timba
Free Member
Tbh I’ve wondered if the best course of action here is just to withdraw all Ukrainians from the rest of Donetsk Oblast, declare the rest of Ukraine from along the front lines NATO territory and tell Putin not an inch further.If E&W invaded the south of Scotland, would you consider it acceptable to say, “You can have that bit but don’t advance beyond a line between Glasgow and Edinburgh?”
The assumption has to be that Russia won’t respect the new border. Recent history shows that they didn’t respect the border with Crimea, a few years later and they didn’t respect the border into “mainland” UKR and so on.
Have a read into the 1938 Munich Agreement. This started with the Nazi annexation of Sudetenland and within 5 or 6 years had spread to the whole of Czechoslovakia (EDIT and most of the rest of Europe). There isn’t a precedent for Russia to stop and NATO doesn’t want a war with Russia
I would have to consider the ability of Scotland to counter attack or if I'm just sending troops into the meat grinder with little hope for success, war based on principle isn't a great idea, there has to be an achievable objective. I'm not discounting that Ukraine may in the future, near or far, be able to recover territory by force. But there needs to be a realistic assessment of that. I'm just considering an option. Like I say, not an idea i'm wedded to, just curious as to opinions. I don't think we are at this stage at the moment anyhow.
As for munich agreement. Russia isn't as strong as the Germans so I don't think that's a like for like comparison, NATO v Russia isn't a contest. And imo, nukes aren't part of the equation unless Russian territory is at risk.
Go read some of George Orwell’s stuff on the misery of the 1930s. The bottom 1% back then had a pretty miserable time of it.
I don't disagree that things aren't that bad on the whole. But my point was that if you're at the bottom you're at the bottom. Doesn't matter if you're in a tent in a Hooverville in the 1930's or in a tent in one of the shanty towns that seem to be cropping up in every UK city these days.
That sort of abject poverty still exists. And back then a middle class insulated from those issues also existed. Then history books are written to suit whatever narrative you want. Which means if Putin believes that high energy prices and inflation will lead the "good" west into populist rebellions then all the ingredients are in place to put that narrative into the history books
Saying that it can't happen because things are different now, ignores that it already has (Brexit, Trump, etc). Perhaps it's all relative, thing's don't need to be objectively bad for Putin's aims to come to fruition, just relatively worse than they were a decade or two ago to get people angry.
schoolbooks will be written about how ordinary people were going to food banks
Will they blame the war in Ukraine or the Tory government?
timba
Free MemberThe assumption has to be that Russia won’t respect the new border.
This is the single most important thing of all. We don't need to guess about this, we already know what happens. Russia takes a bite, they say "that's all we're going to eat", we say "well BAD RUSSIA but as long as you don't take another bite I suppose we can accept it" and then there's a couple of years while it looks like maybe it's OK but actually they were just chewing.
Northwind
Full Member
timba
Free MemberThe assumption has to be that Russia won’t respect the new border.
This is the single most important thing of all. We don’t need to guess about this, we already know what happens. Russia takes a bite, they say “that’s all we’re going to eat”, we say “well BAD RUSSIA but as long as you don’t take another bite I suppose we can accept it” and then there’s a couple of years while it looks like maybe it’s OK but actually they were just chewing.
What borders are there to respect though? Almost everywhere west and to the north of Ukraine is NATO territory or soon will be apart from Belarus, Moldova and a few other countries not in NATO that are essentially out of Russia's reach. And Russia won't attack NATO territory. To the East this war doesn't have any great bearing on whether Russia will invade or not.
As for munich agreement. Russia isn’t as strong as the Germans so I don’t think that’s a like for like comparison...
You're right and the rest of Europe shouldn't have been able to defeat Nazi Germany and the Axis Forces had it not been for the US weighing in. Who knows what would happen if China decided to take an opportunity elsewhere and US forces were split?
NATO v Russia isn’t a contest
"In 1949, the primary aim of the Treaty was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67656.htm
Not a contest but Russia (the major power in the Soviet Union) was its focus. That's changed in recent years but you can bet that it's once more the focus
And imo, nukes aren’t part of the equation unless Russian territory is at risk.
Let's hope that you're right. I also hope that Russia packs its bags and clears off far to the east and stays there for several decades. I won't be holding my breath on the latter
timba
Free Member
Who knows what would happen if China decided to take an opportunity elsewhere and US forces were split?
A mobilised Europe still beats a mobilised Russia I reckon. But if either sides territorial integrity is breached, we're launching nukes at each other anyhow, so a bit of a academic exercise size asking who wins out of the conventional forces.
I read that the Ukrainian forces have managed to take out another ammo cache, struck a key bridge and taken out a very expensive/hard to replace radar system. The Russians have also moved thier train offloading operations further from front line, doubling the time or resources needed to get new supplies to the front lines. The Russians are having to move the naval vessels out of Sevastopol as the radar coverage for early warning isn't in place etc etc.
While Russia grinds forward, it seems Ukraine is slowly but carefully cutting every root that holds them up at present...
The bridge was the Kherson bridge, looks like 2 holes in it from HIMARS - not enough to destroy it unfortunately- destroying it would really put a spanner in the works for the RA.
Update - bridge has been hit multiple times now, still standing! Just a matter of time.
What little i understand about these things suggests theyre not trying to take the bridge down but make it unusable. The sort of ordnance needed to take it down being really very large.
I guess also point out the accuracy of what theyre hitting it with to discourage repairs.
Could be talking complete shite of course.
Speaking of shite
Surging lavatory says "expanded war goals"
‘They hunt us like stray cats’: pro-Russia separatists step up forced conscription as losses mount
The whole issue is such a difficult balancing act with territory, fuel supplies, world food issues... but I really hope that Russia gets put firmly back in its box.
Ideally there would be a Von Staufenburgski moment and we could press cont/alt/delete and start afresh..but I can dream.
What little i understand about these things suggests theyre not trying to take the bridge down but make it unusable. The sort of ordnance needed to take it down being really very large.
The pictures I've seen on Twitter show holes blown through the structure with the steel reinforcing cut. That means that the structure is weakened. Apparently it has been closed to heavy vehicles and will need repairs before it is usable again. Speculation is that Ukraine is watching and waiting for engineering crews to arrive before attacking again - killing the engineers and destroying their equipment would be a big blow to the Russian military. Quite likely that the engineering units know this and don't want to go near it.
Destabilised/destroyed = much the same thing 🤷♂️
What impressed me was the cluster of hits from the HIMARS shows how accurate they are.
Now they have to deny access across the dam, further north- and the Kherson region of the front will be cut off from re supply.
The US will supply 4 more HIMARS - I suspect the limiting factor will now be ammo, as each rocket costs $100,000 and take time to make. No idea what stockpiles are available?
No idea what stockpiles are available?
I imagine they will be ramping up production as fast as possible, but Ukraine would burn through the entire stock pretty quickly if they were given the whole lot.
From Wikipedia:
GMLRS
GMLRS rockets have an extended range and add GPS-aided guidance to their Inertial Navigation System. GMLRS rockets were introduced in 2005 and the M30 and M31 rockets are, except for their warheads, identical.[53] As of 1 December 2021 50,000 GMLRS rockets have been produced,[54] with yearly production now exceeding 9,000 rockets. Each rocket pod contains 6 identical rockets.
Even though expensive those bombs do seem very cost effective.
The sort of ordnance needed to take it down being really very large.
The fact that as a tourist you can visit the Submarine Pens at Lorient today is testament to the size of ordnance that you need to destroy massive bits of infrastructure
The US will supply 4 more HIMARS
Plus they have six M270s from UK and Norway and a few more coming from Germany.
Same missiles but a tracked launch vehicle so slower but can carry twice as many missiles/rockets.
To be fair, we do have worse potholes in Epsom.
The sort of ordnance needed to take it down being really very large.
That'll depend on the bridge design. There will be key load carrying locations. If those can be targeted accurately, the bridge will become unsafe to use or it might collapse completely. For example, the holes in the bridge have punched right through the reinforcing steel. That steel is necessary to take tensile loads and it may be very difficult to repair effectively. The bomb holes are scattered across the width of the bridge so each bomb will have cut different steel bars, meaning that a significant portion of them have been cut or damaged. Something like a concrete bunker isn't under the same sorts of stress as a bridge so it has to be bombed to rubble.
This picture shows the spread of the holes. It's quite likely that 50% or more of the longitudinal reinforcing has been cut at one or more points. It's difficult to believe that it hasn't severely weakened the structure.
https://twitter.com/thedimsol/status/1549794555444207619
It's also a good demonstration on how large the ordinance would need to be to fully demolish a bridge. Something delivered by a plane I'd expect.
That’s an impressive cluster, from a range of 70km or so! Probably spent a million+ on ordnance so far.
RA will in the region west of the Dnipro river,in the Kherson area, will be cut off pretty soon.
futonrivercrossing
Free MemberNow they have to deny access across the dam, further north- and the Kherson region of the front will be cut off from re supply.
A bit of the Kherson region, the bit across the water is only about a 3rd or 4th of the Kherson Oblast. If they destroy both options across, it'll leave the side across the water to the Russians? How do the Ukrainians counter without those bridges? Only option then would be to attack the western end of the occupied south from the north from the zaporizhya direction, which I'm guessing wouldn't be ideal.
It doesn't make sense for Ukraine to destroy those bridges permanently? Would seem more about slowing down resupply than actually wanting to destroy the bridge. I'd think if the bridges were a target to get brought down. It would be more the Russians that would do it themselves if they are getting pushed out. I'd tend to agree with Piemonster here.
Well, unless the stated Ukrainian war aims have changed to only liberating Kerson city in the south.
The RA will destroy the bridge as part of their retreat anyway, so why not preempt that and deny them resupply in the coming battle?
As I said, depends on ambitions going forward.
Counter attack, keep up pressure to force a large haphazard retreat to brdge area.
Blow bridge by hitting same area again, so a bailey bridge could be used of necessary by Ukrainian armed forces in the future, ok maybe no go for 50t mbt but for infantry cpuld be ok
Then demand mass surrender of any Russians on the wrong side of the bridge.
Prisoners have value, and hardware definitely does. If you could liberate a few tanks, trucks and apc plus some ammo makes a few rockets worthwhile
I believe the French recently donated some bridges, not sure if that would factor into anything with this.
singletrackmind
Full Member
Counter attack, keep up pressure to force a large haphazard retreat to brdge area.
Blow bridge by hitting same area again, so a bailey bridge could be used of necessary by Ukrainian armed forces in the future, ok maybe no go for 50t mbt but for infantry cpuld be ok
Then demand mass surrender of any Russians on the wrong side of the bridge.
Prisoners have value, and hardware definitely does. If you could liberate a few tanks, trucks and apc plus some ammo makes a few rockets worthwhile
If it's that easy why wouldn't the russian just fire up a temporary bridge?
If it’s that easy why wouldn’t the russian just fire up a temporary bridge?
Because the Ukrainians are almost certainly watching and waiting for a team of engineers to turn up with bridging gear before they launch another attack to kill the engineers and destroy the gear. The Russian will know this (this is what happened at the failed river crossing a while back) so their engineers probably don't want to go near that bridge.
If it’s that easy why wouldn’t the russian just fire up a temporary bridge?
because It's nearly 1.4km long?
thols2
Free Member
Wasn't meaning that, meaning the concept of this bailey bridge in the context of a counter attack.
The water alone is 500m at that point in the river, and the actual bridge is more than a km long.
Longest bailey bridge has been about 300m, with average being about 100m. Not to mention load capacity.
I just don't see how it makes sense to destroy it if ambitions going forward are to take back territory.
nickc
Full Member
If it’s that easy why wouldn’t the russian just fire up a temporary bridge?because It’s nearly 1.4km long?
Yeah that's the point I'm getting at.
Presumably you could just span the knackered bit of the 1.4km brigade with a Baily bridge. It wouldn't have to be built over the whole river.
So why can't the russians do that?
You are forget that the russians will be amassed on the other side if they were pushed back.
Anyhow, hope youse are right, just makes no logical sense to me, to destroy those 2 bridges for either side.
You presume the Russian Shit show army have the following
Bailey bridges
Vehicles that work to deploy said bridge
Personnel willing or trained to deploy the bailey bridge with zero cover from another rocket attack
I'm assuming bailey bridges are unlikely to work over that river size for either side. And that the existing bridge is still standing because it's useful going in both directions.
It makes sense to damage it given the current situation, but not to destroy it, imo.
Take what ground you can, at least with the bridge unusable- the city will be safe from counter attack, and continue offensive further east?
It's remarkable, given the concentration of forces applied by the Russians, just how little they've achieved in the last 90 days. They've been able to mass their ground forces in this one small area (in relation to the rest of Ukraine), and the Ukrainians have managed to fight the Russian forces to near enough a standstill. So, the Russians have managed to advance about 6-10 miles, it's very intense, very violent, 10's of 1000's of artillery everyday, sound and fury...lots of casualties on both sides, but very little gained.
That pretty much sums it up. The initial plan B was an encirclement of the entire JAO. When that failed the scope of the encirclement shrank, followed by further reduction of ambition. Finally RA ambition was to take Sloviansk/Lysichansk, they never achieved an encirclement. ISW are saying this is the RA culmination.
Well, unless the stated Ukrainian war aims have changed to only liberating Kerson city in the south.
Don't look at it as a bridge and a city, consider how Kherson controls the Dnieper river. The river does what rivers do and joins major cities, the UKR is cutting another, bigger, logistical route that gives access from the sea through Kherson and Dnipro to Kyiv
In addition, if Russia controls the river then they have a defensible border for the eastern 1/3+ of Ukraine
Honestly, if they don't have the resources to get the damaged bridge into a usable state, I don't see how they think they're going to build a new crossing with Ukraine lobbing rockets at their engineering teams.
https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/1550406402379743234
