BritDownUnder wrote: ↑20 Feb 2024, 07:14
NATO needs to focus on this.
Yes. But there is a wild card involved, by the name of Donald Trump. Trump appears to believe Europe should be footing the bill for its own defence, instead of relying on the US, and is giving the distinct impression that he'd like to NATO wound up entirely.
In the end Trump speaks the truth. The US spends about 3.8% of its GDP on defence and European countries average under 2%. I think Russia is now spending about 8% on defence, or should that be offence. So Europe does need to spend more. To me, on Russia it does seem that Trump has been "Kompromat" by the Russian intelligence services somehow. I hope he goes for more tariffs on China first rather than focusing on Ukraine.
Totally right about the military industrial complex. For instance how much of the $100bn of US arms going to Ukraine stays in the US as wages and taxes. About 80% I would guess.
UK test firing of Trident missile fails, apparently the main rocket motor failed to start after the initial ejection from the sub. Previous firing (in 2015!) Also failed.
A bit worrying that we are so cash strapped t hat we only test our nuclear defence rockets once a decade.
Once a decade and two fail in a row... Bit embarrassing - these are US rocket failures. The actual UK warhead is another level of uncertainty. And folk suggest Russian nukes won't fly? They have recently had successful (apparently) tests.
clv101 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2024, 12:07
Once a decade and two fail in a row... Bit embarrassing - these are US rocket failures. The actual UK warhead is another level of uncertainty. And folk suggest Russian nukes won't fly? They have recently had successful (apparently) tests.
Apparently £17m a pop - wonder if we can reclaim that from the US manufacturer ?
Dear old Grant Shapps was on board - presumably to get some reflected glory for the government - another massive fail...
Russia has passed a law that anyone born in any former part of the soviet union before it's dissolution is automatically given Russian citizenship. This means that they can now claim to have a need to defend the rights of these millions of people living in the countries of Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Etc., just as they are defending the rights of Russians living in Ukraine, by bombing them and destroying their cities.
Putin will not stop if Ukraine is defeated.
It does appear that Ukraine lost a lot of people killed or captured in Avdiivka, with little sign of the Russians going out of their way to follow the Geneva convention.
T55 tanks are now regularly being seen used in the front lines by Russia, showing just how much hardware they have lost. However, Russia appears to have enough men signing up to fight to sustain their astronomical casualty rate. Ukraine keeps reporting more Russian aircraft shot down. Not all confirmed, but Russia does seem to have gained air superiority in the Avdiivka area, presumably due to ammunition shortages for Ukraine, and their use of glide bombs have made them a prime target for Ukraine to attack. First F16s are due in May.
Russia is continuing its broad offensives in the lead up to Putin's sham election, with small gains in some areas. Reports that Iran is supplying a large stock of precision missiles that will seriously stretch Ukrainian air defences.
clv101 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2024, 12:07
Once a decade and two fail in a row... Bit embarrassing - these are US rocket failures. The actual UK warhead is another level of uncertainty. And folk suggest Russian nukes won't fly? They have recently had successful (apparently) tests.
Apparently £17m a pop - wonder if we can reclaim that from the US manufacturer ?
Dear old Grant Shapps was on board - presumably to get some reflected glory for the government - another massive fail...
All the more reason why the UK should have several nuclear delivery systems; cruise missiles, torpedoes, even drones should be considered.
17 mill isn't a lot in the big scheme of things. The UK wastes that on hotels for 'refugees' every day.
Reports, as yet only from unreliable Ukrainian sources, that a second Russian AWACs has been downed. This would be a major loss to the Russians as they only have less than 10 of these aircraft, and now will need to withdraw any remaining from the combat zone. They cost over 100M each and are not readily replaceable. Their withdrawal will make their combat aircraft more vulnerable, in a week that Ukraine claims to have downed 7.
I have seen a video of a downed plane, but could not identify the model, date or nationality.
Separately, a report suggests that in 2023 Russia built more combat aircraft than Ukraine shot down. This is possible, as for most of that year, Russia did not risk their use close to the front lines. It is only now that glide bombs have proved effective weapons, that Russia is risking their deployment in a ground attack role
UndercoverElephant wrote: ↑20 Nov 2023, 14:26
You can only see one side of this. You see everything in a pro-Russian light, and have done from the start. There is no balance to your position.
There is absolutely no reason to believe Ukraine is going to capitulate any time soon. There's not even any reason to believe Russia is ever going to make any more significant gains in this war. How long it takes Ukraine to regain control of the temporarily occupied territory remains to be seen. It took a decade for the Afghans to kick the Russians out.
Reading back this thread always provides amusing reading.
Ukraine claims to have shot down 10 aircraft in 10 days. At that rate Russia is out of modern ground attack aircraft by summer. That would put a dent in Russia's current local air superiority. I expect Russia to end it's offensive as soon as Putin is "re-elected".
After that, it is down to Trump and the Republicans.
In a very unexpected plot twist, Ukraine appears to be in agreement with the Kremlin on Alexei Navalny's death inside a far northern Russian prison which occurred on Feb. 16 and was listed by Russian authorities as officially due to "natural causes". The dominant Western narrative has thus far been that Putin had him "murdered".
Yet now Kiev sources are saying that the anti-Putin activist supported by the West died of a blood clot. Surprisingly, this explanation is being advanced among Ukraine media sources after none other than Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR), bluntly stated it to a group of journalists on Sunday. "I may disappoint you, but as far as we know, he indeed died as a result of a blood clot. And this has been more or less confirmed," Budanov stated.
In a very unexpected plot twist, Ukraine appears to be in agreement with the Kremlin on Alexei Navalny's death inside a far northern Russian prison which occurred on Feb. 16 and was listed by Russian authorities as officially due to "natural causes". The dominant Western narrative has thus far been that Putin had him "murdered".
Yet now Kiev sources are saying that the anti-Putin activist supported by the West died of a blood clot. Surprisingly, this explanation is being advanced among Ukraine media sources after none other than Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR), bluntly stated it to a group of journalists on Sunday. "I may disappoint you, but as far as we know, he indeed died as a result of a blood clot. And this has been more or less confirmed," Budanov stated.
Except that if this was actually true, there would have been no reason not to release his body to the family in a normal manner. If you've got nothing to hide then there is no reason to behave as if you have something to hide.
And anyway, how could Ukraine know what killed Navalny? All possible evidence has come through Russian sources.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
