How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

I'm absolutely fascinated by just how many missiles have been intercepted. It's incredible. 

[BeondTheGrave]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

When combating a static enemy force you don't need the 3:1 rule of thumb in any place other than the area of main effort.

The Capt said this maybe 150 pgs ago, forever in thread time, but IMO bears repeating. I dont think the 3:1 rule really holds water anymore. I think weve seen a war where very traditional rigid force calculations have been proven not to produce the desired results. Inside of, say, 6:1 where attacking forces so totally outnumber the defenders nothing tactically really matters, I think the advantage goes to the side with bet (to use a CM term) 'Soft Factors' and support equipment. Which side is better supplied? Which side is more aggressive? Which side has a better knowledge of terrain? Which side has better ISR and strike, including drone, capabilities? Obviously here I think that the UA has an advantage over here, but I wouldn't downplay certain factors like being dug in, which will be a Russian advantage. And if the lines have become static, those places of course will slowly become better supplied with hard material, that is everything but gas and food. 

Well see in the counterattack wrestling match who gets the upper hand, seems like UA is doing well in many places so far. Maybe the Russians are on the verge of collapse. Or maybe the war is about to enter a new and bloody phase for both sides. 

[The_MonkeyKing]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I'm absolutely fascinated by just how many missiles have been intercepted. It's incredible. 

Well, these older islander type missiles fly high and relatively slow. Comparable to kamikaze fighter plane coming at you (with high flight trajectory).

We are used to American missile strikes in the past and these have been done with nap of earth flying cruise missiles. (some cruise missile strikes in Ukraine as well but not that many and no significant interceptions on these I believe)

 

[BeondTheGrave]

edit nvm plz delete

Edited March 19, 2022 by BeondTheGrave

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

The Capt said this maybe 150 pgs ago, forever in thread time, but IMO bears repeating. I dont think the 3:1 rule really holds water anymore. I think weve seen a war where very traditional rigid force calculations have been proven not to produce the desired results. Inside of, say, 6:1 where attacking forces so totally outnumber the defenders nothing tactically really matters, I think the advantage goes to the side with bet (to use a CM term) 'Soft Factors' and support equipment. Which side is better supplied? Which side is more aggressive? Which side has a better knowledge of terrain? Which side has better ISR and strike, including drone, capabilities? Obviously here I think that the UA has an advantage over here, but I wouldn't downplay certain factors like being dug in, which will be a Russian advantage. And if the lines have become static, those places of course will slowly become better supplied with hard material, that is everything but gas and food. 

Well see in the counterattack wrestling match who gets the upper hand, seems like UA is doing well in many places so far. Maybe the Russians are on the verge of collapse. Or maybe the war is about to enter a new and bloody phase for both sides. 

I honestly think in the case of this conflict another key factor is the side that is better connected and integrated.  I think the old force ratios doctrine was in trouble before this war, as we unpack what actually happened in the coming years I think we will be in for some significant surprises.  For example, I want to see what the data/information ratio was between the UA and Russian forces, I suspect it was significantly in favor of the UA. 

From what I can see the Russians went into this thing thinking that "dim mass" would carry it for them.  Based on what we saw in 2014, they had effectively linked UAVs and massed fires to tactical command to startling effect.  That got everyone's attention, and then we saw it again in the Nagoro-Karabahk.  But the UA has built something very different here I suspect, more in line with "smart hybrid".  As Haiduk mentions, this does not mean "all light" it means a nuanced implementation an mix of "special" light and heavy.  The only place I have seen this type before was during Mosul, when backed by western SOF, the Iraqi Security Forces kind of took a similar approach.  In Ukraine it looks like it was successfully upscaled to an operational level.  So I suspect "dim mass" met "smart hybrid" and we are seeing the result, well that plus "vegetative state" operational and "delusional" strategic.

Of course this raises more questions than answers...

[BeondTheGrave]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I honestly think in the case of this conflict another key factor is the side that is better connected and integrated.  I think the old force ratios doctrine was in trouble before this war, as we unpack what actually happened in the coming years I think we will be in for some significant surprises.  For example, I want to see what the data/information ratio was between the UA and Russian forces, I suspect it was significantly in favor of the UA. 

From what I can see the Russians went into this thing thinking that "dim mass" would carry it for them.  Based on what we saw in 2014, they had effectively linked UAVs and massed fires to tactical command to startling effect.  That got everyone's attention, and then we saw it again in the Nagoro-Karabahk.  But the UA has built something very different here I suspect, more in line with "smart hybrid".  As Haiduk mentions, this does not mean "all light" it means a nuanced implementation an mix of "special" light and heavy.  The only place I have seen this type before was during Mosul, when backed by western SOF, the Iraqi Security Forces kind of took a similar approach.  In Ukraine it looks like it was successfully upscaled to an operational level.  So I suspect "dim mass" met "smart hybrid" and we are seeing the result, well that plus "vegetative state" operational and "delusional" strategic.

Of course this raises more questions than answers...

The RMA, if we accept this term at all which I find problematic, has basically undermined the utility of mass in warfare. Mass can always be countered by better tech, smarter systems, and better integration (as well as training, preparation, etc.) So I really like the 'dim mass' and 'smart hybrid' phrasing. Shouldn't be any surprise as to why this is turning out the way it is. 

[Haiduk]

27 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I'm absolutely fascinated by just how many missiles have been intercepted. It's incredible. 

I havn't statictic, but can say like a Kyiv citizen - for all time of war from all missiles, launched on Kyiv and close vicinities (in average 2-4 +/- per a day) only several (3-5) breakthrough our AD shield. As I know most of them were cruise missiles.  

Edited March 19, 2022 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

UKR BTR-4E1, probably hit by the tank gun. Looks like first days losses. Ukrainian weapons tracker account claims this is "presumably near Mariupol" but the snow clearly points on Kharkiv area,

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

The RMA, if we accept this term at all which I find problematic, has basically undermined the utility of mass in warfare. Mass can always be countered by better tech, smarter systems, and better integration (as well as training, preparation, etc.) So I really like the 'dim mass' and 'smart hybrid' phrasing. Shouldn't be any surprise as to why this is turning out the way it is. 

I think Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) may be appropriate here.  It is a term that had cache back in the late 90s/early 00's and then lost it because it never really showed up, or at least we could not see it as we got bogged down in one COIN action after another.  But RMAs rarely happen overnight, we might realize them overnight, but they take decades to build up to.  Take WW1, which is an easy example, the hints of what that conflict was likely to turn into go back as far as the US Civil War (entrenching, tunneling around Richmond).  The impact of a group of technologies - long range smoke-less rifles, the machine gun, rapid indirect fire artillery, naval gunnery, info-over-wire, railway technology and canning/food preservation - all took decades to create but when pulled together led to a complete breakdown of military doctrine of the day.

In the modern era, it has been information and AI.  These technologies have been rapidly evolving over the last 20 years into modern C4ISR, long range and highly lethal smart-munitions, unmanned and what looks like crowd-sourced warfare.  We are seeing them being all pulled together in Ukraine and the result has been jarring, especially for the Russians.

I think the term "sharp smart mass" may best describe what the UA has managed to do.  They have highlighted a method, again that we will be studying for years, that looks like a digital jump but is in fact been on a long journey since about 1991. I mean the fact that we have Haiduk, in Kyiv right now, able to push us information directly from the field through social media, is mind blowing. 

One way or another, this will be a "Moneyball moment" for military affairs as we all try and figure out what just happened.  Because by any traditional metric the Russian military should have sliced through the UA and be smashing Kyiv to bits by now instead of bordering on collapse.  We can (and will) put a lot of this on the Russian doorstep; however, we should also be thinking how the UA approach would have faired against western military doctrine and how we might have to adapt our own methods.

[The Steppenwulf]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

a) Because they want to show they have that kind of missile and what they can do, and that next time there might be a different warhead on it. And they want to test the missile under combat conditions.

Or b) They are getting desperate and running out of everything else

If a) is correct then why did they not use them before now?

Leaves you with b) as the most reasonable answer, given all the other indications that Russian combat power is on the backfoot and there appears to have been a dramatic fall in use of Kalibr missiles. But "running out of everything else" also critically includes IDEAS.

In addition there are plenty of political indications that Putin knows full well that the special operation is not working out, and there could be all kinds of other ramifications coming down the track if it's not over soon. As posted by Steve:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/17/putin-russia-state-tv-news-00018304

And to underscore the point quoted from the article:

Quote

Putin understands that all is not going well for Russia, and they may even point to ways that Russia might be beginning to look for a way out.

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by The Steppenwulf

[db_zero]

This is a good report about NATO expansion and shows recently de-classified documents. While it is true no explicit treaty was signed, its a bit more complicated and easy to understand why a mis understanding and interpretation can happen. 
 

I also believe it’s very important to understand the PNAC which came into being in the 90s and it’s belief in “Benevolent Hegemony”. This was at a time when Russia was weak and China was not the economic and military power it is today. Take a look at the players in the PNAC and the role they played after 9/11.

It would also help to look at some of the documentaries of how US banks like Goldman Sacs operated in Russia after the Soviet Union fell.

Putin has maintained that he asked President Clinton if Russia could join NATO and the response was less than enthusiastic.

Put everything together and it paints a different perspective.

Putin himself by his aggressive actions didn’t do himself any favors so it’s easy to see why playing the victim card does didn’t win him much support.

This is a very complicated situation and has many grey areas and isn’t so black and white.

Caught in the middle of all of this is Ukraine

 

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

If a) is correct then why did they not use them before now?

Simplest answer could be that they were not ready.  Lobbing a next-gen hypersonic missile (a strategic weapon) at a warehouse makes absolutely no sense otherwise.  Even if Russian has completely fires off all its conventional cruise missiles, what was in that warehouse that was so important to fire from what is no doubt a much smaller hypersonic missile inventory?  

The effect of the entire hypersonic cruise missile is intended to reinforce strategic deterrence - “look American dogs we have super missile from mother Russia that you cannot shoot down with your Stars War technology”.  And based on the rattling going on back here at home, looks like the message was received.

But hey, been a lot of crazy-dumb goings on the Russian side in this one, so I guess we cannot totally  rule out option B.

[BeondTheGrave]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I think Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) may be appropriate here.  It is a term that had cache back in the late 90s/early 00's and then lost it because it never really showed up, or at least we could not see it as we got bogged down in one COIN action after another.  But RMAs rarely happen overnight, we might realize them overnight, but they take decades to build up to.  Take WW1, which is an easy example, the hints of what that conflict was likely to turn into go back as far as the US Civil War (entrenching, tunneling around Richmond).  The impact of a group of technologies - long range smoke-less rifles, the machine gun, rapid indirect fire artillery, naval gunnery, info-over-wire, railway technology and canning/food preservation - all took decades to create but when pulled together led to a complete breakdown of military doctrine of the day.

In the modern era, it has been information and AI.  These technologies have been rapidly evolving over the last 20 years into modern C4ISR, long range and highly lethal smart-munitions, unmanned and what looks like crowd-sourced warfare.  We are seeing them being all pulled together in Ukraine and the result has been jarring, especially for the Russians.

I think the term "sharp smart mass" may best describe what the UA has managed to do.  They have highlighted a method, again that we will be studying for years, that looks like a digital jump but is in fact been on a long journey since about 1991. I mean the fact that we have Haiduk, in Kyiv right now, able to push us information directly from the field through social media, is mind blowing. 

One way or another, this will be a "Moneyball moment" for military affairs as we all try and figure out what just happened.  Because by any traditional metric the Russian military should have sliced through the UA and be smashing Kyiv to bits by now instead of bordering on collapse.  We can (and will) put a lot of this on the Russian doorstep; however, we should also be thinking how the UA approach would have faired against western military doctrine and how we might have to adapt our own methods.

Great analysis. What I wouldn't give to see TRADOC's "Lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian War" which will surely come out to select classified audiences about 6mo after the war. Will be really interesting to see how things change in the next five years. 

[Haiduk]

Part of Rssian Tochka-U, intercepted in Luhansk oblast. Our General Staff claims it was shot down with Stinger

[TheVulture]

Continuing the Belarussian mystery machine, military vehicles with identification markers on the move - away from the border with Ukraine and towards Brest on the Polish border. Plus 11 staff from the Belarussian embassy in Ukraine have left the country, including the ambassador.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by TheVulture

[Harmon Rabb]

 

 

Ukrainian Ministry of Defence confirms death of Lieutenant General Andrei Mordvichev, commander of the 8th Guards Combined Arms Army of the Southern Military District of the Russian Ground Forces.

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Harmon Rabb

[Probus]

7 hours ago, kraze said:

You seem to be missing the key point here.

Why would anyone be bothered by some country joining an exclusively defensive alliance - unless that anyone wants to attack said country?

I know its defensive, you know its defensive, but its setup to defend against the USSR and now Russia (primarily). So Russia sees it as a threat.  Now NATO is expanding East, but its by choice not by conquest.

So theoretically, if Putin is dethroned and Russia somehow becomes a Western democracy (don't ask me how. I can't see it happening) and then joins NATO, that would effectively put an end to NATO.  It could be disbanded since there is no longer a threat.  Or NATO could stay in place and defend against Chinese aggression.  Or any other state that decides it wants to attack a NATO country.

@kraze, would you like to see Ukraine in NATO and/or the EU?  That question goes to @Haiduk also.  I know that I would.  Any other outcome to this war would do a disservice to those who have died defending it.  At the very least, Ukraine should become part of the EU.

[The Steppenwulf]

40 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Simplest answer could be that they were not ready.  Lobbing a next-gen hypersonic missile (a strategic weapon) at a warehouse makes absolutely no sense otherwise.  Even if Russian has completely fires off all its conventional cruise missiles, what was in that warehouse that was so important to fire from what is no doubt a much smaller hypersonic missile inventory?  

The effect of the entire hypersonic cruise missile is intended to reinforce strategic deterrence - “look American dogs we have super missile from mother Russia that you cannot shoot down with your Stars War technology”.  And based on the rattling going on back here at home, looks like the message was received.

But hey, been a lot of crazy-dumb goings on the Russian side in this one, so I guess we cannot totally  rule out option B.

Yes point taken. On reflection perhaps there could be an answer to this that lies somewhere between the two. That is; on the one hand, the Russians are running low on cruise missiles and are fully aware that they have not been as effective as hoped, due to sheer number of interceptions.

So if the target is important to neutralise, why expend half a dozen Kalibrs (that are running low) with no certainty of success anyhow, when only a single Kinzhal can be employed and provide greater certainty. With the bonus of sending a powerful message about the advanced capability remaining in the arsenal.        

Edited March 19, 2022 by The Steppenwulf

[Armorgunner]

A border guard, on the order of the Head of the Ukrainian Border Guard Service, gave 30 pieces of silver through Belarusian Ambassador Igor Sokol to the Chairman of the State Border Committee of Belarus Anatoly Lappo.

 

And remember the symbolism of this: Judas betrayed Jesus, for 30 pieces of silver!

 

 

[Haiduk]

37 minutes ago, Probus said:

@kraze, would you like to see Ukraine in NATO and/or the EU?  That question goes to @Haiduk also.  I know that I would.  Any other outcome to this war would do a disservice to those who have died defending it.  At the very least, Ukraine should become part of the EU.

I was a NATO membership supporter even more than EU membership. But now I dissapointed in NATO, Turned out this is old scared bureaurocratic structure which can only fight in local conflicts with weak opponents like Libya, for example, but already not capable to withstand the own main opponent, for which it was created. Mainly not in military sence (though....), but in political. Not only because NATO officials scare "to escalate", but because Gemany, France, Italy - the countries, whose elites connected closely with Russian business (read "political elites") never allow Ukraine to be a member - neither NATO, and much likely EU. Many people here will tell me about NATO will fight in the case of Russian attack  on Baltic states, but I say - I doubt. 

There is a good if Ukraine become a full EU member for now, but... "Old Europe" is under great influence of "left-progressive" ideology, which never be accepted in Eastern Europe, especially in traditionally conservative Poland and Ukraine. Contradictions inside EU between Westrn and Eastern Europe memebers will be grow, like and probably in EU part of NATO

So, sooner or later we will need new military and political allince. UK+Poland+Baltic states+Ukraine ? Maybe.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Haiduk

[kraze]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

This raises some questions:

Who provided these uniforms? Were they already in stock but just chosen for this mission? Or were they custom made to make a political statement? Who authorised this?

Just like with the TV editor and her anti war sign some days ago, is this a sign that Putin's control is slipping? Are individual Russians jumping ship now and trying to make sure that in a post-Putin Russia, they will still be in good graces?

I expect more and more such signalling in the coming days. It could quickly snowball, as more and more people in high places realise it's time to pick their side in public.

Russians board International Space Station in Ukrainian colours

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60804949

 

Another psyop to give the world a false impression that there are "good russians" and ease off on sanctions.

Why?

Because every russian astronaut is military. They are ideologically screened because, just like in USSR, they represent their country. And it's obvious those uniforms were given to them by higher-ups.

Add to that the massive russian "stop hating russians" campaign they launched in blocked social networks (meaning all that stuff is staged and organized by the FSB) - and you get the picture.

"Why should poor russians suffer if it's only putin's fault?"

Edited March 19, 2022 by kraze

[Erwin]

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

Another psyop to give the world a false impression that there are "good russians"

Hold on... you can't be saying that there are no "good Russians"?   That's rather extreme.

[kraze]

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Hold on... you can't be saying that there are no "good Russians"?   That's rather extreme.

No, what I'm saying is that for whatever reason "good russians" certainly seem to appear exclusively in russian state propaganda.

[Armorgunner]

52 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Part of Rssian Tochka-U, intercepted in Luhansk oblast. Our General Staff claims it was shot down with Stinger

Is this even possible? Tochka-U has more than doubble the speed of the Stinger. And at mach 5,3 how would you even see the Tochka before it impacts?

[kraze]

54 minutes ago, Probus said:

I know its defensive, you know its defensive, but its setup to defend against the USSR and now Russia (primarily). So Russia sees it as a threat.  Now NATO is expanding East, but its by choice not by conquest.

So theoretically, if Putin is dethroned and Russia somehow becomes a Western democracy (don't ask me how. I can't see it happening) and then joins NATO, that would effectively put an end to NATO.  It could be disbanded since there is no longer a threat.  Or NATO could stay in place and defend against Chinese aggression.  Or any other state that decides it wants to attack a NATO country.

@kraze, would you like to see Ukraine in NATO and/or the EU?  That question goes to @Haiduk also.  I know that I would.  Any other outcome to this war would do a disservice to those who have died defending it.  At the very least, Ukraine should become part of the EU.

Of course. NATO is a strong guarantee that nothing bad happens to its members because that guarantee comes from nuclear countries. And the sole fact that no NATO member was ever attacked is a solid proof of that.

Plus being neighbors with a country that wants to murder all of us for the sole reason of some made-up delusions means there is no alternative to NATO that will guarantee our survival.

If we were in NATO to begin with - this war would have never happened.

And naturally being part of EU is a great thing too. Because civilization is about making money, lots of money - at least for the foreseeable future. And EU is about making money. War is bad for money. Peace is good for money. So EU found a way for its ever warring countries to peacefully co-exist and resolve all the issues through hard cash.

Edited March 19, 2022 by kraze