rsemmes
Active Member
Russia has infiltrated HUR and used them to blow up the Nord Stream, obviously.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
(This is a joke, not real news, just in case).
On the Nord Stream, the dude was charged with war crime in Germany and prosecutors accused the UA authorities of ordering the attack.
German prosecutors accuse Kyiv of ordering 2022 Nord Stream sabotage
Indictment against alleged leader of gas pipeline attack claims former Ukrainian army officer was directed by state
www.theguardian.com
Now if they stretch the process long enough until the war is over or clearly wrapping up, they can take it all out on Ukraine and demand reimbursement.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #14,823
The thing with FPV drones is detection ranges tend to be low, especially through ground clutter. Your trench radar won't see the fpv at ground level beyond the next treeline. So you have very little time to react when it does show up. Also radars are emitters and draw attention. Add in the fact that it cant turn a full 360, and I suspect this system won't work well for this purpose.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
^ I would think it would be more of a hazard in that situation rather than assistant due to the factors mentioned.
Things that didn’t happen:
This whole Lazar group has reminded me of the Ghost of Kyiv ever since their first appearance and claims of destroying about as much stuff as the rest of the Ukrainian military. Overall, the things/revelations we may find out when the war is over are going to be as interesting as the war itself. So much rubbish has been said.
Another example:
Another:
Why not first question the validity of “250 soldiers” claim? I find it fascinating that people try to connect the dots that make zero sense any way you slice it. It’s worse than the covid deniers and maga crew. This goes for both sides, obviously.
Another:
Things that didn’t happen:
This whole Lazar group has reminded me of the Ghost of Kyiv ever since their first appearance and claims of destroying about as much stuff as the rest of the Ukrainian military. Overall, the things/revelations we may find out when the war is over are going to be as interesting as the war itself. So much rubbish has been said.
Another example:
Another:
Why not first question the validity of “250 soldiers” claim? I find it fascinating that people try to connect the dots that make zero sense any way you slice it. It’s worse than the covid deniers and maga crew. This goes for both sides, obviously.
Another:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #14,825
I believe the last one is real, though the aircraft in question hadn't moved since 2024 at least. It might not have been a working airframe.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
^ My understanding is that it is only “Russian” because it was left there when Crimea was taken over. So it is really a Ukrainian airframe and likely, like you say, a scrap. Like those “strategic bombers” (or whatever way they were advertised) not that long ago (I think I mentioned it here, but not sure).
rsemmes
Active Member
I do agree, this system has been developed to protect installations and it's going to be a long while until Russia gets something like enough of them.
You have a system that seems to work, you have a radar that works (within limits), you have to develop it for field operations, making it, at least some of them, SP. Then they will have to target the system first... then they will use artillery against it... then you target their pilots... then you hit their artillery... I know, it's just another tool to make drones even less efficient, to move or even to make certain (open) areas drone resistant.
It's not a silver bullet, but units have been working under air attack, and taking casualties.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Some of what didn’t happen from the other aide of the barricade:
What probably did happen:
After analyzing Russian monitoring channels and local chat groups, we reconstructed the following route.
Kazan was the last point where the Russians still had any meaningful air defense coverage and radar tracking. Once the drones passed that area, all information about them disappeared. Russian monitoring channels simply "lost" the drones and from that point onward issued only yellow alerts (potential UAV threat without confirmed tracking). This says a great deal about the actual state of Russian air defenses along the rest of the route.
The drones covered approximately 2,800–3,000 km, depending on the estimate. The strike involved upgraded FP-1 attack drones equipped with redesigned wings that were longer and featured a modified aerodynamic profile.
According to eyewitness reports and available footage, there were seven impacts at the Omsk Oil Refinery, including hits on two distillation columns. Russian forces reportedly deployed an A-50 AEW&C aircraft to provide radar support and a Su-57 fighter in an attempt to intercept the drones. Based on currently available information, only one out of eight drones was shot down.
There was no meaningful air defense around the target. No surface-to-air missile launches or air defense systems were observed in operation—only small-arms fire. The drones approached the facility with little interference, arriving one after another.
Even the protective netting that Russian forces had installed around parts of the refinery proved ineffective.
They were well aware that this facility was a potential target. It was the only major refinery that had not yet been struck and one of Russia's key fuel production sites, supplying many regions across the country. Either they did not believe Ukrainian drones were capable of flying more than 2,500 km, or they placed too much confidence in those protective nets.
I won't go into detail about the route itself. I'll simply say that it reflects a well-planned and carefully executed long-range strike operation. I have not yet seen any detailed Russian analysis of the mission, and there is no reason to reveal our own.
Source: DroneBomber (@DrnBmbr) on X
Incompetence of the Russian (or competence of the American planners) is also somewhat fascinating.
The fact that these drones can be tracked every time, fly similar paths yet not intercepted is kind of weird, no? Why have the Russians used aviation successfully to intercept every single flamingo the other day but could not repeat it here (I understand there is a difference between flamingo and these UAVs)? Why there are no defences set up near these strategic places? If you have hundreds of drones attacking is one thing and some quantity is bound to get through. Half a dozen, on the other hand… And so on.
What probably did happen:
After analyzing Russian monitoring channels and local chat groups, we reconstructed the following route.
Kazan was the last point where the Russians still had any meaningful air defense coverage and radar tracking. Once the drones passed that area, all information about them disappeared. Russian monitoring channels simply "lost" the drones and from that point onward issued only yellow alerts (potential UAV threat without confirmed tracking). This says a great deal about the actual state of Russian air defenses along the rest of the route.
The drones covered approximately 2,800–3,000 km, depending on the estimate. The strike involved upgraded FP-1 attack drones equipped with redesigned wings that were longer and featured a modified aerodynamic profile.
According to eyewitness reports and available footage, there were seven impacts at the Omsk Oil Refinery, including hits on two distillation columns. Russian forces reportedly deployed an A-50 AEW&C aircraft to provide radar support and a Su-57 fighter in an attempt to intercept the drones. Based on currently available information, only one out of eight drones was shot down.
There was no meaningful air defense around the target. No surface-to-air missile launches or air defense systems were observed in operation—only small-arms fire. The drones approached the facility with little interference, arriving one after another.
Even the protective netting that Russian forces had installed around parts of the refinery proved ineffective.
They were well aware that this facility was a potential target. It was the only major refinery that had not yet been struck and one of Russia's key fuel production sites, supplying many regions across the country. Either they did not believe Ukrainian drones were capable of flying more than 2,500 km, or they placed too much confidence in those protective nets.
I won't go into detail about the route itself. I'll simply say that it reflects a well-planned and carefully executed long-range strike operation. I have not yet seen any detailed Russian analysis of the mission, and there is no reason to reveal our own.
Source: DroneBomber (@DrnBmbr) on X
Incompetence of the Russian (or competence of the American planners) is also somewhat fascinating.
The fact that these drones can be tracked every time, fly similar paths yet not intercepted is kind of weird, no? Why have the Russians used aviation successfully to intercept every single flamingo the other day but could not repeat it here (I understand there is a difference between flamingo and these UAVs)? Why there are no defences set up near these strategic places? If you have hundreds of drones attacking is one thing and some quantity is bound to get through. Half a dozen, on the other hand… And so on.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
That strike appears to have been the last one on this facility. Damage in the surrounding area caused by the secondary explosions:
The location of the image (looking east from the spot shown:
The source is Kim Hovik answering the question above.
Not sure if it's just my setup but the screenshots by @KipPotapych are very large and makes it difficult to read, is it possible to make them smaller?
personaldesas
Active Member
Yes, he can attach them as thumbnails instead, which is a more manageable size, and anyone who wants the full-size version can still click to enlarge them.
The situation in Crimea is becoming critical. As authorities remain largely silent, residents are flooding the Telegram channel of the head of Crimea with complaints about power outages, communication disruptions, fuel shortages, and water supply issues.
the russian invaders are starting to struggle.
Twitter link
the russian invaders are starting to struggle.
Twitter link
Last edited:
Potential NATO reactions to nuclear attacks in Ukraine -- this was written quite some time ago but still provides an indication of what might happen:
How Might NATO Respond to a Possible Russian Tactical Nuclear Detonation? – NAOC
Officially this is what NATO says: "NATO remains vigilant and conveys a clear message to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. Any use of nuclear weapons by Russia would fundamentally change the nature of the war, and it would have severe consequences for Russia."
NATO's support for Ukraine | NATO Topic
Hoover
Active Member
Being honest, I think that the water problem will become serious in fall 2026. There is no larger rain in sight, and the water from the Dnjepro is ... at least symbolic. Also there is a shortage of food and goods for the civil population on crimea.
I don´t think that the Russian occupation forces will retreat or Russia will leave Crimea at all. Crimea is like national symbol for Russia.
Russia is advancing on the main frontlines (under heave losses, but who cares?). The question is, who is able to withstand loger.
rsemmes
Active Member
Well, I didn't know about the Frequency-Modulated Continuous-Wave (FMCW) radar either.
hopefully the situation will be so bad in Crimea that most Russian civilians will leave by the end of this year. The russian soldiers will probably not leave until russia starts to collapse, hopefully during 2027.
Some russians are leaving already, and of course looting on their way back home: Twitter link
Last edited:
Here you go again, who is the "we" that you speak for?Maybe we shouldn't tell Russia what "an existential war" is.
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008.
"The Western view is that the Kremlin is supposed to understand and accept that the alliance’s activities, among them war games replete with American tanks staged in nearby Baltic states and rockets stationed in Poland and Romania – which the U.S. says are aimed at Iran – in no way present a threat to Russian security."
Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could provoke Russia
Lost in the outrage over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the fact that many in the West have long warned that widespread NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could spark just such a conflict.theconversation.com
We shouldn't tell Russia what to consider a threat, as Russia doesn't tell Germany what to consider a threat: “Anything that enables Russia to continue its war of aggression against Ukraine also represents a threat to our security.” German foreign ministry.
It is not what we think Russia thinks, it is not what we think Russia should think, it is what Russia thinks.
And again with the nonsense that *only* the Russian view in this war should be considered, and also this weird desire to swallow the bullshit that Russia spouts about NATO and Ukraine and the EU being an existential threat to Russia, I can't begin to imagine how utterly stupid Putin et. El. Would need to be to believe that.... It is propaganda, an excuse nothing more.
personaldesas
Active Member
Zaluzhnyi argues that Western analysts declaring Russia effectively defeated are dangerously misreading the war: drone and precision-strike technology has made decisive breakthroughs nearly impossible, producing a battlefield equilibrium where neither side can win militarily, Russia can't conquer Ukraine, Ukraine can't liberate all territory by force. The war is now a contest of attrition decided by endurance, industrial capacity, societal resilience, and crucially sustained Western support, which he sees showing worrying signs of strain.
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
I wonder was post you have been reading, where is "only"?
Probably I should start with you considering the US ambassador in Moscow a "wild guess" and yours an "informed opinion". "We", was already explained, BTW.
rsemmes
Active Member
For some reason, I think that he is saying, in a more political, subtle way, what I have being saying: No NATO, Ukraine is out of the war.
"Yet it remains heavily dependent on Western financial assistance, military equipment and technological support while facing mounting domestic pressures of its own." For example, +300.000 AWOL, 2.000.000 avoiders and none of those 4m out of the country coming back is: "mounting domestic pressures".
Not exactly the same situation as Russia but, maybe he is also "wild guessing".