How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Commanderski]

Don't know how reliable this is but just saw this on Express.co.uk and on Twitter

According to unconfirmed but realistic looking reports, Russian troops have got surrounded in Bucha, Irpin and Hostomel area near Kyiv, cut from supplies. If true - the biggest defeat of a Russian army until now, and Ukraine needs to start worrying about too many POWs.

 

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

This tweet maybe has the answer: 

It is the Sheikh Mansur battalio. A lot of history behind. Founded by former members of the Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalion.

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1506331299572817926?s=20&t=NQbUYUoeRVi517gLKavIUQ

Sounds like they are speaking Arabic. Definitely not Ukrainian or Russian.  Not too familiar with Chechen, but I don't think that's what that was.  One guy has yellow on his kneepads and one guy has a blue band on his right arm.  I don't know what to make of it as I don't trust text descriptors without corroborating evidence.

Found this though.  Cripes, I didn't know Khodakovsky was still around.  Or I did and I just didn't care   Seems he wasn't impressed with the Chechens that were sent to his area over the past few days.

 

[akd]

16 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

This tweet maybe has the answer: 

It is the Sheikh Mansur battalio. A lot of history behind. Founded by former members of the Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalion.

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1506331299572817926?s=20&t=NQbUYUoeRVi517gLKavIUQ

Are they speaking Chechen or Arabic?

[danfrodo]

13 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

I wonder what this does to the loyalty to Putin of the other generals?  Someone does get promoted out of this, but hopefully it leads to a military putsch as generals realize they might not be long for the world if they fail -- and they are probably pretty sure they'll fail.

[akd]

15 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

Interesting, but source is a facebook post without sourcing.

[CHEqTRO]

That is indeed the Russian Embassy at Warsaw, wether that smoke is actually coming from documents being burned, I guess is debatable

[mosuri]

16 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

6th Army? Heh. Maybe Putler should have promoted him to field marshal ...

[Haiduk]

7 minutes ago, akd said:

Are they speaking Chechen or Arabic?

@Battlefront.com

One of this guys at the start of video calls other by name - Akhmat - this is traditional Chechen name. 99,9% they are Chechens

Edited March 22, 2022 by Haiduk

[DesertFox]

4 minutes ago, akd said:

Are they speaking Chechen or Arabic?

Can´t tell, but this should answer who they are

Czeczeński batalion Szejka Mansura "russische schweine kaputt"

 

 

[BeondTheGrave]

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Just thought about this based on some posts above.  We've talked about Russia preparing for a 3 day "victory lap" around Eastern Ukraine.  We've all noted that all of Russia's logistics were based on that concept.  We have seen how bad this flawed assumption was in terms of Russia's plans.

However, what if they had taken over eastern Ukraine in 3 days?  Would things have gone much better for them after?  I mean, where were these soldiers going to be housed?  Does Russia have stocks of food sufficient for months of occupation?  Would they have much better luck keeping their trucks running smoothly even with no enemy activities?

Obviously this is all hypothetical and irrelevant, but it just occurred to me that Russia might have failed at occupation even under the most ideal circumstances.  Now there's a fun thought.

Steve

I would suspect that the endgame after the fall of Kyiv, ideally to a D-Day airborne force, would have been the arrest of any and all remaining government officials (in some ways Zelensky fleeing to the west ala Afghanistan might be a preferential propaganda victory). With the capital under heel, a puppet government would be installed who would, of course, be friendly to Moscow. Youll recall some aspects of the US early warning emphasized the possibility of a 'coup' by Pro-Moscow politicians. This of course could be part of the pre-war maskirovka, but such a plan would easily fit into 'reconstruction' as well. 

Depending on levels of resistance in the east, south of Kharkov, the army might remain at host governments invitation till these 'rebels' are destroyed. But very quickly you'd see the withdraw of Russian forces as combat winds down. If you accept the 'quick collapse' assumption, it shouldn't bee to hard to keep the units in supply. After all this alt-history Ukraine isn't flush with NLAWs, the people are indifferent at worst and pro-regime change at best, and so nobody is hitting convoys in any systemic process. Road and rail from Belorussia remains open, and anyway the border to Kyiv convoys start to deliver """reconstruction aid""" rather than military supplies. 

I just have this suspicion that the idea wasn't to get bogged down in some Iraq or Syria style occupation. Maybe a few regiments would remain behind to maintain a presence, but nothing serious. Nothing challenging to keep. Because why would they? The 'quick collapse' scenario is based on the assumption that, like in 2014, Zelensky's government remained unpopular with the average person. Not worth fighting for. There would not be the breeding ground for a rapid or challenging insurgency because the country wasn't worth fighting for in the first place. 

Weve gone over it a million times in this thread, but it is worth repeating that, IMO, this 'quick collapse' assumption was the center of gravity of the Russian failure. If you permit me to abuse a term. 

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, Haiduk said:

@Battlefront.com

One of this guys at the start of video call other by name - Akhmat - this is traditional Chechen name. 99,9% they are Chechens

Yes, and that makes the most amount of sense too.

From what I've seen of Kadyrov's forces they are more uniformly equipped.  Much better for Instagram.  These guys, however, are wearing all kinds of misc. military surplus.  I think it is most likely a pro-Ukrainian Chechen group as was stated in the second posting about them.

Steve

[CHEqTRO]

20 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

His army was the one deployed from Sumy all the way to the part of the Ukranian border that bends towards the West/Belarus (Around Stara Huta). That region has been the one with the most logistical problems as far as we know, so is not that strange that he got removed.

[DesertFox]

4 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said:

that is indeed the Russian Embassy at Warsaw, wether that smoke is actually coming from documents being burned, I guess is debatable

Nah, black smoke ...still in the election phase...once the smoke turns white they have a new president...Habemus Papa...oh wait...

[Machor]

"'I'm alive': Former Canadian Forces sniper debunks rumours of his death in Ukraine

"I'm pretty much the last person to know about my death" — former CAF sniper 'Wali'"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wali-alive-despite-russian-disinformation-1.6393191

""I'm a good sniper," said Wali. "Nothing less, nothing more ... I didn't kill any Russians yet. I help doing so because the sniper is doing a lot of observation, reporting.""

"Ukraine's President Volodymr Zelensky put out a worldwide call for volunteers to join his country's defence — but foreign fighters who don't sign three-year contracts with Ukraine's military aren't protected by international law in the event of capture.

Russia has said that it will treat foreign fighters as mercenaries."

[Haiduk]

Good example of training level of Russian forces, even elite. Captured AK-12 with 1P87 RDS. But the sight mounted backwards.

And how it should be

[Lethaface]

23 hours ago, womble said:

Simply to deny Putin (or any other autocrats, naming no Xis) any mileage out of "American Imperialism". Which is, in the end, going to be vital.

I'm not sure I agree. Although you only quoted part of what I said, as my remark was "I also don't get why NATO/USA was so explicit in that they won't be sending troops, before the thing happened."

Bold added. I agree that it was wise to make perfectly clear that NATO/USA wouldn't directly intervene, after Russia invaded.

However, I remember somewhere last year not understanding why the USA (/NATO) felt the need of emphasizing that they won't send any boots on the ground in the case of a potential conflict in Ukraine. It was free info for Russia, while not saying anything or being vague about it wouldn't have cost anything and might have influenced Russia's risk-analysis.

It's like sitting at the poker table while in a hand telling another player that you'll fold if they go all in. 

Although I'm quite sure that message was intended for 'internal use' (edit: national public). 

Another thing I wondered was why nobody planned a hasty 'friendly port visit' of a frigate of some kind to Mariupol / Odessa, when they saw the invasion materialize early this year? Or organizing a new bi-annual combat medic field surgery biathlon in Ukraine, with several countries attending
Shenanigans, two can play that game and I feel that 'things' have been made too easy for Putin / Kremlin, at least until the **** show started. 
Now that's all sort of irrelevant, but I hope 'we' learn from this for the future and try to increase the chance to proactively prevent warmongering endeavors instead of reacting after the fact; by all cheeky means necessary.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Lethaface

[sburke]

50 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

ha, I'll add a section for "sacked" on the casualty list  

[Taranis]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Shevchenka Boulevard, looking west:

47.11657° N, 37.52632° E

Maybe not from today.

T-64BV ? What do you think ?

[womble]

8 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I'm not sure I agree. Although you only quoted part of what I said, as my remark was "I also don't get why NATO/USA was so explicit in that they won't be sending troops, before the thing happened."

I just think they were "getting out in front" with their messaging. Like they've been doing with their intel take for the past six months or more. While it's never going to stop it completely, it makes it harder for Putin to claim NATO encroachment if there are firm statements that it's not going to happen, rather than "not denying it"...

It's a bit like Putin saying "We are not going to invade Ukraine", and being technically right in his own lights, by saying "It's not an invasion, it's a special military operation." A bit like, in that it's about managing the message. It's also the complete opposite at the same time, since it's actually got some basis in reality...  What Putin would have been wise to take from the message was "We won't commit any troops, but we'll do nearly everything up to that point." Not that Putin seems to be in any mood to listen to that sort of cautionary message.

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, womble said:

I just think they were "getting out in front" with their messaging. Like they've been doing with their intel take for the past six months or more. While it's never going to stop it completely, it makes it harder for Putin to claim NATO encroachment if there are firm statements that it's not going to happen, rather than "not denying it"...

It's a bit like Putin saying "We are not going to invade Ukraine", and being technically right in his own lights, by saying "It's not an invasion, it's a special military operation." A bit like, in that it's about managing the message. It's also the complete opposite at the same time, since it's actually got some basis in reality...  What Putin would have been wise to take from the message was "We won't commit any troops, but we'll do nearly everything up to that point." Not that Putin seems to be in any mood to listen to that sort of cautionary message.

Agreed that making the intelligence public was a good move, to stay with the poker game it's like showing everyone the other players hand. Still didn't have to tell about what your planning on your own hand first though, at least imo as just another armchair geopolitician ;-).

 

 

[TheVulture]

11 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

However, I remember somewhere last year not understanding why the USA (/NATO) felt the need of emphasizing that they won't send any boots on the ground in the case of a potential conflict in Ukraine. It was free info for Russia, while not saying anything or being vague about it wouldn't have cost anything and might have influenced Russia's risk-analysis.

At the time, no-one knew if Russia was going to invade, and many people thought the force build up was a bluff / negotiating tactic.

The danger in that scenario is that if Putin thinks that there is a risk of NATO forces being prepared to fight alongside Ukraine, then there is no way he can win the war. Which means that his window of opportunity for a successful invasion of Ukraine only lasts until NATO forces are in sufficiently in place (even if only in Poland rather than Ukraine itself). This means that Russia has to invade now before the window of opportunity closes.

So if NATO is prepared to defend Ukraine, then saying "we will come to Ukraine's aid with combat troops" will possibly trigger an invasion before NATO is in a position to be able to actually do what they said, and then find themselves with a fait accomplis with Ukraine occupied by Russia and no longer fighting.

Of course now we know that Russia was going to invade anyway. But without that hindsight, it might have been a reasonable attempt to try to avoid triggering a Russian invasion that otherwise might not have happened.

But also with the benefit of hindsight, it turns out that Russia's window of opportunity closed several years ago.

[Sequoia]

And though I'm no expert in International relations, but not saying if NATO troops would be sent or not would be a hollow ambiguity.  No one would really expect NATO troops to be sent, so being ambiguous about it and not really ever have the intention of doing it, would make future ambiguities less credible if you follow.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Sequoia

[Battlefront.com]

I don't get why so many people have made such a big deal about the NATO countries saying they won't put forces directly into the fight.  It's not like the decision can't be reversed at some point.

"Hey, remember when we said we wouldn't get directly involved unless directly attacked?  Well, that was before Putin decided to use a tac nuke.  Sorry folks, that's a game changing event and so we're changing the game".

In any case, announcing that NATO is not going to get directly involved was smart.  It reassured the domestic populations that NATO wasn't going to go adventuring, but it also made it clear that Russia wouldn't have any excuse for an attack on a NATO country.  Russia always assumed this to be NATO's position so saying outright didn't suddenly make Putin bolder.

Steve

[acrashb]

22 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Captured AK-12 with 1P87 RDS. But the sight mounted backwards.

That's movie-armourer level silliness, if accurate.  Most RDS' don't work backwards, as they are designed to not have a visible signature from the muzzle end.  

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Of course now we know that Russia was going to invade anyway. But without that hindsight, it might have been a reasonable attempt to try to avoid triggering a Russian invasion that otherwise might not have happened.

That and putting NATO forces into eastern Ukraine would risk Putin doing something like shelling them anyway and then saying "well, that's what you get!" and now the ball is in NATO's court.  What to do?  Air strikes on Russian soil?  Oh boy would that be asking for WW3 with the full backing of the Russian populace too.

Guys, you really have to think through these things before drawing conclusions.  Why do you think Putin has gotten away with so much for so long?  Because challenging him has presented difficult, often messy, choices which ran the risk of things being worse off in the end.

Of course those of us who have been saying NATO, EU, US, etc. needed to do more to challenge Putin earlier have a point, but we're only now being proven right because of how things played out.  We could have been wrong.

Steve