Russia - threadbanned users in OP

The Russian military stopped manufacturing most of there RPG's in the late 90's early noughties and basically exported them to anyone fighting the Yanks. The numbers they have are quite small it seems numbering in the thousands not ten of thousands.

They are a number of variants however they have one major flaw they all weight 12ish kgs similar to the Javelin. A LAWS is 3ish kgs. They have not got enough to deploy at squad level.

Just look at the LAWS the UA has 100k of them. If you have a million active military that is one to ten troops, but you would not be giving them to pilots, tank crews, artillery units etc.

The drone would have been put up to see was there another tank or howitzers within 2-3km of the trench. Battlefield intelligence would tell you that generally such positions do not have ATM, whether it's ATGM or RPG's

Basically it's battlefield risk analysis and comes back to how poorly equipped the average Russian troop, squad or army generally are.

So basically the decision by a battlefield commander in such a situation was how do we attack it. In this case it was send in a fast moving tank to shoot up the trench.

What's the problem with "denouncing the Putin government " ? Or does ye're bravery not extend beyond raping and murdering civilians?

Well, I had one experience in Syria where I was stopped at a checkpoint, ( pretty much common experience there!!! ) and as things seemed to be dragging on, I asked the officer what was the problem, and he said that we were stopped because there were snipers operating from a tall building just ahead, and that they had requested a tank to come and take them out. And sure enough, a tank duly appeared (on its own) and levelled the building. If the snipers were still in it or not, I never found out, but there were no shots fired when we drove past it anyway.

The Geneva Conventions are universal.

..

The wheels will move quite slowly because you are talking about lots of different countries with actual working independent legal systems vs 1 country with Putin (or someone similar) who can snap his fingers/invite someone to a sit down and a cup of tea, but I don't think Russia is getting the frozen assets and money it has in the West back.

So Russia will pay the piper eventually.

I would not underestimate the complexity of seizing state assets (i.e. Russian offshore reserves) and then giving them to another state. It's pretty much unprecedented in modern economic history.

I also think Russian reparations (along the lines of say Versailles) are highly unlikely.

A modern-day Marshall Plan for Ukraine, funded by the EU and US, seems much more probable in my view. In fact, it's already happening. Some of the aid being pledged is not direct military or humanitarian aid, but is rather for reconstruction.

If anyone wades in with the "but America..." line, it would be a good question to ask where they're going with that line of rhetoric. They never really draw many solid conclusions from the point they raise, which makes me suspect it's a weaselly way to try and undermine the moral position of Ukraine by just sowing a bit of doubt.

In any case, Ukraine will take weapons from whoever is supplying them in order to defend their country. The only particulars they can really ponder at this time are the ones which would give them the best strategic outcome. Everything else is going to be for the vast amount of books written about this conflict for years to come.

I try not to as I definitely would not understand all of those complexities.

I would agree there will be no Russian "reparations" in the way you have defined them (like Versailles). My feeling is the UN and all international structures have failed when it comes to this conflict. It is going to be up to US/EU and allies to punish Russia.

In terms of natural justice of making the one who destroyed Ukraine chip in for a reconstruction, the only thing they have left is what Russia owned in these Western countries.

There is an incentive there for them to try and build some kind of collective approach to it among themselves rather than see Russia just sail off free of obligations after this stupid war ends, having wrecked its neighbour.

Vietnam didn't have 300 billion dollars of US assets frozen...

In my view, the really complex piece is what happens when the fighting stops.

Ukraine will need massive help reconstructing itself. Reintegrating all the refugees. But I have every confidence this will happen and that it will enter the Western European economic, social and political sphere for ever. Up to and including eventual EU accession.

It's what happens to Russia that is the most challenging strategic problem. It will still be a nuclear-armed, confrontational, xenophobic dictatorship run by a kleptomaniac (even if, highly unlikely in my view, Putin is deposed or dies - he will be replaced by someone of similar ilk).

How the collective West engages with this rogue state will be an enormous challenge. Ultimately we want Russia to be a force for good in this world...how we get to that point, I have no idea.

I don't know why you waste your time. The Ignore feature is a highly useful one. All you will get from idiots like that one is deflection and sophistry (and you can't beat a fool at their own game, so why bother trying?).