Anonymous wrote:Luka got checked into a Moscow hospital in critical condition. Can't believe he went back to Moscow after being poisoned.

Shall we guess his final wish? It's totally going to be that Belarus joins Russia, isn't it. Putin is so cliche and predictable. Honestly, it's pretty pathetically pedestrian. Just like the nightly terror strikes on Kyiv. So cartoonishly evil.

What's the play though? A hail mary attempt to start a second front to stop the counter-attack or a fallback territorial "win" to let him save face after defeat? Likely both. A hail mary with a fallback propaganda win.

Wonder what the Belarusians think about that? Do they want to sign up for the meat grinder?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RUSSIA MUST PAY!

Taking Bakhmut is a major provocation on Russia’s part.

Russia has been warned. Repeatedly. Russia ignored all our warnings, and they took Bakhmut anyway.

Now it’s time they pay for this unacceptable provocation: yes, F-16s, but also give Ukraine the F-35s they need.

Russia must pay!

China is about to take Taiwan. That’s much more sinister

Is it? I have not watched the news this week. It is interesting how all these educated pps here do not grasp the danger to us, meaning the U.S. of Taiwan is in China's hands.
It is almost like China is paying Russia to take our attention away from them and ruin us completely by taking Taiwan. It would not surprise me at all if that is the case. Follow the money, always follow the money.
Now war ships are passing by Taiwan, we will be economically ruined, and nobody seems to be on top of things.

If you don't see how the two are connected then you are lost. If Russia is successful in Ukraine then China will take Taiwan. If Russia is unsuccessful and pays a heavy cost for trying then China will wait. There is no scenario whereby Russia succeeds in Ukraine and that convinces China not to go after Taiwan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data on Russian casualties is meaningless outside of context of Ukrainian casualties, and these have never been made public. Plus I’m not sure Ukrainian reports of Russian kills are credible.

Ukrainian propaganda machine is lit.

If you follow social media, you’d think Ukranians are destroying all Russian equipment on a daily basis.

Don’t fall for the hype.

Anonymous wrote:The data on Russian casualties is meaningless outside of context of Ukrainian casualties, and these have never been made public. Plus I’m not sure Ukrainian reports of Russian kills are credible.

Anonymous wrote:The data on Russian casualties is meaningless outside of context of Ukrainian casualties, and these have never been made public. Plus I’m not sure Ukrainian reports of Russian kills are credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is no risk to NATO. This is proven.

Stop the war and save lives.

First, Russia started the war. Only Russia can end it. All they have to do is pull out of Ukraine. However, knowing how stupid the Russian Government is, I'm sure they will just continue the war for as long as they can send their youth to the front lines, or until there is another Russian Revolution to overthrow them.

Second, even if the US said, "okay, stop" do you really think the Ukrainians would listen to us or take us seriously? They see our Republican's in Congress and figure they've all sold out to the Russians anyway. Plus, nothing will stop Europe from supporting the Ukrainians.

However, take heart that I believe the Russians will run out of Main Battle Tanks (MBT's) sooner versus later. Once that happens, the Russian infantry will have difficulty stopping the Western MBT's that Ukraine received this year. The Russians will need to commit their remaining firepower to hunt them down, offering a lot of targets for the Ukrainians to shoot at, and hasten the war's end.

Why do I believe the Russian MBT's are dwindling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHUK6zkbpc

This video a good analysis from commercial satellite imagery of the remaining number of tanks within the Russian inventory that are not on the front lines that might be servicable.

22nd 575
103rd 380
111th 640
227/769th 630
3764th 450
1295th 90
1311th 400
1295th 90
1311th 400
2544th 420
Other 326
TOTAL 3911

The maintenance notes came from https://www.historynet.com/

If you count them all, the author estimated at current rate of loss, that's 2 years 3 months worth of tanks. The author did note tanks parked out in the open without environmental hookups (esp. in Siberia) are probably frozen solid.

In January 1990, Russia had approximately 18,840 tanks. In 2012, Russia began to reduce obsolete tanks down to approximately 2,000 for combat, 2,000 for training, and 6,000 in storage.

According to https://uawar.net/stats, 3637 Russian tanks were destroyed in Ukraine.

Let's say that every lost to date came out of the combat and training category. That would only leave 363 tanks to both attack Ukraine as well as defend Russia around the world. A bit farfetched, but using it for illustrative purposes.

According to the video, if only 3,911 are likely servicable, that means that 1,089 are being used for spare parts. That does seem plausible (e.g. that 1/10 or 10% of Russian MBT's are being cannibalized for spare parts).

Of these 3,911 tanks, the author estimated that these are the breakdown numbers of MBT's by tank type.

T-54/55 270
T-62 560 (to 800) "longer track length had a chronic habit of throwing treads off in a tight turn"
T-64 248 "Manufactured in Kharkiv, the T-64 displayed a disturbing difference between an impressive prototype and a production model full of problems, most notoriously a tendency of its auto-loader to “eat” the left arms of inattentive gunners inside the cramped turrets."
T-72 1841 "a simpler but more reliable step back that cost 40% less to produce than the T-64"
T-80 942 "first tank capable of exceeding 70 kilometers per hour, was lightweight and could warm up quickly, even in the dead of winter, it was expensive, consumed fuel at a disturbing rate and was far more vulnerable to dirt and dust than the diesels"
T-90 50

However, I think the author missed a key observation and that many more of these tanks are non-operational than originally believed.

The reason is that the Russians have already put into front-line combat T-64's, T-62's before the remaining T-72's. If the 1,841 T-72's were easy to put back into service, the Russian military probably would have done so before putting T-64's or T-62's into battle. There has to be some issue that prevented the 1,841 T-72's from coming back into service. Remember, the T-72 overall has less technical issues than T-62's or T-64's and is a simpler design.

The way these things go, my guess is the Russians were likely scrounging parts and cannibalizing from the other tanks far more than anyone knew. An anomaly is that even if 1,841 tanks were being used for spare parts, then it should have been possible to strip down tanks even further to get at least some of them back into service. So why haven't half or more of them been put back into service? I think it's because most of these tanks have been sitting in the open, many without tarps or environmental controls, without regular maintenance. If even a single metal component of the tank utilized inferior steel; the engine, tracks or turrets could easily be rusted solid. And that assumes the optics, electronics, gun stabilizers, radio's etc. are still servicable or haven't also been salvaged for spare parts.

This would also explain the 'sudden deaths' of the officials in charge of logistics and finance. It's a way to keep secrets.

Interesting post. But the issue Ukraine will have (or any army like the 6 day war taught us) is once they get out of air defense some of protection they are vulnerable to air power.

Ukraine will need more patriots (and ideally 2 decoys for each battery) to cover their advance if Russias Air Force wakes up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RUSSIA MUST PAY!

Taking Bakhmut is a major provocation on Russia’s part.

Russia has been warned. Repeatedly. Russia ignored all our warnings, and they took Bakhmut anyway.

Now it’s time they pay for this unacceptable provocation: yes, F-16s, but also give Ukraine the F-35s they need.

Russia must pay!

China is about to take Taiwan. That’s much more sinister

Is it? I have not watched the news this week. It is interesting how all these educated pps here do not grasp the danger to us, meaning the U.S. of Taiwan is in China's hands.
It is almost like China is paying Russia to take our attention away from them and ruin us completely by taking Taiwan. It would not surprise me at all if that is the case. Follow the money, always follow the money.
Now war ships are passing by Taiwan, we will be economically ruined, and nobody seems to be on top of things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RUSSIA MUST PAY!

Taking Bakhmut is a major provocation on Russia’s part.

Russia has been warned. Repeatedly. Russia ignored all our warnings, and they took Bakhmut anyway.

Now it’s time they pay for this unacceptable provocation: yes, F-16s, but also give Ukraine the F-35s they need.

Russia must pay!

China is about to take Taiwan. That’s much more sinister

Anonymous wrote:Stop funding this war. Save lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is no risk to NATO. This is proven.

Stop the war and save lives.

First, Russia started the war. Only Russia can end it. All they have to do is pull out of Ukraine. However, knowing how stupid the Russian Government is, I'm sure they will just continue the war for as long as they can send their youth to the front lines, or until there is another Russian Revolution to overthrow them.

Second, even if the US said, "okay, stop" do you really think the Ukrainians would listen to us or take us seriously? They see our Republican's in Congress and figure they've all sold out to the Russians anyway. Plus, nothing will stop Europe from supporting the Ukrainians.

However, take heart that I believe the Russians will run out of Main Battle Tanks (MBT's) sooner versus later. Once that happens, the Russian infantry will have difficulty stopping the Western MBT's that Ukraine received this year. The Russians will need to commit their remaining firepower to hunt them down, offering a lot of targets for the Ukrainians to shoot at, and hasten the war's end.

Why do I believe the Russian MBT's are dwindling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHUK6zkbpc

This video a good analysis from commercial satellite imagery of the remaining number of tanks within the Russian inventory that are not on the front lines that might be servicable.

22nd 575
103rd 380
111th 640
227/769th 630
3764th 450
1295th 90
1311th 400
1295th 90
1311th 400
2544th 420
Other 326
TOTAL 3911

The maintenance notes came from https://www.historynet.com/

If you count them all, the author estimated at current rate of loss, that's 2 years 3 months worth of tanks. The author did note tanks parked out in the open without environmental hookups (esp. in Siberia) are probably frozen solid.

In January 1990, Russia had approximately 18,840 tanks. In 2012, Russia began to reduce obsolete tanks down to approximately 2,000 for combat, 2,000 for training, and 6,000 in storage.

According to https://uawar.net/stats, 3637 Russian tanks were destroyed in Ukraine.

Let's say that every lost to date came out of the combat and training category. That would only leave 363 tanks to both attack Ukraine as well as defend Russia around the world. A bit farfetched, but using it for illustrative purposes.

According to the video, if only 3,911 are likely servicable, that means that 1,089 are being used for spare parts. That does seem plausible (e.g. that 1/10 or 10% of Russian MBT's are being cannibalized for spare parts).

Of these 3,911 tanks, the author estimated that these are the breakdown numbers of MBT's by tank type.

T-54/55 270
T-62 560 (to 800) "longer track length had a chronic habit of throwing treads off in a tight turn"
T-64 248 "Manufactured in Kharkiv, the T-64 displayed a disturbing difference between an impressive prototype and a production model full of problems, most notoriously a tendency of its auto-loader to “eat” the left arms of inattentive gunners inside the cramped turrets."
T-72 1841 "a simpler but more reliable step back that cost 40% less to produce than the T-64"
T-80 942 "first tank capable of exceeding 70 kilometers per hour, was lightweight and could warm up quickly, even in the dead of winter, it was expensive, consumed fuel at a disturbing rate and was far more vulnerable to dirt and dust than the diesels"
T-90 50

However, I think the author missed a key observation and that many more of these tanks are non-operational than originally believed.

The reason is that the Russians have already put into front-line combat T-64's, T-62's before the remaining T-72's. If the 1,841 T-72's were easy to put back into service, the Russian military probably would have done so before putting T-64's or T-62's into battle. There has to be some issue that prevented the 1,841 T-72's from coming back into service. Remember, the T-72 overall has less technical issues than T-62's or T-64's and is a simpler design.

The way these things go, my guess is the Russians were likely scrounging parts and cannibalizing from the other tanks far more than anyone knew. An anomaly is that even if 1,841 tanks were being used for spare parts, then it should have been possible to strip down tanks even further to get at least some of them back into service. So why haven't half or more of them been put back into service? I think it's because most of these tanks have been sitting in the open, many without tarps or environmental controls, without regular maintenance. If even a single metal component of the tank utilized inferior steel; the engine, tracks or turrets could easily be rusted solid. And that assumes the optics, electronics, gun stabilizers, radio's etc. are still servicable or haven't also been salvaged for spare parts.

This would also explain the 'sudden deaths' of the officials in charge of logistics and finance. It's a way to keep secrets.

Anonymous wrote:Russia is no risk to NATO. This is proven.

Stop the war and save lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is no risk to NATO. This is proven.

Stop the war and save lives.

Exactly Russia is no risk to core nato — the paper bear has been exposed

— this is precisely when to triple down and grind them down

Russia at worse will Nuke Ukraine — which then breaks their link with China.

Keep grinding them down

You forgot to add “with Ukrainian blood.”