The War in the Ukraine

anzha

Captain
Registered Member
Russia responded that they aren’t after the Ukrainians claimed they are. Unfortunately, there isn’t really any info to say if did or didn’t storm the steel plant. Russia saying Ukrainians tried to set up firing positions but was repelled.

No real way to know. Like I said, it makes a good story. If communications are reestablished for the bunker + Ukrainians, it definitely casts doubt on their spin.

The Pentagon says Russia pulled all but 2k troops from Mauripol. If true, I doubt they'd be storming the bunkers with that much.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
If true I imagine they are storming the buildings above ground and not the underground bunker.

Flooding the bunker would be very effective. Nothing Azov can do about that. There is the question of whether there is evidence that needs to be captured, flooding it could destroy it. That's I think smoking them out would be the better option.

Either way something different needs to happen. Storming the underground bunker isn't an option, and neither is trying to starve out a bunch of cannibals.
 

Lethe

Captain
After much discussion and against the wishes of some, the final decision has been for a new thread on the Ukrainian War to be opened.

The title of this thread is "The War in the Ukraine" (emphasis mine).

Unfortunately, there is a politically meaningful distinction between the terms "Ukraine" and "the Ukraine". The latter term was widespread throughout the era of the Soviet Union and remains commonly used in Russia today. It suggests that Ukraine is an amorphous region within a broader polity, in the way that one might speak of "the Caucasus", "the Sahara" or "the Pacific Northwest", rather than a clearly defined entity such as "[The State of] Florida" or "Fujian province". The Ukrainian government has formally stated that the appropriate term in English is "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine". Use of "the Ukraine" can be interpreted as endorsing Moscow's view of Ukraine as being something less than a sovereign state. While in most contexts this may pass without comment, in the context of a war between Russia and Ukraine, the "the" becomes a distinctly partisan term that undermines what one assumes is the goal of a politically neutral discussion.

I don't wish to make life more difficult for SDF's moderators than it already is, nor to indulge in "political correctness" for the sake of it, however I do think that this distinction, while in some sense trivial, is nonetheless fundamental to the discussion at hand.
 
Last edited:

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
If you look at a map, you would see Russia hasn't achieved any major cities except maybe Mariupol and Kherson. Kherson fell within the first week, and Mariupol took almost 2 months. You have smaller ones like Melitopol and Izyum, but those achievements are very meagre for a 70-day performance. (The cities in DNR/LNR don't count since they were de facto under Russian-control before invasion). If I was Putin, I'd be pissed.
 

SanWenYu

Captain
Registered Member
If you look at a map, you would see Russia hasn't achieved any major cities except maybe Mariupol and Kherson. Kherson fell within the first week, and Mariupol took almost 2 months. You have smaller ones like Melitopol and Izyum, but those achievements are very meagre for a 70-day performance. If I was Putin, I'd be pissed.
IMO, it depends on what Putin truly wants. Russia is failing only if Putin's goal is to annex more Ukrainian land.

But if he sticks with what he declared at the beginning, i.e. to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, the Russian troops don't need to take cities and towns except the holdouts and the strategic chokepoints.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
he latter term was widespread throughout the era of the Soviet Union and remains commonly used in Russia today. It suggests that Ukraine is an amorphous region within a broader polity, in the way that one might speak of "the Caucasus", "the Sahara" or "the Pacific Northwest", rather than a clearly defined entity such as "[The State of] Florida" or "Fujian province".

The majority of people I've seen refering to Ukraine as "The Ukraine" are actually the same anglo twitter bluechecks and politicians who pronounce Uyghur as "Wiggers" and who can't tell the difference between Georgia the US state and Georgia the country, not russians.

No one has provided evidence of "the Ukraine" being some soviet plot to imply Ukraine doesn't exist or something and makes even less sense when Ukrainians actually made up a big chunk of the CPSU leadership, from Leonid Brezhnev to Malinovsky to Timoshenko to Gorbachev.
 
Last edited:

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
The title of this thread is "The War in the Ukraine" (emphasis mine).

Unfortunately, there is a politically meaningful distinction between the terms "Ukraine" and "the Ukraine". The latter term was widespread throughout the era of the Soviet Union and remains commonly used in Russia today. It suggests that Ukraine is an amorphous region within a broader polity, in the way that one might speak of "the Caucasus", "the Sahara" or "the Pacific Northwest", rather than a clearly defined entity such as "[The State of] Florida" or "Fujian province". The Ukrainian government has formally stated that the appropriate term in English is "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine". Use of "the Ukraine" can be interpreted as endorsing Moscow's view of Ukraine as being something less than a sovereign state. While in most contexts this may pass without comment, in the context of a war between Russia and Ukraine, the "the" becomes a distinctly partisan term that undermines what one assumes is the goal of a politically neutral discussion.

I don't wish to make life more difficult for SDF's moderators than it already is, nor to indulge in "political correctness" for the sake of it, however I do think that this distinction, while in some sense trivial, is nonetheless fundamental to the discussion at hand.
In English, it's referred to as the Ukraine, just like the Netherlands. Just saying "Ukraine" sounds strange to me. The Ukrainian government can say what they want but they don't get to decide the rules of the English language. The Chinese government is going around the world forcing people to refer to it as Zhong guo.

Obsessing over what word people use to describe your country and demanding they change their language is indicative of the arrogant nature of the Ukrainians.

Same with "Kyiv" or whatever the Ukros are claiming Kiev is. It's chicken kiev, not chicken kyiv.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
But if he sticks with what he declared at the beginning, i.e. to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, the Russian troops don't need to take cities and towns except the holdouts and the strategic chokepoints.
What Russia really wants to get, what it says it wants to get, and what it should get in order to go out of this relatively neutral (cost/benefit) given the strategic damage Russia has sustained, is quite different imo.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
We had a few days worth of Orion footage, then one was shot down. Since then I've not seen any more footage.
Orion footage surfaces almost every day, actually, with the last one being from yesterday.
They don't tell it's it, but it's very clear thanks to a distinctive drift indication interface.
for ex, this one:
(note curious guided drone munition we've never seen before, btw)
If they aren't being lost it's safe to say they aren't being used. The lack of MALE/HALE Russian drones being captured/shot down by Ukrainians tells me they aren't being used, or they don't exist.
HALE drones operate weeell behind front lines, that's the very purpose of that HA. If they do - good luck to Ukrainian AF ever getting near one.
And "pro-Ukraine" HALEs operate with US identification signs well outside of combat airspace.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Drones can fail even against militias without air defences. See the drones downed in Yemen, Syria, Kurdistan etc. Likely because of loss of communication with the drone, but it could be other reasons. The more sorties you have, the more drones you will lose due to technical issues. Look at the number of downed Orlan-10s for example.

Unless Russia has succeeded where every other national drone manufacturer hasn't.

Most of the Russian strikes on targets announced by the Russian MOD seem to be from missile attacks.

Some if most of the Orlans are downed militarily. If a drone lost communication, you can have a software routine on it that automatically orders it to head back. It's not a problem.

Also the Russians are using ECM on enemy drones.

Artillery attacks, even missile attacks, often require drones to spot the targets, refine their locations and targeting, verify the hits and access the damage. The fact that the Russians are using extensive aerial, artillery and missile attacks with a high degree of accuracy and damage verification, this is an indication of heavy drone usage which is now required for such operations.

The fact that Russian MALE and HALE appear to be working with relative impunity as of late, indicates that Ukrainian Buks and S-300s are successfully neutralized.
 
Top