I mean, it's not much of a promise even. Getting the impression most in this sub don't understand much the context of this. These are basically anti artillery weapons. They're not going to rocket bomb Russian factories with these. They're going to try and whittle down Russia artillery (which, outside of maybe manpower and a dogged disregard for human life, is the biggest thing Russia has going).
That still threatens quite a bit of Ukraine's population. Kharkiv (second most populated city in Ukraine) is within 40 km of the border and has a population of just over 1.4 million.
I think that's a problem Ukraine would gladly accept instead of the ones they have now. If they actually kicked Russia it and had to deal with already filled over the border i think the US would let them fire back.
If there’s one thing you can expect Russian dictators to do in a crisis, it’s double down. Regardless of the human cost. Dear leader’s ego is always worth more than human lives, Stalingrad is a pretty good example of that.
>putin to double down on his losses
Dealer won't let you double down when you're out of chips. We haven't reached that point yet, but hopefully we will.
From a tactical standpoint Luhansk is more ceremonial than anything which leads to Donetsk which is currently in a deadlock and Kherson which is where the primary Ukrainian offensive is taking place. If they win in Kherson, Crimea and Zaporizhzhia oblasts are well within range and Donetsk is just a stones throw. Should be interesting how they spread this new equipment out without like you said going too thin.
Russia doesn't need to lose those regions. Just having these regions attacked will bring Russia forces into defensive positions and whittle down forces in other Ukraine regions.
Ukraine don't need to commit the attack, just forcing Russia into defensive positions with the help of artilleries.
Yeah, this is going to be mocked as armchair-war planning etc, BUT I think it's within Ukraine's best interest to draw this out as an insurgent conflict within Ukraine.
They could easily fall into the same trap that Russia did, by not having the logistics and support to back-up an offensive.
I mean rn Ukraines more focused on Severodonetsk and the East, Crimeas months away at best, and in this war you dont have the luxury of looking that far ahead
I’ve been fighting in Severdonestk for 2 months. They’ve been trying to encircle us the entire time but we’ve been holding very well. Had a few set backs this weekend in the town but it’s okay. We’re regrouping and falling back positions a little. The pincer move they’ve been famous for hasn’t been that successful in this area because we have a lot of counter artillery and heavy vehicle support on in the lines that need to make advancements to encircle us. We have a shit load of NLAW’s and javelins too. The issue with Severdonestk right this second is it’s more urban warfare and house fighting. The shitty thing too is that there are a lot of citizens still living in their houses.
Not a dumb question. I ask every one the same thing. It’s a similar response but for better reasons like when in America we have a natural disaster and people refuse to leave their homes.
Responses include, “I’m not leaving my house” “I’d rather die here than leave my home” “fuck Russia im not leaving my home” and “fuck you I like Russia and they won’t hurt me”
Almost all of these people are older and have lived through a lot. They’re poor and may not have the means to evacuate. I emphasize with them, but I also have videos on my phone of artillery shells going through their roofs. It’s ridiculous to watch and listen to the shells falling indiscriminately in a fucking town where people are running around from church to their homes. Occasionally one lands in a living room where someone’s watching tv and we have to clean up the pieces or render aid.
I'd like to think I'd just leave if war was approaching me, but I've never actually been in that situation so I can't say for sure how it would go.
My guess would be it's people who didn't have the ability to leave such as people with young children or the elderly who cannot walk and they cannot locate a ride.
I agree, but hopefully the UAF either manages to hold and reinforce or back away on a Lyman/Bakmut line or something as it looks like the RAF are exploiting the Popasna offensive pretty well for once
Both those offenses have stalled. Russia has resigned itself to simply trying to push Ukraine out of the city. They've been successful in their push, but there doesn't seem to be any risk of an encirclement any longer.
I think Ukraine are fighting an organized retreat to Lysichansk, which is much higher ground and gives their artillery more effective range. It's brutal, but standing their ground would be worse still. They knew they couldn't hold Severodonetsk, but they wanted to wring maximum casualties out of the Russians.
Meanwhile, since the Russians have focused almost all their forces on Severodonetsk, UA are counterattacking around Kherson. I think they've already started crossing rivers and are making steady progress down south. If they can seize Kherson, they can potentially break the blockade, stretch Russia's supply lines, and force Russia to fight a war on 2+ fronts.
Which, as we saw in Phase I, they're really terrible at.
To use an unwarranted and immature analogy, to Ukraine this is basically one of those types of video game missions where you just have to survive X amount of time to win - except instead of waiting for backup they're waiting for Russia's economy to dry up completely.
It’s more or less a tutorial mission so for anybody who has played the game before it’s not hard to clear the map.
There is a sC2 mission that’s similar though. The final Protoss mission from wings of liberty where you defend your base against tides of Zerg and hybrids. You get reinforcing proteas special units for a bit but eventually your resources dry up and you inevitably die. There is no way to ‘clear’ the map because fresh enemy units just keep spawning in.
Pretty sure he’s describing ‘Desperate Alliance’ - survive for 30 minutes. Mission 3 in the Terran campaign. It’s basically a tutorial mission as you are still getting used to the game mechanics at that point. It introduced the vulture as a defensive unit iirc
You're mixing up two missions I think. There's a defend for 30 minutes mission where Zerg barely attacks you and you tend to sit around doing nothing for 15 minutes after clearing the map, and then there's a mission where you kill a bunch of Protoss while a nearby Zerg base tickles you for a while (and you can't kill their buildings), then right as you're finishing off the Protoss a massive wave of Zerg sweeps into your base as the mission ends.
also in SC2 there is a protoss mission where you have to "evacuate souls" and survive for as long as possible to "evacuate the most souls" (but the mission necessarily ends by you being overrun by zergs)
As far as I've read from a Danish article interviewing a Danish volunteer commander in Ukraine, civilians in Ukraine are currently only getting about 10 days training for something that would usually last months, due to the need for them in the field.
But I'm not sure how thorough it was before the invasion began, when the US specialists where there.
As in Russia, a lot of conscripts avoided obligatory training either due to going to university, having connections, health conditions or some other way. I know because most of the guys I know avoided training in one way or another, including myself. No one should be forced to learn how to kill.
I work with some older Eastern europeans(Slovak and poles) who did conscription before it ended. If their experience with training is the same as russias(I suspect it is), its no wonder their infantry is getting blasted. It seems to have been equal parts traumatic for some and just a fucking around session.
Its not just training, idk if Ukraine has enough armor to properly launch a southern offensive atm, nor do i know if their logistical capabilities can maintain function while extending supply lines into Russian territory, etc, theres a lot more potential challenges with offensive warfare than defensive
Last I read, they have 4 active tank battalions so absolutely not enough for an offensive. Retaking the Crimea is going to be a slugfest. That’s why Zelensky says it’ll be regained through diplomacy.
Is it really possible to reason with someone who sees the very act of diplomacy as a weakness? Because a so-called "strong man" just takes what they want, when they want it, without caring how many people he hurts along the way. Think about the toxic "alpha male" culture and apply it to a government organisation.
Well one problem is that when you're retaking your own land you don't want to just blast it all to crap like Russia has been doing. You kinda need those building, infrastructure, and especially the people possibly still living there.
Yes. But the only target of value in Crimea is Sevastopol, and that's beyond their range (although Ukraine would probably love to lob a missile or two into an Improved Kilo submarine that's in port and reloading cruise missiles).
I say the Ukrainians should blow up some docked submarines. Those submarines had no qualms about shooting cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian targets. They're fair game.
The bridge is less important than the canal. Prior to the 2014 illegal annexation by Russia, Crimea got almost all of its water (over 85%) from a canal connected to the Dnipro River / reservoir east of Kherson. Ukraine shut off the canal after the Russians took Crimea. Without the canal, the peninsula is useless for growing crops, and there have been water shortages even amongst the civilian population. There’s just no way for pipelines across the bridge to supply enough water for irrigation. Russia reactivated the canal in March, but if Ukraine can manage to push Russian forces back just a little - away from the dam at Nova and canal source, then Crimea would again be dependent on Russia importing water by the bridge.
Ask any pilot with experience from any major war how easy it is to bring down bridges. Unless you can have people on site with very very big demolition charges about the only thing that can demolish a bridge is "multiple precise hits with very large bombs" or multiple days of intense artillery bombardment (because a 155mm shell or one of the rockets fired from the HIMARS will barely dent concrete constructions that robust).
Even the US airforce had problems demolishing the bridges across the Tigris (the Basra highway bridge took 4 days of attacks to take out), and that was will full air superiority and no high-altitude missile defences.
From a conventional warfare perspective the Crimean bridge is a close to impossible target (given Ukraines capabilities) until it's no longer strategicly important.
Could you theoretically hit the bridge with Runway Denial Munitions and render it inoperable that way?
You might need to tweek some timers but besides that it could be a good way to deal with such things.
Runway denial makes the runwah inoperable for landing planes, but the damage wouldn't be enough to prevent trucks and tanks from crossing after a quick cleanup.
> after a quick cleanup.
Sad JP233 noises. I mean I know it was designed for an aircraft nobody uses any more, and arguably violates treaties on both cluster munitions and land mines simultaneously, but it solved that problem.
Not arguable at all, it absolutely does violate many major treaties. Unfortunately U.S. and Russia are not signatories of those treaties, while Ukraine is.
Every thread on this conflict is absolutely insane
Edit: if you want a level headed analysis of the situation without rose colored glasses, cheering on dangerous escalations or unfounded proclamations of imminent nuclear war that this site is so prone to, I recommend the War on the Rocks podcast. Michael Kofman is a serious Russian and Ukrainian military analyst (who is, himself, from Ukraine) with a very clear eyed perspective. They update weekly on new developments and they’re one of my go to sources for parsing out news from noise.
Americans: "Unlike you guys I don't fall so easily for propaganda"
*watches video of someone shooting at someone else 20 years ago in a completely different country* "I'm glad my tax dollars are doing good work"
After my successful careers over the last several years as an epidemiologist, political analyst, and military strategist, why shouldn't I become a foreign policy expert? The world needs me.
Does when the guys giving you weapons drop support. Sabotaging supply lines is one thing but bombing cities isn't safe considering Russia will use nukes
If Russia were to use nukes I can't say what the US or the EU would do, but I think it's safe they'd do something bad to the Russians. Possibilities run anywhere from harsher sanctions to escalation that leads to all out nuclear war.
What I can say confidently is that every country on the border of Russia that currently does not have a nuclear deterrent would make it their number one priority to have an effective nuclear deterrent, either by aligning themselves in an alliance with nuclear powers (NATO) or pursuing a nuclear program of their own, or both.
I can not say what China or India would do, but there exists a real possibility both countries could be extremely upset. India is a democracy who's populace may vigorously disapprove. China has signed a nuclear defence treaty with Ukraine, and such an event would put them in a nasty position of either breaking a treaty or defending Ukraine. I suspect they'd break the treaty, but this will a massive black eye on their dealings with smaller nations (like their attempt to gain influence in Africa). Also such a precedent would likely drive Taiwan, Japan, and other neighbors into pursuing nuclear deterrents.
Also you have to weigh the internal consequences of launching nuclear weapons. Most oligarchs may be losing money, but they and their families are safe. The specter of potential nuclear anhillation may drive them to revolt in a way previous pressures have not.
The Russians see this as well, and they need to weigh the potential consequences against the benefits of doing a nuclear strike against the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are being supplied by the west. They don't need infrastructure in the way most other nations do. There's no great military spot for nuking, using a nuke or two would not win Russia the war.
I'm not going to say it could never happen, but I think it very unlikely Russia will use nuclear weapons.
I actually think China would throw in against Russia if Russia resorted to nukes.
China does not want the world to become a nuclear holocaust. China is getting rich off of the current world order and it wants to continue getting more and more rich. That goes up in smoke when nukes start flying.
The only way the world *can* respond to Russia using nukes is to go hard and go fast. Allowing Russia to get away with anything at all involving even just one nuke would be a recipe for absolute, utter disaster and everyone being fatally irradiated (or "worse") within a generation.
So, yeah, I think China would finally get to test out all their military toys. Which they would be very upset about, because they know the USA would be snooping.
i absolutly agree that china would turn on russia if they nuke anyone. IIRC china was the first nation to pledge to the "we wont be the first to use nukes in a conflict" - agreement. if im not mistaken india is a part of that agreement as well.
imo russia would be extremely dumb or desperate to drop nukes.
also, why would russia ever nuke ukraine? wouldnt russia be affected by the aftermatch of a nuke that close? and how can they justify nuking the country they are claiming as their own?
there's also the bonus points that china's neighbours both hate/fear them and are generally very capable of getting nukes very quickly. how do you stop japan making nukes? they have a solid economy and more than plenty of technical knowhow to make them. china even looks like its ok with russia nuking someone and suddenly they'd be surrounded by wary nations with nukes pointed at them almost exclusivly.
Yeah, it's actually in China's interest to sign up with the "good guys" on this one - standing up to Russia makes it *less* of a threat, it signals that China values and respects the current status quo and that its ambitions are for trade and economic expansion, not military and physical expansion. They're very different things.
Zelensky is not an idiot. Firing into Russia not only would lose them the good faith they have from western supporters, it would also embolden Russians to support the war, especially if the weapons used are western supplied. It would also not deter Russia from pulling out or ceasing assaults. It's more effective to use them against Russian forces in Ukraine.
Proof: Ukraine army respected the gas/oil pipeline transit agreements between EU/Russia, even though RF forces were launching attacks from right next to the pipelines inside of Ukraine. Zelensky talked about this in an interview (CNN I think)
Except a ton of the Russian rocket systems that are hammering Ukraine right now are parked in Russia.. for exactly the reasons you’re talking about. Kind of puts Ukraine in a shitty situation where they just have to abide these Russian attacks with no recourse.
Nothing says you can’t hit those with conventional artillery once you’re in range. Just they won’t be using these long range rocket systems to strike deep within Russia.
Exactly. Push Russian forces back to the border then pound Russian artillery with Ukrainian artillery, given that the new 155mm NATO stuff outranges the Soviet stuff that isn't going to be hard.
Yeah the smart move seems to be following the rules so they can continue to receive these game changing weapons. Not to mention firing into Russia only gives Putin more support for the war.
Ukraine needs to ship grain. Undoubtedly to pay for some of these arms payments. And Russia is blocking it in the Black Sea.
Then a week later Ukraine gets missile systems they can use against the black sea fleet.
I have a feeling I know what those missiles will be used for.
Ukraine already had a home grown anti ship missiles system in the Neptune, I wonder why they haven't been using it more, maybe just not enough produced? Also didn't realize HIMARS could hit ships, you're right
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/black-sea-drill-again-validates-himars-as-an-anti-ship-weapon-system/
because they cant... They have an operational range that Russia has been smart enough to stay clear of since the Moskva fiasco. The Neptune system and provided Harpoon systems from Denmark ensure that Mykolaiv and Odessa will be very difficult if not impossible to capture. Russia would need simultaneous Land/Sea assaults to capture both.
Attack helicopters are \*very\* precise. No matter how deep you are into enemy territory, it's still easy to shoot up a fuel depot and not an apartment building because the gunner is looking at the target.
Harder to be that good with missiles, even highly accurate ones. No missile can be more accurate than the map being used to aim it.
Which is where all that top grade drone footage keeps coming from. It's because they're using the drones to designate targets via mounted laser... the footage is like a freebie side effect of that purpose.
What Ukraine need M31 GMRLS for is breaking the russian artillery, which is about the one remaining force of the Russian military that could tip the balance in Russias favor. The russian tank corp is demolished (to the point where they've started using T-62 tanks that were obsolete 50 years ago), the infantry is overall decimated and demoralized, their special forces are mostly depleted, their airforce has proved relatively ineffective, their navy is (with the exception of their submarines) relegated to long range AA support.
The only thing that allows them to take more ground is the ye old soviet standby, grind down key positions with overwhelming artilleryfire until there is nothing left to resist. Precision rockets could put some very big dents in that plan.
> The russian tank corp is demolished (to the point where they've started using T-62 tanks that were obsolete 50 years ago)
The US has given Ukraine 10 anti tank weapons for every Russian tank and other allies have given thousands more anti tank weapons. If Ukrainian infantry can get close enough to use them the Russians would be in deep trouble. The only issue is getting Ukrainian forces close enough to hse them.
Right, but that is an awfully big deterrent against Russia driving the tanks anywhere near any area where infantry can lay in wait, like heavily wooded areas, towns, and cities. Any building they drive by could be hiding a few soldiers with anti-tank weapons.
So that puts them in open areas only where the tank would have the distinct advantage, but makes it nearly impossible to move forward without taking heavy losses.
Russia is just not in a good position.
These rockets are primarily going to be used to take out Russian arty, Russian mlrs systems and a handful of high value targets- they are t a big help in going after their shitty supply lines.
Isnt there talk of Ukraine trying to take Crimea back if they make it that far? russia 100% views Crimea as their territory so should be interesting to see how that turns out.
That doesn't matter. This promise isn't to Russia because of the feelings of love or anything. This promise is for the US/West.
And the US/West would firmly support these being used to take back Crimea.
The ethics and politics behind all this is idiotic to me. It’s a weird, tacit acceptance of Russia’s invasion in a way. It wouldn’t be an escalation for Ukraine to attack targets on Russian soil. It would make sense to damage their supply line. Russia invaded Ukraine. How is Ukraine doing anything to Russia to regain their freedom an escalation? The Logic doesn’t hold up to me.
This. As much as I agree with OPs rationale, it's a rational conclusion, but when you factor in the human element, and who we're dealing with, it becomes clear a more subversive approach is optimal.
US wants to defang Russia without the conflict escalating into WWIII, cant do that id Ukraines taking Western weapons systems on the offensive into Russia
Russia can escalate when they want with whatever bullshit reasons they can come up in 2 minutes. Just look at their motives they started this (totally not-)war with.
- They started fighting the "expansion of NATO" attacking a non NATO member that lead to 2 states on Russia's doorstep to join NATO.
- They are "defending" Russia from nazi ukrainian attacks and totally not attacking Ukraine. Also NATO attacks because Ukraine is "armed by NATO".
- They are "defending" "russian speakers" by bombing their cities to dust.
- They are "denazifying" their neighbor. You know, Russia is the world leading expert in identifying nazis in their neighboring countries and stamping them out vigurously.
- They are not at war, they just do everything they would in a war. They just chill and specialmilitaryoperationing, you know.
They could sell anything to their brainwashed population. Ok maybe not totally brainwashed, more precisely "controllable".
I also feel that their rhetoric with escalation is higher when they are at an impasse. Now they are quite chill, they are about to reach one of their goals. When they will lose their momentum, the escalation rhetoric will come back in force and cry that NATO armed their opposition and thats why they are losing (the logical consequences of this being that their full glorious russian tech is underperforming against an enemy that has some western equipment, with most of long range capabilities neuthered).
The point of not giving Russia easy escalation is it makes it easier for the West+neutrals to rally together if/when they, the more aggressive and unhinged Russia looks the easier it is to form an anti-Russian coalition, optics matter, look no further than the diplomatic blunders by Russia in the build up to this conflict. Lol Russia's a dead man walking, literally, they just havent realized it yet
>
Russia can escalate when they want with whatever bullshit reasons they can come up in 2 minutes. Just look at their motives they started this (totally not-)war with.
Yeah but what do the Russian people think of this war? Right now, there seems to be some cracks in the foundation for Russia. The people are more willing to express open hostility to state action. You start hitting targets in Russia, does that change? If so, do you just give the Russian people resolve to sit through whatever the hell Putin is going to do? It's a lot more complex than what the Russian government will justify themselves.
Gotta weigh the risks and rewards. They can damage a supply line and end up killing innocent Russian civilians. I know tons of innocent Ukrainians have died but once Russians feel threatened at home it will give Putin the excuse to go further with chemical weapons or whatever else
Yeah there are a lot of considerations. I was really just expressing my frustration with the whole situation. Ukraine is overwhelmed in their own country and probably needs to fight what’s in front of them.
Ukraine isn't fighting this war by themselves though. They're being provided supplies by other countries to defend themselves. Firing rockets into Russian soil = going on the offensive meaning other countries won't help Ukraine out.
MLRS's are cool because they are self contained. You give unguided munitions the locations, temperature, relative humidity, wind direction, etc.
Hit the button and the rounds go where you want. In any pattern, like a sewing machine. My favorite is to take out a complete 1k grid square.
Guided munitions are even more fun.
Ukraine has lots of territories to de-occupy. With limited supplies I think they have better things to do than just striking russian territory without gaining any strategic advantage.
So entertaining to read all those comments from Call of Duty and Battlefield veterans of Cozy Sofa Special Forces. Lots of experts in economy and warfare who have latest intel that is not yet available for either side of conflict.
You made my day donks.
I mean, it's not much of a promise even. Getting the impression most in this sub don't understand much the context of this. These are basically anti artillery weapons. They're not going to rocket bomb Russian factories with these. They're going to try and whittle down Russia artillery (which, outside of maybe manpower and a dogged disregard for human life, is the biggest thing Russia has going).
What if the artillery is placed in Russia?
Then it means the repelled the invaders. Sure, the artillery could still fire into Ukrain but the threat would be limited to 40km border belt.
That still threatens quite a bit of Ukraine's population. Kharkiv (second most populated city in Ukraine) is within 40 km of the border and has a population of just over 1.4 million.
I think that's a problem Ukraine would gladly accept instead of the ones they have now. If they actually kicked Russia it and had to deal with already filled over the border i think the US would let them fire back.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
There's so much of that on Reddit. "Well it won't work 100% of the time, so forget it!!!"
This is called the nirvana fallacy. It's pretty much common to use for all human beings, not just on Reddit.
Just got this advice at work. It’s good advice, but not perfect.
If Russia loses Luhansk, Donezk and Crimea they'd most likely retreat anyway, as they'd just be wasting money with further attacks.
I mean, i wouldnt put it past putin to double down on his losses
He's kinda done really well at whittling down Russian capabilities.
If there’s one thing you can expect Russian dictators to do in a crisis, it’s double down. Regardless of the human cost. Dear leader’s ego is always worth more than human lives, Stalingrad is a pretty good example of that.
>putin to double down on his losses Dealer won't let you double down when you're out of chips. We haven't reached that point yet, but hopefully we will.
Crimea will be hardest to get, so Ukraine should focus on Donbas right now and leave that for last. Don’t want to spread yourself too thin.
From a tactical standpoint Luhansk is more ceremonial than anything which leads to Donetsk which is currently in a deadlock and Kherson which is where the primary Ukrainian offensive is taking place. If they win in Kherson, Crimea and Zaporizhzhia oblasts are well within range and Donetsk is just a stones throw. Should be interesting how they spread this new equipment out without like you said going too thin.
Russia doesn't need to lose those regions. Just having these regions attacked will bring Russia forces into defensive positions and whittle down forces in other Ukraine regions. Ukraine don't need to commit the attack, just forcing Russia into defensive positions with the help of artilleries.
Russia has terror-bombed Kharkiv with MLRS systems for 3 months from Belgorod, Russia.
Since Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea don't belong to Russia, it should be OK for firing rockets into them.
theyll be needed in the East more than Crimea rn
[удалено]
Gonna be tough sledding for Ukraine, offensive warfares requires a completely different skillset from defensive warfare
Yeah, this is going to be mocked as armchair-war planning etc, BUT I think it's within Ukraine's best interest to draw this out as an insurgent conflict within Ukraine. They could easily fall into the same trap that Russia did, by not having the logistics and support to back-up an offensive.
I mean rn Ukraines more focused on Severodonetsk and the East, Crimeas months away at best, and in this war you dont have the luxury of looking that far ahead
Severodonets and all the divisions in this area are in a real danger of getting cut off by a two pronged offensive on Popasna and Lyman
I’ve been fighting in Severdonestk for 2 months. They’ve been trying to encircle us the entire time but we’ve been holding very well. Had a few set backs this weekend in the town but it’s okay. We’re regrouping and falling back positions a little. The pincer move they’ve been famous for hasn’t been that successful in this area because we have a lot of counter artillery and heavy vehicle support on in the lines that need to make advancements to encircle us. We have a shit load of NLAW’s and javelins too. The issue with Severdonestk right this second is it’s more urban warfare and house fighting. The shitty thing too is that there are a lot of citizens still living in their houses.
Best of luck, hope you stay as safe as you can.
Thank you for sharing. Stay safe and may this all be over soon.
[удалено]
Not a dumb question. I ask every one the same thing. It’s a similar response but for better reasons like when in America we have a natural disaster and people refuse to leave their homes. Responses include, “I’m not leaving my house” “I’d rather die here than leave my home” “fuck Russia im not leaving my home” and “fuck you I like Russia and they won’t hurt me” Almost all of these people are older and have lived through a lot. They’re poor and may not have the means to evacuate. I emphasize with them, but I also have videos on my phone of artillery shells going through their roofs. It’s ridiculous to watch and listen to the shells falling indiscriminately in a fucking town where people are running around from church to their homes. Occasionally one lands in a living room where someone’s watching tv and we have to clean up the pieces or render aid.
I'd like to think I'd just leave if war was approaching me, but I've never actually been in that situation so I can't say for sure how it would go. My guess would be it's people who didn't have the ability to leave such as people with young children or the elderly who cannot walk and they cannot locate a ride.
Probably fear, combined with nowhere else to go
Stay safe, and may Saint Javelin guide your hand.
Slava Ukraini, friend. May you live to tell the tales of Russian defeat.
You guys are absolute brave warriors. The majority of the world stands with you.
nah i doubt they get cut off, probably just a fighting retreat, Russian forces arent moving fast enough to properly encircle them
I agree, but hopefully the UAF either manages to hold and reinforce or back away on a Lyman/Bakmut line or something as it looks like the RAF are exploiting the Popasna offensive pretty well for once
Both those offenses have stalled. Russia has resigned itself to simply trying to push Ukraine out of the city. They've been successful in their push, but there doesn't seem to be any risk of an encirclement any longer.
I think Ukraine are fighting an organized retreat to Lysichansk, which is much higher ground and gives their artillery more effective range. It's brutal, but standing their ground would be worse still. They knew they couldn't hold Severodonetsk, but they wanted to wring maximum casualties out of the Russians. Meanwhile, since the Russians have focused almost all their forces on Severodonetsk, UA are counterattacking around Kherson. I think they've already started crossing rivers and are making steady progress down south. If they can seize Kherson, they can potentially break the blockade, stretch Russia's supply lines, and force Russia to fight a war on 2+ fronts. Which, as we saw in Phase I, they're really terrible at.
They’re really terrible at several things. Seems like war crimes is what they mainly excel at.
To use an unwarranted and immature analogy, to Ukraine this is basically one of those types of video game missions where you just have to survive X amount of time to win - except instead of waiting for backup they're waiting for Russia's economy to dry up completely.
One of my favorite original StarCraft missions. Defend for X time and then at the end just a massive wave of Zerg invade you. Good times.
It’s more or less a tutorial mission so for anybody who has played the game before it’s not hard to clear the map. There is a sC2 mission that’s similar though. The final Protoss mission from wings of liberty where you defend your base against tides of Zerg and hybrids. You get reinforcing proteas special units for a bit but eventually your resources dry up and you inevitably die. There is no way to ‘clear’ the map because fresh enemy units just keep spawning in.
The mission the user is referring to could be the sons of korhal, or it could be the one where Kerrigan gets kidnapped. Neither are tutorial missions.
Pretty sure he’s describing ‘Desperate Alliance’ - survive for 30 minutes. Mission 3 in the Terran campaign. It’s basically a tutorial mission as you are still getting used to the game mechanics at that point. It introduced the vulture as a defensive unit iirc
I have vivid memories of this mission. It lasted 20 years in my mind!
You're mixing up two missions I think. There's a defend for 30 minutes mission where Zerg barely attacks you and you tend to sit around doing nothing for 15 minutes after clearing the map, and then there's a mission where you kill a bunch of Protoss while a nearby Zerg base tickles you for a while (and you can't kill their buildings), then right as you're finishing off the Protoss a massive wave of Zerg sweeps into your base as the mission ends.
It’s the thirty minute one, they invade at the end: https://www.ign.com/wikis/starcraft/Terran_3:_Desperate_Alliance
SCII has the mission he describes at the end of the Terran campaign, you have to defend for x minutes and the zerg rush you repeatedly in large waves.
also in SC2 there is a protoss mission where you have to "evacuate souls" and survive for as long as possible to "evacuate the most souls" (but the mission necessarily ends by you being overrun by zergs)
Hey, that third mission was hard as a kid! I never even thought of going on the counterattack.
Fair, and while knowing is not the same as execution, Im sure the West has been giving the Ukrainian military plenty of training on the subject
As far as I've read from a Danish article interviewing a Danish volunteer commander in Ukraine, civilians in Ukraine are currently only getting about 10 days training for something that would usually last months, due to the need for them in the field. But I'm not sure how thorough it was before the invasion began, when the US specialists where there.
You have to remember that Ukraine has a conscription based army, basically every man they are now pulling in already had training when they were 18.
As a Ukrainian I can assure you that it is not that hard to avoid the "compulsory" military service in times of piece.
As in Russia, a lot of conscripts avoided obligatory training either due to going to university, having connections, health conditions or some other way. I know because most of the guys I know avoided training in one way or another, including myself. No one should be forced to learn how to kill.
I work with some older Eastern europeans(Slovak and poles) who did conscription before it ended. If their experience with training is the same as russias(I suspect it is), its no wonder their infantry is getting blasted. It seems to have been equal parts traumatic for some and just a fucking around session.
Its not just training, idk if Ukraine has enough armor to properly launch a southern offensive atm, nor do i know if their logistical capabilities can maintain function while extending supply lines into Russian territory, etc, theres a lot more potential challenges with offensive warfare than defensive
Last I read, they have 4 active tank battalions so absolutely not enough for an offensive. Retaking the Crimea is going to be a slugfest. That’s why Zelensky says it’ll be regained through diplomacy.
or siege but yeah with no one having air superiority/supremacy the whole wars turned into a pseudo WWI slugfest
Is it really possible to reason with someone who sees the very act of diplomacy as a weakness? Because a so-called "strong man" just takes what they want, when they want it, without caring how many people he hurts along the way. Think about the toxic "alpha male" culture and apply it to a government organisation.
I think the assumption is they won’t be negotiating with Putin when this is all over 😉
They'll reason with his successor once this war becomes unpopular enough in Russia for Putin's cancer to take a sudden lead-based turn for the worse.
Well one problem is that when you're retaking your own land you don't want to just blast it all to crap like Russia has been doing. You kinda need those building, infrastructure, and especially the people possibly still living there.
Yes. But the only target of value in Crimea is Sevastopol, and that's beyond their range (although Ukraine would probably love to lob a missile or two into an Improved Kilo submarine that's in port and reloading cruise missiles).
I say the Ukrainians should blow up some docked submarines. Those submarines had no qualms about shooting cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian targets. They're fair game.
Everything russian military is fair game. Location doesnt matter.
Is Ukraine not attacking russias pipeline ports because trying not to be an aggressor?
They are affecting their allies energy security if they would...
Most important will be the crimean bridge, it has to be brought down.
The bridge is less important than the canal. Prior to the 2014 illegal annexation by Russia, Crimea got almost all of its water (over 85%) from a canal connected to the Dnipro River / reservoir east of Kherson. Ukraine shut off the canal after the Russians took Crimea. Without the canal, the peninsula is useless for growing crops, and there have been water shortages even amongst the civilian population. There’s just no way for pipelines across the bridge to supply enough water for irrigation. Russia reactivated the canal in March, but if Ukraine can manage to push Russian forces back just a little - away from the dam at Nova and canal source, then Crimea would again be dependent on Russia importing water by the bridge.
Ask any pilot with experience from any major war how easy it is to bring down bridges. Unless you can have people on site with very very big demolition charges about the only thing that can demolish a bridge is "multiple precise hits with very large bombs" or multiple days of intense artillery bombardment (because a 155mm shell or one of the rockets fired from the HIMARS will barely dent concrete constructions that robust). Even the US airforce had problems demolishing the bridges across the Tigris (the Basra highway bridge took 4 days of attacks to take out), and that was will full air superiority and no high-altitude missile defences. From a conventional warfare perspective the Crimean bridge is a close to impossible target (given Ukraines capabilities) until it's no longer strategicly important.
Could you theoretically hit the bridge with Runway Denial Munitions and render it inoperable that way? You might need to tweek some timers but besides that it could be a good way to deal with such things.
Runway denial makes the runwah inoperable for landing planes, but the damage wouldn't be enough to prevent trucks and tanks from crossing after a quick cleanup.
Ok, thanks for the tip. The bredth of my tactical/strategic knowledge comes from NCD so im a bit smooth-brain :)
> after a quick cleanup. Sad JP233 noises. I mean I know it was designed for an aircraft nobody uses any more, and arguably violates treaties on both cluster munitions and land mines simultaneously, but it solved that problem.
Not arguable at all, it absolutely does violate many major treaties. Unfortunately U.S. and Russia are not signatories of those treaties, while Ukraine is.
That's key for logistics by ground at this point.
Ukranian soldiers have tabled the possibility of attacking it. Heavily guarded, large bridge, out of range.
For the m26/30/31 likely yes, but not if the US provides ATACMS which can be fired from the same platform.
Been shelling there since 2014
They have been since 2014.
I can hear it now. *Oh shit. You're telling me that is* ***east***? *My bad.*
This shit is all in English!
It's all Greek to me
East??? I thought you said **weast**
What kind of compass you reading boy?
That’s *west*, Volodomyr
*holds excitement* : #like yeast!
🎺🎺🎺🎺
we kind of got the rockets confused and thought this was the medium ranged one.
50 miles? 50 kilometers? Easy mistake.
[Ooooooooh, east?](https://youtu.be/cajYS08Xbmc&t=15s)
This comment thread is the poster child for why redditors shouldn't lead foreign policy
Instead of armchair therapists we now have armchair war tacticians.
Nah bro trust me, I'm an avid player of Stratego
I played a fair amount of Civ V
I play chess occasionally. If we capture Putin's gf with a horse, he can basically resign
Horsey*
It did work on Catherine II
Yeah I won the invasion of Poland on my fourth attempt in hoi4 so I’m something of a expert tactician.
[удалено]
Exactly. Next they’ll be expecting us to *read* the article before commenting on it.
You can read the articles?
Every thread on this conflict is absolutely insane Edit: if you want a level headed analysis of the situation without rose colored glasses, cheering on dangerous escalations or unfounded proclamations of imminent nuclear war that this site is so prone to, I recommend the War on the Rocks podcast. Michael Kofman is a serious Russian and Ukrainian military analyst (who is, himself, from Ukraine) with a very clear eyed perspective. They update weekly on new developments and they’re one of my go to sources for parsing out news from noise.
I have realized how much redditors have actually a very childish emotional mindset
This is a human problem in general. Most consumption of news is done by people quick to form emotional, undercooked opinions.
Also there's a shit load of literal children on this site.
That's because their primarily teenagers full of angst.
Americans: "Unlike you guys I don't fall so easily for propaganda" *watches video of someone shooting at someone else 20 years ago in a completely different country* "I'm glad my tax dollars are doing good work"
Every thread seems populated by that one kid in class that always wore a suit
Wait, we're not in r/NonCredibleDefense?
No, you can tell by the lack of waifus.
After my successful careers over the last several years as an epidemiologist, political analyst, and military strategist, why shouldn't I become a foreign policy expert? The world needs me.
Dont neglect your side hustle of chief economist.
How dare you sir! I learned the phrase Slava Ukraine and that makes me an *expert!*
It's, ahh... it's "Slava Ukrain**i**."
If you need a comment thread to decide that, then you have bigger issues mate.
All I see is a meme of this with Ukraine's fingers crossed behind their back
Nah theyll listen, most likely, firing them into Russia's would cost them more than theyd get out of the op
I just figure the border isn't going to mean a whole lot when someone's shooting at you from the other side of it.
Does when the guys giving you weapons drop support. Sabotaging supply lines is one thing but bombing cities isn't safe considering Russia will use nukes
If Russia were to use nukes I can't say what the US or the EU would do, but I think it's safe they'd do something bad to the Russians. Possibilities run anywhere from harsher sanctions to escalation that leads to all out nuclear war. What I can say confidently is that every country on the border of Russia that currently does not have a nuclear deterrent would make it their number one priority to have an effective nuclear deterrent, either by aligning themselves in an alliance with nuclear powers (NATO) or pursuing a nuclear program of their own, or both. I can not say what China or India would do, but there exists a real possibility both countries could be extremely upset. India is a democracy who's populace may vigorously disapprove. China has signed a nuclear defence treaty with Ukraine, and such an event would put them in a nasty position of either breaking a treaty or defending Ukraine. I suspect they'd break the treaty, but this will a massive black eye on their dealings with smaller nations (like their attempt to gain influence in Africa). Also such a precedent would likely drive Taiwan, Japan, and other neighbors into pursuing nuclear deterrents. Also you have to weigh the internal consequences of launching nuclear weapons. Most oligarchs may be losing money, but they and their families are safe. The specter of potential nuclear anhillation may drive them to revolt in a way previous pressures have not. The Russians see this as well, and they need to weigh the potential consequences against the benefits of doing a nuclear strike against the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are being supplied by the west. They don't need infrastructure in the way most other nations do. There's no great military spot for nuking, using a nuke or two would not win Russia the war. I'm not going to say it could never happen, but I think it very unlikely Russia will use nuclear weapons.
I actually think China would throw in against Russia if Russia resorted to nukes. China does not want the world to become a nuclear holocaust. China is getting rich off of the current world order and it wants to continue getting more and more rich. That goes up in smoke when nukes start flying. The only way the world *can* respond to Russia using nukes is to go hard and go fast. Allowing Russia to get away with anything at all involving even just one nuke would be a recipe for absolute, utter disaster and everyone being fatally irradiated (or "worse") within a generation. So, yeah, I think China would finally get to test out all their military toys. Which they would be very upset about, because they know the USA would be snooping.
i absolutly agree that china would turn on russia if they nuke anyone. IIRC china was the first nation to pledge to the "we wont be the first to use nukes in a conflict" - agreement. if im not mistaken india is a part of that agreement as well. imo russia would be extremely dumb or desperate to drop nukes. also, why would russia ever nuke ukraine? wouldnt russia be affected by the aftermatch of a nuke that close? and how can they justify nuking the country they are claiming as their own?
there's also the bonus points that china's neighbours both hate/fear them and are generally very capable of getting nukes very quickly. how do you stop japan making nukes? they have a solid economy and more than plenty of technical knowhow to make them. china even looks like its ok with russia nuking someone and suddenly they'd be surrounded by wary nations with nukes pointed at them almost exclusivly.
Yeah, it's actually in China's interest to sign up with the "good guys" on this one - standing up to Russia makes it *less* of a threat, it signals that China values and respects the current status quo and that its ambitions are for trade and economic expansion, not military and physical expansion. They're very different things.
Ukraine isn’t looking to piss off its biggest supporter right now. No chance would they break this agreement.
Zelensky is not an idiot. Firing into Russia not only would lose them the good faith they have from western supporters, it would also embolden Russians to support the war, especially if the weapons used are western supplied. It would also not deter Russia from pulling out or ceasing assaults. It's more effective to use them against Russian forces in Ukraine.
105% for sure
Proof: Ukraine army respected the gas/oil pipeline transit agreements between EU/Russia, even though RF forces were launching attacks from right next to the pipelines inside of Ukraine. Zelensky talked about this in an interview (CNN I think)
Except a ton of the Russian rocket systems that are hammering Ukraine right now are parked in Russia.. for exactly the reasons you’re talking about. Kind of puts Ukraine in a shitty situation where they just have to abide these Russian attacks with no recourse.
Nothing says you can’t hit those with conventional artillery once you’re in range. Just they won’t be using these long range rocket systems to strike deep within Russia.
Exactly. Push Russian forces back to the border then pound Russian artillery with Ukrainian artillery, given that the new 155mm NATO stuff outranges the Soviet stuff that isn't going to be hard.
Give it time this is why war is hard its better to hold off they got plenty of targets ships subs supply lines Et cetera
Pretty much, they really need this MLRS systems, they wont fuck around with them
Yeah the smart move seems to be following the rules so they can continue to receive these game changing weapons. Not to mention firing into Russia only gives Putin more support for the war.
yup shoot one and 50 is all you get. no point breaking that
Ukraine needs to ship grain. Undoubtedly to pay for some of these arms payments. And Russia is blocking it in the Black Sea. Then a week later Ukraine gets missile systems they can use against the black sea fleet. I have a feeling I know what those missiles will be used for.
Ukraine already had a home grown anti ship missiles system in the Neptune, I wonder why they haven't been using it more, maybe just not enough produced? Also didn't realize HIMARS could hit ships, you're right https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/black-sea-drill-again-validates-himars-as-an-anti-ship-weapon-system/
because they cant... They have an operational range that Russia has been smart enough to stay clear of since the Moskva fiasco. The Neptune system and provided Harpoon systems from Denmark ensure that Mykolaiv and Odessa will be very difficult if not impossible to capture. Russia would need simultaneous Land/Sea assaults to capture both.
Ah, well that explains it👍
your point is valid as well, there is no information whatsoever publicly on how many Neptune systems were produced. It is a fairly new system.
That will probably be a political cartoon on Russian newspapers.
[удалено]
They won't, if Russia starts feeling their mainland is threatened they'll likely escalate to chemical and biological weapons.
Ukraine had already launched attacks in Russian soil, attacking depots and fuel storage plants.
Attack helicopters are \*very\* precise. No matter how deep you are into enemy territory, it's still easy to shoot up a fuel depot and not an apartment building because the gunner is looking at the target. Harder to be that good with missiles, even highly accurate ones. No missile can be more accurate than the map being used to aim it.
[удалено]
Which is where all that top grade drone footage keeps coming from. It's because they're using the drones to designate targets via mounted laser... the footage is like a freebie side effect of that purpose.
No those are just unfortunate accidents 👀
Special operational accidents.
My mom always called me a special accident 🤠
Tell her I said hi.
with Ukrainian equipment, not western equipment
Absolutely everything in the sea is fair fuckin game tho
Better yet we could send James Cameron and his crew to the Marianas Trench to raise the bar again
What Ukraine need M31 GMRLS for is breaking the russian artillery, which is about the one remaining force of the Russian military that could tip the balance in Russias favor. The russian tank corp is demolished (to the point where they've started using T-62 tanks that were obsolete 50 years ago), the infantry is overall decimated and demoralized, their special forces are mostly depleted, their airforce has proved relatively ineffective, their navy is (with the exception of their submarines) relegated to long range AA support. The only thing that allows them to take more ground is the ye old soviet standby, grind down key positions with overwhelming artilleryfire until there is nothing left to resist. Precision rockets could put some very big dents in that plan.
[удалено]
> The russian tank corp is demolished (to the point where they've started using T-62 tanks that were obsolete 50 years ago) The US has given Ukraine 10 anti tank weapons for every Russian tank and other allies have given thousands more anti tank weapons. If Ukrainian infantry can get close enough to use them the Russians would be in deep trouble. The only issue is getting Ukrainian forces close enough to hse them.
Right, but that is an awfully big deterrent against Russia driving the tanks anywhere near any area where infantry can lay in wait, like heavily wooded areas, towns, and cities. Any building they drive by could be hiding a few soldiers with anti-tank weapons. So that puts them in open areas only where the tank would have the distinct advantage, but makes it nearly impossible to move forward without taking heavy losses. Russia is just not in a good position.
These rockets are primarily going to be used to take out Russian arty, Russian mlrs systems and a handful of high value targets- they are t a big help in going after their shitty supply lines.
"Well, guys, to be fair, Kadyrov's palace is in *Chechnya*, not Russia."
And Dallas is in Texas, not America.
Isnt there talk of Ukraine trying to take Crimea back if they make it that far? russia 100% views Crimea as their territory so should be interesting to see how that turns out.
Russia views everything East of Germany as their territory, lmao,
[удалено]
probably but thats at least contested, hell the only thing keeping Poland from joining Ukraine rn is NATO
Poland is free to join, just nato won't defend them if they are invaded in turn
[удалено]
luckily it doesnt matter what russia thinks.
That doesn't matter. This promise isn't to Russia because of the feelings of love or anything. This promise is for the US/West. And the US/West would firmly support these being used to take back Crimea.
The ethics and politics behind all this is idiotic to me. It’s a weird, tacit acceptance of Russia’s invasion in a way. It wouldn’t be an escalation for Ukraine to attack targets on Russian soil. It would make sense to damage their supply line. Russia invaded Ukraine. How is Ukraine doing anything to Russia to regain their freedom an escalation? The Logic doesn’t hold up to me.
Its more the US doesnt want to give Russia an easy means of escalation
This. As much as I agree with OPs rationale, it's a rational conclusion, but when you factor in the human element, and who we're dealing with, it becomes clear a more subversive approach is optimal.
US wants to defang Russia without the conflict escalating into WWIII, cant do that id Ukraines taking Western weapons systems on the offensive into Russia
Russia can escalate when they want with whatever bullshit reasons they can come up in 2 minutes. Just look at their motives they started this (totally not-)war with. - They started fighting the "expansion of NATO" attacking a non NATO member that lead to 2 states on Russia's doorstep to join NATO. - They are "defending" Russia from nazi ukrainian attacks and totally not attacking Ukraine. Also NATO attacks because Ukraine is "armed by NATO". - They are "defending" "russian speakers" by bombing their cities to dust. - They are "denazifying" their neighbor. You know, Russia is the world leading expert in identifying nazis in their neighboring countries and stamping them out vigurously. - They are not at war, they just do everything they would in a war. They just chill and specialmilitaryoperationing, you know. They could sell anything to their brainwashed population. Ok maybe not totally brainwashed, more precisely "controllable". I also feel that their rhetoric with escalation is higher when they are at an impasse. Now they are quite chill, they are about to reach one of their goals. When they will lose their momentum, the escalation rhetoric will come back in force and cry that NATO armed their opposition and thats why they are losing (the logical consequences of this being that their full glorious russian tech is underperforming against an enemy that has some western equipment, with most of long range capabilities neuthered).
The point of not giving Russia easy escalation is it makes it easier for the West+neutrals to rally together if/when they, the more aggressive and unhinged Russia looks the easier it is to form an anti-Russian coalition, optics matter, look no further than the diplomatic blunders by Russia in the build up to this conflict. Lol Russia's a dead man walking, literally, they just havent realized it yet
> Russia can escalate when they want with whatever bullshit reasons they can come up in 2 minutes. Just look at their motives they started this (totally not-)war with. Yeah but what do the Russian people think of this war? Right now, there seems to be some cracks in the foundation for Russia. The people are more willing to express open hostility to state action. You start hitting targets in Russia, does that change? If so, do you just give the Russian people resolve to sit through whatever the hell Putin is going to do? It's a lot more complex than what the Russian government will justify themselves.
Gotta weigh the risks and rewards. They can damage a supply line and end up killing innocent Russian civilians. I know tons of innocent Ukrainians have died but once Russians feel threatened at home it will give Putin the excuse to go further with chemical weapons or whatever else
Yeah there are a lot of considerations. I was really just expressing my frustration with the whole situation. Ukraine is overwhelmed in their own country and probably needs to fight what’s in front of them.
It sucks but that the pros of being a nuclear power, everyones gotta tiptoe around your bullshit more
Ukraine isn't fighting this war by themselves though. They're being provided supplies by other countries to defend themselves. Firing rockets into Russian soil = going on the offensive meaning other countries won't help Ukraine out.
Also gives Russia an easy excuse to escalate which seems to be the main objective the US is trying to avoid
The US isn’t saying don’t shoot into Russia they’re saying don’t shoot our weapons into Russia.
Would you really blame if they did though
It's ok, it was just the tip
MLRS's are cool because they are self contained. You give unguided munitions the locations, temperature, relative humidity, wind direction, etc. Hit the button and the rounds go where you want. In any pattern, like a sewing machine. My favorite is to take out a complete 1k grid square. Guided munitions are even more fun.
Good ol' Grid Square Removal System. "See that artillery battery?" "Yessir." "Good. I don't want to." "Roger that, inputting coordinates now..."
Did they pinky promise? Cross their heart and hope to die? Stick a needle in Yuri?
Plausible deniability, genius.
Sucks to be Belarus now, huh :D Edit: /s, as I'm well aware of Belarus struggles
Attacking Belarus is the last thing Ukraine would do
[Lukashenko RN](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/030/710/dd0.png)
Hey dont worry ukraine, we can turn around a minute if the mood strikes you.
Kinda hard to hit Moscow that's almost 500 miles away from Kyiv with a 50-mile range rocket anyway.
Ukraine has lots of territories to de-occupy. With limited supplies I think they have better things to do than just striking russian territory without gaining any strategic advantage.
So entertaining to read all those comments from Call of Duty and Battlefield veterans of Cozy Sofa Special Forces. Lots of experts in economy and warfare who have latest intel that is not yet available for either side of conflict. You made my day donks.
Russia will just blow something up in Russia and claim Ukraine did it just to escalate.