The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Larry_L

Active Member
Here is my virtual tour of the battlefield for the day. The first item is from War on the Rocks, featuring Mike Kofman, and Rob Lee. It is a detailed overview of the summer offensive. I Iearned a few things here. One that struck home is that just getting fire control over the Russian supply lines along the Black sea coast will not be enough to sever the logistics to the extent that the front will collapse. It is a long read, and many of you already know much of this, so am providing a few quotes.

"There is no single answer to the challenges Ukraine faces. The problem cannot be reduced to a lack of Western tactical aviation. The more important factors remain ammunition, training, providing the necessary enablers, and effective resource management in a war of attrition."

"While there is no way to truly know what percentage of combat power has been committed, at this point most of the Ukrainian brigades expected to be involved in the offensive, including air assault reserve units, are contributing to the fight in one fashion or another. It is unclear if Ukraine is transferring additional forces from other fronts, though some recent reporting suggests this might be the case. Russia has also deployed strategic reserves, including the 7th Guards Mountain Air Assault Division and 76th Guards Air Assault Division, and elements of its Dnipro task force in Kherson."

"Ukraine has killed multiple Russian generals in Storm Shadow missile strikes and has targeted logistics nodes and key bridges. These strikes have complicated Russian operations, enabling progress, but by themselves, long-range missiles have not proven a panacea. Part of the reason is Russian adaptation after the introduction of HIMARS systems last year, hardening command and control nodes, dispersing logistics, and pushing supplies directly to the front. A robust strike campaign to isolate the theater of operations by focusing on Russian lines of communication might have greater effect. Yet four months of strikes with Storm Shadow missiles suggest that the task of severing Russian supply lines with missiles alone is harder than some might believe."


Tom Cooper states that Ukraine finally took the high ground in the Verbove area, namely hills 166, and 161. I believe these numerical designations are referenced to height in meters above sea level. Even if this is true, Russia likes to counterattack, so these hills might change hands again.


Def Mon is less optimistic on the Ukrainian advance.


According to Russian sources they have destroyed several of Ukrainian "Ships". I suppose that sounded better than "boats" to someone.


Zalyzhnyi , or whoever this is, gives a different picture of what is going on in the Black sea. It would be really strange if the report of Russian aircraft failure to down a Ukrainian drone was true,


At the end of the day, I haven't a clue what happened on the border of Romania, It did happen just as grain deal discussion was to start.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There are reports that a Challenger tank has been destroyed in Ukraine. What hasn't been determined is how it was destroyed. This is the first recorded incidene of a Challenger tank being destroyed in combat, anywhere.

The Ukrainians have claimed that Russian drones have overshot the Danube River and exploded in Romanian territory. This is something that Bucharest flatly denies. If this is indeed the case, then technically Bucharest could activate Article Five of the NATO Treaty. However it is thought that Bucharest is not not willing to do so because it doesn't want to escalate the war.

A map from Supernova+ claiming to show the current situation on the ground at Novoprokopovka -Verbove.


Video of the Russian defences in the Zaporozhye area.


Kit supplied by the Duchy of Luxembourg to Ukraine.


List of German miitary aid to Ukraine.


Apparently the Russians have taken to protecting their strategic bomber force, buy covering the top surfaces of the aircraft with used tyres.


Ukrainian GMLRS strike on Russian supply trucks near Myronivskyi, Donetsk Oblast.


Ukrainian video of a defecting Russian helicopter pilot.
EXCLUSIVE FOOTAGE of the SURRENDERED RUSSIAN PILOT along with MI-8 HELICOPTER to UKRAINE
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
I've heard claims that HIMARS units went from firing on static targets to mobile/opportunity ones as well. This requires an organizational restructuring in the C2 apparatus. Any ideas on the subject? Is this a real trend?
 

SP_viewer

Member
I've heard claims that HIMARS units went from firing on static targets to mobile/opportunity ones as well. This requires an organizational restructuring in the C2 apparatus. Any ideas on the subject? Is this a real trend?
The main indication we would have of this being the case would be footage being released of HIMARS strikes on mobile targets, which I haven't spotted so far but maybe I've missed them. Unlikely for there to be any other credible sources to develop a possible trend during wartime.
 

bogs

New Member
However it is thought that Bucharest is not not willing to do so because it doesn't want to escalate the war.
Not want to escalate the war because the current ruling party don't know how to manage this issue and they prefer to stick their head in the ground (we have one of the biggest military scandals - a lot of soldiers are leaving the army because of the bad conditions etc - DOCUMENTAR RECORDER. Adio, arme! Armata României în fața celui mai mare val de demisii ); but they just admitted that some drone debris fell on the Romanian territory, even after the president Iohannis said that everything was okay, no drone fell blablabla.

It is a political circus in Romania right now :D
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
There are reports that a Challenger tank has been destroyed in Ukraine. What hasn't been determined is how it was destroyed. This is the first recorded incidene of a Challenger tank being destroyed in combat, anywhere.
Russian sources claim an ATGM did it. Allegedly this is footage of the Kornet hitting the Challenger. But I can't make out what's getting hit at all. In principle there's nothing implausible about that, the nature of the battlefield means there are Russian forces east, south, and west of the Ukrainian salient at Rabotino. Hopefully a closer look at the destroyed tank will provide us more details.

 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Elon Musk secretly ordered his engineers to turn off his company’s Starlink satellite communications network near the Crimean coast last year to disrupt a Ukrainian sneak attack on the Russian naval fleet, according to an excerpt from a new Elon Musk biography.

Musk’s decision was driven by an acute fear that Russia would respond to a Ukrainian attack on Crimea with nuclear weapons. Musk's fear for a Russian nuclear response was influenced by conversations he had with Russian officials, who no doubt did their best to scare him off.

I hope people from the WH have explained to Musk that he should leave such decisions to the WH/Pentagon in the future. I think they should tell him that if he does anything like that again, they will nationalize his network and keep control out of Musk's hands until the war is over. He should not be the person to make such decisions.

New Musk biography offers fresh details about the billionaire's Ukraine dilemma | CNN Politics

In other news, the US announced a new package, valued at USD 175 million, and includes:

  • Equipment to support Ukraine's air defense systems;
  • Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
  • 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds;
  • 81mm mortars systems and rounds;
  • 120mm depleted uranium tank ammunition for Abrams tanks;
  • Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
  • Javelin and AT-4 anti-armor systems;
  • Over 3 million rounds of small arms ammunition;
  • Tactical air navigation systems;
  • Tactical secure communications systems and support equipment;
  • Demolitions munitions for obstacle clearing; and
  • Spare parts, maintenance, and other field equipment.
Biden Administration Announces Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine > U.S. Department of Defense > Release
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Elon Musk secretly ordered his engineers to turn off his company’s Starlink satellite communications network near the Crimean coast last year to disrupt a Ukrainian sneak attack on the Russian naval fleet, according to an excerpt from a new Elon Musk biography.

Musk’s decision was driven by an acute fear that Russia would respond to a Ukrainian attack on Crimea with nuclear weapons. Musk's fear for a Russian nuclear response was influenced by conversations he had with Russian officials, who no doubt did their best to scare him off.

I hope people from the WH have explained to Musk that he should leave such decisions to the WH/Pentagon in the future. I think they should tell him that if he does anything like that again, they will nationalize his network and keep control out of Musk's hands until the war is over. He should not be the person to make such decisions.

New Musk biography offers fresh details about the billionaire's Ukraine dilemma | CNN Politics

In other news, the US announced a new package, valued at USD 175 million, and includes:

  • Equipment to support Ukraine's air defense systems;
  • Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
  • 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds;
  • 81mm mortars systems and rounds;
  • 120mm depleted uranium tank ammunition for Abrams tanks;
  • Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
  • Javelin and AT-4 anti-armor systems;
  • Over 3 million rounds of small arms ammunition;
  • Tactical air navigation systems;
  • Tactical secure communications systems and support equipment;
  • Demolitions munitions for obstacle clearing; and
  • Spare parts, maintenance, and other field equipment.
Biden Administration Announces Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine > U.S. Department of Defense > Release
If Musk actually did this then he really needs to be reeled in. Increased reliance on SpaceX by the government may need a review as well.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Elon Musk secretly ordered his engineers to turn off his company’s Starlink satellite communications network near the Crimean coast last year to disrupt a Ukrainian sneak attack on the Russian naval fleet, according to an excerpt from a new Elon Musk biography.

Musk’s decision was driven by an acute fear that Russia would respond to a Ukrainian attack on Crimea with nuclear weapons. Musk's fear for a Russian nuclear response was influenced by conversations he had with Russian officials, who no doubt did their best to scare him off.

I hope people from the WH have explained to Musk that he should leave such decisions to the WH/Pentagon in the future. I think they should tell him that if he does anything like that again, they will nationalize his network and keep control out of Musk's hands until the war is over. He should not be the person to make such decisions.

New Musk biography offers fresh details about the billionaire's Ukraine dilemma | CNN Politics
That's one side of it. But the other side, he's providing a bunch of Starlink terminals and services to Ukraine for free. He didn't have to do that either. There needs to be a reassessment of the privatization of this capability to begin with, but nationalizing the network sends a problematic message to others. Build something too good, and the government takes it because they can. There's probably a way to control this sort of decision making without nationalizing the network and disincentivizing others from building ambitious and desirable things.

Not want to escalate the war because the current ruling party don't know how to manage this issue and they prefer to stick their head in the ground (we have one of the biggest military scandals - a lot of soldiers are leaving the army because of the bad conditions etc - DOCUMENTAR RECORDER. Adio, arme! Armata României în fața celui mai mare val de demisii ); but they just admitted that some drone debris fell on the Romanian territory, even after the president Iohannis said that everything was okay, no drone fell blablabla.

It is a political circus in Romania right now :D
It appears it did fall in Romania. There's footage. Russian sources are claiming it's due to Ukrainian EW.


Also General Mordvichev has been promoted to General Colonel. He's part of a batch of promotions, but he's the only name that I recognize. His 8th Army did great work early in the war and in general he has a good reputation.

 
Last edited:

tonnyc

Well-Known Member
I want to point out that by this point the US DoD paid for Ukraine's use of Starlink and if Elon Musk still tries to interfere with military use of Starlink then the US government has a good justification to nationalize the service.

I don't think Starlink is in any danger of being nationalized for being too good. The US government was happy letting Starlink be. But once it's starting to interfere with US interests, well, that's different. And regardless of whether people agree with it, the US wants Ukraine to drive Russia off (though perhaps not too fast).
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
I hope people from the WH have explained to Musk that he should leave such decisions to the WH/Pentagon in the future. I think they should tell him that if he does anything like that again, they will nationalize his network and keep control out of Musk's hands until the war is over. He should not be the person to make such decisions.
Suppose we have a situation where it is Russia that is using his Starlink to execute attacks on Ukraine, do we label Musk a hero if he turns off the satellites during the attack?

While I agree that no single individual should have that sort of power, it has to be recongized that he built Starlink as a commercial venture, well before the war occured, without picking a side.

Practically, national interests will trump commercial considerations, and the US government can apply legitimate pressure on Musk, much like how Western countries imposed their own sanctions and asked their companies to pull out of Russia/sell their operations. But nationalisation is a dangerous step that sends a lot of wrong signals to the free market.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Practically, national interests will trump commercial considerations, and the US government can apply legitimate pressure on Musk, much like how Western countries imposed their own sanctions and asked their companies to pull out of Russia/sell their operations. But nationalisation is a dangerous step that sends a lot of wrong signals to the free market.
I agree nationalization is a step that should be avoided. That's why I suggested they should threaten to nationalize if he did not stay in line. I am quite sure the threat of losing one of his babies would be enough to make him step down. If not, tough luck.

I don't think it sends "a lot of wrong signals to the free market", if it's an exception and does not become a rule. On the contrary, I think it would send the signal that private citizens should not interfere with national interests at this level.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
On the contrary, I think it would send the signal that private citizens should not interfere with national interests at this level.
I am surprised that you would suggest an approach that relies essentially on veiled threats to citizens.

There are sufficient levers that democracies can pull to ensure there is alignment to national interests without resorting to veiled threats. Nationalisation has always been a tool of such authoritarian regimes seeking to subvert free enterprises and gain the means of production.

As much as I dislike Musk's messianic views about saving humanity, volatile actions and agree that he needs to be rein in, he needs to be handled fairly. Just because we don't like someone's view, does not means we should deny his rights.
 

tonnyc

Well-Known Member
There are sufficient levers that democracies can pull to ensure there is alignment to national interests without resorting to veiled threats. Nationalisation has always been a tool of such authoritarian regimes seeking to subvert free enterprises and gain the means of production.

As much as I dislike Musk's messianic views about saving humanity, volatile actions and agree that he needs to be rein in, he needs to be handled fairly. Just because we don't like someone's view, does not means we should deny his rights.
I added the italics because I want to focus on that, though the rest of the quoted part applies too.

I strongly disagree with that statement. Nationalization is the tool of the state when it deems that the national interest is greater than private rights, regardless of whether the country's government is authoritarian or democratic. It's true that authoritarian governments often abuse this tool, but it remains a tool of the state regardless of ideology. Whether it's good or bad is more a matter of how and when it's used. It's like a hammer. It's a blunt force tool. It's not something we want to use willy-nilly. And there are a great many situations where the hammer is the wrong tool. But nevertheless you have a hammer in your toolbox, because sometimes you need one.

Also keep in mind that nationalization does not necessarily exclude compensation. True, at its core force or the threat of force is used to take away something, but like its close cousin the eminent domain, the government can offer compensation. This compensation can even be at fair market value, though again what we remember is usually the bad cases where there's no compensation or it's nowhere close to fair value.

Going back to Starlink, all governments have the power to compel businesses residing in their country (or if an international company, the parts that operate within that country) to do something. This was used in World War 2 even before Presumably Starlink was not given the option to refuse when the US Department of Defense negotiated a contract for service in Ukraine to be used by the Ukrainian military, but they are very definitely getting paid. Now, as long as Starlink follows the contract, I don't believe they're in any danger of nationalization. But if they refuse still, especially after getting paid, then the option is on the table. Because it is a tool of the state.
 

2007yellow430

Active Member
I added the italics because I want to focus on that, though the rest of the quoted part applies too.

I strongly disagree with that statement. Nationalization is the tool of the state when it deems that the national interest is greater than private rights, regardless of whether the country's government is authoritarian or democratic. It's true that authoritarian governments often abuse this tool, but it remains a tool of the state regardless of ideology. Whether it's good or bad is more a matter of how and when it's used. It's like a hammer. It's a blunt force tool. It's not something we want to use willy-nilly. And there are a great many situations where the hammer is the wrong tool. But nevertheless you have a hammer in your toolbox, because sometimes you need one.

Also keep in mind that nationalization does not necessarily exclude compensation. True, at its core force or the threat of force is used to take away something, but like its close cousin the eminent domain, the government can offer compensation. This compensation can even be at fair market value, though again what we remember is usually the bad cases where there's no compensation or it's nowhere close to fair value.

Going back to Starlink, all governments have the power to compel businesses residing in their country (or if an international company, the parts that operate within that country) to do something. This was used in World War 2 even before Presumably Starlink was not given the option to refuse when the US Department of Defense negotiated a contract for service in Ukraine to be used by the Ukrainian military, but they are very definitely getting paid. Now, as long as Starlink follows the contract, I don't believe they're in any danger of nationalization. But if they refuse still, especially after getting paid, then the option is on the table. Because it is a tool of the state.
the US Constitution requires payment when the government “takes” property.
.
Art
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Read the cite. Just compensation is defined by case law.

Art
As per the article, fair market value appraisals can be difficult. Add in possible political interference and “fair” becomes questionable. I imagine the legal costs for contesting appraisals would be significant for many.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I want to point out that by this point the US DoD paid for Ukraine's use of Starlink and if Elon Musk still tries to interfere with military use of Starlink then the US government has a good justification to nationalize the service.

I don't think Starlink is in any danger of being nationalized for being too good. The US government was happy letting Starlink be. But once it's starting to interfere with US interests, well, that's different. And regardless of whether people agree with it, the US wants Ukraine to drive Russia off (though perhaps not too fast).
Didn't know about that. Thanks for the update.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I hope people from the WH have explained to Musk that he should leave such decisions to the WH/Pentagon in the future. I think they should tell him that if he does anything like that again, they will nationalize his network and keep control out of Musk's hands until the war is over. He should not be the person to make such decisions.
Musk's Starlink is a private company and as such the H & Congress have little say on how he uses it PROVIDED that it doesn't break US FCC regulations and US domestic law. If they get real antsy, Musk could take the whole operation offshore. IIRC he is South African and I don't think that the WH and Congress would like to see Space X moving to South Africa, do you.
 
Top