How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Silentkilarz]

Wasnt the West until recently handling russian nuclear sub reactor disposal because thats the only way anyone could be certain it was done and done properly?

[dan/california]

41 minutes ago, Silentkilarz said:

Wasnt the West until recently handling russian nuclear sub reactor disposal because thats the only way anyone could be certain it was done and done properly?

A lot of money was spent, very well I might add, on decommissioning Russian nuclear and chemical weapons. A lot of highly enriched Uranium from those was down mixed into freshly mined Uranium to make nuclear fuel. I have never read anything about the sub reactors. I would think the Russians wouldn't want the U.S. taking those apart.

[Battlefront.com]

52 minutes ago, Silentkilarz said:

I assume the thermals on the Kornet ATGM launcher

Not likely from the one attacking the Bradley because the Kornet requires active aiming and that isn't what we're seeing in the video.  It could be the view from a companion Kornet for all I know, as I don't know what the current guidance system looks like.

Steve

[Ultradave]

48 minutes ago, Silentkilarz said:

Wasnt the West until recently handling russian nuclear sub reactor disposal because thats the only way anyone could be certain it was done and done properly?

Not that I'm aware of. We did provide a LOT of support for them to better secure decommissioned nuclear warheads, and move them from the many SSRs where they were stored in sketchy circumstances (Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program). Many of their submarines are sunk in the Arctic. I'm not sure what the reactor status was at the time. 

We did, for 20 years, buy what used to be Soviet era nuclear warheads turned into civilian reactor fuel. For 20 years half of  US nuclear generated electric power (10% of the total generation) came from decommissioned Soviet nuclear warheads.  Look up "Megatons to Megawatts" for some more information on that if you are interested. We (the US) spent billions on these 2 programs, and it was definitely money well spent. A lot of the impetus came from Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar working together (one Democrat, one Republican). 

Dave

[Ultradave]

12 minutes ago, dan/california said:

A lot of money was spent, very well I might add, on decommissioning Russian nuclear and chemical weapons. A lot of highly enriched Uranium from those was down mixed into freshly mined Uranium to make nuclear fuel. I have never read anything about the sub reactors. I would think the Russians wouldn't want the U.S. taking those apart.

Should have read farther before posting mine   

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

Should have read farther before posting mine   

Your was better...

[billbindc]

This, all damn day: 

 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1fmzqgo/secondary_detonations_at_the_russian_ammunition/

Truly spectacular.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:08 PM, sburke said:

The one area I think it matters is timing.  Losing that much material that quickly likely means a lot of immediate plans just got whacked.  With the offensive in the Donbas seemingly at a low point at the moment one wonders how this will impact the immediate need around Kursk.  I'll assume for the moment (cause I don't really know) that the Kursk area is drawing from different depots and is not immediately affected.  However if Russia is still prioritizing the Donbas, would it mean a draw down in available artillery for Russia to counter the UA offensive?

Second item is a little more long term.  What is the effect given US politics and how that may or may not have influenced Russia thinking about what they needed to accomplish and by when from a purely political goals perspective?  The US election is now more in doubt than ever that Putin won't be facing a more hawkish US administration and a consequent aggressive leadership with NATO allies, the loss of some momentum in the short term could very well have longer term consequences.  For example, it is very possible that in November Russia could still be trying to retake the area around Kursk.  Permission for US and NATO weapons to strike targets deeper in Russia if not already given is likely soon.  The logistical strain Russia faces right now in trying to determine how many depots are in immediate risk and how to disperse them is something they will need to overcome.

Between Kursk and these strikes it seems like Ukraine has in the space of 6 weeks forced Russia to confront two very difficult issues that consume energy and time.  These are resources Russia doesn't really have much of to spare.  I doubt they were coordinated, but their combination does magnify the overall impact especially if it takes some of the pressure off in the Donbas to allow the UA flexibility about how long to commit around Kursk.

It may not change the overall trajectory of the war, but any slackening in Russia's war effort couldn't have come at a better time.  As you have noted before Steve, Russia has a poor track record of making hard decisions.  They tend to go for the middle choice and end up making 2 situations bad instead of just one.

I want to come back to this point sburke made after I stated that I didn't think the ammo strikes would impact the war itself.  To clarify, I meant the overall outcome.  I don't see these specific attacks having any specific impact on ending this war in whatever form it takes.

That said, I agree with sburke (and logic!) that this is going to FUBAR a bunch of things on the Russian side.  Even if they work some magic where it doesn't affect their battlefield plans, it will come at some cost that they wouldn't otherwise have had.  And I for one do not believe in magic

So yeah, the most likely direct impact of these strikes is a near term reduction in allocation and (maybe) variety of ammo to the frontlines for quite some time.  ISW suggests a few months and I think that's reasonable.

That said, I am not convinced that this will directly impact Russian operations in the two active areas (Kursk and opposite Avdiivka) as they will likely get priority supplies at the expense of other sectors of the front.  It could also be bad enough that other sectors have to give up the ammo they have and that will then go to Kursk and/or Donbas.

The net result of this... unknown.  It could be that Russia can scrounge enough short term to keep things mostly as-is where it counts (Kursk and Donbas), maybe it can't.  If it does short change other sectors of the front that is good, but I don't know that it matters because I don't see Ukraine having the manpower strength to take advantage of weaknesses.  It could mean less daily Ukrainian casualties along the rest of the front, though, and that certainly matters.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is we should HOPE to see Russian ops run into major problems pretty soon, but we should not expect that to happen.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

While I remember to ask this question...

What do people think is going on in the Black Sea?  It's been quite a while since Ukraine tried to sink a Russian ship or screw up a facility.  Is it because they don't think there's enough left to warrant putting in the effort, or do they believe Russian counter measures have made it not worth the investment?  Or is Ukraine maybe waiting for more things like Storm Shadow to arrive?

Steve

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

While I remember to ask this question...

What do people think is going on in the Black Sea?  It's been quite a while since Ukraine tried to sink a Russian ship or screw up a facility.  Is it because they don't think there's enough left to warrant putting in the effort, or do they believe Russian counter measures have made it not worth the investment?  Or is Ukraine maybe waiting for more things like Storm Shadow to arrive?

Steve

This is an optimistic thought based on not a whole lot, but maybe they are accumulating enough munitions of various types to take hard swing at the Kerch bridge?

Or as suggested it could be that the Russians have pulled back anything worth hitting. Worth pointing out they are kind of busy at the opposite end of the war. Any strike assets that have land attack capability might be needed elsewhere.

 

 

[Eug85]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

While I remember to ask this question...

What do people think is going on in the Black Sea?  It's been quite a while since Ukraine tried to sink a Russian ship or screw up a facility.  Is it because they don't think there's enough left to warrant putting in the effort, or do they believe Russian counter measures have made it not worth the investment?  Or is Ukraine maybe waiting for more things like Storm Shadow to arrive?

Steve

I recently saw some videos of helicopters shooting down Ukrainian naval drones. So I think the Russians have come up with a tactic to combat these drones.

[Eug85]

Unlike a number of Western countries, Finland seems to be seriously considering a blockade of Russia. Deliveries of Finnish goods to Russia and Central Asia, which is a gasket between Russia and the West, are steadily declining, while other countries are rapidly increasing these deliveries.

I agree with the author that the main reason for trade with Russia is the lack of political will in a number of countries.

Edited 5 hours ago by Eug85

[Aragorn2002]

15 hours ago, akd said:

Crazy video:

Might need to watch on Telegram to get full picture.

Superb.

[Holien]

Neptune strike?

https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1837917834456003006

Quote

Russia: Ukraine reportedly used domestically-produced Neptune cruise missiles to strike the port of Azov in Rostov region.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Holien

[Silentkilarz]

12 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Not that I'm aware of. We did provide a LOT of support for them to better secure decommissioned nuclear warheads, and move them from the many SSRs where they were stored in sketchy circumstances (Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program). Many of their submarines are sunk in the Arctic. I'm not sure what the reactor status was at the time. 

We did, for 20 years, buy what used to be Soviet era nuclear warheads turned into civilian reactor fuel. For 20 years half of  US nuclear generated electric power (10% of the total generation) came from decommissioned Soviet nuclear warheads.  Look up "Megatons to Megawatts" for some more information on that if you are interested. We (the US) spent billions on these 2 programs, and it was definitely money well spent. A lot of the impetus came from Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar working together (one Democrat, one Republican). 

Dave

I didnt mean the US specifically but I recall on some sub brief videos Aaron Amick talking about Western countries helping to dispose of them.

Ahh heres a article discussing it

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/submarine-dismantlement-assistance/

[Silentkilarz]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

While I remember to ask this question...

What do people think is going on in the Black Sea?  It's been quite a while since Ukraine tried to sink a Russian ship or screw up a facility.  Is it because they don't think there's enough left to warrant putting in the effort, or do they believe Russian counter measures have made it not worth the investment?  Or is Ukraine maybe waiting for more things like Storm Shadow to arrive?

Steve

I don't think there's much left in range for them right now. Russia pulled everything back and all they really had was logistical ships and UKR already sunk the last big one. That being said, seems like everytime anyone thinks its cooling down a little bit UKR pulls something out of the magicians hat.

[Silentkilarz]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not likely from the one attacking the Bradley because the Kornet requires active aiming and that isn't what we're seeing in the video.  It could be the view from a companion Kornet for all I know, as I don't know what the current guidance system looks like.

True, I must be more exhausted than I felt working this 16 hour days lately lol.