Russian Ukrainian War

[patrioticvietnamese]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBPdqXs8klw

NATO tactics outdated in the age of satelites, radars, hypersonic missiles, glided bombs, drones and artillery.

 

[Akim]

In four years, your country would have lost 3 generations already. You already lost one generation and on the verge of losing another generation. No country can recover from losing 3 generations in a time period and recover quickly. Your country will take several decades perhaps a century to recover from this demographic nightmare.

Ukraine: Population drops by 10 million since Russia invaded in 2014, UNFPA reports

A deepening demographic crisis is roiling Ukraine, exacerbated by Russia’s full-scale invasion, the UN sexual and reproductive health agency, UNFPA, said on Tuesday, underscoring an urgent need for comprehensive recovery strategies focused on human capital and socioeconomic reform.

news.un.org

View: https://www.npr.org/2024/04/05/1242977784/over-the-next-3-decades-ukraines-population-is-expected-to-drop-dramatically

The plagues of Ukraine: war and demographic collapse

This is the tenth year of a grinding war of attrition, massive civilian exodus and economic ruin. Ukrainian forces are out-manned and out-gunned by orders of magnitude, says LOUIS T. MARCH.

www.mercatornet.com

These are refugees. I don't worry about this category at all. Most of them will return when the war is over. Do you think it's nicer to live in a rented apartment than in your own?
I think several million more Russian citizens who fled Putin's regime will come with them.
Everything depends on the results of the war. There are different opinions. I consider myself one of those who want the 2013 border and consider territorial concessions a defeat. There are those who think that Ukrainian control over 80% of the territories is already a victory. They cite the FRG/GDR as an argument.
So far, everything is developing according to the second scenario, but precisely "so far". The war continues and all the talk about peace is just Trump's PR.

 

[Soldier35]

Footage of the attack of the Russian FPV drone "Prince Vandal Novgorodsky", controlled via fiber optic cable, on the Ukrainian armored personnel carrier VAB. The video was filmed near the village of Nikolsky, Kursk region of Russia. The VAB armored personnel carrier has been produced in France since 1976. In the Ukrainian army, the VAB armored personnel carrier was additionally equipped with lattice protection of the "Tsar-mangal" type. Judging by the video, as a result of the strike of the FPV drone "Vandal", the VAB armored personnel carrier was destroyed. The fate of the crew is unknown.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5GAGOe5Aa0

 

[Hari Sud]

Europe Without America: The Case for an European Army

A dramatic shift in U.S. policy has shaken Europe. For 75 years after World War II, American influence ensured European stability, but that era is coming to an end. Ukraine, feeling the impact of this change, is scrambling to trade its mineral wealth for U.S. support. Germany is on the verge of electing a right-wing government, reminiscent of Trump’s policies. Meanwhile, President Macron’s recent visit to the White House failed to sway Trump’s stance on Europe, Ukraine, or Russia. The most striking shift is in U.S.-Russia relations—Trump is now engaging directly with Putin.

If the U.S. scales back its commitments to Europe without completely abandoning it, Europe has only one viable option: to organize itself independently and create a European Army to defend against potential threats, including Russia.

For centuries, European states fought among themselves, culminating in the devastation of World War I and II. American intervention brought 75 years of peace, allowing Europe to focus on economic growth rather than military spending. Now, that era is over.

A European Army is no longer just an idea—it is a necessity. Until now, Europe has relied on national forces: the German Army, French Army, British Army, and smaller national forces. But a unified military, integrating different cultures, languages, and defence strategies, will be a complex and lengthy endeavour. The challenges will be similar to those faced when forming the European Common Market in the 1960s.

Germany, France, and Britain must set aside their differences and lead the effort. One thing is clear: America’s role in Europe is diminishing. European leaders must act, because dependency on the U.S. is no longer an option.

A worst case scenario does exist where Europeans are unable to agree then the U.S. will continue its support but Europe will have to pay a greater share of the defence burden.

 

[WW2historian]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBPdqXs8klw

NATO tactics outdated in the age of satelites, radars, hypersonic missiles, glided bombs, drones and artillery.

This dude is a total clown, but he's also correct, NATO generals are also clowns. The bottom line is the clowns are turning on each other and by clowns I mean all the western leaders including politicians and military leaders. And Russia stay consistent and united.

 

[WW2historian]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBPdqXs8klw

NATO tactics outdated in the age of satelites, radars, hypersonic missiles, glided bombs, drones and artillery.

This clown also thinks he is so intelligent that if NATO and Ukraine would just listen to him Ukraine would win against Russia. What an overconfident idiot.

 

[WW2historian]

I talked about his on the old forum. I talked about Russia destroying all the bridges (including railway bridges) crossing the Dnipro. They can do this using missiles or FAB bombs, but they have chosen not to do this. Why? because they know they can do if the need to do it. Obviously so far they don't NEED to do it. Also they have not targeted Ukraine's electric train engines which cost millions of dollars and cannot be replaced for years. Doing either one would cripple Ukraine. Doing both would be overkill, but it's not off the table. Bottom line is it's impossible for Ukraine to survive if Russia choses to destroy it. I don't know what else to say. It's hopeless but the west choses to fight on. They don't care because the military companies are making a fortune and they run the show.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

These are refugees. I don't worry about this category at all. Most of them will return when the war is over. Do you think it's nicer to live in a rented apartment than in your own?
I think several million more Russian citizens who fled Putin's regime will come with them.
Everything depends on the results of the war. There are different opinions. I consider myself one of those who want the 2013 border and consider territorial concessions a defeat. There are those who think that Ukrainian control over 80% of the territories is already a victory. They cite the FRG/GDR as an argument.
So far, everything is developing according to the second scenario, but precisely "so far". The war continues and all the talk about peace is just Trump's PR.

I meet ukrainian refugees in Canada all the time, NONE of them are gonna go back.
Its not ez to move entire family to new country, settle and move again, you stuck-in-a-hole Euro villager.

 

[Blademaster]

Europe Without America: The Case for an European Army

A dramatic shift in U.S. policy has shaken Europe. For 75 years after World War II, American influence ensured European stability, but that era is coming to an end. Ukraine, feeling the impact of this change, is scrambling to trade its mineral wealth for U.S. support. Germany is on the verge of electing a right-wing government, reminiscent of Trump’s policies. Meanwhile, President Macron’s recent visit to the White House failed to sway Trump’s stance on Europe, Ukraine, or Russia. The most striking shift is in U.S.-Russia relations—Trump is now engaging directly with Putin.

If the U.S. scales back its commitments to Europe without completely abandoning it, Europe has only one viable option: to organize itself independently and create a European Army to defend against potential threats, including Russia.

For centuries, European states fought among themselves, culminating in the devastation of World War I and II. American intervention brought 75 years of peace, allowing Europe to focus on economic growth rather than military spending. Now, that era is over.

A European Army is no longer just an idea—it is a necessity. Until now, Europe has relied on national forces: the German Army, French Army, British Army, and smaller national forces. But a unified military, integrating different cultures, languages, and defence strategies, will be a complex and lengthy endeavour. The challenges will be similar to those faced when forming the European Common Market in the 1960s.

Germany, France, and Britain must set aside their differences and lead the effort. One thing is clear: America’s role in Europe is diminishing. European leaders must act, because dependency on the U.S. is no longer an option.

A worst case scenario does exist where Europeans are unable to agree then the U.S. will continue its support but Europe will have to pay a greater share of the defence burden.

Lol.

Good luck with that. I do not see that happening at all. For starters, France always marches to its own tune and UK doesn't march to anyone else's tune. For America it made an exception because it cushioned the blow of the loss of its empire and US allowed UK to ride the coattails of US's back. No other country will allow UK to do that.

I do not see this happening at all.

 

[Akim]

Captured TKB-521. Only 1000 were produced. I remember the American idiot here laughing when I said the Russians were running out of machine guns.

 

[Blademaster]

I talked about his on the old forum. I talked about Russia destroying all the bridges (including railway bridges) crossing the Dnipro. They can do this using missiles or FAB bombs, but they have chosen not to do this. Why? because they know they can do if the need to do it. Obviously so far they don't NEED to do it. Also they have not targeted Ukraine's electric train engines which cost millions of dollars and cannot be replaced for years. Doing either one would cripple Ukraine. Doing both would be overkill, but it's not off the table. Bottom line is it's impossible for Ukraine to survive if Russia choses to destroy it. I don't know what else to say. It's hopeless but the west choses to fight on. They don't care because the military companies are making a fortune and they run the show.

I don’t understand that part. It would certainly have prevented Ukraine from resupplying its forces in the eastern sector and keep Russian casualties to a minimum. Who ever made that decision not to bomb the bridges is an idiot. If it was Putin then i have no choice but to call him an idiot.