How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[db_zero]

56 minutes ago, kraze said:

Misses key context.

Putin was talking - then the video insta-skipped to a pro-war singer.

Should probably replace those laserdisc players in their propaganda towers with something more modern. 

In all seriousness though - no live broadcasts in Russia.

I saw a report and the headline said rally was attended by tens of thousands.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-hails-russias-special-operation-133458957.html

I seen figures that up to 40% of people in Russia rely on state TV for most if not all of their information and they tend to be older.

Seems that there may be a generational gap on a number of issues in Russia. The sanctions the West is imposing will impose a much greater cost to the younger generation and they are apt to be more restless about Ukraine, plus the fact they are in prime cannon fodder age group.

There is a flight to flee Russia and that will create a brain drain. Waiting to see if Russia imposes restrictions on leaving the country.

Edited March 18, 2022 by db_zero

[Haiduk]

Russians tow damaged helicopters from Chornobaivka airfield

 

[Haiduk]

Russian VDV checkpoint somewhere NW from Kyiv.

 

[Armorgunner]

I played a quick battle, with downpour and mud. at Huge rough-water-town map. I was the defender, with a reinforced Ukrainian company. The Russians attacked with a reinforced BTG. But it became too realistic, so it was not fun to play. 2/3 of the Russian vehicles got stuck in the mud.

 

I have a picture from the game, what it looked like.

This is ingame screenshot after 25 min of play

[Panserjeger]

Ouch..

 

[Battlefront.com]

This was posted by one of our testers to our internal discussion.  I thought it was a good idea to post it here as it illustrates one of Russia's traditional means of showing public support for something... pay people to show up.  We saw a ton of this in the 2014 "unrest" in Ukraine where people were bussed in from Russia to various locations.  Some where there simply because they got paid to.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

I played a quick battle, with downpour and mud. at Huge rough-water-town map. I was the defender, with a reinforced Ukrainian company. The Russians attacked with a reinforced BTG. But it became too realistic, so it was not fun to play. 2/3 of the Russian vehicles got stuck in the mud.

Thanks for posting this!

Steve

[akd]

Just found the Russian MoD of the Ka-52 cockpit video and now I’m not sure whether or not they are making fun of themselves:

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by akd

[keas66]

23 minutes ago, Panserjeger said:

Ouch..

 

There are people dying on both sides of this conflict in horrible , painful ways . One thing to keep in mind  while we watch from afar  from 10,000ft . I'm trying to avoid the death porn  as much as I can .

Edited March 18, 2022 by keas66
spelling

[Armorgunner]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This was posted by one of our testers to our internal discussion.  I thought it was a good idea to post it here as it illustrates one of Russia's traditional means of showing public support for something... pay people to show up.  We saw a ton of this in the 2014 "unrest" in Ukraine where people were bussed in from Russia to various locations.  Some where there simply because they got paid to.

Steve

 

This is the by Putin, ordered demonstration for the war special operation, of denazifying the judes in Ukraine. You can really feel their enthusiasm  particularly in the second one!

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Armorgunner

[sburke]

another hack of a Russian company.  

Russian pipeline company Transneft hit by data leak dedicated to Hillary Clinton (msn.com)

The targeted organization is Transneft, the Russian state-controlled oil pipeline giant. On Thursday, leak hosting website Distributed Denial of Secrets published a link to 79GB of emails from the Omega Company, the research and development division of Transneft.

[akd]

Quote

Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boichenko tells me fighting has reached the city centre, confirming earlier Russian reports. 

"Yes, they were really active today. Tanks and machine gun battles continue," he says. "Everybody is hiding in bunkers"

He says more than 80% of residential buildings are either damaged or destroyed, and 30% of them cannot be restored. 

"There’s no city centre left. There isn’t a small piece of land in the city that doesn’t have signs of war," he says.

The operation to rescue people from the basement of a theatre that was bombed continues, he adds, without giving any estimate on casualties.

-BBC update on situation in Mariupol.

Main industrial (steelworks) area in Mariupol getting wrecked:

 

[Armorgunner]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks for posting this!

Steve

Just make the Russian crews to abandon their bogged tanks, and walk home to Russia in engine 5. And I will be very happy  Or is that too realistic? 

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, akd said:

Just found the Russian MoD of the Ka-52 cockpit video and now I’m not sure they aren’t making fun of themselves:

 

What the wha?  Can anybody here translate what they are saying as they land and get out? 

Steve

[Haiduk]

11 minutes ago, akd said:

Just found the Russian MoD of the Ka-52 cockpit video and now I’m not sure they aren’t making fun of themselves:

conducted a tactical landing operation

 

Exellent exampl of Russian Orvellian "new-language":

The fall of economy  -> negative growth

Exlosion -> clap

Fire -> smoke

tactical landing -> emergency landing after hit 

[Haiduk]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What the wha?  Can anybody here translate what they are saying as they land and get out? 

Steve

I've posted this several pages ago here and on internal forum. This is attack on Hostomel airfield 24th Feb. Ka-52 was hit, pilot says "I'm hit, keep control... emergency landing... Bail out!"

Edited March 18, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

Ah!  Thanks, I somehow missed your translation.

For a country that is so concerned about controlling the messaging of a war, it baffles me how they could make a mistake of putting this out on the Internet for everybody to see.  I don't see any benefit to them for showing the landing portion of the video.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Ukrainian artillery strike as seen from drone.  Another post states the origins being:

"A new video has been released showing three #BayraktarTB2 drone strikes on Russian BMD-2s and BTR-80s on the 25th of February, and the use of the TB2 to direct artillery fire at Kherson air base and a Russian armoured column."

 

[Haiduk]

Next attempt of Russians to cross Irpin' river in Moshchun village area and results. Probably several days ago

 

[akd]

Chechens in eastern Mariupol:

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by akd

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Aggressive.

He refers to the history of Brandenburg, trying to make the point that Brandenburg was forced to chose between becoming a naval power and becoming a land power. This is part of his larger argument that, for reasons of court politics, Russia failed to develop a clear focus in land power primacy, and so this explains why it is today struggling. He argues that Prussia abandoned its naval power colonial aspirations in the 18th century to become a "land power max" country. Setting aside the rather burdensome video metaphor, this is pretty roundly wrong and ignores nearly 100 years of the countries history which led to this choice. Brandenburg was devastated by the 30yrs War, it had been forced to repeatedly 'pick sides' at the point of a pike as its military was not powerful enough to preserve the country from outside threats. This, not the failure of any maritime policy, led to the rise of Brandenburg as a land power. Robert Citino, in his book (which is not a textbook, and is very much worth the read) highlights that this initial choice for security transformed after the union with Prussia into a question for a land corridor. Excellence in Prussian arms was developed as early as the Scanian of 1678  in which the Prussian army famously mounted sleds and conducted a rapid winter march from its quarters into the depths of Swedish occupied Germany. So dramatic, and important, was this to the Prussian ethos that Heinz Guderian himself said the campaign was one of his inspirations for his ideas. 

Anyway I dispute even the basic premise of this 'naval max or land max' analysis. Is too brutish. The US is the preeminent global land, sea, and air power. Dont think most countries would challenge that really, except China. Who is currently a major land power trying to go to sea. And of course the British had the RN in the early 20th century. The British Army in 1938 was right up there with the German in terms of modernization, thought it was small. And nobody remembers that the British also had the largest volunteer army in the world, the British Army in India had almost 3.5mil volunteers in 1945. More even than the US. Lots of people like to talk about the German system, but really the British were probably still the worlds leading power right before WWII, they had the biggest and best navy, the biggest army, and one of the best motorized cores as well. 

Later, the poster discusses the history of Soviet maritime strategy. But its also pretty off, to be honest. Documents are quite clear really that Stalin wanted, after WWII, to build a navy which he thought would be able to challenge the RN and USN for control of the seas. But, just as important, Stalin saw the navy as a prestige tool. Some have tried to explain the Second World War, especially the war in Asia, as having been driven in part by the unequal distribution of battleship allotments in the interwar naval treaties. While I dont think he thought in those exact terms, Stalin felt that capital ships equated to great power status on some level and so he wanted them built. The plans were laid out and IIRC the keels of several ships were laid, but Stalin's death interrupted this program. Khrushchev diverted those resources both into the Army and into civilian programs. But his successor, Brezhnev, rebuilt some of the naval program. While the technology had changed, many of the motivations were the same. Brezhnev, especially after 1968, tried to rehabilitate the USSR to the rest of the world. He introduce a global strategy which aimed to turn decolonizing and decolonized nations over to the USSR and defeat the west this way. Prestige and good relations are important to that, and nothing says good relations like a port visit. Building up the navy also gave the USSR the ability to participate more directly in global crises, ala 1973 and the Yom Kippur War. And of course it would have checked Khrushchev's biggest failure: the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is also the era of admiral Gorchakov, the Soviet submarine theorist. Westerners love him because he thinks like we do about naval power and wanted the USSR to do what we would have, fight a third battle of the Atlantic. But Gorchakov is really actually a marginal figure in the USSR's military establishment. Its critical to see the revived Soviet Navy in the context of what it was meant to do. 1) it had to secure the SLBM bastions in the White Sea and around the Artic ice cap. 2) It had to protect the USSR's long coastlines from both subsurface and naval aviation threats, a big fear was a rapid USN deep penetration raid against USSR nuclear facilities or, of course, the SSBNs. Something BTW the USN practiced and was very good at. 3) Only once these two were done would the navy be permitted to move onto an offensive footing and operate along traditional lines. Which is to say never, as the new US maritime strategy of the 70s and 80s called for projecting power against the Soviet coasts in a way that would have never allowed for the security required to satisfy 1&2. More importantly, the basic defensive mission of the Navy was important in that it did not detract from the Army's offensive mission in central Europe. That is, the Navy was always the branch getting leftovers, not dictating the whole pie. It was assumed that what was at sea would be destroyed (so better have it take a shot at a carrier at least!) Once war was declared reserves, safe in the bastions, would be parceled out to accomplish the three missions as befitted the strategic and operational situation in central & norther Europe. 

And then we get into more minor things, like the fact that he calls the Russian operational theory Blitzkrieg. Its not. They grew from the same root, Cold War or even modern Deep Battle is very different than the modern form of the blitz practiced by western nations. 

Like I said, the person seems to have a strong understanding of Putin and his court, but his use of history is pretty clumsy. Worse yet this makes some of the analysis suspect because a big part of his argument in the thread that was first linked is based on this idea that Russia has a historical tendency of overdiversification of arms. Except, historically, thats not really true. So it kind of leaves him out there twisting in the wind with some of these conclusions. 

Also do we really need to worship all our sources as heroes? Just because Col M served once and said some things people like doesn't mean his word is inviolate forever. Just because someone published a book you like doesn't meant this time theyre right by default. Just because a guy on twitter says one thing you like doesn't make it a personal attack if someone else disagrees. I dont like a lot of the things I read, and if I didn't complain I'd hardly be a Grognard now would I?  Judge somebody by their words and ideas on a case by case basis. Does what they say pass the smell test? Does it fit into the other information youre reading? Is this person mainstream on this issue or are they are bucking the orthodox, if so why? Is it to be contrarian, or because theyre crazy, or dumb, or are they on to something truly different? You can even apply the same test to me! Im an asshole and surely most of the dumb things I say will wither under a critical gaze, but better to be critical than to accept the things I say whole cloth. After all I could be a crazyperson. 

Thanks for the nice read! (no sarcasm) Learned some new things about specific history as someone with some Prussian blood but not specifically interested in Prussian history more than other history.

I'm not in a position to discount the rights or wrongs regarding whether Brandenburg/Prussians were forced to focus on a landpower.

However, conceptually on almost all focus decisions in the world there exists the problem of focus vs spread. I agree that it is not necessarily required to focus on one thing if you have the options to do both / all. 
But if you don't have the money to do both air and land good, it sure helps to focus on one them based of your geopolitical requirements and existing capabilities.

Plenty of countries/organizations/individuals have learned that lesson one way or the other.

Actually I have learned about this Kamil Galeev through @LongLeftFlank post on this forum and thought he had quite some interesting threads or posts. I don't think he's worshipping the source as a hero, but just as an interesting source.

Personally I always try to think fully independent, sources are nice to be informed; conclusions will be done in my own cpu. Obviously we all will be influenced by the sources we read (or don't read), so (I) just keep that in mind. 

So this Kamil also has his own agenda, glass color and bias; still his arguments regarding the question of whether it was smart for Russia to invest as much in Naval as they did aren't completely invalidated because he chose an analogy based off perhaps incorrect history, at least imo.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Lethaface

[Haiduk]

New unit involved in battle for Kyiv on NW direction - 155th Naval infantry brigade, Vladivostok, Pacific Fleet. So weird, this guy overcame 9600+ km  only for to be killed in the battle for small Ukrainan village on the left bank of Irpin' river. 

On the screen "he was a driver of BMP-3... He heroically fought with nationalists for liberation of the village Moshchun. His BMP-3 was disabled, but despite the desperate situation he organized all-round defense and eliminated seven nationalists" (in the spirit of Soviet propaganda they could write "a platoon of nationalists")

Edited March 18, 2022 by Haiduk

[Grey_Fox]

The story with this is that allegedly A couple of Ukrainians soldiers were left behind (presumably after a failed attack?) and a drone was sent to find them. They had taken cover in a crater until nightfall where they were rescued:

https://vid.pr0gramm.com/2022/03/18/8e18fb6bc7303f44.mp4

[Haiduk]

Other video of towing damaged Russian helicopters from Chornobaivka airfield - 1 Mi-24/35, 1 Mi-8AMTSh, 2 Mi-28N, 1 unknown (end of video).

Background sound is a meme track of popular comic TV-show "The village of fools"

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

So this Kamil also has his own agenda, glass color and bias; still his arguments regarding the question of whether it was smart for Russia to invest as much in Naval as they did aren't completely invalidated because he chose an analogy based off perhaps incorrect history, at least imo.

This right there.  It is always important to evaluate a position with some room for error in the specifics supporting it.  Kamil's point about the perils of spreading resources too thin and suffering because of it is a universal truth.  It applies to just about everything, including people's personal life decisions. 

His central point is that Russia's central interests are all land based, be it military or economic.  Further, its primary interests are all in territory that it has land borders with.  The war is underscoring how ill prepared the Russian land (and air) forces are for dealing with a significant challenge within just one of those territories.

A navy is used for projecting power to areas that can not be easily reached by land or even air.  Russia has almost on interests in territories that fit this description.  Even Syria could be easily reached by air or commercial maritime resources.  No aircraft carrier or cruisers needed for that.

When all of this is combined, it's pretty clear that the money Russia invested in its navy was ill conceived and of little practical use for helping win Russia's greatest crisis since the 1st Chechen War.

Steve