Russia-Ukraine

[Macky-Mac]

There would be some significant downstream flooding. However, there is a big issue preventing the Russians from blowing Kakhovka dam: right behind it is the aqueduct that waters Crimea. If the dam goes, Crimean agriculture, in the near term, is basically toast. On the other hand, when the Ukranian Army takes control of the dam, they will inevitably also gain control of the gate for the Crimean aqueduct.

In other words, the Russians have no good choice here. They can dry up Crimea themselves, or they can let the Ukrainians do it for them, but it looks like, either way, Crimea is kind of screwed. Unless the Russians decide to return it to Ukraine.

The Russian spokespeople were saying they were concerned about the danger of the Ukrainians blowing up the dam, and/or using chemical weapons. Neither of which are things one would likely do in the process of liberating one's own territory. It seems more likely that the Russians are preparing to use those tactics, so they are accusing the Ukrainians of threatening to do those things for cover. That way, when the Russians do it, they will say "see – we told you they were going to do that".

The ISW briefing, which is usually fairly restrained in its wording, is uncharacteristically blunt in rejecting the argument that the need for water for Crimea will prevent Russian from blowing up the dam.

Any claims that Russian forces would not blow the dam due to concerns for the water supply to Crimea are absurd.

They explain;

Crimea survived without access to the canal flowing from the Dnipro since Russia illegally invaded and annexed it in 2014 through the restoration of access following Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Russian officials have demonstrated their ability to indefinitely supply Crimea with water without access to the canal. Russian forces will try to hold eastern Kherson Oblast not for the water, but rather to provide a buffer zone that enables the defense of Crimea and prevents Ukrainian forces from getting into artillery range of the peninsula.

So we shall have to wait to see what happens. It would be a total mess for the downstream region if the damn dam is indeed blown up

 

[AG_PhamD]

There would be some significant downstream flooding. However, there is a big issue preventing the Russians from blowing Kakhovka dam: right behind it is the aqueduct that waters Crimea. If the dam goes, Crimean agriculture, in the near term, is basically toast. On the other hand, when the Ukranian Army takes control of the dam, they will inevitably also gain control of the gate for the Crimean aqueduct.

In other words, the Russians have no good choice here. They can dry up Crimea themselves, or they can let the Ukrainians do it for them, but it looks like, either way, Crimea is kind of screwed. Unless the Russians decide to return it to Ukraine.

The Russian spokespeople were saying they were concerned about the danger of the Ukrainians blowing up the dam, and/or using chemical weapons. Neither of which are things one would likely do in the process of liberating one's own territory. It seems more likely that the Russians are preparing to use those tactics, so they are accusing the Ukrainians of threatening to do those things for cover. That way, when the Russians do it, they will say "see – we told you they were going to do that".

Yeah, I think it’s doubtful they will blow the dam. Or if they do, it will be a last resort of desperation, probably if it appears they will lose Crimea- scorched earth campaign on the way out.

I would imagine destroying the dam could also be considered a war crime if such action resulted in significant civilian casualties.

I really do wonder about some of these strikes on random apartment buildings sometimes. The usual narrative is that Russia is targeting civilians- which in some cases they clearly are. But then you consider the failure rate of their guided weapons, and the fact many of their air dropped bombs are not guided (plus likely lackluster pilot skill). And I have a feeling they necessarily consider obstacles in GPS guided weapons. They might program in a legitimate target but neglect to realize there’s tall buildings, blocking the intended flight path.

It just seems strange to me to use such expensive weapons, especially cruise missiles and repurposed SAMs (ie Kalibr costs $1m/missile), into some apartment block of zero military value that’s probably been largely evacuated by the time the missile strikes. One could argue it’s to instill fear, but the Ukrainians have well demonstrated they’re not going to back down and such attacks only inspire Ukrainians to fight back.

There also seems to be a complete deficit of Russian intelligence for them to be focusing their strikes on so many targets that are not directly associated with the Ukrainian military. Apparently their surveillance satellite capabilities are very weak.

 

[Citysnaps]

I really do wonder about some of these strikes on random apartment buildings sometimes. The usual narrative is that Russia is targeting civilians- which in some cases they clearly are. But then you consider the failure rate of their guided weapons, and the fact many of their air dropped bombs are not guided (plus likely lackluster pilot skill). And I have a feeling they necessarily consider obstacles in GPS guided weapons. They might program in a legitimate target but neglect to realize there’s tall buildings, blocking the intended flight path.

I wouldn't be surprised if a "friendly country" or even Ukraine is spoofing (or jamming, though difficult) Russia's GLONASS GPS system that their cruise missiles and other weapons rely on for guidance. Not saying that the spoofing country is intentionally redirecting missiles to civilian apartment buildings, but there's likely error and ambiguity and perhaps some unknowns causing that to unintentionally occur.

Overall I'm very surprised how Russian/Soviet military capability/doctrine/technology/readiness/discipline/professionalism appears to have degraded so dramatically over the last 30 years. My first career was in aerospace systems, and while the US has always been top shelf in such systems and technology, everyone who was aware of what the other side's capabilities were still had a ton of respect for what they were able to accomplish with 2nd/3rd rate tech.

 

[AG_PhamD]

I wouldn't be surprised if a "friendly country" or even Ukraine is spoofing (or jamming, though difficult) Russia's GLONASS GPS system that their cruise missiles and other weapons rely on for guidance. Not saying that the spoofing country is intentionally redirecting missiles to civilian apartment buildings, but there's likely error and ambiguity and perhaps some unknowns causing that to unintentionally occur.

Overall I'm very surprised how Russian/Soviet military capability/doctrine/technology/readiness/discipline/professionalism appears to have degraded so dramatically over the last 30 years. My first career was in aerospace systems, and while the US has always been top shelf in such systems and technology, everyone who was aware of what the other side's capabilities were still had a ton of respect for what they were able to accomplish with 2nd/3rd rate tech.

I’d imagine there is GPS/GLONASS/Beidou/Galileo spoofing going on. I remember seeing map early on of eastern Ukraine marking where navigational system spoofing was going on- and there was a lot of it.

Given the fact there are 4 different satellite navigation constellations, I would imagine modern weapons might compare the signals of each to detect spoofing, not to mention comparing the other methods I’m about to mention.

I also remember reading Russia was relying on terrestrial radio navigation, I forget the name but it’s basically the same as LORAN (if used a boat prior to the early 2000’s when GPS became available, you’ll be familiar- basically triangulating your location using radio towers rather than satellites). I don’t believe any missiles would use this since it’s really that accurate (0.25-1.0 miles consumer/commercial maritime use). Russia’s system is said to be accurate 20-50 meters, I’m not sure how believable that is- maybe in very ideal situations. Regardless, for troops on the ground, aircraft, and boats it should be close enough. But I would also think this would be relatively easy to spoof/interfere with as it’s really the same concept as how satellite nav works, just on the ground.

A lot of missiles have inertial navigation systems as a backup or even as primary navigation (including some cruise missiles and ICBMs). INS in normal planes and boats usually has an error of 1 unit of drift per 1000 units traveled, but there are very accurate INS systems available and ways to correct drift.

Another method of navigation in missiles, for example used in the Tomahawk, is terrain contour mapping. The missile compares the ground beneath it to satellite imagery of the ground inconjunction with INS. This supposedly proved more accurate in the Gulf War than gps guidance.

Plus there’s usually a terminal guidance systems in missiles (radar, infrared, TV/electro-optical, etc) which can identify specific targets. So even if the weapon is a ways off in theory it should find the target.

You would expect the Russians would design their GPS guided weapons to work in GPS degraded environments. On paper their missiles do have multiple guidance methods and actually many of them lack GPS/GLONASS entirely. So apparently whatever navigation systems they are relying on either don’t work well to begin with, have not been properly calibrated, or have not been maintained.

It’s also worth noting GLONASS is less accurate than GPS. They have much fewer satellites and very few ground stations that happen to be located in obscure parts of the world.

I believe these new Iranian suicide drones rely solely on GLONASS for navigation, making them entirely vulnerable to jamming but also probably don’t account for buildings in the way unless they can be and are specifically programmed to avoid them.

A family friend of my parents grew up in Poland during the Cold War and was conscripted into submarine service. He has always said “I don’t know what the west was so afraid of during the Cold War” and then recounts how equipment was never maintained, systems never worked properly or at all, morale was awful, and the submarine crew was always on the verge of mutiny.

Edit: Also worth noting the Russians have resorted to using surface to air missiles for ground attack. I really have no idea how that works, but I cannot imagine it could be that accurate. They’re supposed to follow the ground systems radar beam to the (air) target and then switch using internal radar or infrared homing. So how you guide the missile for ground attack, no clue. Other than just lobbing the missiles on a ballistic trajectory.

 

[Yoused]

Overall I'm very surprised how Russian/Soviet military capability/doctrine/technology/readiness/discipline/professionalism appears to have degraded so dramatically over the last 30 years.

There is a word for it: "kleptocracy". The Russians had many tanks sitting in the near-Ukraine Belgorod area, and very few of them were actually functional because parts had been pilfered off of them with gleeful abandon. There was the thing with 1.5 million military uniforms that they were unable to find, almost certainly because of graft between the quartermasters and the supplier: the uniforms probably never existed, the money just changed hands, with proper kickbacks as needed.

Russia had a massive, powerful military force, and about three-quarters or so of it was numbers on paper that were outright fiction. Which, of course, puts a massive damper on morale. At least the USSR had a relatively decent ability to wage war – when they transitioned to plutocracycapitalism, the system was ripe for the plucking, and pluck they did.

Alisa Rosenbaum left her Russian homeland for America, changing her identity to become Ayn Rand: how proud she would be of how far her mother-Russia has come.

 

[Yoused]

Israeli missles have wiped out a factory in Syria that assembled drones from parts made in Iran. These may or may not have been destined for use in Ukraine. No human casualties were reported.

Israel destroys Iranian drone manufacturing plant in Syria

 

[Deleted member 215]

Liberal Democrats call on Biden to shift Ukraine strategy | CNN Politics

More than two dozen liberal House members are calling on President Joe Biden to shift course in his Ukraine strategy and pursue direct diplomacy with Russia to bring the months-long conflict to an end.

www.cnn.com

Progressive lawmakers call on Biden to seek a diplomatic end to the war, rather than further escalation.

Support for continued war aid to Ukraine is as low as 29% among Republicans.

 

[Citysnaps]

He has always said “I don’t know what the west was so afraid of during the Cold War” and then recounts how equipment was never maintained, systems never worked properly or at all, morale was awful, and the submarine crew was always on the verge of mutiny.

There was plenty to be afraid of then. There were many elements that were formidable and professionally operated that the US took very seriously. The Soviet SRF (Strategic Rocket Forces) come to mind. The US, having an excellent view and insight into their capabilities from many SS-18 and other MIRV'd ICBM test launches at Tyuratam and other sites (including SLBMs in the north) to reentry at Kamchatka demonstrated how real the threat was. Both sides having the ability to change doctrine to launch on warning (as opposed to absorbing a first strike and then retaliating) was particularly problematic and destabilizing. And then there was Dead Hand and ERCs potentially further destabilizing.

 

[Deleted member 215]

Liberal Democrats call on Biden to shift Ukraine strategy | CNN Politics

More than two dozen liberal House members are calling on President Joe Biden to shift course in his Ukraine strategy and pursue direct diplomacy with Russia to bring the months-long conflict to an end.

www.cnn.com

Progressive lawmakers call on Biden to seek a diplomatic end to the war, rather than further escalation.

Support for continued war aid to Ukraine is as low as 29% among Republicans.

And like the cowards they are, the progressive caucus has already withdrawn their letter.

I'm not saying "negotiating with Putin" was the solution, but I am for anything that could de-escalate a war that seems to have no end in sight. Democrats are just so toothless. If the GOP takes the house, which they likely will, they may stop aid to Ukraine entirely. It might've been nice to have some kind of alternative from the other side before that happens.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

And like the cowards they are, the progressive caucus has already withdrawn their letter.

I'm not saying "negotiating with Putin" was the solution, but I am for anything that could de-escalate a war that seems to have no end in sight. Democrats are just so toothless. If the GOP takes the house, which they likely will, they may stop aid to Ukraine entirely. It might've been nice to have some kind of alternative from the other side before that happens.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I guarantee if he was in office he would be going ballistic about the EU still not pulling their fair share NATO weight despite an actual war happening in their backyard.

It should also be mentioned that a lot of EU countries have a far larger social safety net than the US. I don't think it takes much effort to make a connection between that and their military spending. They can afford to have nice things for their citizens while we can't.

 

[Macky-Mac]

And like the cowards they are, the progressive caucus has already withdrawn their letter.

I'm not saying "negotiating with Putin" was the solution, but I am for anything that could de-escalate a war that seems to have no end in sight. Democrats are just so toothless. If the GOP takes the house, which they likely will, they may stop aid to Ukraine entirely. It might've been nice to have some kind of alternative from the other side before that happens.

CNN:

....Jayapal contended the letter was released by staff without proper vetting and said it improperly conflated her caucus’ position with GOP divisions over providing more aid to Ukraine aid, which Democrats back. She withdrew the letter after the embarrassing intra-party feud....

progressive chaos from the progressive caucus.....especially given that voting for the midterm election is currently underway

 

[Yoused]

I'm no Trump supporter, but I guarantee if he was in office he would be going ballistic about the EU still not pulling their fair share NATO weight despite an actual war happening in their backyard.

If Cheetolini was still in the WH, the war would have been over by the first week of March. The US MIC might be a little irked about losing all those profits, though.

 

[Nycturne]

I'm not saying "negotiating with Putin" was the solution, but I am for anything that could de-escalate a war that seems to have no end in sight. Democrats are just so toothless. If the GOP takes the house, which they likely will, they may stop aid to Ukraine entirely. It might've been nice to have some kind of alternative from the other side before that happens.

What would that even look like though? I don’t see a good way to de-escalate this that doesn’t involve telling Ukraine to accept losses to a neighboring country that:

• Attempted regime change and may very well try it again.
• Has used its military to take and hold land within Ukraine’s borders twice in the last 10 years.
• Used propaganda to push the idea that Ukraine is not a legitimate state, and that it rightfully belongs to Russia.
• Is weaker now than it likely will be in 10 years.

I don’t see Ukraine backing down on that. As this looks like the best opportunity to give Russia a bloody nose and make them think twice about trying this stunt again in the future, there’s even less incentive to do so. And with Putin at the helm, he’s not going to cede jack squat to Ukraine unless he himself is under threat. Let alone getting any sort of justice for atrocities already committed. Those atrocities being part of Russia’s tactic for extracting concessions from the other side for a long time.

This is about as close to “immovable wall vs unstoppable force” as I’ve seen in a while.

If Cheetolini was still in the WH, the war would have been over by the first week of March.

The war for regime change, perhaps. But I fully expect they would find themselves bogged down in a drawn out occupation that would have been brutal and bloody against an internal resistance.

 

[Yoused]

I don’t see a good way to de-escalate this

"How do you like the view, Vlad? Here, let me open the window."

It is the only option.

 

[lizkat]

"How do you like the view, Vlad? Here, let me open the window."

It is the only option.

It's not the only option. Some oligarchs are probably trying to figure out a better one. Buying some generals should be getting cheaper by the day at this point, no?

Huge puzzle about whom to trust has likely been underway for awhile now. The questions become how to defang the FSB or can they be reliably turned, and where to stash Vlad so they don't have to stage some kind of accident, which no one would believe anyway.

In the best of all worlds either Vlad or a replacement head of state just declares victory as the rubble continues to smoke from the most recent insane assaults on Ukrainian civilians in the interior -- "we have restored ORDER in Ukraine which was our mission"-- and pulls back troops all the way to Russia proper, with all due thanks to its meanwhile abused puppet Belarus.

Who in Russia would care much about how the hostilities end on paper, so long as the danger to their own sons and husbands could just stop already. With all the coffins, and all those men and families who have fled conscription, it's pretty clear at this point how the populace sees the prospects for military victory.

Then the West kicks in billions to rebuild Ukraine and life stumbles back to uneasy normalcy for a few decades, assuming the nationalists in some of the EU countries don't get carried away with themselves.

Russia would have some issues trying to right its economy. Its friends are not in much better shape thanks to their own rogue behavior. The West would have to think about how to lift sanctions on Russia without encouraging another round of expansionist dreams in Moscow.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

It's not the only option. Some oligarchs are probably trying to figure out a better one. Buying some generals should be getting cheaper by the day at this point, no?

Huge puzzle about whom to trust has likely been underway for awhile now. The questions become how to defang the FSB or can they be reliably turned, and where to stash Vlad so they don't have to stage some kind of accident, which no one would believe anyway.

In the best of all worlds either Vlad or a replacement head of state just declares victory as the rubble continues to smoke from the most recent insane assaults on Ukrainian civilians in the interior -- "we have restored ORDER in Ukraine which was our mission"-- and pulls back troops all the way to Russia proper, with all due thanks to its meanwhile abused puppet Belarus.

Who in Russia would care much about how the hostilities end on paper, so long as the danger to their own sons and husbands could just stop already. With all the coffins, and all those men and families who have fled conscription, it's pretty clear at this point how the populace sees the prospects for military victory.

Then the West kicks in billions to rebuild Ukraine and life stumbles back to uneasy normalcy for a few decades, assuming the nationalists in some of the EU countries don't get carried away with themselves.

Russia would have some issues trying to right its economy. Its friends are not in much better shape thanks to their own rogue behavior. The West would have to think about how to lift sanctions on Russia without encouraging another round of expansionist dreams in Moscow.

Well, it's not like we exited Afghanistan gracefully or that there was some big government overthrow as a result. I think a good percentage of the Russian people are going to be pissed regardless. There's not going to be a lot of "worth it!" going on. So I think pitching some kind of victory has more to do with leader's egos.

If nothing else, I think the general public's opinion on any conflict on the globe has shifted the blame to the leaders (as it should be) instead of trying to lump the country's entire population supporting the leader's actions 100%. There's no "they're all Nazis!" equivalent. At best we'll say they are on board because they are under threat of getting killed or imprisoned by the leadership, not a lot of true believers.

 

[Yoused]

Well, it's not like we exited Afghanistan gracefully

Depends on to which exit you refer. The US exit from Afghanistan in 1989 was a policy tragedy that gave rise to the Taliban, largely because the US used Afghanistan like a fifty-cent whore in a threesome with the Soviet Union, then booted her onto the sidewalk afterwards. Everything that followed was because of that. If Saint Ronnie had been able to leave well enough alone, the towers would probably still be standing in lower Manhattan and there would have been no more recent exit.

If nothing else, I think the general public's opinion on any conflict on the globe has shifted the blame to the leaders (as it should be) instead of trying to lump the country's entire population supporting the leader's actions 100%. There's no "they're all Nazis!" equivalent. At best we'll say they are on board because they are under threat of getting killed or imprisoned by the leadership, not a lot of true believers.

Imagine if FoxNoise were absolutely dominant, with NewsMax to back them up, and networks like CNN were nearly impossible to find. That is essentially Russia. A lot of Russians supported the SVO because they have been saturated with pro-Putin bullshit. And, well, it did not affect them – until it did.

 

[lizkat]

So I think pitching some kind of victory has more to do with leader's egos.

Well yeah. The trick is to find someone with enough connection to Putin to make an attractive pitch to end this madness pronto, while stroking his ego and laying out a game plan that sounds like Putin comes off wise and heroic for 1) having gone there at all and 2) having unerringly discerned when he'd [plausibly] accomplished the [re-explained] mission and 3) having determined that the time had come to say so and to tell Ukraine "see, now you've been schooled, and don't come out of your proper place ever again."

All Zelenskyy wants from Russia at this point is for them to turn tail and head outta there, leaving a horrendous mess and nightmares to recover from... but with the eastern borders of their sovereign state intact. He doesn't care what they SAY in order to save face. He cares that they leave.

And what he says? "Don't let the door hit you in the ass" would be fun to pipe out to their retreating forces, but Ukraine is not that stupid. If Russian oligarchs and generals can manage to persuade Putin to call it a day and cease hostilities, why interfere with their internal exchanges.

Sure there are political solutions. They were established already in 1991 for god's sake.

​

Leave well enough alone. Grow and build stuff. Trade. Feed your families. Make friends. ​

This conflict could end up documented as the special military operation in lieu of World War III, the time when everyone finally realized that any idiot can start a war but most likely shouldn't.

But, that's unlikely. I mean one might have thought already that the USA as well as Russia had made that clear to themselves, to each other and to friends and frenemies alike more than a few times in the past fifty years, but the whole planet appears to be full of slow learners.

Regardless of how this works out, "See ya in court" must be said by Ukraine down the road apiece. Evidence gathering as to war crimes by Putin's ill managed troops meanwhile to continue.

 

[Nycturne]

"How do you like the view, Vlad? Here, let me open the window."

It is the only option.

I’d give it a 50/50 chance of working. If anyone other than the oligarchs in Russia did it, there'd be hell to pay. Maybe it doesn't act like an inciting event and his replacement decides not to escalate knowing where that leads, but there's a good chance Putin's supporters would hold power even with Putin's removal. That'd be a huge gamble to take.

But, that's unlikely. I mean one might have thought already that the USA as well as Russia had made that clear to themselves, to each other and to friends and frenemies alike more than a few times in the past fifty years, but the whole planet appears to be full of slow learners.

It seems like what the Cold War really taught nations was "Stick to proxy wars." So long as you aren't risking direct conflict with another nuclear power, you are "fine". But Putin seems to take that as a sign that it can directly do a territory grab without interference because other nations don't want to risk direct conflict with Russia.

 

[AG_PhamD]

There was plenty to be afraid of then. There were many elements that were formidable and professionally operated that the US took very seriously. The Soviet SRF (Strategic Rocket Forces) come to mind. The US, having an excellent view and insight into their capabilities from many SS-18 and other MIRV'd ICBM test launches at Tyuratam and other sites (including SLBMs in the north) to reentry at Kamchatka demonstrated how real the threat was. Both sides having the ability to change doctrine to launch on warning (as opposed to absorbing a first strike and then retaliating) was particularly problematic and destabilizing. And then there was Dead Hand and ERCs potentially further destabilizing.

Clearly nuclear weapons are something to fear. His point was we vastly overestimated the the organization and operational abilities of the Soviet Union, at least towards the end of its existence. That’s not to say even the most inept military can’t cause great devastation with nukes. The last 8 months or so have clearly indicated this still appears to be the case.