NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 06 2023 01:27 JimmiC wrote: Russia sure has a complicated relationship with communist countries. What do Russians think about communism and how do they feel about the close ties?
-I've never in my life met a person who'd be able to put communism ideas in at least somewhat attractive manner. So, not a fan of it; it is a kind of thing of the past to me. Although I appreciate early Bolsheviks - Lenin and all, as they brought drastic changes to russian culture, throwing away a lot of archaics.
Communist countries - I don't know; never been to one. Hope to visit somedays Cuba and China, when I'm a bit less busy with work.
On September 06 2023 01:27 JimmiC wrote: Russia sure has a complicated relationship with communist countries. What do Russians think about communism and how do they feel about the close ties?
-I've never in my life met a person who'd be able to put communism ideas in at least somewhat attractive manner.
Ever watch Star Trek? The humans of the United Federation of Planets basically live in an idealized communist society. Everyone shares, no one works for profit, everyone contributes whatever they feel their calling is to the advancement of society as a whole.
It works great in Star Trek because the idea of want and hunger are ideas of the past now that technology has made everything from food to luxury as easy to get as just pushing a button.
It's pretty easy to make the ideas behind communism sound great before you get into the nitty gritty details of how to implement the utopia you plan on building.
The Russian pilot who defected to Ukraine has finally been interviewed. He also managed to smuggle documents, and parts into the chopper when he defected.
KYIV, Ukraine—A Russian military pilot who defected to Ukraine last month said he flew his Mi-8 helicopter low over fields with its transponder off to evade detection, capping an operation planned over months with Ukraine’s military intelligence agency.
In his first public appearance at a news conference in Ukraine, Capt. Maksim Kuzminov said Tuesday that he reached out to the agency, best known by the acronym HUR, late last year after months lamenting the Russian invasion of Ukraine and his part in it.
Kuzminov, a 28-year-old from Russia’s Far East, said he had worked as a transport pilot for the Russian military, moving troops and equipment across Russia and, once the war started, also to occupied territory in Ukraine’s south.
He agreed on a plan with HUR to defect by flying the Mi-8 helicopter at his command through a safe corridor into Ukraine. Two other Russian service members were on board when he set off from Kursk in Russia’s south, and neither knew of his plans, he said.
When he neared his destination near Vovchansk in northeastern Ukraine, he said the men began to panic. They jumped out of the helicopter when it landed and sprinted north toward the border. HUR’s director Maj. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov told Ukrainian media that the two men were killed when they attempted to flee.
The successful operation on Aug. 9 was a coup for HUR, the first time a Russian Air Force pilot defected since Moscow launched its war 18 months ago. The agency has compared it to Operation Diamond, a three-year mission by Israel’s Mossad national intelligence agency that ended in August 1966 with the capture of a Soviet-built MiG-21 jet fighter flown by an Iraqi Air Force defector.
HUR sought to capitalize on the audacity of the daytime operation and counter Russian denials by releasing on Sunday a video detailing the flight and elements of the agency’s cooperation with Kuzminov, who said he was seeking a chance to escape.
“When everything started there were tears, suffering, fear and a question: Why does our country need this war?” Kuzminov said of the first days of the war, speaking beside two HUR officials. “I understood that it was a crime and I simply will not take part in it.”
Moscow hasn’t commented on Kuzminov’s defection. Fighterbomber, a Russian military aviation Telegram channel that is connected with the Russian Air Force, said after the release of the HUR film that the story shouldn’t be trusted.
News of Kuzminov’s defection is a boost to Ukraine just as a counteroffensive in the south is starting to make progress after achieving limited gains in three months of fighting against deeply dug-in Russian forces.
Kuzminov, a pilot in Russia’s 319th separate helicopter regiment of army aviation based in the Primorsk region of Russia’s Far East, said he was living a comfortable life with two apartments and a good salary when the war started.
Toward the end of 2022, he wrote to representatives of HUR in an encrypted chat on Telegram, he said, and began discussing with them a plan to steal a Russian military helicopter and land it in Ukraine, which made him eligible for a $500,000 payout, according to Ukrainian wartime laws.
By the summer, they had agreed on a flight route for Aug. 9, and that afternoon he left an air base in Kursk and flew toward Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, with the two other service members on board.
He flew less than 32 feet above the ground to avoid detection, in radio-silence mode, and said he was targeted by gunfire from an unknown direction as he crossed the border.
HUR officials said troops fanned out around the helicopter and took control of it, finding documents relating to Russian military operations and instructions for airplane parts on board.
Kuzminov said he is considering his options and plans to stay for the foreseeable future in Ukraine, where he said he has been given guarantees of safety and the $500,000 he was promised.
His parents are with him in Ukraine, he said, without giving further details.
HUR has said that any Russian service members who defect will receive similar treatment, including financial compensation for Russian equipment they pass on to the Ukrainians.
In the video released by HUR on Sunday, Kuzminov urged others to follow his example.
“There’s so much you don’t understand, and you haven’t seen how other people live,” he said. “When all this opens up before you, your views will fundamentally change.”
On September 06 2023 01:27 JimmiC wrote: Russia sure has a complicated relationship with communist countries. What do Russians think about communism and how do they feel about the close ties?
-I've never in my life met a person who'd be able to put communism ideas in at least somewhat attractive manner.
Ever watch Star Trek? The humans of the United Federation of Planets basically live in an idealized communist society. Everyone shares, no one works for profit, everyone contributes whatever they feel their calling is to the advancement of society as a whole.
It works great in Star Trek because the idea of want and hunger are ideas of the past now that technology has made everything from food to luxury as easy to get as just pushing a button.
It's pretty easy to make the ideas behind communism sound great before you get into the nitty gritty details of how to implement the utopia you plan on building.
-never watched) I know the communism idea (and even have some memories of the communist regime in russia)
My point is that there are no currently living people, who can reinvigorate the idea by adding something new to it, or show that it is feasible, etc. Or at least I don't know such people.
First confirmed Challenger 2 destroyed, north of Rabotino. I'm on holiday so only checking the news at the end of the day but the cope is monumental on this one:
It’s the opposite of cope. Challenger 2 is a museum piece. They shut down the production line on those 20 years ago. It was designed to fight the USSR but the USSR collapsed and Tony Blair kept sending Brits to places that didn’t need tanks.
The MOD literally doesn’t know what they’re for or why it has them. If Britain were to ever get into a war that actually needed tanks (and therefore one where it had to replace them) it would lose because it no longer has the manufacturing base to make them. So having a handful of legacy hulls is no use for that, we’d end up buying Abrams after a month. And if we don’t get into a war that takes tanks then why do we need tanks.
That’s why when deciding how to spend money on procurement the MOD decided to mothball half the Challies and do service life extensions on the other half. No new production, no designing of a new model (Challenger 3 is a misnamed upgrade to the Challenger 2). We already have them so it's a sunk cost but we're not making more and we're winding down the ones we already have.
So we had these old paperweights that aren’t useful if we don’t get into a tank war and aren’t useful if we do get into a tank war because once we start losing them we can’t replace them. They were designed for use against an enemy that no longer exists in a war that isn’t the kind of war Britain fights. And so we sent them to Ukraine because it’s cheaper than decommissioning them ourselves and honestly the Challenger deserves it.
They were built decades ago but never got a chance to actually roam free on the Russian steppes they dreamed of. And until 2021 it looked like they would end up being retired and decommissioned without ever getting a chance for real use. With the help of Ukraine they’re finally getting to realize their true purpose and enter tank Valhalla. I only hope Britain sends the rest of them. It’s the least we can do for those neglected magnificent beasts.
The idea that this is some kind of victory for Russia is a sign of just how little good news they have available. This is the best that they can come up with. You don't see Ukraine declaring a parade every time they destroy a T-90.
You know the war is going poorly for Russia when Zeo comes out of hiding after not posting for a week or two to break the news that Russia destroyed a tank.
On 4 September, a video emerged from Robotyne which showed the first combat loss of the Challenger 2, the day after the Ukrainian Air Assault Forces Command published the video.[75] The tank was initially immobilized after a mine destroyed a rear fuel compartment, and was later destroyed by a Lancet drone. The crew was safely evacuated before the tank was destroyed.[16]
You do need tanks in general for an expeditionary fighting force which Britain needs in any conflict. They can't give away all their tanks without a clear replacement, but sending over a few dozen can't really hurt their "readiness". USA is going to comfortably carry the Brits if there's an actual shooting war that needs tanks.
On September 06 2023 11:58 JimmiC wrote: It is pretty shocking that it took this long for the first one to get destroyed! Top end russian stuff is getting destroyed everyday. It’s impressive that it makes news that just one is finally destroyed!
There are only 14 Challys, all of them belonging to tank company of 82nd Airborne brigade, which was deployed to the frontline only couple of weeks ago. There was even Forbes article about it.
It’s a good tank, for sure. It was a great tank when they designed it 30 years ago. Top of its class back then. Certainly better than anything Russia is fielding. But it’s also utterly surplus to requirements. The fact that this is the first to ever be destroyed by an adversary in combat isn’t proof that it’s a super weapon, just that the British never actually had a use for the thing in what has been an era defined by counterinsurgency.
Destroying one is unremarkable. There’s no tank that can survive anti tank mines unscathed. It’s no special achievement, beyond the minor note of it being the first.
It’s also no moral victory, they were sent to be used and destroyed in this war. Not because they’re treasured but because they’re expendable.
Ultimately it’s just one tank destroyed. A good tank, but just a tank. Zeo’s “we lost the battle but we got the tank making us the victors” cope is absurd. The tank was sent so that it could be lost winning the battle.
The RAC guy quoted fantasizing about big tank battles was apparently picturing a completely different kind of war to this one. He was picturing dramatic armoured breakthroughs and tanks exchanging fire with other tanks as they rush forwards. In this war the tank is terrified of the KA-52 which can attack the front with impunity from outside the range of MANPADs and the ground is thick with anti tank mines. Not sure what we was imagining, in retrospect it looks like a WW1 cavalry officer imagining how his horsemen would break the trenches.
I do love the idea that battle equipment somehow being damaged or destroyed in battle means that it's a failure and everyone is just coping.
Despite what Russia have been doing the last 20 years, armament isn't supposed to be built for the sole purpose of performing military parades.
As Kwark said, this should be a pretty minor footnote indeed. The fact that this is being celebrated and lauded on SoMe is a pretty good indication that the war isn't going very well for Russia.
Longread about asessment of current situation in the south and parallels with Kharkov/Kherson offensive (on which we were debating with Magic Powers before). It also answers to some points frequently made in the thread (particularly about supply lines being in artillery/missile range) https://bigserge.substack.com/p/escaping-attrition-ukraine-rolls
On September 06 2023 20:16 Ardias wrote: Longread about asessment of current situation in the south and parallels with Kharkov/Kherson offensive (on which we were debating with Magic Powers before). It also answers to some points frequently made in the thread (particularly about supply lines being in artillery/missile range) https://bigserge.substack.com/p/escaping-attrition-ukraine-rolls
There's this strange misconception about WW1 that it was essentially a stalemate before it ended in a peace agreement. This is strictly false. The truth is that, during the final weeks of the war, Germany was collapsing on all fronts and was forced to surrender due to a total defeat both militarily and economically. The frontlines had barely shifted prior to that action. But during the first few years it was the German side dictating almost all of the action. By the end its forces and its economy ultimately and very suddenly collapsed. If you don't believe me, watch this:
In WW1 the defending side was suffering many defeats over several years. They ended up achieving a resounding victory both times. They went from successfully stopping the German advance after several years, to fighting many more back and forth battles, to finally defeating Germany. The lesson is therefore that the defending side should keep fighting until the aggressor is defeated.
This same lesson was learned yet again during WW2. It's almost stupid how thematically similar these two wars were. Both times Germany turned into Kirby, then got stuck, then got its ass whooped. But third time's a charm, right? Putin seems to think that.
Therefore this early quote in the essay shows poor understanding: "Part of the problem with narrating the war in Ukraine is the positional and attritional nature of the fighting. People continue to look for bold operational maneuver to break the deadlock, but the reality seems to be that for now some combination of capability and reticence has turned this war into a positional struggle with a plodding offensive pace, which far more resembles the first world war than the second."
In reality it resembles both world wars. That's because both world wars followed the same underlying theme of complete victory for the defender after years of struggle against the aggressor.
In fact this time, in the Russo-Ukraine war, the aggressor Russia has already surrendered a lot of territory after roughly 1.5 years of fighting. Not only that, but Ukraine is once again carving out space for another major breakthrough. Now it's time to wait for that to happen. In both world wars a successful counter-offensive only happened after several years of major territorial losses for the defenders.
The writer continues with even more blatant nonsense: "Ukraine had aspirations of breaking open this grinding front and reopening mobile operations - escaping the attritional struggle and driving on operationally meaningful targets - but these efforts have so far come to naught. For all the lofty boasts of demonstrating the superior art of maneuver, Ukraine still finds itself trapped in a siege, painfully trying to break open a calcified Russian position without success."
Absurd. Ukraine lately has been advancing at a speed that is twice that of Russia. Previously it was typically Russia who was advancing at a faster rate. This is a strong indicator that things are looking very grim for Russia, because it is Ukraine who has all the recent major offensives under its belly. Russia hasn't had a successful offensive since the early days of the invasion.
The writer has little to no understanding of war. They should take their good time to actually study previous wars and how and why they ended, and how much territory was actually lost and reclaimed. Their current understanding of war is hyper-simplistic, at best elementary.
When wondering about someone's clarity of thought about the war, one method is to find them on twitter and then search for their tweets from earlier in the war. (ie. "from:witte_sergei since:2022-02-01 until:2022-04-15" ).
EPT
