How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, panzermartin said:

This is like ostfront all over again. Russians advancing vs tactically superior, better organized and equipped pockets of defenders that inflict heavy losses on them but ultimately withdraw under sheer numbers and mass artillery firepower. Germans couldn't find an antidote against the massive use of Soviet artillery,it's the same story. 

Not really, not a very good analogy tbh.

1. UKR is fighting on home turf the entire time.

2. They do have counters to the arty - Drone strikes, behind the lines SF and TDF

3. RUS are attacking during rasputitsa (the f**k?)

 

 

 

 

[BeondTheGrave]

Just saying, George Kennan was one of the smartest, most sensitive thinkers of the early Cold War RE: Russian intentions. His problem is, once he realized he was right, he completely ****ing lost it. Absolute madman. He disagreed with nearly every president, despite most trying in good faith to implement strategies he helped design! Total loon. You know he genuinely opposed NATO expansion, because the rational for it is something Kennan himself! laid out in the X Article. He argues there the the USSR is just a continuation of the old Russian state and that its would be just as expansionist as the Tsar had been. This, Kennan argued, was the result of Russian historical experiences not the policy of any one government. But I guess the 1990s Kennan no longer agreed with the 1940s Kennan on that point. 

Regardless, for once I think @kraze has it right. NATO expansion wasn't a Western European project foisted on to a vulnerable Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe demanded to cover themselves in the security guarantee so that the Russian Bear wouldn't come back and eat them again when it was stronger. That is, NATO expansion is as much a result of historical tensions in Eastern Europe as NATO's creation in 1949 was a result of, as Kennan argued, a historical pattern of Russian expansion.

That being said, Stephen "Stalin was just waiting for Hitler" Kotkin is also a huge idiot. His older works arnt so bad, though he has an unusual love of Stalin, but his recent works are just chaotic and unreasonable. 

[Vet 0369]

41 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Fruit was the only good thing in C's Nobody seemed to like apricots and I did so I'd gladly trade them a can of chocolate flavored sawdust (cake) for their apricots.

LOL, another SSGT in our platoon, an Army Vet of the Korean War, used to use his “John Wayne” to open part of the can of apricots and drink the syrup. Then one day, after he did that, he completely opened the can, and the apricots were black. I don’t remember him doing that again.

[billbindc]

15 minutes ago, kraze said:

So basically the greatest russian expert is completely clueless and if true - that explains why the West was literally blind for so many years.

Before NATO even accepted any single new member after USSR dissolution - Russia attacked Moldova in 1992, Azerbaijan in 1992, Georgia in 1993 and Ichkeriya in 1994.

That's FOUR wars russia started in just its first three years past USSR.

So, naturally, when future NATO members saw what Russia does to its formerly occupied territories - they rushed to join NATO - which is damn hard as it is. You have to work your ass to be accepted into NATO, it takes almost a decade for an average country.

So that "scholar" is either blind or stupid.

 

To be clear, Kotkin is saying that it didn’t matter if/when countries joined NATO. Russia, for a host of historical, geopolitical and cultural reasons, was going to do what it’s doing now eventually anyway. He’s trashing (quite thoroughly)the argument made by Mearsheimer and others that NATO expansion was the catalyst. Kotkin is one of the good guys.

[John Kettler]

8 minutes ago, OldSarge said:

The beanie-weenies were good, and valuable,  ham & eggs were probably the worse of the bunch Fortunately, there was always a bunch of bartering going on as everyone figured out what they had and were willing to trade for. I always kept tabasco sauce in the rucksack, made everything better or at least palatable.

IMO, the best part of the C-rats was the ever versatile P38. I used to have a bunch of them, can't seem to find any of them now.

Every single soldier account I've ever read where C-rats are mentioned always talks about how fantastic the canned peaches were and how prized they were by the troops.

While we're on good news, here's some for the rightly feared tractor drivers of Ukraine.



Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

OK... I think we've had enough talk about C-Rations and MRES to give us some Pavlovian constipation   I do appreciate the personal touch and the humor, but I think we should leave it where it is.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

To be clear, Kotkin is saying that it didn’t matter if/when countries joined NATO. Russia, for a host of historical, geopolitical and cultural reasons, was going to do what it’s doing now eventually anyway. He’s trashing (quite thoroughly)the argument made by Mearsheimer and others that NATO expansion was the catalyst. Kotkin is one of the good guys.

I've been making this argument for years and years and years, yet the "experts" keep bringing it up.  I get why those on the Kremlin payroll (including may US politicians) continue to yap about this false narrative, but someone who is an expert in the field should know better.

It is true that NATO's expansion has been a major source of irritation with Putin.  I think that much is clear.  But the clear reason for that irritation is it is thwarting his plans for expanding Russia's influence into Europe.  As Kotkin says, that's a good thing.

Years ago when some Russian posters here justified Russia pushing more forces up against the Baltics as a justified response to NATO's "expansion" (which, of course, had happened YEARS before).  One poster asked me if I could not see why Russia was so worried about NATO attacking out of the Baltics.  I replied with something like Russia could put one unarmed border guard there and it would be just as effective because NATO can not attack Russia unless Russia attacks it first.  He didn't seem to grasp the concept.

Steve

[Splinty]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

OK... I think we've had enough talk about C-Rations and MRES to give us some Pavlovian constipation   I do appreciate the personal touch and the humor, but I think we should leave it where it is.

Steve

Heard and understood. 

[AlexUK]

I am not seeing much evidence of Russian drones so far. Drones would seem to be an effective way of mitigating impact of infantry with anti tank capability. Is it that they are not being used, or is it that they are but no footage released? Do any drones on either side have thermals?

[Haiduk]

UKR SOF with captured Russian Eleron-3 UAV

[Ts4EVER]

I'd be worrying that they can somehow remote detonate a drone like that if captured.

[billbindc]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've been making this argument for years and years and years, yet the "experts" keep bringing it up.  I get why those on the Kremlin payroll (including may US politicians) continue to yap about this false narrative, but someone who is an expert in the field should know better.

It is true that NATO's expansion has been a major source of irritation with Putin.  I think that much is clear.  But the clear reason for that irritation is it is thwarting his plans for expanding Russia's influence into Europe.  As Kotkin says, that's a good thing.

Years ago when some Russian posters here justified Russia pushing more forces up against the Baltics as a justified response to NATO's "expansion" (which, of course, had happened YEARS before).  One poster asked me if I could not see why Russia was so worried about NATO attacking out of the Baltics.  I replied with something like Russia could put one unarmed border guard there and it would be just as effective because NATO can not attack Russia unless Russia attacks it first.  He didn't seem to grasp the concept.

Steve

As a person closely involved with that imbroglio said to me (in effect): “It doesn’t matter if you think Kotkin engaged in essentialism. He’s right!”.

Edited March 12, 2022 by billbindc

[keas66]

Just heard a French Ex-General claim on  France-24 that the Russians are losing tactically and Strategically but they are winning at the Operational level .  Kind of made me curious - What would one declare to be  Operational Objectives of the Current Russian Action and are they meeting them ?

- Capturing Kherson ?

- Encircling  Maripol ?

- Applying Pressure  to Kharkiv and  Kiev  ?

- etc etc

I just not sure how one could claim Russia is achieving anything at the Operational level myself - but maybe I misunderstand what is meant but Operation level Goals .

 

 

[TheVulture]

3 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

UKR SOF with captured Russian Eleron-3 UAV

That's not a drone - that's a Klingon bird of Prey model.

[billbindc]

Btw folks…if you are impressed by the ‘FSB letters’ you should be asking yourself what information contained therein couldn’t be gleaned from a reasonably informed reading of pretty widely known public facts and how easily could it be written by anyone with a pastiche level of knowledge of the way the Russian security state thinks/talks? Once you have the answer, you know how seriously you shouldn’t be taking them.

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by billbindc

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, keas66 said:

Just heard a French Ex-General claim on  France-24 that the Russians are losing tactically and Strategically but they are winning at the Operational level .  Kind of made me curious - What would one declare to be  Operational Objectives of the Current Russian Action and are they meeting them ?

- Capturing Kherson ?

- Encircling  Maripol ?

- Applying Pressure  to Kharkiv and  Kiev  ?

- etc etc

I just not sure how one could claim Russia is achieving anything at the Operational level myself - but maybe I misunderstand what is meant but Operation level Goals .

another talking head general.  We have a few here. one of the reasons I've stopped watching TV news.  If McMasters or Mattis was going to do something I'd flip it on, but that would be about it.

[sburke]

Russian stock exchange won't re-open on Monday (msn.com)

[kraze]

13 minutes ago, keas66 said:

Just heard a French Ex-General claim on  France-24 that the Russians are losing tactically and Strategically but they are winning at the Operational level .  Kind of made me curious - What would one declare to be  Operational Objectives of the Current Russian Action and are they meeting them ?

- Capturing Kherson ?

- Encircling  Maripol ?

- Applying Pressure  to Kharkiv and  Kiev  ?

- etc etc

I just not sure how one could claim Russia is achieving anything at the Operational level myself - but maybe I misunderstand what is meant but Operation level Goals .

 

 

He probably means russians are mass getting rid of soviet junk and violent maniacs but there are better ways to do such operations without having to feed stray dogs with one's dead soldiers and turning your army into test subjects for western weapons.

Edited March 12, 2022 by kraze

[DesertFox]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

Russian stock exchange won't re-open on Monday (msn.com)

Guess they leave it closed until June. Harharhar...

[Taranis]

54 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

It's great to see a Russian drone I'd not seen before, but am intrigued by the weapons carried by those who captured it, especially that bullpup assault rifle.

 

Ukraine Weapons Tracker

 

@UAWeapons

·

2h

 

#Ukraine: Ukrainian SOF captured a small ENICS Eeleron-3 recon drone from Russian Forces, and are claimed to be reusing it.

Here is the related video, which frankly reminds me of happy children at Christmas unwrapping their gifts. SAdly, relative to the stills, the video quality is awful. But I dig the camo pattern one the drone's topside.

Here's perhaps another sign the Russians have dug deep;ly into their stockpiles for the invasion. If what Illia Ponomarenko says is true, that's the demothballing worksheet taped inside the MTLB's hatch. Can anyone confirm or reject this claim?



Regards,

John Kettler

Google Lens translate with something like " List and course of works of MT-LB transporter-tractor from storage and bringing it to readiness for combat use". "First stage works"

[John Kettler]

There has been intermittent discussion of disintegrating Russian tires and the causes. Here is a Twitter thread on the matter, and it sheds considerable light on what's practically an operational-strategic issue now for the Russian Army. It addresses not only the so-called dry rot (really, solar rot) but also how the CTIS (Central Tire Inflation system) figures into the overall flat tire problem. Those of you with air travel issues should stop reading at the truck tire side if you ever plan on flying in a Russian passenger plane.

Regards,
 

John Kettler

 

[Haiduk]

Updated information about today Ka-52 loss in Kherson oblast. Locals write in twiiter, there was a crash - 5 Russian helicopters flew on low altitude and one cought on powerlines and since some time crashed on the field. Survived pilot was moved to local hospital, but he is not captured

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, keas66 said:

Just heard a French Ex-General claim on  France-24 that the Russians are losing tactically and Strategically but they are winning at the Operational level .  Kind of made me curious - What would one declare to be  Operational Objectives of the Current Russian Action and are they meeting them ?

- Capturing Kherson ?

- Encircling  Maripol ?

- Applying Pressure  to Kharkiv and  Kiev  ?

- etc etc

I just not sure how one could claim Russia is achieving anything at the Operational level myself - but maybe I misunderstand what is meant but Operation level Goals .

Here's his thinking.

Strategically the ability to grab all of eastern Ukraine quickly failed.  The ability to grab even most of eastern Ukraine also failed.  So from a strategic sense Russia has failed.  The only way to win strategic objectives is through other means, like negotiations or a sudden collapse of the Ukrainian defenses.  Neither of which are likely to happen, so strategically Russia has lost the war already.

Tactically they are losing far too much men and material to be seen as tactically successful.  Especially because they have a significant advantage over the Ukrainian defenders in terms of numbers.

So what about operationally?  Up until a few days ago Russia was able to keep the front moving and take terrain in key locations.  This despite no hope of strategic victory or better tactical results.  But advances still matter and so Russia could be said to have some success here.

The problem is that Russia is not operationally successful either.  No advances worth mentioning in 2 days and Ukraine has even pushed Russian forces back in a few places.

Not that the operational level is all that important from Russia's standpoint.  They have to win their strategic goals for this invasion to be worth it.  That isn't going to happen no matter what.

Steve

[John Kettler]

4 minutes ago, Taranis said:

Google Lens translate with something like " List and course of works of MT-LB transporter-tractor from storage and bringing it to readiness for combat use". "First stage works"

Taranis,

Thanks. Am going to have to look into that tool, since I didn't know it existed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

19 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

That's not a drone - that's a Klingon bird of Prey model.

The Vulture,

To me, it looks like we're seeing the underbelly of an enormous from jumping. Your interpretation is far more impressive.

Regards,

John Kettler