• SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    And somehow it won’t effect the war at all

    Russia has been on the brink of collapse for 20 years now.

    Ping me when something actually happens that isn’t just propaganda.

  • LuckyPierre@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    3 days ago

    Elsewhere on Lemmy today;

    Germany warns Russia may be preparing attack on NATO

    Both of these cannot be true.

    • TThor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      They can be true. They might be low on current stockpile, but what is building up is production capacity. Preparing to attack doesn’t mean immediately attacking, what most have concern is that once Russia’s war against Ukraine cools down, Russia will spend the next 4-10 years building up towards potentially attacking NATO nations.

      Yes, years down the line doesn’t sound as alarming to the layman, but it is critical for that eventuality to be recognized and prepared for, nations and industry move slowly, and they need to prepare to fight another long drawn out war.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      3 days ago

      The idea is that after some kind of cease fire, russia will churn out stuff for 3-4-5 years (so mebbe 1.000 tanks?) and then not go full frontal against NATO but say take a bite out of Lithuania, just to see what the response will be.

      Like they have been doing since forever (Chechnya, Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine and so on).

      • mechoman444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        Correct. The issue with Ukraine though is they fought back and didn’t give any land to Russia. Now Putin needs to save face and how many people put through the meat grinder to do that is irrelevant.

    • tauren@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Both things can be true because Germany is talking about risks in the upcoming 5 to 10 years, while this issue is relevant today.

    • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      We have to keep in mind that Europe needs to justify austerity for the citizens and rearmament for their militaries. I have no evidence of this, but I think it’s an entierly sensible read that the warning from Germany is an overstatement with that intent in mind.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I guess you need to pretend there’s a threat NOW in order to divert funds towards defense now.

        If the threat is in more like 10 years, why don’t we start investing next year instead? etc.

    • Triasha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      They absolutely can.

      Russia has thousands of men willing to fight in horrendous conditions.

      A few thousand soldiers that are very well equipped might lose to 10x as many badly equipped enemies.

      I think they would lose, but they might not think so.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Russia has thousands of men willing to fight in horrendous conditions.

        They’ve got hundreds of thousands of conscripts who are largely dug in along an enormous front, along the four eastern most seized Oblasts in Ukraine.

        Any attack they would make into a NATO state would be an artillery bombardment intended to deny Ukrainians resupply, not a ground invasion to secure territory. Particularly not when they have poor control over their own borders and a nasty instance of counter-insurgence popping up in and around their major cities.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      If you know anything about current Russian government, you’d know that one necessarily follows the other. The more desperate Russia gets, the less reserves they have, the more bold and aggressive they’re getting. There is a combination of factors leading into it, both psychological and material.

    • Robbity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      Have you never worked in an organization?

      You can have as many preparation meetings as you want and still be on your ass when the day of judgement comes.

    • wtckt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Taking over a Baltic state is feasible. NATO might react by sending helmets and prayers.

    • Sektor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      One of the traits of fascism by Umberto Eco, enemy is in the same time weak and strong.

        • Sektor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Fascists are the ones that do or promote fascist things. Germany is not one of those countries.

    • febra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      Russia can’t even take over Ukraine, let alone half of NATO to even make it into Germany. I personally think this is just fearmongering on the side of our elected officials so the military industrial complex can make a few more bucks with money from the state.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago
      • We’re on the verge of total victory

      • The enemy is prepared to launch its biggest attack yet

      Is the same war time propaganda we’ve been served up for decades. Iraq/Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea…

      The news coverage is totally divorced from what is happening on the ground. There’s even a term for it.

      Credibility Gap

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      This your first round in front of the firehose of lies?

      Best guess: Russia is a paper bear that need to keep growling before the bookworms eat it

  • LordR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    3 days ago

    I really hope Russia is collapsing soon so Ukraians can have actual peace.

    • Naevermix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      And yet, moving the front is almost impossible without them. All vehicles struggle with drones but at least tanks won’t go down from machine gun fire, and without vehicles were pretty much back to WW1 tactics, fighting over inches.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    3 days ago

    So let’s have a ceasefire eh? /s

    Finally the reality is catching up with russia.

    Slava Ukraine!

    • LegoBrickOnFire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, the fact that Putin is not really pushing for a ceasefire means that they are not as out-of-stock as the headline suggests…

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        They are already using way less tanks & armored vehicles today. They will never really “run out” but just have a smaller stockpile to draw from, which seems to be the case.

        Also, who knows what kind of information putin gets, look at donald and the information he gets and he’s not even killing everyone not doing their job correctly.

        Change comes gradually and then suddenly. Lots of signs point to a collapse (stockpiles, economy, the blocked frontlines, …, and donkeys), some people have put it to around mid 2025-end 2025 for quite some time now.

        Interesting times.

  • pepperprepper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 days ago

    Unfortunately I think this also has to do with the changing tech around war. Drones are the new hotness and it is a very good counter to tanks warfare.

    • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think you hit the nail on the head. Even without drones, they are awful I’m so much of modern warfare. If you’ve watched any footage out of Gaza you’ll see a dude pop up out of tunnel and just completely disable a tank without them ever seeing him. Tanks are quickly going the way of the cannon. In much the same way.

      • silverlose@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Very true. I think the tank, much like the cannon, will still have its own niche use case but isn’t the silver bullet so many armies saw it as. Happens a lot I think

  • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I don’t know what to think anymore. I feel like every week for the last 4 years it’s been “China’s economy is going collapse any day now” and “Russia is losing so many people and resources in this war. They might as well give all of Russia to Ukraine”

    I don’t take any news written in English with any seriousness for these two countries.

    Also, pretty sure modern warfare has learned heavily that tanks are completely obsolete against drones. Or even less modern warfare tells us how useless they are in cities against gorilla fighters.

    • Not_Dav3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 days ago

      Unless the Ukrainians have resorted to conscripting great apes, it’s “guerilla” rather than “gorilla”.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      Russia has been coasting on old Soviet stock for a while. Most of their modern t-90s and t-14s have been exploded. They’ve been sending mothballs tanks and apcs to the front for years now. Last year a good deal of frontline troops were using unarmored Chinese golf carts to move around. They never had the manufacturing capability to keep modernized armor at the front, and it is costing russian lives

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        This right here.

        People prefer to read “Russian army COLLAPSE, Putin so angry 😡😡😡!!”

        Than:

        “Further logistical problems might slow down the russian advances in the coming months.”

        Then complain that they are ill informed.

        • Darkmoon_UK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Do they really though? That’s what writers want to write because it ‘gets them views’ - a malaise of modern media. I’m one of the ‘people’, I’d rather have a sober analysis.

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Russia has spent up enough of of their mainline modern vehicles like T-90Ms to a point where the refurbishments have long ago stopped keeping up. Similarly IFVs are lost, especially many of their airborne models which were misused early in the war.

      The war has become much more static, with Russian vehicle losses slowing them down. The final assault on Avdiivka for example was completely brutal, lasting a month and consisting of a lot of unsupported infantry charges over an open field. The Russians did eventually win, taking the fortified position they were assaulting, but the tactics used and amount of losses to do them are not something that would have happened if they’d had the vehicles to spare.

      The shear scale of the war has had Russia brute force it from being a maneuver fight to an attrition fight, and Russia appears to be banking on having the higher population to win. How that will resolve is up in the air, Ukraine wants to turn it back into a maneuver war I think and I don’t know if they can. The propaganda from the war by both sides can make it difficult to get a clear up to date picture.

      Also, pretty sure modern warfare has learned heavily that tanks are completely obsolete against drones. Or even less modern warfare tells us how useless they are in cities against [guerrilla] fighters.

      Tanks are one tool in the box, and like any other tool they are adapting to drones. Drones are not a silver bullet, and they especially are not as useful in supporting or spearheading fast moving offensives, which is still an important role tanks will fill. Active protection systems, electronic warfare (both jamming and signal detection to track down enemy drone operators), and tank based drones are all in play to figure out how to best do things now.

      As for cities, tanks have always had trouble in cities. This isn’t a revelation of this war. Militaries tend to be skiddish of putting tanks in city fights unless they really have to. Russia particularly still has memories of Chechnya in this regard.

    • utopiah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I don’t take any news written in English with any seriousness for these two countries.

      Where do you get trusted news then for these two countries?

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Because fog of war and propaganda is very strong from all sides.

      Not to mention that all of these things can be true as they don’t negate each other.