[download2live]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

All of this in the background of rumours that US Navy Poseidon was flying over Romania and provided targetting information to sink the Moskva.

Rescue operation ongoing, multiple aircraft, rescue vessels in the area. If true, could be another successful strike by Ukrainian Neptune missile(s) and add another humiliating loss.

It will be awesome to know what the submarines from both the sides are up to. Typically their role gets revealed a few years after the war ends.

Meanwhile Hungary says it needs Russian oil and European Commission has amended a proposal for an embargo on Russian oil to extend the period before it takes effect for Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. So they get a waiver till 2024 to use Russian gas.

Also the EU proposal to ban Russian oil omits the gas imports. Natural gas has yet to be targeted with sanctions. A potential ban has not yet been properly discussed at EU level because of the bloc’s reliance on it.

It is a difficult balancing act for all of except US. The conflict is away from their home with zero casualties. And it provides a distraction too from the oncoming recession.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by download2live

It will be awesome to know what the submarines from both the sides are up to. Typically their role gets revealed a few years after the war ends.

Ukrainian Navy never had any submarine. Their Flagship - a Krivak III class frigate was scuttled by the crew at its berth in Mykolaiv port to prevent its capture by Russian Forces.

Russian Kilo class submarines are known to be active in the Black Sea, firing Klub cruise missiles on Ukraine, they will not find any Ukrainian ships to hunt in the open seas.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

This is great news for the Ukraine!. Thanks for sharing. Kudos to Ukraine for giving what seems to be a crushing defeat to Russia.

The only thing which doesn't make sense is : Why is one third of the country (most of Donbas, Mariapol, Crimea etc) under Russian occupation? Most of the black sea coast & the Azov sea coast is under Russian occupation.

Hopefully we will not see a war in which Ukraine wins comprehensively (according to sources like oryx) but all of the territorial & strategic gains are made by Russia. That would be really counter intuitive unless this information is fabricated or misleading

Apples and oranges mate!

Losing more equipment is not the same as territorial gain. And territorial gain is not the same as winning a war unless that is the explicitly stated goal. The Kremlin's stated goal was regime-change (or de-nazification as they put it) but they are about as far from Kyiy as they could possibly be.

Below, you can see in blue, the territory taken back from Russia (from Al Jazeera). It is indeed embarrassing that Russia with its might in terms of both quantity and quality ending losing territory with all the propaganda about the 64 km long convoy headed to Kyiv. Also embarrassing is when they lose their Black sea flagship cruiser when they control almost the entire black sea coast & the Azov sea coast.



You are welcome to challenge the data from Oryx, they've included an image for each claim.

[goacom]

Lots of reports of another major Russian ship being hit. Still unconfirmed, but apparently naval tracking suggests that Russian rescue boats are headed towards this ship. This is a brand new ship that was commissioned in 2017 and even more advanced (and expensive) than the Moskuva. Certainly a big loss for the Russians if confirmed.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...ke-island.html

[vishnurp99]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Losing more equipment is not the same as territorial gain. And territorial gain is not the same as winning a war unless that is the explicitly stated goal. The Kremlin's stated goal was regime-change (or de-nazification as they put it) but they are about as far from Kyiy as they could possibly be. ...
You are welcome to challenge the data from Oryx, they've included an image for each claim.

Brother - I have no desire to prove Oryx wrong neither do I have the capability or the inclination for that.

I was just pointing out that from maps (& even the one that you shared) available across different news outlets, most of Donbas , black sea coast, sea of Azov is with Russia today. That is significantly more territory & black sea access/coastline than what Russia started with. If Ukraine is really hitting back @ Russia in a 1:4 ratio, then it stands to reason that Russia is losing the fight and will have to retreat soon.

if Russia ends this conflict with control over Donbas & Black sea + Sea of Azov coastline, then Ukraine is effectively a Rump state which is not viable economically and will become a welfare case for Europe/USA. If that is really the case, then all of this relative damage is misleading or fabricated. We can wait to see how this unfolds. The end state will help us access the accuracy of the western narrative and all of these numbers/images shared by sites like Oryx.

Wanted to make one last point : Some of the earlier posters have commented about pro-western vs russia/chinese sympathizers. I think there is another category here which is probably by far the largest. These are essentially folks who are trying to see this conflict from a neutral Indian Lens! My previous post was from that lens.

Originally Posted by goacom

The Russian/Chinese sympathizers will obviously choose to blame NATO/USA for this conflict, while those aligned with the west will put the blame on Russia. I am obviously on the latter side. It is pointless discussing this aspect of the conflict.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

An interesting piece of data from a Turkey-based OSINT monitoring site Oryx. Basically, they collect the information on losses of vehicles (the photographs are provided as well) and only the vehicles for which photographic evidence exists are counted.

Overall, Russia has lost 3,444 vehicles consisting of 608 tanks, 349 AFVs, 674 IFVs, 108 APCs, 25 MRAPs, 102 IMVs amongst other pieces of equipment.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has lost 987 vehicles consisting of 149 tanks, 88 AFVs, 108 IFVs, 50 APCs, 87 IMVs amongst other pieces of equipment.

The 'losses' include those destroyed, damaged, abandoned or captured and I must stress that only the equipment for which photographic evidence exists is counted

Perfect example how Ukraine is winning the online war but losing the real war.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

You are welcome to challenge the data from Oryx, they've included an image for each claim.

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

Brother - I have no desire to prove Oryx wrong neither do I have the capability or the inclination for that.

If I had hours of free time I could prove so many of the claims on that website as fake and many as misleading (destroyed Ukrainian tanks shown as Russian, same equipment is shown from various angles and counted multiple times).

But since I'm primarily interested in warplanes lets just focus on Ukrainian Mig-29 losses on that website:



Source: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...ukrainian.html

It shows 5-6 Mig-29 losses all in air combat.

Here is a video on YouTube showing 6 destroyed/damaged Ukrainian Mig-29s in a missile strike that was uploaded 2 months ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrgpOssjA9I

Here is an article confirming the same:

Watch: Six Ukrainian MiG-29 Fighter Jet Destroyed in Russian Missile Strike

https://fighterjetsworld.com/latest-...-strike/27658/

How can this expert website miss these 6 Ukrainian Mig-29 losses which are two months old and are in a single video and can found by a layman like me but it can reliably track 3,444 Russian losses and upload pictures for each one of them?

Russian "losses" seem to be updated daily on Twitter:

[NH08]

Meanwhile, Dutch Ambassador to UK had to eat humble pie after his ridiculous effort to preach India met with some really blunt reply from our diplomatic army.

On India's absence in UN Vote on Ukraine, the Dutch envoy had tweeted to Mr Tirumurti (India's envoy to UN):

"You should not have abstained in the GA. Respect the UN Charter."

Sharp came the reply from our envoy:



Poor Oosterom had to delete his tweet.

Source

S Jaisankar's army is on full offensive (whether Russian army is or is not).

[goacom]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Perfect example how Ukraine is winning the online war but losing the real war.

Yeah, the Russians are doing so well that they decided to retreat from Kiev after their victory there. They also declared victory at the Azov factory and are now retreating in the North West from the Kharkiv area and may even give Ukraine part of Russian territory around Belgorod as a peace offering!!

Originally Posted by Foxbat

It shows 5-6 Mig-29 losses all in air combat.

Here is a video on YouTube showing 6 destroyed/damaged Ukrainian Mig-29s in a missile strike that was uploaded 2 months ago.

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=wrgpOssjA9I

Here is an article confirming the same:

Watch: Six Ukrainian MiG-29 Fighter Jet Destroyed in Russian Missile Strike

https://fighterjetsworld.com/latest-...-strike/27658/

How can this expert website miss these 6 Ukrainian Mig-29 losses which are two months old and are in a single video and can found by a layman like me but it can reliably track 3,444 Russian losses and upload pictures for each one of them?

There were indeed 6 Ukrainian Mig 29s destroyed in that Russian airstrike on the first days of the war. The only problem is that the aircraft struck were old scrap non functional aircraft that were left abandoned there. The volunteers at the Oryx site are only keeping track of active aircraft that have been destroyed.

Although the US initially blocked the transfer of the Polish Mig 29s to Ukraine, the supply of spares has not been stopped. Ukraine actually has more active (flying) Mig 29s today than at the start of the war and is part of the reason why Russia has been unable to exert air superiority of the Ukrainian air space.

Finally, the targeting of this defunct airfield and aircraft by Russia is perhaps an indication of poor planning or lack of good quality information on the part the Russians. Russia's satellite intelligence gathering capabilities are roughly on par with those of many commercial image providers (like Maxstar) and far below the resolution and cadence available to the US, which is now being shared with Ukraine.

[skanchan95]

Contrary to repeated claims by the Russians that the Ukrainian Air Force was dead,Ukrainian jets just conducted a daring air raid on Russian occupied Snake Island.

https://youtu.be/9wUI5OLgnG8

Russia on the other hand, claims that they have downed a few aircraft from the raiding force including a couple of Mi-8s full of Ukrainian SOF.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by goacom

There were indeed 6 Ukrainian Mig 29s destroyed in that Russian airstrike on the first days of the war. The only problem is that the aircraft struck were old scrap non functional aircraft that were left abandoned there. The volunteers at the Oryx site are only keeping track of active aircraft that have been destroyed.

Thanks for confirming the volunteers at the Oryx based in Turkey verified that from the video. They also verified all the 3,444 Russian vehicles destroyed in Ukraine were not scrap, fully functional and were not abandoned when they were destroyed.

Originally Posted by goacom

Although the US initially blocked the transfer of the Polish Mig 29s to Ukraine, the supply of spares has not been stopped. Ukraine actually has more active (flying) Mig 29s today than at the start of the war and is part of the reason why Russia has been unable to exert air superiority of the Ukrainian air space.

Also thanks for confirming the destroyed Mig-29s in the picture were 100% useless and not a single part could be used for spares for any other Mig-29s. Good thing the US sent spares to Ukraine for Mig-29s.
The only thing is the US bought about 21 Mig-29s from Moldova in 1997. About 2-3 were restored to flying condition. How many Ukrainian Mg-29s can be brought back to flying condition using 25 year old non-flyable air plane frames?

Source: https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/04...f-spare-parts/

You said the supply of Mig-29 spares has not stopped, can you share what exact parts the US was supplying and continues to supply for an aircraft which was manufactured in Sokol Aircraft Plant, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia?

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Contrary to repeated claims by the Russians that the Ukrainian Air Force was dead,Ukrainian jets just conducted a daring air raid on Russian occupied Snake Island.

https://Youtu.be/9wUI5OLgnG8

Russia on the other hand, claims that they have downed a few aircraft from the raiding force including a couple of Mi-8s full of Ukrainian SOF.

Seems to be an operation more for propaganda than any military value. Why risk such few and high value long range Su-27s that are primarily for air to air combat for attacking ground targets with unguided dumb bombs? The Su-27s are the only aircraft that the Ukrainian Air Force has that can really challenge the Su-30s and Su-35s Russia is using. It's a bit ironic all might have been made in the same factory although the Russian ones are heavily modernised.

Russian Ministry of Defence reports losses on the Ukrainian side during a repelled attack on Snake Island: a Su-24, a Su-27, three Mi-8 helicopters full of soldiers, two Bayraktars & a Centaur-class assault craft (the "Stanislav").

[fhdowntheline]

Lets not forget that Ukraine has been receiving western arms for quite some time now. So its not hugely one-sided battle as it would have initially seemed. The question is, Russia has made some big threats about NATO vehicles supplying arms as a legit target. Will they act on their threat ? Or will they not mind as long as the gas supply lines are flowing into Europe.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Seems to be an operation more for propaganda than any military value.

May be to drive home the point that Ukrainian Air Force continues to operate and remains a threat despite the claims of being completely destroyed and having been initially given very slim chance of survival. The fact they continue to fly and hit the Russians against all odds speaks volumes about the bravery of the men who fly these jets. The strike probably was also meant to boost the morale of Ukrainian forces.

It is a bit difficult to accurately say that those strikers were Su-27s but if they were and as to why Su-27s were used, May be the fast Su-27s had a better chance of getting away fast at full Afterburners after the strike and giving less time for Russian interceptors to intercept or chase them than Su-25s, which do not have Afterburners. One thing is clear though, they came in low, popped up, drop their load and got away at low level - not an easy mission to execute even for the most skilled pilots.

The Air Defences around the island had already been damaged or destroyed by Ukrainian Bayraktars on preceding days of the strike. Probably there wasn't enough time for the Russian air defences on the island (if any) to act when the Ukrainian jets struck.

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Russian Ministry of Defence reports losses on the Ukrainian side during a repelled attack on Snake Island: a Su-24, a Su-27, three Mi-8 helicopters full of soldiers, two Bayraktars & a Centaur-class assault craft (the "Stanislav").

While I agree that claims and counter claims from both sides need to taken with a bucket load of salt, the biggest question about the Russian claims would be why would the Ukrainians fly in helicopter loads of soldiers into the island knowing it cannot be defended against Russian cruise missile strikes? We know what happened during in the initial days when the Ukrainian garrison in the island had to surrender. Will be suicide if the Ukrainians attempted any such thing unless it was an attempt to humiliate the Russians before their Victory Day Parade and to say that they kicked Russians out of the Island just a couple of days before Victory Day.

Secondly, if downing Bayraktars were so easy, why didn't they down them when Russian assets on the island were getting hit and there is video footage to prove it. Clearly, Russian Navy ships that were to provide radar and air cover to the occupied island are staying away out of range of Ukrainian Neptunes and have left the Island vulnerable to such strikes.


Meanwhile, a video apparently from last night from Snake Island -

https://youtu.be/lAq7g4h5k_c

If true, Russian Commanders are fatally stupid to pull off a stunt like this with Bayraktars roving around.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Losing more equipment is not the same as territorial gain. And territorial gain is not the same as winning a war unless that is the explicitly stated goal. The Kremlin's stated goal was regime-change (or de-nazification as they put it) but they are about as far from Kyiy as they could possibly be.

Mate, I would not equate de-nazification with regime-change.

Please check Post 1 and Post 2.
They have links to:

Finnish President: Putin's goal in Ukraine is not regime change
And the Complete interview with Christiane Amanpour. The Finnish President had had a discussion with Putin earlier and talks about that and more.
(There is a chance that I am mistaken and things have changed since.)

While many (including me for a phase) thought that regime change would be the goal of Russia, here it claims just the opposite. There is some merit in Putin wanting Zelensky to remain (for now, at least), as if Putin is to strike deal with Ukraine, there needs to be a credible Ukrainian face to sign the deal for it to have some lasting effect; that it was signed by the 'leader of the people', and at the moment, it is only Zelensky that fills those shoes.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Below, you can see in blue, the territory taken back from Russia (from Al Jazeera).

Originally Posted by goacom

Yeah, the Russians are doing so well that they decided to retreat from Kiev after their victory there.

I can't be sure what happened and why Russia left the Kyiv region. It could be losses, or it could well be a feint - a military strategy to distract the enemy.

By having forces around Kyiv, Russia kept Ukranian forces divided. This would've made things a bit better for them where they were engaging in active battle. Move around Kyiv could also be linked to forces anyway going to Chernobyl due to the nuclear site. While taking over Kyiv might have been a huge bonus, it might not have been the prime target. The basic target seems to be Black Sea access and The Eastern part of Ukraine.

This dividing strategy also likely would have meant lesser destruction of lives (fewer forces in large scale active combat), while still going for targets which they really valued.

A somewhat similar point was made almost 1.5 months ago.

Originally Posted by Poitive

Haven't studied it enough to have a firm opinion. Sharing this thought crossed my mind with fellow mates. Consider this:

• Russia starts surrounding Kyiv leaving southern part open (already in action).
• It being the capital (which also has huge symbolic value; also to morale), large Ukrainian forces need to be deployed there, as they do seem to be.
• With opponent's forces divided, they mount pressure/attack/encirclement on Odessa, which could be a more immediate target. With forces split and two important cities to protect, Russia's chances of taking Odessa, or laying an effective siege improve.
• Additionally and possibly, at the right time choke off the open southern corridor from Kyiv, leading to it's siege. With supplies hard to come by, and the Black Sea also cut off, it might lead to a surrender and end of a major phase of the conflict.
• Even if Kyiv doesn't fall, or takes long for it to, Odessa and the Black Sea being cut off would be a big victory for Russia, IMO.
• Yes, unlike US attacks, this might be a slower way, but more in tune with Russia's likely objectives (talked more about in my first post here)
• It also allows the financial and petrodollar game to be played out, and would allow for adjustments based on other countries' responses.

...
Of course, it is only a hypothesis; and even if it is planned, things often don't go as per plan.

Edit: Adding map from Al Jazeera for reference.
Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2...ws-interactive

Edit 2: Briefly: Keep Ukrainian forces busy with Kyiv, while enhancing chances of taking up Odessa + Black sea coastline.

We still only have guesses towards what Russia's objective from the limited war might be. What the Finnish President says based on his talks to Putin in the interview:

1. No regime change
2. Crimea recognition as part of Russia
3. Wider/Bigger Donbass
4. Neutrality of Ukraine
5. Demilitarization of Ukraine

Russia might not be too off the way from getting most of what can be reasonably expected from the above. They don't seem to be in a hurry. I would not compare it to speeds of other wars to decide how well or poorly they are doing.

If Ukraine is left without major and threatening military capacity, significantly reduced chances of them again trying to be a part of NATO and have a military base of the West on it's soil, and no access to the coastline, Russia would have gained much; at a very high cost though. A cost the West/US is keen to raise, and Ukraine pays with it's citizen's lives.

PS: Meanwhile, bombardments have started in Odessa.

[lifeinpune]

Retired US Marine sheds some light on US modus operandi in Syria and Ukraine.

https://youtu.be/dcp0TYx_eUI

[shashanka]

Originally Posted by lifeinpune

Retired US Marine sheds....

Thank you, lifeinpune, for an extraordinary post! I'm seeing this for the first time - an US ex-senator (D), an ex-marine who has seen action in Iraq, Syria and also the current Ukraine war. For us arm-chair warriors in this thread, this is an extra-ordinary perspective. We can tie ourselves into knots trying to get around this phenomena - that a prominent US citizen, a Democrat, is airing views on TV, which are not unlike the whistle-blowers Assange and Snowden. And who has highlighted the possibility of the "hair-raising" scenario of a nuclear Armageddon in no uncertain terms, if the reckless and lunatic suggestions (by a couple of Republicans, among others, as he quotes) are followed. It seems that no amount of disingenous red herrings will erase the reality of the "deep state".

His reference to the Westphalia Treaty (which I had not heard about earlier & which I subsequently read a bit on the net) is numbing - a war lasting 80 years. So history does repeat itself - except that there were no nuclear weapons in 1648. Thanks again for this post.