The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
While we're on the topic of Crimea, I think if Ukraine is serious about ever getting Crimea back, it's going to be a race against time.

The international community has renewed support for Ukraine in this war, so if Ukraine pushes toward Crimea while people still remember this war, it's not going to face significant obstacles from the west.
If it waits a long time. Like, say, 20 years, it's hard to imagine they'll get any support for that move.

Considering Ukraine's military, economical, and humanitarian situation, taking Crimea back within reasonable time would either be a miracle, or a dangerous gamble.
So we should get used to the idea of Crimea staying in Russia.
 

Aerojoe

New Member
I really have to disagree. Nothing about this whole ordeal was unprovoked. NATO, and especially the US have been expanding their influence over Eastern Europe for years, ignoring and disregarding Russia's security concerns (and to one extent agreements). Months before it all went down, the Russian delegations were continuously demanding not to expand onto Ukraine, but it was all ignored. Which of course the US benefitted greatly from, especially on the economic side, as they managed to once again break the trade agreements Russia has been so desperately trying to make with Europe for the last two decades. Thus the provocation was indeed there, and an obvious one. I find it hard to believe the Kremlin decided to intervene randomly, "just because".

Now, whether it justified the military intervention, that's up to debatable. And what could the alternatives have been or looked like, I don't have the knowledge or ability to analyze.

And lastly, yes, Ukraine is a sovereign country and can choose to do whatever the majority of their people wish for. But what happens when some of these choices directly threaten the sovereignty of another country? That's quite a grey area, wouldn't you agree? If not, we'd still have Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuba. And judging by the list of military operations the US (and to an extent NATO) has launched in the last 30 years, I can't really call it a peaceful, purely defensive military alliance.
I struggle to understand the argument that NATO expansionist behaviour provoked this war. NATO is an organisation sovereign states apply to join due to their own assessment of their strategic security interests (Finland a current case in point). To imply NATO made any of the ex-Soviet states join is to deny the sovereign status of those States. What would suggest as an alternative - ex-Soviet are not allowed to exercise their full range of sovereign rights because it might upset Putin?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Update.

Kiev Area.

Night time missile strikes, Kiev.


The Vizir factory that works on AShMs in Kiev was hit by a Russian strike. I think this answers the question of what happened to the Moskva.


An explosion near Brovary, unclear what at this time.


Allegedly Brazilian fighters near Kiev.


The North.

Russian air defenses firing, Belgorod region.


The village of Klimov, Bryansk region, Russia, got by a Ukrainian helicopter airstrike. Unclear whether there were any targets of military value. 7 civilians were wounded.


Russian border checkpoint at Novye Yurkovichi was shot at from the Ukrainian side of the border, Bryansk region.


Zhuravlevka, Belgorod region, Russia, was hit by fire from the Ukrainian side.


Russian border checkpoint in Kursk region was fired on from the Ukrainian side.


Zheleznogorks, Kursk region, Russian civilians greeting Russian troops headed to Ukraine.


Kharkov-Sumy-Poltava.

Russian fires against Ukrainian infiltrator or recon teams, Kharkov area.


Russian strikes against targets in Poltava region.


Russian 2S7s firing, towards Kharkov.


Russian troops have taken out several alleged Ukrainian infiltrator teams using civilian vehicles to move around. Weapons, uniforms, and body armor were found inside.


Russian MANPADS operator, Kharkov region.


Ukrainian T-64BV near Kharkov.


Russian column, Kharkov region, local civilians are waving Russian flags. If this is not staged, nor misattributed (scenes like this would make sense on the Russian side of the border) this would be the first case of this happening.


Russia delivers humanitarian aid, Kharkov region.


Zaporozhye-Dnepropetrovsk.

Tokmak got hit by a Tochka missile. To the best of my knowledge, the city is in Russian hands.


Explosions in Zaporozhye, context unclear.


Russia captured weapons in Ulyanovka, Zaporozhye region. I suspect this wasn't from fighting but from a weapons cache.


Russian checkpoint, Dneprorudniy.


Russian troops, Zaporozhskaya NPP.


More poletaping, Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk, respectively.


Retreating Ukrainian troops dumped all the coal out of the train cars in Vasilevka, Zaporozhye region. This has blocked rail communication through that hub.


Russia has repainted the sign into Energodar with the colors of the Russian flag. Military-Civilian Administrations were recently set up in the south, in occupied areas.


Kherson-Nikolaev-Odessa.

Alleged Ukrainian forces staging area hit by cruise missiles.


4 or 5 destroyed Ukrainian BTR-80s near Nikolaev.


Russian Forpost UAV over Odessa.


Russian artillery near Kherson.


Russian security forces continue to operate, Kherson region.


Russian security forces, in the pumping station of the Kahovskaya canal.

 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Izyum Salient.

Alleged Ukrainian cluster munition strike on Chistovodovka, a small town near Izyum, in Russian hands.


Ukrainian Su-24M or two shot down near Izyum, one pilot is KIA, and the body and documents were captured by Russian forces.


An extremely rare Russian BMO-T (heavy APC for thermobaric rocket-operators) was destroyed in Ukraine. It probably belongs to the 47th tank division, that's active in Kharkov region, and the Izyum Salient. I'm guessing it was destroyed in the recent fighting around Izyum, but it could be elsewhere.


Two destroyed Kozak armored cars.


Russian soldier in Izyum, note the battle damage visible in the background.


LDNR Front.

Destroyed Ukrainian vehicles in Staromlinovka, a small town on the border of Zaporozhye and Donetsk regions. I see remains of a Buk TELAR, a 2S7, a truck, a T-64BV, a BTS (4 or 5?), an S-300 TEL, and a Kozak armored car.


Anti-tank weapons captured in Popasnaya.


Russian mortarmen in LDNR area.


Russian attack helos, Donetsk region.


Russian T-80BV near Severodonetsk.


LNR MT-LB in Pervomayskoe.


Russian and rebel security forces at a powerplant in LNR area, sweeping the area, clearing mines and UXO.


Captured BTR-3 being used by LNR fighters.


Captured Ukrainian BMPs and MT-LBu being repaired by rebels.


Pole taping in Pokrovsk, Ukrainian held town in Donetsk region.


Mariupol'.

Footage of fighting near Azovstal, in a residential area. Footage is ~several days old.


Russian tanks in action, Mariupol'. They're using tanks to open holes in buildings to avoid Ukrainian fields of fire. You can also see the Marines' BTR-82A.


Russian BMP-3 and BTR-82A in action, Mariupol'.


Combat footage, Russian BTR-82A.


The Il'yich metallurgical plant in Mariupol' has fallen. Here is some UAV footage of episodes from the fighting.


Inside the Il'yich plant there are Ukrainian vehicles including an up-armored truck with Zs painted on the side, likely meant for trying to break out.


Russian tankers loading ammo, destroyed Ukrainian vehicles, Mariupol'.


Destroyed Ukrainian BTR-3 and two BMP-1s, Mariupol'.


Destroyed BTR-4, Mariupol'.


Allegedly Ukrainian T-64 fell off a bridge, Azovstal'.


Ukrainian warship, the Donbas, burned and sunken, port of Mariupol'.


Rebel troops of the interior, Mariupol'.


Rebel BMP-1 and BRM-1 in Mariupol'.


Russian/rebel tanks staged, Mariupol'.


More Chechen fighters arrive, Mariupol'.


Port of Mariupol', Russian troops have captured a Ukrainian armored boat.


Bulgarian sourced ammo captured by Russian forces in Mariupol'.


British citizen that joined the Ukrainian military has been taken POW in Mariupol'.


Mariupol', battle damage.


Large report from Mariupol', some footage of the fighting, much footage of the damage, and civilians still exiting the city. Towards the end they show damage to a monastery near Volnovakha, and a destroyed BTR-82A.


Aerial footage, smoke rising, Mariupol'.


Russian T-72B3mod'16 being repaired, Mariupol'.


Misc.

Russian strike against a moving Ukrainian vehicle, location and context unclear.


Russian Forpost-R striking targets over Ukraine. Context and location unclear.


Russian Ka-52 over Ukraine, context and location unclear.


A destroyed Ukrainian 2S7, location and context unclear. Based on the damage to the front, I suspect it's the same one we've seen before.


Allegedly, Ukrainian positions hit by a Russian airstrike, location unclear. You can see a destroyed MT-LB.


Ukrainian T-64BV hit a landmine, location and context unclear.


Russian Murmansk-BN EW operating in Ukraine.


Russian troop train carrying ancient Grad-1 MLRS, possibly meant for the rebels.


Russian CASEVAC, location unclear.


Russian Il-86 aerial command point taking off.


NATO/EU.

The US ships another 1000 Javelins to Ukraine.


Polish T-72Ms being delivered to Ukraine by truck.

 

south

Well-Known Member
Which first claim? I'm confused. The demands from Russia as of today are exactly the same as 2 months ago:
  • Ukraine's neutrality.
  • Recognition of Crimea as part of the RF. Independence of DNR/LNR.
  • "De-nazification".
The latter is quite a strong term, rather broad and unclear. The reference although exaggerated, is indeed referring to Azov, Aidar, Right Sector, etc. (I believe the latter two merged, don't know exactly). These groups do have a rather questionable ideology and ultranationalist ideals, and they do have their own list of criminal deeds. Worst of all, they have a strong presence politically, which is the main concern. And as long as they do, and are prominent, both pro-Russian Ukrainians, Russians and the Kremlin itself are at threat. Personally, I believe Zelensky isn't keen on them either, as they are quite a pain in the ass to deal with, so getting rid of some of them in Mariupol could be a win-win for him (they have less power, and they died as heroes - perfect).
It is quite hard to believe that ‘de-nazification’ is a honest reason for the invasion and war, when the most powerful and influential mercenary group in Russia (and now deployed to Ukraine) is lead by a Neo-Nazi ultra nationalist.

Russia has been shown to lie repeatedly, including to their people internally through control of the media, threaten, coerce and attempt to kill internal and external threats, enable failed states use of chemical weapons, commit their own egregious war crimes, and go back on international agreements. But actually they are just misunderstood?

Why should we trust what is clearly an Autocratic state with a history of flagrantly disregarding a global rules based order?
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
And yet the first claim was that it's all about Neo-Nazis, so which is it? Before that, the troops were just there for exercises, remember?

Russia's changing justification is what should make it clear that they're just making excuses to expand, and didn't expect any real resistance. If that's not enough to set off your BS-radar, what about the fact that once they've taken this territory that they'll be surrounded by........more NATO members.
Yes, most wars are built on lies, this one completely so. Very amateurish performance by the Russian in the propaganda/information domain, though trying to justify the unjustifiable is always difficult.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I posted some comments on the Australian navy thread that are more appropriate here. We do not yet know the exact cause of why the seemingly well defended Moskva was hit by two sea skimming SSMs. The details of what explosions occurred afterwards are secondary. The point is that even a country without a navy can set up a shore battery with sea-skimming SSMs and use cheap drones to target them accurately. Such SSMs have been a threat dating back to the Falklands War.

By comparison back in 2016 the USS Mason (Arleigh Burke) was targetted by land based SSMs three times off Yemen, the last time with five SSMs fired at Mason. Each time radar picked up the missiles and a combination of decoys, chaff and defensive fire (SAMs) successfully defended the ship.

So apart from crew quality and maintenance, there seem to me to be some lessons. The main one is that “light” surface combatants without radars capable of picking up incoming SSMs linked to PDMs able to shoot them down have no place in a modern naval battle.

The second lesson depends on whether maintenance of the Moskva played a part in its loss. But if so, the idea of buying cheap, old second hand major surface ships, like retired Ticonderogas, to boost fleet numbers is folly.

Regarding the Russian navy, they seem to be reputation-ally damaged from this incident. They sent their flagship near an enemy coast, in poor weather, without any reported support. Either poor ship condition or poor seamanship or both led to its loss. No matter what the exact cause, that reads pretty badly. Now any future opponent would be tempted to fire a couple of SSMs from opposing sides at a Slava and see what happens.
The Moskva got some overhaul more than a decade ago, but from which i understand it did not get a modernisation/mid-life update. To keep large surface vessels active shouldn't be a problem, as long if they are in a good condition and updated with modern sensors, CMS, ESM/ECM and weapon systems, like the Project 1144 heavy cruiser Admiral Nakhimov.


Here an update about the Moskva, but many things are not clear yet.


And according to this news site another Russian general has been killed in action.
 
Last edited:
I really have to disagree. Nothing about this whole ordeal was unprovoked. NATO, and especially the US have been expanding their influence over Eastern Europe for years, ignoring and disregarding Russia's security concerns (and to one extent agreements). Months before it all went down, the Russian delegations were continuously demanding not to expand onto Ukraine, but it was all ignored. Which of course the US benefitted greatly from, especially on the economic side, as they managed to once again break the trade agreements Russia has been so desperately trying to make with Europe for the last two decades. Thus the provocation was indeed there, and an obvious one. I find it hard to believe the Kremlin decided to intervene randomly, "just because".

Now, whether it justified the military intervention, that's up to debatable. And what could the alternatives have been or looked like, I don't have the knowledge or ability to analyze.

And lastly, yes, Ukraine is a sovereign country and can choose to do whatever the majority of their people wish for. But what happens when some of these choices directly threaten the sovereignty of another country? That's quite a grey area, wouldn't you agree? If not, we'd still have Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuba. And judging by the list of military operations the US (and to an extent NATO) has launched in the last 30 years, I can't really call it a peaceful, purely defensive military alliance.
I completely agree that the West could have avoided this War by being showing just a bit of flexibility and willingness to compromise with Russia. Not so much in the months leading up to the War, I have come to the conclusion, Putin decided to invade at least 6 months ago and possibly more than a year ago.

But when the Soviet Union collapsed there was an opportunity to build a Security framework that accommodated everybody. Instead the attitude of the West, particularly America, was to kick the Russians while they were down and exploit every Security, Political and Business opportunity for all it was worth. This attitude continues to this day and has led to resentment building up over the years and eventually the total breakdown of trust, cooperation and general sorry state of affairs we see today. Which still may result in a Nuclear conflict.

Unfortunately the behaviour of the Russians, from their decision to invade, the needless destruction of Cities and Civilian Areas, continual spewing of blatant lies and now the war crimes and mass graves means the Americans are going to come out of this smelling of Roses (when they don't deserve to) and the Russians stinking of something else. Russia could have, and should have, managed the issue so much better.

The insipid performance of Russian Defence Forces and reported Purges and Arrests are hopefully an indication that Putin is on shaky ground and will fall soon. Russia desperately needs a new Government immediately, they are in a huge downward spiral at the moment and their Defence Forces are wasting Men, Equipment and Weapons at an extraordinary rate for absolutely no benefit.
 
Last edited:

Larso66

Member
"But when the Soviet Union collapsed there was an opportunity to build a Security framework that accommodated everybody. Instead the attitude of the West, particularly America, was to kick the Russians while they were down and exploit every Security, Political and Business opportunity for all it was worth."

I would agree that the post-Cold War years are yet another example of a bad peace being made. But the inherent weaknesses in Russian society - particularly corruption and a willingness by those with power to use brutality, almost ensured that yet another dysfunctional system emerged. This is the result of the terrible decisions made by earlier leaders but collectively Russians have not come into the modern world. Sure, it's hard to do that when Putin is your leader but like with the Germans and Hitler, the Russians bear the responsibility for the situation and its consequences.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Russia is facing problems on many fronts and here is another one.


Russia does produce semi-conductors, integrated circuit boards and CPUs locally but they are not as sophisticated or efficient as those it imports, or rather did import, from Intel and AMD. In fact with out importing certain components chip production may well have pretty much shut down.

It takes a long time to make a CPU and it isn't a process that can be rushed. It involves dozens of layers of silicon with testing at each step of the process. For a high end processor it will take about 3 months. The machines that they use to make these chips is also very specialised and can only be sourced from a few countries in the world. Without these chips you cant build precision weapons, aircraft, tanks ... well just about anything really. A few well placed missiles on the Baikal Electronics plant and Russia's ability to build just about anything other than dumb bombs, guns and ammunition would be extremely curtailed.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Note to all, please read the text in green if you intend to post:

Let’s attempt to define ‘sovereignty’, and share some relevant quotes from a lawyer, professor, diplomat, and author (who also holds the title of ambassador), that has argued and won a disputed claim between states before the International Court of Justice. IMO, Prof. *Tommy Koh*, is well qualified to write on matters of international law, with regard to Russia’s claims:-

1. Let me start with quotes from Prof Koh, the former UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to Russia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, on his 3 basic points on the UN charter:

“First, the charter confers on all states, big and small, sovereign equality under international law. What this means is that, legally, all states are equal and are entitled to the same rights. An example of this norm is that, in the UN General Assembly, every member state has one vote.
Second, the charter imposes a duty on all member states to settle their international disputes by peaceful means. In fact, force can only be used in self-defence to repel an armed attack on that state.
Third, the charter imposes a duty on all member states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
2. In law, sovereignty is the power of a state to make its own laws, regulations and/or enforce its rights and/or create limited obligations of its citizens within territory that is recognised by other states. This concept of sovereignty infers that the sovereign (i.e. state enacting the law or regulation) has legitimate authority and its laws or regulations are subject to judicial review.

3. The term sovereignty also carries implications of the right of a state to delegate state powers and to grant institutions a certain level of autonomy, including the conduct of war declared by a state and acted upon by its armed forces. This is always subject to judicial review by judicial process (provided that such judiciary has a track record of independence). Subject to the obligations under the UN Charter, when we say a state has sovereign power, it means a state has power beyond the power of others to interfere.

*Backgrounder on Prof. Tommy Koh
(a) Education
1961: University of Malaya (LLB, Hons)
1964: Harvard University (LLM)
1965: Cambridge University (postgraduate diploma in criminology)
(b) Select list of national & international awards
  • 1993: Commander, Order of the Golden Ark, The Netherlands
  • 1997: Grand Cross of the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins, Chile
  • 2000: Commander, First Class, of the Order of the Lion, Finland
  • 2000: Grand Officer in the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
  • 2001: Officer in the Order of the Legion of Honour, President of the French Republic
  • 2008: Order of Nila Utama (First Class)
  • 2018: Padma Shri Award, India
I really have to disagree…

Now, whether it justified the military intervention, that's up to debatable…

And lastly, yes, Ukraine is a sovereign country and can choose to do whatever the majority of their people wish for. But what happens when some of these choices directly threaten the sovereignty of another country? That's quite a grey area, wouldn't you agree? If not, we'd still have Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuba. And judging by the list of military operations the US (and to an extent NATO) has launched in the last 30 years, I can't really call it a peaceful, purely defensive military alliance.
4. @MaxSP89, there is no ‘grey area’ and no amount of Western flexibility could have appeased Putin. If NATO did not expand to Poland and the Baltics, Russia has the freedom to invade those countries like Ukraine — talk of an alternative security architecture for Europe is shorthand for ‘Russia has the right to intervene in its neighbours and NATO shouldn't interfere with that.’ Let me advise anyone against continuing with a pro-Russian claim of ‘sovereignty’ over Ukraine. These are pro-Russian fabrications that are well debunked at multiple levels — being objective means not allowing ‘nonsense on stilts’ claims to stand in DefenceTalk. Prof Koh explicitly expanded on some points on law to debunk nonsensical arguments from people like you:

(a) On Ukraine’s legitimacy and territorial integrity:

Q1: Does Russia have the right, under international law, to question the legitimacy of Ukraine?
“The answer must be no…When the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state and was recognized by the Russian Federation.
The UN allowed the new state of Ukraine to occupy the seat which used to be occupied by the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Russian Federation did not object to the move.
Ukraine’s legitimacy as a sovereign and independent state has therefore been recognised by the UN and by the world, including Russia, since 26 Aug 1991.”

(b) On Ukraine and NATO, Prof Koh also said:

Q2: Does Russia have a right to oppose the wishes of Russia’s neighbours to join either the EU or NATO?
“…Russia has no such right. I would also point out that, in 1999, Russia had signed the Istanbul Document of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Under article 8 of that document, Russia acknowledged the right of Ukraine to choose or change its security arrangements.
It is the sovereign right of Russia’s neighbours to join any organisation they wish to do.”

5. In the run-up to present crisis in Ukraine, Russia issued its neighbour an ultimatum : If Ukraine refused to give Russia a guarantee that it would never join Nato, Russia would launch a “special military operation” against it. Ukraine refused to yield to Russia’s demand. On 24 Feb 2022, Russia launched an armed attack against Ukraine, deploying its army, navy and air force. In relation to the above, Prof Koh, said:

Q3: Is there any justification, under international law, for Russia’s action?
“The answer is again no. Russia has no legal justification for its armed attack against Ukraine. Russia has violated several principles of the UN Charter and of international law, including the principle of the non-use of force to settle international disputes and the principle of respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of states.
Russia has tried to justify its action on the ground of self-defence. This is an absurd argument since Ukraine has not attacked Russia or threatened to do so. Ukraine is not even a candidate to Nato.
Russia’s action is particularly reprehensible because it is a signatory of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance. Under that memorandum, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan agreed to give up their nuclear weapons. In return, Russia, the US and UK assured the three countries that they would protect them from any threats to their territorial integrity. It is totally unacceptable that a guarantor of Ukraine’s territorial integrity should itself be the violator.”

6. Based on the above — the term ‘sovereignty’ is not what a few, like MaxSP89, in this thread imagine it to mean. Do not write a ton of nonsense, using the term, if you have not read this post.

7. The Moderators can’t be bothered to debunk every bad and irrelevant example brought up by ahistorical nationalistic fanboys who have a poor grasp of actual history. Anyone attempting to argue that the Cuban Missile Crisis is a valid example in this thread will be banned for going off-topic.
 
Last edited:

Rob c

Well-Known Member
De-nazification".
The problem with this demand is that Russia is far more of a fascist state than the Ukraine is. This just another claim, like all the other's by Putin to justify what is no more than a territory grab by a greedy expansionist.

He is turning Russia into an international terrorist state with nuclear weapons, very scary and I think he likes it that way
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I really have to disagree. Nothing about this whole ordeal was unprovoked. NATO, and especially the US have been expanding their influence over Eastern Europe for years, ignoring and disregarding Russia's security concerns (and to one extent agreements). Months before it all went down, the Russian delegations were continuously demanding not to expand onto Ukraine, but it was all ignored. Which of course the US benefitted greatly from, especially on the economic side, as they managed to once again break the trade agreements Russia has been so desperately trying to make with Europe for the last two decades. Thus the provocation was indeed there, and an obvious one. I find it hard to believe the Kremlin decided to intervene randomly, "just because".

Now, whether it justified the military intervention, that's up to debatable. And what could the alternatives have been or looked like, I don't have the knowledge or ability to analyze.

And lastly, yes, Ukraine is a sovereign country and can choose to do whatever the majority of their people wish for. But what happens when some of these choices directly threaten the sovereignty of another country? That's quite a grey area, wouldn't you agree? If not, we'd still have Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuba. And judging by the list of military operations the US (and to an extent NATO) has launched in the last 30 years, I can't really call it a peaceful, purely defensive military alliance.
The interesting point is all those eastern European nations that joined NATO in the last 30 years did so of their own free will. They had to apply and then they had to meet some strict requirements in order to be accepted. From memory these requirements were around democracy, civil freedoms, and transparency which is something that is rather foreign to Russian governments. The common factor in all the eastern European applications was fear of Russian aggression, which has been shown to be correct.

Now to Ukraine, as a sovereign state it is free to form alliances with whoever it wants. It wanted to join NATO because of the threat from Russia. Since the 2000s Putin has been threatening Ukrainian sovereignty and he's made no secret that he wants Ukraine back as part of Russia. He's interfered in domestic Ukrainian affairs prior to 2014, as well as Georgian and Moldovan domestic affairs. There is a long history of Russian aggression in the region and they have shown no intention of changing their imperialistic ambitions. The choice of the Ukrainian people apply to join NATO is to protect their sovereignty from Russia.

If Russia perceives that as a threat to its sovereignty it is entitled to take defensive actions, but an unprovoked invasion is not a defensive action in anyone's book. You are just trying to dissemble and play word games, spreading disinformation and trying to justify and illegal and despicable act by a Kremlin based kleptopric fascist cause. So answer me this, how do you explain the 900 executed Ukrainians found in Russian occupied territory after it was recaptured by Ukrainian forces? These are atrocities that constitute war crimes committed by Russian forces.

Now you may choose to believe Putin's lies and propaganda, but that's your choice. Here we deal with verifiable facts from reputable sources and we are an international forum and we do respect other peoples views when they provide valid verifiable facts from reputable sources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Update.

Zelenskiy is saying that if Ukrainian forces in Mariupol' are "destroyed", then Ukraine will break off negotiations. Given the recent mass surrender, I'm not sure what "destroyed" means. I suspect this is just a convenient pretext for ending negotiations.


Kiev Area.

Old footage of the Russian Ka-52 that made a forced landing being prepared for destruction.


A tank repair facility in Kiev got hit. It was an area where they were working on captured Russian tanks. In the second video you can see the facility, pre-strike. We can see BMD-4Ms and T-72B3mod'16s.


Kharkov-Sumy.

Another Ukrainian Tu-141 went down in Kharkov region.


A captured/knocked out (sources disagree) T-64BV in Kharkov region. I think it's likely this was in the Izyum Salient but it's hard to be sure.


Battle damage near Topol'skoe village, Kharkov region.


Strikes on Kharkov continue.


Russian BTR-82A flying the Soviet flag in Kharkov area.


Russian National Guard UAV team operating in Kharkov region.


Zaporozhye-Dnepropetrovsk.

A destroyed BTR in Zaporozhye. This is a very strange BTR-70 variant, almost certainly Ukrainian. It has the side hatches of a BTR-80 but the engine compartment of a regular BTR-70, making it the opposite of a Russian BTR-70M which has the engine compartment of a BTR-80 but the doors of a BTR-70. Note, the source claims two destroyed vehicles, but I only see one in the photo.


Smoke rising over the Dnepropetrovsk airport after a recent Russian strike.


Russian troops have captured a Remmington 700 sniper rifle.


Russian troops have captured weapons in Zaporozhye region. These are likely weapons caches being discovered from territorial defense formations.


Kherson-Nikolaev-Odessa.

More footage of the Russian strikes against a Ukrainian staging area in Nikolaev.


Russian National Guard in Kherson captured Ukrainian UAVs with spraying equipment on them. The implication is that they were meant for a provocation or false flag attack using chemical weapons, but this isn't obvious.


The crew of the Moskva is back in Sevastopol'. Contract soldiers and officers are being reassigned, conscripts will be getting their discharges starting in May.

 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Izyum Salient.

Troops moving towards the salient likely in preparation for the offensive. Note this is a bigger version of the earlier video with alleged Ukrainian locals waving Russian flags.


LDNR Front.

Destroyed T-72B near Popasnaya, allegedly Ukrainian.


Oil refinery in Lisichansk got hit.


Ukrainian shelling hits Donetsk again, UXO BM-27 munition.


Russian Ka-52s supporting Russian troops advancing towards the Donetsk region border.


DNR artillery firing near Novotroitskoe.


Rebel BTR-80 psyops variant broadcasting surrender messages to the Ukrainian 25th Airmobile Bde.


Battle damage in Popasnaya, allegedly caused by Ukrainian shelling. In principle I'm not surprised that Ukrainian forces would shell rebel units as they advance into an area. But I strongly suspect that at least some if not most of this damage is from rebel shelling.


Rebel forces captured Ukrainian and western anti-tank rockets and missiles.


Russian T-80BVs and BMP-3s heading to support the rebel offensive at Popasnaya. Note the new slimmed down roof cage on the tank. This is part of an increasing pattern of Russian regulars cropping up side by side with rebel units.


Rebel up-armored BMP-1s.


Cabardinian volunteer fighters, Donbass. Note these aren't Chechens.


Mariupol'.

Russian troops operating in Mariupol'. Warning footage of corpses in the second link.


A mix of assorted footage, Russian troops in action, and civilians fleeing.


Allegedly Russian Krasnopol' striking targets at the Il'yich plant, Mariupol'.


According to Russia, the following Ukrainian units were in Mariupol' when it got encircled;

36th Marine Bde
109th Territorial Defense Bde
503rd Independent Marine Btln
1 Coy of the 53rd Mech Bde
elements of the 17th Anti-Tank BDe
elements of Azov, Aydar, and Right Sector
Ukrainian police and border guard units
foreign mercenaries


Footage from the recently captured Il'yich metallurgical plant. You can see destroyed Humvees, many trucks, at least one armored car, and captured munitions.


Stockpiles of landmines captured at the Il'yich plant.


Uparmored Ukrainian dump truck, port of Mariupol'.


Aerial footage, Azovstal', still in Ukrainian hands.


Either Russian or rebel authorities are handing out passes to locals in Mariupol', after confirming their identity, allowing free movement around the city. This is allegedly being done to catch Ukrainian service members in plain clothes trying to escape the city.


Allegedly rebels have taken now over 1350 Ukrainian Marines as POW.


Sean Peter, a UK citizen, taken POW in Mariupol', was apparently serving in Ukraine's armed forces.


A Polish light anti-tank weapon, captured in Mariupol' by rebel forces.


Battle damage, Mariupol'.


Improvised cemetery, Mariupol'.


Crew of a Bulgarian ship form the port of Mariupol', now evacuating.


The West.

Russian cruise missile, L'vov region.


Allegedly British and American instructors training Azov fighters in Lutsk.


Misc.

Russian attack helos fired on by a Ukrainian SAM, and they return fire. It's unclear if anyone was hit on either side, but you can hear the helo computer warning the pilot that the helo is leaning dangerously, and that he's experiencing overload from the maneuver.


Russian strikes on Ukrainian targets, location and context unclear.


Allegedly a destroyed Ukrainian army field camp. Location unclear. The camera man says "the plan did it all".


Downed, allegedly Ukrainian, Mi-8, location and context unclear.


Russian T-72B3mod'16, damaged by something. Some Russian social media are claiming it was an NLAW, but this seems unlikely. A regular RPG, Soviet or western, seems more likely given the nature of the damage.


Russian sappers on BTR-80s, with K-1 ERA tiles. Location and context unclear.


Russian checkpoint in Ukraine. Location and context unclear. I have to wonder about the ZU-23-2s pointed at the sky. They're badly outdated. On the other hand the Ukrainian airforce has to fly very low to avoid Russian jets and air defenses.


A few shots of the up-armored Kamaz guntruck from that checkpoint above.


Ukrainian technical firing in training, location unclear. It's likely one of the newly formed brigades.


Ukrainian workshop re-manufacturing tank machineguns into infantry machineguns. This isn't really new, Ukraine has had a deficit of infantry machinegunes since the '14 campaign.


Assorted footage, Donbass.


NATO/EU.

Czech RM-70s (Grad clones) heading to Ukraine.


The US is allegedly going to supply 11 Mi-17 helos, 200 M113 APCs, 18 howitzers, 300 Switchblade loitering munitions, and 500 Javelins.

 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member


4. The Moderators at Defencetalk have observed that when discussing war, the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, or related discussions on the axis of advance by the Russians, many are greatly influenced by examples they can remember. In the post above, I shared information on the Russian concept of a Battalion Tactical Group (BTG).
(a) When trying to understand unfolding events many cannot understand the concept of relative combat power (RCP). The RCP required for a Russian BTG for offensive action is different for Ukrainian defensive actions in an urban area. This means that many will want to cling to examples, regardless of how irrelevant the example — like idiots from the start of the war that said how paintball guns can neutralize Russian T-series tanks.
(b) Barring a few exceptions, mainstream media reporting on war, the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, or in deterrence as a theory, leaves much to be desired. There is no shortage of articles predicting <insert unlikely scenario> or that the sky is falling in these articles or blogs. Mistaking misinformation as fact is common for the disinterested general audience of mainstream media.

5. This forum is moderated and the following are a few survival tips for new members:

(a) do not post one-liners;
(b) do not convert discussion threads into news ribbons;
(c) do not make multiple sequential posts in the same thread with the sole objective of increasing post count;
(d) when posting facts to support your comment/opinion, cite your source(s) (by typing the article title, publication, author and page number), if you want to avoid a source challenge; and
(e) we encourage fact based professional discussions and members are free to express their disagreement on the progress of war in Ukraine; but there is little tolerance for unthinking nationalistic trolls.

6. This post is not directed at anyone in particular. We strongly encourage new members to take a look there before jumping in to the various discussion threads.
Gentle reminder about observing min. quality in posts — keep it fact based. The ban hammer has been over-active in the past few days; please heed prior green and red text warnings in this thread.
 
Last edited:

the concerned

Active Member
With regards to the Ukrainians going on a counteroffensive I don't think they have a choice. But I don't feel they will do anything regarding Crimea it's not going to happen I do however feel that the rebels in the donbass region sealed their fate when they went on the offensive with Russia.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
With regards to the Ukrainians going on a counteroffensive I don't think they have a choice.
Any offensive will probably be localised ones with limited objectives such as to retake key terrain or positions. Unless I'm very mistaken they don't have the resources for a larger offensive and doing so might play into Russian hands.

But I don't feel they will do anything regarding Crimea it's not going to happen
No it's not going to happen because they have far more immediate and urgent areas to focus on [and only so much resources]; rather than thinking on retaking the Crimea.

rebels in the donbass region sealed their fate when they went on the offensive with Russia
The rebels threw their lot in the Russians years ago and burned their bridges with the Ukrainian government - as Feanor points out this war has to be seen as a continuation of the 2014/2015 conflict in the Donbas.
 
Last edited:
Top