The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[theprestige]

I admit it peeves me to no end when people use "gun" and "howitzer" interchangeably for the same artillery piece. Even when it's a gun-howitzer, which the L119 probably is.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I admit it peeves me to no end when people use "gun" and "howitzer" interchangeably for the same artillery piece. Even when it's a gun-howitzer, which the L119 probably is.

Do you feel the same way about "Xerox" as a verb?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Do you feel the same way about "Xerox" as a verb?

Not at all! They're each distinct issues in my mind, and my feelings about each of them are informed by two distinct aesthetics.

[theprestige]

In more directly-war-related news, it seems a senior Russian diplomat has defected:

https://unwatch.org/exclusive-senior...t-u-n-defects/

The only thing that could make this more Cold War is if an American reconnaissance plane crashes in Russian territory, forcing the US to admit that it's been intruding on Russian airspace the whole time.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by The Don

New Zealand are going to go to the UK to train Ukrainians in the use of field artillery:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

Oh noes, those poor Ukrainians will end up talking funny

Why though? Can't the British Army train them in the use of a British gun in service with the British Army? they are already in the UK.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I admit it peeves me to no end when people use "gun" and "howitzer" interchangeably for the same artillery piece. Even when it's a gun-howitzer, which the L119 probably is.

But it is a Gun. It's designation is the L118 Light Gun

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

But it is a Gun. It's designation is the L118 Light Gun

In this case the desegregation is a bit of a giveaway.

Buy in general all howitzers are guns as they've just a subset. "Guns" covers all from pistols to the main armament of battleships

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why though? Can't the British Army train them in the use of a British gun in service with the British Army? they are already in the UK.

Cross-pollination is good. Inter-unit cameraderie is good. New Zealanders and Ukrainians training together is good for both sides. It's good for allies to spread these kinds of experiences around all the allied forces, and plant those seeds in as many of their institutions as possible.

Why wouldn't New Zealand take advantage of this opportunity?

[Klimax]

Looks like some Czech attack helicopters found their way onto Ukraine according to US official. Now that was well hidden, nobody here caught it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

But it is a Gun. It's designation is the L118 Light Gun

That's what peeves me. It's clearly a howitzer or gun-howitzer by description and design, and thus the "gun" designation is annoying to me.

Originally Posted by jimbob

In this case the desegregation is a bit of a giveaway.

Buy in general all howitzers are guns as they've just a subset. "Guns" covers all from pistols to the main armament of battleships

Context is important.

When it comes to artillery, there are three main categories:

Mortars, which have relatively large calibers, low muzzle velocities, and are ideal for plunging fire to get past obstacles and cover. That Russian artillery piece that's being discussed just upthread is a mortar. Notice how close to vertical the barrel is. That's characteristic of mortars.

Guns, which have relatively small calibers, high muzzle velocities, and are ideal for firing directly at targets. Tanks have guns, for example. Notice how tank gun barrels are generally pretty close to horizontal. That's characteristic of guns.

Howitzers, which are an intermediate type of artillery, a more general purpose weapon that covers all the scenarios between optimal gun work and optimal mortar work. Gun-howitzers are a subtype. As the name implies, they're towards the gun end of the howitzer spectrum, and are designed to be effective in direct-fire modes (even though this is generally not advised for artillery - there's a reason tanks are a thing).

Anyway, I'm happy to see the Kiwis getting some face time with the Ukrainians, even if they do have silly nomenclature for their howitzers and gun-howitzers. It's not like the naming convention will affect their combat efficacy at all.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Cross-pollination is good. Inter-unit cameraderie is good. New Zealanders and Ukrainians training together is good for both sides. It's good for allies to spread these kinds of experiences around all the allied forces, and plant those seeds in as many of their institutions as possible.

Why wouldn't New Zealand take advantage of this opportunity?

Just noticed that the British don't operate the L119 version any longer. They were only in service as training weapons until old stocks of the US M1 type ammunition were used up then they were retired. It is however the main export version as the US ammo is fairly widely used.
Also the British guns no longer have optical sights, they use the LINAPS artillery pointing system (APS) mounted above the barrel https://electronics.leonardo.com/en/products/linaps

So there is a good reason for New Zealand to send trainers.

[Arcade22]

Quote:

George Orwell’s dystopian classic Nineteen Eighty-Four was written to describe the dangers of western liberalism – not totalitarianism - a top Moscow diplomat has claimed.

“For many years we believed that Orwell described the horrors of totalitarianism. This is one of the biggest global fakes … Orwell wrote about the end of liberalism. He depicted how liberalism would lead humanity to a dead end,” Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia’s foreign ministry, said during a public talk in Ekaterinburg on Saturday.

...


Zakharova had been asked by a member of the public how to respond to friends and relatives abroad when they suggested that Russia was living in a modern-day replay of Orwell’s novel.

“Orwell did not write about the USSR, it wasn’t about us,” she said. “He wrote about the society in which he lived, about the collapse of the ideas of liberalism. And you were made to believe that Orwell wrote it about you.” Zakharova suggested the audience member tell her relatives abroad: “It’s you in the west who live in a fantasy world where a person can be cancelled.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oscow-diplomat

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. This might as well be Russia's official motto.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oscow-diplomat

Quote:

“It’s you in the west who live in a fantasy world where a person can be cancelled.”

He should tell that to Ivan Denisovich.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by eerok

He should tell that to Ivan Denisovich.

Cancellation in the west: Some people think and say some mean things about you. You may or may not lose a job or money. You can still open for John Mulaney.

Cancellation in Russia: You are erased from photographs. You must flee the country. You might be murdered anyway.

[Mike!]

Oh come on, how bad can "It's as if you never even existed" really be?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Oh come on, how bad can "It's as if you never even existed" really be?

Orwell is laughing his head off in the great hereafter over the russians attempts to distory his writing.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oscow-diplomat

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. This might as well be Russia's official motto.

That much of 1984 was specfically modeled on Stalin's Russia seems to have passed them by.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by dudalb

That much of 1984 was specfically modeled on Stalin's Russia seems to have passed them by.

Next you will be saying that Animal Farm was inspired by the Russian Revolution

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Next you will be saying that Animal Farm was inspired by the Russian Revolution

Now you're talking nonsense.

[crescent]

A bunch of pro-Russian channels on Youtube got shut down today, mostly for reporting false or misleading information. It seems like many of them went to twitter instead.

Several videos of groups of Ukr soldiers claiming that they've been abandoned without weapons or ammo, threatening to desert. Oddly, not a single one of the soldiers in any of those videos have yellow or blue or green armbands. It's almost as if they are not even Ukrainian soldiers at all.

Several claims that the town of Lyman has fallen to Russian forces. That seems to probably not be true - yet. The town clearly got hit with monstrous artillery barrages, including some big thermobaric barrages. A few well connected generally pro-Ukrainian reporters mentioned that Ukraine might pull out, or seemed to be pulling out, or that Russia had entered part of the town, or other phrases that clearly signaled uncertainty. Pro-Russian reporters stripped all the ambiguity out and ran with it, gleefully claiming that even the pro-Ukr side admitted Lyman was definitely lost (the pro-Ukr reporters reported no such thing instead reporting uncertainty and partial or potential outcomes). The pro-Russian sources also claim mass surrenders and desertion from the Ukr side, with one claiming 8000 Ukr captured in Severodonetsk. No evidence to back that up, of course.

Zelensky has stated that Russia has a 20:1 advantage in equipment in Donbass.

To my mind, the situation in Donbass still seems worrisome. Russia is still pushing very hard, Russian forces in that area no longer seem to lack for food or ammo. Ukr is still losing ground - slowly - but losing ground nonetheless. They seem to control part of Lyman, which they didn't control yesterday.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Now you're talking nonsense.

All nonsense is created equal, but some is more equal then others.

[ginjawarrior]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...k-sea-blockade

i know this is truss talking.

but i wouldn't mind our boat's pottering around out there for some humanitarian reasons

Quote:

After meeting Landsbergis, Truss said the UK would want British naval ships to join the escort if the practicalities could be sorted, including demining the harbour and providing Ukraine with longer-range weapons to defend the harbour from Russian attack. The UK is in discussions with allies about the plan and it would probably need US agreement to be activated.

this famine will kill way more people than the war in ukraine if we let it..

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...k-sea-blockade

i know this is truss talking.

but i wouldn't mind our boat's pottering around out there for some humanitarian reasons
...

Uhm... from the article

Quote:

“This would be a non-military humanitarian mission and is not comparable with a no-fly zone,” he [Lithuanian foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis] said. “In this endeavour military ships or planes or both would be used to ensure that the grain supplies can leave Odesa safely and reach the Bosphorus without Russian interference. We would need a coalition of the willing – countries with significant naval power to protect the shipping lanes, and countries that are affected by this”.

This is contradictory.
If you send friendly military ships to protect merchant ships from hostile military ships, what the friendly military ships do is establish a "no naval hostilities zone" along the shipping routes, including the harbor, city and region of Odesa.

If the USA have to give approval and Britain participates, then this is, from a Russian perspective, indistinguishable from a NATO operation.

There'd be a difference in that the territory of other NATO members, particularly those bordering Ukraine or Russia, would not be touched - unless you count the economic zones of Romania and Bulgaria, and Turkey...

I don't see Turkey agreeing with this, I don't even see the USA agreeing with this. This pits Western forces under Western flag directly against Russian forces. The thing everyone wants to avoid like the plague. It's not like patrols by the navies of Egypt, Nigeria, Argentina or what have you would inspire much confidence in would-be exporters from Ukraine.

What kills this for good is that such grain ships would be effectively uninsurable.

[Captain_Swoop]

Before you can send ships in you need air cover so a 'no fly zone' would have to be established.

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Uhm... from the article

This is contradictory.
If you send friendly military ships to protect merchant ships from hostile military ships, what the friendly military ships do is establish a "no naval hostilities zone" along the shipping routes, including the harbor, city and region of Odesa.

If the USA have to give approval and Britain participates, then this is, from a Russian perspective, indistinguishable from a NATO operation.

There'd be a difference in that the territory of other NATO members, particularly those bordering Ukraine or Russia, would not be touched - unless you count the economic zones of Romania and Bulgaria, and Turkey...

I don't see Turkey agreeing with this, I don't even see the USA agreeing with this. This pits Western forces under Western flag directly against Russian forces. The thing everyone wants to avoid like the plague. It's not like patrols by the navies of Egypt, Nigeria, Argentina or what have you would inspire much confidence in would-be exporters from Ukraine.

What kills this for good is that such grain ships would be effectively uninsurable.

i didn't write the article

but still way more people are going to die around the world than will do in Ukraine war

its not just desvastating famine we're dealing here, but also destability in all those regions it happens in

russia is counting on this too

im happy for our boats to potter around down there. (obviously with the Bosporus opened for humanitarian reasons)

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oscow-diplomat

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. This might as well be Russia's official motto.

Wow, and people say Americans don't do irony.

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Before you can send ships in you need air cover so a 'no fly zone' would have to be established.

yes that is implied

but this would be over sea rather than land

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior

yes that is implied

but this would be over sea rather than land

How far away do you think land will be?
What is the range of air launched anti ship missiles?
I have experience of a war at sea involving air launched anti ship missiles.
If there is any plan to send warships to defend shipping in to Ukraine ports then the air threat won't be starting at the coast.

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

How far away do you think land will be?
What is the range of air launched anti ship missiles?
I have experience of a war at sea involving air launched anti ship missiles.
If there is any plan to send warships to defend shipping in to Ukraine ports then the air threat won't be starting at the coast.

if something gets hit then things escalate..

its all a case of how much we can sit back and watch

we've already settled into accepting watching Ukrainians fight alone (albeit with weapons)

now we have to sit back and accept watching a good part of the world starve and the poorest die in much larger numbers than are going to die in ukraine

putin is counting on us doing nothing and getting the rest of the world to burn and starve

[Captain_Swoop]

No. How long do you think a few warships are going to last in the Black Sea?
Before it is safe to run convoys of cargo ships the Russian navy and air force would have to be taken out if you don't want to see a lot of ships sunk.

What you are proposing is a full scale air and naval war with Russia.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by dudalb

That much of 1984 was specfically modeled on Stalin's Russia seems to have passed them by.

But...

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was about liberalism, not totalitarianism, claims Moscow diplomat

Quote:

Maria Zakharova says idea book is about totalitarianism is ‘one of the biggest global fakes’, in claim disputed by Russian translator


George Orwell’s dystopian classic Nineteen Eighty-Four was written to describe the dangers of western liberalism – not totalitarianism - a top Moscow diplomat has claimed.

“For many years we believed that Orwell described the horrors of totalitarianism. This is one of the biggest global fakes … Orwell wrote about the end of liberalism. He depicted how liberalism would lead humanity to a dead end,” Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia’s foreign ministry, said during a public talk in Ekaterinburg on Saturday.

Published in 1949, the book is seen as a cautionary tale warning of the consequences of totalitarianism and mass surveillance. Orwell is believed to have modelled the totalitarian government depicted in the novel on Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

Zakharova had been asked by a member of the public how to respond to friends and relatives abroad when they suggested that Russia was living in a modern-day replay of Orwell’s novel.

“Orwell did not write about the USSR, it wasn’t about us,” she said. “He wrote about the society in which he lived, about the collapse of the ideas of liberalism. And you were made to believe that Orwell wrote it about you.” Zakharova suggested the audience member tell her relatives abroad: “It’s you in the west who live in a fantasy world where a person can be cancelled.”

[arthwollipot]

Also, this:

Ukrainian court sentences Russian soldier to life in prison for killing civilian

Quote:

Vadim Shishimarin shot dead Oleksandr Shelipov as he rode his bicycle in village in Sumy region during early days of invasion


A court in Kyiv has sentenced a Russian soldier to life in prison for the killing of a Ukrainian civilian, in the first verdict in a trial related to war crimes carried out by the Russian army during its invasion of Ukraine.

Vadim Shishimarin, a 21-year-old sergeant, was found guilty of killing 62-year-old Oleksandr Shelipov in the Sumy region during the first days of the invasion.

The verdict was delivered on Monday by the judge Serhii Ahafonov in a packed courtroom, with dozens of Ukrainian and foreign television cameras crammed into the small chamber.

The judge said although Shishimarin cooperated with the investigation and expressed remorse, the court could not accept his claim he did not mean to kill Shelipov when he fired at him. “The murder was committed with direct intent,” he said.

Shishimarin, wearing a grey and blue hoodie, listened to the judge deliver his long verdict with his head bowed from inside the glass box for defendants. He was given a translation of the judge’s words from Ukrainian to Russian by a court-appointed translator.

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

No. How long do you think a few warships are going to last in the Black Sea?
Before it is safe to run convoys of cargo ships the Russian navy and air force would have to be taken out if you don't want to see a lot of ships sunk.

What you are proposing is a full scale air and naval war with Russia.

what do you propose then? get an armchair and plan a charity bake sale for the up coming starving?

i don't think they would attack nato on this

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Uhm... from the article

This is contradictory.
If you send friendly military ships to protect merchant ships from hostile military ships, what the friendly military ships do is establish a "no naval hostilities zone" along the shipping routes, including the harbor, city and region of Odesa.

If the USA have to give approval and Britain participates, then this is, from a Russian perspective, indistinguishable from a NATO operation.

There'd be a difference in that the territory of other NATO members, particularly those bordering Ukraine or Russia, would not be touched - unless you count the economic zones of Romania and Bulgaria, and Turkey...

I don't see Turkey agreeing with this, I don't even see the USA agreeing with this. This pits Western forces under Western flag directly against Russian forces. The thing everyone wants to avoid like the plague. It's not like patrols by the navies of Egypt, Nigeria, Argentina or what have you would inspire much confidence in would-be exporters from Ukraine.

What kills this for good is that such grain ships would be effectively uninsurable.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Before you can send ships in you need air cover so a 'no fly zone' would have to be established.

Seems to me like they're talking about a reactive tripwire, not a proactive "no fly zone". Presumably the idea is that Russian air forces would not be molested as long as they stuck to waging war on Ukraine, and left the humanitarian convoy alone.

At least, that's what I'd be talking about, if I were using those words in that context. I'm not sure why you're so convinced that the Lithuanian minister must be talking about proactively shooting down any Russian plane they see, and that he must be so stupid that he doesn't understand that's what he's talking about.

Me? If he says he's not talking about a no-fly zone, then I a priori assume I'm meant to interpret his words as meaning something other than a no-fly zone.

And certainly it's possible to implement a humanitarian convoy through a war zone that doesn't automatically mean a proactive attack on any plane it sees.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

How far away do you think land will be?
What is the range of air launched anti ship missiles?
I have experience of a war at sea involving air launched anti ship missiles.
If there is any plan to send warships to defend shipping in to Ukraine ports then the air threat won't be starting at the coast.

Are you familiar with the concept of UN Peacekeepers? They typically go into war zones, but refrain from fighting unless attacked. They try to position themselves between stuff they want to protect, and the belligerent forces. I think this is probably the same kind of thing being proposed.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Are you familiar with the concept of UN Peacekeepers? They typically go into war zones, but refrain from fighting unless attacked. They try to position themselves between stuff they want to protect, and the belligerent forces. I think this is probably the same kind of thing being proposed.

Well yes, except it's unlikely that those will be UN Peacekeepers, as Russia can veto those.

Russia blocks ships out of Odesa. Right?
No one is asking Russia "could you please kindly let the wheat through? Think of the children in Africa". The reason, I presume, is that Russia just won't.
Russia is blocking Odesa for reasons.

If the patrols are not UN Peacekeepers (or anyone else Russia has signed up for), why would Russia allow them to break the blockade?

-----

Also: Do you at least see the potential for a very quick escalation?

When the first Russian plane goes down.
When the first Russian war ship sinks.
Then what?
Do you think the Russians would take it?

When the first British war ship sinks.
Then what?
Do you think they would continue just positioning themselves between the Russians and the cargo?

-----

I am wondering: All that wheat, before it goes on a cargo ship in Odesa harbor, got to the harbor via land transportation. (Some by river ship. perhaps). Is it impossible to transport by land to, say, Romania? Does Romania have a harbor that can deal with loads of wheat? (I know there is Transnistria in the way, so the land rout would have to take very significant detours)

Perhaps someone (Wendover Productions...) has already made a video about this.

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Well yes, except it's unlikely that those will be UN Peacekeepers, as Russia can veto those.

Russia blocks ships out of Odesa. Right?
No one is asking Russia "could you please kindly let the wheat through? Think of the children in Africa". The reason, I presume, is that Russia just won't.
Russia is blocking Odesa for reasons.

If the patrols are not UN Peacekeepers (or anyone else Russia has signed up for), why would Russia allow them to break the blockade?

-----

Also: Do you at least see the potential for a very quick escalation?

When the first Russian plane goes down.
When the first Russian war ship sinks.
Then what?
Do you think the Russians would take it?

When the first British war ship sinks.
Then what?
Do you think they would continue just positioning themselves between the Russians and the cargo?

again how much are you comfortable sitting back and accepting here?

Quote:

I am wondering: All that wheat, before it goes on a cargo ship in Odesa harbor, got to the harbor via land transportation. (Some by river ship. perhaps). Is it impossible to transport by land to, say, Romania? Does Romania have a harbor that can deal with loads of wheat? (I know there is Transnistria in the way, so the land rout would have to take very significant detours)

Quote:

The group of leading industrialized nations (G7) is considering alternatives to ship grain from Ukraine to break the Russian blockade in the area, she added.

Following problems with rail transport via Romania due to railways' different track widths, exports via the Baltic ports are being examined, she said, noting that prerequisites would first have to be clarified as to how the ports there could be reached.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germ...in-war/2588110

Quote:

Perhaps someone (Wendover Productions...) has already made a video about this.

not seen that one

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by dudalb

That much of 1984 was specfically modeled on Stalin's Russia seems to have passed them by.

Highly questionable. A better explanation is that this is just one more bit of their firehose of lies tactic. Assuming honesty from Russian propagandists is a hazardous proposition.

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

But...

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was about liberalism, not totalitarianism, claims Moscow diplomat

So what if it is? The society Orwell describes is awful and horrifying, much like Russia today anyways.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland

So what if it is? The society Orwell describes is awful and horrifying, much like Russia today anyways.

Or at pretty much any time in the past.

Very worrying news coming out of Luhansk. It seems that the Russian meat grinder is doing its worst and it's merely a matter of time before the whole of Luhansk is under Russian control.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

My fear is that, if Russia were to stop there (and retain its gains in Southern Ukraine) then in time the EU and US may see that as an acceptable stalemate and start to reduce support for Ukraine and unwind sanctions (or more accurately continue to import energy from Russia).

There are also reports that 1.4m Ukrainians from the occupied territories have been forcibly sent to Russia.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

Best case, they'll have a short life as undermenshen in Putin's Russian Empire. Worst case, they'll be sent off to death camps in Russia's East.