VladimirTarasov

Yeah it did have to do with the theatre of the game until we have guys posting politics about what czars supposedly did or soviets supposedly did to Ukraine, or until the dude is posting stuff about Putin bots.

And there goes the discussion.

Ukraine will not be returning to Russia's sphere no matter what. They are in another power's sphere now. Russia has no intentions on taking Ukraine, if you believe that, that is insane. Ukraine and Russia were together on many things, now Ukraine is basically against anything Russian. Defending DNR/LNR territories, is good enough. You can achieve many side goals with this justification. Videos of bombed out towns, were more than enough to get Russian support of DNR/LNR. So a goal of destroying the Ukrainian military in the ATO and leaving after getting a deal signed is more than enough for Russia. There's no point in occupying territories, if you can take out the enemy's power, and complete your justification. In this case, a counter-offensive to stop Ukraine from entering Donbas, possible follow up offensives to force Ukraine into agreeing on some terms.

I am not getting close to that mentality at all, I'm not the only person on here that has used history to try to get a point. I dont get why you're assuming that. Alright, Russia does not need to control all of Ukraine. It will not be occupying it as the US did in Afghanistan, it will be coming in to destroy the UAF, and complete goals that do not require a total commitment. Russia has strategic and tactical assets, that can totally throw the UAF into a state of operating in havoc. You keep acting as if UAF has faired extremely well and completed its objective inDonbas. And on top of that you act as if all of the counter offensives were full Russian military units this is not true at all, provide evidence and I'll agree. To say Russia has already used EW to full extent, full conventional warfare assets in Donbas is a total joke and is a total underestimation. The air port attack in Donetsk ended up in militia hands, with most of the forces using T-64Bs, BTR-70/80s, largely militia controlled and essentially no true Russian units. How ever, advisers are an absolute. Commander Givi of the Somalia battalion has been documented with his forces (majority locals) in the fight for Donetsk air port. They've repelled Ukrainian counter attacks as well. About Georgia, show me where there was 80,000 troops in Georgia proper and I will go to the mental hospital. At no point of time was there any Russian force larger than 19,000 in South Ossetia, Georgia, and Abkhazia... The initial attack was 10,000 troops, pouring in battalion at a time, into South Ossetia. Later another front in Abkhazia opened with 9,000 troops. And if you check the amount of troops on Georgia's side it was pretty much 1:1. Georgian forces crumbled once their command fell apart, and that is where I'm bringing in a similarity to what could happen in Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine isn't Georgia, and it has different terrain, a larger armed forces, a more capable air defense network, better artillery units, ect ect. You said a specific proposal, to be honest the only way Russia can justify a full on attack into the ATO area, is if Ukraine launches another offensive. So let's say the Russian goal is to destroy this offensive, and inflict mass damage onto the forces in this ATO. Don't you think this is a realistic goal?

I read your comment, @sburke. I wont go into politics, though been there done that. This can be argued against, because you cant just say Ukraine will fair good against Russia while most units they've faced are militia units. And when they did go against unofficial forces, Ukraine hasnt faired good even with those unofficial forces not fully equipped or fully supported by what they regularly would be with if they were official. I'll gladly take a link to a detailed analysis where Ukrainian armed forces have faced a full true Russian military unit, and inflicted unacceptable losses.

@kinophile The Kalibr missile systems used against ISIL, in Syria, also show another asset Russia can use from long range at sea. The black sea fleet has Kalibr-M (2,500 kilometer range) carrying warships, and with the obvious Russian advantage against Ukraine in the navy, calling in strikes against; command points, military bases, military infrastructure, can be done in joint coordination with the air force, and navy to hit important targets at long ranges.

I appreciate the information.

Maybe I worded it wrong, but the army of Ukraine in 2008, could have defeated the army of Georgia in 2008 as well... How ever Georgian troops were definitely trained for conventional warfare in NATO standards. Their equipment on average was better than the Russian soldier fighting against them. What I'm trying to say is, if Russia sends a force in the equal numbers against Ukraine, the Ukrainian forces will be facing similarly to Georgia... Under heavy jamming, heavy accurate bombardment, loss of command structure, very tense offensives, ect ect. I dont get why when Russia is accused of doing a proxy war it is labeled "Hybrid" it is very funny. Of course Russia will take casualties in event of some type of war in Ukraine.. It is normal. How ever, as Steve said its all depending on the scenario. If its a counter offensive against an ATO, as history showed in the past, Ukraine will not be on the winning side, especially if this time the Russian Armed Forces is actively deployed.

Steve, I'm on phone due to vacation so forgive me for not being able to quote you all the way. I didnt't say Russia will absolutely make a drive for Kiev, I said it is possible. I don't know if I worded it wrong, but if you threaten and assault the capital of a city, you have victory terms on your side (usually). But anyways, it's more than possible for Russia to be able to deploy 80,000-100,000 troops into the Ukraine. Russia had the 58th army active towards the operation in Georgia, but the fighting force was 10,000 in the Ossetian front, a second front with 9,000 troops opened up too in Abkhazia. Which basically was a 1:1 ratio of a fighting force, anyways as you've said ratios dont really matter it's the scenarios that matter... But I needed to clear that up because you are making it sound as if Russia sent in the whole 58th army. It was a limited operation to force the Georgians away from Ossetia. And that's why I said an operation similar to Georgia when referring to Ukraine, not that it's gonna be like Georgia... Also, the DPR/LPR lacked in 2014 training as well... Let's be honest here most of the DPR/LPR military are locals, these guys formed and haven't had time to train as long as they should until the ceasefires or when during the war. Of course the Ukrainian forces will do well against these guys... It would be embarrasing if they didn't. But as you can see, once a few advisors and support units are slipped in, the Ukrainian armed forces offensive operations do not work so well...

@Haiduk In one motor-rifle battalion how much ATGMs are assigned to it?

The thing is people assumed I Iike Trump because of Putin... This is incorrect I supported him before Putin said anything about him. I have family members living in the US, which I talk to about politics. And I like the republicans way more than the democrats. But anyways this is the most extreme off topics I've been too sorry but I had too On topic, is there a way Trump could be able to take the US out of NATO if he's president or is that one of his PR stunts.

Oh yeah please roast me for being a Russian and liking Trump...

"Population of Georgia in 2008 was roughly 4m. Ukraine is roughly 40m. Size of armed forces of Georgia that Russia confronted was about 10,000. Depending on the scenario Russia would be immediately confronting somewhere around 70,000 minimum, 150,000 in the upper range (this includes National Guard, which for sure would be mobilized). Georgian forces had almost zero combat experience while the bulk of Ukrainian forces have some and many have years. Georgian forces had never, ever fought against a mechanized enemy force, Ukraine has been fighting such forces for more than 2 years. Georgia never fought the Russian Army, Ukraine has been fighting it for 2 years. Georgia never thought Russia would attack, Ukraine has obviously no such illusion. The total area of Georgia is about 70,000 km2 in size, Ukraine is roughly 600,000 km2 in size. Russian forces occupied roughly 2500 km2 (I made a rough estimate) and did not have to deal with major population centers. Whatever scenario you picture for Russia in Ukraine, 2500 km2 is a joke. Russia invaded Georgia with about 80,000 troops. So what you're saying is that you expect Russia to fight an experienced, prepared enemy force 7-15 times larger than that of Georgia" Truly you are right if we are talking about a war where Russia is going to capture all of Ukraine.... We're talking about certain goals that can be achieveable. If Russia is going to threaten Kiev with a thrust it will be using a high way to follow through to the assault, not going through all the terrain features of Steppes and forests. I said similar to Georgia not that its the same that would be the word "equal", I'm not saying Russia is gonna use 10,000 troops like in Georgia. So please dont try to dumb me down, I wasn't being literal. The DPR/LPR already has 20K-30K in active service this is more than enough as a defensive force to launch operations from with actual Russian ground forces. Add units from the southern and western military district and Russia can easily reach the 1:1 ratio in the ATO... Obviously we have a better and larger air force and navy than Ukraine too. The advantage would be on our side even with a 1:1 ratio. Total war be it Russia can active her reserve units. To say UAF can even beat the Ru armed forces is a total joke and the war in Donbas proves it. But since you believe that the DPR/LPR army is mostly all Russian soldiers of course you will be lead to those conclusions.

I like the fresh non anti-Russia perspective Trump brings, I like most of his ideas for the US as well. But the way he projects his ideas to get more popularity makes him seem racist/radical. If Trump becomes president I dont think much would change as congress is the big guy. And I dont think he would be able to take the US out of NATO, wouldn't congress have to approve of that?

I'd assume a campagin in Ukraine would be similar to Georgia 2008, but with the Russian Air Force way more efficient ground forces as well. Russia could essentially use naval superiority, air superiority, and superiority in the ground forces to take on a force larger than it's fielding against UAF, similar to the Georgian war. Even with the Georgians trained, better equipped in the ground forces term, and motivated, they all fled in panic and fear when their commands were destroyed and they faced a large successful fast momentum. Ukrainian Armed Forces performed well in some cases when facing the DPR/LPR militias. As apparent in the war when the DPR/LPR is reinforced by BTGs the UAF doesn't do so well. Of course though, units that are trained and execute a good plan could offer fierce resistance as in some cases, but overall there is much to be desired about their military. A direct Russian involvement with full artillery support, air support would largely lead to successes. During the Ukrainian war the borders with Russia towards the north east did not have much of a defensive force And in that route there is a high way "M02" which Russian forces could advance straight to Kiev in 2-3 weeks (if facing stiff resistance), and threaten the capital and you know just like in Georgia, get a political solution done, lopsidedly in Russia's favor. Steve, I dont think Russia plans on fighting an insurgency in Ukraine in an event of war, so I'd expect short powerful goals like threaten Kiev, destroy Ukrainian Armed Forces near Donbas, and an expansion of DPR/LPR territories. Or a more simple goal, for example, push Ukrainian forces out of artillery range (60-90 kilometers) from Donbas, and destroy their military forces threating Donbas territories.

Steve, Your numbers sound solid, Gulf War had a similar build up. Russia would be using assets from Kaliningrad to engage targets using for example 9K720s and assets like it, NATO must also resond to this threat as well which could also make the whole situation a mess. Do you think NATO would straight on invade Kaliningrad?

I'm liking the formations of new units, we need to increase our ground forces count.

Since its brought up I have found that artillery HE impact does not really damage US armored vehicles like it should in reality. Would be cool if we can get a detailed look into it, a 203 mm shell landed on an Abrams and rendered it imbolizied but somehow after such a gigantic blast the crew inside wasnt even fazed at the slightest it murdered my tank after. Anyways thats one of some events I found artillery to be weak against US armor. Also I'd love for some MLRS support attached to my motor rifle battalions please would make my battles so much easier. MLRS module maybe?

Before assaulting a city I will use heavy artillery to destroy buildings and the like so my troops advance without Javelins or TOWs hitting them, and no unneeded drama from any infantry sitting in ambush positions. When I'm advancing over long fields I set up recon units in tree lines with FOs attached so I can destroy areas where ATGMs will pose a threat even if I dont have visual contact. Artillery is a tool of any offensive operation, I use it with the idea of inflicting maximum casualties and morale drop of the enemy. I like to tie in artillery with also a follow up shock assault with AFVs. Basically the goal is to shock your opponent with accurate heavy firepower and speed in order to crush their defense.

Truly... All these acts of modernization and reforms is because Putin will like to hand over his armed forces to the next dictator who will pick a fight with NATO ok jokes aside, I'm liking the rate of these modernizations. I envy it, wish when I was in the VDV my unit was equipped with the BMD-4Ms... Would have been way cooler. BMD-2s are trash compared to the BMD-4M in every category. How ever I enjoyed the fact that we could be dropped dozens of kilometers away from our objective and independently reach the area of operations crossing rivers and obstacles with ease. But having these BMD-4Ms would have been way more better, now the VDV can do night operations with those vehicles. Dam it man!!!

BTR, I've been searching all over for our ground force's numbers, how much is it? I think as of 2016 it was like 395,000 right? I may be wrong, the only clear number I got was from the Russian wiki page.

Sorry you know English is my 2nd language sometimes what I think in my head is projected way differently in my typing lol... even though my English is pretty darn good BTW I'm not a person from the UK, how ever I think the UK has made a good choice in becoming independent from the EU.

I especially respect your view, and I generally agree with you, especially on the sanctions imposed on Russia. The EU and the US can care less for Donbas and Crimea. Basically geopolitics at play, and it's people like me who have to suffer through sanctions. Not political leaders whom which the US and EU have issues with, I guess they like collective punishment.

Well to be honest, march on Kiev would have to be the worse outcome because it would mean Kiev did something very very bad. A more likely scenario is for Russian forces to attack through Donbas and push Ukrainian forces out of artillery range, so artillery doesn't rain over Donetsk anymore. And while at it encircle and destroy those groups or make them surrender or route them. When success is achieved you can ask them to sign a ceasefire, if they don't want to sign a cease fire then Russia can just go on a limited offensive to take push back Ukrainian forces farther, while targeting Ukrainian bases and logistics with cruise missiles, and air strikes. This is the most likely scenario you can face in Ukraine to be honest. It is a simple goal, which can be achieved, similar to Georgia almost.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-petition-for-second-eu-referendum-so-popular-the-government-sites-crashing-a7099996.html http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/petition-second-eu-referendum-crashes-house-of-commons-website there's like way more articles than this^ and btw I said they're already talking I didn't say they were. I just read it from here and btw don't get all defensive, what happened in the UK is pretty democratic. I for one like referendums (Crimea and now UK leaving EU ) Obviously the EU does not have involuntary members. I didn't phrase correctly, I meant that the Brits wouldn't leave the EU so easy. How ever if they do without any issues, great job mates! I support it