Russia invades Ukraine

[brad465]

So the MOD had confirmed T-62s have moved into Ukraine.

These are 1961 vintage vehicles. These were designed to defeat things like Centurions & Pattons. The Challenger 2 we field today is THREE generations never than the T-62. Suddenly the joke about Ukraine being sent Leopard 1s by Germany isn't so funny, Leopard 1s being 4 years newer.

What tanks are Ukraine using other than the ones Germany sent you refer to?

 

[TheEdge]

What tanks are Ukraine using other than the ones Germany sent you refer to?

The Leopard 1s as I understand are still offered but not sent. The joke was they are ancient tanks and seemingly pointless but now Russia appears to be fielding even older vehicles.

Other than that they've been using their own inventory of T-72s, T-80s and a few captured T-90s.

 

[Cloud Strife]

My question is what on earth is happening with the Russian army that they're resorting to deploying such vehicles. Are they really so short on modern equipment, or is this some kind of situation where the Russian military leadership won't let them field anything new?

Despite what the news has been reporting, the ever-reliable Stefan Korshak suggests that the Russians may have decided to fight this war by focusing their artillery in overwhelming numbers in a small area, moving forward slowly, then repeating this step by step. They haven't really come any closer to capturing Severodonetsk, and Stefan suggests that the Russians really don't have that much capability. The Russians do seem to have the edge with artillery, but it's worth repeating: the Russian advances are coming at a tremendous cost to themselves. If the Ukrainian side can get weapons capable of neutralising the Russian artillery, then it's hard to see any advantage whatsoever for Russia.

It has to be said: if NATO had sent everything that they could, this war would be over by now. The MLRS systems are apparently going to be finally sent from the US, which will be a huge gamechanger.

 

[najaB]

My question is what on earth is happening with the Russian army that they're resorting to deploying such vehicles.

A lot of this:

 

[TheEdge]

My question is what on earth is happening with the Russian army that they're resorting to deploying such vehicles. Are they really so short on modern equipment, or is this some kind of situation where the Russian military leadership won't let them field anything new?

According to Oryx (which is considered reliable) they've lost at least 735 tanks of all types. Pre-war they had just shy of 3,000 active (whatever active actually means) tanks of T-90, T-72 and T-80. So they've lost a significant number by any measure. A considerable number of those vehicles will be elsewhere in Russia needed for other things so are not really available. Deploying T-62s from storage feels like just throwing numbers at the Javelins and the NLAWs.

Despite what the news has been reporting, the ever-reliable Stefan Korshak suggests that the Russians may have decided to fight this war by focusing their artillery in overwhelming numbers in a small area, moving forward slowly, then repeating this step by step. They haven't really come any closer to capturing Severodonetsk, and Stefan suggests that the Russians really don't have that much capability. The Russians do seem to have the edge with artillery, but it's worth repeating: the Russian advances are coming at a tremendous cost to themselves. If the Ukrainian side can get weapons capable of neutralising the Russian artillery, then it's hard to see any advantage whatsoever for Russia.

That's always been the Russian/USSR doctrine, just obliterate with artillery, see what they did to Grozny.

It has to be said: if NATO had sent everything that they could, this war would be over by now. The MLRS systems are apparently going to be finally sent from the US, which will be a huge gamechanger.

Absolutely, that's what makes it so tragic that Russia is nuclear armed. The MLRS and HIMARS if they arrive will be a big thing for Ukraine.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Deploying T-62s from storage feels like just throwing numbers at the Javelins and the NLAWs.

I have the distinct impression that this war is now about trying (at all costs) to secure the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts before calling for a ceasefire. That would explain the "everything and the kitchen sink" strategy in Severodonetsk, because they need to win something tangible at all costs. But will they even get to the borders of the Donetsk oblast at this rate?

That's always been the Russian/USSR doctrine, just obliterate with artillery, see what they did to Grozny.

I just wonder what they'll do if they start to lose their artillery in serious numbers. They don't seem to have much in the south, which suggests that it's a matter of when, not if Ukraine attacks there.

 

[brad465]

Well it was nice knowing everyone:

Russia won't use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, says ambassador to UK

Andrei Kelin tells the BBC tactical nuclear weapons have "nothing to do" with operations in Ukraine.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russia's ambassador in Britain has told the BBC he does not believe his country will use tactical nuclear weapons in the war against Ukraine.
Andrei Kelin said that according to Russian military rules, such weapons are not used in conflicts like this one.
Russia has very strict provision for their use, he said, mainly when the state's existence is threatened.
"It has nothing to do with the current operation," he told Sunday Morning.
When Vladimir Putin put his nuclear forces on high alert in late February, soon after the invasion, it was widely perceived as a warning.
Mr Putin blamed the development on aggression by the West and Nato. But the UK's Defence Secretary Ben Wallace branded it an attempt to distract people from "what's going wrong in Ukraine", saying Russia was behind schedule on its invasion after just a few days, and trying to "remind the world" it had a deterrent.
Tactical nuclear weapons are those which can be used at relatively short distances, as opposed to "strategic" nuclear weapons which can be launched over much longer distances and raise the spectre of all-out nuclear war.
But the term still includes many types of weapon, including smaller bombs and missiles used on a battlefield. Russia is thought to have about 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons

In a sometimes terse exchange with the BBC's Clive Myrie, the ambassador also denied Russian forces were shelling civilians and said allegations of war crimes in the town of Bucha were a "fabrication".
Asked the question, "Why is Russia conducting this war in this way, committing war crimes?" Mr Kelin replied: "The mayor of Bucha in his initial statement has confirmed that Russian troops has left, everything is clean and calm, the town in a normal state.
"Nothing is happening, no bodies are on the street. But next, after it has been done - but anyway..."
Myrie then pressed him: "So this is all made up, Sir? This is all a fabrication? All this evidence is a fabrication?"

 

[ainsworth74]

Well it was nice knowing everyone:

Russia won't use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, says ambassador to UK

Andrei Kelin tells the BBC tactical nuclear weapons have "nothing to do" with operations in Ukraine.

www.bbc.co.uk

Let's hope this denial is as true as the one that they wouldn't declare war during the Victory Day parade because that was a pleasant surprise. This is rather more vital.

 

[brad465]

The Leopard 1s as I understand are still offered but not sent. The joke was they are ancient tanks and seemingly pointless but now Russia appears to be fielding even older vehicles.

Other than that they've been using their own inventory of T-72s, T-80s and a few captured T-90s.

Thank you for confirming.

My question is what on earth is happening with the Russian army that they're resorting to deploying such vehicles. Are they really so short on modern equipment, or is this some kind of situation where the Russian military leadership won't let them field anything new?

Despite what the news has been reporting, the ever-reliable Stefan Korshak suggests that the Russians may have decided to fight this war by focusing their artillery in overwhelming numbers in a small area, moving forward slowly, then repeating this step by step. They haven't really come any closer to capturing Severodonetsk, and Stefan suggests that the Russians really don't have that much capability. The Russians do seem to have the edge with artillery, but it's worth repeating: the Russian advances are coming at a tremendous cost to themselves. If the Ukrainian side can get weapons capable of neutralising the Russian artillery, then it's hard to see any advantage whatsoever for Russia.

It has to be said: if NATO had sent everything that they could, this war would be over by now. The MLRS systems are apparently going to be finally sent from the US, which will be a huge gamechanger.

NATO et al. are going to have to get a move on, we're already begging for grain, when the autumn comes round if Russia are not in a perilous state then it'll be gas too.

 

[daodao]

NATO et al. are going to have to get a move on,

NATO feeding the fire is likely to prolong the suffering in the Ukraine. In a few years, Orban and Erdogan (leaders of the 2 NATO countries taking a dissenting view) may retrospectively be proved to have been wise. The whole conflict is a tragedy, and Peter Hitchens's recent comment on who started it is of interest:

I suspect most reporters now writing about the Ukraine war do not even know that it began in 2014 with a violent US-backed putsch against the legitimate, elected president. Or perhaps they just don’t believe it. Well, this is what Jack Matlock, who was Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to Moscow, says. He states that the USA ‘supported an illegal coup d’etat that changed the Ukrainian government in 2014, a procedure not normally considered consistent with the rule of law or democratic governance’. He should know. This shocking fact is true and shameful. The first shots in this horrible, needless war were not fired by Russia.

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

 

[TheEdge]

NATO feeding the fire is likely to prolong the suffering in the Ukraine.

Could you just drop this horsesh*t? What's causing suffering in Ukraine is the Russian ground forces committing the greatest military cock up of recent history and resorting to Stalinist levels of Scorched Earth tactics. Not Ukraine, not NATO, not anyone else.

In a few years, Orban and Erdogan (leaders of the 2 NATO countries taking a dissenting view) may retrospectively be proved to have been wise.

Well, trying to hold Orban up as a good egg is a big stretch. And Erdogan is clearly just using this to forward his political position. Turkey are still quite happy to supply Bayraktar drones thought so they are not that descenting.

By "illegal coup d'etat" I presume you and ol' Pete are referring to the Revolution of Dignity (trigged in part by Vlad pressuring his puppet government to move away from the EU) and subsequent democratic election?

 

[takno]

NATO feeding the fire is likely to prolong the suffering in the Ukraine. In a few years, Orban and Erdogan (leaders of the 2 NATO countries taking a dissenting view) may retrospectively be proved to have been wise. The whole conflict is a tragedy, and Peter Hitchens's recent comment on who started it is of interest:

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

If anybody can be depended on to be consistently wrong on almost everything, then it's probably the idiot Hitchens.

He appears to be depending for his opinion on a source who had not been involved in politics for 20 years during the events he was talking about, and whose previous role likely indicates both a prejudice against the 2014 US government and a personal attachment to the continuation of the USSR via proxy states.

Quoting Kissinger would be a more respectable way of bringing the incorrect views of dreadfully disconnected ancient Americans to the table tbh.

 

[oldman]

So the US ambassador to the USSR at the time of Ronald Reagan (for younger readers President in the 1980s) agree with you. That settles it then - case closed.

Amusingly Matlock's blog says he believes that 'Russia desires a neutral, friendly, multilingual Ukraine'. That was in January.

 

[Falcon1200]

Orban and Erdogan (leaders of the 2 NATO countries taking a dissenting view) may retrospectively be proved to have been wise

Orban and Erdogan wise ? Flipping heck.......

 

[DustyBin]

NATO feeding the fire is likely to prolong the suffering in the Ukraine. In a few years, Orban and Erdogan (leaders of the 2 NATO countries taking a dissenting view) may retrospectively be proved to have been wise. The whole conflict is a tragedy, and Peter Hitchens's recent comment on who started it is of interest:

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

When you say “feeding the fire” I take it what you really mean is “enabling Ukraine to defend itself”? Are you suggesting that the best outcome would be for Ukraine to surrender, and allow Russia to take whatever territory it likes, or perhaps even the whole of Ukraine (which was clearly the initial objective)?

Orban can’t be trusted (in the slightest) and Erdogan isn’t taking a dissenting view in the way you’re trying to suggest. Turkey have supplied highly effective weapons and have closed the Bosphorus; they’re doing their bit. Erdogan is playing politics and trying to further his own cause, that is all.

As for Hitchens, on occasion he actually writes some interesting pieces IMO, but he is also a career contrarian. The quoted article is a perfect example of the latter.

 

[najaB]

NATO feeding the fire is likely to prolong the suffering in the Ukraine.

Remind me, did Ukraine invade Russia or was it the other way round?

 

[tommy2215]

NATO feeding the fire is likely to prolong the suffering in the Ukraine. In a few years, Orban and Erdogan (leaders of the 2 NATO countries taking a dissenting view) may retrospectively be proved to have been wise. The whole conflict is a tragedy, and Peter Hitchens's recent comment on who started it is of interest:

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

Still waiting for this "pre-emptive" Russian strike on Helsinki you said there was a major risk of.

If the Finns attempted to join NATO now, there is a major risk of a pre-emptive Russian strike which could lead to Helsinki resembling Mariupol today. That would be an avoidable tragedy. Finland has had a modus vivendi with the USSR/Russia since the end of WW2 and it would be foolish to destabilise this arrangement. Unlike Ukraine, Finland is essentially physically separated from the rest of Europe by the Gulf of Bothnia, but has a very long land border with Russia, so is vulnerable to a well-organised Russian attack, as in 1944; once the Finns' military supplies are exhausted, it would be difficult to replenish them from abroad.

 

[brad465]

Dr Mike Martin's latest update highlights how there's been some give and take on both sides recently, and while Russia are close to controlling all of Luhansk, they may not be able to advance much further overall, while Ukraine appear to be launching counterattacks on Kherson:

https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1530930446304935936

Time for a little round up of the Ukraine situation. A thread (with some poorly drawn maps)...

 

[coppercapped]

My question is what on earth is happening with the Russian army that they're resorting to deploying such vehicles. Are they really so short on modern equipment, or is this some kind of situation where the Russian military leadership won't let them field anything new?

Despite what the news has been reporting, the ever-reliable Stefan Korshak suggests that the Russians may have decided to fight this war by focusing their artillery in overwhelming numbers in a small area, moving forward slowly, then repeating this step by step. They haven't really come any closer to capturing Severodonetsk, and Stefan suggests that the Russians really don't have that much capability. The Russians do seem to have the edge with artillery, but it's worth repeating: the Russian advances are coming at a tremendous cost to themselves. If the Ukrainian side can get weapons capable of neutralising the Russian artillery, then it's hard to see any advantage whatsoever for Russia.

It has to be said: if NATO had sent everything that they could, this war would be over by now. The MLRS systems are apparently going to be finally sent from the US, which will be a huge gamechanger.

As an indicator to possible answers to the first part of your post, may I recommend a video by 'Perun'[1] an Australian analyst/observer of the military/industrial/financial complex? This is called How Corruption Destroys Armies - Theft, Graft, and Russian failure in Ukraine and can be found at

He has posted a series of videos on the situation in Ukraine, some of which explain why the Russians are progressing slowly. They are long - generally about an hour and based on PowerPoint presentations but to my mind they all are worth watching.

[1] An aptly chosen nom de plume! According to Wikipedia Perun was the Slavic god of sky, thunder, lightning, storms, rain, law, war, fertility and oak trees.

 

[Strathclyder]

Amusingly Matlock's blog says he believes that 'Russia desires a neutral, friendly, multilingual Ukraine'. That was in January.

Frankly, that belief was spectactularly off the mark in 2014, never mind now.

Russia feeding the fire is likely to prolong the suffering in Ukraine.

Fixed that for you, not that'll make a difference. Russia is the one causing the suffering in Ukraine by resorting to Scorched Earth tactics that Stalin would approve of. Not Ukraine, not NATO or anyone else. Period.

In a few years, Orban and Erdogan (leaders of the 2 NATO countries taking a dissenting view) may retrospectively be proved to have been wise.

Holding those two up as 'wise' is a bold stance to take.

Back in the real world, Orban is a thoroughly nasty piece of work who's not to be trusted and Erdogan is nothing but a polictial opportunist and not nearly as dissenting on this as you seem to think for that exact reason, as demonstrated by Turkey closing the Bosphorus and continuing to supply highly advanced weaponry, things he'll no doubt use as bargaining chips in the future.

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

I'd listen to many people on the Russo-Ukrainian War. Peter Hitchens is about the last of them. He has - to my unceasing bemusement - made a career out of contradicting himself, citing 'sources' like Jack Matlock and being spectactularly and consistently wrong about nearly everything.

 

[ainsworth74]

Erdogan is nothing but a polictial opportunist and not nearly as dissenting on this as you seem to think for that exact reason, as demonstrated by Turkey closing the Bosphorus and continuing to supply highly advanced weaponry, things he'll no doubt use as bargaining chips in the future.

Erdogan's price is clearly going to be walk back on kicking Turkey out of the F-35 programme which was imposed when he signed up to buy long range surface to air missile systems from Russia. If a deal can be done on that sort of thing then miraculously his objections to Sweden and Finland will fall away. He just sees an opportunity to apply a little leverage to get something he wants.

 

[najaB]

Erdogan's price is clearly going to be walk back on kicking Turkey out of the F-35 programme which was imposed when he signed up to buy long range surface to air missile systems from Russia.

If not complete industrial involvement (which might be difficult to arrange at this stage) certainly the ability to purchase aircraft at a favourable price, and/or involvement in a future project (e.g. the B-21 Raider).

 

[TheEdge]

Erdogan's price is clearly going to be walk back on kicking Turkey out of the F-35 programme which was imposed when he signed up to buy long range surface to air missile systems from Russia. If a deal can be done on that sort of thing then miraculously his objections to Sweden and Finland will fall away. He just sees an opportunity to apply a little leverage to get something he wants.

Absolutely this.

Everything he's doing at the moment is to get his F35s back, not out of any other reason.

 

[Strathclyder]

Erdogan's price is clearly going to be walk back on kicking Turkey out of the F-35 programme which was imposed when he signed up to buy long range surface to air missile systems from Russia. If a deal can be done on that sort of thing then miraculously his objections to Sweden and Finland will fall away. He just sees an opportunity to apply a little leverage to get something he wants.

Precisely what I had in mind when I said 'bargaining chips'.

It's the sole reason he's doing what he's been doing. Not out of any sense of moral duty or human decency.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Back in the real world, Orban is a thoroughly nasty piece of work who's not to be trusted and Erdogan is nothing but a polictial opportunist and not nearly as dissenting on this as you seem to think for that exact reason, as demonstrated by Turkey closing the Bosphorus and continuing to supply highly advanced weaponry, things he'll no doubt use as bargaining chips in the future.

It's also worth pointing out that Erdogan supplied the weaponry that tore the Armenian forces to shreds last year. He is many things, but it's very clear that Turkey wants to weaken Russian influence as a whole.

As for Orban, he's the last person I'd suggest to be 'wise'. He merely correctly understood that the Hungarian village cared more about financial handouts than anything else. Orban has put Hungary into the hands of Chinese and Russian interests, and some of the 'deals' that they agreed are beyond ridiculous. If you've visited Hungary, it's also quite painful to see just how poor the Hungarian countryside is compared to Slovakia and Poland.

 

[Mogster]

Now this has settled into a more conventional conflict the Russian forces seem much more organised and capable of making steady gains. Russia seem prepared to continue funneling in troops and materiel so realistically it’s difficult to see anything other than the Ukrainians being ground down eventually. Although they’ve received western training you wonder about the Ukrainian army’s ability to organise complex large scale counter attacks.

Very concerning also for Ukraine are the devisions in NATO that are becoming obvious. You have to wonder how long the very expensive support will continue at it’s current level.

 

[DustyBin]

Now this has settled into a more conventional conflict the Russian forces seem much more organised and capable of making steady gains. Russia seem prepared to continue funneling in troops and materiel so realistically it’s difficult to see anything other than the Ukrainians being ground down eventually. Although they’ve received western training you wonder about the Ukrainian army’s ability to organise complex large scale counter attacks.

Very concerning also for Ukraine are the devisions in NATO that are becoming obvious. You have to wonder how long the very expensive support will continue at it’s current level.

Whilst on the face of it Russian forces appear to be making steady progress, it’s worth noting the following.

1. The Ukrainian withdrawal from the Severodonetsk area has been orderly and is clearly tactical (accepting though that they’ve been under extreme pressure for the last couple of weeks).

2. Russia has thrown absolutely everything at the Donbas region in order to make relatively modest gains. This isn’t sustainable for them and I think they’re more in danger of being ground down than the Ukrainians.

3. The more advanced heavy weaponry supplied by the West doesn’t appear to have been deployed in any quantity yet.

4. My understanding is that there will be a large Ukrainian counteroffensive around Kherson which will cause the Russians a real problem.

5. NATO aren’t directly supporting Ukraine but several individual member states are. Those at the forefront will most likely continue their support for the foreseeable future, even if other countries lose interest (or act selfishly).

We’d all like to see the Ukrainians relentlessly pushing the Russians back (well most of us anyway…) but realistically that’s not going to happen. The war will most likely ebb and flow for some time until a complete stalemate is reached, at which point both sides will decide it’s not worth continuing to fight and real diplomacy will begin. The other possibility of course is that one side collapses militarily, and whilst I don’t see it happening imminently, I think the Russians are in more danger than the Ukrainians at this point.

 

[Strathclyder]

It's also worth pointing out that Erdogan supplied the weaponry that tore the Armenian forces to shreds last year. He is many things, but it's very clear that Turkey wants to weaken Russian influence as a whole.

Indeed on both counts. I still couldn't trust him as far as I could throw him though.

As for Orban, he's the last person I'd suggest to be 'wise'. He merely correctly understood that the Hungarian village cared more about financial handouts than anything else. Orban has put Hungary into the hands of Chinese and Russian interests, and some of the 'deals' that they agreed are beyond ridiculous. If you've visited Hungary, it's also quite painful to see just how poor the Hungarian countryside is compared to Slovakia and Poland.

Quite, 'wise' is the last word I'd use to describe him for the reasons you cite. Authoritarian Russian/Chinese toady would be far, far more accurate.

 

[daodao]

An interesting article by Larry Elliott in the Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin

Russia is winning the economic war - and Putin is no closer to withdrawing troops​

The perverse effects of sanctions means rising fuel and food costs for the rest of the world – and fears are growing of a humanitarian catastrophe. Sooner or later, a deal must be made

Sanctions rarely work, because they are slow to be effective and incentives to evade them are massive. The EU is cutting off its nose to spite its face, but post-Brexit, there is no legal reason for the UK to have to follow suit.

Russia is also winning militarily in the Donbass and much of Novorossiya.

 

[DustyBin]

An interesting article by Larry Elliott in the Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin

Sanctions rarely work, because they are slow to be effective and incentives to evade them are massive.

Russia is also winning the actual war in the Donbass and much of Novorossiya.

What’s your connection to Russia out of interest?