Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
No reason Poland etc could not sign some sort of mutual defence pact with Ukraine. Although its possible there is a NATO clause to exclude this.

The UK is part of defensive pacts outside of NATO, as is the US, and the EU has a weaker commitment to mutual defence among its members. That suggests that there's nothing about NATO that stops outside pacts.

And, as we've seen, Ukraine doesn't really need to join NATO.

Weird comment. This entire invasion has happened because Ukraine isn't NATO.
 
The UK is part of defensive pacts outside of NATO, as is the US, and the EU has a weaker commitment to mutual defence among its members. That suggests that there's nothing about NATO that stops outside pacts.



Weird comment. This entire invasion has happened because Ukraine isn't NATO.

Thanks I wasn't sure how formal our pacts are and if they would really count.
 
Witnessed new heights of how addled and broke-brained Putin supporters can be today.

As I’ve mentioned earlier in this thread, I’m an engineering officer in the merchant navy, currently working aboard an LNG carrier where unfortunately, our electro-technical officer, a Ukrainian guy originally from the east but who currently lives in Odessa, is a full blown, red pilled Putinist.

Obviously I try to skirt around current affairs as a topic of conversation, because it’ll only lead to an argument, as he just comes out with some absolutely insane word salad whenever he gets chance (there are no Russians, it’s Ukrainian’s bombing themselves, Jewish Nazis etc), but this guy literally takes any and every opportunity to drop it in.

Take for instance today. Since I’ve joined the ship, there’s been a rather tasty looking 18v DeWalt impact driver sat on the table in the control room, all shiny and new in the box, unused, so I asked him whether we had a battery for it anywhere, as it’d be quite handy for the job I’ve been doing on an air compressor today, which it turns out we don’t, as was it bought as a bare tool, and so wasn’t supplied with them. He then goes on a rant about how this is, and these are literally his words, “some western trick”.

I mean, imagine being so absolutely broke brained that in your world, absolutely everything and anything that goes wrong is the west’s fault, somehow. I can only surmise that when he ordered it from RS a few months ago, he either didn’t read or failed to comprehend the words “bare tool”, so it can’t be his fault, must be the product of some evil western conspiracy, and not his fault for ordering the wrong tool.
 
Guys,

I've asked about three times now (not getting salty) - just think it is worth discussion.

The Project 22160 ship that was "sunk"; was that ever confirmed? No MSM have picked it up at all? Presumably it is easy to prove?

I can't answer that.

What I can say is that you should treat all reports of military actions with suspicion. Latest reports are showing a 10:1 ratio of russian/ Ukrainian soldier deaths, and I find that incredible.
 
There are numerous factors that all came together to result in Russia's current poor tank situation, but here's a few:

(1) Russia spent most of the time since the fall of the USSR bankrupt, as a result of taking on all of the USSR's debt in exchange for being internationally recognised as it's successor state (thus inheriting UN seat/etc). This meant that until the last 10 years they couldn't afford to maintain the tanks they had let alone develop new ones properly. The first post-USSR tank they have unveiled is the T-14 Armata and they currently only have two prototypes. All of their other "new" tanks are 30+ year old Soviet designs with features from the 90s/00s bolted on.

(2) The USSR spent the better part of it's last decade going bankrupt, this means that in that time tank development stalled and was downgraded for budget reasons, the knock on effect being the tank programs Russia inherited were already stalled/slowing compared to western development. In example, they had three tank families, the T-64 (high end tried and tested design that was never exported), the T-72 (cheaper/weaker alternative to the T-64 that was designed for export and to boost the USSRs tank numbers) and the T-80 (based on the T-64, advanced tank designed to replace the T-64 as the USSR's top tank).

However
, due to the aforementioned imminent bankruptcy of the USSR they decided to end development of the T-64/T-80 and focus entirely on the T-72 as that was the cheapest option. This is the program Russia inherited and why they had no choice but to continue the development of just the T-72 for a long time, this resulted in the T-72BU, which Russia renamed the T-90 in the early nineties in order to try and hide the fact their best tank of the 90s/00s was actually a design from the 70's and the USSRs third best tank.

(3) Because Ukraine was now a separate country and that was where the USSR's best tanks were designed/built, this meant that Russia no longer had access to the T-64 factory so couldn't get parts effectively, this meant they had no choice but to sell/scrap most of their T-64 tanks despite them being superior to the stock of T-72 they inherited (many of which they are now using in Ukraine).

In addition the diesel engine T-80UD tanks were all produced in Ukraine so Russia can no longer maintain/replace the engines in these tanks (many of which have been cannibalised so their improved turrets can be placed on older T-80s). This is a problem as the standard version of the T-80 which they use was designed for defence not offence, and so while it's repurposed helicopter engine is great for operating at down to -40 while defending Russia against a NATO invasion it's terrible for actually invading anywhere due to dismal fuel consumption.

----

So basically, Russia only really has at it's disposal:

  • Old Soviet T-72 tanks that have been poorly maintained.
  • Old Soviet T-72 tanks with newer bits bolted on that have also been poorly maintained.
  • Old Soviet T-80 tanks that have been poorly maintained and are really not designed for invading anywhere but they have to be used in order to beef up the numbers.
  • Some updated T-72 tanks built in the 90s/00s with a T-90 label taped on (which already had their flaws exposed by Syrian rebels with improvised weapons).
So there you have it, hope the explanation wasn't too long.

very interesting, thanks for explaining.

I'd hate to play poker with this Lavrov, the way he can keep a straight face when saying this **** is pro level....Freedom of Speech is important, as you're arresting protesters back at home...

Nothing we aren’t planning here back home, unfortunately. We, as usual, don’t have the moral high ground here.

INB4 OmG u H8 uR cOuNtReEEeE
 
Guys,

I've asked about three times now (not getting salty) - just think it is worth discussion.

The Project 22160 ship that was "sunk"; was that ever confirmed? No MSM have picked it up at all? Presumably it is easy to prove?

* Ukrainian government claims it was destroyed
* Russian government refuses to confirm or deny

The truth is currently obscured by the fog of war.
 
* Ukrainian government claims it was destroyed
* Russian government refuses to confirm or deny

The truth is currently obscured by the fog of war.
I find that impossible to believe. They had 12 ships in the Blacksea. Now they have...?
 
Good post, @ubersonic.

I thought this was an interesting video, this guy seems to be pretty balanced about the state of the war (and less optimistic in general):


I find that impossible to believe. They had 12 ships in the Blacksea. Now they have...?

The Black Sea is an area almost twice the size of the UK, who are you expecting to accurately count these ships?
 
The Black Sea is an area almost twice the size of the UK, who are you expecting to accurately count these ships?
Come off it, that is a very daft thing to say. There is a finite number of ships being monitored constantly by every western intelligence agency going.

Odessa has been in discussion for the full invasion now as it is the final bit of coast Ukraine has control of.

Naval movements are even being tracked:


It seems bonkers that we can't count before and after pictures of a ******* warship that was pin-point precision knocked out by an MLRS at night!
 
Come off it, that is a very daft thing to say. There is a finite number of ships being monitored constantly by every western intelligence agency going.

I doubt very much that intelligence agencies have a live feed of the position of all military ships at all time and even where they do they are unlikely to freely share what they know. You talk of satellite images but satellite images can't see anything under cloud cover and they don't provide live coverage over the areas they survey so, because ships move, you can't necessarily determine whether two ships you see are the same ship twice or a ship that's moved, and if you see less ships than you expect it could be because one has sunk or because the ship just happened to move in a way that means consecutive satellite images missed it.
 
I find that impossible to believe. They had 12 ships in the Blacksea. Now they have...?

The Black Sea is virtually the same size as Central America. A Project 22160 patrol boat is just 94 metres long.

We couldn't even find a Boeing 777-200ER with its own tracking beacon.
 
OK chaps - we can hit a 2m wide tank from near enough Space but watching some boats at sea is a bridge (get it) too far.
 
I doubt very much that intelligence agencies have a live feed of the position of all military ships at all time and even where they do they are unlikely to freely share what they know. You talk of satellite images but satellite images can't see anything under cloud cover and they don't provide live coverage over the areas they survey so, because ships move, you can't necessarily determine whether two ships you see are the same ship twice or a ship that's moved, and if you see less ships than you expect it could be because one has sunk or because the ship just happened to move in a way that means consecutive satellite images missed it.
Also the satelites are also unlikely to be in geo stationary orbit so they will be have periods of time when they can not see anything on this side of the world
 
*Ukranian Presidential Advisor Arestovych: Ukraine Has Carried Out Several Small Counteroffensives, but Seeing No Drastic Change in the Main Hotspots.
*Kremlin Press Sec. Peskov: Today Putin Will Hold a Meeting on Regional Economic Support

https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian-official-sees-no-big-change-front-line-hotspots-2022-03-16/

*Kremlin: Neutral Ukraine w/ Own Army Possible Compromise Option
*Kremlin: Discussing Austria/Sweden Neutrality Model for Ukraine
*Kremlin: Idea of Creating a Demilitarised Ukraine Like Austria With Its Own Army Could Be Seen as a Compromise – RIA
*Kremlin: Seizure of Tycoons’ Assets Abroad Is ‘State Banditism’
*Kremlin: The Issue of Sanctions Is Being Discussed in Our Talks With Ukraine – RIA
*Kremlin: There Will Be Personal Sanctions on the Leaders of Unfriendly Countries – TASS

https://sputniknews.com/20220316/kr...a-can-be-seen-as-a-compromise-1093922795.html
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1504038663612772352
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1504038196203728897
https://mundo.sputniknews.com/20220...presarios-rusos-en-los-paises-1123158561.html
https://twitter.com/TRTWorldNow/status/1504042232290152451
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom