How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kraze]

39 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Hmmm... Sounds like Poland could have sent them direct to Ukraine.  If NATO is in any way involved there starts WW3.  A cunning ploy to appear helpful but with the confidence that those planes will never see the current conflict.  We'll see...

If the world beating a single country into the dirt together can be considered a "world war"

[Bulletpoint]

 

[kraze]

22 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

One more of burned T-72B3. Mykolaiv oblast. The crew is dead, but I will not post graphic photo

This answers the question if copium cages stop anything

[Butschi]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, so there has been a lot of finger pointing at the US on what it, should have done, should do or not do etc.  I think it is time to point that finger back at Europe on this point.  Who thought it was a good idea to become energy dependent on a nation that has been causing ruckus since 2008, did a soft invasion of another European nation in 2014, has been pulling stunts in the backfield ever since then and now has demonstrated just how unstable it is?

This is worse than US dependence on Arab oil, which they have worked very hard to get rid of, as Arabs can be jerks and support terrorism but they are not likely to invade with 100k plus troops.

Can someone explain this one to me?  Because the Euros that paid for that gas found their way to funding this fiasco and no one seems to be saying to much about it.

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.

Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.

Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.

Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

Edited March 8, 2022 by Butschi

[Kinophile]

What use are migs if you have no operable or safe airfields? the vast majority of Ukraine is in range of russian missiles forces. Fly off a mig, it'll quickly die. Or the field its at will be struck. As will be the one it lands on. Why waste time and resources on what is now just a prestige force and concentrate on SAM missiles? Let RUS bleed from the air, modern systems are more than capable of trashing RUS air force. Why give the easy visuals of RUS smacking down UKR migs and rebuild the narrative of an effective RUS invasion?

Why get into a pissing contest you cant win, this late in the game? 

Free Migs are a distraction.

[Lethaface]

22 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Ok, time for a stupid question:

Why do we need to increase NATO budgets?

Even now, NATO is vastly more powerful (and funded) than the Russian Army, and given their miserable performance so far, it doesn't seem like Russia could even take on a single NATO country in a conventional war - let alone the whole bloc. And that's before we even bring nuclear deterrence into this.

I think it's more that Europe should be looking after it's own defense, also when there seems no need for an actual army. Countries like ours will never be able to, by themselves, deter any major power from doing stuff it likes to do; apart from sanctions and stuff. In theory the EU represents a large economic player but on the security level it punches well below it's weight. For a large part that's even outside of military spending or capabilities, but rather foreign policy / geopolitics. 
But if we want to have a say on security matters directly relevant to EU, we should have the capability to back that economical power up with a clear foreign policy and military means; without having to constantly look over our shoulders to see and worry whether bigbro USA will step in to bail us out of scary stuff.

Now what capabilities, budget or hardware is necessary for that is something I think is in well hands with the military. The more difficult part is the politicians agreeing on something I guess, or an actually united foreign policy post the invasion of Ukraine.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Lethaface

[Zaba]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Somewhere in 25 km southern of Lebedyn town, Sumy oblast. Stugna-P ATGM unit of 93rd mech.brigade ambushed enemy convoy of 4th Guard tank division. They destroyed two supply trucks (one with ammunition, other with a food), one T-80U and BMP. Russians abandoned three other T-80U and one MSTA-S. Our soldier tells, scattered Russians murdered some civilains in the village nearby to take their cars and flee to Russia, but they were cought by territorial defense and locals.

 

I´m curious. Why this tanks have no marks like the white Z or such?

All Rusian vehicles involved in the invasion i´ve seen until now where marked.

[Butschi]

46 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

well nothing has really changed, there have been wars going on each and every year since 1945 which resulted in millions of deaths. 

since 2001, U.S. Drone and air strikes may have killed as many as 48,000 civilians:

US airstrikes killed at least 22,000 civilians since 9/11, analysis finds | Global development | The Guardian

Just in 2022 you have wars ongoing in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ethiopia, Suadan, South Sudan, Congo, etc..

There are 82 million refugees or internally displaced persons worldwide.

There is nothing special about this war in terms of human suffering that we have not seen before.

The only difference now is that this war is getting massive media attention.

I'm not much of a fan of this "things never change" talk. All in all I think the world is a much better place than, say, 100-200 years earlier. Still, some good points there. What really strikes me is the bigotry of the so called Western World (Not saying the Autocrats are any better but maybe we should put our own house in order before pointing on others). We kind of have this narrative that because we are democracies we are the good guys. While on average living in the western world is probably much better than elsewhere, from that we kind of derive the narrative that we are also morally better in our relations towards the rest of the world. And that is plain wrong, I think.

[Bulletpoint]

20 minutes ago, chris talpas said:

How about then for the sake of fareness.  How many countries, my own included^1, have basically failed to adequately fund their militaries letting just a few of the NATO members do most of the heavy lifting?

The heavy lifting of NATO security is done by nuclear deterrence.

If you look at the USA, the only reason it has a huge military is that it wants to stay a superpower with the ability to project force globally. Carrier battle groups are expensive. And so is invading countries and keeping them occupied for decades. But that's not really a NATO expense.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

What use are migs if you have no operable or safe airfields? the vast majority of Ukraine is in range of russian missiles forces. Fly off a mig, it'll quickly die. Or the field its at will be struck. As will be the one it lands on. Why waste time and resources on what is now just a prestige force and concentrate on SAM missiles? Let RUS bleed from the air, modern systems are more than capable of trashing RUS air force. Why give the easy visuals of RUS smacking down UKR migs and rebuild the narrative of an effective RUS invasion?

Why get into a pissing contest you cant win, this late in the game? 

Free Migs are a distraction.

Not if you fly them from Polish airfields, quietly.  This will no doubt get Russia all hot and bothered but 1) Article 5 and 2) Russians have been basing in Belarus so the seal is broken.

As to their utility, well that depends on Russian air control, which has universally been...uneven.  If the Russians cannot establish air superiority then those MiGs start making a lot more sense.

Failing that you base them as far west as you can and use a lot of hasty runways and the like, tricky but doable with enough support and that is assuming Russian ISR can even figure out what airfield to hit, it has not been very good either as far as we can tell.

Edited March 8, 2022 by The_Capt

[Lethaface]

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I'm not much of a fan of this "things never change" talk. All in all I think the world is a much better place than, say, 100-200 years earlier. Still, some good points there. What really strikes me is the bigotry of the so called Western World (Not saying the Autocrats are any better but maybe we should put our own house in order before pointing on others). We kind of have this narrative that because we are democracies we are the good guys. While on average living in the western world is probably much better than elsewhere, from that we kind of derive the narrative that we are also morally better in our relations towards the rest of the world. And that is plain wrong, I think.

100% agreed. 

[Suchy]

@Kinophile

And there are no advanced anti-aircraft systems that can be quickly transferred to Ukraine. Migs are the easiest and fastest way out.

[Markus86]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Germany, on the other hand, is a bit of a special case.  It has neglected its forces for a very long time.  A major rise in spending is the only way to address years of under funding.  I just hope they think through what they want the BW to look like after this money is invested.

Germany indeed is a special case. I suspect even if the funds were increased tenfold Germany would still not have a properly equipped and maintained army. I understood that this was one of the main points of criticism about raising the spendings. Just buying more stuff won't change the errors in the current system. 

[sburke]

17 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

What use are migs if you have no operable or safe airfields? the vast majority of Ukraine is in range of russian missiles forces. Fly off a mig, it'll quickly die. Or the field its at will be struck. As will be the one it lands on. Why waste time and resources on what is now just a prestige force and concentrate on SAM missiles? Let RUS bleed from the air, modern systems are more than capable of trashing RUS air force. Why give the easy visuals of RUS smacking down UKR migs and rebuild the narrative of an effective RUS invasion?

Why get into a pissing contest you cant win, this late in the game? 

Free Migs are a distraction.

those quickly dying MIGs seem to have taken a pretty good toll of the Russians.  How they manage that being dead I'll never understand.

 

Ukraine still has 'significant majority' of its military aircraft -U.S. official | Reuters

Edited March 8, 2022 by sburke

[kraze]

17 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

What use are migs if you have no operable or safe airfields? the vast majority of Ukraine is in range of russian missiles forces. Fly off a mig, it'll quickly die. Or the field its at will be struck. As will be the one it lands on. Why waste time and resources on what is now just a prestige force and concentrate on SAM missiles? Let RUS bleed from the air, modern systems are more than capable of trashing RUS air force. Why give the easy visuals of RUS smacking down UKR migs and rebuild the narrative of an effective RUS invasion?

Why get into a pissing contest you cant win, this late in the game? 

Free Migs are a distraction.

Russian missiles didn't stop our MiGs from turning a number of russian pilots into the future sunflowers

[akd]

10 minutes ago, Suchy said:

@Kinophile

And there are no advanced anti-aircraft systems that can be quickly transferred to Ukraine. Migs are the easiest and fastest way out.

They will, however, eventually be attrited in strikes over time unless we figure out a more comprehensive AD solution for Ukraine on the quick.

[dan/california]

47 minutes ago, Suchy said:

@Erwin

We, as Poland, could not hand over these aircraft directly, as we are already a frontline state. This can only be done by NATO as a single military bloc. Ideally, the greatest superpower, the USA, would do this on behalf of NATO. And it will not be the beginning of the Third World War, because we are now handing over weapons as effective as the MANPAD Piorun and the Third War has not broken out.

The Poles have done their part, and far more than their part. I suspect they have done quite a few parts that won't be public until this is all over. I don't blame them at all for handing the Migs over in a way that if Putin wants to wave his magical nuclear stick around. He is waving it at someone who has one of their own.

[Butschi]

13 minutes ago, Markus86 said:

Germany indeed is a special case. I suspect even if the funds were increased tenfold Germany would still not have a properly equipped and maintained army. I understood that this was one of the main points of criticism about raising the spendings. Just buying more stuff won't change the errors in the current system. 

One the one hand the Bundeswehr has a so totally incopetent purchasing management, on the other hand it wasn't really changed from all the way from conscription based to professional. It is in kind of a limbo state, conscription is only paused and apart from some embarassing commercials no measures were taken to make the Bundeswehr an attractive employer. Back when conscription was still a thing, no one with halve a brain went there but instead did civilian service - few with higher education wanted to get yelled at but people who know that you are smarter and who want to punish you for it. Nowadays the Bundeswehr has a reputation for attracting Nazis which really doesn't make it any more attractive for everyone else.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Butschi

[The Steppenwulf]

Any aircraft supplied by Nato countries will need all its ID removed before being used by UKR pilots in combat. There 's also the question of what Nato information/communication encryption systems might be fitted in those aircraft that must not fall into the hands of the Russians. I'd suggest that's they have gone to Germany for these checks and modifications first.

The Ukrainians have a host of airbases and non military airfields in the west of the country outside the zone that Russian fighter bombers seem to be operating within. As we know UKR AA systems have been effective in curtailing their areas of operation. What condition those airfield are in though, is a different question but I've not seen any evidence that indicates that all the western airbases were attacked by Kaliber missiles and are now inoperable, unlike those in central Ukraine. 
 
Personally I think 2 squadrons of Mig 29s will seal the Russians fate in this conflict. They have exposed supply columns and artillery batteries as we know. Low hit and run aircraft strafes on these exposed forces, under cover of an umbrella of stingers to protect them from Russia's counter air-to -air, and the stuttering Russian war machine could become a rout.  Unless that is of course, Putin wants to bring other assets into the fight...

Edited March 8, 2022 by The Steppenwulf

[Haiduk]

26 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

What use are migs if you have no operable or safe airfields?

13th day of war, but our jets still flying. From where? We will know that after the war

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, Butschi said:

One the one hand the Bundeswehr has a so totally incopetent purchasing management, on the other hand it wasn't changed from conscription based to professional. It is in kind of a limbo state, conscription is only paused and apart from some embarassing commercials no measures were taken to make the Bundeswehr an attractive employer. Back when conscription was still a thing, no one with halve a brain went there but instead did civilian service - few with higher education wanted to get yelled at but people who know that you are smarter and who want to punish you for it. Nowadays the Bundeswehr has a reputation for attracting Nazis which really doesn't make it any more attractive for everyone else.

I trust that Germany gründlichkeit will play it's part now that the 'shame' seems dealt with (I think it's time for it, past is past). For the short term buying some stuff will probably definitely help, for the longterm plans can be worked out and cooperation inside NATO / EU can surely help with 'inspiration' how to organize stuff and support where necessary.

[DesertFox]

I guess this is a new one, previously unseen, for ebay?

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by DesertFox

[TheVulture]

Here's a good one from earlier today. I think the Russian pilots might have a hard time arranging safe delivery though.

 

 

[Haiduk]

29 minutes ago, Zaba said:

I´m curious. Why this tanks have no marks like the white Z or such?

I heard Russians on some directions removed markings. On the video with abandoned T-80U near Myrhorod thay also hadn't markings. But tanks on both videos has "4" marking - the sign of 4th GTD

[db_zero]

I hope that the current western resupply effort included chemical weapons defense equipment and training provided.

There is a general consensus that Russian troops don’t have the training , expertise or will to engage in close urban combat. Shelling probably isn’t enough to dislodge a determined resistance and history has shown blasting built up areas creates more problems for attackers.

Some have said the Russians are recruiting Syrians because they have experience in urban warfare. These same troops may also have experience in dealing with fighting in a chemical environment too.

When Russia was warned that chemical weapons was a red line that was not to be crossed in Syria, nothing happened and who was VP then?

Syria was not the first time Russia used chemical agents. A while back they had a hostage incident and used a sleeping agent to incapacitate before going in…

Chemical or a sleeping agent would seep down low into basements and buildings.

At this point nothing should be ruled out. 
 

What about irritants commonly used in the West like tear gas, CS or pepper spray based irritants. If you’re not prepared to deal with that it can be a big disadvantage.
 

How is the west prepared for a use of chemical sleeping agent or widespread use of non lethal agents to tip the battlefield by Russia?
 

What sort of response would take place? Especially in light of Putins nuclear threat?

Edited March 8, 2022 by db_zero