The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Scholz has so far not acknowledged the invitation, and it is highly doubtable (as in: will not happen, see below) that he or Steinmeier would visit Kyev tomorrow to support some odd one-off Ukrainian "counter-celebrations" to Russia-only celebrations.
P.S. : Bärbel Bas, the president of the German Parliament lower house - and the nominal #3 after Steinmeier and Scholz by diplomatic ranking - visited Kyev today (i.e. on the 8th - not on the 9th). She met with her Ukrainian counterpart by whom she had been invited as well as head of government Denys Schmyhal - and also had "a talk" with Zelinskyy. Bas' visit had been planned since mid-April and is not a reaction to the more recent Scholz/Steinmeier invitation.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
What is the strategic value of Snake Island for Russian and for Ukraine? Is it worth it to spend resources to attack/defend that small island?
The political value [losing it would be politically embarrassing] and the value in having a strategically placed island which helps if a particular side intends on controlling the surrounding area and sea lanes.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Would full war and mobilising reserves really achieve anything?

to start with the quality of the average mobilised reservist is probably going to be even lower than the conscripts that they would be replacing. They would need to be armed, fed and trained.something Russia seems to be already struggling with.

There would also be a negative effect on their economy as the workforce is gutted to fill the military ranks. Wars are expensive to conduct and the Russian economy is already on the precipice.

They are also running out of precision weapons that they lack the ability to replace without western sourced electronics, their vaunted reserves of armour and Soviet era equipment is either obsolete or in too poor of a material condition to be used.

the Ukraine on the other hand continues to receive more and more support from the west. The support isn’t just material either. They are probably receiving high quality intel and tactical advice.

Russia did push back the Germans in WW2 but at an incredibly high cost and also with a lot of material support from its allies. Also in WW2 the population was motivated to repel the invaders. I am not sure that actually being the invaders will garner that same level of support from the Russian population.
Mobilization is a topic discussed on Russian TV. They do not see the merit as long as a material gap exists. Constructing new platforms and weapons would take too long, and keeping conscripts waiting that long would be a waste. I think we can start hearing about mobilization in the next few months.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Updated USNI article on the Moskva sinking. It appears that the Moskva didn't have it's fire control radars active so was blind to the incoming Neptune AShM. The main surveillance radar of the Moskva wouldn't picked them up either because of them flying < 10m off the deck. I think that's pretty slack because the ship is operating in a combat zone and you don't take chances. Very poor on the Captain's part.

Warship Moskva was Blind to Ukrainian Missile Attack, Analysis Shows - USNI News
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The main surveillance radar of the Moskva wouldn't picked them up either because of them flying < 10m off the deck.
The minute the Neptune's seeker went active the ship's ESM and radar should have been alerted but this would only have given the ship a very brief warning. Not only that but assuming it wasn't passively launched the ship's ESM would also have detected Neptune's search/acquisition radar.

I think that's pretty slack because the ship is operating in a combat zone and you don't take chances. Very poor on the Captain's part.
Apparently it was the same with the Hanit which should have been on full alert with all its systems at ready. Same goes for the Strak which was operating in a very dangerous area.


''An investigation found that the missile, likely a Chinese-made C-802 anti-ship cruise missile, successfully hit its target because officials didn’t believe that Hezbollah had such sophisticated technology, and didn’t turn on anti-missile systems capable of defending against it.''
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Mobilization is a topic discussed on Russian TV. They do not see the merit as long as a material gap exists. Constructing new platforms and weapons would take too long, and keeping conscripts waiting that long would be a waste. I think we can start hearing about mobilization in the next few months.
From what I understand it can take a year or more for conscripts to become reasonably proficient and that presupposes that they have equipment to train with. I think before this could start Russia would have to embark on some sort of rearmament program. Not sure how they could fund that.

I would go further than that and suggest Russia would first need to do a full review of its war effort so far and as a result of that review might need to completely restructure its military. All of this will take more time than the Russians probably have available to them.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
P.S. : Bärbel Bas, the president of the German Parliament lower house - and the nominal #3 after Steinmeier and Scholz by diplomatic ranking - visited Kyev today (i.e. on the 8th - not on the 9th). She met with her Ukrainian counterpart by whom she had been invited as well as head of government Denys Schmyhal - and also had "a talk" with Zelinskyy. Bas' visit had been planned since mid-April and is not a reaction to the more recent Scholz/Steinmeier invitation.
Canadian PM Traudeu visited Ukraine on May 8th, announcing addiitonal humanitarian and defense support, Military support since February is above CAN $130 million, Prime Minister visits Kyiv, Ukraine

What is less known is that the Norwegian Foreign Minister together with the president of the Norwegian Parliament also visited on May 8th. Since the end of WW2 locals authorities in Northern Norway has invited representatives from USSR, (and Russia after the dissolution of the USSR) to participate in Victory Day arrangements on May 8th in Norway. In Northern Norway USSR soldiers were viewed as liberators, helping to kick the Nazis out at the end of WW2, and then leaving Norway. However, this year is of course different, and no Russians have been invited. Instead top Norwegian politicians are travelling to Ukraine on May 8th, sending a very strong message. Sterke inntrykk: - Vanskelig å forestille seg
They also announced Norway's contribution to Ukraine will increase to 300 million NOK (approx 31 million USD).

Last week an Antonov An-124 visited Norway twice -- Norwegian authorities refuse to comment. Forsvarsminister Gram vil ikke bekrefte leveranser av våpen til Ukraina
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
From what I understand it can take a year or more for conscripts to become reasonably proficient and that presupposes that they have equipment to train with. I think before this could start Russia would have to embark on some sort of rearmament program. Not sure how they could fund that.

I would go further than that and suggest Russia would first need to do a full review of its war effort so far and as a result of that review might need to completely restructure its military. All of this will take more time than the Russians probably have available to them.
This issue further raises the importance of simulators. At least for the western countries that source their hardware from friendly countries.
 

T.C.P

Active Member
The best cockpit video from this war after the Ka-52 one, which was hit and pilot had to a crash landing(successfully). The SU-25 flying very low and hitting targets in Popasna.
The translation of the russian words on the video I got from the comments
-Popasna
-Popasna District State Administration
-District House of Culture
-Popasna Town Council
Central Market
-School No. 21
-Airstrikes on a Ukrainian armed forces stronghold south of Popasna

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/ulnaf1
The Russian's hitting Ukrainain tenched positions. If you put a colour filter on this and say its from WWI, a lot of people would believe it

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/ul05sq
According to the title this is the first clip of the UA using the M777 in Eastern Ukraine

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/ulmvlv
A very successful UA artillery attack on a Russian forward base. They score multiple hits. Trucks, Russian artillery. Drone coordination is a game changer. In this video the Russians are atleast digging around their vehicles.

Part 1-

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/ukzeko
Part -2

 

surpreme

Member
After listen to a retired U.S. Lt. Col who just given real answer not one-sided. This important time for both sides Russia on the other hand must cut off close to 8,000 to 10,000 Ukraine troops to achieve some form of justification of moving unit to Donbass. The Ukraine must hold the Russian so that units can be trained to be able to have a large-scale counterattack. This could lead to a stalemate where both sided decide to a cease fire.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. The Austrian Army is providing fairly detailed briefs, in German, on the war — Col. (Dr) Markus Reisner, sets a high benchmark for analysis of the ongoing battles— you can get English subtitles in settings. The look back into history with the Kursk-Donbas side by side brief is exceptional at the 13 min mark. The encirclement there will fail for the same reason, based on the explaination given. Really worth the time to take a look.

2. @surpreme, the news report by CBC News tries to explain a small fragment of the bigger fight in a manner suited for an uneducated layman. There are far better resources online on the progress of these battles, if you bother to look. As Col. (Dr) Markus Reisner explains in the prior video, there are two Russian river crossings at the Seversky Donets river for their encirclement attempt. One of the two has been destroyed. I congratulate Ukraine for their effort to destroy one of the river crossings near Bilohorivka, Luhansk Oblast.

3. On one side, Russian troops have withdrawn from several villages around Kharkiv, and now only control a small strip near the border with Ukraine (just West of the Donets River). On the other side, Russian forces were able to capture the town of Nyzhnie along the Toshkivka axis, and are approaching the town of Toshkivka. Russia, for all its operational failings, retains the capacity to wreak extraordinary amounts of damage and pain upon Ukraine. Russian fanboys/supporters who are optimist by nature can hope for a stalemate but that will not be certain for another 2 weeks — there is more hard fighting ahead.

4. Pentagon update on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Day 75:
• US has NOW trained 310 Ukrainian Army gunners on M777 howitzers (they will need to train about 900, so they are at the 1/3 mark to deploying howitzers donated)​
• US has sent 85 of 90 howitzers to Ukraine​
• US assesses Russia has made "no significant progress" in Donbas​

5. IIRC, excluding MiG-31s, Russia has about 110 Su-35s, 150 Su-30SM/M2s, 130 Su-34s and 120 Su-25s. Russian has deployed around 320 fighters or fighter bombers for the war in Ukraine and has lost at least 25 fixed wing aircraft. Both Russia and Ukraine have ground-based air defences but very little SEAD capability. Except for Donbass (where Russia rules the sky), neither side can gain air superiority nor use CAS effectively over the frontlines.

6. Artillery and MLR systems are proving itself to be the king of battle. Good tactical emplacement of the M777 howitzer in the above video. The round can't be detected by counterbattery radar until it clears the ridge masking the location of the gun crew.
 
Last edited:

Twain

Active Member
Some interesting developments around Kharkiv

"Near Izyum, 2x Russian 152mm 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled howitzers were struck by Ukrainian counter-battery fire, destroying them both when the ammo on board detonated. As claimed, Western supplied "high precision" artillery was used, and as can be seen, was effective."


"forces are likely continuing to amass troops in #Belgorod Oblast to stop #Ukrainian counterattacks around Kharkiv City from reaching the Ukrainian-Russian border."


"carried out two offensives in the Kharkiv area. North of Kharkiv captured the settlements of Slobozhanske, Borshchova, Rus'ki Tyshky, and Cherkas'ki. Lyptsi is contested. Northwest of Kharkiv captured Bairak, Rubizhne, Verkhnii Saltiv, and Zamilivka."

1652158476195.png


"So a long range artillery war has developed in parts of the Kharkiv - Izyum front. RuAF also has the 2S7 Malka 203mm guns there. On 03 May UAF reported that a 2S4 Tyulpan 240-mm mortar battery and a Tornado MLRS unit also arrived to the Izyum area."


A couple things stand out to me.

some of the western supplied artillery is near the front lines and a rather important rail line is either in range of this artillery or very close to being in range and Russia is sending reinforcements to the Kharkiv area which means fewer are going to to the lines around Izyum etc. If Ukraine can continue advancing they could seriously jeopardize some russian GLOC's. It's going to be interesting to see if the western artillery plays a large role in this and if Ukraine can continue advancing towards Vovchansk and/or Kupiansk. Either is very bad for the russians.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
The UK defence secretary says the UK will support any country that is willing to supply fighter jets to Ukraine -- they actually supported this back in April, however the US and other disagreed and the whole thing fizzled out. Not sure why this is mentioned now. Hopefully they will finally do it.


On another note, more and more Western countries are moving their embassies back to Kiev, and this is a risky move since Russia can at any time send missiles towards Kiev. To protect the embassy staff NATO countries should in my opinion deploy SAMs operated by NATO staff sent to Kiev to protect the embassies. For instance some NASAMS systems, perhaps supplemented by a Patriot system. This would also create a "no-fly" zone around Kiev but without Western fighter jets being involved.

Countries that have re-opened embassies include Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, etc. (some only partially re-opened)
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Vivendi, I don’t think UK by itself, with its current military capability, can swing other NATO members to take such a risk (without the backing of Team Biden to move closer to direct confrontation). But I don’t have any data to back up my suspicion. Let me add a few points below:

1. Sweden's governing Social Democrats will decide on NATO membership on 15 May 2022.

2. The cornerstones of Finland’s military capability are conscription and a large, well-trained reserve. The relatively cheap conscription system and having a large reserve instead of a large active-duty force allowed Finland to maintain a credible defense even when the share of GDP spent on defense was lower than desirable. In the late Cold War, Finland spent approximately 1.6% of its GDP on defence, and in the early 1990s this figure saw a rapid increase to 1.9% due to the purchase of 64 F-18s from the United States in 1992. Finland’s recent decision to acquire 64 F-35As will again push defence spending at 2+% of GDP.

3. Latest opinion poll on NATO membership in Finland.
  • Yes: 76%
  • No: 12%
  • Undecided: 11 %
4. The speed at which public opinion in Finland towards NATO changed (after the Russian attack on Ukraine), is unprecedented. Equally impressive is the rapidity with which the Finnish government has responded to this change of heart. The big win is Finland and Sweden in NATO, if that can be achieved smoothly.

5. The Finnish parliament's defence committee recommends NATO membership. Finnish officials also said that Finland has received security assurances from US, UK, France, Germany…for duration NATO membership process. I believe this will be a great achievable goal, given the American, German & French support.

6. Some have said that NATO needs more Finland than Finland NATO — a bit of an over-statement, given that NATO is nuclear armed. IMO, the rush to join is due to the fact that Finland and Sweden want to join NATO’s northern front in case the war in Ukraine escalates.
 
Last edited:

koxinga

Well-Known Member
@Vivendi, I don’t think UK by itself, with its current military capability, can swing other NATO members to take such a risk (without the backing of Team Biden to move closer to direct confrontation). But I don’t have any data to back up my suspicion. Let me add a few points below:
@Vivendi
Try asking the Malaysians for the MiG-29Ns (which were modified to fire R-77s) which they retired but are still keeping in semi-operational state and see what's the reaction.

Honestly, it feels like a virtue-signalling gesture rather than something practical.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
A random thought:
If Putin strikes Ukraine with a nuke, or nukes, how sure are we that this would be a suicidal move?

Many people I've talked to are absolutely convinced this would lead to an American nuclear strike on Russia - but is that really so certain? I don't think so.

If Ukraine gets hit with nukes, that's just Ukraine destroyed, while NATO and other nuclear armed states are relatively safe. Whereas if they retaliate it's MAD.

This thought alone, and I think if it makes sense that none would retaliate for Ukraine, might make a nuclear strike more realistic than we currently think.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Many people I've talked to are absolutely convinced this would lead to an American nuclear strike on Russia - but is that really so certain? I don't think so.
Indeed. Why would America risk New York and other cities becoming wastelands with millions dead? Why would Europe - in the same backyard as Russia so to speak - be willing to see a nuclear exchange as a result of a Russian use of a tactical nuke in the Ukraine? Another question is why would Putin go to the extent of using a tactical nuke to compensate for reverses on the battlefield in the Ukraine; how does this benefit him in the long run?

Try asking the Malaysians for the MiG-29Ns (which were modified to fire R-77s) which they retired but are still keeping in semi-operational state and see what's the reaction.
They are in deep storage; not in ''semi-operational state''. Getting them back into service would entail overhauling the RD-33s and replacing various stuff [not all Russian] which has time expired.

Like other countries in the region it has condemned the violence but has not criticised Russia per see. Although it has made clear that it would only support UN mandated sanctions and not unilateral ones by various countries; it has also vetoed a move by the army to obtain Metis reloads and has already - long before the invasion - sourced Russian alternatives to provide certain types of spares for its Su-30MKMs. Days after the invasion it also refused entry to a Russian ship.

 
Last edited:

sdin

New Member
Indeed. Why would America risk New York and other cities becoming wastelands with millions dead? Why would Europe - in the same backyard as Russia so to speak - be willing to see a nuclear exchange as a result of a Russian use of a tactical nuke in the Ukraine? Another question is why would Putin go to the extent of using a tactical nuke to compensate for reverses on the battlefield in the Ukraine; how does this benefit him in the long run?



They are in deep storage; not in ''semi-operational state''. Getting them back into service would entail overhauling the RD-33s and replacing various stuff [not all Russian] which has time expired.

Like other countries in the region it has condemned the violence but has not criticised Russia per see. Although it has made clear that it would only support UN mandated sanctions and not unilateral ones by various countries; it has also vetoed a move by the army to obtain Metis reloads and has already - long before the invasion - sourced Russian alternatives to provide certain types of spares for its Su-30MKMs. Days after the invasion it also refused entry to a Russian ship.

Russia has mixed support from Malaysian if not for the MH17 incident. The bad memory still fresh.

@sdin You are a new member here and this looks like your first post, so welcome to the Forum. Please remember that one line posts are against the rules and in future can you please make your posts at least two lines long. Thanks.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Malaysia has always tried to maintain a non aligned stance. With regards to Russia this is not due to economic reasons as it has far bigger trade with the EU and the U.S. Malaysia exports palm oil to Russia and semi conducters but trade ties aren't much to shout about. The MAF also doesn't operate much Russian stuff compared to others in the region.

MH17. Yes we all know who provided the Buk to the separatists and it wasn't Santa Claus. We also know Russia denied everything. As it stands; until Russia cooperates [higher chance of Chad buying F-35s] justice for the victims of MH17 will not be served.
 

Exonian

New Member
A random thought:
If Putin strikes Ukraine with a nuke, or nukes, how sure are we that this would be a suicidal move?

Many people I've talked to are absolutely convinced this would lead to an American nuclear strike on Russia - but is that really so certain? I don't think so.

If Ukraine gets hit with nukes, that's just Ukraine destroyed, while NATO and other nuclear armed states are relatively safe. Whereas if they retaliate it's MAD.

This thought alone, and I think if it makes sense that none would retaliate for Ukraine, might make a nuclear strike more realistic than we currently think.
While I agree with your reasoning about the current context what would likely follow in the future?

2014 Crimea - no response.
2022 Ukraine - as yet unfinished
2030 (?) Baltic/Moldova/Take your pick -
 
Top