War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

«‹›275 »

Gavrilo Princip: Feb 4, 2007

Pablo Bluth posted:

The Soviet Union used to make a lot of cameras, if wouldn't surprise me if Russia's optics manufacturering hadn't really improved since then and they were a step behind even then.

I'd disagree. The CTO of the company I work for is an expert in precision optics and also operates a company in the sector, and his perspective is that soviet-era optics (specifically the lenses) were extremely well made, both by the standards of then and now.

As has also been pointed out, "optics" these days refers to so much more than lenses, but I wouldn't discount the visible-light capabilities of older soviet tanks on the basis of their manufacture. Maintenance, however, is a different story, especially as optical components in tanks can be vulnerable to both direct impact and also high-frequency vibrations of the hull under shock loading.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 14:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 13:54

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Were the Soviets capable of making high precision optical gear in general? Yes. Were they capable to manufacture it at scale to equip their tens of thousands of afvs, consistently and up to spec? That's a totally different question.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 14:35

Dandywalken: Feb 11, 2014

steinrokkan posted:

Were the Soviets capable of making high precision optical gear in general? Yes. Were they capable to manufacture it at scale to equip their tens of thousands of afvs, consistently and up to spec? That's a totally different question.

Exactly this.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 14:51

Gavrilo Princip: Feb 4, 2007

steinrokkan posted:

Were the Soviets capable of making high precision optical gear in general? Yes. Were they capable to manufacture it at scale to equip their tens of thousands of afvs, consistently and up to spec? That's a totally different question.

This is fair, although I'd (speculatively) suggest that, were they to have put any amount of effort into mass manufacture of precision optics, it would likely be on the basis of prioritising their armed forces. As we've seen, soviet union equipment isn't exactly bad when viewed in the context of its intended doctrinal usage, and at the time of manufacture these absolutely were peer systems to those in the west. It's largely a combination of feckless maintenance and long-term underinvestment that sees BMPs stuffed with leaves on the front.

As an aside, one of the areas where the soviets seem to have also put a curiously massive amount of effort into things lay in the development of crystals. My old doctoral supervisor has memories of their lab buying an old soviet laser generator and discovering it contained a massive Nd:YAG crystal, several times thicker than the extremely expensive western one they had previously.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 15:17

Moon Slayer: Jun 19, 2007

I'm old enough to remember when sending MBT's to Ukraine was Clancychat, now we're well into discussions of sending fighter jets.

Washington Post posted:

Biden�s �no� on F-16s for Ukraine met with skepticism in Pentagon
The administration has exhibited a pattern of rejecting similar pleas from the government in Kyiv only to relent later

President Biden�s brusque refusal to fulfill Ukraine�s request for F-16 jets has been greeted with skepticism at the Pentagon, where some officials, citing the administration�s pattern of reversal after first rejecting other pleas from Kyiv, foresee eventual approval or a scenario where American allies provide the aircraft with administration approval.

The conjecture among U.S. defense officials follows the commander in chief�s one-word response on Monday when a reporter asked outside the White House if he would send F-16s to Ukraine. �No,� Biden replied.

One senior defense official, who, like some others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said that while the Pentagon�s calculus was unlikely to shift soon, there remains a possibility that the discussion could be �M1-ed,� a reference to Biden�s recent commitment of M1 Abrams tanks after administration officials suggested for months that the sophisticated arms would be too complex for Ukraine to maintain.

Another senior defense official acknowledged that there is growing frustration in the Pentagon among those who want to do more to help Ukraine but find their views stymied by others who favor a more cautious approach. This official said that while Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and some of his senior staff were reluctant to approve the Abrams tanks and, weeks before that, the advanced Patriot missile system, Biden eventually did so.

A Pentagon spokesman, Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, said that the United States and its allies have provided near-term support to �sustain and bolster Ukraine�s existing air capability� and that they are consulting with Ukraine on its long-term needs. The Pentagon said in April that some allies had agreed to provide spare parts for planes that Ukraine already had.

�The war remains fluid and dynamic, so the nature of our support will continue to adapt and evolve as necessary to give Ukraine the training, equipment and capabilities they require to be effective on the battlefield,� Ryder said.

The Ukrainian request for additional fighter jets dates to the war�s opening weeks, nearly one year ago. The country�s air force then had a few dozen Soviet-designed MiG-29 fighters, bolstered by smaller numbers of Su-24, Su-25 and Su-27 jets. Ukrainian pilots have flown them sparingly while facing a complex array of Russian surface-to-air missiles, and some have been shot down.

An assessment of the air war over Ukraine by the Royal United Services Institute in London found that Russian pilots have remained �highly effective and lethal� against their Ukrainian counterparts, thanks to long-range missiles on their aircraft and superior technology overall. Ukrainian air defenses, infused with newer systems from the West, also have improved, prompting the Russian air force to keep its distance from the battlefield, the assessment found. It suggested that even a small number of Western fighter jets could have a significant deterrent effect, even while facing Russian air defenses.

In late January, Ukraine�s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told a gathering of U.S. and European defense leaders in Germany that they must act quickly to supply his government with tanks, long-range missiles, air defense systems and F-16s. Days later, agreements were reached to send the tanks. Other requests, for now, remain elusive.

The Ukrainians want the F-16, in part, because there are more than two dozen nations that fly them, creating a large pool of potential donors, said David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general. Given the limited number of aircraft and spare parts available with the MiG-29, he said, Ukraine will need to adopt a Western aircraft at some point.

�What Ukraine needs is a game changer, and that�s air power,� said Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Power Studies. �We have to stop asking what will happen if we provide air power, and start asking what will happen if we don�t.�

If the Biden administration had begun training experienced Ukrainian pilots how to fly the F-16 last year, they would be using it in combat already, Deptula assessed. He estimated that a fighter pilot with training on other aircraft could learn how to operate the platform within a few months.

Another retired Air Force general, Herbert �Hawk� Carlisle, said he also favors sending F-16s to Ukraine and beginning pilot training, albeit starting with a small number of experienced pilots and assessing their performance before expanding the program.

Carlisle, who chairs the board of directors at the Stimson Center think tank, said Ukraine would also face challenges in maintaining the planes. But �it�s not insurmountable.� To ease such a burden up front, he said, he would recommend sending planes that have recently undergone significant maintenance.

Other analysts are wary of the Biden administration continuing to increase its involvement in the war. Daniel Davis, a retired Army officer and senior fellow with Defense Priorities, said that it is unreasonable to expect that Ukrainian pilots can master the F-16 in just a few months and that the continued threat of Russian air defenses makes it unlikely that the jets are a game changer.

�Even American F-16 pilots would struggle against Russian air defense,� he said. �There�s no reason to think that they�re going to be impervious to that.�

Davis said he does not believe the provision of F-16s alone would prompt Russia to escalate its war, but if Ukraine threatens to take back the Crimean Peninsula that Russia annexed illegally in 2014, Moscow could take drastic measures.

�This is a different set of rules, and if you don�t realize that you�re dealing with a nuclear power, you are putting us in danger,� Davis said. �It�s reckless to the highest degree.�

# ? Feb 2, 2023 16:24

Charliegrs: Aug 10, 2009

Gavrilo Princip posted:

This is fair, although I'd (speculatively) suggest that, were they to have put any amount of effort into mass manufacture of precision optics, it would likely be on the basis of prioritising their armed forces. As we've seen, soviet union equipment isn't exactly bad when viewed in the context of its intended doctrinal usage, and at the time of manufacture these absolutely were peer systems to those in the west. It's largely a combination of feckless maintenance and long-term underinvestment that sees BMPs stuffed with leaves on the front.

As an aside, one of the areas where the soviets seem to have also put a curiously massive amount of effort into things lay in the development of crystals. My old doctoral supervisor has memories of their lab buying an old soviet laser generator and discovering it contained a massive Nd:YAG crystal, several times thicker than the extremely expensive western one they had previously.

Was "Tanks for Ukraine" ever Clancychat? I thought Clancychat was basically any talk that involved WMDs.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 19:16

saratoga: Mar 5, 2001; This is a Randbrick post. It goes in that D&D megathread on page 294

"i think obama was mediocre in that debate, but hillary was fucking terrible. also russert is filth."

-randbrick, 12/26/08

TheRat posted:

This might be an idiot question, but why are optics in particular so hard to make? Is it a catch all term that includes circuitry and software as well?

E: Like, I assume Russia has the ability to make decent lenses?

For thermal imaging you're looking at making lenses out of weird materials like selenium or germanium and then fitting them to detectors made out of exotic semiconductors. I think the lenses themselves aren't a problem (plus lots of Chinese suppliers), but exotic semiconductors are not really a strength of Russia.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 19:47

TheRat: Aug 30, 2006

saratoga posted:

For thermal imaging you're looking at making lenses out of weird materials like selenium or germanium and then fitting them to detectors made out of exotic semiconductors. I think the lenses themselves aren't a problem (plus lots of Chinese suppliers), but exotic semiconductors are not really a strength of Russia.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense then.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 19:51

EmployeeOfTheMonth: Jul 28, 2005; It's the positive attitude that does it

Charliegrs posted:

Was "Tanks for Ukraine" ever Clancychat? I thought Clancychat was basically any talk that involved WMDs.

I was told mentioning Western countries funding PMC troops was Clancychat. It seems to be stuff for which you have not much evidence or is too far in hypothetical future (as per page 1). Probably tanks fell under that in a distanced past. In my view Olaf Scholz must be a moderator

# ? Feb 2, 2023 19:58

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Charliegrs posted:

Was "Tanks for Ukraine" ever Clancychat? I thought Clancychat was basically any talk that involved WMDs.

EmployeeOfTheMonth posted:

I was told mentioning Western countries funding PMC troops was Clancychat. It seems to be stuff for which you have not much evidence or is too far in hypothetical future (as per page 1). Probably tanks fell under that in a distanced past. In my view Olaf Scholz must be a moderator .

Tanks did never fall under it. It was exceptionally unlikely that Ukraine would not be supported by western countries, and there's only so much Soviet gear that they would have to donate to the world's second most endowed recipient of Soviet military gear. Clancychat rule was conceived against excessive theorycrafting on battles not yet apparent, and I've seldom applied it in the more general sense.

And no, WMDs ("nukes") have a separate rule.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 20:21

Haramstufe Rot: Jun 24, 2016

When it comes to high tech lensy poo poo, it's still very much the case that one of THE leading companies was very much from the former Warsaw Pact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_AG

Sadly for Russia, East Germany is now also in NATO lol

# ? Feb 2, 2023 21:41

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

I can't read German but this article, which is from a publication I understand to be fairly reputable, is claiming that Biden wanted to offer most of the territory that Russia is currently occupying in exchange for peace, but Ukraine refused. They say this comes from two anonymous 'foreign politicians', one in government, one in the opposition, and that American interest in Ukraine is waning when they want to square off against China instead.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 21:53

Just Another Lurker: May 1, 2009

khwarezm posted:

I can't read German but this article, which is from a publication I understand to be fairly reputable, is claiming that Biden wanted to offer most of the territory that Russia is currently occupying in exchange for peace, but Ukraine refused. They say this comes from two anonymous 'foreign politicians', one in government, one in the opposition, and that American interest in Ukraine is waning when they want to square off against China instead.

I would say it's Scholtz projecting again. :rolleyes:

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:05

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

khwarezm posted:

I can't read German but this article, which is from a publication I understand to be fairly reputable, is claiming that Biden wanted to offer most of the territory that Russia is currently occupying in exchange for peace, but Ukraine refused. They say this comes from two anonymous 'foreign politicians', one in government, one in the opposition, and that American interest in Ukraine is waning when they want to square off against China instead.

My German is nothing to write home about, but it would appear (in a 50/50 way to me) that they spoke to two international relations specialists.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:05

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

khwarezm posted:

I can't read German but this article, which is from a publication I understand to be fairly reputable, is claiming that Biden wanted to offer most of the territory that Russia is currently occupying in exchange for peace, but Ukraine refused. They say this comes from two anonymous 'foreign politicians', one in government, one in the opposition, and that American interest in Ukraine is waning when they want to square off against China instead.

I'd be really really suspicious of anything pushing that narrative because

1) It doesn't comport with any of the actual actions of the Biden administration so far

2) It's exactly the narrative that the Russian administration wants the west to believe -- "We could have peace if everyone just agreed to let Russia win, but Ukraine is just being refuseniks. Also western support will collapse at any moment because Biden cares more about China."

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:11

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I'd be really really suspicious of anything pushing that narrative because

I'm being suggested now that this is a highly conservative paper that did "Trumpify" ("go full AfD") in the recent years, but I have no familiarity of my own with the publication. Checking media lands that I'm more well versed in, this is getting barely any attention, although it appears to me that Newsweek did pester some White House staffer with it, to a predictable answer. In any case, unless someone here is Burns, I think we'll run out of tangible substance on the suggested secret plot rather quickly.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:18

Mano: Jul 11, 2012

NZZ is the house paper of the liberal party in Switzerland- this means center-right btw. They are more pro-business / money than conservative.
No idea of any drift the last few years, I don�t read it.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:23

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Haramstufe Rot posted:

When it comes to high tech lensy poo poo, it's still very much the case that one of THE leading companies was very much from the former Warsaw Pact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_AG

Sadly for Russia, East Germany is now also in NATO lol

Yeah so much of their actual best manufacturing and technical skills were in East Germany, CZ, Ukraine and so on. I've actually had tankies telling me this is why Russia is justified in re-uniting their empire because the fall of the soviet union unfairly stripped them of some of the most important pieces of their production chains. it's unfair that russia invested in their colonies like that and then had those investments stripped away.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:43

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Haramstufe Rot posted:

When it comes to high tech lensy poo poo, it's still very much the case that one of THE leading companies was very much from the former Warsaw Pact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_AG

Sadly for Russia, East Germany is now also in NATO lol

But even then the best lenses in the world do not give you the ability to diagnose early COVID symptoms on a camouflaged enemy fighter one kilometer away. Soviets were always lagging behind the west in microprocessors, and now Russian automotive manufacturers can't even put ABS to their cars. The latter they probably could handle given enough time but for thermal imaging they would have to resort to older generation stuff.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:47

Boris Galerkin: Dec 17, 2011; I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

khwarezm posted:

I can't read German but this article, which is from a publication I understand to be fairly reputable, is claiming that Biden wanted to offer most of the territory that Russia is currently occupying in exchange for peace, but Ukraine refused. They say this comes from two anonymous 'foreign politicians', one in government, one in the opposition, and that American interest in Ukraine is waning when they want to square off against China instead.

I think you linked the wrong article because the one you linked doesn�t say anything remotely close to what you posted. As in, it�s about something completely different altogether.

Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Feb 2, 2023

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

We should ask in the German politics thread.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 22:53

Crow Buddy: Oct 30, 2019; Guillotines?!? We don't need no stinking guillotines!

Not sure it needs a thread rule but "I don't speak the language that [url] was written in, but here is my understanding..." should probably not happen much.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 23:00

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

khwarezm posted:

I can't read German but this article, which is from a publication I understand to be fairly reputable, is claiming that Biden wanted to offer most of the territory that Russia is currently occupying in exchange for peace, but Ukraine refused. They say this comes from two anonymous 'foreign politicians', one in government, one in the opposition, and that American interest in Ukraine is waning when they want to square off against China instead.

Google translate of the article you linked:

quote:

Olaf Scholz sold his Panzerwende as a well-considered decision - but in fact he was probably taken by surprise

Advice from German foreign politicians shakes the image of the far-sighted strategist in the Chancellery. The head of government's decision to send Leopard 2 to Ukraine appears to have been made hectically and without consultation with the coalition partners.

The day after his decision to send main battle tanks to Ukraine, Olaf Scholz presented himself as a shrewd strategist. He explained that he did not hesitate and hesitate, as the short-sighted and ignorant opponents of his course repeatedly accused him of. Rather, everything followed a long-term plan that he had agreed with Washington and Paris and the partners in the Berlin coalition in a spirit of trust.

I don't see anything in there about Biden or peace deals.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 23:05

Sir John Falstaff: Apr 13, 2010

Deteriorata posted:

Google translate of the article you linked:

I don't see anything in there about Biden or peace deals.

It's in there (auto-translated)--it's paywalled, though:

quote:

The day after his decision to send main battle tanks to Ukraine, Olaf Scholz presented himself as a shrewd strategist. He did not hesitate and hesitate, as the short-sighted and ignorant opponents of his course repeatedly accused him of, he explained. Rather, everything followed a long-term plan that he had agreed with Washington and Paris and the partners in the Berlin coalition in a spirit of trust.

Now three indications allow the conclusion that this representation may not be correct. Rather, it seems as if Scholz was unwilling to deliver Leopard 2 to the very end, and thereby maneuvered himself into a predicament.

Peace for country, country for peace?

One of the clues is a confidential conversation between the NZZ and two influential foreign politicians, one from the governing coalition, the other from the opposition. Both insist on anonymity because what they say independently is explosive. According to this, US President Joe Biden sent CIA chief William J. Burns to Kyiv and Moscow on a secret mission in mid-January. Burns, it is said, should have explored the willingness of both sides for negotiations.

The offer to Kyiv read: peace for land, the offer to Moscow: land for peace. The "land" is said to have been about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. That's about the size of the Donbass. Both sides, the two politicians report, refused. The Ukrainians because they are not willing to have their territory divided, the Russians because they assume they will win the war in the long run anyway.

On the one hand, these statements are explosive because they give an indirect insight into the views in the White House at the time of Burns' trip. According to the two German foreign politicians, Biden wanted to avoid a protracted war in Ukraine and was willing to sacrifice parts of the country. If this account is correct, Biden would not be alone in his stance in Washington. A new study by the Rand Corporation ("Avoiding a long war"), a renowned American think tank, concludes that "avoiding a long war is a higher priority for the United States" than Ukraine's "control of their entire territory�.

Biden pivots in the short term

If all of this is correct, the statements would also point to a possible split in the US government over the Ukraine issue. On the one hand, as the two German MPs describe it, are national security adviser Jake Sullivan and CIA boss Burns. They wanted to end the war quickly so they could focus on China, which they see as a much greater threat to the US. On the other side would be Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. They did not want to let Russia get away with destroying the rules-based peace order and called for massive military support for Ukraine .

According to the two German sources, after Burns failed with his diplomatic mission in Kyiv and Moscow, President Biden decided to give in to the German Chancellor's urging and authorize the delivery of main battle tanks to Abrams. Originally, Biden wanted to leave it at a three-digit number of armored personnel carriers and other weapons. The main battle tanks should therefore have been supplied by the Europeans alone.

Scholz probably didn't expect it if the reports were correct, which is where hint number two comes into play. Late in the afternoon of January 24, the day the German chancellor made the tank decision, the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin sent out official language regulations for diplomats to all diplomatic missions abroad. Under the heading "Lines to take: Delivery of Leopard tanks for the UKR", the ministry of the Green politician Annalena Baerbock explained that "the federal government has not yet made a decision on the question of the delivery of battle tanks from Germany". "Within the international support coalition for Ukraine, there is still a need for discussion on the question of the possible delivery of Leopard 2." The paper is classified as classified and is available to the NZZ.

Embarrassing situation for the Foreign Office

By that time, the American government had long since let it slip that it wanted to supply Abrams main battle tanks to Ukraine. Olaf Scholz must also have made his decision by then, as the time of the first report suggests. An hour and a half after the Foreign Office sent its embassies and consulates the �Spiegel� reported at around 6:30 p.m. on the Chancellor�s decision to send Leopard 2 to Ukraine. As a result, the Baerbock Ministry had to withdraw the language rule as quickly as possible.

The process allows two conclusions. First: Baerbock apparently knew nothing about the decision in the Chancellery. Scholz apparently met them without informing the most important representatives of his coalition partners in good time. Second, this would be an indication that Scholz was surprised by the events in Washington. He apparently assumed until the end that Biden would follow the line of CIA boss Burns and security adviser Sullivan.
Accordingly, the German chancellor probably speculated on getting around a battle tank delivery. When Biden then decided otherwise, Scholz had to change his stance within a very short time. His narrative of a long-term plan agreed with Washington and Paris seems questionable. American media reported that until the very end, Biden believed that Germany and other Europeans should supply main battle tanks while the United States sent infantry fighting vehicles.

Ministry of Defense does not know tank inventories

Finally, there is a third clue that casts doubt on the Berlin Chancellery's interpretation of Olaf Scholz's diplomatic sophistication. It was initiated by the Christian Democrat MP Nicholas Zippelius and delivered by Siemtje M�ller, the Social Democrat State Secretary in the Defense Ministry. Zippelius asked M�ller whether the federal government had checked the availability of tanks for possible deliveries to Ukraine last year. This was preceded by a statement by the new Defense Minister, Boris Pistorius, at a meeting of Ukraine supporters in Ramstein on January 20 that he did not currently know how many tanks were actually operational.

M�ller's answer seemed to have surprised even the Union in the German Bundestag. "There was no comprehensive and detailed examination of the availability of the Bundeswehr's stocks of battle tanks and armored personnel carriers in the context of possible deliveries to Ukraine," admitted the State Secretary. "There was no common position among the supporters of Ukraine for a possible delivery of the weapons systems mentioned," she justified this statement.

Eleven months after the start of the war, does the German Ministry of Defense want to have determined its inventory of battle tanks and armored personnel carriers for the first time? That's hard to believe. The "clear status" of the main weapon systems in the Bundeswehr is regularly determined and reported to the Ministry of Defence. Union politicians express the suspicion that the chancellor's office has forbidden the defense ministry from even planning to deliver tanks to Ukraine.

"Scholz did not want to deliver until the very end because he firmly assumed that the Americans would not send battle tanks either," the Union said. This has caused image damage, from which Germany could have been protected by a strategic culture of foresight and partnership on the part of the federal government.

The whole process casts Germany's chancellor in a bad light. It's not just that Scholz's tank decision seemed rushed. It is also the case that the decision in Washington must have pushed him to deliver the Leopard 2A6 , one of the most modern main battle tanks in the Bundeswehr's inventory, within the next two months. This opens up another gap in German defense capabilities.

The Americans, however, only announced what exactly they intend to deliver after the German decision. There will be 31 Abrams, but not from the active force, but from depots. It will take about a year for these tanks to be refurbished and ready for action. That's a lot of time in a war. By then, some of the Leopard tanks in Ukraine may already have been destroyed.

Obviously, very unclear who the "two German MPs" are, assuming that's a reasonably accurate translation.

Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Feb 2, 2023

# ? Feb 2, 2023 23:11

Boris Galerkin: Dec 17, 2011; I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

That�s weird. The article literally ends after the first two paragraphs like the person posted first and there�s nothing on the website indicating that there�s any more to it.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 23:15

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Boris Galerkin posted:

That�s weird. The article literally ends after the first two paragraphs like the person posted first and there�s nothing on the website indicating that there�s any more to it.

Sounds like your adblock is ineffectually mangling their paywall.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 23:20

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

steinrokkan posted:

Were the Soviets capable of making high precision optical gear in general? Yes. Were they capable to manufacture it at scale to equip their tens of thousands of afvs, consistently and up to spec? That's a totally different question.

And the answer is also yes.

What happened in the 30 years following the collapse of the USSR is the issue for Russia. A lot of that capacity and knowledge base was hollowed out.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 23:25

KingaSlipek: Jun 14, 2009

Sir John Falstaff posted:

It's in there (auto-translated)--it's paywalled, though:

Obviously, very unclear who the "two influential foreign politicians" are, assuming that's a reasonably accurate translation.

Given what these politicians said and how it portrays Scholz, one was probably a Green/FDP party member and the other source was a CDU politician.
Super interesting article, maybe the Americans asked the Russians whether they would give up on "their" two newest oblasts, otherwise they would have accepted this offer as a chance to rearm.

It also fits the Scholz MO to surprise even those in his own government.

KingaSlipek fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 2, 2023

# ? Feb 2, 2023 23:44

Budzilla: Oct 14, 2007; We can all learn from our past mistakes.

Sir John Falstaff posted:

It's in there (auto-translated)--it's paywalled, though:

Obviously, very unclear who the "two German MPs" are, assuming that's a reasonably accurate translation.

I call BS. Allowing Russia to threaten to take territory and giving it away in a "negotiated" settlement to avoid a war would be a disaster for the US and everyone else in Eastern Europe. I don't think much of Biden but he was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a bazillion years even he can see the problem of buckling under pressure to allow Russia/Putin to annex more land from Ukraine. It could be true but I personally think this makes no sense.

# ? Feb 2, 2023 23:58

WarpedLichen: Aug 14, 2008

Curious that that the name given was Burns who said this about a month before he was supposedly sent to Russia:

quote:

Most conflicts end in negotiations, but that requires a seriousness on the part of the Russians in this instance that I don't think we see.

At least, it's not our assessment that the Russians are serious at this point about a real negotiation.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cia-director-bill-burns-on-war-in-ukraine-intelligence-challenges-posed-by-china

I think feeling out whether each side is ready to negotiate seems fairly standard, not sure I buy there being factions eager to end the war and refocus on China.

# ? Feb 3, 2023 00:43

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

it seems odd that any china hawks in the biden administration would be pushing for a negotiated settlement that could be perceived as a win for russia, i can't see a bigger deterrent to china's ambitions in the pacific than demonstrating that the us and it's allies are willing and able to pay a real price to ensure their geopolitical priorities and trip lines are respected. anything otherwise seems like it would have huge implications for the situation with taiwan

also strikes me as odd that german mps, outside possibly cabinet members of the german government, would have information on american backdoor communications with russia, let alone insight into the fault lines within the administration on high level foreign policy

# ? Feb 3, 2023 01:18

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

it seems odd that any china hawks in the biden administration would be pushing for a negotiated settlement that could be perceived as a win for russia, i can't see a bigger deterrent to china's ambitions in the pacific than demonstrating that the us and it's allies are willing and able to pay a real price to ensure their geopolitical priorities and trip lines are respected. anything otherwise seems like it would have huge implications for the situation with taiwan

also strikes me as odd that german mps, outside possibly cabinet members of the german government, would have information on american backdoor communications with russia, let alone insight into the fault lines within the administration on high level foreign policy

The other thing is that, like, the Chinese have a much more powerful position against Taiwan and whatever other interests they have in East Asia and the Pacific where they come into conflict with America, than Russia has against Ukraine. It would seem to be a big loving problem that the Yanks would yield on Ukraine with that in mind, Ukraine vs Russia is easy mode for America compared to China exerting its influence in its backyard. If they kind of give up there, why would anyone take them seriously against China, who are much more powerful than the Russians really could hope to be?

# ? Feb 3, 2023 01:33

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

khwarezm posted:

The other thing is that, like, the Chinese have a much more powerful position against Taiwan and whatever other interests they have in East Asia and the Pacific where they come into conflict with America, than Russia has against Ukraine. It would seem to be a big loving problem that the Yanks would yield on Ukraine with that in mind, Ukraine vs Russia is easy mode for America compared to China exerting its influence in its backyard. If they kind of give up there, why would anyone take them seriously against China, who are much more powerful than the Russians really could hope to be?

Isn't this hindsight?

I don't think people would have thought that in January 2022 given the lack of an ocean between Russia and Ukraine.

Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Feb 3, 2023

# ? Feb 3, 2023 01:52

Paracausal: Sep 5, 2011; Oh yeah, baby. Frame your suffering as a masterpiece. Only one problem - no one's watching. It's boring, buddy, boring as death.

US plausibly claiming we're approaching ~200k Russian casualties;
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/02/us/politics/ukraine-russia-casualties.html

quote:

WASHINGTON � The number of Russian troops killed and wounded in Ukraine is approaching 200,000, a stark symbol of just how badly President Vladimir V. Putin�s invasion has gone, according to American and other Western officials.

While the officials caution that casualties are notoriously difficult to estimate, particularly because Moscow is believed to routinely undercount its war dead and injured, they say the slaughter from fighting in and around the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut and the town of Soledar has ballooned what was already a heavy toll.

With Moscow desperate for a major battlefield victory and viewing Bakhmut as the key to seizing the entire eastern Donbas area, the Russian military has sent poorly trained recruits and former convicts to the front lines, straight into the path of Ukrainian shelling and machine guns. The result, American officials say, has been hundreds of troops killed or injured a day.

Russia analysts say that the loss of life is unlikely to be a deterrent to Mr. Putin�s war aims. He has no political opposition at home and has framed the war as the kind of struggle the country faced in World War II, when more than 8 million Soviet troops died. U.S. officials have said that they believe that Mr. Putin can sustain hundreds of thousands of casualties in Ukraine, although higher numbers could cut into his political support.

Ukraine�s casualty figures are also difficult to ascertain, given Kyiv�s reluctance to disclose its own wartime losses. But in Bakhmut, hundreds of Ukrainian troops have been wounded and killed daily at times as well, officials said. Better trained infantry formations are kept in reserve to safeguard them, while lesser prepared troops, such as those in the territorial defense units, are kept on the front line and bear the brunt of shelling.

The last public Biden administration estimate of casualties came last November, when Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that more than 100,000 troops on each side had been killed and wounded since the war began. At the time, officials said privately that the numbers were closer to 120,000.

�I would say it�s significantly well over 100,000 now,� General Milley said at a news conference last month in Germany, adding that the Russian toll included �regular military, and also their mercenaries in the Wagner Group.�

At two meetings last month between senior military and defense officials from NATO and partner countries, officials said the fighting in the Donbas had turned into, as one of them put it, a meat grinder.

On Norwegian TV on Jan. 22, Gen. Eirik Kristoffersen, Norway�s defense chief, said estimates were that Russia had suffered 180,000 dead and wounded, while Ukraine had 100,000 killed or wounded in action along with 30,000 civilian deaths. General Kristoffersen, in an email to The New York Times through his spokesman, said that there is �much uncertainty regarding these numbers, as no one at the moment are able to give a good overview. They could be both lower or even higher.�

Senior U.S. officials said this week that they believe the number for Russia is closer to 200,000. That toll, in just 11 months, is eight times higher than American casualties in two decades of war in Afghanistan.

The figures for Ukraine and Russia are estimates based on satellite imagery, communication intercepts, social media and on-the-ground media reports, as well as official reporting from both governments. Establishing precise numbers is extremely difficult, and estimates vary, even within the U.S. government.

A senior U.S. military official last month described the combat around Bakhmut as savage. The two sides exchanged several thousand rounds of artillery fire each day, while the Wagner private military company, which has been central to Russia�s efforts there, had essentially begun using recruited convicts as cannon fodder, the official told reporters. He spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational details.

The convicts took the brunt of the Ukrainian response while the group�s more seasoned fighters moved in behind them to claim ground, the official said. Wagner has recruited some 50,000 troops to fight in Ukraine, according to senior American military and defense officials.

Thousands of the convicts have been killed, a loss of life that has shocked American officials, who say the strategic value of Bakhmut simply is not in line with the price Russia has paid.

In an interview on Tuesday, a senior Defense official pointed to myriad Russian military supply and tactical problems to explain the Russian tactics. Russia, he said, is running low on artillery, and low on munitions. So Moscow is making up for that deficit by sending in convicts in waves into places like Bakhmut and Soledar, losing hundreds of people a day.

The Russian military has been following the Wagner playbook and deliberately using the poorly trained troops to draw, and deplete, Ukrainian fire, senior American military and defense officials said.

Kusti Salm, Estonia�s deputy defense minister, in a briefing with reporters in Washington last week, said that Russia�s casualties were high in part because of its use of convicts on the front line in Bakhmut.

�In this particular area, the Russians have employed around 40,000 to 50,000 inmates or prisoners,� Mr. Salm said. �They are going up against regular soldiers, people with families, people with regular training, valuable people for the Ukrainian military.�

�So the exchange rate is unfair,� he added. �It�s not one to one because for Russia, inmates are expendable. From an operational perspective, this is a very unfair deal for the Ukrainians and a clever tactical move from the Russian side.�

Moscow has thrown people it sees as expendable into battles for decades, if not centuries. During World War II, Joseph Stalin sent close to one million prisoners to the front. Boris Sokolov, a Russia historian, describes in a piece called �Gulag Reserves� in the Russian opposition magazine Grani.ru that an additional one million �special settlers�� deportees and others viewed by the Soviet government as second-class citizens � were also forced to fight during World War II.

�In essence, it does not matter how big the Russian losses are, since their overall human resource is much greater than Ukraine�s,� Mr. Salm, the Estonian official, said in a follow-up email. �In Russia the life of a soldier is worth nothing. A dead soldier, on the other hand, is a hero, regardless of how he died. All lost soldiers can be replaced, and the number of losses will not shift the public opinion against the war.�

# ? Feb 3, 2023 02:09

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

Charlz Guybon posted:

Isn't this hindsight?

I don't think people have thought that in January 2022 given the lack of an ocean between Russia and Ukraine.

given that the result of this secret back-channel meeting is supposed to have had a role in the recent change in policy on providing tanks it suggests that this meeting would have happened in 2023, not 2022. if scholz was surprised and outflanked by something that took place a year previously i wonder about his abilities

# ? Feb 3, 2023 02:52

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

Budzilla posted:

I call BS. Allowing Russia to threaten to take territory and giving it away in a "negotiated" settlement to avoid a war would be a disaster for the US and everyone else in Eastern Europe. I don't think much of Biden but he was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a bazillion years even he can see the problem of buckling under pressure to allow Russia/Putin to annex more land from Ukraine. It could be true but I personally think this makes no sense.

https://twitter.com/EHunterChristie/status/1621292604380905472?t=byK-83uur8aHxzobyEQT6w&s=19

Part of a long and solid thread on the NZZ article.

# ? Feb 3, 2023 03:11

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

Hannibal Rex posted:

Part of a long and solid thread on the NZZ article.

I mean they would deny it even if true but as the twitter thread suggests, just too much of the article is simplistic in its explanation of motives and events. One thing I don't doubt is that at some point, or multiple points, in time the US did send somebody to talk to both sides, not necessarily in person, to gauge what a cease-fire might look like and found the two sides were nowhere close. Somehow that got leaked out and that core nugget of truth got spun into this story along with other pebbles that might have pieces of legitimate information. The final assembled narrative seems off though.

ISW posted:

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-2-2023
Russian officials are likely trying to prepare the Russian military�s disciplinary apparatus for an influx of mobilized personnel. Russian Duma Deputies Andrey Kartopolov and Andrey Krasov submitted a bill that would allow Russian military unit commanders and garrison commandants to arrest personnel, send them to guardhouses, and hold them there for up to 10 days without a court decision.[42] Russian officials likely introduced the measure to prepare the Russian military�s disciplinary apparatus for the likely deployment of roughly 150,000 remaining mobilized personnel to Ukraine in support of a Russian offensive in the coming months, as well as to prepare for future waves of mobilization. Russian officials likely seek to avoid the chaos that the Russian military faced during partial mobilization in the fall of 2022 when the rapid influx of mobilized personnel resulted in a significant increase in cases of desertion, refusal to follow orders, and other disciplinary offenses. The bill would allow the Russian military to respond more expeditiously to the increase in disciplinary misconduct that would likely accompany the large-scale deployment of mobilized personnel.

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1621227365761429505

While the meat grinder approach is incremental, over the past month Russians have aggregated notable success in the Bakhmut region to the point where evacuation is now a real possibility and a similar effort has reversed the incremental gains made by the Ukrainians near Kreminna has stalled out. Momentum whether by design or circumstance is swinging back at least temporarily the Russians. How many convicts can Russia possibly have to keep feeding Wagner? They supposedly have 400k prisoners but there can't be that many healthy enough and of serviceable military age?

# ? Feb 3, 2023 04:19

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

MikeC posted:

How many convicts can Russia possibly have to keep feeding Wagner?

They've already run out of then, going by the federal penitentiary service reporting stabilized prison population numbers. Furthermore, Wagner is not at all that useful without the supporting regular troops doing the "boring poo poo" like artillery support or logistics.

# ? Feb 3, 2023 04:31

Mederlock: Jun 23, 2012; You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it; Grimey Drawer

cinci zoo sniper posted:

Tanks did never fall under it. It was exceptionally unlikely that Ukraine would not be supported by western countries, and there's only so much Soviet gear that they would have to donate to the world's second most endowed recipient of Soviet military gear. Clancychat rule was conceived against excessive theorycrafting on battles not yet apparent, and I've seldom applied it in the more general sense.

And no, WMDs ("nukes") have a separate rule.

I wish I hadn't skimmed over that particular rule when I scanned through the OP, or I wouldn't have ruined my once-pristine rap sheet with a probe :negative:

Has anyone heard of any other countries outside of Germany concretely promising their Leopards as well, yet? Maybe I missed it, but so far it seems only Britain, Germany, and the US have so far actually committed heavy steel.

# ? Feb 3, 2023 04:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 13:54

WarpedLichen: Aug 14, 2008

Mederlock posted:

I wish I hadn't skimmed over that particular rule when I scanned through the OP, or I wouldn't have ruined my once-pristine rap sheet with a probe

Has anyone heard of any other countries outside of Germany concretely promising their Leopards as well, yet? Maybe I missed it, but so far it seems only Britain, Germany, and the US have so far actually committed heavy steel.

You missed quite a bit:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-send-60-modernised-tanks-ukraine-addition-leopards-2023-01-27/

I think there are 80ish leopards pledged so far and Germany is only 14 of them?

# ? Feb 3, 2023 05:17

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

«‹›275 »