Russia invades Ukraine

[Howardh]

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

And more than likely spot on!

Any normal Russian high up must be thinking "how the heck do we get out of this mess..." they can hardly ask the USA for hardware like they did in 1944!

 

[ainsworth74]

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.

Yes I would tend to agree. Defence cuts in the 1990s were both inevitable and, in reality, sensible. When there aren't a third of a million Soviet troops in East Germany, when there aren't 100 Soviet nuclear attack submarines poised to enter the North Atlantic, and there aren't hundreds of Soviet bombers ready to launch air attacks across Western Europe you don't need quite such a significant military capability. Personally, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think some of the cuts to the infrastructure were too deep. Too many bases were closed and sold off, too many reductions in munitions stockpiles were made, even if reducing the actual numbers of tanks, ships and aircraft were sensible at the time.

But the warning lights have been blinking for a while now that it was time to reverse these cuts (or, you know stop making them, we've still be slowly cutting away at our armed forces until the present day!). Certainly since 2022 but, in my view since 2014 the need to begin increasing the size of NATO nations armed forces has been clear. The fact that we're two years on and whilst progress has been made, to be sure, it is still tortuously slow is a damning indictment of our political leadership and those in the likes of HM Treasury who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. How can we be two years on and still the entirety of Western Europe cannot supply Ukraine with enough 155mm artillery ammunition?

 

[DustyBin]

Yes I would tend to agree. Defence cuts in the 1990s were both inevitable and, in reality, sensible. When there aren't a third of a million Soviet troops in East Germany, when there aren't 100 Soviet nuclear attack submarines poised to enter the North Atlantic, and there aren't hundreds of Soviet bombers ready to launch air attacks across Western Europe you don't need quite such a significant military capability. Personally, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think some of the cuts to the infrastructure were too deep. Too many bases were closed and sold off, too many reductions in munitions stockpiles were made, even if reducing the actual numbers of tanks, ships and aircraft were sensible at the time.

But the warning lights have been blinking for a while now that it was time to reverse these cuts (or, you know stop making them, we've still be slowly cutting away at our armed forces until the present day!). Certainly since 2022 but, in my view since 2014 the need to begin increasing the size of NATO nations armed forces has been clear. The fact that we're two years on and whilst progress has been made, to be sure, it is still tortuously slow is a damning indictment of our political leadership and those in the likes of HM Treasury who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. How can we be two years on and still the entirety of Western Europe cannot supply Ukraine with enough 155mm artillery ammunition?

I think this is a fair assessment.

As for whether the West did enough to help Russia become a "normal" country following the collapse of the Soviet Union, I've historically been of the opinion that no we didn't. There was never real trust, and I think it suited us to keep Russia isolated to a certain extent.

With hindsight however, I'm doubtful it was ever within the West's gift to prevent Russia becoming a rogue state, not simply by being "nice" anyway. The glimmer of light that was Gorbachev was extinguished by the Russians themselves, and in the process they set themselves on a familiar path. I've said it previously, but I think a better integrated Russia may actually have been more problematic and dangerous, certainly once Putin came to power.

 

[Yew]

How can we be two years on and still the entirety of Western Europe cannot supply Ukraine with enough 155mm artillery ammunition?

Western doctrine doesn't rely on long-range ground fires, the role that we see artillery play in places like Russia, Ukraine and the Koreas, is played by Air Dominance in most western European force designs.

 

[edwin_m]

Western doctrine doesn't rely on long-range ground fires, the role that we see artillery play in places like Russia, Ukraine and the Koreas, is played by Air Dominance in most western European force designs.

There is however the possibility of things reverting to an earlier era. Electronic countermeasures will affect many smart munitions but you can't jam a dumb shell.

 

[Yew]

There is however the possibility of things reverting to an earlier era. Electronic countermeasures will affect many smart munitions but you can't jam a dumb shell.

There is certainly a sustainment issue, and I feel that we will see a return of lots of (automatic) 40mm and 5" anti-aircraft/missile artillery in the near future, to cope with drone threats.

 

[najaB]

There is however the possibility of things reverting to an earlier era. Electronic countermeasures will affect many smart munitions but you can't jam a dumb shell.

Which is part of the reason that Western air forces place such an emphasis on SEAD/Wild Weasel missions.

 

[DustyBin]

Western doctrine doesn't rely on long-range ground fires, the role that we see artillery play in places like Russia, Ukraine and the Koreas, is played by Air Dominance in most western European force designs.

I think the point being made is that Ukraine very much does rely on artillery, and the West is struggling to provide them with shells two years in. Production could have been increased significantly by now if there was the will, surely?

 

[Cloud Strife]

I think the point being made is that Ukraine very much does rely on artillery, and the West is struggling to provide them with shells two years in. Production could have been increased significantly by now if there was the will, surely?

The problem is mostly about money at this point, nothing more. The EU seems reluctant to commit the funds needed, although it does take 2-3 years to launch a brand new factory.

But this is really a huge problem for Ukraine, because as we're seeing in Donetsk, they simply don't have the artillery to fight back. Russia is pushing forward quite rapidly there, and it seems that they will achieve their goal of occupying the whole of the Donetsk Oblast by this time next year.

It may be unspeakable right now, but I think there's a very real possibility that Russia will end the war if they do take the whole oblast. It would let them claim victory (i,e, they will have taken the territory claimed by the "LPR" and "DPR"), without having to find the resources for attack on large cities. Having said that, there are some substantial towns up ahead for them, which will be far more defended than the villages and small towns so far.

 

[adc82140]

Sky News seem to be doing the bidding for Russia again by parroting out the "WW3 is upon us" line directly from the propaganda mouthpieces. I don't know why the UK bothered banning RT if Sky just repeat what's on there.

 

[najaB]

I think the point being made is that Ukraine very much does rely on artillery, and the West is struggling to provide them with shells two years in. Production could have been increased significantly by now if there was the will, surely?

Yes, it is disappointing that we're in this situation. Though, to be fair, it's realistically only about a year and a bit in since a lot of pundits had more or less written off the idea of Ukraine surviving the war for most of the first year.

 

[DustyBin]

The problem is mostly about money at this point, nothing more. The EU seems reluctant to commit the funds needed, although it does take 2-3 years to launch a brand new factory.

This does indeed seem to be the issue. To be honest I'm not particularly keen on the West running down it's existing stockpiles just in case, but I do think more could have been done to source shells from elsewhere by now. We seem to be stuck in a "lets see how the next few months go" loop!

But this is really a huge problem for Ukraine, because as we're seeing in Donetsk, they simply don't have the artillery to fight back. Russia is pushing forward quite rapidly there, and it seems that they will achieve their goal of occupying the whole of the Donetsk Oblast by this time next year.

It may be unspeakable right now, but I think there's a very real possibility that Russia will end the war if they do take the whole oblast. It would let them claim victory (i,e, they will have taken the territory claimed by the "LPR" and "DPR"), without having to find the resources for attack on large cities. Having said that, there are some substantial towns up ahead for them, which will be far more defended than the villages and small towns so far.

Sadly I don't think we can out Russia gaining some territory as a result of this war, one way or another. I don't wish to sound defeatist by any means, but it's possible. That said, larger settlements may well halt their current (very costly) advances as you say, and Ukraine are evidently able to wrong-foot them with potentially significant results.

Yes, it is disappointing that we're in this situation. Though, to be fair, it's realistically only about a year and a bit in since a lot of pundits had more or less written off the idea of Ukraine surviving the war for most of the first year.

Very true, and whilst I think there's now a genuine will to help Ukraine survive the war as they've proven what they're capable of, I do question whether Western political and military leaders really believe they can reclaim all of their lost territory. I'm doubtful myself if I'm completely honest, not by going toe-to-toe with Russia on the battlefield anyway. I think their best chance is a major policy shift by Russia, which would almost certainly involve regime change.

I'm open minded as to how safe Putin actually is. On the face of it he appears untouchable, but if he were to be removed I don't think we'd see it coming. No Wagner-style march on (or rather in the direction of!) Moscow, just a "BREAKING NEWS: Something's going down in the Kremlin" type scenario.

 

[Cloud Strife]

This does indeed seem to be the issue. To be honest I'm not particularly keen on the West running down it's existing stockpiles just in case, but I do think more could have been done to source shells from elsewhere by now. We seem to be stuck in a "lets see how the next few months go" loop!

It really does seem that way, especially with the projected substantial shortfall in production vs what was planned. There's really no excuse for it, although at least one country with large military production capabilities (Poland) is only just getting itself back on its feet after 8 years of substantial mismanagement in the Ministry of National Defence.

Sadly I don't think we can out Russia gaining some territory as a result of this war, one way or another. I don't wish to sound defeatist by any means, but it's possible. That said, larger settlements may well halt their current (very costly) advances as you say, and Ukraine are evidently able to wrong-foot them with potentially significant results.

There is an interesting point that a Ukrainian colleague made: she thinks that one possible conclusion is Ukraine losing the Donetsk Oblast along with the rest of the currently held territory, but with the remaining part of Ukraine being firmly in NATO and the EU. With the minority ethnic Russians being either in occupied territory or simply no longer identifying as Russian, it would create a largely Ukrainian homogenous state where Russia and Russian no longer plays part of public life. The previous issues that marred Ukraine between 1990-2014 would no longer be an issue too.

Would it be desirable? Of course not. But it may not be a complete disaster, particularly if Ukraine becomes an incredibly strong pro-US and pro-Western voice. Meanwhile, it would put even more pressure on Russia, with NATO then surrounding them on several sides and their military capabilities substantially diminished.

I'm open minded as to how safe Putin actually is. On the face of it he appears untouchable, but if he were to be removed I don't think we'd see it coming. No Wagner-style march on (or rather in the direction of!) Moscow, just a "BREAKING NEWS: Something's going down in the Kremlin" type scenario.

I do wonder why the shadowy figures behind him are tolerating this mess.

edit: one interesting claim today is that Ukraine is now taking out more Russians than they can send to the frontlines. If this is indeed happening in Kursk, then it's easy to see these numbers go through the roof. It's already confirmed that Russia is sending almost anyone they can to the frontlines without risking yet another mobilisation, and the effectiveness of such troops must be minimal. Still, the question remains: why isn't Russia carrying out a general mobilisation to simply overwhelm Ukrainian forces?

 

[brad465]

There is an interesting point that a Ukrainian colleague made: she thinks that one possible conclusion is Ukraine losing the Donetsk Oblast along with the rest of the currently held territory, but with the remaining part of Ukraine being firmly in NATO and the EU. With the minority ethnic Russians being either in occupied territory or simply no longer identifying as Russian, it would create a largely Ukrainian homogenous state where Russia and Russian no longer plays part of public life. The previous issues that marred Ukraine between 1990-2014 would no longer be an issue too.

Would it be desirable? Of course not. But it may not be a complete disaster, particularly if Ukraine becomes an incredibly strong pro-US and pro-Western voice. Meanwhile, it would put even more pressure on Russia, with NATO then surrounding them on several sides and their military capabilities substantially diminished.

I suspect a lot of western support for this would exist too, but getting the NATO membership part would be a very big sticking point on the Russian side.

edit: one interesting claim today is that Ukraine is now taking out more Russians than they can send to the frontlines. If this is indeed happening in Kursk, then it's easy to see these numbers go through the roof. It's already confirmed that Russia is sending almost anyone they can to the frontlines without risking yet another mobilisation, and the effectiveness of such troops must be minimal. Still, the question remains: why isn't Russia carrying out a general mobilisation to simply overwhelm Ukrainian forces?

From what I've heard Putin and the wider regime have gone to great lengths to make sure Moscow and St Petersburg residents do not feel the effects of the war (or should I say SMO), which means making sure as few citizens from these areas as possible are sent to the front. If a larger general mobilisation was enacted, such citizens would have to get involved and see first hand what's really going on, which would hasten Putin's demise. There's also the possibility that Russia has not produced enough military kit for a general mobilisation to be sufficiently resourced.

 

[ainsworth74]

Western doctrine doesn't rely on long-range ground fires, the role that we see artillery play in places like Russia, Ukraine and the Koreas, is played by Air Dominance in most western European force designs.

Absolutely but I'm not convinced we could supply sufficient munitions to sustain the consumption that even our own doctrine would call for! Quite apart from our ability to keep sufficient air dropped munitions supplied for that air dominance strategy.

There is certainly a sustainment issue, and I feel that we will see a return of lots of (automatic) 40mm and 5" anti-aircraft/missile artillery in the near future, to cope with drone threats.

Agreed. We should be sticking guns on everything that moves until it stops moving (okay, perhaps not quite that far). But the likes of the Gepard flakpanzer I think are going to be an important anti-drone asset in the future and we should be buying more systems like that to go alongside our existing short range air defence missiles.

Which is part of the reason that Western air forces place such an emphasis on SEAD/Wild Weasel missions.

Indeed but I would worry about our ability to provide sufficient ammunition for those missions to be sustained for long in a hot war. As far as I'm aware every time we've launched one of our high tech air offensives we've gone through the stockpiles of those munitions at a frankly terrifying rate. I suspect we'd be out of the fancy stuff very very quickly.

 

[edwin_m]

There is an interesting point that a Ukrainian colleague made: she thinks that one possible conclusion is Ukraine losing the Donetsk Oblast along with the rest of the currently held territory, but with the remaining part of Ukraine being firmly in NATO and the EU. With the minority ethnic Russians being either in occupied territory or simply no longer identifying as Russian, it would create a largely Ukrainian homogenous state where Russia and Russian no longer plays part of public life. The previous issues that marred Ukraine between 1990-2014 would no longer be an issue too.

A necessary further condition for something like this is that if Ukraine has to hand over the rest of Donetsk Oblast beyond the current frontline, it gets time to move anyone out who wants to and critically also to build defences at what would become the new border. Otherwise it's open to Putin to move forward straight afterwards, as Hitler did in the Sudetenland.

 

[uglymonkey]

I think the European mindset ( especially in the cold war and beyond) has always been since WW2, was to keep enough munitions to "hold the line" until either 1) the Americans turned up or 2) it went nuclear and you didn't need to bother. Therefore no stockpiles for a long brutal high intensity conventional war. Gulf war 2 was only possible because to get them out of Kuwait the western powers had not "drawn down" sufficiently yet, so this type of operation was still possible and sustainable.

 

[brad465]

Ukraine have now destroyed a key bridge that will hamper Russian logistics:

Ukraine incursion destroys key Russian bridge in Kursk region

Ukraine destroys a bridge over the river Seym as it continues its incursion into Russia's Kursk region.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ukraine has destroyed a strategically important bridge over the river Seym, as it continues its incursion into Russia's Kursk region.
Russian officials have been quoted as saying the operation near the town of Glushkovo has cut off part of the local district.
The bridge was used by the Kremlin to supply its troops and its destruction could hamper their efforts.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukrainian troops were strengthening their positions in Kursk, and called the captured territories an exchange fund, implying they could be swapped for Ukrainian regions occupied by Moscow.

Now in its second week, this is Ukraine's deepest incursion into Russia since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion more than two years ago.
Ukraine’s surprise cross-border operation has resulted in more than 120,000 people fleeing to safety.
But amid Ukrainian claims of territorial gains, Kyiv has repeatedly maintained it does not wish to occupy Russia.
"Ukraine is not interested in occupying Russian territories," a senior aide to Ukrainian President Zelensky said on Friday.
Mykhailo Podolyak said one of the key objectives they wanted out of their incursion into Russia was to get Moscow to negotiate "on our own terms".
"In the Kursk region, we can clearly see how the military tool is being used objectively to persuade Russia to enter a fair negotiation process," he wrote on X, adding Kyiv has proven “effective means of coercion”.
The head of the Ukrainian military, Oleksandr Syrsky, said on Friday that the offensive had made further progress.
"The troops of the offensive group continue to fight and have advanced in some areas from one to three kilometres towards the enemy," he told President Zelensky in a video posted on social media.
Syrsky said he hoped to take "many prisoners" from a battle in the village of Mala Loknya, about 13km (8 miles) from the border.
As Ukraine's advance continues, officials in Russia's Belgorod region bordering Ukraine have said they will evacuate five villages starting on Monday.
"From 19 August, we are closing access to five settlements, removing residents and helping them bring out their property," Belgorod governor Vyacheslav Gladkov wrote on the Telegram social messaging app, naming small villages near the border.
However, as Ukraine moves further into western Russian territory, Russian forces are equally making gains in Ukraine’s east.
On Friday, Moscow said its troops had captured Serhiivka, the latest in a string of towns claimed by Russian troops in recent weeks.
The latest advances bring the Russians closer to the city of Pokrovsk, a vital logistics hub that sits on a main road for supplies to Ukrainian troops along the eastern front.
Pokrovsk lies north-west of the Russian-held Donetsk region, which has been under Ukrainian fire since Friday morning, leaving several civilians injured.
A message from the head of the city’s military administration, Sergiy Dobryak, on Thursday, urged people to evacuate as Russia was “rapidly approaching the outskirts".

 

[Cloud Strife]

I think the European mindset ( especially in the cold war and beyond) has always been since WW2, was to keep enough munitions to "hold the line" until either 1) the Americans turned up or 2) it went nuclear and you didn't need to bother. Therefore no stockpiles for a long brutal high intensity conventional war. Gulf war 2 was only possible because to get them out of Kuwait the western powers had not "drawn down" sufficiently yet, so this type of operation was still possible and sustainable.

Yes, NATO plans in the event of invasion were essentially to fall back to certain lines (such as the Fulda Gap) and defend it, while if they were to lose control of those lines, then they would use tactical nuclear weapons to end it there and then. It wasn't expected that NATO would have the forces to hold out for particularly long, not least with the huge stockpiles of the Warsaw Pact forces. The Warsaw Pact forces on the other hand were relying on a rapid advance to the Rhine combined with nuclear strikes to take out major cities.

Interestingly, the Warsaw Pact's defensive plan assumed the destruction of Poland and Czechoslovakia in nuclear attacks, with NATO assumed to be quickly occupying East Germany.

However, I think both the American and Soviet leaderships accepted that war in Europe was highly unlikely. Both of them were quite happy with the post-war settlement with the division of Europe into two spheres of influence, and there was really nothing to gain from either side entering war. IMO, had there been a European war with the involvement of the Warsaw Pact (invasion of Czechoslovakia aside), then it would have been the Warsaw Pact attacking Yugoslavia. One conceivable scenario in this situation would be Serbia and Macedonia falling into the hands of the Warsaw Pact, while 'Free Yugoslavia' (Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro) would then quickly align with NATO.

 

[brad465]

There have been rumours circulating on social media and some outlets that Germany is halting future military aid to Ukraine. These have been denied and the next German budget is not till November, so support won't be known before then. I strongly suspect the timing of this coinciding with the Kursk incursion is not a coincidence.

 

[DustyBin]

There have been rumours circulating on social media and some outlets that Germany is halting future military aid to Ukraine. These have been denied and the next German budget is not till November, so support won't be known before then. I strongly suspect the timing of this coinciding with the Kursk incursion is not a coincidence.

My understanding is that they won’t be approving any new funding from the federal budget. This isn’t a new decision and has nothing to do with the SMO/liberation of Kursk.

There are other funding sources available (including frozen Russian assets of course), so hopefully the situation isn’t quite as bad as first appears.

 

[Dougal2345]

This thread on Twitter says:

Further to this, the article below suggests all freight traffic from Belarus has ceased since August 12th:

Ukrainian incursion into Kursk paralyses Russia’s railways

Once the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) took its first Russian railway station inside Russia it was in the position to cause chaos and glean valuable troop movement intel.

“Russia has a fully digitised railway system, so once you access the system of any train station, no matter how small, you have access to the entire network,” Paul Con, a Ukraine observer, said in a social media post.

The AFU breakthrough has led to a severe disruption in railway operations, paralysing key routes across the country. The central office of Russian Railways (RZD) has urgently requested the Belarusian railway authorities to halt the dispatching of freight trains to Russia, as the system has become overloaded, according to a report by the Union of Belarusian Railroad Workers.

The main problem is that a reported 133,000 civilians are fleeing the region at the same time after the AFU crossed the border on August 6. And the situation may be getting worse after Ukrainian forces were seen in the Belgorod region to the north, which has now also declared a state of emergency.

The load has incapacitated RZD’s ability to receive trains from Belarus on the Moscow and Bryansk railway routes, which also abuts the Ukrainian border.

Official documents indicate that the request to stop incoming freight trains was issued on August 12, reflecting the critical situation on the ground. The ban is indefinite, as Russian authorities are uncertain when control over the affected railways will be restored, UA Wire reports.

Transport logistics between Russia and Belarus have reportedly collapsed, with numerous freight trains now stranded in dispatch areas. Russia’s Smolensk region in particular has become a bottleneck, with "abandoned" trains accumulating due to the halted traffic. A lack of locomotives has made the situation worse, UA Wire reports.

What remains unclear is if the AFU has been able to hack the RZD’s IT system to further disrupt the railways, however, once into the system they have been able to glean valuable information about Russia’s troop movements. RZD is reportedly now trying to lock the AFU out of the system.

“It seems that the Ukrainians managed to infiltrate the Russian railway system and were able to track the routes of arms shipments. Completely overhauling the system is currently causing significant headaches for IT specialists in Moscow,” added con.

Russia has been struggling to counter the AFU’s incursion. Other reports say that the expeditionary force has brought upgraded drones with them that use new frequencies that are impervious to Russian electronic warfare jamming, while the AFU has also upgraded their own jamming software which is now highly effective against Russian drones. Western reporters that made it to the Russian-Ukrainian border were surprised with the freedom of movement AFU forces have and the total absence of Russian drones. As bne IntelliNews reported, in the drone war, Russia has had the upper hand until recently.

The Kremlin has been bringing reinforcements up from Donbas to counter the AFU’s incursion, and also troops from as far away as Kaliningrad, but to move men and materiel over such long distances in Russia there are few alternatives to the railway.

 

[najaB]

Reporting is that Ukraine has captured over 2,000 Russian soldiers so far in their Kursk campaign. The 'exchange fund' is well and truly replenished!

 

[Giugiaro]

Russia nuking Russia would be quite an incredible reaction.

It was well established in prior pages of this thread that Russia nuking its territory was possible if Moscow were to be at risk of being sieged.
The quick turnaround of the Wagner Group rebellion's advance towards Moscow might have something to do with that.
Yevgeny Prigozhin probably was reminded that a nuke being dropped on his forces was pretty much in the cards. His overly exaggerated rant ticked all the boxes for a Russian defensive nuclear strike, and I believe Russia's allies and friends wouldn't mind this particular use case.

 

[DustyBin]

I believe Russia's allies and friends wouldn't mind this particular use case.

I strongly suspect they would!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It was well established in prior pages of this thread that Russia nuking its territory was possible if Moscow were to be at risk of being sieged.
The quick turnaround of the Wagner Group rebellion's advance towards Moscow might have something to do with that.
Yevgeny Prigozhin probably was reminded that a nuke being dropped on his forces was pretty much in the cards. His overly exaggerated rant ticked all the boxes for a Russian defensive nuclear strike, and I believe Russia's allies and friends wouldn't mind this particular use case.

Surely not even a remote possibility.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Russia has launched a massive (by their standards) attack on Ukraine this morning, with quite a few cities hit with missiles and drones. It's a big attack compared to the usual, and appears to be targeting Ukrainian energy facilities.

 

[Three-Nine]

In light of recent events, perhaps the thread title should be changed to “Ukraine Invades Russia”…?

 

[najaB]

It's a big attack compared to the usual, and appears to be targeting Ukrainian energy facilities.

Stinks of desperation on the part of the Russians. They'd normally conduct this kind of attack in the dead of winter.

As it is, the Ukrainians have at least three months to make good any damage before it becomes critical.

 

[Ivor]

Stinks of desperation on the part of the Russians. They'd normally conduct this kind of attack in the dead of winter.

As it is, the Ukrainians have at least three months to make good any damage before it becomes critical.

Russia trotting out the past week they have no interest in peace talks or a ceasefire & keep playing the victim so makes you wonder how this will ever end other than Russia getting their way in the East with Ukraine’s agreement & can’t see that happening as in a couple of years they will restock & go for the remainder of the Ukrainian territory.