OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Targan]

For the Ukrainians to manage to sink a Russian cruiser, that's quite an achievement. Fair to say that would be the most expensive individual piece of hardware the Russians have lost as a result of Putin's current folly?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

For the Ukrainians to manage to sink a Russian cruiser, that's quite an achievement. Fair to say that would be the most expensive individual piece of hardware the Russians have lost as a result of Putin's current folly?

I work with marketing teams all the time and the timing of the announcement of this stamp and the sinking, is more than you can ask for. I hope they sell 10s of millions of those stamps.







Edit the website is overloaded and they would not be available yet but giving them a link. http://pm.ukrposhta.ua/nishop.php (Ukrainian postal service)

edit 2 removed ?? from sinking. Russia admitted it.

[Bestbrian]

Originally Posted by kato13

I work with marketing teams all the time and the timing of the announcement of this stamp and the sinking?? is more than you can ask for. I hope they sell 10s of millions of those stamps.

That's gold, Jerry! GOLD!

[Raellus]

Here's what's in the latest US military aid package for Ukraine:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...age-to-ukraine

-

[pmulcahy11b]

It's been confirmed on the major news channels (even Fox) -- The Moskva has sunk!

Most of crew had gotten off before it sunk.

Now, which do you believe:
1) A spontaneous fire broke out aboard her
2) The Ukrainians fired two antiship missiles at her
3) Two missiles hit her, which are what caused the fire in the first place.

[Raellus]

The irony.

I think 2 & 3 most likely.

This brief AP article provides a little history about the Moskva.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-wa...d50470e2519982

I always thought the Slava class cruisers were the most attractive warships in the Soviet navy. Their cruise missile tubes were intimidating.

-

[shrike6]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

It's been confirmed on the major news channels (even Fox) -- The Moskva has sunk!

Most of crew had gotten off before it sunk.

Now, which do you believe:
1) A spontaneous fire broke out aboard her
2) The Ukrainians fired two antiship missiles at her
3) Two missiles hit her, which are what caused the fire in the first place.

I'd like to think 2 and 3 happened but the experts on the news tend to think 1. We'll see which it is.

[kcdusk]

From Russias point of view, neither option is good.
1. Yes, our crew is so incompetent we started a fire on board that was so bad, we sunk; or
2. Yes, Ukraine sunk her with an anti-ship missile.

I don't know which scenario is more damaging to admit too.

[kato13]

Russian TV seems to be blaming Kyiv for the sinking of the Moskva and are calling it a Casus Belli for expanding attacks on Kyiv and railways.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...66062771875851

The story of an accidental explosion appears to have unraveled.

[Targan]

The most dangerous times in the conflict are now approaching. And by that I mean that Putin's plans have gone so very, very off-the-rails that circumstances have now almost certainly moved outside the branching tree of possible outcomes that he had prepared for. He may have the kind of mind that can step back and start planning calmly for the new reality he finds himself in. Or he may start to act more like a caged animal that's paranoid and irrational.

I think the only really smart thing he's done in recent times is put the entire conflict under the operational command of a highly efficient, ruthless killer of a general officer. Smart in terms of having some hope of salvaging the situation on the ground. Perhaps not so smart in that the man he's put in charge has shown no hesitation in Syria to utilise indiscriminate slaughter of civilians on a really large scale, including the use of chemical weapons.

There is probably some red line that NATO and/or the US will regard as the point at which direct intervention is necessary. I could be wrong. I don't think it's anywhere near the point that Russian nukes will start popping off, but I could be wrong about that too.

[Bestbrian]

Originally Posted by Targan

The most dangerous times in the conflict are now approaching. And by that I mean that Putin's plans have gone so very, very off-the-rails that circumstances have now almost certainly moved outside the branching tree of possible outcomes that he had prepared for. He may have the kind of mind that can step back and start planning calmly for the new reality he finds himself in. Or he may start to act more like a caged animal that's paranoid and irrational.

I think the only really smart thing he's done in recent times is put the entire conflict under the operational command of a highly efficient, ruthless killer of a general officer. Smart in terms of having some hope of salvaging the situation on the ground. Perhaps not so smart in that the man he's put in charge has shown no hesitation in Syria to utilise indiscriminate slaughter of civilians on a really large scale, including the use of chemical weapons.

There is probably some red line that NATO and/or the US will regard as the point at which direct intervention is necessary. I could be wrong. I don't think it's anywhere near the point that Russian nukes will start popping off, but I could be wrong about that too.

Russia utilizing NBC weapons would enrage the world, make things very uncomfortable for the Chinese, and pretty much ensure some degree of direct NATO involvement; I like to think they're not that stupid and/or desperate. Additionally, Russian attacks on military aid to Ukraine, inside the borders of third countries, would likely be considered a breach of Article 5, so, despite Russian diplomatic bluster, I consider it highly unlikely. Putin is looking to move the goalposts and to get some positive momentum so that he can declare victory and go home, and widening the war to include first rank military powers isn't going to help him achieve that. I expect them to concentrate every boot, rifle, and track on just hammering away until they can claim they "liberated" the Donbas.

[Raellus]

One has to to wonder what lessons Putin drew from NATO's lukewarm response to Assad ignoring a declared "red line" and continuing to use chemical weapons against his own people in Syria. What did NATO do? A: Lobbed a dozen or so Tomahawks at an airbase or two. Is Putin going to worry too much about a strong NATO response if he authorizes the use of chemical weapons on Ukrainian trench lines in the Donbass?

-

[kcdusk]

I've given up trying to agree on what line to cross is too far. There have been 3, 4 or 6 or 7 times in this war i've thought, Whooa - too far.

Yet no response from NATO. Because they didn't want to provoke Russia. Which left me thinking there is no line that's too far.

It made me think back to high school and no one wanted to stand up to the yard bully. He's walking around hitting people but no one wanted to stand up to him, least they be hit. Do you know what happened? He kept walking around hitting people! By not doing anything, the worst happened any way!

I'm not in favour of war. But i also think NATO should be doing more. If they won't get involved during the Ukraine invasion, when will they? Poland? Spain?!

[Raellus]

South Korea probably wants to steer well clear of the Ukraine War, but its upgraded T-80Us (sent to the ROK by Russia to pay off Soviet-era debts) would be a welcome addition to Ukraine's MBT force. It's not like the ROK really needs them. Their locally built K1 (mini Abrams) and K2 Black Panthers are highly capable, and they still have quite a few upgraded M48s in reserve.

-

[Drgonzo2011]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

I'm not in favour of war. But i also think NATO should be doing more. If they won't get involved during the Ukraine invasion, when will they? Poland? Spain?!

What would you suggest? So far, NATO has figured out a way to keep Ukraine afloat and avoid a direct fight with the Russians, while killing a lot of their men, destroying a lot of their hardware and demonstrating that the Russian military is vastly overrated. Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, giving the alliance a nice boost and the Germans seem ready to expand the Bundeswher. As an added bonus, China must be seriously questioning their alliance with Russia, feeling much like the Germans did vis-a-vis Italy during World War Two (a nation with a military that looked good on paper, but performed poorly and required constant support). While I won't go so far as to say that the Western policies have been a complete success - the war isn't over yet and the moves in the weeks leading up to the conflict failed to deter the Russians - they have been both measured and effective.

Given the risks from a more direct confrontation and the limited (if any) additional rewards, what would be gained? I'm curious because I hear this frustration from others, but never have gotten a good reply.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Drgonzo2011

Given the risks from a more direct confrontation and the limited (if any) additional rewards, what would be gained? I'm curious because I hear this frustration from others, but never have gotten a good reply.

I guess that's why i didn't offer a solution. Its more a feeling of these constant, daily war atrocities in this day and age, feels so wrong. This can't be the lessor of two evils, can it (perhaps it is)?

I agree NATO has done well to impose economic sanctions, and Ukraine has done well to hold its own. Is this because of good management? Was this the plan all along?

Or dumb luck Russia hasn't lived up to expectations?

[Raellus]

I think the sanctions need to be strengthened, or at least tightened up considerably. I've heard that there are multiple loopholes that the Russians are actively exploiting. After the first week of the war, news reports were all like, "The Russian economy is on the verge of collapse!" That was a month ago. In the meantime, it appears that they've figured out how to circumvent some of the sanctions and cope with the economic impact of those that are actually working. So that leverage is apparently not as strong as the media initially reported.

Apart from that, I think the US shouldn't have chickened out on the transfer of Polish MiG-29s. It's not too late, I imagine, to pass them along. They're not going to change the game, but in the absence of a no-fly zone, a few more fighters would help the Ukrainians defend their cities from bombing. Last I heard, the Slovak MiGs are still on the way.

And The Drive recently suggested that the Romanians should give Ukraine their recently grounded fleet of MiG-21s (which are slated to be replaced by second-hand F-16s soon anyway).

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ded-to-ukraine

-

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Drgonzo2011

Given the risks from a more direct confrontation and the limited (if any) additional rewards, what would be gained? I'm curious because I hear this frustration from others, but never have gotten a good reply.

I think there is almost zero chance the Russians would launch nukes in response to direct NATO military intervention in Ukraine. I'm not sure what you mean by "additional rewards", but time after time we've seen western nations go into conflicts essentially to enrich themselves while telling the world it was the "right thing to do". Well this time the right thing to do is to stop a totally unjustified invasion and the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians, and that's the reward.

[pmulcahy11b]

What's a good way to rally the people around you? Go to War!

Unless it goes on too long, gets too expensive, the people at home are tired of being downtrodden...

Regardless of what Putin wants, Putin is not Stalin, or even Khrushchev...

[Raellus]

Putin's done a pretty good job of muzzling dissent at home. Even exiles aren't safe from the long arm of the FSB.

I think we need to look at the lessons of history. Appeasement doesn't work. It only encourages aggression. The world basically turned a blind eye to the Russian seizure of Crimea in 2014. Look where we are now.

The EU/UN/NATO were slow to intervene during the Yugoslav Wars (1991-2001). As a result, tens of thousands of civilians were killed. More were displaced. Ethnic cleansing entered the English lexicon.

When NATO finally did intervene- first, by implementing a no-fly zone, later by conducting airstrikes and putting boots on the ground- the Yugoslav Wars were ended.

Unfortunately, the situation in Ukraine is drastically different.

The elephant in the room today is that none of the afore-mentioned bad actors of the not-so-distant past had a nuclear arsenal. This complicates things immensely. How does one stand up to a nuclear-armed bully without triggering Armageddon?

-

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The elephant in the room today is that none of the afore-mentioned bad actors of the not-so-distant past had a nuclear arsenal. This complicates things immensely. How does one stand up to a nuclear-armed bully without triggering Armageddon?

Taking just about any negative action against Russia could trigger a nuclear response. Sanctions could trigger a nuclear response. Sanctions were put in place anyway, because the judgement call was made that Putin/the Russian leadership wouldn't knowingly end their own existence and the existence of viable human civilisation on this planet in response to sanctions.

Well I say that the first genuinely risky breakpoint for the use of Russian nukes would be Russia facing an immediate existential military threat (foreign forces rolling onto Russian territory for instance). The next step down from that would be Putin thinking his own survival was at stake (although I really doubt those around him would be willing to kick off the end of the world just because he might lose his life or his position as Russian dictator-for-life).

I straight-up don't believe that the Russians would knowingly commit mass suicide over their forces being kicked out of a country they're invading. I just don't see it happening. At the VERY least I think there should be a NATO-led no-fly zone enforced over western Ukraine. Yes it absolutely would probably elicit some sort of military response from Russia, but come on. Many of the old guard on this forum literally TRAINED to shoot at the the Russian military back in the day. In my barracks in the 90s we certainly had to know the enemy vehicle recognition posters off by heart. It was all but assumed by most of NATO that a big fight was inevitable, eventually.

All those decades we faced off against the whole of the Soviet Union, ready to roll at any time. Now we're in this bizarre erectile dysfunction-riddled world where we're taking a softly-softly approach against just a fraction of the old USSR, letting Russia dictate to countries we're allied with that they'd better not join NATO or else. Or else what? Say it out loud, Russia. What kind of trippy fever dream reality are we living in where many western conservatives friggin' ADMIRE Vladimir Putin? WTAF? Did someone sneak in during the night and cut the balls off the lot of us without us noticing?

[pmulcahy11b]

What do we do after a single tac nuke strike without it escalating into the Twilight War?

[Raellus]

This article drives how how badly Ukraine needs long-range, mobile, counter-battery fire capability as the war enters its next phase in the Donbass.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ght-for-donbas

Frankly, I think the confirmed 18 towed 155mm guns that the US is giving Ukraine are little moral than a symbolic gesture. NATO should send them MLRS systems and [more] counter-battery radars, STAT.

Once the Russians have seized territory in the east, it's going to be very difficult to drive them out of it. I have to wonder if the Ukrainian flag will ever fly over Mariupol again.

Slava Ukraini!

-

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think I mentioned it before, but this article drives how how badly Ukraine Ukraine needs long-range, mobile, counter-battery fire capability.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ght-for-donbas

Frankly, I think the confirmed 18 towed 155mm guns that the US is giving Ukraine are little moral than a symbolic gesture. NATO should send them MLRS systems and [more] counter-battery radars, STAT.

Once the Russians have seized territory, it's going to be very difficult to drive them out of it.

-

The US, UK, and Canada all announced today they're sending additional "heavy artillery" to Ukraine, which I presume will be either 105mm or 155mm based on what each country has in use currently. There were also some AN/TPQ-36 in the last assistance package, and I imagine there'll be more as US troops finish doing train-the-trainer training with Ukrainian forces.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

The US, UK, and Canada all announced today they're sending additional "heavy artillery" to Ukraine, which I presume will be either 105mm or 155mm based on what each country has in use currently. There were also some AN/TPQ-36 in the last assistance package, and I imagine there'll be more as US troops finish doing train-the-trainer training with Ukrainian forces.

That's something, but those are probably towed systems, which are more vulnerable to counter-battery fire than mobile systems. The Soviets have a huge numerical superiority in artillery. The Ukrainians have been so far been quite successful with hit-and-run attacks. SPAAGs or MLRS would lend themselves much better to said tactics than static tube artillery.

-

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's something, but those are probably towed systems, which are more vulnerable to counter-battery fire than mobile systems. The Soviets have a huge numerical superiority in artillery. The Ukrainians have been so far been quite successful with hit-and-run attacks. SPAAGs or MLRS would lend themselves much better to said tactics than static tube artillery.

-

My guess is that there is some consideration being given to the logistics of getting field artillery into theater. M777 is technically an ultralight howitzer, which means more tubes delivered per C17 flight. Once you have the 18 on the ground, you still have 40K rounds to deliver after that, which I suspect, a significant amount of which will probably end up in Ukr SOF hands as IEDs.

[Raellus]

Ukraine's operational MiG-29 fleet has grown, but NOT because its received replacement aircraft.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...red-to-ukraine

Do you think NATO is covertly sending whole aircraft to Ukraine, but only publicly saying that they're sending spare parts?

-

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's something, but those are probably towed systems, which are more vulnerable to counter-battery fire than mobile systems. The Soviets have a huge numerical superiority in artillery. The Ukrainians have been so far been quite successful with hit-and-run attacks. SPAAGs or MLRS would lend themselves much better to said tactics than static tube artillery.

-

Ukraine already has more self-propelled artillery than the United States (over 1000 combined units of Gvozdika, Akatsiya, Giatsint-S, Pion, and Msta-S compared to 850 Paladin), and a little less than half as many MLRS (450+ Grad, ~75 Uragan and 75 Smerch [around 600 launchers total] to 500 HIMARS and ~1000 M270A1 MLRS). It would probably be more helpful to offer replacements to allies that can send Soviet/Russian-caliber weaponry to Ukraine, like Czech Republic sending Dana artillery vehicles and RM-70 rocket launchers, to keep Ukraine's logistics from spiraling out of control with a bunch of incompatible ammunition types.

Other allies might send self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, but the US doesn't really have any. I suppose we could send Avenger, but Ukraine already has Gecko and Gopher in the short-range self-propelled anti-aircraft missile world, along with however many Stormer vehicles the UK ends up sending.

Supplying vehicles ends up raising a number of questions, some of which are likely relatively simple concerns, but some of which could be real problems in the middle of a shooting war:
1. How easy are they to operate by soldiers who aren't literate in English? Can all the labels (and manuals) be easily produced in Ukrainian for use by soldiers literate in that language? This is likely to need specialized translators who know Ukrainian military jargon to ensure ease of understanding.
2. What's the spare parts supply chain look like? Can parts be easily shipped in to Ukraine to maintain these vehicles that likely have no parts commonality with Ukraine's ex-WP supply chain?
3. How long does it take to train mechanics to keep these vehicles running? What effect will the time for that training have on their ability to keep existing forces maintained?
4. As touched on briefly above, what does adding yet another caliber do to supply chain logistics? Their vehicular artillery already uses 120mm, 122mm, 152mm, and 203mm shells. Adding 155mm (and possibly 105mm) increases complexity. This wouldn't be as much of an issue if the 155mm Bohdana had replaced large numbers of the ex-Soviet self-propelled artillery, but only the prototype(s) have been built and still haven't been fully tested. On the MLRS side, they have 122mm, 220mm, and 280mm launchers, while the US uses 227mm and 610mm rockets. Would countries using vehicles with the same caliber of weapons as Ukraine (Poland, Romania, Algeria, India, Bosnia & Herzegovina, etc) be interested in "selling" them to Ukraine to "buy" systems from the United States as a way to both modernize their equipment and supply Ukraine with vehicles they can already arm and maintain?

[kato13]

VW agree with everything you said. However, while I am torn about it, I would love to send them a few HIMARS with the traditional rockets and few ATACMS given what they Ukrainians did with their twice tested Neptun missiles.

Their ability to leverage limited resources for maximum effect makes me want to give them a few tools with better accuracy characteristics for really prime targets.

I am torn because of the political downsides, as the ATACMS could hit really deep into Russia, Would be clearly supplied by NATO (even 155mm shells have deniability due to local production), and could easily (on accident) hit something clearly civilian or culturally important well outside of the borders of the current conflict. EDIT ADD I am hearing that such concerns - Use deep inside Russia, was part of the reason for the delay in sending planes. Imagine if a transferred Polish Mig-29 crashed into the Kremlin

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kato13

Imagine if a transferred Polish Mig-29 crashed into the Kremlin

Imagine indeed. Thank you for that image. It has greatly lifted my mood.