Ukraine

[billvon 2,396]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

There’s always the possibility that whatever made that floating ice melt might help some of the glaciers to melt as well. Just saying you know

Inconceivable!!!!!!

[Phil1111 910]

3 hours ago, riggerrob said:

This morning's news reported that Russia admitted to losing 87 soldiers to the most recent Ukrainian attack (HIMARS?). Ukrainians tracked Russian soldiers' location by a single cell phone call.

Taliban learned that lesson two decades ago and banned cell phones from meetings.

Why is Russia relearning this lesson the bloody way?????????????

Thats just b.s. That is the current Kremlin line to shift the blame onto the dead victims who can't defend themselves. That school is in the middle of occupied territory and Ukrainian intelligence likely had satellite info and info from locals as well.

So blaming the troops is a convenient  coverup for command who housed them all in a single location on top of a ammo bunker. The next Kremlin line will be that the conscripts cell phone calls set off the ammo. As the conscripts convoy was driving past. So the drunken generals back in Moscow had no personal liability for the fiasco at all.

Right Slim King?

[wmw999 2,121]

1 hour ago, Slim King said:

It's all gonna melt if you force Putin to use his NUKES!!!!!!

I'll bet you even imagine Putin saying "this hurts me more than it hurts you -- it's for your own good"

You still haven't said what you'd do if a physically larger person were to deck you or bully your son. If you think teaching your son to stand up for himself is good, why shouldn't a country stand up for itself? Or is it more like a woman who's being attacked ("might as well enjoy it"). Either way, it's wrong.

Wendy P.

[olofscience 420]

2 hours ago, Slim King said:

300 more kids died today

Absolute rubbish. Although kids have died due to Russian strikes, none were today and nowhere near that number in a day.

2 hours ago, Slim King said:

as Russia moves forward

they haven't been moving forward...unless you count retreating?

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Absolute rubbish. Although kids have died due to Russian strikes, none were today and nowhere near that number in a day.

they haven't been moving forward...unless you count retreating?

How come DZ.com doesn't keep Russian troll farms under control? Ukraine does: Russian troll factories blown up in Ukraine – lots of Swedish sim cards found

"Thousands of cash cards in sacks and stacked in cupboards and a multitude of connected mobile phones. The video, which has been published by the Cyber Police Department of the National Police of Ukraine, shows armed police raiding Russian troll factories, in a nationwide operation dubbed “Bot Factories.”

“During the house searches, over 100,000 SIM cards were seized which were used to register fake accounts. In total, the bot network had more than one and a half million accounts in various social networks, email services and messaging. Bots were registered to spread falsehoods and propaganda, pro-Russian stories.”, writes the police in a press release.

A total of 13 troll factories are said to have been shut down in connection with the operation." The sim cards were purchased in Sweden.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

6 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Thats just b.s. That is the current Kremlin line to shift the blame onto the dead victims who can't defend themselves. That school is in the middle of occupied territory and Ukrainian intelligence likely had satellite info and info from locals as well.

So blaming the troops is a convenient  coverup for command who housed them all in a single location on top of a ammo bunker. The next Kremlin line will be that the conscripts cell phone calls set off the ammo. As the conscripts convoy was driving past. So the drunken generals back in Moscow had no personal liability for the fiasco at all.

Right Slim King?

In all fairness, claiming that you geolocated the targets with cell phone data so as to avoid admitting that it was US satellite targeting data is a prudent decision.

[olofscience 420]

7 hours ago, Slim King said:

Link to your sources......I'll wait.

You made the claim, you prove it.

[Phil1111 910]

Russia is having serious issues in the domestic weapons supply sector.

All those fancy yachts have to be paid for somehow.

The Chairman of the Election Commission goes to Putin after the election: “I have good news and bad news. Which do you want to hear first?”
“The bad news.”
“Zyuganov, the Communist Party candidate, got 75% of the votes.”
“Holy crap!” cries Putin. “What’s the good news?”
“He just fell out of a third story window and was killed”

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

19 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Russia is having serious issues in the domestic weapons supply sector...

Interesting article. It's from September, but it has some good info.

It also has some predictions that didn't quite come true.

One thing that has become crystal clear is how bad the corruption is/was.
Virtually ALL the money intended for keeping the military functional was stolen.
So the military is barely able to do anything. Let alone win a war.

You have to wonder how far it goes.

I know Putin had threatened to use nukes, but shut up. He then tried to pretend that Ukraine was going to set off a radiological device (dirty bomb), which nobody with half a brain believed.

Did he shut up about nukes because he found out that the money intended to keep them operational had been stolen and the 'nuclear arsenal' was just a pile of radioactive junk? I don't know but it's plausible.
I believe he stopped trying to pretend that Ukraine was going to use a dirty bomb because he was told in no uncertain terms that:

A - Nobody in the west believed it was going to be Ukrainian, that it would be Russian (and they would likely be able to prove it from analysis of the residue)

B - If Russia used nuclear material in any form that Russia would suffer severe consequences. I've read a variety of sources making a variety of claims. I both do and don't believe them. 
One was that if Russia used any sort of nuke, the entire Russian Navy would cease to exist. Every ship at sea sunk, every ship in port (along with the port facilities) destroyed. Not sure how plausible that is, but the Russian navy is a faint shadow of it's former Soviet self.

It's becoming more and more clear that Russia has lost the war. They probably lost any chance of winning last summer when they failed to win in the first 3 or 4 months.
The threats of nukes, and the attacks on civilian infrastructure just reinforce this. 
Putin isn't attacking the Ukrainian military because he really can't. 
So he bombs civilians. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Interesting article. It's from September, but it has some good info.

It also has some predictions that didn't quite come true.

One thing that has become crystal clear is how bad the corruption is/was.
Virtually ALL the money intended for keeping the military functional was stolen.
So the military is barely able to do anything. Let alone win a war.

You have to wonder how far it goes.

I know Putin had threatened to use nukes, but shut up. He then tried to pretend that Ukraine was going to set off a radiological device (dirty bomb), which nobody with half a brain believed.

Did he shut up about nukes because he found out that the money intended to keep them operational had been stolen and the 'nuclear arsenal' was just a pile of radioactive junk? I don't know but it's plausible.
I believe he stopped trying to pretend that Ukraine was going to use a dirty bomb because he was told in no uncertain terms that:

A - Nobody in the west believed it was going to be Ukrainian, that it would be Russian (and they would likely be able to prove it from analysis of the residue)

B - If Russia used nuclear material in any form that Russia would suffer severe consequences. I've read a variety of sources making a variety of claims. I both do and don't believe them. 
One was that if Russia used any sort of nuke, the entire Russian Navy would cease to exist. Every ship at sea sunk, every ship in port (along with the port facilities) destroyed. Not sure how plausible that is, but the Russian navy is a faint shadow of it's former Soviet self.

It's becoming more and more clear that Russia has lost the war. They probably lost any chance of winning last summer when they failed to win in the first 3 or 4 months.
The threats of nukes, and the attacks on civilian infrastructure just reinforce this. 
Putin isn't attacking the Ukrainian military because he really can't. 
So he bombs civilians. 

From reports and ostensibly genuine battlefield pictures I’ve seen Wagner is doing a bang up job of permanently emptying the prisons. So they have that going.

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

From reports and ostensibly genuine battlefield pictures I’ve seen Wagner is doing a bang up job of permanently emptying the prisons. So they have that going.

35,000 convicts Is the number I've read. The fact that the Russian constitution, laws, don't allow for any of Wagner's promises, provisions, etc. Doesn't seem to matter too much for all the convicts who make those deals with Wagner. Yevgeny Prigozhin likely sends a copy of the head smashing video. To those from the families that inquire about unpaid death benefits.

This all goes back to :

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

....
Virtually ALL the money intended for keeping the military functional was stolen.
So the military is barely able to do anything. Let alone win a war.

You have to wonder how far it goes.....

Yeah the corruption and rot of Russia is complete. Be it killing those who criticize Putin in any country in the world. Stealing state assets, fixing the courts, killing opponents.

The US has spent $5.5 trillion on its nuclear programs and another $1.2 trillion maintaining and modernizing it. It's also why Canada can afford it's social programs.

Russia:

No that's not Joe's yacht, it's Putin's.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Phil1111

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Thanks, Canada, for another nothing burger. Border Patrol vehicles are in real demand in Ukraine, same as ice fishing shacks. 200 armored taxi's to fight against Russia, you must be so proud of your Country and your military.

[Phil1111 910]

23 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Thanks, Canada, for another nothing burger. Border Patrol vehicles are in real demand in Ukraine, same as ice fishing shacks. 200 armored taxi's to fight against Russia, you must be so proud of your Country and your military....

 

Well not so much but the US is dragging its feet: Germany will only send battle tanks to Ukraine if the US does the same, multiple reports suggest.   "Reports suggest that Mr Scholz will only give the green light to the Leopards if the US President Joe Biden agrees to supply American Abrams tanks. However, the Pentagon's top security adviser, Colin Kahl, said late on Thursday that the US wasn't prepared to meet Kyiv's demands for the tanks."

The US "Currently the M1 Abrams main battle tank is no longer in operational service with the US military and a number of these tanks were upgraded to the M1A2 standard. US Army has over 2 300 of these tanks in reserve storage" So 2300 of the old M1 tanks in storage but Biden is dragging his feet on approving any for shipment to Ukraine.

"1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

"To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence"

So after Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons based upon US treaty commitments. The US welshed on its treaty. Sold it into to Russian slavery. "You must be so proud of your Country, your political your honor and your military."

That would be debate, set and match.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

25 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Well not so much but the US is dragging its feet: Germany will only send battle tanks to Ukraine if the US does the same, multiple reports suggest.   "Reports suggest that Mr Scholz will only give the green light to the Leopards if the US President Joe Biden agrees to supply American Abrams tanks. However, the Pentagon's top security adviser, Colin Kahl, said late on Thursday that the US wasn't prepared to meet Kyiv's demands for the tanks."

The US "Currently the M1 Abrams main battle tank is no longer in operational service with the US military and a number of these tanks were upgraded to the M1A2 standard. US Army has over 2 300 of these tanks in reserve storage" So 2300 of the old M1 tanks in storage but Biden is dragging his feet on approving any for shipment to Ukraine.

"1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

"To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence"

So after Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons based upon US treaty commitments. The US welshed on its treaty. Sold it into to Russian slavery. "You must be so proud of your Country, your political your honor and your military."

That would be debate, set and match.

If the M1A2 were deployable to Ukraine they would have long since been in the battle. 

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

"1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

"To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence"

So after Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons based upon US treaty commitments. The US welshed on its treaty. Sold it into to Russian slavery. "You must be so proud of your Country, your political your honor and your military."

That would be debate, set and match.

Only if you pretend you can’t read. 
 

The Budapest memorandum signatories pledge to seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine is attacked or threatened with nuclear weapons. While you could say that Ukraine has been vaguely threatened with nuclear attack then maybe it applies. But since Russia has a security council veto it’s an empty document. It very deliberately does not pledge any direct military assistance.

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

If the M1A2 were deployable to Ukraine they would have long since been in the battle. 

They are deployable, and they aren’t there.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

If the M1A2 were deployable to Ukraine they would have long since been in the battle. 

Sort of.

"Reserve Storage' means they were cleaned out and parked. They may or may not have had any preservation done. 

As an 'airplane guy', you likely know what has to be done to preserve an airplane engine for long term storage. 

This is similar to what the Russians are looking at when they are trying to pull the T-62s out of storage. I've seen generalized estimates that 1/3 will be usable with a bit of preparation. 1/3 will require major effort to get operational and 1/3 will not be 'revivable' and will be used for parts.

Before they could send any over, they'd first have to evaluate them to see what they've got. 

Then get some up and running. 

Another problem is maintenance. The Abrams is a very maintenance intensive tank. It requires skilled techs (and quite a few of them) to keep it going. 
Beyond training the crews (an experienced tank crew could adapt to the Abrams fairly quickly), the rest of the folks who are involved in keeping it going would need substantial, specialized training.

Then there's the logistical support. The main gun is different from what they are currently using. So they'd need to figure out how to keep those specific shells supplied. The ideal fuel is jet fuel. It can run on other stuff, but there are downsides to that. 

There's a lot more to it than just 'sending them a bunch of tanks.

 

And even if it was just 'sending' them, that's not a trivial exercise either.

2 Abrams fit in a C-5. I'd guess they'd go to Poland, not risking flying into Ukraine. 
Then overland to Ukraine.

Sending them by ship is usually preferable, but that takes a lot of time.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see substantial, serious arms get sent to Ukraine.
And I think it's going to happen.

But it will take some time.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Sort of.

"Reserve Storage' means they were cleaned out and parked. They may or may not have had any preservation done. 

As an 'airplane guy', you likely know what has to be done to preserve an airplane engine for long term storage. 

This is similar to what the Russians are looking at when they are trying to pull the T-62s out of storage. I've seen generalized estimates that 1/3 will be usable with a bit of preparation. 1/3 will require major effort to get operational and 1/3 will not be 'revivable' and will be used for parts.

Before they could send any over, they'd first have to evaluate them to see what they've got. 

Then get some up and running. 

Another problem is maintenance. The Abrams is a very maintenance intensive tank. It requires skilled techs (and quite a few of them) to keep it going. 
Beyond training the crews (an experienced tank crew could adapt to the Abrams fairly quickly), the rest of the folks who are involved in keeping it going would need substantial, specialized training.

Then there's the logistical support. The main gun is different from what they are currently using. So they'd need to figure out how to keep those specific shells supplied. The ideal fuel is jet fuel. It can run on other stuff, but there are downsides to that. 

There's a lot more to it than just 'sending them a bunch of tanks.

 

And even if it was just 'sending' them, that's not a trivial exercise either.

2 Abrams fit in a C-5. I'd guess they'd go to Poland, not risking flying into Ukraine. 
Then overland to Ukraine.

Sending them by ship is usually preferable, but that takes a lot of time.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see substantial, serious arms get sent to Ukraine.
And I think it's going to happen.

But it will take some time.

Geez Joe everyone knows the impediment to sending the Abrams is logistics. The company of Challengers recently committed will also have issues but at least the fuel is the same. Leopard 2's are in wide supply, modern, parts and ammo are around, they burn diesel, and training and repair facilities are across the border. They can be supplied by the hundred. Poland seems ready to do it without permission. Maybe we should just give them a couple hundred Abrams in trade and get the show on the road.

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

... Maybe we should just give them a couple hundred Abrams in trade and get the show on the road.

Already underway:Poland signs deal to buy 2nd batch of Abrams tanks 366 all together.

The Abrams tanks in storage are the older M1 with the 105 gun. They don't have the independent commanders thermal and the digital sighting. They can be upgraded however.

[riggerrob 558]

On 1/20/2023 at 10:38 AM, Phil1111 said:

Already underway:Poland signs deal to buy 2nd batch of Abrams tanks 366 all together.

The Abrams tanks in storage are the older M1 with the 105 gun. They don't have the independent commanders thermal and the digital sighting. They can be upgraded however.

Yes BUT updating thermal sights means at minimum finding those sights in US Army warehouses, Secondly manufacturing new thermal sights. At worse, re-starting a production line for thermal sights. All of those options take months or years ... years that Ukraine lacks as they are being pummeled by Russian artillery, missiles, etc.

Curent Ukrainian tanks fire Soviet-pattern 125mm ammo.

All the NATO tanks fire the same 120mm ammo. Any new Western tanks will also need a new supply train to push 120mm ammo to the front.

 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

13 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Yes BUT updating thermal sights means at minimum finding those sights in US Army warehouses, Secondly manufacturing new thermal sights. At worse, re-starting a production line for thermal sights. All of those options take months or years ... years that Ukraine lacks as they are being pummeled by Russian artillery, missiles, etc.

Curent Ukrainian tanks fire Soviet-pattern 125mm ammo.

All the NATO tanks fire the same 120mm ammo. Any new Western tanks will also need a new supply train to push 120mm ammo to the front.

 

I may need to update my view on the logistical difficulties involved if the US sends Abrams tanks to Ukraine. 

General Barry R. McCaffrey, is of the opinion that UKR troops could be fighting with Abrams tanks in 30 days. He apparently believes they could run on diesel, not Jet-A, without significant degradation. He points out on Twitter:

"Astonishing nonsense about refusal to provide M1A1/A2 MBT's to Ukraine. The Egyptians have 1100. The Saudis have 450. The Moroccans have 380. Its a multi-fuel engine of enormous speed and reliability. Incredible lethality. An experienced UKR tank crew could fight in 30 days."

Inarguably, he should know. Unless there is better information we need to call Germany's bluff and send our Tanks now. 

[jakee 1,254]

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

"Astonishing nonsense about refusal to provide M1A1/A2 MBT's to Ukraine.

It’s almost as if you were spouting bullshit for the sole purpose of being argumentative.

[BIGUN 1,053]

9 minutes ago, jakee said:

It’s almost as if you were spouting bullshit for the sole purpose of being argumentative.

Worried about your role as Champion?

[jakee 1,254]

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Worried about your role as Champion?

No, your wilful blindness still has that locked down. 

[Phil1111 910]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I may need to update my view on the logistical difficulties involved if the US sends Abrams tanks to Ukraine. 

General Barry R. McCaffrey, is of the opinion that UKR troops could be fighting with Abrams tanks in 30 days. He apparently believes they could run on diesel, not Jet-A, without significant degradation. He points out on Twitter:

"Astonishing nonsense about refusal to provide M1A1/A2 MBT's to Ukraine. The Egyptians have 1100. The Saudis have 450. The Moroccans have 380. Its a multi-fuel engine of enormous speed and reliability. Incredible lethality. An experienced UKR tank crew could fight in 30 days."

Inarguably, he should know. Unless there is better information we need to call Germany's bluff and send our Tanks now. 

Completely agree. The Abrams is a multi-fuel tanks designed to run on "The engine can use a variety of fuels, including jet fuel, gasoline, diesel and marine diesel.^[2]"

Biden is holding up tanks. There has been reports that the Abrams is too heavy. Its only 2 tons heavier than the Leopard 2. If the Ukrainians can operate the current mish-mash of every EU and NATO countries castoffs. The Abrams shouldn't be that difficult. Right now they have some captured Russian T-80 tanks that also have turbine engines.