Russian invasion of Ukraine

Elections year in a lot countries, most importantly the US.. this could be a big factor. Especially with middle east war too.

With respect that’s not what NickH said, he said that the US and Europe could not equal Russia even if they wanted to. This is patently untrue as my link shows.

Fair enough, here is a relevant oped from a couple of days ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html

Relevant? JD Vance is one of Putin's biggest cheerleaders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/22/ukraine-jd-vance-ohio-senate-timken/

That article doesn't claim he is pro putin does it?

Russia may have a lot of manpower but there are some interesting signs of armour shortages coming in. Possibly most importantly there have been many instances of large Ural trucks attempting to drop infantry off at front line positions over the last couple of weeks.

This was a job that up until recently was only attempted by APCs such as the BMP. Obviously a huge canvas sided truck without tracks lumbering towards a front line position is a very easy target for anything from small arms fire up.

Russia did have shit loads of APCs, but about half of their reported active fleet have now been destroyed.

Also seen them utilising motorbikes for infantry in the last week

.

With respect that’s not what NickH said, he said that the US and Europe could not equal Russia even if they wanted to. This is patently untrue as my link shows.

I don't see the relevance of those stats - weapons are no use if you don't have ammunition for them. The important numbers are the manufacturing capacity of artillery shells, AA missiles and glide bombs.

Shells: Russia is firing 5 times as many. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-­68778338 Even if the US and the West give all the shells they can make, Russia can get 3 times more. These are Nato numbers https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/polit­ics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us­-europe-ukraine/index.html

JD Vance makes a similar point in his NYT article. He says Ukraine wants 4m-7m shells per year. The US has recently doubled its capacity to 360k and intends to get to 1.2m by the end of 2025. I don't know whether he's used real numbers in good faith https://archive.ph/rpawV Perhaps somebody would like to check? The article is 2 days old and nobody seems to have contradicted it yet.

Glide bombs: these are a recent addition. Russia retrofits pop-out wings and GPS navigation to dumb bombs from the Cold War era. Here's a video, linked to by the FT https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/17752­26591875826115

Russia is believed to have vast stocks of the bombs, and the add-ons are cheap and easy to source. They drop about 100 glide bombs a day. Each has 500 kg - 1.5 tonnes of explosive. Enough to destroy an apartment block or a fortified position. They are dropped by planes from a distance of 60-80 km. Various Ukraine sources are saying there is virtually no defence against them. I don't know whether that's because of a shortage of AA missiles or AA systems or the long range. Probably a combo of all three. More detail in the FT https://www.ft.com/content/0d6612f2-5d59­-4ce2-bb2f-592309991430

AA missiles: Patriot missiles cost about $4m each. Ukraine doesn't have many left. According to Vance, Ukraine has asked for thousands of missiles per year. The US can make 550, or 650 if production is increased. But the US wants a large number for its own use. (The Iran attack last night may have needed 250.) Ukraine has other advanced AA systems, notably the Norwegian NASAMS, but it's safe to say that nobody has a big production line for the missiles.

Russia is using its artillery and glide bomb advantages to demolish Kharkiv, gain territory and kill Ukrainians, and there isn't much that Ukraine can do about it. That's why so many journalists are talking about a defeat. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0b­c39af9d1d15b37&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1JZAP_enG­B1035GB1035&sxsrf=ACQVn08mJaDA3lYvIHb1KS­K39UdI6oRlYg:1713121580418&q=can+ukraine­+win+the+war&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&s­a=X&ved=2ahUKEwj61Ieas8KFAxXpUkEAHQ7gAF8­Qt8YBKAF6BAgOEAQ&biw=960&bih=459&dpr=2

If anyone is curious about the history of satellite-guided bombs, the US made the first ones by adding their JDAM kit to dumb bombs in 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition#Similar_systems

The Russian kit is called UMPK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMPK_(bomb_kit)

Ukraine used the long range version of the JDAM against Russia last year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/26/a-symphony-of-bomb-blasts-one-after-another-four-ukrainian-jdams-apparently-strike-russian-positions-in-bakhmut/?sh=6a4ccae51427

F16's would help with pushing the glidebombs back from the front

The first dozen are supposed to be operational in July. But a "senior Ukrainian officer" says they're too late, because the Russians are ready to shoot them down: "often, we just don’t get the weapons systems at the time we need them. They come when they’re no longer relevant. F-16s were needed in 2023; they won’t be right for 2024. In the last few months, we started to notice missiles being fired by the Russians from Dzhankoy in northern Crimea, but without the explosive warheads. We couldn’t understand what they were doing, and then we figured it out: They’re range-finding.” The officer explained that Russia’s been calculating where best to deploy its S-400 missile and radar systems in order to maximize the area they can cover to target the F-16s, keeping them away from the front lines and Russia’s logistical hubs.

From https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-great-risk-front-line-collapse-war-russia/

Meanwhile there are a great many reports that Russia's Su 35 factory will produce 30 aircraft this year. Supposedly Mr Kim of North Korea has had a tour of the factory at Komsomolsk. I don't know whether whether this is a lie. Search on twitter for Su 35 production and you'll see it repeated many times.

It’s a repeat of appeasement. NATO, an alliance built to counter the threat from Soviet Russia, chickened out when it came to actually risking a fight with Russia. They can dress up the truth a hundred ways, saying it was prudent de-escalation or that maybe the alliance did expand too quickly or that Ukraine isn’t worth the risk of a direct conflict, but the fact remains that NATO leaders were/are afraid of Putin, just like XX century leaders were afraid of Hitler.

And the worst irony is that, if/when Ukraine folds, Russia will present a much greater threat than before: an emboldened tyrannical regime riding a populist wave, with the largest war-hardened force in the world (with recent experience fighting against NATO kit and tactics), with newly acquired natural resources (incl. the 2nd longest freshwater coastline in the world), new de facto borders with NATO (and several pro-Russian EU and Balkan countries that could conceivably legally allow Russian troops into their territory), new coastline on the Black Sea (I.e., more warm water ports), and vastly strengthened ties with the world’s factory (China).

Now wait for trump to get reelected and watch the peaceful world order fall apart.

It's madness that any civilised government is putting up with it. Nato should declare war on Russia tonight. Otherwise there's no point having Nato. Just disband it and admit that it means nothing.

Must be galling if you are Ukraine to watch a coalition of forces provide air defence and support to Israel and basically impose a no fly zone while they are left to protect there own skies from the same threat night after night

I’d personally prefer they instead announce massive investment in defence industry capability, starting pdq.

NATO has acknowledged it wouldn’t have enough shells to fight Russia or to fight China in a grinding frontal conflict like Russia-Ukraine, which is plenty enough reason to restock quickly. That’s assuming there’s no need to give millions of shells to other countries being invaded by a NATO adversary (I.e., Moldova after Ukraine, a near certainty bless ‘em; or Israel fighting Iran and friends; or Taiwan, if China starts massing invasion forces in Fujian).

Like NATO’s materiel reinforcements to Ukraine, NATO’s own 2025 and 2028 target dates for new stockpiles are already running the risk of being too little, too late. We do have F35s, MANPADs and HIMARs though.

Are you going to join up then mate?

there are some interesting signs of armour shortages

But we've been talking about this for over a year. Back then I thought we observed their imminent collapse; crates of rusty grenades, tanks from the 1940s that have been re-deployed to the battlefield. I've seen candid photos of Russian conscripts without shoes lining up to take orders from their officers, just feet bundled in rags. Despite all this I am not so sure anymore.
It makes me think of how much of a headache ISIS managed to be, taking over huge land areas despite starting out with only scattering of pick up trucks and some toy drones.

I've thought about this for ages. If my health was good I would have already volunteered in Ukraine and trained as a combat medic. I'm much too old for fighting.

I mean my question was facetious really, but sure you do you.

Ask yourself if you really think that wishing for a third world war is a sensible thing to say in any context. You might think going to be a combat medic in Ukraine is something you could do, but would you go there if it was a nuclear wasteland because as per your wishes NATO and Russia went to war? Do you think that Ukrainians want their lives to be completely decimated for the sake of this conflict? What about you? During this war that you wish for would you join up and get radiation poisoning from a tactical nuke or would you just sit here and wait for one to come to you?

I don’t fancy either of those options Pal.

I understand that your view on appeasement was probably formed by watching simplistic criticisms of Neville Chamberlain on YouTube, but honestly how can you say such an idiotic thing.

Basically all of geopolitics since the Second World War has been politicians and world leaders trying to use negotiation and appeasement to get what they want whilst avoiding a global conflict. This could be through negotiations, diplomacy or like Korea, Vietnam or Ukraine fighting proxy wars. Do you not think that trying to find a diplomatic route to stop this proxy war and return the land of Ukraine is better than saying ‘fuck it may as well start WW3’. Oh how short your memory is.

Enough of your 'pal' and your 'mate' and your patronising bullshit about youtube. By assuming that I don't understand history you reveal yourself to be too stupid to discuss your pro-Putin nonsense. Which makes complete sense. Only a numbskull wants to negotiate with him. Go back to school and pay more attention to what he does.

Pro-putin because I don’t want to start a third world war? I’m going to add myself to the long list of people I am sure have you on ignore.

Parklife?

Lol. Would rep

There's no point engaging with him, he's a troll/grade A moron. Best just putting on ignore and forgetting he exists.

A man I know knows his geopolitics. Thank you sumo!