This really is a proxy NATO war now
It's not a proxy war. Ukraine is fighting to defend itself against a brutal Russian invasion, it's not a proxy for NATO. Russia is doing its own fighting, it has no proxy in this war.
The West supplying Ukraine with weapons does not make it a proxy war. The whole proxy war thing is just a desperate attempt by Russian propagandists to portray Russia as the victim of Western aggression. Utter nonsense.
This really is a proxy NATO war now
IMHO it isn't.
Argentina has sent humanitarian aid
Australia military and humanitarian aid
Austria humanitarian aid (inc. helmets, body armour and fuel for civilian services)
Azerbaijan military and humanitarian aid
and that's just the non-NATO countries beginning with A
Some watershed moments in non-NATO countries/organisations bordering Russia:
The EU has broken one of its principles by supplying military aid, described by Ursula von der Leyen as "a watershed moment,”
Finland isn't a NATO member but would now like to be...
There are many side-effects to this war, e.g. maintaining and supporting a geopolitical barrier between the west and an increasingly aggressive Russia, but ultimately this war is all about maintaining the sovereignty of a nation and allowing the people who live there the freedom to choose
This is quite a nice article on whether it's a proxy war
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/is-the-war-in-ukraine-a-proxy-conflict
TL, DR:
Short answer: No
Slightly longer answer: It's not quite as simple as that, but still prob no
It’s not a proxy war, but Russia wants you to think it is 🤷♂️
I'm prob missing the finer details here, but why is Vietnam thought of as a proxy war but Ukraine isn't?
The understanding we worked on was defined by the instigator not being involved. 'Involve' defined as being overtly active in military action with conventional forces.
The understanding we worked on was defined by the instigator not being involved
That would make sense
why is Vietnam thought of as a proxy war but Ukraine isn’t?
Because it was largely driven by the U.S. and the Communist Bloc. The North and South Vietnamese were proxies for other countries in a larger global conflict. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. were in a cold war and wanted to avoid that escalating to a nuclear holocaust so they supported proxies in local regional conflicts. It's also possible that Vietnamese leaders didn't see it as a proxy war, they many have taken the view that they were acting in their own interests. One of the problems with calling something a proxy war is that it denies the agency of the people doing the fighting. In the case of Ukraine, they are most definitely not fighting for the benefit of NATO even if NATO countries benefit from Russia being defeated.
"An unnamed advisor to the Ukrainian military told Financial Times that Russia intends to launch an offensive in the next 10 days (by February 15), a timeline that would allow Russian forces to strike Ukrainian positions before the arrival of Western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles." https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates (6th Feb assessment)
Russia has been concentrating forces and mobilised troops for a while. If it happens this will become more terrible bloodshed for two fatigued armies with little gained.
I still believe that if the weather follows normal patterns there’s the spring thaw and rain to contend with. An early offensive is unlikely to achieve much given that short timescale, but it must be a temptation knowing that delay will lead to western-trained Ukrainian AFV crews supported by infantry and western armour.
The Russian decision will depend on whether the yet-again-newly-appointed RF military commanders tell the truth in the sack and blame culture
The big group Russia sent to Belarus, thats gone quiet about that but I think all the bridges across the river forming the border have been taken out. And Lukashenko... still AWOL in Africa?
Will the rushed offensive be even worse prepared than the other ones?
Depends what they do. If they flatten with artillery then creep forward, it’s pretty hard to stop, even if it’s a meat grinder. Putin doesn’t care how many die though.
If they flatten with artillery then creep forward, it’s pretty hard to stop, even if it’s a meat grinder.
Jeez - is it 1917 already?
Jeez – is it 1917 already?
Google 'Bakhmut battlefield' and look a the images that come back.
As far as Russia are concerned, it's been 1917 for a while.
The only big difference now is that with Ukrainian spotter drones, radar and HIMARS teams a sustained creeping artillery barrage will be much harder for Russia to sustain as any artillery unit that doesn't reposition after a few rounds will get targeted and destroyed.
The immense ammunition supplies needed to sustain such a strategy will also be hugely tempting targets as they will need to be held close to the front in order to be used.
Sadly Russians have learned and moved ammo dumps back out of HIMARS range. If/when these new GLSDB turn up in Ukraine with longer range we could see more fireworks.
The other problem Russians will have is wearing out the artillery barrels.
Loads of news articles were saying throughout December that they were running out of ammunition, so hopefully they haven't got enough, their old equipment gives out and they end up stuck in the mud again when the thaw starts.
Sadly Russians have learned and moved ammo dumps back out of HIMARS range.
That's what I was getting at, if they want to do a creeping a barrage across a wide enough front they will need to move these ammo reserves closer again otherwise they're not going to be able to deliver enough shells fast enough. Putting them very much back on the menu for the Ukrainians.
Whilst it will be grim for the Ukrainians on the receiving end I actually feel that a hugely costly attempt at a Russian advance, driven by political imperatives from the Kremlin rather than a sober assessment of actual battlefield capacity may be just what breaks the deadlock and gives Ukraine's planned counter attack with Western Armour the best chance of being a decisive blow.
Google ‘Bakhmut battlefield’ and look a the images that come back.
As far as Russia are concerned, it’s been 1917 for a while.
I know - it was a kinda sarcastic post based on Russia's very backward methods - employing 100+ yr old tactics. I guess that's fitting given how old most of their equipment is too.
Notorious Russian nationalist Igor Mangushev shot dead in Ukraine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64566582
Worth a little read that. The guy that's been killed was a nasty piece of work and might have been killed by a rival mercenary/gangster...
My main concern right now is what will happen when Russia unleashes these 200k+ conscripts that is reported to be amassing on the border. So far, as far as I know, Ukraine has had the numerical advantage re troops. However, that looks like it's about to be reversed
https://twitter.com/onlmaps/status/1621532359035076608?t=Tz8n1JqsbDc82mr9b5gS3g&s=19
This guy's estimation of the number of soldiers on each side
Ukraine are getting weapons/vehicle/ammo. Russia are losing them. 200 000 badly trained infantry marching towards modern IFVs…………
It appears we are training Marines,and pilots for fast jets. How many tornados did Germany keep flying? I don't think we have any jets going for grabs the first gen typhoon is going soon and we keep parking that posh yank jet we rent in the sea.
It's going to be a brave move for either the UK or Germany to give up jets Putin will spin it as WW2 all over.
We are (west ) going all in for Ukraine and righly so. The Russian state clearly has no compassion for it's people or the state of Ukraine or indeed the world.
At least we are 1 less far right neanderthal as either he shot himself or was killed at point blank range.
They're asking for fighter jets, but they're next to useless on their own, they need the whole battlespace solution, so ISTAR, AAR, etc, etc otherwise they might as well just have the old MIGs.
Yup they need full support with ground crews ect I feel the next few months are going to be horrible
Considering that the RAF are complaining about the delays in training up our own pilots I am curious as to where the availability is going to come from. Its something like 5 years due to all the hanging around waiting for various courses.
I guess it might end up with we can hand over all our typhoons since we dont have the pilots trained to fly them.
Ukraine are getting weapons/vehicle/ammo. Russia are losing them. 200 000 badly trained infantry marching towards modern IFVs…………
Throwing endless waves of disposable (prisoner) conscripts at Ukraine has seen the Russians make very slow and almost steady progress and it has not come cheaply for Ukraine in lives or ammo to repel them. We dont see the losses Ukraine are having, but they're not insignificant.
Putin seems not to give a damn what it costs him in conscripts
We are (west ) going all in for Ukraine and righly so.
The gesture is excellent.
But, headlines are we (UK) can't even defend ourselves e.g. armed forces are running out of ammo just through training exercises, so what aren't we hearing?
But, headlines are we (UK) can’t even defend ourselves e.g. armed forces are running out of ammo just through training exercises, so what aren’t we hearing?
UK defence has always been the sacrificial (cash) lamb when times are tough.
4 of the 6 operational tours I deployed on were whilst on a pay freeze. With a round of redundancies thrown into the mix for good measure.
Defence will have been asked to train with less to enable the diversion of resources to support commitments to Ukraine. Good for UKR, not good for our defence and readiness.
My BIL captains a navy destroyer and its eye-opening some of the stuff he says about funding & supplies etc
I've been in the cruise missile bay that's a very tall ships gym because we can't afford the launchers or missiles they were designed for
@dissonance I think I read somewhere 7-8 years from entry to people actually reaching the trained strength. It’s hard ti see how there’s room in the training pipeline for this.
Lots of commentators saying that we will be providing fast jets. Thing is what - presumably most Tornado/Harrier/Jag have been scrapped and we’re hardly going to be handing over the latest spec Typhoons or F-35B in case they fall into Russian hands.
I think I read somewhere 7-8 years from entry to people actually reaching the trained strength. It’s hard ti see how there’s room in the training pipeline for this.
I imagine it'll be the latter end of the pipeline if anything, a conversation to type (CTT) then a conversion to role (CTR) type scenario. Or a hybrid version of the two, simply put learn to fly the jet then fight the jet. Groundcrew and engineering training can be run concurrently. It could also be done out side the dedicated training pipeline with unit instructors picking up the work potentially.
But there will be an impact on wider UK defence no matter the option that is used, that's if it's even a realistic option.
And your point about the commentators is valid. I can't abide them. They're either people who should know better and chat rubbish for clout amd cash, or people that have no clue and live out the 'I nearly joined' fantasy through blogging.
The quality are a thin sliver that gets lost in the noise of the other two groups.
I think I read somewhere 7-8 years from entry to people actually reaching the trained strength.
Quite possibly. It was some stupidly high number of years and 5 stuck in my mind. I was going to say the Ukrainians would be sending us trained pilots so that would knock some time off but on second thoughts I expect all their trained pilots are needed.
Harriers were sold off cheap to the yank marines so they definitely arent available.
I dont think we have anything like the desert storage the yanks have for mostly decommissioned but not quite so yes would expect the others are now drink cans etc.
Typhoons maybe we could hand some over but would tend towards the US having a fit if we suggested handing over some F-35s.
They would be less concerned about the Russians than any remains being flogged to the Chinese.
@dissonance 5 years might have been the rotary pipeline. FW is a bit longer, I think F35 has added considerable time to that.
As Dissonance says, it's got to be Typoons that we will train them on? I can't see another option.
Google says the UK has over 100 of them too, should we decide to give Ukraine some.
Including the UK, 4 NATO countries fly them so there must be a fair few about.
They’re asking for fighter jets, but they’re next to useless on their own
I think the idea is to supply F16s for air defense, not for attacking ground targets. The U.S. must have hundreds of older F16s that are being replaced by F35s. I think Ukraine has trained pilots who could convert to the F16 fairly quickly. However, I gather that Ukraine doesn't see the F16s as their top priority, tanks and surface-surface missiles are more urgent.
Whilst I fully support the Ukraine and want them to succeed in beating Putin I can't help but worry that us supplying hardware in the way we are seemingly about to makes us a target for Putin. How far can we go before we become a legitimate target? What's the implications in doing this with regards to out NATO obligations?
It all feels very "tipping point" to me.
Training would happen on Hawks once they’re out of their current grounding. F35 wouldn’t be an option. We don’t have enough and they’re not really of the right type. The B variant has the least range and is the most complicated to operate. It would have to be a mix of Hawks and Eurofighters that were offered, but it would also depend what Ukraine wanted them for. Air defence or ground attack.
The real difficulty here is that for either to be effective they need to be operating in regions close to Russia’s border which means that the Russians will simply place S400 long range (and highly effective) air defence batteries inside their own border, out of reach of Ukraine’s airforce or artillery. Ground based mobile air defence would likely be of more use.
It appears we are training Marines,and pilots for fast jets.
I think that we can forget any short-term use. This will be for the future defence of Ukraine when the RF is back behind internationally recognised borders
Far more useful now will be the long-range missiles to damage RF logistics and reach their air and naval bases in Crimea
"
Whilst I fully support the Ukraine and want them to succeed in beating Putin I can’t help but worry that us supplying hardware in the way we are seemingly about to makes us a target for Putin. How far can we go before we become a legitimate target? What’s the implications in doing this with regards to out NATO obligations?
It all feels very “tipping point” to me"
Opposing Putin is far less dangerous than not opposing him. Stop listening to what he says and judge him by his actions, he's an expansionist tyrant and won't stop until someone stops him
We can't train enough for the RAF, so not sure how we can help, plus the lack of planes to give away. Only the USA have enough planes of the right type to make a difference, I think. Surely A10's would be good against Russian ground targets, not super expensive modern stuff?
RAF admits 'urgent' need to solve shortage of trained pilots (inews.co.uk)
It all feels very “tipping point” to me
Don't worry, I’m sure we will be first in the queue to “ build bridges “ with Russia.
I can’t help but worry that us supplying hardware in the way we are seemingly about to makes us a target for Putin. How far can we go before we become a legitimate target?
Putin is mostly bluster on this. If he was going to attack NATO countries for supplying weapons, he would have done so by now. He's already losing badly but hasn't used nuclear weapons against Ukraine. That means that he knows that the use of nukes would have repercussions that would probably mean the end of his regime. Using nukes against NATO countries would bring an immediate military response and his regime would be destroyed.
Obviously, if NATO actually sent soldiers and tanks in and they marched into Russia itself, he would see that as an existential threat to his regime and nuclear holocaust would be a major risk. NATO knows that and they aren't going to do that. Supplying long-range weapons that can attack targets deep inside Russia is also off the table. However, Ukraine already has tanks so supplying tanks isn't really introducing any radically new capabilities. All the hand-wringing about arms supplies leading to Putin attacking NATO countries is vastly overblown - he would have done it already if he thought it would help things.
"Obviously, if NATO actually sent soldiers and tanks in and they marched into Russia itself, he would see that as an existential threat to his regime and nuclear holocaust would be a major risk. NATO knows that and they aren’t going to do that. "
https://twitter.com/yasminalombaert/status/1604022699763851264?t=ZEJqkfDQ7g1Ligh6rUI4kQ&s=19
@richmars What probably needs to happen is to buy stored F-16s from the US. As with tanks what the Ukrainians need is stuff they can have a lot of, not penny packets of Challenger 2/Typhoon
