GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I stopped reading at: "defence production in Russia, Iran, North Korea and China is overwhelming that of the West".
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It's not reading the influx of weapons from China and the DPRK to Russia that bug me. It's what wasn't done a year or so ago and current events that do.
RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,297
- Jul 5, 2015
Damn you stopped almost at the end
.The sad thing is that he is right, at least for now. It's not a problem of capability but of (political) will and pouring economic resources where is needed. Defense companies are not going to rump-up production without long term contracts.
My feeling is that the west got complacent with the 2022 success of Ukraine and expected the war to be over by late 2023, now it's obvious that this will be a long term war of attrition. Unfortunately we (our politicians actually) wasted 2 years. Ramping-up is not something you do in a matter of weeks, it takes years. And I'm afraid we will lose another year, you know this thing called elections has its perks ...
Good point as to ramping up.Damn you stopped almost at the end
The sad thing is that he is right, at least for now. It's not a problem of capability but of (political) will and pouring economic resources where is needed. Defense companies are not going to rump-up production without long term contracts.
My feeling is that the west got complacent with the 2022 success of Ukraine and expected the war to be over by late 2023, now it's obvious that this will be a long term war of attrition. Unfortunately we (our politicians actually) wasted 2 years. Ramping-up is not something you do in a matter of weeks, it takes years. And I'm afraid we will lose another year, you know this thing called elections has its perks ...
For example, US production of 155mm shells went from around 14,000 per month in 2022 to 28,000 per month
in 2023. This is rising all the time and this year will reach 80,000 per month.
As stated throughout this thread these things take time to do. Throwing money won't help with that but the wake up
call has been answered and the flow from all sources will increase ( a lot).
18 out of 30 NATO countries are increasing their defence budgets to the required two percent of GDP. This will have
a big effect on production in Europe as well.
Other assets which could not be used until training was completed will also start to arrive (F-16's etc).
The combination of these factors will have the much needed impact.
Fatboy Coxy
Airman 1st Class
- 127
- Aug 24, 2019
The world as we know it is entering a much more dangerous age, a pre war ear, is a saying I've picked up on, and its not hard to see. China poses a massive threat to the western way of life, our free market, open society and liberal lifestyles. And at the same time as China grows into a military powerhouse, she has become the workhouse of the world, what doesn't get manufactured in China? So rightly there is a focus on her human rights issues, the threat to Taiwan, the developing stranglehold on some markets etc. There's also the massive disconnect with much of the Muslim world, a religion that feels threatened by our western ways, promoted by Iran and her disciples, although it would be wrong to suggest it is just Iran. And then there is Russia, the waning superpower, a shadow size wise of the former Soviet Union, entangled in war with Ukraine.
This war interests us greatly, the huge impact it has had on the global economy, the fears a ruthless ambitious power crazed Putin casts over Europe, and the suffering of poor little Ukraine, who against expectations has done fantastically well, thanks to the spirt of her people, and the massive support provided by the western world. And of course we want to win, its that simple isn't it, righting the wrong. But of course as we get older we realise that life isn't black and white, its varying shades of grey, and with that in mind I ask the question, which has been mentioned here before, what does a victory for Ukraine look like, and more importantly, what does that mean for Russia.
And why would I worry about Russia, long live the fall of Putin. Except I ask, what comes after Putin, sometimes its better the devil you know. A serious reversal in the Donbas, the loss of the Crimea, a victory of some sorts for Ukraine, could well spell the ending of Putin, falling off one of his own balcony's, as you might say, or a quiet retirement. You see I don't hold to the premise that Russia is a one man state, Putin is supported, and can be removed. Of course unless there is a straight forward change over of power to the new Putin, and surely he'll be of the same mold, there will be civil war, a chaos, as emerging warlords fight it out for power. Ah good, leave them to it I hear you say, stay out of it, that's not our problem.
Well you'd be very wrong there on that point, apart from the even greater impact on the world economy that a civil war in Russia would bring, we have the thorny issue of the nuclear weapons, and what happens to them. So there I am, emerging warlord Fatboy Coxski, of Somewhere Russia, who happens to have a nuclear weapons storage facility on my home turf. But what I need is cash, weapons and mercenaries, the other two following the first, and what I could offer for the cash is a nice little nuclear weapon, maybe a missile, maybe truck mounted, anyone interested, oh hello Iran, you say you'll take three, and North Korea, you'll have a couple?
Its a frightening peak into what might happen, and certainly a reason why the west, the US mainly, has stayed her hand on providing some weapons to Ukraine. I don't have the answers, just the concerns, but the transition of power from Putin to who, when and how, is as important to us as it is to the Russians.
This war interests us greatly, the huge impact it has had on the global economy, the fears a ruthless ambitious power crazed Putin casts over Europe, and the suffering of poor little Ukraine, who against expectations has done fantastically well, thanks to the spirt of her people, and the massive support provided by the western world. And of course we want to win, its that simple isn't it, righting the wrong. But of course as we get older we realise that life isn't black and white, its varying shades of grey, and with that in mind I ask the question, which has been mentioned here before, what does a victory for Ukraine look like, and more importantly, what does that mean for Russia.
And why would I worry about Russia, long live the fall of Putin. Except I ask, what comes after Putin, sometimes its better the devil you know. A serious reversal in the Donbas, the loss of the Crimea, a victory of some sorts for Ukraine, could well spell the ending of Putin, falling off one of his own balcony's, as you might say, or a quiet retirement. You see I don't hold to the premise that Russia is a one man state, Putin is supported, and can be removed. Of course unless there is a straight forward change over of power to the new Putin, and surely he'll be of the same mold, there will be civil war, a chaos, as emerging warlords fight it out for power. Ah good, leave them to it I hear you say, stay out of it, that's not our problem.
Well you'd be very wrong there on that point, apart from the even greater impact on the world economy that a civil war in Russia would bring, we have the thorny issue of the nuclear weapons, and what happens to them. So there I am, emerging warlord Fatboy Coxski, of Somewhere Russia, who happens to have a nuclear weapons storage facility on my home turf. But what I need is cash, weapons and mercenaries, the other two following the first, and what I could offer for the cash is a nice little nuclear weapon, maybe a missile, maybe truck mounted, anyone interested, oh hello Iran, you say you'll take three, and North Korea, you'll have a couple?
Its a frightening peak into what might happen, and certainly a reason why the west, the US mainly, has stayed her hand on providing some weapons to Ukraine. I don't have the answers, just the concerns, but the transition of power from Putin to who, when and how, is as important to us as it is to the Russians.
RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,297
- Jul 5, 2015
For ammo yes, it seems we are starting to ramp-up. For other things ramp-up is extremely slow.
Lets consider leopards for instance:
Hungary ordered 44 leo 2A7+ in late 2018. First tank arrived December 2023
Norway ordered 54 2A8 in February 2023 deliveries are expected to take place between 2026 and 2031
Germany is expected to order around 100 2A8. A contract award is expected in 2024, with deliveries from 2027 through 2032.
Italy is considering to order 125 2A8, no dates for potential contract or initial deliveries, but its reported the investment would carry through to 2037.
I don't want to wait till the 2030's to send the replaced tanks to Ukraine.
Most of the ones that won't reach 2% are increasing their budged too, wich is a plus.
Let's hope so, I want to remain optimistic. I have confidence in Ukrainians will, but not so much on western will.
I hate that the potential outcome of this war may depend on the results of certain elections, and not only in the US, EU elections may play a big role too. A single Orban is already causing enough trouble, imagine 3-4 of them.
According to the latest rumors/claims Ukrainians used S-200 to kill the A-50. According to the available vid there were probably two S-200 in the area with one hit and one miss (hitting a flare or something else flying there). Too far away for Patriot.
Admiral Beez
Captain
My worry is that US politicians are repeating the interwar 1918-1939 failures. Imagine how different the 1920s and 1930s would have been had the US not abandoned their lead in the League of Nations. The US pushed for the creation of Poland, but then did nothing to protect it. The increasingly isolationist Congress of today reminds me of the Congress of 100 years ago, where by 1924 the US had thoroughly turned its back on Europe. Had it not, perhaps the 552,117 U.S. casualties (104,812 KIA) in the European theater of operations might have been saved, and millions of others. Let's not repeat history.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
Well said, sir!
The United States had a non intervention system when it came to overseas powers tribulations since the time of George Washington.
In 1796 he stated that when it came to foreign nations 'as little political connection as possible'. This was to be 'the great rule of
conduct for us'.
The US followed a sensible policy of securing it's own mainland from European powers and expanding across that mainland so control
would be held by the US only.
It wasn't until 1898 that a major war was fought outside of the US against an external power in the form of Spain. It started in Cuba
and ended with the US having greater influence in Latin America and the Pacific.
Until then the US policy makers had put emphasis on trade and economic stability than overseas conflicts. World War One was another
exception which did not change the overall policy of non intervention (many referred to this as isolationist in a derogatory way).
As to US influence at the time it wasn't in a position to project power in the way it can today. Look at the US military in the twenties
and thirties. US interests overseas were mainly in the Pacific thus Pearl harbour and bases in places such as the Phillipines.
Unlike the Japanese and Chinese versions, US non intervention policy was tempered by open trade with the rest of the world and
diplomacy to settle matters which directly affected the US before any last resort military action.
Britain had a form of isolation from Europe from the time of Henry VIII by using the navy to settle in countries outside Europe and
only be involved in Europe if any country became too belligerent/ powerful. A different form to the US but both were the result of
concentrating the strength of the domestic economy / security.
In 1796 he stated that when it came to foreign nations 'as little political connection as possible'. This was to be 'the great rule of
conduct for us'.
The US followed a sensible policy of securing it's own mainland from European powers and expanding across that mainland so control
would be held by the US only.
It wasn't until 1898 that a major war was fought outside of the US against an external power in the form of Spain. It started in Cuba
and ended with the US having greater influence in Latin America and the Pacific.
Until then the US policy makers had put emphasis on trade and economic stability than overseas conflicts. World War One was another
exception which did not change the overall policy of non intervention (many referred to this as isolationist in a derogatory way).
As to US influence at the time it wasn't in a position to project power in the way it can today. Look at the US military in the twenties
and thirties. US interests overseas were mainly in the Pacific thus Pearl harbour and bases in places such as the Phillipines.
Unlike the Japanese and Chinese versions, US non intervention policy was tempered by open trade with the rest of the world and
diplomacy to settle matters which directly affected the US before any last resort military action.
Britain had a form of isolation from Europe from the time of Henry VIII by using the navy to settle in countries outside Europe and
only be involved in Europe if any country became too belligerent/ powerful. A different form to the US but both were the result of
concentrating the strength of the domestic economy / security.
RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,297
- Jul 5, 2015
There is a theory floating around that suggest the S-200 claim is a cover-up for a sabotage group equipped with MANPADS that penetrated into the Krasnodar region.
What is clear is that it's too far for patriot, even for PAC-2 official range of 160 Km. Unless ... real range is higher than official, or a range extension mod has been performed.
RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,297
- Jul 5, 2015
That looks like a dangerous course of action.
www.understandingwar.org
Institute for the Study of War
The pro-Russian breakaway region of Transnistria may call for or organize a referendum on Transnistria’s annexation to Russia at a recently announced Transnistrian Congress of Deputies planned for February 28. The pretext for such a call would be the p
"...If the West provides more long-range weapons, Ukraine might also be able to strike deeper in Russian territory—making the general Russian population "understand the costs of this conflict" and reverse broad support for the war, Harding said. It is possible there could also be more mutinies among Russian forces, like the Wagner group last year..."
''...with longer-range precision weapons—such as the Taurus missile being provided by Germany—Ukraine will have the ability to hit rear areas and supply routes to arrest Russia's forward motion. With the U.S. Army ATACMS missile, the Kerch Bridge—a major Russian supply route connecting Crimea with Sevastopol—"might not be standing very long...''
''...supporting Ukraine is "about as black-and-white as you can get in moral terms" and is also critical to the defense of Europe, which is "very important to the United States in its long-term competition with China and Russia." Defeat would mean a weakening of American and European resolve, and a loss of America's status as the leader of the free world.
"It sends messages to bad guys everywhere," he said, adding "China's watching this closely. … Their calculus about Taiwan will be affected by how this war turns out...''
www.airandspaceforces.com
''...with longer-range precision weapons—such as the Taurus missile being provided by Germany—Ukraine will have the ability to hit rear areas and supply routes to arrest Russia's forward motion. With the U.S. Army ATACMS missile, the Kerch Bridge—a major Russian supply route connecting Crimea with Sevastopol—"might not be standing very long...''
''...supporting Ukraine is "about as black-and-white as you can get in moral terms" and is also critical to the defense of Europe, which is "very important to the United States in its long-term competition with China and Russia." Defeat would mean a weakening of American and European resolve, and a loss of America's status as the leader of the free world.
"It sends messages to bad guys everywhere," he said, adding "China's watching this closely. … Their calculus about Taiwan will be affected by how this war turns out...''
Experts: 2025 Could Be ‘Year of Decision’ in Ukraine War
Ukraine could defeat Russia's invasion in 2025 with longer-range weapons, and providing such aid is key to Western security, analysts said.
www.airandspaceforces.com
How can partners enhance support for Ukraine? – Big Ask
The Council on Geostrategy asks ten experts how support for Ukraine can be enhanced by the United Kingdom its partners
www.geostrategy.org.uk
Another One Of Russia's Prized A-50 Radar Planes Shot Down, Ukraine Claims
Officials in Kyiv are claiming the A-50 was the victim of a joint Ukrainian Air Force and Intelligence operation near the Sea of Azov.
www.twz.com
Von der Leyen, other leaders pledge Ukraine support in anniversary visit to Kyiv
Italy’s Meloni plans to conduct G7 videoconference from Ukrainian capital.
Ukraine Situation Report: U.S. Warns Of Looming “Catastrophic” Arms Shortage
The latest predictions about Ukrainian weapons shortages — especially artillery ammunition — paint a bleak picture for Kyiv.
www.twz.com
The West tried to crush Russia’s economy. Why hasn’t it worked?
From an unenforced oil price cap to rogue countries teaming up, Moscow is exploiting the West’s weaknesses.
www.politico.com
Failure in Ukraine ‘will remake the world,’ UK and Poland warn deadlocked US
David Cameron and Radosław Sikorski in joint push for funding as Ukraine marks two years since full-scale Russian invasion.
