Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Vintage · Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:16 pm

johns624 wrote:
Only a little over 100 M1128 were built. I don't know why it is being compared with the M109. It's more comparable with an M2 Bradley. The MGS version doesn't have a low silhouette, especially compared with the Abrams. It's not that easy to work around an in-op autoloader, because it takes up space and you're short a crew member.

From the above link:

By August 2012, the Army's Stryker fleet included over 4,187 vehicles, with 10 flat-bottom variants and seven in double V-hull designs.
In Afghanistan, it retained a 96 percent readiness rate.

With the exception of some specialized variants, the primary armament of the Stryker is a Protector M151 Remote Weapon Station with .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 machine gun, 7.62 mm M240B machine gun, or 40 mm Mk 19 grenade launcher.

In August 2018, 86 Strykers began fielding with a CROWS turret adapted to be able to fit a Javelin anti-tank missile tube, allowing the vehicle to fire the weapon instead of needing dismounted troops to use it.

The Stryker's thermal sights can see out to 7,800 ft (2,400 m; 1.48 mi), compared to 330 ft (100 m) for night vision sights used by dismounted soldiers.

The Stryker's hull is constructed from high-hardness steel which offers a basic level of protection against 14.5 mm rounds on the frontal arc, and all-around protection against 7.62 mm ball ammunition.

These vehicles cost the US many billions of dollars, and now they are available for the cost of shipping.

johns624 · Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:34 pm

The ones with the autoloader are the M1128. They are the only ones with a 105mm cannon. There were only a little over 100 built. The rest are armed with M2 .50cal MGs, Mk 19 grenade launchers or 30mm cannons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

GDB · Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:18 am

Better a bunch of M-198’s from storage, M109’s too, some more M777’s if not draining too much from the inventory, hence the still effective M-198.
Now that they are in successful operation, more HIMARs and stored MLRS if available.
Rather than a direct fire vehicle, built in small numbers, with not much armour for that role, that does not do anything about the main problem for Ukraine now, the destruction of Russian artillery and supporting assets, ammo dumps, command and control etc.

With Stryker, the APC and similar would be useful, not the MGS.
Really to protect mostly against shell splinters, mortars and small arms if used alongside MBTs and APC’s in an attack.
But that’s not the really urgent need now.

MohawkWeekend · Wed Jul 06, 2022 1:14 am

I listed the M109 stats as a comparison in size
- How many more can be airlifted.
- How many small bridges and roads can it use compared to bigger self propelled guns and MBT.

It's got to be better than a towed howitzer. Quicker get away from counter-battery fire. Doesn't need a big crew (3 vs 7 on a towed 105) and a truck to tow it and carry its ammo. Unless a Bradley's can lob a 105 HE shell 7 miles, IMO it would help alot.

Braybuddy · Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:47 am

Oleg Sukhov of the Kyiv Independent shares his thoughts on why Putin is afraid of full mobilisation. Here's hoping he's right:
https://kyivindependent.com/regional/pu ... -in-russia

Or, on second thoughts, given his analysis, maybe it would be a good thing . . . :lol:

GDB · Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:52 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
I listed the M109 stats as a comparison in size
- How many more can be airlifted.
- How many small bridges and roads can it use compared to bigger self propelled guns and MBT.

It's got to be better than a towed howitzer. Quicker get away from counter-battery fire. Doesn't need a big crew (3 vs 7 on a towed 105) and a truck to tow it and carry its ammo. Unless a Bradley's can lob a 105 HE shell 7 miles, IMO it would help alot.

While towed 155mm guns have disadvantages, it’s a numbers issue for Ukraine, even the US has a large inventory of them.
Plus they out range most Russian guns.
But yes, as many SP’s, more HIMARS and MLRS, with more Starstreak for local defence against aircraft (usually SU-25’s) who are it seems out of stand off PGMs/stand off weapons judging by their observed tactics and attack helicopters.

bikerthai · Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:08 pm

GDB wrote:
While towed 155mm guns have disadvantages, it’s a numbers issue for Ukraine, even the US has a large inventory of them.

The towed artilery also consumes less fuel and less likely to go tech than SP. Remember that every time Russia targets a fuel depot.

bt

JonesNL · Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:38 pm

bikerthai wrote:
GDB wrote:
While towed 155mm guns have disadvantages, it’s a numbers issue for Ukraine, even the US has a large inventory of them.

The towed artilery also consumes less fuel and less likely to go tech than SP. Remember that every time Russia targets a fuel depot.

bt

To add; accuracy is highly underestimated. The situation is quite even if Russia has 10 times more guns, but Western guns are 10 times more accurate.

But reports from the field have painted a more dire picture from the Russians regarding accuracy. 6 Ceasers destroying 80 Russian artillery pieces in the first 2 weeks of operation is quite an interesting example. Even if the number is inflated by a factor of 100%, each western gun is 20-30 times more valuable then a Russian gun.

I do believe the intelligence input from the west is the true differentiator for the effectiveness of each gun...

5427247845 · Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:43 pm

bikerthai wrote:
GDB wrote:
While towed 155mm guns have disadvantages, it’s a numbers issue for Ukraine, even the US has a large inventory of them.

The towed artilery also consumes less fuel and less likely to go tech than SP. Remember that every time Russia targets a fuel depot.

bt

Point is the western countries haven’t enough to supply Ukraine with the numbers they need.

kelval · Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:44 pm

GDB wrote:
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-30_Au ... _operators

Plenty of these are likely in store, allowing for a French strategic reserve.

[...]

Not plenty.
This is not the German army that almost never does anything else than training, France's army has constantly been engaged on several theaters, Afghanistan and Africa mainly.
France's army is notoriously underfunded for the missions it accomplishes and keeps it's equipment until it's almost falling apart. It's budget is 1.9% of the GDP, but that also includes an indigenous nuclear deterrence solution and the means to transport it, a nuclear aircraft carrier, nuclear submarines etc etc. All this eats away conventionnal forces's budget.

The AuF1 that are left (supposedly 32 according to wikipedia) are pretty worn out.
Sending outdated and ready to break apart kit to Ukraine would be a poisonned gift.

Hence why the Caesar howitzers were sent instead.

5427247845 · Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:45 pm

JonesNL wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
GDB wrote:
While towed 155mm guns have disadvantages, it’s a numbers issue for Ukraine, even the US has a large inventory of them.

The towed artilery also consumes less fuel and less likely to go tech than SP. Remember that every time Russia targets a fuel depot.

bt

To add; accuracy is highly underestimated. The situation is quite even if Russia has 10 times more guns, but Western guns are 10 times more accurate.

But reports from the field have painted a more dire picture from the Russians regarding accuracy. 6 Ceasers destroying 80 Russian artillery pieces in the first 2 weeks of operation is quite an interesting example. Even if the number is inflated by a factor of 100%, each western gun is 20-30 times more valuable then a Russian gun.

I do believe the intelligence input from the west is the true differentiator for the effectiveness of each gun...

Will that make a difference when Russia just opens another stockpile of artillery and move them to Ukraine?

5427247845 · Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:48 pm

JonesNL wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
GDB wrote:
While towed 155mm guns have disadvantages, it’s a numbers issue for Ukraine, even the US has a large inventory of them.

The towed artilery also consumes less fuel and less likely to go tech than SP. Remember that every time Russia targets a fuel depot.

bt

To add; accuracy is highly underestimated. The situation is quite even if Russia has 10 times more guns, but Western guns are 10 times more accurate.

But reports from the field have painted a more dire picture from the Russians regarding accuracy. 6 Ceasers destroying 80 Russian artillery pieces in the first 2 weeks of operation is quite an interesting example. Even if the number is inflated by a factor of 100%, each western gun is 20-30 times more valuable then a Russian gun.

I do believe the intelligence input from the west is the true differentiator for the effectiveness of each gun...

Will that make a difference when Russia just opens another stockpile of artillery and move them to Ukraine?

johns624 · Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:53 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
I listed the M109 stats as a comparison in size
- How many more can be airlifted.
- How many small bridges and roads can it use compared to bigger self propelled guns and MBT.

It's got to be better than a towed howitzer. Quicker get away from counter-battery fire. Doesn't need a big crew (3 vs 7 on a towed 105) and a truck to tow it and carry its ammo. Unless a Bradley's can lob a 105 HE shell 7 miles, IMO it would help alot.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The M1128 is not artillery. It is a direct fire weapon.

bikerthai · Wed Jul 06, 2022 1:42 pm

marcelh wrote:
Point is the western countries haven’t enough to supply Ukraine with the numbers they need.

That may be a secondary reason. The number of artilery Ukraine can effectively use equates to the number of rounds the allies can provide daily which is dependent on how much fuel is available to drive the trucks. If there is unlimited fuel with unlimited trucks to supply the SP and deliver the rounds, then sure Ukraine should get as many guns it can handle. But again we have to think about the logistics.

marcelh wrote:
Will that make a difference when Russia just opens another stockpile of artillery and move them to Ukraine?

Sure, the stockpike would have to be more than 70km the front line or else it will be hit. More logistics issues for the Russian. They may have unlimited artilery shell and gas, but do they have unlimited trucks?

JonesNL wrote:
But reports from the field have painted a more dire picture from the Russians regarding accuracy. 6 Ceasers destroying 80 Russian artillery pieces in the first 2 weeks of operation is quite an interesting example.

Was looking for this type of data. :bigthumbsup:

bt

JonesNL · Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:16 pm

marcelh wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
bikerthai wrote:

The towed artilery also consumes less fuel and less likely to go tech than SP. Remember that every time Russia targets a fuel depot.

bt

To add; accuracy is highly underestimated. The situation is quite even if Russia has 10 times more guns, but Western guns are 10 times more accurate.

But reports from the field have painted a more dire picture from the Russians regarding accuracy. 6 Ceasers destroying 80 Russian artillery pieces in the first 2 weeks of operation is quite an interesting example. Even if the number is inflated by a factor of 100%, each western gun is 20-30 times more valuable then a Russian gun.

I do believe the intelligence input from the west is the true differentiator for the effectiveness of each gun...

Will that make a difference when Russia just opens another stockpile of artillery and move them to Ukraine?

It does, way more then you can imagine. Russian artillery is just hitting cities and close to the front units that are in their line of sight. Ukrainian artillery is hitting just high value military target 70-80km behind enemy lines…

bikerthai · Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:22 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Russian artillery is just hitting cities and close to the front units that are in their line of sight.

Forget the idea that the Russian army is using WWII tactics. They are using WWI tactics. Massive artilery barrage followed by infantry advance.

bt

GDB · Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:32 pm

kelval wrote:
GDB wrote:
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-30_Au ... _operators

Plenty of these are likely in store, allowing for a French strategic reserve.

[...]

Not plenty.
This is not the German army that almost never does anything else than training, France's army has constantly been engaged on several theaters, Afghanistan and Africa mainly.
France's army is notoriously underfunded for the missions it accomplishes and keeps it's equipment until it's almost falling apart. It's budget is 1.9% of the GDP, but that also includes an indigenous nuclear deterrence solution and the means to transport it, a nuclear aircraft carrier, nuclear submarines etc etc. All this eats away conventionnal forces's budget.

The AuF1 that are left (supposedly 32 according to wikipedia) are pretty worn out.
Sending outdated and ready to break apart kit to Ukraine would be a poisonned gift.

Hence why the Caesar howitzers were sent instead.

The latest video I linked the other day, those hour long dives, dealt mostly with Germany but did compare with France and how they do much more with a smaller budget, bit like the UK then!
I linked those SP guns as part of a general look of possibly available guns, SP and otherwise.
Hence my much raised point about the towed 155's, the gun similar to the CAESAR, most of which are in store and relatively new.
For all that, Germany looks to be doing better than the UK on provision of 155mm guns, much less France whose CAESARs have gained much respect from the Ukrainians.

lightsaber · Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:36 pm

bikerthai wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Russian artillery is just hitting cities and close to the front units that are in their line of sight.

Forget the idea that the Russian army is using WWII tactics. They are using WWI tactics. Massive artilery barrage followed by infantry advance.

bt

This is why we must ship Ukraine more mortars, howitzers, MLRS with massive amounts of ammo.

When you make the tanks ineffective, tactics revert. If you buy rank, I'm thinking basic tactics is all you understand.

Lightsaber

bikerthai · Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:49 pm

lightsaber wrote:
When you make the tanks ineffective, tactics revert. If you buy rank, I'm thinking basic tactics is all you understand.

It will be interesting to see Ukrainian tactics with the upcoming counter attack.

You know they will not destroy Kerson. Will they by-pass larger cities and towns?

I see SP artilery will be crucial in this phase of the war where movement and striking where the Russian line is weakest could negate the Russian mass artilery advantage.

bt

par13del · Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:22 pm

bikerthai wrote:
It will be interesting to see Ukrainian tactics with the upcoming counter attack.
bt

I keep seeing this counter-attack mentioned, I trust that all the forces advancing to the rear are to bolster those who will lead this counter-attack. My question would be why not shorten the lines much sooner versus waiting until the forces are almost obliterated.

JonesNL · Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:43 pm

par13del wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
It will be interesting to see Ukrainian tactics with the upcoming counter attack.
bt

I keep seeing this counter-attack mentioned, I trust that all the forces advancing to the rear are to bolster those who will lead this counter-attack. My question would be why not shorten the lines much sooner versus waiting until the forces are almost obliterated.

From what I heard is that most hard fought positions were heavily fortified since 2014. They were worth hanging on to as the positions further back don’t have that advantage. That’s why Lisitsjansk was abonded in 1 day while Sjeverodonetsk was heavily defended for weeks on end.

The counter attack should come when the infantry is trained in big numbers. They started in March and training was supposed to be done in 4 months. So, I would guess the counter attack should start in August. By then the logistic issues should be sorted…

bikerthai · Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:07 pm

par13del wrote:
My question would be why not shorten the lines much sooner versus waiting until the forces are almost obliterated.

Two reason I can think of.

1) Delay the inevitable shelling of the next town. Give time for those in the next town to evacuate.

2) Fix Russian forces in the theater as long as you can to prevent them from moving to reinforce where you may want to counter attack.

As for the attack, it would be foolish to send freshly trained troup into a counter attack right away. If you have time, specially if you are waiting for logistics to catch up, you can rotate troup through the front line to get a feel of "combat" before the really heavy shooting begins.

This backfired at the battle of the Bulge. The US was rotating some fresh troup through the Ardennes prior to the German atrack because it was a "quiet" front.

bt

Vintage · Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:49 pm

par13del wrote:
My question would be why not shorten the lines much sooner versus waiting until the forces are almost obliterated.

The Ukrainians see the war as a battle of attrition vs territory. They believe the Russian army will withdraw only when the Russian people demand it.
For Ukraine, killing Orcs is the name of the game.

lightsaber · Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:34 am

Vintage wrote:
par13del wrote:
My question would be why not shorten the lines much sooner versus waiting until the forces are almost obliterated.

The Ukrainians see the war as a battle of attrition vs territory. They believe the Russian army will withdraw only when the Russian people demand it.
For Ukraine, killing Orcs is the name of the game.

In my opinion, capturing as many Russian troops as possible will do an even better job of forcing the peace.

art · Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:10 pm

Vintage wrote:
par13del wrote:
My question would be why not shorten the lines much sooner versus waiting until the forces are almost obliterated.

The Ukrainians see the war as a battle of attrition vs territory. They believe the Russian army will withdraw only when the Russian people demand it.
For Ukraine, killing Orcs is the name of the game.

I don't know the expression 'Orcs' and may not be alone in that. Would you enlighten, please?

Vintage · Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:20 pm

art wrote:
I don't know the expression 'Orcs' and may not be alone in that. Would you enlighten, please?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/3 ... age-of-war

Here's one a little closer to home for you Art.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-eur ... 785/page/5

art · Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:52 pm

Vintage wrote:
art wrote:
I don't know the expression 'Orcs' and may not be alone in that. Would you enlighten, please?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/3 ... age-of-war

Thanks.

GDB · Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:34 am

The supplied guns and rockets, as many think outside Ukraine too, more required ASAP;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -zelenskiy

Braybuddy · Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:00 pm

GDB wrote:
The supplied guns and rockets, as many think outside Ukraine too, more required ASAP;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -zelenskiy

Wow! Bullseye!!!!! :shock:

JonesNL · Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:09 pm

Braybuddy wrote:
GDB wrote:
The supplied guns and rockets, as many think outside Ukraine too, more required ASAP;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -zelenskiy

Wow! Bullseye!!!!!

Again some proof of the great efficacy of western arms, from the article;

And with the longer-range rockets we have destroyed over 20 warehouses of Russian artillery

They have only a few HIMARS for 2-3 weeks and have already destroyed 20 artillery warehouses. Even if half is true we are talking about high amount of high value targets…

Duke91 · Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:23 pm

The question is how many warehouses are left.

MohawkWeekend · Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:42 pm

How about some NATO country give the UAF a couple of P-3 Orions so they can have a standoff attack ability with the Harpoon. Imagine how many Russian SAM's would need to be deployed. And how many cruise and ballistic missile Russia would waste hitting landing strips instead of cities.

lightsaber · Fri Jul 08, 2022 6:13 pm

Vintage wrote:
art wrote:
I don't know the expression 'Orcs' and may not be alone in that. Would you enlighten, please?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/3 ... age-of-war

Here's one a little closer to home for you Art.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-eur ... 785/page/5

From the 2nd link:
"It is better to call Russians 'orcs' than more vulgar words."

The fact that someone hacked Google to translate "Russian Federation" to Mordor for years is hilarious!

Lightsaber

Braybuddy · Fri Jul 08, 2022 6:43 pm

JonesNL wrote:
They have only a few HIMARS for 2-3 weeks and have already destroyed 20 artillery warehouses. Even if half is true we are talking about high amount of high value targets…

Am I the only one thinking that Putin's upping the ante ("Just getting started") is more a realisation that things are starting to go badly for the Russian army after a successful few weeks? The new weapons are starting to work their magic, and the more successful the Ukranian army, the more he threatens.

tomcat · Fri Jul 08, 2022 7:07 pm

Braybuddy wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
They have only a few HIMARS for 2-3 weeks and have already destroyed 20 artillery warehouses. Even if half is true we are talking about high amount of high value targets…

Am I the only one thinking that Putin's upping the ante ("Just getting started") is more a realisation that things are starting to go badly for the Russian army after a successful few weeks? The new weapons are starting to work their magic, and the more successful the Ukranian army, the more he threatens.

No, you are not the only one. I can't wait to see rusted T-55s taken out of their cemetery and sent to the front by the Russians. On a more serious note, I would not underestimate the challenge of defeating the Russians but they haven't been convincing so far.

Braybuddy · Fri Jul 08, 2022 7:19 pm

tomcat wrote:
No, you are not the only one. I can't wait to see rusted T-55s taken out of their cemetery and sent to the front by the Russians. On a more serious note, I would not underestimate the challenge of defeating the Russians but they haven't been convincing so far.

If things really start to turn around I don't think Putin could survive (or stand) a rout of the Russian army, so my big fear here would be his use of tactical nuclear weapons. He would have no qualms about using them on say a small city in the west of the country. He knows that would put Nato in a very difficult position and completely change the trajectory of this war.

tomcat · Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:05 pm

Braybuddy wrote:
tomcat wrote:
No, you are not the only one. I can't wait to see rusted T-55s taken out of their cemetery and sent to the front by the Russians. On a more serious note, I would not underestimate the challenge of defeating the Russians but they haven't been convincing so far.

If things really start to turn around I don't think Putin could survive (or stand) a rout of the Russian army, so my big fear here would be his use of tactical nuclear weapons. He would have no qualms about using them on say a small city in the west of the country. He knows that would put Nato in a very difficult position and completely change the trajectory of this war.

Yes, this risk exists and as I have express it many pages ago in this thread (I believe it was this one), if Putin resorts to using nuclear weapons, so be it. My humble opinion is that we have nothing to gain to back down and keep living under the permanent threats and orders of a dictator. We need to rise to the challenge and confront him. Of course our governments can be a bit smarter than me and try to achieve this goal without provoking a nuclear war.

GDB · Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:41 pm

On logistics;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_NiKLu4h5g

tomcat · Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:49 pm

On HIMARS, the long range ones :-)

:

Ukraine will receive American shells for the HIMARS artillery system, which can reach Russian targets in Crimea. Moreover, Washington believes that Ukraine has every right to deliver a crushing blow even on the Crimean bridge.

This is reported by the British newspaper Financial Times, citing a source in the Pentagon.

Russia will have to start investing in tunnels soon...

https://musicnewsfirst.com/us-sends-himars-projectiles-capable-of-reaching-crimea-to-ukraine-media/

EDIT: this news needs to be confirmed. It seems that the original article from the FT is not as affirmative as other media are reporting.

bikerthai · Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:44 pm

tomcat wrote:
On HIMARS, the long range ones :
Ukraine will receive American shells for the HIMARS artillery system, which can reach Russian targets in Crimea. Moreover, Washington believes that Ukraine has every right to deliver a crushing blow even on the Crimean bridge.

This is reported by the British newspaper Financial Times, citing a source in the Pentagon.

Did I not predicted this up thread?

Russia boasted that they destroyed some HIMARS storage facility. (Maybe some launcher too?). US denied the report.

US responses . . . Longer range HIMARs. (This is just some talking from some US Senators so far? ) Got this from Denys YouTube chanel.

Strategically, it makes sense and it now make Sevastopol a no go zone for the Rusian fleet (and maybe aircrafts as well). It would be easier to lift the blockade.

As for the latest batch of aid, 4 more HIMARs launchers and lots of pressission artilery rounds.

From The Drive Warzone - it looks like Ukrain will be getting 4 new HIMARs launcher every week as that is the rate at which crew training is happening.

bt

Aesma · Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:12 pm

French landmines have been delivered and used : https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/15 ... 6698979329

France is considering providing Exocet anti-ship missiles to clear shipping lanes out of Odessa : https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... raine.html

https://lemarin.ouest-france.fr/secteur ... t-lukraine

bikerthai · Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:47 pm

Aesma wrote:
France is considering providing Exocet anti-ship missiles to clear shipping lanes out of Odessa :

Helo mounted version would be nice. Can they be mounted on those patrol boats the US provided?

bt

MohawkWeekend · Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:54 pm

I notice not as many posts on this crucial topic. I hope this small sample isn't indicative of the west's losing interest in this tragedy.

That is part of Putin's plan. He saw how the US/NATO civilian populations hardly seemed to care when their troops were in combat in Afghanistan and Syria/Iraq the last decade.

SRQLOT · Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:24 pm

I think the many of us have been waiting very patiently for the Ukrainian counteroffensive. I keep reading that it is still weeks away, but all fires on the russian occupied side are a beautiful welcome!!!

Aesma · Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:30 pm

What is prominent right now are the consequences of the war, and in particular gas supplies dwindling. I don't really see western european leaders wavering as a result, but we shall see, I don't know where there could be upcoming elections that could change the situation.

Having money on hand doesn't seem to really be helping Russia anyway, it's still difficult to import all kinds of things, I just read the nationalized McDonalds are running out of fries.

art · Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:44 pm

Aesma wrote:
Having money on hand doesn't seem to really be helping Russia anyway, it's still difficult to import all kinds of things, I just read the nationalized McDonalds are running out of fries.

Russia running short of potatoes? Seems unlikely unless the harvest is extremely poor due to dry weather.

Or could it be that sanctions are hitting equipment availability (tractors etc)?

GDB · Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:01 pm

art wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Having money on hand doesn't seem to really be helping Russia anyway, it's still difficult to import all kinds of things, I just read the nationalized McDonalds are running out of fries.

Russia running short of potatoes? Seems unlikely unless the harvest is extremely poor due to dry weather.

Even when Ukraine was a SSR, they still could not feed themselves, hence US surplus supplies from the early 60's (yes at the height of the Cold War), along with EEC ones from the 70's.

art · Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:18 pm

GDB wrote:
art wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Having money on hand doesn't seem to really be helping Russia anyway, it's still difficult to import all kinds of things, I just read the nationalized McDonalds are running out of fries.

Russia running short of potatoes? Seems unlikely unless the harvest is extremely poor due to dry weather.

Even when Ukraine was a SSR, they still could not feed themselves, hence US surplus supplies from the early 60's (yes at the height of the Cold War), along with EEC ones from the 70's.

Strange, I looked at imports of potatoes (pre- war in Ukraine) and Russia was not mentioned.

World's Largest Potato Importers In 2020, Belgium (3M tonnes), distantly followed by the Netherlands (1.6M tonnes), Spain (0.9M tonnes) and Germany (0.7M tonnes) were the main importers of potatoes, together achieving 43% of total imports.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=potato+im ... =0&ghacc=0
https://www.statista.com/statistics/788 ... importers/

GDB · Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:08 pm

art wrote:
GDB wrote:
art wrote:
Russia running short of potatoes? Seems unlikely unless the harvest is extremely poor due to dry weather.

Even when Ukraine was a SSR, they still could not feed themselves, hence US surplus supplies from the early 60's (yes at the height of the Cold War), along with EEC ones from the 70's.

Strange, I looked at imports of potatoes (pre- war in Ukraine) and Russia was not mentioned.

World's Largest Potato Importers In 2020, Belgium (3M tonnes), distantly followed by the Netherlands (1.6M tonnes), Spain (0.9M tonnes) and Germany (0.7M tonnes) were the main importers of potatoes, together achieving 43% of total imports.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=potato+im ... =0&ghacc=0
https://www.statista.com/statistics/788 ... importers/

Interesting, however back in Soviet times it was different.
One of the central ironies of the Cold War.

tomcat · Sun Jul 10, 2022 6:28 pm

GDB wrote:
art wrote:
GDB wrote:

Even when Ukraine was a SSR, they still could not feed themselves, hence US surplus supplies from the early 60's (yes at the height of the Cold War), along with EEC ones from the 70's.

Strange, I looked at imports of potatoes (pre- war in Ukraine) and Russia was not mentioned.

World's Largest Potato Importers In 2020, Belgium (3M tonnes), distantly followed by the Netherlands (1.6M tonnes), Spain (0.9M tonnes) and Germany (0.7M tonnes) were the main importers of potatoes, together achieving 43% of total imports.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=potato+im ... =0&ghacc=0
https://www.statista.com/statistics/788 ... importers/

Interesting, however back in Soviet times it was different.
One of the central ironies of the Cold War.

I think that there is a misunderstanding. If Belgium is the largest potato importer, it is because it is a large (the largest?) frozen French fries exporter. The shortages affecting fast food restaurants in Russia are about frozen French fries which are imported, not potatoes. And even if the frozen French fries are not under the western embargo (I actually don't know whether it's the case or not), it might still be difficult for the Russians to import them (they are mostly produced in western countries).

McDonalds restaurants have recently faced frozen French fries shortages in several countries so one can expect that it may be even more difficult for the Russians to import them for the time being.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbwpb/french-fries-shortage-mcdonalds

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net