How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Offshoot]

25 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

V1 is back baby!!! Can’t keep a good doodlebug down.

 

[Vet 0369]

On 7/11/2023 at 10:59 PM, dan/california said:

 Don't necessarily disagree with anything you just said, But the ages of the officers are pretty standard for a formation  formed in wartime conditions, and a high attrition environment. 

Now is the guy in charge of the 47th the right twenty eight year old? I have no idea.

In a war such as this, the age of the Commanding Officer is irrelevant. Even experience is only slightly more relevant. The most relevant factor is his or her ability to develop tactics to fit the situation. I don’t know what the issues were behind the Sr. Sgt.’s rants, but if one on my subordinates was going to the media behind my back, I’d get rid of that subordinate  “for the good of the order” also. I don’t know about other military Services, but in the U.S.M.C., if a Marine  Enlisted criticizes an officer within earshot of the Officer, it is a very serious offense. Although it is incomprehensible to me, I can imagine what would happen if the Sgt Major of a Regiment criticized the Regimental Commander in public, even if the Sgt Major had been awarded the Navy/Marine Corps Medal of Honor.

[sburke]

 

Fired Russian General’s Remarks the Latest Sign of Disarray in Military Leadership (yahoo.com)

Quote

 

The general’s dismissal came as recriminations have reverberated through the ranks of the Russian military in the aftermath of a failed June 24 mutiny by Yevgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner private mercenary company.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that at least 13 senior Russian officers had been detained for questioning in the days since the insurrection, with some later released, and around 15 had been suspended from duty or fired.

It was not immediately clear whether Popov’s firing was connected to the Wagner uprising, but the removal of a high-level general whose forces appeared to be performing successfully on one of the most important stretches of the front line in Ukraine left many Russian observers shocked.

“The removal of Popov is a monstrous act of terrorism against army morale,” Russian military blogger Roman Saponkov wrote on the Telegram app, saying that the failure of the Wagner uprising had emboldened the Russian military leadership to purge its ranks.

Alexander Sladkov, a war correspondent for Russian state television, said that Popov was not an insurrectionist and would most likely reappear in a different position on the front. He warned that the Russian military should be preserving every soldier and general in combat because “we have great trials ahead of us.”

 

 

Yes you do have great trials facing you.  Hopefully at the Hague.

[Battlefront.com]

Missed this one from last night...

On 7/12/2023 at 7:30 PM, billbindc said:

No, not likely. My position has been that this wasn’t really a coup. It was a renegotiation of the silovik terms of service.

In a coup a challenger rises up and changes the power dynamic so that it is calling the shots, not the supposed head of state.  Usually that entails removing the head of state and replacing him (almost always a him!) with their own choice.  But it does not have to be that way.  The head of state could be there as a figurehead.  The successful coup plotters get real power without some of the potential blowback, the former head of state gets to keep many of the accumulated perks in exchange for going along.

What we do NOT know yet is to what extent Putin lost power.  He certainly lost significant amounts of it, which for an absolute ruler that's a big blow.  Putin certainly would not have given up anything if he was in full command, that much is certain.  But does he still have the ability to challenge the plotters?  I don't know, but every day it seems something else is chipped away from Putin's Power Vertical without a noticeable loss for whom we presume are the ones behind the changes.

What this means is either we have a coup which is voluntarily keeping Putin around out of necessity only or we have something that is neither a coup nor a traditional power struggle (negotiations).  By that I mean there was an open and blatant use of military force to achieve the plotters aims.  Traditionally that's been something exclusive to coups.

On 7/12/2023 at 7:30 PM, billbindc said:

I think we are still pretty far away from negotiations. Neither side has what it wants, what looks stable and/or what it thinks it might get with a longer war. And whoever makes the first move in effect says that they are in the weaker position.

This I'm not sure of.  We've talked about how the last thing the coup plotters probably want is a messy end to Putin's regime.  That would risk a civil war.  Why not roll out changes slowly enough that nobody really gets upset about any one specific change?  Kinda like how Putin consolidated power and played many of his foreign adversaries for fools. 

This would explain a lot of Prig's behavior and events since the coup.  Prig abandoned his push on Moscow because his backers said "we have what we want, but as part of this you're going to have to look like you lost.  Don't worry, it's all for show and soon you will so much better off than you were before".

It fits, but we need more time to see if I'm right.

Steve

[Splinty]

33 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

In a war such as this, the age of the Commanding Officer is irrelevant. Even experience is only slightly more relevant. The most relevant factor is his or her ability to develop tactics to fit the situation. I don’t know what the issues were behind the Sr. Sgt.’s rants, but if one on my subordinates was going to the media behind my back, I’d get rid of that subordinate  “for the good of the order” also. I don’t know about other military Services, but in the U.S.M.C., if a Marine  Enlisted criticizes an officer within earshot of the Officer, it is a very serious offense. Although it is incomprehensible to me, I can imagine what would happen if the Sgt Major of a Regiment criticized the Regimental Commander in public, even if the Sgt Major had been awarded the Navy/Marine Corps Medal of Honor.

Same with the US Army.

[BFCElvis]

Did anyone post this before? It'll be on lots of kids Christmas lists in Ukraine this year.

 

[Vet 0369]

On 7/12/2023 at 8:24 AM, Aragorn2002 said:

Historically Russia only attacked countries on it's Western border after being attacked itself?

If that ain't a remark to laugh about, I don't know what is.

 

Well then, it looks like you completely misread @panzermartin’s statement. Historically, Russia didn’t attack West unless they were attacked from the west. E.g. The Teutonic Knights, Napoleon, Germany in WWI, because Russia was part of the Triple Entant Alliance even though the Kaiser and the Tsar were cousins, British and American Expeditionary Force at Archangel after WWI during the Revolution, and Germany again after Hitler reneged on the Non-aggression treaty used to divide Poland. Looks to me like Russia had much more to fear from the West than the West had to fear from Russia.

[Vet 0369]

On 7/12/2023 at 8:31 AM, _Morpheus_ said:

Yep, I think Finland and Poland have some thought about it 

Not sure about East or West Prussia, but Poland and Russia (Eastern Europe) were pretty much constantly fighting each other, and the Karelian Peninsula was originally a Russian Grand Duchy after Sweden ceded it to Russia after a Swedish war of aggression against Russia (Finland at that time was part of Sweden). I think @panzermartin is still “basically” correct in a historical sense.

[billbindc]

42 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Missed this one from last night...

In a coup a challenger rises up and changes the power dynamic so that it is calling the shots, not the supposed head of state.  Usually that entails removing the head of state and replacing him (almost always a him!) with their own choice.  But it does not have to be that way.  The head of state could be there as a figurehead.  The successful coup plotters get real power without some of the potential blowback, the former head of state gets to keep many of the accumulated perks in exchange for going along.

What we do NOT know yet is to what extent Putin lost power.  He certainly lost significant amounts of it, which for an absolute ruler that's a big blow.  Putin certainly would not have given up anything if he was in full command, that much is certain.  But does he still have the ability to challenge the plotters?  I don't know, but every day it seems something else is chipped away from Putin's Power Vertical without a noticeable loss for whom we presume are the ones behind the changes.

What this means is either we have a coup which is voluntarily keeping Putin around out of necessity only or we have something that is neither a coup nor a traditional power struggle (negotiations).  By that I mean there was an open and blatant use of military force to achieve the plotters aims.  Traditionally that's been something exclusive to coups.

This I'm not sure of.  We've talked about how the last thing the coup plotters probably want is a messy end to Putin's regime.  That would risk a civil war.  Why not roll out changes slowly enough that nobody really gets upset about any one specific change?  Kinda like how Putin consolidated power and played many of his foreign adversaries for fools. 

This would explain a lot of Prig's behavior and events since the coup.  Prig abandoned his push on Moscow because his backers said "we have what we want, but as part of this you're going to have to look like you lost.  Don't worry, it's all for show and soon you will so much better off than you were before".

It fits, but we need more time to see if I'm right.

Steve

 I wouldn't get too far into refining the definitions down. No two power struggles are the same nor...whatever that clown Edward Luttwak claims...are any two coups alike. And sometimes one begins as one thing and ends up being another.

In this particular case, it actually represents the kind of thing one would have seen in the medieval era with powerful nobles directly threatening the king, going out of favor, coming back in but ultimately not being severely punished for fairly violent chevauchée's aimed at the central power. And that makes sense. Putin's Russia is in some senses a feudal state even down to the allocation of resources to powerful figures who are then expected provide armed forces in return. Wagner is the most obvious of those but Gazprom, Roscosmos and others exist and are growing. As the Russian state further regresses, that trend will accelerate. 

I agree that the Prigozhin faction...which we still don't clearly perceive...did not want to actually overthrow Putin in order to avoid taking the blame for Ukraine, to minimize personal risk and to avoid the potential for really revolutionary chaos. But I don't think there's a progressive change happening. The revolt happened and a deal was struck but nobody is really in enough control to make incremental changes. It was a spasm and this is the aftermath where everyone is figuring out what it means, what the new rules are and what winning the next round will take. And you can be *very* sure that both sides are thinking about both a post Putin *and* a post Prigozhin future. Neither one of them promises stability. 

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, BFCElvis said:

Did anyone post this before? It'll be on lots of kids Christmas lists in Ukraine this year.

 

Professional grade humor, there.     I gotta get me one.

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

In this particular case, it actually represents the kind of thing one would have seen in the medieval era with powerful nobles directly threatening the king, going out of favor, coming back in but ultimately not being severely punished for fairly violent chevauchée's aimed at the central power. And that makes sense. Putin's Russia is in some senses a feudal state even down to the allocation of resources to powerful figures who are then expected provide armed forces in return. Wagner is the most obvious of those but Gazprom, Roscosmos and others exist and are growing. As the Russian state further regresses, that trend will accelerate. 

Meanwhile, BillBinDC knocks it out of the park (in baseball this is a good thing, btw) with this very interesting and insightful way of thinking about RU national power dynamics. 

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

Well then, it looks like you completely misread @panzermartin’s statement. Historically, Russia didn’t attack West unless they were attacked from the west. E.g. The Teutonic Knights, Napoleon, Germany in WWI, because Russia was part of the Triple Entant Alliance even though the Kaiser and the Tsar were cousins, British and American Expeditionary Force at Archangel after WWI during the Revolution, and Germany again after Hitler reneged on the Non-aggression treaty used to divide Poland. Looks to me like Russia had much more to fear from the West than the West had to fear from Russia.

He isn't right at all- he missess a lot of historical instances when Russians marched west to obtain their goals, and that is why he was punctured by other users. I would add attempt to suppress Belgian revolution in 1830, which was to be, according to specific wishes of devout Tsar, being drown in blood- his armies already marched West but didn't managed due to pacification in Belgium itself and Polish uprising. Not many people know this fact- liberal movement in Brussels was inches from being butchered by army of Holy Alliance (Russia was only country that took the adjective "Holy" very seriously back then, after rule of fanatic Alexander I).

Ofc. Bolsheviks hordes also had very excplicit, verbalized aim of "joining with revolutionary brothers" in the West in 1920. It is disputeable if they would succeed, but being Red was cool sexy novelty back than and many people envisaged that social war would become new, future form of warfare across the globe, independent from traditional geography. So it is quite likely that without effort of people of Central-Eastern Europe (Poles, Belarussians, Balts, and Ukrainians + Finns, waging their own brutal civil war) they would put their feet on westerners door as well. In this or other form.

Now, as you see, this pattern repeats itself fairly constanty throug history- many times they tried to reach West, but were cut down due to problems in subjugating Central Europe. They finally did manage to do this after 1945. And that is why Western soldiers were forced to drill holes for stationary nukes along German roads. Soviet Army of conquest loomed over horizon for damn half century- it is still beyond me, frankly, that so many people don't get this as sign of ultimate imperialism. Anyone ever heard about "Seven Days to Rhine"? How is that not aggression? Or were there any serious scenarios where it was NATO actually attacking Warsaw Pact?

 

Btw. folks, some day we need to clarify what we understand under those broad terms "Western, Central, and Eastern" Europe, since there is hell lot of confusion, as some seem to also misread Russian usage of these terms- which is quite different than this in London, which in turn is different than in for example Tallin. Unfortunatelly, people in the West have this post-WWII habit of neatly dividing the continent on Western and Eastern part that serves perfectly Russian interests. But if you look culturally and politically, it was usually bollocks much more often than not. But we will perhaps discuss this another time.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Beleg85

[keas66]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

Not sure about East or West Prussia, but Poland and Russia (Eastern Europe) were pretty much constantly fighting each other, and the Karelian Peninsula was originally a Russian Grand Duchy after Sweden ceded it to Russia after a Swedish war of aggression against Russia (Finland at that time was part of Sweden). I think @panzermartin is still “basically” correct in a historical sense.

That's an extremely simplistic view of a conflict   with a definite bad guy and a good guy in a conflict that was going on since the 12th century  ( Swedish - Novogorodian Wars ) . You obviously need to publish something explaining this new simplistic  Pro Russian view of the world .

[Battlefront.com]

37 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

He isn't right at all- he missess a lot of historical instances when Russians marched west to obtain their goals, and that is why he was punctured by other users.

Yup, and this is another example of why responding to things that are 1-2 days old without seeing where they wound up doesn't help keep the thread moving forward.  That particular conversation ran its course and did not need a revival.

Steve

[chrisl]

12 hours ago, Bearstronaut said:

Pretty enlightening thread. I share the Ranger trainers shock that these Ukrainian soldiers don't use maps and roll around using cellphones and Chinese-made tablets. If they are able to do so then perhaps Russian EW isn't as good as expected. Still, they should be able to navigate using a map so they can get around when their high tech GNSS gear is jammed. Looks like that training was useful at least. 

Also, I got a pretty big laugh at this guy complaining about showing up at 0600 for a 0900 range time. Classic US Army right there.

Maybe the legacy of Soviet maps - they deliberately made them wrong for 50 years to mess with invaders.  Their NATO trainers come from a world where the ISR is so good that they can get accurate maps of things behind enemy lines, but there's fear of EW and using ELINT to track them down or cut off their access, so they use paper maps.  

Ukrainians operating in Ukraine have access to their own national comm network, and Russia has extremely limited EW and ELINT capability, which has been apparent for a while.  So the UA can use electronic maps in real time, and COTS drones that have been hacked to not transmit location back to China with minimal concern.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

 I wouldn't get too far into refining the definitions down. No two power struggles are the same nor...whatever that clown Edward Luttwak claims...are any two coups alike. And sometimes one begins as one thing and ends up being another.
 

For sure.  Unfortunately, when we communicate with each other the terms can be confusing when they don't really represent what happened.

Webster's defines a COUP as follows:

a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

In my view if that is what happened in Russia.  All evidence points to Putin having lost substantial power that he systematically accumulated over decades of ruthless exercise of power.  He doesn't need to be in a dungeon, hanging from a lamppost, or in exile somewhere for the definition to apply.  It just means that the power dynamic has been "decisively" altered, quite suddenly, with force, and likely by a small group.

This is not to say that it is over.  I agree that there's still a lot of negotiations going on, but it is clear that Putin's clan is not in a position to dictate the outcome.  We might even see a counter-coup, since those are pretty common.  Whatever the case may be, things could still change dramatically and on short notice.

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

I agree that the Prigozhin faction...which we still don't clearly perceive...did not want to actually overthrow Putin in order to avoid taking the blame for Ukraine, to minimize personal risk and to avoid the potential for really revolutionary chaos.

If I had to place money on what happened, the three things I feel very sure of placing a bet on are:

1.  Prig was a tool, not the master mind, of the group that successfully challenged Putin's Power Vertical.

2.  Everybody is very sensitive to the potential (if not probable) catastrophe that might follow an overt change of power.  Nobody is likely to come out ahead in that scenario, so everybody from all sides has agreed to avoid going down that path.

3.  Putin has already saddled himself with the blame for the current state of Russia as a whole and various things specifically.  Those problems are massive and deeply difficult to solve.  Why on Earth would anybody want to be the one responsible for cleaning up all this mess?  Right, nobody

On this last point, when we started speculating back in March last year about who might replace Putin in a coup, many recognized that it would likely be a puppet of some sort and not a genuine replacement.  Those same people also thought Prig was not waiting in the wings to replace Putin as President.  What I don't think anybody envisioned was that the most likely replacement for Putin would be a neutered Putin.  Yet I think that's what we're seeing.

Going back to when Prig's attack was still fresh, I stated that one of the tests to see if Putin was indeed usurped would be if he doesn't run for reelection next year.  I'm still leaning towards that, but it could be that the power behind the throne would prefer Putin serve out another term.  Tough to say at this point as there's pros and cons to each possibility.

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

But I don't think there's a progressive change happening. The revolt happened and a deal was struck but nobody is really in enough control to make incremental changes. It was a spasm and this is the aftermath where everyone is figuring out what it means, what the new rules are and what winning the next round will take. And you can be *very* sure that both sides are thinking about both a post Putin *and* a post Prigozhin future. Neither one of them promises stability. 

Yes, I think there's still a lot of details being worked out.  However, I think the framework has likely been established already and the details are just that.  Some of the details are known to us and it is possible to examine them and make educated guesses as to what the restructuring of power has in mind.

One thing is emerging that probably gives us some idea of how confident the new power in Moscow is about their overall position.  Prig was a tool to get them where they are today, yet Wagner is being dismantled.  If the new group were nervous about their position then you'd think the last thing they would do is make a repeat Prig adventure impossible.  Yet that seems to be what is happening. Ergo, the new power feels it is so thoroughly in control that a cohesive and armed Wagner is not necessary or perhaps more of a concern than Putin's backers.  Either way, someone's feeling very confident Putin isn't able to counter coup.

Steve

[FancyCat]

The tweet features 3 videos, very interesting uses. Not sure if it passed by without too much discussion, but a recent article noted NATO trainers were surprised by Ukrainian use of civilian drones, commercial and Chinese based hardware and software, with corresponding effects. 

Definitely something to consider in a future where manufacturing of the cheapest kind is based in China, how that may affect things like cheap drones Ukraine uses. 

Quote

Update: Ukrainian forces are now training to remove landmines with drone-dropped grenades, as seen here at a training range, a Ukrainian quadcopter drops a NATO-standard M67 grenade into a TM-62 anti-vehicle mine, clearing the local area.

Ukrainian quadcopters appear to be effective in clearing locally obvious landmines, with additional training most likely aimed at countering these threats.

 

 

[FancyCat]

Quote

Bulgaria is considering the supply of about 100 armored personnel carriers to Ukraine, National Council member Ivaylo Mirchev said. It is reported that Bulgaria wants to dispose their BTR-60 in order to receive US replacements to strengthen their own defensive capabilities.

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1679551703211704322?t=NUJIgze6O_395WASCPRzYg&s=19

 

 

[Carolus]

5 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Decoys?  MALD is around 400K per missile. These have to be less. Maybe they can broadcast a signature like the storm shadow and really mess with the RA operators. However, looks like they have a third of the range or so. 

The costs for Trembita as claimed by the creators:

- $3000 for the missile body, explosives and fuel

- $7000 for the electronic guidance system

For a total of $10000 per piece.

[FancyCat]

A lot of newly pledged military assistance to Ukraine has probably gone a bit under the radar due to the leading NATO story, "rejection" of Ukraine into NATO. France, UK, Germany all pledged money, further deliveries of artillery, AA systems, ammunition, vehicles, we should be exceedingly mindful of Eastern European countries and their efforts to supply Ukraine with continuing Soviet-based production, Bulgaria as seen might be able to hand over more equipment, and definately, Ukraine will be able to motivate armament producers in EE. 

Example, the Czech Republic promised, @JimmySecUK on twitter noted on July 10, but also I think there is a element of minimizing aid from countries with potential domestic issues with supplying aid to Ukraine, particularly EE countries.

Quote

Czechia promises Ukraine further deliveries of attack helicopters (probably Mi-24s, Mi-8/Mi-17 types), "hundreds of thousands" of artillery shells, and to aid with pilot training for Ukraine's new F-16s

 

Quote

Ukraine will receive over €1.5 billion in military aid from its international partners. Long-range SCALP missiles, Leopard tanks, additional Patriots, F-16 pilot training are just some of the things that can be announced publicly. We can mention at least seven packages of military aid:

 

Germany: new €700 million aid package includes 25 Leopard 1A5 tanks, 40 Marder 1A3 IFVs, 2 Patriot air defense systems, 5 Bergepanzer 2 SAMs, 20,000 155-mm artillery shells, 5,000 smoke shells;

 

Australia: new defense package includes 30 Bushmaster APCs;

 

Norway: 1,000 Black Hornet micro-drones, NASAMS support package (2 additional fire control centers, two launchers and spare parts); Norway also increased the size of the military aid budget to Ukraine from $240 to $930 million; there are agreements on strengthening air defense and artillery capabilities;

 

United Kingdom: more than 70 combat vehicles, thousands of ammunition for tanks, a $64.7 million package of military aid for the repair of equipment;

 

France: SCALP missiles and additional engineering equipment for demining;

 

the Netherlands: agreement to start pilot training in August, contribution to strengthening Ukrainian air defense and artillery capabilities;

 

Canada: $410 million in new funding and projects to support Ukraine and strengthen transatlantic security; reinforcement of the Ukrainian Armed Forces with armored vehicles. Meetings in Vilnius were very productive Stay tuned.

[dan/california]

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-13-2023

ISW has a TON of detail on the firing of General Popov, and how it ties into the broader post Wagner reshuffle.

[Fenris]

73rd Marines raiding an RU OP and then ambushing the boats sent to intercept them

https://youtu.be/BWIXIVp1_2U

Auto generated subtitles are OK with this one.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Fenris
Subtitles

[DesertFox]

You can´t make this stuff up, can you? "Not ideal" what a moron!

 

"The battlefield conditions in Ukraine are currently "not ideal" for the employment of F-16 fighter jets, Lieutenant General Douglas Sims said on July 13."

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1679749679427272710?s=20

[cesmonkey]

https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/2788
 

Quote

After a massive artillery preparation, the enemy went on a breakthrough in the direction of the settlement Harvest to the right of Velikaya Novoselovka. At the moment, he is suffering tangible losses, but he does not stop trying to break through our defenses. Harvest is not the first time attacked: apparently, after unsuccessful attempts to capture Novodonetsk, the enemy determined for himself this direction as the most optimal vector of advance.

 

[Butschi]

58 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

You can´t make this stuff up, can you? "Not ideal" what a moron!

 

"The battlefield conditions in Ukraine are currently "not ideal" for the employment of F-16 fighter jets, Lieutenant General Douglas Sims said on July 13."

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1679749679427272710?s=20

And that happens when you cut a small snippet of a quote and use it out of context to make your point.

The (relevant part of) the full quote:

Quote

And as we go into the fall, you look at new U.S. equipment that is potentially arriving -- the Abrams, for example, maybe even F-16s. Can you talk at all about what kind of capability those weapons would bring to the counteroffensive and how useful that would be?

GEN. SIMS:  Yes, sure, Ma'am.  Well, let me start with air.  We've said this for a while, you know, this -- the conditions on the environment certainly are changing over time.  But the conditions right now for the employment of the F-16s are probably not -- they're probably not ideal.  I mean, the Russians still possess some air defense capability.  They have air capability.  And the number of F-16s that would be provided may not be perfect for what's going on right now.  As the future changes, that certainly will dictate how that is employed.

I don't see any threshold applied there. He just states that currently the usefulness of a limited number of F-16s is probably not that high for the ongoing counteroffensive because of Russian air and AA capabilities. That perfectly fits our understanding of the current situation. Ukraine already has air capabilities, they just can't use them all that much at the moment because we basically have denied air space (for both sides btw). A handful of F-16 will not immediately and fundamentally change that equation, right? As he goes on that may change over time.

If that's your definition of a moron...

Now I have to defend US generals because you guys are too lazy to look up original sources? Really?

Edited July 14, 2023 by Butschi

[chuckdyke]

I watched more the interview. No such thing as only name rank and serial number. there are conditions in regards to drinking water.