Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Contrary to what i thought, it seems that the "mud season" ( Rasputitsa aka General Mud ) is only just beginning - usually four weeks from mid-March.. Both sides will obviously be aware of this ( although that doesn't explain Putin's timing for his initial move, unless he was convinced of his blitzkrieg victory ) and I'm wondering if it explains the considerable ramping up of efforts on the Russian side. in the last couple of days
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,935
Received 1,356 Likes
on
610 Posts
The FSO have raided the FSB and made arrests, so Putin’s security systems in Russia are now breaking down as well, bring it on. 
Contrary to what i thought, it seems that the "mud season" ( Rasputitsa aka General Mud ) is only just beginning - usually four weeks from mid-March.. Both sides will obviously be aware of this ( although that doesn't explain Putin's timing for his initial move, unless he was convinced of his blitzkrieg victory ) and I'm wondering if it explains the considerable ramping up of efforts on the Russian side. in the last couple of days
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,935
Received 1,356 Likes
on
610 Posts
“War is a place where young people, who don’t know each other and don’t hate each other, kill themselves, by the decisions of old people who know each other and hate each other, but don’t kill themselves” -Erich Hartmann
The Battle of Brovary
Footage of the fighting yesterday was very graphic and seemed to show a great victory for UKR, but at the time I thought there were a lot of tanks putting out either black or grey smoke which I reckoned was more likely "covering smoke" rather than a hit. I saw no bright orange explosions; Today's footage shows just two armoured vehicles left on the road. I can't believe that retrieval of damaged units is so quick at this stage of the conflict, so does it mean that in yesterday's perfect set-up for a deadly attack on Russian forces, it only resulted in two losses ? Looking through the photos it is unclear to me how often the same vehicle is shown.
Looking forward to informed comments from people who know.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-experts.html
Footage of the fighting yesterday was very graphic and seemed to show a great victory for UKR, but at the time I thought there were a lot of tanks putting out either black or grey smoke which I reckoned was more likely "covering smoke" rather than a hit. I saw no bright orange explosions; Today's footage shows just two armoured vehicles left on the road. I can't believe that retrieval of damaged units is so quick at this stage of the conflict, so does it mean that in yesterday's perfect set-up for a deadly attack on Russian forces, it only resulted in two losses ? Looking through the photos it is unclear to me how often the same vehicle is shown.
Looking forward to informed comments from people who know.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-experts.html
I've read this thread (like many) and appreciated the situational awareness it has given. I grew up as a child in the 70/80's and this is bringing back really frightening thoughts I had as a kid about nuclear war. As a 50 something I'm struggling to reassure my family that everything will be alright, I'm struggling to see a good way out of where 'we' at are. I'm lucky enough to have 20 odd personnel under my command and if I'm this worried I dread to think how they must be, bravado only gets you so far. I can now empathise with those who lived through the Cuban missile crisis, and hope we come out the other side like they did.
We are weary of the "facts", with too much knowledge and no power to influence matters [where are rent-a-mob protesting in our streets, y the way?]
Is it too early for a glass or three?
The Battle of Bovary
Footage of the fighting yesterday was very graphic and seemed to show a great victory for UKR, but at the time I thought there were a lot of tanks putting out either black or grey smoke which I reckoned was more likely "covering smoke" rather than a hit. I saw no bright orange explosions; Today's footage shows just two armoured vehicles left on the road. I can't believe that retrieval of damaged units is so quick at this stage of the conflict, so does it mean that in yesterday's perfect set-up for a deadly attack on Russian forces, it only resulted in two losses ? Looking through the photos it is unclear to me how often the same vehicle is shown.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-experts.html
Footage of the fighting yesterday was very graphic and seemed to show a great victory for UKR, but at the time I thought there were a lot of tanks putting out either black or grey smoke which I reckoned was more likely "covering smoke" rather than a hit. I saw no bright orange explosions; Today's footage shows just two armoured vehicles left on the road. I can't believe that retrieval of damaged units is so quick at this stage of the conflict, so does it mean that in yesterday's perfect set-up for a deadly attack on Russian forces, it only resulted in two losses ? Looking through the photos it is unclear to me how often the same vehicle is shown.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-experts.html
Hard to say. The footage released yesterday showed a very short drone shot/ compilation showing two distinct hits in the Skybyn suburb, with a further hit in another clip outside a petrol station a few hundred meters N. This corresponds to images of 2 destroyed MBT and 1 APC. A further clip released today shows an insanely close range attack on (presumably) the same column about 1.5km further N in which a further MBT is destroyed with a number of infantry casualties lying in the road. In summary, for only the attacks that were filmed, the equivalent of 10% of the combat strength of an entire tank battalion was destroyed. It is possible that the true losses were significantly higher if there were more ambushes that were not filmed. Either way, it was sufficient for them to retreat.
I've read this thread (like many) and appreciated the situational awareness it has given. I grew up as a child in the 70/80's and this is bringing back really frightening thoughts I had as a kid about nuclear war. As a 50 something I'm struggling to reassure my family that everything will be alright, I'm struggling to see a good way out of where 'we' at are. I'm lucky enough to have 20 odd personnel under my command and if I'm this worried I dread to think how they must be, bravado only gets you so far. I can now empathise with those who lived through the Cuban missile crisis, and hope we come out the other side like they did.
I had never believed that it would.
I was filled with hope.
That hope has now been dashed on the rocks of reality.
You are not alone.
I am on glass 4 this afternoon, been reviewing technical analysis of Russia's nuclear posture and am more worried now than I was last week.
Cheers?
"here's to the next man who dies"
The Russian tanks from memory have the ability to put diesel into the hot exhaust port, which creates a large barrier smoke screen. Maybe that is what you saw?
I very much doubt the Rusks have the ability or desire to recover damaged vehicles, especially from an ambush position.
Watching the same vid, I was surprised how little artillery was actually brought to bare on the massed Rusk armour.
It is probably telling of how little indirect fire is available to the Ukrainians at this time.
I very much doubt the Rusks have the ability or desire to recover damaged vehicles, especially from an ambush position.
Watching the same vid, I was surprised how little artillery was actually brought to bare on the massed Rusk armour.
It is probably telling of how little indirect fire is available to the Ukrainians at this time.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,935
Received 1,356 Likes
on
610 Posts
The Russian tanks from memory have the ability to put diesel into the hot exhaust port, which creates a large barrier smoke screen. Maybe that is what you saw?
I very much doubt the Rusks have the ability or desire to recover damaged vehicles, especially from an ambush position.
Watching the same vid, I was surprised how little artillery was actually brought to bare on the massed Rusk armour.
It is probably telling of how little indirect fire is available to the Ukrainians at this time.
I very much doubt the Rusks have the ability or desire to recover damaged vehicles, especially from an ambush position.
Watching the same vid, I was surprised how little artillery was actually brought to bare on the massed Rusk armour.
It is probably telling of how little indirect fire is available to the Ukrainians at this time.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,935
Received 1,356 Likes
on
610 Posts
As to resorting to nuclear weapons, I doubt the hierarchy would agree to Putins response, a more likely response would ab an accident at one of the captured nuclear facilities. One that has been mooted recently was Chernobyl though I would have thought that would be a hard sell as last time it took out parts of Belarus. But that’s just my thoughts on the matter.
IMHO - the reporting by Russian domestic media that the war is not going well is very significant.
For such prominent commentators to dare to state that in the face of the 15 year imprisonment threat, suspect that someone at a senior level must have tacitly agreed to them doing so.
Triangulate that with the FSO raiding the FSB - and you get a sense that Putin may be struggling to retain control.
WRT earlier use of nuclear weapons - I doubt the escalation would be to attack a major centre in the Ukraine or elsewhere.
The intermediate step would be simply to actually detonate a small weapon - as an airburst - in a remote area - or over the sea - to demonstrate a will to use them.
You don't kill anyone, no war-crime type pictures of horrible radiation burns - but you have the terrifying image of a mushroom cloud.
If a quick scan of the web is correct, that would be the first atmospheric detonation of a warhead since 1963, in itself a hugely symbolic and quite frightening gesture.
If you think about it - the scenario above presents quite a tricky dilemma in formulating a response - if you're NATO - how do you respond?
Even more sanctions? Even more condemnation? Is that your `red line'? Do you implement a No Fly Zone? Do you put boots on the ground in Ukraine?
Russia reportedly has between 1600 and 2000 such warheads - and there are missiles already being used in the conflict that are dual use capable, such as the Iskander.
All the information online seems to be about Russian Strategic level command and control - does anyone here know a little more about command and control of Russian tactical nuclear weapons?
I assume (hope) they're subject to the same safeguards as strategic weapons.
I think that's the real risk - and I don't think it'd automatically start World War Three either.
"Even if the unfathomable occurred and Russia used nuclear weapons in or around Ukraine, it’s unlikely the U.S. would respond in kind. “I doubt that we would reply in nuclear terms; the risks of escalation would be too great,” says Harvard University’s Joseph Nye, former assistant secretary of defense. Nye suggests that the U.S. might respond in the cyberworld, “but that has its own problems with retaliation.” Instead, the most likely response would be to try and further isolate Russia for violating the nuclear taboo, and perhaps move some troops to Europe. The U.S. could take the opportunity to reinforce the unacceptability of Russia’s extraordinary use of these weapons."
https://newrepublic.com/article/1656...ne-us-response
For such prominent commentators to dare to state that in the face of the 15 year imprisonment threat, suspect that someone at a senior level must have tacitly agreed to them doing so.
Triangulate that with the FSO raiding the FSB - and you get a sense that Putin may be struggling to retain control.
WRT earlier use of nuclear weapons - I doubt the escalation would be to attack a major centre in the Ukraine or elsewhere.
The intermediate step would be simply to actually detonate a small weapon - as an airburst - in a remote area - or over the sea - to demonstrate a will to use them.
You don't kill anyone, no war-crime type pictures of horrible radiation burns - but you have the terrifying image of a mushroom cloud.
If a quick scan of the web is correct, that would be the first atmospheric detonation of a warhead since 1963, in itself a hugely symbolic and quite frightening gesture.
If you think about it - the scenario above presents quite a tricky dilemma in formulating a response - if you're NATO - how do you respond?
Even more sanctions? Even more condemnation? Is that your `red line'? Do you implement a No Fly Zone? Do you put boots on the ground in Ukraine?
Russia reportedly has between 1600 and 2000 such warheads - and there are missiles already being used in the conflict that are dual use capable, such as the Iskander.
All the information online seems to be about Russian Strategic level command and control - does anyone here know a little more about command and control of Russian tactical nuclear weapons?
I assume (hope) they're subject to the same safeguards as strategic weapons.
I think that's the real risk - and I don't think it'd automatically start World War Three either.
"Even if the unfathomable occurred and Russia used nuclear weapons in or around Ukraine, it’s unlikely the U.S. would respond in kind. “I doubt that we would reply in nuclear terms; the risks of escalation would be too great,” says Harvard University’s Joseph Nye, former assistant secretary of defense. Nye suggests that the U.S. might respond in the cyberworld, “but that has its own problems with retaliation.” Instead, the most likely response would be to try and further isolate Russia for violating the nuclear taboo, and perhaps move some troops to Europe. The U.S. could take the opportunity to reinforce the unacceptability of Russia’s extraordinary use of these weapons."
https://newrepublic.com/article/1656...ne-us-response
Last edited by tartare; 11th Mar 2022 at 22:57.
With any nuclear weapon being exploded in anger, there will surely be a radiation cloud carried on the wind and hence not within anyone's control after the weapon goes off. We know from Chernobyl that Welsh lamb was contaminated and off the menu for ages but was the yield from a power station accident as potent as even a small nuclear weapon?
I recommended reading the Neville Shute book "On The Beach" to a friend but they didn't want to face dreadful story it told, with mankind being slowly wiped out
Old Duffer
I recommended reading the Neville Shute book "On The Beach" to a friend but they didn't want to face dreadful story it told, with mankind being slowly wiped out
Old Duffer
This is only my two penny worth : the Russians have always seen tactical nuclear weapons as a means to an end on the battlefield, as they do with thermobaric weapons. There is no massed enemy in Ukraine that would warrant the use of such a large area explosive. So I don't believe that they will use one at the moment. However if they were weakened enough to face being militarily defeated and were threatened by a gathered massed invasion force, in say Poland, they could see that as a legitimate target for a tactical nuclear weapon.
The talk of detonations in isolated areas is the talk of strategic use which is to be considered when the motherland is threatened and isn't yet a consideration in a regional war.
The talk of detonations in isolated areas is the talk of strategic use which is to be considered when the motherland is threatened and isn't yet a consideration in a regional war.
‘On the Beach’ freaked me out as a young teenager in the 70s. I was growing up in the area where the book was set. Now, Neville Shute’s scenario of a Northern Hemisphere nuclear war is becoming frighteningly prescient.
With any nuclear weapon being exploded in anger, there will surely be a radiation cloud carried on the wind and hence not within anyone's control after the weapon goes off. We know from Chernobyl that Welsh lamb was contaminated and off the menu for ages but was the yield from a power station accident as potent as even a small nuclear weapon?
I recommended reading the Neville Shute book "On The Beach" to a friend but they didn't want to face dreadful story it told, with mankind being slowly wiped out
Old Duffer
I recommended reading the Neville Shute book "On The Beach" to a friend but they didn't want to face dreadful story it told, with mankind being slowly wiped out
Old Duffer
There has been a lot of speculation whether Putin is thinking about using nuclear weapons. It is certainly true that we are a lot closer to the use of non conventional weapons then we were only a few weeks ago. But let’s take a step back.
The psychological state of his armed forces must be a serious concern to him. The state within a state control by the secret service is dependent on fear and control of the media. Fighting a vicious hand to hand civil war in the Ukraine is pretty frightening and the average Russian soldier is better informed of what is going on. The risk to political commissars and russian officers from their own troops will not be insignificant.
If the Ukraine continues to resist, this situation can only get worse and the risk of mutiny substantially increases conceivably even at home. Experts have pointed out that an invading force needs to be substantially larger than a defending force. There are a lot of people in the Ukraine with previous military experience. The numbers do not look good for the Russians particularly when you add in home advantage, mud season and the unity of the nearby countries.
There is no way of knowing what Putin is thinking. Maybe there is some cunning plan about to come good. But at the moment he looks to have substantially misjudged the resolve of the Ukraine and the wider world and to have weakened the motherland and by extension himself. Would using nuclear weapons make this better? I am not so sure.
If he cannot have the Ukraine he will be minded to leave it in the biggest mess possible. So even in the best case things are going to get worse. But it must be said that the possibility of regime change in Moscow has also increased.
The psychological state of his armed forces must be a serious concern to him. The state within a state control by the secret service is dependent on fear and control of the media. Fighting a vicious hand to hand civil war in the Ukraine is pretty frightening and the average Russian soldier is better informed of what is going on. The risk to political commissars and russian officers from their own troops will not be insignificant.
If the Ukraine continues to resist, this situation can only get worse and the risk of mutiny substantially increases conceivably even at home. Experts have pointed out that an invading force needs to be substantially larger than a defending force. There are a lot of people in the Ukraine with previous military experience. The numbers do not look good for the Russians particularly when you add in home advantage, mud season and the unity of the nearby countries.
There is no way of knowing what Putin is thinking. Maybe there is some cunning plan about to come good. But at the moment he looks to have substantially misjudged the resolve of the Ukraine and the wider world and to have weakened the motherland and by extension himself. Would using nuclear weapons make this better? I am not so sure.
If he cannot have the Ukraine he will be minded to leave it in the biggest mess possible. So even in the best case things are going to get worse. But it must be said that the possibility of regime change in Moscow has also increased.
