Originally Posted By Star_Scream:
Wagner should be declared a terrorist group for their participation in operations in Ukraine.

Originally Posted By Capta:
... In short, there is probably more long-term benefit to getting their piece of Russia than there is to fixate on a small island with no resources.

Originally Posted By AgeOne:
Russia is really making itself a lot more enemies.

In response to #Russia’s blockade of #Kazakh #oil exports,

\uD83D\uDC49#Kazakhstan blocked 1,700 rail cars with #Russian coal on its territory
 
\uD83D\uDC49The tension between Russia and Kazakhstan is growing pic.twitter.com/kMOrFOzLhM

— Saida Zahidova (@Saida_Zahidova) June 20, 2022

Originally Posted By CarmelBytheSea:

China is going to exploit this

Originally Posted By JQ66:



That should end up in some advertisements in trade magazines for Raytheon and LM

Originally Posted By 302w:


Are those Rooskie regulars? I imagine not, with their hodge podge uniforms.

Originally Posted By nomansland:


I think it was a NYT article or something else that stated Ukraine was firing ~6,000/day while Russians were doing ~60,000/day of artillery shells.  Doing some math - 152 mm shell is ~100 lbs total (projectile is less but still need to get total weight to the weapon to fire).  Explosive charge is ~15 lbs so say 15%.  Ukraine is firing about 300 tons per day (45 tons of explosive) while Russia is firing 3,000 tons per day (450 tons of explosive).

Estimates I'm seeing of NATO is that they have a total of ~1000 ground attack aircraft.  Say 2 sotries per day.  It looks like only 100 are F35 so I could completely agree that in the current AD environment that majority would have extreme difficult operating (so maybe take 10% of my number below?).

An F35 can have two 1000 lb bombs internally and still be stealthy.  If you had 1000 planes deliverying two 1000 lb bombs at a 2 sortie per day rate then that is 2,000 tons delivered (so about 1,000 tons of explosive delivered).

From say Kiev, you could cover all the current fronts and in interdict deeper than the systems we are sending (disrupting logistics, etc.).  You could hit Severodonetsk, then Kherson the next.  With artillery you would need to move the systems and the logistics of all those shells.  Doing similar math on the killing power of guys running around with NLAWS and Javalins is even more lopesided (that is why we are seeing the current artillery war - that is the greatest combat power the two can impose given the anti-air environment that neither side can overcome).

A different topic but a few pages back Jack67 was arguing that taking Crimea should be a strategic focus as a center of gravity.  CharlieR was arguing that degrading the warfighting capacity of the Russians was the number 1 goal (imposing enough cost that they finally give up).  I would agree with Jack67 if I was looking through the lens of either NATO or the US, but I think CharlieR is right given what Ukraine has.

If the US were in the war, we would probably not be talking about US artillery, not because it isn't great, but because it would likely have trouble getting in a position quick enough to kill big juicy targets before the Air Force did or the Abrams and Bradley over-ran the position and killed everything.  We could probably make a play of taking Crimea and then hitting all the Russian forces as they were trying to reposition (like stirring up a hornets nest).  Unfortunately I don't think Ukraine could take advantage of that situation given their current weapons available, and I doubt they could make an attack with the speed we could to force the Russians to react in the same way.  Given the advantage of being the defender, I think the Ukrainians are making the smartest play they can given the cards they hold.  I hope they can get more of the heavier systems up front with the necessary targeting for them to have a significant impact (I worry that they might have difficulty getting targeting further behind the lines with the Russian AD and EW).  They've been on the bad side of a war of attrition recently and that isn't something that can be maintained long term.