• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Russia invades Ukraine

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,087
Location
Taunton or Kent
Sounds like things are going really well for Russia (not):


Convicted murderers and drug dealers who have recently left prison in Russia face being conscripted to fight in Ukraine under a change to the law.

President Vladimir Putin amended the legislation on calling up reservists to include men convicted of serious crimes who recently left prison.
Former prisoners convicted of sex crimes against children or terrorism are still excluded from serving.
Russian soldiers have been accused of crimes during the invasion of Ukraine.
The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, set up by the UN, reported in September that war crimes had been committed by Russian forces including summary executions of civilians and acts of "sexual gender-based violence" by "some" soldiers.
Ukraine itself says it has identified tens of thousands of possible war crimes by Russian forces.
Russia denies deliberately attacking civilians and accuses Ukrainian forces of targeting civilians in separatist-held areas of the country with artillery, which Ukraine denies.
The UN commission said it had found "two instances of ill-treatment of Russian Federation soldiers by Ukrainian soldiers" but the number of war crimes allegations against Russia was "obviously significantly larger".
In September, reports emerged that the Wagner mercenary group was recruiting prisoners to fight in Ukraine in exchange for their sentences being commuted.
Russian law does not allow commutation of prison sentences in exchange for mercenary service but Wagner head Yevgeny Prigozhin was filmed telling prisoners "nobody goes back behind bars" if they served with his group.
On Friday, President Putin announced that some 49,000 of about 300,000 reservists called up since September had already been deployed to units serving in Ukraine.
He told a group of young men and women from a Kremlin-controlled movement called Popular Front that "about 50,000" volunteers had also signed up.
Military experts in the West and Ukraine say Mr Putin's decision to call up reservists showed that Russian troops were failing badly on the battlefield in Ukraine.
Thousands of Russian men opposed to the war have fled the country since the call-up was announced.
Since Russian invaded Ukraine on 24 February, thousands of civilians and combatants have been killed or injured, cities and towns have been destroyed in fighting, and nearly 7.8 million Ukrainians have been registered as refugees in Europe, with 2.8 million of them in Russia.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,637
Location
First Class
From Sky News



It absolutely infuriates me some of the absolute nonsense allegations that sick mad evil Putin and his chronies are saying about "The West" and Britain. Also saying that Britain is threatening Moscow with nuclear weapons!

I'm still concerned that one day there's going to be a big yellow LIVE BREAKING headline on Sky News with something really alarming and terrifying like "Kremlin preparing to nuke Britain tonight to wipe the British Isles off the face of the earth" or "Kremlin preparing to bomb London tonight".

These extremely unnerving worrying times still drags on whilst Putin is still in power and some of the absolute nonsense he's saying about Britain. Note that article above mentions "Yes, it's an Orthodox battle, a final apoocalyptic, eschatological battle of Orthodox Christian Russia, holy Russia, against the antichrist. That's the point of this special military operation.".

Am absolutely sick of all this. This is just dragging on forever it seems. When will it ever end?

As has already been explained, it’s nothing more than fantastical nonsense for Russian domestic consumption. There are people in Russia who believe it, and that’s all that matters. Sky News (who I recommend avoiding) are only reporting this rubbish to fill space; there are idiots like Dugin ranting and raving on Russian TV all day every day. It’s not “news”.

There aren’t going to be any “BREAKING NEWS” headlines regarding a Russian attack on the UK. Firstly because it isn’t going happen, but even if an attack (theoretically) were to happen, we’d know about it days in advance. Do you really think we’d sit back and allow Russia to strike first?

Unfortunately this war could drag on for a long time yet. How and when it will end I really wouldn’t like to say. As I’ve said previously, we need to consider the least unlikely scenarios at this point, and a long protracted conflict is entirely possible (although that still doesn’t answer the question!). Putin knows he can’t win, but if he can avoid losing outright that keeps him in power and alive.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,831
Do you really think we’d sit back and allow Russia to strike first?

No. I'd fully expect a decapitation strike against Putin in order to remove him from power, after a warning sent to senior military officials in Russia that the US does not intend to start a war, but only to remove Putin from the scene.

I don't believe for one minute that he isn't being tracked by the US.

we need to consider the least unlikely scenarios at this point

Russia losing control of the right (i.e. west) bank of the Dnipro seems pretty clear at this point, and Russia accumulating huge losses in Donetsk/Luhansk seems also clear. This is only my amateur armchair general prediction, but:

The war in Kherson will drag on for quite a while yet. Ukraine hasn't made the advances that some were expecting them to make by now, although they also seem quite content to simply make life a nightmare for the Russian forces in Kherson. At some point, perhaps in the middle of winter, Kherson (city) will fall and Ukraine will control the entire right (i.e. west) bank of the Dnipro River.

Nothing much will happen in Donetsk/Luhansk beyond Ukraine moving forwards slowly. Russia will keep taking huge losses there, but Ukraine will be content to simply send tens of thousands of Russians to their death in the meat grinder while they continue to train and equip new troops.

The problem is, as I keep mentioning: Russia won't have any problems with losing 1 or even 2 million in Ukraine. They don't value human life, and it's something that we (in the West) really struggle to comprehend. I've noticed that many Polish friends love to point this out: Russia is simply culturally different because they don't care about human life.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,879
Location
Scotland
The war in Kherson will drag on for quite a while yet. Ukraine hasn't made the advances that some were expecting them to make by now, although they also seem quite content to simply make life a nightmare for the Russian forces in Kherson. At some point, perhaps in the middle of winter, Kherson (city) will fall and Ukraine will control the entire right (i.e. west) bank of the Dnipro River.
I suspect that the Ukrainian armed forces are wary of Kherson turning into a trap. As you say, there's no need for them to rush into taking the territory, it's much more advantageous for them overall to simply keep Russian forces tied up in the city.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,100
The problem is, as I keep mentioning: Russia won't have any problems with losing 1 or even 2 million in Ukraine. They don't value human life, and it's something that we (in the West) really struggle to comprehend. I've noticed that many Polish friends love to point this out: Russia is simply culturally different because they don't care about human life.
I think 2 million could be an issue. There's a difference between not valuing human life, and gutting the already-weak demographics of your country without any clear purpose.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,236
I think 2 million could be an issue. There's a difference between not valuing human life, and gutting the already-weak demographics of your country without any clear purpose.

Agreed. There’s about 29m men aged 18-50 in Russia, 2m is roughly 1:15 of that demographic.Whilst the leadership may have a lower valuation of life compared to Western standards, losing, on average, two of your old school classmates in the space of a year or so must test the emotion of even the toughest Russian.
 
Last edited:

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,698
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
The problem is, as I keep mentioning: Russia won't have any problems with losing 1 or even 2 million in Ukraine. They don't value human life

The leadership certainly don't, but as more young Russian men leave for the front and don't return, surely the people will increasingly realise, and resent, the human cost of Putin's ego, despite the state-controlled media?
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,831
The leadership certainly don't, but as more young Russian men leave for the front and don't return, surely the people will increasingly realise, and resent, the human cost of Putin's ego, despite the state-controlled media?

Honestly, I don't know. The Poles say Rosja to stan umysłu - "Russia is a state of mind", and it's hard to disagree given their actions. The problematic part is that it's not the middle classes going to war, but the working classes who don't have the means or the know-how to get out of conscription. As a result, they've got both their workplaces and their religious leaders actively telling them that it's their duty to support the war. I also wouldn't underestimate the power of TV.

There's a difference between not valuing human life, and gutting the already-weak demographics of your country without any clear purpose.

There is, but this is Russia. There are quite a few videos online of Russians being beaten up for refusing to condemn the invasion, even when they're not in Russia. Then there's all the demonstrations in places like Berlin and Limmasol in support of Russia, showing that the Russian mentality really is quite different.

I suspect that the Ukrainian armed forces are wary of Kherson turning into a trap. As you say, there's no need for them to rush into taking the territory, it's much more advantageous for them overall to simply keep Russian forces tied up in the city.

Yes, as long as the precision ammunition keeps coming, they have very little to lose by digging in and simply attacking every transport across the Dnipro. The Russians have shown that they're quite happy to starve conscripts, too.
 

GS250

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,024
There aren’t going to be any “BREAKING NEWS” headlines regarding a Russian attack on the UK. Firstly because it isn’t going happen, but even if an attack (theoretically) were to happen, we’d know about it days in advance. Do you really think we’d sit back and allow Russia to strike first?

As far as a conventional attack goes, the UK is actually at its most vulnerable over the next few months as it's ever been. The withdrawal of the E3 Sentry whilst still waiting for it's replacement early next year is a big capability gap. As is just not having enough F35s just yet. Russia could successfully launch a stand off cruise missile attack and do some real damage. The overworked RAF just wouldn't be able to shoot enough of them down.

However that scenario would be if the UK acted alone.

NATO membership would ensure US airborne intelligence would fill in for the missing AWACS. No doubt this was part of the contingency when the MOD decided to temporarily lose it's own equipment. The RAF Typhoons would be supplemented by US Aircraft operating from the UK. Plus, without a doubt the French AF would be obliged to assist. Any Russian attack would surely pass over the top ofNorway of who would no doubt also be involved. Chances are several dozen NATO aircraft would be moved to Norway if suspicions of an attack grew. Not to mention the likely presence of a NATO carrier group.

So in short.... it's not going to happen. Russia would possibly end up losing half its long range bomber fleet even if they tried. They couldn't afford this even if they fancied teaching those pesky Brits a lesson.
 
Last edited:

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,202
Chances are several dozen NATO aircraft would be moved to Norway if suspicions of an attack grew. Not to mention the likely presence of a NATO carrier group.
Although I can't back it up with evidence, it's highly likely NATO are particularly active in Norway right now given drone activity around their infrastructure of late.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,558
Location
UK
NATO membership would ensure US airborne intelligence would fill in for the missing AWACS. No doubt this was part of the contingency when the MOD decided to temporarily lose it's own equipment. The RAF Typhoons would be supplemented by US Aircraft operating from the UK. Plus, without a doubt the French AF would be obliged to assist. Any Russian attack would surely pass over the top ofNorway of who would no doubt also be involved. Chances are several dozen NATO aircraft would be moved to Norway if suspicions of an attack grew. Not to mention the likely presence of a NATO carrier group.
It is worth remembering that we have Naval and Ground assets that are capable of intercepting cruise missiles too.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,831
Although I can't back it up with evidence, it's highly likely NATO are particularly active in Norway right now given drone activity around their infrastructure of late.

Not only in Norway. I'd be very surprised if there's not already significant amounts of activity in Finland and Sweden on an unofficial level.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,637
Location
First Class
It is worth remembering that we have Naval and Ground assets that are capable of intercepting cruise missiles too.

Indeed. One of the biggest issues the UK would face in this situation would be a lack of assets (air, sea and land) due to them being deployed elsewhere, presumably Eastern Europe. If they were engaging Russian forces over there however, we’d already be in a NATO-Russia conflict making this all somewhat moot.

There’s an interesting video on YouTube by Mark Felton on this very subject, however it was produced at the start of the Ukraine conflict and he makes the same assumptions we all did regarding Russias military strength and ability to wage war. That said, as @GS250 has pointed out we have some capability gaps at present which need to be filled. If this conflict has taught us anything it’s that we can’t afford to be complacent.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,087
Location
Taunton or Kent
The deputy leader in Kherson has been killed in a reported car crash, and now news emerging of Russian troops being ordered to withdraw from the city.
 

GS250

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,024
Looking a fair possiblity that events may de escalate in the near future. It seems Putin may have finally realised he is fighting a losing battle and may well look to negotiate. I'd imagine he will claim the World is against him and that Russia was only trying save itself. The aggressor will play the victim.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,104
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Looking a fair possiblity that events may de escalate in the near future. It seems Putin may have finally realised he is fighting a losing battle and may well look to negotiate. I'd imagine he will claim the World is against him and that Russia was only trying save itself. The aggressor will play the victim.

Or he pulls out of Kherson then drops a nuke on it.

I hope for your scenario but fear mine...one to watch closely for the next few days.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,658
Location
West is best
Reports coming in that the Russians military have announced that they are pulling out of the Kherson area, the western side of the river.

Link to BBC News article

BBC News said:
Kherson: Russia to withdraw troops from key Ukrainian city
By Paul Kirby & Frank Gardner, security correspondent
BBC News
Russia's military has been ordered to pull out of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, the only regional capital it captured after invading in February.
Russia's commander in Ukraine, Gen Sergei Surovikin, said it was no longer possible to keep supplying the city.
The withdrawal means Russian forces will pull out entirely from the western bank of the River Dnipro.
It is a significant blow as Russia faces a Ukrainian counter-offensive.
The military's top brass were seen making the decision on Russian state TV, with Gen Surovikin reporting on the situation on the ground in Kherson.
President Vladimir Putin did not take part in the staged event. The architect of Russia's failing war in Ukraine appeared to have left the announcement to his generals.
It was Mr Putin who announced Russia's annexation of Kherson, and three other occupied regions, at the end of September.
"In these circumstances, the most sensible option is to organise the defence along a barrier line along the river Dnipro," Gen Surovikin told the meeting.
Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said it was "encouraging" to see Ukraine making advances.
"The gains the Ukrainian armed forces are making belong to the brave, courageous Ukrainian soldiers, but of course the support they receive from the United Kingdom, from Nato allies and partners is also essential," he said.

Russian troops swept across southern Ukraine from annexed Crimea at the start of the war, seizing Kherson city in early March.
They also launched attacks in the south, east and north of the country, including surrounding the capital, Kyiv. In recent months, however, Ukraine's forces have made significant advances, particularly in the east.
This counter-offensive escalated in September, when Ukraine drove back Russian forces, retaking the cities of Izyum and Kupiansk, both key supply hubs for Moscow's forces. Since then, Russia has mainly focused its military operations in smaller pockets of Ukraine's south, east and north-east.
But its decision to pull back across the Dnipro river was treated with caution by Ukrainian officials.
"Actions speak louder than words," said presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak.
"We see no signs that Russia is leaving Kherson without a fight... [Ukraine] is liberating territories based on intelligence data, not staged TV statements."
Pro-Kremlin war bloggers were less cautious, with one known as War Gonzo condemning the retreat as a "black page in the history of the Russian army".
There is no way for Moscow to depict this withdrawal as anything other than a humiliating setback - its biggest loss since Ukraine recaptured large areas around the city of Kharkiv in the early autumn.
And it further undermines Russia's announcement that it was illegally annexing Ukrainian provinces, including Kherson, which it said would remain Russian territory "forever".
But, as Mr Podolyak warned, there are several reasons for Ukraine to be cautious.
The first is that retreating Russian forces will most likely have left behind mines and booby traps for the advancing Ukrainians.
The second is that Russia, having withdrawn its troops to the east bank - and having "evacuated", sometimes by force, large numbers of civilians - will now be tempted to bombard Kherson at will.
Finally, the pattern emerging in this war is that every time Russia suffers a major military setback it responds by further punishing the civilian population.
Expect more missile and drone strikes to make winter for Ukrainians as miserable as possible.

The withdrawal was announced shortly after Russian media said the deputy leader of Kherson, Kirill Stremousov, had been killed in a car crash.
Seen as one of the main cheerleaders of the occupation of Kherson, he had warned only six days ago that it was "most likely" that Russian forces would have to cross to the eastern bank.
Although the Ukrainian advance had slowed in recent weeks, Russia's supply lines across the Dnipro had become increasingly difficult after the few bridges across were destroyed by Ukrainian missiles.
Before the withdrawal, Russia moved thousands of civilians out of the city by boat, in what Ukraine condemned as a forced deportation.
Gen Surovikin - previously a notorious commander of Russia's recent operations in Syria - was appointed to take over the running of Russia's invasion a month ago.
 
Last edited:

Pete_uk

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2017
Messages
1,255
Location
Stroud, Glos
Or he pulls out of Kherson then drops a nuke on it.

I hope for your scenario but fear mine...one to watch closely for the next few days.

That's been my fear, but I doubt it would happen. Might still be a nasty surprise waiting the Ukrainians thought.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,963
Location
Sunny South Lancs
One strategy for the Russians would be to concentrate their occupation efforts solely on the left bank of the Dnipro/Dnieper and have the river become the de-facto frontier with Ukraine with a view to establishing this permanently in an eventual peace settlement. From a purely practical point of view it maintains the land bridge from Russia to Crimea while also securing Crimea's water supply (via the North Crimea Canal) and having something of a natural barrier against Ukraine. It also secures complete control of the Sea of Azov and also the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station, thus providing additional leverage over Ukraine's energy supply.

Of course there is no way Ukraine will willingly agree to any of this but for the Russians it would achieve their key strategic objectives and if western support for Ukraine reduces over the longer term then it might become an inevitable outcome. In a sense a Russian withdrawal across the Dnipro puts the ball somewhat in the West's court: do we continue to supply the sort of weapons necessary to displace Russian forces which are by now rather well established in the occupied territories or do we start to suggest that Ukraine seeks a peace accord and end the suffering of its people across the wider country. I would rather see the re-establishment of the pre-2014 frontiers but I'm not sure the economic difficulties we are now experiencing will allow for continued public support of Ukraine. And there would still be the issue of a home for Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,100
One strategy for the Russians would be to concentrate their occupation efforts solely on the left bank of the Dnipro/Dnieper and have the river become the de-facto frontier with Ukraine with a view to establishing this permanently in an eventual peace settlement. From a purely practical point of view it maintains the land bridge from Russia to Crimea while also securing Crimea's water supply (via the North Crimea Canal) and having something of a natural barrier against Ukraine. It also secures complete control of the Sea of Azov and also the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station, thus providing additional leverage over Ukraine's energy supply.

Of course there is no way Ukraine will willingly agree to any of this but for the Russians it would achieve their key strategic objectives and if western support for Ukraine reduces over the longer term then it might become an inevitable outcome. In a sense a Russian withdrawal across the Dnipro puts the ball somewhat in the West's court: do we continue to supply the sort of weapons necessary to displace Russian forces which are by now rather well established in the occupied territories or do we start to suggest that Ukraine seeks a peace accord and end the suffering of its people across the wider country. I would rather see the re-establishment of the pre-2014 frontiers but I'm not sure the economic difficulties we are now experiencing will allow for continued public support of Ukraine. And there would still be the issue of a home for Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
The idea that letting Russia keep any gains at all would save us military spending is fanciful. The world has been shown to be a more dangerous place than we were fondly imagining, and with the threat to our key defensive ally from the Very Stable Genius we and the rest of Europe have to recalibrate accordingly. The first and most important part of that is humiliating Russia in Ukraine.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,963
Location
Sunny South Lancs
The idea that letting Russia keep any gains at all would save us military spending is fanciful. The world has been shown to be a more dangerous place than we were fondly imagining, and with the threat to our key defensive ally from the Very Stable Genius we and the rest of Europe have to recalibrate accordingly. The first and most important part of that is humiliating Russia in Ukraine.
I'm afraid the general tone of your post suggests a complete unwillingness to learn from the past. Humiliation of Germany after WW1 simply made WW2 inevitable. Similarly a modern day humiliation of Russia would simply guarantee another future conflict at some point. We may not like the way Putin has achieved, and is able to wield, power in Russia but the fact is he is the one we have to deal with, complete with his paranoia-laden view of Russia's place in the world. I'm certainly not in favour of appeasement but to reach a long-term solution requires an effort to reach a mutual understanding of the issues at hand. A gung-ho or bullying approach will not achieve that.
 

Top