Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Genie]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The retaking of the Kharkiv region and the liberation of Kherson / the right bank were more than marginal gains the Ukraine achieved after the first two weeks. The Kharkiv counter offensive occurred in September 22 and the liberation of Kherson was November 22.

Since the winter of 22/23 the front line has been heavily mined and is now largely fixed in place.  

 

The point I was making was that after the initial failed push on Kyiv Russia did not seek any more land. The threat of a Russian takeover of the whole country faded quite quickly.

Russia secured the East / South-East and Ukraine retook 5-10% of it in the latter part of 2022 but since then it’s been a stalemate for bordering on a year and a half.

[Panto_Villan]

Just now, Genie said:

The point I was making was that after the initial failed push on Kyiv Russia did not seek any more land. The threat of a Russian takeover of the whole country faded quite quickly.

Russia secured the East / South-East and Ukraine retook 5-10% of it in the latter part of 2022 but since then it’s been a stalemate for bordering on a year and a half.

Russia was absolutely seeking more land (and still are) - they were just incapable of taking it.

During 2022 the Ukrainians also reclaimed more like 25% of the occupied lands - look at how much the borders changed in Kharkiv and Kherson, as @LondonLax pointed out.

Yes, it was a stalemate in 2023 when both sides tried large attacks that captured very little ground.

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Russia was absolutely seeking more land (and still are) - they were just incapable of taking it.

I was not aware of this, where is it being reported?

[Panto_Villan]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

I was not aware of this, where is it being reported?

It’s actually quite hard to answer this unless I know why you think Russia has stopped seeking more territory. What’s your understanding of the situation?

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

It’s actually quite hard to answer this unless I know why you think Russia has stopped seeking more territory. What’s your understanding of the situation?

I was not aware Russia was making any meaningful efforts to take more of Ukraine than they already hold. 

[Panto_Villan]

17 minutes ago, Genie said:

I was not aware Russia was making any meaningful efforts to take more of Ukraine than they already hold. 

Sure, but when they stopped trying to take Ukrainian territory and why they did so would affect what article I would have chosen. Like, I don't know if you think both sides stopped attacking when the lines settled down in 2023 or whether you think that Russia was only interested in the Donbass and have entirely forgotten the initial stages of the war where various parts of Ukraine were attacked from multiple directions, or something else entirely.

In any case, the situation is the same - it's a war and both sides have continued to attack each other heavily throughout. The only difference in 2023 was that both sides had built more minefields and fortifications, so the attacks ended up capturing far less territory than they did previously and it became a war of attrition rather than a war of maneuver. But the fighting is still extremely fierce and costly for both sides.

There's like a million sources for that, but here's the first one I found on Google:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/12/ukraine-and-russia-say-they-want-peace-but-theyre-nowhere-near-talks.html

“It is true that the battlefield isn’t moving very far in one direction or the other but the reality is that there’s a lot going on on the battlefield that’s keeping it exactly where it is ... There’s a lot of fighting going on. That indicates that both sides feel there is more that they can achieve, and need to achieve, on the battlefield.”

[Genie]

13 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Sure, but when they stopped trying to take Ukrainian territory and why they did so would affect what article I would have chosen. Like, I don't know if you think both sides stopped attacking when the lines settled down in 2023 or whether you think that Russia was only interested in the Donbass and have entirely forgotten the initial stages of the war where various parts of Ukraine were attacked from multiple directions, or something else entirely.

In any case, the situation is the same - it's a war and both sides have continued to attack each other heavily throughout. The only difference in 2023 was that both sides had built more minefields and fortifications, so the attacks ended up capturing far less territory than they did previously and it became a war of attrition rather than a war of maneuver. But the fighting is still extremely fierce and costly for both sides.

There's like a million sources for that, but here's the first one I found on Google:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/12/ukraine-and-russia-say-they-want-peace-but-theyre-nowhere-near-talks.html

“It is true that the battlefield isn’t moving very far in one direction or the other but the reality is that there’s a lot going on on the battlefield that’s keeping it exactly where it is ... There’s a lot of fighting going on. That indicates that both sides feel there is more that they can achieve, and need to achieve, on the battlefield.”

I did not deny that the fighting continues, just the point that Russia is an actively looking to take more land. I wasn’t aware of that and you seem to confirmed it to be correct. 

[bickster]

Just now, Genie said:

I did not deny that the fighting continues, just the point that Russia is an actively looking to take more land. I wasn’t aware of that and you seem to confirmed it to be correct. 

Russia are still attacking Ukraine, they are even making small gains in some areas like Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhia. They aren't sitting back and defending

[stuart_75]

Does anyone know when the F-16's go online?? Are they a game changer?

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Russia are still attacking Ukraine, they are even making small gains in some areas like Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhia. They aren't sitting back and defending

I never said Russia had stopped fighting. 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

I never said Russia had stopped fighting. 

Making gains, not just fighting, making gains, moving forward, taking more territory

[Panto_Villan]

4 minutes ago, stuart_75 said:

Does anyone know when the F-16's go online?? Are they a game changer?

No, they're not. They can't really be used offensively because the Russian air defences are too strong - they're mostly just a somewhat more capable replacement for the old Soviet jets the Ukrainians are using defensively to shoot down cruise missiles and patrol their own territory, because it's hard to get replacement parts for the old MiGs. It's about maintaining the capacities Ukraine already has more than giving them new ones.

Basically you won't see them winning many dogfights with the Russians because air-to-air missiles only have good range if you fly high, and if you fly high in a contested area then you're vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles.

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Making gains, not just fighting, making gains, moving forward, taking more territory

That takes me back to my question, I wasn’t aware that Russia were making gains. Where is that being reported? 

[Panto_Villan]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

That takes me back to my question, I wasn’t aware that Russia were making gains. Where is that being reported? 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/10/europe/russian-forces-push-into-ukraine-avdiivka-intl-hnk/index.html

Avdiivka, to the northwest of Donetsk city, remains the scene of some of the heaviest fighting as Russian forces continue their push from the north into the center of town.

The DeepState mapping site has shown a series of Russian advances in recent days and now puts Moscow’s fighters in control of part of the railway line just north of the town’s station.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, Genie said:

That takes me back to my question, I wasn’t aware that Russia were making gains. Where is that being reported? 

All over the media if you look for it, even very pro-Ukrainian channels based in the country are reporting on the dire situation in Avdiivka in the last 24 hours

[Anthony]

3 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

No, they're not. They can't really be used offensively because the Russian air defences are too strong - they're mostly just a somewhat more capable replacement for the old Soviet jets the Ukrainians are using defensively to shoot down cruise missiles and patrol their own territory, because it's hard to get replacement parts for the old MiGs. It's about maintaining the capacities Ukraine already has more than giving them new ones.

Basically you won't see them winning many dogfights with the Russians because air-to-air missiles only have good range if you fly high, and if you fly high in a contested area then you're vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles.

F16s have better radars, amongst other things, so will be able to see further, which means the Russian air force will have to launch their weapons from further away. This means 1) more time for them to be intercepted and 2) what the Russians can hit is somewhat decreased. I'm sure our resident radar expert can correct/expand on this.

Additionally, for the past 12 months or so the Ukrainian forces have been concentrating on neutralising Russian air defences, my assumption is to increase the safety of the F16s when they arrive, thereby giving them more flexibility and give them a greater impact.

SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) is one of the most dangerous jobs for a pilot, but essential for air superiority. The fact that much of it has already been done by ground forces makes things much easier for any air operations.

What remains to be seen is how good Ukraine can be at combined arms fighting ( coordinating ground and air forces); this is something NATO spends a good chunk of its time practising as it is so difficult to do well. That said, Ukraine has been doing it for a while and one of their (IMO main) strengths thus far has been the ability to quickly learn from their experiences. Russia is also learning, but nowhere near as quickly as Ukraine.

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

No, they're not. They can't really be used offensively because the Russian air defences are too strong - they're mostly just a somewhat more capable replacement for the old Soviet jets the Ukrainians are using defensively to shoot down cruise missiles and patrol their own territory, because it's hard to get replacement parts for the old MiGs. It's about maintaining the capacities Ukraine already has more than giving them new ones.

Basically you won't see them winning many dogfights with the Russians because air-to-air missiles only have good range if you fly high, and if you fly high in a contested area then you're vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles.

That's not quite the full picture. 

Russia still has vast superiority in helicopters and attack helicopters.  These support ground troops very effectively.  The F16 will be deployed with air to air missiles that can take out these helicopters without venturing near Russian planes or air defences.  

This will force Russia to either withdraw their helicopters further back or move their air defences further forward. 

Things aren't going well for Ukraine at the moment.  Russia is moving slowly forward. Whenever this has happened on the last 2 years it has prompted NATO to hand over better weapons or remove restrictions on the use of donated weapons. 

The F16 will allow NATO to donate weapons that can be immediately deployed rather than retrofitting things to old MIG aircraft.  

Storm-shadow has been frighteningly effective.  My personal hope is that the US donate equivalent weapons and allow them to strike targets within Russia.  

[Panto_Villan]

39 minutes ago, Anthony said:

F16s have better radars, amongst other things, so will be able to see further, which means the Russian air force will have to launch their weapons from further away. This means 1) more time for them to be intercepted and 2) what the Russians can hit is somewhat decreased. I'm sure our resident radar expert can correct/expand on this.

Additionally, for the past 12 months or so the Ukrainian forces have been concentrating on neutralising Russian air defences, my assumption is to increase the safety of the F16s when they arrive, thereby giving them more flexibility and give them a greater impact.

SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) is one of the most dangerous jobs for a pilot, but essential for air superiority. The fact that much of it has already been done by ground forces makes things much easier for any air operations.

What remains to be seen is how good Ukraine can be at combined arms fighting ( coordinating ground and air forces); this is something NATO spends a good chunk of its time practising as it is so difficult to do well. That said, Ukraine has been doing it for a while and one of their (IMO main) strengths thus far has been the ability to quickly learn from their experiences. Russia is also learning, but nowhere near as quickly as Ukraine.

 

F16's do have better radars, yeah. But it's not like Ukraine doesn't have pretty powerful ground-based radars already.

The key difficulty is that the Russian air force primarily attacks Ukraine by firing long range missiles at it - so they take off over Russia, get a lot of altitude, and then head towards the front lines and release missiles while high up and still well behind the front lines. Obviously the range of these cruise missiles is a lot longer than an air-to-air missile, so to stop these attacks the Ukrainian aircraft would need to get close to the front lines. But they can't do that because air defence will shoot them down if they fly high, and if they fly low their missiles won't have the range. The situation is the same whether it's a MiG or an F16; the latter is more advanced but it'll still suffer the same fundamental problem (as would Russia if the situation were reversed).

Yes, there's been a lot of SEAD but it's mostly been taking place around Crimea and I believe that's mostly been done to pave the way for the missile attacks on the Russian fleet, and the attempted drone attacks on other parts of Crimea.

@Mandy Lifeboats yes, you may well be correct that the better radars and better missile integration means the F16's will be more effective against helicopters than the MiGs are. I don't think that's going to be a game changer though, even if it does happen. And yes, it does pave the way for use of more advanced munitions in future.... assuming the US actually continue sending Ukraine military aid.

Edited February 13 by Panto_Villan

[Panto_Villan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68284380

The US Senate has approved a long-awaited $95bn (£75.2bn) aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan after months of political wrangling.

Passed 70-29, which is pretty overwhelming bipartisan support. I just hope the Republicans in Congress do the right thing now.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

I have written about this before. NATO has a long-standing and well developed plan to beat a Russian invasion. 

1. Let them come forward

2. Only defend areas with massive defensive advantages 

3. Use special forces, helicopters and attack aircraft to destroy the Russian supply lines

4. Wait for the forward momentum to cease due to lack of supplies

Ukraine had some success doing this. But they seem to have failed in a few key areas.  They don't have the air power to shred the Russian supply lines.  But the biggest failing is that they try to defend towns which are of little value and lose thousands of troops in a futile defense.  This plays into Russia's hands by making it a war of attrition.  Russia likes wars of attrition.  Its easy to say "give up land" when it's not your land.  But Ukraine should have given up more land in order to retain more troops. 

Ukraine needs to drop the Crimea bridge in 3 or 4 places.  This requires a mass cruise missile attack.  I believe that the US would provide the missiles to do it.  But without the ability to safely launch those missiles in a large salvo, Russia can (more or less) keep the bridge safe.

It's now a war of attrition and something major needs to happen to prevent Russia inevitably gaining 20% of Ukraine in return for peace.