Carolus

What about a magazine fed AGL with 40mm HEAB in combination with new nifty sights for range acquisition? https://soldiersystems.net/2023/03/01/enforce-tac-23-rheinmetall-squad-support-weapon-40/

5.56 and 7.62 are too small for explosive or airburst bullets, but what would a flechette bullet do to a drone? It was in development during the Vietnam era. Or maybe these modern dumdum rounds which splitter on impact??

Jump up? I assume the problem with submersible drones is signal range under water. It would need a snorkle with an antenna. But I am also sure I remember reading that one thing ships really don't like is an explosion underneath the keel. If you can go below water with 100kg of explosives, don't jump. Just hit it from below. Unless you rocket jump over the safety net of a bridge, of course.

2031: Jef Bezos declares himself absolute sovereign of the territory conquered by his private army while a drone swarm forming his gigantic floating head in the sky announces his laws and wishes to a confused population. Did I spoil the next CM title? CM:Amazon Rising?

I am personally not very concerned about these numbers, because this is not a war of vehicles. Does this mean pressure on Ukrainians? Does it mean death and suffering? Yes. But we have a "Coalition for Drones" program going in Europe that aims to provide a million drones to Ukraine in 2024. We have a Czech 155mm shell initiative that is going to provide 500.000 shells to Ukraine this year, Chinese cotton notwithstanding. Rheinmetall is gearing up to outproduce the entire USA with 155mm shells. Ukraine itself has produced 200.000 drones this year already and will produce more than a million if they just keep production rates at current levels. Okay, only 1 per 7 drone attacks is successful on average. What are 5000 Russian vehicles filled with contractniki and conscriptniki going to do when the we have a ratio of 1 tracked / wheeled vehicle per 20 drones with Ukrainian production alone, and 1 : 40 if the EU drones coalition keeps its promise? 1:40 and each single one is a potential kill at a range of 3 to 5 kms? Denial for ground warfare is only beginning to ramp up. And as @Letter from Prague said, we don't even know what damage strategic bombing will do to Russia over the course of the year, because that will not get better for Russia either. Ukraine only needs to turtle under the PATRIOT shield and keep its will to fight.

Russia's war is largely dependent on reserves, both the vast soviet arsenals of iron and rust, and on financial reserves which prop up the economy as a whole. I am petty sure that trying to avoid thinking about the question "what happens when we run out?" is one of the major reasons for vodka consumption in the regime's ranks. The West has to keep Ukraine breathing until 2026. Isn't it interesting how Western development and Russian development is diametrically opposed? By the time the Russians run dry, the European defense industry will only just have started to rock and roll. The question is how to bridge the time until then.

Claims to show moment of impact against the "Sergei Kotov" patrol vessel.

First German FPV drone for military purposes, delivieries will go to Ukraine. Called "tank destroyer" Maus. We will see if it will turn out to be over-engineered and unnecessarily maintenance intensive. But the manufacturer claims to have been in communication with Ukrainian soldiers during the design process. Released features: - Weaponry: modular via "clamp-on" system - Effective range (combat): 5-7 km (3-4 miles) - Effective range (recon): 12-17km (7-10 miles) - Max. flight time: 25 min - vertical speed: 17,5-22.0 m/s - Weight (empty): 700g - Max. total weight: 6,5kg - Frame: Donaustahl-M-V1 (inspired by "De Havilland DH.98") - Max. speed: 140 km/h (86mi/h) based on 10.000mAh battery. Seems like a speedy but low-range drone. Maybe it will have good electro-magnetic shielding? I would hope so.

Regarding Poland and imports from Belarussia

I don't disagree with any of that. The post I responded to seemed a bit more negative or one-sided to me. This post however I would totally agree with. Let me say where I came from in the initial post: The West has done a lot, really a lot, but also the West would betray its own identity if it had not. That's why I don't like when things are expressed in the vein of "oh why is it now the West's duty to help every war, silly Ukrainians? We dont have to give you a penny if we don't want to!" I dont see that this way, because that is a big part of what makes us us, of what shapes our understanding of "mission", insofar we still have a sense of "mission" in the West. Turning away from Ukraine would not be a betrayal of Ukraine necessarily, it would be a betrayal of ourselves and our political and ideological foundations and would weaken us in the long-term. That is not spoken out of a pure sense of stars-and-stripes idealism. I believe this has practical political ramifications, globally, of where the planet and humanity will be headed geopolitically in this century, which the West, despite diminishing demographic and economic importance, will take a role in shaping. So I say: We did a lot, we could do better, and it is not pure generosity to do something, but it is beneficial in more ways than one to ourselves, it just also happens to be beneficial to Ukraine.

I wished to express a middle ground. Maybe it did not come across? I did not mention specific weapon systems or numbers for a reason, since one can get lost in the details of what made sense when. And what the West sent has been very important and also significant in terms of amount. But I also sincerely believe that certain ways the support was handled can only be described as short-sighted, weak and even counter the West's own interests (for the 3 reasons stated in my previous post). At the moment the West seems purely reactive rather than pro-active. Which means when politicians decide to allow Ukrainians to put their apparently ungrateful and uneducated hands on another piece of Western equipment, it takes months of training. Training for certain systems could have begun much earlier - even if supply might only come later, in reaction to developments which Western politicians set as their red line. The communication strategy is abysmal. Half the Western world doesn't even realise we have been locked into a wrestling match through a multi-pronged non-conventional attack by a force which utterly despises our core values and our way to live, which would order the killing of millions of Western citizens in a heartbeat and without any remorse if it seemed expedient to its interests. We are witnessing Fall Gelb and French politicians are openly telling French people that the first villages being overrun by Germans is fake news, and besides have you seen the German tanks yourself with your own eyes? If not, you are a warmonger, and it is best to vote for the pro-German politican during the French election happening next week. These are serious and unconventional, partly unprecedented problems. Irrational, even. Still, I acknowledge that a lot has happened and many positive developments have taken place, from supplied military goods over economic sanctions to increased military production. That was really great. But while I don't want to downplay it, a lot of it seems to have been incredibly hotch-potched, foot-dragging and improvised, which makes me worry. Ukraine cannot subsist based on the idealism of the Skandinavian and the Baltic countries alone.

I respectfully disagree. Defeating the invasion of Ukraine is related to Western interests and the West is not pursuing its own interests due to a mixture of 1) lack of will 2) lack of skill (military, intelligence and political savy) 3) political corruption This is not the fault of Ukraine, and it is very fair that Ukraine feels disappointed by its weak allies and the weak support in an existential war - not only existential for Ukraine, but existential for certain principles the West has built. It may hurt to admit, especially if one was part of the Western military complex, but the West is not bringing its best.

To be fair, the West has a history of many many big brain moves for the last decades.

That's a wee bit misleading. Imports from Belarus and Russia are tiny, and limited to non-sanctioned food stuffs. And there might be a ban on that as well if they follow Latvia's footsteps.

It is important to be skeptical of Ukrainian numbers, but I would be curious why now, specifically, these announcements are made (and from official Ukrainian accounts). Is it to improve morale after the continued Kab and Fab bombardment? Curious. Usually Ukraine stayed somewhat conservative when it comes to "special assets" (ships, airframes) or provides footage.

Well, would you say how you interpret it? Austria is not a NATO member. But yes. Ultimately it comes down to the heads of state of the member states at a given time. Member states are also free to support each other without NATO article 5. But I am also sure that these heads of state would realise what the consequences would be if they individually decided to not follow a NATO call. It's the risk we have discussed regarding the US elections and Trump. Even if a country does follow an article 5 invocation, it may still just "sit it out" if the government takes no steps. But it would be a huge, global diplomatic shake-up.

...you have heard of a small event called "Iraq War" during which Germany, France etc. did not participate? Your input for this thread is truly invaluable, but I am afraid when it comes to this sub-conversation on international law, there must have been some misunderstanding between what you read how it works and how it actually works. Because I simply don't recognize what you say in the treaties nor in how it was applied in the past.

It's not a law, it's an international treaty. These are two legally distinct things. And the norm is simply that a country must want to participate in international law and behaving in an orderly and reliable manner, or deal with the diplomatic consequences of not doing so. Theoretically the other countries might decide to sanction that country in some way, but enforcement on an international scale is inherently difficult. Individual persons are subject to the authority of a state because the state owns the monopoly of violent enforcement (as an ultimate end) and the inherent massive power difference between state and indiviudal makes this enforcement easy and reliable, but states see themselves as ultimately sovereign actors on the same legal level, and much depends on their individual status versus each other.

... are you aware of how article 5 works? When invoked, the NATO countries meet for a decision on whether article 5 was invoked for a good reason by a country based on available intelligence. It's not a criminal court case in which guilt has to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", so the standard of evidence is lower. But article 5 is not an automatism. And whichever head of government convenes for that meeting is aware of the gravity of what will be decided together.

.... article 5 is a legal clause. Yes, there is also a lot of symbolism attached to it and for good reason. But it is ultimately a legal procedure which requires legal justification to invoke. A legal procedure which all nations of the treaty agreed to follow as per its carefully worded letter.

Western boots on the ground in Ukraine is incredibly unlikely at the moment. If it happened it would be well discussed in advantage, and in that case, every Western nation would know its exact role and the extent of the involvement of any partner, e.g. France and UK would know 100% that Germany provides logistical support or AWACS but no combat troops if such a plan was reached (which I cannot ever see happening). That's not disunity, but planning.

I think he meant an attack on the mainland (in retaliation), not the local forces. Otherwise, your assumption is fully correct. As per international law it is legal for any nation to join a war on the defensive side in an illegal invasion. But it is the decision of that specific country (unless they have an offensive alliance, but I think that's basically unheard of nowadays, or basically illegal) and as a voluntary war party, its defensive alliances would not be triggered.

There is an online rumor that Igor "Strelkov" Girkin was found dead in his cell. Hanged.

Okay, I fully admit this is completely conspiracy theory level territory but.. Wasn't there an incident between the Russian airforce and NATO planes over the Black Sea recently? What if - and no, I don't belive thst myself, but I want to mention it for the pure fun - what if this was a British or American message to tell Russia "Our stealth planes are actually stealth planes, Vladimir. Now please call your dogs back a bit." Sniping a Russian AWACS to emphasize the message. Leaving everyone in the public wondering if it was Ukraine or FF incident. The perfect crime.

Much less interesting than the aircraft news, but it is nice to see that Ukraine does not forget infantry equipment: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/czech-bren-2-will-be-assembled-at-the-facilities-of-ukroboronprom-enterprises/ CZ Bren 2 assault rifles will be assembled in Ukroboronprom facilities. More NATO integration is never wrong, even though Ukraine will continue to struggle with standardisation of its massive equipment collection for the foreseeable time.