How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Lurb]

I own(ed?) CMBO (don't have a CD drive anymore), Got it right after release IIRC. Didn't play much because I sucked. Lurked the boards for years and for some reason created the account and never used it, then drifted away.

Back for this thread.

Periscope down.

[Der Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, kraze said:

Even if we believe russian "news" that it is afloat and not just its shell of a wreck being afloat - it's most likely in no shape to ever return to service any time soon if ever.

Depending on the weather over the next few hours, we may actually get satellite pictures of the wreck today. Maxar's WorldView-1 will be in the right position, and currently there's no clouds at the probable location.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Der Zeitgeist

[Taranis]

@Haiduk@akd
Have you any information about the (recent?) deployment of the 201st Military Base from Dagestan ?
There is rumours that it is deployed near Kherson or southern Donetsk area.
In 2018 the division had T-72B1, BMP-2 and BTR-82A. It's a divisional sized unit

[Huba]

1 minute ago, kraze said:

But that's where the core problem exists.

In highly corrupt fascist societies, which Russia is, it's all about reports looking good.

You can't just write "my BMP2 has a huge hole in its side, ready to load in every alpha particle it can" - that will lead to questions who is responsible for that hole - and the guy responsible is "somehow" always the one who reported it.

This has been going in there for centuries.

At this point even if their nano-hitler ordered everyone to be honest - those guys at the bottom of the food chain still wouldn't want to be held responsible and point fingers at each other to play a Russian roulette of who is invited to his last tea party, let alone higher ranked guys.

"I can write that my BMP2 has a big hole made by some drunk mechanic and go to jail or I can write that my BMP2 is ready to tear apart a platoon of fat american M1A2SEP3 and get another medal - what an incredible hard choice"

I agree, but this only makes them going in more plausible, as nobody would be willing to say admit they are not ready. They might put the gasmasks on inside the BTRs and just roll. And it is not like the residual radiation after the nukes go off would kill your troops in an instant, they could be good for some more days before starting to suffer from radiation sickness.

Having given this more thought though, I think that with relatively low density of forces involved, tactical nukes might not be that useful. Ukrainians have the defenses arranged in depth of several tens of km probably, you'd have to really obliterate a large area. Shock value would be immense, but so on your own troops. They could just refuse to move and this seems quite possible.

 

[Taranis]

Quote

L’avertissement de Dmitry Medvedev à la Suède et à la Finlande
L’ex-président russe Dmitri Medvedev a affirmé jeudi, dans un long message sur Telegram que si la Finlande ou la Suède rejoignaient l’OTAN, la Russie renforcerait ses moyens militaires, notamment nucléaires, en mer Baltique et près de la Scandinavie.

« Il ne peut plus y avoir de discussions sur le statut dénucléarisé de la Baltique. L’équilibre doit être rétabli », a déclaré le vice-président du Conseil de sécurité de Russie. « La Russie n’avait pas pris de telles initiatives jusqu’à présent et n’avait pas l’intention de le faire », a-t-il affirmé. En cas d’adhésion, « les frontières de l’Alliance avec la Russie feraient plus que doubler. Et ces frontières, il faudra les défendre », a-t-il ajouté. Il a aussi mentionné des déploiements d’infanterie et de systèmes antiaériens dans le nord-ouest de la Russie et des forces navales dans le golfe de Finlande.

Evoquant les populations finlandaises et suédoises, il a estimé que « personne de sain d’esprit (…) ne peut souhaiter une hausse des tensions à sa frontière et avoir à côté de sa maison des (missiles) Iskander, (des missiles) hypersoniques et des navires avec des armes nucléaires ».

La menace nucléaire n’est pas nouvelle et Moscou n’a pas attendu d’envahir l’Ukraine pour déployer des missiles Iskander à Kaliningrad. L’Iskander, connu sous le nom de SS-26 Stone par l’OTAN, est un système de missiles balistiques tactiques à courte portée qui peut transporter à la fois des ogives conventionnelles et nucléaires. Sa portée officielle est de 500 km mais certaines sources militaires occidentales soupçonnent que sa portée pourrait être beaucoup plus grande.

Dmitry Medvedev's warning to Sweden and Finland
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Thursday in a long message on Telegram that if Finland or Sweden joined NATO, Russia would strengthen its military assets, including nuclear, in the Baltic Sea and near Scandinavia.

“There can be no more discussions about the nuclear-free status of the Baltic. The balance must be restored,” said the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia. "Russia had not taken such initiatives so far and had no intention of doing so," he said. In the event of membership, “the borders of the Alliance with Russia would more than double. And these borders will have to be defended,” he added. He also mentioned deployments of infantry and anti-aircraft systems in northwest Russia and naval forces in the Gulf of Finland.

Referring to the Finnish and Swedish populations, he considered that "no one of sane mind (…) can wish for an increase in tensions on their border and to have Iskander (missiles), hypersonic (missiles) and ships with nuclear weapons.

The nuclear threat is not new and Moscow did not wait to invade Ukraine to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. The Iskander, known as the SS-26 Stone by NATO, is a short-range tactical ballistic missile system that can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads. Its official range is 500 km but some Western military sources suspect that its range could be much greater.

[kraze]

9 minutes ago, Huba said:

I agree, but this only makes them going in more plausible, as nobody would be willing to say admit they are not ready. They might put the gasmasks on inside the BTRs and just roll. And it is not like the residual radiation after the nukes go off would kill your troops in an instant, they could be good for some more days before starting to suffer from radiation sickness.

Having given this more thought though, I think that with relatively low density of forces involved, tactical nukes might not be that useful. Ukrainians have the defenses arranged in depth of several tens of km probably, you'd have to really obliterate a large area. Shock value would be immense, but so on your own troops. They could just refuse to move and this seems quite possible.

 

Yeah, but what goals would they achieve in days, just in time before one half of orcs starts pissing blood and the other notices it and realizes that lootin' dat toilet bowl ain't wort havin' da dick fallin' off?

It is true that our army isn't bunched up and frontline isn't really a single thin line. Unless they nuke everything - no way they can achieve big goals.

And then having guys like Macron and Scholz trying to explain to their population why buying gas and oil from extremely violent dudes, who nuke other Europeans is still OK - may prove problematic this time. Especially if winds are west-bound.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, kraze said:

that lootin' dat toilet bowl ain't wort havin' da dick fallin' off?

That made me chuckle, seriously xD

And I agree that the PR loss would be immeasurable. They would be feared, but that's about it, nobody would ever talk to them again. What is worrisome is that might be preferable to regime change from Putin's perspective. Anyway, let's stop that topic if you don't mind, it's way too gloomy, while everyday it seems that situation is getting better - lets concentrate our thoughts on this

 

[kraze]

11 minutes ago, Taranis said:

Dmitry Medvedev's warning to Sweden and Finland
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Thursday in a long message on Telegram that if Finland or Sweden joined NATO, Russia would strengthen its military assets, including nuclear, in the Baltic Sea and near Scandinavia.

“There can be no more discussions about the nuclear-free status of the Baltic. The balance must be restored,” said the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia. "Russia had not taken such initiatives so far and had no intention of doing so," he said. In the event of membership, “the borders of the Alliance with Russia would more than double. And these borders will have to be defended,” he added. He also mentioned deployments of infantry and anti-aircraft systems in northwest Russia and naval forces in the Gulf of Finland.

Referring to the Finnish and Swedish populations, he considered that "no one of sane mind (…) can wish for an increase in tensions on their border and to have Iskander (missiles), hypersonic (missiles) and ships with nuclear weapons.

The nuclear threat is not new and Moscow did not wait to invade Ukraine to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. The Iskander, known as the SS-26 Stone by NATO, is a short-range tactical ballistic missile system that can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads. Its official range is 500 km but some Western military sources suspect that its range could be much greater.

Launching ballistic missiles isn't enough, about 1000 were launched at us, you need to have someone on the ground.

And 80% of that someone is here. So success not guaranteed. Just hundreds of thousands of super pissed natives.

Russia knows this.

Sweden and Finland know this.

Hope they are thankful they are going to join NATO scott free.

[Taranis]

4 minutes ago, kraze said:

Yeah, but what goals would they achieve in days, just in time before one half of orcs starts pissing blood and the other notices it and realizes that lootin' dat toilet bowl ain't wort havin' da dick fallin' off?

It is true that our army isn't bunched up and frontline isn't really a single thin line. Unless they nuke everything - no way they can achieve big goals.

And then having guys like Macron and Scholz trying to explain to their population why buying gas and oil from extremely violent dudes, who nuke other Europeans is still OK - may prove problematic this time. Especially if winds are west-bound.

Unfortunately, many people in the EU are either cowards (look at Le Pen wants out of NATO) or only interested in their comfort. If it were up to me, the gas would have been off long ago (yet my heating runs on gas). I've kept it to a minimum ever since, blankets and sweaters are enough. Afterwards, I can understand the position of the politicians from the point of view of the economy, it is essential to have a good economy for the war and to hold on in the long term, but we must not be fooled, we Westerners will lose there. with this conflict and losing money to buy useless stuff is nothing compared to the suffering of Ukrainians. We must also be positive and think about the future. When this war ends and I hope in favor of Ukraine, it will be a great opportunity for us Westerners to have a better Europe. Ukraine is in ruins but we can help them rebuild and develop. Their pride and glory, however, they will have won alone and by themselves.

[Taranis]

7 minutes ago, kraze said:

Launching ballistic missiles isn't enough, about 1000 were launched at us, you need to have someone on the ground.

And 80% of that someone is here. So success not guaranteed. Just hundreds of thousands of super pissed natives.

Russia knows this.

Sweden and Finland know this.

Hope they are thankful they are going to join NATO scott free.

Totally agree. That's exactly what I was thinking. Threatening with nuclear weapons is all they can do because I don't see where they are going to get their manpower back... And if you even look in detail, they don't say that the integration of the Finland and Sweden in NATO will be an act of war but a provocation. In other words, they won't do anything... And even if they wanted to... How would they do it?

[Huba]

Just now, Taranis said:

Totally agree. That's exactly what I was thinking. Threatening with nuclear weapons is all they can do because I don't see where they are going to get their manpower back... And if you even look in detail, they don't say that the integration of the Finland and Sweden in NATO will be an act of war but a provocation. In other words, they won't do anything... And even if they wanted to... How would they do it?

Yeah,  it's not like they have forces to spare for posturing on the borders.

From the original article, especially the part about stationing significant naval forces in the Gulf of Finland made me raise my eyebrow. You could probably sink them all  with modern 155mm arty, if you have access to both shores of the gulf. Everything there will be a sitting duck. It would have more sense to station any ships on lake Ladoga than in Petersburg.

[Haiduk]

40 minutes ago, Taranis said:

@Haiduk@akd
Have you any information about the (recent?) deployment of the 201st Military Base from Dagestan ?
There is rumours that it is deployed near Kherson or southern Donetsk area.
In 2018 the division had T-72B1, BMP-2 and BTR-82A. It's a divisional sized unit

There was a photo of destroyed vehicles of this unit and captured documents, so at least one BTG (4th) of 201th MB is involved. Region unknown. Photos was issued by Air-assault Command, so this can ve also Izium direction

201st MB is not Dagestan (this is Russian Caucasians autonomous republic), but Tadjikistan. Since Taliban came close to their border, I didn't think, Russians can detach many troops from this deirection. 201st MB has three moto-rifle regiments and tank battalion. The latter was equipped with T-72AV/B1, but in December of 2021 was rearmed on T-72B3. Also MD got at least 18 BMP-2M in 2020.  

Edited April 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

2 hours ago, Taranis said:

Or using systems like the RS-24 LARS (SS-X-29). The pros in bonus is to say "look how hightech our nuclear weaponry is (with the MIRV (Multiple Independently targeted Reentry Vehicle))". In the manner they done it with the hypersonic missile (Kinzhal), even it is not confirmed it was one. The cons are the vehicle could be geolocalized but may could be protected with a mass S-400 area ?

Note : In a perfect world, where all russian equipment do what it was pretend to do

Heh, I wrote an essay on MIRVs in high schoool in the 198somefink.

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, Taranis said:

If it comes to that, I think WW3 will be official and nuclear won't stay tactical.

This is the ENTIRE reason why in the past there was a large effort to eliminate IRBMs and tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons (and why my Army nuclear weapons secondary specialty is no longer relevant  ) They are destabilizing weapons. Back at the height of the Cold War when we had some 30,000 nuclear weapons to the USSRs 40,000, many, many of those were tactical weapons, and a fair number if IRBMs.

IRBMs are a problem because they naturally are closer to the the other guy, and therefore any warning time is much reduced, which means decision time (do we respond? what is this really?) is close to zero. No one thought back then that a it was possible to employ tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons and have it remain at that level, but rather than it would very quickly escalate to a full nuclear exchange. It was in both the US and USSR interest to eliminate them.

Which leads to the fairly recent hate and discontent about the IRBM treaty, which both sides accuse the other of violating, but more so the Russians violating. The administration's position was to just scrap the treaty rather than try to fix things, allowing more IRBMs, and reverting back to destabilization, rather than try harder to fix the issues. US objections were Russian tests of potentially nuclear capable missiles that violated the range limitations. Russia denied this but it's hard to hide missile tests. Russian objections were of our proposed ground based missile interceptors to be based in Poland (mostly). The objection was the launchers *could* be used as well for IRBMs. They were actually correct, even though there were no plans to do so. Pres. Obama received criticism for "removing" missile defense from Europe. However that missile defense did not yet exist - vaporware from the Bush admin - and replaced it with an immediately deployable and incrementally upgradable system, which also had the side benefit of eliminating Russia's objections.

Over the years there has been a lot of careful tiptoeing around nukes, all with the intent of making sure that they wouldn't be used carelessly (not sure that's the right word). Not to destabilize the balance that keeps them from being used. More recently there has been more belligerence over nuclear weapons, reinstating more tactical nukes, along with rhetoric indicating they could be used. Dangerous stuff that in the past was avoided.

None of which answers the question about whether Putin might use a tactical nuke or what the US might do in response - would we respond in kind by hitting a Russian column/depot, just over the border into Russia, in response to use against a country we technically, don't have an obligation to? That's uncharted territory, although, not for the US DoD, I'm sure. There are undoubtedly scenarios being discussed.

Dave

PS - most important thing I learned about nuclear artillery was how to safely blow them into little tiny pieces so that they wouldn't fall into Soviet hands as they overran us in Germany.

[Taranis]

Everything we had alreay talk about (logistics, Battlegroups organization, manpower shortages, mud etc)

Edited April 14, 2022 by Taranis

[Taranis]

9 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

This is the ENTIRE reason why in the past there was a large effort to eliminate IRBMs and tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons (and why my Army nuclear weapons secondary specialty is no longer relevant  ) They are destabilizing weapons. Back at the height of the Cold War when we had some 30,000 nuclear weapons to the USSRs 40,000, many, many of those were tactical weapons, and a fair number if IRBMs.

IRBMs are a problem because they naturally are closer to the the other guy, and therefore any warning time is much reduced, which means decision time (do we respond? what is this really?) is close to zero. No one thought back then that a it was possible to employ tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons and have it remain at that level, but rather than it would very quickly escalate to a full nuclear exchange. It was in both the US and USSR interest to eliminate them.

Which leads to the fairly recent hate and discontent about the IRBM treaty, which both sides accuse the other of violating, but more so the Russians violating. The administration's position was to just scrap the treaty rather than try to fix things, allowing more IRBMs, and reverting back to destabilization, rather than try harder to fix the issues. US objections were Russian tests of potentially nuclear capable missiles that violated the range limitations. Russia denied this but it's hard to hide missile tests. Russian objections were of our proposed ground based missile interceptors to be based in Poland (mostly). The objection was the launchers *could* be used as well for IRBMs. They were actually correct, even though there were no plans to do so. Pres. Obama received criticism for "removing" missile defense from Europe. However that missile defense did not yet exist - vaporware from the Bush admin - and replaced it with an immediately deployable and incrementally upgradable system, which also had the side benefit of eliminating Russia's objections.

Over the years there has been a lot of careful tiptoeing around nukes, all with the intent of making sure that they wouldn't be used carelessly (not sure that's the right word). Not to destabilize the balance that keeps them from being used. More recently there has been more belligerence over nuclear weapons, reinstating more tactical nukes, along with rhetoric indicating they could be used. Dangerous stuff that in the past was avoided.

None of which answers the question about whether Putin might use a tactical nuke or what the US might do in response - would we respond in kind by hitting a Russian column/depot, just over the border into Russia, in response to use against a country we technically, don't have an obligation to? That's uncharted territory, although, not for the US DoD, I'm sure. There are undoubtedly scenarios being discussed.

Dave

PS - most important thing I learned about nuclear artillery was how to safely blow them into little tiny pieces so that they wouldn't fall into Soviet hands as they overran us in Germany.

+1 (haven't like left :D)
 

23 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

There was a photo of destroyed vehicles of this unit and captured documents, so at least one BTG (4th) of 201th MB is involved. Region unknown. Photos was issued by Air-assault Command, so this can ve also Izium direction

201st MB is not Dagestan (this is Russian Caucasians autonomous republic), but Tadjikistan. Since Taliban came close to their border, I didn't think, Russians can detach many troops from this deirection. 201st MB has three moto-rifle regiments and tank battalion. The latter was equipped with T-72AV/B1, but in December of 2021 was rearmed on T-72B3. Also MD got at least 18 BMP-2M in 2020.  

Really great informations as always. Thank you !

[Aragorn2002]

13 minutes ago, Taranis said:

 

 

Well, that's our fear in a nutshell, isn't it?

[Huba]

21 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

None of which answers the question about whether Putin might use a tactical nuke or what the US might do in response - would we respond in kind by hitting a Russian column/depot, just over the border into Russia, in response to use against a country we technically, don't have an obligation to? That's uncharted territory, although, not for the US DoD, I'm sure. There are undoubtedly scenarios being discussed.

Exactly that is the source of concern I expressed in my previous posts. This isn't your typical Cold War/ War Games scenario, this is terrra incognita. 
Edit:I have this impression that as times goes by we are worrying about possible escalation of this conflict less and less. Hence the increased armaments shipments. Nobody says that say tanks or antiship missiles are escalatory anymore. If this trend holds, we will be sending planes and ATACMSs in a month.  We said "I check" to Putin's nuclear sabre-rattling, and it seems he folded, but he might have just not shown us his cards yet.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Huba

[Taranis]

1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Well, that's our fear in a nutshell, isn't it?

Exactly. Devil's advocate

[c3k]

Turning away from the current nuclear escalation/destabilization thread, and back to the Moskva.

Moskva being unable to track more than one inbound target, in the current era, is something that is unbelievable to any Western concept of naval warship design.

However, this is a characteristic of many Soviet/Russian designs: a bare, base, capability that never gets upgraded.

A case in point is the Kh-31P, the Russian HARM-ski, anti-radiation missile. On paper, this variant of the Kh-31 is very capable. A Mach 3, ramjet powered, anti-radar missile. It does have one, rather huge, Achilles' heal: the seeker can only detect and track ONE FREQUENCY. And, better yet, that frequency can only be tuned at the factory.

We in the West will frequently assume a level of technology, competency, and manufacturing that simply does not exist in Russia.

[Lethaface]

23 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

Obviously the Greek government is corrupt and inefficient, but the whole did not cost the Germans any money at all, considering the devaluing of the Euro is massively beneficial to the German economy.

And none of their measures improved things, really. They could easily have said: Look, we will give you the bailout money on the condition that you overhaul your tax code, find out what the oligarchs own and tax / nationalize it, root out corruption etc. That is not what happened though: Instead they fought "evil" government spending by cutting programs like healthcare, education, unemployment benefits and left the whole system untouched, because that is more in line with their capitalist ideology, as well as their preconceived notions about "lazy southerners".

 

What's going on in this thread is unfortunately exactly what happened in EU politics. None of our countries are without flaws, but prefer pointing to the flaws in other countries.

While I'm happy the people of Greece are in the EU, the application was a fraud with Goldman Sachs involved and the problems you mention were swept under the rug until the crisis hit. Blame Germany all you want, but if the 'whole system' is untouched I'd advise looking into it instead of expecting Germany/any other country to fix it.

Blaming Putins invasion on Germany is stupid though. Not only Germany is dependent on Russian energy, other countries are as well and indirectly the whole EU is. The alternative was getting even more dependent on USA, which at the time wasn't deemed a good idea by anyone. 

Let's look forward how unity and solidarity can be implemented, not only for a short while because of this war. If we want EU to be a success story, it will require a compromise from every country and every citizen. 

[Kinophile]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1514498197489659909.html

Initial analysis of the sinking of the mosck

[TheVulture]

Trucks from Russia's "Ministry of Emergency Siutations" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Emergency_Situations_(Russia)) seen in Kherson (you can see 'МЧС России' markings on the trucks). Anyone have any idea what their role might be in Kherson in the middle of a war?

 

 

[Kinophile]

"How did the Russians not see the incoming Neptunes? The Moskva has/had a single main air defence radar - a 3P41 Volna phased array to guide S300 missiles. Problem is, it only has a 180 degree field of vision. /11

360 degree coverage is provided by MR-800 Voshkod/Top Pair 3-D long range air search radars for shorter-range SA-8 missiles. But it's likely that in the storm, they couldn't distinguish the sea-skimming Neptunes from the wavetops. 

So it's likely that the Ukrainians purposefully got the Moskva to point its best radar in the wrong direction while the Neptunes sneaked under the coverage of the other radars. Very smart."

[TheVulture]

Pentagon says the Moskva is still (technically) afloat