To give Ukraine a better hand to play when trump forces them to concede territory… which will lead to a simmering resentment in Ukraine for generations to come, totally understandable too. We’ll end up with another Korean DMZ always on the point of boiling over.
Well done Trump.
Nobody knows what he's likely to do. He's just as likely to sell Ukraine weapons and tell them to get on with it, because that increases trade and industrial output
We don’t know what condition Russia’s missiles and warheads are in, there may be a fairly high failure rate,
Like ours
Well, that's the first ICBM used in anger. Looks like the IC part was forgotten about and the warhead removed, but Vlad decided to use the big toys against Dnipro this morning.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c20726y20kvt
I can imagine that a lot of people were quite worried when they saw that lighting up.
So there we have it, "the appropriate response"... an ICBM launched... With no payload or a conventional one. AKA a big missile with long range.
He's changed the constitution so he could have fired a nuke... But didn't.
Same old, same old.
On a more serious note, we have chewkw incoming in T minus 10....9... 😉
I find it funny that all the European newspapers are pointing out that the storm shadow missile was made in the UK.
"It was them Miss, they did it !"
I can see a tactical nuke being used in the Donbas as a scare factor
If Putin was going to use nukes, he would have done so long ago, and he would have used them well away from Russia. Tactical nukes are inherently extremely dirty and the fallout from using one in the Donbas would mean that the territory that Russia says is part of Russia would be contaminated by fallout (and so would the western part of Russia if the wind was blowing that way). Using them as battlefield weapons would really only make sense if Russia was retreating and wanted to render the territory that Ukraine captured uninhabitable.
Firing one at Ukrainian cities nearer the Polish border would result in fallout in NATO countries. Russia seems to have decided against that right from the beginning. If they were going to nuke Kyiv, they would have done so when they realized their invasion had failed.
From the BBC:
The regional head of Dnipro says that two victims were injured following a missile launch by Russia on the Dnipro area this morning.
A 57-year-old man was treated for his injuries on the scene and a 42-year-old woman has been taken to hospital, Serhy Lysak writes on Telegram.
A rehab centre for people with disabilities was damaged in the attack, but there are no reported injuries there. In addition, nine garages are also reported damaged, and an "industrial enterprise", Lysak adds.
Two other people were injured and are currently in hospital after strikes on Kryvyi Rih, west of Dnipro. An administrative building was destroyed and two residential buildings were damaged, according to Lysak.
Let's hope that they stop there. They've rattled their sabres, they can claim a great victory to the Russians who believe in this.
I do find the certainty everyone has around trump interesting, I'm really not sure what he will do. My guess is similar to above - he will continue to supply ukraine but at a huge expensive. So you could end up with half of ukraine conquered militarily by Russia and half economically by the US....
Re ICBMs is there anything that can stop those? Can they be intercepted by the kit ukraine has?
is Russia toothless?
It depends. They still have vast vast amounts of military equipment and soldiers, more than most other nations. The paradox is that their strategic and tactical plans have spectacularly failed to overcome a broadly inferior (but much more motivated) opposing conventional armed forces. Not only are their doctrine suspect, but their weaponry have been shown to be clearly inferior and vulnerable to most anything that the west/NATO can deploy. But - Any long term war/campaign is largely one of logistics and finance. In the end those are the determining factors rather than individual battlefield weaponry or tactics.
The trouble with that assessment is that it is now, more than ever, its vitally important that the countries that largely rely on ex-soviet/Russian military hardware (China/North Korea for example) to try show that's not the case, and it's just been bad management of the campaign so far that's the cause of all the woes. I can see why it's in their interests to prop-up the Russian campaigning efforts.
At the same time however, China, especially, cannot afford to be in a position where it's own military is also regarded as not as effective by comparison to anything that the US can deploy. - Hence the Chinese authorities allowance and probably encouragement on the recent scathing attacks of the SU-57 on social media in comparison to its own projects in that area.
Re ICBMs is there anything that can stop those? Can they be intercepted by the kit ukraine has?
No, Patriot isn't designed to intercept ICBMs. There are some weapons in the US that can - In theory, such as the THAAD system, and in practice - The US Navy's Aegis SM3 which has been able to intercept ICBMs.
Just linking this 8 year old video, seems like a good reminder of the possible scale of wars :
I can see a tactical nuke being used in the Donbas as a scare factor
I feel fairly sure that Vlad has been told that the first time he uses a nuke one is coming thru his window in 5 mins.
So there we have it, “the appropriate response”… an ICBM launched… With no payload or a conventional one. AKA a big missile with long range.
That's the long and short (so to speak). Russia has been using short-range ballistic missiles (BM) for a while now, including variants of the Russian Iskander, and N.Korean Hwasong-11 (KN23 and KN25). The missiles all have the capability of a nuclear warhead, but are used with a conventional warhead
Iskander BM (there's a cruise missile variant too) have been shot down by Ukraine and the Hwasong-11 reportedly wasn't particularly reliable, failing in flight. The opportunity for N.Korea to test the missiles and Russian expertise will undoubtedly improve them https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-examines-nkorean-missile-debris-amid-fears-moscow-pyongyang-axis-2024-05-07/
EDIT: Ukraine is reporting it was an RS-26 Rubezh ICBM that doesn't have a conventional warhead option https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/11/21/7485582/
I’d also like to know what the chuff Sweden and Finland are doing
Probably being thankful that they decided to join NATO, secure in the knowledge now that they are a bit more secure from being attacked by their neighbour.
the possible scale of wars
It's worth noting that Soviet/Russian battle field tactics and doctrine hasn't moved on since WW2 ie "Throw as much tanks and soldiers as you can into the space in the hope of overwhelming your enemy". The waste of human life is criminal
I’d also like to know what the chuff Sweden and Finland are doing
The Swedes are part of the training mission, not sure if the Finns are.
It’s the same resentment often displayed by the English towards Ireland, India, etc etc
absolute bobbins
as for Putlers response, I’m quaking in my boots 😉
Sweden have provided some very effective AFVs
Europe as a whole has provided more aid than the US - despite what Trump says.
well, one thing Putin has proved is that his ICBMs actually work and can hit a target versus the thinking they are not being maintained and won't work
they must have telegraphed it had a conventional warhead to NATO to avoid a response that must surely be planned for and ready to go should a nuke be used
I’d also like to know what the chuff Sweden and Finland are doing
Donating more by %GDP than most other countries in bilateral aid and equalling most others in EU contributions (5th and 6th out of 41). About €7bn between them https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker
The Swedes are part of the training mission, not sure if the Finns are.
Finland is also part of both the UK-led Interflex and the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM)
Sweden (and Saab) have supplied (given/sold) a lot of military equipment to Ukraine, including AFVs and tanks. Sweden is also on the doorstep of Russia's Baltic assets (that reamin) and essential stand between the fleet in St. Petersberg/Kaliningrad/Belarussia and the Atlantic, with Denmark and Norway essentially acting as a first line of defence should the Russians decide they want to put everything into the Atlantic. Putin has wanted Gotland for a long time and not just for the sheep.
Sweden has seen, very recently in fact, significant cyberattacks against civilian infrastructure on the back of its support for Ukraine. The people doing the attacks are apparently hacktivists, but the targeting is oddly so very, very closely linked to the Russian government's statements of the day.
TL;DR: If you are in the Baltic and want to go out, you _HAVE_ to go past us. It's the reason that we have had a lot of overflights, intrusions and beached submarines in the past ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363)
Zapp Brannigan approved tactic
Moving back to the economy...
Steve Rosenberg has reviewed "Today’s Russian papers on today’s economic problems in Russia: “Butter 30% more expensive than last year…price of potatoes up 65%.” Plus, the rouble falls past 100 against the dollar & “Chinese banks tighten checks on payments…”"
You will know nuke is deployed when you don't have live broadcasting and your internet connection is not working properly.
Both sides are now testing their missiles on each others. You know, to see how effective their weapons are and to probe each others.
Remember, Russia is No middle east to be battered at will.
Steve Rosenberg has reviewed “Today’s Russian papers on today’s economic problems in Russia: “Butter 30% more expensive than last year…price of potatoes up 65%.” Plus, the rouble falls past 100 against the dollar & “Chinese banks tighten checks on payments…””
Sounds familiar? Look at the inflation in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rl4rgdj12o
inflation wise not even in the same ballpark chewkw
Any info on the multiple storm shadow hits from yesterday?
Apparently 8 to 10 were used on a single target, which must have been horrific for anyone underneath that amount of firepower
Both sides are now testing their missiles on each others. You know, to see how effective their weapons are and to probe each others.
No, Storm Shadow and ATACMS are not the same things as ICBMs.
This Twitter post shows multiple ICBM strikes:
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1859585952693313758
They are multiple warhead strikes (so each missile delivers multiple warheads), but the warheads themselves are dummies, there aren't any explosions when they hit the ground. It's quite possible that Russia hasn't been able to fit conventional warheads into the missiles, they are designed to deliver nuclear warheads but won't have the precision needed to deliver small conventional warheads. So, militarily not much use really, an expensive way to make a lot of noise and kill a few random civilians.
Any info on the multiple storm shadow hits from yesterday?
Apparently 8 to 10 were used on a single target, which must have been horrific for anyone underneath that amount of firepower
A lot of missiles for 1 target, how many have we/france given Ukraine?
The target must have been quite important to justify the use of that many
Storm Shadow is a development of a French long range anti runway denial weapon that originally carried cluster munitions. It has a single explosive rather than the small bomblets, but the payload is still only about 450Kgs. You'd probs still need to use multiple weapons to destroy a larger target.
I don't think it will be used in the F-35 fleet, so may as well give them to Ukraine
Hmm looks like the target was Southern Command officers
??? Regarding the strike with Storm Shadow missiles on the command post in the Kursk region, - Dosiye Shpiona
? 18 servicemen were killed,33 were injured, including 3 DPRK soldiers. Most of the victims are officers of the Southern and Eastern Military Districts.<br><br>[image or embed]
— MAKS 24 ??? (@maks23.bsky.social) November 21, 2024 at 2:04 PM
https://embed.bsky.app/static/embed.js
I wonder why the Euro allies don't follow the russian way of dealing with accusations:
Surging Lavatory: Six storm Shadow missiles fired from Ukraine into russia...
MOD and all allies: Really, thats laughable. Nothing to do with us. Fake news!
Why do "we" accurately update?
Yes, we fired them
Yes, no limits to range
Yep, we supplied them
Yes, you can blame us
etc etc. Why?
One thing we could learn, Shirley, is the art of "Dickcraft" which in this case, russia excels.
10 storm shadows on the Kerch bridge - the why not?
10 storm shadows on the Kerch bridge – the why not?
Wrong tool for the job. It might cause some localised damage, including possibly holeing the deck, but nothing that wouldn't be repairable in fairly short order. The warhead simply isn't big enough to cause significant structural damage to such a target. The truck bomb used in the 2022 attack was claimed by the FSB (credibly IMV) to contain around 22 metric tonnes of high explosives, on 22 pallets. Over 50 storm shadows worth. Even that didn't damage the bridge irreparably.
I would have thought the the threat of using these things is as important as using them. Russia now has to disperse and move back from bases and depots 'near' Ukraine....
this new Russian weapon - the Oksana Thunderbastid - is it real or are they just covering up for ineffective ICBMs?
this new Russian weapon – the Oksana Thunderbastid – is it real or are they just covering up for ineffective ICBMs?
There are so many new weapons in the world nobody knows exactly how those weapons work.
Apparently only the West has all the powerful resources. Wait a minute, the media knows?
.... the Oksana Thunderbastid ...
Oh ya, that's a good name for something that is thrown over neighbour's fence.
codename Oreshnik does sound like a rash cream
Thunderbastid
We need to have a word with the northerner that names Putin's war weapons. 😉
this new Russian weapon – the Oksana Thunderbastid – is it real or are they just covering up for ineffective ICBMs?
Stick with Ukraine's first identification, RS-26 Rubezh ICBM, for now. They used to make the Soviet Union's missiles as well as their tanks so if anyone knows...
Russian media refer to it as Oreshnik. US DOD spokesperson Sabrina Singh said that it was based on the R26 and the US was notified before the launch through nuclear risk reduction channels https://www.c-span.org/video/?540165-1/defense-department-briefing
Google R26 Rubezh for more; it isn't new
The whole is it an ICBM or not is a semantic question that changes with possible range; it's a ballistic missile. It may or may not be hypersonic but we've seen Ukraine shoot the hypersonic Kinzhal down with Patriot, which was an unexpected corner of the performance envelope
notified before the launch
Educate me on this; presumably the notification is of a time period where civilians could make a run for it in time, so if both sides know about it, why are we notifying each other - to avoid accidental escalation e.g. ”it’s ok, we know it’s not a Nuke”
i doubt it was for civilian benefit. as i said up there i suspect it would have been so they avoided 'alarm' when NATO spotted a ICBM had been fired and avoid a retalation which will have undoubtably be planned for in the event of a nuke being used
Teports on X that Krasnodar has been hit? Wasn't that where the Russian missile was launched from?
Or to put it another way, where the Bastard launched the Thunderbastid.
Tit for Tat, who’s going to blink first….. ?
@Kryton, there's a vast array of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) gathering tools directed at this sort of thing. From human intelligence (HUMINT) sources through signal intelligence (SIGINT) all the way to space-based launch detection and satellites.
As well as all the traditional information on weapon capability, force doctrine, standard operating procedures (SOP's). techniques, tactics and procedures (TTP's) from the strategic level down to unit level readiness and response times.
How's that for a bunch of military jargon!
ElShalimo
Full Member
It allegedly came from a different area on west bank of Caspian Sea
Ah, right. Something unrelated has gone pop then.
to avoid accidental escalation e.g. ”it’s ok, we know it’s not a Nuke”
Bang on (if you'll pardon the phrase 🙂 ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Risk_Reduction_Center
And that ^. Always forget the good old dog and bone option.
Back into day we used to have CFE (Combined Force Europe Treaty) inspections, I remember driving my boss about as part of a team escorting some Russians counting helicopters, tanks and what not. Making sure weren't hiding stuff, then groups of NATO officers would go to Russia and do the same.
It's all one big game really
Something burning in Krasnodar, fuel depot?
https://bsky.app/profile/maks23.bsky.social/post/3lbidzllct22b
The whole is it an ICBM or not is a semantic question that changes with possible range; it’s a ballistic missile. It may or may not be hypersonic
AIUI, the IC part just refers to the maximum range (i.e. intercontinental), so greater than 5,500 km. It can reach any target within that range. Any ICBM could be used as a tactical weapon against much closer targets if wanted, but it's still an ICBM because the maximum range is over 5,500 km. Any missile with that sort of maximum range will be hypersonic on reentry. (Hypersonic is defined as Mach 5+.)
AIUI, the IC part just refers to the maximum range (i.e. intercontinental), so greater than 5,500 km. It can reach any target within that range. Any ICBM could be used as a tactical weapon against much closer targets if wanted, but it’s still an ICBM because the maximum range is over 5,500 km.
Yeah, but...
You'll see the same missile referred to as an IRBM (intermediate-range BM) as well, e.g. "can confirm that Russia did launch an experimental intermediate-range ballistic missile," said Defense Department Deputy Spokesperson Sabrina Singh" (from the C-Span link ^^).
It's semantics that began with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), which stopped ground-launched BM and cruise missiles with ranges between 500km and 5500km. The R26 and a couple of earlier Russian missiles were alleged to violate that and so were designated ICBMs by Russia.
Russia wouldn't stop the developments and China, Iran and N.Korea, who weren't INF Treaty signatories, were also developing IRBMs, so then-President Trump withdrew from the treaty.
Semantics
PS Storm Shadow is normally air-launched and doesn't count. ATACMS is ground-launched, but 300km range and doesn't count either
Any missile with that sort of maximum range will be hypersonic on reentry. (Hypersonic is defined as Mach 5+.)
A truly hypersonic missile needs to manoeuvre for accuracy at hypersonic speeds. Not all Mach 5+ missiles can do that and aren't considered usefully hypersonic
I see Kim Jong has joined the Nuclear rhetoric this morning…..
inflation wise not even in the same ballpark chewkw
Absolutely +1
Detail-wise too:
RPI price for 250g butter in October 2023 was £2.19 and October 2024 it was £2.17 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/kw9b/mm23
I can't be bothered to sort through the tables for different spuds, but loose new potatoes per kg £1.43 to £1.51 in the same period
Russia had an egg crisis during winter 23-24, some cracks in the economy? A dozen eggs here, no change at £3.26
Putin's Plan to Fix Russia's Egg Crisis Backfires https://www.newsweek.com/russia-egg-crisis-nato-turkey-export-backfires-h5n1-bird-flu-1860155
Making sure we weren’t hiding stuff,
I remember hiding stuff (admittedly, not a lot) when the Russian inspectors came round............................
I think it’s well overdue we start hitting the Russians with x10 more… ++++ them.
This is peurile infantile nonsense. It's a bloody good job the western military respone to Ukraine and Putin isn't in the hands of macho idiots on here as millions would already be dead by now and the rest of us would be back in the stone age. 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough' might be a valid strategy in a pub argument, but not for nuclear armed geopolitical crises.
macho idiots on here
The post you quoted isn't very measured I'll grant you. Neither is your default setting of slinging insults. You sometimes have good points to make but they get lost because the moment you start with the ad hominems people instantly stop listening. You could post without doing that. Just a thought.
It’s a bloody good job the western military respone to Ukraine and Putin isn’t in the hands of macho idiots on here
arguably standing up to Putin is exactly what we should have done years ago , poisoning dissidents & uk citizens , annexing huge chunks of former USSR countries, undermining elections, we failed utterly, hoovering up oil & gas on the cheap.
appeasement of Putin has failed utterly
This is peurile infantile nonsense.
You missed out the sentence directly before:
Europe has been very carefull so far, and that is a massive mistake…
Who knew that not launching the first ever full-scale war with a nuclear armed country was a "massive mistake"?
Neither is your default setting of slinging insults.
I'll stop when the macho nonsense stops. For the most part this thread is fairly serious and sensible, as it should be for a subject of such gravity. But then every now again we see comments like..
"as for Putlers response, I’m quaking in my boots"
appeasement of Putin has failed utterly
There's that word again. It doesn't apply in this case as it did in the 1930s. The two situations are not at all comparable for the simple fact that Putin has nuclear weapons and is possibly prepared to use them. If Hitler had nukes you can bet the western powers would not have declared war on him and the world would now be very different. Call it what you like, but the cold reality is that avoiding nuclear armageddon makes everything else pale into insignificance.
What you call appeasement I call diplomacy. The alternative to diplomacy is war. Are you seriously suggesting we should go to full scale direct war with Russia? Do you have a death wish? Do you think destroying modern civilization and killing billions is worth it to maintain a point of principle? Because make no mistake, that's exactly what we're talking about here.
but not for nuclear armed geopolitical crises.
Russia are currently only able to carry on with their adventurism in Ukraine becasue they're being directly propped up and aided by countries like Iran, China and North Korea, if anyone is guilty of escalation then the blame can be firmly laid at the feet of those countries.
Oh joy here we go again, our regular antagonist has returned
Whilst I also don't agree with suggesting we go attack russia and I also think its really quite a bad idea, I am able to restrain myself from calling people idiots. I wish you would stop being so insulting to anyone that does not share your view.
if anyone is guilty of escalation then the blame can be firmly laid at the feet of those countries.
I didn't mention blame or talk about who did what first or whatever. All I'm saying is that applying schoolyard male bravado to a situation as complex, delicate and dangerous as this will result in a catastrophe that we will all suffer from. It needs cool heads and pragmatic solutions, not ultimatums and threats, and thankfully that seems to be the approach that the western powers are taking rather than rising to Putin's egotistic petulance.
If Hitler had nukes you can bet the western powers would not have declared war on him and the world would now be very different.
That is a very interesting point. I genuinely do wonder what had happened if he did. At the end of the day, we never wanted to go to war but we drew one too many lines in the sand with the stance about invading Poland as it was – so would he have continued to land-grab? Would England / France have still had to eventually declare war no matter what?
I was aware of the ban on importing Russian oil into the EU but have only just picked up on the fact India are buying massive quantities of Russian oil, refining it into diesel, and selling it to the EU. The thinking is that if India stopped importing Russian oil and bought it on the open market it would cause a spike in oil prices and a knock on increase in inflation.
to a situation as complex, delicate and dangerous as this will result in a catastrophe that we will all suffer from.
As far as I can see, the 'situation' isn't all that complex or delicate. Putin invaded a country and is essentially daring the West to stop by playing the nuclear card at every opportunity. The story from Russia as been consistent: Supply Ukraine with weapons we'll use Nukes, supply Ukraine with tanks; Nukes, Supply Ukraine with F16s: Nukes...
It's my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he'd have backed down by now. As it is, the US strategy of trying to contain it by suppling Ukraine with 'just' enough to keep going, while doing nothing to deter the likes of China Iran and N Korea from escalating the conflict has prolonged it un-necessarily.
I'm not sure Putin can back down now, I think its gone too far. At the outset there was lots of talk about giving Russia an 'off ramp' to save face that they didn't easily overthrow ukraine. I haven't seen much about that being pushed via the press - it now seems to be the press is setting the scene for a 'frozen conflict'.
And in all likelihood a frozen conflict is just one that will allow russia to rearm and go again in a few years time. aka crimea
I'm not sure what diplomatic routes are viable when Putin is stating he will only accept peace if ukraine completely capitulate.
stood their ground as one
Decision making is relatively straightforward and fast as a team of one.
NATO are a bigger team with some probably conflicting opinions and ideas to slow things down or muddy the waters. Then there's Orban and Fico undermining things.... must be like herding cats.
Is the general idea to give way and sit it out until putin dies?
It’s my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he’d have backed down by now
What does that actually look like?
It’s my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he’d have backed down by now.
And if he doesn't? You may be right but even if the chance of him not backing down is low, lets say 10% for argument's sake, are you willing to gamble the lives of billions of people and the very existence of western civilisation on a 10:1 bet? Even if it's a 100:1 or 1000:1 bet it's not one anyone could take given the consequences. Lets put it another way, are you willing to die and risk all your friends and family dying and suffering horribly to 'stand up to Putin'?
As I've said before, all this talk of standing up to Putin doesn't seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it's not a chance anyone can rationally take.
A truly hypersonic missile needs to manoeuvre for accuracy at hypersonic speeds
The hypersonic part refers to speed, not trajectory. A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory (so basically following gravity, not manoeverable once the rocket engine runs out of fuel). They are hypersonic (exceeding Mach 5), but not manoeuverable beyond minor course corrections.
standing up to Putin doesn’t seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it’s not a chance anyone can rationally take.
If there's no point in standing up to him, the only other option seems to be letting him do whatever he wants? Whatever his territorial/imperial ambitions? Is there any point at which it would be acceptable to stand up to him?
Maybe it's time the 'west' (whatever that really is) had a JFK moment and called his bluff. It will at some time come to that unless he backs down.
Can we just be clear: standing up to Putin doesn't automatically mean nuclear armageddon. It's not a logical process to say 'defy putin - get nuclear war'. He won't use nukes against the west or Nato because of the mutual deterrent effect - he simply can't in reality. If he tried, everything he holds dear and is fighting for would end. He's also rather boxed in with their use in Ukraine now, and that's where his threats are aimed at, and his bluff has been repeatedly called. China would not accept Russia using them in Ukraine, and Nato has made it clear what they would do if such an event took place (serious non-nuclear response). The fact is, we are and have been standing up to Putin, slowly and steadily, and continuing to do so will provide a better end to the conflict for the west/Nato and Ukraine.