How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Vet 0369]

12 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Broken clock my ***, the Republican speaker of the House is holding up Ukraine aid, including that essential rearmament funding. Despite the majority of his party being for it, majority of the country for it.

Here we go again! Some folks just can’t seem to avoid getting sucked into the political discussion quagmire.

[Vet 0369]

47 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

Pope Francis is 87.  Surely there should be a retirement age for people claiming to be world leaders.

The Pope is NOT a World leader in the sense of a Government. He is a “World Leader”only in the fact that he is the leader of all the Roman Catholic Christens. He is the head of a religious organization. I applaud his adherence to his religious beliefs of peace and non violence. Much better than the Pope during WWII who might not have been directly involved in deporting Jews to Germany, and SS and other criminals using the Vatican to flee, but he certainty didn’t work to thwart them either.

[poesel]

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

So you're telling me this is inaccurate?

Yes. Read the transcript. I don't know what he thought, but I know what he said.

19 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

The Pope is NOT a World leader in the sense of a Government. He is a “World Leader”only in the fact that he is the leader of all the Roman Catholic Christens. ...

Technically, he is the absolute monarch and head of the government of the Vatican State. So he IS the leader of a government. Since his faith is rather widespread, I guess that would qualify him as a 'world leader'.

[poesel]

Ok, I need to add something. The public interpretation of what the pope said is that he suggests that Ukraine should surrender. That is in itself a fact. So the public reaction is in response to that interpretation. That again is a reality.

So the pope better explain himself. He did not speak clearly enough.

[Fernando]

26 minutes ago, poesel said:

Ok, I need to add something. The public interpretation of what the pope said is that he suggests that Ukraine should surrender. That is in itself a fact. So the public reaction is in response to that interpretation. That again is a reality.

So the pope better explain himself. He did not speak clearly enough.

99% of the people doesn't really know what the Pope said. They only know what other people say the Pope has said. Few people go to sources (in this case the transcription or even the actual interview is just a Google search away) to check if what others say about something is really true. That's the world we are living now. And then we are amazed at how we can be manipulated so easily.

Edited March 10 by Fernando

[JonS]

2 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

Here we go again! Some folks just can’t seem to avoid getting sucked into the political discussion quagmire.

I mean ... war is basically a political discussion using pointy sticks, so, yes?

[Battlefront.com]

OK, I think we've beaten the Pope thing enough.  The more sensitive the topic, the more carefully the words have to be chosen.  And even with the word carefully chosen, someone will run with their own interpretation and lead people in that direction.  Whether it is justified or not.

What I think we can all agree on is that the Pope should not have been trying to "thread the needle".  He should have instead used his position to call about Russia to stop the war and all the genocidal behavior.  Instead, trying to stay neutral is a path to criticism.

Steve

[danfrodo]

A little sunday morale booster for the forum:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/10/2228602/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Russia-sacks-its-navy-commander?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

 

[Kinophile]

I thought he was already fired? 

[Kinophile]

.. 

Edited March 11 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

First Oscar in Ukrainian history. 

 

[Kinophile]

They're pretty polarized personally on domestics, as I understand it, so travelling and acting together on this issue (Ukraine) is significant? 

Perhaps our Polski friends can elaborate? 

Also:

 

Edited March 11 by Kinophile

[Carolus]

Habemus Suecia

 

[chuckdyke]

From CNN Live updates: Russian government resigns in Putin power shakeup (cnn.com)

 

[Kinophile]

 

 

[Hapless]

25 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

From CNN Live updates: Russian government resigns in Putin power shakeup (cnn.com)

 

That's from January 2020

[Kinophile]

I'm curious what is the difference in mindset and mission control between RUS and UKR airforces.

My impression is that RUS airforces is, like the rest of its military, very plan oriented rather than mission, to the point of weapons release being controlled by Ground Controllers. 

Is the UKR Air Force much different in mindset?

They're flying RUS platforms designed with that Plan mindset, so is there much of a Mission mindset?

Is the "difficulty" with f16s about breaking old modes of thinking, or and less about technical challenges? 

 

 

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, Hapless said:

That's from January 2020

Ok sorry.

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

 

 

Noted the blast berms around the distributed facilities.  These are designed to minimize any legitimate smoking accidents and have been there long before the war (forever?).  The neat thing is that they work in reverse in that any drone detonating within a specific perimeter may have its blast effect maximized because a) the energy will "bounce" towards the middle and b) whatever secondary explosion it may cause is more likely to cause a feedback loop because the berms reduce the dissipation of energy latterly.  Though due to the nature of these facilities it could be that a mild hit does the trick anyway, so the enhancement is moot.  Doesn't matter how the flame gets into a can of gasoline, it still goes boom!

Steve

[cesmonkey]

 

[Kinophile]

15 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

There's more nuance than that. 250K in Russia is All calibers. Nato 1.2M is 155 mm only. Quite a difference, plus NATO/West has far, far more latent capacity than Russia. 

[Kinophile]

Kerch Bridge delenda est. 

[hcrof]

2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

There's more nuance than that. 250K in Russia is All calibers. Nato 1.2M is 155 mm only. Quite a difference, plus NATO/West has far, far more latent capacity than Russia. 

On the other hand NATO countries have internal needs beyond Ukraine and also export ammunition to other countries, so Ukraine will not see even half of that production.

[Kinophile]

9 minutes ago, hcrof said:

On the other hand NATO countries have internal needs beyond Ukraine and also export ammunition to other countries, so Ukraine will not see even half of that production.

Thats still just a policy setting, no? Eg France no longer exporting to ME. And a half of a steadily rising capacity is not a static number. 

Whereas Russia cannot spare anything for export, with that situation not improving. Its munitions production is three years into a full scale war and is barely sufficient for how it fights. 

Ukraine both fights differently now and in the future. Even with the bad shell hunger that lost Avdiivka the Rus offensive still petered out afterwards. There's now strong indications that that hunger is fading. 

I'm really curious about domestic UKR shell production... 

 

[hcrof]

19 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Thats still just a policy setting, no? Eg France no longer exporting to ME. And a half of a steadily rising capacity is not a static number. 

Whereas Russia cannot spare anything for export, with that situation not improving. Its munitions production is three years into a full scale war and is barely sufficient for how it fights. 

Ukraine both fights differently now and in the future. Even with the bad shell hunger that lost Avdiivka the Rus offensive still petered out afterwards. There's now strong indications that that hunger is fading. 

I'm really curious about domestic UKR shell production... 

 

Agreed that NATO can choose not to export, but that would badly damage their reputation and I would be surprised to see many countries following France's example. I guess the point is that NATO is not at war but Russia is, so NATO might have more potential but not use it. 

Also both sides are importing shells from 3rd countries (often under the table), and both sides use various calibres. 

In other words it is really complicated and I don't think counting production numbers alone is a very good proxy for how many shells will be fired by both sides this year. Thankfully the NATO numbers are finally going up at a faster rate than Russia's so hopefully Ukraine will be at least stable soon with regard to the artillery balance.