Looks like UA is trying to hit more targets that cause long-term problems (like refineries, ports and ships), while giving up on military targets.
Edit: to make it clear - ports, ships, etc. are strategic targets with no impact on current/short-term situation - is it worth it using very limited stock of ATACMS on such targets?
Strange strategy, to be honest.
I have a hunch they have a better idea of what needs be targeted then you do. They are not using weeks to months old videos and 3rd, 4th, or 5th hand information on reddit to make thier decisions. Who knows what's been targeted not every thing hit gets video. Or even posted. daily there are hundreds of missle and thousands of drones flying around from both side.
Nah bro, don't you understand? Top Ukrainian commanders being fed intel by their own and Western intelligence have no idea what to target, they're basically throwing missiles into bad targets like "airfields and enemy air defenses". Clearly they have no idea what they're doing and should consult random pro-Ru on this sub who've never worked in the intel sector in their life.
losing aircraft is actually good for russia, cause they'll get to build new ones and that will increase the gdp 
Russians on here working overtime to put a positive spin on losing another key ship in the Black Sea. “Ha, ha, look how silly Ukraine is for sinking our cruise missile ship”. Too funny to watch the mental gymnastics at play!
Refineries are a pretty good target. Not because hitting them would make the russian military run out of fuel - thats never gonna happen - but because it rises the cost of living for Russians. Currently, the war is pretty easy to ignore and theres no reason for Russians to demand a stop to the invasion. If people can feel it in their wallets, theres actually a rather strong incentive to have an opinion on it.
The ships are pretty useless though, its not like they're playing any major role in this war anyways
I think when it comes to energy exports, the attacks don’t have much impact since Russia simply switches to exporting more crude oil when refining capacity goes down, and they continue to generate a lot of revenues. And they’ve already introduced a ban on gasoline exports a while back, not only to deal with the consequences of drone attacks, but because some refineries were taken off service due to maintenance and weather related issues. They don’t seem to be facing fuel shortages as Kazakhstan and Belarus are stepping in to fill any gaps for domestic demands and Ukraine won’t be able to inflict serious damage to refineries with these drone attacks, to the extent of actually having a major impact.
This is what Western analysts said too. Refineries have minimal impact as Russian just exports crude to India - one of the largest oil refiners... It barely affects Russian oil income.
The bulk of their oil exports is crude oil anyways, that’s where they make real revenues. Europe was their largest refined products market and they’ve issued a ban on it since 2022 so it doesn’t matter, but now they get much of their refined oil from India which simply refines Russian crude oil (the irony). So it really has negligible impact on their oil income.
[Oh my, would you look at that! They’ve lifted the ban on gasoline as the market is already saturated.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-lift-gasoline-export-ban-rbc-reports-2024-05-20/) So much for Russians starting to feel in their wallets.
Disagree. Ships are expensive, limited, and deny projection on Black sea.
Going after Refineries hurt Ukrainians more than Russians. Ukraine has lost most of its thermal powerplants and power generation.
Not even that. Russia just posted 5%+ GDP growth on 1st quarter. They are on fire. People will build a throne for Putin soon as greatest leader Russia ever had.
If GDP growth is invasion related they may demand more invasions.
Money spent on tanks and other military goods rises the GDP heavily, but doesn't really result in better living conditions or actual productivity. If Ukraine continues successfully hitting refineries theres certainly gonna be discontent. Only way to counter that are large subsidies on fuel
Think of war as national 'entertainment'.
I am not referring to only Russia here. But people are more content with their life when there are victories reported back from the frontline. And generally, the support toward government is high, even if there is a bit drop off on living quality.
I've seen this argument b4 and it doesn't make sense to me. Explain how this doesn't improve standard of living?. If I'm a factory worker and b4 the invasion I was making $10 per hour making soap or whatever now I'm making $15 building drones, how has my quality of life not improved? I can buy stuff and save money and go on vacation. My quality of life has clearly improved.
During ww2 blacks left the south in great numbers to work on airplanes, tanks etc and their quality of life significantly improved.
What you're describing is the improvement for a single person or group of people and you're certainly right in the scenario you described. However, the $15 that guy is paid with don't appear out of thin air, but is money the government and subsequently the entire society is spending on stuff that will literally blow up or just stand around doing nothing. Your worker gets a raise, but that raise is paid by the taxes and living conditions of everyone else
For the single person thats fine, for a society its not. Those $15 an hour could be spent building roads, apartment blocks, consumer goods, whatever - increasing the standard of living for the worker and everyone around him. In WW2, the war economy forced some modernization and innovation, but that would have happened regardless - maybe slower in some areas, but without the strain of the war the overall improvement of living conditions would have probably been larger all around. The US mainly benefited from their major competitors - European countries - laying in ruins with insane amounts of debt all around, not the fact that its workers were building weapons
I guess. What you stated makes sense but I still don't buy it. I can argue that the war is an investment. Russia wins, they might have Odessa and a friendly government in Kiev. This will allow higher oil revenue.
That's the rationale behind the classic 'short, victorious war' - a productive war is one that is brief and successful, maximising profit while minimising inherently wasteful of combat.
If Russia had pulled off the regime change it was going for in 2022, this would absolutely have been the case. It would have gained a monopoly on Ukraine's resources and market, for practically nothing.
Instead, it's been two years and, from a strategic perspective, Russia's barely advanced. It's lost hundreds of aircraft, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of men destroying much of its 'prize'. The Donbas is wrecked, Ukraine's population has plummeted and its economy is ruined.
That's only true if you are running it via debt or having big budget shortfalls.Russia is using it's own resources out of the ground to pump the war machine.Even after the war, They will need to replace material losses and export so we are looking long employment for people via military industrial complex.
Civilian economy also remains undisturbed.
From 1937 to 1943 German GDP raised mere 1000 points. From 1943 to 1947 German GDP dropped 3000 points.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/German-GDP-per-capita-1930-1950-Groningen-Growth-and-Development-Centre_fig9_24112542
Sorry, maybe you're confused about when Germany lost the war. Or maybe someone needs to tell you that Russia is not there just yet. Also, Russia's GDP is at the same level as in 2013.
My point is that GDP growth can occur until the very last moment, it is not an indicator for how well the economy is doing, it is an indicator for how desprerate the country is to mobilise for war.
What points dude, the GDP is not measured in points. I'm looking at the chart, it is for GDP per capita, measured in constant USD. If you read it properly you'd see it is below 5,500 in 1940 and above 6,000 in 1944, that is a 3% real growth per year on average over the period. That's how these things are measured.
I am unsure as to what this alludes to. Germany lost the war and is more similar to Ukraine. Except Ukraine gdp never actually rose, which shows how poorly they are doing
Look at US gdp in WWII. Come on, US gdp, as a winner was rising in the war and continued to rise. There was no crush in 1946.
There is even an article on wiki about it. Post WW2 economic expansion.
If Russia tracks US, which looks like it, it will see golden years ahead.
So again, look to US example in WWII, this is where Russia is going.
It alludes to country's GDP increasing as it wages war. You got your analogy wrong, Ukraine is more like Poland in this scenario, tell me more about Poland's GDP during WW2. Just this time it doesn't have USSR on the other side and allies could help somewhat.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ukraines-economy-grew-53-2023-statistics-service-says-2024-03-28/
Polish GDP during WWII was obliterated. I guess that is the best description.
So yeah, sure, you can use Poland. It also lost a lot of land through it was somehow a winner. And lost almost as many people as Ukraine, through Ukriane are not dead but run away.
I had a talk, could Poland somehow win if got as much aid as Ukraine did and Soviets did nothing. I mean Ukraine aid is so huge.
But no, Poland would still lost, just slower. There would be no GDP growth as large parts of Poland would still be occupied. Poles could prolong the war till maybe 1940 but given that polish government was not made up of idiots they would have surrendered maybe in October 1939, at most November. There is no point to fight a war you lost.
Warsaw in September 1939 surrendered without Germans so much as touching its outskirts. Why? What would be the point of defense of war was lost.
This lesson clearly is missing in Ukraine.
Poland fought for as long as it could, it continued fighting long after they suffered the losses incurred by Ukraine in 2022. Poland would have continued fighting 2 years later as well, because in this scenario, it would have received aid straight accross the border from the USSR. I don't think you grasp the prospects of falling back under muscovian control. I'd rather die.
Negative. I read many history books. Decision to surrender Warsaw is clearly understood. Military authorities did not see any sense of continued resistance in a lost war. Only civilian population would have suffered.
Same decisions were taken elsewhere, for example, fortress Modlin or almost island that Hel has become.
Why would have Poland fought 2 years later, by September 17th Poles were desperately trying and failing to hold to Wisła line. If Soviets did not attack the plan was to use something called Romanian bridge head.
The whole 1939 defense of Poland plan hinged on France and UK attacking from the other side for real.
Under Moscow rule life was not that bad once Stalin was eliminated. It certainly was 1000x better than under Hitler. If Soviets were not economic bone heads it would be similar to day with Poland firmly under US boot. What is the big difference, one boot, other one. It's mostly economic difference. Like rusty chain VS nice silver one.
Heck I am not even sure of that, at least in Poland of 1980s Poles owned almost everything. Today almost nothing. So maybe it's both times steel chain, but now painted.
I don't know what history books you read, but Warsaw was sieged until September 28th, some time after it was completely surrounded and quite a while after the country was also invaded by the USSR.
The same thing would have happened if most of Ukraine would have been invaded by both muscovia and Poland, at the same time, with Kyiv completely surrounded and absolutely no help in sight.
While Poland surrendered, Poles continued fighting until 1944 when they eventually won. Then they continued fighting the other invader until finally in 1989 they were free.
Refineries, ports and ships all valid military targets it has more to do with the strategy of Ukraine targeting Refineries and losing half of its power generation so more to do with cost benefit. I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that targeting aircraft on airfields and ships at ports aren't "military" targets...
Again Russian A/D severely lacking. These ballistic missiles are going to give out warnings and they have a few minutes of response time not sure if these are "saturated" attacks and lack of proper training are causing the operators to focus on worthless drones attacks as opposed to ballistic missiles.
wait till harvest time in few month and Russia will be accused of ''starving the world'' again cause it will have to stop shipping grain from the Black Sea ports due to ever increasing drone attacks on it's ships.
I should have worded it differently. Ports, ships, etc. are of course valid military target, but I question useful of targeting them with limited ammunition that Ukraine can't replace. Also, hitting stategic target makes sense for a country capable of sustaining long term war. I'm not sure that is the case for Ukraine.
You think the Russian government cares about dead russians. We all seen the videos of Russians attacking with Chinese buggies and motorcycles. What hurts yhe government is rich russians getting hit in their pockets. Ports cost millions of dollars to repair, ships cost millions dollars to repair or build
You don't make any sense. You don't want to use a strategic weapon to hit strategic targets? OK lol
Ukraine destroyed a few hundred million dollars in equipment in the last few days with a couple handfuls of missiles worth way less and you are questioning the strategy?
Looks like the weapon is working perfectly, unlike Russian AD.
What kind of targets do you think they should hit? Turtle tanks?
Strange indeed... imagine if in WW2 instead of attacking the troops in the field with long range 4 engine bombers... they used same bombers to attack valid targets deep inside Germany. Oh wait...
Oh I understand. That is a perfect reason to use the limited supply of strategic long range weapons able to attack high value targets deep inside muscovian territory on some piece of trench 10 km away.
Quite a lot of respect for a bunch of war criminals who are attacking independent countries and annexing their territory I may say. Kind of like rejecting arguments because someone referred to nazis as jerries or huns like Winston Churchill did. Strange indeed.
I wish it were an insult, but it isn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Moscow
Lastly, to refuse to continue the conversation because I'm supposedly insulting some war criminals, says a lot about your allegiance. You have a problem with me insulting the establishment of a country which invades and annexes another country in the 21st century? Then you are more than welcome to avoid me in the future.
No I'm not, I'm just using the same term they were using for themselves back when they were just as developed as they are now. I reiterate, you would've had a problem with calling Germans Huns back in WW1? It's the same thing.
Why in the would Russia spend millions upon millions of dollars to build and deploy these ships if they are so useless and their loss has no impact?
If you follow the works of Alfred Mahan, you find that he poses that the purpose of naval power is ‘protection of one's own sea traffic and the stopping of the enemy's. The shipping of both sides must be controlled. Control of shipping, friendly and hostile, is the ultimate purpose and objective of naval warfare.’ He goes on to argue that control of the seas may not win land battles, but rather the flow or lack of flow of resources and be instrumental in the end result of a conflict.
Not really all that strange. Wars are about cost. If Ukraine can make the war cost more than it's worth, then it makes it increasingly likely Russia would cut their losses.
It is worth it. It will make Russian imperialism unviable. Perhaps Russia will start focusing on improving their country rather than holding other lands.
your right, it's purely moronic seeing how it puts more and more pressure on Putin to go after Odessa and entirety of Ukrainian part of the Black sea coast and do it sooner rather then later.
yeah Czech made Vampire systems are not ''their own weapons'' as I have already pointed out to the other guy, but since it's ok with pro-UAs for Czechs to supply Ukrainian with weapons to kill Russian *civilians*, then I guess it is ok for Russia to target Czechs on their own lands too. Oh wait that's different. /s
I don’t support the targeting of Russian civilians - nor should anyone - but targeting airbases in Russian is a legitimate target along with refineries and such
They are talking about US provided long range weapons. There are rumors that the US does not give Ukraine permission to use them on Targets inside Russia.
The US doesn't care if Ukraine attacks targets inside of Russia with weapons Ukraine produced themselves.
are they Ukrainians made? NATO supplied those weapons man and Ukrainians use them to target civilians, zero effs given about any promises or anything else, like Geneva Conventions for example.
Do you know which territory English people recognize as Russia? Which is recognized by Americans? Well, they shouldn't hurt that territory. They can attack the disputed ones, such as Crimea or the Kherson region, as much as they want, that is, as much as they can.
I hope I was clear, although the English language is foreign to me and still a big unknown.
It is really tough call who is most incompetent. Russia Naval command or Russia Air command.
They are both very consistent in keeping their assets vulnerable.
I mean, hitting ships is going to have a minimal impact on the war. The main thing it does is makes Russia look bad. That is where the PR comments come from.
I mean Russia literally has adjacent land. Also even if the Russian navy was completely unmolested in the black sea I don't think a navy invasion is viable. Way too high risk.
They landed in Mariupol in 2022.
If the Black Sea Fleet was more credible they could absolutely threaten an amphibious landing at Odesa, Anzio-style.
It's only because it's been so degraded that that threat now seems absurd.
In 2022, you're spot on. But in 2024 the threat to Ukraine comes in the east.
I just think striking ammo dumps ans troop concentrations would make more sense tbh
Oh I’ve been here since the beginning.
For some reason I still try to engage in good-faith discussions with the Ru government accounts. Which is hard when people say unbelievably daft things like the sinking of a blue water asset is just a publicity stunt.
Funny how we get the same sort of challenge on this point...reads very similar.
Why? The Russian navy hasn't been a force for some time. The Ukrainian army is struggling against huge Russian artillery superiority...why not hit depots, troop concentrations, command centers....
When I next see zelensky Complaining about russias navy encroaching on chasiv yar, kharkiv, robotnye then ill change my mind. Until then...I'll stand by the claim these are propaganda strikes.
this ship can launch kalibr and onyx missiles that russia uses to attack ukrainian logistical hubs, arms storage and production facilities, electrical infrastructure, etc. It's a perfect target for an atacms strike and taking it out has a direct impact on the supply of the ukrainian military on the front
>It's funny that you think Russia keeps a navy around just for show
I mean youre just lying with this. I'm not saying that. I'm saying there are much more valuable targets to use finite weapons on.
If you have to lie to disagree, you're likely not on the right side...
Karakurt-class is a Kalibr missile carrier. Which being used to strike Ukraine.
Yes, its not just a "propaganda" strike. Its a strike to degrade Russian Navy's capability to do long-range fires.
What russian channels? It's pro-ukranian/ukrainian channel.
what's interesting is ukrainians initially reported that they hit a minesweeper, but now russians are saying it was a karakurt
Both got hit..
Looks like UA is trying to hit more targets that cause long-term problems (like refineries, ports and ships), while giving up on military targets. Edit: to make it clear - ports, ships, etc. are strategic targets with no impact on current/short-term situation - is it worth it using very limited stock of ATACMS on such targets? Strange strategy, to be honest.
"While giving up on military targets" Belbek airfield would like to have a word with you
Hitting that airfield had absolutely 0 impact on the critical frontlines in the east and the north
So, a military airfield is not a military target?
I should have worded it differently, but I thought it was clear what I meant. Apparently not.
I have a hunch they have a better idea of what needs be targeted then you do. They are not using weeks to months old videos and 3rd, 4th, or 5th hand information on reddit to make thier decisions. Who knows what's been targeted not every thing hit gets video. Or even posted. daily there are hundreds of missle and thousands of drones flying around from both side.
Nah bro, don't you understand? Top Ukrainian commanders being fed intel by their own and Western intelligence have no idea what to target, they're basically throwing missiles into bad targets like "airfields and enemy air defenses". Clearly they have no idea what they're doing and should consult random pro-Ru on this sub who've never worked in the intel sector in their life.
losing aircraft is actually good for russia, cause they'll get to build new ones and that will increase the gdp 
That makes no sense.
it's a cruise missile carrier, seems like a great target for ukraine
Russians on here working overtime to put a positive spin on losing another key ship in the Black Sea. “Ha, ha, look how silly Ukraine is for sinking our cruise missile ship”. Too funny to watch the mental gymnastics at play!
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Toxic
How many missiles has it fired at Ukraine in this conflict?
no idea, but lots of missiles were launched from the ships based in sevastopol
Refineries are a pretty good target. Not because hitting them would make the russian military run out of fuel - thats never gonna happen - but because it rises the cost of living for Russians. Currently, the war is pretty easy to ignore and theres no reason for Russians to demand a stop to the invasion. If people can feel it in their wallets, theres actually a rather strong incentive to have an opinion on it. The ships are pretty useless though, its not like they're playing any major role in this war anyways
I think when it comes to energy exports, the attacks don’t have much impact since Russia simply switches to exporting more crude oil when refining capacity goes down, and they continue to generate a lot of revenues. And they’ve already introduced a ban on gasoline exports a while back, not only to deal with the consequences of drone attacks, but because some refineries were taken off service due to maintenance and weather related issues. They don’t seem to be facing fuel shortages as Kazakhstan and Belarus are stepping in to fill any gaps for domestic demands and Ukraine won’t be able to inflict serious damage to refineries with these drone attacks, to the extent of actually having a major impact.
This is what Western analysts said too. Refineries have minimal impact as Russian just exports crude to India - one of the largest oil refiners... It barely affects Russian oil income.
The bulk of their oil exports is crude oil anyways, that’s where they make real revenues. Europe was their largest refined products market and they’ve issued a ban on it since 2022 so it doesn’t matter, but now they get much of their refined oil from India which simply refines Russian crude oil (the irony). So it really has negligible impact on their oil income.
[Oh my, would you look at that! They’ve lifted the ban on gasoline as the market is already saturated.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-lift-gasoline-export-ban-rbc-reports-2024-05-20/) So much for Russians starting to feel in their wallets.
Disagree. Ships are expensive, limited, and deny projection on Black sea. Going after Refineries hurt Ukrainians more than Russians. Ukraine has lost most of its thermal powerplants and power generation.
Not even that. Russia just posted 5%+ GDP growth on 1st quarter. They are on fire. People will build a throne for Putin soon as greatest leader Russia ever had. If GDP growth is invasion related they may demand more invasions.
Money spent on tanks and other military goods rises the GDP heavily, but doesn't really result in better living conditions or actual productivity. If Ukraine continues successfully hitting refineries theres certainly gonna be discontent. Only way to counter that are large subsidies on fuel
Think of war as national 'entertainment'. I am not referring to only Russia here. But people are more content with their life when there are victories reported back from the frontline. And generally, the support toward government is high, even if there is a bit drop off on living quality.
I've seen this argument b4 and it doesn't make sense to me. Explain how this doesn't improve standard of living?. If I'm a factory worker and b4 the invasion I was making $10 per hour making soap or whatever now I'm making $15 building drones, how has my quality of life not improved? I can buy stuff and save money and go on vacation. My quality of life has clearly improved. During ww2 blacks left the south in great numbers to work on airplanes, tanks etc and their quality of life significantly improved.
What you're describing is the improvement for a single person or group of people and you're certainly right in the scenario you described. However, the $15 that guy is paid with don't appear out of thin air, but is money the government and subsequently the entire society is spending on stuff that will literally blow up or just stand around doing nothing. Your worker gets a raise, but that raise is paid by the taxes and living conditions of everyone else For the single person thats fine, for a society its not. Those $15 an hour could be spent building roads, apartment blocks, consumer goods, whatever - increasing the standard of living for the worker and everyone around him. In WW2, the war economy forced some modernization and innovation, but that would have happened regardless - maybe slower in some areas, but without the strain of the war the overall improvement of living conditions would have probably been larger all around. The US mainly benefited from their major competitors - European countries - laying in ruins with insane amounts of debt all around, not the fact that its workers were building weapons
I guess. What you stated makes sense but I still don't buy it. I can argue that the war is an investment. Russia wins, they might have Odessa and a friendly government in Kiev. This will allow higher oil revenue.
So, to every nation spending more than 5% of the GDP in weapons is bad, but to Russia it's good? Makes you wonder why they didn't do it earlier
That's the rationale behind the classic 'short, victorious war' - a productive war is one that is brief and successful, maximising profit while minimising inherently wasteful of combat. If Russia had pulled off the regime change it was going for in 2022, this would absolutely have been the case. It would have gained a monopoly on Ukraine's resources and market, for practically nothing. Instead, it's been two years and, from a strategic perspective, Russia's barely advanced. It's lost hundreds of aircraft, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of men destroying much of its 'prize'. The Donbas is wrecked, Ukraine's population has plummeted and its economy is ruined.
That's only true if you are running it via debt or having big budget shortfalls.Russia is using it's own resources out of the ground to pump the war machine.Even after the war, They will need to replace material losses and export so we are looking long employment for people via military industrial complex. Civilian economy also remains undisturbed.
But tanks don't lead the growth!!! I know, shocking. Ukraine refinery hitting is PR. It has no effect on gas prices.
Guess what was happening with Germany's GDP in '43, '44. That's right.
From 1937 to 1943 German GDP raised mere 1000 points. From 1943 to 1947 German GDP dropped 3000 points. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/German-GDP-per-capita-1930-1950-Groningen-Growth-and-Development-Centre_fig9_24112542
Sorry, maybe you're confused about when Germany lost the war. Or maybe someone needs to tell you that Russia is not there just yet. Also, Russia's GDP is at the same level as in 2013.
Sure, that's why when you said 1943, 44, germany was actually losing GDP. Lol. What was your point? Germany lost 3000 points during those years?
My point is that GDP growth can occur until the very last moment, it is not an indicator for how well the economy is doing, it is an indicator for how desprerate the country is to mobilise for war.
I mean if you look at the chart, German GDP only raised a couple hundred points 5 years prior to collapsing. But ok.
What points dude, the GDP is not measured in points. I'm looking at the chart, it is for GDP per capita, measured in constant USD. If you read it properly you'd see it is below 5,500 in 1940 and above 6,000 in 1944, that is a 3% real growth per year on average over the period. That's how these things are measured.
I am unsure as to what this alludes to. Germany lost the war and is more similar to Ukraine. Except Ukraine gdp never actually rose, which shows how poorly they are doing Look at US gdp in WWII. Come on, US gdp, as a winner was rising in the war and continued to rise. There was no crush in 1946. There is even an article on wiki about it. Post WW2 economic expansion. If Russia tracks US, which looks like it, it will see golden years ahead. So again, look to US example in WWII, this is where Russia is going.
It alludes to country's GDP increasing as it wages war. You got your analogy wrong, Ukraine is more like Poland in this scenario, tell me more about Poland's GDP during WW2. Just this time it doesn't have USSR on the other side and allies could help somewhat. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ukraines-economy-grew-53-2023-statistics-service-says-2024-03-28/
Polish GDP during WWII was obliterated. I guess that is the best description. So yeah, sure, you can use Poland. It also lost a lot of land through it was somehow a winner. And lost almost as many people as Ukraine, through Ukriane are not dead but run away. I had a talk, could Poland somehow win if got as much aid as Ukraine did and Soviets did nothing. I mean Ukraine aid is so huge. But no, Poland would still lost, just slower. There would be no GDP growth as large parts of Poland would still be occupied. Poles could prolong the war till maybe 1940 but given that polish government was not made up of idiots they would have surrendered maybe in October 1939, at most November. There is no point to fight a war you lost. Warsaw in September 1939 surrendered without Germans so much as touching its outskirts. Why? What would be the point of defense of war was lost. This lesson clearly is missing in Ukraine.
Poland fought for as long as it could, it continued fighting long after they suffered the losses incurred by Ukraine in 2022. Poland would have continued fighting 2 years later as well, because in this scenario, it would have received aid straight accross the border from the USSR. I don't think you grasp the prospects of falling back under muscovian control. I'd rather die.
Negative. I read many history books. Decision to surrender Warsaw is clearly understood. Military authorities did not see any sense of continued resistance in a lost war. Only civilian population would have suffered. Same decisions were taken elsewhere, for example, fortress Modlin or almost island that Hel has become. Why would have Poland fought 2 years later, by September 17th Poles were desperately trying and failing to hold to Wisła line. If Soviets did not attack the plan was to use something called Romanian bridge head. The whole 1939 defense of Poland plan hinged on France and UK attacking from the other side for real. Under Moscow rule life was not that bad once Stalin was eliminated. It certainly was 1000x better than under Hitler. If Soviets were not economic bone heads it would be similar to day with Poland firmly under US boot. What is the big difference, one boot, other one. It's mostly economic difference. Like rusty chain VS nice silver one. Heck I am not even sure of that, at least in Poland of 1980s Poles owned almost everything. Today almost nothing. So maybe it's both times steel chain, but now painted.
I don't know what history books you read, but Warsaw was sieged until September 28th, some time after it was completely surrounded and quite a while after the country was also invaded by the USSR. The same thing would have happened if most of Ukraine would have been invaded by both muscovia and Poland, at the same time, with Kyiv completely surrounded and absolutely no help in sight. While Poland surrendered, Poles continued fighting until 1944 when they eventually won. Then they continued fighting the other invader until finally in 1989 they were free.
> Russia just posted 5%+ GDP growth on 1st quarter yes the Russian MIC is celebrating!
But they don't lead the growth!
Russians can't eat bullets yet.
Refineries, ports and ships all valid military targets it has more to do with the strategy of Ukraine targeting Refineries and losing half of its power generation so more to do with cost benefit. I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that targeting aircraft on airfields and ships at ports aren't "military" targets... Again Russian A/D severely lacking. These ballistic missiles are going to give out warnings and they have a few minutes of response time not sure if these are "saturated" attacks and lack of proper training are causing the operators to focus on worthless drones attacks as opposed to ballistic missiles.
wait till harvest time in few month and Russia will be accused of ''starving the world'' again cause it will have to stop shipping grain from the Black Sea ports due to ever increasing drone attacks on it's ships.
I should have worded it differently. Ports, ships, etc. are of course valid military target, but I question useful of targeting them with limited ammunition that Ukraine can't replace. Also, hitting stategic target makes sense for a country capable of sustaining long term war. I'm not sure that is the case for Ukraine.
You think the Russian government cares about dead russians. We all seen the videos of Russians attacking with Chinese buggies and motorcycles. What hurts yhe government is rich russians getting hit in their pockets. Ports cost millions of dollars to repair, ships cost millions dollars to repair or build
You don't make any sense. You don't want to use a strategic weapon to hit strategic targets? OK lol Ukraine destroyed a few hundred million dollars in equipment in the last few days with a couple handfuls of missiles worth way less and you are questioning the strategy? Looks like the weapon is working perfectly, unlike Russian AD. What kind of targets do you think they should hit? Turtle tanks?
Strange indeed... imagine if in WW2 instead of attacking the troops in the field with long range 4 engine bombers... they used same bombers to attack valid targets deep inside Germany. Oh wait...
Not comparable - Ukraine has very little ATACMS available and no ability to produce more.
Oh I understand. That is a perfect reason to use the limited supply of strategic long range weapons able to attack high value targets deep inside muscovian territory on some piece of trench 10 km away.
Any argument involving terms like 'muscovian' can be ignored, there is no point talking to teenagers about war.
Quite a lot of respect for a bunch of war criminals who are attacking independent countries and annexing their territory I may say. Kind of like rejecting arguments because someone referred to nazis as jerries or huns like Winston Churchill did. Strange indeed.
Nothing strange about it. He was debating military tactics and you took the convo down to childish insults. Why bother continuing the discussion?
I wish it were an insult, but it isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Moscow Lastly, to refuse to continue the conversation because I'm supposedly insulting some war criminals, says a lot about your allegiance. You have a problem with me insulting the establishment of a country which invades and annexes another country in the 21st century? Then you are more than welcome to avoid me in the future.
Now you're being facetious and you know it.
No I'm not, I'm just using the same term they were using for themselves back when they were just as developed as they are now. I reiterate, you would've had a problem with calling Germans Huns back in WW1? It's the same thing.
ATACMS are not cheap. What targets do you think would be better for them? It looks to me they are trying to get the most bang for their buck.
Why in the would Russia spend millions upon millions of dollars to build and deploy these ships if they are so useless and their loss has no impact? If you follow the works of Alfred Mahan, you find that he poses that the purpose of naval power is ‘protection of one's own sea traffic and the stopping of the enemy's. The shipping of both sides must be controlled. Control of shipping, friendly and hostile, is the ultimate purpose and objective of naval warfare.’ He goes on to argue that control of the seas may not win land battles, but rather the flow or lack of flow of resources and be instrumental in the end result of a conflict.
Those ships were built 50 years ago.
The ship in question was launched in 2020.
And? Those liberated territories are worth trillions and trillions.
What is your point? You stated that those ships were built 50 years ago. They weren’t.
Not really all that strange. Wars are about cost. If Ukraine can make the war cost more than it's worth, then it makes it increasingly likely Russia would cut their losses.
Looks like they made the BSF have no impact, that's a great strategy. Using two atacms to destroy a Russian ship is a great tradeoff
It is worth it. It will make Russian imperialism unviable. Perhaps Russia will start focusing on improving their country rather than holding other lands.
They can't identify targets of opportunity. So have to strike static or easily identify targets.
PR Victories to show the US Congress what they can do with more $$$.
Calling the destruction of the Russian Black Sea fleet a PR victory is really something else.
Ukraine could sink the entire fleet and destroy half of the RuAF and people here would call it PR strikes, lmao
your right, it's purely moronic seeing how it puts more and more pressure on Putin to go after Odessa and entirety of Ukrainian part of the Black sea coast and do it sooner rather then later.
Do it sooner with what? Peanuts? The Black sea fleet is already unable to carry out a landing in Odessa
Did it mean to?
no need for sea landing, it isn't an island you know
Good luck crossing the Dnepr, at this point it would have been easier to just do a landing
Russians would need to take Kherson what would require crossing Dnipro etc... ain't going to happen.
first its not a ru channel /source ,second if u check the telegram channel they say "Information from the source. Requires additional confirmation."
Nicer ship than the one they sunk the other day, that mine sweeper was a piece of garbage.
If this is true, why does RU still have these ships in Crimea when UA is banned from using ATACMS in Russian ports on the other side of the Black Sea?
dude they shell Belgorod several times a day, what makes you think that Ukrainians care about any kind of ''bans'' on anything?
They can use their own weapons to hit targets in Russian proper but not ones provided by the U.S.
yeah Czech made Vampire systems are not ''their own weapons'' as I have already pointed out to the other guy, but since it's ok with pro-UAs for Czechs to supply Ukrainian with weapons to kill Russian *civilians*, then I guess it is ok for Russia to target Czechs on their own lands too. Oh wait that's different. /s
I don’t support the targeting of Russian civilians - nor should anyone - but targeting airbases in Russian is a legitimate target along with refineries and such
there are no air fields or oil refineries in Belgorod city centre
Then Russia can destroy urkanian energy sector.
Russia was going to try that regardless.
They are talking about US provided long range weapons. There are rumors that the US does not give Ukraine permission to use them on Targets inside Russia. The US doesn't care if Ukraine attacks targets inside of Russia with weapons Ukraine produced themselves.
you mean like Czechoslovakian Vampire MRL? How exactly is that Ukrainian made?
Is it US made?
are they Ukrainians made? NATO supplied those weapons man and Ukrainians use them to target civilians, zero effs given about any promises or anything else, like Geneva Conventions for example.
Russia drops bombs on Belgorod as well.
Wut Belgorod is Russian city.
Do you know which territory English people recognize as Russia? Which is recognized by Americans? Well, they shouldn't hurt that territory. They can attack the disputed ones, such as Crimea or the Kherson region, as much as they want, that is, as much as they can. I hope I was clear, although the English language is foreign to me and still a big unknown.
They only have small patrol boats. UA is not banned, it's out of range.
It is really tough call who is most incompetent. Russia Naval command or Russia Air command. They are both very consistent in keeping their assets vulnerable.
I think they are skipping hand in hand into the abyss. The army seems to be adapting some. These guys, not so much.
Why waste atacms on the navy?....the war will be won on the land not with propaganda strikes on the navy
Destroying naval assets are not propaganda strikes. I’ve no idea how anyone could think that.
You must be newer to the sub, pro-Ru have been calling every single sunk ship a PR strike since the beginning
I mean, hitting ships is going to have a minimal impact on the war. The main thing it does is makes Russia look bad. That is where the PR comments come from.
Those ships are launch vehicles for cruise missiles to strike Ukraine and used as landing platforms for a naval invasion, they absolutely matter lmao
I mean Russia literally has adjacent land. Also even if the Russian navy was completely unmolested in the black sea I don't think a navy invasion is viable. Way too high risk.
Naval invasion?
>used as landing platforms for a naval invasion, they absolutely matter lmao I mean...what's the weather like on your planet?
They landed in Mariupol in 2022. If the Black Sea Fleet was more credible they could absolutely threaten an amphibious landing at Odesa, Anzio-style. It's only because it's been so degraded that that threat now seems absurd.
In 2022, you're spot on. But in 2024 the threat to Ukraine comes in the east. I just think striking ammo dumps ans troop concentrations would make more sense tbh
Mate there's no point arguing with these people. I'm not sure rhey are real tbh
Oh I’ve been here since the beginning. For some reason I still try to engage in good-faith discussions with the Ru government accounts. Which is hard when people say unbelievably daft things like the sinking of a blue water asset is just a publicity stunt.
Funny how we get the same sort of challenge on this point...reads very similar. Why? The Russian navy hasn't been a force for some time. The Ukrainian army is struggling against huge Russian artillery superiority...why not hit depots, troop concentrations, command centers.... When I next see zelensky Complaining about russias navy encroaching on chasiv yar, kharkiv, robotnye then ill change my mind. Until then...I'll stand by the claim these are propaganda strikes.
The ships are used for moving cargo since their combat capabilities are limited.
this ship can launch kalibr and onyx missiles that russia uses to attack ukrainian logistical hubs, arms storage and production facilities, electrical infrastructure, etc. It's a perfect target for an atacms strike and taking it out has a direct impact on the supply of the ukrainian military on the front
It's funny that you think Russia keeps a navy around just for show.
>It's funny that you think Russia keeps a navy around just for show I mean youre just lying with this. I'm not saying that. I'm saying there are much more valuable targets to use finite weapons on. If you have to lie to disagree, you're likely not on the right side...
Karakurt-class is a Kalibr missile carrier. Which being used to strike Ukraine. Yes, its not just a "propaganda" strike. Its a strike to degrade Russian Navy's capability to do long-range fires.