Jump to content

Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine


maqroll

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

It just doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. See your own answer below. It makes perfect sense.

20 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

they just cannot hide their in part heavy cronyism towards Russia. Scholz' party is full of Putin-shills on the left, and this statement is likely directly from them.

Germany, gone from Panzers to Pansies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 18.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bickster

    1818

  • magnkarl

    1490

  • Genie

    1273

  • avfc1982am

    1145

The Rammstein meetings continue this week. U.S officials are already calling this the week where Ukraine will be given what they need to beat Russia. Sweden and U.K have opened the proceedings with good deliveries, Canada to give 100 more AFV's, let's see what Germany and France does. U.S likely to give 100km range ground fired diameter bombs and Stryker AFV's.

The issue for Ukraine will be to organise this extremely colorful array of different platforms. We struggled in the 70's in my army days with 3 different systems..

Speak of the devil..

 

Edited by magnkarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, villa89 said:

So Ukraine will get 20 different types of vehicles and have to try to train their soliders how to use them in 6 weeks. 

The good thing is that NATO AFV's generally run on the same computing systems, Bradleys, Strykers, CV90's (correct me if I'm wrong), Mastiffs etc can all be run with very similar systems and are generally devloped by the same companies (BAE, General Dynamics)

Tanks - not so sure.

Edited by magnkarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Genie said:

No signs that Russia is backing down. Putin is going all in.

 

It's the sunk cost fallacy. He has expended so much resource in his plan he has to continue with the strategy even though stopping would be more beneficial (apart from to his reputation)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's the sunk cost fallacy. He has expended so much resource in his plan he has to continue with the strategy even though stopping would be more beneficial (apart from to his reputation)

I don’t think it’s sunk cost fallacy. Stopping wouldn’t just harm Putin’s reputation, it would mean his death. For Putin himself the cost of stopping is far higher than the cost of pushing on. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I don’t think it’s sunk cost fallacy. Stopping wouldn’t just harm Putin’s reputation, it would mean his death. For Putin himself the cost of stopping is far higher than the cost of pushing on. 

Zelensky's latest trolling is that Putin is already dead :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I don’t think it’s sunk cost fallacy. Stopping wouldn’t just harm Putin’s reputation, it would mean his death. For Putin himself the cost of stopping is far higher than the cost of pushing on. 

The only “out” he has is that he’s killed all the Nazi’s so operation complete. The people of Russia are so depressed they might just let it go as long as the war ended (no more of their families are sent to the slaughter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

The only “out” he has is that he’s killed all the Nazi’s so operation complete. The people of Russia are so depressed they might just let it go as long as the war ended (no more of their families are sent to the slaughter).

Even that won't do because in Russian / Putin world he's annexed the oblasts of eastern Ukraine because they are RUssian and the only way this stops is by Russia leaving them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â