Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Gengs1 2583]

I really want one of those inflatable HIMARS for the backyard  (I swear is for the kids)

[BamaATL 16593]

In so far as putin and money, we really need to stop thinking of that as a singular part of the equation.   The only thing that matters at this point to him is power.  The outcome of this conflict is now existential to him, meaning if he doesn't win, or doesn't manage to somehow spin this into a victory at home of sorts, he won't exist.  His personal wealth no longer matters as a matter of course to him, because if he doesn't win or spin a win, he's dead.  So whatever the cost to him personally or to Russia, he will do it.  We think of him as stockpiling wealth for his own greedy means, but in the end, it isn't as if he can spend it to retire to Fiji.  putin, I think has long thought of himself as Russia, and as such whatever it costs for Russia, at least in his mind, is his to spend as pleases or needs.  

[Nivek 16992]

1 hour ago, KYHorn said:

 

 

Which is why I suggested Ukraine only send back paralyzed Russians.  

[Rimbo 26140]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

on that note...

The Big Russian Offensive has begun, but it's so awful that it's hardly noticeable.

[The Dog 44160]

 

[Shaddie 1651]

35 minutes ago, dimyh said:

In case anyone bitches about the amount aid going to Ukraine. Excellent breakdown in comparison to other wars. WW2 comparisons are not very apt but comparisons with Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea are very telling.

 

 

So Monday morning at DFW at C20 where escalators have been down for months. 1 or the other or both. Anyway up is working and guy says “still broke”. I agree. He then says “yet we are still giving money to Ukraine”. 
 

I turned around and said “I’ll be a little inconvenienced so people can live and be free from a dictator.” Turned around kept going to ticket counter.

[SL Xpress 7518]

27 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Historically speaking, when a group of people flee, they never return, even if it is their original intention.  Invariably, what happens is that they find new lives and more or less move on.  In this particular conflict, the Ukrainians might be different, because when they win there will be great pride, hope, and reconstruction within the borders of Ukraine.  However, if history tells us anything, many won't return, especially the longer this goes on.  For Russia, those that left, unless they find themselves in an even worse situation, say Tajikistan, they aren't ever returning.  

 

That's very true, but you're making it way simpler than it is in reality.

A quick google search claims 8 million Ukrainians have fled the country. Anyone who thinks all 8 million are returning are kidding themselves. I don't think anyone believes that. So absolutely, some of them are never returning. But some of them will. It's just as farcical to claim all 8 million will never return.

So we're on a continuum. What are the factors in this continuum?

First, moving your home is underestimated as a stress factor in our lives. Even for people who have moved. Research has shown it's up there as a stress factor with losing a job, a death in the family, divorce. Economists want as much freedom of labor movement as mathematically possible, whereas actual people want to be in one location and raise their family there. 

For the people who have already moved, there's a certain inherent stickiness in having already left the country. That much we know.

But what did they leave? What are their current circumstances? If they were a professional whose certificates/licenses etc. no longer apply in their new country, there's a greater chance they'd move back to some degree. If they perceived their standard of living - whether economic, emotional, or what have you - as being better in Ukraine, they're likelier to return.

If they're exceptionally patriotic, or otherwise identify with Ukraine in a deep way, are they finding that filled with a diaspora Ukrainian community? Or do they feel the need to return? Are they scared their children will no longer identify as Ukrainian? I know a number of Greeks here in Houston. They go to the Greek Orthodox Church. They eat Greek food. Their sons and daughters marry people with Greek ancestry. They return to Greece annually. But they'd never ever ever ever move back. No way no how. 

But it's different. Their parents/grandparents didn't leave a war torn country and move relatively close. They left a poor country for a different experience where they thought they'd have more opportunities, across a major sea and ocean, and then a gulf. 

The quicker the war is over, the more people will move back. The more money that is poured into Ukraine for its recovery, the more people will move back. The more host countries make it unpleasant to stay, the more people will move back. The more effective the Ukrainian government and the companies in Ukraine are at recruiting people to return, the more people will come back. The better the experience people have who are in Ukraine, and therefore the more positive the message they send to those who are part of the diaspora, the more will return. 

I just don't think we can make a good guess at the numbers right now. It will all depend. But yeah, if this war is prosecuted for another 8 years the way the war in the Donbas has been, a very high percentage of those 8 million will never return. But if the war has a relatively quick ending, and the post war support for Ukraine is unprecedented, I bet more than half of that 8 million return, and that would be remarkable. 

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

7 minutes ago, Shaddie said:

So Monday morning at DFW at C20 where escalators have been down for months. 1 or the other or both. Anyway up is working and guy says “still broke”. I agree. He then says “yet we are still giving money to Ukraine”. 
 

I turned around and said “I’ll be a little inconvenienced so people can live and be free from a dictator.” Turned around kept going to ticket counter.

That's more important than people realize.

You're obviously not going to change his mind. But he said that because he felt safe in saying it. He assumed you'd naturally agree with him, because of course everyone thinks that way. By at least challenging him (you're in an airport, so time is obviously of the essence - can't exactly ask him questions about his mindset or anything) you're letting him know that the echo chamber he lives in is not the unanimous opinion he thinks it is. 

[Shaddie 1651]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

That's more important than people realize.

You're obviously not going to change his mind. But he said that because he felt safe in saying it. He assumed you'd naturally agree with him, because of course everyone thinks that way. By at least challenging him (you're in an airport, so time is obviously of the essence - can't exactly ask him questions about his mindset or anything) you're letting him know that the echo chamber he lives in is not the unanimous opinion he thinks it is. 

I should have said “thank god the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the constitution didn’t think like you”.

[SL Xpress 7518]

3 minutes ago, Shaddie said:

I should have said “thank god the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the constitution didn’t think like you”.

I guess. I think what you said was perfect. Thanks for sharing. 

[Orange&White 5539]

I'm more concerned that someone thinks that the escalator working at DFW has shitall to do with the US Government helping Ukraine fight a war.

[Shaddie 1651]

9 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I guess. I think what you said was perfect. Thanks for sharing. 

I appreciate it but just stating opinions is not enough. 
 

When you start comparing their attitudes to our founding fathers it “might” make them think a little bit more. One can hope. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Shaddie

[Gravy Train 974]

13 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

A quick google search claims 8 million Ukrainians have fled the country. Anyone who thinks all 8 million are returning are kidding themselves. I don't think anyone believes that. So absolutely, some of them are never returning. But some of them will. It's just as farcical to claim all 8 million will never return.

So we're on a continuum. What are the factors in this continuum?

First, moving your home is underestimated as a stress factor in our lives. Even for people who have moved. Research has shown it's up there as a stress factor with losing a job, a death in the family, divorce. Economists want as much freedom of labor movement as mathematically possible, whereas actual people want to be in one location and raise their family there. 

For the people who have already moved, there's a certain inherent stickiness in having already left the country. That much we know.

But what did they leave? What are their current circumstances? If they were a professional whose certificates/licenses etc. no longer apply in their new country, there's a greater chance they'd move back to some degree. If they perceived their standard of living - whether economic, emotional, or what have you - as being better in Ukraine, they're likelier to return.

If they're exceptionally patriotic, or otherwise identify with Ukraine in a deep way, are they finding that filled with a diaspora Ukrainian community? Or do they feel the need to return? Are they scared their children will no longer identify as Ukrainian? 

Those hypothesis go way further than necessary.  With accession into the EU, with border security, Ukraine is ripe to become the union's biggest trading partner.  Economic development opportunities are incredible, from precision manufacturing, to shipbuilding, to petrochemical... and those are the trades they're already good at.  I have an old Ukrainian software engineering contact who's since started his own firm.  They are a bright, crafty bunch who just need security and an honest seat at the table.  

[Shaddie 1651]

3 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I'm more concerned that someone thinks that the escalator working at DFW has shitall to do with the US Government helping Ukraine fight a war.

Unfortunately an IQ test is not required to get a plane ticket.

[SL Xpress 7518]

3 minutes ago, Shaddie said:

I appreciate it but just stating opinions is enough. 
 

When you start comparing their attitudes to our founding fathers it “might” make them think a little bit more. One can hope. 

There's a huge isolationist strain in this country borne of geography and rich natural resources. I've discussed isolationist attitudes with people until I'm blue in the face ever since I was a teenager. Maybe I've planted some seeds? I don't know. There's such a mountain of indifference regarding anything that occurs beyond our borders, and that isn't going to change. I can't make someone else interested in other countries and cultures. It's more like either you are or you aren't. But I can make them realize not everyone thinks like they do. 

In any case, I'm grateful those currently in power share my views on Ukrainian independence. Plenty on both sides of the aisle with this view. And I'm glad you said something to the guy by the escalator. 

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

39 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

on that note...

The Big Russian Offensive has begun, but it's so awful that it's hardly noticeable.

Is this the military equivalent of "Is it in?" 

[Shaddie 1651]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Is this the military equivalent of "Is it in?" 

Have you been talking to my wife?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

34 minutes ago, Shaddie said:

I’ll be a little inconvenienced

 

[Bevo 13601]

6 minutes ago, Shaddie said:

Unfortunately an IQ test is not required to get a plane ticket.

Are you saying I was lied to? Motherfucker

 

Obligatory:

 

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

8 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

Those hypothesis go way further than necessary.  With accession into the EU, with border security, Ukraine is ripe to become the union's biggest trading partner.  Economic development opportunities are incredible, from precision manufacturing, to shipbuilding, to petrochemical... and those are the trades they're already good at.  I have an old Ukrainian software engineering contact who's since started his own firm.  They are a bright, crafty bunch who just need security and an honest seat at the table.  

I'm not sure what your point is. They're going to need a huge infusion of money to rebuild. People are putting up with a lot of suffering because they feel like it's their patriotic duty and they're all in it together. If there's not rapid progress made towards rebuilding very quickly after the cessation of hostilities, that's going to turn to anger quickly. Or even worse, if the evidence of corruption - which has been endemic in Ukraine - shows that some people are suddenly doing much better. The integration of Ukraine is simply not going to be as organic as you're indicating. I agree with you in terms of Ukraine's potential, but they're going to need a substantial boost. If that boost doesn't come, or it's woefully insufficient, it's going to lead to bad things. That's the truth of it. 

[Shaddie 1651]

2 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

 

OMG.  Did you have that waiting for years to use it. Too goddamn funny.

[The Dog 44160]

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

 

I shared that joke with an escalator repairman and he replied to me by talking about it actually wasn't working, and then going over in detail exactly what was wrong with it and what he needed to do still to fix it. I listened, and then shortly replied, "Hahahaha, yes, but you see, it was a joke."

[Brisketexan 105432]

38 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

The quicker the war is over, the more people will move back. The more money that is poured into Ukraine for its recovery, the more people will move back. The more host countries make it unpleasant to stay, the more people will move back. The more effective the Ukrainian government and the companies in Ukraine are at recruiting people to return, the more people will come back. The better the experience people have who are in Ukraine, and therefore the more positive the message they send to those who are part of the diaspora, the more will return. 

Great paragraph.  Which is why 1) we need to do all we can to help Ukraine win this war, and SOON, and 2) the reconstruction effort will need to be a thoughtful, multi-disciplinary project which also focuses on Ukrainians returning to rebuild their country.  That means that opportunities, safety, and security must be there for them.  Reconstruction will have to be led by Ukrainians, and employ Ukrainians, so they are vested in that future, and have what they need in the meantime.  It's going to take incredible amounts of planning, coordination, and refraining from some of the very tempting opportunism that will be around.

[staboner 4988]

2 hours ago, dimyh said:

For a second there I thought those were snapshots of Jade's enchiladas.

[SL Xpress 7518]

20 hours ago, KYHorn said:

Ouch. Hilarious joke, but not very diplomatic

 

 

That's a bit of a misleading text in that tweet. Here's the quote in the article:

"The Ambassador assured that the Ukrainian soldiers were in a jolly mood, ready for battle. He also joked that it was not exactly clear who is training whom: the Germans know the tactics very well, in theory, while our soldiers tell them of a real-life combat use of the equipment on the battlefield."

__________________________________________________________________________

That doesn't feel all that controversial. 
 

[Gatorubet 30321]

Ivan no has enough ammunition?

“Please pardon our several years delay in replacing this” - MoD

[SL Xpress 7518]

5 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Just saw an interesting interview with this historian on BBC…

https://www.olesyakhromeychuk.com

 

She has an interview here with Jon Snow of all people. Apparently he's a well known long time (32 years!) presenter of Channel 4 News - not the bastard son (no spoilers!) in a famous book/TV series. 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=339007241583091

She looks like she's 4'11. 

She talks about hoping the west helps bring Russia's leaders to justice. That would be terrific, but I don't foresee marching into Moscow to do it. At the moment I'm just looking for the West to provide Ukraine more and even better weapons so the conflict can come to an end as soon as possible on terms favorable to Ukraine, whenever that happens to be. Russian officials facing a Nuremberg type trial feels far fetched. 

[atomheartbevo 89821]

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

In so far as putin and money, we really need to stop thinking of that as a singular part of the equation.   The only thing that matters at this point to him is power.  The outcome of this conflict is now existential to him, meaning if he doesn't win, or doesn't manage to somehow spin this into a victory at home of sorts, he won't exist.  His personal wealth no longer matters as a matter of course to him, because if he doesn't win or spin a win, he's dead.  So whatever the cost to him personally or to Russia, he will do it.  We think of him as stockpiling wealth for his own greedy means, but in the end, it isn't as if he can spend it to retire to Fiji.  putin, I think has long thought of himself as Russia, and as such whatever it costs for Russia, at least in his mind, is his to spend as pleases or needs.  

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-2-22-23/h_e8cfb3559bd5978327d401aa3bccb2d0

Quote

Former Russian President and Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev said Russia will "disappear" if it loses the war in Ukraine.

“If Russia stops the special military operation without achieving victory, Russia will disappear, it will be torn to pieces,” Medvedev said in a Telegram post on Wednesday, using the euphemism for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. “If the US stops supplying weapons to the Kyiv regime, the war will end.” 

Quote

Medvedev’s comments follow US President Joe Biden’s speech in Poland on Tuesday. 

During his speech, Biden said, "If Russia stopped invading Ukraine, it would end the war. If Ukraine stopped defending itself against Russia, it would be the end of Ukraine," which Medvedev claimed was “a refined lie.”  

Quote

“After all, it is obvious to all reasonable forces that if the United States wants Russian defeat, then we are on the verge of a world conflict,” he continued. “If the United States wants to defeat Russia, then we have the right to defend ourselves with any weapon, including nuclear.” 

We don't have to defeat Russia, Ukraine is doing a good job already.   Medvedev has a classic case of every accusation is a confession.  We can get what we want from Russia through economic means without firing a shot, but Medvedev can't comprehend such economic power, he can only think of taking things from other countries using military force.

[atomheartbevo 89821]

Support might be building for better/faster/higher systems.  From the CNN links above.

Quote

Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, told journalists he sees “increasing momentum” in Washington toward providing Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets and long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) rockets.

“I think there’s a split in the administration, at the national security council, as to how fast and what weapons to put in, but I am seeing increasing momentum towards getting both the artillery and the planes in, and in any event we can start training pilots right now so they’re ready,” McCaul told journalists in Kyiv on Tuesday after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Quote

McCaul said Zelensky had given him a list of weapons Ukraine needed, namely F-16s and ATACMS, which can be fired from US-supplied HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems and have a range of up to 300 kilometers (about 186 miles).

"I will be a very strong voice on both the ATACMS, the long-range artillery to hit the Iranian drones in Crimea, in addition to the F-16s,” McCaul said. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89821]

4 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

There's a ton of YouTubers from Russia who go around metal-detecting battlefields in Russia from WWII, and they are constantly digging stuff up out of marshes, rivers, ponds, farmland, and the like, and they frequently find ammo cans full of ammo that looks exactly like that picture.

Given all of the corruption in Russia (pun intended), maybe they got in on the grift.

[atomheartbevo 89821]

Quote

President Vladimir Putin has committed to Russia strengthening its nuclear triad, a military force structure capable of launching three types of nuclear weapons. 

“This year, the first Sarmat missile system launchers with the new heavy missile will be put on combat duty. We will continue full production of the Kinzhal air-launched hypersonic systems and begin mass deployment of Tsirkon sea-launched hypersonic missiles,” Putin said in a statement released to coincide with Thursday's Fatherland Day celebrations. “With the Borei-A nuclear-powered submarine Emperor Alexander III becoming operational in the Navy, the share of modern weapons and equipment in the naval strategic nuclear forces will reach 100 per cent. In the coming years, three more cruisers from this project will be delivered to the Navy,” he added.  

Quote

Putin’s remarks for Fatherland Day — a Russian holiday designed to celebrate the country’s military achievements — went on to emphasize the reliance on a “modern and efficient Army and Navy.”  “Relying on actual combat experience, we will pursue balanced and high-quality development of all components of the Armed Forces, improve the system for training units. A solid foundation here is the soldiers, sergeants and officers who showed their worth in combat on the frontline,” Putin was quoted as saying.  

He added that Russia’s military manufacturing industry was “quickly increasing production” as the government prioritizes investment in military hardware.  

[SL Xpress 7518]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Support might be building for better/faster/higher systems.  From the CNN links above.

 

Lindsey Graham said much the same thing, too. In extremely strong language. Not trying to get into Graham as a singular personality.

We talk about the Republicans being against the support for Ukraine, but much of that is the combination of American isolationism combined with being out of power. There's a wing of the Democrats that's made some of the same kind of noises, but were effectively shut down because they're the party in charge at the moment. They wouldn't have been shut down if the Republicans had the presidency and the same kind of support was being given to Ukraine. I'm not pointing fingers at either party. Mostly I'm just grateful the people in power ARE supporting Ukraine, and pointing out it still very much has bipartisan support, as well as bipartisan reluctance. 

My feeling is it's a matter of time before we give the Ukrainians both ATACMS as well as F-16s. I'm seeing too many articles from too many sources, citing too many leaders from too many different countries to think it's not going to happen. I'm all for sooner over later. 

[atomheartbevo 89821]

More from CNN

Quote

Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said Wednesday there “will be consequences for China” if it were to provide lethal military aid to Russia in its war against Ukraine.

“[W]e haven't seen them give lethal aid to Russia at this time, for the war, but they haven't also taken that off the table,” Singh said. “And so we have been consistent from here, and I believe Secretary Blinken also met with his counterpart in Germany just last week, we reinforced there that … there will be consequences for China should this partnership with Russia, further deepen.”

Quote

Singh added that China providing lethal aid to Russia in its war against Ukraine would “certainly be a miscalculation.”

Officials previously told CNN that there are signs Chinese officials want to “creep up to the line” of providing lethal military aid to Russia. The United States ambassador to the United Nations previously said that China doing so would be a red line

 

[atomheartbevo 89821]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

My feeling is it's a matter of time before we give the Ukrainians both ATACMS as well as F-16s. I'm seeing too many articles from too many sources, citing too many leaders from too many different countries to think it's not going to happen. I'm all for sooner over later. 

ATACMS won't take much training, as they are fired from the same platforms, using the same software.

F-16s...I really wonder if we are already training Ukrainian pilots (or if some other F-16 using nation is).

[SL Xpress 7518]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

ATACMS won't take much training, as they are fired from the same platforms, using the same software.

F-16s...I really wonder if we are already training Ukrainian pilots (or if some other F-16 using nation is).

I posted a couple of weeks ago about a conversation I had with a retired colonel from Air Force military intelligence who insisted to me we've already been training Ukraine pilots, among other things. I can't say I believe him verbatim, but I do want to believe. 

The bill was passed by Congress last summer explicitly authorizing money for training Ukraine pilots. I'm going off memory here, but I think it was over $100 million for training alone.

[SL Xpress 7518]

Here's a video of Magyar talking about his operation. For those who don't know, Magyar operates a drone division located in Bakhmut, previously in Soledar. He gives regular, colorful updates that Dmitri translates and posts on his twitter page, which is how I see them. They're frequently posted on this thread. Worth watching, IMO.

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

Here's a must read interview in my opinion from the Chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of Ukraine (GUR), Kyrylo Budanov. Originally published in Ukrainian. Translation by Volodymyr Treytak

He's cocky in exactly the way I want an intelligence person to be:

https://wartranslated.com/forbes-ua-interview-gurs-chief-kyrylo-budanov-interview/

"If we’re talking about the other side, we have to remember that there is no limit to Russian stupidity"

Spoiler

(Interviewer😞 Russia is currently on the offensive along almost the entire eastern front. Is this the big offensive that has been talked about for the last two months, or should we expect something else from Russia in March?

 

(Budanov): The big Russian offensive they are aiming for is already underway. But it’s going on so well that not everyone even sees it – this is the quality of this offensive. They have a strategic objective – to reach the administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk regions by March 31.

 

(I): Do you think this is the maximum they can announce now? The announcements are usually more ambitious than the real possibilities.

 

(B): I don’t think so. I know so. This is what they dream about, they will not be able to do it.

 

(I): Western media actively wrote that mass mobilization would begin in Russia in late January or early February. They predicted numbers of up to 500,000 people. Now it doesn’t look like it has started.

 

(B): Who told you that it hasn’t? It is hidden.

 

(I): Is it possible to recruit that many people in secret?

 

(B): In a country with a population of over 100 million, what’s the problem with recruiting 500,000?

 

(I): What do we know about mobilization in Russia now, since the numbers vary?

 

(B): During the first open wave of mobilization, they recruited just over 316,000. The question here is: if everything is fine in Russia and they have drafted another 316,000, then why continue the mobilization? It means that everything is not good. This leads us to a simple conclusion: how many casualties are there in the Russian Federation? This figure is sky-high.

 

(I): Out of these 316,000, how many are already at the front?

 

(B): More than 90% were immediately sent. No one trained them – they were sent straight to the front.

 

(I): No conditional reserve?

 

(B): A small percentage went to form new units, but the majority went to restore the units that suffered losses, they are all at the front.

 

(I): There is an assumption that we need to look very closely at the news about mobilization. If Russia succeeds in recruiting 300,000 or 500,000 people, the frontline will become too short for that many people on their side, and then we can expect an offensive on Kyiv. What do you think about this?

 

(B): This is questionable logic, I do not share this opinion. An offensive in one direction or another is not limited by the number of people you want or can deploy somewhere.

 

(I): But this increases Russia’s capabilities.

 

(B): We are in an open war. What is so surprising about this possibility? In addition to the possibility, there is also the reality. The reality is that they are aiming to reach the administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk regions by March 31. You can feel the difference between taking Kyiv in three days and reaching these borders someday.

 

(I): Is there an understanding of how many people they can call up, not in terms of the number of people, but how many assault rifles, armored vehicles, tanks they can issue?

 

(B): There are enough assault rifles for any number of people, and there are not enough armored vehicles now, but this does not bother them at all. Many units are being formed from scratch. They are going without equipment, in Ural trucks and Kamaz trucks. They no longer have BMPs or armored personnel carriers. All the equipment is being removed from long-term storage, they have already removed more than 60%, leaving about 35% that can be quickly restored. The production is single, and it does not cover the needs.

 

(I): What about Medvedev’s statement about 800 tanks a year?

 

(B): They are not able to produce 800 tanks a year, not only in wartime but in their best years.

Photo by Oleksandr Chekmenev

About Bakhmut

(I): This is not the first time foreign media have published materials advising us to reduce our presence in Bakhmut to preserve our forces for a possible counteroffensive in the South. They say that the city’s importance is not as strategic as political.

 

(B): I would like to see such a proposal made to the President of France. To say that, “you have a problem, leave the city of Marseille, it is not so strategic”.

 

(I): Is there more political or military expediency in holding Bakhmut now?

 

(B): Can you imagine the US president being told: “Let’s temporarily surrender New York, that’s what we must do”?

 

(I): If we recall the Second World War, Stalin was told that he had to retreat from Kyiv. He also said: “How can you retreat from the mother of Russian cities?” We know where this led.

 

(B): If we follow your logic, it led to the victory of the Soviet Union.

 

(I): But 400,000 people were killed and captured in that operation.

 

(B): As a patriot and a military man, surrendering even a millimeter of the territory is a disaster. This is my personal logic. You can agree with it or not. From a military point of view, holding Bakhmut allows us to deter the Russians in that area and inflict catastrophic losses on them.

 

(I): Are we exhausting them in this way?

 

(B): We are exhausting them and defending our territory, which cannot be assessed in the context of whether it is advisable or inexpedient to leave.

 

(I): We are talking about redistributing forces, not just surrendering the city. Perhaps it would be more efficient to use people in other areas?

 

(B): I do not agree with this logic.

On the remnants of Russian weapons

(I): You mentioned earlier that Russia is significantly depleting its stockpile of equipment and shells, including 152-caliber ones. That they have about 30% of the total number of shells left. How can they go on the offensive with that amount of shells and such equipment?

 

(B): They can’t. That’s why not everyone even notices this “huge offensive”. As for the weapons stockpile, they are now setting up mass production of artillery shells. This once again confirms that there are no stockpiles of shells, there are not enough.

 

For two months now, the Russian groups operating in our country have been living in a mode of maximum ammunition saving. More or less normally, ammunition is now being used exclusively in Bakhmut and the Liman sector. They tried to storm Vuhledar several times and will continue to try, so we could add this location. In all other areas, ammunition is being saved.

 

(I): How many of them are produced in Russia now?

 

(B): They produce much less than they use.

 

(I): When and if they can deploy a production sufficient for artillery warfare?

 

(B): They will never be able to. Russia is not the Soviet Union. They have already felt and realized this, it is a fact.

 

(I): But a projectile is not a drone, no electronics import is needed.

 

(B): It’s not that easy, it requires a lot of production facilities that have been destroyed in 30 years. For 30 years, Russia, like many other post-Soviet countries, has been selling stockpiles.

 

(I): Do they have a chance to find these shells in North Korea?

 

(B): Theoretically, there is a possibility. Do they bring shells from there? There are no confirmed cases in North Korea. A test batch was brought in from Iran, and now they are trying to bring another batch, not a test batch, which is about 20,000 shells. This is nothing compared to the numbers that are being used.

 

(I): Our partners and we also have a shortage of these shells.

 

(B): Of course, we do. It is impossible to compare the defense industry of the Soviet Union, ours, and most Western countries with the capacities that existed during the Cold War.

 

(I): What does this mean? Will the war shift from artillery to other tactics?

 

(B): Everyone sees the transition to a different tactic in Bakhmut. Vuhledar was a vivid example of this. In Bakhmut, it’s just infantry coming in wave after wave. Their artillery is only supporting them, and there are very few armored vehicles. In Vuhledar, armored vehicles were used, but they were destroyed in the first hours, and everything turned into small arms fighting.

 

(I): Earlier you said that Russia had enough missiles for three or four attacks, and then it would have to fire from the assembly line. Has this moment come?

 

(B): There are small percentages of the total number left. Less is produced than they use in one salvo, and production is not keeping up. Russia is not the Soviet Union.

 

(I): You mentioned their conditional maximum of producing 50 missiles a month.

 

(B): Less. In total, they sometimes produce 20 or 22 Kalibr missiles per month. These are the ones that are launched from the sea. About 15, sometimes up to 20, are X-101 missiles. That is why the number of missiles in each salvo is decreasing. The intensity of the shelling is decreasing. Initially, massive rocket attacks were on Mondays, then once every eight days, and now once every ten days, two weeks. They are reducing the number of missiles and increasing the time interval.

 

(I): What prevents the Russians from increasing missile production?

 

(B): There is no capacity, it’s a bubble. If you have not done anything for 30 years, you cannot do what you want in one day, during the war and sanctions.

 

(I): Electronics imports from China increased by 500%, six times over the past year. There are components there that are needed to make missiles. Are we doing anything on our part, or can we do anything to prevent these components from reaching Russia?

 

(B): These are exclusively civilian goods and microcircuits that can have dual use. This is a problem. If you import a vacuum cleaner, it is a vacuum cleaner. Based on the realities in which Russia lives, they have to buy millions of such equipment and disassemble it into microchips.

This is a great shame even for Russian ideology. They have reached the point where they buy washing machines and vacuum cleaners and disassemble them into microchips that they will then insert into missiles.

 

(I): The media announced the construction of an Iranian-Russian plant to produce Shaheds in Tatarstan.

 

(B): Who announced it?

 

(I): The Financial Times, the New York Times, reputable media.

 

(B): If I start criticizing reputable media, I will be criticized myself. I have nothing to say. Maybe I just don’t know the answer.

 

(I): Do you have any such information now?

 

(B): I don’t have any confirmed information that a “shahed” has been assembled in Tatarstan and exists somewhere. Perhaps I just haven’t seen it yet.

 

On the GUR’s information policy

(I): In an interview, you said that you use many sources to draw your conclusions. Can you rank the top five sources used by Ukrainian intelligence in the twenty-first century?

 

(B): This is standard. Like any special service in the world, they work in much the same way. These are technical means of intelligence, technical penetration, penetration into cyberspace, phones, and computers. But the most important thing is agent work. Only agent work can provide answers to complex questions.

 

(I): Your deputy said they have sources among oligarchs, business people, and Putin’s inner circle. If we have them, why do we need to talk about them?

 

(B): Did he mention any names or anything that might lead to an answer? Russia has more than 100 oligarchs with different degrees of closeness. Some are close to Patrushev, some are close to Bortnikov, some are close to the conditional president, some are close to Kiriyenko. So who are we talking about?

 

(I): Is this our information tactic?

 

(B): Let them check all 100 of them (laughs). Do you know what they will find? I will give a real answer to the question.

2.5 years ago, we made a controlled leak on one issue, outlining the circle where such information could have come from. Do you know what the reaction of the Russians was? They began to scrutinize everyone who fell into this circle. They narrowed it down to about 30 people. After that, they concluded that one of these 30 people had to be there. They began to check everyone with polygraphs and look for family ties.

As a result, all 30 people were selected-a certain number were fired, and a certain number went to jail. Because each of them had family ties that led them to Ukraine, and it so happened that our countries are closely connected. If they follow the same logic, the whole world will applaud.

 

(I): Russia seems to be waging this war online, almost announcing military action. It seems that even Russia has never fought like this before.

 

(B): This is information warfare. What has Russia been doing all this time? Even take the example of Bakhmut. If you read the official sources of the Russian Federation, not to mention the unofficial ones, they have taken it ten times since June. It’s February, and they say: just a little more.

 

(I): It looks strange, announcing their offensives.

 

(B): If we’re talking about the other side, we have to remember that there is no limit to Russian stupidity. In addition, don’t forget that although Russia is the very vertically oriented structure, it can hardly be called a state. It still has two towers. Two towers of the Kremlin clash with each other and who will win is announced in advance.

 

(I): Is it the FSB and the military?

 

(B): It’s not just the FSB and the military. Everyone there is divided into two towers. Conditional hawks and conditional liberals, both of which are very conditional. They care more about money than about what they claim.

 

About fires and explosions in Russia

 

(I): At the end of last year, the OSINT agency Molfar calculated that in November-December 2022 alone, the statistics of fires and major incidents in Russia doubled. How much of this are coincidence and how much is a consequence of the war?

 

(B): Much of this is not a coincidence. Something is always burning. Signaling equipment on the railroads burns several times a day, on different highways constantly for two or three hours, sometimes for five or six hours, and traffic is suspended along the entire section. It is clear that it is burning for a reason.

 

(I): Are Ukrainians helping in Russia?

 

(B): Why only Ukrainians? I would say this: money make wonders.

Photo by Oleksandr Chekmenev

On the end of the war: the score is 1:1, and the minute is 70

 

(I): In Ukraine, you have a reputation as the main and good prognosticator. A person whose predictions come true more often than not.

 

(B): I am not a prognosticator and have never been one. We make conclusions, not forecasts. They are different things.

 

(I): What are your conclusions about the fighting by the end of spring and by the end of the year?

 

(B): Nothing has changed, and there will be decisive battles from mid to late spring.

 

(I): Will they decide the fate of the war?

 

(B): Yes, this is a turning point.

 

(I): If you apply a football analogy to the 12 months of the great war. What is the score, and what is the minute of the match?

 

(B): The score is 1-1, and the minute is 70. This is a subjective vision.

 

(I): Three reasons why we managed to survive:

 

(B): If I say God is with us, will you accept the answer? [Laughs, hinting at the Russian propaganda narrative] The second is that we are defending our land, which helps. It’s easier to play on your field. The third reason is that the entire civilized world is fighting with us. We are not alone.

 

(I): And if we take the three biggest victories and defeats?

 

(B): I will speak subjectively. The first major defeat was Ukraine’s temporary defeat in the area of Sievierodonetsk. The second is the first period of the war, when the line was broken in the area of Volnovakha. And the third, and this will be a general answer, is that we allowed the temporary occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in 2014. These are our three biggest failures, but they are all correctable.

 

(I): And what about victories?

 

(B): The victories are the pushing back of the enemy from the Kyiv direction, the actions in the Kharkiv direction and the regaining of control over the city of Kherson.

 

(I): Let’s talk about the future. Let’s imagine that in the near future we will liberate the de-occupied territories, manage to liberate Crimea, and reach the border with Russia. Will we go further?

 

(B): This is a question exclusively for the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, not for me. In my vision, we must create conditions for a security zone around our border. There are many ways to achieve this. For example, a 100-kilometer zone is justified, but 40 kilometers will be more or less normal.

So that you understand my logic correctly. Whether we should go further is not a question for me, but creating a security zone around the border is a necessity. There are many options to achieve this goal.

 

(I): What should this zone look like?

 

(B): A demilitarized zone, without any weapons, with normal control. So that we always have time to respond.

 

(I): We have reached the borders of 1991, and there is a feeling in society that this is the end of the war. But this is not a fact. What will make Russia end the war?

 

(B): You’re right, it may or may not mean the end. It is possible to transfer the war to a completely different format. It is possible to move to a permanent defense operation. A good example is Israel, which lives in a constant state of war, conducting a defense operation along its borders. Most likely, this will lead us to solve internal problems in the previously occupied territories, which is a huge set of issues.

 

(I): What can end the war? What are the conditions for this on both sides?

 

(B): We have only one condition – to reach the administrative borders of 1991, and we will decide everything else later.

 

(I): It’s a simplistic question, but Ukraine is waiting for an answer. When will the war end?

 

(B): I can only answer you when it ends. For us, it will end with the first phase – reaching the administrative border. But since we’ve discussed how it’s 1:1 and the 70th minute of the match, make a timing parallel.

 

[Slacks 6869]

10 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

a failed test is still a successful test -- engineers.

[SL Xpress 7518]

Here's a pic of a Black Hawk in Ukrainian colors, apparently flying for Ukrainian intelligence services (GUR).

Don't get too excited, though. It appears it was purchased from Ace Aeronautics, a manufacturer with a license to purchase US Army Blackhawks and repurpose them for civilian use. Based out of DFW out of the old Apache Enterprises operation. Still interesting.

 

[Slacks 6869]

2 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Here's a pic of a Black Hawk in Ukrainian colors, apparently flying for Ukrainian intelligence services (GUR).

Don't get too excited, though. It appears it was purchased from Ace Aeronautics, a manufacturer with a license to purchase US Army Blackhawks and repurpose them for civilian use. Based out of DFW out of the old Apache Enterprises operation. Still interesting.

 

Here's $500M and the phone number to my "friend's" place in DFW. 

[Bateshorn 9942]

1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

Lindsey Graham said much the same thing, too. In extremely strong language. Not trying to get into Graham as a singular personality.

We talk about the Republicans being against the support for Ukraine, but much of that is the combination of American isolationism combined with being out of power. There's a wing of the Democrats that's made some of the same kind of noises, but were effectively shut down because they're the party in charge at the moment. They wouldn't have been shut down if the Republicans had the presidency and the same kind of support was being given to Ukraine. I'm not pointing fingers at either party. Mostly I'm just grateful the people in power ARE supporting Ukraine, and pointing out it still very much has bipartisan support, as well as bipartisan reluctance. 

My feeling is it's a matter of time before we give the Ukrainians both ATACMS as well as F-16s. I'm seeing too many articles from too many sources, citing too many leaders from too many different countries to think it's not going to happen. I'm all for sooner over later. 

Not sure about ATACMS, but there is wisdom here about the politics. Tankies are a thing. They might be hiding, but the are waiting to come out the moment a pro-Ukrainian GOP leader shows up. 

[Bevo 13601]

3 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Not sure about ATACMS, but there is wisdom here about the politics. Tankies are a thing. They might be hiding, but the are waiting to come out the moment a pro-Ukrainian GOP leader shows up. 

I don't get this. What's a tankie?

[Bateshorn 9942]

4 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I don't get this. What's a tankie?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie
 

Tankies are basically left wing people who will excuse anything former Soviet/current China does as it’s all for the cause (which is completely malleable depending on the issue)

in this current setting: because Biden is ascendant and all of Europe(including the Greens) is unified, they are very quiet.  Amnesty International is probably as close as you are going to get as their public face.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Bateshorn

[Slacks 6869]

What?

[Bateshorn 9942]

5 minutes ago, Slacks said:

What?

What what?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

9 minutes ago, Slacks said:

What?

 

3 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

What what?

In the butt

[Gengs1 2583]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

 

In the butt

[Bateshorn 9942]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

 

In the butt

[Rimbo 26140]

2 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

That would be terrific, but I don't foresee marching into Moscow to do it.

 

 

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Quote

"I will be a very strong voice on both the ATACMS, the long-range artillery to hit the Iranian drones in Crimea, in addition to the F-16s,” McCaul said. 

 

 

2 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

We talk about the Republicans being against the support for Ukraine,

 

It's not the Republicans. It's more a certain peculiar few. A peculiar few who almost certainly get their funding from the Kremlin, if I may be so bold as to suggest. And I may in fact be.