History in the Making: Russian Invasion

I know the 68 acres that we own that is being farmed has their product schedule set for next season already. 28 around our house is doubled wheat (spring, fall) 40 on Beckley is feed corn. Farmers are generally looking a season or two ahead. 

Bummer that that wasn't possible.

They use the Security Forces for the same purpose with their regular troops also.  There was an audio released (because the Russian signals security was crap) of Security Forces following the main attack to "take care of" anyone who tried to retreat from the front line.

Apparently there is some negotiation going on for exporting grain out of Ukraine

Quadrilateral negotiations on the export of Ukrainian grain began in Istanbul with the participation of the delegations of Ukraine, Turkey, the UN and Russia

There of course was also a note a few days ago of a Russian bulk carrier showing up in Istanbul full of grain, that somehow had it's locator beacon turned off for the first half of it's journey.  Clearly just an accident... that has happened  a number of times previously.

The note below about the false flag attack on the Ukrainian reactor is slightly disturbing.  I don't know, but I suspect those reactors are of the same design as the Chernobyl (Lenin) reactors (RBMK, no containment building etc)

• The Kremlin is reportedly sourcing Iranian UAVs likely to improve Russian aerial reconnaissance and indirect fire accuracy in Ukraine.
• Russian forces conducted limited and unsuccessful ground assaults north of Slovyansk and east of Siversk.
• Russian forces continued air and artillery strikes around Bakhmut and Avdiivka.
• Russian forces conducted multiple unsuccessful ground assaults north of Kharkiv City.
• Russian forces likely conducted a false-flag attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in occupied Enerhodar, Zaporizhia Oblast.
• Russian and Ukrainian sources reported that Ukrainian strikes killed multiple Russian officers in Kherson City on July 10.
• Ukrainian forces continued to strike Russian ammunition depots on the Southern Axis.

Latest word is that negotiations for grain export are in the "final phase", per Ukrainian government source. I'm guessing there has to be some sort of quid pro quo here that would also allow Russia to ship grain from occupied territories, otherwise they have no incentive to even consider allowing Ukraine to do so. Once again, geography is the issue; the Russians can turn off AIS and pretend they aren't shipping out of Ukrainian ports, but the Turks are now threatening to restrict transit through the Bosporus, which makes it rather moot.

On another note, there is some speculation that the Iranian drones being supplied are likely to include loitering munitions, which have proven effective and troublesome in the Persian Gulf, and will likely open up new threat vectors for Russia inside Ukraine, possibly even western Ukraine, allowing for more effective strikes against lines of supply from Europe. They would also create additional threats against high value targets such as HIMARS.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I wonder if the Iranian drones will escalate what we are willing to send to Ukraine.  I read somewhere that they were getting some more anti-drone weapons, but it would be nice if they could also start getting armed with something to throw the balance more in their favor.  I know HIMARS are having an effect, but they'll probably be target number one for these drones.

aircooled said:

The note below about the false flag attack on the Ukrainian reactor is slightly disturbing.  I don't know, but I suspect those reactors are of the same design as the Chernobyl (Lenin) reactors (RBMK, no containment building etc)

Zaporizhzhia uses 6x VVER-1000/320, which is a Gen III reactor with containment buildings and a negative void coefficient.

In reply to eastsideTim :

Funny how the escalation ladder works, especially in proxy conflicts. We send Javelins, the Russians shift to artillery over armor, we send better artillery, they seek out loitering drones, etc, etc, etc.... The same goes for diplomatic maneuvering and economic warfare. I've stated the basic logic of conflict in this thread earlier, but as long as both sides feel like they have a chance to win (by their own definition of victory) they will continue to seek advantages that will allow them to achieve it. Only when one side recognizes the futility of further efforts, or is unable to continue due to factors beyond their control, will they shift to seeking an acceptable, minimally costly, defeat. It's pretty clear that both sides still believe they can win at this point, so the escalation dance continues.

In reply to 02Pilot :

With regard to getting better weaponry to them, I'm a little concerned about political will, especially when it starts getting cold in Europe.  Seems like Ukraine needs a decisive victory before several countries start missing Russian natural gas.

In reply to eastsideTim :

Oh, they're already missing it. The EU is in for some interesting internal debates come winter, with Poland and the Baltics on one side and Germany (and France, and Spain, and Italy, not to mention Hungary) on the other. With all the noise European NATO leaders have made in the last six months it will be hard for them to back down, however changes in leadership (see UK) open doors to policy changes. Expect Russian influence operations to push domestic political discord in countries that are suffering for the lack of natural gas.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I don't know how much Russian influence operations it takes to make people realize they are cold and energy is expensive. 

In reply to 02Pilot :

Funny you think that.  There hasn't been a decisive war with clear winners since WW2.  War is used largely to transfer wealth now.  As George C said, it's a big club and you ain't in it.  

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I don't know how much Russian influence operations it takes to make people realize they are cold and energy is expensive. 

Not much, but the Russians will push to shape the narrative such that certain people and parties get blamed, and other people and parties will seem to offer decent solutions and thus find themselves in office.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

Funny you think that.  There hasn't been a decisive war with clear winners since WW2.  War is used largely to transfer wealth now.  As George C said, it's a big club and you ain't in it.  

I'm not sure to what you are referring, or who George C is. Wars have always had at their roots issues of political economy - if not, why fight in the first place? The Cold War skewed the game when it comes to decisive ends to wars, but most wars historically do not end with unconditional defeat or surrender in the way that WW2 did. The Second World War was the anomaly here.

In reply to 02Pilot :

George Carlin

In reply to NOT A TA :

Oh, got it. I know Carlin's work pretty well, but I never even considered him in this context.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

Funny you think that.  There hasn't been a decisive war with clear winners since WW2.  War is used largely to transfer wealth now.  As George C said, it's a big club and you ain't in it.  

Saddam Hussein might beg to differ...  :)

Random thought about the Russian Air Force.  I know it's not as great as it had been played up to be, but is it also possible it isn't being used heavily due to the Russians believing their own paranoia about being attacked by NATO, so they are holding a good chunk of it in reserve for defense?

stroker said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

Funny you think that.  There hasn't been a decisive war with clear winners since WW2.  War is used largely to transfer wealth now.  As George C said, it's a big club and you ain't in it.  

Saddam Hussein might beg to differ...  :)

 

Syria or Chechnya might be a more appropriate answer.   I believe the first Gulf War was the first widespread use of precision munitions, so you could knock out specific targets while leaving a lot of infrastructure intact.  Great for taking down the military and leadership structure, but I suspect the psychological effect of having your entire community flattened is part of decisively winning a war, and might reduce the possibility of successful insurgencies.

eastsideTim said:

 

Syria or Chechnya might be a more appropriate answer.   I believe the first Gulf War was the first widespread use of precision munitions, so you could knock out specific targets while leaving a lot of infrastructure intact.  Great for taking down the military and leadership structure, but I suspect the psychological effect of having your entire community flattened is part of decisively winning a war, and might reduce the possibility of successful insurgencies.

I almost think it could lead to the opposite, or at least show a weakness from the attacking nation.  Just from the perspective of the destruction of German and Japanese cities and the subsequent rebuilding by the "victors", it showed it wasn't just conquering, it was to change the direction of the nation and with it, hearts and minds.  

On the other hand, oh look, the Americans don't have the resolve to wipe this town off the map even though we keep hitting them everytime they roll through.  Let's keep attacking from there!  

But, we are looking at it from OUR national and cultural perspective, so there's that.  

In reply to jmabarone :

Yeah, I think it is part of an evolving view of warfare, and we are still in the decades-long process of seeing what its effects really are.  It's all fine to pay to rebuild the stuff you smashed up, but if you didn't pretty much destroy the former enemy's will to fight against you, it doesn't seem to work out so great.  See Iraq and Afghanistan.

eastsideTim said:

Random thought about the Russian Air Force.  I know it's not as great as it had been played up to be, but is it also possible it isn't being used heavily due to the Russians believing their own paranoia about being attacked by NATO, so they are holding a good chunk of it in reserve for defense?

I would guess no.  I am sure there are some nuclear capable bombers and such that are not being used but all indication is the Russia was "doing it's best" at the start of this, and it clearly was not very impressive.  As we have seen, the Russian military is far less proficient and capable then it presented itself as.  They also have a tendency to show off super high tech systems that either don't really work, or are in very limited numbers, so I would not expect those to pop up at any point.

Some interesting tidbits coming out (note the last point):

• The Kremlin likely ordered Russian “federal subjects” (regions) to form volunteer battalions to deploy to Ukraine.
• Russian forces conducted failed ground assaults north of Slovyansk and around Bakhmut.
• Russian forces continued air and artillery strikes around Siversk and west of Donetsk City.
• Russian forces continued targeting Ukrainian rail lines on the Eastern Axis.
• Russian forces attempted limited and unsuccessful ground assaults north of Kharkiv City.
• Russian forces prioritized defensive operations on the Southern Axis as Ukrainian forces continued targeting ammunition depots.
• Russian occupation authorities are increasing financial incentives for civilians working in occupied Ukraine.
• Russian occupation authorities may be setting conditions to forcibly relocate Ukrainian children in occupied territories to Crimea.

Some more detail:

Russian forces continue to face desertion and morale problems. The Ukrainian Zaporizhia Oblast Military Administration reported that about 60 Russian servicemen deserted due to fear of Ukrainian artillery strikes on Zaporizhia Oblast and noted that the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) is searching for deserters in occupied settlements in the region.[47] Russian outlet Baza reported that an unknown man threw two Molotov Cocktails at a military recruitment center in Mozhaysk, Moscow Oblast on July 13.[48]

This is a bit disturbing:

Russian occupation authorities may be setting conditions to forcibly transport Ukrainian children in occupied territories to Crimea to coerce Ukrainians into collaborating with the occupation government. The Ukrainian Kherson Oblast Administration reported that the Russian-backed government in occupied Kherson Oblast will only open 20% of available schools for the school year starting on September 1, 2022, and that occupation authorities will transport Ukrainian children to the Nakimovsky Naval School in Sevastopol, Crimea for education instead of schools in occupied Kherson.[51] While ISW cannot verify these claims, separating children from their parents (likely involuntarily) would allow Russian occupation authorities to threaten to harm the children if the parents do not cooperate. The report also states that the Russia-backed government forced Kherson Oblast teachers to travel to Crimea for training, likely to further increase civilian compliance with the occupation government in Kherson.[52] The Ukrainian Resistance Center also reported that Russian occupation authorities in Kherson Oblast are considering further delaying the referendum for Russian annexation because the lack of local cooperation prevents the occupation authorities from gathering enough data to launch the referendum.[53]

aircooled said:

eastsideTim said:

Random thought about the Russian Air Force.  I know it's not as great as it had been played up to be, but is it also possible it isn't being used heavily due to the Russians believing their own paranoia about being attacked by NATO, so they are holding a good chunk of it in reserve for defense?

I would guess no.  I am sure there are some nuclear capable bombers and such that are not being used but all indication is the Russia was "doing it's best" at the start of this, and it clearly was not very impressive.  As we have seen, the Russian military is far less proficient and capable then it presented itself as.  They also have a tendency to show off super high tech systems that either don't really work, or are in very limited numbers, so I would not expect those to pop up at any point.

Yep, when you're using bleeding-edge hypersonic missiles against very ordinary targets, you're not holding anything back...

stroker said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

Funny you think that.  There hasn't been a decisive war with clear winners since WW2.  War is used largely to transfer wealth now.  As George C said, it's a big club and you ain't in it.  

Saddam Hussein might beg to differ...  :)

Hussein's regime certainly lost that war, but it's a much shakier proposition to suggest that it was won decisively.

GameboyRMH said:

 

Yep, when you're using bleeding-edge hypersonic missiles against very ordinary targets, you're not holding anything back...

A show of force that was necessary because nothing else is working.  Seems more like good money after bad to me.