Warfare Russia/Ukraine War
- Thread starter morris
- Start date
- Featured
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 7,077
- Points
- 293
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 8,779
- Points
- 284
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 8,779
- Points
- 284
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2020
- Messages
- 3,570
- Points
- 238
oops
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2016
- Messages
- 2,131
- Points
- 338
I just checked, and 1 USD = over 104 Rubles. I figure black market is way over that. Hang on to your hats, Orcs - it's only going to get worse!
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2020
- Messages
- 2,294
- Points
- 259
glad to see the Ukrainians are trying to spread a little Christmas cheer, even on the battlefield.... @0:20
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 4,454
- Points
- 384
Haven’t heard of that, possibly.
Ukraine regular units take POWs and generally treat them well. Problem with Norks is going to be the language. Also WTF are they even going to do with them as according to the Kremlin none are on the ground in or around Kursk.
What you reap is what you sow…
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 6,661
- Points
- 378
I’d guess their families are effectively hostages, so if they get captured, it’s no potato year for the family.
No sack of spuds for them. Not like generous putin.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
- Messages
- 6,080
- Points
- 258
It's unrealistic to get such a large force.
Macron visited Poland a couple of days ago and proposed Poland to deploy Polish troops in Ukraine.
He was told to GTFO in a diplomatic way.
Poland’s Donald Tusk hits brake on Ukraine peacekeeping force
French President Emmanuel Macron’s truncated visit to Warsaw follows talks in Paris between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
www.politico.eu
After donating most of its equipment to Ukraine and not having any ammunition left, the Polish Army is in no position to deploy any troops abroad. On top of that, we have a 650km border with RuZZia and Belarus and we have to defend it. Furthermore, the Polish troops would be the first ones to be deployed in the Baltics if the RuZZians attacked these countries.
Let's be realistic, we won't get such a big force and RuZZia would not agree to that anyway.
The Germans struggled with deploying one brigade in the Baltics that is a force of up to 5000 soldiers. The French won't be able to deploy a large force and the Brits won't do it either.
As a Polish analyst said, it's not just about deploying troops, but also having an infrastructure for them in Ukraine. They would need buildings to live in, garages to keep their equipment, and some infrastructure for their families as well.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2020
- Messages
- 2,294
- Points
- 259
its just words, not helpful... A lot of countries have told Ukraine a lot of things, and not always followed through in a very timely or effective manner... or at all.
it would be more helpful, if the combined might of Europe was able to manufacture for Ukraine, 100.000 artillery shells a month.
do you reckon its even possible? whats the largest army in Europe? France? second largest, Germany? whats the most those two could contribute to a peacekeeping force?
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 4,063
- Points
- 234
Well, everything is "just words" until Trump's inauguration and his unveiling his plan. Either way, he's signalled that any form of (military) separation should be done by European troops, so it's high time they started talking about it.
The means are there; it's the brains where were are lacking.
Germany's Rheinmetall alone will have produced 700,000 155 mm shells by the end of year, which apparently is more than the rest of NATO. The entire European output is supposedly in the neighbourhood of 1.1 million and planned to rise to 1.5 million in 2025. But not all of that goes to Ukraine. The majority goes to our own depleted stocks, to Israel and (money makes the world go round) the Arab monarchies.
Our priorities are all over the place. That's because some governments (like Berlin) are incapable of strategic thinking, and others (like Paris) are engaged in protectionism. London has little to contribute in terms of land warfare systems and munitions.
Poland is the only European landpower with significant means and the brains to go all-in.
I'd say it is possible, but it will be difficult to realise. It's not so much a question of ability but one of will. In most European countries, there is already a strong minority against aiding Ukraine. If that aid is to become one of putting boots on the ground, minorities could easily become majorities. I'd expect a lot of help from Poland, Britain, Sweden, Finland and possibly France, and less so from Italy and Turkey. Germany is a question mark, it all hinges on the outcome of the upcoming elections.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2016
- Messages
- 2,131
- Points
- 338
This would be just the ticket for that drone carrier boat Iran allegedly has. Now you see it... *poof!* Now you don't!
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 7,077
- Points
- 293
It's like I've heard this plan before, only then IIRC it was enlarging Forward Enhanced Presence by stationing 100,000 total in the countries bordering Russia.
100,000 isn't happening without at least 60% of them being American. European countries simply don't have the numbers to sustain it for more than a couple of months, and if they do attempt to then Putin won't have to invade, just wait a year or two before our armies have dissolved themselves due to lack of funding, recruitment and political will.
Keeping 1,600 in Afghanistan for four years completely broke the Dutch armed force's back. Brand new equipment was flogged off at 10% of the price, units disbanded, the tank branch dissolved entirely and training reduced to an absolute minimum with politicians making fun of the troops for finally having achieved their goal of eternal peace through reforging swords into ploughshares. The aftermath drove a lot of experienced personnel into the private sector because they had zero perspective for a career. Many NATO members struggle to field more than 200 troops a year over a prolonged period of time for peacekeeping missions, quite a few actually a lot less than that, in the dozens at most. The British armed forces today for example exist only in name.
And all of that for a few years of low intensity counter insurgency where no one cared enough about what happened when we inevitably left to change their policy, not a slugfest with the russian artillery and human waves where the end result of going "meh, not interested in this anymore" is handing over the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria.
100,000 isn't happening without at least 60% of them being American. European countries simply don't have the numbers to sustain it for more than a couple of months, and if they do attempt to then Putin won't have to invade, just wait a year or two before our armies have dissolved themselves due to lack of funding, recruitment and political will.
Keeping 1,600 in Afghanistan for four years completely broke the Dutch armed force's back. Brand new equipment was flogged off at 10% of the price, units disbanded, the tank branch dissolved entirely and training reduced to an absolute minimum with politicians making fun of the troops for finally having achieved their goal of eternal peace through reforging swords into ploughshares. The aftermath drove a lot of experienced personnel into the private sector because they had zero perspective for a career. Many NATO members struggle to field more than 200 troops a year over a prolonged period of time for peacekeeping missions, quite a few actually a lot less than that, in the dozens at most. The British armed forces today for example exist only in name.
And all of that for a few years of low intensity counter insurgency where no one cared enough about what happened when we inevitably left to change their policy, not a slugfest with the russian artillery and human waves where the end result of going "meh, not interested in this anymore" is handing over the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria.
Last edited:
Similar threads
