How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[BeondTheGrave]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Pretty good thread on how the political idea of the invasion as a special operation to suppress a recalcitrant province, using a fundamentally political-oriented formation to spearhead (the VDV) lead directly to immediate military failure, and a drastically increasing battlefield friction for which the VDV was unprepared (because its not true, solely military formation).

I still dont know why you guys like this twitter dude so much. Hes just so aggressively wrong about important things. This thing about the VDV being the regime's riot police, for example, is just. Laughable. The VDV have been an integral part of the Russian military since they were founded in WWII, a war in which they did conduct airborne operations. Paradrops are still a part of warfare, even if they look outmoded, and neither Russia nor the US would spend as much as they do on para capable equipment and training if they weren't serious about combat drops. He focuses on Russian paradrops because its inconvenient to bring up that there were successful combat drops in many major European wars, especially with US Airborne forces. French forces dropped into Dien Bien Phu, US forces dropped in Korea, US forces conducted a massive drop in Vietnam (into bad terrain, and the Vietnamese weren't some piddly power without AAA!), into Afghanistan and Iraq. The list goes on.... Not only that but the VDV wasn't only just organized around the paradrop, the many air assault units in the old Soviet Army were VDV too! And these units have played an integral part in the Ukraine conflict as well!

While I dont disagree with the premise that the VDV will likely be rotated home to guard the palace, it like all the elite military units are probably dual purpose in this regard, its too much to call them the regimes riot police or that their deployment means Ukraine is some wayward province. You could make that case, lot of evidence and rhetoric does suggest that is probably true. But the deployment of the VDV, no matter how badly the twitter guy tries to distort history to make it so, is not one piece of evidence. If we want to look big picture at the VDV landings, and their failure, we ought (IMO) to draw a rather different conclusion. The use of the VDV in the manner they were employed is classic Soviet doctrine. You create airborne islands which the main force can jump across, or to, to speed up an assault. Drop on bridges so the tanks can just roll right across, for example. The Russians followed their traditional doctrine to a tee, strictly and rigidly. But then when it came for the second drop, the Russians found themselves in a bind. The lackluster SEAD effort meant AD was still a big issue around Kyiv, and no commander was willing to risk big casualties to drop into such a dangerous environment. The first issue is a rather classic issue and would certainly have been as much of a factor in Germany in the 1970s. The second issue, casualty aversions, one could debate endlessly. It was a decision that was less consistent with Soviet doctrine and practice, and I still maintain the failure to land follow on forces on the first night of fighting was a major, perhaps decisive, failure. 

Everything else hes saying, its just too much. The pictures are cool though. 

[sburke]

Just now, dan/california said:

And of course China is still in the backfield looking for its moment... 

 

Convincing the Chinese that this ISN"T the moment to take Taiwan is priority #1. I am repeating myself, but ANY amount of money and effort to convince the Chinese that Taiwan isn't worth trying will be cheaper that rebuilding the wreckage of more or less everything if the DO try it.  That island literally needs to sink a foot or two with the weight of missiles, drones, and other nastiness waiting to greet a Chinese attack. If you made king for a day I would Put a Marine division on Taiwan permanently. 

The other obvious place for the Chinese to look adventurous is the Russian far east which has just been denuded of troops that it turns out were not very good anyway. It is worth repeating that the population of the Russian far east is tiny, and only maintained by massive subsidies from Moscow. Moscow is goingto short on subsidies for much of anything for the next little while. Maybe Xi will do something out of left field, like offering to BUY a big chunk of it, with an unspoken threat of or else. Just not bailing them out financially is no small threat at this point The Russians sold Alaska after all during a previous bankruptcy.

With the West as unified as it is I don't see China doing anything.  You don't launch an attack when your foes are fully alerted and ramped up.  In addition I think China has its own issues to look out for.  Financially things are unstable. and China does have vulnerability in that it is heavily dependent on critical resources from overseas. 

In addition, they are being hit hard with Covid with Shanghai going through an extremely disruptive phased lockdown.

China’s Economy Is Slowing, a Worrying Sign for the World - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

then there is the issue of coal - this was from October

China power supply crunch: Relationship with Australia, GDP outlook (cnbc.com)

[Kinophile]

25 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The "so what?" is that this war is not about the militaries that are fighting them anymore.  Nor is it really about military strategy or operations.  It is looking more and more like we have entered a "posturing endgame".  So military action is likely to be governed more by appearances than anything of real substance. 

Very true, and succinct. To push/pull on this idea, though - its more Russia that has a vested need in posturing, no? If Ukraine is shoving them back, and near to gaining an real, usable operational victory then they don't need to posture, as such. 

Naturally, there is always political posturing, etc. I'm talking more that if UKR has the military advantage, and one that can only grow, they would be very very foolish not to press it home to maximum military effect.

Putin/Russia only respects force, and unless it is definitively demonstrated that physically attacking Ukraine, or that harping on about the Ukraine questions has no military solution, will Ukraine be treated with respect. As long as Putin thinks he has military options to use against Ukraine they will never be safe. This realism is exactly what drove their own modernization and tactical reforms. 

The ace in Zelenksy's hand is that he has iterated that any agreement must be confirmed by referendum. This gives him enormous room to maneuver vs. Russia, as he cannot be held to anything he says - it doesnt matter what he personally agrees, if the people vote NYET at referendum then Suck It, Trebeck. So hes free to explore a wide range of ideas and solutions with the knowledge that he cannot personally sign off on anything and if Russia does suggest something, if it actual wants it, that something must be palatable to the Ukrainian people.  So Russia, to get the peace it will badly need, will eventually have to pander to the Ukrainian people. They'll kick and scream and threaten but in the end, if they're defeated militarily...

Which goes back to my starting point - Ukraine must win military victory. They must clear Russia from within their mainland borders, including the idiotic quisling republics. It is an existential question for them. 

Opposite that, Russia can spin anything, so long as they dont lose Crimea. Putin ahs zero loyalty to Donbass, and given a choice over his Regime or those tinpot nitwits, he'll happily feed them to the Ukrainian wolf.

Given the devastation the Russian filth have visited on Ukraine, I doubt, very, very very much that any referendum succeeds which does not kick Russia off mainland Ukraine.

[akd]

4 hours ago, akd said:

@sburke

Major Sergei Panov, 21 Guard Motor Rifle Brigade (maybe in the reconnaissance battalion?):

 

@sburke

Further to above, but again doesn’t add much:

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

seems to be a lot of this going on.  Dismantling of Russia's foreign intelligence network?

I wonder if this is the result of Ukraine releasing the c.600 names of covert FSB dudes?

Steve

[akd]

Probably preparations for demolition of the road bridge at Kherson:

 

[Kinophile]

8 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

The VDV have been an integral part of the Russian military since they were founded in WWII, a war in which they did conduct airborne operations.

Good rebuttal (not being sarcastic), I'm always open to another take. As you note, they are a Palace Guard of a kind. And yes, the failure to support them is baffling - ****ty Air campaign, disparate and weak drops, crappy follow up on land. 

As an elite regiment, do you think we'll see them thrown back into the dogpit?

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, akd said:

@sburke

Further to above, but again doesn’t add much:

 

got it.  also we should start including @Kinophileas his sheet is really interesting to see the organizational impact and possibly project what additional damage these casualties may reflect.  Mine is just a list.  Beginning to feel like Arya with her hit list except mine keeps growing and it is mostly dead people.  

copying @Haiduk

[BeondTheGrave]

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Either way, I am getting the sense over the last week that we have entered an end-game phase of this thing unless the Russians have dug a tunnel to the mole people and made an unholy alliance with the underworld.  Not sure when this will end but it has that "post-culmination feel".  Of course we sat around in Korea for like 2 years at this state.  What we do know:

Great points, and I tend to agree with this. Were winding down now, wheras in the last week or two we seemed to be in a state of flux, moving to Ukrainian advantage, and before that was, well, before that. 

The pull out to me is very interesting. It was done in a manner which saves a lot of Russian face, but really its a very bad sign. Why would you withdraw troops shelling the capital (apply pressure to the political process) while your diplomats are still talking in Istanbul? The only thing I can think of is that you seriously doubt your ability to keep your troops supplied and in contact. Here I think is our answer about the Ukrainian counterattacks. If they were just, nothing, if those isolated troops were really still squeezing in supplies, well it wouldn't matter. Keep them there and make their removal a part of the peace deal. But withdrawing them unilaterally suggest to me that either 1) Were much closer to a cease fire than anyone, especially the US State Department, believes or 2) Russia was about to break in the north entirely. 

The answer to this question heavily impacts what comes next. Surely some Ukrainian troops will push north and try to restore the border, especially if Russia pulls all the way out. But I would think that in Kyiv you assume that the northern axis is going to become fully defensive and shift your best units, drones, western aid, and SOF to the east and the Donbas as much as possible. Assuming Russia does the same. But can Russia do the same? Then we get back to why the pull out. Is it a strategic choice (we need this to make peace), or an operational one (we need this because the troops already there cant get the job done) or a tactical one (we need this because otherwise these troops are going to be routed)? 

Heres your fun doomsday scenario for Russia: The troops they pull out of the Kyiv axis for use in the Donbas are so shattered, disorganized, and demoralized that they cannot be used in future operations. Perhaps they munity. Perhaps they just walk away. Or perhaps there are so few remaining officers and NCOs that the troops just go back to Belgorod and sit in barracks without direction. Meanwhile the UA shuffles its veterans eastward, increases both its numerical and qualitative edge, and begins to roll back the Russians there too. Not only can Russia not conquer all of the DR/LR, but they couldn't even hold on to what they still have. 

[Probus]

1 hour ago, Battlefront said:

Charles

+1 Steve (I mean Charles)!

Edited March 29, 2022 by Probus

[BeondTheGrave]

4 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Good rebuttal (not being sarcastic), I'm always open to another take. As you note, they are a Palace Guard of a kind. And yes, the failure to support them is baffling - ****ty Air campaign, disparate and weak drops, crappy follow up on land. 

As an elite regiment, do you think we'll see them thrown back into the dogpit?

I really think if they had landed the planned forces, even in a chaotic drop, this war would have looked much different in the Russian's favor. 

Re what happens next who knows? As I just posted above to Capt, I think a lot of the troops shifting out of the Kyiv direction now are probably in bad shape. Low morale, low supply, bad equipment situation, heavy combat losses. Are these forces going to really have the drive to rotate to a totally new direction and fight? If the answer is NO!, then Russia is going to need every able bodied soldier its got left to push into the Donbas, including the VDV. 

If it were me in Putin's chair, the question I would now be asking myself is what will set me up for the longest possible lifespan. Is it winning in the Donbas, or abandoning the rank and file and pulling the elite back to the Kremlin. Could be some logic in supporting the regime and holding off challengers. But brining the VDV home is a double edged sword, as the elite can also be the core of a dissent depending on who leads the coup. Marshal Zhukov, for example, used his own elite cadres of trusted troops to oust Beria, et. al. in the 50s. And the Krondstat sailors in 1917. And the Army in '93. Bring the VDV home, then what? What if a few pissed off Cols, mad at their 'stab in the back,' get together and try to off the old man or back a competitor? Playing coup and countercoup is a dicey game, ultimately its about who you can trust and who betrays who. 

[JonS]

4 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

never though that the known presence of a drone would have comparable effect good old terror armor could cause.

A similar reaction was seen in 1944 when AOPs started routinely floating around over the battle space.

[Kinophile]

I'm not convinced things are winding down, at all.

Ukraine is on the cusp of replenishing/replacing its forces with massive reserves, even better AD coming into play and huge stocks of ATGMs screaming to be used. It would be military folly to stop kicking the Russians in the nuts, the bastards are yelping but they sure as heck aren't down yet. 

We're into the point where we need to see what Russia has left - and for all the joy we get at seeing just so much of their gear and units destroyed, they still have a lot to throw in. As far as Putin is concerned, he can throw everything.

They're not done, not by a long shot.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Even though Russia failed gloriously, it had little to do with our collective global order, liberal diplomacy and visions of a better world.  It was done by Ukrainians with smart ATGMs

But those ATGMs were a direct result of a lot of diplomacy in order to preserve the global order.

Also, I'm pretty sure there has been a lot of very accurate intel and other covert support flowing to the Ukrainian military since this war began.

[Kinophile]

Of course, I am enjoying this:

 

[Probus]

It won't seem to me like its winding down (or cooling off) until the Russians start surrendering in droves.  I wonder if that is why there may be a misinformation campaign spreading about how Ukrainians are treating POWs.

[Vacillator]

9 minutes ago, Probus said:

+1 Steve!

I think it was Charles not Steve?  Good to see Charles here (and Steve of course)...

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

But those ATGMs were a direct result of a lot of diplomacy in order to preserve the global order.

Also, I'm pretty sure there has been a lot of very accurate intel and other covert support flowing to the Ukrainian military since this war began.

Those ATGMs had nothing to do with diplomacy, they were a desperate scramble to try and slow down what was looking like a Russian roll over. Like the intel, lethal aid is what we could do after diplomacy failed.  We were in effect pulled into a proxy war and it looks like we backed the right side.

However, we cannot and will not get around the fact that diplomacy and the global order failed in the first place.  The giant cracking sound was on 24 Feb and even though we will try, we cannot un-hear it.  

[BeondTheGrave]

11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

But those ATGMs were a direct result of a lot of diplomacy in order to preserve the global order.

Also, I'm pretty sure there has been a lot of very accurate intel and other covert support flowing to the Ukrainian military since this war began.

Have to agree with this. Its easy to fixate on NATO failures, especially Germany's, in managing this crisis. But at the end of the day Ukraine wouldn't have held out without pre-war and wartime support from ISR and more drones to Stingers and ATGMs. Every aspect of the NATO alliance worked well here to manage a crisis and, at least in terms of rhetoric, DID do it for all those flowery reasons like humanity, rights, justice....

Take the Poland-Jet fiasco. Clearly whatever happened there was a tactical diplomatic defeat for NATO. But pull back a bit, to me it looks a whole lot like NATO members trying to out compete each other to be seen doing more for Ukraine. That may not bring back the broken windows, smashed buildings, and murdered innocents, but it sure as hell has helped flood the country with those sweet sweet British made NLAWs. And I suspect in the aftermath well learn a lot about NATO intelligence cooperation with Ukrainian forces, especially in the North. 

That this wasn't done unilaterally by the US is also important if you believe that NATO and the global order are worth protecting. This was Europe coming together in a way it hasn't in decades and, at least for a short while (I remain skeptical about long term change) has Europe back to the Post-WWII order. And of course this yet again reaffirms the line in the UN charter about revising national borders through military action.

Edited March 29, 2022 by BeondTheGrave

[sburke]

9 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I'm not convinced things are winding down, at all.

Ukraine is on the cusp of replenishing/replacing its forces with massive reserves, even better AD coming into play and huge stocks of ATGMs screaming to be used. It would be military folly to stop kicking the Russians in the nuts, the bastards are yelping but they sure as heck aren't down yet. 

We're into the point where we need to see what Russia has left - and for all the joy we get at seeing just so much of their gear and units destroyed, they still have a lot to throw in. As far as Putin is concerned, he can throw everything.

They're not done, not by a long shot.

I am not so sure Russia isn't scraping the barrel.  The human resources they are using seem to indicate that.  A regimental commander of 4th MRD committing suicide over state of their reserve equipment, the condition of the equipment they launched the invasion with, reports on the state of their ammo they are resorting to using and then a very conveniently timed explosion at the Belgorod dump indicates that materially Russia isn't doing so well either.

However I don't think the big issue right now is military.  Given the state of military affairs for Russia I suspect the big issue now is political.  This whole thing has been an utter disaster on so many fronts.

[Kinophile]

Was it Churchill who said, "Russia is never as strong as you fear, or as weak as you hope"...? Or something to that effect.

They're definitely scraping the barrel - but its a big barrel, with a LOT of sludge.

Just to murder the metaphor for you

Edited March 29, 2022 by Kinophile

[sburke]

Question to anyone who might know - The Belgorod ammo dump - I assume that is the main supply hub for the Kharkov axis and by default the main logistical point for the offensive towards Izium?

 

 

[panzermartin]

We are acting like we (the people I guess) are going to win something from this war, while it's far from the truth. West is not as united as it seems. And this will be highlighted once the media gets bored from the war as its already starting . Many people at the states are angry with the handling of the Ukraine crisis since 2014 and have started facing shortages in food items and skyrocketed prices. Here in Europe...I don't want to think about what is coming but I can see the first signs. Gas is over 2e per liter, electricity is half a monthly wage. Ukraine is angry with NATO for letting their country get destroyed and I'm wondering how they imagine the day after the war is over, betrayed by the West and flattened by their neighbours. Germany clearly wasn't happy cutting painstakingly built ties with Russia, refused to embargo oil, and now it has to rely on ridiculously expensive LNG from the states. I bet France won't win really anything from this and will continue to get bullied from AUKUS like in the submarine torpedoed deal. Turkey, a pseudodemocracy/autocracy while always two faced and keeping close ties with Russia, is emerging as a respected key player and seems to win the impressions game, probably getting back on track with F35s *and* S400. While at the same time bullying NATO member neighbors and occupying northern Cyprus, wow! Lastly, it's an illusion that Europe can survive pretending that Russia doesn't exist on the map. I'm sorry but this what every serious analyst will tell us. Maybe people of the military and weapons industry can feel happy about the resurrection of NATO and army spending over welfare but the rest of us, not so.

[danfrodo]

Even time I look at tv news (rarely) there's some "very serious person" spouting nonsense.  At lunch break today I popped open a youtube video of some guy on CNN explaining the Ukraine map to us.  He had giant red zones of areas where the Russians haven't been for days.  When he spoke of the current Russian withdrawals he said "there's always the chance they are just regrouping for another push on Kyiv".  They just can't give it up.  Absurd.

It's like him saying "There's always a chance they are regrouping for a strike on Berlin, or Seattle, or Tokyo" -- that chance being zero. 

 

[BeondTheGrave]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Even time I look at tv news (rarely) there's some "very serious person" spouting nonsense.  At lunch break today I popped open a youtube video of some guy on CNN explaining the Ukraine map to us.  He had giant red zones of areas where the Russians haven't been for days.  When he spoke of the current Russian withdrawals he said "there's always the chance they are just regrouping for another push on Kyiv".  They just can't give it up.  Absurd.

It's like him saying "There's always a chance they are regrouping for a strike on Berlin, or Seattle, or Tokyo" -- that chance being zero. 

 

Popular news, like most of the American public, is still captured in the 'WWII/Desert Storm.' War is all about capturing the enemy capital, humiliating them political, making a big peace signing in Tokyo Bay, etc. If Russia wasn't fighting for Kyiv what else is there to fight for, to the average CNN viewer? Could they even name another Ukrainian city? Doubtful.