The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Yesterday Reuters posted and then withdrew an article where they claimed that David Cameron of GB said that Ukraine can use British weapons on the Russian territory. The article was withdrawn for reviewing of certain details. Today, they posted more or less identical arricle:


Cameron said Ukraine had a right to use the weapons provided by London to strike targets inside Russia, and that it was up to Kyiv whether to do so.

"Ukraine has that right. Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it's defending itself," Cameron told Reuters outside St. Michael's Cathedral.


That’s definitely an interesting development. Are we also going to provide and/or adjust coordinates for these strikes as we do for others? Sending two dozen troops to the western Ukraine would certainly be in the rear view mirror then.

Cameron also said that they gave all the weapons they could and they got no equipment left to give. But they would provide £3B every year “ for as long as it is necessary”.

"We will give three billion pounds every year for as long as is necessary. We've just really emptied all we can in terms of giving equipment," he told Reuters in an interview on a visit to in Kyiv, adding that the aid package was the largest from the UK so far.

Edit: Just going over the news. Some stats cited in a Politico article:


According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Social Policy, the number of Ukrainians with disabilities has increased by 300,000 since the February 2022 full-scale invasion by Russia. More than 20,000 people have had amputations.

While it may shine some light on the losses, the stuff is quite devastating. There are even problems here and in the US, probably other places in the developed world, with veteran affairs; I can’t even imagine how it is for them in Ukraine (or Russia).

Edit 2: According to Bloomberg, nearly half the Russians that left the country when invasion began and during the mobilization are back to Russia.

The outflow has slowed, if not reversed. In June, the Kremlin boasted that half of all who fled in those early days had already returned, and that seems to reflect available statistics from the most popular destination countries as well as data from relocation companies. Based on client data at one relocation firm, Finion in Moscow, an estimated 40%-45% of those who left in 2022 have returned to Russia, said the company’s head, Vyacheslav Kartamyshev.

The numbers of Russian men now on disabilities has also increased if reports are correct that half the Russian wounded resulted in amputations this is a staggering claim
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1bfag74 a.sports.yahoo.com/news/russia-says-glaring-issue-more-161239369.html
 

Fredled

Active Member
koxinga said:
This talk about troops on the ground seems more about signaling than something militarily significant.
I agree. It shows that the West has no red line anymore. And as Sirkosky put it, Putin can't predict anymore what the West may do and will not do.

Garissoning the UKR/BY border with Polish or French troops would make sens. @vikingatespam
These troops won't fire first at Russian troops. Only if Russian troops attack them they will reply.

A passive deployment of NATO troops could act as UN peacekeepers, without the UN. (Because the UN is blocked by Russia and China).

KipPotapych said:
Zelensky, however, believes that the summit “must succeed” in order to end the war in Ukraine
I think it's a way to bypass the UN. Here no automatic Russo-Chinese veto which has made the UN inoperant for a while.
This sunnit may give some legal basis, in the final declaration, to actions undertaken by the West against Russia.
If China doesn't sign the final declaration, it will have less weight, of course, but it will be still a document signed by a lot of countries worldwide. Not just the US, Poland and Estonia.

KipPotapych said:
I am also not convinced that Ukraine will hit the targets on the actual Russian territory with these missiles. Neither am I convinced that everyone is ok with it either, as opposed to the claims, some of which are contradictory.
I think they will use them inside Russia. But not far inside Russia. These missiles have a range of 300km. So they can reach 250 km in the Kursk direction (I don't think than positioning closer than 50 km from the border would be safe) and 100 km in other directions.
It's quiet restricted compared to the entire Russian territory.
Most of the targets are still in Ukraine and Crimea. But if they find good targets in Russia within striking range, they will try to destroy them.
I don't see the reason why they wouldn't.

KipPotapych said:
it is a boost to Russia as far the human resources and economy goes.
A boost is an overstatement given the disastrous effect every war have on the economy of any country. This boost will be short lived. And at best, Russia's workforce will be at pre-war levels minus those at the front.
This returned workforce will be wasted in military productions. It means zero for the economy.

Ananda said:
So US aid aim for next year counter offensive. How about prioritizing the aid to Ukraine deffense now ?
Emergency military deliveries were sent the minute the aid bill was signed. The rest will come progressively.
You don't spent $60B in one week. It's a plan for two years, or more.

The year 2025 is interesting. It means that the US, but the idea is shared by everyone, will support the Ukrainian war effort well into 2025. No peace talk until then.
___________________

Rheinmetall’s shell production capacity
Ukrinform said:
Before Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, Rheinmetall’s annual capacity stood at nearly 70,000 rounds. This year, the group expects to reach 700,000, and in the medium term aims at 1.1 million. To this end, Rheinmetall is building a plant in Unterluss. A new production line is being set up in Lithuania. In Ukraine, the company also plans to build a munitions factory.
link
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
year 2025 is interesting. It means that the US, but the idea is shared by everyone, will support the Ukrainian war effort well into 2025. No peace talk until then.
That's what makes me want to put this on memes thread before. When Ukrainian themselves talk and pleading more for increase their defense, talking more on how to survive. White house then talk about Counter Offensive.

Thus again raise more questions who wants to prolong the war? Who really wants Ukraine to prepare on counter offensive ? When the last one they did, cost them so much. Just wondering whether this 2025 talk more on US domestic politics, some kind of pressure Biden Administration try to put to other side, force Trump to commit into 2025 in Ukraine (in case he win).
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
If we take a step back and look at the bigger picture, the delayed aid we are talking about (as well as future/2025) is just to sustain Ukraine and keep pace with RU's own industrial capacity, since they are not stagnant/keeping still.

Winning is a different topic. If we accept the (debatable) notion of force ratios, UKR forces needs to be quantitatively and qualitatively superiority in specific theatre by a significant factor. (I hate to say 1:3, but there's that). The tricky part is achieving a localised superiority (say using lanchester laws modelling), may not necessarily change the strategic picture.

Likewise for manpower, UKR would need to seriously consider lowering the age of conscription and make this a total war effort, something they have been reluctant due to political cost.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
If we take a step back and look at the bigger picture, the delayed aid we are talking about (as well as future/2025) is just to sustain Ukraine and keep pace with RU's own industrial capacity, since they are not stagnant/keeping still.

Winning is a different topic. If we accept the (debatable) notion of force ratios, UKR forces needs to be quantitatively and qualitatively superiority in specific theatre by a significant factor. (I hate to say 1:3, but there's that). The tricky part is achieving a localised superiority (say using lanchester laws modelling), may not necessarily change the strategic picture.

Likewise for manpower, UKR would need to seriously consider lowering the age of conscription and make this a total war effort, something they have been reluctant due to political cost.
Something that becomes less possible over time as population leaves. This impacts on several levels. Today's 16 year old kids are the 18 year old potential conscripts of 2026. There are men doing critical jobs exempt from mobilization. Women leaving today could have been replacements for those men in the workplace. And as always it's the youngest and most energetic population that leaves. Meaning the population ages as people leave. This comes on top of increased mortality due to the strain on the medical system. In other words, the longer Ukraine fights the war without mobilizing many more people and without the giant stream of western aid they got in the second half of '22 and first half of '23, the more difficult it will be to do this in the future.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The numbers of Russian men now on disabilities has also increased if reports are correct that half the Russian wounded resulted in amputations this is a staggering claim
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1bfag74 a.sports.yahoo.com/news/russia-says-glaring-issue-more-161239369.html
Both Russia and Ukraine already have problems with low birth rates and an aging population. When you now consider that they are killing off the most productive sectors of their populations and have increased the burden on the country's welfare systems with a growing number of invalided returning soldiers it is hard to see either country bouncing back from this. Of course you could expect Ukraine to receive a lot more help from Europe, the US and the rest of the world than the Russians could expect. Even if they did receive offers of aid from places like China I don't imagine they would be happy with the terms and conditions.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
A passive deployment of NATO troops could act as UN peacekeepers, without the UN. (Because the UN is blocked by Russia and China).
UN is only designed to solve problems all the major powers agree on. It is not the world police. It can't solve problems between major powers. It is the wrong forum for that kind of effort. UN troops are typically the lowest paid on the planet and supplied by countries like Pakistan or perhaps some force from Africa, also you aren't getting the best or the brightest from those countries, just the cheapest. If you pay a lot of money, you might be able to get a tier up, say Fijian troops, like the one that protect the UN high officials.

UN is never going to solve the Ukraine-Russia conflict. It won't solve the Israel-Palestine one either, although it can at least be a forum for mild discontent about the way it is being conducted, and provide some humanitarian or oversight or refugee type coordination.

Force is force. Being in a very much western allied nation, that sits outside of NATO, watching this play out, doesn't provide NATO with miles of mega cred. I understand things are complicated, and that NATO doesn't perhaps want a high intensity war with Russia, but I think there could have been more effort and support than what has appeared. NATO seems to spend a lot of time worrying about if their actions might possibly offend the Russians, and the Russians don't spend a lot of time worrying about offending NATO nations.

Moving units in your own allied territory might provoke the enemy who is at war via proxy with you? But I don't understand Europe, and local European customs.

Even if they did receive offers of aid from places like China I don't imagine they would be happy with the terms and conditions.
China isn't really interested in providing aid. They don't have that kind of relationship with the Russians. They get along enough these days they don't have to have a war with each other, but they don't share the same world view. Russia sees China as a potential threat, and China sees Russia has a naughty player who can't be trusted but who at times can be useful.

Even as socialist republics, they never really saw eye to eye on many issues.

If Russia pays enough China might sell weapons or systems. But at this stage China has been fairly restraint in supplying. It seems most actual Chinese made munitions and weapons have been provided through third parties. China has its own issues, and Russia doesn't have enough money or power to make sale to Russia directly worthwhile. No profit for China, and China doesn't really need the money either, China isn't North Korea, or Iran.
Most Chinese support would be indirect through manufacturing goods, chips, parts and supplies that go into things. But that is a very hard area to police if you want to, and China, doesn't really want to. China isn't going to set up a naval blockaid around russia to ensure no one is importing materials into Russia.

Typically when China commits to helping out, they fully commit. Say what you want about the Korean war, but when China fully committed, they fully committed. It was pretty obvious they did, no one was in doubt.

Both Russia and Ukraine already have problems with low birth rates and an aging population. When you now consider that they are killing off the most productive sectors of their populations and have increased the burden on the country's welfare systems with a growing number of invalided returning soldiers it is hard to see either country bouncing back from this. Of course you could expect Ukraine to receive a lot more help from Europe, the US and the rest of the world than the Russians could expect.
Ukraine is a smaller state fighting a much larger state. They are always the underdogs in this.

I would highly recommend if you are hoping to grind down the enemy by causalities and cost, do not apply this tactic to Russia. Russia is built to grind, for Russia, it maybe seen as a valid and winning strategy. Expensive, but valid. Russia is bigger than Ukraine, Russia can pay more in life and resources than Ukraine. No one said trying to re-establish the Russian empire was easy, it was expensive the first time too. I still don't think Putins motives are super clear, it may be that he intends to be at war, with someone, until he dies.

Isn't there some old Russian saying.. You can only die once. Or your can't die twice.

So far the west hasn't donated enough to Ukraine to given them a clear and concise victory or even a clear long term stalemate. Ukraine hasn't been able to lift its defence out of the aid basket and into its own self sufficiency basket. IMO Ukraine hasn't been clear on its strategy, IMO it should have focused on taking back key strategic defensible points, that it could feel safe long term to hold. IMO it is unrealistic to take back everything Russia has taken, this is the cost of being ill prepared. Even if you took it back, could you keep it if in 20 years time, Russia decides it wants to check if you still want it? Ukraine IMO has also not sought systems and capabilities that would give advantage right now, for long term acquisitions. But I could be wrong on that.. F-18 6 months ago, would have been more useful than F-22's in 6 months time, IMO. 12 months of war is expensive. Wonder weapons appearing in the far future rarely deliver on the promise, and weapons today have always been priority.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
I actually do see a possibility for some Ukrainian counter-attacks. Ukraine's strategy of gradual slow withdrawal to keep Russians perpetually in a dangerous offensive - is working. But that's still a race between how quickly Ukraine can destroy Russian equipment and kill its troops, and how quickly Russia can grab significant territories and fortify them.
Neither has infinite resources in that regard. So I think Ukraine may seek to replenish its defensive capability by retaking poorly defended areas. It has little incentive to try do that now.
 

Vladb

New Member
To put things into context of who and where is capturing another village or two or whether an Abrams or a Bradley were destroyed by an FPV strike.

There are a few recent developments which raise the question of what would a newly-empowered President of Russia do to achieve his strategic objective of destroying a neighboring state.

First, both the UK and the French ambassador were summoned and got the message that the British and the French assets outside of Ukraine territory will be deemed free hunting grounds if their weapons are used to strike targets in Russian proper (as per Cameron, Macron etc.).

Second, the tactical nuclear weapons branch of the Russian Army is running a “training exercise” with the Army Group South where the readiness to use tactical nukes will be assessed.

Third, there is both a Victory Day and a President (Tsar) enthronement ceremony coming shortly.

Looks like high time to put some fireworks on.

Just to be clear, I am of the US Hiroshima and Nagasaki and IDF Gaza aerial bombardment school of thought - better to kill a lot of people quickly and painlessly then to extend the pain over a few years of trench fighting and get much more people dead as the result.

I am not exactly sure what the Russians are afraid of in terms of placing a few 50-100kt nukes over the western part of Ukraine/eastern part of Romania/Poland to make a point.

The Chinese reaction? I do not really think they care that much as long as they get their oil and gas overland, and not through the Malacca straits.

The Ukrainians are tough fighters, but still they should have a certain pain threshold on how many military and civilian casualties they can withstand before they surrender.

A hundred thousand at a time? A million? A two?
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
There are a few recent developments which raise the question of what would a newly-empowered President of Russia do to achieve his strategic objective of destroying a neighboring state.

First, both the UK and the French ambassador were summoned and got the message that the British and the French assets outside of Ukraine territory will be deemed free hunting grounds if their weapons are used to strike targets in Russian proper (as per Cameron, Macron etc.).

Second, the tactical nuclear weapons branch of the Russian Army is running a “training exercise” with the Army Group South where the readiness to use tactical nukes will be assessed.

Third, there is both a Victory Day and a President (Tsar) enthronement ceremony coming shortly.

Looks like high time to put some fireworks on.

Just to be clear, I am of the US Hiroshima and Nagasaki and IDF Gaza bombardment school of thought - better to kill a lot of people quickly and painlessly then to extend the pain over a few years of trench fighting and get much more people dead as the result.

I am not exactly sure what the Russians are afraid of in terms of placing a few 50-100kt nukes over the western part of Ukraine/eastern part of Romania/Poland to make a point.

The Chinese reaction? I do not really think they care that much as long as they get their oil and gas overland, and not through the Malacca straits.

The Ukrainians are tough fighters, but still they should have a certain pain threshold on how many military and civilian casualties they can withstand before they surrender.

A hundred thousand at a time? A million? A two?
I suspect it's more saber rattling and bluster. This war has settled into a relatively comfortable routine for Russia (if anything Russia is doing the best it has since it has taken Mariupol'). The economy is doing reasonably well, and the casualty levels are low enough not to push the population into significant discontent. I'm not even sold that an actual deployment of small number of NATO troops would necessarily result in a tactical nuclear escalation. Nor would the appearance of a small NATO deployment change all that much. This war is being fought in a manner that is at odds with much of the military experience of the past three decades, and any forces that haven't gone through a specific robust training aimed at performing in this environment are going to have a painful time adapting. I think NATO declaring Ukraine a no-fly zone might take us towards that nuclear cliff's edge, but there's little reason to think Russia will go nuclear now, merely because some long ranged munitions will be able to hit some targets inside Russia.
 

Vladb

New Member
I fully agree with you as for the routine, but Russian soldiers are still getting killed, who knows at what rate but probably in their tens of thousands.

If you were a WW2 US General planning to assault Japan or let’s say Zhukov assaulting Germany but with tactical nukes, would you really play this “death by a thousand cuts” game to get the same objective?

Why not just an ultimatum for an unconditional surrender?

Enforced by a couple of tactical strikes?

Instead of this prolonged mess…
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I fully agree with you as for the routine, but Russian soldiers are still getting killed, who knows at what rate but probably in their tens of thousands.

If you were a WW2 US General planning to assault Japan or let’s say Zhukov assaulting Germany but with tactical nukes, would you really play this “death by a thousand cuts” game to get the same objective?

Why not just an ultimatum for unconditional surrender?

Enforced by a couple of tactical strikes?

Instead of this prolonged mess…
Tens of thousands over the past 2+ years? Ok. But that rate isn't all that high. Tens of thousands per some other unit of time?

But to answer your question "why not" there are quite a few reasons. First off this isn't WWII. In other words sentiments have changed. During WWII the US and UK conducted carpet bombing campaigns and this was acceptable. Within that context, the atomic bombs weren't much of a departure. Today neither are acceptable in most societies. It was also an existential struggle, i.e. a total war. Russia is not in an existential struggle certainly. But I don't think Ukraine is either. Ukraine can sign peace with Russia, give up NATO aspirations, and surrender some territory. It wouldn't be a good outcome, but Ukraine would still exist as a country. Now is Ukraine attempting to wage total war? I would argue it's not. Ukraine has some artificial limits on their mobilization efforts driven by political considerations rather then any military concerns. In other words, unconditional surrender doesn't appear to be the goal for either side. Now could it hypothetically come to a unconditional surrender, or total collapse, for Ukraine? Sure, in theory. It would have to involve NATO staying out of it, while Russia simply grinds Ukraine past the point where resistance is possible, while Ukraine stubbornly refuses to negotiate or makes unrealistic negotiation demands. But this doesn't appear to be a likely scenario. I suspect Ukraine's stubbornness is driven at least in part by the level of support they're getting from abroad as well as by the relatively minor success Russia has had even after their counteroffensive failed.

The last consideration is that it's unclear that the response would be what you claim it would. One possibility is that Ukraine would surrender in the face of nuclear destruction. But another is that NATO would launch a war effort against Russia, while the Ukrainian government refuses to surrender. And what does Russia do if they drop a couple of tactical nukes but don't get anything remotely resembling surrender? Move on to counter-value strikes? Nuke Kiev, L'vov, and Krivoy Rog? Right now one of the fears NATO has, and with some reason, is of nuclear escalation. But if Russia crosses that threshold, they may not like where they will find themselves.

EDIT: On a completely unrelated point, this is an example of why I don't trust Ukrainian sources claiming many downed Russian jets. FighterBomber just informed us of a lost Su-34, pilots KIA due to parachutes not opening (reason is unclear). Ukrainian sources haven't reported it until Russian sources posted it. Yet Russian sources are confirming this.

 
Last edited:

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
The numbers of Russian men now on disabilities has also increased if reports are correct that half the Russian wounded resulted in amputations this is a staggering claim
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1bfag74 a.sports.yahoo.com/news/russia-says-glaring-issue-more-161239369.html
Yes, for sure. For the Russian numbers it is a little more complicated though. Consider that for both countries this increase should include at least the following four categories of people:

1) The “draft dodgers” buying a disability;
2) Disabilities due to covid complications - this is 2022 to 2023 data.
3) Civilians’ health directly affected by the hostilities;
4) Military personnel wounded in the fight directly or otherwise.

Here are my assumptions or train of thought, if you will. It would make sense for the first category to be significantly higher for Ukraine simply on the basis that the Russian mobilization is limited in its scope. It should be noted that the main assumption here is that both systems are equally corrupt, which is close enough to the truth. The second category is definitely significantly higher for Russia due to the population size. I can’t make any reasonable assumptions in regard to the third category and I will note below why this is the case. The last category is also hard to quantify and I already posted on the subject previously.

The Russian number is also somewhat (greatly?) affected by another category: it must include at least a good chunk of those with disabilities from the annexed territories, as well as those who chose to leave to Russia after the war began. I am assuming that Ukraine didn’t officially dump those people from their system, so it should have no effect on their numbers (but we don’t really know for sure). This is also the reason why the third category isn’t as straight forward because in all likelihood most of the wounded civilians live on the territories now occupied by Russia.

This is a source for the Reddit graph (in Russian) in the quoted post:


As for the amputee claims… I really can’t say anything of significant value here. I looked into it and these claims were made by a Russian politician named Aleksey Vovchenko, who is a deputy in the Ministry of Labour. He stated in October of last year that “more than half of the cases of disability established by the medical and social examination among the participants of the special military operation are related to the amputation of limbs”. The quote is from a TASS article (via Google translate):


There are many more media outlets quoting him, of course. Kommersant, for example:


He claimed that 54% of those with a disability are due to amputations. 20% of amputations were on the upper extremities, which he called an “unprecedented high ratio”.

Honestly, I don’t know what to say here. That’s what the reports are based on. My personal opinion is that the number is highly unlikely to be true. Like extremely unlikely, to the point that I am personally convinced there was something lost in translation on Vovchenkov’s or reporting parts or something else, maybe a partial quote out of context… There has to be something missing there. The article in Kommersant, for examples, cites RIA for their quotes. TASS doesn’t cite anything in their article. This direct quote of Vovchenko also suggests that something is definitely off here (from the TASS article via Google translate):

Of all the certified participants (examined personnel, my note due to poor transaltion), 84% [have] recommendations for providing technical means of rehabilitation. And in all types - these are not only prostheses - these are strollers (wheel chairs, my note) of various types, these are special clothes, orthopaedic shoes.

So yeah, I don’t get it. I mean even the Ukrainian numbers for amputees I cited in the other post seem to be very high. They suggest that 1 out of 15 new disabilities was due to an amputation. Note that we are taking into account all new disabilities here, so it would be reasonable to assume that the ratio would be higher for the war related injuries only (maybe?). Here is some data (a paper citing the Office of the Surgeon General in the US):


Source: Section 2: Injured Post-9/11 Veterans

So yes, it is hard to say anything here. I’d say that 1 in 15 is probably high; 1 in 2 is… well, completely nuts and simply impossible. Well, another theory would be that it is extremely hard to get a diagnosis of a disability in Russia (and also fairly hard in Ukroane), which is equally as silly, in my opinion.

My point still remains, the toll of this war is quite devastating for both sides and both Ukraine and Russia are far from the greatest places for the veterans to end up in, especially those with disabilities, whether physical or mental.
 
Last edited:

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Im not sure if Russia's rehabilitation for its wounded soldiers is being implemented
certainly this Ukrainian article on its ow disability treatment refers to Soviet era stigma in caring for disabled
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
First, both the UK and the French ambassador were summoned and got the message that the British and the French assets outside of Ukraine territory will be deemed free hunting grounds if their weapons are used to strike targets in Russian proper (as per Cameron, Macron etc.).
Attacking other nations is hardly something Russia can afford right now. At best, it would be a huge gamble.
Russia made similar threats in the past regarding other weapons supplied to Ukraine. It has already claimed on numerous occasions the west by large is a legitimate military target.
It has yet to act on that threat via kinetic means, perhaps with the exception of downing one or two (don't remember) US drones.

Second, the tactical nuclear weapons branch of the Russian Army is running a “training exercise” with the Army Group South where the readiness to use tactical nukes will be assessed.
The problem with nukes is they're mostly good as a deterrent, and their destructive capabilities are of secondary importance.
Threatening, every day for over 2 years, to use nukes against half the globe - does not build deterrence. Quite the opposite. The only thing it really signaled to the west was "we have no conventional deterrent, please save us".

I am not exactly sure what the Russians are afraid of in terms of placing a few 50-100kt nukes over the western part of Ukraine/eastern part of Romania/Poland to make a point.
Probably afraid of normalizing nukes as a deterrent which means nukes can now start flying into empty areas of Russia as well.

Iran's attack on Israel on April was a great demonstration that the west has the capability, some even have significant means, of thwarting a nuclear strike on their soil. If Russia decides to play the nuclear game, it will certainly lose, but it may not win.
Staying away from practical usage of nukes does everyone a favor, most of all to Russia.
 

Fredled

Active Member
Ananda said:
When Ukrainian themselves talk and pleading more for increase their defence, talking more on how to survive. White house then talk about Counter Offensive.
No. In the short term, there is an emergency as the Ukrainian defence is ready to collapse if nothing is done.
Whereas, in the mid or long term, the new weapons will enable Ukraine to launch a second counter-offensive (or the first real one should we say) in 2025. Notably because the bulk of the F16's will be there by the end of 2024, beginning of 2025.
The first ones from Danmark in summer, the next ones from Belgium and The Netherlands in autumn or later.
Other, not disclosed weapons may be in preparation for delivery.
They will also get massive amount of artillery shells, as production ramped up.

That's why there is currently talks about the survivability of the Ukrainian state. But Zelensky has always made clear that there won't be any peace as long as Ukraine has not recovered all their territories. They believe that as long as Russia can control parts of Ukraine, they will try get more of it.
Of course they are conscious that it won't be possible to recover 100% of all the territories. But at least Russia should be pushed back as far as possible, not be allowed to take more ground, and be defeated militarily.

The idea is that Ukraine should not hope for a lasting peace if they negotiate while Russia has the upper hand.
This position by the Ukrainian leadership has never changed.

koxinga said:
Winning is a different topic. If we accept the (debatable) notion of force ratios, UKR forces needs to be quantitatively and qualitatively superiority in specific theatre by a significant factor.
That's why I think that Ukrainian can win only if Russians decide to withdraw after a structural collapse of their military organisation and logistic and huge casualties.
Getting a 3:1 ratio for Ukraine on term of foot soldiers is impossible. They would need to mobilize 1.2 million men. And Putin is sure to win because of this.
Ukraine can't mobilize enough men, not because of political backlash, but because it's materially very difficult, almost impossible. and because the motivation to defend their country is weak. (See @Feanor reply.)
Every young Ukrainian agree that Russians should be repeled. But none of them wants to go and fight. Failure on the battlfield has a snowball effect. The worse it is, the less people want to go. The danger now for Ukraine is a silent surrendering of the population. Ukraine urgently needs a symbolical victory to reverse the situation.

Ukraine can achieve victory, or partial victory, by disrupting the logistic. The Crimean Bridge is a good example. Destroying roads, railways, boats, vehicles, warehouses...
Disrupting the chain of command. A lot of high ranking official died during the first year of the invasion. They should try to hit the headquarters again. They did something recently.
Causing huge casualties. This has already be done. But with Russians, you have to repeat several times to make them understand.

StingrayOZ said:
UN is only designed to solve problems all the major powers agree on. It is not the world police. It can't solve problems between major powers. It is the wrong forum for that kind of effort. UN troops are typically the lowest paid on the planet and supplied by countries like Pakistan or perhaps some force from Africa
Because, for the types of mission the UN has done, nobody wanted to pay expensive military forces. In the case of Ukraine, it would be funded more seriously.
The UN should be the place to solve the Ukrainian conflict. When there is serious business, they should be there. But they can come only when both parties agree to a ceasefire under the condition that it will be monitored by the UN. Unfortunately, in 2014, Russia rejected talks about UN observers in the Donbas and Ukraine was not hot at the idea neither.
The UN can take several resolutions. But with Russia sitting at the UNSC, it's impossible.

StingrayOZ said:
China isn't really interested in providing aid. They don't have that kind of relationship with the Russians. They get along enough these days they don't have to have a war with each other, but they don't share the same world view. Russia sees China as a potential threat, and China sees Russia has a naughty player who can't be trusted but who at times can be useful.
It's true. China doesn't commit to aiding Russia militarily. The first reason is that China doesn't want troubles with its customers, e.i. Europe and America. But China knows how to exploit the situation. They buy oil, and now gaz, from Russia at a bargain. They even pay part of this oil in Renminbi. And at the same time, China can sell Russia sanctioned dual-use goods at several times the normal price.
The Chinese also want to offer their support for Ukraine in exchange for getting Taiwan back under their control. But they know that's asking too much. The US made clear that they won't agree with such a deal.

Big_Zucchini said:
I actually do see a possibility for some Ukrainian counter-attacks. Ukraine's strategy of gradual slow withdrawal to keep Russians perpetually in a dangerous offensive - is working.
Yes, it's working. Currently Russian casualties are as high as during the assault on Avdiivka, Bahkmut and Sievirodonetsk.
Chasiv Yard may be their next graveyard.
This is because they lure Russians out of their fortifications. Problem is that Ukes also suffer great losses.

Vladb said:
First, both the UK and the French ambassador were summoned and got the message that the British and the French assets outside of Ukraine territory will be deemed free hunting grounds if their weapons are used to strike targets in Russian proper (as per Cameron, Macron etc.).
Problem is that per Russian law, voted by the Parliament (Duma) and signed by Putin, 25% of Ukraine is Russian territory. They legally consider Russian territory, even zones not yet under their control. They have even annexed these territories to the adjacent Kursk and Rostov provinces and integrated the administration in the Russia corresponding branches. They recently added all the lands and real estate to the cadastral data base of Russia.

So, they put themselves in an oxymoron. As per their own laws, it's been a while that Storm Shadows are used on Russia proper. At the same time, by making this warning, they admit that all the land within the 1992 borders, including Crimea, is still Ukrainian.
:eek:

Feanor said:
I'm not even sold that an actual deployment of small number of NATO troops would necessarily result in a tactical nuclear escalation. Nor would the appearance of a small NATO deployment change all that much. This war is being fought in a manner that is at odds with much of the military experience of the past three decades, and any forces that haven't gone through a specific robust training aimed at performing in this environment are going to have a painful time adapting. I think NATO declaring Ukraine a no-fly zone might take us towards that nuclear cliff's edge, but there's little reason to think Russia will go nuclear now, merely because some long ranged munitions will be able to hit some targets inside Russia.
I agree. Delivering the weapons that are in the process of being delivered cause many times more harms to Russian forces than a passive NATO deployement in western Ukraine. Putin hasn't even change his tune concerning the F16's. Maybe because he underestimates what the F16's will mean since, so far he sees progress on the battelfield and panic among Ukrainian ranks. As long as he is winning or get the apparence of winning, Putin is proud to claim victories without using a single nuclear weapon.

IMO, we should fear nukes when Russia will be defeated and forced to withdraw, and Putin blows a fuse. Medvediev has already said that they would have used nukes had the 2023 counter-offensive succeeded. I take his words seriously.

Feanor said:
During WWII the US and UK conducted carpet bombing campaigns and this was acceptable. Within that context, the atomic bombs weren't much of a departure. Today neither are acceptable in most societies.
Actually Russia is processing systematic carpet bombing of each city it plans to seize. Destruction are akind to small nuclear blasts, without the radiations.
But as you said, it's not accepted, at least by the West.

Feanor said:
Ukraine can sign peace with Russia, give up NATO aspirations, and surrender some territory. It wouldn't be a good outcome, but Ukraine would still exist as a country.
No, it can't. It was still possible two years ago, bit now, Putin has decided to eliminate the Ukrainian state all together and absorb it into existing members of the Russian Federation.

Feanor said:
And what does Russia do if they drop a couple of tactical nukes but don't get anything remotely resembling surrender?
In reality, tactical nukes would have no other effect than to create a worsened image of Russia and international condemnation. And certainly China dropping the little supports, aka Unlimited Friendship, it gives to Russia.
Tactical nukes won't have much effect on Ukrainian forces. So if Putin wants to play the nuclear card, it should be shock and awe: Nuking big cities. Obviously ruled out as long as he he keeps a minimum of sanity.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Actually Russia is processing systematic carpet bombing of each city it plans to seize. Destruction are akind to small nuclear blasts, without the radiations.
But as you said, it's not accepted, at least by the West.
There's a huge difference in cities where shelling takes place over an extended period of time as the city gets closer to the front lines. By the time the city looks as if it's been carpet bombed, most of the population is gone. Destruction is akin to that after typically months of fighting. This is not at all the same as vaporizing civilians en masse.

No, it can't. It was still possible two years ago, bit now, Putin has decided to eliminate the Ukrainian state all together and absorb it into existing members of the Russian Federation.
Do you have any evidence for this? This claims keeps coming up over and over again, but there is no solid evidence. I'm proceeding on the strength of the Istanbul Accords documents that have been shown. Do you have something to definitively show the opposite? Or is this just your personal view of it?

In reality, tactical nukes would have no other effect than to create a worsened image of Russia and international condemnation. And certainly China dropping the little supports, aka Unlimited Friendship, it gives to Russia.
Tactical nukes won't have much effect on Ukrainian forces. So if Putin wants to play the nuclear card, it should be shock and awe: Nuking big cities. Obviously ruled out as long as he he keeps a minimum of sanity.
I mean... sort of true. If the war turns into a nuclear fight, tactical nukes absolutely can have an effect on Ukrainian forces. But it wouldn't be using a couple of them. Dozens used to make openings in the front lines on the other hand would do quite a bit of damage. The real issue is that the question of surrender is a political one, and the positional nature of the war makes any rapid advances unlikely. So even if Russia drops multiple nukes at multiple sections of the front lines, and then makes some rapid gains, we're talking likely about hundreds of sq kms not thousands. In a country whose territory is measured in the hundreds of thousands of sq km. After that the front would re-stabilize at some new spot. The issue of surrender here is a political one at least for the time being. And nukes may very well do nothing to move that needle. They will have a military impact, but not the kind that determines the outcome of the war in Russia's favor. And they could have a political outcome that puts Russia in a much worse position then it currently is.

It's true. China doesn't commit to aiding Russia militarily. The first reason is that China doesn't want troubles with its customers, e.i. Europe and America. But China knows how to exploit the situation. They buy oil, and now gaz, from Russia at a bargain. They even pay part of this oil in Renminbi. And at the same time, China can sell Russia sanctioned dual-use goods at several times the normal price.
The Chinese also want to offer their support for Ukraine in exchange for getting Taiwan back under their control. But they know that's asking too much. The US made clear that they won't agree with such a deal.
I mean... they sort of are. China isn't really selling artillery shells to Russia but there is some evidence that they have sold Russia equipment to set up entire production lines of artillery shells. I haven't had the time to do a Russian Land Forces update, but there are indications. And the delivery of those Desertcross buggies has had quite the impact as well. Chinese components likely have quite a bit to do with Russian UAS and missile production too. So, no Chinese tanks or howitzers, but if Russia gets serious about restarting a T-80 line with a new turret, I wouldn't be surprised to see China helping set that up. What's interesting is that Chinese military/dual purpose goods deliveries have slowly increased over time raising the question of whether there may be a line past which China will deliver actual weapons to keep Russia in the fight.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
What's interesting is that Chinese military/dual purpose goods deliveries have slowly increased over time raising the question of whether there may be a line past which China will deliver actual weapons to keep Russia in the fight.
Yes, that's something many seems forgot on how actually China relations toward Russian MIC now. What China do is not supply finish products, but more on how to supply Russian MIC with capital goods to keep it running China supporting Russia in massive military expansion, US says. That's much more important then selling them artillery shells.

Ukrainian need finish goods, end products of ammo, as practically their MIC existence is really close to bottom. Russian MIC is still exist and building more, what they need more on Capital goods support that. Something that they use to supply that from West and now that seems being supply by China with that dual purpose products.

the short term, there is an emergency as the Ukrainian defence is ready to collapse if nothing is done.
Whereas, in the mid or long term, the new weapons will enable Ukraine to launch a second counter-offensive (or the first real one should we say) in 2025. Notably because the bulk of the F16's will be there by the end of 2024, beginning of 2025.
Well, that's why the talk on Ukrainian supply should talk more on how to help them survive this year. If they can survive this year, then White House can talk on helping them counter offensive next year.

Russian production keep improving in capacities, West should think more on helping Ukrainian survive. Doing counter offensive without enough supplies will just got the disaster results they found last summer ones. Zelensky can talk on how to reclaim territory losts, but first now his administration talk more on how to survive this year. That's what the talk should be from white house. Which's why this talk on Ukrainian counter offensive seems more on domestic politics against Trump position that increasingly talk more on other way around.
 
Last edited:

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
I fully agree with you as for the routine, but Russian soldiers are still getting killed, who knows at what rate but probably in their tens of thousands.

If you were a WW2 US General planning to assault Japan or let’s say Zhukov assaulting Germany but with tactical nukes, would you really play this “death by a thousand cuts” game to get the same objective?

Why not just an ultimatum for an unconditional surrender?

Enforced by a couple of tactical strikes?

Instead of this prolonged mess…
Going nuclear is crossing a red line for just about everyone on the planet, and sure to draw a response from major powers. Maybe not counter-nukes, but certainly something serious. At the very minimum I think it would kick a lot of western military spending into high gear, and stop screwing around.
 

Fredled

Active Member
I said:
Putin has decided to eliminate the Ukrainian state all together and absorb it into existing members of the Russian Federation.
Feanor said:
Do you have any evidence for this?
That's what he does. He has annexed all the territories he has invaded. If he takes all Ukraine, piece by piece, he will annex all Ukraine.

Secondly, he and others have often talked about the inexistence of the Ukrainian statehood.
They say Ukraines is and was always part of Russia and its existence is a short accident of history. It's then natural that Ukraine returns to Russia, except the Lvov region which could be given back to Poland (Sergei Kaganov). These people still think like before WWII. Piotr Tolstoi talks about Ukraine as his country and he is the Duma Chairman and candidate to Putin's succession (not Presidential candidate, but the one who will inheritate the presidency after Putin's death.)

Clearly, if they could, they would erase Ukraine off the map. But they know that they can't, in the present situation. So their speech is somewhat more realistical. They only talk about what they control already. And this doesn't stop at Ukraine. They have a double language: To western joournalists the Special Military Operation is only to preserve the right of the Russians to speak their own language. At home it's an existential threat to Russia to even let Ukraine to exist because NATO will use it to encircle Russia and because it's full of Nazy. They also show that, on the maps, Ukraine doesn't exist.

But the desire to eliminate the Ukrainian state is not the cause of the war.
Putin expected Ukraine to stay a vasal state like Belarus. he prefers to conquer it by force rather than let it be a vasal of others. And he would do the same with Belarus.

Feanor said:
If the war turns into a nuclear fight, tactical nukes absolutely can have an effect on Ukrainian forces. But it wouldn't be using a couple of them. Dozens used to make openings in the front lines on the other hand would do quite a bit of damage. The real issue is that the question of surrender is a political one, and the positional nature of the war makes any rapid advances unlikely. So even if Russia drops multiple nukes at multiple sections of the front lines, and then makes some rapid gains, we're talking likely about hundreds of sq kms not thousands. In a country whose territory is measured in the hundreds of thousands of sq km. After that the front would re-stabilize at some new spot.
Yes. I was thinking about 2 or 3 nukes. Of course a dozen would have an effect on Ukrainian forces. But these forces are dispersed, not only necause they are stretched thin, but also to avoid one single strike to kill too many soldiers at once. Moreover, a front line has a line shape whereas a nuclear blast forms a large circle. The geometry of nuclear desctruction is not optimal. One tactical nuke could have barely the same effect as 10 well positioned FAB500.

In the event of a front collapse and the Russians are able to drive several hundred of km westward, I don't think that Ukraine would be able to oppose further Russian advances. Nukes or no nukes. I don't think that they have much reserves between the front line and Kiev, Lvov and Odessa. Not even talking about Karkov. The Ukrainian government could undertake desperate resistance in the capital because it wouldn't be good for them to be arrested by the Russians. But the population will rather surrender than suffer a siege.

Feanor said:
What's interesting is that Chinese military/dual purpose goods deliveries have slowly increased over time raising the question of whether there may be a line past which China will deliver actual weapons to keep Russia in the fight.
This is the question everybody would like to get an answer for. It's a big unkown. As far as China provides only dual-goods components and tools, it's hard to blame China because the definition of dual-use is very blurry. After all, China is also providing dual-use things to the West. So we shouldn't complain too much. A Western official even admitted that Europe depends on Chinese machine tools for its military production (just as any other production). Even better: Most of our canon powder is imported from China! And I didn't see any evidence that these imports have slowed down.

China, on one hand, has an interrest in seeing the Ukraine+Nato/Russia conflict lasting, on the other, they don't want to jeopardize their commercial relationship with the West. So they are not going to play with fire.

Ananda said:
Zelensky can talk on how to reclaim territory losts, but first now his administration talk more on how to survive this year. That's what the talk should be from white house. Which's why this talk on Ukrainian counter offensive seems more on domestic politics against Trump position that increasingly talk more on other way around.
Of course that everybody is concerned about the survival of Ukraine in the most urgent terms. But survival and counter-offensive are linked. If Ukraine can defeat Russian forces to the point that they are not a threat anymore, they will have, ipso factum, the ability to retake some territories.
Talking about a credible counter-offensive in 2025 may be opstimistic, but not extravagant.
I don't understand the link it can have with Trump and the US elections. Trump played the big game by blocking the aid bill. But he didn't want to be responsible for the defeat of Ukraine and the dead of people. He was certainly briefed about the urgency to let the congress act.

vikingatespam said:
Going nuclear is crossing a red line for just about everyone on the planet, and sure to draw a response from major powers. Maybe not counter-nukes, but certainly something serious. At the very minimum I think it would kick a lot of western military spending into high gear, and stop screwing around.
China will certainly terminate their Eternal Friendship with Russia. China doesn't want things to go overboard.
India will revise their neutral stance too.

For the West, it would be madness to use the nuclear reply. (But God knows what they can do!). Yet, I don't think their reaction will be limited to ramping up military production.
If I were NATO leaders, I would start by sinking the Russian fleet until no boat is seen on the surface, raid all their air bases within a 1000 miles radius around east-European borders and bomb systematically every Russian troops present in Ukraine. This immediately and unannounced. Then see if they want to fire more nukes.
 
Top