The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

T

Twain

Active Member
Things may be worse than they appear for russia. How bad is it if Russia is asking china for military aid? US intelligence won't say what military aid (equipment not dollars) Russia is asking for. I can understand the request for economic aid but if russia is short on any kind of equipment in just a little over 2 weeks, russia has to have lost more than we realize or a very large percent is non functional due to lack of maintenance. This might also explain the one or two trains headed towards Ukraine full of trucks and old beat up vans, they are desperate and are sending whatever they can get there quickly

Assuming china gives russia economic and/or military aid, russia will never get out from underneath that debt.

WASHINGTON — Russia asked China to give it military equipment and support for the war in Ukraine after President Vladimir V. Putin began a full-scale invasion last month, according to U.S. officials.

 
2007yellow430

2007yellow430

Active Member
I’m watching this invasion and as a civilian (ex-army 69-70), I’m astounded at the tragedy I’m watching. Hopefully we will see the end of this soon. Paying for the consequences will take years. The rebuilding of the Ukraine will take time and sweat.

Art
 
T

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
GermanHerman said:
What benefit would they gain from an assault on Odessa?

- logistics wont benefit but would get even more stretched

- the ukrainian forces defending Odessa cant leave the city because of the threat of a naval Invasion so they are not a factor in the fighting elsewhere. So there is no upside in actualy engaging them, yet there is considerable downside as it would be very costly.

The only real value lies in the Propaganda. But that's not worth it and quite frankly I so think russia lacks the man power for an sustained assault.

Mariopol and Kharkiv give a good picture what to expect from a Battle for Odessa. It wouldnt be a quick and easy grab but yet another headache for the russians.
Click to expand...
Good point, its not like any aid is comeing from the sea for Ukraine.

I have another silly question and I hope I am not breaking the forum rules, but Does not russia claim to have very powerful conventional muntions similar to US's MOAB. Why dont they use their Tu-160s to fire a few of them at Western Ukranian military bases.

The strike on that base last night was very effective. The military bases are legitimate targets and they wont have to worry about hitting civilians. The psychological effect of powerful munitions destroying bases has to be immense. Both for pro Putin propaganda and to demoralise Ukranians.

Now such a strike too close to Nato borders would be worrying, but I am sure Ukraine has other military bases that are west of the river, but fara away enough from Poland to not alarm Nato too much.
 
M

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Good illustration of the problems Russia faces defending it's armoured forces.
Even if operating with infantry, how do you prevent concealed 2 or 3 man teams from targetting your tanks/IFVs when they can be located 4 to 5.5 km away. How are infantry operating with tanks, or IFVs for that matter, going to supress that.
The firing team can also operate the ATGM Launcher remotely so even if the launcher is hit the soldiers operating it are safe.
Also one team of 2 or 3 soldiers can have multiple launchers set up.


https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503092354542194693
 
T

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
MARKMILES77 said:
Now this would be bad.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503098244255133698
View attachment 49019
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely no. There is no way China is going to risk sanctions and economic damage for Russia's sake. They are just getting out of the covid lurch.

Chinese economy is more linked to the West, than the russian ever was. China knows just how bad the reaction from Europe will be if there are Chinese military forces in Ukraine. Selling Russia guided munitions is one thing, they can always justif that as saying they want Russia to accurately hit military targets and avoid civilian deaths. Not even the best spinners in the wolrd will be able to make a direct chinese intervention in Ukraine look good.
 
Capt. Ironpants

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
Todjaeger said:
There is an additional requirement that vehicles cannot be armed. An ambulance, even a battlefield one, that is armed with a machine gun, would be ineligible to use the Red Cross which is a sign of a non-combatant and is to ID a vehicle or personnel as a non-combatant and therefore something or someone who cannot be legally targeted.

This has led to issues in other conflicts elsewhere, where vehicles had been marked with the Red Cross or Red Crescent and were lawfully engaged because the vehicles were engaged in actions which were unlawful. Specifically it was an ambulance in the Mideast which was targeted when a group of armed fighters were found to be using an ambulance as a personnel transport vehicle.
Click to expand...
Can you point out where this additional requirement is stated? It may apply in certain countries which have their own laws regarding the use of a red cross, but I am unaware this additional requirement in the Geneva Conventions.

Here is a photo of a Canadian Bison Ambulance with mounted LMG:




Feanor said:
Thank you for clarifying. Just for my own knowledge, is that the only issue here? Had they removed the machineguns from the vehicles that would have been fine? Or do the personnel also have to disarm? Also if you have a column where say two vehicles are not armed and the personnel inside aren't either, they're marked with the Red Cross, while two others are armed and are not marked with the Red Cross, would that be allowed? And then the RoEs would have to be to only target the armed vehicles?
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the Geneva Conventions stating that the red cross cannot be used by armed medics (most military medics carry personal weapons to protect themselves and those in their care), nor anything about armed escorts being prohibited. It is, of course, considered "misuse" to mark a vehicle transporting arms, ammunition, troops, etc. and therefore in violation. Aid trucks are often accompanied by armed escort. In areas where armed bandits or combatants might attack the truck, soldiers with (gasp) "machine guns" are sometimes seen on the trucks No one bats an eye if it is UN, of course, or military belonging to a country we perceive as a "good guy".

Medics, even if armed, are expressly considered as noncombatants engaged in a humanitarian mission and may legally wear an armband displaying a red cross and travel in vehicles so marked. A military ambulance or a vehicle distributing humanitarian aid or supplying a medical aid station may legitimately display a red cross, even if protected by armed personnel on board or by armed escort. Provided the armed personnel in the vehicle only fire in self-defense, as far as I am aware, light arms, including LMGs, are permitted.

A truck carrying crates of weapons mislabeled humanitarian aid of course would be in violation, as would a vehicle transporting numbers of armed soldiers, etc. If the mission is to provide aid to civilians regardless of ethnicity or religion, there is no prohibition against armed escort, provided the escort is for defense only.
 
P

phreeky

Active Member
GermanHerman said:
Neither the US nor the Ukraine are actualy trustworthy sources for these kind of information in my opinion.

Especially Ukraine has shown to be extremly unreliable.

So If these claims cant be backed up by video I wouldnt take them at face value although I dont doubt that moral is somewhat low.
Click to expand...
While US, Ukraine or many "Western" nations news agencies may be biased, what they at least have is freedom of press and the right to publish as they see things.

Russian news agencies, apart from those independents that have now been shut down, are controlled by the government. They are, legally, forced to publish Russian-biased articles.

Furthermore news agencies and state-controlled propaganda machines don't stop at official websites. They post on social media (twitter, telegram, vk.com), get re-shared and TBH I suspect a lot of what has been posted in this thread is just a re-post of Russian state-controlled propaganda. Putting "allegedly" when sharing it hardly makes it any better IMO.
 
W

wittmanace

Active Member
phreeky said:
While US, Ukraine or many "Western" nations news agencies may be biased, what they at least have is freedom of press and the right to publish as they see things.

Russian news agencies, apart from those independents that have now been shut down, are controlled by the government. They are, legally, forced to publish Russian-biased articles.

Furthermore news agencies and state-controlled propaganda machines don't stop at official websites. They post on social media (twitter, telegram, vk.com), get re-shared and TBH I suspect a lot of what has been posted in this thread is just a re-post of Russian state-controlled propaganda. Putting "allegedly" when sharing it hardly makes it any better IMO.
Click to expand...
I think it is more prudent to treat all sources with skepticism when they have a horse in the race, and seek verification.

In terms of them being legal opposition etc, Id say that isnt true necessarily. Ukraine isnt the free liberal democracy I got the impression you think it is.
Ukraine: President bans opposition media Strana.ua and sanctions editor-in-chief

Id also challenge anyone who claims the BBC, for example, is impartial in this. A look at the coverage shows this is preposterous as a suggestion. The fact is that the BBC kept talking about russian losses, and it was more than a week of it before they asked about ukrainian losses. Their responses was that they dont talk about that, and they accepted it and said of course.

There is media control in Russia, and we are aware of this....any reasonable adult also knows media in a country with a horse in the race lacks objectivity in the true sense. This goes from being embedded with one side only, for example, right up to following a narrative. Critical stories we have seen missed or severely underplayed in this demonstrate this further. There have also been events that would have been reportedly differently and on a different scale, had the nationalities been reversed.

I like to think that we are trying to analyse and debate critically here, rather than presenting a narrative reflective of a particular state or ideology. Neither demonising Russia in broad strokes nor setting up Ukraine in an impossible saintly light serves proper debate or understanding. It can be seen that there are diverse opinions here, but this isnt the place for rehashing propaganda, accusations of such, nor for trying to create narrative formed by idoelogy.
 
cdxbow

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
wittmanace said:
I think it is more prudent to treat all sources with skepticism when they have a horse in the race, and seek verification.

In terms of them being legal opposition etc, Id say that isnt true necessarily. Ukraine isnt the free liberal democracy I got the impression you think it is.
Ukraine: President bans opposition media Strana.ua and sanctions editor-in-chief

Id also challenge anyone who claims the BBC, for example, is impartial in this. A look at the coverage shows this is preposterous as a suggestion. The fact is that the BBC kept talking about russian losses, and it was more than a week of it before they asked about ukrainian losses. Their responses was that they dont talk about that, and they accepted it and said of course.

There is media control in Russia, and we are aware of this....any reasonable adult also knows media in a country with a horse in the race lacks objectivity in the true sense. This goes from being embedded with one side only, for example, right up to following a narrative. Critical stories we have seen missed or severely underplayed in this demonstrate this further. There have also been events that would have been reportedly differently and on a different scale, had the nationalities been reversed.

I like to think that we are trying to analyse and debate critically here, rather than presenting a narrative reflective of a particular state or ideology. Neither demonising Russia in broad strokes nor setting up Ukraine in an impossible saintly light serves proper debate or understanding. It can be seen that there are diverse opinions here, but this isnt the place for rehashing propaganda, accusations of such, nor for trying to create narrative formed by idoelogy.
Click to expand...
Total false equivalence to suggest equality between Western press and Russian press for many, many reasons. If you can't list at least half a dozen you ain't trying. No one needs to demonise Russia, they managing to do perfectly all by themselves.
 
P

phreeky

Active Member
wittmanace said:
I think it is more prudent to treat all sources with skepticism when they have a horse in the race, and seek verification.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. However where I think we differ is that I believe all news sources or social media re-posts of those from countries with tight media controls should be immediately discounted as credible sources. They hold absolutely no weight.

In terms of them being legal opposition etc, Id say that isnt true necessarily. Ukraine isnt the free liberal democracy I got the impression you think it is.
Ukraine: President bans opposition media Strana.ua and sanctions editor-in-chief
Click to expand...
I'm under no illusion that Ukraine are perfect, however it's important to dig a little deeper: https://www.stopfake.org/en/strana-...seminates-banned-kremlin-messages-in-ukraine/

While it may seem somewhat off-topic, such news sources are being used by people here as source references of information.
 
Ananda

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Media on both side are bias. Western media perhaps has much less government control but not immune from their own Political bias. So getting only from one side of Media will clouded real situation in the ground.

The truth is somewhere in the middle of both side media information. That's what's make getting information from both side is important.
Saying that everything from Russian or their Ally side is have no weight is anyone choice. However that kind of thinking will make anyone that choose to do it will only getting information bias from one side. That's the fact.
 
K

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Ananda said:
Media on both side are bias. Western media perhaps has much less government control but not immune from their own Political bias. So getting only from one side of Media will clouded real situation in the ground.
Click to expand...
Western media, specifically news media (CNN, BBC, Fox, ABC etc) each has their own bias which is reflected in the narratives that they share. While there are different shades of biases, they have cast the conflict as Putin being the primary adversary and a conflict between authoritarian systems versus Western systems and they are not exactly state regulated.

Western focus social media however is entirely unfiltered and range from outright pro-Ukraine (therefore filtering all negative news from Ukraine), to nonsensical / emotionally driven and pro-Russian. Everyone is a pundit with a mic. My problem with some of these feeds is showing a dead Russian tank doesn't really tell me anything about the actual progress of the Russian assault.

For a normal lay person, it is easy to conflate this to "Russians are incompetent and losing the war" but the reality from what I see, is different. Isolated victories don't win wars.
 
Last edited:
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
T.C.P da Devil said:
Good point, its not like any aid is comeing from the sea for Ukraine.

I have another silly question and I hope I am not breaking the forum rules, but Does not russia claim to have very powerful conventional muntions similar to US's MOAB. Why dont they use their Tu-160s to fire a few of them at Western Ukranian military bases.

The strike on that base last night was very effective. The military bases are legitimate targets and they wont have to worry about hitting civilians. The psychological effect of powerful munitions destroying bases has to be immense. Both for pro Putin propaganda and to demoralise Ukranians.

Now such a strike too close to Nato borders would be worrying, but I am sure Ukraine has other military bases that are west of the river, but fara away enough from Poland to not alarm Nato too much.
Click to expand...
Russia is using bombers to fire cruise missiles presumably from deep inside Russian airspace. What kinds of targets has Russia been hitting? Are they bunker complexes or other such targets that would require extremely powerful munitions? ;)
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
One of the concerns I have about this war is that there is no exit strategy for anyone.

I am not just talking Russia and Ukraine. I am also talking about NATO forces. Could NATO allow the Russians to win or will they continue to boost the amount of support they give Ukraine until there is an inevitable clash with Russian forces?
 
P

phreeky

Active Member
koxinga said:
Isolated victories don't win wars.
Click to expand...
My interpretation of proceedings, including reports on the negotiations, is that Russia will not consider it a successful operation until a government of Ukraine is in place that accepts "de-militarisation" and commits to not being a member of NATO. Whether that is one of Zelensky accepting the Russian conditions (unlikely and frankly ridiculous) or a puppet government of Russia's choosing, it would require putting that government in place in Kyiv.

The battles in the south are obviously highly important and Russia have certainly made much more progress there than in the north, however I see that of great significance only IF they can take Kyiv and dictate a new border that includes the coast of Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top