db_zero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 We can argue as to whether we are in an economic war with Russia or not, but its being called that by many, just do a search and certainly in the eyes of the Russians we are waging one. All I have to say is if we do decide to escalate, expect a response. What that will be is anyones guess. I think some sort of deal with the West is a possibility. We'll just have to wait and see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 And irritated Super Powers do irritating things, like hack Russia out of the international banking system, and go looking for some "freedom fighters" of our own. I am sure there is an ethnic minority or twenty in Russia with something to be unhappy about. I wonder how many of them are in close proximity to gas pipelines? A gas or oil pipeline blowing up would probably help Russia. It could easily cause a spike in prices. The recent move from the low $40 to the $50 in spot oil prices was due to the fact that the rig count went down and major oil companies are cutting CAPEX spending. The expectation is production will be cut and the supply overhang will decrease. Having a few oil well or pipelines blow up and supply decrease is a good way to see the price of oil shoot up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 A gas or oil pipeline blowing up would probably help Russia. It could easily cause a spike in prices. The recent move from the low $40 to the $50 in spot oil prices was due to the fact that the rig count went down and major oil companies are cutting CAPEX spending. The expectation is production will be cut and the supply overhang will decrease. Having a few oil well or pipelines blow up and supply decrease is a good way to see the price of oil shoot up. It would help everyone who's oil pipelines did not explode, and was not a terrorist supporting pariah state for arming ISIS. If anything it'd be disastrous for countries that rely on Russian oil, and would be a boon to any other oil producing country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Yeah I bet if Obama put on a very angry face when talking to Putin he would back down! I don't want to get too political, but lets just say the word disengaged and not really interested in foreign affairs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 MRAP would probably be unsuitable for the same reason we don't see it in US hands in the game. Ukraine isn't patrolling a foreign country with an indigenous hit-and-run insurgency, they're fighting an oldstyle front line invasion on their own territory. Driving around in monster trucks is of little utility. They might eventually come in handy after the remnants of the - ahem - 'separatists' are left in isolated pockets scattered around the countryside. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krater Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 MRAP would probably be unsuitable for the same reason we don't see it in US hands in the game. Ukraine isn't patrolling a foreign country with an indigenous hit-and-run insurgency, they're fighting an oldstyle front line invasion on their own territory. Driving around in monster trucks is of little utility. They might eventually come in handy after the remnants of the - ahem - 'separatists' are left in isolated pockets scattered around the countryside. Oh, definitely, MRAPs are hardly the best solution to Ukraine's APC crisis. An IFV would suit their current needs much better. However, MRAPs have one very strong advantage - US wants to get rid of them one way or the other. I'm sure their "cost" in the aid package would be very reasonable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 MRAP would probably be unsuitable for the same reason we don't see it in US hands in the game. It's sort of a "some transport beats no transport" thing. In terms of moving guys around in some level of protection, MRAP isn't the worst choice, and it'd free up IFVs and real APCs for the more kinetic role. They're also the one thing we really want to get rid of by the thousands, soooo..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Germanys Merkel who has one of the few working relationships with Putin is trying to disuade the US from sending arms and potentially ratching up the tension. In her estimation Putin is not the sort of person who is intimidated and you don't really know what may come of it. What would be the reaction if in retaliation ISIS suddenly acquired sophisticated man portable SAM's to shoot at US and coalition aircraft operating in the Middle East? Already happened. The IS has confirmed possession of the FN-6s that were originally sent to the FSA. Certainly no one saw this coming. http://www.janes.com/article/44267/islamic-state-uses-manpads-against-iraqi-helo (the last sentence is sarcasm) Edited February 10, 2015 by Apocal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 db_zero, Ref your #65, I believe you really don't understand what ISIS already has in terms of SAMs or can get. This should help, as should this and this. The Chinese FN-6 referenced in several of the articles is a Gen 3 MANPAD not to be trifled with. The Igla's not as capable, but is still a serious threat. See vid showing FSA getting a kill with one and a second shooter at the ready. And let's not forget Stingers. The above show there already is a sophisticated air defense capability in the hands of ISIS, not to mention SA-6s it has captured tp cause mayhem at higher altitudes. The main point you don't seem to grok in making your to me astounding suggestion is this. ISIS hates Russia because of what it did/attempted to do in Afghanistan--destroy Islam. Additionally, ISIS hates Russia because Syria is a Russian client state. It's where the weapons come from which maim and kill ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. Consequently, were Putin to send advanced weapons to ISIS, it is entirely likely that he'd find airliners falling out of the sky at one or both of Moscow's airports or any other places Aeroflot flies. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 US is apparently playing it 'subtle' in its military aid. Back last December they supplied Ukraine with 35 armored vehicles. Bradley? Abrams? No, Volkswagen SUVs! About the least military-looking armored vehicle you could hope to find. The VW Amarok SUV, nominally militarized by Rheinmetall. http://www.military-today.com/trucks/volkswagen_amarok.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 And apparently a Ukrainian volunteer force has just today taken delivery of the first of 50(?) surplus British Saxon armored trucks. The press reports make it sound like its all a private arrangement between the group and a surplus equipment dealer. Which itself might be a fig leaf to mask direct government military equipment transfers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Was watching a very good two-parter over on VICE News this morning about Putin's propaganda machine when I discovered there's an extensive ongoing series called Russian Roulette. This one happens to be highly pertinent, since it focuses on the pros and cons of giving lethal aid to Ukraine--with some very interesting interviews and hardware footage, including the aftermath of Debaltseve, a DPR AFV rebuild facility (supposedly only fixing captured Ukrainian AFVs) and first delivery ceremony (President Poroshenko spoke in full uniform) of what will eventually be 200 armored Hummers exactly like the ones familiar from Iraq and Afghanistan (late model turrets with vision blocks)---still in their desert tan paint. Exactly the same except, being nonlethal, they have no guns. 14 minutes well worth watching. https://news.vice.com/video/should-the-us-send-lethal-aid-to-ukraine Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreDay Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I think the maintenance state of the equipment is playing a larger role than tech level. Ukrainian equipment serviceability levels are likely far below the separatists' (not to mention the regular Russian forces). As an example, when ~10 APCs and tanks were assembled for one of the thrusts in Donetsk airport counter attack, only 2 (or 4, depending on the source) actually made to the jump off area. The 70% of ATGMs being unusable are a reflection of this, of course. I agree with your point that Ukrainian high command perfromance has been lackluster - at best - up till now. The fact that separatists have dominance in C3I is a factor, but operationally Ukrainian forces have been extremely passive. Those are some very perceptive points. I personally tend to think that serviceability levels are pretty bad on both sides. I mean, there have been multiple reports on rebel tanks not being loaded with ERA explosives, missing communication equipment, and being patched up together by some scotch tape. Moreover, DNR/LNR have very limited repair and maintenance facilities on their territory (even compared to ZSU). The Ukrainians have many of the same issues as well, as you correctly point out. And the end of the day - both sides is using 30-40 year old equipment that has not been well maintained or serviced... so that's not exactly a shocker... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreDay Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 US is apparently playing it 'subtle' in its military aid. Back last December they supplied Ukraine with 35 armored vehicles. Bradley? Abrams? No, Volkswagen SUVs! About the least military-looking armored vehicle you could hope to find. The VW Amarok SUV, nominally militarized by Rheinmetall. http://www.military-today.com/trucks/volkswagen_amarok.htm Precisely! At this point the threat/insinuation of lethal military aid is used more as a bargaining card rather than a practical military plan. Based on the recent visits of Merkel and Kerry to Russia, and lack of heavy offensive actions by either side in East Ukraine; this threat will probably not materialize for now... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Those are some very perceptive points. I personally tend to think that serviceability levels are pretty bad on both sides. I mean, there have been multiple reports on rebel tanks not being loaded with ERA explosives, missing communication equipment, and being patched up together by some scotch tape. Moreover, DNR/LNR have very limited repair and maintenance facilities on their territory (even compared to ZSU). The Ukrainians have many of the same issues as well, as you correctly point out. And the end of the day - both sides is using 30-40 year old equipment that has not been well maintained or serviced... so that's not exactly a shocker... Nope, not a shocker at all. At the start of the war Ukrainian readiness levels were atrotious in every aspect of military prepardness. They have improved significantly by any reasonable definition, but mostly becuase when you start out near the bottom it's difficult not to improve The separatists, on the other hand, started out with nothing since they didn't exist prior to last Spring. Excepting a few captured vehicles, they have been mostly equipped out of Russian vehicles from low readiness units and (more likely) mothballed equipment withdrawn from service. At first these vehicles were rushed into service similar to the Ukrainian's mothballed stuff. Which is why they don't have ERA on them, have been stripped of radios and other stuff. It's also why it's been so easy to identify when a regular Russian tank unit is on the battlefield because the T-72B series vehicles are showing up with ERA and modernized optics. Precisely! At this point the threat/insinuation of lethal military aid is used more as a bargaining card rather than a practical military plan. Based on the recent visits of Merkel and Kerry to Russia, and lack of heavy offensive actions by either side in East Ukraine; this threat will probably not materialize for now... Agreed. It's been clear since the beginning of the push to arm the Ukrainians with something better than sticks and stones that Russia considered this a "red line". Most likely because Russia understands that something like Javelin armed Ukrainian soldiers would have a strategic impact on Russia's war fighting capabilities for years to come, far beyond this specific conflict. Much easier to control perceptions when it's an Iraqi T-72 getting scattered on a Middle Eastern battlefield than a Russian one being scattered on a neighboring battlefield. Russia needs to keep the Ukraine conflict a "knife fight". It's fine for Russia to provide its proxies with a new knife if there is a need, but not OK if Ukraine shows up with a gun. That changes the dynamics in ways that are decidedly unfavorable to Russia. So the "red line" is both logical and understandable for Russia to stick to. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 All along I've thought this Ukraine war wasn't ideological but strategic. Its useless to annex Crimea if you don't also have absolute control of the main rail line that supplies it. So if the fighting doesn't dramatically escalate this summer we can expect to see them continue to nibble-nibble-nibble at southeaster Ukraine a few mile at a time. That's why Mariupol has been so bitterly contested. If Mariupol fell they'd immediately attempt a link-up with the south. They very nearly succeeded early in the conflict but lost a lot of captured territory over the year. Now an unobstructed rail link to Crimea look a long long way away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 All along I've thought this Ukraine war wasn't ideological but strategic. Its useless to annex Crimea if you don't also have absolute control of the main rail line that supplies it. They can use ships to supply it, at a modestly higher cost, sure, but perfectly doable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 About grabbing the rail corridor after Crimean annexation, I think we should assume that Russia thought it was going to be easy, a done deal by the end of the summer. No more difficult than Georgia in 2008. That's how most protracted wars start, one side or the other grossly underestimates the difficulty of the undertaking. Looking back in hindsight you can scarcely believe the original projections that were made. What's that old saying? Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. When we talk about 'military aid' lets recall the great 'tooth-to-tail' ratio in modern warfare. US might supply high tech weapons. It might instead assist in firming up the Ukranain logistics chain, improve medical assistance, food and ammo provision, supply trucks, engine maintenance, fuel availability, C&C. All those can be placed under the umbrella of 'military assistance'. Giving Ukraine some Javelin launchers isn't going to help the war effort much if they don't have fuel for their tanks. Napoleon famously said an army marches on its stomach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreDay Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) About grabbing the rail corridor after Crimean annexation, I think we should assume that Russia thought it was going to be easy, a done deal by the end of the summer. No more difficult than Georgia in 2008. That's how most protracted wars start, one side or the other grossly underestimates the difficulty of the undertaking. Looking back in hindsight you can scarcely believe the original projections that were made. I am sure that the Russians would have loved to secure a land corridor to Crimea; but if you look at their actions - they have never made a decisive effort to push for it. Their "vacationer" BTGs had strict orders to stop short of Mariupol in the summer of 2014 (per multiple sources)... so I see no evidence to indicate that they had considered it to be an easy or even feasible task, as they had never made any effort to accomplish it... even when the ZSU forces seemed to be in disarray. Edited May 21, 2015 by DreDay 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) About grabbing the rail corridor after Crimean annexation, I think we should assume that Russia thought it was going to be easy, a done deal by the end of the summer. No more difficult than Georgia in 2008. That's how most protracted wars start, one side or the other grossly underestimates the difficulty of the undertaking. Looking back in hindsight you can scarcely believe the original projections that were made. If they wanted to grab the rail line, they could have; they'd gutted pretty much the best of the Ukrainian Army at that point in a standup fight every bit as lopsided as the South Ossetia War. Instead they withdrew back across the border and pretended the whole thing didn't happen. Edited May 22, 2015 by Apocal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I don't think you should underestimate how bloodied Russia has gotten in this war. Ukrainian artillery has been a scourge, including use of Tochka-U tactical missiles (1,000 lb conventional warhead). I saw it described this way, the Russians don't trust the locals so they tend to set up bivouacs away from population centers... which gives the Ukrainians a nice convenient target. One account (of several) spoke of 500 casualties from a concentrated Tochka-U strike. Ukrainians claim to be able to achieve accuracies down to 8 digit coordinates. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I don't think you should underestimate how bloodied Russia has gotten in this war. Ukrainian artillery has been a scourge, including use of Tochka-U tactical missiles (1,000 lb conventional warhead). I saw it described this way, the Russians don't trust the locals so they tend to set up bivouacs away from population centers... which gives the Ukrainians a nice convenient target. One account (of several) spoke of 500 casualties from a concentrated Tochka-U strike. Ukrainians claim to be able to achieve accuracies down to 8 digit coordinates. In the fall and winter? Sure. In August, in standup fights between Russian mech and Ukrainian army? Not even a close contest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.