Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

[lomiller]

For most situations there's a piece of military tech that will do the job well and relatively cheaply, and there's another that gives Raytheon huge profit margins.

RIP A-10 warthog, you were too beautiful to live.

The A-10 isn't exactly an example of money well spent...

The difference between western MIC corruption and Moscow MIC corruption is that western MIC corruption actually delivers S-tier weapon systems in addition to lining everyone's pockets.

The aforementioned A-10 isn't exactly an S-tier weapon...

 

[theprestige]

There is the question of who else but Russia?

Not just motive but also physical ability.

The dam is not going to be affected by a small explosion, HIMARS or Storm Shadow might cause some damage but would be unlikely to do much to a dam that's holding back an 800 sq mile reservoir.

There are indications that the plan was for a smaller flood to flood the Ukrainian positions downstream but they miscalculated and instead are also killing their own troops.

Ironically this still leaves the door open for it being a Ukrainian attack.

But I'm pretty sure it's a Russian attack.

 

[lobosrul5]

Ironically this still leaves the door open for it being a Ukrainian attack.

But I'm pretty sure it's a Russian attack.

"Before destroying the Kakhovska Dam today, the Russians raised the water level to a record 17.5 meters, leaving the gates closed. They wanted to make the flooding as large-scale as possible in order to prevent the Ukrainian army from conducting a counteroffensive in the area."

Then theres a chart below... either fake or very very strong proof it was Russia.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWar...efore_destroying_the_kakhovska_dam_today_the/

 

[Jimbo07]

The explanation I like best, and though not proven, tracks best with events throughtout the entire conflict is that:

It was caused by Russians, but more due to incompetence than calculation. They raised the levels, then wanted to do a limited release to flood out some Ukrainian units. They let go, or blew up a limited amount, but due to either miscalculation or structural neglect, the whole thing gave. Now Russian troops are running, climbing trees or being

swept up in flood waters and fleeing the east bank of the Dnipro River - CNN Rolling

'Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. '

 

[lobosrul5]

The explanation I like best, and though not proven, tracks best with events throughtout the entire conflict is that:

It was caused by Russians, but more due to incompetence than calculation. They raised the levels, then wanted to do a limited release to flood out some Ukrainian units. They let go, or blew up a limited amount, but due to either miscalculation or structural neglect, the whole thing gave. Now Russian troops are running, climbing trees or being



'Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. '

This is a rare case of actually its probably some of both.

 

[theprestige]

Malicious incompetence is a pretty accurate description of the Moscow way of war.

 

[Doubt]

The difference between western MIC corruption and Moscow MIC corruption is that western MIC corruption actually delivers S-tier weapon systems in addition to lining everyone's pockets.

Sometimes the western stuff is great. Sometimes it is crap. But our crap still tends to be better than their crap.

 

[Oystein]

Winston Churchill famously said, "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

...
Even if we assume Putin is acting out of some desire for historical greatness, ...
Russia truly is a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma. But - apologies to Churchill - there is no key.

The key probably was some version of "historical greatness" in February 2022. When Putin found out that neither Russian national interest nor national or personal historical greatness can be found in losing pathetically against one's little brother, the key shifted to some version of regime security.

In Putin's world, security lies in escalation dominance. There aren't many fields and issues on which Russia or Putin enjoys escalation dominance, but this particular dam was a prime piece in the arsenal. They've blown it now. There isn't much else. Russia can sure escalate to nukes - but can they dominate that escalation?

 

[ZiprHead]

You are a speaking of an organization that deny's reality. Rational thought is just not something they do.

“There is no great presence of water here at all,” Sosaldo calms everyone. He even says people in Kahovka can easily walk down the street with no problem and that he’s even witnessed it with his own eyes.


https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWar...re_is_no_great_presence_of_water_here_at_all/

Look at the window behind him!!!

Baghdad Bob all over again.

 

[gnome]

Putin's been bluffing the rest of the world with the "See? We're still the MIGHTY SOVIET UNION! (Dschinghis Khan - Moskau starts playing, everyone starts squat kick dancing, Lenin punches his way out of his coffin like that scene in the Simpsons)" routine that he started believing it himself. He could only see the tiger, not the paper.

Porcelain is the surest plan!

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

To be fair, Russia's previous foreign interventions went relatively well (from a non-ethical sort of assesment) and before the Ukraine invasion Putin was being quite careful to not bite off more than he could chew. Even fierce Russia critics were assuming quite a bit of military competency on their side and specifically crediting Putin as a savvy wielder of influence on the international stage.

The absolute debacle they have made of the invasion has radically changed perceptions about their abilities.

Russia's previous military interventions didn't actually speak to any sort of competence. In Chechenya it took two wars, and bribing the main leader of the forces opposing them (Kadyrov Snr basicly got everything he wanted, unfettered dictatorship over Chechenya) to win. In Georgia, the army exhibited theexact same logistical, tactical and strategic idiocy they have been showing since the 2022 Ukraine invasion, but they were facing a country with no means to defend itself. In Crimea they tried sending in the special force, spetnatz, units with the regular army coming in to hold safely captured areas, and that nearly fell apart when they came against resistance, it's just that there wasn't enough resistance (my guess was Crimea was supposed to be a prelude to a full invasion but showed Russian armed forces were incapable of same). In Syria, Russia only faced a militarily beaten enemy until it tried to muscle in on areas the Turks occupied, who then managed to absolutely spanker the RAF's rear ends. Also that operation destroyedthe Adm. Kutznetsov's ability to operate as a sailing vessel (never mind an offensive weapon) permanently, all without the carrier facing any opposition. And we all are seeing what's happening in the current war, a 1917 level collapse at all levels of the armed forces.

Russia got lucky previously in that it picked fights only in places where nobody was looking.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

The key probably was some version of "historical greatness" in February 2022. When Putin found out that neither Russian national interest nor national or personal historical greatness can be found in losing pathetically against one's little brother, the key shifted to some version of regime security.

In Putin's world, security lies in escalation dominance. There aren't many fields and issues on which Russia or Putin enjoys escalation dominance, but this particular dam was a prime piece in the arsenal. They've blown it now. There isn't much else. Russia can sure escalate to nukes - but can they dominate that escalation?

I honestly don't think they can escalate. Seeing the state their conventional arms are in, I can't see how Russia has a usable nuclear arsenal.

 

[jeremyp]

I honestly don't think they can escalate. Seeing the state their conventional arms are in, I can't see how Russia has a usable nuclear arsenal.

Yes but does Putin know how bad a state his nuclear arsenal is in?

 

[Flo]

Yes but does Putin know how bad a state his nuclear arsenal is in?

But do we, really ? Can we really bet on it being totally ineffectual ?

Not that we should cave in to Russia's bullying, whatever the reality or the severity to the threat is.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

But do we, really ? Can we really bet on it being totally ineffectual ?

Not that we should cave in to Russia's bullying, whatever the reality or the severity to the threat is.

No, but the fact that so many red lines have been passed in Ukraine beyond which Russia were "definitely" going to start using nukes without nary a peep from them should give leaders in the west an idea of how confident Russia themselves are about having a nuclear deterrent.

 

[Oystein]

I honestly don't think they can escalate. Seeing the state their conventional arms are in, I can't see how Russia has a usable nuclear arsenal.

A "nucear arsenal" is not quite the same as "nukes".
Unless you claim that Russia could not identify a single usable nuke (usable = "can be brought to the theater and made to explode"), then my point stands: Russia CAN escalate by using nukes. For example, they COULD transport a nuke to Melitopol by train and make it explode there.

So escalate they can.

What I said was that Russia doesn't have escalation dominance. Which means that sort of escalation would not put them in a better spot, it would bring them closer to losing.
Russia hasn't used nukes yet not because they physically can't deploy any, but because there is nothing to be gained, even (perhaps especially) from Putin's perspective of regime survival.

At this point, Russia can threaten and carry out a scorching of earth.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Meanwhile there are reports of Russian troops mutinying in Belgorod

https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1666069692409102339?s=20

It would be great if they did mutiny but that describes a conscript unit eventually retreating without permission to avoid being entirely wiped out by an opponent they lacked the weapons or support to stop. The most reassuring thing about it is the incompetence of command it illustrates rather than the likelihood of outright mutiny.

 

[wobs]

At this point, Russia can threaten and carry out a scorching of earth.

Or a moistening of the earth.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Russia got lucky previously in that it picked fights only in places where nobody was looking.

Picking enemies you are reasonably sure you can beat isn't luck.

 

[Wildy]

A "nucear arsenal" is not quite the same as "nukes".
Unless you claim that Russia could not identify a single usable nuke (usable = "can be brought to the theater and made to explode"), then my point stands: Russia CAN escalate by using nukes. For example, they COULD transport a nuke to Melitopol by train and make it explode there.

Or they could let the ZNPP go into meltdown which would probably have a more devastating effect.