zorobabel wrote:Maybe someone with insight into the Kremlin can explain how 80k Russian soldiers are supposed to defeat 500k Ukrainian soldiers, marines, militia, and civil defense fighters.
The 500k soldiers are not all in the same place. The units in the Donbass will supposedly have like 60-100k troops.
Russia has the airpower advantage. And if Russia wants to, they can use artillery with more range than the one Ukraine has. Like Tornado-S.
I don't know why we haven't seen Tornado-S with GLONASS rounds used more yet. They can use that to peel their long range artillery. Then move the 2S7M Malka artillery in and saturate the place. If they have units in trenches, and want to do close quarters fighting, just use incendiaries on them. After "softening" them up for a couple of days. Then try to see if they surrender. If not rinse and repeat.
flamming_python wrote:Or should I say plan C. As it looks like their plans for the Donbass have been rendered meaningless by the Moskva sinking and Kiev trying to call their bluff about striking Russian territory
Wonder if we'll get a landing in Odessa, new advance on Kiev from Belarus, encirclement of Nikolayev now
Erk wrote:Has the Moskva fired a shot in this conflict?
I was under the impression that it carried huge anti-ship missiles, which are not appropriate for a land war.
The Moskva was basically providing an air defensive umbrella over any operations around Odessa. Losing it basically means the threat posed by those forces becomes less viable. And some in the US seem to think they can still use Odessa as a NATO base sometime in the future. Russia must not let that happen but right now is not the time. And clearly any ground units they did have in Odessa, they clearly have moved most of them out a long time ago. Ever since the troop landing ships and the Russian marines went to reinforce Mariupol that threat to them lost any edge it might have had at one point.
Arkanghelsk wrote:Bro , Biden gave us a green light the day he said he wasn't going in
The US embassy in Iraq also told Saddam he could go right ahead and invade Kuwait. How well did that end for him?
The US has the same game plan here. To choke Russia with sanctions now, isolate, and weaken it so it can be invaded later.
Those are their typical game plans. Iraq 2003. Yugoslavia. Libya. Typical.
The sanctions were going to happen anyways. Except if Russia breaks Ukraine, it will be one less possible opponent to face later.
US only doesn't repeat those game plans because Russia has nukes. And better ones than they do.
Regular wrote:I don't understand few things in this operation.
Why this time of the year was chosen when troop movement is road-bound most of the time?
Why Russia didn't start with a bombing campaign and let their strategic aviation from the leash?
Russia barely does anything to disrupt Ukrainian mobilization attempts and I believe with 1000+ sorties per day Russia could have ended Ukrainian efforts short. It would be highly demoralizing and even if it would bring destruction, most of it will be in the western parts.
What was the point of the Northern advance? It was noted many times that they will have to retreat due to troop shortages, not only Strelkov said that.
These things I don't understand and it does look like political decisions rather than what military would want.
I think the Russian government chose to attack at the last possible moment. With the realization the more time they had the better chances they would have. Russia was still in middle of buildup. This was the last possible moment since Ukraine seemingly was planning their own operation. With the massive increase in Ukr troops in Donbass and increased rate of shelling.
Given Ukraine's air defense network starting bombing from day one was impossible. And only viable targets to bomb would be the Ukr troops in the Donbass. But even those are near populated areas. I think Russia needs to start to change the Tu-22M3 to act as a mass GLONASS bomb carrier.
Bombers alone typically don't win wars.
The advance towards Kiev was used, I think, to threaten the Ukr regime so it would call its forces in the Donbass to reinforce the capital. Thus fulfilling stated goal by VVP of relieving the siege on the Donbass. US never wanted that to happen, hence why they made efforts to move command and control to Lvov. And probably Poland.
nomadski wrote:If NATO is helping UA, with anti-ship missiles , then Odessa can be approached by Sea using many small landing craft. These can be made produced now. Also the area, inland from Odessa and Nikolayev must be cleared from UA missile systems. A suitable retaliation first is to rebuild the Moscow ship. And also destroy something symbolic of Nazi Army.
They already will have destroyed something once Mariupol falls.
Russia has plenty of hovercraft they can use to deploy troops around Odessa if they want to in a quick operation.
But in the meantime the smart thing to do is goad them into the open around Nikolayev and grind them down.
flamming_python wrote:NATO was involved in targeting the Moskva and that's why the US tried to play it down and say the ship is still working. So they can accuse Russia of sinking it themselves
Because they know what it means. The Moskva was a major component of Russian strike power in the Black Sea, and nuclear deterrant as well as it can be armed with tactical nuclear warheads.
Without it Russia's position is weakened significantly and it has to take decisive action to secure the entire Ukrainian coast.
I would not say this. The Moskva was basically the long range air defense umbrella of the fleet around Odessa. Its anti-ship capabilities are mostly immaterial. The Admiral Grigorovich frigates there together have more offensive anti-ship capability than it had.
And any ships with UKSK VLS can have cruise missiles with tactical nuclear warheads. Even the Buyan-M corvettes.
Russia can place long range air defenses on Snake Island if they just want to plug the gap in air coverage over the Black Sea approaches to Odessa they can't quite cover from Crimea. Probably a set of S-350 and Tor would be enough. If they want to blanket the air space over Odessa then they can just put air defenses in the Kherson Oblast, south west of Kherson, and they will cover Odessa.
flamming_python wrote:No it was a political plan gone wrong
Tsarev went to Bucha, bunch of others. Recon went into Kharkov. Russian force made it to the crest of Krivoj Rog.
All failed to achieve anything there. After Russia pulled out of Bucha, people judged too friendly to Russia were murdered there, including 1-2 politicians.
Basically nearly the whole Ukrainian elite betrayed Russia. It was Medvechuk among others who convinced the leadership of the idea that they would switch to the Russian side if Russia goes in, and agreements were made with various elites.
In practice only Kherson, Berdyansk, Melitopol switched, Energodar reluctantly, and some villages in the Kharkov region
Medvechuk was under house arrest for like a year and his property had been seized. So. Really? Doubt it.
If he had that much power he would have never been arrested in the first place. Might as well ask Guaido to enter an army base and ask them to turn to your side. No wait.
flamming_python wrote:Russia has been far too lax in preparing for this conflict.
The loss of the Moskva has strategic implications, in this era of media war.
Unfortunately Russia is learning these lessons too late, the result now will be more escalation. That's the price of losing the Moskva. If Russia doesn't escalate, then NATO will, and the operation will fail one way or the other. It's useless to plant more flags and generate good will, in a situation where NATO will enter the Ukraine with its conventional armies.
At best, we will end up with a situation now like the Korean war. All the land will be devestated and we will pay massively for the half we get in lives, the economy, everything. You can call that a victory if you want.
All because of these people in charge, who couldn't do their jobs, and figure out that the Moskva will be targeted if given the opportunity, and in general - only served to fail and embolden the enemy time and time again with failed political-military strategies.
No. It has actual implications. The Moskva was supposed to be used as a show of force in the Mediterranean and maybe Middle East or Indian Ocean if needs be. Bottled up in the Black Sea a ship like that is pointless. And that is where it was. Losing it means even the threat of a deployment outside the Black Sea is gone. So it was kind of like a "fleet in being" ship.
As for a Korea like situation. Well. I think I said it before here. But I would not be surprised if Russia did like your buddy Strelkov said and raised loads of conscripts and stormed Kiev.
Say. A couple million Russian troops go inside Kiev.
Then BOOM. The US drops a strategic nuke on top of Kiev. Russia loses the bulk of its trained men.
Masterstroke from US point of view. And do not be surprised if they did just that. That is how the US defines cleverness anyways.
Getting someone else to die for them. Whichever Ukrs were in Kiev would be just, hmm, a "necessary" sacrifice.
You have to remember NATO planned to nuke West German cities in case of a Warsaw Pact invasion. So none of this is new.
So, no, Russian high command knows exactly what it's doing with using minimal amount of force. At least not bunching them all together in same place is good idea.
flamming_python wrote:NATO has voiced its intention to help the Ukraine retake Crimea, and now the Moskva has been lost. Other ships can be attacked next. And who knows what NATO will announce next.
Russia is not at war with NATO yet has already lost part of its anti-ship strike potential and anti-air capabilities in the Black Sea, as well as its command vessel.
Modern Buks start to approach the ranges of the S-300F anyway, but the Moskva has no replacement right at the moment.
The prestige lost and the morale boost to the Ukraine nullifies all results in the Donbass to date.
The entire Black Sea coast must be secured, if it's not safe to blockade it from the sea. Then it should be secured with anti-ship and anti-air complexes
I disagree. Even a Buyan-M can carry 8 cruise missiles. That huge Moskva can carry 16 cruise missiles. And, no, the Oniks won't be slower than the P-1000. Heck I would not be surprised if the Buyan-M could carry the Zircon with a software update. And they can redeploy all the Buyan, Buyan-M, and Karakurt they want to the Black Sea by the Canal System. Not just the ones in the Caspian Sea. But also the Baltic and White Sea. Well they could if it wasn't for that pesky NATO exercise in Norway anyways.
So I disagree with you in that I think its main feature was the air defenses. Those 64 S-300 missiles and 40 Osa missiles. Not 16 P-1000 cruise missiles.
flamming_python wrote:It's not about skin in the game it's about an appraisal of the situation
The flagship and command ship of one of the 4 major fleets has been sunk. This creates a serious security crisis of escalation with NATO. It is no longer possible to carry on the operation as it was before, we are threatened with conventional war with NATO, even unofficially, on the territory of the Ukraine - and the calculation will be made that a larger foothold is necessary immediately to stave off the threat to mainland Russian territory
That was always the case. Why do you think VVP put the nuclear forces in immediate alert when they went into Ukraine?
And sure. Losing the Moskva makes taking that part of the coast more of a pressing matter. I think it should have always been under consideration to get a land connection to Transnistria anyways.
flamming_python wrote:- The situation with Africa and other parts of Asia are merely marginally better than when they were European colonies. They will trade with us at least initially, but that might change. We have some footholds in Africa at least, as does China. This helps a little with trade and gives problems for the interventionists in securing resources.
Algeria is a major partner. In case you didn't notice. And Libya is a gaping cancerous tumor.
flamming_python wrote:Back then we won through mass mobilization, idealogical zeal, and the interventionists being exhausted from WW1 and having their own issues at home at the same time
And now they don't have Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan fatigue? Give me a break. Go to YouTube and search for "empty malls" and "tent cities". The US is currently in its 2nd Great Depression. Do not be deluded by all the varnish they put on it. It is just lipstick on a pig. The US will push Europe and Japan/South Korea to fight for them while they rebuild their economy at home. They will improve their nukes to be at same level as what Russia has now.
flamming_python wrote:Idealogical zeal is weaker today, but it's there, as people understand the West is attempting to crush us and we don't want their system
flamming_python wrote:Economic wartime mobilization is only at the begining stages, but needs to be ramped up
Military mobilization will need to be Initiated sooner or later to some extent. The West has a lot more to lose from Russia going rogue this time round than 100 years ago, they will intervene more decisively
It already started a long time ago? Look at the size of the professional army in Russia. And look at Russian birth rates. In 5 years time the Post-Putin baby boom in Russia will be entering military age. If a war is to happen the ideal time is then not now. Look at all the weapons platforms Russia developed and is not using in this war. Because mass production hasn't started yet.