The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Ananda]

They've already cut off and encircled two smaller groupings at Mariupol' and Volnovakha. If they close from Izyum to Zaporozhye-Dnepropetrovsk area, there will be a pocket that dwarfs Debatl'tsevo or Ilovaysk.

I'm no military man or defense expert, but even I can see that Russian speed is not stuck as Western media put it. I just finish meeting with my company regional meeting. Even our analysts in Western market call western media and some politicians delusional.

Our market analyst also put doubt on Western Media talking, as they also watch the whole development in the ground. They come same conclusion that I have put before (as I got it from them also), Russia want the whole East and South. They want Ukraine cut off from the sea. That's what one Russian main goal. They have to control the whole Ukraine shores to secure them from potential usage by West in future.

Our Analysts even think that Russia seems glad that Western media bring West to fixiated with Kyiv. Perhaps that's even their design, give West ilusion that Russian forces stuck, when they are progressing in other front on reasonable speed.

Look at the south, they are going to encircle Odessa. When that happen, it just matter of time for Odessa to fall, and Ukraine losses the last big port, thus the wholle their coasts. After that, what position that Zelensky can negotiate?

Point our Analyst point out, perhaps Putin underestimate Ukraine fighthing resolve, on early days of invasion. However West now also underestimate Russia. They (Russia) seems managed to give West pictures that their forces progress stuck, when looking bigger fronts in Ukraine, they are not.

So, we don't know whose playing who right now.

Add:
This just my personal opinion, as non military man. Just looking more on strategic economic value. If I was in charge of Ukraine, I will put everything I have to defend Odessa. In my opinion Odessa is the last big card Ukraine has, not Kyiv or Kharkiv.

 

[GermanHerman]

Russia has stockpiles of platforms. Thousands of MBTs, IFVs, APCs and more. They can afford to lose a couple divisions in Ukraine. Further mitigated by the large number of AFVs either simply abandoned in Ukraine, or damaged but repairable and recoverable.

Sure, I was rather thinking about the more modern AA they seem to lose also quite a bit of. I dont think you can adequatly replace these systems with decades old soviet stockpile.

Also the more modern variants of T-80 and T-90's that get lost must have subcomponents that might be hard to replace now?

The question is how dependend russia is for These modern assets from western Imports and how much they can or are already sourcing from China?

My German isn't great. Can you please translate?

Apparently _at least_ 700 of the Strelas werent operational when recived by Ukraine, the rest of the deliverey has to be checked.

Wouldnt surprise me if none of them worked

 

[koxinga]

If I was in charge of Ukraine, I will put everything I have to defend Odessa. In my opinion Odessa is the last big card Ukraine has, not Kyiv or Kharkiv.

I agree, and to withdraw Donetsk-Gorlovka forces from the LDNR front. If Ukraine loses a large part of the army and the only access to the Black Sea...

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Can simeone please bring General Sir Michael Jackson out of retirement?

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," Jackson told Clark

Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an...

www.theguardian.com

BTW, I questioned the man's sanity well before this incident.

Thanks for the tip-off. Will check him out later.

 

[GermanHerman]

Point our Analyst point out, perhaps Putin underestimate Ukraine fighthing resolve, on early days of invasion. However West now also underestimate Russia. They (Russia) seems managed to give West pictures that their forces progress stuck, when looking bigger fronts in Ukraine, they are not.

Western media sure does. German TV commentators are seriously entertaining the thought of a "No fly zone". It's at the same time funny to see the dread and shock in the eyes of military experts when they are asked outright why nato cant just shoot down russian jets as it is worriesome how the public seems to have forgotten who russia is and what it is capable of...

There realy is danger in the western hubris, I never expected anyone actualy suggesting to outright engage russia militarily.

 

[Boagrius]

Western media sure does. German TV commentators are seriously entertaining the thought of a "No fly zone". It's at the same time funny to see the dread and shock in the eyes of military experts when they are asked outright why nato cant just shoot down russian jets as it is worriesome how the public seems to have forgotten who russia is and what it is capable of...

There realy is danger in the western hubris, I never expected anyone actualy suggesting to outright engage russia militarily.

I get the impression a large chunk of the western "populace" has been extraordinarily inward-looking in the last decade. Very few would have the remotest understanding of Russia or China's military capabilities vis a vis our own, which might explain why they see a 1990's style no-fly-zone as a viable option. That was, after all, probably the last time any of them saw western air power deployed against another country with a functioning airforce. I do wonder if this has produced a warped view of what is actually viable here.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Western media sure does. German TV commentators are seriously entertaining the thought of a "No fly zone". It's at the same time funny to see the dread and shock in the eyes of military experts when they are asked outright why nato cant just shoot down russian jets as it is worriesome how the public seems to have forgotten who russia is and what it is capable of...

There realy is danger in the western hubris, I never expected anyone actualy suggesting to outright engage russia militarily.

Even Zelensky asks for a no flight zone. I think the rationale why that is suggested rather than a ground intervention is because Russia does not yet have aerial superiority, meaning enagements are not very likely.

Weren't no fly zones implemented in middle east countries?

 

[vonnoobie]

While I agree a no fly zone is not a viable option, Not that it wouldnt work per say but rather it is one step away from nuclear war which is not something NATO would want.

That said if Russia's aim as some speculate on here is to cut Ukraine off from the black sea and even shoot from Izyum to cut off a large chunk of the Ukrainian forces well I just dont see that being the case at least yet. A pocket of that size to neutralize would require a lot of personnel, while at the same time pushing from Kherson to Odessa to encircle it? To do one of them would be a big task on their logistics alone, Both? Well it risks buggering up that entire front.

Your talking about pushing from a location yet to be captured that would likely require more personnel and logistics and pushing another 200km give or take while forces are still tied down in various battles and sieges all over the area on top of pushingto encircle Odessa. Im sure the Russian and Chinese forces are better then what Western media and people make out but no matter whose army it is you can only do so much with the forces at your disposal and they just dont have them down South for all of that at least not to do so simoltaniously.

 

[Ananda]

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.

 

[swerve]

I'm no military man or defense expert, but even I can see that Russian speed is not stuck as Western media put it. I just finish meeting with my company regional meeting. Even our analysts in Western market call western media and some politicians delusional....

The Russian leadership seem to have expected the war not to be a war, but more of a series of triumphal processions, a bit like when Hitler took over Austria 84 years ago next week. That could account for some of their apparent logistical problems. They're not stuck in an absolute sense, but compared to what they planned they are. It looks as if they thought it'd all be over by now, with Zelensky having fled to the west.

 

[STURM]

Weren't no fly zones implemented in middle east countries?

Over Kurdistan and southern Iraq.

 

[denix56]

The Russian leadership seem to have expected the war not to be a war, but more of a series of triumphal processions, a bit like when Hitler took over Austria 84 years ago next week. That could account for some of their apparent logistical problems. They're not stuck in an absolute sense, but compared to what they planned they are. It looks as if they thought it'd all be over by now, with Zelensky having fled to the west.

The thing that I consider (as I have written before) is a sign of some kind of failure is artillery and missile strikes at the cities and particularly civilians. They pictured (and acted to some extent) themselves as the ones who destroy only military objects (demilitarization) and killing only the ones who support Nazis (denazification).

However these attacks on the cities contradict completely to their previous attempts. Especially the attacks on Charkiv, one of the (if not the) most Russian-friendly cities in Ukraine.

 

[HelBattery]

Yesterday Putin told Macron that military operation will be continued until all goals are achieved.
It looks like Russia wants to achieve these goals regardless of the level of Ukrainian resistance and is ready to apply the riskier and more costly option, incurring greater losses. And I don't think that such an option was not taken into account when planning the whole operation.

 

[STURM]

What choice has he got? He has to finish what he started. Backing off now will in his eyes makes him look weak and foolish to the West, will have consequences at home and will mean that the Ukrainian issue remains unresolved.

Still early days, things could rapidly improve for the Russians. Then again they might not. There's also the fact that back channel diplomacy is surely taking place between the Russians and certain Western countries on ways of resolving things.

 

[HelBattery]

What choice has he got? He has to finish what he started. Backing off now will in his eyes makes him look weak and foolish to the West, will have consequences at home and will mean that the Ukrainian issue remains unresolved.

I completely agree but I wanted to refer to the views presented in the media that something went worse than the Russian leadership assumed - as if that would change anything in a situation where it is Rubicon what has been crossed.
It seems to me that journalists (including some analysts being invited to the media) seriously underestimate the gravity of the whole situation.

 

[Señor Pomidor]

Hello guys, I am new in this forum and I wanted to thank you because for me this has been the best and most neutral source of news regarding the war. I am not a defense expert or professional, so I will mostly continue to read rather than contribute, but since we were talking lately about the media, I wanted to post this video that a colleague from India shared with me, about the view of the conflict in Asia.


Gravitas: Why Asia is not interested in Russia-Ukraine war - YouTube

 

[Vivendi]

I get the impression a large chunk of the western "populace" has been extraordinarily inward-looking in the last decade. Very few would have the remotest understanding of Russia or China's military capabilities vis a vis our own, which might explain why they see a 1990's style no-fly-zone as a viable option. That was, after all, probably the last time any of them saw western air power deployed against another country with a functioning airforce. I do wonder if this has produced a warped view of what is actually viable here.

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.

 

[STURM]

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.

Even before nukes are deployed things could get very dicey in that the Russians will be able to respond in a variety of ways against a variety of NATO targets. This would not be in NATO's interests. Also, whilst NATO wants to make Putin pay dearly for the invasion, there are certain lines it will not cross. Certain lines which if crossed may be construed by Putin as acts of war. At the back of NATO's mind is the need to provide Putin with a way out and avoid him gaining the impression that NATO's actions are aimed directly at him of his government as opposed to penalising him over the invasion.

From a "technical" point of view NATO has the capabilities to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Indeed NATO may have the technological edge but enforcing a no fly zone over a country the size of the Ukraine will be extremely challenging. The Russians might also be weak in the air but they aren't the Iraqi or Serbian air force and they will certainly contest any attempts to create a no fly zone. They are also able to deploy GBAD assets they likes of which NATO has never faced before.

 

[Vivendi]

Even before nukes are deployed things could get very dicey in that the Russians will be able to respond in a variety of ways against a variety of NATO targets. This would not be in NATO's interests. Also, whilst NATO wants to make Putin pay dearly for the invasion, there are certain lines it will not cross. Certain lines which if crossed may be construed by Putin as acts of war. At the back of NATO's mind is the need to provide Putin with a way out and avoid him gaining the impression that NATO's actions are aimed directly at him of his government as opposed to penalising him over the invasion.

I don't quite agree -- imposing a no-fly zone would be considered an act of war, since it would imply shooting down Russian planes. Or do you think Russia would back down before any planes are shot down? I am not so optimistic. So the "certain lines if crossed" have already been crossed once NATO planes start shooting down Russian planes. Also, Putin already indicated that if NATO interferes like that, he will go nuclear. Even Lavrov hinted at that I believe.

Indeed NATO may have the technological edge but enforcing a no fly zone over a country the size of the Ukraine will be extremely challenging. The Russians might also be weak in the air but they aren't the Iraqi or Serbian air force and they will certainly contest any attempts to create a no fly zone. They are also able to deploy GBAD assets they likes of which NATO has never faced before.

It will be challenging but I think NATO would be able to do it, from a technical point of view. Not for a long time, but long enough to trigger WW3 and exchange of nukes, and most likely end of the world as we know it.

Anyway this is purely hypothetical, it's not going to happen. NATO countries are not that irrational.

 

[Vivendi]

Western Media too focus on places like Kyiv and Kharkiv. They seems forgot Russia consolidating South, East, and aim everything East of Dnieper.

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.