The War in the Ukraine

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
It's showing up on American news as well as Russian, so it seems likely to be true.

If America thinks cancelling the missiles will make Russia softer on lifting the blockage they are mistaken. Long range missiles wouldn't have much of a difference, a lot of Russian terrority is already under artillery range.

Letting a NATO naval convoy into Ukrainian ports however would be a big boost for Ukraine and NATO. If they can ship it via the sea they can earn billions and that would allow more NATO military support. Without port access they will either have to destroy the grain or hand over to the Russians. They would also be able to bring in humanitarian aid much cheaper, and it opens up the possibility of military shipments by sea. The only option for Russia other than to attack the convoy would be an offensive against Nikolaev and Odessa. That would be reactionary and would likely lead to the destruction of cities that Russia wants to keep.

A NATO military escort is the start of WW3 IMO.

America would have been wiser to insist on the MRLS,, unless they've completely given up on the Ukraine.
With roads and rail rendered mostly useless, sending weapons is becoming the same... Ukraine have less possibilities to field them anyway. Russian just need to lay incredible amount of sea mines to deter them and putting the west front on the table faster than they wanted.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
With roads and rail rendered mostly useless, sending weapons is becoming the same... Ukraine have less possibilities to field them anyway. Russian just need to lay incredible amount of sea mines to deter them and putting the west front on the table faster than they wanted.
Rushing anything would be a mistake. What's worked so far is to take things slowly. Laying mines would just be a waste of mines, plus the Ukrainians have already done that for them.

If you are prepared to attack NATO for sending a squadron of ancient MiG 29s, attacking them for breaking a naval blockage should be a no brainer.
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Has this been shared before? A candid assessment by Colonel Markus Reisner from the Austrian Military Academy, from the beginning of May. In his opinion Russia can still win this, where the definition of victory is holding more territory than at the start of the invasion:
"

He claims that according to data from the US, the arms it takes the West one week to supply to Ukraine, are either consumed by the Ukrainians in 1 day, or destroyed by the Russians. Apparently, Russia has published manuals on how to operate the various Western equipment supplied to Ukraine.

"In the past, Ukraine also succeeded in ambushing Russian soldiers with special forces. But this tactic probably won't work anymore. This had worked elsewhere in the first six weeks, but now the Russians are prepared, and the Russian special forces (Spetsnaz) hunt the Ukrainian special forces and unfortunately destroy them quite often."

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


Another assessment penned today:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russia is using long range tube and rocket artillery, coupled with thermobaric weapons to saturate the Ukrainian defences, not giving them a minute of breathing space.

Especially the territorial defense units created from the west of the country are only briefly trained and therefore not at all able to withstand such a devastating use of heavy artillery. "They shoot incessantly," describes a Ukrainian defender of the Washington Post, for example, "and we don't even have the opportunity to shoot back."
 
Last edited:

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Has this been shared before? A candid assessment by Colonel Markus Reisner from the Austrian Military Academy, from the beginning of May. In his opinion Russia can still win this, where the definition of victory is holding more territory than at the start of the hostilities:
"

He claims that according to data from the US, the arms it takes the West one week to supply to Ukraine, are either consumed by the Ukrainians in 1 day, or destroyed by the Russians. Apparently, Russia has published manuals on how to operate the various Western equipment supplied to Ukraine.

"In the past, Ukraine also succeeded in ambushing Russian soldiers with special forces. But this tactic probably won't work anymore. This had worked elsewhere in the first six weeks, but now the Russians are prepared, and the Russian special forces (Spetsnaz) hunt the Ukrainian special forces and unfortunately destroy them quite often."

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Beginning of may is when the copium bubble started to crack... Russia can still win this ? They are doing what intended : liberation of Donesk, Lugansk, denazification and destruction of military of Ukraine. It look like they can achieve better and create their Novorussia too...
 
Last edited:

Janiz

Senior Member
They are doing what intended : liberation of Donesk, Lugansk, denazification and destruction of military of Ukraine. It look like they can achieve better and create their Novorussia too...
They intended to overthrow Ukrainian government and reshape the European defence landscape. It seems like they achieved the latter part with Finland and Sweden in NATO probably paired with permanent NATO military bases in Poland and we're sure they failed in the first case.

Who's insane enough to write that the biggest country in the world needs a few square kilometers of land more and transform it into the same land that's known from Russian poor rural areas? How stupid those claims sound? Is that success in any context?

It could be used in internal propaganda machine for a fraction of stupid people who don't see a bigger picture.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
With roads and rail rendered mostly useless, sending weapons is becoming the same... Ukraine have less possibilities to field them anyway. Russian just need to lay incredible amount of sea mines to deter them and putting the west front on the table faster than they wanted.

I don’t think Putin wants to deter them at all. Very interesting timing for the Russian ambassador to the UK to be downplaying the risk of nuclear escalation just as Britain is showing itself as super keen on the naval convoy idea if Russia wants to achieve deterrence don’t you think?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russia won't use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, says ambassador to UK​


I for one feels like Putin may be quietly egging the British on.

It seems very likely that if Downing Street insist on leading charge on the naval convoy idea, Biden will lead from the rear as usual and not send any USN ships, at least not until someone else has tested the waters to prove its safe first.

So what if the RN leads a rag-tag band of minnows powers on this naval (mis) adventure and the Russians confront them with some small patrol boat, which acts deliberately belligerently, but does not fire the first shot and manages to bait the British into firing the first shot?

Then Russia does nothing for a day or two, and Boris is absolutely the kind of fool who would not be able to resist bragging about how he stood up to the terrible Russian Bear and made them blink and tuck tail and run. Much celebration and mutual back patting in the British news.

The next day massed Russian AShM waves overkills the entire naval flotilla and the few sodden survivors gets paraded on Russian news with the Russians playing back Boris’ own boarish boasts as evidence of British aggression.

Is NATO going to trigger Article 5 over this and commit mass nuclear suicide? I think not. NATO is thus massively undermined and Putin gets sweet revenge on Boris for all the Russian soldiers killed by western arms shipments.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
They intended to overthrow Ukrainian government and reshape the European defence landscape. It seems like they achieved the latter part with Finland and Sweden in NATO probably paired with permanent NATO military bases in Poland and we're sure they failed in the first case.

Who's insane enough to write that the biggest country in the world needs a few square kilometers of land more and transform it into the same land that's known from Russian poor rural areas? How stupid those claims sound? Is that success in any context?

It could be used in internal propaganda machine for a fraction of stupid people who don't see a bigger picture.
The intention was never to overthrow the Ukraine government. It was to denazify and demilitarise the Ukraine. The demilitarise part they've already done, they are now demilitarising NATO. Denazification will probably take years, but once it's complete Ukraine will naturally be pro-Russian like Belarus.

Finland and Sweden are never going to join NATO, it's just posturing and it's pure copium to think so. No one in a real country will want to get nuked for a bunch of eastern Europeans. Germans can wash their own cars.

If anything the war has exposed NATO for the paper alliance it is.
 

Suetham

Senior Member
Registered Member
They intended to overthrow Ukrainian government and reshape the European defence landscape.
Did they really want to overthrow the government? Why would they do this? If it did, who would sign the Russian demands?
It seems like they achieved the latter part with Finland and Sweden in NATO probably paired with permanent NATO military bases in Poland and we're sure they failed in the first case.
For that to happen they will have to convince Erdogan.
Who's insane enough to write that the biggest country in the world needs a few square kilometers of land more and transform it into the same land that's known from Russian poor rural areas? How stupid those claims sound? Is that success in any context?
Geopolitics involves geography. In fact, geopolitics is geography. This "biggest country in the world needs more land" litany is a pretty ridiculous argument. Stop this.
 
Top