kevinkin

Zelensky is not happy:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4090499-zelensky-says-uncertainty-over-ukraines-nato-membership/
I don't blame him. But he has to know a) kinetic fighting needs to end b) then Ukraine enters NATO c) there will be an uneasy peace for a long time. This is the west's endgame. All the talk about reclaiming 100% of Ukraine is slipping through their fingers. The UA will not commit their western brigades until assurances from the west (e.g. airpower) are in place. Zelensky will not play his ace in the hole until certain battlefield conditions are met. Those conditions are not under his complete control. Without those conditions, the UA can't impose its will on the RA. Meanwhile sustained offensive pressure could cause some form of collapse. But that is more an indication of Russian weakness than western strength. Since negotiating with Putin is nearly impossible, NATO has to step up now. Anything Russian on Ukrainian soil should be considered hostile by NATO and then proceed per their doctrine. But, that's not the west's endgame - so around and around we go. Where the war stops nobody knows. 

Zelensky is not happy:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4090499-zelensky-says-uncertainty-over-ukraines-nato-membership/
I don't blame him. But he has to know a) kinetic fighting needs to end b) then Ukraine enters NATO c) there will be an uneasy peace for a long time. This is the west's endgame. All the talk about reclaiming 100% of Ukraine is slipping through their fingers. The UA will not commit their western brigades until assurances from the west (e.g. airpower) are in place. Zelensky will not play his ace in the hole until certain battlefield conditions are met. Those conditions are not under his complete control. Without those conditions, the UA can't impose its will on the RA. Meanwhile sustained offensive pressure could cause some form of collapse. But that is more an indication of Russian weakness than western strength. Since negotiating with Putin is nearly impossible, NATO has to step up now. Anything Russian on Ukrainian soil should be considered hostile by NATO and then proceed per their doctrine. But, that's not the west's endgame - so around and around we go. Where the war stops nobody knows. 

Beside the moral question re: clusters, a reason for their release is that the UA and the west are running out of standard shells and the replacement rate will be insufficient for offensive ops and problematic for defensive ones to hold ground gained.  Apparently: A March 2023 letter from top House and Senate Republicans to the Biden administration said the US may have as many as 3 million cluster munitions available for use, and urged the White House to send the munitions to alleviate pressure on US war supplies.
I think the question of morality should come up later when the west attempts to fund their replacement. Someone in an office in Washington knew this situation was enviable. It's math.  This is why a "just enough pressure", "just enough not to lose", "we can't have Russia lose", but "Ukraine can win strategy" will not go too much farther. How did the west put itself into a position were some are concerned for NATO's security re: of all things - ammo? Wouldn't it be ironic if NATO falls back on its airpower just to keep Ukraine in the game. Air power that should have been involved months ago. 

Beside the moral question re: clusters, a reason for their release is that the UA and the west are running out of standard shells and the replacement rate will be insufficient for offensive ops and problematic for defensive ones to hold ground gained.  Apparently: A March 2023 letter from top House and Senate Republicans to the Biden administration said the US may have as many as 3 million cluster munitions available for use, and urged the White House to send the munitions to alleviate pressure on US war supplies.
I think the question of morality should come up later when the west attempts to fund their replacement. Someone in an office in Washington knew this situation was enviable. It's math.  This is why a "just enough pressure", "just enough not to lose", "we can't have Russia lose", but "Ukraine can win strategy" will not go too much farther. How did the west put itself into a position were some are concerned for NATO's security re: of all things - ammo? Wouldn't it be ironic if NATO falls back on its airpower just to keep Ukraine in the game. Air power that should have been involved months ago. 

I have that book. Great idea. Another testament to the CM series that training scenarios remain valued by new and long time players. 
 

One guy's opinion on the futility of war against a determined/enslaved/threatened/nothing to lose enemy:
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/07/i-fired-cluster-munitions-in-combat-they-wont-win-the-war-in-ukraine/
What conditions will have to be met before Ukraine commits to using those western brigades? They are their ace in the hole to guard the bulk of the country. What a brave decision it will be. 
 
 

WSJ this morning:
Ukraine Nears Nuclear Deal With Bulgaria in Fresh Blow for Russian Influence:
Bulgaria turns against Moscow in negotiating the sale of two Russian-designed reactors to Kyiv
Another screw tightening. 

WSJ this morning:
Ukraine Nears Nuclear Deal With Bulgaria in Fresh Blow for Russian Influence:
Bulgaria turns against Moscow in negotiating the sale of two Russian-designed reactors to Kyiv
Another screw tightening. 

WSJ this morning:
Ukraine Nears Nuclear Deal With Bulgaria in Fresh Blow for Russian Influence:
Bulgaria turns against Moscow in negotiating the sale of two Russian-designed reactors to Kyiv
Another screw tightening. 

Predicting the life span and end of certain institutions reminds me of the Liddy Effect (known by other names). 
The Lindy effect describes a heuristic or rule of thumb that suggests the future life expectancy of certain non-perishable things, such as ideas, technologies, or cultural artifacts, is proportional to their current age.
In other words, the longer something has already existed, the longer it is likely to continue existing. The Lindy effect is based on the observation that many ideas, technologies, or cultural phenomena that have survived for a long time tend to have built-in mechanisms that make them more robust, adaptable, and reliable.
The Lindy effect is not a hard and fast rule but rather a probabilistic observation. It suggests that the longer something has endured, the more likely it is to continue enduring. This is because over time, the flaws or vulnerabilities of an idea or technology are more likely to be discovered and eliminated, making it more robust.
The Lindy effect has implications for decision-making and forecasting. It suggests that when assessing the potential longevity or viability of something, it is often beneficial to consider its historical track record and the duration it has already been in existence. This concept has found applications in fields such as technology adoption, investment strategies, and cultural analysis.
There are many examples that do not fit and nothing lasts forever for sure. The use of horses for mobility is over. But the wheel they used and agriculture they depend on are still with us. Longevity is the result of adaptation and resilience. So, even when we observe what amounts being a train wreak, there are underlying reasons why it stays on the tracks. And studying those reasons provides actionable insights. That's why I don't sell a stock that has increased dividends each year for over 50+ years. While the stock holder has no influence, they know something is being done right. In the case of evil empires they are doing something "correctly" to hold on to power over time. The Lindy principle does predict good and evil will struggle against each other forever. 

No one supported Prig at all. He is a monster - and that insults monsters. As Steve said above, we supported a manageable level of chaos behind Russian lines. Enthusiasm following the exciting 48 hours should not be mistaken for some form of approval. That ****er ain't on our team. 

Predicting the life span and end of certain institutions reminds me of the Liddy Effect (known by other names). 
The Lindy effect describes a heuristic or rule of thumb that suggests the future life expectancy of certain non-perishable things, such as ideas, technologies, or cultural artifacts, is proportional to their current age.
In other words, the longer something has already existed, the longer it is likely to continue existing. The Lindy effect is based on the observation that many ideas, technologies, or cultural phenomena that have survived for a long time tend to have built-in mechanisms that make them more robust, adaptable, and reliable.
The Lindy effect is not a hard and fast rule but rather a probabilistic observation. It suggests that the longer something has endured, the more likely it is to continue enduring. This is because over time, the flaws or vulnerabilities of an idea or technology are more likely to be discovered and eliminated, making it more robust.
The Lindy effect has implications for decision-making and forecasting. It suggests that when assessing the potential longevity or viability of something, it is often beneficial to consider its historical track record and the duration it has already been in existence. This concept has found applications in fields such as technology adoption, investment strategies, and cultural analysis.
There are many examples that do not fit and nothing lasts forever for sure. The use of horses for mobility is over. But the wheel they used and agriculture they depend on are still with us. Longevity is the result of adaptation and resilience. So, even when we observe what amounts being a train wreak, there are underlying reasons why it stays on the tracks. And studying those reasons provides actionable insights. That's why I don't sell a stock that has increased dividends each year for over 50+ years. While the stock holder has no influence, they know something is being done right. In the case of evil empires they are doing something "correctly" to hold on to power over time. The Lindy principle does predict good and evil will struggle against each other forever. 

No one supported Prig at all. He is a monster - and that insults monsters. As Steve said above, we supported a manageable level of chaos behind Russian lines. Enthusiasm following the exciting 48 hours should not be mistaken for some form of approval. That ****er ain't on our team. 

Predicting the life span and end of certain institutions reminds me of the Liddy Effect (known by other names). 
The Lindy effect describes a heuristic or rule of thumb that suggests the future life expectancy of certain non-perishable things, such as ideas, technologies, or cultural artifacts, is proportional to their current age.
In other words, the longer something has already existed, the longer it is likely to continue existing. The Lindy effect is based on the observation that many ideas, technologies, or cultural phenomena that have survived for a long time tend to have built-in mechanisms that make them more robust, adaptable, and reliable.
The Lindy effect is not a hard and fast rule but rather a probabilistic observation. It suggests that the longer something has endured, the more likely it is to continue enduring. This is because over time, the flaws or vulnerabilities of an idea or technology are more likely to be discovered and eliminated, making it more robust.
The Lindy effect has implications for decision-making and forecasting. It suggests that when assessing the potential longevity or viability of something, it is often beneficial to consider its historical track record and the duration it has already been in existence. This concept has found applications in fields such as technology adoption, investment strategies, and cultural analysis.
There are many examples that do not fit and nothing lasts forever for sure. The use of horses for mobility is over. But the wheel they used and agriculture they depend on are still with us. Longevity is the result of adaptation and resilience. So, even when we observe what amounts being a train wreak, there are underlying reasons why it stays on the tracks. And studying those reasons provides actionable insights. That's why I don't sell a stock that has increased dividends each year for over 50+ years. While the stock holder has no influence, they know something is being done right. In the case of evil empires they are doing something "correctly" to hold on to power over time. The Lindy principle does predict good and evil will struggle against each other forever. 

Russia is a net exporter of grain and fertilizer and Russian freight ships are operating completely free on the oceans, regardless of whether they carry military goods to Russia or stolen Ukrainian goods from Sewastopol. They even process Wagner's blood gold from Africa via London and Switzerland, completely legal.
Additionally, Xi Jinping has made it state policy to become as food independent as possible and they have already been making progress over last year. And if the going gets tough, the CCP has zero problems to starve part of its population to stay in power.
So, in total, I find very little to be positive about a possible radiation leak from ZNPP.

The n-word is surfacing. Mines Mines Mines. The aim is not to recapture all of Ukrainian land, maybe not even 75%, but to destroyed the RA in place, while rolling the dice for a major moral collapse in the RA where by the UA cuts off Crimea and then can negotiate from strength. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cia-director-on-secret-trip-to-ukraine-hears-plan-for-war-s-endgame/ar-AA1dhlSJ
With arty shells at a premium and no air support to pound Russian conscripts, those mines are force multipliers for a the defender. On a much larger scale, this sort of reminds me of the US urgency over solving IEDs in Iraq. NATO supplied ordnance has killed thousands of Russians. What's the big deal with precision NATO airstrikes on Ukrainian soil that will by definition kill less? 

B-52s Keep Up Surge in Bomber Activity over Korean Peninsula
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/b-52s-surge-bomber-activity-korean-peninsula/
Let's consider moving those demonstrations about 4,500 miles to the west. 
Hot off the presses over at War Zone:
The Ukrainian Air Force on Monday released a video that appeared to included a tacit claim that one of its donated Patriot air defense systems downed several Russian aircraft on May 13, a day when Moscow lost at least four and possibly five aircraft within its own borders. 
“It would be a wasted shot in my opinion,” he said. “I say that based on mission requirements. Patriot systems are deployed to defend critical assets, meaning not take ‘pot shots’ at long range targets who may be planning to strike elsewhere.”
Given that, four, or even five kills from that distance would be a significant feat.
It is also possible, Shank noted, that Ukraine could have set up remote site launchers to engage targets further out. It's also possible, he said, that the Patriot's radar was able to detect and track targets that far and relay information to an air defense system much closer.
Ukraine is great at keeping everyone guessing even their allies. 

They can hit a moving terrorist truck so I would at least give them a test like I said above and rule them in or out quickly.  Something might be learned. But with a 40 minute life, a trap would have to sprung based on the predictability of RA tactics. 

Given the trickle of equipment perfectly timed to give Russians time to dig in, and lack of airpower to break the defenses, I think the West is actually aiming for a stalemate - the politicians are just pretending to do useful stuff because the people generally want to support Ukraine - but not enough to be effective.
We will see if West dost something once Russia does nuclear terrorism. It is pretty inevitable they will, and I'm sure politicians are already preparing speeches about how "we must investigate" and "let's not be hasty" so that it can disappear into nothingness.
The zero Western reaction to Russian terrorism with the dam is basically a green light for Russia to continue and do what they want.
That is my pessimistic take, anyway.

There is also a major supply issue regarding artillery shells (on both sides). The ground can absorb a lot of shock when the trenches are well made. On top of that, the UA is spreading their initial offensive moves across the front. So available shells can't be concentrated. Additionally, Russia is attacking in some northern sectors and those attacks need to be punished. I think hitting Russians outside their trenches is an efficient use of the shells in short supply. 

There is also a major supply issue regarding artillery shells (on both sides). The ground can absorb a lot of shock when the trenches are well made. On top of that, the UA is spreading their initial offensive moves across the front. So available shells can't be concentrated. Additionally, Russia is attacking in some northern sectors and those attacks need to be punished. I think hitting Russians outside their trenches is an efficient use of the shells in short supply. 

Downfall : the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999)
https://archive.org/details/downfallendofimp00fran/page/n15/mode/2up
In a riveting narrative that includes information from newly declassified documents, acclaimed historian Richard B. Frank gives a scrupulously detailed explanation of the critical months leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Frank explains how American leaders learned in the summer of 1945 that their alternate strategy to end the war by invasion had been shattered by the massive Japanese buildup on Kyushu, and that intercepted diplomatic documents also revealed the dismal prospects of negotiation. Here also, for the first time, is a comprehensive account of how Japan's leaders were willing to risk complete annihilation to preserve the nation's existing order. Frank's comprehensive account demolishes long-standing myths with the stark realities of this great historical controversy.
So the allies had three scenarios: nuke, invade, blockade and starve (carpet bomb too). Of the three, the atomic bomb was the most compassionate for a war torn world including Japan. Can you image the insurgency the Japanese would have waged for years.  Radiation does suck, but the war needed to end. Fire bombing of Tokyo killed more but was less persistent given the radiation. Sure it was a signal to Stalin. But Russia quickly evened the playing field with their spies. 
    

Downfall : the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999)
https://archive.org/details/downfallendofimp00fran/page/n15/mode/2up
In a riveting narrative that includes information from newly declassified documents, acclaimed historian Richard B. Frank gives a scrupulously detailed explanation of the critical months leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Frank explains how American leaders learned in the summer of 1945 that their alternate strategy to end the war by invasion had been shattered by the massive Japanese buildup on Kyushu, and that intercepted diplomatic documents also revealed the dismal prospects of negotiation. Here also, for the first time, is a comprehensive account of how Japan's leaders were willing to risk complete annihilation to preserve the nation's existing order. Frank's comprehensive account demolishes long-standing myths with the stark realities of this great historical controversy.
So the allies had three scenarios: nuke, invade, blockade and starve (carpet bomb too). Of the three, the atomic bomb was the most compassionate for a war torn world including Japan. Can you image the insurgency the Japanese would have waged for years.  Radiation does suck, but the war needed to end. Fire bombing of Tokyo killed more but was less persistent given the radiation. Sure it was a signal to Stalin. But Russia quickly evened the playing field with their spies. 
    

Downfall : the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999)
https://archive.org/details/downfallendofimp00fran/page/n15/mode/2up
In a riveting narrative that includes information from newly declassified documents, acclaimed historian Richard B. Frank gives a scrupulously detailed explanation of the critical months leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Frank explains how American leaders learned in the summer of 1945 that their alternate strategy to end the war by invasion had been shattered by the massive Japanese buildup on Kyushu, and that intercepted diplomatic documents also revealed the dismal prospects of negotiation. Here also, for the first time, is a comprehensive account of how Japan's leaders were willing to risk complete annihilation to preserve the nation's existing order. Frank's comprehensive account demolishes long-standing myths with the stark realities of this great historical controversy.
So the allies had three scenarios: nuke, invade, blockade and starve (carpet bomb too). Of the three, the atomic bomb was the most compassionate for a war torn world including Japan. Can you image the insurgency the Japanese would have waged for years.  Radiation does suck, but the war needed to end. Fire bombing of Tokyo killed more but was less persistent given the radiation. Sure it was a signal to Stalin. But Russia quickly evened the playing field with their spies. 
    

Downfall : the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999)
https://archive.org/details/downfallendofimp00fran/page/n15/mode/2up
In a riveting narrative that includes information from newly declassified documents, acclaimed historian Richard B. Frank gives a scrupulously detailed explanation of the critical months leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Frank explains how American leaders learned in the summer of 1945 that their alternate strategy to end the war by invasion had been shattered by the massive Japanese buildup on Kyushu, and that intercepted diplomatic documents also revealed the dismal prospects of negotiation. Here also, for the first time, is a comprehensive account of how Japan's leaders were willing to risk complete annihilation to preserve the nation's existing order. Frank's comprehensive account demolishes long-standing myths with the stark realities of this great historical controversy.
So the allies had three scenarios: nuke, invade, blockade and starve (carpet bomb too). Of the three, the atomic bomb was the most compassionate for a war torn world including Japan. Can you image the insurgency the Japanese would have waged for years.  Radiation does suck, but the war needed to end. Fire bombing of Tokyo killed more but was less persistent given the radiation. Sure it was a signal to Stalin. But Russia quickly evened the playing field with their spies.