Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[Paul2]

Ukraine hits jackpot as 'crate after crate' of ammo found in Kherson

Ukraine's armed forces have made a welcome discovery in newly liberated Kherson as "crate after crate" of Russian ammunition is captured.

www.express.co.uk

>> And the Russian left behind ALOT of ammunition aswell - every sign of a unorganised rout rather than an organised withdrawl..

Yes, because blowing up ammo is the easiest part of it all, but they, for example, abandoned 2 fully loaded, and ready to fire grads

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Russia of course would not allow even a post settlement Ukraine to become part of NATO. That goes without saying. Otherwise they have lost even a greater strategic goal than settling without annexing land.

Russia is not a part of the NATO membership procedure.

While NATO has set up conditions for membership, they can waive those conditions on a moments notice.
As long as every member agree to accept Ukraine as a member, that’s it.

 

[Viet]

It's not up to Russia to discuss but Russia's response to Ukraine joining NATO post any settlement would be on the mind of NATO and Ukraine.

The question then becomes how would Russia respond if at all and if so, would NATO and Ukraine be okay with it. How does NATO and Ukraine anticipate Russian response will not necessarily be the Russian response either.

As for NATO weapons being used by Ukraine, well yes that is a point of concern for NATO in regards to any post settlement changes. If settlement is for ceasefire in return for Russia holding some land of Ukraine's, NATO equipment will either remain in Ukraine or go back to NATO. It doesn't mean their information and details would be delivered to Russia. NATO hasn't actually sent much advanced equipment or weapons to Ukraine. The only advanced stuff being used or helped is NATO ISR equipment which is operated by NATO and not by Ukraine. Anyway that is still a valid point it's just that you assumed there would be a total Russian takeover in future and there would not be western support then but the current NATO equipment in Ukraine would remain in Ukraine for Russia to capture in that hypothetical future Russian invasion that takes those equipment. Big stretch.

NATO membership permission will depend on how NATO considers Russia will respond and how Russia actually responds. Ukraine would want to join NATO post any settlement as you said due to how they can be sure Russia won't invade and if they did, would make it harder for Russia. But whether or not Ukraine can join will also depend on how Ukraine considers the chance of NATO allowing membership of Ukraine and how Russia will respond to Ukraine formally asking to join.

Ukraine might think well what if we ask to join and that worries Russia and puts Russia into war mode again but NATO does not allow. That would **** them up even more and give Russia their initial allegation that Ukraine wants to join NATO which has been part of Russia's claim for initiating the war. It's not as simple as you said.

Do you think NATO will allow Ukraine to join and do you think Ukraine would make that move? Are you not ignoring how NATO and Ukraine would be worried about how Russia would respond? Considering all this is hypothetically after a settlement for ceasefire is agreed by both sides. then Ukriane decides to join NATO and NATO accepts. How russia would respond would depend on how much appetite and capability they have for war on one side and on the other side, how NATO will consider it a risk. Ukraine joins means Article 5 in action and maybe Russia is deterred by that if Ukraine goes ahead. Maybe Russia is not. And this risk assessment is surely on the minds of NATO and Ukraine, but not your's.

Ukraine would accept neutrality in exchange for security by the US, NATO. But Putin wants more: total unconditional surrender, demilitarization, de-Nazi, and giving up territory, Crimea. Donbas. Ukraine would end up as small state without access to the seas, without access to natural resources. Practically a dead state. Now it’s up to the armies to decide.

Russia army has to be annihilated, Russia economy destroyed, Russia infrastructure in ruined.

 

[RescueRanger]

Yes, because blowing up ammo is the easiest part of it all, but they, for example, abandoned 2 fully loaded, and ready to fire grads

It just shows how the Russian forward lines were in complete disarray and uncontrolled panic *queue benny hill theme*. Any combat Engineer or ATO worth their salt could have daisy chained ammunition for a big kaboom. This shows one of two things:

1. Most of the soldiers fighting on the front lines are B teamers or rank amateurs.
2. Russians withdrew so fast there was no chance for an orderly withdrawal due to the speed and ferocity with which the Ukrainians advanced.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

So where are the usual PDF Pro Russia, Putin Roadie's now?

Maybe starved to death.
Somalia is no fun nowadays when Russia caused starvation

 

[One_Nation]

So where are the usual PDF Pro Russia, Putin Roadie's now?

They have been banned.

 

[Viet]

They can't, that's why Kherson is more important than anywhere else, there are no way they can resupply a large force with their supply line being interdicted by the Ukrainian. That's why I said the chances of Russia completely lose this war is there once Ukraine took Kherson, because that give them a choice to defeat the entire Russian Army in Ukraine, not just post 2014 line but the entire country, in detail. They can isolate each bit and attack them with overwhelm local superiority and then move on the next one, and then the next one until there are no more Russian pocket in Ukraine.

Unless Russia now started to get their act together and found a way to counter those HIMARS and Western Artillery and Intelligence that feeding those Artillery, I don't see how Russia can turn this around. pumping more men in an already dired supply situation won't help, in fact, it will only get worse.

further advance won’t be easy. Now Russia troop concentration on the East bank however Ukraine army has no amphibious capability. The river is too wide, 1,000m minimum. Maybe 200km foot march via land corridor Saporischa, attacking them from northern flank.

 

[BHAN85]

And you are so uneducated that You do not know that NATO has nukes.

And you dont know read.

I talked about non-nuclear West Europe states.

France is a nuclear NATO member and they said they only will use their nukes to defend France land. They dont give a sht about other NATO members.

If you think UK, USA or France will use their nukes to defend Sweden, you're hallucinating.

Macron under fire for saying France wouldn’t respond in kind if Russia launched nuclear attack on Ukraine

French president says Paris would not trigger a nuclear response if Russia launched such a strike ‘in Ukraine or in the region.’

www.politico.eu

France has a nuclear doctrine, that is based on the vital interests of the country and which are clearly defined.

Talk about conventional war strategies against a nuclear state is a stupid nonsense thing.

 

[Paul2]

Maybe the U.S. and NATO can provide the materials and technology for a bigger or powerful version to carry a 120 mortar round with GPS.

They got 2 for trials in August. The volunteer group in Poland made 2 variants: first drops 6 3.4kg 81mm, or 4 4.15kg mortar bombs, second drops 1 120mm

That's still work in progress. PID, and gyros needs tuning. We also need an optical flow sensor which can work at night.

It's hard to pilot, and currently requires somebody with experience piloting DIY quadcopters to not to crash within minutes. One time it went into pilot induced oscillations when fully loaded with bombs...

No doubt, it can be mass produced in Poland if money, and equipment will come.

 

[Paul2]

Another reason is that EU cannot and will not deal with Ukrainian Refugee and Energy Crisis 2.0. The only way they can do that is to have a stablised Eastern front, and the only way that can do that is to accept Ukrainian NATO membership. What Ukraine need to do is to degenerate Russia to a point that it will take them a long time to recover and hence cannot threaten the stability around Europe, because rest assure, even if Ukraine joined NATO, Russia is not just going to stop there, there are still a few non-NATO member in Europe Russia can bully. And they will if Ukraine joined NATO. Only if Russia conventional capability being decayed to a point that it cannot used to threaten other country, would NATO consider Ukraine membership.

That's what I expect to see in 2-3 yrs too, but....

1. Belarus
2. Blakans

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

And you dont know read.

I talked about non-nuclear West Europe states.

France is a nuclear NATO member and they said they only will use their nukes to defend France land. They dont give a sht about other NATO members.

If you think UK, USA or France will use their nukes to defend Sweden, you're hallucinating.

Macron under fire for saying France wouldn’t respond in kind if Russia launched nuclear attack on Ukraine

French president says Paris would not trigger a nuclear response if Russia launched such a strike ‘in Ukraine or in the region.’

www.politico.eu

Talk about conventional war strategies against a nuclear state is a stupid nonsense thing.

That France will not use nuclear weapons if a non NATO country is attacked with nuclear weapons is not the same as saying France will not use nuclear weapons if a NATO nation is attacked with nuclear weapons.
Macron has been criticized within France for making this statement, so opinions are divided.
In wargames, NATO has concluded that if one NATO country is attacked with a single nuclear weapon, this will be followed by more, and the best outcome for NATO is always a fullblown attack with every nuclear weapon in the arsenal.

So you think that NATO is going to prefer a subpar solution.

 

[Paul2]

France is a nuclear NATO member and they said they only will use their nukes to defend France land. They dont give a sht about other NATO members

France has a unique exception given to them by NATO that their nukes will be not Art. 5 triggerable.

It's not up to Russia to discuss but Russia's response to Ukraine joining NATO post any settlement would be on the mind of NATO and Ukraine.

The question then becomes how would Russia respond if at all and if so, would NATO and Ukraine be okay with it. How does NATO and Ukraine anticipate Russian response will not necessarily be the Russian response either.

As for NATO weapons being used by Ukraine, well yes that is a point of concern for NATO in regards to any post settlement changes. If settlement is for ceasefire in return for Russia holding some land of Ukraine's, NATO equipment will either remain in Ukraine or go back to NATO. It doesn't mean their information and details would be delivered to Russia. NATO hasn't actually sent much advanced equipment or weapons to Ukraine. The only advanced stuff being used or helped is NATO ISR equipment which is operated by NATO and not by Ukraine. Anyway that is still a valid point it's just that you assumed there would be a total Russian takeover in future and there would not be western support then but the current NATO equipment in Ukraine would remain in Ukraine for Russia to capture in that hypothetical future Russian invasion that takes those equipment. Big stretch.

NATO membership permission will depend on how NATO considers Russia will respond and how Russia actually responds. Ukraine would want to join NATO post any settlement as you said due to how they can be sure Russia won't invade and if they did, would make it harder for Russia. But whether or not Ukraine can join will also depend on how Ukraine considers the chance of NATO allowing membership of Ukraine and how Russia will respond to Ukraine formally asking to join.

Ukraine might think well what if we ask to join and that worries Russia and puts Russia into war mode again but NATO does not allow. That would **** them up even more and give Russia their initial allegation that Ukraine wants to join NATO which has been part of Russia's claim for initiating the war. It's not as simple as you said.

Do you think NATO will allow Ukraine to join and do you think Ukraine would make that move? Are you not ignoring how NATO and Ukraine would be worried about how Russia would respond? Considering all this is hypothetically after a settlement for ceasefire is agreed by both sides. then Ukriane decides to join NATO and NATO accepts. How russia would respond would depend on how much appetite and capability they have for war on one side and on the other side, how NATO will consider it a risk. Ukraine joins means Article 5 in action and maybe Russia is deterred by that if Ukraine goes ahead. Maybe Russia is not. And this risk assessment is surely on the minds of NATO and Ukraine, but not your's.

Russia didn't dare to use NBC against a non-NATO Ukraine even in the most opportune moment in May-July, and they will be afraid even more to use it against NATO Ukraine. That's simple.

Take a look how it's in Kharkow. They kept pounding the city with incendiaries, remote mining, and cluster.

UA started reacting with drone strikes on Bylhorod, and they went quiet after very light losses on their own territory.

If NATO-Ukarine will threaten to level a mid-sized Russian city on the border, they will concede.

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591346841601204224

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591339774715232256

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591335283424837632

Russia - Gets thrown out of Kharkiv and Kherson - Keep trying to advance in Bakhmut.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

further advance won’t be easy. Now Russia troop concentration on the East bank however Ukraine army has no amphibious capability. The river is too wide, 1,000m minimum. Maybe 200km foot march via land corridor Saporischa, attacking them from northern flank.

It is less than 300 meters in some places, but I guess that does not make any difference,

 

[Paul2]

Russia may choose to not respond militarily due to whatever reasons. You already assumed that has to be the case.

Current Russian military is 50% of what they inherited from USSR, and 50% is what 15 years of huge oil, and gas profits bought them.

Some part of USSR weapons they lost are impossible to replace now because manufacturing facilities are now in Ukraine, or in Stans.

So, 15 years of good economy only bought them so much.

It will take them 5 years for a minimal rebuild, or maybe less for a "bum rush"

Most importantly, half of their tank fleet is gone physically, and you can't fight nuclear war without tanks.

On the other hand NATO still have old cold war NBC equipment untouched in storage.