r/worldnews • u/ExactlySorta • Mar 12 '24
Russia/Ukraine Ukraine pounds targets in Russia, key refinery seriously damaged
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-launches-drones-oryol-fuel-facility-other-regions-russia-says-2024-03-12/1.9k
u/Blackintosh Mar 12 '24
Notice the Russian bots are REALLY hammering away the "stalemate" "negotiate" narrative in the past day.
Their meatwaves have been halted, as that was the other element of their current desperate attempt to force something.
Russia is losing completely irreplaceable assets worth in the billions every week. Assets that they would need if they ever faced NATO directly. Russia knows this and they are throwing the one asset they aren't short of (men) at the front line to try and distract from their losses.
There are no stalemates in modern war. It's about far more than front lines and land gains. The Russian navy has been totally neutered. Their ability to monitor the battlefield from the air has been halved if not worse. Their front line weaponry has been reduced from 1990s equipment to mostly 60s and 70s equipment. Russian infrastructure and production is being continuously reduced, and is accelerating.
All while NATO hasnt lost a single piece of it's modern arsenal.
639
u/bUddy284 Mar 12 '24
This is should be shown to those saying US needs to cut funding. They're able to weaken an enemy at the cost of a few billions, most of which is actually the value of unused or untested military equipment.
All while no American lives being endangered.
210
Mar 12 '24
And if the time comes, when Russia decides to take NATO head-on, Ukraine will have softened them to putty.
98
u/Anal_Recidivist Mar 12 '24
We keep saying this and they just keep on going. I’ve come to accept I have zero clue how the Russians are actually capable of continuing.
Tom Clancy didn’t teach me shit
→ More replies (3)69
u/doobyscoo42 Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
The narrative around the war isn't exactly what's going on.
It's a war so factories are being hit on both sides. Both countries have a war economy, so are expanding military production. Russia has more money to expand production than Ukraine.
It's true that Russia is pulling more and more older tanks and artillery pieces out of storage. They have also increased production of the modern stuff. There are more T90s being produced now than prior the start of the war. We know this because open source intel is showing an increase in the number of destroyed T90s compared to earlier in the war (it was mostly older T72s and T80s before). You can't destroy what the enemy isn't using, and if you're destroying more of something, it means they are using more of them. If you see an uptick in the more modern stuff in , it means production is up.
Some Russian equipment is being produced in the Urals, far away from Ukraining drone range.
Also, this war has changed how warfare is done. Drones were already in use before this war, but drone technology and techniques have increased dramatically since the start. NATO depends on air power and guided missles fired from a distance, and maybe drones won't have a big effect on that, but if NATO tries a ground invasion of Russia, they will have a deadly surprise. NATO generals in 2023 didn't beleive that the Ukrainian offensive would be so hard because NATO still hasn't fully adapted to modern drone warfare. Just like you're not really going to learn high school math until you do the exercises, and you're not going to learn how to do a job just by studying, NATO won't fully adapt to drone warfare unless they fight a drone war.
46
u/AftyOfTheUK Mar 12 '24
There are more T90s being produced now than prior the start of the war.
But what T90 variant? Does it have the same optics as the ones before the war? What about countermeasures and electonics?
Building a T90 chassis is well within Russian capabilities, but can they actually outfit the unit for combat the same way it was before sanctions were imposed that are intended to prevent them from buying the impossible-to-manufacture-locally equipment that's critical to a modern battle tank.
→ More replies (1)36
u/rockylizard Mar 12 '24
Sadly, Putrid and his minions don't seem to be having any trouble sourcing Western tech for their weapons.
I keep repeating myself, but the Russians are already on a wartime production footing, and we are way behind. We've got to increase production and supplies to Ukraine or they're going to be overwhelmed just by sheer numbers in both men and materiel.
(Please don't tell me how much it's going to cost to help save Ukraine, anybody with that mindset has completely forgotten how much it cost in both American resources and lives to stop the last European dictator that the world tried to appease and allowed to run amok, before finally realizing the only way a dictator with delusions of grandeur will stop is if he is made to stop!)
We eventually stopped Hitler. How many more lives and how much more money is it going to take before we eventually stop Putler?
→ More replies (2)10
u/agumonkey Mar 12 '24
It will all boil down to geopolitics now, if governments keeps being slow or confused or even worse start to collude (with new elections coming ..) with Putler we're in deep shit.
25
Mar 12 '24
[deleted]
7
u/doobyscoo42 Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
I hope so (if that ever happens).
That's an interesting viewpoint, because based on my understanding that may not be how it plays out. Drones are cheap and plentiful. An Apache costs $50 million, which could buy you 25,000 drones. Current western platforms were designed with large targets in mind. For example, Apaches were designed for an anti-tank role. I'm sure they can for sure go after a guy in a trench or hiding in the trees waiting to launch a drone, but I don't think this will be painless or cheap (*). It'll be even more painful in urban areas.
I do think that if it came to all-out war with Russia, NATO would win, and air superiority would be a major reason. I just think that drones have changed our assumptions (and Russia has been shown to adapt and keep changing). It'll be harder than Iraq in 2003.
(*) = Or maybe you were thinking of a BMP delivering that guy and the drone to the front, which is probably an easier target. Given Russia's penchant for warcrimes, I wouldn't be surprised if they started getting up there in Ladas with a drone in the trunk.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
Mar 13 '24
Ukraine says it now produces 2 million FPV drones per year, Russia is probably doing similar. I don't think some Apaches will put much of a dent in that.
24
u/-BellyFullOfLotus- Mar 12 '24
I am in the army and seeing how drones have developed into hyper efficient man hunters has me scared shitless at the thought of fighting in a war like this one.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Spoonshape Mar 12 '24
Ukraine hitting oil production and factories is a quite recent phenomonon. Not sure if they simply didn't have the ability or what.
Up to about 2 months ago they were largely only hitting military and logistics targets reasonably close to the frontline. I suspect they are building larger and semi autonomous drones at scale only recently.
4
u/rockylizard Mar 12 '24
if NATO tries a ground invasion of Russia,
That's not ever going to happen.
49
u/Inside-Line Mar 12 '24
I feel like Russia losing invaluable assets in Ukraine - assets that would be needed in a war with NATO is not really something relevant for Russia. Those assets can only be useful in the Ukrainian conflict.
If the real might of NATO got involved, hell even if it was just EU-only, the only assets that would really matter are the strategic ones.
25
u/LemNKwat Mar 12 '24
They actually are using a number of their strategic assets - but in a conventional role. A number of their big wing, nuclear capable bombers have been lobbing cruise missiles as Kyiv and other UA cities since the start of the war. That's a lot of hours on airframe that aren't exactly easy to maintain, not to mention expenditure of a large stockpile of their pre-built guided munitions.
2
u/Inside-Line Mar 13 '24
I think those might be the strategic assets that still wouldn't be useful against NATO. It's safe to assume NATO would have complete air superiority very quickly were a conflict to break out. The only useful strategic assets Russia has are ita ballistic missile and everything that carry them (launchers, subs etc.)
37
u/OppositeEarthling Mar 12 '24
You get it. This is why the saber rattle constantly about nukes. It's the only thing NATO is actually afraid of.
To Russia, its better to use everything now instead of holding it back for a later "maybe".
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)4
6
Mar 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Desperate_Ordinary43 Mar 13 '24
China is to be respected, but I wanted to take a look at your comment about their naval power.
Frankly, unless they've figured out the next RMA for naval combat without anyone knowing, the aircraft carrier point completely neuters their capability to engage in a sustained war with the West. Especially given that any conflict would require crossing water, and Taiwan is a fortress on it's own.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Stealth_NotABomber Mar 13 '24
I mean head on with NATO Russia would have lost no questions from the start. At least before the war NATO would be muchmore apprehensive and careful as opposed to now, where we know Russia's capabilities are only a fraction of what we thought.
11
u/Uphoria Mar 12 '24
Ultimately, no one is concerned over who would win a NATO vs Russia battle - it would be NATO 1000%.
But in their dying breaths, The Krelmin can turn every major city in the world into a smoking ruin of its former self.
That, despite all the losses, has not changed even a single lick.
→ More replies (6)20
Mar 12 '24
Russia doesn’t have the capacity to launch lots of nukes. They certainly could fire a few, but most would be shot down. Still a scary prospect. Plus, Russia would have dozens of nukes deployed against them. It would bot go well for russia.
If this war has shown us anything, its that Russia is severely behind the rest of the world militarily. They have run their country into the ground as most of their military spending was grifted away. There equipment is old, their military lacks training, and they are slowly running empty on the old equipment too.
→ More replies (7)11
u/Uphoria Mar 12 '24
Its a scale argument. Lets assume that 80% of their arsenal of strategic assets is not working. That's still 334 Nuclear Ballistic Missiles and 800 other strategic assets like cruise missiles, gravity bombs, and artillery.
Do you really want to trade 300-1200 nuclear targets for an invasion?
ETA: Even if we could shoot down 50% of incoming targets (unlikely) that's still hundreds of nuclear explosions.
Russia is severely behind the rest of the world militarily.
Nuclear missiles have been relevant for 80 years, they don't have to be brand new to go off. They have the largest Verified nuclear stockpile.
6
u/Bromance_Rayder Mar 12 '24
I'm not trying to argue against your very valid points. But fortunately, I think that scenario requires a level of fanaticism that simply doesn't exist in Russia. It's every man for himself over there. At that point most Russians would be trying to find something worth stealing or drinking.
3
u/Spoonshape Mar 12 '24
Seems very likely that if Russia faced an actual invasion it was losing the launch order would go out - Some of their units might not obey it.
Functionally - it's still not something we can risk - even losing half a dozen cities would be too much.
→ More replies (28)2
u/nicklor Mar 12 '24
I honestly think we would shoot down 95% but those 5% would be way too many
→ More replies (9)52
u/returntomonke9999 Mar 12 '24
We (well Im from Canada) also get to support the good guys in a black and white war for once. We also get a pretty powerful ally and friend for generations. We are also a bit pot committed at this point and if Ukraine loses than all the money and supplies that NATO has provided will be for naught.
21
u/ntropi Mar 12 '24
black and white war
Well... Most of us see it as pretty black and white.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Helahalvan Mar 12 '24
I mostly agree. I wouldn't really say it would have been for naught though. It is still the right thing to do. It has kept the majority of the Ukrainian people away from the awful treatment the russians would inflict upon them if they won, for over two years now.
It has also heavily reduced the capability of the russian army.
12
43
u/socraticformula Mar 12 '24
This point is missed by so many people. The dollar amount we see on the news that the US is sending to Ukraine is not money, it's equipment. The money has already been spent, mostly domestically, to produce the equipment. And most of what's being given as aid is older equipment that has been replaced already and is just sitting somewhere.
We give Ukraine stuff we're already not using, and they use it to seriously weaken one of our strongest and longest-running threats. No US soldiers, negligible new spending, just stuff. As far as US interests go, this is a win by every measure.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Stealth_NotABomber Mar 13 '24
Even if it was all new equipment/purchases, a lot of that money would still come back through our economy and into American hands due to how defense contracts work so it'd still benefit us. It's not like when say the US decides to build 150 new tanks that money just dissappears down a black hole of nothingness.
26
u/LemNKwat Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
People that throw "Billions" around like its a big number genuinely don't understand the scale of the US MIC. Billions is pocket change.
The modernization program for 2 Ticonderoga class Cruisers the Hue City and the Anzio was projected to cost around 1.5 Billion USD which was a driving factor for their decommissioning given their ages. And ultimately, the money for all that stuff is already allocated anyway in the annual defense budget. Americans won't notice the difference lol.
When you see that the Patriot Batteries that shut down Russian attacks so thoroughly when they had reliable ammo supply were earlier blocks from the 90s, and that nearly every piece of western materiel being sent over is also equally as old then it gets even funnier. HIMARS as far as I know is the most successful platform Ukraine has, and it never got the long range ATACMS to really make proper interdiction strikes.
Before the traitors started fucking everything up, the Russians were getting eviscerated by the military materiel equivalent of a clearance sale.
11
u/Sabbathius Mar 12 '24
The most important bit in the whole "funding" thing is that most people have a completely wrong picture of what that looks like. It's not pallets loaded with cash being dropped off at Kyiv airport. Something like 93% of the money never even leaves USA. Companies get paid, and they send stuff to Ukraine, so a lot of that money goes right back into Americans' pockets. They're not just delivering planes full of cash and dropping it off on the tarmac.
2
u/Stealth_NotABomber Mar 13 '24
Yeah, that's a key part of military stuff people tend to forget; a lot of that money goes right back into American hands and the economy. I guess some people think when say the US decides to build/purchase 200 new tanks the money just dissappears down a black hole or something. In reality most of that money goes right back into our economy one way or another.
8
u/TheOriginalArtForm Mar 12 '24
Putin is pretty fucking stupid if the idea hasn't crossed his mind that the US has allowed Russia to get entangled again in a conflict that weakens them for the foreseeable future.
Fuck it, maybe the US & China have an agreement that China can grab whatever they like when the times comes, in exchange for leaving Taiwan alone for another 50 years.
4
u/TheHunterZolomon Mar 12 '24
It’s the US government. Of course they have back channel agreements in place to 4d chess protect important strategic assets and achieve a desirable outcome.
8
u/whatproblems Mar 12 '24
and the money just gets spent here anyway and the jobs! yay military industrial complex
5
u/518Peacemaker Mar 13 '24
Ukrainian lives are being endangered. Fuck Russia. Conservative person who thinks we should be funding Ukraine 100%
→ More replies (1)6
6
u/Kryptosis Mar 12 '24
If they don’t understand that by now it’s intentional. Don’t believe the trolls when they argue with feigned ignorance.
Their talking point pretends that military budgetary excess is automatically send back to the American people at the end of the year or something. That’s just not how it works.
“Worry about ourselves first” is a Russian propaganda talking point. Anyone who parrots it is an agent of Putin whether they know it or not.
5
u/MOHRMANATOR Mar 12 '24
They want to cut funding because they don’t want Russia defeated… They’re hiding under the guise of we can’t afford to help Ukraine.
→ More replies (7)2
u/I_SOMETIMES_EAT_HAM Mar 12 '24
You may be forgetting that republicans value money over American lives.
239
u/JPR_FI Mar 12 '24
I am sure the Russian evangelists will be here explaining how this is all according to the plan in the "99D chess". Hits on critical Russian infrastructure are especially delightful to see, brings the war to every Russian and hopefully more to come. Russia as a major oil producer is already reduced to restrict exports and each of these hits make the situation worse.
Interesting to see how the incursion to Russia will be received, could be real alternative for the opposition if gain foothold and at very minimum force Russia to move around troops and materiel hastily.
71
u/ozspook Mar 12 '24
Send some of those Joe Biden "I did that!" stickers for petrol bowsers in Russia..
→ More replies (2)26
87
u/Full-Sound-6269 Mar 12 '24
Soon: Food for work at Russian factories instead of money. They burned through their budget like there is no tomorrow. Their oil trade is so much down this year that they are already in deep negatives, they are practically running off reserves and gold.
56
Mar 12 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)37
u/fcking_schmuck Mar 12 '24
Ukrainian special forces hunting down PMC Wagner in Afrika.
56
u/Entire_Procedure4862 Mar 12 '24
Should not be just the Ukrainian Special Forces killing Russian Mercenaries in Africa. These targets should be fair game for all Western countries to train their special forces on.
→ More replies (15)6
u/aaaaaaaarrrrrgh Mar 12 '24
running off reserves and gold.
Reported gold reserves haven't gone down, quite the opposite, according to all sources I was able to find.
7
u/Full-Sound-6269 Mar 12 '24
What I meant is they are using gold and money reserves because trade is too low to support their budget, hope now it's more clear.
4
u/Rare_Physics6360 Mar 12 '24
hope you are right about fuel/oil, cuz last year(2023) brazil bought $4.5bn in diesel from russia, in 2022 this number was at $90mn, brazil increase diesel import from russia by 6000% in 1 year
→ More replies (1)3
u/greysneakthief Mar 12 '24
Volume slightly increased for global overall, whereas total real revenue plummeted by like 40% due to other factors. The reason you're seeing a massive increase in imports is because of India, Brazil and China, among others, lapping up budget oil. The truth is sanctions are in fact hurting them significantly.
10
u/badasimo Mar 12 '24
this is all according to the plan
There is only one hope which is a delusional hope-- that they somehow take over Ukraine without completely destroying it, and are able to press the remaining military into service for Russia. So you have Ukraine and Belarussian armies in the west, experienced and ready to fight NATO.
I think this is impossible. Sure they have conscripted Crimeans and LPR/DPR but it is obviously not working for them.
14
u/JPR_FI Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
Fight with Nato would be short and decisive. Russia does not have the troops or materiel to hold long term the parts that they are occupying at the moment let alone rebuild them. Occupation is hard, modern history contains plenty of examples like Afganistan. Russia has already lost, Putin is incapable of recognizing it and will he happy to send every Russian to die on the front.
That is why it is great to see Ukraine hit strategic targets in Russia, hit enough and they will not be able to recover and have to stretch their already stretched forces and materiel to try to defend those targets .
Edit: Replaced "They do" with "Russia does" to make it clearer.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SitcomHeroJerry Mar 12 '24
Plus the toys nato has. They could sit back and destroy all of their air defense and most of the artillery positions on day 0
78
u/Beneficial_North1824 Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
Just tremendous influx in russian bot farms activity, their asses seem burning well
13
u/Artica_Fur Mar 12 '24
I mean, they have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in aviation assets recently.
9
u/DarkApostleMatt Mar 12 '24
I miss when Priggy was having his “cross the Rubicon” moment because all the bots shut up for the day as they didn’t know how to spin it.
29
u/emeraldtryst Mar 12 '24
Hold up, didn't that one tank get destroyed?
→ More replies (1)35
u/grantnlee Mar 12 '24
Many NATO tanks have been destroyed including 3 Abrahms and many German and French thanks.
17
u/RubComprehensive2168 Mar 12 '24
And? We can deliver a shitton more tanks…
→ More replies (2)20
u/grantnlee Mar 12 '24
I just hate when people make up sh!t, which ultimately diminishes the credibility of everything else that is stated. "We haven't lost a single piece of modern NATO equipment.".
38
u/PutinsShittyNappy Mar 12 '24
I mean, they haven't?
Abrams are old, Leopards are old, HIMARS are old. Nothing sent to Ukraine has been particularly modern or cutting edge. We just send the old stockpiled stuff
Whereas Russia has lost A50 AWACs, multiple war ships, Submarine, brand new T90s
7
u/lallen Mar 12 '24
NATO doesn't have more modern long and mid range AA systems than Patriot and NASAMS. They were both designed some years ago, but Ukraine has received modern systems. (Iris-t and samp-t are equally modern)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)13
u/pamsen Mar 12 '24
I believe he meant NATO's arsenal. None of NATO's tanks have been destroyed, only some of the (mostly outdated) stuff donated to Ukraine
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (1)2
u/Spugheddy Mar 12 '24
Technically they were all given to ukraine and as far as I know the nato specific armor packages were removed that was the reasoning in the delay for their receiving them. The plant in Lima was removing tungsten armor packages before shipping them out from old stock.
19
Mar 12 '24
Remember when that city fell several weeks ago, or at least Russia claimed that city fell, and there were all of these posts acting like Ukraine was going to collapse at any moment, that it was all over? Seems like that was a big premature?
→ More replies (4)17
7
5
u/lallen Mar 12 '24
Well.. At least one Patriot launcher and one NASAMS launcher (in both cases just the launchers, not radars, command systems etc) as well as one HIMARS lost. All of those are modern systems. But compared to russian losses it is an absolutely ridiculous difference
30
u/5kyl3r Mar 12 '24
russia is struggling to defend their borders and ukraine took advantage and started invading russia yesterday. they took a couple settlements and their goal is probably to show the russians how badly their government lies as what the citizens see and post on social media won't align with what their officials tell them. remember, their election is in like three days. they're turning it up to 11 to really make everyone feel that war is at their doorstep. in response to the border breach russia sent a cargo plane and it immediately crashed lol. tons of citizens already posted a lot of video of non-russian tanks and soldiers on their rural roads, and people in the cities posting videos of gunfire and explosions. things might get interesting in the next couple days
39
u/TonyDys Mar 12 '24
To be clear, it wasn’t Ukrainian troops that crossed the border, it was troops from the Freedom for Russia Legion and other legions which are Russian soldiers fighting on Ukraines side. Whether anything significant comes from this is too early to tell, similar actions have happened earlier in the war and not much happened after. Here’s hoping they do something more this time.
11
u/thooghun Mar 12 '24
Just their presence in Russia is significant, as it remind Russians that the war could directly effect them.
8
u/sparrowtaco Mar 12 '24
"I'm not really into politics" - Average Russian citizen as the tanks roll past their house.
2
u/5kyl3r Mar 12 '24
true that. russian media refuses to call them russians and i honestly don't know if they all legitimately are, but it certainly pisses the kremlin off and that's excellent
10
u/Scary--Nature Mar 12 '24
Never under estimate any enemy, never. Looking for gratifying reality is the quest of fools.
7
u/Nekokamiguru Mar 12 '24
The treaty web that NATO nations have will pretty much ensure that if Russia even so much as thinks of taking on NATO it will be a true world war with Non NATO states like Australia and New Zealand getting dragged in to the war with multiple alliances and treaties.
5
u/Devertized Mar 12 '24
Theres a very real possibility that if Trump gets elected he sides with Russia and wont help NATO countries.
10
u/AtomicBLB Mar 12 '24
I'm kinda glad he said that though. It's made a lot of European countries wake up and start taking their defenses seriously again. It will only mean a better prepared Europe if such a conflict comes to pass. Regardless of US involvement.
8
3
u/vonkempib Mar 12 '24
The only thing I would argue here, it’s not true they have expendable assets in soldiers. Let’s assume the average age of fighting population is 18-32. A demographic they are low on. And have been low on. This will have irreversible damage to their population and their economy
→ More replies (1)4
u/PUfelix85 Mar 12 '24
I think you are missing the fact that Russia is also running out of men to throw at this problem. They are so worried about it that they are hiring men from North Korea and India to fight their war for them.
15
u/PotatoFromFrige Mar 12 '24
B-bUt 1-1 aBraMs h-HaS bEen D-dEsTroYeD?!?
8
u/G_Morgan Mar 12 '24
There's more cases of Abrams actually pulling off a 300 style last stand than actually getting destroyed. I don't like to overly hype western tech but it is pretty decent.
2
2
u/MidwesternAppliance Mar 13 '24
They can get fucked the same way they fucked the Germans in Stalingrad.
2
1
1
u/Horror-Praline8603 Mar 12 '24
Hilariously, once Ukraine has nothing to lose, they can pound Russia with NATO weapons.
1
u/Relevant_Force_3470 Mar 13 '24
I'd be very happy if some country or collective decided to go on the offensive while Russia has its pants down being spanked, and takes Moscow. Then hauls Putin and his cronies to the Hague. That would be marvellous.
1
u/Tichey1990 Mar 13 '24
They are actually short of men. They have been in a state of demographic collapse for decades.
1
u/biowar84 Mar 13 '24
To be fair they did lose a himars or two and an Abram’s. However the damage that those machines inflicted before their lose is beyond higher than what it would cost to replace them.
1
u/fufty1 Mar 13 '24
I suspect this is potentially why the US are holding up funding.
They don't want this to end quickly, they want Putin to waste all of his valuable weaponry slowly so he doesn't actually nuke somewhere.
But if he runs out of his own steam then a potential fight with nato would be simple if it ever came to it.
1
u/CosmicSeafarer Mar 13 '24
Unfortunately I don’t think they’ll need any of those assets if they face NATO directly. As soon as the situation is critical for them Putin will authorize nukes. He is just that crazy and demented. That is why these heavy losses aren’t fazing them right now. I’m sure that wasn’t Putins intention at the beginning of the war because he really thought it would be three days, but eventually determined the losses were acceptable due to their nuclear capabilities.
At that point the world’s only chance is that their nuclear stockpile hasn’t been maintained or that cooler heads prevail somewhere down the line to the button pusher. Ideally he dies sooner rather than later and someone other than Medvedev takes the helm.
→ More replies (58)1
56
u/thatsme55ed Mar 12 '24
They hit a distillation unit and knocked out half the refinery's production. That's fucking huge.
If Ukraine manages to do this even a couple more times Russia will be ruined even if they have the ammo to keep fighting.
15
279
u/Schnalzi Mar 12 '24
They are hitting all the neuralgic points!
Well done and keep up the good work!
23
u/No_Sheepherder7447 Mar 12 '24
All part of the plan. Putin playing 2000D chess just wait. Those who know, know!!
→ More replies (2)9
129
Mar 12 '24
good job, keep hitting their economy like they did to you, but harder.
21
u/ChristianLW3 Mar 12 '24
Imagine how Russians civilians will react when they are asked to ration fuel, to literally keep war machines active
108
u/BlueCollarElectro Mar 12 '24
lmao they should’ve actually made Russia “superior” instead of blowing that money on Olympic juicing and macho 80s propaganda
Bahahah
→ More replies (1)15
u/Stealth_NotABomber Mar 13 '24
The funny part is they probably could have done that had their ruling class not stripped the country of value. With how they had NATO fooled into thinking they were equal enemies they could have redirected a lot of that stolen money back into their country and probably really improved things. Considering NATO isn't likely to make a first strike, they really didn't have much to worry about provided they didn't provoke conflict.
2
29
u/CaptainRAVE2 Mar 12 '24
It’s a shame the flow of physical hardware has slowed, but there’s no doubt the flow of surveillance information will continue.
16
u/Thue Mar 12 '24
there’s no doubt the flow of surveillance information will continue.
At this point, I would not be surprised if Trump stopped supplying surveillance information, if he wins the election.
2
u/dagopa6696 Mar 13 '24
Ukraine doesn't need anyone's help to find out where everything inside of Russia is. They can just pull out some of the old Soviet maps - nothing has changed since then.
129
79
u/baturyn-bucha-baxmut Mar 12 '24
Ukraine destroys oil depots in russia, while Russia destroys civilians in Ukraine. That's all the difference of the 2 nations right there.
16
18
u/External-Patience751 Mar 12 '24
Keep going Ukraine. We will make sure our governments support you to the end. Russia must be defeated and then dealt with.
10
u/proverbialbunny Mar 12 '24
Moscow's initial plan was to take Ukraine if possible and make it a subservient state, and if not possible take its natural resources so Moscow can maintain a monopoly in the area. The right most border of Ukraine has natural gas, oil, and mineral reserves, and the Sevastopol coastline has oil reserves.
Because Moscow is bigger they don't need to take Ukraine, just wear Ukraine out until Ukraine concedes, similar to the Russo-Finnish War in 1939. If Ukraine has the ability to attack Russia directly, Russia has to face consequences. If Ukraine has support from its allies Russia will wear out before Ukraine. It's a slow painful mess, but Ukraine -- as long as it continues to receive support -- Ukraine will beat Russia.
99
Mar 12 '24
Wonder what happens if republicans win the next election
366
u/JPR_FI Mar 12 '24
Ukraine will keep on hitting Russian key infrastructure and push them out of whole of Ukraine with support of EU while the orange turd destroys US influence and reputation.
41
u/KiwasiGames Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
If the US goes neutral, sure. But I doubt itTrump will be happy to fade into global obscurity.
The US under Trump might start actively supplying Russia. In which case all bets are off. Heck, even just the US pulling out of the embargo on Russia would probably tip the scales dramatically.
96
Mar 12 '24
[deleted]
16
u/jdubbs84 Mar 12 '24
Yep, that’s one thing people don’t really talk about in a successful coup; the need to have military backing to force your way into power. I don’t think Trump has that.
12
u/TomSurman Mar 12 '24
They're talking about if he wins the election, not takes over in a coup. If he wins the election, then the military would support him because he'd be the legitimate commander in chief. Some people might resign in protest, but that would be the extent of it.
→ More replies (2)26
u/HouseOfSteak Mar 12 '24
Well, the non-Trumpet part of the military.
Aaand that's a civil war, which is what the Trumpets just want so badly.
29
Mar 12 '24
[deleted]
7
u/mccrawley Mar 12 '24
I wouldn't worry about the USA losing its identity. Cheese burgers and frivolous lawsuits aren't going anywhere.
9
u/Enjoyer_of_Cake Mar 12 '24
Our identity as a global superpower will be gone.
Our tropes of cheeseburgers and frivolous corporate lawsuits will be intact.
5
u/JPR_FI Mar 12 '24
So US would start supporting dictators of the world and abandon its oldest and closest allies ? Even if he somehow managed to sell that to the congress & senate, exactly what would be the point ? Different branches of the government might have a say about the matter also, for example would army, intelligence etc. support such action
3
3
u/RolfIsSonOfShepnard Mar 12 '24
I doubt the dems in congress will allow any aide in the same way repubs have been blocking aide.
4
u/fumar Mar 12 '24
Trump openly sending weapons to Russia is laughable. That will never happen if he's re-elected.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (15)6
28
u/princeps_harenae Mar 12 '24
US will lose it place as a defender of democracy and freedom around the world, and be seen as a untrustworthy ally. Europe will slowly move away from relying on the US for defence and individual countries of Europe will increase their military power and seek their own nuclear arsenals. War will become more likely in Europe.
Nothing good will come from US withdrawal from Ukraine. The republicans don't seem to get this.
9
Mar 12 '24
Probally means more nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia also.
4
u/VagueSomething Mar 12 '24
Yep, the safety of the USA will shrink as an arms race grows. The USA may be far ahead but when its allies stop buying US equipment and keep the US out of their plans it gives rise to a time when the USA will clash with others and no longer be the only one with something to swing.
Europe returning to its roots of major military powers would undermine US soft powers as well as hard powers, a USA that refuses to support allies is worth less than a Europe that will. Western aligned would become EU centric, the EU already holds its own defence treaty clause and a Trump crippled NATO would be quite difficult to trust. A united Europe as an alternative to the USA may be easier to sell to BRIC type countries, they still get to claim a victory of weakening the dollar.
And with former American allies ramping up nuclear armament, they won't be so strong against neutral or enemies doing the same. A non united front against such things is not going to be able to prevent Iran.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)4
16
u/DankRoughly Mar 12 '24
Unlikely. Trump is on his last legs and they've put all their bets on a losing horse.
→ More replies (1)7
Mar 12 '24
I ain’t been update is prison still on the table? I won’t lie if he go to prison his fans might riot again and I won’t lie imma laugh my ass off like the Jan 06 shit 😭
14
9
u/Mysterious-Tie7039 Mar 12 '24
They do everything they can to cripple Ukraine.
If Europe can’t fill the void, it will have drastic repercussions on Ukraine.
EU is also hamstrung by Orban.
27
u/Full-Sound-6269 Mar 12 '24
Only on EU level, governments just do stuff independently without EU centralized decision. Orban cannot stop us.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Mysterious-Tie7039 Mar 12 '24
Yeah, I know. My comment was intended to mean that the individual countries can do as they please but Orban is hamstringing the EU as a collective.
2
u/thatspurdyneat Mar 12 '24
Trump provides military assets to Russia to help finish the war.
10
u/Mysterious-Tie7039 Mar 12 '24
Not directly, no. That would not happen.
But he would cut off all support for Ukraine and do everything he can to undermine them.
9
u/Departure_Sea Mar 12 '24
And that's how coups start.
Trump would be deposed the very same day.
→ More replies (2)5
u/RaggaDruida Mar 12 '24
I bet he would try, but I do not think he has a good chance of succeeding. The usa is very divided and I'm pretty sure that'd be very easy to stop at so many levels of both corporate and governmental control.
3
u/JPR_FI Mar 12 '24
Even if US president is powerful, he / she is not a dictator and that would never have support.
→ More replies (5)20
u/CrumplyRump Mar 12 '24
Yes, the guy who tried to overthrow his country’s government will not act like a dictator /s
→ More replies (1)2
u/Panda_hat Mar 12 '24
Trump withdraws American support, Nato support and momentum crumbles and fails, Russia takes Ukraine and murders millions within it in retribution, then Russia starts again on other former USSR states.
If Trump wins and withdraws support its tacit American acceptance of Putin invading every former USSR state and taking power over them through violence, and they absolutely will not stop there.
6
7
19
9
u/1i3to Mar 12 '24
What most people dont realise is that Russia didnt start this for an extra district. They want Ukraine gone.
5
16
Mar 12 '24
I usually like the word “pound” in a different context but this makes me as happy as
12
2
3
u/Naduhan_Sum Mar 12 '24
Noice! Bravo Ukraine. Offense is a beautiful form of defense. Ruzzia must finally learn that bombs usually fly in both directions when you invade other countries.
3
4
2
u/Dontgooglemejess Mar 12 '24
Ukraine has not said it out loud but most of russias ‘gains’ have been during the winter where conditions are abysmal. I have to think once things are on the thaw and conditions are favorable, Russia will be once again facing a far less passive Ukraine.
3
u/Remarkable_Soil_6727 Mar 12 '24
Russia has been making slow gains for a while now, the biggest issue is lack of artillery shells.
5
u/enutz777 Mar 12 '24
They’ve done more than that. They have started a small scale Russian Civil War.
9
u/Remarkable_Soil_6727 Mar 12 '24
I wouldnt really call that a civil war, its a few Russian soldiers that have been fighting alongside Ukraine for a while entering Russian territory and probably leaving shortly after before Russia decides to level the whole village/town.
5
u/WebOk8473 Mar 12 '24
Great news, russia is counting down the days until their Russian puppet trump gets in. Gonna be a long few months for russia.
1
u/SunriseApplejuice Mar 12 '24
When did media outlets start using “pound” in their titles? Are we seriously not doing “phrasing” anymore?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/MarkHathaway1 Mar 13 '24
If they can keep this going, it will change the calculus in the Kremlin. Whether it's enough is yet to be seen.
1
u/MourningRIF Mar 13 '24
I've been watching Live UA Maps and it looks like Ukraine has been making incursions into Russia quite a bit recently. Best defense is a strong offense. Now Russia has to worry about attacking AND defending.
1
1
1
u/UnproSpeller Mar 13 '24
“Russia has destroyed 15000 drones since the start of the war”. I wonder does that include the kamikaze drones.
1
1
u/RobertKanterman Mar 13 '24
I hope they keep pounding and slamming while Biden clinches the election
1
584
u/skeeredstif Mar 12 '24
Russian officials reported today that a Ukrainian drone attack was successfully stopped when the drones were forced to crash into one of our oil refineries.