- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Russian soldiers seem to have been complaining about shortages for some time now. Just look at how the amount of shelling has gone down. They’re sending T-55’s to the front line now. Even the Kremlin will have to acknowledge the reality at some point I guess.
Do you have sources on the amount of shelling? Would be interesting to see
Sorry, I can’t find it right now. I think it was a youtube video that I watched. However, there’s this: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/russian-artillery-fire-down-75-percent-ukraine/index.html , to be contrasted with this: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/11/7401786/ . My feeling from following the conflict at liveuamap.com is that shelling has decreased somewhat over time.
Ukrainian soldiers are also complaining about lack of ammunition and are fielding. T-55s. While Russia has a much larger geographical and raw resource base to rely on to build new Equipment, Ukraine does not have that luxury (but does have western support). So if Putins statements about increasing production of military equipment 3x-10x are accurate projections, I can see why they still think they can keep going.
It has been evident from the start, but it must be really bad now that hes admitting it. We’ve seen LPR/DNR forces using Mosins for a while now.
“Your sons’ war, fought with your grandfathers’ rifles.”
yeah russia is for sure toast this time
and then China is going to collapse next
it must be really bad now that hes admitting it.
I was thinking quite differently about this. Now that the Ukrainian counter offensive started, wouldn’t it be in Russia’s interest for opposing forces to underestimate Russia’s military strength?
So, what’s the over/under that when they get low enough they’ll trot out nukes?
I would assume that like North Korea nukes are only useful if not used. Once those weapons are used (if they are in a state to be used) there is nothing keeping Russia viable as an independent state. It would be the starting gun for a larger conflict as no nation with any ability will let even the smallest nukes to be set off without a response. Those weapons are doing their job only if not fired and might be the only “red line” this war truly has.
Under 0.5 nukes used: 1/1000000000 Over 0.5 nukes used: 1000000000/1
No-one, not even Russia, is going to cross that line. This is a regional conflict with casualties in the tens of thousands. WW3 was a global conflict with casualties in the tens of millions.
Removed by mod
What kind of sense does that make?
“Russia is trying to attack and grab its neighbor’s land, which is not OK and they must be stopped!”
“We should attack and grab their land instead!”
So it’s not ok if they do it, but it’s definitely ok if everyone else does it. That is nonsensical.
And outside of whether it’s okay or not, it’s just stupidly risky.
They should also do it in the winter to increase the likelihood of success
Works in the playground, but not so much when they can start the worst conflict the planet has ever seen.
destroying the big bear once and for all
You sure about that? Wasn’t Russia like in a much worser shape after WW1 and got raided by line 15 countries at once (“to strangle the bolshevik baby in its crib” according to Churchill)? And they still prevailed?
Keep drinking the koolaid, prost!
