Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 147. (Read 74021 times)

Have you heard about the Maginot line? It was not a 70 kilometre trench, it was an "impregnable" line of defence of bunkers, fortifications, artillery positions and concentrations of troops that the French built to defend against the possible attack from the Nazi regime of Hitler. You know how long did it take for the German army to run past it? Zero days, they did not, they went through Belgium.


It is said that "generals are always fighting the previous war", your Psychos have taken this to a new level by fighting wars that took place 75 years ago.

The cure to gliding bombs is the F-16. These bombs are being launched taking advantage of the limited airforce and detection range of Ukrainian planes. That ends when the US decides it end.

Lancets? They are stopped by a simple net you know? But agree, they cause some problems but will not win you the war.

Too Lazy to type... well, too lazy to answer.

Let me educate you: nearly 99% of wars are economic, and this is not exception. The governments tend to say other things (religion, rightful government, revolutions, and for Putin "Nazis and Zionists, etc...) The war in Ukraine only works for the RF if it is economically beneficial, and that is no longer the case no matter what they do, unless they basically take all the territory of Ukraine and install a puppet. (e.g. you cannot be waging war for 500 years).

Verdun is also a small city, but a serious battle broke out there a century ago. Wagner took Bakhmut for 9 and a half months, which is a long time, but there was no goal to take the city quickly, the goal of the "Bakhmut meat grinder" was to deplete the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the conditions imposed by Russia. Now Ukraine says that the position in Bakhmut is unfavorable, but who forced it to defend a disadvantageous position for so long?

Pleases your optimism and faith in magic by the next Western wunderwaffe. Russia also did not sit idle during these 9 and a half months:
- carried out partial mobilization, eliminated the numerical superiority of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, carried out a rotation and gave rest to the most combat-ready units.
- erected many defensive structures, including a 70-kilometer trench in Zaporozhye, in all directions except for Bakhmut, several rows of layered defense with dense mining.
- launched the mass production of planning and control kits that turn ordinary high-explosive bombs into guided bombs - this has become a real headache for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for which there is still no cure.
- launched the mass production of loitering ammunition Lancet, which became a real headache for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for which there is still no cure.
- Too lazy to type.

Based on France's experience with trench warfare during World War I, the massive Maginot Line was built in the run-up to World War II, after the Locarno Conference in 1925 gave rise to a fanciful and optimistic "Locarno spirit". French military experts believed the line would deter German aggression because it would slow an invasion force long enough for French forces to mobilise and counterattack.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

Why complicate things? Look at it in a simple way... like this.

Russia is much larger than Ukraine. The Russian military is much larger than Ukraine's military. So...

Just to throw out some example figures, imagine that Ukraine's military was 10,000, and Russia's was 100,000. Let's say that they were killing each other off 1 to 1. This means that when Ukraine has killed off 10,000 Russians, there won't be any Ukraine military left... but there will still be 90,000 Russians left.

The fact is more like Russians are killing 6 or 7 Ukrainians for each Russian dead. Get the picture? Ukraine is being played... by the US, Nato, and Russia. The smart Ukrainians left months ago, by the millions.

Blab all you want. The fact of the matter is that there won't be any Ukrainians left in a very short time from now.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

If they had the 500km range version then yes, but there's another one, with shorter range of only 250km and I believe that one was supplied to Ukraine, to prevent them from striking deep into Russia.
In a straight line, there's only 450km between Ukrainian border and Moscow



What is the propaganda you're talking about?

The Russian tactic is not admitting to any losses and when someone actually counts their wrecked machines, it's propaganda.
The pictures of t-62 in Ukraine are also propaganda, just as Iranian drones were propaganda because Iranians said they weren't selling any to Russia and we could keep counting.


Tanks are the second most deployed military unit of this war, right after IFVs. That's a fact, not propaganda. Artillery has third place.

The problem is Russians barely have any good hand held anti-tank launchers. That's why a Western tank that can take out numerous Cold War era Russian tanks and take a hit from an RPG, or a drone, can make a difference.


They are slowly running out of cruise and hypersonic missiles. Artillery doesn't take ground, especially the one Russia uses, as it's not mobile and not accurate enough. It can be used to shell defenses or towns and act as a deterrent. It buys time, but doesn't allow Russians to advance.
Sure, Russia has air superiority, but Ukraine doesn't try to fight them in the air. I've read today that Ukrainians shot down an aircraft with a patriot missile. What's going to happen in a year? Will Russia sacrifice it's air defense forces to attack Ukraine and open itself for a possible attack from the East?

The only reason I waste my time with you is to see if one day you'll recognize that the West is NOT a friend of Ukraine.  Or Poland.  At all.

Ironically, I'm probably more 'friendly' than most of the people in the West because I believe that the world is big enough for a contingent of neooldo-Nazis and inbred chicken-swingers.  I just happen to believe that it is not ethical to use them as tools, but that it proper and ethical to make sure that they don't threaten normal people who are not into their brand of ethics.

The appearance of the DU cloud was spot-on to impact the center-mass of aforementioned miscreants.  As if these groups needed any more genetic misfortunes!  Oh well.

BTW, I found another solid gold animation, but it is attached to a longer bunch of content which is not interesting enough for me to spend time on.  At least it is the first segment:

  Ukraine: Russian Update May 19, 2023
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/EL5wPLvDTsyP/

---

Edit:  Unrelated, except insofar as it's funny.  'Za-Luuu-zhny?!?'

  Wagner and Prigozhin Asked Where General Zaluzhny Is
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/aqCk5XjEywPa/

...
I have said before that DU munitions is not something I would sent to an ally if I were there US, but I am not an "Analyst" so what do I know.  ...

Putin's Palace and bunker nearby.



A modest residence for someone who likes just usual stuff like fishing, riding horses half naked and has the true spartan tastes of the "true Eastern Culture".  BTW... I wonder if this is in the range of a Storm Shadow and if Ukraine could decide to carry a "special military operation" on this.

I don’t understand why you drag this rotten shit from Ukrainian propaganda here?

This is not a tank conflict.

The superiority in tanks could have been decisive, but it was not - thanks in large part to the large number of hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers in early NATO deliveries to Ukraine. A couple of hundred Western tanks from late NATO deliveries will not help Ukraine much either.

Russia's superiority in artillery, aviation and missiles plays a much larger role at the current stage of the operation. In the autumn of last year, a temporary superiority in numbers played well into the hands of Ukraine, due to this, it was possible to achieve success near Izyum. Now Ukraine has no significant advantage in any aspect.

Here's what they were saying 2 months ago:

Russia’s army is estimated to have lost nearly 40% of its prewar fleet of tanks after nine months of fighting in Ukraine, according to a count by the specialist thinktank the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS).
That rises to as much as 50% for some of the key tanks used in combat, forcing Russia to reach into its still sizeable cold war-era stocks. Ukraine’s tank numbers are estimated to have increased because of the number it has captured and supplies of Soviet-era tanks from its western allies.

Its headline count is that Russia’s number of tanks in its army have reduced by 38% from 2,927 to 1,800, while there have been particularly heavy losses of its workhorse T-72B3, an upgrade first delivered to its army in 2013.
Heavy losses on the battlefield have meant that Russia had lost “around 50% of its pre invasion fleet” of the tank and a related variant
 Ukraine could fight better with more NATO military support, but firstly, NATO military support for Ukraine already has unprecedented volumes, and secondly, it is not profitable for NATO to inflate the conflict too much so that it does not get out of control.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/russian-army-has-lost-up-to-half-of-key-battle-tanks-analysts-estimate-ukraine

At the beginning of its full-scale invasion in Feb., Russia had around 3,330 operational tanks (2,840 with the ground forces, 330 with its naval infantry, and 160 with its airborne forces), according to the Military Balance 2021 database.
The database includes all tank types currently employed by Russia’s military, notably T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s, and their modifications.
According to Oryx, an online investigative project documenting equipment losses in Russia’s war, Russia has lost at least 994 tanks as of Sept. 1.

The estimated total Russian loss of 1,300 machines in Ukraine roughly corresponds to 14 full-fledged armored brigades or 42 battalion tactical groups (BTGs). This amounts to more tank fleets than the U.K., France, Germany, and Italy combined.

https://kyivindependent.com/how-many-tanks-does-russia-really-have/

Saying that Russia has used 15% of its potential is an understatement, unless you count all the scrap tanks from the 50s and 60s, like Russian propagandists do, but most of these tanks will never be restored. Russia is a strange country where on paper there's 10k tanks in reserves, but in reality half of these have been in storage for over 50 years. They don't run, cannot be restored, and even if they are somehow restored, are useless on the modern battlefield.


The reality is, Russia has used maybe 20% of its total tank reserves (on paper), but more than 50% of working, fairly modern tanks. I say fairly modern because t72 has been in use since the 70s and Russians just can't let it go. They're just adding more electronics and reactive armor and calling it a modern tank because it's cheaper than making a new one. So, it's possible a grandfather was using a T72 in the Soviet Union, and now his grandson is using it in Ukraine

It's really easy to prove that they're running out of tanks, since they've started to deploy T-62s. These are tanks that were used by Russia in Afghanistan and were already outdated in the 80s.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-military-captured-first-russian-t-62-tank/



These Russians have a sense of humor. Look at the name of the tank "fury" written on the barrel. Also the state of the tank, as it's a version with no reactive armor.

Here's what they were saying 2 months ago:

Russia’s army is estimated to have lost nearly 40% of its prewar fleet of tanks after nine months of fighting in Ukraine, according to a count by the specialist thinktank the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS).
That rises to as much as 50% for some of the key tanks used in combat, forcing Russia to reach into its still sizeable cold war-era stocks. Ukraine’s tank numbers are estimated to have increased because of the number it has captured and supplies of Soviet-era tanks from its western allies.

Its headline count is that Russia’s number of tanks in its army have reduced by 38% from 2,927 to 1,800, while there have been particularly heavy losses of its workhorse T-72B3, an upgrade first delivered to its army in 2013.
Heavy losses on the battlefield have meant that Russia had lost “around 50% of its pre invasion fleet” of the tank and a related variant
 Ukraine could fight better with more NATO military support, but firstly, NATO military support for Ukraine already has unprecedented volumes, and secondly, it is not profitable for NATO to inflate the conflict too much so that it does not get out of control.
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/russian-army-has-lost-up-to-half-of-key-battle-tanks-analysts-estimate-ukraine[/url]

At the beginning of its full-scale invasion in Feb., Russia had around 3,330 operational tanks (2,840 with the ground forces, 330 with its naval infantry, and 160 with its airborne forces), according to the Military Balance 2021 database.
The database includes all tank types currently employed by Russia’s military, notably T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s, and their modifications.
According to Oryx, an online investigative project documenting equipment losses in Russia’s war, Russia has lost at least 994 tanks as of Sept. 1.

The estimated total Russian loss of 1,300 machines in Ukraine roughly corresponds to 14 full-fledged armored brigades or 42 battalion tactical groups (BTGs). This amounts to more tank fleets than the U.K., France, Germany, and Italy combined.

[url]https://kyivindependent.com/how-many-tanks-does-russia-really-have/[/url]

Saying that Russia has used 15% of its potential is an understatement, unless you count all the scrap tanks from the 50s and 60s, like Russian propagandists do, but most of these tanks will never be restored. Russia is a strange country where on paper there's 10k tanks in reserves, but in reality half of these have been in storage for over 50 years. They don't run, cannot be restored, and even if they are somehow restored, are useless on the modern battlefield.


The reality is, Russia has used maybe 20% of its total tank reserves (on paper), but more than 50% of working, fairly modern tanks. I say fairly modern because t72 has been in use since the 70s and Russians just can't let it go. They're just adding more electronics and reactive armor and calling it a modern tank because it's cheaper than making a new one. So, it's possible a grandfather was using a T72 in the Soviet Union, and now his grandson is using it in Ukraine

It's really easy to prove that they're running out of tanks, since they've started to deploy T-62s. These are tanks that were used by Russia in Afghanistan and were already outdated in the 80s.
[url]https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-military-captured-first-russian-t-62-tank/[/url]



These Russians have a sense of humor. Look at the name of the tank "fury" written on the barrel. Also the state of the tank, as it's a version with no reactive armor.

I do not agree. Ukraine is now fighting at the maximum of its military potential, for Ukraine it is a matter of life and death. Russia has used its military potential, I think by 15%, for Russia this is a military special operation.

Welcome to the light! The second step is to figure out who is benefiting more, regardless of what "winning" means for you.


Ukraine is fighting with one arm tied behind the back. They are barely hitting targets in the RF, they are not attacking your allies and NATO is not providing jets, long rage NAMSAMs and sent just a couple of Patriots for marketing purposes.  Pretty much the remaining RF advantage is numbers in arty platforms and munitions and that can be disrupted by attacking the logistics.

This unfulfilled prediction was made at an early stage of the conflict, when my immersion in it was too superficial. I am still not too immersed in it because of the geographical distance, but after 15 months of tracking, I think I began to better understand what was happening. Therefore, now I am not making any forecasts on the timing, it turned out that there are many forces (both in Russia and in the West) that benefit from further prolongation of the conflict.

However, my general message has not changed for a second - Ukraine did not have and does not have the slightest chance of winning this confrontation. Too different weight categories for rivals. Even with NATO military assistance. Even taking into account the difference in levels of motivation, when one side is waging a domestic war against an aggressor-invader, and the other side is just conducting a military special operation. For Ukraine, the best thing was to conclude a peace treaty in April last year, when there was such an opportunity - now it would be able to do a lot of work on the road to recovery. This conflict is beneficial to many, but certainly not to Ukraine itself.

So, Mr. Analyst, what went wrong?  

What led you to be so confident in your prediction that you stated it as a matter of fact and considered all who didn't come to the same conclusion naive and foolish?  

Did you underestimate the capabilities of Ukraine?
Overestimate Russias?

Are you capable of saying either of these things out loud?  

So, Mr. Analyst, what went wrong?  

What led you to be so confident in your prediction that you stated it as a matter of fact and considered all who didn't come to the same conclusion naive and foolish?  

Did you underestimate the capabilities of Ukraine?
Overestimate Russias?

Are you capable of saying either of these things out loud?  

For any semi-competant analysts out there who enjoy this stuff, the first site I've found with before/after images of several of the larger explosions lately is here:

  https://www.thedrive.com/author/tyler-rogoway

My own analysis appears to be flawed insofar as I estimated it more likely that such materials would be stored deep underground.  Anyway, it does give an indication of the kinds of cratering which might be underneath mushroom clouds of this magnitude.  I'd like to see more serious info about the 'nato bunker' event (if it actually happened at all.)

---

The buzz I'm getting leads me to think it likely that there were indeed DU munitions.  Right now it's mostly scientiffically illiterate jerk-off channels talking about the radiation increases and stuff, but that's not atypical for such events which are sensitive.

Some Russian expert did an explanation of distribution of DU in-use vs. being blown up in an ammo dump.  It was accurate enough, but not very well understood on a physics basis or on a political/propaganda basis.

In a very general sense, the radioactive risk of DU is notably different than, say, the Fukushima event or nuclear attacks or what-have-you.  DU for munitions (or protective armor) is not necessarily highly refined to get other contaminants out.  Some of these do have a notable toxicity, and some of them have a radioactive decay chain profile of their own.

In a general sense, DU is an emitter of alpha particles.  In single atom sizes it would be a non-threat.  Alpha particles do great damage, but are quickly stopped by nearby material.  The trouble is that if they form a particle and lodge in tissue, the nearby tissue will be what stops the alpha particle always and over time the cells in the immediate area it can get a pretty significant dose (and their DNA impacted.)

I don't know without further research, but in principle is there is a lot of DU particles of noticeable size in, say, a field of wheat, it might not be advisable to be plowing those fields or working in a mill where the grain is processed.

It is claimed that somewhat elevated (albeit less than a magnitude of difference) levels of bismuth are being detected radiologically (via gamma decay) in the down-wind areas of the Klwhatever explosion and all the way into Poland.  This would about what I would expect if there were at least some DU munitions which were involved with a large explosion.