How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[womble]

33 minutes ago, Holien said:

Let's hope these reports are true and that Ukraine treats any prisoners well as they will return to Russia and you want them to know the truth. 

I wondered whether the handling of any POWs might be something the rest of the world could assist with. Or would that trigger Vlad?

[John Kettler]

Ref the potential long term Ukrainian guerrilla resistance, it's noteworthy and directly pertinent that, in the face of an enormous effort to suppress and destroy them, anti-Communist Ukrainian partisans fought until 1959 before the last resistance ended. Yes, you read that correctly. Don't know how many there were when the GPW ended, but can say with confidence they had lots of arms and munitions, as well as lots of combat experience. Would further note that they lasted until 1959 despite the Soviets having penetrated the very intel organizations providing clandestine support and sending in agents and operatives. This was because of MI6 traitor KIm Philby (who very nearly became the head of MI6), who was read in on both MI6 and CIA ops supporting the Ukrainian partisans--and thwarted those ops with great ingenuity and ruthlessness.

While the Ukrainian populace doesn't have the same advantages the anti-Communist partisans had then in several key areas, the UA does, can teach the requisite skills, doubtless has stockpiles of weapons and munitions, even if old, and will have the kind of western support the muj in Afghanistan couldn't begin to dream of when the CIA and others began to clandestinely supply arms. Modern weapons, especially man-portable standoff weapons, make it possible to do what was flatly impossible for the partisans and make security the stuff of nightmares for the Russians--by stupendously increasing the area and volume of what must be protected. Instead, for example, of having sentries stationed along the rail line, it's now necessary to, in the NLAW case, secure over a 1 km wide swaths on both sides of the tracks.  If it's a Javelin, then it's over 5 kms on both sides of the tracks. Since it's already been noted that Russia can't possibly put enough troops in to properly secure Ukraine under vastly worse conditions than obtained in Iraq, nightmares would be good things by comparison. Modern explosives are far more powerful than older ones, and there are many more capabilities available via modern munitions, too. All it takes to stop a train dead is one ATGM, so no need to run the great risks of mining the tracks. Were some friendly power to supply, say, laser-guided projectiles for 120 mm mortars, 122 mm tube artillery or even Grad or similar, then the problems would escalate at least an order of magnitude (likely several) for the occupier. Would note the VC caused devastating damage with single Grad rockets launched from the simplest of launchers. And laser designators these days can be easily transported and hidden.  And these are but a few of a multitude of possibilities.



Regards,

John Kettler

Edited February 26, 2022 by John Kettler

[Haiduk]

Russian cruise missile hit the residential house on Lobanovsky avenue in Kyiv. The missile obviously targeted runway of Kyiv airport (Zhuliany), but instead hit the house nearby. Number of loses is unknown, emergency services can't reach destroyed storeys because it's too dangerous.

The video of hit

Second cruise missle was intercepted in the area of Kyiv hydroenergy plant dam

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Haiduk

[womble]

49 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

whether the Russians are, objectively speaking, sufficiently bad

I think there's a disconnect here. There is little objectivity available. Partly because there's no certain way of knowing what being under the heel of Putin and his fellow kleptocrats and bandits would actually be like. Would it be more Belarusian, or would the iron rod be laid lightly to their backs? Partly because Putin hasn't actually said what his demands of Ukraine would be, beyond the nonsense about "denazification".

But mostly because the balance between liberty and death is a subjective one, for individuals and polities to decide according to their own criteria. Trying to claim that an "objective" judgement on the matter can be made is at best mistaken.

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

If that's the case, the rational move is to think very hard as to whether an insurgency is worth it. A second best is arguably better than turning all your cities into piles of ember. You can blame the Russians. I can blame the Russians. But the city in ashes will be Ukrainian.

Ah, so we want to talk “rational”, which is kinda strange given the whole lead up to this mess but, ok I will bite.

There are two types of rationality at work here, objective or high level, and subjective or relative.  High level, the rational is that at least as far as anyone can tell the Russian public are not entirely onside with this whole dance.  So if one were to bleed Russian forces enough they might buckle, much similar to how Afghanistan in the 80s went but accelerated.  The cost will be high but if Russia will collapses (or somebody with real power in the back room “retires” Putin) then the pay off is Ukraine remains free, gets all sorts of reconstruction aid from the west and makes the world record for admission into NATO, while Russians burn their own cities.

At a low level,  Russians just blew up my home and killed my friends and family, I am not “rational”, I am furious and willing to take as many Russian soldiers with me cause they are likely to kill me anyway [aside: are we really applauding the Russian military for not committing war crimes? Man, that is a low bar].

In the end it is a Ukrainian decision and all we can do is support them as much as possible -in case there was any doubt the west has picked a side here-, and more than we did in the run up to this mess.

[Aragorn2002]

33 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

And Aragorn, I said that knowing it won't be popular, but I do think you need to make a choice. First, you need to decide whether you believe Ukraine can stop Russia without it descending into a guerilla war. If yes, go ahead and cheer for the Ukrainians every time they destroy some Russian transport. But since you've called them "defenseless", that does not seem to be true.

If that's the case, the rational move is to think very hard as to whether an insurgency is worth it. A second best is arguably better than turning all your cities into piles of ember. You can blame the Russians. I can blame the Russians. But the city in ashes will be Ukrainian. 

 

My choice is that honor and freedom is more important than life itself. The Ukrainians with their long painful past with Moscow understand that better than you and I. Losing this war means that the Ukrainians will NEVER be free anymore and share the same miserable fate as those millions and millions of White Russians and Russians, who want to have a normal life, but have to live under the boot.

My choice is to send the Ukrainians all we can muster, including troops, planes, weapons, supplies, tanks and artillery. If that means war, so be it. That's only a question of time anyway.

My choice would be to re-arm NATO as quickly as possible and prepare for another world war. If Putin and his gang want war, they shall have it. We all know that a weak response is only encouraging dictators. This won't stop here. Europe is under attack. Ukrainians are Europeans. By origin and by choice. And we let them get crushed by a bunch of criminals.

My choice is to never accept this kind of crimes. I'm sick to the stomach to be forced to see all this. I'm sick to the stomach of cyber attacks, threats, poisoned people and destroyed lives. Enough is enough. Next year we're watching the invasion of Taiwan and you will no doubt advise them to stop resisting to 'save'  their cities. But that's not how it works in life. Life is about freedom. Nothing else matters if they try to take that away from you. Big words, I know, but better than all the 'moderate wisdom'. In the West every second word we use is 'freedom' or 'human rights'. Well, let's show that we are prepared to pay the price for that.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Haiduk]

Video how a Russian helicoter destroyed two UKR BUKs on the trailers and supply vehicles somewhere in Poltava oblast. 

 

Kherson oblast - destroyed Russian column of pontoon and engineer vehicles.

 

[The_Capt]

24 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Some words about tactic of Russians. They use a tactic of "small raid groups" somewhat similar to Mongols in Mediaeval times. Their BTGs are moving to own goals initially in composition of company groups , but after they approach to own objectives, they disperse on small combat groups - usually 1-2 platoons with reinforcement and make probes on own front in own sector. In this way they search weak points in our defense. If they find a hole or they can overrun our defense - other part of combat group join itself again and continue own advance.  

During seizing of towns and cities they use in mass small diversion groups, which sneak to settlements as civilians or on the captured Ukrainian vehicles, wearing in Ukranian uniform. Among diversion groups not only militaries, but also police, SOBR and local pro-Russian elements, but the role of latter is mostly to paint special markers, leading to primary objectives with special UV-paint. 

I don’t want to lose this one.  Ok, so this is important. Beyond the fact that there are some violations of laws of armed conflict here with uniform switching and use of non-military but this whole thing is violation of laws of armed conflict so there’s that.  This is hybrid warfare.  I do recall reading that the Soviets had planned to use this approach as a deep battle tactic but not on the frontline.  This is tactical level hybrid subversive/infiltration on a significant scale.

[CHEqTRO]

An interesting thread about Russian poor performace and the reasons behind it:

[CHEqTRO]

Also:

 

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Kherson oblast - destroyed Russian column of pontoon and engineer vehicles.

So this does not sound like Russian air superiority or at least not total.  Even if this was an artillery strike it likely had airborne ISR to be this accurate.

Tanks and infantry stuff is supposed to get “got”.  Even arty, but engineers and logistics are not.

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Just like American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan in their comparable situations. But at least it does mean that the Russians, right now, can still be worked with. The Ukrainians will have to factor this realistic factor into their calculations - if they keep resisting ... the reality is that a soldier's humor is finite. Expend it all uselessly by sniping them or by making this kind of attack and they will start committing atrocities. Of course, it'd make for great theater for the United States, but that doesn't improve the lives of Ukrainians.

Lol, you are telling us that Ukrainian people should behave better against soldiers occupying their town? 

[CHEqTRO]

Some very bad news:

If they go ahead with this, they are both definitively losing the war, and their minds.

Also:

 

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said:

An interesting thread about Russian poor performace and the reasons behind it:

We gotta be careful with info sources but 1) this poster sounds like he knows what he is talking about, I would guess professional military background and 2) a lot of this resonates.  This whole thing is starting to feel sluggish on the Russian side and the steady stream of really expensive equipment losses are adding up (even if half of them are errors).

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, CHEqTRO said:

Some very bad news:

If they go ahead with this, they are both definitively losing the war, and their minds.

Also:

 

You wanna make sanctions stick for a generation (see Iraq and Syria) keep going down this road.  Further if the Russian public were unsteady before, gassing civilians really does not do much to reassure.  

[arkhangelsk2021]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

We gotta be careful with info sources but 1) this poster sounds like he knows what he is talking about, I would guess professional military background and 2) a lot of this resonates.  This whole thing is starting to feel sluggish on the Russian side and the steady stream of really expensive equipment losses are adding up (even if half of them are errors).

Well, he might be Russia's equivalent of Lewis Page or Mike Sparks for all we know, but I agree that he does seem to make sense. I believe I've collated his whole set of comments for easier reading.

Quote

1/I am going to try to explain the irrational Russian Armed Forces behavior towards strategy, common thought, or even the chances repatriated SSO that are now POW try to murder a bunch of men with stars.
2/Here's where I will start from. The Russian armed forces have never attempted anything like this. This isn't about what kind of war they're fighting it's about what they're capable of mustering.
3/Secondly it seems the decision making structrues have low opinion in general of Ukraine and their fighting abilities and sort of an ideal that there's a willing subservience in Ukranians if they get to be part of Russia. Pure racism informing their decision making process.
4/Thirdly battalion tactical groups are terrible units to support operations. They have overload the commander lack support and might not properly integrate with air or do adeqaute scouting as signals and recon are missing along with liasons with them.
5/Fourthly without standing down even if parts of the UA Nat Guard, Police, Border Guard, Territorials and Army are defeated, UA regional commands can be autonomous for days and are vast structures, short of ordering their demobilization their removal is way too costly for RuMoD.
6/And there's a lot of hidden corruption and misreporting that gets baked in into calculations but the higher you go up the chain as in a corporation, the more dimissive management is that it will be an issue. AKA Putin doesn't even remotely grasp how bad it is.
7/Based on those 5 let me try to explain the situation now. Russian units aren't stopping fire or limiting use of their kalibrs and stand off strikes. This is all they could muster south. Kalibrs are limited by launch tubes, a bit over a hundred is what they had ready.
8/We saw constant trains and movement over time moving Ru equipment and lots of aircraft being moved over to mustering points and at the end people. By then the supply was at its limit just keeping them warm and fed. They found out the hard way this was their logistical limit.
9/What people sa wasn't that troops packed spare tanks for long drives. They were carying their fuel reserves on them. The few organic refueling trucks were not enough to make up an actual reserve or depot. They had one full compliment, some spares in one truck , thats it.
10/This didn't seem that crazy in the Kremlin because the prevailing thought in the higher echelons and Putin's inner circle and the FSB was one highly dismissive of Ukraine highly hyped up by Russian army propaganda reporting. They missed that they were buying their own bull****
11/The release of the information paralyzed them in terms of decision making. But the inherent bias remained and UA delayed mobilising so it didn't dissuade them. For 7 days they ate away supplies rather than actively trying to build them further, they were waiting a go order.
12/The limited supply meant it had to be a mad dash. BTGs were split into smaller sub units traveling on multiple roads to avoid congestion. When they met something they'd wait to coalesce or get into a fight. If the UA was suprised it would work.
13/Were the Ru troops quality ones they'd do better with just surprise on their side. But they were mostly poorly trained as full units were never called up before. Usually a brigade would send only a company and could hand pick.
14/Now it's either confess the lies about readiness or be creative. Because the corruption had created such a rot, brigade commandes chose "creative" (criminal), conscripts were added to the build up. Ghosts soldiers on the roster were hidden. That meant BTGs were far greener.
15/When these hit a city or made contact they'd deploy in unideal formations of platoon to company size. Not their fault all that much, this is what they knew. Then if a UA unit knew in advance where they were and was careful, it would anihilate the BTG splinter formation.
16/Because the timetable had to be kept, supplies were already short with the delay Ru troops would go a step further. They'd keep one sub unit to block and redirect subsequent units, the rest would continue on parallel roads. Again timetable meant usually more major roads.
17/After a couple of road blocks, BTG'd be diluted, lost a bunch of units and fighting to standstill. You'd expect that there would be air or artiller support. But BTGs aren't suited for that, when they move in chunks in parallel the artillery spotters could be in another group.
18/As we said also there was a problem stocking supplies but still CAS should probably not be as limited? Yes but Russian SSO more used to directing it had other tasks and Russia doesn't have a platform like the US surveilance planes and drones that can operate in contested air.
19/And the air was contested because of the limited early strikes due to the small build up + limited recon of where UA AF & AD were prior to this. Satelites take pics at known times, moving equipment often can dissuede strikes as it's uncertain anything will be in place.
20/What then was struck were major stationary objects, depots in main areas, radars, major command and control but again limited by number of reloads. So then Ru MoD started rolling the columns with heavy support of helicopters and planes ahead.
21/This works on day 1 when you know where your guys start & can track where they are easily and you know beyond that point it's all enemy. Once you land and refuel, it's less easy especially because as we mentioned, a BTG splitinter lacks a signals unit, just has a few officers.
22/Then comes the air asault. Becuase you have to be quick you also have to do risky stuff. The problem of course is that because your helicopters are parked in fields, ready for one load with some trucks and one set of ammo, you can do it once a day with each group.
23/That's why you wait till the end of the assualt attempt to see if it works. If you have to refuel and prep for a second go, your trucks have to go to a depot and reload and then come back. And only then try again.
24/You still have to try to take the airport fast and get guys in because if the operation takes too long and you haven't kept them(the UA) on the back foot your green troops are still moving piecemeal on roads, don't have much with them, any small village could be their end.
25/So the air assault fails, part of the pincer moves fail, you can't budge most of the UA troops what do you do? You go for broke, hope you win the race between entrechment in Kyiv and you just throwing all you have and hope if you decapitate UA, regional commands lose faith.
26/Otherwise becuase what remains of your force is split in small groups moving on main roads UA can mobilize move via back roads and just recapture most of the towns as you have few troops for actual 24/7 duties and to even spot them moving back into the town.
27/Can it work? I don't know. Is it a good plan. Hell no. Could they execute anything else, without the entire structure confessing the army has corruption,which  yes the boss expected, but it's such a rot it might cost him his throne, yeah not when he's in this mood.
28/ So the spineless bunch decided to throw away 18-19 year old conscripts and veterans and pray they get lucky. Also that Putin hasn't noticed how nuts this is shows that he's either delusional or is completely inept when it comes to military affairs.
PS/ A lot of the commentary prior missed the readiness of the Russian forces and the poor state of affairs. Overreliance on official statements and major military pages missed tons of low level testimonials and regional investigative pieces on how big the rot was.
PPS/ Aggregation of Zvezda and VK mil informing pages and MAKS show sales pitches should be tempered by what we can find on the ground and regional and smaller outlets, forums and blogs were servicemembers were pissed were abundant to the point they shouldn't have been dismissed.
PPPS/ We saw lots of evidence for that and even then a part of the community of analysts dismissed it assuming once it's about having a war footing RU structures will take it serious. But that's not how bad habits work.
PPPPS/ And in the minds of the Kremlin they have been continuously on a war footing. So if during that time they left arms companies bankrupt sometimes even more than once, the habit was not going to break most likely.
To quote Nemtsov here: 
<<Он ёбнутый... чтоб вы поняли?>>
And huge thanks to 
@ain92ru
 who knows a lot more than me about this but due to the situation in Russia has posted a lot less.

 

[TheVulture]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We gotta be careful with info sources but 1) this poster sounds like he knows what he is talking about, I would guess professional military background and 2) a lot of this resonates.  This whole thing is starting to feel sluggish on the Russian side and the steady stream of really expensive equipment losses are adding up (even if half of them are errors).

Yeah, that's the big unknown at the moment. The Russians seem to be doing worse than many people expected (at least among the armchair analysts - I have no idea what professional military analysts expected). It's that because Russia is trying to win on the cheap with a relatively small commitment of forces, or because they've hit the limit of what they can sustain logistically.

[BeondTheGrave]

5 hours ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

I hope your friends in Ukraine are fine, @akd, but let's discuss the facts on this issue.

Biden didn't offer to negotiate on arms control in a way that would reasonably settle Russian concerns. Let's look at his letter, which can be found here:

Note all the qualifiers. First, it specifies offensive missile systems, which excludes Aegis Ashore (since the US will say it's a defensive system, and it will be - if you exclude the possibility of deception). Second, it distinguishes between Permanent and Non-Permanent Forces, and Combat and Non-Combat Missions.

Which means according to this, the US can have a "Temporary" force on "Training" missions in the territory of Ukraine, even if said force is quite large. Also,

The US also offers a "transparency mechanism" to check Aegis Ashore sites at two locations - Romania and Poland. Already in principle, if there's a third site, say in Turkey or Ukraine now or in the future, the US is not obliged to include them in the "transparency mechanism".

Such are the facts. Let's compare it with Putin's proposal.

First, it rejects the idea of permanent deployments of any kind on the new NATO members by the old NATO members, except by mutual consent. This avoids un-necessary disputes on Offensive v Defensive. The US can, under this framework, negotiate for Aegis Ashore (at least in theory and according to the text), under suitable conditions.

The implication is that this is about "offensive" missiles, but it makes the main criteria a more objective one - whether that missile can physically reach the other party's territory. SAMs can carry nukes.

is actually correctly written in its context. It just obliges countries to use their rights in NATO a certain way.

Note the care taken in this part. It actually allows NATO to continue small to medium scale exercises with Lithuania while limiting excess. So despite the screams of the Western press, at least as written out it's not asking for a wholesale abandonment of the new NATO members, Russia's feelings on them notwithstanding.

Note the care here. Once 15 NATO states (of 30) plus Russia ratifies this, the treaty enters into force ... BUT it won't bind 15 NATO states that didn't ratify. Don't be stupid - the 15 states must include the US, but it does mean NATO can strategize and have up to 15 states helping Ukraine.

One reason why there are "Kremlin fanboys" in this is that frankly from a third party view, the Russian proposals at least make sense and are not a "Trust Us" plan.

This is a bit silly isn't it? Of course the initial US position is going to a maximalist 'we get everything you get nothing' position. Absolutely Russia did the same thing when they crafted their talking points. Thats how diplomacy is done, its why arms control treaties have historically taken years to build, and why you can neither scream at where the two parties started nor in how the sausage gets made. If arms control were a serious concern for Putin he wouldn't have started a war over it, he would have loved to negotiate. Like seriously, go and look at the debates the US and Soviet teams had over stuff like SALT and START. Russian diplomats were famous for driving hard bargains. They would often demand the US gave them a new concession just to sit down in the room! Thats how the sausage is made, its how the sausage is always made, and to be quite honest its something Russian diplomats have always been really good at. If Putin chose war over diplomacy and arms control, its not because talks failed or he was upset by the open negotiations. It was because he was never serious about striking a deal to begin with. Because frankly, to quote Quark the bartender: "The price of peace was at an all time low" in the days leading up to all this. If he had negotiated instead with that classic Russian reluctance, he could have made out arms control wise like a bandit. 

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, TheVulture said:

Yeah, that's the big unknown at the moment. The Russians seem to be doing worse than many people expected (at least among the armchair analysts - I have no idea what professional military analysts expected). It's that because Russia is trying to win on the cheap with a relatively small commitment of forces, or because they've hit the limit of what they can sustain logistically.

Most of the open source analysts seem to agree that the capital would fall this weekend and the whole conventional thing would end shortly after that.  I am not sure, and could not say even if I did what the J2 guys are seeing.

I am still wondering if Russian has a card (that does not involve WMDs) left to play but sluggish and messy is what I put on what I have seen so far.  If the Russians are still slugging it out on the outskirts of Kyiv by say Mon then I do not think this has gone to plan.

[arkhangelsk2021]

10 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

This is a bit silly isn't it? Of course the initial US position is going to a maximalist 'we get everything you get nothing' position. Absolutely Russia did the same thing when they crafted their talking points. 

Here's the problem, though. Which part of the Russian position looked "maximalist" to you? I've pointed out several areas in the proposal where they clearly are willing to make concessions just to get their proposal agreed to fast - such as all but saying that 15 nations (as long as they aren't the US or one of two or three big ones) can support Ukraine. It starts out by allowing the US to continue exercises with the Baltic States or Poland (just not permanent deployment, and the US has always claimed it doesn't have substantial permanent deployments in that area). It even only requires a mere thirty days notice to disengage.

In other words, suppose NATO and ratifies it. FIFTEEN countries can continue to help Ukraine. Further, if Russia violates the position (in NATO's opinion), in only 30 days the United States can withdraw, say "We've tried it. It didn't work. It's all the Russians fault." and get back on the course of eventually getting Ukraine into NATO.

[melm]

49 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Russian cruise missile hit the residential house on Lobanovsky avenue in Kyiv. The missile obviously targeted runway of Kyiv airport (Zhuliany), but instead hit the house nearby. Number of loses is unknown, emergency services can't reach destroyed storeys because it's too dangerous.

The video of hit

Second cruise missle was intercepted in the area of Kyiv hydroenergy plant dam

 

The destruction looks too small if the hitting projectile is a cruise missile. It must be something else.

[Lethaface]

8 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Here's the problem, though. Which part of the Russian position looked "maximalist" to you? I've pointed out several areas in the proposal where they clearly are willing to make concessions just to get their proposal agreed to fast - such as all but saying that 15 nations (as long as they aren't the US or one of two or three big ones) can support Ukraine. It starts out by allowing the US to continue exercises with the Baltic States or Poland (just not permanent deployment, and the US has always claimed it doesn't have substantial permanent deployments in that area). It even only requires a mere thirty days notice to disengage.

In other words, suppose NATO and ratifies it. FIFTEEN countries can continue to help Ukraine. Further, if Russia violates the position (in NATO's opinion), in only 30 days the United States can withdraw, say "We've tried it. It didn't work. It's all the Russians fault." and get back on the course of eventually getting Ukraine into NATO.

The rather BIG thing you are missing though is that starting a full scale war is not a way to continue negotiations. 

[Lethaface]

4 minutes ago, melm said:

The destruction looks too small if the hitting projectile is a cruise missile. It must be something else.

That's looks like a 30story apartment complex, made out of concrete rebar, 5 floors are heavily damaged. It's not a small missile at least, I'm no expert so wouldn't know how big of a warhead that is. Kalibr is said to be 400-500KG HE.

[arkhangelsk2021]

2 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

The rather BIG thing you are missing though is that starting a full scale war is not a way to continue negotiations. 

My main point there was to present facts, since the US media has made defamatory statements about that proposal and tried to make Biden more reasonable than he actually is, I wasn't sure whether @akd was working with accurate information on what was presented and what was not.

[DMS]

14 minutes ago, melm said:

The destruction looks too small if the hitting projectile is a cruise missile. It must be something else.

https://youtu.be/oQjUNNK4HRY