I think this is a push back against resistance. Blow 1 tank up, fine but the other 6 tanks take ypu out.
Then the tankers mates take revenge on the next village as they saw their friends burn.
Unless you force that battle group into retreat then this scenario might happen.
Catch 22. I just hope that the invaders keep on getting hit hard enough to demoralise them, wear out their equipment and run out of fuel and ammo.
Not happening yet though as the advance is slow and steady and, i have a feeling, planned. I suspect areas controlled are being made safe so the Russian army does not get hit from the rear.
I think this is a push back against resistance.
It was standard USSR doctrine, and now it's standard Russian Fed doctrine. Deliberate targeting of civilians in battle areas creates casualties, denies use of houses and creates panic and physiological terror, ultimately refugees, and gives your enemy other things to have to deal with other than fighting and is intended to cause quicker surrender. The propaganda that denies it's use alongside the absolute routine use of it is also part of the same tactic.
Remember Putin arresting his top FSB chiefs a week or so?
It turns out that the FSB were given billions to ferment regime change in Ukraine before the war, they were meant to recruit likely Ukrainian pro-Russian organisations and anti Zelensky groups ready to make sure Ukrainian would "welcome" the Russian troops, turns out the FSB bosses did none of that work, and just trousered the money instead.
Deliberate targeting of civilians in battle areas creates casualties, denies use of houses and creates panic and physiological terror, ultimately refugees, and gives your enemy other things to have to deal with other than fighting and is intended to cause quicker surrender.
Sounds very much like US tactics in North Vietnam and Cambodia. What other reason could there be for using B52s to deliberately carpet bomb concentrated civilian areas with no military significance?
It's every armies tactic, injure and maim. A dead soldier is dead an injured on takes others to carry him, treat him, move him, feed him etc all of that is personnel, time and kit being diverted.
Do it to civilians and you also scare them into wanting nothing to do with the defending force because they don't want to bring more down on themselves.
(It is abhorrent but a harsh reality.
The Russian brutality is quite likely intended to lure NATO into intervening. The Russian public don't see Ukraine as an enemy, hence Russian media are apparently barely even reporting that there's a war on. NATO is seen as an existential threat. If Putin can lure NATO into combat, then it's a popular war and opposition will melt away.
https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1503254448944070656
Putin needs that because his war has been an utter disaster and his military can't sustain an extended war.
https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1503105766168969225
If a pro-Kremlin pollster is saying that only 70% of Russian support the war after a couple of weeks of fighting and Russian media only showing good news about it, it's hard to see how there will be support for a war that lasts months or years and results in tens of thousands of Russian deaths. Putin needs NATO to get involved to shore up public support.
https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1503246906369130497
Monumental FP decision for China; do they throw Russia under the bus to maintain good relations with the West or do they throw in their lot with Russia and try to set up their own anti-Western bloc?
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1503277618598236163
The same tactics were used in Chechenya
The fact that there are Chechen troops fighting for Putin who have a horrendous record with civilian deaths there bodes ill.
But Russian casualties will have an effect at home, 6000 deaths, maybe 3 times that injured and 1000s captured, at some point public will learn of it and that will say opinion.
Monumental FP decision for China;
Right now they are probably in a position to quietly negotiate a 'blind eye' to their South China Seas activities as well as enjoy the favour of the West as a 'peacemaker', or at least a 'war-ender' in practical terms. And a greatly-diminished Russia could be taken advantage of as well.
Or do they back Putin, who could be gone in months?
Sounds very much like US tactics in North Vietnam and Cambodia.
Yes, exactly so. I imagine it'll be as successful in the long term as well.
Re the targeting civilians, it's the quickest and most (brutally & cruelly) efficient way to achieve your intended outcome. Deliberately targeting the population will break the will to fight on all levels a lot quicker than fighting against a motivated & trained force of regular or irregular soldiers.
In the beginning numbers killed & injured strengthen resolve, then it reaches a tipping point and people just want it to stop. There's always the possibility of third parties intervening, but in this case we've done to death why that won't happen.
It also doesn't take a madman to do it, the justification is horrifically easy when you honestly believe you're in the right or that your foe is 'evil', or that it's for the greater good of your nation.
It also helps when you have little regard for the individual and only care about the whole or state; it reduces war to a very simplistic win/lose scenario. The belief at that high level is there may be those perceived as winners/losers, but on the human, individual level there are only losers. There are only ever losers when it comes to armed conflict in the modern world.
Saw this and thought of STW!
After an amazing two years as an infectious disease expert I am moving on! I am now an expert in no-fly zones and Eastern European affairs. Excited to make the most of this new opportunity
A bit unfair really as this thread mostly has some interesting views and some useful information from a variety of contributors.
Thankfully, the talks seem to be progressing, from the BBC:
“Russia is already beginning to talk constructively,” Podolyak said in a video online. “I think that we will achieve some results literally in a matter of days.
There's always trouble brewing when you try to 'ferment regime change'.
After an amazing two years as an infectious disease expert I am moving on! I am now an expert in no-fly zones and Eastern European affairs. Excited to make the most of this new opportunity
Oh god, it's funny 'cause it's true! two down on the four horseman, what's left Conquest and Famine?
I hope China doesn't supply Russia with weapons. I'm amazed Russia doesn't have enough!
also waiting for the rank hypocrisy of people saying China is in the wrong for selling weapons to Russia when we sell them to Saudi etc.
Monumental FP decision for China; do they throw Russia under the bus to maintain good relations with the West or do they throw in their lot with Russia and try to set up their own anti-Western bloc?
I thought this was a really interesting analysis of the strategic options for China:
Possible Outcomes of the Russo-Ukrainian War and China’s Choice
I'm trying to assess it's objectivity - it's published in 'The U.S.-China Perception Monitor' which obviously has a focus on improved China/US relationships. But the article was not not commissioned by them and the author's credentials sound legit:
'Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor'.
what’s left Conquest and Famine?
Sadly there is a fairly good chance of famine making an appearance due to the invasion of Ukraine. Its a major source of wheat and currently the farmers are all busy nicking tanks to be planting seeds.
Deliberately targeting the population will break the will to fight on all levels a lot quicker than fighting against a motivated & trained force of regular or irregular soldiers.
Can you provide some examples of when that has happened? Germany and Japan were bombed to rubble in WW2 yet kept fighting. Japan only surrendered after the Emperor declared that it was time to give up. Even after that, fanatics broke into the Imperial Palace and tried to destroy the recordings of the Emperor's message to the nation before they could be broadcast. Stalingrad was reduced to rubble but didn't surrender. Malta too.
All major nations sell/supply weapons - its big business.
As an ex military man, I am positively Anti War. For me an ethical strong military is there to dissuade attack, not as a big stick.
Probably should have added more context; when you have a liberal-ish democratically elected government with a functioning opposition.
When one bloke is running the show, unless they decide enough is enough, it's very hard for other options to be explored or even heard. Add in the levels of fanaticism seen in recent years then you're in for an even tougher time.
WW2 is oft cited in examples and counterpoint to modern wars that are equally (if not more so) fought in the media, so I avoid those comparisons; the physical act of killing may have changed a little but the dimension and depth of propaganda and the power of it has evolved exponentially. Those who have spent 100's of hours fighting in the CV/Scot Indy Ref/Brexit threads should know this. Three things that have absolutely been steered by 'facts'.
Can you provide some examples of when that has happened? Germany and Japan were bombed to rubble in WW2 yet kept fighting. Japan only surrendered after the Emperor declared that it was time to give up. Even after that, fanatics broke into the Imperial Palace and tried to destroy the recordings of the Emperor’s message to the nation before they could be broadcast. Stalingrad was reduced to rubble but didn’t surrender. Malta too.
Absolutely. Hence my 'there are only losers' comment. The human cost from this war will keep being paid for many years after this is all settled. Very doubtful that those who ordered it and enabled it will pay in the same way those at the sharp end will. As is the norm.
As an ex military man, I am positively Anti War. For me an ethical strong military is there to dissuade attack, not as a big stick.
As an ex military man, I am positively Anti War. For me an ethical strong military is there to dissuade attack, not as a big stick.
100% agree.
I think the governments latest attempt to deter refugees from coming here is monstrous
https://twitter.com/UK_News_b/status/1503016011070550017?s=20&t=U1QUrYM-b3WDx9pAOIbJew
'A' refugee? Just one?
I'm sure he could do better than that.
The cynic in me thinks the reason UK is happy to give loads of munitions is because they're close to the end of life and need disposing of.
That's a quick and easy win to brag about, but the slightly more complex problem is people. Bunch of arses.
I think the government's latest attempt to deter refugees from coming here is monstrous
ctk
also waiting for the rank hypocrisy of people saying China is in the wrong for selling weapons to Russia when we sell them to Saudi etc.
It's not mutually exclusive to be against both of those scenarios and I suspect most in this thread are.
The cynic in me thinks the reason UK is happy to give loads of munitions is because they’re close to the end of life and need disposing of.
The OSINT people on twitter have indeed noted that some donated weapons are near the end of their shelf life. But it's surely more sensible to donate those, which will get used, than to spend money decommissioning them and then send brand new ones?
also waiting for the rank hypocrisy of people saying China is in the wrong for selling weapons to Russia when we sell them to Saudi etc.
Apropos of nothing, I am suddenly reminded of this Viz classic:
Of course, (although I'll keep my ire at the inability to get equipment to train in check), but still when that's all we have to offer and not really deal with the humanitarian crisis that once again we've helped facilitate, it grips my shit.
We can add this to the long list of human tragedies we've aided in creating through action and inaction.
The OSINT people on twitter have indeed noted that some donated weapons are near the end of their shelf life. But it’s surely more sensible to donate those, which will get used, than to spend money decommissioning them and then send brand new ones?
Very doubtful that those who ordered it and enabled it will pay in the same way those at the sharp end will.
Only one person ordered it. Vladamir Putin. Making him pay would require arresting him and convicting him of war crimes. That's very unlikely to happen. Even if he's deposed, Russia will not hand him over for trial. For Putin to pay the price, NATO would have to intervene, conquer Russia, and capture him alive. That would cost many thousands of lives even if Russia didn't use nuclear weapons. But, if NATO tried to send troops into Russia, of course Russia would use nuclear weapons.
So, of course Putin won't pay the price because nobody wants to start a nuclear war.
My comment was directed at armed conflict in general. Not just this one.
Certainly in modern times.
So, of course Putin won’t pay the price because nobody wants to start a nuclear war.
also waiting for the rank hypocrisy of people saying China is in the wrong for selling weapons to Russia when we sell them to Saudi etc.
I have no problem with condemning our (the UK) deplorable trade in weaponry and calling it both wrong for the Chinese to sell weapons as it is for the UK or US to do so as well.
BBC reports that China now involved in supplying weapons to Russia
Unless the user manuals are a lot better than those I generally get on stuff made in China, they won't be much help to the Russians.
My comment was directed at armed conflict in general.
...war, uh, what indeed is it good for?
If you were in Estonia or Poland would you be surrendering now preemptively to reduce suffering/get one over on those who'd benefit from oncoming conflict?
(Brought back a memory of O level russian: я сдаюсь being a bit of early vocab.)
The cynic in me thinks the reason UK is happy to give loads of munitions is because they’re close to the end of life and need disposing of.
Actually, supplying weapons with a limited shelf life will mean that they won't be hitting the black market if the current war finishes quickly. Ukraine is awash in weapons now. One the war is over, there will be desperate people looking to sell anything they can to survive. Also, it makes much more sense to use the oldest ones in stock first.
also waiting for the rank hypocrisy of people saying China is in the wrong for selling weapons to Russia when we sell them to Saudi etc.
Yes, it's only hypocrisy if you endorse UK sales whilst condemning China. It's perfectly possible to condemn UK arms sales even though you live here. I live here, don't have much choice these days, but I don't endorse all our government's decisions.
Good on them.
I'm not sure that some randoms taking over someone else's property as an act of "liberation" is solving anything. Whilst I'm not losing any sleep over Oligarchs property being frozen or seized by he state, presumably with appropriate Judicial oversight, and ultimately potentially even sold (especially if the proceeds benefit Ukrainians) I don't know that I'm that comfortable with people breaking in, probably trashing the place (so devaluing its proceeds) and tieing up police resources etc, is actually a great public service.
also waiting for the rank hypocrisy of people saying China is in the wrong for selling weapons to Russia when we sell them to Saudi etc.
I predict a loooong wait
we sell them to Saudi
I bloody don't sell arms to Saudi.
That's the issue - all nations have a right to buy arms for their own defence,and presumably a right for other nations to sell them.
Continuing to supply weapons that are being used for "illegal" offensive purposes is the moral issue that needs addressing, imo.
I'm increasingly thinking China is key - they either back Putin and keep the war going or work to deescalate it and talk him down, and that will depend on their own long-term ambitions. Please God don't let the west turn a blind eye to Chinese territorial advances as the price of ending the Ukraine conflict though, that's kicking the can into the heavily mined long grass.
DrJ
Unless the user manuals are a lot better than those I generally get on stuff made in China, they won’t be much help to the Russians.
As unfunny as this whole bloody thing is, this comment really brightened my day. Just imagine.
- Un-remove the thunderstick of outRagEOus redEMPti0ning from the packeting.
- Insert thunderstick of outRagEOus redEMPti0ning into the up-side whole backwards under the oncoming stream of firing buttons. DO NOT PrESS the Clicking Doom switch.
- Immediately PrESS the Doom Clicking Swithc. Not that one.
- Placing of assembly onto firm immovable surface.
- Clicking press on buttons 0 thru K, but not pressing & long hold in buttons B, D or 5.
- Look throo eyepeace (not directly into Sun) and when reddy press and hole the Clicking Doom switch. Do not hold for more than 2s, but make sure that the holding is between 4-6s continuallyous.
- thunderstick of outRagEOus redEMPti0ning will fire from backwards side air-vent-fin in clockwise direction, unless in South hemisphere. In this case follow steps 4-18 again repeat, but failing to press-slide-rotate actuator B.
We hopinh you satidfied with product. Please contact us in first instance to resolve your issue before contacting the Amazon to leaving bad feedback.
@stumpy01 😂 Thank you! I think a brief chuckle on this relentlessly grim thread is allowed.
Also - there have been some tense and fractious exchanges on here over the last few days including a bit of a pile on to dazh. I may have played a part in that. Apologies. Everyone's opinion is equally valid.
