Renowned MIT professor Max Tegmark calculates there's a "one in six chance of an imminent global nuclear war" that would essentially wipe out all life on earth. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Dod9AWz8Rp4Svdpof/why-i-think-there-s-a-one-in-six-chance-of-an-imminent
I don’t share in his belief that Putin would never accept “Vietnam”, and I think the Pentagon analysts likely understand the situation better, due to their access to classified info if nothing else. Why support Ukraine if the analysts believed that there was never a real possibility of them winning?
When calculating his odds, this analysis doesn’t take into account that Putin and his cronies also know that a nuclear strike on Ukraine carries a high likelihood of escalating this to WW3, in which case they all die anyways. I think it’s more likely that, if it were to get to that point, either Putin would be deposed, or his political enemies arrested and scapegoated to explain their loss. I don’t think Ukraine winning is nearly certain to provoke a nuclear strike.
@dave @Hyolobrika @yogthos
quantitative estimates like this are pointless imo, although the argumentation is interesting
I think the West is softening to the idea of a diplomatic settlement, this fighting serves no one's interest and, current victories notwithstanding, it's hard to see how Ukraine can push Russia out in the long term
my base case would be steady Russian advances until the point where the majority of ethnic Russians peters out and a settlement with Kiev.
The way they win is by continuing to do what they’re already doing. Russia is slowly running out of equipment, and they lack the capacity to rapidly produce more because of sanctions.
When Russia first invaded, about 20% of the tanks being captured/destroyed by Ukraine were Soviet Era (pre-1991). Now, it’s 60%. We’re also seeing a lot more T-62s being captured and destroyed, and those tanks are literally Vietnam-era, have paper-thin armor compared to anything modern, use a different ammo, and require an extra man to operate. Russia is only using them because they’re desperately undersupplied.
How do you beat stuff like HIMARS when your country is rapidly being relegated to Vietnam-era equipment?
@dave @Hyolobrika @yogthos the other interpretation is that they're giving their crap tanks to the local militia after realising the ukes had more firepower than expected
it's unclear what the ratio of local militia to regular Russian forces is, haven't seen any compelling sources
38 if we’re counting the M270s as 2. They’re only used where a high-value target has been identified, but they’re having a big impact because Russia can’t just stack up shitloads of ammo near the frontlines like they were before. Also they can’t keep command posts anywhere near the frontlines.
@dave @Hyolobrika @yogthos where is this information coming from
Screenshot 2022-10-09 at 16-31-20 PiQ no Twitter.png
“A train can move across” is very different than “Fully-loaded trains running at full speed can cross”. Russia ran a small train at low speed across for show. Call me when they’re back up to their normal cadence.
The NAFO guys on Twitter. The US has announced every time they’ve sent HIMARS and how many, so it’s just a matter of keeping track.
By the way, I missed this when it dropped, but apparently we’re now sending Ukraine M30A1s. These are pretty cool, because instead of being a 200lb explosive intended to hit a specific point, it’s an explosive surrounded by 180,000 tungsten beads, designed to shred everything (personnel and unarmored vehicles) in a wide area on impact.
@dave @Hyolobrika @yogthos also, how many HIMARS do the ukes actually have? I saw a source that some of them need to be built and won't arrive for least a year