Russia v Ukraine

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

You're right, seems to be real time and a fair amount of activity. Not as much as would be expected in a city of 2 mil. But not as bad as I thought it would have been if the stories of severe power and fuel shortages were true.

They used to have the location of each cam but not anymore.

[John 13]

Originally Posted by Falcon SXR8

Going to be interesting to come back to some of these posts once its all over, see if anyone actually had a clue what they were talking about

What is truth ? And who is it that writes the history ?

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

I'll listen to anyone or any organization that has put the hard yards in, has a research-based background and has a proven history in what they do. So the UN fits that, as does the Pentagon, CIA, MI6, FSB, Chinese Secret Service, BBC, Fox News, etc.

Have you ever factored in they may have a hidden agenda?

Dig deep and see who was a sponsor of a CNN health segment.

[Blatmann]

Originally Posted by burnz

research Henry ford, Pittsberg steel, ministry of war (usa)

Thanks burnz,

I didn’t turn up much on Pittsberg steel or ministry of war, but this paper https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/vie...xt=hist_honors The Silent Partner:
How the Ford Motor Company Became an Arsenal of Nazism was a gold mine … and perfect for the Ford Forums
Still I think his title’s a bit click-baity. Even what he presents doesn’t make the case of Ford supplying weapons. It sounds a lot like Ford-Werke Germany was being patriotically pro-Nazi and the Americans were trying to do business (of course) even with Nazis. Which I guess is ok, seeing as how they weren’t at war. Not great in hindsight!
Henry Ford himself was anti-war and against making money from war. As old mate says:

The aging Ford blamed the “munitions makers and profiteering financiers for the present war clouds” and hoped that “if war does come, let them start by bombing munitions plants behind the enemy’s lines.”

Ford still made shed-loads off the war, but much more on the Allied side than they did off the Nazis.

Anyway I don’t see that it’s America supplying weapons to both sides. Definitely not in the way they supplied weapons to the UK and the USSR anyway.
More in the way “Pigiron Bob” Menzies made money supplying iron to the Japanese before the war. Ooops!

[Fordman1]

What about’ism doesn’t count.

Anyone that thinks murdering people because they’re “Ukrainian”, is sick.

There are a few here that think “it’s Ok”, I think they’re NOT Ok.

[PhilT2]

Accurate estimates of Ukrainian losses are hard to obtain but here is a fairly comprehensive list.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o61nxYhycgY

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Accurate estimates of Ukrainian losses are hard to obtain but here is a fairly comprehensive list.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o61nxYhycgY

A weak beta male.

Plenty of that going around.

[Blatmann]

Originally Posted by tichman

Fact = Russia still has some 20% of some land once called Ukraine.

Yeah but, they lost half of what they had, which is the not winning.

Originally Posted by tichman

It is accepted that Ukrainian losses of men is multiple times that of Russian losses.

It’s accepted in Russia, sure.

Originally Posted by tichman

German mobile artillery units are breaking down and wearing out from the use they have received and there are no replacement s coming for them.

Shame no one knows how to fix stuff anymore.
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-englis...s-in-lithuania
I wonder if they’ll fix the French stuff as well
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internatio...5998801_4.html
Or the Czech
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...aine-52dw3skg8
Or the Polish
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukrainian-fo.../32003796.html
Probably not, eh?

Originally Posted by tichman

Russia hasn't lost all their "newer" stuff at all.

Maybe not all, just a lot.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html

Originally Posted by tichman

Only a fool would send their best into a small, isolated incident as that in Ukraine.

Wait, so Shoigu said Russia had lost 6000 soldiers in September, which is a little on the conservative side, so let’s call it 10,000 give or take. Ukraine has lost, what did you say, “multiple times”, so 50,000? And that’s an “isolated incident”? OK.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...er-2022-09-21/
For context, the United States lost 2345 killed in the ”isolated incident” in Afghanistan. In 20 years.

Originally Posted by tichman

Russia has not declared war against Ukraine and therefore has not geared up in a way it would do if required.

Which just shows how unprepared they were for fighting Ukraine.

Originally Posted by tichman

Just on tanks, if you've ever been shot at by a rifle you'll appreciate having armour to protect you. Even 1960s tanks are formidable weapons against rifles and bullets and whilst they can be taken out (as any tank can by anti tank munitions, even 2020 ones) they are still useful and required in the special military type operation underway in Ukraine.

Absolutely, they just don’t do so well against … pretty much everything Ukraine has. They also have to not break down.

Originally Posted by tichman

Tank numbers by country according to globalfirepower.com and armedforces.eu

Russia 12000 odd
Nato in Europe 8000 odd

globalfirepower.com rates Russia’s land power as 1.8 and Ukraine’s as 11. I guess smaller numbers are better?

Originally Posted by tichman

Given the fact that European Countries are reducing the amount or arms and munitions they are sending Ukraine due to running low on stock themselves, Russia has the numbers to succeed.

The "billions" that has been sent has not made much real difference on the situation there. The US and other Nato countries are cutting back what they are committing to Ukraine as they all now acknowledge it will not affect the outcome in a material way and those countries all have pressing domestic issues that their citizens are demanding be addressed.

Um …
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-St...ed-to-ukraine/

https://apnews.com/article/biden-eur...bbdd388dc1a658

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ce-2022-11-16/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ne-2022-11-10/

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...p-meeting.html

And #HIMARStime was never a thing?
https://mobile.twitter.com/himarstime

Originally Posted by tichman

The withdrawal from Kherson has been well documented by renown sources that acknowledge there was little strategic value in retaining it.

Except that Russia annexed it. And so it was a part of Russia. And a lot of Russians died to capture it. Not strategic at all.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...in-ukraine-war

Originally Posted by tichman

The fact is Ukraine is going to lose. Nothing will change that fact unless Nato goes into Ukraine which just will not happen.

I guess we’ll just have to see, but considering Russia’s performance so far, versus the Ukrainians, I wouldn’t put money on Russia coming off well.

Originally Posted by tichman

The western media continues with inaccurate accounts of what is really happening in Ukraine and the state of Russia's ability to continue the special operation. Western Media and experts stated for some time that Russia was running out of missiles (all propaganda to make the naive and ignorant believe that all of the efforts of many nations and some $100 billion meant Russia was going to lose) only to find over this last week Russia has not run out of missiles or is anywhere near it when it decimated Ukrainian infrastructure with some 180 odd missiles which Ukraine could only counter by deliberately firing a missile into Poland in an amateur and failed attempt to frame Russia as attacking Poland, a clear false flag attempt from Zelotsky who, as a true comic would, keeps claiming it was a Russian Missile when Biden, Poland and others have stated it wasn't.

It’s not just western media saying it though. Russian state TV has been saying how badly their army is doing, how they’re fighting with one arm tied behind their back, how badly their mobilisation is doing, and so on. They’re asking why they have to buy missiles and drones from Iran, when Russia should be making its own. And those guys get paid to talk up the Russian government!
https://youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor


Besides, it’s not like NATO is using all its resources. America is still not spending that much of its budget, or giving Ukraine everything it’s asked for.

https://cepa.org/article/its-costing...defeat-russia/

And yes, the stockpiles are getting smaller, but that seems to depend on more contacts being signed than running out of resources.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/16...-low-industry/

Originally Posted by tichman

You can keep believing what you will from getting your information from one side of the conflict I don't mind at all. I prefer to get information from both sides, wait to see it is validated before forming my opinion. Also knowing how historic battles have been fought/turned out in the Eastern European theatre can be helpful in understanding and or predicting how this latest scrape will turn out, given the combatants in the scrape.

Thanks. Unfortunately I can’t read Russian, so I have to rely on translation, so it’s a bit one-sided. But still, considering the last time they fought a war like this the US was on their side, I don’t think it’s going to end well for the Russians.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Have you ever factored in they may have a hidden agenda?

Dig deep and see who was a sponsor of a CNN health segment.

Pfizer advertises on every network in america, not just CNN.
baught to you by pfizer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlL5_kKyLA0

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Blatmann

Thanks burnz,

I didn’t turn up much on Pittsberg steel or ministry of war, but this paper https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/vie...xt=hist_honors The Silent Partner:
How the Ford Motor Company Became an Arsenal of Nazism was a gold mine … and perfect for the Ford Forums
Still I think his title’s a bit click-baity. Even what he presents doesn’t make the case of Ford supplying weapons. It sounds a lot like Ford-Werke Germany was being patriotically pro-Nazi and the Americans were trying to do business (of course) even with Nazis. Which I guess is ok, seeing as how they weren’t at war. Not great in hindsight!
Henry Ford himself was anti-war and against making money from war. As old mate says:

The aging Ford blamed the “munitions makers and profiteering financiers for the present war clouds” and hoped that “if war does come, let them start by bombing munitions plants behind the enemy’s lines.”

Ford still made shed-loads off the war, but much more on the Allied side than they did off the Nazis.

Anyway I don’t see that it’s America supplying weapons to both sides. Definitely not in the way they supplied weapons to the UK and the USSR anyway.
More in the way “Pigiron Bob” Menzies made money supplying iron to the Japanese before the war. Ooops!

pittsberg sold raw pig iron to UK and Germany.
ford sold cars, troop tansport, APC, Engines specific to tanks for Germany only.
MOW provided intel and logistics for both sides, later renamed DOD (department of defence)

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

What about’ism doesn’t count.

Anyone that thinks murdering people because they’re “Ukrainian”, is sick.

There are a few here that think “it’s Ok”, I think they’re NOT Ok.

oh yeah..sure...another biggot shines his light.

Morons on car forums who think murdering Russians is ok.

Assasinating Putin is just fine isn't it?

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Blatmann

Yeah but, they lost half of what they had, which is the not winning.


It’s accepted in Russia, sure.


Shame no one knows how to fix stuff anymore.
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-englis...s-in-lithuania
I wonder if they’ll fix the French stuff as well
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internatio...5998801_4.html
Or the Czech
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...aine-52dw3skg8
Or the Polish
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukrainian-fo.../32003796.html
Probably not, eh?



Maybe not all, just a lot.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html


Wait, so Shoigu said Russia had lost 6000 soldiers in September, which is a little on the conservative side, so let’s call it 10,000 give or take. Ukraine has lost, what did you say, “multiple times”, so 50,000? And that’s an “isolated incident”? OK.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...er-2022-09-21/
For context, the United States lost 2345 killed in the ”isolated incident” in Afghanistan. In 20 years.


Which just shows how unprepared they were for fighting Ukraine.


Absolutely, they just don’t do so well against … pretty much everything Ukraine has. They also have to not break down.


globalfirepower.com rates Russia’s land power as 1.8 and Ukraine’s as 11. I guess smaller numbers are better?



Um …
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-St...ed-to-ukraine/

https://apnews.com/article/biden-eur...bbdd388dc1a658

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ce-2022-11-16/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ne-2022-11-10/

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...p-meeting.html

And #HIMARStime was never a thing?
https://mobile.twitter.com/himarstime



Except that Russia annexed it. And so it was a part of Russia. And a lot of Russians died to capture it. Not strategic at all.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...in-ukraine-war



I guess we’ll just have to see, but considering Russia’s performance so far, versus the Ukrainians, I wouldn’t put money on Russia coming off well.



It’s not just western media saying it though. Russian state TV has been saying how badly their army is doing, how they’re fighting with one arm tied behind their back, how badly their mobilisation is doing, and so on. They’re asking why they have to buy missiles and drones from Iran, when Russia should be making its own. And those guys get paid to talk up the Russian government!
https://youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor


Besides, it’s not like NATO is using all its resources. America is still not spending that much of its budget, or giving Ukraine everything it’s asked for.

https://cepa.org/article/its-costing...defeat-russia/

And yes, the stockpiles are getting smaller, but that seems to depend on more contacts being signed than running out of resources.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/16...-low-industry/



Thanks. Unfortunately I can’t read Russian, so I have to rely on translation, so it’s a bit one-sided. But still, considering the last time they fought a war like this the US was on their side, I don’t think it’s going to end well for the Russians.

These responses are beautiful, well done.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by zilo

Assasinating Putin is just fine isn't it?

You're saying that Putin isn't a legitimate target as Commander in Chief of the Russian armed forces?

Cripes but you confuse me sometimes.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

You're saying that Putin isn't a legitimate target as Commander in Chief of the Russian armed forces?

Cripes but you confuse me sometimes.

Remember Putin is a politician not a soldier so "No" he is not a legitimate target but would be held accountable for any war crimes if he sanctioned them.

[Blatmann]

Originally Posted by burnz

pittsberg sold raw pig iron to UK and Germany.
ford sold cars, troop tansport, APC, Engines specific to tanks for Germany only.
MOW provided intel and logistics for both sides, later renamed DOD (department of defence)

Thanks again burnz,
That’s an aspect of Ford’s history I didn’t know much about. Cheeky buggers sued the US government after the war for damaging their factory as well! Still didn’t find anything on the tanks and APCs though. Tank engines seem to be mainly Maybach, got any specifics?

I still think it’s drawing a long bow to say “America” supplied both sides. Like saying that because some Americans fought for the Nazis (Volksdeutsche etc) that America did. Different thing.
As this article says

America's declaration of war on Germany in December 1941 made it illegal for U.S. motor companies to have any contact with their subsidiaries on German-controlled territory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...nazicars30.htm
So not quite the same.

Anyway thanks for the knowledge! Might have to rethink my allegiance to Ford and switch to BMW, … er … Mitsubishi … ah … never mind

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by burnz

Pfizer advertises on every network in america, not just CNN.
baught to you by pfizer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlL5_kKyLA0

Yep.

I observed American news for a while and all the add breaks were consumed by
pharmaceutical companies, but they had to list/say all the side effects, including death.

Never saw one of these covid vaccines advertised.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Yep.

I observed American news for a while and all the add breaks were consumed by
pharmaceutical companies, but they had to list/say all the side effects, including death.

Never saw one of these covid vaccines advertised.

Economics. Advertising is to sell a product and TV advertising is damned expensive. As most of the vaccines were sold to governments they never needed to be advertised.

[T3rminator]

They had free advertising done for them from the general population. You only need to look back through the Covid thread. :P

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by GasoLane

Economics. Advertising is to sell a product and TV advertising is damned expensive. As most of the vaccines were sold to governments they never needed to be advertised.

No comment.

[PhilT2]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Yep.

I observed American news for a while and all the add breaks were consumed by
pharmaceutical companies, but they had to list/say all the side effects, including death.

Never saw one of these covid vaccines advertised.

So if you never saw it that means it never happened right?

Drugs approved under emergency use can't be advertised direct to consumers but once that is ended the manufacturers were free to run ads like this one.
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/qWjv/pfizer-...ng-bruce-brown

Notice how they don't mention any side effects.

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

So if you never saw it that means it never happened right?

Drugs approved under emergency use can't be advertised direct to consumers but once that is ended the manufacturers were free to run ads like this one.
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/qWjv/pfizer-...ng-bruce-brown

Notice how they don't mention any side effects.

Sorry, troll. I'm on the carnivore lifestyle.

Real men eat meat.

Keep being triggered.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

You're saying that Putin isn't a legitimate target as Commander in Chief of the Russian armed forces?

Cripes but you confuse me sometimes.

Do I really need to explain the difference between a battlefield combat death versus an asassination?

Heroes die in a battlefield, cowards asassinate.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Blatmann

Thanks again burnz,
That’s an aspect of Ford’s history I didn’t know much about. Cheeky buggers sued the US government after the war for damaging their factory as well! Still didn’t find anything on the tanks and APCs though. Tank engines seem to be mainly Maybach, got any specifics?

I still think it’s drawing a long bow to say “America” supplied both sides. Like saying that because some Americans fought for the Nazis (Volksdeutsche etc) that America did. Different thing.
As this article says

America's declaration of war on Germany in December 1941 made it illegal for U.S. motor companies to have any contact with their subsidiaries on German-controlled territory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...nazicars30.htm
So not quite the same.

Anyway thanks for the knowledge! Might have to rethink my allegiance to Ford and switch to BMW, … er … Mitsubishi … ah … never mind

GM in this aswell, i didn't know there was a law suit going..

When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization programs ever undertaken. It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel -- a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary -- and flying Opel-built warplanes. (Chrysler's role in the German rearmament effort was much less significant.)

he {Henry} accepted the highest medal that Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle. The following month, a senior executive for General Motors, James Mooney, received a similar medal for his "distinguished service to the Reich."

this i knew.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by zilo

ROFL...you didn't really mean that did you? Second thoughts..yeah..you did.....

Let you in on a secret...the biggest financial contributor to the UN..is.......??????

You -Ess- Aye...

Why on earth are you even on this forum? You give nothing of value.Do you even own a car? Just a sarcastic individual.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Itsme

Remember Putin is a politician not a soldier so "No" he is not a legitimate target but would be held accountable for any war crimes if he sanctioned them.

So, if Putin ever visited the front line like Zelensky (not that it’s likely to happen), would he then be a legitimate target? I’m struggling to make a distinction based upon where someone is directing a war from.

Thanks

[PhilT2]

Claims that Zelensky has been targeted a number of times.
https://www.newsweek.com/volodymyr-z...russia-1686329
This is a war; compliance with rules is a bit flexible.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Claims that Zelensky has been targeted a number of times.
https://www.newsweek.com/volodymyr-z...russia-1686329
This is a war; compliance with rules is a bit flexible.

Thanks. I guess then using logic provided elsewhere in this thread that makes Putin a coward. Sorted.

[DJR-351]

When you move into a state of recognised armed conflict (which Russia/Ukraine have) and you are dealing with a head of state who has tactical control over their armed forces, then he/she becomes a legitimate military target.

[Mulva]

Is it urban myth or true that in WW2 there was several chances for the allies to take out Hitler later in the war, and they chose not to as removing him at that stage would have benefited the German side?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

So, if Putin ever visited the front line like Zelensky (not that it’s likely to happen), would he then be a legitimate target? I’m struggling to make a distinction based upon where someone is directing a war from.

Thanks

just to muddy it up..

if joe biden was killed, fair game or not??