Kiev Is Burning

[Roman Alymov]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, it means that after you use up the ammunition already with units, you are going to have to look for 6 months of ammuntion.

Well, let's wait and see (as "ammunition already with units" will be out in few days). 

Re keeping NATO away - it is strange to do it by conventional forces (as population of NATO countries is about 960 mln, so NATO will always have cannon fodder advantage). Nukes were created by our grandfathers for this task.

[Josh]

“Six months” seems like a large over estimate. I think most estimates put Russian production of artillery in the neighborhood of 3 million rounds, which is probably around a few hundred thousand tons. Add to that ammunition from other countries. While I think a lot of things went boom, I do not think it was a hundred thousand tons of boom.

That said, it does see like a substantial and very tangible amount of munitions were destroyed and more over with these facilities needing major repairs, presumably a lot of logistical work around are necessary. Ammunition has to be stored and distributed somewhere else, either at existing facilities which will be overburdened and potentially befall the same fate, or new dispersal sites that are unarmored. Presumably we will see the effects within a week or so, given consumption rates.

It also seems quite possible from one of the picture sets that some kind of ballistic missiles were being stored as well. That might be rather significant by itself.

[Stuart Galbraith]

What is stunning is how few of these places seem to have been updated. I looked up another report on one of these places, and it still seems largely how the CIA saw it in the mid 1960's from spy satellite.  It just doesnt seem to have occurred to anyone, despite the massive NATO threat, that maybe they ought to harden some of the structures, rather than keeping explosives in tin roofed sheds with a berm around them.

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This video claims these strikes have been part of a concerted campaign, and are claimed ot have destroyed up to 6 months worth of ammunition, including newly delivered North Korean missiles (probably did them a favour there, heh).

Figure the Russians are firing something like 1,000 tons of rockets, bombs, and shells a day.  Six months of that would be 180,000 tons of ammunition.  The pictures you have posted collectively might be thousands of tons of munitions, but not six months of munitions.

Quote

What is stunning is how few of these places seem to have been updated. I looked up another report on one of these places, and it still seems largely how the CIA saw it in the mid 1960's from spy satellite.  It just doesnt seem to have occurred to anyone, despite the massive NATO threat, that maybe they ought to harden some of the structures, rather than keeping explosives in tin roofed sheds with a berm around them.

Another way to look at it is that they concluded that the amounts and types of ammunition being stored there weren't worth the upgrades, and that the expensive facilities need to be for the important stuff like Kinzhal missiles.

Edited September 24 by glenn239

[Roman Alymov]

Lancet vs. Bergepanzer  towing tank, Kursk region https://t.me/anna_news/71100

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Another way to look at it is that they concluded that the amounts and types of ammunition being stored there weren't worth the upgrades, and that the expensive facilities need to be for the important stuff like Kinzhal missiles.

I think it more likely that in Soviet days these facilities were too far back to warrant hardening, and then post USSR the money simply was not available (although supposedly there was a major upgrade and consolidation effort). This much like the aircraft shelter situation discussed elsewhere - it was not necessary before the WP dissolved and NATO got much closer. IMO this speaks to how little of threat Russia ever thought NATO was in practice, despite its constant sky-is-falling rhetoric.

Edited September 24 by Josh

[Roman Alymov]

Lancets (?) vs. tanks on the battlefield (previously, were mostly used for rear area hunt) https://t.me/infomil_live/10435

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Figure the Russians are firing something like 1,000 tons of rockets, bombs, and shells a day.  Six months of that would be 180,000 tons of ammunition.  The pictures you have posted collectively might be thousands of tons of munitions, but not six months of munitions.

Another way to look at it is that they concluded that the amounts and types of ammunition being stored there weren't worth the upgrades, and that the expensive facilities need to be for the important stuff like Kinzhal missiles.

Except, as you can see if you look on Google Earth, improvements WERE underway. The new bunker section at the first site that went Tunguska is clear evidence of that. But it was too little (it clearly didnt compensate for the rest of the site) and too late (because it wasnt finished).

How many weapon storage sites do you think they have in the West of the country? Its not as many as you think, Ive looked. And other than some in the caucasus, they all looked pretty much as the CIA reported them.

 

Edited September 24 by Stuart Galbraith

[Roman Alymov]

More MadMax: UAZ van nonverted into phaeton passing through graveyard of NATO armor  and civilian vehicles https://t.me/boris_rozhin/138495

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How many weapon storage sites do you think they have in the West of the country? Its not as many as you think, Ive looked. And other than some in the caucasus, they all looked pretty much as the CIA reported them.

No idea.  If their shell reserve was 30,000,000 before the war, and they're comfortable with, oh, I don't know, 3,000 tons in any given site, then that would be about 250 sites.  So I'd guess more than 100, less than 500?

[Josh]

Someone online recently did an exhaustive analysis of the number storage base commands and sites. I’ll post later if I find it. I think their numbers were ~50 but attempting to consolidate pre war down to ~30.

[RETAC21]

52 minutes ago, Josh said:

Someone online recently did an exhaustive analysis of the number storage base commands and sites. I’ll post later if I find it. I think their numbers were ~50 but attempting to consolidate pre war down to ~30.

A look at Russian logistic depots that sometimes go boom:

https://tochnyi.info/2024/09/logistics-system-of-russia-storage-facilities/

[Stuart Galbraith]

58 minutes ago, Josh said:

Someone online recently did an exhaustive analysis of the number storage base commands and sites. I’ll post later if I find it. I think their numbers were ~50 but attempting to consolidate pre war down to ~30.

Somewhat fewer now....

[Josh]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

A look at Russian logistic depots that sometimes go boom:

https://tochnyi.info/2024/09/logistics-system-of-russia-storage-facilities/

Thanks, that’s the one I was thinking of.

[alejandro_]

Demographer Libanov on mortality and birth rates during the war, immigrants and emigrants, the labor market and the restoration of Ukraine

https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/articles/2024/09/25/7476595/

When they say "Ukrainian demography", their name immediately comes to mind. Ella Libanova has been the director of the Institute of Demography and Social Research for 17 years in a row.

State institutions, ministers and presidents turn to her for consultation. Especially now - during a full-scale war, when the question of the size of the Ukrainian population and its capabilities is particularly acute. 

Does Ukraine really now have the highest death rate and the lowest birth rate in the world? How did almost three years of full-scale war change Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian labor market? In the future, is Ukraine ready to accept immigrants who can help in post-war reconstruction and Russians who want to flee here from the authoritarian Russian Federation? 

- In order to encourage Ukrainians to have children during the war, some politicians propose, for example, to introduce a "childlessness tax". This idea did not find support , it was sharply criticized. Did it even make sense? 

- We already had this in Soviet times. So what? It doesn't work. But if you just want some extra cash for your budget, then yes, it might make sense.


@Roman Alymov Were you aware of this tax in the Soviet Union?

Edited September 25 by alejandro_

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Elon puts in a reservation for an appearance at the Hague.

[Josh]

I suspect it is a Starlink receiver registered to a third party. The Russians are apparently buying a lot of them from black market bird parties in Qatar and Turkey. I think Musk is a total Rick, but blaming him for where every starship terminal ends up is like blaming Stoner for every AR-15.

[crazyinsane105]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Might make more sense for the Russians to simply buy back S-400 from Turkey at this point. Turkey saves face and Russia doesn’t have its SAM falling into the hands of the West 

[crazyinsane105]

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

I suspect it is a Starlink receiver registered to a third party. The Russians are apparently buying a lot of them from black market bird parties in Qatar and Turkey. I think Musk is a total Rick, but blaming him for where every starship terminal ends up is like blaming Stoner for every AR-15.

While the STARLINK kits can be hard to track on the front line, I reckon that kits based in Russia or deep in Ukrainian territory held by Russia can easily be tracked and blocked.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

I suspect it is a Starlink receiver registered to a third party. The Russians are apparently buying a lot of them from black market bird parties in Qatar and Turkey. I think Musk is a total Rick, but blaming him for where every starship terminal ends up is like blaming Stoner for every AR-15.

He has proven he can turn them off in places he doesn't want them used. So, why doesn't he just deactivate all the ones in Russia? Because, and this is fairly key, he doesn't want to.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

While the STARLINK kits can be hard to track on the front line, I reckon that kits based in Russia or deep in Ukrainian territory held by Russia can easily be tracked and blocked.

He just deactivated Kadyrovs Tesla truck, when he finally figured out a war criminal running around with a gun mounted on one of his vehicles was not desirable.

Edited September 26 by Stuart Galbraith

[Josh]

34 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

While the STARLINK kits can be hard to track on the front line, I reckon that kits based in Russia or deep in Ukrainian territory held by Russia can easily be tracked and blocked.

You would have to differentiate a Russian UAV in Ukrainian airspace from a Ukrainian Starlink. That is probably possible with some filtration based on velocity, but it is probably not an out of the box feature.

[Josh]

34 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

He has proven he can turn them off in places he doesn't want them used. So, why doesn't he just deactivate all the ones in Russia? Because, and this is fairly key, he doesn't want to.

But this was a UAV over Ukraine. And there’s a lot of gray zones in Ukraine. Is it a Russian scout team or Ukrainian? Is it a Russian UAV or Ukrainian? Starlink is hardly a system designed with IFF in mind. Geo fencing is probably pretty trivial, but anything inside Ukrainian occupied territory probably works by default.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

But this was a UAV over Ukraine. And there’s a lot of gray zones in Ukraine. Is it a Russian scout team or Ukrainian? Is it a Russian UAV or Ukrainian? Starlink is hardly a system designed with IFF in mind. Geo fencing is probably pretty trivial, but anything inside Ukrainian occupied territory probably works by default.

The Russians are moving towards using Shahed and other cheap drones as very deep range reconnaissance and strike platforms.