The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Larry_L

Active Member
Just when they thought it was safe at the beach again. Russian pilot probably thinks it's funny to harass the civs, and rear area military.


I have been waiting, and waiting for the F-16s, and now I hear one reason they are getting so few is lack of pilots. Many pilots spend there service time practicing, and never get to use that machine in battle. I keep wondering how many non Ukrainian pilots will join the fight, and will be allowed by their governments. One American pilot, Dan Hampton, is saying he is ready to defend Ukraine.


Russian SHORAD in Rostov is active here, but ineffective. Drone guns only work sometimes. It's only an oil depot, so not worth any better defense.

 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I have been waiting, and waiting for the F-16s, and now I hear one reason they are getting so few is lack of pilots. Many pilots spend there service time practicing, and never get to use that machine in battle. I keep wondering how many non Ukrainian pilots will join the fight, and will be allowed by their governments. One American pilot, Dan Hampton, is saying he is ready to defend Ukraine.
I imagine F-16 pilots could just about name their own price. Also sure there are plenty that might want to test themselves against their old adversary.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Well, it appears that it was the Ukrainians who rejected it. This makes the Mirage acquisition even less likely.

In a recent VOA interview with Iho Zohvka, he describes the Gripen situation like this:

MU: A question about Sweden's Gripen fighter jets. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, in an interview with Voice of America, said that they are ready to provide these aircraft, but Ukraine refused them. Ukraine wanted to get F-16s, they were needed on the battlefield a year or two ago. It is hoped that Ukraine will receive them this summer. Why are you giving up all the other fighter jets that countries are willing to provide, When is there a need for these technologies on the battlefield?

I.Z.: I have never heard of Ukrainians abandoning Gripen fighters. On the contrary, this is a topic that my president constantly raises with the leadership of Sweden. And this was the case even before Sweden joined NATO. For obvious reasons, they were not ready to make any promises at the time, as they were finalizing their membership in the Alliance. Now the country is in NATO, and my president is again in touch with the Prime Minister of Sweden, and our Ministry of Defense is in contact with the relevant authorities of Sweden. These fighters are just as good as the F-16. So, we're moving in that direction.

MU: So you're hoping to get Gripens from Sweden?

I.Z.:
This is a topic that we are discussing with the leadership of Sweden.
"Better than Vilnius, but we need more and faster" — Ihor Zhovkva on the results of the NATO summit for Ukraine (holosameryky.com)
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
There was this open letter signed by various (truly quite a mix of) individuals ahead of the upcoming NATO summit. The most interesting part is, perhaps, the mix of individuals who signed it. From a quick glance, I see staunch supporters of Ukraine, as well as those that I would place under the “Russian propaganda” umbrella. A few realists as well. Being familiar with work of some of the individuals, I would also suggest that there is definitely some wording they disagree with, some strongly so, no doubt. But anyway, here is the letter:

A lot of people disagrees with the arguments provided in this letter, here is one example:
Letter: Calls for ‘peace’ deal show blindness to Russian goals (ft.com)

I definitely agree with this last letter.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
It's behind a paywall. Could you at least summarize the arguments in question?
The most striking feature of the letter signed by Lord Skidelsky and others is that it ignores everything we know about Russia’s objectives and conduct (“Seize peace in Ukraine before it’s too late”, Letters, July 10). There is no shortage of information about either. Since 1992, Russia has sought to make itself the arbiter of what Ukraine’s independence means and how it is to be pursued. Its failure to do either led to the war of 2014 and, when that failed to achieve its goals, the full-scale invasion of February 2022 followed.

No less remarkably, the letter ignores Russia’s determination to “reformat” (in effect, dismantle) the post-cold war security order, based on the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and the Paris Charter, and replace it with the principles of Yalta and Potsdam.

Finally, it ignores a military strategy designed to make Ukraine unsustainable as well as uninhabitable. The response of Ukraine’s army to a level of carnage and atrocity not witnessed in Europe since the second world war is not to surrender in droves but to wage defensive war. During the six months that the US Congress blocked weapons shipments to Ukraine, Russia’s armed forces acquired the offensive momentum of a snail, gaining an additional 0.1 per cent of Ukraine’s overall territory with losses of 30,000 troops a month.

A Ukrainian government prepared to accept any of Russia’s terms would not receive plaudits. It would face a risk of being removed by its army and people.

It is difficult to understand how learned and experienced individuals believe that negotiations could serve any positive purpose as long as these circumstances obtain — or that any “peace” settlement would be anything other than wretched and shortlived.
 

Fredled

Active Member
Poland bought two Patriot batteries in 2018. The first was delivered in 2022, & the second in 2023. So Poland has two batteries, each with eight launchers, that are Polish property. They were supposed to be fully operational by the beginning of this year. Until then, Germany deployed some of the Patriots it owns in Poland.

Last I heard it was planning to buy six more batteries, with 48 launchers. Poland's paid billions of dollars for its Patriots.

Standard US terms for arms sales prohibit their transfer to another country without US permission (so European gifts of Patriots to Ukraine need US consent), but under standard terms there's no requirement to even notify the USA that the weapons are being moved within the buyers territory AFAIK. Imagine the bureaucracy if every time a ship with US weapons set sail, or an aircraft with US engines took off, the USA had to agree!
Thanks for the update. Indeed, it pretty recent information. A few months ago I read an article explaining what I explained about the Patriot being the property of the US (sort of on lease), and that it was the reason why they couldn't do what they wanted with it. But there could be other reason such as not wanting to leave critical facilities unprotected.
With the recent Patriots purchase, Poland may be able to place one or two near the Ukrainian border for this specific purpose.
 

Fredled

Active Member
Vivendi said:
One explanation could be that the real reason Sweden cannot send Gripen is because the US did not allow it. Mirage however cannot be stopped by the US admin...
koxinga said:
Well, it appears that it was the Ukrainians who rejected it. This makes the Mirage acquisition even less likely.
The Gripen is a Swede jet. The US shouldn't have any say in their sale or resale unless they have an agreement I'm not aware of.

Yes, the Ukrainians rejected it because it was too complicated for them to operate two types of fighter jets. But now they don't reject it anymore and Sweden is ready to send the Gripen once Ukrainians are ready. IMO possibly in one year.

The Mirage 2000 will be delivered. This is official. IMO, Ukrainians have been prepared to fly this plane for some time.

Maybe Ukrainians are able to take more different planes because "NATO" countries will send personel to Ukraine. Part of the maintnance could be performed by non-Ukrainians. This will make it much easier for Ukrainians.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Gripen is Swedish designed & built, but it has US components & subsystems which are subject to ITAR, so the USA does have a say in its sale or resale. The engine is the main US part, AFAIK. Gripen A to D have a Swedish-modified GE F404 engine, & Gripen E has a GE F414. I think both engines have significant Swedish parts, but that doesn't make them ITAR-free.
 

Fredled

Active Member
Feanor said:
This strongly depends on what Ukraine joining NATO looks like.
yes, of course it will. First NATO has always said that it's impossible for Ukraine to join as long as the war is not over. To prevent Ukraine's NATO membership, Putin just has to drag the conflict eternally.

Let'd day, this is scenario #1: The Palestinization of the conflict when none of the parties wants or can end the hostilities. And 10, 20 or 50 years later we are still at the same point. one or the other constantly breach eventual agreements or ceasefire under the pretext that the other did.
IMO, given the intensity and the radical means applied by both sides, it's unlikely. At some point one of the two will break or they will both break and start to talk.

This is scenario #2: They talk and reach an accord.
Now let's say, Putin can sign an acceptable deal to the condition Ukraine never join NATO. Then, as you said, it would be common sens to sign it. Ukraine has already bilateral security agreements. But more importantly things can evoluate. 10 years later, Russia may not be an enemy anymore by change of policies toward the West. Or Ukraine is strong enough to confidently join NATO and be able to defend itself after they "exit" the agreement. And Ukraine would have the right to cancel the agreement because it was signed under threat. Any agreement signed while Putin had bombed Ukraine for sevral years relentlessly causing thousand of death and treathening to keep on bombing would be not legally valid under any normal juridiction, and morally.
I doubt Russia would start a second SVO in this case, after the casualties of the first one have been publicly known inside Russia (it already is to some extent).

Ukraine could also promise not to join NATO while NATO warn Russia that if they attack Ukraine, they will defend Ukraine with their own force. Something like Article 5 without the Article 5. Russians could accept such a deal because because of the symbolical meaning of not being in NATO.

Now the question is would NATO intervene if Ukrainian and Russia fire at each other in a provocative way?
I think that NATO leader will first assess the situation carefully before accepting Ukraine. They will see if Ukraine is serious about a stabilised attitude or not after signing a peace accord with Russia and won;t try to recover territories it ceded to Russia in this accord. There will be a period of observation. Then after 2 or 3 year Ukraine will eventually be full member.
Ukraine will never be full member if there is constant instability. NATO's leaders are not crazy.

Feanor said:
Would NATO back Ukraine if they triggered some sort of escalation along the semi-frozen front line?
If the conditions are met for Ukraine to be in NATO, like a reasonable period of stability with Russia, without fire exchange, and seriousness in Ukrainian engagements, then yes.

I think that there will be a serious peace agreement with Russia (not Minsk xyz), which Russia will have to observe, and of course Ukraine too, without grey zone or unclear wording allowing each side to provoke the other. Because if not, Ukraine will keep on firing on Russian troops and Russian civilians to a lesser extent.
At the moment Russians are firing at Ukrainians but one shouldn't forget that Ukrainians also fire at Russians and Russians don;t want that neither. They will never be able to keep the Ukrainian territory under normal conditions if they don;t sign an agreement.
Russia may be able to bomb Ukraine from afar and from high altitude, but they won't be able to keep 300K soldiers on the front line indefinitely, whit daily causalities in the dozen. So they will need peace.

Of course scenario #3: Ukraine capitulates. Then we will watch what Putin will take or let alone. If he leaves some part of Ukraine alone, this part of Ukraine will join NATO immediately.

____________________________

Larry_L said:
I keep wondering how many non Ukrainian pilots will join the fight, and will be allowed by their governments. One American pilot, Dan Hampton, is saying he is ready to defend Ukraine.
None. Because that would be crossing a red line. An US pilot inside an US F16 would mean the US is attacking Russia. No US President will allow that.
All Pilots must be Ukrainians. Period.

___________________________

Reply to the Letter said:
The most striking feature of the letter signed by Lord Skidelsky and others is that it ignores everything we know about Russia’s objectives
Not only everything we know but also everything we don;t know about Putin's objectives.
Does a single person on Earth knows what Putin wants exactly? Putin himself doesn't know.

I think it's the best time to quote Donald Rumsfeld "There are knowns and unknowns, there are known unknowns and unknown knows and unknown unknowns."

Reply to the Letter said:
Finally, it ignores a military strategy designed to make Ukraine unsustainable as well as uninhabitable. The response of Ukraine’s army to a level of carnage and atrocity not witnessed in Europe since the second world war is not to surrender in droves but to wage defensive war.
I agree. This is the most important reason why talking are impossible at the moment.
The deafening blast of the bombs and missile fired at Ukraine make it impossible to hear anything else.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Thanks for the update. Indeed, it pretty recent information. A few months ago I read an article explaining what I explained about the Patriot being the property of the US (sort of on lease), and that it was the reason why they couldn't do what they wanted with it. But there could be other reason such as not wanting to leave critical facilities unprotected.
With the recent Patriots purchase, Poland may be able to place one or two near the Ukrainian border for this specific purpose.
Apparently, as well as Poland's own Patriot systems, there's been a US-owned Patriot system stationed in Poland, but that's being given to Ukraine. It will be replaced by another one, pending delivery of the additional systems Poland's ordered.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I found this video on the amount of Russian and Ukrainian equipment losses very detailed ,it was certainly very detailed in its claims and worth listening to
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Or Ukraine is strong enough to confidently join NATO and be able to defend itself after they "exit" the agreement. And Ukraine would have the right to cancel the agreement because it was signed under threat. Any agreement signed while Putin had bombed Ukraine for sevral years relentlessly causing thousand of death and treathening to keep on bombing would be not legally valid under any normal juridiction, and morally.
I just want to address this piece specifically. You realize that all wars that don't end in capitulation, end up in some sort of agreement under threat right? The threat being the continuation of hostilities. If you consider it ok for anyone to break any agreement as long as the agreement was made under threat, implicit or explicit, it creates serious problems for international diplomacy. If anything this argument right here is a great one for Putin refusing any deal that leaves Ukraine strong enough to consider doing this. Because if they are strong enough, sooner or later they could do this.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
In a recent VOA interview with Iho Zohvka, he describes the Gripen situation like this:
My speculation is Ukraine avoids publicly reject any offers of donation, especially coming from office of the president, to keep encouraging those countries to help. Privately though, I think the military knows what they need and what they can reasonably sustain.

It's hard to imagine the Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister getting it wrong.
 

Fredled

Active Member
I just want to address this piece specifically. You realize that all wars that don't end in capitulation, end up in some sort of agreement under threat right? The threat being the continuation of hostilities. If you consider it ok for anyone to break any agreement as long as the agreement was made under threat, implicit or explicit, it creates serious problems for international diplomacy. If anything this argument right here is a great one for Putin refusing any deal that leaves Ukraine strong enough to consider doing this. Because if they are strong enough, sooner or later they could do this.
In this case, Ukraine is under threat from Russia while Russia is not under threat from Ukraine. Russian superiority in mid and long range strikes is overwhelming.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
In this case, Ukraine is under threat from Russia while Russia is not under threat from Ukraine. Russian superiority in mid and long range strikes is overwhelming.
This might mean that Russia is under an obligation to keep it's negotiation promises. But it does nothing to address the point I made. At this point any treaty likely to end this war will be under threat of continued hostilities. By that logic Ukraine isn't bound to keep any treaty it signs. In which case, why should Russia sign any treaty when Ukraine by definition won't be bound by it? Why not keep NATO at bay with a fistful of nukes, while simply battering Ukraine into non-existence? Negotiations are give and take. What incentive is there for Russia to sign a deal that Ukraine won't be obligated to stick to?
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
In this case, Ukraine is under threat from Russia while Russia is not under threat from Ukraine. Russian superiority in mid and long range strikes is overwhelming.
I believe you should also include the effects of the sanctions on Russia ,its not just about missiles ,
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I believe you should also include the effects of the sanctions on Russia ,its not just about missiles ,
The old Soviet Union artificially kept inflation under control but that resulted in shortages of just about everything. After the Soviet Union collapsed market forces took over and then, within months, inflation surged to over 800%. At the moment we are seeing the same thing with Putin trying to put a cap on inflation but you can't keep spending more than you are earning forever.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
This Russian blogger goes into detail some of life in Russia including sell your friend for money ,food restrictions in western Russia amongst others
 
Top