The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Vivendi]

Justin Bronk on the "missing Russian Air Force": The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

A good read, I think he may have some good points (but also some not so good).

 

[T.C.P]

Justin Bronk on the "missing Russian Air Force": The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

A good read, I think he may have some good points (but also some not so good).

One of the points made in the article was the low number of flying hours, but did Syria not show that Russia has atleast a signficant pod of well trained pilots. The operations there alone probably gave a bunch of pilots several hundred hours of real combat.

If the British Mod is correct that a su-30 and a su-35 was shotdown by Ukranian S-300s, then I wonder why such systems have been useless against the Israeli aircraft in Syria. Are the su-30 and su-35 that poor in comparison to Israeli F-16s? Or were Syrians forbidden from using them against the IAF?

 

[Feanor]

Surprised how much trouble the RUAF is having.
British MOD say Russia does not have control of the Air.

https://kyivindependent.com/

View attachment 48970

I wouldn't buy all the stories of Russian jets shot down. So far we don't have any confirmed info of Russian jets shot down. We know they lost one Su-25SM due to technical issues, and one Su-30SM due to the Ukrainian Tochka strike on Millerovo. That's it. Conversely from the Ukrainian side we have 2 Su-25s and two Su-27s shot down.

An 'interesting' story popped up in one of my feeds. Apparently the Russian state-run news outlet Ria Novosti accidentally published a story on Feb. 26th claiming that Russia had defeated Ukraine. Given the translated text of the article archived here on the Wayback machine, the article does sound as though it is Russia's intention to annex the Ukraine.

The following is a quoted line which has been translated by Google.



If that is an accurate translation, then things do not bode well for future relations between Russia and essentially everyone else.

Except for this part: "Украина вернулась к России. Это не значит, что будет ликвидирована ее государственность, но она будет переустроена, переучреждена и возвращена в свое естественное состояние части русского мира. "

"Ukraine has returned to Russia. It doesn't mean its statehood will be liquidated, but it will be re-organized, re-established, and returned to it's natural state as part of the Russian world."

So clearly not annexation. Rather some sort of Belarussification, as a Russian satellite.

It goes on to say.

В каких границах, в какой форме будет закреплен союз с Россией (через ОДКБ и Евразийский союз или Союзное государство России и Белоруссии)? Это будет решаться уже после того, как будет поставлена точка в истории Украины как анти-России. В любом случае — завершается период раскола русского народа.

"In what borders, in what form will the alliance/union [same word союз] be fortified (through the CSTO and Eurasian Union, or the Union State of Russia and Belarus)? This will be decided after the period will be placed in the history of Ukraine as an anti-Russia. In any case - this is the end of the divide of the Russian world."

 

[Feanor]

I don't have time for an update tonight, I'll try to do one tomorrow. It will probably be later in the day. It appears Russia has taken Kherson, and fighting in Kharkov continues. The encirclement in Mariupol' is not completed, there's fighting around Nikolaev, and Russian troops are apparently approaching Kiev from the north-east. No news out of Sumy.

 

[HelBattery]

Russian officials repeat to say they advance in accoradance with the assumed timetable - Kiyw is isolated, east and south-east areas are being taken under control step by step. And we could see T-72s in their units. So maybe it's not "give'em the best to do it best" thinking? Maybe they decided to save their high-tech attack assets (pilots included) in case that something goes bad, military conflict escalates or lasts much longer?
What looks strange to me, it's that they don't use UAVs on a much larger scale.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

All the planes in the world won't be any use if Russia could knock out all available airfield. I doubt there is any place in all of Ukraine out of the reach of Russian missiles. This is why I'm not so sure how much help will the additional aircraft will provide.

Yeah but they couldn't shut down UkrAF operations so far.
The reason is likely the difficulty in shutting down operations with ballistic missiles alone, severe lack of PGMs for Russian air wings, the still operational and abundant Ukrainian air defense assets, even if blinded partially, overall low training time for Russian pilots, and this sums up to the interest in preventing embarassment for Russia.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

My quote from a few days ago. The headlines of Ukraines 'resistance' are false.

That is quite clearly nonsense. Ukraine has been resisting and there is every evidence that Russia's advance has been a lot slower than Putin thought it would be.

Ukraine will be destroyed or will capitulate, and likely both will happen if pride gets in the way.

Ukraine will only be "destroyed" if Putin commits war crimes. He is capable of that, but the level of destruction we're talking about would be unprecedented in modern history. It would require in my view a total trade embargo against Russia.

As for surrender, that is completely possible but also up to Ukrainians. As a sovereign people they have the right to resist an invasion.

Shipments of military gear won't save Ukraine.

They're not made with an assumption that they will defeat the Russian army, but the toll they take on Russian forces may allow for Ukraine to negotiate from a better position if it comes to that. Not least it will show Ukrainians aren't afraid of fighting Russians, so Putin may accept he can demand much less about what post-war Ukraine will do. Anyone who was unsure about Ukraine before will have little doubt now that a Putin-installed puppet wouldn't last long or have to spend the rest of his life in an underground bunker.

 

[denix56]

In my biased opinion, I think even the capitulation of Ukraine will be less than Putin wants to achieve now.
Ukraine can get neutral status, but the West influenced too much to be changed in the next 10xN years already as well as attitude to Russians.
EU will continue to be important for Ukraine as well as Ukraine to be important for EU. The position of the puppet government will hold just until there is a lot of Russian army in Ukraine.

 

[STURM]

Michael Kaufmann speaks on the nuclear alert; giving the various possibilities of what it actually means.

 

[mrrosenthal]

Ukraine will only be "destroyed" if Putin commits war crimes. He is capable of that, but the level of destruction we're talking about would be unprecedented in modern history. It would require in my view a total trade embargo against Russia.

He is telling civilians to leave and providing them a safe road and train out of the city. When the city empties, whoever remains will be a combatant. Destroying an emptyish city isn't a war crime. And Zelensky can bet Putin is bluffing, but Putin has already crossed the Rubicon.

I'm extremely antagonistic towards accusations of war crimes where civilians die but are not targeted. Oh, you invaded us? War Crime. The defendants of the city had snipers and you blew up buildings in response? War Crime. etc
Russia is unpouplar, so lets call them war criminals. Thats absurd.

If there is a war, and you don't want to die, you should leave. Or kick the people fighting from your rooftop off your roof. Or better, film them, and then leave.

 

[Steinmetz]

More instances of Ukrainian civilians being very vocal, even a bit hostile toward Russian soldiers whom occupy towns and cities. This is in Kupiansk. It would be hard pressed to hold any of these places unless you're willing to pull the trigger.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498602706491035648

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498603884394209281

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

He is telling civilians to leave and providing them a safe road and train out of the city.

The transport network has a limited capacity. Kyiv cannot be totally evacuated in 48 hours, it would probably take weeks. More importantly, multiple Ukrainian cities are under attack and have been for days. There are people who want to leave but can't. Some lack transport, others are too scared they'll be killed if they try to leave because the Russians won't take the chance they're paramilitaries in disguise or because of shelling.

I'm extremely antagonistic towards accusations of war crimes where civilians die but are not targeted.

Really, so using unguided artillery and rockets that hit residential housing is a genuine attempt to hit military targets only? Has Putin already run out of all his smart munitions?

If there is a war, and you don't want to die, you should leave.

That's a really nice viewpoint. Blaming victims for being killed because they didn't run fast or early enough for your liking.

 

[STURM]

I don't have time for an update tonight, I'll try to do one tomorrow. It will probably be later in the day. It appears Russia has taken Kherson, and fighting in Kharkov continues.

Together with Kremenchug, Zhitomer and Dnieperpetrovsk; Kharkov, Kerson-Cherkassy and Kharkov are names familiar to those who have studied WW2 operations conducted in the Ukraine. As they; history has a tendency to repeat itself.

Al Jazeera has satellite images of a Russian column [appears to be mainly logistical elements] some 60 km which long; about 19km away from the centre of Kiev. This would be a prime target if the Ukrainians were able to target it.

 

[SABRE]

One of the points made in the article was the low number of flying hours, but did Syria not show that Russia has atleast a signficant pod of well trained pilots. The operations there alone probably gave a bunch of pilots several hundred hours of real combat.

If the British Mod is correct that a su-30 and a su-35 was shotdown by Ukranian S-300s, then I wonder why such systems have been useless against the Israeli aircraft in Syria. Are the su-30 and su-35 that poor in comparison to Israeli F-16s? Or were Syrians forbidden from using them against the IAF?

& Ukraine War could provide an opportunity to further increase the flying hours and hone their skills, especially in an air-to-ground/CAS role.

 

[Pepe le pew]

He is telling civilians to leave and providing them a safe road and train out of the city. When the city empties, whoever remains will be a combatant. Destroying an emptyish city isn't a war crime. And Zelensky can bet Putin is bluffing, but Putin has already crossed the Rubicon.

I'm extremely antagonistic towards accusations of war crimes where civilians die but are not targeted. Oh, you invaded us? War Crime. The defendants of the city had snipers and you blew up buildings in response? War Crime. etc
Russia is unpouplar, so lets call them war criminals. Thats absurd.

If there is a war, and you don't want to die, you should leave. Or kick the people fighting from your rooftop off your roof. Or better, film them, and then leave.

This would have be the one of the more absurd posts I have read...
" He is providing them a safe road and train out of the city" - the safe roads and trains existed well prior to the invasion. Someone has made them much more dangerous.
"whoever remains will be a combatant" - does that include those who are too old, young, infirm or simply too scared or able to leave?
"oh you invaded us ? War crime " - time will tell ...
"If there is a war and you don't want do die, you should leave" - Really? ... Why should you leave your own city/country because some else deems it?

 

[mrrosenthal]

That's a really nice viewpoint. Blaming victims for being killed because they didn't run fast or early enough for your liking.

Russia has shown intention to not kill civilians. And its leaving the road out of Kiev open. Criminal penalty requires intent. An accident is not a crime. Don't kill me on the details or an example here or there. The point is Russia is waging a war against Ukraine, and attempting not to harm civilians.
Therefore, civilians should leave anyway they can. In about 2 or 3 days, the city should be emptied, and anyone still inside is fairly considered a combatant.

 

[mrrosenthal]

"If there is a war and you don't want do die, you should leave" - Really? ... Why should you leave your own country because some else deems it?

You dont have to leave, but accidental collateral damage is a risk you take by not leaving.
Making war illegal is not the idea or goal of war crimes. Its to protect civilians and limit attrocoties. Just because war is unpopular, if its conducted as best as possible against enemy combatants its not a war crime.

This would have be the one of the more absurd posts I have read...
" He is providing them a safe road and train out of the city" - the safe roads and trains existed well prior to the invasion. Someone has made them much more dangerous.
"whoever remains will be a combatant" - does that include those who are too old, young, infirm or simply too scared or able to leave?
"oh you invaded us ? War crime " - time will tell ...
"If there is a war and you don't want do die, you should leave" - Really? ... Why should you leave your own country because some else deems it?

You are absurd for confusing war and war crimes. Russia attacking Ukraine is not a war crime. Purposely harming civilians is a war crime.
FYI, I'm not pro-Russia, just objective when it comes to hyperbolic claims of war crimes.

 

[Ananda]

Gentlemens, I suggest stop derailing the thread on discusion on what is war crimes, and what is not. This is not the thread for that. Talking on war crimes can widen on debate on How US conduct war in Afghanistan and Iraq toward how Russian conduct war in Chechnya and now Ukraine, or other wars after WW2.

I believe Mods already remind us not debating what is War Crimes or not in this thread. I suggest not to bring the issue again.

 

[Vivendi]

From CNN live feed (Live updates: Russia invades Ukraine (cnn.com) ) Seth Jones, vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies is comparing the current Russian force ratio to occupations after previous wars around the world, and pointing out that successful occupations had force ratios that were “astronomically higher.” “Assuming 150,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine and a population of 44 million, that is a force ratio of 3.4 soldiers per 1,000 people. You can’t hold territory with those numbers,” Jones said.

For example, he said:

• The Allied forces occupying Germany in 1945 had 89.3 troops to 1,000 inhabitants.
• NATO forces in Bosnia in 1995 had 17.5 troops to 1,000 inhabitants.
• NATO forces in Kosovo in 2000 had 19.3 to 1,000.
• And international forces in East Timor in 2000 had 9.8 to 1,000.

This is what many of us have pointed out already. Russia cannot occupy Ukraine, it's not feasible. They could go for parts of Eastern Ukraine, that would be feasible. No doubt they aim to insert a pro-Russian leader in Kiev, however, given the strong resistance from Ukrainians it is very hard to believe that such a leader will survive for long, without significant Russian troops. And then we are back to an occupation force again.

In other news, there are some reports that Ukranian pilots are already in Poland receiving training to bring back home donated fighter jets (no doubt MiG-29s, so training should be quite short and easy for experienced MiG-29 pilots from Ukraine). Ukrainian pilots arrive in Poland to pick up donated fighter jets - POLITICO

EDIT: it seems Poland is stepping back when it comes to donate fighter jets?? How do you interpret the statement of Mr. Duda?

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:

Well NATO stands in solidarity with Ukraine. NATO Allies have imposed severe costs on Russia for its totally unjustified and reckless invasion of Ukraine and we will hold both Russia and Belarus accountable for what they are doing by enabling the Russian invasion of Ukraine. NATO Allies have imposed costs on Russia by implementing severe sanctions. We actually addressed those sanctions in the phone call with President Biden and President Duda, and other NATO leaders and the EU. NATO Allies provide different types of military support: material, anti-tank weapons, air defense systems and other types of military equipment for Ukraine, humanitarian aid and also financial support. But NATO is not to be part of the conflict. NATO is not going to send the troops into Ukraine or move planes into Ukrainian airspace. Then, I think it is for President Duda to answer the question about Potential Polish planes being made available For the Ukrainian Air Force

President of Poland Andrzej Duda: Gentlemen, as Secretary General has now said, we are not sending any jets to Ukraine because that would open a military interference in the Ukrainian conflict. We are not joining that conflict. NATO is not a party to that conflict. However as I said, we are supporting Ukrainians with humanity aid. However, we are not going to send any jets to the Ukrainian airspace.

NATO - Opinion: Press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda at Łask Military Airbase in Poland, 01-Mar.-2022

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I'm extremely antagonistic towards accusations of war crimes where civilians die but are not targeted.

It is relevant if civilians are targeted if PGMs are used. And if they're used there must be some prior steps taken, such as assurance civilians are absent. There are even international standards on how up to date the intel on civilian absence must be. Cannot be in the hours. Must be near immediate.

If unguided munitions are used, I believe very large sections of the area must be entirely vacant. More than the CEP of the projectiles. I'm talking entire neighborhoods and streets.

In any area where civilians are still located, any use of unguided munitions is automatically a war crime, regardless of how well the shot is aimed.
This of course talks solely about indirect fire. Tank fire, for example, or small arms fire, is permitted when the evacuated areas are small. They still require prior intel, as with any form of fire on potentially populated areas.

I get it that this topic may be sensitive to us, Israelis, but there is a big difference between us and Russia. We follow the protocols. We buy munitions that are ten or fifty times as expensive so we can meet those standards and avoid casualties. For Russia that's not the case. Difference between western and eastern mindset.

You can make the case that Russia has almost no PGMs to speak of, and that it is showing great restraint regarding civilians, even having its soldiers risk themselves and not harm civilians. That is all true. But the absence of PGMs is by choice, and so the consequences are also by choice.

Targeting of civilians by Russia seems to be rather random. So it appears not to be entirely a matter of policy. Its policy is likely quite permissive, but not nearly as much as, say, Iran.