Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

Jagdflieger

Contributor
Messages
496
Reactions
282
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
Germany
what is this love relationship between Austria and Russia ?, one of the biggest Russian supporter on Twitter is an Austrian (Geroman)
Aside from historic connections and mutual enemies of the past, it is rising nationalism since the last 2 -3 decades.

Just look at any Western countries nationalistic groups (not necessarily Neo-Nazis as always propagated by the liberal press) just nationalists with a strong backing in Austria - they all are kind off aligned with each others agenda - the UK Brexit move was purely nationalistic driven, and Putin is a nationalist through and through. So is China's Xi and India's Modi IMO.

There are presently Western democracies contra authoritarian regimes - and within the Western-democracies there are two major factions - the liberals in favor of globalization and thus integration of foreigners (multi-cultural society) - and the nationalistic groups who are in total defiance of this.

It was obvious that during Dumb Trump's tenure - the relationship between the USA and Russia was better then ever. So with N-Korea, the UK and even with China.
Dumb Trump never really condemned the Chinese political system - he simply wanted equal terms in regards to economic issues with China in order to pacify his nationalistic voters political agenda (make US strong again). Later after his trade war didn't bring the results he wanted he brought up this China want's to conquer rule the world etc. etc. - simply forwarding statements that appease nationalists and frighten liberals.
 
Last edited:

Mailman

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
183
Nation of residence
Estonia
Nation of origin
Estonia
A RUSI report about how could U. win this war.

Ukraine has the will to achieve the operational defeat of the Russian military. At present, however, several Russian advantages and Ukrainian weaknesses are leading to an attritional conflict that risks a protracted war, eventually favouring Russia.

  • Russian electronic warfare (EW) is denying Ukraine a sufficiently fast kill chain to destroy Russia’s artillery.
  • Russian artillery is fixing the Ukrainian military and preventing the Ukrainians from concentrating to undertake offensive manoeuvre.
  • Russian cruise missiles are imposing a high economic and political cost on Ukraine.
  • A shortage of skilled infantry and armoured operators is limiting Ukraine’s offensive combat power.
  • Limited staff capacity is limiting Ukraine’s ability to plan and execute combined operations at scale.
Ukraine’s international partners have the ability to reverse these dynamics to enable Ukraine to retake its lost territory. This cannot be achieved through the piecemeal delivery of a large number of different fleets of equipment, each with separate training, maintenance and logistical needs. Instead, Ukraine’s partners should rationalise the support they provide around a small number of platforms. Ukraine’s key capability requirements are:

  • Anti-radiation seekers for loitering munitions to suppress or destroy Russian EW complexes.
  • Multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) to target and destroy Russian logistics and ammunition stockpiles to starve Russian artillery of ammunition.
  • 155-mm howitzers and ammunition to prevent Russian troop concentration and support Ukrainian troop concentrations.
  • Secure communications systems.
  • Anti-tank guided weapons and man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS).
  • Protected mobility to enable Ukrainian troops to manoeuvre under artillery threat.
  • Point defences to protect critical infrastructure.
It is also necessary for Ukraine to receive training at scale to form new units able to undertake offensive operations and to receive staff and junior leadership training to support the orchestration of combined arms offensive manoeuvre.
 

Jagdflieger

Contributor
Messages
496
Reactions
282
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
Germany
Regarding Mr. Putins IQ, I am not so impressed. He definitely manages to find original moves and surprise enemies. Most of the time. He is master in tactical level, but manages to fuck it up in strategic level. For example, he failed to push NATO back with his move against Ukraine, NATO got two new members instead, strengthening the NATO deterrance in the Baltic sea. Ukraine got also the candidate status in EU. How this can be of his best interests?
I can't read Putin's mind - but personally I think he couldn't be bothered about Finland and Sweden joining NATO, since IMO he has no ambitions towards Finland.
Same goes for the EU issue - it has no impact onto Russia if Ukraine is or is not an EU member. And especially not according to his mindset - that Russia will conquer Ukraine.
As a country leader, there have been better ones. Stalin, how bloody ruler he was, managed to make agrarian country into industrial one. Putin did not managed to raise Russia into the new economy, into digital era and has lost the half of the industrial heritage Russia got from USSR. Definitely, he managed to acquire a lot of national funds for personal use, and so did many of his friends. Shortly, some analysts claim that Putin is actually a western agent, sent to destroy Russia quickly and efficiently.
Well Stalin and communism are the primary reason as to why the Soviet-union wasn't able to catch up with the West. Putin couldn't achieve much since he had to bear the cost to recreate a totally dysfunctional Armed Forces from 2001 onward and in parallel to enact economic progress. And Putin did not loose half of Russia's industrial heritage - that was Gorbachev who's failed perestroika and glasnost caused the dissolution of the former Soviet union.
Regarding whether NATO soldiers will die for Estonia- yes. First and foremost Estonian soldiers, who are part of NATO forces. 10 000 years of such a neighborhood has provided us with quite some survival skills. We know where and how to shoot the enemy ourselves, what we need is technical support in missing critical areas mostly needed- air, sea, and long-distance artillery. As there are too many Russian soldiers, we need some sort of mass-killing weapons or robot killers, working on that. Secondly, by all means, it is cheaper for other NATO nations to take this fight abroad. It will be much more costly to stop Russia's advance on German or Italian soil, in terms of lives and infrastructure.
No - I disagree, No German, French, Italian, etc. is willing to die for the Baltic States - being aware that there is no way to support them effectively (same as Ukraine)
effectively means - more then 100,000 NATO troops plus equipment stationed permanently in the Baltic States. Remember the US/UK/Canada/Netherlands and Belgium had stationed 500,000 men plus all equipment in West-Germany - supporting almost 750,000 men in the Bundeswehr - for immediate action.
Putin makes a move, NATO makes another.
That is exactly the problem - NATO was never ready to prevent Putin making the first move. And this used to be NATO's primary objective (including the so called flexible response) meaning, the moment you try to make a move, NATO will move in first.
NATO's present setup has no practical validity towards the Baltic States. It is presently only functional as to where the strong backers are in an immediate land based vicinity. E.g. Poland or Hungary - were e.g. Germany,France and others would be actually able to lend immediate support. As such IMO, Putin would never attack Poland - he will try to frighten and blackmail them with whatever he finds feasible - but he would never militarily attack Poland.

This also what this whole 300,000 men NATO ready deployment force (just recently announced by NATO) is all about - otherwise NATO is not able militarily and politically to go into a war with Russia in regards to the Baltic States or probably even in regards to Romania.
Regarding Germany, I would not be so frustrated. Hitler got elected in 1934, already 1938 they took Chechoslovakia. Four years to build up an army, provide it with equipment able to conquer West Europe, and risking to take Moscow? I am not sure whether we want to awake this giant from sleeping.
If you believe that today's Germany has anything in common with the Germany or Germans of 1934 - then IMO you would be utterly mistaken.
EU has been a good project in this sense, suppressing all the conflicts within Europe, where people have been constantly killing each other for thousands of years. I consider this a success story despite the obvious lack of military domain.
Well actually NATO rather then the EU. The EU did not prevent issues such as Greece-Turkey or the Balkans genocidal occurrences - that was clearly NATO. The EU however certainly has/had? a significant influence in regards to European countries burying their centuries of animosities and hegemony thoughts.

And stronger getting national factions/parties in almost all European countries incl. the USA are about trying to undo just that.
 
Last edited:

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
8,351
Reactions
60 29,302
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

FXF5L2gWQAMwp0n
 

Mailman

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
183
Nation of residence
Estonia
Nation of origin
Estonia
I can't read Putin's mind - but personally I think he couldn't be bothered about Finland and Sweden joining NATO, since IMO he has no ambitions towards Finland.
Same goes for the EU issue - it has no impact onto Russia if Ukraine is or is not an EU member. And especially not according to his mindset - that Russia will conquer Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday warned Finland and Sweden that if they welcome NATO troops and military infrastructure onto their territory, Moscow will respond in kind.

PUTIN has made a chilling threat to Europe as he warned that if Sweden and Finland join NATO there will be "detrimental military and political consequences.

Russia warns Finland, Sweden against joining NATO, raises nuclear threat.

Russia war threats EXPLODE as Putin vows to battle Finland & Sweden in horror NATO warning

Russia warns of nuclear, hypersonic deployment if Sweden and Finland join NATO

Please notice, as soon as Sweden and Finland are in NATO, NATO troops and infrastructure is at the border of Russia because then they will be NATO troops, right? I cannot take these claims seriously, this is Putin trying to save his face after another major failure.

The Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014 was a direct result of the Maidan revolution, ignited by students due to Yanukovich's refusal to become a candidate member of the EU.

Well Stalin and communism are the primary reason as to why the Soviet-union wasn't able to catch up with the West.
Hereby I agree, but Stalin is not to be blamed. He was just a small side player to Lenin who managed to take over Russian Empire after it was weakened in WWI. Lenin and his party managed to disrupt the democratization process of Russia, even Estonia did not plan to break free back then. Finland did, they even send a group of students to Germany to form a military element of free Finland whilst being part of the Russian Empire. Therefore it is hard for me to believe that Russia is not interested in Finland, honestly fought and won from Sweden at the beginning of 19th century.

No - I disagree, No German, French, Italian, etc. is willing to die for the Baltic States - being aware that there is no way to support them effectively (same as Ukraine)
effectively means - more then 100,000 NATO troops plus equipment stationed permanently in the Baltic States. Remember the US/UK/Canada/Netherlands and Belgium had stationed 500,000 men plus all equipment in West-Germany - supporting almost 750,000 men in the Bundeswehr - for immediate action.
Please do not worry about that. Nobody expects Germans to dye for Estonia (although it has happened before due to extensive historical connections). Estonians should fight for their freedom, nobody else; like Latvians should fight for theirs (which is a bit more questionable indeed, again relying on historical precedents).
That is exactly the problem - NATO was never ready to prevent Putin making the first move. And this used to be NATO's primary objective (including the so called flexible response) meaning, the moment you try to make a move, NATO will move in first.
NATO is bound to protect the freedom of its members. Putin can make as many moves as he wants, he is considered to be a free man with his own responsibility for his decisions. Nobody is afraid of him, although he can make a lot of trouble and he has access to nuclear bombs. An especially big threat is Russia against smaller neighbors and closest friends (as Finns had to learn quickly). He is like a drunk neighbor, beating his wife and running around mad, demonstrating his grandfather's sword. Really bothering indeed, but nobody is going to give more shit than it is absolutely necessary.
NATO's present setup has no practical validity towards the Baltic States. It is presently only functional as to where the strong backers are in an immediate land based vicinity. E.g. Poland or Hungary - were e.g. Germany,France and others would be actually able to lend immediate support. As such IMO, Putin would never attack Poland - he will try to frighten and blackmail them with whatever he finds feasible - but he would never militarily attack Poland.

This also what this whole 300,000 men NATO ready deployment force (just recently announced by NATO) is all about - otherwise NATO is not able militarily and politically to go into a war with Russia in regards to the Baltic States or probably even in regards to Romania.
U. supposedly was ready to be occupied for three days. Let's see, how much it takes for Baltic states, considering the current situation. I really do not think it will be something easy for us and any help is welcomed, but we have been there before many-many times. Good situation awareness and the ability to deliver massive fire behind enemy lines should do the trick. Battle of Khasham Feb. 7, 2018 is a good example. 30 US Marines against 500 Wagner group members, including T72 tanks and AFV-s. The US achieved a kill ratio 0:200, this is something we need to aim for. Let him give it a try, what can I say.
If you believe that today's Germany has anything in common with the Germany or Germans of 1934 - then IMO you would be utterly mistaken.
Certainly, the situation is different, but the manpower is there, the industrial ability is in place, engineering readiness is still top-notch, and military production is steady and very functional. Even the national anthem is the same, lacking merely one part.

Saying so, being a German military person, I would be dissatisfied with the current situation, no doubt. Even our military people are feeling desperate about it. Unfortunately, freedom is not for free and next time after next time it will be their turn. Why should Russia stop its advance in Ukraine or in the Baltic states?
 
Last edited:

Jagdflieger

Contributor
Messages
496
Reactions
282
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
Germany
Please notice, as soon as Sweden and Finland are in NATO, NATO troops and infrastructure is at the border of Russia because then they will be NATO troops, right? I cannot take these claims seriously, this is Putin trying to save his face after another major failure.
It will take years for NATO to get established in Sweden and Finland. Till then IMO Finland and especially Sweden are capable enough to fend of an attack by Russia
And again besides the border correction around Leningrad/Petersburg - the Sovietunion never made any attempt towards Finland. As for Putin's propaganda methods/mentality, well obviously the Ukrainian's (see the 'comedians" propaganda) and Russian's are far more related then they would like to admit. :)

The Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014 was a direct result of the Maidan revolution, ignited by students due to Yanukovich's refusal to become a candidate member of the EU.
Yanukovich's fall - automatically meant a revival of Ukraine to join NATO - so Putin went in to take the Crimea and backed the "self-proclamation" of Donbass and Luhansk. I still fail to see a connection with the EU. Yanukovich's fall came due to his Putin friendly political stance and the extreme corruption in Ukraine. If the EU refusal added to this protest I wouldn't out-rule that - but as being the cause?
U. supposedly was ready to be occupied for three days.
I still don't know who brought up this 3 days, 6 days - I do not recall Putin or the Kremlin having stated such. Wasn't it rather NATO and the USA who predicted that?
Battle of Khasham Feb. 7, 2018 is a good example. 30 US Marines against 500 Wagner group members, including T72 tanks and AFV-s. The US achieved a kill ratio 0:200...
It wasn't 30 US Marines that did that, but a couple of hundred Kurd's and Iraqi militia were also involved, and the expert direction of Air Force combat controllers and others calling in air and indirect-fire support, waves of F-22 fighters, F-15E strike fighters, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, AC-130 gunships, B-52 bombers, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and heavy Marine artillery relentlessly punished the enemy force.
It is a typical US victory - via, mass air-and ground support. But are they in the Baltic States in required numbers?
Certainly, the situation is different, but the manpower is there, the industrial ability is in place, engineering readiness is still top-notch, and military production is steady and very functional. Even the national anthem is the same, lacking merely one part.
All this is meaningless in regards to getting into a war - if there is no political will and support by the population. Assume that the other NATO members would help Germany in regards to defending German territory - then what is to stop the Bundeswehr from going in on their own to fight for Ukraine? This would not be a declaration of war by NATO - simply Germany stating to Putin - we are coming in to defend freedom and democracy in Ukraine. So why is it not happening?
Why should Russia stop its advance in Ukraine or in the Baltic states?
Because as I already stated, the present NATO configuration is absolutley able to support an immediate neighbor due to logistics and distance.
So IMO, Putin would never attack Poland, Slovakia or Hungary.
But i do not see a feasible logistic route to the Baltic's - even Romania I would have certain doubts, unless they would be able to hold on for some month.

But okay, let's see how the Ukraine manages to get on in the next 4-5 weeks.
 

B.t.N

Committed member
Messages
280
Reactions
299
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

A new era of hyper warfare?​

TIM ROBINSON FRAeS previews the upcoming RAF Global Air and Space Chiefs Conference (GASCC), set to take place in London on the 13-14 July at the IET in London…

Lessons from Ukraine​

What can 'Juice' and his fellow pilots teach the world's air forces? (Ukrainian Air Force)

Undoubtedly a major talking point at GASCC this year will be the Ukraine war and its lessons for air, space and multidomain professionals. The war has overturned many analysts’ expectations – and it incredible to think that some four months on, the Ukrainian Air Force still remains in the fight against a far larger opponent. Key questions then will be does Kyiv’s use of armed consumer drones, distributed anti-tank teams, Turkish TB2s and commercial Starlink broadband communications represent a glimpse of a new type of warfare, where smaller countries can resist larger opponents, by clever use of multidomain operations? Or is this a historical one-off, against an opponent with a large, but hollowed-out military that is fighting a 1970s-style war and an air force unable to mount complex operations? Are the iconic Turkish TB2 drones that wreaked havoc on advancing Russian forces a future vision of low-cost SEAD/DEAD, or a one-off gimmick that merely exploited poor readiness and tactics of Russian SAM operators in the early stages of the campaign?

Furthermore, now that the West and NATO are effectively in a proxy war with Moscow – how far will this support and assistance go? Is there, in fact any difference between NATO nations supplying heavy artillery and advanced long-range rocket systems, and say F-16s, F-18s or surplus Eurofighters? And finally, are the West’s stockpiles of precision munitions and missiles enough for a full-scale peer-on-peer conflict – or, like the Russian AF, would NATO air forces have to revert to dumb bombs in a protracted conflict? Though the war in Ukraine is not yet over, it is likely that air and space professionals will be studying this for decades…”

 

Mailman

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
183
Nation of residence
Estonia
Nation of origin
Estonia
It will take years for NATO to get established in Sweden and Finland. Till then IMO Finland and especially Sweden are capable enough to fend of an attack by Russia
Well, experienced militants should know this. There is no such thing as NATO forces, but member states dedicating their military units to a common cause. But hey, if one likes to think about NATO having its own independent agenda and getting somehow mysteriously funded in order to dominate over small and vulnerable Russia- be my guest.
Yanukovich's fall - automatically meant a revival of Ukraine to join NATO - so Putin went in to take the Crimea and backed the "self-proclamation" of Donbass and Luhansk. I still fail to see a connection with the EU. Yanukovich's fall came due to his Putin friendly political stance and the extreme corruption in Ukraine. If the EU refusal added to this protest I wouldn't out-rule that - but as being the cause?
Hereby I must say I have no clue what this little guy hiding in the bunker has taken for the truth. Let it be.
I still don't know who brought up this 3 days, 6 days - I do not recall Putin or the Kremlin having stated such. Wasn't it rather NATO and the USA who predicted that?

It wasn't 30 US Marines that did that, but a couple of hundred Kurd's and Iraqi militia were also involved, and the expert direction of Air Force combat controllers and others calling in air and indirect-fire support, waves of F-22 fighters, F-15E strike fighters, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, AC-130 gunships, B-52 bombers, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and heavy Marine artillery relentlessly punished the enemy force.
It is a typical US victory - via, mass air-and ground support. But are they in the Baltic States in required numbers?

All this is meaningless in regards to getting into a war - if there is no political will and support by the population. Assume that the other NATO members would help Germany in regards to defending German territory - then what is to stop the Bundeswehr from going in on their own to fight for Ukraine? This would not be a declaration of war by NATO - simply Germany stating to Putin - we are coming in to defend freedom and democracy in Ukraine. So why is it not happening?
Indeed, why. I will try now my best shot, OK?

You know, the world works differently these days. I would agree with you if we would live in the medieval age. Lets assume, there is one village, 20 serfs, giving the landlord 20 golden pieces per year. The landlord is protecting them in return. If the landlord wants to get 4o golden pieces per year, he has to conquer another village, protected by another landlord. So these two landlords will battle and whoever wins, gets extra 20 pieces of gold per year. Agreed?

Meanwhile, the industrial revolution happened. Now the main profit comes from factory, which is provided with equipment and a skilled workforce. It is much more challenging due to logistics and tech challenges, but the income is 100 golden pieces per year, and if one can increase production by building more facilities, hiring more workforce etc, income would be increased to 200 per year. Notice, no need to rob neighboring landlords in order to become richer. It might be even better to cooperate with them because they have a meaningful amount of buyers (share of the market) where one could sell the products from the factory. So instead of killing each other for some extra gold one can make fruitful cooperation for the benefit of both. Perhaps resources needed for production are worth military trouble, but... killing the neighbor means the loss of connections, probable loss of market share, and nobody wants to make business with you anymore - because of some unknown and peculiar reason.

Let's move to the digital age. Agriculture is giving a living for 5% of the population, automatisation in the industry increases the profit and reduces the need for a skilled workforce probably to the same level. Most of the trade is done via the internet, thus no matter actually where one lives and where one goes. Important is what kind of added value is he going to produce and how to deliver it. Some geniuses might be able to generate billion gold pieces per year per capita like this. He can move freely and is not bounded to any territory. Resources needed are access to electricity supplies and communication lines. For example, Amazon does not own any of the items sold with help of the system, only mediation software, and still is one of the most riches companies in the world. The only matter is, which landlord is he going to pay his taxes to. This gold-collar probably decides to pay his taxes to the man who gives him the best conditions for his life and work. Yes, it is possible to force him to pay another landlord by capturing the guy, imprisoning his children, torturing him, and ruining his house. Is the guy motivated to produce billions under such circumstances? Most likely not.

Now tell me again, why Germany should conquer Ukraine, Russia, or whatever country? Does it really need more land to produce more agricultural products to live better? No, because they can engineer a lot of cars and sell them to China, and for eating he buys needed products from Ukraine, Indonesia, and Uruguay. Can Germany do it in Russia or in China? Yes, through buying land and hiring locals. Why should Germany take more responsibility by repairing the damage made during the contest, the building supporting infra (roads, electricity...), paying for the social security system, guaranteeing education, and so forth.

Indeed, if one has some thrilling ideas of owning human souls and living like a god-like creature, being remembered over the centuries, honored like a tsar or supreme leader, perhaps then its makes sense. From another angle, all those potential added-value guys from Ukraine are spread over the world, benefitting now these economies instead of Russki Mir. Believe me, those countries thank Russia and will fight hard to keep them. So again, where is the win?
 
Last edited:

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
8,351
Reactions
60 29,302
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

US President Biden has approved the shipment of 1,000 M982 Excalibur 155mm Guided Howitzer Munitions to Ukraine, worth $400 million. The Excalibur shipment is allegedly part of a $400 million aid package. As of 2020, 1 Excalibur ammunition is worth approximately 120 thousand dollars.
 

Soldier30

Contributor
Messages
1,108
Reactions
8 680
Nation of residence
Russia
Nation of origin
Russia
A strange movement of one of the tanks of the Ukrainian army was recorded in Kharkov, apparently the driver of the tank is driving in a state of intoxication.




There were shots of the destruction of another Ukrainian installation of the S-300 air defense system with the help of a machine gun, the destruction of the complex by Russian soldiers is also carried out with a shot from a machine gun




The Russian military showed captured Ukrainian equipment obtained during the battles in Ukraine for the city of Lisichansk. The video shows only part of the military equipment, since there was simply nowhere to place everything. In an attempt to get out of the encirclement, the Ukrainian army abandoned serviceable equipment in many places. The symbols of the Russian army have already been applied to some of the military equipment and it is used at the front.


 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom