Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

RoyH1 said:
Very interesting thread. It reminds to a certain degree og much of what Stalin would constantly do with his military leadership and the entire officer class before and during WW2. Regular army forces would be followed by politically reliable troops (typically NKVD) and harassed and threatened in order to keep them in line.
Click to expand...
This in line with Viktor Suvorov 's writings that the red army was feared during the ussr years that it might conduct a coup, and constantly purged - even after Stalin. The racketeering of troops , even the strategic forces - was new to me though.
 
Rajma said:

Nice catch this morning, Odessa is going to be a Russian bloodbath if they attempt a beach landing still.
Click to expand...


The BBC report that - according to Ukraine media (unconfirmed from other sources) - it's not just this ship that was hit, but that in total one Russian ship was sunk, two others are on fire, plus an ammunition depot and a fuel warehouse were hit.

If all true, it would be an incredibly successful attack by the Ukrainians.
 
Military supplies depleted on both sides but Russia retains advantage

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ed-on-both-sides-but-russia-retains-advantage

It has been a month since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, and such has been the intensity of the first phase of the fighting that both sides in the conflict have increasingly depleted their stocks of ammunition and other military supplies.

But while Ukraine is willing to claim that the Russian invaders have only three days of supplies left, while warning that its own troops are running out of anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems, the reality is hard to measure.

“Resupply issues are hard to gauge, as both sides are keeping that information close to their chest due to operational security concerns,” said Nick Reynolds, a land warfare specialist with the Rusi thinktank.


For Ukraine there is a particular concern that it is running short on the western-supplied weapons that have helped it knock out Russian tanks and planes.

Kyiv’s military has been requesting a huge number more weapons in the run-up to the Nato summit on Thursday, and has secured a commitment from Britain to send 5,000 more missiles.

It is also clear that Russia is suffering from serious logistical constraints that have forced it to abandon its clearly over-optimistic plan to simultaneously encircle Kyiv and Kharkiv and attack from the south and east.
Western officials believe it has lost the ability to fight an offensive on multiple axes, partly because of resupply issues but also because of the casualties it has sustained – somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 – and it is now simply focusing on trying to capture Mariupol with a brutal and long-running bombardment.

An important sign of the scale of Russia’s difficulties will be if Ukraine can muster an effective counterattack in the Irpin area north-west of the capital, which has seen some of the most deadly fighting from almost the beginning of the war.

“If the early reports of a Ukrainian counter-offensive in the Irpin area prove accurate, this will be a key indicator that Russian supply problems along the Kyiv axis of advance have not been rectified, though casualties, low morale and poor operational coordination will also have played a role,” Reynolds said.

The prevailing view, however, remains that the advantage sits with the aggressor. “Russia retains, in overall terms, significant materiel and personnel reserves that it can draw upon,” said one western source, speaking on condition of anonymity. But the supply lines are complicated for some of the invading forces, particularly those from Russia’s far-off easternmost districts.

Ukraine’s problem is more serious. The country’s arms industry was already far smaller than Russia’s and many of its industrial areas in the east have been heavily damaged by the war. It is long-term damage, which, judging by the scant regard Moscow has shown for civilian casualties, was probably partly deliberate.

Kyiv, in terms of most of the key military hardware, is now entirely reliant on a regular, continuing flow of supply from the west to counteract Russia’s ability to mass tanks and air power against Ukrainian defenders and people. But such high-end weapons can easily be used in warfare far faster than they can be manufactured.
When it comes to arms and ammunition, that could mean a longer fight is to Russia’s advantage, if the Kremlin is willing to continue to tolerate large numbers of casualties. Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin appears willing to do just that.
Click to expand...

Thoughts from those with more knowledge in the matter?
 
stefan92 said:
It makes sense, but the big question is how long this war will take. For weeks Ukraine will still have the advantage, if we talk about months or even years then Ukraine will need western supply on a scale to match the output of the Russian industry.
Click to expand...
Considering their economy is in free fall and their arms manufacturers are shutting down production because they don’t have the import lines anymore - I’d say that the longer the one war goes on the more advantage Ukraine gains. Especially if NATO deem it a good way of weakening Putin and leading to his downfall.
 
Pintu said:
Click to expand...


Yean the stock market opened but short selling was banned and foreign investors were also banned from selling hahaha. And obviously the government is helping as well.

But every extra ruble they need to support their economy is one less ruble they have for the war. It all adds up. I'd rather they channel all their money to the stock market than using it to build more cruise missiles.
 
GlastonSpur said:
It wouldn't surprise me if a fair few of the Anonymous hackers are actually employees of GCHQ (signals intelligence, cyber security and more), an organisation which is known to have very sophisticated hacking capabilities.

After all, an "anarchist" collective like Anonymous would be the perfect front/disguise for such involvement, allowing government denial of any such activity.
Click to expand...

Knowing what GCHQ is like... I really don't think they like to employ people of the 'moral crusader' type who would be interested in Anonymous. GCHQ has used DoS attacks on Anonymous in the past to disrupt their communications.
 
Pexbo said:
Considering their economy is in free fall and their arms manufacturers are shutting down production because they don’t have the import lines anymore - I’d say that the longer the one war goes on the more advantage Ukraine gains. Especially if NATO deem it a good way of weakening Putin and leading to his downfall.
Click to expand...
We don't know how long it would take the Russians to produce the missing pieces themselves. I guess they won't be able to produce some of their most modern systems, but I don't think they need much imported stuff to build T-72s and other stuff of that technological level.
 
Rajma said:


This talks about the (low) Russian military standing in social hierarchy and discuss the domestic support for this war. Really good thread.
Click to expand...


Indeed. I didn't realise that the Russian military were held in - and deliberately kept in - such low esteem. It explains a lot about why they are doing so badly in Ukraine.
 
stefan92 said:
We don't know how long it would take the Russians to produce the missing pieces themselves. I guess they won't be able to produce some of their most modern systems, but I don't think they need much imported stuff to build T-72s and other stuff of that technological level.
Click to expand...
Probably longer than it would take them to send piece to china and get it reverse engineered
 
ZupZup said:
Knowing what GCHQ is like... I really don't think they like to employ people of the 'moral crusader' type who would be interested in Anonymous. GCHQ has used DoS attacks on Anonymous in the past to disrupt their communications.
Click to expand...

That's not what I was suggesting. Instead, I'm thinking that GCHQ might have infiltrated Anonymous with people who simply pose as 'moral crusader' types - whilst drawing on the hacking resources of GCHQ - because Anonymous can then be used a convenient non-state actor behind which GCHQ can hide in certain situations where the aims of GCHQ and Anonymous just happen to coincide .... as with the war in Ukraine and damaging the Russian state.
 
Dans said:
To who? Jeff, Elon, Bill and Warren?
Click to expand...

They already got their own mega-yacht:

Jeff's

jeff-bezos-yacht-scaled.jpg
 
Schmiznurf said:
Nazi grafitti is hardly a good reason to call a country nazi though, if that were the case Russia could invade Wales with the same reason.
Click to expand...
Tbf one Nazi grafitti is already more than what Russia had as an actual pretext for the invasion.
 
Pexbo said:
Click to expand...

It's remarkable how people who claim to 'hate' the West and all what its stands for, see absolutely no problem in living like kings with the wealth stolen from their own countrymen. So many examples.
 
RoyH1 said:
It's remarkable how people who claim to 'hate' the West and all what its stands for, see absolutely no problem in living like kings with the wealth stolen from their own countrymen. So many examples.
Click to expand...

Got to keep up the act or it'd all fall apart wouldn't it.
 
Rajma said:
Click to expand...


These are the headlines that I just can’t get my head around the ramifications of.

You hear accounts from WW2 of Germans being oblivious / turning a blind eye to concentration camps etc., but how close are these actions to escalating to something similar?

For the record I’m not saying this is anything like what happened to Jews in Poland etc., but I worry at how things like mass deportations seem to be happening and by and large there’s little in the way of response/outcry.
 
The Firestarter said:
The levels of whatabout that will follow this...
Click to expand...
Good news, but the US should be doing more. Especially regarding Central America's refugees.

Ukrainian refugees will be taken care of in Europe. Even our racist parties seem to be tolerant this time (so far at least).
 
Pintu said:
Good news, but the US should be doing more. Especially regarding Central America's refugees.

Ukrainian refugees will be taken care of in Europe. Even our racist parties seem to be tolerant this time (so far at least).
Click to expand...
Because not much race difference I'd guess.
 
Dans said:
Whilst what Germany has done with Nordstream and more could be construed as a massive strategic error, let's not lose sight of the fact that a friendly Russia would be more welcome than an unfriendly Russia, as we are now finding out.
Click to expand...

Exactly, whether history judges it as a self interest (strategic error) affair, and in fact Germany taking risks under the umbrella of a NATO defence pact, that went wrong, either way the misjudgment element in this now has to make the rest of Europe wonder about Germany's competence in such matters. Don't forget Nordstream 2 was about to launch!

frostbite said:
Nobody expected a war. That's why after 1990, Germany was spending less and less on their military.
Click to expand...

That is the error. It is especially disastrous because its been obvious Putin had been rattling the cages of Russia's former allies/neighbours (Ukraine only the latest) for well over twenty years and at the same time, clearly cementing his position in Russia as 'President for life', where else was all this going to lead to?
The West will pay dearly for its lack of foresight, and Ukraine and other east European countries will be the 'whipping boys' for the Wests mistakes

stefan92 said:
So it is not new that Germany depends on Russian gas, and you shouldn't see the Nordstream project necessarily as increasing dependency, but as a way to ensure operational security of the pipelines
Click to expand...

Yes of course, it was mutual 'self-interest' between Germany and Russia, but at what cost... that is the question only history will be able to answer.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes of course, it was mutual 'self-interest' between Germany and Russia, but at what cost... that is the question only history will be able to answer.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Germany, all EU leaders were happy for Nord Stream to work. It was a safe and cheap way to secure the supply. Fillon and Rutte didn't look concerned about it.


Nord_Stream_ceremony.jpeg
 
Pintu said:
To be fair to Germany, all EU leaders were happy for Nord Stream to work. It was a safe and cheap way to secure the supply. Fillon and Rutte didn't look concerned about it.


Nord_Stream_ceremony.jpeg
Click to expand...

Of course... were any of them going to disagree with something Germany had set up/taken the lead on, were any of them going to say "hang on a minute can we trust Putin with his track record"? Or were most content to say "well if Putin causes trouble, we have economic sanctions, which the Americans will do the 'heavy-lighting' on... and of course NATO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.