The big gain for Ukraine in this is that for a modest outlay they tie up significant RU forces to defend against these pin pricks, these are forces that then cannot be used else were. There is also the propaganda win as well. These pin pricks are a significant cost to the RU in terms of manpower and money, which they can ill afford.Zelensky's drone strikes on Moscow were like pinpricks for all the good they did except to enrage Putin and give him the excuse to hit back.
Zel should stop it and get round the negotiating table to work out a ceasefire, it wouldn't be difficult.
As regards WW2, the Allies didn't stick any little pins in Germany, they went the whole hog..
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,302
I think this is accurate. Russia has had to place a bunch of Pantsyrs and likely Tors (though the latter have been less visible) to defend against this. However, the real question is whether they are aiming for legitimate military targets. If not those are pin-prick war crimes.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Only a crime if you loose or dont have lotsa nukes.
Dead Money
Member
I'm sure that Moscow contains military targets just as legitimate as whatever Russia claims to be targeting in Kiev!
From a turnabout is fair play perspective, I do however wonder if some of those claiming Russia was 'intentionally' throwing away Kalibr missiles at apartment blocks might now need to reconsider what their acceptable weapon accuracy expectations are for strategic targets, including the impact of partial interceptions and electronic warfare.
rsemmes
Member
I am able to see the 100.000 sq km.
Thrown out?, I cannot really remember anything about mines in those areas RU decided to abandon. (Under pressure, it's a war).
Second nuclear army?
No UKR losses?
RU has decided not to abandoned this area, but you have made a very good point: Great news for business, as UK MoD said.
rsemmes
Member
Like UKR has been doing, some people tend to forget the amount of 8'8 deployed in Germany instead of at the front.
Mainframe
New Member
Zel's pinpricks might just as well be harmless peas from a peashooter against the Russian Bear..
Mainframe
New Member
Crimea voted to accept Russia some years ago and peace reigns there. Likewise Luhansk/ Donetsk voted to accept Russia, so perhaps Zel should accept it too..
Mainframe
New Member
The Donbas region invited Putin in with open arms (as did Crimea years ago) so perhaps Zel should stop sulking and pouting and accept that fact..
Last edited:
Sounding more & more like a Russian troll . . . .Zel's pinpricks might just as well be harmless peas from a peashooter against the Russian Bear..
Donbas had an armed uprising largely led by a Russian, a former Russian army & FSB officer who was obviously still reporting to Moscow & had Russian money, weapons, & men to help him. He'd previously assisted in the Crimean uprising. The victory of the insurgents was eventually secured by a Russian invasion.The Donbas region invited Putin in with open arms (as did Crimea years ago) so perhaps Zel should stop sulking and pouting and accept that fact..
In his own words . . . "After all, I pressed the launching trigger of war. If our squad did not cross the border, at the end all would have been finished as in Kharkiv or Odesa. "
Perhaps the rebel regions might have voted for separation in a free vote, but there hasn't been one.
PervasiveSurveillance
New Member
I would caution anyone not to take Tom Cooper seriously. He routinely makes absurd claims about Ukrainian gains (such as claiming that Ukraine had taken Robotyne back at the beginning of July, or that they had cleared Klischiivka several weeks ago), and sensationalizes his reporting of events (constantly claiming that Russian units have "run away" or "collapsed"). Virtually nothing of what he reports is corroborated by other sources. He's more of a war fan-faction writer at this point.Tom Cooper expounds on his views on how the war is going. He reports on missals going both ways, as well as an educated guess on the results. He also goes into depth on the disposition of units. He is not always right, but some of this can be believed. He does appear to have some pretty good sources.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Hi @Mainframe , I think Ukraine has more positive trends going for it than Russia does, including in terms of both absolute and relative combat results. That is, it, IMO, inflicts more damage than it receives.
If we take a snapshot of the conflict, we see Ukraine has a larger standing army, a significantly larger industrial base behind it, its armed forces are only progressing technologically, and it is connected to a larger economical pool.
Russia is regressing in many aspects of combat capability, and industrially it is overwhelmed by war needs.
But those trends are unlikely to proceed. Eventually Ukraine will have to bring forward results that are more tangible for the general public that doesn't understand security matters. Both its own and foreign publics, needing to convince the former to return to or not leave Ukraine, and convince the latter to support military and financial aid to Ukraine.
It's only a matter of time before those negative trends overtake the positive ones.
For Ukraine it will be a challenge trying to find the exact spot where it has to accept a status quo and negotiate peace.
Whether or not Russia survives militarily until then, relies on too many factors, primarily China as a wild card.
For Putin, it's best to end the war, or work to get China's material support. Plenty of ways to get off the tree even in the current state. For Ukraine it's probably best to keep fighting to gain as much as possible as long as it has those positive trends.
Therefore, since Putin and Zelensky have no common interest in settling on a status quo right now, they simply have to endure. That is, no big political moves besides gathering support.
If we take a snapshot of the conflict, we see Ukraine has a larger standing army, a significantly larger industrial base behind it, its armed forces are only progressing technologically, and it is connected to a larger economical pool.
Russia is regressing in many aspects of combat capability, and industrially it is overwhelmed by war needs.
But those trends are unlikely to proceed. Eventually Ukraine will have to bring forward results that are more tangible for the general public that doesn't understand security matters. Both its own and foreign publics, needing to convince the former to return to or not leave Ukraine, and convince the latter to support military and financial aid to Ukraine.
It's only a matter of time before those negative trends overtake the positive ones.
For Ukraine it will be a challenge trying to find the exact spot where it has to accept a status quo and negotiate peace.
Whether or not Russia survives militarily until then, relies on too many factors, primarily China as a wild card.
For Putin, it's best to end the war, or work to get China's material support. Plenty of ways to get off the tree even in the current state. For Ukraine it's probably best to keep fighting to gain as much as possible as long as it has those positive trends.
Therefore, since Putin and Zelensky have no common interest in settling on a status quo right now, they simply have to endure. That is, no big political moves besides gathering support.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,315
Hence my question. Were there legitimate military targets intended? Ukraine has a track record of questionable (to put it mildly) strikes, including intentionally targeting a Russian military hospital with HIMARS, hitting a market in Donetsk, and hitting an ambulance that was picking up wounded civilians while a Ukrainian UAV watched. So when a batch of Ukrainian UAVs hit Moscow City, a symbolic business complex in the center of Moscow, I have to ask; what was their intended target? The business center? If so, that could constitute a war crime, unless some legitimate military target was located there. At the end of the day 9/11 was a strike against a business center. It was terrorism not because the people who carried it out were terrorists (a teacher is one who teaches
) but because it was an intentional attack against a civilian target. If there was evidence of Russia intentionally striking civilian buildings with no evidence of military activity there, that would constitute a warcrime, much as the documented Russian execution of civilians in the cellar at Bucha definitely constitutes a war crime. So my question remains open. Did Ukraine have a legitimate military target? I would be curious to know what that target was in fact.
Mainframe
New Member
What about the referendum vote?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,317
Hi Mainframe. We have a general rule against one-liners on this forum, and we have an expectation of quality posting. We need you to improve your post quality and add substantive input beyond a one-off question. For example, if you believe the referendum held in the LDNR consistutes a valid expression of popular opinion there, you could make an argument to that extend, including something to address the myriad of obvious criticisms one could leverage at it. In this case the word "free" in swerve's post would be your dead giveaway as to his stance on the referendum.
There was one word you missed in swerve's post and that was the word FREE. I personally would not trust any such vote unless it was internationally supervised as the figures given as results were not believable.
Larry_L
Active Member
If you read my intro to the post you know that I do not take everything Tom says seriously. He does not always vett his sources, or their material properly. Recently he was taken to task for posting an old photo for a current bridge attack and ended up apologizing. Do you know of a better source that espouses the Ukrainian view. I read tom's posts since they give a lot of information in one place, much of what is not seen elsewhere. Flavored with some salt it is useful for me. Feel free to ignore it if you like. I like to read Rybar also when I can find his posts in English. I do not take everything he says seriously either.
Larry_L
Active Member
This is an interesting subject. Russia regularly claims downing all drones that target Moscow. Some are reportedly shot down by kinetic means by air defense, and others by electronic means. Both sides use these measures to defend against missiles and drones. Presumably, when you disrupt the trajectory of the incoming device, you are also taking responsibility for the new trajectory, and the debris. If I remember correctly the business complex in Moscow was hit twice. I had initially thought the target was the MOD building, and the that air defense caused it to impact somewhere else. In that part of Moscow what else would they aim at but the MOD. After reading about the second hit on the building, it seemed more like that building was the target. If this ever gets to court both sides will have their story. Of course all drones were again claimed to have been taken care of by air defense. Another question that I have is when attacking a target in a city, what precision is required to avoid the strike being considered terroristic. Is inertial guidance on a missile launched from a thousand kilometers sufficient. From what I have seen, my opinion is that Russia will lob whatever they have from out of range of AD, and whatever actually hits the intended target is a bonus. They can always claim that the damage was caused by air defense. I can only hope that Ukraine is doing better than that.Hence my question. Were there legitimate military targets intended? Ukraine has a track record of questionable (to put it mildly) strikes, including intentionally targeting a Russian military hospital with HIMARS, hitting a market in Donetsk, and hitting an ambulance that was picking up wounded civilians while a Ukrainian UAV watched. So when a batch of Ukrainian UAVs hit Moscow City, a symbolic business complex in the center of Moscow, I have to ask; what was their intended target? The business center? If so, that could constitute a war crime, unless some legitimate military target was located there. At the end of the day 9/11 was a strike against a business center. It was terrorism not because the people who carried it out were terrorists (a teacher is one who teaches