The War in Ukraine

[Maxman1]

Sources: SBU attack against Russia's Morozovsk airbase destroys 6 planes

The overnight attack against the Russian Morozovsk airbase on April 5 was carried out by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) together with Ukraine's military, a source familiar with the matter told the Kyiv Independent.

kyivindependent.com

 

[QV]

The 88 won't be enough. It simply comes down to math, time and being Canadian. We originally purchased 138 of them (CF-18's) and we are basically down to around 65 that can operate in a potential warzone.- not sure if this number includes or doesn't include the Aussie purchases.

So from 1982 until 2024 - 42yrs - we've 'lost' just over 50% of the original purchase. If we decide to fly the F35 for 40yrs (and yes we most likely will be we are cheap MF's), we'll be sitting on about 42-43 operational aircraft in 40yrs. Does that number of 42 meet our treaty obligations within NORAD and NATO? Afraid not I believe.

EDIT: added 'CF-18's' label

I'd be surprised if the number (65) is that high. The older the airframes get the amount of turn around time goes up dramatically along with chances of more crippling deficiencies arising that ground the aircraft much longer.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I'd be surprised if the number (65) is that high. The older the airframes get the amount of turn around time goes up dramatically along with chances of more crippling deficiencies arising that ground the aircraft much longer.

Everytime you open a panel to fix one thing, you find two other things you did not expect…

 

[QV]

Everytime you open a panel to fix one thing, you find two other things you did not expect…

That goes anytime you are working with old shit. Whether it's old equipment, old infrastructure, or old people.

 

[TacticalTea]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776248686034514274

BLUF: Might Ukraine have won the war had it annihilated the Russian armies around Kyiv early on by trading terrain elsewhere?

My take: yes, terrain can be retaken, especially if NATO had appropriately responded by immediately providing a no-fly zone (Blue on Red was precedented, had occurred before during Korea and Vietnam) and all necessary armament, such as Taurus, ATACMS, etc, devoid of usage restrictions.

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776248686034514274

BLUF: Might Ukraine have won the war had it annihilated the Russian armies around Kyiv early on by trading terrain elsewhere?

Not sure that would have been possible.

There are a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda moments that in isolation appear could have resulted in better results, but also don’t tend to look at what a focused RuAF could have affected as well.

The biggest failures I see are the West:

1) the US should have parked V Corps in Eastern Ukraine with several other NATO country MNB’s (outside of the occupied territories artillery range but with HIMARS range) in January and Putin would have had a nothing burger to do.

2) Failing that, significantly more support up front, and ‘nothing is off the table for support’ to let Putin guess what we may give Kyiv.

 

[TacticalTea]

Not sure that would have been possible.

There are a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda moments that in isolation appear could have resulted in better results, but also don’t tend to look at what a focused RuAF could have affected as well.

The biggest failures I see are the West:

1) the US should have parked V Corps in Eastern Ukraine with several other NATO country MNB’s (outside of the occupied territories artillery range but with HIMARS range) in January and Putin would have had a nothing burger to do.

2) Failing that, significantly more support up front, and ‘nothing is off the table for support’ to let Putin guess what we may give Kyiv.

Yes, I updated my post with my take.

Totally agree with the notion that, if we expected invasion, then we should've preempted it.

 

[KevinB]

I hope more where roasted.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776165439648731311

 

[KevinB]

Now Russia wants to blame France too.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776011947432968254

 

[quadrapiper]

1) the US should have parked V Corps in Eastern Ukraine with several other NATO country MNB’s (outside of the occupied territories artillery range but with HIMARS range) in January and Putin would have had a nothing burger to do.

Totally uneducated, but moving V Corps and whatever else eastward seems like a move that could have been made at a number of inflection points (or whenever, for that matter) even after the invasion: week two, when it became clear Ukraine would fight, or during any of the Ukrainian counterattacks, etc. Park it in western Ukraine as the world's largest training and replenishment establishment.

Short of that, do the same but in Moldova.

 

[KevinB]

Totally uneducated, but moving V Corps and whatever else eastward seems like a move that could have been made at a number of inflection points (or whenever, for that matter) even after the invasion: week two, when it became clear Ukraine would fight, or during any of the Ukrainian counterattacks, etc. Park it in western Ukraine as the world's largest training and replenishment establishment.

Short of that, do the same but in Moldova.

Once the shooting had started in the initial invasion it would have been tough to move forces in, as there would be a huge potential for direct conflict between NATO and the RuAF.

After the front had stabilized, then there was opportunity to do so again.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Once the shooting had started in the initial invasion it would have been tough to move forces in, as there would be a huge potential for direct conflict between NATO and the RuAF.

After the front had stabilized, then there was opportunity to do so again.

Biggest thing that started this war was the US pulling out its troops right before the Russians invaded. Basically gave the green light to Putin.

He never would have invaded if the US has left their troops and said if a single US soldier dies you will be at war with NATO.

 

[Maxman1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776248686034514274

BLUF: Might Ukraine have won the war had it annihilated the Russian armies around Kyiv early on by trading terrain elsewhere?

My take: yes, terrain can be retaken, especially if NATO had appropriately responded by immediately providing a no-fly zone (Blue on Red was precedented, had occurred before during Korea and Vietnam) and all necessary armament, such as Taurus, ATACMS, etc, devoid of usage restrictions.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Biggest thing that started this war was the US pulling out its troops right before the Russians invaded. Basically gave the green light to Putin.

He never would have invaded if the US has left their troops and said if a single US soldier dies you will be at war with NATO.

Lets be honest, this phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war all happened 6 months after the disastrous withdrawl from Afghanistan. No one at the Pentagon or White House wanted to be the reason for another bad press story about Americans dying due to a foreign policy blunder.

Its also why Op UNIFIER was quietly shuffled out of theatre prior to the start of hostilities.

If we're getting down to tacks, the only reason this has gone on as long as it has is because NATO and the West allowed it to in 2014. If there was a steadfast resolve by NATO to assist Ukraine when the first "Green Men" crossed the border then, we wouldn't still be playing "Chicken or Go" a decade on...

 

[suffolkowner]

I hope more where roasted.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776165439648731311

hopefully we'll get confirmation of numerous aircraft losses soon

 

[KevinB]

Hmm almost like folks outside of North America noticed that the world isn’t very stable.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776286294005436735

 

[KevinB]

Meanwhile in America.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775690873247797441

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776230113203408906

 

[TacticalTea]

Eh, not really.

I think both Kevin and I's criticism is thrust primarily at western decision-makers who absolutely had the information and opportunity to do the right thing and just didn't.

The difference between Russia's opportunities and the West's is that Russia had all the political will but mediocre information, while we had excellent information but mediocre political will.

Russia did what it could. The West didn't.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Eh, not really.

I think both Kevin and I's criticism is thrust primarily at western decision-makers who absolutely had the information and opportunity to do the right thing and just didn't.

The difference between Russia's opportunities and the West's is that Russia had all the political will but mediocre information, while we had excellent information but mediocre political will.

Russia did what it could. The West didn't.

Alternatively there could be a realpolitik play in action here by the West. Bait Russia into attacking Ukraine by withdrawing western troops, creating intelligence stating that Russia should be able to take Kiev in 3 days, and making it look like Ukraine is weaker than they really were.

Then supply Ukraine with enough equipment to prolong the war, but not enough to win it in order to weaken Russia and it’s allies long term by dragging it into a sustained conflict they can’t afford to lose, but also likely can’t win.

Not saying this is the case, just saying I wouldn’t be surprised if it was.