Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[blackjack]

This is bs and you know it.
If the ''West'' had actually wanted Ukraine to win this war or least make Russia leave Ukrainian territory,they had to give real weapons and long range missile systems,enough Air Defence systems Patriot/Samp-T/Iris-T, F-16 block 50+/EF T3/Rafale with all the missile etc.
So,this is not about Russia,its about the games played by the "West".
We all knew from the beginning that with the weapons provided by Ukraine's allies you cant defeat or force a ceasefire then retreat.
Russia and the US/EU played Ukraine all this time for nothing,only so many dead.

There are 4 burdens of proof that NATO still would not have the capacity to assist Ukraine which I wonder if you would have an agreement or disagreement on?

1. Poland, France and Germany have openly admitted they don't want to start a war with Russia which would nullify article 5 without the U.S. support, you can thank the clown Starmer for making Europe look weak if it was to fight a war with Russia without the U.S. backing them.

2. The VP admitted to Europe not having the industrial capability(which is true) to match Russia. The user Relic has showcased here how hard Europe is trying to supply Ukraine but besides all those contracts the contracts have proven that Europe for example can not match Russia in shell production or even proven that they can produce 100+ tanks per month. They might also be too scared to completely empty their entire tank/shell/missile inventory to Ukraine because they do not have the production capability to replace them for their own militaries.

3. They are supposedly using 700 billion euros to assist Ukraine.

But the fact the U.S. still does not want to support Ukraine despite this proposal from Europe only shows that Ukraine would still lose.

4. Blinken and other European leaders kept pushing Zelensky to lower the mobilization age to 18. Not only that, but a week ago Ukraine news sources like kyiv independent among others were talking about 1 year contracts for free college and income if 18-24 year olds were to conscript to Ukraine but nothing about benefits if they were to die. The money and equipment are not the problem it's the amount of useable bodies Ukraine have left for this war.



I dont know if you were around this thread awhile back but the US's produces like 550 PACs missiles year with hopes to raise it to 650. Not only are these missile's really expensive but most of Russia's attacks are drone strikes and they have not been proven to be effective against kinzhal or iskander missile strikes with videos that have shown them getting blown up. I dont know how many SAMP-T or Iris-T missiles there are but production and inventory wise there is absolutely no way Europe can match the U.S. in air defense missile production. Also think about it, a PACS-3 missile is like 4 million dollars and using them to shoot down 40,000 dollar long range drones is going to cost the US more than Russia.

Rafales and F-16s, the problem is Ukraine has very few air ways to operate them in(and they can get blown up, Lviv is an example of that) and you can't use these aircrafts to go land on any road because roads in eastern europe are complete shit even during the war and you need logistics and communication for fuel and ammo if roads were perfect which wouldn't be feasible to do during war. Russia still has too many Su-30s, mig-31s, Su-35s and 20 something su-57s so I wonder what Europe can even offer assuming these aircrafts don't get blown up on airways before getting a chance to combat Russian aircraft.

production rate for long range missiles like ATACMs is low and for Europe its even lower.

And Ukraine launches enough of these to make it hard for production replacement.


Russia seems to also be developing new technology which I don't know if it will reach the operation zone soon.

 

[blackjack]

 

[TR_123456]

There are 4 burdens of proof that NATO still would not have the capacity to assist Ukraine which I wonder if you would have an agreement or disagreement on?

1. Poland, France and Germany have openly admitted they don't want to start a war with Russia which would nullify article 5 without the U.S. support, you can thank the clown Starmer for making Europe look weak if it was to fight a war with Russia without the U.S. backing them.

2. The VP admitted to Europe not having the industrial capability(which is true) to match Russia. The user Relic has showcased here how hard Europe is trying to supply Ukraine but besides all those contracts the contracts have proven that Europe for example can not match Russia in shell production or even proven that they can produce 100+ tanks per month. They might also be too scared to completely empty their entire tank/shell/missile inventory to Ukraine because they do not have the production capability to replace them for their own militaries.

3. They are supposedly using 700 billion euros to assist Ukraine.
View attachment 73768
But the fact the U.S. still does not want to support Ukraine despite this proposal from Europe only shows that Ukraine would still lose.

4. Blinken and other European leaders kept pushing Zelensky to lower the mobilization age to 18. Not only that, but a week ago Ukraine news sources like kyiv independent among others were talking about 1 year contracts for free college and income if 18-24 year olds were to conscript to Ukraine but nothing about benefits if they were to die. The money and equipment are not the problem it's the amount of useable bodies Ukraine have left for this war.



I dont know if you were around this thread awhile back but the US's produces like 550 PACs missiles year with hopes to raise it to 650. Not only are these missile's really expensive but most of Russia's attacks are drone strikes and they have not been proven to be effective against kinzhal or iskander missile strikes with videos that have shown them getting blown up. I dont know how many SAMP-T or Iris-T missiles there are but production and inventory wise there is absolutely no way Europe can match the U.S. in air defense missile production. Also think about it, a PACS-3 missile is like 4 million dollars and using them to shoot down 40,000 dollar long range drones is going to cost the US more than Russia.

Rafales and F-16s, the problem is Ukraine has very few air ways to operate them in(and they can get blown up, Lviv is an example of that) and you can't use these aircrafts to go land on any road because roads in eastern europe are complete shit even during the war and you need logistics and communication for fuel and ammo if roads were perfect which wouldn't be feasible to do during war. Russia still has too many Su-30s, mig-31s, Su-35s and 20 something su-57s so I wonder what Europe can even offer assuming these aircrafts don't get blown up on airways before getting a chance to combat Russian aircraft.

production rate for long range missiles like ATACMs is low and for Europe its even lower.
View attachment 73769
And Ukraine launches enough of these to make it hard for production replacement.
View attachment 73770

Russia seems to also be developing new technology which I don't know if it will reach the operation zone soon.
View attachment 73771
View attachment 73772
View attachment 73773

Did you read post before answering this way?
I'm not talking about Europe or the US actively participating in this war.
Ukraine should have been provided with better weapons from the beginning.
''Ex military volunteers'' could have operated the western weapon systems like they did in so many wars.

Coming to your answer,


1.It has nothing to do with Starmer,Europe doesnt have the military power to fight Russia.
Only Poland can defend itself for some time,Germany cant do shit,same goes for the UK(conventional warfare).
So,even if they wanted they couldnt.

2.True.

3.The so called $billions of military help never arrived in Ukraine,probably lost underway to Ukraine.
Count all the military help by many countries @Relic mentioned on the thread and you'll see that 80% never arrived in Ukraine.
So where did it go?

4.The Airdefence for use near big cities and sensitive sites only.
Your drones can be shot down with simple land based Oerlikon/Bofor/Stamp and similar weapons,you dont need Patriots/Samp-T/IRIS-T etc.

Conclusion: If the West really wanted Ukraine to have a chance it should have provided everything Ukraine needed.
It didnt so Russia can talk the talk but remember you took help from Iran(cheap drones) because you didnt have simple cheap drones and you got help from North-Korea with 20k soldiers.
You should be more humble when boasting about the win you got,it was handed on a platter.

But you know who to fight and who not,dont you comrade?

 

[Relic]

Italy recently agreed to increase their military commitment to Ukraine in 2025 as part of a European effort to increase support in some areas and sustain it in others. That said, the Italians have kept most of their military donations quiet throughout the conflict, in similar fashion as countries such as France .

That said, through leaks and reporting we now know that Italy has sent, among other things, dozens of multiple air defense systems including SAMP/T, M109L howitzers, FH-70 howitzers, Panzerhaubitze 2000 howitzers, M113 APCs, MRAPS, Artillery shells and even Stormshadow Cruise missiles.

But we now have confirmation that the Italians are sending a new weapon system to Ukraine. B1 Centauro Light Tanks. The Italians possess 259 of the 1990 / 2000s model light tanks that serve a similar role to the French donated AMX10-RC. Italy is in the process of replacing that original fleet with a new fleet of Centauro II vehicles that have began arriving. As a result, the Italians have units of their older models to spare and are now sending them to Ukraine, where they'll likely be integrated into Ukraine's Marine Brigades alongside the French "equivalents". How many B1 Centauro's Italy is ultimately sending Ukraine remains a mystery, but speculation is that 40-50 units is likely a realistic initial commitment, with more to follow as additional Centauro II units come online in Italy.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892932429569986676

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892894947679907944

 

[blackjack]

I dont want to waste an admins time so this will be my last response regarding this subject for now and if anything new comes up later we can discuss it.

1.It has nothing to do with Starmer,Europe doesnt have the military power to fight Russia.
Only Poland can defend itself for some time,Germany cant do shit,same goes for the UK(conventional warfare).
So,even if they wanted they couldnt.

The disagreements from Poland, UK and France came after Starmer stated sending peacekeepers and wanted backing from allies all that stated no. This shows that Europe does not have the capacity to deal with Russia(I will get more with J.D. Vance statements on this later) They could have anytime come in and have helped Ukraine themselves, but it is clear this would nullify article 5 and that their assistance would not prevent the inevitable happening to Ukraine.

3) agreement there but that was the USAID shit and still they threw in billions. To be fair even you can't disagree with this, but the amount of equipment Ukraine has received rather functional or destroyed would put them as the 4th strongest army behind the US, Russia and China.

Conclusion: If the West really wanted Ukraine to have a chance it should have provided everything Ukraine needed.
It didnt so Russia can talk the talk but remember you took help from Iran(cheap drones) because you didnt have simple cheap drones and you got help from North-Korea with 20k soldiers.
You should be more humble when boasting about the win you got,it was handed on a platter.

But you know who to fight and who not,dont you comrade?

Do you actually buy the north korean story? I thought it was most people that can't tell the difference between koreans, buryats or khazaks because they look Asian? As we know the President of the U.S. calls all the shots and receives the best intelligence there is to offer in how this war is going. I am sure our guy J.D. Vance as the Vice President receives most of this information and he has served in the U.S. Marine Corps give his shared thoughts about this war.

This makes it seem no matter what amount of funding or equipment was given to Ukraine rather if it was 3 years, 2 years, 1 year ago or now it wasn't going to help them. It makes sense because no user here has ever beaten me in a competition of who destroys more equipment, manpower and logistics in a day and I would always win pulling up Tam's posts from the ukraine war thread at sino defense net forum.

Ukraine can't beat Russia in manpower, and weapons pertain to missiles, rocket launchers, ATGMs, drones, tanks, aircrafts etc etc. But you are right because he does not answer the question of what if we gave Ukraine more before would it change the tide?

Newer screenshots

The last sentence to this paragraph more aid packages to Ukraine are useless offering the same outcome of the war and by the way he is well aware of the 700 billion dollar rumor Europe is trying to push now.

Letting Ukraine into NATO would spark WW3 where the outcome is not favorable enough to appease the realities of the ground for Ukraine and maybe the rest of NATO(particularly Europe) giving them that membership.

He gives a question stating the obvious of which of the two parties in the conflict being Russia and Ukraine have the firepower and manpower advantage which is obviously Russia. Then he states what can NATO do to change the conflict meaning whatever NATO has done in the past and now has not proven to work for Ukraine. Than he states what belief does Josh have that where Ukraine is at would give them the firepower and manpower advantage to get out of the situation they are currently in for the future, which makes it seem that any aid given from NATO before to now to Ukraine would have not changed the situation where Ukraine is sitting.

Again, this is what the Vice President the right-hand man of the Commander and Chief of the U.S. is saying, and you can decide what he says is credible or not. Maybe we will hear more from him unless the pro-Ukraine squad has cried enough for him to stop tweeting.

 

[Relic]

Significant news today as multiple outlets are now reporting that the EU's previously announced new military aid package for Ukraine has now grown to approximately $21 Billion usd, after initially being reported in the $6-$10 Billion usd.

The package will continue to be negotiated during a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on Monday and is likely to be announced shortly after Germany's elections next week.

Of important note, this $21Billion usd package will come from a coalition of the willing, rather than through any official EU mechanism. It has been strategically devised in this way so that Hungary and Slovakia can not stall / veto the package. It's expected that between 21-23 (out of 27) EU countries will contribute to the package and that it will consist of (but is not limited to) the following:

- Air defense systems
- Air defense interceptors
- Cruise missiles
- F-16 ordinance and weapons
- Mirage-2000 ordinance and weapons
- 155mm howitzers
- 152mm howitzers
- 155mm artillery shells
- 152mm artillery shells
- 122mm artillery shells
- Surveillance Drones
- Kamikaze Drones
- IFVs
- APCs
- MBTs
- MRAPS
- Small Arms and Ammunition
- Training
- Cash for Ukraine's domestic defense industrial complex.

EU leaders plan €20B Ukraine aid package as Trump turns against Zelenskyy

As the U.S. turns its back, Europe is scrambling to step up.

www.politico.eu

EU prepares 20 billion euro military aid package for Ukraine - Bloomberg

Read more

newsukraine.rbc.ua

 

[blackjack]

What made these people go full doomer mode? All of them are making it sound like Ukraine never had a chance when they started the war for some reason.

 

[Iskander]

What made these people go full doomer mode? All of them are making it sound like Ukraine never had a chance when they started the war for some reason.
View attachment 73788 View attachment 73789 View attachment 73790

Fear has seized them (Europeans). They (Europeans) are afraid of Russia. It is obvious.
But who do you mean when you write «when they started the war»? Who do you mean? Who do you think started the war? Europeans? Ukrainians? Russians?

 

[TR_123456]

Do you actually buy the north korean story?

Havent seen any concrete evidence yet.

You are taking J D Vance way to serious.

You started the war and the one before(Crimea).
Never liked Navalny,he was a racist.

 

[500]

Percent of Ukrainian territories captured by Russia.

They still control much much less than they controlled in first two weeks, after coward Nazi style treacherous aggression.

Thats after losing hundreds thousands of men (over 150,000 KIA) and 20,000 vehicles (including 3,500 tanks).

 

[Soldier30]

Footage of a Russian VT-40 FPV drone, controlled via fiber optic cable, attacking a Ukrainian ground tracked drone. The video was filmed in the Donbass near the village of Belgiyka. Judging by the video, the Ukrainian tracked drone was used for transport purposes. The Ukrainian drone is motionless, perhaps the connection with it is broken or the battery is dead, it is possible that it is simply waiting for the cargo to be picked up.

 

[Soldier30]

Footage of a strike by a Russian FAB bomb with a UMPK module on a temporary deployment point for Ukrainian units located in a forest. The video was filmed near Sudzha, in the Kursk region of Russia. The bomb was dropped by a Russian Su-34 aircraft, the type of bomb is not reported. Based on the explosion and the fact that the bomb is large and clearly visible even from a distance, it can be assumed that the strike was carried out by a FAB-3000 bomb. Part of the explosion energy was absorbed by the trees.

 

[blackjack]

At this rate the U.S. might send aid to Russia next instead.

Fear has seized them (Europeans). They (Europeans) are afraid of Russia. It is obvious.
But who do you mean when you write «when they started the war»? Who do you mean? Who do you think started the war? Europeans? Ukrainians? Russians?

 

[Soldier30]

The Ukrainian army, following the Russian one, has begun to protect roads from drones. The first footage was presumably filmed in the Sumy region of Ukraine. In the video, you can see installed poles and stretched wire, it is unknown whether a net will be stretched. The first to use this type of protection were Wagner units, the use of a net complicates the work of drone operators.