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 - 07-31-2022

(07-31-2022, 01:29 PM)paloalto Wrote:  There have been dozens of upgrades, -9X is the current one.  AIM-9X was designed for air-to-air use but was recently approved for use with Multi-Mission Launcher which is basically a truck with 15 launch tubes.  It could be used in Ukraine.

As I understand it, the Multi-Mission Launcher is not yet a "real" program in the US army. The adoption of Iron Dome followed by the subsequent resurrection of the MML has created a bit of a burp in the system. I don't think there are any operational ones as of now, but the Army is "committed" to this system (until it isn't). You may have better data on this than I do. Given that, we won't see the MML in Ukraine anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Changing the topic; what is the U. S. endgame in Ukraine?

Stay the course until all fighting age Russian men are killed?  Not going to happen.

Stay the course until Putin gets frustrated and surrenders?  Not going to happen.

Stay the course until Putin runs out of money?  Not going to happen.  India, China, Pakistan and an increasing number of countries will buy Russian oil and gas.

Negotiated settlement?  Won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.  It would only be a matter of time until Putin violates the treaty.

This is a great question, and one that "undoubtedly" was thrashed out "at the highest levels" before the commitment was made to support Ukraine in an effort to "win" this war :-).  There are obviously some variants of the possible reasons Russia would leave the Ukraine. Most of these involve Putin being removed somehow and replaced with "someone more reasonable". While many of these scenarios are possible, it is unclear what, if anything, either the west or Ukraine can do to make them happen.

Hope is not a plan. Unfortunately, as long as Russia is willing to continue fighting, this war will continue. Realistically, Ukraine is not in any position to dictate terms on the steps of the Kremlin and never will be. The west needs to establish a commercial and diplomatic effort that can damage Russia enough to make them quit. This effort, coupled with significant real reverses in Ukraine is the only thing I can think of to end this mess. For certain the EU needs to get off Russian gas and petroleum by the end of 2022, worst case. The US has to ensure that the flow of technology to Russia is shut off and kept shut off. We are not doing enough in that area. Most importantly, the rest of the world has to be convinced that dealing economically with Russia is not worth the risk. Oil tankers need to be seized today before Russia has alternative delivery means, for instance. Additionally a major information campaign has to be put in place to make sure the rest of the world, including the Russian people, are fully aware of what is going on in Ukraine. Tall order, but it needs to happen.

There are serious military issues in Ukraine that eventually (if we are lucky) will need to be addressed. When the Russians are being pushed back to their own borders, more and more of the artillery fire (for example) will come from inside Russia. Right now, lots of the cruise missile launches are from inside Russian airspace. For Ukraine to expel the Russians, they are going to need to suppress lots of this fire. How do they do that without firing artillery/missiles into Russia? Today, this isn't a problem, but eventually it will be.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-31-2022

(07-30-2022, 10:24 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Interesting that the senate is proposing money for ATACMS while Army did not request it. Hopefully bipartisan push to send it to Ukraine will happen.



Ukraine used a drone to attack Sevastopol, a first in the war, and on their Navy day. 



https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1553607086986215424?s=20&t=84ojnki-uc3oVWSLCr1MGA

It appears that it wasn't "Ukraine" in an organized sense but rather some resident of Sevastopol with Ukrainian sympathies who made his own drone and used it. In a way, that is even worse for the Russians, as it shows they are not in as complete control of Crimea as they originally thought.Having an effective "fifth column" is undoubtedly something the Russians weren't expecting.

Quote:If Russia can't defend one of their most important military facilities from a slow drone strike, imagine the devastation a few ATACMS missiles traveling close to Mach 3 could wreak.

Indeed! A headquarters of this type is a perfect target. There are also many military warehouses and POL storage facilities in Crimea that one ATACMS each could make go boom big time. Too bad they aren't already in country even if they are not authorized to use them as of yet (I am being optimistic). It is just a crime to waste all these opportunities. ATACMS don't have a very big warhead, "only" 500 lbs, but that is plenty to do the job, especially coming downhill at  Mach 3.

These weapons would render any significant concentration of material and troops at risk throughout all the occupied territories. In and of itself they are not "war winners", but they certainly will make Russia's tactical situation much more difficult, decrease Russian logistics capability, and make large scale movements of ANYTHING costly. A lot to like.

The bad news is that ATACMS is a bit of a stepchild in the Army right now. The precision strike missile (PrSM) is supposed to replace it and the Army was not keen on buying a bunch of the "old" ATACMS. The Senate may just be doing a correction, or it could be that the Army knew that there was an "earmark" coming to save them and did not ask for the money in their budget.

It also seems nobody in Washington is really concerned that Ukraine is going to run us out of "regular" GMLRS missiles. IMHO it would be wise to ramp up production "just in case". We need to replace what was already committed and prepare for a larger inventory of HIMARS/M270s in Ukraine. More launchers won't necessarily increase rocket usage much, but it will greatly increase the probability of one being in range of targets as they emerge. 16 just isn't enough for a country the size of Ukraine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-31-2022

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's 22 including the M270s right? I've seen footage of at least one in use.

I agree more launchers would be good, I'm thinking ~40 is reasonable and feasible.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-31-2022

On China deterrence, my prediction (and I put my money on it already) is that we’re about to see a global military build up.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Softball Fan - 07-31-2022

(07-31-2022, 07:46 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  On China deterrence, my prediction (and I put my money on it already) is that we’re about to see a global military build up.

Should I sell all my Tesla stock, about 50% of my portfolio I bought seven years ago when my son started working there and held on to it.  What will be the implication for Tesla, Apple, and the U.S. companies with facilities in China?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-31-2022

You invested better than I did so I defer to you.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-31-2022

(07-31-2022, 07:00 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong but it's 22 including the M270s right? I've seen footage of at least one in use.

You are probably about as close to "right" as one can be given the understandably opaque public announcements. What I THINK I know is that the US has promised and delivered 12 HIMARS. The US promised an additional 4 more HIMARS on July 25, but AFAIK, they are not there yet. The UK has promised and delivered 3 M270s. Germany has promised and (finally) delivered 3 MARS II systems. The German systems were promised June 19 and delivered July 26. So that is 12 + 4 + 3 +3 or 22 launchers.

UPDATE: The 4 HIMARS promised on July 25 arrived today, August 1.

Quote:I agree more launchers would be good, I'm thinking ~40 is reasonable and feasible.

I agree that something on that order would be a "good thing". We really need to quit drib and drabing them though. It can't be lack of Ukrainian operators, as they teach these systems to relatively large groups, not 12 people at a time.

UPDATE:
https://english.nv.ua/nation/us-already-trains-200-ukrainians-to-use-himars-ukraine-news-50257934.html
Plenty of trained folks for 40 HIMARS, maybe for a bit more. More in the pipeline. The people are not the problem.

Four a month gets them to 40 in November/December, when the weather sucks and probably the war has slowed down anyway. They need these weapons now in Kherson and in the Donbas. As Patton said, "A violent plan well executed today always beats a perfect plan executed next week". It is even more true of a plan executed in three or four months.

The Ukraine has at various times indicated they wanted 100 MLRS systems. While I am not against that as such, I think it is important that Ukraine realizes it can't fight Russia like Russians using NATO weapons. I kind of got the idea they wanted to use the MLRS to bang away head to head with the 1000 or so Russian artillery pieces in the Dombas. That won't work, and to their credit the Ukrainians seem to be using these systems to good advantage in mostly appropriate ways. That may be partly due to the fact they don't have enough systems to do otherwise. It is important however that they don't "revert" to Russian tactical doctrine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-31-2022

(07-31-2022, 07:53 PM)paloalto Wrote:  

(07-31-2022, 07:46 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  On China deterrence, my prediction (and I put my money on it already) is that we’re about to see a global military build up.

Should I sell all my Tesla stock, about 50% of my portfolio I bought seven years ago when my son started working there and held on to it.  What will be the implication for Tesla, Apple, and the U.S. companies with facilities in China?

Lockheed has done better than most of the rest of my (small) portfolio.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - newguy - 08-01-2022

i just read that Russia is plundering gold from Sudan in order to finance their war in Ukraine, according to investigative journalism from CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/africa/sudan-russia-gold-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 08-01-2022

(08-01-2022, 01:45 AM)newguy Wrote:  i just read that Russia is plundering gold from Sudan in order to finance their war in Ukraine, according to investigative journalism from CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/africa/sudan-russia-gold-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html

I'm not sure what can be done about it, without having Russia threaten more violence.  But I hope someone can figure out something.

That article is dated Friday July 29.  I hadn't noticed it in Google News until I searched for it.
A follow-up article:  https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/31/africa/sudan-protests-military-rule-intl-hnk/index.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-01-2022

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-31
https://www.yahoo.com/news/battle-kherson-why-matters-094600378.html
The Kherson article hits on lots of points that I think are very cogent. It points out the importance of the fact Ukraine has forced Russia to respond to Ukrainian advances for the first time. More importantly, this article restates the Ukrainian view that the battle in Kherson Oblast will be to occupy the various strong points each side maintains and that there is a lot of open ground between them that is effectively no mans land.

Quote:The only sure way to dislodge Russian troops from established positions is to mount a large-scale counteroffensive, following up artillery fire with assaults combining armor and infantry. This may become necessary although for the moment the Ukrainians may have insufficient brigades that are fully equipped and prepared to mount such an attack with confidence.

It should say mechanized infantry, as IFV protection is required in an artillery heavy area. This is the crux of it. Does Ukraine have those forces and the will to use them? If not, the results of this offensive will be quite limited. As the article points out, they may be able to force the Russians to evacuate Kherson city itself by making it logistically untenable. However, that is very much second place to cutting them off and forcing a surrender. If they live to fight another day, they will, and Ukraine may not beat them in a rematch.

The conduct of the rest of the war is also addressed. The new weapons are credited with reducing the Russian artillery fire from 20,000 rounds a day to "ten times less". How much of that is a natural pause for the Russian redeployment is not knowable but the Ukrainians at least are attributing it to the destruction of ammunition supplies, which is plausible. However, as the article also points out Russia has made some gains in the Donetsk area anyway. While it is unclear how the Russian redeployment will work out, it does appear they intend to actually INCREASE the number of areas where they are undertaking offensive operations.

This de-centralization of the Russian offense could be partially in response to the ability of the Ukraine to destroy large concentrations of resources at greater depth than before. Spreading out and attacking across broader areas could reduce the need for logistics on a large scale, trading that for having to supply more disparate operations. That doesn't sound like a good tradeoff for a logistically challenged army, but maybe it is their best option. It also matches Putin's expanded war aims. The exact reasoning remains unknown.

It is interesting to note that Ukraine was able to destroy a train carrying Russian troops and material redeploying to the south. That is great news. Apparently the rail line is at least in some places within HIMARS range. Of course, with ATACMS all of it would be :-). Making redeployment costly has to be a major Ukrainian goal. Every Russian asset destroyed in transit is one they don't have to destroy while it is shooting at them.

Unfortunately, the slow rate at which the US supplied the HIMARS to Ukraine created an interval where Russia would be effectively "immunized" by their use. They were not available in large enough numbers to kill the "organism" or to even make it real sick, but it did allow the organism to adapt to their presence. If those 50 ammunition dumps had all gone up on the same day, not weeks apart, the ability of the Russians to conduct offensive operations would have temporarily collapsed all along the line. Ukraine could have reasonably exploited that situation by pushing the Russians back and inflicting casualties while the Russians had few/no shells. Once again, "Smack them, don't tap them" is proved true. It wouldn't have ended the war, but it would certainly have been superior to what did happen. This is an error our country repeatedly has made over many years.

It remains to be seen exactly how the Russian redeployment will work out. It is obviously imperative that Russian advances in Donetsk be stopped. If Russia can continue to "inch along" there while transferring units to Kherson Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast to do the same thing, Ukraine would be in even bigger trouble. OTOH, spreading out will hopefully create a situation where Russia is too weak to advance anywhere and Ukraine can continue to make progress in Kherson and possibly elsewhere.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 08-03-2022

Well, the US senate voted to admit Sweden and Finland into NATO by a 95-1 margin.  Sad that the guy who voted against it is a Stanford guy.

Of note, Italy’s parliament also approved, which is good, because Italians are headed to elections that the far-right parties are anticipated to do well in.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 08-04-2022

I remember a sub-thread here where some suggested it would be a negative for NATO to have Finland and Sweden join. Now the Senate is 95-1 in favor. Sounds like most people must have come on board. Certainly it’s true that Fins and Swedes have changed their finds in favor of joining. Although 7 or so countries have not yet approved, realistically, all that’s left is convincing Turkey.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-04-2022

(08-04-2022, 04:55 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  Although 7 or so countries have not yet approved, realistically, all that’s left is convincing Turkey.

Hungary was at one time a problem on this issue, but hopefully that is firmly resolved. Unfortunately, it may not be, given recent actions by Hungary regarding the EU. FWIW, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/will-hungary-block-finland-and-swedens-nato-membership-bids-203413. Turkey is headed into an election which is a bit of a wild card on this issue. Obviously I have no idea where the Turks stand on this ATM but I suspect unless Sweden extradites somebody that they can point to and claim victory, there is going to be a "problem". It also doesn't help that the F-16 deal is hung up in the Congress, although supposedly the two are not linked. The final approval from Turkey may have to wait until after the election. In the end, I believe NATO will get two new members, but unfortunately I expect it to be a bit messy and take longer than it rationally should.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 08-04-2022

Germany is now considering keeping its last three nuclear reactors running (they had previously planned to decommission them all after the Fukushima accident). This seems like a no-brainer to me. While, there are some issues in terms of capital expenses for new nuclear plants, it makes absolutely no sense to decommission already running ones.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-04-2022

(08-04-2022, 08:31 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Germany is now considering keeping its last three nuclear reactors running (they had previously planned to decommission them all after the Fukushima accident). This seems like a no-brainer to me. While, there are some issues in terms of capital expenses for new nuclear plants, it makes absolutely no sense to decommission already running ones.

BC

IMHO it never made any sense to decommission these reactors until a non-CO2 emitting replacement was in place for everything else (including home heating). The decision to do this was driven partly by safety concerns that made no sense IMHO. The German "solution" was to buy electricity from French nuclear reactors. Obviously much safer.
However, keeping the reactors on line isn't as simple as it looks. These reactors were scheduled for shutdown so lots of inspections and preventive maintenance has not been done. These are things you would do to run the reactor another 10 years but that do not affect safety in the near term. Doing these things will cost money, which is bad, but will also require taking the reactor offline at various times, which short term may be worse. Also, as EDF is brilliantly demonstrating, maintenance can uncover other problems that need fixing. This can keep the reactor shut down even longer.
Perhaps we should take another look at the "future" of Diablo Canyon? Despite the progress we have made toward clean energy, we are a long way from being there.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 08-04-2022

(08-04-2022, 09:09 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(08-04-2022, 08:31 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Germany is now considering keeping its last three nuclear reactors running (they had previously planned to decommission them all after the Fukushima accident). This seems like a no-brainer to me. While, there are some issues in terms of capital expenses for new nuclear plants, it makes absolutely no sense to decommission already running ones.

BC

IMHO it never made any sense to decommission these reactors until a non-CO2 emitting replacement was in place for everything else (including home heating). The decision to do this was driven partly by safety concerns that made no sense IMHO. The German "solution" was to buy electricity from French nuclear reactors. Obviously much safer.
However, keeping the reactors on line isn't as simple as it looks. These reactors were scheduled for shutdown so lots of inspections and preventive maintenance has not been done. These are things you would do to run the reactor another 10 years but that do not affect safety in the near term. Doing these things will cost money, which is bad, but will also require taking the reactor offline at various times, which short term may be worse. Also, as EDF is brilliantly demonstrating, maintenance can uncover other problems that need fixing. This can keep the reactor shut down even longer.
Perhaps we should take another look at the "future" of Diablo Canyon? Despite the progress we have made toward clean energy, we are a long way from being there.

Agree with this completely, Nuclear energy is one of our best options that covers most boxes in what you need, I've always been hoping California would keep Diablo open.  I think in this day and age you also need a diverse group of energy sources, especially until we can figure out a better way to store energy efficiently at a large scale.  

Germany had better keep those nuclear reactors, and preferably if possible, open back up the ones they closed.  That being said, I'll never trust Germany to do the right thing, until they actually do it...

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 08-04-2022

Looks like Liz Truss will be the next PM of the UK. I mention this only because of the relevance to Ukraine, which is that she’s a strong supporter of the aid NATO is currently providing. So one potential land mine averted for Ukraine. I don’t know enough about the inner workings of Italian politics to comment on the situation there insofar as it might affect Ukraine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 08-04-2022

I want to thank all the contributors who have the knowledge to add meaningful information to the Ukraine situation.  I know little about so much of this, but I have followed it with interest as it seems a critical event.

I will urge people to resist drifting this thread into other areas.   If those areas are worthy of general discussion on this board, then let them be their own topic.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 08-04-2022

Just to be clear, German energy policy is important to Ukraine, even though I didn’t connect the dots.  In order for Ukraine to continue to hold out against Russia, it will need support from the west. Russia is withholding natural gas from Western Europe, in an explicit bid to make European support for Ukraine costly. Thus, the ability of Germany to withstand the coming winter without large numbers of Germans freezing to death and without triggering a massive contraction in German industry is vital. Being able to maintain the three nuclear power plants scheduled for decommissioning would keep 65 TW of electricity online, which is equivalent to 7.4 million cubic feet of natural gas per hour of operation. In 2019, Germany consumed 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, so while it isn’t a make or break amount, it would represent about 2% of daily natural gas use. Remember that the EU is trying to cut natural gas consumption by 15%, so the 2% would make a dent.

BC

---