Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I thought it was the Neptune missile but a bit modified to hit land targets?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...iser-sinking-neptune-missile/?sh=2e94bd257d3d
I know they don't risk to run out yet, otherwise they would've changed their tactic. But what exactly is a long time here. 1 year, 3 years, 10 years? How many tanks, APVs and other equipment have they built, that are also today in an useable condition you think? How big is their production today?
All these "How Russia is doing now" questions led me to this video on Youtube. It is very long though with a lot of information.
And I think we may have people who can dispute some of the stuff that was said in it.
And I think we may have people who can dispute some of the stuff that was said in it.
Last edited:
I subscribe to this channel so I watched that video earlier today.
It's refreshing to see a realistic take on the war, because most western news on the topic is propaganda if we're being honest. I mean, if I believed everything I read on Ukraine, Putin would be dead from cancer by now.
I think this actually shows a view of the conflict that actually explains why the situation is where it is rather than how europeans wish it would be. And also, potentially, how it's going to end up once the dust has settled. The next US election will basically decide how the war ends.
Yeah, most Western media is propaganda whereas a University drop-out YouTuber is a truth teller.
Which part of the video do you have a problem with?
I think i read that they had 50k-60k tanks from the soviet era, and yes you cant speculate that a decent size might be obsolete or non useable. But what? Let say that they still had 50% usuable (probably more). That is 25k-30k.
And that is without counting the last +30 years since the fall of the USSR.
Russia has a looooot of metal still. At this pace, without counting ramping up production, around 10 years of tanks, who knows the rest.
Seems that Ukraine might be Russia’s Vietnam (or second Afghanistan):
Last edited:
Not even Putin can be certain of an answer to that question. He only knows what he has been told by his generals and they lie about it because that is how they grift.
I think it was claimed they had 10'000 main battle tanks at the start of the war but lots of capabilities were claimed for the Russian military, which turned out to be a load of bullshit.
If you stand a tank in the middle of a field and come back to it 50 years later is it still a tank? In one sense yes, but if it hasn't been serviced and is now unserviceable then its just scrap or spares.
The guy in charge of keeping them serviceable is given a budget and he will spend some of it on keeping some of the tanks in readiness but most likely the budget will be unrealistic, he will keep some for himself and his boss and cronies, and when have they ever needed more than say 3000 or 5000 tanks? Right now their inventory is being checked and they are coming up short going by their own intercepted coms.
They will be making as many as they can repairing as many as they can and searching for anything usable. There won't be a no more tanks day. Just a reduced and ever reducing resupply until hopefully they don't have enough to match the Ukrainians and are overwhelmed.
Having a working tank is only the first part, transporting it probably thousands of miles to the front line, providing ammunition and fuel and keeping it functioning and manned by trained personnel are all vital to its utility.
Not even close, that one just happened to do so.
according to your logic, there is a "western propaganda" against Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle and so on since there are tons of fake news not in favor of these clubs every day by "the western media". In an open society, there are surely tons of false/negative news about basically everything. Just because some "western writers" making false predictions about Putin doesn't mean it is "propaganda".
I can easily find "evidence" that BBC is "anti-USA" propaganda too.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-23456018
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33440287
Rather bizarre hearing from the Pentagon to rely less on drones, given how widely they use those themselves. Probably BS.
That’s tough
If it is true, it is likely to be taken out of context. It could simply mean that the U.S. thinks the UKR forces should use other methods as well instead of only one or two. It could also mean that they are concerned with how RA's jamming has become better, making the drones a bit less effective. There may be a lot of contexts that are missing out. Don't forget they see a lot more things there that we do here by following twitters or whatever.
In the article, the U.S. pushed UKR to concentrate on the South, which they appeared to do lately, and some progress has been made there. And they also think that UKR is wasting artillery fire in a Soviet-style tactic, etc. The U.S. may not be fighting there and probably does not have a lot of experience in this kind of war, but some outside advice is desperately needed for the UKR command.
Trump was Putin's biggest asset without Trump having any clue about it. A useful idiot is an understatement.
Biden shouldn't have honoured Trump's deal/surrender with the Taliban. It was a shit show and made the US look weak and out of control. Wouldn't surprise me if Putin saw what happened there and assumed the US would simply stand aside again if they marched into Ukraine.
Some legacy Trump left in just 4 years!
Thank you for sacrificing your life in the tens of thousands for Ukraine's 59th biggest city. Now we're erasing your very existence.
Wagner cemeteries are not destroyed but upgraded
It still looks like they transform personal graves into a mass grave and bury hundreds under the same concrete slab without giving relatives the chance to take them away to fufill their last wishes maybe. If that's what they call an upgrade, okay then.
I agree, it's an upgrade only if you don't treat Russians as free individuals. But at least the Russian state acknowledges this way that they died for Russia. Russia might indeed erase Wagner from history, but probably by removing references to Wagner during these works, but not by removing memories of the people that died.
I've only watched a few minutes of that. I'll try and watch the rest later. The approval ratings things is a load of bullocks though. Some randomly selected western leaders + Japan PM to compare to Putin. Even if you accept that Putin's ratings aren't massaged to feck, it means little in geopolitical terms. You could have an approval rating of zero and still order military action if you're commander in chief.
You'll struggle to find a British Prime Minister that could hold an approval rating of over 50% short of maybe Churchill and Attlee since universal suffrage was enacted. Didn't stop any of em from going to war when they wanted to though.
Did they?
I'd add that in almost every case countries going into war experience an increase in their leaders popularity, at the very least during the beginning. That holds true even for Bush in Iraq and Galtieri in the Falklands. The author could have spotted this easily since he also mentioned Zelensky's approval rating being even higher, but he chose not to do it. And this is without even considering the particular issues in Russia's "democracy".
Another lie easy to spot on the video was the stating that the West has been preaching doom for Putin's regime since pretty much the start of his tenure and specifically since the start of the war, when the overwhelming consensus among experts at that point was that Russia would win the war in weeks, maybe a couple months. And this is from the first 10 minutes of video.
As did Margaret Thatcher of course during and following the Falklands conflict. She went from the least popular PM on record to the most popular.
But for Tony Blair, the opposite happened.
I wonder why
