Ukraine Situation - Should We Be Worried?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 snytaxx  London 29 Feb 24 7.40am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
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. Respectfully, you have not answered the question. Firstly can you source any evidence for this 7 to 1 artillery production advantage? Secondly is it over just Ukraine or the entirety of NATO? Thirdly again, what is the point of buying missiles and drones off Iran if Russia has loads of home made ones just lying around? The answer seems clear to me, either Russia does not have the production lines it claims it has or it's just pointlessly throwing money away which is it?. Given that Russia's nightly raids on Ukrainian cities are mostly shaheed drones and not cruise missiles like they were in the beginning of the war. I think the answer is clear. Regarding artillery, you are genuinely telling me Russia would rather use old tanks to just 'guess yeet' shells rather than artillery pieces which are actually designed to do that job, which by the way... They definitely have, they just don't want to use because they'd rather their troops just have a really poor time fumbling around in old tanks? It reeks of shortages. I think most russian tanks are total bin juice. Putting your crew on top of the ammo rack? Cope cages, the terminator tank which can be disabled by small arms fire to the 20mm cannon. Personally I think it's likely the su-57 and t-14 are just propaganda pieces, its in Russia's interest to crack on and win this war, why not equip your troops with the best stuff?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 29 Feb 24 9.33am |
 |
|---|---|
|
I will admit to Ukraine fatigue on long posts...to be fair to me I've written plenty of them on the thread. However, I will reply to Snytaxx's polite and reasonable post later or tomorrow. In the meantime here's Benz (who was in Trump's state department) on what really happened under the covers on Ukraine. [Tweet Link]
Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Feb 2024 9.50am)
'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 |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 29 Feb 24 11.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Something for the tank vs artillery debate. The tank with the longest range in the world is something like 4-5km, maybe a couple of miles. Artillery tends to range from short range anti tank - which might have a similar range to a tank - to medium range and long range artillery. Medium range is maybe 10-25km even 50km behind the front. There are several artillery systems that fire well over 100km. A tank might fire for a day or two and need a barrel change, an artillery piece might fire for a few days or a week and need a barrel change. Anyone trying to use tanks as artillery is not using something useful or effective. Why does this matter? Why does this come up? Well, the Russians are famous for medium and long range artillery. I can't remember how many pieces they were meant to have but 10s of thousands for sure. My guess is the issue is rounds/shells and barrels. If I were to guess, barrels could well be imported. Tank rounds are smaller and easier to manufacture. Especially when they're standard. Most Russian tanks likely have a similar main gun. My main issue would be range. Tanks range wouldeam they are easily in range of counter fire, and obviously drones these days. Hence a large loss of tanks. Add that to needing to replace barrels, plus the usual tracks and wheels and you will likely find around a 50% wastage at any one time on tanks. I presume they get repaired but it's probably a process of having to get them on a train back to a workshop well away from the front. Consider the logistics - which clearly is both side's main issue and you can see the problem for the Russians. My advice to them would be to go to small units and constant tactical actions but they're just not like that. They lack flexibility in command with Putin and high command constantly interfering. However, it is also clear Zelensky likes to meddle so that is not limited to the Russian side. The difference is that Ukrainian units are smaller and more flexible. Some are almost autonomous - they hold a huge and obvious tactical advantage and are likely to always have it. For lack of flexibility the best example is the Russian airforce. They have pre-planned flight paths in and out. Imagine that? Deviate and your commander can remote destroy your aircraft. That's why there aren't Russian planes landing all over the place every day.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ouzo Dan 29 Feb 24 12.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Respectfully, you have not answered the question. Firstly can you source any evidence for this 7 to 1 artillery production advantage? approx 11:20 onwards - New York times listed as the source. Thirdly again, what is the point of buying missiles and drones off Iran if Russia has loads of home made ones just lying around? Answered this. Given that Russia's nightly raids on Ukrainian cities are mostly shaheed drones and not cruise missiles like they were in the beginning of the war. I think the answer is clear. You're the one inferring Russia can produce everything on demand, I have clearly stated Artillery & small arms, Cruise missiles are not small arms plus its cheaper for Russia to use Shaheeds, I suspect were seeing the beginnings of Iran falling under the Russian Nuclear umbrella because of such deals. Regarding artillery, you are genuinely telling me Russia would rather use old tanks to just 'guess yeet' shells rather than artillery pieces which are actually designed to do that job Yes, The longest tank on tank kill belongs to a Challenger 1, during the Gulf War it killed a T50 from over 3 miles away, now whilst the Chally no doubt has a better targeting package than your average mothballed T60 the principle is the same, lift turret in the air, fire & have your forward observer/drone operator radio back if its dropped on target, readjust and go again. I think most russian tanks are total bin juice. Putting your crew on top of the ammo rack? I have gone over this already, it loads faster than a manually loaded gun. Cope cages Ukrainians use them too, its literally the only defence almost every tank on the planet has against any kind of anti tank weapon coming at it from above. the terminator tank which can be disabled by small arms fire Incredibly effective at turning Russian frowns upside down when they were first introduced which I did cover on here, honestly havent paid much attention to them since. Personally I think it's likely the su-57 and t-14 are just propaganda pieces, its in Russia's interest to crack on and win this war, why not equip your troops with the best stuff? Its nigh on impossible to predict what Russia will do next, they could quite easily declare war, mobilise millions and flood Ukraine but they choose not to. The T14 is pretty much a rehashed T90 although its the nearest thing they have to a 'Western Tank' this is where sanctions have bitten into Russia as the T14 being more westernised means they need to source parts from abroad, will we see them in Ukraine? probably but they can never manufacture enough in any real numbers to make a huge difference, its much easier for the Russians to churn out T-72's which can be entirely made in house. I suspect we'll see them sat deep behind front lines much like the Ukrainians are using the Challengers we gave them & will only be used if the Russians really need them. Ukrainians in the East are currently losing frontline positions they have held for the last 10 years, the Ukrainian offensive was a disaster and they failed to dig in behind the territory they did take and were now seeing them being pushed back heavily.
Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ouzo Dan 29 Feb 24 3.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The Cobasna ammunition depot is back in the news again. Transnistria is asking Russia for protection no doubt fearing a Ukrainian incursion into the country to secure the depot and probably solving Ukrainian ammo problems for quite a while. Its a mere 2km from the Ukrainian border. Russia would be insane to let the Ukrainians have it but then all they can really do should Ukraine go for it is bomb it causing something comparable to a 15kt nuclear bomb going off. Here is the depot Edited by Ouzo Dan (29 Feb 2024 3.08pm)
Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| snytaxx London 01 Mar 24 5.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Respectfully, you have not answered the question. Firstly can you source any evidence for this 7 to 1 artillery production advantage? approx 11:20 onwards - New York times listed as the source. Here is the source. Skipping out Carlson because he literally says the sentance prior "for the fifth time im not an expert on Russia or Ukraine". Too right Tucker! Firstly the '7 to 1' aspect is not mentioned so could you please find a source for that or explain how you came to that conclusion? Secondly, using the same article as a source "Russian production is still not keeping pace with how fast the military is burning through ammunition and wearing out equipment. For example, even though Russia is on pace to produce two million rounds of ammunition a year, it fired about 10 million rounds of artillery last year. That has led Moscow to desperately search for alternative sources to increase its stocks, most recently by trying to secure a weapons deal with North Korea, U.S. and Western officials said." Essentially, Russia cannot keep pace hence why it is buying shells from North Korea. You can try and explain this away all you like but there evidence is there. Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
With respect to artillery shells and small arms fire Russia outperforms the entirety of NATO. The west has other options to supply ukraine though, it has a much larger economy and can source from third parties. Whether the west will actually do this is another topic. The discussion here is on whether Russia can carry on its war without consequences for another 2-3 years. So far no evidence has been provided to suggest this is the case. Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
There is currently an Ammunition shortage in the US due to two things procurement for self defence and civilian 556/7.62 etc being sent to Ukraine. see above Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Russia is literally the end boss of manufacturing small arms, it also gives you an idea of just how terrifying the old Soviet bloc was when it came to manufacturing military equipment. As mentioned by the source you provided, it needs to do more. Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Thirdly again, what is the point of buying missiles and drones off Iran if Russia has loads of home made ones just lying around? Answered this. Not really, and i'd rather stick to the original question in point thanks. Russia and North Korea share a land border, Russia and Iran share a enclosed sea border. Unless Russia seriously thinks the West is about to physically invade to cut their supply lines, buyings items now makes no sense when they could be kept 1. safe from Ukraine in neutral countries 2. that money could be used for something else. The only reason why Russia would seek to expedite the process was if say... they were running low which as your source points out, they are running in heavy deficit. Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Given that Russia's nightly raids on Ukrainian cities are mostly shaheed drones and not cruise missiles like they were in the beginning of the war. I think the answer is clear. You're the one inferring Russia can produce everything on demand, I have clearly stated Artillery & small arms, Cruise missiles are not small arms plus its cheaper for Russia to use Shaheeds, I suspect were seeing the beginnings of Iran falling under the Russian Nuclear umbrella because of such deals. Thats my point! they cant! Russia has shortages, it won't admit to them but that doesnt wizzard them away. If Russia has shortages why would it not seek to win the war as quickly as possible? The reason - it cant! It is reliant on foreign partners much like Ukraine and the 'I can do this all day' attitude is a bluff for "please let me win". Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Regarding artillery, you are genuinely telling me Russia would rather use old tanks to just 'guess yeet' shells rather than artillery pieces which are actually designed to do that job Yes, Wow! I think this sums up why hardly anyone believes Russia. Lets look at this more closely, firstly Russian artillery (which Russia has loads of remember) fires 122mm shells. The T62's cited as being 'equally useful in this role' fire 115mm rounds. As Russia has amble 122mm shells to fire and artillery pieces from which to do it , why not use the superior range and firepower of all this equipment to good effect rather than getting an old tank out of storage with less range and higher crew risk exposure? The simple answer, because Russia either doesnt care about its troops, i.e. they happily let them fumble around at the front at higher risk of being hit by Ukrainian drones and front line units or... because Russia doesnt have the vast quantities of shells it needs for a protracted war as highlighted by your boy tucker! Regarding attack helicopters - I think this is very detremental to the 'Russia Strong' image you have been trying to defend. The reason Russian attack helicopters (as do Ukrainian ones) pull off this maneuver is it means they don't need to get as close to the front. I.e. less exposure to enemy AA. The only reason the any sane army would authorise this would be because they dont have ample equipment and train mainpower spares. Something the Pro Russian side vehemently denies. Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
I think most russian tanks are total bin juice. Putting your crew on top of the ammo rack? I have gone over this already, it loads faster than a manually loaded gun. Do they? I'm not an expert so i'm sourcing from google. Maybe you have some classified information from a war thunder forum but for now. I found this. T-72 has a reload cycle of 6.5 - 15 seconds depending on ammo type T-90 - 5 to 8 seconds depending on ammo type Leopard - Average around 6 seconds Abrams - about the same I think Russia forwent reload time over numbers which is supported by you below argument. Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
3 crew instead of four means For every 3 Challenger 2 tanks you can field you can field 4 T80's. This Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Personally I think it's likely the su-57 and t-14 are just propaganda pieces, its in Russia's interest to crack on and win this war, why not equip your troops with the best stuff? Its nigh on impossible to predict what Russia will do next, they could quite easily declare war, mobilise millions and flood Ukraine but they choose not to. This is the 'Russia is holding back arguement' which first surfaced after things did not go to plan during the early days of the invasion. What possible benefit is there to Russia for not using it's full capacity to end this war via force? I use occums razors here. They haven't done this becuase they cant do it. Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
The T14 is pretty much a rehashed T90 although its the nearest thing they have to a 'Western Tank' this is where sanctions have bitten into Russia as the T14 being more westernised means they need to source parts from abroad, will we see them in Ukraine? probably but they can never manufacture enough in any real numbers to make a huge difference, its much easier for the Russians to churn out T-72's which can be entirely made in house. I suspect we'll see them sat deep behind front lines much like the Ukrainians are using the Challengers we gave them & will only be used if the Russians really need them. Ukrainians in the East are currently losing frontline positions they have held for the last 10 years, the Ukrainian offensive was a disaster and they failed to dig in behind the territory they did take and were now seeing them being pushed back heavily. I think this is well covered on other parts of the thread but appreciate the time you've taken so will of course be happy to answer. While it is true that Russia is slowly gaining ground. It's not at the speed that they would need to make this a quick war. The further they advance the harder their logistics get. The longer the war continues the lower their stock piles get. The longer the Ukrainians refuse to 'give up' means the longer it takes until Russia can safely develop its newly conquered land. There is no point claiming that Russia will win soon, or me counter claiming they won't. Time will tell. If i'm wrong it's likely for the simply reason that Ukraine made costly mistakes and the West did not support enough. If those who genuinely think Russia is going to win this war are wrong, what will be their excuse? I can promise you it wont be 'the kremlin lied'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ouzo Dan 01 Mar 24 10.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Firstly the '7 to 1' aspect is not mentioned so could you please find a source for that or explain how you came to that conclusion? 11:46 its highlighted on the screen "As a result of the push, Russia is now producing more ammunition than the United States and Europe. Overall, Kusti Salm, a senior Estonian defense ministry official, estimated that Russia"s current ammunition production is seven times greater than that of the West." I'll have to answer the rest later. Edited by Ouzo Dan (01 Mar 2024 10.13am)
Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 01 Mar 24 10.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
At various times in the conflict I've heard that the shell difference between the forces to be 1:3 to 1:8 in Russia's favour. How accurate the ratios are can have no certainty but Russia obviously have the significant advantage. For the first year Ukraine employed more soldiers at the front than Russia with the latter having more artillery. It's only really been relatively recent where Russia's troop numbers have equaled or exceeded Ukraine's.
'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 |
|
| ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Mar 24 1.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The ammo issue has always been a problem for NATO. The issue isn't so much manufacturing as it is storage. Ammo degrades and eventually catches fire or doesn't work. When ammo degrades in an ammo bunker you can imagine the result. Hence most NATO countries carefully store and gradually destroy ammo as necessary (or use it). In Russia, like a lot of other things, they do not manage their ammunition in the same way. Let's say they take a more risky approach. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them firing off ammo from Afghanistan. Certainly the Cold War.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| snytaxx London 01 Mar 24 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
Firstly the '7 to 1' aspect is not mentioned so could you please find a source for that or explain how you came to that conclusion? 11:46 its highlighted on the screen "As a result of the push, Russia is now producing more ammunition than the United States and Europe. Overall, Kusti Salm, a senior Estonian defense ministry official, estimated that Russia"s current ammunition production is seven times greater than that of the West." I'll have to answer the rest later. Edited by Ouzo Dan (01 Mar 2024 10.13am) I've got it. Thanks for highlighting. [Tweet Link]
I still think this is misleading. Assuming Salm is correct and Russia is out producing NATO 7 to 1 as of 7 months ago. That still doesn't solve Russia's ammunition shortages. Just because Ukraine has them, doesn't mean Russia doesn't. Using the NYT article you cited as a base. Russia is only producing 20% of the shells it needs hence the need to purchase from NK, to use 115mm tank shells as artillery via the use of older tanks. Simply saying 'oh but Ukraine...' doesn't mean that basic maths isn't going to bite Russia hard the longer this war goes on - that's my point. Russia needs the collective west to just sit there and do nothing if it has a chance of winning this war this decade, that's why it needs the Russia strong image more than ever to bluff the west to victory. Regardless of that narrative, if Ukraine doesn't give in and this war drags on. The idea that this totally without consequence to Russia is just pure copium.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 01 Mar 24 11.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Apologies for the delay, it's very busy at the moment. Originally posted by snytaxx
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. Well, politically I'm DR....alt right? That term is a bit discredited in my circles as the guy most identified as that term Richard Spencer voted Biden in 2020'....So, alt right is all a bit 2016...which was a great year but a while back. Originally posted by snytaxx
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. Reddit? That's a very lefty website. Originally posted by snytaxx
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. Russia isn't a real democracy in the proper sense of the word. It's an autocracy and its pretense to being one is even less than Ukraine's. If Russia had to it could call a general mobilization and wreck its economy the same as Ukraine has for about two years now. That mobilisation would be a last resort but it would amount to millions of men and if it had to do this for a year it could. You talk about Putin having to worry about calling up middle class Moscowvites and perhaps that could be a thing. However Zelensky has far more concern if he had to do the same in Kiev as it's far nearer the reality of happening and he's far less popular than Putin. Originally posted by snytaxx
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. Russia artillery and shell advantage is well known and proven. I'm not really getting the logic in the argument that it wouldn't source from allies. That would go against its self interest, whereas maxing out however it can is just common sense whatever your advantage. As for wearing down Iran and NK's ability to wage war by supplying ammo to Russia? Why are we planning to go to war with Iran and NK in the next two years? No thanks. Don't you think that giving these supplies doesn't come with some security guarantee from Russia?...I also can't imagine Nato attacking North Korea or Iran would be that popular with China as one shares a land border and the other is in BRICS. What matters is a country's military manufacturing capacity more than its present stocks and its willingness to use it.....What matters is its ability to restock the weapons being used. On casualities....well to 'win' this war both sides need to attack. Ukraine's summer offensive gained it about ten kilometres and cost it....Well according to Zelensky Ukraine have lost 31, 000 in the whole war....that's not 'downplaying', in my view that's an outright insult to the hundreds of thousands in the ground. The thirty one thousand figure was actually stated because that is the number Ukraine is willing to pay out for.....I bet hardly any of those families will be from the east and south...where they always try to recruit from first rather than Kiev and favoured areas. You keep saying that you'd be happy to provide links. I'm sure you would be. However, those links are going to be from Nato based sources rather than objective ones. I've made the point several times that relying upon figures has to be a subject of great care. 'Innocence is the first casualty of war'....in other wards lies are abound. When judging a truth you need to study both side's claims and be as objective as possible. Unless the other side admits that a claim made by the other is true then you have to take claims with a pinch of salt. The practical observation of events on the battlefield can't be faked. You holds what ground, can't be faked. This is the one cast iron metric that can be relied upon. Originally posted by snytaxx
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? It's not marginal gains. Avdiivka was probably the strongest fortified city Ukraine had in the Donbas. Over 2023 Russia took marginal land over Ukraine and that's despite Ukraine's summer offensive. However, describing 2023 as a stalemate would be accurate. 2024, thus far has been anything but a stalemate and Russia have and are making considerable gains already just three months in. I can't see Russia capturing the rest of Ukraine in a year either....Ukraine is a massive country. Up until Nato's recent announcement that Ukraine would join at some point I could see Russia stopping at the Dnieper river. However, now from their perspective it makes no sense to stop if Ukraine will join Nato and they will probably just carry on beyond it. If Ukraine is going to join Nato then the only logical end point for Russia would be taking Odessa and destroying Ukraine's export capacity and linking up with Transnistria. It would probably try to take Kharkov as well. However, the further west Russia goes the harder that land gets to administer and hold. Ukraine joining Nato would be irrational but as this war was completely irrational in the first place I rule nothing out. Originally posted by snytaxx
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! Well, you say that when the German chancellor has just said that Britain has sent its military personnel into Ukraine to 'help' Ukrainians operate storm shadow missiles attacks. It's known that French have their personnel in Ukraine much more than would be normal. These systems are complex and complicated. You can't spend months and suddenly become an experienced and expert operator. I was just making a deduction based on common sense and it looks like I've been proven correct. Originally posted by snytaxx
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). I don't really have a clue as to the truth of either claim. We can only make assumptions. Personally I'd say that Ukraine are more likely to have shot some Russian planes down....it being 10 or 12 probably isn't likely but only the fighting sides know for sure. What we do know is that Russian aircraft are still operating in the Avdiivka region as fabs are still being landed as Russia advance through towns there. Originally posted by snytaxx
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. I think you make a reasonable point about Ukraine perhaps being willing to fight on despite financial collapse. I guess we will see in both regards. The longer the war continues the greater the strain on both countries. It's far worse for Ukraine but I don't deny that it's possible it could just continue despite everything....Vietnam did, Syria did. Originally posted by snytaxx
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! I said, 'I wager' so I don't have any evidence other than the fact that Zelensky has suspended elections and refused pressure from the Biden administration to have them. You say that hasn't happened yet that's not what I heard....but hey, maybe that's just inaccurate...again, my opinion. As for your point about elections can't be held during war....Well, it was done in Vietnam and Iraq, Russia's about to do it this year...Will Ukraine blow up voters? Don't know but the elections will go ahead. Originally posted by snytaxx
You've consistently mentioned Putins 2022 offer to Ukraine but never sourced it. I'd assume you are referring to this one? I.e the one which Putin has never actually shows anything to anyone other than flashing it up from distance claiming Zelensky signed it and that was why he retreated troops from Kyiv and definitely had nothing to do with the fact the Ukrainians gave the Russian northern flank an absolutely hammering. 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. You say you doubt that the negotiation documents are true....can you refer me to any official claim that those documents are faked? I very much doubt it personally. Your claims about broken promises are made by both sides. Those that study those claims objectivity can make their own conclusions. Regardless, it doesn't matter about trust, what matters is that both troops fall back to agreed positions. What matters is what the peace deal actually contains. For example, with that deal not only would Ukraine have held onto land it's now lost it could have built up defences and restocked....A no man's land could have been developed, along North and South Korea lines. Now that's gone the way of the dodo. Originally posted by snytaxx
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 {text} 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. It has been made very clear, Nato is not at war with Russia in any official capacity. The 'hot' war mantra leads in to a possible nuclear exchange where talking about GDP becomes pointless. Both sides know this and have made it quite clear what the dividing lines are. What is frustrating here is that the reality of what was possible for Ukraine wasn't listened to. Even here you talk about what is possible....sure, if Nato fully committed to war with Russia and was prepared to pay the price it could....and the word is could win. This 'could' win, was true for America in Vietnam as well. The reason they didn't win was due that the cost of winning went beyond the price they were willing to pay. There are huge consequences on the table here much bigger than the tragedy of what's happened in Ukraine.....and it is a tragedy. That's always been the case with Ukraine...Many people made this point....I was just one of many. Originally posted by snytaxx
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. You stated earlier that Ukraine would continue despite everything....I doubt it but I recognised that this could happen. Yet here you seem to think that Russia wouldn't....Losing this war would probably lead to the break up of Russia. I can't see Putin or the others close to the leadership allowing that. Putin is not the most hardline in Russia despite those who seem to think otherwise. I think Putin certainly miscalculated when invading....I think it was an intelligence screw up....they thought Ukraine would fold like Kherson, they were wrong. Originally posted by snytaxx
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? Russia's reasons for the war are well documented I agree with their arguments against Nato's decisions since 91 but not their decisions to invade.....This does not mean I support Russia or regard them as the good guys. It means that I regard Nato....or rather the State department's policy towards Russia as ill judged and mistaken. The covid point was only in recognition of group think policy. I'm not a globalist and I regard the tendency to play 'follow what others are doing' as poor management. Originally posted by snytaxx
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. No vodka for you then. A brexiteer who uses Reddit? Mmmm...if you say so I guess. Originally posted by snytaxx
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? In terms of how the war came about I do generally accept Russia's point of view. I understand its perspective. For example, if Russia had been meddling in Canada and had involved itself in any way in funding a coup to install an anti American government....I have little doubt America would have done much the same as Russia did.....In fact we have America's actions in Cuba in the sixties as evidence. In terms of what Russia says about its reasons for invading that I'd most disagree with are its denazification arguments. Aside from ethnic Russians and its allies in Ukraine....a considerable population in the east and south....there is much ethnic resentment towards Russia for its actions...mainly during soviet times. I don't blame them for those resentments. Putin largely ignores this but the crimes of the Soviets exceed Hitler in deaths. The Soviets carried out a genocide in Ukraine in the 30s and the reasons for neo 'Nazis' in Ukraine is due to that historical hatred of Russia. So when I heard Putin talk of 'denazification' he talking about destroying an idea....it's a nonsense just as Israel talks about destroying Hamas. Whatever is left of Ukraine won't be inviting Russians to parties anytime soon. Now, is there any part of Nato's reasons for carrying on this war that you don't think are true? Could you list them? Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Mar 2024 7.36am)
'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 |
|
| ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 03 Mar 24 10.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
[Link] German intelligence as good as it was in WWII.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| 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.