Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

the hea said:
First time I have seen one mounted on an IFV, they are normally mounted on trucks like the ZIL-131.

1435169817_umz-1.jpg



Funny how the cluster munition caused a massive debate and was seen as very controversial when weapon sytems like these are far worse for civilians. When mass mining an area with anti-personnel mines like this 100% of the the explosives are left behind and they are all designed to explode when touched. Cluster munitions only leave behind a small percentage of their bomblets and are harder to trigger compared to anti-personnel mines.
Click to expand...
It took me until the second canister being fired to realize that said canister wasn’t breaking apart mid flight & those small pieces were actual mines.

Totally agree with your sentiment.
 
harms said:
Regularly :( Most of those get destroyed though, usually all of them.
Click to expand...

The problem is, that those cheap drones are shot down with missiles 10 times their worth. That's probably the reason they keep sending them to Kyiv. They want to exhaust the air defense or at least make it as expensive as possible.
 
Ragnar123 said:
The problem is, that those cheap drones are shot down with missiles 10 times their worth. That's probably the reason they keep sending them to Kyiv. They want to exhaust the air defense or at least make it as expensive as possible.
Click to expand...
They get mostly shot down with Gepard guns, not that much by missiles.
 
Ragnar123 said:
The problem is, that those cheap drones are shot down with missiles 10 times their worth. That's probably the reason they keep sending them to Kyiv. They want to exhaust the air defense or at least make it as expensive as possible.
Click to expand...
Ukraine have many other ways to intercept Shaheds than missiles, this includes many types of anti-aircraft guns and cannons, differnt types of jammers and EW platforms and I think they have even had some succes with dronehunter drones that shoots a net at the enemy drone. From my understanding missile systems are only used as a last resort when a Shahed is close to a city or high value target.
 
The Firestarter said:
They get mostly shot down with Gepard guns, not that much by missiles.
Click to expand...
the hea said:
Ukraine have many other ways to intercept Shaheds than missiles, this includes many types of anti-aircraft guns and cannons, differnt types of jammers and EW platforms and I think they have even had some succes with dronehunter drones that shoots a net at the enemy drone. From my understanding missile systems are only used as a last resort when a Shahed is close to a city or high value target.
Click to expand...

I know they have other ways, but in Kyiv, missile systems are mainly deployed. I read somewhere not long ago, that they still use missiles to hit drones in Kyiv. Ukraine doesn't have many Gepards and they are probably scattered across Ukraine, because Kyiv is already well protected with IRIS-T and Patriot. And all those other systems help of course, but they are not 100% accurate, especially against drone waves. Of course Ukraine tries to hit the cheap drones with cheap counters, but to my knowledge they still have to use missiles against them.
 
Ragnar123 said:
I know they have other ways, but in Kyiv, missile systems are mainly deployed. I read somewhere not long ago, that they still use missiles to hit drones in Kyiv. Ukraine doesn't have many Gepards and they are probably scattered across Ukraine, because Kyiv is already well protected with IRIS-T and Patriot. And all those other systems help of course, but they are not 100% accurate, especially against drone waves. Of course Ukraine tries to hit the cheap drones with cheap counters, but to my knowledge they still have to use missiles against them.
Click to expand...
There definitely are some Gepards in action around Kyiv. However you are definitely right that Ukraine doesn't have a lot of those and due to their short range can only cover little area with them.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


Let's hope they were delivered in sufficient quantity and will help to take Russian trenches.

I ask myself if or when Russia needs another mobilization wave, or is their current marketing enough to compensate the daily 500+ liquidated? The next wave might not be that quiet and easy as the last one, because I imagine most of the willing are already in Ukraine and by now, even the most brainwashed know about the low life expectancy for a Russian soldier in Ukraine. That was a bit different during the last mobilization wave last September.
 
Ragnar123 said:
Let's hope they were delivered in sufficient quantity and will help to take Russian trenches.

I ask myself if or when Russia needs another mobilization wave, or is their current marketing enough to compensate the daily 500+ liquidated? The next wave might not be that quiet and easy as the last one, because I imagine most of the willing are already in Ukraine and by now, even the most brainwashed know about the low life expectancy for a Russian soldier in Ukraine. That was a bit different during the last mobilization wave last September.
Click to expand...
Usually I'd be dead set against the use of these hateful weapons....but using them against a dug in conscript army is about the best possible justification for their use.

The psychological impact they had is what made large elements of the Iraqi army just evaporate ahead of the US advances. I can see a few days of bombardment from these weapons will have the necessary attitude adjustment on Russian forces to start heading back home.
 
TMDaines said:
Not a parody:

Click to expand...

You and the usual cohort pretending that this thread represents some kind of orthodox view on geopolitics or a man who wrote the gold standard (with Herman) when it comes to disinformation and state politics? Rhetorical.

A lot of people will be left looking foolish in about two years or sooner when this war ends precisely as many predicted it would at the outset of this thread (and for the same reasons). Propaganda everywhere.
 
neverdie said:
You and the usual cohort pretending that this thread represents some kind of orthodox view on geopolitics or a man who wrote the gold standard (with Herman) when it comes to disinformation and state politics? Rhetorical.

A lot of people will be left looking foolish in about two years or sooner when this war ends precisely as many predicted it would at the outset of this thread (and for the same reasons). Propaganda everywhere.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not it. I loved Chomsky, went to a few talks he gave, few e-mails, translated some of his texts, read a few books even! Always disagreed with some of his ideas but it wasn't too bad. Sadly we broke up during the Syrian Civil War. A part of the left felt like he betrayed the people to side with power just because USA bad. A pattern which he keeps repeating. Much like some of the left (MLM) is stuck in one point in the history, Chump's stuck in another era. He peaked during the 70s and 80s, the world is very different now. I can't hate him, he's like 129 years old. That takes a toll on you.
 
klsv said:
Sadly we broke up during the Syrian Civil War
Click to expand...
What happened there? If you don't mind me asking. I'm not disuputing that he's a thousand years old, or that he's the most relevant person on this topic, he is and he isn't, but with respect to state manufacture of consent, something this thread swims in, he wrote the gold standard text and it remains valid (I've been progressing it recently, basically updating it, so I'm aware of those parts which require modifcation).
 
neverdie said:
What happened there? If you don't mind me asking. I'm not disuputing that he's a thousand years old, or that he's the most relevant person on this topic, he is and he isn't, but with respect to state manufacture of consent, something this thread swims in, he wrote the gold standard text and it remains valid (I've been progressing it recently, basically updating it, so I'm aware of those parts which require modifcation).
Click to expand...

I feel he went down the route that many western leftists go. Whenever there are uprisings in places like Ukraine (orange revolution, maidan) or Syria (arab spring/the civil war) they are quick to play it down and call it CIA's secret plot, yeah, a bit of an exaggeration from my part, but still. It's as if we (eastern Europeans) and people in the middle east are not capable of protesting without the US/NATO throwing money at us. As if we don't understand the complex issues of geopolitics etc. Very west-centered view IMO. With Syria, I feel like Chomsky joined Putin and many others in their rants of "there's no moderate opposition in Syria" etc. He at least had sympathy for the Kurds but lacked any for the Syrian people fighting Assad. I don't want to derail this thread further, let me just say, as someone who lives in a "former Soviet" country, I really don't think Putin is the right one to free us from neo-liberalism, rise of the far-right and American imperialism. The part of the western left that thinks that way needs a reality check. It's a very weird take on the white savior complex.
 
nimic said:
Could you enlighten us to what exactly that means? This thread is 1200 pages long, so please be specific.
Click to expand...
Can't be bothered to go over it all, Nimic, but that Crimea would remain Russian, there would be wave upon wave of attacks, and the Separatist regions wouldn't change hands. Leaving it very much as it was before it all began minus hundreds of billions in capital destroyed, millions of people displaced, and hundreds of thousands dead. That's where it is today, having just looked at a history of the placement maps from the start to the present, and it won't change substantially before talks begin. Meanwhile, "the Ukrainian push is around the corner", "Russia is finished", "it's only a matter of time" and similar ridiculous statements, month to month, consistently in this thread, long before I said it wasn't worth it (engaging) because they were, and are, fantasies. Peace soon, hopefully. @Raoul had it right when it began: America, whatever you think of it, support or oppose, is will try to bleed Russia. That's why it is supporting Ukraine, mostly, and people complaining, (last page), about weapons being given slowly or not enough, I saw Raoul's response to that and it was entirely correct. Just as it was at the start of the war.

klsv said:
I feel he went down the route that many western leftists go. Whenever there are uprisings in places like Ukraine (orange revolution, maidan) or Syria (arab spring/the civil war) they are quick to play it down and call it CIA's secret plot, yeah, a bit of an exaggeration from my part, but still. It's as if we (eastern Europeans) and people in the middle east are not capable of protesting without the US/NATO throwing money at us. As if we don't understand the complex issues of geopolitics etc. Very west-centered view IMO. With Syria, I feel like Chomsky joined Putin and many others in their rants of "there's no moderate opposition in Syria" etc. He at least had sympathy for the Kurds but lacked any for the Syrian people fighting Assad. I don't want to derail this thread further, let me just say, as someone who lives in a "former Soviet" country, I really don't think Putin is the right one to free us from neo-liberalism, rise of the far-right and American imperialism. The part of the western left that thinks that way needs a reality check. It's a very weird take on the white savior complex.
Click to expand...
He has a purblind spot when it comes to America/Nato. I grant you that. That's what I tend to update. Most American analysts, even the best ones, do. You can see why, but it is an ideological tint. Still head and shoulders above the rest of that pack. Chomsky condemned the war at the outset, compared it to the Hitlerian invasion of Ukraine, but as for the Syrian thing: it was sort of a CIA plot. The whole Turkish-Syrian pipeline which the US wanted Assad to accept in 2009 but which was rejected (and Syria being targetted for regime change by the US long before that). Not the entire Arab Spring of course, but Syria was a US target. Whether you agree or disagree, it is a historical fact (internal memos and external histories).

As for the rest, yes, I would agree with you (he can over simplify re America is the source of it all). That's the American analyst blindspot in general, though.
 
neverdie said:
Can't be bothered to go over it all, Nimic, but that Crimea would remain Russian, there would be wave upon wave of attacks, and the Separatist regions wouldn't change hands. Leaving it very much as it was before it all began minus hundreds of billions in capital destroyed, millions of people displaced, and hundreds of thousands dead. That's where it is today, having just looked at a history of the placement maps from the start to the present, and it won't change substantially before talks begin. Meanwhile, "the Ukrainian push is around the corner", "Russia is finished", "it's only a matter of time" and similar ridiculous statements, month to month, consistently in this thread, long before I said it wasn't worth it (engaging) because they were, and are, fantasies. Peace soon, hopefully. @Raoul had it right when it began: America, whatever you think of it, support or oppose, is will try to bleed Russia. That's why it is supporting Ukraine, mostly, and people complaining, (last page), about weapons being given slowly or not enough, I saw Raoul's response to that and it was entirely correct. Just as it was at the start of the war.
Click to expand...

And what was the alternative? Let Russia conquer Ukraine? Because that is quite literally the alternative. Why are you so opposed to the Ukrainians making their own decisions?
 
nimic said:
Why are you so opposed to the Ukrainians making their own decisions?
Click to expand...
I'm not. Never have been. My argument from the beginning, unpopular as it was/is, but you see some support for it now, minimal, becuase events are ongoing, is that Ukraine was being used as a lever within a larger geopolitical struggle between NATO, EU, China, and Russia. That they were being squeezed from all sides. That was my hypothesis at the outset, remains so now. Upside is that much of Ukraine will receive vast amounts of EU capital (news-item the other day) and a quasi-Marshall plan around the corner for rebuilding, whatever the lay of the land by the year's end (or next year's).
 
neverdie said:
I'm not. Never have been. My argument from the beginning, unpopular as it was/is, but you see some support for it now, minimal, becuase events are ongoing, is that Ukraine was being used as a lever within a larger geopolitical struggle between NATO, EU, China, and Russia. That they were being squeezed from all sides. That was my hypothesis at the outset, remains so now. Upside is that much of Ukraine will receive vast amounts of EU capital (news-item the other day) and a quasi-Marshall plan around the corner for rebuilding, whatever the lay of the land by the year's end (or next year's).
Click to expand...

The reason your argument that Ukraine was being squeezed from all sides is getting minimal support is that Russia is currently prosecuting a brutal war of conquest on Ukraine (and NATO is not - obviously). What's more, the people who still support that view were also the ones who were the most vocal about how this was just Western propaganda, that Russia obviously wasn't going to actually invade, and so on. In other words: completely wrong about what was happening. In fact, you were one of them!

neverdie said:
Potential NATO invasion of Russia would not be incorrect either. Poor one-sided reporting from Western outlets.

NATO has expanded to circumscribe Russia and Russia is weary of it. Nothing else to it. Russia won't invade the Ukraine.
Click to expand...


neverdie said:
Russia doesn't want to invade Ukraine because it would cause enormous losses. But if Ukraine attacks Russian areas, there might be a response.
Click to expand...

You were proven very wrong, and yet you didn't adjust your views one bit to match what actually transpired.
 
nimic said:
You were proven very wrong, and yet you didn't adjust your views one bit to match what actually transpired.
Click to expand...
To be fair he was on point about heavy losses for Russia if Russia should invade.

Based on this correct assumption it was also a rational assumption that it wouldn't make sense for Russia to start an invasion. Considering the outcome we can also say this assumption was correct.

The only problem is that it appears like random forum posters were better informed about some realities than Putin who was apparently deciding based on information about how things should be, not how they really were, so this was all irrelevant for the decision to start the invasion.
 
That was before the war started, Nimic. Rather selective quotations. After the Russian invasion, which no one disputes, I merely said this: Ukraine is being used as a geopolitical lever. I expect you to go back and quote, again, or not bother, but I can, myself, if you like, find the requisite quotations. The map from last year is a lot like the map today. That was my point. Quotations about Russia not wanting to invade Ukraine, from January, (prior to invasion), is scarcely what I am talking about, here, now, post-invasion (rather the consequences thereafter and my reasoning then was based on the assumption it wouldn't happen and I clearly was wrong: they invaded).
stefan92 said:
The only problem is that it appears like random forum posters were better informed about some realities than Putin who was apparently deciding based on information about how things should be, not how they really were, so this was all irrelevant for the decision to start the invasion.
Click to expand...
I think fog-of-war, etc., we all got a lot wrong. My assumption was, as you said, Russia wouldn't invade because it would be what it turned out to be (an Afghan situation where the Americans would make them pay in blood for every single inch). Which is exactly what has happened. Wrong that they wouldn't invade, my own blindness, or Putin's madness, or things people like myself are simply not privvy to, but re the situation not changing (Crimea and the Separatist areas), that I will stand by (and I think most would accept if they really considered it at this point: i.e., imagine Kyiv accepting Russian rule, you'd have to be insane to assume that could happen; same goes for Crimea and the most-entrenched Russian held areas after prolonged years of warfare). Anyway, not trying to win an argument except to say that I do believe there has been, as you'd expect, a mass propaganda blitz. If I was caught by the anti-Nato side, and to a degree, I was, many were caught by an inversion of the same thing.
 
neverdie said:
That was before the war started, Nimic. Rather selective quotations.
Click to expand...

It's not selective at all. The first one is your very first post in the thread, and the second one is a bit further in when you're responding to someone who asks what is going to happen. Those are the two clearest and most straight-forward posts I could find about from you about the likelihood of an actual invasion.

As for it being before the war started, that's very much the point. Your views on the Ukraine-Russia conflict as a part of a larger NATO-Russia conflict directly informed your opinion that there wasn't going to be a war, but that if it happened it would be because Russia "responded" to Ukrainian attacks on "Russian areas". You assumed any suggestion that Russia was going to attack as simple propaganda. And yet Russia invaded less than a month later, which had clearly been their plan all along. Nor was it a result of any Ukrainian provocation.

This is my point: you clearly consider yourself a bit of a free-thinker, but in this case you're the one who has been blinded by rigid ideology. I am convinced that whatever happens with this war, you will see it as further evidence that you were right about this being about NATO vs Russia.
 
stefan92 said:
To be fair he was on point about heavy losses for Russia if Russia should invade.

Based on this correct assumption it was also a rational assumption that it wouldn't make sense for Russia to start an invasion. Considering the outcome we can also say this assumption was correct.
Click to expand...

This logic is extremely kind, and honestly a bit backwards.
 
nimic said:
. Your views on the Ukraine-Russia conflict as a part of a larger NATO-Russia conflict directly informed your opinion that there wasn't going to be a war, but that if it happened it would be because Russia "responded" to Ukrainian attacks on "Russian areas". You assumed any suggestion that Russia was going to attack as simple propaganda. And yet Russia invaded less than a month later, which had clearly been their plan all along. Nor was it a result of any Ukrainian provocation.
Click to expand...
Yep, Russia invaded contrary to my expectations. I didn't think they'd invade, I was wrong. It was a stupid decision, there you go. As to lack of provocation, that will be debated for decades. As per geopolitics and arguments best avoided here?

nimic said:
This is my point: you clearly consider yourself a bit of a free-thinker, but in this case you're the one who has been blinded by rigid ideology. I am convinced that whatever happens with this war, you will see it as further evidence that you were right about this being about NATO vs Russia.
Click to expand...
It has been NATO versus Russia verus Russia versus Ukraine (control over it with respect to NATO) versus US policy with respect to Russia and China and larger geopolitical issues. You cannot explain the war, in any respect, except "mad-man invades to conquer and become Alexander the Great", without considering these things, as now, even the NYT begins to consider. Doesn't mean you have to agree that NATO shouldn't arm Ukraine, or that Russia was anything other than wrong to invade, but the facts are the facts. Interpret them as you like. It didn't occur in a vacuum. Syria, etc., now in the Arab league, which you probably consider irreleveant to the entire discussion, and so on. It's not an isolated war-zone in itself, unless that is your sole focus (if Ukrainian, or Russian, citizen/soldier, I understand that).

Re Provocation, a long-winded topic best avoided because it's been done to death here (NATO provocation, Russian provocation of NATO, too, btw, thus Syria, not Ukrainian as such). But it will be a matter of historiography and geopolitical debate for decades to come. To pretend otherwise is to be ideological yourself whatever "side" one sees themselves on.
 
nimic said:
It's not selective at all. The first one is your very first post in the thread, and the second one is a bit further in when you're responding to someone who asks what is going to happen. Those are the two clearest and most straight-forward posts I could find about from you about the likelihood of an actual invasion.

As for it being before the war started, that's very much the point. Your views on the Ukraine-Russia conflict as a part of a larger NATO-Russia conflict directly informed your opinion that there wasn't going to be a war, but that if it happened it would be because Russia "responded" to Ukrainian attacks on "Russian areas". You assumed any suggestion that Russia was going to attack as simple propaganda. And yet Russia invaded less than a month later, which had clearly been their plan all along. Nor was it a result of any Ukrainian provocation.

This is my point: you clearly consider yourself a bit of a free-thinker, but in this case you're the one who has been blinded by rigid ideology. I am convinced that whatever happens with this war, you will see it as further evidence that you were right about this being about NATO vs Russia.
Click to expand...
Especially when Ukraine was nowhere near joining NATO. This was purely opportunistic Putin doing what he does. As many said at the beginning once Ukraine held out against the initial invasion NATO had the perfect scenario to wipe Russia as a major power from the map and do so without having to lose a single NATO soldier. China I don't think really factored into the initial scenario but now, along with India, is benefitting massively from Russia's weakened state and needing to sell massive amounts of resources at lower rates.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Especially when Ukraine was nowhere near joining NATO. This was purely opportunistic Putin doing what he does. As many said at the beginning once Ukraine held out against the initial invasion NATO had the perfect scenario to wipe Russia as a major power from the map and do so without having to lose a single NATO soldier. China I don't think really factored into the initial scenario but now, along with India, is benefitting massively from Russia's weakened state and needing to sell massive amounts of resources at lower rates.
Click to expand...

Yep. It was never about Ukraine joining NATO. Maybe in the very long term, but in that case it's absurd to suggest that a sovereign nation doesn't get to make that decision on their own. And if it was about stopping "NATO encroachment" or whatever, then the results have been very predictable indeed: Sweden and Finland in, Ukraine even more anti-Russia and bound to immediately join if they ever get the chance, and Turkey seemingly pushed back into the arms of Europe.
 
nimic said:
Yep. It was never about Ukraine joining NATO. Maybe in the very long term, but in that case it's absurd to suggest that a sovereign nation doesn't get to make that decision on their own. And if it was about stopping "NATO encroachment" or whatever, then the results have been very predictable indeed: Sweden and Finland in, Ukraine even more anti-Russia and bound to immediately join if they ever get the chance, and Turkey seemingly pushed back into the arms of Europe.
Click to expand...
Yeah Erdogan situation must have taken Putin by surprise in particular.
 
What do you think it was about, then? Control (Russian) of Ukraine by proxy is a given. But that implies NATO (the US checking Russia in Ukraine after Russia checked the US in Syria). If that doesn't factor into your analysis, whether Putin is Hitler and NATO are Gandhi (just rhetorical), then I don't see how people explain the war at all. We all know the US began to arm Ukraine roughly around the time of the Arab Spring when Russia, post-2008 through 2011. was starting to act against US interests in all sorts of places. Do people just leave that out of the analysis altogether? That's why it made/makes sense for the US to do precisely what it did (and why it didn't seem like a good idea for Russia to invade). I'm curious to see how people would approach an analysis of the war, maybe later, in detail (whatever their conclusion). Forget NATO is wrong, or Russia is evil, (we can just assume people from whatever "side" will assume such things anyway). Why did Russia invade? Why did the US arm Ukraine (many years prior to the Russian invasion)? And so on. Not looking to antagonize people but actually looking for a fairly comprehensive counter-argument to my own argument if anyone is willing (perhaps different thread?).

If Russia didn't invade Georgia, protect the Assad regime, and various other things, does the US bother with moving into Ukraine at all? I don't think so. Russia isn't mentioned as geopolitical foe to the US until 2007/8 when Putin starts doing various things contrary to US aims. Genuinely curious, and now is maybe not the right time, as to how people lay it all out.
 
nimic said:
The reason your argument that Ukraine was being squeezed from all sides is getting minimal support is that Russia is currently prosecuting a brutal war of conquest on Ukraine (and NATO is not - obviously). What's more, the people who still support that view were also the ones who were the most vocal about how this was just Western propaganda, that Russia obviously wasn't going to actually invade, and so on. In other words: completely wrong about what was happening. In fact, you were one of them!






You were proven very wrong, and yet you didn't adjust your views one bit to match what actually transpired.
Click to expand...

Responses like this are why I pay the premium subscription to the Caf :lol: :lol:

The direct reason for the war is simple: Russia invaded (just like the poster said it won't) and Ukraine defended their sovereignity and their right to self determination. "Every major geopolitical power has an agenda" isn't exactly a genius takeaway. We knew that before.

By the way, about one year ago the areas surrounding Kharkiv plus Izium, Lyman and a huge region around Kherson (plus Kherson itself) were in Russia's hands. The UA has taken them back and it's now on the offensive. Regarding the Donbas and Crimea, it will probably take a lot of time (and IMO there's no long term geopolitical solution for Crimea as of now). But the trend has been clear for a while and today a Russian retreat is a more likely scenario than an Ukranian surrender.
 
Krakenzero said:
The direct reason for the war is simple: Russia invaded (just like the poster said it won't) and Ukraine defended their sovereignity and their right to self determination
Click to expand...
The direct reason for the war was simple: North Korea moved across the border... US invaded Vietnam... Franco woke up one day and decided to kill socialists.

I forgot how easy war is and why the history books are only two pages long. Cheers.


"a Russian retreat is a more likely scenario than an Ukranian surrender."

I've been looking at the map of movements today. Barring tiny pieces here and there, almost no change in warzone configuration, frontline, in a year. Move forward, move back. It's entrenched now that the only means of Russian retreat, substantial, will be negotatied settlement. Which I think will happen (within two years, or one, hopefully). Ukrainain surrender is not on the cards, Russian surrender also, not possible. Definition of stalemate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.