History in the Making: Russian Invasion

This video was bound to come out sooner or later. Love me a good Hitler Rant.

Russian history summed up in one sentence: "and then things got worse."

dculberson said:

Russian history summed up in one sentence: "and then things got worse."

LOL   Kinda sounds like a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" line.  

Funny,” he intoned funereally, “how just when you think life can’t possibly get any worse it suddenly does.”

So the Russos are back after Kyiv. Apparently it wasn't really an on board fire and tumultuous seas that took Moskva down.

Yes, but what caused the fire? A missile perhaps?

NOHOME said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

As a nation I would have sunk into alcoholism if forced to endure their history/culture.

Umm... yeah...

Not sure if it was the USSR or Post Soviet Russia - they heavily subsidized the beer brewing industry and had PSA's encouraging people to drink more beer. This was done as a public health initiative to help *curb* alcoholism. Because in relative terms, drinking beer all day leaves people relatively sober.

Russians responded by adding vodka to their beers.

I learned about the Russian habit of adding vodka to beer the hard way one night at brewing school. In my defense, my other American friend and I both made it to classes the next day, and half the Russians did not. Next morning the two of us basically had the conversation, "What the berkeley happened last night? How did I get so drunk? I think I had five beers. I should have felt that, but not been vomiting in the subway. What happened? Didn't have any issues at all... until we sat down with the... Russians... oh..."

I am wondering about the shift in targeting to Kyiv. If it is short-term, it won't really affect the Russian effort in the east, but if it continues, it marks a dilution of effort and a less-than-optimal use of what seem to be increasingly scarce precision long-range munitions. If the latter case proves out, it has a certain resemblance to the targeting shift to the cities from the airfields during the Battle of Britain. The shift was ordered because Berlin was bombed, but it probably saved the RAF from defeat, and thus arguably saved Britain from invasion. A prolonged Russian effort against Kyiv without a ground element to exploit it could significantly reduce their chances of success in Donbas, without materially reducing Ukrainian capabilities.

Apexcarver said:

Yes, but what caused the fire? A missile perhaps?

Russia "says that the Moskva missile cruiser sank while being towed back to port after ammunition exploded on board." They just don't say that it was Ukrainian ammunition that exploded. 

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

So the Russos are back after Kyiv. Apparently it wasn't really an on board fire and tumultuous seas that took Moskva down.

I don't see anything about them advancing an Kyiv again.  They do continue to attack various cities around Ukraine with missiles and artillery (when in range) mostly likely as an ongoing terrorization campaign (similar to the British night campaign against Germany).  Of note is that the Ukrainians appear to be making attacks across the boarder into Russia when they can.

One of the things the Ukrainians specifically requested was more artillery spotting radar systems.  They have a lot of experience with them in the artillery duals they have been having with the separatist regions (as noted previously, the Russians LOVE artillery of all forms).  So much so, Ukrainians came to the US to train the us on how they used them.  What these radar system do is detect artillery and can very quickly determine exactly where the shots came from based on velocity and angle, allowing counter attacks on those batteries.  Of course, if you fire back with artillery, the Russians have those systems also, and they can attack you back (as noted, they tend to have a LOT).

I think the primary way the Ukrainians have been using these is to locate the battery and target it with a drone (which could include the Switchblades they are getting).  This really pissed the Russians off and they made demands to Turkey to quit selling them their drones.

Some thoughts on the Moskva:  It was an older ship (80's) and did have some somewhat older systems on it, but it also had 3 layers of defense: a long range missile system, a short range missile system and a close in defense system (like the US Phalanx system). The question is, why did these not kill the missiles?  The long range system was almost certainly useless since the Neptune is a surface skimming missile and will be over the horizon until its within 5 miles or so.  The close in system is really just a matter of luck of hitting it since it's essential a stream of cannon shell trying to get a direct hit (missiles explode with fragments etc. and just need to get close).  So it's down to the short range missiles (dual launchers on either side).  Did they only fire 2?, or did they salvo a bunch of them, overwhelming the defenses (the US certainly know, but no sense revealing if there where more than 2).

Where the seas rough? The weather report from Sevastopol said clear, but there could still be waves / swells.  A significant swell could cut down the detection range (depending on how the missiles determines it's altitude and radar system).  One interesting possibility is that the Moskva was clearly designed to counter American threats (e.g. Harpoon), the Neptune is basically a copy (with longer range) of Russian missile (Kh-35), so... could it be that the Moskva was less then optimum in defending itself from what was basically a Russian attack?  Or maybe, yet another Russian f-up because of poorly trained or lowly motivated crews...

Beer Baron said:

NOHOME said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

As a nation I would have sunk into alcoholism if forced to endure their history/culture.

Umm... yeah...

Not sure if it was the USSR or Post Soviet Russia - they heavily subsidized the beer brewing industry and had PSA's encouraging people to drink more beer. This was done as a public health initiative to help *curb* alcoholism. Because in relative terms, drinking beer all day leaves people relatively sober.

Russians responded by adding vodka to their beers.

I learned about the Russian habit of adding vodka to beer the hard way one night at brewing school. In my defense, my other American friend and I both made it to classes the next day, and half the Russians did not. Next morning the two of us basically had the conversation, "What the berkeley happened last night? How did I get so drunk? I think I had five beers. I should have felt that, but not been vomiting in the subway. What happened? Didn't have any issues at all... until we sat down with the... Russians... oh..."

Yeah a few years back in a US near ivy league university I had the pleasure of partying with some Russian nationals who were undergraduates. They passed a vodka bottle around for shots and I took a swig, went to pass it on and was stopped, apparently I did not take a proper shot as the bottle did not reach a full 90 degrees vertical, had to take another. They put me in my place and the next guy just finished the bottle of probably 6-7 shots himself...these were future engineers and chemists.

So, reading todays Yahoo news, the talk is about Putt Putt and his tactical nukes again and how awful his Ukrainian strategy has been and how out of desperation, he might be planning weapons of mass destruction attacks. Any guesses of what our red line in the sand is? Have we put in place enough in eastern Europe so that we could establish a no fly zone over the western 3/4 of the country? If we did, I assume that we would remove any air defense threats over any no fly zone in Ukraine and southern Belarus that are close enough to threaten our planes. I also assume that because Russia attacked Ukraine without provocation, we can take out any threats in Belarus without any objections from Russia, or China. Fair is fair, right?

I think that Russian is going to slowly wear out Ukraine and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians just to gain eastern Ukraine which was all along his secondary fall back goal. I am wondering what the west is prepared to do to prevent genocide? I'm all for regime change and although the Arab Spring didn't have the desired affect, I always say that "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again". Lindsey Graham is not a person I would ever call an honest man or even a human being with a spine, but I agree with his statement about Putt Putt,  “step up to the plate” and “take this guy out.” I think that we should help them out. A billion dollar world wide arrest bounty?

I wonder if the "Off Topic" thread attack this morning was because some Russians don't like this specific thread talking smack about Putt Putt? 

I don't know this for a fact, but I'm willing to bet that most (if not all) of the NATO troops are volunteers, as compared to the conscripts in the Russian Army.  The poor bastards dying for Vlad are doing so at the point of a gun, basically.  That's one of the tragedies in this.  With the loss of every one of those 20-somethings, Vlad is burning his "seed corn" for the next generation and hastening the eventual dissolution of what is now known as "Russia".  

China's patient.  But their clock is ticking, too. 

I can't even think of the nuclear option - on any level. It's just too terrible to consider.

I try and expose myself to a wide variety of information sources and opinions. But just can't relate to the  haters who minimize the Russian invasion and go on about "Well look at all the stuff the USA has done!" Look, I get it. There's all sorts of things that the USA has done over the years which were morally questionable. But we aren't invading Canada or Mexico. We aren't destroying a country that poses no realistic threat to us with the intention of absorbing it into our "empire".  

That "look at what the US has done" crap is VERY much a Soviet and Russian standard response to anything bad Russia does.  I am sure you can guess who is potentially influencing (encouraging) those types of responses...

As far as nukes, I think you need to ask:  "to what end?".  I am not sure anyone is thinking there would be no response by the west, and a response only has downside for Russia.  I would guess that it is highly, highly unlikely Russia will use nukes.   They are however, very useful for....  bullying and intimidating people by threatening they "might" be used (not that he even says that, just vague references to how bad they are).

Unfortunately all this Russian bed sh$$ting makes is very difficult for Little Put to declare any sort of victory, and feeds into how dangerous these Nazi's truly are!

Regarding the pic above:  Interesting.  Clearly a hit midships that, based on the list and what is very significant flooding (see normal amount of freeboard showing in pic below) and some sort of under waterline hull breach. Heck, the lower deck of port holes are entirely under water!  There might be a giant hole below the water where that smoke is!   Also evidence of significant fire / smoke spread based on the smoke tracks out of the portholes / vents well astern of the hit.

Also of note is the SA-N-4 launchers are in the retracted position.  These are the short range missiles that likely would have the best chance of taking out the Poseidons. They are in those round pedestals to either side of the open hanger and pop up through those hatches. Did they pull them back in after the hit, or did they ever deploy? 

That ship took a bigtime hit!

Hmmm, looks like gas could be expensive for quite a while...
 

President Zelensky has stated that Russia can forget about him accepting Russian ultimatums and that Ukraine is ready to fight the Russian Army for another 10 years.

No surrender. 

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There were definitely boarder skirmishes with Canada in the early years of North American occupation, that's why the British / Canadians burned your white house down in 1812. 
I'm not so well versed in the history of Mexico and the USA ( not that I'm a historian anyway) but a couple hundred years isn't that long ago. 

Random thoughts:

The probability of nuclear use is low, but both Russia and Ukraine are posturing using Russia's nuclear weapons. Russia's statements are the obvious sort of posturing, amplifying the threat in an attempt to influence the West and reduce its willingness to continue to assist Ukraine. But Ukraine is also attempting to manipulate the West, by similarly amplifying the threat of Russia's nuclear weapons as a means of continuing and increasing Western aid and support.

It has been shown time and again that chemical weapons are perceived differently than nuclear weapons. If Russia employed chemical weapons, there will be loud and vigorous protests in Western capitals, but it will not change policy in any fundamental way.

As to the Moskva, I have some doubts about just how effective its air defenses would be against sea skimmers. My understanding of the attack is that the Ukrainians located the ship with a Bayraktar, then launched the missiles to its coordinates, with them only going active once they go to that point. The Moskva may have had very little time to respond, but even if it did, the SA-4-N is a pretty old design. The CWIS would have been the last resort, and I don't know much about how good the Russian version is. I have a feeling Russian defensive naval systems have not received nearly as much development funding in recent years, but not good enough would be the obvious answer.

Finally, for anyone interested in US/Canada border tensions over the years, look at Eliot Cohen's Conquered into Liberty, in which he makes a good case for Canada being "America's most durable, and in many ways most effective and important enemy of all."

02Pilot said:

Random thoughts:

 

Finally, for anyone interested in US/Canada border tensions over the years, look at Eliot Cohen's Conquered into Liberty, in which he makes a good case for Canada being "America's most durable, and in many ways most effective and important enemy of all."

Having lived in both countries, I would not be too worried about USA aggression. Most Americans think this is rush hour in Toronto.

In reply to NOHOME :

In fairness to Cohen, he's focused on a period predating the concept of "rush hour."

OK, so as someone who is always more interested in the long game rather than short-term: How does this ever end well for Russia?

Lets say worse case scenario putin gets his puppet dictator in Ukraine and "takes over" the entire country. Lets say he goes the whole hog and sterilized the country and refills with Russian "settlers".  

How long would it be before they were welcomed into the global community again? How far behind would they be in technological participation? WHY would they ever be welcomed back? How is putin going to feel safer for the rest of his life?  I am clearly missing something because I don't see the Win-Win for Russia. I am also pretty certain that putin does have a clear vision.

 Anyone?

1SlowVW said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There were definitely boarder skirmishes with Canada in the early years of North American occupation, that's why the British / Canadians burned your white house down in 1812. 
I'm not so well versed in the history of Mexico and the USA ( not that I'm a historian anyway) but a couple hundred years isn't that long ago. 

Well we took a heap of land from Mexico, but that as well as our wars with the Canadians were an awful long time ago. Enough to make it irrelevant to this discussion.

I believe that Putin felt this would be an uncontested cake walk. Once in and embroiled he assumed that it could only be a few more days, maximum. His circle of advisors failed him with true real time situational reporting.  The more he dug in the less likely he would show possible weakness which in turn exasperated his actual lack of depth and preparedness.  

This will not end with Putin achieving Russian dominance. 

This may end with Putin incarcerated and the Russian people living back at the beginning of the stone age again.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Fair enough, it does show that with time though these things are can but put behind two neighbouring countries...But it takes generations.