Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

It would have been strange for Russia to do it right before the NATO meeting as that would give the leaders to come up with a solution pretty quickly together. Or they would make noise to give some warning signals to that meeting regarding how they would talk or decide about the UA.

But you can't blame the UA for keeping talking about it, as they would be the ones that would get the main impact.
 
The United said:
I think it will be very complicated, as you say, if that happens (hopefully not for obvious reasons). NATO just can't decide by themselves and start bombing the Russians troops in Ukraine from planes, which is what I think they would do if they did. I don't believe they would put troops on the ground.

But that would be dangerous to do, as the Russia's response to that would be catastrophic as they would use nuclear weapons. The UN would do some voting that solves nothing there as usual. The most likely scenario would be NATO will just send more advanced weapons to the UA. Frankly, they should be sending those to them now, anyway.
Click to expand...

Who would they have to consult?
 
Russian bloggers reporting withdrawal from Klishchiivka, near Bakhmut city. If true, the UA forces continue to advance on the flanks of the city and that will endanger a surround sooner or later.
 
Ragnar123 said:
Russian bloggers reporting withdrawal from Klishchiivka, near Bakhmut city. If true, the UA forces continue to advance on the flanks of the city and that will endanger a surround sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Klishchiivka itself is not so important but the the hill just to the west of the village is prime location for artillery observers. This will put Ukraine in a good position for this whole area south of Bakhmut.
 
A western artillery system is like a “Mercedes-Benz” compared with a Russian Soviet-era car, but Nato-grade weaponry has also shown its own shortcomings, according to Petro Pyatakov, an arms industry consultant and retired colonel.
“It has become apparent during operations that these systems were not intended for such intense warfare” in which Russia’s artillery machine fires nonstop and indiscriminately. “All of them require a break . . . after two or three minutes of firing at maximum speed, which is not the case with Soviet guns,” Pyatakov said.
Click to expand...
“The Russians come up with a countermeasure, we inform our partners and they make a new countermeasure against this countermeasure,” Reznikov said.
Click to expand...
“It becomes a question of economics — [the Russians] send over a €25,000 drone and you fire a half-a-million defence missile, so it becomes economically untenable, especially when you don’t have an unlimited supply.”
Click to expand...
 
How far from the frontline is nuclear plant Zaporižje and is there a possibility UA will liberate it soon?
 
Real Name said:
How far from the frontline is nuclear plant Zaporižje and is there a possibility UA will liberate it soon?
Click to expand...

Here is a map. The nuclear plant is at Enerhodar on the left side. It's pretty far away from the frontline, around 50-60km as the crow flies. So a liberation is not realistic in the foreseeable future sadly.

123.jpg
 
Ragnar123 said:
Here is a map. The nuclear plant is at Enerhodar on the left side. It's pretty far away from the frontline, around 50-60km as the crow flies. So a liberation is not realistic in the foreseeable future sadly.

123.jpg
Click to expand...
Thanks, yeah looks that way, I guess UA doesnt have any amphibious attacks in plan. The number of air bases there, wow, although I guess not all of those are in function or in full capacity?
 
Real Name said:
Thanks, yeah looks that way, I guess UA doesnt have any amphibious attacks in plan. The number of air bases there, wow, although I guess not all of those are in function or in full capacity?
Click to expand...

Even if UA had plans for an amphibious assault, it wouldn't matter anyways, because that's how the region looks like now after the dam explosion:
356135098_637047001790357_7263790328376779508_n.jpg
356106587_637047018457022_8613402504188213319_n.jpg
 
Ragnar123 said:
Even if UA had plans for an amphibious assault, it wouldn't matter anyways, because that's how the region looks like now after the dam explosion:
356135098_637047001790357_7263790328376779508_n.jpg
356106587_637047018457022_8613402504188213319_n.jpg
Click to expand...

What? That's basically dry land at the moment. Sad sight, but there has to be a way for the UA to send vehicles forward if that's the status of the area so far.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
What? That's basically dry land at the moment. Sad sight, but there has to be a way for the UA to send vehicles forward if that's the status of the area so far.
Click to expand...

I'm no geologist, but I'd bet the ground is way too soft to carry heavy armor vehicles, at least for now. Maybe this will change in the future. And even if the ground could carry them, vehicles moving several kilometers on a desert terrain would be sitting ducks probably for Russian artillery and air.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
What? That's basically dry land at the moment. Sad sight, but there has to be a way for the UA to send vehicles forward if that's the status of the area so far.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that it's only the top layer that is dry, under the first 10-20cm it's probably still wet mud. The top layer dries very fast because it's exposed to the sun and atmosphere but it then acts as a insulation layer so the moist further down can't escape. I think it will be impossible to move any type of heavy equipment on that ground for a very long time and there is also still the river that needs to be crossed.

Edit, If the ground freezes during winter it might be possible to cross it then. I don't know how deep the ground usually freezes around there but with enough cold weather that could be a possibility.
 
Last edited:
RedDevilQuebecois said:
What? That's basically dry land at the moment. Sad sight, but there has to be a way for the UA to send vehicles forward if that's the status of the area so far.
Click to expand...

It's far from dry land. There were images of people trying to walk over it, sinking into the mud to their knees. Imagine having a 40 ton tank crossing it.
 
onemanarmy said:
It's far from dry land. There were images of people trying to walk over it, sinking into the mud to their knees. Imagine having a 40 ton tank crossing it.
Click to expand...
Tanks have a wider contact area which spreads the force, so it might not be a direct comparison. But I agree that it's probably unfeasible for an armor crossing, since there would also be support vehicles that are not tracked.
 
Russian Grad rocket storage site in the middle of a residential area in Makiivka.
We have not seen large Russian ammunition dumps this close to the front since last fall.

 
Carolina Red said:
I have the same question.
Click to expand...
Technically with Ukraine. Bombing their territory without green light from their government would be an act of war.

However I think everybody knows that Ukraine would not complain if Russians were bombed out of their country.
 
stefan92 said:
Technically with Ukraine. Bombing their territory without green light from their government would be an act of war.

However I think everybody knows that Ukraine would not complain if Russians were bombed out of their country.
Click to expand...
And to attack the troops of a country that possesses nuclear weapons, it would need a lot of support from major powers, as Russia would or might retaliate with nuclear weapons, most likely against Ukraine's people and troops. Without major support from the likes of China and India for the NATO and Ukraine, why would Putin restrain himself from using some of them? As long as they don't attack a NATO country directly.

I mean, I wonder if it was hard to comprehend.
 
Last edited:
The United said:
And to attack the troops of a country that possesses nuclear weapons, it would need a lot of support from major powers, as Russia would or might retaliate with nuclear weapons, most likely against Ukraine's people and troops. Without major support from the likes of China and India, why would Putin restrain himself from using some of them? As long as they don't attack a NATO country directly.

I mean, I wonder if it was hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Ties with China or India would be severed in seconds if they drop a nuke. It's been reported widely that China has been very vocal to Russia about not using nuclear weapons.
 
onemanarmy said:
Ties with China or India would be severed in seconds if they drop a nuke. It's been reported widely that China has been very vocal to Russia about not using nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
We all know that it is not that simple. I mean, how hard is it for the likes of China and India to realize that this war is on Putin? Plain and simple. But yet, they all made it sound like they were trying to break the West's world order and reorganize it in their own vision. You are underestimating China's ambition and its willingness to use Russia to get where it wants to go. Russia will at least do some dirty works for them.

In case you didn't notice, they are sounding more or less the same for a few months now when spouting against the West. It is hard to imagine the China will turn 360 if that happens as long as Putin does not attack the NATO countries directly on their ground.
 
The United said:
We all know that it is not that simple. I mean, how hard is it for the likes of China and India to realize that this war is on Putin? Plain and simple. But yet, they all made it sound like they were trying to break the West's world order and reorganize it in their own vision. You are underestimating China's ambition and its willingness to use Russia to get where it wants to go. Russia will at least do some dirty works for them.

In case you didn't notice, they are sounding more or less the same for a few months now when spouting against the West. It is hard to imagine the China will turn 360 if that happens as long as Putin does not attack the NATO countries directly on their ground.
Click to expand...
But it would not be a 360 turn. They don't want to see nuclear weapons used, that is clear. They would be happy if Russia manages to wear down western military potential and power, but as we have seen their actual support for Russia is quite limited, as China clearly does not (yet?) want to be involved in a military conflict with NATO. Taiwan might happen of not, but that's clearly what China holds its mioitary potential back for.
 
stefan92 said:
But it would not be a 360 turn. They don't want to see nuclear weapons used, that is clear. They would be happy if Russia manages to wear down western military potential and power, but as we have seen their actual support for Russia is quite limited, as China clearly does not (yet?) want to be involved in a military conflict with NATO. Taiwan might happen of not, but that's clearly what China holds its mioitary potential back for.
Click to expand...
My point is that without meaningful pressure from China, Putin will be more likely to use those nuclear weapons if the worst happens. So China's saying that they don't support RA in using those weapons is just lip service, and they both will twist, move goal posts, and justify using them if the worst happens because of the way they see the West. It would not start a world war, imo, because NATO would not attack Russian lands and vice versa, and the UA would be the one who would get the worst out of it. That would be what Putin would want if he couldn't win the war over Ukraine at that point. So the question would actually be whether NATO would risk starting that chain of events to respond to that nuclear plant event if that happened. Especially since it would not count as being attacked directly. It is why I said they can't just decide themselves when to move in and attack the troops of Russia, just for that to have the best outcome for the UA. For those who would come and say that NATO did it a few times before. Well, it is a million times easier to do that against countries without nuclear weapons.

Obviously, everyone would hope "the worst" does not happen.
 
Last edited:
stefan92 said:
Technically with Ukraine. Bombing their territory without green light from their government would be an act of war.

However I think everybody knows that Ukraine would not complain if Russians were bombed out of their country.
Click to expand...
NATO bombing Russians is a declaration of war on Russia, how long do you think it would be before Russian missiles started hitting the likes of Poland, Germany and the UK?
 
Red in STL said:
NATO bombing Russians is a declaration of war on Russia, how long do you think it would be before Russian missiles started hitting the likes of Poland, Germany and the UK?
Click to expand...

Technically it would be a special military operation in Ukraine supported and requested by Ukraine's government, with no attack on russian territory whatsoever. Although of course that's not how Russia would see it. And Russia's response would likely trigger article 5, and so on.
 
It would be extremely hard to provoke Article 5 without being attacked directly (?). Even if they get it done, without tangible evidence to show the public, their support would decline, probably ensuring the election of governments that are either friendly to Russia, isolationists, or even dictator wannabes in some of the NATO countries later on. Putin and Xi Jinping would love to make it happen.

The only viable solution for the West would be to just keep sending more advanced weapons while maintaining a moderate amount of public support for the war. The faster and more they can send weapons, the better for themselves too. Physically intervening with the NATO troops at this point would be shooting themselves in the foot in the eyes of their own public and the world.
 
Red in STL said:
NATO bombing Russians is a declaration of war on Russia, how long do you think it would be before Russian missiles started hitting the likes of Poland, Germany and the UK?
Click to expand...

An act that triggers article 5 is already an act of war on NATO, so that line will have been crossed. From what I'm reading, this plant is well built enough that blowing it up is unlikely to cause nuclear fallout across Europe, so this is very hypothetical, but if NATO does intervene, Russia won't have the capacity to hit other countries with missiles. In terms of nuclear escalation, the most prevalent opinion is that Russian nukes are only for the defence of Russia, which NATO wouldn't go near. That opinion comes from inside Russia also (just not from the propagandist nutjobs). They would make safe the affected area, which would mean eliminating any Russian threat in Southern Ukraine or so.

Even if article 5 isn't triggered, I would expect Poland to intervene at least. NATO members don't need permission to intervene in foreign wars. Their involvement alone would probably be enough to rid Ukraine of invading forces.
 
Redplane said:
And this is why entities from both the west and east are probably in no real rush to bring this to a close. The money being made off this conflict without having to put actual boots on the ground is likely staggering.
Click to expand...

It's not the West's decision to make about when to bring this war to a close. It's Ukraine's and Russia's. We in the West can give the weapons and support that we hope will win it for Ukraine sooner rather than later, but there is no magic war ending wand here on their side, only on the Russian one.

While yes, I'm sure wars are an ideal place to test weapons, at the end of the day, that is not the reason the war is being fought.
 
Simbo said:
An act that triggers article 5 is already an act of war on NATO, so that line will have been crossed. From what I'm reading, this plant is well built enough that blowing it up is unlikely to cause nuclear fallout across Europe, so this is very hypothetical, but if NATO does intervene, Russia won't have the capacity to hit other countries with missiles. In terms of nuclear escalation, the most prevalent opinion is that Russian nukes are only for the defence of Russia, which NATO wouldn't go near. That opinion comes from inside Russia also (just not from the propagandist nutjobs). They would make safe the affected area, which would mean eliminating any Russian threat in Southern Ukraine or so.

Even if article 5 isn't triggered, I would expect Poland to intervene at least. NATO members don't need permission to intervene in foreign wars. Their involvement alone would probably be enough to rid Ukraine of invading forces.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the West might consider intervening in very limited ways to secure such things as nuclear plants, but it would be very risky.

You could see the Russians just wanting to fcuk the place up as much as possible ahead of a possible withdrawal (not that's what I think they are preparing for).
 
nickm said:
I'm wondering if the West might consider intervening in very limited ways to secure such things as nuclear plants, but it would be very risky.

You could see the Russians just wanting to fcuk the place up as much as possible ahead of a possible withdrawal (not that's what I think they are preparing for).
Click to expand...
The only way the West could intervene without the Russians retaliating is probably under the auspices of the UN and of course Russia has veto power there so that's probably unlikely
 
nickm said:
I'm wondering if the West might consider intervening in very limited ways to secure such things as nuclear plants, but it would be very risky.

You could see the Russians just wanting to fcuk the place up as much as possible ahead of a possible withdrawal (not that's what I think they are preparing for).
Click to expand...
I don't think it's possible to intervene just a little against an opponent like Russia, they are to powerfull for that. Any direct action from NATO would have to start with a massive SEAD/DEAD operation against Russian airdefenses covering Ukrainian airspace, this would also include bombing Russian airdefense sites inside Russia.

If we compare it to the aerial campaign leading up to Dessert Storm, coalition forces flew over 100,000 sorties and lost over 70 airplanes to suppress the Iraqi airdefenses. It's of course hard to know exactly how strong Russia is today compared to the Iraqi forces back then but my guess is we would have to multiply those numbers many times over before NATO would be able to gain airsupperiority over Ukraine, which would be needed for any kind of NATO intervention on the ground.
 
stevoc said:
Hopefully he explains it for us.
Click to expand...
Read a few posts above.

The idea is that if they want to intervene just for the nuclear plant, which won't have much impact (still bad) by some accounts outside of UA, they can't just decide alone to go in and attack the Russian troops and hope it will be the best outcome for UA. It would need much more cooperation and support from other major powers to come to the decision that they would do that as NATO. Because it is Russia, a country with nuclear weapons. The reasons to arrive at that decision would be much harder to accept within NATO itself and for the world to accept, not because of moral compass but because no one wants to escalate it to a war that will involve their countries directly.


Not to mention, UA would have to be okay with the risk of giving their approval to NATO, considering that if shit escalates more, it is their country that would have the most impact, which can last for generations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.