Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
I'm sure this will be as artillery free as his "humanitarian corridors"
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24
- Thread starter kebabking
- Start date
I'm sure this will be as artillery free as his "humanitarian corridors"
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
Ukraine has rejected the proposal.
But Ukrainian presidential adviser Mikhailo Podolyak tweeted back that Russia "must leave the occupied territories - only then will it have a 'temporary truce'. Keep hypocrisy to yourself." He said that unlike Russia, Ukraine was not attacking foreign territory or killing civilians, only destroying "members of the occupation army on its territory".
Podolyak, had earlier rejected Kirill's for a truce as "a cynical trap and an element of propaganda". He described the Russian Orthodox Church, which has endorsed the invasion, as a "war propagandist" that had incited the "mass murder" of Ukrainians and the militarisation of Russia.
www.reuters.com
Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to let Russian troops have a day off, as long as they're going to call home on their mobile phones.
But Ukrainian presidential adviser Mikhailo Podolyak tweeted back that Russia "must leave the occupied territories - only then will it have a 'temporary truce'. Keep hypocrisy to yourself." He said that unlike Russia, Ukraine was not attacking foreign territory or killing civilians, only destroying "members of the occupation army on its territory".
Podolyak, had earlier rejected Kirill's for a truce as "a cynical trap and an element of propaganda". He described the Russian Orthodox Church, which has endorsed the invasion, as a "war propagandist" that had incited the "mass murder" of Ukrainians and the militarisation of Russia.
Ukraine rejects Putin call for Christmas truce
Ukraine spurned an offer from Russian President Vladimir Putin for a 36-hour ceasefire over Orthodox Christmas, saying there would be no truce until Russia withdraws its invading forces from occupied land.
www.reuters.com
Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to let Russian troops have a day off, as long as they're going to call home on their mobile phones.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Many of the posts I have seen doing that are either American neo cons or NAFO types
clusterfarce
Member
Confirmed: 50 Bradleys to be announced in a day or so, Marders as well.
Temperatures to plunge to more seasonal -10C at night.
Also Germany is sending one of its Patriot batteries.
I wonder how much, if any of these connect to Putin wanting truces? A few other straws in the wind.
Edited:
30 more Gepards. Cold war era anti aircraft tanks that have had a very big impact on the drones and cruise missiles. Patriots can take the Iskanders while Gepards and Iglas (old Soviet era shoulder fired SAMs) can take the low altitude Shaheed and Kalibrs. Light at the end of the tunnel for Ukraines civilians, if a cold few months to get there.
Temperatures to plunge to more seasonal -10C at night.
Also Germany is sending one of its Patriot batteries.
I wonder how much, if any of these connect to Putin wanting truces? A few other straws in the wind.
Edited:
30 more Gepards. Cold war era anti aircraft tanks that have had a very big impact on the drones and cruise missiles. Patriots can take the Iskanders while Gepards and Iglas (old Soviet era shoulder fired SAMs) can take the low altitude Shaheed and Kalibrs. Light at the end of the tunnel for Ukraines civilians, if a cold few months to get there.
Last edited:
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
As an aside, one wonders whether a lot of NATO countries will over the next few years employ a lot more traditional gun-based AAA like the Gepard (rather than SAMs) as a result of the rise of drones.
keybored
Well done. You remember cat good.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Well the current stocks of million quid plus “patriot” missiles won’t last long in this type of conflict.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Bit premature to assume Russia is fucked.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Those crappy Iranian drones are being taken down fairly successfully now with a pair of pickup trucks, one with a powerful light and the other with a mounted machine gun.
Last edited:
keybored
Well done. You remember cat good.
But not as premature as assuming Kyiv would be conquered within 2 days.
clusterfarce
Member
Poland considering donate Leopards. My guess, is they would trade the Leopards for Abrams, similar to the deal they got for trading T-72s for them a few months back.
clusterfarce
Member
Lots of systems are in development or being deployed to deal with the much wider range of threats that emerged over the past couple of decades. Gun based systems were sort of dropped for more missile based ones like Starstreak (UK) etc as they had more range and were much better helicopter and low flying jet killers. But there has been a surge in interest in shooting down smaller rockets, mortars, artillery etc so a proliferation of gun systems and small missiles to defend fixed targets have been getting deployed. But the expectation is "direct energy" weapons aka lasers will be being deployed in the next decade.
For the Ukraine\Shaheed thing specifically, its a really poor country with one of the worlds best air defences systems partially surrounding it (Russias S-400s), so they could not just send up jets to hunt and kill these drones. They also have a huge airforce attacking them to shooting off their S-300 (Soviet SAM) would waste them. The Iran drone thing was a clever exploitation of an Ukraine specific gap.
cupid_stunt
Merry fecking Christmas.
Interesting development, I've never considered wild cats being used in war.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Good of then to hand over a load of m113s weren't they used in Vietnam?
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
I think anything kept in storage and low-maintenance that they've realised they're never actually going to use will end up in Ukraine sooner or later. I specify low-maintenance to exclude the older Abrams and a load of F-16s.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
I think that we can assume that both Ukraine and Russia are fucked
clusterfarce
Member
Funnily enough the exact number that get assigned to a brigade. In fact the Marders, Bradley plus M113s look amazingly close to the battalion structure of a US Armoured Brigade Combat Team (mech brigade).
Brigade combat team - Wikipedia
Likely one of their existing veteran brigades will be trading clapped out Soviet BMP and BDRMs for things you can fit a human into.
M113s were used is the heavy infantry component in the break outs around Kharkiv then Izyum late last year, I think they are still the most common tracked vehicle in the US army, but they are used for the secondary roles. Seems to me that they are seen as being more than good enough to replace the tiny Soviet era contortion boxes that Ukraine currently uses in their regular army. Though likely these will get handed down to new units being stood up etc.
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
In today's update [ie info for 7th January 2023] ISW reported further depletion of ru55ia's strategic missile stocks as follows [italics]
Russian forces reportedly continue to deplete their missile arsenal but will likely continue to be able to threaten Ukrainian critical infrastructure and civilians at scale in the near term. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov published an infographic on January 6 detailing that Russian forces have expended roughly 81 percent of their strategic missile stocks and 19 percent of their tactical missile stocks.[9] Reznikov reported that Russian forces reportedly have remaining of their pre-war and post-invasion production stocks:
92 Iskander 9M723 missiles (11 percent),
52 Iskander 9M728/9M729 missiles (44 percent),
118 Kh-101 and Kh-555/55SM missiles (16 percent),
162 Kh-22/32 missiles (44 percent),
53 Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missiles (84 percent), and
59 sea-based Kalibr missiles (9 percent).[10]
The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) stated that it would never run out of sea-based Kalibr missiles while conducting a massive series of missile strikes on December 29, 2022.[11] Russian forces last used sea-based Kalibr missiles in Ukraine during their ninth large-scale series of missile strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure on December 16.[12] Although the Russian military’s tactical missile stock is less expended, S-300 and 3M-55 Onyx missiles are less precise systems than Russian strategic missiles, which is likely why Russian forces have not used these systems extensively in large-scale missile strikes against Ukrainian critical infrastructure.
Reznikov reported that Russia has managed to produce since the February 2022 invasion:
290 Kh-101 and Kh-555/55SM missiles (65 percent of the pre-war stock),
150 Kalibr missiles (30 percent of the pre-war stock),
36 Iskander 9M723 missiles (5 percent of the pre-war stock),
20 Iskander 9M728/9M729 missiles (20 percent of the pre-war stock),
and 20 Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missiles (47 percent of the pre-war stock).[13]
The Russian production of strategic missiles since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in comparison to the Russian military's pre-war stock highlights that Russia has not mobilized its military industry to support Russian military operations in Ukraine. A country would normally increase the production of missile, rocket, and other weapons systems and munitions before embarking on a major war and would normally put its military industry on a war footing once the war began. Russia has done neither. Putin’s failure to mobilize Russian industry to support the Russian war effort in Ukraine may result from fears that further economic disruptions could produce further domestic discontent in Russia because Western sanctions regimes have placed significant constraints on Russian military industry, or because of inherent limitations of Russian industry and military industry—or some combination of these factors. The current level of the Russian military’s depletion of strategic missile systems may constrain how often and at what scale Russian forces conduct future massive series of missile strikes in Ukraine, but Russian forces will be able to continue their campaign against Ukrainian infrastructure at scale in the near term and threaten the lives of Ukrainian civilians.
I add that I recall reading that ru55ia had several thousand s-300 type missiles stockpiled before Feb 2022, with a comment that these are a lot less accurate and much more short-range.
This does not include stock such as drones [uav] like the shaheeds etc supplied by iran, which are heavily in use as part of the terror campaign against civilian infrastructure. Fortunately Ukraine has found that the pick-up mounted searchlight & heavy machine gun combo are pretty good as a countermeasure - even small arms fire are effective [assuming the gunners know about deflection !].
Russian forces reportedly continue to deplete their missile arsenal but will likely continue to be able to threaten Ukrainian critical infrastructure and civilians at scale in the near term. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov published an infographic on January 6 detailing that Russian forces have expended roughly 81 percent of their strategic missile stocks and 19 percent of their tactical missile stocks.[9] Reznikov reported that Russian forces reportedly have remaining of their pre-war and post-invasion production stocks:
92 Iskander 9M723 missiles (11 percent),
52 Iskander 9M728/9M729 missiles (44 percent),
118 Kh-101 and Kh-555/55SM missiles (16 percent),
162 Kh-22/32 missiles (44 percent),
53 Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missiles (84 percent), and
59 sea-based Kalibr missiles (9 percent).[10]
The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) stated that it would never run out of sea-based Kalibr missiles while conducting a massive series of missile strikes on December 29, 2022.[11] Russian forces last used sea-based Kalibr missiles in Ukraine during their ninth large-scale series of missile strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure on December 16.[12] Although the Russian military’s tactical missile stock is less expended, S-300 and 3M-55 Onyx missiles are less precise systems than Russian strategic missiles, which is likely why Russian forces have not used these systems extensively in large-scale missile strikes against Ukrainian critical infrastructure.
Reznikov reported that Russia has managed to produce since the February 2022 invasion:
290 Kh-101 and Kh-555/55SM missiles (65 percent of the pre-war stock),
150 Kalibr missiles (30 percent of the pre-war stock),
36 Iskander 9M723 missiles (5 percent of the pre-war stock),
20 Iskander 9M728/9M729 missiles (20 percent of the pre-war stock),
and 20 Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missiles (47 percent of the pre-war stock).[13]
The Russian production of strategic missiles since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in comparison to the Russian military's pre-war stock highlights that Russia has not mobilized its military industry to support Russian military operations in Ukraine. A country would normally increase the production of missile, rocket, and other weapons systems and munitions before embarking on a major war and would normally put its military industry on a war footing once the war began. Russia has done neither. Putin’s failure to mobilize Russian industry to support the Russian war effort in Ukraine may result from fears that further economic disruptions could produce further domestic discontent in Russia because Western sanctions regimes have placed significant constraints on Russian military industry, or because of inherent limitations of Russian industry and military industry—or some combination of these factors. The current level of the Russian military’s depletion of strategic missile systems may constrain how often and at what scale Russian forces conduct future massive series of missile strikes in Ukraine, but Russian forces will be able to continue their campaign against Ukrainian infrastructure at scale in the near term and threaten the lives of Ukrainian civilians.
I add that I recall reading that ru55ia had several thousand s-300 type missiles stockpiled before Feb 2022, with a comment that these are a lot less accurate and much more short-range.
This does not include stock such as drones [uav] like the shaheeds etc supplied by iran, which are heavily in use as part of the terror campaign against civilian infrastructure. Fortunately Ukraine has found that the pick-up mounted searchlight & heavy machine gun combo are pretty good as a countermeasure - even small arms fire are effective [assuming the gunners know about deflection !].
clusterfarce
Member
US has confirmed that it and Ukraine are now able to restock Ukraine's Buk SAM system with US made Sea Sparrow missiles. These will replace their depleted stocks of short range air defence missiles. Apparently some motivated creative engineering was involved.
clusterfarce
Member
Russia is very very cold tonight. But if that moves to Ukraine, it will kill people.
ska invita
back on the other side
anyone waiting for a full ukrainian victory would do well to read this
www.theguardian.com
it is not an option on the US/NATO table
the two, not very different, options are:
"First, the “bleed Russia dry” approach is best approached by continuing the war as long as possible, engaging and degrading Russia’s armed forces as deeply and for as long as possible, while preferably maintaining combat at a manageable level of intensity. It amounts to using Ukraine’s forces as a proxy army. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican congressman, summarised this approach as “investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop”.
In the second approach, described by Blinken, a very limited set of territorial objectives are declared. But they in no way accord with Ukraine’s stated and clear aim of recovering all its internationally recognised borders – including all of Luhansk, Donetsk and above all Crimea. In fact, at no point has a clear and unambiguous statement been made by the US that it is its policy to support military operations to recover Ukraine’s lost territories."
this sounds exactly correct to me, and we've been in this situation for weeks now
The US must decide what ‘victory’ means in Ukraine – or waste even more lives there | Frank Ledwidge
Its support is critical to the conflict, but the US is failing to learn the lessons of its sprawling wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, says former military officer Frank Ledwidge
the two, not very different, options are:
"First, the “bleed Russia dry” approach is best approached by continuing the war as long as possible, engaging and degrading Russia’s armed forces as deeply and for as long as possible, while preferably maintaining combat at a manageable level of intensity. It amounts to using Ukraine’s forces as a proxy army. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican congressman, summarised this approach as “investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop”.
In the second approach, described by Blinken, a very limited set of territorial objectives are declared. But they in no way accord with Ukraine’s stated and clear aim of recovering all its internationally recognised borders – including all of Luhansk, Donetsk and above all Crimea. In fact, at no point has a clear and unambiguous statement been made by the US that it is its policy to support military operations to recover Ukraine’s lost territories."
this sounds exactly correct to me, and we've been in this situation for weeks now
clusterfarce
Member
What kind of monsters wish to restore their borders.
Crenshaw is talking out his arse for an audience of clowns, seems you number yourself among them. Russia has already "bled itself dry". Its blown it as an expansionary power for ten years at least and a lot longer in reality, its equipment is in tatters on the sunflower fields of Ukraine (not the first army in history to do that either). What is now happening is a kind of act of solidarity where Poland, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are assured that in a more distant future, if a resurgent Russia tries to take some of their land, the western allies will not rest till they are fully restored. This is the fulfilment of an implied promise of collective security. The Labour party of 1949, the most left wing government this country ever had, helped put together a system of alliances among the democratic states in a still very fragile world. One for all and all for one. We would stand collectively together and not be picked off by Stalinists or fascists. Our equipment was standardised and made interchangeable, our ranks, unit structures, map symbols and even fuels were regulated. It was like an EEC for army stuff.
It was part of a series of efforts across Europe to turn it from thousands of years of war and conflict to a place where people argued about which cheeses should be given regional protected status. The ECHR, the EEC, NATO and other bodies were slowly built to try to create a region where nations interacted by rule of law rather than rule of arms. Irony of ironies it was often failing empires that built this structure but still as they fell from empires to states they signed deals and treaties and border agreements to try to make a continent where children could sleep without fear of air raid sirens (and cheese could be regulated so no one made Cheddar in Poland but Europeans eh, priorities!)
This was not paradise but at least a less imperfect world.
For west Europe the idea of the nation state is almost invisible, its how you think of states as nation states. Outside of west Europe and east Asia this is almost an anathema. For east Europe over decades of nationalism nations were forced into states built in wars and genocides. The forced movement of peoples is a still living trauma. "Ukraine" and "Poland" became nation states by forcing millions to move and borders to change in 1946. All over eastern Europe its a not that dissimilar tale. Nationalism rather than statism is a beast that sleeps uneasily. Or did until Putin decided that Russian speaking meant Russian national (ask the Irish if speaking English means you are an English national).
This war threatens to waken the sleeping beast of nationalism and random borders.
You can start lots of thread about what happens beyond EU\NATO world. Show the hypocrisy and decry the social conditions. But the reason the most boring and sober countries in Europe like Finland and Sweden are so hot on this war is its about leaving territorial revanchment in the history books. There is a principle of creating a continent wide movement of people but let the border lie and let the people sleep easy.
Restoring Ukraines borders is not about Ukraine but about not allowing the strong to simply open new tears in old wounds to expand their territory. Its about letting small European countries know that Europe is a collective that will stand up for the small countries and protect them from armies with tanks seeking to redraw their borders.
I do not expect to reach you with this comment. But it might help some to think about why this matters.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Not really seeing how this is a big deal - option two is a return to the pre-invasion borders. Which is what most people would see as a Ukrainian "victory". Don't think anyone other than Ukrainian nationalists is pushing for them - or support them - to go much further than that .anyone waiting for a full ukrainian victory would do well to read this
it is not an option on the US/NATO tableThe US must decide what ‘victory’ means in Ukraine – or waste even more lives there | Frank Ledwidge
Its support is critical to the conflict, but the US is failing to learn the lessons of its sprawling wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, says former military officer Frank Ledwidge
the two, not very different, options are:
"First, the “bleed Russia dry” approach is best approached by continuing the war as long as possible, engaging and degrading Russia’s armed forces as deeply and for as long as possible, while preferably maintaining combat at a manageable level of intensity. It amounts to using Ukraine’s forces as a proxy army. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican congressman, summarised this approach as “investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop”.
In the second approach, described by Blinken, a very limited set of territorial objectives are declared. But they in no way accord with Ukraine’s stated and clear aim of recovering all its internationally recognised borders – including all of Luhansk, Donetsk and above all Crimea. In fact, at no point has a clear and unambiguous statement been made by the US that it is its policy to support military operations to recover Ukraine’s lost territories."
this sounds exactly correct to me, and we've been in this situation for weeks now
not-bono-ever
meh
I don't think Biden is willing to commit to shit all long term - and that's not a bad stance to take for the #1 Global Superpower- off the cuff comment/s about Putin being in power aside, he's no mug, despite the anti Biden rhetoric slopping about. Make no bones, outside the handful of Russian supporting/ leaning states- this is not an unpopular position to take on the global stage. As an outlet of US power, its seriously cost effective for them to degrade Russia's ability to perform as they would like to - I was reading somewhere about the numbers involved- its not funny how this drip feed policy re UKR is proving to be such good value for the USA- its never really been witnessed before at this level for direct or proxy conflicts, of which there are/is/am many in the post WW2 USA era
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I’m trying to think what would be the best score to set this to.
not-bono-ever
meh
Four Ways to Understand the $54 Billion in U.S. Spending on Ukraine
It’s the most annual assistance given by the U.S. to a country in the last decade.
www.nytimes.com
Theres a gamut of this kind of info around. Afghanistan cost a couple of trillion most likely by comparison/albeit a different animal. The MIL will be making good money in the next year or two from this far away conflict- there are whispers that the "beneficial" impact of the war could potentially hold back the oft discussed one in a lifetime killer recession for a while. Whilst this isn't my POV, we have to accept its out there.
Similar threads
