Tux

If that’s what makes a nuclear-armed cluster**** in post-war Russia unlikely to happen then, I mean… yeah? Surely you wholeheartedly agree that said cluster-situation is worth avoiding? So all that might be disagreed upon is how best to do that. What’s your solution? You don’t get to just say ‘Win the war ASAP!!’ and then put your fingers in you ears and pretend time stops at that point. What does the real-life post-war Russia look like in your scenario and, critically, does it have sober control of its nukes? If the answer is anything other than a solid ‘yes’, then we need to try harder, don’t we? Russia invaded Ukraine. They are to blame for Ukraine’s suffering. There is nothing we can do that will eliminate that suffering, now. All we can do is honestly and determinedly try to navigate the best path we can find from this point on.

Short piece from the BBC today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65921377 Nothing too groundbreaking but I think it’s the first time I’ve heard explicit mention on drones being used to drop smoke grenades at precise spots. It’s an obvious use for them I suppose and hopefully something we see in future CM titles…

It would explain why Andrew doesn’t sweat, as well!

Yes, point taken. Again as far as I remember that was the blanket assumption on Telegram and elsewhere at the time. Not sure what else they could have been intended to defend against at that point: PGMs had been around for years, drones weren’t yet a major threat. Javelins were Ukraine’s new toy at the time. Anyway, I’m as reluctant as the next man to clutter the thread while an actual offensive is underway, so I’ll step back at this point.

Yes ok, you may be right, although as far as I remember when they first appeared last Spring they were very much ‘justified’ in the context of the Javelin threat. I think it was before attack drones became a significant factor. Either way I’m not sure the case for the efficacy of the original examples was very convincing.

I agree but it can only be the reader’s responsibility to identify and be clear about which type of post they are responding to. Again agreed but the key word here is “challenge”, as opposed to just ‘doubt’. You challenge by discussing weaknesses in the theory or by building a good case for an alternative. Simply expressing doubt might feel healthy but is not helpful and can be insulting to the person who has worked hard to establish a case.

I think the conflict in this thread might have arisen because there's a difference between politely reminding everyone that we don't know enough to be 100% certain and telling people that their conclusions are "copium" because of that fact. "Copium" is a potent cocktail that leads to conclusions based largely on (very) selective reasoning, hope and a deep aversion to a particular alternative. Copium is some structural steel bars welded over the top of your T-72 because 'Ukraine have Javelins; Javelins attack from above; I just can't bear the thought of how horribly vulnerable to Javelin attack I am in my tank; Steel is hard and can be used as armour; QED'. Copium is "Intelligent Design". The majority of the useful opinions and positions expressed on this thread are not copium-fuelled. They are properly and more-or-less rationally built upon a firm base of relevant professional experience and critical analysis of both available data and historic trends. That does not (and cannot) lead to a 'certain' conclusion but it can (and does) lead to a 'most likely' conclusion. Implicit in the work done to establish such a 'most likely' conclusion should be an understanding of where the weaknesses in the assessment lie and it is welcomed when people politely remind everyone what those weaknesses are. That is partly because it demonstrates an understanding and appreciation of the work done by the person who carried out the assessment in question. It is even more welcome when someone steps in and offers an equally or even more well-founded alternative assessment and conclusion, especially if it challenges the previous 'most likely' case. That's because it adds to the conversation and can be educational and important to think about. So while I would agree that 'group-think' can be dangerous that doesn't mean it should be challenged for the sake of it; it should be challenged based on the merits of the position that is being 'group-thunk'. One's confidence in a position/the imperative to challenge it should always be proportional/inversely proportional to the strength of the case made for it. That leads to the fact that the position itself should actually be irrelevant when deciding whether it needs to be challenged. If you really are concerned by the fact that positions in this thread are "constantly undermining Russia", rather than that they are poorly-constructed, then you are the one letting your aversion to that "habit" drive your thinking. You are the one getting too close to the copium fumes. Finally, if being collectively in agreement in the absence of 100% proof is one of the most dangerous things in society then we are all doomed, since there is no such thing as 100% proof. I would argue that it is actually disagreement with the collective simply due to a lack of 100% proof which is far more dangerous, since it leads to indecisiveness and passivity in the face of important challenges. See the climate change "debate". See any number of the "debates" that spilt all over the place in 2020-21. See the crippling paralysis that struck the collective West when definitely-not-100%-proven-to-be-Russian "Little Green Men" appeared in Crimea in 2014. Forget 100% proof. Search for 'most likely'. Understand why it is considered 'most likely'. If you agree, cherish collective agreement. If you disagree, then explain why and you will be thanked for it.

So many pages of bickering between people who seem to fundamentally agree with each other: 1. Russia’s continuous and deliberate assault upon Ukrainian civilians is a militarily counterproductive war crime. 2. If Ukraine deliberately targeted civilians with their recent attacks on Moscow (which we all think and hope they probably didn’t) that would also be a militarily counterproductive war crime. That’s true regardless of how morally justified some may think it would be. 3. Very recently we’ve seen some evidence that the Ukrainian strikes may have been a careful message designed to puncture the Muscovite sense of invulnerability and widen any cracks that may exist between Russian socio-economic groups. The drones may even have been deliberately unarmed or otherwise designed to ensure minimal risk of accidental civilian deaths. All the better and a clever move, if so. I agree that oil tanks, mobile phone networks, internet infrastructure and other visible/impactful targets might be more productive in the medium/long term, though.

Is that so? I don’t remember reading that. Was it ‘just’ OBOE pathfinders and H2S that enabled that or am I forgetting something else?

I seem to remember the USAAF judged air raid accuracy by what proportion of bombs fell within 1,000ft of the target and I think, by this measure, average accuracy was 20-30%. And the USAAF was bombing under more favourable conditions than almost anyone else.

As much respect as I have for Pickard and the rest of the Amiens crews they were still aiming for something not much smaller than a football stadium… The most impressive part of that raid was the piloting skill required to carry out such a low-level attack at all. Flying so low down the poplar-lined avenue approaching the prison that they had to hold one wing higher than the other to avoid the tree-tops!

I think this is the answer and I think being able to reliably put your bomb load into a football stadium would have made you one of the most accurate bombers of the war. A small part of my impression is also based on a fair amount of sim experience. And bear in mind most wartime pilots never got half as much practise as today’s casual sim pilot, nor were they able to leave by instantly and reliably judging the results of their attacks with external camera views, live kill feeds and what-not.

My fault for rushing the post and not being clear enough. B was supposed to suggest the messaging is being controlled by Putin, perhaps as further positioning for the upcoming how-have-we-lost-Bakhmut-so-soon blame game. C is just Prigozhin yapping because Prigozhin yaps. In any case maybe time will tell.

This strikes me as giving a depressingly literal new definition to the idea of a “hospital pass”. However is the most interesting thing about this how loudly they’re telling us all about it? Exhausted frontline units are routinely rotated out of the line; is all the fuss about this particular instance: a) to set up a trap (or give the impression of doing so to encourage UA caution and thus buy time to complete the operation)? b) to prepare the ground for scapegoating the Russian Army/ reinforcing Wagner’s reputation once they inevitably (perhaps even in Putin/Prigozhin’s mind) lose Bakhmut to the UA? c) just more Russian noises from a noisy Russian trying to stay front and centre of things in the minds of his fellow Russians? I think my money’s on the most mundane (c) but b looks interesting, too.

No argument from me, mate. Point well made.

I’m not sure we are. People on this thread are probably more comfortable than most in accepting the kind of nuanced reality that you’re pointing out. However that hasn’t been the narrative so far: the story has been that Wehrmacht markings on AFVs are ‘ironic jokes’ intended to mock the Russians’ labelling them as Nazis. If you’re right and this is just Ukraine’s due complement of fascists that we’re seeing (every nation has them) then that’s fine but needs to be managed to make sure their influence isn’t blown out of proportion in the minds of more ‘casual’ western viewers (so far it doesn’t seem to be moving the dial so that’s encouraging). It’s the ‘ironic joke’ option I think people are warning against and pointing out is potentially and needlessly counterproductive.

As others have noted, my best guess would also be that he is using his/Wagner’s cache among working Russians to start framing a scapegoat for the war: the entitled elites. ‘They have betrayed Putin and they have betrayed Russia’. If it’s to be assumed he is still speaking at Putin’s behest.

“Jagdverband 23”?

Mate… you haven’t lived!

Indeed, or if he’s a bit more self-aware he’s clearly spouting off to try and sound more ‘bishop-like’. It’s a very public threat, though, so the demand for ammunition isn’t the whole message. My guess is it’s just standard Russian posturing and arse-covering but I’m sure he/Wagner could theoretically make quite the unseemly nuisance of themselves with whatever ammunition stocks they do currently have, even if they don’t have enough to continue the grind in Bakhmut.

Do you think that’s the subtext to this message which may hit Shoigu, Gerasimov et al harder than the overt threat? Is it less about where Wagner will be withdrawn from on the 10th (easily blamed on Prigozhin if Ukraine benefit) and more about where Wagner might arrive on the 12th? I wonder how far away we are from that kind of thing. [Edit:] Dammit, I should have said “are we there, yet?”…

Let’s hope it has its mother’s turret.

Does anyone know whether there’s a reliable, up-to-date indication available somewhere of the contributions made to Ukraine by various nations (numbers, $value, etc.)? I seem to remember a couple of useful graphs earlier in the thread which gave us some interesting titbits (France and Germany doing more than they get the credit for being the ones I remember most).

I think the Czech government does prefer “Czechia”, so I wouldn’t rely on that particular example.

It sounds like your main complaint is with how complicated the wider world is. I can empathise. We’d all love there to be more easy answers. Unfortunately (and with due apologies to clergymen and Jordan Peterson) old dead guy quotes aren’t a valid substitute for rational thought and analysis of the world as it seems to be. “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”