Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[The39thStep]

It is.

is it Ukraine state funded? I seem to remember it had links to right wingers in Poland but could be wrong.

Polish I think ? There was an article somewhere on its funding but I’m in a cafe at the moment .

 

[DaveCinzano]

It is.

is it Ukraine state funded? I seem to remember it had links to right wingers in Poland but could be wrong.

It's all somewhat opaque

Polish Misinformation Using a Hungarian Recipe: The Curious Case of Visegrád 24

The Visegrad 24 Twitter account is becoming the international English-language format to springboard CEE illiberal and disinformation narratives to the West.

visegradinsight.eu

 

[spitfire]

Thanks Dave.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Herr Wagner has made a video claiming Bakhmut is now taken. Looks like they certainly have most if not quite all of it. UA are denying but I think it’s pretty much all in.

He also says they will withdraw all Wagner troops on the 25th to be replaced by RU MoD troops…wonder how that will go?

The Russians have been claiming Bakhmut has been taken on countless occasions over several months now.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Thanks Dave.

DO THE VOICE

 

[existentialist]

The Russians have apparently rushed what few reserves they have to shore up the flanks which is to be hoped the point and gives the Ukrainians room to go adventuring elsewhere

Good. Because reserves engaged means fewer reserves in reserve. I think I begin to spot a strategy

 

[spitfire]

The Russians have been claiming Bakhmut has been taken on countless occasions over several months now.

Even some pro Ukraine channels are saying it this time.

DO THE VOICE

View attachment 375482

I wanted to do that but was making my dinner so failed.

 

[existentialist]

Absolutely. There’s nothing left. The Graun had some before and after sat photos and it is fucked. Sure everyone saw them already so won’t link.

Apparently surrounded by hills as well so Ben Tre followed by a potential Dien Bien Phu?

I read "The 10,000 Day War" absolutely ages ago, but IIRC I think a substantial difference was that Dien Bien Phu was a colonial stronghold, being assaulted by Viet Cong - kinda 180 degrees away from the present situation in Ukraine, where the defenders are facing a largely poorly-motivated and depleted force.

 

[spitfire]

I read "The 10,000 Day War" absolutely ages ago, but IIRC I think a substantial difference was that Dien Bien Phu was a colonial stronghold, being assaulted by Viet Cong - kinda 180 degrees away from the present situation in Ukraine, where the defenders are facing a largely poorly-motivated and depleted force.

Same, was ages ago I read the book on the battle but seem to remember it was the fact that it was surrounded by hills that allowed the Vietnamese to destroy, in turn, both French and American defenders, more a comment on the tactical rather situation than the role of the army involved.

I'm deep into armchair general territory now so will STFU.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Dien Bien Phu was a colonial stronghold, being assaulted by Viet Cong

Family Fortunes sound

 

[existentialist]

Very difficult to know what to believe tbh

View attachment 375472

It depends what you want to believe. Regardless of the - de rigueur - political rhetoric, the sole purpose of Ukraine remaining in Bakhmut is to bleed the Russians. Urban warfare legendarily favours the defender, usually in a ratio of 5:1 or better. Given all the various dynamics in the Russian force structure (eg their comparative reluctance to evacuate wounded), that ratio is probably higher, and even more so given that they're facing largely untrained troops and Russian "meat wave" doctrine. It is undoubtedly costing Ukrainian lives, but I imagine that their calculus makes that ratio of losses worth it.

AS you will do doubt become bored of hearing me say, war is about psychology. Russia (via Prigozhin) has become fixated on taking Bakhmut at any cost, and Ukraine is pursuing the purest of Sun Tzu doctrine by ensuring that they don't interrupt their enemy while he is in the process of making a mistake. Which, in this case, includes expending increasingly scarce resources (men and materiel) in pursuit of some increasingly useless goal.

While methodically and (comparatively) quietly, pushing back against the depleted and demoralised Russian flanks to the north and south of the city, creating potential conditions - or at least the threat - for cutting off Bakhmut from its supply lines from the Eastern side.

Which Russia might well interpret as part of the much-vaunted "counter-offensive". And which, I suspect, will turn out to be a (profitable) sideshow to what's really going to happen. I am liking Ukraine's psy-ops approach to all this.

 

[The39thStep]

It depends what you want to believe. Regardless of the - de rigueur - political rhetoric, the sole purpose of Ukraine remaining in Bakhmut is to bleed the Russians. Urban warfare legendarily favours the defender, usually in a ratio of 5:1 or better. Given all the various dynamics in the Russian force structure (eg their comparative reluctance to evacuate wounded), that ratio is probably higher, and even more so given that they're facing largely untrained troops and Russian "meat wave" doctrine. It is undoubtedly costing Ukrainian lives, but I imagine that their calculus makes that ratio of losses worth it.

AS you will do doubt become bored of hearing me say, war is about psychology. Russia (via Prigozhin) has become fixated on taking Bakhmut at any cost, and Ukraine is pursuing the purest of Sun Tzu doctrine by ensuring that they don't interrupt their enemy while he is in the process of making a mistake. Which, in this case, includes expending increasingly scarce resources (men and materiel) in pursuit of some increasingly useless goal.

While methodically and (comparatively) quietly, pushing back against the depleted and demoralised Russian flanks to the north and south of the city, creating potential conditions - or at least the threat - for cutting off Bakhmut from its supply lines from the Eastern side.

Which Russia might well interpret as part of the much-vaunted "counter-offensive". And which, I suspect, will turn out to be a (profitable) sideshow to what's really going to happen. I am liking Ukraine's psy-ops approach to all this.

I'm not a war expert however whilst I may not agree I'm never bored with what you have to say

 

[The39thStep]

Same, was ages ago I read the book on the battle but seem to remember it was the fact that it was surrounded by hills that allowed the Vietnamese to destroy, in turn, both French and American defenders, more a comment on the tactical rather situation than the role of the army involved.

I'm deep into armchair general territory now so will STFU.

 

[spitfire]

View attachment 375491

That's literally me.

 

[Ming]

So they‘re getting F-16s.

Does this indicates a long war or a later counter offensive? It’ll take months to train up the pilots and they require a huge a mountain of skilled techs and engineers to keep the things operational so i can’t see them being used this Summer. Maybe it’s designed to be a future deterrent or in anticipation of a long war or frozen conflict.

Maybe the plan is to drive the Russians out of every bit of Ukraine except Crimea and take that later. That’s my uneducated guess.

ETA: Actually they’re not getting the Abrams tanks for ages and they take a shit load of maintenance also. Maybe for the same reason as the F-16s. Long war. Or it’s just the US trying to not give a reason to Putin to make the narrative Russia vs USA.

 

[cupid_stunt]

So they‘re getting F-16s.

Does this indicates a long war or a later counter offensive? It’ll take months to train up the pilots and they require a huge a mountain of skilled techs and engineers to keep the things operational so i can’t see them being used this Summer. Maybe it’s designed to be a future deterrent or in anticipation of a long war or frozen conflict.

Maybe the plan is to drive the Russians out of every bit of Ukraine except Crimea and take that later. That’s my uneducated guess.

ETA: Actually they’re not getting the Abrams tanks for ages and they take a shit load of maintenance also. Maybe for the same reason as the F-16s. Long war. Or it’s just the US trying to not give a reason to Putin to make the narrative Russia vs USA.

With the announcement of the intention to supply F-16s it was mentioned that due to various factors, mainly the time to train pilots, they will not be delivered for many months and will not be playing a part in this summer's counter offensive, but would probably be there at some point in the autumn and therefore useful over the winter and into next year.

The rest I guess all depends to how well the counter offensive goes this summer, Ukraine is expected to make decent gains, but probably not enough to push the Russians all the way back to the main border, and Crimea will probably have to wait. And, there's the hope that if the gains are big enough they could trigger a Russian withdrawal, possibly following the assassination of Putin. Otherwise, assuming decent gains, but no withdrawal, it will drag on into next year, OTOH if they don't make decent gains, that's likely to result in outside pressure to do a deal, which doesn't bear thinking of, any peace deal would probably not hold, and the whole shitshow would start again at some point.

But, even if Russia is pushed back/withdraws to the border, it remains possible that air strikes would continue, so the F-16s would have a role there, otherwise just be there in a defence role and ready should Russia decides to have another pop.

But, the bottom line is there're simply too many ifs and buts, so...

 

[Ming]

With the announcement of the intention to supply F-16s it was mentioned that due to various factors, mainly the time to train pilots, they will not be delivered for many months and will not be playing a part in this summer's counter offensive, but would probably be there at some point in the autumn and therefore useful over the winter and into next year.

The rest I guess all depends to how well the counter offensive goes this summer, Ukraine is expected to make decent gains, but probably not enough to push the Russians all the way back to the main border, and Crimea will probably have to wait. And, there's the hope that if the gains are big enough they could trigger a Russian withdrawal, possibly following the assassination of Putin. Otherwise, assuming decent gains, but no withdrawal, it will drag on into next year, OTOH if they don't make decent gains, that's likely to result in outside pressure to do a deal, which doesn't bear thinking of, any peace deal would probably not hold, and the whole shitshow would start again at some point.

But, even if Russia is pushed back/withdraws to the border, it remains possible that air strikes would continue, so the F-16s would have a role there, otherwise just be there in a defence role and ready should Russia decides to have another pop.

But, the bottom line is there're simply too many ifs and buts, so...



View attachment 375521

And as kebabking pointed out.
What happens if the Russians start attacking Ukraine from within their own territory with ranged weapons.

I'd hate to be a NATO decision maker ATM.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Sky is reporting that Zelensky has now confirmed that Russia has captured the last small urban area of Bakhmut city, but Ukrainians continue to fight to the north and south.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Prigozhin, Russian for Pyrrhus.

 

[Pickman's model]

It depends what you want to believe. Regardless of the - de rigueur - political rhetoric, the sole purpose of Ukraine remaining in Bakhmut is to bleed the Russians. Urban warfare legendarily favours the defender, usually in a ratio of 5:1 or better. Given all the various dynamics in the Russian force structure (eg their comparative reluctance to evacuate wounded), that ratio is probably higher, and even more so given that they're facing largely untrained troops and Russian "meat wave" doctrine. It is undoubtedly costing Ukrainian lives, but I imagine that their calculus makes that ratio of losses worth it.

AS you will do doubt become bored of hearing me say, war is about psychology. Russia (via Prigozhin) has become fixated on taking Bakhmut at any cost, and Ukraine is pursuing the purest of Sun Tzu doctrine by ensuring that they don't interrupt their enemy while he is in the process of making a mistake. Which, in this case, includes expending increasingly scarce resources (men and materiel) in pursuit of some increasingly useless goal.

While methodically and (comparatively) quietly, pushing back against the depleted and demoralised Russian flanks to the north and south of the city, creating potential conditions - or at least the threat - for cutting off Bakhmut from its supply lines from the Eastern side.

Which Russia might well interpret as part of the much-vaunted "counter-offensive". And which, I suspect, will turn out to be a (profitable) sideshow to what's really going to happen. I am liking Ukraine's psy-ops approach to all this.

The purest of sun tzu is winning without fighting. So that's out the window here.

 

[Chz]

Prigozhin, Russian for Pyrrhus.

As above, following the Art of War to the letter. Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake. I'm amazed that they dragged it out quite as long as they did, but the usual defender's advantage in urban warfare is 5:1 at least so they've used up quite a lot of the Russians' spare capacity in that one little town that's of no real importance beyond the Russians staging their reputation on it.

 

[The39thStep]

(edit) Just realised that I wrote a comment on my phone and then later posted the tweet on my PC without the comment)

Visegrad is like a stopped clock

 

[Ming]

Plu

With the announcement of the intention to supply F-16s it was mentioned that due to various factors, mainly the time to train pilots, they will not be delivered for many months and will not be playing a part in this summer's counter offensive, but would probably be there at some point in the autumn and therefore useful over the winter and into next year.

The rest I guess all depends to how well the counter offensive goes this summer, Ukraine is expected to make decent gains, but probably not enough to push the Russians all the way back to the main border, and Crimea will probably have to wait. And, there's the hope that if the gains are big enough they could trigger a Russian withdrawal, possibly following the assassination of Putin. Otherwise, assuming decent gains, but no withdrawal, it will drag on into next year, OTOH if they don't make decent gains, that's likely to result in outside pressure to do a deal, which doesn't bear thinking of, any peace deal would probably not hold, and the whole shitshow would start again at some point.

But, even if Russia is pushed back/withdraws to the border, it remains possible that air strikes would continue, so the F-16s would have a role there, otherwise just be there in a defence role and ready should Russia decides to have another pop.

But, the bottom line is there're simply too many ifs and buts, so...



View attachment 375521

Plus for proper combined arms operations you need decent airpower. Ukraine are short on that ATM.

 

[spitfire]

Interesting thread here on the limitations and limited usefulness of F16s.

 

[Chz]

Interesting thread here on the limitations and limited usefulness of F16s.

Yeah, it's not so much that the Falcons will give them any new magical abilities, it's more about their own air force suffering from attrition and lack of spare parts. Yes, the Falcons will push back the edge of where the Russians can operate from somewhat but that's about all it will change substantially. They'll be better at plinking radar, because the HARMs can operate in pickup mode but that's a very dangerous job and they won't have the luxury of numbers to perform risky endeavours except where absolutely necessary.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Plu

Plus for proper combined arms operations you need decent airpower. Ukraine are short on that ATM.

Well clearly, and that's been the case from the start, it didn't seem worth pointing out at this stage.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Interesting thread here on the limitations and limited usefulness of F16s.

There seems a lot of weirdness in that thread, like...

The other piece that gets lost in this is more technical considerations. Simply put, neither Ukraine or Russia wants to go in each others air space because the air defenses are so lethal. Ukraine has scored kills with Patriot and S-300s. Russia has lots of even nastier stuff 11/n

Yet, there's been plenty of recent reports of Russian bombers in Ukraine's airspace.

And, maintenance of the F-16s in Ukraine, when surely they can land in other European countries for maintenance?

 

[Chz]

Yet, there's been plenty of recent reports of Russian bombers in Ukraine's airspace.

Only if you count occupied territory as Ukrainian airspace.

Fears are unfounded that Russian aircraft will roam the skies over Ukraine and freely attack targets. Ukraine has enough remaining air defense capability to make its airspace extremely dangerous to Russian aircraft. Further, the Russian air force has shown itself to be risk averse because of deficient training and inadequate defensive systems. Russian aircraft rarely enter Ukrainian airspace but launch weapons from Russian territory.

Will Russia Control the Skies over Ukraine?

Shrinking air defense missile inventories mean that Ukraine may be able to protect its military forces, but not its cities or infrastructure. Further damage to electrical infrastructure will cause great civilian suffering, making the situation increasingly dire.

www.csis.org

 

[kebabking]

There seems a lot of weirdness in that thread, like...



Yet, there's been plenty of recent reports of Russian bombers in Ukraine's airspace.

And, maintenance of the F-16s in Ukraine, when surely they can land in other European countries for maintenance?

In this context 'airspace' means the bit you control, not the bit that - according to the map, you own. In NATO doctrine you can fight in the other guys back yard, but you do so with a massive SEAD, jamming and EW, offensive counter air and shaping package. You don't just turn up with some F-16's and hope it works.

The problem with the 'operate from other states' idea is that it means that those other states would be - according to the Hague conventions, and all accepted international law - belligerent states. That they'd be effectively engaging in war with Russia.

Now, personally I think that the rules that we set when this started, and we were concerned/afraid that the Rompin', Stompin' Red Army would just roll over the Polish and Baltic state borders if NATO states engaged in direct support for Ukraine, are now obsolete, and need to be revisited. That Russia is not the threat we thought they were, and that were we to base Ukrainian aircraft in Poland from where they flew combat missions, Russia would honk, as would China, but they wouldn't actually do anything, because they really don't want to go to war with NATO.

However, we'd be at war with them - and however much we (rightly, imv) might think that we wildly overmatch them in combat power - it would be a war, and shit goes wrong, assumptions (even very good ones, made by clever, well informed people) turn to shit on occasion.

 

[DownwardDog]

Yeah, it's not so much that the Falcons will give them any new magical abilities, it's more about their own air force suffering from attrition and lack of spare parts. Yes, the Falcons will push back the edge of where the Russians can operate from somewhat but that's about all it will change substantially. They'll be better at plinking radar, because the HARMs can operate in pickup mode but that's a very dangerous job and they won't have the luxury of numbers to perform risky endeavours except where absolutely necessary.

The F-16A (MLU) under discussion doesn't have the HARM targeting computer. Only the USAF CJ/DJ Vipers have that capability.