Lethaface

The problem here is that there are no real post-battle reports, technical info or strategy reports.  This dance is the same one we loved through in Iraq and Afghanistan for years.  Difference now is how the war is being waged.  That is what makes this war worth monitoring.  One cannot divorce the military from politics in this fight, or any other for that matter.
Regardless, the hits just keep coming:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/israel-says-it-will-defend-itself-against-genocide-accusations-at-world-court-1.6707262

You do see your own inconsistencies, right?  You call out another poster for being reductionist and oversimplifying, yet you do exactly the same thing if it supports your own position.  This paragraph right here is such a collection of gross oversimplification and inconsistencies that is beggars imagination.
You are comparing pre-1949 war to post.  Total wars to limited military interventions.  These are no where near in the same context or even legal frameworks.  It is like you are referencing history as a large single data point instead of a vast collection of different ones.
Disproportionate civilian casualties do not automatically de-legitimize warfare.  Even the LOAC (which everyone one the pro-Israel side appears all to ready to simply ignore) allows for collateral damage.  A disproportionate number of unlawful civilian casualties - beyond military necessity or as a direct result of policies that increase human suffering or death in an enemy population can de-legitimize a party within conflict incredibly fast.  
“Hamas committed atrocity ergo we can toss out LOAC” is not only immoral it is also incredibly shortsighted - as I have pointed out on numerous occasions.  Yet some cling onto their WW2 history books like they are gospel on how wars ought to be fought.  We created the LOAC because of those wars…in spite of them.  The fire bombings, Rape of Nanjing, nuclear holocausts, Jewish holocaust and various horrors of every shape and kind.  These are why we decided what was “legitimate” in the first place after 1949.
The calculus of “this many beheaded Jewish babies equals that many Palestinian babies” is perverse.  The answer is “none of them”.  Just because Hamas went illegal does not justify in any way shape or form, Israel doing the same thing.  By this sort of logic and tossing out the rules, one could make a coherent case that 9/11 was justified on the part of Islam for all those disproportionate civilian casualties in the Gulf War.
I can only go by what I can see and right now the IDF do not look or smell righteous.  They look and smell out of control.  Which makes them morally equal to Hamas.  How is that going to make anything better?
I do agree that this entire thread is growing tiresome and we simply are not going to agree.  But let’s be frank and let me ask the real question.  How much of this is western biased and good old fashion racism against Arabs for all the trouble and pain we have gone through in that region?  We were well programmed to hate Arabs in Hollywood and not so subtle machinations of western Christianity over the last 20 years.  And now that something looking a lot like ethnic cleansing of a pseudo Arab state (or whatever) is happening people are tying narratives in knots trying to somehow justify Israel’s actions….because you are really ok with that?
 

Would you care to list those occasions? As in, when were the Palestinians offered a sovereign state with no Israeli roads bisecting their country or control over their airspace and frontiers? It'll be really hard because it never happened.
The Palestinian expectation of a state in the West Bank and Gaza is itself a massive compromise accepting a state on 22% of the land of historic Palestine. Would Israel accept Egyptian control over its borders? Nope!
It's so bizarre to me, because you have an immensely powerful country occupying and settling a neighbouring region and the reaction is that the oppressed people in that region have no acceptable political position except for submission. Oppressed people will fight back. Of anyone, Jewish people should know that people really don't like being ghettoized and oppressed.
I don't even really know what this means. Of course, some terrible things happened on October 7th. Others atrocities, such as the beheaded babies or the baby baked in an oven, are completely fictitious, just like the babies thrown out of incubators story was used to justify the first Iraq War. Meanwhile babies did actually die in incubators in the Al-Shifa hospital and no one cared. Most people killed on October 7th were likely shot, others were killed in the crossfire and others were accidentally killed by the IDF. There seems to be this fetishization of extreme violence, as if people's deaths count more if there's some element of spectacular and personal cruelty to them. I don't doubt that some people did die that way, but I also don't doubt that a far larger number of Palestinians have died in utterly unspeakable ways in the weeks that followed. 
Look, of course, there is dehumanization and demonization on both sides, but it's absolutely absurd to simply ignore that the same thing happens on the Israeli side as well. There's literally an Israeli Telegram channel of Israelis mocking Palestinian suffering and deaths. It is a political situation that breeds dehumanization of the other side.
And the scale of violence being unleashed on Gaza is simply barbaric. It is indiscriminate collective punishment.
If someone wants to transform the nuclear power with a massive conventional military lavishly subsidized by American taxpayers into a country that feels it is not acceptable to kill 11,000 children in pursuit of unclear military objectives, then be my guest. The First Oslo Accord was a mutual recognition of Israel and Palestine, so at least some Palestinians have recognized Israel's right to exist since the early 1990s. Hamas has signaled it would be willing to accept the 1967 borders, but since there have been no meaningful negotiations for decades, it's purely speculative if they would actually follow through. But again, the logic here is very odd: Israel will continue an illegal occupation and continue illegally building settlements until the Palestinians do what exactly?
Israel couldn't care less about international law. It has flagrantly committed war crime after war crime in Gaza. Al-Shifa hospital was just a vile display of deliberately destroying a medical facility to show off a room and a toilet. The destruction of an impoverished enclave's entire medical system is unjustifiable. The mass settlement of civilians on territory occupied by a military is also a war crime.
Again, there's extremism on both sides that manifests itself in horrible ways, but Israel is the overwhelming power in the conflict. That's the difference. What else but vile cruelty and dehumanization of the other could justify things like Israeli soldiers shooting a disabled Palestinian man for the crime of carrying lollipops? Reports of Israeli bulldozers burying people alive at the Kamal Adwan Hospital are simply horrifying. And the list goes on and on and on. What possible military or security goal is being served here?
Western political thinking can be extremist and people are so blinded by ideology that they can't even see it. What was the American invasion of Iraq but an extremist movement launched by fundamentalists? The Jewish fundamentalists in Netanyahu's government, like Smotrich and Ben-Givr, are no different than Islamic fundamentalists (the bad kind, the ones that buy lots of American and British weapons are fine).
Literally today, Smotrich said “To have security, we must control the territory. In order to control the territory militarily for a long time, we need a civilian presence.” They're planning to resettle Israelis in Gaza, it's like pouring fuel on the fire.

I think there are three viable options: one secular state, two fully sovereign states, or two federated states (https://www.alandforall.org/english/?d=ltr). I think any of them would be a drastic improvement on the status quo. I think the Land for All proposal is very interesting as a compromise between one secular state and two fully sovereign states.

Why not? There are 700,000 Israeli citizens living there permanently and Palestinian controlled-areas are incredibly fragmented by Israeli military control. Smotrich has been upfront about his desire to annex the West Bank. Again, 82% of the West Bank is under Israeli civil or military control. It's effectively permanent occupation.
This is remarkably similar to the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa. They are areas with limited self-governance and few features of a nation-state beyond that. Control over borders and external affairs is a basic marker of a sovereign nation-state.
Netanyahu's entire career has been predicated on the basis that security could be maintained without a political solution. Plainly, this backfired spectacularly. The problem for the Palestinians is nothing has worked. Violence didn't work, non-violence didn't work, diplomacy didn't work. For many, there is no acceptable political position for the Palestinians to hold except for submission. This is why slogans like "Free Palestine" are interpreted as threats. No one felt the same way about "Free South Africa" unless they supported apartheid. Equally, the Likud Party and Benjamin Netanyahu's son can use the phrase "From the River to the Sea" without any sanction while Israel also exercises sovereignty from the river to the sea, but no way can a Palestinian say such thing.

Look at the Palestinian Authority for example. It recognizes Israel's right to exist, rejects armed struggle and largely cooperates with the Israelis. And the situation just gets worse and worse in virtually every respect and they are actively undermined by Netanyahu's successive governments.
But the inverse is untrue? Palestinians are supposed to sit quietly and take any violence directed against them without reacting? The violence directed towards Gaza is wildly disproportionate. At last count, 316 children in Gaza have been killed for every child killed on October 7th. I've never seen anything like this. It's collective punishment of a civilian population trapped in a tiny enclave with no clear military goals, not to mention no intention of getting the Israeli hostages back alive.
Where are Israel's borders then? It controls the external borders of both the West Bank and Gaza. What other secular democracy controls neighbouring lands through military governance or blockade, settles its own citizens there (it is a war crime to settle civilian populations in areas under military occupation), controls nearly the entirety of their external affairs and subjects them to constant and demeaning military checkpoints and control over their movement?
If Israel was just a secular democracy for everyone living within its borders, then the West Bank and Gaza would be part of it and the people who live there would be citizens instead of subjects under Israeli sovereignty. It is a one-state solution that happens to be quite miserable for about 5.5 million of its inhabitants.
I'd be pretty pissed too if someone stole my land and pushed me off it, but what evidence is there that he Palestinians were particularly violent towards Israel in the 1950s for instance? There may have been some armed groups, but the PLO isn't founded until 1964. There are no meaningful attacks on Israel during this time. Why isn't Israel depicted and antagonistic and violent when it joined France and Britain to attack the nationalist government of Egypt in 1956 following the nationalization of the Suez Canal (a perfectly reasonable thing to belong to the people of Egypt)? 
What state in Gaza? What state has its borders entirely controlled by another country? How do you have a successful state in that context? Gaza was not an attempt at statehood. Israel essentially just thought they could wall off the enclave in perpetuity and nothing bad would happen. 
Did they? Are you confusing the pre-Israel Palestinian Muslim majority with Europeans? What pogroms were there in Ottoman Palestine? There's a reason why Zionism is initially a European movement, namely European anti-Semitism. Again, this is not to say there was no discrimination or violence against Jews in the Arab world or the Ottoman Empire (Jews both sought refuge in the Muslim world and were expelled from other parts of it depending on the time and place), but from all accounts Palestine was a religiously tolerant part of the Ottoman Empire.
Palestinians opposed the Zionist movement because it aimed to create a state at their expense and pushed most of them off the land where they had lived for centuries, often with Jewish and Christian neighbours. During the Arab Revolt of the late 1930s, about 500 Jews were killed in Palestine with about ten times the number of Palestinian Arabs being killed. Both Palestinians and Jews conducted massacres of civilians, but there is no attempted genocide of any sort on either side. The British were by far the most violent force in Palestine at the time. Israel is ethnically cleansed of the majority of its Arab population, but again, there is no intention to kill them all.
In the current context, the Christian minority in the West Bank and Gaza is also accepted as an integral part of Palestinian society. The only people persecuting Christians are the IDF, such as when they killed an elderly woman and her daughter when they were trying to use the toilet and shot seven more people sheltering in a Gazan Church on December 16.
There's this bizarre sense that the Palestinians are inherently anti-Semitic and care about nothing else, so that if the country subjecting them to military occupation or blockade was Christian or Muslim, they would be content to just continue being oppressed. Would they cheer if Christians bulldozed their olive groves and destroyed their communities? Of course not. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto didn't hate and resist the Germans because they were German, it was because the Germans were trying to kill them all.
The King of Jordan was assassinated in 1951, decades before most Palestinians were even born. No one ascribes collective responsibility to the Israelis for someone like Baruch Goldstein. The Palestinians I have met are just like anyone else I've met. They're just normal people who want to live a normal life. Why not associate the Palestinians with someone like Edward Said, one of the finest literary critics and essayists of the 20th century? Usually because one person doesn't adequately represent millions of people.
Both Palestinians and Israelis have committed horrible acts, but the overwhelming balance of power tilts in Israel's favour. It's a bizarre logic at play for the Palestinians, unless you meet some unspecified expectations, we'll keep occupying you and expanding settlements on your land. But even if you do hold up your end of the bargain, the same thing will happen anyways! 
They did? There are 2.1 million Palestinians in Jordan as one example. The Palestinians have enjoyed varying levels of support from Arab countries, and sometimes have simply been ignored, exploited for political gain, or forgotten. While some groups of Palestinians, namely the PLO, have been expelled from Arab countries, there's been no wholesale expulsion of them as being some sort of inherently violent barbarians. Again, they're normal people who want to live normal lives with the understandable desire to have a sovereign state instead of a permanent occupation.

What?! A cursory review of modern urban battles shows nowhere near the numbers you are tossing around:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mosul_(2016–2017)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Fallujah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994–1995)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Huế
At 1:5 Gaza is running a far more indiscriminate operation than any of these fights (the freakin Battle of Hue no less).
Hell, horror shows like Stalingrad were not anywhere near the ratios you are tossing around:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad. That is approx 40k civilian dead to nearly 2 million military dead.
Leningrad - a hellish siege of a city filled with civilians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad
The German Army waged that one at about 3:1 and if you count the Russian combatants it goes to nearly 1:1
In fact the only modern battle that comes close to the IDF ratios is this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
Which puts them in the same camp as the Russian Army - world renown for waging humanitarian warfare.
For a western modern military a 1:5 ratio of combatant to civilian deaths is an unmitigated disaster!
You have got one thing right…this will serve as a “role model” in the history books.  Right along side the Fall of Carthage.

There isn't really another parallel to the West Bank. Is there another region that is being actively colonized by an occupying power? Maybe Western Sahara? The US never attempted to settle its citizens en masse in the countries it invaded. What country is the West Bank part of exactly then? It's not Palestine. Israel has unilaterally adopted a one-state solution that is extremely unjust for about 5.5 million of its inhabitants. The West Bank and Gaza lack many features of a sovereign country and those aspects are unilaterally exercised by Israel. If Gaza was part of a sovereign state, the Israeli blockade of the enclave would be considered a clear act of war.
Bezalel Smotrich has been quite open about his intention to formally annex the West Bank as well. Netanyahu has never wanted peace or a two-state solution and just boasted about being proud of obstructing that option. The considerable and continuing expansion of settlements and Israeli control of the West Bank has seriously undermined any prospect of a viable nation existing there.
Has Hamas wanted peace? It's hard to say. They have indicated a willingness to accept the 1967 borders and expressed interest in forming a unity government with Fatah. Would they have actually followed through if they were included in negotiations? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. There is a tendency to cast Hamas as some sort of nihilistic, Salafist movement like ISIS, but it is a nationalist movement with clear political goals dedicated to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state. 
Fatah has largely kept up their end of the bargain and what happened? Things just got worse and worse. Violent and non-violent means didn't do a thing to improve the situation.
I have found Tareq Baconi to be the most insightful writer on the history of Hamas:  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-tareq-baconi.html
Why is the same right not afforded to Palestinians and why is there an assumption that the safety of Jewish Israelis is predicated on the oppression of Palestinians? Israel should have a vested interest in ensuring Palestinians have access to a prosperous and free future. Instead, Netanyahu's successive governments have deliberately undermined the Palestinian Authority in part by supporting Hamas to divide and delegitimize the Palestinians and effectively pursued a policy of economic de-development in Gaza and in the West Bank to a lesser extent. You have what is essentially a giant open air prison with virtually no economic opportunity and people act surprised when something bad happens (leaving aside the abundantly clear evidence that Hamas was preparing for an attack that was ignored by flagrantly incompetent intelligence officers). It was never sustainable.
Again, Israel is a state to promote the interests of a particular ethno-religious group with many institutions of a secular democracy within its 1967 borders. I think raises two questions: is this a worthwhile trade-off when compared to a secular democracy for all its citizens within the area where it exercises sovereignty? Even if the answer is yes, to me this is a question worth asking and answering honestly. And, could its political structure be arranged in a way that maintains the character of a Jewish state within the 1967 borders and provides for a dramatically better life for the Palestinians? Here, the answer is unquestionably yes.
Are there other countries that exercise sovereignty over neighbouring regions through permanent military occupation coupled with the mass settlement of civilians or through a blockade? That's the difference. The West Bank and Gaza are de-facto part of Israel. 82% of the West Bank is under some form of Israeli control with some limited self-governance in the other 18%. How is that not effectively part of Israel?
What exactly was the Palestinian "war of extermination" against the Jews in 1948? They barely had any sort of organized paramilitary force and really only the Jordanians had any sort of remotely competent military among the Arab countries. The disorganized Arab armies did attempt to stop the establishment of the State of Israel, but it was not a Palestinian-led war. With British support to varying degrees, the Israelis were better equipped (still scrappy by today's standards), better led and better organized force than the Arab armies (largely belonging to newly established countries), which is why they won.
The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state happened and it's not going to be reversed. Israel has arguably not faced an existential threat since the early 1970s, although its nuclear status would have likely protected it against any truly existential threat during the Yom Kippur War. It's a nuclear power with a massive conventional military. It will keep existing and doing whatever its current corrupt leadership wants to do in the West Bank and Gaza, but this approach never really worked except for settlers and opportunistic right-wing politicians, and it backfired spectacularly on October 7th.
It boggles my mind that Netanyahu and Smotrich, who supported Hamas as a means of dividing and discrediting the Palestinians, are still in office and trusted to make decisions. Netanyahu is obviously prolonging the war to save his own skin, which is quite possibly the most vile display of self-interest I have ever seen.
The difference is that the Palestinians still live on that land. They were just pushed into a tiny corner of it in Gaza and to a lesser extent in the West Bank, along with the Palestinians who live in Israel proper. Israel is obviously willing to spend tens upon tens of billions of dollars destroying Gaza, an enclave with a GDP per capita that is approximately 60 times lower than Israel. The key problem is that there has never been any meaningful negotiation on the subject and sometimes situations without precedent will require solutions without precedent. Certainly it would be a lot better if Israel had helped Palestinians become a prosperous nation. People with a viable future and a job don't tend to resort to terrorism. This to me is the fundamental problem, as Israeli politics have shifted further and further to the right, it has largely lost the ability to imagine or articulate anything beyond a worsened status quo.
Sort of. Israel extended the right to vote to Arabs living in the pre-1967 borders in the first elections, but they were under martial law until 1966 and did not enjoy the same rights to land ownership as Israeli Jews (and still don't). Again, no contention that non-Jewish citizens of Israel within its 1967 borders do enjoy comparable rights in theory to Jewish citizens of Israel, although informal and formal forms of discrimination and segregation are widespread. My point is that Palestinians under Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza lack any such rights and live in a sort of perpetual limbo with little hope for the future. 
It's obviously an imperfect example, but at least Canada has begun to accept that it was founded on the dispossession and attempted destruction of its First Nations. For the most part, Israel society has done no such thing and in fact goes so far to actively penalize any memorialization of the Nakba. Some supporters of Israel even claim that the Palestinians don't even exist. It's an especially strange belief when you consider that Jews under Ottoman rule for example were Palestinians, as well as being Ottomans. Nations are imagined communities, time to get to imagining them differently.

That is my sense as well.  It is not carpet bombing but the effect is the same.  A strategy could be to do so much infra damage as to make the area effectively uninhabitable.  The cost of reconstruction for these urban areas is going to be enormous and Israel is definitely not going to do it. 
The psychology of suicide actions is fascinating, and I believe entirely human.  There are arguments that whales and some other species do it but  these look more accidental than deliberate (post here please if you know of an example in the animal world).  Suicide is of course an extreme irrationality when done outside of mental health or dilemma crisis (eg people who jump from burning buildings).  Suicide bombers have no possible way of benefiting from the action or even knowing if it really is going to be successful.  What they do have is fiction frameworks.  Humans can make stuff up and believe it so hard that we are able to effectively “remember the future”.  So a suicide bomber believes in an afterlife or believes that it will somehow achieve something from which they will benefit.  Failing that they believe that who they leave behind will benefit.
Now for an individual or small groups these actions are still manageable.  But for an entire state to effectively commit suicide is rare.  A lot of states will do “hopeless” or “slightly less than zero chances” because we can convince ourselves of things through a drug called “hope”.  But what is happening in reaction to Oct 7th was almost a certainty,  Hamas knew they and Gaza itself was dead once they attacked.  But they were willing to believe so hard, hate so hard that somehow this action would make things better…even if they would never see it.  You cannot really negotiate with that.  
Israel has taken the gloves off and this looks more like a ghetto cleaning everyday.  As I said wars come in arguably 5 basic strategies: intimidation, subversion, annihilation, exhaustion and extermination.  That last one is a blast from the past - Genghis type stuff.  Without being inside the IDF command loop and seeing what the plan actually is, it is very hard to make a full determination.  But the results do point to an ethnic cleaning or at least give rise to it being a possibility.  Next question will be whether it was deliberate or simply was self-defence that “got out of hand”?
Either way, Israel’s high ground is slipping away as we watch Palestinian children being killed daily.  I honestly don’t think they care about “narratives” at this point but they do need to start thinking about how they plan to live in this world afterwards.  Right now they are making Assad look rational, which is pretty nuts.

"So, this is a disaster... there very big chances we are witnesses of final days or even hours of Zelenskiy regime, because I can't undertsand how any country can survive  under such heavy pressure".
ROFL. Author  of this video is obviuos vatnik. 

14th separate UAV regiment destroyed for several days already fifth Russian "Buk" system.
This one was destroyed on the waste heap of "Kuibyshevskaya" coal mine on westerm outskirt of Donetsk.
 

It could be meaningful though, as part of trend analysis.
Is the proportion of US (and Western generally) parts increasing or decreasing? Based on this graphic; no idea. But that would be interesting to know, no?
Over what period were these parts counted - is it across the whole war, or just Feb and Mar 2022, or Nov and Dec 2023? Based on this graphic; no idea. But that would be interesting to know, no?
What is the total number of drones that these parts were counted from, and do we know the types/models of drones? If we know the types, was interpolation used to derive the counts (ie, "we never found the hyperdrive coupler from the Khinzal Mk.IIa that landed on Odessa at 2359hrs on the 29th of Feb, but we know those drones always have one and that bit comes from China, so we counted one to them."), or did they literally only count the parts they could find and which had explicit 'Made With Pride in [country]' marks stamped into them? Based on this graphic; no idea. But that would be interesting to know, no?
We know (or at least "know") what goes into the various standard drones the Russians are using, and there are pretty accurate tallies around of the numbers and types of drones fired at Ukraine, on a daily basis. Breaking that down by national supplier of parts on a daily basis, into a graph that looked something like this ...

 
... would be an interesting and actually useful way of assessing the effectiveness and impact of embargoes as it applies to drones. But as it stands, and as @Butschi noted, that graphic is actually rather meaningless.
Edit: to amplify something else @Butschi said - the counts themselves are kind of meaningless too. The US supplied 2,007 of the 3,000 parts found. I mean, that sounds pretty bad. But was that 2,000 pop rivets and 7 self-tapping screws? Based on this graphic; no idea. But that would be interesting to know, no?
Similarly, China only supplied 112 parts, which doesn't sound a lot ... unless that was that 66 engines and 46 guidance motherboards. Was it? Based on this graphic; no idea. But that would be interesting to know, no?

Heavy missile strike on Kyiv is ongoing. At the night I heard a drone sound over our house (but not similar to usual Shakhed) and then explosion in the air. Some number of drones were shot down in other districts.
Since 7:30 of morning already dozens of missiles are intercepted, including probably Kinzhals. Some explosions were enough close,so doors shaken after shock wave. Reportedly 16 Tu-95 launched Kh-101 missiles on different cities, but they suddenly, already being on the approach to Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr and other cities, turned back and flew on Kyiv. 
More "Belgorods" to f...g Russia! 

This graphic is actually rather meaningless. First of all, source is "Ukrainian experts". Which experts? Experts on what? Let's assume there are real experts behind this. Then it's Ukrainian experts who have an interest in showing that Russia is supplied by Western companies. That doesn't invalidate the numbers but without any real proof, they are at least doubtful.
And then 3000 parts were looked at for this graphic. What kind of part? High end electronics or everything down to screws?
So, all we really know is that some people claim that given an unspecified selection of parts, most of those parts come from the US.
Anyway, there is really no way to prevent especially dual-use items from getting to Russia, not unless we impose a total embargo on Russia and only trade with countries who support and enforce this total embargo.

Scandinavian countries are top
 

This is always tricky to figure out. Germany was able to increase its AFV production year over year up until the Soviets were literally in Germany despite the largest strategic bombing campaign in human history. But in all likelihood Germany would have had even better production numbers if they were left to their own devices.

Countries, when moving to a war footing, can often scrape out far more production than peacetime even if that production is hard. The question really isn't about production increasing but what cap has been placed by the sanctions. If Russia can make ~300 widgets per month now the removal of sanctions might mean that they could produce ~500 widgets per month. In either case its going to be an increase from the ~150 widgets being produced in 2020.

Doh. of course you're correct. I blame the Mayan tequila swilling through me! 

We have seen more than a few of these sorts of graphics.  All they really prove is that globalization is a thing.  The US sells electronics around the bloody world.  It is a primary supplier within defence industries.  Russia could be getting this stuff from any number of second or third party re-sellers who are outside of the agreed sanctions regime - remember Russian sanctions are not imposed by the UN, only by willing nations.  A lot of this could also be from stocks Russia had from before the war.  In the same vein, not everyone who uses an AK is being directly supported by Russia.
What is interesting is the trajectory of these sorts of graphics over time.  If Russia starts using more Chinese than US parts it could be a sign that their pre-war stocks are dwindling.

Although Rotterdam is not in Belgium 😁. Not that Netherlands had the means to lay waste to any German city.

Just to show how stunningly horrible the numbers of deaths in Israel-Gaza conflict are, I calculated what those numbers would be for the USA with their 340 million population. Israel has 9 million, Gaza 2 million.
 
7 october Hamas-attack killed 1200 Israeli's, so that would be 45.300 Americans. (FIFTEEN times all deaths from 9/11/2001).
Gaza Palestinian deaths so far 12.000, so that would be (340:2x12.000=) 2.040.000 American dead.
 
 

nah, from an ideological perspective, China dumped Russia in the 1950s.  China viewed Russia as a sellout and Mao carried on what they considered the revolutionary tradition.  Now they are just two anti-democratic nations, one on the rise trying to exert what it feels is its rightful place in the world and the other in decline trying to exert what it thinks is its rightful place in the world.  I expect China views Russia as a useful patsy for the moment and to Jons' point trying to figure out what happens north of it once Russia collapses.  I expect they have much in common with the west in not wanting a complete Russian collapse for largely the same reasons.  Instability benefits no one economically.

I think you misunderstood me. I was not talking about my opinion (for the record: all for it) but the public opinion.
A year ago, the German public would have gone nuts about a missile attack of Ukraine on a Russian city. 'Escalation!', 'WW3 imminent!', 'Don't poke the bear!' etc...
There were some raised eyebrows when Ukraine did those little drone attacks. And now missiles, and the reaction is: nothing.
So I wanted to hear about the reaction in other countries.
If true, I think this is a big change. Ukraine can now attack into Russia. And by 'can', I mean politically. Without fear of backlash for killing civilians (which will inevitably happen).
It doesn't matter that Ukraine neither can nor wants to send 100 missiles to Russia. The fact that they can retaliate on Russian soil with rockets without loosing western support is the change.

The IDF is pretty much doing what it likes right now - do you care much ?  - and you expect the West to condemn some minor revenge attacks  by Ukraine on Russia ? Unless said attacks threaten somehow the stability of the  relationship between the West and  Russia/China  I can't see anyone caring much at all . Not sure why some folks on this board think the Rubicon has somehow been crossed .

I don't think there's any truth to that.

@Bulletpoint
Different objectives, different motivations.
The West wants rule of law, free trade, and predictability. You know, all the things that allow rich folks to become richer. And, weirdly, that's one of the few things that rich folks are ready to see "their" taxes spent on. They'd still prefer it was your taxes being spent on it, but at a pinch they're prepared to grudgingly chip in a few pieces of silver.
Uh, where was I? Oh, right; rule of law, free trade, predictability. Both the existence of Ukraine as a prosperous and independent country, and the outcome of the war in Ukraine are important for those things. Therefore those things are worth investing in by giving Ukraine literal tons of free stuff now in order to reap the global trade payoff later.
China seems happy to use Russia as a cat's paw to mess with those things, and maybe thereby gain some maneuver space in the Pacific. But I doubt they care about Russia, or the outcome of the war, per se. Russia is failing and falling - it has been for a while, and the last couple of years has accelerated that. China might as well cash in while they still can. Sell their stuff at high prices, buy Russian stuff at low prices, while figuring out WTF they're going to do about Siberia if/when Russia disintegrates.

Neither USA, nor UK, France, Australia etc didn't became "barbarical societies" after WWII. Though their aviation was bombing Axis cities, causing death of dozen thousands. Existential wars or wars for independence never wage in white coats and gloves. All who think this is possible will get defeat.  
I don't believe that Russians can overthrow Putin themselves - only when they will feel a lack of food, like in 1917. But Russians will elect the same like a Putin, who will offer "make a Russia great again". Those, who have a bravery to fight with system too few. And most of them are in jails or in RDK or LFR - and these units Russian "liberals" hate very strong, because they show them all their pathetic and cowardness "we can't uprise, because they will beat us and throw to jails". If Russian is still "hesitating" after two years of war - he is just hidden imperialist under liberal skin. Russia deserve for worst scenartio. Even this can give a chance to heal their nation from inner slavery, snobbery, chavinism and imperialism.