And it’s actually much worse than that, because those systems were largely developed and tested against Russian aircraft and radars (much like US systems are largely tested against US systems). There would be very little doubt that a Russian-designed and Russian-built system would be very effective at detecting and shooting down Russian aircraft.
There only hope would be sending in newer stealthy aircraft, which I can imagine they would be very hesitant to do - the cost of losing one is orders of magnitude worse than losing multiple older aircraft just for Intel reasons alone.
With the amount of foreign assets observing the battlespace it’s also risky to expose too much tactical information (war-reserve Radar modes, aircraft capabilities) for new weapon systems.
Exactly. And, by sheer non-coincidence, the AK-47 and RPG were designed to be used by conscripts with very little training…or by a peasant straight off the field, handed a weapon and basically told to fight. It can be maintained, or so I’m told, with some motor oil and a knotted shoelace and is very, very hard to break. Seriously, though, as weapons to be used by civilians in the defense of their homes, Russian weapons, in general, are both simple and rugged and ideally suited to this role. They are arguably the best in the world in this role, in fact. And Ukraine has a lot of former Soviet equipment that they have been handing out to the civilians who want to fight for their homes.
If Bill Roggio is to be believed, they are now attempting a pincer movement North East of Kyiv, which would trap Ukraine force there.
From the map, force South West of Kyiv are there to prevent the Kyiv garrison from hitting tye exposed flank.
I thought this was interesting. It’s a BBC article highlighting some of the news shows and reporting that is happening in Russia right now. The overall theme is that this isn’t a war, it’s a military incursion to root out neo-nazis and Ukrainian nationalists who are using women and children as human shields while they hit civilian targets in the breakaway regions. It shows what a heavily state-controlled media can do wrt a unified message getting out to everyone, and how it can be used to bolster the theme and message of the state’s ruler and the ruling party.
This term has been in use since WWII and means resources operating together with and under the command of a group.
Various services and departments have their own priorities for the resources in their areas of conflict, and found that trying to rely on resources from other services and departments was often inadequate for their needs. As such, they wanted to have their own dedicated units.
Here is an example quoting a report at the end of the war.
I’ve been watching the POW interviews. It’s obvious they aren’t professional soldiers. They’re most likely conscripts with little training. They definitely weren’t expecting combat.
It makes sense Putin used them in the initial battles. They’re expendable. I bet they were equipped with outdated equipment.
I think the professional Russian army is being held in reserve. They’ll be a lot more brutal and decisive in battle.
Russians hit the Holocaust memorial site Babi Yar in the capital city of Kyiv.
It feels oddly satisfying to see destroyed Russian tanks. I think they’re the same models blown up in Kuwait in 1991? They’re wonderful targets for thermal signature sights.
Back in the '80s the National Association of Newspaper Editors (or something like that) had a convention in Oakland. They had a contest, the most startling headline imaginable. The winner was judged, FRANZ FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE WWI all a mistake
A Russian negotiator said a ceasefire is on the agenda in talks between Ukraine and Russia, AFP reports.
I’m sure Russia would like a pause to their equipment being blown up so that they can reorganize and get more supplies lined up. As it seems their logistics and supply lines have been a total shit-show.
Neither is trustworthy in the slightest. Even the combatants themselves are unlikely to have an accurate count in any real sense as the fog of war tends to make such things hard to track in real time. But regardless anything they release is going to be for propaganda purposes first and foremost. Or to put it more bluntly - lies. Ukraine should not be considered any more reliable a priori. We’ll get a truer count maybe a few years after the fighting is done.
That said the Russian numbers, obviously released to counter Ukrainian claims that are more than 10x higher, are still interesting for what they do admit. Russia has now admitted to more losses than Coalition forces took in the entirety of the Gulf War. It further highlights something we already knew - that this is not a low intensity war.
I was going to start a thread for this, but decided we’ve got too many Ukraine threads already:
What is Ukraine’s realistic path to victory?
Despite all the good news thus far, I can’t help but suspect that this is like watching Mercer University vs. Alabama and somehow Mercer has scored a couple of touchdowns and everyone’s cheering because they’re up 14-0 in the first quarter, but one knows that Nick SabanPutin and Co. are eventually going to steamroll Mercer in the next three quarters.
Without some form of direct intervention, how does Ukraine hold off Russia indefinitely or even in fact eject them from Ukrainian soil?
Ukraine wins if Russia withdraws. That happens if Putin falls. Maybe also if Putin can find a way to declare victory - perhaps a ceasefire and keeps the disputed territories. I doubt Ukraine would agree to disarm and stay neutral and outside of the EU.
Seriously, though, as weapons to be used by civilians in the defense of their homes, Russian weapons, in general, are both simple and rugged and ideally suited to this role. They are arguably the best in the world in this role, in fact. And Ukraine has a lot of former Soviet equipment that they have been handing out to the civilians who want to fight for their homes.
