Dandywalken posted:

Thread says Russian strategy is generally weeks to months of strikes versus critical infrastructure before commiting ground forces, but I can't think of a time they've ever done so? I imagine thats a Gulf War-style strategy and doesn't really fit anything Russia has performed.

In addition to them not hitting those targets immediately at invasion, their use of support assets has been a weird mix of Soviet style and just bizarrely unfocused.

Libluini posted:

They were only equal because both the German and French were constantly counter-attacking each other, wasting tons of lives

aphid_licker posted:

The reason the front line around bakh is so relatively stable is that UA is counterattacking. You occasionally see reports that they retook some house or other.

Vulture posted:

cinci zoo sniper posted:

Eh?

Scratch Monkey posted:

cinci edit: car gets T-boned by scooter
https://i.imgur.com/0eCXgFF.mp4

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Alchenar posted:

I don't know how you get these threads wrong repeatedly, but the end of the gif makes it clear it isn't NMS at all and actually quite funny.

Alchenar posted:

I don't know how you get these threads wrong repeatedly, but the end of the gif makes it clear it isn't NMS at all and actually quite funny.

Alchenar posted:

I don't know how you get these threads wrong repeatedly, but the end of the gif makes it clear it isn't NMS at all and actually quite funny.

jaete posted:

Putin is apparently hinting that he might change the official nuclear doctrine to allow first use: https://apnews.com/article/putin-moscow-strikes-united-states-government-russia-95f1436d23b94fcbc05f1c2242472d5c

Some pundit comments: “He doesn’t quite say we’re going to launch nuclear weapons, but he wants the dialogue in the U.S. and Europe to be, ’The longer this war goes on, the greater the threat of nuclear weapons might be used,’” Erath said.

jaete posted:

Putin is apparently hinting that he might change the official nuclear doctrine to allow first use: https://apnews.com/article/putin-moscow-strikes-united-states-government-russia-95f1436d23b94fcbc05f1c2242472d5c

Some pundit comments: “He doesn’t quite say we’re going to launch nuclear weapons, but he wants the dialogue in the U.S. and Europe to be, ’The longer this war goes on, the greater the threat of nuclear weapons might be used,’” Erath said.

Putin posted:

The second one. I understand that everyone is worried, has always been worried, as soon as nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in general appeared, people, all of humanity are always worried: what will happen to the planet and to us? But look what I mean, I'll explain some things.

The United States has a pre-emptive strike theory, one. Number two, they're developing a disarming strike system. What is that? This is a strike with modern high-tech means of striking control points, which would deprive the enemy of these control systems and so on.

What kind of modern means are these? These are cruise missiles, which we didn't have in their day-we had no ground-launched cruise missiles, we gave them up, cut them up. The Americans were wiser when they were negotiating with the Soviet Union - they cut the land-based ones, but they kept their airborne and naval missiles - they weren't in the treaty, so we were unarmed. But now we have them, and they are more modern and even more effective. The second thing.

There were also plans to launch preventive disarming strikes using hypersonic systems, but the United States doesn't have them, and we do. So if we're talking about a disarming strike, then maybe we should think about adopting the know-how of our American partners and their ideas on how to ensure our own security. We're just thinking about it. No one has been shy about talking about it out loud in previous times and years. That's the first thing.

The United States has a theory and even a practice, and their strategy and documents spell it out: preventive strikes. We have not. In our strategy, we have developed a reciprocal strike, and there are no secrets here. What is a retaliatory strike? I mean a retaliatory strike. This is when our early-warning system detects missile launches towards Russian territory. It detects that the launches have taken place, and then we start a response.

We regularly hold exercises of our nuclear forces. You can see that, we don't keep this secret, we inform our partners as we should according to our agreements with all the nuclear powers and the US that we are carrying out such exercises. They do the same thing, I assure you.

After the early-warning system receives a signal of a missile attack, we have hundreds of missiles in the air, and it's impossible to stop them. But it's still a retaliatory [strike]. What does that mean? This means that the falling of enemy missile heads on Russian territory is inevitable: they will fall anyway. True, there will be nothing left of the enemy, because it is impossible to intercept hundreds of missiles. Of course this is a deterrent, a serious deterrent.

But if a potential adversary thinks that a preventive strike is possible and we do not, then this does force us to think about the threats posed to us by these kinds of ideas in the defence of other countries.

notwithoutmyanus posted:

Yeah I find this interesting. I hear a lot of speculation about it and I honestly don't know enough to contribute meaningfully to the speculation. So for the more on top of it folks in the thread:

Is this a normal exchange? Unreasonable/good/bad? I recall Griner being somewhat a casualty of crappy circumstances in how she was captured.

Pook Good Mook posted:

I think Perun had this right a few weeks ago when he highlighted that the main problem that all other problems stem from is the culture of lying and rear end-covering that causes semi-independent decision making and no accountability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik

Charlz Guybon posted:

This is Cadorna level generalship

https://mobile.twitter.com/Tendar/status/1601358017572016128

Charlz Guybon posted:

Very good

Charlz Guybon posted:

Very good

https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1601771599707140098

Dandywalken posted:

Thread says Russian strategy is generally weeks to months of strikes versus critical infrastructure before commiting ground forces, but I can't think of a time they've ever done so? I imagine thats a Gulf War-style strategy and doesn't really fit anything Russia has performed.

In addition to them not hitting those targets immediately at invasion, their use of support assets has been a weird mix of Soviet style and just bizarrely unfocused.

FishBulbia posted:

An alternative for Bakhmut
...

Odesa is now potentially 2-3 months with spotty power. Friends have assured me that the main threat is boredom though. They do see to have power for about 1-2 hours a day.

Ynglaur posted:

https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1601899773409300481?t=AeP36uYb6l3laiIpcKg8HA&s=19

First I've seen this. Does anyone know of the source is at all reliable?

Willo567 posted:

Is the Times a reliable source? Also not sure how much we should put into a single source on U.S. policy imo

quote:

“We’re still using the same escalatory calculations but the fear of escalation has changed since the beginning,” a US defence source told The Times. “It’s different now. This is because the calculus of war has changed as a result of the suffering and brutality the Ukrainians are being subjected to by the Russians.”

Washington is now less concerned that new long-range strikes inside Russia could lead to a dramatic escalation. Moscow’s revenge attacks have to date all involved conventional missile strikes against civilian targets. Previously, the Pentagon was warier of Ukraine attacking Russia because it feared the Kremlin would retaliate either with tactical nuclear weapons or by targeting neighbouring Nato nations.

However, Washington does not want to be seen publicly giving the green light to Kyiv attacking Russian soil. Its position on Ukraine’s attacks inside Russia was defined this week by Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, who said: “We have neither encouraged nor enabled the Ukrainians to strike inside of Russia.”

However, a US defence source said: “We’re not saying to Kyiv, ‘Don’t strike the Russians [in Russia or Crimea]’. We can’t tell them what to do. It’s up to them how they use their weapons. But when they use the weapons we have supplied, the only thing we insist on is that the Ukrainian military conform to the international laws of war and to the Geneva conventions.

“They are the only limitations but that includes no targeting of Russian families and no assassinations. As far as we’re concerned, Ukraine has been in compliance.”