Obviously you would not lend to Ruzzia at the same rates as Germany nor you would expect re-structuring from Germany .Again, you are not going to enlighten anyone here about credit ratings.
Ukraine is a perfectly viable independent country in economic terms if the war is ended correctly. You know this, Putin knows this and you both want to avoid this outcome at all costs by asking for a surrender while calling it "peace".
Try to be honest for once will you? You were clearly giving credibility to options about the Ukrainian glide bombs and the western weaponry in terms of "not working". Would you like then to retract and say they are not working 100%?
Particularly, what degree of "not working" and the S300 S400 being enough to deal with the western supplied missiles do you claim? And what degree of "not working" do you attribute to the French glide bombs smashing the east bank of the dnipro?
Meh comparing default risks of Germany vs Russia is not interesting, now Russian war bonds vs. Ukrainian war bonds on a free market would be for a far more interesting conversation.
Ukraine was a perfectly viable country in economic terms in 2013, and there was peace and overall prosperity in EU. You know this, and EU knows this, but US decided to change that status quo with some sweet cookies that some naive people fell for and
fuck the EU, EU didn't have the balls to stop it so now we're all paying the consequences.
[...][/url]
Once again i'm not a military expert to comment on the specifics, i just collect credible reports from multiple sources and report it here. If you have credible reports that claim otherwise, that Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs work amazingly for Ukraine do share them, otherwise unless you reveal yourself as some war general or top military strategist, i'll believe media reports over your opinion. Honestly i don't see what you're so held up on, are you just incapable of admitting that some weapons might not work for Ukraine, is that it? There are no reports that ATACMS don't work (there are other issues with them mainly cost and availability but effectiveness doesn't seem to be one of them), yet there are plenty that GLSDB and Excalibur are not effective. Either provide a more credible source claiming otherwise or stop spreading misinformation with your random opinions and pictures/videos.
Even from some UA source defence-ua.com
Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) was supposed to become one of Ukraine's farthest-reaching strike weapons, enabling Ukrainian forces to launch strikes 150 km deep inside russian rear on par with ATACMS missiles. However, in practice GLSDB has shown low effectiveness, as follows from the vague words by William LaPlante, Pentagon's Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, he attributed the poor performance to the electronic warfare factor, as well as this weapon's general application tactics and doctrine.
Well, you know, never to late to grow balls. Europe is slow, but is not immobile and the risk of Trump as president - pretty much Putin´s wet dreams made true - is certainly creating the conditions for a nuclear able Germany. It think that Europe could create a programme for, let´s say 1000 strategic warheads, so next time it can talk to Ruzzia with some "backup". I am not sure that Trump understands that if Europe feels undefended the non-proliferation is over.
I am not sure where did they get the idea that a glide bomb can be thrown 150 km behind the front... or maybe I am not reading correctly. It simply does not make sense, ATACAMS have a much larger range... bombs are not really that sensitive to EW... I am not sure where they got all that.
Again, you say you are not an expert, but at the same time you are giving credibility to all the opinions that match your narrative, so I am going to make the question again - the one you do not want to answer: To what degree do you think ATACAMS will "not work" and to what degree do you think glide bombs "do not work".I think that Ukraine has new weapons and has a proper strategy to use them:
1. Make the war costly for Ruzzia. Attrition in vehicles, people and oil&gas facilities.
2. Start degrading Ruzzian airforce to an unacceptable level.
3. degrade sufficiently Ruzzian air defence.
4. Keep on destroying the Black Sea fleet to the point that is useless.
5. Prepare for an offensive in 2025 - 26.
6. Obviously, avoid loosing key holds.
Both NATO and Russia have more than enough nukes, about 12k together. In the word of thermonuclear fusion weapons, hypersonic missiles, and fractional orbital bombardment systems the idea that 1k more nukes would change something is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. If my country looses so should the whole world mindset?
With
Trump is leading in polls 49% and Biden slipping to 43% and
Biden's 13th-Quarter Approval Average Lowest Historically...None of the other nine presidents elected to their first term since Dwight Eisenhower had a lower 13th-quarter average than Biden. denying and not planning for such outcome is just idiotic at this point. Regardless how you feel about Trump, any politician that doesn't plan for Trumps presidency to later claim any such outcome as totally unexpected should be laughed out of politics right now. It's like some politicians acting that they just found out that Russia has 3x population to Ukraine.
Looks like Forbes also puts GLSDB range at about 150km
The 600-pound, 90-mile-range glide-bombs might help to compensate for a dire shortage of 155-millimeter howitzer shells.
Small-diameter high-precision GLSDB munitions did not meet expectations based on the experience of the war in Ukraine, stated Deputy US Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment William LaPlante at the CSIS security forum.
"One company, I won't say who they are, came up with a really cool idea of taking an air-to-ground weapon and doing a ground launch version of it, and it would be a long-range fire weapon. They raced and did it as fast as they could, we even limited the testing in this country. We said, look just test for safety... And then we sent it to Ukrainians. It didn't work," explained LaPlante.
He explained that these munitions failed to perform for several reasons, including:
・interference from electronic warfare systems,
・typical debris and ground use,
・tactical application peculiarities.
Presumably, LaPlante was referring to the recently developed GLSDB missiles from Boeing, which were based on the GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). Their testing concluded in December last year, and the first confirmed use against Russians appeared in February this year.
LaPlante summarized the situation, emphasizing that "when you send something to people in fight for their lives, and it doesn't work, they'll try it three times and then they'll just throw it aside. So that's happened".
You can not believe Deputy US Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment all you want. But if you want to prove him wrong and claim that GLSDB work for Ukraine you got to cite something outside of your opinion and few pictures.
Wow what a great strategy in just 6 bullet point! But are you saying this is totally new, like really no one thought to implement such basic strategy in the previous 2+ years of fighting? Do you think that's because they're just totally incompetent or it was by design?
