One of the four pipelines is still potentially operational, so there’s that. (One of the interesting mysteries around that incident is whether it was intentional or accidental that only 3 of 4 were destroyed).
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Russia invades Ukraine
- Thread starter kristiang85
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Are Russia doing the same ?
Whilst the bear is well known to have stashed huge amounts of honey in its vast cave over the decades, much of it has gone to rot.
Weve seen Russia pulling out all kinds of antiques in the last year and you have to wonder if they are a credible threat to European security.
They do however have longer range missiles, but I doubt our tanks will be any match for them. I think theres little danger of Russian invasion anywhere west of Germany in the next few years.
The more this ww2 reenactment plays out the less convinced I am Russia has working nukes and more thinking they have rotted in their silos, with the wiring eaten by rats and are more a danger to themselves. Granted only one needs to work, but I think its really is a loaded game of Russian Roulette as to who finds out which one it is.
Unfortunately I think the same is true in much of NATO, and much of this less than 2% GDP spend has been on war games, exercises and jollies, than hard core equipment renewal and purchases.
I fear the outcome is much like 1939… an initial fight, followed by holding the line for 5 years whilst everyone scrambles to build enough to over run the other. Stalemate with small grabs by either side maybe the story of 2023 and much like 2014 end up with a “status quo” that puts sleepy europe back into its malaise and leaves Ukraine slightly smaller and in limbo.
I just dont think theres enough apetite in Western Europe to deal with Russia and they’d rather get back to looking after themselves. The Americans too are very good at short termism, and their interest in Ukraine can very quickly wane. This maybe what Germany is fearful of, finding itself leading a fight and America taking a back seat.
Whats in this for the US ?
western oil/ gas are secured to US aligned resources for a decade.
Europe is economically weaker.
Russia’s international military sales will be weaker.
NATO Western military spending is guarenteed.
China will have taken notes.
Ukraine post war rebuilding oppourtunities.
All without any US troops on the ground.
Despite claims and counter claims, I suspect this war will be ended at a negotiating table between the US and Russia.
Last edited:
DustyBin
Established Member
I really don’t think the Russians are holding back their best kit; they’ve thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine and it wasn’t enough. Even the airforce (notable by is absence) isn’t being held back per say; it simply can’t operate over Ukraine due to the proliferation of air defence systems.
As for NATO, nearly all of what member states have donated was near-end-of-life or long term stored. I also think we need to consider how a war against Russia (or anyone else for that matter) would actually be fought. NATO relies on overwhelming air power more than anything. It’s best and most useful kit therefore comes in the form of F15s, F22s, F35s, Typhoons etc. and (importantly) the various support aircraft/systems that allow them to operate so effectively. This is all supplemented by state of the art naval assets, everything from attack submarines to aircraft carriers. None of this stuff is being given to Ukraine.
NATO members are now donating very good tanks and AFVs, so you could argue that some of their best kit is finding it’s way to Ukraine. However, in the context of the above, what use are they to these countries? I can’t imagine a situation where (for example) Challenger 2s, Leopard 2s or Abrams, crewed by UK, German or US personnel respectively, are fighting Russian ground forces. I think that’s why the decision has been made to let a few go; there’s no loss of useful capability.
As for NATO, nearly all of what member states have donated was near-end-of-life or long term stored. I also think we need to consider how a war against Russia (or anyone else for that matter) would actually be fought. NATO relies on overwhelming air power more than anything. It’s best and most useful kit therefore comes in the form of F15s, F22s, F35s, Typhoons etc. and (importantly) the various support aircraft/systems that allow them to operate so effectively. This is all supplemented by state of the art naval assets, everything from attack submarines to aircraft carriers. None of this stuff is being given to Ukraine.
NATO members are now donating very good tanks and AFVs, so you could argue that some of their best kit is finding it’s way to Ukraine. However, in the context of the above, what use are they to these countries? I can’t imagine a situation where (for example) Challenger 2s, Leopard 2s or Abrams, crewed by UK, German or US personnel respectively, are fighting Russian ground forces. I think that’s why the decision has been made to let a few go; there’s no loss of useful capability.
Last edited:
Being a bit blunt only people who haven't been paying attention would be surprised at the lag in ramping up production of ammunition let alone any lag that may occur if anyone comes out and orders heavy kit. Reality is that NATO (particularly European NATO) nations have been skirting by on the minimum orders that they can get away with for decades. One only has to look at what happened over Libya in 2011 when after only a month of air operations the UK and France (two of European NATOs biggest spenders by far) and others were beginning to run short of precision guided munitions:
NATO runs short on some munitions in Libya
From Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, the Washington Post: Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs , highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended...
www.atlanticcouncil.org
That was, frankly, not a large war and compared to Ukraine barely registers. And yet a month in there were targets having to be left on alone for fear of running out of ammunition to hit them.
Production lines to make Brimstone, Javelin, Stinger, 155mm artillery shells, etc etc etc all exist and are operative but they are made almost exclusively by private companies (I'm not actually sure if anyone has a state owned armaments industry anymore?) meaning that these companies cannot just sit on latent capacity to ramp up from making say 4,000 Javelins per year to 4,000 per month (or whatever). They can't afford to! And over the past decades the bean counters in HM Treasury (aided and abetted by politicians) and equivalents in other countries have ensured that stockpiles are shrunk ("it's very expensive to store these munitions, and besides you use so few of them they expire and either have to be disposed of or refurbished, all very expensive and unnecessary") and that contracts that could have been signed to pay these companies to keep their production lines hot and ready to expand don't exist ("we'll have plenty of time to look at signing contracts to increase production should the need arise and really it's all very unlikely anyway, why spend the money now?"). The US is obviously in a much better position but even their stockpiles aren't limitless and the production lines they have are still subject to the same issues of not being able to grow that quickly.
All of this has been obvious to anyone paying attention for decades. Just that nobody cared until February 2022 and then was suddenly surprised to discover that the cupboard that they'd been told was worryingly bare for anything other than short sharp war of choice (and even then, possibly not enough) was, in fact, bare. We can only hope that behind scenes of the last eleven months contracts are being placed and production lines being spun up. It will take time, possibly years, but hopefully that issue will be addressed.
For European NATO (particularly Western European NATO) I do wonder if there isn't increasingly an argument to be made that we should be sending equipment even if it leaves us vulnerable. Lets be real. NATO's main purpose is to deter and protect Europe from Russia. Does anyone honestly believe that Russia has the capacity to undertake further combat operations, or effective ones at anyway, anywhere other than Ukraine at the moment? Their ground forces are in a shambles, the air force missing in action and the best their navy can do is willy wave about hyper-sonic missiles that may or may not work on one poxy frigate. Sure they could try and start an invasion of the Baltic states but NATO air power (our actual trump card) alone is probably enough to shatter the invading force (even with worryingly low stockpiles) and leave the stunned survivors for mop up by ground forces.
With that in mind it may very well make more sense to send everything we can to Ukraine even if it leaves us vulnerable because the only existential threat is currently tied up in knots in Ukraine! That doesn't apply to the US as they have to worry about China as well as Russia but if that did kick off any European assistance was always likely to be extremely limited and in any event more likely to be naval than ground or air power based.
I'm not saying that we should denude ourselves but I do think it's an interesting thought. What are we holding all this stuff back for when the main threat is busy fighting an opponent we could give it to right now?
If they had new stuff they'd be using it by now. They're probably holding some of their gucci air to surface or surface to surface missiles in reserve (it's telling that they're been using 70s era anti-shipping missiles to attack land targets or S-300 anti-air missiles to hit ground targets) just in case but certainly their ground forces will be using the best that they've got lying around at this point. Any fancy stuff they do still have is probably either a) being held just in case in limited numbers or b) rotted by corruption.
Nah, most of our stuff works (perhaps Germany excepted because they've just gone so far towards total disarmament) we just don't have lots of it nor lots of ammunition for it. Also, er, war games and exercises are the reason why our forces are, you know, good? Not exercising your forces is how you end up losing wars.
That's certainly a *very* Western Europe centric view of World War 2!
And yet eleven months in there's not really any particular sign of that happening is there? Support is continuing to ramp up, there's not much in the way of protests, outside of Kremlin shills and nutjobs (often on the rightwing for some reason), about supporting Ukraine.
Germany is just a mess at the moment and if anything is in danger of sidelining itself in Europe.
The same thing that's kept them engaged in Europe since 1945. Peace and prosperity in the US relies on peace and prosperity in Europe to a great extent.
Of course that has to be paid for, by tax payers.
Eastern Europe is gung ho to throw everything at Russia, and good reason, they felt it for 50 years and dont want it back.
However once that old Russian guff from the cold war has gone over the border, the Eastern Europeans are not going to be buying more of it. Of course the next question is who pays for their western replacements ?
Post war I suspect the EU will make a play for an EU armed forced, pooled resources and big budgets expended on German, French kit, with Spain and Italy in a “me too” role. it’ll probably touted as the biggest investment ever, but when it boils down it’ll be a paired down German/french response paid by all EU members, with agreements to share between various borders in a crisis.
coming back to current..
Russian kit, no training required is still very useful for Ukraine... as side of Russia, that looks like India is a big stockpiler. I’m sure India is wondering what their investment in Russian tinfoil will actually pay out in a war, and if they are clever should look to doing a part-ex deal on s/h western kit.., right now they would probably get a better price than in the future as I suspect post war, Russian arms are going to be junk surplused everywhere.
The thing is, this war only continues because of America and Russia, right now it suits both sides to continue supporting the forces of both sides.
To be clear i’m not supporting Russia, but I am attempting to see their point of view below..
Russia believes Ukrainian lands is ancestrally theirs, and there are hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens in especially in Eastern Ukraine & Crimea who were (and probably are) supporting Russia, indeed everyone born before 1991 in the whole country was Russian. The country was created by a coup that was accepted by the USSR without challenge. Most children born since will still be entitled to Russian citizenship.. until 2014 there was no issue, and until 2022 I suspect there was inbuilt belief that a war would never happen because Ukrainians and Russians were related. Same is true in Russia, where many Russians have relocated Ukrainian ancestry, and indeed have families on both sides of the border.
We saw this in the early days of the war when many civilians didnt neccessarily run, and attempted to discuss, if not collaborate with the Russians, and indeed may not even have been fully on board with their own government.
Since then, its completely gone out of control, with both sides fully polarised and mass destruction all around.
The thing is post war, Ukraine will never be the same. Russian language and identity will definitely be erased within Ukraine. So the settlement from the Russian side will be a question about those who identify with Russia, located within Ukraine…remember thats how it started in the first place, when Russians in Ukraine felt they were being pushed to minority and sought to force a change of government in 2014.
The UK had a similar dilemma in Ireland that resulted in Northern Ireland, I suspect Russia will be playing for the same style outcome.
Ukraine as a state came about post war, by Russia absorbing parts of Eastern Poland and pushing the Polish border west. Those Poles in Lviv etc, were given a straight forwards choice… Be Russian, or leave. Unfortunately Russia is long term always going to be stronger than Ukraine on its own, so unless addressed, Ukraine will not be able to say to those Russians in the East, Be Ukrainian, or leave.. as Russia will be able to come back, and feel it has right to do so.
So the choices will be, all out full war on Russia, Make a deal or support Ukraine for decades in the same vane as now.
Neither Russia, nor the West has an apetite for a full out war. It might not seem it in the propaganda but Russia is showing some restraint, despite its own beligerant propaganda. it does have more “syrian style” techniques they could go with. They have the same rearmament problems we do, hence Iran. So for now this war will grind on.
It seems for supporting Ukraine to defend itself and hope for a win, allowing Europe to get back to business and “throw them some meat and see how they get on” is the strategy as the threat to the west, militarily and economically has receded… this was the same outcome in 2014, stalemate until it escalated.
So until everyone has “had enough”, its going to go on, the risk is it just becomes a frozen conflict, out of sight out of mind and the west and Russia learns to live with its on going cost.
Ultimately, a frozen conflict is better than a hot one. The strategy should be to provide Ukraine with the armaments to push Russia back to its borders, then freeze the conflict on Ukraine's/the West's terms.
In terms of re-arming, yes it's a cost for taxpayers, but it's also industry, employment, scientific advancement etc.
Killingworth
Established Member
Some snags there in pushing Russia back.
Russia has unilaterally pushed its borders west in 2014 and 2022 and convinced a large proportion of its population that this conflict is now defence of mother Russia. The Ukrainian government rejects that. Russia occupies roughly half of what it claims is now Russian territory.
The front line is now akin to the WW1 western front, not aligned to natural borders for viably peaceful states. Neither side is willing to retreat one inch. Further conflict is unlikely to achieve a neat territorial border and both sides will be snarling at each other for decades to come however it ends. How much more blood for what territory?
There will have to be talking at some point, both sides must know that. Who does the talking, behind the scenes, in public, and how soon?
A Russian revolution or civil war sounds superficially attractive but has potentially greater risks, but a Ukrainian advance across the entire front to the old Russian border is probably only likely if there's a collapse within Russia.
Annetts key
Established Member
There are not many countries around the world where the borders are same as they were century’s ago. Putin and Russia can believe what they like. But if the vast majority of European countries plus the U.S.A. and various other Western supporting countries disagree, Russia will have to put up with the current internationally recognised borders.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
There may have been significant pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea and the Donbas before February 2022.
But looking at how Russia has treated them since then, I do wonder how much of that remains.
But looking at how Russia has treated them since then, I do wonder how much of that remains.
We either pay for it now or we pay for it later. Either way it's a price that's going to have to be paid because there is precisely zero reason to believe that if we allow Russia to carve Ukraine they won't just continue nibbling bits of Europe off back into their attempt to recreate an empire. Quite apart from the message that sends to the rest of the world. If we allow Ukraine to be absorbed by Russia (or turned into a vassal state in the way Belarus is) you think that that doesn't send a message to would be empire builders? To their potential victims? If we allow Ukraine to be dismembered the message that comes across loud and clear is that if you don't have nuclear weapons you're fair game. I hope we're ready for a nuclear Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Probably a nuclear Saudi Arabia as well as potentially others.
Huh, I had no idea that Poland was getting someone else to pay for all the kit they're currently buying to replace the ex-Soviet junk they still have.
It continues because Russians continue bomb Ukrainian cities, rape Ukrainian women, murder Ukrainian children and occupy Ukrainian land. If Russian forces left Ukraine tomorrow the war would be over. The war could be over tomorrow if Russia left Ukraine. Ukraine would be over if the US and NATO stopped supplying Ukraine with the means to defend itself.
You've got a funny way of showing it considering what you've said above and below....
They were citizens of the Ukrainian SSR (a founder member of the United Nations in fact).
The country already existed but gained its independence following a declaration of independence which was confirmed to be the will of the citizenary of Ukraine in a free and fair referendum shortly afterwards. Which had an overwhelming majority in favour of Ukraine becoming independent. This includes Crimea and the Donbas all voting in favour of independence (Crimea was the only place it was close).
And? Many people have entitlement to citizenship in many other countries. Doesn't give any other country an excuse for an invasion.
Collaboration has been, as far as I'm aware, fairly limited and I think it's safe to say that following the slaughter and destruction wrought by Russian forces against their so called "brothers" and "sisters" there are few if any who would still collaborate or aren't "fully on board" with the government in Kyiv.
Yes yes the poor mistreated Donbas. Weird how so many of the leadership of the breakaway regions were former members of the Russian state and how many of the "freedom fighters" seemed to be vacationing Russian troops using Russian equipment. Almost like it was some kind of invasion rather than a spontaneous uprising.
I think you under estimate just how much damage Russia has suffered how much they'll struggle to rebuild anything like the force they eleven months ago. Whilst Ukraine on the other hand...
Russia don't have decades to draw this out in.
Of course Russia could just withdraw. War over. But yes I guess we could just allow Ukraine to be dismembered because it's a bit uncomfortable for us or something?
Again, for saying you're apparently not "pro-Russian" you're doing a cracking imitation.
Pete_uk
On Moderation
I think flooding Ukraine with land based arms is nothing to worry about as IF anything kicked off between Russia and NATO the west will have air superiority very quickly. Anything Russian moving on the ground will be taken out quickly.
Lots of anti missile systems going up around Moscow and Putin's house.
Lots of anti missile systems going up around Moscow and Putin's house.
In terms of the question at the start of the quote, that's for Ukraine to judge. It's in the West's interest to ensure that Ukraine repels Russia to the extent that Ukraine feels that it's necessary to defend its sovereign integrity.
In terms of talking, yes it will happen, but on who's terms.
In terms of Russian civil war, I don't think anyone's called for that. I don't believe that there can be a meaningful peace with Russia while the United Russia/FSB state remains in place, but if the Russian army can be contained in Russia, there's no reason why Russia and the West can't coexist.
Didn't they just sign a large contract for a significant amount of equipment from South Korea?
Yup! Up to 1,000 K2 MBTs, nearly 700 K9 self-propelled howitzers and nearly 300 K239 multiple rocket launcher systems from South Korea. Plus around 300 M1 MBTs and 200 odd HIMARS launchers from the US. Jaw dropping numbers. Even if they only get half the equipment currently on order it's transformative and considering the language flying around I suspect they'll go through with getting all of it.
Quite. Russia can do whatever Russia wants to do to itself within Russia. The problems start when it decides that "Not Russia" should be part of "Russia".
Killingworth
Established Member
I said "How much more blood for what territory?" That applies to Russia as much as Ukraine, although they seem to be prepared to give all of it!
Well, indeed. Ukraine seem to be prepared to give a lot, but then again it is their territory.
I'm reminded of the lads who were prepared to go undercover in the British countryside during WWII should the worst have happened.
imitation, is exactly it, I think you may have over reacted.
Having been to Ukraine and seen it myself, travelling out to the borders with Poland, helping people at the start of this conflict last year, by having family from Ukraine, I think maybe I am closer to it thank you think. Ive been right at that border, I have border guards as friends, and was there only a few months ago.
I was trying to share what maybe the rationale in Russian heads, as well as ours.
I’m absolutely no supporter of Russia what they did is incomprehensible.
if that is wrong to think what Russia may want to end this conflict then I apologise, but unless its a full Russian capitulation, its going to be a negotiation. Unfortunately negotiation will involve compromise, and that risks it maybe including something hard to swallow.
I for one very much would like to see this conflict over, so how does it end ?
As much as Russia giving up tomorrow and going home would end this conflict, it is in the power of our western collective hands to end this conflict by mass supplying Ukraine with enough weaponry to whack Russia hard and kick then out.
Hitting where it hurts is the only way Russians understand. The west knows this. However the west has not gone that route.
Why are our leaders not in favour of an all out kicking of Russia out from Ukraine ?, despite saying it repeatedly, and being policy, they are procrastinating with the supplies of the materials to do it, and only supplying enough for Ukraine to make slow progress.
All wars are about money and power. when this war is over the EU and US will rush into Ukraine, flood it with capital, and not just rebuild, but bring this country from its basic way of life upto modern western standards. Its hugely lucrative to Western businesses.
So why prolong it ?
i’m guessing its Russian unpredictability, self preservation and avoiding widening the conflict.
My concern in 2023 is Russians arent as stupid as the media portrays.
As much as we in the west feel indestructable in this conflict, if the Russians wanted to strangle this conflict, there is a move they could make that would alter the balance..
Move a considerable force to Brest, Belarus, head south to Lviv and cut off the western munitions flow from Mielec AB and Rzeszow, Poland. That would make it very difficult for Ukraine, and put a lot of Western kit at risk of Russian capture.
Russia didnt goto Lviv last year, because they didnt expect a western response, and suspect Russia has no real interest in lands north of Odessa and west of Kiev... its arable farmland, and less Russian speaking… the wealth and the ports are in the south and east.
However someone in their military machine may realise, that restarting in the north west of Ukraine maybe what they need to do, if they want to secure their gains in the East.
The question would be if they did, and if they were successful how would we then react, as they would then be at our border ?
Thats why I feel this tank decision was poor, its a signal of weakness…whilst this decision is avoiding escalating, saves Germany “owning” the conflict, if Leopards were in Ukraine, Russia would need to think a little harder than they currently need to. All these minor incrementals bring an unpalatable negotiation closer. When a knock out is whats needed.
Ultimately not providing munitions to Ukraine to push back Russian forces is what's prolonging the war.
The longer it goes on, the more time Russia has to regroup and get into a stronger position to perform such a maneuver as you describe..
Given that they couldn't even get to Kiev properly without leaving loads of vehicles lost on the roads, how do you expect them to cut off supplies so quickly?
If you think that the back of Ukraine will be undefended, I would remind you of the sheer number of NATO intelligence assets skirting along the Ukrainian border; such a buildup would not be undetected. Given the sheer number of artillery pieces and equipment that we have given Ukraine that is fitted with a Datalink, such a force concentration would be an easy target; if say the data was accidentally broadcast on an open channel.
DustyBin
Established Member
Nobody in the West wants to enter into direct conflict with Russia; this is why Ukraine didn’t get the MiG-29s for example. There’s a line (albeit a moving one, evidently) at which the risk of escalation is considered too great. There are other considerations, but I believe this is the main one.
To address your last point, I’m not convinced Russia can launch an offensive from the north, even with direct Belarusian involvement. I stand to be corrected here, but I believe that large parts of the border are difficult to pass, and the Ukrainians (who would be well prepared) would be able to repel the inevitably slow and chaotic Russian advance. Regardless of this however, where would a “considerable force” come from? More poorly trained and poorly armed conscripts presumably?
Totally agree.
last time Russia tried too much with too few assets.
They wanted North East, South East, South West all at once.
The goals have also changed.
Russia wanted regime change in Ukraine, expected no resistance.
I suspect now it's about holding what they have and securing a “win” of sorts.
Their failing in Kiev was not taking and holding the airport. Had they done that, tanks at the front could have had a forward base and fuel.
Ukraines failing was letting Russia take the convoy back out, but suspect at that time they lacked abilities to make the Russians walk back to Belarus.
The other failing was timing, a 3 day war before rainy season.
I suspect any activities this year will wait until after the wet season. Rasputitsa.
In 2023 Russians have taken territory. They are going to want to keep it.
if they hold that line, rather than pressing advances, they could start a new front from the north, without the those extra resources for an advance in the south, as they are just holding.
Unlike 2022 they also wouldnt be under an illusions of a warm welcome.
But imo Kiev wouldnt be the target, they need to cut the arms supply and starve it first.
twittersphere has rumours of Russians moving soldiers into western Belarus hiding them in tank wagons. They are unconfirmed, and once out of that can they need to be housed and would be spotted, but obviously people are twitchy, twitchiness doesnt happen on rumour alone.
For Ukraines part, even if the Russians simply held the line in the east, they would still need to move considerable forces west to meet the Russians, even if the arms were ready and waiting at Korcowa to be collected. But they wouldnt have much choice, they would have to defend it to the max which exposes the east… fighting two lines over 600 miles apart in a country without good roads. There would be the same horrific scenes of panic as I witnessed last year as civilians (mixed with Mid Eastern Belarussian refugees who were pushed out of the country, many armed with knives and sent to Ukraine to reach Poland), all whom tried to get out on those 3 coach locals to Przemysl, trains which were robbed by gangs at signals outside Medyka etc.
if successful it would be a similar situation to Kherson, after the bridges were cut, and Ukraine would end up reliant on feed via Romania which is circuitous and mountainous.
Thing is I dont think Russia wants western ukraine, but it would improve their negotiating hand if they had it and in any peace agreement I think they would offer to return it as part of a settlement that favours their eastern gains.
This imo becomes more of a possibility, unless Ukraine is given more scope, for instance attacking those assembly points in Belarus before an advance.
if this conflict is to end, then the west is going to need to take some escalatory risk imo.
is it possible… its a 4 hour drive by regular car by from Brest to Lviv. (think B roads or worse, but thats no different to most of the country), Theres at least 5 roads between the two, and say Pinsk to Lutsk.
This is one of them..
Last edited:
Killingworth
Established Member
If we're considering geographic escalations dont overlook Kaliningrad. One big reason why Lithuania and Poland have to tread carefully.
Annetts key
Established Member
Yes, that’s what I don’t understand either.
IMHO, the “Western” countries need to do the following:
- Stop dithering and supply Ukraine with the weapons they are asking for. Even if it means reducing the amount of equipment in the armed forces of the “Western” countries below the numbers previously considered to be the minimum needed.
- The governments of the “Western” countries need to put in place contracts with the armament industries, with any necessary support so that production of equipment and ammunition can be stepped up quickly. Both so that new supplies can be sent to Ukraine and so that existing equipment and ammunition sent to Ukraine can be replaced.
- The “Western” countries need to bully Russia. There is little that Ukraine can do to effectively deal with some types of missiles that Russia are now using against Ukraine civilian infrastructure. So, the “Western” countries need to tell Russia that if they continue using missiles against Ukraine, we will start using our missiles against any ship of the Russian navy that is in international waters. And then, if Putin ignores this warning, start sinking their military ships.
If all the above was done, it should significantly help to push Russia out of Ukrainian territory, hence hopefully ending much of the fighting sooner.
DustyBin
Established Member
We’ve also seen before how Ukraine will concede territory and then take it back. Concentrations of Russian men and equipment in static positions are an easy target for HIMARS etc.; the question for Ukraine is what are the priority targets, as there’s not an unlimited supply of these weapons.
Annetts key
Established Member
There has been some speculation that Ukraine may have a chance at having some Panavia Tornado aircraft as the Luftwaffe decommission them. But I think this may be very premature speculation. As the aircraft that will replace them, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs were only ordered last December.
Do we know if the RAF Tornados have been stripped and scraped, or are there any that could be made operational again, so could be provided to Ukraine?
Do we know if the RAF Tornados have been stripped and scraped, or are there any that could be made operational again, so could be provided to Ukraine?
That said, the production line is in full swing, so if the will was there to prioritise deliveries to Germany it could be done.