EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 641
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
On January 16 2024 02:37 Manit0u wrote: I think the biggest thing is that when it comes to A-50 Russia has like 8 of them total? When it comes to the second plane, the Il-22 I think they have even less of those but this one wasn't shot down and managed to land albeit in a pretty bad shape. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kfZrcdy.jpeg) Looks like the rear APU's dead, control surfaces are relatively easy to replace, since it's simple metal sheeting/rivets, and some amount of hydraulic piping. We'd need to see how far forward the damage went before concluding if the aircraft is a write off or not. Rumors I've seen are two crewmen killed, so the shrapnel did penetrate forwards to some degree. It's heavy damage, but doesn't meant that it's a write off just yet - If the engines, and fuselage until about10ft back of the wings are ok, it's probably still possible to either replace parts, or even swap in fuselage/tail sections from another aircraft. It's out of commission for a few months, but I wouldn't count it as dead just yet. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17744 Posts
On January 16 2024 06:06 Lmui wrote: If the engines, and fuselage until about10ft back of the wings are ok, it's probably still possible to either replace parts, or even swap in fuselage/tail sections from another aircraft. It's out of commission for a few months, but I wouldn't count it as dead just yet. "Damaged yesterday IL-22-M which managed to land on two engines out of four in Anapa. Among the crew were killed and wounded. At least 2 crew members killed." If the above is true it would indicate that the damage is not limited to the rear section. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
On January 16 2024 09:40 Manit0u wrote: "Damaged yesterday IL-22-M which managed to land on two engines out of four in Anapa. Among the crew were killed and wounded. At least 2 crew members killed." If the above is true it would indicate that the damage is not limited to the rear section. Yeah that's critical damage. There's still a working hydraulic system and/or backup control system since it managed to land. It's likely still repairable to a flyable state given the engines are a domestic product, and everything rear of the electronics bays (usually near the front landing gear) is lower tech - usually hydraulics, electrical wiring and simple motors. The insides are shredded to a decent degree which might make it combat ineffective which is good enough. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Rather than appreciate the adjustments and changes that allowed us to solve problems, many people viewed the solutions as unnecessary and archaic. Globally, it was common for the US to be viewed as overly militaristic while Europe was applauded as an example of how to prioritize objectives in the modern world. This involved less and less focus on military readiness, keeping production lines warm in case of need, and a general decrease in overall military capabilities. Obama famously delivered a remarkably condescending retort to Mitt Romney indicating Russia was a significant military threat. Obama indicated we are well past that and we have no reason to view the world as vulnerable to military aggression. As we all know, Obama also decided not to make a big deal out of Crimea. The popular perspective at the time was that it was a measured, careful, and intelligent response to prevent “escalation”. I am not asking this as a “I told you so”, because I largely felt the same way. But one place I was totally misunderstanding the situation was the military readiness of Europe. I legitimately thought Europe had much bigger military stockpiles and general manufacturing capabilities. As we see the world ramp up military production and support for military readiness increase, I am curious where people think the disconnect was. How did the world lose touch of the possibility of actual military conflict? What went wrong in Obama’s military calculations with Crimea? Was the natural gas situation critically dependent on Russia in Europe in a way that was much less when Russia decided to pursue full scale invasion? I am intentionally not saying Crimea was a mistake from Obama because I don’t know enough about the political and military landscape at the time. Maybe our hands were more tied than I realized. But it of course looks like Obama and Europe both took peace for granted. It’s like they thought actual war was no longer possible. Am I wrong? Curious what you all think. | ||
KwarK
United States43991 Posts
On January 21 2024 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: One idea I’ve described before is how modern society takes many things for granted. Similar to how republicans in the US say things like “environmental regulations are not nearly as critical as they used to be. Rivers aren’t on fire anymore. We don’t need to be as crazy about oversight as we used to be”, it was common during the Obama years for people to say we lived in a post-war world. Environmental regulations cleaned up the world. Military readiness and carrying a big stick ensured everyone knew war would be too costly for annexing territory. Rather than appreciate the adjustments and changes that allowed us to solve problems, many people viewed the solutions as unnecessary and archaic. Globally, it was common for the US to be viewed as overly militaristic while Europe was applauded as an example of how to prioritize objectives in the modern world. This involved less and less focus on military readiness, keeping production lines warm in case of need, and a general decrease in overall military capabilities. Obama famously delivered a remarkably condescending retort to Mitt Romney indicating Russia was a significant military threat. Obama indicated we are well past that and we have no reason to view the world as vulnerable to military aggression. As we all know, Obama also decided not to make a big deal out of Crimea. The popular perspective at the time was that it was a measured, careful, and intelligent response to prevent “escalation”. I am not asking this as a “I told you so”, because I largely felt the same way. But one place I was totally misunderstanding the situation was the military readiness of Europe. I legitimately thought Europe had much bigger military stockpiles and general manufacturing capabilities. As we see the world ramp up military production and support for military readiness increase, I am curious where people think the disconnect was. How did the world lose touch of the possibility of actual military conflict? What went wrong in Obama’s military calculations with Crimea? Was the natural gas situation critically dependent on Russia in Europe in a way that was much less when Russia decided to pursue full scale invasion? I am intentionally not saying Crimea was a mistake from Obama because I don’t know enough about the political and military landscape at the time. Maybe our hands were more tied than I realized. But it of course looks like Obama and Europe both took peace for granted. It’s like they thought actual war was no longer possible. Am I wrong? Curious what you all think. French soldiers have been continually deployed globally for decades, most frequently in North Africa. Britain fought an actual war more recently than the US. European partners were fully engaged in Afghanistan which was a NATO mission, not a US one, and Britain went allin on Bush’s folly. The problem isn’t war, it’s this specific type of war. This is really quite a weird scenario for the west. 1. The west isn’t treaty bound to intervene directly. That eliminates the cast majority of scenarios the west prepared for, national defence traditionally assumes that there is an element of national defence. In this case the nation or an ally has not been attacked. The tools of national defence aren’t usable. 2. It’s not an occupation or counter insurgency. That’s most of what NATO has done for two decades. Again, completely different tools. 3. It’s not against a proxy force. France is happy to prop up friendly African governments against militias, it does lots of that. Light mobile forces that can precisely bring overwhelming power against a dispersed force supported by locals. They can help one of those. Similarly that’s the mission the US tried to train the Afghan National Army for without success. What we have is a regional power state actor war we’re not actually in. That’s not to say that it’s not important that we win it, it is, but it’s a really niche scenario. There’s all the problems that come with fight a state actor, large conscript forces, tanks, artillery, aircraft and so forth without actually being able to fight them. I don’t think that there’s any serious question over whether NATO could crush Russia in a conventional war. But that’s not the ask here, NATO isn’t using its air power or it’s population. I also don’t think there’s any doubt that NATO could assist Ukraine in winning a counter insurgency. I also don’t think there’s any doubt that NATO could help Ukraine win a war against proxies like Wagner. Basically any mission that Europe has actually been prepared to fight can be done successfully. Europe isn’t incapable, the whole 2% drama thing isn’t correct. France is extremely capable of performing its specific missions that it performs in Africa for example. The 2% thing also misses the mark, if an Italian minister gives a massively overpriced contract to a buddy for kickbacks that looks great on a military spending perspective but doesn’t help. If the US gives a fortune to Rumsfeld in Iraq then is Europe more secure because of that? Europe isn’t pacifistic, that’s a legacy of a specific refusal to engage in Bush’s folly. Early 2000s internet memes. France remains very warlike, Britain anted up in the Falklands against the expectation of the world, Germany doesn’t refuse to fight because they’re bad at it, they refuse because they’re a little too good at it and it makes people nervous. It’s just a weird spot. The universal expectation is that if a nuclear power wants to regime change a country it’ll go like Iraq did. They’ll just do it and the rest of the world may condemn it and they may fuck with it by causing problems but they can’t stop it. We’re in untested territory here where fucking with it is actually working surprisingly well. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
Missile strikes to open the way for (stealth) bombers to attain not just air superiority but complete air control, and then bombings and more missile strikes to cripple ground forces so that by the time the NATO army makes contact there is barely an enemy left to resist and the ground forces have full air cover to protect them. Since we're not directly engaging in the war with our airforce and not willing to attack Russia AA and launch installations inside Russia to establish air control the entire NATO way of war basically doesn't work. NATO looks unprepared because we're fighting with both arms tied behind our back directing someone from the audience. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 21 2024 04:45 KwarK wrote: French soldiers have been continually deployed globally for decades, most frequently in North Africa. Britain fought an actual war more recently than the US. European partners were fully engaged in Afghanistan which was a NATO mission, not a US one, and Britain went allin on Bush’s folly. The problem isn’t war, it’s this specific type of war. This is really quite a weird scenario for the west. 1. The west isn’t treaty bound to intervene directly. That eliminates the cast majority of scenarios the west prepared for, national defence traditionally assumes that there is an element of national defence. In this case the nation or an ally has not been attacked. The tools of national defence aren’t usable. 2. It’s not an occupation or counter insurgency. That’s most of what NATO has done for two decades. Again, completely different tools. 3. It’s not against a proxy force. France is happy to prop up friendly African governments against militias, it does lots of that. Light mobile forces that can precisely bring overwhelming power against a dispersed force supported by locals. They can help one of those. Similarly that’s the mission the US tried to train the Afghan National Army for without success. What we have is a regional power state actor war we’re not actually in. That’s not to say that it’s not important that we win it, it is, but it’s a really niche scenario. There’s all the problems that come with fight a state actor, large conscript forces, tanks, artillery, aircraft and so forth without actually being able to fight them. I don’t think that there’s any serious question over whether NATO could crush Russia in a conventional war. But that’s not the ask here, NATO isn’t using its air power or it’s population. I also don’t think there’s any doubt that NATO could assist Ukraine in winning a counter insurgency. I also don’t think there’s any doubt that NATO could help Ukraine win a war against proxies like Wagner. Basically any mission that Europe has actually been prepared to fight can be done successfully. Europe isn’t incapable, the whole 2% drama thing isn’t correct. France is extremely capable of performing its specific missions that it performs in Africa for example. The 2% thing also misses the mark, if an Italian minister gives a massively overpriced contract to a buddy for kickbacks that looks great on a military spending perspective but doesn’t help. If the US gives a fortune to Rumsfeld in Iraq then is Europe more secure because of that? Europe isn’t pacifistic, that’s a legacy of a specific refusal to engage in Bush’s folly. Early 2000s internet memes. France remains very warlike, Britain anted up in the Falklands against the expectation of the world, Germany doesn’t refuse to fight because they’re bad at it, they refuse because they’re a little too good at it and it makes people nervous. It’s just a weird spot. The universal expectation is that if a nuclear power wants to regime change a country it’ll go like Iraq did. They’ll just do it and the rest of the world may condemn it and they may fuck with it by causing problems but they can’t stop it. We’re in untested territory here where fucking with it is actually working surprisingly well. Thanks for the detailed reply. It makes sense to me. And forgot to also reply to your extensive post about cold war game theory. I appreciated that post and it was really educational as well. One thing that still feels confusing to me: After Crimea, it feels like the west should have realized Russia could just keep going and keep squeezing out little pieces of Ukraine. Since we have previously discussed the fact that Ukraine being absorbed into Russia would be very bad for the west, doesn't that mean defense of Ukraine should have been on our minds the whole time? Even if we ignore Russia annexing Crimea, even before that, didn't Ukraine represent a critical line of defense for Europe? You and Gorsameth make plenty of sense when you describe what the west has focused on, how they generally manage their military forces, and why its not a great fit for helping Ukraine right now. I guess that feels like an error to me then. If Ukraine is critical, and especially after annexing Crimea, shouldn't that have been a signal the west should change? Shouldn't they have thought about their hands being tied, and then found a way to still make sure Ukraine can be assisted in whatever way is possible? Think about all of the things we are currently trying to give Ukraine, but there are delays and whatnot. Certain types of ammo, yadda yadda, why did we not just have a mountain 2 miles high just waiting in case Ukraine needed it? I know these things take time, but I keep seeing articles describing widespread changes in Europe to improve manufacturing and to generally find ways to supply Ukraine with what it needs. Why now? Why not in 2014? Why not in 2010? I think Ukraine has been just as important as it is today for a long time. It feels like no matter how you slice it, this was a scenario the west should have been more prepared for. Even if it isn't their normal bread and butter, we all knew Ukraine was important this whole time. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43991 Posts
However there was also a general naivety in the west, a belief that Putin wouldn't be dumb enough to go further because he was making so much money from the status quo. It's easier to believe what you want to believe and the west wanted to believe that peace through trade was possible because they misjudged Putin. He may be a rational actor but he's working from a completely different set of beliefs and values to the rest of us. We believed no rational actor would throw away three decades of partnership and reintegration with the global economy in the name of reviving a 19th Century empire. Clearly he thought that the short term damage of offending the west would be offset by the long term benefits of rebuilding the Russian Empire and that NATO expansion meant that states, once lost, would never be reclaimed. But there's a reason that on day 1 of the invasion they were breaking out the pallets of javelins. Europe was not wholly unprepared, there was a playbook, military strategists had planned for it and, after the buildup of forces ahead of the invasion, had put contingencies in place. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
You have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orbital and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unifier for the UK and Canadian programs to help train Ukraine after the Crimea annexation. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7207 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On January 22 2024 19:39 Harris1st wrote: That was basically the reason for the totally not 'civil war' in Donbas. To stop Ukraine from being allowed into NATO by keeping it in an ongoing conflict.Did UA try to get into NATO before the war started but after Crimea? Or at least tried to get closer to NATO? | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7207 Posts
On January 22 2024 20:01 Gorsameth wrote: That was basically the reason for the totally not 'civil war' in Donbas. To stop Ukraine from being allowed into NATO by keeping it in an ongoing conflict. Did they actively try to move closer to NATO/ becoming a member in that timeframe? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On January 22 2024 21:57 Harris1st wrote: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htmDid they actively try to move closer to NATO/ becoming a member in that timeframe? An overview of Ukraine and NATO's relation | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7207 Posts
On January 22 2024 22:00 Gorsameth wrote: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm An overview of Ukraine and NATO's relation Thank you! Exactly what I was looking for | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9299 Posts
Slovak PM: Ukraine must give up territory to end Russian invasion Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Saturday the only way to end Russia's war against Ukraine is for Kyiv to give up some of its territory to the invaders, and reiterated his opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine. “There has to be some kind of compromise," Fico told Slovak public broadcaster RTVS on Saturday, according to media reports. "What do they expect, that the Russians will leave Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk? That's unrealistic." The pro-Russia prime minister took power in December after his leftist-populist Smer party won September's election with promises to stop sending weapons to Ukraine, to block Kyiv’s potential NATO membership, and to oppose sanctions on Russia. Fico reiterated his opposition to Ukraine's bid to join NATO in Saturday's interview, which came ahead of a planned meeting between the Slovak leader and Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal on Wednesday. "I will tell him that I am against the membership of Ukraine in NATO and that I will veto it," Fico said, referring to Shmyhal. "It would merely be a basis for World War III, nothing else." "Ukraine is not an independent and sovereign country," Fico continued, but "under the total influence and control of the United States." “I will confirm that he will not receive any weapons" from the Slovak government, Fico said, accusing Ukraine of being “one of the most corrupt nations in the world.” The Slovak PM last week expressed support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in blocking a €50 billion EU aid package for Ukraine in December. “I will never agree that a country should be punished for fighting for its sovereignty. I will never agree with such an attack on Hungary,” Fico said on Tuesday during a joint press conference with Orbán in Budapest. Slovakia’s Culture Ministry also announced it will resume cooperation with Russia and Belarus following its suspension in March 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine. https://www.politico.eu/article/slovakia-prime-minister-robert-fico-ukraine-cede-territory-russia-moscow-invasion-nato-entry/ Maybe the rest of Europe should announce it will suspend its cooperation with Hungary and Slovakia until they stop acting like Russia's Foreign Ministry. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5811 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
GLSDB is one that's been on the horizon for a long time now. It was delayed to early 2024, but if the integration/production goes well, it'll grant the capability to do gmlrs like strikes against lower value targets, or strikes against deeper targets. The other options that I know of are pretty much all air-delivered (f-16 + bombs or su-xx + cruise missile) and who knows when they'll arrive. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On January 24 2024 05:56 Lmui wrote: Given that 155mm shells are in short supply, and will continue to be for quite some time, the only other option I think would be opening other avenues for artillery/long range fires. GLSDB is one that's been on the horizon for a long time now. It was delayed to early 2024, but if the integration/production goes well, it'll grant the capability to do gmlrs like strikes against lower value targets, or strikes against deeper targets. The other options that I know of are pretty much all air-delivered (f-16 + bombs or su-xx + cruise missile) and who knows when they'll arrive. Does SK use 155? | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
Yep SK uses 155mm, I think they were hesitant to directly supply Ukraine though. All I've heard is that they "loaned" 500k shells to the USA to backfill their stockpile, so that USA could send 500k shells from their stockpile to Ukraine. I think they're the only western allied country in the world that would have enough of a stockpile to make a big difference right now if they had the willpower. The USA presumably has the 500k + some emergency stockpile left, but it's probably smaller than what SK has. If SK could alter their law and supply Ukraine, there's probably an immediate infusion of hundreds of thousands of shells available (a couple months supply) that would make a near immediate impact. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20231205000300315 | ||
| ||
