On 1/4/25 20:17, GB wrote:
On 03/01/2025 15:58, Pancho wrote:
On 1/3/25 14:59, GB wrote:
On 02/01/2025 23:40, Pancho wrote:
You'd have thought that Europe would have spent the last 3 years
arming up like mad, but even that hasn't happened.
Why? It is clear Russia has more than enough on their hands with
Ukraine, and other ex soviet republics. They are so weak they have
just lost Syria.
They now have battle-hardened troops. Why stop at Ukraine? Why not
annexe Germany, then France?
If they had managed to annexe Kharkiv, I would be more convinced.
Kharkiv is 30km from the Russian border, just another 970km and they
would get to Poland. Then the same again and they would reach France.
Also, I think it is becoming clearer that drones/robots are the
future, not battle harden soldiers.
Indeed. Ukraine has produced 1.1m FPV drones, and the Russians 1.3m. How
many do our army have?
It's not just that the Russian soldiers that are battle-hardened. They
now know how to fight.
I dislike this characterisation. Yes, I understand that soldiers handle
the stress of live fire badly, but I think the main problem is strategy
from the top, "generals always prepare to fight the last war"
("generals" includes politicians).
In the UK this is relevant with vanity projects like aircraft carriers
and the independent nuclear deterrent.
To my mind the obvious lessons from the war are: cheap drones
overwhelming vastly more expensive equipment and, possibly even more importantly, the need for economic self sufficiency. Or economic self sufficiency within a political unit that has enforceable legal
mechanisms to ensure supply. It's one of the main reasons I thought
Brexit was a bad idea.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)