Next Battle In Ukraine Tougher For Ukrainians!

[para bellum]

It's not "the US's" war or "NATO's" war. It's Putin's war.

Zelensky is not a US puppet- Zelensky defeated the US puppet in a free election.

The US tried to get Zelensky to capitulate in the beginning. Biden offered to evacuate Zelensky when Russia invaded. If it was up to Biden, Putin would have rolled into Kiev and installed a puppet regime. Zelensky refused to cave, which made him extremely popular in Ukraine and Europe and the US, and there is broad public support for Ukraine as a result.

Reports this morning is that the offensive in the East has begun, but not by the Russians. Ukrainian forces are moving east from Kharkiv to cut the LOC to Izium. There has been a convoy moving from Belgorod to Izium for about a week. It was forced to divert south before Kharkiv to avoid Ukrainian attacks, and was about 90 km east of Kharkiv.

There is most likely one MTO batallion in this convoy, possibly two. It's 8 miles long.

It's been harassed along the way but has been slowly creeping south. A couple days ago, a bridge was blown with the convoy crossing, and several trucks were destroyed. That happened in "Russian controlled territory", mind you.

Tanks and artillery are useless without ammunition, and ammunition moves by truck. Russia is commandeering civilian trucks because their own supply of tactical trucks is in shambles.

Convoy's coming. Let's see what the Ukes can do with those switchblades...

 

[para bellum]

Same report says Ukrainians are pushing northeast, on the east side of Izium. If successful, they will surround Izium and cut it off from resupply.

This would effectively kill the plan to encircle the AFU in the JFO. It's already a matter of debate if they even have sufficient forces after taking Mariupol to push north.

T-80U's are showing up in the Donbas, which means the 4thGTD has been thrown back into the meat grinder after losing 25% of their force in the Battle for Kiev...

 

[LuckyDuck]

The Ukrainian government should sell western Ukraine to Poland, allowing it to be a semi-autonomous region with an option to buy back at a later date. Once sold, move NATO troops and munitions into the territory sold. Russia will then have the option of attacking a NATO territory, then having to face a war against 30 countries or pull back.

 

[ESay]

The Ukrainian government should sell western Ukraine to Poland, allowing it to be a semi-autonomous region with an option to buy back at a later date. Once sold, move NATO troops and munitions into the territory sold. Russia will then have the option of attacking a NATO territory, then having to face a war against 30 countries or pull back.

Great plan. Have you made up it yourself or someone told you it?

 

[Ringo]

Tweets from Ukrainian nazi Sergei “Botsman” Korotkikh, who has now made his account private, say Gonzalo Lira has been kidnapped, tortured and might be beheaded.
Impossible to verify, but this is plausible. SBU is known to torture and murder its victims.

 

[Rigby5]

The history of war is the history of technological one upmanship

Blinken has said that there will be 10 anti-tank systems in Ukraine for every Russian tank:

https://tass.com/world/1433761?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com

It seems that tanks are now obsolete. Russia has long built it's military strategy on massive tanks attacks - and NATO has been planning to counter that for the past 70 years.

Additionally, Ukraine is getting plenty of anti-aircraft weapons.

I doubt that the NATO generals would be promoting the continuation of this fight if Ukraine couldn't win - and so far NATO has been 100% correct in their predictions.

The only advantage Russia will have is it's long range artillery. Don't be surprised if NATO has a solution for that.

NATO aggravated this war to damage Russia - and their plan is going swimmingly. Russia walked into their first trap, now it looks like they're walking into the second one.

Wrong.
Anti tank missiles cost more than tanks do.
And Russia has so far only been using 1972 and older tanks, that are essentially worthless.
And there are number of ways to disable delicate missile homing systems.
NATO is promoting this war they know Russia has to eventually win because it allows for more profits for arms makers.
And that is the real goal of NATO.
They are use using the Ukrainians, with no intent of actually helping them at all.
Russia has not yet been harmed at all, and likely will come out on top, not only by defeating and arresting Zelensky, but possibly by removing the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
In which case, the US will become bankrupt instantly.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, they have. Too bad for you.

The CIA is not nice for anyone.
Look how they encouraged the Mujahideen, only to later turn on them.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't know, but I'm sure the U.S. military does.

But, the Russian military has no idea how many hypersonic missiles the U.S. & NATO has.

But get a clue, the U.S. military is 30-50 years ahead of Russian technologically. That's why NATO anti-tank systems are slaughtering Russian tanks.

Besides, the Russian economy is tiny as compared to the U.S., so Russia doesn't have the capacity to produce high tech weaponry in the quantities that the U.S. can.

Wrong.

The US and NATO have no hypersonics yet that are operational, at all.

The tanks Russia has dumped on the front line are all 1972 or older.
So no, the US military is NOT 30-50 years ahead of the best Russian ordnance.
For example, our best tank is the M1 Abrams, which is a pile of junk running a turbine jet engine that can be heard miles away and easily detected by heat signature. It was originally built in 1968, and has always been a disaster.
It costs way too much, is constantly in need of repair and uses almost twice as much fuel as any other tank.

If you want real world verification, look at the use of Saud M1 Abrams in Yemen.
They are easily be wiped out by the Iranian T-92s.

As far as economy, the US is barely able to keep up payments on our huge national debt.
In contrast, Russia never owes anyone anything.

 

[Rigby5]

Guess again. We've had hypersonics for many. many years.

Sprint (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They just tested a hypersonic ICBM...

US tested hypersonic missile in mid-March but kept it quiet to avoid escalating tensions with Russia

The US successfully tested a hypersonic missile in mid-March but kept it quiet for two weeks to avoid escalating tensions with Russia as President Joe Biden was about to travel to Europe, according to a defense official familiar with the matter.

www.cnn.com

The sprint is not a hypersonic attack weapon for several reasons.
One is that it maxed out just under the 10 x speed of sound, and hypersonic has to be significantly over 10 x speed of sound.
Another is that is it short range, defensive, and difficult to control.
It was an early ABM concept where we thought just blanketing our air space with nuclear detonations was a good idea.
Its not.

 

[Rigby5]

Firepower and technology isn't the issue with Russia's army. They had all those things at the beginning of the war and they still couldn't take a small city like Kyiv. The US had the firepower, better tech, better soldiers, much better training and way superior logistics and tactics than Russia could ever hope to have, and they couldn't even take a mudhole like Afghanistan from guys running around in pajamas. The Russian army is swimming in a sea of confusion, incompetence and corruption. This will not end well for them.

The Ukrainians only held onto Kyiv due to javelin missiles that cost MORE than the old 1972 Russian tanks.
Once they run out of those missiles, then the Ukraine is finished.

And in the east, the populations that observe, will be Russian instead of Ukrainian.
It is the Ukrainian forces that will be continually ambushed instead.

 

[Rigby5]

It's not "the US's" war or "NATO's" war. It's Putin's war.

Zelensky is not a US puppet- Zelensky defeated the US puppet in a free election.

The US tried to get Zelensky to capitulate in the beginning. Biden offered to evacuate Zelensky when Russia invaded. If it was up to Biden, Putin would have rolled into Kiev and installed a puppet regime. Zelensky refused to cave, which made him extremely popular in Ukraine and Europe and the US, and there is broad public support for Ukraine as a result.

Reports this morning is that the offensive in the East has begun, but not by the Russians. Ukrainian forces are moving east from Kharkiv to cut the LOC to Izium. There has been a convoy moving from Belgorod to Izium for about a week. It was forced to divert south before Kharkiv to avoid Ukrainian attacks, and was about 90 km east of Kharkiv.

There is most likely one MTO batallion in this convoy, possibly two. It's 8 miles long.

It's been harassed along the way but has been slowly creeping south. A couple days ago, a bridge was blown with the convoy crossing, and several trucks were destroyed. That happened in "Russian controlled territory", mind you.

Tanks and artillery are useless without ammunition, and ammunition moves by truck. Russia is commandeering civilian trucks because their own supply of tactical trucks is in shambles.

Convoy's coming. Let's see what the Ukes can do with those switchblades...

Elections are never free when the CIA starts pouring money in.
And it is obvious Zelensky is just a US puppet, since his real trade is a stand up comic, not a person who knows anything about government.

Tanks and artillery are useless without ammunition, but you don't have to use ammunition until you actually confront enemy forces.
So as long as the Ukraine wants to turn this into a game of hide and seek, Russia can just wipe out the Ukraine economy instead.

This war was stupid for Zelensky to deliberately start.
They should have instead not stolen oil, not violated treaties, not murdered ethnic Russians with AZOV terrorists, not tried to join NATO, and not cut off negotiations.
Now Zelensky is doomed.

 

[Donald H]

The only advantage Russia will have is it's long range artillery. Don't be surprised if NATO has a solution for that.

Both sides have the capability of eliminating the opposition with pinpoint advanced missile technology the can hit the driver's seat in a parked car. And we can assume that neither side's missiles are stoppable.

It's now really just a question of whether one side or the other will volunteer to be the losing side.

Can we start thinking in the real world and leave the denial behind. It's not as if we don't all know what is coming.

 

[Donald H]

The Ukrainians only held onto Kyiv due to javelin missiles that cost MORE than the old 1972 Russian tanks.
Once they run out of those missiles, then the Ukraine is finished.

And in the east, the populations that observe, will be Russian instead of Ukrainian.
It is the Ukrainian forces that will be continually ambushed instead.

I'm afraid you are wrong. Think in terms of long range missile technology being used by both sides.
That makes tanks and harpoons obsolete!

 

[Richard-H]

Wrong.
Anti tank missiles cost more than tanks do.
And Russia has so far only been using 1972 and older tanks, that are essentially worthless.
And there are number of ways to disable delicate missile homing systems.
NATO is promoting this war they know Russia has to eventually win because it allows for more profits for arms makers.
And that is the real goal of NATO.
They are use using the Ukrainians, with no intent of actually helping them at all.
Russia has not yet been harmed at all, and likely will come out on top, not only by defeating and arresting Zelensky, but possibly by removing the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
In which case, the US will become bankrupt instantly.

Wow, you sure do blather about things you know nothing about!

First, the U.S. and NATO can easily afford the Anti-Tank weapons. Russia can not afford to send their best tanks to Ukraine, becuase Russia's economy is tiny. Russia may have some very advanced weaponry, but they don't have the economy to manufacture in mass quantities.

Russia lost ~600 tanks attacking Kyiv, so it's obvious that these anti-tank weapons are very effective.

Russia's attempt to capture Kyiv was a total failure that resulted in massive Russian casualties. So far it looks like the Ukrainians will destroy the Russian army in eastern Ukraine. The Russians haven't gained any ground since their recent attack began.

 

[Richard-H]

The sprint is not a hypersonic attack weapon for several reasons.
One is that it maxed out just under the 10 x speed of sound, and hypersonic has to be significantly over 10 x speed of sound.
Another is that is it short range, defensive, and difficult to control.
It was an early ABM concept where we thought just blanketing our air space with nuclear detonations was a good idea.
Its not.

First, hypersonic speeds are 5x the speed of sound, so the sprint is a hypersonic missile.

Second, the sprint an interceptor missile, not an ICBM, but the fact that the U.S. has it for a long time shows that we've had hypersonic technology for a long time. Porting that technology to an ICBM won't take long.

Blanketing our air space with small nuclear detonations is a whole lot better than getting hit by ICBMs.

BTW - I noticed how you ignored the fact the the U.S> just tested a new hypersonic ICBM.

 

[Richard-H]

Both sides have the capability of eliminating the opposition with pinpoint advanced missile technology the can hit the driver's seat in a parked car. And we can assume that neither side's missiles are stoppable.

It's now really just a question of whether one side or the other will volunteer to be the losing side.

Can we start thinking in the real world and leave the denial behind. It's not as if we don't all know what is coming.

In a war of attrition, economics matter the most. The U.S. in the worst of economic depressions is still a much stronger economy than Russia in the best of economic times.

The only advantage Russia has is it's people's ability to withstand economic suffering.

 

[Donald H]

In a war of attrition, economics matter the most. The U.S. in the worst of economic depressions is still a much stronger economy than Russia in the best of economic times.

The only advantage Russia has is it's people's ability to withstand economic suffering.

You're missing the point. Russia is going to refuse to accept defeat and you refuse to acknowledge what it will take for Russia to get at least a draw.

Everybody is too wound up in the propaganda to understand the situation that's been created.

Russia will most obviously turn to tactical nuclear weapon(s) if that's what it takes to get a draw.
Would the US respond with all out nuclear destruction of Russia? I rather don't think so, if the US understands the consequences.

Let's hope it doesn't come down to even a tactical nuke? I'm not so sure right now. A workable peace deal is in reach.

So fk the propaganda, in the end it won't mean anything. Now think before you start running your mouth. l

 

[Richard-H]

You're missing the point. Russia is going to refuse to accept defeat and you refuse to acknowledge what it will take for Russia to get at least a draw.

Everybody is too wound up in the propaganda to understand the situation that's been created.

Russia will most obviously turn to tactical nuclear weapon(s) if that's what it takes to get a draw.
Would the US respond with all out nuclear destruction of Russia? I rather don't think so, if the US understands the consequences.

Let's hope it doesn't come down to even a tactical nuke? I'm not so sure right now. A workable peace deal is in reach.

So fk the propaganda, in the end it won't mean anything. Now think before you start running your mouth. l

Putin has until May 9 to have some 'good' news about his 'Special Military Operation'. After that he's toast.

Putin doesn't have the independent authority to use nukes. Not surprisingly there are laws in Russia restricting the use of nukes.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm afraid you are wrong. Think in terms of long range missile technology being used by both sides.
That makes tanks and harpoons obsolete!

Long range missiles are exponentially expensive and easily knocked out.
Whether ballistic or cruise, missiles are extremely predictable and that is what Iron Dome has been working on hitting for a decade.

What I am surprised no one has done yet is to simply add a highly mobile shield to all tanks, ships, etc.
It would need to be able to cover any incoming path, so would have to swivel from the middle, and be able to traverse up or down, as needed. The size of the actual shield would depend on how accurate your defensive radar was.
The Shield itself would likely be a mesh of steel rods, to detonate, deflect, and absorbs any warhead.
Most missiles have shaped charge warheads, so actually have little explosive power.

 

[Donald H]

Long range missiles are exponentially expensive and easily knocked out.
Whether ballistic or cruise, missiles are extremely predictable and that is what Iron Dome has been working on hitting for a decade.

Nobody is talking that opinion up right now, since hypersonic missiles are on the scene.

What I am surprised no one has done yet is to simply add a highly mobile shield to all tanks, ships, etc.
It would need to be able to cover any incoming path, so would have to swivel from the middle, and be able to traverse up or down, as needed. The size of the actual shield would depend on how accurate your defensive radar was.

I don't see anything in the idea, other than heavier armour.

The Shield itself would likely be a mesh of steel rods, to detonate, deflect, and absorbs any warhead.
Most missiles have shaped charge warheads, so actually have little explosive power.

Maybe try selling the idea to the Pentagon?

What I'm suggesting is missile technology that can't be stopped. As far as I know the Russians have done it under water already with the super cavitating Skvar.

I asked the other day if America has one but nobody answered.

Is it bullshit coming from Russia/China or are they that far ahead on weapon technology?