What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still a lot better than your Pakistan.


Was geolocation specified in your criticism? You made a blanket assertion that the mere option of NATO nukes in Ukraine justified Russia invasion. Yeah...Am not even trying. :lol:

So u have become so desperate that now u compare a so called superpower with a 3rd world country Pakistan lolz. I can understand ur hatred, afterall we shafted u good in Afghanistan and u didnt even realize it untill it was too late lolz, poor superpower lost in the woods.
You obviously lack common sense so its useless to argue with u. If today China or Russia gives cuba the "option" of having nukes, will the US allow it? Providing an "option" means opening a door to an opportunity, something not acceptable to Russia, or for that matter to any big power. What is the guarantee that Ukraine after joining NATO will not allow NATO nukes on its territory? You are doing nothing but embarrassing urself in this thread and jumping around like a propaganda zombie with zero facts or common sense. Anyways ur entertaining us atleast.
 
.
Russia invaded and annexed parts of Ukraine in 2014. This is the reason why Zelensky turned to NATO for support.
That happened after some people overthrow the legal Ukraine government and the new government banned Russian language in Russian majority area . What you expected happen after the Russians there said no and Kiev wanted to play heavy handedly .
 
.
Hon @Joe Shearer @PanzerKiel @jhungary

I agree with the notion that we have been flooded with Pro Ukrainian propaganda and the West is doing everything in its power to promote the notion that Ukraine is winning and will be at the gates of Moscow soon. We know that's not true and eventually the Russians will win using brute force. I think this map is a great illustration that despite the Social Media, the Russian pincers are advancing and soon they will trap Ukraine's most battle hardened troops in the East and surround Kiev as well. They are setting up their FOB's near Kiev as we speak.

View attachment 821204

But my point still remains, how could the Russians have underestimated the response of the Ukrainians? What happened to their logistics? Logistics at the end of the day wins wars, and we are seeing Russian troops looting super markets because they are short on food. Vehicles are being abandoned or convoys are stopped because their fuel supplies cannot keep up. The Russians couldn't even keep their basics straight, and as @jhungary pointed out, their Senior Generals are coming to the frontlines and exposing themselves to fire thus increasing danger to themselves.
To start, you cannot fight a war without the media on your side. Even with crazy dictator like Kim Jong family (That's why he has not done anything since Korean War to restart hostilities) and while you can control your own media, like what Russia did to its own domestic media and what China did to theirs. you cannot control the international view. And that is probably what counts at this point.

To be quite fair, before this, the last news we have in the US about Russia is the Trump Russian election scandal (Or the Russian skater issue but not everyone follow sport so that didn't count), and there are virtually no news on Russia where I am now (Australia) The West don't really care about Russia that much until either they become a big hero, or big villain or big laughing stock. Which make this an opportunities to vilify and the Media jump on the band wagon. Result? The world isolate Russia, and supporting Ukraine. Which is something EU and NATO otherwise will not do. Why? They didn't care enough to care about Ukraine NATO or EU membership since 2014, why would they care about them if not for this war?

That is my opinion on the media angle.

As for the Combat Plan and the problem with Russian Military, before all these started military pundit all have their say on whether or not Russia indeed capable to pull this 3 prongs war. The Logistic undertaking is enormous if you compare the US invasion in Iraq and this invasion, we barely made the invasion without overstretching our supply line, and we are doing the invasion on a single direct multi-prong attack. Which mean even if we have different route of invasion, the supply issue is going to be the same, and the same with other combat support service. We don't need to break into 3 sector for support and air defence, we don't need to dilute our troop while maintain a reasonable pace for our invasion. Result is we manage to keep our troop in one piece until it reaches the branching out point when we have to. And once that was done, we would also have set up Logistic Depot along our axis of invasion, that is how you get your force resupply and not bring stuff from staging area like the Russian is doing with the 40 mile convoy right now.

The issue here with the Russia is 2 fold, they break up too many force and do not have a clear plan to resupply it, nor within a schedule to resupply, kind of like what happened to the US and UK troop during Operation Market Garden. And most of that is because they don't have enough time to prepare, a general invasion like this take years, to undertake. That is the military side of the problem.

The leadership problem is another issue, Putin, being a former KGB (something I can relate to) means he is more of a surgical guy instead of a broadsword kind of guy. That is the trait of a spy, you see things from the outside and pinpoint your problem and focus on that, and leave before you get caught without any consequence. That did not translate well in a general invasion like this, you want to use Brute Force as soon as possible, as frequent as possible because your job is to overcome the defender, not to put some bomb in the right place and start a regime change. That is probably the reason why Putin is underestimating the Ukrainian, he run into a commander illusion, which he largely depends on his initial plan fall into place and everything goes according to his plan, again, this is a trait of a person who is meticulous and like things in control. But everyone been in war knows, no plan survive the first contact with the enemy. Notice that he is using the same template he had when he successfully annex Crimea, he is thinking why not do this again?
 
.
Russia invaded and annexed parts of Ukraine in 2014.



This is the reason why Zelensky turned to NATO for support. What else could he do?
Could have surrendered as most posters here said.
 
.
That happened after some people overthrow the legal Ukraine government and the new government banned Russian language in Russian majority area . What you expected happen after the Russians there said no and Kiev wanted to play heavy handedly .
This is a misconception. The older Ukraine government lost ground in elections due to charges of corruption in large part. Recheck my previous post - I have added sources in it.
 
.
Russians could have claim handful of drones shot down instead of claiming handful of SU-27s shot down.
Honestly I don't knew what Russia destroyed or what it didn't . But what I see in that Ukraine stopped flying it's air force . So what ever Russia did effectively eliminated Ukraine air force just like how Saddam air force get eliminated.
 
.
The most important lesson of the war:
 
.
It's not important if the hanger and runways are intact honestly even USA can't destroy runways of a determined enemy . But an airfield is more than that what about radars ,refueling and maintenance facilities , weapons ?
Supply is mobile, you can bring a fuel truck and stash weapon and munition off site in their designated weapon cache, this is what most military do, as for losing facilities, you don't really need state of the art equipment to guide, lunch and receive aircraft.

Just for a quick read, you should read up what USAF Combat Control Team do.

 
.
This is a misconception. The older Ukraine government lost ground in elections due to charges of corruption in large part. Recheck my previous post - I have added sources in it.
And you claim the ban on Russian language was also a myth , the attack on Russian speaking area was also a myth
 
.
To start, you cannot fight a war without the media on your side. Even with crazy dictator like Kim Jong family (That's why he has not done anything since Korean War to restart hostilities) and while you can control your own media, like what Russia did to its own domestic media and what China did to theirs. you cannot control the international view. And that is probably what counts at this point.

To be quite fair, before this, the last news we have in the US about Russia is the Trump Russian election scandal (Or the Russian skater issue but not everyone follow sport so that didn't count), and there are virtually no news on Russia where I am now (Australia) The West don't really care about Russia that much until either they become a big hero, or big villain or big laughing stock. Which make this an opportunities to vilify and the Media jump on the band wagon. Result? The world isolate Russia, and supporting Ukraine. Which is something EU and NATO otherwise will not do. Why? They didn't care enough to care about Ukraine NATO or EU membership since 2014, why would they care about them if not for this war?

That is my opinion on the media angle.

As for the Combat Plan and the problem with Russian Military, before all these started military pundit all have their say on whether or not Russia indeed capable to pull this 3 prongs war. The Logistic undertaking is enormous if you compare the US invasion in Iraq and this invasion, we barely made the invasion without overstretching our supply line, and we are doing the invasion on a single direct multi-prong attack. Which mean even if we have different route of invasion, the supply issue is going to be the same, and the same with other combat support service. We don't need to break into 3 sector for support and air defence, we don't need to dilute our troop while maintain a reasonable pace for our invasion. Result is we manage to keep our troop in one piece until it reaches the branching out point when we have to. And once that was done, we would also have set up Logistic Depot along our axis of invasion, that is how you get your force resupply and not bring stuff from staging area like the Russian is doing with the 40 mile convoy right now.

The issue here with the Russia is 2 fold, they break up too many force and do not have a clear plan to resupply it, nor within a schedule to resupply, kind of like what happened to the US and UK troop during Operation Market Garden. And most of that is because they don't have enough time to prepare, a general invasion like this take years, to undertake. That is the military side of the problem.

The leadership problem is another issue, Putin, being a former KGB (something I can relate to) means he is more of a surgical guy instead of a broadsword kind of guy. That is the trait of a spy, you see things from the outside and pinpoint your problem and focus on that, and leave before you get caught without any consequence. That did not translate well in a general invasion like this, you want to use Brute Force as soon as possible, as frequent as possible because your job is to overcome the defender, not to put some bomb in the right place and start a regime change. That is probably the reason why Putin is underestimating the Ukrainian, he run into a commander illusion, which he largely depends on his initial plan fall into place and everything goes according to his plan, again, this is a trait of a person who is meticulous and like things in control. But everyone been in war knows, no plan survive the first contact with the enemy. Notice that he is using the same template he had when he successfully annex Crimea, he is thinking why not do this again?

Upgrade Time for Russia's Military​

While playing catch-up on technology, Russia opts for cyber attacks, disinformation and other shadowy ways to fight a war with—and sometimes without—plausible deniability

Showing its age
"The need to modernize the Russian military became clear during the nation's short, sharp war with neighboring Georgia in 2008. “While Russia’s victory in the Russo-Georgian War was convincing, it still highlighted deficiencies in how the Russian army was armed and equipped,” says Keir Giles, a director of the Conflict Studies Research Center at Chatham House in London. Russia relied more on the shock of overwhelming force rather than the sophisticated use of military intelligence and combined arms, according to a U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute report. For instance, Russia lost a Tu-22 bomber during a reconnaissance mission because its forces lacked drones and satellite imagery to conduct surveillance safely. The incomplete state of Russia’s own global navigation satellite system at the time meant its air force could not effectively use guided bombs or missiles to support ground forces.

On the ground Russian soldiers often fought better-equipped Georgian troops who wore modern body armor—protection they themselves lacked at the time. Russian tanks suffered losses in frontal assaults against more modern Georgian military vehicles equipped with night vision, reactive armor and better communication. The brief conflict also strained Russian supply lines. One Russian tank commander described the loss of two of his tanks this way: “We simply ran out of ammunition and they surrounded us with grenade launchers.” But the sheer size of the Russian military and its strategic positioning of its forces for such a conflict enabled it to win.

The Russian military has already improved since the war six years ago. Russia's fairly bloodless takeover of Crimea this past spring gave the world a look at the modern body armor and other gear worn by the occupying troops. A July 2014 U.K. Parliament report (pdf) has concluded that Russia plans to spend $720 billion over the next decade to create a modern military that could better challenge NATO and the long-term threat of China’s fast-growing military power. The Russian military budget has risen to third-highest in the world, at almost $69 billion in 2013, according to the consulting firm IHS. That amount is still about half of China’s military spending the same year and barely 10 percent of the 2013 U.S. military budget.

Sowing doubt
But Russia does not need a fully modern military to achieve a political victory in the ongoing conflict between the Western-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed separatist forces. Russia has already mastered the use of an “information war” strategy to influence local populations, confuse the outside world's perception of ground events and shut down opposing sources of online information.

Manipulating and controlling information in ambiguous warfare enables Russia to deny involvement in eastern Ukraine even as it supplies separatist fighters with armored vehicles and air defense missiles, including the Buk missile system that likely was used to shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The disinformation strategy also worked for Russia when it denied sending troops into Crimea, despite the sudden appearance of well-armed fighters wearing standard uniforms but lacking national uniform insignia or flags on their vehicles.

Part of the information war uses patriotic news outlets and bloggers to broadcast Russia’s version of events on TV, YouTube and on social media, even as the Russian government increasingly restricts independent media voices at home. “There is creeping control over various forms of media, reaching down into the Internet, which was the last means of getting independent information not controlled by the government,” Giles says.

The popularity of social media and mobile phone cameras has posed one of the greater challenges to Russia’s information war strategy. Much initial evidence surrounding the shoot-down of Flight 17 came from Twitter. Careless postings by Russian soldiers betrayed their presence in eastern Ukraine despite official denials, Giles points out. Russia has countered with a law seeking official registration of popular bloggers and requiring social media networks to store six months of data on servers in Russia, according to BBC News."
 
.
:azn: autocorrect, treating the poor man's efforts at gasping out the phrase 'anti-materiel rifle' with the same clinical cruelty with which it, aah, circumscribed @jhungary (oh, that was a low blow!).
lol, i am glad i could be a laughing stock ...
 
.
Honestly I don't knew what Russia destroyed or what it didn't . But what I see in that Ukraine stopped flying it's air force . So what ever Russia did effectively eliminated Ukraine air force just like how Saddam air force get eliminated.
Yeah well take it as you will.
 
.
Supply is mobile, you can bring a fuel truck and stash weapon and munition off site in their designated weapon cache, this is what most military do, as for losing facilities, you don't really need state of the art equipment to guide, lunch and receive aircraft.

Just for a quick read, you should read up what USAF Combat Control Team do.

That reduce effectiveness a lot and Russian airplane maybe cheap to maintain (let say cheaper than American) but they are not that easy to maintain and tend to need somehow more fuel than western counterparts
 
.
What do you expect?
Russia wages a war of annihilation. Putin wants to erase Ukraine from the map. Should the Ukrainians greet the invaders with flowers instead of Molotov cocktail? Ukraine wages a total war. That’s justified.
What if Japan invades China again?
What would you do?
Kiss the Japanese?
I'm not saying anything about justification. I'm saying that it doesn't show that they're winning. Big difference.
 
.

Upgrade Time for Russia's Military​

While playing catch-up on technology, Russia opts for cyber attacks, disinformation and other shadowy ways to fight a war with—and sometimes without—plausible deniability

Showing its age
"The need to modernize the Russian military became clear during the nation's short, sharp war with neighboring Georgia in 2008. “While Russia’s victory in the Russo-Georgian War was convincing, it still highlighted deficiencies in how the Russian army was armed and equipped,” says Keir Giles, a director of the Conflict Studies Research Center at Chatham House in London. Russia relied more on the shock of overwhelming force rather than the sophisticated use of military intelligence and combined arms, according to a U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute report. For instance, Russia lost a Tu-22 bomber during a reconnaissance mission because its forces lacked drones and satellite imagery to conduct surveillance safely. The incomplete state of Russia’s own global navigation satellite system at the time meant its air force could not effectively use guided bombs or missiles to support ground forces.

On the ground Russian soldiers often fought better-equipped Georgian troops who wore modern body armor—protection they themselves lacked at the time. Russian tanks suffered losses in frontal assaults against more modern Georgian military vehicles equipped with night vision, reactive armor and better communication. The brief conflict also strained Russian supply lines. One Russian tank commander described the loss of two of his tanks this way: “We simply ran out of ammunition and they surrounded us with grenade launchers.” But the sheer size of the Russian military and its strategic positioning of its forces for such a conflict enabled it to win.

The Russian military has already improved since the war six years ago. Russia's fairly bloodless takeover of Crimea this past spring gave the world a look at the modern body armor and other gear worn by the occupying troops. A July 2014 U.K. Parliament report (pdf) has concluded that Russia plans to spend $720 billion over the next decade to create a modern military that could better challenge NATO and the long-term threat of China’s fast-growing military power. The Russian military budget has risen to third-highest in the world, at almost $69 billion in 2013, according to the consulting firm IHS. That amount is still about half of China’s military spending the same year and barely 10 percent of the 2013 U.S. military budget.

Sowing doubt
But Russia does not need a fully modern military to achieve a political victory in the ongoing conflict between the Western-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed separatist forces. Russia has already mastered the use of an “information war” strategy to influence local populations, confuse the outside world's perception of ground events and shut down opposing sources of online information.

Manipulating and controlling information in ambiguous warfare enables Russia to deny involvement in eastern Ukraine even as it supplies separatist fighters with armored vehicles and air defense missiles, including the Buk missile system that likely was used to shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The disinformation strategy also worked for Russia when it denied sending troops into Crimea, despite the sudden appearance of well-armed fighters wearing standard uniforms but lacking national uniform insignia or flags on their vehicles.

Part of the information war uses patriotic news outlets and bloggers to broadcast Russia’s version of events on TV, YouTube and on social media, even as the Russian government increasingly restricts independent media voices at home. “There is creeping control over various forms of media, reaching down into the Internet, which was the last means of getting independent information not controlled by the government,” Giles says.

The popularity of social media and mobile phone cameras has posed one of the greater challenges to Russia’s information war strategy. Much initial evidence surrounding the shoot-down of Flight 17 came from Twitter. Careless postings by Russian soldiers betrayed their presence in eastern Ukraine despite official denials, Giles points out. Russia has countered with a law seeking official registration of popular bloggers and requiring social media networks to store six months of data on servers in Russia, according to BBC News."
Russia has lost its warfighting capability a long time ago, that's why they are very heavy on the so called "Hybrid War"

Problem is, once you get to the "Actual" war stage (as in now) you will need to show command structure and leadership, both of which is lacking in Russian side IMO.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom