Russia invades Ukraine

[Yew]

the Wests techie weapons haven't been able to dislodge them though needs boots on the ground and Europeans wont commit to that

It's remarkable that the handful of Challenger tanks we sent haven't been able to single-handedly deplete the entire cold-war stockpile of Russia.

More seriously, lots of stuff has either been older, or only supplied in small numbers, and the key element of western doctrine, air dominance, has not been present at all.

 

[brad465]

Indeed, I don't think they have any realistic possibilities, except perhaps some very opportunistic attacks on some areas with a large Russophone population. Places like Narva in Estonia could possibly fall, and they'd probably get away with attacking Georgia again, but they definitely don't have the means to do any real damage now.

This is what is so infuriating about Trump. Russia has serious problems, they haven't been able to liberate the part of Kursk under Ukrainian occupation, and despite everything that they've thrown at Ukraine, they've only managed to progress about 35km from the old front lines in Donetsk. They are bleeding heavily, and they have no prospect of making any serious and substantial gains at the moment. With Ukraine producing more and more drones, every forward advance is costing them dearly, and it's obvious that they don't have the training to deal with the threat of drones.

Having said this, my gut feeling right now is that Russia is hoping to seize the whole of Donetsk Oblast before transforming into a defensive force. They know they don't have the ability to overthrow Kyiv, but controlling Donetsk Oblast is definitely possible.

I know we shouldn't rest all our laurels on this for several reasons, but Putin (and also Lavrov), is not exactly young either. He's 72 (just two years younger than Stalin was at his death) and Russian life expectancy is far from a beacon light of strength. While I don't seem him popping his cloggs imminently, by the time Russia might be ready to go further, he could well not be fit/alive himself. While he could try and ensure there's a successor of his mould, he's the one with the cult of personality.

 

[najaB]

Russia has a lot more resources committed now than when they grabbed about 15% of Ukraine in the space of a few days in 2022.

Yes, that is true. However they aren't the newest or the best, a lot of it is old stuff that's had to be pulled out of storage. Which is fine for fighting an enemy that's also suffering the effects of a protracted war and isn't using their best equipment either.

Going up against a fresh western army with new(ish) equipment in tanks that are fifty-plus years old isn't likely to end well.

 

[Acey]

Shouldn,t this thread be re-named " Ukraine invades Russia " ?

 

[Annetts key]

The junk that Russia is now mostly using (that they call main battle tanks) can't survive being hit by drones, so against western forces modern anti armour weapons they aren't going to perform any better.

And Russia is short of IFV/APCs, a huge number of their BMPs have been destroyed or damaged beyond repair. And they are struggling with logistics as their supply trucks are being destroyed or damaged by drones.

Why else would they be using "Scooby Doo" vans and civilian vehicles so close to the front lines?

About the only thing going for them at the moment are the large number of men that they keep throwing at the front line.

However, these numbers will drop when the money gets tighter.

 

[AM9]

Shouldn,t this thread be re-named " Ukraine invades Russia " ?

Certainly not, - maybe:

"Urkraine fends off Russian invasion".​

 

[edwin_m]

the Wests techie weapons haven't been able to dislodge them though needs boots on the ground and Europeans wont commit to that

It's remarkable that the handful of Challenger tanks we sent haven't been able to single-handedly deplete the entire cold-war stockpile of Russia.

More seriously, lots of stuff has either been older, or only supplied in small numbers, and the key element of western doctrine, air dominance, has not been present at all

Agreed, it would be interesting to understand what would have happened to Russia's invasion had Ukraine had similar defences to a NATO member. And I hope people in NATO are wargaming that.

Yes, that is true. However they aren't the newest or the best, a lot of it is old stuff that's had to be pulled out of storage. Which is fine for fighting an enemy that's also suffering the effects of a protracted war and isn't using their best equipment either.

Going up against a fresh western army with new(ish) equipment in tanks that are fifty-plus years old isn't likely to end well.

I do hope you're right, or even better that we don't get to find out.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Agreed, it would be interesting to understand what would have happened to Russia's invasion had Ukraine had similar defences to a NATO member. And I hope people in NATO are wargaming that.

One interesting aspect about this entire war is that Russia has been remarkably unwilling to actually risk mobilising Russians from Western Russia. If I were in NATO, I'd be asking what lies behind this reluctance, and whether or not the Russian leadership is capable of stomaching severe losses to people from Moscow, St Petersburg and the like.

What reassures me in the short to medium term is that Russia still hasn't achieved air dominance. It seems that they simply don't have the assets to do so, and they won't acquire them any time in the near to mid future. Without air dominance, they'd be relying on land forces, as they would be pretty quickly under a major naval blockade.

 

[Howardh]

At what point does Trump start supplying Putin with weapons against Ukraine?

 

[brad465]

At what point does Trump start supplying Putin with weapons against Ukraine?

Probably when Putin offers him lucrative real-estate contracts in the Donbas, in exchange for providing weapons to enable Russia to clear and protect the land to build casinos and golf courses (the area already has bunkers so that's part-constructed already).

 

[Howardh]

Probably when Putin offers him lucrative real-estate contracts in the Donbas, in exchange for providing weapons to enable Russia to clear and protect the land to build casinos and golf courses (the area already has bunkers so that's part-constructed already).

If you land on a mine, is that a free drop?

Notice how quiet the Trumpists in the Tory and Reform are today. Have I missed something?

 

[nlogax]

I know we shouldn't rest all our laurels on this for several reasons, but Putin (and also Lavrov), is not exactly young either. He's 72 (just two years younger than Stalin was at his death) and Russian life expectancy is far from a beacon light of strength.

On the flip side Gorbachev died aged 91. Even ol' vodka-soaked Yeltsin lived until 76, though no-one seems to mention the half dozen heart attacks he reportedly had while in office.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Notice how quiet the Trumpists in the Tory and Reform are today. Have I missed something?

Same story in Poland with the opposition Law and Justice party, who were chanting his name in the Sejm a few days ago. Now they've gone suddenly very quiet.

At what point does Trump start supplying Putin with weapons against Ukraine?

This is a frightening prospect that I hadn't even considered. It would seem to be impossible for him to get support in Congress for such a measure, but well, who would have imagined him doing what he's done today so far?

 

[Annetts key]

At what point does Trump start supplying Putin with weapons against Ukraine?

I strongly suspect Congress wouldn't let that happen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2025 ==

Trump is trying to reduce the U.S. military budget through. Talk about double standards. He tells N.A.T.O. countries to increase their military spending to 5% (of GDP). But even the existing U.S. military spending is nowhere near 5% and now he wants to cut it by at least 8%. He has also talked about halving it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I can't help thinking that Trump's interest in ending the war in Ukraine has nothing to do with real estate, "rare earths" or even making Putin less paranoid about Russia's standing in the world. As an out and out narcissist Trump must absolutely hate that his loathed predecessor Obama received the Nobel Prize for Peace “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, so not for actually ending a specific conflict. Nevertheless it's a part of Obama's record and cannot be taken away.

I'm sure Trump feels he is far more deserving of some global recognition and ending the war in Ukraine is just the ticket. He doesn't care how it happens so long as soldiers are seen to no longer be fighting on the battlefield. And as it's so far from the US he's quite happy to sell Ukraine (and all of Europe too, if necessary) down the river in the process. We can only hope that people in his own party start to turn against him but I fear it is far too soon in his presidential term for that to happen.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think it's more about bringing Russian products back into western markets to bring down inflation and be seen to be making Americans expenses cheaper. Particularly oil and gas etc.

The fairly quick comments about economic ties lead me to that.

 

[bspahh]

I can't help thinking that Trump's interest in ending the war in Ukraine has nothing to do with real estate, "rare earths" or even making Putin less paranoid about Russia's standing in the world. As an out and out narcissist Trump must absolutely hate that his loathed predecessor Obama received the Nobel Prize for Peace “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, so not for actually ending a specific conflict. Nevertheless it's a part of Obama's record and cannot be taken away.

I'm sure Trump feels he is far more deserving of some global recognition and ending the war in Ukraine is just the ticket. He doesn't care how it happens so long as soldiers are seen to no longer be fighting on the battlefield. And as it's so far from the US he's quite happy to sell Ukraine (and all of Europe too, if necessary) down the river in the process. We can only hope that people in his own party start to turn against him but I fear it is far too soon in his presidential term for that to happen.

I don't know that the 5 Norwegians on the Nobel Peace Prize committee will give him the prize just because he thinks he deserves it.

 

[najaB]

I think it's more about bringing Russian products back into western markets to bring down inflation and be seen to be making Americans expenses cheaper. Particularly oil and gas etc.

What is there really that the US needs from Russia other than energy?

 

[brad465]

What is there really that the US needs from Russia other than energy?

I don't think the US directly needs their products, but their existence in the market increases supply, lowering the cost of the same products from other sources, including what they usually buy.

This is not too dissimilar to motorists needing rail passengers to exist (without necessarily realising): the latter result in fewer cars on the roads reducing traffic and making for a smoother journey. There may also be a reduced demand in fuel if more public transport is used instead of cars, so forecourt prices would be lower.

 

[Mogster]

One interesting aspect about this entire war is that Russia has been remarkably unwilling to actually risk mobilising Russians from Western Russia. If I were in NATO, I'd be asking what lies behind this reluctance, and whether or not the Russian leadership is capable of stomaching severe losses to people from Moscow, St Petersburg and the like.

What reassures me in the short to medium term is that Russia still hasn't achieved air dominance. It seems that they simply don't have the assets to do so, and they won't acquire them any time in the near to mid future. Without air dominance, they'd be relying on land forces, as they would be pretty quickly under a major naval blockade.

it’s disturbing that with the losses Russian has taken there are still large regions of the country that haven’t been mobilised yet.

Regarding the Ukraine air war. We haven’t see any other air war conflicts between close to peer combatants to know if what we are seeing in Ukraine is unusual or the new normal. What is clear is that long range modern mobile air defence systems are very nasty. Ukraine started the war with 250 or so SA300 and Russia seemed to struggle to destroy many. With their 200 mi range, all terrain agility and rapid deployment and pack up they are just elusive targets. Ukraine have managed effective air denial with layered air defence with their long range SA300, medium range SA11, short range SA8 then MANPADS, drones and and light flak… It’s an aviation nightmare and the defending forces have the advantage of local knowledge when setting up kill zones for low flying helicopters and aircraft.

The situation with the SA300s is reminiscent of the Iraq war and the search for Saddam’s skud launchers. Even with total coalition air dominance i don’t think there were any confirmed kills, but coalition air assets were exposed and destroyed in looking for them. Modern warplanes are just so expensive and hard to replace no one is going to voluntarily risk exposing large numbers of them them to modern air defence. Then you can understand how you end up with a stalemate as we’ve seen in Ukraine.

 

[Giugiaro]

Finally, I fought my laziness and started reading my physical copy of

Spoiler: Big Brother is watching you

George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four

. Let's see how many cultural references I will use in the following days as Trump, Musk and Putin mess everything up.

(I Hope I don't jinx it, but Xi Jinping finally deciding to attack Taiwan would be like the cherry on top.)

 

[Yew]

I don't think the US directly needs their products, but their existence in the market increases supply, lowering the cost of the same products from other sources, including what they usually buy.

Will it though, we've seen that companies are willing to put prices up quickly due to instabilities, but are very reticent to reduce them once the disruption stops.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2025 ==

Regarding the Ukraine air war. We haven’t see any other air war conflicts between close to peer combatants to know if what we are seeing in Ukraine is unusual or the new normal.

It's worth remembering that both Russia and Ukraine have inherited Soviet doctrine, which focused more on rockets than aircraft

What is clear is that long range modern mobile air defence systems are very nasty. Ukraine started the war with 250 or so SA300 and Russia seemed to struggle to destroy many. With their 200 mi range, all terrain agility and rapid deployment and pack up they are just elusive targets. Ukraine have managed effective air denial with layered air defence with their long range SA300, medium range SA11, short range SA8 then MANPADS, drones and and light flak… It’s an aviation nightmare and the defending forces have the advantage of local knowledge when setting up kill zones for low flying helicopters and aircraft.

For 4th generation designs, certainly there are many hazards. However, modern low-observability 5th Generation aircraft simply can't be seen by such systems until they are incredibly close.

The situation with the SA300s is reminiscent of the Iraq war and the search for Saddam’s skud launchers. Even with total coalition air dominance i don’t think there were any confirmed kills, but coalition air assets were exposed and destroyed in looking for them. Modern warplanes are just so expensive and hard to replace no one is going to voluntarily risk exposing large numbers of them them to modern air defence. Then you can understand how you end up with a stalemate as we’ve seen in Ukraine.

 

[Cloud Strife]

it’s disturbing that with the losses Russian has taken there are still large regions of the country that haven’t been mobilised yet.

It may be the case that they simply can't be mobilised without risking discontent. It's one thing to send ethnic minorities from far-off republics to their deaths, it's a different thing to send European Russians to their deaths, as they will be missed in cities and towns. This is why they emptied the prisons and went after easy targets, because no-one would notice if some long term criminal was no longer in his prison in Siberia.

Modern warplanes are just so expensive and hard to replace no one is going to voluntarily risk exposing large numbers of them them to modern air defence.

Yes, and Russian reluctance to use their air assets is showing. I think it might also reflect the general Russian mentality: human life is cheap.

Ukraine have managed effective air denial with layered air defence with their long range SA300, medium range SA11, short range SA8 then MANPADS, drones and and light flak

One thing that intrigues me: despite claims of Russia ramping up their missile production, we're still not seeing any significant long range missile attacks by them. It's not a secret that Ukraine is lacking in protection against missiles, and a large scale concentrated attack against Lviv or other city in Western Ukraine would hurt Ukraine badly. Yet they seem either unable or unwilling to do it, and I still cannot figure out why.

 

[Giugiaro]

Will it though, we've seen that companies are willing to put prices up quickly due to instabilities, but are very reticent to reduce them once the disruption stops.

It's hard to cut down prices when you start earning more revenue just from the decrease in raw materials and energy costs.

I mean, consumers are already getting used to the higher prices, so unless your competition starts to undercut you, you may as well just keep the prices high.
Maybe long enough for another crisis to justify further increases?

 

[jon0844]

I can't help thinking that Trump's interest in ending the war in Ukraine has nothing to do with real estate, "rare earths" or even making Putin less paranoid about Russia's standing in the world. As an out and out narcissist Trump must absolutely hate that his loathed predecessor Obama received the Nobel Prize for Peace “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, so not for actually ending a specific conflict. Nevertheless it's a part of Obama's record and cannot be taken away.

I'm sure Trump feels he is far more deserving of some global recognition and ending the war in Ukraine is just the ticket. He doesn't care how it happens so long as soldiers are seen to no longer be fighting on the battlefield. And as it's so far from the US he's quite happy to sell Ukraine (and all of Europe too, if necessary) down the river in the process. We can only hope that people in his own party start to turn against him but I fear it is far too soon in his presidential term for that to happen.

I think it's a lot of things but he is certainly talking of deaths in Ukraine that are hugely exaggerated so I think he wants to suggest he has been responsible for saving 10 gazillion lives, surpassing the deaths in WW2 and making out he did it singlehandedly because he's such a good negotiator. That's his narcissism right there.

But of course he also wants deals to profit from it, and Putin will do deals behind closed doors and then come out, smirking, to say how strong Trump was and how hard it was to come to a solution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2025 ==

I don't think the US directly needs their products, but their existence in the market increases supply, lowering the cost of the same products from other sources, including what they usually buy.

This is not too dissimilar to motorists needing rail passengers to exist (without necessarily realising): the latter result in fewer cars on the roads reducing traffic and making for a smoother journey. There may also be a reduced demand in fuel if more public transport is used instead of cars, so forecourt prices would be lower.

OPEC pretty much told Trump to sod off when he asked for more oil production to bring prices down. Russia isn't part of OPEC so it would be the next logical step to want access to this, as well as lifting sanctions on the rich Russian oligarchs who are no doubt itching to buy properties again - perhaps in downtown Gaza...

 

[najaB]

One thing that intrigues me: despite claims of Russia ramping up their missile production, we're still not seeing any significant long range missile attacks by them. It's not a secret that Ukraine is lacking in protection against missiles, and a large scale concentrated attack against Lviv or other city in Western Ukraine would hurt Ukraine badly. Yet they seem either unable or unwilling to do it, and I still cannot figure out why.

In Soviet days the best missiles (and aerospace generally) came from Ukraine. I've no doubt that they're still suffering under that deficit. Not to mention the limited access to western electronics is probably hurting as well.

 

[Cloud Strife]

In Soviet days the best missiles (and aerospace generally) came from Ukraine. I've no doubt that they're still suffering under that deficit. Not to mention the limited access to western electronics is probably hurting as well.

Yes, makes sense. It's honestly the strangest thing about this entire war: Russia, at least in theory, should be able to decimate at least one Ukrainian city on the level of Hiroshima, but they seem remarkably unwilling to actually do it. I'm not convinced that Ukraine would fight on if they suffered something comparable to Dresden in WW2, especially if it was in the western part of the country.

I still cannot understand why they haven't at least used a few ICBMs to make a statement. They don't care about accuracy, and trashing Lviv with them would put immense pressure on the Ukrainian leadership. The only thing that makes sense to me is that such a move might result in the development of a few Ukrainian nuclear dirty bombs, so perhaps there's an implicit understanding that both sides won't resort to such tactics.

The other possibility, of course, is that most of the ICBMs are simply not serviceable.

 

[najaB]

I still cannot understand why they haven't at least used a few ICBMs to make a statement. They don't care about accuracy, and trashing Lviv with them would put immense pressure on the Ukrainian leadership.

I think the contrary is true. Putin knows that if he uses nuclear weapons first then he's finished. Any veneer of legitimacy of his SMO to 'protect' ethnic Russians in the east would be completely blown, not to mention that fallout raining down into Romania or Poland will give NATO a reason to get directly involved.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I think the contrary is true. Putin knows that if he uses nuclear weapons first then he's finished. Any veneer of legitimacy of his SMO to 'protect' ethnic Russians in the east would be completely blown, not to mention that fallout raining down into Romania or Poland will give NATO a reason to get directly involved.

Do they necessarily have to be nuclear-armed, though? I was thinking about a conventional payload to make a point: we can hit you anywhere, that sort of thing.

 

[JamesT]

Do they necessarily have to be nuclear-armed, though? I was thinking about a conventional payload to make a point: we can hit you anywhere, that sort of thing.

Didn't they essentially already do that? Russia has certainly launched ballistic missiles at Ukraine.