Russia-Ukraine War 2022 - Page 313 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

By Rugoz
#15236054
Beren wrote:You, Rugoz, JohnRawls seem to share it. But now you're going to turn out not to do so, I guess.


If at all I was of that opinion some time ago when I thought NATO would not hold back. But the "it takes too long to train Ukrainians on these systems" excuse is kind of getting lame. Unless of course Ukrainians are being trained on Leopards, Bradleys, Patriots and F-16s or whatever as we speak, but I doubt it.

Any type of Ukrainian victory totally hinges upon NATO support, that much is obvious.
#15236068
There are no weapons in the warehouse. The explosions would've been similar to the other video that lasts for hours and hours if there were. Russia actually very rarely hits places stored with weapons. They just bomb civilian infrastructure and try to sell it off as a victory, when in reality they're just terrorizing the civilian population. Just open up Russian social media channels and you'll see how Russians celebrate the death of women and children every day, and they're actually saddened by the fact that more civilians aren't dying.

By the way, even if Russia was hitting military infrastructure, which they aren't, it's still not a legitimate target. You can't bomb another country's army indiscriminately especially when that army had not fired a single shot at yours.

Russia's aggressive invasion under international law is a crime even if not a single Ukrainian civilian were killed, and every single Russian soldier is a criminal.
By Rich
#15236071
Rugoz wrote:But the "it takes too long to train Ukrainians on these systems" excuse is kind of getting lame. Unless of course Ukrainians are being trained on Leopards, Bradleys, Patriots and F-16s or whatever as we speak, but I doubt it.

The idea seems to have been that we should be the "Car Boot Sale" of democracy in Ukraine. As far as I can make out there has been no serious plan to supply the Ukrainian armed forces with what they need over the medium term. While it made sense to rush in old stocks initially, a coherent plan would have involved a selection of a minimal number of equipment types and then set about an emergency production expansion of those equipment types and their ammunition, spare parts and supporting infrastructure.

I think there was genuine concern at the start of the war about a Ukrainian collapse, but then I think the disastrous offensives towards Kiev and around Sumy actually became a problem for the western establishment. Russia just has too much potential to cause trouble to Israel and in the Gulf to inflict a total defeat on it. Obviously western publics could not be told the truth. I've just been in Glastonbury Festival, what was remarkable was the lack of Ukrainian flags. There were a few but western public opinion seems to be losing interest in Ukraine in remarkably quick time. It took 20 years to completely sell Afghan school girls down the river. I could be wrong, but I think the process will be a lot quicker with Ukraine.
#15236078
Szabo wrote:There are no weapons in the warehouse. The explosions would've been similar to the other video that lasts for hours and hours if there were. Russia actually very rarely hits places stored with weapons. They just bomb civilian infrastructure and try to sell it off as a victory, when in reality they're just terrorizing the civilian population. Just open up Russian social media channels and you'll see how Russians celebrate the death of women and children every day, and they're actually saddened by the fact that more civilians aren't dying.

By the way, even if Russia was hitting military infrastructure, which they aren't, it's still not a legitimate target. You can't bomb another country's army indiscriminately especially when that army had not fired a single shot at yours.

Russia's aggressive invasion under international law is a crime even if not a single Ukrainian civilian were killed, and every single Russian soldier is a criminal.


The warehouses by the rail station stored vehicles and parts, not explosives. I doubt they would have an ammo stockpile next to a mall.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15236080
Igor Antunov wrote:I doubt they would have an ammo stockpile next to a mall.

Why?

If your shit is going to be blown up anyway, you may as well win the PR war. And if your human shields deter the enemy from blowing up your shit, job well done.

There is no downside.


:)
#15236082
Igor Antunov wrote:mhm...
Image

Turns out storing weapons in large warehouses 250m from a mall can be hazardous. The missiles were heavy with 500kg warheads, explains the collateral. Explosions would have been at least 80m in radius.

And the cherry on top, before and after strike, take note of opening times:
Image

Igor why are you trying to justify war crimes? Russians hit a mall with 1000 people inside and there was no ammo there.
User avatar
By Beren
#15236085
Rugoz wrote:If at all I was of that opinion some time ago when I thought NATO would not hold back.

The problem is that if NATO didn't hold back, Russia wouldn't hold back either, although it's hard for some people to get that they actually do. NATO doesn't mean to escalate the war but definitely means to keep the Ukrainians under control, so their support to them is pretty much measured and only enough to make the Ukrainian military able to effectively resist the Russians but not to execute a counteroffensive. A war of attrition, you know.
#15236086
Beren wrote:The problem is that if NATO didn't hold back, Russia wouldn't hold back either, although it's hard for some people to get that they actually do. NATO doesn't mean to escalate the war but definitely means to keep the Ukrainians under control, so their support to them is pretty much measured and only enough to make the Ukrainian military able to effectively resist the Russians but not to execute a counteroffensive. A war of attrition, you know.


The idea that Russia is "holding back" it the dumbest shit ever. You think they enjoy this plodding war of attrition? You think they would get T-62s and BMP-1s out of storage if they were "holding back"? Russia is throwing everything into the grinder, except nukes.

NATO providing more weapons would change exactly nothing on the Russian side.
User avatar
By Beren
#15236087
Rugoz wrote:The idea that Russia is "holding back" it the dumbest shit ever. You think they enjoy this plodding war of attrition? You think they would get T-62s and BMP-1s out of storage if they were "holding back"? Russia is throwing everything into the grinder, except nukes.

NATO providing more weapons would change exactly nothing on the Russian side.

Russia still could mobilise lots of resources for this war if it weren't a limited proxy war actually, which is also the reason they rather use older equipment in this stage of the war. It's another issue, though, if how much it'd cost them, but they still could do it. They still could gear up their military industry and mobilise conscripts, and who knows what else they still have in storage, for example. It's not all Saruman could conjure.
#15236089
@Rancid

I wouldn't play a game of chicken with Putin and call his bluff on nuclear weapons. Certainly, I think NATO would curb stomp the Russian military conventionally hands down. I think Putin knows this too, hence, why if NATO were to intervene right now there is a good chance he would use nukes. It's too risky and the consequences are too high. Now if Putin actually does use nukes on the Ukrainians, then I think we should start attacking the Russian military in Ukraine and only in Ukraine using conventional weapons. If he responds to our military response with nukes against us too, then, I think we need to respond in kind with our own nuclear weapons.
#15236093
@JohnRawls

The Pentagon has been reporting that the Ukrainians have received their first HIMARS and have been using that rocket artillery to great effect against Russian forces.
#15236118
Beren wrote:Russia still could mobilise lots of resources for this war if it weren't a limited proxy war actually, which is also the reason they rather use older equipment in this stage of the war. It's another issue, though, if how much it'd cost them, but they still could do it. They still could gear up their military industry and mobilise conscripts, and who knows what else they still have in storage, for example. It's not all Saruman could conjure.


:eh:

What a weird take.

NATO is fighting a proxy war, not Russia. They use old equipment where they've run out of modern equipment. After all they have used more modern equipment at the start of the war.
User avatar
By Beren
#15236121
Rugoz wrote:NATO is fighting a proxy war, not Russia. They use old equipment where they've run out of modern equipment. After all they have used more modern equipment at the start of the war.

Russia's fighting a limited war against a US proxy, the point is it's not a direct confrontation between Russia and the US/NATO, neither is it a total war or a matter of life or death to them. They use old equipment either because they mean to spare modern equipment or they don't want to gear up their arms production. I wonder, though, if most of that old equipment goes to the Donbas militias, who are auxiliaries. I also wonder if the artillery they're mostly using recently is also that old. However, it's a kind of limited medium-profile war on both parts.
By Rugoz
#15236123
Beren wrote:Russia's fighting a limited war against a US proxy, the point is it's not a direct confrontation between Russia and the US/NATO, neither is it a total war or a matter of life or death to them. They use old equipment either because they mean to spare modern equipment or they don't want to gear up their arms production. I wonder, though, if most of that old equipment goes to the Donbas militias, who are auxiliaries. I also wonder if the artillery they're mostly using recently is also that old. However, it's a kind of limited medium-profile war on both parts.


Russia is only fighting a limited war in terms of manpower, not in terms of equipment. They used modern equipment at the beginning and are increasingly using older stuff meant for reserves. Plenty of sources out there telling you that. Not exactly a secret.

As for production. Obviously they cannot produce APCs or tanks at the rate they're losing it, that would be silly. I doubt even NATO could do that for the Ukrainian side.
By late
#15236125
Beren wrote:
Russia's fighting a limited war against a US proxy, the point is it's not a direct confrontation between Russia and the US/NATO, neither is it a total war or a matter of life or death to them. They use old equipment either because they mean to spare modern equipment or they don't want to gear up their arms production. I wonder, though, if most of that old equipment goes to the Donbas militias, who are auxiliaries. I also wonder if the artillery they're mostly using recently is also that old. However, it's a kind of limited medium-profile war on both parts.



Russia's best fighter/bombers were designed to use smart bombs. They ran out, so they have to fly low enough to use dumb bombs, which makes them very vulnerable.

Putin will keep escalating as much he needs to. That has meant getting old and reserve equipment, getting it running, and sending it to the front. Speaking of which, the conscription suggest it's Russians doing the bulk of the fighting.

Which makes logistics important. Russia has all that old crap, and it's supply lines are much shorter than Ukraines. That means we have to keep up.
User avatar
By Beren
#15236131
Rugoz wrote:They used modern equipment at the beginning and are increasingly using older stuff meant for reserves.

Sure, efficiency and effectiveness were more important at the beginning than they're now. At the beginning Ukraine should have been taken by a sudden strike, which was their primary objective, now they're just struggling to take the Donbas somehow. Russia's lowering its objectives instead of elevating its war efforts, especially in the hinterland. Putin's just changing commanders while he's not willing to mobilise and escalate, but not any of his generals will be able to defy material circumstances and do wonders for him on the battlefield.
#15236132
Rancid wrote:At heart, Beren is an imperialist.

At heart I'm a Socialist, but my political self uses its head rather than its heart.
  • 1
  • 311
  • 312
  • 313
  • 314
  • 315
  • 362

Anybody who advocates for war, needs to be the fi[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

the life and freedom returned to its citizens […]

Mar-a-lago raided by the FBI

Let me contextualize Epstien for you: imagine som[…]