Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 5
Discussion
paulw123 said:
Chimune said:
Putin and Kim in same location. Just imagine how many lives would be saved....
Nothing says successful military operation like going cap in hand to one of the worlds biggest crackpot dictators. What an embarrassment. Oliver Hardy said:
paulw123 said:
Chimune said:
Putin and Kim in same location. Just imagine how many lives would be saved....
Nothing says successful military operation like going cap in hand to one of the worlds biggest crackpot dictators. What an embarrassment. However, its way more complex than that. Figures vary depending on the situation, but typically its assumed that a military unit is considered degraded if it has 30% casualties and at 40% its ineffective. If we apply this to equipment, suddenly it gets pretty damning for Russias position currently. Of course, it isnt as simple as that. Aircraft for example typically have an effective ratio of 3:1 or even 2:1 in some cases. For every 2 aircraft, only 1 might be serviceable and operational! But of course, you work around this and manage expectations accordingly. The F-22 is a good example where the effective readiness of the fleet is around 50% - does it make it a failure? Not at all, it just means that a number are held on the ground while the ones in the sky are still as deadly as before.
If we think about other equipment such as tanks, the situation is pretty dire. We have satellite images showing that they are running out of stocks of what they have and are desperately turning older and older stuff into running order to meet demand. If the current attrition rate continues, they will have nothing left! And thats the point, as Russia continues to degrade its military, it weakens its positions around the world and its own defence. Reports are saying that their only S-500 advanced air defence system has been relocated to Crimea. It used to defend Moscow! Suddenly that makes it a much more attractive target. With a number of very pissed off neighbors, countries around the world where Russia has been operating not happy with what they are doing and being a target for international terrorism, I dont rate their chances of keeping the wolves at bay.
Yes, technically it seems that Russia can keep the war running longer based on reactivation of old stocks and new built equipment. But every day they are degraded the are weaker and weaker. This cannot continue at the current rate and it will eventually lead to some sort of collapse. Either from Ukraine or someone else, but there will be a point at which the Russian military will cease to be effective and it doesnt matter how many tanks you have in a field at that point.
CT05 Nose Cone said:
Waitforme said:
There are some minor differences in tank loses being quoted, top post mentions circa 8k while the latest vid above mentions about 2.5k 
Even 2.5k is a staggering amount, I wonder how many America and all the western powers have lost in combat since 1945?
BikeBikeBIke said:
Anyone able to find a reliable source that Russia are handing the Tumangan River over to China and the implications of that?
Plenty of chat about it but nothing I regard as totally trustworthy.
I didn't read it as that. At present China needs Russian & North Korean permission to sail to/from the Sea of Japan. The proposals seem to be that in future Russian/North Korea would waive that need for permission. To some extent you can read that as Russia ceding some control although I'm sure the permissions at present are mere formalities. Plenty of chat about it but nothing I regard as totally trustworthy.
GT03ROB said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Anyone able to find a reliable source that Russia are handing the Tumangan River over to China and the implications of that?
Plenty of chat about it but nothing I regard as totally trustworthy.
I didn't read it as that. At present China needs Russian & North Korean permission to sail to/from the Sea of Japan. The proposals seem to be that in future Russian/North Korea would waive that need for permission. To some extent you can read that as Russia ceding some control although I'm sure the permissions at present are mere formalities. Plenty of chat about it but nothing I regard as totally trustworthy.
https://news.online.ua/en/putin-plans-to-hand-over...
off_again said:
Oliver Hardy said:
paulw123 said:
Chimune said:
Putin and Kim in same location. Just imagine how many lives would be saved....
Nothing says successful military operation like going cap in hand to one of the worlds biggest crackpot dictators. What an embarrassment. However, its way more complex than that. Figures vary depending on the situation, but typically its assumed that a military unit is considered degraded if it has 30% casualties and at 40% its ineffective. If we apply this to equipment, suddenly it gets pretty damning for Russias position currently. Of course, it isnt as simple as that. Aircraft for example typically have an effective ratio of 3:1 or even 2:1 in some cases. For every 2 aircraft, only 1 might be serviceable and operational! But of course, you work around this and manage expectations accordingly. The F-22 is a good example where the effective readiness of the fleet is around 50% - does it make it a failure? Not at all, it just means that a number are held on the ground while the ones in the sky are still as deadly as before.
If we think about other equipment such as tanks, the situation is pretty dire. We have satellite images showing that they are running out of stocks of what they have and are desperately turning older and older stuff into running order to meet demand. If the current attrition rate continues, they will have nothing left! And thats the point, as Russia continues to degrade its military, it weakens its positions around the world and its own defence. Reports are saying that their only S-500 advanced air defence system has been relocated to Crimea. It used to defend Moscow! Suddenly that makes it a much more attractive target. With a number of very pissed off neighbors, countries around the world where Russia has been operating not happy with what they are doing and being a target for international terrorism, I dont rate their chances of keeping the wolves at bay.
Yes, technically it seems that Russia can keep the war running longer based on reactivation of old stocks and new built equipment. But every day they are degraded the are weaker and weaker. This cannot continue at the current rate and it will eventually lead to some sort of collapse. Either from Ukraine or someone else, but there will be a point at which the Russian military will cease to be effective and it doesnt matter how many tanks you have in a field at that point.
Some chilling analysis (written in the DT today):
“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
Iamnotkloot said:
Some chilling analysis (written in the DT today):
“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
Unlikely. Russia would lose China's support and it would spur the West into obliterating Russia's hardware on Ukrainian soil.“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
UK journos are obsessed with "nuclear" headlines - it's the ultimate clickbait.
Hereward said:
Iamnotkloot said:
Some chilling analysis (written in the DT today):
“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
Unlikely. Russia would lose China's support and it would spur the West into obliterating Russia's hardware on Ukrainian soil.“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
UK journos are obsessed with "nuclear" headlines - it's the ultimate clickbait.
Iamnotkloot said:
Some chilling analysis (written in the DT today):
“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
I don't think that is likely at all.“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
You think the US will sit back and allow conquest by nuclear weapons? I'd be very surprised if russia hasn't been told exactly what the immediate consequences of the use of nuclear weapons will be.
My guess is that the US response would be to annihilate all russian forces on Ukrainian land. russia could not be allowed to gain or win.
I'd also guess that sanctions would be stepped up to near airtight levels.
Even russia aren't that dumb.
CT05 Nose Cone said:
glazbagun said:
How big is the global pool of combat mercs? Given the money the West has to throw around, it strikes me as notable that Wagner was getting all the press and we haven't heard of Blackwater since Iraq.
Blackwater rebranded in 2010 and have been defunct for a decade nowspookly said:
Iamnotkloot said:
Some chilling analysis (written in the DT today):
“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
I don't think that is likely at all.“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...
You think the US will sit back and allow conquest by nuclear weapons? I'd be very surprised if russia hasn't been told exactly what the immediate consequences of the use of nuclear weapons will be.
My guess is that the US response would be to annihilate all russian forces on Ukrainian land. russia could not be allowed to gain or win.
I'd also guess that sanctions would be stepped up to near airtight levels.
Even russia aren't that dumb.
What the analyst is talking about is the direction of travel within Russian conversations. He is arguing that it doesn’t matter what the outside world (with the possible exception of China) thinks about tac nuke use, it only matters what direction the internal politics is going. Hence why I called it chilling.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff