Yet

noop, youre definately about the first... we are having squirrel-week.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/politics/russia-iran-ukraine-weapons/index.html i guess this is the official end of a technological superpower. ... from first man in space to "we dont understand rockets".

all these things China can make with the current machines they have, the ones that ASML(Netherlands chip machine fabricator) can still sell to China, and the chips already on the market (iphones, washingmachines etc). With the ban on the new generation machines (which by the way arent even fully up to speed yet) they are banning China to control themselves the production of the next generation chips that have more power, and are smaller (for next generation products) - Im not an expert on what chips are needed for what product but i am thinking insect-drones, info-contactlenses, implants and other james bond/scifi stuff that we arent so far away from with current tech and medical possibilities. Because China sees this coming they will find ways around, i assume they will take measures and: - play the same game where they have the edge, (forbid us ...) The game we played with RU (sanctions) is impossible with China. - try to themselves build up knowledge and build an industry (very hard and will take many many years and extreme spying), - make sure they keep fabricating consumer goods which need the most high-end chips so they always have a big stack of them, no matter if they can print them themselves.

posing a question: or did Putin stop the nuclear START inspections for another reason: he doesnt want the world to see the current state of the nukes. there have been a lot of international inspections, so we can assume that till last year everything was in top condition, otherwise we would have heard it right? however, over last year or could be possible that the nuclear warheads are still in good condition, but because the rockets had to be made free (prepared for Ukraine) that now there are some imperfections going on: like lack of platforms to deliver the nukes, uncarefull storage of the warheads or other things.

I wouldnt worry too much about Finland and Sweden. 1- no actual threat (Thanks to UA) 2- enough NATO security 3- if Turkey lets them in... who is then going to chair any peace negotiations that will need to take place sooner or later anyway... China? Usa? Finland? Israel? Luxembourg? Hungary? Kazachstan? Japan? .. at the moment every alternative sounds same hilarious.

I hope the sleeping giant can then manage to awaken the army of Dunharrow in Brussels.

yes we should develop cheaper defences... why? Because trade off on the target makes no sense either. when i see a rocket incoming. i first have to identify the rocket and analyse if it still can change trajectory. Then i have to calculate where it lands, on my powerplant? then assess if the damage will be higher than the cost of the AD. will it land on the unused farmland next to the powerplant? - then let it fly (and hope we didnt miscalculate). Can the enemy possible to change the missiles course in air? then what shoot it anyway because we dont know what the damage will be? oh and if the rocket will block of houses? what if those houses were already abandoned? will you even repair the damage? or was that block going to be demolished anyway after the war for a new plan? oh! I can go on.. what if a rocket is fired at a monument with low monetary-high emotional (or strategic) value? what if the enemy fired a pingpongball at the powerplant. shoot it down because the powerplant was targeted? see .. quite hard to make the trade-off on the target it hits.

i totally agree with the point to learn from our mistakes! i never said we shouldnt. note that i wrote 'army' in one of the roles. I also didnt suggest those insurgies should be dealt with by police, i suggest that the right job should be done by the right service in the right uniforms. I also even agree that the army is supposed to do everything needed, and i command your guys mentality and flexibility to do everything needed. however, the army isnt necessary best in everything. army can fight a war, build a bridge, run a school, keep the order and rule a country. However, when it is possible, bring in the engineers, the police, teachers and the politicians. the fact that these insurgies kept coming is because not enough people gave the new government their blessing. which is imo a organizational, governmental (political) failure.

nah, this is reverse Psychology. you dont want your beloved one to have died for some weird nonsense. you want your beloved to have died as a hero for a great cause. therefore, no matter your prior opinion or ratio, you will support the war more and sell it to your friends, families and neighbours to improve the feeling and pride for your beloved.

well, i know im going to open Pandoras box here but hey. i think the Iraqi war and Afghan war both were wildly successful. There was control after a few days. War and militairy was never designed to make lasting peace. They are designed to win battles and open up a space where a new government with new rules can win (the good way or the bad way) the bless of the people. Building up the Trias politicas (government, juridical system, police) failed. This can have a lot of reasons, probably also a wrong strategy for this situation because we try to do it always nice for everyone. Maybe partly it didnt help also (minor issue but imo worth mentioning) there was heavily relied on US (and international) army to do police-work. This means that the same guys in the same uniform are: -gathering intel, make the chats, win trust -being police to make arrests - manage revolts - shoot the crap out of a breakout for these tasks we have local agents, mainstream police, riot police and army; All in different uniforms. This way if you see one making mistakes or fight, it doesnt interfere with your relations to the other types.

considering that it is the only vehicle being stopped by styrofoam 'dwagon teef' i guess they wont serve a better purpose than targeting practice or mine-sweeping.

So, why gazprom can have a mercenary army. maybe to replace wagner when time comes?

Good list, can I add one? he managed to bring EU decision making that used to take months - to days. ps. I tried to get Tanks and AFVs as mandatory topics at our kindergarten, but somehow the parental committee didnt agree. Any ideas?

that seems more likely than Steves expectation for something big failing to happen. At the date to celebrate, they dont want to start an offensive with unknown outcome. at that date theu want a sure celebration, or nothing. Remember that may 9th was very silent on the UAwar.

Dont show up with that in UA. They might think it is French writing for Putin

Time to count down till we see Sachalin in the news. Contested by RU, JP and and maybe even China too, though that was long ago.

good post again The_Capt! in terms of strategies, plan A was in my eyes decapitation: Run to Kyiv shock and awe, bring in some spetsnaz and roll over the apparatus. plan B to dislocate, and plan C attrition. and yeah a strategy should never be 'relative' ofcourse, but it can only be as good as your assessment of: your own capabilities, your opponents capabilities, the situation and the reaction of 3th parties. These assessments proved to be ehhh. p*sspoor like making a checkers-strategy without knowing: only half of your stones can move; your opponent plays chess; the opponent is backed by friends that wont keep silent and keep putting stuff on the board. so yes, there was a plan A, B (and C), but based on bad assessments. Not only the troops but also the strategies were build for another war and RU doesnt seem to be able to improve its assessments. ... which makes The_Capt being right again...

RU wouldnt have to invade over 4 axes if they didnt have a plan B. Plan A: take Kyiv (and the country) in 3 days. Putins worst case scenario: We wont make it to Kyiv -plan B: expand to entire donbas and secure a landbridge to Crimea and Moldova. -plan C : keep and defend the gained territories in the north these 3 days. -plan D : retreat with scorched earth. Capt would be proud on his scholars for so many initial backup plans however: real worst case for RU: - Dont make it to Kyiv + UA want to fight + Zelensky stands up + run out of supplies + get *** kicked by UA + EU acts decisive and fast for the first time in history, get sanctioned + UA receives an endless amount of financial, humanitairy and militairy aid. ... he just underestimated the 'worst case' a little bit Plan B though actually partially succeeded. Though C and plan D didnt go so well... Going to plan E: secure the Donbas and land bridge with mobilisation and stop the will to fight/to aid with attricion, attacking energy supply + oil&gas stop supply to EU. We are now wondering what plan F and G can be. We heard: - full war without reserves to take and defend Donbass (most probable plan F, if we see airforce, navy and endless streams of new mobiks its already going on) assuming UA can withstand it, what is plan G? we heard... - make the call that all facist are dead and RU succesfully finished the real goals of the special militairy operation (might be too far in by now to pull that off even for domestic consumption though). - take Belarus as a pity price and call it a win (doesnt make sense though) - (small tactical) nukes (or other womd).(only powerfull when you dont use em though, plus it is definately clearly escalating) - change of leadership anything else?

heh. i saw that once when i taking a hike and an apache came silently just over the hill and the hedges at about a 1-200m distance. Crapped my pants even though i know its a training. and Kraze, .. we thing 1:3 is F***** awesome, dont worry and i think the rates are inflating by the hour now (at least untill the next UA offensive).

iiss comes to 2100 russian tanks lost and still 1800 operational. with additional 5000 not operational still in storage (bad shape). so revamping these doesnt sound so weird. to those RU losses they count 700 UA tanks lost. so i wonder what Krazes 10:1 comes from (except from wishfull thinking and info-war language) oryx counts to 1700 RU lost tanks

british minister of defence claims 97% of RU troops have been deployed in UA https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-64634760 RU lost 50% of its MBTs according to iiss https://www.newsweek.com/russia-has-lost-more-half-its-tanks-ukraine-report-1781800 if both of these are true... pfff though they keep playing games, trying to take/safe what can be taken. https://www.politico.eu/article/moldova-president-maia-sandu-russia-attack/ the first thing that dies in a war is the truth, but this doesnt sound too far fetched. esp when RU ministry of foreign affairs states: "we do not interfere in the internal affairs of Moldova and other countries of the world," the ministry said.

ofc. that wasn't the point

I cant wait for a war-economy to turn things upside down a bit. Maybe we will finally find out that we dont need 17 different electronic toothbrush factories, and that we do need drones and shells for UA. When the bear is kicked out.. lets produce stuff that really improves life on this big blue egg.

most probable is that everywhere on RU there are typewriter notes to shoot the guns at exactly 22:00. due to different timezones, locations and speed of the aircraft, drones and missiles, they will neatly arrive 1 by 1 in time for UA AD to down most of them... now wouldn't that be a joke? even realistic though;)

The number one Russian high cultural gift to this world is Kalasjnikov. Seems not a bad idea to 'cancel' or 'ban'