Zveroboy1

They were sending a message.

I don't think it's so simple. They've been brought up in a jar (you might even call it a psychotic one) - what better do they know? I can totally see why you're short on compassion for them, but they are no more than a product of their environment.
You know, there was some talk of Orcs earlier in the thread. It struck in my mind that Tolkien regreted writing them so one-dimensionaly evil.
But as i said, i can't actually put myself in your shoes right now. Clean hummanist hands are easier to maintain from distance.

In conditions of Russian air superiority, I think we can't move large units by the roads at least at daylight. Though units of 10th mountain-assault brigade, which appeared in Zhytomyr oblast tip that there is no any impossible. Our strong and deadly artillery, equipped with modern targeting means is main force, which can maintain success of our counter strikes. Also all will be depend from moral conditions of Russian troops. For example, now their units forced to maneuver under our artillery fire and sneak in the vilalges around Bashtanka town area near Mykolaiv. They are squezzed between two small rivers and hadn't enough place for maneuver. But our trrops don't attacj them, just shell with artillery, attack with small groups to disturb and demoralize them.

I wonder how much of this is like replicating the effects of the success the US has seen in its air wars. Like airpower, dispersion tactics (is there a better name for it?) can sap the combat strength and hollow out the supply system of an advancing force. But it leaves a lot of combat power still in the field, which can hold ground or threaten to take ground a side does not wish to lose. For example, air power hollowed out the Iraqi army, but it neither protected the Saudi border nor liberated Kuwait alone. Its in the combination, as you say, where the true effect lies. Hollow out the supply system and then apply a conventional hammerblow to collapse the enemy system. 
While I think youre certainly on to something, just to play devils advocate for a second. As I was reading your post I did think about the use of hybrid tactics in the latter stages (1969-1974) of the Vietnam war. You had """VC""" units, mostly staffed by NVA regulars, who fought the same kind of dispersed light infantry battle were seeing in Ukraine, especially targeting US logistics and bases. At the same time main line forces fought big unit battles with frontline US and ARVN units. Pretty much every time the NVA tried this they inflicted damage, but were pretty thoroughly clobbered in the process. Even during Tet in 1968 US tactics against light infantry forces evolved to the point where light infantry typically took major losses when it moved against held positions. 
Now technology might change this picture, but it seems to me that technology cuts both ways. Drones let the irregular force fight more flexibly, but they also do the same for the attacker. Defenders may be blessed with high quality ATGMs, but then attackers have PGM air power and rapid response artillery and all the other accoutrements of modern war. So why exactly does the Ukrainian approach seem so effective? Partially its propaganda and the incomplete OS&Twitter driven information. But what else is going on? What are the points of failure were seeing in the Russian Army that really matter? Maybe theyre just ****ing up something the US could have been able to do. Or maybe its something special about the UA approach which wouldn't apply to, say, a hypothetical war with Iran (not that I think that is a realistic what-if)? Or maybe as you suggest were seeing a 1973 style sea-change in warfare. Or even a 1914 change! I tend to see this more through the lens of 1973, but I will fully admit that I see most things through that lens. Breakfast? Reminds me of 1973.....
Also how does this change if Ukraine is only able to achieve a 'less bad' outcome, such as a frozen conflict in which more of the country is shaved away, or even a 'very bad' outcome such as a government-in-exile and a true insurgent war? Will we say the light infantry really worked if it fails to realize Ukrainian strategic goals? 
Anyway, I dont know what to really believe. Just thinking out loud here about a pretty interesting question. 

@The_Capt
I think, you judge mostly of territorial defense footage, so you might get the impression that we are fighting only with light infantry, heavy armed with modern toys. But this is because there is too few footage from our "line" units. But they fight hard with all own equipment from the tanks to BMP and artillery, though in conditions of cities defense, even these units often use "light infantry raids" tactic.
Yes, territorial defense actions are making outstanding controbution and their shoot and scoot actions release our "big army" for more hard tasks, TD work is winning a time for Reserve corps brigades and "second waves" of existing brigades deployment.    

Okay thanks. I hope we don't have to wait too long for this bug to be fixed; it is a problem for meeting engagements.

There's a McMaster interview on France 24 English here.
 

Here's my analysis:
Wikipedia lists the following details
Taking that speed and those timings, that's about 35km through Romanian airspace, 470km through Hungarian and 80km through Croatia, ending at Zagreb. The Tu-141 has a range of around 1000km, although that looks rounded off and is also going to depend on weather conditions etc.
Taking all that at face value, 1000km in a straight line doesn't put it anywhere inside Ukraine that Russia could have launched it. Vinnytsia is about as far into Ukraine. Since it is essentially a cruise-missile it doesn't have to travel in a straight line though, but obviously that gives it the furthest range. Transnistria might just about be a possibility if you definitely want it to be a Russian launch, but it looks far more likely that it was Ukrainian.

I am afraid it is you who misunderstood, both the point I was trying to make and the Russian objectives.
I know it is not about grabbing some territory. Or rather it was not in the beginning but now that Putin's initial plan has failed, that might give him a way out.
Now you say Zelensky can't agree to a cease fire but what happens if Ukraine refuses to make any concessions? You are planning on having an unconditional surrender of Russia? I am not sure how realistic this is given the fact that Putin feels he can't lose this war because that would be the end of him politically and his downfall. So it goes on forever until either Putin is overthrown, the Russian military collapses or Putin decides to use nukes? Watch the interview that was linked above. It gives a good insight into Putin's stance and state of mind.
By the way the reasons for the invasion from a Russian perspective were laid out quite explicitly in the leaked premature victory speech that was broadcasted by mistake two weeks ago. (I think it was akd that linked the document.)
Putin basically thinks that Ukraine belongs to the Russian sphere of influence, he sees it drifting more and more towards the West and if he doesn't reverse the course of history now then later it will be too late, becoming forever out of his grasp.
I don't agree with any of that nonsense but if you paid attention and managed to look past all the chest thumping, absurd denazifying pretence and the revisionist historical justification that was used, it was actually quite bluntly put forward for all to see in all its cold, ruthless and hyper cynical nature.
While I am sympathetic to the Ukrainian plight (I am not pro Putin at all even though I have a Russian assault gun as my avatar) and I can understand your anger and outrage at what is going on in your country right now, I am sorry but there is no indication at this point that there is anything resembling a genocide. The Russian army has definitely been targeting civilians and will probably continue to do so in a direct violation of the rules of war, but a genocide it isn't.

Yes great interview. The very end where she is asked how dangerous Putin is right now is pretty scary.

Lots of people here and in the media are talking about a possible siege of Kyiv.
It appears that the Ukrainians have been launching small localized counter-attacks and even pushed back the Russian forces in a few areas. But it still looks like the Russian forces might be inching closer to the city even if their supply lines are not secured and control of the territory they presently occupy is only partial at best.
However they're not quite there yet. And while still possible in theory, it is rather doubtful whether they can even manage to fully encircle the Ukrainian capital.
However what if Putin decided that instead of launching an assault a la Grozny on Kyiv once it is surrounded, to just shell it out of spite, not unlike what happened in Sarajevo, in order to exert political pressure and force the Ukrainian government to the negotiation table in order to get more favourable terms?
First in this scenario you wouldn't even need to fully encircle the city. Since the goal wouldn't be to trap Ukrainian forces inside a cauldron nor to cut the city off completely, leaving a corridor open for civilian to evacuate would actually be a good idea from the Russian perspective, as long as the corridor could potentially be brought under artillery fire.
Of course that would be really ugly and cause even more civilian casualties and international condemnation of the Putin regime. But then again one could ask what more have the Russians got to fear in the way of sanctions that hasn't already been imposed on them?
Militarily the Russians probably can't win this war. But the problem is that I don't see how Putin can afford to lose this war politically either. It would be disastrous for him. He basically has his back against the wall, he can't simply call it quits and needs some sort of face saving solution.
Ukrainian resolve looks really strong right now and justifiably so but how likely is it that if Putin follows this course of action and the situation just degenerates into a long stalemate with less offensive operations, that Zelensky decides to tap out out in the end and agree to territorial concessions in order to spare civilian lives and avoid senseless destruction?

Lots of people here and in the media are talking about a possible siege of Kyiv.
It appears that the Ukrainians have been launching small localized counter-attacks and even pushed back the Russian forces in a few areas. But it still looks like the Russian forces might be inching closer to the city even if their supply lines are not secured and control of the territory they presently occupy is only partial at best.
However they're not quite there yet. And while still possible in theory, it is rather doubtful whether they can even manage to fully encircle the Ukrainian capital.
However what if Putin decided that instead of launching an assault a la Grozny on Kyiv once it is surrounded, to just shell it out of spite, not unlike what happened in Sarajevo, in order to exert political pressure and force the Ukrainian government to the negotiation table in order to get more favourable terms?
First in this scenario you wouldn't even need to fully encircle the city. Since the goal wouldn't be to trap Ukrainian forces inside a cauldron nor to cut the city off completely, leaving a corridor open for civilian to evacuate would actually be a good idea from the Russian perspective, as long as the corridor could potentially be brought under artillery fire.
Of course that would be really ugly and cause even more civilian casualties and international condemnation of the Putin regime. But then again one could ask what more have the Russians got to fear in the way of sanctions that hasn't already been imposed on them?
Militarily the Russians probably can't win this war. But the problem is that I don't see how Putin can afford to lose this war politically either. It would be disastrous for him. He basically has his back against the wall, he can't simply call it quits and needs some sort of face saving solution.
Ukrainian resolve looks really strong right now and justifiably so but how likely is it that if Putin follows this course of action and the situation just degenerates into a long stalemate with less offensive operations, that Zelensky decides to tap out out in the end and agree to territorial concessions in order to spare civilian lives and avoid senseless destruction?

No flank security I agree with, but I think you're trying way too hard to make the Russians look bad. The units in the killzone recognized what was happening and quickly got out of it, correctly identifying which area is safe and which isn't (except the one dismount that run towards the gas station before turning back). Their return suppressive fire was quick and pretty heavy, and hitting the general vicinity of where the ambusher shot from. The tanks behind the units fleeing the killzone stopped and oriented their front armor towards the threat and fired.
Not American SOF level of sophistication when it comes to IA drills, but not a terrible tactical response. You can pick apart a bunch of details and individual actions, but it wasn't imbecilic.

I suspect you may be poking here, but its entirely possible to nationalize private industry without too much upset or turbulence. Most European countries have nationalized industries over the past hundred years without too much issue, they tend to be limited acquisitions which change management and policy without tearing up old contracts or destroying significant investments. I was just watching a Youtube vid the other day about when the US, that bastion of anticommunism and free market experimentation, nationalized a major chunk of its railway system in 1976 to stave off collapse. Conrail ran for about 10 years before once again privatizing. These things can be done well if done smartly. What Russia is doing is what economists often call 'dumb.' 

I find it difficult to criticize EU dependence on Russian oil when the US does the same with the Saudis and basically fell flat after they murdered Jamal Khashoggi.  Face it.  We are all hostages to the petro states.  The US just happened to pick ones incapable of invading Europe.

I don't buy it @Battlefront.com. You seem unrealistically optimistic. I'm not convinced at all by your timeline for Putler's remove.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War here:
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/TreatmentOfPrisonersOfWar.aspx
but who cares ?
Article 13
"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, (...) against (...) public curiosity."
explanation by lawyers :
"Due to recent technological advances, the commentaries to the Third Geneva Convention specify that protection against public curiosity is defined by the prohibition of the disclosure of photographic and video images, recordings of interrogations or conversations as well as any other private data, regardless of the public communication channel used, including the Internet (at p. 1624). The disclosure of these images is often defended as allowing proof that these prisoners are alive and providing a guarantee against their extrajudicial execution, their enforced disappearance or, as specified by Ukrainian diplomats, as making it possible to be able to identify them. However, the Third Geneva Convention provides for specific mechanisms such as capture cards (Article 70) and visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (Articles 125 and 126). The parties to the conflict should therefore refrain from disseminating any material exposing them to public knowledge."
 

I don't think Putin is ready to quit just yet personally. The land bridge to Donbas could be a way to save face and cut his losses but Mariupol is bound to fall sooner or later and then that would probably free up a lot of troops and the Russians could resume their advance towards the north. I don't see them achieving anything in the Kyiv meat grinder anytime soon unless the forces coming for the north east can reach the Kyiv suburbs.
There is one thing that makes a bit cautious though and that's why I try to remain measured : this war is covered in such a way that it is akin to a boxing match where you only get to see one half of the ring and one single boxer. You see one boxer taking a lot of punches but even though he is clearly fumbling a lot you are not really seeing how many of his own punches are landing.
Clearly the Russians are getting mauled but it is bound to take its toll on the Ukrainian side too in the long run and who knows how far Putin is ready to go.
 

Believe it is a green screen if you want. You sound hell bent on it anyway so no amount of debunking is going to convince you.

Believe it is a green screen if you want. You sound hell bent on it anyway so no amount of debunking is going to convince you.

I don't think Putin is ready to quit just yet personally. The land bridge to Donbas could be a way to save face and cut his losses but Mariupol is bound to fall sooner or later and then that would probably free up a lot of troops and the Russians could resume their advance towards the north. I don't see them achieving anything in the Kyiv meat grinder anytime soon unless the forces coming for the north east can reach the Kyiv suburbs.
There is one thing that makes a bit cautious though and that's why I try to remain measured : this war is covered in such a way that it is akin to a boxing match where you only get to see one half of the ring and one single boxer. You see one boxer taking a lot of punches but even though he is clearly fumbling a lot you are not really seeing how many of his own punches are landing.
Clearly the Russians are getting mauled but it is bound to take its toll on the Ukrainian side too in the long run and who knows how far Putin is ready to go.
 

Putin, in my opinion, is acting like any long-term dictator would when seeing that his country is faltering under his leadership.
1. Every member of the ruling class, down to about 3 levels (or more?) beneath him, is a potential threat or rival.
2. Foreign leaders and delegates are also enemies and need to be put at a psychological disadvantage.
For those two reasons, Putin likes the "strong man" image and uses distance to reinforce his superiority over both groups. As well, distance makes it much harder to kill him.
3. Flight attendants can sit at normal distances.
They are not a threat. In fact, he's trying to show "Papa Putin" image to them and the rest of the nation.
That, to me, explains why he chooses the various seat placements.

Believe it is a green screen if you want. You sound hell bent on it anyway so no amount of debunking is going to convince you.

I don't think Putin is ready to quit just yet personally. The land bridge to Donbas could be a way to save face and cut his losses but Mariupol is bound to fall sooner or later and then that would probably free up a lot of troops and the Russians could resume their advance towards the north. I don't see them achieving anything in the Kyiv meat grinder anytime soon unless the forces coming for the north east can reach the Kyiv suburbs.
There is one thing that makes a bit cautious though and that's why I try to remain measured : this war is covered in such a way that it is akin to a boxing match where you only get to see one half of the ring and one single boxer. You see one boxer taking a lot of punches but even though he is clearly fumbling a lot you are not really seeing how many of his own punches are landing.
Clearly the Russians are getting mauled but it is bound to take its toll on the Ukrainian side too in the long run and who knows how far Putin is ready to go.
 

I don't think Putin is ready to quit just yet personally. The land bridge to Donbas could be a way to save face and cut his losses but Mariupol is bound to fall sooner or later and then that would probably free up a lot of troops and the Russians could resume their advance towards the north. I don't see them achieving anything in the Kyiv meat grinder anytime soon unless the forces coming for the north east can reach the Kyiv suburbs.
There is one thing that makes a bit cautious though and that's why I try to remain measured : this war is covered in such a way that it is akin to a boxing match where you only get to see one half of the ring and one single boxer. You see one boxer taking a lot of punches but even though he is clearly fumbling a lot you are not really seeing how many of his own punches are landing.
Clearly the Russians are getting mauled but it is bound to take its toll on the Ukrainian side too in the long run and who knows how far Putin is ready to go.