• Light/Dark

Russia has begun a full-scale invasion in Ukraine [READ STAFF POSTS]

Reader mode
JTDailyUpdate

JTDailyUpdate

Member
Nov 1, 2017
737
Mentalist said:
Rumours saying it was a rescue ship. Apparently, also the oldest active-duty ship in the world (entered service in 1915).

Unconfirmed though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Seems to be her, per the OSINT intelligence I've seen.

With that said, the good news is that the damage to the ship seems to be minor and limited to the ships superstructure.

The bad news, comes with the history of the ship, and the last time she suffered damage as a result of enemy action.

Following the German invasion in June 1941 Kommuna was based at Leningrad, and although damaged by bombing continued to serve throughout the siege.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

en.wikipedia.org

Russian rescue ship Kommuna - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
kmfdmpig

kmfdmpig

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
19,718
JTDailyUpdate said:
Seems to be her, per the OSINT intelligence I've seen.

With that said, the good news is that the damage to the ship seems to be minor and limited to the ships superstructure.

The bad news, comes with the history of the ship, and the last time she suffered damage as a result of enemy action.



en.wikipedia.org

Russian rescue ship Kommuna - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How is it good news that a Russian ship was only moderately damaged? Good news would be it sank.
 
GrantDaNasty

GrantDaNasty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,136
Maquiladora said:

View: https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/1782058084765950301?t=LWp1qdC5sQ22PATp3oBDGg&s=19
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I have to imagine damage control is in full effect. It's not *impossible* to believe it took Johnson until now to see the importance of this military aid, *but* considering he has had MONTHS to do the research…I'm saying this is just a way to save face to the public.

If Johnson can prove me wrong, go for it, until the. a lot of Ukrainian deaths are your fault Mr. Speaker
 

Lard

Member
Dec 3, 2018
48
I don't buy the storyline of Johnson changing his mind due to some sudden realisation that there is a war going on..

I'm assuming he found a way to do the vote while not getting kicked out of his seat. He's obviously very happy (and lucky) to have fallen into this position and I think he will cling on to his power as long as he can, nothing else matters to him.
 
gozu

gozu

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,442
America
Zip said:
I just hope it's not too late.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Too late is a gradient so it depends. This whole delay was a self-own of the highest magnitude and an unabashed win for Putin. It's too late to deny him that win. I read somewhere (NYT?) that the war is costing the USA around 65B (?) a year in earmarked congressionally approved funds so these $50B will run out by next year and God help Ukraine if EU countries haven't picked up the slack by then and Trump is elected. Even after being defeated he still stuck it to Ukraine in a major way, wrecking support for them in the GOP wing. Over half the GOP voted against this bill.

In a broader sense, it does feel we, the USA, are too late in taking this conflict really seriously. What was obvious and telegraphed from a geopolitical standpoint has been confirmed. Russia has the very strong support of China for their war effort. Xi's full-throated support for Putin is a (BAD) gamechanger for NATO that has been mostly ignored either out of denial or powerlessness. Blinken is now going to "warn" China for the Nth time not to do the thing that we don't have the stomach to punish them for. Who here thinks China will obey? What real leverage do we have❓

For all we know, this is part of Xi's plan to prepping the terrain for Taiwan's invasion and Xi and Putin have some tacit pact to help each other recover past territories or some such. Why not? There is strength in numbers and anyone resenting the current world order might see benefits in aligning with the Russia/China axis. North Korea and Iran immediately pop to mind and sure enough they are helping in a big way. There is also precedent for such pacts between dictators. (Hitler and Stalin come to mind).

Russia has too many troops for this war to be close to a fair fight unless Russia runs out of heavy weapons. If China is helping to provide that or the tooling to manufacture war materiel, then this is a huge problem that requires a huge solution from NATO.
 
Last edited:
maabus1999

maabus1999

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
9,325
Temascos said:
Took a break from following news on Ukraine for a while, very pleased to hear the bill passed the House, I do worry about a senate snag but it doesn't seem too likely with the Senate having a dem majority, unless a couple of senators end up as outliers and no Repubs support the bill.

Hopefully when the aid reaches Ukraine they can stabilise the situation and go into a period of training and rotating troops who need a well-earned rest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Basically same bill Senate already passed. Folks like Paul will make it go slower then a quick vote but should pass Tuesday anyways.
 
Baalzebup

Baalzebup

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,728
BringBackSonics said:

View: https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/1782074187172950254?s=46&t=k-p3IFGuNJl6IL9qeh-mQA

😤😤💪
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Too bad the Russians are way less dependent on the Kerch bridge due to having setup the trailways in the south of Ukraine to suit their needs. It'll be significant again only when basically only Crimea is left to retake, or UAF needs to cut a path to the coast at the very least.

Or at least that is my understanding of the current situation. Once again, the slow-roll of support and weapon systems has robbed much of their possible effectiveness.
 
maabus1999

maabus1999

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
9,325
Baalzebup said:
Too bad the Russians are way less dependent on the Kerch bridge due to having setup the trailways in the south of Ukraine to suit their needs. It'll be significant again only when basically only Crimea is left to retake, or UAF needs to cut a path to the coast at the very least.

Or at least that is my understanding of the current situation. Once again, the slow-roll of support and weapon systems has robbed much of their possible effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The southern railway has always been there and has been struck multiple times. Kerch is still a much more stable supply line.
 
tidewatersouthern

tidewatersouthern

Member
Nov 27, 2020
4,392
Zip said:
Complete fuckwit for reasons more than were known if it took a secret briefing to show him what was plainly available to see.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I also suspect that the briefing went beyond the current war in Ukraine and went into projecting what Russia might do if they're victorious in Ukraine. We have several hard data points that suggest that US intelligence has been absolutely right. Not just with Russia's invasion, but around the world. It might have been enough to spook him into action.
 
Dr. Mario

Dr. Mario

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,042
Netherlands
Yeah I don't think shooting the Kerch bridge is very useful right now, outside of making Putin look foolish, but that's an expensive metaphorical black eye. Now if it's true that S400s can't very well stop an ATACMS, that's a much more worthwhile target, to take out AA everywhere before the delivery of F16s.
 
adj_noun

adj_noun

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
17,851
Teh_Lurv said:
Russian media is reporting that Russell "Texas" Bentley, the American that joined pro-Moscow separatists in the Donetsk region, has been killed.

www.theguardian.com

US citizen who fought with pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine reported dead

Russell Bentley, 64, reported killed in Moscow-occupied Donetsk by Russian state media and confirmed by his battalion
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I just read about that.

Tortured and murdered by the "de-Nazifiers" he hero worshiped.
 
maabus1999

maabus1999

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
9,325
Dr. Mario said:
Yeah I don't think shooting the Kerch bridge is very useful right now, outside of making Putin look foolish, but that's an expensive metaphorical black eye. Now if it's true that S400s can't very well stop an ATACMS, that's a much more worthwhile target, to take out AA everywhere before the delivery of F16s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The large atacms aren't really designed to take something out like the Kerch bridge so doubt they'd use them there anyways.
 
Tovarisc

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,620
FIN
Hasn't reporting been for longest time that Kerch bridge is Russia's main supply route for their Southern front? For safety and speed to deliver supplies etc.
 
convo

convo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,608
Baalzebup said:
Too bad the Russians are way less dependent on the Kerch bridge due to having setup the trailways in the south of Ukraine to suit their needs. It'll be significant again only when basically only Crimea is left to retake, or UAF needs to cut a path to the coast at the very least.

Or at least that is my understanding of the current situation. Once again, the slow-roll of support and weapon systems has robbed much of their possible effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I also still think completly destroying the bridge is not on the table without too many missles used. When demolishing a bridge you would go in with a whole demolition crew to set up explosives on the pillars themselves. It's hard to make it completly useless otherwise.
 

MasterChumly

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,927
Nevi said:
AFAIK senate republicans have been supportive of Ukraine aid. Problem was always the gop house.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well considering almost all the money goes to defense industries in the United States it's actually an economic boon to ourselves. The defense industry lobbyists seems to have a harder time breaking into the house with the rotation of crazies
 
Tovarisc

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,620
FIN
BringBackSonics said:
Yes, there was a blurb from Putin recently that they would be making a new rail line to lessen dependence on the Kerch bridge. Just feels like cope
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Russia would need to push Ukraine back a lots in order for railway across taken Southern Ukraine to be viable. As front currently is and if Russia's Southern front became reliant on such railway Ukraine would have good time pummeling it daily.
 
BringBackSonics

BringBackSonics

Member
Oct 27, 2017
45,849
Seattle
MasterChumly said:
Well considering almost all the money goes to defense industries in the United States it's actually an economic boon to ourselves. The defense industry lobbyists seems to have a harder time breaking into the house with the rotation of crazies
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah the maga is all about appeasing Trump than helping their constituents with good defensive industry jobs. Watch as they will take credit for the jobs in their communities as they vote no.
 
BringBackSonics

BringBackSonics

Member
Oct 27, 2017
45,849
Seattle
Tovarisc said:
Russia would need to push Ukraine back a lots in order for railway across taken Southern Ukraine to be viable. As front currently is and if Russia's Southern front became reliant on such railway Ukraine would have good time pummeling it daily.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Right, which was why I was pushing back on the thought that Russia isn't as dependent on the bridge, not sure where that thought came from
 
GrantDaNasty

GrantDaNasty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,136
Even if it's not a militarily critical target, the Kerch bridge is a "engineering marvel" of Russia and frankly, for a nation that loves bombing cultura heritage sites of Ukraine, I hope to see that bridge at the bottom of the Black Sea.

Fuck your national pride, Russia. You cannot uphold what you attempt to strip from others.
 

eathdemon

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,690
GrantDaNasty said:
Even if it's not a militarily critical target, the Kerch bridge is a "engineering marvel" of Russia and frankly, for a nation that loves bombing cultura heritage sites of Ukraine, I hope to see that bridge at the bottom of the Black Sea.

Fuck your national pride, Russia. You cannot uphold what you attempt to strip from others.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean if there was a way ukraine could take down enough sections that they couldnt usr it, it would have a massive impact. it likely brings crimia to the brink of starvation.
 
NetMapel

NetMapel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,569
I think it only makes sense for Ukraine to take down the Kerch bridge when they're ready to make a push into Crimea proper anyways. You don't want to take the bridge down now and give Russia plenty of time to set up new alternative supply routes. You want to disrupt that supply routes at the same moment with combined military actions to provide maximum fear and disruptions for the Russian soldiers in Crimea. I don't think Ukraine is near that moment yet.
 
Tovarisc

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,620
FIN
NetMapel said:
I think it only makes sense for Ukraine to take down the Kerch bridge when they're ready to make a push into Crimea proper anyways. You don't want to take the bridge down now and give Russia plenty of time to set up new alternative supply routes. You want to disrupt that supply routes at the same moment with combined military actions to provide maximum fear and disruptions for the Russian soldiers in Crimea. I don't think Ukraine is near that moment yet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For keeping Crimea and front covering it supplied they have two options, maybe three if we consider Sea of Azov. First two are Kerch bridge and railway running as close to the coast of Sea of Azov as it can on Ukrainian side of said sea. Bridge is safest and fastest way for them to push supplies into that area. Railway would be highly unreliable and dangerous because current situation with front would put it well into range of Ukrainian striking capabilities. Sea transportation using Sea of Azov most likely would be slowest and most ineffecient.

Wiping out Kerch bridge would cause immense logistical crisis for Crimea and that part of Russia's Southern front. Which Ukraine does need to even have a dream of taking Crime back. Those Russian forces need to be starved of supplies.
 
maabus1999

maabus1999

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
9,325
gozu said:
Too late is a gradient so it depends. This whole delay was a self-own of the highest magnitude and an unabashed win for Putin. It's too late to deny him that win. I read somewhere (NYT?) that the war is costing the USA around 65B (?) a year in earmarked congressionally approved funds so these $50B will run out by next year and God help Ukraine if EU countries haven't picked up the slack by then and Trump is elected. Even after being defeated he still stuck it to Ukraine in a major way, wrecking support for them in the GOP wing. Over half the GOP voted against this bill.

In a broader sense, it does feel we, the USA, are too late in taking this conflict really seriously. What was obvious and telegraphed from a geopolitical standpoint has been confirmed. Russia has the very strong support of China for their war effort. Xi's full-throated support for Putin is a (BAD) gamechanger for NATO that has been mostly ignored either out of denial or powerlessness. Blinken is now going to "warn" China for the Nth time not to do the thing that we don't have the stomach to punish them for. Who here thinks China will obey? What real leverage do we have❓

For all we know, this is part of Xi's plan to prepping the terrain for Taiwan's invasion and Xi and Putin have some tacit pact to help each other recover past territories or some such. Why not? There is strength in numbers and anyone resenting the current world order might see benefits in aligning with the Russia/China axis. North Korea and Iran immediately pop to mind and sure enough they are helping in a big way. There is also precedent for such pacts between dictators. (Hitler and Stalin come to mind).

Russia has too many troops for this war to be close to a fair fight unless Russia runs out of heavy weapons. If China is helping to provide that or the tooling to manufacture war materiel, then this is a huge problem that requires a huge solution from NATO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The funds are earmarked until 2026, says so right in the bill. If you are asking about rate of expenditure, that is a different matter and no one knows that rate right now.
 
EagleClaw

EagleClaw

Member
Dec 31, 2018
11,152
miascugh said:
So, was Scholz' willingness to provide Taurus officially contingent on the US delivery of long range ATACMS?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Never heard about that.

Scholz said he wants to keep control about possible targets of the Taurus,
and he will not ask the Parliament* to send German soldiers to Ukraine for target authorization.

It isn't a coincidence that the US might send military advisors to Ukraine while they also might send long-range ATACMS.
Those military advisors might be there for target authorization, like it is said the UK does it for British and French delivered Storm Shadow/SCALP.

*= German Bundeswehr can't be ordered by the Chancellor, it is ordered by the Parliament.
 

eathdemon

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,690
gozu said:
Really? That's 2x better than I thought. It's still not enough to get through a Trump presidency but it's probably enough for the EU to gear up and step up. 😊

edit: Actually I forgot Trump can (and did get impeached) stall deliveries to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
yeah I looked it up, we have given ukraine 75b so far.
 
KastuśKalinoŭski

KastuśKalinoŭski

Member
Nov 23, 2019
7,909
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎
Critics of the proposed $60 billion package of U.S. aid for Ukraine in Congress, Mar-a-Lago and beyond ask what the beleaguered country could do with the money and associated ammunition and new weaponry. Would it give Ukrainian forces the wherewithal to beat Russia? It's a good question.

The answer is a solid maybe. Given restored U.S. support and ongoing help from Europe, Ukraine might be able to turn the tide. It wouldn't be easy, but the possibility is great enough that, before letting Vladimir Putin notch a partial victory in this war, the world should help Ukraine try once more to take its territory back — if that's really what Ukraine wants.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ukraine has tried once before to penetrate Russian front lines. But that push, conducted last year, happened in several places at once, and reportedly against U.S. military advice. A more promising approach would focus on one place, in an effort to create an opening perhaps 10 to 20 miles wide. The goal would be to drive the Russians back far enough that they could not use direct-fire or line-of-sight weapons (just artillery and rockets) against vehicles transiting the opening. Line charges, combat bulldozers and bridging equipment, all crucial for getting through, could be concentrated in the one location, as could assets like jammers against Russian communications, drones and air defenses. With luck, if Ukraine prepared its attack carefully and stealthily, Russia would not have enough time to organize its operational reserves and quickly plug the gap.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Popular lore notwithstanding, an offense does not need a 3-to-1 advantage in manpower or equipment across a whole military theater to have a good chance of success. But when attacking a prepared defense head-on, that kind of superiority is probably needed in the place where the army attempts to break through.

At or near this vicinity, Russia could be expected to have 40,000 to 50,000 troops within weapons range, or able to get there within a few hours — about 10 percent of the half a million troops it now has stationed along its 600-mile front line. To give itself a 3-to-1 advantage, Ukraine would need about 150,000 troops — at least 100,000 more than it would normally have along such a short length of front.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If Ukrainian troops punched through Russian lines, they could then work to widen the breakthrough corridor and penetrate farther. Eventually, they would look for an opportunity to encircle and cut off all the Russian forces holding Ukrainian land to the west of the breakthrough corridor — up to a quarter million Russian troops.


At this point, geography and topography would favor Ukraine, as it could attack Russian forces from behind. However, Ukraine still would probably not wish to fight Russia with less than an equal number of troops, and this means it would want at least 250,000 troops of its own (including the 150,000 deployed in the breakthrough). Some of these soldiers might be found by thinning out Ukrainian front-line positions elsewhere. But most will need to be fresh recruits or draftees. Ukraine's current military strength of a little under 1 million troops would need to increase by at least 200,000 (and maybe even more, should Russia further strengthen its forces in Ukraine prior to a Ukrainian attack).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

archive.ph

Opinion | What will it take for Ukraine to win? - The Washington Post

archived 19 Apr 2024 23:12:08 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.