- Reaction score
- 2,117
- Points
- 1,260
That becomes semi-official now that the RUS MoD info-machine's said it out loud this morning
From this morning's official English brief (attached)
Ukraine - Superthread
- Thread starter CougarKing
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,110
I saw the word Predator and thought of this. I'd guess if a few of those were dropped in the Russian lines.....
Attachments
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,596
- Points
- 1,140
I'd guess they are better at night fighting than the Russians.
- Reaction score
- 7,519
- Points
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 2,117
- Points
- 1,260
Low bar as that seems to be these days ....
- Reaction score
- 1,549
- Points
- 1,140
To me, it always seemed a bit fishy, too much of a coincidence. It could very well be Poles out for a witch hunt in the end.
A Polish government special commission has reinforced its earlier allegations that the 2010 plane crash that killed President Lech Kaczynski and 95 others in Russia was the result of Moscow’s assassination plan.
The latest of the commission’s reports, released Monday, alleges that an intentional detonation of planted explosives caused the April 10, 2010 crash of Soviet-made Tu-154M plane that killed Kaczynski, the first lady and 94 other government and armed forces figures as well as many prominent Poles.
Their deaths were the result of an “act of unlawful interference by the Russian side,” the commission’s head Antoni Macierewicz told a news conference.
“The main and indisputable proof of the interference was an explosion in the left wing ... followed by an explosion in the plane’s center,” said Macierewicz, who in 2015-2018 served as defense minister in Poland’s right-wing government.
The latest report once again drums up hostility toward Russia among some Poles, chiefly supporters of the nationalist government, it what seems to be an effort to consolidate the voter base of the Law and Justice party, which was founded by the Kaczynski twins in 2001.
Suspicions are additionally fuelled by Russia’s refusal to return the wreckage, which has complicated Poland’s investigation.
Polish panel: Russia behind Polish leader's plane crash
Polish panel: Russia behind Polish leader’s plane crash
A Polish government special commission has reinforced its earlier allegations that the 2010 plane crash that killed President Lech Kaczynski and 95 others in Russia was the result of Moscow’s assassination plan.
The latest of the commission’s reports, released Monday, alleges that an intentional detonation of planted explosives caused the April 10, 2010 crash of Soviet-made Tu-154M plane that killed Kaczynski, the first lady and 94 other government and armed forces figures as well as many prominent Poles.
Their deaths were the result of an “act of unlawful interference by the Russian side,” the commission’s head Antoni Macierewicz told a news conference.
“The main and indisputable proof of the interference was an explosion in the left wing ... followed by an explosion in the plane’s center,” said Macierewicz, who in 2015-2018 served as defense minister in Poland’s right-wing government.
The latest report once again drums up hostility toward Russia among some Poles, chiefly supporters of the nationalist government, it what seems to be an effort to consolidate the voter base of the Law and Justice party, which was founded by the Kaczynski twins in 2001.
Suspicions are additionally fuelled by Russia’s refusal to return the wreckage, which has complicated Poland’s investigation.
Polish panel: Russia behind Polish leader's plane crash
- Reaction score
- 2,117
- Points
- 1,260
Remember these guys?
www.theguardian.com
They're baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack out there (via RUS state media) to muddy the chem attack waters
#EverythingOldIsNewAgain
How Syria's White Helmets became victims of an online propaganda machine
The Russia-backed campaign to link the volunteer rescuers with al-Qaida exposes how conspiracy theories take root: ‘It’s like a factory’
www.theguardian.com
#EverythingOldIsNewAgain
So I’m under no illusion about the Russian government being dicks, led by someone who - whether his Ukraine ‘adventure’ is going well or not - we all thought/think was a fairly smart and forward thinking guy.
But this stuff always seems like a macho power play designed to piss off their neighbours. The ultimate sacred ground of international relations, stomped on by the big Russian bear.
Perhaps I was naive. I had always thought of Russia’s foreign policy moves over the last few years to actually be beneficial in some ways, as it kept the various US administrations from having a monopoly on world events.
But Ukraine in 2014, refusing to return wreckage of a downed aircraft that killed a national leader because it may reveal a huge ‘no no’, assassinating a world leader in the first place, and now everything that’s been happening over the last 6 weeks or so?
I was naive and wrong in thinking Russia had a desire to keep stability in its sphere of influence, and that it came from a source of professionalism.
Ditto with Turkey.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,522
- Points
- 1,090
Very interesting article, contrasting Russian and Ukrainian armies, and how one (Ukrainian) adapted to modern realities, while another (Russian) did not.
www.thebulwark.com
I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.
The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.
www.thebulwark.com
- Reaction score
- 7,519
- Points
- 1,140
Great article posted yesterdayI Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.
The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.
Ah, sorry. I guess I didn't scroll back enough pages.Great article posted yesterday
- Reaction score
- 7,519
- Points
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 7,519
- Points
- 1,140
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,068
- Points
- 1,160
Very interesting article, contrasting Russian and Ukrainian armies, and how one (Ukrainian) adapted to modern realities, while another (Russian) did not.
I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.
The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.
It depends, I suppose, on what are the "modern realities". Russia's military (similar to Canada's) is a reflection of its society and (more so) its political environment. They have (had?) just the military to suit their purposes. If an underlying, continuing facet of their government for the past three decades is kleptocracy, then why would anyone be surprised that commanders at all levels have picked the bones clean for personal gain. They certainly don't have any expectation of a comfortable and respectable life following retirement unless they feather the nest while serving. And as much as the Russian info machine has proclaimed NATO encroachment as a threat to their borders, much of Russia's military operations since the dissolution of the USSR has been internal security (or nibbling at the edges of its former empire). Dictators don't have much desire to develop militaries that think for themselves and are capable of complex operations. If they had followed the example of Ukraine (and it hasn't just been Ukraine's military that improved in the past several years), then there may have been a more robust opposition to Putin.
- Reaction score
- 1,549
- Points
- 1,140
There is the potential, outside of the US and possibly the UK and France, that all other NATO countries that are currently willing/able to provide equipment to the Ukrainians that they are getting close to the point that they have little left in the cupboards to give without seriously emptying their own military's needs.
The Germans may have old East German equipment left to give, no idea of the readiness of this equipment, but for many of the others, they may not have a lot left to give. Bullets and small arms? Most likely, but heavy equipment, probably not much left.
Unless serious training is given to the Ukrainians on US equipment very soon, they may not have the heavy equipment necessary to continue such a robust defence.
- Reaction score
- 3,147
- Points
- 1,060
The Germans are pleading poverty - nothing left in the lockers. I believe them. Canada and Germany have followed the same trajectories.
Britain, France and Italy, have boutique arsenals that keep their own armies equipped. See a couple hundred Challengers, LeClercs and Arietes each.
The only arsenal available is the US. They need their own stocks as well so the question is how much last generation gear do they have immediately to hand. And how much money is the rest of the world willing to donate to hand warehoused kit like Abrams and Leo 1s to Ukraine.
Skysix
Member
- Reaction score
- 366
- Points
- 780
Training is nowhere near as much of an issue as physically getting them to the staging areas for the fight.
There are literally hundreds of semi-obsolete early model M1's in storage stateside. But how do you get them there quickly? Even if the US government requisitioned a bunch of RO/RO ships, taking them into Odessa is not viable without a large naval squadron, likely a carrier based task force. Which Turkey will not allow and would be a much more serious provocation
That said, rail from a Polish port might get them to the Ukraine border but after that the rail system would need defending against Russian cruise missiles and aerial attack. Road convoys would also likely be attacked and would require shipping a large number of the tanks on tractor/trailer sets and multiple convoy round trips.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,596
- Points
- 1,140
Despite with the Russians might think, the Black Sea is still international waters.
I doubt the Russians would want to risk more aircraft that far west, particularly close to the Polish border where an error in navigation or targeting could escalate things as well.
- Reaction score
- 1,549
- Points
- 1,140
Its the 'lead time' that is going to be a major deciding factor here.
The time that it takes to; 1) make the decision to send, 2) see what's available to send, 3) agree on what to send, 4) agree on the number to send, 5) agree on how to send, 6) agree on when to send, 7) agree on where to send, 8) agree to who to train, 9) agree to how to train, 10) agree on where to train, 11) agree on how many to train, 12) agree on length of training, 13) agree on 'one and done' training or ongoing, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Somewhere (most likely in a number of places) analysis is being done on various 'burn down' (to use a banking PM phase) scenarios on how long the Ukrainians (and the Russians) can maintain various operational tempos based on existing stock, possible captured stock and net new donated stocks of heavy equipment. Eventually the cupboard will run bare long before they run out of available manpower.
The timelines to build/replenish existing equipment is vastly longer than it is to destroy/use existing equipment. That phase that I used a few days back that my Grandfather used to say to me, 'It's easier to destroy something than it is to build something' is plainly evident in modern warfare. In today's war's the first to run out of equipment becomes the loser - even if they've lost no land or even hold the enemies land.
Similar threads
