Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Deus Mortis]

There is a much longer discussion about the weirdness of this announcement. First, preface this with Russian announcing they will modernize 800 T-62s does not necessarily mean they will modernize 800 T-62s over 3 years. They might not do any, it might take 10 years, they might repair them but not modernize them...

If we just take this at face value though, it doesn't make any sense. Russia allegedly has 8000 T-72s and 3000 T-80s in "Active reserve". Even at the highest possible estimate of casualties, they should still have thousands of those left. Even if those tanks are completely unfit for service, it should be easier to return those to service then 1960s tanks in even worse condition. T-62s require more people to operate (4 instead of 3), have no parts supply chain, and have a much weaker gun, which might be extremely relevant if the US starts handing Abrams to Ukraine, which seems increasingly likely. They are just worse tanks that cost more and take more people. And they should have more T-72s then T-62s anyway.

... except they clearly don't have those T-72s. What happened to them isn't clear, but Russia has already been slowly feeding in T-62s, and it seems most of the tanks available to new units are those. There are plenty of theories of what happened to them, but the most likely theory is that Russia never made as many as it claimed, due to factory miscounts. Still, they at least still have some. One theory is that Russia is nearly completely out of the 125mm ammo that is shared by the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks. Expenditures have been high, but the real kicker was the number of ammo dumps they lost to Ukrainian Artillery. They still would have stockpiles of 115mm ammo, so despite the fact it is worse, they actually have it, so they need a tank that will shoot it.

Nice to see you back. Your posts are always insightful with your first hand knowledge of military procedures. I imagine you have been shaking your head at Russian tactics.

[Corvus]

And more scrapping of the barrel - the separatist forces are now being given WW2 era artillery to use, the D1 M1943 howitzer.

And an FSB source has put russia's irrecoverable loses (dead, missing, maimed) at 90 thousand.

[Kaleredar]

And an FSB source has put russia's irrecoverable loses (dead, missing, maimed) at 90 thousand.

Which means they've incurred more than quadrupled the US' casualties in Afghanistan accrued over 20 years (~20,000) in less than a year.

Is this still part of their "holding back" plan?

[Iphie]

And more scrapping of the barrel - the separatist forces are now being given WW2 era artillery to use, the D1 M1943 howitzer.

And an FSB source has put russia's irrecoverable loses (dead, missing, maimed) at 90 thousand.

Reminder: Ukraine claims to have eliminated "only" 60-65k of those. That would leave 25-30k+ unaccounted for. Obviously the russians would have a much better overview of those who deserted.

But this is not a great look, no and these don't include the lightly wounded, right? Just the dead, those that can't fight any longer due to being disabled, and the deserters.

[Corvus]

This is what the shotgun rocket does to lightly armoured vehicles - turns them into swiss cheese.

[Deus Mortis]

While it does not really mean anything. The UN General Assembly vote condemning Russia’s “attempted illegal annexation” of four Ukrainian regions and demand that Moscow immediately reverse its actions.

[Iphie]

While it does not really mean anything. The UN General Assembly vote condemning Russia’s “attempted illegal annexation” of four Ukrainian regions and demand that Moscow immediately reverse its actions.

Well, it's important to see who supports russia and who doesn't. For example Eritrea was previously supportive but it would appear they do not really like the annexation. Another one is Iran, they appear to have not shown up for the vote. China, India and so on, are abstaining, which they usually do, but they've been quite vocal recently about not recognising this.

[MCMLXXXII]

Usual suspects voting against, that's a bit like agreeing with PC2 here on a poll.
Abstention mostly former Soviet states and African nations on Russian import.

[Crispin]

I do quite like how Putin will go down in history as the retarded wannabe Tsar.

[Huehuecoyotl]

How evil do you have to be that even Afghanistan is voting against you in the UN? The literal Taliban are looking at what you're doing and saying "nope, that's a bit much".

[Kaleredar]

How evil do you have to be that even Afghanistan is voting against you in the UN? The literal Taliban are looking at what you're doing and saying "nope, that's a bit much".

Russia doesn't exactly have a stellar record in Afghanistan.

[zealo]

How evil do you have to be that even Afghanistan is voting against you in the UN? The literal Taliban are looking at what you're doing and saying "nope, that's a bit much".

As far as I'm aware, the Afghanistan representation in the UN at present is parts of the old government being in exile, and not the Taliban, although I'm sure the Taliban won't shed any tears for Russian setbacks with the history they have from the 1980s and the USSR.

[Iphie]

So, as far as Macron is concerned russia can nuke Ukraine?
Cause they won't retaliate.

Maybe it's just me but even if that's his decision, shouldn't it be kept ambiguous?

[Specialka]

So, as far as Macron is concerned russia can nuke Ukraine?
Cause they won't retaliate.

Maybe it's just me but even if that's his decision, shouldn't it be kept ambiguous?

That is not what is being said.

[Iphie]

That is not what is being said.

My point is, my dear, that Macron excludes a nuclear response from France. That is his right. But I question the wisdom of explicitly excluding that option in the open.

My statement "so, as far as Macron is concerned putin can nuke Ukraine", means: I don't think putin will have many qualms about using nukes if he knows he will not be on the receiving end of nukes.

Edit: to be sure, I'm glad that the first response wouldn't be nukes, but I'm just a bit sceptical about announcing that.

[Corvus]

As far as I'm aware, the Afghanistan representation in the UN at present is parts of the old government being in exile, and not the Taliban, although I'm sure the Taliban won't shed any tears for Russian setbacks with the history they have from the 1980s and the USSR.

Myanmar is the same I believe.

Serbia voting yes was a surprise. They were never going to vote no due to Kosovo but I expected them to abstain.

[Poopymonster]

Which means they've incurred more than quadrupled the US' casualties in Afghanistan accrued over 20 years (~20,000) in less than a year.

Is this still part of their "holding back" plan?

See, Rasputin is hiding with Glorious Leader in Moscow. Once loses cross 100000, Rasputin will animate bodies, and then we will crush the Nazis!

[Corvus]

Which means they've incurred more than quadrupled the US' casualties in Afghanistan accrued over 20 years (~20,000) in less than a year.

Is this still part of their "holding back" plan?

It also means they have surpassed the total number of dead the US had in Vietnam over 20 years in just 7 months.

[enigma77]

It also means they have surpassed the total number of dead the US had in Vietnam over 20 years in just 7 months.

It's really rather impressive in a way.

[Iphie]

Which means they've incurred more than quadrupled the US' casualties in Afghanistan accrued over 20 years (~20,000) in less than a year.

Is this still part of their "holding back" plan?

They're still ahead of the casualty rate of the Winter War : about 160000 dead in three months.