Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 2

a reply to: Xcathdra

Some Ukrainian sites reported that Dvornikov was replaced by Gennady Zhidko. But I couldn't say.

a reply to: Cutepants

Ahidko has apparently been on the promotion fast track list and it looks (provided he is not blamed by Putin for failures in Ukraine) like he is on a fast track as a deputy defense minister.

It reminds me of the scene from the movie Downfall. A nazi general is ordered to Hitlers bunker to be shot for supposedly moving his command post back during the battle of Berlin. He gives a report to Hitler so Hitler made him responsible for the defense of Berlin. On his way out of the bunker he was chatting with 2 nazi generals, whom congratulated him. The general looked at the 2 and said he would have preferred the firing squad to the honor of defending Berlin.

www.opindia.com... ia-xi-jinping-vladimir-putin-military-drills-ukraine-border/

The Chinese government is conducting military drills on its North-Eastern border with Russia while the Russian government remains occupied with Ukraine. These drills have raised concerns that China may well be planning to push into Russian territory taking advantage of the current situation.

This would be bittersweet. Because Putin definitely has it coming, but I don't want Russia itself to be subjugated by an even worse totalitarianism.

And it may seem far-fetched right now, but how chaotic will the world be six months or twelve months from now if they keep destroying Ukraine's wheat stores?

a reply to: Cutepants

I think that scenario could go nuclear quickly.

The government in Beijing is another bunch that has disinformed itself to the point of dysfunction with the rest of the world.

Cheers

Russia-Ukraine war latest: NATO kicks off U.S.-led war games in Baltic Sea

LONDON — It has been 102 days since Russia began its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Despite tensions rising, NATO began naval exercises in the Baltic Sea along with aspiring members Finland and Sweden. Spain and the U.K. promised Kyiv weaponry, and Russian President Vladimir Putin retaliated with a warning that Moscow would hit new targets if it continued.

On Sunday, NATO kicked off a two-week naval exercise in the Baltic Sea that includes more than 7,000 marines, airmen and sailors from 16 countries including Finland and Sweden — who officially applied to the international alliance last month.

Over 45 ships and more than 75 aircraft are also taking part in the Baltic operations coined BALTOPS 22. The U.S.-led games, which began in 1972, are reportedly not in response to any specific threat.

“In past iterations of BALTOPS we’ve talked about meeting the challenges of tomorrow,” Vice Adm. Gene Black, commander of the Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO and U.S. 6th Fleet, said. “Those challenges are upon us — in the here and now.”

He added: “BALTOPS 22 highlights our past investments and shows our collective partnership and capabilities as we recognize the importance of ‘freedom of the seas’ and the vital role the Baltic plays in European prosperity.”

click link for article

* - Spain is sending Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

Journalists Looking to Topple Putin Are Targeting Two Types of Russians

Journalists, including a former Russian lawmaker, seeking to topple President Vladimir Putin have created a television station to provide Russians with the truth about the invasion of Ukraine—and there are two groups of Russians they are targeting specifically.

After Putin ordered the invasion, the Russian government cracked down on independent media, leaving the country with only state-aligned outlets pushing a pro-Putin point of view. This means the only news about the war many Russians receive is sanctioned by the government and defends the conflict.

Amid this media landscape, Ilya Ponomarev, a former member of Russia's parliament who cast the lone dissenting vote against the 2014 annexation of Crimea, has teamed up with a group of journalists to start a new television channel, February Morning, with a goal of stopping the war.

In an interview with British publication The Guardian, Ponomarev explained the goals of his news station, which features stories that would otherwise be suppressed in Russia, including those about Russia covering up some of its failures and alleged war crimes.

"Our job at the end of the day is an uprising of the masses," he told the newspaper. "We need individuals to see they are not alone."

There are two groups of Russians primarily being targeted by the television station, he told The Guardian. The first group consists of younger, more liberal individuals who support opposition leader Alexei Navalny. This group may already oppose Putin's war, though authorities have cracked down on dissent.

click link for article..

How does it go? Deny ignorance? Deny information?

a reply to: Xcathdra

reply

Russia lost a "Wagner mercenary"

One of the English speaking fighters I have been following on twitter took out 2 Wagner Group members a couple of nights ago. Photos of their Wagner group patch "trophies", along with a story about how it went down....basically, one of the Wagner guys was walking a patrol with a half filled cantina and the sloshing sound gave away his position. Stupid Russians.

Photo: mobile.twitter.com...

How it went down: mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Poor fieldcraft.

Cheers

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

One would think the Russians would know better.. Of course the most recent Russian General that was killed occurred because he used his cell phone.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Photo: mobile.twitter.com...

How it went down: mobile.twitter.com...

Dumb question. Why are the patches using Cyrillic and English?

Are they hoping people see the english and assume they are western?

Also the story sounds a lot like what happened to the guy in my post a page back. He and a buddy were doing recon and it didnt work out.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That is a great question; I was wondering the same. I hope someone comes along with an answer. Only thing I can think of is to make their mercenary group more recognizable/marketable on the global stage.

Lovely people, the Russians:

BBC News - Irpin: Russia's reign of terror in a quiet neighbourhood near Kyiv
www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Don't they operate in a bunch of countries, Africa for example? Not everyone understands Russian.

a reply to: Cutepants

Yes. In the tweet thread I linked, the following observation was made:

Oh, and one more thing. When they were going through the rucksack, Steve said he felt traces of sand at the bottom, so he thinks at least one of the mercs was recently brought in from either the Middle East (Syria) or one of #Russia's African adventures, such as #Mali or #CAR.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The evidence points to Russian forces committing systematic atrocities in Ukraine. So the war crimes aren't confined to particular units, nor do appal the Russian public and Russian military units not deployed in Ukraine. The only question is the level of organisation behind the massacres. So far, I suspect those matters are organised at the brigade or battalion levels but without the Russian version of Einsatzgruppen/special (death) squads.

a reply to: xpert11

It seems reflective of an older view of war in which civilians are seen as chattel. A 19th century outlook paired with 20th century weapons.

I am mildly surprised by this; Russia suffered enough abuse at the hands of the Nazis to understand this behavior is plainly wrong in any culture.

Cheers

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
I am mildly surprised by this; Russia suffered enough abuse at the hands of the Nazis to understand this behavior is plainly wrong in any culture.

The abuse was both ways. The Russians were particularly brutal to the Nazis. They were - and have been - brutal to any nation, people or group that has questioned the prevailing Russian orthodoxy. Stalin killed millions. Countless millions have suffered under Russian repression and exceptionalism.

Russian actions in Ukraine today are just an extension of the Holodomor, the deportations and the ethnic cleansing.

a reply to: Cutepants

Ru is an abbreviation for Russia.


You say there are now 750 confirmed tank losses. I looked for that. Do you have a link?

I think doubling that number is a mistake. I was being generous when I added over half. Artificially inflating numbers without good reason does not help get to the truth.

I think it is also a poor assumption that any large portion of tanks stored needed to be cannibalized. Any military arsenal is going to have a large number of spare parts to go along with equipment.

As for taking pics. Most of it was done with satellite images and they are still getting that.

You are confident that they have lost 20%. The reasoning you have stated so far doesn't give me any confidence in your numbers. It seems more like wishful thinking. Let me also remind you that they have not committed more than 15% of their force to this conflict. Your estimates would mean that their entire tank force was destroyed plus an imaginary 5% extra.


Attributing my numbers estimation which I will remind you have been generous to UA to nostalgia? Is that a jab? Feels like you are trying to make it personal.

Also, it doesn't matter who I want to win because it won't change the reality on the battlefield. Russia is winning. That is just a cold hard fact. One that even MSM is starting to show the truth of.


Ru has a vast reserve of equipment and trained personnel to pull from that UA does not have. UA is receiving resupply from other countries that can't even keep up their rate of loss. They are receiving new technology that could help but they don't have enough people trained on it.
What good is a laser range finder for artillery if they don't know how to use it?
www.nytimes.com...

These new "super Weapons" they are receiving are not much more capable than what they already had. MLRS? Without the long-range missiles, what is the advantage? Even with the long-range missiles which are GPS guided Ru has the ability to jam it which was known years ago. It is unknown how that will affect their functionality.

Grey eagle drones, all 4 of them. They have the same flight ceiling as what they were using. The only advantage is it can carry more missiles. An advantage that may be negated because the years needed to train on the systems is being condensed down to weeks.

All this great equipment that they are getting takes time to learn and operate efficiently and that training usually happens in ideal conditions. The language barrier alone makes that impossible.

I don't care which side someone roots for but let's be honest about what is actually taking place. Let's stick to the facts as much as possible and when we have to guess let's make it an educated guess based on the evidence available.

Let's leave artificially inflated or minimized numbers to the countries with a vested interest to obscure their losses and wins.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Well I'm confused by the idea of the whole nation of Russia taking the Bloomberg tweet in a certain context. But fair enough.

This site has been documenting lost vehicles. Doubling the 750 to 1,500 is speculation, but I don't know. Do you think they'd take pictures of a full 50% of destroyed tanks, especially now that Ukraine is retreating and it's more artillery and less ambushes. I'm also assuming that some tanks are lost due accidents, wear and sabotage in places where the opponent doesn't notice. Of course captured tanks would cancel each other out, that's an element of uncertainty.

I think it is also a poor assumption that any large portion of tanks stored needed to be cannibalized. Any military arsenal is going to have a large number of spare parts to go along with equipment.

Serious problems and weaknesses have been exposed in their logistics and whole military. I thought they were much stronger before this war. So I think it's reasonable to assume corruptions has taken a toll on those tanks too. And what is the total number based on? You're assuming it's the number of tanks in good condition, but on what grounds? I've seen satellite pics of tanks in poor condition with parts missing.

Let me also remind you that they have not committed more than 15% of their force to this conflict.

What does that mean? If you're saying 15% of the forces they have in readiness, I don't buy that. If you mean 15% of reserves then I might believe you, but actual mobilization would be risky and take a long time and resources. So what does the 15% mean?

Attributing my numbers estimation which I will remind you have been generous to UA to nostalgia? Is that a jab? Feels like you are trying to make it personal.

Also, it doesn't matter who I want to win because it won't change the reality on the battlefield. Russia is winning. That is just a cold hard fact. One that even MSM is starting to show the truth of.

Well I think we already take it personally. We can't ignore the human factor. So I remain curious. How come you bring up nostalgia?

And I appreciate your mistrust of the MSM, but you're seeing what you expect to see here. MSM never thought they'd make it more than a few days. I think just a week ago NYT even wrote that America isn't ready for continued war in the Ukraine, cowards lol.

I'm definitely concerned about the time needed to train with new equipment, I think you have a valid concern there. It all depends on how quickly they provide the training. And I'm worried about logistics with so many different and new systems. But on the other hand you overestimate Russia. We have this abstract idea of Russia having endless resources, but their economy was only the size of Spain's. They've got 3x the people of Ukraine, but they'd have to mobilize faster or fight a very long war to take advantage of that. Of course on the other hand the West has proportionally much smaller stockpiles of weapons than Russia does, so it's a weird situation. Maybe someone should calculate that.

MLRS? Without the long-range missiles, what is the advantage? Even with the long-range missiles which are GPS guided Ru has the ability to jam it which was known years ago. It is unknown how that will affect their functionality.

For the short range missiles being able to strike from outside of artillery range would be the advantage, and they fire faster than the enemy MLRS, so I think they'd only be vulnerable to air. And this would force the Russians to start moving their artillery around, thus making it less effective.

I agree that just 4 gray eagles is sad, hopefully more. I'm not sure how bad of a problem the training is, I don't think learning to fly them can be that hard if you already fly drones. But maintenance would be harder. Of course I hope they already started all the training, but you never know with these clowns.

I don't care which side someone roots for but let's be honest about what is actually taking place. Let's stick to the facts as much as possible and when we have to guess let's make it an educated guess based on the evidence available.

Yeah

a reply to: Cutepants

Well I'm confused by the idea of the whole nation of Russia taking the Bloomberg tweet in a certain context. But fair enough.

It is a generalization since the original post came from a Ru MOD site.

This site has been documenting lost vehicles. Doubling the 750 to 1,500 is speculation, but I don't know. Do you think they'd take pictures of a full 50% of destroyed tanks, especially now that Ukraine is retreating and it's more artillery and less ambushes. I'm also assuming that some tanks are lost due accidents, wear and sabotage in places where the opponent doesn't notice. Of course captured tanks would cancel each other out, that's an element of uncertainty.

Thanks for the site. I had been on there before but I forgot to bookmark it. Since we can agree that captured tanks shouldn't be counted let's look at the numbers on that site.

Tanks (760, of whichdestroyed: 428, damaged: 20, abandoned: 54, captured: 258)

That is 502 right? Assuming the damaged and abandoned were not recovered.

As for taking pics of 50% destroyed. I actually think they would. I am guessing that the majority of those tanks were recorded at the beginning of the conflict and especially when Ru pulled back from the Kyiv region.
Since then most tank kills would have been done in a precision manner which in a lot of cases comes with footage from drones or some other manner. It is really hard for me to believe that unguided ordinance is going to inflict an equal amount of destruction on Ru forces as what had occurred at the begging of the war.

We may just disagree on that. There is no way for either of us to prove our case one way or another.

Serious problems and weaknesses have been exposed in their logistics and whole military. I thought they were much stronger before this war. So I think it's reasonable to assume corruptions has taken a toll on those tanks too. And what is the total number based on? You're assuming it's the number of tanks in good condition, but on what grounds? I've seen satellite pics of tanks in poor condition with parts missing.

I don't disagree about their failures in logistics but you have to realize those are things that can be fixed and to fix tanks you need parts. I am sure some have been cannibalized but it shouldn't be that necessary. Where they may be behind on is modernizing them. That could be an issue. It is also an issue that can be remedied by them ramping up their own production facilities. I don't know if they have but I would be surprised if they haven't already.

As for the total number I am basing it on. It is the 13,000 number you gave.

What does that mean? If you're saying 15% of the forces they have in readiness, I don't buy that. If you mean 15% of reserves then I might believe you, but actual mobilization would be risky and take a long time and resources. So what does the 15% mean?

It is based on the estimation of their active-duty forces numbering over a million and their reserve forces numbering over 2 million. That is based on figures reported in a 2010 IISS study. Since then they increased their military budget. In 2021 the serviceability of weapons was estimated at 99%. They deployed about 150K to Ukraine. Basically what was already staged on Ukraine's border before the war.

So, yeah, that would be 15% of their active military.

So I remain curious. How come you bring up nostalgia?

The only reason I used the word is because I was replying to your post where you said this.

"I think you have an unnecessary nostalgia for Russia, or something."

For the short range missiles being able to strike from outside of artillery range would be the advantage, and they fire faster than the enemy MLRS, so I think they'd only be vulnerable to air. And this would force the Russians to start moving their artillery around, thus making it less effective.

To strike something you need to know where it is no matter the range. They haven't had a lot of luck with penetrating Ru air defense with drones lately so they are mostly returning fire from where they are being shot at. Ru is already moving around. They are shoot and scoot missions. They are both doing it. So unless UA is firing at a stationary target the reach isn't going to change the situation much more. Also the longer the flight time of those rockets gives Ru more time to track and shoot them down. Which, they have been doing against the MLRS packages UA already have. Also, Ru Iskander missile system outranges the MLRS and they have a lot of them.

I am not sure what you mean by shoot faster though. Do you mean acquire a target and react? That would be far more dependent on the speed of intelligence of those giving them coordinates.
If you mean reload to fire again. That would only apply if they have the necessary equipment to swap out the packs. I actually trained to do that in my first MOS. Without the equipment, it would probably take longer than it takes Ru to reload because they can reload with a 2 or 3 man crew by hand. Our MLRS packs can't be done by hand unless they changed the design and added a feature to help reload them.

Maybe I am completely missing your point.

As for the Grey Eagles. I am guessing, but wouldn't retraining on those systems be more difficult than retraining a tank crew. Weren't we denying them our modern tanks because retraining couldn't be achieved in time to make a difference?

Honestly, I feel like the grey eagles were just hyped up and were a necessary purchase so MIC in charge of that division gets a cut. That is just my opinion. It would have been better if they could have used the money to buy more Turkish Bayraktar systems that they are already trained on and could have immediately deployed.