Russia Masses Military Equipment Near Ukraine Borders: A Prologue to WWIII?

[Trelane]

29 minutes ago, and-then said:

Who knows?  It seems far more likely that infantry with Russia's equivalent to the Javelin type anti-tank missile will be the real threat to any of these platforms.  I don't know anything about the Leopards but I do recall being shocked back during the war in Iraq to hear that one of our Abrams was penetrated by an RPG that killed some of its crew.  No tank is invulnerable.  Fire and maneuver is the key and that's why training is so important.  I assume the Leopards will begin arriving next month but it sounds like the Abrams won't be ready to put in the field until late summer.

Russia is building up forces in the east and south in preparation for a spring or maybe even late-winter push.  The coming weeks could be decisive.

Russia's "infantry" has been getting smeared across the battlefield for months now. Their recent conscripts are not equipped or remotely trained to effectively counter any armored column. The Ukraine Army now has the upper hand in that their infantry and cavalry-type units have almost a full year of experience under their belt and are only improving their TTPs.  That experience coupled with increased and improved weapons/equipment will be one of the key elements to the Ukrainian victory.

[Trelane]

21 hours ago, and-then said:

I believe we were working behind the scenes since 2014.  Had we not put in all that effort and funding, Putin would have accomplished his goal of a two week war.  I also believe that Ukraine aid has become a cash cow for DC players and they'd watch the country bled white to keep the money coming.  We seem to be positioning ourselves such that we cannot be seen to lose.  Putin is in exactly the same fix.  What's your opinion about that kind of stalemate?  Do you believe he will allow all Russian forces to be pushed out of Ukraine, to include Crimea?

What makes you believe that? Keeping political guesswork out of it, what from theater specific actions did the US make then that makes you believe that. Strategically speaking it wasn't a top issue until the Russians illegally invaded and annexed Crimea.

[Helen of Annoy]

2 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Iran will do well with its drones and rockets. 

****ty iranian drones are slow, loud and can be taken down even by small calibre. 

****ty iranian helmets and other junk are almost as ****ty as Chinese toys some morons were buying instead of actual gear. 

How ****ty are iranian missiles we won't know because Iran doesn't dare delivering them to russia. But some russian propagandists were saying russia should give nukes to Iran so they can finally squash Israel. Just to give you a feeling on what level of idiotism kremlin operates. (Make threats to the left and to the right and pray there are idiots who will get scared and appease you.) 

Speaking of ****ty equipment, russia did a favour to its naive customers (such as India) when it sent tanks and other junk to the front instead of to the buyers. Who already paid. karma-karma-karma-chameleon... you come and go, you come and... *pops turret* 

[Helen of Annoy]

 

Ukraine needs more of anti-aircraft systems. 

(Since pro-orc excuse is always "oh, but it's expensive", let's repeat that industry wants and needs new orders, that it's good for the economy of the countries of these same *******s who cling to russian talking points, and also, sending your product to become a legend in Ukraine is the best advertisement possible.)

[Helen of Annoy]

Divine sound.  

 

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

'That's called WW3': Biden crosses own red line by giving 'offensive equipment' to Ukraine

Joe Biden's decision to send 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine is a stunning U-turn on the President's previous pronouncements. The President has been reluctant to send in tanks and other high-grade military equipment, lest it drags America and its allies into direct conflict with Russia. Back in March last year, Biden said in a speech: “The idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment, and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews - just understand.

"Don't kid yourself. No matter what you all say, that's called World War III. Okay? Let's get it straight here guys."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/us/1726468/Joe-biden-Ukraine-ww3-warning-tanks-us-germany-latest-dxus

So now your just posting an article about that same tweet you posted only a day ago? Lol.

Once again Bidens speech said sending equipment with american Pilots and crews.

Yeah if we sent our military to Ukraine it could start to look like WW3

[Helen of Annoy]

13 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

So now your just posting an article about that same tweet you posted only a day ago? Lol.

Once again Bidens speech said sending equipment with american Pilots and crews.

Yeah if we sent our military to Ukraine it could start to look like WW3

Not to mention that Ukraine does not need men, they've got their own. Pilots too. Who might or might be not training already and switching to Western aircraft of undisclosed types, which were chosen in cooperation with Ukrainians who are going to fly them, of course. 

It's typically russian and heftily offensive propaganda insisting that Ukrainians are too stupid to learn how to use new types of equipment. 

Just like it is with any other accusation russia makes, russia is actually talking about their own problems again. 

 

(An example of disastrous lack of any skill of russian tank crew, it has to be clicked if you want to see it because it shows actual combat situation, but there's no gore.)

Spoiler

 

 

Edited January 26 by Helen of Annoy

[el midgetron]

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

So now your just posting an article about that same tweet you posted only a day ago? Lol.

Once again Bidens speech said sending equipment with american Pilots and crews.

Yeah if we sent our military to Ukraine it could start to look like WW3

And again you miss the context that Biden made that comment in response to rejecting sending only jets to Ukraine. It wasn’t a package deal that included jets and pilots, or tanks and crews. He made that deceleration over just sending jets. So, he rejected sending jets because -

“The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews — just understand, don’t kid yourself, no matter what y’all say, that’s called World War III,”  

So, why would Joe say that if the deal he was rejecting didn’t include pilots? Or tanks and crews? Because there is a context to his words that is lost on you. If he can say those words in defense of rejecting sending only jets, then it’s totally within context to point those words out when he agrees to send tanks, 

“That’s called World War III’: Biden defends decision not to send jets to Ukraine”

https://nypost.com/2022/03/11/thats-called-world-war-iii-biden-defends-decision-not-to-send-jets-to-ukraine/

[Helen of Annoy]

A simple flow chart that should be used instead of treating vatniks as if russian talking points can be taken seriously. 

[godnodog]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

I think China will do whatever they want.  The have allot of customers who still buy from them.  The US is so dependent on China stuff that I'm not sure it wouldn't hurt the USA more in the short time.   

On the other hand China is too dependent on US trade

[Myles]

4 minutes ago, godnodog said:

On the other hand China is too dependent on US trade

That is true.   In the long term it would be beneficial to the USA to have sanctions against China.  We would be forced to start more manufacturing facilities.   

[Occult1]

11 minutes ago, godnodog said:

On the other hand China is too dependent on US trade

The other way around is also true.

America’s Dependence on China Is a Crisis in the Making

https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/americas-dependence-china-crisis-the-making

[ThereWeAreThen]

27 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

And again you miss the context that Biden made that comment in response to rejecting sending only jets to Ukraine. It wasn’t a package deal that included jets and pilots, or tanks and crews. He made that deceleration over just sending jets. So, he rejected sending jets because -

“The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews — just understand, don’t kid yourself, no matter what y’all say, that’s called World War III,”  

So, why would Joe say that if the deal he was rejecting didn’t include pilots? Or tanks and crews? Because there is a context to his words that is lost on you. If he can say those words in defense of rejecting sending only jets, then it’s totally within context to point those words out when he agrees to send tanks, 

“That’s called World War III’: Biden defends decision not to send jets to Ukraine”

https://nypost.com/2022/03/11/thats-called-world-war-iii-biden-defends-decision-not-to-send-jets-to-ukraine/

But it clearly says there. WITH AMERICAN PILOTS/CREW. Don't get how you cant understand that.

[godnodog]

3 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

The other way around is also true.

America’s Dependence on China Is a Crisis in the Making

https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/americas-dependence-china-crisis-the-making

yes it is, and that was what Miles wrote and I replied.
 

[ThereWeAreThen]

10 minutes ago, Myles said:

That is true.   In the long term it would be beneficial to the USA to have sanctions against China.  We would be forced to start more manufacturing facilities.   

I think we need to (UK and EU aswell) regards to sanctioning China but it won't happen. Europe (UK included) isn't as powerful as it once was. Plus if manufacturing returns to Europe prices will no doubt sky rocket even more.

[el midgetron]

7 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

But it clearly says there. WITH AMERICAN PILOTS/CREW. Don't get how you cant understand that.

So then, senile Biden must have thought the deal he was rejecting included pilots? Because like you say, he clearly says “pilots”.  Why did Joe say that if pilots weren’t being sent???
 

Or maybe a better question is why would Joe reject sending Jets if his objection was hinged on including pilots? 

 

[odas]

11 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

I think we need to (UK and EU aswell) regards to sanctioning China but it won't happen. Europe (UK included) isn't as powerful as it once was. Plus if manufacturing returns to Europe prices will no doubt sky rocket even more.

The only or primary reason "we" depend on china is the corporate greed. WE really do not depend on china, it is the corporate profit margins that have no or little impact on our wallet. Produce an I phone in china for two bucks, we still have to pay a grand for it. How did we manage to keep prices low with domestic manufacturing before we outsourced to china?

However, imposing sanctions on china now would be not in our interest. So far they only support russia. In case of sanctions they will BE with russia. One step at a time. When Ukraine is liberated things will change anyway economicaly with a hope that the UK will get back on their feet and find a common goal with EU without being a part of it. One step at a time.

[el midgetron]

But Ukraine is also suffering enormous casualties in the battle and expending tremendous amounts of artillery ammunition daily – a style of fighting that the US does not believe is sustainable. In terms of sheer volume, Russia still has more artillery ammunition and manpower, with the paramilitary organization Wagner Groupusing thousands of convicts to “throw bodies” at the battle, the Western intelligence official said.

US officials are hoping the latest delivery of armored equipment and the newly expanded training for Ukrainian forces in Germany will encourage Ukraine to shift its tactics.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

I think China will do whatever they want.  The have allot of customers who still buy from them.  The US is so dependent on China stuff that I'm not sure it wouldn't hurt the USA more in the short time.   

It will probably hurt us.  But China's problems are internal.  Their response to covid lockdowns has raised ire among its citizen.  Their home-developed vaccine is only about 50-60% effective so once covid escaped confinement it has run across the countryside.  They had no structured vaccine program. Factories were shut down, in others workers were quarantined within the factory compound.   You are sure right, stuff the rest of the world buys is not being produced in pre-covid quantities.  Chinese citizens are quite restless about that, even chanting for Xi to step down.  To us that seems a small thing, but in China, that can result in disappearance.

Chinese banking and real estate are struggling with massive losses and it appears a lot of citizens have lost life savings buying apartments that don't exist.  People are unhappy about that too.

JMO, It may pose an interesting question for the West.  We tend to like stability.  The US in particular has supported despotic regimes in the name of stability.  Will we just sit back and let China play out, will we encourage the people because we are champions of democracy, or will we quietly give some aid to Xi because we like stability and our economy and consumer goods are on the line?

Right now, sanctions from the West might push China  into a downward spiral, so they have some pressure to mind their P's and Q's.

[Trelane]

46 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

But Ukraine is also suffering enormous casualties in the battle and expending tremendous amounts of artillery ammunition daily – a style of fighting that the US does not believe is sustainable. In terms of sheer volume, Russia still has more artillery ammunition and manpower, with the paramilitary organization Wagner Groupusing thousands of convicts to “throw bodies” at the battle, the Western intelligence official said.

US officials are hoping the latest delivery of armored equipment and the newly expanded training for Ukrainian forces in Germany will encourage Ukraine to shift its tactics.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Do you have side by side comparison of casualties vetted by a third-party source? What "tactics" do you see changing? Or I should say what, tactically speaking, will change how they conduct operations in theatre of operations?

Edited January 26 by Trelane

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

The good General has been noted for ignoring what the defense intelligence agencies' reports show in various areas. Quite possibly the worst Chairman the DoD has ever had. 

I have no idea about his proficiency in anything but practicing politics.  I'm not sure he has ever been in combat.  IMO, there should NEVER be a chairman of the JCS who has never faced combat.  If Russia's mobilization actually produces the numbers they are claiming, they will significantly outnumber the Ukrainian defenders.  Now that NATO has pushed in most of their chips and they are looking like an easy sell for Zelenskyy where 4th gen fighter jets are concerned, Putin's generals are likely to go on the offensive sooner rather than later.

If this winter offensive by Russia is successful - against all odds - and Ukraine is being overrun by a massive assault, I just hope we see peace negotiations rather than the insanity of NATO/US deciding they CANNOT LOSE so they take the final step of escalation.  I tend to believe that that die has already been cast.  I think at a minimum, NATO would roll in to create a safe area in the western part of the country.  What could possibly go wrong, eh?

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, Myles said:

I think China will do whatever they want.  The have allot of customers who still buy from them.  The US is so dependent on China stuff that I'm not sure it wouldn't hurt the USA more in the short time.   

Hi Myles

Not sure if you saw this video that OverSword posted in another thread and is worth watching.

 

[Helen of Annoy]

5 minutes ago, and-then said:

  I think at a minimum, NATO would roll in to create a safe area in the western part of the country.  

There will be no partitioning of Ukraine. 

Even russians understood that by now. 

It's beyond ridiculous that such narrative is still being spammed in the USA.  

[Trelane]

12 minutes ago, and-then said:

I have no idea about his proficiency in anything but practicing politics.  I'm not sure he has ever been in combat.  IMO, there should NEVER be a chairman of the JCS who has never faced combat.  If Russia's mobilization actually produces the numbers they are claiming, they will significantly outnumber the Ukrainian defenders.  Now that NATO has pushed in most of their chips and they are looking like an easy sell for Zelenskyy where 4th gen fighter jets are concerned, Putin's generals are likely to go on the offensive sooner rather than later.

If this winter offensive by Russia is successful - against all odds - and Ukraine is being overrun by a massive assault, I just hope we see peace negotiations rather than the insanity of NATO/US deciding they CANNOT LOSE so they take the final step of escalation.  I tend to believe that that die has already been cast.  I think at a minimum, NATO would roll in to create a safe area in the western part of the country.  What could possibly go wrong, eh?

His operational experience in theaters of combat is what makes his chairmanship baffling to those of us "in the game" for years. His audio and visual don't match the rest of his library so to speak.

 

Numbers of untrained and under equipped will only equal greater casualty levels for the Russian military. The equipment and munitions that are being allocated are notable in that it will further enhance the Ukrainian military's lethality. Their force projection is only getting stronger.

[Helen of Annoy]

 

So, natural causes