Russia's War Against Ukraine

[JasonPratt]

I remember it fondly. 

I had legitimately forgotten it happened back in 2018!! -- which from the context (Syrian conflict) you'd think I'd have remembered. Until I watched the video, I felt like it had been only around 2020 or something like that. (I guess in a way it was "around" 2020...)

In other news, I'm getting old. 2018 is already so long ago..... (Evidently we haven't recovered the old white beard smiley talking about the old days. It would, admittedly, be totally redundant on this site.    )

[Jarhead0331]

I think it is necessary to view the drone incident objectively. Yes, it was reckless, negligent, aggressive and provocative, but under the circumstances, not entirely unjustified. The US is openly, as a matter of declared policy, supplying massive quantities of lethal weapons to Ukraine that are being used to kill Russian soldiers and destroy Russian equipment. Furthermore, these drones are being used to gather intelligence that is being supplied to Ukraine to great effect. Finally, the interception was relatively low risk, as the US does not consider attacks on drones, generally, as a basis for armed retaliation. Several drones were downed over Syria with no military response. In short, I don't really see a down side for Russia and it gives them the opportunity to argue that they are actively confronting NATO while also not risking a greater escalation.

[Tripoli]

I think it is necessary to view the drone incident objectively. Yes, it was reckless, negligent, aggressive and provocative, but under the circumstances, not entirely unjustified. The US is openly, as a matter of declared policy, supplying massive quantities of lethal weapons to Ukraine that are being used to kill Russian soldiers and destroy Russian equipment. Furthermore, these drones are being used to gather intelligence that is being supplied to Ukraine to great effect. Finally, the interception was relatively low risk, as the US does not consider attacks on drones, generally, as a basis for armed retaliation. Several drones were downed over Syria with no military response. In short, I don't really see a down side for Russia and it gives them the opportunity to argue that they are actively confronting NATO while also not risking a greater escalation.

I have to give them a begrudging bit of respect for the out of box thinking they did in bringing down the drone.  It seems clear the collision was accidental, and what they really wanted to do was disable the drone by dumping fuel on it (which I understand may actually disable the drone).  This tactic is a winner in terms of potentially achieving a kinetic kill using the least provocative measure possible.

[Groggy]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1636306622015238144

An excellent justification for providing Ukraine: A) Fighter jets they need to achieve air superiority. B) ATACMS to hit the Russian bases.

[ArizonaTank]

I have to give them a begrudging bit of respect for the out of box thinking they did in bringing down the drone. ....

I am somewhat surprised it has taken the Russians this long to do it.

I could be very wrong, but I get the general sense that the Russian military is starting to get its "sea legs" after many, many, many, hard lessons and mistakes. They still have a long way to go for competence, but they aren't making as many really stupid OPSEC mistakes; like letting NATO / Ukrainian sensors know where the Russian generals are located for example.

But I don't think that means the Russian MoD knows how to conduct a major offensive...yet. It was only a month ago that the Russian army was biting the big one in their own non-Wagner offensives.

I think it just means that the Russian MoD are starting to know how to conduct a war of attrition.

However, maybe all of that learned "competence" goes out the window if the Ukrainians do conduct an offensive (I would love to see some Russian units shatter). 

I also think that is why we are seeing Russian MoD push back so hard on Wagner recently...the MoD is feeling those "sea legs."

[MengJiao]

seems clear the collision was accidental, and what they really wanted to do was disable the drone by dumping fuel on it (which I understand may actually disable the drone).  This tactic is a winner in terms of potentially achieving a kinetic kill using the least provocative measure possible.

  The fuel or the collision only stopped the drone camera for about a minute, so I'm not sure how effective the
fuel thing is and for that matter making 19 passes seems more maximally twisted goofy passive-aggressive than
least provocative.  After x number of passes you're likely to "accidentally" hit the drone sooner or later fuel dumping goofyness or no. 

[MengJiao]

In short, I don't really see a down side for Russia and it gives them the opportunity to argue that they are actively confronting NATO while also not risking a greater escalation.

 I guess as a PR event it is not too bad, but are they going to dump fuel and bump into drones from now on or is
it just another weird Russian PR stunt like having the Patriarch denounce people who don't like Harry Potter for the wrong reasons?

[ArizonaTank]

Poland says it broke up a Russian sabotage ring who were planning to disrupt shipments to Ukraine.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/poland-breaks-up-russian-spy-ring-suspected-of-planning-attack-on-military-supply-routes-to-ukraine/ar-AA18IoNt?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4a69de030d114335bb59c58f258be111&ei=62

[Skoop]

If that had gone down, would that be grounds for article 5 ?  Could Poland go boots on the ground in Ukraine with out NATO ?  Most poles would support a polish only incursion into Ukraine.  Poland views the Zelenski led Ukraine as vital to their security and they are chomping at the bit to get in the fight.

[bobarossa]

Does anyone know if the "NATO" Mig 29's have the ability to fire longer range missiles?  I recall the Ukrainian's complaining about how out-ranged they were against the Russian planes.

[FarAway Sooner]

I'm not certain, but I kind of think that they don't have the ultra-long range AAMs that the Russian CAP is flying over the front lines in Ukraine.  That said, land-based SAMs on the Ukrainian side with longer range can push that Ukrainian CAP back a bit deeper. 

Lots of cat-and-mouse stuff going on there on both sides.

I'm still astonished that a Russian jet could initiate a head-on impact with anything even the size of a garbage can (much less a Predator) and not flame out.  IF the Russian jet had initiated a head-on collision and both craft had perished in a fireball, I'm betting that the Russians would have claimed that the Predator initiated the collision to save face.

One of the oldest trick of dictators and would-be dictators is to drum up fear of some "other" to rally your own people and get them looking somewhere besides home, where the government is normally totally screwing things up.

The whole point of getting in a fight with some other country is to focus the fear of the people on somebody besides yourself.

That said, the Russians are flying their planes through international airspace with impunity to launch attacks on Ukraine, and NATO has responded by flying a lot of their intelligence assets right up against international airspace to give the Ukrainians better targeting info.  There's been some curious back-and-forthing from the Pentagon on exactly what they're doing, but those agencies aren't really in the business of consistently telling the truth, nor should they be.

[GDS_Starfury]

Does anyone know if the "NATO" Mig 29's have the ability to fire longer range missiles?  I recall the Ukrainian's complaining about how out-ranged they were against the Russian planes.

well if Ukrainian Mig-29s can fire HARMS, who knows what Polish Migs can shoot these days.

[GDS_Starfury]

very reliable ammunition 
glad their factories are working around the clock.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1636332146129350656

[bobarossa]

FarAway Sooner, the Russians approached from behind.   The Reaper has a pusher prop. 

[SirAndrewD]