Russia Ukraine War 2022

Who will win this war?.


  • Total voters
    543

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,911
Likes
9,295
Country flag
Don't waste your breath on these idiots.
Russia under Putin who is responsible for Grozny is moral superpower and never kills civilians. It's clear they know zilch about history.

You are explaining them like they want to understand....that's not the case.

They only want to play Globohomo, West is Satan, 5th gen war which is a very paki trait.

Let them play with their dollhouses and barbies.

View attachment 167241
i asked you a question. Why did you dodge ?
Please explain to us why Ukraine has suffered far less civilian casualties on day 150 of the war than Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya did, if NATO didn't have a lower regard for collateral damage.
 

Varzone

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2022
Messages
2,914
Likes
5,484
i asked you a question. Why did you dodge ?
Please explain to us why Ukraine has suffered far less civilian casualties on day 150 of the war than Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya did, if NATO didn't have a lower regard for collateral damage.
When did I say NATO is fairy old grandmother?
Achieve the objectives, don't blither and bluster on the battlefield.
You get no brownie points for it. NATO murdered thousands in Middle East and even worse in Vietnam.
All kinds of ammunition was used, to what effect? Russia is trying to collapse a second time in 30 years.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,911
Likes
9,295
Country flag
When did I say NATO is fairy old grandmother?
Achieve the objectives, don't blither and bluster on the battlefield.
You get no brownie points for it. NATO murdered thousands in Middle East and even worse in Vietnam.
All kinds of ammunition was used, to what effect? Russia is trying to collapse a second time in 30 years.
Then why are you challenging the fact that Russia is showing a higher moral benchmark in their war than nattu does ?
The entire point of saying A is better than B is to say A is BETTER. Not A is perfect.

if you kill less civilians at the same stage of the war as i did, then you have a higher moral benchmark in the war. its just that simple. So why are you challenging that statement ?
I mean, it should be PAINFULLY obvious as to which side has higher regard for civilian casualties - the side killing them less, DESPITE having less precision guided munitions or the side who kills them more AND has way more precision guided munitions.
 

ww2historian

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
2,313
Likes
6,706
Country flag
Some more information...

PhD in physics from Arizona...projectiles traveling at 2.5 mach... Using magnetic anomaly monitoring.
You somehow think this is good news if true? While you read about mostly petty irrelevant information, the Russian's are amassing more and more BTGs, while the Ukrainian's BTGs are decreasing. I'll repeat, Odessa will be attacked very soon. The reason is simple, Odessa has become a very dangerous threat to Russia's black sea fleet, and now airfields in Crimea. Also, you haven't read up on how Ukraine's troops in the Kherson region are being destroyed in mass. Ukraine also needed to send their artillery in back to where it came from in Avdiivka, but can they now do this? Short answer is no, and that's why Avdiivka falls sooner rather then latter.
 

ww2historian

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
2,313
Likes
6,706
Country flag
Don't waste your breath on these idiots.
Russia under Putin who is responsible for Grozny is moral superpower and never kills civilians. It's clear they know zilch about history.

You are explaining them like they want to understand....that's not the case.

They only want to play Globohomo, West is Satan, 5th gen war which is a very paki trait.

Let them play with their dollhouses and barbies.

View attachment 167241
You just don't see the hypocrisy of America. It would be something like another American civil war, but this time Russia is sending weapons to southern US states, hoping for a southern victory of independence, thus weakening America forever. All the while Russia using idealist propaganda that the southern US states have a right to chose to be there own sovereign independent nation. I'm sure Washington would be okay with that, right? Point is during our civil war this was the vote results, but Washington didn't care, just like nobody cares that Crimea voted 97% to join Russia.
  • South Carolina… 169-0
  • Mississippi… 84-15
  • Florida… 62-7
  • Alabama… 61-39
  • Georgia… 209-89
  • Louisiana… 113-17
  • Texas… 66-7 to approve a referendum on secession, which passed 46,153-14,747.
  • Virginia… 88-55 to approve a referendum on secession, which passed 132,201-37,451. Counties bordering Ohio and Pennsylvania organize the Wheeling Convention and vote to stay with the Union, laying the groundwork for West Virginia.
  • Arkansas… 69-1
  • Tennessee… 66-25 to approve a referendum on secession, which passed 104,471-47,183
  • North Carolina… Unanimous for secession.
  • Maryland… 13-53 against secession, but regiments from Maryland organized to join the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
  • Delaware… Voted against secession, but some volunteers went to the Confederacy.
  • Missouri… Voted for “armed neutrality,” but was occupied by Federal forces, provoking Confederate sympathizers to create a shadow government that was recognized by the Confederacy. Supplied troops to both sides of the war.
  • Kentucky… Declared neutrality, was invaded by both sides, after which it slid towards supporting the Union. Confederate sympathizers created a shadow government. Supplied troops to both sides of the war.
  • In the end 600,000 Americans were killed. Was it worth the cost?
 

ww2historian

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
2,313
Likes
6,706
Country flag
This is an interesting and important development. Turkey is probably the most important NATO member because they control access to the black sea. I guess this is a great example of a country looking out for it's own best interest, not what's best for the rest of Europe or America. I think Putin understands this perfectly, and uses it to his own advantage, instead of taking it personally like the west does. Putin just keeps out foxing the west. He's ruthless, but I do admire his intelligence.
Turkey really is playing on both sides of the fence. I don't blame them.
Turkey Hits US Allied Forces In Syria Days After Erdogan-Putin Meet l Russia Tacitly Backing Strike?

https://www.news18.com/videos/ivide...-l-russia-tacitly-backing-strike-5727649.html
 

ww2historian

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
2,313
Likes
6,706
Country flag
Turkey really is playing on both sides of the fence. I don't blame them.
Turkey Hits US Allied Forces In Syria Days After Erdogan-Putin Meet l Russia Tacitly Backing Strike?

https://www.news18.com/videos/ivide...-l-russia-tacitly-backing-strike-5727649.html
Financial Times: West considers sanctions against Turkey due to its cooperation with Russia.
Possible sanctions against a NATO member??? The west is screwing itself.
 

ww2historian

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
2,313
Likes
6,706
Country flag
I always love to hear Hungary's point of view on huge news events. They usually are 100% correct.
Hungarian Conservative Why Sanctioning Turkey Is Probably a Bad Idea
Turkey’s relationship with the European Union has always been ambiguous. There are reasons why Turkey has still not become a full EU member state. after two decades of being a candidate. One of the reasons is that Turkey’s foreign policy approach has always been pragmatic – regardless of with whom and on what basis it had to deal with. Turkey is a country that aspires to considerably expand its regional power status (competing with the likes of Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia) and to use the gained influence to have a chance to play a part in world politics. One thing that Brussels doesn’t seem to understand is that Ankara–with or without Erdogan’s arguably authoritarian regime–won’t adhere to its ideological groupthink just to gain its favour and possible admittance into their boys’ club if the ideology in question goes against its perceived geopolitical interests. For Turkey, EU membership is just one of the many tools to gain more prestige, one that certainly becomes less and less appealing as the bloc continues to engage in economic self-sabotage over Ukraine.
The EU wants to force Turkey to hop on its bandwagon of predictably terrible choices
Now the EU wants to force Turkey to hop on its bandwagon of predictably terrible choices. As many politicians, such as Viktor Orbán. have already pointed out, the Western sanctions have had no significant effect whatsoever – at least not on Russia, since they pretty much ruined Europe’s already weakened economies. The solution? Get more countries to join and maybe the joint pressure could become big enough to force Putin into a corner. That’s why they need Ankara, a country with a sizeable population and major economic connections to Russia to fall in line. After all, EU candidates should follow Brussels out of sheer respect, shouldn’t they?
Turkey is also a member of NATO, although its commitment to the Alliance is questionable at best, for all the reasons I outlined above. It views NATO as the defensive alliance it is, and refuses to be bullied into economic decisions by the group, just like in the case of the EU. Turkish officials have stated many times that they fully support Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty, but ‘as a matter of principle’, Turkey ‘exclusively joins sanctions that are imposed by the United Nations’.
According to the Financial Times, the EU Commission plans to heavily sanction Turkey over its deepening ties with Russia as a response to Erdogan and Putin’s meeting just days ago. At the meeting, the leaders agreed to maintain (and even expand some of) the mutually beneficial areas of cooperation between their nations, primarily in the fields of energy, finance, agriculture and industry. Western official– and rightly so–fear that Russia may use the opportunities provided by the relatively robust Turkish economy to circumvent some of the sanctions imposed on it, and therefore the EU plans to “punish” Ankara with the next package of sanctions.
Now, endless arguments can be engaged in about whether Turkey’s overly pragmatic approach to EU sanctions and the war in Ukraine was morally correct or not, but that would be counterproductive at this point, since the question of whether the Western sanctions would work if more countries (like Turkey) joined needs to be addressed instead. And the answer to the question is probably no, they would not. Regarding Turkey, it is a sovereign country that decides to act in pursuit of its best-perceived interests. And to be fair, so does the EU if it goes forward with its plans to sanction Turkey. So the final questions remain: is it worth it? Ankara has been having the upper hand over Brussels when it comes to threats for quite a few years now, and for one particular reason: it could flood Europe with migrants whenever it wishes to do so.
Turkey hosts nearly four million refugees on its soil
Between 2016 and 2020, the EU signed eight contracts for €6 billion in exchange for Turkey to manage and keep the migration crisis inside its borders. At the present moment, Turkey hosts nearly four million refugees on its soil, who primarily came from Syria and other parts of the Middle East during and after the 2015 European migration crisis. The years that followed saw many European governments facing enormous backlash for their participation in the Willkommenskultur, terrorist attacks felt like commonplace in Western Europe and the general atmosphere heavily shifted the whole political paradigm of the West – resulting in Brexit, for instance. And that was only one and a half million refugees. Now imagine it happening again–once Turkey has had enough of us–with significantly bigger numbers. Not only the four million currently in the country but also the countless masses that will predictably arrive in the next couple of months due to the worsening global energy and food situation may end up in Europe.
And no, I don’t advocate for giving in to Turkish blackmail at all; in such dire times, that would be a sign of weakness Europe simply cannot afford. Instead, we should reconsider our entire strategy toward the war in Ukraine. The sanctions don’t work, and this kind of aggressive solution seems to just birth more problems along the road and we have no idea how long the whole conflict will drag on. Europe doesn’t have too much time, unfortunately. Unless we end the war–and end it soon–Europe will crumble under the weight of the current energy crises by the end of the year. Therefore, let us come together and find a peace agreement that’s acceptable for all. Otherwise, we not only risk freezing this winter, but possibly the start of a second and much more serious migration crisis. Europeans won’t care what Turkey or others did or didn’t do – the responsibility to act falls solely on Brussels and the time to act is now.
Tamás Orbán, columnist and political analyst, currently working as a senior research fellow at the Budapest-based think tank, the Danube Institute. He graduated in contemporary history and international relations from BabeşBolyai University in Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca, Romania). His main areas of interest are American domestic affairs and geopolitics.
 

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
4,988
Likes
9,931
If we already have staged supplies on the border of USA, then my logistics is from the border of USA to whreever in USA we are fighting. That is simple, elementary logic. Your logistics is all about moving things from point A to point B. If your point B - the frontline, is Afghanistan and point A is Saudi, then point A to point B is 1000 kms.
This is my last attempt explaining this.
When you are paying for logistic (be it effort or money or time) you are paying from source to designation.
Even if US forces have accumulated their supplies in Saudi for consumption/usage in Afghanistan; it doesn't mean the logistic burden is only from Saudi to Afghanistan.
The logistic burden is from US to Afghanistan only US to Saudi logistic trail has been optimized to reduce cost while rest of journey it will have higher cost.
 

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
4,988
Likes
9,931
No. The cost of airlifting 50 billion stuff back to USA is about 10% of that. This is literally provable. it costs less to fly a C-17 in and out on a mission than the value of its cargo hold stuffed full of M-16s. So do not make bullshit excuses for US ditching and running
How you came across 50 billion value? Care to elaborate on that.
Transportation cost money, one has to pay for fuel, maintenance, airspace, etc. and unlike Russians everyone else pays for fuel in hard-cash (biggest cost).
It all comes to cost benefit analysis.
If it cost more than the benefit then just dump the items. It will not cause problems to US.
 

Blademaster

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
9,217
Likes
26,964
View attachment 167228

Do you recognise this pic? Russia is destroying cities...idk what is wrong with you.

Kiev has air defence.

And don't call me gandu, gandu naresh
They were bombed because the Ukrops were using those buildings as sniper nests and ATGMs nests intentionally putting civilians in harms way.

What the fuck is wrong with you? The western world is destroying Ukraine and its cities.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,911
Likes
9,295
Country flag
This is my last attempt explaining this.
When you are paying for logistic (be it effort or money or time) you are paying from source to designation.
Logistics in military is not about money- everything is ALREADY paid for, including the fuel being used. Military logistics is all about time & the physical challenges of moving item A from point X to point Y. That is it.

Even if US forces have accumulated their supplies in Saudi for consumption/usage in Afghanistan; it doesn't mean the logistic burden is only from Saudi to Afghanistan.
This is literally what it means in terms of military logistics. general Y's concern about how many tanks and infantry and planes needed for Baghdad revolves taking the required numbers from Dammam & Riyadh and how long it will take to get to Baghdad, what cover it requires, etc.

Military logistics is ALWAYS about logistics from point of staging to the active front. Not from factory all the way to the front- that is absurd sophistry. This is why US's logistics vs Iraq was similar to Russia's logistics vs Ukraine.


The logistic burden is from US to Afghanistan only US to Saudi logistic trail has been optimized to reduce cost while rest of journey it will have higher cost.
No. When USA fought iraq, the military logistical burden was from Saudi to Iraq, since america had ALREADY staged the supplies it required for the invasion. US to KSA logistics is called 'topping up the reserves', not active military logistics.
 

Blademaster

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
9,217
Likes
26,964
Yes. Same fate would fall your nayto bases if the taliban had missiles supplied by russia or china. Yet, Russia is still extending its territory and since Kiev retreat, has not controlled less land than the day before.
And yet did it result in any net gains for Ukraine in terms of land? Nooooooo. Just another guy living on copium.

Reminds me of that old Soviet joke where two Soviet generals are sitting in a Paris cafe, drinking tea. One of them asked, "So who won the air war?"
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top