The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Feanor said:
The Shahed manufacturing facility appears to be intact. Iran also suffered a major earthquake and some sources are conflating damage from the earthquake with damage from the attacks. To me this is a problematic precedent. If it's ok to attack Iranian facilities because they are supporting the Russian war effort, it has to then be ok for Russia to strike similar facilities in NATO countries...

t.me

Военный Осведомитель

После вчерашних инцидентов в иранском Исфахане, в Телеграмме начали с поразительной скоростью распространяться мифы о том, что промышленные объекты компании Shahed Aviation Industries были уничтожены, однако это не так. Свежие спутниковые снимки показывают, здания завода не пострадали и...
t.me t.me

EDIT; Some more footage. It's more and more concerning that the line between war and peace is increasingly blurred.

VK.com | VK

vk.com vk.com
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is more and more like if you have the balls, and the ability, you get away with it. Iran, and Russia point the finger at Isriael, and the US although they have no real proof. The most likely suspect is Israel who have their own reasons to disrupt Iranian drone manufacture. I really doubt that this was done to support Ukraine. I was trying for a bit of humor linking those two sources. US involvement is less likely, although quite possible. The Nuclear talks with Iran appear to be at a standstill at the moment.
 
I doubt that this is related to Ukraine directly. The simple facts that Israel has taken (at least officially) a neutral position as far as supply of weapons in this conflict goes and Israel rarely does anything unless it has its own interests involved suggests that they have done it… well, in their own interests.


Scholz is ruling the fighter jets out. On the other hand, he had ruled out tanks earlier in the war as well, among other things.

“The question of combat aircraft does not arise at all,” Scholz said in an interview with Tagesspiegel published on Sunday. “I can only advise against entering into a constant competition to outbid each other when it comes to weapons systems.”

[…]

Scholz last week ruled out providing fighter jets, citing the need to prevent further military escalation. “There will be no fighter jet deliveries to Ukraine,” he said on Wednesday, soon after Germany and the U.S. agreed to provide advanced tanks for Kyiv’s war effort.

www.politico.eu

Scholz doubles down on refusal of fighter jets for Ukraine

‘The question of combat aircraft does not arise at all,’ German chancellor tells Tagesspiegel.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu

The Brits are concerned about the Russians capturing the Challengers and suggesting that they are not to be used where the potential for capture exists. “Private military contractors” is pushing the line yet further, imo.

“Step one is the training and working with mission planners to try and ensure the Challengers are not used in scenarios where they think that collapse a realistic possibility.

Step two is making sure, at the tactical level, the Ukrainians are trained to recover a tank under fire. They certainly don’t lack the courage.”

Other extreme options under consideration include having private military contractors on standby to recover stricken tanks.

www.thesun.co.uk

Army working out plans to keep Putin's hands off secret British armour

THE Army is thrashing out emergency plans to recover British tanks if they are damaged in Ukraine — to stop their top secret armour and technology falling into Russian hands. The fearsome Challenge…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
 
Feanor said:
Italian Iveco VM 90Ts arrive in Ukraine, in terrible condition. The person filming has some quite understandable opinions and feelings about this.

VK.com | VK

vk.com vk.com
Click to expand...
The vast majority of VM90T were bought by Ukraine from what's basically a scrapyard dealer in Germany (with German money, and the vehicles officially "demilitarized") in rather large numbers - several hundred. Not exactly sure what they expected there, but this is about what i'd expect. The vehicles were always announced as "demilitarized" (read: parts taken off) and never as "refurbished". From the looks there they do seem to be drivable, which means "good enough".

The fact that the vehicles and some part shown have markings of the San Marco Regiment's deployment in Iraq in 2004 should make clear how long they have been out of service. Probably went straight to stockpile after Iraq.

The first series of actual "reconditioned" demilitarized VM90T in Italy itself only came out of the factory late November (en italiano). I am actually not entirely sure whether Italy has ever directly delivered any VM90T to Ukraine.

It should also be noted that Ukraine - mostly through private donations - has been buying up VM90T in a variety of conditions from the general European commercial market.

Feanor said:
Rheinmetall will reportedly be supplying 26 HX 8X8 trucks to Ukraine.

VK.com | VK

vk.com vk.com
Click to expand...
Should be HX2, WLS version. Coming from the current production line for the Bundeswehr which runs around a thousand vehicles per year.
 
Last edited:
kato said:
The vast majority of VM90T were bought by Ukraine from what's basically a scrapyard dealer in Germany (with German money, and the vehicles officially "demilitarized") in rather large numbers - several hundred. Not exactly sure what they expected there, but this is about what i'd expect. The vehicles were always announced as "demilitarized" (read: parts taken off) and never as "refurbished". From the looks there they do seem to be drivable, which means "good enough".

The fact that the vehicles and some part shown have markings of the San Marco Regiment's deployment in Iraq in 2004 should make clear how long they have been out of service. Probably went straight to stockpile after Iraq.

The first series of actual "reconditioned" demilitarized VM90T in Italy itself only came out of the factory late November (en italiano). I am actually not entirely sure whether Italy has ever directly delivered any VM90T to Ukraine.

It should also be noted that Ukraine - mostly through private donations - has been buying up VM90T in a variety of conditions from the general European commercial market.


Should be HX2, WLS version. Coming from the current production line for the Bundeswehr which runs around a thousand vehicles per year.
Click to expand...

This makes sense, and I appreciate the context. I suspect the person filming was not aware of this and assumed they were a form of military aid.
 
Ananda said:
Some Western media pundits call NATO still support with one hand behind the back, however so does Russia still fight with one hand behind the back. The only parties that already fighting all out is Ukrainian.
Click to expand...
Feanor said:
Russia can't shoot down western ISR aircraft that are supporting Ukraine's war effort. If this war was Russia vs Ukraine, and Ukraine was operating those assets, they would all be targets. As it stands, the west provides Ukraine with unmanned boats, uses a US UAV to guide them on target to attack Russian ships, and Russia can't do anything to disrupt the guidance. You can't win the recce battle if the recce assets are "neutral". Russia had superior ISR to Ukraine at the start of this war, but inferior to NATO. Ukraine got the benefit of NATO assets, with the ability at least in principle to target such Russian assets, while Russia had no ability to target those used by NATO.
Click to expand...
I think it would be fair to say that there are constraints on both sides of thr conflict, However these constraints I think have put Ukraine at a greater disadvantage than Russia. The reason for this is that Ukraine does not and has not been supplied the means of significantly disrupting Russian operations in Russian territory and this has lead to the Russians having a free hand logistically and operationally inside Russia were as the Ukrainians are under constant bombardment. The defence against this bombardment and the resources needed to restore damage from this bombardment will be a huge strain on limited Ukrainian resources, which means they have less resources for the front line combat which is good news for Russia. This also means that Ukraine has to be very careful on how it manages its armed forces well behind the lines as they are always open to attack unlike the opposition.
Another other problem Ukraine has is their border with Belarus, which while Belarus has not joined in the fighting, they did allow Russian troops access through their territory to invade Ukraine and there is no guarantee this won't happen again or they won't join in. This will tie up significant Ukrainian resources in this area to defend against this. There is also the north east border with Russia, which the same applies. Again Good for Russia as a significant portion of the Ukrainian army has to be kept in area's outside of the combat area.
For these reasons I would suggest that the constrains tend to be more adverse to the Ukrainians than the Russians.
 
^ I think the key difference here is that one side has the capabilities (but is restricted from using them) to dramatically improve its position (and likely end the conflict in its favour long time ago); the other side, on the other hand, is currently fighting all out with what was provided to it, because it does not have sufficient capabilities of its own, dramatically improving its position (and making a great use of the imposed restrictions to the other). Hence one side is fighting with one hand, and the other makes use of both hands (and a third?). One would have to significantly expand the scope of the conflict in order to validate the reasoning you provided. My humble opinion, of course.
 
In theory is there anything stopping Russia using an E.C.W aircraft of the type to counter N.A.T.O electronic surveillance aircraft ?
 
KipPotapych said:
^ I think the key difference here is that one side has the capabilities (but is restricted from using them) to dramatically improve its position (and likely end the conflict in its favour long time ago); the other side, on the other hand, is currently fighting all out with what was provided to it, because it does not have sufficient capabilities of its own, dramatically improving its position (and making a great use of the imposed restrictions to the other). Hence one side is fighting with one hand, and the other makes use of both hands (and a third?). One would have to significantly expand the scope of the conflict in order to validate the reasoning you provided. My humble opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
Nitpicking in my opinion. Both Ukraine and Russia have constraints: Ukraine are constrained by the West that is holding back on sending ATACSM and fighter jets, and waited for way too long to send Leo 2s. And they are still holding back. I believe Ukraine has also been instructed to not use Western weapons to attack targets within Russia -- they have to use weapons developed by themselves for that.

Both sides are fighting as hard as they can within the political constraints they are operating under.

Not sure what you mean by " one side has the capabilities (but is restricted from using them) to dramatically improve its position ". Do you really believe that if Russia attacked NATO it would "dramatically improve its position"? Or do you mean something else?
 
Vivendi said:
Not sure what you mean by " one side has the capabilities (but is restricted from using them) to dramatically improve its position ". Do you really believe that if Russia attacked NATO it would "dramatically improve its position"? Or do you mean something else?
Click to expand...
That may have been worded poorly on my part, but I think you answered your own question there. The simplest way to put things into perspective would be the following: destruction of some assets provided by us (namely “the West”) to Ukraine leads to weakening of the Ukrainian position; destruction of other assets (owned and operated by us) leads to NATO-Russia escalation/confrontation and, potentially, “dark ages” for all of us. I am not sure what exactly the confusion is here.


In regards to fighter jets, I’ll ask again, which I believe would be (at least) the third time I ask these questions:

1. Do the Ukrainians have pilots that can be trained to operate these aircrafts (especially in the numbers they are requesting)?
2. Do they have the infrastructure to operate these aircrafts from?
3. Can these aircrafts operate within the range of the front line where they can make a difference with a relative safety?

I believe that currently the answer to all three questions above is no. Hence, the fighter jets are a moot point as long as the Russian air defence is operating.
 
KipPotapych said:
That may have been worded poorly on my part, but I think you answered your own question there. The simplest way to put things into perspective would be the following: destruction of some assets provided by us (namely “the West”) to Ukraine leads to weakening of the Ukrainian position; destruction of other assets (owned and operated by us) leads to NATO-Russia escalation/confrontation and, potentially, “dark ages” for all of us. I am not sure what exactly the confusion is here.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the confusion happens because the only logical argument that you could've tried to make has to be that Russia is fighting with one hand tied behind their backs because they can't destroy NATO/US operated reconnaissance assets in order to blind Ukraine and that this would somehow "dramatically improve" their position against Ukraine.

It can't be the argument "Russia destroying assets provided by NATO operated by ukrainians in Ukraine", since the russians are already doing that and will continue to do that. Those assets are already fair game, making that argument irrelevant.

Let's be honest here, Russia attacking NATO operated assets and starting an open war with NATO will not "dramatically improve" their position, it will instead do the exact opposite. If it can't even beat a Ukraine that is supplied by NATO (with a lot of types of weapons still held back), it will get crushed by NATO in a full conventional war, especially at their current state. Even the russian leadership knows this, which is why they are trying so hard to get NATO countries to stop aiding Ukraine by themselves by using propaganda and previously natural gas blackmail.

In an open war vs NATO scenario, the only off-ramp for the russian leadership would be surrender or nukes. I wouldn't call placing themselves in such a situation "dramatically improving" their position and I don't want to have to find out what their choice would be.
 
Last edited:
KipPotapych said:
That may have been worded poorly on my part, but I think you answered your own question there. The simplest way to put things into perspective would be the following: destruction of some assets provided by us (namely “the West”) to Ukraine leads to weakening of the Ukrainian position; destruction of other assets (owned and operated by us) leads to NATO-Russia escalation/confrontation and, potentially, “dark ages” for all of us. I am not sure what exactly the confusion is here.


In regards to fighter jets, I’ll ask again, which I believe would be (at least) the third time I ask these questions:

1. Do the Ukrainians have pilots that can be trained to operate these aircrafts (especially in the numbers they are requesting)?
2. Do they have the infrastructure to operate these aircrafts from?
3. Can these aircrafts operate within the range of the front line where they can make a difference with a relative safety?

I believe that currently the answer to all three questions above is no. Hence, the fighter jets are a moot point as long as the Russian air defence is operating.
Click to expand...
This is one article suggesting that Ukraine is aware of the requirements for foreign jets like the f-16 and is committed to meeting these it could basically be the lack of political will holding back
Ukraine Situation Report: Kyiv Improving Airfields Anticipating Western Fighters (thedrive.com)
This article states that Ukraine has a list of fifty pilots ready for training
At the Pentagon, push to send F-16s to Ukraine picks up steam - POLITICO
 
Sycarion said:
Let's be honest here, Russia attacking NATO operated assets and starting an open war with NATO will not "dramatically improve" their position, it will instead do the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly the point? There are NATO operated assets that are significantly aiding Ukraine but are out of touch to Russia because that would change the scope of the conflict, which everyone is trying to avoid because it is in no one’s interest. If those assets were operated by Ukraine and were fair game, they would be long gone and situation on the ground would likely be very different from what it is today. I thought that point was made clear by myself and others.

As for the NATO-Russia conflict, I said earlier that I can’t really imagine what it would look like. Exchange of nukes and great destruction? End of the world as we know it? Probably as good a description as any other and not many (any?) want to see how that develops. And this is where the LRM’s come in because that would be NATO equipment on Ukrainian territory, guided by NATO operated assets, targeting Russians on Russian territory. Hence, the hold up and hopefully common sense will prevail here.


seaspear said:
This is one article suggesting that Ukraine is aware of the requirements for foreign jets like the f-16 and is committed to meeting these it could basically be the lack of political will holding back
Ukraine Situation Report: Kyiv Improving Airfields Anticipating Western Fighters (thedrive.com)
This article states that Ukraine has a list of fifty pilots ready for training
At the Pentagon, push to send F-16s to Ukraine picks up steam - POLITICO
Click to expand...
I believe being aware and committed is different from being capable and I am not convinced they are capable.

Thanks for pointing out the second article. Funny enough I saw it before but didn’t get to that part. Also, they are asking for at least 180 fighters (via google translate):

The speaker of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Yuriy Ignat, reacted to reports from foreign media that spread his statements about the transfer of 24 F-16 aircraft to Ukraine. Ignat denied the information and assured that he did not make relevant statements.
[…]
“It is clear that we will not be given a brigade or several. We are talking about supplying units,” Ignat said and added that Ukraine would receive aircraft, like other types of weapons, that is, in stages.

Therefore, at first we can talk about 2 squadrons. One squadron is 12 aircraft. We do not need 24 aircraft, but at least 5 full-fledged brigades. Each brigade has 3 squadrons,Ignat emphasized.

24tv.ua

Игнат опроверг заявление, что Украина получит 24 самолета F-16 - 24 Канал

Юрий Игнат прокомментировал свое заявление иностранным СМИ, что Украина получит 24 самолета F-16. Спикер Воздушных сил Юрий Игнат опроверг сообщение, что Украина просит о 24 самолетах F-16.
24tv.ua 24tv.ua


The Challengers are now expected to be deployed in April-May:

Asked in parliament when the 14 Challenger tanks it has agreed to supply would be deployed onto the battlefield, Wallace said: "It'll be this side of the summer, or May - it'll be probably towards Easter time."

www.reuters.com

British tanks to arrive on Ukraine's front lines 'this side of summer' - defence minister

Tanks donated by Britain to Ukraine will be on the front line before summer, defence minister Ben Wallace said on Monday, without giving an exact timetable.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Ukraine targeted a rail bridge north of Melitipol. At this point the damage looks repairable.m It is reported that there was a repair crew on site at the time of the strike. This would indicate that Ukraine has been working this bridge previously. Their lack of reach keeps them from really disrupting Russian logistics. Tanks and other armored vehicles will not help with this. Maybe the "small diameter bombs" will help somewhat, but they really need longer range missiles.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1619795997261201408

https://twitter.com/x/status/1619755885097787392

t.me

IZ.RU

Пять рабочих погибли, еще четыре пострадали в результате удара ВСУ из РСЗО HIMARS по ж/д мосту через реку Молочную Запорожской области. Последствия обстрела украинских националистов, увидел корреспондент "Известий" Роман Польшаков. "Неонацисты ударили по мосту ровно в полдень, в тот момент...
t.me t.me
 
KipPotapych said:
Which is exactly the point? There are NATO operated assets that are significantly aiding Ukraine but are out of touch to Russia because that would change the scope of the conflict, which everyone is trying to avoid because it is in no one’s interest. If those assets were operated by Ukraine and were fair game, they would be long gone and situation on the ground would likely be very different from what it is today. I thought that point was made clear by myself and others.
Click to expand...
The point is that this whole argument is pointless since it relies on these recon assets being operated by Ukraine in Ukraine, which they are not and probably will never be. So it is pointless wishful thinking to say that if they were, they would be long gone. Hence, using this to argue that Russia is fighting with one hand tied behind their back is also pointless.

The fact is, everyone in this war operates within certain constraints to prevent an all out war between NATO and Russia.

Ukraine is also constrained by NATO to not strike targets within Russia using western weapons. NATO is refusing to provide them with ATACMS even if they promise that they won't use it to strike targets in Russia. ATACMS could've made Russia's logistical nightmare in Ukraine even worse and improve Ukraine's position in the war, and yet Ukraine can't get them.

Ukraine and NATO would've loved to have the iranian drone factories deleted (before recent developments). Russia not having those drones would've improved Ukraine's position in the war, but NATO couldn't do anything to those factories because Iran is technically not fighting in this war, just like how NATO is technically not fighting in this war.

One could even argue that Ukraine is more severely constrained than Russia because they have Belarus very close to Kyiv. And since Belarus gives Russia a free and easy access to Kyiv, Ukraine has to constantly place units and considerable attention to guard against this threat instead of sending them to the fronts, which could've also improved Ukraine's position in this war.

But nobody was really using these arguments because they are pointless wishful thinking (except maybe the ATACMS one since it could actually change). Just like the argument with NATO recon assets helping Ukraine. It is how it is, they are the constraints both sides will have to work with. So let's stop using these constraints as an excuse for both of them.

Because within these constraints, both Russia and Ukraine are already going all out.
 
Last edited:
^ We’ll agree to disagree, no point going around the circle. To me, the difference is pretty clear.


After Scholz, Biden also says no jets:

The United States will not provide the F-16 fighter jets that Ukraine has sought in its fight against Russia, President Joe Biden said on Monday, as Russian forces claimed a series of incremental gains in the country's east.

www.reuters.com

Biden says no F-16s for Ukraine as Russia claims gains

The United States will not provide the F-16 fighter jets that Ukraine has sought in its fight against Russia, President Joe Biden said on Monday, as Russian forces claimed a series of incremental gains in the country's east.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

It was reported that the Abrams are now expected no earlier than the end of year or 2024:


mil.in.ua

Ukraine will receive Abrams no earlier than the end of 2023

M1A2 Abrams tanks will be delivered to Ukraine at the end of this year or in 2024
mil.in.ua mil.in.ua
 
One of the governors in Russia signed a law (?) about bounties for the MBT’s provided by the west, lol. Interestingly, he values Leo’s more than Abrams, haha (via google translate):


The head of the Trans-Baikal Territory Alexander Osipov signed a document according to which Russian servicemen will receive payments for the destruction and seizure of Leopard tanks supplied to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). The text of the document signed by Osipov is published by the publication "Trans-Baikal Worker" - the government bulletin of the region.

According to the decree of the Russian governor, the Russian military will be paid three million rubles for the capture of such a tank, and one million rubles for destruction. In addition to the main participant in the destruction or seizure, the decree allows the presence of assistants of up to ten people, they are also entitled to payments.

The governor of Transbaikalia estimated Abrams tanks cheaper - he promised one and a half million rubles for the seizure of such equipment, and 500 thousand for destruction.

Also funny, he had to mention:

At the same time, the author of the document gave recommendations to the servicemen regarding their "remult" in the seizure of foreign weapons. "To recommend to persons participating in a special military operation, when capturing (destroying) tanks specified in paragraph 1 of this resolution, to restrain courage and distance to reasonable limits," the third paragraph of the published document reads.

“To restrain courage and distance to reasonable limits”. Lol.

m.lenta.ru

Российский губернатор пообещал 3 миллиона рублей за захват танка Leopard

Глава Забайкальского края Александр Осипов подписал документ, согласно которому российские военнослужащие будут получать выплаты за уничтожение и захват поставленных Вооруженным силам Украины (ВСУ) танков Leopard. Текст документа с подписью Осипова публикует издание «Забайкальский рабочий».
m.lenta.ru m.lenta.ru
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top