How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Another example of ripple effects from this war from a NY Times article summary.  It's been discussed a bit here and there since the war started, but this article puts some numbers in front of us:

 

Russia’s tech brain drain

In the first three weeks of March, an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 tech workers left Russia — an exodus that could fundamentally change the country.

An industry once seen as a rising force in the Russian economy is losing many of the bright young minds that are building companies for the future.

Among those who have left: about 300 software developers, entrepreneurs and other tech specialists who boarded two planes chartered by a venture capitalist to Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, in the weeks after the invasion. Thousands more flew to Georgia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and other countries that accept Russian citizens without visas.

Some left Russia because they objected to the war or feared that they could not speak their minds if they stayed. Working in tech, they had enough money to flee and could continue their work from anywhere with a laptop and an internet connection.

Others left because their companies pulled them out.

Tech is a small part of the Russian economy compared with the energy and metals industries but has been growing rapidly. The loss of many young, educated, forward-looking people could have economic ramifications for years to come, economists said.

“Before all this started, Russia had such a strong technology base,” said Artem Taganov, a founder of a Russian start-up who fled to Armenia. “Now, we have a brain drain that will continue for the next five to 10 years.”

Yup, noticing sleek Russian tech kids starting to show up in cafes here in Manila (offshoring and online gambling hub). 

I haven't been over to Vietnam yet this year, but interested in what I'll find there.

[acrashb]

39 minutes ago, chris talpas said:

I love the irony/synchronicity of the postage stamp release and the successful attack on the Moskva 

The infowar has been done well by Ukraine; it's possible that there was some flexibility in the attack on the Moskva that aligned with flexibility in the release of the stamp, so in the end, not a coincidence.

We can add this to the "what Ukraine has done really well" column (infowar / public relations).

19 minutes ago, db_zero said:

Probably nothing more than a coincidence but on same day the White House announced they will be sharing intelligence and targeting information the Russian flagship gets hit and sunk.

See my note above, or perhaps you were being sarcastic and I missed it?

[sross112]

14 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Not super crazy in the context of when the ship was built. IIRC in the 1980s the ability to track-while-scan was relatively new and pretty expensive. The Ticonderoga's and Aegis was built basically to solve this in the USN. The Moskva had a different role in the Soviet Navy and was more about delivering the killing blow to a CV at range. 

The crazy part is that in 40 years Moscow never decided to pull the trigger on the upgrades and decided, apparently, to leave it with much of the old installed equipment she launched with. It makes the money fire (literally!) Kuznetsov even more scandalous in hindsight. Shes in such bad shape that she has to sit out the war, BUT they've already poured a fortune into keeping her (barely) afloat and giving her major rebuilds. Imagine if that gone into upgrading the Moskva a phased radar instead. Or even just in a few more AWACs with naval search radar. 

This failing seems to be par for the course across the board. Is it possible that Russia decided 30 years ago that they needed to keep their Navy afloat and come out with a few new air and ground toys to act like they were a world power? Looking at it from the aspect of they want to be big and tough but know that they aren't ever going to fight a peer to peer conflict because NATO is not going to attack them? Figuring that they had enough quantity of brute force leftovers to handle their wayward colonies like Chechnya? 

It makes sense when you look at their force compositions and equipment. They come out with a fancy new tank and equip a battalion or two of their "elite" formations and everyone else is in old gear. Same with most of their other platforms. The western army's don't have active units running around in M60's, Chieftains and Leopard 1's. We've seen base grade T-72's on up, a virtual smorgasbord of variants throughout the different units. Same with their IFV's. They make enough fancy stuff to point to and say watch out for us but they don't field 4800 up to date MBT's equally spread across their formations. Why? 

If they were truly trying to defend against NATO or planned on attacking any peer country they would have had to have kept their whole first line up to date. They have to know that, again there aren't a lot of secrets as to what is in the ground forces of their adversaries and the capabilities of most of our weapons systems. If the people on this board know the difference between the air defense systems on the Moskva and an Aegis they certainly have to. If they haven't updated those systems in 40 years then they were never seriously planning to defend themselves from us or attack us.  

I know their corruption is systemic and has caused a lot of their problems as well but they couldn't realistically believe that what they have for an army could have challenged NATO or even the US on it's own. That isn't even counting in the air or on the sea. There have been plenty of examples of western warfighting capability over the last 30 years so they can't be in the dark as to just how far below the bar they would be in an armed conflict with the bigger contestants. They just can't be that stupid or uninformed. Call them what you want but I don't believe stupid is accurate. Staggeringly poor gamblers at the moment, yes.

So with the mindset of looking tough mostly for bluff because they knew their economy couldn't support a rival war machine to NATO (they tried that and lost) but having enough to systematically subdue the former regions as needed looks like a possible compromise that could have placed them in this situation. It also falls in line with what others have said about this being Putin's Pearl Harbor moment. Watching Ukraine they knew that they had a quickly closing window of opportunity to act and if they didn't jump now it would be impossible in a couple more years.

Of course as we have seen their assessments and gambles on western support and the fighting spirit of the UA were a little off the mark. I think a lot of that was based on the assumption that the UA hadn't yet developed much from the conflict in 2014 and the same mistake that most of the MSM "experts" and simply looked at the basic math without accounting for all the other factors involved. The assumption of more tanks and airplanes wins.  

You might say, "But, but, what about the Kremlin's rhetoric of how they are defending against an aggressive NATO and will defeat them!" or "Why would they develop the costly technologically advanced weapons systems if they were only going to beat on Georgia?". Well, to keep up the pretense to their people and have pretty toys on May 9th. Seriously, especially in an autocratic regime you have to have an enemy. You need to be the strong guy protecting the poor people of your nation from those foreign devils. The fancy toys inspire confidence in your leadership and make them feel safe, therefore you make them feel safe. Then smash a small state from time to time and make sure you let them know that you barely saved them from ruin at the hands of the Moldovan masses backed by the dastardly British Intelligence.

And all that would make sense as to how we got to where we are today. 

Thoughts?

[db_zero]

Becoming clear the only area where Russia comes close to matching the west is nukes, which is a scary thought given how badly Russia is getting pummeled in the land, air and now sea category…

[sburke]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Another example of ripple effects from this war from a NY Times article summary.  It's been discussed a bit here and there since the war started, but this article puts some numbers in front of us:

 

Russia’s tech brain drain

In the first three weeks of March, an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 tech workers left Russia — an exodus that could fundamentally change the country.

An industry once seen as a rising force in the Russian economy is losing many of the bright young minds that are building companies for the future.

Among those who have left: about 300 software developers, entrepreneurs and other tech specialists who boarded two planes chartered by a venture capitalist to Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, in the weeks after the invasion. Thousands more flew to Georgia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and other countries that accept Russian citizens without visas.

Some left Russia because they objected to the war or feared that they could not speak their minds if they stayed. Working in tech, they had enough money to flee and could continue their work from anywhere with a laptop and an internet connection.

Others left because their companies pulled them out.

Tech is a small part of the Russian economy compared with the energy and metals industries but has been growing rapidly. The loss of many young, educated, forward-looking people could have economic ramifications for years to come, economists said.

“Before all this started, Russia had such a strong technology base,” said Artem Taganov, a founder of a Russian start-up who fled to Armenia. “Now, we have a brain drain that will continue for the next five to 10 years.”

The thing the NYTimes misses is these IT folks aren't some separate industry from the energy and metals.  You need those techs for those industries as well.  When computer systems for those industries need support... ooops.

[sburke]

1 minute ago, db_zero said:

Becoming clear the only area where Russia comes close to matching the west is nukes, which is a scary thought given how badly Russia is getting pummeled in the land, air and now sea category…

I'd think if there was a sane mind over in the Kremlin at all they'd be real scared to push the nuke button for fear they'd either just blow up in their silos or land in Russia.  Better to just threaten to use them.. kind of like they should have just used their army to threaten.

[db_zero]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

I'd think if there was a sane mind over in the Kremlin at all they'd be real scared to push the nuke button for fear they'd either just blow up in their silos or land in Russia.  Better to just threaten to use them.. kind of like they should have just used their army to threaten.

Idk…seems like most of the people who know Putin the best say if he gets desperate enough he’ll resort to WMDs.

Chemical weapons is regarded as something of a “normal” weapon in Russia military doctrine and tactical nukes is also regarded in a different way than they are in the West.

There is a distinction between the large city busting ICBMs and smaller low yield tactical nukes, some of which are smaller than ones dropped on Japan as well as neutron bombs. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by db_zero

[sburke]

5 minutes ago, db_zero said:

Idk…seems like most of the people who know Putin the best say if he gets desperate enough he’ll resort to WMDs.

Chemical weapons is regarded as something of a “normal” weapon in Russia military doctrine and tactical nukes is also regarded in a different way than they are in the West.

There is a distinction between the large city busting ICBMs and smaller low yield tactical nukes, some of which are smaller than ones dropped on Japan as well as neutron bombs. 

the point was more that they'd fail just like the rest of their crap

[chris talpas]

Not that I want to find out, but one has to wonder how well maintained is their nuclear arsenal?  Hey why spend money on something that no one thought would be realistically used.  Like I said probably better not to dwell on those types of weapons.

[chrisl]

3 minutes ago, sburke said:

I'd think if there was a sane mind over in the Kremlin at all they'd be real scared to push the nuke button for fear they'd either just blow up in their silos or land in Russia.  Better to just threaten to use them.. kind of like they should have just used their army to threaten.

The main concern is that a few of them might actually work, even if a lot of them don't.

Nuclear weapons take maintenance - the radiation damages various components over time, including affecting the conventional explosives that initiate things.  The radioactive materials have half lives, tritium is about 11 years, and have to be replaced/reprocessed.  The US spends many billions of dollars per year to make sure that they'll make a big bang, but Russia hasn't been spending that kind of money.  And if you're one of the guys who has to go handle radioactive stuff (or are the guy whose company got the lucrative contract), and you really don't expect them ever to be used, are you going get irradiated doing the maintenance?  Or spend the money on doing that when it could go to a yacht?  Who's ever going to know the nukes don't work?  There's been a test ban agreement for decades, so you're covered there.  

And that's just the explody part - the rockets may or may not have been getting maintenance, and may or may not work.  And may have had parts taken off to be used on rockets for profitable civil space programs (Eurockot sold about 30 space launches on converted SS-19s).  Russia does at least have current capability in launch, so the rockets may be reasonably well maintained, but it may also not have been worth it for someone to actually spend the money to do it.

[db_zero]

9 minutes ago, chris talpas said:

Not that I want to find out, but one has to wonder how well maintained is their nuclear arsenal?  Hey why spend money on something that no one thought would be realistically used.  Like I said probably better not to dwell on those types of weapons.

Even if they have a dud rate of 50% it’s not a comfortable thought. Russia has 6000 nukes 2000 are estimated to be tactical. Even if only 20% go bang and 100% of American nukes work as advertised that’s no victory in my book.
 

I just saw a video where only 28% of Europeans supported a no fly zone over Ukraine, but 68-72 percent of Americans want the US to impose a no-fly zone. In the recent Presidential poll most Americans want the US to do more.

Seems like we’re slipping toward a direct confrontation with Russia.

Edited April 14, 2022 by db_zero

[BlackMoria]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

the point was more that they'd fail just like the rest of their crap

I would wager it is worst than that.  I imagine that Russia prioritizes where it sinks it money.  At a minimum, try to keep maintained and operating the weapon systems you are likely to use the most and prioritize downwards.  Given the habit of Russian soldiers always finding themselves on the wrong side of their neighbour's borders, I would imagine their army and air force would get priority.  Not sure if their navy is above or below that, because that is the typical forward facing stuff you strut around to try to impress or intimate your potential enemies.  The nuclear forces are probably dead last in priority as MAD as worked for decades and no sane person even entertains playing that card.  You try to keep up with the Jones with the stuff you expect to use and scrimp on the stuff you don't expect to use at all.  

Given how poorly maintained their ground forces are, I think their nuclear forces are probably much worse off for maintenance.   I think if push came to shove and it came down to the unthinkable, I think most of the strategic nukes will not make it out of the silos.  But that said, it only take a few to work....

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

The main concern is that a few of them might actually work, even if a lot of them don't.

Nuclear weapons take maintenance - the radiation damages various components over time, including affecting the conventional explosives that initiate things.  The radioactive materials have half lives, tritium is about 11 years, and have to be replaced/reprocessed.  The US spends many billions of dollars per year to make sure that they'll make a big bang, but Russia hasn't been spending that kind of money.  And if you're one of the guys who has to go handle radioactive stuff (or are the guy whose company got the lucrative contract), and you really don't expect them ever to be used, are you going get irradiated doing the maintenance?  Or spend the money on doing that when it could go to a yacht?  Who's ever going to know the nukes don't work?  There's been a test ban agreement for decades, so you're covered there.  

And that's just the explody part - the rockets may or may not have been getting maintenance, and may or may not work.  And may have had parts taken off to be used on rockets for profitable civil space programs (Eurockot sold about 30 space launches on converted SS-19s).  Russia does at least have current capability in launch, so the rockets may be reasonably well maintained, but it may also not have been worth it for someone to actually spend the money to do it.

Can you imagine Russia deciding to use a tac nuke in Ukraine and having it fail to detonate?  Oh boy would that create problems for everybody.  All the strategic implications of an actual detonation but without the effects that gets everybody upset.  I can't even imagine how that would be handled.

Even more problematic is if a tac nuke was so unstable that it went off prior to reaching it's target.  Blowing up en route to the launch site, detonating in mid air over Russian territory, etc.  I have NO IDEA how possible something like this might be from a technical side, so maybe the risk is effectively zero.  But the dud thing is for sure possible.

Note that any nuke detonating within Russia's borders will be blamed on someone other than Russian incompetence.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, db_zero said:

Even if they have a dud rate of 50% it’s not a comfortable thought. 
 

I just saw a video where only 28% of Europeans supported a no fly zone over Ukraine, but 68-72 percent of Americans want the US to impose a no-fly zone. In the recent Presidential poll most Americans want the US to do more.

Seems like we’re slipping toward a direct confrontation with Russia.

I don't think so.  If you sit down and talk with someone that is in favor of a no-fly zone it quickly becomes apparent they have no idea what one is.  They think that someone declares this and suddenly the skies are free of aircraft.  When you explain to them that the US/NATO will have to shoot down Russian aircraft they start to understand it's not so easy.  Then when you explain you also have to destroy Russian air defenses, including in Belarus and Russia, they start getting a little unsure of what they said they were in favor of.  Offer them that this could possibly result in a nuclear attack by Russia against someone and now they're stumped.

Polls suck at gauging REAL opinions about complex topics.  I don't pay much attention to them other than gauging general attitude.  Clearly the US attitude is to support Ukraine as strongly as possible.

Steve

[db_zero]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't think so.  If you sit down and talk with someone that is in favor of a no-fly zone it quickly becomes apparent they have no idea what one is.  They think that someone declares this and suddenly the skies are free of aircraft.  When you explain to them that the US/NATO will have to shoot down Russian aircraft they start to understand it's not so easy.  Then when you explain you also have to destroy Russian air defenses, including in Belarus and Russia, they start getting a little unsure of what they said they were in favor of.  Offer them that this could possibly result in a nuclear attack by Russia against someone and now they're stumped.

Polls suck at gauging REAL opinions about complex topics.  I don't pay much attention to them other than gauging general attitude.  Clearly the US attitude is to support Ukraine as strongly as possible.

Steve

I agree with what your saying and you’re perfectly logical but then I think of how many believe in conspiracy theories or listen to people that horse pills protect you from Covid and I have to wonder.

I’ve given up trying to convince a long time friend who is quite knowledgeable in many subjects that contrails is not the government deliberately spraying mind control drugs onto people.

We’re not talking about just a few individuals but large segments of the population.

Back in the Cold War days you didn’t have to explain why a no fly zone involving Russia was risking WW3. Now it seems you have to sit down and convince 3/4s of the population why that’s not such a great idea and comes with huge risks.

Edited April 14, 2022 by db_zero

[JonS]

1 hour ago, MSBoxer said:

Very powerful

Jesus.

[chrisl]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Can you imagine Russia deciding to use a tac nuke in Ukraine and having it fail to detonate?  Oh boy would that create problems for everybody.  All the strategic implications of an actual detonation but without the effects that gets everybody upset.  I can't even imagine how that would be handled.

Even more problematic is if a tac nuke was so unstable that it went off prior to reaching it's target.  Blowing up en route to the launch site, detonating in mid air over Russian territory, etc.  I have NO IDEA how possible something like this might be from a technical side, so maybe the risk is effectively zero.  But the dud thing is for sure possible.

Note that any nuke detonating within Russia's borders will be blamed on someone other than Russian incompetence.

 

The most likely failure mode probably amounts to a moderately dirty bomb that would mess up the area it landed in, plus some downwind, but not blow much up.  Ukraine is probably better equipped than most countries, at least as far as expertise, to quarantine an area and clean or seal things up.  So even if they're all duds, it's not zero risk. 

It could certainly be awkward if it happened in flight.  I searched a little, and FAS thought years ago that all the Russian Army controlled (e.g. artillery) tactical nukes were dismantled under Yeltsin, but there are still missile based low yield bombs.  That's sort of convenient, because various satellites are likely to pick up the launch and trajectory of missile-based tactical nukes, giving them a clear return address.  That's the kind of thing where presidents declassify things that risk revealing methods and capability.

 

[dan/california]

From Steve

Can you imagine Russia deciding to use a tac nuke in Ukraine and having it fail to detonate?  Oh boy would that create problems for everybody.  All the strategic implications of an actual detonation but without the effects that gets everybody upset.  I can't even imagine how that would be handled.

From me

The worst case possibilities are quite bad, but let throw out two better ones. The first is that no one notices immediately, or maybe no one but the NSA types that picked up the signal traffic. It is just another dud SRBM, and they have had several of those, maybe more than several. So it is just another Russian dud missile until the EOD guys get around to it, and the first one to really look at more or less faints. The second vaguely positive possibility is that Putin makes a show of it, his whole I'm going to blah, blah, blah. Then it doesn't work, and the Russian military finally figure out that Putin is the real problem. I wouldn't say that either of these is likely, but they are both possible. And the Ukrainians just sunk the flag ship of the Black Sea fleet, so I am moving my usual odds of there actually being a God from zero, to two or three percent.

[The_MonkeyKing]

 

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

The cauldron has already been formed. It is already complete: Russia has destroyed all rail lines into Donbass, and now has full fire control (artillery and air power–especially drones) over all roads leading into the fortified regions where the Ukrainian government had amassed its forces for the planned ethnic cleansing of DPR and LPR. Nothing can get into Donbass–nor can anything get out of it–without Russian consent.

All Russia needs to do is wait, as the Ukronazis in the Donbass run out of food and ammunition and are forced to surrender. If they refuse to surrender, then it’s simply a charge up the middle, pushing the massed Ukrainian forces back to the Dnieper, all the while killing them in their bunkers with “smart weaponry” and artillery, or along the roads as they try and flee.

The Ukrainian forces C3 systems have been entirely wiped out, so there will be no means of coordinating maneuvers of any kind, much less flank maneuvers that will require a great deal of detailed minute-by-minute intelligence–as well as a lack of ranking officers to coordinate them. The fuel reserves of all of Ukraine have been mostly destroyed, military transport has been mostly wiped out, and there are two sustained and increasingly rapid advances taking place from the east and north-east which are tying down the vast majority of the troops that would be needed for the flanking maneuvers he envisions (which are impossible, now, for reasons stated above).

Now that Mariupol has been taken, the troops there will likely be redeployed and advance into Zaporzhzhia, parts of which are already held by Russian forces. Those freed up troops may also be deployed into Donestk. For the last two days we’ve been seeing video coming out of Ukraine showing Russia deploying fresh, top-tier weaponry (tanks, artillery, rocket/missile systems, troop transports) into place for a sustained attack from the east, north-east, and south-east.

The Russian troops at Kiev were sent there to hold the Ukrainian troops in place while Russia destroyed any means they might have to redeploy to Donbass and relieve or resupply the troops in the east. Once Russia had degraded Ukrainian transport, C3 capabilities, anti-aircraft/artillery power, and armor to such a level that those troops were no longer a credible means of relief or resupply, they were withdrawn and redeployed in the east, in preparation for a full run to the Dnieper.

The Russian air force now has full control of the skies over all of Ukraine.... Russia is clearly doing the shredding–or rather, grinding–here, and doing it in a methodical, determined way with an attention to detail that indicates iot will not end until their stated political objectives are achieved.

From the videos I’ve seen (50 or so, over the last three days) coming out of Mariupol, the Russian forces seem to have excellent morale and are conducting themselves in a highly disciplined, professional fashion. There are lots of videos coming out of mopping up operations by Russian forces–Kadyrov’s Chechen urban warfare commandos particularly like to post videos–and Russian morale appears quite high and determined. There are also lots of videos of long lines and big crowds of civilians welcoming the Russian forces in as liberators, thanking them for their work and celebrating their arrival.

What we see of the Ukrainian forces, they seem extremely demoralized. The Ukrainians, in contrast to the Russians, have posted videos of the torture and execution of Russian POWs [blah blah blah]

Meanwhile, in the strange parallel bearded Spock universe that is allowed to continue existing [within bounds] on Pat Lang's blog....

https://turcopolier.com/the-cauldron-ttg/#comment-201674

(In other news, I hear Heinrici -- or was it Wenck? -- will very shortly smash the Bolsheviks and relieve Berlin. It will be any day now, mein Fuhrer!)

...But such rubbish is still interesting -- and disturbing -- to read, because so long as this looking glass world prevails in Russia (with Russians utterly disinclined to hear anything different), we can look for no upheaval, at least not from the bottom up.

...I suspect the Moskva disaster will naturally be interpreted by such people as the work of sinister Western aggressors, as the Ukrainians cannot POSSIBLY be admitted to be capable of such things.

Edited April 14, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[db_zero]

6 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

Last item-Claymore mines configured to be consistent with Ottawa treaty.

If we do send scatterable anti armor artillery shells they be consistent with the Ottawa treaty.

[Battlefront.com]

It's been a few days since we've had a discussion about what drones + experienced artillery can do.  Here's a good example:

 

Look at the precision.  Pretty impressive.  Well, as long as they were aiming for that treeline

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Now, who here thinks this sort of enthusiasm is to be found on the Russian side of the fight?  I'm not just talking about the enthusiasm of the volunteers, I'm talking about volunteers as a concept

 

[Hister]

Been away from the forum a while now. So the North collapsed as Steve and some others predicted. What is the situation in the East and South? Will it collapse too or are Russian logistics on par now there?

Reading Russian attack is imminent in the East - is that true or is this BS like imminent attack on Kiev was that media was promoting until it wasn't?

Are Ukrainians waiting for the Russian attack and will they counterattack then? 

What are Steve's (and others) predictions for the war now?

[Battlefront.com]

I suppose there's an upside to all the losses for the Russians.  It's now possible to give an entire division awards at one time.  At least that's what the second video looks like