Started By
Message

re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Posted on 6/16/23 at 1:18 pm to
Posted by StormyMcMan
USA
Member since Oct 2016
4669 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 1:18 pm to
quote:

??Slovenia will transfer material assistance to Ukraine to eliminate the consequences of the explosion of the Kakhovska hydroelectric power station by the Russians.
This is stated on the website of the Slovenian government.
It is known that the estimated cost of assistance, including transportation, is 228,405 euros.

LINK

quote:

We have seen some preparations going on" regarding Russia's threat of transferring nuclear weapons to Belarus, says #NATO chief Stoltenberg.

While he also adds that there's been nothing changed overall in Russia's nuclear posture, this is new language on Belarus.

LINK

quote:

The Sejm of Poland approved a resolution supporting Ukraine's membership in NATO.
This was reported on the Diet's Twitter account.

LINK

quote:

Putin on F-16 deliveries for Kyiv:

If they are located at air bases outside Ukraine and used in hostilities, we will have to look at how we can hit and where we can hit those weapons.

This is a serious danger of NATO being further drawn into this armed conflict.

LINK

quote:

Putin’s spokesperson is clarifying his boss statements now, and says that if Ukrainian F-16 will operate from airfields outside Ukraine, Russia will try to destroy them only over Ukraine

LINK
Posted by LSUnation78
Northshore
Member since Aug 2012
14223 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

Putin’s spokesperson is clarifying his boss statements now, and says that if Ukrainian F-16 will operate from airfields outside Ukraine, Russia will try to destroy them only over Ukraine



I mean, im pretty pro-ukes here… but if F16’s were operating out of a NATO country by or on behalf of Ukraine, I would find it reasonable to destroy them wherever they were stationed.

Im actually surprised they are clarifying that they would only destroy them over Ukraine. This seems like a big crawfish from Russia. They’ve gone on record before saying that even giving them weapons makes you a target…
Posted by Pendulum
Member since Jan 2009
8049 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 1:47 pm to
quote:

I mean, im pretty pro-ukes here… but if F16’s were operating out of a NATO country by or on behalf of Ukraine, I would find it reasonable to destroy them wherever they were stationed.

Im actually surprised they are clarifying that they would only destroy them over Ukraine. This seems like a big crawfish from Russia. They’ve gone on record before saying that even giving them weapons makes you a target…


I have to agree. It's ridiculous for NATO to think they can have F16's operating in Ukraine and coming back to airfields outside Ukraine, and not be fair game. There's nothing unreasonable about that assumption.

This is a huge tell of Russia being scared to death of drawing in NATO because they know they would get smoked unless they went nuclear, and frankly, one of the biggest tells since the beginning of the war on this angle imo.

More I think about it, the more I don't get why they say that; are they scared of a preemptive strike? I mean this kinda gives the greenlight to NATO to do this; and honestly, that's a little scary to me, that would be an overstep imo.
This post was edited on 6/16/23 at 2:45 pm
Posted by nitwit
Member since Oct 2007
13091 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 1:49 pm to
You may be right.
May have been some big time poker here, with US saying "Not only do we intend to provide F-16's but they will be based elsewhere (in NATO). Whatcha gonna do about it?"
For Ruskies to threaten the bases would bring all of NATO conventional sources into the war.
The spokesperson seems to be saying,
"We are not threatening the bases".
Is that what just happened?
Posted by tigeraddict
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2007
14807 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 2:23 pm to
quote:

I have to agree. It's ridiculous for NATO to think they can have F16's operating in Ukraine and coming back to airfields outside Ukraine, and not be fair game.


i partially agree. in of itself its logical. but how is it any different than Russian bombers/fighters operating out of Belarus that attack Ukraine. Ukraine doesnt attack those airbases for risk of drawing in Belarus......
Posted by Hateradedrink
Member since May 2023
4156 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 2:23 pm to
I think it’s more complex than that.

We’ve been pretty clear about not striking Russia directly outside of Ukraine, even though they are completely justified in doing so.

Russia saying they will leave planes alone unless they are directly over UA is an extension of that agreement.

Everyone wants actual fighting to happen in UA and no where else. UA is turning into a wrestling ring.
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 2:27 pm to
What’s even the point of basing F-16’s outside of Ukraine. The thing has a laughably short range. Unless we’re also gonna provide aerial refueling for them then it’s basically pointless
Posted by nitwit
Member since Oct 2007
13091 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 2:28 pm to
UA was a wrestling ring on day 1.
The match was supposed to only last three days.
Its still the ring, although Ukes are making some across the border forays.
Posted by StormyMcMan
USA
Member since Oct 2016
4669 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 3:05 pm to
quote:

have to agree. It's ridiculous for NATO to think they can have F16's operating in Ukraine and coming back to airfields outside Ukraine, and not be fair game. There's nothing unreasonable about that assumption.


I agree, however, Russia has been fairly adament that their own airbases aren't legitimate targets. I know Ukraine has hit a few, but I'm guessing Russia would be concerned about 2 things
1) NATO greenlighting the use of their donations on Russian soil (i.e. HIMARS attacking targets in Russia)
2) missing their target and engaging NATO directly
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
105276 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 3:40 pm to
Iran. Don't forget Iran.
Posted by SteelerBravesDawg
Member since Sep 2020
43337 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 3:44 pm to
And Syria.
Posted by CitizenK
BR
Member since Aug 2019
15671 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 3:57 pm to
Russia wants nothing to do with NATO.

Today's report is that they aren't moving any nukes to Belorussia due afraid that Belorussia might use them on Russia (my guess is when Luka dies)

The only above the equator people to side with Putin are Politards and those who immediately surround Lukashenko. Tucker the stupid phucker is also one of Putin's admirers.
This post was edited on 6/16/23 at 3:58 pm
Posted by WhereisAtlanta
Member since Jun 2016
847 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 4:39 pm to
Russia and Putin will walk away from this with a bloody nose and a bit less swagger but they are going nowhere and are much more important geopolitically than Ukraine, once the shooting stops everything goes back to normal.

We are simply doing to Russia what they did to us many times before, this is not WW3 and other than on TV and in online chat rooms everyone gets it.
Posted by No Colors
Sandbar
Member since Sep 2010
13312 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 4:48 pm to
quote:

Russia and Putin will walk away from this with a bloody nose and a bit less swagger but they are going nowhere


Totally disagree. If this was just an embarrassing bloody nose, Putin would have pulled his army back long ago.

He cannot survive a humiliating defeat, and neither can the modern Russian state. Anything other than a victory that gets him Crimea and the Donbas as ceded territories means the end of Putin and the end of Russia. His enemies will come out from every direction. And he knows it, which is why he's all in.
Posted by GOP_Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2005
20967 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 5:11 pm to
This is from a woman who is a journalist and a former aide to Zelensky:

quote:

The centre of the fighting in Ukraine has switched to the road to Mariupol where the Ukrainian offensive is slowly pushing back Russian forces, with British Challenger tanks ready to join battle, a deputy minister Hanna Maliar in Kyiv has said.


LINK

This would mean the Vuhledar direction.

Edit: I have no idea why Ukraine would announce that Challenger tanks are going to be fighting there.
This post was edited on 6/16/23 at 5:12 pm
Posted by CitizenK
BR
Member since Aug 2019
15671 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 5:19 pm to
quote:

Russia and Putin will walk away from this with a bloody nose and a bit less swagger but they are going nowhere and are much more important geopolitically than Ukraine, once the shooting stops everything goes back to normal.

We are simply doing to Russia what they did to us many times before, this is not WW3 and other than on TV and in online chat rooms everyone gets it.


Our economy was never completely ruined by similar. Russia's is for at least a decade. That comes from Russians involved in finance who know the real numbers not those published by Rostat.
Posted by OutsideObserver
Oceania.
Member since Dec 2022
784 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 5:22 pm to
Things picked up on the rounds.

The first of a multiple part series that takes a very in depth analysis of Russian mobilisation and how these troops are being used by, a reportedly Russian based, independent analysis team.

This part is about how mobilisation was conducted and goes through the different regions in a high degree of detail. I recommend reading the entire article, the conclusion I have quoted below.

https://notes.citeam.org/mobi-in-russia-1

quote:

To conclude, it is safe to assume that the announcement of mobilization came as a surprise not only for the Russian population, but also for the MoD. We provided ample evidence of that in our overview of issues related to allocation of the newly drafted recruits within the MoD’s infrastructure, let alone multiple cases when soldiers had to be quartered in civilian buildings. Moreover, lodging facilities were woefully unequipped to accommodate draftees, with many barracks failing to provide beds and mattresses and utilities being in poor condition. This assumption is further corroborated by the fact that tent camps had to be built on the territory of multiple units and training grounds. It was not until days or even weeks after the launch of mobilization that the tents started popping up, revealing that the MoD struggled to keep pace with the rapid turn of events. At the same time, in many cases, regional authorities had to contribute heavily to the construction of tents, as the MoD proved to be unable to cope with this task on its own.

As observed in our analysis of training capacities and their attribution to specific regions, the manner in which regions were merged into larger groups corresponding to the old military administrative division of the country may also indicate that the MoD was caught unprepared for mobilization. Furthermore, it can be suggested that in its pursuit of the "partial" mobilization in the fall of 2022, the MoD relied on the mobilization plans developed long before the 2010 reform of military districts (the groups of regions we identified are based on the boundaries of military districts established back in 1998).

Overall, despite a large number of problems encountered at the initial stage, and aside from sloppy logistics and poor combat readiness of fresh draftees, the authorities managed to accomplish the main goal of mobilization, having enrolled the targeted number of men for service in Russia’s Armed Forces. Public discontent failed to trigger any major civil unrest across Russia, while occasional local protests (e.g. those in Russia’s constituent republics of Tuva and Dagestan) were quickly suppressed before they could spread. As to mobilized troops, their dissent almost never escalated beyond videos exposing the chaos at the training centers and tent camps, or public appeals seeking help from the authorities. Few cases of mass protests (e.g. those involving draftees from Chuvashia who staged a riot¹, ² in a military unit in Ulyanovsk, draftees from the Kazan Higher Tank Command School¹, ², and draftees from Tomsk stationed at the tent camp in Chebarkul) were promptly quashed by the authorities and did not evolve into significant outbreaks. Isolated outbursts of confrontation between soldiers and commanders resulted in criminal convictions for the former (Aleksandr Leshkov of the 1430th Regiment who pushed an officer at the Patriot Park in the Moscow region was sentenced to seven years in a maximum security penal colony; Stanislav Rybin who threatened an officer with a knife received a six-year sentence).

Typically, draftees were assigned to a training center within a military district they were mobilized from, to be given three months of training. Training quality and scope varied significantly, depending rather on the training facility than on the duration of the course. However, considering the actual amount of time spent in training, lack of competent instructors, and an upsurge of complaints from mobilized soldiers themselves (regardless of the region they were trained in), the level of training can in general be estimated as rather low. Widespread assumptions that mobilized personnel would only be assigned to "protect the liberated territories" also affected the training outcome. While some of the draftees were still in training, others started to deploy to the frontlines as early as in late September. This process was completed by early January, by which point most of the mobilized troops had been moved to the combat zone or areas nearby.


Checking their website, it is not a long stream of pro any side talking points, instead focusing on calling out and analysing claims by various medias, especially Russian state media, going back to 2015.

https://citeam.org/



For anyone interested in the more technical aspect of OSINT - Brady Africk has a quick thread on how aircraft are identified and tracked using satellites.

https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1669815386349486084



Great short (for him at least) thread from Tartarigami on the challenges Ukraine faces with mines during the counter offensive.

https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1669746591299764225

quote:

Mines pose a significant challenge for our army during the counter-offensive. As I've highlighted months ago, the difficulty lies in effectively tackling this issue while dealing with the constant threat of fire from enemy aircraft, AT weaponry, and artillery.



Post of the day if true.

https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1669819305259671559 - Video

quote:

Fire in the Belgorod Ministry of Emergency Situations


Edit: Clarity
This post was edited on 6/16/23 at 5:24 pm
Posted by Chromdome35
Fast lane, behind a slow driver
Member since Nov 2010
8163 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 5:48 pm to
OO, I want to thank you for the quality of the material you are posting in the thread. A+ stuff.

There are lots of good posters in the thread who contribute quality stuff (Gop, Stormy, DoubleD, Obtuse, CitzenK, Cypher, Darth Vader, LSUPilot, and a bunch of others I cant think of off the top of my head) Thanks Everyone.
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 6:19 pm to
quote:

The only above the equator people to side with Putin are Politards and those who immediately surround Lukashenko. Tucker the stupid phucker is also one of Putin's admirers.


1) stop being so emotional. This war really isn’t that big of a deal in grand scheme of things

2) nearly every country that supports Russia is north of the equator. The only country I can think of that is in the southern hemisphere is South Africa
Posted by Tigris
Cloud Cuckoo Land
Member since Jul 2005
13133 posts
Posted on 6/16/23 at 6:36 pm to
quote:

Fire in the Belgorod Ministry of Emergency Situations


Sounds like a Monty Python sketch. That's a pretty good fire, wherever it is. At the top of a building you have to think drone or missile.
first pageprev pagePage 2888 of 5046Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram