The Situation in the Ukraine. #28

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

LMFS wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:However, in order to get Donbass, Ukraine must either get Crimea back or agree to give it to Russia. There's no other strategic possibility given the depth Russia has though Crimea.

Neither of the two options do actually exist, do they? I don't understand why you say Crimea is so relevant for Donbass, when Mariupol for instance is like 50 km away from the Russian border. They can completely control the battlefield and airspace from the Eastern direction alone. Of course from Crimea they can easily close the sea of Azov and further complicate things for Ukraine, without even firing a shot.

But if they're dumb enough to try now, I'm all for it. let them try and find out.

If I was living in LPR/DPR I can easily imagine myself wanting to see the end of all this shit, no matter if it means war. Considering the distance to Russia and that a good part of the population of the Ukrainian controlled parts of the region are probably more than ready to participate too, Ukraine has more to lose than to win, actually.

Crimea affords depth in Ukraine. If you want to make your Turkish drones fly over Donbass they will have to depart from beyond the Dnepr to be at least able to operate without getting zapped on the ground. With Crimea that means a huge delay in movement so basically unlike NK or Syria, there will not be around the clock TB-2 coverage. Plus the further you depart, the further it could be easy for spotters in Ukraine to pinpoint pathways. Therefore predict axis of travel. These UCAV cruise at 160km/h this means that they would have to fly for over 2+ hours before getting into range, and because lower payload Ukraine might  have very little windows of action given the drones would have to fly back to their lanch pads, rearm and come again that's a capability gap of at least 6 hours. This is the best case that none gets shot down.

Logistics are against Ukraine.

Donetz itself is about 60 km from the Russian border, and Lugansk less than 30km.
Maybe Russia can provide a nice amount of antiair system, and provide guiding and targeting data from its own much more poweful radars. If the data could be linked, they could be even flying a beriev A50 continuosly between Rostov and Sevastopol and monitoring any flying activity, even small ones and at low altitude.

I would be curious to see how the new 57mm anti air gun would behave in this occasion.

Anyway, Russia has the possibility to properly study the TB2 drones from Syria (and Lybia). It is highly possible that they have enough possibilities to deploy there some sort of electronic equipment to disturb the control signal and make the drone land or fall on the ground.

Are you taking the piss? You really think it will be The LNR/DNR fighting it out with UAV's?

This is going to be the Russian watershed moment vs UAV's. This is why Turkey is preparing Ukraine with different drones and different tactics.

JohninMK wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Logistics are against Ukraine.

And, as we all know, logistics wins wars. When one side has recently war trained backup a short truck ride away or minutes of fly time and the other is all in at the front with backup a C-17 ride, plus hours on the road, away, there really is no contest.

The strong likelihood of the 'grey line' being moved back to the oblast borders would be a strategic disaster as the ukr don't have the funds or resources anymore to create a new, longer frontline.

The only way I can see it kicking off is if the ukr decision makers have large enough deposits into their Swiss bank accounts for them to not give a sh*t as to what happens on the front. So the obvious military logic may not apply here.

Interestingly, Russia will soon have large numbers of 'peacekeepers' rotating through their new training area.

If Ukraine uses TB-2's Russia would have indeed to clear both Oblasts off. But there's a demarcation issue. LNR can be settled at Izum but DNR can only be settled at the Dnepr...

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Are you taking the piss? You really think it will be The LNR/DNR fighting it out with UAV's?

This is going to be the Russian watershed moment vs UAV's. This is why Turkey is preparing Ukraine with different drones and different tactics.

And where in my post I did say that Russia will not be involved?

However it is much easier (and with less international consequences) for Russia to provide equipment (and maybe trained personnel and "trainers" (who will actually  be the operators) and targeting data, but leave the actual "shooting" to the donbass army. Russia will need to officially intervene directly only if the Donbass forces are risking to be overrun.

KoTeMoRe wrote: If Ukraine uses TB-2's Russia would have indeed to clear both Oblasts off. But there's a demarcation issue. LNR can be settled at Izum but DNR can only be settled at the Dnepr...

As I was saying in another post, if there is chaos near Mariupol, Russia could give green light and support to the donbass army to get until Kherson...

Well at that point it would be difficult to continue calling them DNR or Donbass... the only meaningful name would be Novorussia (and that mean that in the next phase the border will not be the Dnepr, but the Dnester and the Danube)

LMFS wrote:When you have the sort of crazy shit one finds in the internet from Ukraine, with little children wielding knives yelling glory to the heroes, death to Moskals and the like, you know the country's future is F* up for the next couple of generations at least. It is sad but you cannot change that easily. So it is only normal that Russia takes it easy recovering certain territories that are historically theirs but may now be populated by no small amounts of nazis and even worse, by many many other ethnic Russians that justify or tolerate them That society needs to be rebuilt from the very bottom, and the bottom they are reaching pretty fast, actually.

People are cowards...
In Italy in the 1930s and until WW2 almost everyone was claiming to be a fascist and proud of it.
After 1943 almost everyone was claiming to be part of the resistance and and an antifascist since many years before.

So it would be interesting to see what kind of reactions will have the Ukrainians after they will have actually reached living conditions worse than a central African nation.

By the way, at least my connationals had a better welfare and a functioning automotive and aeronautical industry under Mussolini compared to the modern ukraine.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Crimea affords depth in Ukraine. If you want to make your Turkish drones fly over Donbass they will have to depart from beyond the Dnepr to be at least able to operate without getting zapped on the ground. With Crimea that means a huge delay in movement so basically unlike NK or Syria, there will not be around the clock TB-2 coverage. Plus the further you depart, the further it could be easy for spotters in Ukraine to pinpoint pathways. Therefore predict axis of travel. These UCAV cruise at 160km/h this means that they would have to fly for over 2+ hours before getting into range, and because lower payload Ukraine might  have very little windows of action given the drones would have to fly back to their lanch pads, rearm and come again that's a capability gap of at least 6 hours. This is the best case that none gets shot down.

Logistics are against Ukraine.

Everything is against Ukraine, but I am not sure I understand your point regarding the depth. As other users are saying, in case of a conflict it is obvious Russia could and should fly A-50s 24/7 and deploy their best radar / EW / ISR systems right up to the border, and pray for Ukraine to be stupid enough to attack them. That would give them total control of the airspace over Ukraine except for maybe its westernmost part, which will be nevertheless covered by OTH assets like Konteyner. In simple words, ukros cannot raise their ugly nazi heads without Russia knowing, is simple as that.

But there's a demarcation issue. LNR can be settled at Izum but DNR can only be settled at the Dnepr...

Can you explain that?

Are you taking the piss? You really think it will be The LNR/DNR fighting it out with UAV's?

This is going to be the Russian watershed moment vs UAV's. This is why Turkey is preparing Ukraine with different drones and different tactics.

I don't know why you consider those "war on the cheap" assets a huge menace, not only against lesser militaries but actually against Russia... the moment one of those things is even started at an air base, a Iskander can be already flying its way, any relaying station close to the front has a expected life of minutes and the operators better move abroad if they don't want to be killed also in minutes. That, considering they can even operate against proper EW. Their only advantage is relatively low RCS and the fact that they can be shot down with low political cost, other than that they are junk without any kind of defences or kinematics to be more than trivial practice targets for modern AD. If after what Russia has been doing for years in Hmeimim Ukraine bets it all on UAVs then they are not well in their heads. That, not even talking about the already very well proven argument that the actual fire power of drones is ridiculous compared with real weapons like artillery. Twitting BS recorded from an UAV is not going to win Ukraine the Donbass if their army is annihilated by old school shelling, minefields or MLRS fire.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
However it is much easier (and with less international consequences) for Russia to provide equipment (and maybe trained personnel and "trainers" (who will actually  be the operators) and targeting data, but leave the actual "shooting" to the donbass army.

Of course, if Hilux pickups and TOWs can grow in the Syrian desert, then certainly Buks, Tors and Pantsirs can grow in the fertile soils of the Donbass. And probably more than a few soldiers there have now a Russian passport proper and can have received a training as good as any other Russian soldier. Once the Russian military has total control of the Ukrainian airspace and given they certainly will be eager to train their latest tactics and networked warfare technologies, Donbass forces would know exactly when and where to hit.

As I was saying in another post, if there is chaos near Mariupol, Russia could give green light and support to the donbass army to get until Kherson...

Well at that point it would be difficult to continue calling them DNR or Donbass... the only meaningful name would be Novorussia (and that mean that in the next phase the border will not be the Dnepr, but the Dnester and the Danube)

Sounds exaggerated, but actually if Ukraine insists in throwing all their weight at Donbass, they could actually lose their army again and then, specially if reinforcements from other Russian populated regions in the Southeast can be mobilized to extend the front, there is certainly risk of bigger territorial loses for Ukraine. If Transnistria is destabilized then the nazis can count with a serious debacle because they would have a front coming from the West too.

So it would be interesting to see what kind of reactions will have the Ukrainians after they will have actually reached living conditions worse than a central African nation.

In many regards they have already reached there, and still it seems they are certain of their bright future. Sad as it is, they need to be left to rot a bit more it seems.

Putin's "gangster move" Russia is not going to let the Donbass defenders flap in the wind like Pussynian, the plucky freedom lover, let
the NK defenders to fend for themselves.

The Khuiv regime is going to rue the day when it went with the ludicrous "we are fighting Russian forces" propaganda. That's
like the boy who cried wolf. You don't blow your wad just for fun. It won't be there when you actually need it. So Russia
integrating with the Donbass defenders as a de facto unified army will mop the floor with the Khuiv regime suppression paramilitaries.
Khuiv does not have a real army and no amount of NATzO military advisers can change this.

kvs wrote:Putin's "gangster move" Russia is not going to let the Donbass defenders flap in the wind like Pussynian, the plucky freedom lover, let
the NK defenders to fend for themselves.  

The Khuiv regime is going to rue the day when it went with the ludicrous "we are fighting Russian forces" propaganda.   That's
like the boy who cried wolf.  You don't blow your wad just for fun.   It won't be there when you actually need it.   So Russia
integrating with the Donbass defenders as a de facto unified army will mop the floor with the Khuiv regime suppression paramilitaries.
Khuiv does not have a real army and no amount of NATzO military advisers can change this.

I still believe that officially the Russian army will not intervene directly. Yes a lot of equipment from the russian army reserve will casually end up there, and possibly a considerable number of russian soldier will be granted "additional paid leave" and they will decide on their own to help the Donbass.

Unless of course another country (e.g Turkey, Poland, Great Britain, etc) decide to take part in the Ukrainian operation. I that case participation of the "real" Russian forces is certain.

And if the Ukrainian army, believing in the support from Turkey and the americans, decide to attack Crimea, than iskanders will start flying over Kiev and Galicia, followed shortly by the air force and the airborne troops and after a small delay also the first guards tank army.



By the way, i remember having read somewhere that the Russian national guard could be used in the near abroad (including eastern ukraine) but I cannot understand how, unless it is in some sort of policing or maybe acting as peacekeepers...

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

LMFS wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:However, in order to get Donbass, Ukraine must either get Crimea back or agree to give it to Russia. There's no other strategic possibility given the depth Russia has though Crimea.

Neither of the two options do actually exist, do they? I don't understand why you say Crimea is so relevant for Donbass, when Mariupol for instance is like 50 km away from the Russian border. They can completely control the battlefield and airspace from the Eastern direction alone. Of course from Crimea they can easily close the sea of Azov and further complicate things for Ukraine, without even firing a shot.

But if they're dumb enough to try now, I'm all for it. let them try and find out.

If I was living in LPR/DPR I can easily imagine myself wanting to see the end of all this shit, no matter if it means war. Considering the distance to Russia and that a good part of the population of the Ukrainian controlled parts of the region are probably more than ready to participate too, Ukraine has more to lose than to win, actually.

Crimea affords dability gap of at least 6 hours. This is the best case that none gets shot down.

Logistics are against Ukraine.

Donetz itself is about 60 km from the Russian border, and Lugansk less than 30km.
Maybe Russia can provide a nice amount of antiair system, and provide guiding and targeting data from its own much more poweful radars. If the data could be linked, they could be even flying a beriev A50 continuosly between Rostov and Sevastopol and monitoring any flying activity, even small ones and at low altitude.

I would be curious to see how the new 57mm anti air gun would behave in this occasion.

Anyway, Russia has the possibility to properly study the TB2 drones from Syria (and Lybia). It is highly possible that they have enough possibilities to deploy there some sort of electronic equipment to disturb the control signal and make the drone land or fall on the ground.

Are you taking the piss? You really think it will be The LNR/DNR fighting it out with UAV's?

This is going to be the Russian watershed moment vs UAV's. This is why Turkey is preparing Ukraine with different drones and different tactics.

There is already Pole-21's and all that fancy shit in LNR LDR.

Remember. These drones are the size of a small aircraft. They aren't the little pissy ones that are hard to find and hit. It will rain Bayraktar TB drones of they show up around Ukraine.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

kvs wrote:Putin's "gangster move" Russia is not going to let the Donbass defenders flap in the wind like Pussynian, the plucky freedom lover, let
the NK defenders to fend for themselves.  

The Khuiv regime is going to rue the day when it went with the ludicrous "we are fighting Russian forces" propaganda.   That's
like the boy who cried wolf.  You don't blow your wad just for fun.   It won't be there when you actually need it.   So Russia
integrating with the Donbass defenders as a de facto unified army will mop the floor with the Khuiv regime suppression paramilitaries.
Khuiv does not have a real army and no amount of NATzO military advisers can change this.

I still believe that officially the Russian army will not intervene directly. Yes a lot of equipment from the russian army reserve will casually end up there, and possibly a considerable number of russian soldier will be granted "additional paid leave" and they will decide on their own to help the Donbass.

Unless of course another country (e.g Turkey, Poland, Great Britain, etc) decide to take part in the Ukrainian operation. I  that case participation of the "real" Russian forces is certain.

And if the Ukrainian army, believing in the support from Turkey and the americans, decide to attack Crimea, than iskanders will start flying over Kiev and Galicia, followed shortly by the air force and the airborne troops and after a small delay also the first guards tank army.



By the way, i remember having read somewhere that the Russian national guard could be used in the near abroad (including eastern ukraine) but I cannot understand how, unless it is in some sort of policing or maybe acting as peacekeepers...

I do not think that there will be any direct intervention of Russian forces.   But they are not needed.   Russia just needs to
set up the right logistics chains and supply real time intelligence to the defenders.   In terms of men, even though we do not
hear much, I am quite sure that Donbass soldiers and Russian volunteers are being trained and will not be scrambling to
build up their numbers like 2014.  So in terms of ability, the Donbass defenders will have a serious force.   My post referred
to the fact that the Khuiv regime will not be able to cry about this covert and semi-overt support from Russia.   They
cried too much about direct Russian involvement.

For most small forces fighting off an enemy air power is difficult, but it is pretty clear that Kiev does not fly conventional aircraft over these areas... how many millions of dollars will they spend on drones?

Are Kiev any better equipped to defend themselves from drones as the freedom fighters in Donbas are?

GarryB wrote:For most small forces fighting off an enemy air power is difficult, but it is pretty clear that Kiev does not fly conventional aircraft over these areas... how many millions of dollars will they spend on drones?

Are Kiev any better equipped to defend themselves from drones as the freedom fighters in Donbas are?

I think that comparing the Donbass to NK is not quite right.   The resources that the Kiev regime can throw at the Donbass
is not as large relative to the defenders in NK.   Drones are not going to give them a magic edge.   I think Mindstorm's
analysis is right on, the NK loss did not result from drones but from conventional fighting and the lack of resources
by NK defenders.   They were cut off from Armenia but Donbass defenders are not cut off from Russia.   Pussynian
could have changed this, but he was the gangster who stabbed NK in the back.  

The drones in Donbass are likely to be old news real quick since Russia will supply the defenders with the right intelligence
and likely even the right tools.   We will have to wait and see how much damage they will make.   But for sure the Kiev
regime planners are delusional.

Ukraine have 12 TB2, bought last year, and plan to buy 5 more next year. No hint of local assembly.

https://www.dailysabah.com/business/defense/ukraine-to-buy-5-more-turkish-bayraktar-tb2-drones-in-2021

JohninMK wrote:Ukraine have 12 TB2, bought last year, and plan to buy 5 more next year. No hint of local assembly.

https://www.dailysabah.com/business/defense/ukraine-to-buy-5-more-turkish-bayraktar-tb2-drones-in-2021

The full load of a Tor M2, Russia must be trembling in fear

LMFS wrote:
Everything is against Ukraine, but I am not sure I understand your point regarding the depth. As other users are saying, in case of a conflict it is obvious Russia could and should fly A-50s 24/7 and deploy their best radar / EW / ISR systems right up to the border, and pray for Ukraine to be stupid enough to attack them. That would give them total control of the airspace over Ukraine except for maybe its westernmost part, which will be nevertheless covered by OTH assets like Konteyner. In simple words, ukros cannot raise their ugly nazi heads without Russia knowing, is simple as that.

Russia will not want to get its air assets over UA. They will neutralize the TB's mostly on the ground or within travel before they get into the AO/LOC. Flying the A50's will be IMHO done for other purposes like CC'ing the Orions, if the Russians decide to pull a reverse NK/Syria on Ukraine. But there's no need for A50 vs Ukraine for as long as the battle doesn't get beyond the current LOC.

Can you explain that?

Physical border of the Luhansk Oblast is at Izum. There's no clear physical obstacle for the Donetsk Oblast. The first and real boundary is ... the Dnepr.

I don't know why you consider those "war on the cheap" assets a huge menace, not only against lesser militaries but actually against Russia... the moment one of those things is even started at an air base, a Iskander can be already flying its way, any relaying station close to the front has a expected life of minutes and the operators better move abroad if they don't want to be killed also in minutes. That, considering they can even operate against proper EW. Their only advantage is relatively low RCS and the fact that they can be shot down with low political cost, other than that they are junk without any kind of defences or kinematics to be more than trivial practice targets for modern AD. If after what Russia has been doing for years in Hmeimim Ukraine bets it all on UAVs then they are not well in their heads. That, not even talking about the already very well proven argument that the actual fire power of drones is ridiculous compared with real weapons like artillery. Twitting BS recorded from an UAV is not going to win Ukraine the Donbass if their army is annihilated by old school shelling, minefields or MLRS fire.

Because the DNR/LNR has typically no capability to produce EW and AA assets vs those drones. This is why Russia will be involved anyway. TB-2's are not a strategic threat especially given that Russia is right there. Russia is not affraid of the TB-2, but the TB-2's need to get swatted away before Ukraine learns lesson N°2: Fuck around with the Bear and get the Dicaprio treatment.

[

KoTeMoRe wrote:Russia will not want to get its air assets over UA. They will neutralize the TB's mostly on the ground or within travel before they get into the AO/LOC. Flying the A50's will be IMHO done for other purposes like CC'ing the Orions, if the Russians decide to pull a reverse NK/Syria on Ukraine. But there's no need for A50 vs Ukraine for as long as the battle doesn't get beyond the current LOC.

If you refer to Ukriainian airspace, there is no need to get the planes there, radar from 10 km altitude covers 500 km radar horizon. That is more than enough and Ukraine can do shit about it. Of course they make sense in order to have perfectly covered every use of the airspace that can threaten the Donbass and get weapons grade targeting info for any asset of interest.

Physical border of the Luhansk Oblast is at Izum. There's no clear physical obstacle for the Donetsk Oblast. The first and real boundary is ... the Dnepr.

Ok, I don't know to what size the front and the fight can be realistically expected to expand. I would expect retaking the Donetsk and Lugansk would be something the Republics would be more than ok with, knowing full well there are sheer amounts of hostile population even in historically Russian regions. Russia for sure does not want to take care of the whole of Ukraine, they cannot afford that and in general have no need for millions of freeloaders.

Because the DNR/LNR has typically no capability to produce EW and AA assets vs those drones. This is why Russia will be involved anyway. TB-2's are not a strategic threat especially given that Russia is right there. Russia is not affraid of the TB-2, but the TB-2's need to get swatted away before Ukraine learns lesson N°2: Fuck around with the Bear and get the Dicaprio treatment.

Sure, of course Russia will be always involved in defending Russians living in native Russian lands from NATO's nazis. LPR/DPR have modernized SAMs and maybe they get something better, if they are integrated in Russian IADS then the ukies will have a very hard time. It is a small airspace to be controlled and the ranges of interceptors cover it easily against slow targets like UAVs.

LMFS wrote:
Sure, of course Russia will be always involved in defending Russians living in native Russian lands from NATO's nazis. LPR/DPR have modernized SAMs and maybe they get something better, if they are integrated in Russian IADS then the ukies will have a very hard time. It is a small airspace to be controlled and the ranges of interceptors cover it easily against slow targets like UAVs.

I think we can be pretty sure that the Russian IADS does not extend into Ukraine. However, it is pretty near certain that it has been tested and actual incorporation would possibly be a matter of minutes or at worse hours.

LMFS wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Russia will not want to get its air assets over UA. They will neutralize the TB's mostly on the ground or within travel before they get into the AO/LOC. Flying the A50's will be IMHO done for other purposes like CC'ing the Orions, if the Russians decide to pull a reverse NK/Syria on Ukraine. But there's no need for A50 vs Ukraine for as long as the battle doesn't get beyond the current LOC.

If you refer to Ukriainian airspace, there is no need to get the planes there, radar from 10 km altitude covers 500 km radar horizon. That is more than enough and Ukraine can do shit about it. Of course they make sense in order to have perfectly covered every use of the airspace that can threaten the Donbass and get weapons grade targeting info for any asset of interest.

Physical border of the Luhansk Oblast is at Izum. There's no clear physical obstacle for the Donetsk Oblast. The first and real boundary is ... the Dnepr.

Ok, I don't know to what size the front and the fight can be realistically expected to expand. I would expect retaking the Donetsk and Lugansk would be something the Republics would be more than ok with, knowing full well there are sheer amounts of hostile population even in historically Russian regions. Russia for sure does not want to take care of the whole of Ukraine, they cannot afford that and in general have no need for millions of freeloaders.

Because the DNR/LNR has typically no capability to produce EW and AA assets vs those drones. This is why Russia will be involved anyway. TB-2's are not a strategic threat especially given that Russia is right there. Russia is not affraid of the TB-2, but the TB-2's need to get swatted away before Ukraine learns lesson N°2: Fuck around with the Bear and get the Dicaprio treatment.

Sure, of course Russia will be always involved in defending Russians living in native Russian lands from NATO's nazis. LPR/DPR have modernized SAMs and maybe they get something better, if they are integrated in Russian IADS then the ukies will have a very hard time. It is a small airspace to be controlled and the ranges of interceptors cover it easily against slow targets like UAVs.

Russia has three plans for an UA operation.
1. Is avoiding to engage TB-2's/Drones until they're boxed (that's how the Pantsirs worked in Libya until the Turks figured out their area of travel).
2. Having attack planes  degrade field radar from within Russia (this one will be nasty as any ASW will be pointed back to Russia) and if needed take care of possible UA saturation flyover.
3. Disrupt the LOC in order to have UA move the TB-2's around as much as possible. The more they fly, the more they are exposed.

As for boundaries.

Luhansk Oblast comes a couple of km short of the Oskil river. The other side of the river you have Izum. that would make it a simple natural demarcation, and given that the Oskil gets up until  Russia.
Donetsk Oblast is simply different. It is flat and cannot easily be fortified.

I hope these Ukrappy clowns provoke a reaction from Viktor Orban, and he makes an example out of them!

SBU raided the leaders of the Party of Hungarians of Ukraine with searches, radicals threaten Ukrainian Hungarians with reprisals

I am going to be honest here - Ukrainian SBU is at least doing something.

You see, in Ukraine, they managed to get nearly everyone on their side of the nationalist front and not only rule Ukraine, but have brainwashed the people into thinking it is good for them. Russia on the other hand has done fuck all and allows outside influencers almost overthrow the government. The only time FSB does something is arresting Jihadists that threaten violence. But if Liberals threaten violence, they dont get a slap on the wrist. Hence why Russia has a problem with neoliberalism growing in the youth. Ukraine on the other hand is just on the wrong side of politics. But if they were on the right side (nationalism against the west and pro Ukraine and not pro USA), and kept doing what they are doing, we would be calling them "Based" and they would effectively have gotten rid of their neolibs. But since its the neolibs ruling Ukraine, they are doing what the Russians should be doing in their own country regarding about traitors and the like.

This is the only praise this shit stain country gets from me.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Russia has three plans for an UA operation.
1. Is avoiding to engage TB-2's/Drones until they're boxed (that's how the Pantsirs worked in Libya until the Turks figured out their area of travel).
2. Having attack planes  degrade field radar from within Russia (this one will be nasty as any ASW will be pointed back to Russia) and if needed take care of possible UA saturation flyover.
3. Disrupt the LOC in order to have UA move the TB-2's around as much as possible. The more they fly, the more they are exposed.

What is UA? And ASW? Sorry for teh ignorance but it is not very obvious to me.

There has not been employment of UAVs in conditions even remotely as difficult in terms of the overwhelming airspace control that Russia can have in the territory of Donbass, which is not only directly at their borders and observed from North, East and South but also very flat. The defenders will know when an UAV is taking off, where and how it is flying and where the probable targets can be, will get targetting info to down it passively and on top of that, the amounts of TB2 supposedly involved (17!) are a joke. Unless Turkey gives them many more, in which case they are more stupid than I thought since lending money to Ukrainians, in the own words of Zelensky, is such a good investment as feeding a street cat.

Russia is not playing COIN operations in Donbass, as the tens of thousands of casualties on the Ukro side can testify. This was already in 2014 and will be again if it happens real high intensity warfare with due amounts of artillery, EW, MLRS, and armoured forces being used. Not 17 UAVs and not the poor Ukranian air force can really do much if the Donbass AD is properly used. Maybe it is my lack of knowledge but I don't make much sense of the cases you discuss above. The opponent here is not LNA but Russia proper, and if the Turks stick their noses they will painfully learn what the concept asymmetric escalation means. I see no need for attack planes to degrade no radar field since there can be ample use of EW and artillery, there is no overmatch from the Ukro side in terms of reconnaissance and intelligence. Also no need to make the TB2 move a lot, they will be basically in the crosshairs from the moment they speed up in the runway.

As for boundaries.

Luhansk Oblast comes a couple of km short of the Oskil river. The other side of the river you have Izum. that would make it a simple natural demarcation, and given that the Oskil gets up until  Russia.
Donetsk Oblast is simply different. It is flat and cannot easily be fortified.

Ok I see. The question I see is that if Ukraine renounces definitively to Minsk and attacks Donbass, Russia has a nice ace up their sleeves in the form of recognition of LPR/DPR and deployment of peacekeepers (and another for further escalation in the reunification, if someone wants to take things further). Natural borders help avoid the infiltration of spies and saboteurs, but in terms of fortifications, there is no big need because an attack would work as well for the Ukraine as it worked for Georgia, their beloved Sakashvili can tell them every detail about it

The NATzO proxy move on Transnistria is not going to work out well for Banderastan. If there is any move to seize this territory
you can bet that the Donbass will be "annexed" as compensation and for a place for the refugees to live. Even though there is
still way too much appeasement from Russia of western freaks, the mood has shifted significantly in the last few years.

Russia can ignore the Moldovan proxy demands forever.

kvs wrote:The NATzO proxy move on Transnistria is not going to work out well for Banderastan.   If there is any move to seize this territory
you can bet that the Donbass will be "annexed" as compensation and for a place for the refugees to live.    Even though there is
still way too much appeasement from Russia of western freaks, the mood has shifted significantly in the last few years.  

Russia can ignore the Moldovan proxy demands forever.  

actually I believe that is better than Moldavia has an anti Russian  president. Every time there is in one of the post soviet country a "friend" of Russia as head of state or prime minister,  they try to extort money and help from Moscow without giving anything.

Actually the mess in Maidan in 2013 & 2014 has been a blessing in disguise for Russia.  Without it Russia would be still leasing the base in Sevastopol from Kiev (with a lot of limitation and painful negotiations for each of the new ship that the black sea fleet would have wanted to place there). Crimea itself would be still under Kiev's control and there would not have been any import substitution,  as it could have been perceived as an unfriendly move from Russia towards Ukraine.

Many of the new engines in development wouldn't exist, as those sizes were usually designed by Ivchenko-Progress and build by Motor sich. In addition the combustion chamber of the PD14 could have been made in zaporozhe...

Yeah Russia had to spend a lot of money for the import substitution,  but it saved also a lot of money by stopping subsidising a parasite.

Russia does not need such allies.

Crimea, the Donbass and Transnistria do  not deserve to be treated like that from ukraine and Moldova, countries that did nothing to acquire them.

Crimea was saved 6 years ago, the donbass will be the next.  As far as Transnistria (and also Gagauzia), the situation is complicated because Odessa oblast is in the hand of russophobic Kiev's galician regime


Anyway, if Moldavia/ Romania from one side and Ukraine from the other try to play some bad joke with some military maneuvers against transnistria and against the russian military there, I can imagine that the VDV will be in Odessa in a very short time

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
actually I believe that is better than Moldavia has an anti Russian  president. Every time there is in one of the post soviet country a "friend" of Russia as head of state or prime minister,  they try to extort money and help from Moscow without giving anything.
+
Anyway,  if Moldavia/ Romania from one side and Ukraine from the other try to play some bad joke with some military maneuvers against transnistria and against the russian military there, I can imagine that the VDV will be in Odessa in a very short time

Exactly, that is why I say that most of Putin's job is to allow idiots to do the heavy lifting for him. Russia keeps a totally restrained profile, then some retard decides they can steamroll the Moskals and take the conflict to a point that legitimates Russia to solve century long territorial defeats inflicted by the USSR overnight. They can keep defeating Russia that way for as long as they want, the idiots. The lesson that is better to stay quiet and be nice should be painfully clear for them, but I am not sure they re getting it yet

Odessa has seen recently some reaffirmations of Russian identity. They can flood it with nazis, but they cannot avoid many many people there being waiting for the right opportunity to act. At the Maidan they were at the wrong place unlike Donbass and could not present a serious resistance, that is why igniting Transnistria and bringing more Russian troops there would be the worse mistake the ukros could do.

franco wrote:Believe I read several years back that LNR had an EW capable plant.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/topaz-pjsc.htm

DNR have Topaz radio electronic plant, which produced Kolchuga ELINT complexes. They for sure now receive all needed components from Russia, that they could produce all needed modern equipment. DNR and LNR already show their domestic jammers to jam drones, so most probably they are producing them in that plant.

Ex-president Zaharchenko was anouncing, that DNR will produce their own modern communications, to be better protected against jamming and spying. They are for sure able to produce them. They never show much about new radio stations, but if they produce them, than they keep them in secret.