Ukraine War Thread Part 2
Well, since you admit you don't know what you are talking about, it seems over the top to shout "DO MORE " when you have no idea where the current baseline is.
If you have ever had any experience in establishing any industrial production, you would know that you can't increase production like increasing the flow of water from a tap. If you want to make 155 mm shells, then the companies that produce forging machinery to War Dept/MOD specs cannot crank up production from a couple of hundred machines per year to a thousand because their suppliers will be similarly limited by skilled labour and production capacity, ditto lathes and heat-treatment equipment. I mentioned the 155 mm shell specifically because there is a report/video circulating on YT which describes how the Pentagon is seeking to increase production: there is a new factory being built in Texas and , from memory, they hope to triple production in three years. This still remains way below what Ukraine wants ( taking other supplies into account ) however the usage of 155 mm shells has probaly been 10 times what planners ever envisaged ( Russian supplies apparently even worse affected )
To get things down to very basic level, manufacturers are unlikely to dramatically increase production until they have orders - or at least, a real liklelihood of orders - in house. Equally defence organisations are probably unable to give the go-ahead because they will have planned their spending years ahead and such a huge conflict will blow all their contingency plans to hell. This then needs very long-winded multi-layer negotiations at the higher and highest political levels to break off sufficient funds to cover some of these needs and the result is many months ( a year or more ? ) before orders result.
If you want to keep your machinery working most effectively - if, say, the same machines produce both 155 mm and 120 mm shells - then you have to look at how much down-time ( zero production ) there is when you swap from one shell to the other and decide the best mix . Orders from your customers are not likely to help you very much with this.
If you have ever had any experience in establishing any industrial production, you would know that you can't increase production like increasing the flow of water from a tap. If you want to make 155 mm shells, then the companies that produce forging machinery to War Dept/MOD specs cannot crank up production from a couple of hundred machines per year to a thousand because their suppliers will be similarly limited by skilled labour and production capacity, ditto lathes and heat-treatment equipment. I mentioned the 155 mm shell specifically because there is a report/video circulating on YT which describes how the Pentagon is seeking to increase production: there is a new factory being built in Texas and , from memory, they hope to triple production in three years. This still remains way below what Ukraine wants ( taking other supplies into account ) however the usage of 155 mm shells has probaly been 10 times what planners ever envisaged ( Russian supplies apparently even worse affected )
To get things down to very basic level, manufacturers are unlikely to dramatically increase production until they have orders - or at least, a real liklelihood of orders - in house. Equally defence organisations are probably unable to give the go-ahead because they will have planned their spending years ahead and such a huge conflict will blow all their contingency plans to hell. This then needs very long-winded multi-layer negotiations at the higher and highest political levels to break off sufficient funds to cover some of these needs and the result is many months ( a year or more ? ) before orders result.
If you want to keep your machinery working most effectively - if, say, the same machines produce both 155 mm and 120 mm shells - then you have to look at how much down-time ( zero production ) there is when you swap from one shell to the other and decide the best mix . Orders from your customers are not likely to help you very much with this.
Last edited by Tartiflette Fan; 5th Oct 2023 at 18:51.
It's not the first shell crisis in so far as UK is concerned ................... the first year of the Great War saw similar problems, with gunners rationed to a few rounds per day, reserved for defensive calls. I am not an expert on Great War politics [come to that, not on anything else] but I believe the shell problem nearly brought down a government.. In WW II the massive expansion was aided by the USA and Churchill's necessary ruthlessness.
We are reaping the dividend of Options for Change and the other weasel words.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, well understood and underlined as we drove through the gates of our stations in RAFG.
We are reaping the dividend of Options for Change and the other weasel words.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, well understood and underlined as we drove through the gates of our stations in RAFG.
The following 2 users liked this post by langleybaston:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,450
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
If you drip feed a side you get the inevitable, Ukraine know what they need and when, yet the farce continues, should we send… M777…HIMARS…Long Range Missiles…SPG’s…. M1’s…F16… and while this farce played out, Russia dug in as the west laughed at their little pointy concrete pyramids, their miles of trenches, their minefields…… the land that would have been easy to cross if the means had been provided when asked for deteriorated into a killing zone for brave Ukrainians, who are giving their lives to try and breach defences that should never have been there but for the intransigence of the West.
That damned Bridge should not be standing, Germany and the USA are refusing to provide the means of dropping it for fear of upsetting Russia, a Russia that has already had it dropped in places. I find it un fathomable that we are willing to pour billions of aid into Ukraine to help them retake their lands but are unwilling to go that one step further to make it obtainable.
I have always said, cut of the supply routes into Ukraine and you cut off the head off the bear. You can destroy tanks till the cows come home, but if Russia can deliver replacements to the front your advance is slowed until they run out of replacements or the ability to deliver them.
…
That damned Bridge should not be standing, Germany and the USA are refusing to provide the means of dropping it for fear of upsetting Russia, a Russia that has already had it dropped in places. I find it un fathomable that we are willing to pour billions of aid into Ukraine to help them retake their lands but are unwilling to go that one step further to make it obtainable.
I have always said, cut of the supply routes into Ukraine and you cut off the head off the bear. You can destroy tanks till the cows come home, but if Russia can deliver replacements to the front your advance is slowed until they run out of replacements or the ability to deliver them.
…
The following 7 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,450
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
It's not the first shell crisis in so far as UK is concerned ................... the first year of the Great War saw similar problems, with gunners rationed to a few rounds per day, reserved for defensive calls. I am not an expert on Great War politics [come to that, not on anything else] but I believe the shell problem nearly brought down a government..
Ahh Gretna Green and the Carlisle state brewery.. I know it well
When the Viet Nam war was raging, I was in school - and in the band. New brass band instruments became exceedingly expensive and hard to come by because the tooling to make and form that brass had been devoted to making ammunition. It's the old guns/butter conundrum - you can't get more of one without getting less of the other.
There are an increasing number of American taxpayers who are questioning the wisdom of giving huge amounts of aid to Ukraine at a time when we can't even begin to pay our own bills. A few months ago, people who fully supported Ukrainian aid polled at about 60% - now that number is down to about 50%. That number can't get much lower without serious political consequences. Right now, the US government is borrowing nearly half of what it's spending - and as a certain old saying goes - something that can't go on forever, won't. And things are getting worse - a 33 Trillion Dollar dept and increasing interest rates mean that a trillion dollars a year are needed just to pay the interest on the debt. Add to that, Ukraine doesn't have the best record when it comes to government corruption, and people can't help but wonder if this is money well spent, or if too much of it is ending up lining the pockets of Ukrainian (and American) politicians. Breaking the back of the Russian economy would be a Pyrrhic victory if it breaks the US economy in the process.
So far - as far as I can tell - the primary Western plan has been to let Ukraine do the heavy lifting in the belief that that - eventually - the economic and manpower drains on Russia will turn the people against Putin - either forcing him to withdraw or out an upper story window. Problem is - a year and a half in - it doesn't appear that Putin is much closer to that window. Yes, the Russian economy and support for the war has suffered, but not enough to turn the tide. Russian propaganda has - so far - managed to minimized impact on Russian public opinion. Continued major Ukrainian successes on the ground could change that - personally I think if Ukraine was able to recapture significant portions of Crimea, it would be too much for even Putin to withstand.
The plan of letting Putin implode may well still work, but we need to be seriously thinking about a 'Plan B'.
There are an increasing number of American taxpayers who are questioning the wisdom of giving huge amounts of aid to Ukraine at a time when we can't even begin to pay our own bills. A few months ago, people who fully supported Ukrainian aid polled at about 60% - now that number is down to about 50%. That number can't get much lower without serious political consequences. Right now, the US government is borrowing nearly half of what it's spending - and as a certain old saying goes - something that can't go on forever, won't. And things are getting worse - a 33 Trillion Dollar dept and increasing interest rates mean that a trillion dollars a year are needed just to pay the interest on the debt. Add to that, Ukraine doesn't have the best record when it comes to government corruption, and people can't help but wonder if this is money well spent, or if too much of it is ending up lining the pockets of Ukrainian (and American) politicians. Breaking the back of the Russian economy would be a Pyrrhic victory if it breaks the US economy in the process.
So far - as far as I can tell - the primary Western plan has been to let Ukraine do the heavy lifting in the belief that that - eventually - the economic and manpower drains on Russia will turn the people against Putin - either forcing him to withdraw or out an upper story window. Problem is - a year and a half in - it doesn't appear that Putin is much closer to that window. Yes, the Russian economy and support for the war has suffered, but not enough to turn the tide. Russian propaganda has - so far - managed to minimized impact on Russian public opinion. Continued major Ukrainian successes on the ground could change that - personally I think if Ukraine was able to recapture significant portions of Crimea, it would be too much for even Putin to withstand.
The plan of letting Putin implode may well still work, but we need to be seriously thinking about a 'Plan B'.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,450
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
Which comes back to the providing of long range missiles to take down the bridge etc, is there any of the costs being explained to the public in the USA, such as it costs more for the US to decommission Cluster weapons than it does to provide them and items nearing their life expiration to Ukraine to “decommission” them?
So the US is saving money by doing that.
Also the funds being provided are actually being spent on jobs in the US to manufacture the ammunition etc, thus creating work and jobs for the USA, and the knock on effect is the mass orders for the likes of HIMARS from Poland etc
Seriously the 30 Abrams should have been 300, that would have made a difference as well.
So the US is saving money by doing that.
Also the funds being provided are actually being spent on jobs in the US to manufacture the ammunition etc, thus creating work and jobs for the USA, and the knock on effect is the mass orders for the likes of HIMARS from Poland etc
Seriously the 30 Abrams should have been 300, that would have made a difference as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,450
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
What I was trying to get across was if you keep dragging supply out in dribs and drabs, 10 of this here, 10 of this the next tranche etc…then you are never going to have an overwhelming force to have an effect on the battlefield, so you are by that limiting the ability to strike and can simply be replacing those lost to attrition due to being forced to operate as smaller than ideal units.
…
…
Last edited by NutLoose; 5th Oct 2023 at 20:26.
... if you keep dragging supply out in dribs and drabs, 10 of this here, 10 of this the next tranche etc…then you are never going to have an overwhelming force to have an effect on the battlefield, so you are by that limiting the ability to strike and can simply be replacing those lost to attrition due to being forced to operate as smaller than ideal units.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,450
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
While various Europeans dithered when they want to donate certain tanks - Leopards as but one example - but can't because the Germans or Swiss are not willing to agree (and some of their bits pieces are in various military equipment) to the transfer .... The problems are multi layered and must drive some of the defense planners in Kiev nuts.
Mind you, I'm not saying the US should cut off Ukraine - from my knothole it's better to stop Putin now than to prologue the agony. I'm just pointing out that it's becoming a hard sell by the day, and it's not just the US far right that's wondering how long we can afford to keep it up.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,450
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
Yes, but what I was trying to get across is there are also benefits. By that I mean military sales have increased by $50 billion to the rest of the world, while Ukraine received $27 billion in arms, so Ukraine is in effect a giant arms sales display showing the world the advantage of US ( and the rest of the worlds) weapons, which is driving sales that are greater than the aid being provided, does that make sense?
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon...oared-in-2022/
WASHINGTON ― Sales of military weapons between the U.S. and foreign governments shot up to nearly $51.9 billion in fiscal 2022, largely because U.S. allies in Europe are rushing to arm themselves in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine 11 months ago.
The total represented a 49% jump from $34.8 billion in sales the previous year, according to new State Department data. Direct commercial sales ― from contractors to governments ― also grew, reaching $153.7 billion, up from $103.4 billion the year before.
One factor in the surge is the easing of the global pandemic that in 2021 depressed sales from a spike to $83.5 billion in 2020. Also, since Russia’s invasion, European allies and allies in the Pacific have sought U.S. arms to deter Chinese aggression.
One of the biggest orders in 2022 was placed by Indonesia, which analysts see as building a military intended to stave off China. The U.S. approved Indonesia to buy three dozen Boeing-made F-15ID aircraft and related equipment in a deal worth as much as $13.9 billion.
In September, the State Department announced a $1.1 billion arms package for Taiwan, to include 60 Harpoon anti-ship missiles and 100 Sidewinder tactical air missiles.
In Europe, days ahead of Russia’s invasion, Poland ordered 250 General Dynamics-made M1 Abrams tanks in a deal worth as much as $6 billion. Germany in July ordered $8.4 billion worth of Lockheed Martin-made F-35 aircraft, munitions and related gear, citing “a need for unity within NATO, and a credible deterrent” to Russia.
Some of the most scrutinized orders of the year came from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which Biden administration paused over the two Gulf nations’ involvement in the war in Yemen.
The State Department, in August, notified Congress this year of one deal for Saudi Arabia to buy 300 Raytheon Technologies-made MIM-104E Patriot missiles for more than $3 billion and another for the United Arab Emirates to buy 96 Lockheed Martin-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system for $2.2 billion.
Foreign Military Sales is the core activity of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and the State Department reviews the planned deals to ensure they meet U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.
The FMS numbers represent potential arms sales reported to Congress, but not final sales. If Congress does not reject a potential sale, it enters negotiations that can change prices and quantities.
The Biden administration sees security aid as a means to cement international relationships and to fire up America’s domestic defense industrial base. A top State Department official overseeing the arms sale process, which the Biden administration is working to streamline, said U.S. security aid must be modernized to meet a moment of “tectonic change.”
“This historic increase in arms sales was fueled, in part, through our provision of security assistance,” Jessica Lewis, the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, was slated to say at a Meridian International Center event Wednesday. “Security assistance greases the wheels of these security partnerships, furthering our national security while strengthening our bilateral relationships.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin launched an internal Tiger Team in August to evaluate the process of executing Foreign Military Sales cases, with the aim of making it faster. The team is co-led by the Pentagon’s policy office and its acquisition and sustainment shop.
Administration officials have said Russia’s sanctions-struck defense industry is creating an opportunity for U.S. and western defense firms to take a bite of Moscow’s share of the market. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia was in 2021 the second-largest arms exporter after the United States, and its chief clients were India, China and Egypt.
Lewis, in prepared remarks obtained by Defense News, said the U.S. encourages Eastern European allies to shed their Russian-made gear in favor of American-made equipment, using grant assistance, military training and other means.
“By transitioning countries off Russian equipment, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to chart the course of the next several decades. This goes beyond arms — it includes maintenance, parts, training, military exercises and more,” she said.
Lewis also emphasized the range of security assistance tools the U.S. is using, beyond arms sales, to build alliances and counter Russia and China.
The U.S. has provided nearly $27 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia began its invasion. Congress has far surpassed the previous $100 million cap on presidential authority to draw from military stockpiles, and it’s appropriated more than $4.8 billion in Foreign Military Financing grants and loans for allies to buy U.S.-made arms.
Pandemic-related acquisition issues have fueled a backlog in the U.S. delivering $14.2 billion worth of military equipment to Taiwan that the island has purchased since 2019. The backlogged equipment included Taiwan’s $8 billion purchase of 66 F-16 fighter jets, but also smaller, asymmetric weapons systems Washington believes would be useful in deterring and thwarting a potential Chinese invasion.
China considers the self-governing island a rogue province and its leaders have pledged to bring it back under Beijing’s control, by force if necessary.
Referencing delays for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, Lewis said the U.S. must “build more and build faster,” cautioning that it’s “not enough to arm Ukraine and support Taiwan’s self-defense capacity if the weapons take years to arrive.”
“Long production timelines will cause us to miss out on this opportunity,” she said. “These delays undermine the competitiveness of the U.S. defense industry, and in some cases negatively impact the security of our allies and partners.”
In addition to the the defense industrial base’s challenges to manufacture and deliver capability on time, a hurdle for the U.S. government is a lack of contracting and program staff within the Pentagon to manage sales, said Keith Webster, the president of U.S. Chamber of Commerces’s Defense and Aerospace Council.
Still, Webster called the newly published numbers of notifications and actual sales “very robust.” Because Capitol Hill has been favorable to most sales, Webster said he expects anything notified to Congress to be implemented.
“If something is not eventually implemented post notification it most likely would be at the request of the foreign government,” he said.
Earlier this year, Defense Security Cooperation Agency director James Hursch projected that allied efforts to backfill stocks of arms sent to Ukraine will drive “continuing increases” in foreign military sales over the next three years.
“We have enjoyed a rebound in arm sales,” Hursch said in October at the Association of the United States Army conference. “I’m not sure how steep the slope [of the increase] will be, but that’s based on the facts that our allies and friends will be replenishing their stocks.”
Allies are also expected to draw lessons from Ukraine’s fight to buy the next generation of equipment. Pentagon officials said at the time that they expect future investments in armored maneuver forces and precision fires, among other categories of arms used in Ukraine.
The total represented a 49% jump from $34.8 billion in sales the previous year, according to new State Department data. Direct commercial sales ― from contractors to governments ― also grew, reaching $153.7 billion, up from $103.4 billion the year before.
One factor in the surge is the easing of the global pandemic that in 2021 depressed sales from a spike to $83.5 billion in 2020. Also, since Russia’s invasion, European allies and allies in the Pacific have sought U.S. arms to deter Chinese aggression.
One of the biggest orders in 2022 was placed by Indonesia, which analysts see as building a military intended to stave off China. The U.S. approved Indonesia to buy three dozen Boeing-made F-15ID aircraft and related equipment in a deal worth as much as $13.9 billion.
In September, the State Department announced a $1.1 billion arms package for Taiwan, to include 60 Harpoon anti-ship missiles and 100 Sidewinder tactical air missiles.
In Europe, days ahead of Russia’s invasion, Poland ordered 250 General Dynamics-made M1 Abrams tanks in a deal worth as much as $6 billion. Germany in July ordered $8.4 billion worth of Lockheed Martin-made F-35 aircraft, munitions and related gear, citing “a need for unity within NATO, and a credible deterrent” to Russia.
Some of the most scrutinized orders of the year came from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which Biden administration paused over the two Gulf nations’ involvement in the war in Yemen.
The State Department, in August, notified Congress this year of one deal for Saudi Arabia to buy 300 Raytheon Technologies-made MIM-104E Patriot missiles for more than $3 billion and another for the United Arab Emirates to buy 96 Lockheed Martin-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system for $2.2 billion.
Foreign Military Sales is the core activity of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and the State Department reviews the planned deals to ensure they meet U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.
The FMS numbers represent potential arms sales reported to Congress, but not final sales. If Congress does not reject a potential sale, it enters negotiations that can change prices and quantities.
The Biden administration sees security aid as a means to cement international relationships and to fire up America’s domestic defense industrial base. A top State Department official overseeing the arms sale process, which the Biden administration is working to streamline, said U.S. security aid must be modernized to meet a moment of “tectonic change.”
“This historic increase in arms sales was fueled, in part, through our provision of security assistance,” Jessica Lewis, the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, was slated to say at a Meridian International Center event Wednesday. “Security assistance greases the wheels of these security partnerships, furthering our national security while strengthening our bilateral relationships.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin launched an internal Tiger Team in August to evaluate the process of executing Foreign Military Sales cases, with the aim of making it faster. The team is co-led by the Pentagon’s policy office and its acquisition and sustainment shop.
Administration officials have said Russia’s sanctions-struck defense industry is creating an opportunity for U.S. and western defense firms to take a bite of Moscow’s share of the market. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia was in 2021 the second-largest arms exporter after the United States, and its chief clients were India, China and Egypt.
Lewis, in prepared remarks obtained by Defense News, said the U.S. encourages Eastern European allies to shed their Russian-made gear in favor of American-made equipment, using grant assistance, military training and other means.
“By transitioning countries off Russian equipment, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to chart the course of the next several decades. This goes beyond arms — it includes maintenance, parts, training, military exercises and more,” she said.
Lewis also emphasized the range of security assistance tools the U.S. is using, beyond arms sales, to build alliances and counter Russia and China.
The U.S. has provided nearly $27 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia began its invasion. Congress has far surpassed the previous $100 million cap on presidential authority to draw from military stockpiles, and it’s appropriated more than $4.8 billion in Foreign Military Financing grants and loans for allies to buy U.S.-made arms.
Pandemic-related acquisition issues have fueled a backlog in the U.S. delivering $14.2 billion worth of military equipment to Taiwan that the island has purchased since 2019. The backlogged equipment included Taiwan’s $8 billion purchase of 66 F-16 fighter jets, but also smaller, asymmetric weapons systems Washington believes would be useful in deterring and thwarting a potential Chinese invasion.
China considers the self-governing island a rogue province and its leaders have pledged to bring it back under Beijing’s control, by force if necessary.
Referencing delays for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, Lewis said the U.S. must “build more and build faster,” cautioning that it’s “not enough to arm Ukraine and support Taiwan’s self-defense capacity if the weapons take years to arrive.”
“Long production timelines will cause us to miss out on this opportunity,” she said. “These delays undermine the competitiveness of the U.S. defense industry, and in some cases negatively impact the security of our allies and partners.”
In addition to the the defense industrial base’s challenges to manufacture and deliver capability on time, a hurdle for the U.S. government is a lack of contracting and program staff within the Pentagon to manage sales, said Keith Webster, the president of U.S. Chamber of Commerces’s Defense and Aerospace Council.
Still, Webster called the newly published numbers of notifications and actual sales “very robust.” Because Capitol Hill has been favorable to most sales, Webster said he expects anything notified to Congress to be implemented.
“If something is not eventually implemented post notification it most likely would be at the request of the foreign government,” he said.
Earlier this year, Defense Security Cooperation Agency director James Hursch projected that allied efforts to backfill stocks of arms sent to Ukraine will drive “continuing increases” in foreign military sales over the next three years.
“We have enjoyed a rebound in arm sales,” Hursch said in October at the Association of the United States Army conference. “I’m not sure how steep the slope [of the increase] will be, but that’s based on the facts that our allies and friends will be replenishing their stocks.”
Allies are also expected to draw lessons from Ukraine’s fight to buy the next generation of equipment. Pentagon officials said at the time that they expect future investments in armored maneuver forces and precision fires, among other categories of arms used in Ukraine.
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon...oared-in-2022/
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Photo not copied out of respect.
"It was a shop with a cafe nearby. There were locals in the store, locals in the cafe, where the memorial service for a local resident was held. In total, there were about 60 people on the territory. 50 died, including a 6-year-old girl," - Minister of Internal Affairs about today's strike on Groza village in Kharkiv region.
"There were 330 residents in this village. From each family, from each yard, one person attended the memorial dinner," the minister said.
About each sixth resident of the village was killed.
This is the largest strike in Kharkiv region since the beginning of the war. By preliminary conclusions, it was an Iskander missile.
Deepest condolences to the loved ones of the killed and wounded people.
"It was a shop with a cafe nearby. There were locals in the store, locals in the cafe, where the memorial service for a local resident was held. In total, there were about 60 people on the territory. 50 died, including a 6-year-old girl," - Minister of Internal Affairs about today's strike on Groza village in Kharkiv region.
"There were 330 residents in this village. From each family, from each yard, one person attended the memorial dinner," the minister said.
About each sixth resident of the village was killed.
This is the largest strike in Kharkiv region since the beginning of the war. By preliminary conclusions, it was an Iskander missile.
Deepest condolences to the loved ones of the killed and wounded people.
The following 8 users liked this post by ORAC:
My more sober response is: I am not sure what the top Russian pain point is, in terms of loss.
When that is reached, something is gonna give: either they stop, or they raise the stakes a lot.
Not gonna pretend I know which they would do.
The following 2 users liked this post by Lonewolf_50:
Sky news item
I was watching the 6pm Sky news this evening and there was a “Breaking News” item of a Putin live broadcast. Putin was saying that hand grenade fragments had been found in the wreckage of Prigozhin’s plane crash, also saying to the effect that there had been no external cause of the crash….clearly implying that the crew or passengers caused it!
What disgusted me was that this story was broadcast with absolutely no Sky comment, as if it was coming from any other reliable source, and no mention of Putin’s 100% track record of lies and deceptions. IMO stories like this from reputable news channels should be preceded with an appropriate veracity warning. Or preferably not broadcast at all.
What disgusted me was that this story was broadcast with absolutely no Sky comment, as if it was coming from any other reliable source, and no mention of Putin’s 100% track record of lies and deceptions. IMO stories like this from reputable news channels should be preceded with an appropriate veracity warning. Or preferably not broadcast at all.
The following 3 users liked this post by SRMman:
I was watching the 6pm Sky news this evening and there was a “Breaking News” item of a Putin live broadcast. Putin was saying that hand grenade fragments had been found in the wreckage of Prigozhin’s plane crash, also saying to the effect that there had been no external cause of the crash….clearly implying that the crew or passengers caused it!
What disgusted me was that this story was broadcast with absolutely no Sky comment, as if it was coming from any other reliable source, and no mention of Putin’s 100% track record of lies and deceptions. IMO stories like this from reputable news channels should be preceded with an appropriate veracity warning. Or preferably not broadcast at all.
What disgusted me was that this story was broadcast with absolutely no Sky comment, as if it was coming from any other reliable source, and no mention of Putin’s 100% track record of lies and deceptions. IMO stories like this from reputable news channels should be preceded with an appropriate veracity warning. Or preferably not broadcast at all.
One of the blessings of increasing age is the development of cynicism. I last watched live news on any channel, be it TV or radio, the day Brexit was announced. [That is a judgement of media, not the Brexit result]. The less I know from instant media, the less miserable I am.
I do not allow my valet to watch either.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All breaking news from all media should come with a veracity warning. Most is hastily written by pimply upstarts or drink-raddled column fodder.
One of the blessings of increasing age is the development of cynicism. I last watched live news on any channel, be it TV or radio, the day Brexit was announced. [That is a judgement of media, not the Brexit result]. The less I know from instant media, the less miserable I am.
I do not allow my valet to watch either.
One of the blessings of increasing age is the development of cynicism. I last watched live news on any channel, be it TV or radio, the day Brexit was announced. [That is a judgement of media, not the Brexit result]. The less I know from instant media, the less miserable I am.
I do not allow my valet to watch either.