Can Russia be stopped?

[Sheepy]

But just who is the 'enemy' as far as Russia is concerned?

Those who have turned Ukraine anti-Russian and even going as far as creating a coup to oust anyone seen as pro-Russian. While having a civil war against ethnic Russians. Go figure who might that be?

[T00ts]

You are not going to stop more bloodshed only the Ukraine and Russia can do that, meanwhile after seeing how easily their cities are reduced to rubble the civilians are being given a corridor to leave once gone only the enemy is left and the Russians will set about dealing with them.

But just who is the 'enemy' as far as Russia is concerned?

[Sheepy]

What I am finding so very hard is realising that we all watched as Putin amassed troops over weeks denying that he was going to invade, while believing in my heart of hearts that he was going to. Yet here we are with so little power to stop more bloodshed. The human cost is awful once again.

You are not going to stop more bloodshed only the Ukraine and Russia can do that, meanwhile after seeing how easily their cities are reduced to rubble the civilians are being given a corridor to leave once gone only the enemy is left and the Russians will set about dealing with them. 

[cromwell]

An interesting piece.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/a-letter-to-the-western-left-from-kyiv/

[DeppityDawg]

They were, to be fair, horrific. There are some sights no civilian should see. There are some no soldier should either.

I know John. And sadly, many of us had no choice. Many of the older Iraqi T62s were not equipped with spall liners. This is equipment designed to stop red hot fragments of metal that have detached from the interior surface of the armour when hit by non defeating rounds from flying around the inside of the tank. You can imagine what this did to the crew inside. These sadly are the realities of war most civilians never see, and with good reason

[T00ts]

It isn't pointless. Air superiority or contesting it is always a critical element of conflict. What I'm saying is we should avoid looking at this conflict through a western lens. Its true that if Ukraine has control of the air (eg no fly zone), its ground operations have a higher probability of success - but a no fly zone will not on its own prevent Kiev from falling. Remember too, the deployment of air assets is extremely expensive. You can deploy hundreds of anti tank missiles for the cost single aircraft, not to mention the training costs and the operational flight time costs

In the end a no flight zone won't save Ukraine. The Ukrainians may yet inflict a big reverse on the Russians on the ground and cause a rethink or peace negotiations. I hope they do, but I can't see it in all honesty. What is more likely to save Ukraine is the cost of a protracted occupation or, more likely, events and unrest in their own country

What I am finding so very hard is realising that we all watched as Putin amassed troops over weeks denying that he was going to invade, while believing in my heart of hearts that he was going to. Yet here we are with so little power to stop more bloodshed. The human cost is awful once again. 

[Sheepy]

So does this mean that Ukraine calling for a no fly zone would be pointless? Russia will continue in the current fashion regardless.

A no-fly zone would have to be policed by NATO which would mean an all-out war with Russia. 

[DeppityDawg]

So does this mean that Ukraine calling for a no fly zone would be pointless? Russia will continue in the current fashion regardless.

It isn't pointless. Air superiority or contesting it is always a critical element of conflict. What I'm saying is we should avoid looking at this conflict through a western lens. Its true that if Ukraine has control of the air (eg no fly zone), its ground operations have a higher probability of success - but a no fly zone will not on its own prevent Kiev from falling. Remember too, the deployment of air assets is extremely expensive. You can deploy hundreds of anti tank missiles for the cost single aircraft, not to mention the training costs and the operational flight time costs

In the end a no flight zone won't save Ukraine. The Ukrainians may yet inflict a big reverse on the Russians on the ground and cause a rethink or peace negotiations. I hope they do, but I can't see it in all honesty. What is more likely to save Ukraine is the cost of a protracted occupation or, more likely, events and unrest in their own country

[Good old]

I doubt either side has the ability to effectively suppress the others air defences in the way Western armed forces do. We in the west always see the conflicts we are involved in led by air power, but the Russians don't have the same doctrines as Western nations. That's because the wars they are likely to have to fight are different to the foreign interventions we fight. You can't win a war like this from the air alone as Western nations try to do. We shy away from fights like this because the losses of men and material will always be on a different level. It's a different animal to an Afghanistan or Syrian conflict. Can you imagine how our media and public would react to the kind of images being shown of burning combat vehicles and dead soldiers jying in ditches? Russian doctrines accept higher casualties and losses because they have no alternative but to fight this kind of war.

Sure, air power can heavily influence the outcome of a battle and even a war, but it cannot take or hold a city and it cannot replace land forces. If it could, Afghanistan would probably now be full of MacDonalds and Walmart's.

Thanks for that DD there have been a number of opinions on this out there. Yours seems sound to me.

[T00ts]

I doubt either side has the ability to effectively suppress the others air defences in the way Western armed forces do. We in the west always see the conflicts we are involved in led by air power, but the Russians don't have the same doctrines as Western nations. That's because the wars they are likely to have to fight are different to the foreign interventions we fight. You can't win a war like this from the air alone as Western nations try to do. We shy away from fights like this because the losses of men and material will always be on a different level. It's a different animal to an Afghanistan or Syrian conflict. Can you imagine how our media and public would react to the kind of images being shown of burning combat vehicles and dead soldiers jying in ditches? Russian doctrines accept higher casualties and losses because they have no alternative but to fight this kind of war.

Sure, air power can heavily influence the outcome of a battle and even a war, but it cannot take or hold a city and it cannot replace land forces. If it could, Afghanistan would probably now be full of MacDonalds and Walmart's.

So does this mean that Ukraine calling for a no fly zone would be pointless? Russia will continue in the current fashion regardless.

[DeppityDawg]

This does raise the questions. But this piece is still very speculative . They're has been a noticeable absence of aircraft in the skys. But the same applies to both sides it seems.  And exactly why is not clear.
For instance this 40 miles of totally exposed Russian transport . Sitting duck for air attack ,you might think,  yet not appearing to happen.

I doubt either side has the ability to effectively suppress the others air defences in the way Western armed forces do. We in the west always see the conflicts we are involved in led by air power, but the Russians don't have the same doctrines as Western nations. That's because the wars they are likely to have to fight are different to the foreign interventions we fight. You can't win a war like this from the air alone as Western nations try to do. We shy away from fights like this because the losses of men and material will always be on a different level. It's a different animal to an Afghanistan or Syrian conflict. Can you imagine how our media and public would react to the kind of images being shown of burning combat vehicles and dead soldiers jying in ditches? Russian doctrines accept higher casualties and losses because they have no alternative but to fight this kind of war.

Sure, air power can heavily influence the outcome of a battle and even a war, but it cannot take or hold a city and it cannot replace land forces. If it could, Afghanistan would probably now be full of MacDonalds and Walmart's.

[johnofgwent]

I'm glad to see your knowledgeable input. No matter who is involved it always seems to be so cruel.

Well to be fair Toots, I didn't design weapon delivery, detection and jamming systems for a birthday celebration. Mine were intented to turn whole areas into molten slag to stop Honiker. Dad's before me were designed to stop all manner of commie pinkos.

There were some images of Saddam's tanks in the dying days of desert storm. Dying being the operative word. I saw the footage because I had a satellite receiver that looked up the channels outside the 16 Astra used to send to consumers, the ones they used to upload feeds to the TV centres to edit for broadcast.

They were, to be fair, horrific. There are some sights no civilian should see. There are some no soldier should either.

But neither dad or I got the test of our ability grandad faced. Few doubted he meant business because his kit got used in anger. Arguably some of mine has been, but not for its original purchasers ... Dad was told to pack up and bugger off home as were the combat troops he was protecting.

[Good old]

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/russian-air-force-actually-incapable-complex-air-operations

This does raise the questions. But this piece is still very speculative . They're has been a noticeable absence of aircraft in the skys. But the same applies to both sides it seems.  And exactly why is not clear.
For instance this 40 miles of totally exposed Russian transport . Sitting duck for air attack ,you might think,  yet not appearing to happen.

[cromwell]

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/russian-air-force-actually-incapable-complex-air-operations

[T00ts]

I think its going to get a lot worse Toots. Particularly once towns and cities get cut off and encircled. We may not like what we see, but many of the tactics being used here are fairly routine in warfare, and as others have pointed out, we've seen them used by our own forces and by our allies. Its fair to point out that while the results sometimes seems indiscriminate, the deaths of civilians are usually the result of mistakes and poor intelligence, rather than outright orders - at least, thats the message when our weapons kill the "innocent", one not repeated when someone elses do.

I'm glad to see your knowledgeable input. No matter who is involved it always seems to be so cruel.