Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

Onebadhawk
eggtimer rocketry
Shop deals on ebay
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Antares JS said:
If I was a betting man, my money would be on Russia. The Dnipro being more difficult to cross is much more advantageous to Russia than to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's more likely the Russians and that the loss of the dam is a long-term loss for Ukraine. However, just to play devil's advocate, it's possible that breaching the dam benefits Ukraine in the short term as well:
- There wasn't a lot of river crossing below the dam, though there was some. Once the lake drains, that will be possible again.
- Lowering the lake/river level above the dam may make it easier to cross the river up there
- Damage to the dam may cut off water supplies to Crimea

On balance, I don't think that those potential gains outweigh the long-term losses. Ukraine has appeared to play the long game in the conflict, so I still think it's less likely to be their doing.

I saw another commentator say that it looked like bad maintenance. I'm not sure I credit that--the Russians haven't had control of the dam for that long, so it would have had to be in pretty bad shape before the invasion to fail in now. I also haven't looked at any of the relevant video, so my opinion isn't super-informed.
 
boatgeek said:
I agree that it's more likely the Russians and that the loss of the dam is a long-term loss for Ukraine. However, just to play devil's advocate, it's possible that breaching the dam benefits Ukraine in the short term as well:
- There wasn't a lot of river crossing below the dam, though there was some. Once the lake drains, that will be possible again.
- Lowering the lake/river level above the dam may make it easier to cross the river up there
- Damage to the dam may cut off water supplies to Crimea

On balance, I don't think that those potential gains outweigh the long-term losses. Ukraine has appeared to play the long game in the conflict, so I still think it's less likely to be their doing.

I saw another commentator say that it looked like bad maintenance. I'm not sure I credit that--the Russians haven't had control of the dam for that long, so it would have had to be in pretty bad shape before the invasion to fail in now. I also haven't looked at any of the relevant video, so my opinion isn't super-informed.
Click to expand...
This is a fair assessment.
 
Art Upton said:
Its not gone well, this just needs to be ended in a cease fire like Hungary wants; just stop the killing. Quit spending our money for Uki Teenagers to 65 year olds to get killed.
Click to expand...
I don't seen any positives from handing Ukraine over to Russia. A victorious, confident and aggressive Russia occupying Ukraine and bordering numerous NATO countries would destablise Europe, particularly those NATO countries bordering Russia/Belarus.
Perhaps you'd prefer if the USA stopped supporting Ukraine and left it to the Europeans to support Ukraine. The European NATO members see Putin as a real and existential threat. The resulting split in NATO is exactly what Putin hoped to achieve by invading Ukraine.
Hungary is probably the one European country which is pro-Putin. Orban is seen as 'Putin-lite' with his distortion of the democratic processes and use of faux states of emergency to maintain a personal grip on power.
It's a shitty situation, but there are no quick fixes. I think the current situation is the least-worst option.
 
The "poor maintenance" angle that says taht Russia allowed the bridge to collapse is likely more about deliberate misuse of the spillways. Apparently, the Russians left the spillways open all through the dry summer last year, leading to very low water levels. Up to the dam break, they kept spillways closed during high water, possibly leading to the dam overtopping.

 
teepot said:
Saw today that there is a good chance that Ukraine will get 40 something F18's from Australia. The US, Australia and Ukraine are in talks now. The planes could be ready in four months.
Click to expand...
Australia put their original F-18s away about two years ago. If they’re reactivated and sent into combat, that may be a good option to get fast jets to the front without the risk of inadvertently supplying advanced technology to Russia.

The Australian Super Hornets are still flying though. It might be cheaper to send airplanes that they already know are good instead of having to possibly refurbish stored ones.
 
My wife and I were watching the news last night, and one of the contributors was talking about how the dam breech would affect both sides in the war. Ukraine would have trouble crossing the Dnipro below the dam, but it also meant that the Russians would have to withdraw from their defensive positions along parts of the Dnipro because of flooding.

My wife usually doesn’t have a lot to say about military strategy or tactics, but her take was that the Russians probably already knew their defenses were likely to fail in that area, and this was a ploy to stall the Ukrainians and also give cover to retreat and retrench. She said, “This is the kind of thing you do when you already know you’ve lost and you want to get out.” Kind of like blowing a bridge behind you as you withdraw. I’m not sure about that, but it could be true.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
My wife and I were watching the news last night, and one of the contributors was talking about how the dam breech would affect both sides in the war. Ukraine would have trouble crossing the Dnipro below the dam, but it also meant that the Russians would have to withdraw from their defensive positions along parts of the Dnipro because of flooding.

My wife usually doesn’t have a lot to say about military strategy or tactics, but her take was that the Russians probably already knew their defenses were likely to fail in that area, and this was a ploy to stall the Ukrainians and also give cover to retreat and retrench. She said, “This is the kind of thing you do when you already know you’ve lost and you want to get out.” Kind of like blowing a bridge behind you as you withdraw. I’m not sure about that, but it could be true.
Click to expand...
It’s “scorched earth” but flooded.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
My wife and I were watching the news last night, and one of the contributors was talking about how the dam breech would affect both sides in the war. Ukraine would have trouble crossing the Dnipro below the dam, but it also meant that the Russians would have to withdraw from their defensive positions along parts of the Dnipro because of flooding.

My wife usually doesn’t have a lot to say about military strategy or tactics, but her take was that the Russians probably already knew their defenses were likely to fail in that area, and this was a ploy to stall the Ukrainians and also give cover to retreat and retrench. She said, “This is the kind of thing you do when you already know you’ve lost and you want to get out.” Kind of like blowing a bridge behind you as you withdraw. I’m not sure about that, but it could be true.
Click to expand...
I think she’s on the right track. If you can’t keep out an army, one option is to make it so they need to be a navy instead.

This also reminds me of the words of British General Sir Charles Harrington, addressing the press before blowing up a bunch of underground mines to destroy a hill at the Battle of Messines: “Gentlemen, I don’t know whether we are going to make history tomorrow, but at any rate we shall change geography!”
 
Last edited:
smstachwick said:
This also reminds me of the words of British General Sir Charles Harrington, addressing the press before blowing up a bunch of underground mines to destroy a hill at the Battle of Messines: “Gentlemen, I don’t know whether we are going to make history tomorrow, but at any rate we shall change geography!”
Click to expand...
That is some fine British wit right there.
 
Art Upton said:
We want the killing stopped, No reason to keep sending jr high kids and 60 old gramps to a meat grinder
Click to expand...

Killing stops when Russia quits its war of aggression against Ukraine are returns to its borders. Or Ukraine forces it to retreat through force of arms.
Would you have voiced the same appeal to Americans fighting for their freedom against an imperial power in 1776?
The circumstances are not dissimilar.

Art Upton said:
Perhaps you do not know but all the millitary aged men are gone now
Click to expand...

Really?
Gone where?
To the movies?

Ukraine had a pre-war population of 41,130,432 as of 1 February 2022.
67.68% of that are age 15-64 (a little younger that minimal military age, but close enough for tonight).
Assuming ~50% male vs. female split, that's: 41,130,432 * 0.6768 * 0.5 == 13,918,538 males of military age.
Only a fraction (10%?) of those are likely under arms. I can't find reliable estimate on the current size of Ukrainian military. You?

The high-end of Ukrainian losses are estimated at around 124,500 to 131,000 total casualties, including 15,500 to 17,500 killed in action and 109,000 to 113,500 wounded.

I trust you can do the math from here on how far your statement is from reality.
And, perhaps, realize that whatever sources you are listening to, are either Russian, or are completely full of it.
Or both.

Hope this helps,
a

1686195816275.png
 
afadeev said:
Would you have voiced the same appeal to Americans fighting for their freedom against an imperial power in 1776?
The circumstances are not dissimilar.
Click to expand...
I'd say the circumstances are very dissimilar.

The American War of Independence was not against a nation who had invaded the continent but one who had colonised, financed and defended it. Americans had legitimate grievances against the crown and GB had issues covering the cost of defending the colony. Rebellion happened and we all know the outcome.

Ukraine is not rebelling against its legitimate government but defending against an external aggressor.
 
Why don't people realize this war is about much more than Ukraine? Putin has invaded his neighbors over and over. The Russians want their empire back. Putin and his cronies made this clear. If we don't stop him in Ukraine, stopping him will become more expensive later. Pay now or much much more later.
 
cbwho said:
Why don't people realize this war is about much more than Ukraine? Putin has invaded his neighbors over and over. The Russians want their empire back. Putin and his cronies made this clear. If we don't stop him in Ukraine, stopping him will become more expensive later. Pay now or much much more later.
Click to expand...
Exactly. What message do we want to send to Russia and other countries looking to try the same thing? That being aggressive against your neighbors works and will bring you benefit, or that it will bring the wrath of the West down on you and it's not worth trying?
 
I keep seeing vague reports about very heavy fighting in Zaporizhzhia. There’s not a lot of detail, which may be due to “OpSec” concerns or “fog of war”. But it sounds like the Ukrainians are pressing south into Russian-held territory. Some of the less-reliable YouTube channels I check out are characterizing this as a Russian collapse, but I’d take that with a grain of salt. Even so, something big is apparently underway. Many people thought Zaporizhzhia was the most likely place to begin a counteroffensive with a goal of a fast advance across the open agricultural terrain to retake Melitopol and cut the main land bridge supply line to Crimea.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
I agree. The news is going to just trickle out. They are keeping a tight lid on the plans and the day-to-day results this time.
Click to expand...
At this point they know that continued support relies on continued and sustained success, not a dramatic but brief regaining of ground. My guess is that we will only get information when it’s no longer of strategic, operational, or tactical importance.

Zelenskyy’s responses to questioning display a specific kind of understated power. If I were a Russian combatant reading or listening to his statements, I’d be very worried about the progress and overall result of the war.
 
The city of Tokmak seems to be mentioned quite a bit in news media. It also appears that UKR made a limited push in that direction earlier in the week and lost a handful of Bradley, mine clearing vehicles and a leopard tank. Don’t know if any were recovered.
 
smstachwick said:
My guess is that we will only get information when it’s no longer of strategic, operational, or tactical importance.
Click to expand...

This is the same as it was during last summer's Ukrainian offensive campaign.
Lucky for us, Russians don't believe in information security, and regularly share real-time updates directly from the front lines (aka milbloggers).
I can't read, nor really have the time or desire to track all those sources, but ISW does it for us, and provides daily summaries:
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-10-2023
NOLA_BAR said:
The city of Tokmak seems to be mentioned quite a bit in news media. It also appears that UKR made a limited push in that direction earlier in the week and lost a handful of Bradley, mine clearing vehicles and a leopard tank. Don’t know if any were recovered.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the Bradleys, but I remember seeing an update the the sole damaged Leopard 2A6 was re-threaded and put back into service.

In other news, Russians blew up another dam somewhere along the rout of Ukrainian forces advance:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/11/7406385/
In the mean time, that big dam near Kherson that was blown up the other day, is rapidly emptying the upstream reservoir.
The picture below is showing the new river stream that is forming in place of the pervious lake.
Once those new river banks dry up in a week or two, they will be very crossable!

1686543245042.png
 
Last edited:
PhilC said:
afadeev said:
Would you have voiced the same appeal to Americans fighting for their freedom against an imperial power in 1776?
The circumstances are not dissimilar.
Click to expand...

I'd say the circumstances are very dissimilar.

The American War of Independence was not against a nation who had invaded the continent but one who had colonised, financed and defended it. Americans had legitimate grievances against the crown and GB had issues covering the cost of defending the colony. Rebellion happened and we all know the outcome.

Ukraine is not rebelling against its legitimate government but defending against an external aggressor.
Click to expand...

I agree with your punchline, alas my original comparison went along a different path.
Ukrainians are fighting against an Imperial force that has publicly and openly stated that its aim is to erase Ukraine off the map. Putin's stated position is that Ukraine is not a real state, and its territory really belongs to Russia, and his forces are invading to make it so.

If Ukraine loses, it seizes to exist. They are fighting for their independence and survival.

18th century Britain was not willing to let go of its colonies without a fight and acquiesce with American independence as a state.
If Americans forces were to lose to the invading British army, their nascent country would have been snuffed out, and seized to exist. They were fighting for their independence and survival.

Different events had led up to the armed conflicts between the two colonizing Imperial powers: British in the 18th and Russian in the 21st centuries.
Identical incentives and outcomes are at stake.

a

P.S.: There are other interesting parallel in the way 3rd parties had come to the assistance of the underdogs vs. Empires: French threw a lifeline to the Americans (though supplies of arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support), while the US is assisting Ukrainians now (though not as fully).
 
Last edited:
afadeev said:
18th century Britain was not willing to let go of its colonies without a fight and acquiesce with American independence as a state.
If Americans forces were to lose to the invading British army, their nascent country would have been snuffed out, and seized to exist. They were fighting for their independence and survival.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I still find your analogy weak.
There was no 'invading' British army and never could be. It was British sovereign territory until 1776 when America declared the colonies as free and independent states.
In the run up to the Revolutionary Wars the forces in the 13 (British owned) American colonies were engaged in defending the colonies in the French & Indian wars. After that they enforced and protected the western boundaries of the colonies due to ongoing disputes between Britain and France regarding Louisiana and Canada.
Following the formation of revolutionary militias, and the actions at Concorde and Bunker Hill, the British sent reinforcements from Europe to restore order in its colony. Sending reinforcements to restore order in a colony is not an invasion.
At this point there was no 'nascent country' to snuff out. It had no government, no offices of state, no armed forces, no financial or governmental institutions, just the Continental Congress and a weak agreement of confederation of the states. In British eyes it was a rebellious colony until the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
I think the only time the British invaded America was in the War of 1812, at which time America was definitely a nation.

afadeev said:
There are other interesting parallel in the way 3rd parties had come to the assistance of the underdogs vs. Empires: French threw a lifeline to the Americans (though supplies of arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support)
Click to expand...
French support was motivated by a desire to keep the British military tied down on another front while they, and their Spanish allies, waged war aginst Britain in the Indian Ocean, Carribean and Mediterranean. Far from being anti-imperial the French and Spanish were busy trying to build & defend their own empires at the expense of Britain.
 
PhilC said:
French support was motivated by a desire to keep the British military tied down on another front while they, and their Spanish allies, waged war aginst Britain in the Indian Ocean, Carribean and Mediterranean. Far from being anti-imperial the French and Spanish were busy trying to build & defend their own empires at the expense of Britain.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, the France of the time would never pass up an opportunity to kick the British in the nuts, and vice-versa.
 

Similar threads

B
Interesting Reading
Replies
7
Views
500
cls
C
Dotini
Serious Nation Security Threat?
3 4 5
Replies
127
Views
4K
Peartree
Peartree
smstachwick
(Un)official Star Wars Rebels Thread
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
smstachwick
smstachwick
Winston
Drunken Ukrainian Air Force Officer Smashed His Volkswagen Into A MiG-29 Fighter
Replies
14
Views
2K
rellis2
rellis2
Winston
Everything New We Just Learned About The 2020 Iranian Missile Attack On U.S. Forces In Iraq
Replies
0
Views
798
Winston
Winston

Latest posts

Back
Top