Rat u Ukrajini

[MeanMachine]

Navodno Zelenski se drao na generale izvor je proruski pa uzeti sa rezervom ali je jasno da Rusi guraju napred u svom stilu čitaj jebe nam se za žrtve.

[Beonegro]

10 hours ago, MeanMachine said:

Navodno Zelenski se drao na generale izvor je proruski pa uzeti sa rezervom ali je jasno da Rusi guraju napred u svom stilu čitaj jebe nam se za žrtve.

Zbog navodnog prikrivanja stvarnog stanja na ratištu, i ne samo iz ruskih izvora, The Economist u prekjučerašnjem članku Ukraine's desperate struggle to defend Kharkiv kaže:

"A government official, who asked to remain anonymous, suggest that Mr. Zelensky had already sensed he might not be receiving the full truth. "That's what he yells at his generals, at least." "

Edited May 22 by Beonegro

[Klotzen]

Putin uhapsio i Generala Popova. On je organizovao odbranu kod Rabotina prošle godine. Kasnije smenjen jer je kritikovao više komande da im ne omogućuvaju dovoljno ljudstva i artiljerije. Verovatno osveta za tu aferu.

 

 

[Nek grmi jako]

Kad god pročitam delove Staljinove biografije koju je sastavio Antonov-Ovsenko, pogotovo sa ove distance koja je izmenila pogled na neke situaije u odnosu na period od pre tridesetak godina kada sam je prvi put čitao, pitam se kako je moguće da je SSSR uopšte vodio rat nakon čistki najvišeg oficirskog kadra tridesetih godina prošlog veka.

 

Čovek ubijao, streljao, trovao, davio, zatvarao i slao u Sibir cvet vlastitog komandnog kadra, među kojima je bio čak i Rokosovski, kasniji pobednik i jedan od najuticajnijih pojedinaca na tok ratnih dejstava... Ali verovatno je tamo ljudski rezervoar toliko dubok da može da apsorbuje čak i sve te manijake i ludake, pa čak i fenomen NKVD odreda kojima je jedina svrha u ratu bila da ubijaju svoje oficire i vojnike koji su se povlačili, pokazivali malodušnost ili nameravali da se predaju.

 

I pod pretpostavkom da verovatno ne postoji misaono biće koje ne smatra da je čisto ludilo ubijanje i zatvaranje vlastitih vojnih rukovodilaca, pa čak i onih koji su slavom ovenčani u WW2 poput Novikova ili Ribalka, izgleda da u tom ruskom upravljačkom korpusu takvi postupci baš i nisu percepirani kao maloumni.

 

Naprotiv, uvek će se nači neko ko je dovoljno na visokom nivou, a ko će opravdati i postupke Staljina, i Berije, i Hruščova, koji je još od Staljingrada na vlastitim rukama imao reke krvi svojih sunarodnika,  a sada i Putina. Meni je to sve neshvatljivo, ali njima je prilično shvatljivo. A kao logiku mahom nude ishod Drugog svetskog rata, čime opravdavaju i legitimizuju sve i svašta

 

Ovaj general Popov samo je logičan nastavak takve doktrine.

Edited May 22 by Nek grmi jako

[Anduril]

6 hours ago, Nek grmi jako said:

Kad god pročitam delove Staljinove biografije koju je sastavio Antonov-Ovsenko, pogotovo sa ove distance koja je izmenila pogled na neke situaije u odnosu na period od pre tridesetak godina kada sam je prvi put čitao, pitam se kako je moguće da je SSSR uopšte vodio rat nakon čistki najvišeg oficirskog kadra tridesetih godina prošlog veka.

 

Čovek ubijao, streljao, trovao, davio, zatvarao i slao u Sibir cvet vlastitog komandnog kadra, među kojima je bio čak i Rokosovski, kasniji pobednik i jedan od najuticajnijih pojedinaca na tok ratnih dejstava... Ali verovatno je tamo ljudski rezervoar toliko dubok da može da apsorbuje čak i sve te manijake i ludake, pa čak i fenomen NKVD odreda kojima je jedina svrha u ratu bila da ubijaju svoje oficire i vojnike koji su se povlačili, pokazivali malodušnost ili nameravali da se predaju.

 

I pod pretpostavkom da verovatno ne postoji misaono biće koje ne smatra da je čisto ludilo ubijanje i zatvaranje vlastitih vojnih rukovodilaca, pa čak i onih koji su slavom ovenčani u WW2 poput Novikova ili Ribalka, izgleda da u tom ruskom upravljačkom korpusu takvi postupci baš i nisu percepirani kao maloumni.

 

Naprotiv, uvek će se nači neko ko je dovoljno na visokom nivou, a ko će opravdati i postupke Staljina, i Berije, i Hruščova, koji je još od Staljingrada na vlastitim rukama imao reke krvi svojih sunarodnika,  a sada i Putina. Meni je to sve neshvatljivo, ali njima je prilično shvatljivo. A kao logiku mahom nude ishod Drugog svetskog rata, čime opravdavaju i legitimizuju sve i svašta

 

Ovaj general Popov samo je logičan nastavak takve doktrine.

 

Odgovor je prilicno prost - bez zapadne podrske u odlucujucim trenucima SSSR verovatno ne bi dobio rat ili bi se sve produzilo u nedogled. Posto ta prica Staljinu i partiji nije odgovarala, krenuli su u propagandnu kampanju globalno koja traje vec 75 godina da je maltene SSSR sam potukao naciste jer ih je daleko najvise poginulo. A poginulo ih je najvise pre svega zbog Staljinove okrutnosti, zla, gluposti, paranoje i strateskih gresaka. Bez cistki, bez Holodomora, bez pakta sa Ribentropom i sa boljim odnosima prema Zapadu nacisti ne bi stigli veovatno ni do Pariza ili Beograda. Ovako, je Staljin 1940. predao odlucujuce kolicine goriva nemackoj ratnoj masini dok su zauzimali citavu Evropu pre napada na SSSR. O tome sada naravno cute.

..............

Na temu:

I dok se u SAD i Nemackoj igraju igre kako ne eskalirati kremaljskog fasistu, KGB radi posao/sabotaze po Danskoj, Poljskoj, po Baltiku:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/novo-nordisk-building-site-hit-by-fire-danish-tv2-reports-2024-05-16/ pre 6 dana

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/novo-nordisk-site-denmark-hit-by-fire-2024-05-22/ pre 6 sati

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/shopping-complex-fire-inflicts-tragedy-vietnamese-community-poland-110263001

Nekoliko vatri po Poljskoj. O ometanju letova i udarima sabotazama po Baltiku da ne govorimo.

Za sada niko ne talasa previse a zna se kako mafijasi/fasisti reaguju na slabost - i tako sve dok ne preteraju, ne pogine veci broj ljudi i onda ce opet Zapad biti kriv.

Edited May 22 by Anduril

[Koca Popovic]

9 hours ago, Nek grmi jako said:

Kad god pročitam delove Staljinove biografije koju je sastavio Antonov-Ovsenko, pogotovo sa ove distance koja je izmenila pogled na neke situaije u odnosu na period od pre tridesetak godina kada sam je prvi put čitao, pitam se kako je moguće da je SSSR uopšte vodio rat nakon čistki najvišeg oficirskog kadra tridesetih godina prošlog veka.

 

Čovek ubijao, streljao, trovao, davio, zatvarao i slao u Sibir cvet vlastitog komandnog kadra, među kojima je bio čak i Rokosovski, kasniji pobednik i jedan od najuticajnijih pojedinaca na tok ratnih dejstava... Ali verovatno je tamo ljudski rezervoar toliko dubok da može da apsorbuje čak i sve te manijake i ludake, pa čak i fenomen NKVD odreda kojima je jedina svrha u ratu bila da ubijaju svoje oficire i vojnike koji su se povlačili, pokazivali malodušnost ili nameravali da se predaju.

 

I pod pretpostavkom da verovatno ne postoji misaono biće koje ne smatra da je čisto ludilo ubijanje i zatvaranje vlastitih vojnih rukovodilaca, pa čak i onih koji su slavom ovenčani u WW2 poput Novikova ili Ribalka, izgleda da u tom ruskom upravljačkom korpusu takvi postupci baš i nisu percepirani kao maloumni.

 

Naprotiv, uvek će se nači neko ko je dovoljno na visokom nivou, a ko će opravdati i postupke Staljina, i Berije, i Hruščova, koji je još od Staljingrada na vlastitim rukama imao reke krvi svojih sunarodnika,  a sada i Putina. Meni je to sve neshvatljivo, ali njima je prilično shvatljivo. A kao logiku mahom nude ishod Drugog svetskog rata, čime opravdavaju i legitimizuju sve i svašta

 

Ovaj general Popov samo je logičan nastavak takve doktrine.

Pa nisam bas ubijedjen da je tako. Prezivjece ovi ludaci i ovo danas zhvaljujuci  NO (nuklearno oruzje). A WW2 su prezivjeli zahvaljujuci Hitleru. Sad ces se pitati kako, pa od njega su jedva ostali. Jednostavno zato sto se gotovo cio svijet digao protiv Hitlera pa su samim tim dobili odlucujucu pomoc od Amera. Inace da se Hitler drzao osnovnog pravila da ne ratuje na 2 fronta, zgazio bi ih kao FAP zabu. 

[Koca Popovic]

Ne procitah da je @Anduril vec pisao nesto slicno kao ja. Pa da dodam jos da su se ovaj put zajebali. Kao prvo tehnoloski su zaostali a kao drugo prvidjaju da da imaju jos jednog neprijatelja veoma opasnog iz pozadine. Kineze.

[MeanMachine]

7 hours ago, Koca Popovic said:

Pa nisam bas ubijedjen da je tako. Prezivjece ovi ludaci i ovo danas zhvaljujuci  NO (nuklearno oruzje). A WW2 su prezivjeli zahvaljujuci Hitleru. Sad ces se pitati kako, pa od njega su jedva ostali. Jednostavno zato sto se gotovo cio svijet digao protiv Hitlera pa su samim tim dobili odlucujucu pomoc od Amera. Inace da se Hitler drzao osnovnog pravila da ne ratuje na 2 fronta, zgazio bi ih kao FAP zabu. 

 

Ne zbog atomki već zbog ekonomije. Imala je Rusija atomke i to znatno više 1990tih pa nije mogla da pobedi u Čečeniji. Jednostavno ekonomski je bila zombi.

 

Danas zbog skupih energenta (zahvaljujući Busu mlađem) i zbog potreba Azije za istima Putin može da ratuje u Ukrajini već dve godine i još par godina i to ako ne krene sranje negde drugde npr dođe Trump i napadne Iran. Ode cena nafti nebu pod oblake.

 

Što se tiče pak cccp i pomoći zapada to je prosto glupost. Cccp je brže došao do Berlina zbog iste ali ista nije bila bitna kad su Nemci odbačeni kod Moskve i ista je bila nebitna kad su se Nemci pukli kod Staljingrada i time izgubili rat na istoku. 

 

Za Nemce bitka gde su rat izgubili je Staljingrad a za Japance to je Midway.

 

Obe zemlje gube znatan deo efektiva koje ne mogu brzo da nadoknade dok protivnici tek se zagrevaju za rat.

Edited May 23 by MeanMachine

[HAMMER]

hehe

ne bi im sva ekonomija sveta pomogla da nemaju nuklearno oruzje ili da ameri imaju odgovor na isto. vec sada imaju 300k vojnika u okolnim zemljama i mogu da dovuku bar jos 5x toliko. 

[djura.net]

bbc

 

At least six people have been killed and more than a dozen injured in a Russian missile attack on Kharkiv, north-eastern Ukraine, according to the regional head.

A further two people remain missing after the attack, which saw Russian forces strike Ukraine's second-largest city at least 15 times, Oleg Sinegubov said.

He advised people in the city to remain in shelters.

Ukraine's state railway company said several of its facilities had been damaged in the attack and a number of its employees had been injured.

 

On Wednesday, Mr Sinegubov said fighting was continuing near the towns of Pletenivka and Vovchansk, but that Ukraine's forces were in control.

"This weakness is not ours, but the world's, which has not dared to deal with terrorists in the way they deserve for three years," he said in a post on X.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the attacks on Kharkiv showed that Russia was taking advantage of Ukraine's lack of air defences.

[McLeod]

Ovo sto se sad desava je slicno kao pred proslu masivnu pomoc, mislim da Ukrajinci vide da ce pomoc doci pa prave situaciju gorom nego sto jeste kako bi dosla sto pre i bila sto veca.

 

Po svim mapama i ICT situacija je stabilizovana. Ako ce Rusi da napadnu Harkiv kopneno - dobrodosli iskreno, poginulo bi im pola vojske u toj samoubilackoj misiji.

[Smrtokapa]

5 hours ago, MeanMachine said:

Za Nemce bitka gde su rat izgubili je Staljingrad a za Japance to je Midway.

 

Zapravo moglo bi se reći i da su Nemci izgubili rat 22. juna 1941 (ni pre toga nisu bili u sjajnoj situaciji), a Japanci 7. decembra iste godine.

 

Verovatnoća da bi se Staljingrad/Midvej u tim sukobima svakako dogodili pre ili kasnije je ogromna.

[Beonegro]

16 hours ago, Anduril said:

sa boljim odnosima prema Zapadu

 

Nezavisno od činjenice da su boljševici zločinačko udruženje, Zapad im nije baš igzektli bio prirodni saveznik, pogotovo u periodu 1918 - 1920, pa da se sad čudimo što je, osim toga što se vjerovatno prepoznao u njegovom mentalnom oboljenju, Staljinu Hitler bio bliži od Britanije, Francuske i Amerike.

Da ne patetišemo sad o sovjetskoj nafti koja je omogućila inveziju Francuske i Jugoslavije, budući da su istu sipali i u, između ostalih, Ford i Opel (General Motors) kamione. 

 

Što se tiče toga koliko je ko doprinio savezničkoj pobjedi u drugom svjetskom ratu, od 1.299.384 poginula (bez nestalih) vojnika njemačke kopnene vojske (Heer) za koje se zna mjesto pogibije, po ratnom dnevniku OKW-a je u periodu od 1. septembra 1939. do 31. januara 1945. na istočnom frontu poginulo njih 1.105.987, odnosno 85% ukupno poginulih identifikovanih imenom i prezimenom i za koje je tačno utvrđeno mjesto pogibije.

 

Kao što ruske manipulacije činjenicama iz drugog svjetskog rata ne mogu da legitimizuju putinovske zločine danas, tako ni današnji zločini ne mogu da dovedu u pitanje činjenice od prije osamdesetak godina, niti da opravdaju brojne pokušaje relativizacije istih.

Edited May 23 by Beonegro

[McLeod]

WWII je jedan od najbolje dokumentovanih sukoba u istoriji, ujedno i najveci. Bukvalno treba samo da se procita ta dokumentacija i vrlo je lako doneti svoj sud, iskrivljavanje cinjenica i spinovanje je bas tesko uraditi, mada znamo da nacioni to pokusavaju.

[Anduril]

7 hours ago, Beonegro said:

 

Nezavisno od činjenice da su boljševici zločinačko udruženje, Zapad im nije baš igzektli bio prirodni saveznik, pogotovo u periodu 1918 - 1920, pa da se sad čudimo što je, osim toga što se vjerovatno prepoznao u njegovom mentalnom oboljenju, Staljinu Hitler bio bliži od Britanije, Francuske i Amerike.

Da ne patetišemo sad o sovjetskoj nafti koja je omogućila inveziju Francuske i Jugoslavije, budući da su istu sipali i u, između ostalih, Ford i Opel (General Motors) kamione. 

 

Što se tiče toga koliko je ko doprinio savezničkoj pobjedi u drugom svjetskom ratu, od 1.299.384 poginula (bez nestalih) vojnika njemačke kopnene vojske (Heer) za koje se zna mjesto pogibije, po ratnom dnevniku OKW-a je u periodu od 1. septembra 1939. do 31. januara 1945. na istočnom frontu poginulo njih 1.105.987, odnosno 85% ukupno poginulih identifikovanih imenom i prezimenom i za koje je tačno utvrđeno mjesto pogibije.

 

Kao što ruske manipulacije činjenicama iz drugog svjetskog rata ne mogu da legitimizuju putinovske zločine danas, tako ni današnji zločini ne mogu da dovedu u pitanje činjenice od prije osamdesetak godina, niti da opravdaju brojne pokušaje relativizacije istih.

 

Procitati knjigu Phillipsa Obriena, verovatno najpopularnija poslednjih 10 godina: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/how-war-was-won

 

Quote

How the war was won

Phillips Payson O’Brien 

/ 

3 Sep 2019

Allied victory in WWII is usually viewed through the lens of large land battles, from Stalingrad to Kursk to D-Day. However, battlefield losses of equipment in these ‘great’ land battles were relatively small and easily replaceable. This column demonstrates that the real effort of the major powers was put into the construction of air and sea weapons. The Allies used their air and sea power to destroy the Axis’s in a multi-layered campaign. This was the true battlefield of WWII: a massive air-sea super battlefield that stretched for thousands of miles. Victory in this super-battlefield led to victory in the war.

SHARE

Twitter

Facebook

LinkedIn

AUTHORS

Phillips Payson O’Brien

Chair of Strategic Studies, School of International RelationsUniversity Of St Andrews

This column is a lead commentary in the VoxEU Debate "The Economics of the Second World War: Eighty Years On"

Every aspect of WWII is discussed in a vast literature. Considering its diversity, explanations of why Germany lost the war are surprisingly predictable. It remains widely argued that the Nazis were beaten mostly by the Soviet Union’s powerful Red Army (Hastings 2005: 508, Kennedy 2013: 183). 

From June 1941 to May 1945, German ‘power’ was supposedly engaged and destroyed by the Russians. At some points, more than two-thirds of German infantry were engaged against the Red Army. The famous battles of the Eastern Front, such as Stalingrad and Kursk, supposedly caused the Germans’ crippling losses. The upshot of this lopsided deployment was that most German soldiers died in the East. Fighting against the Americans and British, conversely, is often portrayed as a secondary concern (Roberts 2010: 573).

What’s wrong with a focus on battles?

This battle-centric view, like much history of WWII, is old-fashioned. Historians of strategy have moved away from seeing battles as determinative. Nolan (2017) has argued that attrition losses are more important than battle losses in explaining outcomes. 

The battle-centric analysis implies that infantry deployment is the best way to analyse effort. Yet, human-power was rarely the key factor in deciding combat in WWII. Equipment and specialised training mattered more. Possessing and operating the largest stores of modern weapons, not only tanks and artillery but also aircraft and naval vessels, determined the course of battles and the war. 

If we reframe the discussion of the war to look not only at what equipment was made but also at how it was destroyed, it emerges that the war was decided far from the land battlefield (O’Brien 2015). The most striking sign of this is how little war production went to the land war and how much went to the combined air-sea war. This was the case for all the powers except the USSR.

Germany

Normally, one thinks of the German Army (with the Waffen SS) as the dominant military arms of the Nazi state. This is a mistake. German ground forces received on average about one-third of German munitions output (O’Brien 2015, 19-33). Major ground weapons systems such as the famous Panzers were a small part, usually closer to 5% than 10%, of total output. Tanks were dwarfed by equipment for the Luftwaffe. Throughout the war, the building and arming of aircraft took up half of German munitions output or more. Beyond this, the supply of anti-aircraft artillery (flak) took up a growing percentage of German output—reaching over 10% in the last year of the war. Finally, the German Navy took a significant slice. Until Germany lost the war in the Atlantic in the summer of 1943, the German Navy often received more than 10% of munitions output (O’Brien 2015: 25).

Table 1 shows a snapshot of when German munitions output peaked (July 1944). It is striking how the air war dominated. Even with the Red Army and Anglo-American armies on their doorstep, production for the army remained a relatively small part of output.

Table 1 Germany, July 1944: Munitions production by type (% of total)

Source: USSBS (1946a: 145).

The German situation was replicated by the other advanced industrial economies. The US, UK, and Japan each spent more than Germany on the air-sea war, with at least 70% of munitions output devoted to air-sea weapons (O’Brien 2015: 33-66).

Japan

For Japan, an equipment-centric perspective suggests that that nation’s strength in the war has been overlooked. Histories of the war may give the impression that the war in the Pacific was a sideshow (Beevor 2012). Actually, Japan was at least an economic equal of the USSR from 1942 until the second half of 1944, with a superior economic base and no economic support from its allies. 

Table 2 Japan and USSR, 1942-1944: Production of raw materials

Sources: USSBS (1946b: 112) for Japanese steel ingot production. For Soviet production see Ellis (1993: 274-276). Tons are metric.

The problem that Japan faced was one of priorities. The sea war required massive amounts of steel. Whereas the USSR used steel for tanks, the Japanese used an equivalent amount for naval vessels and merchant shipping. The difference was not one of economic strength but construction priority (O’Brien 2015: 59-65).

How Axis fighting power was destroyed

Given that air-sea weapons were so costly, what role did they play in beating the Axis? The answer shows why the air-sea war was so dominant. Instead of waiting to destroy Axis equipment on the traditional battlefield, Allied air-sea weaponry destroyed it en masse before it could ever be used in action, determining the result of every ‘battle’ long before it was fought. This destruction of equipment is best understood in three phases.

First, there is pre-production destruction, which prevented weapons from being built. This was done most efficiently to both Germany and Japan by depriving them of the ability to move raw materials. By 1942, both Germany and Japan had assembled large, resource-rich empires that had the ability to significantly increase weapons output. Though production increased up to early 1944, this increase was far below what was planned. In the case of German aircraft, for instance, output in the second half of 1943 was 10% below expectations because of Anglo-American bombing (O’Brien 2000: 104). Japanese inability to import bauxite and steel in 1944, abundant in the Dutch East Indies and China, led to even greater underproduction. By the second half of 1944, attacks on the movement of goods throughout the Japanese and German economies meant that the amount of war equipment each could build was far below potential (Mierzejewski 2007: 106-113).

The second phase is direct production destruction—destroying the facilities to make weapons in Germany and Japan. This was the great hope of inter-war airpower enthusiasts for the precise targeting of individual munitions factories (Meilinger 1997: 1-114). During the war, there was an expectation that attacking specific industries such as German ball-bearing production would cripple weapons output. The truth was that these attacks were not as effective as hoped for, as strategic bombing was not accurate enough to completely wipe out facilities (until 1944). That being said, the losses from bombing were greater than those arising in land battles. 

The surprise is that land battles destroyed little equipment. German armour losses during the Battle of Kursk amounted to approximately 0.2% of annual output (and moreover was made up of mostly obsolete equipment) (O’Brien 2015: 310-311).

Finally, there were deployment losses. Getting weapons from the factory to the front was no easy feat. It normally required movement over hundreds or thousands of miles using shipping or rail lines that were vulnerable to attack. Aircraft had to be flown, often by inexperienced pilots, over the open ocean in or through difficult weather conditions. 

By 1943, as Anglo-American aircraft deployment losses decreased, Axis losses skyrocketed. This was because of the stresses placed on their systems by Allied air-sea power. German and Japanese pilot training was cut back as both ran out of fuel; hastily constructed new factories were producing more aircraft with undiscovered flaws; maintenance facilities at the front were poorly supplied. This meant that the Axis were losing as many aircraft deploying to the front as in direct combat. At times, Japan’s losses outside combat were up to twice those lost fighting (O’Brien 2015: 405-7).

The air-sea war

The air-sea war determined the course of the land war. This was done in many ways, most obviously by denuding Axis ground forces of air support. In the summer of 1943, for instance, Germany had to deploy its fighter aircraft to three fronts—to the East, to the Mediterranean, and to air defence of the homeland. As homeland defence dominated, the battlefields were stripped of German fighters. The Army took second priority for the most valuable weaponry Germany was producing. It is no surprise that the German Army experienced catastrophic defeats from then on.

Figure 1 Germany, May 1943-November 1944: Fighter deployment (all types) by front (% of total)

Source: UK National Archives, London, Air Ministry Papers, 40/1207, “German Air Force First Line Strength during the European War, 1939-1945”.

Overall, by 1944 the Axis could deploy only a small fraction of their potential military capacity into combat—it was being destroyed in a multi-layered campaign long before it could be used against their enemies. This was the true battlefield of WWII, a massive air-sea super battlefield that stretched for thousands of miles not only of traditional front but of depth and height. 

In the case of the European theatre, it covered an area from the East Coast of the USA to the aircraft factories in Eastern Germany, from the convoys moving goods around the top of Northern Norway to Murmansk to the massive airfields of North Africa and southern Italy. If it did not kill as many Germans directly as the Red Army, it was what allowed them to be killed—while destroying far more in the ways of valuable equipment.

Looking at the war this way allows us to reframe our understanding of what a battle was in WWII. Instead of battles being fixed on well-known pieces of earth, air-sea weaponry was constantly in action in battlefields thousands of miles long and many miles in depth—what should be called the Air-Sea Super Battlefield. Victory in this super-battlefield led to victory in the war.

 

Ukratko, nemacka armija je imala onolike gubitke na istocnom frontu jer je vecina resursa zapravo trosena ili izgubljena na zapadu i tokom odbrane od zapadnog bombardovanja i kasnije invazije. Da je nemacka ratna masinerija ulozila sve resurse na istok, a istovremeno Zapad ne bi pomagao SSSR-u kljucnim resursima i logistikom (recimo kamioni, lokomotive, razni delovi za masine, itd.), slika bi izgledala drugacije. To ne znaci da SSSR nije bio kljucan igrac, ali bez Zapada verovatno nikad ne bi uspeli. Pobeda je jednostavno bila zajednicka - sto je Staljin Hruscovu i direktno priznao (po memoarima). Tek tokom sezdesetih i sa Breznjevim pocinje pravi kult WW2, sa paradama svake godine i posebno u danasnjoj Rusiji gde se SSSR zbog najvecih zrtava slavi i kao daleko najvazniji faktor. 

Edited May 23 by Anduril

[Klotzen]

Interesantan preokret u SAD. Sada republikanci napadaju Bajdena jer ne dozvoljavaju korišćenje SAD oružja protiv meta u Rusiji. Naime polemika se vodi jer Rusi koriste svoju teritoriju za artiljerijsku i PVO podršku na Harkivskom delu fronta i Ukrajinci ne mogu da dejstvuju po njima. Takođe aerodromi koji su relatino blizu granice se takođe koriste a ni njih Ukrajinci ne mogu da gađaju osim sa svojim dronovima što nije dovoljno efikasno. To pokazuje da je Republikance i te kako koštalo dok su ih demokrate kritikovale da omogućavaju Rusima da dobiju rat blokadom pomoći pa sad vraćaju istom merom. Ova kritika je pogotovo potentna jer se Rusi neće mnogo udaljavati od svoje granice i moći će godinama da koriste ovu taktiku ako se ne da dozvola Ukrajincima da tuku po Rusiji.

 

Ukrajinci su nešto oko Alušte na Krimu gađali pre sat vremena. Do sada se ne sećam da je to mesto gađano, vidim da je neko letnje odmaralište.

 

PVO zakasnio.

 

Ukrajinci su napustili Krinki kod Hersona. Završena je ta epopeja.

 

Otkako su se SAD vratile u red onih koji šalju pomoć kao da su i drugi ubacili u višu brzinu. Dosta najava ovih dana, to su dobre vesti za Ukrajince.

 

 

[HAMMER]

procitah skoro da je prijavljeno oko 25kk sovjetskih zrtava u drugom svetskom ratu pa su vredni ljudi izracunali da to znaci da su dnevno gubili 29k ljudi. nemojte me jebavati....

[djura.net]

6 hours ago, HAMMER said:

procitah skoro da je prijavljeno oko 25kk sovjetskih zrtava u drugom svetskom ratu pa su vredni ljudi izracunali da to znaci da su dnevno gubili 29k ljudi. nemojte me jebavati....

Da, a ako se ne varam, najveci teret tih zrtava su podneli Ukrajinci.

[Darko]

1 hour ago, djura.net said:

Da, a ako se ne varam, najveci teret tih zrtava su podneli Ukrajinci.

U operaciji Barbarosa valjda, kada su milioni poginuli za par nedelja ili tako nešto - jezivo. Jeste da je to bila najveća invazija u istoriji ali Sovjetska armija je bila totalno nespremna i bila je lak plen Nemcima, velikim delom zahvaljujući čistkama Staljina - nije samo faktor iznenađenja u pitanju. Bar tako tvrde istoričari. 

[HAMMER]

nekoliko miliona u par nedelja je bukvalno planina leseva.

[Kronostime]

1 minute ago, HAMMER said:

nekoliko miliona u par nedelja je bukvalno planina leseva.

Par nedelja od 1941.-1945.?

[Dragan]

Li Jianwei is a former PLA soldier and a Chinese mercenary hired by Russia.

He talked about his experiences in the Russia-Ukraine war on Chinese social media.

In the video, he describes the high causality of the Ukraine war and gives first-hand account of the Russian military operations and challenges.   He calls Putin's war in Ukraine "unwinnable" at the end.

 

[033zero330]

 

Turska gleda i plače.

 

 

[Klotzen]

Kinez samo potvrđuje ono što smo mi ovde predpostavljali. Najbolja odbrana je u naseljenom mestu jer tu možete da se sakrijete u nekoj od kuća i čekate napadača. Napadač skoro uvek bude iznenađen i trpi gubitke u trenutku kontakta. Pošto je odbrana tada detektovana, ako je neko od napadača preživeo, povuku se dve-tri kuće dalje i čekaju sledeći napad. Zato su gubici ogromni u gradskim napadima za napadača. Da stvar bude gora Rusi ne napadaju sa većim jedinicama nego šalju odeljenje po odeljenje a kada bi poslali ceo bataljon početni gubici bi bili znatno veći ali bi kada jednom probiju liniju odbrane verovatno napredovali par stotina metara kroz naseljeno mesto što je kao 5-6 km na otvorenom frontu.

 

Na otvorenom frontu dok ima zelenila može da se brani dosta dobro neka linija ali vrlo brzo to zelenilo bude uništeno i onda nema zaklona za odbranu baš kao i zimi kada su kao na tacni za dronove. U naseljenom mestu je to teže, traje dosta duže dok vi ne poravnate naseljeno mesto da bi isterali odbranu na otvoreno.

 

Što se tiče ovog stradalništva ruske PVO još jedan mit uništen. Posle S-300 i za S-400 možemo reći da je efikasnost od preko 90% koliko su tvrdili čist mit, da ne kažem propaganda. No ovde se vidi i da ima dosta neobučenosti vojske. Ne vidim ni jedan razlog da se baterija ovako nagura na tako malo polje. Nije valjda da imaju nestašicu kablova. I na onom snimku od sinoć smo videli da PVO dejstvuje tek posle treće rakete koja je već pogodila metu, dakle spava se na dužnosti ili možda ruski radari ne mogu da detektuju mete kao što bi trebalo, to bi tek bila tragedija za njihov imidž.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Klotzen

[djura.net]

Nije direktno povezano sa ratom u Ukrajni, ali jeste sa jednom agresivnom politikom koja je dovela tog rata, pa ostavljam clanak ovde. Inace, to je i najbolji pokazatelj koliko je Rusija spremna daleko da ide i svi koji veruju da im je cilj samo Ukrajna, neka dva puta procitaju tekst.

 

bbc

 

The European Union has denounced Russia's removal of buoys marking the border with Estonia on the Narva River.

A total of 24 out of 50 buoys placed to mark sailing routes were removed in the early hours of Thursday, Estonian officials said.

Tensions over the border have risen since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said "such actions are unacceptable".

"This border incident is part of a broader pattern of provocative behaviour and hybrid actions by Russia, including on its maritime and land borders in the Baltic Sea region," he said in a statement.

Moscow has taken issue with the placement of the floating markers, used to prevent boats from straying into foreign waters, and disputed the planned locations of about half the 250 buoys, Estonia's border guard service said.

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said she was trying to clarify the situation with Russia.

She said it appeared to be part of a "broader pattern" of action by Moscow to use "tools related to the border to create fear and anxiety".

Estonia's foreign ministry said it had summoned Russia's chargé d'affaires and said it was treating the move as a "provocative border incident".

In a statement, it said it had demanded the "immediate return" of the buoys.

It comes after the Russian defence ministry briefly published a proposal to revise its maritime border in the Baltic Sea this week.

The proposal was deleted after creating concern among Nato members, including Estonia.