Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[discokermit]

Yet it doesn't mention they would concede on their veto, which has been reported all over the place before as a deal breaker.

well the deal got broke before it got to that stage because johnson said britain wouldn't be part of it.

 

[cupid_stunt]

well the deal got broke before it got to that stage because johnson said britain wouldn't be part of it.

No country was prepared to sign up to an agreement that gave Russia a veto over any action against them, should they have invaded again, it wasn't down to the idiot Johnson, this has already been covered.

You may as well go back to the very start, and blame NATO for Russia's invasion.

 

[Spymaster]

i saw a video of some russian soldiers dancing.

and this, but its old now,

Dunno if you read the words there but it certainly doesn't seem like his morale is very high

 

[discokermit]

Dunno if you read the words there but it certainly doesn't seem like his morale is very high

i never said it was.

 

[discokermit]

No country was prepared to sign up to an agreement that gave Russia a veto over any action against them, should they have invaded again, it wasn't down to the idiot Johnson, this has already been covered.

You may as well go back to the very start, and blame NATO for Russia's invasion.

argue with euromaidan, not me. i've only said what was in the article.

 

[discokermit]

according to ap, the ukranians are pulling the abrams from the front, Ukraine pulls US-provided Abrams tanks from the front lines over Russian drone threats

 

[tim]

A Guardian piece of puff on the Azov Regiment wich is apparently no longer far-Right, but a dynamic fighting force freed from the restraints of the old fart command style of the Soviet era. Personally, I don't suppose they're anymore Nazi than those lovely volk in Wagner.

Elite force bucks trend of Ukrainian losses on eastern front

The Azov brigade, which leaders say has a culture of ‘mutual respect’, is tasked with repelling relentless Russian attacks as the invaders make most of artillery mismatch

www.theguardian.com

 

[Chz]

according to ap, the ukranians are pulling the abrams from the front, Ukraine pulls US-provided Abrams tanks from the front lines over Russian drone threats

Not sure why they were at the front. Both sides been using them as mobile artillery for the past nine months. Just look at the published loss rates and you can see there aren't many on the front line. The Russians occasionally try the whole banzai thing to poke through and lose a bunch, but Ukraine hasn't even done that much since they failed last summer. I'm not sure there's been a single tank on tank (proper MBTs, not misc. armoured vehicles) kill the whole war. Ukrainian tactics are to keep the tanks well back to stop a break if the front retreats. The NATO sort just weep over it, but it's not their war to fight. Ukraine has never really had enough tanks to use them the way doctrine dictates, so they compromise and because of that, tanks just aren't the right tool for them. They'd far rather have more SAMs or artillery. (or better EW, but they ain't getting that)

 

[Rob Ray]

argue with euromaidan, not me. i've only said what was in the article.

If you know the article is repeating false info you can flag that yourself and point to what you think is valuable rather than waiting for others to debunk it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not sure why they were at the front. Both sides been using them as mobile artillery for the past nine months. Just look at the published loss rates and you can see there aren't many on the front line. The Russians occasionally try the whole banzai thing to poke through and lose a bunch, but Ukraine hasn't even done that much since they failed last summer. I'm not sure there's been a single tank on tank (proper MBTs, not misc. armoured vehicles) kill the whole war. Ukrainian tactics are to keep the tanks well back to stop a break if the front retreats. The NATO sort just weep over it, but it's not their war to fight. Ukraine has never really had enough tanks to use them the way doctrine dictates, so they compromise and because of that, tanks just aren't the right tool for them. They'd far rather have more SAMs or artillery. (or better EW, but they ain't getting that)

How many tanks do you think Ukraine needed 'to use them the way doctrine dictates'? 500? 1000? 6500? They've never really been bereft of tanks as the slightest research reveals Tanks of the Ukrainian Army - Wikipedia

 

[Chz]

How many tanks do you think Ukraine needed 'to use them the way doctrine dictates'? 500? 1000? 6500? They've never really been bereft of tanks as the slightest research reveals Tanks of the Ukrainian Army - Wikipedia

They needed enough to have several hundred in one place, without leaving the rest of the front line bereft of defence. According to NATO doctrine, at any rate. And that they don't have, with the caveat that you can't do a fill frontal assault with Leopard 1s or T-64s. They're purely support in this era.

Whether NATO doctrine was appropriate or not is a good question. I'm not qualified to answer that; my friend who is maintains they chickened out before they got anywhere, but it's their lives and I wouldn't say that.

 

[Pickman's model]

They needed enough to have several hundred in one place, without leaving the rest of the front line bereft of defence. According to NATO doctrine, at any rate. And that they don't have, with the caveat that you can't do a fill frontal assault with Leopard 1s or T-64s. They're purely support in this era.

Whether NATO doctrine was appropriate or not is a good question. I'm not qualified to answer that; my friend who is maintains they chickened out before they got anywhere, bit it's their lives and I wouldn't say that.

According to al-j Ukraine started the war with 2596 tanks Russia-Ukraine war in maps and charts: Live Tracker. Which was far far more than pretty much any nato country has. Even now they've rather more tanks than the peacetime British army at full strength.

I'm not clear precisely what documents you're referring to, maybe you could identify them so we can get on the same page.

 

[Chz]

I didn't refer to any documents?

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't refer to any documents?

What do you think doctrine is, some nebulous cloud of notions? From where did you derive your assertion?

 

[Chz]

What do you think doctrine is, some nebulous cloud of notions? From where did you derive your assertion?

I'm not Google, mate. Look it up yourself if you disagree with the rather thin summary I gave of it. This isn't my phd thesis.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not Google, mate. Look it up yourself if you disagree with the rather thin summary I gave of it. This isn't my phd thesis.

It's clear it's not your PhD thesis or you'd simply point to your source. Not to mention you'd have a notion what you're talking about.

 

[discokermit]

Not sure why they were at the front. Both sides been using them as mobile artillery for the past nine months. Just look at the published loss rates and you can see there aren't many on the front line. The Russians occasionally try the whole banzai thing to poke through and lose a bunch, but Ukraine hasn't even done that much since they failed last summer. I'm not sure there's been a single tank on tank (proper MBTs, not misc. armoured vehicles) kill the whole war. Ukrainian tactics are to keep the tanks well back to stop a break if the front retreats. The NATO sort just weep over it, but it's not their war to fight. Ukraine has never really had enough tanks to use them the way doctrine dictates, so they compromise and because of that, tanks just aren't the right tool for them. They'd far rather have more SAMs or artillery. (or better EW, but they ain't getting that)

a t72 knocked out an abrams but apart from that.

 

[discokermit]

If you know the article is repeating false info you can flag that yourself and point to what you think is valuable rather than waiting for others to debunk it.

i don't. why do you think the ukrainians need to be debunked? are the ukrainians lying?

 

[Pickman's model]

They needed enough to have several hundred in one place, without leaving the rest of the front line bereft of defence. According to NATO doctrine, at any rate. And that they don't have, with the caveat that you can't do a fill frontal assault with Leopard 1s or T-64s. They're purely support in this era.

Whether NATO doctrine was appropriate or not is a good question. I'm not qualified to answer that; my friend who is maintains they chickened out before they got anywhere, but it's their lives and I wouldn't say that.

The Ukrainians apparently think they need 300, a former British colonel thinks they need a minimum of 100. Tank tactics: how might Ukraine use its influx of western armour?

 

[discokermit]

Whether NATO doctrine was appropriate or not is a good question. I'm not qualified to answer that; my friend who is maintains they chickened out before they got anywhere, but it's their lives and I wouldn't say that.

so, your mate thinks the ukrainians are cowards?
where did your mate fight that gave him such insight?

 

[StoneRoad]

opps ...

Cuban mercenaries eliminate Russian regiment commander in Donetsk region

Read more

newsukraine.rbc.ua

 

[Chz]

so, your mate thinks the ukrainians are cowards?
where did your mate fight that gave him such insight?

To be more accurate, he thinks their leadership chickened out and that more lives had to be lost to gain an advantage. Pull back and every life lost up to then was in vain. And although he doesn't think much of the training level of the Ukrainian grunt in a ditch, he does admire their bravery and resourcefulness. He knows quite well some are in their 50s and were hoping for a quiet retirement. It's typical thinking you get from anyone ex-forces - it's all the fault of the Brass and the grunts are salt of the earth.

 

[tim]

opps ...

Cuban mercenaries eliminate Russian regiment commander in Donetsk region

Read more

newsukraine.rbc.ua

Have you nothing coherent to say about this article? If not, why post it?

 

[discokermit]

To be more accurate, he thinks their leadership chickened out and that more lives had to be lost to gain an advantage. Pull back and every life lost up to then was in vain. And although he doesn't think much of the training level of the Ukrainian grunt in a ditch, he does admire their bravery and resourcefulness. He knows quite well some are in their 50s and were hoping for a quiet retirement. It's typical thinking you get from anyone ex-forces - it's all the fault of the Brass and the grunts are salt of the earth.

i think what happened was they tried the nato way, it failed catastrophically, they adapted to the conditions.

 

[Chz]

The Ukrainians apparently think they need 300, a former British colonel thinks they need a minimum of 100. Tank tactics: how might Ukraine use its influx of western armour?

It would be interesting to get the same sources and see what they think a year later. No plan survives contact with the enemy and all that. But that probably won't happen. Note that that is how many 1st rate tanks they want/need at the assault point. Ukraine's problem is a 1000km wide front that needs tanks as backup all along it.

i think what happened was they tried the nato way, it failed catastrophically, they adapted to the conditions.

I think that's a valid opinion. I don't know enough to say better. But mate's opinion was not being organised enough and throwing in the towel instead of fixing that problem and moving on. I think it will be reviewed in military schools for decades to come and we don't know all the details.

 

[Chz]

According to this, the US is buying Kazakhstan's cast off Air Force at a fire sale price, an average of USD$20,000 per unit. I suppose for a spare part dumpster it's a steal. Ukraine could probably get a few flying out of that, and more importantly keep their Su24s fed with spare parts for a while longer.

Kazakhstan has been increasingly unfriendly towards Russia since they said "Kazakhs have never had statehood" a few years back. Sounds familiar.

 

[Dogsauce]

For those grumbling about Ukraine being given cluster munitions to use against attacking troop formations, here’s a video from today of a Russian ballistic missile with cluster munitions being used to strike a built-up area of Odesa in broad daylight. Two civilians and a dog were killed (will warn that the thread beneath the post contains graphic footage). Russia has used cluster munitions against civilian areas since the start of the war, yet claimed moral outrage when the US offloaded old stock for Ukraine to use for defence in the east.

 

[Pickman's model]

For those grumbling about Ukraine being given cluster munitions to use against attacking troop formations, here’s a video from today of a Russian ballistic missile with cluster munitions being used to strike a built-up area of Odesa in broad daylight. Two civilians and a dog were killed (will warn that the thread beneath the post contains graphic footage). Russia has used cluster munitions against civilian areas since the start of the war, yet claimed moral outrage when the US offloaded old stock for Ukraine to use for defence in the east.

out of curiosity, who are 'those grumbling about ukraine being given cluster munitions'?

 

[CNT36]

If one side in a war is committing war crimes with a weapon it is definitely a good idea to make sure the other side has it too.

 

[Chz]

Neither Ukraine nor Russia signed up to the voluntary convention on banning the use of cluster munitions. Ukraine did sign up for banning antipersonnel mines and have been deploying those via cluster munitions, but the US didn't give any of those to them. It's their own Soviet era stock. Since the US isn't a signitory either, to them it's just handing over standard weapons. I think there'd be more of a grey area if the UK or France still had some awaiting destruction and handed them over.

Which raises the question of whether using munitions that most of the world has voluntarily given up is a "war crime" or just highly unethical. There's certainly no legal force to bring anyone to trial for it after the war ends. I suspect the punishment is a shaken metaphorical finger and a "naughty, naughty".