The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

ssmoore

Member
Yes, it will take more Russian forces consolidation to move to Odessa. However the movement in South shown they are aiming for Odessa.

That's why Ukraine should pull everything they got left to strengthen Odessa and maintain the access to Odessa from the rest of Western Ukraine. Take advantage on Russian times to consolidate. If Odessa able to be hold, they can have better leverage on negotiations with Russia, then if Odessa also lost.

There's big importance for Ukraine to hold their sea access. They have already lost most the access to the sea, that's why in my opinion on present condition Odessa is more important than even Kyiv.
Odessa is already blockaded by the Russian Navy, So I don't understand this point.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
8 decades after the end of WW2 who would have thought we'd again see encirclements and pockets in the Ukraine, as well as fighting in the Don basin, Kharkov, Kiev, Kherson-Cherkassy and other areas.
The problem with this idea, is as the Germans found out in WW2 is that this is the time of the Ukrainian thaw. This means that movement off fully formed roads is not possible. I believe that (Correct me if I am wrong) the Ukrainian road network infrastructure is poor when you leave the main roads and secondary roads would quickly break up under full military use. because of this the great German encirclements of WW2 were always carried out in summer which is still some months away. Cross country movement is also possible in winter, but spring and autumn cause severe restrictions on cross-country movement.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
A friend who should know highly recommended this essay by Chinese scholar Chen Feng. It is very long, but I found it well worth the read.
I just posted this over on the "Russia and the West" thread, as it seems to me thoughtful discussions of the big picture belong there more than here. He does discuss Putin's war strategy and his take is quite different from that of Western analysts, so I'm mentioning this post here for those interested.

Of course, this is as expected. The quality of journalism has dropped quite a lot the last 20-30 years or so (not sure when it really started). I have noticed this drop in quality in particular for defense related matters, but also (at least in Norway) for reporting on science related stuff. I am not sure if this drop in quality is in Western countries only, or a global phenomenon? Also I wonder if one reason can be the shift from "old fashioned" printed newspapers and printed magazines, to everything internet-based, and based on generating click-baits and not so much content.

Sorry for the rambling.
At the end of the cold war, major American media corporations dismantled their large and expensive foreign bureaus staffed with experienced jounalists with deep knowledge of that bureau's area. Seasoned foreign correspondents were mainly sidelined or retired. When a newsworthy hotspot sprang up, they often dispatched newly-minted graduates of the the also newly-minted Colleges Mass Communications/Schools of Journalism which had sprung up like toadstools in American universities all across the country. At the same time, cable penetration here was steadily increasing and we saw the rise of the internet. There is much, much more to it, of course, including topics you touched on.

Speaking of rambling, for some time I had been thinking of sharing my thoughts and questions about this subject over on the "Russia and the West" thread. Maybe I'll get around to it soon. I'm interested in what others here think. This has, of course, had an impact on decision making, not just propanda efforts, when it comes to military conflicts.
 
Last edited:

the concerned

Active Member
NATO committing to a no fly zone is not the best of ideas right now. But once Russia has achieved its so called objectives how it treats the Ukrainian civilians afterwards could require a international response but not just NATO.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I am not sure what you mean?

I believe the main reason why NATO refuse to implement a no-fly zone is that this will directly involve NATO in a war with Russia, that would most likely lead to Russia using nuclear weapons.

From a "technical" point of view NATO has the capabilities to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine, both in terms of number of fighter jets, AWACs resources, tankers, staff, etc, but also superior technologies over Russia. The (non-conventional) capabilities of Russia simply cannot match NATOs air capabilities. F-35, F-22 supported by Rafales, Typhoons, F-16 would rapidly gain air superiority, and perhaps even air supremacy over Ukraine. However most likely Russia would respond with nuclear weapons against NATO.

If nukes are the "military capabilities" that you talk about, then I agree with what you are saying above.
Yes nukes are what I am ultimately referencing. That said, Russia's capacity to contest the no-fly zone (at least initially) strikes me as likely to add additional volatility to the concept, since SEAD/DEAD strikes on Russian GBAD assets could be required to enforce it, particularly nearer the Russian border.

That said, with VLO assets operating closest to said border, it might very well be possible to impose a no fly zone without targeting Russian HIMAD and ISR systems in Russian territory (seems "safer"). Honestly not sure.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Yes nukes are what I am ultimately referencing. That said, Russia's capacity to contest the no-fly zone (at least initially) strikes me as likely to add additional volatility to the concept, since SEAD/DEAD strikes on Russian GBAD assets could be required to enforce it, particularly nearer the Russian border.

That said, with VLO assets operating closest to said border, it might very well be possible to impose a no fly zone without targeting Russian HIMAD and ISR systems in Russian territory (seems "safer"). Honestly not sure.
A NATO campaign in Ukraine can be non lethal and work through the same type of deconfliction Israel and Russia have over Syria.
That means no targeting Russian assets, certainly no SEAD/DEAD. And no interactions between Russian and western aerial assets.
Parallel operations over foreign territory mean any incidents that occur there will have no effect on the nuclear tensions between NATO and Russia, and will invalidate Article 5, making this more appealing.
Russia may agree to that for some sanctions relief.

What the west can utilize this for:
Better intel to provide to Ukrainians, air-dropping humanitarian aid, air-dropping weapons.

Realistically, what can be done in the safest way of the three is airdropping humanitarian aid to beseiged cities. But then, why not send things through trucks?

So all in all, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason for anything short of an NFZ, which is still a controversial topic in itself. Some say it will escalate to nuclear, some say it's safe to do. Whatever school of thought prevails eventually, an NFZ over Ukraine will only become more dangerous the later it is implemented, so there isn't all the time in the world. At some point those who advocate for it will have to face the reality that it may no longer be possible, and that will happen when Russia has total air supremacy.

In the meantime, Ukraine can send potential cadets or veterans abroad to train on old F-16, F-15 and create a base of knowledge, and within a year's time bring them to Ukraine to join the fight. It seems these kinds of arms transfers are not taboo in this war.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
Yes nukes are what I am ultimately referencing. That said, Russia's capacity to contest the no-fly zone (at least initially) strikes me as likely to add additional volatility to the concept, since SEAD/DEAD strikes on Russian GBAD assets could be required to enforce it, particularly nearer the Russian border.

That said, with VLO assets operating closest to said border, it might very well be possible to impose a no fly zone without targeting Russian HIMAD and ISR systems in Russian territory (seems "safer"). Honestly not sure.
If the following is correct (see last paragraph) NATO imposition of a no-fly zone is a non-starter. Remember, support of volunteer fighters from NATO countries can include anything from properly organizing them into effective fighting units and equipping them to providing air support. It appears message sent and received, and the original European NATO countries are not so keen on even openly organizing such volunteer units*, let alone providing them air support or imposing a no-zone.

Excerpt from the essay I posted a link to on the "Russia and the West" thread (page 33, post #649), machine translated from Chinese:

The reaction of NATO members in Eastern Europe was more substantial, with Poland and Lithuania clamoring to send volunteers into Ukraine. The entry of sporadic volunteers into Ukraine is unstoppable. Ukraine's long borders with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are not only a "safe route" for refugees to flow into Europe, but also a gateway for anti-Russian volunteers to infiltrate Ukraine.

However, the Volunteer Army must be organized and equipped to be successful, otherwise it will only be a mob, even if it is a sporadic personnel with military quality. War is a confrontation between organized military groups, not a fight between stragglers. It is said that Russia has ordered that strategic bombers will blow up Western arms transported into Ukraine, and the bombing of volunteers is not far away.

If an organized Polish (or Lithuania or whatever) "volunteer army" enters western Ukraine, it is not impossible for tactical nuclear weapons to serve. Perhaps this is what forced Putin to use the nuclear threat killer. This is the ultimate deterrent, and it also has real tactical implications.

Belarus itself borders Poland, and the political constraints of the Russian army's dispatch from Belarus to attack the Polish volunteers may be greater. The Russian army has already occupied a large number of mobile troops in the battlefield east of the Dnieper River, and if they want to open up the western battlefield, the mobile force is not sufficient. Poland is a NATO member, but the Polish Volunteers in Ukraine are not protected by NATO.

Of course, any use of nuclear weapons needs to consider the possibility of escalation, so Russia must enter the highest level of nuclear alert. Old Europe immediately understood, and British Foreign Secretary Truss immediately changed from "supporting volunteers to fight in Ukraine" to "not opposing volunteers to fight in Ukraine".
*Of course they may well quietly organize them and equip them up to a point, but they won't crow about and they won't provide air support or NFZ.
 
Last edited:

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
To improve effectiveness vs. shipping/smallcraft, the AGM-114N Hellfire uses a metal-augmented charge rather than the shaped charge of a HEAT warhead.
And even then, it should be remembered that Hellfire's ideal target is still FAC/FIAC, not really "ships" as we think of them. Like, I'm not sending a helo in with Hellfires against a destroyer or something if I care about the helo returning, because it will get shot down and do no appreciable damage.
 
In the meantime, Ukraine can send potential cadets or veterans abroad to train on old F-16, F-15 and create a base of knowledge, and within a year's time bring them to Ukraine to join the fight. It seems these kinds of arms transfers are not taboo in this war.

I think any assumptions about what is or is not taboo are extremely dangerous. Putin has said anyone that interferes will see a response they have never seen before. He also mentioned "unfriendly sanctions" was one of the reasons for putting his nuclear forces on high alert.

I never believed Putin would invade, until now he'd shown himself to be a very savvy strategist, certainly playing a couple of grades higher than most of his rival Politicians. But this war doesn't make any sense for Russia from any reasonable risk/reward analysis. For some reason, I don't yet fully understand, Putin believes controlling Ukraine is absolutely critical and he's playing for keeps. This means anyone seriously trying to stop him is inviting an existential threat, not just on themselves, but to the entire world.

For this reason I believe any talk of no fly zones and providing fighter jets is utter folly. Can you imagine a Russian General walking into Putin's office and advising Putin that NATO is donating a squad of F15's to Ukraine and we're not doing anything about it? Putin would go absolutely nuts.

The way out of this mess is to find some way for Putin to save face before Ukraine is destroyed completely, wait until he is gone, then reset relations with Russia.
 

IHFP

Member
Commentary & reputable links required. Minimum posting standards not met
Mod edit: Wikipedia links without real comments deleted. Warning points awarded. Last warning on lack of quality in your post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Latest map from UK MOD.

1646439944956.png
Source:
UK MOD Latest Intelligence Update.
1646440219017.png
Source:
The Russian Parliament has unanimously voted to approve a new law that carries a jail sentence of up to 15 years for those who spread "fake" reports on the Ukrainian War. This has lead to most non Russian news agencies withdrawing from Russia.
Russia’s parliament approves jail for ‘fake’ war reports | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera

The Russians and Ukrainians are accusing each other of responsibility for the nuclear power station attack. The Russians have even accused the Ukrainians of starting the fires them selves.
Russia, Ukraine trade barbs at UN over nuclear plant attack | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Not the most ideal weapon to be used against ships no doubt but for a lack of anything else Javelin does have the potential to cause a ship much damage, especially if it impacts the bridge or other areas. A Javelin impacting from above would cause significant.danage. The ship might not be sunk of course but would suffer damage which would affect its ability to function.

The Philippines navy operates Spike for the short range anti ship role. There was also the famous incident when Royal Marines at South Georgia hit an Argie ship with a Carl Gustav.
A HEAT warhead would likely cause penetration of the hull or superstructure (depending on which one it hit) with damage to whatever area or compartment was immediately on the other side of the point of impact. A Javelin would have virtually no ability to impact from above a ship, unless it was fired from an aircraft or a high point (cliff, tower, lighthouse, port crane or offshore oil platform, etc.) which a vessel passed by in comparatively close proximity. One also has to remember that the Javelin ATGM is a short-ranged weapon, at least as far as naval weaponry is concerned. The original Javelin has a max range of ~2.5 km, while an updated, non-vehicle mounted version gets to around 4km.

I suspect that the Philippine Navy MPAC Mk.III's which are the ones armed with Spike-ER have to provide an anti-FAC capability, as opposed to an actual anti-ship capability, as a HEAT warhead is just not the right type of warhead to cause a ship structural compromise.

I did double check the into since I too remember the RM defence of South Georgia, and it was an Argentine corvette which came close in to a cove, to the point where the RM defenders fired upon it with small arms from ~500 m away and scored over 200 hits in total. Which did cause some damage, and did temporarily disable some systems forcing the corvette to move away from the cove and effect repairs.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
NFZ has of course been ruled out, and Zelensky is not amused: 'Zelenskiy says Nato has given “green light for further bombing of Ukraine" by ruling out no-fly zone'

To improve effectiveness vs. shipping/smallcraft, the AGM-114N Hellfire uses a metal-augmented charge rather than the shaped charge of a HEAT warhead.
My understanding is that the AGM-114N is considered a "thermobaric weapon". There was a lot of discussion upthread about the legality of thermobaric weapons, whether they should be banned, whether their use should be considered war crimes. I think this supports the "it depends" stance. An AGM-114N deployed judiciously against an appropriate military target might be acceptable, whereas a MOAB near any civilians would constitute a horrific war crime.

I'm just a civvie, so please correct any misunderstandings and mistakes on my part. If I am correct, this highlights how easily the media could sensationalize any use of "banned" "thermobaric weapon" if used by the side they wish to criticize.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I think any assumptions about what is or is not taboo are extremely dangerous. Putin has said anyone that interferes will see a response they have never seen before. He also mentioned "unfriendly sanctions" was one of the reasons for putting his nuclear forces on high alert.

I never believed Putin would invade, until now he'd shown himself to be a very savvy strategist, certainly playing a couple of grades higher than most of his rival Politicians. But this war doesn't make any sense for Russia from any reasonable risk/reward analysis. For some reason, I don't yet fully understand, Putin believes controlling Ukraine is absolutely critical and he's playing for keeps. This means anyone seriously trying to stop him is inviting an existential threat, not just on themselves, but to the entire world.

For this reason I believe any talk of no fly zones and providing fighter jets is utter folly. Can you imagine a Russian General walking into Putin's office and advising Putin that NATO is donating a squad of F15's to Ukraine and we're not doing anything about it? Putin would go absolutely nuts.

The way out of this mess is to find some way for Putin to save face before Ukraine is destroyed completely, wait until he is gone, then reset relations with Russia.
There is being tough and there is being smart.
I'm really conflicted as to how there is any win for the people of Ukraine.
Probably none, but to limit the loss of life and destruction.
How do you do that?
Support a long and bloody war or find another way and what would that look like?
No idea, it's a bloody mess!

What we do know is Putin is ruthless a survivor and does not give a damn about anyone, including his own people.
History throws up these characters and they make for a difficult foe.
Made all the more difficult in 2022 when they are a nuclear power.
It's a challenge
The West will need to be very careful how they navigate the line of being tough and smart.

Putin is a loose canon.


Regards S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
A HEAT warhead would likely cause penetration of the hull or superstructure (depending on which one it hit) with damage to whatever area or compartment was immediately on the other side of the point of impact. A Javelin would have virtually no ability to impact from above a ship, unless it was fired from an aircraft or a high point (cliff, tower, lighthouse, port crane or offshore oil platform, etc.) which a vessel passed by in comparatively close proximity. One also has to remember that the Javelin ATGM is a short-ranged weapon, at least as far as naval weaponry is concerned. The original Javelin has a max range of ~2.5 km, while an updated, non-vehicle mounted version gets to around 4km.

I suspect that the Philippine Navy MPAC Mk.III's which are the ones armed with Spike-ER have to provide an anti-FAC capability, as opposed to an actual anti-ship capability, as a HEAT warhead is just not the right type of warhead to cause a ship structural compromise.

I did double check the into since I too remember the RM defence of South Georgia, and it was an Argentine corvette which came close in to a cove, to the point where the RM defenders fired upon it with small arms from ~500 m away and scored over 200 hits in total. Which did cause some damage, and did temporarily disable some systems forcing the corvette to move away from the cove and effect repairs.
I did read years ago an interesting account of Royal marines defending Port Stanley in the Falkland conflict.
The Argentinians had just landed and the small Royal marine group did their best to hold up the advance.
One small section with a 84 mm radioed for instruction as to which ship would be the best target.
Not sure of the reply but an indication of the proximity of vessels to shore.

Shooting at ships with a anti tank weapon is probably not something you train for.

Regards S
 

Aerojoe

Member
With NATO ruling out no-fly is there likely to be any revisiting of NATO members providing UAF with aircraft (has been a number of conflicting statements about Polish aircraft)? The western NATO members could presumably back fill the numbers with western aircraft.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Even if they are genuine offers for aircraft it comes down to does the UAF have the pilots and support personnel for them and also what condition these aircraft are in. If they are in poor condition then may have to spend a lot of time and money fixing them up and hope you don't have to order spare parts from Russia
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
A Javelin would have virtually no ability to impact from above a ship, unless it was fired from an aircraft or a high point
.
Doesn't Javelin have a direct fire and top fire mode?

I did double check the into since I too remember the RM defence of South Georgia, and it was an Argentine corvette which came close in to a cove, to the point where the RM defenders fired upon it with small arms from ~500 m away and scored over 200 hits in total.
SS-11s were also fired at the conning tower of a surfaced sub, causing some damage.
 
Top