Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread - Episode III - Revenge of the Ruski (now unlocked with new skins and gameplay modes!!!)

[Fatniggo1488]

What the fuck are you smoking? The M113 was an amphibious aluminum skinned APC; this was supplanted by the Bradley which uses laminate armor. Please stop injecting bathtub heroin long enough to read.

Speaking of failure to read, your article talks about bradleys vs. IEDs. They aren't tanks, and they weren't designed to take 155mm. And completely inapplicable surely the brave men of Russia's Occupation Forces won't result to such cowardly sand-nigger tactics as IEDs.

>they weren't designed to take 155mm
They weren't designed to take 30mm either, which means it's easily killable by even most of the APCs currently in the field.

Also, on the topic of the Bradley replacing the M113

Pandemic lengthens delay in US Army’s M113 vehicle replacement program​

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/08/03/pandemic-causes-latest-delay-in-us-armys-m113-replacement-program/

Hilariously they still haven't fully replaced the M113 with the Bradley and now they're sending Bradleys to Ukraine.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

Forced to sign contracts, so underfunded Russian military could send more cannon fodder to Ukraine, you meant this right?

Throwbacks to communist youth league and 4chan /pol/tards start to screech about zogbots and grasping at straws, never change please

I don't know about I see a pattern here, people denied that mobilization wouldn't happen, yet it did. Funny that.

I swear the desperate attempts to distract, stick to trivilaties remind of people in former communist party in former USSR.

Anti western sentiment, talking about unimportant and most petty shit. Some people never change.

I wouldn't hype for Russia with deals with Iran, Saudi Arabia, CCP and even fence sitting India

China is last superpower who supports crude with the price they set, just like India.

Situation in Syria would cut Russia with only harbor in the region.

I see more and more similarities with equally stable North Korea.

There are two scenarios out of this depends of what Putin plans to do

Russia will turn into global pariah if they deploy tactical nuclear weapons

Economic collapse which China will exploit shamelessly, Russia wouldn't be first dependent country with ICBMs

Dependent on Shiaite Muslims in Iran and Saudi Arabia, how ironic after soviet defeat in Afghanistan

I'd love to have soviet union worthless Ruble Boogaloo.

> Fox News
> Radio Free Europe
> Foreign Policy

If only you posted a link to Voice of America, we would've had a glownigger propaganda full house. Now try again, with sources that aren't dripping with CIA cum.

I'm starting to suspect you may actually be genuine journoscum, if not a glownigger propagandist zogbot. Related to Taylor Lorentz, by any chance?

 

[Smity Werbenjagermanjensen]

Bradley M2 armoured infantry fighting tracked vehicle data | United States American Army light armoured vehicle | United States US Army Military equipment UK

Bradley M2 IFV tracked armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle United States technical data fact sheet pictures video

www.armyrecognition.com

"The hull and the turret of the Bradley M2 are made of all-welded aluminum armor with spaced laminate armor fitted to the hull, sides, and rear. "

Do you know what laminate armor is, in this context? They bolted on a few sheets of very thin (.25") steel onto the aluminum armor to reinforce it. They spaced them out, so the thin laminate sheets aren't even covering the entire hull. A DShK can tear through a Bradley's side armor like a fart through tissue paper. Not to mention the unprotected turret which means a closed casket funeral for anyone unlucky to be enough to be the gunner.

Why not just look up the Bradley's combat history if you need more evidence it's a death trap? And if it's vulnerable to IEDs made by goat-herding retards, how well is it going to survive an actual anti-tank mine?

Anyway, just give it a few weeks for enough Bradleys to get captured, and we'll see on Youtube exactly how safe that aluminum armor is.

IFVs in general are death traps. the BMD and BMP the Russians are using (as well as Ukraine using Soviet versions of them) have armor that's just as bad. You would think that militaries would focus on heavier IFVs that could actually withstand even basic infantry AT much less HMGs, the Russians made one called the T-15 but that appears to have gone the way of the T-14.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

IFVs in general are death traps. the BMD and BMP the Russians are using (as well as Ukraine using Soviet versions of them) have armor that's just as bad. You would think that militaries would focus on heavier IFVs that could actually withstand even basic infantry AT much less HMGs, the Russians made one called the T-15 but that appears to have gone the way of the T-14.

BMPs are a lot more mobile due to being lighter (about half the weight of the Bradley), make smaller targets, easier to repair in the field there, got a better drivetrain, are actually amphibious (look up "M2 Bradley drowned" on Google), got superior armor, are cheaper to produce, got a lot more of them, and the soldiers already know how to drive them so there's no learning curve.

Again, should've sent a few F150s instead of the Bradleys, at least those can be easily sold to Polish farmers.

 

[Fatniggo1488]

IFVs in general are death traps. the BMD and BMP the Russians are using (as well as Ukraine using Soviet versions of them) have armor that's just as bad. You would think that militaries would focus on heavier IFVs that could actually withstand even basic infantry AT much less HMGs, the Russians made one called the T-15 but that appears to have gone the way of the T-14.

I wouldn't necessarily say they're death traps because they can still protect infantry against something like a near ambush far better than other vehicles. The issue is that they always end up being used as light tanks and getting absolutely fucked. Personally I don't really know why modern armies are so against light tanks. If it were up to me I'd design a light tank that was specifically built for urban warfare.

 

[Ghostse]

Bradley M2 armoured infantry fighting tracked vehicle data | United States American Army light armoured vehicle | United States US Army Military equipment UK

Bradley M2 IFV tracked armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle United States technical data fact sheet pictures video

www.armyrecognition.com

"The hull and the turret of the Bradley M2 are made of all-welded aluminum armor with spaced laminate armor fitted to the hull, sides, and rear. "

Do you know what laminate armor is, in this context? They bolted on a few sheets of very thin (.25") steel onto the aluminum armor to reinforce it. They spaced them out, so the thin laminate sheets aren't even covering the entire hull. A DShK can tear through a Bradley's side armor like a fart through tissue paper. Not to mention the unprotected turret which means a closed casket funeral for anyone unlucky to be enough to be the gunner.

Why not just look up the Bradley's combat history if you need more evidence it's a death trap? And if it's vulnerable to IEDs made by goat-herding retards, how well is it going to survive an actual anti-tank mine?

Anyway, just give it a few weeks for enough Bradleys to get captured, and we'll see on Youtube exactly how safe that aluminum armor is.

My nigger, you need to learn to read.

Bradley M2A2: Introduced in 1988, new engine, new armor with protection against 30 mm APDS rounds and RPGs (or similar anti-armor weapons).

And that's before the A3 which as better passive + reactive armor mounting. There are no more A1s in US inventory.
The BMP will not explode into a fireball when hit with 25mm, but 25mm AP will cause shrap to start flying around inside.

>they weren't designed to take 155mm
They weren't designed to take 30mm either, which means it's easily killable by even most of the APCs currently in the field.

Not designed to take 30mm is fair, but by the A2 that's what had been upgraded to do. Most of the fleet was upgraded in the 90s to the A2 standard that lets them shrug off anything other than the 76mm BMP3s.

And I said "supplanted" not replaced for a reason. The US didn't really have an IFV before the bradley. Light Tanks like the M41 were used with Panze-Grenadier tactics, where infantry would mount to the outside and ride with the tank, and retasked vehicles like the M43 were used to support troops, but they hadn't had anything that would meet an IFV definition since WWII half-tracks - and the fact the half tracks could transport troops and carry heavy weapons was not what they were designed for, but a capability discovered later.

The Bradley was the first real, intentional IFV developed by the US to support mechanized infantry tactics - everything else was a retrofit or a retask. So it didn't replace the all of the M113 roles - the US still needed an APC - but took it took the roles that an IFV did.

Replacing the M113 is hard, despite it being well past time. The M113 floats, and the tradeoffs required to get amphibious capabilities (ie light armor) will render it toxic to get through procurement and congress. As an APC that is deployed like an APC (that is, drop off, pick up, sometimes be equipped with mission packages) its doing a 'good enough' and probably will end up a centennial system at this rate.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

My nigger, you need to learn to read.

Bradley M2A2: Introduced in 1988, new engine, new armor with protection against 30 mm APDS rounds and RPGs (or similar anti-armor weapons).

And that's before the A3 which as better passive + reactive armor mounting. There are no more A1s in US inventory.
The BMP will not explode into a fireball when hit with 25mm, but 25mm AP will cause shrap to start flying around inside.


Not designed to take 30mm is fair, but by the A2 that's what had been upgraded to do. Most of the fleet was upgraded in the 90s to the A2 standard that lets them shrug off anything other than the 76mm BMP3s.

And I said "supplanted" not replaced for a reason. The US didn't really have an IFV before the bradley. Light Tanks like the M41 were used with Panze-Grenadier tactics, where infantry would mount to the outside and ride with the tank, and retasked vehicles like the M43 were used to support troops, but they hadn't had anything that would meet an IFV definition since WWII half-tracks - and the fact the half tracks could transport troops and carry heavy weapons was not what they were designed for, but a capability discovered later.

The Bradley was the first real, intentional IFV developed by the US to support mechanized infantry tactics - everything else was a retrofit or a retask. So it didn't replace the all of the M113 roles - the US still needed an APC - but took it took the roles that an IFV did.

Replacing the M113 is hard, despite it being well past time. The M113 floats, and the tradeoffs required to get amphibious capabilities (ie light armor) will render it toxic to get through procurement and congress. As an APC that is deployed like an APC (that is, drop off, pick up, sometimes be equipped with mission packages) its doing a 'good enough' and probably will end up a centennial system at this rate.

Yes, the A2 version has a few extra strips of metal welded to the side, which do nothing against mines, drones, or any RPG that was made past 1978. Oh and it weighs 33 ton now with the added armor, more than twice than a BMP, making it far more likely to run out of gas from moving its fat ass around, or just drown or get stuck in mud. With its weght and size being closer to an Abrams tank than any IFV, the Bradley is going to be torn to shreds by drones.

Again, just look at the track record of the Bradley if you want to know how it will perform in Ukraine. It killed more American troops than the BMP-2, that's for sure.

Here's what the Americans said about it in 2001, calling it an exploding coffin: https://www.g2mil.com/Bradley.htm

Here's a more modern report, even the A3 variant is still a piece of shit.

Army Moves to Kick Out 3 Unit Leaders After Deadly Bradley Accident in Korea

In addition to the punishments, the Army's 1st Cavalry Division has ordered changes to its driver training program.

www.military.com

> lose track
> kill three people
> be best IFV that American engineering can produce

 

[JackoVerde]

well if you're a man and you survive this war unscathed as a russian. you technically have the pick of the litter if a decent chunk of the fighting age males died.

 

[Fatniggo1488]

Yes, the A2 version has a few extra strips of metal welded to the side, which do nothing against mines, drones, or any RPG that was made past 1978. Oh and it weighs 33 ton now with the added armor, more than twice than a BMP, making it far more likely to run out of gas from moving its fat ass around, or just drown or get stuck in mud. With its weght and size being closer to an Abrams tank than any IFV, the Bradley is going to be torn to shreds by drones.

Again, just look at the track record of the Bradley if you want to know how it will perform in Ukraine. It killed more American troops than the BMP-2, that's for sure.

Here's what the Americans said about it in 2001, calling it an exploding coffin: https://www.g2mil.com/Bradley.htm

Here's a more modern report, even the A3 variant is still a piece of shit.

Army Moves to Kick Out 3 Unit Leaders After Deadly Bradley Accident in Korea

In addition to the punishments, the Army's 1st Cavalry Division has ordered changes to its driver training program.

www.military.com

> lose track
> kill three people
> be best IFV that American engineering can produce

I don't know what it is about the US and building stupidly top heavy vehicles. All the MRAP variants had this problem, and it sounds like the new JLTV is also going to have this problem.

 

[Ghostse]

BMPs are a lot more mobile due to being lighter (about half the weight of the Bradley), make smaller targets, easier to repair in the field there, got a better drivetrain, are actually amphibious (look up "M2 Bradley drowned" on Google), got superior armor, are cheaper to produce, got a lot more of them, and the soldiers already know how to drive them so there's no learning curve.

Again, should've sent a few F150s instead of the Bradleys, at least those can be easily sold to Polish farmers.

> Superior armor
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Oh my nigger. My absolute vatnik sucking, pig-fucking, vodka-brained vatnigger. In what world? They don't even stop a ma deuce. This is some real cope.

> Amphibious
They have wading snorkles and don't instantly flood, not truly aquatic. I can't rmemeber the term for limited ops, I believe it was riparian.

> Cheaper
> More
I'll give you those. Soviets cranked them out because they were filled with expendable conscripts. If they had more IFVs than the capitalist pigs had rounds, they'd win.

Here's what the Americans said about it in 2001, calling it an exploding coffin: https://www.g2mil.com/Bradley.htm

Again, my retarded vatnigger, that is because of IEDs. The Bradley's are fast for armored vehicles but that's one hell of a curve. The lacked the top speed of a humvee to possibly just blow through an IED (and the view), and they lacked the armor of Abrams to 'did you feel that?'. Bradleys, because of their comparative light weight, could be flipped over, but unlike a Humvee, nothing sort of a recovery vehicle was getting it right side up. Plus the ammo for the bushmaster made a burning Bradley dangerous to approach, and they were buttoned up. A burning bradley is not a good place to be, but they aren't supposed to be going through urban cooridors.

The Iraqis didn't have any IFVs, just burried mines. Bradleys were used beause they didn't crumble under RPGs

The issue is that they always end up being used as light tanks

Light tanks? they end up being used as heavy tanks because retarded officers see "Armor" and their brains cease their limited functioning.

Personally I don't really know why modern armies are so against light tanks. If it were up to me I'd design a light tank that was specifically built for urban warfare.

The reason two fold. Firstly, well "urban warfare" and "tank" don't mix. But forgetting that, the requirements for "urban warfare" and "light tank" really don't mix. Take the article posted earlier that none of you read, about the Bradley getting IED'd. You need your Urban fighting vehicle to be fast, small, but also needs to be resistant to anything an infantryman can carry.
Additionally, if you are doing a light tank for urban ops, you need to have excellent sight lines. This countraindicates the need for strong, beefy armor.
When you try to compromise you end up with shit like the AMX10.

There's also the human factor; M60 tanks in Hue during tet shrugged off RPGs like they were nothing, the NVA/VC had nothing that could stop them. The CREW on the other hand, would often come back to base after missions concussed and with burst eardrums.

The reason second is civie fags. The use of big guns inside a city, even at the smaller end of the scale for "big gun", get the Eurofags of the ICC into an absolute froth.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

I wouldn't necessarily say they're death traps because they can still protect infantry against something like a near ambush far better than other vehicles. The issue is that they always end up being used as light tanks and getting absolutely fucked. Personally I don't really know why modern armies are so against light tanks. If it were up to me I'd design a light tank that was specifically built for urban warfare.

It is a usage question, yeah. Initially the Bradley was designed in the context of chemical war with the Soviets, that's why it was fully enclosed and had full NBC protection. It was always meant to be just a troop transport. Trying to up-armor it and give it a more direct combat role isn't practical when the whole design wasn't meant for it, but that never stopped the military procurement process before.

I don't know what it is about the US and building stupidly top heavy vehicles. All the MRAP variants had this problem, and it sounds like the new JLTV is also going to have this problem.

Guessing it had something to do with their last few conflicts. Sandbox had rugged terrain where a tall vehicle wouldn't really stand out, and they kept increasing the bottom armor and clearance as a way of dealing with IEDs and mines.

> Superior armor
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Oh my nigger. My absolute vatnik sucking, pig-fucking, vodka-brained vatnigger. In what world? They don't even stop a ma deuce. This is some real cope.

> Amphibious
They have wading snorkles and don't instantly flood, not truly aquatic. I can't rmemeber the term for limited ops, I believe it was riparian.

> Cheaper
> More
I'll give you those. Soviets cranked them out because they were filled with expendable conscripts. If they had more IFVs than the capitalist pigs had rounds, they'd win.



Again, my retarded vatnigger, that is because of IEDs. The Bradley's are fast for armored vehicles but that's one hell of a curve. The lacked the top speed of a humvee to possibly just blow through an IED (and the view), and they lacked the armor of Abrams to 'did you feel that?'. Bradleys, because of their comparative light weight, could be flipped over, but unlike a Humvee, nothing sort of a recovery vehicle was getting it right side up. Plus the ammo for the bushmaster made a burning Bradley dangerous to approach, and they were buttoned up. A burning bradley is not a good place to be, but they aren't supposed to be going through urban cooridors.

The Iraqis didn't have any IFVs, just burried mines. Bradleys were used beause they didn't crumble under RPGs


Light tanks? they end up being used as heavy tanks because retarded officers see "Armor" and their brains cease their limited functioning.


The reason two fold. Firstly, well "urban warfare" and "tank" don't mix. But forgetting that, the requirements for "urban warfare" and "light tank" really don't mix. Take the article posted earlier that none of you read, about the Bradley getting IED'd. You need your Urban fighting vehicle to be fast, small, but also needs to be resistant to anything an infantryman can carry.
Additionally, if you are doing a light tank for urban ops, you need to have excellent sight lines. This countraindicates the need for strong, beefy armor.
When you try to compromise you end up with shit like the AMX10.

There's also the human factor; M60 tanks in Hue during tet shrugged off RPGs like they were nothing, the NVA/VC had nothing that could stop them. The CREW on the other hand, would often come back to base after missions concussed and with burst eardrums.

The reason second is civie fags. The use of big guns inside a city, even at the smaller end of the scale for "big gun", get the Eurofags of the ICC into an absolute froth.

Your information is quite inaccurate. Bradleys can't swim at all since the M2A2 added several tons of armor, and they are very still very vulnerable to RPGs because of their unarmored turret and weak tracks. It's a fat pig of a vehicle, full of bad decisions and aluminum. Russian mines and drones will absolutely tear them to shreds because Ukrainians will not realize these are just glorified troop trucks.

Oh and for its weight, the BMP-2 has superior armor to the Bradley. Neither can't take a 14.5mm round to the side, but the Bradley weighs more than twice than the BMP-2.

This whole argument is pointless, you can just wait a few weeks until we start seeing Russian footage of burned down Bradleys that were taken out by a mobik with a DShK. That's one lucky mobik, got a million rubles and a Wagner t-shirt.

I know there's a lot of /k/ope and fiction floating around the Bradley, so let's get some real life accounts of what happens when it gets hit directly with an armor piercing RPG round. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-11-14-0411140314-story.html

After nearly 18 hours in the claustrophobic urban canyons that constitute the front lines of the battle for Fallujah, the crew of the lead Bradley Fighting Vehicle was cramped, weary and low on ammunition.

Then they came under heavy enemy fire for the first time all week.

Within 15 minutes, as shooting erupted around them, their radio crackled with the news that their company commander's vehicle, blocks behind them, had been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. The blast killed an interpreter and severed a soldier's arm. A Bradley that sped to the rescue was hit by another RPG that slipped under its high-tech armor, wounding the driver.

A block away, they heard the boom as a third rocket from insurgents took out the transmission on a huge Abrams tank. The tank's turret wouldn't move. Nor could the tank drive in reverse or pivot.

"I'm hit!" Alpha Company's commander, Capt. Ed Twaddell, shouted over the radio at 11:43. The armor-penetrating RPG punched a half-dollar-size hole in his Bradley's back gate, then filled the troop compartment with light, noise, gore and flying metal before lodging in the turret where he was standing.

"I saw light and a flash down by my knee, and then the turret filled with smoke," Twaddell said later, his face still covered in soot and dust.

His interpreter, sitting behind him, had been killed instantly, a baseball-size gash in his side.

Two blocks north of Alpha 2-1, a Bradley maneuvered to help, disgorging a medic and soldiers under a hail of gunfire. Within minutes a penetrating RPG exploded under the second Bradley's driver compartment, wounding a man from West Virginia who had survived RPG shrapnel to the neck when his Bradley was hit in Najaf.

 

[Canopus The Brilliant]

Can someone give me an update on what has happened with Ukraine these past two months? The last time I saw any news on the situation was when a Russian missile unintentionally blew up in Poland's borders.

 

[Fatniggo1488]

It is a usage question, yeah. Initially the Bradley was designed in the context of chemical war with the Soviets, that's why it was fully enclosed and had full NBC protection. It was always meant to be just a troop transport. Trying to up-armor it and give it a more direct combat role isn't practical when the whole design wasn't meant for it, but that never stopped the military procurement process before.


Guessing it had something to do with their last few conflicts. Sandbox had rugged terrain where a tall vehicle wouldn't really stand out, and they kept increasing the bottom armor and clearance as a way of dealing with IEDs and mines.

Well it did, but they also rolled over every time you turned around. I almost rolled one in Afghanistan going up a little small ass hill.

> Superior armor
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Oh my nigger. My absolute vatnik sucking, pig-fucking, vodka-brained vatnigger. In what world? They don't even stop a ma deuce. This is some real cope.

> Amphibious
They have wading snorkles and don't instantly flood, not truly aquatic. I can't rmemeber the term for limited ops, I believe it was riparian.

> Cheaper
> More
I'll give you those. Soviets cranked them out because they were filled with expendable conscripts. If they had more IFVs than the capitalist pigs had rounds, they'd win.



Again, my retarded vatnigger, that is because of IEDs. The Bradley's are fast for armored vehicles but that's one hell of a curve. The lacked the top speed of a humvee to possibly just blow through an IED (and the view), and they lacked the armor of Abrams to 'did you feel that?'. Bradleys, because of their comparative light weight, could be flipped over, but unlike a Humvee, nothing sort of a recovery vehicle was getting it right side up. Plus the ammo for the bushmaster made a burning Bradley dangerous to approach, and they were buttoned up. A burning bradley is not a good place to be, but they aren't supposed to be going through urban cooridors.

The Iraqis didn't have any IFVs, just burried mines. Bradleys were used beause they didn't crumble under RPGs


Light tanks? they end up being used as heavy tanks because retarded officers see "Armor" and their brains cease their limited functioning.


The reason two fold. Firstly, well "urban warfare" and "tank" don't mix. But forgetting that, the requirements for "urban warfare" and "light tank" really don't mix. Take the article posted earlier that none of you read, about the Bradley getting IED'd. You need your Urban fighting vehicle to be fast, small, but also needs to be resistant to anything an infantryman can carry.
Additionally, if you are doing a light tank for urban ops, you need to have excellent sight lines. This countraindicates the need for strong, beefy armor.
When you try to compromise you end up with shit like the AMX10.

There's also the human factor; M60 tanks in Hue during tet shrugged off RPGs like they were nothing, the NVA/VC had nothing that could stop them. The CREW on the other hand, would often come back to base after missions concussed and with burst eardrums.

The reason second is civie fags. The use of big guns inside a city, even at the smaller end of the scale for "big gun", get the Eurofags of the ICC into an absolute froth.

>You need your Urban fighting vehicle to be fast, small, but also needs to be resistant to anything an infantryman can carry.
Lol okay but IFVs aren't and they're constantly used in cities. Pretty much any AT weaponry will easily take them out even if the shooter scores a hit that would not normally be lethal on a tank. Well obviously you're not going to transport troops in something like that inside a city so you're sacrificing those other things you mentioned for the sake of a feature no one is going to use in urban warfare anyway. You might as well just design a small tank which has at least enough protection to survive most hits by something like an AT4, has adequate speed and maneuverability, and is sufficiently small enough to pop in and out of back alleys and remain a small target. The small target part being the most important in urban warfare.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Lotta folks in the thread treating Pentagon Wars like it was the bible.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Hello guys,
There is War Footage available, and as we all know, War Footage is a very high level form of discourse that is incredibly informational and beats everything else. It's not uncommon that people with Very High IQ dream of Bradleys and SU fighter jets and all sorts of military stuff, because they are high IQ.
Most high IQ discussions on this very esteemed topic are around very comprehensive and informative clips of soldiers doing manly stuff to other soldiers. All for the glory of the leadersh***, oops, I meant Motherland.
Please enjoy this clip of war footage, which is superior to other forms of online communication by far.
You know what? Might even add spoiler tags to this. Black and white, yet so graphic.

Spoiler

 

[CaptainAutism69]

Can someone give me an update on what has happened with Ukraine these past two months? The last time I saw any news on the situation was when a Russian missile unintentionally blew up in Poland's borders.

It was a Ukranian S300 that veered off course.

Anyway, Bakhmut has been a meat grinder, the Russians are moving forwards in that area, hohols are talking about conscripting people who ran away and throwing them into the meatgrinder. Oh, and Russians bombed the shit out of energy infrastructure.

Forced to sign contracts, so underfunded Russian military could send more cannon fodder to Ukraine, you meant this right?

Throwbacks to communist youth league and 4chan /pol/tards start to screech about zogbots and grasping at straws, never change please

I don't know about I see a pattern here, people denied that mobilization wouldn't happen, yet it did. Funny that.

I swear the desperate attempts to distract, stick to trivilaties remind of people in former communist party in former USSR.

Anti western sentiment, talking about unimportant and most petty shit. Some people never change.

I wouldn't hype for Russia with deals with Iran, Saudi Arabia, CCP and even fence sitting India

China is last superpower who supports crude with the price they set, just like India.

Situation in Syria would cut Russia with only harbor in the region.

I see more and more similarities with equally stable North Korea.

There are two scenarios out of this depends of what Putin plans to do

Russia will turn into global pariah if they deploy tactical nuclear weapons

Economic collapse which China will exploit shamelessly, Russia wouldn't be first dependent country with ICBMs

Dependent on Shiaite Muslims in Iran and Saudi Arabia, how ironic after soviet defeat in Afghanistan

I'd love to have soviet union worthless Ruble Boogaloo.

Are you trying to write a poem, or have you totally snapped?

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

It was a Ukranian S300 that veered off course.

Anyway, Bakhmut has been a meat grinder, the Russians are moving forwards in that area, hohols are talking about conscripting people who ran away and throwing them into the meatgrinder. Oh, and Russians bombed the shit out of energy infrastructure.


Are you trying to write a poem, or have you totally snapped?

Oh and another Ukrainian S300 missile landed in Belarus since then, no farmers injured this time.

 

[Canopus The Brilliant]

It was a Ukranian S300 that veered off course.

Anyway, Bakhmut has been a meat grinder, the Russians are moving forwards in that area, hohols are talking about conscripting people who ran away and throwing them into the meatgrinder. Oh, and Russians bombed the shit out of energy infrastructure.


Are you trying to write a poem, or have you totally snapped?

Ah ok, thanks for telling me. I'm glad there was some sort of resolution to the missile in Poland, a friend of mine lives there and I was extremely scared when I heard what happened.

 

[CaptainAutism69]

Oh and another Ukrainian S300 missile landed in Belarus since then, no farmers injured this time.

Lot's of S300's are falling on residential buildings, so they invented the idea that Russia is using S300's as ground to ground missiles...even though that doesn't really make sense...
The hohol's still haven't apologised to Poland...

 

[Foltest]

The Arty that Sweden is sending to Ukraine.
Archer has not been used in Combat before so the Swedish armed forces will follow how Ukraine are going to deploy them and use them.