Zelensky on I player

[12gauge82]

I say give them the ability to strike. I'd go further and push into a buffer zone near the front line and hold any territory Ukraine reclaims, allowing them to concentrate their forces on recapturing further territory. 

I think you'd see Putin either negotiate or get dethroned. Either way, I can't see Putin having a full blown war with Nato and if he does, hell loose badly. 

[Stonepark]

47 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I say give them the ability to strike. I'd go further and push into a buffer zone near the front line and hold any territory Ukraine reclaims, allowing them to concentrate their forces on recapturing further territory. 

I think you'd see Putin either negotiate or get dethroned. Either way, I can't see Putin having a full blown war with Nato and if he does, hell loose badly. 

Reverse answer,

 

No he won't lose... there is no way for NATO to invade Russia and win... The senior NATO Chiefs understand this, attacking Russia (and thereby China, Iran, North Korea etc) will impoverish the West with no prospect of rebuilding thereafter. The elites will move out and on and the populations will be left destitute.

 

For point of interest, If the UK takes out a Russian target with Stormshadow and Russia retaliates by sinking an aircraft carrier with one missile (and loses 1 boat with cargo deck space for missile system to occupy - not even a warship required) what would our so called partners in NATO do?,

Article 5 is not feasible as the NATO country attacked a third party first so we would be on our own.

Then what are we going to do?

Down to 60 working tanks (3 weeks supply on front line), some afv's, some apc's, no self propelled artillery, few towed artillery, virtually no ammo for any of them!

 

Whilst our Government plays full retard in being belligerent, the truth is we need to get clear of this war asap which we effectively caused and extended by kiboshing the Istanbul agreement.

[Mungler]

Russia has run out of kit which is why they’re lobbing N Korean and Iranian stuff around.

Putin has screwed up badly and gains vs losses in Ukraine makes him look beyond daft. Indeed, he (and others on here) spouting about his 3 day war - well, how’s that panned out?

Putin’s days are numbered but the body doubles, vests and security arrangements will buy him time. 

But what next eh and whose going to have the wheel after Vlad?

Interesting progression of modern warfare though  - who would bother buying a tank any more when it’s done for by a thousand buck drone? Ditto super stealth aircraft that spend more time on the ground than being stealthy in the air.

What’s the quote : without war there’s no progress? Indeed, think of the advances that came out of WW2. I digress.

It’s still over sooner with Putin putting the war in reverse and so notwithstanding the hand wringing it’s on him. 

[oowee]

Istanbul was still born in Bucha and the lack of depth in the Russian threat. The UK will not take out a Russian target that was the whole purpose of the meeting today to ensure that we comply with international law on weapon supply and targeting. 

Pressure against Putin is rising within as warlords based in the country speak out. Again and again Russia is in N Korea searching for weapons. The country is paying over the odds for trade as the rubble is rejected and Chinese agents are used. Whilst some materials are getting through the sanctions the noose continues to tighten. 

Putin lost at the point of invasion it's just a matter of time. Ukraine cannot win but they can last long enough for Putin to go. What next?

2 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

Interesting progression of modern warfare though  - who would bother buying a tank any more when it’s done for by a thousand buck drone? Ditto super stealth aircraft that spend more time on the ground than being stealthy in the air.

 

Their stealth aircraft are not fully functional and not stealthy.

Have you seen the dragon drones burning up the trenches. Ukraine will be a world leader in new weaponry post this war. 

 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Stonepark said:

Reverse answer,

 

No he won't lose... there is no way for NATO to invade Russia and win... The senior NATO Chiefs understand this, attacking Russia (and thereby China, Iran, North Korea etc) will impoverish the West with no prospect of rebuilding thereafter. The elites will move out and on and the populations will be left destitute.

 

For point of interest, If the UK takes out a Russian target with Stormshadow and Russia retaliates by sinking an aircraft carrier with one missile (and loses 1 boat with cargo deck space for missile system to occupy - not even a warship required) what would our so called partners in NATO do?,

Article 5 is not feasible as the NATO country attacked a third party first so we would be on our own.

Then what are we going to do?

Down to 60 working tanks (3 weeks supply on front line), some afv's, some apc's, no self propelled artillery, few towed artillery, virtually no ammo for any of them!

 

Whilst our Government plays full retard in being belligerent, the truth is we need to get clear of this war asap which we effectively caused and extended by kiboshing the Istanbul agreement.

What a load of nonsense, without going nuclear where everyone would loose, Russia would be overrun very quickly under the combined force of Nato. Despite Ukraine loosing ground to the grind of Russian superior numbers. Ukraine has utterly stopped in its tracks what on paper should have been a very quick and overwhelming invasion. How on earth do you think Russia could beat Nato? 

[Stonepark]

26 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

What a load of nonsense, without going nuclear where everyone would loose, Russia would be overrun very quickly under the combined force of Nato. Despite Ukraine loosing ground to the grind of Russian superior numbers. Ukraine has utterly stopped in its tracks what on paper should have been a very quick and overwhelming invasion. How on earth do you think Russia could beat Nato? 

Again answering  in reverse, Russia can't beat NATO but it won't lose either.

The entire NATO armies do not have a 3 to 1 advantage over Russia, which is what they would need to beat them and would be at the end of a long logistics tail, whilst Russian supplies would be on their doorstep.

Russia "invaded" Ukraine with a force of 150,000 v's Ukraine's 500,00 and pushed them back but with their own objectives.

Russia has now built up to roughly 500,000 troops whilst Ukraine's army is now less than 350,000 (having lost over 500,000 dead and wounded but been replenished with draftees) and Russia now across significant parts of the front line has the 3 to 1 advantage, hence it "moving faster".

Russia is pushing forward including against the so called Kursk offensive and Ukraine is still losing on average 2000 troops per day.

None of what I have said is nonsense but since you seem to be relying on the MSM censored narrative rather than all the facts, I don't take it personally.

 

 

[Gordon R]

I think it is a mistake for us to agree to Ukraine launching missiles, supplied by us, into the heart of Russia. No time for Putin, but he is correct in saying that it will be the US / UK firing on Russia as the Ukraine cannot do it. If one is fired and takes out a block of flats in Russia, Putin still has the really big weapons even if he is short of the low level stuff. Might he just take out a Ukrainian city? He could say we started it and were to blame, although a travesty of the truth.

Dangerous times.

 

[Mungler]

6 hours ago, Stonepark said:

Again answering  in reverse, Russia can't beat NATO but it won't lose either.

The entire NATO armies do not have a 3 to 1 advantage over Russia, which is what they would need to beat them and would be at the end of a long logistics tail, whilst Russian supplies would be on their doorstep.

Russia "invaded" Ukraine with a force of 150,000 v's Ukraine's 500,00 and pushed them back but with their own objectives.

Russia has now built up to roughly 500,000 troops whilst Ukraine's army is now less than 350,000 (having lost over 500,000 dead and wounded but been replenished with draftees) and Russia now across significant parts of the front line has the 3 to 1 advantage, hence it "moving faster".

Russia is pushing forward including against the so called Kursk offensive and Ukraine is still losing on average 2000 troops per day.

None of what I have said is nonsense but since you seem to be relying on the MSM censored narrative rather than all the facts, I don't take it personally.

 

 

I wonder how Russia intends to occupy and hold Ukraine long term? I wonder if whoever came up with that plan also came up with the plan for the 3 day war? Indeed, what a renowned roaring military success that has been eh?

Russia can deliver up lots of cannon fodder from the prisons and the poor far regions but can’t tap into any of the class above the bottom rung. As for kit - if they had what they needed in their cupboard they wouldn’t be begging from the likes of bat crazy N Korea and Iran. My only concern there is how much nuclear tech the Russians are prepared to trade with the loons for bullets and bombs.

Russia rolled the tanks over the border and didn’t ‘need’ to. On any measure this is an abject failure with uneconomic and disproportionate losses and no obvious outcome - I’m pretty sure occupation is off the table. Ukraine will say it had no choice, is defending its borders and we are where we are.

If I get the time I’ll trawl the earlier locked thread for some hindsight fact checking of the various claims and predictions made at that time - I bet that hasn’t aged well for some 😆

[old man]

11 hours ago, Stonepark said:

Reverse answer,

 

No he won't lose... there is no way for NATO to invade Russia and win... The senior NATO Chiefs understand this, attacking Russia (and thereby China, Iran, North Korea etc) will impoverish the West with no prospect of rebuilding thereafter. The elites will move out and on and the populations will be left destitute.

 

For point of interest, If the UK takes out a Russian target with Stormshadow and Russia retaliates by sinking an aircraft carrier with one missile (and loses 1 boat with cargo deck space for missile system to occupy - not even a warship required) what would our so called partners in NATO do?,

Article 5 is not feasible as the NATO country attacked a third party first so we would be on our own.

Then what are we going to do?

Down to 60 working tanks (3 weeks supply on front line), some afv's, some apc's, no self propelled artillery, few towed artillery, virtually no ammo for any of them!

 

Whilst our Government plays full retard in being belligerent, the truth is we need to get clear of this war asap which we effectively caused and extended by kiboshing the Istanbul agreement.

Last paragraph, sixth word auto correction spot on maybe?🤣

[12gauge82]

10 hours ago, Stonepark said:

Again answering  in reverse, Russia can't beat NATO but it won't lose either.

The entire NATO armies do not have a 3 to 1 advantage over Russia, which is what they would need to beat them and would be at the end of a long logistics tail, whilst Russian supplies would be on their doorstep.

Russia "invaded" Ukraine with a force of 150,000 v's Ukraine's 500,00 and pushed them back but with their own objectives.

Russia has now built up to roughly 500,000 troops whilst Ukraine's army is now less than 350,000 (having lost over 500,000 dead and wounded but been replenished with draftees) and Russia now across significant parts of the front line has the 3 to 1 advantage, hence it "moving faster".

Russia is pushing forward including against the so called Kursk offensive and Ukraine is still losing on average 2000 troops per day.

None of what I have said is nonsense but since you seem to be relying on the MSM censored narrative rather than all the facts, I don't take it personally.

 

 

😂😂😂

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, Mungler said:

 

 

If I get the time I’ll trawl the earlier locked thread for some hindsight fact checking of the various claims and predictions made at that time - I bet that hasn’t aged well for some 😆

If you take a look at my suggestions at the time, you'll see I was saying the same thing back then, send Nato into Ukraine and hold the unoccupied territory for them. 

I still believe it would have been the best response, Russia could have withdrawn while saving face.

Putin was claiming they had no invasion plans at the time. 

I can't see Putin deciding to attack Nato forces, if they did, Russian forces would be utterly destroyed. 

There would have been a huge saving in life and cost rather than the grinding war of attrition, financially and technologically propped up by the west. 

[Rewulf]

16 hours ago, oowee said:

Putin is pretty much out of kit

More kool aid Sir ? 🤣

[Mungler]

21 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

There would have been a huge saving in life and cost rather than the grinding war of attrition, financially and technologically propped up by the west. 

Some modern wars are not meant to be won. I know the Putinista on here will say that it’s all sunshine and roses in thriving Russia right now, but I bet this war has sucked the life out of an economy that was smaller than Italy’s before the start of this nonsense.

In the same way Russia and China weaken us with immigration, Tik Tok and Fentanyl, this is the West draining Russian resource and spirit.

[Rewulf]

4 hours ago, Mungler said:

My only concern there is how much nuclear tech the Russians are prepared to trade with the loons for bullets and bombs

This.

[Mungler]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

More kool aid Sir ? 🤣

Why the shopping in Iran and North Korea? Don’t tell me, they were running two for one on missiles that week.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Why the shopping in Iran and North Korea? Don’t tell me, they were running two for one on missiles that week.

I'm not doubting any of that , but weight of fire decides any engagement, and ultimately, wars.

For oowee to say 'nearly out of kit' is not only inaccurate,  but clearly the same propaganda we've heard for 18 months now, as precision missiles like kaliber and khinzals are still in constant use.

I'm not waving a Russian flag, but we need to be realistic about the chances of a Ukrainian 'victory'

[12gauge82]

9 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Some modern wars are not meant to be won. I know the Putinista on here will say that it’s all sunshine and roses in thriving Russia right now, but I bet this war has sucked the life out of an economy that was smaller than Italy’s before the start of this nonsense.

In the same way Russia and China weaken us with immigration, Tik Tok and Fentanyl, this is the West draining Russian resource and spirit.

I totally agree, Ukraine can not win this under current conditions. It will grind on for years and end in an eventual Russian 'win' due to superior numbers, (although it obviously wouldn't be a win for the Russian people). 

The West basically needs to decide if we're in, or we're out. If we supply the Ukrainians with the amount of weaponry and capabilities they would need to push Russia out, it would likely end in direct conflict between us and Russia anyway. We either need to put boots on the ground or leave Ukraine to it, imo. 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

I'm not doubting any of that , but weight of fire decides any engagement, and ultimately, wars.

For oowee to say 'nearly out of kit' is not only inaccurate,  but clearly the same propaganda we've heard for 18 months now, as precision missiles like kaliber and khinzals are still in constant use.

I'm not waving a Russian flag, but we need to be realistic about the chances of a Ukrainian 'victory'

The rate of APC's used has declined and the kit being used now is ancient. Using golf carts on attacks is hardly ideal. If they had plenty of kit they would use it.

Weight of fire is important but so is accuracy. Fire rate has declined from 20 to 1 to 3 to 1 and far less accurate. The recent display of gen 5 fighters was a joke they were barely airworthy and certainly not stealth as claimed. 

The Russians do not have the stocks of missiles (otherwise they would use them and not be shopping in Iran and N Korea). The use of Russian made missiles is now concurrent with production and a fraction of what they had. 

[old man]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

If you take a look at my suggestions at the time, you'll see I was saying the same thing back then, send Nato into Ukraine and hold the unoccupied territory for them. 

I still believe it would have been the best response, Russia could have withdrawn while saving face.

Putin was claiming they had no invasion plans at the time. 

I can't see Putin deciding to attack Nato forces, if they did, Russian forces would be utterly destroyed. 

There would have been a huge saving in life and cost rather than the grinding war of attrition, financially and technologically propped up by the west. 

Maybe your assumptions are based on a sane reaction?

[Stonepark]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

The rate of APC's used has declined and the kit being used now is ancient. Using golf carts on attacks is hardly ideal. If they had plenty of kit they would use it.

Weight of fire is important but so is accuracy. Fire rate has declined from 20 to 1 to 3 to 1 and far less accurate. The recent display of gen 5 fighters was a joke they were barely airworthy and certainly not stealth as claimed. 

The Russians do not have the stocks of missiles (otherwise they would use them and not be shopping in Iran and N Korea). The use of Russian made missiles is now concurrent with production and a fraction of what they had. 

Oh Oowee,

You keep mentioning "golf carts" when you really mean Russian\Chinese ATV's equivalent to the Polaris Ranger.

There is no evidence of a shortage of APC's but they are using ATV's and atb's as they are fast, nimble, quieter and less of a target for Ukrainian drones.

There is no evidence that artillery fire rate ratios have decreased from the 5:1 that has held all this year so far.

Accuracy has declined on both sides as barrels wear out, but Russia can and has been replacing these easily, whilst Ukraine has to source from all over the West.

The Su57 certainly have no problem downing Ukrainian aircraft and missiles and dropping glide bombs along the wholefront line. It doesn't have to pretty to work, it just has to work and is often what Russia aims for rather than perfection.

There has been claims since the start of the war that Russia is running out of missiles...still hasn't happened!

If they do use NK or Iranian missiles, these will be limited in number and basically being used to test their effectiveness in battle.

Couple weeks ago, Russia fired something like 180 missiles over a couple of nights (having fired over 4,000 since start of the war), what is 200 missles from NK or Iran going to achieve that they can't do with their own?

Keep drinking the Russiaphobia kool aid.

 

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, I have said before if all the Western Allies had stood firm on the Ukraine border with Ukraine when Putin was looking to Invade i do not think all those Ukraine citizens would be dead now and City, Town and Villages destroyed

[12gauge82]

6 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, I have said before if all the Western Allies had stood firm on the Ukraine border with Ukraine when Putin was looking to Invade i do not think all those Ukraine citizens would be dead now and City, Town and Villages destroyed

You did, I remember discussing it with you at the start. 

[12gauge82]

6 hours ago, Stonepark said:

Oh Oowee,

You keep mentioning "golf carts" when you really mean Russian\Chinese ATV's equivalent to the Polaris Ranger.

There is no evidence of a shortage of APC's but they are using ATV's and atb's as they are fast, nimble, quieter and less of a target for Ukrainian drones.

There is no evidence that artillery fire rate ratios have decreased from the 5:1 that has held all this year so far.

Accuracy has declined on both sides as barrels wear out, but Russia can and has been replacing these easily, whilst Ukraine has to source from all over the West.

The Su57 certainly have no problem downing Ukrainian aircraft and missiles and dropping glide bombs along the wholefront line. It doesn't have to pretty to work, it just has to work and is often what Russia aims for rather than perfection.

There has been claims since the start of the war that Russia is running out of missiles...still hasn't happened!

If they do use NK or Iranian missiles, these will be limited in number and basically being used to test their effectiveness in battle.

Couple weeks ago, Russia fired something like 180 missiles over a couple of nights (having fired over 4,000 since start of the war), what is 200 missles from NK or Iran going to achieve that they can't do with their own?

Keep drinking the Russiaphobia kool aid.

 

Russia is short of several vital weapons and components. They are struggling to procure components like chips for advanced weaponry due to western sanctions. For the same reasons they are also struggling with manufacturing keeping up with demand. They are also struggling with some conventional weapons like shells due to high usage rate and their expectation to have fought a very short invasion, which has obviously turned into a much tougher, long grinding battle with a highly motivated and better equipped than expected enemy. 

[Mungler]

16 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Russia is short of several vital weapons and components. They are struggling to procure components like chips for advanced weaponry due to western sanctions. For the same reasons they are also struggling with manufacturing keeping up with demand. They are also struggling with some conventional weapons like shells due to high usage rate and their expectation to have fought a very short invasion, which has obviously turned into a much tougher, long grinding battle with a highly motivated and better equipped than expected enemy. 

It was going to be a couple of days wasn’t it. Ah yes, it’s all coming back now. Are we still just in a ‘special military operation’?

One wonders why Putin is still trying - surely Ukraine has run out of cocaine Nazis by now?

[clangerman]

26 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Russia is short of several vital weapons and components. They are struggling to procure components like chips for advanced weaponry due to western sanctions. For the same reasons they are also struggling with manufacturing keeping up with demand. They are also struggling with some conventional weapons like shells due to high usage rate and their expectation to have fought a very short invasion, which has obviously turned into a much tougher, long grinding battle with a highly motivated and better equipped than expected enemy. 

while I would like to clam boyo is running out of kit I don’t because everyone knows it’s a load of propaganda cobblers!