#16 Ukraine the brave, the whole World is watching!

[Werthead]

It does look like a small Russian breakthrough has occurred towards Slovyansk, SE of Izium and west of Severodonetsk. The Ukrainians pulled back across the river to shore up better defensive lines, and it's unclear if the Russians simply advanced to the limit of the uncontested lines or have actually penetrated the defences. If the latter, that's a problem because it allows them to take over as the northern wing of the pincer (since Izium still seems contested) and try to cut both Severodonetsk and Lysychansk off. The Ukrainians are banking on a heavy defensive battle for Lysychansk to wear the Russians down in attrition, but that's not going to work if the twin cities are cut off from the rear. It looks like the Ukrainian reserves they were planning to commit to the city battle are instead being used to shore up the flanks.

However, time might not be on the Russians' side. Some reports that they want a culminating battle to declare victory in Luhansk ASAP and the new CO is sending in troops rather recklessly, unlike the previous guy who was much more cautious but also achieving much better results. All of this is buying time for Ukraine to continue to fortify the rest of Donetsk, but losing all their troops in the Severodonetsk-Lysychansk area would be a huge blow. They might have to consider a mass withdrawal if the pocket looks like it's closing.

[Werthead]

Oryx confirmed that Russia today passed 2500 vehicles, artillery and heavy equipment destroyed since the war began on 24 February. A frankly astonishing number.

[Loge]

6 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

My understanding is: They can.

The parts are obviously fit for aviation. Parts are good for certain number of flight hours or take-offs and landings.

You can dismantle those pirated planes to replace the parts that have reached the end of their lfiespan in your very own plane. 

So let's say, part A in Aeroflot plane has reached the 10.000 flight hours (just to name a number) for which it is certified (in reality those parts would last longer, but better replace a bolt early, than lose an entire plane; and the insurers won't pay if you mess this up). Now you can take part A from one of those western planes, with likesay 7.000 flight hours and fit it into the Aeroflot plane. That buys you another 3.000 hours of flight time for that plane (let's restrict it to flight hours and not take the number of take-offs/landings into account to keep the example simple). As long as those procedures are done by certified mechanics, and the documentation is there, no problem. 

Obviously you can't keep on doing that forever. But that can buy yourself a few more months. As for the cannibalized planes. You can refit those with new parts, once the sanctions are lifted.

Software updates for the flight computers are a bigger problem, if I am not mistaken. 

Estimations I ahve seen said, around 6 months would be the max Russia could squeeze out of its aviation sector. Feruary/March + 6 months, means August-September, that's why I said, 2 maybe 3 months, before everything in that industry in Russia comes to a halt. Unless China changes its stance wrt delivering parts.

My understanding is that the documentation of the maintenance work will reveal that parts from stolen planes have been used.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, Loge said:

My understanding is that the documentation of the maintenance work will reveal that parts from stolen planes have been used.

Yes, but so what? That's not impacting the airworthyness of the plane. That's the key issue. The parts are good to use, that they used to be in another plane is of little consequence. At least that's my understanding.

[Loge]

9 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yes, but so what? That's not impacting the airworthyness of the plane. That's the key issue. The parts are good to use, that they used to be in another plane is of little consequence. At least that's my understanding.

It should be of consequence if the plane the part is from has been stolen. Otherwise they could just use that plane. But has we have seen, even China won't let those planes into its air space. Ownership matters as much as airworthyness.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 minutes ago, Loge said:

It should be of consequence if the plane the part is from has been stolen. Otherwise they could just use that plane. But has we have seen, even China won't let those planes into its air space. Ownership matters as much as airworthyness.

Hum, planes get overhauled all the time. The older the plane the more parts have been replaced. So those are very likely not the original factory parts of the plane they'd be ripping out. On which plane they fit those parts is entirely up to the carrier. Or to put it another way, the parts that were installed on the plane, when it was leased to Aeroflot have most likely been replaced 3 or 4 times over. That's more or less the counter argument.  

 

Edit: Think of those airplanes as Formula 1 Racing cars. Over the course of a season nearly all the parts get replaced due to wear. And they are basically shifting parts from one car to another now.

[Loge]

32 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Hum, planes get overhauled all the time. The older the plane the more parts have been replaced. So those are very likely not the original factory parts of the plane they'd be ripping out. On which plane they fit those parts is entirely up to the carrier. Or to put it another way, the parts that were installed on the plane, when it was leased to Aeroflot have most likely been replaced 3 or 4 times over. That's more or less the counter argument.  

 

Edit: Think of those airplanes as Formula 1 Racing cars. Over the course of a season nearly all the parts get replaced due to wear. And they are basically shifting parts from one car to another now.

My understanding is that the airline must provide a paper trail proving the origin and history of the replacement parts. You can't prove that maintenance was done properly unless you can make sure the replacement parts really fulfil the requirements.  It doesn't suffice that the part 'fits'. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

14 minutes ago, Loge said:

My understanding is that the airline must provide a paper trail proving the origin and history of the replacement parts. You can't prove that maintenance was done properly unless you can make sure the replacement parts really fulfil the requirements.  It doesn't suffice that the part 'fits'. 

Yes, the parts have to be certified. Means the supplier has to be certified by Airbus (or Boeing). So they can't run into the next hardware store in Novosibirsk to buy a pack of screws and use them on those planes. Obviously. The parts they replaced (pre-sanctions) on a leased plane very obviously meets those standards. So taking those certifieed parts out of one A380 and fitting them into another A380 is what they are (in all likelihood) doing to keep a few planes in flying condition.

Manufacturers says this part is good for x flying hourse or y take offs and landings (whatever threshold you hit first). Aeroflot (as Russias main carrier) has atm more planes than it needs, as in, it can't service a whole lot of destinations. So those planes are grounded with good certified parts, that still have quite a few flying hours left. So the documentation that those are certified air plane parts is obviously there.  I mean, if they were desperate or crazy enough to use uncertified partswithout the proper paperwork, they wouldn't need to bother with all the documentation and paper work and taking parts out of another airplane.

[Kalbear]

12 hours ago, DMC said:

Heh.  Sure, k.  Biden isn't gonna do that, and the idea that he would to try to "save the Dems" from the midterms in such a way is farcical both in that crossing his mind and anyone thinking it would actually work.

I think this wildly underestimates the pressure that Biden and dems are starting to face here, combined with the pressure that Russian-based propaganda sources like Carlson are able to bear. 

You may be right that he will refuse to throw Ukraine under the bus, though I imagine not everyone in his cabinet and in congress will see it the same way. But the notion that it is entirely farcical when it would be a popular move to do - especially to appease Republicans, something Biden likes doing - seems very far off. 

[Werthead]

Some more clarity from the Ukrainians on Severodonetsk about what happened over the weekend. The Ukrainians counter-attack and drove the Russians back into the city centre via their "hugging the enemy" tactic designed to avoid Russian artillery. However, the Russians also got wind of this pretty quickly and after heavy attritional losses, pulled back to the city's outskirts. Artillery and air strikes then rained in and the Ukrainians were not able to easily continue the "hugging the enemy" tactic fast enough to be effective, so they fell back to their prior positions in the south of the city along the north bank of the river. Apparently for a while the two lines were quite far apart with the Russians shelling the (hopefully mostly empty) buildings inbetween. The Russians then returned to city centre and the Ukrainians resumed attacking them, so the lines have kind of returned to where they were more than a week ago.

It does look like it confirms the problems the Ukrainians have advancing across open, flat, dry countryside, but it also confirms the problems the Russians have in urban warfare, especially when they don't fully control the surrounding area.

[Maithanet]

That kind of thing cannot be good for morale.  These D-20s are mostly 70ish years old, and artillery doesn't have a lot of margin for error when something goes a little bit wrong. 

[Werthead]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

 

That kind of thing cannot be good for morale.  These D-20s are mostly 70ish years old, and artillery doesn't have a lot of margin for error when something goes a little bit wrong. 

I get the impression that the LPR and DPR militaries are really pissed off with how things have been going, and the sole thing keeping them in the fight is either fear of the Russians (and particularly Chechens, who seem to be performing NKVD-like security roles in the military) or the hope that a victory means they get to take control of the full Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Going by their social media channels, there's a lot of division on what happens after the war, with some favouring full independence over being annexed to Russia because they feel Russia hasn't pulled its weight in the fighting and has fed them into the blender to preserve their own troops.

[SeanF]

27 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I get the impression that the LPR and DPR militaries are really pissed off with how things have been going, and the sole thing keeping them in the fight is either fear of the Russians (and particularly Chechens, who seem to be performing NKVD-like security roles in the military) or the hope that a victory means they get to take control of the full Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Going by their social media channels, there's a lot of division on what happens after the war, with some favouring full independence over being annexed to Russia because they feel Russia hasn't pulled its weight in the fighting and has fed them into the blender to preserve their own troops.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

[Maithanet]

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

Not like the LPR and DPR grunts have a lot of good options.  They could try and defect I guess, but then they'll probably never be able to go home unless Ukraine outright wins the war and retakes the eastern territories (which doesn't look too probable at this point). 

I mean, for the collaborationist leaders of the LPR/DPR, yeah fuck them, but that's not exactly a large bunch. 

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I get the impression that the LPR and DPR militaries are really pissed off with how things have been going, and the sole thing keeping them in the fight is either fear of the Russians (and particularly Chechens, who seem to be performing NKVD-like security roles in the military) or the hope that a victory means they get to take control of the full Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Going by their social media channels, there's a lot of division on what happens after the war, with some favouring full independence over being annexed to Russia because they feel Russia hasn't pulled its weight in the fighting and has fed them into the blender to preserve their own troops.

I wonder how feasible a LPR/DPR revolt would be at this point.  It's fairly easy* to see that the future for people in that region would be better as a part of Ukraine or independent with Ukrainian ties.  I'm sure that some of the leaders would love to make some sort of deal with the Ukrainians, depose the current leadership and kick the Russians out of the country.  But actually organizing and pulling off such a coup would be extremely challenging and incredibly risky.  I assume that since the LPR/DPR have been at war with Ukraine for 8 years they would be willing to fight with Ukrainians.  A separate peace might be possible (Ukraine would probably agree to one anyway).  But there are more Russian troops in LPR than LPR troops (possibly in DPR as well, not sure about that) so any attempt to depose the leaders would almost assuredly be foiled by Russian troops. 

I'm just spitballing here.  I don't have any expertise on the politics on the ground in these areas.  They are in a terrible spot, and there aren't any good options. 

* I'll admit I'm biased in this.  But nobody with half a brain would want to be part of Russia if given any other options. 

[Werthead]

Quote

I mean, for the collaborationist leaders of the LPR/DPR, yeah fuck them, but that's not exactly a large bunch. 

I'm pretty sure most of the LPR/DPR leaders from 2014 were killed, arrested or just deposed by people far more loyal to Russia, and in some cases actual Russians military commanders.

People on the street in the LPR and DPR who've been polled have said they'd be probably happiest in a federated alignment with Ukraine, but the people in charge want to be part of Russia, and the few remaining high-ranking rebels from back in the day would probably prefer independence but allied to Russia.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, KalVsWade said:

I think this wildly underestimates the pressure that Biden and dems are starting to face here, combined with the pressure that Russian-based propaganda sources like Carlson are able to bear. 

You may be right that he will refuse to throw Ukraine under the bus, though I imagine not everyone in his cabinet and in congress will see it the same way. But the notion that it is entirely farcical when it would be a popular move to do - especially to appease Republicans, something Biden likes doing - seems very far off. 

You realize the midterms are five months away right?  So you're suggesting inflation and gas prices - and the public's blame of the Biden administration for those - portend a very bad cycle.  Certainly with ya there.  So Biden's response to this is to change course on Ukraine - virtually the only area where he has complete support from his party and even "support" (at least in terms of being hawkish on Ukraine) from a significant amount of Republicans.  All in the hopes those Republicans won't viciously attack him for abandoning Ukraine -- AND, forcing Zelenskyy into an agreement will somehow lower inflation and gas prices enough by November to "save" the Dems' chances.

Yep.  Pretty sure that's farcical.  Biden will and already is getting pressure from his cabinet and congress to change course on inflation (and to a lesser extent gas prices).  But if anyone in his administration or copartisan in Congress suggested the solution to November is to pressure Zelenskyy into an agreement, they'd be laughed out of the room.

[Kalbear]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

You realize the midterms are five months away right?  So you're suggesting inflation and gas prices - and the public's blame of the Biden administration for those - portend a very bad cycle.  Certainly with ya there.  So Biden's response to this is to change course on Ukraine - virtually the only area where he has complete support from his party and even "support" (at least in terms of being hawkish on Ukraine) from a significant amount of Republicans.  All in the hopes those Republicans won't viciously attack him for abandoning Ukraine -- AND, forcing Zelenskyy into an agreement will somehow lower inflation and gas prices enough by November to "save" the Dems' chances.

Yep.  Pretty sure that's farcical.  Biden will and already is getting pressure from his cabinet and congress to change course on inflation (and to a lesser extent gas prices).  But if anyone in his administration or copartisan in Congress suggested the solution to November is to pressure Zelenskyy into an agreement, they'd be laughed out of the room.

I guess I have a very different view of how much pressure high gas prices going into summer along with high overall inflation is going to put on him. I also think that he's getting some pushback from European allies on this too - Germany is getting pissy about being forced to do the right things, France doesn't want the war to continue - and we may see pushback from others as the refugee situation gets worse and fuel costs go up in the fall. 

I also don't know how much 'complete' support Biden has on Ukraine any more. That certainly was the case previously, but is it now? 

This isn't with the hopes that Republicans won't attack him - as I said above they'll attack regardless. It's in the hopes that the electorate will care more about actions being taken to help inflation and high prices.

As to lowering prices fast - I think that's absolutely doable. Gas prices have gone up by something like $1.78 in the last 3 months. While they don't tend to go down as fast, they certainly can go down pretty fast. Inflation is harder to stop or curtail, but gas prices? They're a lot easier.

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I guess I have a very different view of how much pressure high gas prices going into summer along with high overall inflation is going to put on him.

Identifying inflation and gas prices as huge electoral problems for Dems in November is obviously true and has been well anticipated.  Jumping to "he'll be forced to put pressure on Zelenskyy to accept an agreement in the hopes of lowering inflation and gas prices in order to win in November" is the part that is farcical.

26 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I also don't know how much 'complete' support Biden has on Ukraine any more. That certainly was the case previously, but is it now? 

The funding bill passed less than a month ago got complete support from Democrats and at least about 3 to 1 support from Republicans in both chambers.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Identifying inflation and gas prices as huge electoral problems for Dems in November is obviously true and has been well anticipated.  Jumping to "he'll be forced to put pressure on Zelenskyy to accept an agreement in the hopes of lowering inflation and gas prices in order to win in November" is the part that is farcical. 

K. I disagree. Especially if the war isn't going well for Ukraine or the political environment is going REALLY badly, like it looks to be.

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

The funding bill passed less than a month ago got complete support from Democrats and at least about 3 to 1 support from Republicans in both chambers.

Less than a month ago gas was $.75 cheaper.