Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Jimbuna]

Total combat losses of Russian Federation since beginning of war - about 169,890 people (+720 per day), 291 helicopters, 3,580 tanks, 2,623 artillery systems, 6,932 armored vehicles. INFOGRAPHICS

As of the morning of March 25, 2023, the losses of the Russian occupiers are approximately 169,890 people.

personnel - about 169,890 (+720) people were liquidated,
tanks - 3580 (+6) units,
armored combat vehicles - 6932 (+11) units,
artillery systems - 2623 (+7) units,
MLRS - 520 (+9) units,
air defense equipment - 276 (+0) units,
aircraft - 305 (+0) units,
helicopters - 291 (+1) units,
UAVs of the operational-tactical level - 2214 (+6),
cruise missiles - 911 (+0),
ships/boats - 18 (+0) units,
automotive equipment and tank trucks - 5483 (+19) units,
special equipment - 279 (+2). Source: https://censor.net/en/n3408005

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Russia has moved 10 bomberplane to Belarus. They are capable carrying tactical nukes-Says Sky News

It's funny that on each news program they have to mention this-Capable carrying nukes, when they speak about the Russians bomberplane.

I say it's less than 0.5 Percentage that they going to be used for this purpose. They will be loaded with traditional conventional missiles.

Markus

This was already announced in May 2022. If depleted Uranium tank ammunition threatens you so much you feel the need to threaten nuclear war, maybe it is time for Putin to admit he is lost. Excuse me, did you just load armor piercing bullets into that rifle? Prepare to get nuked.

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I say it's less than 0.5 Percentage that they going to be used for this purpose

I am amazed that they came up with an actual percentage number. 0.5% chance huh of a nuclear attack. Wake me up if it gets to 0.75!

[Dargo]

The Problem With How the West Is Supporting Ukraine

Wars are won or lost well behind the front lines. Allies should arm Ukrainians accordingly. By Phillips Payson O’Brien

For the past four months, people around the world have witnessed the macabre process of Russian forces making repeated assaults near the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut for only the tiniest of gains. By some counts, Russia has lost about five of its soldiers for every Ukrainian soldier lost—to say nothing of massive equipment losses. Although in theory a country can win a war by using its military forces to make forward assaults against an enemy’s forces, that’s just not a smart way to fight. Military technology long ago evolved to arm both sides in conflicts with extremely lethal weaponry, and any army that tries to approach this machinery head-on is likely to suffer major, and in some cases horrific, losses. Far more effective is to weaken your opponent’s forces before they get to the battlefield. You can limit what military infrastructure they’re able to build, make sure what they do build is substandard, hamper their ability to train troops to operate what they build, and hinder them from deploying their resources to the battlefield. These steps are doubly effective in that they save your own forces while degrading the other side’s. Over the past two centuries, the powers that have emerged triumphant have been the ones that not only fought the enemy on the battlefield but also targeted its production and deployment systems—as the Union did by controlling the waters around the Confederacy during the Civil War and as the United States and Britain did from the air against Nazi Germany.

In light of such dynamics, the manner in which the West is supporting Ukraine’s war effort is deeply frustrating. Though NATO countries have a variety of systems that can target Russian forces deep behind their lines, recent aid has been overwhelmingly geared toward preparing Ukraine to make direct assaults against the Russian army. The most widely discussed forms of equipment—such as Leopard 2 tanks, Bradley armored personnel carriers, and even Archer long-range artillery—are not the kinds of systems that can disrupt or degrade Russian forces far behind the front lines. In short, Ukraine is being made to fight the war the hard way, not the smart way. Ukrainian forces have indeed been pushing back against Russia at the front. But when they have been able to create or obtain the right technology, they have also attacked Russian supply and troop-deployment chains. This approach to war was probably most evident last summer, when the Ukrainians, as soon as they gained access to HIMARS rocket launchers and other Western multiple-rocket-launcher systems, embarked on a highly effective campaign against Russian supply points from Kherson to the Donbas. They managed to wreck a logistics system that had been supplying the Russian armies with huge amounts of firepower daily.

Almost immediately, the Russians had to move their large supply depots out of range of the Ukrainians’ new rocket launchers, keeping essential equipment much farther from the front. This has severely limited Russia’s operations. It can fire significantly fewer shells each day and apparently can concentrate fewer vehicles on the front. The area where the Russians can properly supply their forces for operations has shrunk. This overall approach led the Ukrainians to one of their great successes last year: the liberation of the west bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson province. When faced with a large, relatively experienced Russian force around the city of Kherson, the Ukrainians tried two different tacks. One involved direct armed assaults against the Russian salient west of the river. These assaults achieved at best modest results. The Ukrainians were able at points to push the Russian front back a few miles, but they were never able to break the line for any major gain. Yet, in the end, the Russian army withdrew from Kherson last fall. Why was that? Because the other tack had made its supply situation more and more tenuous: After a months-long Ukrainian campaign targeting Russian-held depots, bridges, and river crossings, Russian commanders decided that Kherson was not strategically valuable enough to be worth the effort to hold it. The attacks on Russian supplies and logistics, which sapped their ability to deploy and maintain forces, were what made the difference.

The tanks and other assistance that Ukraine is currently receiving will help it attack the Russian army directly—which appears likely in the next few months. Ukrainian troops are training for such an operation in many partner countries and in Ukraine itself. They might well end up breaking the Russian line and advancing into the gap—the Ukrainian military has proved extremely resourceful and determined so far—but any success will likely be at significant cost to Ukraine’s own forces. Their task would be easier if their allies had given them a stronger capacity to attack Russians from a greater distance. They clearly want to do it. One of the most extraordinary abilities the Ukrainians have shown is developing homegrown long-range systems, often incorporating drones, to attack Russian forces many miles from the front. Yet these homegrown systems are limited. NATO states could have given Ukraine longer-range equipment—including a missile system known as ATACMS and advanced fixed-wing aircraft—or made a massive effort to help the Ukrainians develop and improve their own ranged systems. Unfortunately, NATO states, including the U.S., have been reluctant to provide the Ukrainians with missile systems with too long of a range, seemingly for fear of escalating tensions with Russia. Instead of allowing the Ukrainians to degrade Russian forces far from the front line, Ukraine is being prepared to attack that line. The Ukrainians’ fortitude and ingenuity up to this point suggest that they could indeed accomplish their task—but it’s been made much harder than it needs to be.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...pplies/673520/

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

I am amazed that they came up with an actual percentage number. 0.5% chance huh of a nuclear attack. Wake me up if it gets to 0.75!

It was me who came up with this figure 0.5 percentage.

He may be mad, he isn't that mad releasing these nukes.

There's a every little tiny chance Russia could win this after all, but use of nuke-Well then he most definitely will lose the war.

Markus

[Skybird]

https://www.dw.com/en/the-united-sta...ine/a-65121120

Stephen Blank, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who specializes in Russia and a former professor at the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, said the limitations on weapon systems had to do with a "fear of Russia and an escalation of the war by Russia." However, Blank said he considered such concerns exaggerated. "I think we are too afraid of a escalation by Russia," Blank said. "I don't understand why Russian territory should be excluded from Ukrainian strikes. Russia started this war and has destroyed Ukraine." On the battle field, Blank said he saw a "significant difference" in the fact that Russia could concentrate its military equipment on the border with Ukraine and "fire at will" without fearing a counterattack. "If they could not do that anymore," Blank said, "that would be a great advantage for Ukraine." Blank advocates for demonstrating that Ukraine "won't be pushed around."
(...)
Gressel also does not think that NATO should engage directly, but he criticizes the apparent notion in the United States that the war could be "micromanaged in a way that it ends in a desired stalemate." He said that war is "too complex and too chaotic to be micromanaged." "This just signals to Putin that he has a certain chance of winning the war by sitting it out," Gressel said. "Any restraint in Western weapon deliveries is a signal to him that we are not serious."

My concerns exactly. We make sure that Ukraine must lose. We signal Putin that we are willing to let him win if he can hold his breath long enough.

We do our things in all this in a way that it should not be done in, never. We guarantee failure.

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...ostcount=10469

This is the reason why I slowly change my mind and turn against giving Ukraine support anymore. We do it wrongly and by this just extend the suffering and killing, while not learning any lessons form it ourselves, and not spendign what is needed to also prepare oursleves, and we do not give them what they need to win the war anyway, so why beign involved in this at all? We do not even intend to secure a victory so to not upset the Putin, so why the hell do we even care to give the opposite impression?

Either you do something right and in the way it must be done to succeed - or you must not care to even get started.

We will reap the fruits of our - fear. They will be soar and will not taste well.

https://www.nzz.ch/international/ukr...en&_x_tr_sl=de

For Gawellek, however, Russia is "the enemy" today, even if he never thought it could come to that. "I was convinced that a war like the one in Ukraine would never start from there," he says. He wonders whether he overlooked something, whether he didn't look closely, back then in Moscow.

For example, he says, there was the everyday violence that he ignored, but which appears to him in a different light today. "I was always surprised at the harshness, ruthlessness and brutality with which they fought and how quickly they pulled out knives," he says. At the time, however, he didn't give it a second thought.

In the meantime, he knows that brutality is a dark part of the "Russian soul. Soldiers and mercenaries castrating Ukrainian prisoners of war, cutting off their fingers, severing their jugular veins - Gawellek knows the videos that show this. It's part of his job to look at that.

And:

Then there was the ruthlessness with which they burned up their personnel, the contempt for humanity in dealing with their own soldiers. And finally, the mass use of artillery, tanks, drones, missiles, mines, cluster bombs and other terrible weapons such as aerosol bombs, which the Bundeswehr would have to adjust to. "All in all, Russian land forces are and will remain at their core an army of artillery with tanks," Gawellek says.

And:

But then he does give one answer. It is the answer to the question of what soldiers should be mentally prepared for in a war with Russia. There are two points, says Gawellek. One is a tough, ruthless opponent. The Ukrainians know what they are fighting for, he says. "Do we know that, too?" asks Gawellek.

For the other point, he boots up his computer and asks if people want to do this to themselves. Then he shows pictures of fields of corpses, of burned, charred, mutilated, torn bodies. "Death and wounding were issues for us in Afghanistan, too," he says. But those were isolated cases, he says. "In a war against Russia, we're talking about masses."

Then he puts his cap back on, puts on his jacket and gloves, and undoes the lock on his bike. Before saying goodbye, he says three sentences that might sound unsettling to German ears accustomed to peace.

"We have to learn to take heavy losses and lose a battle." That's the first sentence. The second: "We must stop our fair-weather exercises; soldiers must know what war means." And the third: "A look at history shows that Soviet and Russian forces, usually on the verge of complete collapse, showed an amazing art of still learning from defeats."

[les green01]

That the thing we shouldn't put a collar and leash around Ukraine,let them loose let them go anyway they feel a lot of us here at subsim live during the cold war so it not like we are not use to threats of nukes,if ruskies want to use the nukes and attack the west like bunch of them say then let get the dance started

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[mapuc]

How many correct answers has these expert come up with during the war in Ukraine ?

Even if this retired air force man should be wrong- These nukes are nothing than a toothless threat.

I can't take it serious that Russia has reinstalled nukes in Belarus and keeping it under their control.

On the other hand-If they were put under Lukasjenkos control-Then I would fear the use of them-He's more mad than Putin..He has on several occasion told Putin to use low yield tactical nukes in Ukraine.

Markus

[Catfish]

^ I somehow got the idea that Lukashenko will be gone soon.
I mean the whole of Belarus is swarming with russian military and FSB – only a matter of time, and Putin has made it quite clear he will.. "incorporate" Belarus "where it belongs".
Not sure whether the belarussian people can do anything against it.

[Catfish]

Russian President Vladimir Putin planned a “total cleansing” of Ukraine with “house-to-house terror” to subdue its people, leaked spy documents reportedly show.

Chilling emails from within Russia’s FSB intelligence service talk about orders “from the very top” for civilians to be taken to concentration camps in a bid to conquer Ukraine.

The emails were leaked by a source within the FSB to Russian human rights activist Vladimir Osechkin, who founded Gulagu, a website that highlights the conditions in the country’s prison system.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/25/putin-...spy-docs-show/

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ I somehow got the idea that Lukashenko will be gone soon.
I mean the whole of Belarus is swarming with russian military and FSB – only a matter of time, and Putin has made it quite clear he will.. "incorporate" Belarus "where it belongs".
Not sure whether the belarussian people can do anything against it.

I think Lukashenko will do an Austria

Markus

[Skybird]

https://www-andreas--unterberger-at...._x_tr_pto=wapp


On suing Putin.