The War in the Ukraine

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Russia is refraining from hitting hard to replace infrastructure. Could it be that Russia expect after war Ukraine to become a friendly regime? That would be a pretty big goal to aim for.

See post above. Odessa just lost its bridge connection to Romania.

In other developments,

Ukrainian air defense missile hits building in Kiev. This one must have missed a Geran.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Explosion in Odessa.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The effects of a Kh-22 hit on a Ukrainian warehouse sans depot in Odessa.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

eprash

Junior Member
Registered Member
Read all of your opinions so it's reasonable to assume Russia may annex Ukraine or at least the eastern portion of it, how feasible is it, Wouldn't the population be hostile to a Russian takeover?
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Read all of your opinions so it's reasonable to assume Russia may annex Ukraine or at least the eastern portion of it, how feasible is it, Wouldn't the population be hostile to a Russian takeover?
Russia's goal has been massively scaled back since start of invasion, I think in the beginning it would've been Eastern Ukraine + a chunk of territory and Russian friendly puppet government, now it would end at Donbass in best case scenario. I don't think toppling the Ukranian government is actually possible as long as the West continue to back it.
 

Right_People

Junior Member
Registered Member
They tried destroying Ukraine's power grid this winter and it didn't work. As long as Ukraine has western aid their infrastructure won't be taken out and Russia knows it. What Russia would love to do is take out Ukraine weapon depots, barracks and other critical military structures but their ISR isn't that good because they don't have air superiority.
Not Really.
As some people pointed out before, if Russia wanted for real to destroy the grid and this was main goal they would have targeted other components of the infraestructure.

The most telling point is that Russia did not attack Ukraine's source of electricity, which is the nuclear power plants. Ukraine's consumption is a fraction of what it was before 24 February 2022, so much of this infrastructure (generation or distribution) is redundant.
At the same time, it is interesting that Russia did not make much of an effort to attack the 750kV main transformers. These by the way have not been used in the West for decades, they are typical Soviet infrastructure too big to be economical in the modern world ...

So Russia focused on small and medium sized transformers and some electricity/steam generation plants (important for heating the soviet blocks) but the priority doesn't seem to have been electricity itself, because it doesn't take a genius to understand where the electricity in Ukraine comes from.

At the same time it was here that Russia started to use en masse, not only the Geran, but also the decommissioned X-55 missile.
An interesting thing about the X-55 is that it was never intended to carry normal warheads, only nuclear warheads. Years ago, they were decommissioned and started to be used as decoys for target practice, which involved a characteristic modification to maintain the balance of the vehicle by removing the warhead and filling the space with a weight, even Boeing bought several dozen to use them as targets by the way.

newFile-2.jpg

Actually, Ukraine was unable to stop the missiles, they tried, but every two weeks there was a new set of burning stations and nodes. And they tried a lot including Western systems, as there are photos of several Western missiles falling on houses in Kiev. There were reports that Ukraine had used up all the missiles delivered by Germany for the IRIS-T system in one month.

We have then that:
1 - Russia did not seem to be aiming for a lethal blow to the network, but to attack it as a whole.
2 - Ukraine was trying to shoot down EVERY missile it saw.
3 - One month after the "failure" of this campaign, Ukraine has no ammunition for its SAMs. This has also coincided with a massive increase in Russian aircraft sorties.

We now see the VKS attacking on all sides, but not only that, tonight we saw another large scale attack of cruise missiles and other similar systems in the Ukrainian depths. But this time the targets were not infrastructure, but military targets (indeed, this last month has seen such attacks, like the famous Pavlograd case).
I think, in my opinion, that the whole missile campaign against the power grid was designed to wear down the AFU SAMs as much as possible, since they could not choose not to shoot them down. If you notice that the enemy is attacking your logistical nodes you can vary them, change them etc, similar to what Russia did after the first HIMARS disasters, but you can't move the power grid, you can only defend it with SAMs.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Read all of your opinions so it's reasonable to assume Russia may annex Ukraine
No

or at least the eastern portion of it, how feasible is it
Probably also not possible. Bar any big unexpected situation, current gains are what it will have in the end

, Wouldn't the population be hostile to a Russian takeover?
One of the reasons why it can't do a complete takeover. Population would be against them which would make managing and governing these regions an ever growing financial black hole
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
For those questioning why the US never delivered ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, for example, they answer is quite simple. Rather than any desire not to give them any capability to strike Russian territory. the truth is the US has not manufactured any new ATACMS missiles since at least 2007.
M. Koffman recently made the same remark.

He still thinks the most important single system given to Ukraine is Starlink.
 
Top