Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683119776821035008

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683158258452668416

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683159005433065474

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683160666427777024

 

[aziqbal]

Scores of vehicles destroyed

Counter offensive seems too costly

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683109693026373635

 

[The SC]

Summer Operations | Russian Breakthrough. Belarus Is Preparing For War. Military Summary 2023.7.23​

 

[sammuel]

It took Germany to seize Poland 26 days in the 2nd World War. It WAGNER and Belarusian army would also be good enough to make sure they surrender in 26 days just like they did during the 2nd World War.

As far as I remember Poland was not a member of NATO when it was invaded in WW2.



~

 

[sammuel]

With respect to the wheat grains that were coming from Ukraine, Russia stated they would fill in the gap. Besides, food would be bought from Asian and South American countries. It is not like Ukraine was the only place where wheat was grown. As a matter fact, it is a good thing for African countries who rely on Ukrainian wheat they need to grow their own wheat. Let us not forget the overwhelming majority (over 80%) of Ukrainian agricultural products went to Europe.

Wow this is from today :

Somali refugees in Kenya threatened by food insecurity - Naturenews.africa

In Kenya’s Dadaab refugee camp, the thousands of new Somali refugees are struggling as food insecurity worsens. As Somali suffers its worst drought in years, Somali refugees have fled over the border to Kenya. In recent months, 135,000 have arrived at Dadaab, one of the world’s largest refugee...

naturenews.africa

Omar, a farmer, was forced to give most of his produce as tax to al-Shabab, the al-Qaida-linked extremists who have controlled parts of Somalia for years, and the little that remained wasn’t enough to feed his family during Somalia’s worst drought in decades. The final blow came when al-Shabab, under pressure from a Somali military offensive, killed his younger brother.

Omar and his family joined a new wave of Somalis on the run. They were among 135,000 new refugees who arrived at Dadaab in recent months and eventually were allowed to access food aid when the Kenyan government resumed refugee registrations in February at the camp located 55 miles (90 kilometers) from the Somali border.

In a refugee camp in Kenya, food shortages left kids hungry even before Russia ended grain deal

DADAAB, Kenya (AP) — Abdikadir Omar was trapped in an extremist-controlled town in Somalia for years until May, when he slipped out to make a 12-day journey with his wife and seven children to neighbo

www.columbian.com

https://www.aninews.in/news/world/others/concerns-rise-in-east-africa-as-russia-pulls-out-of-ukrainian-grain-deal20230723142025/

Somali refugees in Kenya threatened by food insecurity | Africanews

In Kenya's Dadaab refugee camp, the thousands of new Somali refugees are struggling as food insecurity worsens.

www.africanews.com

Russian freeze on grain deal is bad news for poor in Africa

OPINION: Russia announced that it was pulling out of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, a deal it signed with Ukraine in July 2022 to allow for the shipment of grain from Ukraine through the Black Sea routes, writes Dr Sizo Nkala.

www.iol.co.za

 

[Gomig-21]

Fighting a war is a very complicated issue, it's not just who is more powerful and who have the biggest stick.

I understand that, but it's still in your favor if you are much more powerful and do hold the bigger stick. However, my point is that where Russia was ranked as the world's 2nd strongest military superpower, it should've been much better at not only capturing territory rather quickly but holding on to it. The way it withdrew so fast is exactly what I was referring to. Their intel failed miserably as it was so obvious, they had no idea the Ukrainians were going to put up a fight the way they did and not only that, but the aid and allyship that was going to come to the rescue almost immediately was another major intelligence failure. This war should drop their wordily ranking by at least 10 spots.

Most people would think Russia should have roll over Ukraine by the neck day 1 on the offensive, the problem is, this is NEVER going to happen as long as Ukrainian decided to fight, because Ukraine is too big for the Russian invasion force to be able to conquer

Most people thought that because they saw the US steam roll over Iraq using all branches of the military but more importantly was its planning that came from extensive intel, showing where all the important military assets are and in what order and how they should be eliminated. Hence why I posted only about half their inventory, in particular their air force since that is the first thing that should've been done. Send in a large group of Tu-160s with an accurate and detailed list of targets and destroy them all. That kind of degradation immediately weakens the enemy by tenfold. Instead they sent in attack helos and defectively designed T-72s which got pummeled! How stupid was that? Where was the #2 super power planning success in that strategy?

Most people, including me, speculated that Russia is NOT going to invade because that force they gather is not enough to take on the entire Ukraine. And then they split them into 3 axis's, and then they pick spring for the incoming attack. That's probably the worse combo on any open warfare as you can get.

In a traditional sense, you need 3 to 1 for any general invasion if you had all the advantages, given the Ukrainian military had around 210k men, Russia need at least 500k to be able to overcome the Ukrainian, it's never going to happen with just 200k men alone. IMO, this is what get the Russian stuck. Because lack of men = lack of progress = demand more men which they do not have = time given to the defender to raise their army. = situation now

Yes 3 - 1 power in favor of the invading party is well known and sometimes more depending on the terrain, time of year, logistics and many other factors and where was that? I didn't even bring that up because not only was it too obvious, but the preliminary fighting of taking out all the major military assets was not properly executed in the first place, hence the major loss of life and the worsening of any further strategies. Bottom line, Russia should have performed much. much better from the start with all the weapons they had. BTW, this is also an indication of how poorly trained -- not only the troops are -- but the efficiency of their combined forces -- which is most critical in a war like this -- seemed practically non-existent. That seemed to be a huge and obvious reason they sent in peace meal units to get slaughtered by the Ukrainians who were getting the best intel on every single Russian movement.

 

[casual]

Poland can't send troop to Ukraine on their own, Poland as in Polish Armed Force.

Poland can send men into Ukraine, as much as the US, UK, Australia, Turks and other European countries did, some of them may have military training, but active military are not allowed, as in they will charge you for desertion.

British soldier who went AWOL to fight war in Ukraine is jailed

He was accused of 'risking dragging the UK into the war'.

metro.co.uk

Poland is a sovereign nation. Declaring war is a sovereign right.

 

[jhungary]

Poland is a sovereign nation. Declaring war is a sovereign right.

Yes Poland is a sovereign nation, they can leave NATO if they want, and that's what they need to do if they go to war by themselves otherwise it will drag NATO into war.

NATO is about 2 things. Unified Command and Resource Sharing.

Every country would have their C4I structure implemented into NATO so other country can help you as soon as possible, you are talking about council meeting, communication protocol and anything related to C4I. Sure, some, like council meeting you can exclude Poland if they go ahead and declare war on someone, you just don't invite them to, but you can't stop communication protocol or intelligence sharing to Poland, I mean communication grid is not something you can just unplug and NATO simply cannot just not fly over the area of war because Poland is going in alone.

Then you also have resource sharing, NATO is big on resource sharing, this is where NSN (Nato Stock Number) come from, it track item made by NATO member state and thru to system. So theoretically (I don't know as I did not served in Polish Armed Force), but I do know how NATO work as I used to be in the US Armed Force), Poland can be using 155mm artillery round made by Germany, IFAK kit made by Canada, 5.56 STANAG made by the US, or body armour made by the UK. So all these support will come to Poland aid whether Poland declare war alone or with NATO permission. And as you can see in this war, not every EU country okay with giving resource into active warzone, but within NATO, that's a requirement, so if Poland declare war on someone themselves without consulting NATO first, Poland will get kick out of NATO, or withdraw like the France did back in the 90s, this is the exact reason why.

 

[sammuel]

I understand that, but it's still in your favor if you are much more powerful and do hold the bigger stick. However, my point is that where Russia was ranked as the world's 2nd strongest military superpower, it should've been much better at not only capturing territory rather quickly but holding on to it. The way it withdrew so fast is exactly what I was referring to. Their intel failed miserably as it was so obvious, they had no idea the Ukrainians were going to put up a fight the way they did and not only that, but the aid and allyship that was going to come to the rescue almost immediately was another major intelligence failure. This war should drop their wordily ranking by at least 10 spots.



Most people thought that because they saw the US steam roll over Iraq using all branches of the military but more importantly was its planning that came from extensive intel, showing where all the important military assets are and in what order and how they should be eliminated. Hence why I posted only about half their inventory, in particular their air force since that is the first thing that should've been done. Send in a large group of Tu-160s with an accurate and detailed list of targets and destroy them all. That kind of degradation immediately weakens the enemy by tenfold. Instead they sent in attack helos and defectively designed T-72s which got pummeled! How stupid was that? Where was the #2 super power planning success in that strategy?



Yes 3 - 1 power in favor of the invading party is well known and sometimes more depending on the terrain, time of year, logistics and many other factors and where was that? I didn't even bring that up because not only was it too obvious, but the preliminary fighting of taking out all the major military assets was not properly executed in the first place, hence the major loss of life and the worsening of any further strategies. Bottom line, Russia should have performed much. much better from the start with all the weapons they had. BTW, this is also an indication of how poorly trained -- not only the troops are -- but the efficiency of their combined forces -- which is most critical in a war like this -- seemed practically non-existent. That seemed to be a huge and obvious reason they sent in peace meal units to get slaughtered by the Ukrainians who were getting the best intel on every single Russian movement.

Hello my friend


~

 

[sammuel]

. Declaring war is a sovereign right.

?

Where exactly is that rule writen ?

There is no such thing as a " right " to declare war.

Actually the opposite is true. Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts

This is the first line in the UN Charter :

United Nations Charter :​

Preamble​

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED​

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS​

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Preamble | United Nations

www.un.org

~

 

[casual]

?

Where exactly is that rule writen ?

There is no such thing as a " right " to declare war.

Actually the opposite is true. Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts

This is the first line in the UN Charter :

United Nations Charter :​

Preamble​

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED​

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS​

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Preamble | United Nations

www.un.org

~

are you for real? when has UN charter ever prevented a war? All you need is a tiny jar of laundry detergent.

 

[aviator_fan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682091209206931461

Enough to cause a coup and get the only elite force that fought to have to leave Russia. What has Russia accomplished by locking up gay people or outlawing them. Fire one general after the other and have its own capital under attack for the first time in 80 years. Bravo

 

[jhungary]

I understand that, but it's still in your favor if you are much more powerful and do hold the bigger stick. However, my point is that where Russia was ranked as the world's 2nd strongest military superpower, it should've been much better at not only capturing territory rather quickly but holding on to it. The way it withdrew so fast is exactly what I was referring to. Their intel failed miserably as it was so obvious, they had no idea the Ukrainians were going to put up a fight the way they did and not only that, but the aid and allyship that was going to come to the rescue almost immediately was another major intelligence failure. This war should drop their wordily ranking by at least 10 spots.

This is exactly why I don't like people rank military based on their "power" ie what did it have and what can they do. It's all pointless in war unless you can support it in war.

War planning is not just looking at how many tanks you can make a column in parade, you could have 16,000 tanks all line up in a parade formation and think "Geez, I have a lot of tanks" but say for example and a simplified one, if you only get 20
fuel truck, then it doesn't matter you have 16000 tanks in stock, you can at most support 40 in any war away from your country.

Of course, Russia does not just have 20 fuel truck, again that example is simplified, I don't know how many fuel truck they have, but as we know from the war, we know for sure it is not enough to even support a 3 axis attack with 200,000 some troop, that's why they have to turn around from Kyiv and got kick out of Kherson and Kharkiv.

When you look at the strength of a military, you don't just look at their combat gear, how many tanks they have, how many fighter they have or how advance this equipment was. You force is only as strong as you can support it. Which mean logistic and resource management and also command structure impact more on a battlefield than equipment alone, because that 3 dictate how much combat power you can deploy and most importantly, support in a battlefield.

Tanks need munition, aircraft need fuel, ship needs ports, it does not matter how many tanks, aircraft or ship you had, if you do not have the infrastructure to support it, you can't use them

As for what failed for Russia in this war? Gosh, I can probably write a doctoral dissertation on this topic alone, and very probably some dude in Westpoint or War College are doing it now or had already done it.

Most people thought that because they saw the US steam roll over Iraq using all branches of the military but more importantly was its planning that came from extensive intel, showing where all the important military assets are and in what order and how they should be eliminated. Hence why I posted only about half their inventory, in particular their air force since that is the first thing that should've been done. Send in a large group of Tu-160s with an accurate and detailed list of targets and destroy them all. That kind of degradation immediately weakens the enemy by tenfold. Instead they sent in attack helos and defectively designed T-72s which got pummeled! How stupid was that? Where was the #2 super power planning success in that strategy?

NATO Airforce is a lot greater in power than Russian Airforce, in fact, just compare Russian Air Force par-for-par on USAF alone, USAF already dwarf the entire Russian Air Force. So when you compare the NATO air campaign in Iraq and Russian air campaign in Ukraine, there is really no comparison.

On the other hand, we cannot also compare Ukrainian Air Defence to Iraqi Air Defence. Iraq Air Defence in 2003 is virtually non-existence after years of degradation since 1991, I don't recall any Coalition Aircraft being shot down by Iraqi Air Defence when I was there, there were crashes and shot down of chopper mainly by small arms or RPG. On the other hand, Russia is facing off a semi-competent then Ukraine armed with Buk and S-300, later with FIM-92 stinger, star streak, NASAM and now Patriot and IRIS-T missile system, Russia is always looking at a big loss if they want to overcome Ukrainian air defence, don't get me wrong, they should be able to do that by sheer number, but they didn't after maybe a week of air campaign. Now, I wouldn't know why they stop after a week instead depends on missile and drone later on, if I have to guess, it's either they don't think it worth it to gain air superiority for those lost (you are talking about 20-30% loss of Russian Airforce in a conventional mean) or they think they can't replace those loss which is why they stop making those strike. I mean, for Russia men are cheap, probably aircraft are not. So they decided to go with the men route? I don't know.;

The problem is, gaining even local air superiority is paramount in any invasion operation because it extend your reach, one way or the other, they decided not to use their air power but rely on drones and missile, and those can't really support your war effort, sure, you have a HVT and you send in a drone and launch a precision strike, that might work, but that's not what Russian drone is for.

Yes 3 - 1 power in favor of the invading party is well known and sometimes more depending on the terrain, time of year, logistics and many other factors and where was that? I didn't even bring that up because not only was it too obvious, but the preliminary fighting of taking out all the major military assets was not properly executed in the first place, hence the major loss of life and the worsening of any further strategies. Bottom line, Russia should have performed much. much better from the start with all the weapons they had. BTW, this is also an indication of how poorly trained -- not only the troops are -- but the efficiency of their combined forces -- which is most critical in a war like this -- seemed practically non-existent. That seemed to be a huge and obvious reason they sent in peace meal units to get slaughtered by the Ukrainians who were getting the best intel on every single Russian movement.

Well, if I can only say one thing about the entire failure of the Russian campaign. (again, there are too much I can say so i am just going to limit on one here) That will be they didn't have an overall war plan.

Look, the original war plan the Russian had is actually quite sound, contrary to many people saying, they obviously studied NATO strategy and going for center of gravity in that three route of attack, Northern attack trying to take Kyiv so to paralyse the Ukrainian Central Command structure, Kharkiv front to take the industrial power from Ukraine. and break out from Crimea and Donbas for the land bridge (Which is the only objective they manage to achieve) It's not hard to see this is what they wanted to do from Day 1. But the issue here, is, can they do it? That depends on a lot of factors.

Now, if it was us, we will have a clear task on what we need to do and where we need to go, and to achieve our objective, what kind of asset we are going to need and what help can we get? In Russian case, these 3 attacks is 3 separate attack, it's like 3 different country invading Ukraine at the same time and they don't communicate to each other. So when one part achieve their objective, the other would be able to benefit from it and exploit the gain, or conversely, when one part failed their objective, the other failed to adjust their own in order to preserve the battle. They only ever did so in Dec 2022 when they lost Kherson and now concentrate on one part of the map, which is what they were suppose to do back in April when they know they can't get to Kyiv. Without Kyiv, you cannot press Kharkiv in a double envelopment, which mean the Russian force in Kharkiv can only go so far and then they would have to sit on their arse because the attack from Kyiv is NOT COMING. And if you do that, then what happened in May (or June) happened, which you will get routed. The Russian should have either reinforce the line (which they did partly) or withdrew into a sensible line yes, you will lose some ground, but better than getting routed and loss the entire Kharkiv...And then they still didn't learn after that and extend the line still too far and when the Ukrainian strike Crimea Bridge and stop things from bringing in, you know Kherson is lost. There is no turning back.

This is probably the most serious problem Russian had if you want me to pick one. That is exactly what lead to the stalemate now, and I don't see Russia being able to put another offensive unless they mobilise their troop, once they build defences on an offensive war, they stop being the aggressor, you cannot fight a trench warfare and hope to gain ground in the same war. As I said many time, I don't know what the Ukrainian Counteroffensive is going to turn out, but the Russian offensive is gone, bar from some local exploiting attacking, I don't see Russian manage to pull another Winter Offensive like the one they do at the beginning of the year, effectively what Russia is doing is to ride this war out into late 2024 fighting in trench, and hopefully Trump is re-elected and US stop supplying things to Ukraine. This is the war strategy Putin is doing now.

 

[aviator_fan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682167617497210880

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682023678068903936

https://twitter.com/x/status/1681944555082448896

What happened the West's plan to suffocate Russia? China, the largest economy in the world, is buying Russia's oil at favorable rates.

Plan working pretty well. Putin can't even go to South Africa. Thats the ultimate insult.

Other than that Russia is well on its way to being an economic disaster:
1. Ruble down 35% over last year
2. Current account balance drop by 93% because of oil revenue hit
3. Profits from oil/gas revenue fell 31%
4. Car sales are an important proxy of economic health. Was 100,000 before the war started, now 1/4th of that.

And this is the best its going to be. Europe, that got 40% of oil/gas from Russia has permanently moved off it. So with war over tomorrow, the economic situation will not change as the new customers for Russian oil/gas will continue to squeeze it and pay less than market rate.

So this suffocation is going pretty well.

Read more here: https://markets.businessinsider.com...s-account-finance-putin-moscow-ukraine-2023-7

 

[aviator_fan]

Now that the counter offensive has failed, NATO is about to launch us into WW3, just as the Clown of Kiev planned.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682349590761054210

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682104963940462597

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682456693630816259

The clown is supported by an entire population that chose him and still support him. Your bozo Putin runs his country by secret police, outlaws his opponents and rules by dictate. Its obvious when he runs out of generals while attacking a pidly neighbor when it is supposed to be a superpower. Lets see when Bozo Putin gets his act together.

The Clown is welcomed the world over. Bozo not even able to make it to South Africa for fear of getting arrested. Penniless without his billions and not even welcomed in Africa.

I will take the clown over the bozo any day

Never forget. The largest terrorist group who made the fatal decision in 1945 are the same people responsible for the regime change and Kiev and the agitators of the war in Ukraine. These are the people who are forcing Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian and bringing us closer to a war with much worse outcomes. The only people in history mad enough to do the unthinkable.

Bozo Putin's forefathers occupied Finalnd in WWII: same criminals. Wanting to go all the way into capital but the Finns had balls of steel. They did lose some territory but kept nation in tact. And now they have taught him a lesson by joining NATO. So there is the Russian terrorist approach.