On 2022-10-10 10:22, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:cb0abc93-bd19-4eb6-9244-88a9e8fc671dn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> At least some of the eccentric millionaires funding COVID-19
>> disinformation appear to have wanted the disease to kill off as
>> many working-class Americans as possible.
>
> Democrats are like that, yes.
>

LOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL!

Wait, what? You were serious?

LLOLOLOLOLOLBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

In article <robertaw-F2784B.09514210102022@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>In article <t0h8kh9cj78248hmt1ktfe1bs7ocq7ici2@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 08:49:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 9:57:05 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >
>> >> Be interesting to see where /that/ goes. Freedom of Religion is in the
>> >> Constitution; Freedem to Outlaw Abortion is not.
>> >
>> >The actions several states have taken in response to the repeal of
>> >_Roe vs Wade_ have, very definitely, confirmed the truth of the stereotype
>> >of the pro-life movement as being chiefly concerned with enforcing their
>> >vision of sexual morality, rather than being genuinely concerned about
>> >protecting the unborn while also being respectful of women.
>> >
>> >This, of course, is hardly surprising, seeing as we're dealing with people
>> >who embraced Trump as their instrument for changing the Supreme
>> >Court - at the cost of thousands of American lives needlessly lost to
>> >COVID-19.
>> >
>> >At least some of the eccentric millionaires funding COVID-19 disinformation
>> >appear to have wanted the disease to kill off as many working-class
>> >Americans as possible. And their goals, no doubt, were furthered by the
>> >fact that oximeters - the most common kind, that shine a light through the
>> >skin - don't come with an adjustment to correct for the effects of different
>> >skin colors.
>> >
>> >So during the worst of the pandemic, black people didn't get put on
>> >ventilators
>> >soon enough. On top of being less likely to have work-from-home jobs.
>>
>> Myself, I'm waiting for them realize that the solution to "white
>> replacement" is make abortion illegal for white women ... and
>> mandatory for everybody else.
>>
>
>I thought it was contraception that is the biggest contributor for the
>low fertility rate of the Baby Boomer females (70%+ white) and their
>daughters.

(Hal Heydt)
I remember reading an article (probably in SciAm) decades ago
about a study that showed an immediate and sharp drop in
fertility as soon as electric lighting was introduced in any
given area. It meant there were other things one could do in the
evenings...

In article <7lh8khltmt3o9eel0s0hikjtf7tptajdoq@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>
>Has a nice ring to it.

(Hal Heydt)
I don't think you need the last two words of your epithet.

On 10/10/2022 9:18 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
> As was said back in the day: The Soviets had reasons to worry,
> they were the only country completely surrounded by hostile Communist
> countries.
>
*multiple thumbs up*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/10/2022 9:51 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <t0h8kh9cj78248hmt1ktfe1bs7ocq7ici2@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 08:49:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 9:57:05 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>>> Be interesting to see where /that/ goes. Freedom of Religion is in the
>>>> Constitution; Freedem to Outlaw Abortion is not.
>>>
>>> The actions several states have taken in response to the repeal of
>>> _Roe vs Wade_ have, very definitely, confirmed the truth of the stereotype
>>> of the pro-life movement as being chiefly concerned with enforcing their
>>> vision of sexual morality, rather than being genuinely concerned about
>>> protecting the unborn while also being respectful of women.
>>>
>>> This, of course, is hardly surprising, seeing as we're dealing with people
>>> who embraced Trump as their instrument for changing the Supreme
>>> Court - at the cost of thousands of American lives needlessly lost to
>>> COVID-19.
>>>
>>> At least some of the eccentric millionaires funding COVID-19 disinformation
>>> appear to have wanted the disease to kill off as many working-class
>>> Americans as possible. And their goals, no doubt, were furthered by the
>>> fact that oximeters - the most common kind, that shine a light through the
>>> skin - don't come with an adjustment to correct for the effects of different
>>> skin colors.
>>>
>>> So during the worst of the pandemic, black people didn't get put on
>>> ventilators
>>> soon enough. On top of being less likely to have work-from-home jobs.
>>
>> Myself, I'm waiting for them realize that the solution to "white
>> replacement" is make abortion illegal for white women ... and
>> mandatory for everybody else.
>>
>
> I thought it was contraception that is the biggest contributor for the
> low fertility rate of the Baby Boomer females (70%+ white) and their
> daughters.
>
They are working on that. One step at a time. ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:18:27 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr687rt6naqkdlph7v28@4ax.com>,
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10-a268-5ca59c1c0234n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>
>>>>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>>agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>>constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>>base in Sevastopol.
>>>>
>>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>
>>>What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>the exit from the Black Sea?
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>part of planning for any significant action.
>
>Not to mention Murmansk, or Vladivostok (although neither are
>particularly convenient, they are blue-water ports).

Fair enough but we were discussing access and eggress from the Black
Sea which is rather impractical via Murmansk or Vladivostok.

Is Murmansk ice free 12 months a year?

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>> >On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> >>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> >>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>> >>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>> >>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>> >>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>> >>>agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>> >>>constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>> >>>base in Sevastopol.
>>> >>
>>> >>(Hal Heydt)
>>> >>That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>> >>fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>> >>defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>> >>not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>> >>agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>> >
>>> >What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>> >the exit from the Black Sea?
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>
>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>
>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>
>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>
>Has a nice ring to it.

It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
of Kerch are relatively easily defended.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:43:54 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>A lot of effort has been invested in ensuring medical outcomes
>for POC are much worse than for Palid Americans, and that
>definitely includes the odds of surviving childhood.

Surely you're not saying that has actually been the case by intent
since that would come under the definition of genocide.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:18:37 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>>What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>the exit from the Black Sea?
>
> But there is a lot of "blue water" in the Black Sea. Not to
>mention other Fleets.
>
> As was said back in the day: The Soviets had reasons to worry,
>they were the only country completely surrounded by hostile Communist
>countries.
>
My understanding has always been that "blue water" meant access to the
world's oceans 12 months a year. Thus the Mediterranean
(notwithstanding Gibraltar and Suez) has always been considered "blue
water" (and to be sure German U-boats transitted between the Atlantic
and Med despite the Royal Navy's best efforts during WW2) while the
Dardenelles going southwards is much more easily blocked either with a
chain or mines.

On 10/10/2022 11:06 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:43:54 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> A lot of effort has been invested in ensuring medical outcomes
>> for POC are much worse than for Palid Americans, and that
>> definitely includes the odds of surviving childhood.
>
> Surely you're not saying that has actually been the case by intent
> since that would come under the definition of genocide.

In some parts at some points in US history it has been.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <6m1akhhb33as94dfomhn2kpdjsasnll6ei@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:18:27 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr687rt6naqkdlph7v28@4ax.com>,
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10-a268-5ca59c1c0234n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>>>agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>>>constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>>>base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>
>>>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>>That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>>fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>>defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>>not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>>agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>>
>>>>What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>>the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>
>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>part of planning for any significant action.
>>
>>Not to mention Murmansk, or Vladivostok (although neither are
>>particularly convenient, they are blue-water ports).
>
>Fair enough but we were discussing access and eggress from the Black
>Sea which is rather impractical via Murmansk or Vladivostok.
>
>Is Murmansk ice free 12 months a year?

(Hal Heydt)
So far as I know, no. Or rather...not yet.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:03:16 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:18:27 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Not to mention Murmansk, or Vladivostok (although neither are
>>particularly convenient, they are blue-water ports).
>
>Fair enough but we were discussing access and eggress from the Black
>Sea which is rather impractical via Murmansk or Vladivostok.
>
>Is Murmansk ice free 12 months a year?

Yes. That is why it was used in WWII for one of the lend-lease routes.
I suspect the same current that gives the British Isles their
temperate climate, swinging up and around Norway.

And, of course, with the Arctic ice pack declining every year, it is
more so now than it was during WWII.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> >On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> >>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>>> >>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>> >>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>> >>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>> >>>agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>> >>>constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>> >>>base in Sevastopol.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>(Hal Heydt)
>>>> >>That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>> >>fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>> >>defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>> >>not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>> >>agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>> >
>>>> >What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>> >the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>>
>>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>
>>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>
>>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>
>>Has a nice ring to it.
>
>It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>of Kerch are relatively easily defended.

A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.

So much for the supply routes. And, with no supply routes, the
soldiers run out of beans & bullets and that's the end of the game for
Putin.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> >On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> >>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> >>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>>>> >>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>> >>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>> >>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>> >>>agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>> >>>constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>> >>>base in Sevastopol.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>> >>That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>> >>fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>> >>defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>> >>not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>> >>agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>>> >the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>>>
>>>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>
>>>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>
>>>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>
>>>Has a nice ring to it.
>>
>>It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>
>A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.

(Hal Heydt)
Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.

I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
rail transport for men and materiel.

It does cause one to wonder what would happen if someone managed
a missile strike on a train carrying ammunition as it crossed
onto that particular bit of the bridge...

Observation: Looking at the photos of the damaged bridge and the
way the roadbed segments fell, even without seeing a navigation
chart of the area it is plain that the water is quite shallow
except where the ship channel is.

>So much for the supply routes. And, with no supply routes, the
>soldiers run out of beans & bullets and that's the end of the game for
>Putin.

Per an article on the BBC today, quoting the head of the UK GCHQ,
the Russians are running out of munitions even without losing
supply routes. Cutting supply routes would just make that happen
faster for isolated units.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:7t1akh9eb0vgb5jbcu8af3cqvhdrm78jad@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:43:54 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>A lot of effort has been invested in ensuring medical outcomes
>>for POC are much worse than for Palid Americans, and that
>>definitely includes the odds of surviving childhood.
>
> Surely you're not saying that has actually been the case by intent
> since that would come under the definition of genocide.
>
I suspect that *is* what he actually believes, whether he's willing
to say it out loud or not.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>>to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>>of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>
>>>>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>
>>>>Has a nice ring to it.
>>>
>>>It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>>of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>
>>A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>>the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>>over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>>damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>
>I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>rail transport for men and materiel.

What else could they use? Their air transport fleet is small,
likely less than 60% mission-ready and sitting ducks for
Ukrainian SAMs.

>It does cause one to wonder what would happen if someone managed
>a missile strike on a train carrying ammunition as it crossed
>onto that particular bit of the bridge...

Some of the damage was caused by fire from rail tank cars:

Per DW, The blast "set fire to seven oil tankers being carried by rail to Crimea,"

>
>Observation: Looking at the photos of the damaged bridge and the
>way the roadbed segments fell, even without seeing a navigation
>chart of the area it is plain that the water is quite shallow
>except where the ship channel is.
>
>>So much for the supply routes. And, with no supply routes, the
>>soldiers run out of beans & bullets and that's the end of the game for
>>Putin.

There are reports of long-standing graft and theft from
Russian military supply depots.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-10

>
>Per an article on the BBC today, quoting the head of the UK GCHQ,
>the Russians are running out of munitions even without losing
>supply routes. Cutting supply routes would just make that happen
>faster for isolated units.

The Ukranians seem to be prioritizing destruction of supply depots
behind their lines.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rJLoIL.1tq8@kithrup.com:

> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat
>><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
>>>>>Heydt wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> >On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com
>>>>>> >(Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> >>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S
>>>>>> >>>Person wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get
>>>>>> >>>> to continue to lease the base at Sevastopl for their
>>>>>> >>>> fleet. They would, of course, have to pay the lease
>>>>>> >>>> payments not paid during their illegal occupation and
>>>>>> >>>> the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would
>>>>>> >>>promptly agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO
>>>>>> >>>and adopt a peace constitution similar to Japan's. So
>>>>>> >>>they would not *have* a fleet to base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>>> >>That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue
>>>>>> >>water" fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need
>>>>>> >>to coastal defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A
>>>>>> >>Coast Guard, even if not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still
>>>>>> >>needs ports (though not, I'd agree, necessarily ones
>>>>>> >>leased from some other country).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >What does "blue water" mean in this context given the
>>>>>> >Turks control the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser
>>>>>> as its flagship. There are international agreements
>>>>>> covering transit into and out of the Black Sea. So
>>>>>> Sevastopol could be a significant Naval Port for the
>>>>>> Russians. They might have to be sure to have ships on their
>>>>>> preferred side of the Bosphoros as part of planning for any
>>>>>> significant action.
>>>>>
>>>>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus
>>>>>passage to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's)
>>>>>fleets in or out of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>
>>>>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>
>>>>Has a nice ring to it.
>>>
>>>It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the
>>>Straits of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>
>>A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so
>>will, if the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked,
>>and a bridge over the Kerch Straits that was in the news
>>recently for being damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to
>>bring it down.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that
> the damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
> suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis
> of how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.

Given the construction of the bridge, it would be pretty difficult
to actually destory it.

Plus, damaging it to the point of not being usable, but still
repairable, is preferable anyway, because they can keep doing that
over and over, until the Russians figure it out.
>
> Per an article on the BBC today, quoting the head of the UK
> GCHQ, the Russians are running out of munitions even without
> losing supply routes. Cutting supply routes would just make
> that happen faster for isolated units.
>
Indeed. But then, he's been saying that since February. Nearly word
for word.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:byi1L.251382$51Rb.55999@fx45.iad:

> The Ukranians seem to be prioritizing destruction of supply
> depots behind their lines.
>
That is because their strategists are pretty smart.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote in
> news:7t1akh9eb0vgb5jbc...@4ax.com:
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:43:54 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> > Nicoll) wrote:

> >>A lot of effort has been invested in ensuring medical outcomes
> >>for POC are much worse than for Palid Americans, and that
> >>definitely includes the odds of surviving childhood.

> > Surely you're not saying that has actually been the case by intent
> > since that would come under the definition of genocide.

> I suspect that *is* what he actually believes, whether he's willing
> to say it out loud or not.

A routine medical test these days is to put an oximiter on a person's
finger. That shines light through the finger, and it's possible to find
out how well-oxygenated a person's blood is.

Given that it relies on shining light through skin, though, it's only
reasonable to think that a person's skin color might affect the
required calibration. Of course it's understandable that initially,
they calibrated these devices on a sample of white people - but to
neglect to _also_ determine what corrections are needed for people
of other skin colors... well, negligence on that level almost does seem
like it would require effort.

And the result has been black people not getting put on ventilators
as soon as white people when they turn up in hospitals with COVID-19.
Excess deaths resulted.

I mean, really. By now we should know better than that.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:54fa1f98-fa26-4026-a4b2-56f740394d29n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote in
>> news:7t1akh9eb0vgb5jbc...@4ax.com:
>> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:43:54 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com
>> > (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> >>A lot of effort has been invested in ensuring medical
>> >>outcomes for POC are much worse than for Palid Americans, and
>> >>that definitely includes the odds of surviving childhood.
>
>> > Surely you're not saying that has actually been the case by
>> > intent since that would come under the definition of
>> > genocide.
>
>> I suspect that *is* what he actually believes, whether he's
>> willing to say it out loud or not.
>
> A routine medical test these days is to put an oximiter on a
> person's finger. That shines light through the finger, and it's
> possible to find out how well-oxygenated a person's blood is.
>
> Given that it relies on shining light through skin, though, it's
> only reasonable to think that a person's skin color might affect
> the required calibration. Of course it's understandable that
> initially, they calibrated these devices on a sample of white
> people - but to neglect to _also_ determine what corrections are
> needed for people of other skin colors... well, negligence on
> that level almost does seem like it would require effort.
>
> And the result has been black people not getting put on
> ventilators as soon as white people when they turn up in
> hospitals with COVID-19. Excess deaths resulted.
>
> I mean, really. By now we should know better than that.
>
None of this in any way relates to whether or not James is a racist
moron, even more extremist than you.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 10/11/2022 10:56 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>>>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>>>>>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>>>>>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>>>>>> base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>>>>> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>>>>> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>>>>> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>>>>> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>>>>> the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>> to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>> of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>> Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>> would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>
>>>> Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>
>>>> Has a nice ring to it.
>>>
>>> It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>> of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>
>> A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>> recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>> the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>> over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>> damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
> damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
> suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
> how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>
> I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
> be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
> bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
> This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
> rail transport for men and materiel.
>
From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <byi1L.251382$51Rb.55999@fx45.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>>>to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>>>of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>
>>>>>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>
>>>>>Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>
>>>>It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>>>of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>
>>>A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>>recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>>>the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>>>over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>>>damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>>damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>>suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>>how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>>
>>I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>>be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>>bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>>This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>>rail transport for men and materiel.
>
>What else could they use? Their air transport fleet is small,
>likely less than 60% mission-ready and sitting ducks for
>Ukrainian SAMs.

(Hal Heydt)
The usual alternative, on land, is trucks. That was, after all,
the rationale behind building both the Autobahn and US Interstate
Highway networks. Not to mention that one of the few specific
pieces of equipment Eisenhower credited with helping win WW2 in
Europe was the 2.5 ton truck.

The Russian reliance on rail--which tends to be vulnerable to air
attack--suggests some combination of lack of trucks, reliablility
of trucks they do have, drivers, and roads. Hence my point that
taking out the rail portion of the Kerch bridge would be pretty
effective. There's also the fact that you can move massive
tonages of goods with a single train, requiring a very small
operating crew.

>>It does cause one to wonder what would happen if someone managed
>>a missile strike on a train carrying ammunition as it crossed
>>onto that particular bit of the bridge...
>
>Some of the damage was caused by fire from rail tank cars:
>
> Per DW, The blast "set fire to seven oil tankers being carried by
>rail to Crimea,"

Clearly the Russians were a lot less concerned about the thermal
damage to rails and road bed than the US would be in the same
circumstances. Hence my suggestion to hit a train hauling ammo.

>>Observation: Looking at the photos of the damaged bridge and the
>>way the roadbed segments fell, even without seeing a navigation
>>chart of the area it is plain that the water is quite shallow
>>except where the ship channel is.
>>
>>>So much for the supply routes. And, with no supply routes, the
>>>soldiers run out of beans & bullets and that's the end of the game for
>>>Putin.
>
>There are reports of long-standing graft and theft from
>Russian military supply depots.
>
>https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-10

I've seen that sort of report for some decades. Add to it, flat
out bad manufacturing. I saw one claimb long ago that 90% of the
materiel supplied to the Soviet Army (and, given recent events,
one may well suspect that nothing has changed), was unuseable.
And that's averaging across everything from boots to ICBMs.

>>Per an article on the BBC today, quoting the head of the UK GCHQ,
>>the Russians are running out of munitions even without losing
>>supply routes. Cutting supply routes would just make that happen
>>faster for isolated units.
>
>The Ukranians seem to be prioritizing destruction of supply depots
>behind their lines.

Always a good choice, depending on what weapons you have to hand.
Of course, if the supplies never *get* to the depots, that's even
better.

On 10/6/2022 1:16 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:90d28bc8-440e-4792-9d2d-d9ef9c08be25n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:06:50 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>> news:rJC8x...@kithrup.com:
>>>> In article
>>>> <7b287035-a931-4cfb...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:02:56 PM UTC-6, Robert
>>>>> Woodward wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does significant include cities in the USA that support a
>>>>>> Russian Orthodox church?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably not. Putin is not _that_ crazy. Bullies pick on
>>>>> those who they see as weaker than themselves. Ukraine, not
>>>>> the United States, in the case of Putin and Russia.
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> I don't know... The Soviet Union used--occasionaly--to insist
>>>> that the Czar had no right sell land "owned by the people"
>>>> referring specifically to Alaska.
>>>>
>>> Some of Putin's toadies have made noises about reclaiming
>>> Alaska, but Putin himself has poo-pooed the idea.
>>
>> I tend to think this is just minions under an absolute ruler
>> trying to one-up each other in how loyal they can be.
>
> I'm inclined to agree. They have a lot of experience at saying what
> they believe he wants to hear, and very little experience with what
> he *needs* to hear.
>
> So far, though, he has, if barely, enough raw survival instinct to
> avoid threatening to invade the United States. So far.
>
>> You'll see
>> this more clearly in NK, where we learn that Kim Jong-un is "too
>> perfect to need to urinate or defecate".
>>
>> When a dictatorship reached that point, it gone.
>>
> And yet, Kim is still in power in NK.

And getting his daily cheese fix flown in from Switzerland.

Lynn

In article <ti4kjt$1659k$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 10/11/2022 10:56 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>>>>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>>>>>>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>>>>>>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>>>>>>> base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>>>>>> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>>>>>> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>>>>>> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>>>>>> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>>>>>> the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>>> to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>>> of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>> Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>> would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>
>>>> It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>>> of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>
>>> A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>> recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>>> the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>>> over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>>> damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>> damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>> suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>> how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>>
>> I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>> be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>> bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>> This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>> rail transport for men and materiel.
>>
> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
>were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
>if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
>possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
>first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.

(Hal Heydt)
That's what I would have expected, but the articles I've seen say
that the line is in service. Presuming that it's dual track,
perhaps one track is still in use and the one that had the
burning tank cars on it isn't. I'd be concerned that the bridge
structure itself was damaged, but I tend to be risk-averse in
such things.

There is, naturally, a question about them finding a "competent
civil engineer" to oversee fixing it properly as--if even one set
of rails is out of service--going to be a lot of pressure to get
it open again.

In article <rJLw54.1JI2@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>
>The Russian reliance on rail--which tends to be vulnerable to air
>attack--suggests some combination of lack of trucks, reliablility
>of trucks they do have, drivers, and roads.

The Russians reportedly have a delightfully non-mechanized system
for moving cargo on and off vehicles. No pallets or forklifts. I
imagine that is as much a part for truck-delivered cargo as it
is trains, though.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll