Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Ukraine Invasion: Part 51

1000 replies

MagicFox · 15/08/2024 20:29

Welcome to 51. Thanks as usual to all and Slava Ukraini πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦

Agreed thread guidance:

A. The agreed purpose of the thread is for the sharing of information and commentary on current events

B. If you post a link please tell us where it leads/give a precis of the content

C. Discussion and debate is welcome, but please keep it respectful

OP posts:
Thread gallery
289
Igotjelly · 26/08/2024 17:03

This morning was the largest aerial bombardment of the entire war so far, and that’s saying something. Absolute animals!

blueshoes · 26/08/2024 17:19

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-25-2024

Key Takeaways:

  • Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces recently regained lost positions in Kursk Oblast amid reports of continued Ukrainian attacks in the area on August 25.
  • The Russian military likely continues to redeploy forces from lower priority sectors of the frontline in Ukraine to the frontline in Kursk Oblast.
  • French authorities arrested Telegram founder Pavel Durov on August 24, prompting concern among Russian ultranationalist milbloggers about their ability to report freely on the war in Ukraine. ISW has not observed any direct evidence indicating that Durov's arrest will affect Telegram operations in the near term, however.
  • Russian milbloggers reacted to Durov's arrest by focusing on how Russian soldiers rely on ad-hoc communications, including Telegram, for organizing operations in Ukraine and called on the Russian military command to establish an adequate official communication system.
  • Russian forces recently advanced near and within Toretsk and southwest of Donetsk City.
MissConductUS · 26/08/2024 18:51

Reading this made my day.

Old US Bradleys becoming 'legend' in Ukraine shows what the country can do when it gets enough of the weapons it needs

The Russians are terrified of meeting Ukrainian Bradleys in combat, as they should be. That's a big psychological advantage in combat and boosts Ukrainian morale.

Thank God we had the good sense to supply them in quantity along with proper training and ammo. There are a lot of them still in storage to replace combat losses too.

blueshoes · 26/08/2024 18:56

@MissConductUS the Bradley link does not work for me. Can you re-post

blueshoes · 26/08/2024 20:01

Thanks, @MissConductUS The link works!

You were right about the Bradleys being a game changer for Ukraine 😁

"Nicholas Drummond, a former British Army officer who now works as a land-warfare analyst, told BI they're effective because they're lighter than tanks and can go places that tanks struggle to go to. Bradleys also have a flexible cannon with a high rate of fire that can provide fire support and immobilize tank sensors.

De Bretton-Gordon described the vehicle as "a really good piece of kit because it's reliable, it's easy to use, it moves around quickly, and it is fairly well protected."
...
De Bretton-Gordon said that Ukraine had exploited the weaknesses in many Russian tanks. On these tanks, the places where the turret meets the hull "are very vulnerable because there's virtually no armor there," he said.

Hence, even if Bradleys have small rounds compared with what a tank can fire, "if you fire enough of those at the right place, it can take out a tank."

And, again, having more Bradleys to use means Ukraine can be extra effective.
"And, of course, if you've got two or three Bradleys firing at one T-90 β€” and the Russians haven't been very clever, the way they've used their tanks β€” that overwhelming firepower means that they're taking these T-90s out and the Bradley is sort of becoming a bit of a mythological beast."

minsmum · 26/08/2024 21:16

I have seen reports, can't remember where sorry, that large numbers of Ukrainians are returning to join the armed forces. Does anyone know if this is really happening

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 26/08/2024 21:18

I haven't seen that report myself - it would be so so good if true.

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 26/08/2024 21:35

Ben Wallace has written a chilling article in the Telegraph (thanks to the poster who gave the archive link)

In October 2022, in the dead of night, specialist troops and officials from Moscow slipped into St Catherine’s Cathedral in Kherson and <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/Um0Bg/www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/27/russia-steals-bones-national-icon-potemkin-kherson-grave/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">exhumed the bones of famed 18th-century Russian commander Grigory Potemkin. He was a favourite of Empress Catherine the Great and played a critical role in the annexation of Crimea in 1783.
No one knows where they have gone. Perhaps Moscow or Crimea. But the removal was on the orders of Vladimir Putin. If you have ever wondered what drives the Russian president, this single act should give a strong indication. It is history, and Russia’s place in it.

One of the battles I had with the national security establishment in the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/Um0Bg/www.telegraph.co.uk/russia-ukraine-war/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">years up to February 2022 was to persuade them that, despite the intelligence reports and the β€œwise heads”, Putin was not driven by logic, nor a passion to turn his country into a modern, outward-looking power. He was motivated by revenge, legacy and romance.
He and his Siloviki (past and present securocrats from the KGB and FSB) do not accept that they were the culprits behind the Soviet Union they inflicted on the Russian people. They believe they were the victims of a Western plot. Were it not for the West’s version of history, Russia would be considered to have won the Second World War single-handedly. The Cold War would never have needed to happen because Eastern Europe, including East Germany and Poland, would have wanted to remain pressed to Moscow’s bosom.
The bizarre essay Putin personally wrote in June 2021, entitled The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II, desperately twists facts, ignores events and casts Russia as the saviour of the world. He claims that the Nazi–Soviet pact that led to the invasion and dismembering of Poland was to the UK’s benefit.

In trying to recast Russia’s role in the Second World War, Putin lays blame squarely with Britain and France, and completely distorts the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He makes no mention of the massacre of 20,000 Poles at Katyn by the Red Army and secret police in 1940, nor the fact that before the invasion of Poland, Russia trained with the Wehrmacht and sold tanks to them. His essay is worth a read, if only to get a sense of the man.
But don’t expect reality. Expect excuses. Almost a year later, Putin penned another essay: On the Historical Unity of Russia and Ukrainians. It reads like a mix of Mein Kampf and a Walter Scott novel: destiny, ethnic nationalism and romance combined into an essay. It would be too easy to discard, but it is an essay that held all the clues about what was to happen next.
How sad that so many β€œRussian experts” in the Foreign Office, Quai d’Orsay or Foggy Bottom missed it. The aftermath of the Iraq war left intelligence services too cautious to make judgment calls without their product being washed through matrixes and seniors. Often the middle ranking intelligence officer who has lived and breathed the enemy for 20 years is kept so far in the background that ministers don’t get the instinct or judgment they really need.
Sir John Chilcot produced intelligence analysis that was thorough but it also regularly removed the β€œhuman factor”. Too often we assess intelligence through a lens that is a reflection of our own motivations and behaviours rather than those of our adversaries.
But it is also the job of politicians to understand people and their motives. Politicians who cannot read a room make lousy politicians. Leaders who cannot β€œfeel” the currents in international relations shouldn’t be leaders.
When I went to Moscow, barely 10 days before the invasion, to meet the Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu and <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/Um0Bg/www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/23/russia-arrests-another-of-its-top-generals-for-corruption/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">General Valery Gerasimov, I didn’t go to read a script, I went to read my adversaries. I went to see how deep the lies went, how big the egos were, what motivated them and the behaviour of the subordinates around them.
As I left I remember commenting to General Gerasimov that I was struck by how his military doctrine had β€œswapped mass for readiness and mobilisation”. At that moment another General leaned over to add: β€œand ruthless intimidation”. The mask had slipped. Most telling of all was the comment from General Gerasimov to me in the hallway. β€œNever again will we be humiliated. We used to be the fourth army in the world, now we are the first or second. It is us and the Americans.”
These men at the top of Russia see themselves as rewriting history, by correcting the humiliation they felt at the end of the Cold War and settling scores for hundreds of years. While Russia is doing a very good job of, yet again, humiliating itself through its own actions, we should realise that in Putin’s version of history it is Britain, not the US, which is at the heart of Russia’s failures.
In Putin’s warped worldview, we were behind the Crimean war and defeat of the Czars, we were behind the rise of Hitler, we were behind the counter-revolution and our espionage was behind the end of the Soviet Union. Britain is in Putin’s crosshairs. One of the most senior members of the Russian Siloviki recently commented: β€œWe know Britain is behind the invasion of Kursk”. We weren’t.
Make no mistake, Putin is coming for us. We must be prepared for the inevitable.

Mb76 · 27/08/2024 09:58

Thanks @DucklingSwimmingInstructress, Ben Wallace is not wrong. Sadly.

PerkingFaintly · 27/08/2024 10:03

That's quite interesting.

I wonder if that contains a dollop of the same thing that motivates Trump's repeatedly stated wishfulness to still be running against Biden? TFG could recognise his old adversary, who was at least an old white man like himself; whereas Harris is a completely different kettle of fish – younger, person of colour, female, and getting higher ratings than him – and he can't get his head round someone out of the box into which he "others" women, being President.

So Putin wants the old enemy to rail against. If he ignores the new, more powerful enemy, maybe it will go away?

And then there's a second thing. I've been reading a lot about Catherine the Great's era. Did you know she was a huge Anglophile and Scotophile, and the success of the Russian Empire under her was because she hired Brits? Britain and Russia were on good terms for most of her reign and much of the time thereafter (on and off). Catherine imported British naval officers in 1763 to reform her navy. They did so both in military practice and in shipbuilding, and commanded her ships into important battles which ultimately enabled the Russian empire to grow. Nearly 100 years later their descendants were still there – in the Crimean War (1853) there were cousins fighting on opposite sides. Catherine's British officers also enabled vital technology transfer – there was a big hoohah in the 1780s when one of them helped her poach the head of a cannon-foundry in Scotland. The British government was Not Amused.

The governor-general of Russian-colonised Ukraine (which they called "New Russia") during the Crimean War was a Russian who had grown up in the UK, where his Anglophile diplomat father chose to remain after a London posting. Before a visit to family in Russia, the father warned him that Russia was a foreign country and, basically, told him to be more British.

And here's the kicker.

My knowledge of Russian history isn't enough to know if this holds 100%, but as far as I've seen... when Russia is in a war, then whichever side Britain comes in on wins.

In 2024, Britain is on Ukraine's side.

And we haven't even turned up yet.

MagicFox · 27/08/2024 10:03

The comments underneath that article suggest that the public still don't get it

OP posts:
PerkingFaintly · 27/08/2024 10:06

TL;DR:
As the former HQ of the largest empire the world has ever seen, this small, rainy island off the outer edge of Europe still lives rent-free in a lot of people's heads.

Cleary Putin's is one of them.

PerkingFaintly · 27/08/2024 10:20

Sorry, in all my rambling part of the point got lost.

So the other TL;DR:

The things that Putin counts as Russia's successes (eg the expansion of the Russian empire), he is aware Russia only achieved because Britain helped it. This is intolerable to him. So instead he heaps the things he counts as Russia's failures at Britain's door.

Igotjelly · 27/08/2024 10:27

Mark Galeotti did a recent episode of In Moscow’s Shadow partly about Russia’s love/hate obsession with the UK. Can’t remember when it was (maybe last month) but it was fascinating.

Igotjelly · 27/08/2024 11:14

Igotjelly · 27/08/2024 10:27

Mark Galeotti did a recent episode of In Moscow’s Shadow partly about Russia’s love/hate obsession with the UK. Can’t remember when it was (maybe last month) but it was fascinating.

12 May it was, episode 146 and was called "Britain and Russia, Eternal Frenemies"

If you're a bit of a Russia/UK geek its well worth a listen.

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 27/08/2024 11:40

PerkingFaintly · 27/08/2024 10:20

Sorry, in all my rambling part of the point got lost.

So the other TL;DR:

The things that Putin counts as Russia's successes (eg the expansion of the Russian empire), he is aware Russia only achieved because Britain helped it. This is intolerable to him. So instead he heaps the things he counts as Russia's failures at Britain's door.

Huh, so that's why the obsession.

You know, I thought the UK was lost in the past and unable to really look to the future. But Russia is several steps further back .... !

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 27/08/2024 11:43

Dear God. How utterly repulsive is the Kremlin?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg58mj7mzrdo

Released from prison, went to Wagner, went back, raped and killed a woman over 80 with extreme brutality.

Released a week later to go back to Ukraine and fight.

The utter disdain that the kremlin has earned - !

Yulia Byuskikh was attacked and killed in her own home by Ivan Rossomakhin, who was released from prison to fight in Ukraine

Elderly woman's killer released for second time to fight in Ukraine

The 85-year-old grandmother's killer has been released only a week into his 22-year prison sentence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg58mj7mzrdo

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 27/08/2024 12:45

@minsmum Just seen this, at Wartranslated

"Ukraine is preparing new brigades to continue the hostilities in 2025. Training will take place in NATO countries, the brigades will partially consist of Ukrainian expats - Forbes."

So maybe once trained, some ex pats are going back.

DrBlackbird · 27/08/2024 13:40

But what does Wallace mean when he said "Putin is coming for us. We must be prepared". As in literally coming for us? Or figuratively coming for us? Sabotage and subterfuge (more cyber attacks on critical infrastructure) or something more overt?

Igotjelly · 27/08/2024 13:51

DrBlackbird · 27/08/2024 13:40

But what does Wallace mean when he said "Putin is coming for us. We must be prepared". As in literally coming for us? Or figuratively coming for us? Sabotage and subterfuge (more cyber attacks on critical infrastructure) or something more overt?

My sense is covert and subversive. That's (generally) their MO. However it depends where you draw the line, to my mind the Salisbury poisonings were pretty overt.

MagicFox · 27/08/2024 14:01

DrBlackbird · 27/08/2024 13:40

But what does Wallace mean when he said "Putin is coming for us. We must be prepared". As in literally coming for us? Or figuratively coming for us? Sabotage and subterfuge (more cyber attacks on critical infrastructure) or something more overt?

I hate it when they aren't specific like this too - it undermines the message I feel. I expect there's an emphasis on ensuring people get behind defence spending and fear is the best way to do that. Judging by the comments underneath it hasn't worked if that's the case

OP posts:
MissConductUS · 27/08/2024 14:22

MagicFox · 27/08/2024 14:01

I hate it when they aren't specific like this too - it undermines the message I feel. I expect there's an emphasis on ensuring people get behind defence spending and fear is the best way to do that. Judging by the comments underneath it hasn't worked if that's the case

Britain, like many NATO countries, really does need to increase defense spending. One thing the war in Ukraine has taught us is that mass matters. You have to be able to fight in more than one place at a time, take losses, use up lots of ammunition, and keep fighting. The Bradleys have been effective in Ukraine because they have hundreds of them. If they had fifty, the impact would have been hardly noticeable.

The British Army is down to 72,000 personnel. Maybe 22,000-25,000 of those are actual combat troops. The rest are medics, truck drivers, cooks, accountants, IT and admin staff. That's about the size of the British Army during the 1800s. It's grossly insufficient for the current threat environment. Imagine how little difference 25,000 troops would make in a war with the Russians. Other European countries are in even worse shape, looking at you, Germany.

I get that budgets don't make this easy, but your national security is at stake.

Igotjelly · 27/08/2024 14:25

MissConductUS · 27/08/2024 14:22

Britain, like many NATO countries, really does need to increase defense spending. One thing the war in Ukraine has taught us is that mass matters. You have to be able to fight in more than one place at a time, take losses, use up lots of ammunition, and keep fighting. The Bradleys have been effective in Ukraine because they have hundreds of them. If they had fifty, the impact would have been hardly noticeable.

The British Army is down to 72,000 personnel. Maybe 22,000-25,000 of those are actual combat troops. The rest are medics, truck drivers, cooks, accountants, IT and admin staff. That's about the size of the British Army during the 1800s. It's grossly insufficient for the current threat environment. Imagine how little difference 25,000 troops would make in a war with the Russians. Other European countries are in even worse shape, looking at you, Germany.

I get that budgets don't make this easy, but your national security is at stake.

I agree with all of this.

I also however recognise that its a bloody hard sell to take funding from elsewhere in a time when there are people who are struggling to pay their bills, feed their children and keep a roof over their heads and the govt are needing to remove things like the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, free school meals for children and free-prescriptions (in Scotland) just to semi-balance the books. Many people just don't have the capacity at the moment to concern themselves with some potential future need (regardless of how credible or otherwise the threat is).

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.