Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The Russians have suffered 6000 dead in a week. In 9+ years in Afghanistan they lost a little under 15000. And that helped bring down the Soviet Union.

The Russian military needs to consider how to defend the country with 1/5 the army they had at the beginning of the war. Large parts of their ground forces will either be gone or decimated. They will probably get most of the troops back when the peace treaty is finalized, but virtually all the equipment they sent into the war zone will be lost. And they will pretty much have no ammunition between small arms ammunition and nuclear weapons. They are unable to manufacture anything else.

The Ukrainians are giving POWs a call to their mothers upon capture. Then the Ukrainian officer on the call tells the mother that her son will not be harmed and will be fed and cared for, and that she should tell all her friends. Almost all the mothers were unaware their kid was in Ukraine or the extent of the war.

The Russians are so paranoid about the word getting out they are arresting children for protesting the war:
Moscow police arrest five children for protesting war in Ukraine

All while claiming there is no censorship in Russia.

Word of the war is percolating around the controlled media. It's slow and some people are not going to believe it, but word is spreading. If the Russian army starts surrendering en masse, there are going to be a lot of phone calls to a lot of Russian mothers which will lead to a lot of anger against Putin. At the same time the entire economy will be melting down, which will further anger the public.

The Russian army is like someone who was recently exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. It's sick, but it's going to die from this.

Alexander Lukashenko is probably going to fall too. He barely held on a few months back when the country was wracked with protests and he's now sent troops into the war.
 
Most countries don't want to depend on a foreign power to completely defend their airspace. National pride plays a role here.
There are various requirements to become a NATO member in normal circumstances and via the normal processes in the modern era*. For example the military must be subordinate to the civilian politicians by law. But there are also a large amount of what one might call military-technical requirements. One of those is that the joining country must be able to police its own airspace (and seaspace and groundspace) with force before calling on NATO, i.e. it must be capable of being its own 'tripwire' for Art 5 invocation. (For countries that simply cannot put together a viable mini-airforce they can contract with another NATO country to do the job, ordinarily temporarily.) That is one reason why they can't just send all the old Soviet fighter aircraft as a gift to Ukraine as they wouldn't then be able to meet their ongoing obligations to NATO.

(It is interesting in this respect that Republic of Ireland is beginning to acknowledge that it needs to properly fund its armed forces sufficient to get to a policing level. The various white papers on this don't refer to it as being the minimum NATO entry requirements, but that is in fact what they are. The world is changing.)

* Back in the olden days this stuff did get overridden by realpolitik, and I expect still can be in extremis.
 
There are various requirements to become a NATO member in normal circumstances and via the normal processes in the modern era*. For example the military must be subordinate to the civilian politicians by law. But there are also a large amount of what one might call military-technical requirements. One of those is that the joining country must be able to police its own airspace (and seaspace and groundspace) with force before calling on NATO, i.e. it must be capable of being its own 'tripwire' for Art 5 invocation. (For countries that simply cannot put together a viable mini-airforce they can contract with another NATO country to do the job, ordinarily temporarily.) That is one reason why they can't just send all the old Soviet fighter aircraft as a gift to Ukraine as they wouldn't then be able to meet their ongoing obligations to NATO.

(It is interesting in this respect that Republic of Ireland is beginning to acknowledge that it needs to properly fund its armed forces sufficient to get to a policing level. The various white papers on this don't refer to it as being the minimum NATO entry requirements, but that is in fact what they are. The world is changing.)

* Back in the olden days this stuff did get overridden by realpolitik, and I expect still can be in extremis.
If this isn't an extreme case – then I do not know what is. I suggest NATO and the countries with the MIG-29s come up with some sort of workaround. And fast.
 
If this isn't an extreme case – then I do not know what is. I suggest NATO and the countries with the MIG-29s come up with some sort of workaround. And fast.

The are some work-arounds, a private company in the US owns some MIGs.

Next time keep it quiet and sneak the planes in.

If all NATO countries can prove that they have the same number of planes, then it is a grey area.

Plenty of countries are providing air-defence systems.
 
Last edited:
Rather worryingly the Russian amphibious shipping that was in Crimea is now heading west. It is Russian military doctrine to attack on several fronts, and then to reinforce and follow through on those which are most successful.

It is vital that the Ukrainians prevent the various Russian thrusts from linking up.

 
The are some work-arounds, a private company in the US owns some MIGs.

Next time keep it quiet and sneak the planes in.

If all NATO countries can prove that they have the same number of planes, then it is a grey area.

Plenty of countries are providing air-defence systems.

Are you talking about Air USA? They are a training organization and their aircraft are equipped for training purposes. They have 1 Mig-29 and a couple of Soviet block trainers. The bulk of their aircraft are western aircraft, mostly American.

There are a number of demilitarized Russian aircraft flyable in various collections around the US, but FAA regulations require that they be incapable of war (no guns and hardpoints are not operable if present).

Rather worryingly the Russian amphibious shipping that was in Crimea is now heading west. It is Russian military doctrine to attack on several fronts, and then to reinforce and follow through on those which are most successful.

It is vital that the Ukrainians prevent the various Russian thrusts from linking up.


Pulling off a successful amphibious operation is tough. When was the last time the Russians did an opposed amphibious landing? Never.

The Ukrainians at Odessa have made landing as difficult as possible. They have littered the beach with things that looked like giant jumpting jacks made out of steel rail and these were employed on the beaches of Normandy in WW II. They have probably also mined the beaches.

The obstacles force the enemy to land at low tide because if they land at high tide the obstacles will rip the bottom out of the landing craft/ships. Then the defenders set up hidden defenses just off the beach to rip the invaders to shreds as they cross the beach. In WW II the most useful role for battleships was heavily shelling beaches before landing. At minimum it kept the enemy's head down while the troops came ashore. Then cruisers and destroyers were available on call by the troops on the beach to provide fire support against the defenders as they got off the beach.

The US (and the British learned from the US) developed a very intricate doctrine for amphibious landings. D-Day is the most famous, but there were four other amphibious landings in Europe: southern France, Sicily, Anzio, and the boot of Italy. The last one was a short hop from Sicily. There was also one landing in North Africa and a slew in the Pacific.

The first amphibious landing at Guadalcanal suffered from poor planning and the most critical supplies were first loaded on the ships, so it was the last off. The transports had to pull out early taking a lot of critical supply with it, leaving behind a lot of building materials and less critical stuff. The US was fortunate to meet with light resistance on the initial landing. What should have taken a few weeks ended up dragging on for 6 months. Both sides suffered heavy losses. At the end of the campaign almost every heavy cruiser in the US Navy in the Pacific (most of them) were either sunk or undergoing major repairs that put them out of the war for a year or more. The US had one operational aircraft carrier for most of the following year.

Considering what an amateurish job the Russians have done everywhere else, I would be surprised if they have any kind of doctrine for naval infantry support.

Russian landing ships are also quite small. They have a few classes, but all of them have similar capacities: 1000 tons of supply or about 300 troops and a few vehicles. The news reports say there are 4 of them in the Black Sea right now. That means 1200 troops and some vehicles. Against defenders that have had an extra week to prepare, probably stocking up on western weapons to defend the beach. I can just see a landing ship pulling up onto the beach, the doors open and immediately a few Javelins fly in from the defenders on the beach. Ship goes up like a torch and if anyone survives, they will be easily captured.

If they actually load all four ships with troops instead of bringing in some supply, those troops will be stranded after 24 hours if they manage to get off the beach.

The US Navy's littoral fleet consists of close too 1/2 the navy. It includes helicopter carriers, several different types of troop carriers plus something the US learned was vital during the war: floating command posts. The command ships have redundant communication links to just about everything in the US military. If things start to go wobbly, they have immense ability to call in all sorts of help. They also keep a close eye on every aspect of the operation and if one area is getting more resistance than expected there are floating reserves that can be committed to that sector.

If it wasn't for the poor sots who are dying for a bad decision by someone who has lost his mind in this war, the Russian performance would be a slap stick comedy. This army is so incompetent that the big convoy, which is partially a fuel convoy has run out of fuel.
 
I read things like that and ...I don't know what to say. 16k fighters? From where? Are they bringing weapons? How will they integrate?

fighters are all volunteers from all over. Weapons no, they are not bring weapons ... I saw guys posting about borrowing military gear from their friends.
But many ex-military also joining. So it's a mixed lot.

weapons - Countries are providing it.

This is basically a proxy war brewing ....
 
Pulling off a successful amphibious operation is tough. When was the last time the Russians did an opposed amphibious landing? Never.

The Ukrainians at Odessa have made landing as difficult as possible. They have littered the beach with things that looked like giant jumpting jacks made out of steel rail and these were employed on the beaches of Normandy in WW II. They have probably also mined the beaches.
....

Considering what an amateurish job the Russians have done everywhere else, I would be surprised if they have any kind of doctrine for naval infantry support.

Russian landing ships are also quite small. .....

If it wasn't for the poor sots who are dying for a bad decision by someone who has lost his mind in this war, the Russian performance would be a slap stick comedy. This army is so incompetent that the big convoy, which is partially a fuel convoy has run out of fuel.
Unfortunately the last time the Russians pulled off a successful amphibious landing was last week. :( .

If you look at the Daily Energy News thread I do most weekdays (Energy Sector News) you'll see a couple of recent links.

This was the Russian landing in the Sea of Azov, last week

This appears to be the mine-clearance effort to prepare the way off Odessa, ongoing

The Russians are actually quite good at naval landings. They tend to be relatively modest affairs that are intended to outflank and link up with shore-based thrusts. We can hope that they bite off more than they can chew in the Odessa area. If they are going to Odessa that is, perhaps they are headed for other off-load points. Unfortunately the Ukrainian shore defences are not as good as one might wish - the anti-shipping missiles that were on order are only half delivered. The TELs have been delivered, but not the missiles (Ukraine ordered a first batch of Neptune anti-ship missile systems - Naval News) so this is like having a fry pan but no eggs for a hungry man.

I reckon about half of the not-yet-committed Russian troops are in the amphibious forces. So the (limited) good news in this is that the Russians will be almost fully-committed with no flexible assets loitering in the littoral if this goes ahead.
 
fighters are all volunteers from all over. Weapons no, they are not bring weapons ... I saw guys posting about borrowing military gear from their friends.
weapons - Countries are providing it.

This is basically a proxy war brewing ....
I get that, I mean...hmm years ago I helped organize a good portion of a proxy war, asia...different times, over 20 years ago. 16k is not simple. They have to be fed, clothed, armed, organized, integrated, communicated to and within. Chain of command established, transported, burial arrangements made, next of kin details. People that volunteer to go fight and die are almost by definition high maint. Some are just nut cases and you have to get them culled out and returned home.

I wish it were that simple but it's not really. Now if they are Poles and Hungarians and Estonians and Bulgarians it is easier but still.... I don't think the Ukranian govt is setup to deal with this challenge. Still a logistical nightmare.
 
There is nothing brewing. This has been a 100% proxy war from the start.
Who is Russia a proxy for? Russia invaded a sovereign nation. Democratically elected. It is only a proxy in that it is dictatorship vs democracy. Putin standing in for Xi and Ukraine for Democracy. ? But no...I don't really see it as a proxy. Russia is led by a psychopath. Ukrainians want to be integrated into Europe.