The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

hauritz said:
This is why you don’t try to appease despots like Putin. The only way Trump doesn’t lose face is to double down on his support for Ukraine and give them whatever they need.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's the takeaway. We still can't tell what Trump thinks the diplomatic solution is. Russia isn't going to give up on their core position because Trump says a few kind words. Russia repeatedly indicated they want a permanent peace. Instead Trump trots out a ceasefire, and Europe is openly preparing to insert forces into Ukraine. Obviously Russia isn't going to go for it. But they don't want to completely reject it either, since they do want to negotiate. So they "hit the ball back" with the part about stopping mobilization and aid to Ukraine. There's still no clarity on what the proposal that both sides could theoretically agree to would be. And I think the key issue here is Ukraine admitting permanent loss of territory. If Ukraine doesn't accept this, Russia won't sign any deal, and this makes any ceasefire counter-productive from Russia's point of view. Perhaps the west in general, and Trump specifically aren't willing to have any deal where Ukraine officially recognizes loss of territory. If so, it's an impasse and this war will have to continue until positions shift. But I think the takeaway is that anyone proposing a negotiated end to the conflict needs to have some sort of clear path to what they envision that solution to be and a way to get both sides to accept it. Trump entered the conversation acting like his intent is to simply get Ukraine to accept Russia's core demands. Then he walks that back and proposes a strange ceasefire. It really seems like he doesn't know what he's doing.
 
On the “unconditional ceasefire”. Those who think that this is a reasonable and fully acceptable proposal, can you provide some historic examples where this has been done, accepted by both sides, stopped the hostilities, and, ideally, led to peace? This is a serious question as I would appreciate some historic perspective this can worked around. I can’t think of any relevant examples, but this may very well be my lack of knowledge. To me, the entire proposal seems to be completely absurd, as I discussed previously.

On the “nobody cares what Russians think, we will just put the troops on ground”. To me, this idea is just as much absurd. First of all, if this is a peacekeeping force we are talking about, both sides have to agree to it (unless imposed by the UN) and both sides are to be monitored and be discouraged from the hostile actions. Second, we are clearly talking about a force whose main premise is to deter the potential future Russian aggression, a tripwire force, not some peacekeeping mission. So what’s on the other side of the wire? How many countries do fully accept the reality of going to war with Russia without the American support (or even with)? The whole idea is built around the fact that something bad is going to happen to the side that decides to resume the hostilities. In this case, it is only one side’s hostilities the tripwire force is concerned with; at least from the presentation we have seen so far. In fact, the other side’s goals are supported and encouraged by this force - that is, restoration of the 2014 border, etc. So in this context, what are the consequences Russia is threatened with? What is going to happen when a member of this force gets killed due to the Russian activities? A dozen gets killed? A hundred? More? Is the European society ready to go to war with Russia over Ukriane? Is Europe prepared to do so? Because this is what the proposal really entails. There needs to be a honest discussion about this, beyond political statements intended for the speaker to look good. I understand the lemmings being completely ok with it, even encouraging it, but the European leaders fully supporting the idea should (and do, no question) fully realize what the idea entails and should be able to have an honest discussion about it. Ideally, see where their general population stands on the issue, perhaps.

seaspear said:
I'm not sure how President Trump will react to this but certainly President Putin is here telling the audience that President Trump can wait by the phone and he is certainly in no hurry for this arranged call
Click to expand...
But is it what actually happened?

Imagine a situation, where Trump is sitting by the phone waiting for Putin to connect or call back, as the guy in the video insists to be the case. Imagine, at the same time, Putin is sitting and laughing about it on video, making him wait for an hour.

Lately (few years now, about when covid began, I would say) I am really… not even sure what the word is. Amazed? No, that’s not it. More of the opposite… Anyway, the point is no matter how unreasonable the proposal may seem to be, otherwise very reasonable people take it at face value instead of for what it is. I guess “reasonable” is, perhaps, relative, but my point remains. It’s like the world had gone mad and dragged people along with it. Maybe we have had it “good” for too long or something. I really don’t know what it is and have given it some thought. Perhaps, it is always like this, but it really comes to the surface in the extreme circumstances?
 
Feanor said:
I'm not sure that's the takeaway. We still can't tell what Trump thinks the diplomatic solution is. Russia isn't going to give up on their core position because Trump says a few kind words. Russia repeatedly indicated they want a permanent peace. Instead Trump trots out a ceasefire, and Europe is openly preparing to insert forces into Ukraine. Obviously Russia isn't going to go for it. But they don't want to completely reject it either, since they do want to negotiate. So they "hit the ball back" with the part about stopping mobilization and aid to Ukraine. There's still no clarity on what the proposal that both sides could theoretically agree to would be. And I think the key issue here is Ukraine admitting permanent loss of territory. If Ukraine doesn't accept this, Russia won't sign any deal, and this makes any ceasefire counter-productive from Russia's point of view. Perhaps the west in general, and Trump specifically aren't willing to have any deal where Ukraine officially recognizes loss of territory. If so, it's an impasse and this war will have to continue until positions shift. But I think the takeaway is that anyone proposing a negotiated end to the conflict needs to have some sort of clear path to what they envision that solution to be and a way to get both sides to accept it. Trump entered the conversation acting like his intent is to simply get Ukraine to accept Russia's core demands. Then he walks that back and proposes a strange ceasefire. It really seems like he doesn't know what he's doing.
Click to expand...

Agree for the most part tho I think the key issue for Russia is less territorial then the state of ukrain after the war, no NATO no NATO troops (in any guises). And critically a small armed force with a mechanism for Russia to monitor and therefore prevent rearmament or NATO countries armed forces from coming in country. Complete political and military if not domination then neutrality/irrevelace . That is I believe Russians (security concerns). That was I believe the cause of the war the oblasts are to some degree the mechanic to keep Ukraine from possing that threat, to some degree a actual issue of reuniting culturally Russian people back into Russia proper and partly a response to NATO growth and pointedly the colour revolution the west backed. Which brings it back to security concerns for Russia and the whole reason for the war in the first place. At least in my opinion.
i also agree I don't think trump knows what he's doing. he acts like Russia and Ukraine should be thinking about American priorities and dosnt understand this is a war of choice for America, one of national security (from the Russian view) and for Ukraine it a bit harder of position I don't think they had much choice in it at least if they continue to think that Russia is somehow not serious about there security concerns when it comes to western military forces or alinces on in Ukraine. As far as Putin is concerned if trump doesn't like funding the Ukraine war he can stop, if he doesn't stop well nothing really changes from were it's at. He's also correct in pointing out the u.s is asking for a cease fire well resuming arms shipments the idea Russia would agree to that is quite frankly absurd. It's also not likely to Garner any trust or goodwill from Russia. Just blows my mind how dumb it is to restart arms shipments and then ask Russia for a ceasefire not after they refuse but before......

Why the hell would he agree to give up on the goals he started a war prevent happing. He did don't do it in 2023 when Russia was on the back foot he won't do it now that the UAF is in a bad spot. He's also unlikely to forget the lack of peace talk coming from the u.s then. As back then it was all about giving Russia a strategic defeat and the beach party in Crimea/ war reparations and war crime trial talks coming from the u.s.
That's why I said it looks like trolling. There is no way Russia gives up its goals or its gains barring a change in the battlefield conditions, there is also no way Russia changes strategic partners from China to the u.s. trump doesn't seem to recognize this or more accurately he can't accept that it matters to anybody else since it doesn't matter to him or something I honestly just don't get it. It's a tire fire whatever this policy of Trump's is it's either 5d chess or a tire fire.
 
KipPotapych said:
On the “unconditional ceasefire”. Those who think that this is a reasonable and fully acceptable proposal, can you provide some historic examples where this has been done, accepted by both sides, stopped the hostilities, and, ideally, led to peace? This is a serious question as I would appreciate some historic perspective this can worked around. I can’t think of any relevant examples, but this may very well be my lack of knowledge. To me, the entire proposal seems to be completely absurd, as I discussed previously.
Click to expand...

Well one relivent to this situation as it is right now. I would say the Korean war it's a cease fire and a "peace" I also think if this ceasefire was accepted and extended it's what things would look like ultimately. At least as things stand right now
Beyond that lots of cease fire have lead to peace not every war is a unconditional surrender. China and India is a good example of a cease fire not really a war but could have easily been one if not for one. the i.r.a and the British is a good example of a ceasefire that lead to talks that lead to peace
 
Last edited:
Ukraine struck the Engels air base. They claim to have hit a missile storage, causing big detonations.
The attack seems significant because it's reported by various news channels, including Reuters and BBC Russian Service.
Unfortunately Reuters is not free any more but we can read the headline.

Starmer said:
it is crucial for the United Kingdom and its allies to be able to react immediately if a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine is struck.
Click to expand...
link (Reuter$)
He means probably some form of air and sea cover. I think that a land deployment "immediately after the ceasefire" is unlikely but this comment make it a little bit more likely.

Trump and Zelenski discussed restoring the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). link (Reuters) and link (Ukrinform)
Beyond the anecdotical fact that Trump already forgot about rare earths and is being distracted by the ZNPP, it's a very important piece of detail. It suggests that Russians will have to withdraw from the ZNPP in the future peace deal.

According to Pro-Ukrainian Youtube milblogger Denys Davidov, the incursion into the Belgorod Oblast, south of Sudzha, is confirmed, albeit it appears to be limited. Ukrainians have already lost at least one T64 and some engineering vehicle under Lancet strikes.
Note that the area in yellow is considered a "grey zone" not under Ukrainian control as the colour may suggest.
temp.jpg
 
Fredled, here is a freshly posted Sudzha victory assessment by a Ukrainian (Tatarigami):

frontelligence.substack.com

Kursk Offensive - A Preliminary Assessment

Operational Assessment: Successes, Setbacks, and Battlefield Attrition
frontelligence.substack.com frontelligence.substack.com

Here is a post by Mike Kofman regarding your claim related to the source of most losses:

IMG_8985.jpeg

Oh, look, Ukrainians are using the same tactics as Russians:

IMG_8986.jpeg

Zelensky pulling Zelensky, lecturing EU on how they should be conducting business. The guy never learns. Some are probably imaging how it would be having Ukriane as a member in the Union.

IMG_8988.jpeg

People with a good clue dismantling British MoD’s propaganda:

IMG_8987.jpeg
 

A very neutral source tho the man is himself pro Ukrainian he does great work in putting bias aside. Anyways it's him and a economist talking about Russia's economy and ability to continue the war. A good and accurate watch in my opinion for anyone interested.

Of note is few ways in which Russian economic structure differs from ours and how just monthly numbers have to be looked at differently. Such as how it pays it's military industrial complex, it pays for the years production upfront so if one is to take the numbers from the first few months and then project it as unsustainable it would be incorrect. Same as if you just looked at the last few months and said Russia Has gone broke.
the short version if you don't want to watch is well Russia does have some serious problems it's currently a sustainable war at least for a few more years barring something unforeseen. And several indicators show alot more strength then you would think
 
crest said:
Well one relivent to this situation as it is right now. I would say the Korean war it's a cease fire and a "peace" I also think if this ceasefire was accepted and extended it's what things would look like ultimately. At least as things stand right now
Beyond that lots of cease fire have lead to peace not every war is a unconditional surrender. China and India is a good example of a cease fire not really a war but could have easily been one if not for one. the i.r.a and the British is a good example of a ceasefire that lead to talks that lead to peace
Click to expand...
While similarities exist, there are sufficient and substantial differences. The biggest similarity is, perhaps, Zelensky and Rhee, their delusional demands, to be more accurate.

I will try to reply in more detail later. One thing to note, however, the ceasefire surely wasn’t unconditional and negotiations lasted twice as long as the war prior.

“Unconditional ceasefire” is about as rare as white rhinos. Throw in one side having a clear advantage in about everything and the “unconditional ceasefire” rarity level is raised to unicorns. It simply doesn’t exist. Regardless of the “ball possession”.


The idea of the boots on the ground from the so-called coalition of the willing seems to be falling apart, very not unexpectedly I should say. UK is turning to the “air and sea support” (which is not feasible either, has an even less chance of happening, in my opinion), while Macron is now throwing the idea of UN peacekeeping mission (a turn towards reality).

Mr Macron raised the subject of the UN alternative at Thursday’s European Council summit with Antonio Guterres, the UN security general, who was a guest of the gathered EU leaders.

It comes as the Prime Minister is showing signs of shifting his focus away from European “boots on the ground” to secure a peace deal with Russia, and is turning instead towards air and sea support to defend Ukraine.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Macron exploring UN alternative to Starmer’s Ukraine plan

French president and Prime Minister have been leading push to form a ‘coalition of the willing’
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

But no one is going to ask the Russians, only the “sovereign Ukriane”, right Fredled?

Ok, I apologize for the humour. Seriously though, the “coalition of the willing” thing may still happen, however unlikely, we really do not know at this point. We will have to wait and see.


In the meantime, the €40B military aid plan fell flat in the EU as well.

Kallas had previously proposed a pledge up of to 40 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine in 2025, with each country contributing according to its economic size, but that hit resistance from some countries, particularly in southern Europe.


And it was not just Hungary or Slovakia that were strongly against and more members “sceptical”.

European Union leaders said on Thursday that they will continue to support Ukraine, but they did not immediately endorse a call by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to provide at least 5 billion euros for artillery ammunition purchases.

"We need funds for artillery shells and would really appreciate Europe's support with at least five billion euros ($5.42 billion) as soon as possible," Zelenskiy told the EU leaders meeting in Brussels via video link.

“Would really appreciate at least €5B” is a bit of a different tone from his usual addresses, no?
 
KipPotapych said:
While similarities exist, there are sufficient and substantial differences. The biggest similarity is, perhaps, Zelensky and Rhee, their delusional demands, to be more accurate.

I will try to reply in more detail later. One thing to note, however, the ceasefire surely wasn’t unconditional and negotiations lasted twice as long as the war prior.

“Unconditional ceasefire” is about as rare as white rhinos. Throw in one side having a clear advantage in about everything and the “unconditional ceasefire” rarity level is raised to unicorns. It simply doesn’t exist. Regardless of the “ball possession”.


The idea of the boots on the ground from the so-called coalition of the willing seems to be falling apart, very not unexpectedly I should say. UK is turning to the “air and sea support” (which is not feasible either, has an even less chance of happening, in my opinion), while Macron is now throwing the idea of UN peacekeeping mission (a turn towards reality).

Mr Macron raised the subject of the UN alternative at Thursday’s European Council summit with Antonio Guterres, the UN security general, who was a guest of the gathered EU leaders.

It comes as the Prime Minister is showing signs of shifting his focus away from European “boots on the ground” to secure a peace deal with Russia, and is turning instead towards air and sea support to defend Ukraine.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...strength-amid-growing-uncertainty-2025-03-20/

And it was not just Hungary or Slovakia that were strongly against and more members “sceptical”.

European Union leaders said on Thursday that they will continue to support Ukraine, but they did not immediately endorse a call by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to provide at least 5 billion euros for artillery ammunition purchases.

"We need funds for artillery shells and would really appreciate Europe's support with at least five billion euros ($5.42 billion) as soon as possible," Zelenskiy told the EU leaders meeting in Brussels via video link.

“Would really appreciate at least €5B” is a bit of a different tone from his usual addresses, no?
Click to expand...


Well to be fair the Korean war is still technically a cease fire, and very few wars are completely comparable. I think it can serve as a example of how a cease fire can lead to a end of shooting even if the nation's remain hostile. Infact two belligerent states ending a shooting war but not hostility is imop the biggest similarity.
If the shooting were to stop today is I suspect that outcome. If it held that is, But better odds of a hostile stand off then a real peace I think. Greatest chance the shooting starts back up shortly perhaps expanded

The bigger point about true cease fires being rare I agree most true cease fires are infact surrenders of one degree or another. Then again we don't really have a cease fire here and unless it's explicitly stated that it's going to come with major Ukrainian consesion I doubt we will at least not with Russia's current position millitaraly, economically and politically (both domestic and abroad). None of those factors are negative enough at this point for Russia to back away from and in the case of domestic politics it's actually a counterweight. at least as far as I can see.

Tho I guess trump could have some secret tool at his disposal that changes the equation for Russia I mean honestly his actions don't make much sense looked at objectively and one should assume there is a reason for things done at this level. Tho that can be said for more then just this policy (whatever it is). But that is it's own rant in and if itself (I'm Canadian and have some opinions about being a "valid country" keeping trade deals you and I mean deals trump himself made in his first term made aswell as what side of the boarder the drugs are really coming from)
 
Last edited:
It looks like Ukraine's efforts to retake Toretsk are over. The situation inside the town remains murky and I think the town is still contested, but Russian forces have restarted advances in multiple areas north and north-east of the town. The near-term targets seem to be the villages of Dachnoe and Dyleevka. It would make little sense for multiple Russian pushes from diverse directions all in one area to take place if they're still on the defensive from Ukrainian pushes into the town. Presumably the end goal of this push will be Russian forces entering the Kleban-Byk area from the east and cut off Ukrainian forces west of Toretsk from Konstantinovka, putting their logistics on a path that goes west of the reservoir. Of course it remains to be seen how this actually plays out.
 
They have also started moving north in zapirozihia nothing on a large scale yet but they have taken a few towns and the roadway between them. Again not a large scale attack but one on a mostly quiet front. The Ukrainians probably need to act quickly tho or they could wind up in a situation like they did up north with the ooskele river crossing were a minor effort becomes a problem larger then it should have.
 
KipPotapych said:
Imagine all the fiberoptic wire from the “wire drones” being all over the place. While the stuff is pretty brittle when bent, it has some good tension strength and must be devastating for the wildlife, etc (when that becomes a concern again, of course). A video of the wire from a few drones laid basically side by side:

x.com

x.com x.com
Click to expand...
Quoted ^ for continuity and substance.

A couple of “wire” pics from the past couple of days:

IMG_8982.jpeg


IMG_8996.jpeg

In the following tweet, there is a video showing a low flying drone being disabled by hitting a wire that randomly drops in front of it from a drone flying somewhere above:

 
Feanor said:
It looks like Ukraine's efforts to retake Toretsk are over.
Click to expand...
The situation is unclear and was unclear for a while. The last reports show that Russians took back the center of the town around the Stadium. It's possible that Ukrainians lost definitely the ground there because the opposite would be surprising.

The same can be said about Chasiv/Chasov Yar. It's not clear how it should be pronounced since we don't know who control the town.
____________
KipPotapych said:
But no one is going to ask the Russians, only the “sovereign Ukriane”, right Fredled?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's correct. But it doesn't mean we are going to do stupid things without taking the risks into consideration.
I said that a ground deployment of allied countries in Ukraine is unlikely in the foreseeable future. I would add that I'm against it because of the danger of escalation.

Nevertheless, the decision by European countries and their allies, and at this time, it's not clear whether the US is still an ally, will be taken without the influence of Russian propaganda and Russian official statements.

Only Donald Trump thinks that he can ask Putin what could be acceptable to him in a peace agreement and that he would get a clear and intelligible syntax in the answer.
temp.jpg

KipPotapych said:
In the meantime, the €40B military aid plan fell flat in the EU as well.

Kallas had previously proposed a pledge up of to 40 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine in 2025, with each country contributing according to its economic size, but that hit resistance from some countries, particularly in southern Europe.


And it was not just Hungary or Slovakia that were strongly against and more members “sceptical”.

European Union leaders said on Thursday that they will continue to support Ukraine, but they did not immediately endorse a call by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to provide at least 5 billion euros for artillery ammunition purchases.
Click to expand...
This is an absolute non-event.

1/ It's normal that several EU countries reject or abstain to approve a decision by the EU to bind them to spend big sums of money in military spending for a specific purpose. It would be abnormal that they agree.

So far, it was always accepted as a common principle that defence and military matters would remain the sovereign domain of each EU member. Such agreement would break with the tradition and is not desirable.

The European Parliament doesn't work like the US Congress. If they don't decide or decide against a defence related agreement, each member is still free to do what they want. It's only a forum where European leaders are gathering to discuss various topics and take a coherent and cohesive decision whenever it's possible. When it's not possible, each country decide for themselves. If some countries don't want to spend as much as others for Ukraine, it's their choice. If Hungary don't want to participate at all, it's their problem.

What the EU can do is to offer funds for defence spending to members who wish to increase it in the current context and which can be also used for providing weapons to Ukraine. They can do it basically by printing money, and also by not counting defence spending in the deficit.
One more time, Hungary is not obliged to accept the money.

2/ The EU or its leaders are not supposed to "endorse" Zelensky's "plan", "proposal", "call" or whatever. This is formulated as if European were divided, not willing, tired or hesitating, while nothing happened at all and there are much more evidence of the contrary.
______________
crest said:
the short version if you don't want to watch is well Russia does have some serious problems it's currently a sustainable war at least for a few more years barring something unforeseen.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's correct. The Russian economy is very bad and getting worse because they divert the ressources to make the war sustainable.

Usually the population die of starvation before military production start to decline.
 
Last edited:
Fredled said:
The situation is unclear and was unclear for a while. The last reports show that Russians took back the center of the town around the Stadium. It's possible that Ukrainians lost definitely the ground there because the opposite would be surprising.

The same can be said about Chasiv/Chasov Yar. It's not clear how it should be pronounced since we don't know who control the town.
____________
Yes, it's correct. But it doesn't mean we are going to do stupid things without taking the risks into consideration.
I said that a ground deployment of allied countries in Ukraine is unlikely in the foreseeable future. I would add that I'm against it because of the danger of escalation.

Nevertheless, the decision by European countries and their allies, and at this time, it's not clear whether the US is still an ally, will be taken without the influence of Russian propaganda and Russian official statements.

Only Donald Trump thinks that he can ask Putin what could be acceptable to him in a peace agreement and that he would get a clear and intelligible syntax in the answer.
View attachment 52519


This is an absolute non-event.

1/ It's normal that several EU countries reject or abstain to approve a decision by the EU to bind them to spend big sums of money in military spending for a specific purpose. It would be abnormal that they agree.

So far, it was always accepted as a common principle that defence and military matters would remain the sovereign domain of each EU member. Such agreement would break with the tradition and is not desirable.

The European Parliament doesn't work like the US Congress. If they don't decide or decide against a defence related agreement, each member is still free to do what they want. It's only a forum where European leaders are gathering to discuss various topics and take a coherent and cohesive decision whenever it's possible. When it's not possible, each country decide for themselves. If some countries don't want to spend as much as others for Ukraine, it's their choice. If Hungary don't want to participate at all, it's their problem.

What the EU can do is to offer funds for defence spending to members who wish to increase it in the current context and which can be also used for providing weapons to Ukraine. They can do it basically by printing money, and also by not counting defence spending in the deficit.
One more time, Hungary is not obliged to accept the money.

2/ The EU or its leaders are not supposed to "endorse" Zelensky's "plan", "proposal", "call" or whatever. This is formulated as if European were divided, not willing, tired or hesitating, while nothing happened at all and there are much more evidence of the contrary.
______________

Yes, it's correct. The Russian economy is very bad and getting worse because they divert the ressources to make the war sustainable.

Usually the population die of starvation before military production start to decline.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point the Russian economy isn't "very bad". It's got some problems but if you watch the video it's economy actually grew more then expected. Well inflation is high its if you measure it by average western standerds. It's actually not that far above average for Russia. russian revenue from both oil and non oil products is up not down. And the hits to Russian oil refineries at first glance looks like a it's the reason for the drop in refined oil products.
It's not it's because of a deal Russia made with Saudi Arabia to drop there production to stabilize global prices. This is because Russia's refining capacity even taking into account damage far exceeds its production. In short Russia does have problems long term but has successfully pivoted it's economy to the east bypassed sanctions for the most part and has more of a problem with things like low unemployment, inflation and military spending well high at almost 8% is not a threat to the coverall economic picture. Its sustainable at this rate baring a drop in the overall health of Russia's economy. Well that could happen the fact it's trade in now with china and bricks countries primarily and that trade is increasing not decreasesing. In short if Russia doesn't stop growing it may have big problems but as it is that isn't happening. Again it's the lack of spare workers that is actually one of its biggest problems and if push came to shove I think Russia would loosen it forgien worker regulations. A area china I'm sure would be more then happy to help fill the void, as it actually helps solve one of there most pressing problems aswell.

8% is also somewhere around the level Poland spends on its military, for context the u.s.s.r was spending around 30% fire around a decade before it became unstable. I also believe that's around what Ukraine spends (30%) but it's economy is not really subject to normal economic projection as obviously it's entirely floated by the west and depends on political considerations not economic ones. If your betting on a Russian economic collapse I hope you thinking in the timespan of years not months as that is what you looking at...and that's if you assume china would do nothing to help Russia if needed.
 
Last edited:
crest said:
If your betting on a Russian economic collapse I hope you thinking in the timespan of years not months as that is what you looking at...and that's if you assume china would do nothing to help Russia if needed.
Click to expand...

This is what become a broken record from Western politicians and some of its media pundits. Russia economy will break soon, and that projections being repeated from 22. Bit phatetics as they sell the idea only base on wishes and not realities. Even The Economists that used to be respected economic media now become just political tools media.

You right that Russia economy already switching to East from West, and this's part on market switch that happen due to war and Western blockade. Russia control substantial amount of Global energy supplies and when West take other Supplies then other Market will balance it by taking Russian supplies. This just part of finite supplies situation as energy is finite supplies.

Somehow some people in West still fantasize the otherwise. Russian already find other markets since three years ago, and unless those other markets (means most of Global South and that includes China and India) also collapse, Russia will always have market there.
 
KipPotapych said:
Quoted ^ for continuity and substance.

A couple of “wire” pics from the past couple of days:

View attachment 52514


View attachment 52515

In the following tweet, there is a video showing a low flying drone being disabled by hitting a wire that randomly drops in front of it from a drone flying somewhere above:

Click to expand...
Seems like wired drones are self limiting. Probably not a long term viable option for operating drones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top