|
|
|
|
|
|
|
raketen/nuklearnukulartechnologie
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von pesto am 12.06.2023 9:34]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/
*hicks*
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von -=Q=- 8-BaLL am 12.06.2023 19:45]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auch RussiaDay:
| | | "The past week in the Bakhmut direction our advancing troops have liberated 1.5km on the left flank and 3.5km on the right flank. The total territory taken under our control is 16km²," Deputy Minister of Defense Hanna Maliar. | |
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1668338269527117824
Wagner hat dafür anderthalb Monate gebraucht. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Die ham nix gesehen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hätte ich selber nicht besser machen können. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was hat es mit dem Bild auf sich?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Da haben russische Truppen wohl ISIS-Style ihr Fahrzeug "gepanzert". Und sich stilistisch von HIMARS inspirieren lassen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Zitat von seastorm
Was hat es mit dem Bild auf sich?
| |
Das hier hören, um sich die Montage bildlich vorzustellen:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mit dem Soundtrack Richtung Kjiew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X Jahre Desinformation und 1,5 Jahre Krieg, wir treffen uns weiterhin in der Mitte.
| | Widersprüchliche Angaben über ukrainische Offensive
NATO-Generalsekretär Stoltenberg hofft nach eigenen Worten darauf, dass die laufende ukrainische Gegenoffensive Russland an den Verhandlungstisch zwingen wird.
Je mehr Land die Ukrainer gewännen, desto wahrscheinlicher sei es, dass sich der russische Präsident Putin zu Verhandlungen genötigt sehe, sagte Stoltenberg dem US-Sender CNN. Die Offensive befinde sich noch am Anfang und gestalte sich schwierig, räumte er ein. Die Ukraine mache aber Geländegewinne.
Putin sprach dagegen von katastrophalen Verlusten der ukrainischen Armee. Kiew habe bis zu 30 Prozent der Ausrüstung verloren, die vom Westen geliefert worden sei, sagte er in einem Gespräch mit Militärkorrespondenten. In allen Bereichen der Front, wo es ukrainische Vorstöße gegeben habe, seien diese ohne Erfolg verlaufen.
Putin erklärte sich bereit zu Friedensgesprächen. Er knüpfte diese aber an die Bedingung, dass der Westen seine Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine beenden müsse. | |
dlf.de
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Zitat von -=Q=- 8-BaLL
| | | Die Offensive befinde sich noch am Anfang und gestalte sich schwierig, räumte er ein. | |
| |
das ließe sich leicht ändern, indem man sich bei Waffenlieferungen weniger anstellen würde. Am Anfang war eine gewisse Vorsicht ja absolut verständlich, aber so langsam wäre es mal an der Zeit das Drama zu beenden.
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 2 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von Jellybaby am 13.06.2023 19:31]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Es kamen gerade blutdrucksenkende News rein
| | Today, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced additional security assistance to meet Ukraine’s critical security and defense needs.
The capabilities in this package include:
Additional munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
Stinger anti-aircraft systems;
Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
155mm and 105mm artillery rounds;
15 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles;
10 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers; | |
usw
Putin sprach in seiner Märchenstunde, die der dlf da oben zitiert, allerdings davon, dass doeUkraine in der einen Woche jetzt 160 Panzer und 300 sonstige Fahrzeuge verloren hat. Dann ist das natürlich nur ein Tropfen diesdas.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3426389/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wie wäre es mit das liefern, was Putin behauptet zerstört zu haben? For good measure? 
Wäre so toll, wenn wir nicht mit leeren Taschen dastehen würden und zerstörte Leo2 direkt nachliefern würden. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Das würde pronto gehen wenn gewollt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dann müsste man die Produktion anwerfen. Aber wer kann das schon wollen. ABM dürfen kein Geld kosten und für 1,5¤/h arbeitet bei KMW niemand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Die Bundeswehr hat auch noch Zeug
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bradleys könnten die doch jede Woche 15 liefern.
Für die nächsten zwei Jahre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stryker rollen afaik noch laufend vom Band, das wäre leichter und wohl auch günstiger als eingemottete Bradleys zu refurbishen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why not alle drei susammen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gespräche mit Ukrainern, die westliche Flugabwehr bedienen.
| | | The 30-year-old Patriot operator recalls a moment of applause, joy and expletives as the Ukrainian air-defence officers realised they had made history that night of May 4th. The Russians’ “unbeatable” Kh-47 Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile was not only beatable; but it was actually travelling at “only” around approximately 1,240 metres per second, a third of what the Russians like to claim. “We understood that the Patriot worked. The next time, when we saw not one, but six Kinzhals on our monitors, it was just a matter of getting on with the job.” | |
| | | Hesitant Western leaders explained their initial reluctance to supply Ukraine with powerful air-defence systems by citing the long training programmes they would require. The reality has been somewhat different. Vyacheslav trained on the Patriots in Oklahoma and Poland for three and a half months instead of the regular six. Denys Smazhny, a training co-ordinator for IRIS-T and NASAMS, suggests even that was too long. There was nothing exceptionally difficult in the largely automated Western systems, he contends. An IRIS-T system was “far less complicated” than the Buk system he used to operate: “It’s like switching from a calculator to a MacBook Pro. The Western batteries basically do the work for you.” | |
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/06/13/how-kyiv-fended-off-a-russian-missile-blitz-in-may
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ja gut...deutsche Ausbilder klicken sich bei Excel auch immer noch durch die Menüs statt die shortcuts zu lernen und beizubringen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vielleicht sind die 6 Monate auch konservativ darauf ausgelegt jemandem von Null auf den Kram beizubringen. Wenn der Gute aber schon Erfahrungen von älteren Systemen mitbringt geht's einfacher.
Ist ja auch überall sonst so... Wenn man mal vieles Manuell berechnen musste versteht man schneller was das neue Gerät nun automatisch macht.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ukraines Winnable War - Why the West Should Help Kyiv Retake All Its Territory
| |
A satisfying victory is likely out of reach, wrote the Russia experts Thomas Graham and Rajan Menon in Foreign Affairs a month after the invasion began. Ukraine and its Western backers are in no position to defeat Russia on any reasonable timescale. Around the same time, the political scientist Samuel Charap agreed: Ukraines brave resistanceeven combined with ever-greater Western pressure on Moscowis highly unlikely to overcome Russias military advantages, let alone topple Putin. Without some kind of deal with the Kremlin, the best outcome is probably a long, arduous war that Russia is likely to win anyway. Three months into the war, the historians Liana Fix and Michael Kimmage argued that a full-scale Ukrainian military defeat of Russia, including the retaking of Crimea, verges on fantasy. Four months after that, the political scientist Emma Ashford upgraded a Ukrainian victory to a dangerous fantasy.
Just as Russia has surprised everyone by its poor military performance, however, Ukraine has surprised everyone, as well, punching far above its weight throughout the conflict. Russias attempt to take the capital was thwarted, and then its attempts to consolidate gains in the east and the south were disrupted. Russian troops were forced to withdraw from the Kharkiv region and Kherson. A brutal Russian air campaign against civilian infrastructure stiffened Ukraines will instead of breaking it. Recent Russian offensives in Bakhmut and elsewhere gained little ground at vast cost. And now, with Russian forces softened, Ukraine is launching a counteroffensive to take back more territory.
A common view of the war sees it as a military deadlock destined to end with a negotiated settlement far short of each sides original goals. Later this year, a stalemate is likely to emerge along a new line of contact, argued the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, and the political scientist Charles Kupchan in April, and at that point the United States should nudge Ukraine into recognizing that pursuing a full military victory would be unwise. An end to the war that leaves Ukraine in full control over all its internationally recognized territory . . . remains a highly unlikely outcome, asserted the political scientists Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe in January, and so Washington could condition future military aid on a Ukrainian commitment to negotiations involving territorial compromise.
It is indeed likely that there will be a lull in the fighting after Ukraines coming offensive, as Kyiv consolidates its gains. But that will be only a pause in a still fluid conflict, not the emergence of a deadlock. There has not been and need not be a stalemate, thanks to Western military support and Ukraines remarkable ability to transform it into battlefield success. The world has not witnessed such a fruitful strategic collaboration since Israel used Western assistance to achieve devastating victories over larger, Soviet-supported Arab forces in 1967 and 1973. Because of the effectiveness of this partnership, there is no need to pressure Ukraine into a compromise peace. Instead, the United States and Europe should enable it to continue pushing Russian forces back to Ukraines internationally recognized borders. A true status-quo-ante ending to the war, reversing the gains Russia has made since its initial 2014 incursion, is not only possible but also the best option to shoot for. It would liberate Ukraine. It would establish a solid foundation for regional security. It would prove the liberal international order has a future as well as a past. And it would provide a winning model for post-hegemonic U.S. global leadership.
| |
| |
Rather than limiting conventional military aid to Ukraine, accordingly, the United States and Europe should increase the flow: more armor, artillery, and ammunition; improved air defenses; squadrons of fourth-generation jet fightersthe conventional works, for as long as it takes. Such a course is not only the right thing to do. It is also the best way to end the war, either by teeing up the possibility of a durable negotiated settlement or by allowing Kyivs forces to gain positions that they could defend indefinitely with continued assistance.
Many consider this policy option futile, dangerous, or distracting. Russia cannot be beaten, they say, because it will always have more resources to throw into the fight and an insatiable will to avoid defeat. Attempts to force Russia backward and retake Crimea could lead to nuclear escalation. And a focus on Ukraine and Russia comes at the expense of other, more important problems, such as Taiwan and China. All these concerns, however, are overblown.
Where are you in the war? I asked a senior Ukrainian military official during a recent trip to Ukraine sponsored by the Renew Democracy Initiative. Toward the end of the first half, he replied. And in the second half, theyre coming out hot.
| |
| |
Officials in Kyiv do not believe this campaign alone can end the war. Our goal is the full expulsion of Russia from Ukrainian territory, said Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba. If the offensive achieves that, it will be the last. If not, there will be more. If our weapons supplies get cut off, Ukraine will just shift to lower intensity war. We wont give up; we wont accept territorial losses. Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv and a former world heavyweight champion boxer, echoed the point. The goal is the 1991 borders, including Crimea. Maybe this year, maybe not. We can hope, but just have to keep going. Its only a matter of time before Russia breaks. Like the Russians, the Ukrainians see the war as not just a test of arms but a test of wills and are convinced they have the advantage in both.
| |
| |
Many outside observers worry about what Russian President Vladimir Putin might do before such a break occurs, such as resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Some Western analysts suggest that the United States and NATO should call the Kremlins bluffthey should more forthrightly back the Ukrainians and drive Russian forces out of Ukraine, wrote the political scientist Nina Tannenwald in February, characterizing this as a cavalier approach to the risk of nuclear escalation. A proper approach to the risk, she claims, would recognize that the shadow of nuclear weapons constrains Ukraines options and means that a good outcome for Kyiv will be more complicated to attain, and invariably less satisfying. Charap and Priebe concurred: Russian nuclear use in this war is plausible, they wrote, and trying to prevent it should be a paramount priority for the United States. Putin is determined to fight to the bitter end no matter what the cost, asserted the scholars Rose McDermott, Reid Pauly, and Paul Slovi, and is a man whom humanity will wish it had kept away from its most dangerous weapons.
That is certainly true already. But humanity has survived those weapons being in far worse and less stable hands, from the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to the Chinese tyrant Mao Zedong to the brutal Kim dynasty in North Korea, and there is no reason to believe the pattern of post-1945 nuclear nonuse will change. The Ukrainians themselves, who would bear the brunt of any nuclear attack, know all about the supposed Russian redlines but are significantly less concerned than their American and European counterparts about crossing them.
Professionally, Im obliged to worry about nukes, said the senior Ukrainian military official. But I dont see a high probability of it. Kuleba, for his part, believes that nuclear deterrence worked in the past, and it will continue to do so. Reznikov was even more blunt: Im sure the nuclear threat is a bluff. Their weapons are out of date, and Moscow cant be sure theyll work. The Chinese and Indians have told them not to use nukes. And there is no place to use them. Battlefield use would hurt them as well as us, and general use would provoke retaliation and end any chance of negotiations.
Washington sees the absence of Russian nuclear use so far as a triumph of its risk management. Kyiv sees it as confirmation that the threat was minor to begin with. The Ukrainians have inflicted hundreds of thousands of Russian casualties in the war and have suffered almost as many themselves. They dont think Moscow is holding back effective military options or limiting its brutality; they see an enemy that is desperately throwing into the fight whatever it thinks might work. In Kyivs view, the conflict has stayed conventional because nuclear weapons are not particularly useful instruments of war, especially for close-in fighting over neighboring territory and friendly populations that Moscow is ostensibly trying to rescue. Nothing about that will change because of Kyivs conventional military successes. And even the execution of Moscows nuclear threats would not necessarily reverse the trend of the fighting and lead to a Russian victory.
The Ukrainians, in short, see a gap between the objective realities of the Russian situation and the Kremlins recognition of it. The next several months of fighting should reduce that gap, and then things will get interesting.
| |
Der Artikel ist viel länger, aber auch sehr spannend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Die Ukrainer kommen gut voran"
| | Die Ukrainer haben erste russische Linien durchbrochen, sagt der Militärexperte Lange. Russland profitiere aber von seiner Lufthoheit und gut ausgebauten Stellungen. Dennoch gebe es Anzeichen dafür, dass die Ukrainer gut vorankommen.
| |
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von Herr der Lage am 14.06.2023 8:05]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Zitat von NI-Xpert
Vielleicht sind die 6 Monate auch konservativ darauf ausgelegt jemandem von Null auf den Kram beizubringen. Wenn der Gute aber schon Erfahrungen von älteren Systemen mitbringt geht's einfacher.
Ist ja auch überall sonst so... Wenn man mal vieles Manuell berechnen musste versteht man schneller was das neue Gerät nun automatisch macht.
| |
Interpretiere ich auch so. Kannte die Grundlagen schon und konnte es per Hand, bekommt ein automatisches System und kann mehr in weniger Zeit. Freut sich.
Der bevorzugte klassische Lernpfad wie in der Schule. Erst manuell um das Verstaendnis aufzubauen und dann die Fortgeschrittenen automatisierten Systeme. Andersherum gibt es oft Probleme, wer nur die automatisierte Loesung kennt scheitert spaeter mangels Verstaendnis und hat hat nicht die Faehigkeit auf manuelle Verfahren zurueckzufallen.
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von hoschi am 14.06.2023 10:46]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ich komme aktuell eh nicht mehr hinterher, vor allem weil so viele undurchsichtige (mehr oder weniger) fake-Meldungen überall auf Youtube, Twitter, Telegram etc. tummeln.
Und dann ist da ja auch noch die Sache das der Kreml plötzlich Wagner schlucken will.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wer Puls braucht:
Die Olle Wagenknecht ist heute um 22:50 Uhr bei der Maischberger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puls wäre ja ok, aber ich will keinen pulmonaren Infarkt erleiden, danke trotzdem für den Hinweis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thema: Allgemeine Diskussion zum Ukraine Krieg |
![AUP [Skeletor] 15.01.2024](./avatare/upload/U1056931--vodoousdtb.png)
