Kiev Is Burning

[Roman Alymov]

Mud season illustrated. Now imagine this soft ground frozen overnight....

https://t.me/milinfolive/111303

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Life imitiating art: Ukr agent arested in Voronezh when preparing to plant IED to kill high-ranked military officer, note agent was using imitation face mask 

https://t.me/boris_rozhin/104550

I assume this type of attack gets a death sentence?

[Pavel Novak]

On 11/19/2023 at 10:01 AM, Perun said:

That was good plan but unfortunately didnt work

Why? Just look at Roman Alymov's post about his own government. Why it would be good if this regime spreads so much?

On 11/19/2023 at 4:20 PM, glenn239 said:

If Russia invades NATO territory then NATO will be at war with Russia.  If Russia does not invade NATO territory then Russia has not threatened NATO's core interests.   

At some level you must fear that NATO is a hollow shell to be worried about such statements?   

First, to sideline our own hysterics and neocons, as these types have a tendency to overreact to everything.  Second, not to get overextended with the concept of NATO, and keep the alliance to the simple principle of defense of NATO frontiers.  Third, for NATO to pay more attention to its southern sea frontier and seek methods to end the fighting on its eastern frontier.  Fourth, to officially end any further prospect of NATO expansion eastwards, as this has proven a disaster that is counterproductive to NATO's own security.

 

1) Russia is clear threat to current NATO countries. Not hidden threat but clear self propagated threat. Why not deal with it before reaches NATO border?

2) When I look at how european NATO armies gutted its territorial defence abilities in last 20 years ...

3) I am not really opposing you with this one. I definitelly agree that NATO should be defensive alliance only (i.e. Kosovo should not have happened - I wrote here my opinion about it long time ago).

But because Russia is threatening NATO then I think that NATO should take Russia as threat and use available opportunities to weaken Russia - as a defensive step to either force Russia to abandon its aggressivenes against NATO countries (i.e. Czech Republic was declared Russia's No. 2 enemy in the world by Russian foreign ministry - like wtf but at least everybody can see with what we need to deal with) or simply make sure that Russia has no ability to follow its demands by force.

 

[Roman Alymov]

25 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I assume this type of attack gets a death sentence?

No, there is no death sentence in Russia. Quite likely, he will be exchanged under POW exchange.

[glenn239]

24 minutes ago, Pavel Novak said:

1) Russia is clear threat to current NATO countries. Not hidden threat but clear self propagated threat. Why not deal with it before reaches NATO border?

The main reasons for me being that NATO gains absolutely nothing by getting too proactive in Eastern Europe, while if they do nothing and let the war reach its natural conclusion, chances are quite high the whole thing will fade away after the war is over.   

Quote

2) When I look at how european NATO armies gutted its territorial defence abilities in last 20 years ...

FPV drones are basically the future of ground combat.  So, just be on good terms with China.  :^)

Quote

3) I am not really opposing you with this one. I definitelly agree that NATO should be defensive alliance only (i.e. Kosovo should not have happened - I wrote here my opinion about it long time ago).

We have posters here that talk about Kosovo, but to my mind small countries really should take mind not to get into it with big ones.  I don't think NATO should be a strictly defensive alliance, but I do think that NATO's sphere of interest should not incorporate any of the territories of the former Soviet Union.  Leave it at the Baltic States and call it a day.

Quote

But because Russia is threatening NATO then I think that NATO should take Russia as threat and use available opportunities to weaken Russia - as a defensive step to either force Russia to abandon its aggressivenes against NATO countries (i.e. Czech Republic was declared Russia's No. 2 enemy in the world by Russian foreign ministry - like wtf but at least everybody can see with what we need to deal with) or simply make sure that Russia has no ability to follow its demands by force.

That's Josh's take too.  The problem as I see it is that what you want is not what you will get.  Before the war I made the opinion that Russia would emerge from a conflict stronger, not weaker.  The reason I thought that is threefold.  First, because Russia has a formidable level of latent warlike ability and industry, and this was not well tapped before the war.  Second, because Russian pre-war doctrine to me seemed off kilter, and a war would allow it to radically improve its doctrine, and third, because Russia has had a pattern under Putin of fighting limited wars and emerging stronger.  You say, 

"make sure that Russia has no ability to follow its demands by force"

This war has ensured the opposite outcome.  I think the Russians will exit this war with a massive army and truly staggering drone and missile forces, far beyond what NATO can handle, and will be making demands everywhere in the former Soviet Union except the Baltic States, and there will be jack shit NATO can do about it.

 

 

[seahawk]

Yes, it will be a modern equipped, battle tested and experienced force, that knows to defeat western weapons and tactics and that is from a country that has learned that western policies are powerless and ineffective. There is no reason for them to stop after liberating the whole Ukraine.

[Stuart Galbraith]

This is fine.

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

30 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

This war has ensured the opposite outcome.  I think the Russians will exit this war with a massive army and truly staggering drone and missile forces, far beyond what NATO can handle

On the other hand, the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed because it spent too much on armaments. Starwars was a major nail in the coffin.

Yes, you can do it like that. But you have to be prepared to pay the huge costs. But I don't see any strategic sense for it. The threat to Russia is in no way a military threat. But the danger that Russia will suffer enormous damage in the competition of international industry and economy is the main threat. In this case no amount of waving around with Kalashnikovs will help.

[Roman Alymov]

17 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

On the other hand, the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed because it spent too much on armaments. Starwars was a major nail in the coffin.

Not even close to that, it is popular myth. USSR collapsed on ideological reasons, and even if all Soviet military spendings converted into something else - it would only shorten its years, as armaments industry was one of the few (if not the only) relatively healthy field of economic life, as it was dominated by common sennce and science, not ideology.

17 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

But the danger that Russia will suffer enormous damage in the competition of international industry and economy is the main threat.

International industry - you mean industry of China, India etc?

Note Germany is below Turkey and not much ahead of industrial giant Iran.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Roman Alymov

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, Pavel Novak said:

Why? Just look at Roman Alymov's post about his own government. Why it would be good if this regime spreads so much?

1) Russia is clear threat to current NATO countries.

I wonder what threat - our corrupt officials would cause too high property prices by buying up flats and villas in NATO countries, and occupy all the places in expencive schools by their children? 
      As i have repeatedly said here, the whole ideology of comprador pro-Western regime in Russia (aka "collective Putin") was "get money in Russia, take them aboroad, then move there yourself". Thanks God, West was arrogant and incompetent enough to make this people (who were only pleading to allow them to be junior parthners, running Russia on West's behalf with maximum personal profit and minimal workload) to stay in Russia - where they will sooner of later end up in jail.....  One Russian commenter said recently that Russians owe to constrict memorials to Western leaders for their actions.

[Stefan Kotsch]

I traveled back to 1980 and ended up in the Komsomol meeting? 🫡

 

[mkenny]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is fine.

 

He sounds like one of those nutters on YouTube who, every two weeks for the past 5 years, post a video breathlessly claiming 'The EU is on the verge of collapse...................

[Josh]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

FPV drones are basically the future of ground combat.  So, just be on good terms with China.  :^)

I suspect observation UAVs are still the most deadly platform in this war. Artillery is still by far the #1 cause of casualties, and I suspect at this point the majority of it is UAV directed (or at least the most effective strikes, at any rate). One Ukrainian officer was quoted as saying it is the Orlan10s that are still the most detested, because they have a combination of capabilities combined with range that makes them ubiquitous and moderate altitude that generally requires a SAM to engage.

 

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

That's Josh's take too.  The problem as I see it is that what you want is not what you will get.  Before the war I made the opinion that Russia would emerge from a conflict stronger, not weaker.  The reason I thought that is threefold.  First, because Russia has a formidable level of latent warlike ability and industry, and this was not well tapped before the war.  Second, because Russian pre-war doctrine to me seemed off kilter, and a war would allow it to radically improve its doctrine, and third, because Russia has had a pattern under Putin of fighting limited wars and emerging stronger.  You say, 

"make sure that Russia has no ability to follow its demands by force"

This war has ensured the opposite outcome.  I think the Russians will exit this war with a massive army and truly staggering drone and missile forces, far beyond what NATO can handle, and will be making demands everywhere in the former Soviet Union except the Baltic States, and there will be jack shit NATO can do about it.

Nothing about Russian drones or missiles is staggering. The Ukrainians have problems countering them, sure. But if Russia still hasn’t hunted the Ukrainian Air Force to extinction yet, it is hard to contemplate how they will ever be a threat to NATO. An operator controlled UAV is always going to have the vulnerabilities of 1) limited available operators constricting how many missiles can be surged and 2) a two way guidance channel that can be jammed in either direction.

 

Russia has struggled to launch a thousand PGMs per month during any phase of the war; the USAF alone would probably be sending that every day.

[alejandro_]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:50 PM, Roman Alymov said:

Rare video of RusArmy S-300 operations in combat zone https://t.me/milinfolive/111251

Very interesting, can you read the words under the guys tactical patch at the start of the video? The one with the cartoon character.

[Roman Alymov]

7 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

Very interesting, can you read the words under the guys tactical patch at the start of the video? The one with the cartoon character.

You mean this one?

[mkenny]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

the USAF alone would probably be sending that every day.

Of course they would -but for how many days?

 

Everyone  knows 'the west' is at least a generation ahead of anything the Russians  can field. Once  the NATO supplied Ukraine gets its  game-changing war-winning  high-tech wunder-waffen into action it will be a walkover for them............zzzzztttt....zzzz......crackle..............ooopps,  sorry there, I think I temporarily got sucked into a time-warp and went back 6 months.  Anyways folks I am back. How long did it actually take all them there western  game-changing war-winning  high-tech wunder-waffen to  trounce the Russian hordes?

Edited November 24, 2023 by mkenny

[Yama]

4 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

On the other hand, the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed because it spent too much on armaments. Starwars was a major nail in the coffin.

It was actually Brezhnev who increased military spending, in the '70s: Soviets did not really respond to Reagan build-up, or SDI with similar level of investment.

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

I suspect observation UAVs are still the most deadly platform in this war. Artillery is still by far the #1 cause of casualties, and I suspect at this point the majority of it is UAV directed (or at least the most effective strikes, at any rate). One Ukrainian officer was quoted as saying it is the Orlan10s that are still the most detested, because they have a combination of capabilities combined with range that makes them ubiquitous and moderate altitude that generally requires a SAM to engage.

Agreed that the combination of heavy artillery and drone direction has been lethal in this war, it's the reasons why I think Ukrainian casualties have been staggering.  But, overall, the trend does seem to suggest that slowly, gradually, increasingly saturated drone coverage is starting to overcome heavy artillery.

Quote

Nothing about Russian drones or missiles is staggering. The Ukrainians have problems countering them, sure.

Russian drone technology and doctrine is a work in progress, where we are now is not where we will be in two years.  While this war continues, Russian inventories of missiles and drones will struggle to increase, but after the war is over, the Russians will start to stockpile even while continuing to increase their drone and missile production.  And with luck, we can discuss all that in 5 years as it's happening in real time.  They're not going to slow down production after the war, they are going to continue to speed it up.

Quote

But if Russia still hasn’t hunted the Ukrainian Air Force to extinction yet, it is hard to contemplate how they will ever be a threat to NATO.

Airpower does not have to be hunted to extinction, it merely has to be constricted in operational tempo to the extent that it cannot function as intended, that its impact on the battlefield falls to below some threshold that is decisive.   

Quote

An operator controlled UAV is always going to have the vulnerabilities of 1) limited available operators constricting how many missiles can be surged and 2) a two way guidance channel that can be jammed in either direction.

I don't disagree with that, but I also think the FPV man-in-the-loop is going to be replaced soon by totally AI-driven systems, which will be of the swarm variety.  

Quote

Russia has struggled to launch a thousand PGMs per month during any phase of the war; the USAF alone would probably be sending that every day.

I think that's true at the time of writing, but as time goes on the drone and missile environment will be increasingly dire further and further behind the front lines.  The Ukrainians currently survive by keeping on the ground and well to the rear.  That is a lesson for all in the future.  This is not how an air force wins war.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by glenn239

[Strannik]

Uke combat engineer/sapper complains that FPV drones create more headaches than arty

 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Agreed that the combination of heavy artillery and drone direction has been lethal in this war, it's the reasons why I think Ukrainian casualties have been staggering.  But, overall, the trend does seem to suggest that slowly, gradually, increasingly saturated drone coverage is starting to overcome heavy artillery.

We have no statistics to support that. Both sides still indicate artillery is the overwhelming cause of casualties.

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Russian drone technology and doctrine is a work in progress, where we are now is not where we will be in two years.  While this war continues, Russian inventories of missiles and drones will struggle to increase, but after the war is over, the Russians will start to stockpile even while continuing to increase their drone and missile production.  And with luck, we can discuss all that in 5 years as it's happening in real time.  They're not going to slow down production after the war, they are going to continue to speed it up.

I’ve no doubt that they are going to be stock piling ammunition for years to come. I just don’t think any of their current or near term capabilities are a significantly increased threat compared to pre war. There is something approaching ten thousand armored vehicle casualties and tens of millions of expended artillery rounds. In any case, it’s not like NATO is going to be holding still for the next five years waiting for them to catch up. Their strength relative to NATO is currently decreased and that is unlikely to shift much in their favor even when the war ends. Their new loitering munition weapons and their future derivatives (Lancet, Shahed) are limited platforms in terms of range, speed, and/or guidance. There’s also the fact that NATO has 1-2 new members as direct result of this war.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Airpower does not have to be hunted to extinction, it merely has to be constricted in operational tempo to the extent that it cannot function as intended, that its impact on the battlefield falls to below some threshold that is decisive.

Fair enough, but given the massive technical and numerical discrepancy between Ukraine and NATO, the fact that sorties still happen and manage to land blows on strategic AD sites, air bases, and ports hardly is encouraging for the Russians.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

I don't disagree with that, but I also think the FPV man-in-the-loop is going to be replaced soon by totally AI-driven systems, which will be of the swarm variety.

Yes, but not by Russia.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

I think that's true at the time of writing, but as time goes on the drone and missile environment will be increasingly dire further and further behind the front lines.  The Ukrainians currently survive by keeping on the ground and well to the rear.  That is a lesson for all in the future.  This is not how an air force wins war.

The US has a much greater ability to deliver large numbers of weapons far deeper behind the front line than any projected Russian UAVS. It also is hardly beyond the ability of NATO to build its own loitering munitions.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Josh

[JWB]

6 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

"get money in Russia, take them aboroad, then move there yourself"

Same thing with super rich in every other country.

 

[Colin]

On 11/21/2023 at 2:40 PM, ex2cav said:

I won't argue those points. After the Soviet Union Nato expansion could be seen as a new congress of Vienna from the early 1800s after Napoleon. Though with less success. The smaller countries gained immensely and did not have to contribute much to submit to the hegemony with the added benefit of not spending much to  support their militaries. Generally, there hasn't been much open war since expansion in the 90's. 

That said, an alliance needs an enemy. I remember in the 90's talking heads talked about the threat Russia posed even then. The crux is a belief hinging on Russia always being evil or, conversely, can diplomacy have influence. We are stuck with how things happened, so Russia always evil appears as the headline and dominates common thought.

Contrast that with how China is being portrayed in the Western media. China is always evil seems to be the norm in reporting today. "We have to be ready they are going to attack and destroy democracy".

That said I tried to find how many wars of conquest China was involved in. Google Algorithms work over time as I am lead by the nose as to  a quote from Xi on a social media site to the effect that China doesn't invade or seek hegemony others. Sites immediately go back hundreds of years to prove that wrong. Losing the forest for the trees. 

The best I can gather this century, China annexed Tibet and a western province in the 40's-1950. They assisted an ally in North Korea during the Korean war, fought short wars/incursions into Vietnam and India after that but did not seek large territorial gains. There were some battles for islands after that, and we like to say how important the island building is now.

Looking at the opposite side: https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/#:~:text=According to our data%2C the,these missions occurred after 1999.

Much less is written about this. The US is everywhere and is taken for granted. I write this as a former neocon fellow traveler. 

To the original posters point, Nato membership may have decreased war among smaller states in Europe. The problem we are seeing now is larger states see foreign hegemony as a threat. Agreeing to the hegemony is akin to absorption and will be used to drain resources. China most certainly would given its history. Russia most certainly does. To the posters other point Nato membership offered protection from Russian expansionism, the elephant in the room is that it also protected against German expansionism as well. While during the 90's there was no talk of it, history has a way of raising its head. Against expansionism among its members in general nato membership is  a benefit. 

A major point is a building alliance is a threat to non-members. See pre-ww2 and ww1 and the Napoleonic era. No internal talk of intentions will allay those suspicions of the outsiders. Likewise, the west can turn on a dime when an opportunity presents itself. See Syria and Libya. At some point, the threshold is much less for some than others, treaties go by the wayside. 

 

Chin Peng in his book confirmed the "Domino theory" was the plan in Beijing when he was there, but they were pissed at the Malaysian CT's that they started a revolution prematurely with the wrong conditions.   

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, Yama said:

It was actually Brezhnev who increased military spending, in the '70s: Soviets did not really respond to Reagan build-up, or SDI with similar level of investment.

Yes, I quite agree. Supposedly Brezhnev did it to keep Dimitri Ustinov and Marshall Grechko on board. The latter was somewhat mercurial, he had a real problem with him because he was always asking for more investment. Ironically when Ogarkov became Marshall he had exactly the same problem, but they denied him the resources he needed to transition the Army to a lighter, more capable machine. Which probably would have ended up saving them money in the long run.

The point is, the Soviets were already in another arms race by the late 1970's, arguably as a result of the Western tranistion to more digital based systems, and an inablity of Brezhnev to say no through placating so many patrons (that they had 3 ICBM's doing the same job is a prime indicator of that). And when things got worse by the 1980's, there really wasnt anything left to give. It wasnt Reagan that started the American buildup either. It was the much despised Carter.

 

[alejandro_]

9 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

You mean this one?

Yes, thank you. It seems "Zacheburasashim" is an expression used to describe enemies of Russia.

[Roman Alymov]

12 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

Yes, thank you. It seems "Zacheburasashim" is an expression used to describe enemies of Russia.

It is not "an expression used to describe enemies"  but got complex mass culture context that i'm affraid would take a wall of text to explain. In short, it is something like "we will rock you" , but with strong ironic flavor