https://www.yahoo.com/news/military-inte...32548.html
These are encouraging and useful activities. They increase the "friction" in the Russian transportation system. However, we must all keep in mind that rail transportation systems are inherently quite resilient. The WW II experience showed that Germany was able to keep the rail system mostly running until the end of the war. Fixing track is pretty easy. Most routes that have bridges on them have alternate routes available. This is necessary because even in peacetime bridges sometimes fail or require repairs.
What is most necessary to shut down rail lines is persistence. Destroying the line once is a nuisance but easily overcome, or at worst requires lots of effort but can be fixed pretty fast. However, if the crews doing the fixing can be attacked, doing the repairs become really hard. Then, when repairs are almost complete, do it again. That is the only way that works "permanently". Ukraine in general doesn't have the ability to deliver this persistence of effort. Therefore their sabotage efforts, while sometimes spectacular, won't really stop traffic on the line for long.
Strangely enough, blowing up the signaling equipment brings more "bang for the buck" than most other simple actions. The long single track sections of the Russian "Transcon" rely on electronic train control to maximize the flow of traffic. If part of the line "goes dark", trains back up because nobody knows if the way ahead is clear. Blowing up a few boxes in widely separated areas can gridlock the line. The good news is there are lots of signal boxes to blow up. The Russians can't guard them all :-).
Putin may have been moved by nostalgia for a Ukraine that was part of the Soviet Union and was ruled by Russians. Gorbachev himself spent his early years in Ukraine, and his mother and wife were both "Russians of Ukrainian origin". However, Gorbachev did not see Ukraine as an independent state and would rule it as a fiefdom. That is probably how Putin wants to see it too, IMO.
These are encouraging and useful activities. They increase the "friction" in the Russian transportation system. However, we must all keep in mind that rail transportation systems are inherently quite resilient. The WW II experience showed that Germany was able to keep the rail system mostly running until the end of the war. Fixing track is pretty easy. Most routes that have bridges on them have alternate routes available. This is necessary because even in peacetime bridges sometimes fail or require repairs.
What is most necessary to shut down rail lines is persistence. Destroying the line once is a nuisance but easily overcome, or at worst requires lots of effort but can be fixed pretty fast. However, if the crews doing the fixing can be attacked, doing the repairs become really hard. Then, when repairs are almost complete, do it again. That is the only way that works "permanently". Ukraine in general doesn't have the ability to deliver this persistence of effort. Therefore their sabotage efforts, while sometimes spectacular, won't really stop traffic on the line for long.
Strangely enough, blowing up the signaling equipment brings more "bang for the buck" than most other simple actions. The long single track sections of the Russian "Transcon" rely on electronic train control to maximize the flow of traffic. If part of the line "goes dark", trains back up because nobody knows if the way ahead is clear. Blowing up a few boxes in widely separated areas can gridlock the line. The good news is there are lots of signal boxes to blow up. The Russians can't guard them all :-).
(01-16-2024, 12:10 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: I gather the answer to my question is "no" because a key reason that Putin invaded Ukraine in the first place was to attempt to re-populate Russia. That's depressing, and even more so considering your unfortunately plausible prediction that those Ukrainians "deported" to Russia will end up being the victims of genocide. In another world, an opportunity for Ukraine to give some of its land for the return of thousands of living Ukrainian people would be seem like the foundation of a difficult-to-accept but still plausible "peace treaty."I doubt that Putin invaded Ukraine to re-populate Russia. It wouldn't do that. Ukraine is not crowded and the citizens of Ukraine are not Russians. They are "second class citizens" at best in Russian eyes. Putin may have wanted a bunch of new "subjects" for his version of the Russian empire, but in no way would that make up for decline in the ethnic Russian population. Ukrainians are one step above Georgians and two steps above Chechens. Not candidates to be "Russians".
Putin may have been moved by nostalgia for a Ukraine that was part of the Soviet Union and was ruled by Russians. Gorbachev himself spent his early years in Ukraine, and his mother and wife were both "Russians of Ukrainian origin". However, Gorbachev did not see Ukraine as an independent state and would rule it as a fiefdom. That is probably how Putin wants to see it too, IMO.