Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

[GO-NAD!]

I have to think that someone has old cargo ships that are due for the scrapyard, that could be sent in as drones, to get the attention of the Russian subs, which could allow friendlies to determine their position.

This is not even remotely plausible.

IMO, if Russia concentrates their efforts on cargo shipping, they'll be missing the big picture. They have many older subs but the real question is "How well are they trained and how willing are they to do what Putin wants them to do?".

If NATO were to invade Russia - which was the originally suggested scenario triggering this tangential discussion - cargo shipping will be very much part of the big picture. Western Europe will - obviously - be cut off from Russian oil and gas, requiring a lot of tankers to attempt to make up the shortfall.

If NATO starts massing troops and equipment at the Russian border, it will be obvious as to what's coming. The Russians will most assuredly send every serviceable submarine they have to sea before any invasion and be preparing to attack NATO members' shipping.

The current Russian submarine fleet isn't that old. As for the training level of their crews, it's difficult to say, but I imagine it's better than the rabble they sent to Ukraine. And, forget Putin - if NATO invaded of Russia (justified, or not) Russian submariners will be motivated to defend the Motherland.

Unlike the later stages of WW2, modern submarines are not that easy to find. If you aren't tracking it from the moment it leaves harbour, your first indication will most likely be when a ship goes kablooey. Merchant ships are easy pickings, so a Russian submarine captain doesn't have to be Günther Prien to be successful. As I said before, I suspect merchant shipping would be targeted by the SSKs and the SSNs would be sent after NATO warships.
An SSN wouldn't betray its presence by attacking a lone frigate or destroyer. You can bet your bottom dollar that they would be going after aircraft carrier groups. Considering the heavy escort that aircraft carriers typically have, such a mission would likely be one way. That said, submarine captains are picked and trained to be hunters.
They. Will. Not. Hesitate.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Preferably, while being chained to a truck and dragged.

That comes afterwards so he can see the evidence clearly. Then his punishment for lying.

 

[mtrycrafts]

....

If NATO starts massing troops and equipment at the Russian border, it will be obvious as to what's coming. ...

But that would be only a training exercise.
They know those exercises from their own.

 

[SithZedi]

I should have added that, a lack of regulation and enforcement does not compel a corporation to act unethically. So, while they can contribute to bad corporate behaviour, I don't agree that "the problem is bad government and leaders".

Yes, we disagree. Corporations composed of people that make decisions. They exist to spread and limit liability, raise capital, etc. People can behave amorally. Governments make the laws, regulate, and set the parameters for corporate behaviour. It's a suspension of belief to think they do not know what the corporations are doing. The government knows how much time people spend on Facebook.

When you have politicians of both parties taking backhanders from corporations, countries for votes and regulations, trading stocks on insider information on laws they are about to pass, and not penalized for it, i.e. different treatment under the law, that sets a rather low moral or ethical bar. When a common person sees this situation and behavior, how should it effect their moral compass? We agree there's a problem. I contend it's not "the problem", its the top of "the problem".

 

[GO-NAD!]

Yes, we disagree. Corporations composed of people that make decisions. They exist to spread and limit liability, raise capital, etc. People can behave amorally. Governments make the laws, regulate, and set the parameters for corporate behaviour. It's a suspension of belief to think they do not know what the corporations are doing. The government knows how much time people spend on Facebook.

I'm not absolving political leadership of blame for bad corporate behaviour - it takes two to tango. But, to say that white collar crime is primarily the government's fault, just gives an out for corporate malfeasance, i.e. "The government made me do it!"

If businesses consistently behaved ethically and in the best interests of society, there would be no need for regulations and enforcement.

When you have politicians of both parties taking backhanders from corporations, countries for votes and regulations, trading stocks on insider information on laws they are about to pass, and not penalized for it, i.e. different treatment under the law, that sets a rather low moral or ethical bar. When a common person sees this situation and behavior, how should it effect their moral compass? We agree there's a problem. I contend it's not "the problem", its the top of "the problem".

Oh yes, conflict of interest rules and enforcement thereof are shockingly lax. No argument with that. And, such corrupt culture spreads like a virus.

But, to get back to the original statement that triggered this discussion - arms sales from Ukraine to Russia - it speaks to the power of money. It can make one act against one's own best interests.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Here is my prediction of what would happen if NATO were to attack Russia, or visa-versa:

 

[Mr._Clark]

Well, I think most reasonable people support Ukraine right now, but we can't forget that, while Ukraine was making strides towards becoming a modern liberal democracy, it was/is not nearly there. So, it can't be all that surprising that money trumps all else under such conditions. And, right up to the invasion, many/most Ukrainians were insisting that Russia would not invade. Clearly, they were just whistling in the dark.

Notwithstanding any embargo, plenty of armaments sales to Russia have happened since the seizure of Crimea, if this article can be considered reliable:
Europe dodged Russia arms embargo to sell weapons to Putin for use in Ukraine (the-sun.com)

Bottom line is, governments and big business act in a manner that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of their countries all the time.

I think we might agree that the weapons sales by Ukraine to Russia appear to be an example of a government an business acting in a manner that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of their country.

On the other hand, governments successfully block weapons sales all the time.

I'm curious what actually happened. My initial thought was that the sales may have involved relatively simple items that Russia could have easily sourced elsewhere, in which case the sales may not have made that much of a difference. I have not found much information, but this article from 2017 makes me think the sales may have involved more critical technologies.

>>>The end of a military-industrial triangle: arms-industrial co-operation between China, Russia and Ukraine after the Crimea crisis
. . .
From the Russian point of view, the loss of access to Ukrainian deliveries resulted in a sudden need for Russia to substitute about 3,000 important product lines on short notice. According to an analyst‘s assessment, replacing the previously imported items with indigenous developments will prove both costly and difficult for Russia. For instance, Ukraine is home to a production complex consisting of the Ivchenko-Progress design bureau and the Motor Sich production plant located in Zaparozhye in Southeast Ukraine that constitutes „one of the largest surviving aero-engine enterprises from the Soviet period“ and, according to local officials, „might be the only Soviet-era enterprise capable of designing and building a jet engine from scratch in a more or less standalone capacity.“ . . .
Another major supplier to key Russian arms programs whose loss is difficult to compensate is Zorya-Mashproekt, one of the world‘s leading producers of naval gas turbines. . . . From the Russian point of view, the loss of this co-operation is however perhaps much more problematic: Out of the 54 surface warships acquisition programs that the Russian navy has currently planned, 31 were designed to incorporate Ukrainian engines. Russia‘s Deputy Prime Minister responsible tor the defense industry, Dimitry Rogozin, has publicly admitted in June 2015 that Russia cannot currently proceed with its ongoing surface ship construction programs that are designed around the currently non-available Ukrainian gas turbines, and has indicated that Russia will be able to produce its own indigenous gas turbines not before 2018. . . .

Internal Russian estimates that were leaked to Kommersant put the amount of financial resources needed to substitute Ukrainian production lines with Russian indigenous developments at ca. USD 940 million until 2018. Funding this forced import substitution program in the face of plummeting oil prices and a general economic crisis will only be possible by cannibalizing other programs.<<<

The end of a military-industrial triangle: arms-industrial co-operation between China, Russia and Ukraine after the Crimea crisis

Abstract: Due to a U.S./EU arms embargo that was imposed on China in 1989, China remains excluded from trading with any of the leading arms producers except for Russia and Ukraine. The previously existing military-industrial symbiosis between Ukraine and Russia, however, came to an abrupt end in...

www.degruyter.com

If nothing else, this article provides insight into the relationships between these three countries with regards to arms programs and technology.

It also makes me wonder if part of Putin's motivation is to regain access to Ukrainian arms capabilities. Perhaps all the talk about some sort of a great Eurasian empire is primarily just domestic political propaganda. It would be awkward for Putin to tell his people "Our technology s*cks so we need to invade Ukraine so we can get our hands on technology that doesn't s*ck."

 

[SithZedi]

A Western country finally comes to its senses on energy policy and its national interests.

Major acceleration of homegrown power in Britain’s plan for greater energy independence

Cleaner and more affordable energy to be made in Great Britain under bold plans to boost long-term energy independence, security and prosperity.

www.gov.uk

 

[Mr._Clark]

that is correct. Just one of Russia's hypersonic missiles the 3M22 Zircon fly so fast and low -- at speeds of up to Mach 6 and at a low atmospheric-ballistic trajectory -- that they can penetrate traditional anti-missile defense systems. Also, Russia says it used its newest Kinzhal hypersonic missiles for the first time in Ukraine to destroy a weapons storage site in the country’s west. But lately Putin is most likely talking about the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile. Its NATO codename name is SS-X-30 Satan 2.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not hypersonic missiles are actually all that effective compared to other missiles. Here's an article that takes a skeptical position (I'm not saying this is the "correct" view, I'll let the reader decide). The U.S. developed hypersonic weapons as early as 1963 and (reportedly) abandoned the program

>>>Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have advantages in certain scenarios, but by no means do they constitute a revolution. Many of the claims about them are exaggerated or simply false. And yet the widespread perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China, driving a new arms race and escalating the chances of conflict. . . . Meanwhile hypersonic gliders continued to soar—and drop. In 1963, after spending over $5 billion (in current dollars) developing the X-20 Dyna-Soar hypersonic glider, the U.S. abandoned the design. <<<

The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons

These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows

www.scientificamerican.com

One thing that does intrigue me is the new space weapon system the U.S. has reportedly developed:

>>>WASHINGTON: With Defense Department leaders pushing to declassify and demonstrate an existing US anti-satellite weapon — news first reported by Breaking Defense — the question becomes what kind of system might be revealed.

Considering that whatever the system is, it has long been covered by the deepest, darkest cloak of secrecy — i.e. under a so-called Special Access Program, or SAP — it is impossible to say for sure. As the old saying attributed to the Tao Te Ching goes: “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.”<<<

What Satellite Attack Weapon Might The US Reveal Soon? - Breaking Defense

Space based jammers? Kinetic kill vehicles? Ground based lasers? The Pentagon has a space weapon it's ready to show, but it's not clear exactly what it will be.

breakingdefense.com

What exactly is the US military's top secret space weapon?

A bombshell report raises questions about deterrence, resilience and the future norms of space.

qz.com

 

[Swerd]

This is not even remotely plausible.

It seems like someone (not GO-NAD!) has read too many Tom Clancy novels … or watched too many of the movies made from them.

If NATO were to invade Russia - which was the originally suggested scenario triggering this tangential discussion - cargo shipping will be very much part of the big picture. Western Europe will - obviously - be cut off from Russian oil and gas, requiring a lot of tankers to attempt to make up the shortfall.

Those big liquefied gas tankers would make tempting targets. And any ship that large would be difficult to operate in convoys.

If NATO starts massing troops and equipment at the Russian border, it will be obvious as to what's coming. The Russians will most assuredly send every serviceable submarine they have to sea before any invasion and be preparing to attack NATO members' shipping.

The current Russian submarine fleet isn't that old. As for the training level of their crews, it's difficult to say, but I imagine it's better than the rabble they sent to Ukraine. And, forget Putin - if NATO invaded of Russia (justified, or not) Russian submariners will be motivated to defend the Motherland.

Unlike the later stages of WW2, modern submarines are not that easy to find. If you aren't tracking it from the moment it leaves harbour, your first indication will most likely be when a ship goes kablooey. Merchant ships are easy pickings, so a Russian submarine captain doesn't have to be Günther Prien to be successful. As I said before, I suspect merchant shipping would be targeted by the SSKs and the SSNs would be sent after NATO warships.

An SSN wouldn't betray its presence by attacking a lone frigate or destroyer. You can bet your bottom dollar that they would be going after aircraft carrier groups. Considering the heavy escort that aircraft carriers typically have, such a mission would likely be one way. That said, submarine captains are picked and trained to be hunters. They. Will. Not. Hesitate.

Agreed. Spoken like a true submariner. For US Navy submariners, aircraft carriers were nothing more than a big juicy target. US carriers were always the prime target of the Soviet Navy. And yes, even back in the early 1960s, the Soviet subs were armed with nuclear torpedoes. (So were the US boats, but the USN would neither confirm nor deny anything about their capabilities.)

In the early 1970s, even though the US Navy knew plenty about finding and tracking Soviet subs, they still poured maximum effort into the job – taking no chances at missing one of them. They not only tried to follow Soviet subs as they left their ports in Murmansk and Petropavlosk, they listened to them with elaborate underwater acoustic listening networks (see SOSUS), and they intercepted their rare radio transmissions allowing radio-direction-finding location, and decryption of their messages. (I did that during my time in the USN. See Wullenweber and AN/FLR-9 for brief descriptions.)

There was a huge world-wide anti-submarine side of the USN (as well as Canadian, UK, Australian and New Zealand Navies) that wasn't nearly as glamorous as carrier aviation. It included attack subs (SSNs), fleets of anti-sub patrol aircraft capable of rapidly searching 10,000 to 100,000 miles² of open ocean, anti-sub destroyers equipped with sophisticated sonar and helicopters with underwater listening devices. I could go on, but you get the point. The USN was not confident that they could never miss a Soviet sub. The consequences of missing just one SSN or SSBN were enormous.

That was a long time ago. Now, there are fewer Russian subs than during the Cold War, but they're much quieter than in the Cold War days of the 60s and 70s. It would be very dangerous to underestimate them.

 

[Mr._Clark]

One thing that does intrigue me is the new space weapon system the U.S. has reportedly developed:

>>>WASHINGTON: With Defense Department leaders pushing to declassify and demonstrate an existing US anti-satellite weapon — news first reported by Breaking Defense — the question becomes what kind of system might be revealed.

Considering that whatever the system is, it has long been covered by the deepest, darkest cloak of secrecy — i.e. under a so-called Special Access Program, or SAP — it is impossible to say for sure. As the old saying attributed to the Tao Te Ching goes: “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.”<<<

What Satellite Attack Weapon Might The US Reveal Soon? - Breaking Defense

Space based jammers? Kinetic kill vehicles? Ground based lasers? The Pentagon has a space weapon it's ready to show, but it's not clear exactly what it will be.

breakingdefense.com

What exactly is the US military's top secret space weapon?

A bombshell report raises questions about deterrence, resilience and the future norms of space.

qz.com

I wonder if the secret space weapon is related to the nuclear weapons system Trump mentioned to Bob Woodward:

>>>President Trump bragged about a supposedly secret nuclear weapons system in an interview with Bob Woodward, according to excerpts from the veteran journalist’s new book.

Trump discussed the weapons system while reflecting on how close the United States and North Korea came to nuclear war in 2017, according to excerpts from “Rage” published Wednesday by The Washington Post, where Woodward is an associate editor.

“I have built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about,” Trump told Woodward, according to the Post.

“We have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before,” Trump added, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. “There’s nobody — what we have is incredible.”

Woodward’s book says unnamed sources later confirmed a new weapons system but would not provide any further details and were surprised that Trump had disclosed it, the Post reported.<<<

Trump disclosed secret weapons system to Woodward: book

President Trump bragged about a supposedly secret nuclear weapons system in an interview with Bob Woodward, according to excerpts from the veteran journalist’s new book.Trump discussed the we…

thehill.com

U.S. military spending is more than 12 times what Russia spends. Hopefully we're getting some pretty serious hardware out of it:

>>>Russia is a small country. From an economic perspective, that is. According to the IMF the gross domestic product (GDP) of Russia amounted to $1,648 billion in 2021. This is about the same size as the combined GDP of Belgium ($582 billion) and the Netherlands ($1,008 billion) in the same year. Even if you add those two countries together, you still have a small country. Russia’s GDP represents barely 10% of the EU’s GDP. Russia is an economic dwarf in Europe.

Can such a small country win an intense war against a country that is resisting tooth and nail and that will have to be occupied for a long time? My answer is no. Russia does not have the resources to do so.

To win such a war, Russia will have to drastically increase its military spending. Russia today spends about $62 billion (about 4% of its GDP) on the military. That’s 8% of US military spending. Such a military budget will not be sufficient to continue waging an intense and protracted war.<<<

Russia cannot win the war

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has the potential to develop into a protracted war that will weigh heavily on the Russian economy. Paul De Grauwe argues that Russia simply lacks the economic resources…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

 

[Mr._Clark]

It seems like someone has read too many Tom Clancy novels … or watched too many of the movies made from them.

Hey, hey, hey, wait a minute here. Speaking on behalf of fictional Tom Clancy characters everywhere, I find that a little hurtful!

 

[Swerd]

Despite all this sabre-rattling talk about eye-opening sophisticated weapons, there is another side to the issue of supplying advanced weapons and strategic technology to our potential enemies – Russia and China. If we refuse to sell some advanced technology to them, we in essence dare them to develop their own abilities. I can think of at least two examples, all from the Cold War days.

During WW2, the Soviet Union had no modern radio communications. They relied on very old school Morse Code, with 29 characters for the Cyrillic alphabet. We gave them modern long-range radio gear, teletype systems, and some of our better quality encryption gear. In the 1970s, when I was in the USN, the Soviets were still using all that! And because we provided it to them, we could read their messages like it was the Sunday newspaper. They slowly developed their own designs and gear, testing them for a while, and then locking them away for a rainy day. They were very stingy!

Also during the 1970s, oil pipelines were a big deal, such as the long Alaskan Oil Pipeline. At the time, only two nations could produce seamless 6-foot diameter steel pipe – Japan and the USA. The Soviets, who had plenty of oil in Siberia, wanted to build it's own large pipelines. They wanted to buy 6-foot pipe from us or Japan. Congress had a big silly debate over providing 6-foot pipe to our Cold War adversary. The war hawks of the day were all against doing that. They failed to understand that if we sold some pipe to them, they wouldn't develop the technology & factories of their own. So, we did sell them the pipe. The war hawks in Congress finally agreed, but they still loudly argued that we should never provide such precious stuff to our enemies. That was their usual BS, meant only for the voters back home.

All this comes down to having good intelligence on your potential enemy – not only intelligence about weapons & fancy hardware – but also about how they plan to use the weapons – how they train their armed forces – and most important – how well their economies can support that kind of military development. All that is the stuff that I hope we've been doing ever since the USSR collapsed. Ever since 9/11, I've been very worried about that.

 

[Swerd]

I wonder if the secret space weapon is related to the nuclear weapons system Trump mentioned to Bob Woodward:

>>>President Trump bragged about a supposedly secret nuclear weapons system in an interview with Bob Woodward, according to excerpts from the veteran journalist’s new book.

Trump discussed the weapons system while reflecting on how close the United States and North Korea came to nuclear war in 2017, according to excerpts from “Rage” published Wednesday by The Washington Post, where Woodward is an associate editor.

“I have built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about,” Trump told Woodward, according to the Post.

“We have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before,” Trump added, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. “There’s nobody — what we have is incredible.”

Woodward’s book says unnamed sources later confirmed a new weapons system but would not provide any further details and were surprised that Trump had disclosed it, the Post reported.<<<

You don't believe that NASA's new James Webb Space Telescope is really an astrophysics research tool. Do you? What if it could destroy Russian hypersonic missiles from 930,000 miles away in the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point?

Of course, you must also remember that Trump is a liar of intergalactic proportions.

 

[haraldo]

This is how russians ”liberate” a nation. russians set themselves in line with IS terrorists.

 

[GO-NAD!]

It seems like someone (not GO-NAD!) has read too many Tom Clancy novels … or watched too many of the movies made from them.
Those big liquefied gas tankers would make tempting targets. And any ship that large would be difficult to operate in convoys.
Agreed. Spoken like a true submariner. For US Navy submariners, aircraft carriers were nothing more than a big juicy target. US carriers were always the prime target of the Soviet Navy. And yes, even back in the early 1960s, the Soviet subs were armed with nuclear torpedoes. (So were the US boats, but the USN would neither confirm nor deny anything about their capabilities.)

In the early 1970s, even though the US Navy knew plenty about finding and tracking Soviet subs, they still poured maximum effort into the job – taking no chances at missing one of them. They not only tried to follow Soviet subs as they left their ports in Murmansk and Petropavlosk, they listened to them with elaborate underwater acoustic listening networks (see SOSUS), and they intercepted their rare radio transmissions allowing radio-direction-finding location, and decryption of their messages. (I did that during my time in the USN. See Wullenweber and AN/FLR-9 for brief descriptions.)

There was a huge world-wide anti-submarine side of the USN (as well as Canadian, UK, Australian and New Zealand Navies) that wasn't nearly as glamorous as carrier aviation. It included attack subs (SSNs), fleets of anti-sub patrol aircraft capable of rapidly searching 10,000 to 100,000 miles² of open ocean, anti-sub destroyers equipped with sophisticated sonar and helicopters with underwater listening devices. I could go on, but you get the point. The USN was not confident that they could never miss a Soviet sub. The consequences of missing just one SSN or SSBN were enormous.

That was a long time ago. Now, there are fewer Russian subs than during the Cold War, but they're much quieter than in the Cold War days of the 60s and 70s. It would be very dangerous to underestimate them.

I can't speak to the last few years, but during my service, I can honestly say that NATO did not know, with certainty, where all Russian submarines were at all times. Even if we can keep track of most of their submarines and prosecute, if necessary, a couple of loose ones can do severe damage before they're caught.

 

[highfigh]

That comes afterwards so he can see the evidence clearly. Then his punishment for lying.

OK, as long as it happens and he's arrested before he can pull a Herman Goering in a jail cell.

 

[highfigh]

Yes, we disagree. Corporations composed of people that make decisions. They exist to spread and limit liability, raise capital, etc. People can behave amorally. Governments make the laws, regulate, and set the parameters for corporate behaviour. It's a suspension of belief to think they do not know what the corporations are doing. The government knows how much time people spend on Facebook.

When you have politicians of both parties taking backhanders from corporations, countries for votes and regulations, trading stocks on insider information on laws they are about to pass, and not penalized for it, i.e. different treatment under the law, that sets a rather low moral or ethical bar. When a common person sees this situation and behavior, how should it effect their moral compass? We agree there's a problem. I contend it's not "the problem", its the top of "the problem".

A government body can't know what all corporations are doing- there are too many and dealing with that information would take too much time for the people who work for the government. Or, are you trying to say that they have a secret governmental layer that we don't know about?

Personally, I would like to give some members of the government a good backhand, but it doesn't have anything to do with money.

The US voting public was asleep at the wheel while Congress created a great benefits package for themselves and now, people are mad about it. Most voters have the attention span of a thumbtack.

 

[SithZedi]

You guys bring up some great points about why Russia will be a long term vexing problem for the West. Between their nuclear force and technological level our options are limited for direct confrontation. As "rough" as their tech is in comparison to the West, they also still have a very viable space program at we are partially dependent on.

After Putin is buried, we have to figure out how pull them away from China and plug them into the Western system.

 

[haraldo]

German software company SAP is supporting russia in the extermination of Ukraine as a nation.

SAP keeps its Russian clients despite claims it shut down cloud services in Russia. According to a document obtained by the Kyiv Independent, just a day before the company’s public announcement to shut down its cloud services in Russia, SAP had sent its Russian customers a letter offering to migrate their data outside of Russia in order to maintain access to its services.