The Invasion of Ukraine

[El Pollo Diablo]

Righty. Took time out from doing my job to clean up here. All those posts have been moved to the Pit.

We'll discuss if any further response to plodder's posts is required.

Some points, because this keeps happening:

- It's okay to be interested in warfare and weapons and armour and all that stuff. I'm not, I'm more interested in stuff like baking, but whatever, some people really find it fascinating
- I'd be rather disappointed in anyone who isn't horrified at what is happening in Ukraine. I think we can assume everyone here is.
- Some people perceive the technical discussion of armaments and weaponry and all that stuff in the same space as the human impacts to be pretty distasteful. I'm not casting judgement on that perception myself, but I can completely see why the technical discussions pop up and why some don't like it. There's no point in getting annoyed at either side, it just is, like tarmac and nitrogen.
- I think it might be for the best if discussions about different types of tanks, missiles, etc. get their own discussion in another thread, where people who like discussing it can do so and people who don't like discussing it can avoid it.
- We won't move any of the previous posts, because honestly who has the time. Anyone who wants to can please start a new thread for more technical discussion of the war. When that's done, it'd be best, please, if this thread stays more for the more human impacts.
- Please don't accuse others of getting off on this stuff. It's reasonable to be interested in it.

[dyqik]

So...uhmmmm...anyone notice Czechia getting nuked? Anyone? Can't see anything from here...

It's almost as if the people who thought supplying heavy/offensive* arms to Ukraine was a step too far were full of sh.t.




*All arms are of course both offensive and defensive - even very offense-biased arms like ballistic missiles can be used to counter-attack against an offensive, while inherently defensive systems like Iron Dome could potentially be used to defend an offensive against counter-attack.

I don't think there was serious opposition in Western governments to supply armored vehicles. Germany announced last week that it would supply them (though not tanks).

The problem with fighter aircraft was more about how to get them to a Ukrainian air base rather than whether to supply them in principle.

Where I do think there is a line is in the supply of long range missiles that could be used to hit targets deep inside Russia.

The problem with European armed forces is that in general they don't have much to give to give. European armed forces have spent the last three decades focusing upon peacekeeping and counter-insurgency. They don't have much equipment suited for war against Russia.

Russia invaded Ukraine with about 1200 tanks. The UK only has 227 tanks in total, Germany has 245, France has 222. Several NATO members (eg the Netherlands) don't have any as a few years ago people assumed that there wouldn't be any need for them.

So lets say that the UK, Germany and France donate 10% of their tanks to Ukraine. We'd be looking at 60 -70 in total, and that would be three different models so the Ukrainians would need three different types of training, maintenance etc. That's far less than the 176 tanks that Ukraine has captured from Russia (ie ones in working order). What the European armed forces could reasonably give isn't going to make a lot of difference. Give more than 10% and they'd be even more worried about their ability to defend Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (none of which have any tanks).

In terms of transferring jets, there's Uzhhorod International Airport - if the concern is armed flights into Ukraine, then they'd scarcely be in Ukrainian airspace for a moment before they landed, and after that it's an armed flight from Ukrainian territory.

AIUI, the biggest issue with transferring jets (and tanks to a somewhat lesser extent) is maintenance, and training of maintenance personnel. Obviously transfers that replace losses like with like aren't a big issue, but sending a quantity of jets of a particular type out of proportion to Ukraine's prewar usage would cause maintenance issues, and lead to those jets becoming inoperable in fairly short order.

Training pilots on new systems, even new weapons and targeting systems, would probably be a lot quicker than training maintenance personnel and setting up spares and special tool supply lines.

[lpm]

Russia reportedly deliberately impeding Ukrainian agriculture, including mining fields

So not content with their existing long list of crimes against humanity, they're now aiming for Holodomor 2? Or is this just an attempt to drive up wheat prices to bring in more cash from poor countries in the middle east, in which case brace yourself for Arab Spring 2.

It's often forgotten that WW2 lend lease wasn't just ships and tanks. The US also shipped over tractors and farm equipment. The first combine harvester to arrive in the UK, IIRC, was from lend lease.

It's pretty obvious that if a Ukrainian tractor gets destroyed, we send them a replacement? And probably better than a foreign legion to fight would be a foreign farming brigade? Young people could go to Ukraine, earn good wages and produce food, while the Ukrainian workforce is away on military service.

[JQH]

...]
Here's the full article, by the way, can't vouch for accuracy of translation.[/url]

Original is linked from there, for those who have Russian.

FWIW a friend of a friend who has Russian says it is accurate translation.

Cue the following Russian rebutal:-

1. It didn't happen
2. Ukrainians did it
3. What about the Asov Battallion?

[Herainestold]

These were the earlier responses from 10 days ago when I wondered about it.

There was a bit of a discussion following these.

Seems to me we might as well use it all now, in Ukraine, because any attack on Nato looks totally implausible.

NATO does not have infinite armaments.

We will run out of anti tank, Stingers etc, same as Russia will. No idea when.

The west has some pretty deep stockpiles of weapons - for example Britain is planning to mothball seventy or so Challenger 2s, while the remainder are to be upgraded. Other weapons are currently in production, eg NLAWs, but it is clear that production must be stepped up wherever possible, to ensure that weapons can be sent without depleting western resources too much, and if Russia collapses and we end up with more than we thought we needed, we can always stash them in Taiwan.

NATO does not have infinite armaments.

We will run out of anti tank, Stingers etc, same as Russia will. No idea when.

The Unites State’s defence budget is approximately 3/4 of the entire pre war Russian GDP. They have huge stockpiles of well maintained ordinance and weapons systems. Add in Europe, where NLAWs and AT-4s are rolling off production lines. Meanwhile the Russians have had to stop tank production because of sanctions. When the Russians run low on the latest and greatest kit (which they are losing at a higher ratio than they posses in their inventory), they’ll have to drag out more old, rusting, poorly maintained equipment, which will have a much harder time than the new shiny stuff that also got destroyed. The Russians are going to run out first.

Before that they will probably run out of soldiers vaguely capable of carrying out the fight.

I never thought I would be saying this, but maybe the NATO countries should hold onto their armaments, in preparation for Putin's next move.

[jimbob]

These were the earlier responses from 10 days ago when I wondered about it.

There was a bit of a discussion following these.

Seems to me we might as well use it all now, in Ukraine, because any attack on Nato looks totally implausible.

The west has some pretty deep stockpiles of weapons - for example Britain is planning to mothball seventy or so Challenger 2s, while the remainder are to be upgraded. Other weapons are currently in production, eg NLAWs, but it is clear that production must be stepped up wherever possible, to ensure that weapons can be sent without depleting western resources too much, and if Russia collapses and we end up with more than we thought we needed, we can always stash them in Taiwan.

The Unites State’s defence budget is approximately 3/4 of the entire pre war Russian GDP. They have huge stockpiles of well maintained ordinance and weapons systems. Add in Europe, where NLAWs and AT-4s are rolling off production lines. Meanwhile the Russians have had to stop tank production because of sanctions. When the Russians run low on the latest and greatest kit (which they are losing at a higher ratio than they posses in their inventory), they’ll have to drag out more old, rusting, poorly maintained equipment, which will have a much harder time than the new shiny stuff that also got destroyed. The Russians are going to run out first.

Before that they will probably run out of soldiers vaguely capable of carrying out the fight.

I never thought I would be saying this, but maybe the NATO countries should hold onto their armaments, in preparation for Putin's next move.

It's better to give a proportion to Ukraine and end the war early whilst replacing them in the NATO countries.

[Stranger Mouse]

Anti war protest outside the German embassy in Lithuania

https://twitter.com/sankuperis/status/1 ... GHcj-fOENQ

And a British security guard at the British embassy in Germany arrested for spying for Russia

https://news.sky.com/story/british-emba ... k-12583744

[Stranger Mouse]

Oh no. Apparent war crimes from Ukrainian aligned forces. Killing captives. This just helps Putin.

https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/151 ... XY8T3AiqZw

[monkey]

Oh no. Apparent war crimes from Ukrainian aligned forces. Killing captives. This just helps Putin.

https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/151 ... XY8T3AiqZw

It's horrible, but unsurprising. I doubt you'd be able to find a conflict where there wasn't war crimes on both/all sides, even if the scale and brutality is asymmetric (as it is in this war).

[Stranger Mouse]

Oh no. Apparent war crimes from Ukrainian aligned forces. Killing captives. This just helps Putin.

https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/151 ... XY8T3AiqZw

It's horrible, but unsurprising. I doubt you'd be able to find a conflict where there wasn't war crimes on both/all sides, even if the scale and brutality is asymmetric (as it is in this war).

No doubt there.I can’t even say with total confidence that I wouldn’t be tempted to commit some myself if I were to be put in a similar situation (If you think someone has raped and killed your family it must be a huge temptation to “forget” appropriate treatment of a prisoner even if you don’t murder them)

[Herainestold]

Oh no. Apparent war crimes from Ukrainian aligned forces. Killing captives. This just helps Putin.

https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/151 ... XY8T3AiqZw

It's horrible, but unsurprising. I doubt you'd be able to find a conflict where there wasn't war crimes on both/all sides, even if the scale and brutality is asymmetric (as it is in this war).

No doubt there.I can’t even say with total confidence that I wouldn’t be tempted to commit some myself if I were to be put in a similar situation (If you think someone has raped and killed your family it must be a huge temptation to “forget” appropriate treatment of a prisoner even if you don’t murder them)

Bellingcat is trying toidentify perpetrators.

https://nitter.net/Yola_nthe/status/151 ... 70350592#m

[EACLucifer]

I don't think there was serious opposition in Western governments to supply armored vehicles. Germany announced last week that it would supply them (though not tanks).

The problem with fighter aircraft was more about how to get them to a Ukrainian air base rather than whether to supply them in principle.

Where I do think there is a line is in the supply of long range missiles that could be used to hit targets deep inside Russia.

The problem with European armed forces is that in general they don't have much to give to give. European armed forces have spent the last three decades focusing upon peacekeeping and counter-insurgency. They don't have much equipment suited for war against Russia.

Russia invaded Ukraine with about 1200 tanks. The UK only has 227 tanks in total, Germany has 245, France has 222. Several NATO members (eg the Netherlands) don't have any as a few years ago people assumed that there wouldn't be any need for them.

So lets say that the UK, Germany and France donate 10% of their tanks to Ukraine. We'd be looking at 60 -70 in total, and that would be three different models so the Ukrainians would need three different types of training, maintenance etc. That's far less than the 176 tanks that Ukraine has captured from Russia (ie ones in working order). What the European armed forces could reasonably give isn't going to make a lot of difference. Give more than 10% and they'd be even more worried about their ability to defend Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (none of which have any tanks).

In terms of transferring jets, there's Uzhhorod International Airport - if the concern is armed flights into Ukraine, then they'd scarcely be in Ukrainian airspace for a moment before they landed, and after that it's an armed flight from Ukrainian territory.

AIUI, the biggest issue with transferring jets (and tanks to a somewhat lesser extent) is maintenance, and training of maintenance personnel. Obviously transfers that replace losses like with like aren't a big issue, but sending a quantity of jets of a particular type out of proportion to Ukraine's prewar usage would cause maintenance issues, and lead to those jets becoming inoperable in fairly short order.

Training pilots on new systems, even new weapons and targeting systems, would probably be a lot quicker than training maintenance personnel and setting up spares and special tool supply lines.

Answering in this thread so as to separate out the two.

These are all valid points, however;

The much-discussed transfer of jets has generally focussed on former-Soviet MiGs and Sukhois, which Ukraine already operates. Though the variants in question aren't necessarily identical, much of the maintenance will be the same. Ukraine already has crews suitable. Tool and part supply lines, where such things are different from those already in use in Ukraine, are not a huge issue - they can be flown to near the Polish border, and Russia has yet to demonstrate the ability to hit moving targets within western Ukraine.

Secondly, jets are moveable items. It might be possible to set up maintenance operations outside Ukraine.

Thirdly, we need to be planning for the long term as well as the short term. Ukraine will need an airforce in the future, and MiG29s are not likely to be a long-term sustainable option for a number of reasons, not least that they are an old design and spare parts being made in Russia, if at all, but also because they are relatively limited except as an air-to-air combatant. The MiG29 comes from an era when fighter jets needed to be fast, agile, and have adequate radars, and ground-attack needs would be met by other aircraft. It meets those requirements well enough, but it is obsolescent as a concept, and unlike comparable era western designs like the F15 and F16, it never did get the upgrades allowing it to become more versatile. In the long run, the Ukrainians will need different aircraft, it makes sense to plan for that now.

And fourthly, and most significantly, the Ukrainian military has more experience fighting a conventional war against Russia than anyone else. They have a capable military and capable high command. They say they want jets, tanks, artillery, MLRS and anti-ship missiles - they probably know what they need.

[EACLucifer]

The other point to note about weapon systems being unfamiliar and taking training...

Yes, that's true, but training can be provided, and can often be streamlined. The Starstreak missile takes a lot of training, so the UK provided training. They definitely didn't train Ukrainian operators for as long as UK ones are trained, but they clearly got them to a good enough standard to shoot down Russian helicopers (Link, unsurprisingly, links to footage of a Russian helicopter being shot down. Reportedly the crew survived, which is certainly plausible given the footage)

The other issue is that there are thousands of foreign fighters fighting for Ukraine now - many of them are already trained on Western systems. This includes at least one helicopter pilot from Italy. Not only can International Legion members potentially operate equipment, they can also train their Ukrainian comrades to do so as well.

And thirdly a lot of Ukrainians are volunteering. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians living abroad - mostly young men - have been gone back to Ukraine to fight, alongside even more Ukrainians in Ukraine. Many are completely untrained - it doesn't necessarily take any longer to train a recruit on Western systems than it does to train them on systems previously used by Ukraine.

[jimbob]

Mobile crematoria in #Mariupol

Mayor of Mariupol Vadim Boychenko said today that #Russian mobile crematoria have started operating in the city.

According to him, tens of thousands of people could have died in Mariupol and the cremation, "covering up the traces of crimes".

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1511664812719235073

The Western intelligence seems to have been spot on

[EACLucifer]

Regarding the killing of captured Russians by Ukrainian forces, of which there have been a couple of examples now.

I can understand why people have done it. I'm not sure how well I'd do at maintaining conditions for Russian prisoners if they'd been shelling my neighbours or occupying them and murdering during that occupation, especially as the Russian treatment of female Ukrainian POWs - even those they released in a prisoner swap - left much to be desired. Understanding however does not mean condoning.

No army is perfect on this issue, but they should aim to be. I've seen reports that at least in the older incident there will be a Ukrainian investigation, and there should be, and there should be one into the newer case too. At least in the former case it was reportedly territorial militia doing it, not regular army - it is harder to maintain the necessary discipline on these matters among troops that haven't had much time for training.

It is counterproductive - Ukraine wants Russians to surrender. War crimes should be dealt with by tribunal. It would be legit for Ukraine to put suspected war criminals in front of an appropriate tribunal, and if convicted deny them the rights of priviliged combatants, and then treat them as civilian criminals re: trial and punishment. It is not legit to engage in summary killings, even of suspected war criminals. It is also counterproductive as Russian POWs are a bargaining chip.

So far there are two documented incidents. There could be more, of course, but so far just two documented incidents. It pales into insignificance compared to Russian war crimes. Anyone trying to both-sides war crimes based on these incidents is at best wrong and at worst pushing propaganda. A few members of an army going against their orders is not comparable to orders to loot and kill, not comparable to orders to bomb clearly marked shelters for children, not comparable to tolerance of murder and violence - including sexual violence - against civilians.

[EACLucifer]

Der Spiegel reports German Intelligence have communications intercepts about the killings of civilians in Bucha that are detailed enough they can be linked to specific victims

Article is paywalled and in German. Are Germans really going to be ok with continuing to buy Russian gas and block arms to Ukraine?

If Europe sent one euro's worth of equipment to Ukraine for every euro sent to Russia for gas, oil and coal, Ukraine would have a very real chance of victory.

[EACLucifer]

US Senate votes unanimously to revive Lend-Lease to allow much easier shipment of arms and other supplies to Ukraine.

I believe it still needs to pass the house, but that feels relatively likely given how quickly it went through the senate.

[Woodchopper]

Concerning war crimes the key considerations that the ICC and others make is whether the crimes are systematic, which includes both whether they are widespread and whether the crimes are ordered, encouraged or condoned by officers.

We should expect that crimes will be committed by all sides. War is hell and brutalizes the people fighting in it.

But what is more important is whether or not the crimes are part of a deliberate strategy.

[jimbob]

Concerning war crimes the key considerations that the ICC and others make is whether the crimes are systematic, which includes both whether they are widespread and whether the crimes are ordered, encouraged or condoned by officers.

We should expect that crimes will be committed by all sides. War is hell and brutalizes the people fighting in it.

But what is more important is whether or not the crimes are part of a deliberate strategy.

Which is now clear as far as the Russian side is concerned. And inline with the approaches taken by both Russia and its clients in other conflicts

[Woodchopper]

Concerning war crimes the key considerations that the ICC and others make is whether the crimes are systematic, which includes both whether they are widespread and whether the crimes are ordered, encouraged or condoned by officers.

We should expect that crimes will be committed by all sides. War is hell and brutalizes the people fighting in it.

But what is more important is whether or not the crimes are part of a deliberate strategy.

Which is now clear as far as the Russian side is concerned. And inline with the approaches taken by both Russia and its clients in other conflicts

Certainly.

[Stranger Mouse]

Concerning war crimes the key considerations that the ICC and others make is whether the crimes are systematic, which includes both whether they are widespread and whether the crimes are ordered, encouraged or condoned by officers.

We should expect that crimes will be committed by all sides. War is hell and brutalizes the people fighting in it.

But what is more important is whether or not the crimes are part of a deliberate strategy.

Which is now clear as far as the Russian side is concerned. And inline with the approaches taken by both Russia and its clients in other conflicts

Certainly.

I’ve been thinking about this. While I think it’s absolutely wrong, in the event of there being difficulty looking after prisoners I could imagine myself in an extreme situation shooting a prisoner in the leg and justifying it to myself as the victim being shipped home and “getting off easy”. It worries me that if I can imagine myself doing that while in the safety of Blighty, what would I be capable of in extremis - whether being actually in the fog of war or being pressurised by comrades or superiors.

It’s not a happy thought. Stanley Milgram has a lot to answer for that I even reflected on it.

[jimbob]

Mobile crematoria in #Mariupol

Mayor of Mariupol Vadim Boychenko said today that #Russian mobile crematoria have started operating in the city.

According to him, tens of thousands of people could have died in Mariupol and the cremation, "covering up the traces of crimes".

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1511664812719235073

The Western intelligence seems to have been spot on

That image is from a 2013 video though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6L0jiMloO8

[Stranger Mouse]

More disturbing BBC coverage

https://twitter.com/bowenbbc/status/151 ... eIUH5spdWA

[EACLucifer]

One side effect of the Russians having terrible military communications and using commercial equipment is that as well as being easily can easily be interrupted or jammed with insults and heavy metal, their orders can be listened to and recorded. Including when they were ordered to shoot civilians.

Link is to audio with English subtitles, subject is inevitably very distressing.

[Woodchopper]

Are Germans really going to be ok with continuing to buy Russian gas and block arms to Ukraine?

It looks like they are weaning them selves off it. They nationalized the German Gazprom subsidiary, which is a start. I hope they'll speed up and stop all imports as soon as possible.