The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[wittmanace]

They weren't opinion pieces though, they were factually incorrect - many outright lies. That's not just "pro-Russian".



Could I request you read my post again? I quite clearly states you can find publications of all views, extreme in all ways. You cherry picked.

Are you ok with ukrainian press printing "outright lies" if they are anti-russian, or are you expecting to see them banned by decree also? I f not, you are selecting based on their opinions/narratives. If factually incorrect statements get media banned, I dare say legislators would have a field day across the board in Ukraine (and certainly not only ukraine).

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I Don't like the idea of these people getting their hands on stuff like javelins and stingers

Why would they have access to either type of munition? The Ukrainians so far have been fairly careful in how they've used their missiles. Lots of pictures of discharged NLAW tubes on social media, not so much of unused ones.

Also, why would it be an issue? They're more likely to have access to Russian equivalents. And Stingers have been sloshing around the black market for some time due to the various wars in Afghanistan.

Let's get real, we're talking about types of weapons that can be found anywhere in the world for the right price. If we're worried about civilian targets, there's no real difference between a Stinger and a Strela.

 

[phreeky]

Are you ok with ukrainian press printing "outright lies" if they are anti-russian

No, I don't think I implied that.

I still don't see how your argument somehow validates Russia's new laws tightly controlling their media, and how that doesn't make the reports completely untrustworthy.

 

[HelBattery]

"Time" is a main stream media, not left or right wing extreme. And the title is pure propaganda.
If a magazine controlled by Putin's propaganda put a similar photograph on its cover with the caption "Bringing the Ukrainians to heel, a massive bombing attack opens the door to peace", what would the reaction be? And we are talking here about a simple 1:1 symmetry.

 

[phreeky]

"Time" is a main stream media, not left or right wing extreme. And the title is pure propaganda.
If a magazine controlled by Putin's propaganda put a similar photograph on its cover with the caption "Bringing the Ukrainians to heel, a massive bombing attack opens the door to peace", what would the reaction be? And we are talking here about a simple 1:1 symmetry.

I'll try and explain it one last time, beyond that I give up.

Another magazine would've been free to strongly condemn the action (and probably did). In Russia, that is currently not allowed.

 

[wittmanace]

No, I don't think I implied that.

I still don't see how your argument somehow validates Russia's new laws tightly controlling their media, and how that doesn't make the reports completely untrustworthy.

I didnt validate anything, I pointed out that neither side when it comes ti Ukraine and Russia has a free press actually, and that pretending one side has a bias and the other does not is absurd.

You specifically lumped Ukriane with the "Western nations" when stating "some news agencies may be biased, what they have is freedom of press and the right to publish as they see things" My link and this fact specifically demonstrate this is untrue.

When claiming, " Russian news agencies, apart form those independents that have now been shut down, are controlled by the government. They are, legally, forced to publish Russian-biased articles", it matters that Ukraine is essentially doing this when the ban by decree the last of the opposition press.

 

[HelBattery]

My point is not the approval/condemnation of aggression but the acceptance of this or that rhetoric. Can mass bombings really be a justified way of "opening the door to peace"?
And this rhetoric cannot simply be erased by the right to counter-rhetoric.

 

[Feanor]

Why would they have access to either type of munition? The Ukrainians so far have been fairly careful in how they've used their missiles. Lots of pictures of discharged NLAW tubes on social media, not so much of unused ones.

Also, why would it be an issue? They're more likely to have access to Russian equivalents. And Stingers have been sloshing around the black market for some time due to the various wars in Afghanistan.

Let's get real, we're talking about types of weapons that can be found anywhere in the world for the right price. If we're worried about civilian targets, there's no real difference between a Stinger and a Strela.

This isn't really true. MANPADS have been found abandoned sitting in bushes already. And while yes, some of these kinds of weapons are already available to terrorist groups, making them more readily available isn't a good thing. However the bigger concern to me is not the missiles, only a small number of those are likely to end up unaccounted for. My bigger concern is the tens of thousands of small arms that were handed out with basically no accountability in Kiev and Zaporozhye.

Regarding the "Z", this appears to be a Russian push for more than simply a tactical symbol:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1500495309595725831

I can't see any good links from that tweet to original sources sorry, but there are lots of concerning images there assuming that they're not doctored.

Some other references (a lot of the same images):

Ukraine war: Why has 'Z' become a Russian pro-war symbol?

In Russia, the 'Z' is fast becoming seen as a staunchly pro-war symbol - what does it mean?

www.bbc.com

Yeah, this isn't great. Let's see what happens. Hopefully it's just a case of war fever and it disappears.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

My bigger concern is the tens of thousands of small arms that were handed out with basically no accountability in Kiev and Zaporozhye.

My thoughts exactly, much easier to smuggle overseas. But it is a war and we're refusing to directly intervene, so we can't complain if the Ukrainians throw the kitchen sink at the problem.

 

[T.C.P]

Why would they have access to either type of munition? The Ukrainians so far have been fairly careful in how they've used their missiles. Lots of pictures of discharged NLAW tubes on social media, not so much of unused ones.

Also, why would it be an issue? They're more likely to have access to Russian equivalents. And Stingers have been sloshing around the black market for some time due to the various wars in Afghanistan.

Let's get real, we're talking about types of weapons that can be found anywhere in the world for the right price. If we're worried about civilian targets, there's no real difference between a Stinger and a Strela.

You also have to think about the optics. If in the future, some fundie group takes out large numbers of civilians using Western supplied weapons, it will look terrible. And you can bet that if that happens, the Russian and Chinese propaganda machines will run riot with them.

 

[Ananda]

Ukraine conflict: Russian forces employ guided rockets

Evidence is emerging from the conflict in Ukraine appearing to show that Russian forces are utilizing guided rockets – the 9M544 and 9M549 – with video and photographs...

www.janes.com

Perhaps this's the reasons why Russian MLRS bombardment getting more intense on their target. However if this kind of guided munitions not being used from beginning, clearly shown in my opinion that Russia really underestimate Ukraine defense in the beginning of their 'special' operation.

On the other hand this kind of move on getting involvement of their more 'updated' armaments, shown their strategy already move from fast operation toward grinding war of attrition. Afterall MLRS more suitable for the old Sovyet doctrine of artillery bombardment for attrition war.

 

[STURM]

I Don't like the idea of these people getting their hands on stuff like javelins and stingers especially if they have ideas about taking these weapons and using them around the world.

Both the Chechians and the Syrians [If they actually arrive] are or will be under Russian command; in the Ukraine to specifically fight the Ukrainians. Both will be or are secularists and neither are part of any Jihadist group thus the possibility of them getting hold of Western weapons and ''using them around the world'' are slim.

If you're so concerned about volunteers getting hold of certain weapons what about the Western volunteers pouring into the Ukraine? Some might have questionable backgrounds and far right ideologies.

Afterall MLRS more suitable for the old Sovyet doctrine of artillery bombardment for attrition war.

I was under the impression that MLRS are intended to hit targets in the enemy's operational depth at ranges beyond that of arty and are intended for their saturation effect [during the period when MLRS guided rounds were not yet available]. Also under Soviet army doctrine MLRSs were a means delivering chemicals.

 

[T.C.P]

Both the Chechians and the Syrians [If they actually arrive] are or will be under Russian command; in the Ukraine to specifically fight the Ukrainians. Both will be or are secularists and neither are part of any Jihadist group thus the possibility of them getting hold of Western weapons and ''using them around the world'' are slim.

If you're so concerned about volunteers getting hold of certain weapons what about the Western volunteers pouring into the Ukraine? Some might have questionable backgrounds and far right ideologies.



I was under the impression that MLRS are intended to hit targets in the enemy's operational depth at ranges beyond that of arty and are intended for their saturation effect [during the period when MLRS guided rounds were not yet available].

I was thinking more on the line that some Ukranians sell them tothe black market. Right now moral is high, but if TRussia presses the issue and starts indiscriminately bombing Ukraine and the war drags on, we will probably see a decent number of Ukraniains selling their expensive weapons and getting a ticket out of there.

Even regular career military soldiers end up doing that, but in Ukraine just about any male can sign up for the TDF and get their hands on some expensive gear.

And like you mentioned the volunteers are another big issue, I would not be surprised if some shady bastards start going into the Ukraine soo in the guise of volunteering just to set up illegal arms black markets.

 

[T.C.P]

The West.

More footage from Yavorov training grounds that recently got hit. I can't help but wonder if the point of striking them was to scare away and deter foreign volunteers.

VK.com | VK

vk.com

VK.com | VK

vk.com

Военный Осведомитель

Новые кадры с Яворовского полигона после нанесённого удара.

t.me

Операция Z: Военкоры Русской Весны

Один из американских наемников сделал фото после удара российских крылатых ракет по Яворовскому полигону во Львовской области утром 13.03.22. Снимок опубликовала New York Times t.me/RVvoenkor

t.me

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14057163

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/te1ks3
french volunteer, the translation is in the comments, the bombardment caused the psychological damage the Russians wanted

 

[Ananda]

was under the impression that MLRS are intended to hit targets in the enemy's operational depth at ranges beyond that of arty and are intended for their saturation effect

Yes, MLRS used for saturation effect. Read also in 90's magazine from old Indonesian Marines that being trained by the Sovyet. MLRS being used combine with artillery for overwhelmed defense. Either used together or in sequence.

However the aim is the same. Providing as much as damage. That's part of their war of attrition. I suspect their guided rocket now, able to make some adjustments on size of area to be saturates. Still the concept I do see have some similarities on Sovyet doctrines.

Afterall they're doing slower progress but with more saturated firing power. That's the same concept Sovyet done in Berlin, and Russia done before in Grozny.

 

[STURM]

The Russian use of MLRS has evolved over the decades. We still have Grad [the modern day successor of Katusha] and longer range Urazgan and Smerch. I don't see how they fit in with any concept of attrition warfare per see as MLRSs were/are intended to be used in line with whatever operational circumstances required or were presented; whether part of rapid war of maneuver against NATO to supplement arty or if circumstances dictated; as a sheer saturation weapon in a more static conflict.

During the Cold War the plan was to fight a fast war of movement; multiple advances in strength; to overwhelm NATO; outmaneuver it and keep it off balance before things,went nuclear. Attrittional warfare didn't fit in the scheme of things.
In Soviet times a role for MLRS was also to deliver chemicals on targets at an operational level. On the next level we can stuff like Scud, Frog and Scarab; all intended to hit targets at much greater ranges/depth. All were considered precision weapons and also intended to deliver chemical warheads in the enemy's operational depth.

In reference to Berlin and Grozny; yes there are similarities to both and with the present situation in the Ukraine with regards to the application of sheer firepower but we have to ask whether the heavy use of firepower at different periods or wars was part of established doctrine [the Soviet/Russian army being heavy on arty]; whether it was driven by operational requirements; for a lack of any other effective means to soften a target [in WW2 the Western allies used strategic and tactical bombers against battlefield positions;,-cities and towns in support of ground advances - the Soviets lacked the heavy bombers to do this] or was it driven by both factors?

 

[Delta204]

Perhaps a new phase in this conflict? Can't imagine the Russian's think they have much chance to successfully occupy or install pro Russian government in many of the areas they control.

I do wonder if this could be bad in the long term to Russian interests beyond the obvious casualties and destruction. The west will likely be eager to help Ukraine re-build which could very well increase Ukraine's ties (both economic and public sentiment) to the West far beyond what it was before the war.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503298954657779712

 

[HelBattery]

I think they assumed that from the very beginning and, among other things, that was behind the euphemism "demilitarization", cited as one of the main goals of the invasion. Destroyed airfields, bases, depots, factories producing military equipment. Many bridges were blown up by the Ukrainians themselves to halt the Russians' progress. It will take years to rebuild the potential and will require huge expenditures.

 

[John Fedup]

My thoughts exactly, much easier to smuggle overseas. But it is a war and we're refusing to directly intervene, so we can't complain if the Ukrainians throw the kitchen sink at the problem.

Thousands of small arms…joining the millions already out there already, somewhat a minor concern IMO. Doesn’t seem to be an issue in the land of the free where the number of small arms rivals the population.

 

[GermanHerman]

Thousands of small arms…joining the millions already out there already, somewhat a minor concern IMO. Doesn’t seem to be an issue in the land of the free where the number of small arms rivals the population.

I don't think the "overseas" part is much of a concern but the increased availability of weapons in continental europe will have an effect on the security of EU states.

Same goes for Manpads, its a hell of a lot more complicated to smuggle auch systems from central asia to brussel then from ukraine. There is effectivly _one_ border all these weapons have to cross before beeing able to be traded freely from Poland to Portugal and anywhere inbetween.

But it's not just the weapons, it's also who gets them. There are far right extremist networks all through europe and some of them are guaranteed to be connected to azov and the sorts. So we are pretty much gonna end up with more armed right wing groups. Not great for europe.