Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

GlastonSpur

Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
17,716
Supports
Spurs
It has English subtitles and sets out to explains why - amongst the elite of powerful people in Russia - Putin is now seen as their biggest problem.

 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
At the beginning you have that main Russian propaganda show saying they’re coming for the territory they lost when the USSR collapsed, that they’re coming for half of Poland and all the Baltic states.

They claim North Korea is “sovereign” because they have nuclear weapons and Poland isn’t, so this seems to be what Putin meant by “sovereignty” in his speech the other day.

As if Poland couldn’t make a nuke if they needed to.

 

Water Melon

Guest
Taking into account the huge superiority of the rushist regime in terms of weapons and troops, they have had very little gains thus far. Once the lend-lease starts coming into play properly, things will get much worse for them.
 

frostbite

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,268
Well, we've been hearing that for months. Not that I don't believe it, but it hasn't quite translated yet to many Ukrainian ground victories.
We should not forget that at the start of this war Ukraine was about 1-to-10 in heavy weapons, artillery and air force. I don't know how much this has changed so far, but it is amazing that they survived at all. The Russians are carpet bombing them and they cannot answer because they don't have an air force, and they don't have long range rockets to destroy the Russian artillery.

I am worried that the West is not doing enough to help them, and the Ukrainians might be suffering heavy losses. I do not understand why the West says that Ukrainians cannot hit any targets inside Russia, while their own cities have been bombarded mercilessly for 100+ days. On 7th Dec 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and 132 days later the Americans did a suicide mission to attack Tokyo, just to show the Japanese that they own country is not safe. England also attacked German cities. I don't understand why Ukraine does not have the right to attack Russian cities, while Ukrainian cities are being decimated. I think that the major problem here is that all the Western leaders are very weak (including Biden).
 

RedDevilQuebecois

Full Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
8,157
@frostbite I fully agree with you there. Who the feck are they to tell Ukraine what to do and not what to do?

It makes no sense to anyone that the West can dare telling Ukraine to limit the war within its own borders and to not fire back at Russian-based targets. The war will not end by some politician drawing a line on a map because a limited war doesn't do any good. In itself, it's immoral for anyone to send soldiers to war unless total victory is sought. Sometimes you have to play dirty than your enemy in order to win a war; that is what Western governments often forget nowadays.
 
Last edited:

ThierryFabregas

New Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Messages
592
Supports
Arsenal
We should not forget that at the start of this war Ukraine was about 1-to-10 in heavy weapons, artillery and air force. I don't know how much this has changed so far, but it is amazing that they survived at all. The Russians are carpet bombing them and they cannot answer because they don't have an air force, and they don't have long range rockets to destroy the Russian artillery.

I am worried that the West is not doing enough to help them, and the Ukrainians might be suffering heavy losses. I do not understand why the West says that Ukrainians cannot hit any targets inside Russia, while their own cities have been bombarded mercilessly for 100+ days. On 7th Dec 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and 132 days later the Americans did a suicide mission to attack Tokyo, just to show the Japanese that they own country is not safe. England also attacked German cities. I don't understand why Ukraine does not have the right to attack Russian cities, while Ukrainian cities are being decimated. I think that the major problem here is that all the Western leaders are very weak (including Biden).
It's the concern of Nuclear escalation.
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,230
Well, we've been hearing that for months. Not that I don't believe it, but it hasn't quite translated yet to many Ukrainian ground victories.
Over these months Russia has gone from pushing on 4 or 5 different fronts to just one.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,846
Sounds like Severodonetsk is under Russian control which creates a frontline made of the river across the East now the bridges are all blown. Wonder if Russia will stop there and declare ‘success’
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,230
Poland is all in now preparing, or at least deterring, a future war with Russia.

 

maniak

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
10,028
Location
Lisboa
Supports
Arsenal
The way this is going, can Russia even afford to invade anyone else? I think Poland can relax a bit.
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
28,235
The way this is going, can Russia even afford to invade anyone else? I think Poland can relax a bit.
Maybe not immediately but these preparations will take a long time anyway. Settings things in motion right now is the correct call.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
The way this is going, can Russia even afford to invade anyone else? I think Poland can relax a bit.
Surely not until they finish with Ukraine. But if NATO isn't going to prevent that defeat through attrition, they are going to have to fight themselves.
 

GlastonSpur

Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
17,716
Supports
Spurs
Sounds like Severodonetsk is under Russian control which creates a frontline made of the river across the East now the bridges are all blown. Wonder if Russia will stop there and declare ‘success’
I don't think it is - or not yet at least. And unless Russia can take both it and Lysychansk (the town across the river) they won't be able to claim they've taken the Luhansk region, far less the whole Donbas.
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,230
The way this is going, can Russia even afford to invade anyone else? I think Poland can relax a bit.
Seems very unlikely at this point, but it seems wise to look at long term possibilities. If Russia somehow does continue steady encroachment westward, if republicans take control in US and spend 8 years finishing what Trump started breaking down NATO, if Russian funds and propaganda continues making ground in the EU, putting more hard right parties into power, etc, etc...
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,846
I don't think it is - or not yet at least. And unless Russia can take both it and Lysychansk (the town across the river) they won't be able to claim they've taken the Luhansk region, far less the whole Donbas.
I feel like Putin lives off such a web of lies and disinformation, he can just say that was the goal of Lysuchansk proves too hard to take. From reports they’re already shelling it now and no doubt he’ll happily send another 30k Russians to their deaths if he can say ‘I won’.
 

GlastonSpur

Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
17,716
Supports
Spurs
Seems very unlikely at this point, but it seems wise to look at long term possibilities. If Russia somehow does continue steady encroachment westward, if republicans take control in US and spend 8 years finishing what Trump started breaking down NATO, if Russian funds and propaganda continues making ground in the EU, putting more hard right parties into power, etc, etc...
Yep. Europe and the UK need to start preparing now on the assumption that the worst-case scenario will happen, namely that the US pulls out of NATO.

Of course, if that worst-case happens, then the next time the US wants military and/or diplomatic and/or political support and/or intelligence assistance from the UK and Europe, it will find that the sword cuts both ways.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,997
Yep. Europe and the UK need to start preparing now on the assumption that the worst-case scenario will happen, namely that the US pulls out of NATO.

Of course, if that worst-case happens, then the next time the US wants military and/or diplomatic and/or political support and/or intelligence assistance from the UK and Europe, it will find that the sword cuts both ways.
It probably won't tbf because the UK is invariably governed by little fat red faced toy soldiers who will jump on their masters' feet as soon as they're called, possibly in exchange for a crack at a truly appallingly one sided trade deal.
 

RedDevilQuebecois

Full Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
8,157
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is always here to provide daily updates.


Sums up where and what the shift is all about.
 

GlastonSpur

Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
17,716
Supports
Spurs
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is always here to provide daily updates.


Sums up where and what the shift is all about.
The only thing that doesn't add up in his thread is that he speaks of 10 active US Army Divisions, each with 3 Battalions of artillery, and each such Battalion having between 16-24 howitzers.

That makes between 48-72 howitzers per Division.

However, he then says that "To make it easy for math purposes, let's round up and say each Division has 24 howitzers ... That's a TOTAL of 240 howitzers ... in all ten of the active US Army Divisions."

But the figure of 24 howitzers per Division doesn't square with the maths, which yields (as I say above) 48-72 howitzers per Division.
 

sport2793

Full Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
3,170
Location
USA
The only thing that doesn't add up in his thread is that he speaks of 10 active US Army Divisions, each with 3 Battalions of artillery, and each such Battalion having between 16-24 howitzers.

That makes between 48-72 howitzers per Division.

However, he then says that "To make it easy for math purposes, let's round up and say each Division has 24 howitzers ... That's a TOTAL of 240 howitzers ... in all ten of the active US Army Divisions."

But the figure of 24 howitzers per Division doesn't square with the maths, which yields (as I say above) 48-72 howitzers per Division.
 

marktan

Full Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2017
Messages
6,937
I wonder if Putin will stop in the east or continue westwards to take all of Ukraine?

It's tragic what's happening but all of it is easy to forsee, and I suspect most western countries are letting it play out because whilst it does damage to Ukraine, it does damage to Russia too.

The only way for Ukraine to have a chance is if the west supplied lots of the heavy weaponry Ukraine is requesting, but they're not doing that. So month by month Ukraine will lose more territory, and the people will bleed.

I do question one thing - all the news outlets that made Russia seem weak at the start of the war. I think it did more harm than good - public pressure could've led to more support being urged for Ukraine, and now I doubt many people care enough. They forgot how long most wars take, and given the overwhelming resource advantage this war was only ever going to go one way. Sad for the Ukrainians who have to suffer through it.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
Yep. Europe and the UK need to start preparing now on the assumption that the worst-case scenario will happen, namely that the US pulls out of NATO.

Of course, if that worst-case happens, then the next time the US wants military and/or diplomatic and/or political support and/or intelligence assistance from the UK and Europe, it will find that the sword cuts both ways.
I think it would be smart to have what you need to repel Russia without the US. Our internal political are crazy right now, and we're not very interested in Europe compared to the post-war years. I think the US/UK relationship will be strong though, and Russia could never pull off a water landing anyway, so you all have little to fear.

I imagine US Intel can provide enough info to Europe to get the info they want. Not that I like those guys, but they have a lot of assets.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,997
I wonder if Putin will stop in the east or continue westwards to take all of Ukraine?

It's tragic what's happening but all of it is easy to forsee, and I suspect most western countries are letting it play out because whilst it does damage to Ukraine, it does damage to Russia too.

The only way for Ukraine to have a chance is if the west supplied lots of the heavy weaponry Ukraine is requesting, but they're not doing that. So month by month Ukraine will lose more territory, and the people will bleed.

I do question one thing - all the news outlets that made Russia seem weak at the start of the war. I think it did more harm than good - public pressure could've led to more support being urged for Ukraine, and now I doubt many people care enough. They forgot how long most wars take, and given the overwhelming resource advantage this war was only ever going to go one way. Sad for the Ukrainians who have to suffer through it.
I feel like you should read the post above yours.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,846
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is always here to provide daily updates.


Sums up where and what the shift is all about.
This is why I’m convinced NATO & Ukraine accepted long ago they couldn’t hold the East but had to bog down the Russians as long as possible to secure the rest of the country + train up their soldiers. It was never realistic to get all this NATO hardware into country, soldiers up to speed and then shipped to where it could be useful (without it getting cruise missiles on route). Get soldiers trained properly in the West, allow meaningful weapons and tech to arrive, fortify the rest of the country and buy as much time as possible - sanctions despite people wanting them to work immediately are starting to tell. Then the long long slog to reclaim the country.
 

sport2793

Full Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
3,170
Location
USA
Yep. Europe and the UK need to start preparing now on the assumption that the worst-case scenario will happen, namely that the US pulls out of NATO.

Of course, if that worst-case happens, then the next time the US wants military and/or diplomatic and/or political support and/or intelligence assistance from the UK and Europe, it will find that the sword cuts both ways.
Unfortunately, the GQP could do a lot of damage if Trump gets back into power and so Europe definitely should ensure they have contingencies. Hopefully the Jan 6th committee and the DOJ feel confident in the evidence to criminally indict Trump, apart from that it's not currently promising.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
13,188
Location
Stamford Bridge
Supports
Chelsea
Hopefully the Jan 6th committee and the DOJ feel confident in the evidence to criminally indict Trump, apart from that it's not currently promising.
I think the chances of them actually criminally charging a former president are close to zero.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,846
What? When? If anything, Russian military capability was largely overestimated at the start of the war.
Assume poster means Ukraine? As you say, if anything we were completely mislead on Russian military strength, their reputation is in tatters.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,339
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
What? When? If anything, Russian military capability was largely overestimated at the start of the war.
Maybe just after the start of the war? Russia's military and its operations have constantly been described as a bumbling mess from within days after the invasion had begun, and that continues today. There also continues to be a lot of emphasis on any Ukrainians wins and relatively little on Russia's slow progress. So for a lot of people (occasional followers and people that just read this thread's or news headlines), it may well seem like Russia is basically hopeless at war, that Ukraine is doing fairly OK in holding them back - and that there is hence less need to support Ukraine.

I can see merit in that idea.
 

Organic Potatoes

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
17,165
Location
85R723R2+R6
Supports
Colorado Rapids
This is why I’m convinced NATO & Ukraine accepted long ago they couldn’t hold the East but had to bog down the Russians as long as possible to secure the rest of the country + train up their soldiers. It was never realistic to get all this NATO hardware into country, soldiers up to speed and then shipped to where it could be useful (without it getting cruise missiles on route). Get soldiers trained properly in the West, allow meaningful weapons and tech to arrive, fortify the rest of the country and buy as much time as possible - sanctions despite people wanting them to work immediately are starting to tell. Then the long long slog to reclaim the country.
Yeah, and like he touched on in that Twitter thread above it’s not just about giving them weapons. It often takes longer to train support personnel like electronics technicians and mechanics than the guy actually pulling the trigger.

And we talk about all these weaponry acronyms, but sometimes what they really shortest on is just trucks.