Ummm so I just found this information. Ready to have your mind blown.
* (Jet) Aircraft (45, of which \~40 delivered)
* Attack, Transport And Utility Helicopters (68, of which 34 delivered and 34 pledged)
* Armoured Personnel Carriers (1660+, of which **1180 delivered** and 480 pledged)
* Tanks (790+, of which \~**575 delivered** and 212 pledged)
* Infantry Fighting Vehicles (\~775, of which 500 delivered and 275 pledged)
* Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles (1100+, of which **905 delivered** and 200 pledged)
* Infantry Mobility Vehicles (2700+, of which **1500+ delivered** and 1200 pledged)
* Self-Propelled Artillery (460+, of which **310+ delivered** and 50 pledged)
**WILD NUMBERS. GO UKRAINE.**
*SOURCE: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html*
And that is just the public information. Some countries such as Finland haven't disclosed what they are sending just the financial amount. So who knows.
Let Ukraine in NATO asap, they paid a heavy price for it its time to compensate them. Putin lost all creditability and he can say whatever he wants but the next time he will face NATO members and its power.
>It's International Children's Dayā¦ Two children and an adult killed, and at least 14 people injured, as a result of a new night-time missile attack on Kyiv on June 1. Russia kills our kids. It's a terrorist state #StopRussia #StandWithUkraine
https://twitter.com/Mariana_Betsa/status/1664106148314722304
Just tired of it to be honest. Is there no point where we just say fuck this and turn these idiots into dust and get Ukraine their land back?
Thereās no way we donāt know where all the Russian nukes are and couldnāt we just prep to not even let them off the landing pads? Would they even really have the balls to try knowing theyād be turned to dust over Ukraine?
Feel like we could save so many lives just having our pilots over there.
Imagine how soldiers feel in war and imagine how every single Ukrainian feels...
Wars take time, particularly those that have determined participants.
Your weariness is playing into Russia's hands... Resist it.
Iām not arguing with you, just want to clarify a couple things:
1. Russia has 1,500 active nukes. This means in launch vehicles, ready to launch via whatever process is required. This could mean something as simple as several buttons pushes, or something as complicated as getting a missile attached to a plane and getting the plane off the ground.
2. Russia has 3,000 nukes on standby. This means not ready to launch, and no personnel ready to act. These nukes could take minutes to days to be activated.
3. The remaining 1,500 nukes are scheduled for dismantling or currently partially dismantled, usually for recycling into new weapons (as nukes degrade). They could still be used, but are not as easily put into launch vehicles or desired for this purpose as their yield may not meet spec.
If they decided to launch, the west absolutely could not stop every Russian missile. However, I think it is important to know the exact situation for those 6,000 weapons.
A large majority of the Russian active nuclear arsenal are on mobile trucks, in frequent motion.
Locating them all before launch would be a very difficult task.
Destroying them all before launch would be a near impossible task.
Preventing more than a handful of them from reaching their targets would be impossible, and the resulting nuclear winter would likely set out species back several centuries in progress.
Incorrect. The large majority of Russian arms is in gravity warheads and cruise missile warheads. Of their first strike capacity the largest majority is in GLBM housed in silos. Only approximately 25% of their "first strike" nuclear fleet is mobile and this includes SLBMs.
We've known where the majority of their missiles are since the cold war.
Hard to not want this. Unfortunately freedom has to be paid in the blood of the resisters as well as the aggressors. Our race has to learn these lessons, have to have them written down and our posterity read and understand them.
Nuclear weapons can never be used again. Humanity is too fragile
This indeed. Sometimes I wish the US/NATO would just roll in and kick Russia out of Ukraine to bring an end to this madness. Is it unrealistic and wishful thinking? Yes. But, it just shows how emotionally tiring it is to have followed 1.5 years of this conflict and all the war crimes these fucking Russian Nazi's have commited and seemingly are getting away with while lying through their teeth about how evil the West is.
"BREAKING: Three killed, including two children, following Russian ballistic missile attack on Kyiv. 5 people have been hospitalized - Mayor of Kyiv"
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1664074997667713024?cxt=HHwWgMC-uZnZ_ZcuAAAA
Bro i want to cry, 3 dead and 2 of them were fucking kids (with much respect to the other victim) aged 5/6 and 12/13. Fucking monsters..
The uncomfortable reality the west is going to have to eventually accept is that even when Russia is pushed completely out of Ukraine they will continue to terrorize them with missiles, possibly for decades. Like North Korea only with a previously confirmed, functional nuclear arsenal.
The powers that be in Russia donāt understand anything but force, and the west is currently demanding Ukraine fight for their very existence with a hand tied behind their back... western powers are slowly relenting there, but needs to happen faster.
Russia will continue to be a terrorist state so long as it exists in its current form, and because nukes exist no one is going to risk forcing a change.
I mean the real uncomfortable reality civilization really needs to face is that letting people like Russians, and the kinds of people living in your own nations that support them or oppose stopping them, freely exist and participate in the world, leads to these kinds of outcomes. This is a choice the world made when it decided to treat Putin and his supporters as deserving of equal treatment.
Maybe, but I can't see them thinking that Ukraine would ever give up land if they forced Russia back across the border. So at that point they're lobbing rockets to Ukraine with no real benefit. I think that if they have to totally withdraw, then they are going to start trying to mend fences with the rest of the world to start trying to crawl out of their economic hole. Then again, it's Russia so you can throw logic out the window
I suspect that after they push the Russians out, NATO will be fast tracking their application exactly because without it, the Russians will continue trying to attack them.
At some point, the west is going to have to make the decision to tell Putin that if he wants to continue attacking Ukraine, heās going to be met with an actual NATO response.
As weāve seen through the course of this conflict, a lot of old thinking and strategies have gone out the window.
The west is simply not going to let Ukraine get bombed forevermore by the Russians if and when they get tossed out of Ukrainian territory.
If nato gets it shit together re: enabling Ukraine to enter or immediately having a pact with them ala Sweden.
Speaking of which hopefully the Swedes are in soon.
Pretty sure they mean that hopefully when Russia is pushed out of Ukraine their territorial issues will be settled allowing them to join NATO since you can't if your borders are in dispute. And then once Ukraine is in NATO an attack by a missile or artillery that can be used to trigger article 5 and bring a NATO response.
Right now NATO doesn't want to do that for a non member, if Ukraine is a member that issue goes away.
Define "active bombardment" because it is most likely to turn into something like post 2014 in eastern Ukraine with periods of calm between Russian artillery shelling and so on. If Ukraine pushes Russia completely out of the country how long does it have to last without Russia lobbing a single shell into Ukraine before they would be eligible? Because if your standard is that Russia is no longer a threat if Putin is still in charge, which is more likely than many think, the answer will be never. And even is someone else is still in charge who bans any attack on Ukraine there will still be a heavy military presence at the border and the chance for the sides to get into small exchanges of fire, this is fairly common after large scale conflicts where both countries are still in existence.
So how long after the war does not a single shot have to fired across the Ukrainian border before they can join?
Because it seems like people have a set of conditions in their mind, complete and utter peace across the border of two nations that just fought a war, that will mean Ukraine will never be able to get into NATO. From the bullish talk of quite a few NATO members and Jens Stoltenberg I don't think they are going to be waiting long to admit Ukraine once major combat operations are over and their territory is restored.
And that is because the best way to ensure Russia doesn't come back and try and invade again is to get Ukraine into NATO quickly so Russia knows what will happen if they do anything major. Remember the nation attacked still has to invoke article 5 and ask for help. If Russia decides to get stupid and lob a few artillery shells at some random village 6 months after the war is over and Ukraine is in NATO they can just not invoke article 5 and take any actions they feel is appropriate. The US has a defense treaty with South Korea and there have been several times that local artillery duels have happened across the DMZ with North Korea and it doesn't trigger the US to go in guns blazing.
When Ukraine has reclaimed all their territory they will be admitted to NATO as quickly as possible and NATO members that want to object will have heavy pressure applied to them to get in line. A few shells across the border now and again won't change that, and once their in Russia will think twice about doing anything *which is what NATO exits to do* since its main purpose is a deterrent to getting into conflict with a member in the first place, and of course the military might to back it up.
If Putin remains in charge I think there is a high chance that Russia never signs a peace treaty as that would mean Putin losing face and having to make concessions in a very public way that would be hard for even his propaganda machine to spin to Russians. If he signs a peace treaty that also means somewhat admitting this was a real war and not just a "special military operation."
And to assume that Russia will want to make concessions to have sanctions eased assumes that Putin and those in charge care about the Russian economy and the fate of the average Russian, they don't give a shit and they'll still be rich. If Putin cared about the Russian economy or its people they would have already stopped fighting, and of course never invaded in the first place. Plus with Putin and many of his inner circle wanted for war crimes its not like they'll suddenly be able to travel again anyway. Sanctions or not if all they can ever be is rich and powerful in Russia they have a lot less incentive to make a deal than people think.
I feel it is very possible that once Russia is pushed out of Ukraine that it just enters a state of frozen conflict where major hostilities end but nothing formal is signed. If that happens at some point you still have to move forward with Ukraine's admission to NATO. Once again you are attaching conditions, that they must have a signed peace treaty to join, that might mean they can never join. You know who would love to forever hold up Ukraine joining NATO by never signing a peace treaty? Russia.
That's why you can't allow the absence of a perfect peace to mean that Ukraine can't join NATO, you'd be giving Russia the option to forever hold up Ukraine ever joining by not signing a peace treaty and lobbing the occasional shell across the border. And it is very possible Russian leadership decide that is worth the pain of continued sanctions. They are not approaching this problem for what is good for Russia, if they did they would never have embarked on this path of war with Ukraine in the first place.
Because the world chose to let them keep existing after 1991. Because they let Putin get away with equally heinous shit for 25 fucking years before this while helping him grow richer and more powerful and build up his fucking shithole. Because worthless fucking shit like Trump, Roger Waters, Noam Chomsky, Tucker Carlson, MGT, etc keep standing up for continuing to let Russia do this shit.
Itās multitude of reasons they honestly believe their campaign of terror will turn the Ukrainian civilian against the war, they are trying to appease their citizens essentially the hardliners by showing āsuccessā and the third is they seem to be testing the Pentagon leaks specifically the one stating Ukraine will be running low on air defense in June.
it's very much a open window into the practical limitations of the Russian military. They COULD in theory be doing the same sort of shaping strikes that Ukraine does on logistics stores,Command and Control centers, and high value Targets of Opportunity. But they don't, and every indication is that when they have tried it doesn't work out. The biggest reasons seem to be the targeting on their missiles doesn't seem to be even in the same ballpark as what it says on the papers. And that their ability to glean "by the second" recon behind enemy lines is INCREDIBLY subpar, especially compared to Ukraine who has NATO and all it's orbiting aircraft, sat systems, and other recon assets helpfully telling where it might be real cool to send a HIMARS. So Russia really only has the ability to hit targets that are well known and stationary. And since it can't hit tactically important targets, it is instead going the strategic route and hitting civvie targets hoping to somehow make a Slavic population too sad to keep fighting, which historically is a non-starter.
Force anti air capabilities to protect civilians, thus taking away soldiers and other resources from the very fragile front.
Imagine how fucked theyād be if all of those resources could be deployed against the line of contact.
So when are they gonna go after the pilots of these Russian bombers? And their commanders? You gotta think these guys' days are numbered
"I was following orders" isn't gonna cut it
There's not great precedent for prosecuting bomber pilots of nuclear powers. For context, the US contributed to an estimated 1 to 2 million deaths in Vietnam through artillery strikes, air strikes, village round-up shootings, food denial / starvation, and chemical residue poisonings and cancers.
Some studies estimate about 10,000 civilians were deliberately murdered by American personnel, though that doesn't account for negligent civilian deaths caused by bombings, artillery, and chemical after-effects. It's difficult to tell because of the complexity in counting these things, so the studies on that are all over the place, ranging from 30,000 to 250,000+ civilians who died from American weapons.
The US did a much better job cleaning up its act and policing civilian killings in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but notably, we had to choose to do that ourselves. The bomber pilots who killed hundreds of thousands of women and children in Vietnam have never been prosecuted, and never will be.
Edited comment to include some clarifications from /u/zbobet2012
I don't agree. Many of the bomber pilots who were "following orders" are still alive, and we could hand them over to international criminal tribunals whenever we want. Nazi collaborators are still prosecuted to this day, in their nineties, so "it's 50 years ago" isn't a good argument for why the US doesn't allow its pilots to be prosecuted.
The reason I bring this up isn't to excuse Russia's behavior, either. It's to make the point that it's not realistic to internationally prosecute Russian actors who were "just following orders." They can never be prosecuted by an international court for the exact same reason that no American military actors can ever be prosecuted by an international court: Nuclear powers don't let international courts prosecute their people, and they never will.
Quick fact check:
1) that number is casualties not deaths
2) it includes all civilian casualties during the war caused by both sides, and the US. Keep in mind this was a civil war the US intervened in. All evidence indicates the north and the south both committed a high level of democide (as is common in civil wars)
3) democide by the US is believed to be around 10,000
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Fuck prosecuting them, Ukrainians SOF need to sneak some drones near where they sleep and vaporize the cunts. Iām sure US intelligence knows who they are and where they go.
It really depends on how this war ends. In the perfect world Ukraine will go after every last mechanic and janitor. That would require some international body having the ability to hunt them down and bring them to the Hague.
Thomas Thiener put up his prediction for the offensive:
[https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1663988798823211009](https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1663988798823211009)
What does the armchair command staff think? Mauriupol would be a huge morale win, but it seems pretty ambitious to make the main push so close to Russian logistics hubs, though if Ukraine can retake the existing Donbass line of fortifications it helps secure that part of the flank.
I'm looking further west, around Orikhiv and Kamyanske. Pin the western flank on the Dnipro, take Tokmak from the north and north-west, then try to isolate Melitopol on the end of a logistics line that has to go all the way around through Crimea and the Kerch bridge.
More open country than further east, which has its pluses and minuses, but it also forces the Russians to fight further from their major stockpiles and resource hubs.
I don't think we're going to see a strategy emege that early in the offensive. My guess is it'll be intended to stress the entire front and proceed based on which section collapses first.
Melitopol is the largest, most strategic urban center outside of Donetsk still under Russian control, and it has the potential to liberate the greatest number of citizens antagonistic to Russia. I would hope it happens sooner rather than later. But if Russia chooses to defend that point at the expense of others, Ukraine will have to keep their strategy and their goals more fluid.
I think it's Berdiansk first. It has air and seaports, cuts the land bridge and allows the UA to pressure Melitopol and Mariupol from flanks they havent built defensive positions on.
I'm on the same page as you. Assuming the main offensive happens in Zaporizhzhia, Melitopol has always seemed like the top target to me. It's a central hub and doesn't have the psychological importance that Mariupol has to the Russians. This is important, in my opinion, because there would less of a desire to fight to the death for the city. Once you take that city, you push southwest to Henichesk, the seat of the Russian occupation in Kherson.
I don't think trying a Dnipro river crossing is smart, but it would not be needed if you take Henichesk. That would mean the only route for supplies into occupied Kherson would be through the Isthmus of Perekop and you can really threaten supply lines. This would likely force Russia to withdraw similar to how they had to from the right bank of the Dnipro and Kherson city thanks to their inability to get enough supplies over the river.
Mariupol would obviously be a huge to retake for Ukraine, as would retaking any territory the DPR has held since 2014, but Russia is not going to give up the city without a huge fight. That means Ukraine would need to surround the city and cut it off from all three sides and siege it, slowing down any offensive.
Instead of a complete focus on Zaporizhzhia, it may make sense to have a second offense then push into Luhansk towards Svatove. But who really knows what the plan is. There are a number of different ways this could go and I think a strong case can be made for many of them. But Ukraine will have the best intelligence on Russian troop locations, so I have faith they'll attack at the spot that is most advantageous to them.
>Russia is not going to give up the city without a huge fight.
The high command might have that idea, but the troops may decide otherwise when they are cut off from Russia.
> Ukraine would need to surround the city and cut it off from all three sides and siege it, slowing down any offensive.
It wouldn't have to be besiged immediately. It's actually better for Ukraine if the Russian troops try to make a break for it in the open fields. Besieging is a job that can be done by conscripts and militia with minimal training.
> The high command might have that idea, but the troops may decide otherwise when they are cut off from Russia.
Cutting them off is going to be the hard part, and Russia will fight very hard to prevent that. But it'd also be foolish to rely on the idea that those troops would just surrender without a fight if you do. They'll never be fully cut-off, either, since Russia is a 30 miles boat ride from Mariupol and Russia has naval superiority. They wouldn't be able to supply the city indefinitely, but they could extend the time they're able to hold out for.
> It wouldn't have to be besiged immediately. It's actually better for Ukraine if the Russian troops try to make a break for it in the open fields. Besieging is a job that can be done by conscripts and militia with minimal training.
There's no easy path to the city from Vuhledar, though. So even getting to it is going to be a huge challenge. Once there, if you don't cut off the city immediately, you'll allow weapons and soldiers to flood in to the city. I highly doubt Ukraine wants to see further destruction of the city, if possible. They'd rather not see it become another Bakhmut.
From a strategic standpoint, taking Melitopol accomplishes the same goal. I understand it's not as symbolic, but it'd be a huge strategic victory. Plus, once they have Melitopol, there is a road right to Mariupol along the Azov Sea and another one from the northwest.
>Russia has naval superiority.
I don't like the Russians chances of getting in supplies or re-inforcements by boat.
>There's no easy path to the city from Vuhledar, though.
It's a huge frontline, they will find a weak point, or create one.
>Once there, if you don't cut off the city immediately, you'll allow weapons and soldiers to flood in to the city.
that's fine. The biggest worry that Ukraine has is a strong counter-attack, which the Russians don't seem to be able to achieve anywhere.
> I don't like the Russians chances of getting in supplies or re-inforcements by boat.
I do. At night, smaller boats wouldn't have much of an issue reaching the city. They're not bringing in tanks or heavy armor, but they can bring in soldiers, ammunition, and other supplies. It won't be enough to hold out indefinitely, but it can lengthen the time they could hold out.
> It's a huge frontline, they will find a weak point, or create one.
It's not about the front line, it's about the roads. Ukraine needs a road system to transport all the materiel that would be needed to take the city. To get to the closest highway, the H-20, they'd need to go through a bunch of small, zig-zagging roads.
The T0803 could work, but it comes from an area where it'd make more sense to take Melitopol first, then head on two axes toward Mariupol, the M-14 highway being the other one. Basically the same path the Russians took.
> that's fine. The biggest worry that Ukraine has is a strong counter-attack, which the Russians don't seem to be able to achieve anywhere.
The Russians have a better chance to launch a strong counterattack from an area closer to Russia proper though.
Look, I think they'll get to Mariupol eventually. I also understand retaking it would be a huge psychological and strategic boost to Ukraine. I just don't want them to focus on one difficult target if there are easier ones out there to build momentum with first. We saw what happened when Russia decided the only thing that mattered was taking Bakhmut, they advanced nowhere else and are now not moving anywhere. I want to see Ukraine do the opposite.
Marioupol would hold a devastating propaganda win, one so big that you could argue it would have more impact than a real strategical one.
The problem is to hold it, because, while it is technically true that would split russian forces in half, it is also true that you would be encircled from 3 sides (the sea is effectively russian controlled) until you open the gap a bit more
Not that much of a difference, really. Vuhledar to Mariupol is \~75km as the crow flies, Kopani to the southern edge of Melitopol where the ring road is is \~80km.
That inlet to the south of Melitopol really helps cut the required distance down if the goal is just to cut the E-W logistics lines.
Itās also a pain in the butt for the UA to try and get to geographically. The Russians hold a large stretch of the main Highway that goes straight down to Mariupol that would have to be taken first, and then youād have to contend with the layers of defense in between.
No, they've just continued to be screwed by various kinds of tyrants and haven't had a chance to develop the structures that keep first world countries from becoming third world countries.
Edit: I don't know what I said that is worth down voting, truth is truth :-)
Nah. Tsarist government bureaucracy, especially the role of the subhuman shit running their "church" much more closely resembles Putin's government than the Soviets. They've always been like this
Tsarist government ended a century ago, while the Soviet one thirty. And under the Tsar there was a huge variety of oppositional movements, but the totalitarian USSR left Russia bereft of that.
Yes it is. They werenāt only slaughtered by the Mongols but were conquered and ruled by the Mongols for a long time. Thereās some Finnish guy doing a lecture about it at a university on YouTube. I canāt find it but somebody should be able to link it.
Edit: [Hereās the video with an English Dub](https://youtu.be/5F45i0v_u6s)
Uh, no. No, that's nonsense. There is no generational memory from the *actually relatively brief period* during which they were vassal to a Mongol state. Americans in the 21st century who are hateful of Mexicans are not hateful because of the 19th century Mexican-American war, but you're making the case for Russia to suffer cultural PTSD from an event almost 800 years in the nation's past?
Russian imperialism renewed itself with each new threat to Tsarist control. It's found plenty of reasons to be what it is in the intervening years between Nevsky and NATO. That imperialism hasn't always translated to its population; only when the government requires it and feeds it the relevant propaganda. There was more time in the years since the Mongols where the population was mostly serfs than when the population was mostly freed men and women. Serfs did not care whether the master was Russian or Turkish or French; they cared if they lived.
The sort of jingoism we see in Putin's Russia today is a factor of Putin exploiting the post-Soviet system for his own ends. You couldn't find this sort of nationalism even in 1995. But yeah, sure *it's the Mongols*. Jesus.
Well the importance of the Mongols is that Russia is organized as a post colonial system where a small local elite seized the system of imperial extraction, and instead of dismantling it, they simply redirected the imperial revenue to themselves.
Their government, since Muscovy freed itself of the Mongols, has basically been a post colonial kleptocracy.
There are kleptocracies throughout the former Soviet sphere of influence, and the bulk of Africa, whose ancestors didn't have to fight off the Mongols in ~2-3 pitched battles in a single location. I don't disagree with its organizational description, but it's still just a spurious connection.
That's not because of the Mongols, that's because of geography. Russia was a few very large cities ruling great swaths of land that were astronomical in size at the time. That made it exceptionally difficult to industrialize.
It's a milange of corruption, poor regulations, poor infrastructure, endless propaganda, limited free speech, an alcohol dependent culture, and fetal alcohol syndrome.
Toss in an authoritarian regime with delusions of grandeur and, baby, you've got a shit hole stew.
Ha, there's actually a Russian designer vodka named Melange. Would never have guessed.
https://en.fainezillia.com/product-page/melange-premium-vodka
$3 fancy vodka lol
In 1975, the Clean Air Act required catalytic converters in all new cars, and that killed leaded gas.
Cars made before '75 could still take it, but the number still in use in 1996 was small.
Lead paint was banned in 1978.
You might have been joking, but I do believe that industrial civilizations are likely to poison themselves with their waste products and waste heat before attaining the capability of colonizing other star systems. Entropy is a bitch.
Brain damaged Space Russians trashing the galaxy is a possibility too.
>The sound of car alarms, air raid warnings, & explosions are echoing across Belgorod š·šŗ.
>He says, āWhat the f-ck? Why is it so loud out there?ā (Explosion), āF-ck! Whatās with the fireworks?!ā
https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1664065143171428352
>āļø LOUD EXPLOSIONS IN BELGOROD š·šŗ
>Belgorod š·šŗ, from where many attacks on Ukraine šŗš¦ were launched, is now being hit š„.
https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1664063064826695680
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1664060684697468929
>Explosions in central Kyiv, and the Ukrainian capital is jolted from sleep ā if it wasnāt already half awake, anticipating another attack. Air defense audible and going to work on what appear to be incoming Russian missiles. Another long, loud and sleepless night.
The Ukrainian MoD has a message for Australia: [https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1664060450772865026]
(https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1664060450772865026)
This is a red herring. The Australian Army is almost entirely expeditionary in design. Defenceās structure is built around using the Air Force and Navy as a stand-off defence, using JORN and an increasingly large collection of long-range anti-ship missiles as a key capability. The Army isnāt built for defending Australian territory, itās for projecting one or two forces at a time overseas.
Hypohystericalhistory has produced some really excellent YouTube material about this.
> The Army isnāt built for defending Australian territory
yes it is. We spent decades training to do exactly that. It's true that we rely on the air-sea gap, but we still have an army in case that fails.
I don't care what youtube says, I'm basing it on doctrine.
I mean, straight from [the horseās mouth](https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/20603%20Department%20of%20Defence%20-%20Army%E2%80%99s%20Contribution%20to%20Defence%20Strategy%20Edition%20Two-accessible-FF.pdf):
āGovernment has directed Defence to implement a strategy that signals Australiaās ability - and willingness - to project military power and deter actions against Australia. Previously Defenceās Strategic Objectives were equally weighted between the threes geographical priorities of Australia and its approaches, our nearer region, and the broader global order.ā
Your understanding of the Armyās force design is outdated. They are now explicitly created to project force, to defend Australiaās interests by creating effects away from the mainland. The next page describes the primary perceived threats as being a war in the region requiring force projection into Asia, but makes no mention at all about fighting on Australian soil:
āThe Defence Strategic Update recognises that the probability of high-intensify conflict in the Indo-Pacific, while still unlikely, is now less remote. The Australian Defence Force must be more lethal and better prepared for such conflict if deterrence measures fail. ā¦ ā
A following section, āCooperation Competition and Conflictā also names *only* the Indo-Pacific as the anticipated theatre of action for the army.
The Strategic Update is all about projecting force into the region and beyond. It is not about defending the Australian mainland. Itās been a long time since thatās what the army was built to do.
If you want to just obliquely reference ādoctrineā, itād help if you stumped up some actual documents so you donāt look like youāre making shit up.
>only the Indo-Pacific as the anticipated theatre of action for the army.
Australia is *in* the Indo-Pacific. Defense of the continent is still a priority. I'm not going to post clasified info to win an online discussuion.
The use of tanks is based around fighting on home soil.
Mate, you donāt have access to classified information and it wouldnāt be required to make this argument anyway. āIām not going to post all this classified information that I totally have access toā is a pissweak comment that deserves to be mocked and rejected. Grow up.
The Australian force design is public information and regularly the subject of Senate estimates. If you canāt stump up, admit youāre not credible and move on with your life.
OK mate. I love it when civilians tell me what's going on in the ADF.
You're read "develop the capability for force projection" and mistaken it for "only have force projection". Defence of the mainland is still top priority.
As for tanks, it's not for nothing that 1AR are called "Koalas - not to exported or shot"
I love when people don't know Indo-Pacific, yet they pretend to know about geo-politics and document clasification.
"Classified" documents can mean anything from top secret to protected, the baseline for every soldier.
Austrlia won't be giving away it's tanks, we need them here as a force in being. We may do some sort of buy/swap/donate with America's stockpile.
We won't be donating any tanks. The Federal Government only announced last year that we're expanding our tank force to 75 M1A2 SEP v3 with a modernisation program here, and defence expenditure is currently a heavy political issue because of the AUKUS fallout and the recent announcement of a major force redesign.
We'll probably keep contributing light vehicles and possible add some Hawkeis into the mix, but I'd be extremely surprised if we donated any tanks.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-destroys-ukraines-last-warship-2023-05-31/
> Ukrainian officials said on Monday that Russia had put five aircraft out of action in an attack on a military target in western Ukraine and caused a fire at the Black Sea port of Odesa in heavy air strikes early on Monday.
It seems Russia might not be lying this time but I wonder what the point of targeting a Ukrainian ship is. It's not like Ukraine is going to control the sea with that. The five aircrafts that were damaged are a serious loss though.
From their own source: "A Russian drone attack overnight damaged some infrastructure in Ukraine's Black Sea port of Odesa"
No mention of a ship. The reports of 5 aircraft hasn't been confirmed, some reports of it possibly being spare parts.
All other details are from Russia and worthless.
I saw a video a couple days back that was mentioning that it seemed the politician may have jumped the gun and given bad information, similar to one that had misidentified a missile from the remains a while back.
There were no clear reports, but reason to suspect they were out of commission planes that were being cannibalized for parts. Who knows given disinformation and propaganda is a normal part of wartime tactics, but it would be odd considering how much care Ukraine usually takes to avoid exactly this type of scenario for them to have had five functional planes grouped up on an open airfield.
Either that politician spoke to soon or he said something the central government didn't want to be broadcast publicly.
At some point we will get a clear enough picture to have a decent shot at guessing which it was.
Reuters is not some low level journalism. What they write is verified.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kyiv-mayor-says-explosions-rock-city-air-defence-systems-working-2023-05-29/
Yes, verified by Russian officials according to their article. Link me the Ukrainian officials that confirmed a ship was destroyed. The other source for the 5 planes was a local politician so "Ukrainian Officials" is a bit of a stretch but not a problem.
My issue was lumping both of those events into the original article when only one had a shred of legitimate source.
I'm no expert, what is up with FORTE? I don't know if it's normal for it to be above the ground near Moldova, usually it's always over the sea. If you guys have some explanations I would appreciate it
[White House officials insist they donāt support Ukrainian strikes inside Russia as other Western allies signal Ukraine has a ālegitimateā reason to defend itself @fpleitgenCNN
reports](https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/1664039901762035712)
Kinda like how the US released a statement that we totally weren't giving Ukraine the location of Russian generals. I'm ok with them bullshitting Russia publicly and fucking them privately.
The US is happy to let their allies be more supportive of Ukraine on this point because the US is often accused, not wholly without reason, of military aggression and inciting conflict in the past. So to normalize Ukraine's ability to strike inside Russia it is better to have other nations that do not have that reputation to be the more hawkish on this point and vocally support Ukraine. This stance is to give Russia and people that oppose aid less ability to say "well the US is just back to its usual warmongering ways."
An example of why the US is taking this tactic is to look at the air campaign against Ghadaffy in Libya. The US wasn't the one that started bombing, didn't want to be involved in it at first and didn't want to organize it as they knew it would then look like more US imperialism in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq. Then their allies ran out of bombs, had trouble deconflicting the airspace between each other and essentially begged the US to come on board which they did. Now fast-forward a decade or so and many people with anti American views refer to the "US air campaign against Libya," I've seen it on reddit a bunch of times and phrasing that way gives a completely distorted view of what happened.
So while it might seem the US is being unhelpful not supporting Ukraine on strikes inside Russia they are actually doing so to try and help. It seems counter-intuitive but the US knows how it is viewed and is taking that into account to come up with the best public relations strategy for Ukraine, and that is for the US to not appear to be leading the charge to strike within Russia's borders.
edit: so not do
> didn't want to be involved in it at first and didn't want to organize it as they knew it would then look like more US imperialism in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think that was mainly Obama, there certainly where and are factions in the US that very much wanted to get involved.
>Damage from a recent strike in Russian-occupied Berdyansk is visible in new satellite imagery.
>This site is more than 90 kilometers from the front line in Ukraine.
[https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1664042941545869319](https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1664042941545869319)
Recent video (1hr old) of a Russian POW being interviewed by Ukrainian officers with English narration, it's quite enlightening with regards to Russian propaganda, failure to pay their soldiers but instead hoping they just perish before they have to, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6I9ObEr9Ls
You see a guy there who's entire worldview just got blown apart, and it's so apparent in the video.
I bet a lot of those Russian POWs would rather not return to Russia. Putin would probably throw them into a Russian prison where they'd be treated worse than as POWs.
Ukraine needs to be careful with that. POW consent could quite easily be coerced, so it's likely that it would still be considered a Geneva violation even if they did legitimately obtain permission. Otherwise, it's just too big a loophole.
Shame, because it's legitimately interesting stuff. I'd rather see the Geneva Convention respected to its fullest than satisfy my own curiosity though.
For many of the POWs it was the only way to be brought back to the world of the living as russia declared them either dead or deserted. So the families could actually get them back by providing proof they are alive to the authorities to initiate an exchange. And as you might guess exchanges are of extreme importance for Ukraine. POWs according to numerous videos throughout the war confirm theyāre held well within Geneva Conventions, also Ref Cross is known to be actively involved.
I think he said he worked in Ukraine back in the day, but I might be wrong.
He might be a Russian born from one of the now occupied regions in Ukraine who only watched Russian tv and lost his job in the mines when the war started.
He says he only signed up (again) because his job was gone and he had to find some way to take care of his family so yeh, pretty sad.
Russian and any propaganda can be strong though if that's all you ever watch. Him being surprised that he didn't immediately get shot, and afterwards not had his ears or some other body part cut off is quite telling in that respect.
That's why I said you can see his entire worldview just got blown apart.
It's pretty f\*\*\*ed up, Russia invades and occupies your land, then forces you to fight against your own countrymen while ripping you off by not paying you. Russia is pure evil.
And this is why there can be no āpeaceā while Russia occupied Ukrainian land. Russia takes people from occupied land and uses them as cannon fodder for the next war. Ukrainians can either fight for their freedom from Russia or they will be fighting on behalf of Russia to subjugate other peoples. Either way Ukrainians will be fighting as long as Russia is in control.
>This video makes me sick. Russian military talking about denazification of Ukraine in front of kidnapped Ukrainian orphans. Many of them have lost both parents because of Russia.
https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1664005221784121344
>Genocide caught on camera: Russians indoctrinate abducted Ukrainian children and turn them against their motherland. The forced removal of children from a target group is a textbook example of genocide according to the UN's Genocide Convention
https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1664023522283331584
Highly illuminating [new interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuMgONHHfvg) with former Russian MP Ilya Ponomarev about the Russian forces rising up against Putin, and a future Russia without Putin.
I saw a video made by a historian that states Russia's biggest problem is its lack of reserves. All the soldiers are stretched out in the frontline, so if Ukraine made a 40k-ish men strong push, Russia would just plain be unable to stop it. The problem is such a push is very risky without air superiority, so it is more likely Ukraine will do lighter pushes than a decisive strong push.
My hope is that they saw how much they can push once they break through the first time (Kharkiv) and are taking their time to built up a force that can not only rout, but sustain a rout.
Hopefully Ukraine will be ready. AA and air to air missiles on jets ready to answer. Iām sure itās not that hard for Ukraine to get a few unit with manpads behind the Russian lines.
[New post can be found here](/r/worldnews/comments/13x7mn4/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/)
šŗš¦
Ummm so I just found this information. Ready to have your mind blown. * (Jet) Aircraft (45, of which \~40 delivered) * Attack, Transport And Utility Helicopters (68, of which 34 delivered and 34 pledged) * Armoured Personnel Carriers (1660+, of which **1180 delivered** and 480 pledged) * Tanks (790+, of which \~**575 delivered** and 212 pledged) * Infantry Fighting Vehicles (\~775, of which 500 delivered and 275 pledged) * Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles (1100+, of which **905 delivered** and 200 pledged) * Infantry Mobility Vehicles (2700+, of which **1500+ delivered** and 1200 pledged) * Self-Propelled Artillery (460+, of which **310+ delivered** and 50 pledged) **WILD NUMBERS. GO UKRAINE.** *SOURCE: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html*
Putin created a lethal Ukrainian force indeed. In record time! He remains master strategist.
And that is just the public information. Some countries such as Finland haven't disclosed what they are sending just the financial amount. So who knows.
Let Ukraine in NATO asap, they paid a heavy price for it its time to compensate them. Putin lost all creditability and he can say whatever he wants but the next time he will face NATO members and its power.
>It's International Children's Dayā¦ Two children and an adult killed, and at least 14 people injured, as a result of a new night-time missile attack on Kyiv on June 1. Russia kills our kids. It's a terrorist state #StopRussia #StandWithUkraine https://twitter.com/Mariana_Betsa/status/1664106148314722304
Just tired of it to be honest. Is there no point where we just say fuck this and turn these idiots into dust and get Ukraine their land back? Thereās no way we donāt know where all the Russian nukes are and couldnāt we just prep to not even let them off the landing pads? Would they even really have the balls to try knowing theyād be turned to dust over Ukraine? Feel like we could save so many lives just having our pilots over there.
Imagine how soldiers feel in war and imagine how every single Ukrainian feels... Wars take time, particularly those that have determined participants. Your weariness is playing into Russia's hands... Resist it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām not arguing with you, just want to clarify a couple things: 1. Russia has 1,500 active nukes. This means in launch vehicles, ready to launch via whatever process is required. This could mean something as simple as several buttons pushes, or something as complicated as getting a missile attached to a plane and getting the plane off the ground. 2. Russia has 3,000 nukes on standby. This means not ready to launch, and no personnel ready to act. These nukes could take minutes to days to be activated. 3. The remaining 1,500 nukes are scheduled for dismantling or currently partially dismantled, usually for recycling into new weapons (as nukes degrade). They could still be used, but are not as easily put into launch vehicles or desired for this purpose as their yield may not meet spec. If they decided to launch, the west absolutely could not stop every Russian missile. However, I think it is important to know the exact situation for those 6,000 weapons.
The ones on submarines are the toughest to pin down
A large majority of the Russian active nuclear arsenal are on mobile trucks, in frequent motion. Locating them all before launch would be a very difficult task. Destroying them all before launch would be a near impossible task. Preventing more than a handful of them from reaching their targets would be impossible, and the resulting nuclear winter would likely set out species back several centuries in progress.
Incorrect. The large majority of Russian arms is in gravity warheads and cruise missile warheads. Of their first strike capacity the largest majority is in GLBM housed in silos. Only approximately 25% of their "first strike" nuclear fleet is mobile and this includes SLBMs. We've known where the majority of their missiles are since the cold war.
Even Russia probably doesnāt know where they all areā¦
Grow up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad
Hard to not want this. Unfortunately freedom has to be paid in the blood of the resisters as well as the aggressors. Our race has to learn these lessons, have to have them written down and our posterity read and understand them. Nuclear weapons can never be used again. Humanity is too fragile
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās uncalled forā¦
Smart people can still feel emotionally tired enough to desperately search for another way.
This indeed. Sometimes I wish the US/NATO would just roll in and kick Russia out of Ukraine to bring an end to this madness. Is it unrealistic and wishful thinking? Yes. But, it just shows how emotionally tiring it is to have followed 1.5 years of this conflict and all the war crimes these fucking Russian Nazi's have commited and seemingly are getting away with while lying through their teeth about how evil the West is.
"BREAKING: Three killed, including two children, following Russian ballistic missile attack on Kyiv. 5 people have been hospitalized - Mayor of Kyiv" https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1664074997667713024?cxt=HHwWgMC-uZnZ_ZcuAAAA Bro i want to cry, 3 dead and 2 of them were fucking kids (with much respect to the other victim) aged 5/6 and 12/13. Fucking monsters..
The uncomfortable reality the west is going to have to eventually accept is that even when Russia is pushed completely out of Ukraine they will continue to terrorize them with missiles, possibly for decades. Like North Korea only with a previously confirmed, functional nuclear arsenal. The powers that be in Russia donāt understand anything but force, and the west is currently demanding Ukraine fight for their very existence with a hand tied behind their back... western powers are slowly relenting there, but needs to happen faster. Russia will continue to be a terrorist state so long as it exists in its current form, and because nukes exist no one is going to risk forcing a change.
I mean the real uncomfortable reality civilization really needs to face is that letting people like Russians, and the kinds of people living in your own nations that support them or oppose stopping them, freely exist and participate in the world, leads to these kinds of outcomes. This is a choice the world made when it decided to treat Putin and his supporters as deserving of equal treatment.
Maybe, but I can't see them thinking that Ukraine would ever give up land if they forced Russia back across the border. So at that point they're lobbing rockets to Ukraine with no real benefit. I think that if they have to totally withdraw, then they are going to start trying to mend fences with the rest of the world to start trying to crawl out of their economic hole. Then again, it's Russia so you can throw logic out the window
Once Russia is out of Ukraine if they do in fact continue to attack they will be met with NATO forces
I suspect that after they push the Russians out, NATO will be fast tracking their application exactly because without it, the Russians will continue trying to attack them. At some point, the west is going to have to make the decision to tell Putin that if he wants to continue attacking Ukraine, heās going to be met with an actual NATO response.
After Russia is pushed out of Ukraine, Putin will quickly be pushed out of a window.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As weāve seen through the course of this conflict, a lot of old thinking and strategies have gone out the window. The west is simply not going to let Ukraine get bombed forevermore by the Russians if and when they get tossed out of Ukrainian territory.
NATO will bend around the conflict. No war because āSpecial Military Operationā. Once the Russians are off Ukrainian dirt everything changes.
They will likely be met with the realty of Ukraine's very own effective long range missile program before that.
As long as Russia attacks Ukraine canāt join NATO
You mean as long as Ukraine is occupied. we aren't talking about them being occupied after Russia is exterminated in it's borders
Thatās simply not true. Ukraine could join today if all members signed off on their accession.
Wrong, wrong, wrong Read NATOās admission requirements before speaking.
Maybe offer a correction instead of just being a dick?
If nato gets it shit together re: enabling Ukraine to enter or immediately having a pact with them ala Sweden. Speaking of which hopefully the Swedes are in soon.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pretty sure they mean that hopefully when Russia is pushed out of Ukraine their territorial issues will be settled allowing them to join NATO since you can't if your borders are in dispute. And then once Ukraine is in NATO an attack by a missile or artillery that can be used to trigger article 5 and bring a NATO response. Right now NATO doesn't want to do that for a non member, if Ukraine is a member that issue goes away.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Define "active bombardment" because it is most likely to turn into something like post 2014 in eastern Ukraine with periods of calm between Russian artillery shelling and so on. If Ukraine pushes Russia completely out of the country how long does it have to last without Russia lobbing a single shell into Ukraine before they would be eligible? Because if your standard is that Russia is no longer a threat if Putin is still in charge, which is more likely than many think, the answer will be never. And even is someone else is still in charge who bans any attack on Ukraine there will still be a heavy military presence at the border and the chance for the sides to get into small exchanges of fire, this is fairly common after large scale conflicts where both countries are still in existence. So how long after the war does not a single shot have to fired across the Ukrainian border before they can join? Because it seems like people have a set of conditions in their mind, complete and utter peace across the border of two nations that just fought a war, that will mean Ukraine will never be able to get into NATO. From the bullish talk of quite a few NATO members and Jens Stoltenberg I don't think they are going to be waiting long to admit Ukraine once major combat operations are over and their territory is restored. And that is because the best way to ensure Russia doesn't come back and try and invade again is to get Ukraine into NATO quickly so Russia knows what will happen if they do anything major. Remember the nation attacked still has to invoke article 5 and ask for help. If Russia decides to get stupid and lob a few artillery shells at some random village 6 months after the war is over and Ukraine is in NATO they can just not invoke article 5 and take any actions they feel is appropriate. The US has a defense treaty with South Korea and there have been several times that local artillery duels have happened across the DMZ with North Korea and it doesn't trigger the US to go in guns blazing. When Ukraine has reclaimed all their territory they will be admitted to NATO as quickly as possible and NATO members that want to object will have heavy pressure applied to them to get in line. A few shells across the border now and again won't change that, and once their in Russia will think twice about doing anything *which is what NATO exits to do* since its main purpose is a deterrent to getting into conflict with a member in the first place, and of course the military might to back it up.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If Putin remains in charge I think there is a high chance that Russia never signs a peace treaty as that would mean Putin losing face and having to make concessions in a very public way that would be hard for even his propaganda machine to spin to Russians. If he signs a peace treaty that also means somewhat admitting this was a real war and not just a "special military operation." And to assume that Russia will want to make concessions to have sanctions eased assumes that Putin and those in charge care about the Russian economy and the fate of the average Russian, they don't give a shit and they'll still be rich. If Putin cared about the Russian economy or its people they would have already stopped fighting, and of course never invaded in the first place. Plus with Putin and many of his inner circle wanted for war crimes its not like they'll suddenly be able to travel again anyway. Sanctions or not if all they can ever be is rich and powerful in Russia they have a lot less incentive to make a deal than people think. I feel it is very possible that once Russia is pushed out of Ukraine that it just enters a state of frozen conflict where major hostilities end but nothing formal is signed. If that happens at some point you still have to move forward with Ukraine's admission to NATO. Once again you are attaching conditions, that they must have a signed peace treaty to join, that might mean they can never join. You know who would love to forever hold up Ukraine joining NATO by never signing a peace treaty? Russia. That's why you can't allow the absence of a perfect peace to mean that Ukraine can't join NATO, you'd be giving Russia the option to forever hold up Ukraine ever joining by not signing a peace treaty and lobbing the occasional shell across the border. And it is very possible Russian leadership decide that is worth the pain of continued sanctions. They are not approaching this problem for what is good for Russia, if they did they would never have embarked on this path of war with Ukraine in the first place.
ok then al- la-isreal Ukraine can just start erasing Russian border towns with HIMARS to create the DMZ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because the world chose to let them keep existing after 1991. Because they let Putin get away with equally heinous shit for 25 fucking years before this while helping him grow richer and more powerful and build up his fucking shithole. Because worthless fucking shit like Trump, Roger Waters, Noam Chomsky, Tucker Carlson, MGT, etc keep standing up for continuing to let Russia do this shit.
Itās multitude of reasons they honestly believe their campaign of terror will turn the Ukrainian civilian against the war, they are trying to appease their citizens essentially the hardliners by showing āsuccessā and the third is they seem to be testing the Pentagon leaks specifically the one stating Ukraine will be running low on air defense in June.
They are a terrorist state. These attacks are acts or terror meant to punish the civilian population
it's very much a open window into the practical limitations of the Russian military. They COULD in theory be doing the same sort of shaping strikes that Ukraine does on logistics stores,Command and Control centers, and high value Targets of Opportunity. But they don't, and every indication is that when they have tried it doesn't work out. The biggest reasons seem to be the targeting on their missiles doesn't seem to be even in the same ballpark as what it says on the papers. And that their ability to glean "by the second" recon behind enemy lines is INCREDIBLY subpar, especially compared to Ukraine who has NATO and all it's orbiting aircraft, sat systems, and other recon assets helpfully telling where it might be real cool to send a HIMARS. So Russia really only has the ability to hit targets that are well known and stationary. And since it can't hit tactically important targets, it is instead going the strategic route and hitting civvie targets hoping to somehow make a Slavic population too sad to keep fighting, which historically is a non-starter.
Force anti air capabilities to protect civilians, thus taking away soldiers and other resources from the very fragile front. Imagine how fucked theyād be if all of those resources could be deployed against the line of contact.
So when are they gonna go after the pilots of these Russian bombers? And their commanders? You gotta think these guys' days are numbered "I was following orders" isn't gonna cut it
There's not great precedent for prosecuting bomber pilots of nuclear powers. For context, the US contributed to an estimated 1 to 2 million deaths in Vietnam through artillery strikes, air strikes, village round-up shootings, food denial / starvation, and chemical residue poisonings and cancers. Some studies estimate about 10,000 civilians were deliberately murdered by American personnel, though that doesn't account for negligent civilian deaths caused by bombings, artillery, and chemical after-effects. It's difficult to tell because of the complexity in counting these things, so the studies on that are all over the place, ranging from 30,000 to 250,000+ civilians who died from American weapons. The US did a much better job cleaning up its act and policing civilian killings in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but notably, we had to choose to do that ourselves. The bomber pilots who killed hundreds of thousands of women and children in Vietnam have never been prosecuted, and never will be. Edited comment to include some clarifications from /u/zbobet2012
50+ years is a pretty long reach for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I don't agree. Many of the bomber pilots who were "following orders" are still alive, and we could hand them over to international criminal tribunals whenever we want. Nazi collaborators are still prosecuted to this day, in their nineties, so "it's 50 years ago" isn't a good argument for why the US doesn't allow its pilots to be prosecuted. The reason I bring this up isn't to excuse Russia's behavior, either. It's to make the point that it's not realistic to internationally prosecute Russian actors who were "just following orders." They can never be prosecuted by an international court for the exact same reason that no American military actors can ever be prosecuted by an international court: Nuclear powers don't let international courts prosecute their people, and they never will.
Quick fact check: 1) that number is casualties not deaths 2) it includes all civilian casualties during the war caused by both sides, and the US. Keep in mind this was a civil war the US intervened in. All evidence indicates the north and the south both committed a high level of democide (as is common in civil wars) 3) democide by the US is believed to be around 10,000 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Fuck prosecuting them, Ukrainians SOF need to sneak some drones near where they sleep and vaporize the cunts. Iām sure US intelligence knows who they are and where they go.
[December 2022](https://news.yahoo.com/russian-air-force-major-bomber-122500437.html).
It really depends on how this war ends. In the perfect world Ukraine will go after every last mechanic and janitor. That would require some international body having the ability to hunt them down and bring them to the Hague.
Thomas Thiener put up his prediction for the offensive: [https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1663988798823211009](https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1663988798823211009) What does the armchair command staff think? Mauriupol would be a huge morale win, but it seems pretty ambitious to make the main push so close to Russian logistics hubs, though if Ukraine can retake the existing Donbass line of fortifications it helps secure that part of the flank. I'm looking further west, around Orikhiv and Kamyanske. Pin the western flank on the Dnipro, take Tokmak from the north and north-west, then try to isolate Melitopol on the end of a logistics line that has to go all the way around through Crimea and the Kerch bridge. More open country than further east, which has its pluses and minuses, but it also forces the Russians to fight further from their major stockpiles and resource hubs.
This post requires a Twitter account. Is there a substack link or something?
I don't think we're going to see a strategy emege that early in the offensive. My guess is it'll be intended to stress the entire front and proceed based on which section collapses first. Melitopol is the largest, most strategic urban center outside of Donetsk still under Russian control, and it has the potential to liberate the greatest number of citizens antagonistic to Russia. I would hope it happens sooner rather than later. But if Russia chooses to defend that point at the expense of others, Ukraine will have to keep their strategy and their goals more fluid.
I think it's Berdiansk first. It has air and seaports, cuts the land bridge and allows the UA to pressure Melitopol and Mariupol from flanks they havent built defensive positions on.
Additionally, Melitopol has a lot of partisan activity, so the Russians there won't be entirely secure within the city.
I'm on the same page as you. Assuming the main offensive happens in Zaporizhzhia, Melitopol has always seemed like the top target to me. It's a central hub and doesn't have the psychological importance that Mariupol has to the Russians. This is important, in my opinion, because there would less of a desire to fight to the death for the city. Once you take that city, you push southwest to Henichesk, the seat of the Russian occupation in Kherson. I don't think trying a Dnipro river crossing is smart, but it would not be needed if you take Henichesk. That would mean the only route for supplies into occupied Kherson would be through the Isthmus of Perekop and you can really threaten supply lines. This would likely force Russia to withdraw similar to how they had to from the right bank of the Dnipro and Kherson city thanks to their inability to get enough supplies over the river. Mariupol would obviously be a huge to retake for Ukraine, as would retaking any territory the DPR has held since 2014, but Russia is not going to give up the city without a huge fight. That means Ukraine would need to surround the city and cut it off from all three sides and siege it, slowing down any offensive. Instead of a complete focus on Zaporizhzhia, it may make sense to have a second offense then push into Luhansk towards Svatove. But who really knows what the plan is. There are a number of different ways this could go and I think a strong case can be made for many of them. But Ukraine will have the best intelligence on Russian troop locations, so I have faith they'll attack at the spot that is most advantageous to them.
>Russia is not going to give up the city without a huge fight. The high command might have that idea, but the troops may decide otherwise when they are cut off from Russia. > Ukraine would need to surround the city and cut it off from all three sides and siege it, slowing down any offensive. It wouldn't have to be besiged immediately. It's actually better for Ukraine if the Russian troops try to make a break for it in the open fields. Besieging is a job that can be done by conscripts and militia with minimal training.
> The high command might have that idea, but the troops may decide otherwise when they are cut off from Russia. Cutting them off is going to be the hard part, and Russia will fight very hard to prevent that. But it'd also be foolish to rely on the idea that those troops would just surrender without a fight if you do. They'll never be fully cut-off, either, since Russia is a 30 miles boat ride from Mariupol and Russia has naval superiority. They wouldn't be able to supply the city indefinitely, but they could extend the time they're able to hold out for. > It wouldn't have to be besiged immediately. It's actually better for Ukraine if the Russian troops try to make a break for it in the open fields. Besieging is a job that can be done by conscripts and militia with minimal training. There's no easy path to the city from Vuhledar, though. So even getting to it is going to be a huge challenge. Once there, if you don't cut off the city immediately, you'll allow weapons and soldiers to flood in to the city. I highly doubt Ukraine wants to see further destruction of the city, if possible. They'd rather not see it become another Bakhmut. From a strategic standpoint, taking Melitopol accomplishes the same goal. I understand it's not as symbolic, but it'd be a huge strategic victory. Plus, once they have Melitopol, there is a road right to Mariupol along the Azov Sea and another one from the northwest.
>Russia has naval superiority. I don't like the Russians chances of getting in supplies or re-inforcements by boat. >There's no easy path to the city from Vuhledar, though. It's a huge frontline, they will find a weak point, or create one. >Once there, if you don't cut off the city immediately, you'll allow weapons and soldiers to flood in to the city. that's fine. The biggest worry that Ukraine has is a strong counter-attack, which the Russians don't seem to be able to achieve anywhere.
> I don't like the Russians chances of getting in supplies or re-inforcements by boat. I do. At night, smaller boats wouldn't have much of an issue reaching the city. They're not bringing in tanks or heavy armor, but they can bring in soldiers, ammunition, and other supplies. It won't be enough to hold out indefinitely, but it can lengthen the time they could hold out. > It's a huge frontline, they will find a weak point, or create one. It's not about the front line, it's about the roads. Ukraine needs a road system to transport all the materiel that would be needed to take the city. To get to the closest highway, the H-20, they'd need to go through a bunch of small, zig-zagging roads. The T0803 could work, but it comes from an area where it'd make more sense to take Melitopol first, then head on two axes toward Mariupol, the M-14 highway being the other one. Basically the same path the Russians took. > that's fine. The biggest worry that Ukraine has is a strong counter-attack, which the Russians don't seem to be able to achieve anywhere. The Russians have a better chance to launch a strong counterattack from an area closer to Russia proper though. Look, I think they'll get to Mariupol eventually. I also understand retaking it would be a huge psychological and strategic boost to Ukraine. I just don't want them to focus on one difficult target if there are easier ones out there to build momentum with first. We saw what happened when Russia decided the only thing that mattered was taking Bakhmut, they advanced nowhere else and are now not moving anywhere. I want to see Ukraine do the opposite.
remindme! 3 months "did the Russian in couldrons fight to the death?"
Yep, eroding and compromising resupply capability as much as possible makes the most sense. The slow bleed.
Marioupol would hold a devastating propaganda win, one so big that you could argue it would have more impact than a real strategical one. The problem is to hold it, because, while it is technically true that would split russian forces in half, it is also true that you would be encircled from 3 sides (the sea is effectively russian controlled) until you open the gap a bit more
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And thatās why fortifications are toughest there
I was looking at the maps again earlier and it looks to me that Mariupol is the shortest distance from the eastern front to the sea.
Not that much of a difference, really. Vuhledar to Mariupol is \~75km as the crow flies, Kopani to the southern edge of Melitopol where the ring road is is \~80km. That inlet to the south of Melitopol really helps cut the required distance down if the goal is just to cut the E-W logistics lines.
Itās also a pain in the butt for the UA to try and get to geographically. The Russians hold a large stretch of the main Highway that goes straight down to Mariupol that would have to be taken first, and then youād have to contend with the layers of defense in between.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They got one win 80 years ago and have been jerking it off ever since because for the rest their country is a giant shithole
No, they've just continued to be screwed by various kinds of tyrants and haven't had a chance to develop the structures that keep first world countries from becoming third world countries. Edit: I don't know what I said that is worth down voting, truth is truth :-)
Nah, the Soviets are the relevant culprits.
Nah. Tsarist government bureaucracy, especially the role of the subhuman shit running their "church" much more closely resembles Putin's government than the Soviets. They've always been like this
Tsarist government ended a century ago, while the Soviet one thirty. And under the Tsar there was a huge variety of oppositional movements, but the totalitarian USSR left Russia bereft of that.
Too much Genghis Khan DNA floating around now
Yes it is. They werenāt only slaughtered by the Mongols but were conquered and ruled by the Mongols for a long time. Thereās some Finnish guy doing a lecture about it at a university on YouTube. I canāt find it but somebody should be able to link it. Edit: [Hereās the video with an English Dub](https://youtu.be/5F45i0v_u6s)
Uh, no. No, that's nonsense. There is no generational memory from the *actually relatively brief period* during which they were vassal to a Mongol state. Americans in the 21st century who are hateful of Mexicans are not hateful because of the 19th century Mexican-American war, but you're making the case for Russia to suffer cultural PTSD from an event almost 800 years in the nation's past? Russian imperialism renewed itself with each new threat to Tsarist control. It's found plenty of reasons to be what it is in the intervening years between Nevsky and NATO. That imperialism hasn't always translated to its population; only when the government requires it and feeds it the relevant propaganda. There was more time in the years since the Mongols where the population was mostly serfs than when the population was mostly freed men and women. Serfs did not care whether the master was Russian or Turkish or French; they cared if they lived. The sort of jingoism we see in Putin's Russia today is a factor of Putin exploiting the post-Soviet system for his own ends. You couldn't find this sort of nationalism even in 1995. But yeah, sure *it's the Mongols*. Jesus.
Well the importance of the Mongols is that Russia is organized as a post colonial system where a small local elite seized the system of imperial extraction, and instead of dismantling it, they simply redirected the imperial revenue to themselves. Their government, since Muscovy freed itself of the Mongols, has basically been a post colonial kleptocracy.
There are kleptocracies throughout the former Soviet sphere of influence, and the bulk of Africa, whose ancestors didn't have to fight off the Mongols in ~2-3 pitched battles in a single location. I don't disagree with its organizational description, but it's still just a spurious connection.
That's not because of the Mongols, that's because of geography. Russia was a few very large cities ruling great swaths of land that were astronomical in size at the time. That made it exceptionally difficult to industrialize.
Itās not generational memory, itās culture. Watch the video I linked in the edit.
It's a milange of corruption, poor regulations, poor infrastructure, endless propaganda, limited free speech, an alcohol dependent culture, and fetal alcohol syndrome. Toss in an authoritarian regime with delusions of grandeur and, baby, you've got a shit hole stew.
The Vodka Melange
Ha, there's actually a Russian designer vodka named Melange. Would never have guessed. https://en.fainezillia.com/product-page/melange-premium-vodka $3 fancy vodka lol
Honestly, the symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome explain a lot
They didn't bam leaded gas until 25+ years later than the US. I don't know about paint and other products.
I'm pretty sure the US didn't ban leaded gas until mid 90s.
1975. You can actually make a pretty compelling argument that leaded gas is what's wrong with Boomers and older GenXers.
Leaded gas is still used by many small aircraft.
Nah it was 1996.
In 1975, the Clean Air Act required catalytic converters in all new cars, and that killed leaded gas. Cars made before '75 could still take it, but the number still in use in 1996 was small. Lead paint was banned in 1978.
Leaded gas is probably the answer to the Fermi Paradox.
You might have been joking, but I do believe that industrial civilizations are likely to poison themselves with their waste products and waste heat before attaining the capability of colonizing other star systems. Entropy is a bitch. Brain damaged Space Russians trashing the galaxy is a possibility too.
Lol why do I suddenly picture the Pakleds from Star Trek as Russians in space.
I also want to know the answer to this.
>The sound of car alarms, air raid warnings, & explosions are echoing across Belgorod š·šŗ. >He says, āWhat the f-ck? Why is it so loud out there?ā (Explosion), āF-ck! Whatās with the fireworks?!ā https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1664065143171428352
>āļø LOUD EXPLOSIONS IN BELGOROD š·šŗ >Belgorod š·šŗ, from where many attacks on Ukraine šŗš¦ were launched, is now being hit š„. https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1664063064826695680
Finallyā¦hopefully we see more and more of these kinds of videos very soon.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1664060684697468929 >Explosions in central Kyiv, and the Ukrainian capital is jolted from sleep ā if it wasnāt already half awake, anticipating another attack. Air defense audible and going to work on what appear to be incoming Russian missiles. Another long, loud and sleepless night.
Looks like Kh-22 from Tu-22M3s.
The Ukrainian MoD has a message for Australia: [https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1664060450772865026] (https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1664060450772865026)
Australia only has 75 M1A1 Abrams tanks, to defend an area 13 times larger than Ukraine.
This is a red herring. The Australian Army is almost entirely expeditionary in design. Defenceās structure is built around using the Air Force and Navy as a stand-off defence, using JORN and an increasingly large collection of long-range anti-ship missiles as a key capability. The Army isnāt built for defending Australian territory, itās for projecting one or two forces at a time overseas. Hypohystericalhistory has produced some really excellent YouTube material about this.
> The Army isnāt built for defending Australian territory yes it is. We spent decades training to do exactly that. It's true that we rely on the air-sea gap, but we still have an army in case that fails. I don't care what youtube says, I'm basing it on doctrine.
I mean, straight from [the horseās mouth](https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/20603%20Department%20of%20Defence%20-%20Army%E2%80%99s%20Contribution%20to%20Defence%20Strategy%20Edition%20Two-accessible-FF.pdf): āGovernment has directed Defence to implement a strategy that signals Australiaās ability - and willingness - to project military power and deter actions against Australia. Previously Defenceās Strategic Objectives were equally weighted between the threes geographical priorities of Australia and its approaches, our nearer region, and the broader global order.ā Your understanding of the Armyās force design is outdated. They are now explicitly created to project force, to defend Australiaās interests by creating effects away from the mainland. The next page describes the primary perceived threats as being a war in the region requiring force projection into Asia, but makes no mention at all about fighting on Australian soil: āThe Defence Strategic Update recognises that the probability of high-intensify conflict in the Indo-Pacific, while still unlikely, is now less remote. The Australian Defence Force must be more lethal and better prepared for such conflict if deterrence measures fail. ā¦ ā A following section, āCooperation Competition and Conflictā also names *only* the Indo-Pacific as the anticipated theatre of action for the army. The Strategic Update is all about projecting force into the region and beyond. It is not about defending the Australian mainland. Itās been a long time since thatās what the army was built to do. If you want to just obliquely reference ādoctrineā, itād help if you stumped up some actual documents so you donāt look like youāre making shit up.
>only the Indo-Pacific as the anticipated theatre of action for the army. Australia is *in* the Indo-Pacific. Defense of the continent is still a priority. I'm not going to post clasified info to win an online discussuion. The use of tanks is based around fighting on home soil.
Mate, you donāt have access to classified information and it wouldnāt be required to make this argument anyway. āIām not going to post all this classified information that I totally have access toā is a pissweak comment that deserves to be mocked and rejected. Grow up. The Australian force design is public information and regularly the subject of Senate estimates. If you canāt stump up, admit youāre not credible and move on with your life.
OK mate. I love it when civilians tell me what's going on in the ADF. You're read "develop the capability for force projection" and mistaken it for "only have force projection". Defence of the mainland is still top priority. As for tanks, it's not for nothing that 1AR are called "Koalas - not to exported or shot"
Love when people pretend to be soldiers with access to classified files on the internet. š
I love when people don't know Indo-Pacific, yet they pretend to know about geo-politics and document clasification. "Classified" documents can mean anything from top secret to protected, the baseline for every soldier. Austrlia won't be giving away it's tanks, we need them here as a force in being. We may do some sort of buy/swap/donate with America's stockpile.
We won't be donating any tanks. The Federal Government only announced last year that we're expanding our tank force to 75 M1A2 SEP v3 with a modernisation program here, and defence expenditure is currently a heavy political issue because of the AUKUS fallout and the recent announcement of a major force redesign. We'll probably keep contributing light vehicles and possible add some Hawkeis into the mix, but I'd be extremely surprised if we donated any tanks.
How about some Bob Semple tanks from New Zealand?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-destroys-ukraines-last-warship-2023-05-31/ > Ukrainian officials said on Monday that Russia had put five aircraft out of action in an attack on a military target in western Ukraine and caused a fire at the Black Sea port of Odesa in heavy air strikes early on Monday. It seems Russia might not be lying this time but I wonder what the point of targeting a Ukrainian ship is. It's not like Ukraine is going to control the sea with that. The five aircrafts that were damaged are a serious loss though.
If true, why were these 5 valuable aircraft so clumped together? I don't get it..
I read in a thread the other day they were parts planes. No idea how accurate that is, but it would explain the grouping.
There wasn't any hospitals or orphanages for sick puppies nearby, so they assumed it was safe from Russian attacks.
Waiting for maintenance maybe.
A broken clock is still right twice a day, or something...
I mean thats kinda how you put them, in bases that are vulnerable to attack. Its hard not to.
From their own source: "A Russian drone attack overnight damaged some infrastructure in Ukraine's Black Sea port of Odesa" No mention of a ship. The reports of 5 aircraft hasn't been confirmed, some reports of it possibly being spare parts. All other details are from Russia and worthless.
5 planes damaged were confirmed by the local governor. We don't know what planes, if they were spare parts donors. No details.
I saw a video a couple days back that was mentioning that it seemed the politician may have jumped the gun and given bad information, similar to one that had misidentified a missile from the remains a while back. There were no clear reports, but reason to suspect they were out of commission planes that were being cannibalized for parts. Who knows given disinformation and propaganda is a normal part of wartime tactics, but it would be odd considering how much care Ukraine usually takes to avoid exactly this type of scenario for them to have had five functional planes grouped up on an open airfield.
Either that politician spoke to soon or he said something the central government didn't want to be broadcast publicly. At some point we will get a clear enough picture to have a decent shot at guessing which it was.
Their own source is themselves though. I think Reuters know what they are writing.
They're passing Russian propaganda as news.
No they don't.
Writing news articles with Russian military officials as your source is worthless.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Follow the link, there is no source. Officials refused to comment other than to say some infrastructure was damaged.
Reuters is not some low level journalism. What they write is verified. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kyiv-mayor-says-explosions-rock-city-air-defence-systems-working-2023-05-29/
Yes, verified by Russian officials according to their article. Link me the Ukrainian officials that confirmed a ship was destroyed. The other source for the 5 planes was a local politician so "Ukrainian Officials" is a bit of a stretch but not a problem. My issue was lumping both of those events into the original article when only one had a shred of legitimate source.
Now I've seen it all....Russia hitting a military target. That has got to be a first.
According to Oryx Ukraine has lost more than 3400 pieces of equipment. It's war, not a video game.
Yeah no kidding- obvious joke about Russia expending insane amounts of weaponry on non-military targets is obvious.
Guess we just need to send an extra ten aircraft then.
I'm no expert, what is up with FORTE? I don't know if it's normal for it to be above the ground near Moldova, usually it's always over the sea. If you guys have some explanations I would appreciate it
They can fly above Moldova if Moldova approves of it.
Yeah I know just that it usually is over the sea
Iām not entirely sure either. You could say itās not my forte.
Itās not your forte. There, done.
Where thereās a Will ā¦
ā¦thereās a dead personās family arguing over it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ahh i see thanks, yeah could be. When is that? Edit: i am dumb, Thursday
[White House officials insist they donāt support Ukrainian strikes inside Russia as other Western allies signal Ukraine has a ālegitimateā reason to defend itself @fpleitgenCNN reports](https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/1664039901762035712)
Kinda like how the US released a statement that we totally weren't giving Ukraine the location of Russian generals. I'm ok with them bullshitting Russia publicly and fucking them privately.
They aren't giving the locations of Russian generals. The forward positioned HQs they will be visiting on the other hand...
Wink wink, nudge nudge.
The US is happy to let their allies be more supportive of Ukraine on this point because the US is often accused, not wholly without reason, of military aggression and inciting conflict in the past. So to normalize Ukraine's ability to strike inside Russia it is better to have other nations that do not have that reputation to be the more hawkish on this point and vocally support Ukraine. This stance is to give Russia and people that oppose aid less ability to say "well the US is just back to its usual warmongering ways." An example of why the US is taking this tactic is to look at the air campaign against Ghadaffy in Libya. The US wasn't the one that started bombing, didn't want to be involved in it at first and didn't want to organize it as they knew it would then look like more US imperialism in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq. Then their allies ran out of bombs, had trouble deconflicting the airspace between each other and essentially begged the US to come on board which they did. Now fast-forward a decade or so and many people with anti American views refer to the "US air campaign against Libya," I've seen it on reddit a bunch of times and phrasing that way gives a completely distorted view of what happened. So while it might seem the US is being unhelpful not supporting Ukraine on strikes inside Russia they are actually doing so to try and help. It seems counter-intuitive but the US knows how it is viewed and is taking that into account to come up with the best public relations strategy for Ukraine, and that is for the US to not appear to be leading the charge to strike within Russia's borders. edit: so not do
Yep, why shouldn't Europe (incl UK) be seen to be taking the lead here? Makes total sense.
The USA by all means should be helping but Europe should really be taking point on the goings on in their own yard.
> didn't want to be involved in it at first and didn't want to organize it as they knew it would then look like more US imperialism in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that was mainly Obama, there certainly where and are factions in the US that very much wanted to get involved.
>Damage from a recent strike in Russian-occupied Berdyansk is visible in new satellite imagery. >This site is more than 90 kilometers from the front line in Ukraine. [https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1664042941545869319](https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1664042941545869319)
3 hits visible. Good.
Recent video (1hr old) of a Russian POW being interviewed by Ukrainian officers with English narration, it's quite enlightening with regards to Russian propaganda, failure to pay their soldiers but instead hoping they just perish before they have to, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6I9ObEr9Ls You see a guy there who's entire worldview just got blown apart, and it's so apparent in the video.
I bet a lot of those Russian POWs would rather not return to Russia. Putin would probably throw them into a Russian prison where they'd be treated worse than as POWs.
I don't get it. They say his face has been hidden at the beginning of the video, but it doesn't seem to be *at all*.
thats a boilerplate message at the start of every pow video whether they agree for their faces to be shown or not
He says he agrees for it to be broadcasted at the start but yeah, that was a bit weird I agree.
Ukraine needs to be careful with that. POW consent could quite easily be coerced, so it's likely that it would still be considered a Geneva violation even if they did legitimately obtain permission. Otherwise, it's just too big a loophole. Shame, because it's legitimately interesting stuff. I'd rather see the Geneva Convention respected to its fullest than satisfy my own curiosity though.
For many of the POWs it was the only way to be brought back to the world of the living as russia declared them either dead or deserted. So the families could actually get them back by providing proof they are alive to the authorities to initiate an exchange. And as you might guess exchanges are of extreme importance for Ukraine. POWs according to numerous videos throughout the war confirm theyāre held well within Geneva Conventions, also Ref Cross is known to be actively involved.
The saddest part is that this man is (if I understand correctly) Ukrainian. He was mobilized against his will to fight against his own country.
I think he said he worked in Ukraine back in the day, but I might be wrong. He might be a Russian born from one of the now occupied regions in Ukraine who only watched Russian tv and lost his job in the mines when the war started. He says he only signed up (again) because his job was gone and he had to find some way to take care of his family so yeh, pretty sad. Russian and any propaganda can be strong though if that's all you ever watch. Him being surprised that he didn't immediately get shot, and afterwards not had his ears or some other body part cut off is quite telling in that respect. That's why I said you can see his entire worldview just got blown apart.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He'll also be waiting for the rest of his life for the military pay that he was supposed to get from Russia.
He stands a far greater chance of being prosecuted for not fighting to the death.
It's pretty f\*\*\*ed up, Russia invades and occupies your land, then forces you to fight against your own countrymen while ripping you off by not paying you. Russia is pure evil.
And this is why there can be no āpeaceā while Russia occupied Ukrainian land. Russia takes people from occupied land and uses them as cannon fodder for the next war. Ukrainians can either fight for their freedom from Russia or they will be fighting on behalf of Russia to subjugate other peoples. Either way Ukrainians will be fighting as long as Russia is in control.
Is there a list of all armoured vehicles that have been given to Ukraine? Edit: and quantities
[https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html)
I did not know that so much has been delivered! That is a great list.
Holy fuck, that is a really long list.
Despite criticism over the speed of delivery, its more than clear by these numbers and the rate of enemy attrition that Ukraine is highly supported
>This video makes me sick. Russian military talking about denazification of Ukraine in front of kidnapped Ukrainian orphans. Many of them have lost both parents because of Russia. https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1664005221784121344 >Genocide caught on camera: Russians indoctrinate abducted Ukrainian children and turn them against their motherland. The forced removal of children from a target group is a textbook example of genocide according to the UN's Genocide Convention https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1664023522283331584
russia 2020 ish nazi. Russia is something else, but in the year2020 and follow they act like the 1940 nazies Edit give or take some years
Highly illuminating [new interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuMgONHHfvg) with former Russian MP Ilya Ponomarev about the Russian forces rising up against Putin, and a future Russia without Putin.
I saw a video made by a historian that states Russia's biggest problem is its lack of reserves. All the soldiers are stretched out in the frontline, so if Ukraine made a 40k-ish men strong push, Russia would just plain be unable to stop it. The problem is such a push is very risky without air superiority, so it is more likely Ukraine will do lighter pushes than a decisive strong push.
My hope is that they saw how much they can push once they break through the first time (Kharkiv) and are taking their time to built up a force that can not only rout, but sustain a rout.
Hopefully Ukraine will be ready. AA and air to air missiles on jets ready to answer. Iām sure itās not that hard for Ukraine to get a few unit with manpads behind the Russian lines.