How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sross112]

14 minutes ago, Maquisard manqué said:

Oh and I forgot the rampant kleptocracy presided over by spooks turned oligarchs.

The other addition would be radically tightened control on the movement of people in and out, like back to the iron curtain days. Which with the brain drain that has been spoken of it might very well come to that shortly. Tight. Like not even letting Russians into Belarus as they might jump the border to Poland tight.

[db_zero]

44 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

how does one set targets for these?  Drone?  Satellite?  AWACS?  Once UKR gets over these horizon anti-ship missiles it's gonna be fun fun fun fun

I’ve heard estimates that Patriot batteries would entail a 9-12 month training package to learn how to operate and maintain them. This is probably in a similar time range.

This would need some sort of targeting input as well as the links to feed it…

I have to wonder if it’s possible to get targeting data from a NATO aircraft hundreds of miles away feed it to the missile battery and when ready the Ukrainians manning the batteries push the fire button…

[danfrodo]

13 minutes ago, Taranis said:

 Did you noticed that ? 

I burst out laughing at that one, well done Taranis

[danfrodo]

1 minute ago, db_zero said:

I’ve heard estimates that Patriot batteries would entail a 9-12 month training package to learn how to operate and maintain them. This is probably in a similar time range.

This would need some sort of targeting input as well as the links to feed it…

I have to wonder if it’s possible to get targeting data from a NATO aircraft hundreds of miles away feed it to the missile battery and when ready the Ukrainians manning the batteries push the fire button…

That's what I was wondering.....

[dan/california]

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Wow, hard to believe that was only 40 days ago.  I would caveat that this is a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one.  Descriptive theories assist in orientation and allow us to better understand "what we are seeing", while prescriptive ones offer "rules for successful execution" and offer some predictive qualities (e.g. Clausewitzian attacking centers of gravity).  I have never really bought off on prescriptive military theory to be honest as it either has to be so broad as to be nearly inapplicable (see Clausewitz), or it is narrow and misses large pieces of the picture.  Descriptive theories provide a better observation reference but are not designed to predict or prescribe, we are left to figure that out on our own.

So 40 days later and what have we seen?  Well obviously both sides have been communicating across multiple mediums and in many ways.  Violence is the most obvious but we can see there are many forms of communication beyond violence in this war, narratives for example.  Even the atrocities committed by the Russian forces is a form of communication, one that I think the world has heard and understood very clearly; this will not be a clean war, because clean wars do not exist.  I think we forgot that fighting in far flung parts of the world but this one is hammering it home very clearly.  

What is interesting is the negotiation.  This is more than between the parties engaged in the war.  It is between a party and itself, and the reality it perceives in front of it; we negotiate with the future in war, an extremely uncertain future.  In the last 40 days the level of negotiation by all parties has been fascinating. 

We have watch the Russians have to renegotiate their entire envisioned end-state as the northern operational axis have collapsed.  We have watched the Russian political level negotiate with its own people by building a pretty weak argument resting on a ever increasing lattice work of falsehoods and lies.  Putin had better hope that Stalin was right about the size of the lie because even though the "first casualty of war..." and all that, the reality is that there is constant negotiation between the political and the people (Clausewitz nailed that one) but it is a highly bounded one.  As has been mentioned, culture plays no small part in framing that ongoing negotiation; however, in Russia's case the framework of lies keeps getting larger and larger, it is  matter of time before a counter-narrative starts gaining traction, much like it did during the Soviet-Afghan War.  So while Putin has had to re-negotiate his reality, he now has to try and re-negotiate that reality with an entire nation as more and more Russian soldiers "go missing" or come home in boxes.  Again, descriptive theory but where I come from this is not a particularly strong strategic position, particularly when you might need to mobilize your nation in order to pull off a weak draw by this point.

The Ukrainian negotiations have been no less startling.  I think there was a level of shock in those first four days and I would not be surprised if the Ukrainian government had a much more open position to ending this thing.  Now they have completely re-negotiated their reality and envisioned end-state:

From ISW: "Ukraine will not resume negotiations with Russia until Ukrainian and guarantor state negotiators finalize meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine. Russian atrocities in Ukraine and Kremlin efforts to falsely blame Ukraine for these atrocities have reduced the willingness of the Ukrainian government and society to reach a peace agreement less than total Russian defeat"

This is not the negotiation position of warring party that is worried about losing that certainty I spoke of initially, in fact it has been reinforced.  Further, the Ukrainian government is not negotiating with its people from a position of weakness, it is one of extreme strength.  The Ukrainian people are galvanized more now, than they were back on Feb 28th.  They have sacrificed thousands and now the Russian atrocities are coming to better light they know that they are "all in" for the next decade if need be.  Further, based on what I have seen on social media, this resistance has taken root at a cultural level and I cannot describe how powerful (and dangerous for the Russians) that is.  The fact that killing Russians is being elevated to a near religious calling that will likely be taught to grandchildren is about as bad as it can get for an invader, trust me we found that out the hard way in Afghanistan.  

So what?  Well the communication will continue, now in context of re-negotiated end-states.  Negotiation is continuous and is constantly in contact with the other four elements.  What I am looking for are more signals of what that negotiation looks like.  I will say that it is never simple, it has twists and turns the longer this thing carries on.  Signals of negotiation on all levels, the texture and nature of those negotiations, what influences negotiation?  These are all things I will be tracking.

Finally on sacrifice.  Both sides have sacrificed and will continue to do so, the real question of Will comes down to "how much?"  Here Ukraine clearly has got miles of depth before they will accept "too much", particularly as more civilian massacres turn up; what is the point of "tapping out" when they are going to kill you anyway?  The Russians nearly the opposite position: "how close to the edge are they?"  I do not believe for a second that Russia has signed up for a total war but they really close to an unintended one.  The level of sacrifice to win it could soar to the hundreds of thousands as this rate, is Russia willing to pay that blood price?  The economic damage and diplomatic damage are heading to total but it will take months for them to see that in full, let alone believe it.  But the continued bleeding for a few meters of dirt in Ukraine, all projected across social media and on the internet forever is a growing cost that I am not sure the Russian government can negotiate its way out of.

Finally the West.  Well we also have to come to terms with the future and it is not the one we thought it was going to be.  We continue to communicate through proxy means, and negotiate militarily through proxy, while directly through economic and diplomacy means; however, we still are not "getting it":

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-vote-suspending-russia-human-rights-council-over-ukraine-2022-04-07/

These mechanism matter to us, not Russia or other powers like China that want to re-write the rules.  This is a laughable gesture by a creaking global order that has its head so far up its own...well you get the idea.  I have said it before, this war is terrible and costly, they all are and I don't want to downplay that, but it is the beginning of an era of "power being power" we are entering into, a Season of Mars (not Venus) that has been a long time coming.  That is bigger than this war, it has implications for the next ones.  This elevates this whole thing beyond "a local border disagreement" -as some have posited- and towards a strategic "black swan" or shock.  The implications span from the tactical through to the geopolitical, that kind of thing is rare.

And usually unpleasant. The U.S. and its Asian allies are either going to have to give Taiwan an Article 5 level guarantee, or not. I don't think strategic ambiguity is going to cut it any more. And the Middle East has the potential to break in at least five different ways.

[Erwin]

As a direct result of the Ukraine war, the wider picture:

"China has accelerated an expansion of its nuclear arsenal because of a change in its assessment of the threat posed by the U.S.,..  The Chinese nuclear effort long predates Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the U.S.’s wariness about getting directly involved in the war there has likely reinforced Beijing’s decision to put greater emphasis on developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent...  Chinese leaders see a stronger nuclear arsenal as a way to deter the U.S. from getting directly involved in a potential conflict over Taiwan."

Edited April 9, 2022 by Erwin

[G.I. Joe]

6 minutes ago, db_zero said:

I’ve heard estimates that Patriot batteries would entail a 9-12 month training package to learn how to operate and maintain them. This is probably in a similar time range.

This would need some sort of targeting input as well as the links to feed it…

I have to wonder if it’s possible to get targeting data from a NATO aircraft hundreds of miles away feed it to the missile battery and when ready the Ukrainians manning the batteries push the fire button…

In the immortal words of Shannon Foraker..."oops!"

 

(A quick Google should work for those unfamiliar with the reference)

[Maquisard manqué]

9 minutes ago, sross112 said:

The other addition would be radically tightened control on the movement of people in and out, like back to the iron curtain days. Which with the brain drain that has been spoken of it might very well come to that shortly. Tight. Like not even letting Russians into Belarus as they might jump the border to Poland tight.

Was the rumour of martial law being imposed only that in the end? It was weeks ago…

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Is there any chance of this war ending with a Russia divided into 2-3 separate countries?

It is more question of does it become one large Chinese client state, or several smaller ones. If the answer is several smaller ones the extent to which Beijing just runs the place will probably increase as you get closer to Beijing. I can't emphasize enough the extent that Russia's far east is almost utterly depopulated, and ripe for a creeping Chinese takeover. There is a video a few pages back of conscripts being called up, and loaded on buses in some piece of Russia's nearly endless back water. Mark one eyeball analysis, the people involved have at least as much cultural affinity for Beijing as they do Moscow. Now that might not be much affinity in either direction really, but at the very least implies they might be open to the highest bidder. Although the less awful bidder is probably a better way to think about it.

[TheVulture]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This is a laughable gesture by a creaking global order that has its head so far up its own...well you get the idea.  I have said it before, this war is terrible and costly, they all are and I don't want to downplay that, but it is the beginning of an era of "power being power" we are entering into, a Season of Mars (not Venus) that has been a long time coming.  That is bigger than this war, it has implications for the next ones.  This elevates this whole thing beyond "a local border disagreement" -as some have posited- and towards a strategic "black swan" or shock.  The implications span from the tactical through to the geopolitical, that kind of thing is rare.

This is an argument I keep having with friends and acquaintances in the UK - it probably applies in much of the west to be honest. People keep talking about 'international law' and the legality or illegality of various things. This has been used a lot as justification for various stuff in the last 40+ years, but it seems like the majority of people seem to actually believe that international law means something. That the decisions of the UN  security council are in some way binding.  That international relations are governed by some rules-based authority.

I keep trying to point out that the only way to force a country to comply with 'international law' is military or economic pressure. The 'law' is nothing more than a voluntary code of conduct of countries agreeing to abide by some rules in exchange for other countries agreeing the same, on the basis that we all benefit in the end by resolving differences by non-military means - even if it may work against one countries interests in individual cases.

But it is purely voluntary. If a country like Russia decides it is willing to live with the consequences, it can ignore whatever 'rules' are imagined by international law. Which has worked pretty well for it up until 2022, as the west seemed to think that Russia was willing to be part of the rules based international order. It isn't. It's just willing to make enough of a pretense at it (whilst doing what it wants) to paralyze the political actions who of countries who do believe that stuff.

So yeah, I think there is going to be a rapid shift to people understanding that this rules based system is unenforceable on countries that don't want to play that game, and that a power based reality is going to become more prevalent.

[dan/california]

 

20 minutes ago, db_zero said:

I’ve heard estimates that Patriot batteries would entail a 9-12 month training package to learn how to operate and maintain them. This is probably in a similar time range.

This would need some sort of targeting input as well as the links to feed it…

I have to wonder if it’s possible to get targeting data from a NATO aircraft hundreds of miles away feed it to the missile battery and when ready the Ukrainians manning the batteries push the fire button…

If NATO insists on continuing to split hairs in how will and won't arrange for Russians to come their deservedly unhappy ends,it seems to me Western air defense, and maybe MLRS systems manned by "foriegn volunteers "are next logical step.

[Maquisard manqué]

6 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

This is an argument I keep having with friends and acquaintances in the UK - it probably applies in much of the west to be honest. People keep talking about 'international law' and the legality or illegality of various things. This has been used a lot as justification for various stuff in the last 40+ years, but it seems like the majority of people seem to actually believe that international law means something. That the decisions of the UN  security council are in some way binding.  That international relations are governed by some rules-based authority.

I keep trying to point out that the only way to force a country to comply with 'international law' is military or economic pressure. The 'law' is nothing more than a voluntary code of conduct of countries agreeing to abide by some rules in exchange for other countries agreeing the same, on the basis that we all benefit in the end by resolving differences by non-military means - even if it may work against one countries interests in individual cases.

But it is purely voluntary. If a country like Russia decides it is willing to live with the consequences, it can ignore whatever 'rules' are imagined by international law. Which has worked pretty well for it up until 2022, as the west seemed to think that Russia was willing to be part of the rules based international order. It isn't. It's just willing to make enough of a pretense at it (whilst doing what it wants) to paralyze the political actions who of countries who do believe that stuff.

So yeah, I think there is going to be a rapid shift to people understanding that this rules based system is unenforceable on countries that don't want to play that game, and that a power based reality is going to become more prevalent.

I don’t really think the UN’s issues are anything new. Surely any steps backs can’t go further than things were in the Cold War?

The SC is indeed paralysed by the tensions between camps. All rules, laws etc are actually enforced by consent. You cite two versions of coercion that can force consent. which is why the general assembly or even g20 and g70 are fora that are more telling of the global temperature. 

My card may already marked among some of you men of action as a moralising something or other. But the global consensus required to boot Russia out of the human rights council is indicative of what most countries think of them: that the country is run by vicious, lying murderers who can’t be trusted further than they’re thrown.

I’m not sure what kind of global system you want. America does essentially rule the current one and designed it from the ground up. I hear echoes of recent US global retreat when you deride your own system.

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

This is an argument I keep having with friends and acquaintances in the UK - it probably applies in much of the west to be honest. People keep talking about 'international law' and the legality or illegality of various things. This has been used a lot as justification for various stuff in the last 40+ years, but it seems like the majority of people seem to actually believe that international law means something. That the decisions of the UN  security council are in some way binding.  That international relations are governed by some rules-based authority.

I think of it sorta like how most Westerners view the rules of the road.  They agree that speed limits are there for a reason, but think of them more as general guidelines.  But when they get caught they tend to complain about getting caught, not that they should have the right to drive 100mph in a 55mph zone.  And when someone is busted doing something like that, there's no sympathy like there might be for someone doing 60mph in a 55 zone.

Overall it does serve a purpose and makes the world better than it would be without it.  Though just barely.  What wasted opportunity to be something meaningful for our species.

22 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

So yeah, I think there is going to be a rapid shift to people understanding that this rules based system is unenforceable on countries that don't want to play that game, and that a power based reality is going to become more prevalent.

The UN itself only exists because its members agree that it should.  It could be changed into something different.  In fact, the UN is the League of Nations 2.0 so there's precedent.

If I had my way I'd dissolve the UN and start over again.  No permanent members, but also no membership to countries that don't meet a minimum standard of accountability.  Having something like a Human Rights council with the worst abusers of Human Rights is just stupid.  Having autocratic countries involved in criminal activities be able to veto action is beyond stupid.

Steve

[db_zero]

40 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

That's what I was wondering.....

We live in the age where you can manage vast distributed computer networks remotely.

These weapon systems are controlled by computers and software and it’s no secret that weapon systems are linked to surveillance assets via secured datalinks.

Just do a search on AWACS, TR1 JSTARS and side looking synthetic aperture radar and decide for yourself.

[Aragorn2002]

45 minutes ago, Erwin said:

As a direct result of the Ukraine war, the wider picture:

"China has accelerated an expansion of its nuclear arsenal because of a change in its assessment of the threat posed by the U.S.,..  The Chinese nuclear effort long predates Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the U.S.’s wariness about getting directly involved in the war there has likely reinforced Beijing’s decision to put greater emphasis on developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent...  Chinese leaders see a stronger nuclear arsenal as a way to deter the U.S. from getting directly involved in a potential conflict over Taiwan."

China is the next enemy. First finish Russia.

[The_Capt]

On 4/8/2022 at 6:40 PM, acrashb said:

Here is a lengthy but comprehensive review.  Haven't listened to all of it, but nothing unreasonable in the opening bits:

 

I really like this guy but on this one I have to diverge on his analysis somewhat.  I think he has got a lot right in this video.  I do disagree on his assessment of the Russian military around the 30 min mark but that is because I do not think he fully sees the distance that it needs to go to "re-tool" in order to fight the war it is in, due in large part to how Ukraine is prosecuting it...but we can save that for another day and frankly Steve has already covered a lot of this.

I will say that I totally agree with his caveats and cautions going into this sort of discussion on "who is winning".  However, Perun is employing technical metrics largely based on strength and their application in achieving stated political objectives but misses the realities of a "collision in motion".  As I noted, political objectives can shift (they did) based on will to sacrifice and desired end state, this is the continual negotiation I was speaking of.  When a war ends, people can argue forever (and will) who won based on the sorts of political objectives lens Perun is employing; however, in the middle of it one needs a somewhat more nuanced set of metrics, in my opinion.  For argument sake I will present four that I teach:

Options, Decisions, Power (Will, Strength, Relationships), Negotiating Position.

Options.  There has not been a war in history that I can think of where the losing sides options did not compress, eventually to a single one - loss, and the winning sides options were either sustained or expanded.  Pick a war, any war and trace the strategic options spaces of each side and you will see this trend.  In this one, again "in motion", it looks very much like Russian strategic options have continued to collapse, to the point they had to re-write political objectives, while Ukraine has sustained and in many cases expanded theirs particularly in the form of further mobilization, offensive action, an ability to hit Russian SLOCs and even prosecute targets within Russia (allegedly).  Strategically Ukraine is options healthy, it can give ground and then re-take it.  Politically, they have already begun to re-design what security guarantees mean: all healthy options.  Russia has been the inverse on almost every option space metric.  So what?  Well unless Russia can regain strategic options spaces while compressing Ukrainian ones, this war is not going in their favour.

Decisions.  So far there have been, by my count, 3-4 strategic decisions made in this war so far.  1) The quick 72 war - decided very quickly against Russia, 2) The move to besieging Kyiv and major urban centers -and with the exception of Mariupol pretty much has failed, 3) The collapse of the Russian Northern front - a decisive withdrawal that many were somewhat skeptically waiting for, and 4) The decisive proof of Russian war crimes in re-captured areas - changed the tenor and nature of this fight, including its end-states while galvanizing western support.   None of these have gone in Russia's favor.  This is not to say Russia cannot achieve a decisive outcome in the future but in war you live with the decisions of the past and at least so far they are not pointing to Russian "winning".

Power.  A very complex piece that encompasses a lot of components.  Most focus on Strength - the ability to communicate effects but I will focus on Will and Relationships.  Here Ukraine has the upper hand significantly and the trend is accelerating - time is on the Ukrainian side with respect to Will and Relationships.  Ukrainian Will has further steeled in the last 40 days while Russian Will is stressed.  Relationships do not need much elaboration but it is easy to see Russia's relationship position in comparison to Ukraine.  The reality is that one can have enormous Strength but if you do not have the Will or Relationships to bring it to bear that Strength is worth much less. When it comes to Power, I am arguing that Ukrainian power relevant and employable in this war is rising while Russia's is waning.

Negotiating Position.  This one is kind of a summary of all of the above.  Who has the stronger negotiation position both internally (ie. with itself) and externally?   Negotiation position is reliant on Power but it is also highly effected by Options and Decisions.  I would argue that right now Ukraine has the stronger position.  There are indications of this in how Ukraine's negotiation narrative has changed with Russia and how the tenor within Ukraine itself amongst the population has changed.  Russia's position is again the inverse, its negotiating position continues to weaken both externally through violence and threat of violence and, more importantly, internally - hence why all the lies.

So when I look at all four metrics, to my eyes this war is not going in Russia's direction.  These are the things it needs to be "winning" at in order to achieve its objectives (i.e. The Means) and it is not at least as far as I can see.  This does not mean that this thing is hard-wired but it points to a position where Russia must climb an ever increasingly steep hill while Ukraine need only stand on top of it.

Edited April 10, 2022 by The_Capt

[db_zero]

Any world governing entity run by humans will always be flawed…

I can’t recall who it was but one official who was key in the 2003 invasion of Iraq made a candid remark years afterwards to the effect that if he wasn’t an American official he’d probably be on trial as a war criminal IIRC.

[akd]

Rolling Stone visits Ukrainian Marines at the front in Donetsk:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/ukraine-war-marines-front-lines-1334770/

Some more details and photos in this thread from the author:

 

[DesertFox]

6 minutes ago, akd said:

Rolling Stone visits Ukrainian Marines at the front in Donetsk:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/ukraine-war-marines-front-lines-1334770/

Some more details and photos in this thread from the author:

 

Three lieutenants in a BMP? If one had a map that was doomed to fail...

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Taranis said:

 

I like the guy at the end there

[Harmon Rabb]

President Zelensky and Prime Minister Johnson taking a walk through the streets of Kiev.

[kraze]

2 hours ago, Maquisard manqué said:

I liked but It’s basically already there isn’t it? Anyone protesting gets beaten or bullied out of a job. Any opposition is incarcerated or assassinated. The democratic system is as perverted as possible, with no barrier to indefinite rule by Putin/his heir (tbc). The media are gagged and any dissent is literally illegal.

Maybe you mean more that the current and growing isolation will endure & harden? I’m not being snarky. What else could there be though?

It's not N Korea at all.

Russians still have a ton of freedoms. From leaving the country (in NK three generations of your relatives get sent to jail for that) to actually voicing opinions with FSB bothering to only make examples of very few.

Russia is more like a Nazi Germany in mid30s.

Just like Nazi Germany of the era - russians genuinely support what's happening. Putin doesn't need to gag anyone.

[kraze]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The UN itself only exists because its members agree that it should.  It could be changed into something different.  In fact, the UN is the League of Nations 2.0 so there's precedent.

If I had my way I'd dissolve the UN and start over again.  No permanent members, but also no membership to countries that don't meet a minimum standard of accountability.  Having something like a Human Rights council with the worst abusers of Human Rights is just stupid.  Having autocratic countries involved in criminal activities be able to veto action is beyond stupid.

Steve

Add to that the fact that Russia doesn't even have a veto power as per UN, USSR does.

Which doesn't exist.

But the sole fact that UN decided to consider Russia as USSR and be perfectly OK with it instead of forgetting there ever was USSR, which abused its veto power to start wars - is what made it such a failure in the first place.

Russia invaded Moldova less than a year after USSR was over.

Edited April 9, 2022 by kraze

[chuckdyke]

Here is an educated Russian I won't have a guess of the level of education of the armed forces.

 

[Fenris]

Nothing too exciting, a captured T-72 firing a few times