Kiev Is Burning

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, JWB said:

That was an accident. I didn't intend to post a wall. Just one tweet. The software demons took over. That is not the first time that has happened.

 

If mod wants to delete some, most, or all go ahead

Ive had it happen to me too, dont sweat it.

Can the rest of you guys calm the freak down? I swear you are all turning into Butters from South Park.

[seahawk]

The West has awoken a sleeping bear. If you read on telegram nobody in Russia wants to end the war, but more and more understand that the war needs to be fought and the global west needs to be defeated. The people ask for leaders that are acting in the interest of the Russian people and do not sell out to the West. People are willing to die for Russia, they are willing to fight for Russia and they are willing to go all out to defeat the West or die trying.

[Stuart Galbraith]

China felt precisely the same way over North Korea. When it was over they had something like 900000 casualties, and had barely achieved anything other than the survival of North Korea, who prefered to suck up to the USSR for the rest of the Cold War. Beware of sunk cost fallacies.

[KV7]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

China felt precisely the same way over North Korea. When it was over they had something like 900000 casualties, and had barely achieved anything other than the survival of North Korea, who prefered to suck up to the USSR for the rest of the Cold War. Beware of sunk cost fallacies.

Well, the Sino Soviet split an NK alignment with the USSR could hardly have been anticipated, so saving NK had a pretty large positive expected value when they committed their forces. 

[urbanoid]

9 hours ago, Josh said:

The MiGs didn’t strictly need to use bases that forward either; I would bet that it was more a case of “this is far enough back” that ultimately ended up being not far enough back.

That said, F-16s are only going to be moderately more effective.

 

Ukraine simply needs to replace a lot of currently used aircraft, not necessarily due to losses, but due to problems with maintenance and armaments. F-16s solve the problem of the availability of parts and already integrated weapons. Their role will be mostly the same, HARM and stand-off missile carriers. Maybe they'll get integrated with SS/SCALP too or maybe the US will simply provide JASSM.

[Stuart Galbraith]

46 minutes ago, KV7 said:

Well, the Sino Soviet split an NK alignment with the USSR could hardly have been anticipated, so saving NK had a pretty large positive expected value when they committed their forces. 

Did it? Id argue all it did was make the Sino Soviet split inevitable, because Mao finally wised up that under the Soviets, all that they would ever be would be worker ants for the greater glory of the Soviet Empire.

That and North Korea continues to be a pain in the butt till this very day. Its not inconceivable that even now, North Korea could start a war that China will inevitably be dragged into.

Is that a result? I frankly doubt it.

[Yama]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

China felt precisely the same way over North Korea. When it was over they had something like 900000 casualties, and had barely achieved anything other than the survival of North Korea, who prefered to suck up to the USSR for the rest of the Cold War. Beware of sunk cost fallacies.

PRC's rule was nascent and combat against KMT in mainland was still going on (though in small scale) when Korean War began, and Chiang Kai-Shek declared that counterattack was going to be 'immediate' . It is not hard to see why they wanted a buffer state, even though in retrospect, we now know that USA was not interested about supporting KMT in taking back mainland.

[Yama]

5 hours ago, Josh said:

ISW is mediocre IMO. It has a pretty clear agenda and caters to it pretty hard. UK MoD posts seem worse than mainstream media. I'd hardly want to post the Russian equivalent, but I'm not sure either source is really adding a lot of value.

Latest ISW update:

*Recent Ukrainian success in attacks against Russian-held Crimea and Black Sea Fleet demonstrate  significant weaknesses in Russian air defense network. Russia's Black Sea Fleet's capability is likely to have been eroded due to losses and disruptions in command & control structures, and the need to redeploy in bases outside Ukrainian missile range.

*Photographic evidence shows that Ukrainians have managed to make small, but tactically significant breaches in Russia's main defense line in Verboven direction. Defending Russian forces are suffering supply issues due to Ukrainian strikes at Russian logistical network, and the morale is reported to be low.

*Russians have undertaken small and mostly fruitless counterattacks in directions of Andriivka and Klischiivka to regain lost positions. At this moment, there is no evidence either side is making meaningful advances.

*In the North, Russian offensives towards Lyman and Kupiansk appeared to have been stalled due to losses and logistical problems. Reports indicate that due to shell shortage and losses to infantry units, Russian artillery crews have been sent to battle as foot infantry.

---------------------------

Nah, I just made it all up on the fly - but honestly, did you even blink?

 

[BansheeOne]

I for one totally thought it was legit. 😁

I like their maps fusing territorial control with defensive works and terrain features however, though I compare them against Rybar, liveuamap, and occasionally other sources for a comprehensive take on the situation. Their texts are really too long for whatever information they include in the first place.

[Stuart Galbraith]

36 minutes ago, Yama said:

PRC's rule was nascent and combat against KMT in mainland was still going on (though in small scale) when Korean War began, and Chiang Kai-Shek declared that counterattack was going to be 'immediate' . It is not hard to see why they wanted a buffer state, even though in retrospect, we now know that USA was not interested about supporting KMT in taking back mainland.

If thats the case, then why not take Burma as well? Because they had a KMT Army hanging out in there, well into the 1950's.

Hell, they could have used precisely the same argument about Hong Kong.

[mandeb48]

panoramic of battlefield near Andreevka

https://lostarmour.info/news/panorama-andreevka-zov-voevoda-4056

[Yama]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If thats the case, then why not take Burma as well? Because they had a KMT Army hanging out in there, well into the 1950's.

Actually they made inroads to that direction, but stopped short of actual invasion, probably because that would have turned Burmese government into their enemy, instead of "enemy of my enemy". Burma itself never supported KMT or American activities on their soil, quite the opposite, they wanted them out.

[mandeb48]

mines war:

https://lostarmour.info/news/news_23_09_26_minefield_zimperiy

https://t.me/UkraineScenes/231

 

 

 

[glenn239]

13 hours ago, Yama said:

It's plausible that MiGs hit on airfields were actually decoys (though second one at least seemed genuine). Any way, F-16 has longer range and probably doesn't need to use bases so close to the frontline.

Agreed that F-16's can remain further back, but one assumes the longer range drones to deal with that are in the pipeline.  

[mandeb48]

8 minutes ago, Yama said:

Actually they made inroads to that direction, but stopped short of actual invasion, probably because that would have turned Burmese government into their enemy, instead of "enemy of my enemy". Burma itself never supported KMT or American activities on their soil, quite the opposite, they wanted them out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960–61_campaign_at_the_China–Burma_border

[glenn239]

13 hours ago, Josh said:

There are certainly rumors of high casualties among the Russians as well, including the several VDV units recently thrown in. Forward progress is as limited as the Russian Bakhmut offensive but the effort might still be achieving the desired level of attrition. We shall see.

Online reports of the daily video strikes suggest in the past two weeks little Ukrainian activity for reasons I do not understand, and increasing Russian activity.  In particular FPV drone strikes (maybe about 20 per day now) and FAB glide bomb strikes are sharply on the increase.   The latter in particular is noteworthy because it means that the Russian air force is in the heavy bombardment game.  The other notable September trend is that the number of Ukrainian artillery pieces being reported as destroyed is very high.  This would explain the need to use HIMARS as a substitute.

I think HIMARS days are also probably numbered, as the industrial technical means to hunt and destroy them further behind the front lines surely is in the Russian pipeline.  I picture some sort of drone  being produced in large numbers that lands scouts on the ground far behind Ukrainian lines and waits for targets to reveal themselves before striking or calling in reinforcements.  Or, maybe just more scouting drones covering deeper and deeper in patrols.

Edited September 27, 2023 by glenn239

[Perun]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

China felt precisely the same way over North Korea. When it was over they had something like 900000 casualties, and had barely achieved anything other than the survival of North Korea, who prefered to suck up to the USSR for the rest of the Cold War. Beware of sunk cost fallacies.

They saved North Korea and almoust defeated US and others for second time. They achived their goal and that is no US on Chinese borders. And NK swinged from China to USSR as they found fit to their interests. And for all time there were no US Army on Chinese border

[Perun]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Did it? Id argue all it did was make the Sino Soviet split inevitable, because Mao finally wised up that under the Soviets, all that they would ever be would be worker ants for the greater glory of the Soviet Empire.

That and North Korea continues to be a pain in the butt till this very day. Its not inconceivable that even now, North Korea could start a war that China will inevitably be dragged into.

Is that a result? I frankly doubt it.

Sino-Soviet split had nothing with the reasons you mentioned. Another of your "I belive in old Cold War propaganda and wont research from new available sources" philosophy... I dont know why I still bother to try to point to you on that

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Online reports of the daily video strikes suggest in the past two weeks little Ukrainian activity for reasons I do not understand, and increasing Russian activity.  In particular FPV drone strikes (maybe about 20 per day now) and FAB glide bomb strikes are sharply on the increase.   The latter in particular is noteworthy because it means that the Russian air force is in the heavy bombardment game.  The other notable September trend is that the number of Ukrainian artillery pieces being reported as destroyed is very high.  This would explain the need to use HIMARS as a substitute.

I think HIMARS days are also probably numbered, as the industrial technical means to hunt and destroy them further behind the front lines surely is in the Russian pipeline.  I picture some sort of drone  being produced in large numbers that lands scouts on the ground far behind Ukrainian lines and waits for targets to reveal themselves before striking or calling in reinforcements.  Or, maybe just more scouting drones covering deeper and deeper in patrols.

It is much worse. The Russian Air Force rules the skies and the devastating losses of the failed anti-Russian offensive have left their ground troops in a bad state. They are short on manpower and equipment. Imho the anti-Russians will soon be forced to accept an unconditional surrender.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

Sino-Soviet split had nothing with the reasons you mentioned. Another of your "I belive in old Cold War propaganda and wont research from new available sources" philosophy... I dont know why I still bother to try to point to you on that

I didn't say it was the only cause. The primary cause was the denunciation  of stalin. Was it the only cause? I don't believe so, no. Allowing the Korean War to drag on 2 years longer than it needed to did not go down well with the Chinese.

Considering the many excellent sources I've pointed towards you that you refuse to read, not least the Presidential intelligence advisory board report on Able Archer and the Mitrokhin Archive, you really aren't in any position to get all judgemental son.

 

[Markus Becker]

Today, Sevastopol Z-publics show the commander of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation, Viktor Sokolov, who awards the Chernomorets football team, which won a prize in the championship of the Russian Armed Forces.

Earlier, it was reported that Sokolov was killed during a missile attack on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol.

However, the award ceremony took place on September 18 while the attack on the Russian BSF HQ took place on September 22...

 

https://x.com/pstyle0ne1/status/1706986185963245644?s=46&t=wWd6ltvssh4tJG_Vm2jjAA

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

They saved North Korea and almoust defeated US and others for second time. They achived their goal and that is no US on Chinese borders. And NK swinged from China to USSR as they found fit to their interests. And for all time there were no US Army on Chinese border

To what end? What security did the PRC gain from that, considering it was a Soviet ally till the end of the cold war? Even now they can't talk any sense into them.

No US on Chinese Borders. Other than Hong Kong, and the US stooges of South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, all either hosting bases or capable of doing so.

Was that worth upwards of 800000 casualties, and the not casual risk of nuclear attack? Not in my view, no.

[Markus Becker]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

They saved North Korea and almoust defeated US and others for second time. They achived their goal and that is no US on Chinese borders. And NK swinged from China to USSR as they found fit to their interests. And for all time there were no US Army on Chinese border

Excuse me but no! 

They pushed them back where they were before NJ started the war. 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Was that worth upwards of 800000 casualties, and the not casual risk of nuclear attack? Not in my view, no.

800,000 casualties on a 1949 population of 540 million. Interesting.  How many casualties do you think Ukraine should take with no end in sight before they need to rethink matters and come up with something else than more war?  You were precise with China, so be precise with the figure for Ukraine please.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Once again, the point you don't seem to grasp is that is Ukraines choice, not yours.

It was different with China, the casualties were purely down to Stalin who didn't allow the war to stop.

Nice conflation of two entirely  different situations though.