Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-07-2023

(06-07-2023, 10:21 AM)GK3 Wrote:  OF, Back in the day, you might have found the people in Langley involved.  Considering that it involves Russa, my guess is that you would never get the approvals you would need to try something like this.  We do not have a wonderful track record in trying to overthrow other governments.  Perhaps our biggest disaster was Eisenhower approving the CIA over throw of the democratically elected government in Iran.  Done because Churchill was under a lot of pressure from BP to save their business in Iran.  We all know how that turned out.

While I agree with you that it is highly improbable US intelligence agencies are involved in any organized effort to "overthrow" the Russian government, I do think one thing you said needs clarifying. IMO the US has a "pretty good" record in overthrowing other governments. The question of whether that these attempts were "a good idea" is a different one. IMO there is a lot of historical speculation that is just as suspect as the determination at the time was a "good idea". Counterfactuals are always perfect because they cannot be tested. In reality, the consequences of NOT doing what we did may actually have been worse. We simply will never know.

Quote:Actually supporting operations in Russia against the Russian government is almost certainly a bridge too far.  Too risky in the eyes of those who would approve such a thing.  We always need to remember that sometimes the devil you know is better than devil you don't.  That doesn't mean you can't have a 3rd party buy a boatload of Russian weapons from somewhere in Africa and then sell them again to someone else who then sells them to whoever is supply these rebel groups.

But you better be real, real careful who you deal with. Talk to Oliver North about that. I do agree that going after the Russian government is a bridge too far for all the "higher ups". One might worry about a "rogue" operation though.

Quote: 

Unfortunately in todays world and today's politics I don't think we could get involved in something like this without someone talking.  We just can't keep our mouths shut, and Need to Know is a joke in todays Washington, everyone thinks he or she has a need to know and there lies the problem.

A very serious problem, to be sure. It could actually be solved if the executive branch (all parties) would lead the way and require empowered SSOs for all sensitive materials, and live with the constraints imposed by doing so. Until that happens, things will not get better. However, there are plenty of things that are indeed kept secret. This can only be done by keeping the program "small" and possibly embedding it in several layers of cover operations. It isn't supposed to happen though :-).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-07-2023

I didn't realize that there are 2 seemingly separate breaks in the dam.  (See 0:44 in the OSINTtechnical video above.)

Would that be reasonably expected for a structural failure from too much water too long?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - SidelineGame - 06-07-2023

(06-07-2023, 01:11 PM)M T Wrote:  I didn't realize that there are 2 seemingly separate breaks in the dam.  (See 0:44 in the OSINTtechnical video above.)

Would that be reasonably expected for a structural failure from too much water too long?

Maybe they were just trying to blow up the power plant but shockwaves also fractured an already weakened dam?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-07-2023

(06-07-2023, 05:22 PM)SidelineGame Wrote:  

(06-07-2023, 01:11 PM)M T Wrote:  I didn't realize that there are 2 seemingly separate breaks in the dam.  (See 0:44 in the OSINTtechnical video above.)

Would that be reasonably expected for a structural failure from too much water too long?

Maybe they were just trying to blow up the power plant but shockwaves also fractured an already weakened dam?

As those of you who have visited the power plant at the base of Hoover Dam can attest, the penstocks carrying water from the dam to the turbines operate under very great pressure, and literally the whole assembly shakes. The forces involved can throw a 700 ton turbine high into the air if not properly controlled. It happened once. The power station requires maintenance to ensure things do not corrode away and "bad things" happen.

I have no way of knowing, but I suspect nobody was maintaining the power station. We also know it had been damaged in the fighting. It is not beyond possibility that the entire power house simply exploded outward when a valve failed. Not saying it did, I can't know one way or another. After the dam is compromised to that degree, nobody can say what forces will be involved. Other parts of the dam might be undermined by water flowing around the blowout. Unless there is a good video somewhere, we may never know the exact mechanics of what happened.

Of course, explosives placed in the dam could start that process as well. The ultimate in bad maintenance. Blowing up solid concrete dam from the outside is relatively hard. Blowing it up from the inside in places you can let lots of water under very high pressure in is lots easier.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 82lsju - 06-07-2023

(06-07-2023, 05:42 PM)Goose Wrote:  Of course, explosives placed in the dam could start that process as well. The ultimate in bad maintenance. Blowing up solid concrete dam from the outside is relatively hard. Blowing it up from the inside in places you can let lots of water under very high pressure in is lots easier.

see a fictionalized version of this in "Force 10 From Navarone"

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-07-2023

The timing is certainly auspicious, especially as the Ukrainian counterattack is kicking off. 

Supposedly local residents heard explosions overnight. The fact Russian media is downplaying the giant humanitarian disaster in their ostensible new territory rather than playing it up also seems to give away their culpability.

I think them blowing the dam is the most parsimonious explanation. Also interestingly, Russia built most of their fortifications above the expected flood levels. One of the few examples perhaps of good Russian foresight in this war.

On the whole though, I don't think it affects things much in terms of Ukraine's counterattack. A large scale crossing over the river was never very likely, though it does maybe simplify Russian defensive planning.

For the first time a new western equipped brigade was in action, the 37th, operating French AMX10 tanks, in Donetsk. I think it's a clear sign the counterattack has started in earnest now, and the volume of artillery and rocket fire is supposedly the most ever from Ukraine in the war thus far. Fires in the Russian side of the front are extensive in Zaporhizhia and Donetsk on satellite imaging. Ukraine has been pretty tight lipped thus far, but hopefully we get good news soon.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-07-2023

(06-07-2023, 05:58 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The timing is certainly auspicious, especially as the Ukrainian counterattack is kicking off. 

Supposedly local residents heard explosions overnight. The fact Russian media is downplaying the giant humanitarian disaster in their ostensible new territory rather than playing it up also seems to give away their culpability.

I think them blowing the dam is the most parsimonious explanation. Also interestingly, Russia built most of their fortifications above the expected flood levels. One of the few examples perhaps of good Russian foresight in this war.

Most defenses perhaps, but certainly not all. Their minefields on the banks are also destroyed. Normally, in a "sane" world, asking who benefits would point in most cases to who did it. That said, in this case it is unclear that anybody benefits much.

Quote:On the whole though, I don't think it affects things much in terms of Ukraine's counterattack. A large scale crossing over the river was never very likely, though it does maybe simplify Russian defensive planning.

Really? IMO a large scale crossing of the river was and is very likely. If Ukraine wants to take back the south of Kherson Oblast and enter Crimea, said river crossing has to happen. It may be that Ukraine intends to exert pressure from Zaporhizhia to facilitate that crossing, but cross they must. Logistic support to attacks in south Kherson Oblast requires it. Fortunately, the flood damage will not persist long enough to be operationally significant.
If Russia did blow the dam, it was a strategic error. They should have waited until either they were at risk of losing the position there or Ukraine had started to cross downstream of the dam. Blowing it now has removed that threat consideration. Arguably, it is a big advantage to Ukraine that they don't have to worry about that when they do cross.

Quote:For the first time a new western equipped brigade was in action, the 37th, operating French AMX10 tanks, in Donetsk. I think it's a clear sign the counterattack has started in earnest now, and the volume of artillery and rocket fire is supposedly the most ever from Ukraine in the war thus far. Fires in the Russian side of the front are extensive in Zaporhizhia and Donetsk on satellite imaging. Ukraine has been pretty tight lipped thus far, but hopefully we get good news soon.

Certainly agree about the "good news" wishes. Ukraine is going to be as tricky as possible, so I don't think we can read much into their opening moves.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 06-08-2023

This is exactly what I have been waiting to see and makes me so happy to read  There is no reason individual NATO members can't come to the aid of Ukraine outside the umbrella of official NATO action. I personally love the idea of having select NATO country forces holding positions in Ukraine while UAF push forward to attack the invading Russians. Then, as UAF takes back territory, those NATO country forces fill in behind to hold gained ground, allowing UAF to continue ahead knowing their backs are covered. When Ukraine has taken all its territory back, Ukraine becomes a NATO member and official NATO forces come into Ukraine, including German, British, U.S. THAT is how you do it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/07/nato-members-may-send-troops-to-ukraine-warns-former-alliance-chief

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-08-2023

(06-08-2023, 05:39 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  This is exactly what I have been waiting to see and makes me so happy to read  There is no reason individual NATO members can't come to the aid of Ukraine outside the umbrella of official NATO action. I personally love the idea of having select NATO country forces holding positions in Ukraine while UAF push forward to attack the invading Russians. Then, as UAF takes back territory, those NATO country forces fill in behind to hold gained ground, allowing UAF to continue ahead knowing their backs are covered. When Ukraine has taken all its territory back, Ukraine becomes a NATO member and official NATO forces come into Ukraine, including German, British, U.S. THAT is how you do it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/07/nato-members-may-send-troops-to-ukraine-warns-former-alliance-chief

My read on this, FWIW, is that there is ZERO probability that the Baltic States will send troops anywhere. They are so small they have very few troops anyway and fear the Russians enough to know they will get invaded if they do something like that. Poland is bigger, but Poland also knows that there are plenty of NATO members, including the USA almost assuredly, that will not respond to an Article 5 request from any nation that sends troops into Ukraine. Russia probably doesn't have the strength to invade Poland but they for sure can spare a few missiles to hit Polish cities, especially if they know Poland won't get any "help" because they acted outside of NATO's approval.

The US and the other nuclear powers in NATO have made it very, very, clear that NATO wants no troops on the ground in Ukraine. That would potentially give Russia justification to use tactical nuclear weapons, and the "big 3" won't stomach that. Heck, the US won't even supply ATACAMS even though Ukraine promises not to hit Russia proper with them. Nobody is "going rogue" on this, because the risk vs benefits just isn't there. The US, UK and France certainly do not want to be put into a potential nuclear confrontation by some smaller, non-nuclear NATO state stepping out of line, and that has been repeatedly and abundantly made clear to all concerned.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 06-08-2023

Goose, there will be no nuclear confrontation. As soon as that fantasy is let go of, there are a lot more possibilities and winning becomes much more likely.

But even if there were a nuclear war started because NATO country forces were on the ground in Ukraine, I welcome dying on that hill, and I think many others do too.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-08-2023

(06-08-2023, 06:24 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(06-08-2023, 05:39 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  This is exactly what I have been waiting to see and makes me so happy to read  There is no reason individual NATO members can't come to the aid of Ukraine outside the umbrella of official NATO action. I personally love the idea of having select NATO country forces holding positions in Ukraine while UAF push forward to attack the invading Russians. Then, as UAF takes back territory, those NATO country forces fill in behind to hold gained ground, allowing UAF to continue ahead knowing their backs are covered. When Ukraine has taken all its territory back, Ukraine becomes a NATO member and official NATO forces come into Ukraine, including German, British, U.S. THAT is how you do it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/07/nato-members-may-send-troops-to-ukraine-warns-former-alliance-chief

I don't think there is any doubt that what you say is the has been made clear to the Ukraine and NATO members.  I would assume we have also told the Ukraine to keep NATO supplied weapons out of the hands of the apparent Russian Rebel forces.  I have yet to see anything that gives any real insight to the rebel operations.  Who are they, how big are the forces, and how well armed are they are questions needing answers.  If they actually exist at brigade level size, then someone is giving them a lot of arms and equipment.  Where else can those items come from but Ukraine? I suppose some unhappy oligarch maybe supply funds to buy stuff, but I hope that guy doesn't stand near any open windows.
I would love to see some factual information on this group.  That there would be enough disgruntled Russians willing to take up arms against the Motherland seems sort of hard to get my mind around.  But maybe the younger Russians think differently than their parents.  

Quote:My read on this, FWIW, is that there is ZERO probability that the Baltic States will send troops anywhere. They are so small they have very few troops anyway and fear the Russians enough to know they will get invaded if they do something like that. Poland is bigger, but Poland also knows that there are plenty of NATO members, including the USA almost assuredly, that will not respond to an Article 5 request from any nation that sends troops into Ukraine. Russia probably doesn't have the strength to invade Poland but they for sure can spare a few missiles to hit Polish cities, especially if they know Poland won't get any "help" because they acted outside of NATO's approval.

The US and the other nuclear powers in NATO have made it very, very, clear that NATO wants no troops on the ground in Ukraine. That would potentially give Russia justification to use tactical nuclear weapons, and the "big 3" won't stomach that. Heck, the US won't even supply ATACAMS even though Ukraine promises not to hit Russia proper with them. Nobody is "going rogue" on this, because the risk vs benefits just isn't there. The US, UK and France certainly do not want to be put into a potential nuclear confrontation by some smaller, non-nuclear NATO state stepping out of line, and that has been repeatedly and abundantly made clear to all concerned.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-08-2023

(06-08-2023, 07:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Goose, there will be no nuclear confrontation. As soon as that fantasy is let go of, there are a lot more possibilities and winning becomes much more likely.

There absolutely would be a Nuclear "confrontation". Whether that would lead to nuclear war is another question, but the discussion would be had, on both sides.

Quote:But even if there were a nuclear war started because NATO country forces were on the ground in Ukraine, I welcome dying on that hill, and I think many others do too.

OK, if you so chose. However, I believe the vast majority of the population doesn't agree that hill is worth dying on to allow e.g. Polish troops to "augment" Ukrainian forces. The benefit isn't worth the cost. One might argue Russia would be crazy to use a tactical nuclear weapon in response, but IMO the Russian government has demonstrated it often does things that most regard as "crazy". There may be situations where such a risk is unavoidable, but "backstopping" Ukrainian troops emphatically isn't one of those.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-08-2023

We are currently in the midst of the counter offensive, it seems, but we likely won't know much for a couple days.  I think this tweet makes some good points.  We are all hoping for a major breakthrough, but this likely won't be the same as the Kharkiv counteroffensive, but it would be nice if it was.  

[tweet]=https://twitter.com/ian_matveev/status/1666871912050327553?s=20]https://twitter.com/ian_matveev/status/1666871912050327553?s=20[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 06-09-2023

https://youtu.be/SXjJuv6uBp0

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-09-2023

Unfortunately we are seeing some examples of pretty poor tactics being used by Ukraine with their new western equipment.  Obviously Russians are going to try and show the worst view of Ukraine's tactics, but given we have no evidence of any break throughs so far, and barely any rumors of those, it does make you question the Ukrainians a bit.  They seem to be making the same errors we laughed at Russia for making, bunching up armor, and struggling to get through a mine field.  It seems confirmed losses (damaged and destroyed) include 3 leopard tanks, and 11 Bradleys already.  

[tweet]=https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1667190618248847360?s=20]https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1667190618248847360?s=20[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 06-09-2023

No doubt Ukrainians taking some losses, undoubtedly some through poor tactics. But it is easy to armchair general. one can easily imagine a situation where a minefield you thought was cleared in fact wasn’t, causing mobility kills and units to bunch up and be a target for artillery. 

Western armor seems to be doing its job in that we see some disabled vehicles but relatively few casualties near them. A lot of the Bradley’s have their hatches open looking like they got disabled but deployed their dismounts. If Ukraine seizes the area I imagine many will be recovered and repaired. The real question will be the territory that is seized and held. If Ukraine can get to the sea and hold it, even heavy depletion if their western armor will have been worth it. 

Pushing towards Tokmak was always going to be rough. Both sides can read a map and this is critical real estate. 

There is a lot of fog, but only thing that is clear is some heavy losses on both sides. Some reports of breakthroughs, some reports Russia is holding well but most of their reserve is committed.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 06-09-2023

Ukraine has ordered an OPSEC blackout. Some information may seep out, but most everything you hear about the counteroffensive now is going to be through a lens of Russian propaganda.

We can all look for bits and pieces of insight about what is happening now, but we aren't going to see a complete picture, so it doesn't do a lot of good to draw any conclusions about anything for a couple weeks, maybe even a month. 

I saw someone who has earned my trust over the years say Ukraine has made much more progress than has been reported in some areas. But I'm not assuming this to be the case. Just another data point to think about.

Mark Hertling said it's likely the "destroyed" tanks are likely only damaged and will be repaired. So much speculation and disinformation going around now.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-09-2023

(06-09-2023, 03:29 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  So much speculation and disinformation going around now.

Amen! I strongly suspect we on this board are all ears for information, but right now, and probably for a while, there isn't going to be anything that is totally trustworthy out there.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 06-10-2023

A quick, instructive and truthful thread:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/UmlandAndreas/status/1667313090080251906[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Leftcoast - 06-11-2023

I do not believe the war has materially changed how countries treat their  nuclear proliferation calculations or “trust” in the UN as an effective ally against an aggressive and more powerful neighbor.  Not after the ample examples in the last 30 years. Real Politik has diminished but not disappeared particularly if you border Russia.

In fact, if I’m a neighbor of Russia I’m encouraged.  Regardless of outcome Russia will emerge weaker and less confident they can roll over there neighbors - good news for Poland, the Baltic states, and the Asian breakaways.

And just as before any Russian border state would prefer NATO membership over faith in the UN.

It’s also true that the post WWII international order maligned in that tweet drastically reduced the number of annexations and border wars compared with any comparable period in the last millennia and it’s WAY too early to say it will fail in Ukraine.

---