"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

About equipment delivery to Ukraine.
Tom Cooper summarised nicely:
"Ah well: at least the — cumulative — results of all the 'strenuous efforts' of the EU/USA/NATO to help Ukraine already have-, or at least are in the process of resulting in delivery of 118 M777s from USA, Canada, and Australia; 72 Krab self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) from Poland (18 are already in Ukraine); 20 M109A3GN from Norway, on top of at least 8, probably more of Zuzana-2s from Slovakia, and about 30+ Dana/Dana M2s from the Czech Republic, etc…. well, with Estonia- and Italy-provided FH.70s, and French-delivered Caesars…. plus all the possible support equipment and about 400,000 rounds of associated ammunition….sometimes by July or August Ukrainian Army is going to have one of 'most potent artillery corpses in Europe'. At least by standards from before 24 February 2022. Until then, thousands are going to die, additional thousands are going to end maimed for the time of their life, and scores of Ukrainian villages are going to be ruined forever…"
 
Could it be that the Russians on purpose start to draw back slightly at Severodonetsk in order to draw in more UAF units?
Looking at a map, anyone (including the UAF) can see that ca. 30km behind is a gap (presently UAF controlled) which measures less then 15km in depth from Berestove to Siversk, with no rivers or larger forested areas in between.
If the RF manage to close that gap, then around 35-40 UAF BTG's are trapped in this "Lysychansk" pocket.

There are around 20 RF BTG's assembling around Berestove presently reinforcing around 12,000 other RF , maybe the UAF should rather draw back then to keep going in? what do you guys think?
 

Attachments

  • Lysychansk pocket.png
    Lysychansk pocket.png
    214.8 KB · Views: 18
  • Pocket.png
    Pocket.png
    204.7 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Dimlee said:
About equipment delivery to Ukraine.
Tom Cooper summarised nicely:
"Ah well: at least the — cumulative — results of all the 'strenuous efforts' of the EU/USA/NATO to help Ukraine already have-, or at least are in the process of resulting in delivery of 118 M777s from USA, Canada, and Australia; 72 Krab self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) from Poland (18 are already in Ukraine); 20 M109A3GN from Norway, on top of at least 8, probably more of Zuzana-2s from Slovakia, and about 30+ Dana/Dana M2s from the Czech Republic, etc…. well, with Estonia- and Italy-provided FH.70s, and French-delivered Caesars…. plus all the possible support equipment and about 400,000 rounds of associated ammunition….sometimes by July or August Ukrainian Army is going to have one of 'most potent artillery corpses in Europe'.
Click to expand...
What about tanks? Is anyone going to provide modern MBTs? Have the UAF been training on Leo II or Abrams? What of the Polish T-72s?
 
Admiral Beez said:
What about tanks? Is anyone going to provide modern MBTs? Have the UAF been training on Leo II or Abrams? What of the Polish T-72s?
Click to expand...
For me the big unknown is what is happening regarding aircraft. No one seems to be talking about it but it will be critical. If heaven forbid, the Russians do spring a surprise then only supporting aircraft may stop it turning into a rout. If Ukraine are able to make a breakthrough you can be sure anything that can fly will be thrown by Russia into the fray to stop their forces routing, (which is far more likely).

Personally I hope the USA are getting a serious number of F16's out of storage and preparing them, whilst suitable training regimes are in place to fly and support them. The cost the the taxpayer will be relatively low and the benefit huge.
 
Glider said:
For me the big unknown is what is happening regarding aircraft. No one seems to be talking about it but it will be critical. If heaven forbid, the Russians do spring a surprise then only supporting aircraft may stop it turning into a rout. If Ukraine are able to make a breakthrough you can be sure anything that can fly will be thrown by Russia into the fray to stop their forces routing, (which is far more likely).

Personally I hope the USA are getting a serious number of F16's out of storage and preparing them, whilst suitable training regimes are in place to fly and support them. The cost the the taxpayer will be relatively low and the benefit huge.
Click to expand...
I am quite sure that UAF pilots have been trained on e.g. F-16 and other aircraft already in the past months - the question is as to how far the USA or NATO want to go towards escalation by actually supplying diverse aircraft to Ukraine. Presently discontent/disagreements among NATO members towards prolonging this war at it's present level seem to be rather on the rise.
 
Jagdflieger said:
I am quite sure that UAF pilots have been trained on e.g. F-16 and other aircraft already in the past months - the question is as to how far the USA or NATO want to go towards escalation by actually supplying diverse aircraft to Ukraine. Presently discontent/disagreements among NATO members towards prolonging this war at it's present level seem to be rather on the rise.
Click to expand...
Jag
I hope your right about the training and general preparation regarding fighters. Also I do believe that you are right about the first signs of disagreement between Nato members in particular France and Germany. However on a more positive note, Urkraine now seems to be getting Drones that can fly considerable distances and drop very effective payloads. The difference between a drone that have that ability and aircraft that have a similar ability is starting to narrow.

On a more general note, the quality of the equipment that Ukraine seems to be getting is increasing, whilst the quality of the equipment that is being issues to the Russian front line seems to be getting worse. That can only be a help to the Ukraine
 
Glider said:
Jag
I hope your right about the training and general preparation regarding fighters. Also I do believe that you are right about the first signs of disagreement between Nato members in particular France and Germany. However on a more positive note, Urkraine now seems to be getting Drones that can fly considerable distances and drop very effective payloads. The difference between a drone that have that ability and aircraft that have a similar ability is starting to narrow.

On a more general note, the quality of the equipment that Ukraine seems to be getting is increasing, whilst the quality of the equipment that is being issues to the Russian front line seems to be getting worse. That can only be a help to the Ukraine
Click to expand...
Glider
I agree with your assessment, but IMO unless NATO starts to bring in heavy stuff and aircraft in respectable numbers - the present military stalemate between Ukraine and Russia can't really be undone. As such an "endless" war will be inevitable.
NATO is not in favor of an "endless" war (fear of $ and political changes)- nor do they believe in escalation via sending those weapons in unspecified quantities.
So I think it takes time (continued Ukrainian losses on behalf of their citizens and military) in order for NATO to give the Ukrainians just about the "exact" quantity to slightly influence the equilibrium without drifting towards a potential escalation.
 
The way to prevent endless war is to utterly annihilate Russia's ability to wage war. Putin must be humiliated (contrary to to what Macron might think) and not be allowed to claim any gains. Putin's complete military defeat is the only way he will be removed (by the Russians). I would think Macron would do well to remember the cost of appeasement.
 
SaparotRob said:
The way to prevent endless war is to utterly annihilate Russia's ability to wage war. Putin must be humiliated (contrary to to what Macron might think) and not be allowed to claim any gains. Putin's complete military defeat is the only way he will be removed (by the Russians). I would think Macron would do well to remember the cost of appeasement.
Click to expand...

At the same time we must be wary of Versailles 2.0 fueling revanchist sentiments in Russia the next few decades. It's a fine line to walk here.
 
SaparotRob said:
The way to prevent endless war is to utterly annihilate Russia's ability to wage war. Putin must be humiliated (contrary to to what Macron might think) and not be allowed to claim any gains. Putin's complete military defeat is the only way he will be removed (by the Russians).
Click to expand...
From a military tactical view of point I would say - Yes absolutely
However there isn't a single day were Russia/Putin isn't described as an evil maniac and being utterly reckless towards human lives.
If so, then once he realizes his defeat, what is to stop him from nuking Ukraine back to the stone-age? motto: okay NATO take what is left of it and don't forget to bring your ABC suits.
And nuking Ukraine (just my opinion) is not going to escalate into NATO nuking Russia.

As such I have to agree with Macron, to safe Putin's face might be of utmost importance - but slowly change the military equilibrium to make Putin realize, he is not going to win even in the long run.
End of story: Selenskyj will have to cede territory to Putin, or at minimum acknowledge several free Republics, whether he likes it or not.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
At the same time we must be wary of Versailles 2.0 fueling revanchist sentiments in Russia the next few decades. It's a fine line to walk here.
Click to expand...
Well... Versailles 2.0 revanchism is already there in Russian Federation. Despite all the help given by the West, the wealth gained thanks to Western expertise and investments, opportunities to leave peacefully and prosper.
 
Dimlee said:
Well... Versailles 2.0 revanchism is already there in Russian Federation. Despite all the help given by the West, the wealth gained thanks to Western expertise and investments, opportunities to leave peacefully and prosper.
Click to expand...

No need to fuel it further, then. Sanctions as tools of diplomacy only work in the context of quid pro quo. It stands to reason, then, that we should tie the lifting of sanctions to Russian reparations to Ukraine, preferably in a sequence of benchmarks resulting in their easing, and leaving the sanctions in place against Russian leadership in any event.
 
Last edited:
There is the Budapest Memorandum, which is an intetesting accord.

The signatories pledged to not only respect the sovereign states of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, but defend them in the event of attack.

Technically speaking, Russia (one of the signatories) has violated the accord and technically speaking, the UK and US (the other signatories) are within the agreement's boundaries to come to the aid of Ukraine militarily.

This talk about "oh, look out, Russia has nuclear weapons!" misses the point that other nations do, too. Putin can threaten all day long, but knows that if he does, he'll get what he gives.

If Russia deploys a nuke(s) in Ukraine, the US and UK can, legally, according to the Budapest Memorandum, respond.

This would have zero to do with NATO, too.
 
Jagdflieger said:
Could it be that the Russians on purpose start to draw back slightly at Severodonetsk in order to draw in more UAF units?
Looking at a map, anyone (including the UAF) can see that ca. 30km behind is a gap (presently UAF controlled) which measures less then 15km in depth from Berestove to Siversk, with no rivers or larger forested areas in between.
If the RF manage to close that gap, then around 35-40 UAF BTG's are trapped in this "Lysychansk" pocket.

There are around 20 RF BTG's assembling around Berestove presently reinforcing around 12,000 other RF , maybe the UAF should rather draw back then to keep going in? what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Well maybe you are right and this time Russians can encircle something.

FUW23vWWQAAz10K.jpg


However I think they need to cross a river to advance north-to-south. And the advance south-to-north form Popasna was stooped a few days ago.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
At the same time we must be wary of Versailles 2.0 fueling revanchist sentiments in Russia the next few decades. It's a fine line to walk here.
Click to expand...

Versailles resulted in the loss of some territory, constraints on German weapons and army, and payment of compensations. That resulted in WWII a couple decades later.
However after WWII Germany, was totally destroyed, lost much more territory, and was split in four zones of occupation that took more than 4 decades to reunify.

In my opinion the second was a much more humiliating defeat, and yet, it resulted in almost 80 years of peace ...
 
RogerdeLluria said:
Versailles resulted in the loss of some territory, constraints on German weapons and army, and payment of compensations. That resulted in WWII a couple decades later.
However after WWII Germany, was totally destroyed, lost much more territory, and was split in four zones of occupation that took more than 4 decades to reunify.

In my opinion the second was a much more humiliating defeat, and yet, it resulted in almost 80 years of peace ...
Click to expand...

Occupation, along with the Marshall Plan, is what brough Germany back into the fold of democratic nations. We still have thousands of army troops based on German soil.

You're not going to be putting an army of occupation into Russia any time soon.

As for the link between Versailles and WWII, it's there, and it's palpable, but I think the biggest factor was the economy of the late 1920s/early 1930s, and also the social unrest and violence of that era, leading Germany to turn to authoritarianism (and later, totalitarianism) as an answer to its ills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Frog
Total: 2 (members: 1, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
854
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
514
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
284
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
USAF Provides More Proof That UFOs are Real!
Replies
0
Views
338
MIflyer
M
Back