History in the Making: Russian Invasion

I thought this was a useful discussion with Ward Carroll. 

Another fairly brief glimpse into the situation in rural Russia, specifically views on their government and the war in Ukraine, but also economic conditions, that reinforces the serious divide between the big cities and the rest of the country.

I just read that Russia has sent 6 missile carrying naval ships from the Baltic Sea through the Dardanelles. I thought that Turkey wasn't allowing any war ships into the Black Sea.

The Drive: Six Russian Amphibious Landing Ships Are Now Headed Into The Black Sea (Updated)

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

That post is dated 9 February. The straits remain closed to military traffic AFAIK.

I saw something about new missile ships in the Black Sea yesterday also, but it was very vague as to what exactly they were or where they came from.

The Ukrainians had their first bulk grain carrier leave Odessa. Related?

There is also a note by the Ukrainians that they have not lost a single HIMARS.  The Russians REALLY don't like those, they are playing havoc behind their lines (hitting ammo dumps etc.)

The US announced it is sending more 155mm rounds and HIMARS ammo.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Oops, my bad.  But, like Aircooled said...

In reply to aircooled :

If we're talking about patrol boats, they could have come down the Don, or even overland (probably in parts, with final assembly in port). FWIW, I didn't see anything about new hulls in the Black Sea, but there was a report of an number of BSF Kaliber-carrying subs heading out of port.

Also, I don't think it was mentioned here, but the Navy Day drone attack on BSF headquarters was fairly noteworthy, both for its symbolic value, and for the fact that best indications are that it was carried out with a commercial drone adapted for the purpose, and operated from within Sevastopol, which suggests either a Ukrainian covert op or an independent actor. Could easily have been either one, as Russian Navy Day celebrations would have been well-known in a military port city. Certainly interesting that there were no effective anti-drone measures in place.

On the subject of HIMARS, this article was useful in laying out why the logistical limitations are the major practical (as opposed to political) bottleneck to expanding the number of launchers provided to Ukraine. The US is drawing basically all of the rounds sent to Ukraine from existing stocks, and it will take some time to build those back up (along with Stingers, Javelins, and other munitions).

In reply to 02Pilot :

The Rooskies are pretty tech-challenged. And those that are more tech - inclined are also more likely to see through their bullE36 M3. I had heard that they were buying a bunch of drones from Iran in the hope that they could pinpoint Himars launch locations quickly enough to respond appropriately, but do they even have the people in place to run an operation like that? 

We certainly seem to be in a more grinding mode than we were. Historically, Russia has fared well in such situations, but since Afghanistan (which ironically largely turned on the Taliban's access to relatively high-tech missiles from the US) that's no longer a given. 

I wonder if any exit strategy is being given serious consideration in the Kremlin? Or are they the ultimate bitter clingers?

In reply to 02Pilot :

I'm surprised we haven't heard more from the global defense industry in regards to massive scaleup to resupply.  Every country related to the support has to be pretty depleted at this point.  Thank god the Russians are really exhausting their men and their supplies at the same time.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

The problem Putin has is his political investment in the operation, both with the Russian people, and with his own power circle. He's clearly tried to keep as much power in his own hands as possible, but the issue that stems from this is of course that he is more closely associated with operational failure. Tactical failures can be blamed on subordinates, but eventually this becomes more and more problematic.

Putin has little choice but to remain committed, unless Russia can fend off the current Ukrainian counter offensive, in which case there may be an operational pause in which a window opens for some sort of negotiations to begin. The stumbling block will be Ukraine, though, as they are clearly fired up to start reclaiming territory. Even if every other party wants to stop the fighting, Ukraine's government is invested in reclaiming their territory, and has no more domestic flexibility to walk back that goal than Putin does his own.

In reply to 84FSP:

We haven't heard it because it has to be budgeted first, and in basically all the Western countries involved this requires prolonged legislative action. In challenging financial times, the last thing elected legislators want to do is push for significant boosts in defense procurement. If you look at that HIMARS piece I linked above, you'll see some of the costs involved. One example given shows that if Ukraine has 16 launchers, and each launcher fires two volleys a day, consumption will be 5,760 rockets per month. Each GMLRS rocket costs $168,000. That's almost a billion dollars a month worth of rockets. Do you want to run for Congress and have to explain how much it's going to cost to replenish US stockpiles to a bunch of people worried about high inflation and gas prices?

02Pilot said:

We haven't heard it because it has to be budgeted first, and in basically all the Western countries involved this requires prolonged legislative action. In challenging financial times, the last thing elected legislators want to do is push for significant boosts in defense procurement. If you look at that HIMARS piece I linked above, you'll see some of the costs involved. One example given shows that if Ukraine has 16 launchers, and each launcher fires two volleys a day, consumption will be 5,760 rockets per month. Each GMLRS rocket costs $168,000. That's almost a billion dollars a month worth of rockets. Do you want to run for Congress and have to explain how much it's going to cost to replenish US stockpiles to a bunch of people worried about high inflation and gas prices?

Bingo.  I work for a defense contractor and when everything lit off earlier this year, there was a buzz around about what we could do for Ukraine.  We quoted plate carriers, helmets, pockets, vests, etc etc.  Very little turned into sales.  There's big limitations to what manfucturers can export even to Allies.  As I mentioned before about the HIMARS trucks, there is an armor system on those vehicles that were part of production that I personally managed.  That system cannot be sold directly to anyone outside of NATO and even that requires export licenses.  But, if the DOD gives them a truck with it on there, bam, it's all good.  

Also keep in mind that we are nearing the end of the fiscal year so any major procurements will have to be funded with new bills.  

Also of note regarding Putin is that war is generally always a good way to rally the country.  A common enemy is a powerful thing.  Obviously many other things going on that are not good for Russia, but fighting "the bad guys" gives you a lot more leeway.  If the fighting stopped, more might start looking inward (but really, what are they going to do anyway).

The cost this does get crazy when you look into it.  As noted previously each one of the (guided) artillery shells or Javelin missiles are around $60,000.  That's effectively a Tesla (cost wise) for every shot.  There were also reports of the Ukrainians using Stingers to take down drones.  That's a $40,000 missile taking down a (?) $5,000 drone (the Russian drones are pretty basic).

US military operations have many times been quite literally shooting (large amounts of) money at situations.  It's not an entirely unreasonable assessment of the cold war that the US effectively "spending bombed" the USSR out of existence (obviously far more complex than that realistically).

Some interesting updates.  Most, not so good for the Russians:

• ISW assesses that Russian forces were responsible for the July 28 attack on the Olenivka prison that killed 53 Ukrainian POWs; two anonymous US officials confirmed that there is no evidence that Ukrainian forces used US-provided HIMARS, some of the only munitions Ukraine has that are precise enough to do the kind of limited damage seen in satellite and other imagery, to strike the prison.
• Russian forces are transferring elements of the Eastern Military District (EMD) from the Slovyansk area to support defensive positions along the Southern Axis.
• Russian forces did not conduct any offensive operations north of Slovyansk or around Siversk.
• Russian forces conducted unsuccessful ground assaults on settlements south and southeast of Bakhmut.
• Russian proxy authorities did not claim any territorial gains near Avdiivka as Russian forces launched unsuccessful ground assaults on Avdiivka and Pisky.
• Russian regional officials are reportedly failing to provide promised payments to the “Atal” Volunteer Battalion of the Republic of Chuvashia.
• The Kremlin is likely prioritizing propaganda and sham referenda over the welfare of Ukrainian civilians in occupied Ukrainian territories.
• Russian occupation forces are likely increasing efforts to deter and suppress partisan movements in occupied territories as partisan attacks on Russian officials and Ukrainian collaborators continue.

More details on the prison attack (those F'ers basically killed a bunch of POW's and tried to blame it on the Ukrainians):

ISW assesses that Russian forces were responsible for the killing of 53 Ukrainian POWs in an explosion at a Russian-controlled prison in Olenivka, Donetsk Oblast on July 28. Two US officials anonymously confirmed to Politico on August 1 that no traces of US-provided High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), Ukraine’s most precise artillery system, were found at the prison site.[4] The Kremlin alleges that Ukraine fired HIMARS and precision-guided rockets to kill Ukrainian POWs and deter Ukrainian defectors. Satellite and other imagery from the site indicate that the attack only damaged one building, did not collapse the walls of that building, and did not leave any shell craters in the vicinity, very strongly suggesting that the destruction of the prison was the result of either a precision strike or an internally planted incendiary or explosive.[5] One US official told Politico that “the evidence showed the attack was not conducted by Kyiv.” If Ukraine had used something other than HIMARS to conduct the strike, the attack would almost certainly have left collateral damage around the facility, including craters and other damaged buildings. Given the US assessment that HIMARS were not used in the attack, ISW assesses that Russia was responsible for this attack on Ukrainian POWs in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

I wonder if we have a system for tracking each HIMARs rocket so we can verify where each unit is for its entire life.  

Ignoring the political structure behind NATO and the why they won't put boots on the ground. If NATO sent troops would they be able to stop Russia? I thought at the beginning Ukraine would go down in a month, now they are approaching 6 months. Historically it seems 2-3 years US entering WW2, NATO putting boots on the ground Iraq and Afghan. So is the long term for Ukraine to last 2 years? NATO stringing this out seems to be ridiculous. 

Because WWIII. Ukraine get's the short end of the stick, but we don't have to worry much about ending up  with an acute case of radiation poisoning. 

Not entirely related, but somewhat (same crowd reading I am sure):  The Chinese are having an absolute lay on the ground, pounding with their little poo bear fists, hissy fit, over the US Speaker of the House visit to Taiwan (yes, I said it!, TAIWAN!!).  If there is a military equivalent of them standing naked in front of Taiwan flexing wildly and pointing at the size of their "junk", this is it.

If you are not familiar with the way China very regularly uses wildly aggressive statements about Taiwan and the US, you might find this a bit shocking, but it's pretty typical.  (of note, Global Times is very much a mouth piece of the Chinese government)

It would be interesting to know the track and what aircraft arrived there and what was escorting them.

(Chinese state run website warning):

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1272075.shtml

The PLA will also conduct a series of live fire military drills from August 4 to 7 in six different areas that encircle the island of Taiwan from all directions, according to the Xinhua News Agency after Pelosi landed at the Taipei airport. Analysts said there are many options on the table for China to speed up the reunification process. Apart from military drills, the options could include striking Taiwan military targets, just as the PLA did in the previous Taiwan Straits crisis, pushing new legislation for national reunification, sending military aircraft and vessels to enter the island's "airspace" and "water areas" controlled by the Taiwan authorities and ending the tacit cease-fire with the Taiwan military.

In reply to aircooled :

The Speaker's aircraft was a militarized 737, callsign SPAR 19. No word of direct escort, but eight F-15s launched from Kadena and headed south. There were also several ISR platforms active, including a Rivet Joint, and tanker support. Flight path was from the south and approached Taiwan from the east.

OK, interesting.  I would have watched if I knew when they were flying.

I did watch the VP's plane fly into Vandenburg a few months back.  It went straight over LAX for some reason and the transponder was turned off at about a 5 mile final.  I am a bit shocked honestly that they can be tracked so easily. Perhaps the data is delayed?

I have also watched a few times when T38's fly between Vandenburg and Beal (U2 primary base).  One guy, on a nice day, flew a very jagged course up the coast at reasonable low altitude and crossed over the Golden Gate Bridge to head inland towards Beal.  I am sure that was a very nice flight.

• Unconfirmed social media reports suggest that Iran may have sent the first batch of drones to Russia and sent pilots and maintenance personnel to train on the Russian Su-35, potentially suggesting that Iran may seek to use recent aviation agreements to facilitate the acquisition of Russian combat aircraft.

In case anyone was curious as to how the US took out Al-Zawahiri, on a balcony, in the middle of Kabul (higher end political district apparently BTW), with a missile, and not kill anyone else?  It's a special version of the Hellfire that has no warhead, but does have what is effectively a person "dicer" in the form of 5 blades that deploy before impact.  It sounds like they fired two, just in case, but a hit still requires accuracy within a half foot or so.

One wonders how many pieces there were.

The Russian version of something like this would have 500lbs of high shrapnel producing explosives... you know.. because they could care less who else gets killed.

In reply to aircooled :

in other unconfirmed social media posts, i have a huge dick.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to aircooled :

in other unconfirmed social media posts, i have a huge dick.

Yeah, sorry, that was me.

In reply to aircooled :

The R9X is known colloquially as the "Flying Ginsu".

02Pilot said:

In reply to aircooled :

The R9X is known colloquially as the "Flying Ginsu".

And I guess it was.