Kiev Is Burning

[glenn239]

14 hours ago, Josh said:

ETA: You state that Russia can build an army that will overcome NATO. Why wouldn’t NATO prepare for that? There seems to be a weird intersection of people who say Russia is more powerful than ever and that there is nothing to fear from Russia…

I never said that Russia can build an army to defeat NATO,  I said that NATO has no military solution to win a war against Russia and impose its will on Moscow.

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Josh said:

 

the benefit for Ukraine or Russia in this war seems like the U.S. and Iraq: pointless slaughter

Ukraine's outcome in this war will be to cease to exist as an independent country, and with huge numbers of KIA as their door prize.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes as Stuart says. 

Russia's outcome in this war is a rejuvenated sense of destiny and military, large annexations in Ukraine, and the geopolitical chips on the table to impose a new cypher of the Soviet Union on the rest of the former Soviet states except those in the Baltic.  I warned you 50 times in the past 10 years that this could happen, but you seemed to  urgently want the US to do exactly what was needed to allow Putin to achieve his maximum aims.

Edited November 30, 2023 by glenn239

[Stuart Galbraith]

22 minutes ago, ink said:

Anyone fancy doing a Google images search for "US military bases in the Middle East"?

Maybe you should have done a search for 'US Military bases in the Middle east, in the 1980's', because you might have found this.

https://merip.org/1980/09/the-carter-doctrine-and-us-bases-in-the-middle-east/

Basically, the entire US military response to the middle east situation in 1980 was a single assault ship with 1800 marines and 5 vessels they borrowed from the 6th Fleet. And there were doubts whether they were even going to be able to sustain that.

And this, it would seem, is what pissed off the USSR so much.

[Josh]

30 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Ukraine's outcome in this war will be to cease to exist as an independent country, and with huge numbers of KIA as their door prize.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes as Stuart says. 

Russia's outcome in this war is a rejuvenated sense of destiny and military, large annexations in Ukraine, and the geopolitical chips on the table to impose a new cypher of the Soviet Union on the rest of the former Soviet states except those in the Baltic.  I warned you 50 times in the past 10 years that this could happen, but you seemed to  urgently want the US to do exactly what was needed to allow Putin to achieve his maximum aims.

Ask Roman how rejuvenated he thinks the Russian armed forces are.

[Strannik]

15 hours ago, Josh said:

No one trusts Putin’s ambition to end there anymore. Regardless of what the desired end state may be, Russia made it clear that it will invade a peer military power and suffer as many economic sanctions as it has to in order to achieve its goals.

 

15 hours ago, Josh said:

Russia is one who started the biggest war in Europe since WWII. Why would anyone in in NATO prepare for anything less than additional Russian aggression? 

 

14 hours ago, Josh said:

Oh Europe definitely not, despite its claims. Actual reinvestment in defense industries and organizations has lagged pretty far behind the rhetoric

 

10 hours ago, Josh said:

I’m not worried about a Russian attack and I don’t know why you would think that. I don’t think Putin could organize a two car funeral. Glenn seems to think he is the second coming. I think the U.S. with its NATO allies could smack what’s left of the Russian armed forces as an afterthought while having a full on war with China.

I am detecting some inconsistencies, but perhaps it's just only my perception...

[glenn239]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:24 AM, Josh said:

I  have no numbers for Russian UAV/loiter production; do you? Please post. I imagine it is far short of "tens of thousands". I think Shaded usage is in the upper hundreds to low thousands to date.

Someone posted that a new cheap Lancet substitute was going to hit 150 per month by the end of 2023, and elsewhere I've seen it suggested that total Lancet strikes are at maybe around 600-700 by now.  The only hard figures for overall production I saw are that the Chinese drone industry is about 16 billion in size on 1,300 factories, which suggests production levels in the hundreds of thousands annually.  Russian industry will be considerably smaller than China's going forward, but the opportunity to buy Chinese subcomponents and drones is there and should allow for massive drone production in Russia, enough to reach the 'tens of thousands' level of inventory once the Ukraine war is over and stockpiling can commence.

Quote

IIt would perhaps be accurate to say that Russia produces and or buys tens of thousands of UAVs, counting all types and purchases from Iran and China, and that all of them fall below Group 2 except the Iranian production/copies that are slow one way INS/GPS cruise missiles.

Your source for these claims?

Quote

US and EU production of all classes of UAV probably still outstrip Russian production. I notice you never mention the fact NATO might product its own loitering munitions

You are the one making claims that NATO airpower can do Operation Desert Storm II in the drone and missile era against a continental sized Sino-Russian combination stronger than anything the US has faced in history.  If you now want to talk about NATO loitering drones, that is a separate topic, as NATO drones have nothing to do with the capacity of NATO airpower to decide a conflict with Russia. 

Quote

I don't see any dilemma at all. Let Russia mobile several million soldiers. Even assuming they have the equipment, logistics, and training capacity, they will just be additional targets. The current war has shown that concentrating more troops tends to just make an easier target for artillery.

The current war has shown that modern technology cannot defeat large infantry armies on the battlefield.  These can disperse and dig in, and have all sorts of AT, drone, mine and artillery firepower to hold their positions.  

Quote

As a result, the fighting around Avdiivka seems to have adopted the tactics of Bakhmut - infiltration by nothing larger than a platoon. Right now the Russians are struggling with Ukraine, and NATO is on a technical and resource level far above that. 

 NATO struggles to supply Ukraine with basic war materials, shuffling about the world like a vagabond begging countries for table scraps.  Now I am led to undestand its Greece for 75,000 shells.   Do you think this signals strength?  

Quote

It's not like NATO has any ambition of entering Russian territory. All NATO has to do is destroy the logistical support behind the lines and force the Russians back across the border, not conquer Russia. If Ukraine can blow up the odd bridge now and again despite Russia's best efforts, one wonders how the Russians will handle a couple hundred cruise missiles hitting their rail system every several days.

Same way Ukraine handled it - they will repair the rail lines and keep going until NATO runs out of cruise missiles.  And if Ukraine with NATO airpower manages to eject the Russians from Ukraine, the war will still continue.  This is the problem you don't seem to understand. NATO cannot finish a war with Russia.  Only the Russians can take Russia off the battlefield.
 

Quote

I don't see China's support bailing Russia out of that pickle unless they are sending their air force, ignoring the fact that I don't see China supplying Russia with weapons unless it is already at war with the US on the other side of the world.

China is currently engaged in the largest, fastest military buildup in its entire 4,000 year history.  Who do you think that buildup is aimed at?  China will not permit NATO a war with Russia.  They will intervene, and massively, like the Soviets did in Vietnam.  

 

[Roman Alymov]

58 minutes ago, Josh said:

Ask Roman how rejuvenated he thinks the Russian armed forces are.

Well, it you ask for my opinion: there is no sence to speak of "how rejuvenated he thinks the Russian armed forces are" - as between, i think, 2009 and 2022 Russia got no Army at all  - but sort of bureoucratic organistation busy with shows and construction, under political leadership of people dreaming about some sort of allience with West (de-facto meaning them personally allowed into Western elite as junior parthners/colonial nabobs). Yes this organisation was able to tun sucessful small operations against small (end even more incompetent) enemy, but with about the same success regular firefighters could. Now the situation is changing (wery slowly and lots of bloodshed) and as a result, i hope, we are likely to get real Army. But it will be extremely costly process we are only at the begining of.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

I am detecting some inconsistencies, but perhaps it's just only my perception...

I am not worried about a Russian attack because Russia has its hands full and NATO is rearming enough to deter Russia in the future, most especially Poland. That doesn't mean I trust Russia not to start a war if NATO gave it an opening to exploit and that isn't to say some of the western NATO members talked a good game about upping their armaments program but have failed to meet their own goals. But I think NATOs stance is good enough to keep a weakened Russia deterred from any NATO adventures for the foreseeable future. Pre Ukraine war, I considered a bite and hold against one of the Baltic countries to potentially be a viable strategy for Russia. I think that now a rather distance probability.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Josh

[Roman Alymov]

FPV drone on his last flight to target filmed effect of what is believed to be 500kg cluster bombs on enemy positions https://t.me/uav_tech/23251

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, Josh said:

I am not worried about a Russian attack .....

What is the sake of such attack? Let's imagine, for thought experiment sake, Russia have in some magic way got Poland as it is now, without destruction and losses. So what? The only practical effect will be EU budget saving few billions each year, and "Polish plumbers" becoming official refugees, not economic migrants. And Russia will have what - apples and cucumbers?

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Someone posted that a new cheap Lancet substitute was going to hit 150 per month by the end of 2023, and elsewhere I've seen it suggested that total Lancet strikes are at maybe around 600-700 by now.

I've read the same recent post for the Scapel. I haven't seen Lancet numbers. Those seem high but not unreasonable, but certainly not tens of thousands either. Plus one assumes all of these munitions continue to be used as fast as they are made until the war ends.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

 

The only hard figures for overall production I saw are that the Chinese drone industry is about 16 billion in size on 1,300 factories, which suggests production levels in the hundreds of thousands annually.  Russian industry will be considerably smaller than China's going forward, but the opportunity to buy Chinese subcomponents and drones is there and should allow for massive drone production in Russia, enough to reach the 'tens of thousands' level of inventory once the Ukraine war is over and stockpiling can commence.

I remain skeptical. That would be a couple orders of magnitude larger than the production we are seeing now, and I was under the impression every factory in Russia that could produce munitions was working three shifts.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Your source for these claims?

I don't think it is a stretch to say the UAVs on both sides are largely Chinese. Is there any company in Russia that produces FPVs or quad copters? I've never heard of it.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

You are the one making claims that NATO airpower can do Operation Desert Storm II in the drone and missile era against a continental sized Sino-Russian combination stronger than anything the US has faced in history.  If you now want to talk about NATO loitering drones, that is a separate topic, as NATO drones have nothing to do with the capacity of NATO airpower to decide a conflict with Russia.

I don't think NATO airpower can or would want to mount a strategic campaign against the entirety of Russia; I think it easily could mount interdiction operations against border areas that made any Russian advance untenable. I also think NATO airpower is sufficiently dispersed and prolific that the Russians would be unable to address it all, especially given current performance against Ukraine.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

The current war has shown that modern technology cannot defeat large infantry armies on the battlefield.  These can disperse and dig in, and have all sorts of AT, drone, mine and artillery firepower to hold their positions.

My conclusion is that it is a lot easier to attack the logistics of a well dug in position than frontally attrite well prepared defenses. Kherson still was recaptured, despite extensive defenses.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

NATO struggles to supply Ukraine with basic war materials, shuffling about the world like a vagabond begging countries for table scraps.  Now I am led to undestand its Greece for 75,000 shells.   Do you think this signals strength?

NATO nations are addressing their munition production shortfalls to varying degrees. The war in Ukraine buys NATO time; Russia appears to have the exact same problem.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Same way Ukraine handled it - they will repair the rail lines and keep going until NATO runs out of cruise missiles.  And if Ukraine with NATO airpower manages to eject the Russians from Ukraine, the war will still continue.  This is the problem you don't seem to understand. NATO cannot finish a war with Russia.  Only the Russians can take Russia off the battlefield.

As far as I can tell the Russians haven't embarked on a serious campaign against the Ukraine rail network at all.

Ideally NATO preparations make an attack not worth the cost in the first place. In a worst case, so long as the Russians are ejected from NATO territory, that is sufficient. If they want to fight a frozen conflict indefinitely, we'll see who runs out of resources faster I guess. There is an upper limit to how many Soviet vintage vehicles are in storage.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

China is currently engaged in the largest, fastest military buildup in its entire 4,000 year history.  Who do you think that buildup is aimed at?  China will not permit NATO a war with Russia.  They will intervene, and massively, like the Soviets did in Vietnam. 

I don't think there will be a Russo-NATO war, because I don't think Russia will have the power to achieve any goals in such a fashion. But I'm sure China will see no need to intervene. Russia's security is ultimately secured by its nuclear weapons. What China likely would do in such a scenario is make a grab for Taiwan. But they have no interest in European squabbles.

[Josh]

10 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

What is the sake of such attack? Let's imagine, for thought experiment sake, Russia have in some magic way got Poland as it is now, without destruction and losses. So what? The only practical effect will be EU budget saving few billions each year, and "Polish plumbers" becoming official refugees, not economic migrants. And Russia will have what - apples and cucumbers?

What exactly was the sake of attacking Ukraine?

[urbanoid]

23 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

What is the sake of such attack? Let's imagine, for thought experiment sake, Russia have in some magic way got Poland as it is now, without destruction and losses. So what? The only practical effect will be EU budget saving few billions each year, and "Polish plumbers" becoming official refugees, not economic migrants. And Russia will have what - apples and cucumbers?

What fantastic riches that you don't already have are you getting from Ukraine, which is several times poorer than Poland? 

[Yama]

26 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

What fantastic riches that you don't already have are you getting from Ukraine, which is several times poorer than Poland? 

But it's not just about money, what about other values~!

[Roman Alymov]

19 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

What fantastic riches that you don't already have are you getting from Ukraine, which is several times poorer than Poland? 

Ukraine is part of Russia. Poland is not. It is massive difference. Yes Poles are, probably, the most ethnicly close nation to Russians, but still massively different. May be it was a point somewhere back in XVI-XVII century when seamless intergration was possible, but centures passed since then. 

[sunday]

32 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Ukraine is part of Russia. Poland is not. It is massive difference. Yes Poles are, probably, the most ethnicly close nation to Russians, but still massively different. May be it was a point somewhere back in XVI-XVII century when seamless intergration was possible, but centures passed since then. 

Surely you did not mean 1610!

[Roman Alymov]

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

Surely you did not mean 1610!

Actually in 1610 part of Russian nobiles (one of groups in ongoing Civil War) have elected Polish prince to be Russian Tsar.  At that point Poles* were de-facto as one of the sides of Russian civil war.

*Significant part of this Poles were de-facto Russian speaking Orthodox cristians, de-facto Russians. 

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

What exactly was the sake of attacking Ukraine?

Not this again 🤣

[ink]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Maybe you should have done a search for 'US Military bases in the Middle east, in the 1980's', because you might have found this.

https://merip.org/1980/09/the-carter-doctrine-and-us-bases-in-the-middle-east/

Basically, the entire US military response to the middle east situation in 1980 was a single assault ship with 1800 marines and 5 vessels they borrowed from the 6th Fleet. And there were doubts whether they were even going to be able to sustain that.

And this, it would seem, is what pissed off the USSR so much.

I mean, I remember the eighties*, and US+USSR activity in the ME was all the rage (Threads even had WWIII start in Syria, I think and Romancing the Stone Part Deux was set in a made up ME country that had shiny new F-16s) but I don't see how that article contradicts anything I've been saying.

 

* I'll leave it up to the readers to decide whether that's a good thing.

[Markus Becker]

 

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) blew up a freight train in a tunnel on a vital rail link between Russia and China, sources have told Kyiv Post.

The operation, conducted overnight, struck in the Severomuysky Tunnel on the Baikal Amur Mainline deep inside Russia, north of Mongolia.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24856

 

I take this with a half liter glass of Vodka but genius or accident, it exploded! That's all that matters. 

[ink]

10 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

 

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) blew up a freight train in a tunnel on a vital rail link between Russia and China, sources have told Kyiv Post.

The operation, conducted overnight, struck in the Severomuysky Tunnel on the Baikal Amur Mainline deep inside Russia, north of Mongolia.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24856

 

I take this with a half liter glass of Vodka but genius or accident, it exploded! That's all that matters. 

Kiew Post + SBU source ... Does this tunnel even exist?

[Roman Alymov]

8 hours ago, ink said:

Kiew Post + SBU source ... Does this tunnel even exist?

Tunnel do exist and it was really fire in it (railway car with diesel fuel caught fire) but official reason is electric cable shortcircut but if really SBU was involved  - no way to know, as they claim next to every fire or incident across Russia they see in news.... 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Roman Alymov

[Wouter2]

20 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Invading NATO territory is not on the menu in the Kremlin.  Putin's aim is to reconstruct some sort of cypher of the old Soviet Union, less the Baltic States.

Why less the Baltic states? They were part of the Soviet Union and there are Russian speakers there. And they are definitely in Russia's "sphere of influence".

As you claim, Russia is growing stronger by the minute, especially after they totally defeat Ukraine (which you predict they will do). After dealing total defeat to the western bloc in Ukraine, and taking out their most dangerous opponent (outside the US and maybe Poland), why would they respect the borders of the Baltic States? The Baltic air patrol and a few battallions of NATO troops, probably with  little ammo and likely almost no armed drones, isn't going to stop them once they park a few hundreds AFV's and assorted support at their borders, along with 10.000s of Lancets (as you expect).

Of course, what would stop them is the anticipated US reaction if they believe the US would fight over the Baltic States, but you yourself want US - and the UK and I suppose Canada too - out of NATO alltogether so no deterrence there.

I repeat: Putin did demand a rollback to 1997 borders for NATO forces and he feels the end of the Soviet Union was a catastrophy. And that's the guy from the "appeasement of the West" party, so a True Russian Patriot (tm) wants more.

Plenty of pro-Lithuanians, pro-Estonians and pro-Latvians who will be harassing the pro-Russians in the so-called Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, under the umbrella of hateful and imperialistic NATO (or at least the equally hateful EU, if NATO does not persist). Moreover, I hear lots of them support the local SS groups from WW2, so with both NATO and neonazis being there a good dose of denazification and demilitarisation is in order. Can't let this threat to the Motherland persist.

 

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

Ask Roman how rejuvenated he thinks the Russian armed forces are.

Russians that think like Roman are pretty much Ukraine's last hope.

[Markus Becker]

14 minutes ago, ink said:

Kiew Post + SBU source ... Does this tunnel even exist?

I did mention a half liter glass of Vodka, didn't I?

Who knows, if some Russian railway man had three halfway into his shift.