Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-22-2022

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-cat-mouse-battle-keep-120345555.html

It is clear that the anti-cruise missile battle is going to be key to the outcome of this war. Ukraine and the West has to assume that Russia will manage to obtain and continue to build such weapons. While we should do everything possible to make that impossible, we can't assume success. The article points out how the Russians are using terrain masking to make interception of these missiles difficult. The air defense system has to be in the right place or it simply will never "see" the missiles, even if it knows they are there by other sources. That is an immutable fact. Ground based radar is limited by the radar horizon.

As predicted, the two NASAMS aren't exactly changing the game. Ukraine needs lots of them, and it seems unlikely that they will get them. Norway has quite a few in storage, but they probably are obsolete models with unknown technical problems. That is a reasonable deduction based on the fact the two we sent had to be "new built". We aren't exactly expediting the build of the additional ones we promised Ukraine either it seems.

The air force of the Ukraine has very limited (if any) look-down shoot down capability. This is consistent with the known limitations of the vintage Soviet equipment they have. This capability was a known NATO advantage during the cold war. In order to defend itself against ground-hugging attacks by either cruise missiles or Russian aircraft, Ukraine needs this capability. Ground based systems can do this only if they are controlled from the air, where the radar horizon is much larger. The Mainstay can supposedly do this, but we haven't seen it do so on the Russian side. Ukraine has no such capability and it is probably impossible to develop it during a war.

Given these facts, IMO the US should immediately provide "lots" of F-16 aircraft. They do have the look-down shoot down capability. F-15s would arguable be better but they have a larger maintenance footprint. This would be a strictly defensive action by the US to allow Ukraine to interdict the Russian cruise missiles aimed at it's infrastructure and entirely proportional to the Russian's continued use of the cruise missiles. Tell Putin if he agrees no more missiles, Ukraine doesn't get this capability. Otherwise, we will supply it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 12-22-2022

If the info I see online is correct, the original cost of an F-16 was $80 million, and the US has hundreds still operational or easily modified to make operational. If the administration is willing to go this route, it seems feasible.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 12-22-2022

If this is true... wow.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/albir2024/status/1605902726881284098[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 12-22-2022

I believe last week there was a couple days where Russians made some advancements and the situation was unfavorable, but it seems mostly that was due to a major rotation of soldiers in the area, and Ukraine mostly pushed Russians back to the previous lines.  I think overall the city is pretty important, but it's also extremely well defended, and Ukraine is happy to take advantage of being the defender.  If this were back in March-May, when Ukraine had not received western artillery, Russia could concentrate all their artillery and air support, like they did in Popasna, and eventually take the town and potentially create a breakthrough.  It's been months of Russia slamming their heads against this wall, with almost no gains.  I doubt that changes anytime soon.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-22-2022

[tweet]https://twitter.com/benpauker/status/1605560744791138304?s=20&t=-NS1CAy6GJRvfmTFBA-09A[/tweet]

Of course "lack of conclusive evidence" is not the same as "they didn't do it", but even so, I always wondered about the logic of Russia sabotaging a pipeline through which it delivers gas.  I don't have any idea of who did do it, but if somehow there were evidence that someone other than Russia did it, I wouldn't be entirely surprised.

BC

---

(12-22-2022, 10:20 AM)Treefence Wrote:  I believe last week there was a couple days where Russians made some advancements and the situation was unfavorable, but it seems mostly that was due to a major rotation of soldiers in the area, and Ukraine mostly pushed Russians back to the previous lines.  I think overall the city is pretty important, but it's also extremely well defended, and Ukraine is happy to take advantage of being the defender.  If this were back in March-May, when Ukraine had not received western artillery, Russia could concentrate all their artillery and air support, like they did in Popasna, and eventually take the town and potentially create a breakthrough.  It's been months of Russia slamming their heads against this wall, with almost no gains.  I doubt that changes anytime soon.

Maybe a bit of a deliberate tactic from Ukraine?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JimmyOneschuk/status/1606044775987412992?s=20&t=-NS1CAy6GJRvfmTFBA-09A[/tweet]

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 12-22-2022

I presume the announcement about the pipeline bombing is intended to be equivalent to "They have found no conclusive evidence to tie any actor to the explosion."  I wish it were stated that way so it was clear.  

Other things that could be found:
  1)  There are many/few actors that could have achieved this explosion.  (I suspect it takes more than some drunk teenagers thinking it would be a good idea.)
  2)  The known Russian (or other actor) units that might have done this were known to be elsewhere and can be ruled out.
  3)  There was or was not evidence of concealment that requires a capability accessible to a few actors.

Remember that lack of evidence can be evidence.  If bombs drop from the sky but your radar shows no planes, that's evidence of stealth technology.

To me, this attack, and the failure to find a perpetrator, indicates a serious defense weakness in Europe.  I worry where the US has similar weaknesses.   I would have to believe this incident is serving as an alert for these weaknesses to be dealt with.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-22-2022

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-blames-ukraine-for-attack-on-leaders-deep-in-occupied-territory-11671710139?st=pleydkmny8ovpmn&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Ukranians were able to injure the Russian appointed prime minister of the Donetsk region.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Hurlburt88 - 12-23-2022

also an interesting opinion piece in the WSJ today looking down the road, predicting various paroxysms in Russia stemming from this "misadventure".   border issues, loss of influence in central asia, etc.  a lot for US to contingency plan for

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Softball Fan - 12-23-2022

I haven't been following this thread recently so this may have been discussed.   Pentagon awarded $1.2 billion to Raytheon to build six NASAMS for Ukraine.

The work to develop the NASAMS... will be completed by Nov. 28, 2025.

So three years before they get to Ukraine.  That may good for future defense if Ukraine wins the war but it doesn't help win the war.  If Ukraine loses the war the NASAMS could be sent to a NATO country or more likely kept in the U.S. arsenal.

https://sports.yahoo.com/pentagon-awards-raytheon-1-2b-132720070.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-23-2022

(12-23-2022, 07:38 PM)paloalto Wrote:  I haven't been following this thread recently so this may have been discussed.   Pentagon awarded $1.2 billion to Raytheon to build six NASAMS for Ukraine.

The work to develop the NASAMS... will be completed by Nov. 28, 2025.

So three years before they get to Ukraine.  That may good for future defense if Ukraine wins the war but it doesn't help win the war.  If Ukraine loses the war the NASAMS could be sent to a NATO country or more likely kept in the U.S. arsenal.

https://sports.yahoo.com/pentagon-awards-raytheon-1-2b-132720070.html

While I share your concerns with the excessive delays in providing NASAMS to Ukraine, I don't think it is three years away. There are support and spare parts activities also in the contract, and these activities will need to extend until well after the systems are delivered. I think those are the activities that will keep the contract alive until 2025. That said, we don't know even approximately when the next NASAMS will come off the production line for Ukraine. From a security point of view, that's fine, but I would really hope it is "soon".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-24-2022

(12-22-2022, 06:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-blames-ukraine-for-attack-on-leaders-deep-in-occupied-territory-11671710139?st=pleydkmny8ovpmn&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Ukranians were able to injure the Russian appointed prime minister of the Donetsk region.

BC

Also, injuries to Rogozin might have been “delicate” in nature.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1606425220222435329?s=61&t=qN86zkDI92CxZ0_2OqUC_g[/tweet]

Ouch.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Maple Leaf - 12-24-2022

Inside the monumental, stop-start effort to arm Ukraine - The Washington Post

This article maybe behind the paywall.  Informative article, most of the information has been previously reported.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 12-25-2022

Putin says he's ready to negotiate with all parties over Ukraine. Here's what he said in a state television interview:

"I believe that we are acting in the right direction, we are defending our national interests, the interests of our citizens, our people. And we have no other choice but to protect our citizens. We are ready to negotiate with everyone involved about acceptable solutions, but that is up to them - we are not the ones refusing to negotiate, they are".

Putin says Russia ready to negotiate over Ukraine

So...what's the most logical explanation?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-25-2022

(12-25-2022, 07:45 AM)Mick Wrote:  Putin says he's ready to negotiate with all parties over Ukraine. Here's what he said in a state television interview:

"I believe that we are acting in the right direction, we are defending our national interests, the interests of our citizens, our people. And we have no other choice but to protect our citizens. We are ready to negotiate with everyone involved about acceptable solutions, but that is up to them - we are not the ones refusing to negotiate, they are".

Putin says Russia ready to negotiate over Ukraine

So...what's the most logical explanation?

IMO the most probable (logical doesn't apply in this war :-) explanation is that Putin knows full well Ukraine is not going to negotiate at this point, so he (Putin) can appear "reasonable" without any risk of having his offer accepted. Best case for Putin would be that Ukraine comes under pressure to negotiate and is "forced" to do so. Worst case he can tell his population "See, I tried. Ukraine is crazy. They won't negotiate". Right now Russia would be happy with a cease fire that would allow them to build up their forces without having to worry about being forced to defend their ill-gotten gains. Then, when ready, they go back to war full force. Very improbable that would happen, but from Putin's point of view, its worth a shot.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-25-2022

https://www.yahoo.com/news/patriot-air-defence-system-not-183509284.html

There is an interesting comment made in this article.

Quote:But the greater purpose of this complex will be to create a certain situation on certain threatening fronts, to drive away enemy aircraft from our borders.

This could be a reference to the Russian fighters that orbit at high altitude and shoot at Ukrainian aircraft that are attacking Russian positions at low altitude. Patriot can do this, particularly with PAC-2 missiles that have the range to reach out 100 miles from the launcher. The anti-radiation missiles can also do this job. Ukraine doesn't have the ability to do this right now, probably because their S-300s don't have the right missiles available to do so. S-400s may, but it depends on the load out (and Ukraine doesn't have S-400s). Obviously one Patriot battery can't do this country-wide, but if deployed "near" an offensive operation, it could clear the sky for Ukrainian air, particularly the first time this is attempted.

The Russian aircraft can avoid being shot down by diving below the radar horizon (or shooting down the missile. Wouldn't count on that). However, if they do that they can no longer see their targets either and become useless. They can get low enough quickly enough only if they (or somebody else who tells them) detects the Patriot launch and assumes what the target is very quickly. The Russian fighters themselves probably WON'T detect the launch because it will be off axis and/or they are prosecuting their own targets. The missiles aren't nearly as detectable as an SU-25.

It is also good to know the Ukrainian's aren't going to waste Patriot interceptors on Iranian drones unless "absolutely necessary".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 12-25-2022

Nobody other than right and left wing crazies take Putin seriously. Everyone else knows he can't be trusted one iota. 

I don't see Ukraine negotiating anything until they have all their territory back. And they shouldn't. The only thing that makes sense is a DMZ between Russia and Ukraine, with the possible agreement Ukraine won't join NATO, but a trigger for Ukraine to join NATO immediately if Russia incurs its borders ever again. Seems fair and reasonable.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Hurlburt88 - 12-25-2022

It is my understanding that "discussions" are currently both active and quiet.   Given that, I am looking at everyting said and also done--such as the Patriot battery, and also Biden saying "no" this week on tanks and planes--on multiple levels.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 12-25-2022

(12-25-2022, 10:03 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote:  It is my understanding that "discussions" are currently both active and quiet.   Given that, I am looking at everyting said and also done--such as the Patriot battery, and also Biden saying "no" this week on tanks and planes--on multiple levels.

An interesting part of the WaPo article was that Ukraine first asked for a bunch of Abrams. We said no due to logistic concerns. More recently they are asking for a single symbolic Abrams as a way to essentially give room for Germany to green light leopard 2s because we provided tanks first.  

I will say it seems quite silly to say that howitzers and HIMARS and IFVs are not escalatory but a MBT is.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-25-2022

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1606021266275704851?s=46&t=sIT-IBohGq_U3yB_Z0mzWQ[/tweet]

The bit on Tucker aside (important, but largely a distraction), I agree with Kasparov down the line.  Better for Ukraine to functionally disarm Russia than worry about having to defend Lithuania.  I don’t think Putin would be that stupid, but I don’t want to count on it.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 12-25-2022

(12-25-2022, 07:45 AM)Mick Wrote:  Putin says he's ready to negotiate with all parties over Ukraine. Here's what he said in a state television interview:

"I believe that we are acting in the right direction, we are defending our national interests, the interests of our citizens, our people. And we have no other choice but to protect our citizens. We are ready to negotiate with everyone involved about acceptable solutions, but that is up to them - we are not the ones refusing to negotiate, they are".

Putin says Russia ready to negotiate over Ukraine

So...what's the most logical explanation?

Putin invaded Ukraine for domestic political reasons.  It never had anything to do with NATO or really anything else.  A quick invasion to grow Mother Russia would have been very popular.  But Putin miscalculated as did almost every other intelligence service.

Now he is in trouble.  He isn't going to win this war and is more likely to lose territory he previously took.  So he needs some deal where he can claim he got something.

The real problem for Putin is that even if Zelensky wanted a deal there is not way the Ukrainian public would accept it.  That is why Putin is bombing infrastructure and trying to make this war worse for the Ukrainian population.....

---