Russia invades Ukraine

[ainsworth74]

There is a huge question as to why this bridge wasn't destroyed when Kherson was first invaded. It came out a couple of days ago that it apparently should have been, but it wasn't.

Who knows? Maybe the order wasn't communicated, perhaps those that had responsibility were killed before they could, possibly they hadn't wired the bridge with explosives before they were so deep in the fighting it wasn't possible to rig it to blow.

Plenty of historical incidents of bridges being captured that were supposed to be blown and really it boils down to war is unpredictable and messy especially the opening days of a war.

It'll be interesting but probably not more than a footnote in the end. Well, unless the Russians also screw it up and Ukraine recapture it intact and it then enables a Ukrainian offensive. Then it'll look inspired that they didn't destroy it in the opening days of the war!

 

[najaB]

Speaking of interesting, apparently the US are considering (or at least haven't ruled out) lend-lease of A-10s to Ukraine!

Secretary of the U.S. Air Force Frank Kendall did not outright reject the idea of transferring A-10 Warthog ground attack jets to Ukraine when asked about that possibility earlier today. His comments came after Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown said separately that the Ukrainian Air Force will eventually have to start moving away from their Soviet-era combat jets and that whatever comes next will "be something non-Russian."

Giving A-10 Warthogs To Ukraine Isn't Off The Table

Top U.S. Air Force officials have left the door open to the possibility of transferring some of the iconic Warthogs to Ukraine.

www.thedrive.com

 

[TheEdge]

Speaking of interesting, apparently the US are considering (or at least haven't ruled out) lend-lease of A-10s to Ukraine!

Giving A-10 Warthogs To Ukraine Isn't Off The Table

Top U.S. Air Force officials have left the door open to the possibility of transferring some of the iconic Warthogs to Ukraine.

www.thedrive.com

Its come up a few times but the training is an issue. Similar story with the F-16s. I'm sure a way will be found.

 

[DustyBin]

Who knows? Maybe the order wasn't communicated, perhaps those that had responsibility were killed before they could, possibly they hadn't wired the bridge with explosives before they were so deep in the fighting it wasn't possible to rig it to blow.

Plenty of historical incidents of bridges being captured that were supposed to be blown and really it boils down to war is unpredictable and messy especially the opening days of a war.

It'll be interesting but probably not more than a footnote in the end. Well, unless the Russians also screw it up and Ukraine recapture it intact and it then enables a Ukrainian offensive. Then it'll look inspired that they didn't destroy it in the opening days of the war!

Following Zelensky’s recent comments regarding collaborators, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was deliberately left intact. Total speculation on my part but it’s certainly possible.

 

[ainsworth74]

Following Zelensky’s recent comments regarding collaborators, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was deliberately left intact. Total speculation on my part but it’s certainly possible.

Absolutely another possibility.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Though of course destroying that bridge makes it difficult for Ukraine to continue offensive operations in the area. Fording rivers is tricky in the best of times and doing so opposed is very difficult verging on suicidal, as at least one Russian brigade (I think it was a brigade) found to their cost earlier in the war. The next crossing is forty odd miles up river at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric power plant.

Of course the Russians know this too so you have to figure that they may blow the Antonovskiy bridge themselves if they look likely to lose control but depending Ukraninan plans destroying it may not be the goal.

It does seem puzzling. Destroying it would apparently make it easier for the Ukrainians to retake Kherson, but leave the Russians in control of the other side of the river, from where their artillery would presumably be able to reduce Kherson to rubble (unless the Ukrainians are now able to take out Russian artillery?). Maybe the Ukrainians have calculated that the bridge would be too dangerous/exposed for them to use to advance from Kherson anyway, so there's no point keeping it standing?

Another random idea that occurred to me: Noting that they have damaged the bridge, but not destroyed it, I wonder if the aim is to make it impossible for heavy armoured Russian reinforcements to use the bridge, while leaving enough of it standing that the Russians in Kherson could still use it as an escape route (minus their heavy/armoured vehicles)? That would be on the theory that, if the Russians there know they can flee, that might avoid a bloodbath if/when the Ukrainians retake the city.

 

[TheEdge]

Destroying it would apparently make it easier for the Ukrainians to retake Kherson, but leave the Russians in control of the other side of the river, from where their artillery would presumably be able to reduce Kherson to rubble (unless the Ukrainians are now able to take out Russian artillery?).

They've been able to destroy it since day one but their abilities to now destroy those artillery pieces are far improved.

Maybe the Ukrainians have calculated that the bridge would be too dangerous/exposed for them to use to advance from Kherson anyway, so there's no point keeping it standing?

Bridges have been an eternal choke point in wars going back to the start of conflict between people. Everyone needs them standing but everyone also needs to destroy them.

Another random idea that occurred to me: Noting that they have damaged the bridge, but not destroyed it, I wonder if the aim is to make it impossible for heavy armoured Russian reinforcements to use the bridge, while leaving enough of it standing that the Russians in Kherson could still use it as an escape route (minus their heavy/armoured vehicles)? That would be on the theory that, if the Russians there know they can flee, that might avoid a bloodbath if/when the Ukrainians retake the city.

I doubt it. Bridges are obviously quite delicate when it comes to structures and if you start to damage their integrity you can't really expect them to stay standing, or at least rely on it. Look at the Ludendorff Bridge at Reamagen, the allies held and defended it for 10 days when it eventually collapsed, not from direct hits but just from cumulative damage over time.

 

[Cloud Strife]

An interesting article on the BBC here:

Russia about to run out of steam in Ukraine - MI6 chief

In a rare public appearance, the UK secret intelligence service chief says Ukraine could hit back.

www.bbc.com

He said recent Russian gains were "tiny" and that Russia was "about to run out of steam".
"Our assessment is that the Russians will increasingly find it difficult to find manpower and materiel over the next few weeks," Mr Moore told the conference in Colorado. "They will have to pause in some way and that will give the Ukrainians the opportunity to strike back."

Mr Moore in this case is the boss of MI6, meaning that he will have chosen his words very very carefully. The Polish media are suggesting that the US will ramp up deliveries of the HIMARS systems, as it's clear that they're working and that the Russians have no real answer to them. There are even some reports that the S-400 missile defence system simply doesn't work, meaning that Russia will have to find a way to target the HIMARS systems as they can't defend against them.

IMO, it's very clear that Russia doesn't have the capability to launch any serious invasion now. They haven't made any progress in the Southern sector, they've only progressed in the Eastern sector because they concentrated their forces in a tiny area, and now their supply chains are being bombarded. Now the question is what happens with the Ukrainian forces: if they hold their ground while training more and more forces, they're going to win the numbers game if nothing else.

 

[najaB]

IMO, it's very clear that Russia doesn't have the capability to launch any serious invasion now. They haven't made any progress in the Southern sector, they've only progressed in the Eastern sector because they concentrated their forces in a tiny area, and now their supply chains are being bombarded. Now the question is what happens with the Ukrainian forces: if they hold their ground while training more and more forces, they're going to win the numbers game if nothing else.

I don't think Russia has any choice other than to declare a general mobilisation.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I don't think Russia has any choice other than to declare a general mobilisation.

I just wonder if they can. The internal polling is clearly showing strong opposition among ethnic Russians to sending their teenagers to war in Ukraine, and knowing how the Russian military service works (you just buy your way out by paying off the right person), it might not be very effective anyway.

I suspect that they will simply start forcibly mobilising more ethnic minorities within Russia.

 

[najaB]

I suspect that they will simply start forcibly mobilising more ethnic minorities within Russia.

The only thing less effective than a conscript army is an army of conscripts who already feel marginalised and have little to no sense of patriotic duty.

 

[DustyBin]

I just wonder if they can. The internal polling is clearly showing strong opposition among ethnic Russians to sending their teenagers to war in Ukraine, and knowing how the Russian military service works (you just buy your way out by paying off the right person), it might not be very effective anyway.

I suspect that they will simply start forcibly mobilising more ethnic minorities within Russia.

Putin knows he could face problems if he tries to mobilise cities in the west of the country so you may well be right.

The only thing less effective than a conscript army is an army of conscripts who already feel marginalised and have little to no sense of patriotic duty.

Quite. Sacrificing conscripts as cannon fodder isn't going to achieve anything but life is cheap to Putin....

 

[Cloud Strife]

The only thing less effective than a conscript army is an army of conscripts who already feel marginalised and have little to no sense of patriotic duty.

Indeed, just pure cannon fodder and nothing else. They help you win the numbers game (like in Severnodonetsk), but they're useless for any sort of occupation or tactical duties.

Putin knows he could face problems if he tries to mobilise cities in the west of the country so you may well be right.

It's purely speculation, but I suspect that he was told in no uncertain terms to avoid conscripting ethnic Russians. He's not an idiot, he knows that the Moscow and St Petersburg elites won't care if ethnic Komi or Kalmyks get slaughtered on the battlefield, but ethnic Russians are a different story.

 

[TheEdge]

The only thing less effective than a conscript army is an army of conscripts who already feel marginalised and have little to no sense of patriotic duty.

Could backfire really really badly.

Just imagine if the Chechens start feeling like they are being thrown into the grinder...

 

[Cloud Strife]

Just imagine if the Chechens start feeling like they are being thrown into the grinder...

They already were!

Apparently some group in Chechnya is now threatening Kadyrov and his goons, which is interesting. If something explodes there (and it might, Kadyrov is running a personality cult there), Russia will have serious problems.

 

[TheEdge]

Little bit of shower thinking.

I'm interested to see where this all goes for Russia. I cannot see a way Russia "wins" this. If they try Crimea style referendums no one is going to recognise them and Ukraine will just continue pushing. If anything they'll push even harder to remove any legitimacy they try to have.

Its more the home front for Russia. I can only see two ways this goes.

Would it be the end for Putin and his regime? Will he come down with a sudden case of accidental death? How much of the rhetoric coming from the Duma is genuine, how much is people protecting themselves from the Kremlin by towing the line? If it is a matter of "no Putin, no rhetoric" could Russia reset to 1991? End up with a moderate leader with less nostalgia for the USSR?

Or will Russia realise its military has lagged so far behind NATO that it doubles down? All the siphoning of funds and rot is aggressively cut out, by judicious use of the FSB if needed. The wonder weapon projects actually get built, the whole armed forces get brought up to date and we have a full on return to two equally matched superpowers staring at each other, twitching?

Or do they just become a protectorate of China?

 

[Cloud Strife]

Little bit of shower thinking.

I'm interested to see where this all goes for Russia. I cannot see a way Russia "wins" this. If they try Crimea style referendums no one is going to recognise them and Ukraine will just continue pushing. If anything they'll push even harder to remove any legitimacy they try to have.

I also don't see any way for Russia to win. The "LDPR" will be pounded, they've got cities in ruins like Mariupol where people barely survive, there are bounties on the heads of traitors in Kherson, the list goes on and on. The Crimea referendum worked because Ukraine was powerless, but any attempt at organising a referendum in Kherson is going to be met with considerable resistance.

Would it be the end for Putin and his regime? Will he come down with a sudden case of accidental death? How much of the rhetoric coming from the Duma is genuine, how much is people protecting themselves from the Kremlin by towing the line? If it is a matter of "no Putin, no rhetoric" could Russia reset to 1991? End up with a moderate leader with less nostalgia for the USSR?

I think there's a very real possibility at this point of a military coup d'etat. I could see a military strongman coming into power, but what they do next is a big question. The Duma rhetoric is largely nonsense and not worth paying attention to, but I also don't see any way out for Russia. IMO, the only way that this ends is with Russia retreating after serious amounts of firepower makes its way to Ukraine, followed by implementation of Minsk-2 and the very reluctant agreement of Ukraine to fortify the Crimean border, perhaps even by transforming the administrative border into a sea border.

The problem is that Russia can't simply end it now. If they announce that the war is over, Ukraine will pound them with the HIMARS systems until they return to the 2014 lines.

Or will Russia realise its military has lagged so far behind NATO that it doubles down? All the siphoning of funds and rot is aggressively cut out, by judicious use of the FSB if needed. The wonder weapon projects actually get built, the whole armed forces get brought up to date and we have a full on return to two equally matched superpowers staring at each other, twitching?

Or do they just become a protectorate of China?

I can't see this happening. Unlike the Cold War, modern technology has progressed so much that Russia simply can't keep up. The corruption is so deep that it won't be solved overnight, and I think it's more likely that Russia implodes rather than reforms.

 

[najaB]

Or will Russia realise its military has lagged so far behind NATO that it doubles down? All the siphoning of funds and rot is aggressively cut out, by judicious use of the FSB if needed. The wonder weapon projects actually get built, the whole armed forces get brought up to date and we have a full on return to two equally matched superpowers staring at each other, twitching?

That would be a very long-term project (at least 30 to 40 years) given the state of Russian industry and sanctions preventing access to modern Western electronics. A quick look on Wikipedia indicates that indigenous Russian semiconductors are 65nm process at best. The state of the art Western chip manufacturers are on 4-7nm processes. That means that Western processors are able to contain several orders of magnitudes more logic gates in a given area, making them significantly more powerful while consuming orders of magnitude less power. As a concrete example, the last Athlon 64 was a 65nm chip, compare that performance to a 7nm processor like the Ryzen 3000 series.

 

[Roast Veg]

I'm interested to see where this all goes for Russia. I cannot see a way Russia "wins" this. If they try Crimea style referendums no one is going to recognise them and Ukraine will just continue pushing. If anything they'll push even harder to remove any legitimacy they try to have.

One of the fundamental problems for Russia is that the concept of winning is nebulous and undefined, meaning that no victory can every really be achieved. Ukraine knows where its borders end, however.

 

[TheEdge]

So Russia and Ukraine sign agreements to allow grain exports.

Then Russia immediately launches a missile strike on ports...

Ukraine war: Explosions rock Ukrainian port hours after grain deal

Six blasts hit Odesa on Saturday morning, with local officials blaming a Russian missile attack.

www.bbc.co.uk

Explosions have rocked a key Ukrainian port just a day after Kyiv and Moscow reached a landmark deal to allow the resumption of grain exports.

Two missiles hit the port city of Odesa in the early hours of Saturday morning, Ukraine's military said.

 

[Trackman]

So Russia and Ukraine sign agreements to allow grain exports.

Then Russia immediately launches a missile strike on ports...

Ukraine war: Explosions rock Ukrainian port hours after grain deal

Six blasts hit Odesa on Saturday morning, with local officials blaming a Russian missile attack.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now there's a surprise (not)

 

[Roast Veg]

So then the agreement goes to pieces, and Russia get to blame everybody else for reneging on the deal? Figures.

 

[Cloud Strife]

A quick look on Wikipedia indicates that indigenous Russian semiconductors are 65nm process at best.

That's astonishing. They should never have been in such a weak position with the strength of Soviet science, and it shows just how badly Yeltsin and Putin destroyed the genuine successes of the Soviet Union.

 

[DustyBin]

Now there's a surprise (not)

To be honest I fully expected some kind of incident in the Black Sea once the ships started leaving, but we didn’t even reach that point. The Russians really have no shame do they……

 

[brad465]

To be honest I fully expected some kind of incident in the Black Sea once the ships started leaving, but we didn’t even reach that point. The Russians really have no shame do they……

There is one upside to this: while this situation is far from desirable, at least it can be used as evidence when arguing with those suggesting a peace settlement with Russia right now in a way that is effectively appeasement, as proof that no such agreement will be honoured while Putin remains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could the United Nations call an emergency debate on the matter, noting where the grain is intended for, in which the Russian delegate would have to admit they were co-signatories to the release of the grain for humanitarian purposes.

 

[TheEdge]

Could the United Nations call an emergency debate on the matter, noting where the grain is intended for, in which the Russian delegate would have to admit they were co-signatories to the release of the grain for humanitarian purposes.

The UN can say and do all sorts of pointless things but as long as the security council exists and Russia has a veto its nothing more than hot air.

The problem is that Russia can't simply end it now. If they announce that the war is over, Ukraine will pound them with the HIMARS systems until they return to the 2014 lines.

Which is probably part of the big problem for Putin, unlike Georgia or Chechnya, the Russian's cant just get bored of kerb stomping a weak enemy then declare the beating over.

There is one upside to this: while this situation is far from desirable, at least it can be used as evidence when arguing with those suggesting a peace settlement with Russia right now in a way that is effectively appeasement, as proof that no such agreement will be honoured while Putin remains.

As if more evidence was needed...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The UN can say and do all sorts of pointless things but as long as the security council exists and Russia has a veto its nothing more than hot air.

Has a country ever lost its seat on the security council?

 

[TheEdge]

Has a country ever lost its seat on the security council?

The 5 permanent members with their veto (which includes Russia) can't but the other 10 rotate. Although technically the Republic of China lost its seat to the Peoples Republic of China.

 

[Gloster]

Has a country ever lost its seat on the security council?

If you ignore the slight changes of status regarding France, you have the arguable case of Russia succeeding the USSR in 1991. However, in 1971 the People’s Republic of China’s replaced the Republic of China, the latter being Taiwan. The other seats are only held for two years at a time. (More on Wikipedia under United Nations Security Council.)