Excellent read and some of these tactics would be still applicable in urban settings but the Russian army is in a very different state than in the 90s, early 2000s.
Although I ponder how you could defend against RPGs launched from a skyscraper or high rise.
The article made me wonder what exactly their different state might be. Certainly they learned from Chechnya, at the time. But at the same time, I remember watching Motorola goofing around and then getting blown up from way back in 2014 and thinking, "this is not someone who's learning others' lessons." Yet it's also somebody RUS put in charge of significant combat elements. These people were doing so much improvisation.
So I wonder, what updated, material structures are there that are in use in RUS tactics since that time; can any of them be pointed out? What evidence do we have? etc.
Yup, they learned they need higher numbers. It’s weak to think the russian have a strong army. I imagine the propaganda of fear has worked, but they can easily be eliminated _with_ the right equipment and tech.
they can easily be eliminated _with_ the right equipment and tech
That's true of nearly any military threat, but the question is, does Ukraine have that equipment and if not, can they receive and be trained on it quickly enough for it to be useful?
Kiyv is a modern megapolis with hundreds of highrises, and skyscrapers forming urban canyons.
----
Russia deployed 60 BTGs to frontlines with 40 being held back behind lines.
Their losses now are 3-4 BTGs in 2 days. Some more were routed, or damaged, and may return.
At 3.5 BTGs per day, Ukraine needs to hold for 2 more weeks to make succesful Russian invasion with takeover of the whole country impossible.
Loss of half of invading force means retreat to any sane general.
My fear now is that they are mostly using conscripts now, not the professional units, and new hardware. It may be that they are using cannon fodder to expend defender resources before pushing in witch crack troops.
----
Excerpt on RPG 7:
"In December 1994, the Russian Army entered the break-away Republic of Chechnya and attempted to seize the Chechen capital of Grozny from the march. After this attempt failed, the Russian Army spent two months in deliberate house-to-house fighting before finally capturing the city.(18) During the fighting, the Russian conscript force was badly mauled by the moremature, dedicated Chechen force. During the first month of the conflict, Russian forces wrote off 225 armored vehicles as nonrepairable battle losses. This represents 10.23% of the armored vehicles initially committed to the campaign.(19) The bulk of these losses were due to shoulderfired antitank weapons and antitank grenades.
The Chechen forces were armed with Soviet and Russian-produced weapons and most Chechen fighters had served in the Soviet Armed Forces. The Chechen lower-level combat group consisted of 15 to 20 personnel subdivided into three or four-man fighting cells. These cells had an antitank gunner (normally armed with the RPG-7 or RPG-18 shoulder-fired antitank rocket launcher), a machine gunner and a sniper.(20) Additional personnel served as ammunition bearers and assistant gunners. Chechen combat groups deployed these cells as anti-armor hunter-killer teams. The sniper and machine gunner would pin down the supporting infantry while the antitank gunner would engage the armored target. Teams deployed at ground level, in second and third stories, and in basements of buildings. Normally five or six hunter-killer teams simultaneously attacked a single armored vehicle. Kill shots were generally made against the top, rear and sides of vehicles. (See diagram 1) Chechens also dropped bottles filled with gasoline or jellied fuel on top of vehicles.(21) The Chechen hunter-killer teams tried to trap vehicle columns in city streets where destruction of the first and last vehicles will trap the column and allow its total destruction.
The elevation and depression angles of the Russian tank barrels were incapable of dealing with hunter-killer teams fighting from basements and second or third-story positions and the simultaneous attack from five or six teams negated the effectiveness of the tanks' machine guns. The Russians attached ZSU 23-4 and 2S6 track-mounted antiaircraft guns to armored columns to respond to these difficult-to-engage hunter-killer teams.(22)"
> Is it say possible to run a production quality server that can handle hundreds of thousands of concurrent users on digital ocean lets say?
Absolutely. I used to work as an SRE on Mozilla's WebPush infrastructure. Every running Firefox in the world establishes a connection to it; that means it peaks at tens of millions of concurrent connections every day. We could easily handle hundreds of thousands of connections on a couple CPU cores and gigs of RAM.
Although most connections were usually idle, we also regularly pushed messages to every connected client (e.g. when a collection in our remote settings service was updated).
What libraries like this could you really extract "performance/$" from? Sounds like a mostly financial metric.
It's so situational that you cannot say outright exactly how much something cost in different scenarios. Doing so requires strict metrics about other things at the same time, and could only be done as an analysis of what happened, not what will happen in the future. Subtle bugs and things like just using a different data structure would impact the performance, down to the tiniest detail.
If you're so adamant to see metrics, you could use TechEmpower's framework tests, latest one placing 5th Actix in the "Composite score" (https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r20&hw=...), as a result of being pretty high up in the specific benchmarks. But even with that information, it doesn't mean it'll be the 5th fastest framework when you use it.
I guess the point is: do you own benchmarks for the specific areas where you need it to be fast, calculate what your costs would be for hosting it, and you'll have your "performance/$".
The truth is there isn’t an awful lot of difference between the artist frameworks. Actix-web was one of the first though, so the reason to choose it over others would be that it’s a bit more built out feature wise.
Actix-Web actually differentiates itself from most other Rust servers in that it runs multiple per-thread runtimes as opposed to a single work-stealing runtime. This probably doesn't matter to most, but if you really care about latency, it might be a factor to consider.
Thanks I had quite a laugh reading your last sentence because most peers here in Berlin couldn't be bothered to report anything that doesn't directly impact them.
For people living somewhere out rural shthole in West Germany perhaps might be triggered enough to file a report with the myriad of administrative concerns available to the spoiled citizen
How will Germany pay for Russian oil if they cannot use SWIFT anymore? I know! Our politicians will simply use whatever financial system that Russia will propose.
It would be even possible to trade a fleet of AMGs for a week of oil if need be. Removing SWIFT would only delay trade between Russia and Germany not hinder it in anyway.
In fact bartering system would produce more efficiencies, a bullet proof AMG G-wagon for instance would fetch more oil than a regular C-class offered to Putin's low ranking officers!
All in all, Ukraine gains nothing from this action, it would only give Putin the political ammunition to sell the narrative that Russia is under attack.
The US certainly stands to gain everything and risk nothing in this region and its puzzling to me why Ukraine would choose this as a hill to die on as if their self sacrifice would move the hearts and minds of NATO officers on some emotional basis
Germany wouldn’t pay for gas and oil, and deliveries would stop. Reserves are probably high enough to last into spring, so there’d be about 9 months to find alternatives before next winter.
Russia, meanwhile, would be bankrupt within a few months.
The problem isn't oil itself but rather the byproducts, namely CO2 that is the cause of global warming and there just isn't enough of an impact from switching from modern ICE to EVs, rather the biggest source of CO2 emissions are the countries people in the West are outsourcing to make cheap goods.
It appears the CO2 emission standards can be achieved overnight simply by boycotting of all goods produce in countries where there is zero qualms about CO2 emissions, namely coal based power plants, which Western allied nations are more than happy to sell and point the finger at the said country they are exploiting.
But imagine telling virtue signaling West coast individual who believes he/she has superior moral values while happily consuming products produced in Authoritarian states under the threat of violence and exploitation of children that they need to trade their comfort for a greater collective.
If a society can't even come to agreements over wearing masks, there's zero chance such society can cut back on our reliance on the Petrodollar because doing so would put them on the same level of discomfort as other developing nations.
Leave it to third world countries to fix it while happily consuming and fueling the product of CO2 emissions and reminding them what a shthole country they live in.
This is my observation as a German looking into the West's mindset, its riddled with hypocrisy and self-contradictory ethic system aimed at distracting its citizens from the truth that their comforts are at the cost to this planet and rest of humanity.
We enjoy what we have because others could not have it and there is zero chance individualistic societies can reverse its mindless competition for vanity consumption.
As a German citizen, you should be aware that your country just veto’s sanctions on Russia so that they could keep the flow of natural gas coming. Your ex-Chancellor decommissioned your nuclear power plants so that you would buy more Russian gas, and he now is on the board of Gazprom and heads the company behind Nordstream 2. Also, petroleum cars are one of your biggest industries. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
> It appears the CO2 emission standards can be achieved overnight simply by boycotting of all goods produce in countries where there is zero qualms about CO2 emissions, namely coal based power plants, which Western allied nations are more than happy to sell and point the finger at the said country they are exploiting.
You just spent paragraphs virtue signaling while turning up your nose at people less harmful than your own. Clearly you care enough to keep coming back you glutton for punishment :P
> This is my observation as a German looking into the West's mindset, its riddled with hypocrisy and self-contradictory ethic system aimed at distracting its citizens from the truth that their comforts are at the cost to this planet and rest of humanity.
I think people are reading this, perhaps incorrectly, as you considering Germany and yourself to be on the outside of this phenomenon, rather than a part of it.
I have not stated my opinion on lithium production only the difference to oil.
And yes it's the co2 but the co2 is always the issue when we talk about climate change.
If we get ecopolitical: I think lithium itself is right now much better to extract from earth then oil as it will help to transition away from fossil fuels and I'm not blind to the fact that my existence creates struggles for other humans.
Good response I will concede that lithium seems our best bet given the current situation but I think ICE cars still have lot of room for CO2 reduction. While we are on topic of cars, I would slap additional environmental tax for old classic cars or straight piped V8, V10, V12. One does not need so many cylinders to get from point A to B.
Like when you have level 1 unlocked and lvlq creates a lot of money and you are at the point to continue to buy more and more expensive upgrades for lvl 1 or to save up to start to invest in lvl2.
If the market can just do what it does with ice cars and in parallel work on ev I would totally agree. We could do much more with ice.
But we know that there is a huge necessary investment curve for ev. When is the right time to stop investing money time and brain time for ice and start putting it in EV?
I believe they are not independent.
Funny enough I think old companies are getting more frightened then ever afer Tesla, apple, Sony, Amazon are investing into ev development.
Independent of this, ice to ev transition takes already relatively long in Germany and similar countries. This will take even more time in countries with less GDP.
For ICE we are chasing the final 0.1% improvements. There are a few of them left, but each round eliminates more from the future things to find. Even if they all work out, total we are looking at most a couple percent improvement.
The same applies (maybe worse) to electric motors, but the efficiency of electric motors is substantially better.
there is a fair amount of work yet to be done with Batteries, but even there we know theoretical limits and are closing in on them. (Ask a chemist what they are). if you want to make a contribution to cars battery technology is currently where there is the most room for a big improvement.
Note, I have no idea what the costs for any of the above is. It maybe that ICE investments are still more cost effective. I doubt it, but I don't know. Not matter what improvements will be expensive.
80% is the theoretical limit and we are struggling to get past 30% but I forsee dramatic economic incentives to increase this a lot higher. Doing so might raise costs of production however
80% is the theoretical limit for what? AFAIK the theoretical limit for an Otto cycle engine is somewhere around 46%, and we're getting pretty close already.
tbh what is the harm done to Alphabet/Youtube here? Bunch of alleged russian bots mass report youtuber's account temporarily and Youtube reversed their incorrect ban.
It seems to me the system is working as intended as demonstrated by the reversal of the bans being reported 90 minutes ago.
title written by OP is obvious clickbait. Youtube isn't banning accounts that support Ukraine, the automated queue mod system's threshold has been breached and after a human review on the AI's decision, the bans were reversed.
This constant pandering to us-vs-them partisan narrative will only drive American policy makers to not weigh real geopolitical consequences in the long run but their own re-election prospects
The parent poster never said their "side" was Democrat or Republican, only that it was Facebook's political agenda. Facebook's agenda is promoting the maximum amount of outrage so it can increase engagement. You can play all sides of the political spectrum to achieve that.
I didn't and I am not going to be coy about it, I am right of center of most issues. It really annoys me to see Facebook shut down the "truckers convoy" facebook organization even but at the same time never shut anything down relating to BLM as just a recent and obvious example. That said I don't want either shut down. I think these platforms should seek to emulating the free speech *principles* of the first amendment even if they aren't bound legally by them (today) where anything up to incitement of violence is unacceptable. Today its just a disaster where they ban/deboost people for political views that aren't left wing, banning "misinformation" that is actually true, and are funneling dark money into elections, and god knows what the hell they are doing with all the data.
All I recall was accusations by political parties from both sides.
Just because some content got popular amongst some cohort, it doesn't mean it was being pushed as an agenda. That is a problem any platform that depends on user activity to surface content will have, that you might see whatever the other side wants to share too.
