Notable developments in the Russo Ukraine War
12-14-2025 | 04:58 PM
#51
Perennial Reserve
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,268
Likes: 259
So as far as Brit tanks are concerned, sure, let’s fire those babies up. Assuming we can manage to keep them running, drive on over to the Russian lines and blast them back to the whatever thousand kilometer prewar boundary existed three and a half years ago. Who wouldn’t sign off on a plan like that?
So far the exchange rate seems to be about four drones per tank. Even with anti drone cover (think chicken wire screens a few feet above the top armor) - armor that isn’t moving is proving surprisingly easy to kill with drones no matter if the armor is Russian or Ukrainian. A 5 kilo payload of thermite ignited above the turret seems to do a surprisingly good job, burning through the chicken wire and dropping down onto the top of the turret and eventually melting it’s way through. And it’s hard to keep tanks moving - what with a fuel consumption more easily measured in gallons per mile than miles per gallon. Especially in mud, and Ukraine’s ‘mud season’s are notorious. Quite possibly, the era of tank warfare is drawing to a close. Possibly still useful in defense in a camouflaged position, but less so on offense. As an armor buddy of mine is fond of saying, “A tank can’t really sneak up on anybody.”
12-14-2025 | 05:33 PM
#52
Perennial Reserve
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,268
Likes: 259
So how realistic is this?
DECEMBER 14, 2025 2:46 PM CET
BY JONES HAYDENUkrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. envoys were in Berlin on Sunday for another round of peace talks, with Kyiv emphasizing that strong security guarantees are an essential component of any prospective deal to end the war.
Zelenskyy said there will be “meetings in Berlin today and tomorrow” to discuss the proposals on the table to find an end to the conflict in Ukraine. Zelenskyy said he will meet personally with U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in Berlin.
“The key thing is that all the steps we agree on with partners must work in practice to deliver guaranteed security,” Zelenskyy said in a tweet Sunday afternoon from Berlin. “Only reliable guarantees can deliver peace. We count on our partners to continue working constructively as well.”
BY JONES HAYDENUkrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. envoys were in Berlin on Sunday for another round of peace talks, with Kyiv emphasizing that strong security guarantees are an essential component of any prospective deal to end the war.
Zelenskyy said there will be “meetings in Berlin today and tomorrow” to discuss the proposals on the table to find an end to the conflict in Ukraine. Zelenskyy said he will meet personally with U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in Berlin.
“The key thing is that all the steps we agree on with partners must work in practice to deliver guaranteed security,” Zelenskyy said in a tweet Sunday afternoon from Berlin. “Only reliable guarantees can deliver peace. We count on our partners to continue working constructively as well.”
This war has been going on for nearly 4 years. Any other country that actually was willing to fight for Ukraine - as opposed to merely providing them with weapons and intel - has had am
e opportunity to do so. And there have been a few foreign volunteers (and NK troops volunteered), but for the last four years any actual state that wanted to send troops to fight for Ukraine has certainly had the opportunity. But none did.
How would a cease fire - or a treaty - change that? Nobody outside of Ukraine (excepting NK) has been willing to toss their troops into a battle. Would a treaty even change that? Would even NATO membership for Ukraine change that? Don’t tell me about Article 5. Article 5 is so weasel worded it doesn’t commit you to do anything specifically:
https://cepa.org/article/willfully-v...SAEEgLEQPD_BwE
it damn sure doesn’t commit you to get in an all out war with a nuclear adversary. H€LL, right now we are gearing up to take on narco terrorists whose products have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Do we see the rest of NATO sending invasion forces down towards Venezuela? Of course not. Despite the fact the narco-terrorism’s have become a major problem for Europe too.
https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/h...Lckawbxg%3D%3D
And Venezuela $doesn't have 5000 nukes even.
12-14-2025 | 05:53 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,525
Likes: 146
So far the exchange rate seems to be about four drones per tank. Even with anti drone cover (think chicken wire screens a few feet above the top armor) - armor that isn’t moving is proving surprisingly easy to kill with drones no matter if the armor is Russian or Ukrainian. A 5 kilo payload of thermite ignited above the turret seems to do a surprisingly good job, burning through the chicken wire and dropping down onto the top of the turret and eventually melting it’s way through. And it’s hard to keep tanks moving - what with a fuel consumption more easily measured in gallons per mile than miles per gallon. Especially in mud, and Ukraine’s ‘mud season’s are notorious. Quite possibly, the era of tank warfare is drawing to a close. Possibly still useful in defense in a camouflaged position, but less so on offense. As an armor buddy of mine is fond of saying, “A tank can’t really sneak up on anybody.”
12-14-2025 | 06:40 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,525
Likes: 146
How DO you deliver “guaranteed security?
This war has been going on for nearly 4 years. Any other country that actually was willing to fight for Ukraine - as opposed to merely providing them with weapons and intel - has had am
e opportunity to do so. And there have been a few foreign volunteers (and NK troops volunteered), but for the last four years any actual state that wanted to send troops to fight for Ukraine has certainly had the opportunity. But none did.
How would a cease fire - or a treaty - change that? Nobody outside of Ukraine (excepting NK) has been willing to toss their troops into a battle. Would a treaty even change that? Would even NATO membership for Ukraine change that? Don’t tell me about Article 5. Article 5 is so weasel worded it doesn’t commit you to do anything specifically:
https://cepa.org/article/willfully-v...SAEEgLEQPD_BwE
it damn sure doesn’t commit you to get in an all out war with a nuclear adversary. H€LL, right now we are gearing up to take on narco terrorists whose products have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Do we see the rest of NATO sending invasion forces down towards Venezuela? Of course not. Despite the fact the narco-terrorism’s have become a major problem for Europe too.
https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/h...Lckawbxg%3D%3D
And Venezuela $doesn't have 5000 nukes even.
This war has been going on for nearly 4 years. Any other country that actually was willing to fight for Ukraine - as opposed to merely providing them with weapons and intel - has had am
e opportunity to do so. And there have been a few foreign volunteers (and NK troops volunteered), but for the last four years any actual state that wanted to send troops to fight for Ukraine has certainly had the opportunity. But none did.
How would a cease fire - or a treaty - change that? Nobody outside of Ukraine (excepting NK) has been willing to toss their troops into a battle. Would a treaty even change that? Would even NATO membership for Ukraine change that? Don’t tell me about Article 5. Article 5 is so weasel worded it doesn’t commit you to do anything specifically:
https://cepa.org/article/willfully-v...SAEEgLEQPD_BwE
it damn sure doesn’t commit you to get in an all out war with a nuclear adversary. H€LL, right now we are gearing up to take on narco terrorists whose products have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Do we see the rest of NATO sending invasion forces down towards Venezuela? Of course not. Despite the fact the narco-terrorism’s have become a major problem for Europe too.
https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/h...Lckawbxg%3D%3D
And Venezuela $doesn't have 5000 nukes even.
12-14-2025 | 08:21 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,291
Likes: 114
So as far as Brit tanks are concerned, sure, let’s fire those babies up. Assuming we can manage to keep them running, drive on over to the Russian lines and blast them back to the whatever thousand kilometer prewar boundary existed three and a half years ago. Who wouldn’t sign off on a plan like that?
So far the exchange rate seems to be about four drones per tank. Even with anti drone cover (think chicken wire screens a few feet above the top armor) - armor that isn’t moving is proving surprisingly easy to kill with drones no matter if the armor is Russian or Ukrainian. A 5 kilo payload of thermite ignited above the turret seems to do a surprisingly good job, burning through the chicken wire and dropping down onto the top of the turret and eventually melting it’s way through.
And it’s hard to keep tanks moving - what with a fuel consumption more easily measured in gallons per mile than miles per gallon. Especially in mud, and Ukraine’s ‘mud season’s are notorious. Quite possibly, the era of tank warfare is drawing to a close. Possibly still useful in defense in a camouflaged position, but less so on offense. As an armor buddy of mine is fond of saying, “A tank can’t really sneak up on anybody.”
"But why did Russia invade Ukraine!!!!!!!!!"
Russian continues on............
12-15-2025 | 06:59 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2022
Posts: 2,279
Likes: 441
True. But look at how many of the U.S. supplied M1's/Bradleys and German Leopards have been lost.
It ranges from chicken wire, to the "copes cage", to the "turtle tanks", doesn't matter. The drones are extremely effective.
There's some that say, in this conflict at least, that armor is becoming obsolete. Even the camouflaged ones are subject to drones.
"But why did Russia invade Ukraine!!!!!!!!!"
Russian continues on............
It ranges from chicken wire, to the "copes cage", to the "turtle tanks", doesn't matter. The drones are extremely effective.
There's some that say, in this conflict at least, that armor is becoming obsolete. Even the camouflaged ones are subject to drones.
"But why did Russia invade Ukraine!!!!!!!!!"
Russian continues on............
how is ukraine a pawn of the west when they are fighting for their lives?
please be explicit in your answer, or just keep throwing insults and run away like a no integrity little child. Your choice
12-15-2025 | 08:16 AM
#58
Perennial Reserve
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,268
Likes: 259
Unserious…
Unserious. That’s the only way to describe it. A decade plus after the seizure of Crimea and almost four years into war in Ukraine the United Kingdom is still f@rting around.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-w...r-starmersays/
DECEMBER 15, 2025 5:39 PM CET
BY ESTHER WEBBERLONDON — Keir Starmer was forced to defend his record on defense spending as a major plank of his government’s plan for the sector was pushed into the new year.
Military chiefs and defense industry bosses have for months been anticipating the publication of a defense investment plan (DIP), which will allocate hard cash to support the implementation of the U.K.'s Strategic Defense Review (SDR).
Defense firms have complained that, without clear expectations set out by the government, they are unable to make key business decisions and risk losing skilled workers.
But the Ministry of Defence is currently locked in a standoff with the Treasury, as military chiefs argue they will not be able to deliver the necessary capabilities within the existing budget.
The DIP was originally scheduled to land in the fall, but speaking in the House of Commons Monday, U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey suggested the DIP will now be delayed to 2026, as previously suggested to POLITICO.
Parliament breaks for the Christmas recess this week and will not return until January 5, 2026.
“We’re working flat out until the end of this year to finalize the defence investment plan,” he said.
At the same time, Starmer faced questions from a committee of senior MPs on the U.K. parliament's liaison committee.
Tan Dhesi, Labour chair of the defense committee, told the PM the continued delay to the DIP “really is taking the biscuit.”
”Anybody and everybody, including the NATO secretary general, is saying that we need to prepare given the increased propensity and intensity of attacks,” Dhesi said.
Starmer responded: “We're working hard with the defense investment plan, and we will publish as soon as it's ready.”
The prime minister noted it “involves very significant and important decisions that we need to make sure we get absolutely right.”
He also highlighted what he called “quite a big measure in the budget” in the form of his decision to increase defense spending to 2.6 percent of GDP in 2027.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-w...r-starmersays/
UK ‘working hard’ on delayed defense plan, PM says
Tan Dhesi, chair of the U.K. defense committee, said a hold up to the defense investment plan “really is taking the biscuit.”DECEMBER 15, 2025 5:39 PM CET
BY ESTHER WEBBERLONDON — Keir Starmer was forced to defend his record on defense spending as a major plank of his government’s plan for the sector was pushed into the new year.
Military chiefs and defense industry bosses have for months been anticipating the publication of a defense investment plan (DIP), which will allocate hard cash to support the implementation of the U.K.'s Strategic Defense Review (SDR).
Defense firms have complained that, without clear expectations set out by the government, they are unable to make key business decisions and risk losing skilled workers.
But the Ministry of Defence is currently locked in a standoff with the Treasury, as military chiefs argue they will not be able to deliver the necessary capabilities within the existing budget.
The DIP was originally scheduled to land in the fall, but speaking in the House of Commons Monday, U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey suggested the DIP will now be delayed to 2026, as previously suggested to POLITICO.
Parliament breaks for the Christmas recess this week and will not return until January 5, 2026.
“We’re working flat out until the end of this year to finalize the defence investment plan,” he said.
At the same time, Starmer faced questions from a committee of senior MPs on the U.K. parliament's liaison committee.
Tan Dhesi, Labour chair of the defense committee, told the PM the continued delay to the DIP “really is taking the biscuit.”
”Anybody and everybody, including the NATO secretary general, is saying that we need to prepare given the increased propensity and intensity of attacks,” Dhesi said.
Starmer responded: “We're working hard with the defense investment plan, and we will publish as soon as it's ready.”
The prime minister noted it “involves very significant and important decisions that we need to make sure we get absolutely right.”
He also highlighted what he called “quite a big measure in the budget” in the form of his decision to increase defense spending to 2.6 percent of GDP in 2027.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
