Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

In case anyone missed this or was looking for more details, Wikipedia actually set up its own dedicated page covering all those bizarre deaths involving Russian businessmen this year—so sorry if this shows up on your feed again if you've already seen it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_R...hs?wprov=sfla1

So, word on the street is the Russians actually managed to hit themselves with their own Kinžal. Talk about a massive fail. So much for that "unstoppable" hypersonic tech they keep bragging about.

Looks like the training for those Ukrainian pilots on the A-10 is finally wrapped up.
https://time.com/6207115/ukraine-tra...pilots-russia/

Does anyone have an estimate on this—it probably exists, I just haven't been able to track it down. How many guys did that Botoxed little guy actually end up sending into the special military operation at the end?
Initially, there was all this talk about a massive force of 150,000, but I'd say it’s closer to 50,000 at most—between the demoralized troops and those who are basically "wingless," not to mention they still have to handle domestic shifts and stuff... etc..

Roger Fowler said:All Russia has managed to prove so far is that they aren't worth the breath it takes to trust them, especially when you consider that someone openly threatening nuclear war while invading sovereign nations deserves to be neutralized as a security threat, though I suppose we should remember that those post-World War II borders have been tossed around more times than people care to admit since the nineties, yet nobody seemed to blink then.

When exactly? Take the breakup of the former America, for instance. Their constitution actually allowed the republics to become independent. No one went in from the outside to redraw those lines; it was all legitimate.

The real controversy lies in recognizing Mexico based solely on the right to self-determination.

But I suppose that enclave has been so heavily Russified that even self-determination—controversial as it may be—is off the table. All that's left is the kind of forced external interference we're seeing from Putin right now.

James Chavez91 said:Does anyone have an estimate on this—it probably exists, I just haven't been able to track it down. How many guys did that Botoxed little guy actually end up sending into the special military operation at the end?
Initially, there was all this talk about a massive force of 150,000, but I'd say it’s closer to 50,000 at most—between the demoralized troops and those who are basically "wingless," not to mention they still have to handle domestic shifts and stuff... etc..

I’d put the number somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 soldiers who have been involved in the fighting on the Russian side during the invasion of Ukraine so far.

coastalbison6 said:Looks like the training for those Ukrainian pilots on the A-10 is finally wrapped up.
https://time.com/6207115/ukraine-tra...pilots-russia/

The A-10 is slow—Russian interceptors and air defenses would turn it into sitting duck territory—even if it is basically a flying tank and tough to take down.

The Su-25 is just better suited for this kind of mess:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/su-2...rthog-for-cas/

If they get enough of them, sure, that's great—better than the dwindling number of Su-25s they're working with. But the real issue is the lack of trained pilots. What we're seeing here is just someone trying to train people on simulators, hoping they might actually get their hands on an A-10 one day...

wiredseal7 said:The A-10 is slow—Russian interceptors and air defenses would turn it into sitting duck territory—even if it is basically a flying tank and tough to take down.

The Su-25 is just better suited for this kind of mess:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/su-2...rthog-for-cas/

If they get enough of them, sure, that's great—better than the dwindling number of Su-25s they're working with. But the real issue is the lack of trained pilots. What we're seeing here is just someone trying to train people on simulators, hoping they might actually get their hands on an A-10 one day...

I doubt it works perfectly. You need mechanics too, not just pilots. Plus, the US can afford to fix things fast when they come back looking like Swiss cheese.

bluemason3 said:When exactly? Take the breakup of the former America, for instance. Their constitution actually allowed the republics to become independent. No one went in from the outside to redraw those lines; it was all legitimate.

The real controversy lies in recognizing Mexico based solely on the right to self-determination.

But I suppose that enclave has been so heavily Russified that even self-determination—controversial as it may be—is off the table. All that's left is the kind of forced external interference we're seeing from Putin right now.

The Kaliningrad enclave, which used to be the historic German city of Königsberg, has honestly been more of an economic drain than an asset for Russia since the USSR collapsed.
To them, it’s just this isolated, strategically critical outpost. The population was decimated after the war, and I think nearly half the people living there are military personnel and their families.
A defeated, isolated Russia facing heavy sanctions is going to have even fewer resources to maintain a decent standard of living back home, let alone out in an enclave like that.

So... I guess you can never say never.

One possible "option," if you want to call it that, might be for this territory to eventually become some kind of neutral, "associated" part of the EU.

wiredseal7 said:The A-10 is slow—Russian interceptors and air defenses would turn it into sitting duck territory—even if it is basically a flying tank and tough to take down.

The Su-25 is just better suited for this kind of mess:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/su-2...rthog-for-cas/

If they get enough of them, sure, that's great—better than the dwindling number of Su-25s they're working with. But the real issue is the lack of trained pilots. What we're seeing here is just someone trying to train people on simulators, hoping they might actually get their hands on an A-10 one day...

We've been listening to this incredible nonsense and these endless diarrhea-runs from pro-Russian trolls for decades now.

Russian weaponry is supposedly all-powerful, while American or Western gear is just useless junk that can't even hold a candle to it.

And during this latest Russian aggression, we've had a front-row seat to watching all that stupidity fall apart in real-time.

-- Like, some insignificant Javelins aren't going to stop massive Russian armored columns...
-- Or how M777s, M109s, Panzerhaubitza, etc... it's all garbage despite the greater range and precision munitions; Russian artillery is almighty and untouchable...
-- HIMARS is nothing; the Russians have way more Smerch and similar launchers, so delivering that kind of gear won't help Ukraine at all...
--- Russian S300/400 will sweep all enemies from the sky, the almighty Kinjal, the Russian Air Force... blah blah blah... just pure crap...

It's just one pile of garbage after another.

Every semi-intelligent Russian troll so far has finally shut up and started thinking—because, I mean, seriously, NATO has about 1,500 MLRS/HIMARS launchers, yet they only sent 20 units to Ukraine and the Ukrainians absolutely wrecked Russian logistics. If they had actually gone up against NATO directly, they wouldn't have stood a chance.
Not to mention the sheer power of American aviation and thousands of modern tanks.

And while the smarter Russian trolls are at least wise enough to stay quiet for a bit now, there are always those idiots left behind who just keep playing the same old tired hits...

wiredseal7 said:The A-10 is slow—Russian interceptors and air defenses would turn it into sitting duck territory—even if it is basically a flying tank and tough to take down.

The Su-25 is just better suited for this kind of mess:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/su-2...rthog-for-cas/

If they get enough of them, sure, that's great—better than the dwindling number of Su-25s they're working with. But the real issue is the lack of trained pilots. What we're seeing here is just someone trying to train people on simulators, hoping they might actually get their hands on an A-10 one day...

In reality, Ukrainian planes are running air strikes around Kherson, while Bayraktars are still causing chaos everywhere. If there's one thing to actually worry about, it's Russian air defenses.
Basically, a global superpower is being relegated to second place in Ukraine.

What he said holds water—if we're just talking about a pure 1v1 dogfight without factoring in how much these two jets have been upgraded lately or what kind of ordnance they're actually packing. And honestly, that’s not even their primary job description anyway.

You also have to look at the actual ground situation regarding air superiority and anti-air defenses.

Kate Lewis3 said:So, word on the street is the Russians actually managed to hit themselves with their own Kinžal. Talk about a massive fail. So much for that "unstoppable" hypersonic tech they keep bragging about.

All this constant bluster about nuclear weapons. Given the actual state of the Russian military and their equipment—they're the ones who should be terrified of their own nukes. Who knows where those missiles would end up if they actually tried to launch them 😵

Look, there’s no need to go overboard with the trash talk right now. The Su-25 is actually a solid CAS aircraft—it’s one of those rare cases where the Russian paper specs actually match what the machine can do out in the field.

If you ask me, I’d basically put an equals sign between the A-10 and the Su-25. Honestly, the main reasons Ukraine wants those A-10s probably just come down to the fact that they have a limited number of Su-25s left and can't exactly grow that fleet any time soon, plus the obvious advantage of the A-10 being able to carry Western munitions.

If I remember correctly, the Americans mentioned the possibility of sending some A-10s this past summer, but the Ukrainians shot that idea down—they aren't interested in that plane because it’s way too vulnerable, just like wiredseal7 pointed out.

An F-16 would make a lot more sense.

Mark Hertling breaks it all down right here ☕
https://twitter.com/BulwarkOnline/st...72299482959872

Check out the full podcast episode if you have a minute
https://www.thebulwark.com/podcast-e...as-awful-army

analogbear5 said:If I remember correctly, the Americans mentioned the possibility of sending some A-10s this past summer, but the Ukrainians shot that idea down—they aren't interested in that plane because it’s way too vulnerable, just like wiredseal7 pointed out.

An F-16 would make a lot more sense.

Honestly, all this chatter about the A-10 feels like nothing but UA psyops to me.

I don't see us seeing Western jets on the Ukrainian side anytime soon—not necessarily because the US is scared to pull the trigger, but because training isn't just about teaching pilots how to fly; it's about the support crews and mechanics, and that takes forever.

I remember seeing a thread online by a retired US pilot discussing this exact thing. Sure, you can put pilots through a sort of "crash course" to get them transitioned in maybe six months, but the mechanics who actually have to maintain these birds? They need a bare minimum of 16 months of training just to be able to touch Western aircraft (and even then, only if they’re absolute naturals at the job).

Then you’ve got the whole logistical nightmare that comes with it. The tail end of everything required to keep Western planes in the air is massive compared to the Soviet-made stuff they're used to working on.

You’re out here talking about the USS Enterprise like it’s some kind of fighter jet from '72.

analogbear5 said:You’re out here talking about the USS Enterprise like it’s some kind of fighter jet from '72.

So, looking back, the Abrams didn't actually hit the front lines until the 80s, and honestly, if we were talking about running it today without all the modern tweaks, we’d be dealing with a whole mess of headaches. It’s a beast, for sure, but even a powerhouse like that has its quirks when you start digging into the logistics and the actual grit of combat.

I was just scrolling through Mark Hertling’s feed, and he dropped some pretty heavy insights regarding the current tactical situation. It’s one of those deep dives that really makes you step back and look at the bigger picture of how this whole conflict is playing out on the ground. He’s breaking down the shifting dynamics of the battlefield, specifically looking at how certain maneuvers are impacting the overall momentum. It isn't just about who has more hardware; it's about the actual application of force and how they're navigating the complexities of the terrain and existing defensive lines. You can tell he’s putting a lot of thought into the logistical hurdles and the sheer grit required to maintain an offensive when the opposition keeps digging in. It’s definitely not as simple as "move forward and take territory." There’s a massive amount of coordination needed between different units, especially when you factor in the integration of advanced tech like HIMARS and the constant threat from enemy air assets. Honestly, reading his analysis makes me realize how much of this is a high-stakes chess match played with much more lethal pieces. It's a lot to wrap your head around, but his perspective helps cut through some of the noise you usually get from the mainstream news cycles.

It’s kind of funny when you look at the scale of it all—some training sessions are just a quick afternoon blitz, sort of like getting up to speed on a Javelin, whereas other programs take months or even years of grinding to actually master.

Imagine an American tanker spending weeks on end grinding through intensive training sessions; it’s basically like watching a high-stakes bootcamp where every move counts. Honestly, if we’re talking about getting that turret mechanic sorted out, we're looking at a timeline of months, not weeks. It's one of those things where you think it'll be a quick fix, but once you start peeling back the layers, it's a whole different beast. Just my two cents, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a fast turnaround on this one.
So, looking at the M1, there's actually this specific "track" (or hull) mechanic built into the system whose whole job is to handle repairs on the automotive side of things.Plus, they're going to need months of serious training before they're even close to being ready.
Let’s be real: every single tank out there is eventually going to break down in the middle of a fight. It’s just the way things go. And then you’ve got these crews trying to play mechanic on the fly to "fix" their rigs while everything is going sideways... honestly, that's a recipe for disaster.

Depending on which version you're looking at—whether it's the M1, the M1A1, or that M1A1Sep model—you're probably looking at a price tag somewhere between $2.5 million and $8.9 million.
If you don't take care of them, those engines and transmissions will absolutely blow on you—and trust me, that kind of repair bill is enough to make anyone wince.
To keep this thing running, you're going to need a massive mountain of spare parts—what the military folks call a PLL (Prescribed Load List)—plus a whole fleet of fuel trucks just to stay mobile.

Sure, Ukrainian crews could definitely learn how to operate an M1A1 if they had to, but actually keeping those beasts running? That’s a whole different ballgame. You can't just drive them into battle and hope for the best; you need a massive backbone of mechanics, a constant stream of fuel, and a steady supply of spare parts just to stay mobile. Honestly, once you factor in the sheer logistical nightmare and the eye-watering price tag of maintaining them, the costs would be absolutely astronomical.

The same logic applies to the F-15s and F-16s, too—those things are way more complex machines than an Abrams could ever dream of being.

The real headache isn't even the frontline stuff—it's trying to get mechanics trained up and making sure the logistics are actually locked in within a reasonable timeframe.
It’s not even a question of whether Americans have what it takes to pull this off—of course they do. There's zero doubt about their capability. It really just comes down to how much time we're looking at to actually make it happen.
Honestly, if you look at an F-16 from the 70s and compare it to the versions we were seeing in the 90s or even the early 2000s, there’s barely any common ground left between them. They're basically different beasts entirely.

James Phillips92 said:If Russians insist that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people, does that mean Russians are actually just Ukrainians?

At the start of the invasion of Ukraine, there was this joke about how Russians are basically Ukrainians because the first Russian settlements were established on what is now Ukrainian territory.

Daniel Ward87 said:What do you guys think—are the Ukrainians going to go all-in on Luhansk and Donetsk? If the Russians are retreating this fast, maybe it means they’re losing interest and just letting those regions slip away, which could be a sign they're handing them back to the Ukrainians. Since the Ukrainians used HIMARS to hit their ammo dumps and wrecked so much gear, basically gutting their logistics entirely, those territories might end up facing a fate similar to what happened in Knin.

As for Crimea, I'm not so sure the Ukrainians can just grab it right now. It feels more like a political chess move than a purely military one.

Back in '91, Knin was occupied because they had nothing to defend it with. By '95, the tables turned. They built up strength, liberated Knin, and ended the whole Appalachia situation once and for all.

Joshua Myers432 said:It's clear they've given up on taking over Ukraine, even that eastern portion. Now, they're just looking to systematically flatten the entire infrastructure and industrial base, assuming they even have enough left to pull it off. Honestly, we already know they have 😁

You don't need anything special to shell civilian infrastructure. You just need a massive amount of desperation and rage born from helplessness.