I wonder if Zelensky will now ignore any US restraints of use of US weaponry.
[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: Eight
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't make sense to yet but it may be prudent to reserve a portion of it to do so next year, in order to have a bargaining chip.
I'm more curious if Biden will lift some or all of those restraints in the near future.
I'm more curious if Biden will lift some or all of those restraints in the near future.
Strong Reaction
Prince
Gee, all that for the hopes of a Pyrrhic victory. That's pathetic. Guess a lot of it, terms, depends on how far Trump wants to plunge the dagger in Zelensky's back. Since, he is so erratic you never really know what kind of "deal" he'll push for. He is the cut and run kinda guy though i.e. threw the Kurds under the bus, negotiated with the Taliban with no Afghan govt. representation, released 5000 terrorist agreed to flee Afghanistan for essentially nothing in return. He could try to weasel some concession from Putin. Since he is that kinda of opportunist.
More help in feeding the flames of discord in the US.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,241
When ever have the ukranians practiced any restraint? The weaponry they want to use but can't, they can't because they do not possess the means to operate it. If you recall the intercepted call between the german generals, on the Taurus missiles, they stated that the targeting would have to be done by german staff because the Ukranians couldn't do it. The Taurus wasn't sent to Ukraine. But the same is also true of the british and french missiles, and the american long-range rocket artillery and missiles. The ukranians might press the fire button but they can't do the targeting, and without targeting those weapons are entirely useless. That too was part of the leaked conversation. You don't believe me? Go back to the news about it and read the whole thing.
Ukraine does not have the technical capability to use those long-range weapons. What the ukranians were demanding is direct involvement of those other countries in the war, which would start a wider war. And result in NATO getting outright crushed militarily in Europe. Not going to happen because the military are not suicidal. And I say were demanding because by know they all know it's not happening, their reasons to still talk of that now are other*.
This isn't admitted in the propaganda you are served daily. Won't ever be admitted. But it's the real reason why things stopped escalating. The fact that those weapons are unusable by the ukranians is also never menctioned in those narratives about "allowing Ukraine to use long range weapons". It's fake news. You can verify it's fake news by comparing the premise with the facts leaked in the conversation between the german generals.
And after so many fake news about this war were served to you, from the "ghost of kiev" to every wonder weapon that is missing in combat, through a 2023 to-be-victorious conter-offensive that was a crusing defeat and promptly memory-holed, to the glorious invasion of Kursk that is a killing field for ukranian cannon fodder, and finally to a country with a million military casualties and running our of soldiers claiming it only lost 50 thousand... don't you think you ought to be a little more suspicions about whatever narrative is being deployed now? Just saying.
*The "won't let them use the weapons" narrative is being deployed as part of the blame games for the defeat. Same as Macron a few months ago pretending he wanted to send a french brigade to Ukraine but those other weakling governments wouldn't let him, oh dear...
Last edited:
You know there are other countries than France and UK using SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles ?
Do you think the French targeted the UK ship sunk by Argentina with an Exocet at the time ?
And SCALP were used on Sevastopol for example. If the targeting was made by French operators, then it is "direct involvement" already.
Do you think the French targeted the UK ship sunk by Argentina with an Exocet at the time ?
And SCALP were used on Sevastopol for example. If the targeting was made by French operators, then it is "direct involvement" already.
Ho, also, the biggest part of the discussion was about how to let the Ukrainians use the missiles, training them to use the software or not. Which means it's possible to have them use it independently, unlike what Scholtz was saying the week before.
Reminder for those who don't read content, just titles or media "garbage" or blindly trust others that refers to content without actually posting it.
----------
For example, yesterday a journalist, who is very close to the Chancellor, called me. She heard somewhere in Munich that the Taurus missiles would not work. I asked her who told her that. She replied that someone in a military uniform did. Of course, this is a low-level source of information, but the journalist clung to these words and now wants to make it into a piece of news with a headline like: "Now we know why the Chancellor refuses to send Taurus missiles – they won't work." All this is nonsense. Such topics are only available to a limited circle of people. However, we see what kind of garbage is spreading in the meantime.
[...]
If the Chancellor decides now that we should deliver missiles, they will be transferred from the Bundeswehr. Fine, but they will only be ready for use in eight months. Secondly, we cannot shorten the time. Because if we do, there might be an error in its use, the missile might hit a kindergarten, and there will be civilian casualties again.
[...]
- And, how should the interaction between the company and Ukraine be maintained? Is there already some form of integration established?
- I don't think so. Because the manufacturer, TSG, stated that, they can solve this problem within six months, whether it's a Sukhoi aircraft or an F-16
[... ]
the question of training may concern us. I've already mentioned that we cooperate with the missile manufacturer. They handle the maintenance training, and we handle the tactical application training. This takes about three to four months. This part of the training can take place in Germany. When delivering the initial missiles, we need to make quick decisions regarding the mounts and training.
[...]
I would like to focus on the question of training. We have already looked into this, and if we deal with personnel who already have relevant training and will undergo training concurrently, it would only take approximately three weeks for them to become familiar with the equipment and then proceed directly to Air Force training, which would last about four weeks. Thus, it is much less than 12 weeks. However, this is all under the assumption that the personnel meet the necessary qualifications, training can be conducted without the need for translators, and a few other conditions are met.
--------------
The direct involvement you refer to was an option to deliver without training, and guess what conspiracy sites, pro-Russian sources or even western mainstream media decided to point out of the whole conversation ?
--------------
If we are talking about combat deployment, then in that case, de facto, we will be advised to support at least the initial group. Planning for this undertaking has proven to be challenging; it took approximately a year to train our personnel initially, and we are now aiming to reduce this timeframe to just ten weeks. Moreover, there is the added concern of ensuring they are capable of handling off-road driving in an F1 car. One possible option is to provide scheduled technical support; theoretically, this can be done from Büchel provided secure communication with Ukraine is established. If this were available, then further planning could be carried out. This is the main scenario at least - to provide full manufacturer support, support through the user support service, which will solve software problems. Basically, it's the same as we have in Germany.
--------------
The discussion follow that option for some time, you've surely read the quote from it already, after that they go back about Ukrainian training.
--------------
What would a Taurus attack on the bridge look like? From an operational perspective, I can't assess how quickly the Ukrainians will learn to plan such actions and how quickly integration will occur.
[...]
We have to make sure that from the very beginning there is no language that makes us a party to the conflict. I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, but if we tell the minister now that we are going to plan meetings and travel by car from Poland so that no one notices, that's already participation, and we won't do that. If we're talking about the manufacturer, the first thing to ask is whether MBDA can do it. It doesn't matter if our people will then deal with it in Büchel or in Schröbenhausen—it still means involvement. And I don't think we should do that. From the very beginning, we defined this as a key element of the "red line," so we'll participate in the training. Let's say we'll prepare a "roadmap." The training process needs to be divided into parts. The long track will take four months, where we'll thoroughly train them, including practicing scenarios with the bridge. The short track will be two weeks so that they can use the missiles as soon as possible.
Reminder for those who don't read content, just titles or media "garbage" or blindly trust others that refers to content without actually posting it.
----------
For example, yesterday a journalist, who is very close to the Chancellor, called me. She heard somewhere in Munich that the Taurus missiles would not work. I asked her who told her that. She replied that someone in a military uniform did. Of course, this is a low-level source of information, but the journalist clung to these words and now wants to make it into a piece of news with a headline like: "Now we know why the Chancellor refuses to send Taurus missiles – they won't work." All this is nonsense. Such topics are only available to a limited circle of people. However, we see what kind of garbage is spreading in the meantime.
[...]
If the Chancellor decides now that we should deliver missiles, they will be transferred from the Bundeswehr. Fine, but they will only be ready for use in eight months. Secondly, we cannot shorten the time. Because if we do, there might be an error in its use, the missile might hit a kindergarten, and there will be civilian casualties again.
[...]
- And, how should the interaction between the company and Ukraine be maintained? Is there already some form of integration established?
- I don't think so. Because the manufacturer, TSG, stated that, they can solve this problem within six months, whether it's a Sukhoi aircraft or an F-16
[... ]
the question of training may concern us. I've already mentioned that we cooperate with the missile manufacturer. They handle the maintenance training, and we handle the tactical application training. This takes about three to four months. This part of the training can take place in Germany. When delivering the initial missiles, we need to make quick decisions regarding the mounts and training.
[...]
I would like to focus on the question of training. We have already looked into this, and if we deal with personnel who already have relevant training and will undergo training concurrently, it would only take approximately three weeks for them to become familiar with the equipment and then proceed directly to Air Force training, which would last about four weeks. Thus, it is much less than 12 weeks. However, this is all under the assumption that the personnel meet the necessary qualifications, training can be conducted without the need for translators, and a few other conditions are met.
--------------
The direct involvement you refer to was an option to deliver without training, and guess what conspiracy sites, pro-Russian sources or even western mainstream media decided to point out of the whole conversation ?
--------------
If we are talking about combat deployment, then in that case, de facto, we will be advised to support at least the initial group. Planning for this undertaking has proven to be challenging; it took approximately a year to train our personnel initially, and we are now aiming to reduce this timeframe to just ten weeks. Moreover, there is the added concern of ensuring they are capable of handling off-road driving in an F1 car. One possible option is to provide scheduled technical support; theoretically, this can be done from Büchel provided secure communication with Ukraine is established. If this were available, then further planning could be carried out. This is the main scenario at least - to provide full manufacturer support, support through the user support service, which will solve software problems. Basically, it's the same as we have in Germany.
--------------
The discussion follow that option for some time, you've surely read the quote from it already, after that they go back about Ukrainian training.
--------------
What would a Taurus attack on the bridge look like? From an operational perspective, I can't assess how quickly the Ukrainians will learn to plan such actions and how quickly integration will occur.
[...]
We have to make sure that from the very beginning there is no language that makes us a party to the conflict. I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, but if we tell the minister now that we are going to plan meetings and travel by car from Poland so that no one notices, that's already participation, and we won't do that. If we're talking about the manufacturer, the first thing to ask is whether MBDA can do it. It doesn't matter if our people will then deal with it in Büchel or in Schröbenhausen—it still means involvement. And I don't think we should do that. From the very beginning, we defined this as a key element of the "red line," so we'll participate in the training. Let's say we'll prepare a "roadmap." The training process needs to be divided into parts. The long track will take four months, where we'll thoroughly train them, including practicing scenarios with the bridge. The short track will be two weeks so that they can use the missiles as soon as possible.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,241
Ah the exocets... did or did not France eventually give the british what they demanded during he Falklands war? And what about Saddam's? Do you really want to go there? They are not an issue in Ukraine anyway.
So back to the missiles that were the issue, and their similar german ones. You quote the portion of the conversation where they state that the manufacturer (the german manufacturer) would provide personell for "full manufacturer support", which is very much necessary. So the missiles do depend on continued assistance by the originato country. They cannot be operated independently. Even if they could be used independently, the "trained" ukranians would do targeting with... what, exactly? The ukranian sattelite positioning constellation? The ukranian reconnaisance assets?
What the generals were discussing was the use of personell depicted as attached to the manufacturer instead of the german armed forces to pretend that Germany was not directly involved. Who do you think they would be fooling? Hint: not the russians. They also let out an indiscretion about the other countries controlling their weapons there. Wonder who leaked the conversation... they didn't have to mention it, not that it was a secret (NATO's a sieve), but on an insecure line?
Between the serial fiascos of western weapons in Ukraine and the deliberate defect in new conplex systems of being under the control of the manufacturing country, I don't think there will be much of a market for western advanced weapons outdie the west. Or even inside if relations turn sour between countries, as they seem to be going. No one offered the F35 to Ukraine because it literally cannot fly a mission without input from the manufactured in the US. One good consequence of this, that we are seeing now, is that proxy wars are actually becoming harder to to.
I do believe the russian government's warning of retaliation against any counry whose missiles are used againtst strategic targets in Russia is serious. And you have but to look at what is happening between Israel and Iran to see who it would go. That the russians intend to eventually mend relations with NATO countries in Europe and play their traditional role in european politics cannot be confused with an unability to fight, or an unwillingness to respond to any provocations. It's a calculation, there is a point where a fight becomes a better alternative than just trying to shot down all the missiles. And becomes necessary to prompt changes in those hostile countries - aks the germans what impression the Red Army moving on Berlin made on their support for the nazi government.
Game an escalation of the war between France and Russia starting with missile hits. As I said, look at what happened between Israel and Iran. France sends a few missiles into Russia, using ukranian proxies. Russia gets cross enough to retaliate with a salvo on France's weapons industries. France doesn't have any air defense capable of stopping Russia's hypersonic missiles, gets at least a few factories wrecked. What will France do then in reaction? It won't commit national suicide going nuclear, so for the next round of the retaliation game it's limited to attempt to send further missiles into Russia or use its puny air force to bomb a country way out of its reach. The problem for France in either case is that Russia has much better aid defense than France, and a far greater production capacity for missiles. If France wants to play this game, it gets clobbered, and the longer it goes on the worse for France. Without any need for a ground battle and with nuclear arsenals remaining unused and useless. France is in fact quite vulnerable and the french military know it. Therefore the smart move is not to play. That is what has already been decided. All the talk about "long range weapons for ukraine" - it's circus for public consumption.
So back to the missiles that were the issue, and their similar german ones. You quote the portion of the conversation where they state that the manufacturer (the german manufacturer) would provide personell for "full manufacturer support", which is very much necessary. So the missiles do depend on continued assistance by the originato country. They cannot be operated independently. Even if they could be used independently, the "trained" ukranians would do targeting with... what, exactly? The ukranian sattelite positioning constellation? The ukranian reconnaisance assets?
What the generals were discussing was the use of personell depicted as attached to the manufacturer instead of the german armed forces to pretend that Germany was not directly involved. Who do you think they would be fooling? Hint: not the russians. They also let out an indiscretion about the other countries controlling their weapons there. Wonder who leaked the conversation... they didn't have to mention it, not that it was a secret (NATO's a sieve), but on an insecure line?
Between the serial fiascos of western weapons in Ukraine and the deliberate defect in new conplex systems of being under the control of the manufacturing country, I don't think there will be much of a market for western advanced weapons outdie the west. Or even inside if relations turn sour between countries, as they seem to be going. No one offered the F35 to Ukraine because it literally cannot fly a mission without input from the manufactured in the US. One good consequence of this, that we are seeing now, is that proxy wars are actually becoming harder to to.
I do believe the russian government's warning of retaliation against any counry whose missiles are used againtst strategic targets in Russia is serious. And you have but to look at what is happening between Israel and Iran to see who it would go. That the russians intend to eventually mend relations with NATO countries in Europe and play their traditional role in european politics cannot be confused with an unability to fight, or an unwillingness to respond to any provocations. It's a calculation, there is a point where a fight becomes a better alternative than just trying to shot down all the missiles. And becomes necessary to prompt changes in those hostile countries - aks the germans what impression the Red Army moving on Berlin made on their support for the nazi government.
Game an escalation of the war between France and Russia starting with missile hits. As I said, look at what happened between Israel and Iran. France sends a few missiles into Russia, using ukranian proxies. Russia gets cross enough to retaliate with a salvo on France's weapons industries. France doesn't have any air defense capable of stopping Russia's hypersonic missiles, gets at least a few factories wrecked. What will France do then in reaction? It won't commit national suicide going nuclear, so for the next round of the retaliation game it's limited to attempt to send further missiles into Russia or use its puny air force to bomb a country way out of its reach. The problem for France in either case is that Russia has much better aid defense than France, and a far greater production capacity for missiles. If France wants to play this game, it gets clobbered, and the longer it goes on the worse for France. Without any need for a ground battle and with nuclear arsenals remaining unused and useless. France is in fact quite vulnerable and the french military know it. Therefore the smart move is not to play. That is what has already been decided. All the talk about "long range weapons for ukraine" - it's circus for public consumption.
Last edited:
Reminded me of the recent Zelensky claim that they could seize Kursk nuclear plant, but didn't want to. "The Fox and the Grapes".
At least now the purpose of their Kursk adventure becomes clearer.
Last edited:
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,399
I'm surprised this wasn't posted here already:
en.defence-ua.com
Russia brought SU-57 to the Chinese airshow, and people there have been noticing details. The plane looks like something Made in China...to Chinese people.
Chinese Attendees Ridicule russian Su-57 at Zhuhai Airshow and Share First Detailed Close-Up Photos | Defense Express
This is the first time Su-57 is participating in an air show abroad, and it has become clear now why the russians never allowed spectators to go anywhere close to it
en.defence-ua.com
Russia brought SU-57 to the Chinese airshow, and people there have been noticing details. The plane looks like something Made in China...to Chinese people.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,241
India makes its own missiles and puts in orbit its wen sattelites. South Korea has beem moving towards strategic independence - it always recognized its limitation - but I think they will fail - too small. Japan also, and those will succeed. Korea is effectively still a country under foreign military occupation, have you never noticed? So are Germany and Japan.
The others are just playing with toys they can't use and where they wish. Bth, Italy is another defeated WW2 country that remained occupied. They never had a de Gaulle.
You sould perhaps ask if the UK, which gave up entirely on its development of missile technology, can independently use the trident missiles it equipped its submarines with. The UK certaninly can't maintain them, and seems to not even own any particular missile. That's more scandalous than any of the countries in your list.
Moderator Action: This is a news thread, not a history thread. Please stop. leif
Last edited by a moderator:
EnglishEdward
Deity
A problem with using missiles is their guidance.
Unless the target is kind enough to send out a homing signal;
there are I understand only a limited number of mechanisms.
(a) wire guided (only works for short range)
(b) radio - controlled (subject to jamming)
(c) GPS - subject to interference by GPS spoofing and destruction of GPS satellites
(d) inertial - good enough to target cities, but not things that are very much smaller
(e) terrain mapping - which is rather tricky to do without sending out a signal that can result in the missile being itself targeted
Unless the target is kind enough to send out a homing signal;
there are I understand only a limited number of mechanisms.
(a) wire guided (only works for short range)
(b) radio - controlled (subject to jamming)
(c) GPS - subject to interference by GPS spoofing and destruction of GPS satellites
(d) inertial - good enough to target cities, but not things that are very much smaller
(e) terrain mapping - which is rather tricky to do without sending out a signal that can result in the missile being itself targeted
Sorry, just trying to parse this analogy. Are you trying to compare modern Russia in its capacity as illegal invader of Ukraine, to the historical (Russian) Red Army and its role in defeating the Third Reich?
Moderator Action: Back to news please.
Well, I suppose the years to come will be interesting times to live in...
www.politico.eu
Musk joined Trump’s war call with Zelenskyy
The tech tycoon looks set to wield foreign policy influence in the new U.S. administration.
www.politico.eu
Trump wants to break apart Russia/China forming alliance.
Understandable goal, though at this point nothing short of disbanding NATO would make Russia reconsider the current course.
Understandable goal, though at this point nothing short of disbanding NATO would make Russia reconsider the current course.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
