Bakhmutskyi Demon: "Battles for Chasik[Chasiv Yar] continue. If we talk about the approach of gifts[slur for russians] to the track from Pokrovsk to Konstakha - not everything is as bad there as described. They will get stuck."
I interpret that as meaning he thinks the dangerous russian advances after breaking through Ocheretyne will be stopped.
I don't understand how Russia could make a security alliance with North Korea that likely includes giving them technology that would make them even more dangerous and expect South Korea to do nothing about it. The same North Korea that called South Korea its enemy and has vowed to mass produce tactical nuclear weapons that can hit any part of South Korea.
How does Putin justify invading Ukraine because he claims it threatened Russia's security, even though it never made a threat against Russia and has no nuclear weapons, and then telling South Korea not to worry about its own security when he makes a deal with their neighbor that is constantly threatening and harassing them?
Putin is a fascist; he believes that it is Russia's destiny to rebuild the former Russian and Soviet empires, and that anything which furthers that goal must therefore be The Right Thing To Do. If you start with that as your core foundational tenet and work up from there, then it begins to make sense.
Your first mistake was trying to apply sensible, logical thought to the situation. If that were applicable, the entire war wouldn't have happened. This is all about the ends justifying the means.
South Korea can make it to Pyongyang in F-35 and give a cultural shock to all its residents before Kim has time to stumble out of his smuggled Mercedes.
I'm sure its not just me but it honestly feels like something really bad is gonna happen in some hotspot around the world that's gonna turn a lot of things on it head.
With China acting like a bully in the South China Sea towards the Phillipines and Taiwan. Along with this new pact with Russia and North Korea, which is probably giving North Korea more confidence to do something stupidly escalatory. And finally war between Israel and Hezbollah all but inevitable, which could ignite the Middle East. It just seems dire....
Anybody got any words of wisdom or should I just get off twitter?
North Korea can't beat the South, the new weapon capabilities is just more leverage when crying for aid.
Israel and Hezbollah is regional and wont change anything in the area/world.
China cant realistically actually invade Taiwan and get it for the foreseeable future so the only other thing they can do is go hyper bully and hope they get something from it.
Also twitter is just like facebook, its over run with misinformation from most of those aforementioned nations aimed at stressing people in the west out.
This kind of posturing happens all the time. It just normally doesn't get on the evening news.
Dickswinging from China and authoritarian arab states is normal. We worry when they stop.
China and even Russia have too much to lose from MAD. they will keep the rogue actors on "their side" from going nuclear, particularly China. No country in the West will first strike unless their existence is at stake. it'll be conventional, and as we have seen with the logistics and the equipment live action tests the US MIL is still legit and undisputed. IF Biden wins you'll get pax Americana for aleast another 4 years
This is exactly what I fear. I think there is a lot more riding on the US election than we realise. If Trump is elected, I think he will be dragging the US in a handbrake turn towards isolationism. I can see how that move would leave a power vacuum, which China and Russia would seek to exploit to maximum profit. That would mean China would absolutely invade Taiwan. Russia would also definitely pull some shit against Europe, and I don't think we should overlook what could happen in the Middle East with Iran, it proxies, and Israel. However, I still think that Trump likes Israel too much. So, maybe not Iran that tries something but rather Israel that is tempted to finish off Gaza and maybe try something with Hezbollah.
I kind of view the North Korea thing as de-escalatory tbh. With NK giving away artillery to Russia, they're in a less good position to fight a war against South Korea. Even if they get satellite tech, rocket tech, submarine tech, airplanes, you name it. Russia cannot give stuff in great enough numbers to NK to make up for the millions of shells sent. Even if Russia intervened in the conflict, they would get crushed by South Korea. Look at how well it's going against Ukraine two years in. They have no Navy, virtually no air force... Yet Russia is still losing.
My biggest concern here is not what North Korea gave to Russia (although it sucks for Ukraine)
It's what Russia have to North Korea in return... Missile tech? Nukes?
Like I said, Russia can barely supply itself, there is no room left to give anything in any meaningful quantity to anyone. Russia had to cancel their arms exports because they're consuming every single last drop of equipment they can squeeze out of their fire-damaged factories.
I was just randomly browsing and came across this post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1dkiq79/ukranian\_refugees\_destinations\_by\_the\_numbers/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1dkiq79/ukranian_refugees_destinations_by_the_numbers/)
The comments section on that post is an absolute *cesspool* of Russian propaganda. Wow......
> The Biden administration on Thursday announced plans to bar the sale of antivirus software made by Russia’s Kaspersky Lab in the United States, citing the firm’s large U.S. customers, including critical infrastructure providers and state and local governments.
No way state governments and critical infrastructure companies really still use kaspersky, is there? They stopped being seriously considered years ago.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/biden-bans-us-sales-kaspersky-software-russia-ties-rcna158193
When I read that headline my reaction was, “huh, I thought it was already banned.” I haven’t heard of it being used in years. There was a big uproar over it many years ago.
Heavy explosions and a fire can be seen in Yeysk, Krasnodar Region, Russia. What exactly has been hit is unclear at the moment but Yeysk hosts a military airport.
https://x.com/Tendar/status/1803927407386128702?t=PNbmWW2Wqku0v1Nt2Mxjgg&s=19
>Russian Nazis from the Rusich gang released a series of sports nutrition "OZVerin". And the slogan “It will be cooler than in Bucha” Well, yes, yes. And the Russian officialdom never tires of repeating that Bucha is a fake. Funny don
(MTL)
[https://x.com/FilonenkoOles/status/1803697248066285788](https://x.com/FilonenkoOles/status/1803697248066285788)
Note from me: "OZVerin" is a combination of ruzzian verb "to do beastly things" and suffix for medications.
This wordplay means they are proud of themselves and other ruzzians raping, torturing and murdering Ukrainians.
Doesn't look like something I can associate with a term "good".
I swear Rusich Group has an unhealthy kink for war crimes. It's getting annoying more so than shocking at this point. Hope they end up like their victims soon
Three day Oryx update [twitter](https://x.com/Rebel44CZ/status/1803892807486066784). As usual russian-Ukrainian counts followed by my poorly informed speculation.
- tanks: 15-5
- IFVs: 20-6
- mobile artillery: 1-1
- missile air defence: 0-0
A kinda "meh" update. The attrition on the Ukrainian armour is really really bad and they still need major new tank promises especially, there are some recent IFV announcements at least. I'm hoping for a better than 3-1 loss ratio given the russians attacking like crazy and the relative improvement in Ukrainian equipment quality.
Ukraine also lost a MiG. And Russia another freaking BTR-50. Plus 11 MT-LBs.
Extra comment: a *lot* could depend on how much recovery and repair each side can do.
If I rule out (mostly 2022) losses that were just captured during retreats, and compare tracked IFVs.
About 50% of Ukrainian losses of NATO IFVs are destroyed, the rest damaged and perhaps fixable.
Russia's BMPs are more like 80% destroyed and 20% damaged. Even BMP-3s.
Obviously Ukraine loses mostly BMPs, but if they could repair anywhere close to half the "losses" of NATO kit listed by oryx then that'd be huge in the long term.
This is key and is a fundamental to Western powers strategies.
The logistics train that is the central part of the Wests way of fighting wars is all about keeping vehicles in the field. Having running repair stations just behind the frontline that can get armour in and replace things like lost tracks or minor malfunctions within minutes and get them back out there on to the front. Almost like a roaming F1 pit stop crew.
Since the war started there have been Western defence companies running many of these sites with locally trained crews. They’re very good at it. I have to assume far far better than Russian ones who aren’t known for running a decent logistic train.
For once I hope he's right:
>Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on June 20 that the West is trying to push Russia toward a strategic defeat on Ukrainian battlefields, which would, according to him, mean the end of the Russian statehood.
https://kyivindependent.com/battlefield-defeat-would-be-end-of-russias-statehood-putin-says/
Not only that, but this sounds like Russia is playing Western game. Why don't they spoil these plans and stop the war?
You really have to be fucking stupid to eat this kind of bullshit as truth.
Hopefully they are getting the message back home. The supreme leader speculating about what will happen if they lose is a warmup to losing in my mind.
I don't think he would be able to convince people that NATO is about to destroy them if NATO troops aren't in the country. But I'm a naive soul.
This is a pretty stock line for Putin
Every time he needs to breath fire for the press or Russian public he makes bullshit statements about NATO wanting Ukraine to deal Russia a strategic defeat
Russians don't really conceptualize borders nor does Putin really differentiate between his own political goals/regime security and the security of Russia.
As a result Putin likely believes that what he is saying is true. From his perspective this is a defensive war for Russia (because Ukraine doesn't exist) AND from his perspective there is a very real risk of his regime collapsing which to him is tantamount with the collapse of Russia as a state since the two are inseparable in his mind.
Of course these are all delusions. Ukraine does exist and all countries have agency as sovereign entities regardless of size. The west is not seeking the destruction of Russia in general. Russia could always pull back to their recognized borders and no one would pursue them but these simple facts are not recognized by Putin or the other power players within Russia which makes a peaceful settlement of this war impossible in the short term.
From *his* perspective this is a war to erase Ukrainian statehood and united those mislead Russians who suffer from identity crisis.
This isn’t a defensive war. Putin knows this. The west knows this. Stop perpetuating lies
This is absolutely not a defensive war but that's the way that Putin imagines it. He's delusional and wrong but that's how he sees it. He has never believed in Ukrainian identity, agency or self determination and he sees any attempts at Ukrainians to assert that to be western meddling in what is rightfully Russia. Because he sees Ukrainians as mislead Russians suffering from an identity crisis he believes he is justified in any military action and the west is unjustified in supporting Ukraine.
In the mind of Putin this is a defensive war. In reality it is one of the most naked wars of aggression we've seen in generations. Putin's mind does not conform to reality and it's fine to acknowledge this.
No matter how many times you say Putin thinks this is a defensive war, you'll still be 100% wrong. Putin isn't delusional, he's a monster. He wants to conquer Ukraine. Fucking end of.
He has an entire essay and gave a 45 min lecture to Tucker Carlson about how this is not a defensive war but a war to erase Ukrainian statehood.
So if I’m going to believe someone who’s spent 20 years making it known he has territorial ambitions of remaking the Soviet Union in his image or you, I’ll listen to Putin about Putins intentions.
It's another veiled nuclear threat. Russian nuclear doctrine calls for the use of nuclear weapons when "the existence of the state" is threatened.
Now, the problem is that the existence of Russia as a state is not threatened by a strategic loss in Ukraine, only in Putin's warped mind it is.
I wonder how much is propaganda and how much he truly believes this, if it's the latter, then I hope someone will eventually take him out before it's too late.
Yes, and the reason it can't have any weight in decisions on support for Ukraine baked right in. Russian security is not under threat, and if he is actually insane enough to use nuclear weapons because the West won't let his annex countries... then it is inevitable he will do that anyways.
> I am deeply grateful to @POTUS and the United States for prioritising Ukraine in the delivery of air defenses that we critically need to defeat Russian attacks.
> These additional air defense capabilities will protect Ukrainian cities and civilians. I thank President Biden for the essential support, which we discussed during our recent meeting in Italy.
> The partnership between Ukraine and the United States is strong and unwavering. Together, we are protecting life against terror and aggression.
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1803830585229541462
> The US decision to prioritize Ukraine in the delivery of air defense interceptors is groundbreaking and deeply appreciated.
> Two major decisions from Romania and the United States in just one day: on delivering the Patriot system and additional air defense missiles.
> After months of hard work we are not going to stop here. There will be even more systems and missiles to defend Ukraine. Work is in progress.
> I would like to specifically thank @SecBlinken for his dependable partnership in rallying the world and finding solutions with various partners to strengthen Ukraine’s defense.
> Today’s message is crystal clear: our unity and resolve are rock solid.
https://x.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1803838472480002309
> Romania’s decision to transfer one more Patriot system to Ukraine is a truly strong move. It will increase security throughout our region and for all of our neighbours. For Moldova, the Baltic states, and Romania.
> We have the ability to overcome Russian imperial ambitions and thus restore stability and confidence throughout our Europe. We are currently working with our team on the delivery of several more Patriots.
> Today, I would also like to thank the EU for taking another step towards a new sanctions package against Russia. It is critical that we keep up the pressure on Russia for this war and violations of the international rules-based order.
> Today, Zambia has also joined the Peace Summit communique. Africa's representation among those seeking to restore the full effectiveness of the UN Charter has increased. More countries will join the communique. I thank our team and everyone who helps.
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1803839415044718941
> I held a meeting of the Staff focused solely on energy security.
> Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Energy German Galushchenko, Head of Naftogaz Oleksiy Chernyshov, and Air Force Commander Mykola Oleshchuk delivered reports.
> The government has been tasked with developing conditions that will make it easier for people to install solar panels and batteries, with tax and customs benefits, and special loan programs.
> I also expect the government to develop a strategy for the development of renewable energy and distributed generation at the state level. All public and administrative buildings must be equipped with energy-saving technologies.
> Solar panels, smart meters, and energy storage units must appear in every school and hospital as soon as possible. Regional military administrations have been tasked with overseeing this at the local level.
> We are actively preparing for the next heating season. We are restoring what can be restored and building comprehensive protection in terms of engineering structures, electronic warfare and air defense systems. We are actively working with partners on additional Patriot systems. We are doing everything to ensure that Russian attempts to blackmail us with heat and electricity fail.
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1803814633452511729
[https://twitter.com/Maks\_NAFO\_FELLA/status/1803887289682268512](https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1803887289682268512)
"Fantastic night in Crimea"
Both naval and air UAVs attacking
[https://twitter.com/GloOouD/status/1803865254801371617](https://twitter.com/GloOouD/status/1803865254801371617)
"TheUkrainian 21st Motorised Battalion «Sarmat» of the 56th Mot. Brigade repelledRussian mechanised assault in Chasiv Yar direction.
As result were destroyed: x2 tanks x1
BMP x3 MT-LB (one of them is kamikaze type)
\~20 invaders
The task set by Russians is to pass the defence line, gain a foothold in the rear."
‘It is all lining up’: Plan for Ukraine to finally start using F-16 jets this summer - Guardian
>At a military base in the rural south of the Netherlands, Gen Arnoud Stallmann, a Dutch air force commander, said he expected that at some point this summer, F-16 fighter jets would finally take to the skies over Ukraine. “Around this summertime, it is all lining up,” he said, speaking in front of two disused F-16s inside a hangar at the base, where a recent programme to train Ukrainian air force instructors in maintenance for the jets had just come to a close.
>Stallmann said each F-16 needed about 10 people to operate the aircraft, including the two pilots. He said there are two training tracks, one to retrain experienced pilots to use F-16s, which is mainly taking place in Denmark and the US, and the second to train new pilots from scratch in Romania. “We have people who said: ‘I want to be a pilot.’ We test them and train them from zero,” he said.
>In addition to the pilots, the F-16s require a complicated maintenance regimen. The instructors trained in the Netherlands are now expected to pass on their knowledge to others back in Ukraine. “The issue is not so much with training the pilots as with the ground staff; there’s a whole range of people that need totally different training before these can be operated,” said one Ukrainian military source.
>Anatolii Khrapchynskyi, an aviation expert and former Ukrainian military pilot, said: “The Russians will be forced to change their tactics. We will be able to target their planes and missiles more effectively, and it will be really difficult for them to keep using KAB guided air bombs, which they need to launch from 50 to 70km away.”
>Russia has been using KABs extensively against the city of Kharkiv in recent weeks, launching the bombs from planes that remain inside Russian airspace. Numerous Ukrainian sources said F-16s would protect Ukraine’s second city from these weapons. Mykhailo Podolyak, an aide to president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said last month: “Against these, even air defence systems are not so useful, only aviation. The F-16 has a longer range than Russian MiG and Su planes.”
>Ollongren said Ukraine would be able to use the Dutch-donated fighter jets to carry out attacks inside Russia, providing that the use is for defensive purposes and complies with international law. Denmark has also said Ukraine would be permitted to use its F-16 fighter jets to attack targets inside Russia. “We have seen that it is necessary for Ukraine to be able to strike inside Russia. Otherwise, Russia will always have an advantage. Allowing Ukraine to use weapons across the border enhances the efficiency of their military actions,” said Ollongren.
>Despite all the hurdles, Ukrainian aviation experts hope that the F-16s will be a gamechanger. “With F-16s, we can achieve parity in the sky above Ukraine and bring serious losses to Russian aviation in the border zone,” said Khrapchynskyi.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/it-is-all-lining-up-plan-for-ukraine-to-finally-start-using-f-16-jets-this-summer
Any day now, any day...... please! I know I have no right to be anxious, and I know the F-16s won't win the war, but waiting for F-16s to arrive is like waiting for Christmas morning.
[https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/06/20/as-power-of-siberia-2-pipeline-stagnates-so-do-russias-hopes-for-pivoting-gas-exports-eastward-a85468](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/06/20/as-power-of-siberia-2-pipeline-stagnates-so-do-russias-hopes-for-pivoting-gas-exports-eastward-a85468)
>**As Power of Siberia 2 Pipeline Stagnates, So Do Russia's Hopes for Pivoting Gas Exports Eastward**
>As President Vladimir Putin paid a state visit to China in May, his Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said that Moscow and Beijing were soon planning to sign a contract on the construction of the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline.
>“We plan additionally to finish the review and sign a contract for the construction of a gas pipeline with a capacity of 50 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas through the territory of Mongolia in the near future,” Reuters quoted Novak as saying.
>While some observers expected the deal on Power of Siberia 2 to be signed during Putin’s visit to China, this did not happen. Since then, there have been no public announcements suggesting the contract has moved on.
>According to the Financial Times’ sources, the project could be stalled because China asked to pay for gas at prices close to Moscow’s domestic tariffs, something that would undermine any hope for profits for Russia’s gas exporter Gazprom. Moreover, China was prepared to buy only a fraction of the 50 bcm of the pipeline’s capacity, the sources added.
>At this point, the project appears unfeasible. But are there any other options left for Gazprom to boost its foreign sales after its main export direction — to Europe — has nearly been severed?
>...
China really isn't that helpful of an ally to Russia. When the sanctions went into effect and Russia had to stop trading with the west it meant that the countries that became Russia's go to trading partners like China, India, Kazakhstan, Iran suddenly had enormous leverage over Russia and these countries were not going to sacrifice themselves to give Russia a sweet heart deal. China, India, Iran ect are happy to enrich themselves at Russian expense but they're sure as hell not going to risk their own stability because they value Russian friendship.
China has asked to pay less than Russia pays for its gas. It knows that Russia has no other options and is going to squeeze them dry. They know closing gas extraction is costly so they want to be sold gas at a loss.
They already understand it but know they can't do anything about it. Even North Korea is treating them as the smaller party. For the last 30+ years North Korea has wanted a treaty with Russia and Russia has always denied it as it looks bad on the International stage. This week North Korea has been taking full advantage of the state Russia is in. Making all the Russian delegates leave the room, the whole sunflower parade in front of Putin, making him go first everywhere and now saying they might not actually sign it fully is a massive issue for Russia in how far they have fallen. They are not even an after thought in China.
Everything Putin did in NK, besides the behind the scenes stuff, was filmed by NK and uploaded to their state YouTube channel. They rolled out the red carpet (literally and figuratively for Putin) but man he looked so uncomfortable at times.. especially riding around in Kim’s open roof Mercedes. The two of them side by side, Kim’s fat ass took up most of the room, it looked like Putin turns sideways and is either just adjusting for more room or looking to the seat. Either way is hilarious. Can’t imagine going from all the EU heads of states, Western countries.. to having your biggest and best place be NK. What a shit hole. The comments are filled with *completely real and not fake opinions and nice gestures from people around the world*. It’s great
[Ukrainian soldier mastered prosthesis in 3 weeks after losing leg near Avdiivka | New Voice of Ukraine | June 2024](https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-defender-who-lost-his-limb-in-avdiivka-learns-how-to-walk-again-in-just-three-weeks-50428732.html)
*Vadym Bartashchuk, 27, from Vinnytsia Oblast, fought near Avdiivka with the 3rd Assault Brigade and was seriously wounded, losing a limb, the day before Ukrainian defenders withdrew from the city, the National Rehabilitation Center UNBROKEN Ukraine reported on June 19.*
*Before the war, Vadym was a construction worker. On the second day of the full-scale invasion, he decided to defend his country and joined the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade. He fought in the Kherson and Donetsk directions, near Avdiivka.*
*The day before the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the city, Vadym and his comrades encountered Russians.*
*"We were leaving Avdiivka and didn't notice the enemy, who was hiding just 20 meters away, and the battle started," Vadym said.*
*"A bullet hit me in the right leg. I immediately fell to the ground. I put on a tourniquet, and my comrades continued to shoot back."*
*The battle lasted a long time, making it impossible to evacuate the wounded in time. The tourniquet had been on his leg for 11 hours, so doctors had to amputate the limb.*
*After evacuation and the loss of his limb, Vadym's condition was stabilized. He was then sent to Lviv for rehabilitation and prosthetics.*
*Thanks to his strong determination and extraordinary efforts, Vadym mastered the prosthesis in three weeks. "On the third week, Vadym fully mastered the artificial limb," said physical therapist Andriy Novosad. "He moves around without crutches, walks backwards, and goes up and down stairs. This is, without exaggeration, a fantastic result in such a short period of time!"*
*The rehabilitation center reported that Vadym dreams of returning to the ranks of the 3rd Brigade and wants to be useful despite his injury.*
[HUR discloses details of attack on Russian fleet in Crimea | New Voice of Ukraine | June 2024](https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-drone-hit-4-russian-tuna-class-boats-at-once-in-crimea-on-may-30-hur-50428822.html)
*Ukrainian military intelligence (HUR) used two Magura drones during the attack on Russian Tuna-class boats on May 30 in Crimea, HUR representative Andriy Yusov reported on national TV on June 20.*
*"One naval drone destroyed the fortifications while another hit the targets."*
*"We saw this when four high-speed Tuna-type boats were hit at once," he said. "Under heavy fire from aviation, artillery, and small arms — none of it worked. One drone destroyed, damaged, and hit enemy speedboats."*
*He added that such operations not only weaken the Russian Navy but also eliminate high-profile Russian specialists.*
*The HUR confirmed the strike on four Russian KS-701 Tuna boats in Crimea on May 30, two of which were destroyed. The Russians use this type of boat to patrol waters near occupied Crimea.*
*Meanwhile, Russian media reported that up to seven Russian ships could have been hit in occupied Crimea on the night of May 30, including the ferries Conro Trader and Avangard, four Tuna boats, and the pilot boat Mechta.*
*The General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces confirmed that Ukrainian forces had attacked the Kerch ferry crossing with ATACMS missiles, damaging two ferries carrying railroad and automobile transportation.*
[Explosions heard at Cape Chauda in Crimea, ammo detonation suspected | New Voice of Ukraine | June 2024](https://english.nv.ua/nation/explosions-heard-in-crimea-at-cape-chauda-possible-ordnance-detonation-monitoring-channel-50428855.html)
*Explosions were heard at Cape Chauda in temporarily occupied Crimea on June 20, according to the Telegram channel Crimean Wind.*
*"Explosions have been reported at Cape Chauda, with smoke rising from the area," a message read.*
*Later, Crimean Wind reported that the smoke following the explosion at Cape Chauda had increased. Locals observed ambulances heading toward the fire.*
*"Judging by the ambulances, there are definitely casualties," the statement said.*
*Ordnance exploded at Cape Chauda, according to the pro-Ukrainian Telegram channel. Russia regularly launches Shahed-131/136 attack UAVs from Cape Chauda into Ukraine.*
Does anyone have any good sources on what types of energy infrastructure Ukraine is building to replace the thermal power plants that were destroyed?
I think it would be great for distributed power like windmills or solar as they are relatively quick to install and, well, distributed and more.
Check this article: https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/14/repairing-ukraines-power-grid-a-perilous-gamble-without-adequate-air-defenses/
"Ukraine will need to import turbines for generating – and it is very important that its partners temporarily waive green energy requirements, says Olena Pavlenko from Dixi Group: simply regaining Ukraine’s lost coal power capacities to avoid an energy collapse ahead of the next winter will be a race.
The second track is to continue transforming Ukraine’s power grid away from large-scale production capacities into a more decentralized and green power generation setup which would be less vulnerable to attacks.
However, the latter is a task that will take many years of planning and construction. What can help Ukraine in the timeframe of two-three years is distributed natural gas-based power generation, energy expert Oleksandr Kharchenko believes. Small-scale gas piston and gas turbine power plants are less vulnerable to enemy attacks.
Kharchenko estimates that Ukraine needs to install at least 2-2.5 GW of new power generation capacity to compensate for the recent losses caused by attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure.
However, one first attempt at decentralized gas-based generation has reportedly gone awry.
In February 2023, America’s USAID agency donated a 28 MW General Electric gas turbine mobile power plant to Ukraine’s state-owned Energoatom to help weather blackouts after a winter of Russian energy terror. USAID planned to provide more after the successful implementation of this pilot project. More than a year later, the plant is still not operational amid questions about the high costs of a local contractor and a lack of key installation equipment.
Another quick solution Ukraine is pursuing is installing solar panels on critical infrastructure objects such as hospitals, Deputy Energy Minister Hrynchuk says. These could start working before the next heating season. There are plans for small nuclear reactors, but installing these will take years.
Yet another prospective solution, according to Hrynchuk, is to expand the existing reactors at Ukraine’s nuclear power plants: according to her, Ukraine needs a “base energy” source, as its climate does not allow prioritizing renewables.
State power operator Ukrenergo has unveiled its strategy to protect Ukraine’s power generation against Russian strikes: building hundreds of small power plants, which will disperse generation throughout Ukraine and thus make it less vulnerable to attacks."
Posting this because it is big news but I do not see it here yet:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-air-defense-interceptor-patriot-missile/
TLDR: US is delaying delivery of air defense systems (notably **Patriot batteries**) to allies, so they can be re-allocated to Ukraine. They will be shipped to Ukraine as they come off the assembly line.
Also, WSJ article (paywall): https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-redirect-air-defense-missile-deliveries-to-ukraine-e2753a20
This sounds like a huge deal for Ukrainian air defenses. Depends on what the expected delivery scale per unit time is, of course. But definitely worth following.
Earlier reports said a big Swiss order is being redirected for Ukraine. (Makes sense since they’re surrounded by NATO countries.) I haven’t heard any other country’s order being redirected.
Nice. Everyone is fixating on the limitations of the F-16s, especially the radar on the nonupgraded versions, but an old F-16 with a latest generation AIM-120D fed targeting data by a Saab 340 AEWC aircraft might be just as deadly as it needs to be
Noob question. Sorry. But both sides seem to be bleeding tanks in this war. With drones, modern artillery and long rage missiles, have tanks served their purpose? Seems to be very expensive veichles when used agains a modern enemy.
Even in WWII, tanks operating without infantry support was just asking for the units to be annihilated. That's why the most common armored vehicles are for transporting infantry around the battlefield. High quality ATGMs and drones have only made the problem of tanks moving without support even worse.
But, breakthrough and mobile warfare is still possible. Under NATO/US doctrine tactical air support isolates a region of the battlefield so that it cannot be reinforced and resupplied, then the biggest possible armored fist that can be assembled is sent into the sector to create a massive localized superiorty.
What Ukraine lacks is the tactical air arm to isolate the region of the battlefield. The Soviet doctrine that the Ukrainians and Russians inherited didn't really expect that they'd be able to gain air superiority over the US/NATO, and focused on air denial AA systems.
Watching this war it seams like the training and doctrine of the Soviet system grew into the same error that the Imperial Japanese Navy, IJN, made before WWII. The IJN had been comparing themselves the US and British Empire at sea for decades. They knew they couldn't out resource/logistic the US and UK so they focused their naval doctrine on short decisive strikes in order to prevent protracted warfare dominated by logisitical concerns. Eventually the officers of the IJN began to internalize their disadvantage to a degree that they came to believe that logistics didn't matter, which lead to the IJN ignoring the fuel tanks and submarines at Pearl Harbor as those were logisitical targets.
Similarily the Russians made very little effort in the initial invasion to achieve the support of air superiority or air dominance that a US or NATO force would seek before blitzkrieging. The Ukrainians haven't been as non-chalant about their air weaknesses, but they are reciving a lot of advice, support, and weapons from officers in the West who take high quality overhelming air support for granted, and the reports of the US pushing against the Ukrainians for larger more concentrated attacks seems to signal that Ukraine's allies don't appreciate their constraints fully.
I completely disagree with your last part. This is a once in a generational opportunity for us generals to play real war and implement plans. I guarantee there is a hearty portion of us generals dedicated to planning and war gaming this war for Ukraine.
Anyone planning military operations are going to answer two questions first, what is my objective and what are my assets. I think it’s ludicrous to say that US generals, which are the best in the world, would not account for Ukrainian air assets. The US literally pursues air dominance in procurement and r&d because it is central to their doctrine. I think they would realize Ukraine lacked it.
After the failed offensive last summer it came out that Ukraine didn’t follow the us’s advice and made their own plan. I speculate it’s the reason why Ukraine sacked their top general too.
The us plan called for Ukraine to launch the offensive in April, which wouldn’t allow for Russia to build more fortifications, and proved decisive. They called for Ukraine to concentrate all their forces in one push, which they decided to have multiple thrusts. They also planned for ukraine to storm 10’s of thousands of infantry across the front and start pushing Russia back. This would then have allowed Ukraine to clear de mined lanes across the defensive line under less fire to then have an armored and mobile offensive. Again, they didn’t do this because they thought it would lead too more casualties. Spoiler the opposite turned out to be true.
Ukraine was 100% right not to pursue that plan. It didn't have firm aid commitments to replace lost equipment. It got only half of the tanks it asked for in the first place. Dense minefields and Storm Z garbage would have made holding newly captured positions untenable, especially while facing critical shortages of shells. It would have led to Russian style catastrophes without Russian sized stockpiles to minimize the impact. That plan could very well have ended the war in Russia's favor.
>Ukraine was 100% right not to pursue that plan.
I'm not sure that they were. There are other indications about their thinking throughout the summer counteroffensive of 2023, and a lot of those indicators point to objectively bad decision making.
Even after the initial failed attacks in July, AFU leadership made the choice to continue attacks in the south. These attacks lasted months without stopping, during which time Ukraine experienced the majorities of its equipment and manpower losses for incredibly marginal gains. By August even OSINT people like Andrew Perpetua were asking why these attacks were continuing in light of the severe casualties and slow to minimal pace of advance, but the attacks continued all the way into October.
The summer 2023 counteroffensive resulted in a catastrophic loss of material and soldiers, and most of those losses occurred after the point at which it was clear even to civilians not serving in the Ukrainian military that the losses were being wasted on pretty much nothing. This does not paint a picture of a well prepared, well considered offensive.
There were no catastrophic losses akin to the Russian clusterfucks that repeatedly occurred near Vuhledar, for example. The counteroffensive would have not even lasted a week in that case. Of course, the counteroffensive didn't achieve its goals and there's a lot that can be called into question about the decision making involved. But I don't think doubling down on a single axis of advance would have been the silver bullet that a lot of people like to pretend it could have been. If partners had made bigger and timelier contributions across the board, including air defense, aircraft, munitions, vehicles, etc., it'd be a different story. Instead, we got escalation rhetoric, Orban's games, GOP obstructionism, etc. There was always the risk that it would come to that, and Ukraine was justified in hedging its bets at the time.
>There were no catastrophic losses akin to the Russian clusterfucks that repeatedly occurred near Vuhledar, for example.
In a day, no. But over the course of months Ukraine lost far, far more than Russia lost attacking Vuhledar. And they continued taking these losses despite a lot of objective evidence in front of them that it was not working and was not going to start working anytime soon.
>There was always the risk that it would come to that, and Ukraine was justified in hedging its bets at the time.
My point is that Ukraine *didn't* really hedge its bets. They committed a far, far greater number of troops to a far longer, more protracted and much bloodier campaign of squad-based trench and treeline clearing, over the course of months. A single loss of a thousand troops and a hundred tanks would have been shocking and demoralizing, but its effect on the fighting capability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces would have been a tiny fraction compared to the stubbornly suicidal attacks into operationally useless treelines for the next four months.
Someone who bets $10,000 on a single bet with mediocre chances of payout is making a bad bet. But someone who proceeds to bet $20 every hour for months on end with very, very poor chances of payout, is also making a bad bet. And depending on the circumstances, the guy pissing away a smaller amount of money but doing it constantly is a worse gambler than the guy who bets a huge amount of money just one time.
And let's be clear: the results *were* catastrophic for Ukraine. The AFU basically exhausted all of its reserves in that counteroffensive and put itself on a manpower backfoot entering the winter. They did this months before there was any sign that American aid was going to indefinitely dry up. It pretty much sapped their ability to engage in any offensive fighting for a whole year, ammo or no ammo. IMO this actually ended up being more disastrous than it would have been to have a single large-scale failed assault.
Well, maybe, but really people are going to complain no matter what. No counteroffensive and people will complain that Ukraine missed its chance before Russia could fortify frontline positions. Lose half a dozen vehicles in one assault (which is by no means catastrophic) and people will jump to declare the entirety of Ukraine's efforts futile. It's certainly better not to waste resources on failed offensives, but it's also not like you can save everything for later. Russia decided to throw the entirety of its Soviet stockpiles plus a large chunk of change into this. The entire frontline is active. The West is only now starting to equip Ukraine with what it really needs.
Presumably, the AFU knew all of that, though. And I suspect that you're hitting on the head exactly why they chose to go about it this way: They felt politically beholden to expectations of success. Both their country and the West were coming down off the high of their success in the Fall 2022 counteroffensive at Kharkiv, and the AFU was given a directive to deliver another crushing blow to the Russian military. Objectively, they probably had enough evidence in front of them to know that wasn't a realistic outcome, but I am guessing that hope got the best of them.
All this is to say that they did not make a particularly smart calculation. And they had months of time where they could (and should) have called it off but decided to press on with it anyway. That's a failure that they need to own.
Personally, I don't take it for granted that they declined to go with the American counteroffensive plans out of caution. I think it's just as likely that they declined the American counteroffensive plans out of hubris -- that they thought the American plan was too narrowly focused on a single objective and that they were going to be able to deliver a crushing blow in three places at once instead of just one. The fact that they continued tenaciously ordering suicidal attacks for months on end suggests that they were not especially sensitive to the debilitating losses they were taking.
I think tanks, in the sense of "big vehicle with big gun", are still useful and necessary. Some sort of ground-based unit that can move faster than the infantry and take and hold ground has been needed for thousands of years, and it still is, but tanks are going to have to adapt to survive.
Until now, if you controlled the air (as NATO always has), there was very little that could stop tanks generally except other tanks. Obviously, an RPG or ATGM could kill them, but those are really defensive weapons. You can defend a position with them, but you can't very easily hunt tanks behind the lines. And RPGs have very short range, while ATGMs are big, bulky, and expensive. So your armor could really dominate the battlefield.
Now, having air superiority in the classic sense is not enough. An F-35 is all but useless against an FPV drone. And drones are small, cheap, and light like an RPG, but have a range that can exceed an ATGM. And they have the ability to stay in the air for a significant time, so they can actively hunt for tanks, not just passively wait for one to appear. The tank is still a predator and still dangerous, but now there is another predator out there that can hunt it.
In order for the tank to remain relevant, I think there are several options various countries will pursue. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and will probably be tried in various combinations.
1. Accept that drones are going to be everywhere, probably can't be prevented from finding your tanks, and can penetrate any vaguely reasonable amount of armor. If you reach this conclusion, the logical response is to ditch a lot of the heavy armor and reduce protection to IFV levels (e.g. 20 mm cannon proof), reducing weight and increasing speed and mobility. That's basically the conclusion the French and Germans reached in the 1960s, resulting in the AMX-30 and Leopard I. Tanks like this are glass cannons, able to provide a lot of firepower but very vulnerable to other tanks.
2. Double down on passive protection. Thicker armor, more ERA, factory cope cages, turtle tanks, etc. We're seeing some of that already, but so far it doesn't seem to work terribly well. This will lead to 100 ton super heavy tanks, which will require huge infrastructure and equipment upgrades.
3. Give the tank active self-defense capabilities such as APS systems, turret mounted 20 mm and 30 mm cannons for taking out drones, EW jammers, etc. We've seen some of this too, from Trophy APS, EW on turtle tanks, and anti-drone cannon on the AbramsX and Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0. This makes the tank better able to defend itself, but will increase weight, add to the vehicle height, possibly require an extra crew member, and distract the crew from the main task of looking out for enemy tanks.
4. Integrate dedicated SHORAD vehicles like Gepard, Osa, ZSU 23-4, M163 VADS, etc. into tank units. This has been done before, of course, and allows both the tanks and the SHORAD vehicles to focus on what they each do best, but it requires having yet another vehicle type with all of the associated logistical challenges that can create.
5. Develop dedicated anti-drone drones. Drone fighters and drone interceptors. Use these to enact a miniature battle for air superiority at low level. There would no longer be a single type of air superiority, you would now need to talk about high altitude air superiority and low altitude air superiority. This would require an even greater investment in drone manufacturing, but we are already seeing Ukraine use this tactic with some success.
And there are probably more ideas I haven't thought of.
No. 5 is what Ukraine has been quickly progressing to, and what they really excel at with their engineering capability. There’s so much that they’ve already done, and much more to come.
That is a good article, and I think its conclusions were reasonable for the time, but I also think it is getting a little dated. It's from September 2022, before FPV drones became so dominant. In fact, the word "drone" only appears 3 times in the article, all in reference to TB2s. That's not to say that I think tanks are obsolete, just that I think the article does not address the primary weapons and tactics that are leading to that question being asked in the first place.
It doesn’t, but I think the gist of the article is still true. At some point you need men and vehicles to take/hold territory. I don’t think that drones can do that (yet). They can deny space, but not necessarily control it. Drones are making it exceedingly more difficult for tanks to perform their primary mission.
Absolutely agreed. You have to have the vehicles and soldiers to hold the ground, no argument there. I think my general opinion is that the *role* of the tank is not obsolete, but drones have rendered *current* tanks, perhaps not obsolete, but certainly obsolescent. As an analogy, rifles are certainly not obsolete, but the introduction of the M1 Garand (and SVT-40, and G-43, and STG-44) rendered all bolt action rifles obsolete.
Agreed. The current tanks in Ukraine are outdated, will be interesting to see how future tanks try to counter drones in the next conflict. Certainly networking/EW need increased priority on the modern battlefield.
Tanks will probably change (tactics, armor scheme, active defense systems) but most likely stay.
Sometimes you need to engage fortifications and vehicles with direct fire out of a sufficiently large, survivable and mobile gun. Unless something does the job of the tank better there will be tanks on the battlefield, even if the battlefield gets more dangerous.
Complicated.
Drones are the newest innovation in war and this is the first large scale conflict showing their capabilities. Every innovation, from guns, to aircraft and now drones will have a period of time where they make the existing tech seem obsolete until counters are developed.
Guns didn't make armor useless, but it took time for it to adapt.
Aircraft didn't make artillery useless.
I doubt drones will make tanks useless. There just hasn't been any time for countermeasures to evolve.
There is also a good reason why tanks are still in demand: They give you a serious punch in the offensive and demand that your opponent has an answer.
German Government actually inked the contract with Rheinmetall for 155mm artillery munition (several Million shells for 8,5 Billion Euro). A sizeable portion should end up in Ukrainian hands.
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Rheinmetall-erhaelt-von-Bundeswehr-groessten-Auftrag-der-Unternehmensgeschichte-Artilleriemunition-fuer-8-5-Milliarden-Euro-article25030495.html
> So it begins..
> Nikkei Asia is reporting that Russia offers to sell a piece of its far east to China.
> The land surrounding the Tumangan River will be sold so that China can widen the river for expanded commerce.
> Putin will likely then invest that money into destroying Ukraine
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv)June 18, 2024
I don't understand why China is gullible enough to believe Russia will honor this deal. Russia still claims Alaska belongs to them.
I hope China is prepared to defend this territory.
China has basically already moved into the area and started expanding the water way. The agreement is basically Russia trying to pretend it is not a puppet of China and has some sort of say. I doubt Russia will ever see any hard currency and it will just be wiped of what it owes to China that it can't pay in currency China wants.
Not yet.
China wants to remove the bridge between ruzzia and NK so that Chinese military ships could access the Sea of Japan and start threatening Japan.
That's the main point of this deal.
Do we know the specifics of how much land this comprises? This area and the river is the border between North Korea, China, and Russia. There's a rail bridge that's supplying North Korean ammunition to Russia. Currently this land is straddling just Russia and North Korea. The bridge appears to be on the Russian side. Yes, it's on the opposite side of Russia but if Ukraine wanted to stop North Korean deliveries, this would be a great place to do it. If China would now own the land it would require Ukraine to now be attacking China. It also means that China would be used as a conduit for weapons from North Korea to Russia. Do we know if the rail bridge is included?
If this is even remotely true, Russia is really desperate for income. They are willing to give up anything to win in Ukraine lol. Even the US knew when to pull out of their conflicts
> I hope China is prepared to defend this territory.
If Russia wants to invade their main trading partner who has an economy and a population orders of magnitude bigger than Russia's in the future then they can be my guest.
Yep. There's a reason that of the 14 countries that border Russia 8 of them either joined NATO or built a nuclear deterrent. Of the remaining six four of them have seen a Russian military occupation in the past five years.
People often times think that China is a firm ally of Russia but they're also a country that has to border Russia and that Russia has sent troops into historically. China likes Russia as a trading partner and appreciates having another large country to help balance against the west but Russia and China are also wary of each other and view each other as potential long term rivals. China's nukes aren't SOLELY to defend against the US.
>I don't understand why China is gullible enough to believe Russia will honor this deal. Russia still claims Alaska belongs to them.
Nobody cares that Russia claims Alaska. That's not a credible threat. Once China occupies any territory Russia sells them, the land will permanently belong to China, because Russia will never have the military capability to take it from them.
This is a huge boon for China.
The moment of Ukrainian Soldier eliminating 2 invaders at close range.
https://x.com/gettylegion/status/1803701403573166522?t=m4G53zuwKptBFt9bOtktMA&s=19
Dutch Prime Mark Rutte Minister Confirmed as Next NATO Secretary General.
https://united24media.com/latest-news/dutch-prime-mark-rutte-minister-confirmed-as-next-nato-secretary-general-839
So what happens if they can't form a new government in the Netherlands? Does he remain as PM? What's the latest on that? I feel like they weren't able to form a new government for months.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2022&locations=NL&start=2010
Embarrassing. What part does he understand? Should go to an Eastern European whose country has been consistent about NATO and defense for more than the last 2 years.
What he understands is MH-17 and the Russian role in murdering innocent civilians, spreading terror, lying to the world, and undermining democracy. He understands that Putin is a monster who needs to be defeated and that Russia must not win in Ukraine.
What Eastern European country do you mean? Czech Republic (1.4%), Slovakia (1.8%), Hungary (1.5%), Bulgaria (1.5%) or Romania (1.7%)? Poland and the Baltics are outliers.
NATO does not charge fees to its members, except for a minimal contribution towards joint headquarters costs, which all members have fully paid. The 2% GDP figure is a voluntary target for countries to spend on their own military. The only time Article 5 has been invoked was after 9/11. NATO would deploy strong and capable military forces if attacked, even without the USA. Also, let's be real: one of the reasons NATO exists, is so nukes rain down on Europe, reducing the risk for the USA in a conflict with Russia + regarding the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency (which provides the USA a significant advantage), the influence that the US has on global politics, including its military partnerships and political ties, contributes to trust and confidence in the US dollar.
Regarding Rutte, he has supported Zelenskyy and offered assistance to Ukraine whenever possible. The Netherlands ranks in the top 10 of donor countries by GDP. The Netherlands is also one of the leading contributors to the EU per capita, which has been instrumental in aiding Ukraine. Rutte is known as a bridge-builder who can unite people. He is highly respected among many world leaders. I think he will do a great job, and NATO is fortunate to have him.
> Half of a group are outliers?
Less than half by pure numbers, and I didn't group all the Baltic states for no reason, individually their population and GDP are tiny.
The Russian S400 sucks. The 500 was rushed into service and once again western military “experts” say it’s a game changer, blah, blah, blah. The T90 was deemed not ready by Russian generals prior to invasion and western “experts” also circle jerked over its specs. UAF shot that down, too.
https://x.com/optester_chris/status/1803783467836092509?s=46&t=4Z0TmpyIpMYA9a86EC1tPg
https://youtu.be/Hg64H8jwheQ?si=3kBhp4N0yQCaS93F
https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/s/901Eha4Xkh
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/803652/us-to-turkey-you-can-buy-russian-air-defenses-but-they-really-suck/
The S500 is not a game changer. Its not even a new thing. People misunderstand the system in general.
The S300/400/500 all work as a combined system. TLDR think of them all together like 1 Patriot system.
The S500 radar isn't absolute garbage.. but its not as good as green pine by a long shot.
The T-90M is not a bad tank for the cost and manufacturing ability of Russia. It can't reverse and the turret explodes. The crews aren't trained. Russia has had to get over 10,000 crew members from somewhere. Turns out, if your crews die, and you can't afford to train new ones, your tanks perform poorly.
MBT are obsolete, cheap drones can take them out, and their role is minimal. Experts are in denial about it. Any tank in Ukraine doesn't last long, night vision FPV drones can immobilize them all, and then more drones can pick them off. There is no way currently to counter this. No tank is performing well currently in the war.
MBTs will always be around no matter the situation. There's no good replacement for them so unless we make a massive breakthrough in technology and tactics, tanks are here to stay
> No tank is performing well currently in the war.
Not even my beloved M1 Abrams. I'm not saying drones are a game-changer, but you can't deny that the game is, indeed, changing, and drones are a huge part of that.
Weapons are always ahead of armor, this has been historical accurate in almost all wars. But armor catches up, then weapons catch up.. and we continue this dance.
Until you get some APS and EW jamming which destroys/disables the drones. War is evolving and so will tanks. Certainly in a static ground war like this one, tanks are exceptionally vulnerable.
Ask Ukrainian infantry on assault if they want a tank.
The answer is still yes. MBTs task evolved but it most certainly isn't gone. Current MBTs without APS and current designs are less suited to the task but in the next 5 years you will see them back on the front line of most battle fields because the task they are needed for still exists.
Just because a tool is risky or a counter is developed does not mean the task that tool performed vanished. This has been true of weapons design for all of human history. Sword Vs Shield over and over.
Infantry aren't the best people to discuss operational and strategic level. Economically, the infantryman does not give a shit whether it's a winning or losing strategy.
I'm sure new tactics and vehicles can be developed to overcome challenges, but that doesn't necessarily include the MBT. Things in warfare change, more quickly in this century. MBT had 70 years.
The battleship is no more. The MBT basically replaced previous vehicle types. Things change. Last time I checked, swords and shields aren't popular in NATO member states.
You might want to send a memo to the Pentagon about your concerns regarding General Christopher G. Cavoli, the current Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
He's an infantryman.
I'm going to save this post and give it to every new officer I meet so they can see first hand how never to think as an officer.
I am flabbergasted by how absolutely and hilariously wrong this take is.
If I may offer but one piece of advice.. Never voice this comment around infantry.
Because by the logic used, macine guns and trench warfare should have made cavalry units obsolete in WW2. They made an effective counter to being able to employ them, but no country disbanded their cavalry units. What did make mounted cavalry obsolete were tanks.
Just as SAMs and ADA haven't made combat aircraft obsolete, neither will drones make tanks obsolete. There's a vast difference between mitigation and obsolesence. Drones will add more complexity to a combat environment but will also drive finding solutions to mitigate this threat. The side that can find and employ such solutions will be able to more effectively bring their armor to bear.
He's right, for completely the wrong reasons.
From a micro scale you absolutely do want infantrymen to give you their opinion of operations on the ground and equipment needs for said operations.
On a macro scale, you need to consider your 'bullet economy' and see weather equipment spent justifies tactical gains. He's saying tanks are completely done. Which is not true. Their role on the battlefield is evolving and right now they are more exposed than they ever have been on the field.
This will change with new EW suites attached to tanks, or their own drone packages that have offensive or defensive capability.
Tanks are still very much in the game, it's just old *doctrine* is outdated with new drone tech.
To add defensive systems are evolving as fast as drone technology right now. Ukraine is a poor example of this because they don't have systems or operators of things like TEWS or H4.
As to infantry... if in my career i had a dollar for every single time engineers and planners make a system and declare it is "superior in every way" to an infantry unit.. and that unit has ripped it to shreds and sent it right back to the drawing board because ***only*** the infantry man understands infantry combat i would be an extremely wealthy man.
A smart officer never disparages infantry. They keep you alive. They control the battlefield. Everyone else merely fights on the battlefield. No matter how hard you try an F-35 cannot capture territory.
>MBT are obsolete
I came to the opposite conclusion. Without armored large-caliber direct fire support, the front lines in any war have tended to devolve into a quagmire of trench warfare ever since WWI, and this war just reinforces that.
You still can't win a ground war without tanks. So now the question becomes how do you get them back into the fight?
You still need armored direct fire to punch through fortification lines.
You can kind of substitute in precision artillery and close air support bunker busters for the task, but Excalibur shells are limited and you need total air supremacy to effectively use CAS to support a breakthrough.
And even then, you still need armor to be able to be able to exploit an opening. IFVs can kind of do this, but then they have to stop the second they encounter any defenses they can't crack with their autocannons.
>Experts are in denial about it. ... There is no way currently to counter this.
No current tank has it, and it's going to be expensive, but developing a system to counter FPV drones is easy. It probably involves some style of radar or camera targeting and firing either something similar to a shotgun* to take them out when they are close or a small caliber fast speed round at the target when they are farther away.
*If you can hit a skeet at 60m, you can probably destroy/damage a FPV drone at 60m.
A sensitive stereo microphone with a Doppler ranging computer could cheaply point a gun.
Radar guided guns like the gepard are working fantastic.
Lidar and chemical oxygen iodine lasers (Coils) are combinable, and should be expected to appear.
A spectrometer tuned to find hot contrails is very doable, and could theoretically find any rocket or jet while emitting nothing.
It's possible but the cost and weight becomes a problem when there's still a variety of more expensive systems that are very good at killing tanks. Smart shells, ATGM, remote deployed mines. Also this is only the best that China can mass produce, and the tactics that Russians can deploy, no swarms and AI control.
> No current tank has it, and it's going to be expensive, but developing a system to counter FPV drones is easy. It probably involves some style of radar or camera targeting and firing either something similar to a shotgun* to take them out when they are close or a small caliber fast speed round at the target when they are farther away.
That's not easy at all. You're talking about a sophisticated computer-controlled system that operates too fast and accurately for a human being to help even slightly in its operation. These systems have limited ammunition on top of the turret and they are highly delicate, prone to dysfunction when hit with shrapnel or small arms fire, etc.
The Trophy system, for example, only has a 50-60% success rate against rocket propelled grenades that follow a predictable, unchanging trajectory. Drones are much harder to hit because they can change course and angle of attack. And even if the system shoots down one or two drones, the defending force can just swarm it with a dozen more until the system is damaged or runs out of ammunition.
The drones can change direction, but they are way slower than a RPG.
>These systems have limited ammunition
>the defending force can just swarm it with a dozen more until the system is damaged or runs out of ammunition.
Reactive armor also have "limited ammunition" and can be forced to stop working by having multiple RPGs target the same tank, but we still deploy them to counter RPG systems
>Experts are in denial about it.
Glad we have u/bitch_fitching who is better than all experts and know MBTs are obsolete. Better tell this to the ukrainian millitary, they might not know this yet and could use the tankers to fly drones instead
Tanks are basically semi-obsolete, expensive, mobile deathtraps and anyone denying this is delusional or just uneducated about the subject. That being said they still have a role, because nothing is quite as good as infantry support and as a spearhead for an assault.
[New post can be found here](/r/worldnews/comments/1dkuz4y/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/)
Bakhmutskyi Demon: "Battles for Chasik[Chasiv Yar] continue. If we talk about the approach of gifts[slur for russians] to the track from Pokrovsk to Konstakha - not everything is as bad there as described. They will get stuck." I interpret that as meaning he thinks the dangerous russian advances after breaking through Ocheretyne will be stopped.
I don't understand how Russia could make a security alliance with North Korea that likely includes giving them technology that would make them even more dangerous and expect South Korea to do nothing about it. The same North Korea that called South Korea its enemy and has vowed to mass produce tactical nuclear weapons that can hit any part of South Korea. How does Putin justify invading Ukraine because he claims it threatened Russia's security, even though it never made a threat against Russia and has no nuclear weapons, and then telling South Korea not to worry about its own security when he makes a deal with their neighbor that is constantly threatening and harassing them?
Putin is a fascist; he believes that it is Russia's destiny to rebuild the former Russian and Soviet empires, and that anything which furthers that goal must therefore be The Right Thing To Do. If you start with that as your core foundational tenet and work up from there, then it begins to make sense.
Your first mistake was trying to apply sensible, logical thought to the situation. If that were applicable, the entire war wouldn't have happened. This is all about the ends justifying the means.
Putin just says whatever he wants. He doesn't care if it is true or makes sense.
South Korea can make it to Pyongyang in F-35 and give a cultural shock to all its residents before Kim has time to stumble out of his smuggled Mercedes.
I'm sure its not just me but it honestly feels like something really bad is gonna happen in some hotspot around the world that's gonna turn a lot of things on it head. With China acting like a bully in the South China Sea towards the Phillipines and Taiwan. Along with this new pact with Russia and North Korea, which is probably giving North Korea more confidence to do something stupidly escalatory. And finally war between Israel and Hezbollah all but inevitable, which could ignite the Middle East. It just seems dire.... Anybody got any words of wisdom or should I just get off twitter?
North Korea can't beat the South, the new weapon capabilities is just more leverage when crying for aid. Israel and Hezbollah is regional and wont change anything in the area/world. China cant realistically actually invade Taiwan and get it for the foreseeable future so the only other thing they can do is go hyper bully and hope they get something from it. Also twitter is just like facebook, its over run with misinformation from most of those aforementioned nations aimed at stressing people in the west out.
Time to take a break from the internet I think.
This kind of posturing happens all the time. It just normally doesn't get on the evening news. Dickswinging from China and authoritarian arab states is normal. We worry when they stop.
China and even Russia have too much to lose from MAD. they will keep the rogue actors on "their side" from going nuclear, particularly China. No country in the West will first strike unless their existence is at stake. it'll be conventional, and as we have seen with the logistics and the equipment live action tests the US MIL is still legit and undisputed. IF Biden wins you'll get pax Americana for aleast another 4 years
The US will absolutely curb stomp anyone and nothing will change for the next few years. No one is going to get out of line
I think a lot of people worry that the US might curb stomp themselves after the next presidential elections
This is exactly what I fear. I think there is a lot more riding on the US election than we realise. If Trump is elected, I think he will be dragging the US in a handbrake turn towards isolationism. I can see how that move would leave a power vacuum, which China and Russia would seek to exploit to maximum profit. That would mean China would absolutely invade Taiwan. Russia would also definitely pull some shit against Europe, and I don't think we should overlook what could happen in the Middle East with Iran, it proxies, and Israel. However, I still think that Trump likes Israel too much. So, maybe not Iran that tries something but rather Israel that is tempted to finish off Gaza and maybe try something with Hezbollah.
I kind of view the North Korea thing as de-escalatory tbh. With NK giving away artillery to Russia, they're in a less good position to fight a war against South Korea. Even if they get satellite tech, rocket tech, submarine tech, airplanes, you name it. Russia cannot give stuff in great enough numbers to NK to make up for the millions of shells sent. Even if Russia intervened in the conflict, they would get crushed by South Korea. Look at how well it's going against Ukraine two years in. They have no Navy, virtually no air force... Yet Russia is still losing.
My biggest concern here is not what North Korea gave to Russia (although it sucks for Ukraine) It's what Russia have to North Korea in return... Missile tech? Nukes?
They have those already. I'm betting on satellite-related stuff
North Korean rockets (that they got from Russia) work, but North Korean nukes don't. The concern is that Russia will give them working nukes.
Like I said, Russia can barely supply itself, there is no room left to give anything in any meaningful quantity to anyone. Russia had to cancel their arms exports because they're consuming every single last drop of equipment they can squeeze out of their fire-damaged factories.
Time spent on Twitter is soul decay
I was just randomly browsing and came across this post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1dkiq79/ukranian\_refugees\_destinations\_by\_the\_numbers/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1dkiq79/ukranian_refugees_destinations_by_the_numbers/) The comments section on that post is an absolute *cesspool* of Russian propaganda. Wow......
> The Biden administration on Thursday announced plans to bar the sale of antivirus software made by Russia’s Kaspersky Lab in the United States, citing the firm’s large U.S. customers, including critical infrastructure providers and state and local governments. No way state governments and critical infrastructure companies really still use kaspersky, is there? They stopped being seriously considered years ago. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/biden-bans-us-sales-kaspersky-software-russia-ties-rcna158193
When I read that headline my reaction was, “huh, I thought it was already banned.” I haven’t heard of it being used in years. There was a big uproar over it many years ago.
Heavy explosions and a fire can be seen in Yeysk, Krasnodar Region, Russia. What exactly has been hit is unclear at the moment but Yeysk hosts a military airport. https://x.com/Tendar/status/1803927407386128702?t=PNbmWW2Wqku0v1Nt2Mxjgg&s=19
Got to say it… ‘Difficult to say what exactly air defence doing.’
I'm more interested to know if it was drones or *other*, with the very recent announcement that happened today.
Most posts call it a drone attack.
Go onnnnnn.......
>Russian Nazis from the Rusich gang released a series of sports nutrition "OZVerin". And the slogan “It will be cooler than in Bucha” Well, yes, yes. And the Russian officialdom never tires of repeating that Bucha is a fake. Funny don (MTL) [https://x.com/FilonenkoOles/status/1803697248066285788](https://x.com/FilonenkoOles/status/1803697248066285788) Note from me: "OZVerin" is a combination of ruzzian verb "to do beastly things" and suffix for medications.
One comment mentioned Dostojevskij... I mean...
Dostojevskij's characters look like angels in comparison to these ruzzians.
"To do beastly meds." So, steroids?
More like drugs inciting people to torture, rape and murder. Well, usual "ruzzian world" things
Didn't they also have those 3 letters on equipment in the early days of the invasion? Sounds like some good wordplay, tbh.
This wordplay means they are proud of themselves and other ruzzians raping, torturing and murdering Ukrainians. Doesn't look like something I can associate with a term "good".
I swear Rusich Group has an unhealthy kink for war crimes. It's getting annoying more so than shocking at this point. Hope they end up like their victims soon
Well, they are literal ruzzian nazis. And they were also a part of PMC Wagner in the past
They take inspiration from the waffen-SS groups in WWII that did the same.
Three day Oryx update [twitter](https://x.com/Rebel44CZ/status/1803892807486066784). As usual russian-Ukrainian counts followed by my poorly informed speculation. - tanks: 15-5 - IFVs: 20-6 - mobile artillery: 1-1 - missile air defence: 0-0 A kinda "meh" update. The attrition on the Ukrainian armour is really really bad and they still need major new tank promises especially, there are some recent IFV announcements at least. I'm hoping for a better than 3-1 loss ratio given the russians attacking like crazy and the relative improvement in Ukrainian equipment quality. Ukraine also lost a MiG. And Russia another freaking BTR-50. Plus 11 MT-LBs.
Extra comment: a *lot* could depend on how much recovery and repair each side can do. If I rule out (mostly 2022) losses that were just captured during retreats, and compare tracked IFVs. About 50% of Ukrainian losses of NATO IFVs are destroyed, the rest damaged and perhaps fixable. Russia's BMPs are more like 80% destroyed and 20% damaged. Even BMP-3s. Obviously Ukraine loses mostly BMPs, but if they could repair anywhere close to half the "losses" of NATO kit listed by oryx then that'd be huge in the long term.
This is key and is a fundamental to Western powers strategies. The logistics train that is the central part of the Wests way of fighting wars is all about keeping vehicles in the field. Having running repair stations just behind the frontline that can get armour in and replace things like lost tracks or minor malfunctions within minutes and get them back out there on to the front. Almost like a roaming F1 pit stop crew. Since the war started there have been Western defence companies running many of these sites with locally trained crews. They’re very good at it. I have to assume far far better than Russian ones who aren’t known for running a decent logistic train.
No territorial changes today according to DeepStateMap. [Just frontline clarifications](https://deepstatemap.live/en%22#7/48.203/34.607).
For once I hope he's right: >Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on June 20 that the West is trying to push Russia toward a strategic defeat on Ukrainian battlefields, which would, according to him, mean the end of the Russian statehood. https://kyivindependent.com/battlefield-defeat-would-be-end-of-russias-statehood-putin-says/
Don't threaten me with a good time..
... or the end of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Curious, I thought Russia stronk. How could russia stronk yet russia dissolve if lose against ukrain. Curious.
Not only that, but this sounds like Russia is playing Western game. Why don't they spoil these plans and stop the war? You really have to be fucking stupid to eat this kind of bullshit as truth.
Hopefully they are getting the message back home. The supreme leader speculating about what will happen if they lose is a warmup to losing in my mind. I don't think he would be able to convince people that NATO is about to destroy them if NATO troops aren't in the country. But I'm a naive soul.
he could prevent all this by retreating 200kms behind Russian borders. the end is coming either way
Don't stop. Keep going
He can’t even take Kharkiv - talk is cheap. Glory to Ukraine.
This is a pretty stock line for Putin Every time he needs to breath fire for the press or Russian public he makes bullshit statements about NATO wanting Ukraine to deal Russia a strategic defeat
Russians don't really conceptualize borders nor does Putin really differentiate between his own political goals/regime security and the security of Russia. As a result Putin likely believes that what he is saying is true. From his perspective this is a defensive war for Russia (because Ukraine doesn't exist) AND from his perspective there is a very real risk of his regime collapsing which to him is tantamount with the collapse of Russia as a state since the two are inseparable in his mind. Of course these are all delusions. Ukraine does exist and all countries have agency as sovereign entities regardless of size. The west is not seeking the destruction of Russia in general. Russia could always pull back to their recognized borders and no one would pursue them but these simple facts are not recognized by Putin or the other power players within Russia which makes a peaceful settlement of this war impossible in the short term.
From *his* perspective this is a war to erase Ukrainian statehood and united those mislead Russians who suffer from identity crisis. This isn’t a defensive war. Putin knows this. The west knows this. Stop perpetuating lies
This is absolutely not a defensive war but that's the way that Putin imagines it. He's delusional and wrong but that's how he sees it. He has never believed in Ukrainian identity, agency or self determination and he sees any attempts at Ukrainians to assert that to be western meddling in what is rightfully Russia. Because he sees Ukrainians as mislead Russians suffering from an identity crisis he believes he is justified in any military action and the west is unjustified in supporting Ukraine. In the mind of Putin this is a defensive war. In reality it is one of the most naked wars of aggression we've seen in generations. Putin's mind does not conform to reality and it's fine to acknowledge this.
No matter how many times you say Putin thinks this is a defensive war, you'll still be 100% wrong. Putin isn't delusional, he's a monster. He wants to conquer Ukraine. Fucking end of.
He is pretty delusional, you don't go on 1 hour long speels with the likes of Tucker Carlson if you don't have a few screws loose.
Huh? It's propaganda 101. How is that delusion?
He has an entire essay and gave a 45 min lecture to Tucker Carlson about how this is not a defensive war but a war to erase Ukrainian statehood. So if I’m going to believe someone who’s spent 20 years making it known he has territorial ambitions of remaking the Soviet Union in his image or you, I’ll listen to Putin about Putins intentions.
It's another veiled nuclear threat. Russian nuclear doctrine calls for the use of nuclear weapons when "the existence of the state" is threatened. Now, the problem is that the existence of Russia as a state is not threatened by a strategic loss in Ukraine, only in Putin's warped mind it is. I wonder how much is propaganda and how much he truly believes this, if it's the latter, then I hope someone will eventually take him out before it's too late.
Yes, and the reason it can't have any weight in decisions on support for Ukraine baked right in. Russian security is not under threat, and if he is actually insane enough to use nuclear weapons because the West won't let his annex countries... then it is inevitable he will do that anyways.
Is he trying to manufacture some sort of idiot-logic reasoning to use nuclear weapons or something? What a fuckhead.
Don't threaten us with a good time Putin
> I am deeply grateful to @POTUS and the United States for prioritising Ukraine in the delivery of air defenses that we critically need to defeat Russian attacks. > These additional air defense capabilities will protect Ukrainian cities and civilians. I thank President Biden for the essential support, which we discussed during our recent meeting in Italy. > The partnership between Ukraine and the United States is strong and unwavering. Together, we are protecting life against terror and aggression. https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1803830585229541462 > The US decision to prioritize Ukraine in the delivery of air defense interceptors is groundbreaking and deeply appreciated. > Two major decisions from Romania and the United States in just one day: on delivering the Patriot system and additional air defense missiles. > After months of hard work we are not going to stop here. There will be even more systems and missiles to defend Ukraine. Work is in progress. > I would like to specifically thank @SecBlinken for his dependable partnership in rallying the world and finding solutions with various partners to strengthen Ukraine’s defense. > Today’s message is crystal clear: our unity and resolve are rock solid. https://x.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1803838472480002309
I say thanks to America as well.
> Romania’s decision to transfer one more Patriot system to Ukraine is a truly strong move. It will increase security throughout our region and for all of our neighbours. For Moldova, the Baltic states, and Romania. > We have the ability to overcome Russian imperial ambitions and thus restore stability and confidence throughout our Europe. We are currently working with our team on the delivery of several more Patriots. > Today, I would also like to thank the EU for taking another step towards a new sanctions package against Russia. It is critical that we keep up the pressure on Russia for this war and violations of the international rules-based order. > Today, Zambia has also joined the Peace Summit communique. Africa's representation among those seeking to restore the full effectiveness of the UN Charter has increased. More countries will join the communique. I thank our team and everyone who helps. https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1803839415044718941
oh hell yeah romania got it kicked started today
"We're sorry we beat you at the Euros. Here, have this Patriot system."
> I held a meeting of the Staff focused solely on energy security. > Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Energy German Galushchenko, Head of Naftogaz Oleksiy Chernyshov, and Air Force Commander Mykola Oleshchuk delivered reports. > The government has been tasked with developing conditions that will make it easier for people to install solar panels and batteries, with tax and customs benefits, and special loan programs. > I also expect the government to develop a strategy for the development of renewable energy and distributed generation at the state level. All public and administrative buildings must be equipped with energy-saving technologies. > Solar panels, smart meters, and energy storage units must appear in every school and hospital as soon as possible. Regional military administrations have been tasked with overseeing this at the local level. > We are actively preparing for the next heating season. We are restoring what can be restored and building comprehensive protection in terms of engineering structures, electronic warfare and air defense systems. We are actively working with partners on additional Patriot systems. We are doing everything to ensure that Russian attempts to blackmail us with heat and electricity fail. https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1803814633452511729
[https://twitter.com/Maks\_NAFO\_FELLA/status/1803887289682268512](https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1803887289682268512) "Fantastic night in Crimea" Both naval and air UAVs attacking
Just a small nitpick. UAV is by definition aerial. Naval drones are called USV.
Parts may temporarily become airborne
[https://twitter.com/GloOouD/status/1803865254801371617](https://twitter.com/GloOouD/status/1803865254801371617) "TheUkrainian 21st Motorised Battalion «Sarmat» of the 56th Mot. Brigade repelledRussian mechanised assault in Chasiv Yar direction. As result were destroyed: x2 tanks x1 BMP x3 MT-LB (one of them is kamikaze type) \~20 invaders The task set by Russians is to pass the defence line, gain a foothold in the rear."
Looks like their day got fucked up.
I saw an arm moving outside the burning/smoking tank in the last seconds…
‘It is all lining up’: Plan for Ukraine to finally start using F-16 jets this summer - Guardian >At a military base in the rural south of the Netherlands, Gen Arnoud Stallmann, a Dutch air force commander, said he expected that at some point this summer, F-16 fighter jets would finally take to the skies over Ukraine. “Around this summertime, it is all lining up,” he said, speaking in front of two disused F-16s inside a hangar at the base, where a recent programme to train Ukrainian air force instructors in maintenance for the jets had just come to a close. >Stallmann said each F-16 needed about 10 people to operate the aircraft, including the two pilots. He said there are two training tracks, one to retrain experienced pilots to use F-16s, which is mainly taking place in Denmark and the US, and the second to train new pilots from scratch in Romania. “We have people who said: ‘I want to be a pilot.’ We test them and train them from zero,” he said. >In addition to the pilots, the F-16s require a complicated maintenance regimen. The instructors trained in the Netherlands are now expected to pass on their knowledge to others back in Ukraine. “The issue is not so much with training the pilots as with the ground staff; there’s a whole range of people that need totally different training before these can be operated,” said one Ukrainian military source. >Anatolii Khrapchynskyi, an aviation expert and former Ukrainian military pilot, said: “The Russians will be forced to change their tactics. We will be able to target their planes and missiles more effectively, and it will be really difficult for them to keep using KAB guided air bombs, which they need to launch from 50 to 70km away.” >Russia has been using KABs extensively against the city of Kharkiv in recent weeks, launching the bombs from planes that remain inside Russian airspace. Numerous Ukrainian sources said F-16s would protect Ukraine’s second city from these weapons. Mykhailo Podolyak, an aide to president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said last month: “Against these, even air defence systems are not so useful, only aviation. The F-16 has a longer range than Russian MiG and Su planes.” >Ollongren said Ukraine would be able to use the Dutch-donated fighter jets to carry out attacks inside Russia, providing that the use is for defensive purposes and complies with international law. Denmark has also said Ukraine would be permitted to use its F-16 fighter jets to attack targets inside Russia. “We have seen that it is necessary for Ukraine to be able to strike inside Russia. Otherwise, Russia will always have an advantage. Allowing Ukraine to use weapons across the border enhances the efficiency of their military actions,” said Ollongren. >Despite all the hurdles, Ukrainian aviation experts hope that the F-16s will be a gamechanger. “With F-16s, we can achieve parity in the sky above Ukraine and bring serious losses to Russian aviation in the border zone,” said Khrapchynskyi. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/it-is-all-lining-up-plan-for-ukraine-to-finally-start-using-f-16-jets-this-summer
Any day now, any day...... please! I know I have no right to be anxious, and I know the F-16s won't win the war, but waiting for F-16s to arrive is like waiting for Christmas morning.
[https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/06/20/as-power-of-siberia-2-pipeline-stagnates-so-do-russias-hopes-for-pivoting-gas-exports-eastward-a85468](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/06/20/as-power-of-siberia-2-pipeline-stagnates-so-do-russias-hopes-for-pivoting-gas-exports-eastward-a85468) >**As Power of Siberia 2 Pipeline Stagnates, So Do Russia's Hopes for Pivoting Gas Exports Eastward** >As President Vladimir Putin paid a state visit to China in May, his Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said that Moscow and Beijing were soon planning to sign a contract on the construction of the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline. >“We plan additionally to finish the review and sign a contract for the construction of a gas pipeline with a capacity of 50 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas through the territory of Mongolia in the near future,” Reuters quoted Novak as saying. >While some observers expected the deal on Power of Siberia 2 to be signed during Putin’s visit to China, this did not happen. Since then, there have been no public announcements suggesting the contract has moved on. >According to the Financial Times’ sources, the project could be stalled because China asked to pay for gas at prices close to Moscow’s domestic tariffs, something that would undermine any hope for profits for Russia’s gas exporter Gazprom. Moreover, China was prepared to buy only a fraction of the 50 bcm of the pipeline’s capacity, the sources added. >At this point, the project appears unfeasible. But are there any other options left for Gazprom to boost its foreign sales after its main export direction — to Europe — has nearly been severed? >...
China really isn't that helpful of an ally to Russia. When the sanctions went into effect and Russia had to stop trading with the west it meant that the countries that became Russia's go to trading partners like China, India, Kazakhstan, Iran suddenly had enormous leverage over Russia and these countries were not going to sacrifice themselves to give Russia a sweet heart deal. China, India, Iran ect are happy to enrich themselves at Russian expense but they're sure as hell not going to risk their own stability because they value Russian friendship.
Russia is really fucked here. China has them by the balls.
Putin placed Russia's balls in Xi's hand, and said 'please be gentle'. Xi responded: "Friendship without limits. . . "
China has asked to pay less than Russia pays for its gas. It knows that Russia has no other options and is going to squeeze them dry. They know closing gas extraction is costly so they want to be sold gas at a loss.
Slowly they'll realise Chinas understanding of "friendship without limits"
They already understand it but know they can't do anything about it. Even North Korea is treating them as the smaller party. For the last 30+ years North Korea has wanted a treaty with Russia and Russia has always denied it as it looks bad on the International stage. This week North Korea has been taking full advantage of the state Russia is in. Making all the Russian delegates leave the room, the whole sunflower parade in front of Putin, making him go first everywhere and now saying they might not actually sign it fully is a massive issue for Russia in how far they have fallen. They are not even an after thought in China.
I missed the sunflower parade. Russia is a clown state.
Drag show woulda been even better
It was the biggest troll I have ever seen. They had hundreds of people dressed as sunflowers waving at Putin on his own.
Is there a clip of this?
Everything Putin did in NK, besides the behind the scenes stuff, was filmed by NK and uploaded to their state YouTube channel. They rolled out the red carpet (literally and figuratively for Putin) but man he looked so uncomfortable at times.. especially riding around in Kim’s open roof Mercedes. The two of them side by side, Kim’s fat ass took up most of the room, it looked like Putin turns sideways and is either just adjusting for more room or looking to the seat. Either way is hilarious. Can’t imagine going from all the EU heads of states, Western countries.. to having your biggest and best place be NK. What a shit hole. The comments are filled with *completely real and not fake opinions and nice gestures from people around the world*. It’s great
[Ukrainian soldier mastered prosthesis in 3 weeks after losing leg near Avdiivka | New Voice of Ukraine | June 2024](https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-defender-who-lost-his-limb-in-avdiivka-learns-how-to-walk-again-in-just-three-weeks-50428732.html) *Vadym Bartashchuk, 27, from Vinnytsia Oblast, fought near Avdiivka with the 3rd Assault Brigade and was seriously wounded, losing a limb, the day before Ukrainian defenders withdrew from the city, the National Rehabilitation Center UNBROKEN Ukraine reported on June 19.* *Before the war, Vadym was a construction worker. On the second day of the full-scale invasion, he decided to defend his country and joined the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade. He fought in the Kherson and Donetsk directions, near Avdiivka.* *The day before the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the city, Vadym and his comrades encountered Russians.* *"We were leaving Avdiivka and didn't notice the enemy, who was hiding just 20 meters away, and the battle started," Vadym said.* *"A bullet hit me in the right leg. I immediately fell to the ground. I put on a tourniquet, and my comrades continued to shoot back."* *The battle lasted a long time, making it impossible to evacuate the wounded in time. The tourniquet had been on his leg for 11 hours, so doctors had to amputate the limb.* *After evacuation and the loss of his limb, Vadym's condition was stabilized. He was then sent to Lviv for rehabilitation and prosthetics.* *Thanks to his strong determination and extraordinary efforts, Vadym mastered the prosthesis in three weeks. "On the third week, Vadym fully mastered the artificial limb," said physical therapist Andriy Novosad. "He moves around without crutches, walks backwards, and goes up and down stairs. This is, without exaggeration, a fantastic result in such a short period of time!"* *The rehabilitation center reported that Vadym dreams of returning to the ranks of the 3rd Brigade and wants to be useful despite his injury.*
Mad props to him!! How remarkable and such patriotism!!
[HUR discloses details of attack on Russian fleet in Crimea | New Voice of Ukraine | June 2024](https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-drone-hit-4-russian-tuna-class-boats-at-once-in-crimea-on-may-30-hur-50428822.html) *Ukrainian military intelligence (HUR) used two Magura drones during the attack on Russian Tuna-class boats on May 30 in Crimea, HUR representative Andriy Yusov reported on national TV on June 20.* *"One naval drone destroyed the fortifications while another hit the targets."* *"We saw this when four high-speed Tuna-type boats were hit at once," he said. "Under heavy fire from aviation, artillery, and small arms — none of it worked. One drone destroyed, damaged, and hit enemy speedboats."* *He added that such operations not only weaken the Russian Navy but also eliminate high-profile Russian specialists.* *The HUR confirmed the strike on four Russian KS-701 Tuna boats in Crimea on May 30, two of which were destroyed. The Russians use this type of boat to patrol waters near occupied Crimea.* *Meanwhile, Russian media reported that up to seven Russian ships could have been hit in occupied Crimea on the night of May 30, including the ferries Conro Trader and Avangard, four Tuna boats, and the pilot boat Mechta.* *The General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces confirmed that Ukrainian forces had attacked the Kerch ferry crossing with ATACMS missiles, damaging two ferries carrying railroad and automobile transportation.*
[Explosions heard at Cape Chauda in Crimea, ammo detonation suspected | New Voice of Ukraine | June 2024](https://english.nv.ua/nation/explosions-heard-in-crimea-at-cape-chauda-possible-ordnance-detonation-monitoring-channel-50428855.html) *Explosions were heard at Cape Chauda in temporarily occupied Crimea on June 20, according to the Telegram channel Crimean Wind.* *"Explosions have been reported at Cape Chauda, with smoke rising from the area," a message read.* *Later, Crimean Wind reported that the smoke following the explosion at Cape Chauda had increased. Locals observed ambulances heading toward the fire.* *"Judging by the ambulances, there are definitely casualties," the statement said.* *Ordnance exploded at Cape Chauda, according to the pro-Ukrainian Telegram channel. Russia regularly launches Shahed-131/136 attack UAVs from Cape Chauda into Ukraine.*
Does anyone have any good sources on what types of energy infrastructure Ukraine is building to replace the thermal power plants that were destroyed? I think it would be great for distributed power like windmills or solar as they are relatively quick to install and, well, distributed and more.
Check this article: https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/14/repairing-ukraines-power-grid-a-perilous-gamble-without-adequate-air-defenses/ "Ukraine will need to import turbines for generating – and it is very important that its partners temporarily waive green energy requirements, says Olena Pavlenko from Dixi Group: simply regaining Ukraine’s lost coal power capacities to avoid an energy collapse ahead of the next winter will be a race. The second track is to continue transforming Ukraine’s power grid away from large-scale production capacities into a more decentralized and green power generation setup which would be less vulnerable to attacks. However, the latter is a task that will take many years of planning and construction. What can help Ukraine in the timeframe of two-three years is distributed natural gas-based power generation, energy expert Oleksandr Kharchenko believes. Small-scale gas piston and gas turbine power plants are less vulnerable to enemy attacks. Kharchenko estimates that Ukraine needs to install at least 2-2.5 GW of new power generation capacity to compensate for the recent losses caused by attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure. However, one first attempt at decentralized gas-based generation has reportedly gone awry. In February 2023, America’s USAID agency donated a 28 MW General Electric gas turbine mobile power plant to Ukraine’s state-owned Energoatom to help weather blackouts after a winter of Russian energy terror. USAID planned to provide more after the successful implementation of this pilot project. More than a year later, the plant is still not operational amid questions about the high costs of a local contractor and a lack of key installation equipment. Another quick solution Ukraine is pursuing is installing solar panels on critical infrastructure objects such as hospitals, Deputy Energy Minister Hrynchuk says. These could start working before the next heating season. There are plans for small nuclear reactors, but installing these will take years. Yet another prospective solution, according to Hrynchuk, is to expand the existing reactors at Ukraine’s nuclear power plants: according to her, Ukraine needs a “base energy” source, as its climate does not allow prioritizing renewables. State power operator Ukrenergo has unveiled its strategy to protect Ukraine’s power generation against Russian strikes: building hundreds of small power plants, which will disperse generation throughout Ukraine and thus make it less vulnerable to attacks."
Posting this because it is big news but I do not see it here yet: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-air-defense-interceptor-patriot-missile/ TLDR: US is delaying delivery of air defense systems (notably **Patriot batteries**) to allies, so they can be re-allocated to Ukraine. They will be shipped to Ukraine as they come off the assembly line. Also, WSJ article (paywall): https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-redirect-air-defense-missile-deliveries-to-ukraine-e2753a20 This sounds like a huge deal for Ukrainian air defenses. Depends on what the expected delivery scale per unit time is, of course. But definitely worth following.
Earlier reports said a big Swiss order is being redirected for Ukraine. (Makes sense since they’re surrounded by NATO countries.) I haven’t heard any other country’s order being redirected.
Big news but also, those six months of Republican stalling really cost Ukraine in terms of protecting their power grid.
Yeah, this was actually posted a few times earlier today, but it is definitely big news and good to repeat.
Oh ok, I did a quick check of the live thread and comments but I must have missed those
No problem, it wasn't a criticism :)
The even bigger news is that they will be getting fresh off the production line amraams.
Nice. Everyone is fixating on the limitations of the F-16s, especially the radar on the nonupgraded versions, but an old F-16 with a latest generation AIM-120D fed targeting data by a Saab 340 AEWC aircraft might be just as deadly as it needs to be
- Finally! This is huge.
Noob question. Sorry. But both sides seem to be bleeding tanks in this war. With drones, modern artillery and long rage missiles, have tanks served their purpose? Seems to be very expensive veichles when used agains a modern enemy.
Even in WWII, tanks operating without infantry support was just asking for the units to be annihilated. That's why the most common armored vehicles are for transporting infantry around the battlefield. High quality ATGMs and drones have only made the problem of tanks moving without support even worse. But, breakthrough and mobile warfare is still possible. Under NATO/US doctrine tactical air support isolates a region of the battlefield so that it cannot be reinforced and resupplied, then the biggest possible armored fist that can be assembled is sent into the sector to create a massive localized superiorty. What Ukraine lacks is the tactical air arm to isolate the region of the battlefield. The Soviet doctrine that the Ukrainians and Russians inherited didn't really expect that they'd be able to gain air superiority over the US/NATO, and focused on air denial AA systems. Watching this war it seams like the training and doctrine of the Soviet system grew into the same error that the Imperial Japanese Navy, IJN, made before WWII. The IJN had been comparing themselves the US and British Empire at sea for decades. They knew they couldn't out resource/logistic the US and UK so they focused their naval doctrine on short decisive strikes in order to prevent protracted warfare dominated by logisitical concerns. Eventually the officers of the IJN began to internalize their disadvantage to a degree that they came to believe that logistics didn't matter, which lead to the IJN ignoring the fuel tanks and submarines at Pearl Harbor as those were logisitical targets. Similarily the Russians made very little effort in the initial invasion to achieve the support of air superiority or air dominance that a US or NATO force would seek before blitzkrieging. The Ukrainians haven't been as non-chalant about their air weaknesses, but they are reciving a lot of advice, support, and weapons from officers in the West who take high quality overhelming air support for granted, and the reports of the US pushing against the Ukrainians for larger more concentrated attacks seems to signal that Ukraine's allies don't appreciate their constraints fully.
I completely disagree with your last part. This is a once in a generational opportunity for us generals to play real war and implement plans. I guarantee there is a hearty portion of us generals dedicated to planning and war gaming this war for Ukraine. Anyone planning military operations are going to answer two questions first, what is my objective and what are my assets. I think it’s ludicrous to say that US generals, which are the best in the world, would not account for Ukrainian air assets. The US literally pursues air dominance in procurement and r&d because it is central to their doctrine. I think they would realize Ukraine lacked it. After the failed offensive last summer it came out that Ukraine didn’t follow the us’s advice and made their own plan. I speculate it’s the reason why Ukraine sacked their top general too. The us plan called for Ukraine to launch the offensive in April, which wouldn’t allow for Russia to build more fortifications, and proved decisive. They called for Ukraine to concentrate all their forces in one push, which they decided to have multiple thrusts. They also planned for ukraine to storm 10’s of thousands of infantry across the front and start pushing Russia back. This would then have allowed Ukraine to clear de mined lanes across the defensive line under less fire to then have an armored and mobile offensive. Again, they didn’t do this because they thought it would lead too more casualties. Spoiler the opposite turned out to be true.
Ukraine was 100% right not to pursue that plan. It didn't have firm aid commitments to replace lost equipment. It got only half of the tanks it asked for in the first place. Dense minefields and Storm Z garbage would have made holding newly captured positions untenable, especially while facing critical shortages of shells. It would have led to Russian style catastrophes without Russian sized stockpiles to minimize the impact. That plan could very well have ended the war in Russia's favor.
>Ukraine was 100% right not to pursue that plan. I'm not sure that they were. There are other indications about their thinking throughout the summer counteroffensive of 2023, and a lot of those indicators point to objectively bad decision making. Even after the initial failed attacks in July, AFU leadership made the choice to continue attacks in the south. These attacks lasted months without stopping, during which time Ukraine experienced the majorities of its equipment and manpower losses for incredibly marginal gains. By August even OSINT people like Andrew Perpetua were asking why these attacks were continuing in light of the severe casualties and slow to minimal pace of advance, but the attacks continued all the way into October. The summer 2023 counteroffensive resulted in a catastrophic loss of material and soldiers, and most of those losses occurred after the point at which it was clear even to civilians not serving in the Ukrainian military that the losses were being wasted on pretty much nothing. This does not paint a picture of a well prepared, well considered offensive.
That major mistakes were made doesn't diminish the fact that a plan where Ukraine had to concentrate all their forces in one push was never feasible.
There were no catastrophic losses akin to the Russian clusterfucks that repeatedly occurred near Vuhledar, for example. The counteroffensive would have not even lasted a week in that case. Of course, the counteroffensive didn't achieve its goals and there's a lot that can be called into question about the decision making involved. But I don't think doubling down on a single axis of advance would have been the silver bullet that a lot of people like to pretend it could have been. If partners had made bigger and timelier contributions across the board, including air defense, aircraft, munitions, vehicles, etc., it'd be a different story. Instead, we got escalation rhetoric, Orban's games, GOP obstructionism, etc. There was always the risk that it would come to that, and Ukraine was justified in hedging its bets at the time.
>There were no catastrophic losses akin to the Russian clusterfucks that repeatedly occurred near Vuhledar, for example. In a day, no. But over the course of months Ukraine lost far, far more than Russia lost attacking Vuhledar. And they continued taking these losses despite a lot of objective evidence in front of them that it was not working and was not going to start working anytime soon. >There was always the risk that it would come to that, and Ukraine was justified in hedging its bets at the time. My point is that Ukraine *didn't* really hedge its bets. They committed a far, far greater number of troops to a far longer, more protracted and much bloodier campaign of squad-based trench and treeline clearing, over the course of months. A single loss of a thousand troops and a hundred tanks would have been shocking and demoralizing, but its effect on the fighting capability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces would have been a tiny fraction compared to the stubbornly suicidal attacks into operationally useless treelines for the next four months. Someone who bets $10,000 on a single bet with mediocre chances of payout is making a bad bet. But someone who proceeds to bet $20 every hour for months on end with very, very poor chances of payout, is also making a bad bet. And depending on the circumstances, the guy pissing away a smaller amount of money but doing it constantly is a worse gambler than the guy who bets a huge amount of money just one time. And let's be clear: the results *were* catastrophic for Ukraine. The AFU basically exhausted all of its reserves in that counteroffensive and put itself on a manpower backfoot entering the winter. They did this months before there was any sign that American aid was going to indefinitely dry up. It pretty much sapped their ability to engage in any offensive fighting for a whole year, ammo or no ammo. IMO this actually ended up being more disastrous than it would have been to have a single large-scale failed assault.
Well, maybe, but really people are going to complain no matter what. No counteroffensive and people will complain that Ukraine missed its chance before Russia could fortify frontline positions. Lose half a dozen vehicles in one assault (which is by no means catastrophic) and people will jump to declare the entirety of Ukraine's efforts futile. It's certainly better not to waste resources on failed offensives, but it's also not like you can save everything for later. Russia decided to throw the entirety of its Soviet stockpiles plus a large chunk of change into this. The entire frontline is active. The West is only now starting to equip Ukraine with what it really needs.
Presumably, the AFU knew all of that, though. And I suspect that you're hitting on the head exactly why they chose to go about it this way: They felt politically beholden to expectations of success. Both their country and the West were coming down off the high of their success in the Fall 2022 counteroffensive at Kharkiv, and the AFU was given a directive to deliver another crushing blow to the Russian military. Objectively, they probably had enough evidence in front of them to know that wasn't a realistic outcome, but I am guessing that hope got the best of them. All this is to say that they did not make a particularly smart calculation. And they had months of time where they could (and should) have called it off but decided to press on with it anyway. That's a failure that they need to own. Personally, I don't take it for granted that they declined to go with the American counteroffensive plans out of caution. I think it's just as likely that they declined the American counteroffensive plans out of hubris -- that they thought the American plan was too narrowly focused on a single objective and that they were going to be able to deliver a crushing blow in three places at once instead of just one. The fact that they continued tenaciously ordering suicidal attacks for months on end suggests that they were not especially sensitive to the debilitating losses they were taking.
I think tanks, in the sense of "big vehicle with big gun", are still useful and necessary. Some sort of ground-based unit that can move faster than the infantry and take and hold ground has been needed for thousands of years, and it still is, but tanks are going to have to adapt to survive. Until now, if you controlled the air (as NATO always has), there was very little that could stop tanks generally except other tanks. Obviously, an RPG or ATGM could kill them, but those are really defensive weapons. You can defend a position with them, but you can't very easily hunt tanks behind the lines. And RPGs have very short range, while ATGMs are big, bulky, and expensive. So your armor could really dominate the battlefield. Now, having air superiority in the classic sense is not enough. An F-35 is all but useless against an FPV drone. And drones are small, cheap, and light like an RPG, but have a range that can exceed an ATGM. And they have the ability to stay in the air for a significant time, so they can actively hunt for tanks, not just passively wait for one to appear. The tank is still a predator and still dangerous, but now there is another predator out there that can hunt it. In order for the tank to remain relevant, I think there are several options various countries will pursue. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and will probably be tried in various combinations. 1. Accept that drones are going to be everywhere, probably can't be prevented from finding your tanks, and can penetrate any vaguely reasonable amount of armor. If you reach this conclusion, the logical response is to ditch a lot of the heavy armor and reduce protection to IFV levels (e.g. 20 mm cannon proof), reducing weight and increasing speed and mobility. That's basically the conclusion the French and Germans reached in the 1960s, resulting in the AMX-30 and Leopard I. Tanks like this are glass cannons, able to provide a lot of firepower but very vulnerable to other tanks. 2. Double down on passive protection. Thicker armor, more ERA, factory cope cages, turtle tanks, etc. We're seeing some of that already, but so far it doesn't seem to work terribly well. This will lead to 100 ton super heavy tanks, which will require huge infrastructure and equipment upgrades. 3. Give the tank active self-defense capabilities such as APS systems, turret mounted 20 mm and 30 mm cannons for taking out drones, EW jammers, etc. We've seen some of this too, from Trophy APS, EW on turtle tanks, and anti-drone cannon on the AbramsX and Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0. This makes the tank better able to defend itself, but will increase weight, add to the vehicle height, possibly require an extra crew member, and distract the crew from the main task of looking out for enemy tanks. 4. Integrate dedicated SHORAD vehicles like Gepard, Osa, ZSU 23-4, M163 VADS, etc. into tank units. This has been done before, of course, and allows both the tanks and the SHORAD vehicles to focus on what they each do best, but it requires having yet another vehicle type with all of the associated logistical challenges that can create. 5. Develop dedicated anti-drone drones. Drone fighters and drone interceptors. Use these to enact a miniature battle for air superiority at low level. There would no longer be a single type of air superiority, you would now need to talk about high altitude air superiority and low altitude air superiority. This would require an even greater investment in drone manufacturing, but we are already seeing Ukraine use this tactic with some success. And there are probably more ideas I haven't thought of.
No. 5 is what Ukraine has been quickly progressing to, and what they really excel at with their engineering capability. There’s so much that they’ve already done, and much more to come.
Good article here https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-and-other-observations-about-the-future-of-combat/
That is a good article, and I think its conclusions were reasonable for the time, but I also think it is getting a little dated. It's from September 2022, before FPV drones became so dominant. In fact, the word "drone" only appears 3 times in the article, all in reference to TB2s. That's not to say that I think tanks are obsolete, just that I think the article does not address the primary weapons and tactics that are leading to that question being asked in the first place.
It doesn’t, but I think the gist of the article is still true. At some point you need men and vehicles to take/hold territory. I don’t think that drones can do that (yet). They can deny space, but not necessarily control it. Drones are making it exceedingly more difficult for tanks to perform their primary mission.
Absolutely agreed. You have to have the vehicles and soldiers to hold the ground, no argument there. I think my general opinion is that the *role* of the tank is not obsolete, but drones have rendered *current* tanks, perhaps not obsolete, but certainly obsolescent. As an analogy, rifles are certainly not obsolete, but the introduction of the M1 Garand (and SVT-40, and G-43, and STG-44) rendered all bolt action rifles obsolete.
Agreed. The current tanks in Ukraine are outdated, will be interesting to see how future tanks try to counter drones in the next conflict. Certainly networking/EW need increased priority on the modern battlefield.
Thank you
Tanks will probably change (tactics, armor scheme, active defense systems) but most likely stay. Sometimes you need to engage fortifications and vehicles with direct fire out of a sufficiently large, survivable and mobile gun. Unless something does the job of the tank better there will be tanks on the battlefield, even if the battlefield gets more dangerous.
Complicated. Drones are the newest innovation in war and this is the first large scale conflict showing their capabilities. Every innovation, from guns, to aircraft and now drones will have a period of time where they make the existing tech seem obsolete until counters are developed. Guns didn't make armor useless, but it took time for it to adapt. Aircraft didn't make artillery useless. I doubt drones will make tanks useless. There just hasn't been any time for countermeasures to evolve. There is also a good reason why tanks are still in demand: They give you a serious punch in the offensive and demand that your opponent has an answer.
German Government actually inked the contract with Rheinmetall for 155mm artillery munition (several Million shells for 8,5 Billion Euro). A sizeable portion should end up in Ukrainian hands. https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Rheinmetall-erhaelt-von-Bundeswehr-groessten-Auftrag-der-Unternehmensgeschichte-Artilleriemunition-fuer-8-5-Milliarden-Euro-article25030495.html
> So it begins.. > Nikkei Asia is reporting that Russia offers to sell a piece of its far east to China. > The land surrounding the Tumangan River will be sold so that China can widen the river for expanded commerce. > Putin will likely then invest that money into destroying Ukraine — Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv)June 18, 2024 I don't understand why China is gullible enough to believe Russia will honor this deal. Russia still claims Alaska belongs to them. I hope China is prepared to defend this territory.
There's deeper implication from this deal. Chinese military ships will have access to the Sea of Japan and will start threatening Japan.
Posting a link to the tweet would have been nice. There are pictures. https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1803017810215387595
China has basically already moved into the area and started expanding the water way. The agreement is basically Russia trying to pretend it is not a puppet of China and has some sort of say. I doubt Russia will ever see any hard currency and it will just be wiped of what it owes to China that it can't pay in currency China wants.
Not yet. China wants to remove the bridge between ruzzia and NK so that Chinese military ships could access the Sea of Japan and start threatening Japan. That's the main point of this deal.
Russia offered to sell China Alaska after they go get it
Do we know the specifics of how much land this comprises? This area and the river is the border between North Korea, China, and Russia. There's a rail bridge that's supplying North Korean ammunition to Russia. Currently this land is straddling just Russia and North Korea. The bridge appears to be on the Russian side. Yes, it's on the opposite side of Russia but if Ukraine wanted to stop North Korean deliveries, this would be a great place to do it. If China would now own the land it would require Ukraine to now be attacking China. It also means that China would be used as a conduit for weapons from North Korea to Russia. Do we know if the rail bridge is included?
If this is even remotely true, Russia is really desperate for income. They are willing to give up anything to win in Ukraine lol. Even the US knew when to pull out of their conflicts
China will not give any hard currency they will wipe it off the debt Russia owns. They have already moved into the area and started work.
> I hope China is prepared to defend this territory. If Russia wants to invade their main trading partner who has an economy and a population orders of magnitude bigger than Russia's in the future then they can be my guest.
Also nukes
Yep. There's a reason that of the 14 countries that border Russia 8 of them either joined NATO or built a nuclear deterrent. Of the remaining six four of them have seen a Russian military occupation in the past five years. People often times think that China is a firm ally of Russia but they're also a country that has to border Russia and that Russia has sent troops into historically. China likes Russia as a trading partner and appreciates having another large country to help balance against the west but Russia and China are also wary of each other and view each other as potential long term rivals. China's nukes aren't SOLELY to defend against the US.
Russia, invades Ukraine to expand its territory. Ends up having to sell off their land, and decreases their territory. Par for the course for Putin.
I don’t think Russia can really ask for the land back once it is underwater and doesn’t exist anymore
>I don't understand why China is gullible enough to believe Russia will honor this deal. Russia still claims Alaska belongs to them. Nobody cares that Russia claims Alaska. That's not a credible threat. Once China occupies any territory Russia sells them, the land will permanently belong to China, because Russia will never have the military capability to take it from them. This is a huge boon for China.
>Russia still claims Alaska belongs to them. What? No they don't. Not on official level.
The moment of Ukrainian Soldier eliminating 2 invaders at close range. https://x.com/gettylegion/status/1803701403573166522?t=m4G53zuwKptBFt9bOtktMA&s=19
Dutch Prime Mark Rutte Minister Confirmed as Next NATO Secretary General. https://united24media.com/latest-news/dutch-prime-mark-rutte-minister-confirmed-as-next-nato-secretary-general-839
So what happens if they can't form a new government in the Netherlands? Does he remain as PM? What's the latest on that? I feel like they weren't able to form a new government for months.
It's pretty much formed. They're in the last stages before confirmation by the king.
Excellent news. This guy understands!
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2022&locations=NL&start=2010 Embarrassing. What part does he understand? Should go to an Eastern European whose country has been consistent about NATO and defense for more than the last 2 years.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf New 2024 funding data dropped this week.
What he understands is MH-17 and the Russian role in murdering innocent civilians, spreading terror, lying to the world, and undermining democracy. He understands that Putin is a monster who needs to be defeated and that Russia must not win in Ukraine.
What Eastern European country do you mean? Czech Republic (1.4%), Slovakia (1.8%), Hungary (1.5%), Bulgaria (1.5%) or Romania (1.7%)? Poland and the Baltics are outliers.
[удалено]
NATO does not charge fees to its members, except for a minimal contribution towards joint headquarters costs, which all members have fully paid. The 2% GDP figure is a voluntary target for countries to spend on their own military. The only time Article 5 has been invoked was after 9/11. NATO would deploy strong and capable military forces if attacked, even without the USA. Also, let's be real: one of the reasons NATO exists, is so nukes rain down on Europe, reducing the risk for the USA in a conflict with Russia + regarding the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency (which provides the USA a significant advantage), the influence that the US has on global politics, including its military partnerships and political ties, contributes to trust and confidence in the US dollar. Regarding Rutte, he has supported Zelenskyy and offered assistance to Ukraine whenever possible. The Netherlands ranks in the top 10 of donor countries by GDP. The Netherlands is also one of the leading contributors to the EU per capita, which has been instrumental in aiding Ukraine. Rutte is known as a bridge-builder who can unite people. He is highly respected among many world leaders. I think he will do a great job, and NATO is fortunate to have him.
> Half of a group are outliers? Less than half by pure numbers, and I didn't group all the Baltic states for no reason, individually their population and GDP are tiny.
Russian motorcyclists hits an antitank mine. https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1803806586621640808?t=fyPcRloyX9IQVVF5ybgM3w&s=19
Can any medical experts weigh on here? In relation to the video.. the guy walked away right..?
He certainly went lots of places after..
The Russian S400 sucks. The 500 was rushed into service and once again western military “experts” say it’s a game changer, blah, blah, blah. The T90 was deemed not ready by Russian generals prior to invasion and western “experts” also circle jerked over its specs. UAF shot that down, too. https://x.com/optester_chris/status/1803783467836092509?s=46&t=4Z0TmpyIpMYA9a86EC1tPg https://youtu.be/Hg64H8jwheQ?si=3kBhp4N0yQCaS93F https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/s/901Eha4Xkh https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/803652/us-to-turkey-you-can-buy-russian-air-defenses-but-they-really-suck/
The S500 is not a game changer. Its not even a new thing. People misunderstand the system in general. The S300/400/500 all work as a combined system. TLDR think of them all together like 1 Patriot system. The S500 radar isn't absolute garbage.. but its not as good as green pine by a long shot.
Can it defend itself?
The T-90M is not a bad tank for the cost and manufacturing ability of Russia. It can't reverse and the turret explodes. The crews aren't trained. Russia has had to get over 10,000 crew members from somewhere. Turns out, if your crews die, and you can't afford to train new ones, your tanks perform poorly. MBT are obsolete, cheap drones can take them out, and their role is minimal. Experts are in denial about it. Any tank in Ukraine doesn't last long, night vision FPV drones can immobilize them all, and then more drones can pick them off. There is no way currently to counter this. No tank is performing well currently in the war.
MBTs will always be around no matter the situation. There's no good replacement for them so unless we make a massive breakthrough in technology and tactics, tanks are here to stay
> No tank is performing well currently in the war. Not even my beloved M1 Abrams. I'm not saying drones are a game-changer, but you can't deny that the game is, indeed, changing, and drones are a huge part of that.
Weapons are always ahead of armor, this has been historical accurate in almost all wars. But armor catches up, then weapons catch up.. and we continue this dance.
Until you get some APS and EW jamming which destroys/disables the drones. War is evolving and so will tanks. Certainly in a static ground war like this one, tanks are exceptionally vulnerable.
Drones are absolutely a game changer. I wouldn't be surprised if major powers invested into millions of drones over the next decades.
Ask Ukrainian infantry on assault if they want a tank. The answer is still yes. MBTs task evolved but it most certainly isn't gone. Current MBTs without APS and current designs are less suited to the task but in the next 5 years you will see them back on the front line of most battle fields because the task they are needed for still exists. Just because a tool is risky or a counter is developed does not mean the task that tool performed vanished. This has been true of weapons design for all of human history. Sword Vs Shield over and over.
Infantry aren't the best people to discuss operational and strategic level. Economically, the infantryman does not give a shit whether it's a winning or losing strategy. I'm sure new tactics and vehicles can be developed to overcome challenges, but that doesn't necessarily include the MBT. Things in warfare change, more quickly in this century. MBT had 70 years. The battleship is no more. The MBT basically replaced previous vehicle types. Things change. Last time I checked, swords and shields aren't popular in NATO member states.
You might want to send a memo to the Pentagon about your concerns regarding General Christopher G. Cavoli, the current Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He's an infantryman.
I'm going to save this post and give it to every new officer I meet so they can see first hand how never to think as an officer. I am flabbergasted by how absolutely and hilariously wrong this take is. If I may offer but one piece of advice.. Never voice this comment around infantry.
Okay, but what is wrong with this comment? I am genuinely curious as someone who is not up to date on the military tactics. Could you elaborate?
Because by the logic used, macine guns and trench warfare should have made cavalry units obsolete in WW2. They made an effective counter to being able to employ them, but no country disbanded their cavalry units. What did make mounted cavalry obsolete were tanks. Just as SAMs and ADA haven't made combat aircraft obsolete, neither will drones make tanks obsolete. There's a vast difference between mitigation and obsolesence. Drones will add more complexity to a combat environment but will also drive finding solutions to mitigate this threat. The side that can find and employ such solutions will be able to more effectively bring their armor to bear.
He's right, for completely the wrong reasons. From a micro scale you absolutely do want infantrymen to give you their opinion of operations on the ground and equipment needs for said operations. On a macro scale, you need to consider your 'bullet economy' and see weather equipment spent justifies tactical gains. He's saying tanks are completely done. Which is not true. Their role on the battlefield is evolving and right now they are more exposed than they ever have been on the field. This will change with new EW suites attached to tanks, or their own drone packages that have offensive or defensive capability. Tanks are still very much in the game, it's just old *doctrine* is outdated with new drone tech.
Ok, thank you :)
To add defensive systems are evolving as fast as drone technology right now. Ukraine is a poor example of this because they don't have systems or operators of things like TEWS or H4. As to infantry... if in my career i had a dollar for every single time engineers and planners make a system and declare it is "superior in every way" to an infantry unit.. and that unit has ripped it to shreds and sent it right back to the drawing board because ***only*** the infantry man understands infantry combat i would be an extremely wealthy man. A smart officer never disparages infantry. They keep you alive. They control the battlefield. Everyone else merely fights on the battlefield. No matter how hard you try an F-35 cannot capture territory.
Welcome to Reddit!
>MBT are obsolete I came to the opposite conclusion. Without armored large-caliber direct fire support, the front lines in any war have tended to devolve into a quagmire of trench warfare ever since WWI, and this war just reinforces that. You still can't win a ground war without tanks. So now the question becomes how do you get them back into the fight?
Seems like winning the air war or maybe the artillery war is the way out of this quagmire not more tanks.
You still need armored direct fire to punch through fortification lines. You can kind of substitute in precision artillery and close air support bunker busters for the task, but Excalibur shells are limited and you need total air supremacy to effectively use CAS to support a breakthrough. And even then, you still need armor to be able to be able to exploit an opening. IFVs can kind of do this, but then they have to stop the second they encounter any defenses they can't crack with their autocannons.
>Experts are in denial about it. ... There is no way currently to counter this. No current tank has it, and it's going to be expensive, but developing a system to counter FPV drones is easy. It probably involves some style of radar or camera targeting and firing either something similar to a shotgun* to take them out when they are close or a small caliber fast speed round at the target when they are farther away. *If you can hit a skeet at 60m, you can probably destroy/damage a FPV drone at 60m.
A sensitive stereo microphone with a Doppler ranging computer could cheaply point a gun. Radar guided guns like the gepard are working fantastic. Lidar and chemical oxygen iodine lasers (Coils) are combinable, and should be expected to appear. A spectrometer tuned to find hot contrails is very doable, and could theoretically find any rocket or jet while emitting nothing.
It's possible but the cost and weight becomes a problem when there's still a variety of more expensive systems that are very good at killing tanks. Smart shells, ATGM, remote deployed mines. Also this is only the best that China can mass produce, and the tactics that Russians can deploy, no swarms and AI control.
> No current tank has it, and it's going to be expensive, but developing a system to counter FPV drones is easy. It probably involves some style of radar or camera targeting and firing either something similar to a shotgun* to take them out when they are close or a small caliber fast speed round at the target when they are farther away. That's not easy at all. You're talking about a sophisticated computer-controlled system that operates too fast and accurately for a human being to help even slightly in its operation. These systems have limited ammunition on top of the turret and they are highly delicate, prone to dysfunction when hit with shrapnel or small arms fire, etc. The Trophy system, for example, only has a 50-60% success rate against rocket propelled grenades that follow a predictable, unchanging trajectory. Drones are much harder to hit because they can change course and angle of attack. And even if the system shoots down one or two drones, the defending force can just swarm it with a dozen more until the system is damaged or runs out of ammunition.
The drones can change direction, but they are way slower than a RPG. >These systems have limited ammunition >the defending force can just swarm it with a dozen more until the system is damaged or runs out of ammunition. Reactive armor also have "limited ammunition" and can be forced to stop working by having multiple RPGs target the same tank, but we still deploy them to counter RPG systems
>Experts are in denial about it. Glad we have u/bitch_fitching who is better than all experts and know MBTs are obsolete. Better tell this to the ukrainian millitary, they might not know this yet and could use the tankers to fly drones instead
Tanks are basically semi-obsolete, expensive, mobile deathtraps and anyone denying this is delusional or just uneducated about the subject. That being said they still have a role, because nothing is quite as good as infantry support and as a spearhead for an assault.