How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, that is what he is trying to do.  But in doing so he deliberately sent manpower from Luhansk to reinforce the south (including Kherson).  At first this could be excused as desperate wishful thinking that it wouldn't bite him in the arse, but he has been bitten hard and yet isn't shifting significant forces from the south (where there is no fighting) to Luhansk (which is in total collapse).

This indicates that he has assessed that it's better to risk losing Luhansk than it is the south.  Which is what is interesting about this since all of the SMO rhetoric is focused on the Donbas.

Steve

Yeah, seems you're view fits the facts better than what I was thinking, thx.  Which then brings up what is behind his prioritization of south relative to donbas?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, DerKommissar said:

Just like RU nats venerate Putin, CA nats venerate Poutine.

Then I must be a CA Nat.  Either that or the very detailed conversation I had with a guy from New Brunswick yesterday about where to find the best Poutine in Quebec was just a coincidence.  As is the fact I was the one advising where to go and that I'm going there on Monday.  Countering this is my lack of knowledge of hockey trivia, so I'm not sure I qualify even for an honorary membership in the CA Nat community.  Though I did see Ray Bourque speak a few years ago... so maybe there is still hope for me.

On a serious note, I often think about how lucky I am that the country with the longest border with mine is Canada.  I absolutely could not ask for better neighbors.  Ukraine, on the other hand, has its longest border with Russia.  They absolutely could not have a worse neighbor.  I for one do not take my good fortune for granted.

Steve

[Butschi]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Correct, but before the war there was a healthy debate about how important the land bridge was in terms of dedicating resources to secure it.  Sure, if Ukraine put a For Sale sign on the Azov coast, Russia would have snapped it up in a heartbeat.  But waging war explicitly to secure it?  It was dismissed by many and, I think, they were right to do that.  But now that Russia has it, seems to me that of all the territory they control the south is taking on increasingly outsized importance for Putin related to the stated objectives of the SMO.

Steve

Alright, let's assume Putin can somehow spin the loss of the Donbas, well, if not into a victory then at least into a defeat that can neglected or one that others can be blamed for. We already had the theory that Luhansk might be left undefended, because they are no real Russians and anyway kind of subhuman. If they can't defend even their own territory they aren't worth good Russian soldiers dying for them, blah, blah.

Let's further assume this wouldn't work for Crimea. After all Crimea always belonged to Russia, is by annexation Russian soil, is home to the Black Sea Fleet and all that.

So he can afford to lose Donbas but cannot afford to lose Crimea.

If we further assume that Putin is increasingly aware that he can't hold both Donbas and Crimea, and aware that it will be hard to hold Crimea if the Kerch bridge is dropped. Let's also assume that he is not totally insane yet and is either bluffing about tac nukes, is afraid to use them (if only because he might be deposed if he tried) or sees them only as last ditch weapon after everything else fails.

Then his only option is to do everything he can to ensure the land bridge is not lost.

Lots of assumptions, though.

EDIT: So it is either an exit strategy or some kind of damage mitigation?

Edited September 30, 2022 by Butschi

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

And then of course we discovered that we can just go on vacations if we want to see other countries

It took a very great deal to convince the Japanese it is cheaper to buy Hawaii than conquer it, but they seem to have gotten the point.

[Aragorn2002]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, that is what he is trying to do.  But in doing so he deliberately sent manpower from Luhansk to reinforce the south (including Kherson).  At first this could be excused as desperate wishful thinking that it wouldn't bite him in the arse, but he has been bitten hard and yet isn't shifting significant forces from the south (where there is no fighting) to Luhansk (which is in total collapse).

This indicates that he has assessed that it's better to risk losing Luhansk than it is the south.  Which is what is interesting about this since all of the SMO rhetoric is focused on the Donbas.

Steve

So is he planning to keep the Ukrainians busy in the Donbas, with the annexation as an extra stimulans for the Ukrainians to attack there, while planning an offensive in the future from the South with the bulk of his army? Is that what you're thinking of?

[Battlefront.com]

39 minutes ago, billbindc said:

After watching that speech, I'm not convinced we should read too much strategy into Russian deployments. Putin is operating without much recourse to staffing or external input. The strategy, such as it is, is whatever is going on in his head. I would expect we will see irrational choices be reinforced, key sectors ignored and generally a shambolic lurch towards the first use of a nuclear weapon in a war since 1945. 

Even a strategy without adequate input from the military is still a strategy.  Even one dragged out of mentally scary head is still a strategy (unless we deem Putin insane, which I don't think is true).  As such, it has logic to it even if it is a terrible strategy in theory and/or execution.

16 minutes ago, billbindc said:

From Putin's speech. Given that he made a similar statement about the pipelines I'm going to revise my earlier conclusion that it had to be some internal nationalist thing with Dugin. Putin's judgement is so out of whack he may think this sort of thing helps him. 

Yes, I agree with this is at least ONE of the reasons for blowing up the pipeline.  Clearly it was time to coincide with annexation, which is absolutely pandering to the RU Nats.  So probability says that there's a direct linkage.

However, as I said earlier it is very rare for Putin to do something big and only expect to get one thing out of it.  He tends to leverage a bold action for as much as possible.  It's smart in that it means more bang for the buck, but unwise because it temps him to do larger things that are inherently more risky.  Exhibit A is this war.

I still think the Nordstream attack was intended to limit the options for potential opposition.  I won't repost the clip from Jaws (I don't want LLF to feel I'm abusing my powers!), but that is still in my mind the primary motivation. 

It's like a ship captain dropping empty lifeboats into the sea to ensure the crew fights the fire below decks instead of abandoning ship.  If the rest of the crew thinks they are better off with the experienced captain leading the fight against the fire, then they'll likely accept the move and do as he says.  Otherwise, the captain goes overboard right then and there.  Putin is no doubt counting on the various power factions concluding they are better off with waiting to see if Putin can pull a rabbit out of his hat rather than putting their bets on some untried person.

Steve

[panzermartin]

From a strategic point of view, could they probably still hope to achieve cutting off Ukraine from the sea. And making black sea a safe Russian lake. That would be a major victory for Russians, one that could even signal end of offensive, even if not much more else is taken. The republics joining Russia, a secured Crimea and taking all the south coast sounds like a great deal. For this they will need to advance to Mikolayev and Odessa and Kherson is vital. I presume this was very high on their list at least before invasion. Now it seems not very realistic but who knows. Donbas is more of political value than Kherson Imo. 

[danfrodo]

yes, Putin using bold action w leverage like Steve said.  Multiple gains per action.  The pipeline attack cuts fuel to europe and causes shock through energy markets, which Putin hopes will lessen western support for UKR & for sanctions.  He's also letting us know he'll attack our infrastructure at any time and even have the ability to still say "who, me??  prove it!". 

The "RU didn't do it" of course will be picked up by the usual collection of snakes that spouts RU propaganda in western media, and making big bucks doing so.  

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, Huba said:

And here's an answer from Zelensky:

Now I wonder if that was agreed somehow with at least some key members - I really hope it was. It's not going to happen while the hostilities are ongoing, but has to happen after. Having clear prospect of NATO membership makes UA negotiation position stronger IMO. I'm sure that PL will support the application.

I like the timing of this news. It will piss off those celebrating 'referendum' on a certain red square. 

[Harmon Rabb]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

The Russian version of this show would be much more brutal and stupid

The Russian version of Jackass would just be a reality TV show about the daily life of Vladimir Putin and the rest of his  cabinet.

Broadcast exclusively on RussiaToday.

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

So is he planning to keep the Ukrainians busy in the Donbas, with the annexation as an extra stimulans for the Ukrainians to attack there, while planning an offensive in the future from the South with the bulk of his army? Is that what you're thinking of?

No, I think he's desperately trying to keep everything, but is struggling to come up with a way to do that which doesn't invite Ukraine to start a new attack in the south.  Which is a real risk if he pulls significant forces away from there and feeds them into Luhansk.

Roughly speaking it has gone like this...

1. Kyiv and the north didn't work out, so he pulled forces back and reinforce the Donbas with the intention of taking more ground there.  The south was not reinforced
2. the Donbas offensive stalled out so he drew down the forces in Kharkiv, in particular Izyum area, to reinforce activities in the Severodonets and Popasna areas
3. ground was gained in the Donbas, but at a huge cost.  Unfortunately for Russia, Ukraine started building up forces in the south and was making overt noise about Kherson
4. Putin switched resource allocations to the south over Donbas.  This included withdrawing regular military forces from the Donbas.  The DLPR and RU Nat volunteer units were largely left on their own in the Donbas all the way north to Kharkiv
5. the Kherson offensive launched and Putin became even more concerned about the Zaporizhzhia front, so more reinforcements went there.  Including, we think, significant portion of the 3rd Army Corps.
6. Kharkiv offensive started off with a bang and Putin was caught totally unprepared.  He either believed it was a faint or that Zaporizhzhia was going to be a third offensive operation.  Either way, he prioritized keeping forces in the south
7. once Putin realized the Kharkiv offensive wasn't small nor limited, he panicked.  Not enough troops were available to cover Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Donbas.  As a result he instituted partial mobilization and kicked the referendums into high gear
8. reinforcements were sent into Luhansk in the form of cannon fodder from the mobilization.  It seems he hoped that would be enough to blunt the attack and give him some more options.  That didn't work and the Lyman group, which appears to be the bulk of the capable forces in the region, is already effectively destroyed
9. it seems that perhaps we're seeing the beginning of Putin recognizing that he has to risk Zaporizhzhia front and is now moving forces from the south to Luhansk.  His hope is that he doesn't thin the forces there too much that Ukraine decides to go on the offensive.  Even a limited offensive would likely be a disaster for Russia's position there as well as the PR narrative

This is a crude recounting of how we got to where we are today, but I think the core of it is sound.

Steve

[dan/california]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The most brilliant things ever to be written are also the most likely to disappear before being read.  That's my story too, and so we'll stick together on this!

In detail?  No, but that wasn't what I thought you were asking.  I thought you were asking for examples of aggressive national identities and cultural attitudes that changed without direct outside interference (e.g. Germany, Japan, and the often forgotten about Italy).  Let's take Romania for example. 

After the Soviet Union collapsed the country had a choice between remaining an autonomous dictatorship or transforming itself into something else.  Possibly worse.  Unlike the rest of the former Warsaw Pact countries, Romania didn't undergo a voluntary collapse of authority and instead had had a very violent military coup that pitted the military against each other.  It resulted in the execution of the dictator.  Despite coming to power through military means, just about zero experience with democratic concepts, and having various territorial disputes with its neighbors, Romania chose a path towards the West and its ideals.  It was not an easy path and it could have reverted to authoritarian governance at any time.  Today it is doing very well on the whole.  Certainly it's progress massively from where it started... pretty much the bottom of the Warsaw Pact barrel.

Nobody imposed this on Romania's population.  Their culture is still intact.

 

I was prepared for an "until next time" successor to Putin before this war and I'm still open to it now because it's the only realistic thing to hope for.  However, thanks to the war there's a lot of preconditions that go along with the wait for the next time.  Whomever succeeds Putin is going to have a lot of baggage to carry.  And if he complains about all the weight, I say give him another bag until he shuts his cakehole.

That said, whatever transition options I pictured for Putin's regime post war are pretty much all gone now.  Whatever is coming next is going to be far more likely to involve some degree of federal disintegration.  I think that's inevitable at this point.

Steve

Putin makes it ever clearer that the only thing worse than a bunch of smaller countries ruled by blood thirsty nut cases is one large country ruled by a blood thirsty nut case.

9 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I continue to think that the next Ukrainian master stroke will be a 72 hour air and drone campaign that systematically destroys these Russian guns, forcing the survivors into mainly ineffective 'shoot and scoot' mode. While the RUAF flails helplessly, flying from distant bases.

 

Even our resident Eeyore, is now speaking of Ukrainian masterstrokes, that everything you need to know about this war.

8 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

https://jamestown.org/program/lessons-of-the-ukraine-war-thus-far/

Russia has fired more than 3,800 missiles against Ukraine ... in large part, by so-called “theater of operations” missiles—mid-range missiles that can strike targets thousands of kilometers away (e.g., Kalibr and X-101). But such a quantity of missiles, which is much more than the United States has launched in total in the past 40 years, did not allow Russian forces to change warfighting dynamics in a favorable way—by failing to paralyze railways logistics, interdict Western military supply flow to Ukraine or gain air superiority.

The Ukrainian experience has made clear that precision missiles of lesser range combined with accurate intelligence can make a world of difference on the battlefield. Primarily, this concerns the employment of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) projectiles guided by GPS with an 85-kilometer range. The US has provided Ukraine with at least 2,100 projectiles of this type.... Basically, successful mass employment of GMLRS by Ukraine has proven the validity of the US Army’s AirLand Battle doctrine of the 1980s.

 

This is one of the lessons the game has taught me. Even huge initial advantages can be squandered if you are stupid.  I refrain from the relevant meme per Steve's wishes.

6 hours ago, FancyCat said:

What I want to emphasize from the linked post, why are there attacks on civilians with drones, artillery and missiles while Russians are facing encirclement and collapse on the front lines? (Obviously maybe there is logistical and rear military targets but still....)

How much of this is a Putin directed 'not one step back" and "terror into the citizenry" of hybrid warfare?

What about the General Staff?

 

I love the little pro forma loyalty bit at the bottom.

3 hours ago, akd said:

Interesting claim here that this is actually from GMLRS that went straight through the Tigr while it was crossing the Nova Kakhovka bridge:

 

I bet they had a heck of a time finding new pants on the Kherson side.

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

After watching that speech, I'm not convinced we should read too much strategy into Russian deployments. Putin is operating without much recourse to staffing or external input. The strategy, such as it is, is whatever is going on in his head. I would expect we will see irrational choices be reinforced, key sectors ignored and generally a shambolic lurch towards the first use of a nuclear weapon in a war since 1945. 

Aren't you cheery this morning.     Hopefully he is in fact lurching towards a very special cup of tea.

Edited September 30, 2022 by dan/california

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I like the timing of this news. It will piss off those celebrating 'referendum' on a certain red square. 

This plus the we won't ever negotiate with Putin statement certainly should put a damper on Russian celebrations

Steve

[Grigb]

12 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

From a strategic point of view, could they probably still hope to achieve cutting off Ukraine from the sea. And making black sea a safe Russian lake. That would be a major victory for Russians, one that could even signal end of offensive, even if not much more else is taken. The republics joining Russia, a secured Crimea and taking all the south coast sounds like a great deal. For this they will need to advance to Mikolayev and Odessa and Kherson is vital. I presume this was very high on their list at least before invasion. Now it seems not very realistic but who knows. Donbas is more of political value than Kherson Imo. 

A good point about safe lake - RU for some reason believes NATO will use Black Sea to convinetly bypass RU land defenses to invade or use Black Sea as convenient maritime way of supporting NATO troops marching deep into RU South. So, from their point of view securing UKR shore secures RU flank.

[sburke]

I'm not sure Putin is that clear on what he considers important or to put it another way, what he would settle for.  He wanted a subjugated Ukraine.  What he has so far is a tiger by the tail and he doesn't know how to let go.  His statement that the new referendum is nonnegotiable is a joke.  if he really thought that was his new line he'd suggest a ceasefire.  He knows he's not getting that.  Ukraine is sensing blood in the water and to use your Jaws reference... he'd need a bigger boat.  Right now he's in a f'kn leaking dingy and his crew is using the stooges "water letter outer".  Dang and there is a youtube video @LongLeftFlank

 

Meanwhile the mobilization is just going splendid!

Russian conscripts beat up their officer after he tells them 'you are all cannon fodder' (msn.com)

[acrashb]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

On a serious note, I often think about how lucky I am that the country with the longest border with mine is Canada.  I absolutely could not ask for better neighbors. 

Wonderful to hear, too many Americans take Canada for granted.  And conversely, many Canadians are foolishly afraid of our American cousins; some of my acquaintances worry that the US could get bored and invade Toronto, to which I reply "what are you on, crack?  The poutine is in Montreal!"

The UA likes Canadians too.  They are building igloos in homage :

 

25 minutes ago, billbindc said:

From Putin's speech. [...]

Was it "crazy batsh**" as in the twitter link, or just a "rant", or was it full-on hitler-in-a-bunker nuts?  I say "rant" designed to send a number of signals, mostly directed at sustaining support from his people (e.g., the cultural stuff about LGBTQ, enumeration of myths and legends about an ancient and imaginary West, etc.) to reinforce their 'common enemy'.  He's still rational and still, to pattern, escalating.

Contrast that to the measured, but very, very direct messaging from Zelensky:

And of course, to directly blunt Putin's speech, the application to NATO.

 

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

31 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Alright, let's assume Putin can somehow spin the loss of the Donbas, well, if not into a victory then at least into a defeat that can neglected or one that others can be blamed for. We already had the theory that Luhansk might be left undefended, because they are no real Russians and anyway kind of subhuman. If they can't defend even their own territory they aren't worth good Russian soldiers dying for them, blah, blah.

Let's further assume this wouldn't work for Crimea. After all Crimea always belonged to Russia, is by annexation Russian soil, is home to the Black Sea Fleet and all that.

So he can afford to lose Donbas but cannot afford to lose Crimea.

If we further assume that Putin is increasingly aware that he can't hold both Donbas and Crimea, and aware that it will be hard to hold Crimea if the Kerch bridge is dropped. Let's also assume that he is not totally insane yet and is either bluffing about tac nukes, is afraid to use them (if only because he might be deposed if he tried) or sees them only as last ditch weapon after everything else fails.

Then his only option is to do everything he can to ensure the land bridge is not lost.

Lots of assumptions, though.

Yet they all fit the facts as we know them.  Importantly, they fit the facts as we believe Russia is perceiving them to be (i.e. us trying to put aside Western thinking/logic).

31 minutes ago, Butschi said:

EDIT: So it is either an exit strategy or some kind of damage mitigation?

There is no exit strategy in sight for Putin.  He must know this by now.  Therefore, he's doing what he always does... try every desperate manipulation he can think of to try and provide him with an option he currently doesn't have.

The idiocy of Putin is that he didn't have to start this large scale war to get largely what he wanted.  He could have gone with any number of other options and, IMHO, probably militarily won for the short term.  He might have even been able to have more friction in the West and less sanctions as a result.  But that ship has sailed.

Since then he's had a number of opportunities to end the war with at least something he wanted.  Ukraine was willing to give him a couple things to stop the war.  We've speculated as to why Putin was so "maximalist" in what he wanted out of this war, but it is clear that whatever his motivations he felt he needed everything.  Partial success was a failure in his mind.  Now even that ship has sailed.

Putin likely understands that he has no hope of a military solution.  Not even stalemate for a short period of time.  Therefore, he has to angle for something political to save him from total defeat.  As we've seen, he really doesn't have options there either, try as he might to create them.

So it looks like Putin is rapidly approaching the understanding that in his "all or nothing" gamble he is going to get nothing.  Hopefully he has already come to that conclusion even after considering using nukes.

What does this mean?  I think he'll just keep doing what he's been doing until someone puts a bullet in his head.

Steve

[Grigb]

There is unconfirmed map of Lyman perimeter

Also two unverified videos of alleged RU infantry quickly running somewhere

 

[Grigb]

Just in case - RU claims reserves reached the area (most likely just Torske not Lyman itself). There is fighting 

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

The Russian version of this show would be much more brutal and stupid

i.e., the SMO as televised.

[keas66]

 

[Grigb]

Do you remember Khodakovsly described untrained RU units arrived the front?

Quote

Units formed [just] before the mobilization announcement started to come in - and their behavior resembles the behavior of an animal born and raised in a zoo and [suddenly] released into the wild. One company entered the settlement in a position next to us, settled down, laid out the ammo in the correct geometric shape, put the vehicles nearby - for convenience. Well, [when] our officers arrived to link up, they saw this picture and pushed everyone into basements - just in time as everything was hit with arty.

Today, from the same guard [unit], a column decided to drive from point A to point B and drove right into the enemy's position - few people escaped from enemy fire. Well, what is it????? Gentlemen army chiefs, what are you doing? We have been fighting for more than eight years, and [we participate] in this operation from the first days, who prevents you from coming [here] and build interaction [with us] so that we show, teach, accompany, help?....

It's the same thing every time - we are open [for interaction], and they look at us [sneering] from the height of the general's shoulder straps. Until you find[/put] sane officers at the bottom, the work is not [going to] get better. Maybe it's good to stop imitating [Grand] strategists already? I'm sick of cleaning up after you....

CIT claims it was 3AK. Yes, that 3AK. And here is a description of its current state:

Quote

this army corps turned out to be a crowd of untrained people with the latest technology, which they practically do not know how to control. They are also very angry now, because their short-term contracts have become indefinite, and some also do not receive the required payments.

 

[Vacillator]

18 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Water will flow the way it is supposed to.

Unless there's a pump involved .

But if you mean that public support/desire will guide political decisions, I'm a little sceptical given what's going on with most aspects of the UK 'mini-budget'.  It has support from the wealthier in society, but no-one else. 

Deciding that support for Ukraine is no longer a priority is thankfully a diffent matter as it has cross-party support (obviously).

And here endeth the boring political stuff .

[Kinophile]

27 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Wonderful to hear, too many Americans take Canada for granted.  And conversely, many Canadians are foolishly afraid of our American cousins; some of my acquaintances worry that the US could get bored and invade Toronto, to which I reply "what are you on, crack?  The poutine is in Montreal!"

The UA likes Canadians too.  They are building igloos in homage :

 

Was it "crazy batsh**" as in the twitter link, or just a "rant", or was it full-on hitler-in-a-bunker nuts?  I say "rant" designed to send a number of signals, mostly directed at sustaining support from his people (e.g., the cultural stuff about LGBTQ, enumeration of myths and legends about an ancient and imaginary West, etc.) to reinforce their 'common enemy'.  He's still rational and still, to pattern, escalating.

Contrast that to the measured, but very, very direct messaging from Zelensky:

And of course, to directly blunt Putin's speech, the application to NATO.

 

 

 

 

As @Battlefront.com has noted several times, the UKR trolling of RUS is just phenomenal.

If you've been watching Russia for anything longer than a few weeks you've probably noticed that the Kremlin will often attempt to deny clean media coverage of a western event/announcement with some pointless RUS violence or a ridiculous (and hence attention grabbing) statement/threat. It's a simple and effective trick, playing off the systemic weakness of free western media to follow the loudest and newest noise by generating competing noise to drown out attempts at true information.

So it's very satisfying see Zelensky et al repeating the tactic back at Putler, corroding his attempted narrative in Western media.

Speaking of paying back the same tactic, UKR should offer a nice corridor (avoiding the word "humanitarian") for the Ivans to flee Lyman. Let the convoys move out and then unmercifully shell the living **** out of it, for hours and hours on end with every goddamn weapon at their disposal. Just like those b@astards have done innumerable times since 2014. Really make a point of it - "Surrender and live or Flee and die". 

No laws against it.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Kinophile

[Cederic]

20 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Yes, we had collaborators and traitots, which condemned to death hundreds of people. Fortunately some of them already departed to the God's Court, because corrupted Ukrainian courts have littlle trust.

Then fix your courts, because extra-judicial killings are called murder.

Don't murder people. Give them justice.

(Yes, I recognise the difference between partisan actions against an occupying administration and what happens following liberation of the occupied territory.)

 

6 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

NaziRussia does however have Nazis in their ranks.

Throwing terms like that around really just doesn't help.

Are these people doing bad things? Then address those bad things.

You don't have to label them to do that. Are they nazis? Who knows. Frankly who cares. I strongly suspect they're no more or less nazis than some members of the Azov battalion.

Labelling people leads to dehumanisation, murder and genocide, whether the label is "nazi" or "orc" or "collaborator". If someone's tortured people, ordered the illegal killing of people, shipped 300,000 children to Russia, those are crimes. Prosecute them.

[I was only gone for half a day and missed a whole conversation, but fortunately read ahead, so comments to Haiduk and TheCapt regarding post-war Russian cultural change removed so that Steve doesn't have to spank me. Neither of us would enjoy that.]