Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[magnkarl]

9 minutes ago, Awol said:

I was told Poland was keen to go ahead but the US blocked it. As Stefan said the provision of replacement F16 would have to have been part of it, but that is supposedly an alliance goal anyway - replacing legacy Soviet systems with NATO standard equipment. Same goes for Slovakian S-300 SAMs being donated to Kyiv and replaced with Patriots. 

Bottom line, I don’t think the US is all in on a strategy of helping Ukraine achieve victory in a conventional war with Russia. The approach was always to bleed Moscow through an insurgency once Ukraine had folded, but Ukraine is doing well, the west (Washington) doesn’t have a plan for this scenario, and Biden can’t adapt fast enough to realities on the ground.

Talk of Polish ‘peacekeepers’ is a reflection of eastern allies getting sick of waiting for the US to wake up, imho. Now it looks to be a conventional fight for every inch of Ukraine, simply hoping that Russian armour halts at your border is a high risk  strategy from Warsaw’s perspective. 

It's ironic that a country which couldn't defeat a country that is much less developed with around the same population in Afghanistan (38 million), thought a country with much less resource, manpower and more corruption (Russia), would steamroll Ukraine. 

The US, although powerful, is extremely arrogant about other people's military power and morale. Except maybe Russia which they've been severely overestimating since the cold war.

If it's up to the European NATO-nations to start pushing NATO into a more plural stance on security that is a good thing. The alliance has been very focused on what the US wants for too long.

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

If it's up to the European NATO-nations to start pushing NATO into a more plural stance on security that is a good thing. The alliance has been very focused on what the US wants for too long.

Good luck convincing European public opinion that defence spending isn’t either: 

1) Warmongering

2) Money laundering for shareholders in the defence-industrial complex 

3) Something America pays for so we don’t have to

Even if Germany’s Damascene epiphany is for real and they rebuild their armed forces, Europe is at least a decade away from military self-sufficiency - and that’s with the total agreement and commitment of Euro-NATO to achieving it. Effective armed forces are about far more than the numbers of people on a spreadsheet - as you know. 

[desensitized43]

23 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

There's a uneasy truce of anti-Russian sentiment and NATO confidence over here.

Some would say we can't rely on allies, historically that hasn't been very good for Poland, but others are confident that a combination of Poland's place in NATO and the sheer size of the countries means Russia wouldn't try anything here.

Most Poles sit somewhere in the middle (my wife is more towards the former opinion) but I'm very much a believer in the latter.

Remember in the days and weeks before the Russians went into Ukraine and the majority of the people said that "they'd seen it all before" and "it wouldn't actually happen".

It's foolish to believe it couldn't happen. We need to be prepared for the possibility that Putin isn't thinking rationally like you and me.

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Remember in the days and weeks before the Russians went into Ukraine and the majority of the people said that "they'd seen it all before" and "it wouldn't actually happen".

It's foolish to believe it couldn't happen. We need to be prepared for the possibility that Putin isn't thinking rationally like you and me.

It's a little bit different though isn't it?

Putin has done this before, not only in Ukraine but in Georgia.

He's never done it in a NATO or EU country.

[magnkarl]

18 minutes ago, Awol said:

Good luck convincing European public opinion that defence spending isn’t either: 

1) Warmongering

2) Money laundering for shareholders in the defence-industrial complex 

3) Something America pays for so we don’t have to

Even if Germany’s Damascene epiphany is for real and they rebuild their armed forces, Europe is at least a decade away from military self-sufficiency - and that’s with the total agreement and commitment of Euro-NATO to achieving it. Effective armed forces are about far more than the numbers of people on a spreadsheet - as you know. 

I think it's starting to dawn on us tbh.

The Baltic states, Norway, Romania, Poland, Slovakia and the other states closest to Russia are reacting. I understand why i.e Poland are pushing for intervening to create a safe zone when you see what USSR and Russia has done to their country over the last 100 years. No one lost a bigger part of their population in WW2 than Poland, and much of that was losses to USSR. Stalin butchered Poland's armed forces in Katyn. Poland "lost" a plane full of politicians over Smolensk recently, which they still aren't sure how happened. 

At it's current state the European NATO states alone could probably defeat Russia in a conventional war, simply due to their airforce, UAV's and tech. They've also seen what anti-tank systems do to Russia's army.

Edited March 22, 2022 by magnkarl

[Davkaus]

32 minutes ago, Awol said:

 

Even if Germany’s Damascene epiphany is for real and they rebuild their armed forces, Europe is at least a decade away from military self-sufficiency 

What do you mean by self-sufficiency? It seems to me if Russia is getting held back and taking significant losses in Ukraine, the combined might of Europe would have no trouble, or are you thinking being able to stand up against China, for example?

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

What do you mean by self-sufficiency? It seems to me if Russia is getting held back and taking significant losses in Ukraine, the combined might of Europe would have no trouble, or are you thinking being able to stand up against China, for example?

By self-sufficiency I mean having sufficient  military assets, at sufficient readiness, with sufficient logistical support, training, reserves of manpower, equipment, and munitions, to prevent Russia overrunning a frontier state in Eastern Europe.

You’re falling into the numbers on a balance-sheet trap. Penny-packet garrison-worthy forces with little equipment, mobility, and combined-arms  training, spread out across Europe, are as useful as tits on fish for defending the eastern flank.

[magnkarl]

13 minutes ago, Awol said:

You’re falling into the numbers on a balance-sheet trap. Penny-packet garrison-worthy forces with little equipment, mobility, and combined-arms  training, spread out across Europe, are as useful as a Russian armoured column for defending the eastern flank.

FTFY

[sidcow]

19 minutes ago, Awol said:

You’re falling into the numbers on a balance-sheet trap. Penny-packet garrison-worthy forces with little equipment, mobility, and combined-arms  training, spread out across Europe, are as useful as tits on fish for defending the eastern flank.

Ermm. This sounds like you're describing Russia? 

The combined numbers of all of Europe's armies are as big as Russia and significantly better armed and by the looks of it better organised. 

I don't think the thinly spread, badly equipped, I'll fed, lacking fuel and ammo, already exhausted Russian army would get even half way across a NATO state. 

And that's before they've even encountered the real state of the art anti missile and anti aircraft systems. 

They can't even control Ukrainian airspace. 

They'd be like sitting ducks. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by sidcow

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, sidcow said:

that's before they've even encountered the real state of the art anti missile and anti aircraft systems. 

They can't even control Ukrainian airspace. 

A couple of weeks ago a Russian UAV crashed in Croatia, having finally run out of fuel after going astray over Ukraine. It was undetected by Croatian, Hungarian or (briefly) Romanian air defences over which it passed. Only after the crash, and in response to questions, did NATO say "yeah, yeah, we spotted it, honest".

[sidcow]

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

A couple of weeks ago a Russian UAV crashed in Croatia, having finally run out of fuel after going astray over Ukraine. It was undetected by Croatian, Hungarian or (briefly) Romanian air defences over which it passed. Only after the crash, and in response to questions, did NATO say "yeah, yeah, we spotted it, honest".

UAVs don't control the airspace though. 

Not saying they couldn't cause some damage but dominating airspace is a crucial. 

Plus the combined armies of Europe would bring in so many more drones of our own against all those exposed Russian forces spread out over enormous distances. 

[tonyh29]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

A couple of weeks ago a Russian UAV crashed in Croatia, having finally run out of fuel after going astray over Ukraine. It was undetected by Croatian, Hungarian or (briefly) Romanian air defences over which it passed. Only after the crash, and in response to questions, did NATO say "yeah, yeah, we spotted it, honest".

Russia retired all their Tu-141 in the late 80's  .. so I was under the impression it belonged to Ukraine ?

That said it appears to have originated from Russian held part of Ukraine so maybe it was part of something sinister  , i.e its billed as an unarmed drone , but reports I read said the Croatian ministry said it was armed   

 

not something i know a lot about but would its radar signature  be different if it was a drone rather than a missile or rocket ? 

 

[Awol]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

Ermm. This sounds like you're describing Russia? 

The combined numbers of all of Europe's armies are as big as Russia and significantly better armed and by the looks of it better organised. 

I don't think the thinly spread, badly equipped, I'll fed, lacking fuel and ammo, already exhausted Russian army would get even half way across a NATO state. 

And that's before they've even encountered the real state of the art anti missile and anti aircraft systems. 

They can't even control Ukrainian airspace. 

They'd be like sitting ducks. 

Russia’s primary problem in Ukraine is its concept of operations, attacking with insufficient forces on too many axis of advance and without following their own military doctrine. That was to try and mould a military campaign to fit unrealistic political objectives, and very different from how Russia would approach overrunning the Baltics, for example. 

Russia isn’t as good as many thought before the war, it’s not as bad as many are claiming now, and European militaries are in a much worse state than almost anyone here realises. 
 

Edit: link to a good podcast on the subject from Oxford Uni’s Changing Character of War Programme:

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/changing-character-of-war/id657391499?i=1000551337005
 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Awol

[sidcow]

11 minutes ago, Awol said:

 and European militaries are in a much worse state than almost anyone here realises. 

I really think you've got this wrong. 

Individually small but strong combined. 

And far better equipped and trained. 

Would be interesting to see Typhoons and the new US lightnings, French Mirage and Saab Gripen go up against the Russian Jets compared to their own 70s cast offs. 

The combined air forces of Europe have more fighters between them than Russia did before the Ukraine invasion and Russia have lost a fair few in the last few weeks, they're mainly all far newer modern technology compared to Russia. 

[Awol]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

I really think you've got this wrong. 

Individually small but strong combined. 

And far better equipped and trained. 

Would be interesting to see Typhoons and the new US lightnings, French Mirage and Saab Gripen go up against the Russian Jets compared to their own 70s cast offs. 

The combined air forces of Europe have more fighters between them than Russia did before the Ukraine invasion and Russia have lost a fair few in the last few weeks, they're mainly all far newer modern technology compared to Russia. 

Just edited my last post to add a link as you replied.  Worth a listen if you’re interested. 

[blandy]

51 minutes ago, sidcow said:

UAVs don't control the airspace though. 

Not saying they couldn't cause some damage but dominating airspace is a crucial. 

The point of my post was to illustrate that "our" air defences seemingly are not quite as impervious as was maybe being implied, a bit. If a UAV of unknown origin can fly over Eastern European NATO airspace without the appropriate warnings and tracking etc. taking place, then that's not optimal. 

[blandy]

52 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Russia retired all their Tu-141 in the late 80's  .. so I was under the impression it belonged to Ukraine ?

That said it appears to have originated from Russian held part of Ukraine so maybe it was part of something sinister  , i.e its billed as an unarmed drone , but reports I read said the Croatian ministry said it was armed 

not something i know a lot about but would its radar signature  be different if it was a drone rather than a missile or rocket ? 

On the radar signature, it depends on the Radar - the signature of each (type of) platform is different, because they are different shapes and sizes. However the kind of resolution or discrimination of the Radar pinging it will determine whether it can discern between different shapes and sizes and so on.  Basic ATC type primary radar just gets a return and that is (in normal life) tallied with the civil transponder mode S code and mode 3/A code and that allows individual aircraft and their characteristics, flight number and all the rest to be identified.

Once you get into military aviation, a UAV (or manned aircraft) which wishes not to be tracked/identified can obviously turn off mode S (and mode 3/A) is it wishes (or it may not even be fitted with a transponder. NATO uses various military only transponder modes to do the IFF part of IFF/SSR and for example mode 5 (which is like an encrypted version + of civil mode S) allows NATO forces to get on with their thing, while not telling enemies or Flight Radar websites etc. who they are or what they are up to.

A Russian or Ukrainian, non NATO UAV will not have a mk XII or SIFF transponder and so at most would only transpond a mode 3/A code with maybe mode S if it's operating benignly. If it's operating a recce or attack role, then it'll be dark, I'd imagine.

[PussEKatt]

What I dont understand is this.

How is it that if NATO declair a "No fly zone" Russia will look on it as an act of war,but NATO cant/wont declair a state of war if Russia dont stop attacking  "non military" targets ?! IMHO if NATO is showing that they are that scared of Russia then we might as well give Putin whatever he wants now and crawl back under the bed.I realise that what I have said could lead to a nuclear war....BUT what choice is Putin giving us ?

[blandy]

5 hours ago, sidcow said:

Interestingly to answer the original question it seems Germany does have aircraft delivered nuclear weapons and uses the old Tornado jet to launch them. 

I asked a colleague, who knows. UK Tonkers (now out of service) had a role fit Special Weapons control panel, which if the role fit was fitted allowed carriage and release of nukes. Typhoon does not and can't. German Tonkers have their own role fit SWCP and some are permanently modified into that configuration.

[Mic09]

32 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I really think you've got this wrong. 

Individually small but strong combined. 

And far better equipped and trained. 

Would be interesting to see Typhoons and the new US lightnings, French Mirage and Saab Gripen go up against the Russian Jets compared to their own 70s cast offs. 

The combined air forces of Europe have more fighters between them than Russia did before the Ukraine invasion and Russia have lost a fair few in the last few weeks, they're mainly all far newer modern technology compared to Russia. 

I guess countries like Estonia or Romania can question if when push comes to shove and Russia does get an appetite for Tallinn or Bucharest, how likely is it that Macron or Sholz will commit full military power to defend them.