|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
|
|
Dunno. It's a lot of money, but the propaganda possibilities of having foreigners in your mercenary army might make it worthwhile. As for the bounty... well, that seems like it would be a general Wagner policy, for all of their soldiers? Not that it seems terribly likely they'll have to pay it out very often. How do you prove you killed a non-Ukrainian volunteer fighting for Ukraine? (1) there aren't all that many of them, and they don't wear signs advertising their presence, (2) it's not like you can generally collect their dog tags after the fight in a war zone even if you did kill them, and (3) even if you do collect dog tags, that doesn't prove you killed them, just that you found them dead and collected the tags.
|
Friends of Russia tend to have a flexible relationship with reality. Maybe that story is true in his head.
|
On January 27 2023 01:25 Acrofales wrote:Dunno. It's a lot of money, but the propaganda possibilities of having foreigners in your mercenary army might make it worthwhile. As for the bounty... well, that seems like it would be a general Wagner policy, for all of their soldiers? Not that it seems terribly likely they'll have to pay it out very often. How do you prove you killed a non-Ukrainian volunteer fighting for Ukraine? (1) there aren't all that many of them, and they don't wear signs advertising their presence, (2) it's not like you can generally collect their dog tags after the fight in a war zone even if you did kill them, and (3) even if you do collect dog tags, that doesn't prove you killed them, just that you found them dead and collected the tags.
In the article, they state that it is if they show the passport of an non-Ukrainian volunteer.
|
WW1 redux everywhere. Though this isn't Wagner, but regular Russian forces.
|
Russian Federation617 Posts
On January 27 2023 00:19 Simberto wrote:
T-34s were very good tanks. In WW2.
Also, why is Laos selling soviet WW2 tanks to Russia?
It never ceases to amaze me, how people eagerly believe whatever Ukrainian sources are saying without even brief fact-checking or trying to make common sense of it.
But at least here this bullshit became too apparent.
There are these 30 T-34 from Laos. Check out the date of the article.- 22/01/2019.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6026935
The purpose of being given (they were actualy given for free, not bought) is also written here - parades, exibitions, filmmaking and other stuff related to WW2, which is very popular in Russia and endorsed on a state level.
And here is literally the video from tweet, which was simply mishmashed a bit (or taken from another report). Again, date of the article - 15/01/2019.
https://ru.euronews.com/2019/01/09/russia-laos-t-34-tanks
|
On January 27 2023 03:48 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 00:19 Simberto wrote:
T-34s were very good tanks. In WW2.
Also, why is Laos selling soviet WW2 tanks to Russia? It never ceases to amaze me, how people eagerly believe whatever Ukrainian sources are saying without even brief fact-checking or trying to make common sense of it. But at least here this bullshit became too apparent. There are these 30 T-34 from Laos. Check out the date of the article.- 22/01/2019. https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6026935The purpose of being given (they were actualy given for free, not bought) is also written here - parades, exibitions, filmmaking and other stuff related to WW2, which is very popular in Russia and endorsed on a state level. And here is literally the video from tweet, which was simply mishmashed a bit (or taken from another report). Again, date of the article - 15/01/2019. https://ru.euronews.com/2019/01/09/russia-laos-t-34-tanks
Yeah, the tweet didn't seem very plausible and I think this account was posting some weird stuff before. Put it up here more as a curiosity.
|
|
|
France is considering offering older generation fighter jets to Ukraine. But not decided.
|
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet.
|
On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet.
Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets.
- F16, F18, F35
- Tornado, Typhoon
- Mirage, Rafale
|
On January 27 2023 16:14 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet. Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets. - F16, F18, F35 - Tornado, Typhoon - Mirage, Rafale
I honestly don't see them being used in the anti-air role at all. SAMS are pretty pervasive on both sides already, and the pilots are all flying below 1000ft.
Also you're missing the Gripen.
|
Russian Federation617 Posts
On January 27 2023 17:56 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 16:14 mahrgell wrote:On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet. Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets. - F16, F18, F35 - Tornado, Typhoon - Mirage, Rafale I honestly don't see them being used in the anti-air role at all. SAMS are pretty pervasive on both sides already, and the pilots are all flying below 1000ft. Also you're missing the Gripen.
Thing is with air war in this conflict - strength of AA on both sides, combined with lack of means to conduct large-scale campaign to suppress and destroy said AA leads to the use of aircraft from low altitudes. But in this scenario they are vulnerable to MANPADs, which are also everywhere, considering the number of missiles and UAVs on both sides. So they rarely conduct low-altitude bombing runs (Russian AF sometimes did during AFU offensives), and mostly resort to firing unguided rockets on parabolic trajectory (again, on both sides and with low efficency).
So in fact, a lot of remaining AFU fighter aviation is now working as anti-missile force, and RuAF is attempting to intercept them with long range AA missiles from MiG-31 and Su-35.
But this (besided missile hunting) is not a good scenario to use F-16 or something like it. And I'm not sure that Ukraine would be given enough to contest Russian air defence network. So yeah, most likely Western fighters would be used in a defensive role against Russian air attack attempts.
Also Greeks still have Phantoms, and Italy has AMX.
|
|
|
On January 27 2023 16:14 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet. Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets. - F16, F18, F35 - Tornado, Typhoon - Mirage, Rafale
Bombers are very useful in a war like this to destroy specific targets further behind enemy lines (similar to HIMARS or drones; in fact bombers can be used to carry drones), but it would require establishing air superiority first. Fighter jets are therefore required, which is part of why it makes sense that they're currently being mentioned more often.
Bombers, compared to HIMARS, have the advantage of greater mobility. As long as they're adequately protected they can do major damage. It's not about destroying infrastructure though, we leave such a terribly ineffective strategy to Russia.
Bombers can further help exhaust Russia's defenses until somewhere a big gap gets exposed and Ukraine can consider pushing forward, or Russia has to play whac-a-mole until their defenses break. It's just an additional layer in the tactical arsenal.
|
On January 27 2023 18:31 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 17:56 Amui wrote:On January 27 2023 16:14 mahrgell wrote:On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet. Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets. - F16, F18, F35 - Tornado, Typhoon - Mirage, Rafale I honestly don't see them being used in the anti-air role at all. SAMS are pretty pervasive on both sides already, and the pilots are all flying below 1000ft. Also you're missing the Gripen. Thing is with air war in this conflict - strength of AA on both sides, combined with lack of means to conduct large-scale campaign to suppress and destroy said AA leads to the use of aircraft from low altitudes. But in this scenario they are vulnerable to MANPADs, which are also everywhere, considering the number of missiles and UAVs on both sides. So they rarely conduct low-altitude bombing runs (Russian AF sometimes did during AFU offensives), and mostly resort to firing unguided rockets on parabolic trajectory (again, on both sides and with low efficency). So in fact, a lot of remaining AFU fighter aviation is now working as anti-missile force, and RuAF is attempting to intercept them with long range AA missiles from MiG-31 and Su-35. But this (besided missile hunting) is not a good scenario to use F-16 or something like it. And I'm not sure that Ukraine would be given enough to contest Russian air defence network. So yeah, most likely Western fighters would be used in a defensive role against Russian air attack attempts. Also Greeks still have Phantoms, and Italy has AMX.
Are we just assuming HARM missiles are ineffective?
|
On January 27 2023 18:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 16:14 mahrgell wrote:On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet. Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets. - F16, F18, F35 - Tornado, Typhoon - Mirage, Rafale Bombers are very useful in a war like this to destroy specific targets further behind enemy lines (similar to HIMARS or drones; in fact bombers can be used to carry drones), but it would require establishing air superiority first. Fighter jets are therefore required, which is part of why it makes sense that they're currently being mentioned more often. Bombers, compared to HIMARS, have the advantage of greater mobility. As long as they're adequately protected they can do major damage. It's not about destroying infrastructure though, we leave such a terribly ineffective strategy to Russia. Bombers can further help exhaust Russia's defenses until somewhere a big gap gets exposed and Ukraine can consider pushing forward, or Russia has to play whac-a-mole until their defenses break. It's just an additional layer in the tactical arsenal. I don't know, feels like ground based AA is a much bigger hurdle to establishing air control and no one seems to be in a hurry to give Ukraine long range missiles.
|
On January 27 2023 19:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 18:47 Magic Powers wrote:On January 27 2023 16:14 mahrgell wrote:On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet. Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets. - F16, F18, F35 - Tornado, Typhoon - Mirage, Rafale Bombers are very useful in a war like this to destroy specific targets further behind enemy lines (similar to HIMARS or drones; in fact bombers can be used to carry drones), but it would require establishing air superiority first. Fighter jets are therefore required, which is part of why it makes sense that they're currently being mentioned more often. Bombers, compared to HIMARS, have the advantage of greater mobility. As long as they're adequately protected they can do major damage. It's not about destroying infrastructure though, we leave such a terribly ineffective strategy to Russia. Bombers can further help exhaust Russia's defenses until somewhere a big gap gets exposed and Ukraine can consider pushing forward, or Russia has to play whac-a-mole until their defenses break. It's just an additional layer in the tactical arsenal. I don't know, feels like ground based AA is a much bigger hurdle to establishing air control and no one seems to be in a hurry to give Ukraine long range missiles.
Yeah I think the range argument is the reason why F-16s are on the table but not more advanced aircraft. F-16s are relatively basic compared to other MRCAs that exist these days.
In my view Ukraine can win this war in the next few years if they're given the option to use long range missiles and deliver very large swarms of drones, otherwise I don't know if they can do it so quickly. The next best estimate will depend very much on what they can do in 2023.
I really want to stress the point that in WW2 the war would've continued for at least a few more years had the US not joined forces in Europe. In fact the war might've never ended in a foreseeable time.
|
Russian Federation617 Posts
On January 27 2023 18:52 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 18:31 Ardias wrote:On January 27 2023 17:56 Amui wrote:On January 27 2023 16:14 mahrgell wrote:On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet. Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets. - F16, F18, F35 - Tornado, Typhoon - Mirage, Rafale I honestly don't see them being used in the anti-air role at all. SAMS are pretty pervasive on both sides already, and the pilots are all flying below 1000ft. Also you're missing the Gripen. Thing is with air war in this conflict - strength of AA on both sides, combined with lack of means to conduct large-scale campaign to suppress and destroy said AA leads to the use of aircraft from low altitudes. But in this scenario they are vulnerable to MANPADs, which are also everywhere, considering the number of missiles and UAVs on both sides. So they rarely conduct low-altitude bombing runs (Russian AF sometimes did during AFU offensives), and mostly resort to firing unguided rockets on parabolic trajectory (again, on both sides and with low efficency). So in fact, a lot of remaining AFU fighter aviation is now working as anti-missile force, and RuAF is attempting to intercept them with long range AA missiles from MiG-31 and Su-35. But this (besided missile hunting) is not a good scenario to use F-16 or something like it. And I'm not sure that Ukraine would be given enough to contest Russian air defence network. So yeah, most likely Western fighters would be used in a defensive role against Russian air attack attempts. Also Greeks still have Phantoms, and Italy has AMX. Are we just assuming HARM missiles are ineffective?
HARM missile is not an ultimate weapon that you shot at radar and assumed a 100% kill. And Russia has them as well.
Destruction of a modern air defence network (and not picking a single launchers/radars with high risk for your aircraft) is a complicated and risky operation. Israeli (Bekaa Valley) and US Air force (Libya, Iraq) managed to do it, but they had vastly greater experience and organization, they had specifically organized units for that and were facing much more outdated equipment operated by notoriously bad Arab armies. Few F-16s and HARMs won't do the trick there.
|
On January 27 2023 18:52 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2023 18:31 Ardias wrote:On January 27 2023 17:56 Amui wrote:On January 27 2023 16:14 mahrgell wrote:On January 27 2023 16:01 Magic Powers wrote:
"The conditions are that any donations of aircrafts do not undermine French or European security, that they are useful for Ukraine and that it doesn't risk escalating the war"
I guess we'll keep hearing this political mantra until the end of the war, but whatever dance they want to dance is fine with me as long as it gets Ukraine the stuff they need when they need it. Good to see that mentions of aircraft donations are continuing. It's probably not a coincidence either that they're talking of fighter jets but not bombers, yet. Which bombers does Europe have? Except for the US, basically, no western country really uses dedicated bombers anymore. It's all just multi-role jets. - F16, F18, F35 - Tornado, Typhoon - Mirage, Rafale I honestly don't see them being used in the anti-air role at all. SAMS are pretty pervasive on both sides already, and the pilots are all flying below 1000ft. Also you're missing the Gripen. Thing is with air war in this conflict - strength of AA on both sides, combined with lack of means to conduct large-scale campaign to suppress and destroy said AA leads to the use of aircraft from low altitudes. But in this scenario they are vulnerable to MANPADs, which are also everywhere, considering the number of missiles and UAVs on both sides. So they rarely conduct low-altitude bombing runs (Russian AF sometimes did during AFU offensives), and mostly resort to firing unguided rockets on parabolic trajectory (again, on both sides and with low efficency). So in fact, a lot of remaining AFU fighter aviation is now working as anti-missile force, and RuAF is attempting to intercept them with long range AA missiles from MiG-31 and Su-35. But this (besided missile hunting) is not a good scenario to use F-16 or something like it. And I'm not sure that Ukraine would be given enough to contest Russian air defence network. So yeah, most likely Western fighters would be used in a defensive role against Russian air attack attempts. Also Greeks still have Phantoms, and Italy has AMX. Are we just assuming HARM missiles are ineffective?
HARMs ARE inneffective. Or to be precise their effectivnes is very low. During Balkan war they were used against Serbian air defence and didnt have much success. It had to be suppressed by other means. And Russias air-defence is much stronger than Serbian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
