How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Billy Ringo said:

I'm still wondering whether Putin ordered the mobilization just to shut up some of his detractors.

I think the crisis at the front and how quickly the guys are being rushed to the front (1 day training in some cases!) indicates that it was a move to counter the Kharkiv offensive.

As discussed a little bit a few pages ago, it seems that Putin has decided that Luhansk is not all that important.  I think he's hoping Mobiks and LPR can hold Ukraine at bay long enough for the weather to change.  The real focus is on maintaining the land bridge for Crimea.  It still looks like everything went down there and nothing is going back north.

I do not think a Russian offensive is in the making.  At least not any time soon.  Russia seems to be fully aware that they'll be lucky if they just hang on.  A spoiling attack somewhere between Dnepr and Donetsk... maybe?  But it would have to be huge and that would be very difficult to keep supplied.  Plus, there's not much time left before the weather will interfere.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

More fun on Russian propaganda TV:

She's so *hawt*. Evil, but hawt. There, I've said it.

...The evil is definitely part of the hawt (the Meghan/Kim K Dragon Lady effect).

Non gustibus se disputandem.

 

[Battlefront.com]

Militaryland has updated its map as of yesterday (Sept 25):

https://militaryland.net/maps/deployment-map/

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, sross112 said:

LOL, oh boy. "Hurry, let's put all our ammo in this ravine to hide it and keep it safe!!" A couple weeks before the rainy season......doh!! There are probably a couple logisticians on the forum that may need to be revived after watching that.

The professionalism, fore thought and planning of the RA just never stops.

Perfect. They can load the cartridges into these.....

We all remember the legends from Vietnam days that AKs had such loose tolerances that they could shoot under any conditions.  So they can walk the talk now.

 

[Battlefront.com]

Couple of interesting things reported today by Censor.net:

 

1.  Putin said to Erdogan that he is ready to negotiate with Zelensky, but it sounds like more of the same (i.e. conditions that are utterly moronic for Putin to attempt)

https://censor.net/en/news/3369725/putin_told_erdogan_that_he_is_ready_for_negotiations_with_ukraine_but_on_new_conditions_turkish_foreign

 

2.  Some sort of shooting going on in Mariupol.  Could be nothing (training), could be inter unit fighting (Kadyrov's TicTok guys might be involved), cold be partisans:

https://censor.net/en/video_news/3369717/explosions_and_gunfire_are_heard_in_occupied_mariupol_video

 

3.  Russian counter battery radar complex captured intact, no idea where:

https://censor.net/en/video_news/3369708/ukrainian_soldiers_captured_four_enemy_radars_for_counterbattery_combat_video

Steve

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

2.  Some sort of shooting going on in Mariupol.  Could be nothing (training), could be inter unit fighting (Kadyrov's TicTok guys might be involved), cold be partisans:

https://censor.net/en/video_news/3369717/explosions_and_gunfire_are_heard_in_occupied_mariupol_video

 

Steve

somebody reconnected power to the traffic lights and the tic toc warriors freaked out.

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Perfect. They can load the cartridges into these.....

We all remember the legends from Vietnam days that AKs had such loose tolerances that they could shoot under any conditions.  So they can walk the talk now.

 

I've looked at this video several times now and I'm pretty sure this is an AKM, which would explain the rust as this thing has probably been in storage for 40+ years.  I wonder what the ammo supply is like as theoretically the Russians are all geared up for riflemen having 5.45 ammo vs. the older 7.62.  Though in this case it doesn't matter because this thing ain't going to shoot nutt'n

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

12 minutes ago, sburke said:

somebody reconnected power to the traffic lights and the tic toc warriors freaked out.

 

 

[JonS]

assuming the video is actually what it says on the tin, I would not be attaching a magazine to any of those weapons.

No. Scratch that. Regardless of whether the video is legit or something taken out of context, I still wouldn't be attaching a magazine to any of those.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The state of the AKs is so bad I first thought it was a partially removed anti-rust coating.

The real shocker is how these AKs look that bad when African and Asian countries occasionally rummage through their arsenals and put Martini-Henry's on the market that look a damn sight better then this.

[JonS]

14 minutes ago, Elmar Bijlsma said:

The real shocker is how these AKs look that bad when African and Asian countries occasionally rummage through their arsenals and put Martini-Henry's on the market that look a damn sight better then this.

It's probably as simple as dry country vs wet country? Afghanistan is pretty darn dry, and so is Sudan and a lot of Africa. European and Pacific Russia (what is the eastern end of Russia called?) ... not so much. Dry conditions make for good long term storage.

Edited September 27, 2022 by JonS

[NamEndedAllen]

2 hours ago, JonS said:

So, a couple of points here.

1) I'm not sure the UNSC is functionally analogous to the Senate. For one thing, there is membership - Senators represent a different constituency than congresspeople, whereas members of the UNSC are representing literally the same thing as their national colleagues in the GA.

2) there are loads of nations that function just fine without a separate upper and lower house - an upper house is not a pre-req for good governance. But AIUI the UNSC doesn't really serve the same function as an upper house anyway; it doesn't exist to 'ratify' decisions by the GA. If I recall correctly, the UNSC exists to avoid a situation where you have - to mangle an old expression - 143 grumpy sheep and a wolf voting on dinner. The UN would never have gotten off the ground if the 40-odd tiddly little nations of the Pacific - for example - could work as a block to outvote, say, the US on the urgent need to actually address climate change. Giving the superpowers a, well, a super power seemed like the best way to address that, as imperfect as it has been. Russia has this year thrown up a glaring problem with the UNSC - ie, what to do when one of the permanent members goes rogue. Up to this point the permanent members were implicitly assumed to be the adults, and could be trusted to make good decisions for the kids. That assumption is taking a bit of a beating right now, but I don't think that eliminating the UNSC or permanent members is the way to resolve it. I don't have a good alternative to it, but I can see that if the UNSC was abolished, then a few years down the track you could easily get snowballing, where one 'side' in an argument at the UN starts accreting votes, to the point where they can pretty much force through any decisions, mandates, and sanctions that they want. The permanent members currently provide a short-circuit to prevent that happening.

3) I'm not sure that comparing a mildly dysfunctional collaborative body with a wildly ineffective legislative one is a good way to go, except that in both cases they work great in theory. You know what they say: in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Addendum: I know you aren't arguing to eliminate the UNSC, but that option has been floated here in the last day or so. I also recognise it might seem that I have sort-of argued both for and against the UNSC, but that isn't quite right: I think that the UNSC serves useful purposes AND I know that deliberative bodies can function effectively without an 'upper house'.

In point of specific fact, I agree to a large extent. But I am not making a one to one rigid identification of the USA Congress and the UN GA - UNSC relationship. The point is that the US Senate until lately has functioned as the “cooling chamber” for initiatives by the House. James Madison said the Senate is a “fence against” periodic eruptions of heated emotions and poor judgement in the House. The Security Council broadly speaking functions in a similar fashion, in the sense that if the General Assembly were the ruling authority of the UN, the UN itself would quite likely soon end. I don’t think we need or should take the space here to list the reasons, especially since it would drag this even further off topic.

 

But the viability and resulting value of removing Russia as a permanent member is my question. Certainly that would not solve all the UN’s woes. However like the Senate, where the veto power nowadays is the constantly used 60 vote filibuster threshold - the veto power of a sole permanent member is and has been used and abused by Russia far more than any other member. For perspective, Russia has used the veto 122 times since UN’s founding. That is nearly as many as ALL the vetos by the other four members, combined. There in a nutshell is a major reason the UN has become increasingly ineffective in achieving the goals of its Charter and the respect of the world.

 

“The UN Charter mandates the UN and its member states to maintain international peace and security, uphold international law, achieve "higher standards of living" for their citizens, address "economic, social, health, and related problems", and promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".^[2] As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by NamEndedAllen

[sburke]

1 minute ago, JonS said:

what is the eastern end of Russia called?

soon... new northern China

[JonS]

12 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

For perspective, Russia has used the veto 122 times since UN’s founding. That is nearly as many as ALL the vetos by the other four members, combined.

But if you view the world as bi-polar (which it more or less has been since 1945) that makes sense: USSR/Russia (plus a small handful from China)= US, UK, France, and it's about 50/50.

So you could say it's working as designed.

Edited September 27, 2022 by JonS

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, JonS said:

But if you view the world as bi-polar (which it more or less has been since 1945) that makes sense: USSR/Russia (plus a small handful from China)= US, UK, France, and it's about 50/50.

So you could say it's working as designed.

the world is bipolar?  Don't we have meds for that now?  

[Fenris]

Some clips of medico's in action

https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574393579199422464

Whilst I'm aware this is the price of UKR success, it still annoys me to no end that they have to suffer for it at all.

[NamEndedAllen]

21 minutes ago, JonS said:

But if you view the world as bi-polar (which it more or less has been since 1945) that makes sense: USSR/Russia (plus a small handfull from China)= US, UK, France, and it's about 50/50.

So you could say it's working as designed.

 

21 minutes ago, JonS said:

But if you view the world as bi-polar (which it more or less has been since 1945) that makes sense: USSR/Russia (plus a small handfull from China)= US, UK, France, and it's about 50/50.

So you could say it's working as designed.

Hey, Jon, thanks for your replies. 
Mathematically , that is a good point. However I wouldn’t say strongly hobbling the UNSC was the design or the intent. Certainly the charge was to act as mandated by the Charter. The vetoes have too often simply stood in the way of the Charter. 
 

But are you saying that you prefer keeping Russia as a permanent member? I had been considering whether there is actually any means to remove Russia. That the invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes we can see unfolding are the grounds for so doing.  We may disagree about the record of the past vetoes by Russia, but to me that is a secondary to this war. And would be an unexpected benefit to the daily tragedies and outrages taking place. However a discussion about that benefit might not be best here?

(Not sure why the double quote!)

Edited September 27, 2022 by NamEndedAllen

[sburke]

The Ukrainian Army Reportedly Destroyed Another Russian Division (msn.com)

Forbes chiming in

[NamEndedAllen]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

the world is bipolar?  Don't we have meds for that now?  

Psst! Over here. 

[JonS]

29 minutes ago, sburke said:

the world is bipolar?  Don't we have meds for that now?  

Heh. Apparently not

[dan/california]

17 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Some clips of medico's in action

https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574393579199422464

Whilst I'm aware this is the price of UKR success, it still annoys me to no end that they have to suffer for it at all.

They have paid the highest price since South Korea for the privilege of joining the Western world, A lot of parallels actually, The way both wars started because of insufficiently clear, or poorly chosen redlines and did/are going to end without the unconditional surrender the bad side deserves. And even the South Koreans didn't have to do all their own fighting, even if they did most of the dying. It is my fondest hope we give the Ukrainians the help to bloom into a jewel of the modern world the way the South Koreans have. They have earned it TEN X, paid in blood and tears.

[JonS]

21 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

But are you saying that you prefer keeping Russia as a permanent member?

No, but I do see the value in not letting either 'side' have unfettered sway.

Russia should probably be out since while it made sense to include them post-war, that justification has long since evaporated AND their behaviour this past decade takes them out of the adult pool.

But, if we start down that road, who does 'deserve' the veto? Do France and the UK keep theirs ... I mean ... really? What about India, or Pakistan, Japan or Germany? Nigeria? What's the basis - has nukes, big economy, large population, lots of territory, is space-faring, large merchant marine, big military, lots of spending on military, popular vote, geographic spread, number of invasions or interventions per year, years without conducting an invasion, etc.

It's tricky, yo

[Battlefront.com]

Smoking at a steel plant can also produce spectacular results!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/huge-fire-at-russian-steel-plant-owned-by-putin-ally-abramovich-video/ar-AA12fOyA?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e3f3100ff48475eb6fb82a42dc49c96

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

14 minutes ago, JonS said:

No, but I do see the value in not letting either 'side' have unfettered sway.

Russia should probably be out since while it made sense to include them post-war, that justification has long since evaporated AND their behaviour this past decade takes them out of the adult pool.

But, if we start down that road, who does 'deserve' the veto? Do France and the UK keep theirs ... I mean ... really? What about India, or Pakistan, Japan or Germany? Nigeria? What's the basis - has nukes, big economy, large population, lots of territory, is space-faring, large merchant marine, big military, lots of spending on military, popular vote, geographic spread, number of invasions or interventions per year, years without conducting an invasion, etc.

It's tricky, yo

Yes, the UN has always been a talking (and posturing) shop whose effectiveness at bottom relied on the postwar Pax Americana. That hegemony began decaying (like some radioactive element I'm too lazy to Google) almost instantly, for many reasons.

The SC was as much a sop to the fading imperial powers as to the (delusion) that China and the USSR could be coaxed into the responsible community of nations, and that the Big 5 could collectively keep the rest in line, fed, etc. (The Four Freedoms).

Greece 1946+, Israel 1947, Berlin 1948 and Korea 1950 put that idealism away pretty quickly, as did Suez 1956.

EDIT:  It was also a convenient way for (mainly African) dictators to get their political opponents out of the country, with their families.  Here, here's a plush office, a brownstone and free parking in Manhattan. Now go away.

Edited September 27, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Artkin]

Let's go Scholz. On with it already.