Ukrainian War Developments

[sferrin]

Unfair analysis. "SEAD kill" is a misnomer. ARMs are a suppression (SEAD) tool to force the radar/SAM to turn off. You still need to destroy (DEAD) the site with regular munitions after suppressing it (best option for that is cluster bombs once the radar is suppressed and its location is known.)

I would assume the analyst who tweeted this knows this already, and yet he criticized the video pointlessly on twitter just to score points.

ARMs are frequently used to make the other guy keep his head down. Sure, you want to hit the radar but even getting it to shut down at the right time can be a win. Hell, the British ALARM had a parachute so it could hang over the enemy radar site longer.

 

[sferrin]

The US withdrew from ABM and INF Treaties. They place Mk 41 VLS in Poland and Romania next to Russia. They claim these systems are to intercept Iranian missiles into Europe. Why not place missile systems in Turkey then? Why Poland? Also AFAIK Iran never threatened Europe. Only reason they do not do to Russia what they did to Serbia back when Chechen war happened was Russian nuclear deterrent. Mk 41 VLS in Poland and Romania help undermine this deterrent.

Look at a globe, not a map. And then consider a missile's trajectory, when you want to intercept it, and reaction time.

 

[sferrin]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1500826641400045571

Lol, with the prices for oil and natural gas going through the roof it actually goes some way to compensate for the sanction induced economic damage.

Trump was right again.

 

[Weaasel]

What do you mean what happened? That’s how the Soviet and then Russian army always fought. Messy, overly aggressive, lacking subtlety and finesse, but undeniably effective and ultimately irresistible.

They just didn’t really improve as much as most were expecting/hoping.

But again, what we see being pumped and boosted on social media are just inconsequential skirmish level losses for the Russians at the end of the day. The Ukrainians are not winning any of the major battles that matter.

They were not overly aggressive in first few days. Actually, in the North especially, they were trigger and suffered, even by their own admission heavy casualties. I do not know why on Earth they were thinking if they truly believed that Ukraine would surrender in a few days and they'd be welcomed as liberators, especially outside of the Donbass Region.

It is as though Russia learned nothing with regards to the war in Chechnya. They should have had an expectation of urban combat, or even if they do not storm cities, they should have undertaken the sam extent of extensive operations to surround a cities as they did in Grozny.

They should have operated on the worse scenario assumptions and also taken into consideration certain differences between the Chechens and the Ukrainians, these both being respectively that the Ukrainians were determined to fight on the one hand, and the Ukrainians have significantly better AA and Anti tank weaponry that the Chechens did.

 

[gelgoog]

Which treaties were those? And please, don't trot out the ABM Treaty or INF Treaty. Everybody knows how those ended. The US left the ABM Treaty fully legally. (The Treaty itself allowed it. "The Treaty gave the Parties the right to withdraw from it with a six-month notice in the event of extraordinary circumstances that jeopardize their supreme interests (Article V). The United States withdrew from the Treaty in June 2002.") And Russia wantonly violated the INF Treaty with Iskander-K.

The treaty has a specific clause which allows land testing of missiles just not the deployment of either those missiles or their launchers.
Russia regularly does land based tests of naval launched missiles at a test range. This is allowed under the treaty.

The US publicly did a land based missile test which would breach treaty limits if deployed just months after they left the treaty.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This included the test of a new missile that very year. You can't develop a new weapon system like a cruise missile in a single year.
It had to be in development for years already.

The US let it slip out why they developed this weapon when they left the INF Treaty in the first place. That the missile was developed to counter Chinese SLBMs and MRBMs in the Pacific. Also guess what it is supposed to be Mk 41 VLS compatible. Same as AEGIS Ashore.

Look at a globe, not a map. And then consider a missile's trajectory, when you want to intercept it, and reaction time.

Sorry but AEGIS Ashore base in Poland still makes no sense as a platform to intercept missiles from Iran. Unless you think Iran is going to want to hit Sweden or something. And like I said Iran never threatened to use missile attacks on Europe. Heck Iran does not even have any nukes (yet). It makes no sense to build a defense for something that does not exist. Iranian MRBMs do not even have enough range to reach Poland. Is it a missile shield to protect Belarus or something?

 

[JamesRed]

They were not overly aggressive in first few days. Actually, in the North especially, they were trigger and suffered, even by their own admission heavy casualties. I do not know why on Earth they were thinking if they truly believed that Ukraine would surrender in a few days and they'd be welcomed as liberators, especially outside of the Donbass Region.

It is as though Russia learned nothing with regards to the war in Chechnya. They should have had an expectation of urban combat, or even if they do not storm cities, they should have undertaken the sam extent of extensive operations to surround a cities as they did in Grozny.

They should have operated on the worse scenario assumptions and also taken into consideration certain differences between the Chechens and the Ukrainians, these both being respectively that the Ukrainians were determined to fight on the one hand, and the Ukrainians have significantly better AA and Anti tank weaponry that the Chechens did.

You act as if you can conquer a country of 60 million people without losing any men yourself. I don't quite understand who you're trying to convince here that Russia is doing poorly. It seems to many of us that things are going as Russia had planned and they're making progress towards their goals.

 

[Richard Santos]

I suspect Russia did not commit her first stringers in armored abs mechanized infantry, and held them back for the same reason she held back the bulk of her airforce.

These are held back as both a deterrent to NATO intervention, and to make available an additional penultimate escalatory step short of nuclear escalation should NATO intervene.

If NATO intervenes and there is no russian additional conventional forces available, then things will have to go nuclear or russia must capitulate. Having more conventional forces available on russian side provides a last ditch way to forestall nuclear escalation.

 

[Aegis21]

I see a lot of contradictory claims here and in many other forums. Is Russia winning or losing?

 

[Weaasel]

You act as if you can conquer a country of 60 million people without losing any men yourself. I don't quite understand who you're trying to convince here that Russia is doing poorly. It seems to many of us that things are going as Russia had planned and they're making progress towards their goals.

Of course one cannot conquer without losing men (they shouldn't even try to conquer the whole country, absolutely not), but my point of emphasis is if they truly believed that they'd win in a week, that was extremely irresponsibly hubristic, and they suffered heavy initial casualties for it, by not taking the necessary precautions as was the case during the second Chechnya war during their approach to Grozny.

 

[ohan_qwe]

I see a lot of contradictory claims here and in many other forums. Is Russia winning or losing?

Winning but at higher cost than expected. Think of it that Russia where expected to win in a week taking 200 casualties but instead it looks like it will take 6 weeks and 20000 casualties. But in the end Russia would have destroyed the Ukrainian army so still a win.