Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[Sister Miriam Godwinson]

And in the ultimate humiliation for Zelensky, not only is he not invited to the Putin-Trump negotiations, but he doesn't even get to sit in with Rubio and Lavrov. Why not go all the way and put him in a little cage that everyone can use as a footstool.

They could hire him to play the piano during the gala banquet. Having said that, your perception is a bit skewed. The US is holding two separate sets of talks, one with Russia and the other with Ukraine so that neither side can sabotage the other. Zelensky is invited to the other one and has also arrived in UAE.

 

[DefinitelyNotMe]

About that, though you are probably aware. Chances are he is talking out of his ass, because he is not citing any specific agreements, just his opinion.

Visa and Mastercard payment systems will return to Russia in the near future and will offer their services, said Anatoly Aksakov, head of the State Duma Committee on Financial Market.

Peskov said that in the Kremlin, they don't know about any claims from western companies to return to Russia.
So no dice so far
Also stumbled into a The National Interest article which can be summarized in one image:

 

[TexWiller]

View attachment 6990649View attachment 6990656

I think they all got it wrong. what he said he will send UK troons, not troops.

Another new Russian weapon. Presented just as a point of interest. I'm at a loss to say what this does that an artillery shell doesn't.

Drones have demonstrated to be a deadly weapon. Artillery can be very accurate with guided shells but they are extremely expensive, require an ad-hoc battery and personnel, and require precise targeting data. usually several shots are required, but after the 1st shot, you will be subjected to counter battery.
drones can just go there, look for the target and hit it with deadly accuracy. both sides are operating multiple coordinated drones missions for recce, load carrying and as radio repeaters to extend range. then fly back home.
the main limitation of drones is the endurance limitation. havent seen them yet but at some stage it would make sense to start using drones with small gas engines. that would extend endurance by 5x or more.

2, build up your own defence, which has been neglected for so long. I would suggest they would need to dial spending up to ~5% of GDP for 10 years, to build a decent defence structure. After that they can pull it back to 2-3% to just maintain that level.

i would argue that 2%, well spent, would be enough to have a very decent army, the swiss army is not bad considering the size of the country, and the military expenditure is less than 1% of GDP.
they used to spend more in the past, and the plan is to increase spending.
the swiss spend wisely.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=CH

It depends on the range. Sit high enough to be out of reach of terrestrial jammers and loiter. Then drop it's payload opportunistically.

yep. maby drones for many uses.

on another note. looks like patrick lancaster substack is gone?

 

[Sister Miriam Godwinson]

Peskov said that in the Kremlin, they don't know about any claims from western companies to return to Russia.

Peskov says a lot of things, Putin's mustache is just about as trustworthy as a gypsy used car salesman. To name the most egregious example: Peskov said there were no plans to restrict YouTube in Russia.

Russian authorities do not plan to restrict access to YouTube, all possible problems are related to the aging of the company's local equipment, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

“No, there were no such plans,” he said in response to a question about whether Russian authorities plan to restrict access to the service. “But we know from the official statements of our respective companies that we are talking about a problem with the equipment, which has not been updated in any way for more than two years. There can be no other explanations here,” the Kremlin spokesman emphasized.

And there are many, many other ones. Этим глазам все божья роса.

 

[DefinitelyNotMe]

Peskov says a lot of things, Putin's mustache is just about as trustworthy as a gypsy used car salesman. To name the most egregious example: Peskov said there were no plans to restrict YouTube in Russia.



And there are many, many other ones. Этим глазам все божья роса.

I hope he is wrong. I just see no reason for him to lie on this topic.

 

[Kola]

This really is extraordinary. The US Vice President makes a speech about, let me recall, preserving freedom of speech and secure borders, and they start crying and saying it's rejecting common values. If you don't have common values with freedom of speech and securing your own borders... then that doesn't speak well of the values you do hold.

Freedom of speech until you criticize Israel.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Holol jihadi mama took out three.

They could hire him to play the piano during the gala banquet.

He's dancing to Trump's tune now.

 

[IKOL]

Freedom of speech until you criticize Israel.

GAS GAS GAS ISRAEL!!! GAS GAS GAS!!!

 

[The giant penis of doom]

the swiss spend wisely.

Do they? Or a giant (and inflated) GDP will lead to, in ratio, less spending. What is the spending per capita? Sure, some stuff is cheaper to procure in less wealthy countries, but some costs are not that flexible.

 

[Fae Supremacist]

I would suggest they would need to dial spending up to ~5% of GDP for 10 years, to build a decent defence structure. After that they can pull it back to 2-3% to just maintain that level.

High energy costs, forcibly cutting themselves off from Russian raw resources and getting on fours and spreading their ass for the American MIC has gutted European arms industries, even Swedes are getting in the F-35 scam. Gone are the days of Germany, Sweden, Czechia being defense industry powerhouses with homegrown designs, only France holds on to domestic production these days

 

[Overly Serious]

i would argue that 2%, well spent, would be enough to have a very decent army, the swiss army is not bad considering the size of the country, and the military expenditure is less than 1% of GDP.
they used to spend more in the past, and the plan is to increase spending.
the swiss spend wisely.

A key factor is the intended purpose of the military. If it's defensive to protect your nation against aggression? Do it like the Swiss - trained citizenry, adequate supply of firearms and ammo and add artillery and some good fortified positions and infrastructure. If it's designed to enforce a global hegemon and overthrow other countries as needed (*cough USA cough*) you need a whole lot more.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Rumored peace proposal from Trump everywhere this morning.

View attachment 6966280

Thoughts?

Going back to this, it seems legit as the UK and Europe are talking about sending troops to Ukraine. It also matches up with the emergency meeting the EU are having while Trump+Putin deal with peace talks.

 

[Onepumpplumpchump]

Going back to this, it seems legit as the UK and Europe are talking about sending troops to Ukraine. It also matches up with the emergency meeting the EU are having while Trump+Putin deal with peace talks.

One of my buddies has been saying for a while that river line is gonna be the separation. Its pretty crazy how accurate he was if this is the peace deal.

 

[TexWiller]

Do they? Or a giant (and inflated) GDP will lead to, in ratio, less spending. What is the spending per capita? Sure, some stuff is cheaper to procure in less wealthy countries, but some costs are not that flexible.

Would you care to elaborate on the giant and inflated gdp claims?

the spending per capita is easy to calculate. just chck the GDP, divide by the population, multiply by 0.0076

the swiss are very wise how they spend their money, and thats also true for the government. of course there will be waste and mistakes (like for C19) but overall is way better than most western countries. current debt to gdp ratio is 18%.

the size of the swiss army sits at around 140,000, a mix of career and conscripts (military service is compulsory); thats more than the british army.
Switzerland also has almost as many serviceable MBT that the UK.
for 0.76% of gdp, thats pretty good in my book.

 

[Brahma]

A key factor is the intended purpose of the military. If it's defensive to protect your nation against aggression? Do it like the Swiss - trained citizenry, adequate supply of firearms and ammo and add artillery and some good fortified positions and infrastructure. If it's designed to enforce a global hegemon and overthrow other countries as needed (*cough USA cough*) you need a whole lot more.

Precisely

Europe could be relatively inexpensively rendered nigh on uninvadeable if they wanted.

That would involve returning to a more homogenous population, giving them access to firearms and training, and most importantly ceasing the generations long psychological operation that has neutered patriotic and nationalist sentiment in the male population.

I'd imagine if they announced a continent wide "swiss project" tomorrow, you'd hardly get many White's volunteering, it'd be the Mohammedans and niggers happy to take the free training for future jihad and drug wars

 

[The Ugly One]

View attachment 6974014

Trump must really enjoy talking to a foreign head of state who won't cut off his own dick just to spite him.

Drones have demonstrated to be a deadly weapon. Artillery can be very accurate with guided shells but they are extremely expensive, require an ad-hoc battery and personnel, and require precise targeting data. usually several shots are required, but after the 1st shot, you will be subjected to counter battery.
drones can just go there, look for the target and hit it with deadly accuracy.

GPS-guided munitions only need one shot to hit the target. The reason they often fire multiple shots to disguise the $68K round just behind a bunch of cheap rounds so enemy defenses won't take out the guided round.

Also, long-range drones with large warheads aren't "cheap" like Amazon toy drones are cheap; they're cheap in military terms, where fifty grand is pocket change. $80K-$200K are the prices I can find. They're just a lot cheaper than fighter jets. But so are guided munitions. Drones also require support personnel and a base; they aren't robots that take off directly from the factory that automatically find and kill enemies.

 

[TexWiller]

GPS-guided munitions only need one shot to hit the target. The reason they often fire multiple shots to disguise the $68K round just behind a bunch of cheap rounds so enemy defenses won't take out the guided round.

Also, long-range drones with large warheads aren't "cheap" like Amazon toy drones are cheap; they're cheap in military terms, where fifty grand is pocket change. $80K-$200K are the prices I can find. They're just a lot cheaper than fighter jets. But so are guided munitions. Drones also require support personnel and a base; they aren't robots that take off directly from the factory that automatically find and kill enemies.

well we first have to define what "drone" is
of course there are drones that cost millions, like the Reaper
but if we talk about the multicopters used on the contact line, they are not expensive. they cost a few hundreds at most. both side build them and components to build a quadcopter are dirt cheap.
in the grand scheme of things, they cost nothing. like a 3-5 seconds burst of ball .50BMG.

as for the GPS guided munitions, havent heard anything recently. either they ran out of them, or the GPS jamming the russians routinely do make them ineffective or too expensive to use hoping they will work. i think amerikanets had a writing on it and it was considered by him a failed wunderwaffe. not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but M777 and excalibur do not seem to be a factor right now.

 

[Meh123]

GPS-guided munitions only need one shot to hit the target

GPS guided anything turns into a very expensive dumb ammunition the moment GPS is jammed. which is all along the contact line, hence you don't really see these expensive toys anymore on the battlefield.

of course there are drones that cost millions, like the Reaper

That's by design. The USA MIC loves to pump out overpriced, overengineered, overhyped wunderwaffen in relatively meaningless numbers.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/17/revealed-trump-confidential-plan-ukraine-stranglehold/

https://archive.md/i5mGM

 

[The Ugly One]

but if we talk about the multicopters used on the contact line, they are not expensive. they cost a few hundreds at most. both side build them and components to build a quadcopter are dirt cheap.

Those quadcopter drones can't fly 30 miles in 40-70 seconds, detonate 10 lbs of TNT, and spread 70 lbs of shrapnel over a 50m radius. A $200 quadcopter can carry about maybe a pound or two at a range of 100m. A drone that can carry 50+ lbs more than 10 miles will cost you $50K or more. The purpose of a GPS-guided munition is to hit things beyond the range of conventional artillery and where the enemy's air defenses are a threat. The cheap quadcopters you see are used at much, much closer ranges.

GPS guided anything turns into a very expensive dumb ammunition the moment GPS is jammed. which is all along the contact line, hence you don't really see these expensive toys anymore on the battlefield.

All modern GPS-guided systems--including Russian systems--have inertial backup guidance systems. They continue to be used by both sides in Ukraine. Every time you read about HIMARS or Kalibr in the news, that's a satellite-guided system. Russia's FAB-to-glide-bomb converter kits also include GLONASS guidance systems. What matters with GPS/GLONASS-guided munitions is how far way your jammer gets them. If it's less than 10 miles, it's already on an accurate enough trajectory that, combined with the inertial system, it's probably too late.