What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

What Ukrainian needed now is conventional firepower, tanks, artillery and aircraft, you need that to pull a counter offensive. Drones are a must have, with HARM now into the fray, it will most definitely pushes Russian Air Defence system further out, it blind your enemy and let you expand your area of operation.

Been noticing the uptick of TB2s being used. HARMS are definitely helping to suppress them. Ukrainians should another hundred of them for Ukraine's version of ground attack air force and 5 million apiece, that's cheap. Who knows, maybe A10s could be delivered and sent in as long as Russian air defense is being suppressed in conjunction with SEAD fighter planes.

Same ministry also claimed that all tb-2's shot downed, but

(volume up)
Ukraine needs another 100. Considering the Russian air defense is being suppressed. Also Tb2s, should have longer range missiles to counter short and medium range platforms.
 
Last edited:
. . .
A nation's prosperity depends on the discipline of its population. A disciplined nation is prosperous. A not disciplined nation is not prosperous.
Just population doesn't cut it. I agree that you need the right population. But you need the right policies from the Government and then the right eco-system outside the country to power the growth.

Iran is a disciplined population but with now ecosystem and sanctioned since 2010 has had a declining GDP.

China had the same disciplined population in the 70s it did in the 2000s. Aliens didn't land in China. But it wasn't till it opened up for foreign investment till it opened. The sanctions in 1989 were cosmetic it best. It was nothing ike what Russia is getting now.

Foreign investment in China went from $3BN in 1990 to $35BN in 5 YEARS! and $43BN after. So the innovation definitely occurred but not under duress of supreme sanctions
 
.
Just population doesn't cut it. I agree that you need the right population. But you need the right policies from the Government and then the right eco-system outside the country to power the growth.

Iran is a disciplined population but with now ecosystem and sanctioned since 2010 has had a declining GDP.

China had the same disciplined population in the 70s it did in the 2000s. Aliens didn't land in China. But it wasn't till it opened up for foreign investment till it opened. The sanctions in 1989 were cosmetic it best. It was nothing ike what Russia is getting now.

Foreign investment in China went from $3BN in 1990 to $35BN in 5 YEARS! and $43BN after. So the innovation definitely occurred but not under duress of supreme sanctions

Perhaps. But fact remains China remains America's largest threat. Russia is nobody compared to China. Not in terms of population. Not in terms of military. And certainly not in terms of industry and production.

If Westerners invest in China. I guarantee you it has nothing to do with benevolence. If Westerners invest in China to exploit cheap labor. Okay. But do not tell me it was done out of kindness of heart. Because for certain it is not.
 
.
What do you have to say about the US who invaded Afghanistan with NATO counties and the whole world's support? against people with Ak's and still lost, and again invaded Iraq with Britian, Australia, and others, compared to that Russia is fighting Ukraine which is fully backed by the EU, Britain, and the US with an unlimited supply of advanced arms and ammunition and mercenaries and volunteers from different western countries.
If Iraq or Afghanistan had such support US would have been defeated in a month or two.
Come on Thinker. Just because I said Putin took Russia down a path of accelerated decline does not mean I said the invasions were a great idea or that there is a moral high ground that US or NATO have. I didn't plan the invasions nor did i say they were about some stupid term like 'democracy'. It was neo-cons dumb idea about redrawing the map.

But since you talked about 'much support': Iraq had unparalleled support from USSR in its war with Iran. Iran was all sanctioned up and only 15% of its Tomcat fleet was operational.

Iraq lost all the way up to Mig-25s in combat. And did not win the war. They could not win air or ground war against an army that was sanctioned and you think Desert Storm against a dozen nations would have been different?

Perhaps. But fact remains China remains America's largest threat. Russia is nobody compared to China. Not in terms of population. Not in terms of military. And certainly not in terms of industry and production.

If Westerners invest in China. I guarantee you it has nothing to do with benevolence. If Westerners invest in China to exploit cheap labor. Okay. But do not tell me it was done out of kindness of heart. Because for certain it is not.
I never said that by me stating facts was indicative that China was weak or I don't like China. And I agree with you that China is a threat. Russia was not and was a 'has been'. Also, Foreign Investment volumes had nothing to do with kindness , nor did I say it. It was simple capitalism and motivation for profits. Make things cheaper. It benefited both. China would have still been a great country without but not as modernized. Western ecnonomies got mass manufacturing at scale and China took 100s of millions out of poverty.
 
.
I never said that by me stating facts was indicative that China was weak or I don't like China. And I agree with you that China is a threat. Russia was not and was a 'has been'. Also, Foreign Investment volumes had nothing to do with kindness , nor did I say it. It was simple capitalism and motivation for profits. Make things cheaper. It benefited both. China would have still been a great country without but not as modernized. Western ecnonomies got mass manufacturing at scale and China took 100s of millions out of poverty.

China is a threat. National security trumps profit. The US banned chip sale to China because China is a threat.

 
.
Ukraine had pro Russia Government, which was violently overthrown and a ultra Nationalist anti Russia movement came into existence which killed many Russians in Ukraine, even as of today people that speak Russian in Ukraine face violence. Also the regime change resulted in many Ukrainians siding with Russia like those in donbass, and Ukrainian military started a war with them, naturally Russia would back their supporters, west backed Ukranian army and ultra Nationalists and things escalated and here we are today.


I am done arguing with you, I don't mean to offend you but you have no idea about weapon upgrades, ask other more knowledgeable people here the question about weapon upgrade, they will tell you as you are not listening to me and not all ATGMs are portable single use, many are multiple use.
You can check different variants of Stinger that have been upgrades over time in this on Wikipedia.
Again, to clear misunderstanding
there are no Russians in Ukraine you mean Ukraine speaking Russian language. They are Russian settlers. Immigrants or now separatists. Ukraine and Russian are mutually understandable according to Ukraine refugees here in Germany. Before the war Ukraine is traditionally divided the western part who leans on the EU, and the East who looks at Russia.

The maidan upprising was provoked by the refusal of Yanukovych gov joining the EU. hr rejected the EU bid despite the approval of Ukraine parliament and majority of Ukraine population. Yanukovych was ousted a d fled. He was later charged by high treason because he called on Russia for invasion.
 
.
Dont just hand him theoretical 100% kill rate.

To get such teams into position, succesfully hit the target, and survive the whole encounter is no small feat.
Especially against overwhelming force with better training and intelligence.

We literally spent billions and 20 years arming and training ANA and look at their combat performance. Though the taliban were somewhat better fighters (motivation counts alot), lets not pretend they did not suffer from lack of training, doctrine, combined arms, and professionalism.
a reason they lost all military conventional encounters against coalition.

“Give those supersoldiers 1000 stingers and 3000 javelins and the USA would be beaten in 2 months!”
Well, I was trying to be generous, in reality, if we look at how Ukrainian uses their missile, the success rate is around 15-18% Bear in mind the US and EU supplied around 20000 over AT missile of all sorts which killed around 40% of Russian Armor (Which is around 1600) Then you have similar number of damage....

The thing is, Afghanistan and Iraq is NOT an ATGM country, it's wide open and hot, which mean any nation with a proper ISTAR asset would pick your team up like a hot rock in 5 minutes. There are nowhere to hide both within the geographical feature and thermos feature, Taliban having ATGM, or Stinger would have low to no effect on ISAF troop. That is something he don't know.
 
.
Again, to clear misunderstanding
there are no Russians in Ukraine you mean Ukraine speaking Russian language. They are Russian settlers. Immigrants or now separatists. Ukraine and Russian are mutually understandable according to Ukraine refugees here in Germany. Before the war Ukraine is traditionally divided the western part who leans on the EU, and the East who looks at Russia.

The maidan upprising was provoked by the refusal of Yanukovych gov joining the EU. hr rejected the EU bid despite the approval of Ukraine parliament and majority of Ukraine population. Yanukovych was ousted a d fled. He was later charged by high treason because he called on Russia for invasion.

The president has the right to not join EU. Now Ukrainians will pay with the first forever war in human history. Is it worth it? Ukraine will never join EU anyway.
 
.
I am taking nothing away from US military, they are indeed extremely well trained.
Well trained? I will give you an advice I received from a Msgt many yrs ago: In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules but by forcing him to fight under yours, and cheating is allowed.

Take range, for example...

If you have longer reach, then fight from a distance. It mean if you have better radar that can detect a longer range, then shoot first. If you can air refuel, then put your basing back further from the front line. In both situations, longer reach put you at an advantage and the enemy at a disadvantage. Longer reach or range is a rule and you just force your opponent to fight under your rule. Your ability to see far and fly far prevent the enemy from putting you under his rules.

What happened in Desert Storm, at least from an airpower perspective, was that we knew our air hardware better than the Iraqis knew theirs. Do you understand? Am not talking about knowing the technical ins-and-outs but how to use them in as many scenarios as we could dream up in peacetime, so that if the enemy air force do something maybe we have a response for that maneuver or tactic. We know what we can do better than the Iraqis know what they can do. That advantage is what truly killed the Iraqi military.

I did not say that in 1991 Iraqi Army had to be equipped with 2022 era weapons, I was saying that if Iraqi army at that time had the support like Ukraine is getting today they would have defended their land, the fact is that Iraqi army in 1991 or in 2003 had outdated Soviet weapons, in 1991 the Soviet weapons were very advanced and if Soviets had provided Iraq with those things would have been different, same with 2003.
Not really. It has been known since the Cold War that the US and allies hold the qualitative edge while the Soviets had the quantitative edge. My first jet was the F-111E at RAF Upper Heyford. The slightly more advanced F-111F was at RAF Lakenheath. During the Cold War yrs, the US had Soviet EE Adolf Tolkachev working for US. Tolkachev passed technical information on many Soviet radars and air defense systems. In every arms negotiation, the Soviets always demanded we removed the F-111s and we always refused but not knowing why they keep demanding. Then from Tolkachev, it turned out that the Soviets had no credible defense against the F-111s flying out of the UK, and the F-111 was 1960s technology.


In the early 1970s, Soviet airborne radars could not spot moving objects close to the ground, meaning they could fail to detect a terrain-hugging bomber or cruise missile. This vulnerability became a major design challenge for Tolkachev and the engineers he worked with; they were pressed to build radars that could “look down” from above and identify low-flying objects moving against the background of the earth. The United States was planning to use low-flying, penetrating bombers to attack the Soviet Union in the event of any war. Tolkachev had joined the Scientific Research Institute for Radio Engineering, later known as Phazotron, in the 1950s as it was expanding into research and development of military radars, which grew in sophistication from simple sighting devices to complex aviation and weapons-guidance systems. It was the only place he had ever worked.

The Iraqi military was Soviet equipped. Sending more weapons that are technologically beyond the rifle or the tank would not have helped the Iraqi military. We had the qualitative edge and there was only so much the Iraqi soldiers could handle from the Soviets. More hardware does not mean more troops to operate. If a squadron have 20 pilots, sending 100 jets does nothing. You cannot train a pilot in a few weeks. Once we shut down Iraqi border radars, the war was on the down slope towards the victory for US.

This discussion started when someone was mocking Russian military that they are thought to be a mighty power but they are failing in Ukraine.
Am US Air Force. At the two months mark of this war, I asked 'Where was the VKS?' Now, I say the Russian Air Force is a shiddy air force. That is not mockery but a judgement. And it is clear that without a credible air force, the Russian Army is floundering. It is as if the Russian military barely moved since Desert Storm.

 
Last edited:
.
Well, I was trying to be generous, in reality, if we look at how Ukrainian uses their missile, the success rate is around 15-18% Bear in mind the US and EU supplied around 20000 over AT missile of all sorts which killed around 40% of Russian Armor (Which is around 1600) Then you have similar number of damage....

The thing is, Afghanistan and Iraq is NOT an ATGM country, it's wide open and hot, which mean any nation with a proper ISTAR asset would pick your team up like a hot rock in 5 minutes. There are nowhere to hide both within the geographical feature and thermos feature, Taliban having ATGM, or Stinger would have low to no effect on ISAF troop. That is something he don't know.

America is not the only country that has anti tank missiles. Russia has these things too.
 
.
Lolz all that cheerleading for Ukraine and now u endup with NATO doesnt give a shit? 😂 So basically u accept what russia is saying that NATO is only using ukraine against russia. You confirm that NATO is a war mongering alliance destroying world peace. It didn't take much to make u expose ur ugly face.
Dude, if NATO really do give a shit, they would have send in a lot more than what they had sent now. Thats what I have always been saying, and many military analyst had also been saying from Day 1 and what Zelenskyy himself have been saying from Day 1.

Look at how much weapon NATO is storing at the moment? And what had been giving to Ukraine?

Germany have 100 Leopard 2 stored (Of the 290 L2 they only uses 188) and about 300 Marauder and Puma stored up, How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

UK had 60 Challenger 2 and 200 Warrior Light Tank stored up since they get rid of those territorial unit. How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

France have 180 Leclerc and 250 AMX 30 AuF 155 SPG stored. How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

US have whooping 450 M1 Abrams since the USMC given up their Armor Regiment, and 250 M270 MLRS from switching to HIMARS, and then around 700 stored M109 and the entire M198 stock (roughly 400) stored in National Guards depot gathering dust. How many of those are sending to Ukraine? None. And they had passed the 40 billion aid package, with President have the right to transfer existing stock to Ukraine, yet NONE of that are transferred.

Bulgaria have 1000 T-72/BMP1/BMP2 stored, how many of those went to Ukraine? 40 T-72....

Poland is probably the leader in this aid package, Of the 1000 T-72 Poland stored, they had transferred 242 to Ukraine.

If NATO really want Ukraine to defeat the Russian, try sending 10% of this list to Ukraine, 10% of the excess article would most likely turn the tide for Ukraine, yet, they are rather this equipment gather dust in depot than put it to Ukrainian Frontline. Don't get me started with Fighter Jet and Bomber.

Only dumbass would think NATO had done even remotely enough to try to help Ukraine.
 
.
Germany have 100 Leopard 2 stored (Of the 290 L2 they only uses 188) and about 300 Marauder and Puma stored up, How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

They are worried the tanks would be captured. These are short range weapons. Once captured, Russians would gain knowledge of its classified armor.
 
.
Escalation? What would the Russians do? Fire battleship size shells at the Ukrainians? Shoot humongous mortar rounds? Use thermobaric rockets on them? Fire Grad rockets and cluster munitions? Fire white phosphorus on them? All been done to dislodge the Ukrainians in trenches. Air burst GLMRS is the best way in response to go against dug in Russian troops in the trenches to push them back. Not to mention Russians using the new hardened small bunkers they are bringing in. Can use regular GLMRS to accurately hit and punch through those easily. We've seen them do it. Even hit deep fox holes as well.

Also not to mention what you said before where the Ukrainians have hit the Russians hard in Crimea and even on Russian soil already along with using HIMARS and M240s to hit Russian ammo depots and command and control and barracks resulting heavy casualties. So providing airburst GLMRS is like not going to push beyond that.



DmMenJOW4AY7-iM.jpg

f7ee9d62d463e611d23b758cebe94720.jpg

tos1.jpg
Well, by escalation I mean Russia started general mobilisation or started to go crazy and bomb forbidden target (like the nuke plant and civilian corridor)

NATO and the west is trying to limit the conflict to as small as possible, you can't give Russia excuse to start mobilising, Putin is afraid to take this to the next level, that's why he refused to call this war a "war" and call it "special military operation" that's because he knows if he call this a war, and then start mobilising the population for an foreign incursion, they will get rid of him quicker than getting rid of Ned Stark in Game of Throne.......But if US start supplying shotgun munition or airburst munition, and starting wholesale slaughter of Russian soldier. This is going to swing the Russian in Putin Favor and that give him the legitimacy to expand the war.

That's the Balance of NATO, they can't be humiliating Russia that much like Marcon said (I did not agree with him with most of the issue but this one I agree with him) You need to humiliate Putin, yes, but if you go too far, that will rile up the Russian population.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom