Kiev Is Burning

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russia-said-prevented-ukrainian-attempt-115138219.html

• Russia's FSB said it thwarted a Ukrainian attempt to hijack a missile-carrying strategic bomber.

• It said Ukraine promised the pilot money and Italian citizenship to take off and land in Ukraine.

• It also claimed NATO special services were involved in the failed operation.

Russia's Federal Security Service said it thwarted a Ukrainian attempt to hijack a missile-carrying strategic bomber.

"The FSB has stopped another Ukrainian special services attempt to carry out an operation to hijack the Tu-22M3 long-range strategic bomber," it said in a statement on Monday, per a translation by The Moscow Times.

According to the FSB, Ukrainian intelligence promised an unnamed Russian military pilot money and Italian citizenship in exchange for him taking off and landing the plane in Ukraine.

Instead, according to the report, the pilot told his commanders everything.

Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti published a video of the purported pilot as well as an alleged chat between him and someone from Ukrainian special services, which claimed to show the pilot and his family being threatened.

The FSB also claimed that NATO special forces took part in the attempted hijacking operation, without giving evidence, and that through the pilot it was able to obtain intelligence that allowed Russia to strike an airbase in northwestern Ukraine.

The statement didn't specify when the alleged attack took place.

 

I know where it took place. The Odeon Cinema in 1965.

 

 

[alejandro_]

Quote

Note the roof was not blown high and away, but just collapsed down and was later just moved away by crowd on hands

It is hard to tell from the pictures, but the walls next to the collapsed section don't show any shrapnel damage. Could it be that the missile hit nearby and caused building to collapse?

[sunday]

Is the new Polish government attempting to enmesh NATO on the Ukrainian conflict?

Quote

The Ukrainian leader met with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Warsaw on Monday to discuss Russia's continuing attacks on Ukraine and further support from NATO.

Kyiv has committed to exploring new ways of shooting down all Russian missiles and drones in Ukrainian airspace that are headed in the direction of Poland together with Warsaw, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on Monday.

Zelenskyy shared the news of the security agreement in a post on X, saying the "unprecedented document" also includes forming and training a new volunteer Ukrainian military unit, the Ukrainian Legion, on Polish territory.

 

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, sunday said:

Is the new Polish government attempting to enmesh NATO on the Ukrainian conflict?

 

Well, they can always choose not to launch missiles and drones in our direction. We have already found the Kh-55 missile around this place:

And as far as this government is concerned, it's highly unlikely that it's doing anything of that caliber without consultations and at least tacit approval from major allies.

[sunday]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Well, they can always choose not to launch missiles and drones in our direction. We have already found the Kh-55 missile around this place:

And as far as this government is concerned, it's highly unlikely that it's doing anything of that caliber without consultations and at least tacit approval from major allies.

Major allies will not be the ones putting bodies to wear out the Russian bear, so it is likely they would agree to defend Germany until the last Pole.

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, sunday said:

Major allies will not be the ones putting bodies to wear out the Russian bear, so it is likely they would agree to defend Germany until the last Pole.

Yeah, I'm sure the Russian bear will invade anytime in current circumstances, because we shot down some missiles or drones.

Yeah, one could shout such slogans to one's heart's content. Defeding Poland to the last Ukrainian, defending the Baltics or Germany to the last Pole, defending France to the last German, defending the US sphere of influence to the last European, Japanese and South Korean, I culd go onand on. They're just that though, i.e. slogans, they were already present during the Cold War in one form or another, meant to demoralize and paralyze the nations of the alliance. They didn't then and I doubt they will now.

[sunday]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Yeah, I'm sure the Russian bear will invade anytime in current circumstances, because we shot down some missiles or drones.

Yeah, one could shout such slogans to one's heart's content. Defeding Poland to the last Ukrainian, defending the Baltics or Germany to the last Pole, defending France to the last German, defending the US sphere of influence to the last European, Japanese and South Korean, I culd go onand on. They're just that though, i.e. slogans, they were already present during the Cold War in one form or another, meant to demoralize and paralyze the nations of the alliance. They didn't then and I doubt they will now.

No, you will be the country sending expeditionary forces to the Ukrainian front, once Elensky run out of local Slavs to send to the slaughter.

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

[urbanoid]

Just now, sunday said:

No, you will be the country sending expeditionary forces to the Ukrainian front, once Elensky run out of local Slavs to send to the slaughter.

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

Sure, because we don't have any agency at all here. Yeah, the sky will fall and the apocalypse will come.

Most likely nobody's going in unilaterally without allied support and said support pretty much would have to include the US, physically and with boots on the ground as well, not just air support.

 

[sunday]

Just now, urbanoid said:

Sure, because we don't have any agency at all here. Yeah, the sky will fall and the apocalypse will come.

Most likely nobody's going in unilaterally without allied support and said support pretty much would have to include the US, physically and with boots on the ground as well, not just air support.

 

You were writing about imaginary threats that are not imaginary just yesterday.

It could be that Polish troops in Ukraine are the tripwire for declaring Article 5. Even going against the spirit of that article. After all, this is rules-based-international-order we are dealing with.

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 minutes ago, sunday said:

Major allies will not be the ones putting bodies to wear out the Russian bear, so it is likely they would agree to defend Germany until the last Pole.

Oh please, just stop with the militant pacifism. The only persons bodies being ruthlessly employed are the ones you would throw under the Russian bus.

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, sunday said:

You were writing about imaginary threats that are not imaginary just yesterday.

It could be that Polish troops in Ukraine are the tripwire for declaring Article 5. Even going against the spirit of that article. After all, this is rules-based-international-order we are dealing with.

How could you invoke Article 5 outside the alliance's area of resposibility?

The way I see it, direct Western intervention isn't unthinkable (though it is still unlikely), but the frontline countries are not going to unilaterally send troops to Ukraine while having a border with Belarus and Russia to defend. As a part of the larger allied intervention (that includes the US), sure, we most likely would. And Article 5 isn't needed for that, just like it wasn't needed in several cases in the last 30+ years.

[sunday]

Just now, urbanoid said:

How could you invoke Article 5 outside the alliance's area of resposibility?

The same way NATO attacked Serbia, likely.

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

Just now, urbanoid said:

The way I see it, direct Western intervention isn't unthinkable (though it is still unlikely), but the frontline countries are not going to unilaterally send troops to Ukraine while having a border with Belarus and Russia to defend. As a part of the larger allied intervention (that includes the US), sure, we most likely would. And Article 5 isn't needed for that, just like it wasn't needed in several cases in the last 30+ years.

This paragraph makes a lot of sense. In the past, countries have done unthinkable things, however.

[Yama]

14 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

That is not razor at all, since it was iniginally idea that since Russia is out of relatively new Iskander missiles and can't produce them in adequate quantity due to economy weakness and Western sanctions, it will be increasing number of old Tichka-U used instead of Iskanders. But nothing like that happened: only few cases were claimed by pro-Ukrainians as "Russians using Tochka-U" and that was it - no massive use at all (despite of in theory there should be far morfe Tochka-Us in stock then Iskanders).

Most of the Russian Tochka were probably already scrapped, expended in earlier conflicts, exported or converted to ballistic targets. No great mystery there!

If it comes to that, North Korea of course produces its own version, Toksa.

Btw, did Bulgaria give its Tochka stock to Ukraine?

 

 

[ink]

33 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

How could you invoke Article 5 outside the alliance's area of resposibility?

The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was for 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. In any case, it's like any law, it only has any meaning in the way it is enforced and by whom.

[Yama]

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Most likely getting some concession after which they'll drop their opposition to such a measure. 

Saudi Arabia full well knows it might become victim of similar measures in the future (who knows, perhaps some neighbour tribe needs bit of bombing, or inconvenient journalist must be made to disappear...), so they put their foot down now, to discourage West from creating a dangerous precedent.

[alejandro_]

7 minutes ago, Yama said:

Most of the Russian Tochka were probably already scrapped, expended in earlier conflicts, exported or converted to ballistic targets. No great mystery there!

A small number was kept in a training centre. Also, the last unit to receive Iskander to replace Tochka did so just before the invasion.There are evidences of the, being used in the war. Below is a photo of one of them in Belarus. It seems to come from storage.



Edit: News of North Korean ballistic missiles first appeared in January, but nothing has been said ever since.

Edited July 10, 2024 by alejandro_

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

A small number was kept in a training centre. Also, the last unit to receive Iskander to replace Tochka did so just before the invasion.There are evidences of the, being used in the war. Below is a photo of one of them in Belarus. It seems to come from storage.



Edit: News of North Korean ballistic missiles first appeared in January, but nothing has been said ever since.

Belarus had a Brigade of them in service IIRC.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

It is hard to tell from the pictures, but the walls next to the collapsed section don't show any shrapnel damage. Could it be that the missile hit nearby and caused building to collapse?

Nicely noted about lack of shrapnel damage, that is weird since both Kh-101 and AA missiles have prefragmented warhead.

Near miss is theoretically possible, but in that case impact point and crater (400kg warhead would have left quite substantial one) should be somewhere where people are standing in that photo, and there would be way more shrapnel damage to outer walls (there is only minor on two columns on front wall).

It is a weird stuff, as I said way too low damage for 400kg, way too high for 20kg, lack of fragmentation marks etc. In theory if there was a basement detonation in it would explain lack of fragmentation damage, but several things make that theory suspicious:

- 400kg in basement would have  probably leveled whole brick building

- there is also no sign of the basement in photo

- there would be way more material thrown outside.

So it is either relative far of hit by Kh-101 that collapsed structurally unsound building or hit by something much smaller* than Kh-101, or partial detonation of Kh-101 warhead.

*My guess is we are looking at 100-150kg warhead.

Edited July 10, 2024 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

I have to say, having noted the building on the new, it appears very shoddy Soviet style brick construction. It seemingly wouldnt have taken a lot to bring down.

[bojan]

Standard brick buidng construction, common all over the world until '50-60s.

Hence it is highly unlikely it was direct hit by something with 400kg warhead. Here is how 250kg looks like on such type of building, as you can see that all interior floors collapsed  as a consequence of hit and large part of walls was also blown apart. Pic was however taken after cleanup of debris from the street, so does not show spread of debris well.

To compare, here is a 50kg bomb hit, it has blown whole floor but damage was limited to that and floor structure survived  (again, photo was taken after debris was partially cleaned):

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont know if you have seen this, but you might find this series interesting. Basically they built a replica 1940's London street, and used replica's of historic Luftwaffe weapons on it (though they scaled down the V1 in part 4).

 

[seahawk]

Or the building was not hit at all but partly collapsed due to a ground burst nearby.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Seems possible to me. As I say, the build quality on the walls to me, a non brickie, looked awful. it looked like the kind of thing that was thrown up in a hurry after the war. Ive seen london slumbs built better than that.

So you then ask the question, is it possible it did indeed hit the target it was aimed at, which may or may not have ben militarily justifiable, and brought the building down from the blast? Id have sympathy for that theory, if they hadnt lied that it wasnt them right at the start, when very clearly it was.

Like I say, Russians lie, even when its in their interest to tell the truth.

[ink]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Seems possible to me. As I say, the build quality on the walls to me, a non brickie, looked awful. it looked like the kind of thing that was thrown up in a hurry after the war. Ive seen london slumbs built better than that.

So you then ask the question, is it possible it did indeed hit the target it was aimed at, which may or may not have ben militarily justifiable, and brought the building down from the blast? Id have sympathy for that theory, if they hadnt lied that it wasnt them right at the start, when very clearly it was.

Like I say, Russians lie, even when its in their interest to tell the truth.

To be fair to the Russians*, if it was indeed a collapse caused by the blast from a strike elsewhere, they might well have thought that they didn't strike the building and assumed that it must have been a wayward Ukrainian missile.

 

 

* although I honeslty don't feel remotely like being fair to them given how, at best, they've caused a children's hospital to collapse.

[alejandro_]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I have to say, having noted the building on the new, it appears very shoddy Soviet style brick construction. It seemingly wouldnt have taken a lot to bring down.

According to it's website hospital was opened in 1894, and arquitecture does look from that era. Of course that does not mean construction is not shoddy or has degraded. 

There are no photos of area around the building so it makes the analysis quite difficult.