This brigade was meant to be equiped with BMP's and MT-LB's but apparently there aren't enough of those left anymore
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
It was detected in Estonia and it was precisely the erroneous identification carried out by the Mig-23 that the Cessna was able to reach Moscow, since it was identified as a Yak-12, and confused with other planes that were operating the place and subsequently were gave him the status of "friend", in Russia he was never in danger nor was he intercepted
By the way, there are those who say that these Ukrainian junk will be baptized with the name of Mathias Rust, xd!
The tiny territory of Israel is surrounded only by US-occupied countries or really poor countries. Gaza is a ghetto worse than the Warsaw Ghetto of the 1940s under famine and total surveillance. And even from this vantage position Israel has been humiliated fighting desperate children and women, sandaled shepherd families.
And Saudi Arabia is a neighbor of the largest US fleet and is armed by the US itself against poor Houthis.
Meanwhile Russia has a vast border with NATO. It is much more difficult to protect a large hostile border than a small area with no real adversaries. And even so, NATO only matched the poor Palestinians and Houthis.
For a "not rich" country, Russia is doing well. Imagine if they receive direct aid from China in this asymmetric conflict?
Last edited:
Russian kamikaze drones "Geran" again attacked Kharkov and the Kharkov region on the night of April 4. The strikes were carried out on energy infrastructure facilities and facilities where, according to Russian media reports, military personnel were stationed. In Ukraine they are already announcing the destruction of 80% of generating capacities; eyewitnesses filmed videos of the attacks that occurred right next to them.
You are drawing very, very strange conclusions.
1. Why is Israel so capable of shooting down drones and small rockets/mortars? The shorter distance is actually an advantage. The entirety of the territory can be overlapped in radar coverage and multiple levels at a reasonable cost. It also knows exactly where attacks will come from and has time to track them due to slower speed.
2. Patriots were plenty capable of shooting down small drones, there was no question about that. It was even demonstrated by KSA forces. The issue was how to balance the cost of a Patriot missile (millions of usd) vs DJI drone (hundreds of USD).
KSA looked to address this cost imbalance by purchasing (and using operationally) the "Silent Hunter" laser system from China. I have not heard of any major successful strikes since 2022, also the same year the Silent Hunter was shown.
Your should also know this from your Israel example. Iron Dome and David's Sling were developed specifically to be a lower cost compared to Patriot.
There are real issues with Russian AD (Why are there no short range AD around refineries? this is not the first attack. Russian radar seems like a weakness), but it is not a failure in the way you are describing. Furthermore, the Ukrainian demands for more advanced strike capabilities (HARM, Storm Shadow, ATACMs, GLSDB, JDAM, Taurus, F-16) would imply that the Russian ADS capability is not a pushover. If it was so weak and pathetic, then Ukraine could have just destroyed everything with Su-25s and iron bombs.
Improvised weapons are by definition created as a specific counter to the tactics and abilities of the opponent (or desperation if that is the case). As such, it should not be a surprise that such a weapon was able to find a weak spot. Taliban fighters were blowing up Humvees with IEDs and mines forcing the development of the MRAP. In fact, the whole FCS program ended up getting cancelled as it was realized that they were too light even to combat non-peer combatants.
Finally, you say all myths are debunked, certainly the performance by the Russian military is not exactly impressive, but those "mediocre resources" are also achieving equally mediocre results.
The current strategic, operational, & tactical situation is quite strange.
NATO is starting to feel around (France in particular) to see the public response of having NATO ground forces in Ukraine. Now they talk about bringing Ukraine into NATO and setting up a 100 billion dollar fund. The Russian MOD and state keep on boasting about their production and recruitment levels. NATO-Ukraine constantly claiming about 'Future Grand Russian offensive' like they always do. US claiming that "Russia almost completely recovered" from their losses in the war.
--At the front the Ukrainian army has degraded so much in quality that it barely resembles the force in 2022. Yet it has become a large conscript force that can occupy buildings and trenchlines. Their defensive backbone appears to be still working, the units hold as well as their drones & artillery.
But when the Russians attack they can barely put out counterattacks (often none at all) and even the Ukrainian general staff doesn't report much except for static defense anymore. So this would imply that the Ukrainian army is vulnerable to attack since they don't have much capability for counterattack. Lack of ammo, low quality of infantry, lack of equipment etc.
Yet at the same time, the Russian force doesn't really capitalize much on the weakness of their enemy. They have the initiative but their units are not seizing upon it sufficiently. Most of the time they are just attacking each other with drones & other munitions.
Since the Adiivka operation they continue this very slow and small scaled pace of positional warfare with a small number of small attacks by squads, platoons and companies to glacially expand the zone of control.
The recent attacks by battalion and company sized armored units don't indicate that they have figured out how to use the tank for maneuver warfare in a sufficiently efficient manner, still the same footage of them getting zero'ed in by Ukrainian artillery. They did not use armor well in the Adiivka fighting last year.
This begs the question- If one day Russia launches massive mechanized offensive at the scale of 2022 will they be as costly as before? Or have they abandoned the classic massed tank attack and moved towards very conservative armor use.
The Ukrainian claims are that the Russian army has developed a sustainable operational tempo meaning that they can continue what they are doing on indefinitely. (relatively low casualties, but very slow territorial gains).
The Russian adherence to positional warfare suggests that Putin's territorial goals are quite conservative (4 annexed provinces) and he is just grinding Ukraine-NATO frontally until they crack economically/run out of equipment/munitions, throw the towel in and step up to negotiate.
NATO is starting to feel around (France in particular) to see the public response of having NATO ground forces in Ukraine. Now they talk about bringing Ukraine into NATO and setting up a 100 billion dollar fund. The Russian MOD and state keep on boasting about their production and recruitment levels. NATO-Ukraine constantly claiming about 'Future Grand Russian offensive' like they always do. US claiming that "Russia almost completely recovered" from their losses in the war.
--At the front the Ukrainian army has degraded so much in quality that it barely resembles the force in 2022. Yet it has become a large conscript force that can occupy buildings and trenchlines. Their defensive backbone appears to be still working, the units hold as well as their drones & artillery.
But when the Russians attack they can barely put out counterattacks (often none at all) and even the Ukrainian general staff doesn't report much except for static defense anymore. So this would imply that the Ukrainian army is vulnerable to attack since they don't have much capability for counterattack. Lack of ammo, low quality of infantry, lack of equipment etc.
Yet at the same time, the Russian force doesn't really capitalize much on the weakness of their enemy. They have the initiative but their units are not seizing upon it sufficiently. Most of the time they are just attacking each other with drones & other munitions.
Since the Adiivka operation they continue this very slow and small scaled pace of positional warfare with a small number of small attacks by squads, platoons and companies to glacially expand the zone of control.
The recent attacks by battalion and company sized armored units don't indicate that they have figured out how to use the tank for maneuver warfare in a sufficiently efficient manner, still the same footage of them getting zero'ed in by Ukrainian artillery. They did not use armor well in the Adiivka fighting last year.
This begs the question- If one day Russia launches massive mechanized offensive at the scale of 2022 will they be as costly as before? Or have they abandoned the classic massed tank attack and moved towards very conservative armor use.
The Ukrainian claims are that the Russian army has developed a sustainable operational tempo meaning that they can continue what they are doing on indefinitely. (relatively low casualties, but very slow territorial gains).
The Russian adherence to positional warfare suggests that Putin's territorial goals are quite conservative (4 annexed provinces) and he is just grinding Ukraine-NATO frontally until they crack economically/run out of equipment/munitions, throw the towel in and step up to negotiate.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It’s funny how you line up all the pieces nicely only to violently swerve away from the logical conclusion at the end.
When Ukraine runs out of men and/or equipment and/or munitions, why would the Russians need to negotiate? That’s like saying we need to get the judges’ scorecards after one boxer has KO’d the other.
With Blinken only recently speaking about Ukraine in NATO, there is nothing to negotiate on since that is a fundamentally unacceptable position for Russia, and they would have zero reason to accept that if the Ukrainians are no longer able to fight and resist them in the field.
The Russians have settled on their slow grind strategy because they have concluded that is the most cost effective means for them to secure total victory in Ukraine. It is also a strategy that will see the Russians continue to grow progressively stronger as they fight. This is a massive problem for NATO, who would like nothing more than for the Russians to keep making massive assault after assault at colossal costs and destroy themselves to take Ukraine.
In my view, all of the recent NATO talk of conscription is not a sign of strength but weakness and deep deep worry. They are not looking to restart conscription so they can pump in their own blood to be spilled in Ukraine. They are already looking at a European geopolitical landscape after total Russian annexation of Ukraine and desperately worried that at that future point, the Russian bear, newly armed up, with an economy geared for war, with a vast, well equipped and led professional veteran army and population hyped up with patriotic fever, will no longer be satisfied with just Ukraine and might seek to come for them next for vengeance for all the Russian blood they helped to spill in Ukraine. Especially when they are faced with a NATO that has already emptied much of its armouries and who’s equipment’s legend of invulnerability have been thoroughly shattered in Ukraine and a possible isolationist and highly unpredictable America under a second Trump presidency.
This is why NATO countries are musing about conscription now. Because they fear they will need to quickly mobilise a vast new NATO army to put in Poland and Romania to deter the Russians once they have gobbled up Ukraine
They also attacked Engels which will upset the US since nuke bombers are supposedly stationed at that base.
I heard this too, but I prefer to wait for more ... the attack on Morozovsk however seems to be more or less confirmed.