Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Morty_]

Yeah, it is hard to think about it. The key is to control and circle the city. So if they get there, they have a good chance already. But, getting there seems to be the hardest task for the UA with all the mines and obstacles around. Right now, they are struggling to even take small and empty villages.

People may bring up the capture of Kherson. But the siege of the city was way different in terms of geography, the preparedness of the RA's troops, etc. They are way different than how they were last year.

If the progress towards that city is as slow as now, Russia will have near endless time to fortify it, make it a complete death trap too though, so encirclement wont be easy.

 

[Ragnar123]

Just give Ukraine the weapons to sink their grain ships. Russia will never stop to bring misery, if they still find ways to make money out of it.

 

[The United]

If the progress towards that city is as slow as now, Russia will have near endless time to fortify it, make it a complete death trap too though, so encirclement wont be easy.

Yup. That is the whole issue. We can keep talking about anything, but if the UA troops can't move, there is not much to accomplish there. When I thought about the UA's progress being slow, I always wondered about why UA didn't follow up on the South in late last year instead of defending Bakhmut with the amount of manpower and resources that they used for it. Of course, but that is in hindsight.

 

[calodo2003]

Anyone know how?

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Ragnar123]

Putin's offer to send them one grain ship with 50k tons free of charge isn't enough to feed the whole of Africa? Consider me shocked!

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

The men of the elite Shaman Battalion have been carrying out such raids on infrastructure behind enemy lines for more than a year. Now they have revealed to The Times a new task: assassinating senior Russian officers.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Ragnar123]

Ukraine entered Robotyne

 

[Ragnar123]

Drones over Moscow again

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Simbo]

Anyone know how?

By existing? They a bit shit nowadays. I dunno, but did recently see one of their journos casually referring to foreign fighters helping in Ukraine as 'Mercenaries'. That kind of stuff isn't accidental.

 

[stevoc]

I think by this stage it's clear that the decision makers in the West aren't really thinking in terms of giving Ukraine everything they need for a quick victory. The plan very much seems to be slowly escalate and provide them with just enough to gradually grind the Russians down over a long period of time. And in the course of that deplete Russian military stockpiles and shrink their economy.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

I think by this stage it's clear that the decision makers in the West aren't really thinking in terms of giving Ukraine everything they need for a quick victory. The plan very much seems to be slowly escalate and provide them with just enough to gradually grind the Russians down over a long period of time. And in the course of that deplete Russian military stockpiles and shrink their economy.

I don't understand what lies behind such thinking. If people know enough history, the rather quick and severe Russian defeat to the hands of Japan in 1904-05 provided massive erosion to Russian morale, which would culminate with the end of the Russian Empire in 1917. There is no need to deplete military stockpiles not to shrink their economy because of a longer war; the current regime will not get any better because the cracks have been exposed and will not heal anytime soon.

Does anyone see Russia invading anyone as of right now? The answer is already self-explanatory after nearly 18 months of conflict.

 

[stefan92]

I don't understand what lies behind such thinking. If people know enough history, the rather quick and severe Russian defeat to the hands of Japan in 1904-05 provided massive erosion to Russian morale, which would culminate with the end of the Russian Empire in 1917.

So it ended not due to the quick defeat against Japan but due to the much longer World War 1. It did give a first nudge, but that's about it.

And it seems still possible for Russia to for example invade in Georgia again or something like that. Fighting an attrition war will effectively deplete Russian offensive potential, which a swift end would not achieve.

And apart from that I see another possible reason for the reluctant deliveries: the strategic approach Ukraine uses for this war is a weird mix between much more "Soviet style" than NATO would use while at the same time adopting new technologies like drones. And despite all that talk about NATO training I think by now it is pretty clear that they failed, Ukraine still is pretty terrible at combined arms warfare and at large scale operations.

Both command and individual soldiers just are not up to NATO standards and therefore just perform a lot worse with western material than they should - giving them equipment for that feels just like a waste.

The situation is a bit different for equipment that actually fits the existing Ukrainian doctrine. This however is mostly limited to air defense systems and artillery. These are the weapons Ukraine uses with great success and where they do really profit from western technology (like having artillery with higher range and accuracy than the Russians).

The problem here is that western militaries did not have such a big focus on these systems and therefore just don't have the stocks to give away in some cases, or become very reluctant at all because they might realize now that they are severly lacking in those areas (SPAAGs like the Gepard are an example - a lot of NATO countries expected such systems to not be valuable any more, and then the Shaheds arrived on the battlefield).

 

[stevoc]

I don't understand what lies behind such thinking. If people know enough history, the rather quick and severe Russian defeat to the hands of Japan in 1904-05 provided massive erosion to Russian morale, which would culminate with the end of the Russian Empire in 1917. There is no need to deplete military stockpiles not to shrink their economy because of a longer war; the current regime will not get any better because the cracks have been exposed and will not heal anytime soon.

Does anyone see Russia invading anyone as of right now? The answer is already self-explanatory after nearly 18 months of conflict.

Not sure myself but from some of the stuff I've read on the subject the thinking might be to rule Russia out as a military threat for the next few decades. Until recently the West had actually thought the Russian military was very well equipped and well trained. If not for the rampant corruption and nepotism that seems endemic of Putin's reign given their vast natural resources they might well have been under a competent leader.

So maybe the fear of them getting their act together post Putin is behind the thinking. After the break down of Western-Russian relations these last two years bringing Russia into the Western sphere of influence is off the table for the foreseeable future I'd imagine so depleting their ability to wage war in the future might not be a bad the worst idea.

 

[Simbo]

 

[Ragnar123]

Nothing to worry, I'm sure the western leaders will condemn this attack.

 

[Zen86]

I don't understand what lies behind such thinking. If people know enough history, the rather quick and severe Russian defeat to the hands of Japan in 1904-05 provided massive erosion to Russian morale, which would culminate with the end of the Russian Empire in 1917. There is no need to deplete military stockpiles not to shrink their economy because of a longer war; the current regime will not get any better because the cracks have been exposed and will not heal anytime soon.

Does anyone see Russia invading anyone as of right now? The answer is already self-explanatory after nearly 18 months of conflict.

Assuming a swift victory over Russia is actually possible, would a collapse in Putin's rule actually be a good outcome for the West? Bearing in mind how many Nukes they have stockpiled across the country, there is the risk that an even nuttier regime could emerge from the chaos or the nightmare scenario of militant groups geting their hands on such things.

 

[Simbo]

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

So it ended not due to the quick defeat against Japan but due to the much longer World War 1. It did give a first nudge, but that's about it.

A nudge? The Russians basically lost their entire navy and never replaced those losses by WW1, which created a major strategic disadvantage by then. That's even before saying how many men Russia lost in that war, which was a prelude to WW1 battle tactics.

And it seems still possible for Russia to for example invade in Georgia again or something like that. Fighting an attrition war will effectively deplete Russian offensive potential, which a swift end would not achieve.

The Kremlin could not even answer Armenia's calls for military support when the Turkish-backed Azeri forces made their move last year. I'd be surprised if Russia will try their luck elsewhere soon.

And apart from that I see another possible reason for the reluctant deliveries: the strategic approach Ukraine uses for this war is a weird mix between much more "Soviet style" than NATO would use while at the same time adopting new technologies like drones. And despite all that talk about NATO training I think by now it is pretty clear that they failed, Ukraine still is pretty terrible at combined arms warfare and at large scale operations.

Both command and individual soldiers just are not up to NATO standards and therefore just perform a lot worse with western material than they should - giving them equipment for that feels just like a waste.

The situation is a bit different for equipment that actually fits the existing Ukrainian doctrine. This however is mostly limited to air defense systems and artillery. These are the weapons Ukraine uses with great success and where they do really profit from western technology (like having artillery with higher range and accuracy than the Russians).

The problem here is that western militaries did not have such a big focus on these systems and therefore just don't have the stocks to give away in some cases, or become very reluctant at all because they might realize now that they are severly lacking in those areas (SPAAGs like the Gepard are an example - a lot of NATO countries expected such systems to not be valuable any more, and then the Shaheds arrived on the battlefield).

That is a topic for a serious discussion, but Western nations should never see Ukraine's performances on the battlefield to justify not arming them any quicker. No one expects wars to always end quickly, but overwhelming technological superiority is always a key to defeat the opposition's armies (and I really mean armies rather than guerilla groups). I hope we have not forgotten how Saddam and Milosevic lost their wars against NATO. It was not through attrition that they lost; it was all about shock and awe coming from with superior technology that struck in the right areas.

Assuming a swift victory over Russia is actually possible, would a collapse in Putin's rule actually be a good outcome for the West? Bearing in mind how many Nukes they have stockpiled across the country, there is the risk that an even nuttier regime could emerge from the chaos or the nightmare scenario of militant groups geting their hands on such things.

If there's no unifying force post-Putin, then we most likely will see more warlords in Russia than there were in China between 1911 and 1949. All of those would seek to gain international recognition and nukes would be useless in doing so. In the scenario of militant groups, I don't see how they can do anything when even countries like Pakistan did not lose nuclear weapons despite high corruption within the ISI and the proximity of terrorist groups.

 

[Morty_]

Putin is insane, so i doubt he cares

 

[stefan92]

I hope we have not forgotten how Saddam and Milosevic lost their wars against NATO. It was not through attrition that they lost; it was all about shock and awe coming from with superior technology that struck in the right areas.

Superior technology used by extremely skilled and well trained soldiers. Giving a technologically superior tank to people who proceed to use it like a throwaway T-72 is simply a waste of tanks.

Ukraine will in the best case need a decade of full unleashed western support to be able to beat Russia in NATO style. It was tried to rush this and didn’t work so far.

Now Ukraine apparently switched back to their attrition strategy and the west should support them in this, because the equipment for this style of war seems to be effectively used by Ukraine.

 

[Simbo]

Feck me. This hotel was holding a summer art camp for kids ages 6-13.

https://zaporozhye.detivgorode.ua/reikartz-summer-art-camp/

 

[Zen86]

If there's no unifying force post-Putin, then we most likely will see more warlords in Russia than there were in China between 1911 and 1949. All of those would seek to gain international recognition and nukes would be useless in doing so. In the scenario of militant groups, I don't see how they can do anything when even countries like Pakistan did not lose nuclear weapons despite high corruption within the ISI and the proximity of terrorist groups.

I wouldn’t assume any warlords would be vying for recognition from the West. It’s a country that’s been indoctrinated on isolation, force, and nuclear arms as a means of power. It could quite easily turn very messy if there wasn’t a quick resolution in the event of a complete collapse.

 

[The United]

Superior technology used by extremely skilled and well trained soldiers. Giving a technologically superior tank to people who proceed to use it like a throwaway T-72 is simply a waste of tanks.

Ukraine will in the best case need a decade of full unleashed western support to be able to beat Russia in NATO style. It was tried to rush this and didn’t work so far.

Now Ukraine apparently switched back to their attrition strategy and the west should support them in this, because the equipment for this style of war seems to be effectively used by Ukraine.

Yup. I am just surprised that people really don't get the idea that you can't change an army like UA's in a year to become fully modernized against the RA's troops. They performed better than everyone expected so far, but the bar was already set pretty low for them in the first place, and the RA troops being shit helped.

Artillery ammunition is key, and that much has been clear for a long time. The West just does not have many of those right now for UA to quickly overwhelm the RA troops.

Last but not least, this is against RA's troop. Despite their early incompetence, they are still a force that most modern armies will struggle against in similar circumstances. They are not dead horses yet with significant resources and some 'capable allies'. Russia itself is trying to keep up with the technology that UA has at the moment, and they are not exactly too far behind either. All these comparisons to the likes of NATO's offensive operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia are not even close to this.

 

[The United]

Every country has corrupt officials, but I can't get around my headhow there seem to be a large number of those all the way up to some ministerial positions there even during wartime.

CNN - " It follows a major government shake-up in January when Zelensky fired several officials and announced he was banning them from traveling abroad on anything other than official business. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau said it was investigating “high-profile media reports” into allegations that Ukraine’s defense ministry was buying military provisions, including food for the troops, at inflated prices.

Shapovalov, deputy prosecutor general Oleksii Symonenko, deputy ministers of regional development Ivan Lukerya and Viacheslav Nehoda and the deputy minister of social policy Vitalii Muzychenko were all asked to resign or have quit, as were several regional officials."

While it is a good thing that Zelensky is removing them, it shows how far they have to go to get into NATO or become NATO standard military.

 

[Morty_]

Yup. That is the whole issue. We can keep talking about anything, but if the UA troops can't move, there is not much to accomplish there. When I thought about the UA's progress being slow, I always wondered about why UA didn't follow up on the South in late last year instead of defending Bakhmut with the amount of manpower and resources that they used for it. Of course, but that is in hindsight.

In hindsight, yes, Bakhmut does seems like a mistake for Ukraine, well, it wasn't exactly good for Russia either, but with everything bogged down there, they had all the time in the world to fortify elsewhere, as a result, Ukraine is advancing at snail pace.

The frontline has more or less been a complete stalemate since last autumn, a few villages here and there, mostly won for Ukraine, yes, but the rate of this advance its going to take a very long time.

Now, obviously can't blame it too much on Ukraine, after all, NATO only seems to give Ukraine what it needs to hold, not much else, almost as if they want to drag it out.

 

[Simbo]

Every country has corrupt officials, but I can't get around my headhow there seem to be a large number of those all the way up to some ministerial positions there even during wartime

Former Soviet state and a main target of Russian influence, who use spreading corruption as a key MO. Can't imagine its easy to dislodge.

 

[stefan92]

Every country has corrupt officials, but I can't get around my headhow there seem to be a large number of those all the way up to some ministerial positions there even during wartime.

Ukraine is a corrupt oligarchy, similar but just slightly better than Russia. They have been developing in the right direction however and such news show that they are continuing on the right track, but everybody surprised about this simply hasn't informed himself.

 

[Ragnar123]

While it is a good thing that Zelensky is removing them, it shows how far they have to go to get into NATO or become NATO standard military.

Yeah, fighting corruption takes time, you can't do it over night.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt states before the war. Besides the soviet mentality, Russia played a big part in buying influence over the years.

 

[The United]

Ukraine is a corrupt oligarchy, similar but just slightly better than Russia. They have been developing in the right direction however and such news show that they are continuing on the right track, but everybody surprised about this simply hasn't informed himself.

It has nothing to do with not being informed, though. People knew Ukraine had tons of corruption before the war.

But I don't care if they were corrupted before. It is rather a question of how they could do that to their own country after months in this war and being put in this situation, especially after what they claimed to fight for.

 

[Ragnar123]

Let's see what new measures Russia will take to stop the downfall of their currency this time.

 

[Ragnar123]

How bad is Russia's air defense, if slow speed drones can fly daily through Moscow's airspace?

 

[Ragnar123]

 

[stefan92]

How bad is Russia's air defense, if slow speed drones can fly daily through Moscow's airspace?

Russia is running low on air defense systems and can't cover everything it would like to any more.

By now Ukraine will know about some of the gaps and low flying frones that do not need to fly in a straight line due to their much higher than needed range can exploit these.

 

[Ragnar123]

Looked bigger than it was in the end. Sadly no damage to the bridge if reports are true. White smoke was probably the Russian smoke screen.

 

[VorZakone]