Russia-Ukraine War (Threadbanned in op)

RGARDINR

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122160397#Comment_122160397

Very true never know everything.

zerosquared

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/houthis-hit-a-tanker-with-russian-oil/

Greek owned tanker carrying Russian oil, oh dear

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122161093#Comment_122161093

Heh.

(random post to be able to follow this thread)

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122159831#Comment_122159831

Not the worst idea and wouldn't break our sacred neutral position. Michael Flatley's yer man and Connor McGregor, they could surely fund a production stream of poitín to be dropped in?

Manic Moran

Some time in the mid 80s, there was a cartoon published which depicted two Soviet Army officers having coffee at a cafe with the Eiffel Tower in the background. The caption was along the lines of: "By the way, Sergei, did you ever find out who won the air war?"

Heartening though it is to see Russian ships sunk or damaged, and acknowledging the benefit of keeping the Russians honest and forcing them to honor the threat of TBMs by retaining assets near the fleet, I can't help but reflect on the fact that it's not corvettes which are pushing Ukraine back on the Kherson front and that I hope that future ATACMS are used on slightly more productive targets.

zerosquared

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122161725#Comment_122161725

Attacks on Black Sea fleet

1. Puts the majority of Russian trade which uses Black Sea into danger, putting a boot on Russian economy
2. Frees up personnel from having to defend likes of Odessa on opposite site from north east of Ukraine
3. Directly demolishes an argument that Crimea was needed for Russia to control Black Sea
4. Offers morale boost
5. Keeps sinking platforms that can launch missiles and perform re supply and amphibious assaults
6. Brings the war to Russians who think they are safe

And most importantly the US long range missiles can’t be used to strike targets in Russia so are of little use in Kharkiv direction where they risk landing in Russia and causing WW3 or some nonsense like that

You sort of have a point but let’s revisit the prohibition on use of weapons outside Ukraines 1991 borders

Wolf359f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122161725#Comment_122161725

It's one less ship to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities.

Using the unitary ATACMS on the Frontline seems very wasteful when Ukraine already have cluster variants and shorter range missiles at their disposal.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122161762#Comment_122161762

Puts the majority of Russian trade which uses Black Sea into danger, putting a boot on Russian economy

Hardly. Ukraine isn't going to target civilian shipping.

Frees up personnel from having to defend likes of Odessa on opposite site from north east of Ukraine

That made sense when destroying the landing craft I guess, a bit less so now.

It's a morale booster for sure, and a strong mental attack on any feelings of safety. But it does seem rather unproductive militarily.

Virgil°

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122161725#Comment_122161725

If the reports are to be believed one the of the ships that the new batch of unitary warhead ATACMS clipped recently was a "Cyclone"  Karakurt-class corvette. The kind of ships that are busy testing out their new supposedly "un-interceptable" zircon hypersonic missiles on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-black-sea-fleet-ukraine-crimea-tsiklon-corvette-1902339

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/13/europe/ukraine-russia-zircon-hypersonic-missile-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

Given the cruel and stupid restriction that the Americans have placed on the weapons donated to Ukraine only being allowed to be used on Ukraine sovereign territory I'm honestly struggling to think of a better use for these things. No?

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122161798#Comment_122161798

For a long time it's been (IMO) a kind of "total war" they are facing from Russia (with Putin only staying the use of WMD, and refraining from direct military attacks on Ukraine's allies).

There's just a lot of stuff they have to think about at the same time. Their own economy has dependencies on sea trade. Wrecking Russia's ships at port and in the Black sea or at least keeping ships and submarines etc. afraid and well off their coast ensures they cannot be blockaded there (which Russia has wanted to do to choke their economy).

Also as mentioned these kinds of ships are used to drop cruise missiles on cities all over Ukraine, making life intolerable for civilians, damaging the economy, drawing air defences away from cities and towns closer to the front lines. Having them as an option probably makes it easier to set up barrages of missiles and drones coming from all directions to overwhelm defences etc. etc.

zerosquared

Remember how Russia blockaded Ukraine without sinking a single civilian ship? Well that cuts both ways once Black Sea fleet is growing coral 🪸

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122161762#Comment_122161762

I'm not seeing the return as all that great.

1. I don't think killing a corvette makes any particular difference in Russian trade. And as mentioned, Ukraine isn't doing much commerce raiding anyway. After two years, has a single Russian civilian ship been interfered with?
2. I can't imagine there was a whole hell of a lot by Odessa anyway. The Black Sea Fleet's amphibious warfare capability took quite the knock when it lost various big amphibious warfare ships. Losing a corvette or not doesn't change that. The risk there is mainly small-scale/special forces groups, maybe inserted by helicopter if not submarine.
3. a. Arguments don't win conventional wars. Folks with guns do. b. Holding Crimea didn't seem to make the Black Sea any safer, so I'm not sure what losing it and and then being hit in Novossirisk has proven.
4. Yay for the nation. Soldiers will probably get more of a morale boost from seeing a rail bridge or supply dump blowing up, however.
5. The amount of missiles being lobbed by the Black Sea fleet isn't all that great in the big scheme of things and has more psychological than military impact as a result. In any case, watch as land-based launchers of the things start being built, much as the Argentinians took missiles off warships and launched them from land instead in 1982. As for ambibious assaults, see 2.
6. Fair. Why not bring the war to Russians who think they are safe at fuel supply facilities or ammo dumps or rail yards which as supplying the Army which is currently pressing the Ukrainians?

Maybe it's just because I'm Army and have as a result an Army-centric view of things, but it seems to me that in the order of things which need blowing up, Russian Army and Air Force systems need to take precedence over Naval ones given the current military situation.

zerosquared

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122162170#Comment_122162170

I am sure Ukrainians have a target list a mile long especially near Belgorod/Kharkiv but alas for now they can only use what little they get in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk

Keep in mind this thread only gets headlines, over last couple of weeks the visually confirmed third party compiled lists of Russian equipment have been impressive and daily corpse bag counter reached all time records, there has been strikes on air fields, oil facilities, ammo dumps and command centers

But once again limited to Ukraines 1991 borders

So it’s easy to form a picture which might seem disappointing from the army knuckle dragging point of view 😄

Today’s report claims 60% of initial Russian gains near Kharkiv have been recaptured including most of that town right in border

EltonJohn69

https://united24media.com/latest-news/ukraines-110th-mechanized-brigade-shoots-down-fourth-su-25-in-two-weeks-394

Fourth Su-25 eliminated in the last two weeks, nice uptick in russian equipment being destroyed. Those American weapons are starting to their job.

Say my name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122162170#Comment_122162170

Russia blockaded any Ukrainian trade via the Black Sea. How many billions worth of damage did that do to the Ukrainian economy? That's billions of finance gone from the war effort to pay the grunts and put bullets and guns in their hands. Where did the goods go that would usually go by the Black Sea go? They went across into Poland and eastern Europe. Now this undercut farmers in Poland and eastern Europe who would be producing the same goods. What happened? Protest. Farmers blocked the roads into Ukraine and Putin was getting his fifth army from the farmers of Europe to turn favour against Ukraine. It wasn't the Ukrainian farmers fault they just wanted sale. But the Black Sea was shut to traffic. So it went next door for whatever low price could be got.

Another element could be western nations were too afraid to put their naval forces in the Black sea. And these actions are removing the threats one by one and allowing for the day when destroyers and aircraft carriers will be in the sea keeping peace from Russian forces. Allowing Ukraine to trade unimpeded.

Putin's plan was to take the entire southern coast to Odessa so Ukraine would be cut completely from the Black sea. Without access, the country is doomed financially. And you can see how that forces eastern europeans then to hate the country when their goods come in there instead of to sea on the world market.

The Ukrainian emblem is the Tryzub. It's a trident. It possibly could be Poseidon's or Neptune's trident the knowledge of it's use as a symbol go back so far in Ukraine.

TheValeyard

Wow. That's an impressive hot streak on the black sea fleet.

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1792650338354233538

Lads has something changed with Twitter, I can no longer post likes with headings?

Say my name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122163300#Comment_122163300

Seems now it's changed over to an X link completely. When it was still Twitter and X it allowed the link to post up wherever. Now it's completely X. That has gone.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122163136#Comment_122163136

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. As Ukraine has shown, you don't need surface vessels to challenge maritime traffic. Let alone nation states, a rebel militia group in a... well... less than modern nation, is managing to force global shipping to avoid its area. It will be many years before Ukrainian-bound ships will be openly sailing any distance from shore. As it is, Russia doesn't seem to have placed a lot of effort in anti-shipping efforts. It does seem to be placing a lot of effort in the ground campaign though, which is doing its own number on the Ukrainian economy.

Odessa is not currently at risk from the Russian Navy. Most of the landing ships are gone, and I doubt Turkey is likely to allow any more to enter the Black Sea. Similarly I doubt we will see any aircraft carriers in the Black Sea. Not only would it be a bit silly, nothing much larger than a US Navy destroyer is allowed in by treaty.

Say my name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122163489#Comment_122163489

How will Russia export Ukrainian grain or steel if it doesn't have it's navy bully access out of the Black sea? Big money is made from maritime transport. There's a huge difference in the logistics of one bulk carrier or oil tanker over land transport.

Odessa is not at risk atm because of the targeting of the russian navy by Ukraine.

Similarly Crimea is said to have no defense from drones and missile due to the destruction of the radar base at Mount Aj-Petri. Ships cost big money. If as you say they don't seem to have placed a lot of effort in protecting ships. Then it's pertinent that ukraine take advantage of that fact and make hay while the sun shines.

zerosquared

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122163300#Comment_122163300

edit url to Twitter.com instead X, I guess a bug fix is needed for boards parser

Example

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1792773772560265253

fly_agaric

@Manic Moran

As Ukraine has shown, you don't need surface vessels to challenge maritime traffic. Let alone nation states, a rebel militia group in a... well... less than modern nation, is managing to force global shipping to avoid its area.

It is interesting, I was thinking about this a bit. Am not sure. If Russia wants to blockade Ukraine without using its fleet in the Black sea, would they have to use swarms of unmanned ships, fire drones/missiles etc. to attack the cargo ships? Is there any other option?

I don't think their situation is like the Houthis, or Iran. Even Iran seem to try and keep a thin diplomatic "oh we're just another normal country" mask on, stay at arms length and pretend they don't have anything to do with ordering and directing the Houthi pirate campaign + even still tell lies and deny arming Russia.

The ships will usually be owned by a 3rd party (not Ukraine), the lost cargo will have been ordered by someone else, the sailors on board that die will be from somewhere else.

We know Russia will do whatever they can get away with and only respect power or a threat hanging over them but they do still have a lot of countries they rely on who continued after the invasion like nothing has happened or even grew trade. They would have to be careful and choosy about targetting to avoid collateral damage (as e.g. murdering 10 or 20 Indian, or some Chinese sailors say…) and they can do nothing about "optics" of waging a Houthi-like campaign against the trade, civilian ships, and sailors of countries they are not (yet) at war with.

zerosquared

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122163489#Comment_122163489

You are making arguments against the existence of pretty much whole US and Chinese Navies yet both are trying to increase ship count and installing counter drone and missile defences because they know from history that just because tech changes that doesn’t render a whole wing of military obsolete (eg battleship to carrier switch and before that coal to oil and before that wooden to iron ships)

The problems for Russian fleet is that a chunk is trapped in NATO Baltic lake, remainder is in far east and frozen north, and more importantly they don’t have the facilities to innovate domestically, witness cope cages and having to beg Iranians for drones and Koreans for shells.

I enjoy your posts @Manic Moran but it seems when it comes to non land warfare you are a fish out of water sort of speak 😀

CelticRambler

I think Ukraine's position regarding the Black Sea is much simpler: make Russian Black Sea ports into a no-go zone for oil tankers. If they show to the world, and specifically the owners/operators of "grey" tankers, that they are willing and able to hit Russian ships, Russian oil refineries and Russian ports anywhere from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk, that will seriously disrupt oil exports through the Black Sea, forcing traffic to concentrate elsewhere with - potentially - the gatekeepers of the Baltic Sea being persuaded subsequently to apply much more stringent controls on ships of dubious seaworthiness passing their coastlines.

Of course there may also be a concurrent advantage in turning Crimea into a no-fly zone for the Russians and/or preparing the way for F16 sorties over the territory. I think it'd be a hard sell, even for Putin, to reconcile the capture of some little known village in the Donetsk region with the loss of Crimea … which I believe is still very much on the cards.

vswr

I feel it was a dick waving exercise to show off some new missiles, take out some corvettes which were causing issues and show what's due to come.

With the "no you can't, yes you can" argument on US munitions being used in Russia, long range ATACMS are no use other than hitting Crimea. Kharkiv front is well within range of regular HIMARS.

zerosquared

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122164057#Comment_122164057

Yesterday wave of Russian drone attacks (all shot down) has starting points all in Russia and all within range of these missiles but no can’t shoot at the origin point and factories within range

Virgil°

The Ukrainians aren't wasteful. They know they can't be if they actually want to win this thing. A unitary warhead ATACMS makes no sense targeting a single airframe surrounded on three sides by embankments. Every time we've seen airfields targeted nearly without fail it's been a cluster variant. The Russians learned pretty quickly about amassing enormous ammo dumps on Ukrainian territory once HIMARS showed up. It's likely the ammo dumps are either so distributed as to not be worth hitting or simply not present on Ukranian territory anymore. Crimea included.

At the end of the day though Ukraine has their own intelligence(fed by the Five Eyes). Their own numbers on how valuable these boats are and how much damage they're doing or potentially could do to their economy/infrastructure/civilian morale if left unchecked. And this is the target they've chosen. None of us here have the foresight or fog of war penetrating abilities required to criticize them.

aidanodr

very VERY TRUE .. Its just crazy. Right from start of this war Ukraine should have been left strike targets inside Russia. After all Russia is the agressor here who attacked Ukraine, not the otehr way around FFS

https://twitter.com/EHunterChristie/status/1792858997696958944

roosterman71

Some Russian money being held for rebuilding Ukraine. It's a start but not really much by just holding profits

https://twitter.com/EU2024BE/status/1792868861357740402

Wolf359f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122164857#Comment_122164857

I think that's the start, any profits/interest goes straight to Ukraine. It's the quickest way of getting cash to Ukraine while the slow process of transferring the Russian assets gets under way. I imagine they need to make sure they have all the legalities sorted. Don't want the EU left with hundreds of billions due to Russia in compensation

TheValeyard

This is interesting

Hopeful thinking or onto something?

https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1792795865268281583

Also, thanks to @zerosquared for figuring this out