The Invasion of Ukraine

[Bird on a Fire]

What about agreeing to a proper referendum in each occupied territory?

[plodder]

What about just doing what they always do, and razing cities to the ground?

https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status ... 8200790020

[Gfamily]

How much fighting was there in the east/Donbas region running up to the invasion?

[Bird on a Fire]

What about just doing what they always do, and razing cities to the ground?

https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status ... 8200790020

Doesn't seem like a promising pathway to peace.

[EACLucifer]

Fairly convincing evidence out there of Russian units pulling out of occupied northern Georgia, presumably heading for Ukraine. It would be interesting if someone were to send Georgia some arms - not with intent to reclaim the occupied territories, but to put pressure on the Russians, a little like Japan's restatement of their claim on the Kurils.

[plodder]

What about just doing what they always do, and razing cities to the ground?

https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status ... 8200790020

Doesn't seem like a promising pathway to peace.

Grozny's pretty quiet these days

[EACLucifer]

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

I see we'll have to do this the hard way. Lets take it one piece at a time.

There is nothing on earth that amuses me as much as someone is deeply wrong and out of their depth doubling down by trying to be patronising

1. Russia is a large country. It's the largest in the world, so presumably that qualifies as "large". Do you disagree?
2. It has plenty of natural resources. It has the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second-largest coal reserves, the eighth-largest oil reserves, and the largest oil shale reserves in Europe. It also is in the top ten countries for production of gold, platinum, silver, copper, nickel, lead, bauxite, zinc, vanadium, cobalt, iron, ore, boron, molybdenum, sulfur, phosphate, gypsum, and salt. That presumably qualifies as "plenty". Do you disagree?
3. It has a large population. Its population is the nonth largest in the world. That presumably qualifies as "large". Do you disagree?

Following of from that, it has or would be able to develop the capability to manufacture what it needed in terms of things like tanks, missiles etc.

Wow. Russia is large. Is that another thing you had the nerve to presume I did not know?

Vast tracts of land do not make modern equipment. Nor do mineral reserves. To make modern equipment requires tooling, and also electronics. Their existing manufacturing capability is built around the use of western/Taiwanese semiconductors. To make as much as an engine, they either need those semiconductors, or to revert to older designs that they will need to tool up to produce. Now lets say they manage to make steel and diesel engines, that's all you need for a tank, right? It's not.

To be useful, a tank needs a fire control computer. It needs radios. It needs night and thermal vision. None of that is possible with Russian domestic industry. Before long, we're going to be thinking of active protection systems as integral parts of tanks, just as armour and tracks are now, and they are right out without semiconductors.

So tanks are out then, and so are aircraft, guided munitions, drones...Russia does make thermionic valves, but oddly enough it isn't possible to build good, compact, durable equipment with thermionic valves.

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.

Even if they cannot do so right now, once placed on a war footing they would develop (or, more likely revive) the ability. This seems to be an old argument in reverse. It used to be claimed that the British Empire was inherently technologically superior, but two world wars gave competitors the opportunity to show that they were just as good, and so nobody now believes it. Just as the British Empire could decline, Russia could advance. And an existential threat which can be easily portrayed as threatening outsiders is exactly the sort of thing to inspire it.

That isn't something that can be done on a short timescale at all, it just isn't.

And in the meantime Putin has to handle a population where more than half of adults are - or rather were - on instagram, that aspire to western cars and iPhones and all the other comforts of modern life and try and maintain control as the economy freefalls, and the key organising myth of Putin's political appeal - that he supposedly saved Russia from the economic chaos of the ninetoes - implodes.

Censorship and isolation are effective in North Korea - but North Koreans have never known anything else.

You are sugggesting that we escalate. If Russia responds by further escalation (regardless of whether this is toi de-escalte or another reason), we then either back down or further escalate. Since you are so keen on escalation, I expect you'd favour further escalation, so we end up in a self-reinforcing sequence of escalation from both sides. This is so obvious I felt it better to assume you were ignorant.

This is utterly hilarious, it really is. You are so confident it is simple solely because you know f.ck all about what you are talking about.

Putin wants to take over Ukraine - in fact he's made it clear wants to take over quite a lot of Eastern Europe - so he gathers up his military strength to attack Ukraine. The west has been very weak on the issue, tolerating his previous aggressions, including his atrocities in Syria and his occupation of parts of Ukraine, so he thinks he will get away with it. So he does it. The problem for Putin is it doesn't go to plan. Perhaps he can get the plan back on track by further escalating? If he feels he can get away with it, he'll do it. If, however, he is aware that if he escalates, there will be a response, he has a problem. He doesn't want to escalate things all the way because he cannot win that way - other he loses in a conventional escalation, or everyone loses in a nuclear exchange. If he is worried that his escalation will be met with an escalation that is specific and defined, he may choose not to escalate - or if he does, and the response happens, he may choose not to do it again. It's all pretty standard stuff, all covered by the term escalate-to-deescalate that you, in your ignorant arrogance, evidently did not bother to look up.

[EACLucifer]

What about just doing what they always do, and razing cities to the ground?

https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status ... 8200790020

Doesn't seem like a promising pathway to peace.

Grozny's pretty quiet these days

Only because he cut a deal with a local warlord

[plodder]

Also because it's "the most destroyed city on earth" (UN)

[EACLucifer]

Also because it's "the most destroyed city on earth" (UN)

Doesn't alter the fact that Russia's only able to hold on to Chechnya by cutting a deal with a local warlord.

[Grumble]

Also because it's "the most destroyed city on earth" (UN)

Doesn't alter the fact that Russia's only able to hold on to Chechnya by cutting a deal with a local warlord.

With any luck American spy planes will be able to see exactly where the Chechen units are and enable the Ukrainians to take the f.ckers out.

[plodder]

I mean, great, Putin can't win, lovely. Except, what they actually do is destroy everything. It makes things like logistics for your army a bit less important.

But cool, rub on about whether inflatable helicopters can max out TR91-D plasma assault cannons like a table-top gamer, it's all very helpful.

[EACLucifer]

It appears we have a moron on this thread who thinks artillery can move and fire without fuel and ammunition.

[lpm]

How many truck loads per day did it take to raze Grozny? Presumably some sick f.ck in the Kremlin has calculated how many Kyiv will need.

[EACLucifer]

Also because it's "the most destroyed city on earth" (UN)

Doesn't alter the fact that Russia's only able to hold on to Chechnya by cutting a deal with a local warlord.

With any luck American spy planes will be able to see exactly where the Chechen units are and enable the Ukrainians to take the f.ckers out.

Kadyrov isn't actually in Ukraine. He claimed to be, but a Ukrainian paper sent him a message on Telegram, and the server logs show that he was still on Grozny.

[EACLucifer]

How many truck loads per day did it take to raze Grozny? Presumably some sick f.ck in the Kremlin has calculated how many Kyiv will need.

Chechnya is much smaller and was much less well armed than Ukraine, which rather limited their ability to hit Russian logistics.

A BM-21 MLRS takes a truck for every reload, and that's the smallest MLRS in Russian service. Even before the war, Russia had so much of a deficit in trucks that in the buildup to it, there was joking in the OSINT community about prioritising trucks over tanks as Javelin targets, and they've lost a lot since - including quite a few burned at Kherson airport, along with more than a dozen helicopters.

[jimbob]

Russia is indeed a massive country. And its armed forces are nearly 5x the size of the UK's for example. And, unlike the UK, it has an indigenous stealth fighter in service and hypersonic missiles, competing with the US in terms of technology. Like the UK, it has an aircraft carrier.

...Whilst having a GDP about half that of the UK and a defence budget similar to the UK.


In light of these last two facts, it seems as though Russia has concentrated on flashy wunderwaffe that appeal to dictators and look good for May Day parades, whilst neglecting the boring systems that actually allow one to use the weapons effectively in the first place.

[EACLucifer]

Russia is indeed a massive country. And its armed forces are nearly 5x the size of the UK's for example. And, unlike the UK, it has an indigenous stealth fighter in service and hypersonic missiles, competing with the US in terms of technology. Like the UK, it has an aircraft carrier.

...Whilst having a GDP about half that of the UK and a defence budget similar to the UK.


In light of these last two facts, it seems as though Russia has concentrated on flashy wunderwaffe that appeal to dictators and look good for May Day parades, whilst neglecting the boring systems that actually allow one to use the weapons effectively in the first place.

Almost certainly correct.

It's also worth noting that while British a carrier is currently at sea doing exercises while Admiral Kutzenov is in dock, supposedly being refitted after catching fire and having a crane land on it.

As for those stealth fighters, there are four(4) serially produced examples. The T-14 - the supposedly groundbreaking super-tank - and has appeared and broken down on parades, but has never entered serial production.

There are some online who think that the T-14 and the SU57 will make a difference in this war - that's about as likely as the RAF sending a Taranis on a bombing mission.

Meanwhile, Russian units have at the best of times truck-lift capacity to operate a staggering ninety miles from a supply-head.

[Stranger Mouse]

Russia is indeed a massive country. And its armed forces are nearly 5x the size of the UK's for example. And, unlike the UK, it has an indigenous stealth fighter in service and hypersonic missiles, competing with the US in terms of technology. Like the UK, it has an aircraft carrier.

...Whilst having a GDP about half that of the UK and a defence budget similar to the UK.


In light of these last two facts, it seems as though Russia has concentrated on flashy wunderwaffe that appeal to dictators and look good for May Day parades, whilst neglecting the boring systems that actually allow one to use the weapons effectively in the first place.

Their fascination with display extends to lots of video of their troops doing unarmed combat (generally useless on a battlefield) using flashy karate techniques like hard blocks and high/jumping kicks. As far as I am aware most forces around the world keep their unarmed combat training to a few tried and tested basic techniques but a flying side kick will be about as much use to a soldier as Kleenex body armour but will take a lot of time and training when they could be learning something useful.

[TopBadger]

Their fascination with display extends to lots of video of their troops doing unarmed combat (generally useless on a battlefield) using flashy karate techniques like hard blocks and high/jumping kicks. As far as I am aware most forces around the world keep their unarmed combat training to a few tried and tested basic techniques but a flying side kick will be about as much use to a soldier as Kleenex body armour but will take a lot of time and training when they could be learning something useful.

Maybe the Russians have been watching too many action hero movies where the good (western) guy throws away their perfectly working gun so they can settle things with their fists instead... and mistaken this for western military doctrine.

[plodder]

Russia is indeed a massive country. And its armed forces are nearly 5x the size of the UK's for example. And, unlike the UK, it has an indigenous stealth fighter in service and hypersonic missiles, competing with the US in terms of technology. Like the UK, it has an aircraft carrier.

...Whilst having a GDP about half that of the UK and a defence budget similar to the UK.


In light of these last two facts, it seems as though Russia has concentrated on flashy wunderwaffe that appeal to dictators and look good for May Day parades, whilst neglecting the boring systems that actually allow one to use the weapons effectively in the first place.

It could also be that UK defense procurement is inefficient compared to Russia's. I mean, it's a possibility, right? Kick-back central, jobs for the boys, rampant stupidity? There are loads of stories of British kit being bl..dy useless.

[jimbob]

Russia is indeed a massive country. And its armed forces are nearly 5x the size of the UK's for example. And, unlike the UK, it has an indigenous stealth fighter in service and hypersonic missiles, competing with the US in terms of technology. Like the UK, it has an aircraft carrier.

...Whilst having a GDP about half that of the UK and a defence budget similar to the UK.


In light of these last two facts, it seems as though Russia has concentrated on flashy wunderwaffe that appeal to dictators and look good for May Day parades, whilst neglecting the boring systems that actually allow one to use the weapons effectively in the first place.

It could also be that UK defense procurement is inefficient compared to Russia's. I mean, it's a possibility, right? Kick-back central, jobs for the boys, rampant stupidity? There are loads of stories of British kit being bl..dy useless.

There are indeed.

However, those issues are almost certainly worse with Russia, not better.

[Bird on a Fire]

I mean, great, Putin can't win, lovely. Except, what they actually do is destroy everything. It makes things like logistics for your army a bit less important.

But cool, rub on about whether inflatable helicopters can max out TR91-D plasma assault cannons like a table-top gamer, it's all very helpful.

I'm struggling a bit to see your point here, plodder. Do you mean
(a) Russia will win, because of their ability to destroy everything regardless of any logistical challenges, or
(b) It doesn't matter if Russia wins or loses, because they'll have destroyed everything anyway
?

It seems that in your own over-enthusiasm to play another card from your "references to m.st.rbation" deck you forgot to roll the Dice of Making Sense. Please move your left leg to the green circle of playing nicely with the other children. Thank you.

[EACLucifer]

Seeing reporting saying Biden's confirmed US will supply armed drones to Ukraine - not sure if that refers to Predators/Reapers, or the Switchblade, which is an utterly different sort of beast.

The Predator and Reaper drones are basically uncrewed bombers, even capable of carrying Stingers to defend themselves, and would do a similar job to the Turkish made Bayraktars, which have been very effective.

The Switchblade is a tiny little thing, person portable and fired from a mortar. It's a loitering munition, meaning it sits right on the boundary of drone and missile. It can fly around and look at things, and also dive into them and blow them up, with a human in charge at all points. There's two variants, one that's seen service and one that is IIRC still in trials, the existing variant is short ranged and has a warhead roughly equivalent to a grenade, while the newer variant has much longer range and an armour-piercing warhead.

[lpm]

I read it was Switchblades.

Good against a lorry full of Chinese MREs? How armoured are fuel trucks against a grenade sized explosion?