Seedorf81

I have to quibble with this one. Sudan is in the midst of a full blown cicvil war. It isn't getting any press because both sides are awful and the humanitarian situation is hopeless, but is nevertheless the case. The fact that Ukraine is providing some competent help to the side that seems to be winning is actually a pretty big deal. If Russia wants send its proxies on the other side more help all of it comes from a set of resources that could otherwise be directed at Ukraine. Furthermore since Ukraine has picked the side that actually wants to fight, Russia would have to send in a great deal more assistance than Ukraine is providing in order to move the needle back the other way. Losing in Sudan would make all of Russias other recent gains in Africa a lot more tenuous. In the cold math of war I think it is a net benefit for Ukraine.

Of all Western major powers, France is by far most assertive when comes to actually puting their boots on the ground when necessary to defend its interests - scale of recent operations in North Africa was impressive. I doubt that progressive, "omg opressive colonizers are back!" part of public opinion plays any role in their withdrawal. Frenchmen + several African allies simply can't be policemen in whole Maghreb, it's unsustainable in diplomatic, economical and military terms for Paris. There is new, free market of security services for African warlords and they choose cheaper option, which currently means Wagner. Elysee cannot keep their tropps against will of local political elites; anticolonial sentiments are not deciding factor- potentiall costs for FRA are. And we see effects of this process  in recent rising of islamists in Maghreb.
But yeah, Ukrainian half-ally, half-mercenary organization seems like interestng counter to muscovites in this new reality. Still, it's too early to tell.

Tank explosion grogs /rolleyes
(Tank explosion connoisseurs?)
You remind me of this
https://xkcd.com/2535

Yeah, "wow" can be a easily misread as sarcasm, but I Guess I've mentally shaved the guard off my triggers this morning. Damn, Mexico was supposed to relax me! 
All good my friend

2018 Blast from the past:

Its now ~$1.8 trn.

I know all that.
What I'm saying is: Are the uploaded FPV / grenade drop videos just a few examples of many more such succesful attacks? Are several hundred troops on both sides really killed by drones each day? Or are the uploaded videos pretty much all there is?
In the latter case, the real drone casualty numbers would be just 10-20 a day. Nothing war changing.
Drones still have a big impact against vehicles and supply depots, and as artillery spotters, but that's a different thing.
My question is about the direct attacks on infantry. I am starting to think they are a bit like WW2 strafing runs. Scary, they do kill a few people, big impact on morale, but not really a factor in winning or losing the war.

Thanks Bill for posting the Foreign Affairs article. As suspected all is not well in the Russian economy. I actually think the situation is worse than is outlined in the article, especially concerning Russian income from oil and gas. On that note, it looks like the Saudis may have thrown in the towel on maintaining the oil price: 
Oil drops sharply as Saudi price cuts overshadow Middle East tensions (ft.com)
If you're unable to read the article (I can never work out the FTs free to read policy) the Saudis are no longer cutting oil production but instead are looking to maintain there own market share by dropping the price of the oil they produce. As the article headline states, this has already driven down oil prices and will continue to do so. Which for the purposes of this thread means less money for Russia.  

A bit confused. Are you hinting at "Battlefront Steve" and us, the forummembers?
 
(I'm sorry, couldn't resist.)

A bit confused. Are you hinting at "Battlefront Steve" and us, the forummembers?
 
(I'm sorry, couldn't resist.)

I am really sorry that I offended you with what from my viewpoint is a real misunderstanding. I was trying to remember one of the places from a famous commando-raid, couldn't rembember it, and only then I realised that maybe Wikipedia could provide the answer. I typed "canoes", "commandoraid" and "WW2"in the search-window and immediately the page I mentioned popped up. Which I never expected, so I was genuinly utterly surprised about that Wikipedia-page. Reading my post back, I can see now that you may have thought that I was condescending at your expense.
I WAS NOT.
But still my apologies for leaving room for misinterpretation of my posting.

A bit confused. Are you hinting at "Battlefront Steve" and us, the forummembers?
 
(I'm sorry, couldn't resist.)

Maybe a painful question, but why do democracies have to prevent "unnecessary" (a very debatable term, as I see it. Any death can be deemed unneccessary, if one tries hard enough) deaths? Is there an obligation, other than morality?
And how quick will some people accuse those democracies of being "colonialists", or "meddling in other people's local/national affairs" or "trying to control the world"?
And your question: "But does that help the people who are getting killed right now?" is in fact applicable for every country in history and for every human that was getting killed in any conflict. You expect democracies to save the whole world? But when democracies tried that, in RETROSPECT with wrong reasons, they were, sometimes rightly so, condemned for doing so. Eisenhower came up with the Domino-theory, with the intent to help the world from being overrun by Communism and boy oh boy, how did that work out?!
The democracies have learned some serious lessons about intervening, not the least the recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And a cruel reality perhaps, but what you call "unneccesary deaths" are also happening in Sudan, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Congo, Somalia, Gaza and the rest, but they seem less important than the Ukranian deaths?
This was not your best post, I think.
 
 
 

I am really sorry that I offended you with what from my viewpoint is a real misunderstanding. I was trying to remember one of the places from a famous commando-raid, couldn't rembember it, and only then I realised that maybe Wikipedia could provide the answer. I typed "canoes", "commandoraid" and "WW2"in the search-window and immediately the page I mentioned popped up. Which I never expected, so I was genuinly utterly surprised about that Wikipedia-page. Reading my post back, I can see now that you may have thought that I was condescending at your expense.
I WAS NOT.
But still my apologies for leaving room for misinterpretation of my posting.

Yes, the Russians can "easily absorb, replace and respond to" whatever Ukrainian does in Africa.
But in pre D-Day WW2 The Germans "could easily absorb, replace and respond to" whatever the British commando's did on occupied European soil. Lofoten, Dieppe, recon-raids, St. Nazaire, Lorient. (Oh, look at that! Wikipedia even has this, wow):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commando_raids_on_the_Atlantic_Wall
Do you think those raids were useless, too? If not, where is the difference between those and the Ukranian Africa-actions?

Well, we cannot be sure. If global warming, which looks to me like an exponentially growing problem, or these wars turns out to make huge parts of Africa uninhabitable, we can expect the amount of asylumseekers and refugees to grow by millions and millions. And that will most certainly fundamentally change Europe. And maybe, perhaps, even global order.
Maybe not. But there is also no certainty the war in Ukraine is going to change the global order. Even if Russia would conquer all of Ukraine, which I personally think is impossible and way, way waaaaay more unlikely than the Africa uninhabitable-doomscenario, that wouldn't necessarely be challenging global order.
It would change life for the Ukrainians, very nastily so, but the West and the Russians and the Chinese and the rest of the world could continue hopping along in the same stupidity as the world does for the last decades. (Centuries? Millenia?)
And societies are as ignorant as individual humans, they (most of 'm) only realize that we should have done something to keep our luck/fortune/well-being, when it has been taken away from us.
I don't know if it can be a bit of a reassurance, but in the foreseeable future millions, or maybe even billions, of people are gonna discover that what people in Gaza and Ukraine are discovering now: the "good times" are gone, and it will take decades for them to come back again. But eventually they probably will.
 
And I do appreciate your postings. Typically human behaviour from me, perhaps? Hardly noticing or appreciating good or even brilliant postings, but immediately reacting to a post that SEEMS to call for criticism, so I can vent my opinion that, of course, is "much better" and "wiser" and what not.  I could make excuses for that behaviour, but I think we all suffer from it, from time to time.
 

Maybe Budanov realizes first step on some foggy strategic plans of Ukraine in Africa, which will be more actual after the war. I think, after the war we will have many people, who already can't find themselves in civil life and Ukriane also can establish some PMC to eliminate Wagner scum in Africa

A bit confused. Are you hinting at "Battlefront Steve" and us, the forummembers?
 
(I'm sorry, couldn't resist.)

No. PMC Wagner just changed owners and divided between several PMCs. Part of Wagners incrorporated to Rosgvariya as special purpose unit. But many of Wagnerites now under control of MoD still conduct own missions in Africa. Enlistment to PMC for "Africa travel" is continuing.
I don't know plans of Ukraine in Africa, but Zelenskiy told we have to pay more attacntion to this region, Ukraine for example already loing time ago had weapon supply partnership with Sudan (story of "Faina" freighter with tanks, captired by purates, if you remember)
Russian aggressive expansion into Africa forced France to withdraw from countries (CAR, Burkina-Faco, Mal) with strategical resources - uran, gold, etc. China is also rapidly expanding own influence on this continent, when European countries weaken under bla-bla-bla of "colonizers legacy". So, who knows, if EU afraid to fight and just avoid this, maybe Ukraine will di this work...

Well, we cannot be sure. If global warming, which looks to me like an exponentially growing problem, or these wars turns out to make huge parts of Africa uninhabitable, we can expect the amount of asylumseekers and refugees to grow by millions and millions. And that will most certainly fundamentally change Europe. And maybe, perhaps, even global order.
Maybe not. But there is also no certainty the war in Ukraine is going to change the global order. Even if Russia would conquer all of Ukraine, which I personally think is impossible and way, way waaaaay more unlikely than the Africa uninhabitable-doomscenario, that wouldn't necessarely be challenging global order.
It would change life for the Ukrainians, very nastily so, but the West and the Russians and the Chinese and the rest of the world could continue hopping along in the same stupidity as the world does for the last decades. (Centuries? Millenia?)
And societies are as ignorant as individual humans, they (most of 'm) only realize that we should have done something to keep our luck/fortune/well-being, when it has been taken away from us.
I don't know if it can be a bit of a reassurance, but in the foreseeable future millions, or maybe even billions, of people are gonna discover that what people in Gaza and Ukraine are discovering now: the "good times" are gone, and it will take decades for them to come back again. But eventually they probably will.
 
And I do appreciate your postings. Typically human behaviour from me, perhaps? Hardly noticing or appreciating good or even brilliant postings, but immediately reacting to a post that SEEMS to call for criticism, so I can vent my opinion that, of course, is "much better" and "wiser" and what not.  I could make excuses for that behaviour, but I think we all suffer from it, from time to time.
 

https://www.technology.org/2023/01/05/how-much-do-155-mm-artillery-rounds-cost-now-and-how-many-are-fired-in-ukraine/
 
This short article calculated that an average "normal' 155 mm artillery round costs about 3300 Euro's. (3600 $)
And on average Ukraine fires about 4000 - 7000 of these per DAY(!) and the Russians about 20.000 per DAY(!). And that is just 155 mm shells.
(And one Excalibur-round costs about 103.000 Euro's (110.000 $).
 
Nothing new for most of our Forummembers, I reckon, but I did some math in order to have a better look at the ridiculous magnitude of the cost of war. (I am one of those simpletons that frequently asks himself if it wouldn't be much better if we used war-money for let's say climate-control.)
So.. in order to be sure not to exaggerate I use an average total number of 5.000 shells per day from the Ukrainians and 15.000 rounds from the Russians. That's 20.000 155mm rounds fired EVERY day, but let's say 300 days usage in stead of 365 in a year.
One round is 3300 euro's x 20.000 = 66.000.000 euro's per day.
66.000.000 x 300 days =19.800.000.000 euro's per year. (Had to check and double-check, because it blew my mind, couldn't believe it.) 1/4 is for Ukraine to pay, 3/4 for Russia.
But this is only the cost of 155 mm artillery-shells.
Not one 155mm gun, not one riflebullet, not one gallon of gas, not one drone, not one uniform, not one vehicle, not one bandage and well, you get the drift. I knew that a "cheap" missile is 20.000 euro's, that one Javelinlauncher costs more than 100.000 dollars and so on and so forth, but I never understood the bigger picture until this little 155mm round calculation. The cost of war is incomprehensible.
Now I understand the endless asking, pleading, bargaining and begging for support from Zelensky. He must.
 

not to mention the demographic cliff it is facing. There is a lot wrapped up in that - pension and quality of life promises that keep the CCCP in power.  An aging population as seen in Japan and much of the west that strains the social fabric and of course hits the cheap labor pool.
Key facts about China's declining population | Pew Research Center
It remains to be seen what impact climate change will have as well.  Globally we are all facing some environmental crisis. Hard to project what this will do to stress points between and within nations.
 

Maybe a painful question, but why do democracies have to prevent "unnecessary" (a very debatable term, as I see it. Any death can be deemed unneccessary, if one tries hard enough) deaths? Is there an obligation, other than morality?
And how quick will some people accuse those democracies of being "colonialists", or "meddling in other people's local/national affairs" or "trying to control the world"?
And your question: "But does that help the people who are getting killed right now?" is in fact applicable for every country in history and for every human that was getting killed in any conflict. You expect democracies to save the whole world? But when democracies tried that, in RETROSPECT with wrong reasons, they were, sometimes rightly so, condemned for doing so. Eisenhower came up with the Domino-theory, with the intent to help the world from being overrun by Communism and boy oh boy, how did that work out?!
The democracies have learned some serious lessons about intervening, not the least the recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And a cruel reality perhaps, but what you call "unneccesary deaths" are also happening in Sudan, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Congo, Somalia, Gaza and the rest, but they seem less important than the Ukranian deaths?
This was not your best post, I think.
 
 
 

And to quote Yogi Berra (for real)...
"I never said most of the things I said."
 
 
But he may may have just been quoting Mark Twain.

It’s Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future – Quote Investigator®
The saying was spoken during the parliamentary year 1937-1938, and no attribution was specified. Boldface added to excerpts by QI:[1]
Det er vanskeligt at spaa, især naar det gælder Fremtiden.
It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.
This citation was mentioned in the prominent reference “The Yale Book of Quotations”.[2] More information about Danish citations for this saying is presented in the addendum at the end of this article.

You know, it's very hard to tell how a large, complex, very dynamic situation is going to end, until it ends.
I have to keep reminding myself of Danish politician Karl Kristian Steinke advice, 'It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future'
I, as I believe others here, have an affinity for the history of conflict in the last century. I suggest if you'd asked the man on the street, any street, how they thought democracy was doing in 1931, 1936, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1941, pretty much through the middle to end of 1942, I imagine the response would have been, 'not very well.' The death, destruction and abject misery continued for quite a while after that before things got better for even just some people.