Ukraine gets green light for $285m US Missile Defense System

With the(hopefully empty) threats Russia makes against us & frequency of Rusian heavy bombers popping up in our airspace, Russia could do a lot of damage to many of our critical facilities in a pre-emptive strike before we began engaging them. Having both UKBMD & SAMs for military sites are basic prudence.

Yes Be a lot cheaper in the end to defend them than to rebuild them. Head in sand attitude hoping it won’t happen in the mean time.

Agreed, but it is potentially more serious than that, as lose the kinds of assets being mentioned above and a war is lost.

Back when we last thought that we faced a peer enemy we had a much more flexible collection of military assets e.g. front line standard airfields all over the place, here and abroad. Now we are almost down to single points of failure.

From their decisions we must assume that our (as well as NATO’s) military and political leadership viewed and, as importantly, still view the risk of an actual conventional war in Europe as minimal. This is evidenced by not only the levels and capabilities of the military we have today but also by the almost carefree way that armouries are being emptied. Whilst the latest equipment may be retained, its munitions often don’t seem to be and the back up gear for second line use is gone.

I just hope that someone in power knows what they are going to do when these supplies run out and the war is still ongoing. The blue touch paper has been lit.

An open question partially formulated in response to your posts: Given the UK’s historical legacy of enduring the Battle of Britain (43K casualties) and V1/V2 campaign during WWII, and the current UKR conflict, what rationale undergirds UK resistance to investment in sovereign based GBAD systems? Surely, the funding issue cannot be the entire explanation. The professional military class and even a few insightful individuals w/in political class must realize the inherent risk, at this point, of escalation, w/ generally accepted acts of war occurring on Russian territory. Yes, if Mad Vlad orders a strike, Article 5 of NATO Treaty ensures that allies will ultimately respond, but significant casualties could occur in the interim. The public at that point would not be kindly disposed toward anyone perceived to be responsible for allowing this to occur. Similarly, in the US, there was a Board of Inquiry after Pearl Harbor, and yet we currently have very inadequate GBAD for CONUS. Democracies apparently may be doomed to learn historical lessons slowly and painfully via significant body counts…🤔😳☹️

Good post. It’s probably to do with money and the constant cuts to military capability after every SDSR since the turn of the century.

GBAD could have been improvised using the old Rapier system for short range targets, it was replaced by Sky Sabre (which has been sent to Poland) and we have Starstreak MANPADS. We could probably improvise something.

Front line MANPADS and the longer range systems are keeping helicopters and warplanes out of the battlespace in Ukraine. The UkR are using drones effectively to spot targets and monitor what is going on behind Russian positions and in the front lines

The defence estabishment here does rely on Article 5 – clearly they think that a Russian airstrike is such a low probability that its not worth investing in UKAD. Many who post here disagree.

We do have enquiries after military disasters but the reports are rarely published, the British way is to bury them for years and then publish a severley redacted version, naming no names. Somebody gets a bollocking at the time tho and they usualy resign later. Unless the MoD is to blame, when those responsible get to write a justification, carry on until retirement age and retire on full pension. After a jolly good “do”

I have replied to you your post but its been moderated 🙁

Sorry, uncertain why topic would be considered especially sensitive/controversial. Reasonably certain you blokes are firmly in second place on Mad Vlad’s hit parade (just behind us), especially after leaning in during the current dust-up. Have always thought being forewarned at least affords the opportunity to be forearmed.

Good post. It’s probably to do with money and the constant cuts to military capability after every SDSR since the turn of the century.

GBAD could have been improvised using the old Rapier system for short range targets, it was replaced by Sky Sabre (which has been sent to Poland) and we have Starstreak MANPADS. We could probably improvise something.

Front line MANPADS and the longer range systems are keeping helicopters and warplanes out of the battlespace in Ukraine. The UkR are using drones effectively to spot targets and monitor what is going on behind Russian positions and in the front lines

The defence estabishment here does rely on Article 5 – clearly they think that a Russian airstrike is such a low probability that its not worth investing in UKAD. Many who post here disagree.

We do have enquiries after military disasters but the reports are rarely published, the British way is to bury them for years and then publish a severley redacted version, naming no names. Somebody gets a rollocking at the time tho and they usualy resign later. Unless the MoD is to blame, when those responsible get to write a justification, carry on until retirement age and retire on full pension. After a jolly good “do”

You have a 2nd profile as “Sakara Gold”?

Not on this blog Daniele. Plus my keyboard is going home causes a lot of typos. I’m off to the gym again shortly 🙂

Hmmm. Must be a double that types the exact same😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

Since our Bloodhound SAMs were removed from the A1 road it seems that the UK’s, as well as much if not all of the US’s and NATO’s, AD has been performed by manned aircraft, not rockets. Clearly the right decision 60 years ago as it saved a lot of money and there were few occasions when GBAD was needed. Whilst we expected to send waves of cruise missiles at our enemies, Syria springs to mind, we never expected anyone to repay the compliment. Now we are suddenly faced with that as a much higher but probably still low, risk it will be interesting to see what reaction, if any, there is in procurement.

In the short term it is too late. If the lessons of Ukraine are learnt, in particular that aircraft of all types, manned or not, have a tough time surviving in a hostile layered IADS environment, in the medium to long term it would be suicide to be the one that doesn’t have one. Albeit it too is likely to have to change to overcome threats to it that have also become apparent.

Your comment about WW2 is on the money, without our AIDS fronted by Chain Home radar, events may have ended very differently in 1940. My parents, who were clearly biased as Mum was a plotter table WAAF and Dad was a Fighter Controller, certainly thought so.

Syria, WTF are you spouting about. No one has sent waves of cruise missiles at us repaying some compliment you seem to perceive. Syria was just a training exercise for your 40 flying hours per annum Russian pilots on how to drop dumb ordnance on none military targets! Your desperation in your posts is more observable!

Uncertain re your point in second paragraph of post. GBAD tech will evolve over time, as essentially all military tech does. Contention is that all the allies should invest, ideally yesterday, in best current tech available and be prepared to invest further as future requirements dictate. Simply a cost of doing business. Predict that w/in a generation, space based DEW will be integrated into AD. Almost a guarantee. Any/all current treaties notwithstanding.

I was trying to make a point based on only Ukraine and Russia in Europe having complex multi layer IADS systems, ironically based on the same equipment and philosophy, leaving Europe vulnerable in the unlikely event that Russia moved further west. Hence too late to do it now yet suicide not to have one in the future.

The information that made it out of Kiev, before the clampdown, seemed to show that just plonking a Patriot battery down on an airfield is no longer good enough, it has to be surrounded by other systems in an integrated mutual protection array. Not only defending the site they were put there to defend but also themselves.

NATO could have a real problem, it spent its AD money on an integrated manned aircraft system, yet, if Ukraine is a foretaste of the future, that investment could now be obsolescent.

Agree that robust GBAD systems are required, ideally NATO-wide, ASAP..

NATO’s plan would be to kill as much of the air defence network with weapons of all types. Manned/unmanned aircraft, missiles etc harms etc.

…relearn historical…

🙄😳

Correct, up to four types of weapon (ballistic, cruise, drone, anti radar) have launch times that bring them onto the target and/or its protective GBAD system timed for maximum effect.

Based on videos to date (before the clampdown) unless the Russians have developed a new multi target missile, the number of locations being hit exceeds the number of missiles Kiev reports not shooting down. So yes, it is likely we are being deceived but that is exactly what Kiev should be doing and if it hadn’t been for Twitter etc we wouldn’t know any better and are now unlikely to know in the future.

Incidentally, Russin use of the Kalibre seems to have reduced, probably indicating that the NATO AD are working effectively against it. Which makes sense as it it much of that AD is optimised against cruise missiles.

On a tit for tat basis, your suggestion would likely as a minimum see all NATO intel/tanker etc aircraft have to be withdrawn from anywhere near Ukraine. Hardly a fair exchange I would suggest. Whilst as a maximum, it could see air to air combat around the UK as the RuAF would come spoiling for revenge.
.

Quote “ Unless we are being deceived” 😂 bravo made me laugh 👏🏻👍🏻😂

you literally are the 1st amigos other than myself of course 😆👍🏻 in here to even mildly suggest or even consider that we could be getting fed a load O shite …….

Aye and mind Loose Lips Sink Ships …….😉

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

What utter delusional rubbish. The Russians seem to be draining their own military of men and material..Bakhmut cost them 60,000 men, and it’s a militarily insignificant objective. Their cruise missile attacks have failed to break Ukrainian resolve or it’s ability to counter attack. I suppose you think that the Normandy landings were nazi Germany’s way of draining the allies of Sherman tanks and P47’s ?

There isn’t a leading economy anywhere that wants to join a stagnant BRIC alliance, just client states . No one gives a shit about Lavrov.

Your post above, if it doesn’t prove that you are a fool, it shows yet again that you act as a useful idiot for nazis. Putin expected his invasion to be over in a fortnight, do you not remember your sneering predictions pre February 2022? It didn’t happen that way because the Russian military is nothing like the US. The Russian military is barely barely fourth rate, utterly corrupt, incompetent and has been humiliated.

Keep drinking the kool aid!!

I will let others decide which of us is delusional.

Look at a map, Bakhmut is a major transport hub, both road and rail, it had up to 7 years of defensive infrastructure built into it and stood in the path of any Russian advance west, so ‘insignificant’? The Ukrainians, who fought tooth and nail for it at considerable human and material cost for months, clearly did not agree with you.

Your Russian deaths figure, note I have not suggested one for the UA losses, is pure guesswork not a fact.

Neither you or I have any idea whether cruise and other missiles have either affected UA resolve or ability to counter attack. Assumptions by you.

There are about 12, maybe more, queued up to join BRICS. Whilst not ‘leading’ economies countries like Saudi Arabia and Mexico, to pick two, matter. If all join it is estimated that they will add up to over half the World’s GDP. They also control a large proportion of the World’s minerals.

You might not care about Lavrov but currently he is the most respected diplomat on the planet.

So, who told you that Putin expected it to be over in a fortnight? I have said that I was wrong in my predictions.

Yes, the Russian military is nothing like that of the US. It has not spent the last 30 years trained and equiped to fight inferior armies in distant lands. It relaxed into a peacetime army with a little bit of insurgency practice in Syria. It then had a rude awakening when it faced the large, trained by NATO, well equiped Ukrainian military.

History is likely to regard the actions of the US in provoking the Russian bear into life as one of the biggest strategic mistakes ever made. It forced the Russians in double time to sort themselves out. The US forced the Russians to bring its tactics up to date, train for the ‘new’ warfare under real war conditions, significantly increase its size (and recreate two old military districts) and upgrade its equipment. Whilst as a byproduct due to sanctions, the Russians have also had to get closer to China and develop all kinds of advance technology themselves instead of buying it from us. In my book that is shooting oneself in both feet and a hand at the same time.

You may think about the Russians as you do but I am pretty sure that those actually on the receiving end in the Ukrainian and NATO leadership do not. I admit that that is a guess.

Shit the bed you have gone from a cuck troll to a deluded desperate butt licker! Please respond asp as we are all waiting with bated breath your next outburst!!!!!!! I’m sure it will be as weak, delusional and so full of chuff that it will be on my cut and paste list to reply to your next load of desperate propaganda!

Makes no difference to me who you allow to judge how delusional you are, nothing you’ve ever posted before stands up to scrutiny of is even a 2nd cousin of the truth.

There isn’t a competent military expert anywhere who thinks that Bakhmut is militarily significant, there is no equivalence between their views and yours, it’s not even remotely close. They’re experts with combat experience, you aren’t and have no idea beyond what your FSB handlers give you. The Russian military played right into the hands of Ukraine at Bakhmut and paid a colossal price, it’s not even clear that they will manage to hold it.

Some 450 days later it is self evident that the cruise missile attacks by Russia have failed in their intent, you know as much as anyone else that Putin expected this to be over in a few weeks. That you were wrong back then isn’t surprising, at least you’re consistent.

Nato and the US, train to fight against a wide range of state and non state adversaries, it’s what professional militaries do, something Russia wouldn’t know.

No one provoked Russia. A strong independent country wouldn’t have any fears about a neighbouring country joining an economic trade block. But Putin, vengeful and paranoid, and suffering from delusions due to covid isolation unfortunately went a bit mad and initiated one of the greatest miscalculations of the modern era. He has degraded and destroyed his own army, shown up it’s tactics as inferior, the leadership incompetent and the supposed hi tech wonder weapons as complete fiction. The upgraded equipment you mention, are they the T54’s? The enlarged size of the military? Convicts and conscripted cannon fodder. Military districts? Means nothing, even Hitler was creating new panzer divisions as allied armies swept across Europe.

You raise poor examples of counties wanting into BRIC. Mexico is a semi failed state completely in thrall and corrupted by drug cartels, Saudi Arabia is a virtual armed camp ran by Islamist religious nutters and head choppers. It’s likely that in the future there may not be a ‘R’ in that acronym, as it is becoming increasingly clear that Russia will end up being a client state of China.

You really need to be polishing up your Mandarin.

Hillarious. On what planet are you existing Johnski old bean?
Lavrov most respected politician on the planet? That’ll be why the whole of the UN security council got up and walked out just before he started sprouting utter tosh like you’ve just done.
You might believe the Ruskfascists BS, we however don’t because we all live in the free and democratic world and therefore have access to multiple sources of information. Information provided by reputable, independent and free press.
Try not to sprout a load of lies please, we don’t believe any of them and the days of (Putin in your case or BoJo and Trump in the West) repeating something so many times that the general public think it must be true are well and truly over.

JIMK wrote:

“”Yes, the Russian military is nothing like that of the US. It has not spent the last 30 years trained and equipped to fight inferior armies in distant lands. It relaxed into a peacetime army with a little bit of insurgency practice in Syria. ””

That’s interesting, as between 1994 and 1996 Russia was embroiled in the first Chechen War, which saw Moscow lose between 14000 to 6000 soldiers whilst the Chechens lost 3000. Whichever Russian loss you use, they still came off worst and that was widely reported. The Russians went back for a second go in 1999, having learnt their lesson better prepared, this time they levelled the country into the stone age (not that they didn’t in 1994-96) but they still lost between 11000 and 7000 (latter are Russian figures)
Then in 2008 they went into Georgia, and basically, they wiped the floor of the Georgians the premise been that Moscow had learnt from its adventures next door in Chechnya

Then there was the roulement of troops through Syria during the civil war. Which was used as a means to combat train the future leaders of the Russian military.
From all of the above Moscow learnt, so from Chechnya they took away the lesson that MBTs are vulnerable and so they began the program to upgrade their T72Bs to the new T72B3 standard in 2010 followed by the further upgrade to the T72B3M visually and on paper these upgrades look the part and sent the message to the West that Moscow had improved its MBTs

They backed the MBTs with fire support vehicles such as the BMPT Terminator designed to support both armour and infantry something they found lacking in Chechnya
From Syria Moscow learnt to use UAVs and to co-ordinate land and air assets, weapons, and new equipment were trailed and the general consensus (yes some of us were watching the war there) was the Russians were using Syria as a live fire training camp for its Military.

So no it didn’t relax into a peace time military as you claim it did , instead not only was Moscow training in troops, it was investing lots of money in upgrading and replacing large parts of its military with much more modern equipment which saw all its aircraft be upgraded and numbers increased
All its MBTs upgraded be it T72,80 or 90.
A new line of MBTs (T14) developed along with support vehicles based on the T14 chassis
Navy revamped
New so called wonder weapons developed (funny enough a lot like a certain Cpl did 80 years ago)
Lots of time spent training with other countries such as under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Tank biathlon , exercises with Algeria, Egypt, India  and even South Africa.
All of which affords Moscow the ability to train its troops in a high-pressure environment, gauge themselves others and to surreptitiously evaluate other militaries and their equipment.
All lumped together reveals that the Russian military was anything but a peacetime military.

Thanks and I hope some of the others here have read what you say about the Russian military which is very different from how they describe it. If I had written that there would be a string of abusive posts in its wake, as opposed to crickets for yours.

You make the points very well and are pretty much spot on in correcting my gross simplification. Thanks again.

The point that I took there was that Russia wasn’t a peacetime military, had invested in equipment, trained with other militaries, but, when it came to real time operations was still found to be comically inept and useless. Defeated at Kyiv, Kherson and Kharkiv, 16 months later it is stuck in a quagmire barely 50 miles from it’s border.

Think of the Kiev operation as a feint to tie UA forces to defending the capital whilst the critical Russian strike was across to the Dneiper, gaining a land route to Crimea, almost none of which territory they have given up. OK they overextended over the river through Kherson, probably due to little opposition, but tactically withdrew with few losses. I don’t watch what happens in Kharkiv. The quagmire is now drying out, we will see what happens now.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂💩!

Yeah. Whatever. Not even Medvedev would believe that. You really can’t face up to facts or reality can you?

But it didn’t do it very well as the troops and TTPs no longer exist and they reverted back to incompetence and dereliction! Nothing to be proud of when the opportunities to be better have been lost, even if those opportunities were learnt by previous illegal wars! More guff from our resident 76 year old civvy never served, Nazi supporter in MK!

JIMK wrote:

“”It then had a rude awakening when it faced the large, trained by NATO, well equipped Ukrainian military.””

 
Rude awakening?  You appear to have left out how in Chechnya, Georgia , Syria and Libya Russian troops and equipment had a habit of coming off second best in a bunfight be it to Russian weapons or western ones. Where do you want to draw the line
1991 (Kuwait)
1994 (Chechnaya)
1999+ (Israel)
2003 (Iraq)
2008 (Georgia)
2010+ (Syria)
2011 (Libya)
2014+ (Libya)
2020 (Armenia)
In all of the above Russian weapon systems came off second best, if the Russians failed to take note of how their weapons faired, (such as loitering munitions targeting the radar on a Pantsir in Libya and Syria, resulting in the Russian fix of…turn off the radar and only use EO sights) then more the fool them. As for facing well trained Ukrainian troops, between March 2015 and feb 2022, the British army as part of Op Orbital trained 22000 Ukrainian troops, the Canadians trained a similar number and no doubt the Yanks did as well, So say 70000 troops over 7 years, If the Ukrainian could do that, why couldn’t the much larger and better funded Russian military do likewise. I mean as I have mentioned time and time again, one of the biggest advantages the Ukrainians have over the Russians is they supply their troops with optics, only their so called special forces receive them. Meaning at a stroke the bog standard Ukrainian infantry man has a much higher chance of seeing and hitting the other fellow than the other way round. How about comparing the different medical kits between the two, the one I carry when I go mountain biking is 10 times better than the ones Russian soldiers get issued, and the ones the Ukrainians get issued is better than mine.
How about we call a spade a spade and just admit, Moscow got cocky, had a load of yes men reporting back to Putin and when push came to shove, found out the hard way, they spent far too little time carrying out the 7Ps.

Thanks for the detailed response. As usual I see things differently. I don’t recall that in the 4 countries you mention that the Russian supported side came off second best. OK in Chechnya it was a tough fight that needed a second go but they won as they did in Georgia whilst Libya was a draw and Syria a semi win.

Not sure how your next comment fits in but in the main they were supplied with the export version and not manned by Russians other than as advisors. I don’t know but I would have expected the manufacturers to have responded to points of failure and corrected them.

We both agree that the UA was very well trained.

As to infantry gear, given that apart from in urban warfare the days of infantrymen firing at each other seem quite rare, superior optics aren’t much good against large volumes of incoming mortar and artillery shells as per the battles in the east.

Russia didn’t get cocky as you put it, they were backed into a corner with the unacceptable risk of Ukraine in NATO with probably an AEGIS Ashore installation as per Poland and Romania capped by Zelinsky threatening to get nuclear weapons.

Why do you see it differently! Any reason?

JIMK wrote:
“”As to infantry gear, given that apart from in urban warfare the days of infantrymen firing at each other seem quite rare, superior optics aren’t much good against large volumes of incoming mortar and artillery shells as per the battles in the east.””
 
And here you show how little you know about modern warfare and subscribe to this misplaced notion that the day of the infantryman is over, it isn’t. We can wax lyric about artillery, tanks, missiles close air support, but the single thing they cannot do is take and hold ground, yes Tanks can advance into enemy territory , artillery can turn anything into a parking lot, and close air support can carve up enemy positions, but not only can none of them take territory but all of them (yes all of them) rely on squads of men armed with the weakest weapon on the battlefield (His rifle) in which to defend their positions. Its why Turkey lost a load of tanks when it sent them in without infantry support. We saw the same with Russia when it invaded chetneya and currently inside the Ukraine. Why do you think the BMP2 was designed with a main gun which can be elevated to take on infantry positions in hills above it. Why did Moscow design the Terminator support vehicle. Finally and a big finally the days of static artillery warfare ended with WW1 and it was replaced with mobility. The reasons why Moscow uses artillery is because it has lost the ability for manoeuvre warfare inside the Ukraine and so wastes shed loads of ammo on empty space. But that wasn’t the point I made was it, I stated (and I quote:
“”I mean as I have mentioned time and time again, one of the biggest advantages the Ukrainians have over the Russians is they supply their troops with optics, only their so called special forces receive them. Meaning at a stroke the bog-standard Ukrainian infantry man has a much higher chance of seeing and hitting the other fellow than the other way round.””
But hey what do I know, I only took part in the army 100

I did not say that the infantryman’s day was over as it isn’t, I said “the days of infantrymen firing at each other seem quite rare” which is quite different and was aimed at your “optics” comment. What use are best optics if you are trying to fight cannon fire from a Terminator, a smart shell or ATGM all guided by eyes in the sky?

You are wrong with your unqualified statement “Finally and a big finally the days of static artillery warfare ended with WW1 and it was replaced with mobility”. For the last few months how was manoeuvre warfare possible given the infamous Ukrainian ground conditions? Surely static artillery under those conditions is still the only option, especially when one side has spent years digging well planned fortifications?

Every time, every post of yours is shown to be utter bullshit, deflection and lies. You really haven’t a clue, you’re honestly beyond parody at this stage.

How are the mandarin lessons going?

Agreed, his desperation and nonsense is now becoming the site amusement!

JIMK wrote:

“”What use are best optics if you are trying to fight cannon fire from a Terminator, a smart shell or ATGM all guided by eyes in the sky?””

Allow me to impart a little information your way:
5.56mm is designed to take out men
ATGM (NLAW/Javelin/RPG etc) are designed to take out armour
Add
ATM (Bar mine/off route mine)
ROVER Which allows support fire missions to take place. Be it Brimstone, APKWS, Smart or even Hellfire.
As perfected by the Ukrainians against the Russians where collaborative team work has seen Moscows finest suffer horrendous losses by using the best tool for the job.

Interesting facts but not relevant to my question. I would respectfully suggest that much of the fighting seems to be being done with what is to hand which may not be the best tool for the job, like an ATGM in trench warfare. Horrendous losses suffered by both sides but with the UA now on the offensive it is they who are now suffering most, 15 off 500kg glide bombs on a troop concentration in a village FFS! Trying to fight a war with little to no AD is just suicide.

And your lack of subject matter continues 😂😂😚 have a word with yourself or your handler and stop reading the script pretending you know the subject!

Airborne wrote:

“”And your lack of subject matter continues””

He appears never to have heard the expression:
“Never bluff a bluffer”

JIMK wrote:

For the last few months how was manoeuvre warfare possible given the infamous Ukrainian ground conditions? Surely static artillery under those conditions is still the only option, especially when one side has spent years digging well planned fortifications??””

 Why do you continue to peddle that debunked line. That so called well-constructed (several years in the making)  fortified front line between the Ukraine and its Russian backed breakaway states  was broached in the north, which is how they captured Severodonetsk, South which is how they captured Mariupol which were stated aims from day 1 and they did so with relative ease. (granted the thrust from the east to take Severodonetsk ran into difficulties, but that was resolved by striking from below and through Lysychansk
The centre was left to the LPR as the centre wasn’t important because once the country fell , Moscow would have carved up the Ukraine as it saw fit.
Only after suffering huge setbacks around Kyiv, Mykolaiv, stalemate around Kharkiv did the Russians redeploy troops to the centre in which to shorten supply lines, simplify C2 in which to try and salvage a easy victory in which to sell to the plebs back home and it took them 9 months to take one city which was 30 miles away from the front line in Feb 2022. If the Ukrainian had built a so called defensive line over the years it would have been at Popasna, 10 miles from the front line and 20 miles east of Bahkmut. 

You went off on a tangent there ignoring my questions.. I didn’t mention a “defensive line” just “fortifications” which they did in several towns.

More guff my old civvy troll! Leave war to those so know it and you stick to trolling!

JIMK wrote:

“”You went off on a tangent there ignoring my questions.. I didn’t mention a “defensive line” just “fortifications” which they did in several towns.””

Really! you want to play semantics with me. Simply in order to avoid admitting Moscow has f-ked up big order. I’m not some purpled haired wonk who will swallow what you try to pass off as military information. I’m a bloke who trained as a Combat Engineer, who has dug minefields, field defences, how to pick the terrain in which to channel the other feller, who knows that basic military strategy stipulates that you bypass strong points. So please don’t feel offended when I tell you stick to the narrative instead of dancing around like Phil Scofield outside a Toy shop 

Oh my you know absolutely nothing about modern soldiering and your continued desperate posts confirm this 😂😂😂!

He is now not only delusional but very desperate! However do you notice a slight change of tact and change of input to his posts? Previous troll removed, new more aggressive yes man now on the Johnskie position of sad troll?

I think he might be trying for comedy gold!!

If Bakhmut is as you put it a militarily insignificant objective then why did Ukraine invest so much effort into holding it?

are you suggesting Ukraine sacrificed what cannot be anything other than “Thousands” of men and wasted all that equipment on something unimportant cos if that’s the case then it only shows how cruel and masochist Zelensky and his rotten regime actually is. For Russia it’s standard they don’t give a monkeys about their own men or the civilian population of Bakhmut and will keep the death going as long as it takes.

Just goes to show both sides for what they are. And if so then why is 99% of the room so enthusiastic about cheering this insanity on?

Heres an indisputable fact Russia has a shed load more men to drain than Ukraine and infinitely more material to piss up against the wall on .

I think you need to stop drinking the VG cola 🤩 ( those were the days) getting all your information from the Bolshevik Bullshit Corporation…….

this war is wrong on every level with neither side holy ER than thou …..

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

I’ll keep it simple for you. There isn’t a military expert anywhere who considers Bakhmut a militarily strategic target. That Russia spent months hammering away at it using mass casualty human wave attacks had more to do with Kremlin infighting than anything else. Ukraine simply defended their lines, fixed Russian assets in position and enacted a massive price on every foot conceded. 60 000 plus casualties is a horrific price for any military to absorb for no tangible benefit. Russia may in theory have more manpower, but what are they going to be armed with ? Muskets? Swords?

There was never any need for any of that slaughter if Russia had respected international law and borders. There is zero equivalence in Ukraine’s defence and Russian aggression. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Appreciated for keeping it simple but it’s on tape Zelensky saying it’s a strategic point on the map so what are you saying he was lying?

I can post the link if you like if the UKDJ will put the post up?

answers on a postcard

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

Also just a wee side note , your quote “ Russia may in theory has more man power” 😳 there’s no theory it’s simple fact what are you Smokin ?

As for your “ there isn’t a military expert “ routine I’ll give you one Scott Ritter former US marine intelligence officer and UN weapons officinado ,now when it comes to listening to you.and I’ll stick my neck out here 😆 with zero qualifications. On this other than what the bbc say or Scotty boy I’m a listen to him 🤪👍🏻

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

Fuck me your desperate posts are going from sad to sheer nonsense, then to totally illiterate! If you think Putin the nonce, and his criminal head sheds and their illegal invasion of Ukraine is going the way they wanted, then you need to have a word with your shrink!

So now your saying the absolute cluster of the initial invasion was lucky or planned, by the Nazi Party Russians, due to the US preferably going the way of a guerrilla warfare scenario FFS you are absolutely hilarious! Anyway I thought you said, over 14 months ago the reason for the Russian invasion was to get rid of the Nazi elements in Ukraine to which once captured they will receive “special treatment”? Do you require me to cut and paste those posts by you?

JIMK wrote:

“”What fits in better with Putin’s objectives, that he outlined at the start, is what we seem to be seeing now, the gradual elimination of the UA as a fighting force both in terms of its manpower and equipment/stores..””

 
If anything, the Ukrainian military is much more effective today than what it was at the start of Feb 2022. That comes from trained experienced troops, the supply of better weapon systems than it had before. Can we say the same for Russia. Which is willing to accept over 20K losses for one town.

I’m not so sure. The UA attacks of the past few days seem to have ended with little to show for it. Whether that is a taste of the future who knows. Both sides have been training hard and getting better weapons so that’s probably even. Ukraine was also willing to suffer very serious losses in Bakhmut.

JIMK wrote:

I’m not so sure. The UA attacks of the past few days seem to have ended with little to show for it.

 
16 months ago, the Ukraine didn’t have:
M270
HIMARS
HARM
Storm Shadow
Starlink
SPG (AS90/CAESAR/Archer/RCH-155/PzH 2000/M107)
NLAW
Startstreak/Crotale/IRIS-T/Patriot/NASAMS/Aspide/Aster
All of which have allowed the Ukraine to not only hold its own, but as we have seen with the M270/HIMARS, HARM and now Storm Shadow, strike back and take out sensitive Russian targets which degrades Moscow’s ability to fight. Something it was unable to do last January

Agreed, but the point I made, that you put in blue, still stands.

No it doesn’t

Getting better weapons? Russia has stole some very modern kitchen appliances pal and I’m sure they are either under the wing of a very badly trained and piloted SU or in a colonels house! Muppet!

JIMK wrote:

Lavrov looks pretty confident as he tours the World.

The world?
South Africa
Burundi
Kenya
Sudan
Brazil
Nicaragua
Mali
Bali
Congo
Egypt
Ethiopia
Iraq
Uganda
Angola
Eretria
India
Cuba
Venezuela
 
None of the above are anything to gloat about, and all are corrupt as F-k, the highest rating country there in the world corrupt. ion list is Cuba which comes in at 65th  places, the next South Africa comes in at 72nd place  followed by India at 85th place. Mind most do better than Russia which comes in at 137.So maybe things are looking up for Moscow.

Add China to that list and you have a significant proportion of the World both in terms of GDP, PPP, population and production of all kinds of stuff that we in the West depend on. They are also moving quicker than expected to remove the US$ as their medium of exchange.

I would suggest that, to most of those people corruption is not a significant factor in their lives. Few if any countries are not corrupt and those claiming to be clean usually have sophisticated or legalised methods others lower in the list would regard as corrupt.

JohninMK wrote…Add China to that list and you have a significant proportion of the World both in terms of GDP, PPP, population and production of all kinds of stuff that we in the West depend on. They are also moving quicker than expected to remove the US$ as their medium of exchange.

Be careful what you wish for, this article was ages ago but still valid and I remember watching a documentary a while ago where China is doing exactly this:-
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-borders-need-to-be-redrawn/why-china-will-reclaim-siberia

Russia is getting weaker whilst China is sitting there watching with greedy eyes.

JIMK wrote:

“”At the time it kicked off I and many others expected Russia to operate like the US i.e. awesome firepower and destruction of all in their path.””

And at a stroke you reveal you know very little about modern warfare. Since 1939, the object of the game isn’t to slug it out with the other fellow toe to toe, (unless you are Russia that is) but rather to out manoeuvre the other fellow and kick him between the legs, and defeat him that way. Yes that entails firepower, but it is used like Andre Moreau (aka Scaramouche) would use a rapier rather than how Conan would use a broadsword. So the US learnt that the best way to defeat your enemy is to target and degrade his command and control first. Russia failed to do that. At the same time they mitigate the enemies GBAD, Russia failed to do that, they target the rear with selective strikes at HQs, Supply points and harbour areas, Moscow has failed to do that. All of which combine to weaken the resolve of the other fellow to fight. The only thing that Moscow has in abundance is depth, be it man power, equipment and lets be honest stupidity , I mean who in their right mind will throw away over 20K troops to take a city which despite your claim it is a transportation hub (not now it isn’t) has very little strategic value other than allow Putin claim to the masses “Look we are winning”
Reminds me of the time during Atemi when this big rugby player joined the class, for months he kept demanding to fight me, I refused, until the day I didn’t. we faced each other on the mat and when the sensi exclaimed “Hajime” I took his weak knee out with my first kick. (I did my homework) The fight was over before it started. He was confident that size would rule the day, he thought wrong and never came back after that.
A lot of people make the mistake to presume that the US simply defeats the other fellow by the use of firepower and destruction alone. Huge mistake.

You are ignoring that Russia may have made a decision to not follow the US plan and do all the things you list.

A large proportion of the Ukrainian population spoke Russian and habitually supported Russian supporting political parties. Kiev and other cities like Kharkiv, Odessa and Donetsk have very strong Russian roots. The Russian MoD and military leadership and officer level had strong ties to the Ukrainian same. There were strong (still are in oil and gas transit) economic ties. They wanted to work with Ukraine in the future.

All that mitigated against the ‘shock and awe’ US strategy and encouraged the strategy we see unfolding ‘inch by inch’.

There are two sides to Bakhmut, so why did Ukraine throw tens of thousands into its meat grinder if it had no strategic value?

I know that the US does not only use its military to defeat its adversaries, it has a lot of other tools. Unfortunately the main one it used on Russia was sanctions which fell flat on its face. Remember Biden saying that the Rouble will be rubble?

JIMK wrote:
“”You are ignoring that Russia may have made a decision to not follow the US plan and do all the things you list.””
Listen to yourself, not only are you disagreeing with what you have been saying since day one, you are saying that Moscow decided to drag things out, suffer horrendous losses simply because it could. All because you refuse to accept the fact that Moscow has f-k up big style. At a stroke you reveal the true you, somebody unable to accept the facts.

JIMK wrote:

 A large proportion of the Ukrainian population spoke Russian and habitually supported Russian supporting political parties. Kiev and other cities like Kharkiv, Odessa and Donetsk have very strong Russian roots

And if Moscow had done its homework, it would have realised that in 1991 each and every oblast in Ukraine voted for independence including the crimea and the east of the country, might speak Russian but as we have seen they wanted very little to do with them other than trade.

Desperate nonsense and sad propaganda 😂😂😂😂😂😂

You have never answered a single question, ever! You ignore and make efforts at deflection, exactly how you responded to me! Sad, weak, pathetic but expected! And I also see a slightly different style to your posts and responses, another troll on the JohninMK tag maybe! And the UN stated it’s a crime of aggression so the question remains, do you condemn an invasion which is a crime of aggression and do you support and applaud the actions of Putin? Try to have the balls to answer that one straight!

Well the Russian invasion runs counter to the UN charter, so it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to find some backbone and condemn it.

But Johnski old bean- the UN has already provided a judgement on the Russian invasion of Ukraine- they have already called it an illegal act and there is a resolution stating Russia has to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including that of Crimea and withdraw from Ukraine. That is fact. So your stipulation that Russia is acting within the law of the UN is utterly rubbish.