01169
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2021
It's the worst amalgamation of the left can't meme and neo/libcon cringe. I don't think even the muzzie sperging around their happenings is making me despise them as much as these hohol shills.
Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion
- Thread starter Catherine the Great
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2020
This conundrum is easily resolved if you consider that by the 50's it more or less things worked out for the union as a whole and the last generation that withnessed USSR remebers it quite foundly despite setbacks done by Gorbachev and the Party. So in their eyes strong state created strong identity. Many of them realise that Early Soviet Republics weren't that great, but admire achievements made as time went on.
As for the Bolsheviks, well, they already had a lot of bad cards on their hands when they stepped in power, and it's really hard to make it play. Obviously, they couldn't, so the rebuilding process went rough, but they hardly hurted the Russian identity in general.
Sister Miriam Godwinson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2022
This is one of the reasons why Stalin is lauded and remembered fondly. Yes, he was a paranoid butcher who would have your life ended after you picked three ears of wheat from the field, but he also inherited an agrarian country with 20% literacy rate and left an industrial superpower with an atomic bomb and a space program despite being forced to wage the bloodiest war in the history of mankind (so far). "Controversial" does not even begin to describe it.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2022
No. Territories annexed from Czechia had nothing to do with Nazi collaboration. Piłsudski hypothetized about a temporary alliance with Germany for the purpose of a mutual crusade against communism AFAIK.
01169
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2021
The parallels to today are striking. Only now there's an element of ethnicity and religion mixed into it. I really wonder how otherwise intelligent and smart people go down that road. Like yeah Judith what the fuck did you think they meant by "Kill whitey"?
Rei is Shit.
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Not exactly about the war but related; The US has cancelled its kiowa/apache replacement
"While observations from places like Ukraine and Gaza are part of the impetus for FARA’s cancellation, the need to free up billions of dollars to invest in unmanned systems was also a prime factor, Rainey and other aviation leaders explained."
Full article
"While observations from places like Ukraine and Gaza are part of the impetus for FARA’s cancellation, the need to free up billions of dollars to invest in unmanned systems was also a prime factor, Rainey and other aviation leaders explained."
Full article
The US Army is cancelling its next generation Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program, service officials announced today, taking a potential multi-billion-dollar contract off the table and throwing the service’s long-term aviation plans into doubt.
In addition, the Army plans to end production on the UH-60 V Black Hawk in fiscal 2025, due to “significant cost growth,” keep General Electric’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) in the development phase instead of moving it into production, and phase the Shadow and Raven unmanned aerial systems out of the fleet, the service added.
All told, it reflects a massive shift in the Army’s aviation strategy and upends years of planning. There is also an ironic sense of history repeating: the decision to end FARA comes two decades to the month after the Army ended its plans to procure the RAH-66 Comanche and nearly 16 years after it terminated work on the ARH-70A Arapaho, both aircraft designed to replace the Kiowa — the same helicopter FARA was supposed to, finally, replace.
The reason for ending FARA, Army leaders told a small group of reporters ahead of the announcement, is a reflection of what war looks like in the modern era.
“We absolutely are paying attention [to world events] and adjusting, because we could go to war tonight, this weekend,” head of Army Futures Command Gen. James Rainey told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.
“We are learning from the battlefield — especially Ukraine — that aerial reconnaissance has fundamentally changed,” Army Chief Gen. Randy George said in a press release. “Sensors and weapons mounted on a variety of unmanned systems and in space are more ubiquitous, further reaching and more inexpensive than ever before.”
Although industry was planning for a Kiowa replacement for years, the program officially kicked off in 2018 with five competitors, which in 2020 were downselected to two: Bell-Textron with the 360 Invictus and Sikorsky with its Raider X.
While observations from places like Ukraine and Gaza are part of the impetus for FARA’s cancellation, the need to free up billions of dollars to invest in unmanned systems was also a prime factor, Rainey and other aviation leaders explained.
So the tentative plan, if Congress approves a fiscal 2024 spending bill with FARA dollars in it, is to keep FARA development going this year, in part to protect the industrial base and continue testing, Army acquisition head Doug Bush said. However, come Oct. 1 when FY25 kicks off, the FARA development will come to an end — if the service gets its way, as Congress will have to weigh in.
Although the Army still has a requirement for a FARA-like capability, Rainey said the service does not plan to kickstart another manned Kiowa replacement effort like it has done in the past. Instead, it will invest elsewhere, especially on the unmanned side, to fulfill the Kiowa’s role as an armed scout operating ahead of other units in war zones.
Just what those final investments will look like will take time to emerge, but Bush said the service plans to use a portion of the billions of dollars freed up, to invest in four spots inside the aviation portfolio.
“We are hoping that we can retain all of that [FY24] funding where it resides to allow us to do these transitions from current efforts to new ones in an orderly way,” Bush said. “That also helps protect the workforce.”
Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces (TAL) Subcommittee, issued a first reaction to the decisions saying it requires “serious scrutiny” from Congress.
“To better assess the administration’s proposal to terminate these aviation programs and divest legacy platforms, I plan to hold a hearing this spring on Army aviation rebalancing, the path forward, and the health of the industrial base,” he wrote in a statement.
On the industry side, Bell and Sikorsky have spent years and a large number of their own dollars working on the prototypes, while GE has worked on the long-delayed ITEP. Both prototype helos were slated for first flight this year but it is now unclear if or when they will ever get there.
From Sikorsky’s vantage point, the company said today that it remains committed to its prototype, the X2, “disappointed” with the Army’s decision and awaiting a debrief to better understand that choice. In an emailed statement to Breaking Defense, a Bell spokesperson said that although the company is also “disappointed,” it will “apply the knowledge and demonstrated successes of our FARA development efforts on future aircraft.”
While Army leaders did not provide reporters with in-depth insights into their decision making process that shaped the new plan, Bush didn’t blame the FARA cancellation on runaway costs or technology challenge. Instead, he emphasized that the decision comes in the wake of a newly completed analysis of alternatives (AOA), a review some inside Congress, including Wittman, said should have happened earlier.
“I plan on reviewing how the Army plans to address the service’s aviation attack and reconnaissance mission-set without FARA, expended funds, vision for future investments, and how the AOA informed this decision,” Wittman wrote. “The Army must expediate delivery of this document to Congress to inform our work in the FY25 [authorization] and appropriations bills.”
While Bell and Sikorsy are now both unable to secure a FARA production deal, the Army did make sure to give industrial support to both firms in the reworked plan.
For example, the plan to end the UH-60V Black Hawk upgrade program (which includes installation of a new digital cockpit) in FY25 would seem a blow to Northrop Grumman that designed the cockpit. However, freed up dollars from the larger aviation decision can now be used to ink a new multi-year UH-60M procurement deal that would carry production beyond FY26, Bush said. (So far, the National Guard has received 60 of those helos, with more coming this year, but going forward that component will instead receive UH-60M Black Hawks.)
Questions about the fate of the UH-60 line mushroomed last year when the service picked Bell’s V-280 Valor for its multi-billion-dollar Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft program. And while Bell will now miss its chance to win FARA, Bush’s statement that some of the money freed up will go towards FLARA should ease concerns.
A third industrial player, Boeing, is also set for a much needed win with Bush announcing that the service plans to formally begin production on the CH-47F Block II Chinook, a move coming roughly five years after the service put the brakes on buying that configuration. In the interim years, lawmakers have repeatedly added unrequested funds into the budget for the service to purchase those helicopters.
The T901 Improved Turbine Engine is meant to have 50 percent more horsepower and 25 percent better fuel efficiency, and will also replace some of the Army’s legacy powerplants. All AH-64E Apaches and UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters, currently powered by the T700 engine that first started flying Black Hawks in the 1970s, have been planned to have those engines swapped out for the T901, according to the Army.
But delivery of the T901 powerplants, developed by GE Aerospace, was delayed as the engine maker wrestled with supply chain disruptions. Late last year the service accepted two engines and they were sent on to both FARA competitors.
Brig. Gen. David Phillips, the Program Executive Officer for Aviation, on Thursday said the service has now received six more ITEPs, with another two slated to arrive in May and head to Black Hawk line.
“All that is on track, we’re learning from all that effort and we’re really putting all that learning to use and how we’re thinking about integrating it in Apache, how we’re thinking about integrating it in Black Hawk long term,” the one-star general said. “Then really thinking carefully about the transition to production because we have had challenges in that development phase was some of those very unique pieces and parts and manufacturing.”
“As we go toward production, we want to make sure we get that right,” he added.
“Indisputably the requirement to conduct reconnaissance and security is a valid and remaining requirement: It’s not going anywhere,” Rainey said.
“The requirement to be able to conduct reconnaissance and security is still absolutely valid,” he later added. “Just how to do it, and how much risk to accept [and] … the future is going to be about who can properly integrate humans and machines effectively.”
For now, that future will not include the legacy Shadow and Raven unmanned aerial systems. Instead the Army wants to funnel dollars toward future tactical unmanned systems. In September 2023, the service selected Griffon Aerospace and Textron Systems to move ahead with the second phase of the FTUAS Increment 2 competition, the RQ-7B Shadow replacement.
If all goes as planned, the service wants to have these prototypes in users hands in early FY25, receive feedback and make a contract award in time for production to begin the following year, Phillips said.
It is also moving ahead with a “launched effects” portfolio — small drones that shoot out of something else mid-flight. The service is eyeing three versions for now — one that is short-range, medium-range and long-range.
When it comes to the short-range version, Phillips said the service hosted an industry day this week and the goal is to make an award in early FY25.
In addition, the Army plans to end production on the UH-60 V Black Hawk in fiscal 2025, due to “significant cost growth,” keep General Electric’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) in the development phase instead of moving it into production, and phase the Shadow and Raven unmanned aerial systems out of the fleet, the service added.
All told, it reflects a massive shift in the Army’s aviation strategy and upends years of planning. There is also an ironic sense of history repeating: the decision to end FARA comes two decades to the month after the Army ended its plans to procure the RAH-66 Comanche and nearly 16 years after it terminated work on the ARH-70A Arapaho, both aircraft designed to replace the Kiowa — the same helicopter FARA was supposed to, finally, replace.
The reason for ending FARA, Army leaders told a small group of reporters ahead of the announcement, is a reflection of what war looks like in the modern era.
“We absolutely are paying attention [to world events] and adjusting, because we could go to war tonight, this weekend,” head of Army Futures Command Gen. James Rainey told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.
“We are learning from the battlefield — especially Ukraine — that aerial reconnaissance has fundamentally changed,” Army Chief Gen. Randy George said in a press release. “Sensors and weapons mounted on a variety of unmanned systems and in space are more ubiquitous, further reaching and more inexpensive than ever before.”
Although industry was planning for a Kiowa replacement for years, the program officially kicked off in 2018 with five competitors, which in 2020 were downselected to two: Bell-Textron with the 360 Invictus and Sikorsky with its Raider X.
While observations from places like Ukraine and Gaza are part of the impetus for FARA’s cancellation, the need to free up billions of dollars to invest in unmanned systems was also a prime factor, Rainey and other aviation leaders explained.
So the tentative plan, if Congress approves a fiscal 2024 spending bill with FARA dollars in it, is to keep FARA development going this year, in part to protect the industrial base and continue testing, Army acquisition head Doug Bush said. However, come Oct. 1 when FY25 kicks off, the FARA development will come to an end — if the service gets its way, as Congress will have to weigh in.
Although the Army still has a requirement for a FARA-like capability, Rainey said the service does not plan to kickstart another manned Kiowa replacement effort like it has done in the past. Instead, it will invest elsewhere, especially on the unmanned side, to fulfill the Kiowa’s role as an armed scout operating ahead of other units in war zones.
Just what those final investments will look like will take time to emerge, but Bush said the service plans to use a portion of the billions of dollars freed up, to invest in four spots inside the aviation portfolio.
- Ink a new multi-year procurement deal with Lockheed-Sikorsky for the UH-60M Blackhawk line.
- Give Boeing the greenlight to formally begin production on the CH-47F Block II Chinook.
- Continue Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) development as planned.
- Additional investments for developing and buying unmanned aerial reconnaissance systems like the future tactical unmanned systems and launched effects.
Saying FARA-Well To Long Term Plans
Fallout from the Army’s new plan will likely be swift from both Capitol Hill, the industry and analysts — all stakeholders the Army needs to win over in order to keep their FY24 request intact and change course in FY25.“We are hoping that we can retain all of that [FY24] funding where it resides to allow us to do these transitions from current efforts to new ones in an orderly way,” Bush said. “That also helps protect the workforce.”
Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces (TAL) Subcommittee, issued a first reaction to the decisions saying it requires “serious scrutiny” from Congress.
“To better assess the administration’s proposal to terminate these aviation programs and divest legacy platforms, I plan to hold a hearing this spring on Army aviation rebalancing, the path forward, and the health of the industrial base,” he wrote in a statement.
On the industry side, Bell and Sikorsky have spent years and a large number of their own dollars working on the prototypes, while GE has worked on the long-delayed ITEP. Both prototype helos were slated for first flight this year but it is now unclear if or when they will ever get there.
From Sikorsky’s vantage point, the company said today that it remains committed to its prototype, the X2, “disappointed” with the Army’s decision and awaiting a debrief to better understand that choice. In an emailed statement to Breaking Defense, a Bell spokesperson said that although the company is also “disappointed,” it will “apply the knowledge and demonstrated successes of our FARA development efforts on future aircraft.”
While Army leaders did not provide reporters with in-depth insights into their decision making process that shaped the new plan, Bush didn’t blame the FARA cancellation on runaway costs or technology challenge. Instead, he emphasized that the decision comes in the wake of a newly completed analysis of alternatives (AOA), a review some inside Congress, including Wittman, said should have happened earlier.
“I plan on reviewing how the Army plans to address the service’s aviation attack and reconnaissance mission-set without FARA, expended funds, vision for future investments, and how the AOA informed this decision,” Wittman wrote. “The Army must expediate delivery of this document to Congress to inform our work in the FY25 [authorization] and appropriations bills.”
While Bell and Sikorsy are now both unable to secure a FARA production deal, the Army did make sure to give industrial support to both firms in the reworked plan.
For example, the plan to end the UH-60V Black Hawk upgrade program (which includes installation of a new digital cockpit) in FY25 would seem a blow to Northrop Grumman that designed the cockpit. However, freed up dollars from the larger aviation decision can now be used to ink a new multi-year UH-60M procurement deal that would carry production beyond FY26, Bush said. (So far, the National Guard has received 60 of those helos, with more coming this year, but going forward that component will instead receive UH-60M Black Hawks.)
Questions about the fate of the UH-60 line mushroomed last year when the service picked Bell’s V-280 Valor for its multi-billion-dollar Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft program. And while Bell will now miss its chance to win FARA, Bush’s statement that some of the money freed up will go towards FLARA should ease concerns.
A third industrial player, Boeing, is also set for a much needed win with Bush announcing that the service plans to formally begin production on the CH-47F Block II Chinook, a move coming roughly five years after the service put the brakes on buying that configuration. In the interim years, lawmakers have repeatedly added unrequested funds into the budget for the service to purchase those helicopters.
Power Up
As for the engine slated to power FARA, the service isn’t pulling the plug on it right now – but it is slowing it down.The T901 Improved Turbine Engine is meant to have 50 percent more horsepower and 25 percent better fuel efficiency, and will also replace some of the Army’s legacy powerplants. All AH-64E Apaches and UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters, currently powered by the T700 engine that first started flying Black Hawks in the 1970s, have been planned to have those engines swapped out for the T901, according to the Army.
But delivery of the T901 powerplants, developed by GE Aerospace, was delayed as the engine maker wrestled with supply chain disruptions. Late last year the service accepted two engines and they were sent on to both FARA competitors.
Brig. Gen. David Phillips, the Program Executive Officer for Aviation, on Thursday said the service has now received six more ITEPs, with another two slated to arrive in May and head to Black Hawk line.
“All that is on track, we’re learning from all that effort and we’re really putting all that learning to use and how we’re thinking about integrating it in Apache, how we’re thinking about integrating it in Black Hawk long term,” the one-star general said. “Then really thinking carefully about the transition to production because we have had challenges in that development phase was some of those very unique pieces and parts and manufacturing.”
“As we go toward production, we want to make sure we get that right,” he added.
Unmanned Focus
While FARA may be dead, Army leaders still envision a future with aviators in a cockpit, at least for now. But in the short term, they need to spend more on unmanned capabilities.“Indisputably the requirement to conduct reconnaissance and security is a valid and remaining requirement: It’s not going anywhere,” Rainey said.
“The requirement to be able to conduct reconnaissance and security is still absolutely valid,” he later added. “Just how to do it, and how much risk to accept [and] … the future is going to be about who can properly integrate humans and machines effectively.”
For now, that future will not include the legacy Shadow and Raven unmanned aerial systems. Instead the Army wants to funnel dollars toward future tactical unmanned systems. In September 2023, the service selected Griffon Aerospace and Textron Systems to move ahead with the second phase of the FTUAS Increment 2 competition, the RQ-7B Shadow replacement.
If all goes as planned, the service wants to have these prototypes in users hands in early FY25, receive feedback and make a contract award in time for production to begin the following year, Phillips said.
It is also moving ahead with a “launched effects” portfolio — small drones that shoot out of something else mid-flight. The service is eyeing three versions for now — one that is short-range, medium-range and long-range.
When it comes to the short-range version, Phillips said the service hosted an industry day this week and the goal is to make an award in early FY25.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
The reason raider X was cancelled is sikorsky/lockheed are incompetent
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
The US to its citizens and the world: We must support and protect the Ukraine, Russians are violating their human rights!
The Ukraine:
source
Every faggot screeching about Russias "human rights" should have this shoved in their face andtold be made to STFU
The Ukraine:
source
Every faggot screeching about Russias "human rights" should have this shoved in their face and
Last edited:
Rei is Shit.
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
The FARA program was axed, which includes Bells submission and an engine program...
Gondolindrim
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2020
There's that word again, "genocidal." I'm surprised they're still running that after that whole mass grave story ended up being a big nothing.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2018
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
There weren't any other real viable entries, the raider-x at least sortof flew. Also they kept the engine that was under FARA it really is just telling lockheed/sikorsky they suck and to stop trying
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2018
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
Germany and Poland had rather good relations in the 1930s. Poland had no problem grabbing Czechoslovak territory in 1938 or the Munich process in general. The break with Germany came in the aftermath of Munich in October 1938. The Germans offered a deal to settle all the frontier issues with Poland along with a new non-aggression pact. In the deal, Germany would get Danzig outright. The polish response was that Poland wasn't getting enough in the deal to agree to that. They went back and forth after that up to the war breaking out. Poland was very unhappy with the German activity in Lithuania and Slovakia. Germany was unhappy that Poland would not make a deal. The German attitude was always that Poland had to see it had no options and make a deal. Poland always said "no".
Poland in the 1930s had a policy of opportunistic cooperation with Germany. They were quiet happy to have peaceful relations with Germany and profit from German territorial gains in Eastern Europe. But they were not going to give Germany something-for-nothing. But once Germany was on three sides of Poland, they were out of options.
After the death of Piłsudski, Poland's military governments prior to the war lacked any leader or leadership of note. They continued Pilsudski's policies but without Pilsudski to make the difficult decisions.
Poland in the 1930s had a policy of opportunistic cooperation with Germany. They were quiet happy to have peaceful relations with Germany and profit from German territorial gains in Eastern Europe. But they were not going to give Germany something-for-nothing. But once Germany was on three sides of Poland, they were out of options.
After the death of Piłsudski, Poland's military governments prior to the war lacked any leader or leadership of note. They continued Pilsudski's policies but without Pilsudski to make the difficult decisions.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2019
Just general update thoughts as the last umpteen pages have been all interview-disection and Kulak-sperging. While we've been doing that Russia has continued to apply pressure around Avdivika, coming close to splitting it in half from the North and tightening what is either an operational encirclement or getting darn close to one. West of Bakhmut despite a few pushes by Ukies over the last couple of weeks they've been unbudgeable and have now made a couple more significant advances. They're now at the point it looks like they have a clear run at Chasiv Yar. The weather is still holding - above freezing now but apparently not yet wet enough to turn into a mud festival so I guess maybe they're trying to make the most of it. If they can get Chasiv Yar this month or next that's a significant win and reinforces that Bakhumut isn't coming back (not that any of us don't know that but I think publicly they're still trying to reclaim it?). I'm not sure Avdiviivka will last to April. Depends if Kiev keeps pouring more and more troops in like they did Bakhmut or have the sense to withdraw.
I still don't understand how the Hell the Ukranians are clinging on in Krinky given they're on the wrong side of a river. I can only assume that either the Russians aren't really trying that hard or the Ukies are fighting like tigers. Or maybe they're just pouring in an endless supply of replacements for their losses which would be most depressing of the options.
Anyway, it's not looking great for Kiev right now. And it makes me think about what the US election this year means for current policy. Biden wont want egg on his face and is probably willing to send more Ukies to their deaths lost cause or not, and maybe they'll want to try and drag this out past November so that Trump is the one that has to "surrender to Russia" as I'm sure they'll portray it. But then again, I think some of the Dem leadership really believe they can fortify their way into winning in November so who knows. The US really doesn't seem to have a single coherent approach. It looks like you have two competing factions in Washington to me. Realists vs. Zealots for want of better terms.
Anyway, latest Defence Politics Aaaaaaasia from an hour ago:
I still don't understand how the Hell the Ukranians are clinging on in Krinky given they're on the wrong side of a river. I can only assume that either the Russians aren't really trying that hard or the Ukies are fighting like tigers. Or maybe they're just pouring in an endless supply of replacements for their losses which would be most depressing of the options.
Anyway, it's not looking great for Kiev right now. And it makes me think about what the US election this year means for current policy. Biden wont want egg on his face and is probably willing to send more Ukies to their deaths lost cause or not, and maybe they'll want to try and drag this out past November so that Trump is the one that has to "surrender to Russia" as I'm sure they'll portray it. But then again, I think some of the Dem leadership really believe they can fortify their way into winning in November so who knows. The US really doesn't seem to have a single coherent approach. It looks like you have two competing factions in Washington to me. Realists vs. Zealots for want of better terms.
Anyway, latest Defence Politics Aaaaaaasia from an hour ago:
Shallow Wave
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
Those, who venerate soviet union do so for the victory of great patriotic war and the times of stability from 70's to 90's and techological/societal progress during that time, contrasted with uncertainty of the 90's and somewhat weakened russia of 2000s. So its basically nostalgia for better times, that are actually better compared to what was before and what happened after. Everything else, and everything bad is just something to accept, russia never was a squeaky clean country and the history is filled with wars, that put the very existence of russians as people at stake. So you gotta do what you gotta do.
When western man thinks of soviet union he thinks of Stalin because thats all he had been taught, trained like a dog for confrontation against those tyrannical commies. Same thing happens now, instead of Stalin and gulags it will be Putin, bucha and novichok.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2023
This is true but I think the bigger story is that Ukraine is continuing to hold Avdeevka. They are continuing to commit resources to hold it. I think Ukraine is making the same mistake it made around Bakhmut. This may be because of Srysy or it may not.
I think one thing that has happened is the ability for Ukraine to launch small tactical/operational counter-attacks is gone. What you do if the enemy takes a position is you immediately attack that position and retake it. This type of attack and counter-attack happened a lot in Izyium in the beginning of the war. But Ukraine is having difficulty conducting these now. I think this is the key to Russia's recent tactical successes. Ukraine's low-offensive capability has decreased and Russia's defensive capability have increased to the point that whenever Russia takes a position it is never taken back or it is taken back with massive Ukrainian losses.
The Russians are letting them. Krinky is absolutely stupid all you have to do is cut it off and Krinky wouldn't have any supplies and it would die. But Russians are having a field day on this one. Krinky lets them kill lots of Ukrainians super easily. Ukraine willingly made a cauldron that it keeps sending troops into. Ukraine can't retreat for propaganda reasons.
Fried-Rice12
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2024
The true name of communism is judeo-bolshevism. Know this and everything becomes much easier to understand.
Things have gotten so bad that Aktion T4 was cancelled and the retards are now being sent as cannon fodder.
It is the Eastern Front post 1943 all over again.
Avdeevka and other cities like Bahkmut are Festungs that must be held to the last ukrop.
We all remember how that went for the Reich.
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
Krinky is a deathtrap for the Ukrainians and the Russians are more then willing to let them keep dying. They can't build up more than perhaps a company in Krinky. Everything in Krinky or attempting to get to Krinky is under heavy fire from every direction. Everything including drinking water has to be brought to Krinky by boat. They keep feeding their marine units into Krinky and they keep getting wiped out.
It never made any sense as a military operation. It was originally conceived as a second pincer advancing toward Crimea if the main 2023 offensive had been successful and Crimea had been cut off. But the main offensive never got past robotyne.
Its an absolutely senseless operation. Its chewing up units Ukraine can't afford to lose and only seems to be done out of stupid pride.