Octopus Overlords

If the Ukrainian forces suddenly had some A-10s, do they have pilots and ground crews that are capable of operating them?

Anyway, it seems that they are still flying SU-24/SU-25 sorties.

Ukraine jets hit Russian column; Russia has used thermobarics, Ukraine military says

Ukraine armed forces have been striking that long line of Russian troops heading to Kyiv while the Russians have used thermobaric weapons against Ukrainian cities, the head of Ukraine’s defense intelligence agency tells Military Times.

“We are striking the enemy’s columns,” Brig. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov told Military Times in an exclusive interview Wednesday morning. “We burn many columns of the enemy.”

The strikes, he said, are being conducted by Ukraine Su-24 and Su-25 fighter jets, artillery and missile barrages.

“My intelligence officers and agents are directing and calling the strikes,” he said.

Marine Lt. Col. Anton Semelroth, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday morning he “would not speak to intel assessments.”

Speaking to reporters Wednesday afternoon on the condition of anonymity, a senior defense official said the Pentagon has indications Ukraine forces are targeting the convoy in an attempt to stymie what officials believe is Russia’s ultimate goal: to occupy Kyiv and install a puppet government. The official spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity.

“We’ve seen indications that at times and at certain places, the convoys may have been resisted by Ukrainian forces and I think I have to leave it at that,” the official said. “But we’ve seen indications that we are in no position to refute [Ukraine claims they have hit the convoy].”

Budanov also told Military Times that the Russians have been using thermobaric weapons in the assault on Kharkiv and near Kyiv.

They were fired, he said, by TOS-1M weapons systems.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:40 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:36 pm Anti-tank weapons can be provided by just about any nation. Ukraine already has them That isn't seen as artificially tipping the balance. A-10s can only be supplied by the US and they are the absolute best at what they do. 3 squadrons of A-10s could turn the Russian column into a 40-mile river of flaming steel, slag and carbon in a day. It is nearly equivalent to entering the conflict.

That's very much overrating their capability. Russian SAMs and fighter cover would not allow that to happen.

Possibly. They haven't had overwhelming success against Ukrainian air units.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:40 pm But I understand where you're coming from. It's an escalation and we're negotiating how much.

I'd be curious which is more infuriating, seizing yachts or losing a regiment of tanks?

Considering that a lot of those yachts were paid for by siphoning money from the military budget, I'd say yachts. But only assuming the yachts are truly lost. If they're just held for a month and then returned it's merely an inconvenience.

I'm sure most of those asset seizures and sanctions are limited to when the invasion is over...otherwise there's no incentive for them to put pressure on Putin to stop. Even if he doesn't stop I'm sure they will quietly be given back when no one is looking

I'm not interested in a nuclear war, but honestly, when do we say enough-is-enough with the bullies that are taking/have control of the world - exactly like this. I ponder if Putin was actually emboldened by all the norms that Trump was able to break. And then when does it stop. Does America elect an even bigger bully, etc? I'm so sick of it and I honestly think this may indeed be the best moment to deal with it.


If Hitler had nukes, I mean - wouldn't we --really-- have needed to do something about him, even more so?

But I am not interested in a nuclear war. But do we just let that man do anything? - and if he sees the threat work, what will stop him?

IceBear wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:58 pm I'm sure most of those asset seizures and sanctions are limited to when the invasion is over...otherwise there's no incentive for them to put pressure on Putin to stop. Even if he doesn't stop I'm sure they will quietly be given back when no one is looking

Personally I would like to see them start to scuttle the yachts, say one randomly every two days until the invasion is halted. Start auctioning off the New York apartments.

Ideally they'd be sold at auction and the proceeds used to provide support to Ukraine.

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:08 pm I'm not interested in a nuclear war, but honestly, when do we say enough-is-enough with the bullies that are taking/have control of the world - exactly like this. I ponder if Putin was actually emboldened by all the norms that Trump was able to break. And then when does it stop. Does America elect an even bigger bully, etc? I'm so sick of it and I honestly think this may indeed be the best moment to deal with it.


If Hitler had nukes, I mean - wouldn't we --really-- have needed to do something about him, even more so?

Like we did with Stalin?

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:08 pm But I am not interested in a nuclear war. But do we just let that man do anything? - and if he sees the threat work, what will stop him?

Anything? No. Just like we won't intervene directly in Ukraine, he won't invade a NATO territory. It is the hard line.

How to stop him? Slow bleed and hem him in with NATO nations.

Some positive news (assuming it's accurate and happens):

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:16 pm
I wish Ukrainians had their own A-10s to brrrt Russian columns but they don't. We can't make up for that mistake by sending in our own. It wouldn't be a proxy war, it would be the prelude to WWII.

They have Su-25s, which (while not as capable as the dear old Warthog) are designed for the same work.

naednek wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:38 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 12:56 pm I’m seeing more and more calls to step up the military support for Ukraine. This guy wants to transfer 3 squadrons of A-10s to Ukraine, presumably so they can blast the hell out of that stalled Russian convoy.

See I can be a war general. That's what I said a few pages ago

No pilot, no training for their pilots, no logistics for munitions, spare parts, maintenance,...

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:43 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:16 pm
I wish Ukrainians had their own A-10s to brrrt Russian columns but they don't. We can't make up for that mistake by sending in our own. It wouldn't be a proxy war, it would be the prelude to WWII.

They have Su-25s, which (while not as capable as the dear old Warthog) are designed for the same work.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:29 pm

Which means it's still $80 or so a barrel.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:49 pm

naednek wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:38 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 12:56 pm I’m seeing more and more calls to step up the military support for Ukraine. This guy wants to transfer 3 squadrons of A-10s to Ukraine, presumably so they can blast the hell out of that stalled Russian convoy.

See I can be a war general. That's what I said a few pages ago

No pilot, no training for their pilots, no logistics for munitions, spare parts, maintenance,...

all minor details

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:16 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 12:56 pm I’m seeing more and more calls to step up the military support for Ukraine. This guy wants to transfer 3 squadrons of A-10s to Ukraine, presumably so they can blast the hell out of that stalled Russian convoy.

At what point do we cross a line from supporting Ukraine to being sucked into a proxy war against Russia? I don’t think there’s any de escalation on the horizon here. Also, to be clear, I’m not opposed to this. I think it’s necessary and the right thing to do. I just think it’s important to note that we are moving to a very interesting and dangerous place.

Also important to note that the US is the exclusive operator of A-10s. It's not like there is precedent.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:41 pm If the Ukrainian forces suddenly had some A-10s, do they have pilots and ground crews that are capable of operating them?

Sounds like it is time to reboot the Flying Tigers. A handful of US A-10 pilots 'retire' from US service, declare themselves free agents, and are hired on contract by Ukraine. At the same time, the US sells a similar number of A-10s to Ukraine. No US troops involved!

CNN

The reservation system that is the backbone of airlines around the world has terminated its agreement with Russian government-owned carrier Aeroflot, crippling its ability to sell seats.

The technology company Sabre says Aeroflot has been removed from its global distribution system, meaning Russia's largest airline will not be shown in its "marketplace used by travel agencies, travel websites and corporations around the world to shop, book and service flight reservations."

Is Kasparov wrong here?



I think I'm in the camp that questions whether the "but Putin has NUKES" argument against more forceful intervention on behalf of the Ukranians really should end the conversation.

If Putin goes down for any reason I would love to see Kasparov elected.

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 3:29 pm

I think I'm in the camp that questions whether the "but Putin has NUKES" argument against more forceful intervention on behalf of the Ukranians really should end the conversation.

He has nukes. That is not disputed. Our doctrine is not to start a war with a nuclear power. It's not an argument, it's a doctrine.

I certainly think it's preferable to light up that 40 mole column (begging forgiveness of the piles of dead young men) than to let Putin have is way. But we won't. Because nukes.


I do see the point of Kasparov's statement. If Putin indeed won't stop, it's easier to avoid nuclear conflagration now, after bombing a few hundred trucks and tanks in Ukraine than after, say, sending cruise missiles into Russia to defend Poland.


But I think Putin will stop after he's done doing what we he's doing here (I think he's going to annex Donbas). He can declare some of victory and lick his wounds knowing his military isn't the machine he thought it was.

And that's when we start to dismantle his economy and choke his ability to expand.

It sucks but that's what I see happening, best case scenario.



Neville Chamberlain or Kennedy? Not sure.

I know antipersonnel land mines are illegal but are tank mines? They could mine the hell out of both sides of that road and then plant explosives IN the road and detonate the front ones of the column and back ones miles back. When the enemy scatters to the sides to get around the tank mines could take more out. Why doesn't Ukraine have air to ground?

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 3:42 pm And that's when we start to dismantle his economy and choke his ability to expand.

My fear is that if we (the world) keep doing anything like we are doing right now, for very long, he will soon threaten nuclear attack for any attempts to dismantle his economy. And we will have just shown him how effective that is.

I feel like Putin's learned that if he does it in slow-motion, he can indeed wage WWIII and win it.

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:12 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 3:42 pm And that's when we start to dismantle his economy and choke his ability to expand.

My fear is that if we (the world) keep doing anything like we are doing right now, for very long, he will soon threaten nuclear attack for any attempts to dismantle his economy. And we will have just shown him how effective that is.

I feel like Putin's learned that if he does it in slow-motion, he can indeed wage WWIII and win it.

Nuclear stockpiles and their delivery systems are expensive to maintain.

Russia is still a threat but I wouldn't be surprised if they are at 65% of their advertised nuclear capability.

I haven't read the last page, but I haven't seen anyone mention the prospect of "dirty bombs". Is there any other reason (there may well be a geographical reason, I don't know) that they went in and took the Chernobyl region right off the bat? Isn't there still quite a bit of hot waste there? Hell, I saw a report that stated clouds of radioactive dust churned up from the tanks and vehicles was blanketing the surrounding area. What's to stop him from packing some radioactive waste into a few bombs and dropping them? It's technically not a nuke, but it will still be devastating. I'm assuming that's still against the "rules" of war, but I'm sure he could justify it and say, "What? It's not like I dropped a REAL nuke on anyone."

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:14 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:12 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 3:42 pm And that's when we start to dismantle his economy and choke his ability to expand.

My fear is that if we (the world) keep doing anything like we are doing right now, for very long, he will soon threaten nuclear attack for any attempts to dismantle his economy. And we will have just shown him how effective that is.

I feel like Putin's learned that if he does it in slow-motion, he can indeed wage WWIII and win it.

Nuclear stockpiles and their delivery systems are expensive to maintain.

Russia is still a threat but I wouldn't be surprised if they are at 65% of their advertised nuclear capability.

So they sell half of them to whom, so as to keep the other half maintained?

Honestly, I think this nuisance seriously needs to be dealt with, and this seems like the most opportune time (speaking mostly to world unity against them right now).

Hyena wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:17 pm I haven't read the last page, but I haven't seen anyone mention the prospect of "dirty bombs". Is there any other reason (there may well be a geographical reason, I don't know) that they went in and took the Chernobyl region right off the bat? Isn't there still quite a bit of hot waste there? Hell, I saw a report that stated clouds of radioactive dust churned up from the tanks and vehicles was blanketing the surrounding area. What's to stop him from packing some radioactive waste into a few bombs and dropping them? It's technically not a nuke, but it will still be devastating. I'm assuming that's still against the "rules" of war, but I'm sure he could justify it and say, "What? It's not like I dropped a REAL nuke on anyone."

Originally, my understanding was it was because:
a) it was a very soft entry point
b) they didn't care if their own soldiers had to endure the radiation, they were going to go through it.


I've not heard anything since days ago, and I'm not aware of if they are lingering in that area, or if they are minimizing their time/exposure and just using it to get deeper in.

Chernobyl is directly in the path of the primary Russian advance from Belarus to Kyiv. I doubt it was so much a matter of choosing to capture it so much as it was simpler to go through the exclusion zone than it would be to go around it.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 3:42 pm But I think Putin will stop after he's done doing what we he's doing here (I think he's going to annex Donbas).

Don't forget Moldova!

Hyena wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:17 pm I haven't read the last page, but I haven't seen anyone mention the prospect of "dirty bombs". Is there any other reason (there may well be a geographical reason, I don't know) that they went in and took the Chernobyl region right off the bat? Isn't there still quite a bit of hot waste there? Hell, I saw a report that stated clouds of radioactive dust churned up from the tanks and vehicles was blanketing the surrounding area. What's to stop him from packing some radioactive waste into a few bombs and dropping them? It's technically not a nuke, but it will still be devastating. I'm assuming that's still against the "rules" of war, but I'm sure he could justify it and say, "What? It's not like I dropped a REAL nuke on anyone."

Dirty bombs have little tactical utility. They are terror weapons. And although they sound scary, they aren't any more devasting than cluster bombs or fuel air bombs. Probably less so. I can't see any use the Russians would have for them except as a revenge weapon on retreat.


Chernobyl was a high value strategic target primarily as a soft entry from Belarus in the North.

There seems to be this sense from some that we're "doing nothing" to stop Putin.

We're doing a LOT to stop him. Historic sanctions, cutting off business ties, removing banks from SWIFT - those are a far cry from "doing nothing."

Militarily, yes, he may take Ukraine. But at what cost? A tanked economy, a constant drain on his military, being shunned from the world stage, strengthening NATO alliances. Doing nothing would be letting him waltz in without consequences, which is 180 degrees removed from what we're doing.

The intent of those were never to stop him from taking Ukraine. They're designed to make the cost outweigh the benefit.

Hyena wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:17 pm Is there any other reason (there may well be a geographical reason, I don't know) that they went in and took the Chernobyl region right off the bat?

It's 15 klicks from Belarus.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:34 pm There seems to be this sense from some that we're "doing nothing" to stop Putin.

We're doing a LOT to stop him. Historic sanctions, cutting off business ties, removing banks from SWIFT - those are a far cry from "doing nothing."

Militarily, yes, he may take Ukraine. But at what cost? A tanked economy, a constant drain on his military, being shunned from the world stage, strengthening NATO alliances. Doing nothing would be letting him waltz in without consequences, which is 180 degrees removed from what we're doing.

The intent of those were never to stop him from taking Ukraine. They're designed to make the cost outweigh the benefit.

And they got the boot from the World Cup! That's no small deal.

1 Russian ruble is worth only 0.0091 of 1 US dollar

I hear FOREX is an excellent investment opportunity.

Daehawk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 5:12 pm 1 Russian ruble is worth only 0.0091 of 1 US dollar

So you could buy a 1M ruble house for $9,100. Mogul!

Daehawk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:00 pm I know antipersonnel land mines are illegal but are tank mines? They could mine the hell out of both sides of that road and then plant explosives IN the road and detonate the front ones of the column and back ones miles back. When the enemy scatters to the sides to get around the tank mines could take more out. Why doesn't Ukraine have air to ground?

They do, and in fact they have been hitting the stalled convoy with their SU-25s. The problem is that 40 miles of target requires a LOT of ordnance, and the Russians have better control of the air and better SAM coverage. We have no way of knowing, but it's possible that those Su-25 strikes don't often come home.

(In a 1980s Cold War Goes Hot scenario, A-10s weren't really expected to survive in great numbers either.)

Daehawk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 5:12 pm 1 Russian ruble is worth only 0.0091 of 1 US dollar

In November it was worth 0.014. Interestingly, if you bought $10000 in rubles on Nov 1 and $10000 worth of TSLA, you'd have roughly the same amount of money in each today. Granted, the ruble fell in one day. But just to put it into perspective.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:34 pm There seems to be this sense from some that we're "doing nothing" to stop Putin.

We're doing a LOT to stop him. Historic sanctions, cutting off business ties, removing banks from SWIFT - those are a far cry from "doing nothing."

Militarily, yes, he may take Ukraine. But at what cost? A tanked economy, a constant drain on his military, being shunned from the world stage, strengthening NATO alliances. Doing nothing would be letting him waltz in without consequences, which is 180 degrees removed from what we're doing.

The intent of those were never to stop him from taking Ukraine. They're designed to make the cost outweigh the benefit.

I actually think it's the opposite: Not that we're doing nothing, but that we're doing so much.

We're doing everything but actively engaging militarily in defense of Ukraine. What I'm questioning is whether going that final mile now against Putin should explicitly be off the table, especially if it would make a significant difference. And, without a doubt, it is currently off the table. Biden said exactly that in his SOTU speech: We are not willing to go to war against Russia over Ukraine.

But why not? Is it solely because Ukraine isn't a NATO member? Moldova isn't one either last time I checked. Neither are Sweden or Finland, which we've all been discussing. Does that mean Putin should assume he can walk into Moldova or Finland or Sweden, and we'll just continue on the current course? Why does Ukraine get sacrificed?

And, again, that current course is far from nothing. It's incredibly aggressive. So much so, that I'm not sure what else we have to wield against Putin, and that has to be clear to him, too. So if he knows we're out of sticks and unwilling to use the one big one we have left -- military intervention -- what's to stop him from going for broke?

And what happens when things start to get really, really ugly in Ukraine? Is this new, unified world going to sit by while Putin turns Kyiv into Grozny and destroys and displaces the Ukranian civilian population with thermobaric fuel bombs?

I don't know what the right answers to these questions are. As a Cold War kid, I'm having a very difficult time with this.

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 5:24 pm As a Cold War kid, I'm having a very difficult time with this.

One of my students (an 18 or 19 year old kid) said that it was weird to think about nuclear war as an actual possibility.

I couldn't help it. I literally giggled.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 5:22 pm

Daehawk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:00 pm I know antipersonnel land mines are illegal but are tank mines? They could mine the hell out of both sides of that road and then plant explosives IN the road and detonate the front ones of the column and back ones miles back. When the enemy scatters to the sides to get around the tank mines could take more out. Why doesn't Ukraine have air to ground?

They do, and in fact they have been hitting the stalled convoy with their SU-25s. The problem is that 40 miles of target requires a LOT of ordnance, and the Russians have better control of the air and better SAM coverage. We have no way of knowing, but it's possible that those Su-25 strikes don't often come home.

(In a 1980s Cold War Goes Hot scenario, A-10s weren't really expected to survive in great numbers either.)

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 5:32 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 5:24 pm As a Cold War kid, I'm having a very difficult time with this.

One of my students (an 18 or 19 year old kid) said that it was weird to think about nuclear war as an actual possibility.

I couldn't help it. I literally giggled.

My kids (17, 16, 13) totally don't get it. They look at me incredulously when I explain that when I was in elementary school, nuclear armageddon was a very real concern. Up until just recently, they thought that was quaint.