Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Options
1319631973199320132023691

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,412 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭thomil


    I have to agree and disagree here. A fleet that is sunk is definitely a massive PR win, I agree with you on that, especially given that Ukraine has effectively no navy. However, a number of the launching platforms for cruise missiles are Kilo-class submarines, against which Ukraine only has limited countermeasures. Even the F-16s are not able to attack submerged submarines, and Russian sub skippers are generally smart enough not to remain on the surface in broad daylight unless in port. Frigates or corvettes are more vulnerable, but the Black Sea Fleet doesn't have too many of them. Now granted, the fleet can be attacked while in port. It's been done before, Port Arthur, Taranto, or Pearl Harbor are some prime examples. However, the defenses of the likes of Novorossiysk or Sevastopol are pretty extensive and the type of strike package necessary would probably be way beyond Ukraine's capabilities.

    Given that, I believe Ukraine's current strategy actually makes sense. The ongoing threat of Ukrainian marine drones, combined with some high-profile attacks, is keeping the majority of Russian navy assets in the Black Sea effectively bottled up in port with comparatively low effort on the Ukrainian side. Any ship that moves beyond the protective barrier nets of the base is vulnerable to attack, which the recent highly effective attack on a Ropucha-Class LST showed. While Russia may be able to send out the occasional submarine or frigate, the current situation effectively has the Black Sea Fleet under blockade. Why risk a massive strike package to attack such a blockaded force when the odd Storm Shadow or marine drone is enough the keep their heads down?

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭pcardin




  • Registered Users Posts: 600 ✭✭✭mike_cork


    Hopefully Greece can provide some additional equipment



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    The only thing holding the Russian army together at this stage is hundreds of thousands of mobiks.

    Even conservative estimates put the initial 190k invasion force as completely destroyed, and the tens of thousands of prisoners and mercs are buried throughout Bahkmut.

    I could see the war slogging out for another year at least, with Russians taking increasingly high casualties and replacing them with increasingly worse troops.

    Hopefully there will be enough Russian resentment to overthrow Putin in the next few months. Another October Revolution perhaps.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Most likely they will use them as a launch platform for cruise missiles (against static targets). This can be done safely from a distance. This is no great game changer because a number of Western munitions have already been adapted to their Soviet fighters. So it's something they can already do.

    To engage a KA-52 is another matter. It requires getting a sensor acquisition. You see these videos of Ukrainian jets doing terrain-hugging flights, this keeps them safe(ish), but flying like this you cannot acquire a low helicopter from a distance. You have to get pretty close, or you have to bring your aircraft higher to give the sensors a better view. Both of which put the F-16 in too much danger from Russian SAMs and high-flying Russian MiG-31s.

    The MiG-31s fly patrols just inside the Russian border. They have a long-range radar - perhaps up to 400km on upgraded models. This means they can see any Ukrainian aircraft that comes within around 100-200km of the front-line. If they pick something up, they zoom into Ukraine, launch their missile from 200+km away and zoom back to Russia. They can operate relatively safely like this. They've been doing these patrols the whole war and only lost a single one.

    A terrain-hugging F-16 coming to take out helicopters will have no chance against the MiG in these circumstances. It's radar range will be shorter, it's missile range is shorter, the missiles will have less energy as they're shooting up. It would be a turkey shoot for the MiG-31 unfortunately.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    As much as I'd love to see Putin overthrown by a popular uprising, its unlikely to happen in Russia. The internal security setup pretty much rules it out. More likely he'll be taken out by other high ranking people though god knows if or when that might happen.

    I could see the war slogging out for another year at least, with Russians taking increasingly high casualties and replacing them with increasingly worse troops.

    Russia could always fall back on their tried and tested "just keep throwing more and more soldiers at it". It worked earlier when it slowed Ukr progress.

    I'd agree that it's not going to finish any time soon. Honestly I see it going at least another 3-4 years if not more



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭Homelander


    It is all relative.

    Russia performance has been dismal since day one given the size and equipment of their army on paper.

    Obviously they have some capability. Just nowhere near the capability they should have, and the world expected to see last year when they invaded.

    Early last year Ukraine was a $4bn army, Russia was a $60bn army. Also, Ukraine before 2014 had a similar budget to the Irish army with armed forces in a terrible state.

    Long before western aid started arriving the war was still going disasterously bad for Russia, everyone assumed Russia would function as a modern army and steamroll over Ukraine. They didn't because of many factors, including but not limited to dreadful leadership, dreadful logistics, poor training, shocking lack of combined arms ability.

    In no reality is this war anything other than a catastrophe for Russia. If their military was functioning as it should have been the main combat stage of the war would have been over in a few weeks at best, long before anyone could provide any meaningful aid to Ukraine whatsoever.

    They failed to destroy Ukraine's army, they failed to disable its defence network, they failed to destroy its air force, failed to destroy it's command structure, failed to capture key points - they failed at everything and got bogged down in WW2-style ground fighting and attrition warfare.

    We have seen this many times before. All the Arab countries invading Israel, Italy invading Greece, etc. Huge armies that fared badly because of all of the above problems despite having strong militaries on paper.

    The world expected a high-tech war. Russia didn't deliver one and has shown itself incapable of delivering one. Even with very limited support, in the sense of very limited stocks of actual cutting edge Western weaponry, Ukraine has not just halted the invasion but actively reclaimed land and is currently on the offensive, with zero sign of Russia being able to regain any sort of initiative.

    Completely unthinkable last year. It's basically turned into the Iran-Iraq war even though Russia should have had overwhelmingly superiority in every aspect possible to comical degrees.

    There is no way out for Russia in the medium to long term. None.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,751 ✭✭✭zv2


    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” — Voltaire



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,542 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    I wonder if a Republican candidate wins the Presidental election will the military aid stop, a lot of Americans don't seem to be too happy with what Biden is doing arming the Ukrainians.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,070 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Bit past time? I'm sure any citizen from a state that is supportive in any way of Ukraine would have departed Belarus long ago by now. Unless they were there on some mission critical work or married/ settled in the country.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,412 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Pretty sure the US had advised all citizens to leave Belarus since April.

    All Eyes On Rafah



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,717 ✭✭✭✭briany


    They're only unhappy with it because it's Biden doing it and because there are talking heads like Tucker Carlson out there saying it's the wrong thing to do.

    America has the largest military in the world and very few, if any, threats to its national security that alone would necessitate a military of such a size. So what else is there to do with this if not promote American hegemony overseas? The bonus in this case is that America isn't committing its own troops and it isn't even sending state of the art gear, so isn't that actually an amazing bargain in return for knocking out one of the U.S.'s main global rivals, historically?

    The reason the likes of Tucker Carlson want less arms to Ukraine is because they would quite like to see Russia win. Russia represents what they'd like America to become albeit perhaps with better infrastructure. Authoritarian - ruthlessly stamps out dissent - socially regressive - has an elite class that is heavily protected by state power. They want to see this type of societal structure flourish worldwide.



  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Slava_Ukraine


    Keep wondering.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭ZeroThreat



    If the US became that sort of country, you can be 100% sure the same system would be imposed here shortly after via an iron-boot, which is why anyone here supporting the orange one needs their head examined.



  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Slava_Ukraine


    “I wonder if a Republican candidate wins the Presidental election will the military aid stop, a lot of Americans don't seem to be too happy with what Biden is doing arming the Ukrainians.”

    Keep wondering.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,717 ✭✭✭✭briany


    It's funny, isn't it, how people have been talking about the US's military-industrial complex as this unstoppable force driving U.S. foreign policy, but somehow that would be halted by whoever's in the Oval Office. A Republican president may make some big proclamations about reducing aid to Ukraine, but the lobbying will probably ensure that this does not happen. As the stopped clock theory goes, the military-industrial complex might actually be on the right side of history in this instance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,550 ✭✭✭amandstu




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,841 ✭✭✭Polar101


    They don't really have any to give. There are no replacement fighters coming and they can't really quickly build new ones to replace any they might give away. They are also pretty close to Russia, and are not in NATO (yet).

    Sweden has donated tons of weapons already, so it's pretty sad some people are complaining.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    Most of the territory Russia occupy in Ukraine was pretty much put on a plate for them by the little green men invasion of 2014. What did they actually “win” since the 24th February 2022. They pounded Mariupol into the Ground after reaching it effectively unopposed at a time when Ukraine was trying to get their bearings with attacks coming in three directions at once. They had a woeful hard slog to capture Severiedonetsk and lysychansk and then an infinitely more desperate hard 9 month slog in Bakhmut. It’s a woeful return for the resources they lost and the loss of national prestige. There is no way that Putin or any person with even half a brain would have started this war if they had the benefit of knowing it would turn out like this. The map is virtually static since September 2022. With thousands upon thousands dead to achieve that deadlock. Once Ukraine got over the initial shock of being invaded they have had the Russians by the throat. It’s been an unmitigated disaster for Russia. They have shown zero superiority over Ukrainian forces in any sector of this war bar maybe propaganda trolling at times ( they have bizarrely won the hearts and minds of the extreme conservative right and far left west) and of course the nuclear sector. That’s it they have Nothing else.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,414 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Ukraine wouldn't need any more aid after I end the war in one day.

    Easy peasy lemon squeezy



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,455 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Sure, that's what Tucker Carlson would like very much, with himself being in a position of power in the new structure, but he would not like one little bit being a citizen of that kind of state.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,455 ✭✭✭jmreire


    ...



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Lots of Americans (i.e. Republicans) would condemn Biden if he walked on water or personally stopped Hurricane Hilary in its tracks. They would appprove of one of their own,(a Republican president) if he were to take the same robust attitude to Russia as Biden is now doing.

    They just can't help it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,358 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    It’s actually amazing how Ukraine repelled an attack on 3 fronts all of a sudden with such an inferior army,


    Hopefully someday it’s explained in details in a documentary or similar.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,930 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    If Trump or DeSantis hypothetically got in, of course they would love to pull the plug (purely to spite Democrats) however there is still relatively strong support among Republicans to support/arm Ukraine, which is why you don't hear the GOP candidates talking about it too much (yet). DeSantis even had to walk back comments he made that it was just a "territorial dispute".

    Polls show most Americans still support Ukraine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭dennis72


    Stopping aid for Ukraine would be a surrender to Russia and embolden China

    A victory to all dictators and a defeat for democracy

    Alaska might be back with Russia.

    But when people support trump that as undemocratic as some referenced above



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭TheRepentent


    Yeah it's only the trumpanzees that are hooping about stopping aid. There' not a hope that donald trump the rapist will get voted in

    Wanna support genocide?Cheer on the murder of women and children?The Ruzzians aren't rapey enough for you? Morally bankrupt cockroaches and islamaphobes , Israel needs your help NOW!!

    http://tinyurl.com/2ksb4ejk


    https://www.btselem.org/



  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement