Russia invades Ukraine

[Cloud Strife]

Am not usually one to quote TV shows in threads like this one, but this one from the HBO Chernobyl mini-series is quite pertinent to the discussion (in more ways than one) and it's one that runs through my head whenever I happen to click back into this thread and see posts like this:

Chernobyl had its faults, but this quote is very, very appropriate.

Even from a purely defensive point of view, what we're learning in Ukraine about the capability of NATO hardware is absolutely invaluable. We're getting first hand evidence of how NATO equipment functions against a major enemy, as well as learning a lot more about potential weaknesses in battle.

Even the problems with ramping up military production will be studied for years to come by NATO.

 

[ainsworth74]

Even the problems with ramping up military production will be studied for years to come by NATO.

Though it shouldn't need to be as it was quite obvious for quite a while before February 2022 that NATO's ammunition reserves were very limited and our ability to ramp up production was going to be similarly limited (the US being the exception but even their reserves and capability to ramp up production isn't what it once was). Quite apart from the ability to build replacement vehicles at anything approaching the sort of pace needed for to make good wartime losses being entirely impossible and no-one has extensive reserves of old vehicles to use in a pinch either (again the US is something of an exception here).

 

[Mogster]

Yes, the lessons learned from Ukraine are huge. There’s almost too much information to process, it’s mind boggling.

One of the most intriguing events is the way Russia has been unable to gain air superiority. Ukrainian air defence is still functioning, the Ukrainian air force is still flying, it’s almost unbelievable. If Russia with its resources can’t destroy the air offensive and defensive capability of a mid level enemy then why would NATO be able to? I suspect digesting this information is causing some nosebleeds at the Pentagon…

 

[najaB]

One of the most intriguing events is the way Russia has been unable to gain air superiority. Ukrainian air defence is still functioning, the Ukrainian air force is still flying, it’s almost unbelievable. If Russia with its resources can’t destroy the air offensive and defensive capability of a mid level enemy then why would NATO be able to? I suspect digesting this information is causing some nosebleeds at the Pentagon…

Yes and no. The big learning point for Russia (and the West) is the importance of the SEAD mission, and the critical need to commit resources to it in the very early stages of a campaign. The view in Moscow seems to have been that Ukraine would roll over in the first few days, and so they didn't place enough emphasis on taking control of the skies from the outset. The absence of the Russian air force in the initial attacks gave Ukraine the time and space to recover and mount a credible defence.

 

[Mogster]

Yes and no. The big learning point for Russia (and the West) is the importance of the SEAD mission, and the critical need to commit resources to it in the very early stages of a campaign. The view in Moscow seems to have been that Ukraine would roll over in the first few days, and so they didn't place enough emphasis on taking control of the skies from the outset. The absence of the Russian air force in the initial attacks gave Ukraine the time and space to recover and mount a credible defence.

I remember in the gulf war how difficult finding Saddam’s Scud launchers was. Iirc there were none confimed destroyed but several co-olition aircraft lost in the process. Ukraine stared the war with 250 S300s and there’s suggestions Russia may have destroyed <50 although it’s hard to know. It seems the Russian airforce just can’t find them, they initialize, fire, then rapidly shut down and scoot into woodland or someone’s garage even... The fact that the S300s are still operating after all this time is proven by the way the Russian airforce is behaving. Staying out of Ukrainian airspace. mostly, flying close to the ground, leaving themselves in danger of short range AAA and MANPADS.

Attacking enemy air defences has always been dangerous and expensive. Against an organised motivated enemy with decent kit you are pretty much guaranteed to lose aircraft, and modern aircraft are so very expensive and hard to replace. It seems just the threat of its high end aircraft being destroyed is enough to keep the Russian airforce away which is interesting in its self.

 

[Sm5]

Attacking enemy air defences has always been dangerous and expensive. Against an organised motivated enemy with decent kit you are pretty much guaranteed to lose aircraft, and modern aircraft are so very expensive and hard to replace. It seems just the threat of its high end aircraft being destroyed is enough to keep the Russian airforce away which is interesting in its self.

for those who panic about Russian nukes, should take note of this…

Whilst Russia doesnt care about manpower, they do appreciate material losses of hardware, and the issues replacing it.

We saw this with the navy too.

This means they arent all clueless uptop. They have limits.
We in the west need to identify those limits to bring a solution to the war.

They are betting ours is shortage of weapons, resolve and political support.
To that end Russia is quite happy expending tanks back to the 1950’s because theyve loads of it, its cheap and going for scrap anyway. If it drags the war into another year, a US Election, it brings them closer to that aim.

In which case I feel the west needs to deliver a pretty big punch and this summer. Wasting this year in rearming and occasional raids isnt going to make an impact and simply helps Russia in preparations.

So what does Russia care about.. same thing any other warlord appreciates…land and hardware, but the expensive stuff.. not tanks, definitely not people.

I think Ukraine needs to go harder after armaments factories, air bases, in Russia… bold yes, but its something they care about and responding with nukes is unlikely.

morals and standards dont really exist in Russia. A few russian speaking ukrainians could easily back pack their way into the interior, buy a lorry of various ingredients, no questions asked, drive up to a runway by night and drone their way in causing carnage…its not like Europe, no cctv maybe a bored drunk on patrol.

 

[DustyBin]

It’s being reported that the sale of Dutch and Norwegian F-16s to Draken International has been cancelled. How many flyable aircraft that would mean is anyone’s guess. Poland has F-16s but probably won’t give them up, Romania, Bulgaria have received hand me down F-16s recently. Could some of those be transferred to Ukraine and replaced by new builds? Although it seems LM can’t build F-16s and F-35s fast enough and has large backlogs of orders… It’s an I’ll wind…

There are F-16s all over the place, hundreds in the Middle East, although it seems unlikely their owners would want to annoy Russia to this extent. Israel and Egypt have already refused transfer of military hardware to Ukraine. As with the tanks if there’s confirmed supply from Europe then the US may have a change of heart and send some.

Pilot conversion training is being suggested as taking 3 months. However you can fly a pretty much fully featured 10 year old F16C in DCS flight simulator, so there’s nothing to stop them being aware of the basics already.

If the pilots are are as focused and motivated as the guys who have been sent for military training outside Ukraine already are reported to have been, then it may take less time I suppose.

I forgot about the Norwegian ones to be honest, but I was aware they'd been sold to Draken too, albeit provisionally it now seems.

There are without doubt a huge number of F-16s around, some airworthy and surplus to requirements. The question is exactly which ones, and how many, are available to Ukraine? I suspect we'll find out in the near future.

 

[najaB]

I think Ukraine needs to go harder after armaments factories, air bases, in Russia… bold yes, but its something they care about and responding with nukes is unlikely.

Unlikely, but keep in mind that Russian doctrine is that they reserve the use of nuclear weapons to situations which threaten the survival of the state. Attacks on military facilities, inside the contiguous territory of the Russian Federation as opposed to the LPR (or even Crimea) is dangerously close to that line.

 

[Pete_uk]

Turns out one of the drone boats sent to attack the 'Ivan Hurs' in the black sea may have reached its target. A long range US recon drone was over the area for some time afterwards.

 

[Mogster]

Aye, RAF RC-135 and it’s little friends were over the Black Sea this afternoon as well.

Busy off Kaliningrad also around noon, JSTARS from Ramstein and USAF RC-135 from Mildenhall.

 

[brad465]

Something I've often seen since the invasion started are videos/reports of buildings in Russia catching fire. I do wonder though how many of them are fires that would have happened anyway but have gained enhanced interest because of the ongoing invasion, particularly ones that are not at/near military sites.

 

[DustyBin]

Turns out one of the drone boats sent to attack the 'Ivan Hurs' in the black sea may have reached its target. A long range US recon drone was over the area for some time afterwards.

There’s footage now circulating of at least one hitting the rear of the ship (apparently filmed from another drone boat). The Russians have also released an old image of it as “evidence” that it’s perfectly fine; read into that what you will!

I believe the Ivan Khurs is (or was) Russia’s newest SIGINT ship, and they only have one other of the class. If the ship is indeed lost, hopefully it will leave a significant capability gap, in the Black Sea Fleet at least.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One somewhat worrying thing is the way Russia still seems to be able to keep using missiles to randomly attack cities in Ukraine. I see the Guardian are reporting another 37 missiles fired at Kyiv last night.

Russia fired ballistic missiles at Kyiv during a daytime attack on the Ukrainian capital on Monday morning, the Ukrainian air force said.

“The enemy used missiles of a ballistic trajectory – preliminarily Iskanders. There is a possibility that S-300 and S-400 missiles were also used,” air force spokesperson Yuri Ihnat told Ukrainian TV, Reuters reports.

At least 11 explosions were heard to ring out in the capital in mid-morning, after a night in which Ukraine had already claimed to have shot down 37 missiles and 29 “Shahed” drones across the country

As I recall, a few months ago there was speculation that Russia must be near to exhausting its supply of missiles for these attacks. It seems from the continuing attacks that's not the case, and even though Ukraine seems to be getting quite proficient at shooting most of them down, Ukraine must be using up a lot of very expensive surface-to-air missiles in the process?

 

[DustyBin]

One somewhat worrying thing is the way Russia still seems to be able to keep using missiles to randomly attack cities in Ukraine. I see the Guardian are reporting another 37 missiles fired at Kyiv last night.



As I recall, a few months ago there was speculation that Russia must be near to exhausting its supply of missiles for these attacks. It seems from the continuing attacks that's not the case, and even though Ukraine seems to be getting quite proficient at shooting most of them down, Ukraine must be using up a lot of very expensive surface-to-air missiles in the process?

I’ve never been convinced that Russia would “run out”. I do however think they’ve heavily depleted their supply of missiles and are probably using them as they produce them. I could be wrong, but the fact that they’re using S-300 and S-400 missiles in a surface to surface role suggests the same.

Unfortunately, the supply of Shaheds seems more or less unlimited, and I share your concern regarding the number of missiles Ukraine is using to shoot them down. I’ve seen a video of a Gepard successfully engaging one, but with the Russians attacking indiscriminately across such a large geographical area, missiles are probably the only option in most cases.

 

[najaB]

I’ve never been convinced that Russia would “run out”. I do however think they’ve heavily depleted their supply of missiles and are probably using them as they produce them. I could be wrong, but the fact that they’re using S-300 and S-400 missiles in a surface to surface role suggests the same.

Indeed. The view from the pundits was never that they would run out of missiles, just that the fact that they were using the modern systems faster than they could replace them meant that they would increasingly have to depend on older, less accurate systems.

 

[Annetts key]

Well, they are currently able to produce limited numbers of some types of missile. And they have large stocks of S-300 and maybe S-400.

But if, as expected, the number being used exceeds the number being made, or in the case of Shahed drones, the number obtained, then there will be another “pause” in the attacks. Remember, after the winter, until May, the number of missile attacks fell for a while.

I think that Russia are trying to use these missile and drone attacks to distract. As the Russian army, airforce and navy don’t seem to be able to do much else at the moment.

Russia may eventually get to the stage where they have almost completely depleted their stocks and sanctions mean that new missile production slows. But I don’t think we are anywhere close to that situation yet.

 

[edwin_m]

Some sort of drone attack on Moscow today, after Ukraine threatened revenge.

 

[dgl]

Some sort of drone attack on Moscow today, after Ukraine threatened revenge.

An eye for an eye and all that, good to see quite rightful attacks on Russia.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An eye for an eye and all that, good to see quite rightful attacks on Russia.

An eye for an eye is what causes escalation. All strikes by the "good guys" should be solely designed around the strategic goal to get Russia out of Ukraine.

 

[ainsworth74]

All strikes by the "good guys" should be solely designed around the strategic goal to get Russia out of Ukraine.

In what way do these strikes not advance that goal?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In what way do these strikes not advance that goal?

I didn't say they didn't. I was simply taking issue with the post that said that "an eye for an eye" was an appropriate approach when being the "good guy" in a war.

 

[Broucek]

The purpose of an "eye for an eye" in the Hebrew law (Old Testament) was to limit revenge and avoid escalation. (It was also linked to civil justice rather than individual revenge.)

That's a different context to a war, of course, and I make no comment on the appropriateness of Ukraine's actions but I'm always frustrated at people missapplying the scripture as an encouragement of revenge

 

[edwin_m]

In what way do these strikes not advance that goal?

All previous strikes within Russia have been aimed at targets that are overtly military (airbases), support military logistics (trains, oil depots) or are associated with the regime (Kremlin). This looks like a random attack on a civilian target, though of course Russia could be painting it as something it isn't, or it could be a drone shot down and not going where it was intended.

However, the juxtaposition of an apparent civilian target in Moscow with statements by Ukraine about revenge for hits on civilian targets in Kiev do suggest Ukraine is going beyond previous limits (as does the Belgorod incursion). The risk of losing international support is probably greater than that of escalation. If it's intended to reduce Russian public support for the war then it's probably done the opposite - just as similar actions by Russia have done in Ukraine - and even if Russians are angrier with the regime it's unlikely to make any difference when the draft and the tens of thousands of Russian casualties haven't done so.

 

[brad465]

All this is assuming that the targets hit were actually the targets if Ukraine is responsible, or whether this is another Russian false flag operation being framed as a Ukrainian attack in an attempt to rally Russian support.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The purpose of an "eye for an eye" in the Hebrew law (Old Testament) was to limit revenge and avoid escalation. (It was also linked to civil justice rather than individual revenge.)

Agreed. My understanding of 'an eye for an eye' (which I hope is roughly correct) is it's basically saying, don't do any worse than has been done to you: If your neighbour damages your fence, then the 'retribution' to be applied is limited to something like, damaging his fence: You don't go - say - murdering his family in response to the damaged fence. Now of course these days, our understanding of justice has progressed beyond that, and you wouldn't be encouraging exacting any kind of revenge in even that limited way: But in the context of the time those scriptures were written, 'an eye for an eye' was suggesting an improvement compared to the arbitrary revenge/escalation that people might otherwise be inclined to do. (Although maybe even today, 'an eye for an eye' is kinda relevant if it's something like, demanding that someone pays an amount that roughly reflects the harm they've caused).

 

[najaB]

Agreed. My understanding of 'an eye for an eye' (which I hope is roughly correct) is it's basically saying, don't do any worse than has been done to you: If your neighbour damages your fence, then the 'retribution' to be applied is limited to something like, damaging his fence: You don't go - say - murdering his family in response to the damaged fence.

Yes, that's more or less the gist of it. It comes from Leviticus 24 and, as you say, it is an explanation of justice as given by God to Moses - do no more to your assailant than they did to you. But three verses later they stone a man to death for blasphemy, so make of it what you will.

 

[35B]

Yes, that's more or less the gist of it. It comes from Leviticus 24 and, as you say, it is an explanation of justice as given by God to Moses - do no more to your assailant than they did to you. But three verses later they stone a man to death for blasphemy, so make of it what you will.

Blasphemy is believed to be tantamount to murder, by encouraging people to believe heresy.

But it's also worth note that, in a discussion about cultures claiming Christian heritage, that the Old Testament law was replaced by what comes in the New Testament.

 

[Broucek]

But it's also worth note that, in a discussion about cultures claiming Christian heritage, that the Old Testament law was replaced by what comes in the New Testament.

Yes, exactly and the "eye for an eye" principle really doesn't fit with that evolution. Jesus encourages his followers to love not just brother and neighbour but also enemy. (Which is not the same as encouraging the enemy's own sin by letting them mistreat you and others.) It takes a LOT of interpretation to apply his teaching to warfare between nations - it's fair to say that Jesus placed far more emphasis on the individual's heart and actions than how states should be run and behave!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2023 ==

Agreed. My understanding of 'an eye for an eye' (which I hope is roughly correct) is it's basically saying, don't do any worse than has been done to you: If your neighbour damages your fence, then the 'retribution' to be applied is limited to something like, damaging his fence: You don't go - say - murdering his family in response to the damaged fence. Now of course these days, our understanding of justice has progressed beyond that, and you wouldn't be encouraging exacting any kind of revenge in even that limited way: But in the context of the time those scriptures were written, 'an eye for an eye' was suggesting an improvement compared to the arbitrary revenge/escalation that people might otherwise be inclined to do. (Although maybe even today, 'an eye for an eye' is kinda relevant if it's something like, demanding that someone pays an amount that roughly reflects the harm they've caused).

Nice summary!

 

[Mag_seven]

OK folks discussion about the Bible is off topic here - this thread is about the war in Ukraine so could we stick to discussing that please.

thanks.

 

[Pete_uk]

Interesting question is, where did these drones come from?
Ukrainians inside Russia?
Pro Ukraine Russians?
Wagner Group trying to destabilise the governmen?