Just a little nitpick: Ukraine has more long range artillery which is crucial for their success. Otherwise I fully agree.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
The big 100k milestone reached just before war hits 10 month mark. I know, it's probably just a rough estimate, evident by rounded numbers each day, but the true number must be staggering nontheless.
2 days ago also, 3k tanks lost milestone was reached.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
2 days ago also, 3k tanks lost milestone was reached.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How big is this Patriot thing? Is it going to significantly affect the situation with Russian missile strikes?
Paywalls are easy to bypass, and they're also irrelevant: the sources are anonymous, so you won't believe it. Reading the article wouldn't change anything.
It wont make a massive difference but it's another piece of the puzzel and it brings the capability of intercepting ballistic missiles like the Iskander system which the NASAMS and IRIS-T is not capable of doing.
Its very expensive ($4m per missile) and requires a 100 trained soldiers to operate it. It would probably take about six patriot systems (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, Zap, Lviv, and Kherson/Mykolaev) to remove the threat of Russian missiles. They are highly effective though, which when combined with Ukrainian conventional means of shooting down missiles and drones, would probably neutralize the Russian missile threat.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I have said this before. Tanks and planes would be nice in the long term. But for the short and medium terms, supplying more (a lot more) artillery systems and ammunition would be far better and more effective for the UAF on the battle field.
The worrying thing is that the NATO countries don't have or produce them enough at this moment.
It is great if you are rich and have a lot of them protecting your skies.
One or two would not make much of difference in term of overall missile defending. But the country obviously needs every single piece of equipment to make a little bit safer for them.
I think this is what is mostly needed now, Russia has adapted to the threat from gmlrs munitions by moving their supply depots further back. Longer range precision strike capabilities would stretch their supply lines even further which in turn would make their frontlines even more vulnerable.
This is fantastic work by the NY Times, they have been able to link the killings of civilians in Bucha to the 234th guards parachute regiment from Pskov and they are able to show that the killings where sanctioned by their commanding officer.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bobo and Rapey McForehead not impressed with Zelenskyy's speech last night
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He evolving into Baron Afanas right before our eyes now.
The Russian have nukes and the goal for the US is to turn this war into something similar as the Soviet Afghan war(Bleed the Russians dry over time).
As someone who listened to the Tageschau podcast for years when studying, this staggers me:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It is a highly capable system, but just one will not make a huge difference. It's not even that big of a symbolic decision as Ukraine already got several modern Western air defense systems. But it is of course helpful and shows that the US is slowly willing to increase Ukrainian capabilities
Wankers
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
According to a former major who spoke on CNN, the West (or whoever they are) is concerned that Patriot missiles may chase or strike aircraft over Russian territory and that things may get escalated and nasty.
Giving one probably wouldn't constitute much of a threat or difference, but if we start seeing a lot more of them in Ukraine, I think that will show that the West considers hitting (military) targets on Russian soil to be fair game.
Giving one probably wouldn't constitute much of a threat or difference, but if we start seeing a lot more of them in Ukraine, I think that will show that the West considers hitting (military) targets on Russian soil to be fair game.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Highly unlikely given how patriots work. They would be protecting Ukrainian cities and only take out missiles that approach them.
Depends on how close to the frontline they would be deployed, it's an unlikely but possible scenario.
Well we know the West does, even the German government made such a statement after the airfield attack on Engels etc
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well, I would not rule out the UKR forces doing things that are not expected. They have done a few things of those to say the least. I say good for them if they do it.
However, the concern appeared to be legitimate for some, not only with this system but also with other long-range western systems, obviously.
I think they are starting to open up about the possibility, though not exactly backing it up with action yet.
Well, that didn't turn out THAT well in the long term, didn't it? I mean, they did bleed them dry only to fight another proxy war with them 40 years later. Plus the recoil of an attack in US soil, and another long occupation war.
For that you need THAAD and that's not going to Ukraine like ever.
Don't see how its a concern at all, they've already destroyed planes in Russian territory, among other things. Fair game.
Isn’t THAAD a kinetic, anti-missile weapon?
The radar is brutal and can guide a patriot missile (ofc not like the ones that are given to UA)
Obviously, from their own perspective, which is quite different from ours.
Not that we know more, it has to be said.
Interesting. Thanks.
Ukraine already hits military targets in Russia as well as shelling some near-border towns like Bryansk etc. What would change? And what is "nasty" exactly, it's not like Russia holds itself back on anything, nuclear strikes excluded.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date