Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
That is my point. They have electricity and water. Also, for the most part they have internet and it happens to be provided by guess who (russian isp's...bet you didn't know that).

When is the last time that there was a "war zone" that had these things was my point? Russia certainly has the capabilities to wipe out this infrastructure by kinetic and cyber means. In fact, it is common sense (and warfare 101) to destroy this infrastructure before moving in.

Hmmm...it is quite fascinating.
Sorry, I'm slow on the uptake. Please explain what you're getting at.
 
don't know if you are trolling but starlink receivers can be used in the field by a military operation running on battery power, solar PV, or even gas (petrol) / diesel generators.

They can be moved from building to building, or sitting in the back of a pickup truck, or you could even have someone carrying it around. You just have to stand still for a couple of minutes for the unit to find the sats and you are up and going. Send and receive for a few minutes and then stow the antenna and get moving again.

It's vastly superior to any traditional internet because not only is it semi mobile, you could have an untrained grandmother or elementary school kid set it up, it's practically "automagic". You don't need a trained IT tech or military satellite expert to set it up and align it. The starlink hardware does all the alignment and negotiations automatically.

So even if the phone system, cable modems, DSL, fibre, etc are cut you can get data in and out over starlink.

Even if you have to abandon your home and move elsewhere you can tote this thing around with you. It's lighter than most anything else you might want to bring with you.
 
That is my point. They have electricity and water. Also, for the most part they have internet and it happens to be provided by guess who (russian isp's...bet you didn't know that).

When is the last time that there was a "war zone" that had these things was my point? Russia certainly has the capabilities to wipe out this infrastructure by kinetic and cyber means. In fact, it is common sense (and warfare 101) to destroy this infrastructure before moving in.

Hmmm...it is quite fascinating.

You aren't making sense to me, Russia did knock out their internet, that is why Ukraine is requesting Starlink support, to restore their internet. Do you not understand that? 🤔
 

As Russia pounded Ukraine in the opening days of its invasion, the defenders credited a new piece of equipment with helping them fight back — the Bayraktar TB2 drone.

Videos shared by the Ukrainian military showed at least one strike appearing to tear apart a column of Russian tanks and other armored vehicles.
 
The people who are suggesting that more infantry is needed to protect Russian armor are missing a point about recent wars. In the past, the point was to gain ground and strategic locations. You either assumed that either the resistance would be weak or you didn't care about slaughtering civilians and/or your troops. Nowadays, even in an autocracy like Russia, there is major political blowback if you kill too many of either your troops or civilians. So basically you hope for weak resistance. That obviously didn't work in Ukraine. Will Putin now start killing Ukrainian civilians en masse? He's unstable enough to do that.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
That is my point. They have electricity and water. Also, for the most part they have internet and it happens to be provided by guess who (russian isp's...bet you didn't know that).

When is the last time that there was a "war zone" that had these things was my point? Russia certainly has the capabilities to wipe out this infrastructure by kinetic and cyber means. In fact, it is common sense (and warfare 101) to destroy this infrastructure before moving in.

Hmmm...it is quite fascinating.

Are you, by chance, related to this chap?

514368548.jpg
 
That is my point. They have electricity and water. Also, for the most part they have internet and it happens to be provided by guess who (russian isp's...bet you didn't know that).

When is the last time that there was a "war zone" that had these things was my point? Russia certainly has the capabilities to wipe out this infrastructure by kinetic and cyber means. In fact, it is common sense (and warfare 101) to destroy this infrastructure before moving in.

Hmmm...it is quite fascinating.

The Russians clearly thought this was a 1-2 day war. They had it in their heads that they were going to march in and Kyev was going to roll over before they could put up a fight. They didn’t prepare for a drawn out conflict. They wanted the infrastructure as intact as possible.

This the the most ham-fisted, incompetent war ever. The Russians have no clue how to proceed at this point.
 
Last edited:
Nobody in the West has any interest in invading Russia. Putin is simply paranoid and living in the past.
Hey, he's Russian. Russians have been acculturated for hundreds of years to expect intrigue, nefarious intent and treachery.
A naive Russian really does not exist very long.
'Being paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you.'
Good point. With the amount of nefarious intent and treachery that Putin has been doling out over the years, it stands to reason that he might expect some reciprocity. /...
So... 1. Before Putin invaded Ukraine – which country or which countries would could have considered invading Russia? 2. Are there any country or any countries thinking about invading Russia today?
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: jbcarioca
The people who are suggesting that more infantry is needed to protect Russian armor are missing a point about recent wars. In the past, the point was to gain ground and strategic locations. You either assumed that either the resistance would be weak or you didn't care about slaughtering civilians and/or your troops. Nowadays, even in an autocracy like Russia, there is major political blowback if you kill too many of either your troops or civilians. So basically you hope for weak resistance. That obviously didn't work in Ukraine. Will Putin now start killing Ukrainian civilians en masse? He's unstable enough to do that.
If I understand correctly, the sieging strategy Russia is adopting will increase casualties by a lot. What options exist to stop this?

Somewhat related, if Belarus actively joins the fight, does that not open the door for other bordering countries to actively join the fight with Ukraine? I don’t like where this leads, but at some point, if sanctions don’t work, if logistical supply issues don’t stop it, where do things go?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
So... 1. Before Putin invaded Ukraine – which country or which countries would could have considered invading Russia? 2. Are there any country or any countries thinking about invading Russia today?
If you go to far eastern russia...China is doing a very good careful quite job of doing just that. Hard to find Russians in some towns border areas, farms all Chinese, forest all clearcut (actual National Park old growth stuff) to send lumber to China. Etc etc. So yes, China has invaded. In 10-20 years Russia has a real problem there but it would be very helpful to China to swallow up the southern portions of far eastern russia.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: EVCollies
I've never served in the Military, but even I know leaving fuel tankers, rocket launchers, and tanks standing still out in the open unprotected isn't a good idea.

The Ukrainian drone pilots do have a problem, in terms of soft targets they have too many, so they need a list of priorities.

Simple solution I say is more drones, any tanks and rocket launchers they get rid of now are some they don't need to worry about later.
 
While I am disappointed the first round of negotiations didn't reach a settlement I pleased they are scheduling more talks.

It seems both sides are prepared to pay a high price for Crimea and whoever gets it will pay a high price.

The first offer from the Russians was never going to be a good offer, the sides are probably poles apart.

The Russian negotiating position is probably weaker now that it was before the start of the war.. If Putin's mum told home to "ask nicely" he didn't listen.

The cash offer for Russian solders to surrender is a genius move and might tip the balance, the smart ones will take they money, when they get back to Russia they will remember their mates who were dumb enough to stay and die. They will be better fed, warm and safe from any harm whichever side wins.
Done right it is hard to tell after a war who was captured, who surrendered for other reasons, and who took the cash,.
The cash is probably just a minor factor, staying alive when the odds look bad is a primary consideration.
 
The people who are suggesting that more infantry is needed to protect Russian armor are missing a point about recent wars. In the past, the point was to gain ground and strategic locations. You either assumed that either the resistance would be weak or you didn't care about slaughtering civilians and/or your troops. Nowadays, even in an autocracy like Russia, there is major political blowback if you kill too many of either your troops or civilians. So basically you hope for weak resistance. That obviously didn't work in Ukraine. Will Putin now start killing Ukrainian civilians en masse? He's unstable enough to do that.
Yes he will. Putin is not going to lose this. It would be far too humiliating to quit at this point. He hoped to do it quickly and easily so he could cling to his fictions about the reasons for the invasion.
Now he will adjust the tactics, and stop worrying as much about civilian casualties. He’s start rocketing the cities and drive out the population and create a lot of smoking rubble and destroyed infrastructure.,.
Look no further than Chechnya for your example of where this is going if they cant bring the Ukraine forces to their knees in the next couple of days. At that point it will likely become an insurgency and go on and on.
 
So... 1. Before Putin invaded Ukraine – which country or which countries would could have considered invading Russia? 2. Are there any country or any countries thinking about invading Russia today?
To jbcarioca's "being paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you ", I would add- being paranoid doesn't mean they are out to get you. It doesn't mean anything really, other than the possessor suffers from neuroses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
Look no further than Chechnya for your example of where this is going if they cant bring the Ukraine forces to their knees in the next couple of days. At that point it will likely become an insurgency and go on and on.

..... Ukraine is >30x the size of Chechnya. That's like comparing an invasion of Vermont to an invasion of Texas.

Putin can't even maintain Air Superiority.
 
So... 1. Before Putin invaded Ukraine – which country or which countries would could have considered invading Russia? 2. Are there any country or any countries thinking about invading Russia today?
If you go to far eastern russia... /.../ China has invaded. /...
Weird... I wonder why haven't seen or heard so much as a whisper about this on the News Cycle...
 
If you go to far eastern russia...China is doing a very good careful quite job of doing just that. Hard to find Russians in some towns border areas, farms all Chinese, forest all clearcut (actual National Park old growth stuff) to send lumber to China. Etc etc. So yes, China has invaded. In 10-20 years Russia has a real problem there but it would be very helpful to China to swallow up the southern portions of far eastern russia.
You don't think there's a difference between an all out military invasion and buying land?...