"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (5 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I have experienced a year of combat, and 10 months of peace keeping in the former Yugoslavia countries, and the children are always the one who suffer the most. Their innocence is robbed of them.

Speaking from my experience, living through the revolution that overthrew the Shah in 1978-79 as a 12-year-old boy, I can attest to this. I grew up much too fast for my own good thanks to bullets and shells.

Wars of any sort inflict scars that last a lifetime.
 
From a purely strategic viewpoint, I know Putin stockpiled billions before the invasion, but does Russia really have the manpower and economic where-with-all to occupy Ukraine and fight a potentially stiff insurgency? Also, I am sure he would want to expand to other former Soviet territories, but does he possess the economic/military ability?
About economics. Russia has a population of around 145,000,000 people and their economy is roughly as big as the BeNeLux (Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemburg combined) which has a population of a little less than 30,000,000 people.
So in comparison, Russia isn't all that rich. I don't think they can sustain a longer war, which is either a good or a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me suspiciously of a similar incident that took place in 1938, annexing territory that has a dominant ethnic group as a pretext to greater action. It began with annexing the Crimea and it continues with the Donbass/Luhansk/Donetsk regions. Paratroops attacking strategic points of interest bodes ill and warns us of the real intent behind the Russian advance. Securing the Antonov production facility makes tactical and strategic sense for Russia. "Peacekeeping troops", huh.

On the day Putin made the announcement I was writing an article on military exercises the Ukrainian air force was holding in the country's west, this was named Zemetil (Blizzard) and involved the two Tactical Aviation Brigades that operate Su-27s, as well as MiG-29s, Su-24s and Su-25s. It was a close support, interdiction type exercise against simulated Russian armour. It'll be interesting to see how the UAF get on, as the biggest threat to low-level strikes will be Russia's formidable mobile anti-aircraft batteries. During the 2014 Donbass conflict, the UAF's helicopter brigades suffered high losses to separatist groundfire.

Whilst I am sceptical that Ukraine could defeat a full-blown invasion by Russian forces, particularly with deployable forces already based on Ukrainian soil - there are masses of Il-76s based in Crimea waiting for the signal to deploy troops as we speak, but I do believe the conflict will naturally break down into guerilla warfare, which could be to the defenders' advantage. The most obvious take-away is that either way the civilian population will suffer the most from this.

An excuse to dust off these images of UAF Su-27s...

51902174713_266fb48a90_b.jpg
Su-27 take-off

51902174783_fed24b9c63_b.jpg
Su-27 approach

51902412534_3eea95dded_b.jpg
Su-27 static
 
From a purely strategic viewpoint, I know Putin stockpiled billions before the invasion, but does Russia really have the manpower and economic where-with-all to occupy Ukraine and fight a potentially stiff insurgency? Also, I am sure he would want to expand to other former Soviet territories, but does he possess the economic/military ability?

I don't think so. ~190,000 troops is roughly 20% of Russia's active-duty army, in a huge country with long miles to guard. Expanding into other former SSRs will require equal if not larger troop commitments -- look at Kazakhstan, much larger than Ukraine.

As for fighting an insurgency in Ukraine without any other expansionism, they're still going to be hard-pressed economically, especially after the sanctions come into play.
 
This reminds me suspiciously of a similar incident that took place in 1938, annexing territory that has a dominant ethnic group as a pretext to greater action.Su-27 static

My son and I were talking about this earlier and I told him the same thing: this is no different than Hitler's ploy for the Sudetenland and then digesting the rump Czechoslovak six months later -- same justification, same playbook, perhaps accelerated in pace.

Putin's problem is that he was betting that a Chamberlain would show up, and since none has, his hand has been forced. I think that's why he courted Macron so.
 
This reminds me suspiciously of a similar incident that took place in 1938, annexing territory that has a dominant ethnic group as a pretext to greater action. It began with annexing the Crimea and it continues with the Donbass/Luhansk/Donetsk regions. Paratroops attacking strategic points of interest bodes ill and warns us of the real intent behind the Russian advance. Securing the Antonov production facility makes tactical and strategic sense for Russia. "Peacekeeping troops", huh.

On the day Putin made the announcement I was writing an article on military exercises the Ukrainian air force was holding in the country's west, this was named Zemetil (Blizzard) and involved the two Tactical Aviation Brigades that operate Su-27s, as well as MiG-29s, Su-24s and Su-25s. It was a close support, interdiction type exercise against simulated Russian armour. It'll be interesting to see how the UAF get on, as the biggest threat to low-level strikes will be Russia's formidable mobile anti-aircraft batteries. During the 2014 Donbass conflict, the UAF's helicopter brigades suffered high losses to separatist groundfire.

Whilst I am sceptical that Ukraine could defeat a full-blown invasion by Russian forces, particularly with deployable forces already based on Ukrainian soil - there are masses of Il-76s based in Crimea waiting for the signal to deploy troops as we speak, but I do believe the conflict will naturally break down into guerilla warfare, which could be to the defenders' advantage. The most obvious take-away is that either way the civilian population will suffer the most from this.

An excuse to dust off these images of UAF Su-27s...

View attachment 659301Su-27 take-off

View attachment 659302Su-27 approach

View attachment 659303Su-27 static
I'm surprised over the last year that Ukraine's mikitary wasn't upgraded from their Soviet surplus kit. They need F-16s and Leo IIs from surplus Nato stocks.
 
I just found this photo of Russian tanks that are supposed to be entering the fighting. The top cover looks hastily fitted and I wonder if the Javelin AT rockets are making their presence felt

View attachment 659304

I suspect that structure has a couple of functions: (1) to provide additional stowage, and (2) to deflect hand grenades, molotov cocktails etc. I don't see it having any effect on the efficacy of Javelin missiles.
 
I'm surprised over the last year that Ukraine's mikitary wasn't upgraded from their Soviet surplus kit. They need F-16s and Leo IIs from surplus Nato stocks.
I thought I read something about that a few years ago. Neither NATO nor the Ukrainians wanted to tick off Putin.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back