Odessa is already blockaded by the Russian Navy, So I don't understand this point.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
*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:
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.
Pentaprism
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.
I agree Black Sea access has very little value in the current conflict.
It has tremendous economic value to a western Ukrainian rump state in the peace that likely follows. Assuming Russia doesn’t go right to the Polish border that is.
Welcome to the forum
Please note that Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source. This is because it is not peer reviewed nor has adequate quality control on its material. Please read the rules.
Latest map from UK MOD.
Source:
UK MOD Latest Intelligence Update.
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
Source:
UK MOD Latest Intelligence Update.
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
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'
www.theguardian.com
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.
World ‘narrowly averted a nuclear catastrophe’, says US envoy to UN after Russia attack on Ukraine atomic plant - as it happened
Linda Thomas-Greenfield tells emergency security council meeting Russia actions were ‘reckless’; Jens Stoltenberg warns of ‘more death, more suffering and more destruction’
www.theguardian.com
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.
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
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
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
.
Doesn't Javelin have a direct fire and top fire mode?
SS-11s were also fired at the conning tower of a surfaced sub, causing some damage.