WW3? Ukraine/US vs. Donbass/Russia

[JackMcThorn]

I was in the american navy from 1993-1999, half of the time on destroyers that were originally built in the 196os. My primary task was that as a machinist and manufacturing various components out of mostly metal for ships, submarines, and aircraft.

The ocean is a pretty unforgiving environment to begin with but on deployments to the Persian Gulf, you also have sand blowing across the gulf that you have to contend with, in addition to 3o year old vessels with constant maintenance and upgrades.

You would not believe how often technicians from various MIC companies would ride the ships at opportune times to provide support on [mostly electronic equipment, radars, some weapons systems, etc.].

There is always something breaking. Ship's personnel do they best that they can, then it is up to shore command for depot level repairs, and then the worst case scenario it is up to the shipyard which is mostly civilian workers.

I cannot speak much about army equipment, but by the sounds of it, it is similar.

American stuff is not as solid as you might think - to begin with. Of course they have sent all the old equipment to Ukraine because they don't want to deal with it in the field. The american technicians that are in uniform know what works and what doesn't. They often report these issues to the chain of command to no avail. I'll give you an example.

On board ship we had 2 systems for processing sewage waste for about 3oo souls on one destroyer. Each system was designed to send sewage into the ocean when at sea. I think it was greater than a few miles from the shore. Sea water was used to discharge the sewage, so when ever a toilet flushed, the contents immediately left the system to overboard. Otherwise, each system had one holding tank where the sewage was stored until it could be pumped at sea, or to the conventional shore sewage system.

Well these two systems had a pump that was of a unique design. A design that might work great in theory; but poorly in execution. [I was on 2 different destroyers with the same problem.] The pump wouldn't pump to shore. So the guys reported the pump failure every time we got into port and sometimes a new pump would be ordered to replace the old one, but the original problem was never fixed [and new pumps are expensive to keep replacing]. So raw sewage from 3oo souls from one destroyer would be sent overboard [in port] by God knows how many ships. [and this was over 2o years ago.]

It's sad really. I saw a lot of good military technicians leave the navy. Why? Because they could make twice as much money as a civilian with 1/2 of the aggravation.

[Ravenlocke]

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...84446015569920

¤=[Post Update]=¤

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...31361620672512

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...31438804271105

¤=[Post Update]=¤

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...66692327849986

[Ravenlocke]

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...28059046744068

[Spiral]

Re the artillery, I spent hours looking into this because it didn't really add up.

The "M777" to use the name everyone is using, is a British gun, designed by BAE systems for the British army & paratroops with the view that artillery had limited tactical use in modern warfare esp for a small force like UK has which has to punch well above it's weight.

This is because, as 9ideon pointed out NATO expects to use air power to deliver ordinance at distances.

The fact that the US army has taken it on as their main field gun is somewhat odd, as they traditionally like to use bullets, shells & bombs like they are going out of fashion, so you would think they would have developed their own heavy duty gun that could be used 24/7 like the Russian ones, but they too have obviously adopted the the "air power is all" mantra.

What is playing out on the ground must clearly show that "real" warfare (as opposed to dealing with tribesmen with AKs & IEDs) really still does require serious artillery, esp with the kind of AA systems that are now fielded by modern forces.

I strongly suspect that there has been some serious re-appraisals within the "Top Brass", & the armaments companies are drawing plans as we speak, much like they have had to re-evaluate the tiny calibre bullets now used by NATO that have proved fairly hopeless against fanatics on capatagon.

[9ideon]

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by 9ideon (here)

Mashika

And then there was a picture i could not find, of a rocket that was fielded in 1984 and the last maintenance recorded on the log was also at some point in 1984, the US sent a rocket batch they bought in 1984 and that had never been tested or gone through maintenance since then? How is that even possible?

I doubt that these rockets are from the US, the amount of wars they have fought would have included the M270 (Rocket Artillery 1983).

The M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (M270 MLRS) is an American armored, self-propelled, multiple rocket launcher. The first M270s were delivered to the U.S. Army in 1983. The MLRS has since been adopted by several NATO countries.

Therefore I do no think they're from the US, let's see which countries might have these M270's.

On 7 June 2022, British defence secretary Ben Wallace announced that the UK would send three (later increased to six) MLRS to aid Ukrainian forces. On 15 June, Germany's Scholz cabinet also announced it would send three of its MARS vehicles from German Army stocks. Ukraine announced they had received the first M270s on 15 July. The German defence secretary Christine Lambrecht announced the arrival of the vehicles they contributed on 26 July 2022.

It has to be Germany, they have not really been doing a lot of that old war, they'd have older rockets still in stock, there's loads of 'm there not used over the years.

Some 1,300 M270 systems have been manufactured in the United States and in Western Europe,[vague] along with more than 700,000 rockets. Production of the M270 ended in 2003, when a last batch was delivered to the Egyptian Army.

No, those were small rockets for TOW launchers i believe, not for larger systems like the one you mention

There is a well recorded history by now of anti-tank missile failures, and i wonder if a lot of it has to do with expired rockets and bad/outdated systems on top of the bad batteries

"US Anti-Tank Missiles Are ‘Struggling To Fire’ In Ukraine; Leaked Documents Reveal A Poor Hit-To-Miss Ratio"
https://eurasiantimes.com/us-anti-ta...raine-javelin/

Most hits are propaganda articles, you know, 300 missiles disabled 280 of Putin's tanks, crap like that.

Have found something on this page (there are 35 different PDF's downloadable for this science magazine, perhaps someone should look for the library).

A mathematical model is developed for an anti-tank missile and its guidance algorithms. The aerodynamic model is separated into two parts, the airframe and external lifting surfaces in order to model damage to the airframe. Radar data is compared to that of the proposed model and it is shown that the model accurately replicates the true flight dynamics.

Two types of field handling damage are modeled, a damaged mid-body wing with 50% of its planform area missing, and an un-deployed mid-body wing. Monte Carlo simulations are performed for each type of damage and the eight possible mid-body wing locations. The results predict that the anti-tank guided missile’s performance in response to damage is extremely sensitive to the radial location of damage.

Vertical mid-body wing damage had little effect on performance while damage to horizontal and adjacent mid-body wings resulted in significant failures. The failure mode demonstrated was not a large increase in impact errors, but rather failure of the seeker used for guidance due to excessive roll and yawing of the airframe.

Fig. 16 shows the roll and yaw angles for both damaged and missing mid-body wing 1 according to Fig. 6. Mid-body wing 1 is horizontal and generates lift in normal flight.

Reduction or absence of lift from the right side of the airframe creates a roll torque that must be compensated by the guidance algorithms. The roll torque produced will be positive when climbing and in altitude hold but negative during terminal guidance.

Roll for an undamaged airframe remains small throughout the flight. However, a significant increase in roll is observed during climb and a negative roll during terminal guidance with a mid-body wing is missing. A damaged wing shows similar changes but to less an extent of a missing mid-body wing.

Variation in roll from damage also affects yaw. As the airframe rolls, the asymmetry from mid-body wing lift and drag forces results in yawing torque. In addition to asymmetry, saturation of the control fins is significant because in order to cancel large roll torques from damage during terminal guidance, the fins must be differentially canted.

If large amounts of deflection are used to roll stabilize the airframe, then less control is available for pitch and yaw control. The effect of both rolling and yawing motion from damage can be seen in the cross range in Fig. 17.

During the final seconds of terminal guidance the large asymmetric forces generated result in a final swerve away from the target.

Check that article, real science, loads of equations and so on, very impressive.

Anyway what do you make of this Mashika?

[Ravenlocke]

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...01749662535680

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...01757489053706

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...01760009912320

[Ravenlocke]

https://twitter.com/coope125/status/1564686827541372928

https://twitter.com/coope125/status/1564204192272728064

https://twitter.com/coope125/status/1564304406572666881

[Ravenlocke]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine...rn-11661792188

Ukraine War Is Depleting U.S. Ammunition Stockpiles, Sparking Pentagon Concern

The level of one type of combat rounds in storage is ‘uncomfortably low,’ says a defense official

A series of blasts at military facilities have prompted residents and tourists to evacuate Crimea, an area of Ukraine that has been controlled by Russia since 2014. Here’s why the peninsula, a key base for Moscow’s forces, is a new front in this war. Photo composite: Eve Hartley
The U.S. has during the past six months supplied Ukraine with 16 U.S. rocket launchers, known as Himars, thousands of guns, drones, missiles and other equipment. Much of that, including ammunition, has come directly from U.S. inventory, depleting stockpiles intended for unexpected threats, defense officials say.

One of the most lethal weapons the Pentagon has sent are howitzers that fire high-explosive 155mm ammunition weighing about 100 pounds each and able to accurately hit targets dozens of miles away. As of Aug. 24, the U.S. military said it had provided Ukraine with up to 806,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition. The U.S. military has declined to say how many rounds it had at the start of the year.

In recent weeks, the level of 155mm combat rounds in U.S. military storage have become “uncomfortably low,” one defense official said. The levels aren’t yet critical because the U.S. isn’t engaged in any major military conflict, the official added. “It is not at the level we would like to go into combat,” the defense official said.

The U.S. military used a howitzer as recently as last week to strike at Iranian-backed groups in Syria, and the depletion of 155mm ammunition is increasingly concerning for a military that seeks to plan for any scenario.

As of Aug. 24, the U.S. military said it had provided Ukraine with up to 806,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition. A Ukrainian service member with howitzer shells this summer.Photo: STRINGER/REUTERS
The Army said the military is now conducting “an ammunitions industrial base deep dive” to determine how to support Ukraine while protecting “our own supply needs.” The Army said it also asked Capitol Hill for $500 million a year in upgrade efforts for the Army’s ammunition plants. Meanwhile, the service is relying on existing contracts to increase production of ammunition, but it hasn’t signed new contracts to account for the higher amounts it will need to replenish its stocks, according to Army officials.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley has been conducting monthly reviews of the U.S. arsenal to determine whether the readiness levels are still appropriate given the needs for the ammunition in Ukraine, according to U.S. military officials. The U.S. last week provided Ukraine with a different size howitzer ammunition, 105mm, a reflection, in part, of the concern about its stocks of 155mm ammunition, the officials said.

The looming ammunition shortage isn’t for lack of funds, according to those familiar with the issue. The U.S. announced this week that it was setting aside nearly $3 billion for long-term aid intended to help Ukraine, bringing the total spent on weaponry for the country to $14 billion, and the Biden administration’s Pentagon budget request for next year is $773 billion.

“This was knowable. It was foreseeable. It was forewarned, including from industry leaders to the Pentagon. And it was easily fixable,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington.

What is needed, she said, is for the government to spend money to fix the problem.

“There are some problems you can buy your way out of,” she said. “This is one of them.”

The Pentagon’s buying process generally starts with the military determining its

requirements, which are then reviewed and then bids solicited from the private sector. But since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, industry officials have complained that the Pentagon hasn’t always communicated those requirements, which often change, creating delays, and leaving defense contractors unable to prepare for more production.

Dormant supply lines often can’t be switched on overnight, and surging production of active lines can take time. Companies are already producing 155mm ammunition, but not at the capacity yet that the Pentagon will need to replenish its stocks.

In the U.S., it takes 13 to 18 months from the time orders are placed for munitions to be manufactured, according to an industry official. Replenishing stockpiles of more sophisticated weaponry such as missiles and drones can take much longer.

Even a yearlong delay is a problem precisely because ammunition shortages can pop up quickly given the rate they can be drawn down in a conflict.

“Nations assume the risk that war is not going to take place, and have the assumption they can react when they need to,” said Brad Martin, director of the Institute for Supply Chain Security at the Rand Corp. “It simply might not be true that you can ramp up” production quickly, he added.
Defense and congressional officials familiar with the issue attribute the looming shortage to a number of factors. The Pentagon’s bureaucracy has been slow to provide new contracts to replenish its stocks and has been reluctant to share its long-term needs with industry.

They also attribute part of the problem to the lack of coordination between part of the Pentagon that works to quickly supply Ukraine with weapons and the bureaucracy responsible for buying equipment. “The contracting process is much slower than the drawdown, and there is just not a lot you can do about that,” one congressional staffer said.

Speaking on an earnings call July 19, Jim Taiclet, chief executive of Lockheed Martin Corp., said the Pentagon has yet to put the contracts in place or coordinate with industry to buy more supplies, a process that often takes two to three years.

The Defense Department needs to “shift gears” if it wants industry to prepare for more orders, he said. “And I can tell you the clutch isn’t engaged yet.”

[Mashika]

Posted by 9ideon (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by 9ideon (here)

Mashika

And then there was a picture i could not find, of a rocket that was fielded in 1984 and the last maintenance recorded on the log was also at some point in 1984, the US sent a rocket batch they bought in 1984 and that had never been tested or gone through maintenance since then? How is that even possible?

I doubt that these rockets are from the US, the amount of wars they have fought would have included the M270 (Rocket Artillery 1983).

The M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (M270 MLRS) is an American armored, self-propelled, multiple rocket launcher. The first M270s were delivered to the U.S. Army in 1983. The MLRS has since been adopted by several NATO countries.

Therefore I do no think they're from the US, let's see which countries might have these M270's.

On 7 June 2022, British defence secretary Ben Wallace announced that the UK would send three (later increased to six) MLRS to aid Ukrainian forces. On 15 June, Germany's Scholz cabinet also announced it would send three of its MARS vehicles from German Army stocks. Ukraine announced they had received the first M270s on 15 July. The German defence secretary Christine Lambrecht announced the arrival of the vehicles they contributed on 26 July 2022.

It has to be Germany, they have not really been doing a lot of that old war, they'd have older rockets still in stock, there's loads of 'm there not used over the years.

Some 1,300 M270 systems have been manufactured in the United States and in Western Europe,[vague] along with more than 700,000 rockets. Production of the M270 ended in 2003, when a last batch was delivered to the Egyptian Army.

No, those were small rockets for TOW launchers i believe, not for larger systems like the one you mention

There is a well recorded history by now of anti-tank missile failures, and i wonder if a lot of it has to do with expired rockets and bad/outdated systems on top of the bad batteries

"US Anti-Tank Missiles Are ‘Struggling To Fire’ In Ukraine; Leaked Documents Reveal A Poor Hit-To-Miss Ratio"
https://eurasiantimes.com/us-anti-ta...raine-javelin/

Most hits are propaganda articles, you know, 300 missiles disabled 280 of Putin's tanks, crap like that.

Have found something on this page (there are 35 different PDF's downloadable for this science magazine, perhaps someone should look for the library).

A mathematical model is developed for an anti-tank missile and its guidance algorithms. The aerodynamic model is separated into two parts, the airframe and external lifting surfaces in order to model damage to the airframe. Radar data is compared to that of the proposed model and it is shown that the model accurately replicates the true flight dynamics.

Two types of field handling damage are modeled, a damaged mid-body wing with 50% of its planform area missing, and an un-deployed mid-body wing. Monte Carlo simulations are performed for each type of damage and the eight possible mid-body wing locations. The results predict that the anti-tank guided missile’s performance in response to damage is extremely sensitive to the radial location of damage.

Vertical mid-body wing damage had little effect on performance while damage to horizontal and adjacent mid-body wings resulted in significant failures. The failure mode demonstrated was not a large increase in impact errors, but rather failure of the seeker used for guidance due to excessive roll and yawing of the airframe.

Fig. 16 shows the roll and yaw angles for both damaged and missing mid-body wing 1 according to Fig. 6. Mid-body wing 1 is horizontal and generates lift in normal flight.

Reduction or absence of lift from the right side of the airframe creates a roll torque that must be compensated by the guidance algorithms. The roll torque produced will be positive when climbing and in altitude hold but negative during terminal guidance.

Roll for an undamaged airframe remains small throughout the flight. However, a significant increase in roll is observed during climb and a negative roll during terminal guidance with a mid-body wing is missing. A damaged wing shows similar changes but to less an extent of a missing mid-body wing.

Variation in roll from damage also affects yaw. As the airframe rolls, the asymmetry from mid-body wing lift and drag forces results in yawing torque. In addition to asymmetry, saturation of the control fins is significant because in order to cancel large roll torques from damage during terminal guidance, the fins must be differentially canted.

If large amounts of deflection are used to roll stabilize the airframe, then less control is available for pitch and yaw control. The effect of both rolling and yawing motion from damage can be seen in the cross range in Fig. 17.

During the final seconds of terminal guidance the large asymmetric forces generated result in a final swerve away from the target.

Check that article, real science, loads of equations and so on, very impressive.

Anyway what do you make of this Mashika?

I would need to go through it, will try to do in the following days

One thing i can say is, as far as the Kornet missile, and in my experience, it doesn't fail that way (or i have lacking experience over a long period of time enough to show those issues). The kornet is a bit difficult to use properly but it's very effective, i don't know truly how it compares to similar systems from the US or NATO, i mean modern fully functional ones and not old versions like what i think Ukraine is receiving

That page looks very interesting, great find, thanks

[Ravenlocke]

https://twitter.com/ReadovkaWorld/st...57937963950080

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1564613913508909057

https://twitter.com/SputnikInt/statu...82730239033345

[Ravenlocke]

https://tass.com/pressreview/1499755...m_social_share

Press review: Why EU officials met in Prague and cracks appear in Berlin’s Ukraine policy

Vedomosti: IAEA may leave permanent observers at Zaporozhye plant

A mission from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is on its way to the Russian-controlled Zaporozhye nuclear power plant (NPP), according to agency director Rafael Grossi. A delegation of 13 people is expected to stay there until September 3, but a group of agency specialists may remain at the nuclear facility to monitor the situation in the future, Russia's Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov said. According to Vedomosti, Moscow is interested in this visit, looking forward to the mission's assistance in ensuring the station’s security.

READ ALSO
IAEA mission to arrive in Zaporozhye NPP within days — diplomat
The shelling of the Zaporozhye nuclear power facility in Energodar by the Ukrainian Armed Forces has intensified this month, the newspaper writes. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian side accused the Russians of self-inflicted attacks. Artillery strikes occasionally caused damage to various structures and power lines, and the nuclear power plant was even disconnected from the Ukrainian energy system on August 25.

I The IAEA mission has no political authority and can only examine how and to what extent the NPP follows health and safety standards, expert in international law Sergey Glandin told Vedomosti. Based on the review's findings, the UN Security Council may pass a resolution requiring countries to embark on or refrain from taking specific steps.

The IAEA mission is in charge of determining the extent of the damage caused by the shelling, as well as the safety of units and infrastructure. The most that the delegation can do with regards to the shelling is to list specific hits in the report, Atominfo editor Alexander Uvarov.

https://tass.com/politics/1499841?ut...m_social_share

IAEA inspection team arrives in Kiev — CNN

It is reported that the experts led by Grossi will also have to evaluate staff conditions at the plant and take urgent measures to ensure safety there


MOSCOW, August 30. /TASS/. A 14-member team from the International Atomic Energy Agency led by its Director General Rafael Grossi has arrived in Kiev, CNN reported on Tuesday.

The delegation was seen by CNN reporters in a Kiev hotel. No information is yet available on when the mission will arrive at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant.

Grossi said earlier that the IAEA mission to the Zaporozhye plant had been formed and would arrive there later this week. The inspectors would assess the physical damage to the plant and check the facility’s security and safety systems. The experts led by Grossi will also have to evaluate staff conditions at the plant and take urgent measures to ensure safety there.

The Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, located in the city of Energodar, is controlled by Russian troops. The Russian Ministry of Defense has said Ukrainian forces have inflicted several strikes on the territory of the station in recent days, using, in particular, drones, heavy artillery and multiple launch rocket systems. In most cases, the attacks are repelled by air defense systems, but some shells hit the infrastructure and the area around the nuclear waste repository, thereby posing a threat of radiation leakage.

[Ravenlocke]

https://www.rt.com/russia/561816-rus...ensive-losses/

Russia releases new estimate of Ukrainian counter-offensive losses

Russian forces have taken out hundreds of Ukrainian troops and dozens of tanks and armored military vehicles after repelling an ill-fated offensive in the south of the country, the Defense Ministry claimed on Tuesday.

A statement added that officials believe the failerd operation was mounted at the personal order of President Vladimir Zelensky.

“The effective actions by the Russian forces destroyed 48 tanks, 46 infantry fighting vehicles, 37 other armored combat vehicles, eight pickups with heavy machine guns and more than 1,200 Ukrainian servicemen in one day,” they outlined. The Ministry added that Kiev sustained these losses during a botched offensive whose directions led to Nikolaev, Krivoy Rog, and other cities in southern Ukraine.

The ministry went on to say that Moscow’s forces routed the units of the 128th Ukrainian Mountain Assault Brigade, which had been redeployed from western Ukraine to take part in the operation. “Five service members from this brigade laid down their arms and gave in,” the ministry added.

Russian forces also wiped out “more than 200 militants, including about 40 foreign mercenaries” as well as more than 20 armor units, according to the military.

The Russian Defense Ministry’s statement comes after its claim on Monday that the Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kherson had “failed miserably.” At the time, the ministry put Kiev’s losses at 26 tanks, 23 armored fighting vehicles, nine more armored vehicles, two jets and at least 560 troops.

Ukrainian attempt at counter-offensive has failed – Russia
Ukrainian attempt at counter-offensive has failed – Russia
Kiev has been talking about a “Kherson counteroffensive” all summer, while soliciting more weapons and ammunition from its Western backers. In a video address to the people on Sunday, Zelensky vowed that “Ukraine will return” to Donbass – as well as Kharkov, Zaporozhye, Kherson, and “definitely to Crimea.”

Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”

In February 2022, the Kremlin recognized the Donbass republics as independent states and demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join any Western military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked.

[Ravenlocke]

https://www.rt.com/news/561810-us-uk...olabs-purpose/

US government issues statement on biolabs abroad

Biological laboratories in Ukraine and other foreign countries were never used to develop weapons, the US government claimed on Monday, in a joint statement with other participants in the program.

Nine countries, including Ukraine, are included in the explanation, which was issued months after Russia accused Washington of maintaining a secret overseas germ warfare program.

“Our governments have partnered openly and transparently through the Biological Threat Reduction Program, which is a part of the US Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program,” the statement read.

“These partnerships are devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes; they have nothing to do with weapons.”

Apart from the US and Ukraine, the statement was released by Armenia, Georgia, Iraq, Jordan, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and the Philippines.

Covid-19 may have originated in US biolab – Lancet chair READ MORE: Covid-19 may have originated in US biolab – Lancet chair
The countries added that the purpose of the program is to “protect the health of humans and animals in our countries, including in the prevention, detection, and control of infectious disease outbreaks.”

They said the importance of surveillance and response to infectious disease has been highlighted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

In March, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed it had found documents in Ukraine which showed that Ukrainian biological laboratories partnered with the US in research involving dangerous pathogens, such as plague and anthrax. President Vladimir Putin said in April that Russia has evidence that the laboratories were used to develop “components of biological weapons.”

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky denied that Kiev was developing any weapons of mass destruction and said the laboratories were only conducting “ordinary” scientific research.

[Ravenlocke]

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...10535735771141

[Ravenlocke]

https://twitter.com/Ukraine66251776/...47974935855104

https://twitter.com/TheNewDonbass/st...58945129472000

https://twitter.com/GonzaloLira1968/...04896355602433

https://twitter.com/imetatronink/sta...85506590994433

[Ravenlocke]

Here’s Mark Sleboda with his explanation of the current Russia hatred, Russophobia.

https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status...76186910248960

[Mashika]

Posted by Ravenlocke (here)
https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...10535735771141

The Russian military channels are starting to talk a lot about this, not good news, mostly insults and people considering him a traitor and the person who ruined Russia for a generation and so on. It's actually sad to watch

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by Ravenlocke (here)
https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...10535735771141

The Russian military channels are starting to talk a lot about this, not good news, mostly insults and people considering him a traitor and the person who ruined Russia for a generation and so on. It's actually sad to watch

Masha, what's your personal view of Gorbachev? I was saddened just now to hear the news (and I wish they'd posted a more youthful photo, as most in the west remember him! ) — I had always felt he was a good guy, doing his best for what is now Russia.

But I may well not understand (or know about) a very great deal. Am I being naive?

[Mashika]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by Ravenlocke (here)
https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...10535735771141

The Russian military channels are starting to talk a lot about this, not good news, mostly insults and people considering him a traitor and the person who ruined Russia for a generation and so on. It's actually sad to watch

Masha, what's your personal view of Gorbachev? I was saddened just now to hear the news (and I wish they'd posted a more youthful photo, as most in the west remember him! ) — I had always felt he was a good guy, doing his best for what is now Russia.

But I may well not understand (or know about) a very great deal. Am I being naive?

Growing up, i saw him a few times (3 or 4), i always thought he meant well and he felt sad and tired somehow, or maybe frustrated or disappointed in life? Don't know

I don't think he meant bad, he truly believed in what he was doing, but it turned out that he was mislead in several ways, he trusted too much on people he should have not and then the bad times came in the 90s, everyone blamed it on him and i don't think he ever recovered from that

As people in the west says, i think he "put all his eggs on just one basket"

[Mashika]

In a way, maybe the right word is "he felt defeated"

I think he realised he had been used by several people, and that all the hard work he did and the future he envision was not going to happen, it was a fake vision and he got mislead and pushed into enabling the destruction of Russia

That's how i see it and from some stuff i learned over the years it looks like it was true, he meant to create a new country, but the real plan behind the scenes was to tear Russia down to a town of peasants and poor workers, and by the time he understood that it was too late to stop it