Maybe they keep their best troops in case of the situation gets bad or NATO attacks them?A lot of puzzling things going on in this conflict so far. The twitter thread posted above leaves me with a lot of questions, and some disagreements.
1. I agree with @Feanor that I don't believe that they made up BTG's with a mish mash of companies from different units or that they lacked in planning support for these units. Aren't these BTG's supposed to be combined arms units with organic support companies? And because they are supposed to be THE maneuver unit for Russian conops, wouldn't a parent unit concentrate their best troops in one battalion because that would be the unit that will be deployed if necessary. Also wouldn't it be better to concentrate your best troops in one unit to keep the negative externalities that come with lower morale and/or conscript units away from them so as to assure at least the combat effectiveness of that unit?
2. But is there some credence in arguments that say that these are not all the best troops Russia has available? One analyst on the Duran (I know they're biased) made the argument that a lot of the units are green, and not the battle hardened veterans and other highly experienced troops. The above mentioned twitterer also hinted at this, only he suggested there where inexperienced companies interspersed into larger units. One more thing that makes me suspect there's credence in this argument is the battle damage reports that @Feanor so kindly keeps us updated with. Those show a lot of destroyed T-72's, and BMP2's, some T-80's and in @Feanor 's latest post I saw a destroyed BMP-3. But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of very new, or top of the line equipment among the wreckage I've seen so far. The lack of air coverage is another indicator of coarse.
So what does this mean? I could be totally wrong and I'm not looking close enough. But are the Russians not sending in their best units just yet? Or do they just don't have enough T-80's, T-90's and BMP-3's to equip these units? Another explanation could be that they are using this conflict to "bloody" their less experienced troops? That could lend credence to the argument that they are encountering more resistance than they where expecting, and they bit of more than their "green" troops could chew? But then again, wouldn't you send in your best troops in the initial assault?
3. One more thing that puzzles me is that the Russians look to be trying very hard to avoid civilian casualties. This is laudable of course, however in the thread above @Feanor was wondering about the formation of Russian troops following an armored vehicle and talking about the possibility of ambushes. This video was filmed from an apartment overlooking these troops moving through a city street. And when I think about it, they could post ambushes or snipers in plenty of places. It is after all an urban environment and that can be hell to fight in, but the Russians aren't going door to door clearing houses like we've seen for example in Fallujah. This would instantly make the soldiers extremely unpopular. But I haven't seen reports that the Ukrainians are engaging in such tactics either, so it looks that other than in Kyiv there has not been a lot of tactics used that would make the civilian population a target.
4. Speaking of these tactics, one of the most bewildering things I've seen is the Ukrainians handing out weapons to people in Kyiv. Have they been doing this anywhere else? Or is this some desperate thing they're doing there and most local leaders are keeping more level headed about this? Because I think arming random civilians is a terrible idea! For one it makes all civilians a target because you don't know who is dangerous. Plenty of innocent people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan because civilians where indistinguishable from combatants.
Another thing, that we've seen already, is the possibility of friendly fire. Or people mistaking each other for the enemy, like the reports where captured "infiltrators" where not and their mission getting hindered by rando's with AK's. And besides all of that, even the supposed upsides are not what they seem. Holding a line with untrained civilians who don't know military tactics, have questionable weapon handling skills and morale doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
5. Finally, as for the goals of this operation... Well none of us are mind readers, so we can't say anything with certainty. But we can make inferences from what we see, and the events over the last days and the shape the battlefield is taking do seem to indicate a number of things. For one I disagree with the people saying that the Russians want to conquer or occupy Ukraine, I have never though this, and I stand by it. To think that the Russians expected to be invited in like liberators or that they expected the Ukrainians not to be hostile. Any rational person ,and I think Putin and the Russian high command to be at least that, wouldn't expect that any people will be receptive to a foreign army rolling through their streets, causing mayhem and disrupting their lives.
I think they are securing the area's that they absolutely want to be "up for discussion" and they avoid the rest. What we see is that they are assaulting in the South, because they want something with or for the Crimea. They let the "rebels" in the East make some territorial gains, and they attack Kyiv to force a surrender or negotiations. So in my opinion they have no interest in Kyiv, but it's necessary to for leverage. And their offensives in the South and the East are to create a "de facto" situation if negotiations don't get them what they want.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Maybe they keep their best troops in case of the situation gets bad or NATO attacks them?
I think they intend to destroy the Ukrainian military, conquer Kiev, and insert a pro-Russian government. Even if they succeed in crushing the Ukrainian military and insert a new leader, once they pull out, I predict the Ukrainians will get rid of the pro-Russian leader. Thus, if they want to keep the pro-Russian leader in place I think they need to keep significant forces in Ukraine, i.e. it will turn into an occupation, even if that's not what they want.
It is also very interesting and quite telling that Russia is interested in talks at this stage. I think that's a clear indication that things are not going according to plan for Putin. Keep in mind, they have had multiple opportunities to find a diplomatic solution before they invaded, but they choose not no. Why would Russia start talks now? They did not even capture Kiev yet...
GermanHerman
Active Member
Maybe they anticipated high losses as a consequence of their strategic choices that could not have been mitigated through the use of better equiped and trained units.
Anyway, today seemed to be a very bad day for russia all around and I cant imagine this to still be part of the plan.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #844
The conditions set for the talks are not exactly acceptable. I suspect they might be putting on a show of being willing to negotiate so they can say they were always willing to. I also suspect the alleged pause they took to wait for negotiations really had to do with operational issues, and was conveniently sold as "we're pausing for negotiations". Keep in mind what the conditions have been stated; de-nazification, de-militarization, and a neutral status for Ukraine. What does de-nazification mean? I suspect it means Ukraine's government will be required to stop leaning on right wing nationalists in any way shape or form, and likely be required to pass serious laws against them. De-militarization likely means no Ukrainian military large enough to fight Russia or even put down a rebellion like '14-'15 was. And neutral status legally binds Ukraine to stay out of NATO (maybe EU too). These feed into each other. Without nationalists it's harder to find motivated fighters. Without a military you can't stop a Russian invasion, which means if you start moving towards NATO again or start funding/organizing/working with Azov 2.0 or S14 2.0, Russia can re-invade to impose it's will. Is Ukraine likely to agree to this?
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
China Distances Itself From Russia, Calls for Halt to Violence
China has backed off in its support for Russia, which isn't entirely surprising given NATO standing together and Russia being denied an easy victory.
Seems that Xi only agreed to an alliance with Chinese characteristics.
China has backed off in its support for Russia, which isn't entirely surprising given NATO standing together and Russia being denied an easy victory.
Seems that Xi only agreed to an alliance with Chinese characteristics.
Last edited:
wittmanace
Active Member
I find the lack of comment on Ukrainian losses to be significant, particularly in the context of constant talk of Russian losses. The only comment I have heard was the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, Vadym Prystaiko, live on BBC this morning (27/02) responding to the question by saying theyre not discussing it for obvious reasons but that their losses are massive. He has been on the BBC a number of times now of course.
I also find the lack of any mention as to what proportion of Ukrainian forces engaged to be interesting. This is interesting a) because I have, like many, assumed an important aspect of a Russian planning was to pin Ukrainian forces to the South East in order for them to be encircled and also unable to help the fight elsewhere. The idea would obviously be for this point to be when mass surrenders occur, or massed fires on encircled troops, or fleeing convoys are dealt with by the currently muted Russian airforce. b) I have not seen any evidence that Ukrainian forces are rushing back to defend any strategic areas, like the capital. We have however seen the mass issuing of automatic weapons to civilians, the Molotov cocktail issue, the prevention of men from leaving the country, the loosening of legal criteria for signing up, etc etc. There are the signs of panic in Kiev from a security perspective, but no sign of forces rushing to the defence. Major strategic points, from a Ukrainian point of view, like the Antonov airport serving Kiev, have fallen. I am also of the view that Ukraine likely counted on fighting its hardest from the start, rather than pacing itself. In this context, youd expect them to be committed to much higher degree than Russian forces, but youd also expect them to not have time on their hands. Should this be correct, time is more on Russia’s side than Ukraine’s.
As a separate issue, I have to add that as much as I sympathise with Ukrainians and Russians, I am not impressed with certain supposed third parties providing pr for sides engaged in this conflict. I find it most bizarre that BBC for example interview Ukrainian MPs and seem to consider this to be factual updates regarding how the war is going. As a Brit I also find it very noticeable that my government seems to have decided to take part in the form of briefing against the Russians, and presenting their information in favour of Ukraine. I find the credibility of much I am seeing to be pretty low and declining. I had naively hoped information sources would be attempting to establish facts and presenting events neutrally. Much of the pretence has gone when Liz Truss pops up on tv and says the government will help Brits go and fight for Ukraine, not long after they had been prosecuting Brits for having gone to fight against ISIS. Regarding the media, I think channels like Sputnik are transparent and partisan to the point of being sadly comic, but I must say I am disturbed by the move to ban them and censor them. I don’t have much hope for our independent media to perform better than they did in years like 2003, and what I have seen thus far affirms my low expectations.
The clear Russian approach of withholding significant firepower and strategic assets falls into discrete categories actually. The second echelon being withheld is in line with Russian doctrine, specifically deep battle theory and the operational level. This also complies with what most of us expected Russian strategy to be before this turned hot.
A separate/discrete issue is the restraint with regards to critical assets as discussed (massed arty fires, tactical aviation (fixed wing), strategic aviation, UAS, etc) thus far. These assets are present and they are available, and are not being used. Arguments about air supremacy vs air superiority (they clearly have air superiority at least) determining this do not address the prominent absence of massed artillery strikes or absence of strategic aviation where the assets do not need to leave Russian airspace. Thus, I find this argument unconvincing.
The constant refrains we currently hear are that Russia is under pressure, that Russia underestimated Ukraine capabilities, and that Russian efforts are stalling do not seem to have significant evidence behind them. Russia is making progress, and I am inclined, for numerous reasons, some of which are enunciated above, would release the withheld second echelon and/or deployed the other withheld assets if they were under such pressure or were stalling. If Russia were not stalling or were not under pressure, what would you expect them to be doing differently from what they are? I have the nasty feeling that Russia have been more cynical than the level ascribed to them thus far, and have expected this to last longer than “we” have assumed. If the Russian strategy has been what many of us believed it would be, then the stage of mass Ukrainian casualties, surrenders, or significant broken lines and ensuing chaos would not have been expected to have occurred yet. I don’t understand where the assumption of Ukrainian surrenders in the first few days would have come from? The strategy of pinning Ukrainian forces to the south east and keeping them there while other forces can move into Ukraine is exactly what we are seeing. Within this context, we are seeing what we would have expected to, are we not?
I saw Feanor’s post regarding the mysteries as he put it (which I agree with). There is much that doesn’t add up, and to me that includes the very noticeable absence of a concerted Russian information/misinformation campaign. Its not like they don’t have the resources and structures to engage in it. Thus far most of the news and information sources are very explicitly not neutral. I would add that we hear a constant refrain of Putin’s plans or Putin’s expectations etc as if he is micromanaging the war. In terms of what to expect from the Russian forces, there seems to be a distinct effort to not base this on known Russian military theory or doctrine. If we assume Russian efforts and expectations are based on their own doctrines and recent experiences, we would be rather less inclined to believe they thought this would be very quick or that their efforts are failing.
We keep talking of Ukraine holding on and so forth, but do we have any ideas of their losses or how long they can sustain this? Much of this reeks of a view to non-Ukrainians happily wishing Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian. What is the military logic in fighting all out against an opponent that can escalate, when Ukraine knows no military support is coming?
One thing I am currently mulling over is the sudden apparent preponderance of T-80s said to be from the 4th Division, apparently abandoned (two in a head on collision it seems, and one just abandoned on its own…according to social media thus far). I’m unsure what to make of this, and where it fits in with the numbers of abandoned Russian tanks. Its very noticeable they haven’t destroyed them...why? The 4th guards tank division is far from green as mechanised regular formations go in the Russian army.
I also find the lack of any mention as to what proportion of Ukrainian forces engaged to be interesting. This is interesting a) because I have, like many, assumed an important aspect of a Russian planning was to pin Ukrainian forces to the South East in order for them to be encircled and also unable to help the fight elsewhere. The idea would obviously be for this point to be when mass surrenders occur, or massed fires on encircled troops, or fleeing convoys are dealt with by the currently muted Russian airforce. b) I have not seen any evidence that Ukrainian forces are rushing back to defend any strategic areas, like the capital. We have however seen the mass issuing of automatic weapons to civilians, the Molotov cocktail issue, the prevention of men from leaving the country, the loosening of legal criteria for signing up, etc etc. There are the signs of panic in Kiev from a security perspective, but no sign of forces rushing to the defence. Major strategic points, from a Ukrainian point of view, like the Antonov airport serving Kiev, have fallen. I am also of the view that Ukraine likely counted on fighting its hardest from the start, rather than pacing itself. In this context, youd expect them to be committed to much higher degree than Russian forces, but youd also expect them to not have time on their hands. Should this be correct, time is more on Russia’s side than Ukraine’s.
As a separate issue, I have to add that as much as I sympathise with Ukrainians and Russians, I am not impressed with certain supposed third parties providing pr for sides engaged in this conflict. I find it most bizarre that BBC for example interview Ukrainian MPs and seem to consider this to be factual updates regarding how the war is going. As a Brit I also find it very noticeable that my government seems to have decided to take part in the form of briefing against the Russians, and presenting their information in favour of Ukraine. I find the credibility of much I am seeing to be pretty low and declining. I had naively hoped information sources would be attempting to establish facts and presenting events neutrally. Much of the pretence has gone when Liz Truss pops up on tv and says the government will help Brits go and fight for Ukraine, not long after they had been prosecuting Brits for having gone to fight against ISIS. Regarding the media, I think channels like Sputnik are transparent and partisan to the point of being sadly comic, but I must say I am disturbed by the move to ban them and censor them. I don’t have much hope for our independent media to perform better than they did in years like 2003, and what I have seen thus far affirms my low expectations.
The clear Russian approach of withholding significant firepower and strategic assets falls into discrete categories actually. The second echelon being withheld is in line with Russian doctrine, specifically deep battle theory and the operational level. This also complies with what most of us expected Russian strategy to be before this turned hot.
A separate/discrete issue is the restraint with regards to critical assets as discussed (massed arty fires, tactical aviation (fixed wing), strategic aviation, UAS, etc) thus far. These assets are present and they are available, and are not being used. Arguments about air supremacy vs air superiority (they clearly have air superiority at least) determining this do not address the prominent absence of massed artillery strikes or absence of strategic aviation where the assets do not need to leave Russian airspace. Thus, I find this argument unconvincing.
The constant refrains we currently hear are that Russia is under pressure, that Russia underestimated Ukraine capabilities, and that Russian efforts are stalling do not seem to have significant evidence behind them. Russia is making progress, and I am inclined, for numerous reasons, some of which are enunciated above, would release the withheld second echelon and/or deployed the other withheld assets if they were under such pressure or were stalling. If Russia were not stalling or were not under pressure, what would you expect them to be doing differently from what they are? I have the nasty feeling that Russia have been more cynical than the level ascribed to them thus far, and have expected this to last longer than “we” have assumed. If the Russian strategy has been what many of us believed it would be, then the stage of mass Ukrainian casualties, surrenders, or significant broken lines and ensuing chaos would not have been expected to have occurred yet. I don’t understand where the assumption of Ukrainian surrenders in the first few days would have come from? The strategy of pinning Ukrainian forces to the south east and keeping them there while other forces can move into Ukraine is exactly what we are seeing. Within this context, we are seeing what we would have expected to, are we not?
I saw Feanor’s post regarding the mysteries as he put it (which I agree with). There is much that doesn’t add up, and to me that includes the very noticeable absence of a concerted Russian information/misinformation campaign. Its not like they don’t have the resources and structures to engage in it. Thus far most of the news and information sources are very explicitly not neutral. I would add that we hear a constant refrain of Putin’s plans or Putin’s expectations etc as if he is micromanaging the war. In terms of what to expect from the Russian forces, there seems to be a distinct effort to not base this on known Russian military theory or doctrine. If we assume Russian efforts and expectations are based on their own doctrines and recent experiences, we would be rather less inclined to believe they thought this would be very quick or that their efforts are failing.
We keep talking of Ukraine holding on and so forth, but do we have any ideas of their losses or how long they can sustain this? Much of this reeks of a view to non-Ukrainians happily wishing Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian. What is the military logic in fighting all out against an opponent that can escalate, when Ukraine knows no military support is coming?
One thing I am currently mulling over is the sudden apparent preponderance of T-80s said to be from the 4th Division, apparently abandoned (two in a head on collision it seems, and one just abandoned on its own…according to social media thus far). I’m unsure what to make of this, and where it fits in with the numbers of abandoned Russian tanks. Its very noticeable they haven’t destroyed them...why? The 4th guards tank division is far from green as mechanised regular formations go in the Russian army.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #847
I suspect much hasn't come out yet on Ukrainian losses.
We have information of Ukrainian units being ordered to retreat from the LDNR front, and we have signs that the rebels are advancing with considerable success. I think it's highly probable that at least some units are breaking away. Coverage is scanty.
The BBC was spinning a narrative back in the 5 day war too. I suspect they haven't been a neutral fact reporter in a long time, if ever.
To be honest, my assessment is that while Russia is doing much worse then I would have thought, they're definitely winning overall, and we're only a few days in.
Russia botched the information war, just like before. There isn't even good official info coming out.
Where will Russia stop? L'vov? I suspect they will leave western Ukraine out of this operation, leading to a place where the Ukrainian government can set up shop and simply refuse Russian conditions, no matter how badly they are beaten. Or accept them and then refuse to implement.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Yes, handing out firearms to civillians can cause a lot of problems.
- Firearms can get into the hands of wrong people, like criminals or people with mental problems.
- Untrained people who never handled weapons before, they are maybe more dangerous to themselves and each other than to the enemy.
- A much higher chance of friendly fire, untrained eyes can maybe not see the difference between Ukrainian soldiers, Ukrainian police, Russian soldiers, rebels, press and other civillians.
But it also give three advantages for Ukraine:
- It makes the situation more complicated for the Russians.
- More potential targets means more pressure for the Russians and they will run out of ammunition more quickly.
- Russian soldiers have to shoot at attacking civillians, which lead to much more civillian casualties, which can be used for anti-Russia propaganda.
wittmanace
Active Member
I think their emphasis is ending the Ukrainian ability to fight russia, in the field. Regarding the BBc, I think youre right. I didnt make it clear but I did mean much more broadly also, including the other sources claiming to be neutral news sources.
WRT Ukrainian losses, the silence is very clearly an intentional effort from what I see.
Did Russia botch the information war, or did they not engage in it? Their efforts dont seem misdirected or failed, but rather absent in many ways.
wittmanace
Active Member
I would, from the point of view of someone observing this with alarm and concern for urban centres and civilians regardless of nationality or persuasion, remind that armed civilians are not civilians and I dont think Russia is likely to treat them as such. I think theyve provided Russia a huge deal of credibility or plausability if someone gets trigger happy. Certainly there is enough now for domestic consumption of such pretexts should they need them
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #851
Whether they botched it or sat out the effect is the same. Russia's narrative is notably absent, and this is a major failure. On the losses, Russia is also silent about their own. The info we're getting comes from random footage and third parties.
I think they try to show to the Russians as there is no war is going on, just some small stuff.
They told for years that Ukrainians are the brother lot. Now they perform some small special operation to liberate them from Nazis. And showing Iskanders / TOS-1A flying to Ukraine might be not the best way to support this statement.
surpreme
Member
So far what I'm seeing, and hearing is Russia Military is following U.S. operation in Iraq bypassing urban area and sending forward or reconnaissance unit to see what Ukrainian unit resistance is. What surprising to me is there is no heavy air force strikes 1. Do Russia has enough guided missiles in inventory 2. Is Russia trying to prevent civilian causality? I'm artillery guy having seen heavy artillery action so far; I keep forget this just day 4 of operation in Ukraine no one really know Russian objective yet. I see this action in Ukraine as way the Russian Armed Forces get experience in real fighting and opportunity to learn from as U.S. has from Iraq plus opportunity for the Russian staff to communicate in a real war against standing Army. This war is not Iraq one thing that is different the Ukraine Army has NATO weapons and had training before the Russian attack and has army that better equip than Iraqis
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #854
Well that's not going to work... I can't even begin to estimate Russian KIA and WIA, but hundreds seems a likely low end estimate. And combat footage is all over social media. Plenty of people in Russia have friends and relatives in Ukraine.
braddmlewis
New Member
The
I think the one dynamic that would be at least somewhat surprising actually is less to do with the fighting itself but rather the alignment and force that the rest of the world has come after Russia with. That sentiment is only going to become more entrenched ironically the worse things go for the Ukrainians. The calls to go ever harder and deeper on an economic attack that I really do not think anyone yet understands how devastating will be. People hear sanctions and think 2014 style you can’t put new curtains in your Knightsbridge home for a month. This is literally in economic terms tying someone’s hands behind their back and throwing them into the sea. The part we should all worry about is when that person realizes they are going to drown…
My relatives were afraid to call to my father to ask how they are because they are afraid of being listened, they watch mostly only TV.
Also there a lot of reports coming from people, who has relatives in Russia and who watch / read mostly state media - they either start to insult or telling to just wait for liberation to come.
I see the sense in the quietness.
Denmark will denote 2,700 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine: Denmark to donate 2,700 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine | Reuters
Sweden will send 135,000 field rations, 5,000 helmets, 5,000 body shields and 5,000 anti-tank weapons Sweden to Send Military Aid to Ukraine - PM Andersson | World News | US News
This is highly significant -- like Germany, also Sweden and Denmark have had a rule that prohibits weapons deliveries to war zones. It is amazing that in a matter of a few days so many countries are changing their laws (or make an exception), and donate weapons and supplies to Ukraine. It's incredible, and show a level of commitment that I never expected to see.
Czechia is sending machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles and pistols together with ammunition worth the equivalent of some $8.6 million. The Netherlands is announced it will deliver 200 Stinger missiles and 400 anti-tank rockets to Ukraine. Czech Republic, Netherlands To Ship More Military Aid To Ukraine (rferl.org) Netherlands will send 400 anti-tank rockets to Ukraine; Could send Patriot missiles to Slovakia | NL Times
Greece summons the Russian ambassador after 10 nationals were killed and six wounded in Ukraine. The Greek government decided to send defensive material to Ukraine, transported by two C-130 military aircraft. Greece summons Russian envoy after bombing kills 10 nationals | Russia-Ukraine crisis News | Al Jazeera
Italy is putting together a weapons package that is said to include anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons and machine guns, no details available yet. Italy Doubles The Number Of Eurofighters Deployed To Romania, Prepares To Send Military Aid To Ukraine - The Aviationist
Belgium will support the Ukrainian forces with 2,000 machine guns and 3,800 tons of fuel and is looking into further requests for help from the government in Kyiv Belgium says to deploy 300 troops in Romania, send machine guns to Ukraine | Euronews
Portugal is sending vests, helmets, night-vision goggles, grenades and ammunition of various calibres Portugal to send military equipment to Ukraine | Deccan Herald
France has also announced they will send additional weapons, no details yet.
Australia has committed to sending weapons to Ukraine, no details yet.
Norway will send helmets and vests to Ukraine (and freezing investments in Russia) Støre holder pressekonferanse om situasjonen i Ukraina – NRK Norge – Oversikt over nyheter fra ulike deler av landet
Sweden will send 135,000 field rations, 5,000 helmets, 5,000 body shields and 5,000 anti-tank weapons Sweden to Send Military Aid to Ukraine - PM Andersson | World News | US News
This is highly significant -- like Germany, also Sweden and Denmark have had a rule that prohibits weapons deliveries to war zones. It is amazing that in a matter of a few days so many countries are changing their laws (or make an exception), and donate weapons and supplies to Ukraine. It's incredible, and show a level of commitment that I never expected to see.
Czechia is sending machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles and pistols together with ammunition worth the equivalent of some $8.6 million. The Netherlands is announced it will deliver 200 Stinger missiles and 400 anti-tank rockets to Ukraine. Czech Republic, Netherlands To Ship More Military Aid To Ukraine (rferl.org) Netherlands will send 400 anti-tank rockets to Ukraine; Could send Patriot missiles to Slovakia | NL Times
Greece summons the Russian ambassador after 10 nationals were killed and six wounded in Ukraine. The Greek government decided to send defensive material to Ukraine, transported by two C-130 military aircraft. Greece summons Russian envoy after bombing kills 10 nationals | Russia-Ukraine crisis News | Al Jazeera
Italy is putting together a weapons package that is said to include anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons and machine guns, no details available yet. Italy Doubles The Number Of Eurofighters Deployed To Romania, Prepares To Send Military Aid To Ukraine - The Aviationist
Belgium will support the Ukrainian forces with 2,000 machine guns and 3,800 tons of fuel and is looking into further requests for help from the government in Kyiv Belgium says to deploy 300 troops in Romania, send machine guns to Ukraine | Euronews
Portugal is sending vests, helmets, night-vision goggles, grenades and ammunition of various calibres Portugal to send military equipment to Ukraine | Deccan Herald
France has also announced they will send additional weapons, no details yet.
Australia has committed to sending weapons to Ukraine, no details yet.
Norway will send helmets and vests to Ukraine (and freezing investments in Russia) Støre holder pressekonferanse om situasjonen i Ukraina – NRK Norge – Oversikt over nyheter fra ulike deler av landet
Last edited:
wittmanace
Active Member
It isnt that long since I was on the Russian side of that border, in a city not that far from it. People there are certainly more informed than you'd think when it comes to events there. they do also see the forces go through there on the way to East Ukraine, and that is also the case before all this. Rail and roads through these areas mean people see, in addition to the military being a part of society in that personnel have families and social roots, etc. Things not being on the news certainty doesn't mean domestic ignorance of things. Id suspect these local areas to have better knowledge of casualties also.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I've seen many times a comparison made between Gaza, Yemen, Iraq with Ukraine, and those fighting in those areas with Russia.
Ukrainians particularly take offense in those comparison for a good reason, same reason why the world cares about it and not the others.
In Ukraine, it's a tyranny invading a democracy. The others are (usually) democracies invading tyrannies.
========================================
And on the topic of nukes. It is obvious Ukraine has no nukes. NATO countries made it very clear they will support from afar and will not send troops. The deadline to send troops has passed anyway, in terms of efficiency at least.
So nukes are irrelevant here. Russia will not nuke Ukraine, nor will it nuke anyone else.
This is a sign of weakness, and it shows Putin has a personal stake in this. He is showing his personal vulnerability, and for the first time perhaps a severe lack of security in his actions. This is effectively him shooting in the dark, hoping something will work.
Steinmetz
Active Member
I think it's clear overall the Russians are underperforming and the Ukrainians are vastly overperforming expectations. Urban combat hasn't gone well at all for the Russians, we still haven't seen as much footage of Ukrainian casualties yet. I'm also quite concerned about the possible mental state of Putin. Things have been weird in this conflict overall. I think it's clear if Ukraine receives those weapon shipments, they can be put to great use. Still haven't seen massed barrages from the Russian side, that might be next soon.
I'm not going to live my life in fear, but it is concerning that his man has a red button he can press when things are not going well.
Putin puts Russia's nuclear deterrent forces on high alert as tensions rise with West
I'm not going to live my life in fear, but it is concerning that his man has a red button he can press when things are not going well.
Putin puts Russia's nuclear deterrent forces on high alert as tensions rise with West