The War in the Ukraine

tank3487

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hitting power infrastructure alone is unlikely to stop Ukrainians from fighting anyhow, I don't think Russia can actually stop western arms from flowing into the front lines. The US couldn't do it in the middle east so why would Russia be able to?
There are massive troops build up from Russian side with mobilization. Those troops would be used at some point,
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RottenPanzer

Junior Member
Registered Member
View attachment 99124
Latest from Kadyrov, he's satisfied now.
I thought it was a fair cop that Russians calling attack on Kerch Bridge a "terrorist attack" was indeed loser talk since all is fair in love and war. Similarly I think Kiev calling these attacks terror attack is also loser talk.

The attack on Kerch Bridge could be call be as the equivalent of Russian 9/11
 

mossen

Junior Member
Registered Member
Putin's comments hint that this was a warning strike rather than a fundamentally new policy. He did warn UA that more terrorist attacks would find a befitting response, but it's still disappointing. This should have happened on day 1. Russia still fights with one hand behind its back.
 

MixedReality

Junior Member
Registered Member
Russia can still do a lot more. All energy, transportation, telecommunications, intelligence, decision making locations need to be completely destroyed. They need to stop the flow of Western weapons to the war zone. Sergey Surovikin has already changed the game in his first day in charge of the war. This should have been done in the first week of the war. Target ALL critical infrastructure needed for a functioning society. Being ‘nice’ is a sign of weakness and only invites further aggression from the enemy.
 

Chilled_k6

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well Russians finally doing the thing that they've avoided so far and has been baffling everyone for months. Still very reactive, not sure how the politics work in Russia for Putin to now be able to justify going after these kinds of targets, but I guess the Crimean bombing is a "Bridge Too Far".


I think HIMARS can't really hit moving targets either.

It is why they are developing the PrSM for them.

Ukraine claims to have shot down +50% of the missiles fired and most of the Geran 2 drones.

I'm curious how they shot down the Shahed-136. If they're using more expensive weapons on these than great for Russia. If they're getting shot down with small arms and machine guns, or EW, Russia may want to reevaluate how they use these drones.

Russia had to respond to the Crimea bridge explosion or else they would have become the laughing stock of the world, the retaliatory Russian attacks were a success.
I find it highly unlikely that Russia will launch an attack from Belarus, at least not until the 300k reservists are ready. So Lukashinko's talk of a combined attack on Ukraine is probably just a way to fool Ukraine into bringing larger number of troops away from eastern Ukraine and towards Lviv and Kiev to buy more time for the Russian military Kherson till the reservists are ready.
Are there still lots of Russian troops in Belarus? I think the Russians and Belarussians will need to build up quite a bit of forces before trying on Kiev again. The roads leading from Belarus to Ukraine are all heavily mined and fortified, it'll be quite a difficult advance. Drawing attention away from Kherson and Donbass does make more sense for now.

I want to add to this:
This may already be happening from today's strike.
Domino effect for military use as well.

EDIT: looks like tweet got deleted. Diesel being used for power
Rybar on targets hit in Kiev so far:
View attachment 99135
Looks like in Kiev Russians are going after power plants and SBU. Note the one target hit by AFU SAM.
Very funny that the Ukrainian Anti-Air missile just had to hit the EU advisory mission HQ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dragon of War

Junior Member
Registered Member
Putin's comments hint that this was a warning strike rather than a fundamentally new policy. He did warn UA that more terrorist attacks would find a befitting response, but it's still disappointing. This should have happened on day 1. Russia still fights with one hand behind its back.

Ideally the commander tries to take the key cities with little damage as possible, this is the ideal victory in this scenario. As if Russia do take the fight to the city and do manage to control it they would've inherited its ruins. Also, destroyed cities make for more difficult warfare, destroyed buildings are near enough impenetrable labyrinth fortresses making it even harder to weed out hostile combatants. Every action in warfare must be for a strategic purpose, something must be gained for great sacrifice otherwise it's only needless sacrifice and the demise of the attacking force.
 

Virtup

Junior Member
Registered Member
As I said before, Russia is more than capable of disabling all critical infrastructure in Ukraine. If their main objective was "annihilation", they would've targeted dams, bridges, fuel stations, food processing factories loading and unloading facilities in ports and train stations, water and gas distribution facilities, heating facilities, critical elements of the power grid, all sorts of communication towers, regional and central decision making centers, sewer water treatement facilities, food and medicine depots, etc. They can even justify it by claiming that Zelensky has plans to eventually mobilize the entire population (though they don't need to given all those sanctions). This could easily be more devastating to ukraine than several tactical nukes. The fact they haven't destroyed even some of the targets I mentioned means they feel no real pressure on them. Russia appears to have some sort of a plan (or plans) in this war. The strikes on powerplants were probably a punishment to Ukraine for being "naughty" (for lack of a better word).
Sorry for the long rant.
 
Top