Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Tripoli]

Russian lines NE of Kherson appear to be under significant pressure source : https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer):

[Tripoli]

And the Ukrainians are continuing to exploit their gains in the Lyman sector.  Based on this map, the attack in this sector has broadened, likely to continue to press the retreating Russians, and to fix Russian forces so they can not shift to the Kherson sector

[Windigo]

well, so much for Lyman.   <:-)

When I saw the UAF units involved in the north pincer.... they weren't there for moral support. I am thinking they will keep pushing until they find defensive Orc positions that don't fold with a mild probe.

[Windigo]

Yeah, don't assign any 3D chess to what happened in Lyman.

It was the Russians not knowing what to do and failing to do very tactically logical things weeks ago.

There's at least some stories now that the Russians did at least save some of their men there.  A lot of troops did get a retreat order but had to abandon their gear and positions and just run.

Issue now is they're falling back with UAF forces at their heels.

I noticed a sudden jump in pics of newly captured equipment... it never means good things for whoever lost it.

[SirAndrewD]

It's never good when the Russian MoD admits to things going badly.

They just announced the UAF have achieved an "Armored Breakthrough" in Dudchany in the south.  That is putting the entire right side of their positions across the Dniper in danger of being cut off.

Again, this didn't happen against Russia's 2nd string.  These may not be the Guards formations in Kherson, but the men around Dudchany are Russian regular army. 

The Russians can't afford to lose those troops.

[planetbrain]

It's all part of a Russian Ruse 
I hope Russia falls apart and something good results. But that's not how things work in this world, is it?
i.e. The world will end in a worse state than it was pre Feb. 2022

[SirAndrewD]

Sadly the instant the Russian tanks rolled over the border we were guaranteed some flavor of nightmare. 

To quote WarGames, "The only winning move was not to play".

[GDS_Starfury]

try this Tripoli, helps with the picture size.

[al_infierno]

try this Tripoli, helps with the picture size.

You should use a codeblock so people can actually read what you're telling them to use:

Code Select Expand

[img width=1200][/img]

[SirAndrewD]

Interesting item of note today. 

David Petraeus made the rounds today, speaking what was almost certainly language meant to communicate a warning to the Russians via "unofficial" channels. 

That message was, that if Putin does deploy tactical nuclear weapons, the response from NATO could be to commence full scale air operations with the intent of destroying the Russian army in the field in Ukraine. 

He also made it clear that such a response would include Crimea. 

A few CNN pundits echoed the message later.  Some analysis by them was that this chatter was in fact conveying to Russia that a NATO military response is fully an option in response to escalation to nukes.

[Jarhead0331]

There is a good analysis of the tactical nuke factor here. Starts at around 48:00...

[GDS_Starfury]

the copium is strong with this one.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1577127951950192640

[JudgeDredd]

There is a good analysis of the tactical nuke factor here. Starts at around 48:00...

I love this guy 

[GDS_Starfury]

that was a great interview.   :bd:

[Crossroads]

There was a rather interesting discussion on Finnish TV the other day between the former head of military intelligence Gen (ret) Pekka Toveri and one of the very senior diplomats (ret as well) Rene Nyberg, both discussing this quite openly as personal opinions as they emphasized.

One comment was that nuclear deterrence as it has traditionally been considered works very well: western nations have been very cautious in "not escalating" the war any further. Hence, no no-fly zones over western Ukraine, no modern tanks, etc.
As for "tactical" nukes, there was a very interesting comment by Nyberg in that "tactical" vs "strategic" only applies within military, outside military each and every nuclear weapon despite of its size is a strategic weapon, as it involves strategic decision making.
First, he said, there's the absolute taboo of using such a weapon first and foremost. From this point of view Putin's comment that "The US has set a precedent" is quite worrying. Yet, there's the absolute stigma a nation that uses a nuclear weapon would receive. As discussed in above video, it would further put Russia as a pariah state, and, there would be consequences, of course. Military consequences as been communicated to Russia by diplomatic channels I am sure as in the open, economic consequences as discussed in this video as well.

Hence, the use of such a weapon remains "highly unlikely" as discussed here as well.
The further point was then as whether Putin would yet resort to use of such a weapon or not, and if he does, would the military command channel with its various guardrails obey such a command.
I'd assume we're still way off from such a situation. First, the annexation of the four oblasts to Russia, from the point that if those oblasts are now part of Russia indeed, Putin can legally place conscripts there as well. That would go a long way solving the manpower issue, together with the mobilization they are performing.

Finally, as what the effect on Russian society would be as basically so many families should start worrying for their sons dying in a conflict that does really not make any sense to them is a further worry for Putin. I doubt the idea of a imperialist Greater Russia is that attractive but to older generation perhaps, and some hard core minority.
"They really have no good options", Justin Bronk concluded. Easy to agree with that one.