Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
My understanding - correct me if I am wrong - is that the Russians will be very reluctant to blow the dam at Nova Kakhova as the Crimean water supply canal intake depends on the dam being functional.
Ukraine barricaded the North Crimean Canal in 2014, destroying Crimean agriculture. Russia promised the Crimeans they'd restore the supply, but Ukraine refused to negotiate and attempts to sue in international court went nowhere. Russia then tried various long-shot replacement schemes which all failed.

Ukraine didn't actually use the water they denied Crimea, btw. It just flowed to the sea, infuriating Russia and adding to their list of rationalizations for the invasion. They retook the dam and canal in the first days of the war.

If Ukraine takes back the dam they'll cut off Crimea's water again, anyway. So it doesn't really matter whether Russia blows it up or not.
 
Ukraine barricaded the North Crimean Canal in 2014, destroying Crimean agriculture. Russia promised the Crimeans they'd restore the supply, but Ukraine refused to negotiate and attempts to sue in international court went nowhere. Russia then tried various long-shot replacement schemes which all failed.

Ukraine didn't actually use the water they denied Crimea, btw. It just flowed to the sea, infuriating Russia /...

Seems to me that Putler didn't think that one through before he invaded.

.../ If Ukraine takes back the dam they'll cut off Crimea's water again, anyway. So it doesn't really matter whether Russia blows it up or not.

If Putler blows the dam, then how is he going to get water to Crimea?
 
  • Like
Reactions: madodel
@petit_bateau was referring to the 12.3 year half time for tritium. You lose half of the original quantity just by decay in 12 years. Every year you basically lose something ~5.5% of the quantity and you need to replenish it in order for the nuclear weapons' neutron initiator to still work. Otherwise you get a relatively weak fission weapon. Assuming that that part of the weapon works, of course.... If not it's a dirty bomb or just a radioactive ACME anvil if nothing detonates. The leaking losses that @wdolson was referring to, are just the icing on the cake that makes a bad problem worse. On top of that tritium is produced from 6Li in breeding reactors and needs serious processing. Last decades' Russia may or may not still have the technology to do it. But it's not easy nor cheap, therefore it becomes a really nice juicy target for lining the pockets of the kleptocracy. "Cui bono" and all of that....

BTW, allegedly first use of Harpoon AShMs today in Black Sea. A russian Black Sea Fleet tug carrying ammo for the forces on Serpent Island was hit by two anti-ship missiles. It is claimed that they were Harpoons. The tug/Multi-Purpose Salvage Vessel SPASATEL VASILIY BEKH carrying ammo and a Pantsir or TOR SAM system (conflicting info on which type) was sunk earlier today


Maybe a small target for 2 Harpoons, but the morale effect can't be underestimated. On both sides.

That's the reason why I believe it likely that few or possibly none of Russia's hydrogen bombs would work in a war. They probably have the capability to make the materials for bombs, but with no maintenance, they degrade while sitting. The working Russian stockpile might only be the size of China's arsenal.

Expending two Harpoons on that tug was sort of overkill, but it did the job.

Ukraine barricaded the North Crimean Canal in 2014, destroying Crimean agriculture. Russia promised the Crimeans they'd restore the supply, but Ukraine refused to negotiate and attempts to sue in international court went nowhere. Russia then tried various long-shot replacement schemes which all failed.

Ukraine didn't actually use the water they denied Crimea, btw. It just flowed to the sea, infuriating Russia and adding to their list of rationalizations for the invasion. They retook the dam and canal in the first days of the war.

If Ukraine takes back the dam they'll cut off Crimea's water again, anyway. So it doesn't really matter whether Russia blows it up or not.

I thought the Ukrainian water was for drinking water too.

When Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in the 1950s, it made sense as the peninsula attaches to the mainland there. The water project to send water from the Dnipro is an old Soviet project at a guess.

Trent Telenko the other day said that the Russians are expending artillery shells and rockets at a rate higher than all world production. He expects they are going to hit the wall where old supplies will start to run out.

Saw this today, Russia is now firing old propaganda shells from the Chechen War.

Reminds me of the last battle of the USS Johnston. She was one of the escorts of Taffy 3 (small carriers) during the Leyte landings in the Philippines in Oct 1944. The Japanese sent pretty much all their battleships to try and disrupt the landings. They never made it to the landing beaches, but the center force came through the San Bernardino Strait between islands during the night and found Taffy 3 while they were conducting support ops for the landing force.

A force of 4 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 11 destroyers were up against 6 escort carriers that were converted merchant ships, 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer escorts. The captain of the Johnston was a very aggressive commander who was on a destroyer that escaped the Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia) in the first months of the war and swore he would never retreat from the enemy again.

He sailed the Johnston in so close to the enemy that the battleship he was sparring with couldn't depress their main guns low enough to hit him. They fired everything in the magazines at the battleship: all the standard anti-ship 5 inch ammunition, all the high explosive 5 inch ammunition, then started firing practice rounds including paint rounds.

When they ran out of ammunition and tried to disengage the battleship finally got them and the destroyer was sunk. In that battle the sacrifice of the escorts bought time for the carriers to escape and allow the other carriers in the area to get their aircraft vectored onto the Japanese force. The Japanese broke off and retreated before the task force was wiped out. Admiral Kurita was nervous about American air power he believed was coming at him. Though the bulk of American carrier forces were out of range in the north.

In any case the Johnston shot everything they had, including paint. The Russians might be reaching that stage. Or grabbing leaflet shells 20 years old might be a mistake. In any case, they are using up very old artillery shells.

The battle I was talking about
Battle off Samar - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
If Putler blows the dam, then how is he going to get water to Crimea?
He's not. But they'd only blow the dam as a last resort to attempt to hold the territory. If they lose the territory they lose the water anyway.

I thought the Ukrainian water was for drinking water too.

When Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in the 1950s, it made sense as the peninsula attaches to the mainland there. The water project to send water from the Dnipro is an old Soviet project at a guess.
Right, the Soviets built the canal in the '60s and created an irrigated Crimean farming industry out of almost nothing. Fruit orchards, grains, even rice paddies. Not so much since 2014.

They have other sources for drinking water, though I heard Russia trucked water over the Kerch bridge during a recent drought.
 
That light frigate / corvette that Ukraine said it hit earlier in the war (pos with Grads in March) doesn't seem to be in a very happy condition, needing a push me pull you tow. It certainly seems to have received quite an interesting amount of splintering.


1655557010896.png
 

Attachments

  • 1655557051869.png
    1655557051869.png
    863.2 KB · Views: 26
This was a very informative piece. It describes the logistical challenges required to support each HIMARS. Essentially the pods of armaments fired by the HIMARS in an hour weigh 20 tons and require quite large supply vehicles to get them there. The logistics of getting everything required is huge and UKR would not have been able to support this much earlier in the war. I saw this article in a Mark Hertling tweet this morning.

 
That light frigate / corvette that Ukraine said it hit earlier in the war (pos with Grads in March) doesn't seem to be in a very happy condition, needing a push me pull you tow. It certainly seems to have received quite an interesting amount of splintering.


View attachment 818063

I think that frigate is likely out of the war for a while. If it needs a tow, something happened to the propulsion.

Snake Island definitely is getting more and more difficult for Russians to keep resupplied. At some point it will become more of a liability than an asset for the Russians to retain. But wihout it the whole western hinge of the blockade line comes adrift.


The Ukrainians don't have the lift capability to take back the island and the Russians are paying a lot of resources trying to keep it. It's a very tough island to defend.

The Ukraine advance in the south appears to be working, one nibble at a time


Russia stripped their other fronts to put all their eggs into Donbas. One of the International Legion guys my partner follows said he could see Kherson from his position a week back.

This was a very informative piece. It describes the logistical challenges required to support each HIMARS. Essentially the pods of armaments fired by the HIMARS in an hour weigh 20 tons and require quite large supply vehicles to get them there. The logistics of getting everything required is huge and UKR would not have been able to support this much earlier in the war. I saw this article in a Mark Hertling tweet this morning.


The US supply system makes heavy use of pallets, fork lifts and cranes. The HIMARS can load itself if the rocket pods are on the ground near the vehicle. There is a winch system to load the pods into the launcher.

From what I've read the US isn't just supplying the launchers, but all the support equipment too. I haven't read anything about the British donation, but I assume those are complete systems too.

I don't know what the US stockpile of rockets for the HIMARS is, but it isn't enough to keep even a handful of launchers going non-stop for very long. US made artillery is vastly better than Russian and it is capable of staggering rates of fire, but the designers never intended that to be a steady state rate of fire. Instead the artillery, both rocket and guns was designed to be the most accurate in the world. A relative small number of tubes firing just when needed should be capable of devastating Russian artillery in a short time.

They need enough to cover the entire active front. They don't have that yet. But where they have deployed the 155mm artillery, Russian artillery has suffered pretty badly.

The Russians have a lot of artillery, and it's difficult to completely knock out towed artillery. But with towed artillery, the crew is vulnerable and can be taken out. Self propelled artillery has some protection from strikes (the armor isn't thick like a tank's, but it will stop splinters from near misses), but western artillery is so accurate now they can drop a shell on the roof of the gun, which is almost always a kill.

Another advantage of western gun artillery over Russian is after an accident in, I believe Iraq, where an ammunition dump exploded, the US started working on an explosive for artillery shells that won't explode unless the fuze is in the shell. The newer explosive in all US made artillery rounds is this stuff. It makes crew survival when a gun is hit much higher. That keeps the experienced guys in action, even if they need to be given new equipment.

Loss of a crew is not only a human tragedy, but it also is a loss of all the experience the crew has gathered. Higer crew survival among western weapons is good for morale, makes for better political optics back home, but also has a strategic importance. The Russians have been slow to adopt this concept.
 
I thought one thing about this is interesting

It says the acting commander of the 41st Army is a Colonel. In Russia, an Army is the equivalent of a corps in the US military.

The Russian army has been more officer top heavy than most militaries since the Soviet era because they don't have an effective NCO corps. They have the equivalent of a corps commanded by a colonel? In the US Army there would be a lot of flag rank officers (generals) to go through before a colonel ends up in that level of command, and it would be only after some kind of serious disaster.

Is Russia running out of flag officers?
 
In his latest talk about The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war (vid) John Mearsheimer also speaks of why he thinks that an escalation is likely, and what the potential results might be. Without the Q&A it is only one hour long and well worth your time.

From Moon of Alabama,
Posted by b on June 17, 2022 at 16:35 UTC | Permalink

I don't have the time right now to listen to his entire speech, but he went off the rails fairly early when he blamed the entire war on the United States because he claims the Biden administration has been trying to get Ukraine into NATO.

Back in 2008 GW Bush made noises about admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, but it went over like the politically ridiculous idea it was at the time
Ukraine: NATO’s original sin

Some Americans with a tin ear to the political realities of the region have made noises like Bush did, but in general US and NATO policy has been constantly resisting eastern Europe's demands to join NATO. NATO eventually caved in and allowed many eastern European countries to join, despite the original promises not to allow them to join the west made when the USSR split up.

As late as January of this year, the most vocal and pretty much only proponent for Ukraine to join NATO was Ukraine.
Aside from Kyiv, No One in Rush for Ukraine to Join NATO

This is a diplomatic balancing act that has been going on for 30 years. The US, UK, and France offer the protection of a nuclear umbrella to NATO members. For countries under the threat from a larger neighbor, their path to safety lies in either being under someone else's umbrella, or make their own. China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have made their own, those countries friendly enough with a western nuclear power (generally the United States) can enjoy those protections.

That is what NATO membership give the countries of Europe as well as some Asian countries with tight alliances with the US. Thanks to the Monroe Doctrine which is still pretty much valid after 200 years, the other countries in the Western Hemisphere can rest easy that nobody outside the hemisphere is probably going to bother them.

For countries like Georgia and Ukraine, they are dealing with a neighbor with a history of aggression towards them. Since GW Bush made those remarks in 2008, Russia has invaded Georgia and Ukraine.

The US has created or participated in creating some of the worst problems in the world. It participated in overthrowing the elected leader of Iran in the 1950s which eventually led to the religious zealots running the place today. The US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the worst strategic blunder the US ever made and I said so before it started. Afghanistan was a noble effort at the start and it had a good chance of success, but the Bush administration started illegally drawing out troops for the Iraq operation before there was authorization for it. By removing troops at the critical time, the whole thing turned into a quagmire (Churchill did the same thing diverting 8th Army troops to Greece instead of finishing the Italians off in Africa in 1940).

However, not all the world's problems can be laid at the feet of the US. There is a knee jerk reaction among some American intellectuals to immediately conclude that if something went wrong in the world it's mostly the US' fault. The US did make some mistakes leading up to this war, but it is not the primary character at fault.

@bkp_duke posted a video a few weeks ago that made a much better explanation for why this war and the 2014 invasion of Crimea and Donbas happened. In 2013 Geologists working on and off shore in Ukraine discovered a massive field off the Ukrainians coast and through a part of Crimea that was mostly natural gas, though it would produce some oil. Another exploration project found a reservoir of oil under eastern Ukraine with the bulk of it in Donbas. Shell oil got a contract to develop one field and Exxon the other.

Shortly after those contracts were awarded, Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas and the two oil companies abandoned the projects. There was still potential to develop the western end of the gas field off shore. That's probably why Putin has been obsessed with taking Odesa. If he can make Ukraine a land locked country, Russia will own the rights to all that offshore gas.

In 2013 after the discovery Europe was looking to switch gas suppliers form Russia to Ukraine.

This war is the most naked act of aggression by a large power in 80 years. The US has done some (usually for bad reasons and I do fault them for that), but they have never been wars of conquest. The US never had the intention of making Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam part of the United States. The US wanted to leave friendly regimes behind, but when that didn't happen in any of those countries the US pretty much shrugged and went home (kicking itself for doing something so stupid in the first place).

Russia is trying to make Ukraine a part of Russia again. This is a war of conquest.

The developed world decided in the aftermath of WW II that even though there were territorial claims sometimes stemming back centuries, for the most part countries preferred peace by enforcing the existing borders than continue to carry a grudge about something that happened in the past. Germany could claim Kalingrad, but they aren't. Parts of modern day Poland were German territory up to 1945 when the USSR shifted Poland westward.

Putin approached Poland about carving up Ukraine and offered them Lviv which has belonged to Poland off and on for centuries. Poland declined and decided to back Ukraine to the hilt instead. They would rather have a friendly neighbor who is currently in control of historically Polish land than have to kiss up to Russia in any way.

Russia didn't get that memo. It is still thinking in terms of the 19th century Great Game while the rest of the world is pretty much thinking in terms of the post -WW II bury territorial disputes and move on mode. Ukraine's demands are just to get their own territory back and nothing else. Even if the Russian army completely collapsed leaving the road to Moscow wide open, the Ukrainians would not do it.