Russia invades Ukraine

[Annetts key]

Do you actually think they believe their own propaganda?

 

[DustyBin]

For one thing, it gives Russia an 'out' - it gives Russia the ability to say that their pilot messed up (e.g. he accidentally fired a missile that didn't have a lock) than to say that he tried to shoot down our aircraft and it had to defend itself. That also lets them deny/ignore that one of the missiles failed: it didn't fail, it never had a lock so fell into the ocean due to its...err... built in safety mechanism.

I would have agreed had it not been for the latest update, however it now appears that the pilot tried twice to engage a target he thought he had permission to engage. They still have the “out” that the pilot had misunderstood of course, but the original “accidentally fired a missile” story no longer adds up.

 

[najaB]

They still have the “out” that the pilot had misunderstood of course, but the original “accidentally fired a missile” story no longer adds up.

They can go along the line that the "accident" wasn't pressing the fire button, but pressing it before the missile had a lock. If we put emphasis on the fact that our aircraft had to deploy countermeasures then it makes the Russian kit look like it's not capable of doing the job.

 

[AM9]

That’s the reason for my speculation; why not just say that the aircraft deployed counter measures? That in itself wouldn’t come as a surprise to many people.

Again, it’s possible of course that both missiles simply malfunctioned (but that doesn’t make for a good discussion!).

EW is an area of defence where very little information is in the public domain. Because of that, any attempt to make formal statements about it are few and far between. Any modern force in the theatre of war know how their kit performs in live action including it's vulnerabilities, - they don't need further clarification.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Another day, another liberation, this time the village of Andriivka, south of Bakhmut. It appears that Russia lost the command staff of the 72nd Motor Rifle Brigade, and that (whatever was left of) the brigade was either destroyed or captured in the process. Twitter expertise suggests that this brigade was already in tatters before being surrounded, possibly with parts of it already deployed elsewhere along the front line.

Exactly how many Russian forces were there is a matter of debate, but the fascinating thing is the footage that has emerged of Russia attacking their own troops who were in the process of surrendering. It looks like Ukraine yet again pulled the Kharkiv tactic: put all the focus elsewhere while making a major attack that the Russians cannot defend against.

 

[DustyBin]

They can go along the line that the "accident" wasn't pressing the fire button, but pressing it before the missile had a lock. If we put emphasis on the fact that our aircraft had to deploy countermeasures then it makes the Russian kit look like it's not capable of doing the job.

True, but the second missile? It raises questions (to which we’ll probably never know the answer), in my mind anyway.

A lot my interest is the result of conversations with Royal Navy personnel, who have told me that publicly available information is (in some cases at least) very much incomplete/inaccurate. That’s not surprising of course, and they won’t elaborate for obvious reasons, but “honestly, you have no idea” sparked my curiosity!

 

[brad465]

Another day, another liberation, this time the village of Andriivka, south of Bakhmut. It appears that Russia lost the command staff of the 72nd Motor Rifle Brigade, and that (whatever was left of) the brigade was either destroyed or captured in the process. Twitter expertise suggests that this brigade was already in tatters before being surrounded, possibly with parts of it already deployed elsewhere along the front line.

Exactly how many Russian forces were there is a matter of debate, but the fascinating thing is the footage that has emerged of Russia attacking their own troops who were in the process of surrendering. It looks like Ukraine yet again pulled the Kharkiv tactic: put all the focus elsewhere while making a major attack that the Russians cannot defend against.

There have also been a number of attacks on logistics and defence across Crimea, that has led to a BBC article questioning if Ukraine are currently trying to take it? While that is definitely Ukraine's aim, I think these attacks are more likely being used to try and make the southern counteroffensive easier:

Ukraine's Crimea attacks seen as key to counter-offensive against Russia

This week's attacks against Russian targets are part of increased efforts to cut supply lines.

www.bbc.co.uk

This week saw spectacular Ukrainian attacks on the Crimean Peninsula, hitting Russian warships and missiles.
Estimates of the damage done ran into billions of pounds and raised the question: is Ukraine getting ready to retake Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014?
Crimea is a Russian fortress, so it is important not to get carried away.
"The strategy has two main goals," says Oleksandr Musiienko, from Kyiv's Centre for Military and Legal Studies.
"To establish dominance in the north-western Black Sea and to weaken Russian logistical opportunities for their defence lines in the south, near Tokmak and Melitopol."
In other words, operations in Crimea go hand-in-glove with Ukraine's counter-offensive in the south.
"They depend on each other," Musiienko says.
Let's look at Ukraine's recent successes in Crimea.
On Wednesday, long-range cruise missiles, supplied by the UK and France, dealt a heavy blow to Russia's much-vaunted Black Sea fleet at its home port of Sevastopol.
Satellite images of the scene at the Sevmorzavod dry dock repair facility showed two blackened vessels.

On Friday, Britain's Ministry of Defence said a large amphibious landing ship, the Minsk, had "almost certainly been functionally destroyed".
Next to it, one of Russia's Kilo class diesel-electric submarines, the Rostov-on-Don - used to launch Kalibr cruise missiles hundreds of miles into Ukraine - had "likely suffered catastrophic damage".
Perhaps equally importantly the dry docks - vital for maintenance of the entire Black Sea fleet - would likely be out of use "for many months", the ministry said.
On Saturday, Ukraine offered tantalising new details.
It said special forces had played a key role, using boats and an unspecified "underwater delivery means" to get ashore, before using "special technical assets" to help identify and target the vessels.

 

[edwin_m]

There have also been a number of attacks on logistics and defence across Crimea, that has led to a BBC article questioning if Ukraine are currently trying to take it? While that is definitely Ukraine's aim, I think these attacks are more likely being used to try and make the southern counteroffensive easier:

Ukraine's Crimea attacks seen as key to counter-offensive against Russia

This week's attacks against Russian targets are part of increased efforts to cut supply lines.

www.bbc.co.uk

It works both ways - destroying assets in Crimea that are employed against Ukraine helps with the counteroffensive, which if successful could ultimately enable them to re-take Crimea itself.

 

[GS250]

Exactly how many Russian forces were there is a matter of debate, but the fascinating thing is the footage that has emerged of Russia attacking their own troops who were in the process of surrendering. It looks like Ukraine yet again pulled the Kharkiv tactic: put all the focus elsewhere while making a major attack that the Russians cannot defend against.

If this 'special military operation' has proved anything, is that theres a part of Russian culture that simply does not value life. You could of course say that the West has sent plenty of young men to its death. However, never to the same level as it appears to happen in Russia. Being expected to die in vain for the 'motherland' is one thing, actively being killed for daring to surrender is another. It's almost cult like behaviour that isn't just the preserve of the elite.

 

[Cloud Strife]

If this 'special military operation' has proved anything, is that theres a part of Russian culture that simply does not value life. You could of course say that the West has sent plenty of young men to its death. However, never to the same level as it appears to happen in Russia. Being expected to die in vain for the 'motherland' is one thing, actively being killed for daring to surrender is another. It's almost cult like behaviour that isn't just the preserve of the elite.

Yes, it was exactly this mentality that allowed them to win in WWII as well. It's just astonishing that the heavy casualties so far haven't resulted in any meaningful rise in dissent in Russia, and I don't think you can attribute that solely to 'fear of the authorities'.

What I think is a genuine concern on the part of NATO and Ukraine is that Russia will simply keep throwing men into the war, regardless of what happens to them. They will be torn apart quickly through the lack of ammo and lack of training, but still, one person with a gun can still do some damage.

 

[gingerheid]

The worrying thing is that they can win. They have a belief that the west is fickle and an unreliable friend to Ukraine, and they may be right. If they drag the war out for long enough for the right combination of Trump / Orban style right wing & Corbyn / RMT type left wing types to be in control in enough allies then Ukraine could run out of bullets before Russia runs out of men to throw at them.

I really hope they're wrong, but the recent (abortive) thread about RMT refusing to show support for Ukraine shows how many threats to decency and democratic society exist

 

[GS250]

The worrying thing is that they can win. They have a belief that the west is fickle and an unreliable friend to Ukraine, and they may be right. If they drag the war out for long enough for the right combination of Trump / Orban style right wing & Corbyn / RMT type left wing types to be in control in enough allies then Ukraine could run out of bullets before Russia runs out of men to throw at them.

I really hope they're wrong, but the recent (abortive) thread about RMT refusing to show support for Ukraine shows how many threats to decency and democratic society exist

They could win but it will be at a huge cost. Whatever happens though there is a lesson for Putin's regime. He knows fully well that he can't just swagger into another country and take full control within weeks. And this lesson will no doubt extend to China who are permanently eyeing up Taiwan. Secretly, he will now be even more fearful of the West as he has now seen at first hand what our military technology can do. When you can strap a Storm Shadow to a tired old SU-24 and do that amount of damage to their Navy it's going to resonate hard with the Kremlin. If he didn't absolutely hate Britain before this war then he almost certainly does now.

About the only positive for the West is that it's now seen at first hand how incompetent the Russian war machine is. However...we cannot rely on their incompetence for our own security.

 

[brad465]

Russia, has an ageing population and low fertility rate (while not unique to them, it's noticeable there). Even if they have loads more cannon fodder available, the wider economy will only suffer further due to their demographics, and the war losses are only worsening this. Even if they come out with some Ukrainian territory at the end of this, their ability to re-strengthen and improve beyond their existing capabilities will not be quick, if at all possible.

 

[Annetts key]

The worrying thing is that they can win.

Anything is possible, but realistically, it’s becoming less and less likely that they will be able to maintain their current amount of occupied Ukrainian territory. It’s going to take time, but in the end, they are very likely to lose.

Russia has a really big problem. They have only managed to get this far because they have dug deep into the former U.S.S.R. weapons stockpiles. Russia may be a really big country, but their population is not as large as people imagine, a lot of Russia is sparsely populated. And their economy is not particularly large either. They rely greatly on their oil, gas and other mineral exports.

They constantly lie about their manufacturing capacity for military equipment. They constantly lie about their economy. The current exchange rate for the Ruble is only being maintained because Russia is buying its own currency by using foreign currency that it has accumulated over the past years. At some point, their foreign currency reserves will dwindle.

Internally, there are various reports that soldiers and other workers are either not getting paid at all, or they are getting less than they were expecting. In some parts of their economy, reports are emerging about labour shortages.

It’s currently unclear, but as things get worse, they may struggle to manufacture or buy enough weapons and ammunition to keep things at a standstill/stalemate. Ukraine will then likely take full advantage.

Russia also has another problem. As they move soldiers, police etc. from other areas to go to fight in Ukraine, they are weakening their forces elsewhere, including in the unstable areas and regions in and next to Russia in the South. Not all these former U.S.S.R. states are very keen on being controlled by Russia. No one knows how the situation will develop in the future.

They have a belief that the west is fickle

That’s what you get with a democracy if a government changes. But keep in mind that the majority of Republicans in the U.S.A. support the continuation of providing military support to Ukraine. And the U.K. and other Western countries are also very likely to continue providing military support to Ukraine. Helping Ukraine defend itself against this Russian invasion is in the best interests of the Western countries.

If they drag the war out for long enough

You are assuming they can manage to sustain the current levels of losses and still maintain their “front lines”. Ukraine is due to get more weaponry. The Russian forces are starting to struggle in places now.

Corbyn / RMT type left wing types to be in control

Corbyn has absolutely no chance of getting into government, the current Labour leadership is not on the far left. The RMT are a union, not a political party.

RMT refusing to show support for Ukraine shows how many threats to decency and democratic society exist

No it doesn’t. You don’t know why the RMT did not support that particular motion. And in any case, the RMT are a union, not a political party. Views within the RMT vary. I’m in the RMT. Go look back through this topic if you want to get an idea of what I think.

Also, and this is a VERY important point, the RMT are not affiliated to the Labour party. If you don’t know what this means, go look it up.

 

[ainsworth74]

Russia has a long history of imperialist arrogance (their greed for land is astounding; as if it doesn't cover enough of the earth's surface already!) yet because they are not "Western", that imperialism is obviously acceptable in the eyes of idiots like Putin and Kim Jong-un.

And equally acceptable in the eyes of useful idiots/grifters in the West as well.

And in any case, the RMT are a union, not a political party.

And yet ASLEF seconded the motion despite being a union but not a political party. And passed by the TUC by an overwhelming majority so obviously a lot of other unions felt that, despite not being a political party, they had something to say on the matter.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

About the only positive for the West is that it's now seen at first hand how incompetent the Russian war machine is. However...we cannot rely on their incompetence for our own security.

I would add a second positive: It's caused many people and some Governments in the West to wake up to the fact that there are threats out there and we do need to maintain our defences and our military.

To a much smaller extent I think it's also made people more aware that democracy isn't inevitable and if we want a stable, democratic, World where people are respected and can live in freedom, then we need to stand up for democracy across the World - although I think that awareness is still limited so a lot more progress needed.

Or another way of looking at it: Putin thought he would get away with invading Ukraine because the West had become lazy and decadent and unwilling to defend itself. Sadly, he was to some extent correct about the West - except that by invading Ukraine he's caused us to become rather less so.

 

[edwin_m]

That’s what you get with a democracy if a government changes. But keep in mind that the majority of Republicans in the U.S.A. support the continuation of providing military support to Ukraine. And the U.K. and other Western countries are also very likely to continue providing military support to Ukraine. Helping Ukraine defend itself against this Russian invasion is in the best interests of the Western countries.

However, the majority of Republicans are notably unwilling to stand up to Trump and others in the minority advocating ending the war on Russia's terms, and "stop giving arms and money to a faraway nation we have no interest in" is an easy populist line. Trump has already tried to sell Ukraine out for personal political gain, Putin will be promoting his campaign by nefarious means and will probably be able to bend Trump to his will. It has to be a serious risk for Ukraine that these people get back into power in January 2025 and shut down all US assistance, leaving them with the much lesser amount Europe can provide on its own. Ukraine can probably plan for one more big offensive in summer 2024 but they may then be in a position of having to accept the boundary as it then stands or coninue with a frozen or losing conflict.

I would add a second positive: It's caused many people and some Governments in the West to wake up to the fact that there are threats out there and we do need to maintain our defences and our military.

To a much smaller extent I think it's also made people more aware that democracy isn't inevitable and if we want a stable, democratic, World where people are respected and can live in freedom, then we need to stand up for democracy across the World - although I think that awareness is still limited so a lot more progress needed.

Or another way of looking at it: Putin thought he would get away with invading Ukraine because the West had become lazy and decadent and unwilling to defend itself. Sadly, he was to some extent correct about the West - except that by invading Ukraine he's caused us to become rather less so.

There's a counterargument to that, which is that Russia is now much weakened and it might be many years before they can seriously threaten a NATO neighbour. I don't fully buy into it but it's an arguable line to take.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The worrying thing is that they can win.

I think the million dollar question is just how much equipment Russia has in reserve. They've lost a huge amount so far, and by all accounts, NATO has stepped up big time to supply Ukraine with the ammunition that they need. There are plenty of reports that Russia simply doesn't have the artillery shells to fire back, and that Ukraine's initial lack of ammunition has now turned into a situation that they're outfiring Russia.

But keep in mind that the majority of Republicans in the U.S.A. support the continuation of providing military support to Ukraine.

Indeed, I'd say that this war has actually marginalised the far right of the party there. It's interesting to see how people like Tucker Carlson have fallen since the start of the war, and Trump is also fatally exposed by not making a clear declaration that he will support Ukraine with whatever it takes.

There's a counterargument to that, which is that Russia is now much weakened and it might be many years before they can seriously threaten a NATO neighbour. I don't fully buy into it but it's an arguable line to take.

Certainly at this point, I think there's nothing to fear from Russia in military terms. What should be feared is their soft power, that is, the ability to take in a huge amount of migrants and point them straight to the border, combined with providing almost limitless funds to interfere with elections.

However, the majority of Republicans are notably unwilling to stand up to Trump and others in the minority advocating ending the war on Russia's terms

They might not stand up to him, but Trump's views are not going to win him the election. I wouldn't underestimate just how powerful the defence industry is there, particularly in terms of jobs for that critical suburban swing vote. Places like suburban Georgia where Trump lost last time will not go to him if he threatens the defence industry, and those are the voters that he needs to win over in order to win the election.

Having said that, I would be fearful of Trump doing a 180 and pledging to simply provide Ukraine with whatever it takes to win the war. There are certainly plenty of critical voices that the US isn't providing enough heavy firepower.

 

[najaB]

Having said that, I would be fearful of Trump doing a 180 and pledging to simply provide Ukraine with whatever it takes to win the war.

What? DJT advocating a position that he argued vociferously against in the past? That would never happen.

 

[Howardh]

There's a counterargument to that, which is that Russia is now much weakened and it might be many years before they can seriously threaten a NATO neighbour. I don't fully buy into it but it's an arguable line to take.

The cost of the war, the sheer volume of weapons used and lives lost make that entirely plausible. Looks like all they have left are nuclear weapons; and I now wonder if they actually have any functional, working weapons? OK, they probably do, and unless they go completely bezerk and use them agressively, they are there only if their land is attacked (and NATO wouldn't do that) so surrounding countries like Finland can probably breathe a little easier, now that their conventional resources are so depleated.

 

[DustyBin]

The cost of the war, the sheer volume of weapons used and lives lost make that entirely plausible. Looks like all they have left are nuclear weapons; and I now wonder if they actually have any functional, working weapons? OK, they probably do, and unless they go completely bezerk and use them agressively, they are there only if their land is attacked (and NATO wouldn't do that) so surrounding countries like Finland can probably breathe a little easier, now that their conventional resources are so depleated.

Russia's conventional forces are clearly heavily depleted, but they're nowhere near combat ineffective as Ukraine are finding out.

Really though this misses the salient point, which is that an attack on a NATO member means an attack on NATO, which would only ever have ended one way (although it's probably fair to say that Putin is now more aware of this than ever).

 

[Dougal2345]

There are plenty of reports that Russia simply doesn't have the artillery shells to fire back, and that Ukraine's initial lack of ammunition has now turned into a situation that they're outfiring Russia.

Unfortunately there are also reports of an artillery shell shortage for Ukraine:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/17/europe/ukraine-shell-supplies-intl/index.html

Ukraine is firing shells faster than can be supplied. Can Europe catch up?​

 

[najaB]

Unfortunately there are also reports of an artillery shell shortage for Ukraine:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/17/europe/ukraine-shell-supplies-intl/index.html

The usage rate will probably drop off once the rains start. So another month to six weeks at most.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, I'd say that this war has actually marginalised the far right of the party there. It's interesting to see how people like Tucker Carlson have fallen since the start of the war, and Trump is also fatally exposed by not making a clear declaration that he will support Ukraine with whatever it takes.

They might not stand up to him, but Trump's views are not going to win him the election. I wouldn't underestimate just how powerful the defence industry is there, particularly in terms of jobs for that critical suburban swing vote. Places like suburban Georgia where Trump lost last time will not go to him if he threatens the defence industry, and those are the voters that he needs to win over in order to win the election.

Having said that, I would be fearful of Trump doing a 180 and pledging to simply provide Ukraine with whatever it takes to win the war. There are certainly plenty of critical voices that the US isn't providing enough heavy firepower.

There look to be enough people who either don't know or don't care about Trump's views on Ukraine, that he's roughly level pegging with Biden for votes in a future contest. And the electoral college is biased towards the Republicans.

If necessary, Trump can just lump the defence industry in with the deep state. Or if he does a 180, he can always do another one after he's elected, when Putin starts calling in whatever favours or kompromat he's got.

Certainly at this point, I think there's nothing to fear from Russia in military terms. What should be feared is their soft power, that is, the ability to take in a huge amount of migrants and point them straight to the border, combined with providing almost limitless funds to interfere with elections.

Suggesting that, leaving aside military aid for Ukraine, the focus should be on countering those rather than strengthening the conventional military.

 

[takno]

If necessary, Trump can just lump the defence industry in with the deep state. Or if he does a 180, he can always do another one after he's elected, when Putin starts calling in whatever favours or kompromat he's got.

He's standing for election in spite of facing criminal charges in multiple serious federal cases and at least one very serious state case. It's not really clear what Putin could possibly have which counts as compromising at this point

 

[najaB]

It's not really clear what Putin could possibly have which counts as compromising at this point

Isn't it obvious? #ReleaseThePeePeeTape

 

[ainsworth74]

There's a counterargument to that, which is that Russia is now much weakened and it might be many years before they can seriously threaten a NATO neighbour.

Though the counter to the counter (if that's a thing ) is that the majority of NATO nations have allowed their national defence to decline so much (including the industrial base itself) that it will take a number of years to recover back to sensible levels. If we took the view that Russia is a spent force and it will take them a decade to rebuild even part of their pre-war combat capability (which might be generous) it would likely take us the best part of that decade to rebuild our defences.

 

[najaB]

Though the counter to the counter (if that's a thing ) is that the majority of NATO nations have allowed their national defence to decline so much (including the industrial base itself) that it will take a number of years to recover back to sensible levels. If we took the view that Russia is a spent force and it will take them a decade to rebuild even part of their pre-war combat capability (which might be generous) it would likely take us the best part of that decade to rebuild our defences.

That said, our starting point is a lot better than Russia's - we've still got decent amounts of usable kit (not nearly enough, true), but most of what we've given to Ukraine has been the older stuff. Also, we won't face quite the problems that Russia will in sourcing the high-tech parts that we'll need to build the more advanced equipment.

 

[GS250]

That said, our starting point is a lot better than Russia's - we've still got decent amounts of usable kit (not nearly enough, true), but most of what we've given to Ukraine has been the older stuff. Also, we won't face quite the problems that Russia will in sourcing the high-tech parts that we'll need to build the more advanced equipment.

The whole scenario is quite ludicrous though. We spend an extremely high amount on having a credible sub based nuclear deterrent. This to ensure we never have to use our conventional forces in a major conflict, or face attack by conventional munitions. (most likely from Russia). So you could argue the need to scope conventional forces for a major conflict?

Yes...Russia's actions in Ukraine will have focused the minds of our politicians, but whether we will actually see any real increase in military capability is open to debate.

I'd say conventionally...there is still no real military threat to the West at present.

 

[najaB]

I'd say conventionally...there is still no real military threat to the West at present.

If by 'the West' you mean mainland western Europe, the UK and Ireland, or the United States, I'd agree. But if you extend that to our friends overseas - e.g. Ukraine - that is less so.