Naval History Forums

José M. Rico wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 2:15 am In the following twitter account you can find lots of photos of destroyed/damaged/captured vehicles planes and helicopters.
The Russians are having heavy casualties, there is no doubt about that.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons

Many also wonder why the Russian Air Force has not appeared over the battlefield en masse.

I do find some parallels here with the Winter War of 1939-40, Stalin's incursion into Finland, which ultimately pushed Finland into allying with Nazi Germany.
However at that time Ukraine was part of ''mother Russia'' - now the rump of Russia does not have the level of superiority in population, industry or resources, so I can't see the Russians winning.

With respect to a no-fly zone, most observers seem to be ignoring the one problem that makes it logistically very difficult to try to enforce. Ukraine is surrounded on three sides by Russia - unless the no-fly forces are based in Ukraine itself (where it can be attacked on the ground) it can only be enforced from Romania, as the other NATO countries are too far away. So how do you enforce no-fly over Kharkov with planes based in Romania? Yes, you can have ground batteries etc but then it would be much easier to give such weapons to Ukraine.

It is unfortunate that Ukraine doesn't have special forces that can go into Russia and attack their supply logistics....

I would think that Russian airpower is not attacking en masse because they don't have the logistical capability to do it. The only trump card Putin has to play are the threat of nuclear weapons as I would suggest that if conventional warfare goes into Poland or Romania the Russian ground forces stand to be slaughtered - if they can't roll over the Ukranians how can they stand up to Poland, Romania and Turkey backed by US airpower as well? What if Norway then comes in?

Hi RF,
I fear that if Putin does put his troops into Poland then there is a very good chance of WW3 as it would (hopefully) mean that the US would then be involved and with it all NATO forces against which in a conventional war he would have no chance and (if he is deranged enough) he may use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons-unless his generals and senior ministers step in to stop him. While they may not admit it, I'm sure that besides nukes, some western countries (US ,GB and possibly France) also have biological and chemical weapons as well. Surely even Putin could see that in this scenario there will be no winners.
As regards the Russian air force, I think they are not using them to their full potential because of the effectiveness of the anti aircraft missiles that are being shipped into Ukraine. MIG jets are rather expensive items!

Hello All.

Recent weeks have seen many terrible developments. The failure of the "Coup de Main" approach where the Russians just expected to drive almost unhindered into Kyiv and replace the democratic government has clearly failed. It seems obvious motivation and morale of the Russian ground troops is at a very low ebb. Hence the switch to using "remote killing" methods like artillery, cruise missiles and even the hyperbaric weapons. In a war as opposed to a "special military operation" this brutal softening up might have happened before, not after a ground assault.

It is unfortunate that Ukraine doesn't have special forces that can go into Russia and attack their supply logistics.

IMHO it would be a disastrous development if Ukraine put even one boot on Russian soil. Despite the conflict in the Donbass and unproven allegations of genocide Ukraine is clearly the victim of an unproved assault. International outrage is based on that. The whole tenet of Putin's justification for this unjust attack is that Ukraine allied with evil aggressive NATO represents an existential threat to Mother Russia. Putin will have gone "full Goebbels" when he resorts to putting some dead prisoners in Ukrainian uniforms in some sensitive Russian location in a false flag operation. Russian logistics are quite exposed enough on the road to Kyiv, to cut off the head of the column, creating a major disaster for Putin. 300,000 Russian soldiers were captured near Kyiv in 1941, having tried to defend the city, and most died in German POW camps. Now their grandsons are attacking and destroying the place. Lunacy.

BTW terrifying revisionist N**-N*** claptrap is available on the wonderful internet, I tripped over a certain woman writer''s attempt to disprove the Glewitz incident ever happened, along with the Holocaust, Kristallnacht and a few other well-known features of WWII. Her website looks so plausible. Apparently, her pieces are also transmitted by as podcasts by a radio and internet station in Texas USA. Free speech without any constraints has a terrible price. Conspiracy theory twaddle conjured up to fool the credulous who are so keen to find out the "Real Deal" they will believe any baloney.
Lies about the past, but Putin's machine is telling lies about the present.

All the vest


wadinga

RF wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:49 am

Byron Angel wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:23 pm
Not to mention that, IIUC, official UK data has now reported that vaccinated individuals presently account for 9 of 10 UK Covid cases. If accurate, how curious ..........

B

98% of the UK population is vaccinated, so the one in ten of unvaccinated Covid cases comes from a miniscule residual population.

Perhaps the data from the UK Health Security Agency for 14 Feb - 13 Mar 2022 is mistaken then.

B

Gentlemen,
To reopen our debate that finished around the end of March.
It would appear that the recent situation has changed quite dramatically with Ukraine retaking a lot of ground, so I was wondering what your opinions are on Putin's next move? As we already know he has made vailed threats about his nuclear weapons, but I wonder what the reaction would be from the rest of the world would be if he did so -especially China. I have always thought (rightly or wrongly!) that the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons - even 'tactical' would be a bit pointless as the fallout is apt to be double edged if the user wanted to retake the ground. I also wonder if Putin's senior army/air force generals would actually obey an order to deploy them. I do take some of the pronunciations from the press and television media with a very large 'pinch of salt' as they can be very 'gung ho' and predict the total defeat of the Russian army and the fall of Putin - although it could happen if he goes too far, I suppose!

There is a lot of talk about regaining territory, we don't know if there will be a Russian counter-stroke to reverse those gains if Ukrainian forces have overstretched themselves.

What is more important is where the Ukrainian counter-offensive is directed, it is not simply a matter of regaining some real estate. The lost territory that really matters is on the Black Sea coastline, that of recovering lost seaports and cutting off the Russian forces between Crimea and Odessa and forcing their surrender.

If it was me commanding the Ukrainian Army my objective would be the land bridge between Crimea and southern Ukraine. Seize that land bridge, attack the adjacent Russian forces from behind (along with frontal assault), force their surrender and tell Putin that if he won't come to negotiate a peace settlement then Ukraine will invade Crimea, take Sebastopol and if that happens then Ukraine will hold on to Crimea and not hand it back. I'm pretty sure that is what the likes of Guderian, Patton and ''stormin'' Norman Swcharzkopf would be telling Zalensky to do.

I predict that the struggle in Ukraine will be decided by the thermostats of the citizens of Europe this winter and the US November mid-terms.
Apart from that, Scott Ritter offers some interesting insights into the current situation on YouTube.

Meanwhile, van der Lehen's address to the EU yesterday about purchasing cartels and price caps was pure Gilbert & Sullivan comic opera.

Byron

Hi Byron,
I think you are right on that point, there seems to be some dissention between certain EU countries as what to do, Germany and two or three other countries appear to be reluctant to supply arms to Ukraine in case they fall out with Russia altogether - I cannot see what their problem is bearing in mind Russia has now cut off their gas supply.
It doesn't provide much confidence in the so-called EU 'One big happy family' idea if Russia decided to invade Europe (which they won't, given the hiding they are taking from the Ukrainians!) but it doesn't say much for their supposed unity, I personally think Putin would be standing on the banks of Calais before it got itself organised!

Do you really think the Russian army we have watched fleeing in disorder from the Ukranian offensive, abandoning weapons, would make to to Calais?

Steve Crandell wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:54 am Do you really think the Russian army we have watched fleeing in disorder from the Ukranian offensive, abandoning weapons, would make to to Calais?

Hi Steve,
Probably not!
I understand Putin has mentioned the use of nuclear weapons again and Biden replied, "Just don't". I wonder how the top Russian military feel about the threats of using them and if they would comply with an order to do so?

paul.mercer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:39 am Hi Byron,

It doesn't provide much confidence in the so-called EU 'One big happy family' idea if Russia decided to invade Europe (which they won't, given the hiding they are taking from the Ukrainians!) but it doesn't say much for their supposed unity, I personally think Putin would be standing on the banks of Calais before it got itself organised!

The EU is quite irrelevant when it comes to military matters.

What does matter is NATO - its real military muscle is outside the EU, it is NATO that would deal with a Russian invasion of the West.

Getting to Calais? Well I suggest remembering what happened in 1920 when Pilsudski put a stop to any Red Army incursion westward.....

RF wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:41 pm

paul.mercer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:39 am Hi Byron,

It doesn't provide much confidence in the so-called EU 'One big happy family' idea if Russia decided to invade Europe (which they won't, given the hiding they are taking from the Ukrainians!) but it doesn't say much for their supposed unity, I personally think Putin would be standing on the banks of Calais before it got itself organised!

The EU is quite irrelevant when it comes to military matters.

What does matter is NATO - its real military muscle is outside the EU, it is NATO that would deal with a Russian invasion of the West.

Getting to Calais? Well I suggest remembering what happened in 1920 when Pilsudski put a stop to any Red Army incursion westward.....

To argue that the EU is irrelevant to the military situation is quite misleading.
All the major European members of NATO are also EU states. Those very same EU states make it logistically possible for those USD 53 billion dollars (and counting) of American war supplies and support to reach the Zelensky "government". It is the EU states that have, in addition, been supplying Leopard II tanks, Gepard SPAA vehicles, APCs, miscellaneous support weapons, small arms and ammunition from their own arsenals to the Ukrainians.

I'll say no more except for this ..... Nihil est planum.

B

Byron Angel wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:06 am


To argue that the EU is irrelevant to the military situation is quite misleading.
All the major European members of NATO are also EU states. Those very same EU states make it logistically possible for those USD 53 billion dollars (and counting) of American war supplies and support to reach the Zelensky "government". It is the EU states that have, in addition, been supplying Leopard II tanks, Gepard SPAA vehicles, APCs, miscellaneous support weapons, small arms and ammunition from their own arsenals to the Ukrainians.

I don't think its misleading at all.

The EU is a political organisation that has expressed a desire for ''European'' armed forces but the fact is that it has no more military capacity than the Vatican, that is not intended as a pun but a reminder of Stalin's comment about how much military muscle the Holy See had.

The supply logistics and equipment supplied to Ukraine has come from those EU member and European non-EU member states (such as the UK and Norway) through the NATO alliance, by decisions by the individual countries themselves as NATO members which is why different countries have provided different levels of support and of commitment. The EU will want to associate itself with this support particulary as its wants to include Ukraine into EU membership but it is not in itself a military organisation, any more than the EU is the whole of ''Europe.''

Furthermore much of the support from EU member states has come from the lead the British Government has made in publicly supporting Ukraine and also the immediate security issues for those countries closest to Russia. Sweden and Finland want now to be members of NATO, they are in the EU but realise that EU membership doesn't in itself provide the necessary military defence.

The sole difference between the EU and NATO (IMHO) is which hat any member nation chooses to wear at any given press conference. The two organizations are simply different arms of the same overarching political organism.

B

It was foolish to allow this conflict to become a proxy war. It has been since April 9th. At this point it doesn't matter much what actually happens in the Ukraine. Who has the advantage in this proxy war?

Putin is still popular among his own, so he's probably not going anywhere soon, regardless of what happens in the Ukraine. He and his people have plenty of cash, food, and fuel.

The mobilization yesterday, sends a signal that the pain is going to keep on going through the winter. It is forecast to be a cold, harsh, winter in Europe this winter. With a fresh layer of snow and ice on the ground, and with sub zero temperatures, I expect the Russians to take advantage.