Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[anonymous-user]

Steamer said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored. Probably part of this relates to trying to minimise the black market for re-selling weapons, so whether that extends to which targets their weapons are being used against isn't clear, but they (US) don't seem disinterested in how their weapons are being used.

https://newstechok.com/pentagon-agency-wants-to-se...

That has crossed my mind too - they can't been too keen on the possibility of their 'tech' falling into the wrong hands

I'd like to think the place is crawling with "diplomatic" advisors, liaisons and weapons monitors at this point. I think it would be naive to imagine USMC logistics troops handing trucks of state of the art kit over at the border without anyone accompanying the shipments. Hopefully!

[Adam.]

twister said:

So yes, this might mean that sometimes a viewpoint which isn't wholly pro-Ukraine might not get quite as friendly an initial response as it deserves, but if you're prepared to stand your ground and prove why that viewpoint is worthy of reasoned debate then that's what'll happen. The only reason viewpoints would continue to get shouted down even after attempting to justify their existence in this thread is if they genuinely are complete and utter tripe,

I am not sure why my post was “tripe” or required a “try looking at a map” response.

I detest Russia and Putin and everything they are doing, I hope they die long and painful deaths, and frankly will take a dim view of any Russian I meet from now on.

I find this thread a great read, and was merely commenting on continuing discrepancy I see between what I read in the mainstream press and here. Maybe it’s the “bad news sells” and natural negativity of the press that is to blame.

Is there any optimism here that RA won’t pummel and take over Lysychansk?

[isaldiri]

HM-2 said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out your obvious whataboutism.

If you're lamenting the lack of discourse coming from repeating "well there are lots of conflicts ongoing , why intervene here" (whilst ignoring the fundamental basics of international relations and geopolitics), and "the US will get bored, just you wait" (despite not being able to provide a single analogous example) whilst ignoring the overwhelming majority of rebuttals to these claims, you might want to stop repeating them ad nauseum and begin addressing responses?

IMO I did address (most of them anyway as far as I had sufficient time) the responses that weren't all about expressing outrage about having any viewpoint that wasn't wholly pro Ukraine but as pointed out when the answer to any post is blanket dismissed as absolute nonsense with no other opinion than the one 'approved' by the thread as being possible, it's fairly pointless to continue said discussion most of the time.

[spookly]

Adam. said:

I am not sure why my post was “tripe” or required a “try looking at a map” response.

I detest Russia and Putin and everything they are doing, I hope they die long and painful deaths, and frankly will take a dim view of any Russian I meet from now on.

I find this thread a great read, and was merely commenting on continuing discrepancy I see between what I read in the mainstream press and here. Maybe it’s the “bad news sells” and natural negativity of the press that is to blame.

Is there any optimism here that RA won’t pummel and take over Lysychansk?

Entirely possible that they will, but they will still have gained a very small amount of territory. This has been at the expense of showing the whole world how poor their military and equipment is, and at the expense of 30,000+ dead russian soldiers and probably many more permanently disabled.

The next thing to watch for, IMHO, is whether Ukraine can start pushing Russia back as newer equipment reaches the front lines in volume. If Ukraine can keep regularly hitting high value targets in occupied areas and Russia itself, then the ability for Russia to continue the war will decrease markedly. Artillery is no use if all your ammo is blown to bits on a nightly basis. Occupying territory isn't possible without manpower. Russia was short of manpower at the start, it hasn't gotten better.

So I'd say I'm cautiously hopeful.

[MOTORVATOR]

spookly said:

Adam. said:

I am not sure why my post was “tripe” or required a “try looking at a map” response.

I detest Russia and Putin and everything they are doing, I hope they die long and painful deaths, and frankly will take a dim view of any Russian I meet from now on.

I find this thread a great read, and was merely commenting on continuing discrepancy I see between what I read in the mainstream press and here. Maybe it’s the “bad news sells” and natural negativity of the press that is to blame.

Is there any optimism here that RA won’t pummel and take over Lysychansk?

Entirely possible that they will, but they will still have gained a very small amount of territory. This has been at the expense of showing the whole world how poor their military and equipment is, and at the expense of 30,000+ dead russian soldiers and probably many more permanently disabled.

The next thing to watch for, IMHO, is whether Ukraine can start pushing Russia back as newer equipment reaches the front lines in volume. If Ukraine can keep regularly hitting high value targets in occupied areas and Russia itself, then the ability for Russia to continue the war will decrease markedly. Artillery is no use if all your ammo is blown to bits on a nightly basis. Occupying territory isn't possible without manpower. Russia was short of manpower at the start, it hasn't gotten better.

So I'd say I'm cautiously hopeful.

Looking at a drive through video of Lysychansk this morning the value of either party holding it is probably up for hot debate other than it's trophy value as last bit of Luhansk which it actually isn't.

Probably far more important in the overall scheme is the customs detention of the Russian grain ship in Turkey. If that goes Ukraine's way on Monday it is going to give Russia a huge problem with exports through the strait as a whole.

[mondeoman]

spookly said:

Adam. said:

I am not sure why my post was “tripe” or required a “try looking at a map” response.

I detest Russia and Putin and everything they are doing, I hope they die long and painful deaths, and frankly will take a dim view of any Russian I meet from now on.

I find this thread a great read, and was merely commenting on continuing discrepancy I see between what I read in the mainstream press and here. Maybe it’s the “bad news sells” and natural negativity of the press that is to blame.

Is there any optimism here that RA won’t pummel and take over Lysychansk?

Entirely possible that they will, but they will still have gained a very small amount of territory. This has been at the expense of showing the whole world how poor their military and equipment is, and at the expense of 30,000+ dead russian soldiers and probably many more permanently disabled.

The next thing to watch for, IMHO, is whether Ukraine can start pushing Russia back as newer equipment reaches the front lines in volume. If Ukraine can keep regularly hitting high value targets in occupied areas and Russia itself, then the ability for Russia to continue the war will decrease markedly. Artillery is no use if all your ammo is blown to bits on a nightly basis. Occupying territory isn't possible without manpower. Russia was short of manpower at the start, it hasn't gotten better.

So I'd say I'm cautiously hopeful.

If (possibly a big if) UKR can pummel RU behind their lines with the more accurate and longer range artillery that is coming on stream and destroy RUs ability to constantly and consistently re-supply the front line, then it really doesn't matter how many russians there at at the front, UKR will be able to literally starve them out and walk straight through them in a few weeks time.

You can almost see UKR pushing RU back to within, what, about 10 miles of the border (if UKR stick to the "dont hit anything in RU" request ) and declaring that a no-mans land until RU get bored.

Thats what happened in the north - the supply lines were decimated and RU had to withdraw.

[nikaiyo2]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I'm pretty sure the agreement was they would use weapons deep into Russia.

Bombing the Kremlin is out, arms dumps on the border, fine.

Whatever the agreement is we can be certain Ukraine will stick to it, there is no way they will take a chance on losing Western Support.

You never know, they hamstrung their own forces in Vietnam with daft ROE

[CrutyRammers]

Adam. said:

I am not sure why my post was “tripe” or required a “try looking at a map” response.

I detest Russia and Putin and everything they are doing, I hope they die long and painful deaths, and frankly will take a dim view of any Russian I meet from now on.

I find this thread a great read, and was merely commenting on continuing discrepancy I see between what I read in the mainstream press and here. Maybe it’s the “bad news sells” and natural negativity of the press that is to blame.

Is there any optimism here that RA won’t pummel and take over Lysychansk?

They will almost certainly take it over as ukr are likely to withdraw to better positions, from what I've read. They are trading ground for time and damage there.
In the south they are pushing the ru army with a view to cutting the supply lines from Crimea, AIUI. The situation there is almost reversed, with ukr making slow progress and Ru retreating.

[HM-2]

isaldiri said:

IMO I did address (most of them anyway as far as I had sufficient time) the responses

No, you didn't.

At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.

There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.

[sisu]

Wow. This is new to me, I have fired a 50 cal and its a physical experience. Putting a bullet thru a concrete wall of a building a couple of km away is always something that even if you don't use guns is impressive to see. But the Ukrainians had a hold my beer moment with this..

[Adam.]

BTW what’s a tankie?

[CrutyRammers]

So this sort of thing is interesting:
https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/154362841...

Talking about Lysychansk:"There is really the most difficult situation, the most dangerous, and we have no advantage there, and it's true, this is our weak point", – Zelenskyi adds."

Simply managing expectations at home or baiting a trap/causing a distraction from something else?

[Adam.]

BTW what’s a tankie?

[Adam.]

BTW what’s a tankie?

[Cheib]

Steamer said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored. Probably part of this relates to trying to minimise the black market for re-selling weapons, so whether that extends to which targets their weapons are being used against isn't clear, but they (US) don't seem disinterested in how their weapons are being used.

https://newstechok.com/pentagon-agency-wants-to-se...

That has crossed my mind too - they can't been too keen on the possibility of their 'tech' falling into the wrong hands

This was a major issue early in the conflict…and one of the reasons arms shipments were so slow. There was a belied that Ukraine would fall relatively quickly so no high tech/sensitive kit was sent.

I’d say the black market not just for the risk of the Russians getting hold of it but the Chinese getting hold of the tech would be an absolutely massive issue. The average salary in Ukraine is probably somewhere in the region of Eur 500 a month so it wouldn’t take much money for people to look the wrong way.

[HM-2]

Adam. said:

BTW what’s a tankie?

Traditionally a term for Stalinists, these days it's been expanded to cover most advocates and apologists for Russian imperialism.

[rxe]

nikaiyo2 said:

You never know, they hamstrung their own forces in Vietnam with daft ROE

I would imagine that discussions about allowing them to hit sites that are launching at civilians are already happening. It looks like the Belgogrod attack was Tochkas anyway, as loads were shot down. Shooting down a HIMARs rocket is much harder.

The US approach is one of gradual escalation. The less compliant Russia becomes, the better the kit deliveries will be. It allows them to ratchet up the pressure. The problem with the long range kit is that it is the ATACMS - so one missile per cannister, which multiples the not inconsiderable issues with keeping these things fed.

[rxe]

nikaiyo2 said:

You never know, they hamstrung their own forces in Vietnam with daft ROE

I would imagine that discussions about allowing them to hit sites that are launching at civilians are already happening. It looks like the Belgogrod attack was Tochkas anyway, as loads were shot down. Shooting down a HIMARs rocket is much harder.

The US approach is one of gradual escalation. The less compliant Russia becomes, the better the kit deliveries will be. It allows them to ratchet up the pressure. The problem with the long range kit is that it is the ATACMS - so one missile per cannister, which multiples the not inconsiderable issues with keeping these things fed.

[rxe]

nikaiyo2 said:

You never know, they hamstrung their own forces in Vietnam with daft ROE

I would imagine that discussions about allowing them to hit sites that are launching at civilians are already happening. It looks like the Belgogrod attack was Tochkas anyway, as loads were shot down. Shooting down a HIMARs rocket is much harder.

The US approach is one of gradual escalation. The less compliant Russia becomes, the better the kit deliveries will be. It allows them to ratchet up the pressure. The problem with the long range kit is that it is the ATACMS - so one missile per cannister, which multiples the not inconsiderable issues with keeping these things fed.

[RizzoTheRat]

rxe said:

The US approach is one of gradual escalation. The less compliant Russia becomes, the better the kit deliveries will be. It allows them to ratchet up the pressure. The problem with the long range kit is that it is the ATACMS - so one missile per cannister, which multiples the not inconsiderable issues with keeping these things fed.

Has there been any suggestion of sending them ATACMS yet? I thought the longest range stuff they'd been sent was GMLRS with a 70ish km range rather than ATACMS 300ish km range? I'm assuming the west has less appetite for sending them stuff that can hit targets deep in Russia.