Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

May I add a point here:

No risk - donate enough AA capability to completely lock down the airspace without the need for F-16's. It'd stop the terror bombing and allow Ukraine to start ramping up their own very capable production. NASAMS and Patriots do the job against pretty much all of Russia's systems, so why not deliver enough to stop Russia bombing civilians on a daily basis. The director of NAMMO (producer of NASAMS and NSM systems) said in an interview on German TV yesterday that they can ramp up production even more and churn out a system per week. It wouldn't be that hard to do the same for the patriod\samp-t\iris systems. We have the production capability to crush Russia if we'd just go for it properly.

This.

I wouldn't say it's no risk. Russia would undoubtedly go after the air defences in some way.  But its a great example of an escalation we could do that would save Ukrainian lives.  

The only flaw I can see is that Ukraine that the manpower required to operate and resupply all of these sites would be huge.  It might secure the skies, but it can't do that by weakening the ground troops. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

32 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

NATO aren’t going to escalate anything, for starters, despite the rhetoric from Putin it’s a defensive alliance, it’s there to shield it’s member countries not to be offensive, so the only people who are going to escalate this war is Russia, and if they do, NATO will likely retaliate.

NATO have been escalating this war from day 1!!!!

First we provided intelligence,   then ammunition,  then ex-Soviet weapons from Poland, Estonia etc, then hand held NATO weapons, then NATO troop carriers, then HIMARS............... (many months later) .............then tanks, then cruise missiles, then NATO protected neutral ships to/from Ukrainian and we will soon see F16. 

NATO policy is that it's a defensive alliance.  NATO armed forces are built to destroy things and turn defence into attack.  

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

NATO have been escalating this war from day 1!!!!

First we provided intelligence,   then ammunition,  then ex-Soviet weapons from Poland, Estonia etc, then hand held NATO weapons, then NATO troop carriers, then HIMARS............... (many months later) .............then tanks, then cruise missiles, then NATO protected neutral ships to/from Ukrainian and we will soon see F16. 

NATO policy is that it's a defensive alliance.  NATO armed forces are built to destroy things and turn defence into attack.  

I don’t see that as escalation, I’m sure the Russians do.

It’s always been a response to Russia’s actions, would NATO be flooding Ukraine with weapons and intelligence if Russia hadn’t invaded? 

[avfc1982am]

5 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Its not the only conclusion. 

These weapons are expensive. Extraordinarily expensive.  We're currently experiencing a cost of living crisis and deeply difficult economic times.  OK some of this is linked to the war, but we are where we are.  Many people in most NATO questions are already asking questions about how much our support is costing.  If we suddenly chuck £20-30 bn of weapons their way a lot of questions are going to be asked by the electorate.  

In addition nations have a first duty to defend themselves.  No one has masses amounts of kit just kicking around in storage facilities.  By giving a load of extra kit to a third party you leave yourselves exposed.  All European armed forces have been driving on empty for years.

I'm not sure how any of your post opposes what I've said originally. It's not a different conclusion you've come up with just reasoning for why Ukraine aren't being given the armaments necessary to give them a real chance of removing Russian forces in the short to medium term. We already know the excuses. 

You've mentioned yourself that people are questioning support and the costs associated. Which I totally agree with, however, the longer this goes on the less support Ukraine will have and the more this will all cost. Western arms are probably at an all time low, but nobody West of Belarus is flapping about possible Russian attacks, so the onus should be on providing Ukraine with as much kit as is available. If we are all honest NATO combined has nothing to fear in regards to Russia. 

[sidcow]

1 minute ago, avfc1982am said:

I'm not sure how any of your post opposes what I've said originally. It's not a different conclusion you've come up with just reasoning for why Ukraine aren't being given the armaments necessary to give them a real chance of removing Russian forces in the short to medium term. We already know the excuses. 

You've mentioned yourself that people are questioning support and the costs associated. Which I totally agree with, however, the longer this goes on the less support Ukraine will have and the more this will all cost. Western arms are probably at an all time low, but nobody West of Belarus is flapping about possible Russian attacks, so the onus should be on providing Ukraine with as much kit as is available. If we are all honest NATO combined has nothing to fear in regards to Russia. 

Sorry, the way your OP was written was that it was a deliberate pan to not supply enough weapons i.e. they absolutely could but were just deciding not to, that's we way I read it anyway.

[avfc1982am]

24 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Sorry, the way your OP was written was that it was a deliberate pan to not supply enough weapons i.e. they absolutely could but were just deciding not to, that's we way I read it anyway.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think much more could be done to aid Ukraine but I'm not debating the reasoning for not. At the moment we are just helping them to hold their own. That in itself will not bring about a conclusion to this war or aid Ukraine in recovering much land, not without a Russian collapse of sorts. It just means it all goes on for much longer to a bigger overall cost for everyone.

 

[LondonLax]

We don’t actually have the quantity of things like ammunition that they need though do we? 

We are ramping up production of shells enormously to meet Ukrainian demand but it takes time. Similar with drones, the Ukrainians burn through 10,000 drones a month on this war. Even small arms ammunition is used at an extraordinary rate. 

We are spending billions and sending kit that needs to be replaced in order to just give them their current fighting force. 

It’s not as simple as ‘just send what they need to drive Russia out this summer’

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I don’t see that as escalation, I’m sure the Russians do.

It’s always been a response to Russia’s actions, would NATO be flooding Ukraine with weapons and intelligence if Russia hadn’t invaded? 

I agree completely.  

But using our definition that it's a "response" not an "escalation" means we could provide anything to Ukraine.  

As an extreme example: 

I consider it less of an escalation for Poland to launch fighter patrols over Kyiv than  allow Ukraine to travel through Poland with naval drones to launch an attack on Russia's Baltic Fleet in St Petersburg from neutral waters.  

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

49 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

We don’t actually have the quantity of things like ammunition that they need though do we? 

Yes and no.  

NATO weapons have a common ammunition calibre.  This means member countries can transfer and share ammunition.  Many of Ukraine's weapons are ex-soviet and can't use NATO ammunition.   

NATO has the capacity to produce ample NATO ammunition.  We don't have the ability to produce Soviet calibres, NATO calibres and new NATO weapons to allow Ukraine to dump their Soviet rifles, pistols, artillery and tanks. 

NATO is using this opportunity to replace its own ex-soviet weapons so that we don't have the identical problem in the future. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Yes and no.  

NATO weapons have a common ammunition calibre.  This means member countries can transfer and share ammunition.  Many of Ukraine's weapons are ex-soviet and can't use NATO ammunition.   

NATO has the capacity to produce ample NATO ammunition.  We don't have the ability to produce Soviet calibres, NATO calibres and new NATO weapons to allow Ukraine to dump their Soviet rifles, pistols, artillery and tanks. 

NATO is using this opportunity to replace its own ex-soviet weapons so that we don't have the identical problem in the future. 

That’s true, but not the full picture. You’re right that shells and bullets are largely common across NATO and that extends further to common interfaces for stores carried by aircraft and for protocols for interfaces [message sets] and so on. And similarly for other equipment such as comms kit, radars, computers etc.

The production side, well yes, to an extent there is the capacity to produce “sufficient quantity”, but not at the rate this materiel is being expended. There’s a stockpile which is replenished at a peacetime rate of consumption and so factories are not geared up to produce at faster rates. Doing it more rapidly takes time.

There are also complexities around the modernisation of some of the eastern nations replacing older soviet era kit with more modern US/UK/Fr/Ge kit. It’s not just the actual kit, but also the support side - test sets, spares, ground power units, training for operators and maintainers and logisticians and…

And then there’s the consideration of ability/ willingness to share some of the more highly classified systems which for example the US or the UK have limited to very small numbers of allies. While NATO is a “group” of nation signatories to a treaty, it is by no means a single unitary body. Different interests apply across different member states. Some are commercial, some more security based, some political. As an example Turkey has bought some Russian radars and the US really doesn’t want Russians, who may be needed to service those radars being able to access radar cross section data for F35, which Turkey was going to be able to buy, but now is “on hold” because of this. It all gets incredibly frustrating and complicated. 

[Panto_Villan]

16 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

I think the US are to heavily invested in Ukraine to drop out as you put it and everyone will want their money back at some point or a good portion of it. 

Also, in the last sentence you missed the important bit. How can Ukrainian forces invade Russia when there is occupied territory in the way? 

 

If you look at a map it’s pretty easy to see how Ukraine can invade Russia without going through occupied territory.

If a hundred or so pro-Ukrainian Russian volunteers can take territory inside Russia for a couple of days, the Ukrainian army would be able to punch pretty deep into Russia if they wanted to. But it’s one of the conditions of Western aid that they don’t do that. That’s one of the only realistic instances where Russia might be tempted to use a nuke.

[avfc1982am]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

If you look at a map it’s pretty easy to see how Ukraine can invade Russia without going through occupied territory.

You caught me having a geographical spaz moment.. 

 

[bickster]

19 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

If you look at a map it’s pretty easy to see how Ukraine can invade Russia without going through occupied territory.

If a hundred or so pro-Ukrainian Russian volunteers can take territory inside Russia for a couple of days, the Ukrainian army would be able to punch pretty deep into Russia if they wanted to. But it’s one of the conditions of Western aid that they don’t do that. That’s one of the only realistic instances where Russia might be tempted to use a nuke.

It’s only a condition that they don’t use NATO equipment to do so not that they don’t do it at all, hence the drone attacks on Moscow that are happening with increased intensity and even in your own argument that it has already happened briefly albeit using battalions made up entirely of Russians

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

It’s only a condition that they don’t use NATO equipment to do so not that they don’t do it at all, hence the drone attacks on Moscow that are happening with increased intensity and even in your own argument that it has already happened briefly albeit using battalions made up entirely of Russians

I don’t think that’s true. Western munitions are supplied with the condition that they’re not used against targets in Russia, of course, and presumably that’s true for Western tanks etc too.

But there’s also a separate set of rules the Western backers expect Ukraine to fight by if they’re going to continue to receive support. Stuff like treating Russian POWs well, from example.

Not actually invading Russia is clearly another one of those conditions. It’s how the West is trying to control the scope of the conflict, ensuring both that there’s no serious chance of nuclear escalation and trying undermine political support for the war in Russia by not attacking civilian populations.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Panto_Villan

[NoelVilla]

Hopefully it is done now.

 

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

Crimea river Vladolf

[sidcow]

4 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

Crimea river Vladolf

 

[bickster]

4 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

I don’t think that’s true. Western munitions are supplied with the condition that they’re not used against targets in Russia, of course, and presumably that’s true for Western tanks etc too.

But there’s also a separate set of rules the Western backers expect Ukraine to fight by if they’re going to continue to receive support. Stuff like treating Russian POWs well, from example.

Not actually invading Russia is clearly another one of those conditions. It’s how the West is trying to control the scope of the conflict, ensuring both that there’s no serious chance of nuclear escalation and trying undermine political support for the war in Russia by not attacking civilian populations.

It quite clearly isn't because it's already happened. It has been stated quite a number of times by quite a few people that this isn't the case and clearly, it has already happened. There's no way the two Russian battalions in the Ukrainian defence forces just went out on a whim and invaded Russia, and not just the once they did it three times, without approval from the Ukraine military. There have been Ukraine attacks across the border throughout this war.

WHat is the difference between a raid / skirmish and an invasion?

Imagine the situation on the north front where the Ukrainian army to fight back against Russia, can't move north into Russia and go around the RUssian troops to encircle them, that would be a ludicrous idea to prevent.

[Panto_Villan]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

It quite clearly isn't because it's already happened. It has been stated quite a number of times by quite a few people that this isn't the case and clearly, it has already happened. There's no way the two Russian battalions in the Ukrainian defence forces just went out on a whim and invaded Russia, and not just the once they did it three times, without approval from the Ukraine military. There have been Ukraine attacks across the border throughout this war.

WHat is the difference between a raid / skirmish and an invasion?

Imagine the situation on the north front where the Ukrainian army to fight back against Russia, can't move north into Russia and go around the RUssian troops to encircle them, that would be a ludicrous idea to prevent.

I mean, I’m not sure what to say if you can’t see any difference between a raid across a border and an operation to take and and hold territory on a permanent basis. The difference is self-explanatory as far as I’m concerned.

The fact that the only people who have crossed the border to try and take territory (albeit temporarily) were Russians should tell you everything you need to know about the situation. Russians were specifically chosen for the operations because they’re using grey zone tactics; the Ukrainians aren’t technically breaking the rules if they’re just enabling Russian “freedom fighters” rather than sending actual Ukrainian forces to try and take Russian territory.

We’ve established that the border is sufficiently lightly defended that a few hundred infantry without armoured or artillery support can still take and hold Russian territory for several days - and you think the Ukrainians couldn’t send twenty thousand men over the border and grab a chunk of Russia to use as a bargaining chip in negotiations? Or even just to disrupt supply lines, or force the Russians to tie down units to actually protect their border?

The only reason they haven’t done that is because the West has made clear their ongoing support is contingent on Ukraine not invading Russia (again, for obvious reasons). There’s no military reason for it. It’d be way easier to push into Russia proper then fight through the fortifications and minefields in occupied Ukraine.

But I’m just repeating myself at this point; if you disagree then we’re probably not going to change each other’s minds.

[Genie]

30 killed at a petrol station explosion in Dagestan. Is this the work of Ukraine or an actual stray cigarette?