UKRAINE WAR - 2024 thread

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Emmanuel Macron sure knows how to make a headline.

But did the French president, who once called Nato brain dead, really mean it when he said this week that Europe shouldn’t rule out sending ground troops to Ukraine to prevent Russia winning the war? Was it a trial balloon, an off-the-cuff soundbite uncoordinated with allies, or the start of a real strategic debate?

As ever, Macron’s bazooka had several targets: forcing European partners to consider how far they are prepared to go to avert a Russian victory; pressuring the US to go on arming Ukraine; keeping the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, off balance; hitting back at German criticism of France’s modest spending on assistance to Kyiv; and trying to wrongfoot domestic opponents in the forthcoming European parliament election campaign.
Above all, the French leader was grasping for the mantle of leadership of European and western support for Ukraine, just as US assistance is stymied by a Republican blockade in Congress at the behest of Donald Trump before the presidential election campaign.

First, the facts: Macron was speaking after chairing a summit of allied nations in support of Ukraine on Monday that mostly discussed ways to speed up arms and ammunition deliveries to Kyiv. The leaders did discuss the possibility of western military forces playing a role in Ukraine, though not in combat, according to several participants.

In his closing news conference, he delivered two strong (and new, in his mouth) messages. The first: “We are convinced that the defeat of Russia is indispensable for stability and security in Europe.” And the second: “We are determined to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes” to help Ukraine prevail.

His mention of ground troops came in response to a question about a remark by the Slovakian prime minister, Robert Fico, a noted Ukraine-sceptic, who said a confidential preparatory document,that “sent shivers down your spine” included the possibility of some EU and Nato allies sending ground troops.

Macron’s response was that the subject had been been discussed “freely and directly”. He added: “There is no consensus today to send ground forces in an official, acknowledged and approved manner. But in a dynamic situation, nothing should be ruled out. We’ll do everything necessary so that Russia cannot win this war.”

His remarks implied that there were already western military personnel in Ukraine on undisclosed missions. The German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said as much when he rejected sending Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine because that would require the presence of German soldiers to help with target acquisition and programming. “What the British and French are doing with targeting and guidance cannot be done in Germany,” Scholz said.

It is an open secret in military circles that the US, the UK and France have had special forces active in Ukraine notably on intelligence gathering and training missions, as well as helping with cyber defence. Military advisers and civilian contractors are also present in small numbers to help maintain and support western-supplied weapons systems, and more will be necessary once Ukraine finally receives the long-promised F-16 fighter aircraft.

The idea of deploying western combat troops or aircraft on the battlefield remains a taboo since it would bring them into direct conflict with Russia, potentially triggering a third world war. The Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov hastened to warn that in that case, war between Russia and Nato would be not just a possibility but an “inevitability”.

Western allies including the US, Germany the Netherlands and even Poland, a leading anti-Russia hawk, immediately chimed in to say they had no intention of sending ground troops to Ukraine, suggesting some irritation with Macron’s comment. Kyiv hastened to say it was asking for swifter arms and ammunition supplies, not troops.

The German vice-chancellor, Robert Habeck, hinted at one explanation for Macron’s statement, when he retorted: “If I may offer a word of advice – supply more weapons.” Berlin and Paris, ostensibly each other’s closest partner, have been engaged in an increasingly vicious blame game over who is failing Ukraine.

Scholz has urged other European countries to follow Germany’s example, citing figures compiled by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy that show Germany had provided military goods worth €17.7bn by mid-January of this year, second only to the US, while France had given just €640m. France disputes those numbers and claims its military aid in 2022-23 was worth €3.2bn, with up to another €3bn pledged this year.

Macron mocked the Germans without naming them when he said that “many of those who say ‘never, never’ today are the same people who said ‘never, never tanks, never, never aircraft, never, never long-range missiles’ two years ago. Let me recall that two years ago some around this table said ‘We’ll send sleeping bags and helmets.’” All European leaders should be modest enough to recognise that they had often been six to 12 months too late, he said.

It’s typical of Macron that when he changes position, he tends to go over the top in the opposite direction, partly in an effort to erase memories of his previous stance. On Ukraine, it was he who persisted in talking to Putin long after Moscow had launched its full-scale invasion, and who argued that Russia must not be humiliated even as its artillery pounded Ukrainian cities.

The French leader atoned in a speech in Bratislava last year, saying that western European leaders should have listened to their central European counterparts, who had long warned of Russia’s aggressive intentions. Now he has gone further and sought to position himself as Putin’s principal European opponent.

It may help his domestic political predicament – unpopular and without an absolute parliamentary majority – to paint his far-right and hard-left opponents, Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon respectively, as Putin apologists in thrall to Russian propaganda. Le Pen, whose Rassemblement National party (then called the Front National) took a Russian bank loan in 2014 and who basked in a photo opportunity with Putin during her 2017 presidential campaign, has opposed oil and gas sanctions on Moscow and arms supplies. Mélenchon has accused Macron of irresponsibly leading France towards a war between nuclear powers.

Lagging far behind Le Pen’s National Rally in the polls ahead of the European elections in June, Macron may feel his centrist Renaissance party’s best hope is to wrap itself in the Ukrainian flag defending European values and paint its adversaries into a Russian corner.

But even an elder statesman such as the former foreign minister Hubert Védrine chided the president for a “meaningless” comment, rejected by his European partners, that he said would send a signal of weakness to Putin rather than strengthen European deterrence against Russia.

So was Macron wrong to raise the issue? Not necessarily. There are many possible roles that western forces could play in Ukraine short of combat: operating satellite ground terminals, clearing mines, training new Ukrainian recruits, repairing and maintaining weapons, intelligence and cybersecurity support, protecting armaments factories, backfilling for Ukrainian forces in medical services and catering to free up more soldiers for the front.

In a wider sense, Macron was right to raise the strategic question of how far the west is willing to go to prevent Russia winning. Let’s hope he stirs a real debate on ensuring that Ukraine wins.

[Vympel]

https://x.com/NeilPHauer/status/1763163 ... 46474?s=20

The consequences of the Ukrainian failure to build a strong second defensive line behind Avdiivka over the past two years are playing out now. Russian forces have advanced 6-7km west of Avdiivka in the past week at a consistent rate.

Avdiivka was a strong fortress position built up by Ukraine for 8 years to serve as an anchor for the line outside Donetsk - its not surprising that its fall has compromised the entire area behind it.

[Solauren]

At this point, I think the best thing the West/Anyone that wants to support Ukraine could do is to hire every 'security contractor' and mercenary group they can, and send them to the Ukraine to fight Russia.

[Vympel]

Re: that Macron article, this passage would be funny if it weren't so serious:

Western allies including the US, Germany the Netherlands and even Poland, a leading anti-Russia hawk, immediately chimed in to say they had no intention of sending ground troops to Ukraine, suggesting some irritation with Macron’s comment. Kyiv hastened to say it was asking for swifter arms and ammunition supplies, not troops.

The German vice-chancellor, Robert Habeck, hinted at one explanation for Macron’s statement, when he retorted: “If I may offer a word of advice – supply more weapons.” Berlin and Paris, ostensibly each other’s closest partner, have been engaged in an increasingly vicious blame game over who is failing Ukraine.

Maybe sending more weapons would be more practical if Europe in general didn't have a laughably sclerotic arms industry which takes forever to build tiny numbers of expensive, boutique weapons systems?

The French recently boasted that they're reduced the time it takes to build a single CAESAR 155mm howitzer from 30 months(!) to 15 months as if even this improvement is not a laughable indictment of how both their arms industry and weapons they procure are utterly unfit for a large scale land war consuming large amounts of men and materiel. They primarily exist to Create Value for Shareholders (TM).

[Solauren]

That's part of the reason I'm in favor of hiring every merc. company in the world to help booster Ukraine.
(or at least the acceptable ones).

They come with their own munitions and equipment.

[Ralin]

That's part of the reason I'm in favor of hiring every merc. company in the world to help booster Ukraine.
(or at least the acceptable ones).

They come with their own munitions and equipment.

... No they don't. Not for a conflict at that scale anyway. Wagner was only able to operate in Ukraine because they were plugged into the regular Russian military's logistics

[Gandalf]

That's part of the reason I'm in favor of hiring every merc. company in the world to help booster Ukraine.
(or at least the acceptable ones).

They come with their own munitions and equipment.

Why would an acceptable mercenary company take such an offer?

[PainRack]

That's part of the reason I'm in favor of hiring every merc. company in the world to help booster Ukraine.
(or at least the acceptable ones).

They come with their own munitions and equipment.

Nope. To put it simply, only the US has the stockpiles that can feed the Ukraine war. While Europe has contributed more (both literally initially and then now percentage wise to GDP/mil spending ) in aid to Ukraine, US stockpiles were the ones that had the 155mm shells, the HIMARs, HARM and other munitions in quantities large enough to keep Ukraine in the war.


Even now, after the war has drained the available supplies, the actual limits to US stockpiles is more the need to keep reserves to fight an actual war. It's why SK was important. What they did was to add new shells to US stockpiles, while US donated expiring ordnance to Ukraine. Their 20-30 year old stuff, that will be expiring soon.

It's why US aid package to Ukraine is actually a "boost" to the US military in that sense. The US is donating old supplies and replacing them with new. A key requirement due to sequestration impact on US operational readiness .

Comparing Russian expenditure though is pointless, because the KEY point is ammunition expended Vs results. It's why we don't say WW2 or Vietnam strategic bombing is superior.



Granted. If SK donates actual war fighting materials like ammo, it will be just as big as the US is right now since they have the industry AND the stockpiles , but SK law prohibits that.


It's also why China is looking at this since this war is demonstrating the inadequacies of the "Arsenal of freedom". Even if tooling up and etc happens, the actual politics bar effective aid.

Re: that Macron article, this passage would be funny if it weren't so serious:

Western allies including the US, Germany the Netherlands and even Poland, a leading anti-Russia hawk, immediately chimed in to say they had no intention of sending ground troops to Ukraine, suggesting some irritation with Macron’s comment. Kyiv hastened to say it was asking for swifter arms and ammunition supplies, not troops.

The German vice-chancellor, Robert Habeck, hinted at one explanation for Macron’s statement, when he retorted: “If I may offer a word of advice – supply more weapons.” Berlin and Paris, ostensibly each other’s closest partner, have been engaged in an increasingly vicious blame game over who is failing Ukraine.

Maybe sending more weapons would be more practical if Europe in general didn't have a laughably sclerotic arms industry which takes forever to build tiny numbers of expensive, boutique weapons systems?

The French recently boasted that they're reduced the time it takes to build a single CAESAR 155mm howitzer from 30 months(!) to 15 months as if even this improvement is not a laughable indictment of how both their arms industry and weapons they procure are utterly unfit for a large scale land war consuming large amounts of men and materiel. They primarily exist to Create Value for Shareholders (TM).

Except Ukraine doesn't need more guns. The French boasting is related more to demand for said guns having increased, so they can capitalise and sell more guns. Namely, the 60 odd guns Czech wants, then NG2 109 guns for France n Belgium 28 guns.

Ukraine is getting donated guns, aka guns which already exist.



The requirement is for shells, where French production
was boosted from 1k monthly to 3 thousand.


This sounds like very little in the context of Ukraine.


However. The RMA has happened.

https://en.defence-ua.com/events/us_fir ... -8870.html

US fired only 60000 shells, hundreds of cruise missiles in desert storm to collapse Iraq. That's the KEY context.

Russian IADS systems n her armies was shown to be held off by Ukraine much weaker systems. In a full scale peer to peer war, with Tomahawks, Storm shadows crippling Russian logistics and etc, the pace of war and hence her consumption changes.


Again. There's a reason why Russian tactics is called WW2 like, because the sheer expenditure of 15k shells, just to advance a few km and failure to destroy Ukrainian units is a FAILURE.



The whole "this won't work in a peer war " bit... Well it's true. We don't know if this work in a peer to peer. But Russia isn't a peer to NATO anymore. China is the nation which assumed that mantle and THEY themselves don't think they ready "yet".

[Vympel]

Except Ukraine doesn't need more guns. The French boasting is related more to demand for said guns having increased, so they can capitalise and sell more guns. Namely, the 60 odd guns Czech wants, then NG2 109 guns for France n Belgium 28 guns.

Ukraine is getting donated guns, aka guns which already exist.

https://elpais.com/internacional/2023-1 ... morir.html

“It's like in Bakhmut, they advance like crazy, like zombies, because they want to take Avdiivka at any cost,” agrees Alexander, commander of a unit that operates an American Paladin howitzer in the 47th Brigade. Alexander refers to the Battle of Bakhmut, which lasted nine months and ended with the Ukrainian defeat, and with the city razed. As in Bakhmut, Alexander indicates, there have been days in Avdiivka when between the two armies there were 300 drones in the sky. The main difference, he warns, is that his Paladin does not have enough ammunition: if in April in Bakhmut, and in summer in Orijiv - on the Zaporizhia front -, they fired between 100 and 150 shells a day, in Avdiivka they can fire 15 shells, 10 times less. Not only this: according to this military veteran, when used so much, the howitzers lose precision. In the summer, his Paladin had a margin of error of seven meters on target and now it is 70 meters.

So they absolutely do need more guns, except that if they got more, they still don't have the shells to adequately support them.

However. The RMA has happened.

https://en.defence-ua.com/events/us_fir ... -8870.html

US fired only 60000 shells, hundreds of cruise missiles in desert storm to collapse Iraq. That's the KEY context.

The idea that Iraq has any relevance whatsoever to going to war with modern Russia is just Western 'old glory days' drooling senility and hubris on full display. It was a grossly massive curbstomp against a dramatically weaker opponent with an entirely antiquated military technology in all fields even at the time, and that time was over 30 years ago. You might as well talk about the certainty of German victory in WW1 because of what happened in 1870, its about as timely.

Russian IADS systems n her armies was shown to be held off by Ukraine much weaker systems. In a full scale peer to peer war, with Tomahawks, Storm shadows crippling Russian logistics and etc, the pace of war and hence her consumption changes.

This is just fantasy. There aren't enough missiles available on the entire planet to meaningfully cripple the logistics of a great power behind the lines, especially when they have to penetrate and be attrited by an IADS to hit critical targets to begin with, nevermind how you would magically put all the launch platforms right next to Russia's borders in order to launch them in quantity.

Right now the US Navy is busy getting humiliated achieving absolutely sweet fuck all to end the Houthi blockade of shipping while firing off a years worth of production of Tomahawks at totally defenceless targets, but sure, Russia will be totally crippled by NATO.

Again. There's a reason why Russian tactics is called WW2 like, because the sheer expenditure of 15k shells, just to advance a few km and failure to destroy Ukrainian units is a FAILURE.

Even if this was entirely fair and not just the chortling of online ignoramuses still dreaming of big arrow multi hundred km offensives in an age where the battlefield is more transparent than ever, I'm sure when the event is over and the judges hold up their scorecards this will be of great comfort to the Ukrainians who can't get enough ammo or weapons because (apparently) NATO is too busy resting on its laurels over a piss easy war the US fought 30 years ago at the zenith of its absolute military power.

[aerius]

This is just fantasy. There aren't enough missiles available on the entire planet to meaningfully cripple the logistics of a great power behind the lines, especially when they have to penetrate and be attrited by an IADS to hit critical targets to begin with, nevermind how you would magically put all the launch platforms right next to Russia's borders in order to launch them in quantity.

Right now the US Navy is busy getting humiliated achieving absolutely sweet fuck all to end the Houthi blockade of shipping while firing off a years worth of production of Tomahawks at totally defenceless targets, but sure, Russia will be totally crippled by NATO.

Just to put things in perspective for everyone else, Russia has launched over 7400 missiles and 3700 Shahed drones at the Ukraine as of the end of last year according to Reuters. This has degraded the Ukrainian military along with its industrial infrastructure but it hasn't come anywhere close to striking a crippling or killing blow. The US has around 4000 Tomahawk missiles in its entire inventory, that's not nearly enough to do any significant damage to a nation the size of Russia. On top of that, a lot of Russia's military & other key industries are in the middle of the country which puts them outside the range of anything NATO has other than nukes.

Can NATO get a bunch of missiles through? Sure. Will you get some nice kabooms for TV? Yup. Will it do any meaningful damage? No. And if NATO is dumb enough to try that, they'll find out the difference between a special military operation and total war.

And for those who don't know what total war is, here's a hint.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

First off, it's not a "special military operation", it's an invasion.
Second, in a total war NATO is not dumb enough to attack Russia without using nukes. And because 3/4 of Russia's population is concentrated west of the Ural mountains, that's where nuclear strikes are going to be the most devastating. The % of GDP is misleading owing to the vast disparity between countries- the USA alone has ten times the GDP Russia has, never mind the rest of NATO.

[Elfdart]

That's part of the reason I'm in favor of hiring every merc. company in the world to help booster Ukraine.
(or at least the acceptable ones).

They come with their own munitions and equipment.

Why would an acceptable mercenary company take such an offer?

Back when I was a preschooler, Ian Smith sent recruiters to North Carolina promising cash to former Special Forces troopers like my dad if they'd go fight in Rhodesia. I'm sure they also lurked around communities near bases other than Fort Bragg. They had only a few takers, and not just because after Vietnam the prospect of getting into shoot-outs with highly motivated indigenous people in the tropics had little appeal*. Outfits like Blackwater or whatever they call themselves now might be down for murdering civilians and being up-gunned security guards for high-paying customers, but they're not about to mix it up with an actual army and certainly not the Russians, who have threatened to execute out of hand any mercenaries they catch.

If your grand plan for victory involves using hired guns as anything more than a stop-gap measure in a few select areas, it's not a plan -it's a dream.

* Another reason only a few signed up was that by the mid-1970s, it was pretty obvious that Rhodesia's goose was cooked. So much so that their last hope to hang on to power was when dedicated white supremacist senator Jesse "the Hutt" Helms sent his henchmen to London in a last-ditch effort to scuttle the peace talks being held there. They failed in almost comical fashion to the point that Margaret Thatcher herself complained to the State Department about their harebrained attempts at sabotage. She was no great fan of any national liberation movements of black Africans, but even a reactionary like her realized when the game was up.

[Vympel]

That's part of the reason I'm in favor of hiring every merc. company in the world to help booster Ukraine.
(or at least the acceptable ones).

They come with their own munitions and equipment.

Why would an acceptable mercenary company take such an offer?

Back when I was a preschooler, Ian Smith sent recruiters to North Carolina promising cash to former Special Forces troopers like my dad if they'd go fight in Rhodesia. I'm sure they also lurked around communities near bases other than Fort Bragg. They had only a few takers, and not just because after Vietnam the prospect of getting into shoot-outs with highly motivated indigenous people in the tropics had little appeal*. Outfits like Blackwater or whatever they call themselves now might be down for murdering civilians and being up-gunned security guards for high-paying customers, but they're not about to mix it up with an actual army and certainly not the Russians, who have threatened to execute out of hand any mercenaries they catch.

If your grand plan for victory involves using hired guns as anything more than a stop-gap measure in a few select areas, it's not a plan -it's a dream.

* Another reason only a few signed up was that by the mid-1970s, it was pretty obvious that Rhodesia's goose was cooked. So much so that their last hope to hang on to power was when dedicated white supremacist senator Jesse "the Hutt" Helms sent his henchmen to London in a last-ditch effort to scuttle the peace talks being held there. They failed in almost comical fashion to the point that Margaret Thatcher herself complained to the State Department about their harebrained attempts at sabotage. She was no great fan of any national liberation movements of black Africans, but even a reactionary like her realized when the game was up.

Indeed. There have been more than enough western mercs returned from Ukraine talking about how deeply unpleasant they found the experiene and how little desire they have to return. Mercenaries think they're going to some well paid jaunt where they'll basically be on safari while laden with advantages, not staring down an enemy with more of everything than you'll ever be able to throw back at them.

[Zwinmar]

The idea that Iraq has any relevance whatsoever to going to war with modern Russia is just Western 'old glory days' drooling senility and hubris on full display. It was a grossly massive curbstomp against a dramatically weaker opponent with an entirely antiquated military technology in all fields even at the time, and that time was over 30 years ago. You might as well talk about the certainty of German victory in WW1 because of what happened in 1870, its about as timely.

Ok I have to bite this troll: The Iraq army was operating the exact same equipment that Russia hasn't been maintaining since 91. So, 73 Easting is very valid, the handbook I was given on Russian equipment in 99 details the onese in current use baring a couple exceptions. So not only is it relevant it is down right prophetic as the exact model is used and the exact tactics, it can even be argued that the Iraq forces were better trained because they at least manned their vehicle.

[PainRack]

That's part of the reason I'm in favor of hiring every merc. company in the world to help booster Ukraine.
(or at least the acceptable ones).

They come with their own munitions and equipment.

Why would an acceptable mercenary company take such an offer?

Back when I was a preschooler, Ian Smith sent recruiters to North Carolina promising cash to former Special Forces troopers like my dad if they'd go fight in Rhodesia. I'm sure they also lurked around communities near bases other than Fort Bragg. They had only a few takers, and not just because after Vietnam the prospect of getting into shoot-outs with highly motivated indigenous people in the tropics had little appeal*. Outfits like Blackwater or whatever they call themselves now might be down for murdering civilians and being up-gunned security guards for high-paying customers, but they're not about to mix it up with an actual army and certainly not the Russians, who have threatened to execute out of hand any mercenaries they catch.

If your grand plan for victory involves using hired guns as anything more than a stop-gap measure in a few select areas, it's not a plan -it's a dream.

* Another reason only a few signed up was that by the mid-1970s, it was pretty obvious that Rhodesia's goose was cooked. So much so that their last hope to hang on to power was when dedicated white supremacist senator Jesse "the Hutt" Helms sent his henchmen to London in a last-ditch effort to scuttle the peace talks being held there. They failed in almost comical fashion to the point that Margaret Thatcher herself complained to the State Department about their harebrained attempts at sabotage. She was no great fan of any national liberation movements of black Africans, but even a reactionary like her realized when the game was up.

So.... Russia human trafficking of Indians for slave soldiers is???
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/in ... ar-4152556


Right now, the side that resorted to human trafficking conscripts is Russia ...

[PainRack]

Except Ukraine doesn't need more guns. The French boasting is related more to demand for said guns having increased, so they can capitalise and sell more guns. Namely, the 60 odd guns Czech wants, then NG2 109 guns for France n Belgium 28 guns.

Ukraine is getting donated guns, aka guns which already exist.

https://elpais.com/internacional/2023-1 ... morir.html

And again, France boasting is about selling to more people, while donating used guns to Ukraine . Not about lack of ammo, which is in the next part.

The idea that Iraq has any relevance whatsoever to going to war with modern Russia is just Western 'old glory days' drooling senility and hubris on full display. It was a grossly massive curbstomp against a dramatically weaker opponent with an entirely antiquated military technology in all fields even at the time, and that time was over 30 years ago. You might as well talk about the certainty of German victory in WW1 because of what happened in 1870, its about as timely.

That IS the context of Russia right now against NATO. The fall of the Soviet Union crippled Russian deployment of new technologies. Putin rejuvenation of the Russian military doesn't go that far.

This is just fantasy. There aren't enough missiles available on the entire planet to meaningfully cripple the logistics of a great power behind the lines, especially when they have to penetrate and be attrited by an IADS to hit critical targets to begin with, nevermind how you would magically put all the launch platforms right next to Russia's borders in order to launch them in quantity.

Lol you mean how Ukraine ALREADY damaged Russian logistics with storm shadows and etc ? If the mere 12 planes of Ukraine can actually hit Russian targets, Then yes, Russia does t have the ability to defend the targets from a NATO strike force.

Right now the US Navy is busy getting humiliated achieving absolutely sweet fuck all to end the Houthi blockade of shipping while firing off a years worth of production of Tomahawks at totally defenceless targets, but sure, Russia will be totally crippled by NATO.

Right. Because as we know, cargo ships are so lightly defended, hence only limited offensive power needed to threaten them.
Funny how Russian warships got sunk due to drones, while USN has successfully interdicted and protected vulnerable cargo ships.

Even if this was entirely fair and not just the chortling of online ignoramuses still dreaming of big arrow multi hundred km offensives in an age where the battlefield is more transparent than ever, I'm sure when the event is over and the judges hold up their scorecards this will be of great comfort to the Ukrainians who can't get enough ammo or weapons because (apparently) NATO is too busy resting on its laurels over a piss easy war the US fought 30 years ago at the zenith of its absolute military power.

Lol. Again. The fact that Ukranians with their paltry strike assets COULD hold off Russian advances until now, when Western aid has faltered shows damn well that NATO forces with much more powerful n mature strike capabilities will wreck them.

[aerius]

The idea that Iraq has any relevance whatsoever to going to war with modern Russia is just Western 'old glory days' drooling senility and hubris on full display. It was a grossly massive curbstomp against a dramatically weaker opponent with an entirely antiquated military technology in all fields even at the time, and that time was over 30 years ago. You might as well talk about the certainty of German victory in WW1 because of what happened in 1870, its about as timely.

Ok I have to bite this troll: The Iraq army was operating the exact same equipment that Russia hasn't been maintaining since 91. So, 73 Easting is very valid, the handbook I was given on Russian equipment in 99 details the onese in current use baring a couple exceptions. So not only is it relevant it is down right prophetic as the exact model is used and the exact tactics, it can even be argued that the Iraq forces were better trained because they at least manned their vehicle.

Retired US Army Colonel who was on the front lines of 73 Easting says you're full of shit.

[PainRack]

Note my post Vis fires is about the ammunition stockpiles the US has kept. Not Europe, and why you simply cannot just assume Russia fires 15k shells, we need that many for a war to be ready.

[Zwinmar]

And he is a right wing hack job. Everything he tries to claim about the UAF applies in video to Russia, these are the same morons who ran out of gas and abandoned their vehicles to John Deere, every loss of crew is a far bigger detriment to Russia because the UAF can and has sent crew elsewhere to train while Russia has proved that their crews went from bad to worse.

[aerius]

And he is a right wing hack job. Everything he tries to claim about the UAF applies in video to Russia, these are the same morons who ran out of gas and abandoned their vehicles to John Deere, every loss of crew is a far bigger detriment to Russia because the UAF can and has sent crew elsewhere to train while Russia has proved that their crews went from bad to worse.

How'd that 2023 Ukrainian summer offensive go? You know, the one which was done by NATO trained troops and NATO equipment? A total fucking failure was what it was.

Even the Ukrainians themselves will tell you that NATO training ain't worth much, and the Russians are way more competent and effective than we give them credit for.
archived link for Le Monde
Excerpts:

On the same Bakhmut front, Yeyhen, 24, has vivid memories of his training in the UK in July 2022. "Translation was a problem. On one occasion, the instructors told us we had to ensure our own safety before thinking about the wounded. The Ukrainians translating understood: 'If anyone is wounded, kill them for your own safety.'"

He was surrounded by new soldiers who had just enlisted. "The activities," he continued, "were entirely limited to infantry movements without enemy fire, shells, minefields or snipers, even though that is what we do every day on the ground. Even the depth of the trenches was different from ours, and we were made to distinguish the different Russian vehicles without being told how to react if they came at us." Since his return, Yeyhen, like many others, has been learning about new weapons and tactics on YouTube.

Still shaken by the raging battles of 2022 around Kherson, in the south, where his units paid dearly to retake the town, he insisted that the enemy should not be underestimated. "Russia doesn't have a weak army, they have adapted very quickly. They have a human reservoir that we don't have and equipment in disarray. I suggest that NATO send people to the front for a month, and they will see that the situation changes every day." His experience contrasts with the youth of his face. With shaved hair and thick arms and dressed in a black T-shirt, he made no secret of his army's difficulties: "As soon as we bring out any heavy equipment, it's targeted by the Russians, and their defense system is very effective."

In May, Vassil spent 35 days in England coordinating the training of 200 soldiers alongside British and Danish instructors. "I repeatedly told them that the NATO manuals didn't apply to Ukraine, like trench warfare. Their reply was that that's how it was, everything was pre-determined."

He said that the instructors themselves do not always know exactly how to proceed. "There have been several occasions when they have gone to YouTube to find solutions, particularly for planning operations or resolving disagreements." When he asked for exercises involving the use of drones, he was told that they were not included in NATO training, and yet they are an integral part of the war in Ukraine. "The only time we were able to have them was to observe our infantry maneuvers from the air. It's the countries that are not fighting that do the teaching; it should be the other way round."

"NATO ought to adapt to our needs. Here, we are fighting a war without air support or artillery cover, even though that's at the heart of NATO doctrine. On top of that, our soldiers are more experienced than the ones who are supposed to train them. Many of them have been fighting for 10 years, since the invasion of Donbas and Crimea," he said. He detailed the latest Russian engagement 500 meters beyond their line: "first small reconnaissance groups, machine guns, very few tanks. We are a long way away from NATO standards."

NATO training is just broken. They don't train with drones, fail to take minefields into account, and the exercises assume air and artillery superiority. The results were as expected - a complete fucking failure in the 2023 summer offensive. On top of that, the Russians are actually competent, and you'd know that if you've seen any interviews & videos from Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines.

But hey, keep believing that Russia is still stuck in 1990s and NATO is the bestest most awesomest military in the world. Russia thanks you and the rest of NATO for being stupid since it makes their work easier. Even the Ukrainians aren't that dumb, they've mostly gone back to their Soviet field manuals after their failures last year.

[Mr Bean]

How'd that 2023 Ukrainian summer offensive go? You know, the one which was done by NATO trained troops and NATO equipment? A total fucking failure was what it was.

Even the Ukrainians themselves will tell you that NATO training ain't worth much, and the Russians are way more competent and effective than we give them credit for.

Minus the fact that 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensive lacked the thing that NATO armies count most on... complete and uncontested control of the air. Those NATO style offensives are predicated on being able to ring up HQ and declare that certain hilltops should not exist anymore, or deep strike reinforcement brigades at will. The 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensives demonstrated that NATO tactics fail if you don't A. Have control of the air and B. are trying to advance into WW1 level overlapping defenses and some of the densest mine fields seen outside of the DMZ between North and South Korea.

[aerius]

Minus the fact that 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensive lacked the thing that NATO armies count most on... complete and uncontested control of the air. Those NATO style offensives are predicated on being able to ring up HQ and declare that certain hilltops should not exist anymore, or deep strike reinforcement brigades at will. The 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensives demonstrated that NATO tactics fail if you don't A. Have control of the air and B. are trying to advance into WW1 level overlapping defenses and some of the densest mine fields seen outside of the DMZ between North and South Korea.

In other words, NATO trained them to fail. You trained them in tactics which were completely inapplicable in reality. Why the fuck would you train them that way when you know they don't have air superiority or anything close to sufficient artillery support?

[The Sisko]

Minus the fact that 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensive lacked the thing that NATO armies count most on... complete and uncontested control of the air. Those NATO style offensives are predicated on being able to ring up HQ and declare that certain hilltops should not exist anymore, or deep strike reinforcement brigades at will. The 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensives demonstrated that NATO tactics fail if you don't A. Have control of the air and B. are trying to advance into WW1 level overlapping defenses and some of the densest mine fields seen outside of the DMZ between North and South Korea.

In other words, NATO trained them to fail. You trained them in tactics which were completely inapplicable in reality. Why the fuck would you train them that way when you know they don't have air superiority or anything close to sufficient artillery support?

NATO has become an unserious organization run by unserious people, who actually don't understand what is required to fight a large scale war, is the best answer. Anything else starts sounding conspiratorial, like, "NATO knew better, but did it anyway". Though given the way the war has gone so far, I wouldn't rule it out either. Maybe they cynically thought that a few dead Russians was worth whatever price they would pay in Ukrainian blood and old material.

[Ralin]

Minus the fact that 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensive lacked the thing that NATO armies count most on... complete and uncontested control of the air. Those NATO style offensives are predicated on being able to ring up HQ and declare that certain hilltops should not exist anymore, or deep strike reinforcement brigades at will. The 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensives demonstrated that NATO tactics fail if you don't A. Have control of the air and B. are trying to advance into WW1 level overlapping defenses and some of the densest mine fields seen outside of the DMZ between North and South Korea.

How's that different from saying that NATO tactics are bad and only work if you cartoonishly outgun your enemies?

[Elfdart]

So.... Russia human trafficking of Indians for slave soldiers is???
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/in ... ar-4152556


Right now, the side that resorted to human trafficking conscripts is Russia ...

It's a scummy move, but they're not counting on the handful of dupes being shanghaied to win any battles, which is what Solauren had in mind.