Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
We can always reverse this question. Why do you ignore that many writers here tied western European or even American security to the conflict in Ukraine? Is Russia getting some more of the Donbass going to seriously weaken western Europe or US?
Your 'whataboutism' is misplaced.

As far as I can recall, there are NOT 'many writers here'--in this forum--who have expressed pro-NATO or pro-US positions on this war.
There might have been a few writers who did so. In this forum, the critics of Russia's war seem about as marginalized (at best)
as the supporters of Russia's war would be in almost all forums in the USA.

"Is Russia getting some more of the Donbass going to seriously weaken western Europe or US?"

That's disingenuous. Few Westerners care much about Donbas; most of them could not have located it on a map.
Western security concerns are about Russia's conquest of *all, or at least most*, of Ukraine.
(Russia's conquering all Ukraine may seem like a fantasy now, but it was a serious concern until recently.)
Obviously, a Russian conquest of all Ukraine would put Russian armies at the borders of NATO members.
Even a Russian conquest of all Ukraine east of the Dnieper (plus Kyiv or Odessa perhaps) could project Russian
military power significantly further westward.

If Russia and Ukraine can cut a deal whereby Russia gets some of Donbas, few Westerners will object that much,
apart from some rhetoric to reassure the Ukrainians that the West did not sell out their interests.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
I took a peek at the article. This is supposedly the guy who got captured (if this is true).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
A lieutenant general? This sounds too good to be true.

If it were true, there is the possibility the Russians would want to keep it quiet too. Unless they were really pissed off and wanted to make a point.
 
Last edited:

FriedButter

Major
Registered Member
And now for the series if it wasn't in video you could not believe this .T72B in the motorway encounter the Javelin or NLAW for that matter and it did not go well
Doesn’t the concrete seem a bit too round and unbroken if it was a full tank? It’s a top down attack but how is the concrete so perfectly encased around the turret. Wouldn’t the body of the tank make a bigger hole? Maybe the turret blew off and made a hole on the road
 

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
you mean the Britannic (Titanic's sister ship) that sank in less than 30 minutes after it got torpedoed.
Titanic took 2 hours and 40 minutes to sink, almost as long as James Cameron's 1997 movie
"the Britannic (Titanic's sister ship) that sank in less than 30 minutes after it got torpedoed."

Inaccurate. In fact, the Britannic sank after colliding with a mine (which had been laid by a U-boat).
It took about 55 minutes to sink completely.
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ukraine entered this conflict with like 2000 tanks in service. So no, more tanks would not help.
They do not have either fuel, viable supply, or air power. And what air power they did have they lost most of it in the initial days of the conflict.
Maybe he has a better idea of the actual Ukrainian losses and the numbers required to accomplish what he was suggesting?
Clarke is also kind of wrong in that the Ukrainian Army in Donbass is in a highly entrenched position close to urbanized areas. So it is not as open tank country as he claims. The problem is any reinforcements they want to bring there, or if they decide to withdraw, then they will have to go into the open and be annihilated.
I think his point was that the Ukrainians will have to try and prevent the envelopment maneuver the Russians will perform behind the entrenched positions in Donbass. Otherwise those forces will be surrounded and annihilated. The maneuver warfare part will take place outside settlements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top