Jump to content

Russia v Ukraine - How This Is Going To End


Pinetree
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Transam said:

Yes, being odd and alone, but hey, now Russia has nooooo problem with Big Mac's and Coca Cola, eh........😋

How lucky of them! The US junk food is a bane to all nations where it enters. I don't know many people who are fit and have a strong health who consume these things on a daily basis. 

     When I sit with a new client and we discuss weight loss and fitness, one of the first things I do is having them describe what they like to eat. It is rare I have had success with anyone who stays loyal to their big mac. 

      Now, compare this to the Thai street vendor food.. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Transam said:

Were you leading the charge.....?     🤣 

Insults, you daily insult the Ukrainian people with your rhetoric here.........😏

Can you come with any examples? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members, 

Let's try and keep on topic. If you wish to quote historical actions or Big Macs, please at least tie it into a post about the subject. Restraining ourselves from making personal comments about other members would also be appreciated.

Also, Just a tip. I have found too many people quoting limited historical records without understanding the big picture end up with egg on their faces. So check out your stories.

Thanks

Moderator

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorskTiger said:

t will be interesting to see if the West will help to repair the main areas that are hit by the conflict. If this ends with Dniepr as the new boundary, will we see Western resources being used to rebuild area east of River? History of recent suggests this may not happen. How much Western aid was given to rebuild Aleppo afterwards? Have you seen it today?

Good point. I would highly doubt any western funds would be spent on repairing damaged areas under Russian control. That bill is all on Putin. However why would the west agree to using the Driepr as a dividing line anywhere north of the area all ready occupied? The Ukrainians are not going to give up additional area and won’t need to for a peace deal. You think Ukraine would be willing to give up Kharkiv? Or how about Russia giving up Kherson? Of course by the time they do a deal Russian might have already lost Kherson anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

Why should Western Nations contribute to any reconstruction in Russian controlled areas, as you seem to suggest. 

Russia wanted the territory and they can fix it on their own including their destruction of the city of Mariupol. What next? Do you want them next to supply ships and offer free transport for the grain the Russians are stealing?

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russian-forces-stealing-grain/31828643.html

    I don't neccessarily expect Western compaines to help with reconstruction of Donbass, but what about helping to reconstruct  the rest of Ukraine? 

       USA and EU can help with reconstruction of an independent, unaligned Ukraine. Once there is peace and this happens, I of course would expect the West to help with reconstructing the part where there are NO russians. 

       How is it going with the US reconstruction in Raqqua and Mosul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

Good point. I would highly doubt any western funds would be spent on repairing damaged areas under Russian control. That bill is all on Putin. However why would the west agree to using the Driepr as a dividing line anywhere north of the area all ready occupied? The Ukrainians are not going to give up additional area and won’t need to for a peace deal. You think Ukraine would be willing to give up Kharkiv? Or how about Russia giving up Kherson? Of course by the time they do a deal Russian might have already lost Kherson anyway. 

   Don't worry. You can guarantee that Russia will do all the reconstruction of all the areas under their control. 

    With regards to Dnepr as dividing line, Ukraine (of today) may not accept that, but do they have a choice if it happens? If this happens, do you reallty believe Kharkov will remain out of Russian control?

      Russia has no reason to give up any gains they have, but Ukriane, OTOH, has little choice but to find a peace deal or continue to get slaughtered. 

    Finnland had the same tough choices in 1944. I know very well, because my grandfather used to tell me how he was very little when him, his siblings and his parents had to leave Karelia AFTER Finnland ceded that territory to Soviet Union. 

      Today only an extremist is agitating for Finnland to take back the territories from Russia. The same is a liley outcome in Ukraine. I think Dnepr is a realistic outcome, but who knows? Maybe Russia and a new Ukriane will eventually overcome. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NorskTiger said:

    I don't neccessarily expect Western compaines to help with reconstruction of Donbass, but what about helping to reconstruct  the rest of Ukraine? 

       USA and EU can help with reconstruction of an independent, unaligned Ukraine. Once there is peace and this happens, I of course would expect the West to help with reconstructing the part where there are NO russians. 

       How is it going with the US reconstruction in Raqqua and Mosul?

Raqqua and Mosul are not in Ukraine and hence not part of this thread. If you want to have a discussion about other countries then I suggest you start a suitable thread.

I refer you to the Moderators Note above.

Staying on topic would be good advice to take.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdwardV said:

Good point. I would highly doubt any western funds would be spent on repairing damaged areas under Russian control. That bill is all on Putin. However why would the west agree to using the Driepr as a dividing line anywhere north of the area all ready occupied? The Ukrainians are not going to give up additional area and won’t need to for a peace deal. You think Ukraine would be willing to give up Kharkiv? Or how about Russia giving up Kherson? Of course by the time they do a deal Russian might have already lost Kherson anyway. 

West will Agree with Ukraine & Collect Reparations from Russia. West will do Project Direction / Management including Works Contracts & Procurement. West Costs deducted from Reparations.

West has already restructured/ retrained / reequipped Ukraine Military on Loan Basis.

Bizarre Idea that West would pay or loan anything for reconstruction ! 🤣

Or that Ukraine would be divided by Dnieper 🤣😩

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observing  most of the  directives proposed as opinion in this general  forum does generate some real humor at times! (Black !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Smithydog said:

Raqqua and Mosul are not in Ukraine and hence not part of this thread. If you want to have a discussion about other countries then I suggest you start a suitable thread.

I refer you to the Moderators Note above.

Staying on topic would be good advice to take.

  This was merley an example of recent precedence with regards to reconstruction after military campaigns. 

   It is expected that Russia will do most of the heavy lifting with regards to reconstruction in the areas they have taken control over. It is likewise very probable that reconstruction of the remaining Ukraine will need much international support once there is a peace deal in pace.  Precedence for the Russian ability to do reconstruction in battle areas they have operated within can be drawn from Syria. Take a look at Aleppo today. Now, compare this to Raqqua in the East, which was taken by another power. 

   So this was not about other countries, but rather the likelyhood of a reconstruction being done by Russia in areas they have taken control over. 

   Now, with regards to the REMAINING areas of Ukraine, what is likely to happen?  If a peace is negotiated, it is likely it will include the following demands from the Russian side for any other power to take part in reconstruction:

     *No conversion of railway gauges to Standard size.

     *No significant alterations of the airport structures

     *Major ports only being allowed to reconstruct by Ukrainean firms, who will receive goods and moey from the West. 

      *No others besides Ukraine gets to repair pipeline facilities. 

    Of course this will be a complex process, but It is likely to end up with one where Russia does all the work in the areas they control and Ukraine itself has to negotiate aid for the rest of the country. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oldschooler said:

West will Agree with Ukraine & Collect Reparations from Russia. West will do Project Direction / Management including Works Contracts & Procurement. West Costs deducted from Reparations.

West has already restructured/ retrained / reequipped Ukraine Military on Loan Basis.

Bizarre Idea that West would pay or loan anything for reconstruction ! 🤣

Or that Ukraine would be divided by Dnieper 🤣😩

If a total victory to the West is in the picture, your first paragraph is indeed what will happen. Obviously, we are quite a way from there. Of course, the west has equipped Ukriane with vast amounts of arms so far. It is therefore very likely they will partake in reconstruction expenses as well. Why would they not pay anything? This is the typical way it is done. Again, unless we are talking about a scenario with utter defeat for Russia. 

 

  The likelihood of Russia stopping at Dnepr is a very real one, IMHO. It would form a natural stand-off boundary for both parts and a strong defensive posture could be held almost indefinitely as long as there is no stomach or desire for costly offensives by either 

    I think even 10 billion USD could finance a lot of reonstruction all-over Ukraine. This is a small share of the amount they ahve given out in weaponry so far. Therefore, I don't see that as an unlikely thing to happen. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

Russia has no reason to give up any gains they have, but Ukriane, OTOH, has little choice but to find a peace deal or continue to get slaughtered.

Pretty sure Ukraine would see it the other way. As I’ve said before, there is a reason Russia is shipping in T-62 tanks, lifting the age limit for volunteers and getting 60 year old pilots shot out of the air. If you choose to believe otherwise I fully understand. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EdwardV said:

Pretty sure Ukraine would see it the other way. As I’ve said before, there is a reason Russia is shipping in T-62 tanks, lifting the age limit for volunteers and getting 60 year old pilots shot out of the air. If you choose to believe otherwise I fully understand. 

Like I previously said. The T-62's are more than fine enough to deliver stand-off fire support and as long as there is no significant tanks to face, the issue of tank power does not matter either. 

     I cannot comment on 60 year old pilotS or not and what that means for the overall strategic situation, so I prefer not to comment upon that. 

     A lifiting of age limits to allow more volunteers is not a very effective way of bolstering the current fight power and also matters little for the current strategic situation. 

    Of course Ukraine will claim one thing and Russia the opposite. This is not merely a war of words, but that of course has been used and abused by both sides since before the beginning. 

  It is therefore the STRATEGIC situation matters the most and dwarfs any of the factoids you are raising, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorskTiger said:

It is therefore the STRATEGIC situation matters the most and dwarfs any of the factoids you are raising, IMHO.

Agreed and the strategic situation isn’t in Russia’s favor. Yes they are making small incremental progress in Donbas. However that was forced upon them by having so many losses. Basically they can’t afford a major attack in more than one location anymore. Heck they can’t even afford to attack in Donbas in a major way anymore. On the flip side, Russia continues to be driven out of the Kharkiv region , are retreating north of Kherson, and losing ground around Popasnaya. In the next week or two Russia will take Syeveodonetsk, and realize damn now we have to take Lysychansk for it to mean much. The tactical situation looks good on Donbas, but the strategic situation overall favors Ukraine. 
 

Watch out for what’s happening in the Kherson region. Russia doesn’t have a lot of troops in the area anymore. On top of that those that are there are not the best. A lot of the troops were sent to Donbas a month or so ago. Russia can’t afford to lose Kherson, but they also can’t afford to attack in Donbas and protect Kherson at the same time. Something is going to give. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2022 at 12:02 PM, oldschooler said:

since validated by two subsequent presidential elections returning pro- western Presidents. 

With no help from the aforementioned I am sure

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

Like I previously said. The T-62's are more than fine enough to deliver stand-off fire support and as long as there is no significant tanks to face, the issue of tank power does not matter either. 

With a +16 degree of elevation its range is limited to 4 kms. 

It is not mobile artillery. It is highly ineffective in such a role. 

But you will ignore facts once again and simply spout rhetoric about how Czar Putin and his thugs are just doing super. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

With a +16 degree of elevation its range is limited to 4 kms. 

It is not mobile artillery. It is highly ineffective in such a role. 

Is a T-62 just as good as a T-72, of course not. It’s absurd to even think so. However depending on the requirements it might be good enough. However that relies on the situation on the ground not changing, huge assumption to make. It also completely ignores the elephant in the room. The reason Russia is pulling them out of storage in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

With a +16 degree of elevation its range is limited to 4 kms. 

It is not mobile artillery. It is highly ineffective in such a role. 

But you will ignore facts once again and simply spout rhetoric about how Czar Putin and his thugs are just doing super. 

Why do you have to rename and change terms laid out? Who is talking about ARTILLERY? Have you ever been in military? Do you now what fire support is? If I had meant artillery, I would have said so. 

   Even 1 kilometere is plenty good enough for tactical support and especially pitched small battles. THere are plenty of those now. 

       As part of a tactical doctrine, using a T-62 is not a problem for the requirement at hand. 

       Ukrianeans have been noted using Maxim 50 caliber guns from before WW2. And it is probably adequeate for defensive fire to cover a field. 

    The STRATEGIC picture is still one of Russia pushing the Ukrianeans eastwards from most areas they are going.  

     This is very unlikely to end with Ukriane gaining the strategic initiative; counterattacking on a broad front; pushing Russia back and beyond and then a collapse of Kremlin with a Russia in ruins.  There is simply no indication of that going to happen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

Why do you have to rename and change terms laid out? Who is talking about ARTILLERY? Have you ever been in military? Do you now what fire support is? If I had meant artillery, I would have said so. 

   Even 1 kilometere is plenty good enough for tactical support and especially pitched small battles. THere are plenty of those now. 

       As part of a tactical doctrine, using a T-62 is not a problem for the requirement at hand. 

       Ukrianeans have been noted using Maxim 50 caliber guns from before WW2. And it is probably adequeate for defensive fire to cover a field. 

    The STRATEGIC picture is still one of Russia pushing the Ukrianeans eastwards from most areas they are going.  

     This is very unlikely to end with Ukriane gaining the strategic initiative; counterattacking on a broad front; pushing Russia back and beyond and then a collapse of Kremlin with a Russia in ruins.  There is simply no indication of that going to happen. 

You said fire support. 

This is what fire support means.

 

Definition of fire support

: assistance to infantry and armored units by artillery fire, naval gunfire, and airplane strafing and bombing.

If you did not mean fire support then do not use the term then dance on the head of a pin claiming you did not mean artillery.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

You said fire support. 

This is what fire support means.

Definition of fire support

: assistance to infantry and armored units by artillery fire, naval gunfire, and airplane strafing and bombing.

If you did not mean fire support then do not use the term then dance on the head of a pin claiming you did not mean artillery.

Stop parsing. I said fire support. 

   Are you now saying infantry units do not give fire support to other units? 

     You don't know much about military beyond what you can read, do you..

 

   The most common fire support is actually machine guns. How about that..

   Fire Support of the Soviet Infantry: The Mighty PKM Machine Gun -The Firearm Blog

Edited by NorskTiger
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How This Is Going To End? The western people will understand that their economic problems are not related to any war between developing countries on the other side of the Earth. Then the western politicians will look for other excuses and will forget Ukraine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

Stop parsing. I said fire support. 

   Are you now saying infantry units do not give fire support to other units? 

     You don't know much about military beyond what you can read, do you..

   The most common fire support is actually machine guns. How about that..

   Fire Support of the Soviet Infantry: The Mighty PKM Machine Gun -The Firearm Blog

ROFL. Now you are trying to redefine what fire support means.

You are obviously confused about the difference between fire support and supporting fire.

This is what happens when you talk about a subject you only have a limited knowledge about.

I spent 8 years in the British army. I have called in fire support missions and given and received supporting fire. I know the difference. You DONT.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As was noted a few posts ago, the eastern section of Ukraine is almost totally in Russian control. A couple of large towns are problematic as the Ukrainian solders are fighting a rear-guard from residential blocks and areas. Difficult to shift them out, without inflicting unnecessary casualties on civilians. But many are simply surrendering due to lack of military support.

As soon as the east is cleared, the  Russian move will be to close down all access to the Black Sea.

If the Russians can move swiftly, I believe the war could be over within the next three months. Zalensky will sign the declaration conceding the territories; if he is still alive that is.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, snapdragon said:

As was noted a few posts ago, the eastern section of Ukraine is almost totally in Russian control. A couple of large towns are problematic as the Ukrainian solders are fighting a rear-guard from residential blocks and areas. Difficult to shift them out, without inflicting unnecessary casualties on civilians. But many are simply surrendering due to lack of military support.

As soon as the east is cleared, the  Russian move will be to close down all access to the Black Sea.

If the Russians can move swiftly, I believe the war could be over within the next three months. Zalensky will sign the declaration conceding the territories; if he is still alive that is.

Given Czar Putins Russian thugs are being pushed back around Kherson what makes you suspect they can take the whole of the Black Sea coastline?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Given Czar Putins Russian thugs are being pushed back around Kherson what makes you suspect they can take the whole of the Black Sea coastline?

I don't see things the same way as you do Mr R.  Probably because our sources are so different.

The Russians are in no way 'thugs', as you put it.

It will all be over soon IMO.

  • Like 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use