War in Ukraine

#28,627
#28,627
IluvdoubleD's said:
He is going to bomb the **** out of the south west with what ever bombers he can scrounge together, He is running out of munitions that target by laser. He has BIG blasts, like cruise missiles, and gps guided. Basically, Ukraine has outgunned him and is calling his bluff. They seemed well prepped for a campaign as well. They are losing forces. In a fight for himanity.... but Russia's loses are far, far greater.
Click to expand...
Looking forward to seeing some Blackjacks get smoked by NATO supplied equipment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64, pattiycake and 2 others
#28,630
#28,630
White House's $33B Ukraine Aid Bid Already Tangled Up in Congress

Congressional jousting over immigration could end up delaying Biden's request for aid for the war-ravaged nation, despite overwhelming bipartisan support.

President Joe Biden’s behemoth request for urgent aid to Ukraine finally reached Capitol Hill on Thursday. It’s already mired in legislative quicksand.

The president’s $33 billion ask, which includes more than $20 billion for military assistance, is expected to win widespread bipartisan support. But significant obstacles to getting the aid package to Biden’s desk post-haste have already cropped up.


Biden’s latest Ukraine request comes as Republicans are shrugging off Democrats’ efforts to combine the new Ukraine assistance with a cross-aisle agreement on Covid relief funding. And as part of the virus funding fight, GOP senators are threatening to force difficult votes on the Biden administration’s divisive decision to end pandemic-era curbs on immigration at the southern border, pressing an issue that Democrats are lamenting that the White House has mishandled.

White House's $33B Ukraine aid bid already tangled up in Congress
 
#28,632
#28,632
would the world... collectively... in a "go fund me", the whole world.... would you give to get rid of Putin fund?

Yes, yes I would give to 33 bills.
 
#28,634
#28,634
MG1968 said:
Steamrollers move pretty slow, but not nearly as slow as the Russian military. Over two months now to “liberate” an area the size of Rhode Island allegedly filled with people supporting the Russian cause.
Click to expand...

How big was the Russian force? What was the condition of the ground they were taking? Seems important.
 
#28,638
#28,638
landscapingvol said:
Umm Iraq had one of the largest militaries in the World in 91, including thousands of tanks, had just gotten out of a decade long war with Iran, and were fighting on their home territory against a US force not prepared for desert combat. Afghanistan was ruled by some of the same military leaders that had decimated the Soviet army. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about as usual
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You are arguing with yourself. None of that applies to my response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#28,643
#28,643
Russia is being attacked by their own inept military that was pre disposed to failure because good people in Russia were afraid of what a shrimp who won't face a real danger was capable of.
 
#28,647
#28,647
MontyPython said:
Russia's army is in a woeful state - Economist Briefing
renderTimingPixel.png

Russia's army is in a woeful state The fiasco in Ukraine could be a reflection of a bad strategy or a poor fighting force...

"...On the eve of war, Russia’s invasion force was considered formidable. American intelligence agencies reckoned that Kyiv would fall in days. Some European officials thought it might just hold out for a few weeks. No one thought that the city would be welcoming such dignitaries as Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin, America’s secretaries of state and defence respectively, two months after the fighting started. The belief was that Russia would do to Ukraine what America had done to Iraq in 1991: shock and awe it into submission in a swift, decisive campaign. This belief was based on the assumption that Russia had undertaken the same sort of root-and-branch military reform that America underwent in the 18-year period between its defeat in Vietnam and its victory in the first Gulf war. In 2008 a war with Georgia, a country of fewer than 4m people, though successful in the end, had exposed the Russian army’s shortcomings. Russia fielded obsolete equipment, struggled to find Georgian artillery and botched its command and control. At one stage, Russia’s general staff allegedly could not reach the defence minister for ten hours. “It is impossible to not notice a certain gap between theory and practice,” acknowledged Russia’s army chief at the time. To close that gap, the armed forces were slashed in size and spruced up.

Ambition in spades Russian military expenditure, when measured properly—that is, in exchange rates adjusted for purchasing power—almost doubled between 2008 and 2021, rising to over $250bn, about triple the level of Britain or France (see charts). Around 600 new planes, 840 helicopters and 2,300 drones were added to the arsenal between 2010 and 2020. New tanks and missiles were flaunted at parades in Moscow. Russia tested new tactics and equipment in Donbas, after its first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and in its campaign to prop up Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s dictator, the following year.

A retired European general says that watching this new model army fail reminds him of visiting East Germany and Poland after the end of the cold war, and seeing the enemy up close. “We realised how shite the 3rd Shock Army was,” he says, referring to a much-vaunted Soviet formation based in Magdeburg. “We’ve again allowed ourselves to be taken in by some of the propaganda that they put our way.” Russia’s army was known to have problems, says Petr Pavel, a retired Czech general who chaired nato’s military committee in 2015-18, “but the scope of these came as a surprise to many, including myself—I believed that the Russians had learnt their lessons.”

The charitable interpretation is that the Russian army has been hobbled in Ukraine less by its own deficiencies than by Mr Putin’s delusions. His insistence on plotting the war in secrecy complicated military planning. The fsb, a successor to the kgb, told him that Ukraine was riddled with Russian agents and would quickly fold. That probably spurred the foolish decision to start the war by sending lightly armed paratroopers to seize an airport on the outskirts of Kyiv and lone columns of armour to advance into the city of Kharkiv, causing heavy casualties to elite units.

Yet, this coup de main having fizzled, the army then chose to plough into the second largest country in Europe from several directions, splitting 120 or so battalion tactical groups (btgs) into lots of ineffective and isolated forces. Bad tactics then compounded bad strategy: armour, infantry and artillery fought their own disconnected campaigns. Tanks that should have been protected by infantry on foot instead roamed alone, only to be picked off in Ukrainian ambushes. Artillery, the mainstay of the Russian army since tsarist times, though directed with ferocity at cities such as Kharkiv and Mariupol, could not break through Ukrainian lines around Kyiv...

...The battle for Donbas will not entirely settle this debate. A Russian army that prevails in a war of attrition through sheer firepower and mass would still be a far cry from the nimble, high-tech force advertised over the past decade. More likely is that Russia’s plodding forces will exhaust themselves long before they achieve their objectives in southern and eastern Ukraine, let alone before mounting another attempt on Kyiv. The world’s military planners will be watching not just how far Russia gets in the weeks ahead, but also what that says about its forces’ resilience, adaptability and leadership. Like a knife pushed into old wood, the progress of the campaign will reveal how deep the rot runs."
Click to expand...

What a load of crap. You dont actually believe this do you? Come on. Be real.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top