Russian Invasion of Ukraine - tactics and logistics

[Copernicus]

The escalation left to Russia is using WMD.

Reporting says Russian support for the war is high. Putin can use it to justify WMD to the Russian people. It furthers the Putin narrative of Ukraine/NATO as an existential immediate threat.

The attack on Russian territory is militarily justified, but it is of little strategic value, since Russia has plenty of fuel elsewhere. Ukraine can't really take the war to Russia. That isn't a winnable solution, and it will have the same effect on Russia that Russia's attack on Ukraine did--rallying the people to oppose the external threat. So Putin can use that attack to his advantage, even though he is the one who made Russia a valid target by starting an unprovoked war. It isn't logical, but human beings aren't usually motivated by logic when it comes to war. This was a minor victory in the military war and a strategic blunder in the propaganda war.

Prob'ly why this is widely suspected to be a false flag Op.

We all know that nothing happening in Ukraine has anything to do with Putinstan. Everything happening in Ukraine is the fault of Ukraine and Ukraine should suffer accordingly. It will eventually come out that Ukraine has been bombing itself, its civilians, its infrastructure, even its troops in order to instigate this conflict against Russia. What could be more obvious?

In fact, Ukraine has denied any responsibility for that fire in the oil depot. Russia has been flogging the story of a Ukrainian attack, but the fire could just have broken out by accident, which would be highly embarrassing to Russia, especially given its massive failures to subdue Ukraine. They did put out a video showing some helicopters flying away from the fire, but those could have been operated by Russians sent in to observe the extent of the damage. There is no actual footage of an attack on the depot, just the fire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ukraine hits Russian side of the border, near Kharkiv, for the first time:

Ukraine Denies Responsibility For Blast At Russian Fuel Depot

Ukraine has denied responsibility for a fiery blast at a civilian oil storage facility on Russian territory.

www.rferl.org

Interesting to see if Russia will see this as an escalation (assuming it's true).

It may be a foolhardy comment but… Good for them. Punch back. Bloody his fucking nose.

That's a good sign. The fact that Russians don't seem able to keep their vehicles fuelled is bad enough. It would appear the Ukrainians are going to exploit this weak link. I hope they start taking out launch sites and staging areas.

No. There are no relevant launch sites to take out. And they shouldn't hit staging areas--the more Russian troops in Ukraine the better. Russia is fucked on logistics, that's what should be hit--the food, the fuel, the ammo. Troops without supplies are just a burden on Russia.

 

[Copernicus]

The claim of a Ukrainian attack came from a regional commander--the one responsible for making sure that fires don't break out at that facility. Lucky for him that "Ukraine diddit", eh? Putin himself may believe that Ukraine launched an attack, even if they didn't. He depends on what the military tells him, and they aren't above making up excuses.

 

[Hermit]

Everything happening in Ukraine is the fault of Ukraine and Ukraine should suffer accordingly. It will eventually come out that Ukraine has been bombing itself, its civilians, its infrastructure, even its troops in order to instigate this conflict against Russia. What could be more obvious?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There is no actual footage of an attack on the depot, just the fire.

Video shows helicopters attacking fuel depot inside Russia

 

[Copernicus]

Video shows helicopters attacking fuel depot inside Russia

Yes, you are right, and I was wrong. NBC news has confirmed that it was a bona fide attack by Ukrainian helicopters. Sorry for the skepticism, but I hadn't seen the videos of the rockets hitting the depot before that.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Some of the things I have seen means the Russians have forgotten this: A tank with infantry support is a potent instrument of combat. A tank by itself is a target.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Jayjay]

I'm beginning to think the Belgorod strike was masterful on many levels.

There's of course the fact that Ukrainian helicopters could operate in Russia at all and carry out an attack like this, which shows they are very competent (or Russians are just very incompetent).

The target affects logistics near Kharkiv, and make it harder for Russia to move its troops from the Northern front to the East.

On a psychological level, it sends a message that Russian troops are not safe even on Russian soil. That has to impact morale. Also, just a few days ago Sergei Shoigu said that Ukrainian air force has been destroyed. A strike like this embarrasses Shoigu, and further erodes the rank and file's trust on its leadership, if there is any left.

The timing also coincides with the recent decree to induct over hundred thousand conscripts to the army. Sure, Putin has promised that they will not be serving in Ukraine... but now, it turns out that they might not be so safe even if they never leave Russia. Any one of the conscripts could end up in places like Belgorod.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I wondered where these Ukrainian air forces are based. It was mentioned the helicopters that struck in Belgorod were out of Kharkiv. They’re doing a damn good job of hiding them from the Russians.
It also seems Russian radar is not capable of monitoring the skies at lower altitude. Pulling a moving target out of stationary clutter is not new technology.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Some of the things I have seen means the Russians have forgotten this: A tank with infantry support is a potent instrument of combat. A tank by itself is a target.

Eldarion Lathria

Very true. Also bunching them together is not very smart! It also could be that the Ukranian army using high tech has made the tank obsolete.

 

[Rhea]

Most of the discussion we’re having here at IIBD is sourced with media reports.

I’m wondering if anyone has any sites they like to read that are more strategic discussions or deeper explanations?

This discussion has been interesting and I appreciate the links, just wondering if there’s a strategi-geek site for those moments when I’m interested in more detail than the American public us usually requesting.

 

[jonatha]

Most of the discussion we’re having here at IIBD is sourced with media reports.

I’m wondering if anyone has any sites they like to read that are more strategic discussions or deeper explanations?

This discussion has been interesting and I appreciate the links, just wondering if there’s a strategi-geek site for those moments when I’m interested in more detail than the American public us usually requesting.

Daily Kos has some excellent commentary

 

[steve_bank]

Shoulder fired anti tank weapons go back to WWII.

It appears the Russian military is simply inept and poorly trained. Conscripts who have no clue what they are fighting for. They extended a supply line to Kiev with unprotected exposed flanks. No coordinated air and land power. The US and NATO has that down to a science.

It all looks like random uncoordinated actions.

Add to that Russians lack the western expertise in logistics.

Russia went from the Soviets who suppressed personal initiative and creativity to a dictatorship that does much of the same. Culture matters.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Most of the discussion we’re having here at IIBD is sourced with media reports.

I’m wondering if anyone has any sites they like to read that are more strategic discussions or deeper explanations?

This discussion has been interesting and I appreciate the links, just wondering if there’s a strategi-geek site for those moments when I’m interested in more detail than the American public us usually requesting.

https://cepa.org/
https://www.csis.org/
https://www.fpri.org/

 

[Rhea]

[additional news sources with depth on Ukraine]


It also came up at electoral-vote.com today, they suggested Al Jazeera

 

[Copernicus]

I wouldn't underestimate the Russian military on the basis of its war here in Ukraine. It isn't just inept military leadership and lack of training for the troops. This entire invasion seems to have been former KGB agent and self-appointed "Tsar of all the Russias", Vladimir Putin, making a last minute decision to exercise his option of an invasion, when his intimidation tactics didn't work. Unfortunately, his generals only planned to make a show of force and then do the most likely thing--seize the rest of Luhansk and Donetsk. Putin made the decision to just get it over with and seize Kyiv in order to decapitate and replace the Ukrainian leadership. I think that Putin was just making it up as he went, and his military leadership was rushing to catch up, never having spent a lot of time thinking through a coherent strategy to achieve goals they had been kept in the dark about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some of the things I have seen means the Russians have forgotten this: A tank with infantry support is a potent instrument of combat. A tank by itself is a target.

Eldarion Lathria

It looks like the Javelin might have changed that. It flies far enough that the infantry support can't protect the tank.

 

[Copernicus]

Some of the things I have seen means the Russians have forgotten this: A tank with infantry support is a potent instrument of combat. A tank by itself is a target.

Eldarion Lathria

It looks like the Javelin might have changed that. It flies far enough that the infantry support can't protect the tank.

The new kamikaze drones may also be game changers. Tank warfare may become as obsolete as wearing suits of armor did when firearms came into widespread use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wondered where these Ukrainian air forces are based. It was mentioned the helicopters that struck in Belgorod were out of Kharkiv. They’re doing a damn good job of hiding them from the Russians.
It also seems Russian radar is not capable of monitoring the skies at lower altitude. Pulling a moving target out of stationary clutter is not new technology.

An airborne radar pulling a moving target out of stationary clutter is not new technology. A radar on the ground can't see through the hills, though. Helicopters are good at keeping terrain between them and radars that are hunting for them.

Look at the Apache/Kiowa system. The Kiowa goes hunting for targets, the only part of the system that's above the horizon is the sensor dome that is mounted above the rotors. And when it's sniffing for targets it's basically stationary. (The helicopter hovers and carefully pokes it up having a look.) When they find something worthy of shooting at the location is passed off to the Apaches that are elsewhere and entirely below the horizon. The first the target knows there's trouble is when the Hellfire pops up and comes blazing in--and as soon as the Hellfire leaves the rail the Apache was heading elsewhere.

I suspect a lot of younger people think of the Hellfire as being used to target terrorists, but it was originally built to kill Russian tanks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Shoulder fired anti tank weapons go back to WWII.

It appears the Russian military is simply inept and poorly trained. Conscripts who have no clue what they are fighting for. They extended a supply line to Kiev with unprotected exposed flanks. No coordinated air and land power. The US and NATO has that down to a science.

It all looks like random uncoordinated actions.

Add to that Russians lack the western expertise in logistics.

Russia went from the Soviets who suppressed personal initiative and creativity to a dictatorship that does much of the same. Culture matters.

But WWII shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons were short ranged, both in terms of the rocket booster and since they didn't have seekers you couldn't fire from very far away and expect to hit. Firing them put you at great risk from the supporting infantry.