[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-holds...58882.html
Possibly this could be interesting to this group. In the first segment we see what appears to be a BMP-2 with six(?) troops on the "outside" practicing occupying (rather "forceful" driving) a prepared fighting position. In the second shorter segment we see troops dismounting from a BTR-80.

The first segment shows troops riding on the outside dismounting the BMP-2. The BMP-2 is notoriously cramped and hard to get out of. It is also not impervious to 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) machine gun rounds or to virtually any shaped charge LAW or newer ATGM. Given the discomfort and lack of protection, lots of (mostly non-European) users are in the habit of riding on the outside. The BMP-2 is basically impervious to 7.62 mm and smaller infantry weapons. It is somewhat "resistant" to older RPG type weapons.

If you blunder into dismounts clearly being outside isn't a very good idea. Soviet troops rode inside. If you get hit by a LAW your odds of survival might be slightly better riding outside. It you run into a heavy machine gun you are in trouble either way. The real problem is that it is just real uncomfortable riding inside. You need a well disciplined army to make sure the troops do. The real problem with staying outside occurs when you come under artillery fire. Air bursts will kill troops riding outside.  If they are inside, only a direct hit or very near miss will do that. Similarly a GMLRS M30A1 will scrape off outside riders, while (unless it goes right over you) you are relatively safe inside a BMP.

The second segment shows a "textbook" example of a group of troops dismounting from a BTR-80 type IFV. The BTR-80 is not real comfortable either but it is slightly better than a BMP. That group did it "right".

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-holds...58882.html
Possibly this could be interesting to this group. In the first segment we see what appears to be a BMP-2 with six(?) troops on the "outside" practicing occupying (rather "forceful" driving) a prepared fighting position. In the second shorter segment we see troops dismounting from a BTR-80.

The first segment shows troops riding on the outside dismounting the BMP-2. The BMP-2 is notoriously cramped and hard to get out of. It is also not impervious to 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) machine gun rounds or to virtually any shaped charge LAW or newer ATGM. Given the discomfort and lack of protection, lots of (mostly non-European) users are in the habit of riding on the outside. The BMP-2 is basically impervious to 7.62 mm and smaller infantry weapons. It is somewhat "resistant" to older RPG type weapons.

If you blunder into dismounts clearly being outside isn't a very good idea. Soviet troops rode inside. If you get hit by a LAW your odds of survival might be slightly better riding outside. It you run into a heavy machine gun you are in trouble either way. The real problem is that it is just real uncomfortable riding inside. You need a well disciplined army to make sure the troops do. The real problem with staying outside occurs when you come under artillery fire. Air bursts will kill troops riding outside.  If they are inside, only a direct hit or very near miss will do that. Similarly a GMLRS M30A1 will scrape off outside riders, while (unless it goes right over you) you are relatively safe inside a BMP.

The second segment shows a "textbook" example of a group of troops dismounting from a BTR-80 type IFV. The BTR-80 is not real comfortable either but it is slightly better than a BMP. That group did it "right".

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/konstantinkisin/status/1575853684852150272?s=21&t=_WdKuEfgrc_mHAOcGZcYGQ[/tweet]

Yikes.  If he believes any of this, this war is not ending until Putin is out.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/konstantinkisin/status/1575853684852150272?s=21&t=_WdKuEfgrc_mHAOcGZcYGQ[/tweet]

Yikes.  If he believes any of this, this war is not ending until Putin is out.

BC

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/konstantinkisin/stat...HAOcGZcYGQ

Yikes.  If he believes any of this, this war is not ending until Putin is out.

BC

I am pretty sure he believes the vast majority of it. There are probably a few things thrown in to appeal to his "base", but "fundamentally" one can see how he and Russia got to where he is. Many Russians of his generation have to explain to themselves how "Russia" went from a superpower to a gas station. This is his (and unfortunately others like him) explanation.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/konstantinkisin/stat...HAOcGZcYGQ

Yikes.  If he believes any of this, this war is not ending until Putin is out.

BC

I am pretty sure he believes the vast majority of it. There are probably a few things thrown in to appeal to his "base", but "fundamentally" one can see how he and Russia got to where he is. Many Russians of his generation have to explain to themselves how "Russia" went from a superpower to a gas station. This is his (and unfortunately others like him) explanation.

[Treefence]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-holds...58882.html
Possibly this could be interesting to this group. In the first segment we see what appears to be a BMP-2 with six(?) troops on the "outside" practicing occupying (rather "forceful" driving) a prepared fighting position. In the second shorter segment we see troops dismounting from a BTR-80.

The first segment shows troops riding on the outside dismounting the BMP-2. The BMP-2 is notoriously cramped and hard to get out of. It is also not impervious to 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) machine gun rounds or to virtually any shaped charge LAW or newer ATGM. Given the discomfort and lack of protection, lots of (mostly non-European) users are in the habit of riding on the outside. The BMP-2 is basically impervious to 7.62 mm and smaller infantry weapons. It is somewhat "resistant" to older RPG type weapons.

If you blunder into dismounts clearly being outside isn't a very good idea. Soviet troops rode inside. If you get hit by a LAW your odds of survival might be slightly better riding outside. It you run into a heavy machine gun you are in trouble either way. The real problem is that it is just real uncomfortable riding inside. You need a well disciplined army to make sure the troops do. The real problem with staying outside occurs when you come under artillery fire. Air bursts will kill troops riding outside.  If they are inside, only a direct hit or very near miss will do that. Similarly a GMLRS M30A1 will scrape off outside riders, while (unless it goes right over you) you are relatively safe inside a BMP.

The second segment shows a "textbook" example of a group of troops dismounting from a BTR-80 type IFV. The BTR-80 is not real comfortable either but it is slightly better than a BMP. That group did it "right".

I wonder if this is at all related...

[tweet][url=https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1575933904627736577?s=20&t=dV6C_3HG1TDUGpdReaqKGg]https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1575933904627736577?s=20&t=dV6C_3HG1TDUGpdReaqKGg[/tweet]

Obviously not the same areas, but my guess is Russia is trying to force Ukraine to defend every inch of the border with Russia and Belarus to spread their forces out.

[Treefence]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-holds...58882.html
Possibly this could be interesting to this group. In the first segment we see what appears to be a BMP-2 with six(?) troops on the "outside" practicing occupying (rather "forceful" driving) a prepared fighting position. In the second shorter segment we see troops dismounting from a BTR-80.

The first segment shows troops riding on the outside dismounting the BMP-2. The BMP-2 is notoriously cramped and hard to get out of. It is also not impervious to 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) machine gun rounds or to virtually any shaped charge LAW or newer ATGM. Given the discomfort and lack of protection, lots of (mostly non-European) users are in the habit of riding on the outside. The BMP-2 is basically impervious to 7.62 mm and smaller infantry weapons. It is somewhat "resistant" to older RPG type weapons.

If you blunder into dismounts clearly being outside isn't a very good idea. Soviet troops rode inside. If you get hit by a LAW your odds of survival might be slightly better riding outside. It you run into a heavy machine gun you are in trouble either way. The real problem is that it is just real uncomfortable riding inside. You need a well disciplined army to make sure the troops do. The real problem with staying outside occurs when you come under artillery fire. Air bursts will kill troops riding outside.  If they are inside, only a direct hit or very near miss will do that. Similarly a GMLRS M30A1 will scrape off outside riders, while (unless it goes right over you) you are relatively safe inside a BMP.

The second segment shows a "textbook" example of a group of troops dismounting from a BTR-80 type IFV. The BTR-80 is not real comfortable either but it is slightly better than a BMP. That group did it "right".

I wonder if this is at all related...

[tweet][url=https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1575933904627736577?s=20&t=dV6C_3HG1TDUGpdReaqKGg]https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1575933904627736577?s=20&t=dV6C_3HG1TDUGpdReaqKGg[/tweet]

Obviously not the same areas, but my guess is Russia is trying to force Ukraine to defend every inch of the border with Russia and Belarus to spread their forces out.

[Goose]

I wonder if this is at all related...


[url=https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1575933904627736577?s=20&t=dV6C_3HG1TDUGpdReaqKGg]https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1575933904627736577?s=20&t=dV6C_3HG1TDUGpdReaqKGg



Obviously not the same areas, but my guess is Russia is trying to force Ukraine to defend every inch of the border with Russia and Belarus to spread their forces out.

You are undoubtedly correct. Russia evacuated lots of areas in the north east that were not directly attacked. It is probable they intend to re-occupy them as soon as they can, because 1) it "looks better" and 2) it forces Ukraine to defend there. It will be interesting to see what Russia can actually do. Those T-90s very probably are part of a class A unit transferred from some distant part of Russia. If committed, they would be expected to do much better than recent conscripts.

[Goose]

I wonder if this is at all related...


[url=https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1575933904627736577?s=20&t=dV6C_3HG1TDUGpdReaqKGg]https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1575933904627736577?s=20&t=dV6C_3HG1TDUGpdReaqKGg



Obviously not the same areas, but my guess is Russia is trying to force Ukraine to defend every inch of the border with Russia and Belarus to spread their forces out.

You are undoubtedly correct. Russia evacuated lots of areas in the north east that were not directly attacked. It is probable they intend to re-occupy them as soon as they can, because 1) it "looks better" and 2) it forces Ukraine to defend there. It will be interesting to see what Russia can actually do. Those T-90s very probably are part of a class A unit transferred from some distant part of Russia. If committed, they would be expected to do much better than recent conscripts.

[dabigv13]

The threat of intervention from Belarus, or a new offensive near Kharkiv, is probably better for Russia than any actual invasion from there. 

Russia is on the back foot in Kherson and Donetsk, if Russia has quality reserves they should be used to stop their current losses and open up the Lyman encirclement, rather than open a new front. Starting a new offensive in a completely different area would likely end just like their Kyiv thunder run, with a lot of dead Russians and blown up equipment in a short time. It's easier for Ukraine to move forces around on their interior lines than it is for Russia, and any gains an offensive would make would require further support to hold it, support they desperately need to be sending elsewhere. With all their best offensive troops tied down defending Kherson, I don't think it's very likely.

Ukraine may have to hold some forces back to guard against the possibility which is a plus for Russia, but if Russia tried it, would just hasten their eventual loss.

[dabigv13]

The threat of intervention from Belarus, or a new offensive near Kharkiv, is probably better for Russia than any actual invasion from there. 

Russia is on the back foot in Kherson and Donetsk, if Russia has quality reserves they should be used to stop their current losses and open up the Lyman encirclement, rather than open a new front. Starting a new offensive in a completely different area would likely end just like their Kyiv thunder run, with a lot of dead Russians and blown up equipment in a short time. It's easier for Ukraine to move forces around on their interior lines than it is for Russia, and any gains an offensive would make would require further support to hold it, support they desperately need to be sending elsewhere. With all their best offensive troops tied down defending Kherson, I don't think it's very likely.

Ukraine may have to hold some forces back to guard against the possibility which is a plus for Russia, but if Russia tried it, would just hasten their eventual loss.

[Goose]

The threat of intervention from Belarus is probably better for Russia than any actual invasion from there. 

Russia is on the back foot in Kherson and Donetsk, if Russia has quality reserves they should be used to stop their current losses and open up the Lyman encirclement, rather than open a new front. Starting a new offensive in a completely different area would likely end just like their Kyiv thunder run, with a lot of dead Russians and blown up equipment in a short time. It's easier for Ukraine to move forces around on their interior lines than it is for Russia, and any gains an offensive would make would require further support to hold it, support they desperately need to be sending elsewhere. With all their best offensive troops tied down defending Kherson, I don't think it's very likely.

Ukraine may have to hold some forces back to guard against the possibility which is a plus for Russia, but if Russia tried it, would just hasten their eventual loss.

Not only that, but there is some evidence that photo is actually an old one. It looks like spring there and the weather doesn't match the supposed date.

Normally you would be correct. It makes no sense to start an offensive that you don't have the troops to reinforce. However, Russia doesn't always do what makes sense. It is also true that Ukraine isn't flush with forces either and anything Russia can peel away from the main efforts is a "good thing" for them. In areas where Russia is basically unopposed, they can use conscripts to force Ukraine to deploy some of the better trained forces.

Ukraine is a big country. Even the areas colored Red and Blue are not exactly full of their respective troops. Ukraine demonstrated this around Izyum. Once they got through the front, there wasn't much opposition. Russia evacuated a lot of areas they were not forced to. For political reasons there is pressure to go back. Similarly, Ukraine is under political pressure not to let it happen.

[Goose]

The threat of intervention from Belarus is probably better for Russia than any actual invasion from there. 

Russia is on the back foot in Kherson and Donetsk, if Russia has quality reserves they should be used to stop their current losses and open up the Lyman encirclement, rather than open a new front. Starting a new offensive in a completely different area would likely end just like their Kyiv thunder run, with a lot of dead Russians and blown up equipment in a short time. It's easier for Ukraine to move forces around on their interior lines than it is for Russia, and any gains an offensive would make would require further support to hold it, support they desperately need to be sending elsewhere. With all their best offensive troops tied down defending Kherson, I don't think it's very likely.

Ukraine may have to hold some forces back to guard against the possibility which is a plus for Russia, but if Russia tried it, would just hasten their eventual loss.

Not only that, but there is some evidence that photo is actually an old one. It looks like spring there and the weather doesn't match the supposed date.

Normally you would be correct. It makes no sense to start an offensive that you don't have the troops to reinforce. However, Russia doesn't always do what makes sense. It is also true that Ukraine isn't flush with forces either and anything Russia can peel away from the main efforts is a "good thing" for them. In areas where Russia is basically unopposed, they can use conscripts to force Ukraine to deploy some of the better trained forces.

Ukraine is a big country. Even the areas colored Red and Blue are not exactly full of their respective troops. Ukraine demonstrated this around Izyum. Once they got through the front, there wasn't much opposition. Russia evacuated a lot of areas they were not forced to. For political reasons there is pressure to go back. Similarly, Ukraine is under political pressure not to let it happen.

[BostonCard]

I still don’t understanding the nordstream explosions.  Like, what does Russia stand to gain from it?  A warning shot that the Norwegian pipeline to Poland is also vulnerable? An excuse to cut off Russian gas without shutting it down for “maintenence”?  An “f/u” to Europe even though in the long run it will accelerate Europe’s move to independence from Russian gas?

BC

[BostonCard]

I still don’t understanding the nordstream explosions.  Like, what does Russia stand to gain from it?  A warning shot that the Norwegian pipeline to Poland is also vulnerable? An excuse to cut off Russian gas without shutting it down for “maintenence”?  An “f/u” to Europe even though in the long run it will accelerate Europe’s move to independence from Russian gas?

BC

[Treefence]

I still don’t understanding the nordstream explosions.  Like, what does Russia stand to gain from it?  A warning shot that the Norwegian pipeline to Poland is also vulnerable? An excuse to cut off Russian gas without shutting it down for “maintenence”?  An “f/u” to Europe even though in the long run it will accelerate Europe’s move to independence from Russian gas?

BC

I think the logic is Russia wants to make winter worse for Europe, while at the same time not avoiding their contractural obligations, or looking like they are intentionally weaponizing their gas.  They also get a chance to play the victim, because the attacks on the nordstreams are an attack on Russia...

[Treefence]

I still don’t understanding the nordstream explosions.  Like, what does Russia stand to gain from it?  A warning shot that the Norwegian pipeline to Poland is also vulnerable? An excuse to cut off Russian gas without shutting it down for “maintenence”?  An “f/u” to Europe even though in the long run it will accelerate Europe’s move to independence from Russian gas?

BC

I think the logic is Russia wants to make winter worse for Europe, while at the same time not avoiding their contractural obligations, or looking like they are intentionally weaponizing their gas.  They also get a chance to play the victim, because the attacks on the nordstreams are an attack on Russia...

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mhmck/status/1575971495435636737?s=21&t=BCyYSTDAdmhvkfYDKX-KOQ[/tweet]

ISW (Ukraine biased, but also pretty conservative about calling things) predicts Lyman will be freed within 72 hours. If the tweet above is to be believed, Ukraine may already have an operational encirclement of the Russians, who may be feeling the heat in the cauldron.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mhmck/status/1575971495435636737?s=21&t=BCyYSTDAdmhvkfYDKX-KOQ[/tweet]

ISW (Ukraine biased, but also pretty conservative about calling things) predicts Lyman will be freed within 72 hours. If the tweet above is to be believed, Ukraine may already have an operational encirclement of the Russians, who may be feeling the heat in the cauldron.

BC

[M T]

I still don’t understanding the nordstream explosions.  Like, what does Russia stand to gain from it?  A warning shot that the Norwegian pipeline to Poland is also vulnerable? An excuse to cut off Russian gas without shutting it down for “maintenence”?  An “f/u” to Europe even though in the long run it will accelerate Europe’s move to independence from Russian gas?

One analysis (DW?) I saw said that if Europe wants it repaired, it will have to be the Russians that do it (it is their pipeline).  Further, to make repairs, some sanctions would have to be lifted.

I still don't understand it.  Two functional, but idle, Nordstream pipelines (actually each is a pair) would have been a carrot temptingly just beyond the easy reach of the EU. An opposing party could yell "Enough" and bargain away sanctions to get Russian gas.  Broken pipelines means the EU has no choice but to find other ways to get energy through the winter.

To be honest, I'm not ready to assume it was done by Putin.   Anti-West hawks in Russia?  Anti-Russian hawks in the West?   Global warming extremists?   If it really takes a nation-state to do this (rather than some group with a submersible), then I can't imagine any would risk it except Russia.

EU will be suffering a different kind of Cold War this winter.

---

Ukraine may already have an operational encirclement of the Russians, who may be feeling the heat in the cauldron.

Or, maybe some Russians are saying "Please don't throw me in the briar patch".

[M T]

I still don’t understanding the nordstream explosions.  Like, what does Russia stand to gain from it?  A warning shot that the Norwegian pipeline to Poland is also vulnerable? An excuse to cut off Russian gas without shutting it down for “maintenence”?  An “f/u” to Europe even though in the long run it will accelerate Europe’s move to independence from Russian gas?

One analysis (DW?) I saw said that if Europe wants it repaired, it will have to be the Russians that do it (it is their pipeline).  Further, to make repairs, some sanctions would have to be lifted.

I still don't understand it.  Two functional, but idle, Nordstream pipelines (actually each is a pair) would have been a carrot temptingly just beyond the easy reach of the EU. An opposing party could yell "Enough" and bargain away sanctions to get Russian gas.  Broken pipelines means the EU has no choice but to find other ways to get energy through the winter.

To be honest, I'm not ready to assume it was done by Putin.   Anti-West hawks in Russia?  Anti-Russian hawks in the West?   Global warming extremists?   If it really takes a nation-state to do this (rather than some group with a submersible), then I can't imagine any would risk it except Russia.

EU will be suffering a different kind of Cold War this winter.

---

Ukraine may already have an operational encirclement of the Russians, who may be feeling the heat in the cauldron.

Or, maybe some Russians are saying "Please don't throw me in the briar patch".

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1576151201393303552?s=20&t=Y3nohW1TojCOyq54NEo5_w[/Tweet]
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/FckKazaps/status/157...yq54NEo5_w[/Tweet]
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/mr_gh0stly/status/15...yq54NEo5_w[/Tweet]
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status...yq54NEo5_w[/Tweet]
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/ukrainiansquad/statu...yq54NEo5_w
[/Tweet]

Lyman taken. Reports as well of fighting around Kreminna, with Ukrainian special forces behind the front lines said to be engaging Russian troops as they retreated.

Putin says one thing, Ukraine speaks with their actions. Kharkiv offensive perhaps had an element of surprise, but Russia knew this was coming, reinforced with what they had, and still were routed in short order. Ominous.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1576151201393303552?s=20&t=Y3nohW1TojCOyq54NEo5_w[/Tweet]
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/FckKazaps/status/157...yq54NEo5_w[/Tweet]
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/mr_gh0stly/status/15...yq54NEo5_w[/Tweet]
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status...yq54NEo5_w[/Tweet]
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/ukrainiansquad/statu...yq54NEo5_w
[/Tweet]

Lyman taken. Reports as well of fighting around Kreminna, with Ukrainian special forces behind the front lines said to be engaging Russian troops as they retreated.

Putin says one thing, Ukraine speaks with their actions. Kharkiv offensive perhaps had an element of surprise, but Russia knew this was coming, reinforced with what they had, and still were routed in short order. Ominous.

[OutsiderFan]

The worthless corporate news media reported that Russia had "annexed" the territory of which Lyman is a part. So now how do they report?

"Ukraine takes Russian territory in capture of Lyman" ? Or do they say what actually happened, which is "Ukraine took back control of Lyman from Russian occupiers." And if they do report as Ukraine taking back Lyman from occupiers, how the hell can "the territory was annexed by Russia" report be taken seriously? Just horrendous reporting by news outlets we are suppose to be able to trust.

Russia illegally occupies Ukraine and no international body recognizes the vote referendums Russia claims to have held that resulted in 95% of voters wanting to leave Ukraine and join Russia, yet BBC, New York Times, and Reuters dutifully report Putin's propaganda and normalize it.

This might as well have been a Putin press release: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kre...022-09-30/

Just catastrophically atrocious by Reuters. Not one place in the "article" did the reporter call out the sham nature of the voting, say no international body recognizes any annexation, or otherwise pushback against Russia's claims. 

The state of corporate journalism has never been worse at home and abroad. Regurgitating talking points and effectively printing press releases is NOT reporting. It's stenography.

[OutsiderFan]

The worthless corporate news media reported that Russia had "annexed" the territory of which Lyman is a part. So now how do they report?

"Ukraine takes Russian territory in capture of Lyman" ? Or do they say what actually happened, which is "Ukraine took back control of Lyman from Russian occupiers." And if they do report as Ukraine taking back Lyman from occupiers, how the hell can "the territory was annexed by Russia" report be taken seriously? Just horrendous reporting by news outlets we are suppose to be able to trust.

Russia illegally occupies Ukraine and no international body recognizes the vote referendums Russia claims to have held that resulted in 95% of voters wanting to leave Ukraine and join Russia, yet BBC, New York Times, and Reuters dutifully report Putin's propaganda and normalize it.

This might as well have been a Putin press release: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kre...022-09-30/

Just catastrophically atrocious by Reuters. Not one place in the "article" did the reporter call out the sham nature of the voting, say no international body recognizes any annexation, or otherwise pushback against Russia's claims. 

The state of corporate journalism has never been worse at home and abroad. Regurgitating talking points and effectively printing press releases is NOT reporting. It's stenography.

[Goose]

I still don’t understanding the nordstream explosions.  Like, what does Russia stand to gain from it?  A warning shot that the Norwegian pipeline to Poland is also vulnerable? An excuse to cut off Russian gas without shutting it down for “maintenence”?  An “f/u” to Europe even though in the long run it will accelerate Europe’s move to independence from Russian gas?

One analysis (DW?) I saw said that if Europe wants it repaired, it will have to be the Russians that do it (it is their pipeline).  Further, to make repairs, some sanctions would have to be lifted.

I still don't understand it.  Two functional, but idle, Nordstream pipelines (actually each is a pair) would have been a carrot temptingly just beyond the easy reach of the EU. An opposing party could yell "Enough" and bargain away sanctions to get Russian gas.  Broken pipelines means the EU has no choice but to find other ways to get energy through the winter.

To be honest, I'm not ready to assume it was done by Putin.   Anti-West hawks in Russia?  Anti-Russian hawks in the West?   Global warming extremists?   If it really takes a nation-state to do this (rather than some group with a submersible), then I can't imagine any would risk it except Russia.

EU will be suffering a different kind of Cold War this winter.

I am a bit surprised nobody has stated the obvious. The country that "benefits" the most from this pipeline destruction is Ukraine. If things get bad this winter, Europe could be tempted to throw in the towel, buy Russian gas, and dump Ukraine. With no pipelines, they can't do that even if they wanted to. That doesn't mean I think Ukraine did it, but normally that is where one would start to look.

One does need to consider this could also be a commercially motivated action. States (and companies) involved in the LNG business might look at this as a way to ensure their customers have to buy LNG. Having a potential alternative creates uncertainty, and we know how business hates uncertainty :-). Some LNG exporter state may have figured it would be possible to do this and everybody would blame Russia, not them.

It does not take a nation-state to do this. There are many underwater construction companies and oil field support companies with the equipment and expertise to to this kind of thing. The challenges would be to do so covertly and to maintain security subsequently. The covert requirement could be met several ways. The security issues could be the only way we find out who actually did it.

[Goose]

I still don’t understanding the nordstream explosions.  Like, what does Russia stand to gain from it?  A warning shot that the Norwegian pipeline to Poland is also vulnerable? An excuse to cut off Russian gas without shutting it down for “maintenence”?  An “f/u” to Europe even though in the long run it will accelerate Europe’s move to independence from Russian gas?

One analysis (DW?) I saw said that if Europe wants it repaired, it will have to be the Russians that do it (it is their pipeline).  Further, to make repairs, some sanctions would have to be lifted.

I still don't understand it.  Two functional, but idle, Nordstream pipelines (actually each is a pair) would have been a carrot temptingly just beyond the easy reach of the EU. An opposing party could yell "Enough" and bargain away sanctions to get Russian gas.  Broken pipelines means the EU has no choice but to find other ways to get energy through the winter.

To be honest, I'm not ready to assume it was done by Putin.   Anti-West hawks in Russia?  Anti-Russian hawks in the West?   Global warming extremists?   If it really takes a nation-state to do this (rather than some group with a submersible), then I can't imagine any would risk it except Russia.

EU will be suffering a different kind of Cold War this winter.

I am a bit surprised nobody has stated the obvious. The country that "benefits" the most from this pipeline destruction is Ukraine. If things get bad this winter, Europe could be tempted to throw in the towel, buy Russian gas, and dump Ukraine. With no pipelines, they can't do that even if they wanted to. That doesn't mean I think Ukraine did it, but normally that is where one would start to look.

One does need to consider this could also be a commercially motivated action. States (and companies) involved in the LNG business might look at this as a way to ensure their customers have to buy LNG. Having a potential alternative creates uncertainty, and we know how business hates uncertainty :-). Some LNG exporter state may have figured it would be possible to do this and everybody would blame Russia, not them.

It does not take a nation-state to do this. There are many underwater construction companies and oil field support companies with the equipment and expertise to to this kind of thing. The challenges would be to do so covertly and to maintain security subsequently. The covert requirement could be met several ways. The security issues could be the only way we find out who actually did it.

[Goose]

During the next 48-72 hours we will get clarity on what Ukraine actually surrounded. Worst case, Ukraine has apparently recaptured Lyman, which is a major victory. Best case, they have surrounded and will captured the remnants of 3 regiments and their associated support elements. As I understand it that could be up to 5K troops. It could be that all of these troops got out, or anywhere in between. The regiments were supposedly 1 Russian and 2 DPR regiments. Hopefully, Ukraine got most of them.

Interestingly, Ukraine is reported to be already exploiting to the east. If true, this would indicate that once again, even with at least a week to do so, Russia did not build a second line of defense to contain a breakthrough (should it happen). That is just plain bad tactics. Even if you think you are going to hold, you put a blocking force in place to prevent a breech from opening in your lines. If your defense is a success you can use the blocking force to attack the defeated enemy. Russia just may not have the resources to do that. If so, they need to contract their perimeter to one they can defend in adequate depth. Perhaps Putin wouldn't let them, so the Ukraine is doing it for them :-).

[Goose]

During the next 48-72 hours we will get clarity on what Ukraine actually surrounded. Worst case, Ukraine has apparently recaptured Lyman, which is a major victory. Best case, they have surrounded and will captured the remnants of 3 regiments and their associated support elements. As I understand it that could be up to 5K troops. It could be that all of these troops got out, or anywhere in between. The regiments were supposedly 1 Russian and 2 DPR regiments. Hopefully, Ukraine got most of them.

Interestingly, Ukraine is reported to be already exploiting to the east. If true, this would indicate that once again, even with at least a week to do so, Russia did not build a second line of defense to contain a breakthrough (should it happen). That is just plain bad tactics. Even if you think you are going to hold, you put a blocking force in place to prevent a breech from opening in your lines. If your defense is a success you can use the blocking force to attack the defeated enemy. Russia just may not have the resources to do that. If so, they need to contract their perimeter to one they can defend in adequate depth. Perhaps Putin wouldn't let them, so the Ukraine is doing it for them :-).

[GK3]

During the next 48-72 hours we will get clarity on what Ukraine actually surrounded. Worst case, Ukraine has apparently recaptured Lyman, which is a major victory. Best case, they have surrounded and will captured the remnants of 3 regiments and their associated support elements. As I understand it that could be up to 5K troops. It could be that all of these troops got out, or anywhere in between. The regiments were supposedly 1 Russian and 2 DPR regiments. Hopefully, Ukraine got most of them.

Interestingly, Ukraine is reported to be already exploiting to the east. If true, this would indicate that once again, even with at least a week to do so, Russia did not build a second line of defense to contain a breakthrough (should it happen). That is just plain bad tactics. Even if you think you are going to hold, you put a blocking force in place to prevent a breech from opening in your lines. If your defense is a success you can use the blocking force to attack the defeated enemy. Russia just may not have the resources to do that. If so, they need to contract their perimeter to one they can defend in adequate depth. Perhaps Putin wouldn't let them, so the Ukraine is doing it for them :-).

There are reports that Russia has stripped its northern border with NATO countries to replace their losses in the Ukraine, including removing S300 batteries from St. Petersburg.  Putin has truly gotten himself between a rock and a very hard place.  It is going to be a very interesting week if the reported Ukraine advance past Lyman is true.

[GK3]

During the next 48-72 hours we will get clarity on what Ukraine actually surrounded. Worst case, Ukraine has apparently recaptured Lyman, which is a major victory. Best case, they have surrounded and will captured the remnants of 3 regiments and their associated support elements. As I understand it that could be up to 5K troops. It could be that all of these troops got out, or anywhere in between. The regiments were supposedly 1 Russian and 2 DPR regiments. Hopefully, Ukraine got most of them.

Interestingly, Ukraine is reported to be already exploiting to the east. If true, this would indicate that once again, even with at least a week to do so, Russia did not build a second line of defense to contain a breakthrough (should it happen). That is just plain bad tactics. Even if you think you are going to hold, you put a blocking force in place to prevent a breech from opening in your lines. If your defense is a success you can use the blocking force to attack the defeated enemy. Russia just may not have the resources to do that. If so, they need to contract their perimeter to one they can defend in adequate depth. Perhaps Putin wouldn't let them, so the Ukraine is doing it for them :-).

There are reports that Russia has stripped its northern border with NATO countries to replace their losses in the Ukraine, including removing S300 batteries from St. Petersburg.  Putin has truly gotten himself between a rock and a very hard place.  It is going to be a very interesting week if the reported Ukraine advance past Lyman is true.

[Goose]

There are reports that Russia has stripped its northern border with NATO countries to replace their losses in the Ukraine, including removing S300 batteries from St. Petersburg.  Putin has truly gotten himself between a rock and a very hard place.  It is going to be a very interesting week if the reported Ukraine advance past Lyman is true.

It is true that Russia has transferred quite a few S-300 batteries from St. Petersburg someplace, probably to fight in Ukraine. However, remember the S-300 is obsolete in Russian service. Around St. Petersburg they replaced most of them with S-400s years ago. Since Russia never throws anything away, they have lots of S-300s all over the country that they really don't need. That is why they can use a SAM in a ground attack role. They don't work well, but they have scads of them.

Russia has lots of military challenges in Ukraine but the biggest ones right now appear to be lack of troops (thus having to rely on DPR and LPR troops in critical positions) and extremely poor tactical decision making. It is interesting to note that Stalingrad was surrounded when Russian troops broke through Romanian and Hungarian troops used to defend the flanks. The Germans didn't have enough men. Russia seems to be in that position today.

[Goose]

There are reports that Russia has stripped its northern border with NATO countries to replace their losses in the Ukraine, including removing S300 batteries from St. Petersburg.  Putin has truly gotten himself between a rock and a very hard place.  It is going to be a very interesting week if the reported Ukraine advance past Lyman is true.

It is true that Russia has transferred quite a few S-300 batteries from St. Petersburg someplace, probably to fight in Ukraine. However, remember the S-300 is obsolete in Russian service. Around St. Petersburg they replaced most of them with S-400s years ago. Since Russia never throws anything away, they have lots of S-300s all over the country that they really don't need. That is why they can use a SAM in a ground attack role. They don't work well, but they have scads of them.

Russia has lots of military challenges in Ukraine but the biggest ones right now appear to be lack of troops (thus having to rely on DPR and LPR troops in critical positions) and extremely poor tactical decision making. It is interesting to note that Stalingrad was surrounded when Russian troops broke through Romanian and Hungarian troops used to defend the flanks. The Germans didn't have enough men. Russia seems to be in that position today.

[M T]

I am a bit surprised nobody has stated the obvious. The country that "benefits" the most from this pipeline destruction is Ukraine. If things get bad this winter, Europe could be tempted to throw in the towel, buy Russian gas, and dump Ukraine. With no pipelines, they can't do that even if they wanted to. That doesn't mean I think Ukraine did it, but normally that is where one would start to look.

One does need to consider this could also be a commercially motivated action. States (and companies) involved in the LNG business might look at this as a way to ensure their customers have to buy LNG. Having a potential alternative creates uncertainty, and we know how business hates uncertainty :-). Some LNG exporter state may have figured it would be possible to do this and everybody would blame Russia, not them.

It does not take a nation-state to do this. There are many underwater construction companies and oil field support companies with the equipment and expertise to to this kind of thing. The challenges would be to do so covertly and to maintain security subsequently. The covert requirement could be met several ways. The security issues could be the only way we find out who actually did it.

On the other hand, Ukraine has the most to lose if they can be shown to have done this.  Russia has the most to gain if Ukraine supporters could be reasonably accused of doing this. Russia has relatively little to lose if they are shown to have done this.

Planting the charges without having an obvious surface support vessel would be the challenge. Navy Seals and their counterparts would be trained in that. I expect all underwater pipelines and communication cables would be destroyed early in any war. I doubt commercial divers ever dive without lots of surface support (but maybe some are former Seals).

[M T]

I am a bit surprised nobody has stated the obvious. The country that "benefits" the most from this pipeline destruction is Ukraine. If things get bad this winter, Europe could be tempted to throw in the towel, buy Russian gas, and dump Ukraine. With no pipelines, they can't do that even if they wanted to. That doesn't mean I think Ukraine did it, but normally that is where one would start to look.

One does need to consider this could also be a commercially motivated action. States (and companies) involved in the LNG business might look at this as a way to ensure their customers have to buy LNG. Having a potential alternative creates uncertainty, and we know how business hates uncertainty :-). Some LNG exporter state may have figured it would be possible to do this and everybody would blame Russia, not them.

It does not take a nation-state to do this. There are many underwater construction companies and oil field support companies with the equipment and expertise to to this kind of thing. The challenges would be to do so covertly and to maintain security subsequently. The covert requirement could be met several ways. The security issues could be the only way we find out who actually did it.

On the other hand, Ukraine has the most to lose if they can be shown to have done this.  Russia has the most to gain if Ukraine supporters could be reasonably accused of doing this. Russia has relatively little to lose if they are shown to have done this.

Planting the charges without having an obvious surface support vessel would be the challenge. Navy Seals and their counterparts would be trained in that. I expect all underwater pipelines and communication cables would be destroyed early in any war. I doubt commercial divers ever dive without lots of surface support (but maybe some are former Seals).

[Goose]

I am a bit surprised nobody has stated the obvious. The country that "benefits" the most from this pipeline destruction is Ukraine. If things get bad this winter, Europe could be tempted to throw in the towel, buy Russian gas, and dump Ukraine. With no pipelines, they can't do that even if they wanted to. That doesn't mean I think Ukraine did it, but normally that is where one would start to look.

One does need to consider this could also be a commercially motivated action. States (and companies) involved in the LNG business might look at this as a way to ensure their customers have to buy LNG. Having a potential alternative creates uncertainty, and we know how business hates uncertainty :-). Some LNG exporter state may have figured it would be possible to do this and everybody would blame Russia, not them.

It does not take a nation-state to do this. There are many underwater construction companies and oil field support companies with the equipment and expertise to to this kind of thing. The challenges would be to do so covertly and to maintain security subsequently. The covert requirement could be met several ways. The security issues could be the only way we find out who actually did it.

On the other hand, Ukraine has the most to lose if they can be shown to have done this.  Russia has the most to gain if Ukraine supporters could be reasonably accused of doing this.

True. That is the main reason I don't think Ukraine did it. Too much to lose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different topic. Looks like the next few days are not ideal but after that it is clear sailing for further offensive activity. Even the weather seems to favor Ukraine.
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Lym...354aca7798

[Goose]

I am a bit surprised nobody has stated the obvious. The country that "benefits" the most from this pipeline destruction is Ukraine. If things get bad this winter, Europe could be tempted to throw in the towel, buy Russian gas, and dump Ukraine. With no pipelines, they can't do that even if they wanted to. That doesn't mean I think Ukraine did it, but normally that is where one would start to look.

One does need to consider this could also be a commercially motivated action. States (and companies) involved in the LNG business might look at this as a way to ensure their customers have to buy LNG. Having a potential alternative creates uncertainty, and we know how business hates uncertainty :-). Some LNG exporter state may have figured it would be possible to do this and everybody would blame Russia, not them.

It does not take a nation-state to do this. There are many underwater construction companies and oil field support companies with the equipment and expertise to to this kind of thing. The challenges would be to do so covertly and to maintain security subsequently. The covert requirement could be met several ways. The security issues could be the only way we find out who actually did it.

On the other hand, Ukraine has the most to lose if they can be shown to have done this.  Russia has the most to gain if Ukraine supporters could be reasonably accused of doing this.

True. That is the main reason I don't think Ukraine did it. Too much to lose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different topic. Looks like the next few days are not ideal but after that it is clear sailing for further offensive activity. Even the weather seems to favor Ukraine.
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Lym...354aca7798

[BostonCard]

Looks like Lyman was a bloodbath for the Russians.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/casualartyfan/status/1576188496255254529?s=46&t=4V1xJT_JnqsVS0Ifyee0UQ[/tweet]

How embarrassing for Putin. Ukraine takes a Russian city literally the day after Russia annexes it (yes, OF, I am being sarcastic here).  FwIW I don’t know what media you listen to, but every time I hear the word “referendum” it’s preceded by the word “sham” and every time I’ve heard “annexation” it was just after the word “illegal”.

BC

---

Not sure if this is real or fanfic, but interesting reading and consistent with other evidence. Purportedly from a Ukrainian volunteer.

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpr...slaughter/

BC

[BostonCard]

Looks like Lyman was a bloodbath for the Russians.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/casualartyfan/status/1576188496255254529?s=46&t=4V1xJT_JnqsVS0Ifyee0UQ[/tweet]

How embarrassing for Putin. Ukraine takes a Russian city literally the day after Russia annexes it (yes, OF, I am being sarcastic here).  FwIW I don’t know what media you listen to, but every time I hear the word “referendum” it’s preceded by the word “sham” and every time I’ve heard “annexation” it was just after the word “illegal”.

BC

---

Not sure if this is real or fanfic, but interesting reading and consistent with other evidence. Purportedly from a Ukrainian volunteer.

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpr...slaughter/

BC