Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

[Indus]

Maybe. Problem is eastern Ukraine is where the vast majority of its natural resources are. And now you see why Putin is doubling down on eastern Ukraine.

All the better.

Instead of 5 Russkies dead per drone.. 50 Russkies dead per drone is better since they'll be concentrating in a smaller area!

May this war last 20 years!

This is any American's wet dream.. we get to sit it out watching Netflix while our opponents are engaged in a long excruciating bloody war!

Only a Russian sympathizer or someone who is against America would try to say our position is bad!

 

[Young Grasshopper]

Any amount of critical thinking would have you realize the amounts they would make off stolen oil would be overshadowed by the cost of maintaining a force there and supporting the forces there.

You do realize we have less then a thousand troops in Syria right? What is the cost of supporting and maintaining them? Fill me in cause you’re the expert and I have no clue.

BTW, how about answering the real question. Why are we illegally occupying Syria? Why won’t US troops leave when the Syrian government demands us to leave? You think it’s ok to just waltz into another country uninvited and start waring with the locals? You seem to have a problem with Putin does this but when we invade Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc…no problems appearantly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Meghan54]

Maybe. Problem is eastern Ukraine is where the vast majority of its natural resources are. And now you see why Putin is doubling down on eastern Ukraine.

Well, like Duh! Capt Obvious.

 

[K1052]

Maybe. Problem is eastern Ukraine is where the vast majority of its natural resources are. And now you see why Putin is doubling down on eastern Ukraine.

The above image is not really informative. Ukraine does have a lot of resources in the east but the vast majority of those are under Ukrainian control.

 

[fskimospy]

You do realize we have less then a thousand troops in Syria right? What is the cost of supporting and maintaining them? Fill me in cause you’re the expert and I have no clue.

BTW, how about answering the real question. Why are we illegally occupying Syria? Why won’t US troops leave when the Syrian government demands us to leave? You think it’s ok to just waltz into another country uninvited and start waring with the locals? You seem to have a problem with Putin does this but when we invade Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc…no problems appearantly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still waiting on your full tbeoated, unequivocal denunciation of Russia’s invasion of its neighbor. Any ETA on that?

 

[K1052]

Quite a few reports of Russian withdrawals along Zaporizhzhia front.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598394665375596549

And defenses construction at points south.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598393828456660992

 

[Bitek]

Do you only get your news from western sources? How about venturing outside the western news bubble and see what the rest of the world is saying?

US accused of smuggling 40 tankers of oil over Syrian border

morningstaronline.co.uk

But it has nothing to do with looting another country’s resources right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. "Accused" by war criminal and Russian ally Assad, but with what proof?

2. WHY?!!!! ASK YOURSELF, DO THE MATH.

Per the allegation, this was a single event of 40 tankers of oil.
A single tanker holds less than 200 bbl typically, so this was a max of 80,000bbl of oil.
Value of what, maybe $6m (@$75/bbl, but if it's smuggled, that's an over estimate..)

Ok, why? What purpose? How much oil does the US consume?
20,000,000bbl PER DAY.

This allegedly smuggled oil would satisfy barely 5mins of supply for the US.

The idea that Biden is occupying Syria on a quest to recover overseas oil (rather than say, Texas..) is fucking idiotic on its face.

This amount of oil is useless to us.

Could it have been stolen through corruption? There are enough liars, killers and thieves over there anything is possible, but it's not part of a national policy.

3. So why are you constantly repeating Russian aligned accusations and propaganda?

 

[Perknose]

Detailed analysis of the first 5 months of the war from the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank.

One of the report’s most important takeaways is that NATO countries’ stockpiles of arms and ammunition are “woefully deficient” for future conflicts.

The report also punches holes in public narratives from the early days of the conflict, which said anti-tank systems like Javelins and armed drones like the Turkish Bayraktar played a decisive role in Ukraine’s ability to stop the Russian offensive on Kyiv despite the internet fandom for these weapons. “Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades,” the report concludes.

 

[rommelrommel]

1. "Accused" by war criminal and Russian ally Assad, but with what proof?

2. WHY?!!!! ASK YOURSELF, DO THE MATH.

Per the allegation, this was a single event of 40 tankers of oil.
A single tanker holds less than 200 bbl typically, so this was a max of 80,000bbl of oil.
Value of what, maybe $6m (@$75/bbl, but if it's smuggled, that's an over estimate..)

Ok, why? What purpose? How much oil does the US consume?
20,000,000bbl PER DAY.

This allegedly smuggled oil would satisfy barely 5mins of supply for the US.

The idea that Biden is occupying Syria on a quest to recover overseas oil (rather than say, Texas..) is fucking idiotic on its face.

This amount of oil is useless to us.

Could it have been stolen through corruption? There are enough liars, killers and thieves over there anything is possible, but it's not part of a national policy.

3. So why are you constantly repeating Russian aligned accusations and propaganda?

Any oil the USA helped “export” was for the rebel forces to sell and sustain themselves, not for US profit.

 

[K1052]

Detailed analysis of the first 5 months of the war from the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank.

One of the report’s most important takeaways is that NATO countries’ stockpiles of arms and ammunition are “woefully deficient” for future conflicts.

The report also punches holes in public narratives from the early days of the conflict, which said anti-tank systems like Javelins and armed drones like the Turkish Bayraktar played a decisive role in Ukraine’s ability to stop the Russian offensive on Kyiv despite the internet fandom for these weapons. “Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades,” the report concludes.

While I agree NATO needs to stock up on conventional munitions if the Russian advance had run into the full gamut of western arsenals during its invasion few would have been left alive and everything on wheels/tracks would have burned all the way back to the border in a few days time.

 

[rommelrommel]

You do realize we have less then a thousand troops in Syria right? What is the cost of supporting and maintaining them? Fill me in cause you’re the expert and I have no clue.

BTW, how about answering the real question. Why are we illegally occupying Syria? Why won’t US troops leave when the Syrian government demands us to leave? You think it’s ok to just waltz into another country uninvited and start waring with the locals? You seem to have a problem with Putin does this but when we invade Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc…no problems appearantly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the day after they leave our allies get butchered by the Syrians.

 

[rommelrommel]

While I agree NATO needs to stock up on conventional munitions if the Russian advance had run into the full gamut of western arsenals during its invasion few would have been left alive and everything on wheels/tracks would have burned all the way back to the border in a few days time.

Also, NATO nations expect to own the sky and devastate armour with PGM’s. Excalibur and HIMARS would be used on what’s left, and then ATGM’s.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Trouble in paradise?

Russians are angry Putin is spending billions on an unpopular war as they freeze back home, report says

Business Insider|33 minutes ago
Russians are complaining about poverty and poor infrastructure amid Putin's ongoing war in Ukraine, The Daily Beast reported.


...

 

[Leeea]

One of the report’s most important takeaways is that NATO countries’ stockpiles of arms and ammunition are “woefully deficient” for future conflicts.

While that is somewhat true.

It is also true this is nothing like the war NATO planned to fight.

NATO has 3,500 fighter jets. Unlike Russia, NATO knows how to do SEAD.

Very different war.

The report also punches holes in public narratives from the early days of the conflict, which said anti-tank systems like Javelins and armed drones like the Turkish Bayraktar played a decisive role in Ukraine’s ability to stop the Russian offensive on Kyiv despite the internet fandom for these weapons. “Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades,” the report concludes.

That is a good update.

I think artillery pieces are just not as sexy as a Ukrainian soldier with an NLAW perched on each shoulder.

Detailed analysis of the first 5 months of the war from the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank.

Fantastic link! A must read. Especially when it gets into the main action on the first days of the war.

 

[Perknose]

While that is somewhat true.

It is also true this is nothing like the war NATO planned to fight.

NATO has 3,500 fighter jets. Unlike Russia, NATO knows how to do SEAD.

Very different war.

All agreed! But that is not the "all out but somehow short of nukes" war they're talking about. Few expected this sort of conflict. Korea comes to mind, which had the same "lines that couldn't be crossed" and which, despite our overwhelming superiority of arms, ended in a stalemate. We didn't cross into China, and they didn't attempt to take out our aircraft carriers.

NATO always foresaw Russian armor flooding through the Fulda Gap. That war isn't this war.

 

[Pens1566]

While I agree NATO needs to stock up on conventional munitions if the Russian advance had run into the full gamut of western arsenals during its invasion few would have been left alive and everything on wheels/tracks would have burned all the way back to the border in a few days time.

Yeah, my main take away from this has been that if it would have been against a combined conventional NATO force ... you're looking at a 48-72 annihilation. Maybe 96hrs if it conflicted with the super bowl.

 

[rommelrommel]

Yeah, my main take away from this has been that if it would have been against a combined conventional NATO force ... you're looking at a 48-72 annihilation. Maybe 96hrs if it conflicted with the super bowl.

There is the matter of getting it all there. But Russia would need time to amass a sizeable force too.

I think in such a scenario the tolerance for risk would go up quite a bit, and you’d see the super high value platforms like B2/B1B/F22 surged. If Ukraine is doing alright with MIG’s and HARM strapped to them stealth, advanced sensors, and huge numbers would probably decimate Russian air/air defence in short order.

 

[Leeea]

From Perknose's link, early in the war:

Of all UAVs used by the UAF in the first three phases of the war covered by this study,
around 90% were destroyed. The average life expectancy of a quadcopter remained around
three flights. The average life expectancy of a fixed-wing UAV was around six flights.

Pretty extreme attrition rates for the UAVs early on.


and

Skilled crews who properly pre-programmed the flight path of their UAVs to approach targets shielded
by terrain and other features could extend the life of their platforms. However, even when
UAVs survived, this did not mean that they were successful in carrying out their missions. UAVs
could fail to achieve their missions because the requirements to get them in place – flying
without transmitting data, with captured images to be downloaded on recovery, for example –
prevented timely target acquisition before the enemy displaced.

they were running the UAVs blind!

Russian electronic warfare was far more effective then we knew. The HARM munitions had a much larger impact then any of us realized.

 

[Leeea]

The report also punches holes in public narratives from the early days of the conflict, which said anti-tank systems like Javelins and armed drones like the Turkish Bayraktar played a decisive role in Ukraine’s ability to stop the Russian offensive on Kyiv despite the internet fandom for these weapons. “Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades,” the report concludes.

While this is true,
the report also indicates running into unexpected resistance combined with Russian soldiers not expecting to fight resulted Russian forces being overly vulnerable to Ukrainian artillery.

The ATGMs were a big part of that unexpected resistance.

 

[JTsyo]

From Perknose's link, early in the war:

Pretty extreme attrition rates for the UAVs early on.

Wonder if it's just small arms that taking them down. For the bigger stuff a SAM can probably target it.

 

[K1052]

Also, NATO nations expect to own the sky and devastate armour with PGM’s. Excalibur and HIMARS would be used on what’s left, and then ATGM’s.

Right they never thought they'd have to supply an old school tube and rocket artillery war for months since air assets would have been raining hell on everything in relatively short order.

This is not to mention the vast amount of standoff range munitions the US possess. The Kerch bridge would have been mass TLAM'd almost immediately and sent to join the Black Sea fleet on the bottom.

 

[Racan]

Detailed analysis of the first 5 months of the war from the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank.

One of the report’s most important takeaways is that NATO countries’ stockpiles of arms and ammunition are “woefully deficient” for future conflicts.

The report also punches holes in public narratives from the early days of the conflict, which said anti-tank systems like Javelins and armed drones like the Turkish Bayraktar played a decisive role in Ukraine’s ability to stop the Russian offensive on Kyiv despite the internet fandom for these weapons. “Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades,” the report concludes.

Here's a discussion about the report with its authors if anyone's interested:

 

[K1052]

US looking to borrow NASAMS systems from Ukraine from Oman and/or Qatar.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598421775657885696

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^^ And build more of something ....

U.S. News // 17 minutes ago
Raytheon awarded $1.2 billion contract for Ukraine missile systems
Dec. 1 (UPI) -- American weapons manufacturer Raytheon Technologies has been awarded a $1.2 billion contract to provide Ukraine with six National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems.​

 

[kage69]

My favorite M142 spotted again?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598416467342524418

He blowin up.