Warfare Russia/Ukraine War
- Thread starter morris
- Start date
- Featured
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 9,501
- Points
- 284
Tendar, from Bluesky
US officials were furious when Ukrainian forces struck and sunk the Moskva, Russia's flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, back in April 2022."The Biden administration did not plan to allow the Ukrainians to attack the symbol of Russian power. Washington was also surprised that Kyiv had missiles."
If the Yankees had had such leadership in WWII, I think they would have told Churchill not to hunt down that Bismarck.
US officials were furious when Ukrainian forces struck and sunk the Moskva, Russia's flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, back in April 2022."The Biden administration did not plan to allow the Ukrainians to attack the symbol of Russian power. Washington was also surprised that Kyiv had missiles."
If the Yankees had had such leadership in WWII, I think they would have told Churchill not to hunt down that Bismarck.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2015
- Messages
- 32
- Points
- 98
Most likely from this NYT article:
The Secret History of America’s Involvement in the Ukraine War
This is the untold story of America’s hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia’s invading armies.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 10,365
- Points
- 328
Luckily, they don't.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2022
- Messages
- 743
- Points
- 149
Insanely good read. Thanks.
Ukrainian Abwehrschlacht: Defense in Depth in Modern Warfare
Dispatches from the Frontline and Lessons Learnedsecretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com
This only confirms further what i've read. We only see the successes not the failures of drones
While videos circulated on social media often showcase drone strikes with near-perfect accuracy, the reality is far different. In Andriy’s experience, drone strikes were only about 35% effective, and their impact depends heavily on weather, electronic warfare conditions, and the availability of experienced operators. This coincides with research by Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds at the Royal United Services Institute, who found that First Person View drones (FPVs) only hit their target 20-40% of the time
Also the story about battalion commander experimenting with elastic defense, really interesting. Assuming its true of course, we shall see.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2022
- Messages
- 596
- Points
- 228
I was under the impression that team America added terms that hadn't been a part of the deal earlier? It's not really backing out, if if they want to discuss these additional terms, is it? Also, I was under the impression that despite these additional terms, there weren't any terms about security guarantees?
Do you often write blank checks without knowing what you are getting?
The Orang Rat, again.
www.politico.eu
Trump promises ‘big, big problems’ if Zelenskyy backs out of minerals deal
U.S. president accuses Kyiv of wanting to renegotiate the proposed agreement on Ukraine’s “rare earths.”
www.politico.eu
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 9,501
- Points
- 284
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2019
- Messages
- 3,587
- Points
- 288
And Russia so far had to deliver ZERO. It even rejected the initial 30 day ceasefire and can't even stand by a much watered down agreement.
Trump already toned down on his threats against Putin.
The bad corrupt Zelensky, Russia security needs lala bla.
An attacker apparently needs no security needs how dumb can one be?
Nice commentary from an article called "There is no reason to back down one inch towards Putin"
"Germany is divided; for many, Putin is simply not the bad guy, but rather the good guy, because he's putting the heat on the Western “elites”. But they can't really put a figure on what Putin is doing for their dreary lives, it's too far away and doesn't matter. But they certainly don't trust their own people, which naturally makes them susceptible to the Kremlin's narrative."
Trump already toned down on his threats against Putin.
The bad corrupt Zelensky, Russia security needs lala bla.
An attacker apparently needs no security needs how dumb can one be?
Nice commentary from an article called "There is no reason to back down one inch towards Putin"
"Germany is divided; for many, Putin is simply not the bad guy, but rather the good guy, because he's putting the heat on the Western “elites”. But they can't really put a figure on what Putin is doing for their dreary lives, it's too far away and doesn't matter. But they certainly don't trust their own people, which naturally makes them susceptible to the Kremlin's narrative."
CNN gives airtime to Russian ultranationalist ideologue who called for genocide in Ukraine
In an interview with CNN, ultranationalist Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin praised U.S. President Donald Trump, saying he represented an ideology that "changes the balance in the world."
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2019
- Messages
- 3,587
- Points
- 288
Well the war is dynamic with many repercussions to take into account.
On day one it was survival then getting lands back then counteroffensive ..then..
But I think what can be said is that when defining a goal it should be the opposite of Putins goals.
1. Nation of Ukraine
2. Freedom of choice
3. Security
Putin can't allow these so there you have it.
Its totally diametral.
I would view these as essential.
On day one it was survival then getting lands back then counteroffensive ..then..
But I think what can be said is that when defining a goal it should be the opposite of Putins goals.
1. Nation of Ukraine
2. Freedom of choice
3. Security
Putin can't allow these so there you have it.
Its totally diametral.
I would view these as essential.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,760
- Points
- 278
Build up your weapons manufacturing and open the tap to Ukraine. There will be no threat from Russia as long as Ukraine is able to fight back, so send them those equipments as you rebuild your army. Yes, even your current frontline weapons, exchange those weapons for time as your industrial might gets its muscle back.
The peace should always be in Ukrainian terms, that means breaking Russia's will to fight.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 7,718
- Points
- 293
Anyone who thinks that drones nearly always hit their targets is an idiot. Historically dozens of artillery shells or thousands of rounds are expended per soldier, minimum. A 20-40% succes rate is still a lot more cost-effective, even against a single individual.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2022
- Messages
- 743
- Points
- 149
Yes its not black and white. Against individual soldiers correct. But im thinking about usage of drones against armored targets, and the claims that, that's all you will ever need.
For sure its an cost effective weapon, but if your anti-tank weapon is only effective 35 % of time you will need other tools at your disposal as well, thus drones are a new tool in the toolbag but not a weapon to replace everything else. (not that you claimed such)
Similar threads
