How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, sross112 said:

The 10th man/devil's advocate stuff:

Putin can't register a "win" by any standards that we are putting forth, but he doesn't have to. He only has to register a win that he can sell to Russia. To him it doesn't matter that the strategic and operational goals of his invasion won't be met, he only needs to do enough to spin it as a win to the Russian people.

This depends entirely on what Putin thinks.  We all agree that he can't secure any of his primary strategic goals, he probably has some sense of this.  But is he REALLY ready to give up nearly everything?  Nobody knows.  He was dumb enough to start this war, he might be smart enough to end it before he makes things even worse.

I do agree that he can spin some form of "victory" to his people if he can get Ukraine to stop fighting (see further below).  However, you are forgetting that he has a lot invested in taking over the rest of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts.  Your Plan One doesn't give him that.  It's something the ultra nationalists are not going to accept, if Girkin and the windbags on certain Russian TV channels are any gauge.

This is why Putin might opt for Plan Two as you outlined.  As a counter Devil's Advocate to yours, don't presume that Putin's calculations for reversing this war are the same as ours.  We look at this and say "wow, that would be dumb and not worth doing" whereas he might be looking at it and saying "I must have the precious!".  Or perhaps "I've been given a warning by the ultranationalists that if don't fix this I'm done, so what do I have to lose?".

That said, let's assume that Putin is willing to give up his primary stated goal of securing Luhansk and Donetsk and has some way to spin the failure as an amazing victory for Russia.  He ops for Plan One, which is boils down to shortening the lines and going static.  Then what?

What makes you so sure that Ukraine is going to provide Putin with what he needs to survive?  What if instead Ukraine musters a whole bunch of forces and pushes down in the middle of the land bridge towards Crimea?  Or what if Ukraine ensures that the zinc coffin companies have a steady business by constant artillery attacks?  Or what if Ukraine deliberately rains pain down on ethnic Russian units whenever possible instead of hinterland forces?  Partisan activities are not likely going to be fun to suffer through!  What if the Russian economy doesn't stabilize while all this is happening?

There's a lot of things that aren't good for Putin if he stops fighting before Ukraine is ready to throw in the towel.  It is in Russia's interests to get Ukraine to the point where it is willing to cease fire against Russian troops.  Going with Plan Two might change that equation whereas Plan One doesn't.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

It occurred to me earlier today that there's something else new about this war.  Imagine after the shooting stops that the Russian government isn't cooperative with handing over people responsible for war crimes.  Well, Ukraine has the names and addresses of pretty much every Russian service member (I think only Army?) in Ukraine, it also knows which units were where and will eventually be able to correspond that to murder events.  Other evidence is likely to come up, such as eye witnesses who can identify individuals from their social media posts.

Got all that?  Now, think about what someone might do with this information.  Especially someone who could pass themselves off as Russian citizens.  Israeli methods might come to someone's mind.  And true to this war, it might be volunteers that are acting on their own instead of the Ukrainian government.  Or both.

Steve

[Kinophile]

Thank you all, much appreciate the feedback.

I fear that the "anti-partisan" activity South of Kherson is turning genocidal. I suspect that any UKR offensive that enters the zone from Crimea-Kherson-Donetsk will find war crimes on a scale beyond Chechnya and Syria, into systematic population reduction. I don't see the UKR forces letting that slide.

And, any peace requires a referendum.

No one with family killed will vote for a peace that leaves the perpetrators (ie the entire goddamn RUS army) within UKR borders, let alone punished.

 

[panzermartin]

About sanctions, (from a friend) 

Since the beginning of the war, the EU has paid Russia 35 times more than it gave aid to Ukraine

European countries have paid Russia 35 billion euros for energy since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, said the head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell. According to him, the amount of financial assistance to Ukraine was 35 times less.

“We must help Ukrainians defend themselves. We gave Ukraine almost a billion euros. It may seem like a lot, but a billion euros is what we pay Putin every day for the energy he supplies us,” Borrell said.

- this is the daily insanity of this war that we’re funding the destruction by Russia, yet we’re also trying to fund the medical aid and weapons for them to defend themselves but only a fraction.

Adding to this that Russia is still in business with a much bigger portion of the World. It took them 10 years to admit defeat in Afghanistan, I don't see how they will abandon invaluable Ukraine, unless NATO decides to go WW3. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by panzermartin

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, panzermartin said:

About sanctions, (from a friend) 

Since the beginning of the war, the EU has paid Russia 35 times more than it gave aid to Ukraine

European countries have paid Russia 35 billion euros for energy since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, said the head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell. According to him, the amount of financial assistance to Ukraine was 35 times less.

“We must help Ukrainians defend themselves. We gave Ukraine almost a billion euros. It may seem like a lot, but a billion euros is what we pay Putin every day for the energy he supplies us,” Borrell said.

- this is the daily insanity of this war that we’re funding the destruction by Russia, yet we’re also trying to fund the medical aid and weapons for them to defend themselves but only a fraction.

Adding to this that Russia is still in business with a much bigger portion of the World. It took them 10 years to admit defeat in Afghanistan, I don't see how they will abandon Ukraine, unless NATO decides to go WW3. 

They have lost more people in Ukraine in ~six weeks than they lost in Afghanistan in a decade, possibly twice as many. That is just not a remotely comparable situation. Afghanistan was an unpleasant occupation of a place not worth having, they have proved that At least three times now. Ukraine is a straight up shooting war, with losses running several hundred men per day, more when they try to advance. No question the EU need to just turn off the gas pipeline, my guess is that it gets a lot more doable after the French election.

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

About sanctions, (from a friend) 

Since the beginning of the war, the EU has paid Russia 35 times more than it gave aid to Ukraine

European countries have paid Russia 35 billion euros for energy since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, said the head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell. According to him, the amount of financial assistance to Ukraine was 35 times less.

“We must help Ukrainians defend themselves. We gave Ukraine almost a billion euros. It may seem like a lot, but a billion euros is what we pay Putin every day for the energy he supplies us,” Borrell said.

- this is the daily insanity of this war that we’re funding the destruction by Russia, yet we’re also trying to fund the medical aid and weapons for them to defend themselves but only a fraction.

Adding to this that Russia is still in business with a much bigger portion of the World. It took them 10 years to admit defeat in Afghanistan, I don't see how they will abandon Ukraine, unless NATO decides to go WW3. 

not really an apples to apples.  Yes EU is paying for oil and gas.  That doesn't translate directly to war funds.  Russia has an entire economy to keep going.  The money/weapons etc EU is giving Ukraine go DIRECTLY to the war effort.

Would it be nice to cut Russia off completely?  yeah but not realistic at this point. What is happening is a concerted effort to get to that point.  For Russia there is immediate pain caused by some of the sanctions and long term pain of folks looking to stop doing business with them. Putin is digging a helluva big hole for Russia's grave, but nothing happens overnight.

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

Immediately withdraw away from Kharkov back to the border of Luhansk. Withdraw from Kherson to the south side of the Dnepr and hold. 

The RA has a proven inability to successfully conduct flexible fast paced offensive operations, but if they dig in like ticks and rely on masses of arty they can make it very expensive for the UA.

Sure, I could buy it, although such a strategy will require a lot of dwindling resources to execute and can be disrupted before it is completed.  A few caveats:

1. A non-continuous line (i.e. hedgehogs) gets infiltrated easily especially by those wily UA irregulars. The redoubts are then isolated and defeated in detail in the absence of aggressive counterattacks by mobile reserves. The Russians have been pants at this to date, but true, they may get better at cross country maneuver in the steppes once the weather dries out.

2. One does not simply build a continuous fortified line including strongpoints, mine belts etc. right along the current line of contact with an aggressive, mobile enemy, or within range of his arty. You build it and then fall back to it, ceding ground... many kms of it in this instance.

3.  Are these continuous defensive fronts an anachronism, the legacy of 3 million man armies and far less precise artillery? Perhaps.

Simplistic math:  200,000 men / 800 km = 250 men per kilometer of frontage. And only some of those guys are actually manning the front.  Sure, they might double bayonet strength with conscripts in 3 months. Do they honestly have that long? Again, the enemy gets a vote....

4. Yes, Russian soldiers traditionally dig in like busy beavers the moment they stop moving. But don't their shellproof bunkers effectively become prefab tombs once the UA precision artillery figures out where they are?  A few RT videos doth not a military revolution make, but UA itself may be starting to suffer some of that in its 2014 fortified lines. Standing still is risky for everyone these days....

5. Digging Russian artillery into hardened firebases with secure comms to OPs (or drones) is about the most effective thing they could do and you're right, that is quite dangerous. But now we are in the world of counter-battery fire.

Edited April 8, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[panzermartin]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

They have lost more people in Ukraine in ~six weeks than they lost in Afghanistan in a decade, possibly twice as many. That is just not a remotely comparable situation. Afghanistan was an unpleasant occupation of a place not worth having, they have proved that At least three times now. Ukraine is a straight up shooting war, with losses running several hundred men per day, more when they try to advance. No question the EU need to just turn off the gas pipeline, my guess is that it gets a lot more doable after the French election.

And despite losing that much, there are no thoughts of giving up at the slightest, yet, so there is a first serious sign that this war can drag on forever. Afghanistan was what you describe and had no chance to turn into a life or death war, losing access to Ukraine is like amputation for Russia. 

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

And despite losing that much, there are no thoughts of giving up at the slightest, yet, so there is a first serious sign that this war can drag on forever. Afghanistan was what you describe and had no chance to turn into a life or death war, losing access to Ukraine is like amputation for Russia. 

none?  I'd say the withdrawal from around Kiev was a pretty big giving up on plans A-E.  And I don't think Russia can afford for this to keep going at this rate.  Unfortunately, they may just have to accept amputation.

[Fenris]

30 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

About sanctions, (from a friend) 

Since the beginning of the war, the EU has paid Russia 35 times more than it gave aid to Ukraine

European countries have paid Russia 35 billion euros for energy since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, said the head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell. According to him, the amount of financial assistance to Ukraine was 35 times less.

“We must help Ukrainians defend themselves. We gave Ukraine almost a billion euros. It may seem like a lot, but a billion euros is what we pay Putin every day for the energy he supplies us,” Borrell said.

- this is the daily insanity of this war that we’re funding the destruction by Russia, yet we’re also trying to fund the medical aid and weapons for them to defend themselves but only a fraction.

Adding to this that Russia is still in business with a much bigger portion of the World. It took them 10 years to admit defeat in Afghanistan, I don't see how they will abandon invaluable Ukraine, unless NATO decides to go WW3. 

 

As has been said in a lot of places, sanctions take time.  I don't think you can just turn off a large chunk of the energy supply to a market as large the EU without some pretty serious effects (the spice must flow etc etc).  The stated target is the end of the year IIRC, although some countries have started doing it themselves - Lithuania and Poland I think.  Obviously the sooner everyone can get off RF gas the better.

Edited April 8, 2022 by Fenris

[panzermartin]

30 minutes ago, sburke said:

not really an apples to apples.  Yes EU is paying for oil and gas.  That doesn't translate directly to war funds.  Russia has an entire economy to keep going.  The money/weapons etc EU is giving Ukraine go DIRECTLY to the war effort.

Would it be nice to cut Russia off completely?  yeah but not realistic at this point. What is happening is a concerted effort to get to that point.  For Russia there is immediate pain caused by some of the sanctions and long term pain of folks looking to stop doing business with them. Putin is digging a helluva big hole for Russia's grave, but nothing happens overnight.

The thing is we are talking about economy like we are in pre war terms. Once a country goes full war, and this is the next card for Russia if the “special operation" doesn't secure a minimum of victory, they will start melting church bells for cannons like Peter the great did. We repeatedly fail to grasp the  stubordness and different universe most of Russia has been for centuries. Hitler also thought that a knock will bring down Russia in weeks, and the initial vast losses could have proved him right. But this didn't happen. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by panzermartin

[Der Zeitgeist]

11 hours ago, keas66 said:

Do we think there is any chance at all that the US will move into Ukraine by itself  ?

Depends on what "moving into Ukraine" means.

One thing I've been wondering about recently is if the RQ-180 might have a weapons bay, how stealthy the MQ-20 Avenger is, and how many of these the CIA is flying... 

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

The thing is we are talking about economy like we are in pre war terms. Once a country goes full war, and this is the next card for Russia if the “special operation" doesn't secure a minimum of victory, they will start melting church bells for cannons like Peter the great did. We repeatedly fail to grasp the  stubordness and different universe most of Russia has been for centuries. Hitler also thought that a knock will bring down Russia in weeks, and the initial vast losses could have proved him right. But this didn't happen. 

1 You can't make modern weapons from Church bells.

2 Russia has lost plenty of wars.  This Napoleon/Hitler view is hardly the only story of Russian wars.. and in both those Russia got enormous aid from its allies.  China isn't so forthcoming.

You think Russia is stubborn?  I think Ukraine is teaching them a whole other lesson in stubborn.

[sross112]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

It occurred to me earlier today that there's something else new about this war.  Imagine after the shooting stops that the Russian government isn't cooperative with handing over people responsible for war crimes.  Well, Ukraine has the names and addresses of pretty much every Russian service member (I think only Army?) in Ukraine, it also knows which units were where and will eventually be able to correspond that to murder events.  Other evidence is likely to come up, such as eye witnesses who can identify individuals from their social media posts.

Got all that?  Now, think about what someone might do with this information.  Especially someone who could pass themselves off as Russian citizens.  Israeli methods might come to someone's mind.  And true to this war, it might be volunteers that are acting on their own instead of the Ukrainian government.  Or both.

Steve

I was actually thinking about this a few days ago when all the atrocities were coming out. I believe it was something like "I wonder what the Ukrainian Mossad will be called?".

[Fenris]

10 minutes ago, sross112 said:

I was actually thinking about this a few days ago when all the atrocities were coming out. I believe it was something like "I wonder what the Ukrainian Mossad will be called?".

Isn't their alphabet agency the SBU?

[sross112]

42 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sure, I could buy it, although such a strategy will require a lot of dwindling resources to execute and can be disrupted before it is completed.  A few caveats:

1. A non-continuous line (i.e. hedgehogs) gets infiltrated easily especially by those wily UA irregulars. The redoubts are then isolated and defeated in detail in the absence of aggressive counterattacks by mobile reserves. The Russians have been pants at this to date, but true, they may get better at cross country maneuver in the steppes once the weather dries out.

2. One does not simply build a continuous fortified line including strongpoints, mine belts etc. right along the current line of contact with an aggressive, mobile enemy, or within range of his arty. You build it and then fall back to it, ceding ground... many kms of it in this instance.

3.  Are these continuous defensive fronts an anachronism, the legacy of 3 million man armies and far less precise artillery? Perhaps.

Simplistic math:  200,000 men / 800 km = 250 men per kilometer of frontage. And only some of those guys are actually manning the front.  Sure, they might double bayonet strength with conscripts in 3 months. Do they honestly have that long? Again, the enemy gets a vote....

4. Yes, Russian soldiers traditionally dig in like busy beavers the moment they stop moving. But don't their shellproof bunkers effectively become prefab tombs once the UA precision artillery figures out where they are?  A few RT videos doth not a military revolution make, but UA itself may be starting to suffer some of that in its 2014 fortified lines. Standing still is risky for everyone these days....

5. Digging Russian artillery into hardened firebases with secure comms to OPs (or drones) is about the most effective thing they could do and you're right, that is quite dangerous. But now we are in the world of counter-battery fire.

So on the political side of plan A. Immediately upon taking Mariupol and initiating the withdrawals he petitions the UN for peacekeeping forces and a DMZ to maintain a ceasefire? With the support of China and India and the west seeing it as an end to a bad situation and possible WW3 (maybe strong hints of WMD's if UN doesn't intervene) would it be possible? I have no doubt that Ukraine is willing and able to fight to the end but can it do so as an island on it's own? When Putin is so "gracious" to offer to end the conflict and Ukraine is now the meanie aggressor against poor innocent Russia?

Please understand that I in no way shape or form support Putin or Russia. The above is just how they seem to try to spin things to be the victim when they are actually the perp. Huh, I guess I just described Russia as the tank top wearing, wife beating drunk of our neighborhood of nations. Seems about right.

Anyway, and the western nations and China are just looking at the economics. Is it more lucrative to keep the conflict going or for it to end? It's all about the money to them and the answer is for it to end so they can get their business back to normal. So they pressure Ukraine and force in the DMZ and peacekeepers. Ukraine can't continue as an island so they are forced to eat the ***t sandwich by the benevolent west.

Edited April 8, 2022 by sross112

[LongLeftFlank]

2 minutes ago, sross112 said:

So on the political side of plan A. Immediately upon taking Mariupol and initiating the withdrawals he petitions the UN for peacekeeping forces and a DMZ to maintain a ceasefire? With the support of China and India and the west seeing it as an end to a bad situation and possible WW3

The West might have seen it as cutting its losses in week 1. But at this point, I think most -- ex Germany -- are quite happy to see Russia get its nasty arse handed to it piece by piece and are in no particular hurry to see that stop, barring a reversal.

[GAZ NZ]

 

Russia is more clued up now and using more co ordinated drone strikes over last two weeks apparently 

Bit late lol

Overall  link Talks about Russian Air capability vs taking out mobile Sam's with anti radiation missiles

Difficult for any country apparently 

Nato countries not doing much of this training if any so war is showing difficulties attacking layered mobile air defence - mobile Sam sites

Very detailed talk 

Gives greater clarity on Russian failure

Edited April 8, 2022 by GAZ NZ

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Depends on what "moving into Ukraine" means.

One thing I've been wondering about recently is if the RQ-180 might have a weapons bay, how stealthy the MQ-20 Avenger is, and how many of these the CIA is flying... 

Interesting thoughts. I also wonder about the practicalities (legal and otherwise) of standing up an American Volunteer Group of the Ukrainian Air Force...Flying Tigers 2.0, if you will. With stealthy drones it could probably be done covertly, although I'm not sure how much point there is in that...one could argue that more drones and more foreign volunteers (even if these ones would clearly have the more than tacit approval of their government) wouldn't be much of an "escalation" at this point. It would almost certainly be deemed too provocative to do it with F-35s and A-10s, but I can see how an MQ-20 unit might just work...

Edited April 8, 2022 by G.I. Joe
Making statements more qualified to reflect that this is a rather "out there" concept...

[kraze]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

And despite losing that much, there are no thoughts of giving up at the slightest, yet, so there is a first serious sign that this war can drag on forever. Afghanistan was what you describe and had no chance to turn into a life or death war, losing access to Ukraine is like amputation for Russia. 

russians fully retreated from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, effectively losing 1/3 of what they gained in slightly more than a month.

Can you name me a single war of theirs in the past 30 years where russians ever gave up anything they captured?

Those losses do hurt.

[Der Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

Interesting thoughts. I also wonder about the practicalities (legal and otherwise) of standing up an American Volunteer Group of the Ukrainian Air Force...Flying Tigers 2.0, if you will. With stealthy drones it could probably be done covertly, although I'm not sure how much point there is in that...one could argue that more drones and more foreign volunteers (even if these ones would clearly have the more than tacit approval of their government) wouldn't be much of an "escalation" at this point. Would probably be deemed too provocative to do it with F-35s and A-10s, but I can see how an MQ-20 unit might just work...

It's all pure speculation of course, but let's just say I wouldn't be surprised when in 20 years some biography comes out mentioning that US military assistance was quite a bit more extensive than it seemed at the time.

There's just a few things that make me go "hmmmm", like the almost perfect situational awareness that Ukraine seems to have, or a number of incidents where Russian stuff mysteriously blows up and everyone quickly agrees that it was probably a Ukrainian Tochka missile that got a lucky hit.

[Saberwander]

10 hours ago, Kinophile said:

ALL

We need a Devil's Advocate/ 10th Man Rule here.

What if RUS plays this smart?

What happens if they gain a commander who plays to what strengths they have left? 

What if they avoid the zerg rush we fear/expect and go for something more methodical, with a 2 month time frame, e.g. mercilessly and uncaringly burning human and mechanized fodder to pin UKR units in place, driving them forward with full WW2 style "retreaters will be shot" enforcement, at massive cost but nonetheless pinning the UKR.

I'm not saying that's the approach that would win it for them, but could we discuss what RUS can do?  We know that UKR could lose this battle (and still win the war) but how would they lose, militarily? What does a UKR defeat look like?

We all know Steve's points, and they're very valid/realistic, but - if the human cost is not a political issue, and there is sufficient battlefield security (OMON/SOBR/FSB etc), and you were RUS C/G, what would you do?

 

Ok. Let's see. Putin gives full authority to one guy.

1. Order a massive false flag attack against Russia proper - let's say a chemical plant in middle of a city with a poisonous gas. Seems simplest way to ensure massive civilian casualties. I am sure there are other options. This can be done either with painted Mi-24 into Ukrainian colors or with Tochkas moved to Kharkov area. Maybe even multiple attacks, every few days. Also some kind of false flag excursion into Russian territory is not a bad idea as well although harder to fake (maybe fake Azov "nazis" are unleashed on Russian villages at the border,  leave a couple of survivors to be used for propaganda later).

2. Claim that you are forced to go to war against Ukraine. 

3. Order a large scale mobilization - hundreds of thousands of soldiers (conscripts from previous years, reservists, ...). Bring out equipment (even third rate) that they can use. 

4. Prepare a large scale offensive (maybe starting early summer) - I won't outline details of which directions to go exactly - doesn't really matter. What is important is that it would require total commitment from the Russian Air Force - meaning large losses of airplanes and helicopters. There needs to be continuous air support regardless of losses. 

5. Hope it breaks Ukrainian defenses and resolve and causes a collapse.

 

This being said, I don't think it is doable. Even if they successfully execute 1-4, I don't think that they can defeat Ukraine because Ukrainian morale is so high after successfully defeating Russia in combat - something not many expected. Even if Russia breaks through the lines and takes some land, Ukraine will not surrender and then Russia is in a long term conflict while under sanctions and with Ukraine receiving foreign military and economic aid.

[kraze]

2 hours ago, panzermartin said:

The thing is we are talking about economy like we are in pre war terms. Once a country goes full war, and this is the next card for Russia if the “special operation" doesn't secure a minimum of victory, they will start melting church bells for cannons like Peter the great did. We repeatedly fail to grasp the  stubordness and different universe most of Russia has been for centuries. Hitler also thought that a knock will bring down Russia in weeks, and the initial vast losses could have proved him right. But this didn't happen. 

In both Napoleonic war and WW2, apart from aforementioned allies and help, russian army predominantly consisted of Ukrainians and Belarusians, who ended up suffering the greatest casualties in both wars.

It's why by the time either of them got to Moscow - their armies were bled so heavily by what is basically the locals defending their homes - they couldn't realistically proceed any further.

If you check history - in the past centuries russians never really fought a war on their own territory. 

Aggressive wars they started using their own local population ended up being stuff like Winter War or Tsushima.

Edited April 8, 2022 by kraze

[panzermartin]

6 minutes ago, kraze said:

russians fully retreated from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, effectively losing 1/3 of what they gained in slightly more than a month.

Can you name me a single war of theirs in the past 30 years where russians ever gave up anything they captured?

Those losses do hurt.

Of course they hurt, to the point Peskov admitted this as a tragedy. I more meant giving up on the Ukraine operation as a whole after these shocking losses. 

My general point is, here we are already picturing the day after the war is over the same time US, NATO top officials and even Kuleba warn for a WW2, or WW1 type of warfare only just starting. 

[DesertFox]

4 hours ago, akd said:

The glass is interesting:

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1512265335226912769?s=20&t=SUtp93q41I38uxipeHmPXg

 

Nothing unusal. Standard size of a tank periscope?

Militärbestände Schult | Winkelspiegel, Periskop | Militärbestände Schult (militaerbestaende-schult.de)