How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Jarhyn]

Big morale victory for Ukraine, but won't impact military logistics much.

That’s why they should make it an “Every Friday” thing.

.

I generally don't post in this thread, because I am very ignorant concerning almost everything. I don't know about the history, people, or even the geography. I certainly don't understand military strategy and such.

But wouldn't a 12 mile long bridge, so crucial to the Russian's war goals, be easily taken out by whoever took out Nordstream?

Whoever that was hasn't bombed the bridge. Why not? The most obvious answer to me, who doesn't claim to know anything else, is that whoever bombed Nordstream was on Putin's side of this. Or that bridge would have been taken out weeks ago.
Tom

It's more that bridges represent part of the infrastructure and development, the stuff with intrinsic value over which you are fighting.

As such, damages tend to focus on denial rather than destruction when possible.

It's difficult to make a bridge unuseful without making it unrecoverable once the asset is claimed.

Also, preventing civilian casualties is important.

 

[Patooka]

I generally don't post in this thread, because I am very ignorant concerning almost everything. I don't know about the history, people, or even the geography. I certainly don't understand military strategy and such.

But wouldn't a 12 mile long bridge, so crucial to the Russian's war goals, be easily taken out by whoever took out Nordstream?

Whoever that was hasn't bombed the bridge. Why not? The most obvious answer to me, who doesn't claim to know anything else, is that whoever bombed Nordstream was on Putin's side of this. Or that bridge would have been taken out weeks ago.

It's worth pointing out that neither the Kerch Bridge or Nordstream have been proven to be acts of sabotage. There is a decidedly non-zero chance that both occurred because of good old fashioned Russian incompetence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Supposedly the Poostain is taking it personally and has vowed to unleash Judgement Day in retaliation. Fuck him and all the Hitlers of the world. Zelensky is on record saying that if the Poostain goes nuclear on Ukraine it will cost Poostain his life. This is probably not an idle threat as the Ukrainians seem to be quite capable of carrying out activities inside Putinstan. If the Ukrainians are behind the attack I hope they pick a few more spots along the bridge and blow it to hell, just like their cities are being blown to hell.

Hitler to escalate assault on Ukraine after latest humiliation

The Kremlin previously warned any attack on the Kerch Strait would be a red line and trigger “judgement day”.

Seems like all the Ruskis have left are threats. They must not understand what is happening to the Ukrainian population because of their war.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Russia is saying that the explosion in Crimean bridge was caused by a truck bomb, and from the footage and damage it sounds plausible: the road bridge that collapsed was the epicenter, and apparently caused another portion of the bridge to fall as well, damaged the adjacent lane, and set the tanker train on fire. Presumably the explosion was intended to blow up the train, which would have caused even more damage to the railway bridge, but failed to do so. Possibly a suicide mission.

I think more likely someone managed to slip a charge into an ammo truck.

The railway connection is probably easy to repair, mostly just fire damage. The second lane of the road bridge might still work, but that depends on whether there was structural damage to that side that would prevent heavy traffic. And if it was a suicide truck, stopping any future attacks of that nature just requires better inspections at the checkpoints in Russian side, so there's no fear of repeat attacks like in Antonivskyi bridge in Kherson. The effect on Russian logistics is probably going to be short-lived, but the mental blow is still huge.

If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.

 

[steve_bank]

I lisstend to an analyst predict the NATO response to tactical nukes. It was said tactcal nukes are not part of western military strategy, however it is part of Russian military doctrine.

NATO by air would destroy every Russian point in Ukrainian and the Russian Baltic fleet.

If Ukraine had attack jets and helicopters it would be over quickly.

Buden said there has been direct communcation wirth Russia on consequnces for using nukes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Big morale victory for Ukraine, but won't impact military logistics much.

That’s why they should make it an “Every Friday” thing.

.

I generally don't post in this thread, because I am very ignorant concerning almost everything. I don't know about the history, people, or even the geography. I certainly don't understand military strategy and such.

But wouldn't a 12 mile long bridge, so crucial to the Russian's war goals, be easily taken out by whoever took out Nordstream?

Whoever that was hasn't bombed the bridge. Why not? The most obvious answer to me, who doesn't claim to know anything else, is that whoever bombed Nordstream was on Putin's side of this. Or that bridge would have been taken out weeks ago.
Tom

Bombs work quite well underwater. Nordstream could have been done by shoving something off the back of a ship.

Air is quite another matter, though. Against hard targets you have to get basically a direct hit to do much. (Most damage from a bomb is from fragments, not from the boom.) The air simply compresses, you're not going to damage the bridge from a boat unless you have enough boom to pick up a segment of it. Rail bridges are even harder to damage because they're so open.

 

[bilby]

If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.

As long as it wasn't jet fuel, which as we all know, can't melt steel beams.

 

[ZiprHead]

Russia is saying that the explosion in Crimean bridge was caused by a truck bomb, and from the footage and damage it sounds plausible: the road bridge that collapsed was the epicenter, and apparently caused another portion of the bridge to fall as well, damaged the adjacent lane, and set the tanker train on fire. Presumably the explosion was intended to blow up the train, which would have caused even more damage to the railway bridge, but failed to do so. Possibly a suicide mission.

I think more likely someone managed to slip a charge into an ammo truck.

That's possible. The truck came from the Russian side of the bridge. Russian Ukraine sympathizers?

The railway connection is probably easy to repair, mostly just fire damage. The second lane of the road bridge might still work, but that depends on whether there was structural damage to that side that would prevent heavy traffic. And if it was a suicide truck, stopping any future attacks of that nature just requires better inspections at the checkpoints in Russian side, so there's no fear of repeat attacks like in Antonivskyi bridge in Kherson. The effect on Russian logistics is probably going to be short-lived, but the mental blow is still huge.

If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.

As I understand, the trains are already running again.

 

[bilby]

It was said tactcal nukes are not part of western military strategy,

They were developed by the West (specifically the USA) for purely strategic reasons. The Soviet massed armour in East Germany was poised to sweep across western Europe using 'blitzkrieg' to reach the English Channel within a few days, before any reasonable amount of reinforcement from the Americas would have been possible.

The initial solution to this was to deploy large amounts of US manpower and equipment in Western Europe, particularly West Germany; But this was expensive, and was unpopular both with the deployed troops, and with the local residents. A cheaper option was to develop tactical nuclear weapons, so that a much smaller US force could block any Soviet advance for long enough for reinforcements to be deployed across the Atlantic Ocean.

As a consequence, tactical nukes were not only a part of Western strategy; they were the keystone of Western strategy for the last decade or so of the Cold War.

They're not a part of Russian military strategy; The Russian development of these weapons has more of a flavour of "They've got them, so we need them too" about it.

Regardless, they're completely unsuitable for any purposes other than the purely psychological, in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Neither side is facing massed armour; Neither side has distant but overwhelming reinforcement available that would make a few weeks of delay strategically valuable; Neither side is disinterested in short to medium term occupation of the territory in which these weapons might be used.

The only way Russia could use 'tactical' nuclear weapons against Ukraine would be as 'miniaturised strategic nukes' - to strike against cities and towns for non-tactical purposes, without deploying their megaton-range arsenal, in the hope that the rest of the world will say "...sure, it was an illegal use of WMDs against civilians, but it was only a little one".

For any tactical purposes, Russia has the means and opportunity to use conventional artillery to achieve a better result than they could obtain from tactical nukes. That they are utterly failing to even hold their ground, much less to advance, indicates that neither nuclear nor conventional tactics are going to work for them, because they're simply not able to bring their forces to bear effectively on their enemy.

They've got the ability to destroy targets. They lack the ability to locate, identify and strike at those targets quickly enough to harm the Ukrainian forces, who are employing both decoys and mobility with great effect.

Replacing wasted conventional artillery strikes against non-military targets with a wasted tactical nuclear strike against a non-military target achieves nothing of benefit to Russia.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Russia is saying that the explosion in Crimean bridge was caused by a truck bomb, and from the footage and damage it sounds plausible: the road bridge that collapsed was the epicenter, and apparently caused another portion of the bridge to fall as well, damaged the adjacent lane, and set the tanker train on fire. Presumably the explosion was intended to blow up the train, which would have caused even more damage to the railway bridge, but failed to do so. Possibly a suicide mission.

I think more likely someone managed to slip a charge into an ammo truck.

That's possible. The truck came from the Russian side of the bridge. Russian Ukraine sympathizers?

The railway connection is probably easy to repair, mostly just fire damage. The second lane of the road bridge might still work, but that depends on whether there was structural damage to that side that would prevent heavy traffic. And if it was a suicide truck, stopping any future attacks of that nature just requires better inspections at the checkpoints in Russian side, so there's no fear of repeat attacks like in Antonivskyi bridge in Kherson. The effect on Russian logistics is probably going to be short-lived, but the mental blow is still huge.

If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.

As I understand, the trains are already running again.

They didn’t inspect shit. They just weight tested it with a train.

 

[bilby]

Russia is saying that the explosion in Crimean bridge was caused by a truck bomb, and from the footage and damage it sounds plausible: the road bridge that collapsed was the epicenter, and apparently caused another portion of the bridge to fall as well, damaged the adjacent lane, and set the tanker train on fire. Presumably the explosion was intended to blow up the train, which would have caused even more damage to the railway bridge, but failed to do so. Possibly a suicide mission.

I think more likely someone managed to slip a charge into an ammo truck.

That's possible. The truck came from the Russian side of the bridge. Russian Ukraine sympathizers?

The railway connection is probably easy to repair, mostly just fire damage. The second lane of the road bridge might still work, but that depends on whether there was structural damage to that side that would prevent heavy traffic. And if it was a suicide truck, stopping any future attacks of that nature just requires better inspections at the checkpoints in Russian side, so there's no fear of repeat attacks like in Antonivskyi bridge in Kherson. The effect on Russian logistics is probably going to be short-lived, but the mental blow is still huge.

If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.

As I understand, the trains are already running again.

They didn’t inspect shit. They just weight tested it with a train.

When you don't give a crap about the lives of the people who use it, any bridge is a usable bridge.

 

[Hermit]

Excuse the momentary sidetrack, please.

The initial solution to this was to deploy large amounts of US manpower and equipment in Western Europe, particularly West Germany; But this was expensive, and was unpopular both with the deployed troops, and with the local residents.

I agree with your post, bilby, but neither expense nor (lack of) popularity affected the number of US troops posted overseas.

Once the infrastructure was established, the cost of keeping a quarter million US troops in Germany was almost indistinguishable from having them stationed in the US.

The deployed troops could hardly feel the difference. Most of them had their families with them, and hardly any lived in barracks. They had their own homes in US compounds resembling little cities with shopping malls, schools, golf courses, football grounds, baseball parks, churches, social clubs for various hobbyists and interest groups etc. Some did not even live inside those communities. The troops and their families basically liked their lives.

As for Germans, they basically regarded the US occupiers favourably. Unlike the British, who were not a great deal better off than the natives in the area they were controlling, they were generous. We just about developed a cargo cult. Unlike the French, they were not plain vindictive and unlike the Russians they were not outright oppressive, brutal and cruel.

The popularity of US troops was fairly good almost from the start. It got a huge uplift when they broke the USSR's 1948/9 blockade of Berlin with their raisin bombers.

Air-freighting over 12,000 tons of milk, coal, flour and whatever else Berlin needed to survive was definitely super expensive, but the USSR lifted the blockade in May 1949. Not trusting Stalin, the US continued with what became known as the air bridge until September. Expense was not an impediment during the cold war.

The generosity was not confined to that city. Speaking personally, we had a USAF pilot renting a room from us. He was a never ending source of goodies like peanut butter, corn flakes, pop corn and other luxuries we had not known until he arrived. We also socialised with children of American troops. Fun times were had by all. Language differences were not an obstacle.

Beginning around 1967, popularity did take a rather profound dive. I think it was in part due to the emergence of a leftish political movement, the vaguely rebellious hippy culture and a growing opposition to the Vietnam war. None of these developments brought about a drawing down of the number of troops in Germany, though, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter.

In short: Neither cost nor popularity are factors in the number of overseas troop deployments. National interest is. There was no significant reduction of overseas forces until the USSR's dissolution brought about the end of the Warsaw pact and the cold war with it.

 

[Copernicus]

Like the Nazi troops before them, the Russian army is not just an army of mass murder and destruction. It is also an army of thieves. Like locusts, they descend on new territory and cart off everything that they think of value, including historical artifacts. In those lands that they occupy, there is what one Associated Press article calls:

‘War crime:’ Industrial-scale destruction of Ukraine culture​

If you visit Russian museums and historical locations that were under German occupation in WWII, you will hear all sorts of stories about how the Nazis carted off priceless works of art, some of which has never been recovered. For example, I recently visited the famous  Amber Room in Catherine II's palace at Tsarskoe Selo outside of Petersburg. It is lovingly restored now with new amber, but the original room was looted by the Nazis, and nobody knows what they did with all of that amber. Nowadays, it is an obligatory stop in the palace, where guides express their anger and disdain for the Nazi thieves.

Russian troops are behaving no differently from the Nazis in an area where they are shoving the fascist "One People" doctrine down the throats of the locals:

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The exquisite golden tiara, inlaid with precious stones by master craftsmen some 1,500 years ago, was one of the world’s most valuable artifacts from the blood-letting rule of Attila the Hun, who rampaged with horseback warriors deep into Europe in the 5th century.

The Hun diadem is now vanished from the museum in Ukraine that housed it — perhaps, historians fear, forever. Russian troops carted away the priceless crown and a hoard of other treasures after capturing the Ukrainian city of Melitopol in February, museum authorities say.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, now in its eighth month, is being accompanied by the destruction and pillaging of historical sites and treasures on an industrial scale, Ukrainian authorities say.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Ukraine’s culture minister alleged that Russian soldiers helped themselves to artifacts in almost 40 Ukrainian museums. The looting and destruction of cultural sites has caused losses estimated in the hundreds of millions of euros (dollars), the minister, Oleksandr Tkachenko, added.

“The attitude of Russians toward Ukrainian culture heritage is a war crime,” he said...

 

[Jayjay]

US may run out of M30/31 guided rockets for HIMARS, says think tank:

'Close to the limit': The US is running out of essential weapons to send to Ukraine

Washington is "learning lessons" from the conflict about ammunition needs in a great power war, which are "far greater" than expected, a US military official says.

www.abc.net.au

GMLRS rockets have proved to be very effective against Russian logistics, and in particular there is no way Ukraine can take back Kherson if it loses that weapon. Unless it can at least advance close enough that Dnipro bridges and ferries are within regular artillery range.

 

[Copernicus]

GMLRS rockets have proved to be very effective against Russian logistics, and in particular there is no way Ukraine can take back Kherson if it loses that weapon. Unless it can at least advance close enough that Dnipro bridges and ferries are within regular artillery range.

If the battle for Kherson depends entirely on this one weapon, then you may be right. However, I imagine that there are other weapons available, if the analyst who wrote that piece is right in his understanding of existing stockpiles and the rate at which they are being and can be replenished. The Russians are also running out of ammunition, and at least some of the equipment now used by Ukraine seems to be supplied by retreating and/or surrendering Russian troops.

 

[Jayjay]

GMLRS rockets have proved to be very effective against Russian logistics, and in particular there is no way Ukraine can take back Kherson if it loses that weapon. Unless it can at least advance close enough that Dnipro bridges and ferries are within regular artillery range.

If the battle for Kherson depends entirely on this one weapon, then you may be right. However, I imagine that there are other weapons available, if the analyst who wrote that piece is right in his understanding of existing stockpiles and the rate at which they are being and can be replenished. The Russians are also running out of ammunition, and at least some of the equipment now used by Ukraine seems to be supplied by retreating and/or surrendering Russian troops.

Russia is out of ammunition in Kherson because Ukraine shoots the bridges and ferries they try to deliver them with, as well as any reasonably-sized storage. Remove that and Russia can go back to its usual tactic of overwhelming artillery barrages. Russia won't run out of artillery shells (at least not before the western stockpiles), its problem is logistics to get them to the front lines.

Can Ukraine replace HIMARS with other types of weapons? To some extent, yes. The 155mm GPS guided Excalibur shells should be just as accurate, but have shorter range (which is why it's crucial Ukraine pushes Russia back so that they can use regular artillery). ATACMS missiles that Ukraine currently doesn't have could help continue to hit longer-range targets. Kamikaze drones could be used also, but they have to get past Russian air defenses and have smaller payloads. These would be inferior choices.

 

[Copernicus]

Russia is out of ammunition in Kherson because Ukraine shoots the bridges and ferries they try to deliver them with, as well as any reasonably-sized storage. Remove that and Russia can go back to its usual tactic of overwhelming artillery barrages. Russia won't run out of artillery shells (at least not before the western stockpiles), its problem is logistics to get them to the front lines.

Can Ukraine replace HIMARS with other types of weapons? To some extent, yes. The 155mm GPS guided Excalibur shells should be just as accurate, but have shorter range (which is why it's crucial Ukraine pushes Russia back so that they can use regular artillery). ATACMS missiles that Ukraine currently doesn't have could help continue to hit longer-range targets. Kamikaze drones could be used also, but they have to get past Russian air defenses and have smaller payloads. These would be inferior choices.

Yes, but I do not have information on what methods the Ukrainians have available to them to keep those bridges disabled. Is it only through the use of HIMARS? Everything I've read only refers to "attacks" on the bridges. No specifics. Your article did not mention the use of HIMARS in Kherson or support your assumption that they are crucial to keeping those damaged bridges disabled. My assumption would be that, if you are correct that Ukraine depends on the HIMARS to conquer Kherson, then they would move their dwindling supply of GLMRS missiles to that theater of operations and use other means available to them. If they need to move closer, they'll move closer. It seems that the Russian troops there are so much on their back foot that they have virtually stopped all attacks and artillery barrages. Increased looting is now going on, and there is a lot of chatter about lack of supplies and other morale issues. So the situation strikes me as less dire for Ukraine than you suggest, but I'm no military strategist, and I have no real knowledge of the situation there beyond what I read.

This Radio Free Europe article claims that the Ukrainians first damaged the Antonivskiy Bridge on July 19-20. It began using the HIMARS only on July 26-27. But it is not usable any longer. The makeshift pontoon bridges and ferries do not seem sufficient to keep the eastern side of the river supplied properly, and Ukrainian troops are advancing south along the Dnipro. The shelling mentioned in the article took place in August. Right now, the Russians aren't doing much shelling.

Ukraine Says Positions In East Shelled To Prevent Troop Transfers, Plot To Kill Top Officials Foiled​

 

[ZiprHead]

That bridge does not look safe.

 

[Copernicus]

This BBC story proposes the possibility that a Ukrainian maritime drone fitted with explosives might have been used. The prevailing theory of a truck bomb has been suggested by Russia, and the Ukrainian government seems to be encouraging that interpretation, saying that Russia should look "inside Russia" for the answer.

Crimean bridge: Who - or what - caused the explosion?​

Security camera footage released on social media showed a truck - allegedly from the Russian city of Krasnodar, an hour's drive from the crossing - moving west across the bridge at the time of the explosion.
Russian officials named a 25-year old Krasnodar man, Samir Yusubov, as the owner of the truck, and said an older relative, Makhir Yusubov, was the driver.

But close examination of the footage seems to show that the truck had nothing to do with the explosion.

The footage shows a huge fireball erupting just behind - and to one side - of the truck as it begins to climb an elevated section of the bridge.

The speed with which the truck bomb theory started to spread in Russian circles was suspicious. It suggested the Kremlin preferred an act of terrorism to a more alarming possibility: that this was an audacious act of sabotage carried out by Ukraine.

"I've seen plenty of large vehicle-borne IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in my time," a former British army explosives expert told me. "This does not look like one."

A more plausible explanation, he said, is a massive explosion below the bridge - probably delivered using some kind of clandestine maritime drone.

"Bridges are generally designed to resist downwards loads on the deck and a certain amount of side loading from the wind," he said. "They are not generally engineered to resist upward loads. I think this fact was exploited in the Ukrainian attack."

Some observers have noted that in one of the other security camera videos, something that looks like the bow wave of a small boat appears next to one of the bridge supports, a split second before the explosion.

...

This is not the first time reports have circulated suggesting that Ukraine has access to such clandestine equipment.

"There are well-founded reports which suggest that the Ukrainians have both surveillance and strike maritime remote controlled vehicles in service," the British explosives expert told me...