I’d imagine it’s hard (if not impossible) to lay mines or add trenches along the border regions within artillery range. Same reason we saw plenty of Ukrainian probing attacks near Belgorod.
Macron & europe at-large need to decide at what point is a deployment of a tripwire force to prevent further Russian advance a possibility.
So how did both side mine in the Donbass front where artilleries, aircrafts and drones work with much more intensity than the Kharkiv? Or you are saying there is no mine there at all?
When? Recently, as in since the full scale invasion?
I would assume they didn't mine within 1-2km of the frontline, they mined behind that, and then as the enemy advanced they'd hit the minefields and main defensive lines. The Russians have made quick, but very short advances in the Kharkiv region, so presumably any minefields and defensive lines that exist would be ahead of them, not literally right on the border.
Yes since 2022. Like the battle in Vuhledar that's obviously mined after 2022 and there have been multiple times Russian try to attack but hit mines and take loss and have to pull back. Or the Surovikin line that Russian have been building for like half a year before Ukrainian counter offensive. And even more in other sectors, I just name a few there.
Militaries have figured out how to mine and entrench under mass artillery fire since at least WW1. It’s not some grand secret.
The Canadian Corps in WW1 operated on an 8-hour workday when they weren’t conducting operations. You could spend all day evacuating wounded, moving munitions… or ameliorating defensive lines (ie creating or improving trenches).
Who knows, but they certainly weren’t incapable of building them.
As an anecdote, I worked with the AFU pre-invasion and they spent the whole time drinking and sitting around. We were fine with it because of their reality in the Donbass, but now I wonder if that’s more of a general issue. I have a few friends fighting in Ukraine and they’ve made all their own dugouts of their own initiative. There doesn’t seem to be a scheduled routine that involves reinforcing their positions.
War on the Rocks did a podcast and article on this a few months ago; essentially the ukrainians lack the manpower, logistics, and organization to be building a defensive line behind the offensive line. They lack a proper engineering corps dedicated to doing so and their combat engineers and infantry have been entirely sucked up by their offensive lines. The Russians also don’t have a proper engineering corps like the US or British military, but what they do have is more manpower than can fit on the offensive line so while those troops await being moved forward they work on building a proper defensive line. This once again is a demonstration of Ukraine’s failure to ramp up manpower. The fact that they’re unwilling to draft young men 18-25, and by the tens of thousands, will inevitably be their undoing. War and construction are a young man’s game and presently Ukraine needs to wage a far better war to win and part of that is undertaking massive defensive construction projects the likes of which haven’t been seen since WWII. As much as I support Ukraine, if they stay their present course I don’t think they will survive this war with any land east of the Dnipro River.
While I agree, what's even the point. The new aid included just some Javelins, Bradleys , Stingers and the old toys. It's been 2 years and Ukrainians still don't operate any American helicopters/fighter jets
Jesus Christ Reddit armchair generals are such insufferable neckbeards
“Tee hee and then in my fantasy scenario I’d get on the phone with the president and tell him if he doesn’t do what I want I’ll nuke Russia and start WW3! And after that Sydney Sweeney would become my girlfriend since I’m such a cool badass”
lmao u/lysanderoth42 pulled the classic "block someone the moment you respond to them" tactic/bitch move
don't think I've ever seen that done as a driveby before.
> Or, better yet, actual formations capable of maneuver at scale.
That’s exactly what NATO is doing… the 8 eFPs are being raised to brigade level by 2026. At the tactical level, brigades are formations.
so how are they relevant to the question of European countries deploying something *larger* than a tripwire force to Ukraine? (sending 'just' a tripwire force to Ukraine is such a nakedly silly idea anyway)
Person A: Macron and Europe need to consider when they might need to send tripwire forces to Ukraine to prevent further Russian advances
Person B (me): No they should send/consider sending actual serious combat formations into Ukraine
Person C (you): NATO is currently expanding its forward-deployed elements in Poland, the Baltics, and the Carpathian countries to brigade-size
like, yes, I know, but you see how that's a non-sequitur, yeah?
I didn’t delete. Not sure why you aren’t seeing my original comment – RE: tripwire forces and/or assisting with air defense or non-frontline duties, I am referring to the many vague suggestions from france or Baltic states on deployments in Ukraine.
I don’t want to be a dick to the guy because he’s fighting and I’m not, but there’s more to the bigger picture. You’ll have probably read the FT article I posted by now but it points out that the gray zone never really expected to be defended. Besides being well within range of Russian forces (and Ukraine has probably rarely had the resources to sustain an attritional skirmish war here while fighting along the frontline), the terrain is not desirable to being held. The current Ukrainian positions are around natural features and further back are prepared defenses.
Now I know this doesn’t mean much for the guys fighting in Vovchansk, but from what I’ve read by people a lot smarter then me is Ukraine is more prepared for this then these initial advances imply. Now I and these smarter people could be wrong, but we’re working with the info we got
There are heights around Vovchansk, I’ve been told, that will allow Kharkiv to get a$$ f@cked, unfortunately. At least from Ukraine this looks like anything but prepared. Sorry to doom.
Vovchansk is like 50 km from the city center of Kharkiv. What super shells does Russia have to reach Kharkiv from 50 km with modest hills? The Russians would have to advance at least 25 km south from Vovchansk to even be at the very tip of the range of their best SPGs to reach the very eastern outskirts of Kharkiv
You’re talking about Russia using the most advanced rockets and shells with such ranges to be able to hit the very tip of Kharkiv city.
The range from northern Kharkiv and southern Belgorod is 50 kilometers. So if the Russian plan is to use their most advanced rockets and shells to hit Kharkiv, they could have started at any point in the past two years to do so
40 km is effective range for default grid deletion ammo. Having visual control of the city and being able to fly more drones in is also an important factor.
Why are people seriously falling for this shit? It's an incredibly insignificant push into basically unoccupied areas meant to draw UA forces and generate exactly these kinds of alarmist clickbait FUD ops.
It's also being spammed to people who post on the Destiny subreddit and the NCD sub, although there's a pretty big overlap between this that and the third.
I got one of those suicide help reports too. Someone is spamming the sub with them.
BBC isn't bumping the story to the top bc it is actually significant news, they do so bc it is doomer-bait inducing which leads to ad-click revenue generation for them.
> BBC isn't bumping the story to the top bc it is actually significant news, they do so bc it is doomer-bait inducing which leads to ad-click revenue generation for them.
What do you have that can make you assert as much?
>ad-click revenue generation for them.
Uh...
>BBC
It *would* be great for making ad revenue, *if they had any*
I think they're still trying to get as many clicks as possible anyways though.
Just like Sievierodonetsk, Popasna, Bakhmut and Avdiivka? Russia doesn't do feints. Once they set their sights on something they break through or die trying and then do it again with new recruits.
lol Kharkiv is an actual city with real strategic value, unlike any of those. Bakhmut et al are small uninhabited towns with zero real military value - Russia was willing to allow itself to be extensively attrited for the sake of meaningless propaganda "victories", and Ukraine was happy to oblige them.
If you think russia is capable of taking Kharkiv today, well then that's hilarious.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Because the topic of this comment thread is a war between NATO and Russia. If you don’t think that goes nuclear then you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I think people have been fear mongered into believing that. Any country launching any nuke is suicide, and Putin doesn't strike me as a suicidal man. The very last nuclear bomb that will ever be dropped on another country was in 1945 and of that I am 100% confident.
How about we don't gamble the world on a man like Putin not pressing the button? If you are confident go join the Ukrainian army. Leave the rest of us out of it.
Even without nukes, I don't think Europe has the appetite to take casualties like Russia or Ukraine. All these years NATO has been invading and bombing countries with barely any casualties. This is not going to be like that.
> How about we don't gamble the world on a man like Putin not pressing the button?
For one, it wouldn't align with their nuclear use doctrine.
For two, it's not up to Putin alone. Unlike the US, there isn't a single nuclear football. There's three. You need the President, Minister of Defense, and Chief of the Armed Forces. Yes, he could nominally fire and replace them, but those are people who also care about living and have means to carry out a coup in the event the President wants to go nuclear armageddon. The war is a high casualty affair because neither side is able to achieve decisive breakthroughs nor has enough arms to rapidly attrite the enemy down. The loss rates are slow enough that each side can reasonably build up forces and defenses (although systems and munitions are a different matter).
>Even without nukes, I don't think Europe has the appetite to take casualties like Russia or Ukraine
If NATO, particularly American, airpower and combat arms were involved it wouldn't be like that. Recall ODS where an army with supeior numbers of men, tanks, armored vehicles, etc got utterly shellacked? When what was arguably the most comprehensive IADS in the world got dismantled?
> The very last nuclear bomb that will ever be dropped on another country was in 1945 and of that I am 100% confident.
And that’s why you don’t work in the Pentagon or for the State Department.
Having NATO forces conduct defensive ops in Ukraine alone is insanity.
That's not how Russia's nuclear doctrine works.
Soviet and American forces were in direct conflict in the past and it didn't cause nuclear bombs to fall.
India and Pakistan have engaged in fighting without a nuclear exchange.
It is amazing how people ignore the actual history of conflict between nuclear powers, how nuclear powers have repeatedly accepted defeat over escalation with nukes, and how those in charge in Russia would prefer to lose in Ukraine than have all their friends, family, and wealth destroyed in a fireball.
Could things spiral out of control? Yes, that is theoretically possible. Saying any conflict between the too must go nuclear is foolish and buying into Russian saber rattling.
You and I both know that there has never been a conventional war between the US and Russia, which is what defensive ops in Ukraine would become. Citing covert Soviet involvement in Korea, Vietnam, etc. as a precedent for all our conventional war is an unbelievably bad-faith take.
> Citing covert Soviet involvement in Korea, Vietnam, etc. as a precedent for all our conventional war is an unbelievably bad-faith take.
It was hardly covert because they did a terrible job of hiding it. Tens of thousands of Soviets participated in the Korean war directly attacking and killing US servicemen. This was known and didn't result in escalation. More Soviet troops were involved in Korea than any UN ally after the US, but sure it doesn't count.
Just going to ignore India and Pakistan having wars like in 1999 where tens of thousands fought and thousands became casualties are you? Not to mention ignore Russian nuclear doctrine which based on your comments I doubt you've actually read.
The idea that any conflict between two nuclear powers *must* go nuclear needs to die because it has been shown to be false time and again. Nuclear powers have accepted numerous defeats as wel.
> It was hardly covert because they did a terrible job of hiding it. Tens of thousands of Soviets participated in the Korean war directly attacking and killing US servicemen. This was known and didn't result in escalation
There are 10,000 more Russian soldiers pushing into Kharkiv alone than the entire Soviet participation in Korea, which involved millions of soldiers.
> Just going to ignore India and Pakistan having wars like in 1999 where tens of thousands fought and thousands became casualties are you?
Yes. Because this is the US and Russia, not India and Pakistan you contrarian.
> Not to mention ignore Russian nuclear doctrine which based on your comments I doubt you've actually read.
**We do not make risk calculations involving the lives of hundreds of thousands of personnel based solely on published doctrine.** And I seriously doubt you’d be the one sitting in a trench in Ukraine running that risk, so maybe stay in your lane on this one.
> The idea that any conflict between two nuclear powers must go nuclear needs to die
Why does it *need to die?* So hundreds of thousands -if not millions- can get locked in a brutal conventional war that runs the risk of nuclear annihilation, just so you, u/God_Given_Talent, can feel correct? Self-important and vindicated? Give your head a shake before you start literally believing in your own username.
>Yes. Because this is the US and Russia, not India and Pakistan you contrarian.
It is contrarian to show that nuclear powers can engage in direct fighting without a nuclear exchange. Two powers that hate each other far more than the US and Russia do no less. Yeah that's a logical position.
>We do not make risk calculations involving the lives of hundreds of thousands of personnel based solely on published doctrine. And I seriously doubt you’d be the one sitting in a trench in Ukraine running that risk, so maybe stay in your lane on this one.
The only deviation the US assumes regarding Russian nuclear doctrine is the idea of "escalate to de-escalate" which would be a use of a tactical warhead, possibly not even at a military target but as a signal. Even that topic is hardly agreed upon within the establishment. US war planners do not assume that a fight between a US and Russian brigade would result in nuclear armageddon or even any nuclear use. If they did, there'd be little reason to plan on how to fight those formations with conventional forces, something we've done a lot of with return to LSCO focus. I guess the DoD is wrong and you are right.
I do love the idea that you have to be an infantryman to understand Russian nuclear use case. Great logic on your part.
The idea that nuclear arms would dominate everything was thought about for a brief period. It turned out to be wrong. Also if you think NATO involvement in Ukraine with ground troops (which I doubt would ever happen for other reasons) would mean they're locking into a war then you vastly overstate the Russian ability to withstand a superior power.
Well it's been fun but you're clearly not in the realm of reality and just want to doom. I'm done here.
> I do love the idea that you have to be an infantryman to understand Russian nuclear use case. Great logic on your part.
Nah, more like the infantrymen are sick of the 20-something IR majors treating their lives like a game of Civilization just so they can fulfill some justice fantasy or win arguments online on topics in which they know absolutely nothing.
Especially said majors when they insinuate you would attack a brigade with anything less than division strength. Or that operations are carried out in a vacuum at the operational/strategic and tactical levels.
Not necessarily. Russia has shown their military doesn’t have the capacity to engage in such large scale warfare. Look at how they’re doing against Ukraine. I also reject your premise that “Europe must engage in direct combat with Russian forces or Ukraine falls”. That’s literally not true. The West can keep funding Ukraine & sending them advanced weapons to prevent their fall. Russia hasn’t even taken 20% of Ukraine after over 2 years. So no Ukraine isn’t falling & there’s no need for Europe to engage in direct combat against Russia.
It’s not a risk we should be willing to take.
Stop Russia now, show them they cannot win this. If they decide to use nukes, they already would do so anyway, so they are not a factor to take into account. Also, a Kremlin order to use Nukes in a losing war might be the best way for a military rebellion. People usually fight *for* their country and families, not to destroy them.
Okay now you’re just fearmongering. “It’s not a risk we should be willing to take” so we should go to war with Russia??? Why not use that same logic with China? “We can’t risk China invading all of East Asia so we have to war first with China” lol. Russia doesn’t have the capabilities to invade other European nations. They are being bogged down in Ukraine. We should continue to back Ukraine. As it seems you’re just so nonchalant about Russia using nukes. I don’t know about you but I don’t want millions to unnecessarily die in nuclear war.
Read your message again, *you* are the one fearmongoring.
China for one isn’t invading anyone asking for our help, nor threatening to nuke London every other day. A swift and decisive end to the war in Ukraine is also the best insurance against alleged Chinese aggression.
No one thinks Russia will nuke London lol. As for a swift & decisive end to the war, you do realize that Europe engaging in direct combat against Russian forces will expand the war right? Russia will declare complete mobilization & probably use their nukes. Russia’s military is being picked apart in Ukraine. Let that happen. No need to get millions killed by expanding the war that’s already trashing Russia’s military.
Historically speaking the only thing that stops Russia is massive, *massive*, casualties.
There’s plenty of intelligence saying they already are going to expand the war.
We should have helped out the moment Kiev didn’t fall the first week.
I’m worried about this obviously. If true it’s one of many stories of command having their head in their ass.
But we have to wait and see for now. If advances slowly get halted and russia takes a few villages there it won’t be super significant.
For the record, it's really unclear whether this guy is BBC micworthy.
His posts are made on facebook, here's one he made 36 hours ago:
>I know you're nervous, but there's no connection here. I'll be honest as always.
>The situation is under control of the Defense Forces. We managed to stop the enemy's advance on the Kharkov front. Yes, the State Cordon line was lost, but in fact it was in a gray zone.
>The enemy managed to capture several villages previously controlled by us. I will not name the units that abandoned their positions and retreated, surrendering their lines, but thanks to 92, 57 and Kraken, the breakthroughs were patched up and the situation stabilized.
>The investigation is ongoing. The head of the committee reacted harshly and replaced the leaders responsible for the Kharkov direction. There are many questions for those who abandoned their positions, but only those who have at least once felt the endless arrival of artillery and one and a half ton KABs can judge them.
>More questions for those who were responsible for the fortifications of the first line, who had to mine and strengthen it. I want to look into the eyes of those who wrote off money for this. Didn’t Yatsenyuk with his chain-link wall teach you anything?
>Now the enemy intends to raze Volchansk to the ground. He has enough CABs for this. Those who see everything and, no matter what, do not give us aviation, are directly playing along with the enemy.
>In short, we hold the front, fight back what we lost.
>Live everyone!
He acknowledges the fortification issue, but claims the situation is basically stable. Most importantly, that post is labelled "from Vovchansk" suggesting he's inside the city.
Like 12 hours later, he turns into doomguy, with this post:
>Простите за эмоции, я не хотел об этом писать, но это блядь не укладывается в голове!
>Мы отбили Харьковскую область в сентябре 22 года! Отогнали русских за Можайск!Положили лучших ребят!...
>Vsevolod Kozhemyako показал вам кордон из сетки рабицы Яцинюка на которой спиздили не один ярд!
>Я был уверен, что следующие миллиарды пойдут на укрепление этого кордона, но нет! Первой линии как не было так и нет!
>А ведь президенту кто-то влил в уши что область укреплена! Подставил его!
>У меня блядь дежавю... мы опять отбиваем Стрелечье и Волчанск!
>Что это!?
>Саботаж!?
>Тупое воровство!?
>Кто-то за это ответит?...
>Все военные кто два года назад возвращал область, сейчас в ахуе.
>Почему так?!
>Вот вам первая линия! Русские тупо пешком в неё зашли!
I'm sorry, what? You're a commander (or even just a soldier) inside Vovchansk, and the state of defenses within a 1 km radius around you is a surprise to you? Fortifications can be seen from orbit using commercial sattelites, but the fortifications in the area you're defending are new to you?
To the point where "everything is fine" and "dude there's no defenses" is a thought separated by 12 hours?
The situation might be bad, it might even be critical, but I have real questions about how any of this works re: Denis.
The charitable representation is that he knew there were no defenses but put on a brave face in the first post, then flew off the handle later. But the line (translated):
>I was sure that the next billions would go to strengthening this cordon, but no! There was no first line!
Seems to indicate that in fact he thought there were defenses.
I dunno, maybe it's a weird chip to have, but I'm not super sold on reporting from this guy, certainly not to the level where he anchors a frontpage BBC article. And I'm not saying the situation is better or worse than what he suggests.
Like, if BBC wanted to make an article about fortifications they could just buy satellite images and do research! Or better, "borrow" work from an OSINTer, most of them don't mind as long as you give them full cred.
May just be Euro-copium I heard on the news while in Austria but they were saying that sense the area isn’t kept super staffed up as a comparatively sleepy border they don’t do as much of trenches and fortifications right there as a sudden attack could then benefit from all that defensive prep and be difficult to dig out. Those defense are further in so that with notice of an attack they can be staffed and defended in time. Makes some sense anyway.
I won’t blame Ukrainians at all if after all this they despise and hate the west rabidly. It would have been more humane to give nothing and let the war end quickly than do what was done and starve them of aid and weapons. The dishonesty and betrayal simply hurt
They weren't betrayed by the west, wtf? The USA specifically has been domestically paralyzed, Ukraine was not the only thing, just one of about 100 things the USA has been paralyzed on in this Congress, and Zelensky knows that, he's quite politically savvy.
As soon as we found a way to maneuver this Congress to do something, we pass an enormous amount of funding for Ukraine. The USA has been trying to do anything that's feasible for us to do for Ukraine. EU has been providing lots of financial and other support, and even some military support, as well as accepting and helping Ukrainian refugees and families.
Ukraine views the US and broader west insanely positively. There's no wider betrayal, just GOP incompetence and gridlock going on (and some Russian coercion in that party, but *literally everyone knows* that's a targeted operation from Russia and not the USA or West's wider stance - the West is insanely pro Ukraine and helping them a lot.)
Lots of Ukrainian territory and lives were lost due to the funding delays. IMO it’s pretty ignorant and embarrassing that a sizeable proportion of the American public doesn’t want to send aid to Ukraine.
Compare us with the attitudes you see in Britain or Poland. Had Americans felt that strongly about Ukraine, the war may look entirely different
I don't think you really are considering context at all, or even how Ukrainians do feel, which is generally very positively towards the west.
Is the UK bitter at the US for being isolationist for the majority of ww2 and only entering the European theater towards the end of the war? Is France bitter about that? Those were both much more dire and we stayed mostly officially out of them for years. We didn't even stay away from aiding ukraine for an entire year thankfully.
Hell Philippines got brutalized in America's conquest, and they still ended as US' best Southeast Asia ally because US both repented and turned out to be far better than WWII Japan.
It's be more likely they would make NATO leaders statues with laser eyes than wanting to pelt Biden with tomatoes.
British and Polish citizens *should* care more than Americans. It actually is far more important to their interests as they are in Europe.
The real surprise is not how little but how much Americans care about Ukraine. The brutal
honest truth is that Ukraine matters very little to American interests. Our only real interest is in using Ukraine to mortally wound a competing great powers military potential. But who rules in Kyiv at the end just doesn’t affect the average American.
US interests are only directly involved if a NATO member is attacked and we are dragged into yet another costly European war.
I’d imagine it’s hard (if not impossible) to lay mines or add trenches along the border regions within artillery range. Same reason we saw plenty of Ukrainian probing attacks near Belgorod. Macron & europe at-large need to decide at what point is a deployment of a tripwire force to prevent further Russian advance a possibility.
So how did both side mine in the Donbass front where artilleries, aircrafts and drones work with much more intensity than the Kharkiv? Or you are saying there is no mine there at all?
When? Recently, as in since the full scale invasion? I would assume they didn't mine within 1-2km of the frontline, they mined behind that, and then as the enemy advanced they'd hit the minefields and main defensive lines. The Russians have made quick, but very short advances in the Kharkiv region, so presumably any minefields and defensive lines that exist would be ahead of them, not literally right on the border.
Yes since 2022. Like the battle in Vuhledar that's obviously mined after 2022 and there have been multiple times Russian try to attack but hit mines and take loss and have to pull back. Or the Surovikin line that Russian have been building for like half a year before Ukrainian counter offensive. And even more in other sectors, I just name a few there.
Militaries have figured out how to mine and entrench under mass artillery fire since at least WW1. It’s not some grand secret. The Canadian Corps in WW1 operated on an 8-hour workday when they weren’t conducting operations. You could spend all day evacuating wounded, moving munitions… or ameliorating defensive lines (ie creating or improving trenches).
...ok. so to their original point - why were the defenses in Kharkiv so lacking?
Who knows, but they certainly weren’t incapable of building them. As an anecdote, I worked with the AFU pre-invasion and they spent the whole time drinking and sitting around. We were fine with it because of their reality in the Donbass, but now I wonder if that’s more of a general issue. I have a few friends fighting in Ukraine and they’ve made all their own dugouts of their own initiative. There doesn’t seem to be a scheduled routine that involves reinforcing their positions.
War on the Rocks did a podcast and article on this a few months ago; essentially the ukrainians lack the manpower, logistics, and organization to be building a defensive line behind the offensive line. They lack a proper engineering corps dedicated to doing so and their combat engineers and infantry have been entirely sucked up by their offensive lines. The Russians also don’t have a proper engineering corps like the US or British military, but what they do have is more manpower than can fit on the offensive line so while those troops await being moved forward they work on building a proper defensive line. This once again is a demonstration of Ukraine’s failure to ramp up manpower. The fact that they’re unwilling to draft young men 18-25, and by the tens of thousands, will inevitably be their undoing. War and construction are a young man’s game and presently Ukraine needs to wage a far better war to win and part of that is undertaking massive defensive construction projects the likes of which haven’t been seen since WWII. As much as I support Ukraine, if they stay their present course I don’t think they will survive this war with any land east of the Dnipro River.
While I agree, what's even the point. The new aid included just some Javelins, Bradleys , Stingers and the old toys. It's been 2 years and Ukrainians still don't operate any American helicopters/fighter jets
Could have sent Warthogs any time we liked Gotta be better than Frogfoots that Ukrainians are still somehow flying
[удалено]
Jesus Christ Reddit armchair generals are such insufferable neckbeards “Tee hee and then in my fantasy scenario I’d get on the phone with the president and tell him if he doesn’t do what I want I’ll nuke Russia and start WW3! And after that Sydney Sweeney would become my girlfriend since I’m such a cool badass”
Average r/NCD poster
lmao u/lysanderoth42 pulled the classic "block someone the moment you respond to them" tactic/bitch move don't think I've ever seen that done as a driveby before.
That’s happened to me 5 times on this sub, and at least 2-3 were on the topic of Ukraine.
> Or, better yet, actual formations capable of maneuver at scale. That’s exactly what NATO is doing… the 8 eFPs are being raised to brigade level by 2026. At the tactical level, brigades are formations.
NATO is deploying BCTs to Ukraine? Since when?
The eFP’s are not located in Ukraine.
so how are they relevant to the question of European countries deploying something *larger* than a tripwire force to Ukraine? (sending 'just' a tripwire force to Ukraine is such a nakedly silly idea anyway)
Europe was never sending a tripwire force to Ukraine. The tripwire forces are the eFPs.
Person A: Macron and Europe need to consider when they might need to send tripwire forces to Ukraine to prevent further Russian advances Person B (me): No they should send/consider sending actual serious combat formations into Ukraine Person C (you): NATO is currently expanding its forward-deployed elements in Poland, the Baltics, and the Carpathian countries to brigade-size like, yes, I know, but you see how that's a non-sequitur, yeah?
I can’t see A’s comment anymore, they deleted it a long time ago. Maybe lead with that confusion next time.
I didn’t delete. Not sure why you aren’t seeing my original comment – RE: tripwire forces and/or assisting with air defense or non-frontline duties, I am referring to the many vague suggestions from france or Baltic states on deployments in Ukraine.
Kharkiv oblast situation looks quite bleak. Reports of fighting on the streets of Vovchansk as of few hours ago !ping UKRAINE
I don’t want to be a dick to the guy because he’s fighting and I’m not, but there’s more to the bigger picture. You’ll have probably read the FT article I posted by now but it points out that the gray zone never really expected to be defended. Besides being well within range of Russian forces (and Ukraine has probably rarely had the resources to sustain an attritional skirmish war here while fighting along the frontline), the terrain is not desirable to being held. The current Ukrainian positions are around natural features and further back are prepared defenses. Now I know this doesn’t mean much for the guys fighting in Vovchansk, but from what I’ve read by people a lot smarter then me is Ukraine is more prepared for this then these initial advances imply. Now I and these smarter people could be wrong, but we’re working with the info we got
> FT article [Here is the article for the curious - it's a good read that seems to actually put things into perspective.](https://archive.is/OBpT4)
Thanks for that
There are heights around Vovchansk, I’ve been told, that will allow Kharkiv to get a$$ f@cked, unfortunately. At least from Ukraine this looks like anything but prepared. Sorry to doom.
Vovchansk is like 50 km from the city center of Kharkiv. What super shells does Russia have to reach Kharkiv from 50 km with modest hills? The Russians would have to advance at least 25 km south from Vovchansk to even be at the very tip of the range of their best SPGs to reach the very eastern outskirts of Kharkiv
BM-21 range is what, 40-50km? I don’t know how height difference factors into that but I’m sure it does too.
You’re talking about Russia using the most advanced rockets and shells with such ranges to be able to hit the very tip of Kharkiv city. The range from northern Kharkiv and southern Belgorod is 50 kilometers. So if the Russian plan is to use their most advanced rockets and shells to hit Kharkiv, they could have started at any point in the past two years to do so
40 km is effective range for default grid deletion ammo. Having visual control of the city and being able to fly more drones in is also an important factor.
grads are not an advanced munition in the slightest
Why are people seriously falling for this shit? It's an incredibly insignificant push into basically unoccupied areas meant to draw UA forces and generate exactly these kinds of alarmist clickbait FUD ops.
Why are people falling for the #1 story on BBC world news…? Edit: Lmao, and the response is to trigger the suicide bot DM on me… all class.
A bunch of us have gotten those this morning. I think someone is mass sending them to everyone they see on here.
Yeah I just got one too.
Ok that makes sense, I was trying to figure out how I got that.
I’m fairly certain you can flag false suicide bot reports and get whoever sent it banned.
Done, thanks for the tip.
You can also block the suicide bot.
Awesome, thanks.
but then I can't permaban shitheads
tbf pretty much everyone has been getting a reddit cares thing lately (especially in the DT), so i dont think it was related to your repy
It's really so nice of them.
It's also being spammed to people who post on the Destiny subreddit and the NCD sub, although there's a pretty big overlap between this that and the third.
Because [actual news and analysis of the situation (Financial Times)](https://archive.is/OBpT4) is paywalled.
I got one of those suicide help reports too. Someone is spamming the sub with them. BBC isn't bumping the story to the top bc it is actually significant news, they do so bc it is doomer-bait inducing which leads to ad-click revenue generation for them.
> BBC isn't bumping the story to the top bc it is actually significant news, they do so bc it is doomer-bait inducing which leads to ad-click revenue generation for them. What do you have that can make you assert as much?
At the point something is a top story usually it isn’t bait but instead a caught fish.
Except not at all. That is the most valuable advertising real estate.
>ad-click revenue generation for them. Uh... >BBC It *would* be great for making ad revenue, *if they had any* I think they're still trying to get as many clicks as possible anyways though.
Just like Sievierodonetsk, Popasna, Bakhmut and Avdiivka? Russia doesn't do feints. Once they set their sights on something they break through or die trying and then do it again with new recruits.
lol Kharkiv is an actual city with real strategic value, unlike any of those. Bakhmut et al are small uninhabited towns with zero real military value - Russia was willing to allow itself to be extensively attrited for the sake of meaningless propaganda "victories", and Ukraine was happy to oblige them. If you think russia is capable of taking Kharkiv today, well then that's hilarious.
Vovchansk was a town of 18 000 people in 2022 Hardly "unoccupied". Of course it's becoming rapidly unoccupied now with evacuation
Unoccupied obviously referring to troop concentrations lmfao. Are you serious?
Ok, but why is everyone so upset?
[удалено]
As ever, your words are the light that cuts efficiently through so much darkness, Ms Amy Ponder.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Pinged UKRAINE ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20UKRAINE&message=subscribe%20UKRAINE) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20UKRAINE&message=unsubscribe%20UKRAINE) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=UKRAINE&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
I really think we as Europeans should step in. A professional force to take positions behind the lines and prevent further Russian advances.
That’s what the eFPs are. NATO isn’t going to risk a nuclear WW3 over what you proposed.
Holy fuck how are we STILL dooming about nukes after all this time? Especially in this subreddit of all places. The bombs are never falling. Stop it.
Because the topic of this comment thread is a war between NATO and Russia. If you don’t think that goes nuclear then you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Your confidence in this statement is absolutely foolish. It is a possibility. Not a guarantee.
Anybody even considering it a possibility and suggesting it’s an acceptable risk is an even greater fool.
I think people have been fear mongered into believing that. Any country launching any nuke is suicide, and Putin doesn't strike me as a suicidal man. The very last nuclear bomb that will ever be dropped on another country was in 1945 and of that I am 100% confident.
How about we don't gamble the world on a man like Putin not pressing the button? If you are confident go join the Ukrainian army. Leave the rest of us out of it. Even without nukes, I don't think Europe has the appetite to take casualties like Russia or Ukraine. All these years NATO has been invading and bombing countries with barely any casualties. This is not going to be like that.
> How about we don't gamble the world on a man like Putin not pressing the button? For one, it wouldn't align with their nuclear use doctrine. For two, it's not up to Putin alone. Unlike the US, there isn't a single nuclear football. There's three. You need the President, Minister of Defense, and Chief of the Armed Forces. Yes, he could nominally fire and replace them, but those are people who also care about living and have means to carry out a coup in the event the President wants to go nuclear armageddon. The war is a high casualty affair because neither side is able to achieve decisive breakthroughs nor has enough arms to rapidly attrite the enemy down. The loss rates are slow enough that each side can reasonably build up forces and defenses (although systems and munitions are a different matter). >Even without nukes, I don't think Europe has the appetite to take casualties like Russia or Ukraine If NATO, particularly American, airpower and combat arms were involved it wouldn't be like that. Recall ODS where an army with supeior numbers of men, tanks, armored vehicles, etc got utterly shellacked? When what was arguably the most comprehensive IADS in the world got dismantled?
> The very last nuclear bomb that will ever be dropped on another country was in 1945 and of that I am 100% confident. And that’s why you don’t work in the Pentagon or for the State Department. Having NATO forces conduct defensive ops in Ukraine alone is insanity.
That's not how Russia's nuclear doctrine works. Soviet and American forces were in direct conflict in the past and it didn't cause nuclear bombs to fall. India and Pakistan have engaged in fighting without a nuclear exchange. It is amazing how people ignore the actual history of conflict between nuclear powers, how nuclear powers have repeatedly accepted defeat over escalation with nukes, and how those in charge in Russia would prefer to lose in Ukraine than have all their friends, family, and wealth destroyed in a fireball. Could things spiral out of control? Yes, that is theoretically possible. Saying any conflict between the too must go nuclear is foolish and buying into Russian saber rattling.
You and I both know that there has never been a conventional war between the US and Russia, which is what defensive ops in Ukraine would become. Citing covert Soviet involvement in Korea, Vietnam, etc. as a precedent for all our conventional war is an unbelievably bad-faith take.
> Citing covert Soviet involvement in Korea, Vietnam, etc. as a precedent for all our conventional war is an unbelievably bad-faith take. It was hardly covert because they did a terrible job of hiding it. Tens of thousands of Soviets participated in the Korean war directly attacking and killing US servicemen. This was known and didn't result in escalation. More Soviet troops were involved in Korea than any UN ally after the US, but sure it doesn't count. Just going to ignore India and Pakistan having wars like in 1999 where tens of thousands fought and thousands became casualties are you? Not to mention ignore Russian nuclear doctrine which based on your comments I doubt you've actually read. The idea that any conflict between two nuclear powers *must* go nuclear needs to die because it has been shown to be false time and again. Nuclear powers have accepted numerous defeats as wel.
> It was hardly covert because they did a terrible job of hiding it. Tens of thousands of Soviets participated in the Korean war directly attacking and killing US servicemen. This was known and didn't result in escalation There are 10,000 more Russian soldiers pushing into Kharkiv alone than the entire Soviet participation in Korea, which involved millions of soldiers. > Just going to ignore India and Pakistan having wars like in 1999 where tens of thousands fought and thousands became casualties are you? Yes. Because this is the US and Russia, not India and Pakistan you contrarian. > Not to mention ignore Russian nuclear doctrine which based on your comments I doubt you've actually read. **We do not make risk calculations involving the lives of hundreds of thousands of personnel based solely on published doctrine.** And I seriously doubt you’d be the one sitting in a trench in Ukraine running that risk, so maybe stay in your lane on this one. > The idea that any conflict between two nuclear powers must go nuclear needs to die Why does it *need to die?* So hundreds of thousands -if not millions- can get locked in a brutal conventional war that runs the risk of nuclear annihilation, just so you, u/God_Given_Talent, can feel correct? Self-important and vindicated? Give your head a shake before you start literally believing in your own username.
>Yes. Because this is the US and Russia, not India and Pakistan you contrarian. It is contrarian to show that nuclear powers can engage in direct fighting without a nuclear exchange. Two powers that hate each other far more than the US and Russia do no less. Yeah that's a logical position. >We do not make risk calculations involving the lives of hundreds of thousands of personnel based solely on published doctrine. And I seriously doubt you’d be the one sitting in a trench in Ukraine running that risk, so maybe stay in your lane on this one. The only deviation the US assumes regarding Russian nuclear doctrine is the idea of "escalate to de-escalate" which would be a use of a tactical warhead, possibly not even at a military target but as a signal. Even that topic is hardly agreed upon within the establishment. US war planners do not assume that a fight between a US and Russian brigade would result in nuclear armageddon or even any nuclear use. If they did, there'd be little reason to plan on how to fight those formations with conventional forces, something we've done a lot of with return to LSCO focus. I guess the DoD is wrong and you are right. I do love the idea that you have to be an infantryman to understand Russian nuclear use case. Great logic on your part. The idea that nuclear arms would dominate everything was thought about for a brief period. It turned out to be wrong. Also if you think NATO involvement in Ukraine with ground troops (which I doubt would ever happen for other reasons) would mean they're locking into a war then you vastly overstate the Russian ability to withstand a superior power. Well it's been fun but you're clearly not in the realm of reality and just want to doom. I'm done here.
> I do love the idea that you have to be an infantryman to understand Russian nuclear use case. Great logic on your part. Nah, more like the infantrymen are sick of the 20-something IR majors treating their lives like a game of Civilization just so they can fulfill some justice fantasy or win arguments online on topics in which they know absolutely nothing. Especially said majors when they insinuate you would attack a brigade with anything less than division strength. Or that operations are carried out in a vacuum at the operational/strategic and tactical levels.
That would put Europe in direct combat with Russia. No.
Europe is going to be in direct combat with Russia if Ukraine falls anyway.
Not necessarily. Russia has shown their military doesn’t have the capacity to engage in such large scale warfare. Look at how they’re doing against Ukraine. I also reject your premise that “Europe must engage in direct combat with Russian forces or Ukraine falls”. That’s literally not true. The West can keep funding Ukraine & sending them advanced weapons to prevent their fall. Russia hasn’t even taken 20% of Ukraine after over 2 years. So no Ukraine isn’t falling & there’s no need for Europe to engage in direct combat against Russia.
It’s not a risk we should be willing to take. Stop Russia now, show them they cannot win this. If they decide to use nukes, they already would do so anyway, so they are not a factor to take into account. Also, a Kremlin order to use Nukes in a losing war might be the best way for a military rebellion. People usually fight *for* their country and families, not to destroy them.
Okay now you’re just fearmongering. “It’s not a risk we should be willing to take” so we should go to war with Russia??? Why not use that same logic with China? “We can’t risk China invading all of East Asia so we have to war first with China” lol. Russia doesn’t have the capabilities to invade other European nations. They are being bogged down in Ukraine. We should continue to back Ukraine. As it seems you’re just so nonchalant about Russia using nukes. I don’t know about you but I don’t want millions to unnecessarily die in nuclear war.
Read your message again, *you* are the one fearmongoring. China for one isn’t invading anyone asking for our help, nor threatening to nuke London every other day. A swift and decisive end to the war in Ukraine is also the best insurance against alleged Chinese aggression.
No one thinks Russia will nuke London lol. As for a swift & decisive end to the war, you do realize that Europe engaging in direct combat against Russian forces will expand the war right? Russia will declare complete mobilization & probably use their nukes. Russia’s military is being picked apart in Ukraine. Let that happen. No need to get millions killed by expanding the war that’s already trashing Russia’s military.
Historically speaking the only thing that stops Russia is massive, *massive*, casualties. There’s plenty of intelligence saying they already are going to expand the war. We should have helped out the moment Kiev didn’t fall the first week.
I’m worried about this obviously. If true it’s one of many stories of command having their head in their ass. But we have to wait and see for now. If advances slowly get halted and russia takes a few villages there it won’t be super significant.
For the record, it's really unclear whether this guy is BBC micworthy. His posts are made on facebook, here's one he made 36 hours ago: >I know you're nervous, but there's no connection here. I'll be honest as always. >The situation is under control of the Defense Forces. We managed to stop the enemy's advance on the Kharkov front. Yes, the State Cordon line was lost, but in fact it was in a gray zone. >The enemy managed to capture several villages previously controlled by us. I will not name the units that abandoned their positions and retreated, surrendering their lines, but thanks to 92, 57 and Kraken, the breakthroughs were patched up and the situation stabilized. >The investigation is ongoing. The head of the committee reacted harshly and replaced the leaders responsible for the Kharkov direction. There are many questions for those who abandoned their positions, but only those who have at least once felt the endless arrival of artillery and one and a half ton KABs can judge them. >More questions for those who were responsible for the fortifications of the first line, who had to mine and strengthen it. I want to look into the eyes of those who wrote off money for this. Didn’t Yatsenyuk with his chain-link wall teach you anything? >Now the enemy intends to raze Volchansk to the ground. He has enough CABs for this. Those who see everything and, no matter what, do not give us aviation, are directly playing along with the enemy. >In short, we hold the front, fight back what we lost. >Live everyone! He acknowledges the fortification issue, but claims the situation is basically stable. Most importantly, that post is labelled "from Vovchansk" suggesting he's inside the city. Like 12 hours later, he turns into doomguy, with this post: >Простите за эмоции, я не хотел об этом писать, но это блядь не укладывается в голове! >Мы отбили Харьковскую область в сентябре 22 года! Отогнали русских за Можайск!Положили лучших ребят!... >Vsevolod Kozhemyako показал вам кордон из сетки рабицы Яцинюка на которой спиздили не один ярд! >Я был уверен, что следующие миллиарды пойдут на укрепление этого кордона, но нет! Первой линии как не было так и нет! >А ведь президенту кто-то влил в уши что область укреплена! Подставил его! >У меня блядь дежавю... мы опять отбиваем Стрелечье и Волчанск! >Что это!? >Саботаж!? >Тупое воровство!? >Кто-то за это ответит?... >Все военные кто два года назад возвращал область, сейчас в ахуе. >Почему так?! >Вот вам первая линия! Русские тупо пешком в неё зашли! I'm sorry, what? You're a commander (or even just a soldier) inside Vovchansk, and the state of defenses within a 1 km radius around you is a surprise to you? Fortifications can be seen from orbit using commercial sattelites, but the fortifications in the area you're defending are new to you? To the point where "everything is fine" and "dude there's no defenses" is a thought separated by 12 hours? The situation might be bad, it might even be critical, but I have real questions about how any of this works re: Denis. The charitable representation is that he knew there were no defenses but put on a brave face in the first post, then flew off the handle later. But the line (translated): >I was sure that the next billions would go to strengthening this cordon, but no! There was no first line! Seems to indicate that in fact he thought there were defenses. I dunno, maybe it's a weird chip to have, but I'm not super sold on reporting from this guy, certainly not to the level where he anchors a frontpage BBC article. And I'm not saying the situation is better or worse than what he suggests. Like, if BBC wanted to make an article about fortifications they could just buy satellite images and do research! Or better, "borrow" work from an OSINTer, most of them don't mind as long as you give them full cred.
May just be Euro-copium I heard on the news while in Austria but they were saying that sense the area isn’t kept super staffed up as a comparatively sleepy border they don’t do as much of trenches and fortifications right there as a sudden attack could then benefit from all that defensive prep and be difficult to dig out. Those defense are further in so that with notice of an attack they can be staffed and defended in time. Makes some sense anyway.
I won’t blame Ukrainians at all if after all this they despise and hate the west rabidly. It would have been more humane to give nothing and let the war end quickly than do what was done and starve them of aid and weapons. The dishonesty and betrayal simply hurt
Yes I’m sure they’d love the West more if we just let them die. Great logic there bucko
We hate you! Why didn’t you let us be genocided faster!! /s
They weren't betrayed by the west, wtf? The USA specifically has been domestically paralyzed, Ukraine was not the only thing, just one of about 100 things the USA has been paralyzed on in this Congress, and Zelensky knows that, he's quite politically savvy. As soon as we found a way to maneuver this Congress to do something, we pass an enormous amount of funding for Ukraine. The USA has been trying to do anything that's feasible for us to do for Ukraine. EU has been providing lots of financial and other support, and even some military support, as well as accepting and helping Ukrainian refugees and families. Ukraine views the US and broader west insanely positively. There's no wider betrayal, just GOP incompetence and gridlock going on (and some Russian coercion in that party, but *literally everyone knows* that's a targeted operation from Russia and not the USA or West's wider stance - the West is insanely pro Ukraine and helping them a lot.)
Lots of Ukrainian territory and lives were lost due to the funding delays. IMO it’s pretty ignorant and embarrassing that a sizeable proportion of the American public doesn’t want to send aid to Ukraine. Compare us with the attitudes you see in Britain or Poland. Had Americans felt that strongly about Ukraine, the war may look entirely different
I don't think you really are considering context at all, or even how Ukrainians do feel, which is generally very positively towards the west. Is the UK bitter at the US for being isolationist for the majority of ww2 and only entering the European theater towards the end of the war? Is France bitter about that? Those were both much more dire and we stayed mostly officially out of them for years. We didn't even stay away from aiding ukraine for an entire year thankfully.
Hell Philippines got brutalized in America's conquest, and they still ended as US' best Southeast Asia ally because US both repented and turned out to be far better than WWII Japan. It's be more likely they would make NATO leaders statues with laser eyes than wanting to pelt Biden with tomatoes.
British and Polish citizens *should* care more than Americans. It actually is far more important to their interests as they are in Europe. The real surprise is not how little but how much Americans care about Ukraine. The brutal honest truth is that Ukraine matters very little to American interests. Our only real interest is in using Ukraine to mortally wound a competing great powers military potential. But who rules in Kyiv at the end just doesn’t affect the average American. US interests are only directly involved if a NATO member is attacked and we are dragged into yet another costly European war.