Gas and bio attacks seem inevitable in Ukraine. Anyone know if we are sending them gas masks?
Gas is terrible but easily (well, not that easily) countered with the right equipment,
They say Putin is the next Hitler but Hitler, who experienced gas in the trenches, never used it in anger because of the fear the enemy may reply in kind. They did of course use it in gas chambers.

Fascinating interview on the Mark Austin hour on Sky this evening with a military analyst based in Moscow. He was highly critical of the Russian campaign, saying that they now had no reserve forces to draw upon hence them rooting around for volunteers from Syria etc. Mobilisation is not an option apparently, given the message this would send to the Russian people that the campaign was not going to plan. His assessment was that it could end in defeat for Russia.

Something to cheer you all up for the weekend 🙂

i

I’ve seen IED jammers as in the link below but not much more

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarR...m_cied_system/

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

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. :)

Perhaps Putin was hoping for a cold spell. Unfortunately the whole of Europe has been experiencing unusually warm weather, Perhaps global warming will be Russia's downfall?

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

A part of the problem is knowledge. Contrast current awareness with July 1914, when prosperous villages in Kent and Sussex were, according to anecdote, dependent on the carter and the postman for news of some old ArchDuke being bumped off, and the politicians' worry was still Irish separatism.
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?

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.

Speaking as a civilian, is that good ? With all the enemy tanks sat on the road in front of you plus artillery, I would have expected a fully prepared force to have killed a hell of a lot more units.

My friend, I am worried sick since I just got done reviewing some dense research on how the Russian threshhold for tapping into the nukes has decreased, not increased, in the past decade. I grew up in the Cold War, and spent the70's and 80's in it (I was in the Navy) and was overjoyed that the Wall fell.
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" :bored:

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.

They (the local unit) may be running low on shells.

I would have said it was more of a surgical strike in that it achieved it’s aim in destroying tanks and forcing a retreat from a built up area while avoiding possible collateral damage to the civilian population. It will have caused panic and confusion amongst those involved , forced a retreat and burnt up precious fuel and resources as they attempt to find an alternate route.

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

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

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.

‘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.