I wonder what this means beyond what they have already committed to:
NATO intends to supply Ukraine with everything it needs for the future counteroffensive Allies will discuss this at a ministerial meeting in Brussels, - White House
I wonder what this means beyond what they have already committed to:
NATO intends to supply Ukraine with everything it needs for the future counteroffensive Allies will discuss this at a ministerial meeting in Brussels, - White House
In reply to aircooled :
dunno, but
"Russia cannot come out of this war with victory, our future simply cannot stand it," General Christopher Cavoli, Commander of NATO's EU forces.
Sounds a lot like NATO wants to step in if Ukraine can't go it alone anymore.
I am not sure that is "allowed" per NATO charter (defensive only)?
BTW- you might be interested in this:
Russia puts Hungary on list of 'unfriendly countries' - Russian Ambassador in Budapest
WHAT did you do?!
Nooooo!!!
More interpretation:
Belarus' Lukashenko calls for immediate ceasefire in Ukraine-Russia War
Ah, so he is breaking from Putin and seeing the error in their ways.
In a scheduled address to the nation, Lukashenko said there should be no preconditions for a ceasefire. He warned Ukraine against launching an anticipated counter-offensive, saying it would make negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv impossible.
Uhm... oh, now I see. Musilenko's buddy Putler jumps a guy and starts pounding on him. As soon as the guy gets up and gets ready to throw a punch he declares we should just call it a draw.... yeah.
Opti said:In reply to 02Pilot :
I agree with you. When I say everyone negotiates in bad faith, I mean that countries don't actually stick to their agreements and everyone negotiating it knows this. They might stick to them for a while or they might not. There is little means for enforcement of geopolitical agreements and treaties, so everyone knows that as soon as this agreement isn't tenable its out the window.
There is still obvious value in it. Especially as a means to avoid war, but I can't stand the narrative that only our enemies "negotiate in bad faith.' We all do it and it's just a calculated part of the process.
As you said, we have to structure an agreement favorable for both parties for the foreseeable future to have a relatively long lasting agreement.
You even see it in our laws, how many laws do we have on the books that aren't enforced? And our allies, how many NATO members stay above the military spending threshold. All agreements are "of the time" and soon to pass.
Putin has been repeating the Russia is vulnerable from a land invasion from Europe. For years now. Conveniently forgetting that since 1989 Russia has been vulnerable. So what's the sudden threat?
If he doesn't want to be vulnerable, make Russia a reliable partner to sell their oil and minerals to NATO and any nation with a wallet.
War is darn expensive as he's finding out. The pain stops when he stops.
tuna55 said:
Real question, because I support sending tanks, but what advantage does a tank have for Ukraine over a Howitzer?
Fire support on-scene, presence, ability to drive through and over rough terrain and barbed wire. In Ukraine's case especially, you need a hammer to smash through trench lines in Crimea and a tank is far faster than an infantry push.
Modern stuff we're sending has a lot of active protection systems like Trophy so while I can't say they'll be immune to common RPGs, we do have stories of them being fired at Abrams multipule times with no effect.
aircooled said:OK, here is an interesting question. Why would he say this? (essentially saying when the attack is) Trying to appease western powers "things are happening". Intimidate the Russians? Mislead the Russians (looking for the reaction)?
All of the above likely.
aircooled said:You want scary, think about the cannister round they carry. Essentially a shotgun shell, almost 5 inches in diameter!
As 02 noted though, if an infantryman drops into a trench or hole, it will have almost no effect.
I happened to see some video from an observation drone showing that. Maybe they were fragmentation rounds rather than canister, whatever Ukrainian T-72s have. A trench stops working if the tank can do an 'enfilade' thing with enough gun depression.
frenchyd said:Opti said:In reply to 02Pilot :
I agree with you. When I say everyone negotiates in bad faith, I mean that countries don't actually stick to their agreements and everyone negotiating it knows this. They might stick to them for a while or they might not. There is little means for enforcement of geopolitical agreements and treaties, so everyone knows that as soon as this agreement isn't tenable its out the window.
There is still obvious value in it. Especially as a means to avoid war, but I can't stand the narrative that only our enemies "negotiate in bad faith.' We all do it and it's just a calculated part of the process.
As you said, we have to structure an agreement favorable for both parties for the foreseeable future to have a relatively long lasting agreement.
You even see it in our laws, how many laws do we have on the books that aren't enforced? And our allies, how many NATO members stay above the military spending threshold. All agreements are "of the time" and soon to pass.
Putin has been repeating the Russia is vulnerable from a land invasion from Europe. For years now. Conveniently forgetting that since 1989 Russia has been vulnerable. So what's the sudden threat?
If he doesn't want to be vulnerable, make Russia a reliable partner to sell their oil and minerals to NATO and any nation with a wallet.
War is darn expensive as he's finding out. The pain stops when he stops.
Russian fear of land invasion goes back centuries, all the way back to the invasions from the Asian steppes, and as technology progressed, from Western Europe. Remember, Napoleon invaded in 1812 and reached Moscow. Russian vulnerability to invasion comes from the immutable geography of the land it occupies, not any particular political circumstance.
As to the cost of war, recall that the lesson many Russians learned in 1991 is that peace brings economic pain. The collapse of the Russian economy when exposed to market forces led to the "Starving Years" of the 1990s, when many Russians experienced considerably greater privation than they had under Soviet rule during the Cold War. While the Western view may be that there is a linkage between opening markets and prosperous peace, it is not one that many Russians - at least among those whole lived through the end of the Cold War - share.
GIRTHQUAKE said:Modern stuff we're sending has a lot of active protection systems like Trophy so while I can't say they'll be immune to common RPGs, we do have stories of them being fired at Abrams multiple times with no effect.
I was unfamiliar with that system. Looks pretty amazing - to be able to assess whether an RPG or missile will miss, and also identify the shooter's position.
I have to believe our Navy employs similar active countermeasures.
02Pilot said:....As to the cost of war, recall that the lesson many Russians learned in 1991 is that peace brings economic pain. The collapse of the Russian economy when exposed to market forces led to the "Starving Years" of the 1990s, when many Russians experienced considerably greater privation than they had under Soviet rule during the Cold War. While the Western view may be that there is a linkage between opening markets and prosperous peace, it is not one that many Russians - at least among those whole lived through the end of the Cold War - share.
Would you say some (most / all?) off this pain was the result of "insiders" like Putin giving away the wealth of the country (what it was) to whatever buddies he could latch into obligations for his "generosity".
I am suspicious the people that where gifted these assets may have been less then motivate not to suck them dry of what they could, or at least may not have been the ideal choice to shepherd them into success for the eventual benefit of the country and not themselves.
Sorry, I meant to post this first:
It's very unlikely any tanks delivered to Ukraine with have any of the latest missile defense systems, which I think are very new.
aircooled said:02Pilot said:....As to the cost of war, recall that the lesson many Russians learned in 1991 is that peace brings economic pain. The collapse of the Russian economy when exposed to market forces led to the "Starving Years" of the 1990s, when many Russians experienced considerably greater privation than they had under Soviet rule during the Cold War. While the Western view may be that there is a linkage between opening markets and prosperous peace, it is not one that many Russians - at least among those whole lived through the end of the Cold War - share.
Would you say some (most / all?) off this pain was the result of "insiders" like Putin giving away the wealth of the country (what it was) to whatever buddies he could latch into obligations for his "generosity".
I am suspicious the people that where gifted these assets may have been less then motivate not to suck them dry of what they could, or at least may not have been the ideal choice to shepherd them into success for the eventual benefit of the country and not themselves.
I am not really qualified to answer that, though my suspicion is that it was a contributory factor. The more important question, however, is does it matter? For the average Russian in the early 90s, accustomed to accepting state media and government statements (and lacking the educational tools to effectively question them), with no experience and an ingrained suspicion of of democracy, what mattered was the cost and availability of basic essentials relative to their income, not who was responsible.
I don't post much in this thread but i read everything. This video really showed what the war means to civilians.
In reply to Stampie :
Thanks for that video. This shows why Russia can't be allowed to win and why Europe better never go back to business as usual with that mass murdering mad dictator Poopin and his regime.
This is sadly, not surprising at all:
Russian officers use female combat medics as sex slaves - report
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-736134
Imagine being a Russian parent, with a daughter serving in... the glorious Russian Army...
aircooled said:This is sadly, it surprising at all:
Russian officers use female combat medics as sex slaves - report
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-736134
Imagine being a Russian parent, with a daughter serving in... the glorious Russian Army...
Imagine needing medical care after you have subjected your female combat medics to that sort of treatment. Talk about short sighted.
The degree of corruption is terrible. I think of the expression, "A fish rots from the head."
aircooled said:02Pilot said:....As to the cost of war, recall that the lesson many Russians learned in 1991 is that peace brings economic pain. The collapse of the Russian economy when exposed to market forces led to the "Starving Years" of the 1990s, when many Russians experienced considerably greater privation than they had under Soviet rule during the Cold War. While the Western view may be that there is a linkage between opening markets and prosperous peace, it is not one that many Russians - at least among those whole lived through the end of the Cold War - share.
Would you say some (most / all?) off this pain was the result of "insiders" like Putin giving away the wealth of the country (what it was) to whatever buddies he could latch into obligations for his "generosity".
I am suspicious the people that where gifted these assets may have been less then motivate not to suck them dry of what they could, or at least may not have been the ideal choice to shepherd them into success for the eventual benefit of the country and not themselves.
A video I think from Kraut discussed this at one point- basically that for ex-USSR nations you could either be like Czechia and have serious anti-corruption and anti-monopoly laws go into effect in the 90s (which directly led to them now being the #3 economy in growth in the EU) or be like nations who failed to do so like Belarus and Ukraine pre-2014 whom never accepted serious pushback to corruption and thus, had oligarchs that were allowed to buy up and monopolize industry as funds and resources allowed. Its no joke to say that most of the wealth from opening of the nation went directly into Yachts; I think even Poland has had problems with oligarchs as well.
aircooled said:I am not sure that is "allowed" per NATO charter (defensive only)?
BTW- you might be interested in this:
Russia puts Hungary on list of 'unfriendly countries' - Russian Ambassador in Budapest
WHAT did you do?!
Hungary voted to let Finland join NATO (welcome, Finland!!!!!)
I bet Viktator Orban is still on the phone with Putin crying and asking for forgiveness.
This may or may not be the second time Hungary has been put on this list. The uncertainty in that statement stems from reports back in the early part of the war where Hungarian media was reporting the same thing (Put on the naughty list). Unfortunately, since all the media here is state owned it's hard to say whether it was true or not.
aircooled said:This is sadly, not surprising at all:
Russian officers use female combat medics as sex slaves - report
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-736134
Imagine being a Russian parent, with a daughter serving in... the glorious Russian Army...
I want to be informed, but I cannot even click that. I'm not surprised, just sickened.
Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:aircooled said:I am not sure that is "allowed" per NATO charter (defensive only)?
BTW- you might be interested in this:
Russia puts Hungary on list of 'unfriendly countries' - Russian Ambassador in Budapest
WHAT did you do?!
Hungary voted to let Finland join NATO (welcome, Finland!!!!!)
I bet Viktator Orban is still on the phone with Putin crying and asking for forgiveness.
This may or may not be the second time Hungary has been put on this list. The uncertainty in that statement stems from reports back in the early part of the war where Hungarian media was reporting the same thing (Put on the naughty list). Unfortunately, since all the media here is state owned it's hard to say whether it was true or not.
I saw that, great news! Finland will make NATO much stronger in that area.
Now we need to do the same with Sweden.
This year, once the fields dry out will be the real challenge for Ukraine. Russia has 8 million men between the age of 20-30
So Russia messes up the first year of the war? Next they throw countless bodies at the problem until they simply overwhelm the opposition.
It's rumored they will have 500,000 ready and if they do, each one of the tanks NATO has sent needs to take out 5000 men.
If the Ukraine is smart they will let them get down to Crimea then cut them off north and basically starve them out. Shouldn't be that hard to destroy that bridge.
I am certain it will be difficult, but 1 good, trained and motivated soldier can be worth hundreds of poorly trained low moral soldiers. Once a fighting unit reaches a certain level (of losses / moral) it will not just be degraded, it will fall apart and be useless. The Russian units are almost certainly far less resistant to this. And as always;
Never underestimate the Russian military's ability to F' things up.
A few things:
Apparently the bomb was in the form of a golden statue of himself (!):
Explosion in Café of Saint Petersburg. Russian propagandist and volunteer Vladlen Tatarsky was killed. Café’s previous owner was Prygozhyn…
Alcohol is one of the main reasons for Russia's non-combat losses, - British intelligence
The British Ministry of Defense said that the losses of the Russian Federation since the beginning of a full-scale invasion amount to 200 thousand people, with a significant part of them caused by non-combat reasons.
Russian commanders consider mass drunkenness among soldiers to be the main problem, while other causes include inexperience with weapons, traffic accidents and hypothermia.
You'll need to log in to post.
