dan/california

A podcast/interview  Phd Harold Brown, head of the CSIS. It is discussing most of the same things we have been. He is of the opinion that we can and must be more aggressive about supporting Ukraine, but mostly agrees that we need to keep the war in a box as The_Capt puts it. He is strongly of the opinion that the West is not scaling up military production with sufficient urgency. Russia, and to a large extent CHINA, have gone to essentially wartime levels of production across the board. We uhm haven't, we really haven't, and it has to be fixed. He discusses the evolving more or less alliance between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. he China's level of support to Russia for Ukraine is high and rising rapidly. He says U.S. planning needs to start taking account of possible coordinated action between them in a crisis/war.
I would argue that the mess in Gaza is ALREAY evidence of coordinated action between them, but we will put that aside for now.
The whole podcast is worth your time.

Mike's boss has not approved this message.

Mike Johnson makes a statement regarding Ukraine being able to strike targets inside Russia.

Drones launching drones, to clear a minefield no less...
Looks like a pretty early prototype but good to see the forum stays one step ahead of reality!
 

I would add #4 - Human or machine error.  We almost went over the edge a couple times on this one.  Throw Russia into chaos and the odds of just plain old human screw ups goes up dramatically.  People can say or believe what they want on this all day long.  In the end it is the major factor in western thinking.  If it wasn’t we would have started in on airstrikes and ground troops ages ago.

Yeah, we kind of pissed away our chance of increasing supply in bigly fashion. However, destroying Russian refining capabilities means Russia will have to pay out the nose for these products, so same same but different, just a bit late.
That said, with the judicious application of long range weapons against refinieries, substations, locomotives and other useful assets that are hard to replace, have long lead times etc., Russia will just cease to operate properly. If it isn’t clear, I think the way to get to Russian collapse is simply prevent them from functioning as a modern industrial state.

Fairly long update on the Kharkiv area by Konstantin Mashovts:
https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/1889
 
I will summarize it as Russia continues to commit more forces to offensive up north. At this rate, it will become Russia's main offensive rather than a diversionary offensive because it will run out of forces with which to conduct a main offensive somewhere else.
Here's a quote:
 
 

For those that don't check the BBC news an interesting article on how Ukraine is tackling corruption. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq55rpqlp31o
Every country is corrupt in someway, what matters is how the leadership and institutions try and stop it from bleeding the country dry.
Funny what excuses some folk come up with to stop supporting Ukraine.  🙄 
Lot's left to do and really a never ending job.
 

Only on a wargaming forum…

No they really aren’t.  The large intercontinental systems perhaps but the small tactical systems that fit in an artillery shell are very self contained.  Next there is the fact that the people who do know how to maintain and employ them will be caught up in a massive societal collapse.  This raises the risk of them being hired by the highest bidder.  And then there are all of the non-nuclear WMDs.  Russia was sitting on nearly 40k tons of chemical weapons but claimed to have destroyed them back in the 90s.  Of course Russia is a nation of “genocidal, rape, pillage, steal and murder” so we should totally believe that they did as they said.
And that is before we consider the economic and humanitarian effects, let alone climate.  You wanna be mad at Russia, go for it.  You wanna downplay some really significant risks while dancing with a genocidal narrative of your own…well maybe time to take a day or two off from this war (and be grateful you can).

I think this list contains 2 points which were major contributors not only to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, but to the Soviet state collapse in general.
The first one is the economic situation, which is kind of obvious. Soviet economy peaked in 1950s when it looked like SU can give the Free World economies a run for their money, but then it could not and started failing. There is however one potentially pertinent point: AFAIK the Soviet economy got a large boost in 1970s when the Middle East fuel crisis made fuel prices soar and Russian oil &gas exports actually became the Soviet economy, the rest paling into insignificance. During the 1980s a high price for oil became the make or break factor for the Soviet economic results, and their ability to support their budgets, and it is so today for the Putinist Russia. End of 80's is increased stabilisation in the Middle East, increased US  political influence among the oil producing countries, increased US domestic oil production, which creates the perspective of fuel prices going down and staying low for a long time. At that, Soviet economy tanked to the bottom & the rest we know. This makes me wonder, if at the beginning of the 2022 invasion there was a way to repeat this successful formula and wage the economic warfare against RUS in a more effective way which would already be giving significant results.  In the actual scenario, the Western counries tried to decrease their imports of oil and shrink the demand for RUS exports that way. That makes sense, however mostly in the long run. I am wondering about doing the opposite and increasing supply. Unfortunately, the Biden administration at the time was acting strongly against the oil economy, thus creating the opposite trend to the 1980's trend discussed above: conflict with Middle Eastern oil producers, ban on increasing the domestic production. I am wondering, if adopting a more flexible approach re this could have worked better. Temporarily increasing supply and driving the oil price down below the levels profitable for Russians would make them spend their reserves quicker and then force them to adopt war economy measures which are very damaging to the general economic power and potentially unpopular.
The second is less obvious. In Poland after the historians got at the post-communist archives it became quite apparent, that the commies were not particularly concerned about the hearts and minds of "the working folk of the cities and countryside", as they had been officially referred to. They were  procedures for when the proles mutiny.  What really became a problem, is that the members of the political and security apparatus themselves started to be sympathetic to the regime change. The fact, that they were the kings of the communist world and much better than the rest of the society stopped mattering as much as the fact, that in absolute terms, the colonels of militia and chairmen of local party organisations were worse off than even the lower strata of the societies in the West.  The nail in the coffin were the results of the 1989 elections (which had been intended by the commies to be just a tactical retreat and the Polish United Workers Party had very much been intended to remain the dominant political power) except not as much in general, but in the "special voting circuits" - in military and militia garrisoned units, among prison guards, etc. The opposition won even there. The obvious conclusion was that the threat of using military force as the communists BATNA became void, soldiers would not fight for them, so the gig was up. With regard to the present situation in the Ukraine war, the parallel is that it is perhaps not necessary to change the heart of the ordinary Russian on the street. But finding a way to turn the low-and middle management of the Russian state and power apparatus against Putin could be it. For the avoidance of doubt, the individual sanctions against top oligarchs will not work, too simplistic and too restricted, we are not talking about turning a few selected people against Putin, but a whole group. I actually have no idea how to achieve this.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

This whole talk about "what about the Russian collapse, we must prevent it" makes me pretty angry.
Russia will genocide, invade, pillage, rape, murder, steal, because that's what they have always done. The list of Russian atrocities just from this latest installment is pages long, and USSR before was same or worse, and Russian Empire before was same or worse. Russian fracture and civil war just means they will for a while do this to each other and not to other people.
Yes, loose nukes are a problem, but remember that both nukes and delivery systems are difficult and extremely expensive to maintain. They would only be a problem for a short time before they stop working, and last thing every warlord of Whatever Oblast wants is the whole world going after them.
For reasons I don't quite get, people of Western Europe (especially Germany and France) and US (to lesser extent) tend to empathize more with Russian murderers than with the people of Eastern Europe the Russians terrorize. Throughout this war we have seen again and again people of West care more about not insulting, angering, embarrassing or inconveniencing Russia than they cared about Eastern European lives (which for now is Ukrainians but we know others are next).
When people talk about "we must not let Russia collapse, even at the cost of Ukraine losing the war" it is hard to not see it that way as well. That's why people see NATO as a joke, because West seems to care more about Russian feelings than about Ukrainian (and soon Estonian and others) hospitals being bombed.
Screw it. Russia should collapse into a bloody civil war (and we should take no refugees from there) and if that means Iran gets nukes and nukes Saudis so be it.
(This was written in somewhat of a bad mood.)

IIRC, the ancien regime also encouraged the Komsomol/managerial class youth to go, with the idea that it would solidify their socialist principles and toughen them up. (kind of like Great Helmsman Xi talks about today, although he isn't putting it in practice)
So the bereaved parents in this case had some clout.
...In contrast, also IIRC, Putin has been shielding the elites in the metropoles (Moscow, StP) from conscription, instead draining the rust belt towns and countryside (that are demographically way short of non-geriatric men, particularly skilled trades), as well as immigrants, criminals, etc.
The current and future effects of all this on 'Russian' society are manyfold.
****
So when we speak of avoiding a collapse of central authority postwar (or rather, following the death of Putin) we may really be talking about 'managing' a slow-mo collapse.
...or in practice, which factions we back (likely driven by who the Chinese back).
Basically, the next 'Great Game' could well feature Russia as the chessboard, not the player.

First of all there are no truly reliable methods of ensuring civilian safety in an active combat zone, there never have been. There are armies and nations that try to be discriminate, and armies and nations that don't bother. But perfection in a peer to peer shooting war where both sides are jamming and obscuring everything they possibly can, in any way they can think of is unattainable. The expression that there is no such thing as friendly artillery is about as old as anything that deserves to be called artillery.
The thing we aren't talking about enough is that there are degrees of jamming, and degrees of control. A live video going one way, and second by second flight commands going the other are by far the situation with the highest requirements for consistency and fidelity. As soon as anything less than that is required all sorts of intermittent communications options become viable. A the very simplest level you send out a first wave of drones to engage the very front line of enemy positions. You simply tell that first wave to self destruct or take whatever its current best target is, or simply hit a set of coordinates that was thought to be relevant at a specified time. So now, even in a 100% jamming environment your other forces are clear to proceed to their first phase line. At the next level up you have expendable transmitters that can broadcast a short but very high power signal to tell your drones to change kill boxes, and can even have a safety that any drone that doesn't receive a signal by the time specified crashes /self destructs. And the variations go on forever, but all of them are vastly more tolerant of reduced bandwidth than needing full time video one way, and full time control signals the other.

"Modern" attack helicopters are completely obsolete. People have just spent so much money on them over the years that don't want to admit it just yet. Between cheap, expendable, and VERY soon autonomous drones, and things like the later models the Israeli spike missile that have a ~40km range, it makes zero sense to invest in expensive helicopters. At least the U.S. canceled the program for a next generation model.
The Russians got good use out the Ka-52s last year because of all the things NATO would bring to this fight that Ukraine didn't have. Good airborne radar at the right range is just one of MANY of those capabilities. They were also using the helicopters because they were they only thing in inventory that could fire their very best long range ATGM. I don't think anyone else is going to make that mistake again for a while. Whatever you want to say about the helicopter it is a very good missile. Ukarine is lucky tey don't more of them on more platforms.
These are smart motivated people, but at the same time this third year engineering student stuff. They are throwing large amounts of semiskilled labor at the problem to get thee production they need. For Ukraine, at this moment, this necessary and appropriate.
So a lot of discussion about drone costs. A new Iphone costs less than $2000, by even the most pessimistic assumptions. It has an approximate infinity of processing power, and three great cameras. There is just no reason for the brains of a drone to ever cost more than that. so even if all the other bits, including a nice tandem/EFP warhead come out to $5000, you still have a DELUXE FPV drone for $7000. Except it won't be FPV, all the operator will have to do is confirm the coordinates of the kill box, and pull the safety on the warhead. 
The Pentagon needs to invest in the drone equivalent of a Gigafactory to make them by the tens and tens of thousands. And  they need to have a come to Jesus conversation with the defense industry about the way they get paid. We can afford to overpay somewhat for hardware engineering and development that works. Getting overcharged on a per piece basis is just not viable anymore.

So here is the real question, is Putin Hitler, or is he Gadaffi? Gadaffi was a wildly annoying bleep, but he was mostly dangerous to his own people, mostly. Hitler on the other hand was going to keep going until he was stopped, every victory he ever won just fueled his appetite for more. So would Putin be willing to accept a half a loaf in Ukraine, or even a whole one, and decide he could spend the rest of his years in some semblance of peace? Or does every victory simply give him an appetite for more and bigger conquests? I would point out he basically got away with Crimea, and was very notably not wise enough to quit. But Crimea didn't cost half a million casualties and counting, and most of Russia's military inheritance from the USSR. I don't claim to know the answer to the question, but it is the one we really need to be asking.
 

So here is the real question, is Putin Hitler, or is he Gadaffi? Gadaffi was a wildly annoying bleep, but he was mostly dangerous to his own people, mostly. Hitler on the other hand was going to keep going until he was stopped, every victory he ever won just fueled his appetite for more. So would Putin be willing to accept a half a loaf in Ukraine, or even a whole one, and decide he could spend the rest of his years in some semblance of peace? Or does every victory simply give him an appetite for more and bigger conquests? I would point out he basically got away with Crimea, and was very notably not wise enough to quit. But Crimea didn't cost half a million casualties and counting, and most of Russia's military inheritance from the USSR. I don't claim to know the answer to the question, but it is the one we really need to be asking.
 

I am confused here:
- Hitler never had a successor so we don’t really know.
- Saddam was deposed by a corrupt government that is torn by secretarial violence to this day.  Tough call on worse or better.
- Pol Pots party was dissolved and replaced first by the Vietnamese, and then a constitutional monarchy.
And then we have some historical examples of what worse looks like if we screw up.
- Castro
- Ruhollah Khomeini
- Pinochet 
- Manuel Noriega
- Gaddafi 
All much worse successors that the western powers had a hand in either putting in power or setting things in motion that would result in them coming to power (supporting corrupt dictators is high on the list).   Not sure on Putin, but worse is definitely always and option.

Perhaps that depends on whether you see a dictator with absolute power as worse than a disorganized feud between independent warlords, gangsters and terrorist groups. In some places that's one of the things that keeps the dictator in power - the people (rightly or wrongly) fear anarchy even more.

We have heard this many times.
Hitler's successor might be worse
Saddam's successor might be worse
Pol Pot's successor might be worse.
If the successor was worse they would already found a way to take over!
So no, the successor will not be worse. 

From the same article.

This may be the easiest of easy outs for Ukraine. Vlad Putin is 71 in a country where male life expectancy is 69 and falling, and a year ago Putin was looking very shaky, health-wise. A successor, whatever his stripes, is less likely to have his ego tied up in prosecuting the war. Unfortunately, the waiting game can seem like an exercise in futility. I can produce a laundry list of geriatric politicians, jurists and world leaders that I want to say 'Just die already!' But they never do.

Ukraine just has to keep fighting with support from the West...
There is no magic shortcut.
If Ukraine wants to defeat Russia they just have to keep killing Russians and destroying oil refineries.
Russia has lost they just need to accept this...