Kiev Is Burning

[Wouter2]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

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.

I agree! However, the Baltic States need active US involvement to have sufficient deterrence, I don't think Poland's armed forces alone (even along with the Fins) are sufficient for that, and forces currently there are largely insufficient to stop a serious Russian attack (once they have ended the war in Ukraine and recovered a bit).

2 hours ago, Josh said:

What exactly was the sake of attacking Ukraine?

Good point. The Russians didn't need that country (and they acknowledged this in treaties), until they suddenly did.

[glenn239]

6 minutes ago, Wouter2 said:

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".

Putin wants to reassemble the Soviet Union, not fight WW3.  Dropping off the Baltic States means nothing to the former and assures the latter. 

Quote

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?

Because having a war with NATO is not the desired end state, and the Baltic States are of little importance to the overall political construction Putin seeks.   

Quote

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 don't want Canada and the US out of NATO, that's other posters that say that.  What I want is for NATO to read a fucking map, and understand where NATO is and where NATO isn't.

Quote

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.

There's not going to be a rollback to 1997.  If Russia invades NATO territory, it's on.  If they don't, it's not.  And that's why you're afraid, isn't it?  You fear that the Russians will not invade NATO and that there will be no war, that Putin will "get away with it".  Right?

Quote

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.

Roman has expressed some strange opinions about Nazis in Ukraine and such.  My personal opinion is that UKrainian use of such insignia is not a Nazi thing, it's a Ukrainian military history thing.  If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard, the General Lee had a big Stars and Bars on the roof.  It wasn't because the 'boys' were rascists, it was because this was part of their history.  

[sunday]

49 minutes ago, ink said:

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

Exists, it is very long, construction took forever, and it is the bottleneck of the whole line. Read about it a few days ago when looking for information on the Baikal Amur line.

Edited November 30, 2023 by sunday

[Roman Alymov]

7 hours ago, sunday said:

Exists, it is very long, construction took forever, and it is the bottleneck of the whole line. Read about it a few days ago when looking for information on the Baikal Amur line.

 

[seahawk]

8 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I don't want Canada and the US out of NATO, that's other posters that say that.  What I want is for NATO to read a fucking map, and understand where NATO is and where NATO isn't.

Or maybe for all NATO members to pay for the service the US provides. For the US NATO is just another money drain. Money taken from the working US taxpayer, used to protect socialists states in Europe and to be transferred to military industrial complex.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Putin wants to reassemble the Soviet Union, not fight WW3.  Dropping off the Baltic States means nothing to the former and assures the latter. 

Because having a war with NATO is not the desired end state, and the Baltic States are of little importance to the overall political construction Putin seeks.   

I don't want Canada and the US out of NATO, that's other posters that say that.  What I want is for NATO to read a fucking map, and understand where NATO is and where NATO isn't.

There's not going to be a rollback to 1997.  If Russia invades NATO territory, it's on.  If they don't, it's not.  And that's why you're afraid, isn't it?  You fear that the Russians will not invade NATO and that there will be no war, that Putin will "get away with it".  Right?

Roman has expressed some strange opinions about Nazis in Ukraine and such.  My personal opinion is that UKrainian use of such insignia is not a Nazi thing, it's a Ukrainian military history thing.  If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard, the General Lee had a big Stars and Bars on the roof.  It wasn't because the 'boys' were rascists, it was because this was part of their history.  

Pity you arent so disposed as to have Russia read a map, and understand where Russia is. Because from where im standing, its you and Russia that have the comprehension issue, not NATO.

[Roman Alymov]

FPV drone and ATGMs vs. abandoned Leopard-2 with Soviet ERA

https://t.me/milinfolive/111769

Location - West of Rabotino https://t.me/creamy_caprice/3394

Edited December 1, 2023 by Roman Alymov

[Roman Alymov]

Wreck of AGM-140 decoy missile somewhere in Kherson region

https://t.me/c/1771711124/2029

[Roman Alymov]

Meanwhile Donetsk under bombardment as usual

 

[sunday]

7 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

 

Yes, you wrote it, but left unsaid the very high importance of that tunnel in BAM.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Yes, you wrote it, but left unsaid the very high importance of that tunnel in BAM.

Wiki seems to indicate there is a bypass that goes around the tunnel, but it costs time. It also states that the bypass was generally used for west bound traffic and the tunnel was used for east bound. Also the trans-siberian should still be clear as well. So the tunnel fire seems like an inconvenience, not a major choke point.

[glenn239]

Surely repairing a rail tunnel will be only a few weeks at most.

[JWB]

22 hours ago, Josh said:

What exactly was the sake of attacking Ukraine?

To protect Ukraine against Ukrainian aggression.

Master strategy.

[JWB]

In Krynky, Russians Are Safe From Ukraine’s Drones For Just One Minute (forbes.com)

[glenn239]

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

That's how the Russia has been using their glide bombs, so I don't see why NATO couldn't. The VKS isn't going to be anywhere near the border if it wants to survive, given that it is outnumbers by NATO 5th generation aircraft *already*. NATO aircraft either come in at high altitude and speed to maximize range like the Russians or if the SAM threat is too great, skim the surface and pull up last minute like the Ukrainians.

Ukrainian air defenses are far behind Russian air defenses, mostly Soviet era relics in comparison to what the Sino-Russians can field.  No doubt NATO aircraft can make large numbers of glide bomb attacks, but there will be losses and the Russians will do what the Ukrainians do - disperse, conceal, dig deep.

Quote

Why? They would need minimal airborne refueling to make the thousand mile round trip. I only picked the UK because it is outside the effective range of most munition types and because historically that is where the US keeps a fighter wing of them.

I doubt that tankers can safely operate for extended periods in the same areas, even if deep behind the front lines.  The better option would be for jets to land and refuel on their return flight.  Tankers are generally used in places where air bases are not an option, and between the UK and Russia, there are plenty of them.

Quote

It is out of range of most munitions, and those that can make the trip have to travel across more than a thousand miles of NATO controlled airspace in a more or less straight line, over water, to make the trip. Good luck with that.

In one discussion you mock the idea that the Russians have a requirement for a drone carrier to allow for cheap drone attacks to the 2000nm range, and on another thread you state that a 1,000 mile range from bases makes an air campaign based in the UK immune to attack.  Care to pick a lane?

Anyways, at the moment the Russians have cruise missile bombers and cruise missile submarines capable of hitting the UK.  These will be inadequate to the task, but they are there.  They are currently developing S-70 strategic ranged UAV also with this type of target in mind, and you can expect in coming years for Russian drone attack complexes to be fielded that encompass the UK.   NATO assets in the UK will of course be safer than if based closer to the front, but not altogether immune.

Quote

And no doubt most of it will. I'm just picking individual examples to illustrate what a massive air defense/air force suppression problem Russia will have. I'm not going to bother detailing the entirety of a NATO air campaign; these posts are long enough as is. Perhaps Stuart can accommodate you.

I think NATO will be unable to sustain the required tempo of operations to achieve victory and that their aircraft losses will be unsustainable.  If they attempt the type of large based heavy tempo Gulf War style heavy logistics, about the third mass missile-drone attack that ends in a NATO tragedy, they will give up and start dispersing, at the cost of tempo.  

 

Quote

I don't see the Russians being able to equip, train, and support such a force and I see it largely as just a series of 200s waiting to happen were they to try to concentrate such a force in face of NATO air power and artillery. And US artillery would likely not need to particularly husbanded for a China war, since there would be minimal ground fighting. 155mm production will be increased six fold inside the next several years

 Ukraine has demonstrated beyond any possible doubt in your mind that infantry can be quickly trained in huge numbers, and Kyiv did this with only a fraction of the competence that the Russians and their mobilization system are able to bring to the table.  

Quote

I'd be shocked if NATO aircraft ever traveled more than a few dozen miles into Russian airspace.

And yet the first time TU-95's plaster British base from the Artic, you'll be first in line calling for B-2's to fly deep into Russia to hit their bases. :^)

Quote

They wouldn't particularly need to and Russia is still a nuclear power; any aircraft penetrating deep into Russian airspace is going risk a nuclear exchange. I don't think Russia as a country will fall ever apart; I think its army as fielded on the NATO border would fall apart. 

The advantage of having, say, 3 million troops for a front that requires maybe 1/6th of that total for defense is that no particular formation would be required to stand in the line taking casualties for too long before it was rotated back into the 'sanctuary' zone to rest.

[Markus Becker]

5 hours ago, sunday said:

Yes, you wrote it, but left unsaid the very high importance of that tunnel in BAM.

There's said to be another incident on the BAM. A train of fuel tanker cars caught fire. 

[lucklucky]

Said that Putin order an increase of 170000 troops

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/12/01/russia-boosts-troop-numbers-by-15-a83294

Edited December 1, 2023 by lucklucky

[Roman Alymov]

6 hours ago, sunday said:

Yes, you wrote it, but left unsaid the very high importance of that tunnel in BAM.

This tunnel was only opened in 2003, before that since 1985 bypass railway was used (this bypass is still in use). By the way i do not understand why BAM is called "road to China" as this railroad was constructed, among other reasons, to be at a safe distance from China border in case of USSR/China war....

[DB]

This was to me an interesting critical assessment of Russian oil exports, with a number of key takeaways. I'm not in a position to deep dive this to gain a better feel for how accurate the assessment is, perhaps those with a good graps of international markets can comment.

The essence of the video seems to be as follows:

- The US (and by extension its satrap/vassal states) imposed a price cap on Russian crude oil of $60bbl

- this means that Russia cannot in effect sell oil to the countries enforcing the sanctions for a higher price (the sanctions would be imposed on companies enabling trades above the cap, resulting in fines and possibly asset confiscation in the US.)

- Russia continues to export loads of oil, and it appears that it's exporting it at a price above the sanctions cap.

- The Ruble's exchange rate against the USD is about 88, (above its low soon after the war started)  which appears on its face to show that the ruble is doing just fine, and by extension, Russia's economy must be ticking along beautifully and the sanctions must have failed.

- Russia has pivoted a significant fraction of its crude oil exports to China and India.

- Neither China nor India has any interest in exchanging oil for either dollars or rubles. Respectively, they pay in yuan and rupees.

- The oil price in yuan and rupees may have been stable since the pivot, but the exchange rate between those currencies and the ruble has dropped by over 40%, and so Russia's oil is worth commensurately less and is being exchanged for currency that is of limited utility in the first place.

Consequently, Russia has moved from being "at the mercy" of the USD and thus the US Government to being in an equivalent position with near-worthless yuan and worthless rupees as a reward.

If you want to know who Daddy Warbucks is in this war, it's China and India. They're coining it, whether by getting cheap oil for direct use, or by selling it on at market prices whilst bleeding Russia white.

[Josh]

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Ukrainian air defenses are far behind Russian air defenses, mostly Soviet era relics in comparison to what the Sino-Russians can field.  No doubt NATO aircraft can make large numbers of glide bomb attacks, but there will be losses and the Russians will do what the Ukrainians do - disperse, conceal, dig deep.

Ukrainian air defenses are still enough to keep the Russians from making almost any direct attack, and Russian air defenses still aren't sufficient to prevent Ukrainian aircraft from making their attacks. NATO would just be doing the same with vastly greater SEAD, ECM, volume, and precision. Like I said, they can either push the long range SAMs far enough back from the front to do high altitude glide bombs like the Russians or they can do low altitude pull ups like the Ukrainians. My bet is on the former, but there's nothing stopping them from the latter if Ukraine can still manage it.

 

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I doubt that tankers can safely operate for extended periods in the same areas, even if deep behind the front lines.  The better option would be for jets to land and refuel on their return flight.  Tankers are generally used in places where air bases are not an option, and between the UK and Russia, there are plenty of them.

The USAF uses tankers pretty much everywhere and there is already a permanent presences at RAF Mildenhall. It isn’t hard to establish point defenses at a high value site; every branch of DoD has multiple C-UAV solutions. Protecting every single vehicle or infrastructure site in NATO would be impossible; protecting a half dozen airbases is relatively easy. Just using C-RAM or Gepard would probably suffice, though there are much more modern solutions now. Kh101s would probably be the most challenging targets; engaging a 100mph/150kph UAV isn’t especially demanding.

 

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

In one discussion you mock the idea that the Russians have a requirement for a drone carrier to allow for cheap drone attacks to the 2000nm range, and on another thread you state that a 1,000 mile range from bases makes an air campaign based in the UK immune to attack.  Care to pick a lane?

I think it’s ridiculous to have a 2000nm drone carrier if it isn’t super stealthy. Were you thinking a Reaper or TB-2 analog was going to survive a ten hour trip through NATO airspace? And I didn’t say “immune”, I said it would require a long range munition making a fairly straight and predictable flight path partly over water, where it would have no terrain to hide behind.

 

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I think NATO will be unable to sustain the required tempo of operations to achieve victory and that their aircraft losses will be unsustainable.  If they attempt the type of large based heavy tempo Gulf War style heavy logistics, about the third mass missile-drone attack that ends in a NATO tragedy, they will give up and start dispersing, at the cost of tempo.

I simply don’t see NATO aircraft as that vulnerable, or conversely don’t see Russian defenses as being that effective. It seems to me given the range of cheap glide weapons and the number of available standoff missiles and decoys that NATO aircraft would barely need to cross the FLOT at all. They wouldn’t have to deal with A50s or MiG-31s; those could not maintain patrols close to the border like in Ukraine. NATO could fling JDAM-ER and SDB from ~40mi/60km away and still hit tactical targets on the front. Stealth aircraft might venture closer, but deep penetrations at targets in the rear could be addressed by old A model JASSM inventory from tactical fighters. No need to even deploy bombers or waste AGM-158B inventory if you wanted to save those for China.

 

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Ukraine has demonstrated beyond any possible doubt in your mind that infantry can be quickly trained in huge numbers, and Kyiv did this with only a fraction of the competence that the Russians and their mobilization system are able to bring to the table.

I made no such statement regarding ZSU training cycles. Neither side seems to be able to adequately train its reserves at the moment. Perhaps Russia will extend conscription or reform its reserves to include regular training post active service, but just calling up ex conscripts isn’t going to make useful new formations. Russia is having at best mixed success with its mobilized. Also a several million man army is going to require expansion of the officer pool far beyond pre war levels (and even further past current attritted levels), and that’s not a thing that happens overnight. Just getting an extra million or two enlisted fed is non trivial task.

 

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

And yet the first time TU-95's plaster British base from the Artic, you'll be first in line calling for B-2's to fly deep into Russia to hit their bases. :^)

Well fair is fair. If you’re going to start hitting airbases, you can’t get upset when the other side does so as well. Though there numerous other locations not directly related to Russian nuclear deterrence that would be less escalatory and easier to hit than where the Bears live.

 

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The advantage of having, say, 3 million troops for a front that requires maybe 1/6th of that total for defense is that no particular formation would be required to stand in the line taking casualties for too long before it was rotated back into the 'sanctuary' zone to rest.

The disadvantage is how many mouths to feed.

 

More broadly I think another disconnect between our opinions is that I’m using NATO numbers and capabilities now and in the immediate future, where as you seem to be projecting into a post Ukraine war situation after an extended Russian build up. NATO is not going to hold still over the next five years. Look at the furious rate of Polish defense purchases. The U.S. is ramping up missile, munition, and UAV production. It is upgrading and widely exporting the F-35. It is completely rebuilding its satellite communications and missile tracking infrastructure (with a secondary PNT role as a GPS backup). If you’re thinking of a Russia-NATO conflict five years from now, you’ll have to factor in things like B-21, HACM, SiAW, Proliferated Satellite Architecture, F-35 blk4 in full rate production, PrSM, GMLRS-ER, and Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Those are all things projected to be in service circa 2027-28. The U.S. will be producing 100,000 155mm a month and 850 JASSM a year within a couple years. It plans to purchase two thousand UAVs in the next 18-24 months. So long as the war grinds on, Russia is running in place at best, relying on DPRK ammo at worst.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Josh

[Josh]

1 hour ago, DB said:

Consequently, Russia has moved from being "at the mercy" of the USD and thus the US Government to being in an equivalent position with near-worthless yuan and worthless rupees as a reward.

 

The Rupee is useless; I've read about this being a big problem. There's nothing Russia can buy with it. But I would think Russia could buy plenty things with Yuan; I mean, its China. I can't imagine they have any problems spending the oil sales on something. What they probably cannot do easily is shift that yuan oil revenue into domestic purchases for the war.

[Strannik]

18 minutes ago, Josh said:

The Rupee is useless; I've read about this being a big problem. There's nothing Russia can buy with it. But I would think Russia could buy plenty things with Yuan; I mean, its China. I can't imagine they have any problems spending the oil sales on something. What they probably cannot do easily is shift that yuan oil revenue into domestic purchases for the war.

Rupees buy tankers nowdays, domestic purchases are in rubles and quelle surprise Russia can print them at will just like US.

The rest of that bullshit report is not even worth talking about.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Strannik

[Josh]

13 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Rupees buy tankers nowdays...

Are you referring to the purchase of small ships for Russia's internal waterways? Or was there a buy of actual ocean going tankers? The former didn't strike me as a major purchase.

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Are you referring to the purchase of small ships for Russia's internal waterways? Or was there a buy of actual ocean going tankers? The former didn't strike me as a major purchase.

Yes. 24 river-sea class carriers

https://indiashippingnews.com/india-to-build-24-cargo-ships-for-russia/

Nowadays India pays in "combination of the Chinese yuan, the Hong-Kong dollar as a transition currency into the yuan and the UAE dirham, which is pegged to the US dollar".  

Edited December 2, 2023 by Strannik

[Yama]

16 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

FPV drone and ATGMs vs. abandoned Leopard-2 with Soviet ERA

https://t.me/milinfolive/111769

What ATGM's are those, seem pretty fast and move straight?