• SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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
    2
    ·
    4 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
      2
      ·
      4 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
      1
      ·
      4 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).

    • wtckt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

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

      • seeigel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Artikel 42 EU treaty. All members of the EU have to fight with their full capacity. This will escalate quickly.

        There are already EU troops in the Baltics, just to remind the Russans of it.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            “obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”. Which is far above what being in NATO requires states to do. Which just btw also covers Greenland. Only ones off the hook are Ireland and Austria due to being neutral, the treaty still covers them though.

            • torrentialgrain@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              If a state decides that what’s in their power is sending 5000 helmets, then nobody will be able to force them to do more. Misinformed internet people think Article 42 is an automatic collective war switch, it is most certainly not and doubly so in the case of Greenland, lmao.

    • Triasha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 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.

    • Naevermix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 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.

      • lumony@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        and without vehicles were pretty much back to WW1 tactics, fighting over inches.

        Which is kind of what the war in Ukraine has become.

        Maybe one day we’ll learn as a species that there is no good way to fight a war and we should just avoid it altogether.

        Most of us are just fighting over what the ruling class wants us to fight over, anyways.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    the industry is not covering combat losses

    Since it’s not clear from the headline, that’s the restoration industry. We’re not even talking about the production of new tanks (which was never that impressive at any point in the full-scale war).

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yes. Back when analysts used to talk about a war with Russia pre-2022, something you heard pretty often was “they’re not as advanced, but they have so much stockpiled armour”.

      This is like America running out of guns or Canada running out of syrup.

      • slaacaa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I think not even the CIA predicted the effectiveness of drones and javelins against old armor. Without modern defenses, they are just sitting (or slowly moving) ducks. Add to this the corruption in the military, causing lack of maintenance and missing parts, plus the gaps in skills and training of their soldiers.

        We are maybe 1-2 years away from the Russian military collapsing, if it weren’t for the orange clown.

        • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          It very much did. From the looks of it, it would’ve been “ok”, except a notoriously unreliable drivetrain, and electronics that are almost on par with the rest of the world. However, it couldn’t be built without western components, it was ridiculously expensive, couldn’t be built at a high enough rate, and not combat proven.

          As easy as it is to make fun of russian tanks these days, it does make a lot more sense to focus on T-90 or the likes instead. Hell, t-72m is also a reasonable choice given the circumstances.

          • SSTF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            I don’t think there was a good option that was also realistic. The T-90M is itself a long in the tooth design that hasn’t gotten the kinds of modernizations that tanks like the Abrams have to keep it relevant (and even then the Abrams is already being retired by the U.S.) Russian tanks needed an overhaul from the T-90M.

            The T-14 on paper had a lot of good upgrades. The problem of course being that it’s much easier to draw something than make it work.

            So the two options were keep building obsolete “modern” tanks or build a next gen tank that doesn’t work.

            What Russian tanks needed was an overhaul to their fire control and ideally their protection to keep up and shift into active protection. The ancient curtain system is not cutting it.

            Part of my wonders if maybe they should have invested in something scaled back and novel. Make a lightweight vehicle like the totally-not-a-tank-we-swear M10 Booker. Something lightweight, with a smaller caliber main gun to focus on taking out structures and infantry targets. Stick some active protection on it, and some missiles and you’ve got a vehicle that bridges that gap between IFV and MBT.

            • ERPAdvocate@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 days ago

              From my very limited understanding that’s kinda what they tried with the BMD lineup. Problem is because they’re for airborne use they end up too light to protect anything, and loaded with ATGMs, a 100mm cannon, and a 30mm for squirting lighter targets. Basically on first hit it goes up like a Christmas tree lol

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

                Kind of sort of, but I was thinking more along the lines of the U.S. Army’s “MFP” M10. Essentially reviving the light tank but adding some Science on top.

                BMDs were still made along the trajectory of IFVs where they can hold troops, and like you mentioned the lighter armor from the airborne desire for use makes them vulnerable even to smaller diameter HEAT rounds.

                My vague vision would be something more like a light tank (by the modern definition of “light” which is more like 50ish tons bare and 60 with all the fixins), with enough armor to survive side hits from low 80ish-mm rounds, and very importantly investment in active protection. Thermal signature reduction like a lot of new showcase vehicles are adding. Maybe even something like the new KF Panther where they have a dedicated drone operator to control a drone that shadows the tank. This all is kind of “if I were king of the world” thought experimenting since of course Russia clearly doesn’t have the resources to even make proper upgrades to T90Ms to bring them up to a 2020s standard.

    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Is it that hard to understand? They are barely producing enough to keep up the war in Ukraine, but much compared to some European countries. When the war “ends” end they continue with their war economy for a few years, they are still producing a lot more than the European countries. Russia can continue with their strategy, but some Nato states need to change theirs.

  • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 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.

    • lumony@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

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

      Thank you. I’m glad other people are starting to realize that all of our information is fed through an English-speaking filter first.

      If we want to see more than what English-speakers have deemed palatable for us, we need to learn different languages.

      it’s sad how we can’t overcome propaganda and at least make an attempt to understand the truth, but it really puts into perspective why I should not respect the vast majority of my peers in the modern day.

      Too many people are overtaken by hysteria.

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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.

  • index@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Yet we must triple up military budget in case they decide to invade whole europe on empty tanks…

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think at this point the unspoken truth is that we must have a military that needs to be a deterrent to the US as well.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yes because Russia will build more tanks and other equipment in the next decade. Not a problem if Europe builds up too. But that will be a problem if Europe does nothing.

      If Russia were an immediate threat, Europe would have no choice but to give Trump whatever he wants so the US will protect Europe. But with Russian forces being decimated by this war, Europe has the opportunity to build it’s own arms industry to be able to produce it’s own weapons to be able to counter Russia in a decade’s time.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      I’m going to go with what European military leaders are saying, out loud and in public. God knows what those leaders really know and talk about.

      I’m guessing you’re European? Well, you’ve had 80 years of mostly peace and prosperity. Timed to get armed, personally. (Yes my fellow Americans, Europeans can acquire guns without too much hassle. Yes, real guns. Gun ownership just isn’t a major part of their culture like it is over here, and their culture isn’t as diseased as ours regarding weapons.)

      If you’re allergic to guns, consider these two scenarios:

      1. Hostile foreign power invades America.

      2. Hostile foreign power invades Europe.

      In which case do you expect the invader to suffer the most? Which case do you consider more likely?

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          It’s funny how easily people are deceived, imagine if your house neighbor were to buy some howitzers and hire 100 guys for “security reasons”. Armies are made to wage war and most weapons are designed to kill other humans.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        You are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that a rising sense of militarism quickly feeds into a decay of your society, if you make an incredible amount of guns somebody is going to use them, that is how these things work.

        I am not saying Europe shouldn’t absolutely take being able to militarily counter Russia seriously, as they should any regional threat, but what is needed isn’t necessarily to reshape Europe into a hypermilitarized environment, especially in the area of police and the militarization of police, what Europe needs is to make sure it has effective counters to a mass, mechanized land war. What conservative war hawks in Europe will advocate for is a militarization of police and of society, that is not what is needed. You need the right military assets to make a ground war incredibly costly for the Russians.

        One of the most effective counters, and a decisive element of the war in Ukranian has been HIMARs, long range missiles launched from trucks and armor capable of striking mobile Russian SAM assets and other high value targets from extremely far away. These make maneuvering a large concentrated armored force much much much more costly and dangerous for an invader.

        …but ultimately this all devolves into a sense of militarism that undermines the original reason for making all the guns in the first place, it is just a matter of how far you can push it in your society before that cancer becomes terminal… see the U.S. as a prime example…

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Even your comment advocating for reasonable spending gets downvoted. People are mad on war propaganda.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 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
      0
      ·
      5 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
        1
        ·
        4 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.