How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not correct.  Putin only responds to force or when he thinks it's in his best interests to compromise.  I mean, you seriously don't think that Putin gave back 1/3 of what he captured from Ukraine because he wanted to, right?  He gave it up because he felt he had to.  We'll either see more of this or we'll see less of Putin.  Either way, the land corridor is going to pass back to Ukrainian control and I personally don't think Ukraine will have to fight for it.

Steve

So Steve, you think the Russians will pull out of the corridor?  Because of threat of encirclement?  Because of mutiny of under-supplied forces that are under drone & arty attacks?

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

I wonder if 8 years of Russian gov't might make Ukraine look a little better than it did back in 2014. 

I doubt it.  Russia controls their information and the flow of people.  A big chunk of the population has left the occupied areas over the last 8 years, either for Ukraine or for Russia.  It's best and brightest are gone.  What is left is the sort of compliant types that aren't likely pining to rejoin Ukraine.

Steve

[Kinophile]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

He gave it up because he felt he had to. 

You're talking about Kiev? I don't think he gave it up, and he certainly "didn't give it back" - it was wrestled from his grip and the Army possibly pushed him to let go, maybe pointing to the Donbass as a viable alternative to utter destruction of the northern forces involved.

You're very optimistic about the possibility of Putin being removed, and I'm really not. There's a long way to go for that, and the sanctions haven't bit hard on the population for long enough. I'm aware every autocracy is fundamentally a thin hard shell over a soft, weak core but Putin has built a very tough shell, more so than most autocrats. This war wont break his grip. I'm not convinced the potential threat of his removal is strong enough to be a valid rational for his decisions vis a vis Ukraine.

I mean, I'm certain its a factor, he would be silly not to keep that in mind, but that the military/geo-political game is his to play, unfettered. He won't be giving anything to anyone.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

So Steve, you think the Russians will pull out of the corridor?  Because of threat of encirclement?  Because of mutiny of under-supplied forces that are under drone & arty attacks?

The land bridge swath of territory is no longer on the front lines of the conflict.  The focus is now in the northern sector of the original line of contact with DLPR, south of Izium.  The war will likely be decided there.  If Ukraine win the battle for the region then I don't think the Russian forces will stay cohesive for very long.  DLPR's forces are already spent and the Russian forces in that area will be used up in the battles of the coming week or maybe weeks.  This leaves the forces arrayed from Kherson to south of Donetsk city still in the fight. 

There's already signs that the Kherson forces won't be able to hold out too much longer, which puts the land bridge at risk from the Crimean side.  Obviously Russia can resupply forces in the region from the Donetsk side, especially with Mariupol fully under control, but the line between Kherson and Rostov is still very long (600km).  By contrast, it is only 130km from Kherson to the neck of Crimea.  Even less to be within artillery range.

What this means is if Russia loses the battles in the Izium area AND stays in the fight, it's going to face all of Ukraine's forces in the line from Kherson to Donetsk.  It's hard to see that being a tenable position to maintain from Russia's point of view.

If we get to this point Putin might have no choice but to either allow the land bridge to be taken by force, allow his forces to crumble and give it to Ukraine on a silver platter, or to offer it up as part of negotiations to prevent something even worse from happening.

Time will tell, but no way is Putin going to keep the land bridge.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

You're talking about Kiev? I don't think he gave it up, and he certainly "didn't give it back" - it was wrestled from his grip and the Army possibly pushed him to let go, maybe pointing to the Donbass as a viable alternative to utter destruction of the northern forces involved.

My point is Putin didn't give it up because he wanted to.  He had to.  The same thing is going to happen in the south.  Eventually.

18 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

You're very optimistic about the possibility of Putin being removed, and I'm really not. There's a long way to go for that, and the sanctions haven't bit hard on the population for long enough. I'm aware every autocracy is fundamentally a thin hard shell over a soft, weak core but Putin has built a very tough shell, more so than most autocrats. This war wont break his grip. I'm not convinced the potential threat of his removal is strong enough to be a valid rational for his decisions vis a vis Ukraine.

I've cased this out a million times in this thread already.  A full military collapse will likely lead to a coup against Putin shortly thereafter.  Maybe the same day.  Putin's only chance of holding onto power for a prolonged period of time is to NOT have the army collapse.  And that means bowing to military reality as he did around Kiev. 

Losing the attack out of Izium will doom Putin to make another Kiev type decision or face collapse.  In fact, winning the battles surrounding Izium could still produce such a result if casualties are huge.  Putin has NO chance of a pyrrhic victory anywhere.  He either wins with little losses or its ultimately a defeat.

18 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I mean, I'm certain its a factor, he would be silly not to keep that in mind, but that the military/geo-political game is his to play, unfettered. He won't be giving anything to anyone.

Unfettered?  Putin's options are anything but that.  I'd say they are fully fetted

It hasn't been said in a couple of dozen pages of this thread so I will repeat what people like me have been saying since the start of this stupid war... unlike all of other Putin gambles this is the first one where he went "all in".  He has always had a way to sneak out of consequences, often by compromising in ways that weren't obvious to most people (Minsk 2 was a huge compromise for him).  But not this time around.  Especially with the horrors of his murderous horde's behavior around Kiev.

I'll put it another way.  He has more of a chance of staying in power by abandoning 100% of the terrain Russia took in this war and signing an agreement on Ukraine's terms than he does if he continues to resist militarily in an attempt to keep any part of Ukraine seized since February.

Steve

[Kinophile]

To be clear, a military collapse could lead to an attempted coup.

Absolutely no guarantee it would succeed in removing him, but it could descend into a true civil war. Although, If the army is in operational collapse its not exactly in good shape to fight an internal war. 

A RUS civil war is, on the short term, functionally just as good as removing Putin.

 

[Battlefront.com]

Rereading my post I should have said a military collapse will lead to an ATTEMPTED coup, perhaps on the same day.  There's a good chance it will succeed, but that's uncertain.  We also have to consider that the Russian Federation may be significantly altered, politically, either way.  Various Oblasts might demand a new power sharing arrangement or they'll try to go their own way.  Depending on circumstances this might not be possible to stop.  Especially if the military has just collapsed.

I'm also interested to see what happens in Chechnya if the payoff money from Moscow doesn't flow strongly enough to keep Kadyrov loyal.  I suspect that Kadyrov might not see independence as being more lucrative, so he could stick with Putin.  But if Putin is gone and his successor is part of the anti-Kadyrov faction, then things could get very interesting.

Anyway, my point here is that a military collapse is a real possibility.  Once that happens a number of previously unthinkable scenarios become possibilities.  Putin being deposed is just one of them, but holding onto the land bridge isn't.

Steve

[edit- I see my clarification was definitely needed as Kinophile's last post came while I was finishing this one up]

[womble]

7 hours ago, DesertFox said:

When they start transporting their stuff by road, do the same.

The tempo for road blocking would probably be quite a lot faster (too fast?) because the assets involved are more easily shifted by a wider selection of other assets.

4 hours ago, Kraft said:

They may be able to fill the gaps for the big parade coming up though

Though it might not be as neat and squared-away as usual, with barely-trained conscripts of dubious reliability at the weel...  

 

[sburke]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I doubt it.  Russia controls their information and the flow of people.  A big chunk of the population has left the occupied areas over the last 8 years, either for Ukraine or for Russia.  It's best and brightest are gone.  What is left is the sort of compliant types that aren't likely pining to rejoin Ukraine.

Steve

I dunno. Remember that video clip posted recently about the recruiting, and they asked why she was filming, and her reply was "for the Hague".  I think the war has changed a lot of things.  The veneer is gone.  We have a forum member no less who's views have changed.  Probably the worst thing this invasion has done for Putin is put Ukrainian nationalism in hyper drive.  After this war I think you'll see a surge in institutions and the arts dedicated to Ukrainian history and very explicitly anti-Russian.

[sburke]

Just now, womble said:

Though it might not be as neat and squared-away as usual, with barely-trained conscripts of dubious reliability at the weel...  

 

Nah, the tractor brigade will keep them all running and not crashing... unlike that fun Armata moment.  

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

I dunno. Remember that video clip posted recently about the recruiting, and they asked why she was filming, and her reply was "for the Hague".  I think the war has changed a lot of things.  The veneer is gone.  We have a forum member no less who's views have changed.  Probably the worst thing this invasion has done for Putin is put Ukrainian nationalism in hyper drive.  After this war I think you'll see a surge in institutions and the arts dedicated to Ukrainian history and very explicitly anti-Russian.

There's also people in Russia protesting.  Not indicative of the population as a whole.

It is probably true that the people remaining in DLPR don't want to go fight in the war, but mostly because they recognize they are being used as cannon fodder.

Steve

[Homo_Ferricus]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Either Putin thinks there is some sort of value in being trashed talked by Girkin or he fears taking action against Girkin and his ilk would make things worse.  The third option I can think of certainly doesn't apply, which is that Putin doesn't view this sort of criticism as a threat.  Since I can't think of any reason Putin can view Girkin's comments positively, then I think the obvious conclusion is that Putin is afraid to take action against Girkin.  If I'm correct, that tells us a lot.

Steve

Taking down Girkin would mean having a valuable cohort turn against Putin, he wouldn't do that. His comments are embarrassing to the Army moreso than Putin, and the Russian people are already ignoring that Putin is wearing no clothes--Girkin's comments won't make them see clearly. Especially if he isn't calling out Putin by name.

[Kinophile]

9 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Taking down Girkin would mean having a valuable cohort turn against Putin, he wouldn't do that. His comments are embarrassing to the Army moreso than Putin, and the Russian people are already ignoring that Putin is wearing no clothes--Girkin's comments won't make them see clearly. Especially if he isn't calling out Putin by name.

Good point - IG is focused on the army's failings, not Putin's and certainly not on Putin's decision to invade. Which makes him a broom to beat the army with, rather than a knife at Putin's belly.

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Good point - IG is focused on the army's failings, not Putin's and certainly not on Putin's decision to invade. Which makes him a broom to beat the army with, rather than a knife at Putin's belly.

I thought Girkin was more specific about this being Putin's fault and/or that the war itself was a bad idea. So I dug a bit and found that it seems the closest he got was calling out the "Kremlin" for incompetence.  However, an advisor to Girkin implied that Putin might have to go if the war fails:

Quote

He wrote: “I hope that the Ukrainian tragedy will neither become the tragedy of Russia nor the personal tragedy of Putin."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1587056/Vladimir-Putin-Russia-armed-forces-Ukraine-war-invasion-Igor-Strelkov-Girkin-latest-vn

Steve

[Der Zeitgeist]

11 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

I'm a teacher in Germany and already have a few Ukrainian refugees in my classrooms. Sadly I mostly teach English and they don't learn that there, so basically they are at the utterly wrong level for my classes. So I mostly give them German as foreign language material or Ukrainian textbooks on an Ipad for self learning, but all of this is not really a satisfactory solution.

Is it true that a lot of the Ukrainian schoolchildren in Germany also have online classes from Ukraine?

I heard an interesting podcast recently on this issue of education, and how Ukraine apparently manages to have a better digital learning infrastructure than we do while under Russian invasion. 

[kraze]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

More on the pro-Russian demonstration in Berlin.  I think they should all be deported to Russia.  A child who treated their parent like that would certainly be sent to their room without supper.

 

Remember if russians are to say they are against the war they will get punished, so that's why they have to support it in Russ... OH WAIT.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

Remember if russians are to say they are against the war they will get punished, so that's why they have to support it in Russ... OH WAIT.

I'd guess some of the people in this "protest" aren't even Russian, but far right Germans or other nationalities living in Germany.  Fascists tend to stick together.

Steve

[Der Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

More on the pro-Russian demonstration in Berlin.  I think they should all be deported to Russia.  A child who treated their parent like that would certainly be sent to their room without supper.

It's important to note that most of these people aren't Russian citizens, but Russlanddeutsche, meaning ethnic Germans from the Soviet Union with various backgrounds, who emigrated mostly during the 80s and early 90s and were granted German citizenship by virtue of their status. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Germans

Edited April 6, 2022 by Der Zeitgeist

[Homo_Ferricus]

Russia has a culture of protecting the figurehead and blaming the underlings. This was particularly prevalent in Stalin's time; it was a popular sentiment among Russians that, sure things were terrible and the government was ****ing up, but it wasn't Stalin's fault. He is our golden boy and all the suffering and imperfection stems from incompetent governors, corrupt party apparatchiki, capitalist saboteurs, greedy managers and bumbling fools. If Stalin could only be omnipresent, he'd be able to correct all the systemic weaknesses.

And so, Putin is our golden boy. If only he could be the KomBat of every BTG, if only he could govern every region and city and run every office, we'd be in excellent shape. Alas, the underlings continue to fail us. That's why Girkin can talk all he wants, until he ruptures this belief with something explicit like, "Putin has failed us, a change in top leadership is needed."

Exhibit A--my grandmother lived under Stalin from birth until age 19. A few years ago, she was writing fanfiction about Putin... literally. Like the way a tween would write fanfiction about Harry Potter. The instinct to cult of personality is deep.

Communism is a hell of a drug. Tell your kids to stay away!

[kraze]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

You can make at least some inferences about the Donbas and Crimea from how they voted in Ukrainian elections pre 2014. They voted heavily for pro Kremlin stooges. They voted for the corrupt idiot that was run out of town by the Maidan protest in an at least sort of fair election. So my basic assumption is that a decade of the Russian equivalent Fox news being the only thing on TV hasn't improved things.

The general unspoken consensus here is that waging war for occupied Donbass territories is not worth it because, since most Ukrainians have either left, deported or outright murdered by russians (if you think Bucha is bad - imagine how many mass graves there are in 8 years of occupation of those areas), leaving only mostly collaborators and the new generation of those that grew up in 8 years in a bubble of poverty and pure hatred towards Ukraine - getting those back (and at a very bloody price) will be instant trouble for years.

Since we don't have any laws in place that will somehow make them "uncitizen" (akin to Baltic States) and, even more, "uncitizen" out of a citizen (leading to instant cries of "omg they treat us like second tier people") - getting those people back means they come here with full voting rights not just for central government, but for local ones too, putting new traitors in there completely legally.

[kraze]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

You're talking about Kiev? I don't think he gave it up, and he certainly "didn't give it back" - it was wrestled from his grip and the Army possibly pushed him to let go, maybe pointing to the Donbass as a viable alternative to utter destruction of the northern forces involved.

You're very optimistic about the possibility of Putin being removed, and I'm really not. There's a long way to go for that, and the sanctions haven't bit hard on the population for long enough. I'm aware every autocracy is fundamentally a thin hard shell over a soft, weak core but Putin has built a very tough shell, more so than most autocrats. This war wont break his grip. I'm not convinced the potential threat of his removal is strong enough to be a valid rational for his decisions vis a vis Ukraine.

I mean, I'm certain its a factor, he would be silly not to keep that in mind, but that the military/geo-political game is his to play, unfettered. He won't be giving anything to anyone.

Sanctions hitting the population are irrelevant because russian population is irrelevant.

However sanctions making it worse for the population is a welcome collective responsibility.

Remember - the majority of russians is so poor they loot washing machines and copper wedding rings. Not being able to buy a washing machine due to sanctions means nothing when you can't afford a washing machine in the first place.

Now when you are a powerful moneybag and is forced to sit inside backwards s-hole that is Russia with the rest of serfs - perspective changes a bit.

Every single russian coup is staged by tzar's closest people. Every single time. Remember - stalin was murdered not because he lost some war (although he technically did), but because his closest servants were fed up with him mistreating them. And russians use that guy as their prime role model and an example of the most iron gripped tzar ever. Yet even he didn't die of natural causes.

Edited April 6, 2022 by kraze

[Kinophile]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I thought Girkin was more specific about this being Putin's fault and/or that the war itself was a bad idea. So I dug a bit and found that it seems the closest he got was calling out the "Kremlin" for incompetence.  However, an advisor to Girkin implied that Putin might have to go if the war fails:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1587056/Vladimir-Putin-Russia-armed-forces-Ukraine-war-invasion-Igor-Strelkov-Girkin-latest-vn

Steve

Yup - the Kremlin, ie the "bad ministers" around Our Holy & Good Tzar. Usual for every monarchial/autocratic system, the peasant-minded garbage that absolves the Dear Leader of blame. 

[kraze]

38 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Russia has a culture of protecting the figurehead and blaming the underlings. This was particularly prevalent in Stalin's time; it was a popular sentiment among Russians that, sure things were terrible and the government was ****ing up, but it wasn't Stalin's fault. He is our golden boy and all the suffering and imperfection stems from incompetent governors, corrupt party apparatchiki, capitalist saboteurs, greedy managers and bumbling fools. If Stalin could only be omnipresent, he'd be able to correct all the systemic weaknesses.

And so, Putin is our golden boy. If only he could be the KomBat of every BTG, if only he could govern every region and city and run every office, we'd be in excellent shape. Alas, the underlings continue to fail us. That's why Girkin can talk all he wants, until he ruptures this belief with something explicit like, "Putin has failed us, a change in top leadership is needed."

Exhibit A--my grandmother lived under Stalin from birth until age 19. A few years ago, she was writing fanfiction about Putin... literally. Like the way a tween would write fanfiction about Harry Potter. The instinct to cult of personality is deep.

Communism is a hell of a drug. Tell your kids to stay away!

It's very true.

Hence why power in Russia changes hands only through coups by the "elite" that sees an opportunity to become the ever innocent Tzar.

Either through bloody-shooty coups (like start of Yeltsin's reign coup) or poisony-sneaky coups (like end of Yeltsin's reign coup)

But it's always a high seat class coup. For centuries.

So what will it be?

I mean the only lucky guys were last few "general secretaries" of USSR - simply because they were so old they had less than a year to live biologically and nobody could even get that coup in place in time.

Edited April 6, 2022 by kraze

[Homo_Ferricus]

27 minutes ago, kraze said:

But it's always a high seat class coup. For centuries.

Well, with the glaring exception of the Bolsheviks. Of course, to see an uprising like that again would mean Putin would have to **** things up as badly as Nicholas did. And I definitely wouldn't hold my breath for that.

[Kinophile]

And yet...here we are in one of the worst Russian army performances in decades, not just tactically but with a badly screwed strategy driven by political fever-dreams of made-up external boogeymen and real internal enemies.