Is Ukraine about to have a war?

[Beamr]

Originally Posted by tartare

The more one thinks about it, the more it would appear that a prolonged war may actually play into NATO's rest of the worlds hands in one sense.
.

FIxed that for ya. The Russians have been harrassing most of the world but especially its neighbours (eg Georgia, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia etc) for decades (or centuries, or millenias). Not to mention the smaller entities within the Russian Federation that twould probably do much better wihtout the Russians stealing their resources (eg. Sakha republic, very rich in resources eg biggest producer of diamonds in Russia, gold, zinc, silver, molybdenum, oil, gas, coal etc but very poor since the russkies have been abusing them for centuries). Imagine if all the riches of the Oligharcs would've been used for peoples benefit and without the hard core Russian corruption leading the governemntal funds to the meditterranean and London real estate.

Only thing holding all of it together was the Russian military power which is now diminishing leading to everyone else seeing their opportunity arising to get rid of the oppressor. Now we are at the edge of historical events, very good examples are China announcing that Kazakhstan is under their protection and Armenia wawing US flags on the streets.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by tartare

The more one thinks about it, the more it would appear that a prolonged war may actually play into NATO's hands in one sense.

Its been stated multiple times by the US Secretary of Defence, that is the plan. They intend to bleed russia to the point it cant threaten any other country

“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin said.

[tartare]

Originally Posted by rattman

Its been stated multiple times by the US Secretary of Defence, that is the plan. They intend to bleed russia to the point it cant threaten any other country

But I think this may go some way to explaining the real reasons why no ATACMS, fast jets etc.
It's not just a fear of escalation, or that the Ukrainians might strike deep into Russia with longer range weapons.
It's that we don't want them to win too quickly - because if they do - we won't have degraded the Russian military enough...

[Beamr]

Originally Posted by tartare

But is the total collapse of the Federation a given if the Russian military is decimated?

No, but that's the best opportunity there is, and Kremlin knows the facts. This can be viewed against budget proposals for 2023.
Issue for uprisings being that the internal security forces in Russia are bigger than the armed forces. In essence the national guard, the police forces, the intelligence and border guards. Of roughly 2,3million people in the forces altogether 1,2 million is within these other forces.
Now coming to the budget, the budget increments for state security for 2023, internal security gets 45% increment as the armed forces get only 39% increment. That says a lot about what Vlad the Mad is really worried about.
In essence the spend in between internal and external security is roughly 1:1

The budget proposal for 2023 considers almost 5 trillion rubles ($82.6 billion) for defense and 4.2 trillion rubles ($69.4 billion) for security and law enforcement, up from the previously planned 3.6 trillion rubles ($59.5 billion) and 2.9 trillion rubles ($47.9 billion), respectively

https://jamestown.org/program/russia...ing-2022-2023/

Comparing this to any free world nation highlights how afraid the Kremlin is of internal uprisings: the US spends reportedly 180billion USD yearly on policing and incarceration, For FY2023 defense budget request will exceed $773 billion. In essence the spend relation internal/external security is 1:4

I'll take a smaller country as a comparison: for Finland the ratio is 1:7 (900million euros vs 6,1 billion euros)

[fdr]

Originally Posted by tartare

But I think this may go some way to explaining the real reasons why no ATACMS, fast jets etc.
It's not just a fear of escalation, or that the Ukrainians might strike deep into Russia with longer range weapons.
It's that we don't want them to win too quickly - because if they do - we won't have degraded the Russian military enough...

If so, it may be a poor strategy. Had the munitions been on hand, with the reach to all rear areas that Ukraine needed to cover, including Kerch, including all border crossings of main roads and highways, Russia would have still lost their leading capability, they had already lost much of their competency in the first 30 days, and there is precious little competency left in the field now for the Russians at any level. Providing the reach early would have saved conscript lives in Russia, and many lives in Ukraine, service and civilians. Russia's offensive capability to invade NATO appears to have been cured by Mr V.V. Putin, Ukraine just highlights their capability.

Originally Posted by NutLoose

If these new regions did split off from Russia and become independent states in their own right, then The US, U.K. and Russia could sign an agreement to come to their aid in return for them giving up their nukes… ohhh wait, we have been down that path already. For China saying a region is now under their “ protection “ it sounds like a land grab in the making.

After the last effort of a memoranda out of Budapest, not sure there is much credence to anything that isn't able to be ratified. The last time someone gave up their nukes for platitudes, one party to the assurance invaded them, and the others played coy on giving them any munitions in which to defend themselves until it became evident that they would not go quietly into the night, and were in fact able to break the nose of the aggressor. Then we start eking out support, but not too much, just enough to make us all feel happy. We did somethings, we should have done more. Ukraine has taken these hits and that happens to be in our interests too. Our masters have been worried about giving the Ukrainians munitions that are intended to defend against Russia, and when there is need for them to defend a country against Russia, we behaved like supply officers; "if I give you those flying gloves, then I will only have a dozen left, and what if someone else needs a dozen?".

China just increased it's reach by just being polite and saying no to Russia, and they have influence now that covers immediately a large part of Russia's Federation, and it will likely expand. All they need to be is nicer than Putin, and that is a low bar. For Russia itself, that is the largest disaster for them, and they still don't seem to get it; if they did, they would be getting out of Ukraine tout suite, replacing divots and thanking Ukraine for the hospitality, and then going out and protecting their "Federation" which is at risk of being that bit of turf from Moscow to St Petersburg, and there is a risk that St Pete would prefer to be with a very successful country to it's north. Finland's GDP is about... 300B, which Russia will wish soon to have maintained. Russia started at about 1.45T, and they have effectively lost all of their military exports, and their energy exports are collapsing. Drop a nuke, and there will be no energy or food exports at all. After that, Finland's GDP will start looking good. Finland's per capita GDP was 2.5 times Russia's before, now, it is about double to treble that.

And that is before Russia gets the bill for breakages.

[Wokkafans]

Aviation Contect

"Reportedly video of Ukrainian Mavic drone vs Russian Mavic drone dogfight in the skies over Donbas"

The Russian drone lost and is seen to crash at the end of the clip.

https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status...zmU95Xphmxw6nA

Twitter

[uxb99]

Originally Posted by Wokkafans

Aviation Contect

"Reportedly video of Ukrainian Mavic drone vs Russian Mavic drone dogfight in the skies over Donbas"

The Russian drone lost and is seen to crash at the end of the clip.



https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status...zmU95Xphmxw6nA

Could this be the first drone on drone air combat, dogfight? Shape of things to come perhaps.
Drones that dogfight with aircraft? Being able to deliberately ingest themselves into aircraft engines would be scary.

[MJ89]

Interesting seeing the long defensive trenches being dug by the Russians. A-10s you say.
Also the Y shaped dug in spider holes for the T tanks would suit that GAU-8.

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Wokkafans

Aviation Contect

"Reportedly video of Ukrainian Mavic drone vs Russian Mavic drone dogfight in the skies over Donbas"

The Russian drone lost and is seen to crash at the end of the clip.

Not entirely convinced either participant was actually aware there. The surviving drone didn't appear to move, and the other one came up from below - presumably out of the field of view of its camera.

[wondering]

Alledged Ruzzian losses by 'Meduza'.

Russia’s "irrecoverable losses" in Ukraine: more than 90,000 troops dead, disabled, or AWOL

https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/10/12/russia-s-irrecoverable-losses-in-ukraine-more-than-90-000-troops-dead-disabled-or-awol

[Wokkafans]

What could possibly go wrong.

https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/s...zmU95Xphmxw6nA

Twitter

[macmp419]

Originally Posted by Wokkafans

What could possibly go wrong.



https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/s...zmU95Xphmxw6nA

That is clearly special ERA for very speshul people...

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Wokkafans

What could possibly go wrong.



https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/s...zmU95Xphmxw6nA

Vile E Coyote?

[MJ89]

https://www.businessinsider.com/macr...op=1&r=US&IR=T typical

2 ukrainian air force jets downed, wonder where the missiles where fired from? . https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/13-oct...reconnaissance

[T28B]

Originally Posted by MJ89

https://www.businessinsider.com/macr...op=1&r=US&IR=T
typical

The article you linked to is about France not feeling that an attack on Ukraine triggers their self defense doctrine.

France's Macron suggests he won't fire nukes at Russia even if Putin uses them in Ukraine, undercutting Western threats

• Macron suggested he wouldn't use nuclear weapons to retaliate if Russia used them in Ukraine.
• In a sometimes-unclear interview answer, he said it may fall short of a threshold for retaliation.
• It struck a different tone from a statement by France, the US, and others warning of "severe consequences."

Spoiler

 

 

France's President Emmanuel Macron suggested that he would not use nuclear weapons against Russia in retaliation for a Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine.
Macron, in a TV interview Wednesday night, gave a long and sometimes-ambiguous discussion of how France might react if Vladimir Putin's threats to use nuclear force were to come true.

His answer , to the France 2 network, suggested that such an event may fall short of France's own threshold for striking back.

The position was at odds with a much firmer statement by G7 countries Monday, in which France and other nations warned of "severe consequences" to the Russian use of nuclear weapons.

Macron was asked: "Would France consider a tactical strike by Russia as a nuclear strike?"

He replied: "France has a nuclear doctrine. It lies in the nation's fundamental interests that are clearly defined. They wouldn't be questioned should there be a ballistic nuclear attack."

France's current nuclear policy is to use nuclear weapons only in self-defense, a definition Macron suggested would not be met by an attack on an allied nation like Ukraine.

Macron also tweeted on Wednesday: "We do not want a World War."

To be fair, the French spent decades within NATO, but outside of the integrated military command structure, after DeGaulle's walkout.
They were very clear about retaining an independent nuclear deterrent and an independent nuclear posture. They continued to work with NATO and participate in NATO exercises and operations (where they felt it was good for them). It was comparatively recently, under Sarkozy (2009), that over 40 years of policy was changed and France returned to the integrated military command structure in NATO.
At the time, there was significant objection from the center and left (in France) to that policy change.

Monsieur Macron is being reasonably consistent with previous French precedent, in terms of having an independent posture for nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by MJ89

2 ukrainian air force jets downed, wonder where the missiles where fired from? . https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/13-oct...reconnaissance

Thank you for the aviation content.

[Beamr]

Now the russians are down to WW2 artillery. Like the T62 these use specific munitions in essence adding to logistic mayhem. Against modern artillery... damn.

What next, Il-2 Sturmoviks?

Twitter

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status...29323516444674

[fdr]

Originally Posted by MJ89

https://www.businessinsider.com/macr...op=1&r=US&IR=T typical

2 ukrainian air force jets downed, wonder where the missiles where fired from? . https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/13-oct...reconnaissance

150km from the border, and further from the front... Within S-300/400 but that should have been detected at those ranges, Blue-on-blue or someone is gone hunting in the backblocks?

[134brat]

Aviation content.
Algerian Gulfstream 4 7T-VPC currently showing on ADSB heading home from Moscow. I thought Vlad was all out of chums, and the French have recently been mending old wounds from the past with Algeria. Seems like an odd time for a visit...

[Beamr]

Ukraine has verified that Russia has used tear gas against Ukrainian armed forces. In essence this would mean that Russians have used prohibited chemical weapons, interesting thread here. Will this raise a comment from the free world?

Twitter

https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1580168586626494465

[HOVIS]

Could have been hit over the front lines and limped West I suppose. Just a thought.