Warfare Russia/Ukraine War

[Chazman]

BREAKING: Russia's most advanced fighter jet Sukhoi Su-35 successfully intercepts Ukrainian missile..View attachment 381455

I hope someone recovered that ECM pod on the wingtip.

 

[uktabber]

I hope sone recovered that ECM pod on the wingtip.

Yes......Good point!!

 

[Telmar]

Unfortunately the SU25 pic is'nt new.

Ukrainians have quite a challenge with the Russians having scraped what they have left and concentrating their power.

Good luck to them!

 

[Gordus]

We are going around in circles. Simply because of what we both agree in, which is you need to prove it. A levelled city is not a war crime, until you can prove it and Im telling you, it is a lot harder to prove. From Allepo to Fallujah to Marawi... levelling buildings in urban warfare is a tactic and not not an out right war crime.

Of course you need to prove a crime, but guess what you also need to justify an attack and have solid proof for that too. Regardless of wheter you think it was difficult to prove or not, by definition alone, wanton destruction IS a war crime. It's also not as dificult as you make it. If there was no presence of enemy combatants in the building and you have no evidence, no footage, like didn't even take pictures for example, to prove that it was justified what you did, then you just destroyed civilian property and can be charged with war crimes. The wanton destruction of civilian property constitues a war crime. It literaly doesn't matter if that building was empty. Even if you claim there were combatants, you need to prove it and it is already looking bad if there were also civilians inside or just close enough to endanger them. If they give withness testimony and there is evidence to debunk your efforts of justification, purely legaly, you're pretty much screwed. Especialy if there were actualy no combatants inside at all. I'm telling you, it's not that easy to get away with S**t as you believe, either. Then you'd have to murder anyone who could be a potential withness ( which the perpetrators in Bucha already F***ed up ), destroy original evidence and plant your "evidence" to support your claims, and pray that nobody actualy saw that or it was caught by drones and satellites or god forbid ppl from the own ranks actualy came out and testified. It's not that easy. Wheter it will be ignored or not is a different question, but for some reason I believe our hypocrite West will do everything in their power, to press as many charges against Russia, as humanly possible. Which I absolutlely approve of. I know this is not the case everywhere and things are charged in accordance to politics and affiliation, which just shows what S**t species we currently are, but that's a whole different topic. My only point here was that indiscriminate destruction and killing of civilians and civilian objects, are by definition war crimes.

 

[primer]

Field Marshal John Deere

 

[Junglejim]

Of course you need to prove a crime, but guess what you also need to justify an attack. Regardless of wheter you think it was difficult to prove or not, by definition alone, wanton destruction IS a war crime. It's also not as dificult as you make it. If there was no presence of enemy combatants in the building and you have no evidence, no footage, like didn't even take pictures for example, to prove that it was justified what you did, then you just destroyed civilian property and can be charged for war crimes. The wanton destruction of civilian property constitues a war crime. It literaly doesn't matter if that building was empty. Even if you claim there were combatants, you need to prove it and it is already looking bad if there were also civilians inside or just close enough to endanger them. If they give withness testimony and there is evidence to debunk your efforts of justification, you're F***ed. Especialy if there were actualy no combatants inside at all. I'm telling you, it's not that easy to get away with S**t as you believe, either. Then you'd have to murder anyone who could be a potential withness ( which the perpetrators in Bucha already F***ed up ), destroy original evidence and plant your "evidence" to support your claims, and pray that nobody actualy saw that or it was caught by drones and satellites or god forbid ppl from the own ranks actualy came out and testified. It's not that easy. Wheter it will be ignored or not is a different question, but for some reason I believe our hypocritical West will do everything in their power, to press as many charges against Russia, as humanly possible. I know this is not the case everywhere and things are charged in accordance to politics and affiliation, which just shows what S**t species we currently are, but that's a whole different topic.

The WANTON part is the hardest part to justify, so if your soldiers are being engaged by enemies in the town or building it isnt a war crim to level it. Leveling a building or urban are that is part of a battle is valid.

As we need to move on from it, lets just wait till "War Crimes" are filed and we shall see if it comes up as part of the "crimes"

 

[Faheka]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Gordus]

The WANTON part is the hardest part to justify, so if your soldiers are being engaged by enemies in the town or building it isnt a war crim to level it. Leveling a building or urban are that is part of a battle is valid.

As we need to move on from it, lets just wait till "War Crimes" are filed and we shall see if it comes up as part of the "crimes"

You keep saying that, yes but it's not that simple. It's even harder to justify indiscriminate attacks. The Geneva Convention literaly states it was prohibited to just attack populated areas, even if there was enemy military presence in them. So you are legaly already in trouble for that.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
.

The attacker has to prove that their action was justified and not indiscriminate. When evidence suggested the contrary, they are war crimes. If you attack or level a building that contained combatants as well as civilians, it can be charged as war crime. Just claiming a whole town was hostile is not a justification. Even then, if there was enemy presence evident in town, that is not enough. Because you need to to be able to justify every single military action you carry out against every single non-military, populated-or non populated civilian, cultural object and make sure, civilian property was not endangered unjustifiably and that civilians were not present and harmed in the process. So, just claiming there were hostiles in the general area and leveling buildings indiscriminately, doesn't work. If you bombard an area, kill civilians in the process or just endager them and destroy their property without any trace or at least videographic evidence that there was only enemy presence at the time and there are also withnesses to denie that, than you absolutely can be charged with war crimes. If the building was empty, you can't prove hostile presence, and you just leveld it, it can also be charged as war crime. I tell you, it's not all that easy for the perpetrator either.

IF it was the case that the structure in question was sheltering only combatants and you can actualy prove it, then yes, it wouldn't constitute a war crime and it would be very difficult to accuse anyone of at least wanton destruction. Sure. We can agree on that.

 

[Chomiq]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

They forgot "convicted sex offender".

 

[Junglejim]

You keep saying that, yes but it's not that simple. It's even harder to justify indiscriminate attacks. The Geneva Convention literaly states it was prohibited to just attack populated areas, even if there was enemy military presence in them. So you are legaly already in trouble for that.



The attacker has to prove that their action was justified and not indiscriminate. When evidence suggested the contrary, they are war crimes. If you attack or level a building that contained combatants as well as civilians, it can be charged as war crime. Just claiming a whole town was hostile is not a justification. Even then, if there was enemy presence evident in town, that is not enough. Because you need to to be able to justify every single military action you carry out against every single non-military, populated-or non populated civilian, cultural object and make sure, civilian property was not endangered unjustifiably and that civilians were not present and harmed in the process. So, just claiming there were hostiles in the general area and leveling buildings indiscriminately, doesn't work. If you bombard an area, kill civilians in the process or just endager them and destroy their property without any trace or at least videographic evidence that there was only enemy presence at the time and there are also withnesses to denie that, than you absolutely can be charged with war crimes. If the building was empty, you can't prove hostile presence, and you just leveld it, it can also be charged as war crime. I tell you, it's not all that easy for the perpetrator either.

IF it was the case that the structure in question was sheltering combatants and you can actualy prove it, then yes, it wouldn't constitute a war crime and it would be very difficult to accuse anyone of at least wanton destruction. Sure. We can agree on that.

the sad part is, you can actually see records of war crimes for indsicriminate bombings against Russia followed by ... no prosecution.

 

[Gordus]

the sad part is, you can actually see records of war crimes for indsicriminate bombings against Russia followed by ... no prosecution.

Yeah, we humans are sadly not prime examples of honesty in our current state.

 

[Redav]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Paya]

A bit stale, but still interesting. One of the last articles of Novaya Gazeta before they stopped their operations in Russia. A vivid image of a city at war.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/kherson-ukraine-russia/

 

[Redav]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Why hurry?

 

[Mordoror]

We can quite reasonably work it out from the nature of the airfield attack and the lack of sustained supplies for the northern attack forces. This was not a force that was supplied for long term operations DESPITE there being six weeks of "exercises" beforehand.

So either it was a force set up with a minimum of tail so as not to get in the way of a swift operation. Or Russian logistical planning is even worse than that already demonstrated despite having months to get it right.

Both Occams and Hanlons razers say that this was not a "it will take 2 weeks" plan.

It is more complex than that
From what i gathered from the beginning

High level (army corps) and middle rank (bataillon rank) officers were informed of an offensive move very late while the units were packing up for home after the several months of exercise (soldiers and NCOs were expecting to go home according FB/VK and phone exchanges)

The russian army attacked with units organized as per their organic/theorical peacetime organisation. They were not organized as they were during exercises simulating a war i.e into combined arm formations (which meant separating the various units from their organic structure like divisions and brigades and form them into combined arm bataillons). In short they attacked in march formations, not in offensive formations

Why that ? because surprise at strategical level was wanted to ensure a quick victory. Strategical surprise is a key point in former soviet and russian doctrine. But what the order giver(s) forgot is that surprise by itself doesn't ensure victory, you need a coherent follow up plan. That's where the clusterfuck began.

In short, russians tried to renew Praha 1968 or Kabul 1979 (quick strategical surprise to seize and behead OPFOR centers of command, military and political......... throwing OPFOR military in disarray and allowing march units to enter unopposed in the country without much resistance)

It failed big time. It could have worked (and in this case, the troops would have been re-plenished by airlift and trains through the border).
But as it failed, the russians ended up with units formed to leave a long time exercise period and go back to their barracks thrown into a real war meatgrinder without refurbishing, without logistic for sustained fights and without clear orders

The whole plan was unbalanced, focusing too much on strategical surprise without any plan B

 

[BCNTM]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Why hurry?

You mean Germany delays - I could see the Jermans welcoming the Ruskis with open arms when they roll through Poland

Germany has gone even further down in my estimation over all this, as their response has been pathetic - to say the least

 

[Redav]

You mean Germany delays - I could see the Jermans welcoming the Ruskis with open arms when they roll through Poland

Germany has gone even further down in my estimation over all this, as their response has been pathetic - to say the least

This delay Will last until august (!!!!)

 

[Redav]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Telmar]

...

It failed big time. It could have worked (and in this case, the troops would have been re-plenished by airlift and trains through the border).
But as it failed, the russians ended up with units formed to leave a long time exercise period and go back to their barracks thrown into a real war meatgrinder without refurbishing, without logistic for sustained fights and without clear orders
...

Logistics was a problem in 1968.

In Bratislava, Russian / Warsaw pact soldiers in 1968 did not have enough drinking water.

 

[Redav]

Is this for real?

Flags in Conflict | The White-Blue-White version of the Russian flag as used by the Free Russia Legion, Russians who fight for Ukraine. | Facebook

The White-Blue-White version of the Russian flag as used by the Free Russia Legion, Russians who fight for Ukraine.

www.facebook.com