Kiev Is Burning

[mkenny]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

as opposed to the reality that these are all countries with their own goals and foreign policies that in general don't include expending resources to support the sinking ship that is Russia.

China knows she is next on the Neo-Con hit list.  For her to turn her back on a Country that has shown she can hold her own against the combined power of NATO/Western Banks, can provide a secure  land  link for all her food, energy and mineral needs  would be stupidity of the highest order. I know The West/NATO dream about driving a wedge between their two favourite bogeymen but they have managed to achieve the exact opposite. 

[mkenny]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

However. I don't see any protests against the West anywhere in Ukraine. But fiercer resistance to Russia. Is it possible that the Russian state model is extremely unattractive? So Ukrainians make their own decisions.

Many Ukrainians have made a decision. In particular the 600,000+  men who have gone abroad to avoid being conscripted. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by mkenny

[ink]

I think if you're going to look at it like that, the numbers are much larger. A few million Ukrainians have moved to Russia since 2014. Many millions more have left Ukraine since the war started (mostly to go west). Here in Belgrade, many Ukrainians who came here since the war came via Russia or already lived in Russia before moving here. Others came via Turkey or over land.

On the other hand, most of those people just want to get away from the war and don't give a damn about the politics of it (which is, imo, the only sensible stance).

Also, it is worth mentioning that every last Ukrainian I've met here (and those I've met in the EU) all have a more nuanced understanding of what's happening in their country than the black and white image served up in Western media (and repeated here with little to no self-reflection by certain posters).

[JWB]

6 hours ago, mkenny said:

After The USA, Britain and Germany decided they did not want a deal between Russia and Ukraine ......

That deal was rejected by Putin because it prevented him from stealing land from Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/

[Strannik]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

How Ukes what? Please quote a very specific passage. (but there isn't one...)

Precisely.  Because the decisions were made for them ))

[JWB]

Ukraine's Luck Going From Bad to Worse (msn.com)

[JWB]

Ukraine Is Making Its Own Howitzers. Now They Need Shells. (msn.com)

[JWB]

Ukrainian soldiers feel they have been abandoned on a crucial part of the frontline and their situation is being 'hushed up': report (msn.com)

[Roman Alymov]

Photos of recovered captured Bradley with BRAT in process of being loaded for transportation. Unfortunatelly one track and rear door missing. Was recovered by BREM ARV (note towing bars visible on one of the photos) https://t.me/btr80/12620

[seahawk]

Seems like we are reaching the end of the conflict. Russians advancing, Ukraine moral in a deep dive. Western donors in economic crisis... Let us hope that spring brings peace and unity.

[Dark_Falcon]

3 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Photos of recovered captured Bradley with BRAT in process of being loaded for transportation. Unfortunatelly one track and rear door missing. Was recovered by BREM ARV (note towing bars visible on one of the photos) https://t.me/btr80/12620

Silly question: BMP-based BREM or tank-based?

[crazyinsane105]

2 hours ago, JWB said:

Ukrainian soldiers feel they have been abandoned on a crucial part of the frontline and their situation is being 'hushed up': report (msn.com)

Been saying it for almost half a year now, that any offensive across the Dniper would be suicide and not mount to tangible gains without the eradication of Russian air and artillery superiority.

Seems like the Ukrainians send in men, who make small gains, only to be on the receiving end of Russian munitions for months on end. Media at first catches on and claims it’s a breakthrough, and then goes silent.

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Dark_Falcon said:

Silly question: BMP-based BREM or tank-based?

Tank-based. according to this report it took two BREM (probably T-72-based) ATVs to recover it

https://t.me/infomil_live/2144

Note the vehicle is in running condition (engeine and transmission functioning, even LED screen of driver's dashboard looks ok). The vehicle is new (not from storage, produced last year) with ~200 miles of total travel (do not remember exact figure)

[Roman Alymov]

3 hours ago, seahawk said:

Seems like we are reaching the end of the conflict. Russians advancing, Ukraine moral in a deep dive. Western donors in economic crisis... Let us hope that spring brings peace and unity.

Not even close to that. All pro-Russians are saying it is just the begining of long war.

[BansheeOne]

Careful, or Glenn will accuse you of a lack of patriotism again. 😄

[TonyE]

5 minute clip of the captured Bradley.

 

[glenn239]

7 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Almost entire money comes from stockpiles of US equipment being sent to Ukraine. We aren’t handing them plane loads of money like many people think. 

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/

This one says 60 billion in material aid, 113 billion in allocated funds for Ukraine, its partners in the region, and American security programs, not all of that spent.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Careful, or Glenn will accuse you of a lack of patriotism again. 😄

I didn't take Prigozhin's pro-Russian statements about cleaning out the Russian MoD too seriously until he started killing Russians.

[crazyinsane105]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/

This one says 60 billion in material aid, 113 billion in allocated funds for Ukraine, its partners in the region, and American security programs, not all of that spent.

Yup, but this isn’t hard cash being given to Ukraine.

We dropped a trillion into Afghanistan give or take, with untold hundreds of billion’s spent directly on Afghan infrastructure and what not, and we got little to show for it.

[glenn239]

10 hours ago, Josh said:

Only one of my posts even mentions the likelihood of a Russian attack on NATO, and I stated the odds are very low for the near - medium term. Russia already has a war consuming all of its production and will take years to rebuild its forces once that war ends

The likelihood of a global scale war is unknown, but the trend seems to be towards war becoming more likely across a number of continents.   The odds that a large war will break out in Europe seem slim at the moment, while the odds that a war will not eventually break out over, for example, Taiwan seems even slimmer.

Quote

(my personal WAG, 2025). As for how prepared they will be - how prepared were they for Ukraine? History is full of examples of countries making massive misjudgments concerning their military capability or political position, and we have an example in Russia that is only ~20 months old.

In the Putin era Russia has emerged stronger from every war it has fought, and this war is on track to prove no exception to that pattern.  

Quote

My posts concerned the hypothetical situation, not the chances of such an event occurring. Please directly quote my posts if you are going to discuss them.

Your assertion was that if war were to occur it would be Russia that would start a war with NATO.  Then you contradict that notion by suggesting that NATO would easily win the war that Russia started.  That makes no sense - why would Russia ever initiate a war it would quickly lose?    In fact, if Russia and NATO go to war it'll be the usual muddled mess of both sides being at fault, probably dragged into conflict by complications between their allies squabbling elsewhere.    

Quote

Again, the mediocre performance of Russian forces in Georgia and the near disaster in Ukraine don't point to a system that consistent makes good decisions concerning what it is and isn't capable of.

Your capacity to sneer down your nose at everything Russian is well understood.   For our off continent friends, I can assure them that this particular trait of arrogance towards opponents of the Democratic party, (be it Trump voters or Russians) is practically a universal mandate amongst the US and Canadian left wing.  

Essentially, your entire world view is that the logistics-heavy USAF model of interdiction free operations utilizing stealth technology and satellite guidance will dominate future battlefields.  My view is that the age of the USAF's total battlefield dominance is ending and that in emerging conflicts the US will be fighting with fewer advantages at the end of very long supply lines.

Quote

I'm aware of your fantasies concerning a global unified front against the west, as opposed to the reality that these are all countries with their own goals and foreign policies that in general don't include expending resources to support the sinking ship that is Russia.

By my count the US is embroiled in eight moderate to serious crises - Ukraine, Taiwan, North Korea, Gaza, Niger, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela.  Two more, (ISIS and the Taliban) seem hovering in the wings.  These various fronts do not require formal alliances, their simple existence is enough to distract and neutralize US diplomacy. Four of them - Russia, China, Iran, North Korea - are certainly at the point that they will not tolerate a US solo war on any of them.

Quote

My final word on the subject is that you seem to conjure new capabilities for Russia that don't currently exist and treat them as hard fact where as I list current NATO capabilities and existing platforms and production rates, and programs of record that will almost certainly enter service within a few years.

Everything we are discussing are current Sino-Russian capabilities with three exceptions.  The first exception is the expected improvement in drone AI target identification that will remove the data link to an operator.  The second is the expected development of more varieties of cheaper (but stealthy) drone carriers than SU-57's and S-70's.   The third exception is the expected, but undemonstrated, capacity for a US enemy to neutralize GPS.

Also, yesterday I credited US F-35 production at 160 units a year, but in subsequent googling I'm seeing reports that the actual rate of production has dropped to around 60 annually.  

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by glenn239

[glenn239]

14 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Yup, but this isn’t hard cash being given to Ukraine.

We dropped a trillion into Afghanistan give or take, with untold hundreds of billion’s spent directly on Afghan infrastructure and what not, and we got little to show for it.

Understood, but I don't fully believe that the West has been forthcoming with the full bill to the support of Ukraine, that the actual total might be much higher than what is admitted.

[JWB]

1 hour ago, crazyinsane105 said:

..........  we got little to show for it.

Isn't it almost always that way?

[crazyinsane105]

4 minutes ago, JWB said:

Isn't it almost always that way?

We got a lot more by sending weapons to Ukraine. It managed to halt Russian expansion with very little material cost and almost no American lives wasted. 
 

Afghanistan and Iraq were utter wasted though 

[JWB]

9 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Afghanistan and Iraq were utter wasted though 

No.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The likelihood of a global scale war is unknown, but the trend seems to be towards war becoming more likely across a number of continents.   The odds that a large war will break out in Europe seem slim at the moment, while the odds that a war will not eventually break out over, for example, Taiwan seems even slimmer.

In the Putin era Russia has emerged stronger from every war it has fought, and this war is on track to prove no exception to that pattern.  

Your assertion was that if war were to occur it would be Russia that would start a war with NATO.  Then you contradict that notion by suggesting that NATO would easily win the war that Russia started.  That makes no sense - why would Russia ever initiate a war it would quickly lose?    In fact, if Russia and NATO go to war it'll be the usual muddled mess of both sides being at fault, probably dragged into conflict by complications between their allies squabbling elsewhere.

Let us simply hope we never see it.

 

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Your capacity to sneer down your nose at everything Russian is well understood.   For our off continent friends, I can assure them that this particular trait of arrogance towards opponents of the Democratic party, (be it Trump voters or Russians) is practically a universal mandate amongst the US and Canadian left wing.  

My appraisal of Russian military capability is derived from their capability in the field and the resources they have at hand, nothing more. The Ukraine war exposed a wealth of weaknesses, some easily/already fixed, some in progress that will take some time, and some that show technological and political/military cultural limitations that likely cannot be fully addressed.

 

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Essentially, your entire world view is that the logistics-heavy USAF model of interdiction free operations utilizing stealth technology and satellite guidance will dominate future battlefields.  My view is that the age of the USAF's total battlefield dominance is ending and that in emerging conflicts the US will be fighting with fewer advantages at the end of very long supply lines.

My view is that increasing weapons performance in terms of speed, accuracy, and automation is going to favor the side that can more rapidly identify targets and dispense PGMs to deal with them. Even if we assume Russia undergoes some kind of military revolution in UAVs, its weakness in ISR above the tactical level is on full display. Say what you will about US logistical bloat (which I agree is a thing), but is efforts to diversify and expand its ISR, C3, and PNT capabilities are broad and bearing fruit. The US has already tested Tranch 0 of its L band Link 16 satellites than will connect its future com layer satellites down to the individual platform level. It has AI systems developed to map its own communications network, detect latencies and failures, and map around them with cross links. It is fully linking its transport satellite layer to the existing commercial EO providers so their content can be downloaded via link 16 in near real time, and having AIs process all the resulting data for targets, prioritize them, and create fire plans based on known available resources. Russia is operating on two cups connected by a string in comparison.

 

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Everything we are discussing are current Sino-Russian capabilities with three exceptions.  The first exception is the expected improvement in drone AI target identification that will remove the data link to an operator.

The first capability isn't particularly revolutionary; Brimstone or SDB II can do that now. I have no doubt Russia can produce something like this now; what I think it will struggle with is building more advanced sensors and logic for such en mass (though Chinese commercial components can help in this regard). But even assuming they are built in bulk, ground launching these munitions gives them a short range and their low speed means they aren't especially hard targets for point defense weapons (the Western ones as well). You see it as revolutionary development and potentially air force neutralizing*; I think it is an evolving threat that can be managed. The bigger risk in my mind is to front line ground forces rather than air forces. Increasingly smaller, cheaper UAVs that also can be given sufficient automation mean they hit soft or even armored targets randomly all over the FLOT, within their endurance/range. It likely will be perfectly cost effective to expend a single micro UAV per soldier in the future. That seems more game changing than smart moped drones to me.


* Would US autonomous UAVs presumably be able to do the same thing to the PLA-AF then? That would rather change things...

 

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

  The second is the expected development of more varieties of cheaper (but stealthy) drone carriers than SU-57's and S-70's.

You speak as if S-70 was an operational system and Su-57 existed as more than a squadron (non US NATO F-35s already greatly outnumber them). Russia doesn't even build its own RQ-1 class drones (see: Israel Searcher and Iranian Mohajer 6); how is it going to whip up some X-47B class UCAVs?

 

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 The third exception is the expected, but undemonstrated, capacity for a US enemy to neutralize GPS.

Even if we assume that someone can neutralize GPS (and note that the future proliferated satellites layers in the next few years will have a secondary fallback PNT capability as well), what makes you think that Russian and Chinese UAVs are any less dependent on satellite navigation? Why would the US somehow lag far behind either in nav satellite system counter measures? The US invented this type of system and maintains by far the largest number of tracking and downlink/uplink locations across the globe; why would its system be particularly vulnerable?  If there's a sick man in the satellite nav arena, it is Russia: GLONASS is running on fumes. A third of the active 24 satellites are about to or already have reached their expected end of life. The US might not even need to degrade it in a few years time.

ETA: per wiki, of the 24 GLONASS satellites still operational or in testing, 12 are at or past their seven year expected lifetime. Three more satellites are partially operational with no L2 signal (reduced accuracy) and these are some of the oldest still functioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GLONASS_satellites

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Josh