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.

Gonna be lots of young men dying on both sides...

It was expected that Putin would try to expand the army shortly after the election. He faces some hurdles though. Among the people who are fighting the war, it's pretty unpopular and large scale drafting of people could result in riots. When they expanded conscription in late 2022 many recruiting offices were firebombed. This was especially effective in Russia because they don't have computerized records. Everything was on paper. If the recruitment office burned down, they wouldn't know who was there to be drafted.

Another problem Russia is going to have is how to arm these troops. Russia was low on even small arms last year. In some cases troops were doing meat waves with sticks. Many troops all along the front were complaining that small arms ammunition was in short supply. They have probably ramped up production, but they have hit the limit on what they can get out of the current factories without building new ones and there are no signs they are building new military factories.

They may be buying small arms from North Korea or China may be selling some on the down low. NK small arms are probably poor quality. NK is selling their junk they don't want. Chinese guns would be better, but China is being careful not to be caught selling military items to Russia. They don't want to get sanctioned by the west.

Russia definitely doesn't have the vehicles to equip 2 new armies (it's confusing, but an "army" within an army is a large formation of troops, in the US Army an army is a collection of corps, often 3, which usually have 3 divisions each, though that can vary). They probably don't have any artillery for these formation either. The only place where these units can be deployed would be in the east. The south is maxed out for supply capacity. Adding any units to the south would crash their supply system there.

Russia might be able to man these units. Whether the population they are drawing from will stand for it could be a problem. Once they get the recruits, they have very limited means to train them. Russia sent all their trainers to Ukraine in late 2022. Anybody training troops today knows little more than the people they are training.

Then if they get that far they have to answer the question of what to give these troops. Their Soviet vehicle parks are emptying out fast and those vehicles are getting eaten up in fighting by the units already in the field. It's documented that they were having problems even providing basics like uniforms, small arms and boots to troops.

The Russian army is a port-Lanchester Square collapse army. They can still field an army, but it's much lower quality than the army they started with and they can only keep the army fighting by robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like trying to keep walking on a broken leg. It's going to hurt like hell and every step is causing more damage to the leg.

I bet Putin's friends are going to ask for the budget first and forget to deliver ...


Early in the war I read about how the Russian mafia was draining the resources of the army. They would routinely take the pay of soldiers and give a cut to the commander. If a soldier got any kind of bonus, the mafia would be there shortly to take it from him.
 
What kind of range could those bombs have? And what aircraft would the Dictator's minions be using to launch/drop them?
One of these - Tu-22M3, which can carry two at a time. If they're fitted with a glide kit the range could be 50-60 miles from the drop zone maybe?

thediplomat_2016-03-11_19-09-51.jpg


Meanwhile, Washington has been asking Ukraine not to attack Russian refineries because it may push up oil prices and affect the election.
But it's OK for Russia to launch 90 missiles and 60 drones in one day at Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including hits on their largest hydroelectric dam.

 
What kind of range could those bombs have? And what aircraft would the Dictator's minions be using to launch/drop them?

The Tu-95 has a max armament load of 15,000 Kg, so it can probably carry a couple depending on the diameter of the bomb bay. The Tu-22 can carry 6 Kh-15s in a rotary launcher in the bomb bay. Those weight a little over 1000 Kg each. So there is enough room to carry at least one 3000 Kg bomb with the rotary launcher removed. Both are old and vulnerable strategic bombers.

Russia started the war with 17 Tu-160s which is their most modern strategic bomber which has two bomb bays that could carry one bomb each.

They would have to get very close to the target to launch and strategic bombers don't have the pop up ability a fight does. Fighters and attack aircraft can come in low, below radar, then pop up to launch their weapons before returning to the deck to get out. Most strategic bombers would break up from the g forces of such a maneuver. So they would have to approach the target at altitude leaving them vulnerable to Ukrainian air defenses.

The Tu-160 might be able to handle the g forces, but it isn't going to be as maneuverable as an Su-35. They would be taking a big risk of losing one of only a handful of the bombers in their inventory. The target would have to be a high value target and there is a risk of missing.

One of these - Tu-22M3, which can carry two at a time. If they're fitted with a glide kit the range could be 50-60 miles from the drop zone maybe?

View attachment 1030583

The Russians would have to build a special purpose glide kit for that bomb and from the pictures of the bombs, they don't have the long and slim profile of most modern aerial bombs designed to be carried on external hard points. They look more like the shorter, squatter bombs of WW II which were not as aerodynamic. A short and squat bomb is not going to fly as well with a glide kit.

Meanwhile, Washington has been asking Ukraine not to attack Russian refineries because it may push up oil prices and affect the election.

But it's OK for Russia to launch 90 missiles and 60 drones in one day at Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including hits on their largest hydroelectric dam.


I don't like it either, but there is a reason for the request. American voters are very sensitive to the economy in election years. If voters perceive the economy is doing well on election day, they tend to vote the incumbent back in. If the economy is perceived as not good, they tend to vote for the opposition.

The US economy is the best in the G20 right now. It has the lowest inflation, lowest unemployment, and generally good economic numbers overall. Though consumers are still wary of the economy. Interest rates are still higher than they have been in a long time and with fuel prices creeping back up because of the Ukrainian anti-refinery campaign (which is more jitters on the part of investors than reality since Russia had shut off refined fuel exports before the campaign started) US consumers are getting more nervous about the economy.

If the Democrats win this fall, Ukraine will be well equipped next year. If they don't, Ukraine and quite probably a lot of the rest of the world will be in for a world of hurt.

I would love to see a support bill for Ukraine to make it through Congress, but as long as an ally of Putin is in control of what reaches the House floor, nothing is likely going to happen.
 
How much of Ukraine will be left by November if there's going to be constant pussy-footing until then? The amount of death and destruction between now and then is just horrible to imagine, especially if Russia ramps up it's bomb and missile production which it seems sanctions are powerless to stop.

I'm now seeing reports that Johnson has agreed to pass the spending bill, is that actually going to happen and Ukraine can expect some more support?
 
The Tu-95 has a max armament load of 15,000 Kg, so it can probably carry a couple depending on the diameter of the bomb bay. The Tu-22 can carry 6 Kh-15s in a rotary launcher in the bomb bay. Those weight a little over 1000 Kg each. So there is enough room to carry at least one 3000 Kg bomb with the rotary launcher removed. Both are old and vulnerable strategic bombers.

Russia started the war with 17 Tu-160s which is their most modern strategic bomber which has two bomb bays that could carry one bomb each.

They would have to get very close to the target to launch and strategic bombers don't have the pop up ability a fight does. Fighters and attack aircraft can come in low, below radar, then pop up to launch their weapons before returning to the deck to get out. Most strategic bombers would break up from the g forces of such a maneuver. So they would have to approach the target at altitude leaving them vulnerable to Ukrainian air defenses.

The Russians would have to build a special purpose glide kit for that bomb and from the pictures of the bombs, they don't have the long and slim profile of most modern aerial bombs designed to be carried on external hard points. They look more like the shorter, squatter bombs of WW II which were not as aerodynamic. A short and squat bomb is not going to fly as well with a glide kit.
I believe the description of the bomb included 'integrated wings', but what that will mean in terms of range is anyone's guess.
I can't see them using anything other than a Tu-22 to deliver them though. There's no way now they've lost all those A-50s they're going anywhere near the front line with a strategic bomber like the Tu-95.
Maybe they'd try with the Tu-160 as it's got a big speed advantage, but who knows for the moment.
Maybe it's all bluff and bluster and the bombs seen in that video are made of cardboard?
 
Last edited:

This action is no different from Elon trying to stop Ukraine's raid on Crimea, except Elon did what he did for fear of escalation to nuclear war, so he's thinking about humanity instead of himself; while in this case someone is being selfish and only cares about his own re-election campaign, the contrast couldn't be more stark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heltok and cjkosh
One of the aspects of our providing so much aid to Ukraine that people don't appreciate is how much leverage it gives us to make Ukraine fight in a way that keeps the situation from escalating into ww3.

Obviously when we stop providing aid then we lose that leverage. And Ukraine is going to do what it takes to survive. Which means they're going to eventually start fighting a hell a lot dirtier.
 
The Russian soldiers' wifes that previously did some protests have allegedly been bought off. They allegedly received the equivalent of ~$666K in the Russian Dictator's rubles.

Source in Swedish:
 
Meanwhile, Washington has been asking Ukraine not to attack Russian refineries because it may push up oil prices and affect the election.
But it's OK for Russia to launch 90 missiles and 60 drones in one day at Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including hits on their largest hydroelectric dam.

No problem. Ukraine can fire back at the Russian infrastructure instead, start from regions with heavy war-supporting industry:

 
The Tu-95 has a max armament load of 15,000 Kg, so it can probably carry a couple depending on the diameter of the bomb bay. The Tu-22 can carry 6 Kh-15s in a rotary launcher in the bomb bay. Those weight a little over 1000 Kg each. So there is enough room to carry at least one 3000 Kg bomb with the rotary launcher removed. Both are old and vulnerable strategic bombers.

Russia started the war with 17 Tu-160s which is their most modern strategic bomber which has two bomb bays that could carry one bomb each.

They would have to get very close to the target to launch and strategic bombers don't have the pop up ability a fight does. Fighters and attack aircraft can come in low, below radar, then pop up to launch their weapons before returning to the deck to get out. Most strategic bombers would break up from the g forces of such a maneuver. So they would have to approach the target at altitude leaving them vulnerable to Ukrainian air defenses.

The Tu-160 might be able to handle the g forces, but it isn't going to be as maneuverable as an Su-35. They would be taking a big risk of losing one of only a handful of the bombers in their inventory. The target would have to be a high value target and there is a risk of missing.



The Russians would have to build a special purpose glide kit for that bomb and from the pictures of the bombs, they don't have the long and slim profile of most modern aerial bombs designed to be carried on external hard points. They look more like the shorter, squatter bombs of WW II which were not as aerodynamic. A short and squat bomb is not going to fly as well with a glide kit.



I don't like it either, but there is a reason for the request. American voters are very sensitive to the economy in election years. If voters perceive the economy is doing well on election day, they tend to vote the incumbent back in. If the economy is perceived as not good, they tend to vote for the opposition.

The US economy is the best in the G20 right now. It has the lowest inflation, lowest unemployment, and generally good economic numbers overall. Though consumers are still wary of the economy. Interest rates are still higher than they have been in a long time and with fuel prices creeping back up because of the Ukrainian anti-refinery campaign (which is more jitters on the part of investors than reality since Russia had shut off refined fuel exports before the campaign started) US consumers are getting more nervous about the economy.

If the Democrats win this fall, Ukraine will be well equipped next year. If they don't, Ukraine and quite probably a lot of the rest of the world will be in for a world of hurt.

I would love to see a support bill for Ukraine to make it through Congress, but as long as an ally of Putin is in control of what reaches the House floor, nothing is likely going to happen.
“An ally of Putin” description is purely a politically slanted comment.

No party in America are allies of Putin’s Russia.
 

I wonder who these "terrorists" are and what their motive was?

Who do you think Putin will blame?

My guess is radicalized Chechens. Similar to this guy:

 
  • Informative
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
How much of Ukraine will be left by November if there's going to be constant pussy-footing until then? The amount of death and destruction between now and then is just horrible to imagine, especially if Russia ramps up it's bomb and missile production which it seems sanctions are powerless to stop.

I am fully in favor of a Ukraine bill, but I'm not the Speaker of the House. Mike Johnson has his own agenda and he is working to make it happen. Before he was elevated to the speakership he was a back bencher and few knew his actual beliefs. He comes from an extremely conservative district where any Republican wins easily.

Before he became Speaker he didn't belong to the House Freedom Caucus, but he attended their meetings and was very friendly with them. The House Freedom Caucus is the most conservative group in Congress with some very vocal people who make the news frequently with their outrageous comments.

It has recently come to light that Johnson has received campaign contributions from a Russian oligarch named Konstantin Nikolaev through a US company he owns a large stake in.

I'm now seeing reports that Johnson has agreed to pass the spending bill, is that actually going to happen and Ukraine can expect some more support?

There are rumors that the spending bill has a poison pill in it to ensure it never gets passed. We'll see what the final bill looks like.

I believe the description of the bomb included 'integrated wings', but what that will mean in terms of range is anyone's guess.
I can't see them using anything other than a Tu-22 to deliver them though. There's no way now they've lost all those A-50s they're going anywhere near the front line with a strategic bomber like the Tu-95.
Maybe they'd try with the Tu-160 as it's got a big speed advantage, but who knows for the moment.
Maybe it's all bluff and bluster and the bombs seen in that video are made of cardboard?

I wouldn't put it past them.

“An ally of Putin” description is purely a politically slanted comment.

No party in America are allies of Putin’s Russia.

No party is, but there are individuals in one party who have sung his praises. They have also brainwashed a number of people who are in that party who think Russia is the good guys.
 
I must be looking at the wrong polls.

Anyway. This is absolutely pertinent to Ukraines future. I just don’t get why people are dismissing this.

Jmho.
Yes. The polls aren't meaningful until September anyhow. And they're often wrong then too. The outcome of the election will most certainly impact Ukraine, but presuming the result now is pointless and self defeating to a certain extent.