himars? long range drones? european munitions? f-16 launched missiles Two Dozen Russian Helicopters Downed in One Day with 'Secret Weapon'—Kyiv (msn.com) Ukrainian forces destroyed 26 Russian helicopters in a single day using an unknown long-range weapon supplied by Kyiv's allies, Volodymyr Zelensky has claimed. During a press conference with journalists in Latvia on Thursday, the Ukrainian president remained light on details when discussing the use of the mystery weapon, not disclosing which country had provided the system, how long it had been in operation or when it had been used against the helicopters. "Partners have provided us with some long-range weapons," he said, according to a translation by Ukrainian news outlet RBC. "I won't say what, but our partners will understand. "With it, we destroyed 26 helicopters in a day, and 12 planes that took off and attacked with missiles, against which these systems were working. We destroyed 12 at once."
Yes, I wonder what the weapon is and glad they have it. If F-16s have just arrived, it seems like they may be the source but I really don’t know.
Very glad to hear that the Ukrainians are still punching back hard and targeting the Russian will. Hopefully, the opposing sides in Congress will come to healthy compromise soon that gives Ukraine even more good news.
Ukraine registers modest success hammering Russian women and children as U.S. funding dries up … US Launches Strikes on Yemen, and Other Updates
what weapons do you think were introduced to be able to up the kill count on the choppers? something changed.
I hope this is true. Russia can not continue if they keep having loses like that. 26 helicopters and 12 planes? Color me unsure.
The opposite is true. And anyone paying attention to Western sources should be able to figure it out. In short: Russian units are well-staffed, easily make up for any losses, and have all the operational tempo and initiative. Ukraine on the other hand, we learned in the last update, is suffering 30,000 losses per month and for the first time—according to somereports—was not able to replenish these monthly losses via mobilization recently. US Launches Strikes on Yemen, and Other Updates
Hope it’s true as well but I’d be more inclined to believe we clandestinely stepped in than we provided a weapon with that kind of effectiveness.
It certainly doesn’t help, but I don’t see any signs that Russia is on the verge of quitting. Defeating Russia by eroding its will is a long game. We are talking possibly a few more years. Then again every time Russia has collapsed in the past, it came suddenly. So you never know.
As does your willingness to believe a liar named "Simplicious the Thinker", who's garbage is not picked up by any self-respecting news outlets, even as a rumor. If Ukraine was losing 30,000 soldiers a month, they would either be quickly retreating with what's left of their military to Kiev, or they would have surrendered by now. There is no rapid retreat, and no surrender. Ukraine is maintaining a solid defense along 600 miles of the front, and giving up very little territory while running low on ammunition. You figure it out. Your liar-friend will not.
Unlike your steady stream of predigested tractarianism from Ukrainian sources, Simplicius is a Brit who draws heavily from Western sources. 30,000 losses per month is plausible given that the massive and long-anticipated Fall Offensive was ground to dust, Ukraine is reduced to bunkering down and Zaluzhny is pleading for 500,000 new troops. You can’t hate your way to cokehead regime victory.
They are working on that from as many angles as they can think of. Sending people into Ukraine as walking targets, convincing people to emigrate to other countries to avoid conscription, persuading women to give up on having children, and not maintaining the heating utilities in winter, causing people to die from the cold.
Sure. Off the top of my head: Massive natural resources. Support of China. Huge body of manpower with some military training due to conscription. A population that is certainly less casualty-averse and more accepting of austerity than the West. Like any other country, they certainly have disadvantages, too. More in fact than we were aware of before this war started.
And they have a long history of investing a high percentage of GDP into weapons and the military. Surprisingly, they are not very good at warfare.
