The tactics

[490808]

I thought it might be worth a separate thread on Just the military side of the war in the Ukraine.

To put it bluntly I don't see how Ukraine can win against Russia but the defence of Kiev could end up a massive meat grinder on the scale of Verdun.

What Russia has in spades is Artillery and they seem to be using it. It might not happen straight away but if Kiev puts a really good defence then I see the Russians flattening it street at a time. If Kiev falls will the rest of the Ukraine go with it?

The issues Russia seem to be having is a reluctance of their (conscript?) troops to fight and poor logistics. FFS the Russian effort so far seems to be predicated on having nuclear bombs so the rest of the army has been left to go to sh!t? Even so they should be able to keep going and absorb enormous losses and eventually get the upper hand.

Does anyone think Ukraine can win? If so how?

[Hairy-Joe]

Kyiv is key. The longer Ukraine can hold it, the better for them. I can see Russia trying to pound Kyiv but it'll end up like Stalingrad with the roles reversed. Ukraine will hold Kyiv.

Russia can't hold the country. They'll require a large amount of compliant people to do their bidding. Guerilla tactics would be important to frustrate the supply lines. This would get worse the longer they are.

I can see Ukraine winning through the Russian offensive running out of steam. Once that happens, Ukraine will push back. The big unknown is the state of the Russian economy and it's ability to support the war. Don't forget that's how Germany lost WW1. They still had the battlefield position, but couldn't supply the army and their people. The royal navy blockade was key to killing the economy.

[490808]

If the Ukrainians can disrupt the Russian supply lines then I think they can drag this out for a long time.

If they just sit and take the punishment then I think Russian artillery will win the day.

[CelticRambler]

Does anyone think Ukraine can win? If so how?

Can they win? Yes, I think there's at least a 50-50 chance - depending on how you would define a win, of course.

Sorting through the trolling and propaganda noise, as much as possible, it does very much seem that Russia's Plan A was predicated on a lightning attack and rapid submission of the existing political establishment. That would appear to have been thwarted by a combination of underestimated Ukrainian resistance and Putin gravely overestimating the Russian military's capabilities.

On that latter point, the general consensus seems to be that his infantry is not battle-hardened (most only ever fought in training exercises or where they faced minimal resistance) and are seriously demoralised; whereas a considerable number of the Ukrainian "civilians" served in the disputed eastern territories as part of their National Service. From the comfort of my armchair, it certainly sounds plausible that the accounts of young Russian soldiers shooting at "everything that moved" after they abandoned their vehicles was a blind panic reaction to being dumped into a ferocious conflict for which they'd never been psychologically prepared.

Then there's the question of logistics. This twitter thread describes the physical limitation of keeping supplies flowing to the front lines, and makes reference to its vulnerability. It's all very well lobbing cruise missiles in from across the border to achieve a "win" of sorts, but sooner or later troops have to move in to impose some kind of ruling presence. If Plan B is to destroy every part of Ukrainian infrastructure prior to taking control, then that includes the infrastructure - such as airfields and fuel storage depots - that would be needed by the occupying force.

So the longer the indiscriminate artillery barrage goes on, the more dependent on those fragile supply lines are the Russian forces; and the more destructive the attacks on those supply lines, the greater is the need to fall back on long range attacks as the literal numbers of vehicles and troops are reduced. Today's attack on the military base/distribution hub in the west is, I would argue, a sign of how desperate the Russian commanders are finding the situation.

Belarus' position is going to be an interesting one to watch. There's a President-in-Exile just waiting to be instated, and (again, if we can believe the reports) considerable reluctance on the part of the Belarussian military to take an active part in the conflict. Someone whispering sweet nothings into Lukashenko's ear might be enough to persuade him that he'd be wise to book a one-way ticket to Moscow before someone decides that, d'you know what, the offer of a quick lifting of sanctions in exchange for a semblance of western-ish democracy was worth telling the Russians to pack up and go. If Putin loses Belarus, then that leaves Russian troops in and around Kyiv and Kharkiv at the mercy of Ukrainian combatants.

[CelticRambler]

Took me a while to find it again, but here's a link to a (loooong) Twitter thread translating a supposed FSB whistleblower's account of the situation up to about ten days ago:

(Original sources cited in the Twitter thread)

[95438756]

Those WW II historians worth their salt among you would recall the Reich's plan to 'Polandize' France in the long term. Once the eastern front had been stabliized the Nazis could do away with Vichy state and other such states.

It's what the Putin's administration intend to do with The Ukraine.

[490808]

I'm wondering how much of a deliberate tactic it is for the Russians to keep blocking the refugees?

A city full of civilians eats everything quicker than a city that is just full of fighters.

[CelticRambler]

Once I read the the sentence Will there be a localised nuclear strike in Ukraine question with the the answer "possibly" I stopped reading.

I'm curious - why? Do you think Putin is rational enough not to consider using one, or does the prospect of such an attack make you not want to dwell on what comes next?

I am pretty certain that he will use chemical and/or biological weapons pretty soon if his troops start suffering significant defeats (i.e. the Ukrainians re-capturing territory through sheer force and persistence, without any changes of allegiance by Belarus, for example). In that context, it's not a huge step from there to nuclear. It's not like it hasn't been done before ...

[Del.Monte]

What worries me most about the unfolding scenario is that if Western politicians keep branding him a war criminal (which he is) he will become a cornered rat with nothing to lose. Imagine Hitler's final hours in the bunker if he had thousands of nukes at his finger tips....now change the venue and the man with the power to extinguish life on the planet is........

[CelticRambler]

Not saying he wouldn't do it, but why would he use biological or nuclear weapons when he could simply step up conventional airstrikes ? It wouldn't make any sense but again that's just me thinking logically about it.

If he wants to "clear out" the troublesome humans without destroying yet more infrastructure, biological or chemical weapons make perfect sense. Putin's used them before in recent years, so it'll be no biggie for him to give the order. He'd wipe out his own troops too (or at least the mercenaries he's trying to recruit) - but there's plenty more cannon fodder left in Russia. Or is there?*

Nuclear is a different level, though, and would inevitably render inaccessible many of the resources he'd be hoping to plunder, so I'd expect him (or those around him) to be hesitant to push things on to that point. But if he thinks he's going to go down, he might well decide to bring a huge swathe of Ukraine down with him.

* An interesting point raised elsewhere: the reproduction rate in Russia is well below replacement levels and (unlike the EU or the USA) the country is not an attractive proposition for population-boosting economic migrants. That means that every young Russian male killed in Ukraine will have a long-term effect on family dynamics and the ability of the economy to extract useful working hours from the workforce in years to come.

[316670]

Took me a while to find it again, but here's a link to a (loooong) Twitter thread translating a supposed FSB whistleblower's account of the situation up to about ten days ago:

(Original sources cited in the Twitter thread)

Please tell me you don't actually believe that BS.

Take a moment and think for yourselves, the media says Russia is taking heavy casualties to its Conscription army, Conscription in Russia is a 12-month draft, which is mandatory for all male citizens ages 18–27, with a number of exceptions.
Putin has stated there are ZERO Conscription forces in the Ukraine, all soldiers are professional full timers, I tend to believe this, as all the footage I have seen of Russian soldiers they all seem to be older than 18-27, just my observation, now I know you will searching far and wide for footage of these young Russian conscripts, I eagerly await you posting them here.

Now the simple fact is no nation on earth has more experience in siege warfare in the modern age than the Russians who in WW2 liberated over 1,000 cities and large towns from the Nazis in eastern Europe, the Russians know exactly what they are doing, combined with the fact that many of these Cities and towns in Ukraine will after be incorporated into Russia, we can see Russia is operating on a "you break it, you pay for it " basis.
The Russians unlike the USA in Irag/Afgan wars are not bombing it back to the stone age, they could, but they ain't.
We have been told for weeks now the Russians are running out of supplies, they have depleted their cruise missile supply and cant fire any more, the army is out of fuel, food and munitions, and all has proven to be lies from the media.
"Ukraine has victory within it sights, the Russians are in trouble and will collapse any day now", well it would seem very strange that the leader of Chechnya ,Ramzan Kadyrov has joined his forces on the outskirts of Kiev, he wants to be there and part of the victory, very strange if you believe the media, "That's just Russian lies" I hear you scream at the screen, unfortunately for you he has a very active Telegram and is posting constant Video of him and his men advancing on Kiev.

As for Zelenskyy, the propaganda ais starting to fall apart, he most likely is not in Ukraine, his most recent PR was with a woman who is dead a few weeks.
His handlers are just trying to drag out the conflict, kill as many civilians as possible so they have a PR victory over the evil Russians, the war is lost, the honorable thing is to accept it and save his citizens lives, but he drags it out, probably has a CIA gun to his head.

[CelticRambler]

Please tell me you don't actually believe that BS.

Says the guy who spams us with an endless dump of I-Saw-It-On-The-Internet-So-It-Must-Be-True wackiness!

[316670]

Says the guy who spams us with an endless dump of I-Saw-It-On-The-Internet-So-It-Must-Be-True wackiness!

I’ll take that you can’t refute a thing I posted.
Take the loss and come back with more propaganda and I’ll debunk it yet again.

I promise I won’t give up on you, a life time of lies will make it hard to break the world view implanted in your head, but I will carry on, the truth will prevail in the end.

[490808]

...

Take a moment and think for yourselves, the media says Russia is taking heavy casualties to its Conscription army, Conscription in Russia is a 12-month draft, which is mandatory for all male citizens ages 18–27, with a number of exceptions.
Putin has stated there are ZERO Conscription forces in the Ukraine, all soldiers are professional full timers, I tend to believe this, as all the footage I have seen of Russian soldiers they all seem to be older than 18-27, just my observation, now I know you will searching far and wide for footage of these young Russian conscripts, I eagerly await you posting them here.

...

It was Putins knee jerk reaction to Russian mothers to lie.

From 4 days ago Russia admits conscripts have been fighting in Ukraine, despite Putin's previous denials

[Guburnor]

I’ll take that you can’t refute a thing I posted.
Take the loss and come back with more propaganda and I’ll debunk it yet again.

It's very hard to know how seriously to take it, never mind debate it, when you include no source.

For example, just posting this image means nothing:



it sort of looks like it may have come from a credible news source, but who knows? If you include a link, people can judge for themselves.

And why post screenshots of tweets? Can you not please the twitter link and it will embed the tweet?

I get a lot of your posts reported as spam, misinformation, propaganda etc etc and I am happy to defend you posting a contrarian opinion, but if you are posting things as facts can you please include links to where you found these facts!

Otherwise it's just spammy nonsense, and I'm going to have to start deleting it.

[CelticRambler]

I’ll take that you can’t refute a thing I posted.

Correct. But that's mainly because I don't read anything you post any more, as you just keep posting massive pictures with no context, and you don't engage in any meaningful discussion.

This thread is specifically about the tactics that may (or may not) be used by either side in the coming days, weeks or months. At a quick glance, your contributions today have nothing to do with that - it's the same recycled guff that you're posting on every other thread.

[316670]

Correct. But that's mainly because I don't read anything you post any more, as you just keep posting massive pictures with no context, and you don't engage in any meaningful discussion.

This thread is specifically about the tactics that may (or may not) be used by either side in the coming days, weeks or months. At a quick glance, your contributions today have nothing to do with that - it's the same recycled guff that you're posting on every other thread.

You read what i posted again
WW2 Liberated over 1,000 cities and large towns
Experts in siege warfare after the above
Approach city and encircle, open communications,
ask for surrender,
open corridors for civilians to leave
if no surrender then clear city
Don't want to bomb back to stone age , as they will incorporate these regions in the months ahead, you break it you pay for it.
Now view what is happening through that lens, this ain't Uncle Sam style war of annihilation.

[316670]

It's very hard to know how seriously to take it, never mind debate it, when you include no source.

For example, just posting this image means nothing:



it sort of looks like it may have come from a credible news source, but who knows? If you include a link, people can judge for themselves.

And why post screenshots of tweets? Can you not please the twitter link and it will embed the tweet?

I get a lot of your posts reported as spam, misinformation, propaganda etc etc and I am happy to defend you posting a contrarian opinion, but if you are posting things as facts can you please include links to where you found these facts!

Otherwise it's just spammy nonsense, and I'm going to have to start deleting it.

Here it is
https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/us-offi ... pathogens/

Don't be cowards running to the Mod
They have some cheek calling my posts propaganda, when they post links from the BBC, an official UK government mouthpiece paid for 100% with Uk tax money!
If you disagree or have issue with what i post, air your opinion here so i can debate it and prove you uninformed and in the wrong!

[316670]

I never report the conspiracy theory ravings. It's a free country, you:re entitled to vomit your drivel here, I find it amusing tbh.

But I do report the being a dick stuff, like when you think your belief in conspiracy theories makes you more intelligent and abuse other posters, calling them stupid or children. Because that's just being a dick.

Nothing conspiracy theory about the BBC spreading lies and propaganda.
"The BBC are subjected to vigorous oversight by Ofcom, they must only report the truth"
If only it was that simple, there is much more to it, and I will now educate the uninformed.
BBC World Service is not regulated by Ofcom, in lay mans terms the BBC world service is free to spread whatever lies it likes and not face any legal repercussion under UK law, AKA a propaganda arm of the UK government.

BBC World Service is not regulated by Ofcom. Instead the BBC is responsible for setting its overall strategic direction, the budget and guarding its editorial independence for World Service. .................. "objectives, targets and priorities" which are agreed with the Foreign Secretary.

The Chair of the Board of the BBC and the Foreign Secretary (or their nominated representatives) will meet at least annually to review the performance of the World Service against the objectives, priorities and targets as defined in the Licence.

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation

Watch the the following video from about 3:30 and you will never think of the BBC as impartial ever again.




but you already knew this, but it does not fit the anti Russia bandwagon the uninformed are jumping on, so best not to discuss

[316670]

The latest lie that many are believing is that Russia has asked China for military supplies, as they are running out of munitions.
The Russians and Chines has stated not true, yet the USA and Media keeps pushing this and the uninformed lap it up, the public have very short memories, sure we where told Russia was out of supplies 10 days ago and yet the conflict still rumbles on.

So lets do a deeper dive on this story.
USA claim Russia has requested supplies from China
This would no doubt be a high level request if true, it would not have been made over the phone, to easily intercepted/hacked.
So a request of this importance would have been sent by secure means, a Diplomatic cable so to speak, secure and encrypted.
So either the USA is lying about this or they are a bunch of idiots who have revealed to Russia/China that the USA can intercept and decode a Diplomatic cable!
Lets not forget that in WW2 when the allies cracked the German Enigma code it was the closest guarded secret of the war along side the A-Bomb, it was not made public knowledge until years after the end of the war, but now we are to believe the USA is announcing to the world it can intercept and crack Russia/Chinese communications? or its all bull shit, USA knows it but the gullible public lap it up.

[Scotty]

Watch the the following video from about 3:30 and you will never think of the BBC as impartial ever again.

"Don't believe what the BBC are telling you, watch this Tiktoc video to find out why... ". Priceless!!

When are the tickets for your live show going on sale?

[316670]

"Don't believe what the BBC are telling you, watch this Tiktoc video to find out why... ". Priceless!!

When are the tickets for your live show going on sale?

Read it and see, official BBC website. the BBC is not bound by any laws to tell the truth on the BBC world wide service, its funded and under the oversight of the Foreign Secretary, in other words a propaganda arm of the UK government.
I understand it can be difficult to accept you have been played like a fiddle for years, but trying to ignore reality will only make it worse for you when the penny finally drops and it can no longer be ignored.
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation

[316670]

You're being a dick again.

Please stop being a dick. In. Every. Post.

Are you Ok sweetie?
Get informed
Once informed you will see im not being a dick
I back up all i post with proof , more than many around here
you will see i was being helpful.

You would be much better of not trying to chase "up votes" wanting to be on "the right side of history".
You post about taking in a refugee
We all know that wont happen, but you get a few "up votes" and a warm a fuzzy feeling
If you do actually take in a refugee(1 in a million chance) post proof and i will delete account and you will never have to worry about me again.

[490808]

Read it and see, official BBC website. the BBC is not bound by any laws to tell the truth on the BBC world wide service, its funded and under the oversight of the Foreign Secretary, in other words a propaganda arm of the UK government.
I understand it can be difficult to accept you have been played like a fiddle for years, but trying to ignore reality will only make it worse for you when the penny finally drops and it can no longer be ignored.
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation

You posted the wrong link But the link to the Licence for the World Service wouldn't have fitted your remit.

• deliver services that provide audiences with a global perspective on the world, not one
based upon any national or commercial interest;

[316670]

You posted the wrong link But the link to the Licence for the World Service wouldn't have fitted your remit.

Thank you.
If you scrolled down the page and read the relevant part, at least one poster other than myself will have seen in black and white that the BBC world service is not bound by UK law and will face zero consequences for spreading fake news/propaganda and the BBC world service is beholden to the UK Foreign Secretary and his/her objectives, targets and priorities".

Contrary to the feeling of the sensitive few around here, posting a true fact backed up with official sources is not being a dick, it called helping the uninformed become informed, and this is a good thing.
With any luck after becoming aware of this BBC fact, posters here will now take a moment to think about any Ukrainian BBC reports before believing the are 100% true.