Russia and Ukraine Current Events
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Duke
Senior Member.
Don't be impressed either way with numbers, the real question is what types of forces are the NKs sending. Technical/engineering troops and special forces can be force multiplers well beyond their numbers. The former would be particularly helpful in helping the Russians become proficient with NK supplied weapon systems and technology. They're also going to give the NK's the opportunity to see how their weapons perform under real combat conditions. Lots of potential lessons learned that could be useful in any future combat between NK and US/Western forces.
Agreed, although I think the Chinese might not be overly enamored with the idea of close, long-term cooperation between the Russians and NK, and especially Russians being deployed in NK. Doubt they would want to be put in a situation where the NKs could play off one against the other to a significant extent.
Chinese/Russian relations have been contentious over the years, including a brutal, six month border war and the Russians contemplating attacks on Chinese nuclear facilites in the late 60s. The Chinese and Russians might be cooperating currently for geopolitical expediency, but I doubt there is a great deal of trust of one other. Won't surprise me to see one of them cosy up to the US again at some point down the road as a counter balance to the other.
The sponsorship of third party forces by the Soviets/Russians in support of various client states/movements over the years is well-known. Remember the Cubans fighting in southern Africa, primarily Angola, in the 70s at the behest of the Soviets against the Portuguese and South Africans? In addition to their escapades in the Caribbean, the Cubans also sent forces to Algeria during their war of independence with France and to Syria for the Yom Kippur War. Wouldn't be surprised to find Cubans in Russia/Ukraine now.
The NKs have also been known to do the same, having sent forces to fight in Vietnam, the Yom Kippur War (Egypt, Iraq), Libya, and a few others that were rumored.
The SKs are already making noises in that direction.
https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-south-russia-troops-ukraine-3bf74624cfa6856edd4f15fb3992bfa0External Quote:
derwoodii
Senior Member.
Its at odds with many of the Kremlin ideas
Russia's State-Sanctioned Bigotry Comes With Costs
https://cepa.org/article/russias-state-sanctioned-bigotry-comes-with-costs/
External Quote:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
On one hand, they'll be better brainwashed. But on the other, they'll be more desperate. The shitballoons stories earlier this year did mention parasitic infections being common, and female defectors have said that malnutrition caused them to stop menstruating for years.
I see that Ukrainian propaganda is already offering quarter to those who want nothing to do with North Korea or Russia, not that I see how the North Koreans will be exposed to it:
Source: https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1849065614746251773#m
Kittens? Am I seeing a joke/snark that doesn't exist?
FatPhil
Senior Member.
At the moment, the war is an almost imperceptible blip in the demographic pyramid. The cost to the nation of a living casualty being higher than a non-living one, one might expect policy to favour the latter (and we have seen footage of people still on crutches being sent back to the front) - that would change the impact to being a barely-perceptible blip. They're also not sending their best, their most productive contributors to the economy. And note that reducing the number of people that the state needs to pay pensions to is economically a positive, so the losses might not be such a great loss to the Russian state. However, the law of dimishing returns will soon kick in regarding pensions, as the male retirement age is about the same as the male life expectancy - many of the zergs in the meatwaves would never have been a pension burden anyway.
Mendel
Senior Member.
A working-age citizen is an economic positive. If you kill off young people (but not pensioners), that's bad.
Oystein
Senior Member
This is shaping up more and more as sliding into a sort of, if not all-out, World War 3.
We currently have 2 hot wars with players from multiple continents involved in significant ways (Israel vs proxies of Iran; Ukraine vs Russia), and two cold conflicts in East Asia (the Koreas, the Chinas) where at least the rethoric is heating up by the week.
And all these conflicts more and more bleed into one another.
Just examples:
Whose side is time on?
What if the US elects a proto-fascist octogenarian friend of Putin and Kim in three weeks?
We currently have 2 hot wars with players from multiple continents involved in significant ways (Israel vs proxies of Iran; Ukraine vs Russia), and two cold conflicts in East Asia (the Koreas, the Chinas) where at least the rethoric is heating up by the week.
And all these conflicts more and more bleed into one another.
Just examples:
- South Korea and Israel are a military technology match made in heaven: Israel has the top high tech wizzardry and plenty of in-the-field experience with 21st century warfare such as air defence and electronics and intelligence integration, South Korea has the modern high military production capacity in more traditional, mass-use items such as armored stuff and munitions, plus plenty of capacity for top electronics. If either country needs to go to a big war, what the other has will be exactly what each needs.
- NATO-member Turkey is happy to do shady business with Russia while also supporting Ukraine - both moves to ramp up their own military capacity (military products already account for 80% of export value!), while meddling at will in the Levante (they are pretty free to fly into Iraq and Syria and drop bombs).
- China somehow sits in the middle, hoping that nothing else escalates too quickly before they escalate on Taiwan: China is far more dependent on oil exports from the Persion Gulf than Europe (which is why they are eager to have Russion oil pipelines rerouted to them) than Europe (North America is practically independent), but Iran is more and more pressured to very soon escalate their conflict (which is primarily with Saudi Arabia - another conflict that is rather cold, only fought via proxy) as Israel knocks out their non-state appendices and threatens to take out their oil exports and/or their key military projects.
- The eternal, unbreakable friendship between China and Russia is actually a rivalry, where China probably will generally have the upper hand, as Russia is going to collapse demographically a bit sooner (helped a lot by war casualties and mass emigration). Hence their move on North Korea.
Whose side is time on?
What if the US elects a proto-fascist octogenarian friend of Putin and Kim in three weeks?
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Not fresh, alas, but freshly leaked:
Obvious disclaimers about intrinsic source bias included, but they've been pretty reliable in the past.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/11/1...nt-previously-used-as-props-to-war-in-ukraineExternal Quote:
Obvious disclaimers about intrinsic source bias included, but they've been pretty reliable in the past.
derwoodii
Senior Member.
7 Ukrainian suicide drones have struck targets in Russia's 5th largest city Kazan.
Source: https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1870458894952341864
It's located 700 km east of Moscow
The Azure Skies building, located in Kazan, Russia, was attacked by Ukrainian drones on December 21, 2024. According to reports, a 37-story residential building, part of the Azure Skies elite complex, was hit by a drone, causing a fire on the upper floors. The Russian Defense
other drones seen
Source: https://x.com/i/status/1870353483213525321
appears similar profile to Textron RQ-7B Shadow200 UAS drone
Source: https://x.com/i/status/1870348947115368724
Source: https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1870458894952341864
It's located 700 km east of Moscow
The Azure Skies building, located in Kazan, Russia, was attacked by Ukrainian drones on December 21, 2024. According to reports, a 37-story residential building, part of the Azure Skies elite complex, was hit by a drone, causing a fire on the upper floors. The Russian Defense
other drones seen
Source: https://x.com/i/status/1870353483213525321
appears similar profile to Textron RQ-7B Shadow200 UAS drone
Source: https://x.com/i/status/1870348947115368724
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: A Russian air defense system reportedly shot an Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer 190 passenger aircraft over the Republic of Chechnya on December 25, after which the plane crashed in Aktau, Kazakhstan. The aircraft was flying from Baku, Azerbaijan to Grozny, Chechnya, and there were 62 passengers and five crew members aboard the plane, of whom 32 reportedly survived the crash.[29] Four Azerbaijani sources familiar with Azerbaijan's official investigation into the crash told Reuters that preliminary investigation results suggest that a Russian Pantsir-S air defense system struck the plane after electronic warfare (EW) jamming caused the plane's communications to malfunction as the plane approached Grozny.[30] A US official told Reuters that there were early indications that a Russian anti-aircraft system may have struck the plane, and Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that aviation experts think that videos of the wreckage suggest that a Russian air defense system hit the plane.[31] Kazakh officials neither confirmed nor denied these preliminary investigation reports, and Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov similarly refused to comment on the plane crash before results of the final investigation emerged.[32] Russian Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviation) Spokesperson Artyom Korenyako claimed that the plane crashed at 0930 Moscow time after the pilot chose to land at the Aktau airport after the plane "collided with birds."[33] Russian sources also originally made contradicting claims that the plane was rerouted to Mineralnye Vody Airport, Stavropol Krai (approximately 270 kilometers northwest of Grozny) and Makhachkala Airport (about 180 kilometers southeast of Grozny) due to the threat of drone strikes or foggy weather in Grozny.[34]
A Russian insider source, who is reportedly affiliated with Russian law enforcement, claimed that an air defense missile likely struck the plane at an altitude of 2,400 meters approximately 18 kilometers northwest of the Grozny airport over Naursky Raion.[35] The insider source noted that there are several Russian military bases in Naursky Raion that have air defense systems and that the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) recently placed several Pantsir systems in Chechnya following Ukrainian drone strikes against the region.[36]
The insider source later published an alleged full transcript of the communication between the plane's crew and a dispatcher in Grozny.[37] ISW is unable to authenticate the transcript. The alleged transcript suggests that the pilot attempted to land the plane three times in Grozny between 0736 and 0811 Moscow time and that the crew informed the dispatcher several times of the complete failure of the GPS and communication systems as soon as the plane began to descend. The dispatcher also apparently lost radar contact with the plane on numerous occasions. The alleged transcript suggests that the pilot decided to turn the plane around towards Baku at around 0811 before contacting the dispatcher at 0816 with an alarming report that the plane's controls had failed and that a flock of birds had struck the plane. The insider source noted that the crew may have mistaken an explosion for a collision with a flock of birds. The alleged transcript suggests that the pilot informed the dispatcher that the crew needed help, that the plane was losing control, and that the plane's hydraulics had stopped working. The alleged transcript suggests that the pilot began to search for an alternative airport in Russia for an emergency landing, notably asking the dispatcher about the weather in the Mineralnye Vody Airport and then requesting information about the Makhachkala Airport. The alleged transcript indicated that the pilot also contacted dispatchers at the Rostov-on-Don Airport (about 744km northwest of Grozny). Eurozone reported that sources in the Azerbaijan's government stated that Russian authorities did not allow the aircraft to land at any Russian airports and ordered the plane to fly across the Caspian Sea towards Aktau despite the pilot's requests for an emergency landing.[38] Reuters reported that the Makhachkala Airport was closed on the morning of December 25 and that Russian officials did not explain why the plane crossed the Caspian Sea.[39]
External Quote:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: Accident: Azerbaijan E190 near Aktau on Dec 25th 2024, lost height and impacted ground
By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Dec 25th 2024 09:30Z, last updated Thursday, Dec 26th 2024 15:13Z
An Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer ERJ-190, registration 4K-AZ65 performing flight J2-8243 from Baku (Azerbaijan) to Grozny (Russia) with 62 passengers and 5 crew, had diverted from Grozny to Aktau (Kazakhstan) due to weather, subsequently attempted to divert to Makhachkala (Russia) but aborted the approach to Makhachkala due to fog before diverting to Aktau, where the aircraft attempted an emergency landing on Aktau's runway 11 at 11:28L (06:28Z) about one hour after the aborted approach to Grozny. The aircraft was turning onto final approach with gear down but lost height and impacted ground off the runway in a near landing but nose down attitude and caught fire. Rescue services were able to rescue 29 people including all cabin crew alive. 38 bodies including both flight crew were recovered.
There are not a lot of confirmed facts yet.
An aircraft accident investigation in the US usually takes 2 weeks to issue a preliminary report, and months to a year to issue a final report. However, this event would be similar to the MH-17 shootdown, which took court proceedings to bring out all of the facts.
My (unconfirmed!) take is this:
• The aircraft tried to achieve its scheduled landing in Grozny. The weather did not permit a visual landing (where the pilots need to see the runway from afar). Russian electronic countermeasures aimed at potential Ukrainian drones jammed the aircraft's guidance systems (GPS, ILS?) and identification beacon (ADS-B transponder), foiling an instrument approach that can be flown with reduced visibility.
• The pilots gave up after 3 tries and decided to land elsewhere instead. In aviation lingo, they diverted to an alternate airport. This is pre-planned for every flight, and every airliner is fueled sufficiently to allow for such a diversion safely. The alleged transcript suggests they simply wanted to return to Baku (Azerbaijan), where they took off.
• While gaining altitude, and possibly with its identification beacon still jammed, the aircraft was unexpectedly hit by anti-aircraft fire at around 8000 ft. (2400m) altitude, still near Grozny.
• At first, the pilots thought they had been hit by birds, which can also manifest as a bang or thump and can cause malfunctions.
• Because the pilots noticed malfunctions (and possibly for other reasons), the pilots decided on an emergency landing at a close-by airport. They would have evaluated Mineralnye Vody Airport and Makhachkala Airport as options.
• It is likely that the anti-aircraft fire caused leaks in all 3 of the aircraft's hydraulic systems. On that type of aircraft, when the hydraulic pressure drops to zero in all of these systems, the control surfaces (rudder, elevator, ailerons etc.) no longer work. At this point, the only way to steer the aircraft is through its engines: the pilots can pull back the throttle on one engine to effect a turn, or pull back or push both throttles the descend or ascend. Because the engines react with a delay to the throttles, this is very hard, and rarely succeeds in a successful landing.
• Considering this, the pilots probably abandoned the attempt to land at an urban airport, where a failure would leave them no chance of survival, and would likely injure people on the ground. Diverting to Aktau (Kazakhstan) would have given them an hour to practise controlling the aircraft, and the flight would be mostly over water, so they would not have to worry about crashing into a mountain, and could fly low. Altitude would be a factor if the aircraft had become depressurized, as hypoxia starts to set in at above 10,000 feet of altitude if the aircraft is depressurized, leading to confusion and unconsciousness. This is why aircraft carry oxygen masks.
• On the first approach to Aktau, the aircraft was not fully aligned with the runway, so the pilots turned back to try again.
• Normally, in this situation, aircraft wings are configured for slower flying through extending flaps and slats, providing better lift and protection against stalling. But the hydraulics failure prevented that.
• It looks like the hard-to-control aircraft turned a little too tightly while flying a little to slowly. The wing on the inside of the turn moves slower than the wing on the outside, and lost lift first (it stalled). The wing then dropped, rolling the aircraft.Without controls, and low above the ground, the pilots could not recover, and the aircraft crashed.
• It is also possible that the pilots tried to land on the open ground rather than at the airport, and failed because the aircraft was too hard to control with just the engines.
• The aircraft broke apart when it impacted the ground. The tail section separated from the rest of the aircraft. Since it was not affected by the post-crash fire, the passengers there had a chance to survive.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Yesterday, it was still a "bird strike", according to the Russians, but disbelief in their narrative was widespread:
Today, it's an apology:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/azerbaijan-airlines-plane-crash-kazakhstan-russia-ukraine-war/External Quote:
Today, it's an apology:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/28/world/europe/kazakhstan-russia-azerbaijan-plane-crash.htmlExternal Quote:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
That's not an apology *for* it happening, it's just an apology *that* it involved russian airspace/airports:
But who's he blaming for the russian airports not coping with the situation? Yes, you guessed it, the other side:External Quote:
Use your own preferred translation services, don't trust me.External Quote:
Ann K
Senior Member.
No, it's not an apology, but the president of Azerbaijan is now calling for one, as well as compensation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/12/29/azerbaijan-plane-crash-russia/External Quote:
Mendel
Senior Member.
This is not a debunking thread (yet), so I'll go into a few more details without particularly sourcing them (though I could if someone made a case that I should). One of the sources is a leaked radio communications transcript (via VChK-OGPU) which feels genuine.
• Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer ERJ-190, registration 4K-AZ65, was performing flight J2-8243 from Baku (Azerbaijan) to Grozny (Russia).
• They had planned on a GPS-guided instrument landing at Grozny.
• A localizer landing was impossible because the ILS had been removed months prior. This was presumably due to the runway getting an extension (works are ongoing).
• There was GPS interference/spoofing in the Grozny area, and it affected that flight.
• The pilots tried a direct (NDV) approach with help from ATC, but rejected the landing twice. This is aviation lingo for "the pilots did not want to land because they felt it might not go well". It does not mean that Grozny tower refused them permission.
• The pilots decide to return to Baku.
• While maneuvering at 8000 ft, the aircraft suffered a malfunction. The pilots attributed this to a bird strike. From the cockpit, they would not have seen the damage directly. For comparison:
Article: A big bird can sound literally like an explosion with a direct impact. I thought I had an explosion in an aircraft that turned out to be a 20lb turkey buzzard.
• It is reported, and confirmed by Putin, that Ukraine flew 3 drones into Chechnya, and Russian anti-aircraft batteries fired on them.
• Russia closed parts of its airspace 5 minutes after J2-8243 was hit ("Carpet").
• With the malfunction, the pilots could not possibly land in Grozny. Again, a pilot's view (FullMetalJackass on pprune):
• Because the aircraft is crippled, the aircraft crashes during the second landing attempt. The pilots' decisions did save some of the passengers and crew. The pilots are heroes for not losing hope, and achieving what they did.External Quote:
• The aircraft was built in Brazil, and Brazil's CENIPA is going to analyse the flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) that were recovered from the aircraft. They hold important clues to what exactly happened on this flight.
(De-)Bunk:
• The aircraft did not carry a passenger oxygen tank, thus it could not have exploded. The passenger oxygen generators are solid-state chemicals.
• There is no evidence that Russia did not permit the aircraft to land. It is unclear whether they would have permitted an emergency landing after the airspace was closed, but it is also reasonable to assume the pilots did not ask for one.
• There is no evidence that Russian ATC ordered the flight to ditch the aircraft in the sea. Clearly, the pilots were not forced to do that; it remained their decision, and while it looks like they considered it near the Kazakh shore, they ultimately preferred to attempt a solid ground landing.
• The aircraft was hit by what looks like anti-air weaponry near Grosny, and that caused the loss of all hydraulic systems, crippling the aircraft. The pilots themselves mistakenly identified and reported this as bird strike initially.
tl;dr
1) Russia shot at flight J2-8243, and caused it to be unable to land.
2) Russia was late in acknowledging this (later than Iran in 2020).
3) There is no evidence that Russia took steps to cover up the incident.
Edited to add line about CENIPA.
Last edited:
captancourgette
Active Member
Is this true?
Note - I'm not sure of the times, its not helping that all 3 places are in different times zones +3,+4,+5 GMT
https://zoom.earth/maps/satellite/#view=41.319,48.3813,7z/date=2024-12-25,08:00,+1
Baku looked decent for several hours, not sure if it's closer, seems to be about the same distance as Aktau
Ann K
Senior Member.
In other matters, and perhaps angered by Europe's support of Ukraine, Russia is being accused by Finland of damaging underwater cables in the Baltic, with an unanswered question as to whether it was deliberate or accidental.
https://www.npr.org/2024/12/31/nx-s1-5243302/finland-russia-severed-undersea-cable-shadow-fleetExternal Quote:
John J.
Senior Member.
There are some reasons to believe that Mr Putin might have been an unreliable source of information in the past.
Russian air defence systems shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine in 2014; the Russian government attempted to blame Ukrainian actions.
I won't pretend to know about aircrew or air traffic control protocols in the event of serious in-flight damage to an aircraft, but as Azerbaijan 4K-AZ65 was in the vicinity of Grozny airport, I can't help but think Grozny would have been the safest option, even if there was drone activity, not a protracted flight over water.
Mendel
Senior Member.
FR24 attempted to reconstruct the aircraft track from the ADS-B tfansmitted heading and airspeed data, because there's a large interval without GPS. That track shows they did head directly towards Aktau.
Source: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/azerbaijan-airlines-e190-crashes-near-aktau/
Mendel
Senior Member.
For an airport to be a safe option, you have to find it first. The crew were unable to find the Grosny airport while their aircraft was in good working order, due to GPS jamming, a low cloud ceiling, and reduced horizontal visibility.
For an airliner to land safely, typically it has to align with a straight line with a 3⁰ downslope (glide path) that ends at the start of the runway (threshold). This alignment has to match both in altitude and ground track. It's kinda like an invisible rail in the sky. If the pilot flying can't see the runway from afar, they can use instrument guidance, but at some point they have to break out of the clouds and see the runway (ignoring Cat III for a moment, which wasn't an option here). With a low cloud ceiling, this happens too late for the pilots to land safely, so painful experience has established "minimum decision altitudes" by which a pilot must either be "stabilized on the glide path" with the runway in sight, or reject the landing, go around, and try again or divert. (This is what happened on the first two attempts.)
What this means is that even if the airport is right there, if you can't find it it's useless.
They could find Aktau (CAVOK = clouds and visibility "oll" clear), and Aktau also had the advantage of a large obstacle-free area near the airport that could serve in a pinch. Due to this decision, no-one on the ground was harmed, and the survivors were quickly found and received medical attention. It'll be interesting to learn whether the longer lead time resulted in a better emergency response at Aktau.
Diverting to Aktau was 100% a pilot decision. The cockpit voice recorder holds a record of what the pilots discussed when they made their decision (as well as all radio communucations), so that's going to be proven (or disproven) after CENIPA retrieves the recording.
Last edited:
John J.
Senior Member.
Ah, an excellent point, and supported by the reasoning beforehand.
I remain a bit perplexed; there must have been thousands of flights pre-GPS where the destination had clouded over by the time an aircraft arrived, and where diverting to another airport or returning home might have been impractical. As you say, the cockpit voice recorder should clarify things.
captancourgette
Active Member
Fair enuf, I trust FR24 have done a good job, though I'm not really seeing how they're going from the end of the purple line to where the cyan line commences, seems unoptimal
I was going off what I read from the WIKI page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_Airlines_Flight_8243
and if you look at where the GPS signal starts again, it seems to be coming for that direction.External Quote:
Also from
I'm not really seeing that in the FR24 reconstruction, though I suppose it could of just been for a few secondsExternal Quote:
Mendel
Senior Member.
the mountains south of Grosny are "unoptimal" when you want to land an aircraft. so they went around them and then approached Grosny from the South, probably because of the wind direction and the direction of the runway.
Wikipedia doesn't have secret information, but editors with an axe to grind. The transcript I've read has the crew asking for the weather in Makhachkala, which means they considered diverting there, but hadn't decided yet. At 5:25 the pilots set course directly for Aktau.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
There are still thousands of flights by small aircraft (general aviation) whose pilots are not instrument rated and fly by "visual flight rules" (VFR). If one of these pilots flies into cloud, their average time is 178 seconds until they lose control of their plane. Weather reports and weather forecasts play a huge role in aviation. When the choice is to divert or to crash, diverting is not so "impractical" at all, is it?
Flight planning accounts for this. Airliners load enough fuel to reach their destination, then fly to the pre-planned alternate airport, and then 30 minutes of fuel on top of that. I expect that flight J2-8243 had enough fuel to return to Baku without refueling at Grosny, plus the aforementioned extra, so diverting to Aktau was not an issue. Getting the aircraft down in one piece was their main concern, and unfortunately the cards were stacked against them.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: 22/ VChK-OGPU reports that the Russian authorities are trying to concoct a more palatable version of events, that "the missiles from the Pantsir were fired at [a Ukrainian] drone, they missed the target and unsuccessfully self-destructed near the AZAL plane."
23/ In this version, the plane was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather than the Pantsir having fired at it by mistake. The Investigative Committee's head Alexander Bastrykin has reportedly given a priority order to find the remains of the supposed UAV.
24/ However, there seems to be no evidence of a drone existing. VChK-OGPU says, "the personnel of the Russian Guard have been combing an area of about 40 square kilometers for a second day in search of parts of the drone. And they can't find it." /end
If this is true, then the anti-aircraft crew saw the plane as an unidentified target due to broad-band jamming, and shot at it thinking it was a Ukrainian drone.
