How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

30 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

Iran-Iraq War?

There it is.  I knew there was one out there but outside the western sphere.  Although if you take into account burn rate over time (that war took 8 years) this one is higher intensity right now.

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, panzermartin said:

EU citizens will have to pay for the mess that will follow. Why do we deserve this. 

Because the EU had an opportunity to address Russia back in 2008 and 2014 and steadfastly refused to do so for a variety of political self interests.  Berlusconi being one of the absolute worst, as he was effectively on Putin's payroll.

Russia has also brazenly assassinated people on the soil of EU countries (UK was part of the EU at the time of the Skripal poisoning, which killed a UK citizen), plotted assassinations and coups within Europe, funded extremist parties, made the Syrian refugee crisis a major event, etc.

One can even point a finger at the EU not taking the threat of Russia seriously as far back as the 1990s when it was actively fueling the war in Yugoslavia.

Yet European political leadership decided that Russia could be managed.  So yeah, Europe deserves having to foot the bill for what is going on in Ukraine because Europe is a huge part of why Russia is fighting there.

Steve

[keas66]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because the EU had an opportunity to address Russia back in 2008 and 2014 and steadfastly refused to do so for a variety of political self interests.  Berlusconi being one of the absolute worst, as he was effectively on Putin's payroll.

Russia has also brazenly assassinated people on the soil of EU countries (UK was part of the EU at the time of the Skripal poisoning, which killed a UK citizen), plotted assassinations and coups within Europe, funded extremist parties, made the Syrian refugee crisis a major event, etc.

One can even point a finger at the EU not taking the threat of Russia seriously as far back as the 1990s when it was actively fueling the war in Yugoslavia.

Yet European political leadership decided that Russia could be managed.  So yeah, Europe deserves having to foot the bill for what is going on in Ukraine because Europe is a huge part of why Russia is fighting there.

Steve

 

Interesting article by the WSJ on Joseph Conrad's book "The Secret Agent " 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-joseph-conrad-a-lens-on-russia-barbarism-putin-war-ukraine-human-rights-poland-imperialism-oppression-violence-revolution-11653664984

 

[billbindc]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

My conclusion way back, yet to be disrupted, was that Snowden was a "useful idiot" who really thought he was doing the right thing.  There was another infamous case of this back in the Cold War which turned into a really good movie "Falcon and the Snowman".  Assange was at the very least a useful idiot, but I suspect was on the payroll.

In any case, both were functioning assets of the Russian foreign intelligence system.

For those who are defensive about this because of the whole 2015 election, please note that I was convinced of this well before then.  The 2015 election only reinforced those conclusions, as did subsequent findings out of the US and other Intel services shortly after.

Steve

It's been pretty clear for a long time that Wikileaks was beholden to both Russia and the Byelorussian KGB. Snowden was not originally but there's a relationship between how Snowden ended up in Moscow and Wikileaks as well. And now, of course, Ed's going to sing for his supper or he'll end up somewhere very cold and very much out of wifi range.  

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties

Edited June 17, 2022 by billbindc

[Aragorn2002]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

It's been pretty clear for a long time that Wikileaks was beholden to both Russia and the Byelorussian KGB. Snowden was not originally but there's a relationship between how Snowden ended up in Moscow and Wikileaks as well. And now, of course, Ed's going to sing for his supper or he'll end up somewhere very cold and very much out of wifi range.  

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Same as all heavy tanks can the local infrastructure cope? 50 tons is about the cutoff point. Main bridges are obvious targets if you don't have air superiority. 

Very important point, this was a main reason the JGSDF's Type 10 MBT was kept down to 44 tonnes. At that weight it can use 84% of the bridges in Japan compared to 65% for its predecessor, the Type 90, which in peacetime could only be deployed on Hokkaido for this reason. A typical western MBT could only use 40% of Japanese bridges. (Ref: Japan MoD via Wikipedia).

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

Captain 3rd-rank Alexander Trusov:

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, hcrof said:

That is a very selective reading of the facts to justify his obvious position that Ukraine should just accept anything Russia imposes on them and the west should say sorry to Russia for opposing their unprovoked invasion.

This is a very common form of Russian disinformation.  Russian propagandists use foreigners with similar points of view to try and make their case for them.  Those foreigners, in theory, have more influence than someone with a thick Russian accent.  For sure Russia has extensively used right wing Western media personalities in this way.  Selective editing isn't even needed in some cases because their point of view is so similar to Russia's talking points, but of course they do love to selectively edit to make it even more similar.

Sometimes they find people who are theoretically qualified to talk about their subject matter, but then you dig down and find they are totally discredited in their own countries.  Often disgraced in some spectacular way.  I posted a video from one such guy a dozen or so pages ago.

However, sometimes the guys they find to spread their messaging aren't even theoretically qualified to speak on their chosen topic.  They, or their Russian promoters, tout bogus or over-inflated credentials and try to make them seem credible.

Back in 2014 Russia Today had an American on a couple of times.  They promoted him as some sort of foreign policy expert.  Turns out he was a right wing nutjob who had no educational or professional experience with foreign policy.  In fact, he couldn't even hold down regular employment from what I could tell (when I said "nutjob" I meant that literally).  The only thing I could find for his work experience was, IIRC, he was some sort of administrator at an obscure charter school (oddly enough, in my state!).  IIRC he also had worked in fast food or something else like that (seriously!).  Yet RT had him on the air pretending to be credible because he was spouting off Russian talking points in perfect New England English.

RULE OF THUMB... if a pro-Russian source is pushing a link to a non-Russian person presenting an obviously pro-Russian point of view, presume the presenter isn't credible or the video has been edited way out of context.  For the fun of it, though, doing a Google search on the person usually turns up some pretty fun facts so by all means at least do that.  It's good for a laugh if nothing else

Steve

[panzermartin]

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because the EU had an opportunity to address Russia back in 2008 and 2014 and steadfastly refused to do so for a variety of political self interests.  Berlusconi being one of the absolute worst, as he was effectively on Putin's payroll.

Russia has also brazenly assassinated people on the soil of EU countries (UK was part of the EU at the time of the Skripal poisoning, which killed a UK citizen), plotted assassinations and coups within Europe, funded extremist parties, made the Syrian refugee crisis a major event, etc.

One can even point a finger at the EU not taking the threat of Russia seriously as far back as the 1990s when it was actively fueling the war in Yugoslavia.

Yet European political leadership decided that Russia could be managed.  So yeah, Europe deserves having to foot the bill for what is going on in Ukraine because Europe is a huge part of why Russia is fighting there.

Steve

I'm sorry, as a citizen of EU I refuse to go through another decade of economic misery as it happened when the banks failed and people had to bear the weight. We are not responsible for the war in Ukraine. Everyone was dealing with Russia, not only Europe. Even Trump, was apparently involved in business with Russians. Does that make him an American Berlusconi? Should all American citizens pay the price? Also Europe has paid the aftermath of wars that didn't participate in Middle East, has bear the weight of a huge refugee crisis, has suffered hundred of victims from ISIS terror attacks on its soil and Europe has to pay again? I don't think it's fair and we should keep banging our heads on the wall as Aragorn says. 

[c3k]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

That is one important consideration for usage in ukraine. AFAIK most bridges there allow 40 metric tons maximum. That is one of the reasons why Leo2A4 (55 metric tons) and M1A1 (57 metric tons) and even newer (and heavier) western tanks don´t make much sense, unless NATO runs out of T-72s which can be sent. ..

@desert fox, not picking on you specifically, but your post has the most tonnage information so it's a great place to start.

In civil engineering (no I'm not one), there are margins applied. They are usually on the order of 100%. (In some cases, up to 500%.)  

In the West, a 40 ton bridge could certainly hold more. Would I send a 50 ton tank over a 40 ton bridge? Hell, yeah. I'd drive it.  But, I'd only allow one at a time.  That'd slow down a 50+ tank battalion at every bridge. 

Now, given the corruption and standards of quality shown under the Soviet era, I can certainly see the problems with 50 ton tanks driving over Soviet-built 40 ton bridges. 

Time for some bridge grogs to step in. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

I'm sorry, as a citizen of EU I refuse to go through another decade of economic misery as it happened when the banks failed and people had to bear the weight.

Using your logic, you would have supported Hitler in 1939.  Do you have family members that lived under German occupation that you can ask about the wisdom of this?

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

We are not responsible for the war in Ukraine. Everyone was dealing with Russia, not only Europe.

Correct.  There's plenty of blame to go around.  And while Europe is not directly responsible for Ukraine, it is culpable because it facilitated Russia's ability to attack Ukraine in broad and specific terms.  For example, French Thales dodging sanctions to sell Russia it's best thermal optics.

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Even Trump, was apparently involved in business with Russians. Does that make him an American Berlusconi?

Many would say "yes" to that.

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Should all American citizens pay the price?

As an American, I say "yes" to that.  I'll go beyond that.  I've personally sent quite a lot of my own money to Ukraine in the past few months.  I've sent a good chunk of money to a Polish relief organization to help Poland too.  I understand that Russia needs to be defeated for the sake of my country (specifically) and the world (generally). 

This war absolutely affects my country and I am glad the current political establishment understands that.

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Also Europe has paid the aftermath of wars that didn't participate in Middle East, has bear the weight of a huge refugee crisis, has suffered hundred of victims from ISIS terror attacks on its soil and Europe has to pay again? I don't think it's fair and we should keep banging our heads on the wall as Aragorn says. 

Thank you for making my point   Assad and ISIS were about to get snuffed out by even the weak, inadequate response of the US and Europe to the civil war there.  Then Russia stepped in and the US/Europe pulled out.  Russia deliberately engaged in behaviors that sent refugees to Europe.  In fact, Russia did this deliberately because it knew that it would fracture and burden the EU.  This is not debatable.  Belarus even directly facilitated refugees getting to the Polish border and then pushed them across until Poland put a stop to it.

Europe is going to pay for Russia's misbehavior one way or another.  As with most things, putting it off has made it more expensive and tragic.  Just like the Yugoslav civil war.

Steve

[akd]

12 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Does that make him an American Berlusconi?

Umm…yes.

[hcrof]

3 minutes ago, c3k said:

@desert fox, not picking on you specifically, but your post has the most tonnage information so it's a great place to start.

In civil engineering (no I'm not one), there are margins applied. They are usually on the order of 100%. (In some cases, up to 500%.)  

In the West, a 40 ton bridge could certainly hold more. Would I send a 50 ton tank over a 40 ton bridge? Hell, yeah. I'd drive it.  But, I'd only allow one at a time.  That'd slow down a 50+ tank battalion at every bridge. 

Now, given the corruption and standards of quality shown under the Soviet era, I can certainly see the problems with 50 ton tanks driving over Soviet-built 40 ton bridges. 

Time for some bridge grogs to step in. 

 

This is largely correct, you would be able to drive heavier vehicles over the bridges official rating if you had to, but the bridge would need a proper inspection first, then as you say you would go one-by-one. Using a tank transporter to spread the load would also help. 

It may also be possible to reinforce a bridge to increase its rating (or compensate for poor maintenance), but that adds even more time (maybe a month to get a design together) and complexity. The other thing is that engineers can either work fast or work efficiently - you need a lot of spare engineers sitting around if you want a fast response in this sort of thing.

 

[c3k]

The opinions on domestic US politics are neither unanimous nor beneficial to this thread.

 

[DesertFox]

13 minutes ago, c3k said:

In the West, a 40 ton bridge could certainly hold more. Would I send a 50 ton tank over a 40 ton bridge? Hell, yeah. I'd drive it.  But, I'd only allow one at a time.  That'd slow down a 50+ tank battalion at every bridge. 

Yep I´m aware of that, having commanded a Leo2A4 in the Bundeswehr back in the 90s. On german territory all structures are designed with significant safety margin factors of 1.5 to 2X, but I wouldn´t bet on that for ukrainian or russian soil. You are correct, we need an east european bridge grog for that question  Soviet T-tanks were designed to stay into the 40-45 ton margin with a reason.

Edited June 17, 2022 by DesertFox

[Aragorn2002]

35 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because the EU had an opportunity to address Russia back in 2008 and 2014 and steadfastly refused to do so for a variety of political self interests.  Berlusconi being one of the absolute worst, as he was effectively on Putin's payroll.

Russia has also brazenly assassinated people on the soil of EU countries (UK was part of the EU at the time of the Skripal poisoning, which killed a UK citizen), plotted assassinations and coups within Europe, funded extremist parties, made the Syrian refugee crisis a major event, etc.

One can even point a finger at the EU not taking the threat of Russia seriously as far back as the 1990s when it was actively fueling the war in Yugoslavia.

Yet European political leadership decided that Russia could be managed.  So yeah, Europe deserves having to foot the bill for what is going on in Ukraine because Europe is a huge part of why Russia is fighting there.

Steve

That.

The other part is due to the political chaos in the US and the devastating role a certain American politician played in weakening NATO, allienating Europe from the US and befriending Putin and his criminals. Equally huge, I would say.

[Beleg85]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is a very common form of Russian disinformation.  Russian propagandists use foreigners with similar points of view to try and make their case for them.  Those foreigners, in theory, have more influence than someone with a thick Russian accent.  For sure Russia has extensively used right wing Western media personalities in this way.  Selective editing isn't even needed in some cases because their point of view is so similar to Russia's talking points, but of course they do love to selectively edit to make it even more similar.

Sometimes they find people who are theoretically qualified to talk about their subject matter, but then you dig down and find they are totally discredited in their own countries.  Often disgraced in some spectacular way.  I posted a video from one such guy a dozen or so pages ago.

However, sometimes the guys they find to spread their messaging aren't even theoretically qualified to speak on their chosen topic.  They, or their Russian promoters, tout bogus or over-inflated credentials and try to make them seem credible.

Oh using useful fools is tradition as long as Soviet Union itself and probably only developed further once KGB become FSB and social media came about.

Still I am surprised they branded EN version of their ideological tube as Russia Today, could be smarter.

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Always had the impression Snowden is just a vulgar Russian spy.

More of an asset. All those people- Snodwen, Hedges, Abby Martin- are very geuine in their belief that they can follow Orwell, somehow magically find a place in despots houses and in the same time be critical of them (for the sake of their own concience, of course). You could search at YT for A.Martin metdown on RT when she suddenly discovered her work was being used whole time to spread Russian propaganda- a crown jewel of cluelessness.

They aren't bad, but they are very vain and touchy about their moral superiority- which KGB/FSB/GRU perfectly knows. So instead of paying them directly, they usually use a strategy known as trimming- they don't grow their views directly, but "cultivate" them throught careful and subtle controll of reality around them. Like gardener do with precious trees.

People in CEE and those in the West understanding what NATO is about usually see throuht this bull**** instantly, but there are enough naives who believe it to stir some troubles.

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Beleg85

[Aragorn2002]

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Using your logic, you would have supported Hitler in 1939.  Do you have family members that lived under German occupation that you can ask about the wisdom of this?

Correct.  There's plenty of blame to go around.  And while Europe is not directly responsible for Ukraine, it is culpable because it facilitated Russia's ability to attack Ukraine in broad and specific terms.  For example, French Thales dodging sanctions to sell Russia it's best thermal optics.

Many would say "yes" to that.

As an American, I say "yes" to that.  I'll go beyond that.  I've personally sent quite a lot of my own money to Ukraine in the past few months.  I've sent a good chunk of money to a Polish relief organization to help Poland too.  I understand that Russia needs to be defeated for the sake of my country (specifically) and the world (generally). 

This war absolutely affects my country and I am glad the current political establishment understands that.

Thank you for making my point   Assad and ISIS were about to get snuffed out by even the weak, inadequate response of the US and Europe to the civil war there.  Then Russia stepped in and the US/Europe pulled out.  Russia deliberately engaged in behaviors that sent refugees to Europe.  In fact, Russia did this deliberately because it knew that it would fracture and burden the EU.  This is not debatable.  Belarus even directly facilitated refugees getting to the Polish border and then pushed them across until Poland put a stop to it.

Europe is going to pay for Russia's misbehavior one way or another.  As with most things, putting it off has made it more expensive and tragic.  Just like the Yugoslav civil war.

Steve

Well, in any case time to take our responsibilies and make sure we correct our mistakes as much as possible. And God damn learn from all this for a change.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Huba]

9 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

I'm sorry, as a citizen of EU I refuse to go through another decade of economic misery as it happened when the banks failed and people had to bear the weight. We are not responsible for the war in Ukraine. Everyone was dealing with Russia, not only Europe. Even Trump, was apparently involved in business with Russians. Does that make him an American Berlusconi? Should all American citizens pay the price? Also Europe has paid the aftermath of wars that didn't participate in Middle East, has bear the weight of a huge refugee crisis, has suffered hundred of victims from ISIS terror attacks on its soil and Europe has to pay again? I don't think it's fair and we should keep banging our heads on the wall as Aragorn says. 

Of what costs are you talking about precisely? 

The economic cost of sanctions imposed of Russia? This is ours to bear because of decades of spineless politics aimed at short time economic gains, and unwillingness to stand up for European Values we are so proud of. 

Cost of rebuilding UA after the war? At that poin it equals to a few hundred billion Euro - it is a lot, but hardly unbearable for EU as a whole. Significant part of it will come back in form of contracts for European companies doing the work. And there's the ethical side of it of course... 

Cost of integrating UA into EU? It will take years before the will be able to join, and even then enlargin EU is in general mutually beneficial to everyone, new markets open, new workforce,etc. it isn't a zero sum game. 

Yeah, wars suck and are expensive, but it really could've been worse. And quite possibly all this money spend buys Europe a much better future for decades to come. 

[womble]

49 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

EU citizens will have to pay for the mess that will follow. Why do we deserve this. 

Because EU citizens allowed their leaders to cozy up to the Kleptocrats (known gangsters) who stole the inheritance of the Russian people from them in the '90s. It was a move borne of hope, for sure, but not grounded in any actual reality. Russia was always going to find a "reason" to weaponise the energy monopoly they were permitted to create, just to increase their profits, even before you start considering the leadership's dreams of empire reawoken. They were "boiling the frog", back then.

[Aragorn2002]

11 minutes ago, c3k said:

The opinions on domestic US politics are neither unanimous nor beneficial to this thread.

 

But can't be entirely ignored when trying to learn lessons from the present mess we're in.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, c3k said:

The opinions on domestic US politics are neither unanimous nor beneficial to this thread.

Overall I agree, but wars are political in nature and this one certainly has a lot of politics involved.  If it's relevant to the war then I'm inclined to allow it to some extent.

I would ask that you examine your own approach to politics discussion here.  By that I mean you don't appear to have a problem with criticism of other nation's politics or their leadership.  The mention of Trump was in response to my mention of Berlusconi, yet you only singled one out.  I've also not seen you objecting to discussion of Macron, Sholtz, or others who have not been portrayed in a positive light (to say the least) hundreds of times in this thread.

This is an international Forum with a large array of opinions.  It is not in the interests of this Forum, this thread, or us as individuals for me to selectively censor in order to protect one specific group of people in one specific country. 

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

16 minutes ago, Huba said:

Of what costs are you talking about precisely? 

The economic cost of sanctions imposed of Russia? This is ours to bear because of decades of spineless politics aimed at short time economic gains, and unwillingness to stand up for European Values we are so proud of. 

Cost of rebuilding UA after the war? At that poin it equals to a few hundred billion Euro - it is a lot, but hardly unbearable for EU as a whole. Significant part of it will come back in form of contracts for European companies doing the work. And there's the ethical side of it of course... 

Cost of integrating UA into EU? It will take years before the will be able to join, and even then enlargin EU is in general mutually beneficial to everyone, new markets open, new workforce,etc. it isn't a zero sum game. 

Yeah, wars suck and are expensive, but it really could've been worse. And quite possibly all this money spend buys Europe a much better future for decades to come. 

Well said. Nothing to add. Personally I hope this will be the beginning of a more united EU, in which all countries start to think more as Europeans, instead of Dutch, Poles, Germans, Greeks, French and so on. Another positive factor is that Europe and the US showed more unity in the past few months than has been seen in a long time. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

But can't be entirely ignored when trying to learn lessons from the present mess we're in.

This is one of the things that upsets me the most.  As a historian I find it highly objectionable that we can't objectively, even mildly, examine 4 years of US foreign policy simply because it might upset someone.  NOT examining the past might not doom us to repeating the mistakes, but it sure as Hell increases the chances of it.

And for the record, Obama screwed up way more than Trump did in terms of heading off this war we are in now.  The 2014 invasion happened on his watch and he had far more time to deal with it than Trump did.

But hey, I suppose I can't be critical of Obama either

Steve

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is one of the things that upsets me the most.  As a historian I find it highly objectionable that we can't objectively, even mildly, examine 4 years of US foreign policy simply because it might upset someone.  NOT examining the past might not doom us to repeating the mistakes, but it sure as Hell increases the chances of it.

And for the record, Obama screwed up way more than Trump did in terms of heading off this war we are in now.  The 2014 invasion happened on his watch and he had far more time to deal with it than Trump did.

But hey, I suppose I can't be critical of Obama either

Steve

Who inherited the mess of Bush…who inherited the mess of Clinton…etc.

I will say that the US needs to get past whatever “this” is and find some sort of domestic compromise and unity built on mutual respect…soon.  
Were it anywhere except the US, we would have labeled it as a fragile state by now. And a fragile superpower…isn’t one.