art wrote:

Don't want to be too oppressively realistic but I have to observe that Russian forces hold a lot more Ukrainian territory than they did 23 Feb 2022. Was that that done by magic or is it due to Darth Putin's forces having a few victories?

How valuable is the territory compared to everything else at stake, though? Reminds me of Bismarck's two wars - against Austria, Prussia demanded relatively little in the peace treaty, allowing Austria-Hungary to eventually be brought back on Germany's side. Against France, the new German Empire took a chunk of French (well, as far as they were concerned) soil - and the price was France's generational enmity and, ultimately, the strategic dilemma of encirclement that Germany faced in World War I. Putin invaded a Ukraine of divided loyalties. He'll take a piece of it, but what's left won't have divided loyalties anymore. Is the clay worth it?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Dramatic footage of Russian assault on a Ukrainian outpost being repelled by artillery fire.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1639342501059260416

Why didn't the Russians drop some of their gear so they could move faster?

Because the first guy to reach the trench line dies. The real assault was supposed to come from the side. Once the Russians on the flank assault were blasted away, the frontal assault should have been called off.

Notice all the craters from what must have been previous assaults.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Dramatic footage of Russian assault on a Ukrainian outpost being repelled by artillery fire.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1639342501059260416

That's crazy to be able to watch something like that. It's also crazy that even though Ukrainian artillery was coming down right on them, the Russians kept advancing until only a few appear left alive.

Why didn't the Russians drop some of their gear so they could move faster? Icy, frozen ground looks like about zero degrees f. Brutal - war really does suck.

I was watching and thinking is this meant to be a section attack on that trench position?
Where’s the covering fire, for fire and maneuver from the section machine gun, just one example showing they just appeared not to have an idea what to do.
All the while being watched and zeroed.

Listening yesterday to a podcast about the war, a guest was Mark Urban, starting out as a young tank commander in a British Army Of the Rhine Chieftain tank in the early 80’s, to being an author, reporter, documentary maker, Urban pointed out that after the noises early on about ‘the death of the tank’ then similar about attack helicopters, the issue and what we are seeing, as the link Vintage posted showed so dramatically, is ‘the transparent battlefield’.
Those who adapt to that, can use it to their advantage more than the enemy, is in a much better position.

We’ve seen plenty of vehicles get destroyed, god knows I’ve posted enough of those on here, usually and increasingly with few or just one shot, from artillery.
I agree that Ukraine has the advantage in the use of drones, they are adapting commercial ones, making their own often in small, dispersed facilities, their employment and I bet this isn’t true with the Russians, issued down to the smallest units with much more autonomy of use.

GDB wrote:

I was watching and thinking is this meant to be a section attack on that trench position?
Where’s the covering fire, for fire and maneuver from the section machine gun, just one example showing they just appeared not to have an idea what to do.
All the while being watched and zeroed.

The observer drone had the sun behind it so the Ruskies were prevented or at least hindered from seeing it.
I don't think the tactics were bad initially, the hit at 2:08 brought the main attack to an end, it must have been a perfect hit, there was no movement there after that hit. I suspect it also took out whoever was in charge. Another perfectly placed hit came in at 4:49 which ended any chance of getting the flank attack going again.

The bulk of the troops were probably just meant to provide diversionary fire, but nobody called it off when the flank attack got pasted. So I guess they tried to get in grenade throwing range on their own; they definitely had fighting spirit, these were the best anyone could offer.

This was a Ukrainian reconnaissance position under attack. For all we know, the purpose of this attack was to create an ambush for a supporting column.

We finally see that the USAF was thinking when they canceled the JSTAR program.

In Ukraine, we are getting saturated coverage of battlefield aerial surveillance at the squad level. Sure, fo now it's mostly in the visible and infrared spectrum, and there is not the real time vertical integration up the chain of command.

These drones a cheap and attritable and allows the larger drones like the Scan Eagle to do more pressing work.

bt

MohawkWeekend wrote:

That's crazy to be able to watch something like that. It's also crazy that even though Ukrainian artillery was coming down right on them, the Russians kept advancing until only a few appear left alive.

Why didn't the Russians drop some of their gear so they could move faster?

Does the artilerry looks like mortars to you guy? Doesn't seem like the blast are as big as 105 or 155 rounds.

Now if the Ukrainian had a couple of those Large Taiwanese drones with the rack of bomblets on station, they would have been able to break up that attack much quicker.

As for rushing the trench, I supposed the Russian didn't have sufficient pre-mission intelligence to know this was a lightly manned outpost. There was probably limitted communication between the two assault team let alone communication to the rear.


bt

bikerthai wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

That's crazy to be able to watch something like that. It's also crazy that even though Ukrainian artillery was coming down right on them, the Russians kept advancing until only a few appear left alive.

Why didn't the Russians drop some of their gear so they could move faster?

Does the artilerry looks like mortars to you guy? Doesn't seem like the blast are as big as 105 or 155 rounds.

Now if the Ukrainian had a couple of those Large Taiwanese drones with the rack of bomblets on station, they would have been able to break up that attack much quicker.

As for rushing the trench, I supposed the Russian didn't have sufficient pre-mission intelligence to know this was a lightly manned outpost. There was probably limitted communication between the two assault team let alone communication to the rear.


bt

You could be right on the mortars. Interesting that the first rounds were pretty far off target but quickly and effectively adjusted.

The British MOD says that the Russian's have stalled at Bakhmut!

Russia’s assault on the Donbas town of Bakhmut has largely stalled. This is likely primarily a result of extreme attrition of the Russian force.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/16 ... 5580225537

This is a huge propaganda loss for Pootie.
How are they going to explain this?

art wrote:

Don't want to be too oppressively realistic but I have to observe that Russian forces hold a lot more Ukrainian territory than they did 23 Feb 2022. Was that that done by magic or is it due to Darth Putin's forces having a few victories?

Is it a victory to take territory largely unopposed? Perun's latest video spoke to the false measure of territory held. I don't see it as a victory for front line troops to blow past border guards.

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

Do the people in Donetsk and Luhansk want to live with government by Ukraine? Mostly no, I think.

There can be an argument that the people of the Donetsk never had a choice. The breakaway seemed to have been orchestrated by some local leaders who lust for power had the backing of the Russian leadership who was using the local puppets to do its bidding.

Without the backing of the Russian Army, the teritory of the Donetsk and Luhansk would fall like how So Vietnam fell in '75. But unlike in that case, there will be no wave of refugees crossing the ocean to seek freedom because there would be no ocean to cross and freedom (both economic and political) would not be found in Russia.

It only took one generation for the children of Vietnam to love the USA again, even through famine and sanctions. I bet it would take less than that for the reintegration of the Donetsk and Luhansk.

Recent reports are showing that Russian conscripts are being forced to serve under DPRK leadership and are finding it more oppressive than RU leadership. I would think a future under DPRK leadership would be a bleak one.

Revelation wrote:

I would think a future under DPRK leadership would be a bleak one.

When the Russian leaves Ukraine. So will the DPRK.

bt

Revelation wrote:

Recent reports are showing that Russian conscripts are being forced to serve under DPRK leadership and are finding it more oppressive than RU leadership. I would think a future under DPRK leadership would be a bleak one.

Where do you see these reports?
I can't imagine the Russian army hiring North Korean officers.

Vintage wrote:

The British MOD says that the Russian's have stalled at Bakhmut!

Russia’s assault on the Donbas town of Bakhmut has largely stalled. This is likely primarily a result of extreme attrition of the Russian force.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/16 ... 5580225537

This is a huge propaganda loss for Pootie.
How are they going to explain this?

I don't know, it seems the propaganda mouthpieces are starting to realize that their actions may end up with them facing charges in the Hague:

With the bloody all-out invasion now in its second year, the euphoria has been replaced by a lingering sense of dread, with Putin’s mouthpieces routinely fretting about the possibility of war crimes tribunals. The issue is playing on their minds.

Appearing on the state TV show, Evening With Vladimir Solovyov in November, Simonyan said: “Let me tell you that if we manage to lose, the Hague — whether real or hypothetical — will even come for the street cleaner sweeping the cobblestones behind the Kremlin.” The same month, Olga Skabeeva, the host of the state TV show 60 Minutes, likewise predicted that if Russia loses its war against Ukraine, every Russian will be considered guilty. She argued that a resounding victory was the only way “to avoid tribunals at the Hague, criminal cases, and having to pay reparations.”
...
The Kremlin’s propagandists have plenty of reasons to be concerned; street sweepers and other average citizens rather less so. The agitation for war crimes against Ukrainians (described as animals and worse), the descriptions of them as Nazis, and the delight at the attacks on their homes and civilian energy grid have, after all, not been broadcast by people on the street. From the lowliest pawns on Putin’s chess board to the queens of propaganda like Simonyan and Skabeeva, the state-controlled media has played a central part in prompting, encouraging, rationalizing, and normalizing the Kremlin’s massacre of its next-door neighbors.

Ref: https://cepa.org/article/morality-shoul ... ate-media/

Things didn't end too well for WWII propagandists. Many ended up hanged for treason and/or served long prison sentences. The RU mouthpieces should be concerned.

Vintage wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Recent reports are showing that Russian conscripts are being forced to serve under DPRK leadership and are finding it more oppressive than RU leadership. I would think a future under DPRK leadership would be a bleak one.

Where do you see these reports?
I can't imagine the Russian army hiring North Korean officers.

Oops, brain fart! DPR = Donetsk People's Republic, but I guess I should have typed DNR:

15/ Andrey was bitter because "the commanders openly considered them as meat" and forced the men at gunpoint to go into suicidal assaults. His unit was likely under the command of 'Donetsk People's Republic' (DNR) forces, who have gained a reputation for brutality.

16/ "They were covered by [the guns of] local contractors and when you start asking questions or are indignant, they stick a gun to your head and rush you into the assault."

Ref: https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/ ... 8812046337

Sorry for the confusion. It would be intriguing if the North Koreans did get involved, though.

Too late to edit the earlier post, sigh.

Didn't take Xi too long to stab Putin in the back:

President Xi invited the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to the first China-Central Asia summit on Wednesday.

Ref: https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1639556972168003585

The Baltic Sea is now known as NATO Lake, and now the Central Asian Plateau will be known as Chinatown.

Last July/August I kept asking when the much talked about imminent AFU counter-offensive was going to start.. Time for me to ask when the much talked about AFU spring counter-offensive is going to start. It is nearly April now. Is AFU waiting for the right weather/ground conditions or is AFU waiting for more weapons supplies, getting more trained troops and trained tankers before launching the offensive?

The Russian conglomerate of Russian army, Wagner and the forces of the oblasts recently absorbed into Russia seems to be less robust. I presume that morale is lower than last year, given the absence of any major advances on the ground. I also wonder if Ukrainian partisan groups are being equipped by AFU in special operations and have grown in strength.

I hope that AFU is decisively stronger for this offensive, so much so that it can punch a major hole somewhere along the Russian line and sever re-supply to the Russian armed forces in southern Ukraine. But what about ammunition? AFU will need a lot, won't it?

Revelation wrote:

Didn't take Xi too long to stab Putin in the back:

President Xi invited the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to the first China-Central Asia summit on Wednesday.

Ref: https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1639556972168003585

Is part of Russia in central Asia?

art wrote:

Time for me to ask when the much talked about AFU spring counter-offensive is going to start.

My guess is they are waiting for the arrival of rest of the tanks.

Have we seen any visual of Bradleys in-country?

Also they may be waiting for the mass arrival of GLSDB. Apparently they have not arrived yet.

Even when the new armor arive, I see them doing some trial attacks to get a sense of their capabilities before the full blown offensive.

bt

In many of the recent interviews of Russian politicians and talking heads, I see a similarity to the actions of the Nazi's late in the war. They just can't come to grips with the fact that their armed forces are spent. The wonder weapons are going to turn the tide. Armored divisions that don't exist will drive towards Kiev.

Suprisingly Prigozhin and that ex-Russian colonel are being frank about the current situation.

Now we can only hope that history repeats itself. The German's never unleashed their chemical nerve gas even when all was lost. Lets pray the Russian's have the same sanity.

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

Time for me to ask when the much talked about AFU spring counter-offensive is going to start.

My guess is they are waiting for the arrival of rest of the tanks.

Have we seen any visual of Bradleys in-country?

Also they may be waiting for the mass arrival of GLSDB. Apparently they have not arrived yet.

Even when the new armor arive, I see them doing some trial attacks to get a sense of their capabilities before the full blown offensive.

bt

Plus they don’t just arrive, formations assembled, deep planning, as much as possible. Tanks, IFV’s, artillery, all the supporting arms and services.
And Ukrainian officials have been commenting on the planned offensive, rather a lot, almost as if they are seeking to misdirect Russia.
Which would not be the first time they’ve done that.

Look at the successful offensives in modern warfare, they tended to have a lot of planning and training first.
Or to use a British military saying ‘prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance’.

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

Time for me to ask when the much talked about AFU spring counter-offensive is going to start.

My guess is they are waiting for the arrival of rest of the tanks.

Have we seen any visual of Bradleys in-country?

Also they may be waiting for the mass arrival of GLSDB. Apparently they have not arrived yet.

Even when the new armor arive, I see them doing some trial attacks to get a sense of their capabilities before the full blown offensive.

bt

This article is behind paywall but from what I can read, the GLSDB are not due soon. Indeed:

New Launcher Needed For Ukraine’s Longest-Range Rocket

A new container launcher will be developed for the Saab/Boeing Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) system that the U.S. government approved for Ukraine on Feb. 3, a Saab official said March 1.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapons/new-launcher-needed-ukraines-longest-range-rocket

In a more recent article I read the GLSDB are not expected before autumn.

Given these indications, it is reasonable to assume they are not going to be available for a potential spring offensive. But it doesn't mean that an offensive cannot be launched.

An initial target could be Tokmak located N/NE from Melitopol and less than 35 km from the frontline. The only east-west rail tracks are passing by Tokmak so it would be a good point to severe these tracks. And Melitopol is becoming within artillery range from Tokmak as well as the northbound rail tracks towards Vasylivka and Enerhodar.

Another interesting target, also about 40 km from the front line (due south of Polohy) is "Verkhnii Tokmak Pershyi" where the east-west rail track meets the southbound branch to Berdiansk.

Railway map of Ukraine:
https://reliefweb.int/map/ukraine/ukraine-complex-map-railways-ukraine-5-mar-2022

My reference for the position of the frontline (@DefMon3 on Twitter):
https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/Operational_Map_Ukraine/nBT8ffpeGH

So there is a lot to do within a reasonable distance from the front line. I'm definitely not a strategy expert but this area is also the most distant from the Russian borders, so the most difficult to resupply for Russia I guess. And from there, the Russian army can easily retreat in case they would be tempted to do so. Some of the longest range Ukrainian SAM batteries could also be deployed somewhere east of Zaporizhzhia city to provide air defense for the Ukrainian forces attacking these targets.

Vintage wrote:

The British MOD says that the Russian's have stalled at Bakhmut!

Russia’s assault on the Donbas town of Bakhmut has largely stalled. This is likely primarily a result of extreme attrition of the Russian force.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/16 ... 5580225537

This is a huge propaganda loss for Pootie.
How are they going to explain this?

This a just a tweet (a few hours old) from I don't know who but it could be that the Russians are concentrating the remaining offensive forces on the center of the town rather than pressing further to the northwest. But yes, in essence it could mean that the Russians have stalled in Bakhmut area.

Bakhmut battle has now reached city centre as Wagner forces continue to push Ukrainian army further back.

https://twitter.com/LogKa11/status/1639659985905897472

EDIT: I now see many comments questioning the credibility of this tweet, so take it with a spoon full of salt.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Now we can only hope that history repeats itself. The German's never unleashed their chemical nerve gas even when all was lost. Lets pray the Russian's have the same sanity.

I doubt that the Russians would be so stupid, but then again they've taken one stupid decision after the other...
In the case of WW2, though, a key reason why chemical weapons were (almost) not used was the mutual ability to retaliate using long-range bombers. Quite similar to nuclear weapons today.
For Ukraine, however, their ability to strike Russian territory is very limited. Therefore, the rest of the world (and especially the West) needs to make it very clear that a chemical attack is inacceptable, since they do have the capability to hit Russia where it hurts.

mxaxai wrote:

the rest of the world (and especially the West) needs to make it very clear that a chemical attack is inacceptable, since they do have the capability to hit Russia where it hurts.

This is the very thing that Putin is counting on to get him out of the hole he has fallen into: fear of escalation among the Europeans.

I believe that he believes, that if he raises the stakes high enough, the Europeans will demand that Zelensky negotiate a settlement.
Remember his cornered rat parable. https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7dxax/ ... s-cornered

Regarding the supply of weapon systems and ammunitions, the EU countries are gearing-up. These are recent announcements:

1) At the EU level, the following agreement has been reached (22 EU member states participating so far as well as Norway):

the European Defence Agency (EDA) project arrangement for the collaborative procurement of ammunition. The project opens the way for EU Member States and Norway to proceed along two paths: a two-year, fast-track procedure for 155mm artillery rounds and a seven-year project to acquire multiple ammunition types.

Head of Agency Borrell set out three complementary tracks to deliver more artillery ammunition and to deliver it more quickly: first to help Member States in sending such ammunition from national stockpiles or from pending orders; second to aggregate demand and quickly move to 155mm collaborative procurement; and third to ramp up the manufacturing capacity of the European defence industry.

The ‘Collaborative Procurement of Ammunition’ project provides a seven-year framework for Member States to commonly procure multiple types and calibres of ammunition (5.56 mm to 155 mm) to replenish national stocks.

The budgets allocated to this initiative amount to several billion euros. By committing to a long term and substantial procurement plan, the EU countries expect that the industry will fast track their investments to increase their production capacity.

https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2023/03/20/eda-brings-together-18-countries-for-common-procurement-of-ammunition

2) The French government and the responsible suppliers have just announced some production rate increases:

The production rate of Caesar self-propelled 155-mm howitzers by Nexter (company) will be doubled from the current four to eight units per month

Furthermore, production of Mistral surface-to-air missiles will be doubled to 40 units per month. Lecornu said that the production of ‘Ground Master’ air defense radars will also increase and accelerate to 24 units manufactured annually.

https://news.yahoo.com/france-double-howitzer-production-205000420.html

Vintage wrote:

I believe that he believes, that if he raises the stakes high enough, the Europeans will demand that Zelensky negotiate a settlement.

The "cornered rat" concept applies to Europe and NATO as well, though. As long as Putin sticks to threats, everything is fine. But once he actually acts, NATO must react. Not reacting is not an option.
I don't know what would be required to get NATO troops officially involved in Ukraine but I'm certain that this is a scenario Putin wants to avoid at all costs.

Does NATO have any nuclear missiles that can be deployed within range of Russia? It would be worthwhile deterrent to Russian threats. Make Putin think about his escalations and sabre rattling.

cpd wrote:

Does NATO have any nuclear missiles that can be deployed within range of Russia? It would be worthwhile deterrent to Russian threats. Make Putin think about his escalations and sabre rattling.

That would be a pointless escalation of a threat we don't want to see come to pass. Our side is winning, we want things to remain the way they are.

At the same time this game is for real. If we're positioning nukes, I would hope it's being done surreptitiously.

mxaxai wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I believe that he believes, that if he raises the stakes high enough, the Europeans will demand that Zelensky negotiate a settlement.

The "cornered rat" concept applies to Europe and NATO as well, though. As long as Putin sticks to threats, everything is fine. But once he actually acts, NATO must react. Not reacting is not an option.
I don't know what would be required to get NATO troops officially involved in Ukraine but I'm certain that this is a scenario Putin wants to avoid at all costs.

About NATO troops getting involved, who wants that? Putin does not. Europe does not. The key to success for Ukraine is for Ukraine to receive the weapons systems Ukrainian forces need to win this war - the wholehearted military support from its supporters that is still to be forthcoming.

According to polls, public support for Ukraine in many European countries was very, very solid - over 90% in several countries. The best way to maintain that is to give Ukraine its best chance of winning, isn't it?

Europeans were generally more supportive of EU assistance to Ukraine when pollsters did not specify whether the aid was military or some other kind, according to the October-November issue of the European Parliament’s Eurobarometer survey. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of respondents approved of EU support for Ukraine—33% strongly and 41% somewhat—with the highest numbers in Sweden (97%), Finland (95%), the Netherlands (93%), Portugal (92%) and Denmark (92%). At the same time, less than 50% of respondents in Bulgaria, Greece and Slovakia approved of EU support for Ukraine.

I hope that governments will be acutely aware of that when gauging their response to Putin's wilder menaces.

However...

In its November-December poll, Ipsos also asked respondents if they were in favor of “continuing to support Ukraine until all Russian forces have withdrawn from territory claimed by Ukraine.” Majorities in five of the nine EU countries surveyed were in favor of keeping up support for the fight (France 56%, Netherlands 63%, Poland 65%, Spain 61%, Sweden 69%). While Germany was nearly evenly split (49% in favor), a minority were for continued support to Ukraine in Belgium (47%), Italy (42%) and Hungary (37%).5 Overall, the level of support for continued aid to Ukraine averaged 48.1% in these nine EU countries.

https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/poll ... ical-about

cpd wrote:

Does NATO have any nuclear missiles that can be deployed within range of Russia? It would be worthwhile deterrent to Russian threats. Make Putin think about his escalations and sabre rattling.

Air and sea-launched (in particular sea-launched) are easy to position and likely already are. There is no need to announce such positioning. it will add unnecessary fuel to a fire that everyone is trying to extinguish. The goal is to be prepared without unnecessarily provoking the opposition.

art wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Didn't take Xi too long to stab Putin in the back:

President Xi invited the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to the first China-Central Asia summit on Wednesday.

Ref: https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1639556972168003585

Is part of Russia in central Asia?

Are territorial borders being honored?

Meanwhile, ISW reports the fabled RU winter offensive appears to be culminating, causing much anxiety in RU.

It appears the decision to continue to fight in Bahkmut was a sound one.

It seems it has caused the RU forces to hit a "tipping point" and they can no longer prevent culmination (i.e. defeat) or launch renewed offensive operations.

RU has shown it cannot induct, fed, train, equip or lead new troops other than marginal human zombies to be mowed down on human wave attacks.

RU is showing its alleged huge arsenal exists only on paper and attempts to renew it are failing.

The wider Russian spring offensive appears to be culminating, and the Russian information space appears to be responding to the slow-down of Russian operations and potential for #Ukraine to regain the initiative with substantial anxiety. http://isw.pub/UkrWar032423

Russian military command will need to commit a significant number of forces to the frontline to either prevent culmination or launch renewed offensive operations, and it is unlikely that such forces exist at sufficient scale to do either. http://isw.pub/UkrWar032423

Ref: https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/statu ... 7147919361

art wrote:

Time for me to ask when the much talked about AFU spring counter-offensive is going to start.

First it's time to notice the RU winter offensive has produced at best marginal results at a huge cost. What was once thought of as the world's second army has turned out to be a paper tiger, rolling out museum pieces and using untrained conscripts in human wave attacks.

GDB wrote:

Plus they don’t just arrive, formations assembled, deep planning, as much as possible. Tanks, IFV’s, artillery, all the supporting arms and services.
And Ukrainian officials have been commenting on the planned offensive, rather a lot, almost as if they are seeking to misdirect Russia.
Which would not be the first time they’ve done that.

Look at the successful offensives in modern warfare, they tended to have a lot of planning and training first.
Or to use a British military saying ‘prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance’.

Indeed. I remember in the times of the First Gulf War all the press was screaming, "why haven't we invaded yet?". It turns out invasions do take planning and preparation. The world saw a great example of what a lack of preparation looks like on Feb 24, 2022.

mxaxai wrote:

For Ukraine, however, their ability to strike Russian territory is very limited. Therefore, the rest of the world (and especially the West) needs to make it very clear that a chemical attack is inacceptable, since they do have the capability to hit Russia where it hurts.

Like what was done in Syria?

par13del wrote:

Like what was done in Syria?

The difference is that everyone now knows the emperor has no clothes.

Funny thing about Syria. Once Russia is completely defeated in Ukraine, will they have the force or funding to prop up Assad?

The conspiracy theorist in me has just connect the dots. The Saudi-Iranian repochmeant told me that the regional power have already looked past the collapse of Russian gunboats diplomacy and will be carving out Syrian pie themselves.

bt

par13del wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

For Ukraine, however, their ability to strike Russian territory is very limited. Therefore, the rest of the world (and especially the West) needs to make it very clear that a chemical attack is inacceptable, since they do have the capability to hit Russia where it hurts.

Like what was done in Syria?

Yes, I recall Russia/Syria being warned not to use chemical weapons on pain of dire consequences if they did. I also remember them being used with no dire consequences resulting from their use.

If Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, how does the West (meaning US in this case) respond? The proportional response would be unleashing a tactical nuclear strike somewhere in occupied Ukraine, wouldn't it? By that I mean Crimea, Luhansk or Donetsk. Perhaps there is some alternative - masses of cruise missile strikes, for example, as per the Gulf War. What I think should be avoided at all costs are strikes against Russia proper. Starting WWIII would not be a good idea IMO.

art wrote:

The proportional response would be unleashing a tactical nuclear strike somewhere in occupied Ukraine, wouldn't it? By that I mean Crimea, Luhansk or Donetsk. Perhaps there is some alternative - masses of cruise missile strikes, for example, as per the Gulf War. What I think should be avoided at all costs are strikes against Russia proper. Starting WWIII would not be a good idea IMO.

Aside from starting World War III, I suspect the Ukrainians would not be very pleased about their allies nuking Ukrainians living under Russian occupation.

art wrote:

Yes, I recall Russia/Syria being warned not to use chemical weapons on pain of dire consequences if they did. I also remember them being used with no dire consequences resulting from their use.

If Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, how does the West (meaning US in this case) respond?

The Europeans will first tell the US that they are on the other side of the pond and will not bear the consequences of any escalation from more missiles or refugees, so the US will consult with the European Allies, strong statements, condemnations, additional sanctions and increase funding for Ukraine including more weapons will be announced and the world will continue while China request an investigation at the UN to see if it was a false flag attack.

par13del wrote:

art wrote:

Yes, I recall Russia/Syria being warned not to use chemical weapons on pain of dire consequences if they did. I also remember them being used with no dire consequences resulting from their use.

If Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, how does the West (meaning US in this case) respond?

The Europeans will first tell the US that they are on the other side of the pond and will not bear the consequences of any escalation from more missiles or refugees, so the US will consult with the European Allies, strong statements, condemnations, additional sanctions and increase funding for Ukraine including more weapons will be announced and the world will continue while China request an investigation at the UN to see if it was a false flag attack.

Unless my information is wrong, there is a war going on in Donetsk and has been for years. Also in Luhansk. These are part of Russia, if one is to believe Putin. If a chemical attack (ie a WMD attack) by Russia takes place and the West declines using a tactical nuke in response, how about a mass attack by cruise missiles on Donetsk and/or Luhansk and/or Crimea? Could UK submarines be used as well US.subs? If there is no big, painful response to the use of a WMD, that effectively gives Putin a licence to repeat their use.

I don't see this as a Ukraine war thing. I think that any countries initiating the use of chemical weapons need to be made to really suffer as a result of their use. An example needs to be made of them. Do this at your peril - the results will be devastating if you do.

GDB wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Dramatic footage of Russian assault on a Ukrainian outpost being repelled by artillery fire.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1639342501059260416

That's crazy to be able to watch something like that. It's also crazy that even though Ukrainian artillery was coming down right on them, the Russians kept advancing until only a few appear left alive.

Why didn't the Russians drop some of their gear so they could move faster? Icy, frozen ground looks like about zero degrees f. Brutal - war really does suck.

I was watching and thinking is this meant to be a section attack on that trench position?
Where’s the covering fire, for fire and maneuver from the section machine gun, just one example showing they just appeared not to have an idea what to do.
All the while being watched and zeroed.

Listening yesterday to a podcast about the war, a guest was Mark Urban, starting out as a young tank commander in a British Army Of the Rhine Chieftain tank in the early 80’s, to being an author, reporter, documentary maker, Urban pointed out that after the noises early on about ‘the death of the tank’ then similar about attack helicopters, the issue and what we are seeing, as the link Vintage posted showed so dramatically, is ‘the transparent battlefield’.
Those who adapt to that, can use it to their advantage more than the enemy, is in a much better position.

We’ve seen plenty of vehicles get destroyed, god knows I’ve posted enough of those on here, usually and increasingly with few or just one shot, from artillery.
I agree that Ukraine has the advantage in the use of drones, they are adapting commercial ones, making their own often in small, dispersed facilities, their employment and I bet this isn’t true with the Russians, issued down to the smallest units with much more autonomy of use.

The part 2 of this attack at a Ukrainian trench.

A couple of RU soldiers made it to the trench and exchanged fired with the entrenched Ukrainians. Two Ukrainian armored vehicles eventually intervened and chased the Russians.

Several Russian soldiers didn't make it back, they were left dead or dying.

Two links for the same video, the first one being the most graphic.
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1640019731712299011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLWqxChQAxY

art wrote:

par13del wrote:

art wrote:

Yes, I recall Russia/Syria being warned not to use chemical weapons on pain of dire consequences if they did. I also remember them being used with no dire consequences resulting from their use.

If Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, how does the West (meaning US in this case) respond?

The Europeans will first tell the US that they are on the other side of the pond and will not bear the consequences of any escalation from more missiles or refugees, so the US will consult with the European Allies, strong statements, condemnations, additional sanctions and increase funding for Ukraine including more weapons will be announced and the world will continue while China request an investigation at the UN to see if it was a false flag attack.

Unless my information is wrong, there is a war going on in Donetsk and has been for years. Also in Luhansk. These are part of Russia, if one is to believe Putin. If a chemical attack (ie a WMD attack) by Russia takes place and the West declines using a tactical nuke in response, how about a mass attack by cruise missiles on Donetsk and/or Luhansk and/or Crimea? Could UK submarines be used as well US.subs? If there is no big, painful response to the use of a WMD, that effectively gives Putin a licence to repeat their use.

I don't see this as a Ukraine war thing. I think that any countries initiating the use of chemical weapons need to be made to really suffer as a result of their use. An example needs to be made of them. Do this at your peril - the results will be devastating if you do.

Your information IS wrong (and you've not provided sources to verify you claims), Both Donetesk and Luthansk are Ukranian cities currently occupied by Russia as a result of the latter's invasion of Ukraine. Even if Putin and other delusional Russians considers these cities as part of Russia doesn't mean it's true. These cities are Ukrainian cities no matter how much you want them to be Russian cities,

https://www.britannica.com/place/Donetsk-Ukraine

Donetsk, also spelled Doneck, formerly (until 1924) Yuzivka or Yuzovka, also spelled Iuzovka, (1924–61) Stalino, city, southeastern Ukraine

https://www.britannica.com/place/Luhansk-Ukraine

Luhansk, Russian Lugansk, formerly (1935–58, 1970–89) Voroshilovgrad, Ukrainian Voroshylovhrad, city, eastern Ukraine

art wrote:

Perhaps there is some alternative - masses of cruise missile strikes, for example, as per the Gulf War.

Not this either.

The US has hinted that there would be a total air dominance response where the US will destroy all Russian assets in Ukraine through conventional means.

bt

tomcat wrote:

GDB wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

That's crazy to be able to watch something like that. It's also crazy that even though Ukrainian artillery was coming down right on them, the Russians kept advancing until only a few appear left alive.

Why didn't the Russians drop some of their gear so they could move faster? Icy, frozen ground looks like about zero degrees f. Brutal - war really does suck.

I was watching and thinking is this meant to be a section attack on that trench position?
Where’s the covering fire, for fire and maneuver from the section machine gun, just one example showing they just appeared not to have an idea what to do.
All the while being watched and zeroed.

Listening yesterday to a podcast about the war, a guest was Mark Urban, starting out as a young tank commander in a British Army Of the Rhine Chieftain tank in the early 80’s, to being an author, reporter, documentary maker, Urban pointed out that after the noises early on about ‘the death of the tank’ then similar about attack helicopters, the issue and what we are seeing, as the link Vintage posted showed so dramatically, is ‘the transparent battlefield’.
Those who adapt to that, can use it to their advantage more than the enemy, is in a much better position.

We’ve seen plenty of vehicles get destroyed, god knows I’ve posted enough of those on here, usually and increasingly with few or just one shot, from artillery.
I agree that Ukraine has the advantage in the use of drones, they are adapting commercial ones, making their own often in small, dispersed facilities, their employment and I bet this isn’t true with the Russians, issued down to the smallest units with much more autonomy of use.

The part 2 of this attack at a Ukrainian trench.

A couple of RU soldiers made it to the trench and exchanged fired with the entrenched Ukrainians. Two Ukrainian armored vehicles eventually intervened and chased the Russians.

Several Russian soldiers didn't make it back, they were left dead or dying.

Two links for the same video, the first one being the most graphic.
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1640019731712299011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLWqxChQAxY

Just dropped today, excuse the pun. Tense, the two RU that made it, one got slotted, the other managed to lob a grenade, later after the Armour came in, the MBT crashing through the trees and engaging the retreating or regrouping Russians.
The others in the first part seemed to be a diversion while the position was flanked?
They certainly left a lot behind.

Speaking of those 'Ps' I mention before, with this weeks Perun video delayed, here is a 25 min documentary from the MoD, about the intensive training the Ukrainian tankers had, in a compressed time frame, on Challenger 2's in the UK.
From early lessons on the basics to tactical training and live firing;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9-Eghtai3s

Similar will be going on in Germany, Poland, Spain, the US now or sooner rather than later.
These are vehicles much more complex than the Soviet/Russian models they are used to.
But so much more formidable.

I don't know... I don't understand the interest in seeing the enemy being killed. I see countless videos of Ukrainians being killed posted by non-Russians who loathe the culture of the west and countless videos of Russians being killed posted by non-Ukrainians. What is the purpose of making the deaths of soldiers available for all to see? This interest in seeing people's lives being ended or marred by injury eludes me. Where there is analysis of the tactics used by the troops or tanks. I can see some point to posting such videos but I don't see any point in watching someone die because a drone dropped a grenade next to him or a tank and the people in it being wiped out by artillery fire or an anti-tank missile. We all know that grenades can kill people. We all know that artillery fire and anti-tank missiles can destroy tanks.

I'm baffled by videos of these scenes being repeated again and again and again. Do people in general find these entertaining? From the light-hearted comments accompanying many of the links to these videos, it seems that many people enjoy seeing people being killed. I find that sad.

art wrote:

If Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, how does the West (meaning US in this case) respond? The proportional response would be unleashing a tactical nuclear strike somewhere in occupied Ukraine, wouldn't it?

No, the proportional response would be to do similar damage, or to give Ukraine the means to do so.

NATO is more then capable to do so without using nukes or other WMDs.

Remember, Ukraine is decimating entire Russian divisions by NATO leftover equipment (often retired equipment). If NATO decides to take play ball, it will be with their best equipment, operated by troops that have had years of training. There’ll be nothing left of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine within weeks if not days.

art wrote:

I don't know... I don't understand the interest in seeing the enemy being killed. I see countless videos of Ukrainians being killed posted by non-Russians who loathe the culture of the west and countless videos of Russians being killed posted by non-Ukrainians. What is the purpose of making the deaths of soldiers available for all to see? This interest in seeing people's lives being ended or marred by injury eludes me. Where there is analysis of the tactics used by the troops or tanks. I can see some point to posting such videos but I don't see any point in watching someone die because a drone dropped a grenade next to him or a tank and the people in it being wiped out by artillery fire or an anti-tank missile. We all know that grenades can kill people. We all know that artillery fire and anti-tank missiles can destroy tanks.

I'm baffled by videos of these scenes being repeated again and again and again. Do people in general find these entertaining? From the light-hearted comments accompanying many of the links to these videos, it seems that many people enjoy seeing people being killed. I find that sad.

It is sad to see this. The world is full of sick minds. And of course, it's easy for these sickos to say things behind the veil of a computer keyboard.

But there is one audience that does need to see it - the Russian people. If enough see the incredible waste that this war is, perhaps they would finally start to ask questions.

It was even less brutal TV coverage of the Vietnam War that played a large role in turning the American people against that war.

And YouTube isn't banned in Russia so they are seeing this video too.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

art wrote:

Unless my information is wrong, there is a war going on in Donetsk and has been for years. Also in Luhansk. These are part of Russia, if one is to believe Putin.

Your information IS wrong (and you've not provided sources to verify you claims), Both Donetesk and Luthansk are Ukranian cities...[/i]

Hey, I did not say those two oblasts are part of Russia. I don't believe they are. Putin does.

art wrote:

I don't know... I don't understand the interest in seeing the enemy being killed. I see countless videos of Ukrainians being killed posted by non-Russians who loathe the culture of the west and countless videos of Russians being killed posted by non-Ukrainians. What is the purpose of making the deaths of soldiers available for all to see? This interest in seeing people's lives being ended or marred by injury eludes me. Where there is analysis of the tactics used by the troops or tanks. I can see some point to posting such videos but I don't see any point in watching someone die because a drone dropped a grenade next to him or a tank and the people in it being wiped out by artillery fire or an anti-tank missile. We all know that grenades can kill people. We all know that artillery fire and anti-tank missiles can destroy tanks.

I'm baffled by videos of these scenes being repeated again and again and again. Do people in general find these entertaining? From the light-hearted comments accompanying many of the links to these videos, it seems that many people enjoy seeing people being killed. I find that sad.

Entertainment? No, not me. Seeing what is going on, yes. It might have escaped your notice but these Russians meeting their demise, or getting wounded and/or captured, are involved in a war that has been marked, from the early days, by their deliberate brutality against civilians.
In Mariupol a building housing civilians including many children, had a huge letters easily seen from the air 'Children'.
They bombed it.
Shall I go back to find the video of a young Ukrainian man, stopped at a checkpoint, gang raped 8 times?

But the first evidence of deliberate murders of non combatants in numbers, not jumpy trigger fingers by scared troops, a year ago;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqAlcTlO7sA

At the first major are liberate, not the first and more, likely worse is to come, not isolated but standard operating procedure, looting anything they can get along the way.
Not FSB, not just Wagners, in fact just standard Russian troops for the most part.

God knows for too long was the 'only the SS did war crimes' BS persist, all those of Hitler's generals who managed to escape the noose with their BS memoirs, all 'it was Hitler who made all the mistakes' (which they signed off on and always came back how ever many times he sacked them), plus of course 'we knew nothing of the Holocaust'.
Thanks to the bugging operation on captured German officers at places like Latimer House in England, transcripts only released 15 or so years ago, plenty below their ranks knew, often took part, said the top brass knew as well.

In particular it's been a war on women, just as Putin's weirdo Orthodox patriarchs like it, from taking children from their mothers, the already numerous reports of rapes, of women of all ages, children, in front of parents.
A long form discussion on this and other aspects of the war, as with other nations in major wars of survival, it does drive society changes too;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEsmqE_-jCw&t=562s

Russians will stop dying and being maimed in Ukraine when either their leaders withdraw them or enough revolt, at home too, happened before in Russian history when out of touch regimes launch disasters like this war.

@GDB
I don't place you in the ranks of those who revel in death in the ranks of the enemy. Perhaps I did not phrase it well but I can see value in a visual record for the purpose of comment and analysis, something you do.

Indeed, a multitude of Russians have been responsible for a multitude of war crimes.

Guys,

Earlier we were commenting about that attack of 30 Russian on an outpost manned by 8 Ukrainian.

Even with mortar support, the Russian managed to get on top of the trench. Scarry close up combat.

Then more scary, Ukrainian armor, looks like one tank and once AFV, came to the rescue.

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1640 ... A8d_w&s=19

bt

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

Perhaps there is some alternative - masses of cruise missile strikes, for example, as per the Gulf War.

Not this either.

The US has hinted that there would be a total air dominance response where the US will destroy all Russian assets in Ukraine through conventional means.

bt

I believe that this would be the correct response. This would also show Russia that the West has moral superiority since they responded, hurt the Russian war effort more than Russia did the Ukrainian one, yet didn't use WMDs.