How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

16 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Can you point me to a single US pol or member of the security state suggesting the existence of the pipeline was in our interest?  It's easy to find a montage of the opposite, but I can't find anyone suggesting we should allow it to exist, much less use it as a carrot with the Russians (did anyone engage in the latter, or is that entirely a speculated position?).

The leverage was over Germany.  The pipeline was an incentive to Germany to see a deal made at Ukraine's expense.

You seem to believe that levers can't work in two directions at once. Oh well.

[billbindc]

9 minutes ago, Seminole said:

I think the Russians did it to try and better shield the lower, left side of the river and reduce what they're required to commit in that region.

If it puts the Crimean water supply at risk it seems like a particularly defeatist move, though.  I don't know why you'd do it if you thought you could actually hold the region.

I think it creates too many problems the Ukrainians must deal with long and short term to imagine it outweighs whatever short term benefits they could possibly see in it.  I really can't put together any good reasons for them to this and reduce uncertainty for their foe.

Cor blimey. You've just said something I completely agree with. 

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

Do we know yet how many AMXs have been lost? Ive seen evidence of 3 maybe 4 but oryx/lostwarinua havent updated yet

I saw oryx post a T-84 Oplot and then withdraw that too. Maybe it was a mistake, or theyre witholding UKR losses a bit

[FancyCat]

 

 

[dan/california]

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Seminole said:

The pretense that the US doesn't break the law when it suits us?  I think that's an 'unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point'.

I disputed, with an example (Stuxnet), the notion that the US doesn't break laws in the furtherance of its ends.

Do you remember when the DOJ dropped their gun running case against Marc Turi, because his lawyers were going to show at trial he was just doing what the US admin wanted done (shipping arms from Libya to Syria), and they didn't want it coming out?

One shouldn't lose sight of how immoral some of the decision makers are.  To think they wouldn't break the law is a joke.

What you're calling a 'whataboutism' is simply another example of the behavior being denied.

The point that the U.S. will break the law when it suits it has not been refuted, or smacked down.  It wasn't even addressed. 

Do you think it was legal to tap Merkel's phone?  Or do you think it didn't even happen?  Is the idea 'right out of my backside'?

That's not a 'whataboutism', it's just pointing to another example of us breaking the laws our leadership decides to break.  Logically, how better can I dispute this than with examples to the contrary?

And I just hit the BAN button for the first time in probably more than a year.

First of all, it's just bad form to come out swinging when the moderator has said this is the last straw after several previous times of saying Danger Will Robinson.  So that really didn't start things out well.

I really shouldn't waste any more of my time on this nonsense (I've had to do it more than a few times already), I think it is a good time to remind us what Whataboutism looks like.

It started with me making a very simple, if not snarky, point that that Ukraine blowing up the pipeline would be very bad for Ukraine's support, the US has incredible power over Ukraine, and therefore if it caught wind of a plan for Ukraine to blow up the pipeline it could get it snuffed out with one phone call.

Seminole's response:

Quote

How do you square this fantasy conversation protecting the pipeline with the steady drumbeat from US politicians?

e.g.

“If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine — then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” President Biden 

Seminole's response incorrectly views this as the US protecting the pipeline (my statement was clearly the US protecting Ukraine's best interests), but I won't quibble with him missing the point.  I wouldn't even call his response a Whataboutism as he seemed to be making a case that the US wanted the pipeline blown up, therefore why would it stop Ukraine from doing it?  So far not a Whataboutism approach.  Therefore, I responded:

Quote

You continually astonish me at how hard you try to twist things to conform to a narrative of your own making.

Obviously, and I mean SCREAMINGLY obviously, Biden was speaking about policy not sabotage.  And guess what happened after Biden made this statement?  On the day before the invasion Germany said it would not certify its operation:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-scholz-halts-nord-stream-2-certification-2022-02-22/

Soooooo... what do you think is more likely, that Biden spoke about a policy that had been determined along with his German counterpart as part of a much larger coordination of response to Russia's impending war on Ukraine *or* that Biden was speaking about blowing up a pipeline months into the war even though it wasn't being used?

Seriously dude, you need to check your paranoia filter because I think it's clogged up.

You can start by flipping things around the other way and looking at things from the other perspective.  Do you seriously think that the US would be OK with Ukraine committing an act of sabotage, bordering on an act of war, by Ukraine against the EU?  Further, how do you think relations would be affected between the US and the EU if it stood by and tacitly approved of Ukraine committing such an act?

Put that together with the obvious case for Russia blowing it up, then combine it with Occam's Razor principles, and then see what you come up with.  If it's still Ukraine blew it up because the US wanted them to... well, then I guess we have stunning insights from you to look forward to in the future.

What I wrote was on topic and pretty solidly put Seminole's thesis in doubt due to it being out of context and pretty much contrary to the facts.  I offered him an opportunity to defend his position (i.e. that the US probably blew up the pipeline) with a better argument than the flawed one he made or just drop it and move on.  Instead, we got a Whataboutism in response to Billbindc's post on the same topic...

Quote

Would you consider releasing a virus like Stuxnet to be ‘a lawless act at complete loggerheads with supporting the international order’?

The notion the U.S. won’t break laws where it sees a benefit in doing so is laughable.  The only ‘international order’ under consideration is keeping the US on top. 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

Now this, folks, is a full on Whataboutism.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about Nord Stream being blown up AT ALL.  It's a general "they all lie, therefore I can make up whatever I want and claim victory!" dodge.  AKA "Whataboutism".

Which prompted this response from me:

Quote

You made an unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point and were shown up for it.  And as you do every other time you get a logic smack down, you resort to the tried and true Whadaboutism tactic to distract from the fact that you are talking right out of your backside.

Either make a point you willing to stick to when challenged, debate based on acceptable parameters of debate, or get off this Forum.  I think  I've lost my patience with you, if you haven't figured it out.  For sure I've given you plenty of second chances already

I called this behavior out, provided clear instructions on how to NOT repeat the Whataboutism behavior, and a warning to NOT do it again.  To which we got a string of Whataboutisms all mashed together:

Quote

The pretense that the US doesn't break the law when it suits us?  I think that's an 'unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point'.

I disputed, with an example (Stuxnet), the notion that the US doesn't break laws in the furtherance of its ends.

Do you remember when the DOJ dropped their gun running case against Marc Turi, because his lawyers were going to show at trial he was just doing what the US admin wanted done (shipping arms from Libya to Syria), and they didn't want it coming out?

One shouldn't lose sight of how immoral some of the decision makers are.  To think they wouldn't break the law is a joke.

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

And as you do every other time you get a logic smack down, you resort to the tried and true Whadaboutism tactic to distract from the fact that you are talking right out of your backside.

What you're calling a 'whataboutism' is simply another example of the behavior being denied.

The point that the U.S. will break the law when it suits it has not been refuted, or smacked down.  It wasn't even addressed. 

Do you think it was legal to tap Merkel's phone?  Or do you think it didn't even happen?  Is the idea 'right out of my backside'?

That's not a 'whataboutism', it's just pointing to another example of us breaking the laws our leadership decides to break.  Logically, how better can I dispute this than with examples to the contrary?

As Billbindc correctly pointed out, Seminole is making a case for an argument that nobody else is having while, at the same time, dodging the one that is being had.  So, no defending his quoting Biden out of context or trying to make a logical case that the US would in any way sanction blowing up Nord Stream and risk decades of problems with its European allies over a pipeline that was likely never going to be operational again.  Nope, instead we got a list of complete and utterly irrelevant jibber jabber with absolutely no attempt to defend previous comments that got knocked down as flawed.

That, folks, is how Whataboutism works and it is why it is so disruptive. It is why, after REPEATED instances of this from this ONE person, I'm done with it.  More than a a couple of second chances chewed up and spat back in my face, so it is what it is.

Steve

P.S.  if it turns out the US did blow up the pipeline, then Seminole would be correct due to the Broken Clock Theory.  Which is, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, not because it's functioning properly.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and then there's the other nosnense that Seminole started about the Iran Nuclear deal.  I don't know if he was just going to walk away from a soundly defeated argument (as he often does) or if he can only do one Whataboutism argument at a time, but it no longer matters.

Steve

[billbindc]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And I just hit the BAN button for the first time in probably more than a year.

First of all, it's just bad form to come out swinging when the moderator has said this is the last straw after several previous times of saying Danger Will Robinson.  So that really didn't start things out well.

I really shouldn't waste any more of my time on this nonsense (I've had to do it more than a few times already), I think it is a good time to remind us what Whataboutism looks like.

It started with me making a very simple, if not snarky, point that that Ukraine blowing up the pipeline would be very bad for Ukraine's support, the US has incredible power over Ukraine, and therefore if it caught wind of a plan for Ukraine to blow up the pipeline it could get it snuffed out with one phone call.

Seminole's response:

Seminole's response incorrectly views this as the US protecting the pipeline (my statement was clearly the US protecting Ukraine's best interests), but I won't quibble with him missing the point.  I wouldn't even call his response a Whataboutism as he seemed to be making a case that the US wanted the pipeline blown up, therefore why would it stop Ukraine from doing it?  So far not a Whataboutism approach.  Therefore, I responded:

What I wrote was on topic and pretty solidly put Seminole's thesis in doubt due to it being out of context and pretty much contrary to the facts.  I offered him an opportunity to defend his position (i.e. that the US probably blew up the pipeline) with a better argument than the flawed one he made or just drop it and move on.  Instead, we got a Whataboutism in response to Billbindc's post on the same topic...

Now this, folks, is a full on Whataboutism.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about Nord Stream being blown up AT ALL.  It's a general "they all lie, therefore I can make up whatever I want and claim victory!" dodge.  AKA "Whataboutism".

Which prompted this response from me:

I called this behavior out, provided clear instructions on how to NOT repeat the Whataboutism behavior, and a warning to NOT do it again.  To which we got a string of Whataboutisms all mashed together:

As Billbindc correctly pointed out, Seminole is making a case for an argument that nobody else is having while, at the same time, dodging the one that is being had.  So, no defending his quoting Biden out of context or trying to make a logical case that the US would in any way sanction blowing up Nord Stream and risk decades of problems with its European allies over a pipeline that was likely never going to be operational again.  Nope, instead we got a list of complete and utterly irrelevant jibber jabber with absolutely no attempt to defend previous comments that got knocked down as flawed.

That, folks, is how Whataboutism works and it is why it is so disruptive. It is why, after REPEATED instances of this from this ONE person, I'm done with it.  More than a a couple of second chances chewed up and spat back in my face, so it is what it is.

Steve

P.S.  if it turns out the US did blow up the pipeline, then Seminole would be correct due to the Broken Clock Theory.  Which is, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, not because it's functioning properly.

Just you watch, Seymour Hersh is going to do an expose on why it's obvious that it was really Elvis that banned Seminole...

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Just you watch, Seymour Hersh is going to do an expose on why it's obvious that it was really Elvis that banned Seminole...

The stupid thing is that every time Seminole has gone up onto his high horse that we can't fully trust government's words or deeds there's ZERO disagreement.  I mean, really, is there anybody reading this thread that thinks the US government is all wholesome peaches and cream?  No.  Which makes his frequent use of this particular Whataboutism all the more obvious.

As for who blew up Nord Stream, I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that the US did it, or knowingly let it happen, contrary to all logic and facts as we know them to be.  There are definitely precedents for colossal stupidity and cover ups.  I'd even put that possibility higher up on the probability list than some other scenarios, such as Martians did it. 

However, I'd rank the US being behind or involved in the destruction a lot lower down on the probability that Russia did it.  Aside from facts and sound logic, it's pretty well established that Russia's record of bad behavior makes the US look like a near perfect little angle by comparison.  Plus, it was really stupid to blow it up and Russia's track record in stupidity is unparalleled as of late.

Steve

[MikeyD]

2 hours ago, Seminole said:

...member of the security state...

I honestly don't know what that term means. 

[Fenris]

2 hours ago, Offshoot said:

I'm pretty sure it was a friendly grenade (it comes from the right-hand side and the cameraman's reaction indicates it is). But I think this just underlines your point.

Yeah that was my read of it to.  You can hear rounds whizzing around but I don't think there were any grenades coming from the defenders in the trench.

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

I think this is part of the wider strategy behind blowing the dam. @Haiduk has posted twice in the past 24 hours the Russians are trying to blow up the ammonia pipeline. This pipeline provides ammonia for fertilizer. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/how-un-plan-russian-ammonia-export-could-help-global-fertiliser-market-2022-09-14/

The reservoir currently draining through the blown dam provides the irrigation water to 80% of Ukraine's irrigated crop land. 

So if the fertilizer supply is impacted and prices for fertilizer go up, either the price for crops needs to increase to cover the extra expense or farmers will use less fertilizer and yields will decrease. Either way, the consumer will pay more for food. With the water supply for irrigation impacted until the dam can be repaired, the supply of food will go down and prices up. As @billbindc says, governments fall rather quickly when food prices get out of control. I think the Russians are hoping the rest of the world will put increasingly more pressure on Ukraine to accept a ceasefire to stabilize the price of food.

If you have a garden at home, or room for even a few plants, it is not too late to plant a few more rows or a couple of extra tomato plants. Every extra pound of food you can grow for yourself this season, will not only secure your food supply, it will free up food for those who can't grow their own.

But at this point most of the damage is done - it's like being less than the reaction & maneuvering time from a crash: you're in it, you just haven't felt it yet.  Now that the dam is blown and the risk to the food supply has been realized.  Even with a truce it will take years to repair the damage.  I'm not sure it even matters if the ammonia pipeline gets hit if it was primarily supplying fertilizer manufacture for the areas served by the dam. It just becomes a big hazmat mess.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Now that is an interesting possibility I had not taken into consideration.  I figured, like many others, that the probability was the drone operator/plotter misjudged the altitude for a leg of the flight and it accidentally hit the highrise.  I hadn't thought that a specific apartment in that building might have been deliberately targeted.

I have NO idea if that is true or not, but it certainly could be.  Ukraine has long since had detailed information about Russia's intelligence personnel, including such things as addresses and vehicle information.  Hackers can do wonderful things when they want to

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Yeah that was my read of it to.  You can hear rounds whizzing around but I don't think there were any grenades coming from the defenders in the trench.

Thanks.  That was my first impression too, but I convinced myself otherwise.  I'll concur with you guys that his buddy made a bad throw.

Steve

[chrisl]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now that is an interesting possibility I had not taken into consideration.  I figured, like many others, that the probability was the drone operator/plotter misjudged the altitude for a leg of the flight and it accidentally hit the highrise.  I hadn't thought that a specific apartment in that building might have been deliberately targeted.

I have NO idea if that is true or not, but it certainly could be.  Ukraine has long since had detailed information about Russia's intelligence personnel, including such things as addresses and vehicle information.  Hackers can do wonderful things when they want to

Steve

If they can put HE through specific windows in Moscow at will, that's some serious messaging.

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

I think this is part of the wider strategy behind blowing the dam. @Haiduk has posted twice in the past 24 hours the Russians are trying to blow up the ammonia pipeline.

So let's take this and run with it.

While there is some uncertainty if Russia intended to blow the dam NOW, I think we can safely presume it was never going to let Ukraine retain it.  Therefore, even if the dam burst all on its own, it was most certainly doomed to be breached at some point.

Now we have the example of Russia trying to blow up an ammonia pipeline.  Obviously it is really hard to effectively destroy a piece of infrastructure like this, but Russia has a long history of such actions in this war going all the way back to 2014.  The attacks on Odessa's harbor after being held up in Kherson is an easy example.  So nothing new here.

Russia most likely has a list of things it does not want to let Ukraine keep in the event of a withdrawal.  So are we now seeing them tick things off that list proactively?  If so, what does this say about Russia's level of confidence that it will keep terrain in the south?  Further, what does it say about Russia's confidence that it will even have an opportunity to blow up infrastructure once the counter offensive properly starts?

I'm wondering if Russia has concluded, at least at the very top, that the south is going to be lost and could be lost very suddenly.  If that is true, then perhaps Russia is planning on a Kherson type withdrawal more than a defense in place strategy.

We should all keep our eyes open for more additional key infrastructure going Boom.

Steve

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks.  That was my first impression too, but I convinced myself otherwise.  I'll concur with you guys that his buddy made a bad throw.

Steve

There is a whole lot of video proof from this war that throwing a grenade well is the difference between living and dying. Infantry in all NATO armies should drill and practice it a lot more than than i think they do. Among other things it is easier and cheaper to practice than a lot of combat skills. They should hold brigade level competitions and the whole bit. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

ISW's June 6th report has a lot about the dam, of course.  Nothing new except that they seem to be fairly confident in the reports of explosions prior to the flooding.  While they say there is not enough information to conclude what happened exactly, they believe it is likely that the dam was breached by explosive force by Russia.  The various possibilities within that were touched on, but we covered them in far more detail than they did (which is fine, as they are summary info).

Here's something that I know I said right up front:

Quote

Ukrainian officials offered assurances that the damage to the dam and subsequent flooding will not impede Ukrainian counteroffensive preparations. Zelensky emphasized that the “detonation of the dam did not affect Ukraine’s ability to de-occupy its own territories.”[38] Ukrainian Joint Forces Commander Lieutenant General Serhiy Nayev noted that the Ukrainian command has already taken into account Russia’s propensity for ”insidious actions” and that as a result any potential planned counteroffensive actions will not be impacted in areas where there is flooding.[39] It is additionally noteworthy that the areas of the theater that are impacted by the flooding (those within a 120km flood radius between Nova Kakhovka and Kizomys) are geographically very far removed from areas of the frontline where ISW has observed recent combat activity in the past few days.[40] The flooding of the lower Dnipro will not likely have any impact on the areas that have seen active fighting recently.

I am glad to hear the Ukrainians say this, but I never had any doubts.  Russians are predictable and Ukraine is not stupid.  So, it really isn't surprising that Ukraine correctly determined the dam was going to be blown and to not make any plans based on it remaining intact.

Now here's a bit of 99% speculation, but FUN speculation...

ISW mentions that some Ukrainian positions near the dam had to be abandoned in haste.  There is some thought that the Russians might have thought that an amphibious operation was underway and that it was time to blow the dam.  Did anybody look closely at the calendar of when this possible amphibious assault might have been launched?

June 6th.

Coincidence?

Steve

P.S.  I am not really serious that Ukraine was about to launch a large amphib op just because of the date.  But a raid?  Well, just maybe.

[Battlefront.com]

In keeping with Russia's theme of painting Ukraine's counter offensive a failure already (see ISW's June 6th report), keep your eyes open for Russian propaganda channels.  They will probably be reposting this video:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/142xplp/mans_best_friend_saved_from_flooding/

With this they will claim more evidence that Ukraine's counter offensive is defeated because they were unable to get all the play toys.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

More evidence how how incredibly bad things are going for Russia's attempts to keep certain Russians out of Russia:

Obviously this is overstatement, but it is probably true to some extent.  First, the "regiments" are probably not more than battalions each.  So there's that.  Second, there's probably a fair amount of desertion going on top of surrenders and combat losses. Third, from what we can tell the communications within the area is horrible so it is entirely possible for units to move around and be surprised to find they are unexpectedly alone, then presume their comrades got destroyed.

More importantly though, I wonder if the artillery complaint is more-or-less accurate.  My assumption is Russia has very little artillery in the area and it is likely not in very good shape.  If Ukraine parked a reasonable sized element in support of these raids, it very well could be putting out exceptionally well directed counter battery fire.  In fact, it would be exceptionally smart for Ukraine to have done this because they would likely get a highly disproportional result for relatively small investment.

Steve

[FancyCat]

29 minutes ago, chrisl said:

If they can put HE through specific windows in Moscow at will, that's some serious messaging.

 

I like the emphasis on the mid-level intelligence officers (i assume the big dogs have palaces, or the like?) here. 

I wanna point the usefulness of IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, and the IAEA since the beginning of 2023, has permanent teams monitoring all nuclear plants in Ukraine, not just ZNPP. It's a major failing that Ukraine's request for monitoring the Kakhovka dam was ignored. https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/10/21/zelensky-says-russia-is-preparing-a-terrorist-attack-on-kakhovka-dam

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

A reminder of the obvious... Russia is guilty of warcrimes:

The destruction to the environment and Ukraine's economy are horrible, but it is largely outside of Ukraine's ability to influence at this stage.  Saving lives, on the other hand, is something that can be tackled.  Hopefully the loss of life can be kept to a minimum.  The voluntary and involuntary displacement of civilians away from the river banks might be a rare positive side effect in this war.

Steve

[sburke]

EU member Slovenia overwhelmingly defeats Moscow ally Belarus for a seat on the UN Security Council (yahoo.com)

[chuckdyke]

In come the Dam Busters 2023. 

 

[JonS]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Saving lives, on the other hand, is something that can be tackled.  Hopefully the loss of life can be kept to a minimum. 

I'll take it as read that the Russians deliberately blew the dam. Perhaps not when higher HQ would have preferred, but the intent was there to do it sooner or later.

The reasons why are both fairly obvious and well thrashed over: making the river impassable both upstream and downstream of the dam for ... 4 to 6 weeks (by the time the mud and silt becomes trafficable). And that means the Russians can thin out their forces there and concentrate more further north. At least they can do that for 4-6 weeks. That time limit would be why the Russian high command might have preferred it to occur later rather than sooner.

But there is another effect that directly impacts the Ukraine Army: manpower in Ukraine is going to be pretty stretched right now, what with a war, large scale mobilisation, and mass refugee movement out of the country. Which means the only real source right now for HADR right now is ... the army. Any rescuing of civilians and trucks moving them westward and blankets and food are all likely coming directly from the forces prepping for the counter offensive.