Ukraine

[Michael in ABQ]

-How exactly he knew where to find these documents and nobody saw him printing them off and walking out the door on multiple occasions is the DoD's next problem. He would have had access as a system administrator and if the files were in a Sharepoint that was well known he could just download them if the owner didn't bother to lock them down. The nature of many of the documents suggest they were daily reports read by thousands. Or he could have been looking over the shoulder of whoever was supposed to be reading them and taking notes for later. His chain of command and security managers are going to have a lot of explaining to do in the coming days

You've been in a SCIF and you know the reality is you could stuff a folder of documents under your shirt and walk out and no one would be the wiser. The security is meant to keep unauthorized people out - or to keep them from accessing any information inside the SCIF. It doesn't do a good job of keeping insiders from accessing information.

The current background check system that decides whether someone can get (and keep) a security clearance is pretty antiquated. It basically comes down to not having a criminal record, bad credit, or unexplained foreign connections/travel. My first interview for a TS clearance consisted of the interviewer talking to three of my coworkers I choose and reviewing the answers I submitted on my SF 86. They never so much as talked to another person in my life (parents, spouse, neighbors, etc.). The reinvestigation 6 years later was about the same. I think they talked to my current boss and that was about it.

I remember being called as a reference for someone I knew in the Army who was applying for a TS clearance. I told the investigator that I didn't think he would purposefully betray national security, but I wouldn't trust him with that kind of information because frankly he was kind of dumb and naive. When pressed, I said "no I don't think he should have a clearance". Based on his LinkedIn profile I'm pretty sure they still granted it to him.

[waltworks]

@Michael in ABQ that's interesting, I had just an L clearance for the DOE in the 90s and they called dozens of people (that I didn't get to pick) and picked through things pretty thoroughly. It was actually pretty annoying.

Maybe standards have been relaxed.

-W

[markbike528CBX]

Security background difference- DOD does not equate to DOE?

[Michael in ABQ]

@Michael in ABQ that's interesting, I had just an L clearance for the DOE in the 90s and they called dozens of people (that I didn't get to pick) and picked through things pretty thoroughly. It was actually pretty annoying.

Maybe standards have been relaxed.

-W

Yes. I know a lot of people who work for DoE and have Q clearances (roughly equivalent to Top Secret) and I think their experiences are similar to mine. For my original Secret clearance in the early 2000s (and basically the same today) there's usually no interviews - just a background check.

[jinga nation]

@Michael in ABQ that's interesting, I had just an L clearance for the DOE in the 90s and they called dozens of people (that I didn't get to pick) and picked through things pretty thoroughly. It was actually pretty annoying.

Maybe standards have been relaxed.

-W

Yes. I know a lot of people who work for DoE and have Q clearances (roughly equivalent to Top Secret) and I think their experiences are similar to mine. For my original Secret clearance in the early 2000s (and basically the same today) there's usually no interviews - just a background check.

For each of my DoD clearances, I had an investigator show up for each interview, or meet them in an office.

I've been a reference for co-workers, the Qs are usually Yes/No types, entire call is under 2 minutes. Met investigators at my workplace, or phone call.

Also, DHS TS /= DoD TS. An applicant with DHS TS got rejected for a DoD TS-required job. Different adjudication requirements, apparently.

[Travis]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2

Apparently that ball bearing problem never went away.

[LaineyAZ]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2

Apparently that ball bearing problem never went away.

Wow, that's wild.  Reminds me of the poem attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

"For want of a nail the shoe was lost.  For want of a shoe the horse was lost.  For want of a horse the rider was lost.  For want of a rider the battle was lost.  For want of a battle the kingdom was lost - And all for the want of a horseshoe nail."

[LennStar]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2

Apparently that ball bearing problem never went away.

Ball bearing are probably the most underrated item in the world. Not only when it comes to tanks or that little train accident with the poisenous stuff that burned for days 2 months ago.

[pecunia]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2

Apparently that ball bearing problem never went away.

Ball bearing are probably the most underrated item in the world. Not only when it comes to tanks or that little train accident with the poisenous stuff that burned for days 2 months ago.

The ball bearing thing proves once again, "The devil's in the details.'  I wonder how they do replacing the barrels.

[LennStar]

I just remembered that even some month ago I read that the Russians are starting to use "fire boxes" again.

FYI we are talking about trains here. The axles are held in a box full with oil. But there is still a lot of friction going on with tony weighting in. So the axles get hot. And often start to burn, hence the professional's term fire box.

Ball bearings dramatically reduced fires on trains. In the accident above one of those still started to burn, was weakened and that led to the derailment. It seems a fire detection sensor was broken and nobody in a hurry to fix it.

Now imagine what happens if you carry around a LOT of very HEAVY stuff (like tanks or artillery grenades) on fire box axles. You really need to watch those wagons, especially if there is ammo on them.

[Travis]

You really need to watch those wagons, especially if there is ammo on them.

Russia's rail infrastructure is massive, a strategic asset due to the distances to be covered, and under normal circumstances well-manned; however, they drafted a number of their railroad employees into the Army last fall.

And in other news, a Russian Su-34 dropped a 500 pound bomb on a street corner in Belgorod (Russian city near the Ukrainian border). There's a giant crater in the street, the surrounding apartment blocks sustained quite a bit of damage, and a car was launched onto the roof of a nearby building.


https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/europe/russia-belgorod-accidental-bombing-intl-hnk/index.html

[GuitarStv]

Looks like someone picked a whole basket of oopsie-daisies.

[alsoknownasDean]

I just remembered that even some month ago I read that the Russians are starting to use "fire boxes" again.

FYI we are talking about trains here. The axles are held in a box full with oil. But there is still a lot of friction going on with tony weighting in. So the axles get hot. And often start to burn, hence the professional's term fire box.

Ball bearings dramatically reduced fires on trains. In the accident above one of those still started to burn, was weakened and that led to the derailment. It seems a fire detection sensor was broken and nobody in a hurry to fix it.

Now imagine what happens if you carry around a LOT of very HEAVY stuff (like tanks or artillery grenades) on fire box axles. You really need to watch those wagons, especially if there is ammo on them.

On that note, I'm surprised that Ukraine and the Baltic states didn't re-gauge/standardise their railways after independence. We can see how Russia's using Ukrainian railway infrastructure to move around men and materiel. Would have been harder for them if Ukraine was using standard gauge.

[LennStar]

I just remembered that even some month ago I read that the Russians are starting to use "fire boxes" again.

FYI we are talking about trains here. The axles are held in a box full with oil. But there is still a lot of friction going on with tony weighting in. So the axles get hot. And often start to burn, hence the professional's term fire box.

Ball bearings dramatically reduced fires on trains. In the accident above one of those still started to burn, was weakened and that led to the derailment. It seems a fire detection sensor was broken and nobody in a hurry to fix it.

Now imagine what happens if you carry around a LOT of very HEAVY stuff (like tanks or artillery grenades) on fire box axles. You really need to watch those wagons, especially if there is ammo on them.

On that note, I'm surprised that Ukraine and the Baltic states didn't re-gauge/standardise their railways after independence. We can see how Russia's using Ukrainian railway infrastructure to move around men and materiel. Would have been harder for them if Ukraine was using standard gauge.

It's expensive and complicated. You need to buy new rolling stock and try to not interfere with the economy too much.
All while being in the aftermath of a revolution.
Not to mention that several governments were puppets of Russia. You know, all that stuff about Maidan and Putins invasion after his guy was chased out.

[nereo]

Yeah, the inertia of infrastructure is a very real thing. Electronics are rife with examples of ports that have carried through generations despite acute drawbacks because they needed to remain “backward compatible”.  On the ‘standard’ railway gauge used throughout much of the world - it’s based on standards adopted gradually more than a century ago. If it were possible to ‘magic’ all existing lines and equipment to fit a different standard my guess is railroad width would be much different from the 4’ 8.5” we use today.

[pecunia]

Yeah, the inertia of infrastructure is a very real thing. Electronics are rife with examples of ports that have carried through generations despite acute drawbacks because they needed to remain “backward compatible”.  On the ‘standard’ railway gauge used throughout much of the world - it’s based on standards adopted gradually more than a century ago. If it were possible to ‘magic’ all existing lines and equipment to fit a different standard my guess is railroad width would be much different from the 4’ 8.5” we use today.

The chariot story and railroads is sort of interesting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/railroad-gauge-chariots/

I'm sort of glad they standardize.  There are all together too many plugs and adapters now.

[LennStar]

Yeah, the inertia of infrastructure is a very real thing. Electronics are rife with examples of ports that have carried through generations despite acute drawbacks because they needed to remain “backward compatible”.  On the ‘standard’ railway gauge used throughout much of the world - it’s based on standards adopted gradually more than a century ago. If it were possible to ‘magic’ all existing lines and equipment to fit a different standard my guess is railroad width would be much different from the 4’ 8.5” we use today.

The chariot story and railroads is sort of interesting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/railroad-gauge-chariots/

I'm sort of glad they standardize.  There are all together too many plugs and adapters now.

Not much different from all the steps, foots, fingers etc. most measurements were taken from. Though I admit that "horse's arse width" has me grinning since I heard it when I was ~10.

[maizefolk]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

[Radagast]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.

[zolotiyeruki]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.

Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful.  That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things.  In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC.  When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers.  The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it.  And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.

[pecunia]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.

Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful.  That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things.  In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC.  When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers.  The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it.  And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.

You and Thomas Edison would have got along very well.  I'll stick with transformers for a little bit yet.  It seems like the world has a greater appreciation for Nick Tesla in the past few years.

[sonofsven]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.

Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful.  That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things.  In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC.  When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers.  The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it.  And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.

Since watts = volts * amps, a 110 volt 20 amp circuit hits you with 2,200 volts.
A 220 volt 20 amp circuit is going to be 2,200 watts on each leg of the circuit, 4,400 total.
It's really the amps that determines the severity of the shock.

[Michael in ABQ]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.

Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful.  That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things.  In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC.  When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers.  The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it.  And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.

I was tangentially involved in a pilot project to create a DC solar-powered microgrid with battery backups. The company built a demonstration project that was a small building, and all of the lighting was LED running directly off DC power, same with the HVAC, some TVs in the common area, etc. I recall the representative saying just skipping the DC to AC to DC conversion saved 20-30% on efficiency loss.

I could see a time where some solar power is used to directly power DC electrical needs in the home. However, it will probably remain a niche market for something like a remote cabin. I guess there is already a pretty market for the RV and boating worlds where basically everything is available in a DC powered version.

[zolotiyeruki]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.

Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful.  That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things.  In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC.  When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers.  The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it.  And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.

Since watts = volts * amps, a 110 volt 20 amp circuit hits you with 2,200 volts.
A 220 volt 20 amp circuit is going to be 2,200 watts on each leg of the circuit, 4,400 total.
It's really the amps that determines the severity of the shock.

You've got a few things wrong in your thinking.  A 220V 20A circuit can deliver 4,400W, but only to a load that has a sufficiently low resistance to draw that much current.  The human body isn't such a load--instead of the 10Ohm load required to draw 20A, it's more like 100,000. 

That said, you're right that it's the current that counts, and it takes <50mA to stop a heart beating.  (of course, the supply voltage and the load resistance determine the current, so they're all interrelated).

The 240V I got to feel was single-phase (I was in Russia at the time), and fortunately, the current just went through my hand, not through my chest.  That's a whole nutty story that involves apartments that shared a main breaker and a cranky old babushka, but that's a tale for another time...

[Radagast]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.

Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful.  That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things.  In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC.  When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers.  The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it.  And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.

The new USB standard is 240W 5A 50V DC on a compact reversible plug, you could power quite a few things with just that. Two USB C sockets over a GFI 220V with anti child cover would be pretty ideal. In the topic of ground fault interrupt, DC, and shocks GFI stops the current in 1/2 cycle (1/120 of a second, or 20% longer in Europe). Is such a thing available for DC? Don’t tell me 220V DC is simply not interruptible…

[pecunia]

Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).

Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.

They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.

Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful.  That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things.  In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC.  When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers.  The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it.  And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.

The new USB standard is 240W 5A 50V DC on a compact reversible plug, you could power quite a few things with just that. Two USB C sockets over a GFI 220V with anti child cover would be pretty ideal. In the topic of ground fault interrupt, DC, and shocks GFI stops the current in 1/2 cycle (1/120 of a second, or 20% longer in Europe). Is such a thing available for DC? Don’t tell me 220V DC is simply not interruptible…

The thing that always gives AC breakers an assist is the zero crossing.  It's 60 times a second in North America and 50 times in places yonder.  In fact, I remember station batteries in substations and power plants were often fused.

[LennStar]

FunFact: Back when electricity was new, a generator was bought at Edison company, another from a German manufacturer.
As a result, until today, Japan has a 60Hz and a 50Hz grid. And probably because of that, nearly all bigger household electronic (remember Japans production in the 70s?) can work with both.
Ah Japan, I love you for always doing the extremes that nobody else does!

[pecunia]

FunFact: Back when electricity was new, a generator was bought at Edison company, another from a German manufacturer.
As a result, until today, Japan has a 60Hz and a 50Hz grid. And probably because of that, nearly all bigger household electronic (remember Japans production in the 70s?) can work with both.
Ah Japan, I love you for always doing the extremes that nobody else does!

It's 400 cycles per second (Hz) on ships and airplanes.  (At least it used to be.)  This saves weight in transformer laminations.

Sorry - We are veering from the topic at hand.

Ukraine crossed the Dnipro River.  How signiuficant?  Zelensky talked to Xi.  How significant?  Ukraine appears almost driven from Bakhmut (This time for sure) How significant?  Wagner forces have had big time conflicts with the Gazprom private army.  How significant?

[zolotiyeruki]

FunFact: Back when electricity was new, a generator was bought at Edison company, another from a German manufacturer.
As a result, until today, Japan has a 60Hz and a 50Hz grid. And probably because of that, nearly all bigger household electronic (remember Japans production in the 70s?) can work with both.
Ah Japan, I love you for always doing the extremes that nobody else does!

It's 400 cycles per second (Hz) on ships and airplanes.  (At least it used to be.)  This saves weight in transformer laminations.

Sorry - We are veering from the topic at hand.

Ukraine crossed the Dnipro River.  How signiuficant?  Zelensky talked to Xi.  How significant?  Ukraine appears almost driven from Bakhmut (This time for sure) How significant?  Wagner forces have had big time conflicts with the Gazprom private army.  How significant?

The latest I've heard about Bakhmut is that the Russians haven't made *any* gains in several days, and that their daily troop losses over the last couple of weeks have dropped by 30% (according to the Ukrainian military).  There have also been lots of reports of the Russians shifting to a purely defensive posture.  All these would tend to indicate that their entire winter offensive got them bupkis, and now Ukraine has the initiative.

Yesterday, the UKR military requested that everyone stop posting information online for a while to maintain OPSEC.  That usually means something big-ish is going down or about to go down.

Will they attack, or is this a feint?  If they attack, where will it be? Across the Dniper River?  South toward Melitopol to cut the land bridge?  A big sweep across the northern flank to take Svatove?

[alsoknownasDean]

I wonder if the crossing of the Dniper is intended to get Russian troops flooding there only to later head down towards Melitopol and cut them off from supplies?

Seems risky to operate a big counter offensive across a river.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[LennStar]

I wonder if the crossing of the Dniper is intended to get Russian troops flooding there only to later head down towards Melitopol and cut them off from supplies?

Seems risky to operate a big counter offensive across a river.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

Intended or not, Russia has to take that back (or at least contain), it's way to dangerous for both their intended defense line and Crimea connections.

[Radagast]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

My opinion is not enough. The only really game changing equipment deployed to date seems to have been HIMARS and HARMS back in June/July, everything else seems more like game sustaining equipment or minor improvements around the edges. The crazy number of different weapons systems sent is a motley crew. The proof is in the pudding though, and if Ukraine has reclaimed territory at least equal to what Russia has taken since 2022 within the next two months then I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I am disappointed: too little training, too few systems, too little standardization, too late, insufficient range. We can and should have been doing better.

Longer term I still don't see any hope for Russia though. Russia's fundamental position is one of fragility, and they will continue to grow weaker. Ukraine's position is one of fundamental antifragility, and they will continue to grow stronger. When the West's low end and second hand equipment is depleted, they'll just start sending the new and modern equipment. That trend will continue for at least a couple more years, and Putin's only hope for victory is to delay beyond that. With the current trends there won't be anything left of the Russian army or two successor iterations (we are already through the first iteration) by then, so I don't really see how that's possible. The big thing is the unnecessarily large and protracted suffering of the Ukrainian people.

[Just Joe]

There are probably a long list of reasons why this is a bad idea but I'd like to see the UN or NATO set up a protection line. Crowd the Russians a little. A no fly zone for example. A civilian protection zone. A thou not pass zone. Russia broke international law so enforce it.

And alot more public "you brought this on yourself" statements about Russia, to Russia. Also, more statements calling the Russian government out for their lies. Make sure that the Russian civilians hear this via the internet or radio including shortwave for the far eastern most parts of the country.

[Michael in ABQ]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

My opinion is not enough. The only really game changing equipment deployed to date seems to have been HIMARS and HARMS back in June/July, everything else seems more like game sustaining equipment or minor improvements around the edges. The crazy number of different weapons systems sent is a motley crew. The proof is in the pudding though, and if Ukraine has reclaimed territory at least equal to what Russia has taken since 2022 within the next two months then I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I am disappointed: too little training, too few systems, too little standardization, too late, insufficient range. We can and should have been doing better.

Longer term I still don't see any hope for Russia though. Russia's fundamental position is one of fragility, and they will continue to grow weaker. Ukraine's position is one of fundamental antifragility, and they will continue to grow stronger. When the West's low end and second hand equipment is depleted, they'll just start sending the new and modern equipment. That trend will continue for at least a couple more years, and Putin's only hope for victory is to delay beyond that. With the current trends there won't be anything left of the Russian army or two successor iterations (we are already through the first iteration) by then, so I don't really see how that's possible. The big thing is the unnecessarily large and protracted suffering of the Ukrainian people.

Munitions are the most important thing we can provide. Equipment is nice, but meaningless without the munitions for it. The US has gotten used to precision strikes and trying to limit the amount of munitions used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere over the last 20+ years. The war in Ukraine is not that kind of fight. It's artillery and rockets and missiles and lots of them.

Thousands of anti-tank guided missiles (Javelins, NLAWs, etc.) may have cost tens or hundreds of millions but destroyed billions of dollar's worth of Russian equipment (not to mention thousands of casualties).

Newer equipment is typically going to take longer to train on, have fewer pieces of equipment available, have fewer munitions and spare parts available, and more likely to break down. Think of a car from the 1980s vs one today. Far more electronics and computers to break down and less reliance on sturdy mechanical systems.

[Michael in ABQ]

There are probably a long list of reasons why this is a bad idea but I'd like to see the UN or NATO set up a protection line. Crowd the Russians a little. A no fly zone for example. A civilian protection zone. A thou not pass zone. Russia broke international law so enforce it.

And alot more public "you brought this on yourself" statements about Russia, to Russia. Also, more statements calling the Russian government out for their lies. Make sure that the Russian civilians hear this via the internet or radio including shortwave for the far eastern most parts of the country.

A no-fly zone is the first act in a war. The only way to enforce it is to shoot down enemy planes - which means killing enemy pilots. That's an act of war and neither the US, UN, or NATO want to cross that line. Providing materiel to Ukraine has been effective and so far and at little or no risk to all those supporting Ukraine.

I agree, far more could be done on the information front. Call out Russia at every international event and treat them like a pariah. Alas, there are too many countries that can't/won't cut themselves off from the Russian energy spigot. It's a critical resource and there's simply no way to quickly uncouple all those physical/economic/political links that have been built up over decades.

[zolotiyeruki]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

I'm in the same boat with you--if we're giving them 100 Bradley IFVs, why not 200? 500? 1,000?  We have twice that many sitting in depots.  Yeah, I get that they're not all operational and will take time to get back in shape and to take the best equipment out, but at the same time, it'd be a fantastic opportunity for Ukraine to learn the maintenance on them at the same time.

All this equipment is intended for two purposes:  to beat Russia, and to beat China.  Bradleys and HIMARS and ATACMS and M1 Abrams are all intended to destroy the Russian military.  It doesn't matter whether it's Americans or Ukrainians manning them if they are serving that purpose.

As for the oft-invoked invoked "fear of Russian escalation"?  Um, guys, they've already invaded a sovereign country, slaughtered whole populations of innocent people, kidnapped tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Ukrainians, leveled entire cities, tried to freeze out the entire population, militarized a nuclear power plant, "recruited" tens of thousands of cannon fodder troops from their prisons, raped, tortured, murdered, dug out 60+-year-old tanks from storage, attempted to cause a worldwide grain shortage, plundered millions of tons of grain on top of that, and ruined who-knows-how-much land for the next year's crops. They've indiscriminately bombed schools, hospitals, theaters, and apartment buildings. 

Which leaves me with this question:  what do they have left to escalate to?  The only thing I can think of is nuclear or chemical weapons, and you only get to play that card once.  So what would be the "red line" that would cause him to go that far?  Russia has rattled that saber many times over the past year, and never followed through.  Sending HIMARS didn't do it.  The continuous stream of intel didn't.  MiG-29s didn't.  Stingers and Javelins didn't do it, and neither has 100 Bradleys.  Would 100 more Bradleys do it?  What about 100 Abrams?  A few dozen ATACMS?  A squadron of F-18s?

I have a couple of thoughts about why the military supply, at least from the US, has been so slow to ramp up:
1) By gradually increasing it, there's no huge step change that Putin can claim push him over the edge and "made" him use nukes.
2) Cold, calculated realpolitik--this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cripple Russia as a global power for generations, if not permanently.  Russia is already getting squeezed hard by the combination of a declining population, a corrupt culture, and competition in the oil & gas industry.  Now, add in sanctions that have further hit their O&G revenue, the hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men fleeing the country, and the additional hundreds of thousands wounded or killed in Ukraine.  The longer the war drags out, the weaker Russia becomes, and the harder and longer it will be for Russia to recover, if they ever do.  And the cost to the US? A modest donation of a bunch of backup, out-of-date, second-hand, mothballed, expiring, phased-out, and/or otherwise not-top-tier equipment.  A total cost of ...about 7% of our annual defense budget to completely wipe out Russia as a military power?  That's a bargain of the century.  Ok, there's been the cost of flying all those ELINT and SIGINT birds over Poland, Romania, and the Black Sea, but that has provided an absolute bonanza of both intel and training, so I'm hesitant to include that in the cost.  From this cold-hearted point of view, sure, the people of Ukraine are suffering and dying as a result of us slow-walking the military aid, but if our goal is our own long-term benefit, then utterly destroying Russia's ability to project power for the next fifty years at someone else's (Ukraine's) expense is a unique opportunity.  I've heard it said that international policy and diplomacy is mind-bogglingly complicated and nuanced.

2 cont'd) You could also take the very cynical view that this war has eliminated Russia's ability to market, let alone build and export, military hardware, to the great benefit of the US military industrial complex.  Or that restricting their ability to profit from oil and gas means our own O&G companies can pad their profits.  Or the same for agricultural exports.  This is a whole rabbit hole of speculation and conspiracy-theorizing you could chase down, if you were so inclined.

Maybe, we're dragging it out until we finally get Sweden admitted to NATO?  Because if Russia is beat, there's no rush to expand NATO?
Maybe it's a signal to China that "Ukraine's beating Russia with our table scraps.  Are you sure you want to threaten Taiwan?"
Maybe it's a legitimate concern about how many Ukrainian troops can be pulled from the country to train on the equipment?  Or a limitation in how many we can train at a time?
Maybe we don't want people to see our fighter jets get shot down by Russian SAMs?
Maybe there's a concern about what happens at the end of the war and Ukraine wins?  Do we ask for 'em back?
Maybe there's a concern that Ukraine will become a bad actor after they beat Russia?

[waltworks]

Great post, @zolotiyeruki. I'm inclined to believe that a lack of ability to train up AFU personnel fast enough is the primary issue.

It will be interesting to see how WW1 type fortifications hold up against AFU combined-arms (ie, drop a string of JDAMs down the whole trench line that's been surveyed by drone to cover advancing ground troops). The AFU trenches have been pretty effective against Soviet-era roll-forward-en-masse tactics but AFAIK the Russians don't really have the precision weapon/drone capabilities to do anything else (except hit apartment buildings and such, of course).

It boggles my mind that Russia has essentially used up it's cruise missile stock on civilian targets, and continues to launch the same sort of strikes to the same lack of effect. Either their intelligence is so poor that they can't find military targets to shoot at, or they're still convinced it's a winning tactic despite more than a year of lessons to the contrary. Bizarre either way.

-W

[pecunia]

Great post, @zolotiyeruki. I'm inclined to believe that a lack of ability to train up AFU personnel fast enough is the primary issue.

It will be interesting to see how WW1 type fortifications hold up against AFU combined-arms (ie, drop a string of JDAMs down the whole trench line that's been surveyed by drone to cover advancing ground troops). The AFU trenches have been pretty effective against Soviet-era roll-forward-en-masse tactics but AFAIK the Russians don't really have the precision weapon/drone capabilities to do anything else (except hit apartment buildings and such, of course).

It boggles my mind that Russia has essentially used up it's cruise missile stock on civilian targets, and continues to launch the same sort of strikes to the same lack of effect. Either their intelligence is so poor that they can't find military targets to shoot at, or they're still convinced it's a winning tactic despite more than a year of lessons to the contrary. Bizarre either way.

-W

Ukraine knows where Russia's munitions factories are. It just seems like with all these Ukrainian - Russian speakers that can fade into the Russian woodwork that they could attack those munitions factories in Russia and really diminish Russia's capacity to continue to wage war.  Those factories already can't keep up.  Eliminate the source and the supply of Russian armaments will dry up even faster than it does now.  This would have the added effect of making Russian civilians have a greater awareness that their government has dragged them into an unnecessary war.  I get the impression that the average Russian is somewhat oblivious to the fact that their country is engaged in a horrible war.  Bring the war to their doorstep.

[Telecaster]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

Not nearly enough.   This is one of the few wars post WWII where the right side and the wrong side are clearly defined.   Russia is not trying to win hearts and minds.  They are leveling cities, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, kidnapping children, torturing prisoners, etc.  It needs to end, and it needs to end sooner rather than later.   Part of the rationale for why aid from the US is trickling somewhat slowly is that we have to maintain our own defense needs.  I agree with that. But I think we should also revisit our defense priorities.   One of our primary geopolitical goes is currently being ground (slowly) into dust.  This can only work to our benefit and certainly changes our defense needs.   We should consider accelerating our flow of arms to Ukraine even if it temporarily lowers our defense readiness becomes it only works to our benefit long term.   

You can say what you want about American hegemony, and I heartily agree that American power has been grossly misused in the past.  However since WWII, America has done a lot of good work promoting democracy, rules based order, and human rights throughout the world.  Counterexamples are noted and entered into evidence without objection.  Point remains though, more people are better off siding with America than China or Russia.   This is a golden opportunity to send a clear message which is the correct side to be on.   Russia is an agent of chaos and taking her down a notch is surely a good thing.

A common objection is cost.   Here again, a large portion of our defense budgets have been spent in anticipation of a conflict with Russia.   Why not use those weapons for their intended purpose?   We can certainly afford it.   Even now aid to Ukraine is tiny portion of the defense budget.   We announced sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, enough for a brigade.    We should send enough for a division.   We have thousands of Abrams in storage that have already been paid for.   Yes, I realize there are export restrictions.  Who made those rules?  We did.  Therefore we can change them.  Or at a minimum start prepping large numbers of tanks for export.  And yes, there is only one factory that does that work.  But we can open another one.  Yes, that will take time but today is the second best time to plant a tree and all that.

As @Michael in ABQ point out, Ukraine and Russia are using ammunition at rate faster than the world can produce it.   That's because they are fighting a WWI-style slug fest.   The solution is combined arms warfare, which means aircraft.   We absolutely should be providing modern aircraft and even more air defense capabilities.   Combined arms requires training which requires time.  Second best time is today.   

I'm a fan of history, and one thing history shows is that if you decide to go war, never use half measures because half measures in war wind up costing more in the long term.   Some nuance is required here.  We're not actually at war, we've only taken sides in a war.  But we along with our allies and partners should be providing Ukraine with the tools she needs to win the war as quickly as possible.   

[Michael in ABQ]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

I have a couple of thoughts about why the military supply, at least from the US, has been so slow to ramp up:
1) By gradually increasing it, there's no huge step change that Putin can claim push him over the edge and "made" him use nukes.
2) Cold, calculated realpolitik-.....

I think a significant factor is simple bureaucratic inertia.

My last deployment I was involved in getting about $15 of military equipment to a partner country military. From the start of that program with a 4-star general and ambassador shaking hands with the President of the country and promising military aid to actually getting vehicles and weapons delivered was about three years. In this case it was all brand-new vehicles and weapons - plus a couple of shipping containers full of spare parts. There was some other individual soldier equipment that was just excess stocks from some depot (old BDU and DCU pattern clothing/gear that was phased out 10-20 years ago). The latter arrived a lot faster as no one really cared about it. But when you're talking about providing machine guns and ammunition and vehicles to a foreign military there's a lot more involved.

The HIMARs could be flown in as there were only 10-20 of them and a C-17 can carry 3 or 4 at a time. So it only took a few flights to get them to Poland and then to Ukraine. That's not feasible with tens or hundreds of APCs and tanks. Those have to be loaded on a ship. At either end they're generally moved via rail - sometimes by truck. Logistically it's a lot more work. Then you throw in all the paperwork and approvals, and you can easily add additional months.

Ultimately, it's still up to the president and congress making the decision to authorize all of this for Ukraine. Some of that is probably informed by the reality on the ground - we don't want to promise to deliver 1,000 Javelin Missiles only to find out that only 500 are available. The defense industry in the US (and Europe) has optimized for profit - not production capacity. Just in time inventory means there's probably one factory making a lot of these munitions and the capacity was enough to support whatever contracts were in place. The US doesn't have huge warehouse full of munitions like the Soviets did. There's enough produced each year to meet the projected training needs but that's far less than would be necessary in the type of war in Ukraine.

[zolotiyeruki]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

Part of the rationale for why aid from the US is trickling somewhat slowly is that we have to maintain our own defense needs.  I agree with that.

This is a point that I disagree with.  If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.

[GuitarStv]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

Part of the rationale for why aid from the US is trickling somewhat slowly is that we have to maintain our own defense needs.  I agree with that.

This is a point that I disagree with.  If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.

Hasn't it largely been proven that Russia isn't a threat already though?  China's coming invasion of Taiwan would seem to be the real concern.

[Telecaster]

This is a point that I disagree with.  If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.

That's actually what I'm saying.  We should take this opportunity to rethink what our defense needs truly are.  I believe we can safely partially deplete our stocks of many systems simply because it takes Russia out of the picture. 

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

Part of the rationale for why aid from the US is trickling somewhat slowly is that we have to maintain our own defense needs.  I agree with that.

This is a point that I disagree with.  If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.

Hasn't it largely been proven that Russia isn't a threat already though?  China's coming invasion of Taiwan would seem to be the real concern.

I see the Ukraine war as a front in a broader conflict being advanced by countries challenging the US-led unipolar world order. To the extent Russia is decisively stopped in Ukraine (through both military force and diplomatic/economic means), the stronger message that would send to China on the resiliency of the western alliance. The manner in which the US and Europe have been stingy with sending arms to Ukraine suggest they are not really serious about Ukraine winning the war (I think it's likely if Trump or Hillary were president, Putin would not have invaded). And look at the whinging over Ukrainian grain undercutting European supplies...this lack of seriousness could easily be the green light for China to mount an invasion.

[Radagast]

What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?

My opinion is not enough. The only really game changing equipment deployed to date seems to have been HIMARS and HARMS back in June/July, everything else seems more like game sustaining equipment or minor improvements around the edges. The crazy number of different weapons systems sent is a motley crew. The proof is in the pudding though, and if Ukraine has reclaimed territory at least equal to what Russia has taken since 2022 within the next two months then I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I am disappointed: too little training, too few systems, too little standardization, too late, insufficient range. We can and should have been doing better.

Longer term I still don't see any hope for Russia though. Russia's fundamental position is one of fragility, and they will continue to grow weaker. Ukraine's position is one of fundamental antifragility, and they will continue to grow stronger. When the West's low end and second hand equipment is depleted, they'll just start sending the new and modern equipment. That trend will continue for at least a couple more years, and Putin's only hope for victory is to delay beyond that. With the current trends there won't be anything left of the Russian army or two successor iterations (we are already through the first iteration) by then, so I don't really see how that's possible. The big thing is the unnecessarily large and protracted suffering of the Ukrainian people.

Munitions are the most important thing we can provide. Equipment is nice, but meaningless without the munitions for it. The US has gotten used to precision strikes and trying to limit the amount of munitions used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere over the last 20+ years. The war in Ukraine is not that kind of fight. It's artillery and rockets and missiles and lots of them.

Thousands of anti-tank guided missiles (Javelins, NLAWs, etc.) may have cost tens or hundreds of millions but destroyed billions of dollar's worth of Russian equipment (not to mention thousands of casualties).

Newer equipment is typically going to take longer to train on, have fewer pieces of equipment available, have fewer munitions and spare parts available, and more likely to break down. Think of a car from the 1980s vs one today. Far more electronics and computers to break down and less reliance on sturdy mechanical systems.

I am satisfied with the munition quantity and quality. I know Ukraine complains it is insufficient, but at far as I know that is a typical complaint in war. I'm even ok with the sheer numbers of equipment, but the types are both too many and too few. The armored vehicle supply is like an absurd used car lot got put on a boat. There are Peugeots and Yugos, Fords and Ferraris, vintage Beetles and vintage Bentleys, Teslas and maybe even a few Kias. Not just certain types of models and years either, it is like the entire lot just got sent over in pairs and half dozens and bakers dozens, amounting to hundreds and thousands. That in itself is a logistics, maintenance, and training nightmare. Then there is not enough types: not much with long range has been sent, or aircraft outside old soviet junk, both of which would reduce the need for other munitions. Even if it took 12 months, there is no reason it couldn't be there after 16 months except lack of will and foresight. Waiting until Russia has mostly exhausted its missile supply, and then sending Patriots a couple months after that, I mean really? All around, just really?

[Radagast]

I have a couple of thoughts about why the military supply, at least from the US, has been so slow to ramp up:
1) By gradually increasing it, there's no huge step change that Putin can claim push him over the edge and "made" him use nukes.
2) Cold, calculated realpolitik--this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cripple Russia as a global power for generations, if not permanently.

Those are my leading contenders in that order, in addition to as michael in ABQ suggests beaucratic inertia and incompetence. 1) I can understand playing it safe, but if dictators can say "let me conquer the world, or I will nuke the world!" well fuck we can't let them even think they can get away with that. Might as well send everything we can now. 2) Is immoral. The goal should be minimizing harm to Ukraine, not maximizing damage to Russia even if they richly deserve it.

[Radagast]

This is a point that I disagree with.  If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.

That's actually what I'm saying.  We should take this opportunity to rethink what our defense needs truly are.  I believe we can safely partially deplete our stocks of many systems simply because it takes Russia out of the picture.

Yes. The US could just hand over all equipment and munitions in the European theater to Ukraine, and say "Peace Out". Russia would get shellacked and be unable to invade Europe for decades. No European state has a military capable of projecting power on its tiny neighbor 10km away, so with Russia out of the picture, there'd be no use for the US military to be there anyway.

[pecunia]

Why do they seem so stingy about supplying jet aircraft?  Since the time of Vietnam, the US has excelled in what it's air force can do.  Decent air power could do a lot to neutralize the Russians  It doesn't even have to be US made stuff.  The Saab Gripen could give Ukraine a lot of bang for the buck.

[LennStar]

And look at the whinging over Ukrainian grain undercutting European supplies..

Nobody is whining about that. Europe can easily buy it's wheat somewhere else. It's about all those millions elsewhere that can't and are starving.

It might be unimaginable for you, but food prices are a real power factor in many places of the world. The "Arab Spring" was fueld by many factors, but a main factor was bread prices, especially in Egypt.

Why do they seem so stingy about supplying jet aircraft?

Aircrafts are extremely complicated to maintain, especially in a war far away from supply, and about the least cost-effective weapon that is.
For example, giving Ukraine 5 Gripens with 100 anti-AAA missiles is more effective for air capabilities than giving 10 planes with anti-air munitions.

[lemanfan]

For example, giving Ukraine 5 Gripens with 100 anti-AAA missiles is more effective for air capabilities than giving 10 planes with anti-air munitions.

Sorry, the swede in me caught that.  What is a Gripen in this context?