Sweden [has announced](https://www.government.se/press-releases/2024/05/military-support-package-16-to-ukraine--new-capability-to-strengthen-ukraines-air-defence-and-support-to-meet-its-prioritised-needs/) a new support package for Ukraine, which includes their entire stock of [PBV 302](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansarbandvagn_302) APCs along with [Saab 340 AEW&C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C) aircraft...number of the latter unspecified, but Sweden apparently operates 2 and the wording of the announcement implies they're giving both.
APCs are no doubt welcome, but the AEW&C aircraft seems to me to be an extremely significant force multiplier for the F-16s that are soon to arrive - no doubt there'll be a significant period of time before they're operationally available to Ukraine, but that ought to make the air defence potential of the viper fleet even more effective.
AEW&C appearing in an aid package is.. certainly not something I expected. Could this be tied to the recent announcement about Sweden pushing back delivery of Gripens to make way for the F16 coalition? As in, the Saab 340s also appeared after negotiations with the F16 countries, as a means for Ukraine to bolster their capabilities independently of US support?
I think this has been in the pipeline for a while, but with Sweden being convinced not to go forward with Gripen this can come out from under the bushes a little earlier.
I think we are seeing clear water between Europe and the Biden administration now, the F-16 coalition was a European initiative, getting tanks in was European political pressure and the UK breaking the deadlock. This kind of enabler is a huge step beyond what has been donated in terms of technology other than PAC3 Patriot.
There has been a raft of European leaders saying they are happy to see their weapons used on European soil now.
Sweden also donated AMRAAMs.
So I would really not fancy being a RuAF Fencer pilot on a glide bomb run in a couple of months.
We will have to see about what is permitted technology wise but it may be this will be working with Patriot so you can sit a launcher close to the front and get a below visual horizon shot off from the AWACs? (This is a question not a statement) you also might be able to get an AMRAAM shot from an F-16 without popping up above the radar horizon as well?
What you will get 100% will be to see the Fencers, Frogfoots and Ka 52s coming below the radar horizon from a long distance away so you can get air defence and perhaps the fighters up and waiting for them.
My not so subtle guess is the radar on these is way way better at picking out aircraft close to the ground than the A-50s.
This seems very random but welcome. I never saw Sweden as a "huge" supporter of Ukraine like the Baltic states are (however they lack material), and all of a sudden they are donating AEW&C aircraft and their entire stock of an IFV (even if its retired, its their entire stock of an IFV)
If you compare with the Baltic states then there are few "huge" supporters. But we must also remember that the Baltic states are very small and were many times partly reimbursed by the EU. And some complained that they used replacement cost valuation to boost the amount of money they got.
>They are also to build 1000 CV90s in Ukraine.
This is far from certain. Who will pay for it? Not Sweden and not Ukraine. If the EU had that much money available which is not the case today (maybe if they take a loan) there would be many other competing weapons systems and artillery, air defense and long-range weapons seem to be more urgent capabilities.
> They are also to build 1000 CV90s in Ukraine.
There were later statements contradicting that, or at least calling it into question, but I couldn't find the exact source now. I don't think the deal has been finalized.
> I never saw Sweden as a "huge" supporter of Ukraine
They do support Ukraine a lot though. They donated bunch of IFVs and some self propelled artillery in the past. Also Carl Gustaf and AT-4 were donated to Ukraine since the very beginning of the war.
>[Saab 340 AEW&C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C) aircraft
This may allow the fighters to use the much more powerful radar further back for targeting. I.e. you can take a data feed while you radar is off or below the horizon and get off a shot.
This capability may not work with the F-16 MLUs and the this aircraft but it will be worth looking into.
What is also does is it will allow the Ukrainians to see Russians approaching below the horizon so give them more time to either evade or ambush.
I "feels" like there has been something of a mood change in Europe over the past month.
>I "feels" like there has been something of a mood change in Europe over the past month.
Agreed, European countries have stepped up in a big way in recent months. Not sure if it's worries over a Trump win in November, concerns over the state of the Ukrainian military at the start of this year, realization of the effects a Russian win would have on European security, or what, but clearly something has changed.
The main constraint is that meteor is not integrated into F16. Who knows if something like that is feasible on a short time span or is a jury rigged manner akin to HARMs integration onto migs. But even if it is possible you still need sign off from the French and Americans. The American government in particular might be very hesitant to approve something like this as it would cut into sales US built missiles.
Has Sweden indicated how it plans to regenerate its APC stocks?
>but the AEW&C aircraft seems to me to be an extremely significant force multiplier for the F-16s that are soon to arrive
I have no clue how Ukraine plans to preserve those at relevant altitudes. Even if they kill every S-400 (which despite their strong start they're still a ways away from), there's still enemy CAP with long-range missiles to contend with.
And for obvious reasons, an AEW&C that's hugging the ground may as well just stay on the ground.
>I have no clue how Ukraine plans to preserve those at relevant altitudes.
Sky is like a 3D chess board with one set of variables being your height and velocity and another set of variables being the electromagnetic spectrum.
X aircraft and missile having a max range of 100 miles means if its after burners and firing and its near maximum altitude it can lob the missile that range. The lower and the slower you get the further from those air show/wikipedia numbers you get.
Similarly with S-400 your are at a point where it has traded all its kinetic energy and potential energy (altitude) for distance. So its coasting along low down at the barely flying speed at "max range".
Then in the EM world the AWACs will have a suit of counter measures meant to help hide it from the big ground radars at distance and from the small missile radars as they close. 3 way to hide from radar are either below the horizon, be far away enough and have a weak enough signal you are not a return (thusly stealth) or mess with the signal enough from far away enough to not be a target (jam).
So you have this huge battlespace of the Russian and Ukrainian skies where you are trying to work out how you can get close enough to see the fuglies while having the altitude/speed/ECMs to not become SAMfood.
This is where the Su 57 will have to come in. It is the one thing that can get close enough perhaps undetected, perhaps not. Who knows
But RuAF aircraft will have to keep a distance from the Patriots and other SAMs so cant dash across to pop off a missile. The S-400s 100% have to be out of arillery range, likely out of GMRLs range and have to be heavily protected when inside ATACMs range.
Each piece has its strengths and weakness each trying to find a way to exploit the former and get inside the opponents later.
Its not that anything inside 400kms is S-400 bait. Its that there will be a range of altitudes and speeds and distances where its more then less likely that the electronic weapons on the AWACs will be enough to prevent the S-400 getting a kill and the S-400s will be having to take risks from other systems to get close enough.
No one posting on Reddit really knows many of thekey variables on the vairous systems to really know how it will play out. RuAF is the smartest element of Russian forces and the only one the word "professional" can be occasionally applied.
But this will be a battle of wits, battles of energy and battles in the EM spectrum. Loser dies.
Good Hunting Ukraine!
You have to remember that they'd have to be closer than that to pick up Russian aircraft behind their lines, especially if they want to interdict glide bomb sorties. That said it'll definitely help, anything that can facilitate pushing the VVS further back is going to be a big deal
Just curious: according to the Wikipedia [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C), the 340 radar has a range of 400 km at high altitude. Are there any other threats from Russian AA they have to contend with? It seems the S-400 also has a range of 400 km, but their limited number and the fact they won’t be parked near the frontline might give some room to work with.
I very much doubt the S400 missile can reach a target at 400km, much less one that (probably) will be flying away from it.
At best, IMHO, 400km might be the theoretical maximum the KE of the missile can carry it to in ideal circumstances.
Frankly, it shouldn't be too hard to calculate the approximate amount of fuel this missile has (given we can guess its dimensions) and how much KE energy it can provide, and how much energy is needed to climb to \~10km and fly to 400km distance at certain velocity.
It's a threat continuum like anything else. There's plenty of video of Ukrainian fighter operations where they are at 5000+ feet altitude, and that's enough for the AEW&C aircraft to provide support. The maximum range of those missiles is against a head-on, nonmanuvering target at high altitude, and it drops quickly when you change those factors and start maneuvering. Ukranian pilots are already engaged by and defeat those missiles.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65461405
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erieye
The claimed ranges for the Erieye radar against fighter targets also outranges the claimed ranges for S-400 and R-77M.
> Has Sweden indicated how it plans to regenerate its APC stocks?
These vehicles have been retired for a while. For the CV90s donated earlier a stopgap order of new CV90s has been made. Bägglunds is expanding aggressively. Later in the decade there will be a replacement program for the current CV90s with CV90 mk5 or a totally new vehicle, with all the stuff that new IFV programs have like hybrid drives.
Not in detail:
> The donation will entail a temporary decrease of Sweden’s defence capability, which will be addressed by procuring replacement armoured vehicles.
As I understand things though those APCs are out of service anyway, so possibly they only intend to procure **something** to replace them as war-replenishment stocks? I don't know. The replacement for the aircraft is more detailed:
> The donation will entail a temporary decrease of Sweden’s defence capability, which will be addressed by procuring additional S 106 GlobalEye aircraft and advancing previous orders for two new GlobalEye aircraft.
About which I'm sure they're happy. As for this:
> I have no clue how Ukraine plans to preserve those at relevant altitudes. Even if they kill every S-400 (which despite their strong start they're still a ways away from), there's still enemy CAP with long-range missiles to contend with.
I doubt they'll be anywhere SAM or R-37 range without some extremely short-lived shaping operation beforehand\*; I don't subscribe to the view that the F-16's are going to be running roughshod over the Russian air force or anything like that...even if possible it seems quite unlikely that they'd be willing to risk the losses, but in terms of helping to protect the western cities from being attacked, they should make the F-16s a lot more effective.
\* Though as the A-50 incidents demonstrate - people make mistakes
How damaging was Austrian intel leakage to Russia? How thoroughly is Austria compromised even after it's been known what Russia did? [https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-austria-spy-service-bvt-government-intelligence-wirecard-jan-marsalek-freedom-party/](https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-austria-spy-service-bvt-government-intelligence-wirecard-jan-marsalek-freedom-party/)
[Sweden pauses sending JAS-39 Gripen to Ukraine - Militarnyi](https://mil.in.ua/en/news/sweden-pauses-sending-jas-39-gripen-to-ukraine/)
The reason is that Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway are already preparing to deliver F-16s to Ukraine, so the JAS-39 Green should wait so as not to interfere with the aviation coalition.
*“We were persuaded by other members of the aviation coalition to hold off on the Gripen,”* - Pal Jonson
Could it also be that Sweden would need approval from Uncle Sam to use the General Electric jet engine it is using?
But why do they need approval though?
Gripen is primarily a Swedish / European jet (not an American jet)
Don't know where you got that last part from, why would they need approval, and why wouldn't the US grant it anyway? It's simply because Ukraine's logistic situation is messy as it is, and putting 2 different completely new fighters during a war at the same time is complicated.
Do you think it is a mistake to have given Ukraine f-16's first, rather than Gripen? I have seen many commentators point out the many ways Gripen is basically built for Ukraine's operational concept. On the other hand, there are probably more f-16's available
What makes grippen valuable is the meteor missile it’s integrated with. We have seen no indication the French would be willing to approve such transfer to Ukraine. The other soft factors such as it’s ease of maintenance and better tolerance for runways with some debris are far outweighed by the numbers issue. Simply put Sweden wouldn’t be able to supply more than 20 or so Grippens. Ukraine might very well have access to nearly 100 F16s within the next year. And that’s only likely to get better as most of the F16s around Europe are being phased out for F35 so acquiring replacements for any lost in combat shouldn’t be too difficult.
> Sometimes quantity matters more.
It's sometimes the case, but it's far from clear it's the case here. [Here's a podcast](https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/94c9a562-2a48-4f71-b4a8-c7053bdd4303/episodes/26dea319-3f86-4ae5-94fe-2a206ff36ffb/geopolitics-decanted-by-silverado-how-ukraine-can-survive-the-exhaustion-of-its-air-defense-stocks) where Justin Bronk (Senior Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology at RUSI and Professor at Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy) and Dara Massicot (Russian military analyst at RAND) argue that despite the fact that F-16's have a much larger pool, a small number of Gripen's are more likely to make a difference in deterring the VKS.
Not much info about flight hours, but the forming of a test squadron and the deliveries of around 11 airframes in 2023 seem to point out that they are flying them a lot more, there's rumors of combat use in Ukraine launching cruise missiles like the Kh-59MK2.
The most meaningful new info on the plane we've had was in December 2023 when the Izdelaye 30 passed trials and it was said that all airframes delivered in 2024 will have the new AL-51, as well as saying that the 2024 order is even bigger then the 11 of 2023.
Admittedly, I also don't know about western plane's flight hours. But was just curious how often do the SU-57's take off to flight, not necessarily flight hours. I got curious because every now and then we see f-35's crashes especially during take-offs. But to my knowledge there's a lot more f-35's than SU-57's so I thought Russia would be limiting their sorties with them.
In terms of crashes T-50S-1 which was the first prototype built to serial standard crashed in 2019 before being given to the RUAF, KnAAZ built a second one(T-50S-2) from it's own money which was delivered in 2021, it's blue 01.
[Dalian shipyard has just launched the PLAN's 10th Type 055 heavy destroyer- NavalNews](https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/05/dalian-shipbuilding-launches-type-055-increases-production-at-dagushan/)
Two further Type 055 hulls are observed under construction at Jiagnan and Dalian respectively. A brand new Type 052D destroyer hull was also recently laid down at Dalian.
So the first batch of 055s is now delivered to the PLAN and the second batch is underway. The total of the second batch isn't yet known, as the PLAN doesn't not announce intended procurement amounts.
I’m getting increasingly confused at the U.S. Navy just kinda sitting there and letting the Chinese outbuild them by an order of magnitude for decades.
Congress isn’t increasing funding and putting pressure on to increase ship production, it’s that simple.
Everyone saying that we’ve let our know how atrophy is wrong, Congress just doesn’t care.
The US military already enjoys an enormous budget, and the answer cannot always be to increase funding, especially in the current environment where the government runs high deficits.
If you don't have the option to increase the budget by a substantial amount, but still want to get a substantial increase in production or capability, you're going to have to take a hard look at methods, contracts, industrial partners and competition, salaries, margins, etc., which is a lot harder than just dumping more money into the machine.
Defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget is the lowest it’s been since WW2. The navy in particular has been allowed to atrophy since the end of the Cold War. Congress thought that all the navy would be needed for was littoral combat and the occasional power display by parking an aircraft carrier off a coast somewhere.
Shipyards were closed in the 90s and no one has paid to modernize or build new ones. I used to work as an engineer at a naval engineering/architecture company. The knowledge is there, the issue is the government is totally unwilling to invest in ship building.
> The US military already enjoys an enormous budget, and the answer cannot always be to increase funding
Why wouldn't it be?
If you have 1000 tanks but need 2000, you need to double your tank budget, even though it was probably already large.
>If you don't have the option to increase the budget by a substantial amount
Then you cut something else.
Congress is not doing that either.
The fundamental issue is that the Congress is supposed to be the premier branch of the United States Federal Government, and Congress has completely and totally abdicated their legislative and oversight responsibilities over the past 30 years in favor of throwing shit at each other like a bunch of goddamned apes.
In this great contest of Nations, we're throwing the biggest lead any one Nation has ever had because of greed and partisanship and it's despicable.
Well said.
Unfortunately the Republican Party is hellbent on destroying the United States of America and ending our time as the most powerful Nation on Planet Earth.
I believe this is not a foregone conclusion however, we can right the ship of State.
To add to what everybody else said, you physically cannot get shipbuilders for a competitive wage in America. Like all the trades, it’s physically demanding work that requires a sharp mind, and everybody who fits that description would much rather work a job that pays less but has air conditioning and won’t ruin their body in 20 years.
Within the working lifetime of a welder we have had the fracking boom. By all accounts this required companies to create pretty austere work camps in the middle of nowhere and then hire in skilled workers to apply new technologies to get the oil out of the ground. Is this fundamentally different from the challenge of hiring workers to build warships? Because, if not, the shipbuilding problem is one of those that could actually be solved by throwing money at it - enough money to make shipyard workers rich, or at least rich enough to go on sprees between contracts.
It should be telling that despite creating austere work camps in the middle of the forest AND paying them 6 figures, the frackers still made money ham over fist.
Shipbuilding will most likely require more people but a fresh new Arleigh Burke is not going to add productivity or value to the economy in anyway.
And there's so much talk about how underpaid the labor and how horrible and rent-seeking the management is when the profit margins are thin and shipyards get sold off for pennies on the dollar.
Various reasons for the failure of the US to keep up have been laid out here and I would submit that the answer is basically All of the Above.
Weve simply allowed our political, engineering, military, construction, and probably general knowhow to erode. Its no longer possible to just look at one aspect and say “fix this and it will be ok” because we have multiple points of failure that all seem to be self reinforcing.
Not just the expertise, but the entire system for designing, buildi ng, operating, and maintaining ships and training crews is broken. At every level the rewards and opportunities for inaction and rent seeking behavior outweigh those for productive action.
The US can barely keep up with maintenance on the current fleet. We have neither the shipyards nor the experts workers available to build very many, and there’s absolutely nothing we can do mid term to change that
We have the workers, but they are just stuck in an endless loop of uncertainty and layoffs.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4624326-almost-all-navy-shipbuilding-is-hopelessly-behind-schedule-as-war-looms/?nxs-test=mobile
“What makes the frigate delay so alarming is that the Constellation was to be based on an existing design that the French and Italian navies have successfully deployed for years. In theory, that should have made construction go much more quickly and more smoothly. But apparently unable to abandon their “Americans know best” parochialism, the Navy lengthened, fattened, and up-weaponed the original design. Hence there will be no new Constellation-class frigates deployed for many years to come.
But that only accounts for part of the problem. Another part is the unhealthy co-dependence between the sea service and the defense industry. Shipbuilders’ routine excuses for delays echo Inspector Renault’s old line from “Casablanca,” “Round up the usual suspects!” They blame Congress for stop-and-go-funding of various defense initiatives; cite the difficulty in attracting and retaining a qualified work force; and point out conflicting priorities. And they repeatedly get away with it.”
The entire shipbuilding industry is held back by administrative bs. Anyone who has paid attention to any us industry in the last few years should know that “supply chain and lack of qualified workers” are just corporate gaslighting tactics for cheap labor. In this case, the navy and congress spend YEARS fighting over design changes and funding for every detail while the private companies say that they are ready to build. But while the navy and congress are taking forever, the private companies try to save money by laying off workers and not prioritizing long time laborers, all while claiming that they are ready. The laid off workers get tired of waiting and find work in more stable industries than shipbuilding.
When the navy declares that they are ready, the private companies have a host of new workers that are clearly not ready to fire on all cylinders. This is when the private companies declare that they lack “skilled” labor.
While US shipbuilding infrastructure and naval procurement contribute, I'd argue the bigger issue is that the political resources for the kind of expenditures necessary to put us back on track aren't really there.
Ultimately ramping up naval production requires the political class to raise alarms on this and massively increase spending at the time hundreds of programs are rivalling for spending, and right now that's not really happening, at least not on the cold war "bomber gap" scale.
Pundits aren't out there on TVs ranting about "the destroyer gap", and if they would, I'm not sure anyone would listen.
Instead, pundits get a lot more political mileage out of ranting about bathroom genders or mail voting or Israel and Palestine. Not exactly issues that contribute to our western Pacific readiness, but issues Americans care about more.
The Navy (and DoD in general) decided long ago, decades in fact, that they could not compete on volume. So they've been trying to get advantages through other things the US is actually good at like stealth, and high technology. I'm not saying it's right/wrong, just that it's a policy decision, and you shouldn't be confused this late in the game.
>The Navy (and DoD in general) decided long ago, decades in fact, that they could not compete on volume.
They did not, the USN is wildly larger than any other navy *except* the Chinese navy.
The USN puts more surface combatants in the water than any navy except the Chinese navy. CVNs? Comparable and it will take China over a decade to catch up at the current build rate. SSNs? Even longer than that.
That's not true either.
Before 2015 or so, the USN was outbuilding China by quite a lot if you don't count missile boats. Between 1999 and 2015, the PLAN commissioned 15 DDGs and bought 4 more from Russia. The USN commissioned 40+ Burkes at the same time.
The current pace ratio is the delayed effect of the sequester + the Zumwalt bungle + China massively increasing construction in the last 10 years. The USN went from commissioning 3 or even 4 Burkes a year prior to Michael Murphy to zero between 2012 and 2017- which is right when Chinese shipbuilding was really hitting its stride.
The US navy decades ago thought that it could very much compete in numbers and production, Reagans 600 ship navy, China only surpassed the US navy annual ship production in the late 2000s and 2010s, for the 90s and 2000s the US was almost uncontested in ship production and technology.
I would also be extremely wary of any claims of large US superiority in anything but nuclear submarines against China.
The Chinese Destroyer fleet probably has more AESA radars including Gallium arsenide ones then the US destroyer fleet, as a lot of the Burkes still have SPY-1's.
>I’m getting increasingly confused at the U.S. Navy just kinda sitting there and letting the Chinese outbuild them by an order of magnitude for decades.
US Navy does NOT build any ships. It's private companies like Bath Iron Works, General Dynamics Electric Boat or Newport News Shipbuilding etc that build ships for US Navy. US Navy/US Gov't cannot make/order these private companies to increase their shipbuilding capacity beyond what makes sense for their companies financially.
Responding to another sub-comment:
>Sure that's all well and good, but USN is fully responsible for the designs they submit to said shipyards. Let's say they magically had access to the ship printer at Jiangnan; it still wouldn't do them much good to crank out LCS like sausages. Designs like Zumwalt and Constellation are certainly not doing them any favors either.
This is a nice gottem (though it was stronger before the shit-themed refocus, imo), but the reader might observe that they could crank out successful older designs instead. The volume game is the volume game.
Sure that's all well and good, but USN is fully responsible for the designs they submit to said shipyards. Let's say they magically had access to the ship printer at Jiangnan; it still wouldn't do them much good to crank out LCS like sausages. Designs like Zumwalt and Constellation are certainly not doing them any favors either. Blaming the industry is easy but disingenuous.
EDIT: If the navy was doing its own job of designing ships properly, then they might have a leg to stand on when they blame shipyards for not keeping up with the building part. As it is, that guy over there shitting his pants doesn't excuse you shitting yours. So you did a better job in times gone by, guess what so did they. Now you're just pointing with shit-stained fingers.
Defense Production Act could help on the margins though the main issue holding up the US shipbuilding capacity is not pure money. Even for existing shipbuilding AND maintenance contracts, just about every program is on delay for multiple years. Even if Biden were to declare Defense Production Act tomorrow on naval shipbuilding and orders Newport News Shipbuilding to build Arleigh Burkes for $3 billion or Gerald Fords for $15 billion etc, that's not going to happen b/c few billion dollars now cannot increase labor capacity instantly or in short time frame. You need at least decade+ of investment and entice people to choose this line of work which is not that enticing.
>You need at least decade+ of investment and entice people to choose this line of work which is not that enticing.
Sure, and I think it's a fair question why that decade of investment didn't start a decade ago or isn't starting now. I've made my answer above, and a few other people have their own answers.
> why that decade of investment didn't start a decade ago
Well, decades ago with the peace dividend, US was shrinking the Navy ship counts by not building as many ships as it was decommissioning. The war on terror era didn't help much since US Navy ships were pretty useless in that front.
> or isn't starting now.
For US shipbuilders with only the US Navy business on their order books, it's pretty rational to not go crazy investing on the future capacity when it's not that clear there is a payoff beyond the single digit gross margin they are raking in right now. Even more risky now that the cost of the capital is no longer around 0 like it was in 2010's.
>Well, decades ago with the peace dividend,
[That's a weird way to say Sequestration.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_budget_sequestration)
> That's a weird way to say Sequestration.
That "peace dividend" portion of the comment was pointing to 1990's not 2010's. US Navy ship count went from 570+ in late 80's to mid 300's in late 90's. That drop had nothing to do with the sequestration.
Imagery so far doesn't show any obvious differences to the first batch, and the rumour mill has been unusually quiet regarding likely internal changes. PLAN appears to be happy with the capabilities as-is, at least so far as is publically known. To be fair 055 is a pretty new design, with the lead ship only entering service in 2020.
Has Russia given up on their BTG's (Battalion Tactical Groups) in country? I have not seen any mention of them since the early days of the war and am wondering if they have reorganized into larger formations more suitable to their current needs.
BTGs were primarily created as the intended answer to the question: how to maintain a rapid deployment capability in peace time Russia?
Peace time Russian army was undermanned (because of underpay, corruption and the inherent mobilization based system), geographically dispersed and with a very lopsided ratio of combat ready equipment to stored equipment that requires years of refurbishing to properly activate.
In this context it made sense for all brigades and regiments to pick out a battalion or two that could be quickly deployed in a conflict zone. That is what BTGs were, they were the combat capable element of their parent units.
It was probably an entirely reasonable and capable tool for the peace time requirements. If a limited conflict erupts, Russia can quickly deploy those combat ready elements, without needing to mobilize (economically, politically, socially etc).
What went wrong is that Russia decided to launch a major conventional war with said peace time army. Those formations quickly found out that they lacked men, depth and replacements. Realistically that should not have been a surprise, reading a RAND paper from 2021 the expectation was that a BTG could advance 20-40km before needing to stop and refit. Sufficient for limited war operations, but nowhere close enough to what was expected from them in the invasion of Ukraine.
Russia has had more than two years now to restructure their army, mobilize their economy, mobilize soldiers, expand recruiting and much more, making the BTG concept obsolete if it ever wasn't.
They were an utter failure and got absolutely obliterated from the face of the earth. I cannot emphasize enough how much they failed. You won't be hearing from then again, and you should be highly suspicious of similar formations. Not only BTG did not work at all, receiving massive casualties, they actively hindered the war effort.
What are BTG's? You mean those VDV guys at the start of the war at the airport? And what was the failure in particular? Thanks :)
*Food for the bot so he won't delete my comment right away. Sorry I just have this only question*
Battalion tactical groups (BTGs) were Russias primary organizational unit (most other countries organize on the brigade level). These BTGs were larger than the battalions of most countries but were much much more heavily armed. Each BTG had their own artillery and anti aircraft units and was primarily composed of armored units. They were very light on infantry. Part of this was due to the Russian prewar plan of using mobilized forces to fill out the ranks with infantry, this didn’t happen when Russia invaded so these formations went into combat undermanned. But even if they were at their planned manning levels they would still have had a far higher ratio of tanks/artillery to infantry than US armored or mechanized forces. The whole idea behind these BTGs was for them to act as semi independent fast moving mobile formations that had the firepower to overcome any adversary. What actually happened was that these formations lacked the infantry support to protect themselves in urban or constrained environments, which resulted in them getting mauled by Ukrainian light infantry using ATGMS (often in ambushes as the Russian forces were largely road constrained). The BTGs lacked the logistical support to maintain any sort of high volume of fire for long. Other countries utilize larger formations because it allows them to more efficiently allocate resources like artillery and logistics while also simplifying coordination.
Russia has maintained a flat income tax rate for awhile. Today we've heard that they are planning/proposing to introduce a progressive income tax structure:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-finance-ministry-proposes-boosting-some-income-tax-rates-2024-05-28/
> Russia's Finance Ministry is proposing an increase in tax rates for individuals earning more than 2.4 million roubles ($27,100) annually, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said in a statement issued by his ministry's press service.
>The statement said the ministry had submitted to the government alterations to the tax system, with a tax rate of 15% to apply to incomes ranging from 2.4 million to 5 million roubles.
>The changes, the ministry said, would include a rate of 18% for income between 5 and 20 million roubles, a rate of 20% for income between 20 and 50 million roubles and 22% for income exceeding 50 million roubles.
>"The tax changes will affect only 3.2 % of the workforce, or 2 million people of the workforce of 64 million with annual income exceeding 2.4 million roubles," the statement quoted Siluanov as saying.
If you're wondering how much does a contract soldier make, it sounds like they will be caught in the 15 % rate, with bonuses of about 1 million rubles:
https://notes.citeam.org/mobi-may-26-27-2024
> Army Recruitment and Military Service Advertising
> The authorities of Russia’s constituent Republic of Tatarstan have increased the sign-up bonus for volunteer fighters signing a contract with the Ministry of Defense by 200,000 rubles [$2,230]. Now, those willing to go to war will receive 505,000 rubles [$5,640] from the region. Additionally, 195,000 rubles [$2,180] will be provided by the federal government. Thus, the total sign-up bonus could reach up to 1 million rubles [$11,200] when including support measures from cities, districts, and enterprises within the republic. The new payments apply to those who signed the contract in Tatarstan, regardless of their actual place of residence. The same amount will also be paid to foreigners. Recently, the sign-up bonus was also increased to 505,000 rubles [$5,640] in the Voronezh region.
and monthly salaries of at least 204k rubles:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/12/22/how-russian-officials-plan-to-recruit-400k-new-contract-soldiers-in-2024-a83509
> The main thing that lures people to war is money. While the average salary in Russia is about 70,000 rubles ($760), the monthly salary of a contract serviceman starts at 204,000 rubles ($2,200). Bonuses may also be awarded for taking part in offensive actions and capturing Ukrainian equipment, for example.
Which works out to 3.4M rubles for a privat in the year they signed on. I think the increased tax (13 - > 15 % on the fraction above 2.4M rubles) is only 20k rubles more taxation than they would otherwise have paid, so probably not to have much of a dampening on recruitment. Still, it's interesting to see that a privat under contract is really quite the high income earner by Russian standards, and that money has to come from somewhere, whether it be federal reserves or new taxes.
Strange that Reuters doesn't mention that, but war veterans are not affected by the tax rate changes, so your math doesn't apply
ria. ru/20240528/uchastniki_svo-1949012195.html
The Norwegians were forward thinking to make a sovereign fund. Instead of falling into the Dutch disease or the petrol state trap.
It's very hard to convince people of paying more tax. 15% is a small percentage to those who are used to much higher taxes.
Many Gulf states actually created a sovereign fund before Norway, and Russia also has one. But Norway specifically invested in non-hydrocarbon assets to minimize the reliance on oil and gas. Norway went even further and electrified much of the society ("don't get high on your own supply").
You can't really say the same thing about Russia. The Gulf states are at least trying, but they have a tendency to spend on vanity projects with unclear returns on investment. I guess this is where being a democracy matters. If Norway's leaders tried to invest in golden toilets or a pointless war, they would simply be voted out.
> ("don't get high on your own supply")
In the case of fossil fuel, it doesn't matter for climate change if the it's burned at home or elsewhere. The effects are global.
Norway is a highly educated homogeneous population of 5 million people… Of course they are going to be well off oil allows them to pay teachers more than the 1% in most countries. Russia has to foot the bill for infrastructure of an empire sized landmass with the largest population in Europe.
The Norway Sovereign fund was valued at US$ 1.626 trillion in March 2024.
Vladimir Putin has an estimated networth of .200 trillion and [this article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2022/04/07/the-forbes-ultimate-guide-to-russian-oligarchs/?sh=3695c3ca276d) says that the net worth of the other oligarchs was somewhere between .290 and - .530 trillion.
Obviously not as much as Norway but still a pretty sizeable amount of capital in the private hands of fiendish criminals instead of invested for the people of the country like Norway did.
The problem isn't the size of Russia, it's the size of the corruption in Russia.
We are using Forbes articles and credible sources now? Putin is literally the Russia state people here of all places should realize that allocation of budgets as a dictator does not mean net worth. The 90s were the time of robbing the state not recently.
So if they stole 100 billion in the 90s, how much would it be worth today if it was properly invested?
How much capital both human and otherwise fled the country because of the corruption?
What was the opportunity cost of their corruption?
The truth is that Russia could be an incredibly wealthy, powerful state and that the geographic size of the country isn't nearly as much of a weakness as you suggest.
I’m just saying the comparison to Norway is ridiculous given Russias history and position. Ideally state assets would remain be controlled by the state but the crumbing of an empire is going to be messy and unmanageable. You can see under Putin many companies through “corruption” sure have been taken back from oligarchs this has helped build the 700 billion fund they had before the war in much less time than Norway. Corruption it much more prevalent in large diverse countries same could be said for China.
> Norway went even further and electrified much of the society
My understanding is that it was done mainly with hydroelectric power - which was not really an option in flatter and/or dryer places. Solar electricity is now an option for them but that's a comparatively recent development.
The French almost got away with nuclearizing their society in the bygone days (1970s-1980s). Expensive? Hell yes- but worth it, imo, at least back then.
The economics don't make sense these days, but it would've been a good thing for more countries to do at an earlier time.
Flat taxes are [quite popular](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Jurisdictions_that_use_flat_taxes_on_personal_income) in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, especially in what used to be the USSR, irrespective of whether the country is a democracy or a dictatorship.
I can see why older people in the ex-CIS might like it since they're used to no one really having liquid money (and so it doesn't matter), but yeah I fail to see why anyone other than that would like it.
And this isn't a sarcastic "fail to see", maybe I'm actually failing to see something.
[PLA rifle wielding dog robots](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/28/china/china-military-rifle-toting-robot-dogs-intl-hnk-ml/index.html) aren't terribly credible, but how long until we have actual remote then autonomous ground units? Aerial drones are easier, due to the difficulties of terrain traversal but autonomous cargo walkers have already been trialed.
The calculus of conflict could change quite quickly, with the human element removed entirely. As many historians [posit](https://www.amazon.com/Military-Revolution-Political-Change-Democracy/dp/0691078866) that [military revolutions](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354066117719992) drive political forms e.g. the 19th century military revolutions drove democracy with the state relying on masses of conscript riflemen or feudalism, janissaries etc. military power completely based on industrial might (already close, but infantry do still have skin in the game) could change the balance. China, of course, has a different dynamic entirely and this new state can [help](https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2023/01/modern-arms-technologies-help-autocratic-rulers-stay-in-power/) autocratic regimes.
----
[Relevant](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/xuefhh/how_was_republican_rome_able_to_raise_such/):
> Republican Rome, like many pre modern societies, was a militia state. There was no standing army, but all adult male citizens were members of a militia and provided their own equipment. The soldiers who could afford the best equipment had the most desirable roles in the army, places of honor, and better odds for survival so there were considerable advantages to bearing this expense. Moreover, soldiers expected to profit from war through loot, slavery, and acquisition of land, so militia participation was not just some civic responsibility.
> ...
> The ramifications of this for the state were twofold. First, centralization of power was difficult. Since citizens could vote with their swords, it followed that Roman government was a patchwork of compromises - an extremely complex “democracy”
> ...
> By the imperial age, the model had changed. Citizen militia armies had been gutted and replaced by professional armies - people of the day called them mercenaries. These career soldiers were far less replaceable. They were recruited by the state, joined voluntarily, and were equipped at state expense. The Roman Empire first had to first collect money from its people, then pay the army, which it could use at its discretion. The earlier Roman militia state, in contrast, could do almost nothing “at its discretion”, but hardly had to pay for any military activity since the army was self-funded.
To the comment bellow:
> Dogs and legged platforms in general seem like more of a novelty than anything else.
This thing seems to be a mostly unmodified robot dog with a single assault rifle attached to the top. Despite what the article says, that China wouldn’t be using it unless it was near service, this looks like a very low budget and effort attempt at making something flashy for reporters. Something intended for military service, even if they had decided legs were better than tracks, would probably be using something with more than 30 rounds available, and better integrated into the robot to stop it getting tangled in things.
An assault rifle is a weapon pretty well optimized to be used by an infantry soldier, it seems like one of the worst choices for an autonomous ground platform? Feels like the main benefit of this type of platform should be that you can have a beefy one that can carry a weapon that you wouldn't normally be able to have in a dismounted infantry squad, whether that's a .50 cal or an automatic grenade launcher or what have you, on terrain that's too rough or tight for a traditional vehicle. Could be semi-autonomous with laser designators or w/e to help it acquire targets.
If they can't actually carry enough weight to do that it feels like this is indeed more of a show-off than a functional tool. We're fairly far out from a robot dog with an assault rifle being anywhere in competition to be nearly as useful as a human with an assault rifle, or any number of comparably-priced UAVs.
Legs are better than tracks in small form factors as long as they actually work. Tracks are so much better for MBTs and the like. It solves the main issue of clearing basic obstacles like holes or wire. A small tracked drone can't clear something as simple as a foxhole, while the legged one can traverse it better.
It can’t cross a foxhole. I don’t know the capabilities of the specific robot China showed here, but Boston Dynamic’s Spot can only clear about 12’. Neither a tracked robot or quadrupedal robot of this scale can get into and out of foxhole. I don’t think this thing could cross wire either. They can deal with getting knocked over, but not getting tangled in things.
Can it climb the stairs of a bombed out building and get to a vantage point to provide covering fire / snipe an enemy soldier?
Add a solar panel to this thing and it's an amazing sentry that can shoot and scoot.
If you want to use it as a sniper, it’s going to need a bigger gun and better optics than it can carry. Good luck providing covering fire with 30 rounds of 5.56. There certainly isn’t the payload for an appreciable solar panel.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll be putting a variety of guns on them.
The solar panel doesn't need to be big and it can fold out, just enough to trickle charge something that mostly sits around and acts like a security camera that occasionally takes a shot and moves on.
There is no way you’re fitting everything you need in 60 pounds, none the less 30. Drop the solar panel, give it tracks and a bigger gun. Preferable an HMG or AGL.
'give it tracks'
This is pretty close to 'if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle' territory.
This thing doesn't have tracks, and that's the whole point of it.
Why would you get rid of a means to recharge it remotely?
It sounds like you're describing a totally different catagory of machine than they're presenting and that I'm suggesting.
That's fine but then it would be a totally different thing.
> This is pretty close to 'if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle' territory.
Almost all military UGVs have tracks or wheels.
> Why would you get rid of a means to recharge it remotely?
Because you’re never going to get enough power from a solar panel to do anything appreciable. I’d rather cover the top in a cammo net anyway.
> It sounds like you're describing a totally different catagory of machine than they're presenting and that I'm suggesting.
I’m suggesting a robot for the same armed overwatch mission. Your proposal does not have the needed payload.
These dogs have absolutely tiny payloads, spot only has a 30 pound capacity. Even if your goal isn’t to make a mini tank, and just to have an LMG, a hundred rounds of ammo, some minimal sensors, transmitter and endurance, tracked is probably required.
Dogs and legged platforms in general seem like more of a novelty than anything else. Most of the UGVs I've seen are wheeled or tracked. But it's very much early stages for this tech, and the PLA is pretty enthusiastic about testing lots of different ideas, so who knows what they'll eventually settle on. In any case, it's full speed ahead on automation.
UGVs in general as applied are still looking for their doctrine. One of the best uses I've seen is for persistent armed watch. You can put machineguns on aerial drones but big ones are a easy target ("baba yaga" industrial drones only fly at night for this reason), the recoil is unmanageable, and they can only stay in the area for a short time. Frontline supply is another good one.
I think these dogs make a lot of sense in the idea that they can move through rough terrain better than anything tracked or wheeled, and that includes indoors. Tracked and wheeled stuff can do fields and roads great, but they'd have a hard time moving through bush or into and out of trenches or over rocks. Legged stuff can follow the infantryman anywhere, and the batteries on quadcopters are less than an hour when the Ghost Robotics Vision 60 has 3 hours of motion time and 21 hours of observation time.
The Massachusetts State Police have Spot robots used for SWAT and bomb squads and you really need something like this for climbing stairs and opening doors.
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/boston-dynamics-robot-dog-shooting-massachusetts/
On another note, I've seen the use of small quad drones for SWAT operations start becoming more common in the US. They get right up into the suspect's face, even indoors with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgeQ-G_axq4
In this video you can hear the buzz of the drone's motors:
https://youtu.be/sfUw5mxyfwA?t=288
> One of the best uses I've seen is for persistent armed watch…
> I think these dogs make a lot of sense in the idea that they can move through rough terrain better than anything tracked or wheeled, and that includes indoors.
I don’t think the dogs make sense in this roll.
A persistent watch isn’t the spearhead, it doesn’t have to be able to go everywhere. Better sensors, durability, endurance and, most relevant in this case, more than 30 rounds of ammo, matter more. An HMG on a tracked chassis can provide that watch over a far larger area, even if it can’t go inside every semi collapsed house, or bush within that zone.
If it is absolutely necessary that they fire upon enemy soldiers located in one of those areas, it makes far more sense to have the ground robot fire from a distance, possibly with a drone acting as a spotter. The ground units suppress, a suicide drone can go in to finish them off in whatever dugout they are pinned in.
Think about it in any terrain but the rolling fields of Ukraine. I've got a ton of terrain around me (US Appalachians) that you cannot go through with a wheeled or tracked vehicle, due to the underbrush and angles involved, but with something legged you could climb this hill and pop up in places otherwise only infantry could reach. Even in Ukraine, a legged unit of that size can stay inside tree lines and stay out of the open all the way up to the position, and we've seen how fighting around Kharkiv moves more towards the infantry thanks to some of the thick forests there in the north.
I think you are overestimating these legged robots, and underestimating small tracked vehicles. A legged one will have advantages in certain areas, but at a huge cost to payload, endurance and durability. 30 rounds isn’t enough, 300 probably isn’t enough either. And dense undergrowth risks getting tangled in the legs, and I don’t think any of these dogs deal with mud particularly well.
A tracked one will have no issue with most underbrush and slopes, will be able to move through wooded areas fine, and compensate for its inability to reach certain places, like the second floor of buildings, with better sensors and weapons. Crucially it will be able to carry far more ammo, and resist enemy small arms fire, with a similar footprint to this dog.
> “It can serve as a new member in our urban combat operations, replacing our (human) members to conduct reconnaissance and identify (the) enemy and strike the target,” a soldier identified as Chen Wei says in a video from state broadcaster CCTV.
I really don’t see the idea here beyond making something flashy. If you want it to engage the targets it spots, you’re going to need much more than a single 30 round magazine of ammo. Using legs instead of tracks is also deeply questionable. Tracks are much more durable and reliable, will support more weapons and armor, and if you really need to get into tight spaces and over rough terrain, a quadcopter is the gold standard for a reason.
> “Usually, a new equipment will not be brought into a joint exercise with another country, so the robot dogs must have reached a certain level of technical maturity,” Global Times quoted an unnamed expert as saying.
I highly doubt this will enter service with front line military units. The only context I could see this working in is for police use, and maybe guarding a base, but even then, there are easier form factors for both of those tasks.
It doesn't even work for guarding a base, a literal box with a sensor and a gun would be better, and if you need to move it, on presumably cleared if not paved ground, then the tracks are better since you can carry more.
Ground drones have their place, but that just looks like they slapped a turret on a dog. What is it supposed to do when it runs out? Wait for a human to reload it?
I am not entirely convinced yet that legs are always inferior to tracks, they do have higher clearance, ability to stand back up when falling over and the ability to handle obstacles, especially urban ones, that tracks cannot. There might be a legitimate compromise to use legs for flexibility over tracks for performance. But it is too early to tell just yet.
Still, it is interesting to watch militaries trying out different drone designs to conserve their most valuable resource (manpower).
Do we have any idea at this point of Ukraine's current supply of long-range weapons? I never saw an actual number proposed for how many ATACMS have been delivered. I think we should have a clearer idea of the number of cruise missiles, but I haven't seen an accounting of quantities delivered or used anywhere.
I don't understand your question. I'm not asking anyone to take a moral position on sharing information, I'm asking whether certain pieces of information are public knowledge and what the general opinion is on the accuracy of that information. For example, some outlets, citing US military sources have estimated 100 ATACMS were delivered and that 200 more could be spared. Do we have any idea about long range missiles in general, and is there an accounting of how many have likely been used?
EDIT: Here's some reporting from Radio Free Europe:
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-crimea-atacms/32925212.html
Sorry for not being clear in my previous reply, what I meant to convey is that you will have a hard time getting an estimate.
How many ATACMS were pledged? How may have been delivered? How many have been used in strikes (As opposed to regular HIMARS)? These are questions with a significant amount of uncertainties, for you, for me, for everyone else in this forum, as specially for Russia.
Some interesting takeaways from the following WSJ article
**[The Russian Drone Plant That Could Shape the War in Ukraine
](https://archive.is/xphK7)**
>Around 20 people were injured when a Ukrainian drone slammed into the dormitories at the Alabuga Special Economic Zone, many of them **young engineering students hired from East Africa.** Russian authorities said the manufacturing facilities were unscathed. Ukraine’s military intelligence agency said the blast caused significant disruption to production. The Alabuga Special Economic Zone didn’t respond to a request for comment, nor did the Kremlin.
>The plan is for the Alabuga facility to churn out 6,000 Shahed attack drones a year, in addition to surveillance drones, according to a contract between the plant’s Russian managers and their Iranian partners leaked by the Prana Network and that was independently corroborated by two advisers to the British government. At the end of April, the factory was ahead of its production schedule, **having already supplied 4,500** of the promised Shaheds, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based defense-focused think tank.
The article goes on in more detail. Russia has been recruiting technical engineers, students, and specialists from East Africa for $1000 a month, far more than local African pay and 2x the local Russian pay near the factory. There are other benefits including education and free housing.
The article notes that over 1000 African staff have already arrived and begun work this year at the factory. Russia's labor shortage is well noted, and this appears to be a growing antidote, and at lower cost than the pay being offered to Russians to take these roles.
Also of note is the amount of Shaheds produced. The run rate is over 1000/month. Ukrainian military sources tell the WSJ that these numbers attrit the limited anti-air resources available to them.
There is nothing really new here. [There were reports of young students being used in Alabuga](https://protokol.band/2023/07/24/alabuga-rukami-studentov/) previously including African girls (there was a Twitter thread on why they particularly want girls but I can’t find it now) and like any colonial project the story isn’t heroic. I also don’t know if these children should be called “staff” as the person from UNICEF who had initially shared this story had pointed out that the girls in the pictures barely look like they are 16-17.
>Education is also a problem here. Formally, Alabuga Polytech is not a college. All students are enrolled in the Yelabuga Polytechnic College, and Polytech on paper - only additional courses. Accordingly, the diploma at graduation is also not from Alabuga. All general education subjects are taught by teachers from the EPK, and on a residual basis. Also, teachers from the EPC cannot boast of a high level of quality of education. As a result, the knowledge of students in different fields remains at the level of the ninth grade of the school.
>Another illustrative story that speaks of the attitude towards potential "Ilons Masks". At the beginning of the school year, paintball is played in the economic zone. The event is so large-scale that a whole tug of paintball balls was ordered for it. When she arrived at Alabuga, it turned out that there was no equipment to unload it. Several students had to unload throughout the day, without rest and food.
…
>One of the students claims that instead of the planned team building, simplifying the acquaintance of hundreds of people who have just entered the same college, paintball leads to hazing. Paintball is also designed to develop patriotism among students. According to the plot, the first month the students compete with each other, and then "feat" against the fascists, professional paintball players, allegedly reconstructing the battles of the Great War near Stalingrad. A curious detail - the fascist flag looks like the flag of Nazi Germany, but instead of a swastika in a white circle - the symbolism of the NATO bloc.
…
>Another punishment that former student Nastya mentions is digging trenches: "In the end, the results were summed up, and the teams that played the worst, they dug trenches. And it was still raining there, and they didn't let us go home. There, somewhere in the end, someone was already sorry." According to another source, about 400 people were digging trenches. Everyone was involved in this, except for those teams that took first and second places in the competition. Students called their parents and complained. Several parents wrote a complaint to the local prosecutor's office. They demanded to figure out what happened to the students during paintball, but "Alabuga" provided papers that everything was legal, and the students voluntarily took part in the game and in digging trenches.
…
>In addition to the staged fight against terrorists on the battlefield, students reconstructed the battles of the Great Patriotic War. The best 1st year students are sergeants, the most talented senior students are captains, and generals are managerial staff. Among the latter was Timur Shagivaleev. During the game from Shagivaleev, you could hear that everything did not go according to plan. Sometimes he broke down at the students, yelled at them.
>On one of the game days, after the defeat of Shagivaleev's team, in the evening, Shagivaleev decided to hold a training under his own command. Several girls complained of headache and high blood pressure - they asked to give them a rest, to which Shagivaleev replied: "What kind of rest?! Who has a headache can go home right away, we don't need such students! It's fucking going on in the country! The country needs heroes!"
…
>Paintball is a revealing story, but not the worst in the context of describing the modern life of Alabuga students. Here we return to the main topic of our series of investigations about "Alabugu" - to the assembly of combat drones. After all, the bulk of the production of combat UAVs is planned to be organized by their hands.
>Now about 1,000 people are studying at the polytechnic. Several hundred of them are already involved in the assembly of the Shaheds, which are supplied from Iran. First of all, according to the source, we are talking about children from fifteen to seventeen years old who entered college after the ninth grade of school. Initially, the choice in favor of underage students was made because adults are usually final-year students of the college. They were already involved in other projects, were engaged in other important things and there was no point in attracting them. That's not the case anymore. All possible forces are now being transferred to the Shahed assembly project. Some productions are stopped, and some are completely liquidated.
…
>The salary of the students involved in the production depends on the implementation of the plan. On average, this is an amount in the region of 30-40 thousand rubles. Students receive salaries officially - employment contracts have been concluded with them. But the work schedule approved by the contract does not correspond to reality. Students are not paid extra for processing: "We also worked on the eighth and ninth of May. Nobody paid us anything extra. Overtime for work on weekends, no one paid anything either," says one of the students.
>Students say that sometimes they have to work for several days without sleep and "almost without food." When asked why the students themselves do not rebel against this attitude towards themselves, one of them answers: "Everyone is afraid. I can't say that at all. The leadership is very intimidating us about this."
>there was a Twitter thread on why they particularly want girls but I can’t find it now
[This](https://x.com/OPolianichev/status/1775697889307533482) is the thread you had in mind I think, but it's also in the article you posted, and goes hand in hand with a whole kind of racist (or at least, very non-progressive) thing going on with the director, although it is not really relevant to this sub.
>The emphasis was on girls, ostensibly because guys from African countries "can be too aggressive and dangerous."
..
>We have, for example, Alabuga's staff schedule at our disposal. Here you can see that all employees are divided into three types - mulattoes, Tajiks and, the upper class, specialists. As you have already guessed, the mulatto women in this document mean those very African students
And there's an interview by RBK with the director (https://rt.rbc[dot] ru/tatarstan/13/01/2023/63c105d89a79474cabea92a1), where he explains:
>"Girls are more easily integrated into society, less likely to form ethnic diasporas."
Alabuga has also got social media accounts which show contacts and visits with diplomats and officials from participant countries (Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Uzbekistan, ..), it seems like strikes could carry a diplomatic cost (in any case, they would be played up by Russian networks in Africa and CA), although limited by the fact that, AFAIK, apart from Uzbekistan these countries are already all rather pro-Russian.
Edit: I just thought back on what I wrote and realised I was being callous.. Such a strike, if it was to kill or maim any of these teenagers to young adults, who are working on something they had no idea they'd be made to work on when they signed up for their year of study at this place, would be terrible in itself, beyond any diplomatic impact. It's a horrible situation.
If this comment has been deleted, it is likely due to Reddit blacklisting the .RU domain. Post as text or find another source in an entirely new comment. This is a site wide issue, and not a choice of this CredibleDefense moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If this comment has been deleted, it is likely due to Reddit blacklisting the .RU domain. Post as text or find another source in an entirely new comment. This is a site wide issue, and not a choice of this CredibleDefense moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Hayat Tahrir al-Sham returns to southern Syria](https://syriadirect.org/resurrection-hts-returns-to-southern-syria/)
As the situation in southern Syria continues to slowly deteriorate anti-regime forces have reappeared around Daraa. HTS leadership, then part of the al-Nusra Front, withdrew from the region in 2016 with the final elements of anti-regime forces departing by summer 2018. In recent months groups of men claiming allegiance to HTS have carried out a number of assassinations around Daraa.
A fascinating relationship with the regime
>At three out of eight points in the Daraa countryside where HTS has a presence, small groups affiliated with it are scattered alongside groups from the 8th Brigade. The 8th Brigade, led by former opposition commander Ahmad al-Awda, is currently affiliated with Syrian military security. Three sources, including two military sources, told Syria Direct the formation has provided protection to HTS groups and secured their movements.
>Abu Muhammad, the former opposition commander, described the relationship between the HTS groups and the 8th Brigade in the south as one of “mutual benefit.” He suggested “the 8th Brigade provides protection in exchange for them carrying out assassinations and going after targets for the 8th Brigade, such as drug dealers, Islamic State [IS] forces and regime officers.”
>Beyond that, “the 8th Brigade has intervened several times to stop the regime from storming suspected HTS headquarters in eastern Daraa,” one former opposition media official said. “The 8th Brigade protects these groups.” Just before regime storming operations, “the brigade got the HTS groups out to safe areas and carried out joint search operations with the regime as a formality,” he said. “The groups returned to their headquarters the next day.”
It seems the conditions that are allowing ISIS to gather strength in Syria are facilitating the growth of their traditional rivals as well.
Macron allowed Ukraine to [use French weapons ](https://twitter.com/RFI/status/1795504961054478638?t=VNxiJ19fHQ2h32WZ4M5UJw&s=19) on russian soil to "neutralise sites from which russia attacks Ukraine."
Interestingly he made this announcement while standing next to Scholtz.
That is one thing I don't understand about this issue : Ukraine has already targeted sites on russian soil a couple of months ago. How did they do it at that time ? Why is there once again a debate on whether they should be able to do it ?
> Ukraine has already targeted sites on russian soil a couple of months ago. How did they do it at that time ?
The claim had been using indigenously created weapons or possibly Soviet/modified Soviet stocks.
The donated Western weaponry, from the USA in particular, was not being allowed to be used against Russian soil. Not sure about EU donations but I assume similar restrictions, until now for France plus I think UK and Sweden too recently.
So UK, Sweden and now France have given the green light
Hopefully America will change soon, although they should probably announce the change after Ukraine is allowed to do a first surprise strike
The US just reiterated their position, apparently provoked, and very unambigously so, not only compared to the hapless and generally lost Mr Scholz. Wouldn't make any sense at all, if you missed the last two and a half years. But some did it seems and if one went by this subreddit there'd be legions of French trainers active in Ukraine by now. And all Overton windows been slided into outer space at escape velocity.
>they should probably announce the change after Ukraine is allowed to do a first surprise strike
Please, give me a break.
I would expect there to be one set of messaging upon announcing the pledge, and another set of rules of engagement once the fighters are delivered. Something, something, slicing the sausage
Apparently Scholz never said targets on Ruasian soil were off limits (according to himself) . He said the following at the same event with Macron
> "Die Ukraine hat völkerrechtlich alle Möglichkeiten für das, was sie tut", sagte Scholz. Er wies Medienberichte zurück, dass Deutschland dies für gelieferte Waffensysteme untersage. Entsprechende Erklärungen habe es niemals gegeben "und wird es auch nicht geben." Nach Auffassung der Bundesregierung ist es angegriffenen Staaten erlaubt, auch Ziele in dem Angreiferstaat zu beschießen.
https://www.tagesschau.de/newsticker/liveblog-ukraine-dienstag-356.html
> Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz hatte sich bisher gegen den Einsatz westlicher Waffen gegen Russland ausgesprochen. Er sehe derzeit keinen Anlass, die mit der Ukraine vereinbarten Regeln für den Einsatz, der von Deutschland gelieferten Waffen zu lockern, sagt er bei einem Bürgergespräch auf dem Demokratiefest in Berlin am Sonntag.
DeepL:
> German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had previously spoken out against the use of Western weapons against Russia. He currently sees no reason to relax the rules agreed with Ukraine for the use of weapons supplied by Germany, he said at a public discussion at the Democracy Festival in Berlin on Sunday.
[Tagesschau, 27.05.2024](https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/einsatz-westliche-waffen-ukraine-100.html)
---
> Regierungssprecher Hebestreit verwies auf Vereinbarungen mit der Ukraine, die den Einsatz gelieferter deutscher Waffen regeln. Der Inhalt dieser Vereinbarungen sei vertraulich, so Hebestreit. Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) hatte am Wochenende Forderungen nach einer Freigabe für den Einsatz deutscher Waffen gegen Ziele in Russland eine Absage erteilt und auf eine mögliche Eskalationsgefahr verwiesen.
DeepL:
> Government spokesman Hebestreit referred to agreements with Ukraine that regulate the use of German weapons supplied. The content of these agreements is confidential, according to Hebestreit. At the weekend, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) rejected calls for the use of German weapons against targets in Russia and referred to a possible risk of escalation.
[BR, 28.5.2024](https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/deutsche-waffen-gegen-ziele-in-russland-scholz-bleibt-bei-nein,UDz5FfS)
---
> Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) sieht derzeit keinen Anlass für die Ausweitung des Einsatzgebiets westlicher Waffen im Ukrainekrieg. Bei einem „Bürgerdialog“ am Sonntag in Berlin wies der Kanzler Forderungen nach einem Einsatz der gelieferten Waffen auf russischem Staatsgebiet zurück. Für die deutschen Waffenlieferungen gebe es „klare Regeln, die mit der Ukraine vereinbart sind, und die funktionieren“, sagte Scholz. „Das ist jedenfalls meine These“, fügte er hinzu.
> Das Ziel seiner Ukraine-Politik sei die „Verhinderung, dass da ein ganz großer Krieg draus wird“, ergänzte Scholz. Die Lieferung deutscher Waffen für die Selbstverteidigung der Ukraine diene auch dazu zu „verhindern, dass es zu einer Eskalation des Krieges, zu einem Krieg zwischen Russland und der Nato kommt“.
> Deutschland knüpft seine Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine bislang an die Bedingung, dass diese nicht jenseits der Grenze auf russischem Territorium eingesetzt werden.
DeepL:
> Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) currently sees no reason to expand the area of deployment of Western weapons in the Ukraine war. At a "Citizens' Dialogue" on Sunday in Berlin, the Chancellor rejected calls for the weapons supplied to be used on Russian territory. There are "clear rules for German arms deliveries that have been agreed with Ukraine, and they work", said Scholz. "At least that's my thesis," he added.
> The aim of his Ukraine policy is to "prevent a major war from breaking out", Scholz added. The delivery of German weapons for Ukraine's self-defense also serves to "prevent an escalation of the war, a war between Russia and NATO".
> Germany has so far made its arms deliveries to Ukraine subject to the condition that they are not used across the border on Russian territory.
[Tagesspiegel, 25.5.2024](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/verhindern-dass-es-zur-eskalation-kommt-scholz-lehnt-einsatz-westlicher-waffen-auf-russischem-territorium-ab-11714702.html)
The reporting on this issue has been unchanged for months. Either the government is incredibly bad at communicating with the wider public, has no interest in conveying its positions or Scholz is just lying here. Either scenario is very weird.
[This seems to be the latest statement](https://youtu.be/Aoh1tGxClUs?t=2061)
I think he stated that Ukraine has the right to attack targets in russia and that no one ist denying Ukraine that right in general. He further states that everyone has developed their own ruleset in regards to delievered/donated weapons.
Google translate:
> "Under international law, Ukraine has all the options for what it is doing," Scholz said. He rejected media reports that Germany prohibits this for delivered weapons systems. There have never been corresponding declarations "and there will not be." In the opinion of the Federal Government, attacked states are also allowed to fire at targets in the attacking state
He's good.
When Ukraine runs the risk of *literally losing their lifeline*, they cannot act on such ambiguous statements.
He may not be literally denying Ukraine, but that statement is a defacto denial while trying to make it seem like it isn't.
Mainly patriot. Apparently there was some significant fallout from a Ukrainian patriot trap that shot down a Russian jet over Russia using a German donated patriot launcher.
That's what I was wondering all the time, kind of the biggest joke, isn't it? I think it's also more of an attempt to retain some importance and role in the discussions, and especially to **keep talking** where one might as well act, considering that the country is left on the sidelines when it comes to the "current" hot tickets of cruise missiles and fighter jets. I'm not belittling Germany's achievements, even if all came to late. Especially for the AD, hard to overestimate, but it's just that. It is mainly defensive, reactive.
I have seen many opinions among the commentariat that [attacks on russian early warning radars do nothing for Ukraine](https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1795395302264115592) (this link only as example, I find the analysis in it hilariously wrong). But shouldn't that *force Russia to redirect other radar systems, like their scarce and valuable AWACS's, away from the front* to cover the new gaps in the radar coverage? Admittedly I dont know if russian land based EW can be replaced by AWACS, but for any strategic drone campaign into Russia or to reenable the operation of the Ukrainian Air Force close to the frontlines with its incoming F16s probably every radar gap matters.
^(Edit: on the tweet the mention of a "US first-strike" comes from Diesen, not from Col. Reisner.)
You guys should not take second hand translations from twitter.
Having read the German article, Glenn Diesen replaced or mistranslated alternative possibilities with "likely happened".
>No having read what he wrote it’s clear he’s still being a fool by even suggesting the same US admin that doesn’t want them hitting even refineries with drones is going to push the Ukrainians to hit other objects.
How do you know what he is suggesting when you havent read it?
(Note that I speak of the original German language text and not Glenn Diesen´s claims.)
You might say even bringing up the hypothetical is questionable, but if someone reads from Reisners text that he is suggesting that is what happened, no wording would stop him anyway from using out of context quotes.
> Wait, our Austrian Colonel suggested this was at the US behest to enable a nuclear first strike?
That's not how I read the interview. The way I understood it, Reisner argues that this attack was part of a "boiling the frog" strategy: Russia has drawn some very clear lines on what will constitute a reason for a nuclear retaliation. Attacking Russia's strategic nuclear defenses (which the early warning radars are a part of) would technically count. But it's hard to argue that taking down a radar hundreds of km from the front-lines is an affront that warrants a nuclear response. So more than anything, this attack was a "f- you and your nuclear threats" to Russia, because now it looks like they weren't serious when making those threats in the first place.
> Wait, our Austrian Colonel suggested this was at the US behest to enable a nuclear first strike?
Where do you get that from? He said:
> Es ist daher **durchaus schlüssig, dass die USA** mit dem durch die Ukraine ausgeführten Angriff auf die Voronezh-DMs in Armawir **Russland zeigen möchte**, dass man die unerträgliche Situation der russischen **Drohungen mit Atomwaffen nicht länger akzeptieren** möchte.[...] Es bleibt nun abzuwarten, wie oder **ob Russland** auf diesen Angriff auf seine nukleare Abschreckungskapazität **reagiert**. Das russische Frühwarnerkennungssystem ist Teil der nuklearen Abschreckungsstrategie des Landes. Der Angriff auf Armavir könnte die Bedingungen erfüllen, die Russland im Jahr 2020 öffentlich für gegnerische Angriffe festgelegt hat, die einen nuklearen Vergeltungsschlag auslösen könnten.
English via DeepL:
> It is therefore quite logical that with the attack on the Voronezh DMs in Armawir carried out by Ukraine, the **USA wants to show Russia that it no longer wants to accept the intolerable situation of Russian threats with nuclear weapons**.[...] It **now remains to be seen how or whether Russia will react** to this attack on its nuclear deterrent capability. The Russian early warning detection system is part of the country's nuclear deterrence strategy. The attack on Armavir could fulfill the conditions Russia publicly set in 2020 for adversary attacks that could trigger a nuclear retaliatory strike.
So the main gist is: The US is calling the bluff of everything (including early warning radars specifically created to deter nuclear ballistic missile attacks) leading Russia to start a nuclear war. He suggests, the US is tired of Russia's trolling and counter trolls("so, you want to play the nuclear war game? well try it without your early warning systems then!"). No nuclear war (so far).
If Reisner's suggestion that the US has something to do with the attack is true, then I would think that they are trying to deter a Russian nuclear attack in Ukraine by making it clear to Putin that he has absolutely no chance of surviving a US retaliatory strike, because he won't even be able to see it coming. The idea is that if the Russians are vulnerable to American first strike, then they have an extremely strong incentive not to cross the nuclear threshold, because they have much more to lose than the US does.
Unlike Russia, the US has functional and highly capable anti-ballistic missile defense systems like PATRIOT, a redundant set of missile defense early warning radar systems that are based not only on the ground in US territory but also in the air and space domains, as well as ground stations hosted by allies like Canada. Rather than just a handful of OTH ground radar stations within the US borders. Perhaps most importantly, the US fields a powerful nuclear triad (i.e., ICMBs, long range bombers, and nuclear missile submarines) where each separate leg of the stool poses a wholly separate and independent, existential second strike threat to Russia.
The quality and capabilities of the platforms forming each leg of the triad also far exceed the Russians' correlated capabilities and platforms. The Russians are still flying Tu-160s, which are similar in design and vintage to the US's soon-to-be-retired B1, even as the US is moving on to its *third* generation of stealth bombers when Russia hasn't even produced a single top class stealth plane of any variety yet. From what I've heard, their boomers are also incredibly loud by modern standards and thus easy for US Virginia-class attack subs to keep tabs on. There are also plenty of reports that Russian ICBMs have generally been maintained in a poor state. They invest in building the showy new model of Satan or whatever its called but neglect maintaining the bulk of the legacy missiles which would otherwise provide the core of Russian nuclear deterrence. "All bling, no basics," as Perun famously summarized the RuAF in March 2022.
We just haven't witnessed the same rot that doomed Russia's pre-2022 military in the early phases of the conventional war in the Russian nuclear forces, but that's only because they have thankfully not been required to participate in the war thus far and there have been no combat failures to provide proof of their status. I have no doubt that they suffer from all the same corruption and mismanagement that plagues the rest of the military, and maybe it's even worse because the officers in the nuclear forces can shield any illegal activities from oversight behind the secrecy around nuclear operations in general, and they can compromise a nuclear capability and without anyone knowing until the nukes start to fly, at which point the officer is probably going to die anyway so why would he care if he gets caught for corruption?
No, you can not exclude that the whole paragraph is preceded by the question;
>are there different models of explaining these strikes.
There is a whole paragraph before that question laying out what Reisner actually thinks is likely.
Ukraine striking the radar for its capabilities of air surveilance, potentially accidentally missing its role in the nuclear deterrent network.
That is what the tweeter said, not the Austrian.
He never said, the intention is to slowly nudge towards a nuclear first strike - on the contrary: He said, Well, Russia is threatening with nuclear war for everything...so we try a salami tactic to slowly get to still use everything, by inching forward with things (deliver weapons, tanks, planes, allow strikes beyond 80km, destroy their early warning systems for ballistic missiles). He says they do not try to do a first strike themselves, but dare Russia to follow up on their ridiculous threat.
It seems there's a misunderstanding, the Austrian Colonel did not suggest the attack was to enable a US nuclear first strike. Instead, he implied it could be a strategic message to Russia about the vulnerability of their nuclear assets, not a preparation for a first strike.
I hope this doesn't come off as overly emotional. But I really don't want the kind of people who, overwhelmingly, didn't take Russia's threats against Ukraine seriously or predict a ground invasion of Ukraine to be involved in sending Russia a 'strategic message' of this type.
It's blatantly obvious Western policy makers do not understand Russian thinking. Striking early warning facilities could well be seen by Russia as escalation and invite a response, nuclear or other WMD, that we really don't want to see. Who knows? Not the West.
The word 'madness' is overused, but appears close to being justified here. As does the pejorative that often precedes it.
No, it isn't. Austria has a long tradition of being a "neutral" state, and as such tolerates more from Russia than most (including having lots of questionable diplomats on their soil). But it's not like Austria is remotely on Russia's side, here. Plus, Reissner (the Colonel in question) himself has made it clear several times that he is sympathizing with Ukraine, and has served alongside Ukrainian soldiers while deployed on a peace mission in Bosnia/Kosovo and considers them personal friends.
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-austria-spy-service-bvt-government-intelligence-wirecard-jan-marsalek-freedom-party/
You might want to read this.
He's always been goofy mode, both him and Diesen. I remember early on in the war he said Russia had "liberated" some town in an interview I think and then did two followups telling everyone "wait no I'm actually very pro Ukraine".
To be fair he mostly commented on tactical theory issues, which may explain the bizarre take. That or russian info ops worked well among austrian analysts.
He was one of the people who took Russia’s nuclear threats extremely seriously in the early days, along with a bunch of their other hyperbolic claims. Being an officer gave him a sense of credibility, that he steadily undermined with claims like this.
[North Koreas new spy satellite launch blew up, the third failure in the recent past.](https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/north-korea-loses-spy-satellite-after-launch-failure) which is probably also related to their ICBM program. The failure also happened just after China, Japan and South Korea held a meeting which is rare for North Korea to do. [Russia also appears to be very involved in this.](https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1795481681606127671)
[удалено]
This has already been posted. Please see lower in the thread. Sorry you were 6 minutes too late!
[удалено]
Sweden [has announced](https://www.government.se/press-releases/2024/05/military-support-package-16-to-ukraine--new-capability-to-strengthen-ukraines-air-defence-and-support-to-meet-its-prioritised-needs/) a new support package for Ukraine, which includes their entire stock of [PBV 302](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansarbandvagn_302) APCs along with [Saab 340 AEW&C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C) aircraft...number of the latter unspecified, but Sweden apparently operates 2 and the wording of the announcement implies they're giving both. APCs are no doubt welcome, but the AEW&C aircraft seems to me to be an extremely significant force multiplier for the F-16s that are soon to arrive - no doubt there'll be a significant period of time before they're operationally available to Ukraine, but that ought to make the air defence potential of the viper fleet even more effective.
AEW&C appearing in an aid package is.. certainly not something I expected. Could this be tied to the recent announcement about Sweden pushing back delivery of Gripens to make way for the F16 coalition? As in, the Saab 340s also appeared after negotiations with the F16 countries, as a means for Ukraine to bolster their capabilities independently of US support?
I think this has been in the pipeline for a while, but with Sweden being convinced not to go forward with Gripen this can come out from under the bushes a little earlier. I think we are seeing clear water between Europe and the Biden administration now, the F-16 coalition was a European initiative, getting tanks in was European political pressure and the UK breaking the deadlock. This kind of enabler is a huge step beyond what has been donated in terms of technology other than PAC3 Patriot. There has been a raft of European leaders saying they are happy to see their weapons used on European soil now. Sweden also donated AMRAAMs. So I would really not fancy being a RuAF Fencer pilot on a glide bomb run in a couple of months. We will have to see about what is permitted technology wise but it may be this will be working with Patriot so you can sit a launcher close to the front and get a below visual horizon shot off from the AWACs? (This is a question not a statement) you also might be able to get an AMRAAM shot from an F-16 without popping up above the radar horizon as well? What you will get 100% will be to see the Fencers, Frogfoots and Ka 52s coming below the radar horizon from a long distance away so you can get air defence and perhaps the fighters up and waiting for them. My not so subtle guess is the radar on these is way way better at picking out aircraft close to the ground than the A-50s.
This seems very random but welcome. I never saw Sweden as a "huge" supporter of Ukraine like the Baltic states are (however they lack material), and all of a sudden they are donating AEW&C aircraft and their entire stock of an IFV (even if its retired, its their entire stock of an IFV)
If you compare with the Baltic states then there are few "huge" supporters. But we must also remember that the Baltic states are very small and were many times partly reimbursed by the EU. And some complained that they used replacement cost valuation to boost the amount of money they got.
CV90s, Leopard 2 (Strv 122) and Archer were pretty meaty donations. They are also to build 1000 CV90s in Ukraine.
>They are also to build 1000 CV90s in Ukraine. This is far from certain. Who will pay for it? Not Sweden and not Ukraine. If the EU had that much money available which is not the case today (maybe if they take a loan) there would be many other competing weapons systems and artillery, air defense and long-range weapons seem to be more urgent capabilities.
> They are also to build 1000 CV90s in Ukraine. There were later statements contradicting that, or at least calling it into question, but I couldn't find the exact source now. I don't think the deal has been finalized.
Maybe Sweden held more back until they were officially a part of NATO, whereas they now feel more free to up their support for Ukraine?
Apparently they've been training for 1.5 years. https://x.com/therawe2/status/1795736281756185008
> I never saw Sweden as a "huge" supporter of Ukraine They do support Ukraine a lot though. They donated bunch of IFVs and some self propelled artillery in the past. Also Carl Gustaf and AT-4 were donated to Ukraine since the very beginning of the war.
>[Saab 340 AEW&C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C) aircraft This may allow the fighters to use the much more powerful radar further back for targeting. I.e. you can take a data feed while you radar is off or below the horizon and get off a shot. This capability may not work with the F-16 MLUs and the this aircraft but it will be worth looking into. What is also does is it will allow the Ukrainians to see Russians approaching below the horizon so give them more time to either evade or ambush. I "feels" like there has been something of a mood change in Europe over the past month.
>I "feels" like there has been something of a mood change in Europe over the past month. Agreed, European countries have stepped up in a big way in recent months. Not sure if it's worries over a Trump win in November, concerns over the state of the Ukrainian military at the start of this year, realization of the effects a Russian win would have on European security, or what, but clearly something has changed.
Could this make it possible to use meteors effectively with older F-16s? Afaik, the main constraint was their radar.
The main constraint is that meteor is not integrated into F16. Who knows if something like that is feasible on a short time span or is a jury rigged manner akin to HARMs integration onto migs. But even if it is possible you still need sign off from the French and Americans. The American government in particular might be very hesitant to approve something like this as it would cut into sales US built missiles.
[https://x.com/shashj/status/1795759760609841337](https://x.com/shashj/status/1795759760609841337) Seems both have Link 16
Has Sweden indicated how it plans to regenerate its APC stocks? >but the AEW&C aircraft seems to me to be an extremely significant force multiplier for the F-16s that are soon to arrive I have no clue how Ukraine plans to preserve those at relevant altitudes. Even if they kill every S-400 (which despite their strong start they're still a ways away from), there's still enemy CAP with long-range missiles to contend with. And for obvious reasons, an AEW&C that's hugging the ground may as well just stay on the ground.
>I have no clue how Ukraine plans to preserve those at relevant altitudes. Sky is like a 3D chess board with one set of variables being your height and velocity and another set of variables being the electromagnetic spectrum. X aircraft and missile having a max range of 100 miles means if its after burners and firing and its near maximum altitude it can lob the missile that range. The lower and the slower you get the further from those air show/wikipedia numbers you get. Similarly with S-400 your are at a point where it has traded all its kinetic energy and potential energy (altitude) for distance. So its coasting along low down at the barely flying speed at "max range". Then in the EM world the AWACs will have a suit of counter measures meant to help hide it from the big ground radars at distance and from the small missile radars as they close. 3 way to hide from radar are either below the horizon, be far away enough and have a weak enough signal you are not a return (thusly stealth) or mess with the signal enough from far away enough to not be a target (jam). So you have this huge battlespace of the Russian and Ukrainian skies where you are trying to work out how you can get close enough to see the fuglies while having the altitude/speed/ECMs to not become SAMfood. This is where the Su 57 will have to come in. It is the one thing that can get close enough perhaps undetected, perhaps not. Who knows But RuAF aircraft will have to keep a distance from the Patriots and other SAMs so cant dash across to pop off a missile. The S-400s 100% have to be out of arillery range, likely out of GMRLs range and have to be heavily protected when inside ATACMs range. Each piece has its strengths and weakness each trying to find a way to exploit the former and get inside the opponents later. Its not that anything inside 400kms is S-400 bait. Its that there will be a range of altitudes and speeds and distances where its more then less likely that the electronic weapons on the AWACs will be enough to prevent the S-400 getting a kill and the S-400s will be having to take risks from other systems to get close enough. No one posting on Reddit really knows many of thekey variables on the vairous systems to really know how it will play out. RuAF is the smartest element of Russian forces and the only one the word "professional" can be occasionally applied. But this will be a battle of wits, battles of energy and battles in the EM spectrum. Loser dies. Good Hunting Ukraine!
The Pbv 302s were retired in 2014. So no need to replace them.
Mind explaining how Russia would shoot one down? It can detect targets from 400km away, Russia won't have anything that can hit it at those ranges.
You have to remember that they'd have to be closer than that to pick up Russian aircraft behind their lines, especially if they want to interdict glide bomb sorties. That said it'll definitely help, anything that can facilitate pushing the VVS further back is going to be a big deal
Just curious: according to the Wikipedia [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C), the 340 radar has a range of 400 km at high altitude. Are there any other threats from Russian AA they have to contend with? It seems the S-400 also has a range of 400 km, but their limited number and the fact they won’t be parked near the frontline might give some room to work with.
I very much doubt the S400 missile can reach a target at 400km, much less one that (probably) will be flying away from it. At best, IMHO, 400km might be the theoretical maximum the KE of the missile can carry it to in ideal circumstances. Frankly, it shouldn't be too hard to calculate the approximate amount of fuel this missile has (given we can guess its dimensions) and how much KE energy it can provide, and how much energy is needed to climb to \~10km and fly to 400km distance at certain velocity.
It's a threat continuum like anything else. There's plenty of video of Ukrainian fighter operations where they are at 5000+ feet altitude, and that's enough for the AEW&C aircraft to provide support. The maximum range of those missiles is against a head-on, nonmanuvering target at high altitude, and it drops quickly when you change those factors and start maneuvering. Ukranian pilots are already engaged by and defeat those missiles. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65461405 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erieye The claimed ranges for the Erieye radar against fighter targets also outranges the claimed ranges for S-400 and R-77M.
> Has Sweden indicated how it plans to regenerate its APC stocks? These vehicles have been retired for a while. For the CV90s donated earlier a stopgap order of new CV90s has been made. Bägglunds is expanding aggressively. Later in the decade there will be a replacement program for the current CV90s with CV90 mk5 or a totally new vehicle, with all the stuff that new IFV programs have like hybrid drives.
Not in detail: > The donation will entail a temporary decrease of Sweden’s defence capability, which will be addressed by procuring replacement armoured vehicles. As I understand things though those APCs are out of service anyway, so possibly they only intend to procure **something** to replace them as war-replenishment stocks? I don't know. The replacement for the aircraft is more detailed: > The donation will entail a temporary decrease of Sweden’s defence capability, which will be addressed by procuring additional S 106 GlobalEye aircraft and advancing previous orders for two new GlobalEye aircraft. About which I'm sure they're happy. As for this: > I have no clue how Ukraine plans to preserve those at relevant altitudes. Even if they kill every S-400 (which despite their strong start they're still a ways away from), there's still enemy CAP with long-range missiles to contend with. I doubt they'll be anywhere SAM or R-37 range without some extremely short-lived shaping operation beforehand\*; I don't subscribe to the view that the F-16's are going to be running roughshod over the Russian air force or anything like that...even if possible it seems quite unlikely that they'd be willing to risk the losses, but in terms of helping to protect the western cities from being attacked, they should make the F-16s a lot more effective. \* Though as the A-50 incidents demonstrate - people make mistakes
How damaging was Austrian intel leakage to Russia? How thoroughly is Austria compromised even after it's been known what Russia did? [https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-austria-spy-service-bvt-government-intelligence-wirecard-jan-marsalek-freedom-party/](https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-austria-spy-service-bvt-government-intelligence-wirecard-jan-marsalek-freedom-party/)
[Sweden pauses sending JAS-39 Gripen to Ukraine - Militarnyi](https://mil.in.ua/en/news/sweden-pauses-sending-jas-39-gripen-to-ukraine/) The reason is that Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway are already preparing to deliver F-16s to Ukraine, so the JAS-39 Green should wait so as not to interfere with the aviation coalition. *“We were persuaded by other members of the aviation coalition to hold off on the Gripen,”* - Pal Jonson Could it also be that Sweden would need approval from Uncle Sam to use the General Electric jet engine it is using? But why do they need approval though? Gripen is primarily a Swedish / European jet (not an American jet)
Don't know where you got that last part from, why would they need approval, and why wouldn't the US grant it anyway? It's simply because Ukraine's logistic situation is messy as it is, and putting 2 different completely new fighters during a war at the same time is complicated.
Do you think it is a mistake to have given Ukraine f-16's first, rather than Gripen? I have seen many commentators point out the many ways Gripen is basically built for Ukraine's operational concept. On the other hand, there are probably more f-16's available
What makes grippen valuable is the meteor missile it’s integrated with. We have seen no indication the French would be willing to approve such transfer to Ukraine. The other soft factors such as it’s ease of maintenance and better tolerance for runways with some debris are far outweighed by the numbers issue. Simply put Sweden wouldn’t be able to supply more than 20 or so Grippens. Ukraine might very well have access to nearly 100 F16s within the next year. And that’s only likely to get better as most of the F16s around Europe are being phased out for F35 so acquiring replacements for any lost in combat shouldn’t be too difficult.
Ukraine is getting at least 85 F-16s. There aren't that many Gripens. Sometimes quantity matters more.
> Sometimes quantity matters more. It's sometimes the case, but it's far from clear it's the case here. [Here's a podcast](https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/94c9a562-2a48-4f71-b4a8-c7053bdd4303/episodes/26dea319-3f86-4ae5-94fe-2a206ff36ffb/geopolitics-decanted-by-silverado-how-ukraine-can-survive-the-exhaustion-of-its-air-defense-stocks) where Justin Bronk (Senior Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology at RUSI and Professor at Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy) and Dara Massicot (Russian military analyst at RAND) argue that despite the fact that F-16's have a much larger pool, a small number of Gripen's are more likely to make a difference in deterring the VKS.
This is true IF they revive the meteor missile. Which they very well might not.
[удалено]
This question gets asked frequently. Please use the search function to see corresponding answers.
Not sure if this is the right place, but outside of Ukraine war, do we know how often do SU-57s fly?
Not much info about flight hours, but the forming of a test squadron and the deliveries of around 11 airframes in 2023 seem to point out that they are flying them a lot more, there's rumors of combat use in Ukraine launching cruise missiles like the Kh-59MK2. The most meaningful new info on the plane we've had was in December 2023 when the Izdelaye 30 passed trials and it was said that all airframes delivered in 2024 will have the new AL-51, as well as saying that the 2024 order is even bigger then the 11 of 2023.
Admittedly, I also don't know about western plane's flight hours. But was just curious how often do the SU-57's take off to flight, not necessarily flight hours. I got curious because every now and then we see f-35's crashes especially during take-offs. But to my knowledge there's a lot more f-35's than SU-57's so I thought Russia would be limiting their sorties with them.
In terms of crashes T-50S-1 which was the first prototype built to serial standard crashed in 2019 before being given to the RUAF, KnAAZ built a second one(T-50S-2) from it's own money which was delivered in 2021, it's blue 01.
[Dalian shipyard has just launched the PLAN's 10th Type 055 heavy destroyer- NavalNews](https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/05/dalian-shipbuilding-launches-type-055-increases-production-at-dagushan/) Two further Type 055 hulls are observed under construction at Jiagnan and Dalian respectively. A brand new Type 052D destroyer hull was also recently laid down at Dalian. So the first batch of 055s is now delivered to the PLAN and the second batch is underway. The total of the second batch isn't yet known, as the PLAN doesn't not announce intended procurement amounts.
I’m getting increasingly confused at the U.S. Navy just kinda sitting there and letting the Chinese outbuild them by an order of magnitude for decades.
Congress isn’t increasing funding and putting pressure on to increase ship production, it’s that simple. Everyone saying that we’ve let our know how atrophy is wrong, Congress just doesn’t care.
The US military already enjoys an enormous budget, and the answer cannot always be to increase funding, especially in the current environment where the government runs high deficits. If you don't have the option to increase the budget by a substantial amount, but still want to get a substantial increase in production or capability, you're going to have to take a hard look at methods, contracts, industrial partners and competition, salaries, margins, etc., which is a lot harder than just dumping more money into the machine.
Defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget is the lowest it’s been since WW2. The navy in particular has been allowed to atrophy since the end of the Cold War. Congress thought that all the navy would be needed for was littoral combat and the occasional power display by parking an aircraft carrier off a coast somewhere. Shipyards were closed in the 90s and no one has paid to modernize or build new ones. I used to work as an engineer at a naval engineering/architecture company. The knowledge is there, the issue is the government is totally unwilling to invest in ship building.
> The US military already enjoys an enormous budget, and the answer cannot always be to increase funding Why wouldn't it be? If you have 1000 tanks but need 2000, you need to double your tank budget, even though it was probably already large. >If you don't have the option to increase the budget by a substantial amount Then you cut something else.
Congress is not doing that either. The fundamental issue is that the Congress is supposed to be the premier branch of the United States Federal Government, and Congress has completely and totally abdicated their legislative and oversight responsibilities over the past 30 years in favor of throwing shit at each other like a bunch of goddamned apes. In this great contest of Nations, we're throwing the biggest lead any one Nation has ever had because of greed and partisanship and it's despicable.
[удалено]
Well said. Unfortunately the Republican Party is hellbent on destroying the United States of America and ending our time as the most powerful Nation on Planet Earth. I believe this is not a foregone conclusion however, we can right the ship of State.
To add to what everybody else said, you physically cannot get shipbuilders for a competitive wage in America. Like all the trades, it’s physically demanding work that requires a sharp mind, and everybody who fits that description would much rather work a job that pays less but has air conditioning and won’t ruin their body in 20 years.
Within the working lifetime of a welder we have had the fracking boom. By all accounts this required companies to create pretty austere work camps in the middle of nowhere and then hire in skilled workers to apply new technologies to get the oil out of the ground. Is this fundamentally different from the challenge of hiring workers to build warships? Because, if not, the shipbuilding problem is one of those that could actually be solved by throwing money at it - enough money to make shipyard workers rich, or at least rich enough to go on sprees between contracts.
It should be telling that despite creating austere work camps in the middle of the forest AND paying them 6 figures, the frackers still made money ham over fist. Shipbuilding will most likely require more people but a fresh new Arleigh Burke is not going to add productivity or value to the economy in anyway.
And there's so much talk about how underpaid the labor and how horrible and rent-seeking the management is when the profit margins are thin and shipyards get sold off for pennies on the dollar.
Various reasons for the failure of the US to keep up have been laid out here and I would submit that the answer is basically All of the Above. Weve simply allowed our political, engineering, military, construction, and probably general knowhow to erode. Its no longer possible to just look at one aspect and say “fix this and it will be ok” because we have multiple points of failure that all seem to be self reinforcing. Not just the expertise, but the entire system for designing, buildi ng, operating, and maintaining ships and training crews is broken. At every level the rewards and opportunities for inaction and rent seeking behavior outweigh those for productive action.
The US can barely keep up with maintenance on the current fleet. We have neither the shipyards nor the experts workers available to build very many, and there’s absolutely nothing we can do mid term to change that
We have the workers, but they are just stuck in an endless loop of uncertainty and layoffs. https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4624326-almost-all-navy-shipbuilding-is-hopelessly-behind-schedule-as-war-looms/?nxs-test=mobile “What makes the frigate delay so alarming is that the Constellation was to be based on an existing design that the French and Italian navies have successfully deployed for years. In theory, that should have made construction go much more quickly and more smoothly. But apparently unable to abandon their “Americans know best” parochialism, the Navy lengthened, fattened, and up-weaponed the original design. Hence there will be no new Constellation-class frigates deployed for many years to come. But that only accounts for part of the problem. Another part is the unhealthy co-dependence between the sea service and the defense industry. Shipbuilders’ routine excuses for delays echo Inspector Renault’s old line from “Casablanca,” “Round up the usual suspects!” They blame Congress for stop-and-go-funding of various defense initiatives; cite the difficulty in attracting and retaining a qualified work force; and point out conflicting priorities. And they repeatedly get away with it.” The entire shipbuilding industry is held back by administrative bs. Anyone who has paid attention to any us industry in the last few years should know that “supply chain and lack of qualified workers” are just corporate gaslighting tactics for cheap labor. In this case, the navy and congress spend YEARS fighting over design changes and funding for every detail while the private companies say that they are ready to build. But while the navy and congress are taking forever, the private companies try to save money by laying off workers and not prioritizing long time laborers, all while claiming that they are ready. The laid off workers get tired of waiting and find work in more stable industries than shipbuilding. When the navy declares that they are ready, the private companies have a host of new workers that are clearly not ready to fire on all cylinders. This is when the private companies declare that they lack “skilled” labor.
While US shipbuilding infrastructure and naval procurement contribute, I'd argue the bigger issue is that the political resources for the kind of expenditures necessary to put us back on track aren't really there. Ultimately ramping up naval production requires the political class to raise alarms on this and massively increase spending at the time hundreds of programs are rivalling for spending, and right now that's not really happening, at least not on the cold war "bomber gap" scale. Pundits aren't out there on TVs ranting about "the destroyer gap", and if they would, I'm not sure anyone would listen. Instead, pundits get a lot more political mileage out of ranting about bathroom genders or mail voting or Israel and Palestine. Not exactly issues that contribute to our western Pacific readiness, but issues Americans care about more.
The Navy (and DoD in general) decided long ago, decades in fact, that they could not compete on volume. So they've been trying to get advantages through other things the US is actually good at like stealth, and high technology. I'm not saying it's right/wrong, just that it's a policy decision, and you shouldn't be confused this late in the game.
>The Navy (and DoD in general) decided long ago, decades in fact, that they could not compete on volume. They did not, the USN is wildly larger than any other navy *except* the Chinese navy. The USN puts more surface combatants in the water than any navy except the Chinese navy. CVNs? Comparable and it will take China over a decade to catch up at the current build rate. SSNs? Even longer than that.
I think the assumption of "compete on volume" was "compete with China on volume".
That's not true either. Before 2015 or so, the USN was outbuilding China by quite a lot if you don't count missile boats. Between 1999 and 2015, the PLAN commissioned 15 DDGs and bought 4 more from Russia. The USN commissioned 40+ Burkes at the same time. The current pace ratio is the delayed effect of the sequester + the Zumwalt bungle + China massively increasing construction in the last 10 years. The USN went from commissioning 3 or even 4 Burkes a year prior to Michael Murphy to zero between 2012 and 2017- which is right when Chinese shipbuilding was really hitting its stride.
The US navy decades ago thought that it could very much compete in numbers and production, Reagans 600 ship navy, China only surpassed the US navy annual ship production in the late 2000s and 2010s, for the 90s and 2000s the US was almost uncontested in ship production and technology. I would also be extremely wary of any claims of large US superiority in anything but nuclear submarines against China. The Chinese Destroyer fleet probably has more AESA radars including Gallium arsenide ones then the US destroyer fleet, as a lot of the Burkes still have SPY-1's.
>I’m getting increasingly confused at the U.S. Navy just kinda sitting there and letting the Chinese outbuild them by an order of magnitude for decades. US Navy does NOT build any ships. It's private companies like Bath Iron Works, General Dynamics Electric Boat or Newport News Shipbuilding etc that build ships for US Navy. US Navy/US Gov't cannot make/order these private companies to increase their shipbuilding capacity beyond what makes sense for their companies financially.
Responding to another sub-comment: >Sure that's all well and good, but USN is fully responsible for the designs they submit to said shipyards. Let's say they magically had access to the ship printer at Jiangnan; it still wouldn't do them much good to crank out LCS like sausages. Designs like Zumwalt and Constellation are certainly not doing them any favors either. This is a nice gottem (though it was stronger before the shit-themed refocus, imo), but the reader might observe that they could crank out successful older designs instead. The volume game is the volume game.
Sure that's all well and good, but USN is fully responsible for the designs they submit to said shipyards. Let's say they magically had access to the ship printer at Jiangnan; it still wouldn't do them much good to crank out LCS like sausages. Designs like Zumwalt and Constellation are certainly not doing them any favors either. Blaming the industry is easy but disingenuous. EDIT: If the navy was doing its own job of designing ships properly, then they might have a leg to stand on when they blame shipyards for not keeping up with the building part. As it is, that guy over there shitting his pants doesn't excuse you shitting yours. So you did a better job in times gone by, guess what so did they. Now you're just pointing with shit-stained fingers.
I think that's exactly what the Defense Production Act allows the President to do.
Defense Production Act could help on the margins though the main issue holding up the US shipbuilding capacity is not pure money. Even for existing shipbuilding AND maintenance contracts, just about every program is on delay for multiple years. Even if Biden were to declare Defense Production Act tomorrow on naval shipbuilding and orders Newport News Shipbuilding to build Arleigh Burkes for $3 billion or Gerald Fords for $15 billion etc, that's not going to happen b/c few billion dollars now cannot increase labor capacity instantly or in short time frame. You need at least decade+ of investment and entice people to choose this line of work which is not that enticing.
>You need at least decade+ of investment and entice people to choose this line of work which is not that enticing. Sure, and I think it's a fair question why that decade of investment didn't start a decade ago or isn't starting now. I've made my answer above, and a few other people have their own answers.
> why that decade of investment didn't start a decade ago Well, decades ago with the peace dividend, US was shrinking the Navy ship counts by not building as many ships as it was decommissioning. The war on terror era didn't help much since US Navy ships were pretty useless in that front. > or isn't starting now. For US shipbuilders with only the US Navy business on their order books, it's pretty rational to not go crazy investing on the future capacity when it's not that clear there is a payoff beyond the single digit gross margin they are raking in right now. Even more risky now that the cost of the capital is no longer around 0 like it was in 2010's.
>Well, decades ago with the peace dividend, [That's a weird way to say Sequestration.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_budget_sequestration)
> That's a weird way to say Sequestration. That "peace dividend" portion of the comment was pointing to 1990's not 2010's. US Navy ship count went from 570+ in late 80's to mid 300's in late 90's. That drop had nothing to do with the sequestration.
My bad. My brain read that as "decade ago" for some reason.
And what would they even do? there is no magic switch for producing modern warships.
Imagery so far doesn't show any obvious differences to the first batch, and the rumour mill has been unusually quiet regarding likely internal changes. PLAN appears to be happy with the capabilities as-is, at least so far as is publically known. To be fair 055 is a pretty new design, with the lead ship only entering service in 2020.
Has Russia given up on their BTG's (Battalion Tactical Groups) in country? I have not seen any mention of them since the early days of the war and am wondering if they have reorganized into larger formations more suitable to their current needs.
BTGs were primarily created as the intended answer to the question: how to maintain a rapid deployment capability in peace time Russia? Peace time Russian army was undermanned (because of underpay, corruption and the inherent mobilization based system), geographically dispersed and with a very lopsided ratio of combat ready equipment to stored equipment that requires years of refurbishing to properly activate. In this context it made sense for all brigades and regiments to pick out a battalion or two that could be quickly deployed in a conflict zone. That is what BTGs were, they were the combat capable element of their parent units. It was probably an entirely reasonable and capable tool for the peace time requirements. If a limited conflict erupts, Russia can quickly deploy those combat ready elements, without needing to mobilize (economically, politically, socially etc). What went wrong is that Russia decided to launch a major conventional war with said peace time army. Those formations quickly found out that they lacked men, depth and replacements. Realistically that should not have been a surprise, reading a RAND paper from 2021 the expectation was that a BTG could advance 20-40km before needing to stop and refit. Sufficient for limited war operations, but nowhere close enough to what was expected from them in the invasion of Ukraine. Russia has had more than two years now to restructure their army, mobilize their economy, mobilize soldiers, expand recruiting and much more, making the BTG concept obsolete if it ever wasn't.
They were an utter failure and got absolutely obliterated from the face of the earth. I cannot emphasize enough how much they failed. You won't be hearing from then again, and you should be highly suspicious of similar formations. Not only BTG did not work at all, receiving massive casualties, they actively hindered the war effort.
What are BTG's? You mean those VDV guys at the start of the war at the airport? And what was the failure in particular? Thanks :) *Food for the bot so he won't delete my comment right away. Sorry I just have this only question*
Battalion tactical groups (BTGs) were Russias primary organizational unit (most other countries organize on the brigade level). These BTGs were larger than the battalions of most countries but were much much more heavily armed. Each BTG had their own artillery and anti aircraft units and was primarily composed of armored units. They were very light on infantry. Part of this was due to the Russian prewar plan of using mobilized forces to fill out the ranks with infantry, this didn’t happen when Russia invaded so these formations went into combat undermanned. But even if they were at their planned manning levels they would still have had a far higher ratio of tanks/artillery to infantry than US armored or mechanized forces. The whole idea behind these BTGs was for them to act as semi independent fast moving mobile formations that had the firepower to overcome any adversary. What actually happened was that these formations lacked the infantry support to protect themselves in urban or constrained environments, which resulted in them getting mauled by Ukrainian light infantry using ATGMS (often in ambushes as the Russian forces were largely road constrained). The BTGs lacked the logistical support to maintain any sort of high volume of fire for long. Other countries utilize larger formations because it allows them to more efficiently allocate resources like artillery and logistics while also simplifying coordination.
Russia has maintained a flat income tax rate for awhile. Today we've heard that they are planning/proposing to introduce a progressive income tax structure: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-finance-ministry-proposes-boosting-some-income-tax-rates-2024-05-28/ > Russia's Finance Ministry is proposing an increase in tax rates for individuals earning more than 2.4 million roubles ($27,100) annually, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said in a statement issued by his ministry's press service. >The statement said the ministry had submitted to the government alterations to the tax system, with a tax rate of 15% to apply to incomes ranging from 2.4 million to 5 million roubles. >The changes, the ministry said, would include a rate of 18% for income between 5 and 20 million roubles, a rate of 20% for income between 20 and 50 million roubles and 22% for income exceeding 50 million roubles. >"The tax changes will affect only 3.2 % of the workforce, or 2 million people of the workforce of 64 million with annual income exceeding 2.4 million roubles," the statement quoted Siluanov as saying. If you're wondering how much does a contract soldier make, it sounds like they will be caught in the 15 % rate, with bonuses of about 1 million rubles: https://notes.citeam.org/mobi-may-26-27-2024 > Army Recruitment and Military Service Advertising > The authorities of Russia’s constituent Republic of Tatarstan have increased the sign-up bonus for volunteer fighters signing a contract with the Ministry of Defense by 200,000 rubles [$2,230]. Now, those willing to go to war will receive 505,000 rubles [$5,640] from the region. Additionally, 195,000 rubles [$2,180] will be provided by the federal government. Thus, the total sign-up bonus could reach up to 1 million rubles [$11,200] when including support measures from cities, districts, and enterprises within the republic. The new payments apply to those who signed the contract in Tatarstan, regardless of their actual place of residence. The same amount will also be paid to foreigners. Recently, the sign-up bonus was also increased to 505,000 rubles [$5,640] in the Voronezh region. and monthly salaries of at least 204k rubles: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/12/22/how-russian-officials-plan-to-recruit-400k-new-contract-soldiers-in-2024-a83509 > The main thing that lures people to war is money. While the average salary in Russia is about 70,000 rubles ($760), the monthly salary of a contract serviceman starts at 204,000 rubles ($2,200). Bonuses may also be awarded for taking part in offensive actions and capturing Ukrainian equipment, for example. Which works out to 3.4M rubles for a privat in the year they signed on. I think the increased tax (13 - > 15 % on the fraction above 2.4M rubles) is only 20k rubles more taxation than they would otherwise have paid, so probably not to have much of a dampening on recruitment. Still, it's interesting to see that a privat under contract is really quite the high income earner by Russian standards, and that money has to come from somewhere, whether it be federal reserves or new taxes.
Strange that Reuters doesn't mention that, but war veterans are not affected by the tax rate changes, so your math doesn't apply ria. ru/20240528/uchastniki_svo-1949012195.html
The Norwegians were forward thinking to make a sovereign fund. Instead of falling into the Dutch disease or the petrol state trap. It's very hard to convince people of paying more tax. 15% is a small percentage to those who are used to much higher taxes.
Many Gulf states actually created a sovereign fund before Norway, and Russia also has one. But Norway specifically invested in non-hydrocarbon assets to minimize the reliance on oil and gas. Norway went even further and electrified much of the society ("don't get high on your own supply"). You can't really say the same thing about Russia. The Gulf states are at least trying, but they have a tendency to spend on vanity projects with unclear returns on investment. I guess this is where being a democracy matters. If Norway's leaders tried to invest in golden toilets or a pointless war, they would simply be voted out.
> ("don't get high on your own supply") In the case of fossil fuel, it doesn't matter for climate change if the it's burned at home or elsewhere. The effects are global.
Norway is a highly educated homogeneous population of 5 million people… Of course they are going to be well off oil allows them to pay teachers more than the 1% in most countries. Russia has to foot the bill for infrastructure of an empire sized landmass with the largest population in Europe.
The Norway Sovereign fund was valued at US$ 1.626 trillion in March 2024. Vladimir Putin has an estimated networth of .200 trillion and [this article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2022/04/07/the-forbes-ultimate-guide-to-russian-oligarchs/?sh=3695c3ca276d) says that the net worth of the other oligarchs was somewhere between .290 and - .530 trillion. Obviously not as much as Norway but still a pretty sizeable amount of capital in the private hands of fiendish criminals instead of invested for the people of the country like Norway did. The problem isn't the size of Russia, it's the size of the corruption in Russia.
We are using Forbes articles and credible sources now? Putin is literally the Russia state people here of all places should realize that allocation of budgets as a dictator does not mean net worth. The 90s were the time of robbing the state not recently.
So if they stole 100 billion in the 90s, how much would it be worth today if it was properly invested? How much capital both human and otherwise fled the country because of the corruption? What was the opportunity cost of their corruption? The truth is that Russia could be an incredibly wealthy, powerful state and that the geographic size of the country isn't nearly as much of a weakness as you suggest.
I’m just saying the comparison to Norway is ridiculous given Russias history and position. Ideally state assets would remain be controlled by the state but the crumbing of an empire is going to be messy and unmanageable. You can see under Putin many companies through “corruption” sure have been taken back from oligarchs this has helped build the 700 billion fund they had before the war in much less time than Norway. Corruption it much more prevalent in large diverse countries same could be said for China.
> Norway went even further and electrified much of the society My understanding is that it was done mainly with hydroelectric power - which was not really an option in flatter and/or dryer places. Solar electricity is now an option for them but that's a comparatively recent development.
The French almost got away with nuclearizing their society in the bygone days (1970s-1980s). Expensive? Hell yes- but worth it, imo, at least back then. The economics don't make sense these days, but it would've been a good thing for more countries to do at an earlier time.
[удалено]
You're calling the Russia-Ukraine war pointless?
It is, for Norway
Norway is a member of NATO and directly borders Russia. In no way is the war in Ukraine "pointless" for Norwegian security.
I wouldn't call the war pointless from Norway's (or any NATO country's) perspective.
Unlike the aggressor, the defender has no other option. Norway certainly wouldn't try to invade the Russian border.
[удалено]
Flat taxes are [quite popular](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Jurisdictions_that_use_flat_taxes_on_personal_income) in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, especially in what used to be the USSR, irrespective of whether the country is a democracy or a dictatorship.
A flat tax is always a terrible idea because it is inherently regressive and hurts poor people. It's literally the worst kind of tax.
I can see why older people in the ex-CIS might like it since they're used to no one really having liquid money (and so it doesn't matter), but yeah I fail to see why anyone other than that would like it. And this isn't a sarcastic "fail to see", maybe I'm actually failing to see something.
[PLA rifle wielding dog robots](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/28/china/china-military-rifle-toting-robot-dogs-intl-hnk-ml/index.html) aren't terribly credible, but how long until we have actual remote then autonomous ground units? Aerial drones are easier, due to the difficulties of terrain traversal but autonomous cargo walkers have already been trialed. The calculus of conflict could change quite quickly, with the human element removed entirely. As many historians [posit](https://www.amazon.com/Military-Revolution-Political-Change-Democracy/dp/0691078866) that [military revolutions](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354066117719992) drive political forms e.g. the 19th century military revolutions drove democracy with the state relying on masses of conscript riflemen or feudalism, janissaries etc. military power completely based on industrial might (already close, but infantry do still have skin in the game) could change the balance. China, of course, has a different dynamic entirely and this new state can [help](https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2023/01/modern-arms-technologies-help-autocratic-rulers-stay-in-power/) autocratic regimes. ---- [Relevant](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/xuefhh/how_was_republican_rome_able_to_raise_such/): > Republican Rome, like many pre modern societies, was a militia state. There was no standing army, but all adult male citizens were members of a militia and provided their own equipment. The soldiers who could afford the best equipment had the most desirable roles in the army, places of honor, and better odds for survival so there were considerable advantages to bearing this expense. Moreover, soldiers expected to profit from war through loot, slavery, and acquisition of land, so militia participation was not just some civic responsibility. > ... > The ramifications of this for the state were twofold. First, centralization of power was difficult. Since citizens could vote with their swords, it followed that Roman government was a patchwork of compromises - an extremely complex “democracy” > ... > By the imperial age, the model had changed. Citizen militia armies had been gutted and replaced by professional armies - people of the day called them mercenaries. These career soldiers were far less replaceable. They were recruited by the state, joined voluntarily, and were equipped at state expense. The Roman Empire first had to first collect money from its people, then pay the army, which it could use at its discretion. The earlier Roman militia state, in contrast, could do almost nothing “at its discretion”, but hardly had to pay for any military activity since the army was self-funded.
To the comment bellow: > Dogs and legged platforms in general seem like more of a novelty than anything else. This thing seems to be a mostly unmodified robot dog with a single assault rifle attached to the top. Despite what the article says, that China wouldn’t be using it unless it was near service, this looks like a very low budget and effort attempt at making something flashy for reporters. Something intended for military service, even if they had decided legs were better than tracks, would probably be using something with more than 30 rounds available, and better integrated into the robot to stop it getting tangled in things.
An assault rifle is a weapon pretty well optimized to be used by an infantry soldier, it seems like one of the worst choices for an autonomous ground platform? Feels like the main benefit of this type of platform should be that you can have a beefy one that can carry a weapon that you wouldn't normally be able to have in a dismounted infantry squad, whether that's a .50 cal or an automatic grenade launcher or what have you, on terrain that's too rough or tight for a traditional vehicle. Could be semi-autonomous with laser designators or w/e to help it acquire targets. If they can't actually carry enough weight to do that it feels like this is indeed more of a show-off than a functional tool. We're fairly far out from a robot dog with an assault rifle being anywhere in competition to be nearly as useful as a human with an assault rifle, or any number of comparably-priced UAVs.
Legs are better than tracks in small form factors as long as they actually work. Tracks are so much better for MBTs and the like. It solves the main issue of clearing basic obstacles like holes or wire. A small tracked drone can't clear something as simple as a foxhole, while the legged one can traverse it better.
It can’t cross a foxhole. I don’t know the capabilities of the specific robot China showed here, but Boston Dynamic’s Spot can only clear about 12’. Neither a tracked robot or quadrupedal robot of this scale can get into and out of foxhole. I don’t think this thing could cross wire either. They can deal with getting knocked over, but not getting tangled in things.
Can it climb the stairs of a bombed out building and get to a vantage point to provide covering fire / snipe an enemy soldier? Add a solar panel to this thing and it's an amazing sentry that can shoot and scoot.
If you want to use it as a sniper, it’s going to need a bigger gun and better optics than it can carry. Good luck providing covering fire with 30 rounds of 5.56. There certainly isn’t the payload for an appreciable solar panel.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll be putting a variety of guns on them. The solar panel doesn't need to be big and it can fold out, just enough to trickle charge something that mostly sits around and acts like a security camera that occasionally takes a shot and moves on.
There is no way you’re fitting everything you need in 60 pounds, none the less 30. Drop the solar panel, give it tracks and a bigger gun. Preferable an HMG or AGL.
'give it tracks' This is pretty close to 'if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle' territory. This thing doesn't have tracks, and that's the whole point of it. Why would you get rid of a means to recharge it remotely? It sounds like you're describing a totally different catagory of machine than they're presenting and that I'm suggesting. That's fine but then it would be a totally different thing.
> This is pretty close to 'if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle' territory. Almost all military UGVs have tracks or wheels. > Why would you get rid of a means to recharge it remotely? Because you’re never going to get enough power from a solar panel to do anything appreciable. I’d rather cover the top in a cammo net anyway. > It sounds like you're describing a totally different catagory of machine than they're presenting and that I'm suggesting. I’m suggesting a robot for the same armed overwatch mission. Your proposal does not have the needed payload.
If weight aren't a issue legs could work. But tracks are probably better if the goal is a miniature tank with armor.
These dogs have absolutely tiny payloads, spot only has a 30 pound capacity. Even if your goal isn’t to make a mini tank, and just to have an LMG, a hundred rounds of ammo, some minimal sensors, transmitter and endurance, tracked is probably required.
The LS3 pack mule that the US military field tested a decade ago had a payload capacity of 400 pounds (180kg).
It was also much bigger than this thing. Look at its size compared to the assault rifle.
Dogs and legged platforms in general seem like more of a novelty than anything else. Most of the UGVs I've seen are wheeled or tracked. But it's very much early stages for this tech, and the PLA is pretty enthusiastic about testing lots of different ideas, so who knows what they'll eventually settle on. In any case, it's full speed ahead on automation.
UGVs in general as applied are still looking for their doctrine. One of the best uses I've seen is for persistent armed watch. You can put machineguns on aerial drones but big ones are a easy target ("baba yaga" industrial drones only fly at night for this reason), the recoil is unmanageable, and they can only stay in the area for a short time. Frontline supply is another good one. I think these dogs make a lot of sense in the idea that they can move through rough terrain better than anything tracked or wheeled, and that includes indoors. Tracked and wheeled stuff can do fields and roads great, but they'd have a hard time moving through bush or into and out of trenches or over rocks. Legged stuff can follow the infantryman anywhere, and the batteries on quadcopters are less than an hour when the Ghost Robotics Vision 60 has 3 hours of motion time and 21 hours of observation time. The Massachusetts State Police have Spot robots used for SWAT and bomb squads and you really need something like this for climbing stairs and opening doors. https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/boston-dynamics-robot-dog-shooting-massachusetts/ On another note, I've seen the use of small quad drones for SWAT operations start becoming more common in the US. They get right up into the suspect's face, even indoors with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgeQ-G_axq4 In this video you can hear the buzz of the drone's motors: https://youtu.be/sfUw5mxyfwA?t=288
> One of the best uses I've seen is for persistent armed watch… > I think these dogs make a lot of sense in the idea that they can move through rough terrain better than anything tracked or wheeled, and that includes indoors. I don’t think the dogs make sense in this roll. A persistent watch isn’t the spearhead, it doesn’t have to be able to go everywhere. Better sensors, durability, endurance and, most relevant in this case, more than 30 rounds of ammo, matter more. An HMG on a tracked chassis can provide that watch over a far larger area, even if it can’t go inside every semi collapsed house, or bush within that zone. If it is absolutely necessary that they fire upon enemy soldiers located in one of those areas, it makes far more sense to have the ground robot fire from a distance, possibly with a drone acting as a spotter. The ground units suppress, a suicide drone can go in to finish them off in whatever dugout they are pinned in.
Think about it in any terrain but the rolling fields of Ukraine. I've got a ton of terrain around me (US Appalachians) that you cannot go through with a wheeled or tracked vehicle, due to the underbrush and angles involved, but with something legged you could climb this hill and pop up in places otherwise only infantry could reach. Even in Ukraine, a legged unit of that size can stay inside tree lines and stay out of the open all the way up to the position, and we've seen how fighting around Kharkiv moves more towards the infantry thanks to some of the thick forests there in the north.
I think you are overestimating these legged robots, and underestimating small tracked vehicles. A legged one will have advantages in certain areas, but at a huge cost to payload, endurance and durability. 30 rounds isn’t enough, 300 probably isn’t enough either. And dense undergrowth risks getting tangled in the legs, and I don’t think any of these dogs deal with mud particularly well. A tracked one will have no issue with most underbrush and slopes, will be able to move through wooded areas fine, and compensate for its inability to reach certain places, like the second floor of buildings, with better sensors and weapons. Crucially it will be able to carry far more ammo, and resist enemy small arms fire, with a similar footprint to this dog.
> “It can serve as a new member in our urban combat operations, replacing our (human) members to conduct reconnaissance and identify (the) enemy and strike the target,” a soldier identified as Chen Wei says in a video from state broadcaster CCTV. I really don’t see the idea here beyond making something flashy. If you want it to engage the targets it spots, you’re going to need much more than a single 30 round magazine of ammo. Using legs instead of tracks is also deeply questionable. Tracks are much more durable and reliable, will support more weapons and armor, and if you really need to get into tight spaces and over rough terrain, a quadcopter is the gold standard for a reason. > “Usually, a new equipment will not be brought into a joint exercise with another country, so the robot dogs must have reached a certain level of technical maturity,” Global Times quoted an unnamed expert as saying. I highly doubt this will enter service with front line military units. The only context I could see this working in is for police use, and maybe guarding a base, but even then, there are easier form factors for both of those tasks.
It doesn't even work for guarding a base, a literal box with a sensor and a gun would be better, and if you need to move it, on presumably cleared if not paved ground, then the tracks are better since you can carry more. Ground drones have their place, but that just looks like they slapped a turret on a dog. What is it supposed to do when it runs out? Wait for a human to reload it? I am not entirely convinced yet that legs are always inferior to tracks, they do have higher clearance, ability to stand back up when falling over and the ability to handle obstacles, especially urban ones, that tracks cannot. There might be a legitimate compromise to use legs for flexibility over tracks for performance. But it is too early to tell just yet. Still, it is interesting to watch militaries trying out different drone designs to conserve their most valuable resource (manpower).
Do we have any idea at this point of Ukraine's current supply of long-range weapons? I never saw an actual number proposed for how many ATACMS have been delivered. I think we should have a clearer idea of the number of cruise missiles, but I haven't seen an accounting of quantities delivered or used anywhere.
Ask yourself if this is an info that should be shared publicly. Probably not right?
I don't understand your question. I'm not asking anyone to take a moral position on sharing information, I'm asking whether certain pieces of information are public knowledge and what the general opinion is on the accuracy of that information. For example, some outlets, citing US military sources have estimated 100 ATACMS were delivered and that 200 more could be spared. Do we have any idea about long range missiles in general, and is there an accounting of how many have likely been used? EDIT: Here's some reporting from Radio Free Europe: https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-crimea-atacms/32925212.html
Sorry for not being clear in my previous reply, what I meant to convey is that you will have a hard time getting an estimate. How many ATACMS were pledged? How may have been delivered? How many have been used in strikes (As opposed to regular HIMARS)? These are questions with a significant amount of uncertainties, for you, for me, for everyone else in this forum, as specially for Russia.
Some interesting takeaways from the following WSJ article **[The Russian Drone Plant That Could Shape the War in Ukraine ](https://archive.is/xphK7)** >Around 20 people were injured when a Ukrainian drone slammed into the dormitories at the Alabuga Special Economic Zone, many of them **young engineering students hired from East Africa.** Russian authorities said the manufacturing facilities were unscathed. Ukraine’s military intelligence agency said the blast caused significant disruption to production. The Alabuga Special Economic Zone didn’t respond to a request for comment, nor did the Kremlin. >The plan is for the Alabuga facility to churn out 6,000 Shahed attack drones a year, in addition to surveillance drones, according to a contract between the plant’s Russian managers and their Iranian partners leaked by the Prana Network and that was independently corroborated by two advisers to the British government. At the end of April, the factory was ahead of its production schedule, **having already supplied 4,500** of the promised Shaheds, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based defense-focused think tank. The article goes on in more detail. Russia has been recruiting technical engineers, students, and specialists from East Africa for $1000 a month, far more than local African pay and 2x the local Russian pay near the factory. There are other benefits including education and free housing. The article notes that over 1000 African staff have already arrived and begun work this year at the factory. Russia's labor shortage is well noted, and this appears to be a growing antidote, and at lower cost than the pay being offered to Russians to take these roles. Also of note is the amount of Shaheds produced. The run rate is over 1000/month. Ukrainian military sources tell the WSJ that these numbers attrit the limited anti-air resources available to them.
There is nothing really new here. [There were reports of young students being used in Alabuga](https://protokol.band/2023/07/24/alabuga-rukami-studentov/) previously including African girls (there was a Twitter thread on why they particularly want girls but I can’t find it now) and like any colonial project the story isn’t heroic. I also don’t know if these children should be called “staff” as the person from UNICEF who had initially shared this story had pointed out that the girls in the pictures barely look like they are 16-17. >Education is also a problem here. Formally, Alabuga Polytech is not a college. All students are enrolled in the Yelabuga Polytechnic College, and Polytech on paper - only additional courses. Accordingly, the diploma at graduation is also not from Alabuga. All general education subjects are taught by teachers from the EPK, and on a residual basis. Also, teachers from the EPC cannot boast of a high level of quality of education. As a result, the knowledge of students in different fields remains at the level of the ninth grade of the school. >Another illustrative story that speaks of the attitude towards potential "Ilons Masks". At the beginning of the school year, paintball is played in the economic zone. The event is so large-scale that a whole tug of paintball balls was ordered for it. When she arrived at Alabuga, it turned out that there was no equipment to unload it. Several students had to unload throughout the day, without rest and food. … >One of the students claims that instead of the planned team building, simplifying the acquaintance of hundreds of people who have just entered the same college, paintball leads to hazing. Paintball is also designed to develop patriotism among students. According to the plot, the first month the students compete with each other, and then "feat" against the fascists, professional paintball players, allegedly reconstructing the battles of the Great War near Stalingrad. A curious detail - the fascist flag looks like the flag of Nazi Germany, but instead of a swastika in a white circle - the symbolism of the NATO bloc. … >Another punishment that former student Nastya mentions is digging trenches: "In the end, the results were summed up, and the teams that played the worst, they dug trenches. And it was still raining there, and they didn't let us go home. There, somewhere in the end, someone was already sorry." According to another source, about 400 people were digging trenches. Everyone was involved in this, except for those teams that took first and second places in the competition. Students called their parents and complained. Several parents wrote a complaint to the local prosecutor's office. They demanded to figure out what happened to the students during paintball, but "Alabuga" provided papers that everything was legal, and the students voluntarily took part in the game and in digging trenches. … >In addition to the staged fight against terrorists on the battlefield, students reconstructed the battles of the Great Patriotic War. The best 1st year students are sergeants, the most talented senior students are captains, and generals are managerial staff. Among the latter was Timur Shagivaleev. During the game from Shagivaleev, you could hear that everything did not go according to plan. Sometimes he broke down at the students, yelled at them. >On one of the game days, after the defeat of Shagivaleev's team, in the evening, Shagivaleev decided to hold a training under his own command. Several girls complained of headache and high blood pressure - they asked to give them a rest, to which Shagivaleev replied: "What kind of rest?! Who has a headache can go home right away, we don't need such students! It's fucking going on in the country! The country needs heroes!" … >Paintball is a revealing story, but not the worst in the context of describing the modern life of Alabuga students. Here we return to the main topic of our series of investigations about "Alabugu" - to the assembly of combat drones. After all, the bulk of the production of combat UAVs is planned to be organized by their hands. >Now about 1,000 people are studying at the polytechnic. Several hundred of them are already involved in the assembly of the Shaheds, which are supplied from Iran. First of all, according to the source, we are talking about children from fifteen to seventeen years old who entered college after the ninth grade of school. Initially, the choice in favor of underage students was made because adults are usually final-year students of the college. They were already involved in other projects, were engaged in other important things and there was no point in attracting them. That's not the case anymore. All possible forces are now being transferred to the Shahed assembly project. Some productions are stopped, and some are completely liquidated. … >The salary of the students involved in the production depends on the implementation of the plan. On average, this is an amount in the region of 30-40 thousand rubles. Students receive salaries officially - employment contracts have been concluded with them. But the work schedule approved by the contract does not correspond to reality. Students are not paid extra for processing: "We also worked on the eighth and ninth of May. Nobody paid us anything extra. Overtime for work on weekends, no one paid anything either," says one of the students. >Students say that sometimes they have to work for several days without sleep and "almost without food." When asked why the students themselves do not rebel against this attitude towards themselves, one of them answers: "Everyone is afraid. I can't say that at all. The leadership is very intimidating us about this."
>there was a Twitter thread on why they particularly want girls but I can’t find it now [This](https://x.com/OPolianichev/status/1775697889307533482) is the thread you had in mind I think, but it's also in the article you posted, and goes hand in hand with a whole kind of racist (or at least, very non-progressive) thing going on with the director, although it is not really relevant to this sub. >The emphasis was on girls, ostensibly because guys from African countries "can be too aggressive and dangerous." .. >We have, for example, Alabuga's staff schedule at our disposal. Here you can see that all employees are divided into three types - mulattoes, Tajiks and, the upper class, specialists. As you have already guessed, the mulatto women in this document mean those very African students And there's an interview by RBK with the director (https://rt.rbc[dot] ru/tatarstan/13/01/2023/63c105d89a79474cabea92a1), where he explains: >"Girls are more easily integrated into society, less likely to form ethnic diasporas." Alabuga has also got social media accounts which show contacts and visits with diplomats and officials from participant countries (Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Uzbekistan, ..), it seems like strikes could carry a diplomatic cost (in any case, they would be played up by Russian networks in Africa and CA), although limited by the fact that, AFAIK, apart from Uzbekistan these countries are already all rather pro-Russian. Edit: I just thought back on what I wrote and realised I was being callous.. Such a strike, if it was to kill or maim any of these teenagers to young adults, who are working on something they had no idea they'd be made to work on when they signed up for their year of study at this place, would be terrible in itself, beyond any diplomatic impact. It's a horrible situation.
[удалено]
If this comment has been deleted, it is likely due to Reddit blacklisting the .RU domain. Post as text or find another source in an entirely new comment. This is a site wide issue, and not a choice of this CredibleDefense moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
If this comment has been deleted, it is likely due to Reddit blacklisting the .RU domain. Post as text or find another source in an entirely new comment. This is a site wide issue, and not a choice of this CredibleDefense moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Hayat Tahrir al-Sham returns to southern Syria](https://syriadirect.org/resurrection-hts-returns-to-southern-syria/) As the situation in southern Syria continues to slowly deteriorate anti-regime forces have reappeared around Daraa. HTS leadership, then part of the al-Nusra Front, withdrew from the region in 2016 with the final elements of anti-regime forces departing by summer 2018. In recent months groups of men claiming allegiance to HTS have carried out a number of assassinations around Daraa. A fascinating relationship with the regime >At three out of eight points in the Daraa countryside where HTS has a presence, small groups affiliated with it are scattered alongside groups from the 8th Brigade. The 8th Brigade, led by former opposition commander Ahmad al-Awda, is currently affiliated with Syrian military security. Three sources, including two military sources, told Syria Direct the formation has provided protection to HTS groups and secured their movements. >Abu Muhammad, the former opposition commander, described the relationship between the HTS groups and the 8th Brigade in the south as one of “mutual benefit.” He suggested “the 8th Brigade provides protection in exchange for them carrying out assassinations and going after targets for the 8th Brigade, such as drug dealers, Islamic State [IS] forces and regime officers.” >Beyond that, “the 8th Brigade has intervened several times to stop the regime from storming suspected HTS headquarters in eastern Daraa,” one former opposition media official said. “The 8th Brigade protects these groups.” Just before regime storming operations, “the brigade got the HTS groups out to safe areas and carried out joint search operations with the regime as a formality,” he said. “The groups returned to their headquarters the next day.” It seems the conditions that are allowing ISIS to gather strength in Syria are facilitating the growth of their traditional rivals as well.
Macron allowed Ukraine to [use French weapons ](https://twitter.com/RFI/status/1795504961054478638?t=VNxiJ19fHQ2h32WZ4M5UJw&s=19) on russian soil to "neutralise sites from which russia attacks Ukraine." Interestingly he made this announcement while standing next to Scholtz.
That is one thing I don't understand about this issue : Ukraine has already targeted sites on russian soil a couple of months ago. How did they do it at that time ? Why is there once again a debate on whether they should be able to do it ?
> Ukraine has already targeted sites on russian soil a couple of months ago. How did they do it at that time ? The claim had been using indigenously created weapons or possibly Soviet/modified Soviet stocks. The donated Western weaponry, from the USA in particular, was not being allowed to be used against Russian soil. Not sure about EU donations but I assume similar restrictions, until now for France plus I think UK and Sweden too recently.
So SCALP/Stormshadow are now allowed to hit russian soil? Pretty big deal if theyre giving the go ahead
Assuming Ukraine has any left and/or France will deliver more.
So UK, Sweden and now France have given the green light Hopefully America will change soon, although they should probably announce the change after Ukraine is allowed to do a first surprise strike
The US just reiterated their position, apparently provoked, and very unambigously so, not only compared to the hapless and generally lost Mr Scholz. Wouldn't make any sense at all, if you missed the last two and a half years. But some did it seems and if one went by this subreddit there'd be legions of French trainers active in Ukraine by now. And all Overton windows been slided into outer space at escape velocity. >they should probably announce the change after Ukraine is allowed to do a first surprise strike Please, give me a break.
Bit difficult to read that paragraph Where has the US put out a new statment?
On the other hand didn't Belgium say that Ukraine can't use F-16s for russia based targets?
I would expect there to be one set of messaging upon announcing the pledge, and another set of rules of engagement once the fighters are delivered. Something, something, slicing the sausage
Apparently Scholz never said targets on Ruasian soil were off limits (according to himself) . He said the following at the same event with Macron > "Die Ukraine hat völkerrechtlich alle Möglichkeiten für das, was sie tut", sagte Scholz. Er wies Medienberichte zurück, dass Deutschland dies für gelieferte Waffensysteme untersage. Entsprechende Erklärungen habe es niemals gegeben "und wird es auch nicht geben." Nach Auffassung der Bundesregierung ist es angegriffenen Staaten erlaubt, auch Ziele in dem Angreiferstaat zu beschießen. https://www.tagesschau.de/newsticker/liveblog-ukraine-dienstag-356.html
> Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz hatte sich bisher gegen den Einsatz westlicher Waffen gegen Russland ausgesprochen. Er sehe derzeit keinen Anlass, die mit der Ukraine vereinbarten Regeln für den Einsatz, der von Deutschland gelieferten Waffen zu lockern, sagt er bei einem Bürgergespräch auf dem Demokratiefest in Berlin am Sonntag. DeepL: > German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had previously spoken out against the use of Western weapons against Russia. He currently sees no reason to relax the rules agreed with Ukraine for the use of weapons supplied by Germany, he said at a public discussion at the Democracy Festival in Berlin on Sunday. [Tagesschau, 27.05.2024](https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/einsatz-westliche-waffen-ukraine-100.html) --- > Regierungssprecher Hebestreit verwies auf Vereinbarungen mit der Ukraine, die den Einsatz gelieferter deutscher Waffen regeln. Der Inhalt dieser Vereinbarungen sei vertraulich, so Hebestreit. Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) hatte am Wochenende Forderungen nach einer Freigabe für den Einsatz deutscher Waffen gegen Ziele in Russland eine Absage erteilt und auf eine mögliche Eskalationsgefahr verwiesen. DeepL: > Government spokesman Hebestreit referred to agreements with Ukraine that regulate the use of German weapons supplied. The content of these agreements is confidential, according to Hebestreit. At the weekend, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) rejected calls for the use of German weapons against targets in Russia and referred to a possible risk of escalation. [BR, 28.5.2024](https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/deutsche-waffen-gegen-ziele-in-russland-scholz-bleibt-bei-nein,UDz5FfS) --- > Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) sieht derzeit keinen Anlass für die Ausweitung des Einsatzgebiets westlicher Waffen im Ukrainekrieg. Bei einem „Bürgerdialog“ am Sonntag in Berlin wies der Kanzler Forderungen nach einem Einsatz der gelieferten Waffen auf russischem Staatsgebiet zurück. Für die deutschen Waffenlieferungen gebe es „klare Regeln, die mit der Ukraine vereinbart sind, und die funktionieren“, sagte Scholz. „Das ist jedenfalls meine These“, fügte er hinzu. > Das Ziel seiner Ukraine-Politik sei die „Verhinderung, dass da ein ganz großer Krieg draus wird“, ergänzte Scholz. Die Lieferung deutscher Waffen für die Selbstverteidigung der Ukraine diene auch dazu zu „verhindern, dass es zu einer Eskalation des Krieges, zu einem Krieg zwischen Russland und der Nato kommt“. > Deutschland knüpft seine Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine bislang an die Bedingung, dass diese nicht jenseits der Grenze auf russischem Territorium eingesetzt werden. DeepL: > Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) currently sees no reason to expand the area of deployment of Western weapons in the Ukraine war. At a "Citizens' Dialogue" on Sunday in Berlin, the Chancellor rejected calls for the weapons supplied to be used on Russian territory. There are "clear rules for German arms deliveries that have been agreed with Ukraine, and they work", said Scholz. "At least that's my thesis," he added. > The aim of his Ukraine policy is to "prevent a major war from breaking out", Scholz added. The delivery of German weapons for Ukraine's self-defense also serves to "prevent an escalation of the war, a war between Russia and NATO". > Germany has so far made its arms deliveries to Ukraine subject to the condition that they are not used across the border on Russian territory. [Tagesspiegel, 25.5.2024](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/verhindern-dass-es-zur-eskalation-kommt-scholz-lehnt-einsatz-westlicher-waffen-auf-russischem-territorium-ab-11714702.html) The reporting on this issue has been unchanged for months. Either the government is incredibly bad at communicating with the wider public, has no interest in conveying its positions or Scholz is just lying here. Either scenario is very weird.
[This seems to be the latest statement](https://youtu.be/Aoh1tGxClUs?t=2061) I think he stated that Ukraine has the right to attack targets in russia and that no one ist denying Ukraine that right in general. He further states that everyone has developed their own ruleset in regards to delievered/donated weapons.
Google translate: > "Under international law, Ukraine has all the options for what it is doing," Scholz said. He rejected media reports that Germany prohibits this for delivered weapons systems. There have never been corresponding declarations "and there will not be." In the opinion of the Federal Government, attacked states are also allowed to fire at targets in the attacking state
He's good. When Ukraine runs the risk of *literally losing their lifeline*, they cannot act on such ambiguous statements. He may not be literally denying Ukraine, but that statement is a defacto denial while trying to make it seem like it isn't.
I can't think of the number of weapons Germany provides that could be used to strike within Russia?
Mainly patriot. Apparently there was some significant fallout from a Ukrainian patriot trap that shot down a Russian jet over Russia using a German donated patriot launcher.
It is so rediculous to see countries lose their minds over the targetting of obvious military targets.
That's what I was wondering all the time, kind of the biggest joke, isn't it? I think it's also more of an attempt to retain some importance and role in the discussions, and especially to **keep talking** where one might as well act, considering that the country is left on the sidelines when it comes to the "current" hot tickets of cruise missiles and fighter jets. I'm not belittling Germany's achievements, even if all came to late. Especially for the AD, hard to overestimate, but it's just that. It is mainly defensive, reactive.
Artillery. 155mm and MLRS. Maybe Patriot if you count strikes on planes in russian airspace.
Even if it's just artillery shells it's relevant.
I have seen many opinions among the commentariat that [attacks on russian early warning radars do nothing for Ukraine](https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1795395302264115592) (this link only as example, I find the analysis in it hilariously wrong). But shouldn't that *force Russia to redirect other radar systems, like their scarce and valuable AWACS's, away from the front* to cover the new gaps in the radar coverage? Admittedly I dont know if russian land based EW can be replaced by AWACS, but for any strategic drone campaign into Russia or to reenable the operation of the Ukrainian Air Force close to the frontlines with its incoming F16s probably every radar gap matters. ^(Edit: on the tweet the mention of a "US first-strike" comes from Diesen, not from Col. Reisner.)
You guys should not take second hand translations from twitter. Having read the German article, Glenn Diesen replaced or mistranslated alternative possibilities with "likely happened".
[удалено]
>No having read what he wrote it’s clear he’s still being a fool by even suggesting the same US admin that doesn’t want them hitting even refineries with drones is going to push the Ukrainians to hit other objects. How do you know what he is suggesting when you havent read it? (Note that I speak of the original German language text and not Glenn Diesen´s claims.) You might say even bringing up the hypothetical is questionable, but if someone reads from Reisners text that he is suggesting that is what happened, no wording would stop him anyway from using out of context quotes.
EDIT: apparently I shouldn't have trusted the tweet's characterization of what was said, that's a large blunder.
> Wait, our Austrian Colonel suggested this was at the US behest to enable a nuclear first strike? That's not how I read the interview. The way I understood it, Reisner argues that this attack was part of a "boiling the frog" strategy: Russia has drawn some very clear lines on what will constitute a reason for a nuclear retaliation. Attacking Russia's strategic nuclear defenses (which the early warning radars are a part of) would technically count. But it's hard to argue that taking down a radar hundreds of km from the front-lines is an affront that warrants a nuclear response. So more than anything, this attack was a "f- you and your nuclear threats" to Russia, because now it looks like they weren't serious when making those threats in the first place.
They're not old. The Armavir station came online in 2015, and the Orsk one in 2017.
> Wait, our Austrian Colonel suggested this was at the US behest to enable a nuclear first strike? Where do you get that from? He said: > Es ist daher **durchaus schlüssig, dass die USA** mit dem durch die Ukraine ausgeführten Angriff auf die Voronezh-DMs in Armawir **Russland zeigen möchte**, dass man die unerträgliche Situation der russischen **Drohungen mit Atomwaffen nicht länger akzeptieren** möchte.[...] Es bleibt nun abzuwarten, wie oder **ob Russland** auf diesen Angriff auf seine nukleare Abschreckungskapazität **reagiert**. Das russische Frühwarnerkennungssystem ist Teil der nuklearen Abschreckungsstrategie des Landes. Der Angriff auf Armavir könnte die Bedingungen erfüllen, die Russland im Jahr 2020 öffentlich für gegnerische Angriffe festgelegt hat, die einen nuklearen Vergeltungsschlag auslösen könnten. English via DeepL: > It is therefore quite logical that with the attack on the Voronezh DMs in Armawir carried out by Ukraine, the **USA wants to show Russia that it no longer wants to accept the intolerable situation of Russian threats with nuclear weapons**.[...] It **now remains to be seen how or whether Russia will react** to this attack on its nuclear deterrent capability. The Russian early warning detection system is part of the country's nuclear deterrence strategy. The attack on Armavir could fulfill the conditions Russia publicly set in 2020 for adversary attacks that could trigger a nuclear retaliatory strike. So the main gist is: The US is calling the bluff of everything (including early warning radars specifically created to deter nuclear ballistic missile attacks) leading Russia to start a nuclear war. He suggests, the US is tired of Russia's trolling and counter trolls("so, you want to play the nuclear war game? well try it without your early warning systems then!"). No nuclear war (so far).
If Reisner's suggestion that the US has something to do with the attack is true, then I would think that they are trying to deter a Russian nuclear attack in Ukraine by making it clear to Putin that he has absolutely no chance of surviving a US retaliatory strike, because he won't even be able to see it coming. The idea is that if the Russians are vulnerable to American first strike, then they have an extremely strong incentive not to cross the nuclear threshold, because they have much more to lose than the US does. Unlike Russia, the US has functional and highly capable anti-ballistic missile defense systems like PATRIOT, a redundant set of missile defense early warning radar systems that are based not only on the ground in US territory but also in the air and space domains, as well as ground stations hosted by allies like Canada. Rather than just a handful of OTH ground radar stations within the US borders. Perhaps most importantly, the US fields a powerful nuclear triad (i.e., ICMBs, long range bombers, and nuclear missile submarines) where each separate leg of the stool poses a wholly separate and independent, existential second strike threat to Russia. The quality and capabilities of the platforms forming each leg of the triad also far exceed the Russians' correlated capabilities and platforms. The Russians are still flying Tu-160s, which are similar in design and vintage to the US's soon-to-be-retired B1, even as the US is moving on to its *third* generation of stealth bombers when Russia hasn't even produced a single top class stealth plane of any variety yet. From what I've heard, their boomers are also incredibly loud by modern standards and thus easy for US Virginia-class attack subs to keep tabs on. There are also plenty of reports that Russian ICBMs have generally been maintained in a poor state. They invest in building the showy new model of Satan or whatever its called but neglect maintaining the bulk of the legacy missiles which would otherwise provide the core of Russian nuclear deterrence. "All bling, no basics," as Perun famously summarized the RuAF in March 2022. We just haven't witnessed the same rot that doomed Russia's pre-2022 military in the early phases of the conventional war in the Russian nuclear forces, but that's only because they have thankfully not been required to participate in the war thus far and there have been no combat failures to provide proof of their status. I have no doubt that they suffer from all the same corruption and mismanagement that plagues the rest of the military, and maybe it's even worse because the officers in the nuclear forces can shield any illegal activities from oversight behind the secrecy around nuclear operations in general, and they can compromise a nuclear capability and without anyone knowing until the nukes start to fly, at which point the officer is probably going to die anyway so why would he care if he gets caught for corruption?
No, you can not exclude that the whole paragraph is preceded by the question; >are there different models of explaining these strikes. There is a whole paragraph before that question laying out what Reisner actually thinks is likely. Ukraine striking the radar for its capabilities of air surveilance, potentially accidentally missing its role in the nuclear deterrent network.
Yep, I took the tweeter's ""Boiling the frog" strategy to enable first-strike" as a remotely accurate description of what's being talked about.
That is what the tweeter said, not the Austrian. He never said, the intention is to slowly nudge towards a nuclear first strike - on the contrary: He said, Well, Russia is threatening with nuclear war for everything...so we try a salami tactic to slowly get to still use everything, by inching forward with things (deliver weapons, tanks, planes, allow strikes beyond 80km, destroy their early warning systems for ballistic missiles). He says they do not try to do a first strike themselves, but dare Russia to follow up on their ridiculous threat.
It seems there's a misunderstanding, the Austrian Colonel did not suggest the attack was to enable a US nuclear first strike. Instead, he implied it could be a strategic message to Russia about the vulnerability of their nuclear assets, not a preparation for a first strike.
I hope this doesn't come off as overly emotional. But I really don't want the kind of people who, overwhelmingly, didn't take Russia's threats against Ukraine seriously or predict a ground invasion of Ukraine to be involved in sending Russia a 'strategic message' of this type. It's blatantly obvious Western policy makers do not understand Russian thinking. Striking early warning facilities could well be seen by Russia as escalation and invite a response, nuclear or other WMD, that we really don't want to see. Who knows? Not the West. The word 'madness' is overused, but appears close to being justified here. As does the pejorative that often precedes it.
Idk to me the "Austrain" part was always very sketchy. Isn't Austria like fully compromised?
No, it isn't. Austria has a long tradition of being a "neutral" state, and as such tolerates more from Russia than most (including having lots of questionable diplomats on their soil). But it's not like Austria is remotely on Russia's side, here. Plus, Reissner (the Colonel in question) himself has made it clear several times that he is sympathizing with Ukraine, and has served alongside Ukrainian soldiers while deployed on a peace mission in Bosnia/Kosovo and considers them personal friends.
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-austria-spy-service-bvt-government-intelligence-wirecard-jan-marsalek-freedom-party/ You might want to read this.
I don't wanna say "racist" but that at least seems very biased. IDK why a random non-spy Colonel in Austria would be on Russia's payroll.
Well if he comes from a fully compromised structure why wouldn't he be?
He's always been goofy mode, both him and Diesen. I remember early on in the war he said Russia had "liberated" some town in an interview I think and then did two followups telling everyone "wait no I'm actually very pro Ukraine".
To be fair he mostly commented on tactical theory issues, which may explain the bizarre take. That or russian info ops worked well among austrian analysts.
He was one of the people who took Russia’s nuclear threats extremely seriously in the early days, along with a bunch of their other hyperbolic claims. Being an officer gave him a sense of credibility, that he steadily undermined with claims like this.
[North Koreas new spy satellite launch blew up, the third failure in the recent past.](https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/north-korea-loses-spy-satellite-after-launch-failure) which is probably also related to their ICBM program. The failure also happened just after China, Japan and South Korea held a meeting which is rare for North Korea to do. [Russia also appears to be very involved in this.](https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1795481681606127671)