Ukraine reveals image of new cruise missile.
A lot. Some time ago Germany signed a contract with Ukraine for Ukraine to deliver cruise missiles to Germany. Germany would finance the factory. Now we see new cruise missiles going into production in Ukraine...Longer and noticeable thicker is good.
On another note: I wonder how much Europe is getting its feet with helping out Ukraine with weapons development. If Spain pulling out of purchasing the F-35 is any indication - it seems like there much be some significant movement on accelerating European military independence. Given how far behind it still is though - a battleground might be the best way to speed up the timeline.
From what I know but @AfonsoAlves probably knows better, Ukraine has now hinted at 2 missile programs (Long Neptune and Flamingo).
It remains unclear how much of those Ukraine can actually produce and whether they can be easily shot down by Russia.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg3y7m2gz0oFourteen people including three children have been killed and dozens more wounded in a heavy overnight Russian bombardment of Kyiv, Ukrainian officials say.
Tymur Tkachenko, the head of Kyiv's military administration said more than 20 locations had been hit in districts across the capital. Many of those killed were in a five-storey residential building which was reduced to rubble.
125,000 confirmed Russians killled and about 220,000 killed based on statistical estimates.
Positive, as long as they get money out of it.Pretty much everyone must know someone who is KIA, and for many it will be someone close to them. I wonder what the actual sentiment in the population is about the war.
Positive, as long as they get money out of it.
I don't like grouping whole nations / cultures for their behavior traits , but...what the feck is this medieval mentality here...I have a few Russian friends in London who came from pretty modest backgrounds, and one of them is from a village in Ryazan Oblast and he was saying that villagers hated one family there because their son died and they got a huge payout and everyone was jealous.
Boggles the mind.
I have a friend who works for a large international advisory company, and he has dealt a lot with senior people from their Russian offices (who relocated after war started). He told me he was shocked by how they treated people below them, service staff, etc.I don't like grouping whole nations / cultures for their behavior traits , but...what the feck is this medieval mentality here...
I have a friend who works for a large international advisory company, and he has dealt a lot with senior people from their Russian offices (who relocated after war started). He told me he was shocked by how they treated people below them, service staff, etc.
Just doesn't seem like a great culture, to be honest.
I don't think it's even controversial to say, that it's a hyper-masculine culture with all that entails.Don't want to feed into this too much, but Russian tourists don't exactly have a great reputation either, a lot of negative stories to be found, though, they are not alone on this, tbf.
I don't like grouping whole nations / cultures for their behavior traits , but...what the feck is this medieval mentality here...
I don't think it's even controversial to say, that it's a hyper-masculine culture with all that entails.
I have a friend who works for a large international advisory company, and he has dealt a lot with senior people from their Russian offices (who relocated after war started). He told me he was shocked by how they treated people below them, service staff, etc.
Just doesn't seem like a great culture, to be honest.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...-killed-in-russia-deployment-seoul-spy-agencySeoul's National Intelligence Service said in April "the number of war dead was at least 600. But based on updated assessments, it now estimates the figure at around 2,000," lawmaker Lee Seong-kweun told reporters after a briefing from the spy agency.
Probably not. Recruitment focuses on rural and peripheral regions, far from the big population centres. People in places like Moscow and Saint Petersburg might notice very little from the war.Pretty much everyone must know someone who is KIA, and for many it will be someone close to them. I wonder what the actual sentiment in the population is about the war.
Also, Ukraine has apparently tried its new Flamingo cruise missile on targets in the Crimea now. My Dutch newspaper didn't understand why they went there - it supposedly had a 3000km range. Maybe it was a sort of live test before attempting more ambitious targets further into Russia?
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-flamingo-missile-crimea-russia-2122562
Not quite. It’s a very complicated topic — I’d imagine that the majority would love for it to end tomorrow but the same majority doesn’t quite understand who is responsible for the war and who is the only one who is capable of ending the bloodshed literally instantaneously (by, well, stopping the invasion).Positive, as long as they get money out of it.
It’s not invisible. The war inevitably changes the environment even if the city officials try as hard as they can to mask that reality with another layer of golden paint.Probably not. Recruitment focuses on rural and peripheral regions, far from the big population centres. People in places like Moscow and Saint Petersburg might notice very little from the war.
Huh, I stand corrected.It’s not invisible. The war inevitably changes the environment even if the city officials try as hard as they can to mask that reality with another layer of golden paint.
Recruitment points at subway stations (they’ve disappeared for a while but they’re back again), a lot of army advertisements, disabled “veterans”… and people to get recruited (and killed/disfigured) from big cities as well, even if at a lesser rate. I think you’d struggle to find any Russian who wouldn’t know about anyone killed/injured in action. Even I with my limited and specific social circle know about a few people that were killed and one of my colleagues lost his leg there (he was a part of that first wave of mobilization).
The discontent isn’t strong enough to revolt and the opportunity to revolt is non-existent. I don’t think that people are happy with the war but since most of them don’t see the moral/ideological issue with it and only care about their own material wealth, they’re not willing to speak up, risking their freedom or, if they’re lucky, job/well-being after being forced abroad/getting labeled as a foreign agent.Huh, I stand corrected.
Doesn't that affect public opinion? Cause I don't suppose many people care enough about Ukraine to think this is all worth the sacrifice. Or how does that work?
(I know there won't be official polls on this of course, and I suppose people are careful with their opinions; maybe you hear enough through people to get some idea anyway?)
Questionable, Ukraine has been laying waste to AD in Crimea of late and can seemingly hit targets at will. Targets somewhat near the coast at least as the below footage appears to be from sea-launched FPV's.Crimea must be very heavily fortified with air defence, maybe they were testing how well it could evade them.
It's a tragic loss for the scientific community as well. There are not that many 70m-class radio telescopes around and now (or rather since they started using it for the military) there is one less.That RT-70 radio telescope was somewhat a symbol of Soviet power. It was a space telescope, apparently repurposed for military use. Its irreplaceable, for Russia at lest.
Yes, I learned from all the twitter bots that this is all of a sudden no longer a relevant metric now that it doesn't serve their narrative.This is very misleading, because US DoD is at a stage now where it's reshaping all of it's existing inventories and isn't pouring money into actually buys of a lot of stuff it would usually do.
It's underlying buys for stable, consistent items remain high, like PAC-3, Ships, SM-6's etc.
But it's at a phase where most of it's stuff is already in very high quantities that it doesn't need to buy more and are actually working to replace them.
For example, XM-30 is replacing M2A2 Bradleys, AMPV is replacing M113's, There's a new Abrams project rolling about for AbramsX etc. Navy isn't buying F-18's or F-35C's are they're holding out on FA(XX), Air Force isn't doing large purchases of F-15EX II because it's waiting for F-47.
So, the actual procurement budget for FY25 is 350 billion USD. More than half of that is dedicated to research, not actual buys. DoD groups both buys and research under its RDT&E budget.
So yeah, once the new platforms start to mature you're going to get a huge ramp up of purchases on actual buys and less on research.
Yes, I learned from all the twitter bots that this is all of a sudden no longer a relevant metric now that it doesn't serve their narrative.
It is relevant. But procurement is just one of many ways to spend money for the military. That context matters.Yes, I learned from all the twitter bots that this is all of a sudden no longer a relevant metric now that it doesn't serve their narrative.
I mean, the regular media do good enough reporting like the BBC, NYT, CNN, Reuters and so forth. Also the ISW.Anyone care to suggest reliable sources of what's going on in this War. Getting so many conflicting reports.
C'mon, we've heard all year about how the US is bankrolling Ukraine, US is supplying all the weapons, Ukraine would lose without US aid, US bankrolls European defence (out of generosity), Europe is nothing without the US, Europe needs to 'step up', etc. Its all trumpian/maga bollocks and always has been, but the narrative is needed to make Trump look like he has more cards that he actually does in his peace/capitulation talks, among other reasons.It is relevant. But procurement is just one of many ways to spend money for the military. That context matters.
Good luck, we're at war with the masters of the information space unfortunately!Anyone care to suggest reliable sources of what's going on in this War. Getting so many conflicting reports.
C'mon, we've heard all year about how the US is bankrolling Ukraine, US is supplying all the weapons, Ukraine would lose without US aid, US bankrolls European defence (out of generosity), Europe is nothing without the US, Europe needs to 'step up', etc. Its all trumpian/maga bollocks and always has been, but the narrative is needed to make Trump look like he has more cards that he actually does in his peace/capitulation talks, among other reasons.
Its a simple chart showing a massive increase in European weapons procurement since this all out war broke out and no increase from the US. Russia declared all out war in Europe, the shit NATO exists for, and they've not increased weapons procurement? Coupled with rising tensions from China, their Taiwan threats and everything that's been going on with Iran and in the middle east... but they've not increased weapons procurement because they are researching a new Abrams tank that's going to rendered obsolete up by a $500 drone the moment it rolls off the factory floor? Give me a fking break.
Why even mention the US part when the notable datapoint is clearly the blue line? I couldn't give a monkies about the red line tbh. Strikes me as a dishonest opinion. Post anything like this on the internet though and a bot will pop up to question it with some obscure half truths. Tis the world we live in.
I said I don't give a monkies about the red line. I've not the time to engage you in all that and you've again ignored / deflected from the actual point.Why does the US need to increase weapons procurement?
Tell me what the US doesn't have enough of at the moment.
I can tell you exactly what Europe doesn't have enough of: Fighter jets, Capital ships, MBT's, IFV's, APC's, Artillery. The procurement problem here is simple.
Now I can also tell you what USA lacks -
A new ship design to replace the ageing Arleigh Burke Hull which is at its complete limitation with Flight III.
A new ship design to replace the aged out Ticonderoga's.
A new plane design to replace F-22's and F-15C's (NGAD).
A new plane design to replace F-18's (FA-XX)
A new IFV design to replace M2A2's (XMC-30)
A new MBT design to replace M1A2's (AbramsX)
A new APC design to replace M113's (AMPV)
A new frigate to take the pressure off the large ships (Constellation)
Notice something here? It's all designs to replace what they already have.
Europe needs to buy NOW because it lacks things.
USA doesn't need to buy those things. It has 12500 Abrams, 5000 of which are in service because the other 7000 don't even have the units or divisions or brigades to actually use them. It has thousands and thousands of IFV's, APC's, HIMARS, M270's, Paladins, M1 Abrams, F16's, F15's all sitting in a warehouse in California or a desert in Nevada.
The stuff US actually needs to buy (SM-6, PAC-3, SM-3, THAAD, PrSh) has seen insane update in production rates.
What do you want the Americans to do? Buy more IFV's that'll end up sitting in storage? Buy more planes when they already are retiring the ones they already have?
Why procure more weapons when you already don't have a use for half the inventory you already have.
Sorry for replying for @AfonsoAlves but it's probably because you didn't simply post "an uncontroversial bit of data". Your contribution to this thread has been, so far, cherry-picking bits and pieces — sometimes genuine, sometimes fake, sometimes overemphasized — that fits your extremely specific narrative and trying to say that we shouldn't read all your post as a metatext and all of them should be read separately is disingenuous.I'm perplexed I posted what I'm pretty sure is an uncontroversial bit of data showing the increase in European procurement in recent years and a notable fact that European procurement has surpassed the US's for the first time in 80 years and you immediately have to try and... Defend against a simple bit of data as if its offended you or something. Why?
Yes, I learned from all the twitter bots that this is all of a sudden no longer a relevant metric now that it doesn't serve their narrative.
Now I'm just confused. Please explain how that post is not "an uncontroversial bit of data" or "illustrates a different point that you've tried to illustrate"? That post didn't say 'military spending' (as in everything), it says procurement, referring to equipment, its a specific bit of data from a valid source, also known as a fact.Sorry for replying for @AfonsoAlves but it's probably because you didn't simply post "an uncontroversial bit of data". Your contribution to this thread has been, so far, cherry-picking bits and pieces — sometimes genuine, sometimes fake, sometimes overemphasized — that fits your extremely specific narrative and trying to say that we shouldn't read all your post as a metatext and all of them should be read separately is disingenuous.
It's especially ironic that you accuse others of "serving their narrative".
Your commitment to your narrative is almost admirable but it's not really realistic almost to the point of deception. The way to fight Russian propaganda is by sticking to the facts and trying to use a more objective (a funny word, of course), factual and multi-faceted (so not one bit of data that's illustrates a different point that you've tried to illustrate) approach. Not by using Russian propaganda's own methods by promoting the opposite position — even if that position may be morally right. Let me be clear — this indecisiveness in my wording is not about whenever Ukraine is morally in the right, it absolutely is. It's about your specific position of trying to convince everyone that Ukraine is winning on and off the battlefield and Russia is crumbling which feels all so familiar to me since it's literally the same stuff that you see on the Russian (specifically on the Z-patriots, pro-invasion) side of the information war simply with the countries' names getting switched.
