Russian special military operation in Ukraine #16

Isos wrote:That's a war.

They are dumb to call it a special operation and not doing this war the proper way. That's some dumb propaganda move totally useless to try to not be seen as an agressor when in fact it's just a war.

Keeping doing what they are doing will just make tens of thousands deads more and destroy all the cities where they fight.

Russian losses are also huge. Manpower and hardware. Thry can't afford to continue this way.

Russian losses are on the order of ~4000; this has been discussed before. It's significant, when you add the number of wounded as well, but overall Russia has not mobilized or created almost any wartime laws (other than against agitation vis-a-vis the operation), and life here carries on as normal. Russia is basically dismantling the Ukrainian military with a smaller professional force, frequently rotated, and auxiliaries in the form of the Donbass militias.

I'd say Russia can afford to fight this way for years, while the Ukraine is just about out of trained professionals, vehicles, artillery, ammo, fuel, and its home-front economy. Their formations are already making vids where they're essentially saying that they're not prepared to fight and risk their lives anymore.

The risk for Russia is not in this conflict by itself, but in the risk of the conflict expanding into one with Poland, Romania, Finland, whoever. To mitigate this Russia has been threatening deterrents such as the Kinzhal missile, but it will also be wise to start putting stored equipment back into service and expanding the military by mobilizing reservists at least for several month long periods.

I don't get you being triggered by Ukro units allegedly reaching the Russian border. First it has to be established where the video was taken. Because you know, the Ukraine right now touches the Russian border along the Chernigov, Sumy and northern part of the Kharkov region's frontiers; and with any Russian military in these parts staying on their own side of the border. I doubt that the Ukrainian infantrymen 'reached the Russian border' anywhere where there has been fighting going on and Russian forces present.

I get what Isos is saying and I've expressed my own opinion on it

But ultimately we don't make decisions

Russian MOD and Leadership do

They feel this is the way to proceed , and they do

They felt they'd rather take their own casualties rather then inflict more death on Ukraine

If Russia had done to Kharkov, Kiev or Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv what they did for example to Idlib,

The scale of death would be beyond what we have seen so far

To some degree, they keep seeing the state as a whole as the brotherly people

Noone will change the opinion on it

Personally, I would have like to have seen Idlib, Aleppo, Damascus style bombing done , but would have killed far more people

And to some degree, if we considered civilians who lived with hayat tahrir al sham terrorists, then I think civilians who live under Kiev regime or azov are also in the same category

But I don't do decisions

No sensible Russian leadership could have allowed a Pakistan or North Korea next door. India, Japan and South Korea are shackled for life. Even UK did not want GDR & FRG to merge.

Therefore, without invading Ukraine, Russia didn't have any other choice. Else, Russia would have faced the same predicament that it faced during World War II.

Isos wrote:Losses are huge for Russia. Just look at the losses of the paratroopers around Kiev. Plenty of deads and vehicles desteoyed. They were their best troops.

The VDV losses around Kiev and the armour-vehicle losses around Belogorovka are pretty much the only examples, and the 2nd seemed to be artificially exagerrated

Yes the VDV conducted a surprise assault and were at the vanguard of the entire operation. They took and held the Gostomel airport, multiple locations around Kiev, send in recon detachments to probe surrounding settlements and set up a platzdarm for the army to occupy when it arrived from Belarus by road.

Tank losses are also big just like their naval losses.

No they're not, in tanks Russia has a few dozen destroyed over the first month, and probably hardly much more subsequently. Probably some of them would have been repaired. Russia also suffered a lot abandoned, that much is true and is indicative of a failure of recovery and logistical operations to recover them in time

I'm not saying Ukraine will win. Of course russians will. I'm saying they don't make war as they were teached to do and make it last for too long which increases deads on both side including civilian deads.

Russia has already won, all the West's and Kiev's tactics are designed for one thing - to prolong the war, and get more Russians and Ukrainians to die.
Truth be told Russia made plenty of political mistakes to allow this to be achieved. It has military oversights as well but those are corrected. The bigger problem are the political failures.

Some game changing move were not done. Airports not destroyed, power supply still runing, internet which is a major weapon for ukrainians who coordinate their troop with it still running, command staff in Kiev with Zelensky taking pictures day and night. Iskanders used against lonely vehicles in fields for propaganda.

Easy to judge in retrospect.
Russia did want to end the war quickly and with minimal damage to civilian infrastructure

However even now it doesn't make much sense, to destroy Ukrainian airports, or cut power, internet, etc... why??
The internet and the power supply system that backs it is just as much a tool for Russia. For propaganda, for letting Ukrainian soldiers know how many of their comrades have surrendered, and how they're being treated. As well as for Russian sympathizers to inform Russian forces by telegram as to where the next load of foreign mercs is hiding out, where the foreign howitzers are being kept, what school the local nationalist battallion has converted into an HQ for itself, etc...

As for the command staff, I have no doubts those rats have made their HQ at the first floor of some dense apartment bloc. Or in Poland altogether. What would you suggest, hm?

The only reason I find for this is that Putin wants a long war and keep the sanctions that hit back at europe. But that can be dangerous and hit back at Russia too. Because russian generals could have done this war much shorter.

I can see pro's and con's to both options but ultimately time will tell. If Russia after forcing the surrender of the remainder of the Ukrainian regular army and taking over most Ukrainian territory, actually manages to avoid an insurgency and partisan movement of significance - then we can certainly quantify the current strategy as having been more successful than say, the US war in Iraq.

If you know russian and soviet doctrine you would know that they are designing their military for huge movement onto the enemy and attacks in the rear on the command posts and communications. It's the total opposite of what they are doing in Ukraine. Zelensky and co would have been killed the first day according to their military doctrines.

Yes the cavalry charges to the rear.
One can voice the opinion that we're in a situation like in WW1 again, when modern technology (precise artillery, drones, etc) have simply made such sweeping advances non-viable without huge casualties.
I'd argue however that on a broad enough front, it can all still be done quite successfully with massed artillery, tactical nuke strikes and all sorts of other things, but I suspect that if any plans for such offensives do exist then they'll be saved for Day X with NATO.

Isos wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Isos wrote:That's a war.

They are dumb to call it a special operation and not doing this war the proper way. That's some dumb propaganda move totally useless to try to not be seen as an agressor when in fact it's just a war.

Keeping doing what they are doing will just make tens of thousands deads more and destroy all the cities where they fight.

Russian losses are also huge. Manpower and hardware. Thry can't afford to continue this way.

No it isn't. Their dead isn't huge nor equipment lost. Now you used to be rather rational but now becoming irrational using bombastic statements with no proof.

Yeah, they are at russias border, and have been for quite some time not just in one specific area.

So what?

If they went in Gung ho, there would far far more dead, even for Russia. That is what happened first. Slow and methodical is always better.

Let the Ukrainians go to russias border. There is a large force waiting for them right outside of Kharkov.

They aren't concentrating all their forces for azovstal either.  They are moving in and around Izyum towards Slavyansk.  It's a process of doing it slow but right.

If you feel that it's being done wrong, I suggest you tell that to Shoigu and also go volunteer and fight.

Losses are huge for Russia. Just look at the losses of the paratroopers around Kiev. Plenty of deads and vehicles desteoyed. They were their best troops. Tank losses are also big just like their naval losses.

I'm not saying Ukraine will win. Of course russians will. I'm saying they don't make war as they were teached to do and make it last for too long which increases deads on both side including civilian deads.

Some game changing move were not done. Airports not destroyed, power supply still runing, internet which is a major weapon for ukrainians who coordinate their troop with it still running, command staff in Kiev with Zelensky taking pictures day and night. Iskanders used against lonely vehicles in fields for propaganda.

The only reason I find for this is that Putin wants a long war and keep the sanctions that hit back at europe. But that can be dangerous and hit back at Russia too. Because russian generals could have done this war much shorter.


If you know russian and soviet doctrine you would know that they are designing their military for huge movement onto the enemy and attacks in the rear on the command posts and communications. It's the total opposite of what they are doing in Ukraine. Zelensky and co would have been killed the first day according to their military doctrines.

I still don't know what is the end result they are looking to get. I don't think taking only Donetsk will do know. Is it, territory of NovoRussia (7 regions), or everything east of Dnepr or what is it? Denazification can mean anything aside from destroying natbats and pravy sektor.
I'm really bothered they didn't destroy bridges on the Dnepr. Also, Yuzhnoye and MotorSich were not hit. Is it because they plan to take those areas? If they do, they'll need more forces.

My worry about continuing by the special operation instead of war is that somebody is thinking the "negative" (meaning the sanctions and forcing Russia out of every sphere the west has control over, be it sports or eurovision song contest) effects on Russia could be reversed. That someone is thinking if we go soft they will forgive.

It can not. Without total capitulation of Russia, that is.
West will of course accept the 90's Russia "back" with Khodorkovsky as its leader - although this time they possibly would demand Russia to give up its nukes in exchange for place in Eurovision song contest.

I'm not claiming someone in Kremlin is thinking along this line. Most likely not. But that is my worry. Otherwise special operation is just fine and I'm sure it will reach the goals to sufficient extent.

We here said in the first days of operation: there is no turning back now.

It's still the same as February 24 2022

Make the VSU and Kiev political leadership capitulate

If it take 100,000 or 200,000 deaths, then that will be so

But every chance was given to them to do so at any time

Turkey cannot say "yes" to the membership of Finland and Sweden in NATO, it is impossible, let them not be offended.

Delegations from Sweden and Finland should not bother to travel to Turkey to convince Ankara to approve their NATO bids (c) Erdogan

Wow what an interesting turn of event

Will turks fold if Americans woo them with weapons and monetary compensation for f35?

I still don't know what is the end result they are looking to get. I don't think taking only Donetsk will do know. Is it, territory of NovoRussia (7 regions), or everything east of Dnepr or what is it? Denazification can mean anything aside from destroying natbats and pravy sektor.
I'm really bothered they didn't destroy bridges on the Dnepr. Also, Yuzhnoye and MotorSich were not hit. Is it because they plan to take those areas? If they do, they'll need more forces

No choice here. Take all Ukraine or have nazi attacking the donbas and russian borders for years.

Why don't we see the X-58U missile used in the VKS fr SEAD. It's superior to the X-31, with a speed of mach 4.5 instead of Mach 3 and 250km range instead of 110km.

Arkanghelsk wrote:Turkey cannot say "yes" to the membership of Finland and Sweden in NATO, it is impossible, let them not be offended.

Delegations from Sweden and Finland should not bother to travel to Turkey to convince Ankara to approve their NATO bids (c) Erdogan

Wow what an interesting turn of event

Will turks fold if Americans woo them with weapons and monetary compensation for f35?

IMO americans are glad that Turkey says no. They pushed too much in Ukraine and Russia will respond to any future move so they must be aware that Russia will nuke those countries even if it says the opposite.

It saves the faces for everyone... Nato accepts, Russia says it's not a big deal wheb it is, Turkey veto it, no Sweeden and Finland in nato, no new war.

limb wrote:Why don't we see the X-58U missile used in the VKS fr SEAD. It's superior to the X-31, with a speed of mach 4.5 instead of Mach 3 and 250km range instead of 110km.

They barely showed what weapons they are using.

Kh-31 does the job since Ukrainian AD are limited to 75km compare to 110km for kh-31. Kh-58 is for THAAD and patriots. It also keep the stocks of a good missiles in case of a war against nato.

They also used smerch and iskander against AD. Smerch being the best on the front, cost-effectivness.

Isos wrote:

I still don't know what is the end result they are looking to get. I don't think taking only Donetsk will do know. Is it, territory of NovoRussia (7 regions), or everything east of Dnepr or what is it? Denazification can mean anything aside from destroying natbats and pravy sektor.
I'm really bothered they didn't destroy bridges on the Dnepr. Also, Yuzhnoye and MotorSich were not hit. Is it because they plan to take those areas? If they do, they'll need more forces

No choice here. Take all Ukraine or have nazi attacking the donbas and russian borders for years.

I'm not sure if it is a good decision to take whole Ukraine. Better option, imo, would be to incorporate friendly regions in the east and south into Russia and leave rest with some sort of friendly regime. Just clear them up of extremists. New Ukraine would be a 20-25 million country, cut of from Black Sea and with most of natural resources lost.

Arkanghelsk wrote:Turkey cannot say "yes" to the membership of Finland and Sweden in NATO, it is impossible, let them not be offended.

Delegations from Sweden and Finland should not bother to travel to Turkey to convince Ankara to approve their NATO bids (c) Erdogan

Wow what an interesting turn of event

Will turks fold if Americans woo them with weapons and monetary compensation for f35?

Give this Turkey some drilling rights in Black sea once it is fully liberated and returns home

caveat emptor wrote:
I still don't know what is the end result they are looking to get. I don't think taking only Donetsk will do know. Is it, territory of NovoRussia (7 regions), or everything east of Dnepr or what is it? Denazification can mean anything aside from destroying natbats and pravy sektor.
I'm really bothered they didn't destroy bridges on the Dnepr. Also, Yuzhnoye and MotorSich were not hit. Is it because they plan to take those areas? If they do, they'll need more forces.

Russia is going to take the whole of the Ukraine. Every inch, like Assad says. And denazify, demilitarize it. Understand that and you've understood the war. But it's not going to get too close to the Romanian or Polish borders until its ready to confront NATO head on. First the Kiev puppet regime needs to be taken care of, among other matters.

flamming_python wrote:
Russia is going to take the whole of the Ukraine. Every inch, like Assad says. And denazify, demilitarize it. Understand that and you've understood the war. But it's not going to get too close to the Romanian or Polish borders until its ready to confront NATO head on. First the Kiev puppet regime needs to be taken care of, among other matters.

With the amount of forces deployed, this will not be possible. 
Kharkov direction is still not being dealt with, as Ukrainians started to send DRGs over Severskiy Donets, in the vicinity of Volchansk. If they are planning to do anything there, now is the time. Vovchansk is an important supply route. Not to mention that if Ukrainians get to take it, local population will suffer immensely, as it showed very  pro-Russian.

Arkanghelsk wrote:Turkey cannot say "yes" to the membership of Finland and Sweden in NATO, it is impossible, let them not be offended.

Delegations from Sweden and Finland should not bother to travel to Turkey to convince Ankara to approve their NATO bids (c) Erdogan

Wow what an interesting turn of event

Will turks fold if Americans woo them with weapons and monetary compensation for f35?

Well, that's a very Ottoman attitude there (and by that I don't mean as in furniture)

I wonder how hard will boys in DC start twisting Sultan's elbows and what he will decide in the end...

sepheronx wrote:

caveat emptor wrote:

flamming_python wrote:
Russia is going to take the whole of the Ukraine. Every inch, like Assad says. And denazify, demilitarize it. Understand that and you've understood the war. But it's not going to get too close to the Romanian or Polish borders until its ready to confront NATO head on. First the Kiev puppet regime needs to be taken care of, among other matters.

With the amount of forces deployed, this will not be possible. 
Kharkov direction is still not being dealt with, as Ukrainians started to send DRGs over Severskiy Donets, in the vicinity of Volchansk. If they are planning to do anything there, now is the time. Vovchansk is an important supply route. Not to mention that if Ukrainians get to take it, local population will suffer immensely, as it showed very  pro-Russian.

They tried to get the dingys going but got hit hard.

They are sitting back and hitting the Ukrainians while they try to cross the river.

Some did cross. I'm not talking about west of Izyum, but close to the border. Around Stary Saltov. That part of the front was held by largely LDNR reservists.

Ukraine does not intend to make concessions to Russia, incl. in Donbass and Crimea, - Kuleba

"Instead of asking what Ukraine should do for a truce, the corresponding question should be addressed to Russia: what should Russia do ... We want everything that belongs to us to remain with us," the Ukrainian Foreign Minister said.

War to the last Ukrainian...


Well there is the answer, ramp up the strikes then

Isos wrote:

limb wrote:Why don't we see the X-58U missile used in the VKS fr SEAD. It's superior to the X-31, with a speed of mach 4.5 instead of Mach 3 and 250km range instead of 110km.

They barely showed what weapons they are using.

Kh-31 does the job since Ukrainian AD are limited to 75km compare to 110km for kh-31. Kh-58 is for THAAD and patriots. It also keep the stocks of a good missiles in case of a war against nato.

They also used smerch and iskander against AD. Smerch being the best on the front, cost-effectivness.

Kh-31PD has a range of 260km.
Kh-58U has a range of 285km if launched from a MiG-25. Which is gone. The Kh-58UShK for the Su-57 has roughly the same range as the Kh-31PD.

Situation around Kharkov

Wonder what Stavka thinks of this

Arkanghelsk wrote:Ukraine does not intend to make concessions to Russia, incl.  in Donbass and Crimea, - Kuleba

"Instead of asking what Ukraine should do for a truce, the corresponding question should be addressed to Russia: what should Russia do ... We want everything that belongs to us to remain with us," the Ukrainian Foreign Minister said.

War to the last Ukrainian...


Well there is the answer, ramp up the strikes then

Well, the area never belonged to them so in the end nothing will remain for them.

Maybe Lviv. Build a wall arount it, dig a trench, lay some mines and call the area "Ukraine". Give it the "Gaza strip" treatment. Would be interesting to watch how the western human rights advocates try to find differences between Gaza and Lviv and why it is necessary in the one place but evil in the other.




One of the wounded from Azovstal.

Is Kharkov insignificant? General Staff not really addressing tactical picture of Kharkov

caveat emptor wrote:

Isos wrote:

I still don't know what is the end result they are looking to get. I don't think taking only Donetsk will do know. Is it, territory of NovoRussia (7 regions), or everything east of Dnepr or what is it? Denazification can mean anything aside from destroying natbats and pravy sektor.
I'm really bothered they didn't destroy bridges on the Dnepr. Also, Yuzhnoye and MotorSich were not hit. Is it because they plan to take those areas? If they do, they'll need more forces

No choice here. Take all Ukraine or have nazi attacking the donbas and russian borders for years.

I'm not sure if it is a good decision to take whole Ukraine. Better option, imo, would be to incorporate friendly regions in the east and south into Russia and leave rest with some sort of friendly regime. Just clear them up of extremists. New Ukraine would be a 20-25 million country, cut of from Black Sea and with most of natural resources lost.

Then russia will need to feed and give work to those 25 million people which is not easy. And most of them will still hate Russia and keep fighting.

Nato would take them at the ebd and install even more missiles at russian borders.