Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

1345534563458346034613690

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,184 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    They don't have to be "given" the nukes, they can develop them themselves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,997 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    But nukes are expensive to develop, create and maintain. Considering everything else Ukraine requires to get back on track as a functional country, I'd say nukes are far down their list of priorities



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    Russia has been in all out attack mode for 4 months now. Will this slow after Putin's reelection or is this the new normal where Russia mobilises 30k troop's a month indefinitely to replace the loses and keep this going. It's interesting how they attack so much during bad months of the year. I hope they go full steam ahead into the mud season as well.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,852 ✭✭✭zv2


    I don't say i believe/disbelieve it but in Russia all kinds of things are possible. People who are capable of editing historical photographs to alter the perception of history are capable of anything.

    It looks like history is starting up again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,593 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    "Again soon" ? Does that mean you don't consider the strikes on Russia's oil depots, weapons factories, naval bases and aircraft some kind of offensive attack?

    We're back to this same "Russia's so big it can't lose" argument that ignores the reality on the battlefield: Ukraine makes the most efficient use of its limited resources to accurately strike targets of signficant military and strategic value hundreds of kilometres behind the front lines, while Russia blindly lobs men and bombs in the vague general direction of Kyiv/Poland/America in the hope of hitting something important.

    Just because one starts with a great fortune, there's no guarantee one won't end up in a pauper's grave; and the same holds true for any (wannabee) emperor.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,184 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    At first yes they will be, but in 10/20 years (and with a little under the table help from their friends) I could easily imagine a once again nuclear armed Ukraine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,658 ✭✭✭XsApollo


    If Ukraine do get nukes, it won’t be with help from the west.

    the US doesn’t want anymore Nuclear capable countries, and would pull any support as would the EU.

    im sure any type of future integration in the EU or the like would be dependent on them not developing nukes.



  • This content has been removed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    They are nice to see and they are important single strikes but they are only one slice of the pie.


    It's a matter of scale though. Ukraine are getting enough artillery for 2000 fired a day, on a 600 mile front, their soldiers talk of having 2 shells delivered and nothing again for days, and that's where the action is hottest in a 600 mile front.


    Israel fired 100k shells in the first 7 weeks in a small strip of land 15 miles long and that was it being secondary to air strikes, because the reality of urban warfare calls for that.


    Precision strikes by Ukraine are all well and good but they also need to level areas. The Russians were firing 60k a day at one stage.


    Russia can lose, If the will is there in the West, it can also have a victory of sorts, in that it holds what it has, that might come at near a million dead and injured and their economy on a par with Pakistan, this is the kicker though. Their leadership is willing to do that.


    The Ukrainians have been short changed for the first 2 years, their best troops are dead or injured or exhausted by the reality of war, the West should have backed them to the hilt from day one, stepping up military aid is far less effective now but it should start.


    Putin has more reason to be hopeful than this time last year and Zelensky has more concerns. The Ukrainians might be forced into defensive positions themselves, which is what is happening now, and a stalemate settles in.


    Stalemates, ceasefires etc, in the current wars we hear lots of are a benefit and victory of sorts for the aggressor.



  • This content has been removed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,844 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    It's only 220k shells, with first deliveries at the end of 2025. It's also to replenish NATO stocks and to supply Ukraine.

    Maybe countries will give more to Ukraine from their current stockpiles knowing they will be replenished in about 2 years time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,181 ✭✭✭Field east


    You forgot to mention that when Putin conscripts another 500000 into the army, - after the election, - there will be 500,000 vacancies created. These is my life people are not twiddling their thumbs and sitting on a wal looking for something to ‘excite’ them. They are more than likely drivers , service engineers, etc. the low hanging fruit has already been conscripted. So we can expect ‘ a bit more’ resistance when the next round starts



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,181 ✭✭✭Field east




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    A good 5 days of shelling by Ukraine in 2026.

    That's what that will buy, about 200k shells.

    It's a good step but if there isn't the same press release every week for the next year, it is immaterial.


    It feels like that Western armies became so reliant on technology and airpower that they overlooked the need to plan for wars of attrition, of duration and of annihilation. It was short term shock and awe, the balance was lost. Europe is looking at Trump in 2025 saying, no you pay your own bar tab from now on and it mostly isn't ready or willing to do that, just imagine the political reaction to govts saying we have to spend several percent a year on our armies, reintroduce conscription, and all it entails being able to be a society that pulls its own weight.


    If this isn't settled this year, it will just become stagnant lines with occasional hot spots back and forth.


    Ukraine needs a game changer for that to be avoided and where will that come from? Germany has certainly changed its tune and really stepped up, though it was disappointing to see Taurus missiles not been given, they are what they need, still they have changed and that counts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,181 ✭✭✭Field east


    No problem with that as long as it retains the right to have them if it wants. IMO When all this is ‘settled’ Russia should have ABSOLUTLY NO part in any decision that UKr makes to manage its state



  • This content has been removed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,518 ✭✭✭scottser


    Ukraine should recover faster than Russia, in theory at least. Russia is a corrupt shithole; at least Ukraine is addressing its corruption and improving oversight. It has access to Western funding and support and a clear recovery plan, whereas Russia is in thrall to China and is already scabbing ammunition from North Korea.

    Having said all that, now would be a great time to equip Ukraine properly and end Putin's insanity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    They used to have part of Soviet nuclear arsenal not their own and they never had actual control over them



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,593 ✭✭✭CelticRambler



    Israel fired 100k shells in the first 7 weeks in a small strip of land 15 miles long and that was it being secondary to air strikes, because the reality of urban warfare calls for that.

    Hardly a great example - is it? How safe and secure is Israel today, compared to how it was three months ago? Are we looking at a future of peace and tranquility for all the residents of the far eastern shores of the Mediterranean now, thanks to those 100k shells?

    Precision strikes by Ukraine are all well and good but they also need to level areas. The Russians were firing 60k a day at one stage.

    Still with the "might is right (and better)" Why does Ukraine need to level areas? Can you point to one single advantage such a tactic has brought to the Russian army in the last two years? Sure, they completely destroy towns like Marinka and Bakmut and can proclaim they've conquered another few square kilometres ... and yet that doesn't stop Ukraine driving their Black Sea Fleet out of the Black Sea, or their A50s out of the Azov Sea.

    As I've asserted before: just like in the Somme in WW1, the fighting in the trenches isn't moving more than a few metres east or west from one week to the next, but the effective frontline has moved a hell of a lot further east since the infamous "failed" counteroffensive of last year, and that's without levelling whole cities or killing thousands of civilians.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    The article I saw said end of 2025, early 2026.


    It doesn't really matter though when it is such a small number. If it was 5 million for a summer offensive this year or ideally last year. It would be serious and important to the effort.


    That's out of reach though.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    1000 patriot missles won't start to delivered to NATO countries until 2027- 2030 at least



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,593 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Worth remembering, too, that there's already a plan in place for which EU country is responsible for what part of a post-war Ukraine. It's been a while since I saw it, but when you have 27 countries lined up with a clear map of who can repair/exploit what, the speed of recovery will have the citizens of Bryansk and Belgorod drooling into their empty soup bowls.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    The only way to take cities or towns is to flatten them, that's it unless you want to waste an entire army running them down a street where a sub rate soldier can drop several of them from a window..

    You don't fight door to door. You put a shell through the house and then go in, as the Iraqis did in Mosul.


    Ukraine held in to Bakhmut for so long because they were turning it in to a neat grinder for Russia.


    What do you see as the benefit of forcing Ukraine to fight attritional battles against a dug in enemy while being short of arms.


    Why would the Ukrainians or anyone else take the past route which has been consistently shown that urban fighting without massive suppressive fire is the quickest way to destroy your own army?


    The risk of your approach is that after a few months Ukraine will have nothing left manpower wise.


    Might is right?

    In war you either kill or injury so many enemy combatants that their army is forced to retreat or go home.


    You hit their infrastructure again and again so that their society can not be a fully functioning support to their army or be willing to endure the price.


    Effective lines far from the front. They have been the norm for decades and usually at a much greater scale than either Russia or Ukraine have done to date and neither have been game changers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    I'm so sure about that,there is plans involving support and access to financial aid for the Ukrainians to rebuild themselves I haven't seen a plan where Ukraine gets divided into separate sections where 27 EU states step in to rebuild, but it there is any kind of down turn or recession in Europe those plan's could change again as well as political wills



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,184 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    That's not to say they won't have their own in the future.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    No but it is theoretical, in 30 years time they might have one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Still don't see under any circumstances they get nukes ,I definitely do see any will from the international community to assist them either



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,840 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy



    I saw some reports on Twitter that Zenit (a heavily fortified Air Defense position to the south west of Avdiivka) had been taken by the Russian army which, if true, would be a major problem for the Ukrainians as it's a heavily fortitified position and has the high elevation over the area and is considered a lynchpin of this front but I'm also seeing counter-claims that while they've made advances in the area, the fortification is still in Ukrainian hands.

    Hard to tell the truth of it but based on everything we've seen to date from both sides, one would have to assume Ukrainian command will pull back their forces and abandon Avdiivka for more defensible positions when necessary.

    On saying that, it does make me wonder that Ukraine haven't yet pulled a mass retreat in some part of the front to suck Russian troops into an encirclement. From what we've seen the Russians logistics and command have been terrible and their troops are under intense pressure to take territory so it'd seem to me that they'd be ripe for being lured into a headlong rush for "abandoned" territory which Ukraine had artillery pre-targetted on (or otherwise booby trapped) as their logistics would surely fail to keep up with a fast advance at this point?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭macraignil


    "In war you either kill or injury so many enemy combatants that their army is forced to retreat or go home."

    Seems like you are right that frontal assaults are not yielding much in the way of territorial gain in Ukraine but as you say yourself in the part of your post I have reprinted the enemy can be forced to retreat if enough of their combatants are killed and injured. Once again the number of moskovytes the armed forces of Ukraine are after killing is about the thousand mark along with large amounts of military equipment that can no longer be used by putin to attack Ukraine. The costs for putin in this conflict are only getting higher as Ukraine is finding more ways to strike further into putin's terrorist state and his army is being demolished so in time putin will be forced to retreat.

    dpk37v8fn4ec1.jpeg

    In more news from the war putin continues their terrorist attacks on civilians with 21 missiles reported to have been shot down over night but still many deaths and injuries to innocent people because of his empire building dream.




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,844 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Little more details there with a delivery date.

    The link you supplied even mentions it's to replenish NATO stocks.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement