The Invasion of Ukraine

[lpm]

I didn't invent this concern - there's lots written about the issue...

Those are all pre 2022. That's a bit like articles in 1913 saying cavalry is a threat.

Any invasion of the Balts is now 2 years off, probably more like 5. Ukraine is a demonstration of what you can do to supply lines. So equip for that.

Don't forget this is a scenario where I'm forcing NATO to fight with both hands tied behind our back. To minimise risk. But Russia won't know that. How can a Russian general send an invasion across the border if he knows every single vehicle will be tracked in real time, with info conveyed directly to small units of defenders with javelins, with predator drones circling, with NATO air forces potentially winning supremacy via knocking out SAMs in Russian territory?

This is the first war since 1945 with certain characteristics, namely similar technologies on each side, non desert terrain and a direct invasion by one country against a neighbour. And it appears to show defence had a huge advantage vs offense.

[Millennie Al]

You seem to have difficulty comprehending EACL's argument. He is saying that Russia cannot rearm in a couple of years because sanctions will trash its economy and supply chains. Russia is not going to magically restore its self-sufficiency in manufacturing, because its economy has been mismanaged for so long. This page of threaded tweets should give you some insight.

That seems plausible, but I would not want to rely on it as it might be more wishful thinking. And certainly if Russia is itself threatened I would expect lots of Russians to do their best to defend it even if they currently disagree with the war in Ukraine. Maybe it'll take more than a year or two, but that's just arging about timing.

[Herainestold]

Scary stuff.
Why is nobody looking at de escalating?
More weapons, more sanctions just means more dead, and higher chances of all of us being immolated.

How many days before Russian tanks roll into the Baltics? We need to get this stopped now.

Cool. You should call Putin and tell him.

He is not taking my calls.

[headshot]

The future will certainly be the age of drones. I don't question that. But we're not in the future yet and you can't stop a Russian invasion of the Baltic states with drones this week, this year, or next year. Nobody has sufficient numbers of the types that carry weapons.

Ukrainian defence forces are using cheap consumer drones to locate Russians and shell them.

We’re talking a £100 drone here, not something that costs millions and is operated from 1000s of miles away.

See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasf ... te_russian

[Stranger Mouse]

This is the most incredible video of seen of Russian protest. The second woman agrees with Putin from the look of it. The video is so bizarre it appears fake but I don’t think it is.

https://twitter.com/nikorepi/status/150 ... 36098?s=21

[headshot]

This is the most incredible video of seen of Russian protest. The second woman agrees with Putin from the look of it. The video is so bizarre it appears fake but I don’t think it is.

https://twitter.com/nikorepi/status/150 ... 36098?s=21

There’s one I saw of a woman holding up a blank placard, literally saying nothing. She is detained.

[Stranger Mouse]

This is the most incredible video of seen of Russian protest. The second woman agrees with Putin from the look of it. The video is so bizarre it appears fake but I don’t think it is.

https://twitter.com/nikorepi/status/150 ... 36098?s=21

There’s one I saw of a woman holding up a blank placard, literally saying nothing. She is detained.

Yea I saw that. Apparently in this video the woman’s sign literally just says “two words” . It was the speed of arrest as soon as she held it up together with the speed of the arrest of the second presumably pro Putin woman that got me.

I shouldn’t say arrest. I should say abduction

[Stranger Mouse]

As an aside here’s a really good 9 minute podcast on the invasion of Georgia. History may not repeat but it rhymes https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1wzz

[FlammableFlower]

It'll be interesting if China does choose not to help supply Russia. That'll be quite a moment, then Putin is fully on his own.

[Stranger Mouse]

It'll be interesting if China does choose not to help supply Russia. That'll be quite a moment, then Putin is fully on his own.

I think that they will supply Russia with non military stuff but imply that they will supply military stuff as leverage in other negotiations but then again I know nothing

[Woodchopper]

The future will certainly be the age of drones. I don't question that. But we're not in the future yet and you can't stop a Russian invasion of the Baltic states with drones this week, this year, or next year. Nobody has sufficient numbers of the types that carry weapons.

Ukrainian defence forces are using cheap consumer drones to locate Russians and shell them.

We’re talking a £100 drone here, not something that costs millions and is operated from 1000s of miles away.

See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasf ... te_russian

Commercially available drones have previously been widely used in Syria and Yemen, and in the war in the Donbas. On the latter point, its another example of how the Ukrainians learnt from their experience in the Donbas, whereas the Russians seem not to have learnt the right lessons from there and from Syria, or the people who did learn have been unable to influence the higher ups who could implement reforms. The Russian armed forces have lots of drones, but the troops don't seem to be very good at using them.

[lpm]

Presumably it's the drone combined with a mobile phone that matters. No point in information going on a round trip to army HQ. Russians could be missing out for some fairly basic reasons - such as troops on the ground being banned from carrying phones because their location is on and they're chatting to Ukrainian girls on Tinder.

Plus a weapon can be great for defense and poor for attack. Ukraine needs to see what's coming down a specific road from the border. Russia needs to look around more widely, trying to locate any opposition in a circle.

Has anyone here played around with drones? Presumably you can beam to friends anywhere in the country. Army HQ gets to see an entire picture, a local squad with the anti-tank weapon gets to see the vehicle they're hunting? What about night vision capability?

[lpm]

This is the most incredible video of seen of Russian protest. The second woman agrees with Putin from the look of it. The video is so bizarre it appears fake but I don’t think it is.

https://twitter.com/nikorepi/status/150 ... 36098?s=21

Amazing. Would love to see an interview with her in a couple of years.

[Woodchopper]

Presumably it's the drone combined with a mobile phone that matters. No point in information going on a round trip to army HQ. Russians could be missing out for some fairly basic reasons - such as troops on the ground being banned from carrying phones because their location is on and they're chatting to Ukrainian girls on Tinder.

I hear that the opposite is the problem. That the Russian forces have been relying upon cell phones and commercial radios, rather than much more secure military grade communications. The Ukrainians have been able to intercept Russian communications and use use them to locate Russian units.

Plus a weapon can be great for defense and poor for attack. Ukraine needs to see what's coming down a specific road from the border. Russia needs to look around more widely, trying to locate any opposition in a circle.

Has anyone here played around with drones? Presumably you can beam to friends anywhere in the country. Army HQ gets to see an entire picture, a local squad with the anti-tank weapon gets to see the vehicle they're hunting? What about night vision capability?

It appears that there are general problems with coordination in the Russian forces. The troops near the battlefield are able to use their drones, but they are having problems sending the message to someone who can do anything about it (eg use artillery or an airstrike). At least from the social media video evidence, the Ukrainians seem to be able to coordinate their forces much more effectively.

[Stranger Mouse]

This is the most incredible video of seen of Russian protest. The second woman agrees with Putin from the look of it. The video is so bizarre it appears fake but I don’t think it is.

https://twitter.com/nikorepi/status/150 ... 36098?s=21

Amazing. Would love to see an interview with her in a couple of years.

Which one?

They don’t seem to be abducting journalists in the open at the moment but hats off to the people filming because I’m pretty sure they must have squeaky bums at the moment

[Sciolus]

Presumably it's the drone combined with a mobile phone that matters. No point in information going on a round trip to army HQ. Russians could be missing out for some fairly basic reasons - such as troops on the ground being banned from carrying phones because their location is on and they're chatting to Ukrainian girls on Tinder.

If Ukraine hasn't weaponised Tinder, they really should.

[EACLucifer]

Try again in a couple of years? And how, under the kind of sanctions they are under, will they be replacing their equipment? They can't even build Ladas anymore! And that's before one considers moral and political collapse, which, given the crippling sanctions and heavy losses, is quite probable.

Russia is a large country with plenty natural resources a large population. It would manufacture whatever it needed.

This is so inaccurate it's actually quite funny, especially in response to my point that they can't even manufacture Ladas anymore - that's not a joke, that's the simple truth of the matter. Russian production is utterly meshed with Western suppliers, to the point they can't even make cars any more due to lack of semiconductors. Their attempts at making a domestic tractor for import substition ended up with them importing Czech parts kits and pretending it was domestic, and what they do make is made on now irreplaceable Western tooling.

I can assure you people were saying similar in 1988 about the USSR/Warsaw Pact in general.

Neither the USSR nor the Warsaw Pact exist today. When did we wage war on them to achive this?

They invaded a neighbour and lost a war against people the West was supplying with arms, funnily enough, and it almost certainly contributed an enormous shock to the Soviet psyche.

There is absolutely no way that Ukraine can "break Russia into pieces" or change it in the other ways you have suggested, so you must expect that NATO forces will get involved at some point. It is always an advantage to have fresh forces face an enemy which has been fighting for some time.

Not at the cost of an ally - your approach sacrifices Ukraine, which, aside from the indefensible human cost, also costs the west an army three times the size of the British army, just as appeasement of Hitler cost the allies the support of the Czech and Polish armies.

Ukraine is not an ally. It is not a member of NATO and if NATO goes to war in support of Ukraine, why should other countries be members?

Ukraine is fighting against our common enemy with our assistance - that makes them an ally. As for your second attempt at a point, NATO does not need to withhold aid to others for membership to be attractive - Article 5 is sufficiently important to countries threatened by Russian revanchist aggression that they have been eager to join.

Ethics is a matter of opinion. And what I would be willing to do is no measure of whether a strategy will succeed or not.

It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of you placing a very low value on Ukrainian lives that you don't consider protecting them to be a worthy goal in its own right.

Ethics is very much a matter of opinion. People have been arging about it for thousands of years and have not reached agreement. I suggest you start by reading about the Trolley Problem I expect you'll have a very definite opinion on it and be aghast that so many other people do not share it.

Of course I've heard of the f.cking trolley problem you patronising bellend, and it's totally f.cking irrelevant in a situation where we are not dealing with known costs but with risks - unfortunately some people are stupid enough they cannot understand their are risks to inaction as well as risks to action.

The problem with this approach is you evidently don't know a f.cking thing about the military situation in Ukraine.

Are you claiming to know better?

yes.jpg

Yet you fail to consider the knock on effects of Russia starting a nuclear war.

That is an absolute nonsense claim - the biggest risk of nuclear war right now lies with Putin thinking he can get away with using tactical nukes. It's a risk that remains for as long as the conflict goes on, which is why a quicker resolution is preferable, and if he gets away with using chemical weapons without meaningful response, it's a risk that gets radically worse.

Since you seem to be such an expert on Putin's thinking, can you explain under what circumstances he would order use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons? And what would be his reasoning?

Pishwish posted a link to an article on Russia's doctrine in this area. Given that I am suggesting borrowing a Russian approach - escalate-to-de-escalate - you should probably assume I have, in fact, read up a bit on this.

[EACLucifer]

The future will certainly be the age of drones. I don't question that. But we're not in the future yet and you can't stop a Russian invasion of the Baltic states with drones this week, this year, or next year. Nobody has sufficient numbers of the types that carry weapons.

Ukrainian defence forces are using cheap consumer drones to locate Russians and shell them.

We’re talking a £100 drone here, not something that costs millions and is operated from 1000s of miles away.

See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasf ... te_russian

That's true, but it only works in conjunction with artillery. The light mortar team with a tiny drone for target spotting and fire-correction is genius, but it is an upgrade of a light mortar team, not a drone replacing conventional weapons.

[Woodchopper]

This is so inaccurate it's actually quite funny, especially in response to my point that they can't even manufacture Ladas anymore - that's not a joke, that's the simple truth of the matter. Russian production is utterly meshed with Western suppliers, to the point they can't even make cars any more due to lack of semiconductors. Their attempts at making a domestic tractor for import substition ended up with them importing Czech parts kits and pretending it was domestic, and what they do make is made on now irreplaceable Western tooling.

That's correct. But as we've seen with Iran and North Korea, its going to be very difficult to ensure that Russia can't obtain critical technology from abroad. Established methods include setting up front companies, smuggling or getting assistance from states that aren't sanctioned. The sanctions will make it more difficult and costly for Russia to obtain parts needed for its armed forces. But they are unlikely to prevent that happening.

[EACLucifer]

So why is Ukraine's airforce still flying?

Because the Russian anti-aircraft systems aren't being deployed properly.

Ukraine has been only conducting quite limited air operations - quite some way from the Russian border. So they are not in the air very often. Also a lot of reporting has suggested that the Russians are having difficulties coordinating complex offensive and defensive air operations (i.e. are at risk of "blue-on-blue" incidents with their air defences).

Doesn't change the fact - during a conflict NATO is not going to be flying aircraft around over the Baltics / Eastern Europe - within range of Russian S-300 and S-400 systems inside Russia unless those systems have first been neutralised.

Picking off a few tanks with drones is not going to stop a major advance into the Baltics. In the past couple of weeks NATO has been conducting civil air patrols in Eastern Europe with a rota of about 100 fighters - F-15, F-16, F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoons. Tanker aircraft are flying racetrack patterns throughout the day in the skies over Poland - refuelling them. NATOs defensive strategy currently depends on this overwhelming air power - it's up there for a reason.

If things turn ugly - and the Russians start engaging these NATO aircraft with their air defence systems (inside Russia) - then these air defence systems will be targeted very rapidly.

You cut my point that this is the age of drones.

And as a result your post is a waste of space.

This is no more the age of drones than WW1 was the age of tanks. Drones are very promising, very useful from a military perspective, but still limited. A reaper drone, to give an example of one of the biggest drones in service, can carry a bit under two tonnes of payload. A B2 can carry more than ten times that, and is stealthy.

All reconnaissance will done by a fleet of, say, 1,000 drones. Attacks on heavy armour will be done by NATO's fleet of, say, 200 predator type drones. Attacks on supply convoys can be done with an assembly of a few hundred other drones.

At present, this doesn't really work. Drones do not at present have the payload to engage massed targets - Ukraine's Bayraktars are proving very effective, but they are suited to a war of attrition, they just cannot carry enough payload to the target quick enough. By contrast jets can be armed with weapons like Brimstone, designed to attack multiple targets in a single pass.

It's not that what you are suggesting isn't viable in the long run, it's that the drone fleet required to achieve it does not yet exist, and will not exist for years.

Also Predators have been retired for several years - personally I think any remaining mothballed examples should be given to Ukraine, or at least brought back up to operable condition so they can be given to other countries in eastern Europe should the worst come to pass.

Ukraine has shown how, on European terrain, you hit the first and last tanks, then pick off the rest.

That's been the approach for a long time, and it still works, however, it is less likely to work against an army properly equipped with engineering and recovery vehicles, and properly trained in "buddy recovery". There are solutions to some of the problems Russia is experiencing, but they require investment in training and support vehicles that western countries seem rather better at than Russia.

NATO is the defender. It doesn't need long supply lines. The invader has to keep those trucks rolling every day. If NATO won't move without air supremacy, why can Russian forces invade without air supremacy?

Indeed, Russia wouldn't be able to successfully invade without air supremacy, and wouldn't be able to achieve air supremacy. As for the strength of Russian SAM systems, Israeli pilots more or less waltz through them over Syria quite regularly in planes no more advanced than those used by NATO countries, indeed NATO has stealth aircraft that make life rather complicated for long range radar guided SAMs.

[lpm]

At present, this doesn't really work. Drones do not at present have the payload to engage massed targets - Ukraine's Bayraktars are proving very effective, but they are suited to a war of attrition, they just cannot carry enough payload to the target quick enough. By contrast jets can be armed with weapons like Brimstone, designed to attack multiple targets in a single pass.

It's not that what you are suggesting isn't viable in the long run, it's that the drone fleet required to achieve it does not yet exist, and will not exist for years.

I was thinking more about combinations than the thing itself. Barbed wire is just a shorthand.

1914 was really barbed wire used with machine guns and trenches and wired communications and the invention of packaged food that can be delivered to trenches and artillery and aerial reconnaissance.

Presumably there were people in 1913 forecasting that the next war would be highly fluid, thanks to railways shifting large numbers of troop around fast and the beginnings of motorised transport. One von Schlieffen Plan, followed by a counter-attacking Schlieffen Plan, that sort of thing. But what emerged from the combination was the opposite, a huge defensive advantage and a complete loss of mobility. Until technology adapted, with tanks being used in combination with other weapons finally restoring attacking movement in the final few months.

A drone in itself is just a weapon or a reconnaissance tool. As you said, it's when it is combined with a light mortar there's a step up in performance. There must be unexpected combinations available. It's not just that you can get near perfect intelligence, it's that it combines with everyday technology to get that intelligence instantly to the hands of small units. A squad of four or eight on the ground can manage a complex attack with multiple weapons, combining a missile from a proper drone against a tank, a javelin against an armoured personnel carrier, mortars plus mini drone against trucks. And if it was NATO they'd be able to call up proper jets to wipe out a bigger force.

There's something odd happening in this war. The failure in the first few days can be explained by arrogance, a dud strategy and poor performance - and a great defence. But a couple of weeks later and the Russians haven't restored mobility anywhere. They are creeping up to cities but don't have the constant round trips of trucks necessary to bring in artillery shells etc. The potential answer is that there's been a step change in favour of defence, that Ukraine has realised from previous Donbas battles and is now exploiting, and that step change comes from unexpected combinations.

[Stranger Mouse]

This clip of an intercepted missile falling to earth is quite something https://twitter.com/dankaszeta/status/1 ... 70628?s=21

[Martin Y]

I just read this Chinese opinion piece from someone who appears to be a senior Chinese policy wonk. It's completely self interested, but given that the blitzkrieg failed and the West's rapid and united reaction his opinion is basically China should now get the f.ck away from Putin and drop him like a hot potato...

Thanks for posting that. It's encouraging if it's a view which reflects Chinese policy makers' attitudes too. They don't pull their punches either; starting with this will be bigger than 9/11.

[Woodchopper]

A drone in itself is just a weapon or a reconnaissance tool. As you said, it's when it is combined with a light mortar there's a step up in performance. There must be unexpected combinations available. It's not just that you can get near perfect intelligence, it's that it combines with everyday technology to get that intelligence instantly to the hands of small units. A squad of four or eight on the ground can manage a complex attack with multiple weapons, combining a missile from a proper drone against a tank, a javelin against an armoured personnel carrier, mortars plus mini drone against trucks. And if it was NATO they'd be able to call up proper jets to wipe out a bigger force.

There's something odd happening in this war. The failure in the first few days can be explained by arrogance, a dud strategy and poor performance - and a great defence. But a couple of weeks later and the Russians haven't restored mobility anywhere. They are creeping up to cities but don't have the constant round trips of trucks necessary to bring in artillery shells etc. The potential answer is that there's been a step change in favour of defence, that Ukraine has realised from previous Donbas battles and is now exploiting, and that step change comes from unexpected combinations.

I suspect that the difference is that for a small squad to be able to launch a complex attack they need to be highly skilled, trained and motivated. Even more importantly, they need to be trusted by senior officers to take initiative and act without detailed orders or authorization. What we've seen of the Russian soldiers is that they have none of those attributes. They're poorly trained, unmotivated and are just following orders.

Back in 2014 Russian forces did seem to be able to act on initiative. But it seems like the ones who seized Crimea and parts of the Donbas were just an island of highly trained special forces amongst a sea of cannon fodder. One reason for the over estimation of the Russian military is that people assumed that in general they were much better trained and led then they are.

IMHO its not a step change in favour of defence, its a step change in favour of those armed forces that can handle an environment in which foot soldiers receive information, analyze it and act quickly without waiting for authorization from the chain of command. Those skills are of course age old, but they seem to be more important these days.

[Martin Y]

This clip of an intercepted missile falling to earth is quite something https://twitter.com/dankaszeta/status/1 ... 70628?s=21

Do you know the context? The BBC report on the missile attack yesterday on that training camp near the Polish border said 30 air launched cruise missiles had been fired in the attack but most were intercepted. That struck me as remarkable but they didn't give any more detail.