Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[Bright Halo]

What I don’t understand is that prior to this conflict all the studies and simulations I read or saw on YouTube pointed out that if there was a conventional conflict in Europe between Russia and NATO it would be a close run thing with Russia making very large initial gains until NATO was fully mobilised and then a stalemate.
From what we have seen in Ukraine it would be a massive overwhelming and very quick victory for NATO forces.

[BikeBikeBIke]

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1540717...

Broke the spine of a journalist. The reason people will sacrifice everything to defend themselves against Russia is that if you don't then you still sacrifice everything.

[Ayahuasca]

LM240 said:

Wozy68 said:

TTmonkey said:

PRTVR said:

A game of hide and seek, is a lot more difficult when the opposition has a drone.

It’s a funny old thing to witness.

A few months ago at the start of this, I posted a link to a video that dared to show, in passing and not in close up, images of a dead Russian soldier near a tank. You couldn’t see much, other than the fact that it was a body lying in the street,

I was heavily criticised with cry’s of ‘NSFW’, and demands of details and warnings of the link content . Like war shouldn’t show death. My post was removed by mods and I was sent an email saying I had broken site rules.

Now we watch a video of four men carrying an injured colleague, trying their best to evacuate this person, using a blanket as a stretcher, and they get hunted down in ‘real time’ by artillery, they refuse to leave him, to run and scatter, Without doubt, it ends with them being hit and probably shredded by shrapnel. They may be the enemy, but they are probably scared and unsure why they are there. Under paid, abused, and little more than human waste. They may be murderers, rapists, looters, or just scared mummies boys.

And no one gives a fek.

Not saying I do much either. But it shows how we change.

If that video shows one thing, it’s that not all Russians leave their dead and injured behind.

The way they ran around in this video shouts more they are just young lads with no idea what they are doing rather than professional soldiers who would have more savvy and know better and get the hell out of dodge asap.

It’s bizarre how I just watched men (most probs) just get killed.

They may have been mass murderers and/or rapists or maybe they were just a bunch of lads that were dragged into a war of not their making.

Whichever it is I’m not sure quite how I feel after watching it; happy that a few more Russians have died on the battlefield or the sad realisation that they will all have family at home who now have lost their love ones.

War….. What is it good for ….. absolutely nothing.

Edwin summed it up well.

Seems an awful lot of destruction and mortaring (if that is what the weapon is) to winkle out half a dozen soldiers who were just trying to evacuate a wounded mate. I hope the Ukrainians knew for a fact that there were no civilians sheltering in that building. I don’t often feel sorry for the Russians….

[loafer123]

Ayahuasca said:

Seems an awful lot of destruction and mortaring (if that is what the weapon is) to winkle out half a dozen soldiers who were just trying to evacuate a wounded mate. I hope the Ukrainians knew for a fact that there were no civilians sheltering in that building. I don’t often feel sorry for the Russians….

Maybe, just maybe, they will get the message that invading someone else’s fking country is only going to cause you pain

That’s better.

[FiF]

BikeBikeBIke said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Seems feasible this was in response to Ukraine's first use of the HIMARS yesterday. Russian twitter is saying Putin called a late night meeting in the Kremlin after the Ukraine strike was confirmed, and the Kyiv strikes were decided at that meeting.

Problem with that type of escalation by Russia, attacking "decision making" sites rather than military targets, is that it just encourages Ukraine to adopt a similar tactic. And Russia now can't complain when they get the same thing back...

...and it's militarily useless. Just a total waste of ammo. Nobody has ever given up because their capital was bombed.

Looks really desperate.

Could be an escalation in order to receive an escalation in return at which point...

[Thin White Duke]

Bright Halo said:

What I don’t understand is that prior to this conflict all the studies and simulations I read or saw on YouTube pointed out that if there was a conventional conflict in Europe between Russia and NATO it would be a close run thing with Russia making very large initial gains until NATO was fully mobilised and then a stalemate.
From what we have seen in Ukraine it would be a massive overwhelming and very quick victory for NATO forces.

I once read that certain bridges knocked down over European rivers were not rebuilt after WW2 to stop the Russians from steamrolling over Western Europe in the Cold War. Perhaps the Russians had that capability then.

We also know that Ukraine has been preparing for this for some years and that the initial Russian attacks were piecemeal as they expected a walkover. This follows the familiar path of all wars in which one or both sides believe it will be over pretty quickly with minimal casualties.

Hitler for example did not want a 6 year war of attrition - he wanted a war that lasted a few weeks/months and then sit back and relax.

Going back to your post - your assessment may be correct. Barack Obama said that a (conventional) war between NATO and Russia would see a NATO victory.

I doubt anyone would want to try and prove Monty's first rule of war wrong, but in terms of pushing the Russians back to their start positions, I think it would be very achievable.

[London424]

Thin White Duke said:

Bright Halo said:

What I don’t understand is that prior to this conflict all the studies and simulations I read or saw on YouTube pointed out that if there was a conventional conflict in Europe between Russia and NATO it would be a close run thing with Russia making very large initial gains until NATO was fully mobilised and then a stalemate.
From what we have seen in Ukraine it would be a massive overwhelming and very quick victory for NATO forces.

I once read that certain bridges knocked down over European rivers were not rebuilt after WW2 to stop the Russians from steamrolling over Western Europe in the Cold War. Perhaps the Russians had that capability then.

We also know that Ukraine has been preparing for this for some years and that the initial Russian attacks were piecemeal as they expected a walkover. This follows the familiar path of all wars in which one or both sides believe it will be over pretty quickly with minimal casualties.

Hitler for example did not want a 6 year war of attrition - he wanted a war that lasted a few weeks/months and then sit back and relax.

Going back to your post - your assessment may be correct. Barack Obama said that a (conventional) war between NATO and Russia would see a NATO victory.

I doubt anyone would want to try and prove Monty's first rule of war wrong, but in terms of pushing the Russians back to their start positions, I think it would be very achievable.

If Russia didn’t have nuclear weapons it would be over in a week.

[Sway]

Bright Halo said:

What I don’t understand is that prior to this conflict all the studies and simulations I read or saw on YouTube pointed out that if there was a conventional conflict in Europe between Russia and NATO it would be a close run thing with Russia making very large initial gains until NATO was fully mobilised and then a stalemate.
From what we have seen in Ukraine it would be a massive overwhelming and very quick victory for NATO forces.

I think there's a couple of elements to that.

Go back to before the fall of the Berlin Wall - and it was pretty accurate. Everything was about slowing the inevitable advance, and a belief it'd by default wind up nuclear.

Military kit was broadly peer to peer, but the Soviets had much more of it.

In more recent times, I think there's been an expectation that NATO kit is better than Soviet - but not by enough that the weight of numbers wouldn't take it's toll before NATO (I.e America) could mobilise sufficiently to push back. Again, winding up in nuclear escalation.

Now? Well I think it's fair to say that NATO has experienced at least 20 years of significant military tech advancement whereas the Russians really haven't. All of a sudden, it appears that their weight of numbers really wouldn't count for too much.

Of course, we've not seen full Russian mobilisation - but there's nothing really to suggest that against NATO it'd do much other than increase the number of 'fish in the barrel'.

[hidetheelephants]

BikeBikeBIke said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Seems feasible this was in response to Ukraine's first use of the HIMARS yesterday. Russian twitter is saying Putin called a late night meeting in the Kremlin after the Ukraine strike was confirmed, and the Kyiv strikes were decided at that meeting.

Problem with that type of escalation by Russia, attacking "decision making" sites rather than military targets, is that it just encourages Ukraine to adopt a similar tactic. And Russia now can't complain when they get the same thing back...

...and it's militarily useless. Just a total waste of ammo. Nobody has ever given up because their capital was bombed.

Looks really desperate.

They're impotent; millions of dollars of cruise missiles to kill a handful of civilians, this is V2 attacks for the 21st century, militarily worthless and a grimly comic demonstration how rubbish the russian war machine is, versus the M31 which is sub $100k per rocket and is laying waste to russian rear areas.

[CrutyRammers]

EddieSteadyGo said:

And this is a good thread using the reported equipment destroyed by Ukraine as a proxy for the intensity of the fighting.

Despite what we are reading, which would imply lots of activity, the rate of reported losses is around a third what it was during the peak. And the reason for that is the Russians are only making an effort in a very small area of the front line around Severodonetsk - everywhere else is pretty much static.

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1540961...

For some reason he seems to completely ignore the south. And it appears that there were some pretty major stuff going on west of izium. But perhaps not involving armoured vehicles so much, and not therefore showing up via the proxy of destroyed equipment.

[crofty1984]

hidetheelephants said:

pquinn said:

I've just got bored of the same old videos showing some use of a drone or a bit of artillery or an antitank weapon or whatever - great as a bit of distraction but most of what's going on on the ground now doesn't seem to be quite as tidy or as effective.

People can wk themselves silly over hardware specs but while the Russians have had a stty war they've still grabbed a load of territory and they're slowly gaining more.

I think everyone's so distracted by the toys they just aren't interested in the actual progress of the war.

How's that going then? Russians grinding out a whopping 500 metres a day on a good day, they're really having a Great War.

But they ARE grinding out those 500 metres. That's the problem. Until the war ends thousands/millions of innocent civilians are dying or being displaced. And it's not going to happen until the tide turns. The Russian tactic seems to be make a city so uninhabitable that people leave, then march over the rubble. And it's working.

[sisu]

Bright Halo said:

What I don’t understand is that prior to this conflict all the studies and simulations I read or saw on YouTube pointed out that if there was a conventional conflict in Europe between Russia and NATO it would be a close run thing with Russia making very large initial gains until NATO was fully mobilised and then a stalemate.
From what we have seen in Ukraine it would be a massive overwhelming and very quick victory for NATO forces.

Ukraine and Russia were actually evenly matched in terms of personnel on the ground and ordinance. Russia just had to look at the receipt to know what it was getting into and as of the 12th of this month it was pretty much ex Russian equipment.
But what is different is that Ukraine has been training with the West, it has a depth of surveillance and planning that Russia doesn't have. What Russia does have is alot of physical material. So even if only 60% of their shells are on target, they have 10 shells when the Ukrainians only have 1 in the air.
Most of the warporn guys online, which are mostly American all have this impression that its 7 days to Berlin Putin riding a Bear shirtless across Europe was that Russia would have the same training and implementation that we have.
A 120 day artillary slog of diesel and dust to Sevredonesk was not in the plan and they will look to lob missiles into Kiev as a flex. Russia has a problem now is that Ukraine is deciding what Russian targets to take out. They have 70% of their men in that area and should anything happen somewhere else like the Baltic or Crimea then they will open themselves up to a hit.

[BikeBikeBIke]

hidetheelephants said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Seems feasible this was in response to Ukraine's first use of the HIMARS yesterday. Russian twitter is saying Putin called a late night meeting in the Kremlin after the Ukraine strike was confirmed, and the Kyiv strikes were decided at that meeting.

Problem with that type of escalation by Russia, attacking "decision making" sites rather than military targets, is that it just encourages Ukraine to adopt a similar tactic. And Russia now can't complain when they get the same thing back...

...and it's militarily useless. Just a total waste of ammo. Nobody has ever given up because their capital was bombed.

Looks really desperate.

They're impotent; millions of dollars of cruise missiles to kill a handful of civilians, this is V2 attacks for the 21st century, militarily worthless and a grimly comic demonstration how rubbish the russian war machine is, versus the M31 which is sub $100k per rocket and is laying waste to russian rear areas.

Loving the V2 analogy, spot on.

[BikeBikeBIke]

crofty1984 said:

But they ARE grinding out those 500 metres. That's the problem. Until the war ends thousands/millions of innocent civilians are dying or being displaced. And it's not going to happen until the tide turns. The Russian tactic seems to be make a city so uninhabitable that people leave, then march over the rubble. And it's working.

Working towards what objective? None of their political or strategic objectives are progressed by a few slow km gained at or around their culmination point.

[simo1863]

crofty1984 said:

But they ARE grinding out those 500 metres. That's the problem. Until the war ends thousands/millions of innocent civilians are dying or being displaced. And it's not going to happen until the tide turns. The Russian tactic seems to be make a city so uninhabitable that people leave, then march over the rubble. And it's working.

Losing ground (especially so little) isn't necessarily an indication that Russia is winning.

To coin a WW1 phrase, they will be bled white at current attritional rates.

Consider that the men and equipment in field are as good as it gets for Russia, they can only go downhill from here. Ukraine on the other hand, (is admittedly also starting to rely on conscription) has a standard of equipment that is increasing day by day.

[BikeBikeBIke]

sisu said:

Ukraine and Russia were actually evenly matched in terms of personnel on the ground and ordinance. Russia just had to look at the receipt to know what it was getting into and as of the 12th of this month it was pretty much ex Russian equipment.
But what is different is that Ukraine has been training with the West, it has a depth of surveillance and planning that Russia doesn't have. What Russia does have is alot of physical material. So even if only 60% of their shells are on target, they have 10 shells when the Ukrainians only have 1 in the air.
Most of the warporn guys online, which are mostly American all have this impression that its 7 days to Berlin Putin riding a Bear shirtless across Europe was that Russia would have the same training and implementation that we have.
A 120 day artillary slog of diesel and dust to Sevredonesk was not in the plan and they will look to lob missiles into Kiev as a flex. Russia has a problem now is that Ukraine is deciding what Russian targets to take out. They have 70% of their men in that area and should anything happen somewhere else like the Baltic or Crimea then they will open themselves up to a hit.

I appreciate retaking the lost land will be tough, perhaps impossible but, Ukraine will be choosing their battles from now on and the Russian defence isn't going to be very enthusiastic. How hard are Russian soldiers gonna fight for the ruins of towns in a foreign country when surrender means life and safety.

[Ayahuasca]

loafer123 said:

Ayahuasca said:

Seems an awful lot of destruction and mortaring (if that is what the weapon is) to winkle out half a dozen soldiers who were just trying to evacuate a wounded mate. I hope the Ukrainians knew for a fact that there were no civilians sheltering in that building. I don’t often feel sorry for the Russians….

Maybe, just maybe, they will get the message that invading someone else’s fking country is only going to cause you pain

That’s better.

Sadly though, the people getting the pain are not the ones who need the message. Pretty sure those particular infantrymen would love to leave Ukraine pdq. Ideally of course the Russian army would refuse to obey orders - it happened before, in 1917 ..

[havoc]

Sway said:

Military kit was broadly peer to peer, but the Soviets had much more of it.

No, it wasn't...not since the early-1960s, anyway. Late-40s/early-50s and they definitely had the advantage in armour and possibly artillery, with broad equivalence in aviation. But even then, not in training and ability.

Through the '60s and the alleged advantages in armour were shown up by the proxy wars in the Middle East, while in aviation it became clear that Western platforms were starting to pull ahead. And then you get to the tech-war in the 70s and 80s, where stuff like the F14, F15, M1 Abrams etc. really showed what the West could do...

[madbadger]

FourWheelDrift said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

This is an interesting piece of news.

Kaliningrad is looking like an extremely good pressure point - far better than many of the other sanctions which have had little effect on the Kremlin. Here they instructed Lukashenko to say something, which wasn't as provocative as the Kremlin saying it themselves, but we know exactly they wanted to signal this.

It's like Canada and the confiscation of Russian assets - the US using Canada to signal what's coming if the Russians don't take heed.

Kaliningrad is so effective as it directly affects Russian citizens, which then makes the Russian regime look impotent, which they hate.



https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/154071666940...

Instead of stopping Russian trains entering Lithuania to Kaliningrad all they have to do is take up the rails for the last half mile it's in Lithuania. It's their tracks, in their country they can do anything they want with them. It's no different to the no fly zone for Russian airliners.

Couple of feet would probably do never mind half a mile.

[loafer123]

madbadger said:

FourWheelDrift said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

This is an interesting piece of news.

Kaliningrad is looking like an extremely good pressure point - far better than many of the other sanctions which have had little effect on the Kremlin. Here they instructed Lukashenko to say something, which wasn't as provocative as the Kremlin saying it themselves, but we know exactly they wanted to signal this.

It's like Canada and the confiscation of Russian assets - the US using Canada to signal what's coming if the Russians don't take heed.

Kaliningrad is so effective as it directly affects Russian citizens, which then makes the Russian regime look impotent, which they hate.



https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/154071666940...

Instead of stopping Russian trains entering Lithuania to Kaliningrad all they have to do is take up the rails for the last half mile it's in Lithuania. It's their tracks, in their country they can do anything they want with them. It's no different to the no fly zone for Russian airliners.

Couple of feet would probably do never mind half a mile.

Like this…?





https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1541057...