Russia

[egg]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Putin speaking bollocks yesterday about the Ukrainian offensive, the BBC says it has not yet been able to verify his statements.

Good luck with that.

 

Here's a clue; the man is a megalomaniac and compulsive liar.

Even if Putin is half correct about this, Ukraine have had a spanking. Sure, Putin will add vat to the truth, but this instant dismissal of the idea that Ukraine have had a bad week or so is a tad naive. 

[Lighthouse]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Even if Putin is half correct about this, Ukraine have had a spanking. Sure, Putin will add vat to the truth, but this instant dismissal of the idea that Ukraine have had a bad week or so is a tad naive. 

Why would he be? As badger said, he's a compulsive liar and an absolute nutjob. Nobody is dismissing the idea that Ukraine has had a bad week but it's far too early to tell and the information so far is patchy at best, but to believe a single word that comes out of Putin's mouth is foolhardy. 

[AlexLaw76]

14 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Why would he be? As badger said, he's a compulsive liar and an absolute nutjob. Nobody is dismissing the idea that Ukraine has had a bad week but it's far too early to tell and the information so far is patchy at best, but to believe a single word that comes out of Putin's mouth is foolhardy. 

You / we would do well to dismiss nearly everything we are being 'told'

It is pure propaganda to keep the masses in the West 'onside' 

Soon, it will all be about Russia running out of ammunition/ missiles again* and how Ukraine is winning.....it was absolutely hilarious people on here and anywhere, talking about lack of munitions as if it was remotely credible.

As Soggy said, the first victim of war is the truth.....and that is a fact with what we are being spood fed.

[spyinthesky]

10 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You / we would do well to dismiss nearly everything we are being 'told'

It is pure propaganda to keep the masses in the West 'onside' 

Soon, it will all be about Russia running out of ammunition/ missiles again* and how Ukraine is winning.....it was absolutely hilarious people on here and anywhere, talking about lack of munitions as if it was remotely credible.

As Soggy said, the first victim of war is the truth.....and that is a fact with what we are being spood fed.

Alex,
Out of interest who do you reckon was responsible for the Salisbury and Litvinenko poisonings?

[AlexLaw76]

11 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

Alex,
Out of interest who do you reckon was responsible for the Salisbury and Litvinenko poisonings?

Russia. 

[Jimmy_D]

25 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You / we would do well to dismiss nearly everything we are being 'told'

It is pure propaganda to keep the masses in the West 'onside' 

Soon, it will all be about Russia running out of ammunition/ missiles again* and how Ukraine is winning.....it was absolutely hilarious people on here and anywhere, talking about lack of munitions as if it was remotely credible.

As Soggy said, the first victim of war is the truth.....and that is a fact with what we are being spood fed.

You keep digging out the same strawman argument about Russia running out of missiles.

No one’s claimed they’ve completely run out.

It’s also the case that they don’t have an unlimited supply. The numbers of cruise missiles they send are tiny compared to a few months ago. That combined with Ukraine’s increasingly comprehensive air defence has vastly reduced Russia’s ability to cause destruction with them.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Even if Putin is half correct about this, Ukraine have had a spanking. Sure, Putin will add vat to the truth, but this instant dismissal of the idea that Ukraine have had a bad week or so is a tad naive. 

I wasn't making a point about the Ukrainian attack, it is the BBC's self righteousness in implying they are working to verify Putin's claims, when anybody with half a brain cell knows that both sides undersell their own losses and overstate their opponent's - even WE did that during WW2.

Edit: presumably the BBC verified their news feeds before 21st March this year but without publicising the process - why do they now feel the need to insert this statement into every item they now publish ?

 

Edited 14 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Even if Putin is half correct about this, 

Putin has shown from day one he just completely makes shit up.

[whelk]

See we have another subject that the usual cretins think they are tapped into a more reliable source than the sheep. Incredible 

[farawaysaint]

If Russia had destroyed 300 vehicles they would have taken 3000 photos and published it for all to see.

They took out 4 leopards and we have about 10 angles of this. 

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, farawaysaint said:

If Russia had destroyed 300 vehicles they would have taken 3000 photos and published it for all to see.

They took out 4 leopards and we have about 10 angles of this. 

At least one of the Leo's has been recovered and is already back in service.

The best place I know of for verifying equipment losses is https://www.oryxspioenkop.com which gives visually confirmed and geo-located losses from both sides. Currently Oryx has 2 Leopards destroyed and 2 abandoned, the first of those listed as abandoned is, I believe, the one that was recovered and repaired.

There is a video, which the BBC published, showing Russian troops walking around a Leopard and a few Bradleys left behind by a failed Ukrainian reconnaissance. Some sources report that the Russians were promptly chased away and some of the equipment recovered.

Edited 14 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Even if Putin is half correct about this, Ukraine have had a spanking. Sure, Putin will add vat to the truth, but this instant dismissal of the idea that Ukraine have had a bad week or so is a tad naive. 

Why are you so ready to believe his propaganda? We, and that includes you, know nothing about what happens and the idea that Putin is speaking anything like the truth is probably the only thing that we can dismiss.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Why are you so ready to believe his propaganda? We, and that includes you, know nothing about what happens and the idea that Putin is speaking anything like the truth is probably the only thing that we can dismiss.

I'm not, and I haven't said that. I'm saying we shouldn't be fully dismissive of what he says. We are not going to be told full the truth either, but people swallow that propoganda as gospel. This thread highlights some of the oddities of people's thinking. Example. We definitely won't run out ammunition and equipment cos we'll just make more, but no way could Russia despite their greater levels of factories, people, raw materials, etc. Bonkers. 

[aintforever]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm saying we shouldn't be fully dismissive of what he says.

We should.

Definitely don't believe everything our media or government tell us. Read what people from Ukraine and Russia say and try to work out what is going on but when Putin opens his gob don't believe a single word he says.

He's cut from the same cloth as Goebbels, Trump and Bozo. You fall into their trap when you believe their lie must be based on some grain of truth, it's how the 'big lie' works.

 

 

 

Edited 14 June, 2023 by aintforever

[Lighthouse]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not, and I haven't said that. I'm saying we shouldn't be fully dismissive of what he says. We are not going to be told full the truth either, but people swallow that propoganda as gospel. This thread highlights some of the oddities of people's thinking. Example. We definitely won't run out ammunition and equipment cos we'll just make more, but no way could Russia despite their greater levels of factories, people, raw materials, etc. Bonkers. 

Nobody believes everything we’re told by western governments, or the media, that simply isn’t true. Neither is the idea that Russia has greater military output than Ukraine supported by the west. They’re burning through 50 year old Cold War tanks, their precision bombing is as accurate as a fairly good 1944 Lancaster raid.

[Baird of the land]

Western sources admitting heavy losses. Is just priming people for the next type of weaponry we're giving Ukraine.

[moonraker]

Offensive action of the kind the Ukrainian forces have embarked on will obviously involve losses.  Attacking prepared defences has a cost, lack of air cover is Ukraines biggest problem.  The allied battle for Normandy suffered many notable setbacks despite a large proportion of the German units being sub par, defending is far simpler than attacking, it takes time, the age of the one day decisive battle ended 200 years ago.  I do not know whether Ukraine will prevail, I do however firmly believe they have the will, the morale and increasingly the equipment  to inflict more serious damage on Russias poorly led, poorly trained and increasingly poorly maintained military.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Baird of the land said:

Western sources admitting heavy losses. Is just priming people for the next type of weaponry we're giving Ukraine.

We’re giving them the obsolete stuff that we would have had to dispose of anyway.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, moonraker said:

Offensive action of the kind the Ukrainian forces have embarked on will obviously involve losses.  Attacking prepared defences has a cost, lack of air cover is Ukraines biggest problem.  The allied battle for Normandy suffered many notable setbacks despite a large proportion of the German units being sub par, defending is far simpler than attacking, it takes time, the age of the one day decisive battle ended 200 years ago.  I do not know whether Ukraine will prevail, I do however firmly believe they have the will, the morale and increasingly the equipment  to inflict more serious damage on Russias poorly led, poorly trained and increasingly poorly maintained military.

Very true.

What Ukraine lack (significantly) is quantity, which is a huge quality of its own. Russia have enormous resources and can just keep going, throwing thousands and thousands more conscripts at it. The interesting point, overall, Russia's Air Force have remained at arms length and have had low/moderate losses (largely because of the kit Ukraine have been given), Russia's Navy has barely had a scratch (less useful in this situation) and their Strategic Forces have hardly/not been involved at all.

The chances of Russia just withdrawing (without something in return) is small, so this will keep going until the USA have had enough.

Before the USA have had enough, more stress will be placed by NATO/Allies on Russia's wider forces in Northern Europe, the Med and the Pacific. Keep their costs spiraling.....hell, ours are, so why not.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

We’re giving them the obsolete stuff that we would have had to dispose of anyway.

when we run out of this, then what?

I guess the capability we keep 'retiring' lately will be sent over....

[Whitey Grandad]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

when we run out of this, then what?

I guess the capability we keep 'retiring' lately will be sent over....

Why do you care? A stopgap is exactly that, not a long term solution.

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 Russia's Navy has barely had a scratch (less useful in this situation) ....

Perhaps they are unwilling to commit after the sinking of the Moskva.

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

when we run out of this, then what?

I guess the capability we keep 'retiring' lately will be sent over....

How much has the US got stockpiled around the World ?

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps they are unwilling to commit after the sinking of the Moskva.

Getting to/from the Black Sea is the issue....they have enormous firepower, which is spread around the world. That is why significant pressure continues on them in different parts of the world.  

 

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How much has the US got stockpiled around the World ?

No idea.. I asked from a UK PoV.  Back to my standing point about the UKs usefulness in actually fighting (if it came to it), have minute armed forces now, which are catering for 'defence cuts' by stealth, right now

Edited 14 June, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

19 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

No idea.. I asked from a UK PoV.  Back to my standing point about the UKs usefulness in actually fighting (if it came to it), have minute armed forces now, which are catering for 'defence cuts' by stealth, right now

Indeed.

But this has been an issue for decades - if the Argies had waited a year to invade the Falkland Islands, we might not have been able to assemble a task force to retake them.

[AlexLaw76]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Indeed.

But this has been an issue for decades - if the Argies had waited a year to invade the Falkland Islands, we might not have been able to assemble a task force to retake them.

Aye, yes.  And our forces now are significantly smaller compared to then, and getting less capable by the week.

In the not too distant future, 'automation' will be championed, as a means to explain the retiring of more major bits of kit

[moonraker]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Aye, yes.  And our forces now are significantly smaller compared to then, and getting less capable by the week.

In the not too distant future, 'automation' will be championed, as a means to explain the retiring of more major bits of kit

Without divulging sources belief you me the U.K. MoD and armed forces are providing Ukraine with some very serious support and kit.  I do agree after 13 years of Tory cuts our armed forces have been cut to the bone.  An island nation that gave up its air based MP capability for 10 years thanks to unnecessary austerity, thankfully the military managed to retain knowledge and experience despite the politicians.  Not sure how much longer they can mitigate the Tories defence policies.

 

Edited 14 June, 2023 by moonraker

[AlexLaw76]

7 hours ago, moonraker said:

Without divulging sources belief you me the U.K. MoD and armed forces are providing Ukraine with some very serious support and kit.  I do agree after 13 years of Tory cuts our armed forces have been cut to the bone.  An island nation that gave up its air based MP capability for 10 years thanks to unnecessary austerity, thankfully the military managed to retain knowledge and experience despite the politicians.  Not sure how much longer they can mitigate the Tories defence policies.

 

I do laugh at this. Forces were being cut during the previous Labour government.  Pretty much all governments - it is easy pickings, they wont 'strike' and standing on the ballot box for a bigger spend/big increase in capability and numbers will probably lose votes, not gain them at a general election.

The UK uniformed numbers shrank pretty well between 1997 and 2010 (i know you know this)..but hey, just the Tories who do this, right?

 

Edited 15 June, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[moonraker]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I do laugh at this. Forces were being cut during the previous Labour government.  Pretty much all governments - it is easy pickings, they wont 'strike' and standing on the ballot box for a bigger spend/big increase in capability and numbers will probably lose votes, not gain them at a general election.

The UK uniformed numbers shrank pretty well between 1997 and 2010 (i know you know this)..but hey, just the Tories who do this, right?

 

 

[Fan The Flames]

I suppose post cold war, it was natural for western countries to shrink the size of their army. But in hindsight the cold war never ended.

[Whitey Grandad]

13 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

How much has the US got stockpiled around the World ?

Quite a lot of it in the UK.

[badgerx16]

 One of the official spokepeople for the South African President on his visit to Kyiv, tweeted that they had not heard any evidence of missile attacks or air raid warnings - despite sending the message whilst in an air raid shelter and having been filmed entering the shelter as the warning sounded.

 

[rooney]

11 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

 One of the official spokepeople for the South African President on his visit to Kyiv, tweeted that they had not heard any evidence of missile attacks or air raid warnings - despite sending the message whilst in an air raid shelter and having been filmed entering the shelter as the warning sounded.

 

Past SA Presidents have a record of being corrupt. We shall have to wait and see for this one.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

12 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

 One of the official spokepeople for the South African President on his visit to Kyiv, tweeted that they had not heard any evidence of missile attacks or air raid warnings - despite sending the message whilst in an air raid shelter and having been filmed entering the shelter as the warning sounded.

 

They should have just left the spokesperson outside, to see if that made it a bit clearer.

[AlexLaw76]

cut cut cut....on top of what has been already 'retired' or put in reserve forever.

https://news.sky.com/story/updated-plan-on-size-and-strength-of-uk-armed-forces-delayed-12903953

I doubt we would even last the 8 days (on our own) after this round of cutbacks

Edited 17 June, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[AlexLaw76]

On 15/06/2023 at 08:25, moonraker said:

 

so, yes, cut during the boom of Labours first 10 years.

[moonraker]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

so, yes, cut during the boom of Labours first 10 years.

But even you I hope can see that 75 % of cuts since 1985 are down to the Tories.  That includes Thatcher despite the Falklands, if it were not for the Argentinians John Knott a Thatcher would have gutted the military in 1982/3.  

[AlexLaw76]

22 minutes ago, moonraker said:

But even you I hope can see that 75 % of cuts since 1985 are down to the Tories.  That includes Thatcher despite the Falklands, if it were not for the Argentinians John Knott a Thatcher would have gutted the military in 1982/3.  

The Tories have been in power most of that time, right? Would you have expected anything different had Labour won the 2010 election? Remember, the country ran out of money, right?

But during the boom years of 1997-2008...it was still 'shrink the military'...both in terms of kit, people, and GDP spend.  That was when we were involved in 2x long term major conflicts. Even the 1998 SDSR was 'make the military smaller'...let alone what came after that.

They are all guilty.  ALL of them.  We both know that nothing will change when Labour are next in power.... increasing the military in any meaningful form just aint a vote winner

 

Edited 17 June, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The Tories have been in power most of that time, right? Would you have expected anything different had Labour won the 2010 election? Remember, the country ran out of money, right?

But during the boom years of 1997-2008...it was still 'shrink the military'...both in terms of kit, people, and GDP spend.  That was when we were involved in 2x long term major conflicts. Even the 1998 SDSR was 'make the military smaller'...let alone what came after that.

They are all guilty.  ALL of them.  We both know that nothing will change when Labour are next in power.... increasing the military in any meaningful form just aint a vote winner

 

If our forces are really as useless as you keep saying why bother with keeping them? We might as well cut them completely and spend the defence budget on something useful.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The Tories have been in power most of that time, right? Would you have expected anything different had Labour won the 2010 election? Remember, the country ran out of money, right?

But during the boom years of 1997-2008...it was still 'shrink the military'...both in terms of kit, people, and GDP spend.  That was when we were involved in 2x long term major conflicts. Even the 1998 SDSR was 'make the military smaller'...let alone what came after that.

They are all guilty.  ALL of them.  We both know that nothing will change when Labour are next in power.... increasing the military in any meaningful form just aint a vote winner

 

“Remember, the country ran out of money, right?”

Dear God Batman, it was a JOKE!

How do you think that the country continued to function without any money?

It is customary for outgoing ministers to leave messages for the new incumbent, and this was, I say again, a joke.

Apparently it was a throwback to Tory Reginald Maudling leaving a note for his successor, James Callaghan, in 1964 which read,”Good luck, old cock…sorry to leave it in such a mess.”

Austerity was a political choice hoisted on us by the Tory government when there were other options open. Time to stop blaming Labour for 13 years of misrule don’t you think?

The Tories chose to make cuts in the police and criminal justice system despite supposedly being the party of law and order. They chose to cut public spending across the board. The mess we are in are due to the choices made by the likes of Cameron and Osborne onwards. 

 

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The Tories have been in power most of that time, right? Would you have expected anything different had Labour won the 2010 election? Remember, the country ran out of money, right?

But during the boom years of 1997-2008...it was still 'shrink the military'...both in terms of kit, people, and GDP spend.  That was when we were involved in 2x long term major conflicts. Even the 1998 SDSR was 'make the military smaller'...let alone what came after that.

They are all guilty.  ALL of them.  We both know that nothing will change when Labour are next in power.... increasing the military in any meaningful form just aint a vote winner

 

To be fair, Russia have shown themselves up as a complete paper tiger. They can’t even get a third of the way across Ukraine, they haven’t got a prayer of getting anywhere near the UK. Why do we need a massive military when they are no threat?

[farawaysaint]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

To be fair, Russia have shown themselves up as a complete paper tiger. They can’t even get a third of the way across Ukraine, they haven’t got a prayer of getting anywhere near the UK. Why do we need a massive military when they are no threat?

 Because China is the real threat 😎

Jokes aside I read an article that China’s navy is looking likely to surpass the USA in capability in the near future which is a pretty scary thought. Their latest ships are not far off the levels of the West’s best and they can simply churn them out at an insane pace. 

[moonraker]

32 minutes ago, farawaysaint said:

 Because China is the real threat 😎

Jokes aside I read an article that China’s navy is looking likely to surpass the USA in capability in the near future which is a pretty scary thought. Their latest ships are not far off the levels of the West’s best and they can simply churn them out at an insane pace. 

Their ship numbers are a concern, however there is a big difference in having lots of kit and being able to maximise its potential.  The USSR, and its successor have made numerous attempts to develop Naval Air power and failed.  I am not complacent but judging a nations armed forces by numbers is fraught with problems.  The real world is not top trumps.

[badgerx16]

Russian government spokesman says that as Ukraine is now heavily dependent on Western weapons Russia has effectively acheived it's aim of 'de-militarisation'.

[revolution saint]

32 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Russian government spokesman says that as Ukraine is now heavily dependent on Western weapons Russia has effectively acheived it's aim of 'de-militarisation'.

Fair enough, they can fuck off now then.

[Jimmy_D]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Russian government spokesman says that as Ukraine is now heavily dependent on Western weapons Russia has effectively acheived it's aim of 'de-militarisation'.

If that’s the metric they’re using, is there even any Russian equipment left? Certainly get the impression that the vast majority they’re using is Iranian, North Korean, or old enough that it was Soviet.

[Jimmy_D]

Three more KA-52s reported as downed in the last 24 hours, on top of two confirmed since the counteroffensive started.

There’s (very) unconfirmed speculation that Starstreak II have been supplied specifically to counter them, mostly based on it being one of the few systems that would have the range and anti-EW features to make it capable of doing so.

[AlexLaw76]

2 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

If that’s the metric they’re using, is there even any Russian equipment left? Certainly get the impression that the vast majority they’re using is Iranian, North Korean, or old enough that it was Soviet.

probably...and lots of it

[Jimmy_D]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

probably...and lots of it

Probably holding it all back in reserve for when they run out of T-54s and Mosin-Nagant rifles.

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

If that’s the metric they’re using, is there even any Russian equipment left?

The T-14 Armatas are available if they want static pill boxes.