Ukraine - Russia Conflict


All valid points. But the main issues for Ukraine from their side are depleting manpower and ammunition.

And the problem they can't help with is the potential Russian summer offensive.

The UAF is going to have to beat back the summer offensive if they want to have a chance.

Also, UAF is incapable of retaking territories lost. And Trump wants a Korean style end to the war with a massive and unrealistic demilitarized zone on the Ukrainian side.
 
Éric Béranger, PDG du missilier MBDA : « Nos missiles vont protéger les populations ukrainiennes »

Éric Béranger, CEO of missile maker MBDA: “Our missiles will protect the Ukrainian populations”

ARMAMENTS. Éric Béranger, CEO of MBDA, explains exclusively to JDD how his company – under fire from criticism – will produce more Aster missiles.

With kyiv's needs against Russia and the Houthi attacks against the National Navy in the Red Sea, the need to possess Aster missiles is becoming pressing. Hypersonic, this unique machine is capable of destroying aircraft or missiles with an almost immediate reaction time.

Thus, its production will be multiplied by six during the year 2025. A new pace which begins after the Minister of the Armed Forces, Sébastien Lecornu, publicly inveighed against the European ammunition manufacturer.

They need multiple batteries of SAMs though.
 
All countries operating with their flags are not attacking each other. The ones fighting each other are mercenaries.
So as long as Ukraine flies its flag in Ukraine, Russia would be the aggressor if it attacked right?
The same hasn't been done in Syria against Russian forces.
It happened once.
The only 2 oops moments were Turkey's shooting down of the Su-24 and Israel using a Russian transport to hide themselves.
It was no oops. And if they annoy Israel, they will oops some Russians too.
Many Chinese troops died in the Vietnam War. The SU also lost some troops. The Korean War too saw the deaths of Soviet troops.
The ones out in the jungle yes. I'm talking about the advisors North of the 19th parallel. That is a fairly close analogy to French troops based in Kyiv. Equally, the US did not attack Soviet and Chinese ships bringing missiles in to the NVA.
If France and Poland declare war on Russia, then eventually NATO will get pulled into it too. But NATO doesn't have any justification for NATO intervention. France and Poland can have their own private war with Russia though.
It does if it wanted to, a European democracy is being invaded and annexed on our border. Missiles from DPRK and Iran are being fired at them. There's certainly ample justification for allowing Ukraine to target bases inside Russia with our missiles.
 
All valid points. But the main issues for Ukraine from their side are depleting manpower and ammunition.

And the problem they can't help with is the potential Russian summer offensive.

The UAF is going to have to beat back the summer offensive if they want to have a chance.

Also, UAF is incapable of retaking territories lost. And Trump wants a Korean style end to the war with a massive and unrealistic demilitarized zone on the Ukrainian side.
The manpower issue is not dire. Ukrainian losses are trivial compared to WWII or even the Korean War. Russian losses are bordering on NK + Chiniese Korean War level losses.

Russia will be too busy getting hammered by Ukraine in summer.

Everyone will ignore Trump because he's an idiot, he may never get a single spending bill passed in the whole 4 years and Europe is doing most of the funding anyway.
 
They need multiple batteries of SAMs though.
Some extracts from the statements of Éric Béranger, CEO of the MBDA missile company:

On the Aster, we are in the process of increasing our production rates by 50% compared to 2022. And we are going to drastically reduce production times.

Has this speaking out changed anything in your factories?

We are working with the ministry's services to speed up. Initially, 200 Aster were ordered at the beginning of 2023 with first deliveries planned for the end of 2025; now, we are working to be able to provide them by the end of 2024. And for 2025, we are going to try to provide them with much more than planned, that is to say around six times more than what was contractually planned!

...
...

How do you plan to improve your returns?

To begin with, we must already make the best use of everything we have. Our factories have moved to three shifts wherever it is useful. We also stock. Today, we have around 80 tonnes of special steel, while in a year, we consume around four or five. As far as titanium is concerned, we have enough to make 3,000 missiles including Aster. To give you an idea, as of January 1, 2022, MBDA had inventories which represented approximately 500 million euros. Today, it’s a billion.

Are other changes on the agenda at MBDA?

To produce more, we must increase our industrial capacity. This is what we are doing with an investment plan for our factories, over the next five years, of approximately one billion euros for France and 2.4 billion euros for the group. Concretely, for example, we have doubled the surface area of the site where we carry out the final assembly of missiles, in the Center region, and we are in the process of replacing our electronics factory (which manufactures the brains of our missiles) with a new installation. brand new.

We are also investing in industrial resources, namely the purchase of machines, since there is a need to produce all the mechanical parts of the missiles. Over the next two years, we ordered around twenty of them and we even rented some for the Aster missiles, due to the urgency.

We are also in the process of injecting 35 million euros dedicated directly to the assembly line of this missile. Finally, we recruited some 2,600 people across the entire group last year. For France, this represents approximately 1,000 people, and we will do the same thing in 2024. From these recruitments, we have already opened fifty positions dedicated to Aster.

...
...

The Aster missile is sometimes compared to its American counterpart, the Patriot. What makes them different?

Its autoguidance is very precise and it has exceptional maneuverability when it approaches the target thanks to a system called the Pif (force inertial pilot). When he approaches the target, he is able to move very quickly with very strong lateral acceleration, to get closer to it and to destroy it. Thanks to the combination of its precision and this capacity, it is very effective and has nothing to envy of American systems.

With your feats of arms in the Red Sea, the future looks promising. Do you hope for the missile to have the same trajectory as the Rafale internationally? We remember that the fighter plane took more than fifteen years before being exported...

I am convinced that there will be very strong demand. I already think that if we had more Aster missiles available today, we would sell a lot more. And unfortunately, many countries will seek to protect themselves due to evolving geostrategic tensions. Everyone sees the exceptional capabilities of this missile. When we have reached higher production rates, we will serve those who come first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD and randomradio
So as long as Ukraine flies its flag in Ukraine, Russia would be the aggressor if it attacked right?

Well, duh, but both call each other the aggressor.

It happened once.

That was a Russian execution of Wagner mercenaries, not Russian flagged troops.

The ones out in the jungle yes. I'm talking about the advisors North of the 19th parallel. That is a fairly close analogy to French troops based in Kyiv. Equally, the US did not attack Soviet and Chinese ships bringing missiles in to the NVA.

Both Chinese and Soviet troops were attacked in North Vietnam. There were just too few Soviets though. But the Korean War saw active participation of Soviet troops.

It does if it wanted to, a European democracy is being invaded and annexed on our border. Missiles from DPRK and Iran are being fired at them. There's certainly ample justification for allowing Ukraine to target bases inside Russia with our missiles.

NATO is free to start WW3. But it won't happen under Article 5.
 
The manpower issue is not dire. Ukrainian losses are trivial compared to WWII or even the Korean War. Russian losses are bordering on NK + Chiniese Korean War level losses.

Is that why Ukraine needs 500k new troops?

Everyone will ignore Trump because he's an idiot, he may never get a single spending bill passed in the whole 4 years and Europe is doing most of the funding anyway.

All of Europe will come running to Trump.
 
Some extracts from the statements of Éric Béranger, CEO of the MBDA missile company:

On the Aster, we are in the process of increasing our production rates by 50% compared to 2022. And we are going to drastically reduce production times.

Has this speaking out changed anything in your factories?

We are working with the ministry's services to speed up. Initially, 200 Aster were ordered at the beginning of 2023 with first deliveries planned for the end of 2025; now, we are working to be able to provide them by the end of 2024. And for 2025, we are going to try to provide them with much more than planned, that is to say around six times more than what was contractually planned!

...
...

How do you plan to improve your returns?

To begin with, we must already make the best use of everything we have. Our factories have moved to three shifts wherever it is useful. We also stock. Today, we have around 80 tonnes of special steel, while in a year, we consume around four or five. As far as titanium is concerned, we have enough to make 3,000 missiles including Aster. To give you an idea, as of January 1, 2022, MBDA had inventories which represented approximately 500 million euros. Today, it’s a billion.

Are other changes on the agenda at MBDA?

To produce more, we must increase our industrial capacity. This is what we are doing with an investment plan for our factories, over the next five years, of approximately one billion euros for France and 2.4 billion euros for the group. Concretely, for example, we have doubled the surface area of the site where we carry out the final assembly of missiles, in the Center region, and we are in the process of replacing our electronics factory (which manufactures the brains of our missiles) with a new installation. brand new.

We are also investing in industrial resources, namely the purchase of machines, since there is a need to produce all the mechanical parts of the missiles. Over the next two years, we ordered around twenty of them and we even rented some for the Aster missiles, due to the urgency.

We are also in the process of injecting 35 million euros dedicated directly to the assembly line of this missile. Finally, we recruited some 2,600 people across the entire group last year. For France, this represents approximately 1,000 people, and we will do the same thing in 2024. From these recruitments, we have already opened fifty positions dedicated to Aster.

...
...

The Aster missile is sometimes compared to its American counterpart, the Patriot. What makes them different?

Its autoguidance is very precise and it has exceptional maneuverability when it approaches the target thanks to a system called the Pif (force inertial pilot). When he approaches the target, he is able to move very quickly with very strong lateral acceleration, to get closer to it and to destroy it. Thanks to the combination of its precision and this capacity, it is very effective and has nothing to envy of American systems.

With your feats of arms in the Red Sea, the future looks promising. Do you hope for the missile to have the same trajectory as the Rafale internationally? We remember that the fighter plane took more than fifteen years before being exported...

I am convinced that there will be very strong demand. I already think that if we had more Aster missiles available today, we would sell a lot more. And unfortunately, many countries will seek to protect themselves due to evolving geostrategic tensions. Everyone sees the exceptional capabilities of this missile. When we have reached higher production rates, we will serve those who come first.

Those seem fine for existing customers of SAMP/T. But I don't know how it will help Ukraine defend its air space when they lack sufficient SAMP/T batteries. Only one battery is operational.

AFAIK, there are 16 batteries in Europe, 1 in Ukraine, 15 in France and Italy. 1 more is gonna be transferred some day.

2 batteries are not a lot.
 
Well, duh, but both call each other the aggressor.
And as long as France flies it's flag in Ukraine, Russia would be the aggressor if it attacks.
That was a Russian execution of Wagner mercenaries, not Russian flagged troops.
No something happened between US personnel and Russian personnel.
Both Chinese and Soviet troops were attacked in North Vietnam. There were just too few Soviets though. But the Korean War saw active participation of Soviet troops.
The ones up in Hanoi were not though. Do some research. In the Korean War, Soviet pilots were pretending to be Koreans, they even strafed their own downed airmen to cover it up.
NATO is free to start WW3. But it won't happen under Article 5.
BS. Allowing Ukraine to the same thing with our missiles as Russia is doing with NK and Iranian missiles would not start WW3. That's a bluff. Really, Russia is going to see themselves obliterated for the sake of a slice of land Ukraine, when it alrteady has 11% of the entire planet's land mass and 22% of its resources between ~1.7% of the population legally. The level of stupidity it takes for any politician to believe that.
Russian Buk down:

Ah, wrong video:

 
Those seem fine for existing customers of SAMP/T. But I don't know how it will help Ukraine defend its air space when they lack sufficient SAMP/T batteries. Only one battery is operational.

AFAIK, there are 16 batteries in Europe, 1 in Ukraine, 15 in France and Italy. 1 more is gonna be transferred some day.

2 batteries are not a lot.
We are only talking about missile production because we had already said that it was the most difficult to increase due to the shortage of powder in Europe, the production of which had been outsourced. But AMDBA are not crazy, they will also increase the launch and detection systems with the help of Thales.
 
And as long as France flies it's flag in Ukraine, Russia would be the aggressor if it attacks.

No, warzone rules are in effect. France enters Ukraine with its flag, then it becomes party to the war.

No something happened between US personnel and Russian personnel.

Yeah, those were Wagner mercenaries that Russia sent in for execution 'cause Putin wanted to teach Wagner a lesson. Russia moved some Wagner troops towards a base near the Americans and abandoned them. The Americans did the dirty work for Putin.

The ones up in Hanoi were not though. Do some research. In the Korean War, Soviet pilots were pretending to be Koreans, they even strafed their own downed airmen to cover it up.

Yeah, so that's how France will be expected to participate, through mercenary work.

BS. Allowing Ukraine to the same thing with our missiles as Russia is doing with NK and Iranian missiles would not start WW3. That's a bluff. Really, Russia is going to see themselves obliterated for the sake of a slice of land Ukraine, when it alrteady has 11% of the entire planet's land mass and 22% of its resources between ~1.7% of the population legally. The level of stupidity it takes for any politician to believe that.

For Article 5 to take effect, a member state needs to be attacked. Ukraine is not a member state. And Art 5 doesn't cover member states in foreign territories. So if France declares war on Russia, then that has nothing to do with NATO. And if, during warfare, Russia attacks French soil, Art 5 won't trigger 'cause both countries are already at war and it was a unilateral decision from the French side.
 
Well, duh, but both call each other the aggressor.
Russia's position is bullshit, though. Anyone with more than five functioning brain cells can see that.
Is that why Ukraine needs 500k new troops?
Ukraine needs new troops to allow current forces to return to civilian life.
All of Europe will come running to Trump.
lol nope

So if France declares war on Russia, then that has nothing to do with NATO.
Nobody in the Global North declares war anymore. Korea wasn't a war, it was "police action". Likewise, Vietnam wasn't a war. The Gulf War wasn't a war. The breakdown of Yugoslavia wasn't a war. The Iraq war wasn't a war.

Russia didn't declare war on Ukraine, it's just a "special military operation" and you get sent to jail for years if you call it a war. Then once you're in jail you get offered the exciting opportunity to join the Storm-Z battalions so that instead of spending 15 years rotting alive in a gulag, you get to be blown up by an FPV drone in Ukraine.

And again, we're talking about non-combat operations, like demining the west bank of Kherson oblast or guarding the borders far from the front line. None of that would be acts of war against Russia.
And if, during warfare, Russia attacks French soil, Art 5 won't trigger 'cause both countries are already at war and it was a unilateral decision from the French side.
Wrong. It's one thing if Russia decides to attack French troops on Ukraine's soil; but an attack on French soil would absolutely trigger NATO article 5, as well as TEU article 42§7. Because unlike removing mines in Kherson, this would be an actual act of war, and it would absolutely be ground for reprisal in kind, with French attacks on Russian soil. Said attacks may take the form of an ASMPA, as this is the French word for "stop your bullshit immediately or it's M51 time".
 
Russia's position is bullshit, though. Anyone with more than five functioning brain cells can see that.

Doesn't matter. Western playbook: Might is right. As long as Russia wins, and no one is capable of changing the new status quo, their position is what's gonna reflect in the world's eyes.

Ukraine needs new troops to allow current forces to return to civilian life.

Er... No. Ukraine has removed all mention of troops going home. If they are to go home, it's either in a wheelchair or in a body bag.


America is really important to the Nordic countries and Eastern Europe. If Europe decides to go solo, the Trump era will be important for the transition.

In any case, neither France nor Germany have the ability to replace the US in Europe. America's military might cannot be replaced by Western Europe, and the rest of Europe knows that.

Nobody in the Global North declares war anymore. Korea wasn't a war, it was "police action". Likewise, Vietnam wasn't a war. The Gulf War wasn't a war. The breakdown of Yugoslavia wasn't a war. The Iraq war wasn't a war.

Russia didn't declare war on Ukraine, it's just a "special military operation" and you get sent to jail for years if you call it a war. Then once you're in jail you get offered the exciting opportunity to join the Storm-Z battalions so that instead of spending 15 years rotting alive in a gulag, you get to be blown up by an FPV drone in Ukraine.

And again, we're talking about non-combat operations, like demining the west bank of Kherson oblast or guarding the borders far from the front line. None of that would be acts of war against Russia.

Sure, it's all semantics. The message is the same though. If France attacks Russian positions, or if France defends Ukrainian positions that Russia wants to attack, the result is the same, both countries will practically be at war.

Wrong. It's one thing if Russia decides to attack French troops on Ukraine's soil; but an attack on French soil would absolutely trigger NATO article 5, as well as TEU article 42§7. Because unlike removing mines in Kherson, this would be an actual act of war, and it would absolutely be ground for reprisal in kind, with French attacks on Russian soil. Said attacks may take the form of an ASMPA, as this is the French word for "stop your bullshit immediately or it's M51 time".

So you're saying France can attack Russia, but if Russia attacks France, NATO will intervene? That's a pretty kookie idea. The only way NATO will intervene is if Russia attacks French soil unprovoked. "Unprovoked" is the magic word.

When people say the word NATO, it typically means the United States. So the question is if the US is interested in fighting a major war with Russia in a war France started unilaterally? I don't think so. They will wriggle out of it, especially Trump.
 
No, warzone rules are in effect. France enters Ukraine with its flag, then it becomes party to the war.
Russia entered Syria with its flag, so it became a party to the war. Not to mention all those African coups. Stop trying to change the rules to suit yourself.
Yeah, those were Wagner mercenaries that Russia sent in for execution 'cause Putin wanted to teach Wagner a lesson. Russia moved some Wagner troops towards a base near the Americans and abandoned them. The Americans did the dirty work for Putin.
No, this was well before the falling out.
Yeah, so that's how France will be expected to participate, through mercenary work.
No, it'll just fly its flag.
For Article 5 to take effect, a member state needs to be attacked. Ukraine is not a member state. And Art 5 doesn't cover member states in foreign territories.
It does if they have permission to be there from the legitimate government, not if they're attacking.
So if France declares war on Russia, then that has nothing to do with NATO. And if, during warfare, Russia attacks French soil, Art 5 won't trigger 'cause both countries are already at war and it was a unilateral decision from the French side.
They're not declaring war on Russia, they're defending Kyiv from attack.

If French soil gets attacked, believe me, it's definitely war.
 
So you're saying France can attack Russia, but if Russia attacks France, NATO will intervene?
Nobody is talking about attacking Russia; unless Russia attacks first.

Again, the plan that has been discussed is non-combat missions. I know you love being a two-bit contrarian but non-combat is explicitly not attacking.

Furthermore, there's a gradation:
  1. No direct action. (Troops stay home.)
  2. Non-combat operations. (Troops do non-combat stuff so that Ukrainian troops are freed to do combat missions.)
  3. Limited combat operations. (Troops shoot down drones and missiles.)
  4. Actual combat operations. (Troops attack occupying Russian troops in Ukraine.)
  5. Actual war. (Troops attack targets on Russian soil.)
Nothing below #5 would constitute an act of war against Russia. And obviously nobody is thinking about even going to #4 on that list so far.

That's a pretty kookie idea. The only way NATO will intervene is if Russia attacks French soil unprovoked. "Unprovoked" is the magic word.
Russia is a bully state, and as such is provoked by weakness, but deterred by strength.

Nobody is going to agree with you that if Russia sends missiles to France because France sent some engineering troops to clear out mines, it has "provoked Russia". Nothing short of step #5 would be legitimate provocation.
When people say the word NATO, it typically means the United States. So the question is if the US is interested in fighting a major war with Russia in a war France started unilaterally? I don't think so. They will wriggle out of it, especially Trump.
Of course the USA will wriggle out, because they're cowardly surrender monkeys; this has been established several times. Nobody can rely on USA. But NATO is not just them, and there's a reason I also mentioned 42.7.