How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Well, one major thing we don’t know is what the Ukraine Government is actually thinking about for “conditions for ceasefire.” Russia is regularly putting it’s conditions out for ceasefire, but one doesn’t see anything of the sort from Ukraine. That is a very effective move on the part of Ukraine.

it is the Jack Reacher response to interrogation... say nothing, it really throws them off.  

[keas66]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

it is the Jack Reacher response to interrogation... say nothing, it really throws them off.  

I really wish some of the Western Leaders like Biden for example would  follow the same playbook instead of these constant statements about exactly what we won't do .

[Homo_Ferricus]

9 minutes ago, Vic4 said:

Please forgive this train of thought but, I don’t understand why no one thinks that Putin isn’t simply going to start lobbing tac nukes into Ukraine.

Likelihood of this are so close to nil that it's hardly worth thinking about it at this point.

-Domestically not viable. He is making the case that Ukraine is a part of Russia and it's people want to be united with Russia and saved from Nazis. To start irradiating ANY parts of Ukraine would be indigestible to the Russian people, on all levels--from the leadership and political class all the way down to the "peasants". I don't think there are any target concentrations that are away from cities and populated areas that Putin could make the case it was purely a military target.

-Risks MASSIVE escalation with NATO. Even imagining the West does not respond with conventional military action, you can bet every covert agency in the world, including those in Russia, to make their task #1 "Regime change in Russia." If Putin manages to walk away still in power in the aftermath of a nuclear strike, for the next 5 years basically every human on Earth agenda item #1 is to get rid of Putin.

-There are more that I'm sure others are addressing as I type this.... It's hard keeping up in this thread and trying to have a day job all at once!

[Battlefront.com]

OK, that last T-90 post just gave me an idea of coining a new term to sit along side an old one:

ERA = Explosive Reactive Armor

ESA = Emotional Support Armor

Steve

 

[db_zero]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Let's keep in mind that what's being discussed between Russia and Ukraine is a cease fire, as far as I can tell, and not a peace deal.  The two are not necessarily the same thing.

Steve

Does this benefit Russia by allowing the army to reset, refit and re-supply? I've seen reports that Russia has already begun practicing large scale maneuvers, presumably in response to lessons learned. 
 

A respite from fighting may give Russia time to get their sh** together like encrypting communications and changes to procedures.

If they do have foreign fighters coming in it would give time to organize, equip and brief them on what to expect and lessons learned.

A cease fire that is then followed by a resumption of fighting gives the precious commodity of time.

While its easy to beat up on the performance of the Russian army, it has served them well in Syria and other places. Its only when they came up against a near peer enemy that was amply and quickly supplied with sophisticated weapons from the west that we've seen weaknesses greatly amplified and the results we're seeing.

If the West didn't respond the way it did you might be able to make a case that even with the glaring weaknesses we might be looking at a much different picture that is much grimmer for Ukraine.

Edited March 16, 2022 by db_zero

[dan/california]

Given that the tank ws captured more or less intact, their emotional support was clearly inadequate.

[akd]

15 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Abandoned T-90A with... hm...

 

This is T-72B obr. 1989, I think.

Edited March 16, 2022 by akd

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, keas66 said:

I really wish some of the Western Leaders like Biden for example would  follow the same playbook instead of these constant statements about exactly what we won't do .

Actually, saying so strongly that no NATO country is going to put forces into NATO has been quite helpful IMHO.  Took a lot of possible wind out of Putin's propaganda sails.  Imagine his people having video of a White House Briefing where someone was asked "will we deploy our troops into Ukraine now that Russia has attacked?"  Any answer other than "No, that's not going to happen" would be spun into "yes, we're going to do exactly that".

It also is needed to reassure the domestic population that we're not going to actively tempt WW3.  That allows the domestic Western population to instead focus on REAL help to Ukraine instead of worrying about it spiraling out of control.

I also think Putin went into this war assuming NATO would not put forces into Ukraine.  It is the logical thing for him to conclude with good reason.

Don't bluff if you're not willing to be called on it.  That's the lesson here.

Steve

[womble]

4 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Likelihood of this are so close to nil that it's hardly worth thinking about it at this point.

-Domestically not viable. He is making the case that Ukraine is a part of Russia and it's people want to be united with Russia and saved from Nazis. To start irradiating ANY parts of Ukraine would be indigestible to the Russian people, on all levels--from the leadership and political class all the way down to the "peasants". I don't think there are any target concentrations that are away from cities and populated areas that Putin could make the case it was purely a military target.

-Risks MASSIVE escalation with NATO. Even imagining the West does not respond with conventional military action, you can bet every covert agency in the world, including those in Russia, to make their task #1 "Regime change in Russia." If Putin manages to walk away still in power in the aftermath of a nuclear strike, for the next 5 years basically every human on Earth agenda item #1 is to get rid of Putin.

-There are more that I'm sure others are addressing as I type this.... It's hard keeping up in this thread and trying to have a day job all at once!

Additional: an escalation to WMD would draw another huge escalation of sanctions, even down to "all petrochem" and "All financial transactions and accessible Russian assets worldwide", and would broaden the church of those participating in the sanctions regime; not sure even China could allow that to pass un=sanctioned. Along, possibly, with a sudden disappearance of Russian boomers. 

[Vet 0369]

21 minutes ago, keas66 said:

I really wish some of the Western Leaders like Biden for example would  follow the same playbook instead of these constant statements about exactly what we won't do .

Biden won’t follow that playbook because midterm elections are occurring next year. At this point in time, Democrats control the Executive Branch, and both the House and Senate of the Legislative Branch. He has to walk a very fine line to avoid losing the Senate (50-50 split with the Vice President being the tie breaker) and the House super majority of Democrats. To lose either one would virtually doom any agenda the President has.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Vet 0369
Correction.

[Erwin]

Sanctions yes.  But, no attacks on Russian military by US or NATO - that's automatically WW3.

[Vic4]

25 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Likelihood of this are so close to nil that it's hardly worth thinking about it at this point.

I'm not certain that is the case but ofc hope you are right.

25 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

-Domestically not viable. He is making the case that Ukraine is a part of Russia and it's people want to be united with Russia and saved from Nazis. To start irradiating ANY parts of Ukraine would be indigestible to the Russian people, on all levels--from the leadership and political class all the way down to the "peasants". I don't think there are any target concentrations that are away from cities and populated areas that Putin could make the case it was purely a military target.

As has been noted here from many angles, unfortunately I don't think it's viable to rely on the "digestion" of the majority of Russian people to inhibit any atrocity.

25 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Risks MASSIVE escalation with NATO. 

I don't think so because of exactly what Steve notes below. Putin seems absolutely willing to back up his "bluffs". 

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Don't bluff if you're not willing to be called on it.  That's the lesson here.

Steve

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Vic4

[Erwin]

1 minute ago, Vet 0369 said:

Biden won’t follow that playbook because midterm elections are occurring next year. At this point in time, Democrats control the Executive Branch, and both the House and Senate of the Legislative Branch. He has to walk a very fine line to avoid losing the Senate (50-50 split with the Vice President being the tie breaker) and the House super majority of Democrats. To lose either one would virtually doom and Agenda the President has.

It's almost certain the Dems will do very badly in midterms, not only is it common that the party in the WH loses the House and Senate, but in addition Biden's performance ratings have sunk like a stone.

[kraze]

Just now, Erwin said:

Sanctions yes.  But, no attacks on Russian military by US or NATO - that's automatically WW3.

Btw what's with the "WW3" thing?

Russia has no allies, nobody will join the war defending it.

The only 'world' in world war will be everybody in the world beating russia into mud.

If you mean a nuclear war however - it's not like winds suddenly blowing radiation clouds into Poland wouldn't be exactly that.

[sburke]

9 minutes ago, kraze said:

Btw what's with the "WW3" thing?

Russia has no allies, nobody will join the war defending it.

The only 'world' in world war will be everybody in the world beating russia into mud.

If you mean a nuclear war however - it's not like winds suddenly blowing radiation clouds into Poland wouldn't be exactly that.

As McMasters said in a recent interview.  Stop falling into the Putin playbook of threats of escalation.  There are logical reasons for proceeding with things like AD units instead of aircraft, but this constant concern of Russian nukes is just Putin's bluster.  NATO needs to double down on supplying both the war effort and a commitment to help Ukraine rebuild while keeping Russia economically isolated.

Edited March 16, 2022 by sburke

[womble]

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

If you mean a nuclear war however - it's not like winds suddenly blowing radiation clouds into Poland wouldn't be exactly that.

I think that any use of nukes in Ukraine pretty much counts as an aggressive action against NATO, by this very measure, and Putin knows that. Unless he actually wants to perish on a bonfire of mutual, worldwide immolation, he won't go that far. 

[Vet 0369]

13 minutes ago, kraze said:

Btw what's with the "WW3" thing?

Russia has no allies, nobody will join the war defending it.

The only 'world' in world war will be everybody in the world beating russia into mud.

If you mean a nuclear war however - it's not like winds suddenly blowing radiation clouds into Poland wouldn't be exactly that.

I might be mistaken here, but don’t winds in Ukraine mostly blow from west/north west to east/south east as they do in most of the northern hemisphere? If Russia nuked Ukraine, where would most of the initial fallout be deposited? Not north in Poland, or anywhere east, unless they chose that specific wind direction.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Vet 0369

[Sequoia]

I hope this thread gets back more to military analysis. We're better at that.

[Taranis]

27 minutes ago, akd said:

This is T-72B obr. 1989, I think.

Agree their is no dazzler and no LWR so definitely not a T-90. Moreover the AA MG is pivoted to the rear.

[keas66]

One of things listed in the latest shopping list was 1000 remote drone systems  . There was some suggestion these would be the  portable kamikaze  systems  for taking out light vehicles .  1000 does not seem like enough  !

[billbindc]

26 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

I might be mistaken here, but don’t winds in Ukraine mostly blow from west/north west to east/south east as they do in most of the northern hemisphere? If Russia nuked Ukraine, where would most of the initial fallout be deposited? Not north in Poland, or anywhere east, unless they chose that specific wind direction.

What would be the actual utility of dropping some tactical nukes on Ukraine? Yes, it would be frightful. Yes, it would hurt Ukraine. It would also likely result in a permanent trade embargo on Russia, the evaporation of any support from China and Russia reduced to some sort of juche style economy. It would also turn the war in Ukraine from a strategic blunder into a tragedy on the level of the Holodomor or the Holocaust. What does permanent pariah status and the united hatred of the world accomplish for Putin and/or Russia?

Edited March 16, 2022 by billbindc

[akd]

 

[Fenris]

At other times of year the mostly flat, open fields are considered good tank country are they not?

 

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I disagree.  The intention of this ambush was to dispose of some Russians, further erode their will to fight, and live to fight another day.  All goals accomplished.

Fully wiping out that truck and its occupants would not have amounted to much more than what was already achieved.

Steve

I disagree, squared.

If you're going to attack a bunch of scared men with guns, in a civilian street, you better 1) finish the job, 2)not get yet more of your people killed.

If the aim was sap morale, that's a pretty wasteful, unprofessional and teenage-level opportunistic way of doing it.

Why go on your own/w 1 mate? That's dangerous and dumb. Why let the truck get that far after hit and not hit it again? Dangerous and dumb. Why use only the AT4 (?) and no follow on my fire/AGS? Dangerous and dumb. The only reason he's alive is because those troops are such low quality and had no escort. He runs away, great. Now, the Ivan's could easily turn psycho and attack the surrounding civilian houses. Easily. Allowing that is very selfish and again, dumb.

Which is fine, but still - work smart, not hard. Dumb is hard.

[akd]

Havocs doing the flying MLRS thing: