Yet
-
Posts
172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Yet
-
-
34 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:
It is not just complacency - it probably is more efficient to do it that way, if you can't get hit. Not everything Russians do is dumb, sadly.
Which makes me wonder, did the Russians not expect the West to change stance? Is it arrogance? Or did they expect it but were not able to pivot in time?
opportunism,
Take the most out of it as you can as long as the rules of the game are like this. Ever noticed that when people play poker for real money (how Ukr values its troops) they play different than when its with beads (how RU seems to value its troops).
-
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, fine. This would be Belarusians lobbing Russian missiles, using Russian C4ISR, into Washington state…much better. The very big point that you are missing is that Russian homeland = US soil in this equation. Not some ally.
You are purposefully underestimating the risk here for political ends. We are talking about active targeting in Russia with increasing US/NATO direct participation. Play internet games all day long, and please keep shaming the West - we love that, but this is an escalation and has real risks associated with the decision. This is also why the US has signalled very loudly that this will be tightly controlled on their end.
-got it, not purposefully, got me wrong on my use of time as well as love for shaming, and understood-
so. its more like US loves Maple syrup, and invades Canada. Canada doesnt like Czar Trump and defends 2 years long. US lost its credibility and their military power is dwarfed asking help from anyone who can deliver rockets. RU is happy to deliver and ship em to Montreal - as long as they are shot only on canadian soil and Washington state where the US is opening a 2nd front to Seattle.
escalation... sure! But WW3? - Wouldnt Us (RU) see it coming after invading Canada (Ukrain) and seeing RU support for the last 2 years increasing?
It still is a conflict with Canada that US started.
ps. Im not trying to be right, Im trying to understand
-
39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
So Belarus means as much to NATO as Ukraine does to Russia this scenario? Uh, yes. Russians lobbing missiles into Poland could very well trigger WW3 but even then your weird take is off.
This would be Russia lobbing missiles into Washington state because we invaded Belarus
=WW3, ya think?
ehhh... no?
Russia (in the reversed scenario USA/NATO) isnt lobbing anything.
Belarus (Ukrain) is lobbing Russian (NATO) missiles just over the border in Bialystok (Belgorod) to prevent the opening of a new piece of the front near Grodno (Kharkiv) in a 2-year ongoing war.
... am i reversing something wrong?
(and yes I picked Belarus, as a perfect example for the turnaround wasn't there. Ukr could be used but it would be clouding as people would start screaming 'uninmaginable!).
-
14 hours ago, The_Capt said:
I think we are sticking a toe over a red line in a gradual escalation. Before we get to ho hum, we are talking about US weapons and targeting support, killing Russians…in Russia. In 2024. Wrapped your heads around that one and let it sink in. Imagine for just a second if the roles were reversed…we would be looking at WW3.
soooo. Nato invades Belarus 'cuz we like potatoes', and Putin allows Belarus 2 years later that Belarus army may use Russian weapons to attack assembling army Nato army in Bialtstok (PL) ready to invade Belarus.
=WW3?
-
2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
Substitute "patriots and local elites" for the loaded term "nationalists" and you would be right; that is the way every conquest happens. Eliminate those who care about the idea of their nation and those who have ambitions to lead in their community and the rest will follow whoever is the new tyrant just to save their lives and households. Then in a couple of generations an effective genocide may happen because that "majority" will be happy to speak Russian and take orders from the new governor appointed from Moscow, and they will be Ukrainians no more. That is the Russian way since the Middle Ages - probably the first victims were the Ugric tribes in the North, then various Turkic groups which just started to settle down South-East of Moscow in XVI century, and then the Russians went on their merry way from Vladivostok to Królewiec doing exactly the same thing.
This is also exactly why some nations do not want to surrender and go on fighting - because that group of "nationalists" who care about more than the next meal is large enough to overcome the objections of the indifferent others.
And on a more personal note - that "argument" is in essence an appeal to surrender to tyranny, based on cowardice, pusillanimity and stupidity. It made me actually (slightly) nauseous to read something so nakedly depraved
.
Then lets not dive into the history of say... the usa, or europe. Not much different anywhere else in a time when the crowd is setup to an idea by their leader. There are countries where the original inhabitants still live in reservates if they want to keep their culture alive.
This behaviour is in our species, and is elevated by situation, opportunistic or zealot leaders, and restricted information sources (bubbles).
Yea it s#cks, but it isnt unique to Russia or Russians and yes times can change, though it might take an awful long time.
-
8 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:
Screw it. Russia should collapse into a bloody civil war (and we should take no refugees from there) and if that means Iran gets nukes and nukes Saudis so be it.
(This was written in somewhat of a bad mood.)
What makes you so optimistic that a state party will lay hands on it and use it? No-one gains by that.
Remember non-state, organised, vision driven extremist groups with nothing to lose?
-
so why does the West media count the war by square km territory (initiated by Zelensky, EU and Washington).
i didnt hear press conferences about 'Ru already faced strategic defeat by all metrics'. Because pariah, Nato expansion, losses, real powers exposed,
... and 'the only last metric to make Ru understand is square km'.
It is in Western/Ukr favour to keep portraying Ru to the masses as scary, big and winning. And there is one metric that serves that and that RU wont quickly run out of. 'square km taken from Ukr'. The only problem with this is that we want to be with 'winners'. Therefore part of the civilians is uninterested and start to not care or (worse) put all other issues closer to home first.
Now it is up to the politicians and spindoctors to 'sell' the war by or making the enemy scarier, or by showing succes. Problem is that the Western (free, shock-based, commercial, critical) media has to catch it up and frame it for the crowds. It takes quite a shock or willpower and creativity to get it to land in John (and Jane) Doe's algorithms.
-
4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I am kinda skeptical on this point to be honest. I think we could definitely see a draw back and cold shouldering but NATO is the largest military markets on the planet. If the US pulls out completely then NATO STANAGs die then and there. This could see nations go elsewhere for military spending because they are no longer locked into a US driven NATO standard.
Of course given the levels of rhetoric over good sense we saw last time, I could also very well be totally wrong.
US leaving Nato is MEGFTFT, not MAGA
(MEGFTFT = make europe great for the first time)
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
1 for 1 is likely unsustainable when talking about a million drones. Obviously they won’t all be up at once but even 5k per day is a lot of operators and EM.
1 million drones /year
2700 / day
1 operator can make... say 5 flights/day?
that would come down to 540 operators. over 500km front (not counting Africa)
does it still sound so impossible? Maybe identifying enough targets might be the bottleneck.
-
3 hours ago, Zeleban said:
Well, I don’t know, in my opinion this is now a new trend in Europe - to elect pro-Russian dudes into your government.
Perhaps the reason is that Europeans are beginning to doubt the strength of the United States and are betting on Russia?
I agree with @Tux,
in addition: the Western leaders or nationalist that in the past spoke positive of Putin dont 'like him' or 'his Russia'. they envy !parts! of his leadership style or policy. They like his strong leadership or his nationalism, or his mediaouting barechest on a horse, or his 'fck the rest i do as i want- mentality'.
That doesnt mean they love or support him, RU, or the war.
Also the ones that ever said positives about Putins RU, often now sing a different tone.
Ps. This goes for quite a few Euroos (Meloni, deWinter, Wilders, LePen), I am not so much into Trump, but as much as i see/read I assume this also goes for him.
-
Dutch chieff of defence and former chieff of arms declare that Ukr should get also long distance rockets to hit RU on RU territory. 'Ukr cant stay in the boxing ring with 1 hand tied on its back'.
-
14 minutes ago, Butschi said:
I don't think that is entirely true, not for Germany, at least. Sure, the yellow press tried stories like "How our Leopards are going to win the war" but the majority of people was against sending tanks for a variety of reasons and it took quite some time to convince them. While we are generally proud that our industry is capable of producing some of the best weapons in the world (much like we are proud that we produce the best cars, of course), weapons exports are usually frowned upon.
Nah, I think we would have been happy with letting the US send Abrams and paying part of the bill. And then send more Iris-T while watching reports on TV of children who can now safely go to school.
We still hear comments that, after all, civilians suffer most in the war, mainstream media still prefer to interview random people in a pedestrian zone instead of reporting more detailed than "Russians are intensifying their attacks". And almost nobody cares how our Leopards are performing.
I never spoke of Leopards, nor of the average German citizen. We might (wanna) think that politicians do everything for the perception of its inhabitants... but that is wildly untrue.
Its a game of politicians and lobbyists, where politicians want to hear a good story and want to feel good and strong. Where they (often wrongly) assume looking good might reap future benefits and where the most powerful people are reduced to weak humans of flesh, blood with all their flaws exploited, while it makes them feel like the Terminator. They dont always act for the people... they mostly act out of their gut feeling which is highly influencable, covered by a mild fear for negative media (or action group) outings which is a main weapon.
There are different types of politicians on how they best can be influenced. But with your silverware on the table the poker games gets a lot more interesting, and it gets a lot harder to fold when youre not losing.
-
7 hours ago, The_Capt said:
I think the major strategic mistake, and it was entirely foreseeable, was thinking that if we built the UA to look like a western military that it would prevail. First off I am not even sure a western military would prevail. Second trying to bolt the UA into one, while it is fighting a war is a major rookie mistake. I was very concerned when everyone got scope eye on tanks and IFV which all cost money and take up weight. Artillery, AD, unmanned was in the mix but it wasn’t politically high profile so we pushed the heavy stuff. And of course we did it in a mixed up mess. There was no centralized control of coord of the support mission.
So rather than focusing on game changers and cheap disposable systems, like UAS and self-loitering, we spent billions in sending tanks and IFVs that while useful and better than nothing, were not deterministic on a modern battlefield. We compounded the problem by sending complex and logistically heavy stuff, in mixed fleets, which made the UAs job harder. We should have seen that fast, light, cheap, dispersed and many were what we needed in this war. Ammo for PGM was doing more than a freakin tank ever could.
Now we are playing catch-up. The good news is that the stuff we sent looks like it can do defence fine. But we wanted rapid offence and we sent exactly the wrong hardware for this war to make that happen.
Very true from a military punt of view.
on the other hand... (from a lobbyist point of view). Western nations got dedicated to the UA war by sending their own stuff. France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, all got dedicated into this war by sending their high end stuff. if they would have sent only money or some cartboard for drones, these nations would never feel so attached to the war. Ofc if summer offensive would have been very succesfull.. think about what stories would be up to pull all these nations head deep inside.
-
51 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Wow. So what I saw:
- lead tank with rollers got hit by a mine (front driver side). Might have been a shaped charge mine with a delay fuse. Basically a clever mine fuse that waits a second after being triggered by a roller so it goes off under the vehicle.
aaaand there go our 'proven concepts' out of the window.
-
RU bought 92 (civilian) airplanes.
these Airbus and Boing planes were confiscated by RU government and are now legally bought.
(in Dutch)
https://www.upinthesky.nl/2023/12/25/rusland-koopt-bijna-honderd-westerse-vliegtuigen/
-
soooo.
Wrapping up the last 50 pages: about anti-mine brainstorm -no bad ideas- except that all ideas are bad
Breaking the minefield doesnt solve the main problem. The first one that denies ISR (lower airspace) to the opponent can start to think breaching and offense. And without enemy drones in the sky all mine-breaching ideas are good again.
Back to improved jammers, swarms, and anti-drone.
and... strength too all the chaps at the front & Merry christmas
-
1 hour ago, Haiduk said:
Updated information about UKR and RUS losses in Kherson oblast along Dnipro (not only in Krynky area) on both banks of the river
Russia lost 133, Ukraine 18 (also 11 RIBs and boats, not included to the table)
Ukrainian losses:
Russian losses (likely only one Su-34 was counted, because despite even Russian side confirmed loss of more than one jet, but photo evidence was only for the one bomber)
the number of lost drones strikes me. Id expect it to be surely in the double numbers compared to the rest. Are they not being used? not being targeted? or not being downed?
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
We've struggled to come up with the correct name for Russia's pre-war "elite" units that are now filled with untrained volunteers. I think I now have it:
"Elite Meat"
Discuss...
Steve
raw elite meat? isnt that just Steak Tartare?
-
7 hours ago, kimbosbread said:
Yeah I think we covered that with the badgers
EDIT: A robot mole would be cool, but I don’t think it’d have the power to dig through a few km to pop up and then kill things. Maybe to find mines?not needed to pop up.
see Hill60 (WW1)
-
if heat and sound are no issue, might as well add hoovercrofts in the equation with jetpacks.
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
-
Nieuwsuur (NL), Monitor(DE) and RUSI traced a German company WWsemicon that sends chips despite the sanctions to RU. -German customs took action. Good start you'd say, however: one of the main sources was RU customs(!). They were so nice to write down what is imported.
If billions of cocaïne etc. is imported to the EU, we cannot expect the sanctions to be watertight. But if this is the game, I dont see much reason to expect that the flow of western parts will ever cease or even diminish.
-
6 hours ago, Butschi said:
Is killing a tank 30% of the time while killing one of your guys... 1% (just to put a number here) of the time ok? For us not but for Russia?
... for us not, when fighting a non-existential war on foreign soil. But for Russia?
I never spoke of Leopards, nor of the average German citizen. We might (wanna) think that politicians do everything for the perception of its inhabitants... but that is wildly untrue.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Yet
... is what the media makes believe. A closer look shows that there are only minor shifts. max shift is (so far)say 20 seats in a 720 seat parliament. Also the biggest challenges are in the right parties that were or are without a European 'party family'. Shortly started... without an European 'party family' you dont really have any power in parliament.
it will not play out as a radically different EU course, thought of course some countries can feel the need for a different sound.
About France, right! it can make a shift. but presidential elections are not till 2027