Ukraine - Russia Conflict

Episode with the evacuation of a Ukrainian 1A3 "Marder" BMP of German manufacture by a Russian BREM-1 repair and recovery vehicle. The video was presumably filmed in the Kursk region of Russia. The 1A3 "Marder" BMP is equipped with a homemade protection against drones, in the form of a small "barbecue" on the turret.

 
A powerful fire and explosions have broken out at the Russian 107th arsenal of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate in the Tver Region. The video shows what is believed to be footage of a fire, although this has not yet been officially confirmed. Recently, the ammunition depot in Toropets has been the target of attacks by Ukrainian drones several times. Unofficially, the fire was caused by fallen debris from a Ukrainian drone. The 107th arsenal was used to store various ammunition, including 122-mm rockets for the Grad MLRS and 82-mm artillery mines, and there may have been missiles as well. It is worth noting that the construction of the 107th arsenal in 2018 was overseen by Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia, General of the Army Dmitry Bulgakov. At that time, Dmitry Bulgakov said that an arsenal for storing missiles and ammunition that meets the highest world standards would be put into operation in Toropets. Currently, General of the Army Dmitry Bulgakov has been detained in a criminal case of corruption. According to the latest information, the Governor of the Tver Region Igor Rudenya has decided to partially evacuate the population from the city of Toropets, where work is underway to extinguish a fire and repel an attack by drones. The administration of the Toropets Municipal District announced an evacuation to the city of Zapadnaya Dvina by bus. A hotline for local residents on evacuation issues has been opened.

A real nuclear mushroom ... tremor measured 2.8 Richter scale
 

1726671033811.png
 
Zelensky's barely served his first term . Why would he quit when he's the hero assuming we've the CF soon ?

There's going to be no permanent CF as long as Putin's there. I'd extend this argument to the Siloviki as well which means even with Putin gone & the Siloviki intact , the latter playing a role in deciding a successor , it's still the same thing.

You've stepped on a tiger's tail. There's a price to be paid for both - riding a tiger ( China ) & stepping on a tiger's tail .
I firmly believe that after a ceasefire is agreed to and some semblance of normalcy returns, Zelensky will be made to leave office. He's in office right not because of martial law, but I don't think he's as popular with Ukrainians as we're led to believe. Whether pressure from Western partners or through elections, I think he will step down. Ultimately he did good as a war time leader but, his diplomacy leaves a lot to be desired. Someone else will need to be there for rebuilding and pushing integration into Western institutions. I'm sure Zelensky will have a comfortable retirement.

I can't believe a member as well informed as you're is penning this. Please check for NATO expansion during Clinton's presidency in the mid to late 1990s & then what followed during Bush's presidency. What do you think sparked off the war against Georgia ?

NATO should've been dissolved as soon as the communist bloc in Europe collapsed. Right now it is following a natural progression of all such defensive alliances which over a period of time metamorphose into a threat .
I mean, I'm not wrong tho? You are looking at NATO's use from the perspective of some scheming cabal of US foreign policy planners. The other members, many of whom were great powers or who have geopolitical aspirations, were held back by NATO after the fall of the USSR.

The US security umbrella allowed Europeans to focus less on defense and more on social services and economic integration... it also kept Europeans from competing with US interests abroad. Germany and France were actively courting Russia to create an independent European power block. Had this war not transpired, eventually, NATO's popularity would have diminished. Not overnight, but the writing was on the wall that NATO was an institution of the past. It wasn't that uncommon to see EU nationalists label it as something that divided Europeans against each other for the US. Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney back in 2008 for claiming that Russia was the #1 security threat - "the Cold War wants its foreign policy back". Trump being famously against NATO because he sees it as a subsidy to the prosperity of Europe and he wants it to be a pay to play system.

All Russia had to do was not lash out and focus on their own growth.

The mafia in Italy is a good example of this . From a defensive alliance formed by the citizens of a town or a group of villages who'd hire mercenaries or raise a band from their own financing them besides providing other resources once the external threat is eliminated & the organisation isn't disbanded in time , it has a remarkable tendency to turn upon it's own .

That's how mercenaries in the past behaved . That's how the Mafia behaves. The Chinese triads are also a good example of this phenomenon. That's precisely what NATO has become . From a defensive alliance , having incorporated all it's former enemies it's now threatening those who aren't part of this arrangement like Russia today & God knows whom tomorrow ?

I mean I can see now why US presidents from Clinton onwards deliberately kept Russia outside its security alliances while extending it to Russia's former allies in spite of Russian leaders repeatedly requesting the US to take Russia into whatever security alliances they formed or NOT eliminate the buffer between Russia & NATO.

Putin's literally gone on record earlier & especially just as the war in Ukraine began that Russia was repeatedly snubbed by the US. Now the US could well incorporate Russia into its security architecture . Russia wouldn't have been a yes man like most of US's European allies but then the US is also engaging France. Russia'd probably be a more recalcitrant ally than France. However that wasn't to be .

As long as Russia had N weapons & was deliberately kept out of Europe's security alliances & calculations , the continuing existence of NATO could be justified & thereby NATO's continued dependencies on the US for both security & diplomacy for without an independent security policy , you can't have an independent foreign policy. UK as usual played its part of the US poodle extremely well being the Trojan horse in the European economic , diplomatic & security set up.

France made feeble attempts to create an independent EU with its own independent foreign policy in alliance with Germany followed by one would expect an EU armed forces distinct from NATO eventually . It was too little too late.

A few days ago I'd made a post on Russian paranoia regarding its borders given its history & how NATO or the US & UK has tapped into it exploiting it to the hilt to perpetuate the US line in NATO while claiming Russia poses a threat to the rest of Europe to Paddy & the usual suspects in this very thread. As usual it went over Paddy's head which isn't suprising in the least while his brothers in arms chose to keep their counsel.This is important if you want to understand Russia's security matrix & calculations.

Beginning 18th century as part of the Great Northern wars Charles XII of Sweden invades Russia to be followed by Napoleon Bonaparte of France who with his Grand Armee launched the invasion of Russia in the 19th century eventually reaching Moscow & burning it to the ground followed by our favourite failed Austrian artist & ex German corporal's invasion of Russia in the 20th century. In between there was the Crimean War where Christian countries allied with a Muslim Sultanate - the Ottoman Turks to defeat Russia.

And Russia's supposed to be a threat to the rest of Europe !! Well , NATO's or rather the US has executed its plans to a T. Just that when you play such a high stakes game you don't settle for a draw but a win. A win here against Russia isn't the deposition of Putin , it has to be a Russia without the Siloviki & minus N arms , hopefully dismembered otherwise what you've created is a wounded tiger. That's exactly what Russia's today.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. Was it a Machiavellian scheme by the US to keep NATO alive to provoke Russia into self-destructing? Maybe.

It could also be that the US just saw use in NATO since uniting all of Europe under a US security umbrella would help limit any unrest so that we'd not get dragged into another European war. It also helped that so many of the previous Warsaw Pact members were eager to join.

Not to mention that now Finland and Sweden are officially NATO members. Ukraine will never fall and will become a NATO staging ground. Russia's border with NATO has never been larger, their geographic weaknesses haven't been threatened like this in living memory.

Russia today is in a far worse position economically, strategically, geopolitically, & demographically than near anytime in the past few centuries.. how has Russia not lost this war?
Answered this one above.
I don't see the answer to this. You've explained why Russia was and is strategically vulnerable, but you don't answer my question of how Russia has not lost this war? My point was that for a chunk of Ukraine they have given NATO a new mission statement and have even had NATO expanded across their borders. This is coupled with the demographic and economic woes. The war wasn't worth it.

If Russia runs out of conventional arms do you actually think it'd let itself be overwhelmed by Ukraine ? It's an honest question.
Russia has some amount of self-sufficiency and will probably never run out of arms. Even if Russia ran out of conventional arms, I don't think Ukraine has the ability to overrun the Russians. They are just too small. Ukraine can possibly exhaust the Russians and make their population fed up with the war once it affects them more directly.

Once NATO enters this war it's not going to be a skirmish or a conventional war I can tell you that much . Whatever made you think otherwise ?
My logic is based on Russian red lines continually being violated without much repercussion. Putin is not using nukes, likely because of immense pressure from China and India. Nobody wants to let the nuclear cat out of the bag and Putin cannot afford to alienate nations willing to trade with him. I think that his hands are tied unless there is something truly existential - like a NATO army marching on Moscow or credible proof of inbound WMDs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_
The whole developed world's running on empty then except China & the US.
There are outliers - South Korea and Ireland come to mind, but generally yes. The developed world is running on fumes or are losing out to other nations.

If CCP didn't plan for its invasion of Taiwan now or 2 decades from now it could divert resources to boosting consumption at home & measures on boosting its TFR.


Arguably both are long term projects but this is the right time to get into it as even at current TFRs China'd still have anywhere between 700-800 million if not more by the end of the century.

Granted it'd be highly skewed in favour of the elderly but since E Asian societies have never encouraged immigration the only way ahead is what I began this paragraph with .

However the CCP has decided otherwise. Their priorities in the next few years would be retaking Taiwan & with trade relations deteriorating sharply & swiftly with the west this'd complicate issue for the CCP back home given the implications on the economy which means they'd double down on Taiwan so as to mobilize the country to back its efforts. Nationalism always has sold in China particularly given their recent history.
I have a friend in China who thinks that government will eventually tax people without children - make it more expensive to not have a child. I honestly don't think that'd work and I have no idea what will work.

I do subscribe to the idea that China will try to secure Taiwan and as much territory as it can hold while it still has momentum. The second half of the century will see a stagnant China fighting the effects of demographic decline and competition from India/Africa. Even with 700/800 million people, if the average age is in the 60s, how much vigor will be there in society?

China may not want to support Russia nor would Russia like to be beholden to China but if China's making a move in Taiwan they'd need as many diversions as they can . A lot depends on how fast trade relations deteriorate with the west.


With the west piling up trade sanctions against China & China's EV industry running beserk in China but more specifically in the western markets sooner rather than later it'd sink the entire western automobile industry.

I'm not sure the west especially the EU can hold out too long. Once a trade war kicks in you'd see China openly defying the west on Russia which it has been cautious not to do till date .

What sort of relationship can one expect between Russia & China ? Look at the Lend Lease agreement between the US & the former Soviet Union to get an idea. Both sides were on opposite sides of the political spectrum yet a common enemy bound them together. It'd be the same this time around. Long term Russia & China will never have a stable relationship.

As far as the US goes as long as the US doesn't face up to a peer competitor & has been shaken up to its core which doesn't necessarily mean a loss but more a Pyrrhic victory like the former super powers - France & UK in WW-2 it'd continue in the same vein as it has been since the end of the cold war.

The US isn't against immigrants but unskilled / low skilled immigrants hit the most vulnerable in the society. At the other end of the same society you've the elite with a completely different set of issues like wokeism , feminism etc ever since the counter culture movement of the 1960s .

This has systematically collapsed the cohesion & consensus within the elite groups which over the decades has turned what began as a gap into an unbridgeable chasm. As long as the economy is in relatively good shape things chug along however irreconcilable the differences. Otherwise who knows what form can it take ?

It helps to note that entities which are indestructible from the outside begin decaying from within .
I think lend-lease worked so well because neither the Germans nor Japanese were able to really interdict/interfere with it. Even as German U-boats sank merchant marine vessels, the US just built more. Neither nation had control over sea lanes and the US industry just overpowered them.

If China does a lend-lease for Russia and is engaged in hot war with the US, blockades will go into effect. Russia has resources but connections between China and Russia aren't enough. This is again due to their politicking.

They're a 150 million strong country. That should get them in the top 10. Ukraine has less than a third of Russia's population .


As I remarked Russia would immediately get down to building up its war fighting abilities once a CF is in place. If things evolve the way I've written they'd get Chinese assistance which'd be a huge boost to their efforts.
China has much more to lose by antagonising the west in aiding Russia as of the present. However things aren't going to remain static for a long time.
It's ultimately hard to predict. I personally don't believe that China or Russia are coordinating that much together. I don't believe that they will stick their necks out for one another. As you said war makes strange bedfellows. If they do coordinate, the only thing we can do is prepare accordingly. I'd prefer my children and posterity to live in a world where individual rights are the norm over autocratic forms of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_
I firmly believe that after a ceasefire is agreed to and some semblance of normalcy returns, Zelensky will be made to leave office. He's in office right not because of martial law, but I don't think he's as popular with Ukrainians as we're led to believe. Whether pressure from Western partners or through elections, I think he will step down. Ultimately he did good as a war time leader but, his diplomacy leaves a lot to be desired. Someone else will need to be there for rebuilding and pushing integration into Western institutions. I'm sure Zelensky will have a comfortable retirement.


I mean, I'm not wrong tho?

You're wrong. Check out for the eastern expansion of NATO. I've given you the time periods it was undertaken in during the Clinton & Bush presidencies. Where was the need for it if you claim the US's & NATO's intentions were benign i.e the objective being to function as a purely defensive set up .

Arguably this has much to do with both recent & late mediaeval history. The Poland Lithuanian Confederacy was the biggest empire in Europe after the Holy Roman Empire . They also ruled over the western part of Ukraine whereas the eastern parts later came under the rule of the Russian Empire. This aspect is still seen in the cultural & linguistic divisions in Ukraine till date manifesting itself into political divisions.

Both the Confederacy & the Russian Empire were at loggerheads fighting wars for supremacy in eastern Europe with the confederacy invading Moscow for a brief period. Unfortunately for the Polish people their eclipse coincided with the rise of the Russian Empire in the early 18th century.

For the next 3 centuries the Polish state was nearly annihilated with their territory being split between Russia & the various neighbouring kingdoms , later states till the end of the cold war.

The Poles haven't forgotten their history not remembered the right lessons. Post cold war they sought economic diplomatic & security union with the west as a counter to Russia for obvious reasons . This played right into the hands of those cold war warriors in Washington & London. The latter could exhibit sagacity by accomodating both Polish fears & Russian apprehensions by striking a fair balance.

Instead the US unfolded its plans to isolate Russia gradually. This is the Brzezinsky Doctrine which holds no compromise with Russia is possible. That he was of Polish origin & brought his personal prejudices to bear is no surprise. What's surprising is Kissinger wasn't exactly in favour of this doctrine or at any rate he had significant differences with it .

The US & its Trojan horse in Europe resorted to the old trope of using Russia & her possesion of N weapons to justify the continuing existence of NATO & expand its membership eastwards with Poland rallying the ex Communist Bloc there to the cause. The other European powers didn't mind as long as the US did the heavy lifting as far as their security was concerned & more or less toed the US line in foreign policy matters. This also meant they could dedicate their revenue exclusively for economic growth.

France was the only outlier in this regard before Brexit with the aim to develop EU as an independent pole away from post war Russia & the US by accomodating Russian concerns . They were often thwarted in economic policy matters by UK & isolated in NATO. The French sought an ally in Germany but nothing much came out of it. You know the rest.


You are looking at NATO's use from the perspective of some scheming cabal of US foreign policy planners. The other members, many of whom were great powers or who have geopolitical aspirations, were held back by NATO after the fall of the USSR.
What great power ambitions could European powers post WW-2 have ? The last such attempt to reclaim their pre war status as world powers was the Suez crisis where Eisenhower & Khrushchev teamed up to screw the Anglo French alliance. Post that both France & UK have yet to discover their balls when taking on Washington.

All European powers are middling powers in various stages of decline with France UK & Russia only considered important because of their possession of the veto , a permanent UNSC seat & of course the ultimate currency of power N weapons. I don't even see their economy as being significant in the long term Why ? One principle reason - irreversible demographic decline. There are plenty of other factors as well . You're seeing it unfolding before your very eyes but it'd be much much more glaring two decades from now.

I've answered the rest above.
The US security umbrella allowed Europeans to focus less on defense and more on social services and economic integration... it also kept Europeans from competing with US interests abroad.

Germany and France were actively courting Russia to create an independent European power block.
They weren't seeking Russia to create an alternative power bloc as much as assuage Russian fears by formulating a mutually agreeable security framework into which economic & foreign policies would be dovetailed. It was effectively sabotaged by Washington with Warsaw & of course Perfidious Albion serving as Washington's wingmen.

Had this war not transpired, eventually, NATO's popularity would have diminished. Not overnight, but the writing was on the wall that NATO was an institution of the past. It wasn't that uncommon to see EU nationalists label it as something that divided Europeans against each other for the US. Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney back in 2008 for claiming that Russia was the #1 security threat - "the Cold War wants its foreign policy back". Trump being famously against NATO because he sees it as a subsidy to the prosperity of Europe and he wants it to be a pay to play system.


All Russia had to do was not lash out and focus on their own growth.

I don't think you've understood the Russian psyche & paranoia. Let's leave it at that.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Was it a Machiavellian scheme by the US to keep NATO alive to provoke Russia into self-destructing? Maybe.

Yes it was with the reasoning provided above & in my previous posts.

It could also be that the US just saw use in NATO since uniting all of Europe under a US security umbrella would help limit any unrest so that we'd not get dragged into another European war.

Pls refer to the analogy of the mafia I've provided for NATO. You're repeating it in a different context using similar but distinct language. The conclusions are the same if you were to look at what you've penned carefully.

It also helped that so many of the previous Warsaw Pact members were eager to join.


I don't see the answer to this. You've explained why Russia was and is strategically vulnerable, but you don't answer my question of how Russia has not lost this war?

Let me put it in another way . With Putin it ends in a Battle of Berlin except Berlin didn't have N weapons then . Trust that clears things . With him gone , who knows ? Depends on how the Siloviki perceive the situation they find themselves in , when they find themselves in .

My point was that for a chunk of Ukraine they have given NATO a new mission statement and have even had NATO expanded across their borders. This is coupled with the demographic and economic woes. The war wasn't worth it.
That's how great power rivalries end & new ones germinate out of the ashes of old ones.

Russia has some amount of self-sufficiency and will probably never run out of arms. Even if Russia ran out of conventional arms, I don't think Ukraine has the ability to overrun the Russians. They are just too small. Ukraine can possibly exhaust the Russians and make their population fed up with the war once it affects them more directly.


My logic is based on Russian red lines continually being violated without much repercussion.

How do you reckon what happened in Korea , Vietnam & in Afghanistan twice though in the second invasion & occupation of Afghanistan there was no great power rivalry at work.

Putin is not using nukes, likely because of immense pressure from China and India.
There's no pressure without penalties. China & India aren't going to penalize Russia from using nukes though it'd greatly complicate matters for the former two & Russia would definitely end up as an international pariah as opposed to what the west thinks of Putin & Russia today.

There's still considerable support & goodwill for Russia in the rest of the world outside of Europe & N America. That's 7 out of 8 billion people who're either rooting for Russia (not because they like Russia or are beholden to it but that they hate the west more ) or are neutral at last count.

Nobody wants to let the nuclear cat out of the bag and Putin cannot afford to alienate nations willing to trade with him. I think that his hands are tied unless there is something truly existential - like a NATO army marching on Moscow or credible proof of inbound WMDs.
 
There are outliers - South Korea and Ireland come to mind, but generally yes. The developed world is running on fumes or are losing out to other nations.
?

Both those countries you're mentioned have even more pathetic TFRs.

I have a friend in China who thinks that government will eventually tax people without children - make it more expensive to not have a child. I honestly don't think that'd work and I have no idea what will work.

Sure , if the CCP lasts that long. Their only insurance against a counter revolution as the CCP puts it , is a growing economy. That's under threat now for a number of reasons. With a plunging economy , all bets are off.

I do subscribe to the idea that China will try to secure Taiwan and as much territory as it can hold while it still has momentum. The second half of the century will see a stagnant China fighting the effects of demographic decline and competition from India/Africa. Even with 700/800 million people, if the average age is in the 60s, how much vigor will be there in society?


I think lend-lease worked so well because neither the Germans nor Japanese were able to really interdict/interfere with it. Even as German U-boats sank merchant marine vessels, the US just built more. Neither nation had control over sea lanes and the US industry just overpowered them.

The Lend Lease was merely used as a metaphor to highlight how two dissimilar & opposing political systems could sink their differences & work together in the face of an existential crises. There are plenty of other examples in history.

If China does a lend-lease for Russia and is engaged in hot war with the US, blockades will go into effect. Russia has resources but connections between China and Russia aren't enough. This is again due to their politicking.

They share a vast land border not to mention tbe trans Siberian railway & goods trains originating in China criss crossing Kazakhstan & Russia before ending its journey in Germany.

It's ultimately hard to predict. I personally don't believe that China or Russia are coordinating that much together.

As of now it should be very little & under the radar. As I mentioned before let the trade war start in right earnest which I expect it to in the next 2-3 years.

I don't believe that they will stick their necks out for one another. As you said war makes strange bedfellows. If they do coordinate, the only thing we can do is prepare accordingly.


I'd prefer my children and posterity to live in a world where individual rights are the norm over autocratic forms of government.
That's been the ardent wish of every human being since time immemorial. Besides the US has the added advantage of being without peers in its part of the world.

In the worst case scenario , it goes back to being an isolationist power. However its economy & rising socio cultural divide will drag it down.

There's this very popular movie now considered a classic from the 1970s famous for its dialogues - Sholay. The villain in that movie Gabbar Singh immortalized by the late actor Amjad Khan mouthed this piece of dialogue - Gabbar ko sirf ek hi aadami mar sakta hain , khud Gabbar.

I'm sure you'd decipher the meaning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginvincible
Video of strike at military unit in Pochep-2 of Bryansk region with reactive drone or possible a missile



 
Last edited:
Part 9 of my Ukraine war blog.
This one is the longest and has the most detailed numbers for each sector of the front - I did this as I had not seen this analysis done anywhere else.
Read along with part 8, to understand casualties. Part 9 flows from that.
I analyse the opposing forces on each sector of the front, what their strategy has been so far, ongoing operations and what to expect.

Ukraine war part 9. Sector wise analysis.
 

RUSSIA - ROSTOV They are smoking again in unauthorized places in Rostov. There was an explosion and fire near the Voroshilovsky Bridge in Rostov. Witnesses reported hearing a sound resembling a drone before the incident. The Ministry of Emergency Situations confirmed that the fire initially started at a warehouse, followed by an explosion.

 
Ukrainian media reported on the use of the Admiral-Avianosets UAV, a carrier of FPV drones, by the Russian army, this was confirmed by Russian sources. The Admiral UAV delivers an FPV drone to the combat zone, the UAV also functions as a communications repeater. The use of UAV carriers allows increasing the range of FPV drones from 15 to 40 km, in addition, the patrol time of the territory increases and the effectiveness of electronic warfare decreases.