That is why you need to find factual information that isn't tinged with propaganda from either way of the spectrum
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.
That is why you need to find factual information that isn't tinged with propaganda from either way of the spectrum
The quintessential pyrrhic victory.
One would expect Prigozhin to claim victory. Might want to wait until there's more corroborating information since the Ukrainians still claim they're fighting.
As if that exists.
Well, tiny facts, sure (a tank was destroyed, a rocket was fired, etc.). But for meaningful developments, there is no such thing available as a neutral, objective source. (Arguably never, but here least of all.)
As if that exists.
Well, tiny facts, sure (a tank was destroyed, a rocket was fired, etc.). But for meaningful developments, there is no such thing available as a neutral, objective source. (Arguably never, but here least of all.)
I rely on two sources ie two Italian youtube channels. They work in tandem together. Mirko Campochiari is my favourite speaker. He is an Italian of Polish origins, with huge links to journalists who spend months in both sides of Ukraine. They also invite many military experts most of whom having worked with NATO. Italy has a history of being the Walder Frey of politics ie they basically unified the country by having their ally win wars on their behalf. In fact Bismarck once told them that they are the country of the tree 'S' ie Solferino (1859), Sadowa (1866) and Sedan (1870). The former was won by the French while the last two by the Prussians. In all wars the Italians had tanked on the battlefield but still ended up at the winners side thus adding more territory to their country. Such history and mentality allow the Italians to have a quite a critical, dry and cynical view about war
Regarding Ukraine many statements can be true at the same time. Its true that Russian armies are incompetent (although they are improving) and that modern weaponry in certain sectors are running dry. However its also true that they have a huge population, they are the only ones (alongside Ukraine) that are in war economy, they inherited an almost endless supply of Soviet ammunition, tanks etc and very few country have the same experience in tanking loses like the Russian people. This nation lost millions of people in WW1 and WW2. Ukraine's population is relatively small, the West is poorly stocked and while Western technology is usually better then that currently used by the Russians we're basically giving Ukraine the trimmings to fight with.
Seems like Russians have run out of boots.
@devilish
How can the West be poorly stocked when I read about new packages of hundreds of millions euros of equipment for Ukraine on a monthly basis? At the same time the Wagner boss laments the lack of ammunition for his troops.
As for that Russian claim of taking Bachmut, how is that possible when the Russians according to the Western press had to concede several square kilometers the last 2 weeks?
I’m sorry but this is all very confusing and I personally don’t know what to believe anymore.
How can the West be poorly stocked when I read about new packages of hundreds of millions euros of equipment for Ukraine on a monthly basis? At the same time the Wagner boss laments the lack of ammunition for his troops.
As for that Russian claim of taking Bachmut, how is that possible when the Russians according to the Western press had to concede several square kilometers the last 2 weeks?
I’m sorry but this is all very confusing and I personally don’t know what to believe anymore.
Ukraine is losing the city itself, but retaking areas around the city, fields and hills.
First of all I am not a military expert. I am forwarding what I hear so please don't shoot the messenger
A- The West as a whole is poorly stocked. Its been a long long time since we got involved into a huge war and most European countries have grown complacent. Germany and Italy in particular are a mess. The rest rely hugely on private contractors who refuse to up their production too much because they don't want to open new factories which would become redundant once the war is over. Also the Russian-Ukraine war is an old type of war that would never happen if the West was involved. It lack air superiority and is therefore slow, sluggish and hugely ammo (ex artillery) heavy. That burns resources like mad. Italy wouldn't survive a week in a war like that of Ukraine. That's what Ukraine has been begging for F16s, MBTs etc. They want to fight the NATO way were everything (jets, drones, tanks, infantry and artillery) work together thus pushing for a swift, cost effective and less labour intensive style of warfare.
B- War requires a huge variety of assets from jets, to artillery, from tanks to people etc. One can have ample supply of something and a lack of something else. Russia still hold a huge supply of old (but still valid) tanks from the 70s and artillery shells inherited by the Soviet Union. Regarding Wagner Prigoshin is a bit like Icarus. He's flying too close to the sun by criticising the same people whom he relying heavily on ammo etc. I wouldn't exclude the Russian version of the night of the long knives
IIRC the UA succeeded at avoiding getting encircled, which would have been terrible. Nevertheless they have been very slowly pushed out of Bahkmut, at the cost of heavy losses for the RA throughout more than nine months so far.
Concerning news on the war the most reliable information is esentially the changes in the maps of the different battlefronts. In which we have seen Russia making huge progress in the first two months of the invasion but failing to get Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odessa. The next year of the conflict have seen Ukraine slowly recovering territory and gaining the upper hand, and Russian failing to consolidate further advances and/or conduct succesful offensives. The next stage of the war will depend mainly in how succesful the UA counteroffensive is, and in how prepared/equipped/motivated both countries are for an attrition war.
Concerning news on the war the most reliable information is esentially the changes in the maps of the different battlefronts. In which we have seen Russia making huge progress in the first two months of the invasion but failing to get Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odessa. The next year of the conflict have seen Ukraine slowly recovering territory and gaining the upper hand, and Russian failing to consolidate further advances and/or conduct succesful offensives. The next stage of the war will depend mainly in how succesful the UA counteroffensive is, and in how prepared/equipped/motivated both countries are for an attrition war.
@stefan92 yes makes sense, thanks
@devilish thanks for the reply
I read they lost over 1500 tanks already, that sounds really massive. It is basically NATO fighting Russia with all the help Ukraine gets, in that sense you could say Russia is holding out very well.
If a second front were to open lets say in Macedonia, Chechnya or Georgia surely Russia would not be able to hold Ukraine?!
I remember reading when US troops hastily left and lost Afghanistan the Western powers were on the demise but they really struck back hard now with the Ukraine front while Russia finds it hard to attract real allies.
I think China will think twice before making a move as well.
All in all it looks pretty good (I hope so anyway).
@devilish thanks for the reply
I read they lost over 1500 tanks already, that sounds really massive. It is basically NATO fighting Russia with all the help Ukraine gets, in that sense you could say Russia is holding out very well.
If a second front were to open lets say in Macedonia, Chechnya or Georgia surely Russia would not be able to hold Ukraine?!
I remember reading when US troops hastily left and lost Afghanistan the Western powers were on the demise but they really struck back hard now with the Ukraine front while Russia finds it hard to attract real allies.
I think China will think twice before making a move as well.
All in all it looks pretty good (I hope so anyway).
Eh...no. If it was NATO fighting Russia, Russia would get destroyed in a conventional conflict. We'd see F-35's, aircraft carriers, long-range bombers like B21, you name it. Ukraine is not fighting with those kind of weapons/systems.
Yes true, I didn’t think that far but then also Russia would be using it’s naval and air force of course which is very sparingly used so far in the current conflict.
At this point even poland on its own could push russia out of Ukraine. The trouble is that russia could still fire missles and launch air raids from its territory. Only a mad man would strike russia hard in its own territory for obvious reasons
What he's not saying is that slow rolling the release of weapons has also prevented Putin from justifying his own use of more destructive weapons in Ukraine, because of the perception the Ukrainians weren't arming themselves with Western weapons very quickly to defeat him.
From what I've read, Russia can't use their air force any better. It doesn't seem to be a matter of using it sparingly. They're just not as well-trained and not as sophisticated as the US air force.
That doesn't mean the Russian air force is weak, make no mistake about that. It just isn't good enough to establish air superiority in Ukraine yet and the odds of that happening decrease as Ukraine receives more Western equipment.
Fair point.
How are those things estimated?
What kind of weapons not yet used (other than nucleair weapons) could Russia use if it deems the Western’s help as a serious enough escalation to justify using them?
A few hundred million doesn't last long in a war on this scale, the frontline is over 1000 km long with constant battles between hundreds of thousands of troops, just the cost for ammunition is massive and when you add in all the equipment to that a couple of hundreds of millions doesn't go far.
When Prighozin whines about a lack of ammunition it doesn't mean they don't have any ammunition at all it just means that they are not getting as much as they used to. They have still had a massive artillery advantage in Bakhmut for the last months.
Russia used approximately 12 million artillery shells in 2022, this year they are trending towards 7 million if the current rate of fire is maintained for the reminder of the year. Compare that to the couple of hundred thousand shells the EU are giving whenever they can get their hands on something and you can understand why people think they are poorly stocked.
Yes and wouldn’t Ukraine also have a huge stock of them as they were part of the Sovjet Union?
How does this compare to both world wars? Didn’t both parties also run out of stock and ammo at certain points? The frontlines were a lot bigger and many millions of soldiers were in battle for 5 years. I mean you don’t learn about this in school or in history shows. It is incredible how both world wars lasted that long without ever falling without ammo and troops you would think.
Despite the grimness of it all I also find it fascinating how these things work logistically and tactically.
Well, that is an interesting question. Russia is reasonably good at designing advanced weaponry but the problem is: they can't mass-produce it. There are no hundreds of SU-57 fighter jets waiting to be unleashed. There are no hundreds of T-14 Armata tanks waiting to be unleashed (as far as I'm aware).
Maybe someone else knows if the Tu-160 bomber has been used already?
Thermobaric weapons would be the next step up from conventional
I don't know how many shells where used in the world wars but just like back then the deciding factor in a war of attrition is still to this day the production rates of military equipment and ammunition.
An estimated 1.5 billion artillery shells were fired on the western front alone during WW1.
I believe its down to information passed down by high ex NATO officials. They know nore or less what NATO capabilities are and what the Soviet Union left behind etc. They won't go to details but if questions are phrased well then one can come out with a decent idea of it all especially I'd every one keep saying the same thing.
Tbh this war would not be possible if Nato was involved. They would swiftly gain air superiority which would make this ammo intensive/almost trench like war impossible. Which is kind of the reason (among other things like piggybacking on the US might) why NATO lack the resources to fight such a war. Its basically asking the US how many chain mail armour it has in its disposal. Its aelrmy is not built for that type of war
Last edited:
WW2 was a total war, meaning a war in which the state uses and directs all the resources of the nation with the goal of winning the war. Consider what @devilish said earlier about private companies not wanting to open up new factories that are going to be made redundant after the war. That sort of thing didn't happen in WW2, because the state just appropriated it if they needed it. They also re-tooled civilian factories (that were making tractors, cars, etc) into military factories to make trucks, tanks, ammunition, etc. No nation is going to do that to help Ukraine, and I'm sure Ukraine is doing it to some degree themselves already (but I have no real knowledge of that).
I am also sure Russia really doesn't want to do it, because that will really start driving the war home for ordinary Russians. Different scales and different circumstances of course, but it's actually vaguely similar to what Germany did for the first years of WW2. They tried to spare their own civilians (with a lot of caveats, because Nazi Germany) from feeling the effects of the war.
As for numbers, here's a fun fact: The US dropped more tonnage of bombs in the Vietnam War than all countries in WW2 combined. Modern technology is a hell of a thing.
I’ve learned a lot here today. Good posts all around!
What on Earth Macedonia has to do with all this? A severe lack of geography knowledge or I am missing something?
Also, NATO is not fighting Russia. They are giving some weapons to Ukraine. But the most modern ones are not given there. A non-nuclear war between Russia and NATO would essentially mean that NATO reaches Moscow in a couple of months.
The US dropped more bombs on Laos than Germany and Japan combined in WWII. And Laos wasn't even involved in the fecking Vietnam war. The country is still struggling to deal with all the unexploded bombs over 50.years on and the deaths keep stacking up.
It's fecking insane.
I don’t think they’ve been used in any meaningfully extensive ways. If for instance, the US and NATO weren’t protecting Ukraine, the gloves would truly be off and Putin could do what he wants with nukes and thermobarics.
Nah, the MLRS launched ones have been used non-stop. The heavy bombs have been used earlier in the war when they could get away with flying bombers into Ukraine, close to the border.
In terms of the original question of escalation, all they got is more meat imo.
My bad I meant Moldova