|
Can someone pm me when this thread is on topic again and for lurker cred my first ever probe was from the current events thread and I also know the secret plan for the North Korean invasion from browsing on my lunch break.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Itll go back pretty quick if something starts happening, its pretty quiet outside of Bakhmut right now and thats moving glacial. Once thats done theres nowhere for Russia to advance since both routes out of there have heavy defensive lines built.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 07:09
|
|
|
Yeah, and there's no harm done by a good bout of shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 07:14
|
|
|
Hey with all the new posts I thought Ukraine took Moscow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 07:38
|
|
|
sharknado slashfic posted:Hey with all the new posts I thought Ukraine took Moocow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 07:54
|
|
|
Give it another year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
There a lot of angus about Bakhmoot but Wagner would have to jump over the moon to gain even lean ground. The Ukrainian army is turning them into mincemeat. And it's not like the Russians shouldn't be, oh, Leary about leaving the barn doors open to partisans kicking over the lantern and starting a great fire. That said, the situation is a meat grinder for both sides, and there isn't a lot of choice about prime beefing locations to pull baby back to. Moo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 11:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1633784818390409221 Possible second round of I Can't Belive It's Not Terrorism missile strikes against Ukraine today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 13:17
|
|
|
The plant is shutdown at least, but it’s still not good by any stretch  quote:A UN official has issued an urgent warning after the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant lost off-site power following fresh Russian strikes https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64897888 https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-64899277 quote:More than 80 Russian missiles were fired at Ukraine in a sustained overnight barrage - the biggest for weeks - with at least nine people killed Normally their intercept rate is better than 34/80, what was the difference for this one? e: I missed that the Russians still control the plant. What the actual gently caress 
Icon Of Sin fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Mar 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:Normally their intercept rate is better than 34/80, what was the difference for this one? Unexpected targets and/or Ukraine getting used to smaller attacks, I'd guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 13:37
|
|
|
Some of the missiles reportedly overflew Moldova.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 13:42
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:The plant is shutdown at least, but it’s still not good by any stretch A large part is probably the sheer numbers. Once you reach the saturation point of your air defences, a lot more stuff is going to make it through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 13:49
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:The plant is shutdown at least, but it’s still not good by any stretch News this morning said part of the barrage was hypersonic Kinzhal missiles which the Ukrainian air defenses can’t hit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 13:51
|
|
|
Found a good post in GBS. Bakhmut, pre-war. Cugel the Clever posted:A bit of a tangent from the war coverage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 13:59
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:Normally their intercept rate is better than 34/80, what was the difference for this one? quote:Due to countermeasures all 8 Kh-31P/X-59 did not reach their targets. https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...f0873d4a6d886ea quote:It adds: “As a result of organised countermeasures, 8 Kh-31P and Kh-59 guided air missiles did not reach their targets. It is worth noting that the armed forces of Ukraine do not have means capable of destroying Kh-22 and Kh-47 ‘Kinzhal’ and S-300.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:03
|
|
|
Lol if true, Russia didn't have that many Kinzhal missiles to start. I heard the strikes included Kh-101 and 555s, which are also not so well stockpiled. E;f.b
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:11
|
|
|
They have to know by now that all this terrorist bombing of civilian infrastructure isn't going to break Ukraine's national spirit or what the gently caress ever. Is there anything to it besides Vladdy throwing a temper tantrum? The only possible reality-based scenario I can see that leads to this is someone in the upper-middle ranks absolutely desperate to rear end cover and say "Look I'm doing something, I did something, it's that guy's fault not mine!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:They have to know by now that all this terrorist bombing of civilian infrastructure isn't going to break Ukraine's national spirit or what the gently caress ever. Is there anything to it besides Vladdy throwing a temper tantrum? The only possible reality-based scenario I can see that leads to this is someone in the upper-middle ranks absolutely desperate to rear end cover and say "Look I'm doing something, I did something, it's that guy's fault not mine!" It literally can't work since so much of their war production is in NATO under the umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:28
|
|
|
Has terror bombing ever worked in the recorded history of warfare? I think even back before planes were around to drop bombs, artillery attacks didn't do anything to cause a civilian population to capitulate, it only happened when troops marched in to claim a city, and even then resistance occurs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:They have to know by now that all this terrorist bombing of civilian infrastructure isn't going to break Ukraine's national spirit or what the gently caress ever. Is there anything to it besides Vladdy throwing a temper tantrum? The only possible reality-based scenario I can see that leads to this is someone in the upper-middle ranks absolutely desperate to rear end cover and say "Look I'm doing something, I did something, it's that guy's fault not mine!" It’s not like there’s an active offensive going that could potentially use some backup or anything. Not saying those missiles could’ve helped in Bakhmut, but they probably would’ve been better used there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:31
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a dumb question as I know very little when it comes to these types of missiles and drones that Russia is using. I get that the point in these attacks against civilian targets is to essentially destroy infrastructure and to try to terrorize and demoralize the Ukrainians. Setting aside how not very effective that approach may be, couldn't those missiles have been directed at Ukrainian troops in Bakhmut? Or logistics or command structures near those lines? Is it that the forward line of Russian troops are too close? Would that much matter to the Russians? Is it just easier to target a power station that they already know locations of? Would such an attack not have much of an impact for the Russians in a situation like Bakhmut? Hope that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:35
|
|
|
RoyKeen posted:Sorry if this is a dumb question as I know very little when it comes to these types of missiles and drones that Russia is using. I get that the point in these attacks against civilian targets is to essentially destroy infrastructure and to try to terrorize and demoralize the Ukrainians. Setting aside how not very effective that approach may be, couldn't those missiles have been directed at Ukrainian troops in Bakhmut? Or logistics or command structures near those lines? Is it that the forward line of Russian troops are too close? Would that much matter to the Russians? Is it just easier to target a power station that they already know locations of? Would such an attack not have much of an impact for the Russians in a situation like Bakhmut? Hope that makes sense. They definitely could have used these weapons against the military units in and around Bakhmut, and arguably if they'd used what they spent on attacking random Ukrainian cities on attacking tactically and strategically sound military targets they'd be a lot closer to achieving their goal of reducing the Ukrainian military and actually conquering Ukraine. Russia is stepping in the same bear trap that Germany did when they bombed Britain in WWII, by focusing their efforts on civilian population and infrastructure they allow the military breathing room to rest, recuperate and rebuild.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
RoyKeen posted:Sorry if this is a dumb question as I know very little when it comes to these types of missiles and drones that Russia is using. I get that the point in these attacks against civilian targets is to essentially destroy infrastructure and to try to terrorize and demoralize the Ukrainians. Setting aside how not very effective that approach may be, couldn't those missiles have been directed at Ukrainian troops in Bakhmut? Or logistics or command structures near those lines? Is it that the forward line of Russian troops are too close? Would that much matter to the Russians? Is it just easier to target a power station that they already know locations of? Would such an attack not have much of an impact for the Russians in a situation like Bakhmut? Hope that makes sense. It does make sense. It would be the rational thing to do. Russia is not acting rationally though. For whatever reason they have picked a strategy that doesn't make sense. As noted by other posters, we are hard pressed to find a campaign like this that was successful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Has terror bombing ever worked in the recorded history of warfare? I can think of one instance, but that was technically two bombings 3 days apart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
It is difficult to speculate on psychology but I can see the sort of "we'll show them how strong and tough and wicked we are by doing it this way, rather than by trying to focus our missile barrages on actual military targets." It's a demonstration, internally, of how far you're willing to go, how you're really committed. And you probably will kill or inconvenience some Ukrainians. Except that doing it with your depleting stock of very-hard-to-manufacture arms seems really dumb. e: I suppose there's also making political hay out of how many Ukrainains you have silenced with your big, strong, manly missile barrages for internal propaganda purposes. You are doing Something :tm: even if that something is just making things nastier and a little more friction-ful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
GD_American posted:I can think of one instance, but that was technically two bombings 3 days apart. Only because entire cities were leveled at once, not (comparatively) little bombs or missiles here and there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
Rotterdam. But yeah, it works when you threaten to level entire cities with impunity, not when you threaten rolling power blackouts for a few days every month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
GD_American posted:I can think of one instance, but that was technically two bombings 3 days apart. Regarding this, it really only worked because of pure shock value. The US had already done far worse to Japan with indiscriminate firebombing and complete levelling of every city larger than Gainesville, GA (est. 60,000 people). Little Boy and Fat Man were comparatively party poppers next to the hell the US visited on the civilian populace via thermite and napalm. There's a bit of a perverse nature of the US strategy for the bombings as CINCPAC and Army Air Command had intentionally spared Nagasaki and Hiroshima for the entire terror bombing campaign for these demonstrations, once the plan became to use the cities for demonstrations of the power of the nuclear bomb. Civilian refugees congregated in those cities because they'd been spared from earlier firebombing raids. orange juche fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Mar 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
orange juche posted:They definitely could have used these weapons against the military units in and around Bakhmut, and arguably if they'd used what they spent on attacking random Ukrainian cities on attacking tactically and strategically sound military targets they'd be a lot closer to achieving their goal of reducing the Ukrainian military and actually conquering Ukraine. Yeah, I do get that the Russians haven't been all that rational and I get their idea of trying to break the will of the Ukrainians. I suppose I'm just thinking about it more now because it feels like Bakhmut has become so much of a focal and rallying point for both sides that taking out military targets with those missiles to finally capture Bakhmut would be a real goal while also possibly damaging the will of the Ukrainians. I can't speak to the military impact for Ukraine if they lost the city but it has become a rallying cry. I dunno. I'm not trying to give them ideas mind you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
Since I see this floating around, does anyone have an obviously-rough idea of how large Ukraine's manpower mobilization is, relative to their manpower reserves? Obviously it will be smaller than Russia's, but a lot of the theory I see seems to be "well, Russia has three times the force, they could lose every single soldier they have now and just raise a second army," which seems pragmatically fairly unlikely since they would not be much beyond light infantry at this point.RoyKeen posted:Yeah, I do get that the Russians haven't been all that rational and I get their idea of trying to break the will of the Ukrainians. I suppose I'm just thinking about it more now because it feels like Bakhmut has become so much of a focal and rallying point for both sides that taking out military targets with those missiles to finally capture Bakhmut would be a real goal while also possibly damaging the will of the Ukrainians. I can't speak to the military impact for Ukraine if they lost the city but it has become a rallying cry. I dunno. I'm not trying to give them ideas mind you. Like it would be a tactical victory for Russia... after all of that. Nessus fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Mar 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Since I see this floating around, does anyone have an obviously-rough idea of how large Ukraine's manpower mobilization is, relative to their manpower reserves? Obviously it will be smaller than Russia's, but a lot of the theory I see seems to be "well, Russia has three times the force, they could lose every single soldier they have now and just raise a second army," which seems pragmatically fairly unlikely since they would not be much beyond light infantry at this point. Ukraine's military equipment supplies are basically "as much as the West wants to give them" whereas Russia is only getting resupply from a couple of countries that don't mind getting cut off via sanctions. Ukraine could probably lose more equipment and be able to replace it than Russia can, since Ukraine is currently backed by the economic might of the EU and the US. Russia has a higher population but it's debatable how many of them are able/willing to fight as they already had major issues filling the 300k mobik draft they conducted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Ukraine's military equipment supplies are basically "as much as the West wants to give them" whereas Russia is only getting resupply from a couple of countries that don't mind getting cut off via sanctions. Ukraine seems to have much higher general morale for some reason 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Ukraine's military equipment supplies are basically "as much as the West wants to give them" whereas Russia is only getting resupply from a couple of countries that don't mind getting cut off via sanctions. Adding to this: they had a demographic crisis even before going on their ill-fated invasion. Archive.is version of an Economist article on the subject: https://archive.is/0wFCy
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
orange juche posted:They definitely could have used these weapons against the military units in and around Bakhmut, and arguably if they'd used what they spent on attacking random Ukrainian cities on attacking tactically and strategically sound military targets they'd be a lot closer to achieving their goal of reducing the Ukrainian military and actually conquering Ukraine. Those types of missiles are best used similar to how Ukraine has been deploying the GMLRS, conserve for high value targets and then hit them. Like, randomly hitting civilian targets has little or no positive effect on the prosecution of the war and arguably is detrimental to the stated goals of reducing western involvement and Ukrainian willingness to fight. So, my general assumption (which lol, who loving knows) would be that if Russia is not targeting Ukraines C&C and key logistics points with them it's because they can't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Since I see this floating around, does anyone have an obviously-rough idea of how large Ukraine's manpower mobilization is, relative to their manpower reserves? Obviously it will be smaller than Russia's, but a lot of the theory I see seems to be "well, Russia has three times the force, they could lose every single soldier they have now and just raise a second army," which seems pragmatically fairly unlikely since they would not be much beyond light infantry at this point. If you go by ISW's wording of their analysis then Ukraine has already achieved their strategic purpose of holding Bakhmut in that Russia no longer has a credible capability to significantly exploit it's capture with follow on attacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
A couple of articles up on Yle today about the ramping military activity by the Finnish/Russian border and generally in the arctic. This one is specifically about the NATO Joint Viking exercise and the situation in the arctic today. All the obscuring has been left to the side, and everyone is really open that the enemy that everyone is training to defend from is Russia. As someone living in the Nordics, this feels really scary that everyone now feels so free to just say it out loud after it generally being just alluded to since the 2nd World War. Feel free to click the link if you want to see soldiers running around in -30 C weather and a lot of snow, and there are links within the text for further sources. Author: Hanna Visala Release date: 09.03.23 Link to untranslated article: https://yle.fi/a/74-20021609 quote:Russia opened almost all of its Soviet-era military bases near Finland in the Arctic region - this is how the commander of the Norwegian Navy commented on the matter There was also an interesting article about an island just 40 km south from the nearest Finnish town, and a short helicopter flight from Helsinki. To summarize: Russia has built radar stations as well as an helicopter airport there, with the implication that the base there would function as a way to basically control all airspace in the area if they install a anti-air battery there, not to speak of giving them the capability to do some really nasty helicopter based strikes if things turn ugly. And yeah, as a tiny aside it seems that all that GPS interference that we have had in southern and eastern Finland most likely originates from this facility, and is a direct attack on air safety especially in this area of Finland. If you want to see satellite imagery of the outpost, as well as some maps of the GPS jamming you can find those behind the link. Authors: Anu Rummukainen, Juha Rissanen, Taneli Arponen Release date: 09.03.23 Link to untranslated article: https://yle.fi/a/74-20020628 quote:Russia has become active in Suursaari, which is right next to Finland Set fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Mar 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
orange juche posted:They definitely could have used these weapons against the military units in and around Bakhmut, and arguably if they'd used what they spent on attacking random Ukrainian cities on attacking tactically and strategically sound military targets they'd be a lot closer to achieving their goal of reducing the Ukrainian military and actually conquering Ukraine. I’m not sure Russia has the capability to effectively use these weapons against Ukraines military in the field. It’s been stated in numerous articles throughout the war that the time dwell of their “kill chain” prevents them from being able to strike targets that regularly relocate. This has been the case with their artillery and rocket forces so I wouldn’t expect their long range cruise missiles to be any better. If the Ukrainian military continues to move their high value assets, they become difficult or impossible for the weapons that Russia is using in their terror bombing campaign to interdict. If they only have the targeting capability to strike fixed strategic targets then they wouldn’t have much use beyond how they are currently being deployed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
Murgos posted:If you go by ISW's wording of their analysis then Ukraine has already achieved their strategic purpose of holding Bakhmut in that Russia no longer has a credible capability to significantly exploit it's capture with follow on attacks. Russia not having enough troops to push an offensive after capturing Bakhmut is pretty telling. They've poured so much of their mobiks and the remainder of their trained troops into a meat grinder that they're not going to be able to push meaningfully anywhere along the line, and without additional mobilization and training of fresh troops their lines are probably going to be extremely brittle if Ukraine does a counteroffensive. Russia does have a lot of troops still, but the line they have to hold would stretch most of the way across Europe, which means a lot of areas are likely severely undermanned, possibly worse than they were earlier in the war. An armored punch in a weak location could lead to most of an oblast getting rolled up again just like up north earlier in the war. orange juche fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
Murgos posted:If you go by ISW's wording of their analysis then Ukraine has already achieved their strategic purpose of holding Bakhmut in that Russia no longer has a credible capability to significantly exploit it's capture with follow on attacks. This operation transformed somewhere along the way. I had thought of it as a large-scale fixing operation (making it enough of a fight to draw in Russian reinforcements/make it a dilemma to move troops to/from the area), but it seems like the Ukrainians sensed an opportunity to break the Russian army in the field outright? If every part of your offensive operation of your invade-your-neighbor army gets shut down, you’re not doing the literal one job your army exists to perform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
This was from a few weeks ago but I don't think it got posted. It's an oral history of the buildup to the war, from the perspective of US and allied government and intelligence folks. It's pretty long but fascinating. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757 If you don't have time for it, Adam Tooze wrote about it in his substack. https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-199-how-putins-war-dawned Adam Tooze posted:No account of 2022 can be useful if it does not distinguish between the problem of explaining Russian resentment and revisionism and Putin’s decision actually to go to war and to do so on a gigantic scale. An account like John Mearsheimer’s is perfectly adequate, indeed necessary, to explain the former i.e. the build-up of tension. It has little or nothing to say about the latter, the decision to not just pull the trigger but to launch entire armies into battle. The interest of the Politico history is that it shows the American decision-makers in their own words trying to reach across this gap and. to make sense of it. Given that Putin was an angry revisionist and given that he had what was generally taken to be a formidable military, could it possibly be true that he was planning a large-scale offensive war against a neighbor? How could this be true? I am fond of this quote: quote:JAKE SULLIVAN (national security adviser, White House): What was hard to process was that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the fact that this was going to happen, and yet the intelligence also overwhelmingly pointed to the fact that this was — I think the technical term is — “a crazy thing to do.” It’s weird to process both of those at the same time: OK, this is going to happen, and it is really strategically, morally bankrupt, and bereft of common sense — yet, there they were, going off to do it. There was an element of “What the hell are you guys thinking?”
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 16:17
|
|
man