- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 6/11/23 at 5:34 pm to Obtuse1
Posted on 6/11/23 at 5:34 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
If your post turns out to be accurate it is a strong indication Russia has made a plan and is slavishly following it despite the situation on the ground. This is another indication Russia is very slow to learn and implement. They have adapted to some things but it seems to be the exception as opposed to the rule.
Part of me is asking if this is all planned. Looking at the defensive line map. The zap/Kherson area is defended in multiple layers. This area has a defensive line far south from the front. Is russias strat here to fall back and draw forces in…..
Or is it just what it looks like as Karkiv 2.0….
0
Posted on 6/11/23 at 5:36 pm to Hateradedrink
Hypothetically what would they nuke to change the facts on the ground?
I think the threat of using nukes is Putin's last Trump card to retain power. In spite of fears and episodes in which some urged their use there are better reasons not to use nuclear weapons than to use them. Even if you're Russia or the United States bogged down in Afghanistan
I think the threat of using nukes is Putin's last Trump card to retain power. In spite of fears and episodes in which some urged their use there are better reasons not to use nuclear weapons than to use them. Even if you're Russia or the United States bogged down in Afghanistan
Posted on 6/11/23 at 5:42 pm to Hateradedrink
That's the same field from all the videos from 2 days ago. I wonder if that's the mid night force that got repelled and we saw all the posts about the enemy lying down in the minefields.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 5:43 pm to ColtRange
Here is the fullsize image, right click, open in new tab to zoom in.
This post was edited on 6/11/23 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:04 pm to ColtRange
quote:
He is correct in his statement regarding the loss of the 2R Mine clearers and this particular advance appears to have been a significant failure.
These losses however aren't "new" though the perspective including the Mine clearers is, several of the other vehicles have been featured in other footage/images over the last 3-4 days and looking at the newer photo's they all appear to be part of the same failed attack as they link together.
https://twitter.com/WG12341234/status/1668007776960888833
Edit:
Prior to this coming out a talking point on Russian accounts was of 2 MRAP's being destroyed and that a mine resistant vehicle shouldn't be blown up by a mine.
https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1667681856307732480
quote:
>vehicle is called "Mine Resistant Ambush Protected"
>is ambushed and gets blown up by a mine
what did they mean by this?
This post was edited on 6/11/23 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:05 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
If your post turns out to be accurate it is a strong indication Russia has made a plan and is slavishly following it despite the situation on the ground. This is another indication Russia is very slow to learn and implement. They have adapted to some things but it seems to be the exception as opposed to the rule.
Blowing that dam gives a day of rest at most. It's a small reservoir. Seems like a vain attempt to provide time for reinforcements to arrive.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:13 pm to Pendulum
quote:
That's the same field from all the videos from 2 days ago. I wonder if that's the mid night force that got repelled and we saw all the posts about the enemy lying down in the minefields.
That's correct. There are a couple more vehicles shown, though, that we hadn't seen before.
That assault was a massive loss for Ukraine. It happened for several reasons:
1) In one case, a Bradley driver did not closely follow the mine-clearing vehicle and ran over a mine that the mine-clearing vehicle had pushed to the side.
2) Russian K-55 attack helicopters were able to hit several Leopards and Bradleys with ATGMs that outranged the air defenses that Ukraine had in the district -- the copters could hit the Ukrainians from well out of MANPAD range.
3) The Russians were ready for them. This is a wide, flat area, and Ukraine was not able to hide the forces that it had built up in the area. It was, by far, the best-defended sector of the front, as it was extremely heavily minded, and Russia put some of its best troops here, because this was the expected line of attack.
At this point, though, I don't know which of these is true:
1) Ukraine really intended the Orikhiv advance to be the main axis of advance. They failed there, but they got lucky that another area turned out to be surprisingly successful.
2) Ukraine used the failed Orikhiv assault as a feint. The Vermivsky Ridge attack was always designed as the principal axis of advance, and the attack at Orikhiv (in the "expected" area) was designed to fix Russian troops away from a successful attack south of Velikya Novosilke.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:25 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
If your post turns out to be accurate it is a strong indication Russia has made a plan and is slavishly following it despite the situation on the ground. This is another indication Russia is very slow to learn and implement. They have adapted to some things but it seems to be the exception as opposed to the rule.
Russia has never been known for tactical flexibility. Russian generals in command of divisions have less tactical flexibility than your average company commander in Western armies.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:40 pm to molsusports
quote:
Hypothetically what would they nuke to change the facts on the ground? I think the threat of using nukes is Putin's last Trump card to retain power. In spite of fears and episodes in which some urged their use there are better reasons not to use nuclear weapons than to use them. Even if you're Russia or the United States bogged down in Afghanistan
If, and this is a HUGE “if”, it becomes apparent this Ukrainian offensive is going to threaten to cutoff Crimea, it is entirely possible, as a last resort, Russia would resort to tactical nuclear weapons.
As to where they’d use them, it would not be on cities like Kyiv*. That’s not what tactical nukes are for. Instead they would be used on the Ukrainian front line attacking formations, their headquarters, supply trains, and targets of they nature.
* while it is highly unlikely tactical nuclear weapons would be used on Kyiv, it’s not out of the realm of possibility, as a part of a larger overall nuclear strike on Ukrainian front lines, a strategic nuclear strike would be employed against Kyiv since it’s the seat of government and the command and control never center for Ukraine’s armed forces.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:53 pm to CitizenK
quote:
Blowing that dam gives a day of rest at most. It's a small reservoir. Seems like a vain attempt to provide time for reinforcements to arrive.
At this point (or rather, as of something like 8 hours ago), Ukrainian forces are only about 5 miles from the one and only Russian defensive line in the Vremivsky ledge area.
If those fortifications were heavily manned, then the Ukrainian troops would already be buried in a hailstorm of artillery. Since they are not, I conclude that the Russian fortifications in this area are not heavily manned -- for the moment.
I further make this conclusion based on the fact that the resistance in front of it was so incredibly weak; Russian troops in this axis simply crumbled. I do not know whether Russia simply did not have enough troops in this area, or whether is was manned by poorly-led mobiks who lack training and discipline, or both.
I would be stunned if Ukrainian Challengers, Strykers, and CV-90s were not streaming south from Velyka Novasilka as I type this.
My personal belief is that Ukraine will attempt to breach the Russian defenses tomorrow, before Russia can bring in reinforcements.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:03 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
It will be if they push to the Azov sea and it will be into Kyiv.
So then Moscow is fair game for any kind of bomb, including nuclear. I don’t think so.
This post was edited on 6/11/23 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:09 pm to GOP_Tiger
We had reports that, by the time it got dark there (some 8 hours ago), Ukraine had reached the outskirts of Staromlynivka. Again, that's only five miles to the main Russian line -- their only defensive line in this area. Map:
And here's a similar view of the terrain in the area. Aside from the river area, it's mostly open fields.
Another part of the reason that Russia is in trouble is that they don't only have to contend with the Ukrainians who made their way up the Mokri Yaly River. There's also the Ukrainian group just to the east that took Novodonetske and are pushing south to link up with them and join in the attack on the main Russian line.
And here's a similar view of the terrain in the area. Aside from the river area, it's mostly open fields.
Another part of the reason that Russia is in trouble is that they don't only have to contend with the Ukrainians who made their way up the Mokri Yaly River. There's also the Ukrainian group just to the east that took Novodonetske and are pushing south to link up with them and join in the attack on the main Russian line.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:20 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
it is entirely possible, as a last resort, Russia would resort to tactical nuclear weapons.
It's unlikely in the extreme. Russia won't do that, because then they lose everything. China and India have informed Putin that they would end all trade. Russia would collapse.
Ukraine wouldn't quit fighting, either. They already know that life under Russian rule is a freakish nightmare, and living under someone who would nuke them isn't going to make them say, "Maybe we should quit fighting and live under Putin's rule."
Finally, there's the fact that the Polish flag would fly over St. Petersburg the next day -- if the Finns didn't get there first. I 100% guarantee you that they would attack Russia if that happened, and Putin knows it and knows that he would lose badly, as Russia has no defense left in that area whatsoever.
We've talked about this a number of times. I don't understand why we have to keep talking about it. Did Russia use nukes when they lost in Afghanistan? No, because it would've been stupid. Why do people think that Russia would be that stupid now? When Finland joined NATO, Putin basically said nothing. When we gave Ukraine HIMARS, when we gave them Patriots, when we gave them Bradleys, Putin did nothing -- because there's nothing he CAN do.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:23 pm to GOP_Tiger
Interesting video showing some Ukrainian troops using electric scooters. Probably SOF.
Video at link
https://twitter.com/Sprinter99880/status/1667967965944217600
Video at link
https://twitter.com/Sprinter99880/status/1667967965944217600
quote:
Electric scooter troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.??
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:26 pm to Chromdome35
Video of Ukrainian assault on a Russian position using Humvees providing covering/suppression fire while their troops dismount and assault.
At the end of the video, you can see the Russians trying to sneak away unsuccessfully.
Video at link.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1667993599085277185
At the end of the video, you can see the Russians trying to sneak away unsuccessfully.
Video at link.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1667993599085277185
quote:
Video of an assault on Russian positions in the Avdiivka area by Ukraine's 59th Motorized Brigade with humvees.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:34 pm to Chromdome35
This is like a damn video game
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:35 pm to Chromdome35
Theiner, so view with a bit of skepticism
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1667982735049195523
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1667982735049195523
quote:
Of the 35 brigades Ukraine prepared for offensive so far only two are in the fight: 37th Marines Brigade and 47th Mechanized.
The brigades like the 68th Jaeger and 129th Territorial Defense, which are currently liberating villages, aren't part of the offensive... they are
following the 37th Marines and liberating villages on the flanks of the 37th's advance.
And brigades like the 3rd Assault & 59th Motorized aren't part of the offensive, but using russia's lack of reserves to overrun russian positions in their sector.
Now the russians, sheer terror gripping tight their hearts with icy fingers knowing full well what merciless horrors they suffer at the guns and howitzers of merely two Ukrainian brigades, stare across the Steppe at 140,000 Ukrainians eager to join the fight.
Victory is near.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:43 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
Theiner, so view with a bit of skepticism
No, it's just trash. He just lies for clicks. Theiner is good with helping people understand NATO weaponry, but that's about it. This guy has it right:
Last fall, Theiner insisted that Ukraine already had ATACMS. He said a few weeks ago that Ukraine might already have F-16s and Abrams. He just makes crap up, and people think that he has some secret, inside information. He's every bit as bad as his buddy, Chuck Pfarrer.
EDIT: The biggest lie in that particular Theiner statement was that Ukraine had 35 brigades prepared for the offensive. In reality, they had less than 20. He's counting a few small units as "brigades." It's just BS.
This post was edited on 6/11/23 at 7:47 pm
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:44 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
It's unlikely in the extreme. Russia won't do that, because then they lose everything. China and India have informed Putin that they would end all trade. Russia would collapse.
I didn’t say it was a certainty. But it’s not out of the realm of possibility if Russia is faced with the prospect of losing Crimea, they could use tactical nuclear weapons, not on cities mind you, but on the Ukrainian army in the field.
Is it likely? No. But if it comes to Russia being faced with losing the war and Crimea, which it views as upmost strategic importance, the possibility they’d use battlefield nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out entirely.
And as for losing everything, if Putin loses this war, especially if he loses Crimea along with it, he will lose everything.
This post was edited on 6/11/23 at 7:50 pm
Posted on 6/11/23 at 7:49 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
If, and this is a HUGE “if”, it becomes apparent this Ukrainian offensive is going to threaten to cutoff Crimea, it is entirely possible, as a last resort, Russia would resort to tactical nuclear weapons
I think people have generally considered that and decided it would be unlikely because it doesn't help Russia to retain the peninsula (which still requires boots on the ground) and runs significant risks of undesirable consequences (trade with presently neutral or Russia leaning countries and further alienation of countries which used to be under Soviet rule).
Is it possible? If you assume Putin were unbalanced yes. But then you have to assume anything and everything involving Russia poses the risk of world destruction. That would be a terrible thing but doesn't change the calculations for the Kazaks, Ukrainians, etc.
Despite the rumors of ill health and instability Putin has largely behaved like an authoritarian who cares more about restoring the empire he grew up in than a madman.
quote:
As to where they’d use them, it would not be on cities like Kyiv*. That’s not what tactical nukes are for. Instead they would be used on the Ukrainian front line attacking formations, their headquarters, supply trains, and targets of they nature
I don't find that convincing. One nuke isn't doing that. Dozens of nukes brings in NATO and the United States (even assuming the first did not).
Russia (and the United States) have previously survived military losses when they thought the invaded would be willing to accept outside domination. I find it ironic as hell that Putin failed to learn anything about the limitations of military power from the failures of the United States in theaters like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Asia.
There are strategic advantages to Russia controlling Crimea for the projection of power but neither that nor their fantasy of controlling every potential western route of invasion (from Sweden to Ukraine) are feasible when the other countries have cumulatively larger populations and the power to resist. His overreaching for the whole of Ukraine seems likely to be a big part of his epitaph.
Page 2862 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News