Russia invades Ukraine

[REVUpminster]

I don't think this will end well for Ukraine with Russia evacuating civilians Putin might be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons. I'd keep the Russian pows on the Russian side of the border.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't think this will end well for Ukraine with Russia evacuating civilians Putin might be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons. I'd keep the Russian pows on the Russian side of the border.

He won’t; this is what he wants us all to think however…

 

[brad465]

Some reports are suggesting that as many as 1000-1200 Russian POWs have been taken. If this is true, then Russia has even more problems than I thought.

It's also ironically a problem for Ukraine, who have to try and hold them all somewhere.

 

[ainsworth74]

He won’t; this is what he wants us all to think however…

He also wouldn't hold fire just because Ukraine had Russian POWs in the area even if he were minded to use tactical nukes on Russian territory.

 

[Ivor]

He also wouldn't hold fire just because Ukraine had Russian POWs in the area even if he were minded to use tactical nukes on Russian territory.

I agree totally, plus Putin loves to apportion blame on Ukraine for many Russian atrocities.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I agree totally, plus Putin loves to apportion blame on Ukraine for many Russian atrocities.

I agree totally too.

 

[Cloud Strife]

It's also ironically a problem for Ukraine, who have to try and hold them all somewhere.

From what I understand, a lot of them are being kept near companies which use them as almost-free labour in Western Ukraine, especially companies which produce goods for export.

There are some murmurings that Russia has prepared a counterattack force of around 10,000. We'll see what happens, but I think the next couple of days might be decisive.

 

[bspahh]

This thread on Twitter says:

Intelschizo @Schizointel

Ukrainian Intelligence hit a gold mine on Russian Logistics in near real time!

The capture of Sudzha may not seem grand on a map but the capture of the railway station may allow Ukrainian Intelligence direct access into Russian Railway Computer Systems, Schedules, Train Consists, and internal Russian Railway Communications from Dispatch to Defect Detectors.

Sudzha station besides being part of the Lgov-Belgorod Line that I've highlighted previously is part of the Moscow Railway division, which must be causing panic in Russian High Command knowing that the enemy has real time capability to view your logistical movements.

Nice part is you can't really shut this thing off. A lot of those defect detectors and the signal sensors are automated. The only way you're shutting it off is if you go out there and rip the whole system apart. Which they're not going to do because that's insanely expensive and creates insane risk and safety issues for both passenger and freight rail and would leave trains out on the track completely blind as to what's in front of them so you can't really shut it off

Also, a lot of those systems transmit via radio automatically. They are tripped when a train goes by. So even if they lost access to the computer, they would now have the frequencies needed to listen in on those sensors and detectors. Which again you physically can't turn off unless you go out there and rip them apart which they're not going to do. The systems are designed so that the train out in the middle of nowhere has an ability to know if they are safe and to know what's in front of them and what's behind them. Can't shut it off
Then to get an idea of a dispatch center. Here's a short video. Doesn't explain much. It just shows it. Now dispatch center is different from a train station such as Sudzha but you can get an idea. A lot of this is going to be physically showing a dispatcher all of that radio information is being transmitted by all of these defect detectors and the signal sensors you can't turn it off can't fire wall it and even if the Russians drop a bomb on the train station, ukrainians are already likely have hauled away all the important information such as the train maps, the timetables, all physical documents, frequencies and can do with the old fashioned way if necessary. Listen to the radio and stare at a map with a pen and paper
There are more modern train dispatch centers that are more digitalized, but a lot of rail infrastructure is still living with pretty antiquated technologies. Not necessarily a bad thing in this day and age but it just really showcases how there's nothing to shut off really

 

[Belperpete]

This thread on Twitter says:

The poster seems to be making an assumption that Russia uses American-style train despatch and defect detectors. Is that correct?

TBH, I would have thought that Ukrainian railway management already have a good idea of how Russian railways work, as it wasn't that long ago that they were fairly well integrated.

 

[DustyBin]

He also wouldn't hold fire just because Ukraine had Russian POWs in the area even if he were minded to use tactical nukes on Russian territory.

This has been the thing all along; Putin will do what he wants if he thinks it will gain him an advantage.

From what I understand, a lot of them are being kept near companies which use them as almost-free labour in Western Ukraine, especially companies which produce goods for export.

There are some murmurings that Russia has prepared a counterattack force of around 10,000. We'll see what happens, but I think the next couple of days might be decisive.

Putin will be desperate to kick them out, it’s a PR disaster. Looking at the area in question however, if Ukraine decides to dig in it’s going to be easier said than done. The terrain looks very marshy which is going to limit the movement of heavy vehicles and equipment. This takes us back to our previous discussion; what is the Russian air force doing?

 

[najaB]

Putin will be desperate to kick them out, it’s a PR disaster. Looking at the area in question however, if Ukraine decides to dig in it’s going to be easier said than done. The terrain looks very marshy which is going to limit the movement of heavy vehicles and equipment. This takes us back to our previous discussion; what is the Russian air force doing?

Apparently they've said that they have no intention of holding the territory long-term:

Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry has announced it has no intention of permanently holding on to the small pocket of Russian territory it has seized over the last week.

But it still faces a stark choice today - whether to keep its forces there to exert maximum pressure on Moscow or to withdraw now.

Ukraine’s incursion – where does it go from here?

Kyiv needs to decide whether to keep its forces in Russia to exert maximum pressure on Moscow or withdraw now.

www.bbc.co.uk

As it says in the article, it's a difficult choice what to do next.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Putin will be desperate to kick them out, it’s a PR disaster. Looking at the area in question however, if Ukraine decides to dig in it’s going to be easier said than done. The terrain looks very marshy which is going to limit the movement of heavy vehicles and equipment. This takes us back to our previous discussion; what is the Russian air force doing?

Yes, the autumn rains will come soon, which complicates things even further for Russia if the terrain is marshy.

I honestly cannot work out what the Russian air force is doing. The Ukrainians have been able to use their SU-27s there, which really shouldn't be happening. The only realistic answer is that Russia is desperately low on deployable assets, which is quite possible given the well known problems they have with keeping their planes flying.

As it says in the article, it's a difficult choice what to do next.

I think the answer to this is actually quite simple: control what they can, destroy whatever infrastructure is there and get out of there before they get bogged down.

 

[ainsworth74]

I honestly cannot work out what the Russian air force is doing. The Ukrainians have been able to use their SU-27s there, which really shouldn't be happening. The only realistic answer is that Russia is desperately low on deployable assets, which is quite possible given the well known problems they have with keeping their planes flying.

I think the reality that we've discovered is that unless Russia has total air superiority, which includes the complete suppression of enemy ground based air defence assets, that they're completely useless. Flying over and dropping bombs on Syrian rebels who have no air force and can only call upon short range shoulder fired air defence missiles is something they excel at. Operating in a contested air environment where the enemy has capable medium/long range air defence capabilities as well aircraft with at least a similar level of capability to their own is clearly something that the Russian Air Force is not confident in their ability to do. Therefore they find themselves unable/unwilling to provide close air support nor to attempt to supress Ukrainian aircraft, drones or ground based air defences.

This is why all we've really seen from the Russian Air Force since the earliest parts of the war is the utilisation of stand-off attacks. Using their big strategic bombers to launch cruise missile attacks and the smaller attack aircraft to use glide bombs outside the range, or at least the most dangerous part of their range, of Ukrainian air defence assets. Obviously we've seen Ukraine launch surprise attacks by bringing Patriot right up to the front line to hit the Russian's where they think they're safe to great effect (such as to shoot down an A-50 airborne warning and control aircraft), but in general by launching typically over Russia it keeps them safe and prevents Ukraine from hitting back.

Of course the difficulty in keeping their aircraft in the air along with having sufficient trained pilots is no doubt another factor that weighs and helps to keep them from getting more involved in the fight than just stand off bombing. If the Russian Air Force is able to suppress Ukrainian air defences (which appears they cannot) that would mean that they would suffer higher than acceptable losses and would be unable to make good those losses meaning that they'd quickly exhaust themselves totally leaving them with no effective air force at all. Firm numbers are hard to come by but it would seem that for instance, in terms of Su-34s one of their main strike fighters, they're probably only producing a dozen or so per year. It's likely that, at best, losses are just about keeping pace with new production. If Russia started throwing everything at Ukraine, attempting a more Western/NATO style air campaign, they'd quickly run out of aircraft. And they'll know that...

 

[Cloud Strife]

Couldn't agree more with your observations. My feeling is that we're seeing the real effects of 30-35 years of theft and plundering from the Russian military, as they really shouldn't be in such a poor position with their air assets.

Apparently the Ukrainian forces have just taken down an SU-34 in the Kursk Special Operation Zone, so this points even more at them being simply unable to come close enough to offer air support.

The other fascinating thing is that there are reports that Ukraine launched over 100 drones last night at Russia, and it seems that yet again, they've caused carnage at some airfields. It looks like Russia is completely incapable of dealing with these drone attacks, and they're able to travel across large parts of Russia undetected. They hit the Savasleyka airfield, which is well over 600km from the Ukrainian border. If airfields at this kind of distance aren't safe, there's a chance that Russia simply won't be able to deploy their fighters because they won't have the range.

Still, I think Ukraine has proven one thing: Russia's defences are weak and they wouldn't last long in a conflict with either NATO or China.

 

[ainsworth74]

Still, I think Ukraine has proven one thing: Russia's defences are weak and they wouldn't last long in a conflict with either NATO or China.

Yes and no. My worry is that we have a bit of a glass jaw. I have no doubt that the opening phase of any such NATO v Russia conflict would be very one-sided in NATOs favour particularly with air power. But I worry that we'll burn through our ammunition reserves, vehicles and aircraft very quickly and then we'll be left in the lurch whilst the Russian's will be able to grind onwards. It's why personally I'm tearing my remaining hair out at the failure of NATO nations to have more of a sense of urgency around rebuilding our defence industrial base and deepening our reserves of ammunition (and associated bits and pieces).

 

[Broucek]

It's why personally I'm tearing my remaining hair out at the failure of NATO nations to have more of a sense of urgency around rebuilding our defence industrial base and deepening our reserves of ammunition (and associated bits and pieces).

This. We took the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War and assumed it would continue indefinitely...

If you think "heirarchy of needs" then defense of the realm is fundamental. I've actually been quite encouraged by how hard the new gov't has been on the riots - this is a similar core responsibility of the state

 

[najaB]

Yes and no. My worry is that we have a bit of a glass jaw. I have no doubt that the opening phase of any such NATO v Russia conflict would be very one-sided in NATOs favour particularly with air power. But I worry that we'll burn through our ammunition reserves, vehicles and aircraft very quickly and then we'll be left in the lurch whilst the Russian's will be able to grind onwards.

They would have. But they've burned through a significant portion of their usable reserve equipment in this conflict. Assuming that any NATO/Russia conflict were to happen any time in the next ten years it would just come down to who has the greater manufacturing capacity.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This. We took the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War and assumed it would continue indefinitely...

Indeed. A big mistake.

 

[Cloud Strife]

It seems that Ukraine managed to take out at least one MiG-31K last night, which is the variant adapted to carry Kinzhal hypresonic missiles. Whether Russia has many of those missiles actually available is another question, but it really does show just how poorly Russia is defending their air assets in this war.

 

[Iskra]

I don't think this will end well for Ukraine with Russia evacuating civilians Putin might be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons. I'd keep the Russian pows on the Russian side of the border.

Russia nuking Russia would be quite an incredible reaction.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It seems that Ukraine managed to take out at least one MiG-31K last night, -----

Interested if the pilot survived. Again, for Russia I think the main concern in all aspects of the war and not just air power is----qualified people.

 

[edwin_m]

This. We took the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War and assumed it would continue indefinitely...

Indeed. A big mistake.

I'd say the second part was a mistake from about 2010 onwards. but even with hindsight it was probably the right thing to cut defence spending in the 1990s. Countries still had enough hardware to wage wars (some being arguably unnecessary and counter-productive) and deter others, and there was an opportunity to divert the funds to more socially beneficial causes.

 

[Iskra]

Indeed. A big mistake.

Is this a mistake, or is the West winning a cheap victory here with Ukraine as a proxy? Russia has shown itself to be weak, ruined its economy, shown its military industrial complex isn’t fit for purpose, shown its doctrine to be lacking, enlarged Nato and it has expended a significant amount of manpower and materiel that it can’t replace. All that for little gain and for the cost of some life-expired equipment and ammo that would have gone out of date anyway, plus some training and intel work with a bit of experience gained in return. All Ukraine has to do is stay in the fight for this to be a resounding Western victory at little cost.

 

[DustyBin]

Apparently they've said that they have no intention of holding the territory long-term:

I suppose one needs to define long-term!

They've continued to advance today so there's no sign of a withdrawal, for now at least.

I think the reality that we've discovered is that unless Russia has total air superiority, which includes the complete suppression of enemy ground based air defence assets, that they're completely useless. Flying over and dropping bombs on Syrian rebels who have no air force and can only call upon short range shoulder fired air defence missiles is something they excel at. Operating in a contested air environment where the enemy has capable medium/long range air defence capabilities as well aircraft with at least a similar level of capability to their own is clearly something that the Russian Air Force is not confident in their ability to do. Therefore they find themselves unable/unwilling to provide close air support nor to attempt to supress Ukrainian aircraft, drones or ground based air defences.

This is why all we've really seen from the Russian Air Force since the earliest parts of the war is the utilisation of stand-off attacks. Using their big strategic bombers to launch cruise missile attacks and the smaller attack aircraft to use glide bombs outside the range, or at least the most dangerous part of their range, of Ukrainian air defence assets. Obviously we've seen Ukraine launch surprise attacks by bringing Patriot right up to the front line to hit the Russian's where they think they're safe to great effect (such as to shoot down an A-50 airborne warning and control aircraft), but in general by launching typically over Russia it keeps them safe and prevents Ukraine from hitting back.

Of course the difficulty in keeping their aircraft in the air along with having sufficient trained pilots is no doubt another factor that weighs and helps to keep them from getting more involved in the fight than just stand off bombing. If the Russian Air Force is able to suppress Ukrainian air defences (which appears they cannot) that would mean that they would suffer higher than acceptable losses and would be unable to make good those losses meaning that they'd quickly exhaust themselves totally leaving them with no effective air force at all. Firm numbers are hard to come by but it would seem that for instance, in terms of Su-34s one of their main strike fighters, they're probably only producing a dozen or so per year. It's likely that, at best, losses are just about keeping pace with new production. If Russia started throwing everything at Ukraine, attempting a more Western/NATO style air campaign, they'd quickly run out of aircraft. And they'll know that...

I agree, but it's still quite shocking really that they can't bring their air power to bear, even within their own borders.... I suspect the information isn't in the publican domain, but I'd still like to know what air defence coverage the Ukrainian forces have.

 

[najaB]

I suspect the information isn't in the publican domain, but I'd still like to know what air defence coverage the Ukrainian forces have.

As would the Russians!

 

[Killingworth]

I'd say the second part was a mistake from about 2010 onwards. but even with hindsight it was probably the right thing to cut defence spending in the 1990s. Countries still had enough hardware to wage wars (some being arguably unnecessary and counter-productive) and deter others, and there was an opportunity to divert the funds to more socially beneficial causes.

It's another interesting fact that in addition to cutting defence expenditure there were very big cuts in diplomatic services and the funds provided for the BBC's transmissions to places like Russia. Who knows how much effect these cuts had, and have, on the current situation.

 

[edwin_m]

It's another interesting fact that in addition to cutting defence expenditure there were very big cuts in diplomatic services and the funds provided for the BBC's transmissions to places like Russia. Who knows how much effect these cuts had, and have, on the current situation.

I don't know enough to say whether there was a window in the 1990s when the West could have helped Russia to become a sustainable democracy, as has happened with most of the surrounding countries. Demilitarising in the West might have been used to demonstrate no hostile intent as part of that package. But it would certainly have had to include finding a way to transition the economy that didn't hand all the wealth to oligarchs and discredit the whole idea in the minds of the population.

Or perhaps it was a forlorn dream, and Russia would always have re-emerged as an authoritarian aggressor state just as it had from all its previous traumas.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I don't know enough to say whether there was a window in the 1990s when the West could have helped Russia to become a sustainable democracy, as has happened with most of the surrounding countries. Demilitarising in the West might have been used to demonstrate no hostile intent as part of that package. But it would certainly have had to include finding a way to transition the economy that didn't hand all the wealth to oligarchs and discredit the whole idea in the minds of the population.

I am certain that when the history books are written you will be proved correct.

 

[brad465]

Rather aptly, the frequently parodied Hitler rant now has a parody covering this latest event:

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Rather aptly, the frequently parodied Hitler rant now has a parody covering this latest event:

Yes I saw that. In my opinion it is absolutely brilliant as usual.