They don't need to. As stated, they have plenty of MIRV's ICBM's and SLBM.
The US focused on bombers for the triad because they have always been far more agressive foreign policy wise.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
They don't need to. As stated, they have plenty of MIRV's ICBM's and SLBM.
The US focused on bombers for the triad because they have always been far more agressive foreign policy wise.
Notice the previous wink smiley
Nevertheless a well-thought-out reply which I mostly agree with.
Still, whatever type of increased European military spending, even a somewhat clueless one, will force Russia to do the same in respons to a renewed arms race. So basically just another tool to put more long term pressure on the Russian economy.
A pretty old skool move if you ask me.
Yeah. Even the Donbass militia seem to be using T-72B tanks. And those seem to be the worst equipped units. He also regularly misindentifies tanks. He sometimes claims T-72s are T-90s. He also identifies some T-72B3 as T-72B3Ms 2016 just because they have Relikt side skirts even when they don't have the proper armor packages in turret or the proper sight.
This is decent entertainment. I suppose. But a lot of it is BS. Like he claims Russia is using GPS and US is degrading the signal. The Russians use GLONASS. He also claims the Russians use commercial navigation units in their aircraft. While this might have been true in older Su-27 Flanker types previous to the Su-27SM2 those aircraft have been removed from service in russia some time ago and none of them are in use in this campaign. At best you might see the Russians use commercial navigation units in older aircraft like the Su-25 which they have not upgraded to Su-25SM3 status. But, once again, even if those are commercial units you can use GLONASS with those units.
The whole idea you will be able to use stealth bombers and dumb bombs to destroy targets in Russia when Russia has Kontainer, Voronezh, and Rezonans radar network covering their entire territory is kind of ludicrous to begin with. Those did not exist when B-2 was developed.
Last edited:
Yeah I largely agree with this assessment, the Russians have definitely underperformed compared to prior expectations. My post wasn't about evaluating the strength of Russia's military performance, it was about considering different ways to measure, compare, and understand losses in war. What's silly about using Oryx to determine who's winning is that is he's just measuring equipment losses, as if that's the only thing an army can lose in a war! A military can also lose bases, factories, depots, warehouses, command centers, and so on. And losing some of these things is fundamentally worse from a long-term strategic standpoint than losing 500 trucks and jeeps. A Ukrainian airbase is worth as much as those, and the Russians have knocked out multiple airbases by now. That's all I was trying to get at. It's also important to remember that my figures included reserves, so they're not all operational vehicles. The Russians have roughly 12,500 tanks in total, most are held in reserve. Same thing for the Ukrainians; they don't actually have 12,000 operational ground vehicles. It's far less than that. But I did the analysis with total figures because it's sometimes difficult to know how many operational units a military has at any given time. For example, I think the Russians claim 6,000 of their tanks are operational, other people have said it's less than that (someone check me on these figures).
I do want to say something about the naval aspect though: the fact that Ukraine's navy cannot contest Russian domination of the seas is something that has a lot of strategic value. Russian ships and subs have launched cruise missiles, conducted amphibious operations, and shelled coastal areas. And these have definitely had an effect on the war, especially around the Sea of Azov. It's all been possible because the Russians control the seas. So on this part I remain convinced: the loss of Ukraine’s navy matters much more than the loss of 500 transport vehicles. The latter is a big loss for the Russians too, especially since it's emblematic of the logistical problems they've had. But it doesn't hold a candle to losing an entire navy.
Last edited:
Why would selling weapons to Russia be any worse than west selling weapons to Saudi Arabia when they attack Yemen? US is such hypocrites and should be ignored.
If I were him I'd get a tattooist to ink my entire upperbody blue over the nazi shit.... it's that or the gulag
Deleted. Not worth my time.
Last edited:
Fair point about how the Ukrainians seem quite selective of the TB2 footage they release, with some being quite clear about the area and the target while others are way too blurry and short to prove anything
First there's no evidence Russia actually wants anything. At one point they were claiming Putin called up Xi to ask him for a shipment of MRE meals. Do leaders have time to talk about things like that? I think a squadron or two of WL-2s would make the Russian job easier, but he seems content fighting this war Soviet style, even it'll take longer.
Secondly, say if China agrees to American demands and Xi publically/privately announces that it won't sell military equipment to Putin, do you think they will stop there? They certainly won't. Next they will ask China to put pressure on Putin not to target certain bases, or use certain munitions for example. Or they'll ask China to pressure Russia to cede on some points in negotiations. The phone calls won't end. They'll use the same arguments and threats as have been with this.
The only correct position is the current one. China is neutral in this conflict, but it is none of America's business who China buys or sells things to. America will try and threaten China to either openly pick a side (Russia), or try to use China to attack Russia indirectly. This isn't colonial times anymore, and America is in no position to demand anything from China. This is a European mess America created, it's their job to clean it up.
If Biden wants Putin to do something he should pick up a phone and ask him, not beg or threaten China like a jealous ex girlfriend.
You do realise that the "20" painted was at the left side of the turret, left side of the turret of T-80BVM have 3 ERA packages to protect against RPGs while the right side of the have 2 ERA packages instead of 3
And also the quality of the image for the "supposed" 2nd tank is quite blurry and my guess is that the position of the tank is the same position as the 10th one, so i don't understand why would they captured the 2nd tank with low resolution when they have a higher resolution camera in the area
- Status