_kbh_

11 ms·

61.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
>> Russia have thrown everything they have at Ukraine over the last year-and-a-half. > I don't believe that's the case. Russian military doctrine has always been to reserve the best systems for the end-game, and front &#x
62.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> There's no real doubt that possible Ukrainian NATO membership (and short of that, its ever closer de facto integration with NATO) were primary motivating factors for the Russian decision to invade. Interesting if this is the case
63.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Maybe this is because you are ignorant to the extent of American war crimes? I think you may be ignorant to the extent and type of crimes that Russia is committing in Ukraine. >> “There are examples of cases where relatives were
64.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
I’m not seeing much independent thought outside the usual “America bad”. It’s interesting that a lot of those independent thinkers all have the exact same opinions.
65.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> "The important part is that there is no scientific basis for Russia fielding old T-62/T-55s and in fact Russia is verifiably fielding three times more T-90Ms than before." This is verifiably false, theres plenty of image
66.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> So .. what is it .. they're fielding junk because they have no new stuff, or they're fielding new stuff, and its effective? They have limited new stuff and they are fielding literally mad max'esuqe technicals. > Keep
67.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
But they have literally fielded BMPT's, T90's and S400's. They are literally fielding there latest stuff
68.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
What part of there doctrine says to reactivate T55/T54/T62's and to weld a random assortment of rocket systems to MTLBs in some sort of slightly more advanced technical?.
69.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
I never said Russia is weak I just said that they aren't holding anything back and that they are clearly using their most modern weapons and defences and are still getting wiped out in droves.
70.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
We have literally seen some of Russias most advanced equipment and most elite units, sent to and decimated in Ukraine. They are fighting an all-out war, and if they aren't they are idiots considering how much of Russian territory and o
71.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> M57 and M57E1 ATACMS only has a range of about 300 km, while Moscow is 50% further at 430-460 km. Ukraine would need serious SRBMs to hit enough Russian strategic targets. ATACMS has the range to hit Sevastopol and other parts of Crime
72.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? It’s amazing that such a small airforce manages to prevent russia from gaining air superiority and even manages to effectively conduct sorties isn’t it
73.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Don't waste people's time with nonsense-- I can find an article in US media that also puts forward every conceivable position if I try hard enough It’s not nonsense it’s russias own position on the war straight from there own
74.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> This is so delusional. I am just quoting what the Russian media said in there accidentally posted victory article early on in the war. But I agree it is super delusional. https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154&
75.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> These conflicts are all about preserving American hegemony, nothing more. Should tell the Russians that they seem to think the war in Ukraine is about fixing the “mistake” of Ukraines independence.
76.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Looking more closely at this, the backdoor is almost certainly based on the back-doored random number generator, Dual_EC_DRBG, which is implemented as NIST SP 800-90A. This doesn't have to be backdoored. It could simply be a bug i
77.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Even looking at total aircraft losses per side per month, the worst case is Ukraine with 307 losses over 19 months or 16.2 per month. Unless this includes UAV's (which would be a bit strange) I don't see how this is even poss
78.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> They went to Ukraine to take the land required to give them a buffer against NATO-aligned forces, which have called for the destruction of Russia for years - and thats exactly what they've created. Interesting cause the victory ar
79.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> So why on earth would they blow up a dam that would do far more damage to the areas they controlled? Because actions like this are less about Russia winning and more about Ukraine losing. They did this to cause decades of damage to Ukr
80.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
Shelling was unlikely to have caused that damage. It was nearly certainly an internal explosion based on reporting by the NYTimes. > https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/16/world/europe&#x2
81.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> It was a coup. It was primarily achieved through covert action, which by definition avoids yielding smoking guns that would cater to your personal, precise, technical definition of "coup", but given the totality of the circum
82.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't
83.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Now, countries that have nuclear weapons now know why they do and aren't going to give them up unilaterally in any case. It is not easy to develop nuclear weapons, either. It's not hard to make simple fission bombs like fat m
84.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> if you cut all the "moral crap" about of the war in ukraine: > because nobody wants to die in a nuclear apocalypse!? I actually firmly believe that leaving Ukraine on its own to be steam rolled by Russia would of increased
85.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> IMO "Equipment" is a very tame and benign term for the deadly munitions we're supplying being used directly against an hostile nuclear power. It's not like we're only sending medical supplies and other errands
86.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> All US weapons delivered to Ukraine are delivered with the condition that they not be used on Russian territory. Elon's policy was the same as Biden's. The US is more then happy to see there weapons used on Crimea as they hav
87.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> NATO clearly justifies its existence largely as an anti-Russia organization as it denied entertaining the idea of Russia as a member To clear this up. Russia tried to join by bypassing the typical application process, was told pretty
88.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
That portion of land wasn’t won for free they lost a lot of troops, vehicles and aircraft and even a handful of boats to do that. They are also losing it slowly piece by piece.
89.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> In the annals of diplomacy, it would not be strange for Russia to have interpreted the near invitation and late-stage downgrade to a "will join" statement as something far from acquiescence. I think it was taken as quite prov
90.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> bringing the war into Crimea is effectively opening a new theater Considering that Crimea seems to take a cruise missile or two every month and we know that the Ukrainians have done a cross sea raid on Crimea. How is it a new theatre?

More ›