Holien
-
Posts
3,522 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Holien
-
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The Eurasia Group (influential think tank) just put out a short report/prediction that Russia has so totally lost this war that it has no option but to go rogue like Iran (surrender, obviously, isn't an option).
They predict Russia will ramp up its asymmetric warfare against the West and cause major problems just shy of getting into a shooting match with NATO. They see more explicit nuclear threats as being part of the package, but clearly state they don't think Russia will do more than threaten. However, saber rattling alone could accidentally produce a real effect through incompetence and/or accident.
The way this article is written shows the authors are carefully considering the situation, not shaping a message to fit a pre-war bias or some sort of political agenda. I can't say I disagree with their conclusions that this is a fairly real, if not inevitable, direction for Russia to go. The potential flaw in their prediction is that it requires Russia to be able to maintain the war in Ukraine without collapse and to keep things quiet on the homefront. Much of our discussions here since the war started has come back around to questioning if Russia can in fact do both. Because if it can't, then Russia has as much chance of pulling off an Iranian style strategy as it did taking Kyiv in 3 days.
Steve
QuoteRussia will likewise intensify its efforts to destabilize the United States and Europe—but with greater asymmetric security capabilities than Iran, and with the world's biggest nuclear arsenal as the ultimate cover to deter Western retaliation.
Russia has been at war with the West for many years already and has undertaken efforts to destabilize America and Europe already. (Elections meddling, Murders, Theft, Sabotage, Bribery etc...)
I am not sure how they can ramp it up (they would have ramped it up already) other than start direct attacks on supply lines (Gas, Oil and Data) and one too many of those will lead to the West taking more direct action against Russia as you can only deny so many of these lines being cut.
Lets hope the current leadership do change in Russia as a result of the failure in Ukraine, but if not I don't see how they can escalate what they have already been doing to us.
-
The potential power of a few to hurt the many in Ukraine?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64145106
Let the games begin.
Let's hope Ukraine can push Russia back and force them to give up soon.
However, we have talked about how the war won't end until Ukraine says so but even if Russia is pushed back to their own borders they could continue to launch attacks on Ukraine.
-
Snake Island tour
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The bean counters are doing a cost benefit analysis.
-
Of course it could be another Russian lie? Let's see what happens and hope for a monumental FU.
Maybe the Russians are pants?
-
-
1 hour ago, Haiduk said:
Russia was "offended" for Sevastopol and launched next traditional Mondey missile mass-attack.
If you keep offending them they will ultimately run out of missiles, but alas I fear they will have hit all your power plants.
I guess when they run out we shall see how effective Iranian missiles are and what their manufacturing timescales are. Israel might have less trouble as the focus shifts to Ukraine.
A pity Israel doesn't view the Ukrainian plight strongly enough to sell its missile defence system to Ukraine.
Let's hope those helping Ukraine can provide better protection soon.
In the meantime please let's all keep offending Russia to the best of our ability.
-
9 hours ago, womble said:
Which is a pretty good indicator that the Kremlin isn't interested in the more fiery radioactive death variations on MAD, either.
Could be that plan was discarded after some private chats after Russia floated the dirty bomb idea.
I do get the sense that they would quite happily destroy Kherson if Ukraine took it back.
Let's hope Ukraine can work on a plan to screw Russia over without taking too many losses. I fear that might mean Kherson is not taken as quickly as we had hoped.
-
18 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
the return to gun AA looks like the only way to fight cheap drones without the defender
Could well be the case. But helmets will be needed to keep population safe from all that goes up - falling back down again!!!
-
1 minute ago, MOS:96B2P said:
He added, “Therefore, I’m certain that tomorrow there will be tanks and atacms and F-16s.”
Not if the political landscape changes...
I do think it is great that America (and Europe) has helped Ukraine but the sooner this is done the less chance the political landscape will change..
Also less Ukrainian deaths and destruction and the world can try and recover sooner!!!
I hope any Americans reading this write to their Congressmen and Senators to try and impress on them this is a once in a life time opportunity to defeat Russia with a just cause, without risking American lives!!!
Meanwhile in the UK we are waiting for the next liar to take office...
-
-
Hmmm undersea cables are getting damaged.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-63326102
-
1 hour ago, Seedorf81 said:
Yes, but to my amazement in ww2 barrage balloons were rather succesfull against V1's (Wiki).
Those were bigger than drones, but still, balloons - perhaps with some form of netting - could be a rather cheap (temporary) solution.
I have no doubt the Ukranians are already thinking about something similar.
Fishing Nets between Balloons to protect power stations could be a quick fix and if you know the route of the drones set them up ready to pop up when you know they are comming?
-
7 minutes ago, panzermartin said:
Is there a way for Ukraine to counter this? What if Russia goes all the way and the whole country is left with no electricity, no internet, transportation etc
2 can play those games.
Russia needs to be given a clear message that if they continue the West will supply Ukraine with the capability to inflict a like for like response.
-
1 hour ago, billbindc said:
Interesting day in Moscow. Looks like the security services are fanning out arresting military figures. It’s unclear still what exactly is happening but as someone smart pointed out, it’s what Putin would do if he was going to take as step that would be unpopular with the military in general. That, of course, could be escalation or deescalation. We’ll soon see.
Steve beat me too it, this is more interesting, any sources on who has been nabbed?
The Bridge of course was great to see this morning but this snippet from Bill has my hairs up....
-
19 hours ago, Ultradave said:
I assume you are talking about tactical nuclear weapons here.
1. I would assume they would have the skills. Short and medium range missile units are most likely better trained, manned and are not used for cannon fodder on the front lines. There is not too much more to firing off a tactical nuclear weapon than a conventional one, once the release authorization is received. In fact, there isn't the time pressure to calculate data. It's slow and carefully checked. Same with "setting" the warhead.
2. Depends. Tactical nuclear weapons are low yield (everything is relative) compared to ICBM warheads. As such the warheads are of a simpler design and require little in the way of maintenance. Even old weapons should still work.
3. Artillery: the US doesn't have any more and haven't for quite a while, but the Russians may. Same range as the artillery they are fired from, in their case, most likely 152mm. A 122 wouldn't have a big enough warhead size to fit a nuclear charge, kind of like a 105 for us. Also, you don't want to be that close. Rocket artillery also - a nuclear warhead can fit rocket artillery warheads.The US used to have 155mm and 203mm nuclear artillery shells. Simple design, pretty much foolproof. Bombs are considered tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons. You need jets that are nuclear capable. You'd want to be sure that you have local air superiority to use one. Then there are IRBMs (Intermediate Range Nuclear Weapons). We foolishly withdrew from the treaty because of accusations of cheating by Russia, and their complaints that the proposed Bush era BMD for Europe could also be used for IRBMs. This was correct and was fixed during Obama's administration. As for Russia's cheating, some certainly was. Some was a debatable or semantics. In any case, the US withdrew from the treaty rather than try harder to fix the issues. Russia's Iskander missiles are nuclear capable and pretty long ranged, and pretty new and shiny. No need to be up close and personal.
4. Kind of covered by the above - there's a wide variety.
5. (added by me). We don't really have a good handle on exactly how many and what types of tactical nuclear weapons Russia has. They aren't covered by a treaty. Back when GHW Bush was president he unilaterally eliminated our tactical nuclear weapons, and the Russians followed suit because they are destabilizing and both sides realized that getting rid of them was a really good idea. However that was quite a while ago now. Many were destroyed/dismantled, and many are in storage, just not deployed, (we think) and we don't have visibility into what they may have been doing since then with new or updated/replacement weapons, like we do with strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems, which are covered by extensive verification as part of the treaty terms.
Thanks for that update and very useful...
My take from that...
So just talking the Tac use I think Russia has several hurdles to overcome that could cause them issues.
-
Getting them safely to the battlefield and in a safe position to use will not be easy. We have seen how poor logistics have been and with a dynamic battlefield with drones overhead they might get intercepted.
-
You do need trained troops to use the weapons. The Russians do not have a great track record of training and ability, but it is possible they could find the right troops to take them close to the front.
-
Using Arty to deliver a small warhead is going to be super risky.
-
Using a rocket is way more likely but again they are being shot down and it might not get through.
-
Using Jets well that seems to be even more risky than using Arty at the moment especially as Ukraine is getting more AA systems.
- Of course Putler could just go for ICBM but if he does that we are into a whole realm of hurt.
I still think it is very unlikely but idiots do stupid things like announce an uncosted budget...
You kinda hope you don't get idiots in charge but the world seems to have too many in charge at the moment... -
Getting them safely to the battlefield and in a safe position to use will not be easy. We have seen how poor logistics have been and with a dynamic battlefield with drones overhead they might get intercepted.
-
3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
Since you're genuinely interested...
I would invoke the UN Responsibility to Protect with the aim of ending the war and protect Ukraine against further Russian aggression.
Russia would of course veto this decision. I would then (as the USA) seek to ally with enough other nations to kick out Russia permanently from the UN Security Council, where they have only done harm for so many years. Very few countries would object to that decision, especially if nuclear weapons had been used.
Since the UN Charter doesn't allow for excluding permanent members, it would legally be tantamount to the end of the UN in its current form and to the beginning of a new, reformed organisation in its place. But that would be a discussion for another day.
I would then order airstrikes on Russian forces within Ukraine and possibly also on the Black Sea Fleet. But not an all-out attack on the entire Russian army inside Russia.
What happens next is anyone's guess. It might still escalate. But at least the Western response would be somewhat proportional and still with a chance of de-escalation.
And I'm guessing this kind of response is what the US has already warned Russia about, behind the scenes.
Fair enough and maybe they have an agreement in place with folk at the Un if this happens, ultimately it ends up the same place destroying everything we can that belongs to Russia within Ukraine.
Which is the kinda of message America is giving, of course they might not wait for the UN but maybe that is worth doing if possible...
I don't know how China would vote but it will be a test of their true position.
-
Has anyone seen a good resource on what Russia can field tactically and what skill level is required for it's use?
I am wondering
-
If they have the right skill level currently available as they seem to have sent any tom dick or harry to the front line and those troops might no longer be available.
-
How old is the tech and has it been maintained and how easy it is to keep it viable?
-
The vehicles needed are they specialist ones and would we note it on the battlefield?
- What sort of ranges for the tac stuff?
-
If they have the right skill level currently available as they seem to have sent any tom dick or harry to the front line and those troops might no longer be available.
-
5 minutes ago, Thomm said:
Level 1:
- Enforce no-fly zone over Ukraine.
- Provide as many advanced ground-based air and missile defense assets as possible.
Level 2:
- Air campaign against Russian ground forces in Ukraine
Level 3:
- Air campaign against Russian aviation and navy.
Ok so what triggers each level of response?
BTW Level 3 and 2 is just what he said so you agree with him on that?
I would suspect that the US and NATO response would just focus on units involved in Ukraine and as that pretty much is everything the Russians have it will be enough to destroy the Russian military, what's left of it as Ukraine take a lot of credit for doing most of the work....
-
16 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I wonder what Petraeus - a former commander of US Central Command - thinks the Russians will do in response to the US launching a massive attack to completely destroy their army and airforce.
I guess I hope we never find out...
At some stage you just have to call their bluff because if it works this time they will use it again.
Do you have a better proposal on a measure to take when (if) Russia uses a Nuke in Ukraine?
Interested to hear what you would do?
-
3 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:
One thing I've always asked myself:
What is the current situation on the Ukrainian border crossings with Belarus and Russia, where the counteroffensives pushed right up to the border? Are the crossing points operational in some way, or is this just a front line now?
Interesting question and what surprised me was even on the hostile borders within Ukraine folk are moving across them. The reporting on the Russian attack on Civvies just inside the current Ukraine front line were waiting to cross back to the Russian side to take aid across.
So even in the quiet war zones folks are passing back and forth?
-
13 minutes ago, Billy Ringo said:
Deleted per comments above. Dead horse and all that...
Thank you
Some folk do appreciate you know what...
-
3 minutes ago, billbindc said:
I will admonish, no more. But the above should be admonishment itself.
Both France and Germany should be ashamed and called out on this total lack of support...
The UK is in for a rough ride due to the current clowns not understanding how to run an economy but at least we do know it is worth supporting Ukraine with a decent amount of kit and training...
There are plenty of things France and Germany can do to help with the military aid.
-
Gents Steve has given clear guidelines of what and how to discuss in this thread.
Can we FFS stay within those guidelines? Please...
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Holien
Corrected for you...
Everyone loves cheap stuff...
Trade with China will continue on that basis as long as China is open to trade at cheap prices...