Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[DirkDiggler]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/18/russia-putin-ukraine-war-three-weeks/
 

Interesting (if true) intercepted words from a Russian soldier talking about the massive number of casualties the Russians are taking.

[ClearedHot]

Incredible footage from inside KA-52 while conducting several attack runs and ultimately being shot down.  Notice the fishing line he has strung up on the left side of the cockpit?

 

[12xu2a3x3]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Incredible footage from inside KA-52 while conducting several attack runs and ultimately being shot down.  Notice the fishing line he has strung up on the left side of the cockpit?

 

those panels being open like that i wonder if they were zeroizing stuff of if the dudes that found it just popped them

[TheNewGazmo]

Foreign fighters (US) in Ukraine.

[DirkDiggler]

Impossible to verify what’s in these trucks but I’ve seen some similar reports on Reddit and on other Twitter feeds.

  I’ll be curious to see at what point some of the Russian forces/axis are so attrited that they either start to en-mass refuse to move forward or are just completely combat ineffective.  As much as Putin is pulling Russia back into a Stalin-like state, the FSB of today isn’t the NKVD or KGB of the 1930s/40s/50s (stamping out dissent or shooting guys in retreat isn’t going to be as easy as it was in WWII)  If the Russian military starts to refuse orders en-mass this is gonna get weird real quick.

[Prozac]

17 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

Impossible to verify what’s in these trucks but I’ve seen some similar reports on Reddit and on other Twitter feeds.

  I’ll be curious to see at what point some of the Russian forces/axis are so attrited that they either start to en-mass refuse to move forward or are just completely combat ineffective.  As much as Putin is pulling Russia back into a Stalin-like state, the FSB of today isn’t the NKVD or KGB of the 1930s/40s/50s (stamping out dissent or shooting guys in retreat isn’t going to be as easy as it was in WWII)  If the Russian military starts to refuse orders en-mass this is gonna get weird real quick.

As much as I’d love to see mass desertions/surrenders on the Russian side, I think it’s important that we temper expectations & acknowledge we may be looking at this through the proverbial Western prism. Russians are stoic, fatalistic people and many of them pride themselves on being willing and able to weather hardship and suffering. There may well be some who refuse to fight, especially amongst younger and/or conscripted troops (there appears to be some evidence of this happening already), but Russians have always been willing to put bodies through the meat grinder & I won’t be surprised if Putin is still bashing his forces against the rocks six months or a year from now, regardless of meaningful progress. 

[FLEA]

23 minutes ago, Prozac said:

As much as I’d love to see mass desertions/surrenders on the Russian side, I think it’s important that we temper expectations & acknowledge we may be looking at this through the proverbial Western prism. Russians are stoic, fatalistic people and many of them pride themselves on being willing and able to weather hardship and suffering. There may well be some who refuse to fight, especially amongst younger and/or conscripted troops (there appears to be some evidence of this happening already), but Russians have always been willing to put bodies through the meat grinder & I won’t be surprised if Putin is still bashing his forces against the rocks six months or a year from now, regardless of meaningful progress. 

Podcaster talks about the Ukrainian propaganda machine, information space, and what to believe. 

https://www.thebulwark.com/podcast-episode/michael-weiss-who-should-you-believe-about-the-war-2

 

On a separate note be brings up an interesting theory of one or multiple high level leakers inside the Russian cabinet who want to see this fail (because they know war with the west will be fatalistic) 

This would explain how the IC got amazingly precise info leading up to the invasion as well as Putin's recent purge of very high level intelligence and military officials. 

[FDNYOldGuy]

50 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

This article says the Sherman had a 580% loss rate. A Poor Defense: Sherman tanks in WW2 – University of Illinois Archives

I can't remember the exact quote and haven't been able to find it through quick searching, but I remember hearing one in the past from Germans about the Sherman. To paraphrase: "It took 10 Shermans to take out one Panzer, but the Americans always had the 11th Sherman coming over the ridge."

[SocialD]

26 minutes ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

I can't remember the exact quote and haven't been able to find it through quick searching, but I remember hearing one in the past from Germans about the Sherman. To paraphrase: "It took 10 Shermans to take out one Panzer, but the Americans always had the 11th Sherman coming over the ridge."

 

So I'm listening to a book Accidental Super Power, which pretty much hit on this.  Although I haven't finished the book yet, from a book that was written in 2014, he seems to have mostly shacked it on the current Russia vs Ukraine conflict.  

[McJay Pilot]

3 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

So I'm listening to a book Accidental Super Power, which pretty much hit on this.  Although I haven't finished the book yet, from a book that was written in 2014, he seems to have mostly shacked it on the current Russia vs Ukraine conflict.  

It’s impressive how well called Russia/Ukraine. Interested to see if COVID affects timeline so his other predictions.

[DirkDiggler]

Ukrainians in Mauripol slugging it out close range with a Russian tank.

[HeyEng]

Being retired since 2014, I miss the monthly UTA intel briefings of what’s really going on around the world. The closest I can get now is following Tom Cooper on FB.
He either works for or owns Helion and Company Publishing, which publishes books on smaller or little known conflicts around the world. 
Tom has posted daily updates on the Ukrainian conflict on his page, (like everything on the internet, you have to take it with a grain of salt) getting into detail that the media lacks.

[HeloDude]

This doesn’t really sound like much of a “democracy” to me.  
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/zelensky-suspends-opposition-parties-in-ukraine-with-russia-ties/

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

This doesn’t really sound like much of a “democracy” to me.  
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/zelensky-suspends-opposition-parties-in-ukraine-with-russia-ties/

There’s precedent in multiple other democratic states for things like this.  For example, the Bund organization/party was outlawed in the US after the start of WWII. 

  There’s multiple open source examples of the Russians kidnapping Ukrainian officials and and installing puppets; the 1st party in the above article is openly sympathetic and colluding with Russia, I’m not sure about the others.

  There’s only one large autocracy in Europe currently invading its neighbor, slaughtering thousands of civilians with heavy artillery, forcibly deporting thousands of others, and denying the entire thing.  If the Ukrainian government has to ban political parties supportive/sympathetic of these actions to ensure they remain free of Russia it may not be in line with some idea of a democratic utopia, but perfectly understandable in a fight for survival.

 

[HeloDude]

23 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

There’s precedent in multiple other democratic states for things like this.  For example, the Bund organization/party was outlawed in the US after the start of WWII. 

  There’s multiple open source examples of the Russians kidnapping Ukrainian officials and and installing puppets; the 1st party in the above article is openly sympathetic and colluding with Russia, I’m not sure about the others.

  There’s only one large autocracy in Europe currently invading its neighbor, slaughtering thousands of civilians with heavy artillery, forcibly deporting thousands of others, and denying the entire thing.  If the Ukrainian government has to ban political parties supportive/sympathetic of these actions to ensure they remain free of Russia it may not be in line with some idea of a democratic utopia, but perfectly understandable in a fight for survival.

 

Putin is a very bad dude and clearly an aggressor.  And Ukraine is not some bastion of freedom and democracy that the media portrays them to be…even if they are fighting for their survival.  Two different things can be true at the same time.  But never turn a blind eye to the enemy of your enemy just because.  

 

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, HeyEng said:

Being retired since 2014, I miss the monthly UTA intel briefings of what’s really going on around the world. The closest I can get now is following Tom Cooper on FB.
He either works for or owns Helion and Company Publishing, which publishes books on smaller or little known conflicts around the world. 
Tom has posted daily updates on the Ukrainian conflict on his page, (like everything on the internet, you have to take it with a grain of salt) getting into detail that the media lacks.

I follow Tom Cooper as well. Good synopsis but heavily slanted and sometimes lacking technical detail. 

That said I have seen open source products out there that out detail our own classified level intelligence products but they usually lack extensive analysis. There seems to be a gap somewhere between raw intelligence and finished analysis that's an open space on the OSINT market. 

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Putin is a very bad dude and clearly an aggressor.  And Ukraine is not some bastion of freedom and democracy that the media portrays them to be…even if they are fighting for their survival.  Two different things can be true at the same time.  But never turn a blind eye to the enemy of your enemy just because.  

 

I don’t care what the media or any network talking heads have to say about Ukrainian freedom or democracy (and based on your previous posts I don’t think you do either).  Why any adult with critical thinking skills would is largely beyond me.  
  I think most people on this forum would agree that Ukraine is a young democratic state with serious issues regarding corruption and some press/information freedoms; it’s far from a perfect democracy.  However imperfect a democracy they are, they are still one.  And they’re being invaded/destroyed by a neighbor who is a flat out autocracy ruled by a guy that implicitly rejects the liberal international order, runs his country like a police state, and sees democratic countries on his border as a threat.

  There are very few (possibly none) democratic countries in the world that haven’t made serious mistakes in their past.  The US made serious mistakes as we were developing as a country.  My dad grew up on a Native American reservation so I have direct family experience with some of the ones the United States has made.  I still made the decision to join the US military and serve our country knowing that we’re imperfect and that we make mistakes.  As shitty as some things in America’s history is, we’re still a whole lot better than most places I’ve been in the world.  From your posting history I’ve gathered you’ve been in the military a long time.  In spite of some of the serious mistakes we as a country have made over the last 20 years, I believe you continue to serve, even though we as a democracy have had some struggles.  

The Ukrainian government is having to make some extraordinarily difficult decisions as their entire way of life and state is under threat of destruction.  Banning political parties that support the destruction of your country may not be completely democratic, but IMO we don’t live in a black and white world.

  Assuming that Ukraine survives in its current state, history will probably judge whether the steps they took to preserve themselves we’re justifiable or not.  I sure as shit am not going to be too critical of anything they’ve done up to this point.
  Make you a bet, if Zelensky/Ukraine survives, in 5 years (or whatever their election cycle is), if the Ukrainians continue to banish all opposition parties/there’s no or a staged election, and Zelensky basically becomes a dictator, I’ll buy you a bottle of your favorite.  If Ukraine continues to work towards being a democracy and a part of the liberal international system, you owe me.

[HeloDude]

6 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

Make you a bet, if Zelensky/Ukraine survives, in 5 years (or whatever their election cycle is), if the Ukrainians continue to banish all opposition parties/there’s no or a staged election, and Zelensky basically becomes a dictator, I’ll buy you a bottle of your favorite.  If Ukraine continues to work towards being a democracy and a part of the liberal international system, you owe me.

I have no clue what’s going to happen next year, much less of a clue as to what will happen in 5 years.  
 

Its funny how you use the words “critical thinking” and yet originally sought to discount my original post today by suggesting that since they’re invaded by Putin that my point was irrelevant.  Critical thinking means that you can look  at both points at the same time and without emotion.

As far as the media, Ukraine/Russia is consuming well more than half of the news cycle so I think it’s a valid discussion point.  And the vast majority of the news has Ukraine out to be some model of freedom and democracy all because they’re being invaded by Russia.  Your argument was basically to overlook my points because Ukraine is a lot better than the aggressors, but I appreciate you clarifying afterwards.  However I disagree that banning political parties that a president disagrees with is necessary, and it’s as far from democracy as you can get.

Oh, and I’m personally anti-Russia, but I’m “jury is still out” (at best) when it comes to Ukraine.  If the whole point of supporting Ukraine is to help weaken Russia and that this will benefit the average US citizen, then it’s a valid argument to be made as proxy wars have been part of international politics since lord only knows.  But that’s not the argument that is being made by the president, Congress, the media/elites, etc.

 

[DirkDiggler]

7 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

I have no clue what’s going to happen next year, much less of a clue as to what will happen in 5 years.  
 

Its funny how you use the words “critical thinking” and yet originally sought to discount my original post today by suggesting that since they’re invaded by Putin that my point was irrelevant.  Critical thinking means that you can look  at both points at the same time and without emotion.

As far as the media, Ukraine/Russia is consuming well more than half of the news cycle so I think it’s a valid discussion point.  And the vast majority of the news has Ukraine out to be some model of freedom and democracy all because they’re being invaded by Russia.  Your argument was basically to overlook my points because Ukraine is a lot better than the aggressors, but I appreciate you clarifying afterwards.  However I disagree that banning political parties that a president disagrees with is necessary, and it’s as far from democracy as you can get.

Oh, and I’m personally anti-Russia, but I’m “jury is still out” (at best) when it comes to Ukraine.  If the whole point of supporting Ukraine is to help weaken Russia and that this will benefit the average US citizen, then it’s a valid argument to be made as proxy wars have been part of international politics since lord only knows.  But that’s not the argument that is being made by the president, Congress, the media/elites, etc.

 

I didn’t discount your point; I disagreed with it and gave my reasons as to why.  
 

My critical thinking point with regards to the media and talking heads was that I believe far too many people in our country consume that stuff and basically let others do their thinking for them without listening to multiple sides and doing research themselves before they come to a conclusion, belief, or point of view.  And no one looks at things like this this without some emotion or some pre-conceived bias, it’s part of basic human nature.  How and why the media is covering this war would be a separate discussion that I believe is valid.

  You and I are probably not going to agree on this topic and that’s fine, I appreciate that you provide rational, well thought out posts for your points of view.  My disagreement is not discounting, if that were the case I wouldn’t have bothered to engage.

[Lord Ratner]

With the intelligencia increasingly convinced that nuclear weapons are a realistic possibility, what does the "hands off" crowd here think should be the response should Putin use a tactical nuke in Ukraine?

 

Is there any condition where Russian action within the Ukrainian border justifies an increased and direct global response? If so, explicitly spell out the red line.

 

Personally, I think any use of nuclear weapons justifies the immediate declaration of war with Russia. In fact, that goes for any country. And not economic war. War war. No nuclear counter response, that I believe can/should only be used in response to a nuclear attack on the US, but an immediate and total blockade of Russia, establishment of no-fly over the Western nations surrounding Russia (we aren't going to send US planes over China, but I think they'd join the West against Russia to protect their own nuclear assets), and immediate sanctions against any country that continues to trade with Russia. The only acceptable "surrender" is the removal of the Putin regime and the denuclearization of Russia. 

 

Basically, everything short of actually invading Russia. The danger of losing the concept of nuclear deterrence, which explicitly requires the nuclear powers to use nukes for defense only, is too vital to let perish because Putin is afraid of losing control of Russia.

 

Barring nuclear use by Putin, the question of genocide is a much tougher red line to draw. I'm not sure what the right answer is there, because the real strategic victory is for the Ukrainians to defeat Putin rather than the West. It seems more and more likely the Ukrainians can win with enough supplies from the West, but it's by no means certain. If they are overrun and a prolonged insurgency becomes a genocide, what do we do? I find it hard to believe the answer is to just watch. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

With the intelligencia increasingly convinced that nuclear weapons are a realistic possibility, what does the "hands off" crowd here think should be the response should Putin use a tactical nuke in Ukraine?

 

Is there any condition where Russian action within the Ukrainian border justifies an increased and direct global response? If so, explicitly spell out the red line.

 

Personally, I think any use of nuclear weapons justifies the immediate declaration of war with Russia. In fact, that goes for any country. And not economic war. War war. No nuclear counter response, that I believe can/should only be used in response to a nuclear attack on the US, but an immediate and total blockade of Russia, establishment of no-fly over the Western nations surrounding Russia (we aren't going to send US planes over China, but I think they'd join the West against Russia to protect their own nuclear assets), and immediate sanctions against any country that continues to trade with Russia. The only acceptable "surrender" is the removal of the Putin regime and the denuclearization of Russia. 

 

Basically, everything short of actually invading Russia. The danger of losing the concept of nuclear deterrence, which explicitly requires the nuclear powers to use nukes for defense only, is too vital to let perish because Putin is afraid of losing control of Russia.

 

Barring nuclear use by Putin, the question of genocide is a much tougher red line to draw. I'm not sure what the right answer is there, because the real strategic victory is for the Ukrainians to defeat Putin rather than the West. It seems more and more likely the Ukrainians can win with enough supplies from the West, but it's by no means certain. If they are overrun and a prolonged insurgency becomes a genocide, what do we do? I find it hard to believe the answer is to just watch. 

I agree if they use a nuclear weapon NATO needs to involve.

However a non nuclear response would be met with another nuclear one. If I red game Putin, and I already executed the will to use one once, even doing what you're doing, I'd still put a nuke into Ramstein. 

That game changes things because NATO falls under nuclear assurances. At that point it's game on. 

[jazzdude]

If they are overrun and a prolonged insurgency becomes a genocide, what do we do? I find it hard to believe the answer is to just watch. 

The US and the UN have and continue to ignore genocide. China and the Uyghurs are probably the one that gets the most attention. But guess who also has nuclear weapons and a seat on the UNSC...

There's also Burma and the CAR. And NATO seems to continue to need to reign in Turkey from killing Kurds.

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

I agree if they use a nuclear weapon NATO needs to involve.

However a non nuclear response would be met with another nuclear one. If I red game Putin, and I already executed the will to use one once, even doing what you're doing, I'd still put a nuke into Ramstein. 

That game changes things because NATO falls under nuclear assurances. At that point it's game on. 

I think that might be the difficult thing for a lot of people to reconcile. They're simply might not be a scenario where we are not involved, other than surrendering the world order.

 

Unfortunately, everything now boils down to Putin's insanity and his subordinates' will to follow. I don't think either can be reliably assessed. But I think any use of a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world is a guarantee of war, and potentially a world war. I think at that point our response will very much determine whether places like China decide to wait another couple decades before making their move (war), or capitalize on the chaos to advance their strategic goals (world war).

[FLEA]

36 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think that might be the difficult thing for a lot of people to reconcile. They're simply might not be a scenario where we are not involved, other than surrendering the world order.

 

Unfortunately, everything now boils down to Putin's insanity and his subordinates' will to follow. I don't think either can be reliably assessed. But I think any use of a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world is a guarantee of war, and potentially a world war. I think at that point our response will very much determine whether places like China decide to wait another couple decades before making their move (war), or capitalize on the chaos to advance their strategic goals (world war).

So exactly this and what is terribly scary about it. 

A war of this magnitude would certainly change the world order. Unlikely the US comes out on top or even near the top. 

China wont be a problem that just has to wait; it becomes a problem we just have to accept. China's smartest move would be to stay quiet and let the US and Russia overtly remove each other from the world stage leaving China as the sole world super power. 

We need to swallow the pill that the US could be unrecognizable in the end.

But in general I agree that you can't allow Russia to use a nuclear weapon without a military response because it upends the rules of nuclear deterence and sets a precedent that would be worse to accept than the opposite. It's just a terrifying reality. 

[Prozac]

46 minutes ago, FLEA said:

A war of this magnitude would certainly change the world order. Unlikely the US comes out on top or even near the top. 

What’s your thinking here? We’re the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the second largest nuclear arsenal and the most capable conventional forces by a long shot. Short of an all out nuclear exchange, in which NOBODY comes out on top, in what world conflict scenario does the US come out behind China or Russia?