Kinophile
-
Posts
4,361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Posts posted by Kinophile
-
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/24/world/europe/ukraine-south-kherson-russia.html
Pretty rough down there. I'm surprised at the quote that UKR artillery is not always prepping/suppressing defenses before/during an attack. That seems... counterintuitive.
-
8 hours ago, FancyCat said:
Once Russia nukes Ukraine, the only response...
... is for Ukraine to say, "And?" and keep on killing Ivans.
No one here has talked about the UKR response. I personally highly doubt Ukraine will roll over and capitulate. Theyll talk, sure. But also, why should they? Give in to one nuke and the ****ers will nuke you again when they want something and UKR say No. Russian is a mafia and operates/thinks like one, so giving them what they want just emboldens them to grab even more.
Ukraine has already suffered so much at the hands of Putin that, honestly, a nuke is just a different weapon. The end result, as Putler has stated and kept to, is the erasure of Ukraine as a functional, independent nation. That's what his army is attempting to do and a nuke is simply a continuance of that.
Yes, a nuke is a drastic escalation of weaponry, but Ukraine is already "in it" for keeps. So **** it, nuke away. UKR will still keep killing Ivans. There's plenty of rocks in Ukrainian soil.
There's a sociological threshold where the enemy's weaponry is truly irrelevant and the principle of resistance is overwhelming. UKR crossed that lintel after Kyiv.
The West worrying about nukes is cute. UKR has the measure of Ivan and will never, ever give in.
It just leads to even more killing and cruelty by those B#stards.
So why bother.
-
5 hours ago, billbindc said:
Per my earlier comments, here's Ireland going out of its way to force a public discussion on the idea of kicking Russia out of the UNSC. That's a *very* unusual sort of gesture from a country that's normally very cautious in foreign policy.
The atrocities in Bucha etc, Esp the children, really helped turn the conversation from the Swiss type (we do nothing to get involved in anything) to WTF Are These Langers Doing, We Cant Stay Silent.
Irish neutrality is not based on cowardice or a desire to absent ourselves from the flow of world events and its dangers. After all, we have a steady and well regarded (albeit very limited capability) UN force.
Instead it's based on:
(1) knowledge that in big events, its the little players that get destroyed fast and often suffer disproportionate losses compared to the big boys,
(2) no heavy industry, shp yard capacity or financial wherewithal for a proper navy. We have a navy but it's not much more dangerous than US Coast guards, and nowhere near as good as their cutters.
(3) following from 1 & 2 above, the sensible course is to stay out of the way of the bigger elephants, don't kick anyone's testicals and basically don't draw unwanted attention to yourself. We dont have the forces, terrain or socio-political capacity to resist an outright attack. Give us an insurgency, we'll make the 1916ers proud. But that implies a successful invasion...
-
1 hour ago, danfrodo said:
I think you are missing the main point: Ukraine/Poland receiving Leo2's would force Battlefront to put that in upcoming CMBS module. That's the biggest and most important reason why germany needs to get on the ball.
And will take as long....
>:)
-
On 9/22/2022 at 12:33 PM, Haiduk said:
[...]
I read some hints from our soldiers, that during Balakliya operation our SOF not only disrupted C&C, attacking of comm lines and HQs, but also they captured some important representative of Russian authorities as well as many HQ officers. And maybe this made Putin more accomodating
I missed this, way earlier. That kind of decapitation ops are something that UKR seems to have really excelled at, and RUS utterly failed, and I assume was a significant contributing reason for the eruption into flight of the Russian defense.
I'm certain that the ISR provided to UKR, their own HUMINT sources and the RUS C&Cs lack of proper OpSec helps locate and track the various HQs, but still actually carrying out and succeeding at the decaps is a tall order and truly elite level.
Slava Ukraina!
-
-
33 minutes ago, RandomCommenter said:
(I am thinking here of Jim Larkin "the great appear great because we are on our knees, let us rise").
Ahhhhhh Big Jim Larkin.
I've not thought about him in a long, long time. I read one of his speeches, talk about a firebrand!
Funnily, that line really spoke to me during secondary school, when I was being bullied. It really resonated with me, because I fundamentally knew I wasn't small or useless or stupid. They had convinced me of it, or more accurately had convinced me to convince myself. It was a long journey out of that particular psychological ravine, but that line was with me all the way.
Thanks Jim.
Slán abhaile leat.
-
55 minutes ago, sburke said:
This one I am gonna have to say no way on. Armed insurrection against their own government eliminates their right to expect the same freedoms enjoyed by other Ukrainian citizens. They have crossed the line to sedition and criminal acts. How the Ukrainian gov't deals with this is their decision but I don't see an argument that these folks can just lay down their arms and immediately have all the same rights as the people who paid such an awful price for this war.
Sure, the initial volunteers. But the forcibly mobilized conscripts? The guys snatched from work, day cares etc after 8 years of not being part of the armed forces?
-
37 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
Air Forces claimed they shot down 4 Iranian Shahed-136 (in Russian service Geran' - 2) loitering munitions in Mykolaiv oblast. Also one was shot down over Nikopol'. Five days ago Russians have struck Ochakiv port with theese Iranian drones (one of four was shot down)
Our soldiers say Shahed-136 is enough nasty thing. It can fly on 1800 km and carries about 20 or even 30 kg of HE. It enough fast, when attacks - 185 km/h, but if it spotted in time, he can be easy shot with Zu-23-2, Shilka, Tunguska or Gepard, or even with small-arms. Main unmasking sign of this drone, which can get a time for reaction is very loud shrill noise, when it starts attack. It similar to sport bike sound
Russians usually use theese drones by pairs. One flies highter, other - lower. If one shot down, other breakthrows air defense and hit the target. Reportedly already several artillery pieces were destroyed or damaged by Shahed attacks.
You know what they're looking for...
-
54 minutes ago, Cederic said:
No, it is not. Do not go there.
Its not a hugely sensitive subject. Very well documented and accepted historical narrative.
And it does have relevance in UKR, as an example of what happens if you suppress a section of a non-heterogenous population long enough or hard enough, that already has some form of identity.
See my post just previous?
-
-
1 hour ago, sburke said:
N Ireland is a good example. It is occupied Irish territory. Ireland was conquered by England but had never conceded to that occupation. In the case of N Ireland it was a matter of how bad they wanted full national integrity or the ability to move on finally as an independent nation state after centuries of occupation. The net result for England has been a continuing political football with a disproportionate impact on English politics and a political/military pain that just keeps on giving.
Close...but there's some differences that change this description.
e.g.:
1 hour ago, sburke said:N Ireland is a good example. It is occupied Irish territory. Ireland was conquered by England but had never conceded to that occupation.
Correct, the local Irish population never conceded (we did submit, sorta) but a "foreign" demography was deliberately inserted into the population that effectively muddied the waters - the 16/17th century plantations were an overt and deliberate attempt to replace the local Irish population with colonies of pro-England English or Scots, who could help keep the locals in line, act as an auxiliary/police force and reinforce any rebel-squishing English army. Local knowledge is vital in terrain like the North. These "planters" were the nucleus of the later, modern Loyalist population.
1 hour ago, sburke said:In the case of N Ireland it was a matter of how bad they wanted full national integrity or the ability to move on finally as an independent nation state after centuries of occupation.
To clarify, this is the position and intent of the pro-Republic section of the population: "full national integrity (as part of Rep. of Ireland) or the ability to move on finally as an independent nation state (i.e. as a united Rep. of. Ireland) after centuries of occupation" are really the same thing, in the terms of NI politics.
By contrast, the Loyalist (pro-UK) sector of the NI population does not want independence. It wants to remain part of the United Kingdom, either as a province (more extremist position) or as a self-governing region (like Wales). But very much still under the Crown, King Big Ears and all.
For a long time the smaller Loyalist (and 99% Protestant) population had controlled the political system in NI. That control and the civil/cultural/political suppression of the larger Republican (and 98% Catholic)1 following from it was what lead to the explosion of the Troubles in the 70s and the emergence of the Provisional IRA.
True democracy (albeit in a weirdly and absurdly convoluted form2) only became possible when the IRA agreed to disarm and the Loyalists reluctantly agreed to this more fair political system3. There was a lot of yelling from the more right-wing side of the Loyalists that a more fair system would lead inevitably to their loss of power and the separation of NI from the United Kingdom.
And they were right - the first part has absolutely happened (Sinn Fein, the primary Republican party, now holds the strings of power) and the second part is considered by many to be inevitable - at the very least as a referendum. Considering the majority of the population is pro-Republic, overwhelming wants to be part of the EU (of which Ireland is part and will never, ever leave) and the UK has Brexited out and into a very bad, relentless recession, well, methinks that future referendum wont hold many surprises...
1 hour ago, sburke said:The net result for England has been a continuing political football with a disproportionate impact on English politics and a political/military pain that just keeps on giving.
Very true, even as far back as 1914, although the military aspect has certainly faded away. The watch towers are gone and the barbed wire has rusted away. But the messiness of NI was a serious problem during the Brexit process and tbh, I'm unclear about the detailed mechanics of the NI/Irish border crossing but I do know that the EU ensured its economic border security at the expense of UK(read Loyalist) political needs.
----
The take away from this, ref UKR, is that a conquered population must feel immediate release through a clear and fair political process. If UKR re-conquers the Donbass and emplaces the same political system as exists within Ukraine proper, with certain temporary amendments (eg. specific parties and objectives outlawed for a decade, no russian money or visits) and strong international oversight then itll be difficult for any insurgency to last.
Conversely, political or civil suppression of the Donbass population as "punishment" would enflame any insurgency and destroy any potential of trust for decades and guarantee further
----
3TBF, the Loyalists were by then counter-weighted by a middle-ground party, who worked with SF and less hard-line Loyalist factions to arrive at teh Good Friday agreement. Another player was the Irish Government, which naturally had an interest in stopping violence north of the border.
-
1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:
(HeliosRunner)
Just waiting for the second, associative UKR attack to happen.
-
1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
As with everything, do it well, or don't do it at all.
Ah no, your arguments logic is broken right at the end. That opposite of that is exactly how RUS has been prosecuting this invasion (thank goodness).
QuoteAs with everything [Russian], do it
wellwrong, or don't do it at all.There, fixed
But I suspect you're correct, the 300k is BS - one, I dont believe than can actually do that, and two, I think the true intended number is much higher. Its not that they think theyll get 100K+ actually in the field (my number) but that they think theyll get enough over along enough timeframe to wear down/stall out the UKR offensive.
Literally, their last remaining strategic option is throw bodies (not tech) at the problem - yet the war is very much a technology problem.
Funnily enough, this is exactly the thinking that ultimately ended with the Nicholas II saying "Wait, what?" to the barrel of a Checka pistol.
So, tally ho, Putler. Have at it.
-
8 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:
He does jealously guard that cloaking device. But I will discuss the matter with him, calmly and judiciously. And when that doesn’t work…
Just get him to buy CMBS. It's why we're all here.
After the first game I'm certain s/he'll make an account just to ask WTF My T90s Keep Dying!!!! Plz Halp.
Guarantee it.
-
Quote
"Ceterum autem censeo....
I disagree that the Donbass is not a critical strategic objective.
To my mind it has an equivalence to Crimea in importance but for very different reasons. Both are doors into Ukraine's future that must be blocked off forever, with no ambiguity.
- If the LDPR remain geographically connected to Russia then UKR will just pass on the next stage of the war to their grandkids. That's already happened with the 2014 war and I'm pretty sure UKR has no intention of allowing a repeat. The Donbass is a door that the Ivan will keep pushing through, forever.
- If Crimea is left as Russian controlled then Ukraine's economic and political future will never be secure - it is a knife at the throat of the Ukrainian nation. Dropping the Kerch bridge is not enough.
The Donbass has a notional economic value, yes. But that pales in comparison to Ukraine's strategic requirement that it control its original borders. If anything has been learned about the Russian regime it's that if you give them an inch they will inevitably come back for the mile. The original ATO plan recognized the need to cut off Russian supply; it was the success of that operation that precipitated the direct involvement of RUS army/Air force.
The two rebel "states" are not self-sustaining and will be extremely vulnerable to SOF operations, propaganda, HIMARS, etc. The UA will not need to do some grand assault, let the regimes self-implode under their own weight.
Ukraine must isolate the LDPR from Russia and close that door forever.
The Crimea has proven that the RUS BSF is enormously dangerous even as a fleet-in-being. A properly modernized BSF would be a killer blow in any future war against Ukraine. The odds of modernizing are low in the medium-longish term, but as a strategic threat, modern or no, it is un-ignorable. Russia could easily, at anytime, start sinking trade ships and Ukraines economy will immediately go down the tubes. Ukraine has managed to somewhat neutralize the threat, but has it really? Its more that a political agreement has forestalled Russian naval aggression. If the RU Navy grows some balls it could very easily crunch UKRs economic artery, theoretically at any point.
Ukraine must take Sebastapol and build its own BSF.
But of the two objectives, Donbass & Crimea, only one is reasonably achievable within the next 6-9 months.
Cutting off the Donbass would utilize the existing and improving Ukrainian Army/Airforce, within a theater they are already familiar, against a foe that they have the measure of and over terrain they know how to operate on.
Taking Crimea is a different beast, and I doubt solvable by Air/Ground assault alone. No matter the local Rus population morale, the peninsula itself is hard nut to crack, militarily. Only specific conditions will give a relatively easy victory, and while achievable, will take a long time to mature.
Plus, I believe that Russian national ego is deeply attached to Crimea; any ground assault on the peninsula will garner far more attention and repercussions than the destruction of the LDPR ever will. In some ways, its far better for UKR to steadily corrode the Crimea into military uselessness while waiting for the Russian state to become internally distracted with civil conflict. Once that is fully in swing, then UKR takes the Crimea - a mirror of RUS's own original invasion.
So, for 2022-2023 (spring), my bet is there is one operational objective - Kherson - and one strategic objective - Cut Off The Donbass.
Quote...delendam esse Donbassum"
-
-
300k,pffft SUUUURRRE.
More like 100k, "re trained" for a month and thrown into the line, over the course of 3, months. Sound dumb? Welcome to the RUS Way of SMO.
Plus, it doesn't change the fact that it's RUS-AFs definitive loss of dominance in the air that will decide things, not waves of Ivans running into 155 barrages.
They can get their 100, 200,300, 400k mobiliks, fine, whatever. UAF will inevitably get F16s and A10s, a relentlessly larger, more robust, layered and effective SAM infrastructure, yet more drones and the organizational ability to really go to work on the RUS-AF.
Tbh I think c-130s are just as important.
Leo's etc are stopgap measures for the war. Yay tanks and all that. But now that were looking at a UA defined increase in operational tempo and range, then its Air power that is UKR's real strategic need
If UA shoves past LDPR down to Azov coast, that would spasticate RUS logistics and cauldron the entire expeditionary army. Do it in winter for maximum effect.
But also UAs logistics will get extended to a degree. Still, I have far more faith in UA staff capability than RUS.
-
26 minutes ago, dan/california said:
The single biggest fact that is going to help is the AWFUL way Russia has treated the Republics. Among other things they tried to get every male of military age killed, and they have succeeded in a vast number of cases. The ones that aren't dead or crippled for life have still had the harshest possible lesson what mother Russia thinks of them. This going to matter a greta deal in my humble opinion. Just rule of law and the tiniest hint of peace and, not even prosperity, just not desperation is going to go a long way. And the guiltier the conscience, the better Rostov on Don is going to look. Throw in the fact that Zelensky is just good at this and will probably settle for the trials of relatively small number of people who utterly deserve it, and I have hope.
Crimea is different, More Russian, and less abused, but I still have hope for a generally decent outcome. Harder to take in the first place, too. Although I am becoming ever more certain the Ukrainians can take almost anything with enough HIMARS pods.
Crimea has a critical strategic weakness - lack of water.
I guarantee you, hitting the water supply will be the signal that Operation Tartar Sauce has begun.
-
1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:
can speak for himself, thanks. I'll defer to our hosts of course, but this topic is a highly relevant part of this awful war, and proscribing any rational discussion of it seems silly, even if it doesn't interest you personally. This thread takes in a lot of angles.
Absolutely, I'm not pretending to speak for BFC. But I'm not opposed to the subject, but the borderline ad hominems, eg.
Quote...If that is not in fact our friend's view, I'd like to hear him deny it, because he hasn't. He merely cites Russian war crimes, or the Middle East. No, this isn't righteous anger at this point, it's deflection.
And to prove that I agree the subject (post-war internal politics) is very relevant and worth discussing:
A few weeks ago my mum started a Masters in History at home, in Cork Ireland. Soon after she attended a documentary screening and talk on the Irish Civil War (Brendan Gleeson was a speaker!). She was surprised that no one mentioned what she called the "Fourth Army" - the Irish Catholic Church (the other Armies were the IRA, the Free State Army and the British Army). I personally would call them all factions but Armies works also, as the CC was pretty hierarchal, organised, disciplined, had a dogma (doctrine), personnel (priests etc) and a supreme commander (ze Pope, yes) and was absolutely a primary political force in the country.
Early during the War of Independence the IRA often came into conflict with the Church on the morality of killing and violence; however the arrival and depredations of the British Auxillaries, the "Black & Tans", made all the arguments the IRA would ever need.1
But it was about the aftermath of the Civil War where my Mum felt the talk in Cork missed a beat. She felt they skipped past how the Church was a significant factor in why there was almost no violence after the Civil War, which is a very unusual occurance in terms of civil conflict. Not unheard of, but definitely not the usual course, and to the Irish Church's credit.
She said that the as the Church was deeply embedded in the culture, psyche and psychology of Irish society that it was able to say, "Enough Now; 'tis Done. Forgive, forget and move on..." - and it was actually listened to and obeyed. The opinion of the Church carried enormous moral weight2 at all levels of Irish society, for decades. So there was no real 'aftermath' to the Civil War - very few lynchings, burnings, mob violence, rejection of State authority, terrorist outrages, last gasp attacks etc. The Church was unanimous and extremely vocal in its condemnation of further violence and counted for a lot, especially in the countryside3. This overtly pacific opposition to further killing, lead by the one institution that existed before, during and after the War of Independence and Civil War, allowed the country to hold violence free elections and accept the results, to talk about the future and the nature of our new society without fear of intimidation, to take our first steps forward as a new, sovereign nation. It allowed political discourse without the threat of armed violence - and prevented the rise of a fascist ideology (which is fundamentally violence based).
So,
Ref Ukraine, I'm curious if there is an institution, or alliance of, that could do the same. Obviously the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is strong, but is it active in the same way I've described above? Is it pushing hard for the end of violence once the fighting stops? Is its presence felt soon after the Army liberates a town? Do Priests carry much weight, locally?
Does the UOC carry enough moral weight, that if it came right out and said, "Enough, 'tis done. No (more) Killing Of Collaborators.", that it would be listened to?
Or would that work better in tandem with a declared Army decision - "the killing/violence stops once we've captured a location - and the Church agrees with us. So stop."
I guess I'm fundamentally asking, would the OUC be a top-tier player in the post-war politics, as a force for non-violence?
1 The 'Tans were overtly anti-Catholic (although to be more accurate, they were really anti-priest, as they correctly identified local Irish priests as critical organizational and morale nodes for the rebellion. It just happened that the priests were Catholic. I guess.).
2 It's been argued that the Irish War of Independence really only kicked into gear when local Bishops began to tilt pro-independence. There was already strong support amongst grassroots priests but Bishops, who by nature were locked into the established order of things, were a harder sell. Once some of them joined in though, the self-mobilization of the populace gathered pace. There were still several who were anti-violence etc but eventually there many who felt it was the presence of the BA that guaranteed violence - and then the overtly Protestant Black & Tans made it way worse.
3 Ireland was still very rural (p.109).
-
LLF, cmon man. Elvis has spoken and has very much not left the building.
Let it go.
-
We need to be very careful here, before the thread is torn in half by opposing camps, fighting needlessly over a definition.
Im not denying @kraze et al's anger (I'm 100% comfortable calling it hate, and agreeing that it's fully justified) but I'm also extremely leery of approaching racism - @Butschi
did a nice note there.
But I don't see fighting over the differences as relevant to this thread.
It'll just disrupt the flow of thought, news and analysis that has made thread so great (such an addiction for me!).
It's the classic online debate war, where if in theory one side wins, ok yay, well what do you get? A parade? Trumpets? Cake? (Mmm caaake). After we're done laying waste to pages of potential useful insight, well then what? It'll be a wasteland, not the vibrant jungle we have now. How can we talk further without everyone having a rhetorical knife behind their back, waiting to go stabbby-stabby on posts they disagree with?
That's not a discussion thread, that's an arena.
As we all know and all say to each other - opening another thread is free and easy! Go, create and God bless. And I'd actually read that thread.
But one doesn't poop where one eats
Except for my useless cat. She sh*ts everywhere.
-
1 hour ago, kevinkin said:
"That’s been the status quo in Syria for the better part of a decade; and at this juncture, the Kharkiv counteroffensive notwithstanding, it seems to be the most likely future for Ukraine, too: a war that never ends, in an unlucky country caught between two(?) past-their-prime superpowers, neither of which has the ability to win outright, nor the humanity to negotiate a compromise, with the result that many thousands die in vain."
Hokay.
1. Syria is a civil war, waged by its autocratic government against its own people.
2. Ukraine is a war of survival, led by the democratic government against an invading fascist regime, and with the overwhelming support of its own people.
3. The Kharkiv op is not an aberration, it is the harbinger of worse to come. Yup Kharkiv isn't war winning. But it sure as heck is an inflection point. The war is not going to stay the same - Russia no longer has the momentum, men, political coherence or operational adaptability to determine the course of events.
4. Ukraine already went through an interminable, never ending warfare since 2014 - in fact this is still that war but its now in the decisive phase, and its very much the Ukrainians making the decisions that matter.
5. Two "past their prime" superpowers? Ehhh... Wut.
Ok, Russia is one. Check.
Who's the other, exactly? The one with the amazing weapons and wherewithal to send them halfway across the world? The one with the insanely accurate and immediate ISR capabilities? The one actively engaged in a long term project to build a moon base?
Or maybe the other one, which however rancorous its decision process has managed to provide billions of dollars in direct aid to Ukraine, absorbed 5,000,000 refugees in 3 months without raising a sweat, has weathered all of Russia's gas threats and is set to get through the winter regardless, has vastly greater military power than Russia and, as part of an alliance with that other power, admitted two new, heavily armed and highly strategically placed nations, and which the prospect of Ukraine joining it was what set off this whole awful mess in the first place?
That author is a political hack, not an original thought in his head and, at bedrock level, a twit.
-
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Wellity wellity Wellity, now.
@Haiduk got info?