arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Thanks Oystein, that was very helpful.
Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7
- Thread starter theprestige
- Start date
- Status
jeremyp
Philosopher
You do understand that international politics doesn't always match what is perfectly legitimate or even moral. It's always been perfectly legitimate for Ukraine to disrupt Russia's logistics by hitting targets inside Russia, but their allies have historically been reluctant to give them weapons that allow them to do that.
What's your evidence for that?
Which is precisely the point. If Ukraine "officially" invades any part of Russia, that changes. Suddenly, he's got a narrative in which Russia is fighting for survival.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
What if you take nineteen days? Nineteen weeks? Nineteen years? With constant breaks and side trips? At some point theory has to meet reality or there is no point to it outside of interesting thoughts confined entirely to the mind.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
That reluctance didn't grow out of a vacuum, nor is it fixed in place for immovable eternity. Quite the contrary: Ukraine's supporters have eased that reluctance step by step, as evidence flowed in steadily that the primary reason for this reluctance - fear of escalation - is not actually be feared, since Putin cannot and does not escalate in any new, threatening way.
Watching Russian public propaganda shows, where the word "war" is more and more used interchangeably with "SMO".
Besides, the rate at which ammo is spent, soldiers die, gear is destroyed is so vastly beyond anything Russia has experienced since WW2, there is no way anyone was actually fooled even in the early phases. Certainly after the excrutiating slow,wasteful battle for Severodonetsk has this been too obviously an all-out war. Russia is changing its economy to suit the needs of war.
Really, even if it was my claim, the opposing view would require evidence, since this is so bleeding obviously a war.
Much like if I claimed that no one in Russia is kidding themselves that the sky on a cloudless day is pink - they know it's blue. Since it has to be obvious even to brainwashed Russians that the sky is blueish, the opposing theory would require evidence.
Again: This would only be an excuse, as the sort of incursion that happened, and which I described, one that has clear defensive military objectives, is NOT actually an existential threat to Russia.
Plus: This excuse is ALREADY available and is ALREADY being used, by claiming that the four annexed oblasts, and the previously occupied areas of the Donbas "people's republics" and Crimea are part of Russia an Ukraine seeks to steal a part of Russia ALREADY
Plus: Even before the Russian invasion, the propaganda narrative has been all along that Russia is ALREADY being attackt by Ukraine, by NATO, by the USA and is ALREADY in a defensive posture. Indeed, the entire "official" point of the "SMO" is to turn from a defensive to an offensive role - and that, clearly, has failed, and Russia back to (officially) "defending herself".
BUT these messages "Ukraine is attacking Russia!!" didn't mobilize the masses in Russia. I am fairly certain they won't mobilize significantly more if parts of border oblasts like Belgorod or Bryansk are temporarily taken by Ukraine defense forces. One analyst I listened to the other day (I think Vlad Vexler) called this the "borderlessness" of Russia: This state ideology, "Ruskiy Mir", best translated perhaps as "Russian Civilization", which seeks to bring back all territories with Russian populations back into the realm of the czar and the orthodox patriarch in Moscow, is deliberately vague in geographical scope: Ukraine is not spoken of as a legitimate entity with recognizable borders, the target territory of Ruskiy Mir stretches beyond Ukraine of course, and ordinary people deep inside the vastness of Russia simply may not - IF they buy into Putin's propoganda! - distinguish much between a threat to Belgorod and a threat to, say, Luhansk, Kharkiv or indeed Bakhmut.
So my assessment is that limited incursions into Russia proper, even if over time they grow bolder and farther reaching, will not change Putin's room for escalation, will not warm the population up to more active support for the war.
(In another recent post I related the interesting poll result by Nalvany's group, unfortunately undated, that less than 3% of Russians would prioritize more funds for the military and the war, if the Russian state suddenly had a lot more to spend: Most Russians just don't care for the war, most probably would rather like for it to end.)
(This entire tactic of easing reluctance / increase of the impact and reach of Western supplied weapons; now perhaps deeper and deeper raids, reminds me a lot of boiling a frog.)
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm coming around to the opinion that Ukraine does indeed have a real navy, but it's a cutting-edge 21st century navy that doesn't necessarily always look like a conventional 20th century navy.
I mean, Ukraine is probably never going to be very interested in buying expensive capital ships for long-range force projection outside the Black Sea. Their focus is always going to be coast guard, security of the trans-Bosporus trade route, and the implication of commerce raiding.
So at some point, we'll probably see them augment their fleet of boat-torpedoes with guided missile frigates. Probably some drone tenders and ELINT/EW boats. Maybe one or two aircraft-carrying cruisers.
But they're already working on their third generation of boat-torpedo. That's navy enough for me, at the moment.
ETA: And the best part of this attack, in my opinion? They hit a modern intelligence/electronic warfare ship. Of all the ships in Moscow's inventory, this is the one you'd expect to be able to detect and jam the drone control signals. And this is the one you'd expect to be doing exactly that, since it's in the Black Sea and Ukraine has made no secret of its boat-torpedoes. I'm not saying the Ivan Khurs had one job, I'm just saying...
Last edited:
I've never gotten what the point of Russia's trying to field a blue water (or as close to a blue water as Russia can manage) Navy in the Black Sea is actually supposed to accomplish.
There's a reason the Americans don't have a Nimitz Class Carrier Strike Group in Lake Michigan.
There's a reason the Americans don't have a Nimitz Class Carrier Strike Group in Lake Michigan.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
I think your second point answers your first. We're friends. We don't always get along, but we're still mostly friends. Not everyone on the Black Sea is necessarily Russia's friend (although they seem confused as to why - shouldn't everyone in the region want to be Russian?).
BTW, there have been Great Lakes aircraft carriers:
Great Lakes Aircraft Carriers
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
You can never be too sure what Canada might get up to!
It's only a matter of time before they get tired of waiting and cross the border to take the Stanley Cup by force.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Russian navy has been going to the dogs ever since Captain Ramius defected....
lobosrul5
Philosopher
.... for training purposes.
Other than "dude its frickin Canada for crying out loud", the reason the USN has no carriers in the Great Lakes is that theres no reason to. We can cover that area with land based aircraft. Kind of like the Russians should be able to cover the Black Sea area with their own aircraft... its not exactly the Pacific Ocean. Sevastopol is no more than 200 miles or so from the absolute extremes of the the sea.
ETA: and reading the article theres a rather blatant mistake:
the often still air also kept heavy frontline combat planes like Hellcats, Corsairs and Avengers from getting stiff enough tailwinds for safe touchdowns.
Err, no, they need a headwind.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Beat me to it.
During World War 2, a lot of Navy pilots got their carrier take off and landing training on the Great Lake carriers.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I can think of a few reasons. One, the bulk of their Black Sea Fleet seems to be guided missile frigates and cruisers. These are good for attacking land and sea, and strike me as appropriate for force projection in the Black Sea.
Two, Russia has limited access to the world's oceans. The US doesn't need a CSG homeported on the Great Lakes, because it has much better options for homeporting. Russia isn't trying to have a blue-water navy because they want to dominate the Black Sea. They're trying to have a blue-water navy on the Black Sea because that's one of the few available jumping-off points for them to sortie a blue-water navy out into the blue waters of the world.
I'd love to see one of those drones with something like Brimstone to give it some limited land attack, or attacking behind booms etc. Imagine what would happen to a submarine if one of those hit the sail when it's returning to or leaving dock. Especially given the demonstrated level of Russian Navy damage control
It is rather constrained.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
I think this has been the point, especially with Moskva. Given the hit, other navies may have been able to save their ship with effective DC. Could the Russians? What's happened with the Ivan Khurs? It sure seems like a hit, but the Russians also showed a video of them taking a drone out. Both could be true. They could live through the initial hit, but poor DC, seamanship, etc. could cause problems later.
Apparently, the Russians have claimed it's ok by showing a photo of another ship?!
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
How does Direct Current save a ship?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Damage control. A set of of procedures the crew will carry out, in the event their ship takes damage. Fire suppression, flooding mitigation, working manually around busted mechanicals, etc.
Top-tier navies design their ships with damage control in mind. They develop good procedures for handling a wide range of contingencies. They drill their crews exhaustively on those procedures.
The ability of a ship to survive a hit, to keep on fighting, or to return to port under its own power, depends a lot on how competent its crew is at performing damage control drills.
(This is one reason to avoid extensive automation of your warship. Crew can operate equipment manually. They can bypass a damaged autoloader. They can swing hatches closed. At a certain point, reducing the crew size in favor of more automation means your ship loses some important 'self-healing' capability.)
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
The Air Zoo, which is a surprisingly good aviation museum in Kalamazoo has a couple of restored aircraft they recovered from the bottom of Lake Michigan that did not quite make their landings on those carriers. Also they models of at least one of the paddle wheel carriers.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
You just can't trust a submarine captain with a Scottish accent.
- Status