I'm wondering if these new drones are meant to take out Russian air assets on the ground at their airbases (longer range)?
The number is also rather specific which is probably just because that is exactly the amount they've been able to produce, but maybe there's a psychological component as well.
I don't think so, the ghost drones are loitering munitions as per switchblade, so for use on the battlefield. So if they're like the 600s then useful for destroying artillery positions or Russian armour or if like the 300s then personnel dug in in trenches etc..
edit - oh wait the Reapers? That changes things a bit if confirmed (hasn't been yet, could be like the MiG news which gets proposed as a possibility then walked back) though I suspect flying them into Russia itself would still be potentially rather risky/wasteful.
I can't believe how good the Ukrainians are getting at dropping bombs from drones on Russian armour. First videos we saw they'd only hit with 1 or 2 bombs. Now they seem to be getting hits with all 3.
I don't think so, the ghost drones are loitering munitions as per switchblade, so for use on the battlefield. So if they're like the 600s then useful for destroying artillery positions or Russian armour or if like the 300s then personnel dug in in trenches etc..
edit - oh wait the Reapers? That changes things a bit if confirmed (hasn't been yet, could be like the MiG news which gets proposed as a possibility then walked back) though I suspect flying them into Russia itself would still be potentially rather risky/wasteful.
Ukraine having more tanks (available in this conflict) than Russia is pretty impressive now, big issue is the Russian artillery, if they can get that sorted with the new deliveries over the next week or so (in particular more accurate artillery supplied by Western nations along with radar etc.. - ideally some guided munitions to go with them too) then that could cause real problems for the Russian artillery.
I just don't see how Russia can potentially win this war that is really a special operation because you'd have to be special to think the amount of military strength you have in the field is enough to defeat Ukraine
I just don't see how Russia can potentially win this war that is really a special operation because you'd have to be special to think the amount of military strength you have in the field is enough to defeat Ukraine
I just don't see how Russia can potentially win this war that is really a special operation because you'd have to be special to think the amount of military strength you have in the field is enough to defeat Ukraine
I think parts of the Donbas could be at risk here, could go either way at the moment, it's crucial to get additional armour and artillery to Ukraine ASAP. Putin still has the possibility to seize some additional terrain here + he's got a chunk of the south that could be difficult to recover too.
His ambition to grab a huge chunk of the country including Kyiv + overthrow the government is way too ambitious right now (unless he goes with a huge mobilisation + tactical nukes or something along those lines) but the risk of him grabbing a chunk of the East and South and holding some of it is still there.
Would be great if the Ukrainians do manage an encirclement in the Donbas or manage to take Kherson in the near future. In fact, if they manage to tip the balance in the Donbas and start a push into the south then it could be a nightmare of Putin... take back Kherson, cut off the water to Crimea and blow up his bridge... then he has a very big problem.
They'd need to mobilise reserves which would be a bit of a risk in Russia too and might make things unstable for the regime + some of the equipment they have in storage is in a dubious state. They could draw further troops from elsewhere, leaving parts of their borders undefended etc..
Past 1hr:
*White House Adviser Singh: It’s Premature to Talk About de-Escalating Sanctions Against Russia
*White House Adviser Singh: Chinese Companies and Banks Are Largely Being Cautious and Steering Clear of Helping Russia Evade Sanctions
*White House Adviser Singh: China Has a Serious Interest in Being Seen As a Responsible Stakeholder on World Stage
*White House Adviser Singh: US Will ‘Play the Long Game’ With Regard to India, Sees Opportunities to Help India Diversify Sources of Energy, Defefnse Equipment
*White House Adviser Singh: US Calling On Countries to Not to Implement Export Bans or Other Restrictions on Food Shipments
*White House Adviser Singh, Asked if US Could Lower Tariffs on Chinese Goods, Says They Serve No Strategic Purpose, May Be ‘Something We Can Do There’
*White House Adviser Singh: US Dollar Still the Operating System of Global Finance, Sees No Chance of Chinese Currency Displacing Dollar As World’s Primary Reserve Currency
*White House Adviser Singh: US Could Reframe Tariffs to Advance Real Strategic Priorities of US, Focus on Products That Have a Geniune National Security Nexus
*White House Adviser Singh: It’s ‘Past Time to Reimagine and Reboot the Mission and Business Model’ of the World Bank
*White House Adviser Singh: World Bank’s Business Model Is Not Especially Suited Catalyze Global Public Goods, Especially For Crises
*US State Dept: US Closely Following Solomon Islands Signing Agreement With China, but Does Not Change Our Concerns and That of Our Regional Partners and Allies
*US State Dept: We Expect Most Ukrainians Coming To the US to Arrive Under New Humanitarian Parole Program Starting Next Week
*US State Dept: We’ve Continued to See China Parrot Some of What We’ve Heard From the Kremlin, Including the Concept Of Indivisible Security
*US State Dept: It Remains the Case That US Has Not Seen China Giving Material Support to Russia’s War In Ukraine
*US State Dept: China’s Agreement With Solomon Islands Is Another Example of China Offering ‘Shadowy Vague Deals’ Without Regional Consultation
*Ukraine’s Premier Shmyhal: Ukrainian GDP Could Drop By More Than 50% This Year -World Bank Forum
*Ukraine’s Premier Shmyhal: Ukraine Is Meeting Social Obligations, Including Pensions, Salaries and Social Payments
*Ukraine’s Premier Shmyhal: Ukraine Will Need Recovery Plan Similar to Post-World War Two Marshall Plan
*Ukraine’s Premier Shmyhal: Ukraine Reconstruction to Cost $600 Billion
*Ukraine’s Premier Shmyhal: Ukraine Asking Countries to Donate 10% Of SDRs
*World Bank Governor Malpass: Priority to Fill Ukraine Finance Needs Through Grants
*World Bank Governor Malpass: Early World Bank Assessment of Physical Damage in Ukraine Estimates Roughly $60 Billion in Damage to Buildings and Infrastructure
*IMF Managing Director Georgieva: Would Seek Grant Financing for Ukraine, Piling Up More Debt Is ‘Not Wise’
*Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Russian Blockade of Black Sea Ports Has Blocked Ukraine Exports, Impacted World Food Safety -World Bank Forum
*Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Stopping War Is Only Way to Stop the Development of a Food Crisis
*Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Ukraine Needs $7 Billion per Month to Make Up for Economic Losses
*Ukraine President Zelenskiy: International Community Needs to Exclude Russia Immediately From International Financial Institutions
*Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Every Country in the World Needs Immediately to Break Up All Relations With Russia
*Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Frozen Russian Assets Can Be Used to Help Rebuild Ukraine, Pay for Losses From War to Other Nations
*Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Wants One of Our Next Meetings to Take Place in a Rebuilt Ukraine
Not without weakening their defences and pulling the army away from their various enforcement roles. To throw significantly more forces they have to go full mobilisation and conscription.
*Pentagon: U.S Defense Secretary Austin Will Host Some Counterparts in Ramstein Air Base Next Week on Ukraine Crisis
*Blinken: U.S. Welcomes Adoption of Resolution at Organization of American States (OAS) Suspending Russia As Permanent Observer to That Institution
*Senior Ukrainian Defence Official: Nation’s Military Is Facing ‘a Very Difficult Battle’ Against a Larger and Better-Equipped Russian Force — Interfax Ukraine
*Senior Ukrainian Defence Official: Process of Buying and Taking Delivery of Weapons Takes Time, ‘We Must Be Patient’ — Interfax Ukraine
They've been saying this for weeks and yet haven't hit a single target. It's because they either simply don't know where the shipments are because nato is good at sneaking it in and hiding it or the Russians are just giant chickens who can only talk with no action
That line of thinking leads to our parents/grandparents all having never stood up to Hitler and us all living in a world where a dictator mass executes anyone who he doesn't like. Most of us think we should all be doing much more to help Ukraine, not that Ukraine should have rolled over from the outset.
The longer Putin is in power and actually in control, the higher the chance the next person will be just as bad. You don't change things by capitulating. In hindsight the west should have stood up to Putin much sooner, not exacerbate past mistakes by repeating them.
Well I said in another thread that the West should be doing more to support Ukraine, and that was met with cries of 'don't poke the bear' and 'you don't challenge a country with nuclear arms'.
So which is it?
Watching Ukraine get decimated whilst other countries sit at the sidelines cheering them on isn't really helping them. It'd be akin to China declaring war on the UK and us trying to fend off an attack from them, assuming nuclear weapons weren't involved, we'd fail miserably, but you're suggesting everyone fights to the death and watches the country turn to oblivion in the name of honour and valour? That wouldn't be very smart and the government at the time would likely concede defeat in the interest of the safety of the citizens.
It'd be akin to China declaring war on the UK and us trying to fend off an attack from them, assuming nuclear weapons weren't involved, we'd fail miserably, but you're suggesting everyone fights to the death and watches the country turn to oblivion in the name of honour and valour? That wouldn't be very smart and the government at the time would likely concede defeat in the interest of the safety of the citizens.
Though it seems to be somewhat a dying thing these days, still the larger number of people would rather risk it all defending what they have and their freedoms than roll over for an entity like Russia or China - sadly an increasing number can't see where it leads if they aren't prepared to do that. Defeat doesn't bring safety for their citizens.
In my opinion, assuming nuclear weapons weren't involved, the only reason we'd fail miserably against China is a lack of being prepared - like Russia they are significantly handicapped by the centralised command and control of their forces, low numbers of professional soldiers, and unwillingness from the top to dilute power to the ranks, partly in fear of being overthrown. Which is why we should always retain a well supplied and robust armed forces in this country - one of the few things Russia ever feared about the UK military, more so even than our nuclear weapons, was the ability to rapidly logistic and bring a highly mobile fight even far from home with individual forces having a much higher degree of autonomy on the battlefield allowing them to outflank with effectiveness the kind of doctrines central to armies like Russia and China.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
