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 - Treefence - 09-10-2022

If you aren't following Jomini on Twitter, I highly recommend it.  He compares the success of Ukraines counter offensive to IDF's Operation Gazelle.  Hopefully we continue to hear more and more good news for Ukraine.  

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1568737425597386752?s=20&t=Xt82jXfDAArxDEW3TD5mog[/tweet]

---

Goose, when it comes future offensives, do you think the nature of how Ukraine took these cities, and the likelihood that lots of heavy equipment is being captured, will that enable future operations, and potentially sooner than one would typically expect?  I get the feeling Ukraine has a brobdingnagian opportunity to take advantage of all the chaos Russia is experiencing, and I worry a long operational pause might lead to Russia solidifying defensive lines in other areas, especially with winter coming.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-10-2022

(09-10-2022, 05:41 PM)Treefence Wrote:  If you aren't following Jomini on Twitter, I highly recommend it.  He compares the success of Ukraines counter offensive to IDF's Operation Gazelle.  Hopefully we continue to hear more and more good news for Ukraine.  

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1568737425597386752?s=20&t=Xt82jXfDAArxDEW3TD5mog
[url=https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1568737425597386752?s=20&t=Xt82jXfDAArxDEW3TD5mog][/url]
I really agree with his statement "If the ZSU General Staff can continue to logistically support its offensive in this region, it is likely likely that the Russian (sic) will lose more ground in the coming days." Ukraine needs to expand its hold around Kupyansk to the north and west. Now they have the rail and road choke point, they need to keep it.

---

Goose, when it comes future offensives, do you think the nature of how Ukraine took these cities, and the likelihood that lots of heavy equipment is being captured, will that enable future operations, and potentially sooner than one would typically expect?  I get the feeling Ukraine has a of immense proportions opportunity to take advantage of all the chaos Russia is experiencing, and I worry a long operational pause might lead to Russia solidifying defensive lines in other areas, especially with winter coming.

I agree Ukraine has a big opportunity to take advantage of the chaos in the Russian position. Any equipment captured in this advance is unlikely to matter much for several months. They Ukrainians will have to sort through it and determine how to use it. We also don't actually know for sure how much "stuff" the Russians had to leave behind. This whole thing was possible because the Russians were thin on the ground and the Ukraine was disrupting their supply lines.

I am pretty sure Ukraine will keep driving ahead (as much as it can) until it figures out where Russia will establish their next line of defense. Then they may have to maneuver a bit and that will slow them down for sure. We don't know exactly how difficult the Ukrainian logistics stress is at this point. They need food, fuel, ammunition, and vehicle maintenance. Sadly, in some cases they will need replacements. These needs may stop Ukraine before the Russians do, unfortunately. It is a bad idea to attempt to do without logistics. It will probably fail in the short run and will almost certainly fail in the long run. OTOH if Ukraine does indeed have a "fresh" mobile force that it can commit immediately, the sky is the limit. An operational pause will indeed allow the Russians time to reorganize. Ukraine will not grant them that unless and until they have no choice. We will just have to accept that outcome. Whatever else, retain Kupyansk.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 09-10-2022

(09-10-2022, 08:49 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(09-10-2022, 05:41 PM)Treefence Wrote:  If you aren't following Jomini on Twitter, I highly recommend it.  He compares the success of Ukraines counter offensive to IDF's Operation Gazelle.  Hopefully we continue to hear more and more good news for Ukraine.  

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1568737425597386752?s=20&t=Xt82jXfDAArxDEW3TD5mog
[url=https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1568737425597386752?s=20&t=Xt82jXfDAArxDEW3TD5mog][/url]
I really agree with his statement "If the ZSU General Staff can continue to logistically support its offensive in this region, it is likely likely that the Russian (sic) will lose more ground in the coming days." Ukraine needs to expand its hold around Kupyansk to the north and west. Now they have the rail and road choke point, they need to keep it.

---

Goose, when it comes future offensives, do you think the nature of how Ukraine took these cities, and the likelihood that lots of heavy equipment is being captured, will that enable future operations, and potentially sooner than one would typically expect?  I get the feeling Ukraine has a of immense proportions opportunity to take advantage of all the chaos Russia is experiencing, and I worry a long operational pause might lead to Russia solidifying defensive lines in other areas, especially with winter coming.

I agree Ukraine has a big opportunity to take advantage of the chaos in the Russian position. Any equipment captured in this advance is unlikely to matter much for several months. They Ukrainians will have to sort through it and determine how to use it. We also don't actually know for sure how much "stuff" the Russians had to leave behind. This whole thing was possible because the Russians were thin on the ground and the Ukraine was disrupting their supply lines.

I am pretty sure Ukraine will keep driving ahead (as much as it can) until it figures out where Russia will establish their next line of defense. Then they may have to maneuver a bit and that will slow them down for sure. We don't know exactly how difficult the Ukrainian logistics stress is at this point. They need food, fuel, ammunition, and vehicle maintenance. Sadly, in some cases they will need replacements. These needs may stop Ukraine before the Russians do, unfortunately. It is a bad idea to attempt to do without logistics. It will probably fail in the short run and will almost certainly fail in the long run. OTOH if Ukraine does indeed have a "fresh" mobile force that it can commit immediately, the sky is the limit. An operational pause will indeed allow the Russians time to reorganize. Ukraine will not grant them that unless and until they have no choice. We will just have to accept that outcome. Whatever else, retain Kupyansk.

Thanks Goose, that all makes sense.  Hopefully more good news keeps flowing!

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 09-11-2022

(09-10-2022, 01:45 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(09-10-2022, 11:55 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Everything old is new again…

https://twitter.com/bazaarofwar/status/1509646507804401672?s=46&t=9bkGfZnKGhni7u20glZ97A

Midway through the thread there’s a point about how having GLOC’s parallel to the front is bad.

BC

Great find BC! I have to quote this from it because it is so bang on to the situation in Kharkiv ATM

Quote:Denain is interesting because it shows the importance of the operational level of war. Unseating an enemy position by rendering its position untenable is far more efficient—and often far more effective—than defeating it in a large set-piece battle.

Thought you’d like it, and I definitely thought you’d appreciate the very quote you’d highlighted, because you’ve been saying much the same.  I have to admit I was surprised that the Russians just abandoned Izium until I read that thread.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 09-11-2022

Predictions are hard, especially about the future.

~~Yogi Berra

Also, this guy…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/samagreene/status/1568715289214464000?s=46&t=tk2RTFR0riZrFCQOeoegVA[/tweet]

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-11-2022

Regarding stopping the attacks on Kharkiv-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1568985034073247746?s=20&t=lw3jwVmAD1dGwW5yHXaouw[/tweet]

Not sure if Ukraine would use HIMARS to hit targets in Russia, but even so the evaporation of Russian positions in Kharkiv west of the Oskil will allow Ukrainian tube artillery to hit these sites. Russian artillery may need to pull back out of range of Kharkiv city.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 09-11-2022

(09-11-2022, 09:17 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Regarding stopping the attacks on Kharkiv-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1568985034073247746?s=20&t=lw3jwVmAD1dGwW5yHXaouw[/tweet]

Not sure if Ukraine would use HIMARS to hit targets in Russia, but even so the evaporation of Russian positions in Kharkiv west of the Oskil will allow Ukrainian tube artillery to hit these sites. Russian artillery may need to pull back out of range of Kharkiv city.

Time to break out the Excalibur shells? Probably want most precision munitions possible when re-taking occupied territory, to minimize damage to civilian infrastructure.

Of course, Ukraine probably can now use air power to deliver some hurt too, right?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 09-11-2022

(09-11-2022, 09:17 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Regarding stopping the attacks on Kharkiv-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1568985034073247746?s=20&t=lw3jwVmAD1dGwW5yHXaouw[/tweet]

Not sure if Ukraine would use HIMARS to hit targets in Russia, but even so the evaporation of Russian positions in Kharkiv west of the Oskil will allow Ukrainian tube artillery to hit these sites. Russian artillery may need to pull back out of range of Kharkiv city.

That is the big question, to hit Russian targets in Russia or not.  Allowing lines drawn on a map to dictate whether or not you can attack an enemy retreating over the line or do you have to simply allow them to regroup and then attack you again?  Strikes me that the UK should hit every target it can reach in Russia without crossing the border.  Invading Russia has never worked out well for anyone.  There is also the question of how much will Putin take before he does something crazy.  Crossing the border might well be a bridge too far, but would HIMARS attacks from Ukrainian territory be viewed the same?  Of course if the Ukrainians can't keep up the pressure then may all be a moot point. 
Another question is are there any more spare Migs around to donate to the Ukraine?  They seem desperate for more Air Support.  How hard is it to train up experienced pilots in another airframe, say an F 16?  Lots of people seem to now want HIMARS and we don't seem to be in a position to build more very fast.  Would we license the weapon to another country? We seem to be at a point that we need to provide even more support as now matter how fast they advanced, there have been losses.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 09-11-2022

(09-11-2022, 09:38 AM)GK3 Wrote:  1. That is the big question, to hit Russian targets in Russia or not.  Allowing lines drawn on a map to dictate whether or not you can attack an enemy retreating over the line or do you have to simply allow them to regroup and then attack you again?  

2. Strikes me that the UK should hit every target it can reach in Russia without crossing the border.  Invading Russia has never worked out well for anyone.  There is also the question of how much will Putin take before he does something crazy.  Crossing the border might well be a bridge too far, but would HIMARS attacks from Ukrainian territory be viewed the same?  Of course if the Ukrainians can't keep up the pressure then may all be a moot point. 

3. Another question is are there any more spare Migs around to donate to the Ukraine?  They seem desperate for more Air Support.  How hard is it to train up experienced pilots in another airframe, say an F 16?  Lots of people seem to now want HIMARS and we don't seem to be in a position to build more very fast.  Would we license the weapon to another country? We seem to be at a point that we need to provide even more support as now matter how fast they advanced, there have been losses.

1. I think striking in Russia would be a mistake, and that Putin would react badly.  What might be acceptable is creating a demilitarized zone.  I just don't see the Russians going away any time soon, their ego is too wrapped up in winning.

2. I've been wondering a bit about the perfect storm surrounding Putin.  In Russia, you have an army that is failing badly, a mediocre officer corps, too many conscripts that don't want to fight and fight badly, an opponent that is tough, motivated, fighting exclusively on its own territory and armed to the teeth by dozens of opponent countries who are only too willing to see Russia and Russians go down in flames.  You have what I think is a seriously "prismed" information set fed to Putin...I think the level of candor, given Putin's predilection for punishing the messenger, is lacking, and you have bad decisions being made in the first place. Currently, the economy isn't doing well despite India's and China's best efforts to prop up the Russian economy by carbon fuel purchases, and the Russian populace seems to support the war, but man have they been suffering losses.  How soon before Putin's supporters turn on Putin?  How soon before Putin's medical condition causes him to collapse?

I wonder if it's just a matter of time before the Russians resort to tactical nukes, or chemical or biological weapons. 

3. I believe new planes would have to come from Bulgaria, Poland or Slovakia. I think those are the only NATO countries that still fly MiGs. I think it would be very difficult to train experienced pilots to a level of acceptability in western jets, though I believe an experienced MiG-29 fighter could transition to the F-16. I think fifth-generation jets are out of the question for a variety of reasons.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 09-11-2022

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems Russia has fully withdrawn from Kharkiv oblast, except maybe a small section East of the Oskil river.  It seems Russia has withdrawn their forces north of Kharkiv, across the Russian border.  Assuming that is the case, it's another monumental achievement by Ukraine.  Hopefully Luhansk is next or Kherson.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-11-2022

(09-11-2022, 09:38 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Another question is are there any more spare Migs around to donate to the Ukraine?  They seem desperate for more Air Support.  How hard is it to train up experienced pilots in another airframe, say an F 16?  Lots of people seem to now want HIMARS and we don't seem to be in a position to build more very fast.  Would we license the weapon to another country? We seem to be at a point that we need to provide even more support as now matter how fast they advanced, there have been losses.

We have already licensed several NATO countries to build the missiles. Several NATO nations licensed and built M270s, such as the German MARS version. It is not probable they are in a position to build any today.

Ukraine is indeed desirous of more air support capability. However, it isn't exactly a permissive environment over there. Many people seem to think having a HARM capability cures the problem. It doesn't. If it did, we wouldn't have built the F117, the F22, and the F35. Ukraine also has no Weasels or Growlers. They are missing a big piece of even the pre-stealth puzzle. We also almost exclusively use stand-off weapons for our F16s, F15Es, and FA18s. Along with the planes, we would need to supply the ground-attack weapons. It also takes a while to practice with these weapons. This is a much bigger deal than just sending a few aircraft.

(09-11-2022, 09:51 AM)Mick Wrote:  3. I believe new planes would have to come from Bulgaria, Poland or Slovakia. I think those are the only NATO countries that still fly MiGs. I think it would be very difficult to train experienced pilots to a level of acceptability in western jets, though I believe an experienced MiG-29 fighter could transition to the F-16. I think fifth-generation jets are out of the question for a variety of reasons.

Both Germany and Poland attempted the experiment and decided it was difficult and generally not worth it. It isn't just that the pilots currently fly MiGs. They have always flown aircraft of "Soviet" design, from trainers to their current ride. There is a whole set of assumptions that are just built-in to their brains. Those assumptions are wrong in NATO aircraft. Yes, some of them can learn but most don't. The Ukrainian air force chiefs have all flown F-16s (2 seat versions) and some have flown F-15s (2 seat versions). Their reactions universally is that they aircraft are very, very, different to fly than the MiGs. The acceleration profiles and control forces are just completely different. They believe "retraining" is possible, but their opinion is obviously driven by need.

It is just better to start with "new" pilots. If we aren't idiots there have been a bunch of Ukrainians in T-38s since last March. Normally it takes about 2 years to become a fully qualified pilot in a given aircraft. For comparison, transitioning to a new aircraft of a similar type takes 9 or more months for a NATO pilot. This is a "peacetime" schedule. The weather in the southwestern US is good in winter. On a compressed training schedule it is reasonable to assume there will be qualified Ukrainian pilots by March or so IF we "did the right thing". Probably we didn't.

This is the kind of thing that should be a "no brainer" for the US. Ukraine doesn't have the spare airframes to train new pilots. Their airspace isn't totally safe to do so. The weather in the winter is so bad there are few flying days. The number of MiGs Ukraine has or can get is limited. Right now, they may have more pilots than planes. Therefore, there is no MiG training pipeline in Ukraine. The US should have been training the next class of Ukrainian pilots on NATO aircraft. If we chose not to give Ukraine any such aircraft, they are no worse off, but if we didn't train the pilots giving them the planes is not an option.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 09-11-2022

(09-11-2022, 11:33 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(09-11-2022, 09:38 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Another question is are there any more spare Migs around to donate to the Ukraine?  They seem desperate for more Air Support.  How hard is it to train up experienced pilots in another airframe, say an F 16?  Lots of people seem to now want HIMARS and we don't seem to be in a position to build more very fast.  Would we license the weapon to another country? We seem to be at a point that we need to provide even more support as now matter how fast they advanced, there have been losses.

We have already licensed several NATO countries to build the missiles. Several NATO nations licensed and built M270s, such as the German MARS version. It is not probable they are in a position to build any today.

Ukraine is indeed desirous of more air support capability. However, it isn't exactly a permissive environment over there. Many people seem to think having a HARM capability cures the problem. It doesn't. If it did, we wouldn't have built the F117, the F22, and the F35. Ukraine also has no Weasels or Growlers. They are missing a big piece of even the pre-stealth puzzle. We also almost exclusively use stand-off weapons for our F16s, F15Es, and FA18s. Along with the planes, we would need to supply the ground-attack weapons. It also takes a while to practice with these weapons. This is a much bigger deal than just sending a few aircraft.

(09-11-2022, 09:51 AM)Mick Wrote:  3. I believe new planes would have to come from Bulgaria, Poland or Slovakia. I think those are the only NATO countries that still fly MiGs. I think it would be very difficult to train experienced pilots to a level of acceptability in western jets, though I believe an experienced MiG-29 fighter could transition to the F-16. I think fifth-generation jets are out of the question for a variety of reasons.

Both Germany and Poland attempted the experiment and decided it was difficult and generally not worth it. It isn't just that the pilots currently fly MiGs. They have always flown aircraft of "Soviet" design, from trainers to their current ride. There is a whole set of assumptions that are just built-in to their brains. Those assumptions are wrong in NATO aircraft. Yes, some of them can learn but most don't. The Ukrainian air force chiefs have all flown F-16s (2 seat versions) and some have flown F-15s (2 seat versions). Their reactions universally is that they aircraft are very, very, different to fly than the MiGs. The acceleration profiles and control forces are just completely different. They believe "retraining" is possible, but their opinion is obviously driven by need.

It is just better to start with "new" pilots. If we aren't idiots there have been a bunch of Ukrainians in T-38s since last March. Normally it takes about 2 years to become a fully qualified pilot in a given aircraft. For comparison, transitioning to a new aircraft of a similar type takes 9 or more months for a NATO pilot. This is a "peacetime" schedule. The weather in the southwestern US is good in winter. On a compressed training schedule it is reasonable to assume there will be qualified Ukrainian pilots by March or so IF we "did the right thing". Probably we didn't.

This is the kind of thing that should be a "no brainer" for the US. Ukraine doesn't have the spare airframes to train new pilots. Their airspace isn't totally safe to do so. The weather in the winter is so bad there are few flying days. The number of MiGs Ukraine has or can get is limited. Right now, they may have more pilots than planes. Therefore, there is no MiG training pipeline in Ukraine. The US should have been training the next class of Ukrainian pilots on NATO aircraft. If we chose not to give Ukraine any such aircraft, they are no worse off, but if we didn't train the pilots giving them the planes is not an option.

We certainly have had more than enough time to make the "right decision".  Unfortunately that is not always our strong point.  Too many politicians.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 09-11-2022

There are a few rumors going around, but as we've seen in the past week, sometimes rumors are true, no matter how hard they are to believe.  In the Kherson region, rumors are (and according to the General staff of the armed forces of Ukraine) that Russians are pulling back there lines, including Snihurivka.  Even more wild rumors are Russia is negotiating the surrender of Kherson FWIW.  

Also Ukraine might be continuing their advance on the Luhansk region, they may have taken Lyman and other regions, and some say they are marching towards the twin cities of Lysychanks and Sievierodonetsk.  Not sure how to take those, there were also reports Ukraine took Donestk airport, but I think that has likely proven false, that region is one of the few where Russia still has the ability to advance slightly.  

Anyways, they might all prove to be false, but it would be nice if the good times keep rolling.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 09-11-2022

I think the Donetsk airport rumor was false. It has no strategic value (it’s totally destroyed and hasn’t been operable in a while).  I am inclined to believe that Ukraine made it out to Lyman; I think ISW verified that Ukrainian troops were on the outskirts.  Lyshyshank is also close to the frontlines, so that is believable, but time will tell.

Haven’t been looking at twitter so I don’t know anything about Kherson.  Would be great if Ukrainians can negotiate a Russian surrender, but I could see Putin forbidding his generals from surrendering.

BC

---

On the other hand, holy crap!

[tweet]https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1569083044480557056?s=46&t=5ZUwIcQ7lls3wYNA1eXXnA[/tweet]

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-11-2022

(09-11-2022, 03:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Haven’t been looking at twitter so I don’t know anything about Kherson.  Would be great if Ukrainians can negotiate a Russian surrender, but I could see Putin forbidding his generals from surrendering.



BC

I agree about Putin not letting it happen. There are also quite a few BTGs hanging out in the direction of Olecksandrivka that would need to be included in such a surrender. From the Russian point of view the only surrender terms that make sense is to allow the Russians to leave with their weapons and vehicles. Otherwise, it is just about as bad as fighting it out. I think no way Ukraine agrees to such terms, so it will probably be fought out. The other thing to consider is that Putin possibly can't afford two losses in quick succession. Fighting it out at least delays the second loss and I assume the Russians are praying for bad weather that will slow down the Ukrainians. It will slow down the Russians and their supplies too, but since the Russians don't intend to retreat, it doesn't matter (until it really, really does :-))

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 09-11-2022

Current news indicates Russia is attacking power stations. I would support Ukraine publicly announcing that any civilian infrastructure that Russia attacks in Ukraine will expose Russia to attacks in kind, if it can be done with a minimum of civilian casualties.  

Does Russia have any big oil/gas pipelines within shelling or rocket range?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-11-2022

A complete rout/collapse. I think this ends when Ukraine says it does now. And it probably ends with Ukrainian Crimea and maybe even some or all of the separatist republics. 

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status/1569140797521678338?s=20&t=CLQaQxq4514wUfTJsJdWGA[/tweet]

Russia will need to develop new supply lines to much of their troops east of the Oskil, and Ukraine will probably have the better morale and supply in this area that was previously Russian rear, without good entrenchment.

I think we will continue to see big Ukrainian gains in the days ahead, while work continues at consolidating the thousands of square miles they have liberated. With much of the gains due to frank Russian unorganized retreat, I bet the Ukrainians retain significant offensive capability in the area.

I would also say this result really validates the US and NATO approach to supporting Ukraine. Do I wish we sent F16s and ATACMS? Yes, and I hope we still do. But while HIMARS, Javelin, 155mm arty, HARM in particular with the recent offensive, have all made a big difference, the ultimate difference has been Ukrainian morale/motivation and preparation compared against Russian low morale and disorganization. Turns out they didn't need ATACMS or F16s to accomplish one of the biggest routs in Kharkiv in modern combat history. Mig29s with jerry rigged HARMs+HIMARS+Bayraktar was sufficient.

The Ukrainian general staff has run circles around the Russian's, and I think a lot of that goes down to Putin starting this with unrealistic war aims given his military capability. Faced with impossible goals, Russia has steadily bled men and equipment they could not readily replenish while Ukraine has only gotten stronger. And a big big help also from US intelligence at providing targeting information for Russian ammo dumps, command and control, air defense, as well as helping Ukraine find the weak links to attack in their latest Kharkiv offensive.

The past week has been an astounding and unprecedented win for Ukraine and the democratic West against Putin and naked imperial aggression. I always thought Ukraine would repel Russia in the end, but never thought it would all happen as rapidly as it seems to be now.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 09-11-2022

[tweet]https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status/1569140797521678338?s=46&t=fp7W0aJFpzeFLjACtX6Mag[/tweet]

Beautiful sequence.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 09-11-2022

My intuition about what might happen next at many junctions in this war has been wrong. Since I have the luxury of not fighting the war, that’s okay. I can just follow the news with interest and root for Ukraine. Bravo to the military planners. Very impressive so far.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 09-12-2022

[tweet]https://twitter.com/telegraphworld/status/1569243867215728640?s=21&t=weeuDKMS4R51WDJqb6sVQA[/tweet]

I don’t have a subscription to the Telegraph, but I think the thread summarizes the article.

BC

---