Ukraine 4

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/CyrusShares/status/1664372854442405888

[kevindavis007]

Call for Putin to be replaced... on state TV: Extraordinary criticism is levelled at Vladimir on Russian channel for the first time since Ukraine invasion

Boris Nadezhdin said Russian must choose a replacement for Putin in elections

By RACHAEL BUNYAN
1 June 2023

A Russian politician has launched an extraordinary attack on Vladimir Putin, calling for the despot to be ousted from office and replaced during an appearance on state TV. 

Opposition politician Boris Nadezhdin, who has criticised Russia's invasion of Ukraine, said on Russia's NTV channel that Russians must choose a different leader in the country's 2024 elections.

'We need to choose somebody else, and not Putin,' outspoken Nadezhdin said. 'Everything will be good then.'

*  *  *

Source:  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12148661/Call-Putin-replaced-state-TV-Extraordinary-criticism-levelled-Vladimir.html

He better stay away from windows.

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1664353891994181632

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1664352390529654784

[sneakypete]

My worry would involve mobilization by the Chinese, spooled up Russian nuclear forces, and the Norks or Iranians launching first. That could be a real hairball before the ordnance stops flying, and there are plenty of places the whole shooting match could go sideways off the rails.
If the Chinese figure out a way to orchestrate something like that, look out.

@Smokin Joe

I have been predicting for a while that the Chinese are waiting for Putin to be in SERIOUS trouble,and then to either just go ahead and invade eastern Russia to go after all the oil,coal,natural gas,and the other assets there because Russia will by then be too weak to fight  back.

Either that,or agree to come to Russia's aid military in exchange for it,but I really  don't see that happening. Why  would they risk that,when they can just pretty much walk in and take it?

This,of course,would all change if Putin were to be kicked  out of office and replaced by someone not insane.

I am ASSUMING his replacement would be a rational or semi-rational man who would pull the Soviet troops  back to Russia and try to get their economy going again. This would also free up  what remains of the Red Army  to go after any Chinese invaders,and THIS  time the troops would be fighting to preserve "Holy Mother Russia from the heathen invaders",and they would fight with  MUCH more vigor.

The whole "Holy Mother Russia" thing might sound like BS to most of you,but trust me,that is NOT the way most  Russians see Russia.

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1664399539510431746

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Smokin Joe

I have been predicting for a while that the Chinese are waiting for Putin to be in SERIOUS trouble,and then to either just go ahead and invade eastern Russia to go after all the oil,coal,natural gas,and the other assets there because Russia will by then be too weak to fight  back....

This,of course,would all change if Putin were to be kicked  out of office and replaced by someone not insane.

@sneakypete

Russia's territorial integrity is guaranteed by its nuclear arsenal, not by its army.  I don't think China (or anyone else...) would risk an unprovoked invasion of a nuclear-armed nation - especially one led by someone who they saw as unstable.

[Kamaji]

@sneakypete

Russia's territorial integrity is guaranteed by its nuclear arsenal, not by its army.  I don't think China (or anyone else...) would risk an unprovoked invasion of a nuclear-armed nation - especially one led by someone who they saw as unstable.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

Russia's territorial integrity is guaranteed by its nuclear arsenal, not by its army. I don't think China (or anyone else...) would risk an unprovoked invasion of a nuclear-armed nation - especially one led by someone who they saw as unstable.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Since nobody wins a fight between two nations that both have nukes,it is a losing proposition from the start,so it's not likely to happen.

Sure,some mental basket case like Putin can order the nukes launched,but will the Generals,and even more importantly,the low-ranking officers and enlisted swine with families to lose and no family nuclear bunker actually follow those orders?

Besides,nobody but retards actually thinks  there is such a thing as "winning" a nuclear war these days.

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1664591840123682816

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1664595760355180544

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1664596584137478144

[kevindavis007]

from r/UkraineWarVideoReport

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13y86es/020623_berdiansk_port_explosion/

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1664586035915812864

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Since nobody wins a fight between two nations that both have nukes,it is a losing proposition from the start,so it's not likely to happen.

I think the offensive, aggressive first-use of nukes is very unlikely.  However, I think it becomes a different issue if the clearly home territories of a nuclear power are invaded for the purpose of conquest.  At that point, where the continued existence of a nuclear-armed nation is at stake, the calculus is different.  If North Korea was invaded, would you be so sure they wouldn't launch?  Or if an Iran-led coalition of states looked like it was going to swallow Israel, are you sure the Israelis wouldn't?

Sure,some mental basket case like Putin can order the nukes launched,but will the Generals,and even more importantly,the low-ranking officers and enlisted swine with families to lose and no family nuclear bunker actually follow those orders?

Again, I think it is a different issue if you're talking about a defensive use, especially if it is limited.  So say China invades Eastern Russia, there is a meeting in the Kremlin, and the army says "we can't stop them."  If Putin says, okay, we're going to tell them that we're nuking Urumqi if they don't withdraw", I'm not sure the generals would think that unreasonable.

But whether Russia actually would or wouldn't is beside the point.  The real question is whether the Chinese believe there is a legitimate possibility that Russia might respond to invasion with a nuke.  Would you really want to take a risk, even if it is only a 25%, that you'd be triggering a nuclear war?  I don't think they'd do that.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1664586035915812864

I honestly think that's being a bit overblown.  The incursions into Russia itself seem to me to be a rather transparent attempt to get the Russians to weaken their defenses in Ukraine, and lack the combat power to be anything more than be a minor annoyance.  I think the Russian generals generally will argue for keeping their Ukrainian positions intact, and just using much smaller local formations to stop the incursions.  At a bare minimum, the Russians would have complete air superiority over their own territory, which would make it very difficult for the raids to have any substantial success.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

from r/UkraineWarVideoReport

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13y86es/020623_berdiansk_port_explosion/

I think everyone knows the general strategic idea of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, but nobody knows whether they'll aim for Melitopol, Berdyansk, or Mariupol.   That makes a pretty big difference as to where the Russians are going to strengthen their lines, so this likely is part of the campaign to keep them guessing.  Or...maybe they really are going for Berdyansk.

Regardless of the actual target, though, knocking out port facilities in Berdyansk makes sense.

[240B]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1664586035915812864

[sneakypete]

I think the offensive, aggressive first-use of nukes is very unlikely.  However, I think it becomes a different issue if the clearly home territories of a nuclear power are invaded for the purpose of conquest.  At that point, where the continued existence of a nuclear-armed nation is at stake, the calculus is different.  If North Korea was invaded, would you be so sure they wouldn't launch? 

WHY would anyone want to invade North Korea?

Or if an Iran-led coalition of states looked like it was going to swallow Israel, are you sure the Israelis wouldn't?


@Maj. Bill Martin

I am pretty sure the Israeli's WOULD. This is based on the history of Israel,and what the Jews who settled there went through to GET there,and then went through to build it up and make is a semi-safe place for them to stay.

Again, I think it is a different issue if you're talking about a defensive use, especially if it is limited.  So say China invades Eastern Russia, there is a meeting in the Kremlin, and the army says "we can't stop them."  If Putin says, okay, we're going to tell them that we're nuking Urumqi if they don't withdraw", I'm not sure the generals would think that unreasonable.

You may be right,but I can't even guess what would happen.


But whether Russia actually would or wouldn't is beside the point.  The real question is whether the Chinese believe there is a legitimate possibility that Russia might respond to invasion with a nuke.  Would you really want to take a risk, even if it is only a 25%, that you'd be triggering a nuclear war?

Nope,but I am not a "Maximum Leader Megla-maniac.

[Hoodat]

Russian T-90M taken out in Zaporizhzhia.  Russia started the war with around 50 of these.  They have lost over half that number in Ukraine.

from r/UkraineWarVideoReport

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13yi0gi/footage_of_the_defeat_of_the_russian_t90m_tank_in/

[Smokin Joe]

I think the offensive, aggressive first-use of nukes is very unlikely.  However, I think it becomes a different issue if the clearly home territories of a nuclear power are invaded for the purpose of conquest.  At that point, where the continued existence of a nuclear-armed nation is at stake, the calculus is different.  If North Korea was invaded, would you be so sure they wouldn't launch?  Or if an Iran-led coalition of states looked like it was going to swallow Israel, are you sure the Israelis wouldn't?

Again, I think it is a different issue if you're talking about a defensive use, especially if it is limited.  So say China invades Eastern Russia, there is a meeting in the Kremlin, and the army says "we can't stop them."  If Putin says, okay, we're going to tell them that we're nuking Urumqi if they don't withdraw", I'm not sure the generals would think that unreasonable.

But whether Russia actually would or wouldn't is beside the point.  The real question is whether the Chinese believe there is a legitimate possibility that Russia might respond to invasion with a nuke.  Would you really want to take a risk, even if it is only a 25%, that you'd be triggering a nuclear war?  I don't think they'd do that.

We need to recall that when then Chinese massed troops (100s of thousands) across the Yalu River as our forces were driving the North Koreans to that border, Gen. Curtis LeMay wanted to nuke them if they started across.
You can argue the possible wisdom of a move that would have avoided the a long series of battles, including the Chosin Reservoir and saved the lives of thousands of our guys, but the bottom line is that it did not happen.

[Timber Rattler]

We need to recall that when then Chinese massed troops (100s of thousands) across the Yalu River as our forces were driving the North Koreans to that border, Gen. Curtis LeMay wanted to nuke them if they started across.
You can argue the possible wisdom of a move that would have avoided the a long series of battles, including the Chosin Reservoir and saved the lives of thousands of our guys, but the bottom line is that it did not happen.

It was actually MacArthur who wanted to nuke the Chinese, which got him into his final argument with Truman and led to his firing.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/douglas-macarthur-atomic-bombs-will-win-the-korean-war/

“Of all the campaigns in my life—20 major ones to be exact—the one I felt the most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging properly. I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days, once the campaign was under way, and with considerably fewer casualties than were suffered during the so-called truce period. It would have altered the course of history.

(snip)

“The enemy’s air would first have been taken out. I would have dropped between 30 to 50 tactical atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria from just across the Yalu at Antung (northwest tip of Korea) to the neighborhood of Hunchun (northeast tip of Korea near the border of the USSR).

“That many bombs would have more than done the job! Dropped under the cover of darkness, when his planes were in for the night, they would have destroyed his air force on the ground, wiped out his maintenance and his airmen. …

“With the destruction of the enemy’s air power, I would then have called upon a half million of Chiang Kai-shek’s troops, sweetened by two U.S. Marine divisions. These would have been formed into two amphibious forces. One, totaling four-fifths of my strength and led by one of the Marine divisions, would have landed at Antung and proceeded eastward along the road that parallels the Yalu.

“The other force, led by the other Marine division, would have landed simultaneously at Unggi or Najin in the east, hit the same river road, and moved very quickly westward. … [The] forces could have joined in two days, forming a wall of manpower and firepower across the entire northern border of Korea. …

Douglas MacArthur proposed to use atomic bombs to contain China and ultimately win the Korean War.

“Now, with the northern border sealed, the 8th Army, spread roughly along the 38th Parallel, would then have put pressure on the enemy from the South. The joined amphibious forces would press down from the North. Nothing in the way of supplies or reinforcements could have moved across the Yalu.

“North Korea, holding not less than one million to 1 1/2 million of the enemy, could not have sustained him. It had been picked clean. The enemy commander would have been starved out within 10 days after the landings. I suggest now he would have sued for peace immediately after learning his air had been taken out and we had spread across his supply routes.

“You may ask what would have prevented the enemy’s reinforcements massing and crossing the Yalu in great strength, as they had before. It was my plan as our amphibious forces moved South to spread behind us—from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea—a belt of radioactive cobalt. It could have been spread from wagons, carts, trucks and planes. It is not an expensive material.

“It has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North. The enemy could not have marched across that radiated collar I proposed to put across Korea’s neck.

“Russia? It makes me laugh when I recall the fears of the Truman-Acheson-Marshall-Bradley-General Staff group that Russia would commit its armies to a war in China’s behalf at the end of an endless one-track railroad [the trans-Siberian, the only means of resupply once the airforce was destroyed] to a peninsular background that led only to the sea. Russia could not have engaged us. She would not have fought for China. She is already unhappy and uncertain over the colossus she has encouraged.”

The Firing of MacArthur

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/firing-macarthur

[sneakypete]

We need to recall that when then Chinese massed troops (100s of thousands) across the Yalu River as our forces were driving the North Koreans to that border, Gen. Curtis LeMay wanted to nuke them if they started across.
You can argue the possible wisdom of a move that would have avoided the a long series of battles, including the Chosin Reservoir and saved the lives of thousands of our guys, but the bottom line is that it did not happen.

@Smokin Joe

@Timber Rattler

Guys,when it comes to China,the rules are different. China's biggest problem,aside from being Industrial Strength Communists,is a population so huge the rulers struggle with  how to feed,house,clothe,and keep them busy so they don't get hungry and bored enough to revolt.

The Chicom leaders would probably welcome the deaths  of several hundred thousands of troops if it also secured them the oil,gold,coal,timber,and other wealth of Eastern Russia.

Hell,they could probably  handle the deaths of more soldiers in Eastern Russia than the whole population of Russia. This might be an exaggeration because I haven't bothered to look up Chinese population numbers,but  I am guessing it is not far off the mark.

I STRONGLY suspect the Masters of China fear their own people a lot more than they fear the Russians.

[Timber Rattler]

@Smokin Joe

@Timber Rattler

Guys,when it comes to China,the rules are different. China's biggest problem,aside from being Industrial Strength Communists,is a population so huge the rulers struggle with  how to feed,house,clothe,and keep them busy so they don't get hungry and bored enough to revolt.

The Chicom leaders would probably welcome the deaths  of several hundred thousands of troops if it also secured them the oil,gold,coal,timber,and other wealth of Eastern Russia.

Hell,they could probably  handle the deaths of more soldiers in Eastern Russia than the whole population of Russia. This might be an exaggeration because I haven't bothered to look up Chinese population numbers,but  I am guessing it is not far off the mark.

I STRONGLY suspect the Masters of China fear their own people a lot more than they fear the Russians.

Well the ChiComs have never valued the lives of their own people, much less their soldiers, and view them as assets to be expended for their greater strategic interests.  A few million here, a few million there...they got plenty more people!

Such as...

Mao Reportedly Sought to A-Bomb U.S. Troops

Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung wanted the Soviets to attack U.S. troops with nuclear weapons after his forces had lured the Americans into China, according to a memoir by Soviet President Andrei A. Gromyko, the New York Times reported Monday.

Gromyko said he rejected the Chinese proposal in a secret visit to Beijing in August, 1958, when Gromyko was foreign minister, the newspaper said.

In his wide-ranging memoirs, which are to be published soon in the Soviet Union, Gromyko wrote that Mao’s plan anticipated an American attack on China as a result of mounting tensions over the Chinese islands of Quemoy and Matsu.

The islands, claimed by the Nationalist government in Taiwan, became the center of an international crisis in September, 1958, when they came under artillery bombardment from China, which did not have nuclear weapons at the time.

Mao told Gromyko that Chinese forces would retreat to the heartland of China, drawing American forces after them.

Once U.S. forces were deep in Chinese territory, Mao proposed that “the Soviet Union should catch them with all its means,” Gromyko wrote.

Gromyko wrote that he was surprised by the audacity of Mao’s plan to use nuclear weapons against U.S. forces, the newspaper reported. He told the Chinese leader, “The scenario of war described by you cannot meet a positive response by us,” said the newspaper in a dispatch from Moscow, quoting from an advance copy of the memoirs.

Soviet historians have written that Mao believed his country could survive a nuclear war, even if it lost 300 million people, and finish off the capitalists with conventional weapons.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-23-mn-44747-story.html

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Russian T-90M taken out in Zaporizhzhia.  Russia started the war with around 50 of these.  They have lost over half that number in Ukraine.

from r/UkraineWarVideoReport

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13yi0gi/footage_of_the_defeat_of_the_russian_t90m_tank_in/

I don't understand the wisdom of using tanks in heavily forested areas. I thought they were mainly effective in out in the open areas? Possibly Ukraine forced these type of tactics somehow?

[sneakypete]

Well the ChiComs have never valued the lives of their own people, much less their soldiers, and view them as assets to be expended for their greater strategic interests.  A few million here, a few million there...they got plenty more people!

Such as...

Mao Reportedly Sought to A-Bomb U.S. Troops

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-23-mn-44747-story.html

@Timber Rattler

I had never heard that,but it comes as no surprise.

The American/globalist financiers of today would NEVER allow the US to nuke China,regardless of the circumstances because they wouldn't want to lose their factories that make cheap car,computer,and every other kind of parts or items you can imagine for dirt cheap prices using their massive number of slave laborers.

Shut down trade with China  today,and you  would eventually be walking to work and living in the dark.

After all,WHAT is more important that profits,right?

Certainly not slave labor.

Which  causes me to ask "How the HELL are GM,Ford,GE,etc,etc,etc getting away with paying virtually pennies per hour for labor to China,thus cutting off Union jobs in the US,without the Unions even whispering any complaints about it?

Some investigative reporter is losing fame and fortune for not chasing after and publishing this one.

[sneakypete]

I don't understand the wisdom of using tanks in heavily forested areas. I thought they were mainly effective in out in the open areas? Possibly Ukraine forced these type of tactics somehow?

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

They are trying to HIDE the tanks,not use them.

Thanks to drones and fighter/bombers,tank warfare is over,except for the shouting about it. Costs too much  to manufacture and operate them to then see them disappear in a cloud of dust and flames the first few minutes they appear on a battlefield. 

Today,they are nothing more than VERY expensive rolling coffins.

[kevindavis007]

from r/UkraineWarVideoReport

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13ystzl/putin_defectors_destroy_equipment_in_belgorod/

[kevindavis007]

from r/UkraineWarVideoReport

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13z9ngq/the_families_and_relatives_of_fallen_russian/

[kevindavis007]

from r/UkraineWarVideoReport

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13z3spw/putins_forces_tried_to_blow_up_my_men_claims/

[PeteS in CA]

I don't understand the wisdom of using tanks in heavily forested areas. I thought they were mainly effective in out in the open areas? Possibly Ukraine forced these type of tactics somehow?

Forested areas and cities are not great operating areas for tanks. Every tree and every building is potential shelter or cover for a defender. Ukraine does have quite a few smallish forested areas and copses, but the orcs have also often used their tanks less than skillfully, within or next to tree lines and forested areas and in cities/towns/villages.

[Kamaji]

EXCLUSIVE: 'This is the beginning of the end of Putin': Moscow drone attack, Kremlin blasts and cross-border raids spell doom for the Russian tyrant and could see the break-up of his country, expert warns

    In-fighting between Russia's military and Putin's warlords is now at fever pitch
    Luke Coffey believes the break-up of Russia will begin with defeat in Ukraine

By Chris Pleasance
3 June 2023

In the dawn hours of May 3, Moscovites awoke to an unbelievable sight: Two suicide drones had somehow managed to penetrate the city's air defences and explode on the roof of the Kremlin itself.

Such an attack would have been unthinkable when Vladimir Putin declared war on Ukraine a year earlier, and yet it was only the beginning. Three weeks later, partisans began raiding Russia's borders and then a swarm of drones slammed into Moscow's wealthy suburbs.

In-fighting between Russia's military and Putin's warlords is now at fever pitch, Ukraine's counter-attack is looming, and an opposition politician even went so far as to call for Putin himself to be replaced on state TV earlier this week.

So, is this really the beginning of the end for Russia's tyrant? 'Yes,' believes Luke Coffey, an expert at the Hudson Institute think-tank in Washington - who adds that Putin's demise will be swiftly followed by the break-up of Russia itself.

'I agree [that] this is the beginning of the end of Putin - the trajectory now is towards Putin being ousted and the further breakup of the Russian Federation,' he said.

*  *  *

He added: 'The Soviet Union is still collapsing. When historians write about [it], they will probably identify Feb '22 [the date of the Ukraine invasion] as the most significant moment of that collapse.

'The dust is still settling. I believe the 15 countries that emerged in 1991 [when the Soviet Union collapsed] was the safety glass breaking.

'The next round of shattering will be like a 150-year-old pane of glass breaking in an old house. It will shatter in dangerous ways and won't be easy to repair or fix.'

Mr Coffey believes the final break-up will begin with the decisive defeat of Russia in Ukraine. That outcome is inevitable, he argues, but is unwilling to say when it will be.

*  *  *

Source:  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12152585/Recent-attacks-spell-doom-Putin-break-Russia-expert-warns.html

[PeteS in CA]

Yeeeeeeaaahhhhhhhh ... I'll believe Putin is out when he actually is. His invasion of Ukraine certainly has made his hold over Russia more precarious, though. As the Crimean, Russo-Japanese, and WW1 wars illustrate, doing poorly in wars weaken autocrats, though only Czar Nicholas (and his family) lost their power and lives as a consequence. But I won't be turning blue from waiting for Putin's ouster.

IF that happens, things in and about Russia could get MESSY. Putin has proxies in multiple countries who would suddenly be on their own - Georgia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, and maybe more. Meanwhile, the Russian military would lose their head, in the aftermath of losing a substantial portion of their officer corps (can you say "nukes"?), and several Central Asian ethnic minorities are still resentful over their centuries of violent oppression under both the Soviets and the Czars.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Be a shame if Putin would "pull a hitler" and swallow a bullet.

[sneakypete]

 @Kamaji

" a swarm of drones slammed into Moscow's wealthy suburbs.

So,the ugly truth  is finally starting to  emerge  that not ALL Comrades are "treated equally" in the "workers  paradise".

I don't know about you,but I am shocked at this news. SHOCKED,ah tells ya!

The Truth has ALWAYS been that the USSR was nothing more than a police state ran by the wealthy,for the benefit of the wealthy.

It's good to see  the Russian officials finally recognize this truth. The common people/worker bees,of course,always knew it.

[sneakypete]

Yeeeeeeaaahhhhhhhh ... I'll believe Putin is out when he actually is. His invasion of Ukraine certainly has made his hold over Russia more precarious, though. As the Crimean, Russo-Japanese, and WW1 wars illustrate, doing poorly in wars weaken autocrats, though only Czar Nicholas (and his family) lost their power and lives as a consequence. But I won't be turning blue from waiting for Putin's ouster.

IF that happens, things in and about Russia could get MESSY. Putin has proxies in multiple countries who would suddenly be on their own - Georgia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, and maybe more. Meanwhile, the Russian military would lose their head, in the aftermath of losing a substantial portion of their officer corps (can you say "nukes"?), and several Central Asian ethnic minorities are still resentful over their centuries of violent oppression under both the Soviets and the Czars.

@PeteS in CA

I  hadn't even considered that,but I think  you are right,it is going to cause a lot of confusion and maybe even grief due to local "strong me" deciding to take control to fill the "dictator vacuum".

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

They are trying to HIDE the tanks,not use them.

Thanks to drones and fighter/bombers,tank warfare is over,except for the shouting about it. Costs too much  to manufacture and operate them to then see them disappear in a cloud of dust and flames the first few minutes they appear on a battlefield. 

Today,they are nothing more than VERY expensive rolling coffins.

I think they are still very effective if used properly - which means with sufficient mass and speed - if supporting arms are properly employed, and if the enemy lacks air supremacy.   Risking a $30M plane to take out a $3M tank may not make a lot of sense. 

Suppressive artillery fire, supporting infantry, and various electronic and other means of interfering with drones also can be effective.  Tanks also can excel in poor weather where planes and drones are a lot more limited.

The reasons the Russians have lost more than 2,000 tanks in Ukraine is that they are just terrible at a lot of that, especially the close coordination required between maneuver elements - especially tanks/armored vehicles - and artillery.

[Kamaji]

Wave of looting ravages Russian border area amid intense shelling - as Putin's propagandists call for tactical nuclear strikes on Ukrainian cities

    Footage appeared to show a building in the Belgorod region ablaze after a strike

By Will Stewart and Christian Oliver
3 June 2023

A wave of looting has reportedly hit a border zone in Russia as Vladimir Putin's authorities lose control of the Belgorod Oblast region.

Homes and local shops appeared to be targeted by Russian looters amid the chaos as tens of thousands of Russians evacuating border areas in the Belgorod region as pro-Ukraine forces hit back at Russia.

A video from the town of Shebekino showed a building ablaze after a suspected strike. Ukraine's military has not claimed responsibility for the attacks, or denied it was behind them.

Shelling has pounded the settlement for several days, forcing thousands of residents to flee villages near Russia's southwestern border as shelling intensified.

Incandescent over the attacks, Kremlin mouthpieces on Russia's state television called for the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to target major Ukrainian cities.

*  *  *

Source:  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12155125/Wave-looting-ravages-Russian-border-region-amid-intense-shelling-anti-Kremlin-forces.html

[Timber Rattler]

The reasons the Russians have lost more than 2,000 tanks in Ukraine is that they are just terrible at a lot of that, especially the close coordination required between maneuver elements - especially tanks/armored vehicles - and artillery.

And little or no infantry support...Shoigu's vaunted Battalion Tactical Groups were sorely understrength when Putin launched the invasion.

[Smokin Joe]

I think they are still very effective if used properly - which means with sufficient mass and speed - if supporting arms are properly employed, and if the enemy lacks air supremacy.   Risking a $30M plane to take out a $3M tank may not make a lot of sense. 

Suppressive artillery fire, supporting infantry, and various electronic and other means of interfering with drones also can be effective.  Tanks also can excel in poor weather where planes and drones are a lot more limited.

The reasons the Russians have lost more than 2,000 tanks in Ukraine is that they are just terrible at a lot of that, especially the close coordination required between maneuver elements - especially tanks/armored vehicles - and artillery.

I think the Russians problem still lingers form the days of the Communist heirarchy's top down approach, even down to the Zampolits in the units able to accuse one of disloyalty to the Party despite being effective in any departure for orders or doctrine. While no one wants to get killed, the fate for disloyalty to the party may be the same or worse for family members back home.

 I think, too, there is a certain amount of small unit command initiative (perhaps down to the individual tank) that needs to be present for effective maneuver warfare on a tactical level, while still adhering to a basic strategy or tactical goal. Even a driver who doesn't wait to be ordered to take advantage of terrain elements, defilade, or evade attack while pressing into a favorable position contributes. People waiting for a centralized command to okay every move are going to suffer in a battle with those who need not get clearance to act and can operate on their own initiative.

[DB]

I think the Russians problem still lingers form the days of the Communist heirarchy's top down approach, even down to the Zampolits in the units able to accuse one of disloyalty to the Party despite being effective in any departure for orders or doctrine. While no one wants to get killed, the fate for disloyalty to the party may be the same or worse for family members back home.

 I think, too, there is a certain amount of small unit command initiative (perhaps down to the individual tank) that needs to be present for effective maneuver warfare on a tactical level, while still adhering to a basic strategy or tactical goal. Even a driver who doesn't wait to be ordered to take advantage of terrain elements, defilade, or evade attack while pressing into a favorable position contributes. People waiting for a centralized command to okay every move are going to suffer in a battle with those who need not get clearance to act and can operate on their own initiative.

That applies to nation states as well. Top-down operations like China can't compete with people who guide their own destiny. A primary reason America was so successful, which is not an option available to the tyrants of this world. Slaves make lousy inventors/creators.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think the Russians problem still lingers form the days of the Communist heirarchy's top down approach, even down to the Zampolits in the units able to accuse one of disloyalty to the Party despite being effective in any departure for orders or doctrine. While no one wants to get killed, the fate for disloyalty to the party may be the same or worse for family members back home.

 I think, too, there is a certain amount of small unit command initiative (perhaps down to the individual tank) that needs to be present for effective maneuver warfare on a tactical level, while still adhering to a basic strategy or tactical goal. Even a driver who doesn't wait to be ordered to take advantage of terrain elements, defilade, or evade attack while pressing into a favorable position contributes. People waiting for a centralized command to okay every move are going to suffer in a battle with those who need not get clearance to act and can operate on their own initiative.

Right.  Everything with them is controlled so rigidly from higher command that supporting arms will never be able respond quickly enough to suppress antiair/antiarmor defenses properly.

[PeteS in CA]

Warfare has long been proper use of combined arms. Ancients' battles had infantry, slingers and archers, and cavalry. Muskets, rifles, and various calibers of machine guns replaced swords and javelins. Slingers and archers got replaced by cannon and, later, artillery. Cavalry got replaced by tanks and APCs/IFVs. Air became the 4th arm in WW2. The challenge is coordination and logistics. The orcs have coordinated poorly, not supporting armor with adequate infantry, exposing unprotected infantry and armor to observation and attack from the air. Russia was terrible at logistics in WW1, terrible in WW2 (can you say Lend-Lease Studebaker?), and are now terrible in Ukraine, sometimes losing valuable vehicles to empty fuel tanks.

[Timber Rattler]

NATO-trained units will serve as tip of spear in Ukraine’s counteroffensive

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YR7637GG5QTH6PR3UUC6VFWKTU_size-normalized.JPG&w=1200

When Ukraine’s long-awaited counteroffensive finally begins, the fight will be led by brigades armed not only with Western weapons but also Western know-how, gleaned from months of training aimed at transforming Ukraine’s military into a modern force skilled in NATO’s most advanced warfare tactics.

As other Ukrainian units were fighting to expel the Russian occupiers from the country’s east and south, the brand-new 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade was preparing for the next phase of war from a classroom at a NATO base in Germany.

The brigade’s leadership trained with computers that simulated situations they might face in real life. Deputy commander Maj. Ivan Shalamaha and others planned their assaults and then let the program show them the results — how their Russian enemies might respond, where they could make a breakthrough and where they would suffer losses.

“You understand the overall picture, how it works,” Shalamaha said. “You understand where and what your shortcomings were. And we pay attention to what we failed to do during this simulation.”

Now the war games are over. The 47th brigade and other assault units have been armed with Western weapons, including Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and relocated to a secret location closer to the front line. During a recent visit by Washington Post journalists, the soldiers were waiting for the order to charge ahead to retake a large swath of Ukrainian territory and tip the war back in Kyiv’s favor.

The counteroffensive will be the biggest test yet of the U.S.-led strategy of giving the Ukrainians weapons and training to fight like an American army might — but on their own.

[kevindavis007]

Just a reminder

https://twitter.com/Heroiam_Slava/status/1665287529996726272

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Whether you support aid to the Ukrainians or not, you have to admire the tenacity with which they have defended their country.  Pretty much the entire rest of the world expected them to be overwhelmed and submit quickly, but they refused.   Not often you see courage like that.

[kevindavis007]

Whether you support aid to the Ukrainians or not, you have to admire the tenacity with which they have defended their country.  Pretty much the entire rest of the world expected them to be overwhelmed and submit quickly, but they refused.   Not often you see courage like that.

I agree.. They really have the courage to stand up to the 2nd largest military. I see it this way. If we support Ukraine now, we are helping Russia (in some way China) to lose. It's going to take a long time for Russia to rebuild its military. If there is Russia left after this war.  Translation, it is expensive now, but if Russia (again in some way China) wins, it is going to be more expensive down the road.

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1665111550258978817

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/1665368529082671104

[sneakypete]

I agree.. They really have the courage to stand up to the 2nd largest military. I see it this way. If we support Ukraine now, we are helping Russia (in some way China) to lose. It's going to take a long time for Russia to rebuild its military. If there is Russia left after this war. 

Translation, it is expensive now, but if Russia (again in some way China) wins, it is going to be more expensive down the road.

@kevindavis007

I am in total agreement,and would like to add I am a HUGE fan of the idea that no US troops will be involved in the fighting.

Seems like for my entire life I have been waiting for Russia to invade Europe,and either being a US soldier sent off to fight  "The Red Peril",or watching other US troops being sent off to a foreign land once again to fight and die.

I am as giddy as a school girl over the possibility of Soviet communism being handed it's ass,and it happening without involving US combat troops.