to respond on all my points, but I'd like you to tell me a little more about this please. What did the west do that was truly so bad that the Ukrainian people deserved this response from Putin? Going to set aside the Covid stuff because I don't think it's relevant to the point, however do you really think the way which the world handled a global pandemic is really comparable to the way in which the world chose to engage with Russia? Surely not? Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Does my politics feed into this? It's a good question and I think I would be lying if I thought politics doesn't play into anyone's position on this....including mine. However, the Ukraine/Russia war has divided opinion within my own political sphere and there are plenty of people I align with who support this war.....So it's a difficult question to answer. Probably a question for anyone, including yourself. You'ved asked me so I will answer. No, I dont think so. Despite the claims of 'you just believe whatever Ukraine says' which firstly are not true. I've actually also spent quite alot of time reading about this issue. I am not a fan of many UK politicians, i'm a brexiteer at heart, I sit on the right of UK politics. But I look at people actions over their words. Russia is almost entirely in the wrong on this one, thats the way I see it. I see a country which while claiming to be the bastion of conservative values, is actually the opposite, it despises personal freedoms and meritorcracy. I see a country which claims to be a victim constantly attack and murder people, innocent british citizens included then mocks us for it. Quite frankly I'm sick of this woke 'namby pamby' better not upset this dictator politics which appeasement entails. Making bullying authoritarians cry on TV because a organised criminal friend they nepotistically they put in charge of a private army is turning against them. Delicious! I'm not intrested in having my history books re-written by some official in Moscow to spare angry bald babies feelings. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'm very distrusting of the State...that doesn't mean I think they lie about everything...but I don't just accept things as I did once upon a time....On these boards I was a neo con on Iraqi and Syria...I think I was proven mistaken on both...I was lied to. Anyway I'll end with a quote from David Sacks the paypal co founder, which I pretty much agree with: 'The war in Ukraine is based on lies—lies about how it started, how it continues, and how it will end. We are told that Ukraine is winning, when in fact it is losing. We are told that war makes NATO stronger, when in fact it weakens it. We are told that Ukraine's biggest problem is a lack of funds from the US Congress, when in fact the West cannot produce enough ammunition - a problem that will take years to solve. We are told that Russia is suffering heavy losses, when in fact Ukraine is running out of soldiers - another problem that cannot be solved with money. We are told that peace is with us, when in fact the world majority considers US policy to be the height of stupidity. We are told that there is no possibility of peace, when in fact we have rejected many opportunities for a negotiated settlement. We are told that if Ukraine continues to fight, it will improve its negotiating position, when in fact the terms will only become much worse than those that were already available and rejected. And then, when the war is finally lost, when the whole country lies in smoldering ruins on the funeral pyre that they themselves built, the liars will say: “Well, we tried.” Having prevented any alternative, having exposed anyone who spoke the truth as puppets of the enemy, the liars will say: “We did everything we could. <…> Then, having shifted the blame and patted themselves on the back, they will blithely move on to the next war, just as they moved to Ukraine after their disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq.'
Respectfully, this is also very contradictory. You claim not to accept things but essentially then just accept Russia's narrative (known as Colour theory btw) I've pointed this out on many occasions and I think you are more than aware of this by now so let me ask you this. Is there any part of Russia's reasons for invading which you don't think are true? Could you list them?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Feb 24 8.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I will respond, but give me a few days...it's pretty hectic at the moment.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| snytaxx London 28 Feb 24 8.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Artillery is probably the most important piece of equipment in this war. NATO will run dry of shells long before Russia. You need to understand Russian military doctrine its deliberately cheap and faster to manufacture, its also considerably easier to use thus reduces troop training time considerably. Compare that to Western equipment whilst demonstrably better it costs infinitely more, takes longer to manufacture and takes longer to be trained on. Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition with western equipment. I maintain Russia's end game is the Dnieper river. Cool, so same question, if they are comfortably supplying their own troops with home group logistics, why are they buying shells from NK and missles and drones from Iran? Surely this is just wasting money which could be spent on other things? Its pure copium to suggest that Russia is 'doing just fine'. Agreed that Europe needs to step up though! Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
As for the older T60/70's they're being used behind the front lines as Artillery simply point the turret up and lob shells onto your target, whilst not as good as a proper artillery it seems to work reasonably well. If Russia has such stockpiles and is able to build equipment so quickly? Why not just build bespoke artillery? Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
I guess Russia doesnt need them yet, I suspect they're holding this stuff in reserve as they feel something bigger is on the horizon. Or they dont work... Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Sanctions seem to be affecting the West far more than Russia. Yup the Russians are having a fab time! Freezing to death when they claimed we would, 45% inflation on eggs, something they should be able to produce themselves and Graphics cards so expensive they are worth organising a heist for. Edited by snytaxx (28 Feb 2024 8.29pm) Edited by snytaxx (28 Feb 2024 8.31pm) Edited by snytaxx (28 Feb 2024 8.32pm) Edited by snytaxx (28 Feb 2024 8.33pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ouzo Dan 28 Feb 24 11.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by snytaxx
Yup the Russians are having a fab time! Freezing to death when they claimed we would, 45% inflation on eggs, something they should be able to produce themselves and Graphics cards so expensive they are worth organising a heist for. Edited by snytaxx (28 Feb 2024 8.29pm) Edited by snytaxx (28 Feb 2024 8.31pm) Edited by snytaxx (28 Feb 2024 8.32pm) Edited by snytaxx (28 Feb 2024 8.33pm) 1. Already answered this 7 to 1 ratio & considerably more in some areas, I'd procure everything I can get my hands on much like Ukraine is doing. I live roughly 2 hours drive from the Ukrainian border, when I bought this house the electrics were shot, there was no central heating, the only way to heat some of the rooms was through the huge soviet era fireplace that also served as an oven & a clothes dryer (you'd have these metal bars pull out from the wall that would sit above the oven which you'd hang clothes from) the 80yr old babka that lived here by herself (before me) would hunker down in either the kitchen or the adjacent room where it's warmest, most nights the ghetto communist fuses that look like large beige mushrooms would explode like an IED going off, said babka would then spend the night in complete darkness with the temperature outside a toasty -30°c waiting to be rescued by someone in the morning. These kind of homes are incredibly common here & only get more prevalent the further east you go, if you were to see how the majority of Roma Gypsies live here, what I described above would seem Palacial by comparison.
Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.