Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

[jhungary]

I pulled out a Cold War era printed doc from my household goods storage about Soviet battlefield doctrine regarding the use of airpower. Something about the VKS behavior bugged me.

Ref the use of airpower in this war, the Russian air commander seems to have regressed back to his Soviet predecessors: airborne artillery. Basically, for this war, the Russian air commander is operationally, not just organizationally, under the Russian ground commander, whereas with Desert Storm, while Norman Schwarzkopf was the overall commander, Schwarzkopf just inform his air commander Charles Horner what he wanted and let Horner worked out the details. Whoever is the Russian air commander here, he seems to be waiting...and waiting...and waiting...for his orders.

Airborne artillery was the phrase I was looking for. The concept is old and operationally, it is unadaptable or at best limited utility to technological progress. Philosophically, aviation affects time (the actual phrase in this doc) so when the Soviets put the air commander under the ground commander, the entire pace of the war depends on how much knowledge the ground commander have about airpower in general. As such, Soviet airpower tends to attack targets that can affect the battle at best 24 hrs in the future. US airpower doctrine going back to the WW II US Army Air Corps days, attacked oil refineries and ballbearing factories, attacked targets that can affect battles weeks and months in the future, meaning crude oil do not become lubricants and avgas until days or weeks of refinement, then more time transport to the front. This is why USAAC commanders felt they had to be institutionally separated from the Army to develop their own war doctrines. So had there been a war on CONEUR, Soviet airpower doctrine would have the VKS cleared the battlefields before the Soviet Army as Army units, like armor, moves below. Strategic targets would fall under the Soviet Rocket Forces, re ICBMs.

For the Russian military today and here in Ukraine, it seems that while the VKS is apart from the Russian Army on paper, doctrinally, there has been little change since the Cold War yrs. The airborne artillery concept do not, or cannot, compensate for advances like drones, which are essentially airborne guerrilla warfare against advancing ground forces. If armor, for example, is slowed down for any reason, the air force must be proportionally restrained. But what if the Ukrainian Air Force managed to put up a fight? Then until the VKS achieve LOCAL air superiority, meaning maybe a few dozen klicks out front, the Russian Army must be proportionally limited. Currently, the Ukrainian Air Force is too few in numbers. So it seems good fortune for the Russian military that Ukrainian airpower is nothing like US/NATO.

Not being a pilot, I don't know about Airborne Artillery.

But I can tell you one thing that I know and Gen Marks did not say.

The battleplan have me scratching my head for quite some time. I mean, I get why they attack Kyiv, and why they want to take Mariupol and Odesa, but I cannot figure out why they start a front with Kharkiv? The entire issue with Kharkiv is an outliner to me, the only reason I can think of for them to take it is for its historical significance. But then it would not help the main effort one bit.

Strategically, the breaking down into 2 or 3 routes is a mistake, Russian own the ocean, and troop in Crimea would mean you would have already pin down the Defender inside Mariupol and Odesa, then why attack them? I mean, if you look at it, they did not attack Odesa but they manage to pin the defender in place, but with Mariupol, especially with the ground troop near the separatist region, You really don't need to go toe to toe on them, and now, you don't just pin their troop, you pin down yours too.

That is the reason for me to think, who is actually in charge of the battlefield here, because the decision that was made here does not make sense at all. If you want to take Kyiv, you go heavy on Kyiv, you don't jerk around in other place and dilute your power. I mean, if there is an overall objective, and an overall commander to oversee the overall objective, I don''t think this is going to happen like this.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

too much posters here cheering for Russia war of aggression but condemning war elsewhere, why?

Meanwhile the price for war per Goldman Sachs prediction

Russia economy

Inflation: +20 percent
Imports: -20 percent
Exports: -10 percent
Interest rate: +20 percent
Gdp: -10 percent

That’s worse than when USSR collapsed.

That’s just the begin.

And how much do you pay at the gas pump? The sanctions on Russia is biting everyone else.

 

[Xerxes22]

prolonged war is Iran best option

In the long term I don't think so. Iran needs a hyped up coked up Russia in the long term. Russia being public enemy number one is great for Iran since now Iran can buy whatever military equipment they want from Russia.

And If the nuclear deal goes to hell even better for Iran and in that case Iran should propose to Russia to move sum of its strategic nuclear arsenal to be based in Iran.

Iran should go rogue as well. And get married to Russia and the two of them shud go absolutely nuts on the west.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Not being a pilot, I don't know about Airborne Artillery.

But I can tell you one thing that I know and Gen Marks did not say.

The battleplan have me scratching my head for quite some time. I mean, I get why they attack Kyiv, and why they want to take Mariupol and Odesa, but I cannot figure out why they start a front with Kharkiv? The entire issue with Kharkiv is an outliner to me, the only reason I can think of for them to take it is for its historical significance. But then it would not help the main effort one bit.

Strategically, the breaking down into 2 or 3 routes is a mistake, Russian own the ocean, and troop in Crimea would mean you would have already pin down the Defender inside Mariupol and Odesa, then why attack them? I mean, if you look at it, they did not attack Odesa but they manage to pin the defender in place, but with Mariupol, especially with the ground troop near the separatist region, You really don't need to go toe to toe on them, and now, you don't just pin their troop, you pin down yours too.

That is the reason for me to think, who is actually in charge of the battlefield here, because the decision that was made here does not make sense at all. If you want to take Kyiv, you go heavy on Kyiv, you don't jerk around in other place and dilute your power. I mean, if there is an overall objective, and an overall commander to oversee the overall objective, I don''t think this is going to happen like this.

Kharkiv is heavily ethnic Russian and they may have expected an uprising from the Russian population in support of the Russian Army. This obviously didn't happen but if it did, Kharkiv would've been a cakewalk and the entire Ukrainian eastern front would've been encircled. Instead they're fighting to the death.

Mariupol is a core military and political objective. It is the second most important city of Donetsk oblast and one of the last remaining ports on the Sea of Azov. They need to take it for Putin's political goals of taking the entire Donbass region. Militarily, not taking it means they cannot encircle the Ukrainian eastern front. What they did not expect was for Ukrainians to fight to the death.

Kiev actually makes the least sense as it can't connect to any other front and forms a salient that's vulnerable to cutoff, and it's highly unlikely for any pro Russian uprisings to occur there. This seems purely political.

In short: they expected uprisings or surrenders after shock and awe, and instead got fights to the death.

 

[Type59]

Would you find it more believable if they were kept in suburban houses in Italy? Not every dungeon has to look like a medieval dungeon.

Large scale international trafficking of women for sex is a very real business. I can't believe we are even debating its existence.

Tutle is a bit slow and naive.

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1506479259866394625

Russia using minorities as cannon fodder.

 

[thetutle]

In the long term I don't think so. Iran needs a hyped up coked up Russia in the long term. Russia being public enemy number one is great for Iran since now Iran can buy whatever military equipment they want from Russia.

And If the nuclear deal goes to hell even better for Iran and in that case Iran should propose to Russia to move sum of its strategic nuclear arsenal to be based in Iran.

Iran should go rogue as well. And get married to Russia and the two of them shud go absolutely nuts on the west.

only in your dreams. Russia will never sell you anything that can help you against anyone. Russia is more scared of your nukes than America. America can infiltrate your nuke program and disrupt it. russia cant.

 

[OldTwilight]

In the long term I don't think so. Iran needs a hyped up coked up Russia in the long term. Russia being public enemy number one is great for Iran since now Iran can buy whatever military equipment they want from Russia.

And If the nuclear deal goes to hell even better for Iran and in that case Iran should propose to Russia to move sum of its strategic nuclear arsenal to be based in Iran.

Iran should go rogue as well. And get married to Russia and the two of them shud go absolutely nuts on the west.

Russians see Iran as strategic danger ...

from their perspective an armed iran can attack them from south and cut off their access to Caspian sea

 

[jhungary]

Kharkiv is heavily ethnic Russian and they may have expected an uprising from the Russian population in support of the Russian Army. This obviously didn't happen but if it did, Kharkiv would've been a cakewalk and the entire Ukrainian eastern front would've been encircled. Instead they're fighting to the death.

Mariupol is a core military and political objective. It is the second most important city of Donetsk oblast and one of the last remaining ports on the Sea of Azov. They need to take it for Putin's political goals of taking the entire Donbass region. Militarily, not taking it means they cannot encircle the Ukrainian eastern front. What they did not expect was for Ukrainians to fight to the death.

Kiev actually makes the least sense as it can't connect to any other front and forms a salient that's vulnerable to cutoff, and it's highly unlikely for any pro Russian uprisings to occur there. This seems purely political.

In short: they expected uprisings or surrenders after shock and awe, and instead got fights to the death.

Kharkiv - I have already said other than "Historical" value of it, I do not see any value to attack Kharkiv, and you are describing the Historical Value. And Historical Value means nothing in term of Strategic term. As in it does not help the Russian to win the war. It is only strategically important if Russia cannot attack from Belarus. But since they can, that put Kyiv just 150km south of Belarus border, which make taking Kharkiv pointless.

Mariupol is important, but you don't really need to attack them on day 1. Because Mariupol was locked in by sea of Azov (Russian have Kerch Strait and Crimea) They can pin the defender down like they do with Odesa to pin down the defender without using any troop, so they can take it after they took Kyiv. In fact, if Russia should use troop, they should have used them on Odesa not Mariupol.

Kyiv is THE ONLY objective they should have taken ASAP. Their goal is to demolish the Ukrainian Government and install their own regime, that's what "Demilitarization and Denazification" means, and you cannot do them without taking Kyiv first, because the president was there, and the entire government was there. You need to take them out to install your own government. And you need to do them As Soon As Possible.

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1506574884658417671

 

[jamahir]

And there are people believing it,mainly from rogue countries like China or third world countries.

Why do NATO governments propagandists like you use "Oh, that one is a rogue country", "Oh, no this one is a rogue leader" when it is your war-criming and genociding NATO governments that have to be regime-changed for the harmonious future of humanity ?

I understand you should not shoot at anything that had written "Children" in it, it's one thing you shoot people and people got into cross fire, it's another thing you shoot something that can be easily identify as civilian structure. I mean, bombing that theatre is probably new low. I mean, it's not like you have soldier on the outside of the theatre that shoot inside where you can see who is inside the structure.

From :

The Mahmudiyah rape and killings were war crimes involving the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Iraqi child Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murder of her family by United States Army soldiers on March 12, 2006. It occurred in the family's house to the southwest of Yusufiyah, a village to the west of the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Other members of al-Janabi's family murdered by Americans included her 34-year-old mother Fakhriyah Taha Muhasen, 45-year-old father Qassim Hamza Raheem, and 6-year-old sister Hadeel Qassim Hamza Al-Janabi.[1] The two remaining survivors of the family, 9-year-old brother Ahmed and 11-year-old brother Mohammed, were at school during the massacre and orphaned by the event.

On the day of the massacre, Abeer's father Qassim was enjoying time with his family, while his sons were at school.[16] In broad daylight, the four U.S. soldiers walked to the house, not wearing their uniforms, but wearing army-issue long underwear to look like "ninjas",[10] and separated 14 year-old Abeer and her family into two different rooms. Spielman was responsible for grabbing Abeer's 6-year-old sister, who was outside the house with her father, and bringing her inside the house.[17] Green then broke Abeer's mother's arms (likely evidence of a struggle that resulted when she heard her daughter being raped in the other room) and murdered her parents and younger sister, while two other soldiers, Cortez and Barker, raped Abeer.[18] Barker wrote that Cortez pushed Abeer to the floor, lifted her dress, and tore off her underwear while she struggled. According to Cortez, Abeer “kept squirming and trying to keep her legs closed and saying stuff in Arabic,” as he and Barker took turns holding her down and raping her.[19] Cortez testified that Abeer heard the gunshots in the room in which her parents and little sister were being held, causing her to scream and cry even more as she was being violently raped by the men. Green then emerged from the room saying, "I just killed them, all are dead".[20] Green, who later said the crime was "awesome",[21] then raped Abeer and shot her in the head several times. After the massacre, Barker poured petrol on Abeer and the soldiers set fire to the lower part of the girl's body, from her stomach down to her feet. Barker testified that the soldiers gave Spielman their bloodied clothes to burn and that he threw the AK-47 used to murder the family into a canal. They left to "celebrate" their crimes with a meal of chicken wings.[22] Meanwhile, the fire from Abeer's body eventually spread to the rest of the room, and the smoke alerted neighbors, who were among the first to discover the scene.[2] One recalled, "The poor girl, she was so beautiful. She lay there, one leg was stretched and the other bent and her dress was lifted up to her neck."[11] They ran to tell Abu Firas Janabi, Abeer's uncle, that the farmhouse was on fire and that dead bodies could be seen inside the burning building. Janabi and his wife rushed to the farmhouse and doused some of the flames to get inside. Upon witnessing the scene inside, Janabi went to a checkpoint guarded by Iraqi Army soldiers to report the crime. Abeer's 9- and 11-year-old younger brothers, Ahmed and Mohammed, returned from school that afternoon to find smoke billowing from the windows. After going to their uncle's home, they returned to the house only to be traumatized, finding their father shot in the head, mother shot in the chest, 6-year-old sister Hadeel shot in the face, and 14-year-old sister Abeer's remains burning.

Fire artillery round and missile without IDing the building is just low. Regardless how much you hated the Ukrainian.

The Russians do ID buildings before firing and that is how they found the shopping mall which was housing rocket launchers.

 

[thetutle]

If you are interested in the economic situation in russia, I can tell you that red bell peppers in a Moscow supermarket are 350 rubles/kg or $3.37 USD.

In Croatia, an EU country with 50% higher average salary than russia before the sanctions hit, the same red bell peppers are $2 USD/kg.

So you can see how difficult life is getting for the people. Most prices are 30% higher. wages maybe 5% higher for those who got a wage increase.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

she doesn't look like a Russian. black hair, strange facial shape, those earrings. Probably a gypsy stealing stuff. There must be some punishment for stealing.

So she must be a peasant from the Southern Italy

 

[Amliunion]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1506579963293708289

 

[tower9]

In the long term I don't think so. Iran needs a hyped up coked up Russia in the long term. Russia being public enemy number one is great for Iran since now Iran can buy whatever military equipment they want from Russia.

And If the nuclear deal goes to hell even better for Iran and in that case Iran should propose to Russia to move sum of its strategic nuclear arsenal to be based in Iran.

Iran should go rogue as well. And get married to Russia and the two of them shud go absolutely nuts on the west.

If Israel turns on Russia, then that will swing Russia decisively behind Iran especially if Putin cleanses his regime of the zionist oligarchs. We will see. All bets are off if that happens. I think Israel will play it safe and try to stay neutral.