How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

54 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Something is suspicious to me about the false intelligence. Even we knew, that Ukraine with NATO training, modern equipment, and a good percentage of population absolutely hating russians, would be a deadly opponent to any force. Heck even the US army would probably suffer heavy losses there. How on earth did his advisors fail to grasp that. They even had people in Ukraine for years that shared Intel. I have a theory that this could be a setup with the hope of weakening Putin. He is talking about traitors and you are talking about corruption. What if these people were bribed or infiltrated by the West to lure Putin into a dangerous military adventure. 

At some point I will write up a very detailed account of what I suspect happened, but I will give you the short version of it.

Putin said "that's it, I want ALL of Ukraine.  What are my options?"

The advisors, if they were worth their salt, would know that there was no practical way to do it.  Some probably even said so and were dismissed, either figuratively or actually.  The other advisors seeing that The Boss wasn't going to take no for an answer brainstormed a scenario where it could work.  And that was if the Ukrainian forces folded up and the population sat quietly around while Russia determined their fate.  They likely drew from some of their 2014 experiences and found comfort in them (distorted and out of context as they might be). 

With this plan in mind they pushed the idea down to the bean counters and said "figure out a way to make this work on paper".  Part of that went to the FSB Fifth Service (external intel) to make the case that the Ukrainians would comply.  Reports were generated and moved up the chain of command.

When a higher echelon was handed something that presented anything other than a clear path to uncontested victory, the report was either shelved, edited, of sent back down for revision until they got it "right".  When this was complete the higher level had the plan that fit Putin's strategic goals.  The fact that it had NOTHING to do with reality wasn't important to these guys.  The ones who cared or otherwise had a spine have long since been cashed out of service.  Toadies and spineless people, perhaps unqualified in the first place, were all that the Kremlin had to draw upon.

I'm also going to bet that any alternative "worst case" scenario/s were way off the mark as well.  Because what's the point of bothering to get people upset with worst case scenarios if victory is so assured?

Once all this happened the only thing saving Russia from this horrendous war was Putin deciding not to invade.  I'm sure many in his inner circle (wrongly) believed that is what would happen.  It didn't and so a horrible plan became the basis for this war.

Steve

[Probus]

@Battlefront.com or if someone else knows, I am being told by a friend that when Germany re-unified that the West secretly (at the time) promised Russia that NATO would not "expand" further East.  Is this true?  Does someone have a source for these (declassified) documents? 

This had the effect of allowing Russian Hardliners (like Putin) to get into power in Russia, pointing at the West and saying "See, you can't trust them".  This was the first I'd heard of this, water under the bridge now but is unfortunate if true.

Although it doesn't justify Russia's blatant and unlawful attack on Ukraine, I could see where allowing nations like Poland and others into NATO is kinda like pokin' the Bear and giving hardliners political ammunition to use in their arsenal.

This has been the only argument against the West I've heard that is very troubling (if true).

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/

https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

I've also read much of Bloodlands which makes me think that Ukraine is very justified in wanting to become part of NATO.  That poor area was stuck between Hitler and the USSR, both of which seemed to want to destroy a significant part of its population. 

Very confusing and convoluted subject and may not be a good fit for this thread as I would prefer to see reports of what is going on in Ukraine right now. So don't let me derail my own thread.  But this thread also has very knowledgeable folks who may very well be able to put this issue to rest in my mind.

[nik mond]

So at what level does corruption run in the Russian army. I am assuming its divisional. A division submits a budget and gets funding for its running costs. Rations are expired. Tires are expired. Budget for basic upkeep pocketed?

Budgets for training maneuvers are expunged  too? Even the most remfy of the REMFs know how to respond in an ambush. So are we expected to believe the Russian SOP is for the the first tank to get blowed up, the second tank freezes, the 3rd vehicle a BTR dumps its troops who run to the opposite ditch, the 4th vehicle backs and collides with the 5th? Obviously these troops don't perform drills. What invading army does that?

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Russian/Soviet aircraft were designed to use rough/unimproved airfields. Their helicopters routine use a rolling takeoff under most conditions, and especially when heavily loaded. Based on my 50+ years in aviation and aviation maintenance, I expect, and assume, that those frictions and stresses that are experienced during takeoff and landing are much worse than simple low speed towing when basically at empty weight.

Oh, I have no doubts about this.  However, there is a difference between short shocks and long use.  Friction produces heat, heat produces stress, and stress produces failures.  There's a very big difference between rolling for a few meters every once and a while and being dragged for 10s of KMs at 50kmh.

I many shotcuts are taken in vehicle designs based on what the intended use is.  For example, the hull of a boat is not designed to withstand repeated stresses of hitting solid objects.  An outboard motor also assumes a certain water temperature for cooling at high RPMs.  Etc.  Change some of those variables around and something that might work fine in normal conditions might fail in others.

I honestly do not know if the wheel systems of Russian helicopters are designed for long distance towing.  They very well might be.  But if they aren't, then somewhere off camera we might hear a bunch of loud sounds and cursing

Steve

[Kinophile]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 They very well might be.  But if they aren't, then somewhere off camera we might hear a bunch of loud sounds and cursing

Steve

And soon followed by the quiet rumble of an approaching predatory John Deere...

*cue Jaws music*

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Kinophile

[BeondTheGrave]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

At some point I will write up a very detailed account of what I suspect happened, but I will give you the short version of it.

Putin said "that's it, I want ALL of Ukraine.  What are my options?"

The advisors, if they were worth their salt, would know that there was no practical way to do it.  Some probably even said so and were dismissed, either figuratively or actually.  The other advisors seeing that The Boss wasn't going to take no for an answer brainstormed a scenario where it could work.  And that was if the Ukrainian forces folded up and the population sat quietly around while Russia determined their fate.  They likely drew from some of their 2014 experiences and found comfort in them (distorted and out of context as they might be). 

With this plan in mind they pushed the idea down to the bean counters and said "figure out a way to make this work on paper".  Part of that went to the FSB Fifth Service (external intel) to make the case that the Ukrainians would comply.  Reports were generated and moved up the chain of command.

When a higher echelon was handed something that presented anything other than a clear path to uncontested victory, the report was either shelved, edited, of sent back down for revision until they got it "right".  When this was complete the higher level had the plan that fit Putin's strategic goals.  The fact that it had NOTHING to do with reality wasn't important to these guys.  The ones who cared or otherwise had a spine have long since been cashed out of service.  Toadies and spineless people, perhaps unqualified in the first place, were all that the Kremlin had to draw upon.

I'm also going to bet that any alternative "worst case" scenario/s were way off the mark as well.  Because what's the point of bothering to get people upset with worst case scenarios if victory is so assured?

Once all this happened the only thing saving Russia from this horrendous war was Putin deciding not to invade.  I'm sure many in his inner circle (wrongly) believed that is what would happen.  It didn't and so a horrible plan became the basis for this war.

Steve

I would believe this theory because this is very often how wars start. "Oh **** we have a crisis, well whats the military solution. What do you mean there is not military solution? Youre fired, bring me someone with a military solution." So most policymakers, being smart and above all self interested, moderate their advice to fit in with the current political climate. HR McMaster touches on this RE Vietnam, though of course he gets the big picture stuff wrong RE the advice the JCS really wanted to give to Johnson. And the bigger picture here is, if you believe in civilian control of the military (and the structure of the Russian state suggests they do too) then this is the proper relationship. Civilians decide, military executes. But it gets a little problematic when the advice runs contrary to the means and capacity of the state, leading to policy moderation. 

The one great X question though, to me, is why Putin decided on 'now' not 'later' or 'sooner.' Was it COVID? Or Afghanistan (please dont use this as an excuse to piss of Elvis again)? Or China and Taiwan? Or (and I really wonder if this is true) if behind the scenes in the DR/LR there was rumblings of a major policy shift there. That would explain the dynamic for 'Kyiv or Bust.' Of course we dont know, and couldn't know. Anyone who says they know is a liar. All we can do is speculate to Vladdy Daddy's state of mind. 

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Probus said:

@Battlefront.com or if someone else knows, I am being told by a friend that when Germany re-unified that the West secretly (at the time) promised Russia that NATO would not "expand" further East.  Is this true?  Does someone have a source for these (declassified) documents?

Sorta, this has been largely accepted as true (to some extent, anyway) and the Russians have never been shy about pointing towards it while, at the same time, totally ignoring the SIGNED treaty they made guaranteeing Ukrainian independence if it gave up its nuclear weapons.  This means the Russians, according to their logic, should expect the West to be held to an informal discussion and not expect Russia to be held to a signed treaty.  Or International Law for that matter.

It also needs to be pointed out that whatever was said went on the assumption that Russia wouldn't try invading and covertly undermining those countries in violation of International Law.

So no matter what, Russia doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Steve

[EDIT] Just found an article in NY Times talking this.  It's behind a paywall, but here's an important piece of it:

Quote

President Vladimir V. Putin and other Russian officials have asserted that Mr. Baker ruled out NATO expansion into Eastern Europe when he served as President George H.W. Bush’s top diplomat. The West’s failure to live up to that agreement, in this argument, is the real cause of the crisis now gripping Europe as Mr. Putin demands that NATO forswear membership for Ukraine as the price of calling off a potential invasion.

But the record suggests this is a selective account of what really happened, used to justify Russian aggression for years. While there was indeed discussion between Mr. Baker and the Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev in the months after the fall of the Berlin Wall about limiting NATO jurisdiction if East and West Germany were reunited, no such provision was included in the final treaty signed by the Americans, Europeans and Russians.

 

 

“The bottom line is, that’s a ridiculous argument,” Mr. Baker said in an interview in 2014, a few months after Russia seized Crimea and intervened in eastern Ukraine. “It is true that in the initial stages of negotiations I said ‘what if’ and then Gorbachev himself supported a solution that extended the border that included the German Democratic Republic,” or East Germany, within NATO. Since the Russians signed that treaty, he asked, how can they rely “on something I said a month or so before? It just doesn’t make sense.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html

[Probus]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, this has been largely accepted as true (to some extent, anyway) and the Russians have never been shy about pointing towards it while, at the same time, totally ignoring the SIGNED treaty they made guaranteeing Ukrainian independence if it gave up its nuclear weapons.  This means the Russians, according to their logic, should expect the West to be held to an informal discussion and not expect Russia to be held to a signed treaty.  Or International Law for that matter.

So no matter what, Russia doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Steve

+1

[Battlefront.com]

See my revised post above.  I tweaked some of my "yes" language and also included quotes from an article about it.

Note also that if you do a search on this topic you will likely find a loooooooong list of pro-Russian websites making out of context mountains out of molehills.  That right there is an indication that the claim itself is mostly a propaganda point, not a real one.

Steve

[Ultradave]

23 minutes ago, Probus said:

@Battlefront.com or if someone else knows, I am being told by a friend that when Germany re-unified that the West secretly (at the time) promised Russia that NATO would not "expand" further East.  Is this true?  Does someone have a source for these (declassified) documents? 

This had the effect of allowing Russian Hardliners (like Putin) to get into power in Russia, pointing at the West and saying "See, you can't trust them".  This was the first I'd heard of this, water under the bridge now but is unfortunate if true.

Although it doesn't justify Russia's blatant and unlawful attack on Ukraine, I could see where allowing nations like Poland and others into NATO is kinda like pokin' the Bear and giving hardliners political ammunition to use in their arsenal.

This has been the only argument against the West I've heard that is very troubling (if true).

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/

https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

I've also read much of Bloodlands which makes me think that Ukraine is very justified in wanting to become part of NATO.  That poor area was stuck between Hitler and the USSR, both of which seemed to want to destroy a significant part of its population. 

Very confusing and convoluted subject and may not be a good fit for this thread as I would prefer to see reports of what is going on in Ukraine right now. So don't let me derail my own thread.  But this thread also has very knowledgeable folks who may very well be able to put this issue to rest in my mind.

An informal agreement (at least apparently. Not sure there's any actual evidence of it (I could be wrong and not suggesting such a statement or informal promise wasn't made). 

And it totally ignores that fact that Russia in a signed pact, GUARANTEED Ukraines safety and soveriegnty in return for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons that were stationed and stored in their territory.

Dave

[edit] Second part was poorly written, I think. It's the Russians I'm accusing of totally ignoring their commitment and not you, if I was unclear.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Ultradave

[sross112]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

At some point I will write up a very detailed account of what I suspect happened, but I will give you the short version of it.

Putin said "that's it, I want ALL of Ukraine.  What are my options?"

The advisors, if they were worth their salt, would know that there was no practical way to do it.  Some probably even said so and were dismissed, either figuratively or actually.  The other advisors seeing that The Boss wasn't going to take no for an answer brainstormed a scenario where it could work.  And that was if the Ukrainian forces folded up and the population sat quietly around while Russia determined their fate.  They likely drew from some of their 2014 experiences and found comfort in them (distorted and out of context as they might be). 

With this plan in mind they pushed the idea down to the bean counters and said "figure out a way to make this work on paper".  Part of that went to the FSB Fifth Service (external intel) to make the case that the Ukrainians would comply.  Reports were generated and moved up the chain of command.

When a higher echelon was handed something that presented anything other than a clear path to uncontested victory, the report was either shelved, edited, of sent back down for revision until they got it "right".  When this was complete the higher level had the plan that fit Putin's strategic goals.  The fact that it had NOTHING to do with reality wasn't important to these guys.  The ones who cared or otherwise had a spine have long since been cashed out of service.  Toadies and spineless people, perhaps unqualified in the first place, were all that the Kremlin had to draw upon.

I'm also going to bet that any alternative "worst case" scenario/s were way off the mark as well.  Because what's the point of bothering to get people upset with worst case scenarios if victory is so assured?

Once all this happened the only thing saving Russia from this horrendous war was Putin deciding not to invade.  I'm sure many in his inner circle (wrongly) believed that is what would happen.  It didn't and so a horrible plan became the basis for this war.

Steve

How many times in military history have commanders based their plans on the last war? If you look to the Russian experience in Crimea and over the last few years in the other regions they see that for the most part their forces were able to achieve their goals with relatively light losses. I don't know a lot and most of what I do know is off the internet so I might be way off base but it appears the majority of the casualties their side suffered were in the separatist units.  The Capt posted a good analysis document link probably a hundred pages ago that had a lot of lessons learned and showed the Ukrainian and Russian strengths and weaknesses. It looks like the Ukrainians learned an awful lot but the Russians figured if it worked then it would work now.

So the intelligence failure is definitely there as has been pointed out a lot, but it is very possible that the Russian military told Putin "No worries, we got this." when he asked for the plan as they were basing their assumptions on the last confrontation without taking into consideration their foe had evolved. 

[Vet 0369]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Ka-52 has two crew, side-by-side.

Thank you Sir, or Ma’am.

[keas66]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

[db_zero]

Interesting analysis of Russian logistics, trucks and tires from someone who knows a thing or 2.

Interesting take on corruption, use of wood in Russian trucks and why Russians are moving slowly.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by db_zero

[Battlefront.com]

I just finished reading the NY Times post about the "no expansion" crap that Russia keeps harping on.  Basically, Baker said that he used a poor choice of words in a very preliminary discussion.  When the discussion was reviewed he was shown that and afterwards tightened up his language and made sure Gorbachev understood the change.  Baker said he did and they went forward in discussions based on the new concept.  THIS is what the Soviet Union signed, not the preliminary discussion point.

The article also goes into detail about the Russia double standard of the West not living up to something it never agreed to while Russia blatantly violates things it did agree to.  Not to mention the mass murder stuff.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Russians hit with a missile (unclear which type) barracks of 79th air-assault brigade in Mykolaiv. Foreign journalists claim about at least 40 dead.

There is many critic that unit commanders continue to deploy own personnel in the military unit buildings, which can be potential targets. In this case missile (or missules) were launched from Kherson vicinity and hadn't time to sound the alarm. IN previous days this caused heavy casualtied, like in Okhtyrka two weeks ago, when after Russian strike on buildings of engineer unit 70 servicemen were killed.

[Vet 0369]

33 minutes ago, Probus said:

@Battlefront.com or if someone else knows, I am being told by a friend that when Germany re-unified that the West secretly (at the time) promised Russia that NATO would not "expand" further East.  Is this true?  Does someone have a source for these (declassified) documents? 

This had the effect of allowing Russian Hardliners (like Putin) to get into power in Russia, pointing at the West and saying "See, you can't trust them".  This was the first I'd heard of this, water under the bridge now but is unfortunate if true.

Although it doesn't justify Russia's blatant and unlawful attack on Ukraine, I could see where allowing nations like Poland and others into NATO is kinda like pokin' the Bear and giving hardliners political ammunition to use in their arsenal.

This has been the only argument against the West I've heard that is very troubling (if true).

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/

https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

I've also read much of Bloodlands which makes me think that Ukraine is very justified in wanting to become part of NATO.  That poor area was stuck between Hitler and the USSR, both of which seemed to want to destroy a significant part of its population. 

Very confusing and convoluted subject and may not be a good fit for this thread as I would prefer to see reports of what is going on in Ukraine right now. So don't let me derail my own thread.  But this thread also has very knowledgeable folks who may very well be able to put this issue to rest in my mind.

This might be a bit difficult to prove the west made a “secret” deal with The Soviets/Russians since it’s like “secret” right?

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, keas66 said:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Excellent find and not behind a paywall   Good one!

Steve

[panzermartin]

45 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

At some point I will write up a very detailed account of what I suspect happened, but I will give you the short version of it.

Putin said "that's it, I want ALL of Ukraine.  What are my options?"

The advisors, if they were worth their salt, would know that there was no practical way to do it.  Some probably even said so and were dismissed, either figuratively or actually.  The other advisors seeing that The Boss wasn't going to take no for an answer brainstormed a scenario where it could work.  And that was if the Ukrainian forces folded up and the population sat quietly around while Russia determined their fate.  They likely drew from some of their 2014 experiences and found comfort in them (distorted and out of context as they might be). 

With this plan in mind they pushed the idea down to the bean counters and said "figure out a way to make this work on paper".  Part of that went to the FSB Fifth Service (external intel) to make the case that the Ukrainians would comply.  Reports were generated and moved up the chain of command.

When a higher echelon was handed something that presented anything other than a clear path to uncontested victory, the report was either shelved, edited, of sent back down for revision until they got it "right".  When this was complete the higher level had the plan that fit Putin's strategic goals.  The fact that it had NOTHING to do with reality wasn't important to these guys.  The ones who cared or otherwise had a spine have long since been cashed out of service.  Toadies and spineless people, perhaps unqualified in the first place, were all that the Kremlin had to draw upon.

I'm also going to bet that any alternative "worst case" scenario/s were way off the mark as well.  Because what's the point of bothering to get people upset with worst case scenarios if victory is so assured?

Once all this happened the only thing saving Russia from this horrendous war was Putin deciding not to invade.  I'm sure many in his inner circle (wrongly) believed that is what would happen.  It didn't and so a horrible plan became the basis for this war.

Steve

Well that sounds like a pretty... sound scenario. The thing that bothers me, is that so far those same spineless people had organized swift, minimal risk operations In Crimea and Eastern Ukraine , (green men, invisible tanks through the border etc,) defeated ISIS in Syria, earlier had turned Chechenya from a nightmare to a reliable bodyguard force and so on...All precise operations with guaranteed success and calculated risk. They even lost a jet to Turkey and didn't actually bother. What happened this time. Overconfidence or a screw turned in Putins head, to bet all in a gamble like this that could doom Russia...I knew from the moment they crossed the borders, that's a huge mistake. 

And on the spineless behavior you mention, I'm worried, if this extends to the nuclear forces chain of command. Or in that case self preservation will prevail Because we are heading that alley, I'm almost convinced. Negotiations so far seem like people from different galaxies trying to find common language. 

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Well that sounds like a pretty... sound scenario. The thing that bothers me, is that so far those same spineless people 

And on the spineless behavior you mention, I'm worried, if this extends to the nuclear forces chain of command. Or in that case self preservation will prevail Because we are heading that alley, I'm almost convinced. Negotiations so far seem like people from different galaxies trying to find common language. 

If Russian was going to do anything to the west it would have been cyberwarfare, but they've already been told that would constitute an article 5 option.  If they aren't even going to cross that line I doubt WMDs or nukes are on the table.  Putin is a one trick pony.  threats and hope you'll fold to avoid damage.

[db_zero]

I never was a fan of NATO expanding East as given Russia’s past it would be viewed as threatening.

Once Putin invaded Ukraine all that went out the window and the conduct of the war which has been accurately described as a 20th Century style of warfare being waged in 2022 with cities being flattened is not acceptable, but honestly Putin did the same in other places and we just ignored it. 
 

 

[panzermartin]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

If Russian was going to do anything to the west it would have been cyberwarfare, but they've already been told that would constitute an article 5 option.  If they aren't even going to cross that line I doubt WMDs or nukes are on the table.  Putin is a one trick pony.  threats and hope you'll fold to avoid damage.

It's still early to tell. They still think they can get a win out of this. Things will get uglier once this doesn't happen. 

[danfrodo]

27 minutes ago, db_zero said:

I never was a fan of NATO expanding East as given Russia’s past it would be viewed as threatening.

Once Putin invaded Ukraine all that went out the window and the conduct of the war which has been accurately described as a 20th Century style of warfare being waged in 2022 with cities being flattened is not acceptable, but honestly Putin did the same in other places and we just ignored it. 
 

 

Except that if Baltic states weren't in NATO he'd probably be picking them off one at a time right now and tackling Ukraine later.  The reality is that Putin is a threat to the freedom and sovereignity of former USSR nations (and others) and the only thing keeping him on any kind of leash was fear of NATO article 5.  Like w Hitler, he pushed and got away with it, did it again, and again, and so decided he was a genius and west was weak.  Ooopsy.

[Baneman]

41 minutes ago, db_zero said:

I never was a fan of NATO expanding East as given Russia’s past it would be viewed as threatening.

...

Yes, but it was never about NATO expanding east, it was countries that happened to be east of the NATO group of the time that felt threatened by a future Russia and wanting to join.

There's no reason to join a defensive organisation unless you distrust your neighbour  - and given Russian behaviour, they weren't wrong to want to join.
Do you really think that Russia wouldn't be bullying the Baltics just as in Georgia, Moldova etc. if those countries had stayed out of NATO ?

[sburke]

9 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Except that if Baltic states weren't in NATO he'd probably be picking them off one at a time right now and tackling Ukraine later.  The reality is that Putin is a threat to the freedom and sovereignity of former USSR nations (and others) and the only thing keeping him on any kind of leash was fear of NATO article 5.  Like w Hitler, he pushed and got away with it, did it again, and again, and so decided he was a genius and west was weak.  Ooopsy.

Here is a clue.  The CFE treaty was signed in 1990.  The first E European states didn't join NATO until 1999.  by 1992 Russia twice invaded former republics carving out "independent" states.  Russia drove countries to want to be in NATO.