[Goose]

I made my post specifically because I saw a report that said Russians basically had no problem with the attack on the elite residence area of Moscow. The point was the Russian people don't seem to be bothered by the elites being targeted, suggesting they feel very much separate from them, and there will be no galvanizing support for Putin and the war as a result of the drone attack on the elite area of Moscow.

Do the elites who now know they are at risk put pressure on Putin to stop the war to protect their own asses?  Or do they pressure Putin to escalate, knowing there isn't much more that can be done to escalate.

My money is on the elite class turning against Putin. It seems a bit untenable to live at risk of being targeted for bombing while also knowing the body politic of your country sheds no tears when you are.

I am only going to slightly violate my own instructions about psychoanalyzing Russians and Russian "classes". Russians are all very fatalistic. They have lived in a society that is so arbitrary for their entire lives that they don't much care about anybody but themselves. The next removed case they care about is family, but even that is "modulated" by lots of things. The "bad things" that happen to others, such as getting drafted and sent to Ukraine are viewed as we view traffic accidents. Just unavoidable things that happen in life. Now, if it was your neighbor, you wonder if you can get a contractor and steal a room from his apartment before anybody can stop you.

For that reason, the elites don't necessarily view each other as kindred, nor view Putin as anything but a problem to be "managed". The Ukrainian drones are just another hazard that life in Russia throws at you. Just be very careful who your "friends" are, because most of them aren't. Avoid committing to any course of action until you are sure it will succeed, because if you are on the "wrong" side, you won't get any sympathy from anybody anywhere.

[Goose]

I made my post specifically because I saw a report that said Russians basically had no problem with the attack on the elite residence area of Moscow. The point was the Russian people don't seem to be bothered by the elites being targeted, suggesting they feel very much separate from them, and there will be no galvanizing support for Putin and the war as a result of the drone attack on the elite area of Moscow.

Do the elites who now know they are at risk put pressure on Putin to stop the war to protect their own asses?  Or do they pressure Putin to escalate, knowing there isn't much more that can be done to escalate.

My money is on the elite class turning against Putin. It seems a bit untenable to live at risk of being targeted for bombing while also knowing the body politic of your country sheds no tears when you are.

I am only going to slightly violate my own instructions about psychoanalyzing Russians and Russian "classes". Russians are all very fatalistic. They have lived in a society that is so arbitrary for their entire lives that they don't much care about anybody but themselves. The next removed case they care about is family, but even that is "modulated" by lots of things. The "bad things" that happen to others, such as getting drafted and sent to Ukraine are viewed as we view traffic accidents. Just unavoidable things that happen in life. Now, if it was your neighbor, you wonder if you can get a contractor and steal a room from his apartment before anybody can stop you.

For that reason, the elites don't necessarily view each other as kindred, nor view Putin as anything but a problem to be "managed". The Ukrainian drones are just another hazard that life in Russia throws at you. Just be very careful who your "friends" are, because most of them aren't. Avoid committing to any course of action until you are sure it will succeed, because if you are on the "wrong" side, you won't get any sympathy from anybody anywhere.

[Treefence]

I’m curious what the debt ceiling deal means for Ukraine funding. My understanding is that the deal keeps military spending “roughly” the same in real dollars as FY2022. Looking back at news for the past year, it looks like FY2022 funding for Ukraine was well north of $50 billion. Does that mean another $50+ billion is available in FY2024?  Or is this just not known yet?  If someone can answer this without getting into the partisan political nature of budgeting, I’d appreciate it. I’m not trying to get into whether the debt ceiling deal is good or bad, just how much funding will be available for Ukraine, if that’s known. Thanks!

It's been talked about that the US will likely prepare a 60 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine for 2024, that would be taken care of before the 2024 elections.  It's possible there will be some slight groaning in the house, but Kevin McCarthy has always voted to support Ukraine aid packages.  The senate shouldn't be a problem at all, as both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are strongly for giving more to Ukraine than we have been.  It would be nice if the US could announce some long term military contracts for Ukraine now, that would be ready a year from now, maybe 100 Abrams, and 300 Bradleys, which would allow them to form several armored brigades.

[Treefence]

I’m curious what the debt ceiling deal means for Ukraine funding. My understanding is that the deal keeps military spending “roughly” the same in real dollars as FY2022. Looking back at news for the past year, it looks like FY2022 funding for Ukraine was well north of $50 billion. Does that mean another $50+ billion is available in FY2024?  Or is this just not known yet?  If someone can answer this without getting into the partisan political nature of budgeting, I’d appreciate it. I’m not trying to get into whether the debt ceiling deal is good or bad, just how much funding will be available for Ukraine, if that’s known. Thanks!

It's been talked about that the US will likely prepare a 60 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine for 2024, that would be taken care of before the 2024 elections.  It's possible there will be some slight groaning in the house, but Kevin McCarthy has always voted to support Ukraine aid packages.  The senate shouldn't be a problem at all, as both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are strongly for giving more to Ukraine than we have been.  It would be nice if the US could announce some long term military contracts for Ukraine now, that would be ready a year from now, maybe 100 Abrams, and 300 Bradleys, which would allow them to form several armored brigades.

[GK3]

I’m curious what the debt ceiling deal means for Ukraine funding. My understanding is that the deal keeps military spending “roughly” the same in real dollars as FY2022. Looking back at news for the past year, it looks like FY2022 funding for Ukraine was well north of $50 billion. Does that mean another $50+ billion is available in FY2024?  Or is this just not known yet?  If someone can answer this without getting into the partisan political nature of budgeting, I’d appreciate it. I’m not trying to get into whether the debt ceiling deal is good or bad, just how much funding will be available for Ukraine, if that’s known. Thanks!

It's been talked about that the US will likely prepare a 60 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine for 2024, that would be taken care of before the 2024 elections.  It's possible there will be some slight groaning in the house, but Kevin McCarthy has always voted to support Ukraine aid packages.  The senate shouldn't be a problem at all, as both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are strongly for giving more to Ukraine than we have been.  It would be nice if the US could announce some long term military contracts for Ukraine now, that would be ready a year from now, maybe 100 Abrams, and 300 Bradleys, which would allow them to form several armored brigades.

There seems to be an increase in Internet "noise" regarding the Free Russian Brigade or whatever it is called.  Some saying that Russians are crossing the border into Ukraine to join.  Is that even practical or possible?  I have no idea how easy it might be say for someone from Kursk or Voronezh to make their way to the border and cross over.  If the noise is more or less true and they can field the claimed Brigade sized unit (3000 to 5000 soldiers) and make hit and run attacks across the border it would be of great benefit I would think to the Ukrainian offensive.

[GK3]

I’m curious what the debt ceiling deal means for Ukraine funding. My understanding is that the deal keeps military spending “roughly” the same in real dollars as FY2022. Looking back at news for the past year, it looks like FY2022 funding for Ukraine was well north of $50 billion. Does that mean another $50+ billion is available in FY2024?  Or is this just not known yet?  If someone can answer this without getting into the partisan political nature of budgeting, I’d appreciate it. I’m not trying to get into whether the debt ceiling deal is good or bad, just how much funding will be available for Ukraine, if that’s known. Thanks!

It's been talked about that the US will likely prepare a 60 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine for 2024, that would be taken care of before the 2024 elections.  It's possible there will be some slight groaning in the house, but Kevin McCarthy has always voted to support Ukraine aid packages.  The senate shouldn't be a problem at all, as both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are strongly for giving more to Ukraine than we have been.  It would be nice if the US could announce some long term military contracts for Ukraine now, that would be ready a year from now, maybe 100 Abrams, and 300 Bradleys, which would allow them to form several armored brigades.

There seems to be an increase in Internet "noise" regarding the Free Russian Brigade or whatever it is called.  Some saying that Russians are crossing the border into Ukraine to join.  Is that even practical or possible?  I have no idea how easy it might be say for someone from Kursk or Voronezh to make their way to the border and cross over.  If the noise is more or less true and they can field the claimed Brigade sized unit (3000 to 5000 soldiers) and make hit and run attacks across the border it would be of great benefit I would think to the Ukrainian offensive.

[gocard14]

US buying more Gerard’s from Jordan for Ukraine

https://news.yahoo.com/us-buy-gepard-air...4P_JfH9vcX

A couple interesting take aways. One is good on us for planning for long term support,  since this order will take at least until 2024 to fulfill. 

Second is it’s crazy how things come around in circles. Mobile flak cannons are a hot item. And it makes perfect sense in the era of drone warfare. Along with jamming, cheap, plentiful, radar-guided flak guns with cheap ammunition may be the best answer we currently have against drones and US army needs to act accordingly.

[gocard14]

US buying more Gerard’s from Jordan for Ukraine

https://news.yahoo.com/us-buy-gepard-air...4P_JfH9vcX

A couple interesting take aways. One is good on us for planning for long term support,  since this order will take at least until 2024 to fulfill. 

Second is it’s crazy how things come around in circles. Mobile flak cannons are a hot item. And it makes perfect sense in the era of drone warfare. Along with jamming, cheap, plentiful, radar-guided flak guns with cheap ammunition may be the best answer we currently have against drones and US army needs to act accordingly.

[M T]

Interesting video from a car roughly 50 feet from the impact of a shot-down cruise missile in Kyiv (May 29, 11:22AM local).
  https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-65763731

The cruise missile (or a part) is basically falling nose first.  Whatever momentum it had in its flight direction is gone.  There is clearly a fire at the rear of the missile and light black smoke.  The fire grows in the frames below.   There is no big explosion on impact or during the video (cars were not knocked sideways, no big hole in the pavement, window of car with dashcam didn't fracture).  The tail clips the wire that runs across the street holding the street lights and signs.

The 10 frames until the asphalt starts to show damage are below.  The missile (part?) appears to be 10--20 feet long (less than the height of the traffic light wire ).  The missile is partially visible in frame 0. In that same frame, the shadow of the missile appears in the middle of the yellow vehicle on the right.    Something weird happens, or perhaps more likely a video artifact appears beginning in frame 5 that makes the missile appear longer.  The missile may be spinning, since frame 4 appears to show fins which aren't in the frame before or after.  In frame 7, the missile hits the traffic light wire, or the diamond shaped sign.  That makes the fire in the aft erupt. In the next frame (8), the missile's shell appears to disintegrate (instantly, but not explosively). In frame 9, the first part of the missile has hit the ground. In frame 10, asphalt is being kicked up.

It appears all the cars continue driving as none are left in the intersection.  I suspect the white coupe in the middle carries the remaining parts of the missile (engine or whatever) as it swerves toward the right lane before it separates from the car and is left as the burning remains.

It is really amazing to see the drivers keep on driving even around the burning remains.

Are we seeing just the rear part (propulsion) of the missile while the warhead was destroyed/detonated in flight?

I estimate the missile body is traveling about 7' between frames. If frames are 30fps, that's 210 ft/sec. A Free Fall Calculator indicates that's a fall from a distance of 685 feet, some 6.5 seconds before impact (about the start of the video).


 

....
[humor]
In other news today, State Farm has announced that it will no longer sell car insurance in Ukraine.
[/humor]

[M T]

Interesting video from a car roughly 50 feet from the impact of a shot-down cruise missile in Kyiv (May 29, 11:22AM local).
  https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-65763731

The cruise missile (or a part) is basically falling nose first.  Whatever momentum it had in its flight direction is gone.  There is clearly a fire at the rear of the missile and light black smoke.  The fire grows in the frames below.   There is no big explosion on impact or during the video (cars were not knocked sideways, no big hole in the pavement, window of car with dashcam didn't fracture).  The tail clips the wire that runs across the street holding the street lights and signs.

The 10 frames until the asphalt starts to show damage are below.  The missile (part?) appears to be 10--20 feet long (less than the height of the traffic light wire ).  The missile is partially visible in frame 0. In that same frame, the shadow of the missile appears in the middle of the yellow vehicle on the right.    Something weird happens, or perhaps more likely a video artifact appears beginning in frame 5 that makes the missile appear longer.  The missile may be spinning, since frame 4 appears to show fins which aren't in the frame before or after.  In frame 7, the missile hits the traffic light wire, or the diamond shaped sign.  That makes the fire in the aft erupt. In the next frame (8), the missile's shell appears to disintegrate (instantly, but not explosively). In frame 9, the first part of the missile has hit the ground. In frame 10, asphalt is being kicked up.

It appears all the cars continue driving as none are left in the intersection.  I suspect the white coupe in the middle carries the remaining parts of the missile (engine or whatever) as it swerves toward the right lane before it separates from the car and is left as the burning remains.

It is really amazing to see the drivers keep on driving even around the burning remains.

Are we seeing just the rear part (propulsion) of the missile while the warhead was destroyed/detonated in flight?

I estimate the missile body is traveling about 7' between frames. If frames are 30fps, that's 210 ft/sec. A Free Fall Calculator indicates that's a fall from a distance of 685 feet, some 6.5 seconds before impact (about the start of the video).


 

....
[humor]
In other news today, State Farm has announced that it will no longer sell car insurance in Ukraine.
[/humor]

[OutsiderFan]

Have seen more reporting from an exiled Russian journalist saying Russians are happy to see the elites in Moscow get attacked. But that's not the biggest issue for Putin.

It seems Russians have a compact with Putin. As long as he keeps them safe, he's in good standing. Part of this is his propaganda machine that builds up the West and Ukraine as boogeymen trying to destroy Russia that Putin is protecting Russia from with his big bad military. 

The problem is these drone strikes on Moscow is two fold:

1. Russians know if they are being attacked in their own country, they aren't safe.
2. More people are going to start to question the propaganda when they can see it doesn't jive with reality they can see

I just saw one of the big components of the latest U.S. aid package is more drones. This is interesting because there seems to be a consensus from commentators following the war that Ukraine is expected to continue with the drone attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia.

So again, people can say bombing civilians is not a good strategy because it can galvanize citizen support for the country's leaders and make them want to fight, but this isn't 9/11. We didn't have a POTUS boasting about how America was impervious to attacks, take our freedoms away in the name of security, and then have 9/11 happen. If we did, that guy would have been ousted for sure.

Consistent attacks on Russian civilians that prove Putin isn't keeping them safe, while turning them against Russian propaganda, would be a big, big win for Ukraine and the West and be very economical as drones don't cost very much and can be mass produced. May not even need to do a lot of damage, which could lead to casualties Ukraine really would rather not inflict. Again, it's all political. How do you scare or make Russian citizens turn against war and Putin with the lowest cost of life and property possible? It seems these drones with relatively small damage potential is a great way to go.

[OutsiderFan]

Have seen more reporting from an exiled Russian journalist saying Russians are happy to see the elites in Moscow get attacked. But that's not the biggest issue for Putin.

It seems Russians have a compact with Putin. As long as he keeps them safe, he's in good standing. Part of this is his propaganda machine that builds up the West and Ukraine as boogeymen trying to destroy Russia that Putin is protecting Russia from with his big bad military. 

The problem is these drone strikes on Moscow is two fold:

1. Russians know if they are being attacked in their own country, they aren't safe.
2. More people are going to start to question the propaganda when they can see it doesn't jive with reality they can see

I just saw one of the big components of the latest U.S. aid package is more drones. This is interesting because there seems to be a consensus from commentators following the war that Ukraine is expected to continue with the drone attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia.

So again, people can say bombing civilians is not a good strategy because it can galvanize citizen support for the country's leaders and make them want to fight, but this isn't 9/11. We didn't have a POTUS boasting about how America was impervious to attacks, take our freedoms away in the name of security, and then have 9/11 happen. If we did, that guy would have been ousted for sure.

Consistent attacks on Russian civilians that prove Putin isn't keeping them safe, while turning them against Russian propaganda, would be a big, big win for Ukraine and the West and be very economical as drones don't cost very much and can be mass produced. May not even need to do a lot of damage, which could lead to casualties Ukraine really would rather not inflict. Again, it's all political. How do you scare or make Russian citizens turn against war and Putin with the lowest cost of life and property possible? It seems these drones with relatively small damage potential is a great way to go.

[OutsiderFan]

What a shit show for Russia.

- Belgorod region now has an insurgency and its police force has been compromised
- Drone strikes in Moscow and expected to continue
- Kadyrov fighters attacking Wagners who are leaving Bakhmut
- Anthony Blinken publicly saying Russia went from 2nd best army in world to 2nd best in Ukraine 
- Sweden on track to join NATO by July
- NATO talking about path for Ukraine to join the alliance
- Ukraine counteroffensive yet to really start

These are all demonstrating catastrophic Russian weakness even without discussion of territorial control in Ukraine. 

The question I have is who is behind the insurgency? It apparently has access to tanks, maybe even helicopters, so it has to be some kind of government one would think. Logically, it would be Ukraine, but would western Allie’s OK this kind of thing? Maybe the tanks and craft being used are Ukrainian Russian ones so no western arms are being used in Russian territory? Maybe some Russian oligarchs have arranged to finance the insurgency to weaken Putin? Does anyone know?

Putting aside who is behind the insurgency, would western intel and covert ops like CIA be working to destabilize Russia further by propping up other insurgencies or independence movements away from Russian Federation? The U.S. has certainly been burned by this kind of meddling before and I’m not sure if our government wants to pull these levers on Russia anymore given what it became after it was destabilized last time.

[OutsiderFan]

What a shit show for Russia.

- Belgorod region now has an insurgency and its police force has been compromised
- Drone strikes in Moscow and expected to continue
- Kadyrov fighters attacking Wagners who are leaving Bakhmut
- Anthony Blinken publicly saying Russia went from 2nd best army in world to 2nd best in Ukraine 
- Sweden on track to join NATO by July
- NATO talking about path for Ukraine to join the alliance
- Ukraine counteroffensive yet to really start

These are all demonstrating catastrophic Russian weakness even without discussion of territorial control in Ukraine. 

The question I have is who is behind the insurgency? It apparently has access to tanks, maybe even helicopters, so it has to be some kind of government one would think. Logically, it would be Ukraine, but would western Allie’s OK this kind of thing? Maybe the tanks and craft being used are Ukrainian Russian ones so no western arms are being used in Russian territory? Maybe some Russian oligarchs have arranged to finance the insurgency to weaken Putin? Does anyone know?

Putting aside who is behind the insurgency, would western intel and covert ops like CIA be working to destabilize Russia further by propping up other insurgencies or independence movements away from Russian Federation? The U.S. has certainly been burned by this kind of meddling before and I’m not sure if our government wants to pull these levers on Russia anymore given what it became after it was destabilized last time.

[fullmetal]

- Anthony Blinken publicly saying Russia went from 2nd best army in world to 2nd best in Ukraine 

When I heard this on NPR the other day, I about died in my car.

[fullmetal]

- Anthony Blinken publicly saying Russia went from 2nd best army in world to 2nd best in Ukraine 

When I heard this on NPR the other day, I about died in my car.

[81alum]

The first place I came after this morning's NYT article hinting that Ukraine has just begun its offensive was here, to hear the truth of the matter ;P  So what is the truth of the matter?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/05/...raine-news

[81alum]

The first place I came after this morning's NYT article hinting that Ukraine has just begun its offensive was here, to hear the truth of the matter ;P  So what is the truth of the matter?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/05/...raine-news

[OutsiderFan]

The media needs very simple stories. Like, "the offensive has begun," as if Ukraine's armed forces are all packed behind a start line of a marathon ready to run when horn goes off, or like F1 cars ready to start race from standing start after the red lights go out.

It's not going to be like that. Ukraine will slowly ramp up operations in different areas and not everything will be done at once. It does seem the insurgent efforts in Belogrod are being done to lure Russian forces into moving from hardened positions in Eastern occupied territories, so they can be attacked on the move. But there is so much to what will constitute the Ukraine counter offensive.  

I've learned over time that even calling it a "counteroffensive" probably is not the right word. But we need one word descriptions to refer to stuff. Unfortunately when the best word's definition doesn't ideally fit, we get misunderstandings about what is really happening.

Ukraine is pretty much just ramping up efforts to recapture territory in more places on a larger scale than they did when they took back Kyiv, Kherson and Northern Luhansk. They've got more and better weapons and will be throwing more forces at the effort. But it's not gonna all happen at once with some conspicuous Tet Offensive-like event.

[OutsiderFan]

The media needs very simple stories. Like, "the offensive has begun," as if Ukraine's armed forces are all packed behind a start line of a marathon ready to run when horn goes off, or like F1 cars ready to start race from standing start after the red lights go out.

It's not going to be like that. Ukraine will slowly ramp up operations in different areas and not everything will be done at once. It does seem the insurgent efforts in Belogrod are being done to lure Russian forces into moving from hardened positions in Eastern occupied territories, so they can be attacked on the move. But there is so much to what will constitute the Ukraine counter offensive.  

I've learned over time that even calling it a "counteroffensive" probably is not the right word. But we need one word descriptions to refer to stuff. Unfortunately when the best word's definition doesn't ideally fit, we get misunderstandings about what is really happening.

Ukraine is pretty much just ramping up efforts to recapture territory in more places on a larger scale than they did when they took back Kyiv, Kherson and Northern Luhansk. They've got more and better weapons and will be throwing more forces at the effort. But it's not gonna all happen at once with some conspicuous Tet Offensive-like event.

[Goose]

The media needs very simple stories. Like, "the offensive has begun," as if Ukraine's armed forces are all packed behind a start line of a marathon ready to run when horn goes off, or like F1 cars ready to start race from standing start after the red lights go out.

It's not going to be like that. Ukraine will slowly ramp up operations in different areas and not everything will be done at once. It does seem the insurgent efforts in Belogrod are being done to lure Russian forces into moving from hardened positions in Eastern occupied territories, so they can be attacked on the move. But there is so much to what will constitute the Ukraine counter offensive.  

I've learned over time that even calling it a "counteroffensive" probably is not the right word. But we need one word descriptions to refer to stuff. Unfortunately when the best word's definition doesn't ideally fit, we get misunderstandings about what is really happening.

Ukraine is pretty much just ramping up efforts to recapture territory in more places on a larger scale than they did when they took back Kyiv, Kherson and Northern Luhansk. They've got more and better weapons and will be throwing more forces at the effort. But it's not gonna all happen at once with some conspicuous Tet Offensive-like event.

Or indeed it might be a "conspicuous Tet Offensive-like event". We just don't know, and the Russians get a vote. You are indeed correct, it is a continuous process with possibly many branches and some (hopefully) surprising actions mixed in.
 
It is clear Ukraine has become increasingly nervous about the possible effects of Russian Frontal Aviation. Nobody really knows what Russia can do there, but Ukraine is acutely aware of their own deficiencies in air defense and the possibility of expensive battles resulting. They are also aware they are "on the hook" to "do something" even though they have deficiencies. IMO their real fear isn't that they will suffer many casualties (although they are obviously concerned about that) but rather that the outcome of their efforts will be such that it shows the war isn't going to end in 2023, and that it may go on much longer. Ukraine may take back some, but not most of their occupied territory. Nobody in the west or in Ukraine wants to hear that, but it could be what happens. If it does, the psychology of the war may change in ways Ukraine for sure doesn't want. There are those that are already saying neither Ukraine nor Russia can "win". If that becomes a majority, Ukraine is in real trouble.

[Goose]

The media needs very simple stories. Like, "the offensive has begun," as if Ukraine's armed forces are all packed behind a start line of a marathon ready to run when horn goes off, or like F1 cars ready to start race from standing start after the red lights go out.

It's not going to be like that. Ukraine will slowly ramp up operations in different areas and not everything will be done at once. It does seem the insurgent efforts in Belogrod are being done to lure Russian forces into moving from hardened positions in Eastern occupied territories, so they can be attacked on the move. But there is so much to what will constitute the Ukraine counter offensive.  

I've learned over time that even calling it a "counteroffensive" probably is not the right word. But we need one word descriptions to refer to stuff. Unfortunately when the best word's definition doesn't ideally fit, we get misunderstandings about what is really happening.

Ukraine is pretty much just ramping up efforts to recapture territory in more places on a larger scale than they did when they took back Kyiv, Kherson and Northern Luhansk. They've got more and better weapons and will be throwing more forces at the effort. But it's not gonna all happen at once with some conspicuous Tet Offensive-like event.

Or indeed it might be a "conspicuous Tet Offensive-like event". We just don't know, and the Russians get a vote. You are indeed correct, it is a continuous process with possibly many branches and some (hopefully) surprising actions mixed in.
 
It is clear Ukraine has become increasingly nervous about the possible effects of Russian Frontal Aviation. Nobody really knows what Russia can do there, but Ukraine is acutely aware of their own deficiencies in air defense and the possibility of expensive battles resulting. They are also aware they are "on the hook" to "do something" even though they have deficiencies. IMO their real fear isn't that they will suffer many casualties (although they are obviously concerned about that) but rather that the outcome of their efforts will be such that it shows the war isn't going to end in 2023, and that it may go on much longer. Ukraine may take back some, but not most of their occupied territory. Nobody in the west or in Ukraine wants to hear that, but it could be what happens. If it does, the psychology of the war may change in ways Ukraine for sure doesn't want. There are those that are already saying neither Ukraine nor Russia can "win". If that becomes a majority, Ukraine is in real trouble.

[OutsiderFan]

Goose, are you factoring in the political dynamics inside Russia into your perspective? Wars are not typically ended on the battlefield. 

I saw a member of the Duma speaking with Russian propagandists who was saying the war is not accomplishing anything and is a failure. Don't know if this guy is isolated or if he represents a shift in perspective, how it is spreading, etc.

All I know is Russia is looking like it is devolving into infighting, with insurgency, Wagner being attacked by Russians. Kadyrovites wanting to attack Wagners. Russian military shelling its own territory. It's a mess.

I just don't think this thing is ultimately going to be decided by who gains what territory as much as political support for the war collapsing into chaos in Russia that makes ending it the only option. Of course, I don't think Putin will be the one to end it, nor can he be trusted to be.

[OutsiderFan]

Goose, are you factoring in the political dynamics inside Russia into your perspective? Wars are not typically ended on the battlefield. 

I saw a member of the Duma speaking with Russian propagandists who was saying the war is not accomplishing anything and is a failure. Don't know if this guy is isolated or if he represents a shift in perspective, how it is spreading, etc.

All I know is Russia is looking like it is devolving into infighting, with insurgency, Wagner being attacked by Russians. Kadyrovites wanting to attack Wagners. Russian military shelling its own territory. It's a mess.

I just don't think this thing is ultimately going to be decided by who gains what territory as much as political support for the war collapsing into chaos in Russia that makes ending it the only option. Of course, I don't think Putin will be the one to end it, nor can he be trusted to be.

[Goose]

Goose, are you factoring in the political dynamics inside Russia into your perspective? Wars are not typically ended on the battlefield. 

I saw a member of the Duma speaking with Russian propagandists who was saying the war is not accomplishing anything and is a failure. Don't know if this guy is isolated or if he represents a shift in perspective, how it is spreading, etc.

All I know is Russia is looking like it is devolving into infighting, with insurgency, Wagner being attacked by Russians. Kadyrovites wanting to attack Wagners. Russian military shelling its own territory. It's a mess.

I just don't think this thing is ultimately going to be decided by who gains what territory as much as political support for the war collapsing into chaos in Russia that makes ending it the only option. Of course, I don't think Putin will be the one to end it, nor can he be trusted to be.

It is difficult to "know" anything about what is "really" going on inside Russia. IMO we get a lot of wishful thinking in the press. You can find people, sometimes important people, in any country that support almost any point of view. However, Russia is a totalitarian state. It has lost some of the "trappings" of the old Soviet Union, but it is still a totalitarian state. Russians have the ability to go completely Sgt. Schultz on virtually any issue. They don't "take sides" on anything until 1) they have no choice, or 2) they become convinced they have identified the "winning" side, and even then they will try to maintain contacts with the side they rejected, "just in case".

History has shown that predicting political change in Russia is virtually impossible. Many times, people predicted that the Tsar couldn't survive event X, and then he did survive event X. Nobody predicted the "fall of the Soviet Union". Everybody thought Yeltsin was a clown, which he was, but he ended up running Russia. You just don't know. For that reason, I think we need to assume that for Ukraine and Belarus to have any future as independent nations, Russia must be militarily defeated. IMO they won't quit until they are in a situation where they virtually can no longer fight, because nobody in Russia is going to risk being the one who says they can't win. It has to be so self evident nobody has to say it.

[Goose]

Goose, are you factoring in the political dynamics inside Russia into your perspective? Wars are not typically ended on the battlefield. 

I saw a member of the Duma speaking with Russian propagandists who was saying the war is not accomplishing anything and is a failure. Don't know if this guy is isolated or if he represents a shift in perspective, how it is spreading, etc.

All I know is Russia is looking like it is devolving into infighting, with insurgency, Wagner being attacked by Russians. Kadyrovites wanting to attack Wagners. Russian military shelling its own territory. It's a mess.

I just don't think this thing is ultimately going to be decided by who gains what territory as much as political support for the war collapsing into chaos in Russia that makes ending it the only option. Of course, I don't think Putin will be the one to end it, nor can he be trusted to be.

It is difficult to "know" anything about what is "really" going on inside Russia. IMO we get a lot of wishful thinking in the press. You can find people, sometimes important people, in any country that support almost any point of view. However, Russia is a totalitarian state. It has lost some of the "trappings" of the old Soviet Union, but it is still a totalitarian state. Russians have the ability to go completely Sgt. Schultz on virtually any issue. They don't "take sides" on anything until 1) they have no choice, or 2) they become convinced they have identified the "winning" side, and even then they will try to maintain contacts with the side they rejected, "just in case".

History has shown that predicting political change in Russia is virtually impossible. Many times, people predicted that the Tsar couldn't survive event X, and then he did survive event X. Nobody predicted the "fall of the Soviet Union". Everybody thought Yeltsin was a clown, which he was, but he ended up running Russia. You just don't know. For that reason, I think we need to assume that for Ukraine and Belarus to have any future as independent nations, Russia must be militarily defeated. IMO they won't quit until they are in a situation where they virtually can no longer fight, because nobody in Russia is going to risk being the one who says they can't win. It has to be so self evident nobody has to say it.

[gocard14]

Now reports of Australia possibly donating their mothballed but good condition/upgraded F18s to Ukraine. 
https://t.co/gDe87V0xtD

This seems like it could have a lot of benefit. A big chunk of planes (41) all upgraded to the same standard would simplify maintainence and support. Reportedly the F18 is better at operating on worse runways and has a lighter/more portable logistic tail for distributed operations. These were upgraded to F18C standard so I suspect better radar then on any F16s they are likely to receive. 

The main downside I suspect is less training infrastructure then the F16 due to fewer operators.

[gocard14]

Now reports of Australia possibly donating their mothballed but good condition/upgraded F18s to Ukraine. 
https://t.co/gDe87V0xtD

This seems like it could have a lot of benefit. A big chunk of planes (41) all upgraded to the same standard would simplify maintainence and support. Reportedly the F18 is better at operating on worse runways and has a lighter/more portable logistic tail for distributed operations. These were upgraded to F18C standard so I suspect better radar then on any F16s they are likely to receive. 

The main downside I suspect is less training infrastructure then the F16 due to fewer operators.

[gocard14]

And now clear video that the Nova khakova dam has been blown. Both sides are blaming the other, but you have to assume it was Russia for both practical and moral reasons. 

Making the dnipro south of the dam more or less impassable for a time limits the front the Russians have to defend, allowing them to move units on the left bank.

[gocard14]

And now clear video that the Nova khakova dam has been blown. Both sides are blaming the other, but you have to assume it was Russia for both practical and moral reasons. 

Making the dnipro south of the dam more or less impassable for a time limits the front the Russians have to defend, allowing them to move units on the left bank.

[OutsiderFan]

It would certainly be a crazy coincidence, but there apparently is no proof (yet) the damn was blown up on purpose:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbrumfiel/status/1665970834618318851?cxt=HHwWhoCwubfp254uAAAA[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

It would certainly be a crazy coincidence, but there apparently is no proof (yet) the damn was blown up on purpose:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbrumfiel/status/1665970834618318851?cxt=HHwWhoCwubfp254uAAAA[/tweet]

[Goose]

Structural failure seems most probable to me, because Ukraine (and others) would have noticed a big explosion and reported it in "real time". However, it could well be that Russia was aware that structural failure was probable and yet did nothing (opening other sluice gates) to reduce the record water volume behind the dam. Of course, it may be that those other sluice gates were either damaged or required power to be opened, and said power was not available.

In any case, the current situation favors Russia in that it makes crossing the river more difficult. However, that situation is expected to pass fairly quickly, about a week as I understand it. At present, this also does not affect the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant at the moment.

[Goose]

Structural failure seems most probable to me, because Ukraine (and others) would have noticed a big explosion and reported it in "real time". However, it could well be that Russia was aware that structural failure was probable and yet did nothing (opening other sluice gates) to reduce the record water volume behind the dam. Of course, it may be that those other sluice gates were either damaged or required power to be opened, and said power was not available.

In any case, the current situation favors Russia in that it makes crossing the river more difficult. However, that situation is expected to pass fairly quickly, about a week as I understand it. At present, this also does not affect the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant at the moment.

[OutsiderFan]

It does now appear Russia blew the dam.

The road access to where the dam was compromised was cut off from the Ukraine side, meaning only Russians had access to it. Second, Russia had closed the releases on the dam to increase the amount of water being held back by the dam in the days before it was blown, to maximize the amount of water release.

Most of the water has flooded and/or compromised water supplies in Russian-held territory, including Crimea. The flooding will subside in a week or two, but the damage to Russian held positions can't be undone.

Russia may have held off a Ukrainian attack in the short run with the water rise, but hard to see how Russian efforts to hold southern Ukraine won't be hurt more than Ukraine's effort to take it back, in the longer term. And in this case shorter term is a week or two, and longer is more than that.

[OutsiderFan]

It does now appear Russia blew the dam.

The road access to where the dam was compromised was cut off from the Ukraine side, meaning only Russians had access to it. Second, Russia had closed the releases on the dam to increase the amount of water being held back by the dam in the days before it was blown, to maximize the amount of water release.

Most of the water has flooded and/or compromised water supplies in Russian-held territory, including Crimea. The flooding will subside in a week or two, but the damage to Russian held positions can't be undone.

Russia may have held off a Ukrainian attack in the short run with the water rise, but hard to see how Russian efforts to hold southern Ukraine won't be hurt more than Ukraine's effort to take it back, in the longer term. And in this case shorter term is a week or two, and longer is more than that.

[Goose]

It does now appear Russia blew the dam.

The road access to where the dam was compromised was cut off from the Ukraine side, meaning only Russians had access to it. Second, Russia had closed the releases on the dam to increase the amount of water being held back by the dam in the days before it was blown, to maximize the amount of water release.

Or the Russians simply let too much water build up behind a compromised dam during the spring melt. Nothing in the above provides evidence anybody at all "blew" the dam. It does provide evidence Ukraine would have had a more difficult time than Russia in "blowing up" that part of the dam, but still lacks evidence of an explosion. More and more, it is looking like the dam failed, rather than the dam blew up. This article states what AFAIK is actually what is "known".
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/06/118041010...porizhzhia
Of course, Russia may have deliberately allowed the dam to fail by not releasing appropriate water quantities throughout the spring melt, which would normally have happened. They could also have just been too stupid to do so, or perhaps they couldn't due to other damage to the dam.

Most of the water has flooded and/or compromised water supplies in Russian-held territory, including Crimea. The flooding will subside in a week or two, but the damage to Russian held positions can't be undone.

Russia may have held off a Ukrainian attack in the short run with the water rise, but hard to see how Russian efforts to hold southern Ukraine won't be hurt more than Ukraine's effort to take it back, in the longer term. And in this case shorter term is a week or two, and longer is more than that.

Of course, these are all reasons to argue that Russia would be unlikely to "blow" the dam as it hurt them more than Ukraine. However, guessing Russian motivation based on what is their apparent self-interest often doesn't work. It may be somebody panicked and set off the charges that were already known to be in place, or it may be "somebody" who didn't know the whole story ordered it. However, when one sees water already over-topping a dam several days before it fails, that would normally be an indication of serious problems without any explosives required. Dams aren't supposed to do that.

[Goose]

It does now appear Russia blew the dam.

The road access to where the dam was compromised was cut off from the Ukraine side, meaning only Russians had access to it. Second, Russia had closed the releases on the dam to increase the amount of water being held back by the dam in the days before it was blown, to maximize the amount of water release.

Or the Russians simply let too much water build up behind a compromised dam during the spring melt. Nothing in the above provides evidence anybody at all "blew" the dam. It does provide evidence Ukraine would have had a more difficult time than Russia in "blowing up" that part of the dam, but still lacks evidence of an explosion. More and more, it is looking like the dam failed, rather than the dam blew up. This article states what AFAIK is actually what is "known".
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/06/118041010...porizhzhia
Of course, Russia may have deliberately allowed the dam to fail by not releasing appropriate water quantities throughout the spring melt, which would normally have happened. They could also have just been too stupid to do so, or perhaps they couldn't due to other damage to the dam.

Most of the water has flooded and/or compromised water supplies in Russian-held territory, including Crimea. The flooding will subside in a week or two, but the damage to Russian held positions can't be undone.

Russia may have held off a Ukrainian attack in the short run with the water rise, but hard to see how Russian efforts to hold southern Ukraine won't be hurt more than Ukraine's effort to take it back, in the longer term. And in this case shorter term is a week or two, and longer is more than that.

Of course, these are all reasons to argue that Russia would be unlikely to "blow" the dam as it hurt them more than Ukraine. However, guessing Russian motivation based on what is their apparent self-interest often doesn't work. It may be somebody panicked and set off the charges that were already known to be in place, or it may be "somebody" who didn't know the whole story ordered it. However, when one sees water already over-topping a dam several days before it fails, that would normally be an indication of serious problems without any explosives required. Dams aren't supposed to do that.

[GK3]

What a shit show for Russia.

- Belgorod region now has an insurgency and its police force has been compromised
- Drone strikes in Moscow and expected to continue
- Kadyrov fighters attacking Wagners who are leaving Bakhmut
- Anthony Blinken publicly saying Russia went from 2nd best army in world to 2nd best in Ukraine 
- Sweden on track to join NATO by July
- NATO talking about path for Ukraine to join the alliance
- Ukraine counteroffensive yet to really start

These are all demonstrating catastrophic Russian weakness even without discussion of territorial control in Ukraine. 

The question I have is who is behind the insurgency? It apparently has access to tanks, maybe even helicopters, so it has to be some kind of government one would think. Logically, it would be Ukraine, but would western Allie’s OK this kind of thing? Maybe the tanks and craft being used are Ukrainian Russian ones so no western arms are being used in Russian territory? Maybe some Russian oligarchs have arranged to finance the insurgency to weaken Putin? Does anyone know?

Putting aside who is behind the insurgency, would western intel and covert ops like CIA be working to destabilize Russia further by propping up other insurgencies or independence movements away from Russian Federation? The U.S. has certainly been burned by this kind of meddling before and I’m not sure if our government wants to pull these levers on Russia anymore given what it became after it was destabilized last time.

OF, Back in the day, you might have found the people in Langley involved.  Considering that it involves Russa, my guess is that you would never get the approvals you would need to try something like this.  We do not have a wonderful track record in trying to overthrow other governments.  Perhaps our biggest disaster was Eisenhower approving the CIA over throw of the democratically elected government in Iran.  Done because Churchill was under a lot of pressure from BP to save their business in Iran.  We all know how that turned out.  
Actually supporting operations in Russia against the Russian government is almost certainly a bridge too far.  Too risky in the eyes of those who would approve such a thing.  We always need to remember that sometimes the devil you know is better than devil you don't.  That doesn't mean you can't have a 3rd party buy a boatload of Russian weapons from somewhere in Africa and then sell them again to someone else who then sells them to whoever is supply these rebel groups.  
Unfortunately in todays world and today's politics I don't think we could get involved in something like this without someone talking.  We just can't keep our mouths shut, and Need to Know is a joke in todays Washington, everyone thinks he or she has a need to know and there lies the problem.

[GK3]

What a shit show for Russia.

- Belgorod region now has an insurgency and its police force has been compromised
- Drone strikes in Moscow and expected to continue
- Kadyrov fighters attacking Wagners who are leaving Bakhmut
- Anthony Blinken publicly saying Russia went from 2nd best army in world to 2nd best in Ukraine 
- Sweden on track to join NATO by July
- NATO talking about path for Ukraine to join the alliance
- Ukraine counteroffensive yet to really start

These are all demonstrating catastrophic Russian weakness even without discussion of territorial control in Ukraine. 

The question I have is who is behind the insurgency? It apparently has access to tanks, maybe even helicopters, so it has to be some kind of government one would think. Logically, it would be Ukraine, but would western Allie’s OK this kind of thing? Maybe the tanks and craft being used are Ukrainian Russian ones so no western arms are being used in Russian territory? Maybe some Russian oligarchs have arranged to finance the insurgency to weaken Putin? Does anyone know?

Putting aside who is behind the insurgency, would western intel and covert ops like CIA be working to destabilize Russia further by propping up other insurgencies or independence movements away from Russian Federation? The U.S. has certainly been burned by this kind of meddling before and I’m not sure if our government wants to pull these levers on Russia anymore given what it became after it was destabilized last time.

OF, Back in the day, you might have found the people in Langley involved.  Considering that it involves Russa, my guess is that you would never get the approvals you would need to try something like this.  We do not have a wonderful track record in trying to overthrow other governments.  Perhaps our biggest disaster was Eisenhower approving the CIA over throw of the democratically elected government in Iran.  Done because Churchill was under a lot of pressure from BP to save their business in Iran.  We all know how that turned out.  
Actually supporting operations in Russia against the Russian government is almost certainly a bridge too far.  Too risky in the eyes of those who would approve such a thing.  We always need to remember that sometimes the devil you know is better than devil you don't.  That doesn't mean you can't have a 3rd party buy a boatload of Russian weapons from somewhere in Africa and then sell them again to someone else who then sells them to whoever is supply these rebel groups.  
Unfortunately in todays world and today's politics I don't think we could get involved in something like this without someone talking.  We just can't keep our mouths shut, and Need to Know is a joke in todays Washington, everyone thinks he or she has a need to know and there lies the problem.