How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[evilcommie]

16 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

I think our government should not be willing to send those. We can't use them against our seller (Russia) Plus we are in constant threat from Erdogan. Last time Turkey did a "mini Putin" in Cyprus, (and still holding north with 40.000 troops) nobody really cared. 

Thinking more, about it.  How difficulty would it be to hide an S300 battery in Ukraine near the current battle zones.? Isn’t the country relatively flat and open ? I would imagine Russia will having no difficulty finding deployed ones and taking them out with Ballistic or cruise missiles launched from the Black Sea or from Russia itself.   
Might be better off announcing it, then send in some inflatable ones. 

Edited March 8, 2022 by evilcommie

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, kraze said:

Nope, you are wrong.

NATO is very much off the table at this point for one major reason - NATO is extremely afraid of Russia and will never accept Ukraine ASAP. They are afraid of helping us now directly - do you realistically think they will want (have the balls) to defend us if we were a member?

It's the reason Baltic states are so worried because they see how potentially not ready NATO is and there's a chance it won't protect them either.

So in the absolutely "best" case scenario joining will take years, years we wouldn't have, especially if agreeing to any of russian terms.

However with what little indirect help NATO does provide it's possible to survive this and see Russia finally cease existing.

Nope, you are wrong. NATO will defend all it's members, including the Baltic states. If Ukraine would have been a NATO member, NATO would have gone to war. Period. The fact that NATO isn't 'ready' is no matter in that respect. NATO will and can fight AND WIN if necessary. Although I emotionally understand you and would like to see military action from NATO, I rationally know that it's the right decision not to intervene military.

I also resent your remark about 'the little indirect help NATO provides'. NATO is doing all it can, except going to war. It's sending impressive arms deliveries and does everything to weaken the Russian war economy. Even if NATO was fully prepared for an offensive ground war, it would be extremly dangerous to do so and risk a nuclear escalation.

Apart from that NATO/EU is doing all it can to help the millions Ukrainians who are fleeing their country. And the West is risking it's economy in order to discourage and punish Putin for his aggression.

Again, I understand your emotions, but a little gratitude towards your only friends is in order.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[DesertFox]

What´s wrong with these guys...

 

 

[Lethaface]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, there is absolutely no chance this is going to plan.  None, zero, zip, nada.  It hasn't been going according to plan since about 1/2 way through the first day.  So we're left with the f-ed this whole thing scenario.

The question is what are the Russians going to do next.  This is what The_Capt raised a few pages ago.  What we know the Russians don't want to do is go back to Russia empty handed.  Unfortunately for Russians, the Ukrainians have a big say in if Russia's wants happen or don't. 

Ukraine has two major choices at this point:

1.  Keep fighting and killing Russians until they are definitively defeated.  This means more civilian and military deaths, as well as massive physical damage, but it means a cleaner peace.

2.  Accept significant concessions so that Russia can save some face.  This lessens the immediate misery, but it dramatically increases Russia's ability to continue to cause problems long term

All indications are that Ukraine is prepared to take the civilian casualties if it means ending the Russian threat once and (hopefully) for all.  It's a horrible way to look at it, but Russia has been screwing Ukraine for decades and more recently directly killing its people.  Somewhere around 15k at this point. Letting Russia get anything out of this war AND retaining the capacity to continue undermining and killing the people of Ukraine over time should be totally unacceptable to Ukraine.

I see Ukraine fighting this thing right to the end.  Especially because I think the end is quite near.

Steve

It is an interesting feat that a lot of the 'think tanks' and geopolotical / military strategy experts keep stating that Russia will be able to press on the attack and take Kiev and Charkov (although all predict guerilla war starting after), vs the observations in this thread, that Russia won't be able to keep up sustaining the losses in men and equipment, as well as the consequences these have on the 'will to fight' among Russian troops.

After the first couple of days I suspected that Russian forces would learn from the fighting and adapt to the situation, leading not necessarily to less casualties but to more tangible battefield results. However from my (incomplete) perspective, it seems that not much lessons are learned (or rather the teachings put into practice).
One explanation for this could be simply the lack of footage and information about the more successful engagements from Russian perspective.

But if one looks at the amount of (supply) columns destroyed by apparent ambushes, engagements near to objectives which fail to fully control / clear the objectives but do cause heavy casualties, continued strikes on important assets (AA, fuel ,etc) behind enemy lines, the amount of abandoned vehicles, etc;
It doesn't look like the Russian forces are learning much lessons and applying that knowledge to the actual operational/tactical level.

So, to get to your QB example; a new CM player can quickly learn how to play 'better' especially from PBEM defeats. But only if he/she is willing to learn & improve. Sticking to the same ways will lead to similar results. 
 
If the reports are correct that currently 100% of pre-invasion forces are committed AND that no serious reinforcements are currently being shipped to the area, this could also mean something of a longer operational 'pause' on the side of Russia. Can they hold on to their current gains and just keep shelling/sieging with the remaining forces in place, while waiting for better weather and new operational plans that do incorporate the lessons learned?

If April / May weather is better for mechanized operations, that could in theory allow time to build a new 'invasion force' (they have the numbers in theory) and commit it alongside a new 'mass fires' operation (if enough missiles etc can be produced and delivered in that time), sort of implementing an invasion plan 2.0 (this time done right). Now for that to work they'd have to hold out economically and at least part of the current gains.
While also assuming that invasion 2.0 will be much better then the 1.0 plan, troop morale/motivation is good enough and some form of air superiority can be achieved.
Of course giving Ukraine the same allotment of time to prepare for such a thing will not necessarily make the whole thing more easy.

Coming back to political goals (which is the reason of this war), if they still want to demilitarize Ukraine and topple the regime, some form of a invasion 2.0 is necessary.
The current forces committed can maybe gain some more ground in the south, maybe capture Mariupol but unless miracle happens not actually take Kiev of Charkov. In other words, the political goals are quite a stretch at the moment.

The other two options are imo a ceasefire with lengthy negotiations (which may fail in the end, resuming hostilities and provide options for clandestine operations). 
Or the military collapse mentioned.

However, I'd expect Russian leadership to move towards ceasefire / negotiations before that happens. Because a military collapse and general withdrawal seems not healthy for Russian regime. Basically they'd have destroyed their economy and much of global relations at heavy cost in lives and military readiness, and 0 results to bring to the table. 

[cyrano01]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is not what I think the Ukrainians will do.  It is certainly not what I'd do.  Here's what I'd push for:

 

• All Russian military forces along the common border to be withdrawn 100km away forever.  Violations would trigger immediate and specific actions backed up by the EU/NATO.
• Crimea to be kept demilitarized, but administration changed immediately to Ukrainian laws.
• Crimea is to be permanently de-militarized no matter who the people vote to go with.  No ground forces, no air defenses, not artillery, nada.  Remilitarizing would have spelled out consequences (backed by EU/NATO).  Maybe naval support bases allowed, but no armed ground presence.
• Russia to pay X amount over Y years in cash or in resources (oil and gas in particular).  Violation of the terms of this would trigger consequences spelled out and backed by EU/NATO.

 

The only problem is that, if I were the Ukrainians, I wouldn't be 100% confident that NATO, and especially not the EU, would be willing or able to enforce these in the future. 5 or 10 years out I suspect that there might be no appetite to use military action to enforce treaty conditions against a re-armed and revisionist (and still nuclear armed) Russia. Any more than the western allies were willing to take action when Hitler re-militarised the Rhineland in 1936.

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

The only problem is that, if I were the Ukrainians, I wouldn't be 100% confident that NATO, and especially not the EU, would be willing or able to enforce these in the future. 5 or 10 years out I suspect that there might be no appetite to use military action to enforce treaty conditions against a re-armed and revisionist (and still nuclear armed) Russia. Any more than the western allies were willing to take action when Hitler re-militarised the Rhineland in 1936.

NATO will still be a very valueable ally for Ukraine and it's best chance for a free and strong nation in the (far) future, inside or outside NATO/EU. It's too easy to scorn NATO/EU for it's unwillingness to risk a world war over Ukraine, but rationally it's the right decision. Democracies can't plunge as easily into war as a dictatorship can. Sometimes that's very bitter to swallow, also for many Europeans and Americans, but in the end it's wise and in everybody's interest, including that of the Ukrainian people. But one thing is certain, the West will win this second Cold War, just like we won the first. And Putin/Russia will have to pay for the crimes commited.

[kraze]

45 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Nope, you are wrong. NATO will defend all it's members, including the Baltic states. If Ukraine would have been a NATO member, NATO would have gone to war. Period. The fact that NATO isn't 'ready' is no matter in that respect. NATO will and can fight AND WIN if necessary. Although I emotionally understand you and would like to see military action from NATO, I rationally know that it's the right decision not to intervene military.

I also resent your remark about 'the little indirect help NATO provides'. NATO is doing all it can, except going to war. It's sending impressive arms deliveries and does everything to weaken the Russian war economy. Even if NATO was fully prepared for an offensive ground war, it would be extremly dangerous to do so and risk a nuclear escalation.

Apart from that NATO/EU is doing all it can to help the millions Ukrainians who are fleeing their country. And the West is risking it's economy in order to discourage and punish Putin for his aggression.

Again, I understand your emotions, but a little gratitude towards your only friends is in order.

Do you realistically believe NATO wouldn't end up fighting Russia directly?

Imagine scenario where Ukraine falls or Russia survives - in fact any scenario where Russia keeps existing as is - guarantees a direct confrontation.

Russia is like planet Earth's cancer and history proves time and again that if cancer is left untreated - it will progress exponentially - so not getting involved now means a lot bigger problems later.

Remember - only a year ago nobody believed there will be a "big war in Europe".

so even if NATO wins - casualties may be in 6 or 7 digits. If not an outright nuclear annihilation.

Edited March 8, 2022 by kraze

[cyrano01]

3 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

NATO will still be a very valueable ally for Ukraine and it's best chance for a free and strong nation in the (far) future, inside or outside NATO/EU. It's too easy to scorn NATO/EU for it's unwillingness to risk a world war over Ukraine, but rationally it's the right decision. Democracies can't plunge as easily into war as a dictatorship can. Sometimes that's very bitter to swallow, also for many Europeans and Americans, but in the end it's wise and in everybody's interest, including that of the Ukrainian people. But one thing is certain, the West will win this second Cold War, just like we won the first. And Putin/Russia will have to pay for the crimes commited.

I don't disagree with you. If I were Ukrainian I would certainly want future NATO membership to deter direct attack. I'm just not convinced NATO would be prepared to go to war with Russia for anything less than that. e.g. To enforce the terms ot any peace treaty that involved demilitarisation or force withdrawal. I can't quite see a future US, or UK head of gevernment anouncing that Ruissian has moved military units back into the Crimea (if it were Russian territory at that point) and so 'we are now at war with Russia.' Ecenomic sanctions maybe...

[Geoff-Ludumpress]

48 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

What´s wrong with these guys...

 

 

Maybe if their stuff get blocked by EW the commercial stuff may still run? It's a back-up?

 

[Haiduk]

50 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

What´s wrong with these guys...

Our jets also equipped with commercial Garmin GPS trackers

[DesertFox]

Just now, Haiduk said:

Our jets also equipped with commercial Garmin GPS trackers

In 100 metres turn left...

[Haiduk]

More destroyed Russian vehicles near Voznesensk, Mykolaiv oblast. where they was beaten up two days ago

Obviously, theese grilling pates over the turrets don't help...

 

[DesertFox]

As expected...

 

 

[Haiduk]

Video from the drone of 72nd mech.brigade. Russian convoy, destroyed on the road. This brigade operates on eastern direction from Kyiv

 

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, evilcommie said:

Thinking more, about it.  How difficulty would it be to hide an S300 battery in Ukraine near the current battle zones.? Isn’t the country relatively flat and open ?

No. For example, there are many small and big forests in Kyiv oblast. Many tree-plants, between fields. And of course, batteries constanly change own positions, I guess.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Haiduk

[BornGinger]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

First, drone footage of a convoy attack.  According to the text, this is the big convoy north of Kiev:

Which video game is that from?

[Haiduk]

Two more captured tanks

This one from Sumy, three days ago. The tank to this time has George's ribbon on the side - this tank participated in parade.

This T-72B3M was captured yesterday. location unknown

128th mountain-assault brigade called support of Bayraktar yesterday - the tank was hit. Luhansk oblast

[kraze]

I don't think it 'participated' in a parade.

I think it was going to participate in a victory parade in Kyiv on Feb 26/27 in that insane russian reality

[Haiduk]

"Azov" 's drone is filming Russian rear position in Mariupol. Three bodies are seen

 

 

[Haiduk]

At least three abandoned T-80U of 4th Guard "Kantemirovskaya" tank division. Cameraman says "after we engaged them, theese ..... deserted own tanks and started to flee". At the end he says "Glory to Myrhorod!" Probably this happened in the vicinity of Myrhorod town, Poltava oblast

 

 

[Baneman]

2 hours ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

Note how the Ukrainians aren't stupid enough to have tanks swanning about on their own...

( that whole clip had a distinct CM "move 1 tank up to deal with a specific persistent threat" feel to it. )

[riptides]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

In 100 metres turn left...

More like, in 500 metres make a U Turn.

[Haiduk]

Russian BMP shot out civilian car. Two killed.

 

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, dan/california said:

The_Capt, when you get the time, which I din't expect to be any time soon, can you go over what this implies for Taiwan. Assuming they had tactical missiles on hand in the same general proportion. 

Taiwan is a completely different situation but as it relates to Ukraine I suspect the Chinese are watching things unfold carefully and taking notes.  The only thing I can hope is that they are drawing the same conclusions we are, invading a well defended nation is very hard.

I hope that this entire affair has the opposite effect that a lot of people fear and that is to avoid a military escalation in Taiwan because China will want to learn from the Russian mistakes at all levels in this war.

[BornGinger]

Now when volunteers are coming into Ukraine (the number 16000 has been mentioned) and thus makes it a bit easier for the Ukrainian army to defend the country, I wonder whether it could help to send in Russian speaking Ukrainians into Russia to cause interruptions to the Russian railway system which leads to the Ukrainian border?

As far as I understand the Russian army rely very much on their railway system to transport troops as quickly as possible. So if some Ukrainian "commandos" could interrupt those transportation lines it would possibly be a bit harder for the Russian army to move troops from the east towards Ukraine.

Such an operation would probably require a lot of movement by night and maybe have those commandos dressed in civilian clothes so they can move around without drawing too much attention to themselves. But if such an operation succeeded at least halfway, that kind of move from Ukraine would most likely be a schock for both the Putin government and the Russian army.

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by BornGinger