Russia/Ukraine conflict

[madodel]

‘Only Chornobyl Was Worse’: Ecological Consequences of Kakhovka Dam Disaster
Ukraine and other countries in the region will suffer for years from the huge ecological consequences resulting from Russia’s destruction of the dam…

Thanks to Putin for the wide spread pollution of the land, well water, the Black Sea where all that pollution and trash will end up, and even desertification of much of the land as it dries out.

 

[Artful Dodger]

What he actually meant is that HE THINKS that AFU will continue smaller scale attacks with artillery strikes, but there will be no BIG MAIN PUSH for at lest the next week.This is very different from claiming that UA offensive activities are stopping.

In the era of HIMARS and Storm Shadow, hitting masses of troops is the most effective way to degrade an occupying force. Getting them to move, en masse, is THE job of the 'Offensive'.

Budmo!

 

[heltok]

Interesting discussion around if the counter offensive is slow or not:

 

[nativewolf]

Russia is conducting what seems to me to be a spoiling attack in the North. At least that would make sense based on what I know and guess.

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/26821DD0-B2C2-4D0F-991A-DF8A161442E9-1361421675701/report.pdf

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670901431551795201

 

[nativewolf]

from today's ISW brief

"The UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) assessed on June 19 that Russia has likely deployed large portions of the Dnipro Grouping of Forces from the east (left) bank of Kherson Oblast to the Zaporizhia and Bakhmut directions to respond to Ukrainian counteroffensive actions over the past 10 days.[6]"

This is the sort of movement Ukraine wanted...troops moving, concentrating in one area.

 

[CaliBear1]

Selective memories being reappraised

Why did it take a murderous war on Ukraine for Germany to wake up to the threat from Russia? | Helene von Bismarck

The invasion has plunged Germany into an agonised debate about its history – this process is only just beginning, writes historian Helene von Bismarck

www.theguardian.com

Bismarck!

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670928417368469504

 

[bo3bdar]

On some prior Pro-Putin tweets from David Sacks, he posted a link to 'responsiblestatecraft', which is apparently where libertarians go to get their bad ideas. It appears that Sacks fancies himself to be a bit of a stateman, and suggests that he and his cronies are the only people who really understand what is going on.

Will upcoming NATO summit launch forever war in Europe?

Pressure is mounting to make some sort of formal declaration over Ukraine's membership at meetings in Vilnius next month.

responsiblestatecraft.org

He gives great weight to analysis by Mearsheimer, which was an interesting counterpoint, but I really think these guys are missing the forest for the trees.


At the risk of being foolish myself, I'll make an observation that I have not seen reported or suggested anywhere.

Kissinger has always espoused his idea of Realpolitik, and Mearsheimer has the same idea with his 'great-power politics' idea that apparently our Masters of the Universe Musk and Sacks also subscribe too. Sacks for sure, he quotes Mearsheimer verbatim. And Elon does his vacuous "Well said" for anything Sacks posts.

These guys are not idiots, but my observation is that Realpolitik/great-power-politics has a fundamental flaw that makes it mostly useless. The flaw is in the assumption that they have complete information about a situation. IF they had full information, maybe they'd have a point, but I'd observe that anything as complex as international relations and war has to be in the chaos theory realm, not actually predictable. These guys are completely arrogant and think they know everything, and don't have enough humility to admit that no one can know enough to accurately predict this sort of thing.


Please allow me my observational point- before the war, everyone, and I mean everyone, thought that Russia was going to roll Ukraine in 3 days, 1 week tops. Everyone in US intelligence, CIA reports, retired generals, Sacks, Elon, Mearsheimer all had this idea that Russia was vastly more powerful than Ukraine and that they didn't stand a chance.

Well? What happened then? Any chance of learning anything new from our self-appointed masters-of-the-universe? How can these people be so completely, 100% wrong, and still insist that the 'realistic' path is just give in to Russian demands?

How can these people continue to support Russian goals after seeing the atrocities at Bucha? The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure including hospitals and housing complexes? Destroying the Kakhovka dam to deliberately create a catastrophe? This is not a professional army where you can be a 'realist', this is a fight against the Mongol Hordes. These people are barbarians.

 

[MC3OZ]

How can these people continue to support Russian goals after seeing the atrocities at Bucha?

This is the main point, I don't support war as a means to an end.

But I do support defending the citizens of a country from atrocities, and from rule imposed by a brutal invasion,

Many countries did a lot of bad things in the colonial era, and many countries have started brutal wars on flimsy or invalid grounds.

What this war is telling us is, there are others who perhaps deserved our support in the past, the Syrians are one example.

 

[wdolson]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670928417368469504

Sacks is demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

He thinks he understands a lot more about war than he actual does.

In other news some people have been analyzing the satellite photos of the main Ka-52 base in the western military district. People have found a lot of helicopters cannibalized for parts

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670932190899601409

 

[stopcrazypp]

Excuse me, what is this assertion based on? when Putin occupied the Crimea in 2014 the costs for Russia ere relatively low, despite Western sanctions, and the rewards for Russia were high.
As a result he did see Ukraine as weak and he tried to take all of Ukraine last year.

Now the rewards for Russia have been very small, even in a best case scenario for Russia, while the costs have been enourmous.

The "rewards" if, abiding by the terms of negotiation Russia would find acceptable, is huge compared to the past. It includes at minimum international recognition of Crimea as permanently Russian territory, if not other parts they still hold. For Russia, even in the absence of international recognition, if the cease fire happens now, in their book they have "won" because they have reduced much of Ukraine to rubble, and they hold large chunks of Ukrainian territory, way more than they held before the invasion!

I'm not sure if you have looked at a map recently that compares the territory from the start of the invasion:

Here's the current lines of control:

If a negotiated ceasefire happens right now, the "lesson" Russia would have learned is that they can gain huge chunks of territory by invading other countries, and the western nations will eventually fold for "peace" (just like they did since 2014, which is what emboldened them in the first place).

As others pointed out, the "costs" for Russia in terms of lives lost doesn't count as much for them as it does for us (especially given their "official" counts is much lower).

Additionally Russia knows that Ukraine will be well prepared and massively armed in any future conflict.
Yet despite these completely opposing situations for Russia we are supposed to believe that Russia will attack again? Why exactly?

Russia haven't stopped fighting even in the face of western weapons!

If a ceasefire happens now, the likelihood of western support of Ukraine waning drastically increases, with them likely gambling on the next US election (where it's very clear one side will end presidential aid, which is responsible for a bulk of US military aid to Ukraine so far).

What makes you think they will not attack again when they have rebuilt their stocks (as pointed out up thread, sanctions have drastically slowed their production, but have not eliminated it), and fortified their defenses?

So they keep pushing the idea that it's impossible for Ukraine to take the land back and also waving nuclear threat in hopes things will halt where it is, so they can get more time to rebuild (ideally even tricking the west/Ukraine to permanently give up land for "peace"). Edit: and as posted just recently now, you have people like Sacks and Elon falling for this argument hook, line, and sinker.

 

[BitJam]

Russia haven't stopped fighting even in the face of western weapons!

Nor have they stopped committing war crimes in Ukraine. The idea that there can now be some kind of reasonable compromise ceding large tracts of Ukraine's most resource-rich land to Putin is madness!

Also, Sacks and friends could learn a lot about Ukraine and Putin from one of our foremost experts, Fiona Hill. This interview is from October of 2022 but, unlike many analyses, it has aged well.

Fiona Hill: ‘Elon Musk Is Transmitting a Message for Putin’

Eight months into Russia’s war against Ukraine, POLITICO talks to the Russia analyst about whether Putin’s aims are evolving and what it would take to end the war.

www.politico.com

Hill warned in an interview with POLITICO that what Putin was trying to do was not only seize Ukraine but destroy the current world order. And she recognized from the start that Putin would use the threat of nuclear conflict to try to get his way.​

​

“Putin plays the egos of big men, gives them a sense that they can play a role. But in reality, they’re just direct transmitters of messages from Vladimir Putin,” Hill says.​

​

“This is a great power conflict, the third great power conflict in the European space in a little over a century,” Hill says. “It’s the end of the existing world order. Our world is not going to be the same as it was before.”​

​

"Putin gives himself no way out except to pursue the original goals he had when he went in, which is the dismemberment of Ukraine and Russia annexing its territory. And he’s still trying to adapt his responses to setbacks on the battlefield."​

​

"[Putin] sees this conflict as a full-on war with the West, and he still is adamant on removing Ukraine from the map and from global affairs."​

​

"Putin is also making it very clear that to get what you want in the world, you have to have a nuclear weapon and to protect yourself, you also have to have a nuclear weapon. So this is an absolute mess. Global nuclear stability is on a knife edge."​

​

"What’s incumbent upon us is to figure out is how to constrain Russia’s ability to put Ukraine under pressure again in the future or invade again. [...] We have to ensure, again, that Ukraine can always defend itself and make it impossible for Putin to break out of constraints and do this again."​

 

[Tiger]

On some prior Pro-Putin tweets from David Sacks, he posted a link to 'responsiblestatecraft', which is apparently where libertarians go to get their bad ideas. It appears that Sacks fancies himself to be a bit of a stateman, and suggests that he and his cronies are the only people who really understand what is going on.

Well? What happened then? Any chance of learning anything new from our self-appointed masters-of-the-universe? How can these people be so completely, 100% wrong, and still insist that the 'realistic' path is just give in to Russian demands?

To me it seems the most obvious point these stooges are missing is that The Russia that was Before the War in Ukraine, No longer Exists. In all essence, Russia has already lost and what is remains to be seen is if it ends with a whimper or a bang.

Instead, going forward, preparations for balkanization should be made perhaps together with china.

 

[petit_bateau]

Ukraine is fighting a two-front war to defeat Russia and to permanently embed the rule of law.

West needs strategy to tie Ukraine aid to corruption progress, thinktank says

German Marshall Fund says oligarchs biding their time until after war ends to reassert their influence

www.theguardian.com

 

[wdolson]

To me it seems the most obvious point these stooges are missing is that The Russia that was Before the War in Ukraine, No longer Exists. In all essence, Russia has already lost and what is remains to be seen is if it ends with a whimper or a bang.

Instead, going forward, preparations for balkanization should be made perhaps together with china.

The break up of the USSR from ending the Afghan war to the final stages took three years. The war in Ukraine could end with civil war starting in Russia, or it could end with Russia pushed out, and harassing Ukraine for a while until civil war breaks out. Or the Moscow government may be so toothless with the army shattered that they can only make empty threats as Russia balkanizes.

There are a lot of ways this war could end and the exact scenario is known to nobody at this point. I am certain that ultimately the end of the conflict with Ukraine lies in something happening in Russia to make the war a lower priority or impossible to continue for Russia.

Ukraine is all in to see this all the way to the end. When a country has that attitude and the means to accomplish their goals, the other side has lost the war.

Ukraine is fighting a two-front war to defeat Russia and to permanently embed the rule of law.

West needs strategy to tie Ukraine aid to corruption progress, thinktank says

German Marshall Fund says oligarchs biding their time until after war ends to reassert their influence

www.theguardian.com

I think the Zelensky government would be very much in favor with that. The current government of Ukraine sees their future is in becoming a valuable member of the European community and be much more like western Europe than a former Soviet republic.

 

[petit_bateau]

Regarding the possible breakup of the Russian Federation (the clue is really in the name) there ought to be a Western plan for that. If not the history of previous comparable Balkanisation episodes around the world suggests things could be unnecessarily fraught. However I recognise the many issues associated with putting together such a plan and the other competing actors who would complicate matters.

History of the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(191-present)

=====
Anyway some links of interest

Passive Russia supporters need to rethink

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670910764352151552

Large craters

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670891658332844033

.... and a good explanation of the likely implications (worth reading the whole thread)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670971803987058688

Ka-52 counts (noting that Oryx has already counted 35 destroyed of the believed Russian fleet of approx 115)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670932190899601409

and I think there are about another 30+ in cannibalisation condition in this one picture

https://twitter.com/x/status/1671044319946371073

Whilst mentioning Oryx, spare a moment to read this very sad but thoughtful message
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670723829713215489

and
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670813480998297600

 

[nativewolf]

Could not agree more on planning for a relationship with future Russia..and other states

 

[heltok]

This was an interesting way to get a more objective view of how the war is going. Using machine learning to track fires and see which side of the front line there are most fires:

Tracking the Ukraine war: where is the latest fighting?

Our satellite view of the conflict, updated daily

www.economist.com

Seems like recently there has been more fires on the Russian side...

 

[nativewolf]

One point Trent telenko touched at but does not explore is the destruction of rail bridges on either side of that town prior to the destruction of the ammo depot. Why? That was not random, was Russia moving ammo constantly? Why the need to “fix” the depot in place for 2 days? Are storm shadow missions being tracked? Does it take that long to prepare a storm shadow mission ? Are the mussels being slowly delivered? Did Russia hit a depot in one of the middle attacks earlier this summer?

or was it to test the hypothesis by forcing trucks to pick up ammo instead of rail cars?

Something very interesting happened and we have all the clues, what happened?

 

[wdolson]

Regarding the possible breakup of the Russian Federation (the clue is really in the name) there ought to be a Western plan for that. If not the history of previous comparable Balkanisation episodes around the world suggests things could be unnecessarily fraught. However I recognise the many issues associated with putting together such a plan and the other competing actors who would complicate matters.

The west was caught somewhat flat footed by the break up of the USSR. I hope it's more prepared for whatever happens on the back of this war. One thing that is certain is Russia has become less stable in the last few months.

History of the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(191-present)

=====
Anyway some links of interest

Passive Russia supporters need to rethink

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670910764352151552

Large craters

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670891658332844033

.... and a good explanation of the likely implications (worth reading the whole thread)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670971803987058688

Trent Telenko may be speaking out of his hat on some topics, but he does understand logistics. Russia is in a lot of trouble supply-wise for the next month at least.

I also have not been impressed with Russia's fortification efforts. For some reason Russia has never made much use of barbed wire which was a major element of fortifications in all western countries going back to before WW I. The idea came from the US which invented barbed wire to corral cattle on the open range, but all western countries saw it's benefit in fortification building.

Barbed wire around a trenchline makes it incredibly difficult for enemy infantry to close in on your trenchline. Without barbed wire it is very easy for enemy troops to get into your trenches unless you have lots of troops defending them, which the Russians don't have. The video going around from yesterday of the Ukrainian patrol getting into a Russian trench and killing the Russians they found was easy because there was no wire.

The obstacles that Russia has built are going to make the offensive a bit more difficult, but once the Russian defenses the Ukrainians are dealing with now are weakened to nothing, the offensive will probably get moving relatively fast. We could see a pattern similar to France 1944 where the Allies took 6 weeks to break out of Normandy, but then the rest of the French campaign was chasing fleeing German units intent on getting back to Germany ASAP. The allies ended up having to stop at one point because the forward elements outran the supply lines. They were moving too fast.

Another factor my partner read yesterday is that there are reports the cholera outbreak is affecting so many troops now that the units left in the Kherson oblast are pretty much useless. Everybody is sick and it's spreading due to poor Russian hygiene. The Russians may end up with thousands dead from it.

Ka-52 counts (noting that Oryx has already counted 35 destroyed of the believed Russian fleet of approx 115)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670932190899601409

and I think there are about another 30+ in cannibalisation condition in this one picture

https://twitter.com/x/status/1671044319946371073

Whilst mentioning Oryx, spare a moment to read this very sad but thoughtful message
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670723829713215489

and
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670813480998297600

With so much Russian artillery ammunition lost, the Russians may have to step up air operations to a maximum effort which is going to increase air losses. Not only will more run into Ukrainian air defenses, but after 16 months of war with spotty maintenance a lot of airframes are probably combat fatigued and operational losses are going to spike. There was that video of part of the tail falling off a Ka-52 going around. That wasn't a flight critical accident, but there are many things that could break that would result in a lost airframe.

One point Trent telenko touched at but does not explore is the destruction of rail bridges on either side of that town prior to the destruction of the ammo depot. Why? That was not random, was Russia moving ammo constantly? Why the need to “fix” the depot in place for 2 days? Are storm shadow missions being tracked? Does it take that long to prepare a storm shadow mission ? Are the mussels being slowly delivered? Did Russia hit a depot in one of the middle attacks earlier this summer?

or was it to test the hypothesis by forcing trucks to pick up ammo instead of rail cars?

Something very interesting happened and we have all the clues, what happened?

I suspect there were probably trains in the yard next to the facility when it was attacked. If the bridges were intact the Russians could have moved the trains out of harms way, but with the bridges out the trains went up with everything else.

I wouldn't put it past Ukraine to wait until a large train pulled into the facility before the attack to maximize Russian losses.

The facility is completely destroyed now, so not many trucks will be coming and going from the place. Russia is going to have to establish another ammo depot to replace that one. Russia's reliance on rail for supply is proving to be a liability in this age of drones everywhere. Ukraine just needs to watch the rail lines, which are immovable and target anyplace where trains are stopping.

If the Storm Shadow supply holds up, Russia will have more and more trouble moving supply around which will leave their frontline units starved for ammunition. The Russian army is very dependent on artillery to get anything done. No artillery weakens them dramatically.