I seem to be getting lots of "Russia is Winning, NATO and the West will lose!" through my social media. Anybody else getting this? I'm careful of links I click on these days because of the clever algorithms, but is this the next stage of TechnoWar??
Sounds like the Russian troll farms have bene kicked into gear to try and play down Ukraine's chances ahead of the offensive.
If they can convince the Western public that Ukraine is doomed it will be a huge hindrance for continued Western support.
I seem to be getting lots of “Russia is Winning, NATO and the West will lose!” through my social media.
can’t you block it?
My social media is limited to this forum and YouTube, I’m not seeing any of that crap on YouTube.
Prior to 1917 all of Ireland qas in the UK and EVERYONE there speaks English, so, you know.....
Maybe, but assuming that, could they not send a smaller drone sub slightly ahead to blow a hole in the net to allow a bigger one through?
IANASubmarineComander
But fences are difficult to blow up, that's the thinking that lead to the Somme. I imagine that underwater where any shockwave is attenuated it's significantly harder still.
That and it would be fairly easy to track any such attack, cutting would be noisy, a low budget submarine would be noisy, and I'd assume the Russians have thought of this and have their own subs/boats in the area?
Narco-subs work because it's a relatively low priority target for the authorities and a huge coastline to look for them along.
It does seem the info-war has stepped up, a big increase in pro-Russian stories on twitter and an increase in pro-Ukranian 'here is our shiny kit and burly soldiers arriving' posts...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65344370
Ukraine war: Russian warplane accidentally bombs own city
Official line from Russian MOD in The Moscow Times:
"During the flight of the Su-34 aircraft of the aerospace forces over the city of Belgorod, an abnormal descent of aviation ammunition has occurred," the ministry said.
Right you are.🤣
johnnystorm
Full MemberOfficial line from Russian MOD in The Moscow Times:
“During the flight of the Su-34 aircraft of the aerospace forces over the city of Belgorod, an abnormal descent of aviation ammunition has occurred,” the ministry said.
Right you are.🤣
Somebody at SpaceX could have written that
Starship experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation."
Or NASA in 1973...
Or the US Navy in 1970...
an abnormal descent of aviation ammunition has occurred
That's up there with the Moskova bravely mining the Black Sea seabed...
Interesting thread on the forces Ukraine has available for an offensive.
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1649552442961321990
There seem to be credible reports from Russian bloggers (credible enough to be picked up by the telegraph anyway) that the UA have established positions on the left (East) bank of the Dnipro in Kherson. UA aren’t commenting, the occupier administration are denying it with their usual bombast.
Impossible to know at this stage if it’s true (though the Russian bloggers tend to be right, particularly regarding news that could be perceived as being negative to Russian interests), and even if so, whether it’s the start of something more significant or just a feint. Regardless there is more and more noise to be heard about the counter offensive, and with credible reports of 90,000 or so (see post above) highly armed, highly trained and highly motivated UA forces to be thrown in, the RA will rightly be very worried..
EDIT - Institute for the Study of War (ISW) are also confirming this. They’ve been there for a couple of weeks apparently and have properly established and supported positions.
When the real offensive kicks off, we probably won't know for several days whether it's the big one or not.
https://twitter.com/J_JHelin/status/1648455021259022340
I can't help but feel that Ukraine will get one shot at this. I expect them to do well but come the Autumn, support from Western countries will be re-evaliated.
Time flies and the next US election is around the corner and assuming Ukraine makes significant gains, I'm not sure there will be the appetite for hunkering down over winter in preparation for another push to reclaim more lost territory.
Not only would a protracted war in Ukraine be difficult for Biden on the campaign trail, the Republicans, bereft of anything else would likely pivot to a more neutral (thus pro Russian) position, it's probably the only thing they'll have left to attack Biden with.
I saw an interesting Times radio podcast with a US military analyst, he saw the West saying; "We will give Ukraine what it needs" as an unfinished sentence.
He asked the question: "Give Ukraine what it needs to do what exactly?"
Would it be fair to say that the West has only supported Ukraine with enough munitions and training to achieve a partial recapture? The anylist observed that we have seen the evidence that highly equiped and well trained ukranian forces can achieve spectacular results, so why isn't the West providing more aid to get the job over and done with more quickly?
One conclusion could be that from a political perspective the West doesn't actually want 'total' victory in Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukranians are are conscious of this, ergo my previous post about this offensive being the big one, Ukraine going all in to recapture as much as they can, realising that there will be pressure to negotiate come wintertime.
why isn’t the West providing more aid to get the job over and done with more quickly?
Logistics? Shipping Ukraine soldiers to the UK (or wherever) for training and back to Ukraine isn't quick and requires capacity in the host nation to provide digs, equipment and instructors etc. whilst also having minimal impact on the host countries normal defence/training programmes.
Also there's a politcal balance to strike... if the UK starts spending r a lot its millitary budget on training/arming Ukrainiens questions would correctly asked about whether we risk our own security by diverting resourses by doing so.
I'm just guessing, mind. I don't think theres any lack of resolve to see Ukraine win, but it's not a simple or fast task.
Wjen i said; 'why isn’t the West providing more aid to get the job over and done with more quickly?" I was asking that question rhetorically.
I'd argue that the provision has been piecemeal and hesitant. Whilst acknowledging logistical factors and the like, the support offered has been limited and calculated, short of full commitment.
Western stockpiles of munitions are calculated against the stockpiles of known adversaries. Russia is depleting its own stock of munitions faster than they can replenish. So whilst providing equipment depletes the sum of western resources it doesn't effect things proportionally.
A crude analysis could be that the West have decided to give Ukraine enough support to claim back half of what has been lost, leaving it up to Ukraine to decide which bits.
@inkster I don't think it's as cynical and machiavellian as that. There are multiple legit reasons why there have to be some limits on what is provided. Just a few:
To prevent depletion of national inventories and weakening of defensive capabilities. Defence kit is horrifically expensive, stocks are finite and lead times to replace are long. Many NATO countries are already dangerously low on things like 155mm artillery ammo and others because of what they have given to Ukraine.
Fear of escalation if particular weapon types are provided. Things like ATACAMS, Western fighter aircraft etc. Although personally, I think this is a little overstated - we have crossed a few of Putin's 'red lines' (e.g. MBTs) with no consequence.
Logistical complexity. The huge engineering and logistical support needed for some complex equipment types (Western fast jests etc.) would be difficult to establish in theatre.
Fear of exposing our high end technology to Russian capture and technical exploitation. It's likely some kit has been removed from the Leopards, Bradleys, Challengers etc. for this reason.
I'm not saying I agree with all of those, I think we could do more. I just don't think it's credible that we are deliberately providing just enough to allow Ukraine to achieve very limited objectives and prevent them regaining all captured territory because it suits us
I partialy agree, I'd like to see more resource/aid to Ukraine.
But there's also the wider global political landscape to consider...
Say for example if one NATO member acted unilaterally and stuck a bunch of long range arty/missile batteries (plus all the additional suport such things need to keep them from being destroyed or captured) on the Ukraine border with Belarus or Russia...
Well that could provoke russia to act even more irrationally than they are now, if you know what I mean.
Better to attrit russia slowly and by proxy whilst giving them no excuse to up the anti, outside of Ukraine.
It's just how things are... I would have probably nuked Moscow by now, so it's a good job I'm not in charge!!
If Ukraine really have managed to quietly cross the Dnipro and establish themselves on the left bank in a fashion that will allow them to start moving large quantities of armour across it will be incredibly impressive.
They have some pretty serious bridging equipment from their western partners but that won't be of much import if Russian artillery annihilates it the moment it sets up.
Time will tell whether or not this is a major development I guess.
As mattyfez says, "Better to attrit russia slowly and by proxy whilst giving them no excuse to up the anti, outside of Ukraine".
It's a half and half situation I know but that's kind of my point. I wouldn't necessarily call it cynical or machiavellian, just cautious and perhaps a little fearful, bit never the less deliberate.
We will know should Ukraine retake half of the stolen land, at that point, will there be the enthusiasm and support for another campaign in 2024? Im not so sure there will be. In the short term this probably means that Ukraine will give thos next opperation absolutely everything they've got.
I’d argue that the provision has been piecemeal and hesitant. Whilst acknowledging logistical factors and the like, the support offered has been limited and calculated, short of full commitment
There are various reasons for problems, such as the EU being unable to its act together. The EU has a plan to provide ammunition to Ukraine and the first tranche is flowing, however, they're being held up by France insisting that it's produced within the EU...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-ministers-braced-ukrainian-frustration-over-ammunition-plan-2023-04-24/
Sevastopol has come under surface drone attack again
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/black-sea-fleet-repels-drone-attack-sevastopol-russian-backed-governor-2023-04-24/
I’d argue that the provision has been piecemeal and hesitant. Whilst acknowledging logistical factors and the like, the support offered has been limited and calculated, short of full commitment
We're looking at you. Switzerland...
https://www.ft.com/content/c6401565-f3d3-489a-b373-e7d5fee11488
“Swiss weapons must not be used in wars,” president Alain Berset
However, as Germany changed the constitution to move from passive to more aggressive support...
https://kyivindependent.com/switzerland-may-allow-re-export-of-its-weapons-to-ukraine/
Western stockpiles of munitions are calculated against the stockpiles of known adversaries. Russia is depleting its own stock of munitions faster than they can replenish. So whilst providing equipment depletes the sum of western resources it doesn’t effect things proportionally
I'm not sure how true that is. Western stockpiles are sized for the wars think we might fight (possibly with the exception of the US who's gigantic military budget + need to supply customers/partners allows them to keep bigger stockpiles). Sure nuclear arsenals are broadly aligned with Russia & China but that's different. Stockpiling military kit is expensive, especially for missiles. Shells and bullets are probably decently stocked and have a good turn over (training) so you don't have to worry about £millions of kit expiring before it's used but everything else, not so much.
The other issue is Western weapons manufacturing is largely privatised and that supply chain is sized mostly for peacetime. Companies like BAE don't have the capability to ramp up supply quickly, there's very little excess unused capacity. They rely on providing a steady but relatively low volume of things like missiles and battlefield systems, there's probably little incentive for them to start ramping up now when the end user isn't your customer and it's unclear what the requirements are over the next 12-36 months.
So we risk reaching the point (and probably already have for some munitions & weapons systems) where we need to keep our minimum reserves so can only supply to Ukraine once replacement items are manufactured. I think that accounts for a lot of the piecemeal supply we're seeing now.
I can’t see the Dnipro crossing as much more than a distraction. Giving the Russians something to worry about, whilst a major push occurs elsewhere? Or maybe the Russian line has been considerably thinned in that region and there’s an opportunity to be exploited - who knows 🤷♂️
I can’t see the Dnipro crossing as much more than a distraction
I think there is lots of that going on now and over the next couple of weeks. They did this before, targeting important military infrastructure and trying to keep the Russian's guessing where and when things will kick off...
I think there is lots of that going on now and over the next couple of weeks.
As Mike Martin says:
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1650402296004501504
I can’t see the Dnipro crossing as much more than a distraction
Suspect you're right, but if the Russian ignore it or don't reinforce the area there's the risk that Ukraine looks at all the lovely CIA satellite footage the Pentagon are flowing to them, see the lack of Russian reinforcements, go 'alright then' and turn what was a probing attacking into something much more serious now they already have assets across the river.
Either way, all these shaping operations and probing attacks hopefully keep the Russians running around like crazy, burning fuel they can't really afford and knackering out troops they'd much rather be resting up ahead of the big push.
Western stockpiles of munitions are calculated against the stockpiles of known adversaries.
They're honestly not. There was a article not long ago that suggested a US general had expressed the opinion that the UK armed forces could not protect the UK for more than a few weeks, and certainly cannot at current staffing levels deploy a division (30-35000 troops and associated support) and wouldn't be back to strength to be able to do that for over a decade. He surmised that under those conditions, UK's armed forces could not be considered a "top level" fighting force any longer. This was echoed by a serving ( I think) senior British Army officer who had said that if the UK was asked to fight at the same level as the Ukrainians they "would run out of ammo in about 6 days" This is all becasue austerity that has hit the NHS, the cops, schools, has also pretty much decimated the UK's armed forces as well.
There are also procurement rules that the Army has to follow which means it currently cannot buy arms "at war speed" and there's doubts that the factories that manufacture ammunition could supply it in the quantity needed without a considerable lead in time.
Given that the prime duty of any government is the ability to protect it's own citizens, explains I think, the hesitancy and reluctance to supply Ukraine with the arms it needs, the UK simply can't. Unless it's piecemeal and from redundant or mothballed stocks
I don't doubt that the UK hasn't got the munitions to keep up with Russia in an artillery exchange but seeing as were an island, we invest what little we do in things like aircraft carriers, of which we have significantly more than Russia.
So on a nation by nation basis I can see the problem but were supposed to be in NATO aren't we? so we can combine resources in the face of existential threats, stockpiles are surely calculated not on a UK versus Russia basis but a NATO versus Russia basis.
I wouldn't underestimate the value of the training offered by the UK though.
So when a US General suggests that the UK could only protect itself for a few weeks I'd respond there were many Generals who said Ukraine couldn't last 3 weeks. I'd also ask him does he understand what NATO if for?
If we don't calculate arms stocks against known potential adversaries then what do we calculate them against?
If we don’t calculate arms stocks against known potential adversaries then what do we calculate them against?
Post cold war 'peace dividend', endless defence reviews and cutbacks, political short sightedness, inefficient and wasteful procurement processes, budgetary constraints and austerity.
If we don’t calculate arms stocks against known potential adversaries then what do we calculate them against?
Enough to do a few training exercises on Sailsbury Plain?
If we don’t calculate arms stocks against known potential adversaries then what do we calculate them against?
I think the UK armed forces would give you a different answer to that than the MOD would to be honest.
so we can combine resources in the face of existential threats, stockpiles are surely calculated not on a UK versus Russia basis but a NATO versus Russia basis.
While I'm no Trump supporter, his question of "why is it that most NATO nations don't fund it like they're supposed to?" is not entirely without merit. The answer is of course. "The USA does that for us, and multiple times over" the European NATO strategy was entirely based on "Hold out for as long as it takes the US to get here in numbers, and hope that the missiles don't start flying before that happens" No mainland European nation has funded it's military to match or even hold up for more than a few days; the obvious threat. Combined NATO or otherwise. NATO without the US is broadly meaningless
seeing as were an island, we invest what little we do in things like aircraft carriers, of which we have significantly more than Russia.
They have one, we have two. So yes - double the amount but it's hardly 'significantly more'.
sevastopol underwater drone attack vid is not a small explosion
not sure if much was damaged
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1650387690796249088
nickc,
I had actually typed that a certain cosplay general with foot spurs had said a thing or two about European contributions to NATO but deleted it before posting, so you"'ll get no argument with me on that one!
They have one, we have two
hmmm, we have one, and another that seems to break down quite a lot, and might be mothballed or sold on anyway, as currently the Navy can't really afford it
so you”‘ll get no argument with me on that one!
Aye, he was on the money - for largely the wrong reasons as all he was doing was trying to wind up Merkel, but he was otherwise spot on.
"They have one, we have two. So yes – double the amount but it’s hardly ‘significantly more’."
I'd say double the amount (plus a third one on the way) is significant, plus the Russian vessel is clapped out whereas the UK's are among the most modern there are anywhere.
Also, if you consider the fact that the aircraft on board are both far more modern and numerous the I'd say that's significantly more in terms of capability.
We will soon have as many carriers as Russia has deepwater ports... More if they loose Sebastopol!
In the light of what others are saying, I'll concede that it could be that the UK has put nearly all of its' eggs in one basket though.
A bit of a digression but do we think that Cameron's decision to invest in 2 (or 3) carriers a decade ago was wise? Or should the budget, limited as it is have gone elsewhere within the armed forces?
Cameron’s decision to invest in 2 (or 3) carriers
The Queen Elizabeth class carriers came about as a result of Blair's 1997 Strategic Defence Review Not anything that Cameron did. There are only ever going to be two, there was never a requirement or commitment to build a third, and it's not planned. After the collapse of the CCCP, all nations looked at what they spent on their militaries, that SDR that I've linked to sets out broadly the position we were aiming for before Osbourne's austerity project ripped giant chunks out of it. I think the UK is currently in a position where it can mostly keep us safe from terrorism, after that, all bets are off frankly
The UK may have two carriers, but only one is seaworthy and the UK do not have the aircraft to fit out that one. And they can't stay at sea for as long as the US ones because, well, not nuclear powered and need refuelling.
I went to Norfolk, Virginia a few years ago and the US Navy had more aircraft carriers in dry dock than the UK has now. Shit, they had more in harbour _just at that port_ than we have frigates. All of those have a fixed and rotary wing capability that almost the same as the whole to the RAF. And AWACS. Each carrier. And they have a Pacific Fleet with the same number. That does not even include the other vessels in a carrier group. The anti-aircraft frigates that the UK paid for have trouble working in warm water and the missiles were never tested against super-sonic threats, compared to the Ticonderoga class that the US use that have that capability and more.
The purpose of a carrier is to project power on a strategic level. So it's not just the carrier, it's the aircraft on it and what they can do and the supporting ships and what _they_ can do. The UK carrier simply cannot do that at the same level. To suggest it is unfair.
There was a article not long ago that suggested a US general had expressed the opinion that the UK armed forces could not protect the UK for more than a few weeks
I'm struggling to find the citation online, but I'm pretty sure that I recall reading about a Labour government in the 60s/70s finding out that in event of a hot war with the Warsaw Pact kicking off, RAF Phantoms would only have had about two or three days supply of air to air missiles available.
Back to Ukraine - some interesting thoughts on the target of the Ukrainian sea drone attack. https://twitter.com/Dmojavensis/status/1650435203243065349
in event of a hot war with the Warsaw Pact kicking off, RAF Phantoms would only have had about two or three days supply of air to air missiles available.
Yes, but how many days supply of aircraft did the Warsaw Pact have? Point is that WW3 would not have been like WW2. NATO just had to make it obvious that a Warsaw Pact attack would suffer huge losses and would probably escalate to a nuclear conflict. A conventional war that dragged on for years wasn't what they were planning for.