Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

Pound for pound, sure. Technology-wise, not yet. The experience they’re getting from this far outweighs anything NATO have had for decades.

Ukraine’s army in NATO would add actual combat experience and ingenuity to a largely untested army. NATO never faced Russia, Ukraine has and is coming out of it a very effective army.

[Genie]

54 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Pound for pound, sure. Technology-wise, not yet. The experience they’re getting from this far outweighs anything NATO have had for decades.

Ukraine’s army in NATO would add actual combat experience and ingenuity to a largely untested army. NATO never faced Russia, Ukraine has and is coming out of it a very effective army.

They’re pretty much staring at a huge swathe of land that used to theirs and Russia are holding. I’m not sure how Ukraine (backed by Western weapons, and Nato intelligence) failing to make much of a dent in Russia’s defensive lines is them being the best in the world.

Nato are gaining the same combat experience here without having to put troops on the ground.

I know it goes against what we’re fed by the media but Ukraine’s army aren’t particularly impressing me tbh. 

[foreveryoung]

19 minutes ago, Genie said:

They’re pretty much staring at a huge swathe of land that used to theirs and Russia are holding. I’m not sure how Ukraine (backed by Western weapons, and Nato intelligence) failing to make much of a dent in Russia’s defensive lines is them being the best in the world.

Nato are gaining the same combat experience here without having to put troops on the ground.

I know it goes against what we’re fed by the media but Ukraine’s army aren’t particularly impressing me tbh. 

Whatever bullshit the media report, Ukraine aren't winning.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

16 minutes ago, Genie said:

 

I know it goes against what we’re fed by the media but Ukraine’s army aren’t particularly impressing me tbh. 

When the war started they were surrounded on 3 sides. They had the smaller army equipped with older weapons. 

They are now attacking Moscow, have sunk the Russian flagshi,  forced the Russians to retreat across all areas of the front and stopped the Russian airforce.

 

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

When the war started they were surrounded on 3 sides. They had the smaller army equipped with older weapons. 

They are now attacking Moscow, have sunk the Russian flagshi,  forced the Russians to retreat across all areas of the front and stopped the Russian airforce.

 

They are hitting Russia with drones, fine, not really the sign of a great army though. 

Russia took the land they wanted and then made defensive positions. That’s been the status quo for many months.

I think there’s many armies that could be dropped in there and make much more progress than we’ve seen from Ukraine. I understand they are building slowly and they didn’t have much of an army to start with etc, but the suggestion they are best in the world is pretty mental tbh.

[Enda]

To be fair Genie, Russia wanted to take Kyiv. They could not. Russia has been building defences in the land they settled for.

[magnkarl]

7 hours ago, Genie said:

They are hitting Russia with drones, fine, not really the sign of a great army though. 

Russia took the land they wanted and then made defensive positions. That’s been the status quo for many months.

I think there’s many armies that could be dropped in there and make much more progress than we’ve seen from Ukraine. I understand they are building slowly and they didn’t have much of an army to start with etc, but the suggestion they are best in the world is pretty mental tbh.

Russias goals were to annihilate the whole Ukrainian army. Russia didn’t really meet any of their objectives, they haven’t got either Luhansk or Donetsk oblast, haven’t removed Zelensky and didn’t take Kyiv.

Now imagine doing that with Soviet equipment, some ATGMs and largely relying on an army the size of a medium NATO country. It’s a massive feat.

Add to that the fact that Ukraine already liberated Kharkiv and Kherson and you’ve got something like the 26th army in the world beating the supposed 2nd at pretty much everything except for the few first weeks.

Edited September 4, 2023 by magnkarl

[sidcow]

Nothing. NOTHING is a replacement for real battle experience. Ukraine are the only nation to have fought a modern war against a superior opposition that can't be just be just rolled over and offer little more than guerrilla warfare in opposition. 

Yes, western armies will be "better" with devastating firepower and masses of the very latest technology,  but you're not comparing apples with apples there. 

I expect there are now hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers who could sit in on a lecture at Westpoint and Sandhurst and chuckle to themselves in the corner before speaking up and telling the lecturer how such and such manoeuvre would pan out in real life and advise them what they haven't considered and how the advent of eg suicide drones would need to change their planning. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by sidcow

[Mandy Lifeboats]

There are rumours that a Russian drone attacking Ukraine landed in Romania.  No casualties reported.  

I am sure NATO will react in a calm way and rightly consider it an isolated and unintentional incident.  

I am also sure that Russia won't get away with this twice and will now have to think very carefully when attacking anywhere near the NATO border. 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

Nothing. NOTHING is a replacement for real battle experience. Ukraine are the only nation to have fought a modern war against a superior opposition that can't be just be just rolled over and offer probably offering little more than guerrilla warfare in opposition. 

Yes, western armies will be "better" with devastating firepower and masses of the very latest technology,  but you're not comparing apples with apples there. 

I expect there are now hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers who could sit in on a lecture at Westpoint and Sandhurst and chuckle to themselves in the corner before speaking up and telling the lecturer how such and such manoeuvre would pan out in real life and advise them what they haven't considered and how the advent of eg suicide drones would need to change their planning. 

Exactly. Bar maybe Turkey no one's operated the Leo2 against an army with credible ATGMs, and by far no one has operated the Challenger2 against such opposition as Russia. We have theories, they have practice and experience. Systems such as Patriot, NASAMs, Iris-T, SAMP +++ are steadily collecting data and making strides that we should count ourselves lucky that Ukraine is collecting for us. Our modern SPGs such as Archer, Caesar, Krab, Suzana and Paladin are doing the same. Essentially we're getting our systems tested for us against the enemy they were created to face. 

Put the two things together with NATO's technology and surveillance and you've got yourself an army that would bulldoze any opposition, and thankfully it's in the hands of mostly democratic liberal nations and not China\Russia\Iran.

[sne]

The only ones winning are the companies that sells weapons 

[Xann]

7 minutes ago, sne said:

The only ones winning are the companies that sells weapons 

Fossil fuels are rinsing it.

Planet Of The Mugs.

[bobzy]

15 hours ago, Genie said:

They are hitting Russia with drones, fine, not really the sign of a great army though. 

Russia took the land they wanted and then made defensive positions. That’s been the status quo for many months.

I think there’s many armies that could be dropped in there and make much more progress than we’ve seen from Ukraine. I understand they are building slowly and they didn’t have much of an army to start with etc, but the suggestion they are best in the world is pretty mental tbh.

Not sure this is entirely true; they've absolutely retreated from positions over the course of the war and have been nowhere near taking "the land they wanted" (which was all of Ukraine, to be honest ).

[Xann]

20 hours ago, Mr_Dogg said:

Lots of articles on mainstream sources of Ukraine breakthrough of Russian first defences. Is this different from what has been reported on here a few days ago?

The Ukrainian big drive was necessary to seize a space where they could access the end of floating trenches, whilst suppressing local Russian supporting fire.

The Ukrainians succeeded, so if they hang on? They'd be able to advance inside the Russian trenches, which is much cooler than attacking through a kill zone, and the Ukrainians will be protected somewhat from Russian artillery.

It could be that it's more accurate to say the Ukrainians have broken into the Russian defenses, rather than through, but we'll have to wait and see?

It's likely to be intense there as the Russians will want to counter the incursion, if they can?

[magnkarl]

First Challenger 2 lost outside Robotyne when they took the village apparently. It helped Ukraine capture strategic hills around the city and took a reported 22 ATGM and mortar hits before finally stopping, with the crew surviving.

Imagine what Ukraine could do if they had more of these. 

[Genie]

Alexa, what does the bottom of the barrel look like?

Quote

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un plans to travel to Russia this month to meet President Vladimir Putin, a US official has told the BBC's US partner CBS.

The two leaders will discuss the possibility of North Korea providing Moscow with weapons to support its war in Ukraine, the official said.

link

[Mandy Lifeboats]

26 minutes ago, Genie said:

Alexa, what does the bottom of the barrel look like?

link

Possibly.  

But I suspect that it's a way for China to supply ammunition to Russia.  

North Korea will sell their ammunition to Russia at a vastly inflated price and be paid in (x) amount of oil.  

China will sell their ammunition to North Korea for (x - 10%) of oil. 

We (NATO) have done the same thing.  Israel wanted to test a weapon system against Iranian drone attacks.   Israel asked Poland to complete the evaluation and delivered the kit to Poland.  Poland sub-contracted the evaluation to Ukraine.   

 

 

[Genie]

26 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Possibly.  

But I suspect that it's a way for China to supply ammunition to Russia.  

North Korea will sell their ammunition to Russia at a vastly inflated price and be paid in (x) amount of oil.  

China will sell their ammunition to North Korea for (x - 10%) of oil. 

We (NATO) have done the same thing.  Israel wanted to test a weapon system against Iranian drone attacks.   Israel asked Poland to complete the evaluation and delivered the kit to Poland.  Poland sub-contracted the evaluation to Ukraine.   

 

 

Good point. I assume the Americans are watching closely and will notice very quickly if Chinese made weapons start appearing on the battlefield.

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

First Challenger 2 lost outside Robotyne when they took the village apparently. It helped Ukraine capture strategic hills around the city and took a reported 22 ATGM and mortar hits before finally stopping, with the crew surviving.

Imagine what Ukraine could do if they had more of these. 

Be interesting to see if it can be recovered and repaired. 

[magnkarl]

50 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Possibly.  

But I suspect that it's a way for China to supply ammunition to Russia.  

North Korea will sell their ammunition to Russia at a vastly inflated price and be paid in (x) amount of oil.  

China will sell their ammunition to North Korea for (x - 10%) of oil. 

We (NATO) have done the same thing.  Israel wanted to test a weapon system against Iranian drone attacks.   Israel asked Poland to complete the evaluation and delivered the kit to Poland.  Poland sub-contracted the evaluation to Ukraine.   

 

 

Frankly I don't see how China will allow their kit to go to Russia, but North Korea probably won't care.

China has too much to lose. Their economy is pretty much on the brink, sanctions would mean economic collapse. They don't have the resilience in their economy like Russia had\has, and the net export to Western NATO countries is enormous.