Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[bolverk 29656]

Some really pissed off Russian soldiers refusing to go fight and saying they'd rather go to jail or commit suicide.

 

[bolverk 29656]

You'll need a larger monitor to make this out.

 

[TexasEd 8066]

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Russia and vatnik channels really don’t like this story which is odd at first glance. The easy explanation is that they just really want the Sy Hersh or UK version to get traction. There’s also the chance that they want to discredit this in advance because they won’t like the end result. 
 

If the part about failing to clean the boat is true, that’s some really shitty tradecraft. 

It’s really a double edged sword for Russia.  

If Russia did it then maybe they are competent to actually pull something like that off, raising eyebrows impressive but reinforces view of their shiftiness.

If Ukraine did it then Russia cannot protect it’s infrastructure.  Making moves to not only hurt Russia militarily but financially.  Also if Ukraine was willing to do this why not just disrupt the pipelines through Ukraine?

[BamaATL 16593]

37 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

That's a big boom, but no crater after the fact, which is characteristic of a 2000lb bomb (typically about 14m deep).  The initial explosion seemed to come from underneath the structure, but it happens so quickly its hard to say.  My guess is that its a car bomb of sort.  Either way, very effective. 

[elfenix 34227]

Nsiap: Russian Soldiers Are Attacking Ukrainians With Shovels, UK Intelligence Says

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ej4w/russian-soldiers-are-attacking-ukrainians-with-shovels-uk-intelligence-says

[BamaATL 16593]

Looking forward to more videos....soon

 

[kevwun 15769]

Mullet Free is a troll who has been banned multiple times under many usernames.

[bolverk 29656]

48 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Mullet Free is a troll who has been banned multiple times under many usernames.

He also repeatedly posted predictions of Europe freezing this winter and gleefully looked forward to the collapse of the EU as a result. 

[The Dog 44019]

 

[atomheartbevo 89630]

Quote

as Russians who have been living in Georgia for the past months return to Russia out of fear of the widespread pro-EU protests erupting in many parts of the country.

That makes no sense - a lot of those Russians fled out of fears of being conscripted.

[BamaATL 16593]

Fuckers seem to be at it again, not included in tweet, apparently missile boats in sea of azov underway as well.

 

[Gatorubet 30189]

24 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

That makes no sense - a lot of those Russians fled out of fears of being conscripted.

Unless like a lot of stupid Russians they personally don’t want to get conscripted - but still maintain a pro-Russia attack on Ukraine stance despite moving to Georgia.

Russia invaded in 2008, and the protests are objecting to a perceived Russian-ish surveillance law - so any pro Russian talk by them might be seen by Georgians as…

[dimyh 1874]

More dissent from the mobniks, ready to take a taxi home.

 

[Gatorubet 30189]

3 hours ago, kevwun said:

Mullet Free is a troll who has been banned multiple times under many usernames.

I will never understand why someone who has been banned several times would want to keep coming back to the site that banned them.   It reminds me of the maladjusted guy who will not accept being dumped - who continues to try to interact with his ex although there is zero chance of success.  

Just really creepy and weird.

[atomheartbevo 89630]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

Fuckers seem to be at it again, not included in tweet, apparently missile boats in sea of azov underway as well.

 

Some good news

I don't know why they'd waste their very limited supply of missiles at this point, seems like they would want to save them when they could make a bigger splash.  Maybe some more air defense systems are coming and they are in use it or lose it mode.

[BamaATL 16593]

U.S. intel operations I presume

 

[Gatorubet 30189]

From recent ISW report

Quote

Significant activity in Belarus (ISW assesses that a Russian or Belarusian attack into northern Ukraine in early 2023 is extraordinarily unlikely and has thus restructured this section of the update. It will no longer include counter-indicators for such an offensive.

 

[SL Xpress 7513]

7 hours ago, Parliament said:

Why did they buy weapons from Switzerland in the first place?

Switzerland is heavily integrated into ammunition manufacturing within EU/NATO countries. There were previous issues with them not allowing the release of Gepard ammo, for example. A member of the opposition party in Switzerland is trying to introduce a bill to allow workarounds to Switzerland's constitutionally mandated neutrality by allowing countries to do get releases for ammo/weaponry they've purchased, while still forbidding arms/ammo to be directly sent from Switzerland to a combatant. The chances of it passing seem poor at the moment, and will take a while regardless. 

The way European military industrial complex works is that many systems are built, supplied, and maintained by multi nation consortiums, in much the same way US systems are built in multiple states. It helps to spread the wealth, spread the costs, and get more populations on board in supporting their manufacture. I'm talking 10 nation, 14 nation consortiums. Which is fine in peacetime, but sure makes for a hell of a mess when rapid escalation in production would be nice, or if everyone has to get on board to give permission for export. 

The Swiss opposition leader has cited this as a threat to their defense industry, which it certainly is. Switzerland isn't a massive producer of arms, but military exports do make up around 1-2% of their GDP, so it's not inconsequential, either. 

[BamaATL 16593]

Based on the recon we are seeing in the Black Sea as to Russian missile boats, I wonder if the Ukrainians could rig up a jdam to utilize a surface torpedo.  If my math is correct, from Odessa, to where that fleet is approximately 200 to 300 miles.  If a jdam glide profile is about 40ish miles, with a surface torpedo effective firing range being about 24 miles, they would need to fly out somewhere between 140 to 240 miles to pull it off.  Of course this presumes that they could drop from that distance at altitude without being detected or fast in fast out sort of sortie.  It would be risky, but it sure would be nice to see some more Russian tonnage at the bottom of the Black Sea.  Of course all of that would depend on whether the Ukrainians have surface torpedos. 

[bolverk 29656]

Rough start to the day in Kyiv.

Edited March 9, 2023 by bolverk

[BamaATL 16593]

So after this strike, hopefully Russia is out of cruise missiles and not able to do this again for a time.  I got to looking to see if we had anything that could intercept a cruise missile from say Poland, while inbound.  I don't think this would constitute an escalation, but nevertheless it appears to be a moot point.  The Patriot PAC 3 appears to the longest range published cruise missile defense system we have at a range of 40km.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/patriot_pac3.htm

Additionally, it would appear we have a gap between this system and longer range interception capability as pretty much everything was designed with ICBM's in mind to protect our physical borders.  This of course makes sense and would have been the primary goal, at least initially.  Apparently, in 2019 this gap was recognized in Congress (although I am certain in many other circles far earlier) budget planning, with funding for $287 million in development.  So unless something has been developed off the books, a possibility, we have an issue in the since that even if we wanted to intervene in this sort of attack, we have no recourse other than to have the PAC 3 on the ground in country.  Additional bad news, the few Patriot systems that have been pledged or in-process of arriving are not nearly enough to thwart an attack of this size.  Now that isn't to say that the other air defense from NATO wouldn't be effective, it's just to say that if you look strictly at Patriot systems what is pledged isn't nearly enough.  

What is a bit odd to me is that typically when we create an offensive weapon, one of the first things we do is figure out how to defend against said weapon, with the realization that its possible for that very weapon to come back at us, or for someone to mimic it.  Considering the cruise missiles were first designed in the 1960s, the Patriot's in the late 60s, you would think we would have invested in this very problem.  What is clear is that either we never did it because of costs and it being deemed not necessary, or it's been done so clandestinely and it's still black.  I suppose this exact scenario was just never considered or too costly.  

As I said, I'm not sure we could act in this situation, but it's frustrating to know that even if we wanted to we didn't have the capability, or so it appears.  

[SL Xpress 7513]

31 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So after this strike, hopefully Russia is out of cruise missiles and not able to do this again for a time.  I got to looking to see if we had anything that could intercept a cruise missile from say Poland, while inbound.  I don't think this would constitute an escalation, but nevertheless it appears to be a moot point.  The Patriot PAC 3 appears to the longest range published cruise missile defense system we have at a range of 40km.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/patriot_pac3.htm

Additionally, it would appear we have a gap between this system and longer range interception capability as pretty much everything was designed with ICBM's in mind to protect our physical borders.  This of course makes sense and would have been the primary goal, at least initially.  Apparently, in 2019 this gap was recognized in Congress (although I am certain in many other circles far earlier) budget planning, with funding for $287 million in development.  So unless something has been developed off the books, a possibility, we have an issue in the since that even if we wanted to intervene in this sort of attack, we have no recourse other than to have the PAC 3 on the ground in country.  Additional bad news, the few Patriot systems that have been pledged or in-process of arriving are not nearly enough to thwart an attack of this size.  Now that isn't to say that the other air defense from NATO wouldn't be effective, it's just to say that if you look strictly at Patriot systems what is pledged isn't nearly enough.  

What is a bit odd to me is that typically when we create an offensive weapon, one of the first things we do is figure out how to defend against said weapon, with the realization that its possible for that very weapon to come back at us, or for someone to mimic it.  Considering the cruise missiles were first designed in the 1960s, the Patriot's in the late 60s, you would think we would have invested in this very problem.  What is clear is that either we never did it because of costs and it being deemed not necessary, or it's been done so clandestinely and it's still black.  I suppose this exact scenario was just never considered or too costly.  

As I said, I'm not sure we could act in this situation, but it's frustrating to know that even if we wanted to we didn't have the capability, or so it appears.  

They've looked at the F-35:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-35-could-detect-track-and-possibly-shoot-down-ballistic-missiles-by-2025-head-of-the-u-s-missile-defense-agency-says/

[atomheartbevo 89630]

26 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

What is a bit odd to me is that typically when we create an offensive weapon, one of the first things we do is figure out how to defend against said weapon, with the realization that its possible for that very weapon to come back at us, or for someone to mimic it.  Considering the cruise missiles were first designed in the 1960s, the Patriot's in the late 60s, you would think we would have invested in this very problem.  What is clear is that either we never did it because of costs and it being deemed not necessary, or it's been done so clandestinely and it's still black.  I suppose this exact scenario was just never considered or too costly.  

As I said, I'm not sure we could act in this situation, but it's frustrating to know that even if we wanted to we didn't have the capability, or so it appears.  

Realistically speaking, only a few countries would be truly capable of launching a large number of cruise missiles at the continental USA, or even Alaska/Hawaii, and out of that number, only a few (Russia, China) would be in a position in the future to do so (because they fucked up somehow) and it's safe to say that anybody who does was going to be eating a shit sandwich in return.  That was the defense - Mutually Assured Destruction.

I think we just always assumed that we wouldn't be facing anybody willing and capable of launching truly long-range missiles at us because they knew what they'd be getting in return (and conventional or nuke didn't matter - if they let fly, we weren't going to wait for impacts to determine that) - in that regard, the PATRIOT made perfect sense for its role (proven in the first Gulf War) as did other short-range systems.

[Rimbo 25915]

we should make Moscow glow in the dark

[MissingInAction 25020]

14 hours ago, elfenix said:

Nsiap: Russian Soldiers Are Attacking Ukrainians With Shovels, UK Intelligence Says

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ej4w/russian-soldiers-are-attacking-ukrainians-with-shovels-uk-intelligence-says

That link gave my phone Hitler aids.

[atomheartbevo 89630]

Around 80 missiles. Ukraine got 34 or so.  They killed people out as far as Lviv.  UN is having an urgent meeting as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant lost off-site power.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-64899277

[atomheartbevo 89630]

Shitshow

Accusations = confessions

 

[AUS-97HORN 11757]

I guess the missiles came from the Black Sea ships,  cant quite understand how the UKr take down number was well under 50% this time around,   Maybe they got overwhealmed.    and Lyiv getting hit is no bueno, there are a lot of foreign volunteers there along with more than a few embassy workers

[956 Worldwide 34704]

27 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

I guess the missiles came from the Black Sea ships,  cant quite understand how the UKr take down number was well under 50% this time around,   Maybe they got overwhealmed.    and Lyiv getting hit is no bueno, there are a lot of foreign volunteers there along with more than a few embassy workers

Russia is claiming they used Kinzhal missiles, and they really scattered the strikes across the country. Highly likely the net of air defenses was both overwhelmed and too far away in some cases.  
 

I am pretty sure they also launched from Tu-95s and other strategic aircraft operating in Belarusian and Russian air space. 
 

This is what Russia can do now, terror tactics are about all they have left. Almost certainly they failed to really destroy critical nodes and equipment. 

[Chad Fuck 17661]

Shitshow

[/url]

Accusations = confessions

 

Well, there it is.

Looking forward to the inevitable tweet showing this barbarian has been blown to bits.

[Chad Fuck 17661]

Russia is claiming they used Kinzhal missiles, and they really scattered the strikes across the country. Highly likely the net of air defenses was both overwhelmed and too far away in some cases.  
 
I am pretty sure they also launched from Tu-95s and other strategic aircraft operating in Belarusian and Russian air space. 
 
This is what Russia can do now, terror tactics are about all they have left. Almost certainly they failed to really destroy critical nodes and equipment. 

I saw that they are considering giving Aim-120s to the Ukes. Is there enough reach on those to launch against the Bears launching from Belarus/Russia?

General question not only for 956.

[KYHorn 17017]

 

[Pato del Muerto 52487]

[956 Worldwide 34704]

12 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I saw that they are considering giving Aim-120s to the Ukes. Is there enough reach on those to launch against the Bears launching from Belarus/Russia?

General question not only for 956.

The AIM-120 at its best has something like 150 kilometer range and the Kh-55 the Russians launch from their bombers have a range of 2,500 km or more, so there’s not a lot to do about those.

[BamaATL 16593]

17 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I saw that they are considering giving Aim-120s to the Ukes. Is there enough reach on those to launch against the Bears launching from Belarus/Russia?

General question not only for 956.

Well, I just looked up our stockpile, and its apparently 5100, with these being actively phased out.  The down side, its they book value at $1.1 million per unit, so a significant cost could be applied to the draw down.  Obviously this doesn't include the potential use of creative accounting that could be applied.  The other problem I think exists is that I'm not sure the Ukrainians have enough planes for these to make enough of a difference.  Which again circles us back around to the thought that gee, F'16's would be sure be nice for them to have, but you know...

[KYHorn 17017]

 

 

 Good point here that would be a helpful reminder to reluctant US politicians: 

 

[atomheartbevo 89630]

36 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is what Russia can do now, terror tactics are about all they have left. Almost certainly they failed to really destroy critical nodes and equipment. 

It took them a while to build up that stockpile.

Meanwhile, their soldiers on the front lines are running low on ammo, they have units that are balking at deploying because they are having ammo issues or other supply issues (or don't even know where they are supposed to go).

And so Russia, rather than save up and use those missiles against a potential Ukrainian counter-offensive in the near-future, uses them against civilian targets.  It's a move that over the course of the last year, has proven to actually increase military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and increases sanctions against Russia, which hurts the Russian soldiers on the front line.

[KYHorn 17017]

 

 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17527]

7 hours ago, BamaATL said:

So after this strike, hopefully Russia is out of cruise missiles and not able to do this again for a time.  I got to looking to see if we had anything that could intercept a cruise missile from say Poland, while inbound.  I don't think this would constitute an escalation, but nevertheless it appears to be a moot point.  The Patriot PAC 3 appears to the longest range published cruise missile defense system we have at a range of 40km.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/patriot_pac3.htm

Additionally, it would appear we have a gap between this system and longer range interception capability as pretty much everything was designed with ICBM's in mind to protect our physical borders.  This of course makes sense and would have been the primary goal, at least initially.  Apparently, in 2019 this gap was recognized in Congress (although I am certain in many other circles far earlier) budget planning, with funding for $287 million in development.  So unless something has been developed off the books, a possibility, we have an issue in the since that even if we wanted to intervene in this sort of attack, we have no recourse other than to have the PAC 3 on the ground in country.  Additional bad news, the few Patriot systems that have been pledged or in-process of arriving are not nearly enough to thwart an attack of this size.  Now that isn't to say that the other air defense from NATO wouldn't be effective, it's just to say that if you look strictly at Patriot systems what is pledged isn't nearly enough.  

What is a bit odd to me is that typically when we create an offensive weapon, one of the first things we do is figure out how to defend against said weapon, with the realization that its possible for that very weapon to come back at us, or for someone to mimic it.  Considering the cruise missiles were first designed in the 1960s, the Patriot's in the late 60s, you would think we would have invested in this very problem.  What is clear is that either we never did it because of costs and it being deemed not necessary, or it's been done so clandestinely and it's still black.  I suppose this exact scenario was just never considered or too costly.  

As I said, I'm not sure we could act in this situation, but it's frustrating to know that even if we wanted to we didn't have the capability, or so it appears.  

There are plenty of NATO systems that can intercept cruise missiles, and at fairly long ranges. Ballistic missiles are different. Very few systems have any capability of engaging a ballistic missile. Patriot is the only system we could realistically deploy in Ukraine. 

17 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Russia is claiming they used Kinzhal missiles, and they really scattered the strikes across the country. Highly likely the net of air defenses was both overwhelmed and too far away in some cases.  
 

I am pretty sure they also launched from Tu-95s and other strategic aircraft operating in Belarusian and Russian air space. 
 

This is what Russia can do now, terror tactics are about all they have left. Almost certainly they failed to really destroy critical nodes and equipment. 

Yeah, not a ton of options if Russia is going to mass deploy weapon systems like this for terror operations. You can protect critical targets with Patriot, but you can't protect whole cities. This is a really expensive way for Russia to terrorize the population. Frankly, using this system in this way suggests Russia is desperate for any sort of positive momentum. 

9 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I saw that they are considering giving Aim-120s to the Ukes. Is there enough reach on those to launch against the Bears launching from Belarus/Russia?

General question not only for 956.

No. Even extremely long range systems like Meteor (or our upcoming AIM-260) wouldn't have enough range to prevent strikes like this, at least for cities like Kyiv. Additional range could potentially provide protection for cities deep within Ukraine like Lviv. But you'd still have to have air defenses/fighters deployed fairly far forward. Just for reference, Russia says the range for the Kinzhal is over 2,000 km. While this is almost certainly an exaggeration, I think the evidence indicates ranges of 1,000 to 1,200 km to be feasible. 

[KYHorn 17017]

Good thread that makes some well-articulated points. There's more beyond the 3 I'm posting.

 

 

 

[BamaATL 16593]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It took them a while to build up that stockpile.

Meanwhile, their soldiers on the front lines are running low on ammo, they have units that are balking at deploying because they are having ammo issues or other supply issues (or don't even know where they are supposed to go).

And so Russia, rather than save up and use those missiles against a potential Ukrainian counter-offensive in the near-future, uses them against civilian targets.  It's a move that over the course of the last year, has proven to actually increase military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and increases sanctions against Russia, which hurts the Russian soldiers on the front line.

The problem isn't that they do anything that is smart, they don't; it's that essentially what we have is a toddler with a missiles.  Ordinarily, I wouldn't attempt an analogy that makes kills a child seem acceptable, but in this instance, I'm just not clever enough to do it.  

[Dahobbs 17527]

35 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The AIM-120 at its best has something like 150 kilometer range and the Kh-55 the Russians launch from their bombers have a range of 2,500 km or more, so there’s not a lot to do about those.

Subsonic cruise missiles like that can be dealt with by normal air defenses, as Ukraine as demonstrated. And it wouldn't hurt to have aircraft able to assist with longer range weapons like the AIM-120, but it isn't critical. And their assistance would be in shooting down the missiles, not preventing them from launching (at least for Ukraine). 

[morehornsepower 887]

Yet another example of Russia striking civilian targets 100s of miles/kilometers from the front lines.  At some point, we need to have a level playing field and give Ukraine the ability to hit targets 100s of miles/kilometers from the front lines as well.  I can't recommend hitting civilian targets (but then again, my home isn't being leveled either) - but there are plenty of military targets within that range.  Russia doesn't seem to think of their actions as escalation...and it is beyond time for them to get to the FO phase of this particular FA.

[BamaATL 16593]

12 minutes ago, morehornsepower said:

Yet another example of Russia striking civilian targets 100s of miles/kilometers from the front lines.  At some point, we need to have a level playing field and give Ukraine the ability to hit targets 100s of miles/kilometers from the front lines as well.  I can't recommend hitting civilian targets (but then again, my home isn't being leveled either) - but there are plenty of military targets within that range.  Russia doesn't seem to think of their actions as escalation...and it is beyond time for them to get to the FO phase of this particular FA.

I'd like for us to signal intent to them.  I realize that this would be an escalation but it's time to send a signal that nuclear blackmail isn't going to deter our resolve.  With that in mind, I would like us to remove our embassy, burn all necessary documents, and in turn expel their embassy and staff from the U.S. (not the U.N.) That's a pretty big shot across the bow letting them know that we are preparing for, not dedicated to, going hot over this.  From there I can think of several other steps that in turn signal intent, but give them the opportunity to turn back.  The problem with this strategy is that it can't be a bluff on our part.  If we go down this sort of road, we'd have to be prepared to see the matter thru, otherwise our credibility would be lost.  

Of course the other strategy is to the stay the course, be patient, and watch them internally self destruct.  I'm not overly patient, but I most concede, this is the most likely and best course of action and what we will do.  

[The Dog 44019]

Paper Skies is back:

 

[atomheartbevo 89630]

5 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Of course the other strategy is to the stay the course, be patient, and watch them internally self destruct.  I'm not overly patient, but I most concede, this is the most likely and best course of action and what we will do.  

They will self-destruct.  It may not be one single incident, but it'll reach a point where they either pull everything back to a few areas (maybe even focusing 100% on Crimea) or Ukraine will push them.  We know they cannot replace the vehicles they are losing on a daily basis - their ability to manufacture new tanks for instance, is very limited, and can only replace a fraction of what's being lost.  We know they are having logistics and personnel problems (not just the lack of discipline, but the lack of management and keeping them focused and/or even just getting them into the fight).  They are having conscription problems of some kind if they are using the court system to pull criminals into the regular Russian military (and not just PMCs) - granted that could be political and Putin being scared of conscripting heavily in the large cities, but there is nothing on the horizon that says they can fix any of those issues - this isn't 1944 where they provide the manpower and the United States provides the trucks, aircraft, etc.

And the fact that this is literally their backyard and they can't fix these issues is huge.  The US made it look easy with the first and second Gulf Wars, with Afghanistan, etc., but all of that institutional knowledge of logistics and personnel management and deployment that we put on display in 1990-1991, and 2001 and on, took decades to build up stretching back to continuous deployments to Asia (Vietnam and South Korea/Japan) and Europe from the 1950s on.  

The crystal ball is murky.  You'd think the Russians would be saving all of their missiles to slam Ukraine in one massive wave when Ukraine kicks off whatever counter-offensive that is being cooked up.  This was a major hit over the past 24 hours, but it's still spread out enough that Ukraine will have things back up and running fairly quickly.  If they had waited another month or two and doubled or tripled their stockpile, they could have put a much more serious hurt on Ukraine, as a lot more missiles probably would have gotten through.

[BamaATL 16593]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They will self-destruct.  It may not be one single incident, but it'll reach a point where they either pull everything back to a few areas (maybe even focusing 100% on Crimea) or Ukraine will push them.  We know they cannot replace the vehicles they are losing on a daily basis - their ability to manufacture new tanks for instance, is very limited, and can only replace a fraction of what's being lost.  We know they are having logistics and personnel problems (not just the lack of discipline, but the lack of management and keeping them focused and/or even just getting them into the fight).  They are having conscription problems of some kind if they are using the court system to pull criminals into the regular Russian military (and not just PMCs) - granted that could be political and Putin being scared of conscripting heavily in the large cities, but there is nothing on the horizon that says they can fix any of those issues - this isn't 1944 where they provide the manpower and the United States provides the trucks, aircraft, etc.

And the fact that this is literally their backyard and they can't fix these issues is huge.  The US made it look easy with the first and second Gulf Wars, with Afghanistan, etc., but all of that institutional knowledge of logistics and personnel management and deployment that we put on display in 1990-1991, and 2001 and on, took decades to build up stretching back to continuous deployments to Asia (Vietnam and South Korea/Japan) and Europe from the 1950s on.  

The crystal ball is murky.  You'd think the Russians would be saving all of their missiles to slam Ukraine in one massive wave when Ukraine kicks off whatever counter-offensive that is being cooked up.  This was a major hit over the past 24 hours, but it's still spread out enough that Ukraine will have things back up and running fairly quickly.  If they had waited another month or two and doubled or tripled their stockpile, they could have put a much more serious hurt on Ukraine, as a lot more missiles probably would have gotten through.

I agree, but it doesn't mean I don't ever more angry each time they bomb civilians.  

[956 Worldwide 34704]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Subsonic cruise missiles like that can be dealt with by normal air defenses, as Ukraine as demonstrated. And it wouldn't hurt to have aircraft able to assist with longer range weapons like the AIM-120, but it isn't critical. And their assistance would be in shooting down the missiles, not preventing them from launching (at least for Ukraine). 

Yes, more fighters with modern systems would be helpful in an air defense role but there isn’t an air to air missile in our inventory that will allow them to shoot down the Bears and Blackjacks launching them without flying into Russian airspace. 
 
Better fighters and kit will allow them to do what they’re doing now, but better. It won’t unlock the ability to hit Russia in Russia. 

[956 Worldwide 34704]

34 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They will self-destruct.  It may not be one single incident, but it'll reach a point where they either pull everything back to a few areas (maybe even focusing 100% on Crimea) or Ukraine will push them.  We know they cannot replace the vehicles they are losing on a daily basis - their ability to manufacture new tanks for instance, is very limited, and can only replace a fraction of what's being lost.  We know they are having logistics and personnel problems (not just the lack of discipline, but the lack of management and keeping them focused and/or even just getting them into the fight).  They are having conscription problems of some kind if they are using the court system to pull criminals into the regular Russian military (and not just PMCs) - granted that could be political and Putin being scared of conscripting heavily in the large cities, but there is nothing on the horizon that says they can fix any of those issues - this isn't 1944 where they provide the manpower and the United States provides the trucks, aircraft, etc.

And the fact that this is literally their backyard and they can't fix these issues is huge.  The US made it look easy with the first and second Gulf Wars, with Afghanistan, etc., but all of that institutional knowledge of logistics and personnel management and deployment that we put on display in 1990-1991, and 2001 and on, took decades to build up stretching back to continuous deployments to Asia (Vietnam and South Korea/Japan) and Europe from the 1950s on.  

The crystal ball is murky.  You'd think the Russians would be saving all of their missiles to slam Ukraine in one massive wave when Ukraine kicks off whatever counter-offensive that is being cooked up.  This was a major hit over the past 24 hours, but it's still spread out enough that Ukraine will have things back up and running fairly quickly.  If they had waited another month or two and doubled or tripled their stockpile, they could have put a much more serious hurt on Ukraine, as a lot more missiles probably would have gotten through.

This attack is the type of thing that the U.S. would have done to Iraq back in the days when we got super-pissed at them for stuff. In a contested war like Russia has, “signaling” and “retaliation” attacks for Bryansk don’t make much sense or have much value. To me, this is a tell for one of two options, maybe both: 

1. Putin is still interfering in military decisions and they’re keeping him happy with fireworks.

2. The Russians are floundering and have admitted to themselves they don’t have a clear path to actual victory. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

41 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They will self-destruct.  It may not be one single incident, but it'll reach a point where they either pull everything back to a few areas (maybe even focusing 100% on Crimea) or Ukraine will push them.  We know they cannot replace the vehicles they are losing on a daily basis - their ability to manufacture new tanks for instance, is very limited, and can only replace a fraction of what's being lost.  We know they are having logistics and personnel problems (not just the lack of discipline, but the lack of management and keeping them focused and/or even just getting them into the fight).  They are having conscription problems of some kind if they are using the court system to pull criminals into the regular Russian military (and not just PMCs) - granted that could be political and Putin being scared of conscripting heavily in the large cities, but there is nothing on the horizon that says they can fix any of those issues - this isn't 1944 where they provide the manpower and the United States provides the trucks, aircraft, etc.

And the fact that this is literally their backyard and they can't fix these issues is huge.  The US made it look easy with the first and second Gulf Wars, with Afghanistan, etc., but all of that institutional knowledge of logistics and personnel management and deployment that we put on display in 1990-1991, and 2001 and on, took decades to build up stretching back to continuous deployments to Asia (Vietnam and South Korea/Japan) and Europe from the 1950s on.  

The crystal ball is murky.  You'd think the Russians would be saving all of their missiles to slam Ukraine in one massive wave when Ukraine kicks off whatever counter-offensive that is being cooked up.  This was a major hit over the past 24 hours, but it's still spread out enough that Ukraine will have things back up and running fairly quickly.  If they had waited another month or two and doubled or tripled their stockpile, they could have put a much more serious hurt on Ukraine, as a lot more missiles probably would have gotten through.

i think the world is shady enough that enough indians, chinamen, sub saharan africans, dprk keep them supplied longer than we want.