Kinophile

Pekka's Vatnick soup as a YouTube show

https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/11/06/ukroboronprom-ukraines-kamikaze-drones-with-1000-km-combat-radius-in-mass-production/

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/the_ground_forces_command_showed_the_work_of_archer_system_for_the_first_time-8448.html Archer chomping away already.

Yeah right. The second I read about UKR Barrier detachments I turn off. Everything after that will be propaganda drivel, everything before that, same and really, you should know better. At least highlight the blatant RUS bias, with implied or noted caveats. Dammit, Ninja'd by Steve, Kraft et al

Further to the Askold, suggestion here is of a jetty explosion, ie a strike immediately adjacent to the ship. (his first comment after corrects to Yes, Jetty hit)

The caveat of course being the lack of even air parity or consistent denial for the Ukrainians, even while keeping the RUS air back (to a certain degree). A very different game next year, I'll bet, if F16s are in play. Not saying they are wunderwaffe or war winnerz but tens of F16s would have a far greater supportive and combinative effect than the dribs and drabs the UAF has been able to toss forward. Nor am I say This Was The Reason for the Offensive stalling out - but it sure didn't help and we noted the problem very early, as obviously the ZSU did. But needs must...

Isn't it really about which Russians are dying, not how many, no? And it's not even all Russians, Putler is increasing his margin with as many non-Russians, welfare-level Russians and convicts as possible. In any revolutionary movement you need educated classes involved to rise above mere reactive, disjointed rioting. So long as the Russian middle class is relatively unaffected then Putin can fight for as long as he wants. There will always be more immigrants, non-Russiabs, zeks and trailer-trash equivalent to chuck into the mincing machine.

Isn't it meant to be dual control possible, autonomous and human?

I've read Tat for a while; my impression ref his opinion on Bakhmut was that while the strategic defence had certain value, the chosen defensive positions and terrain negated that benefit. The cost for Ukraine was increased because Bakhmut was not a defence-favourable area - the ridges West of it provided far better defensive value and far too many Ukrainians were killed defending useless terrain with low tactical value. The kill ratio was not as favourable as it could (and should) have been. Even as high as it was, there was better terrain very close by. I've tended to agree with him, albeit also agreeing with Crunching any Russian advance. Any topological survey of Bakhmut highlights what a bad place it is to defend. It was no Verdun.

What the actual f**k... Was he getting it to comrades who needed one, but were dangerous to get to? Or hoping to decapitate a random mobik?

Article on a Russian former engineer involved in ICBM design. There are caveats to their understanding and breadth of knowledge but very interesting insights to the production and readiness of the deterrent forces. TLDR - deeply corrupt procurement and manufacturing, strong probability of failure in a significant percentage of built missiles- but certainly still enough to annihilate us all.

North & South America needs its Tollense River equivalent.

Shashank. On Zaluzny's Economist interview.

UKR is actively hunting Teplinsky, it might be.

That feels a bit simplistic, rock-paper-scissors, on-paper type of description, no? It assumes a 1 to 1 comparison of two weapons platform, but does it not really need to be a comparison of systems of systems? It also assumes loss of a platform is the worst outcome, with that resulting from 100% strike success. But attrition in war is a given, successful strikes are not and the example provides no agency on the defending system of systems in concealment, misdirection, platform-local counter-drone measures. There will always be a cost in defending, and while there is a dilemma of firing v revealing one's location, well - tough. Losses are assumed in the plan. Sometimes you open fire anyway because the cost of not doing so is greater than high-probability loss of the platform. Or to distract from a better target, or, or, or.. Etc.I've faced this dilemma many times in CMBS as UKR v RUS, as a microcosm of the greater situations Also, in a system of systems in a tier 1 peer conflict is it not highly unlikely any one platform is alone and unsupported? So the nominal drone attacking a nominal defence platform is subject to potential adjacent effects from nearby platforms. Can you expand this more?

A next wars could possibly begin with drone infiltration over a period of time, to lie quiescient until activated. When other side gets aggressive and sends its drones across the border the hidden drones activate and strike behind that attack wave at support, C4, political and civilian nodes, disrupting the war from the start. China, for example, could emplace drones in DC (directing them from China itself or elsewhere) and if attacked, send the drones against Congress, targeting voting members. Hell, the next coup d'etat attempt anywhere would be smart to use this approach.

Sigh It's always "fun" to play Who Gets The Last Word In Before Admin Shuts It Down. Go on, have at it. I cede the field. Enjoy your imaginary trophy.

A bit confused, Tbh. You identified it as a religious war, but it wasn't. English does differentiate,, with literally that phrase. EDIT: Woops just saw Steve's post.

I've watched it of course, multiple times. It's superb. But you're sorta proving my point - they didn't not identify as capital A, Algerian, but as (overseas) French, in Algeria. The native Algerians themselves did not identify as French and certainly the French Settlers did not view them as such. With NI the "settler" population is now so established abd integrated that it cannot be view as an imposed community - its now part of a modern Northern Ireland as a sociopolitical construct. Im really curious about the current socio-political context of the Donbass.

That was a colonial war. While Religion was a demographic identifier, to clearly separate Them from Us, the war wasn't over religious definitions, protocols, iconography or anything else. It was fundamentally about a foreign invader oppressing a native population. The imposed existence of a regime-friendly settler population using a different religion was a sociopolitical characterization, not a religious one. In many respects, Northern Ireland shared strong similarities with the Algerian war against France. The settler population there was less embedded and had been there for less time but that was very clearly a war against a colonial power. Where NI differs (as I currently understand it) is that many Protestant /Unionist self identify as both Irish and British. Republicans consider the two as oil and water. I don't think any French Settlers referred to themselves as Algerian and French. There are corollaries with Ukraine, but there the classic identifier is language. A Ukrainian can speak Russian fluently and only passablr Ukrainian, yet identify as Ukrainian. The opposite is(was?) true in the Donbass, I believe? It's easy to look at a conflict, hear the base identifiers of either community and think, oh that's what it is. But the real truth is often a bit deeper, much older and more basic, essential to human nature. With Northern Ireland and any other colonial war it's fundamentally about freedom from someone else in another culture deciding the status, state and fate of your culture. Which, exactly, is the nature of Ukrainian resistance against Russia.

To paraphrase Eddie Izzard, again, for I think the third time is this thread : "If there is a plan, his plan is very similar to someone not having a plan." Plus Eddie being transgender is very apropos

Coypus in disguise, the danged varmints!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/28/russian-losses-in-battle-for-avdiivka-may-be-worst-of-2023-says-uk "MoD intelligence update says up to eight brigades have been committed to ‘heavy but inconclusive’ fighting"