• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
SpitfireIX said:
I noticed something interesting about the latest US aid package. It includes 203mm (8in) artillery shells, but Oryx lists no 203mm guns as having been delivered. These have been retired by all NATO countries and most allies, but presumably there are still some in storage.
Click to expand...

Hmm, and defense.gov lists 203mm... so its not a media mistake.

Wikipedia lists Turkey as having M110 Howitzers (203mm) and is currently phasing them out. So, at a hunch thats where they are coming from. And we're giving them a stockpile of shells for the M110's.

OR the shells are for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiEBnbeH8Xs&ab_channel=DefenseWebTV

Which is a former SU 203mm that Ukraine fields... but I doubt NATO 203mm is compatible with SU 203mm (but I don't know that).

ETA: and that video is Russia... but I'd swear I've seen video of Ukraine operating them too I just cannot find it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Russia isn't acting at all. Putin is acting, Shoigu is acting, Prigozhin is acting, etc.

It is often a convenient fiction to talk about a nation acting, and that works moderately well when the various relevant actors within the nation have interests that align. But it starts to fall apart when their interests diverge. When that happens, then those important individual actors will start taking actions in their own interest but which aren't in the interest of other important individual actors. And those actions won't make sense, they will appear irrational, if you try to frame them in terms of a unified national interest.

There is no longer any unified "Russian" interest. The individual interests of the various players have diverged because the **** has hit the fan, and at this point it's every man for himself. Russia is doomed to lose, but the problem is that they can still do a **** ton of harm on the way down. In fact, their impending implosion makes them more dangerous in many ways, because there's no unified authority in a position to prevent spillover.
Click to expand...


Yes, I said in the earlier thread that a lot of the Russian activities make more sense thinking about palace politics and if you think that the only physical threats to the Russian commanders are the other commanders in Moscow.
 
timhau said:
I guess that means it hasn't started, but the Russians are still getting their asses kicked.
Click to expand...

Russia's War with NATO is pretty amazing, after all. Hundreds of thousands of casualties, tens of thousands of lost military vehicles, massive damage to their economy. What do they have to show for it? NATO hasn't even shown up on the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Russia's War with NATO is pretty amazing, after all. Hundreds of thousands of casualties, tens of thousands of lost military vehicles, massive damage to their economy. What do they have to show for it? NATO hasn't even shown up on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

They've convinced a small minority of people in the West that they are the victim. I cannot think of anything else.
 
theprestige said:
I don't see the ICRC sending a lot of rescue helicopters, earth movers, relief facilities, and people to run those things, to the Kherson region while it's actively under bombardment.
Click to expand...

Helicopters and earth movers? No. That's not what they do. Relief facilities? Depends on how you mean.

The ICRC is already on the ground in Kherson, doing the sorts of things it typically does.

https://www.icrc.org/en/document/nova-kakhovka-dam-icrc-responds-water-and-health-assistance

How many helicopters do you suppose the ICRC will send in if there's a ceasefire?
 
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1667152804719337475/photo/1

4 more Bradley destroyed right at the same spot. All very close together.

Why they are that close is a bit odd. Spacing matters for survival. Most are facing the same direction. Did notice one Bradly has the TOW launcher raised but the vehicle is facing the opposite direction.

Photos showing the other 4 Bradleys show several of them right next to each other. It is not clear where they were attacked from. Mines could be involved here but even the mines would need to be better spaced out than this.

Drone video shows a row of trees below the bottom of the photo here. But if that is where the fire was coming from the destroyed vehicles in parallel should have been impossible because they were shielding each other from the closest trees.
 
I find interesting that, on one hand, many Western sources and media caution that there is - yet! - no solid evidence that Russia blew up the Kachovka dam, but that on the other hand no one really is out there implying that there is a significant likelihood Russia did not do it.
Contrast that with e.g. the Nord Stream sabotage, and how there is no solid evidence either was, and people are quite at odds as to how likely the involvment of this or that party is.

Now, today, two sources report of physical evidence of a large explosion at the dam:
a) Norwegian seismologists, operating a seismometer in Romania, claim that they have a seismic signal consistent with a bomb blast at the dam
b) US sources claim that a US satellite captured the thermal effects of a bomb blast there

Of course a skeptic would have to consider that both the USA and Norway are very much all-in with supporting Ukraine and may be biased or motivated to make stuff up.
BUT as neither has a monopoly on their respective kind of data (seismographs are ubiquitious, and non-military satellites look out for heat signatures and fires>), they'd risk debunking if any if this were made up, and I see no one so far doubting the data in earnest.

So this now reduces the chance of the dam breaking accidentally, as a result of bad maintenance, improper operations, negligence, or result of previous shelling, to "a logical possibility still on the table, but nuuuuh": We must assume at this time it was blown up with explosives.

Logically, this gives us three possibilities:
  1. The Russians, in controll of this part of them dam, did it deliberately at this time
  2. The Ukrainians fielded a covert sabotage team to install the necessary tons(?) of explosives and do it deliberately
  3. Explosives previously installed (by Russians, most likely) "just in case" went off accidentally.

-------------

(No, theprestige, I do NOT think that there is a significant likelihood Ukraine did it. I am not even paraphrasing Russia's claims on the matter. 99% Russia did it, just not that sure exactly how and why.)
 
Oystein said:
I find interesting that, on one hand, many Western sources and media caution that there is - yet! - no solid evidence that Russia blew up the Kachovka dam, but that on the other hand no one really is out there implying that there is a significant likelihood Russia did not do it.
Contrast that with e.g. the Nord Stream sabotage, and how there is no solid evidence either was, and people are quite at odds as to how likely the involvment of this or that party is.

Now, today, two sources report of physical evidence of a large explosion at the dam:
a) Norwegian seismologists, operating a seismometer in Romania, claim that they have a seismic signal consistent with a bomb blast at the dam
b) US sources claim that a US satellite captured the thermal effects of a bomb blast there

Of course a skeptic would have to consider that both the USA and Norway are very much all-in with supporting Ukraine and may be biased or motivated to make stuff up.
BUT as neither has a monopoly on their respective kind of data (seismographs are ubiquitious, and non-military satellites look out for heat signatures and fires>), they'd risk debunking if any if this were made up, and I see no one so far doubting the data in earnest.

So this now reduces the chance of the dam breaking accidentally, as a result of bad maintenance, improper operations, negligence, or result of previous shelling, to "a logical possibility still on the table, but nuuuuh": We must assume at this time it was blown up with explosives.

Logically, this gives us three possibilities:
  1. The Russians, in controll of this part of them dam, did it deliberately at this time
  2. The Ukrainians fielded a covert sabotage team to install the necessary tons(?) of explosives and do it deliberately
  3. Explosives previously installed (by Russians, most likely) "just in case" went off accidentally.

-------------

(No, theprestige, I do NOT think that there is a significant likelihood Ukraine did it. I am not even paraphrasing Russia's claims on the matter. 99% Russia did it, just not that sure exactly how and why.)
Click to expand...

I just finished listening to a podcast about this. They harped on the fact that while they couldn't be 100% sure it was Russia, the fact that Zelensky made note that Russia planted explosives in the dam shortly after they took the area, expressed concerns over the effects if the dam was blown, and that he suggested an NGO group be allowed to keep watch/inspect it, is extremely damning evidence that it was Russia.

They were also a bit concerned that the west was treating this more like a natural disaster than a man made atrocity, or well its just more "Russia being Russia".

Oh and theres also an international group that keeps track of reservoir levels around the world with satellites. They made note that the water was allowed to reach record high levels just before the dam was burst. And only Russia could've done that as their side of the bank has the controls. It is also to me SOME evidence that Russia really meant for it to be THIS bad, not just a kind of half assed flooding.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
Helicopters and earth movers? No. That's not what they do. Relief facilities? Depends on how you mean.

The ICRC is already on the ground in Kherson, doing the sorts of things it typically does.

https://www.icrc.org/en/document/nova-kakhovka-dam-icrc-responds-water-and-health-assistance

How many helicopters do you suppose the ICRC will send in if there's a ceasefire?
Click to expand...

They won't. That would have to be government agencies. Poland and Germany aren't going to send search and rescue teams into areas where Moscow is shooting at relief efforts and evacuees. The US isn't going to send in the Army Corps of Engineers to do major flood control work without some kind of ceasefire agreement.
 
theprestige said:
They won't. That would have to be government agencies. Poland and Germany aren't going to send search and rescue teams into areas where Moscow is shooting at relief efforts and evacuees. The US isn't going to send in the Army Corps of Engineers to do major flood control work without some kind of ceasefire agreement.
Click to expand...

I think perhaps there's some talk "across purposes" going on here. Int'l humanitarian relief effort is already on going. Engineering and rebuilding work will likely not happen without a ceasefire.
 
theprestige said:
They won't. That would have to be government agencies. Poland and Germany aren't going to send search and rescue teams into areas where Moscow is shooting at relief efforts and evacuees.
Click to expand...

They aren't going to do that with a ceasefire, either. You think the Russians are going to agree to a ceasefire that allows rescue personnel or engineering assets from NATO countries into theater?
 
SpitfireIX said:
I noticed something interesting about the latest US aid package. It includes 203mm (8in) artillery shells, but Oryx lists no 203mm guns as having been delivered. These have been retired by all NATO countries and most allies, but presumably there are still some in storage.
Click to expand...

Greece has over 100 M110 Self Propelled artillery , but perhaps they don't have any extra ammo.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I just finished listening to a podcast about this. They harped on the fact that while they couldn't be 100% sure it was Russia, the fact that Zelensky made note that Russia planted explosives in the dam shortly after they took the area, expressed concerns over the effects if the dam was blown, and that he suggested an NGO group be allowed to keep watch/inspect it, is extremely damning evidence that it was Russia.

They were also a bit concerned that the west was treating this more like a natural disaster than a man made atrocity, or well its just more "Russia being Russia".

Oh and theres also an international group that keeps track of reservoir levels around the world with satellites. They made note that the water was allowed to reach record high levels just before the dam was burst. And only Russia could've done that as their side of the bank has the controls. It is also to me SOME evidence that Russia really meant for it to be THIS bad, not just a kind of half assed flooding.
Click to expand...

Fill to max, then blow the top so as to maximise flooding without risking lowering the water level below the Crimea canal intake.
 
Lplus said:
Fill to max, then blow the top so as to maximise flooding without risking lowering the water level below the Crimea canal intake.
Click to expand...

Did Russia really not have the necessary engineering expertise to successfully pull that off? Thats a little bit hard to believe, I mean they do have a heavy industrial sector, damn, bridges, engineers etc. But maybe thats all outsourced and all those people are in <not Russia> at present?
 
Lplus said:
Fill to max, then blow the top so as to maximise flooding without risking lowering the water level below the Crimea canal intake.
Click to expand...
Several reports mention the importance of the Crimea canal, but I was of the impression that it has not delivered water to Crimea since 2014?
 
lobosrul5 said:
Did Russia really not have the necessary engineering expertise to successfully pull that off? Thats a little bit hard to believe, I mean they do have a heavy industrial sector, damn, bridges, engineers etc. But maybe thats all outsourced and all those people are in <not Russia> at present?
Click to expand...


They thought the structural resistance of the lower dam would arrest the collapse because of Newton's third law, and that it couldn't possibly collapse completely into its own footprint as long as they didn't set off demolition charges all the way down. Childlike Empress was probably advising them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom