Russia invades Ukraine

[DustyBin]

The Russians tried a Winter offensive in a number of places. They have gained a relatively small amount of ground, but with huge losses. At the current rate of progress, and assuming they can find enough men and equipment, it will take over twenty years to get the parts of Ukraine that they have annexed, let alone the whole country.

With more help from their allies, Ukraine should be able to continue to hold the current 'front lines'. However, it looks like they need a game changer or for the Russian government or military to unravel if they are to take back all of their territory.

Having said all that, it's doubtful how long Russia can actually continue to suffer the large losses of both men and equipment, but also logistics, before something goes wrong and they have to pull back somewhere.

For equipment, as more and more gets destroyed or damaged beyond quick repair, they are having to use older and less suitable equipment. As you don't leave the good stuff to last...

You should also take the new equipment production numbers from Russia with a very large pinch of salt. A lot of the 'new' main battle tanks are upgraded T72 tanks. Not new build T90 tanks.

Similarly, how many of their men that are left are well trained? Throwing convicts and conscripted men at the front line is one thing. But for the complex equipment like aircraft or other systems where it only works well if the operators know what they are doing, using convicts and conscripted men may mean that these systems are not effective.

At the moment, I don't think Russia is a serious threat to NATO. The European counties may have cut their military back far too much, but combined, they would still stop any invasion by Russia very quickly.

The difference being that NATO would be making very good use of its air power.

However, yes, NATO and the 'western' allies do need to increase funding for their militaries. That includes a big increase in ammunition and missile production.

All very good points.

The media love an opportunity to create hysteria, so it’s not at all surprising that they’ve picked up on recent comments from senior military figures and politicians. The West does however need to wake up and realise that the “peace dividend” is over, which is why these people are saying what they’re saying. We’ll see tax increases to fund defence spending long before we’re conscripted!

 

[Gaz67]

All very good points.

The media love an opportunity to create hysteria, so it’s not at all surprising that they’ve picked up on recent comments from senior military figures and politicians. The West does however need to wake up and realise that the “peace dividend” is over, which is why these people are saying what they’re saying. We’ll see tax increases to fund defence spending long before we’re conscripted!

It's Sweden that is talking about conscription, nobody is mentioning us doing it. Don't think it's hysteria in the press to be honest, I think it's a lot of ex military people who see how weak the European armed forces of NATO have become, far too much reliance on America. How do you think your average pole living near the border with Ukraine is feeling right now? . Really hope there is something in the Labour manifesto regarding defence because it's clear that the current lot are stripping the country bare.

 

[najaB]

Don't think it's hysteria in the press to be honest, I think it's a lot of ex military people who see how weak the European armed forces of NATO have become, far too much reliance on America.

It's somewhere in the middle. Yes, the ex-military talking heads are talking, but the more sensational members of the media are extrapolating from what they have said and reporting it as fact.

For example, "We should be able to defend against an attack by Russia in the next decade" becomes "We expect an attack by Russia within a decade".

 

[DustyBin]

It's Sweden that is talking about conscription, nobody is mentioning us doing it. Don't think it's hysteria in the press to be honest, I think it's a lot of ex military people who see how weak the European armed forces of NATO have become, far too much reliance on America. How do you think your average pole living near the border with Ukraine is feeling right now? . Really hope there is something in the Labour manifesto regarding defence because it's clear that the current lot are stripping the country bare.

Sweden already has partial conscription, as do other European countries (universal in some cases). The reporting is slightly hysterical in my opinion (or maybe click-baity is a better description); as you say no one is suggesting that it will be introduced in the UK, or that war is imminent or even likely for that matter.

I agree with you though, the rest of NATO needs to get it’s act together and be ready to defend itself IF it needs to. The most likely cause of escalation is weakness (or even just perceived weakness) in my opinion. The aforementioned Poles clearly understand this hence the current military procurement programme.

It's somewhere in the middle. Yes, the ex-military talking heads are talking, but the more sensational members of the media are extrapolating from what they have said and reporting it as fact.

For example, "We should be able to defend against an attack by Russia in the next decade" becomes "We expect an attack by Russia within a decade".

This is pretty much it I think.

 

[1D54]

There certainly will be no winners in this conflict, only losers the world over. It might very well be ended the day Putin departs this earth and that day can't come soon enough.

 

[Eyersey468]

the more sensational members of the media are extrapolating from what they have said and reporting it as fact.

For example, "We should be able to defend against an attack by Russia in the next decade" becomes "We expect an attack by Russia within a decade".

As they always do

 

[Mogster]

Have you seen just how deep the US reserves of M1 Abrams tanks are?

Aye, 1000s, but they are rusting away in US boneyards not in Europe where they could be needed. Transporting 100s of 70T vehicles to Europe isn’t easy, especially as the N Atlantic shipping lanes could be contested. Then there’s the issue of convincing young Americans to crew the tanks…

Tom Clancy’s “Red Storm Rising” is still a good read.

 

[gg1]

Aye, 1000s, but they are rusting away in US boneyards not in Europe where they could be needed. Transporting 100s of 70T vehicles to Europe isn’t easy, especially as the N Atlantic shipping lanes could be contested. Then there’s the issue of convincing young Americans to crew the tanks…

Tom Clancy’s “Red Storm Rising” is still a good read.

If they were needed urgently they'd be flown across the atlantic, the USAF has 228 C-17s which can carry a single M1 Abrams and 52 C-5 Galaxy's which can carry two, flight time would be broadly comparable to modern airliners so 8-12 hours each way depending where in the US they departed from.

If a third of that fleet were assigned as dedicated as tank transporters (very plausible if Russia launched a full scale invasion of European NATO nations), 500 main battle tanks could be shipped across to Europe in the space of a week.

Crewing said tanks may be more of an issue as you say but the US does have a substantial army reserve they could call up if need be.

 

[najaB]

Transporting 100s of 70T vehicles to Europe isn’t easy, especially as the N Atlantic shipping lanes could be contested.

If you're thinking of a war with Russia, there's little to worry about from their navy. They'll struggle to get many submarines out of port, and we (NATO) will have little difficulty finding them.

 

[Russel]

Let's be honest here, the number of tanks etc wouldn't matter in a full scale Russia Vs Nato war as MAD would end it as quickly as it started...

 

[Mogster]

If they were needed urgently they'd be flown across the atlantic, the USAF has 228 C-17s which can carry a single M1 Abrams and 52 C-5 Galaxy's which can carry two, flight time would be broadly comparable to modern airliners so 8-12 hours each way depending where in the US they departed from.

If a third of that fleet were assigned as dedicated as tank transporters (very plausible if Russia launched a full scale invasion of European NATO nations), 500 main battle tanks could be shipped across to Europe in the space of a week.

Crewing said tanks may be more of an issue as you say but the US does have a substantial army reserve they could call up if need be.

I seem to remember that the USAF has calculated that carrying all that weight really hammers the airframes, MBTs are incredibly dense. The C5s are 30 years old already. C17 production stopped in 2014. The USAF doesn’t want the army’s MBTs on their planes any more if it’s for anything more than a photoshoot.

I think if we start seeing US MBTs rolling down the ramps C17 or C5s in Europe then we‘ll know things are about to get very very bad…

If you're thinking of a war with Russia, there's little to worry about from their navy. They'll struggle to get many submarines out of port, and we (NATO) will have little difficulty finding them.

You'd hope so but their subs have always been one of the more capable parts of the Russian military.

Has the Russian submarine threat been diminished by the Ukraine war? | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

If the Russian surface fleet is predominantly obsolete and its few modern combatants are of frigate size and below, their submarine forces pose a potentially much more serious challenge. The extent of this threat is difficult to fully quantify as real analysis does not involve just counting platform numbers but is a much more complex assessment of readiness, material state, weapon capability and crew training and competence. Some may argue that is in the interests of Western navies and their industrial suppliers for senior uniformed personnel to overstate the threat. What can be said with certainty is that Russian submarine activity had been rising significantly in the decade before the Ukraine war, the VMF has been slowly taking delivery of submarines almost on a par with Western equivalents and the Severodvinsk class are the finest boats SSN/SSGNs they have ever possessed.

The Russian Northern Fleet remains the significant focus of interest for the RN. Their ‘on-paper’ order of battle in 2023 is 7 x SSBNs, 9 x SSNs, 5 x SSGNs, 6 x SSKs, and a number of special-purpose boats. However, determining their precise availability remains challenging, although estimates suggest that approximately 25-30% of the fleet may be deployed at any given time. This would suggest that of the SSNs and SSGNs, which comprise the primary conventional threat, between 3 – 5 boats are typically at sea.

 

[Yew]

Let's be honest here, the number of tanks etc wouldn't matter in a full scale Russia Vs Nato war as MAD would end it as quickly as it started...

That doesn't seem to be what out, not Russia's doctrine for the use of Nuclear Weapons suggests. Perhaps if we launched a full-on invasion of Russia, but not for a defensive action in a NATO member state.

 

[Scotrail314209]

This has all got me rather nervous now, especially with what the papers were quoting earlier in the thread (even though it’s likely misquoted hysteria).

 

[najaB]

This has all got me rather nervous now, especially with what the papers were quoting earlier in the thread (even though it’s likely misquoted hysteria).

It shouldn't. There's almost certainly nothing to it, and if there is then there's nothing you can do to change what happens or not.

 

[DustyBin]

This has all got me rather nervous now, especially with what the papers were quoting earlier in the thread (even though it’s likely misquoted hysteria).

In reality nothing has changed. We’ve had a few “qualified” people reminding us that this situation isn’t going to go away and could actually escalate, and therefore we need to take defence more seriously. It’s nothing we didn’t already know, but makes for easy click-bait.

 

[adc82140]

There is one person that all these comments from military heads are aimed at: Donald Trump. There is a real possibility he could be the next US President whether we like it or not, so they are giving him due warning not to abandon NATO.

 

[brad465]

Another smoking incident:

Explosion at St Petersburg gas terminal, officials say

Officials did not say what caused the fire, but local media reported drones had been seen in the area.

www.bbc.co.uk

An explosion has occurred at a gas export terminal near the city of St Petersburg in Russia, officials say.
The blast caused a large fire, state-owned RIA Novosti news agency said. It said the fire had been contained, and there were no reports of injuries.
The cause of the fire is not known, but local media have reported that drones had been seen in the area.
Both Russia and Ukraine have used drones in the current conflict. Ukraine usually does not admit such attacks.
Russia launched its full-scale of invasion of Ukraine nearly two years ago, but has made little progress in recent months.
On Sunday, 25 people were killed and 20 injured by shelling in the Russian-controlled city of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, Alexei Kulemzin, the city's Russian-installed mayor said. Kyiv has also not commented on that attack.
Regarding Sunday's explosion near St Petersburg, regional governor Alexander Drozdenko said a "high alert regime" was in place after the incident at the terminal of gas producer Novatek, in Ust-Luga on the Gulf of Finland. He shared a video of what appeared to be a large fire.
Novatek later announced that work at the terminal had been suspended, and said the fire was the result of "external influence", without providing further details.
Russian news outlet Shot quoted local residents as saying they heard a drone followed by several explosions at Ust-Luga, close to Russia's border with Estonia.
Fontanka, a St Petersburg-based news outlet, said at least two drones were spotted flying towards the city before the fire broke out.
It said there were three large international tankers near the fire, although there were no reports of damage to them.
The BBC has not verified the details of what happened, and there has been no comment from Ukrainian officials.
Russia's defence ministry also said it shot down three Ukrainian drones in Smolensk Region, close to its border with Ukraine, on Saturday night. It earlier said it had shot down drones over Tula and Oryol, both in western Russia.
There were no reports of casualties.

 

[gingerheid]

"Near St Petersburg" indeed, but much much more closer to Estonia. I hope the attack wasn't launched from there, as that could be the sort of thing that could lead to rather an expansion of things...

 

[Killingworth]

"Near St Petersburg" indeed, but much much more closer to Estonia. I hope the attack wasn't launched from there, as that could be the sort of thing that could lead to rather an expansion of things...

Sadly that's the sort of provocation Putin may be waiting for. So far the west is not obviously doing anything to suggest ways for him to climb down, rather encouraging acts that may bring more aggressive responses.

But that's what happens once wars start. It's much harder to stop them.

 

[gg1]

I seem to remember that the USAF has calculated that carrying all that weight really hammers the airframes, MBTs are incredibly dense. The C5s are 30 years old already. C17 production stopped in 2014. The USAF doesn’t want the army’s MBTs on their planes any more if it’s for anything more than a photoshoot.

They're not used as such under normal circumstances but I believe the option is still there to do so if the situation warrants it, at the risk or airframe damage. In the case of a looming WW3 the definition of "acceptable risk" would no doubt be somewhat broader than in peacetime or during a more limited war such as Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[gingerheid]

Sadly that's the sort of provocation Putin may be waiting for. So far the west is not obviously doing anything to suggest ways for him to climb down, rather encouraging acts that may bring more aggressive responses.

But that's what happens once wars start. It's much harder to stop them.

I maintain the opinion that it's too Western centric a viewpoint consider that we have much say in what happens. We have the ability to let Putin just win. Everything else is outwith our control.

 

[Russel]

I maintain the opinion that it's too Western centric a viewpoint consider that we have much say in what happens. We have the ability to let Putin just win. Everything else is outwith our control.

Totally agree, we can give Ukraine aid but without getting directly involved, we have little influence over the outcome.

This is also why I didn't understand the uproar over the Labour party Gaza ceasefire debacle, every politician in this country could be screaming for a ceasefire in both Gaza and Ukraine, it's not going to make a difference.

 

[brad465]

Totally agree, we can give Ukraine aid but without getting directly involved, we have little influence over the outcome.

This is also why I didn't understand the uproar over the Labour party Gaza ceasefire debacle, every politician in this country could be screaming for a ceasefire in both Gaza and Ukraine, it's not going to make a difference.

War is an example of somewhere that popular opinion should in most cases be ignored by politicians and military experts. You can want peace/a ceasefire/truce, but that doesn't mean those directly involved will go along with it, likewise for anything else an enemy army plans to do. I expect there will be situations where popular opinion and the best course of action match, such as defending against an invader or opposing a war of aggression, but otherwise this is an experts know best situation.

 

[Scotrail314209]

In reality nothing has changed. We’ve had a few “qualified” people reminding us that this situation isn’t going to go away and could actually escalate, and therefore we need to take defence more seriously. It’s nothing we didn’t already know, but makes for easy click-bait.

It shouldn't. There's almost certainly nothing to it, and if there is then there's nothing you can do to change what happens or not.

I think the reason why it worries me is because I’m a naturally nervous person, who prefers things when the status quo is kept as it is.

It’s also because the expectation of WW3 is us all being blown to smithereens, and the prospect of which scares me.

 

[najaB]

It’s also because the expectation of WW3 is us all being blown to smithereens, and the prospect of which scares me.

If it brings any comfort, remember that the Russians and Chinese have no more desire for all-out war than we do so, as much as they may bluster, they don't want to start anything which might get out of control either.

 

[edwin_m]

The fact that Russia has respected NATO territory (bar a handful of missile incursions that everyone agrees were accidental) is a hopeful sign that they aren't looking to escalate, and suggests that if Ukraine had been a NATO member in 2014 or 2022 this would never have happened.

I'm thinking more and more that Ukraine will have to give up some territory to secure a long-term solution at some point. But this must also include NATO membership, so there's a clear deterrent against any further actions by Russia. This clearly isn't the ideal outcome and many will disagree, but I really can't see any other way out short of bringing other countries into the war.

 

[Annetts key]

Good luck in getting the Ukrainians to agree to a permanent loss of any of their territory. They have been clear from the very beginning, they will continue fighting until they regain all their territory.

And the Russian army, airforce and their Black Sea navy are now weaker than they have been for many, many years. Vast amounts of their best equipment is now scrap metal. A large part of their well trained and experienced fighters are now dead or have been seriously injured.

Putin or whoever is in charge in Russia would spin any formal agreement by Ukraine to concede territory as a win regardless of the cost of this war.

And from a European / Western / NATO / US perspective, it would not be good to 'reward' Russian aggression. Keep in mind that other countries are watching this. Part of keeping a balance of power (also called peace) is that you keep enemy or potential enemies convinced that if they were to attack, their action would be unsuccessful.

If the countries that are supporting Ukraine force it to give up territory, hence 'rewarding' the aggressor, Russia, this would be seen as a sign of 'Western' weakness. This would not be good for the prospects of long term peace.

The quickest and most efficient way for this war to end, is for the 'Western' countries to increase their support of Ukraine. Thus giving the Ukrainian military an advantage over Russian forces.

 

[edwin_m]

Good luck in getting the Ukrainians to agree to a permanent loss of any of their territory. They have been clear from the very beginning, they will continue fighting until they regain all their territory.

And the Russian army, airforce and their Black Sea navy are now weaker than they have been for many, many years. Vast amounts of their best equipment is now scrap metal. A large part of their well trained and experienced fighters are now dead or have been seriously injured.

Putin or whoever is in charge in Russia would spin any formal agreement by Ukraine to concede territory as a win regardless of the cost of this war.

And from a European / Western / NATO / US perspective, it would not be good to 'reward' Russian aggression. Keep in mind that other countries are watching this. Part of keeping a balance of power (also called peace) is that you keep enemy or potential enemies convinced that if they were to attack, their action would be unsuccessful.

If the countries that are supporting Ukraine force it to give up territory, hence 'rewarding' the aggressor, Russia, this would be seen as a sign of 'Western' weakness. This would not be good for the prospects of long term peace.

The quickest and most efficient way for this war to end, is for the 'Western' countries to increase their support of Ukraine. Thus giving the Ukrainian military an advantage over Russian forces.

I take your points but question how achievable that might be, in the absence of significant gains by Ukraine over the past year, despite receiving a fair amount of Western support. How much more support is needed to change the balance? The US appears to be cautioning that Ukraine should not attempt any major offensive in 2024, and by the end of the year we might have a Trump administration that pulls the plug completely.

 

[najaB]

Putin or whoever is in charge in Russia would spin any formal agreement by Ukraine to concede territory as a win regardless of the cost of this war.

Depends. If Russian gains the territory that was de facto Russian at the start of the war, but loses Crimea for example, then it would be difficult to spin that as much of a win.

 

[ainsworth74]

I maintain the opinion that it's too Western centric a viewpoint consider that we have much say in what happens. We have the ability to let Putin just win. Everything else is outwith our control.

Totally agree, we can give Ukraine aid but without getting directly involved, we have little influence over the outcome.

This is also why I didn't understand the uproar over the Labour party Gaza ceasefire debacle, every politician in this country could be screaming for a ceasefire in both Gaza and Ukraine, it's not going to make a difference.

I disagree. If the West had gotten off our collective backside, the GOP weren't currently pivoting towards isolationism and/or, in some cases, outright pro-Russian views and the Biden administration didn't appear to have concluded their best bet is to ensure Ukraine can't lose but also that they can't win either we could have armed Ukraine to the teeth over the last two years whilst also rebuilding our own defence industrial base.

We're two years into this war now and, for instance, our ability to produce something as basic as 155mm artillery munitions remains pathetic. Quite apart from the willingness to actually send them to Ukraine.

We could make a significant difference and put Ukraine in a position that it could win but instead we're rapidly navigating our way to the worst of all worlds. A destroyed and brutalised Ukraine that is forced into making territorial concessions whilst confirming to Putin (and others like him) that all they have to do is hang in there long enough and the West will give up because we get distracted, bored, it costs to much money, and is an inconvenience. And I'm sure that will end well for everyone if that's the lesson that Putin takes from the full scale invasion of Ukraine.

I'm thinking more and more that Ukraine will have to give up some territory to secure a long-term solution at some point. But this must also include NATO membership, so there's a clear deterrent against any further actions by Russia. This clearly isn't the ideal outcome and many will disagree, but I really can't see any other way out short of bringing other countries into the war.

I think you're right, it seems likely to the outcome. As above though I disagree that the only choice is either a dismembered Ukraine or directly entering the war. However it would appear that politicians on both sides of the Atlantic would prefer to do nothing and hope it goes away rather than do what is needed to rebuild our own defences and give Ukraine the tools it needs to win.

The era of the Peace Dividend was nice whilst it lasted. But that era entered life support in 2014 (arguably 2008) and was put out of its misery in 2022. Yet it appears that governments and politicians around the West will do everything possible to do one of pretend it isn't over, talk about it being over but do nothing substantive in response, or actively work to undermine the West. Honourable exception to the likes of Poland or the Baltic States who have been sounding the alarm bells for quite a long time now and have increasingly put their money where their mouth is (its notable that following the 2014 invasion of Ukraine by Russia those four states all increased spending to the 2% of GDP NATO guideline, most others did very little).