Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[Doggie2k]

Ah, very nice to see so many more in the Russian held areas...



Would like to see them try... all those artificial Islands they've been building and deploying troops to could be flattened rather quickly by the US and a bunch of their Airforce and Navy destroyed.

Not to mention all of those south east asian countries and Australia/NZ would be all over china in an instant

 

[bris]

Ah, very nice to see so many more in the Russian held areas...



Would like to see them try... all those artificial Islands they've been building and deploying troops to could be flattened rather quickly by the US and a bunch of their Airforce and Navy destroyed.

You cant possibly underestimate China.

They have huge numbers in everything and the conflict would be in their territory.

The mighty USA would have a very hard time fighting China, the losses on both sides would be massive as the USA would have to bring in a lot of men and equipment fast.

Nothing good can come from a USA, Taiwan, China conflict, it would be world war 3 and all bets would be off about Nukes as I fear they would start flyng.

 

[Amnesia]

I know this will not be popular amongst most here but I do think the reporter has a point.

Also this channels coverage does come across more fairer, it still does have bias towards Ukraine but at least they don't repeat every pathetic lie that gets told.

 

[StriderX]

It's almost as if the country he runs was invaded and his citizens are being pillaged and raped...

 

[Amnesia]

It's almost as if the country he runs was invaded and his citizens are being pillaged and raped...

and his wife doing staged photo shoots for vogue saves Ukrainian women from being raped?

 

[Rroff]

You cant possibly underestimate China.

They have huge numbers in everything and the conflict would be in their territory.

The mighty USA would have a very hard time fighting China, the losses on both sides would be massive as the USA would have to bring in a lot of men and equipment fast.

Nothing good can come from a USA, Taiwan, China conflict, it would be world war 3 and all bets would be off about Nukes as I fear they would start flyng.

China especially and Russia to a degree are somewhat hampered by their command structure, low levels of professional soldiers and lack of autonomy in the ranks - something they can't really fix while still having the same political regime.

China has numbers and that is a huge benefit in a surprise attack or other situation where the other side is disorganised but an organised fighting force able to manoeuvre with a high level of professional soldiers and a higher level of autonomy will always be a hugely costly fight for China requiring a massive numbers advantage and even that potentially isn't enough.

 

[Hotwired]

and his wife doing staged photo shoots for vogue saves Ukrainian women from being raped?

Pff, ukranian women have been getting raped by Russian soldiers for months now... the guy cutting off the balls of a tied up ukranian prisoner is the new headline atrocity.

Can't do anything about it. Can't attach those balls again either, if he's even still alive.

Ukraine is artificially propped up by foreign aid and foreign sanctions which damage the nations applying them.

How much whoring out to foreign publications and media to continue sympathy for Ukraine is too much for the leader of Ukraine (and wife) in such a situation.

 

[Amnesia]

Pff, ukranian women have been getting raped by Russian soldiers for months now... the guy cutting off the balls of a tied up ukranian prisoner is the new headline atrocity.

Can't do anything about it. Can't attach those balls again either, if he's even still alive.

Ukraine is artificially propped up by foreign aid and foreign sanctions which damage the nations applying them.

How much whoring out to foreign publications and media to continue sympathy for Ukraine is too much for the leader of Ukraine (and wife) in such a situation.

I could be wrong about this but at the start of the war were there not Russian soldiers captured by Ukrainians who had their balls cut off and some complained this was a war crime but others chimed in this isn't a war(as in its Putins special operartion) so they are fair game...or at least words to that extent?

*EDIT* Just to clarify in no way am I trying to justify any of that ^^, I hope all who are involved in these kinds of acts get punished accordingly, Russians and Ukrainians.

Also Zelenskys wife doing these photo shoots for vogue certainly doesn't make me feel sympathetic towards them(Zelenskys), I feel annoyed that at a time like this when so many of your people are suffering you are doing fashion shoots to build your own brand.

 

[Rroff]

I'm not sure it is well judged but end of the day it is about keeping the situation on the front page - the West has proved many times it has short attention span and limited bandwidth, the point about being pointless because the world already knows about the war is itself pointless, and very quickly the situation will be forgotten if it drops down the news with less public support putting pressure on governments to act and put their full weight behind it.

 

[Amnesia]

People here carry on celebrating the Russian losses but do they forget that there is probably the same amount of Ukrainian losses too, my guess is that there are more losses on the Ukrainian side.
Logic would ask why would Ukrainian troops keep giving up their land and pulling back if they are killing the Russians ? I'm not claiming that Ukraine doesn't also have it's victories but looking at territory lost and gained I would have to say the Russians are getting more victories.

Russian losses are likely higher as Ukraine is mostly fighting from defended positions vs assaulting.

Yup you're right, that slipped my mind when I wrote that.
You are correct the Russian losses are probably higher.

Originally you made a good point which I missed so I agreed with you but after reading this article it honestly looks like Ukraines losses are way way higher.
It is dated around the same time as our discussion at the time.

Ukraine’s army was 125,000 strong, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and there were 102,000 national and border guards in addition. Analysts’ crude estimates suggest that since the start of the war the total could have doubled to an impressive 500,000.

So half a million Ukrainians Vs 150k Russians and the Russians are taking territory, I do not believe the Russians are doing anywhere near as bad as the media plays out. I think the point I have been repeatedly making that if Ukraine were doing anywhere near as good as the Twitter reports then they would not be conceding ground like this is valid.

Western officials prefer not to discuss the impact of the war on the defenders, instead highlighting the problems for the Russians in their briefings. This week, one of those officials said their estimate was that the invaders had lost “15,000 to 20,000 dead”, out of an invasion force that was 150,000 or more. Yet despite this, Moscow’s army has still not lost its offensive capability.

But they chose not to provide similar estimates for Ukraine, which can create a lopsided impression that the Russians are faring worse. In fact, with an artillery overmatch of 10 or 15 to one, according to the Ukrainians, it may well be that the invaders’ casualty rate is far lower at the moment, because they are able to deal death from a greater distance to defenders who cannot see them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/10/ukraine-casualty-rate-russia-war-tipping-point

 

[Rroff]

So half a million Ukrainians Vs 150k Russians and the Russians are taking territory, I do not believe the Russians are doing anywhere near as bad as the media plays out. I think the point I have been repeatedly making that if Ukraine were doing anywhere near as good as the Twitter reports then they would not be conceding ground like this.

Ukraine has to defend well over 1000 miles of front line and border opposed with Russia and nearly 700 miles of border with Belarus they can't leave unguarded, while Russia can much more concentrate their forces for assaults.

There is going to be an ebb and flow to it as well - at times where it is artillery duels the rates of death on each side will likely be different to times when one side or the other is more on the offensive.

At the time I posted Ukraine had been mostly fighting from defended positions but more recently there have been pushes by Ukraine around Kharkiv, Izyum and Kherson, etc.

In terms of territory changes things have largely been stalled the last ~10 days or so - Russia has closed up some small pockets in the east but seems to have been pushed back a bit at Izyum while Kherson seems a bit of back and forth. (EDIT: As I posted recently Russia seems to have eased off the tempo the last few days to shore up their supply/logistic situation building temporary bridges and new roads, etc. to the front - possibly somewhat hampered by strikes on their ammo depots, etc.).

 

[Amnesia]

(EDIT: As I posted recently Russia seems to have eased off the tempo the last few days to shore up their supply/logistic situation building temporary bridges and new roads, etc. to the front - possibly somewhat hampered by strikes on their ammo depots, etc.).

I think it's unfortunate when searching our own news media you get "A counter-offensive by Ukrainian troops in the south of the country is gathering momentum"

When in reality it's this

Also that bridge you guys posted about a week or so ago is still in use, that ^^ video shows vehicles crossing it without any issue.

 

[Rroff]

Also that bridge you guys posted about a week or so ago is still in use, that ^^ video shows vehicles crossing it without any issue.

Not sure it would stand up so well to stuff like tanks weighing in at 40+ tons vs cars at 1-2 ton mind.

The goal with long range fire in that region currently though is to influence the situation strategically - Ukraine is currently engaged in pushing Russia's heavier forces deep with the threat from HIMARS, etc. while softening up the defences with shorter range artillery, damaging the bridge increases the pressure on Russian forces to pull back while they still can/hamper efforts to bring reinforcements forward. Russia is currently expending significant amounts of light forces in the Kherson region to maintain positions.

 

[Turn]

 

[Jester*]

Not sure it would stand up so well to stuff like tanks weighing in at 40+ tons vs cars at 1-2 ton mind.

The goal with long range fire in that region currently though is to influence the situation strategically - Ukraine is currently engaged in pushing Russia's heavier forces deep with the threat from HIMARS, etc. while softening up the defences with shorter range artillery, damaging the bridge increases the pressure on Russian forces to pull back while they still can/hamper efforts to bring reinforcements forward. Russia is currently expending significant amounts of light forces in the Kherson region to maintain positions.

What I find interesting is that HIMARS has been in theatre for nearly a month now, with the M270's starting to trickle in also, Russia don't seem to have an answer for them from what we can see.

Unless the drones from Iran can come up with spectacular success, Russia's inability to control the air over the battlespace is definitely showing when an enemy gains a relative parity in the artillery war. This moves the conflict more to a stalemate position as Ukraine also doesn't have air superiority, but it seems, greater accuracy with the weapons they do have.

 

[Rroff]

What I find interesting is that HIMARS has been in theatre for nearly a month now, with the M270's starting to trickle in also, Russia don't seem to have an answer for them from what we can see.

Unless the drones from Iran can come up with spectacular success, Russia's inability to control the air over the battlespace is definitely showing when an enemy gains a relative parity in the artillery war. This moves the conflict more to a stalemate position as Ukraine also doesn't have air superiority, but it seems, greater accuracy with the weapons they do have.

I find the almost non-existent presence of the Russian air-force, relative to its on paper capabilities, one of the more puzzling aspects of the war. Even taking into account the reality that many of their high end jets are only combat serviceable in tiny numbers.

It doesn't make much sense Russia would hold their air capabilities in reserve and the limited operational air-force and air defences that Ukraine has would only inflict minimal losses against a large scale Russian combat operation before being destroyed. The only thing which seems to make sense is that Russia's air-force lacks the capacity and experience to conduct large-scale complex combat operations - which makes a mockery of a certain poster's claims earlier in the thread :s

EDIT: Or they have a much more limited stockpile of precision air to ground missiles useable against air defence installations, etc. than assumed.

 

[Grim5]

So why is HIMARS so effective?

It's getting in range of Russian depots, command posts and other vital targets like anti air systems.

Why is Russia not answering back? It doesn't have the weapons and target acquisition intelligence for it. While Russia has a lot of artillery, they don't have a lot of very longe range artillery and while they do have some MLRS systems that could in theory hit a HIMARS launchers they are very inaccurate and HIMARS is continually moving.

it's hard to hit a target that's moving every 20 minutes 24/7 and has a 80kmph top speed. What Russia does have is lots of medium and long range ground to air cruise missiles. These are very expensive, every missile they have costs between $1million and $20million to produce and you need a target as a missile is not a loitering munition - without air superiority and without more long range drones and without something like the US's satellite networks its struggling to find mobile targets.

The Russians have been able to spot static Ukranian targets but there is plenty of evidence to show their data is old, very old as they often launch missiles at areas where the military target has left many hours earlier.


What Russia needs is something in the air providing real time intelligence of the battlefield, either by drones or planes and right now it has neither

 

[CaneyJ]

What Russia needs is something in the air providing real time intelligence of the battlefield, either by drones or planes and right now it has neither

Hence them going cap in hand to a lesser country Iran for offensive drones.

Maybe one day Russia will learn it's important to have a larger umbrella of reliable allies and not stab many in the back.

 

[Jester*]

The only thing which seems to make sense is that Russia's air-force lacks the capacity and experience to conduct large-scale complex combat operations - which makes a mockery of a certain poster's claims earlier in the thread :s

EDIT: Or they have a much more limited stockpile of precision air to ground missiles useable against air defence installations, etc. than assumed.

This is one of the key differences in doctrine between Russia and the US. The US puts so much emphasis on electronic warfare and anti radar aerial capabilities, anti radiation weapons etc. Full on suppression to allow them to carry out high amounts of air to ground, which is what they'd need to catch the MRLS systems.

I am just incredibly surprised as all the warfare since aviation became viable has led to whoever controls the skies wins. Russian doctrine seems stuck in early WW1, of dump a huge amount of ordinance in an area then crawl forward.

So why is HIMARS so effective?

It's getting in range of Russian depots, command posts and other vital targets like anti air systems.

Why is Russia not answering back? It doesn't have the weapons and target acquisition intelligence for it. While Russia has a lot of artillery, they don't have a lot of very longe range artillery and while they do have some MLRS systems that could in theory hit a HIMARS launchers they are very inaccurate and HIMARS is continually moving.

it's hard to hit a target that's moving every 20 minutes 24/7 and has a 80kmph top speed. What Russia does have is lots of medium and long range ground to air cruise missiles. These are very expensive, every missile they have costs between $1million and $20million to produce and you need a target as a missile is not a loitering munition - without air superiority and without more long range drones and without something like the US's satellite networks its struggling to find mobile targets.

The Russians have been able to spot static Ukranian targets but there is plenty of evidence to show their data is old, very old as they often launch missiles at areas where the military target has left many hours earlier.


What Russia needs is something in the air providing real time intelligence of the battlefield, either by drones or planes and right now it has neither

I think HIMARS is so effective because Russia seems to have poor counter battery ability, which probably isn't helped by the fact HIMARS are dropping the pain on their radars to further reduce capability. So they can easily shoot and scoot before they get targeted. Along with what I said above with no air superiority and intelligence gathering is probably way behind what Ukraine has access too, making the job even harder.

 

[Grim5]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1553304220937457664