How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

5 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

That is $16 Billion twenty times the current aid package. I can't see congress agreeing to that one. 

Current aid has amounted to 3,8 Bn already if you add all the packages I think? You don't have to give away all of those at once, open a steady stream of 150 per month or so. Arsenal of Democracy can afford that  Politically, USAs stance after it saves everyones bacon again should raise considerably, there's the return on your investment.

3 minutes ago, c3k said:

Re: The West supplying armaments to Ukraine.

I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that thus far only old stock is being considered (some exceptions, like ATGMs, LAWs, and Switchblades).  Those modern ATGMs are all useful for stopping active Russian movements, but not so much for rooting the Russians out of Ukraine.

Towed artillery does not seem to have a place on this battlefield. Yet, that's what the US is providing.

Old tanks? I understand the argument about training and support and timeliness. However, this war will not be a 6-week war (already past that), or a 12-week war. It is a war that will not stop until one side or both sides lose the will to continue it. Does anyone see Ukraine being satisfied with a solution less than 100% victory?  How about Putin? 

How long has the 2014 battle lasted? Yep...since 2014.

Planning NOW for the long term will ensure success at the soonest possible time. Pumas, CV90s, Leo 2s, Abrams, PzH2000, M109s, Patriots, MLRS, etc, need to be provided. Lend lease is a great model. 

Stopping the Russian advance is one thing. Pushing them back off of Ukraine's territory is a another.

I agree that that's the way. Honestly given how USA is stepping up the help, I'm sure that some of the heavy equipment is being taken out of mothballs already. AFAIK the POMCUS sites in Europe are no longer, can anyone confirm that ?

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Huba

[Der Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, c3k said:

Those modern ATGMs are all useful for stopping active Russian movements, but not so much for rooting the Russians out of Ukraine.

(...)

Stopping the Russian advance is one thing. Pushing them back off of Ukraine's territory is a another.

I suspect that's one reason why a lot of western countries are hesitant about sending MBTs or IFVs. Because they don't want to enable an eventual Ukrainian offensive into the "DNR" & "LNR" territories.

There's still a lot of hope and illusions that this war will end with a return to the status quo.

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

Arsenal of Democracy can afford that

I can't see how this war can be contained inside the Ukraine. Regime change in Russia is the only way out of this. I will cop some flak for this. The US had also Lend and Lease for Great Britain the reason Germany declared war on the US. Putin will be forced to do the same. 

[Ts4EVER]

Just now, chuckdyke said:

I can't see how this war can be contained inside the Ukraine. Regime change in Russia is the only way out of this. I will cop some flak for this. The US had also Lend and Lease for Great Britain the reason Germany declared war on the US. Putin will be forced to do the same. 

Yes, but Germany at least had initial successes, to the point were they managed to fluke themselves into controlling the biggests economies of western Europe. Even then they knew that they basically had to keep attacking to even uphold the illusion of competing with the US. What has Russia conquered? One and a half cities and some forests, from the looks of it.

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I can't see how this war can be contained inside the Ukraine. Regime change in Russia is the only way out of this. I will cop some flak for this. The US had also Lend and Lease for Great Britain the reason Germany declared war on the US. Putin will be forced to do the same. 

It was reverse of current situation in Vietnam, and it didn't escalate. I see no reason why it couldn't be that way this time. I agree that at the moment there's no diplomatic solution. Drive on Moscow looks absurd, but Russia collapsing from war exhaustion is quite possible, this is the outcome we should look up for.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Huba

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

Vietnam, and it didn't escalate.

The red line was boots on the ground in North Vietnam they followed the protocol from the Korean war which ended in a stalemate. I can see the current situation developing like that a stalemate with a demarcation on territory both sides are not happy with. In other words, a cold war also covering forty years. 

[Ultradave]

19 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

That is $16 Billion twenty times the current aid package. I can't see congress agreeing to that one. 

US has provided $2.6 Billion so far, and there is $13.6 Billion in the budget.

[chuckdyke]

8 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

US has provided $2.6 Billion so far, and there is $13.6 Billion in the budget.

I think you need to involve advisors and or tech training personnel and we all know where that will lead. Besides armor is only one player of the orchestra. Already with the amount of Javelins supplied there should not be any Russian tanks left going with a kill ratio of 80%. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by chuckdyke

[The_MonkeyKing]

37 minutes ago, c3k said:

Planning NOW for the long term will ensure success at the soonest possible time. Pumas, CV90s, Leo 2s, Abrams, PzH2000, M109s, Patriots, MLRS, etc, need to be provided. Lend lease is a great model. 

Stopping the Russian advance is one thing. Pushing them back off of Ukraine's territory is a another.

Only one who has any stockpiles to give is the USA. And this a European crisis... (Europe has mixed will and total lack of ability to give without disarming itself)

I am surprised that the US is giving even this much.

I would like to see some form of euro-US lend-lease. Euro financing and organization US origin weaponry to Ukrainians. This is not USA's business, this is Europe's business. Very strange situation USA leading the biggest security crisis in Europe since the WWII. And also going way further than Europe in its support.

[TheVulture]

42 minutes ago, c3k said:

Towed artillery does not seem to have a place on this battlefield. Yet, that's what the US is providing.

I agree that towed artillery doesn't seem like a whole lot of use in a mobile battlefield, but on the other hand:

•  It's better than nothing and might be quicker to become proficient compared to self-propelled artillery
• Presumably some artillery has to be kept stationed along currently quiet borders like Belarus and Moldova, so towed guns could be used there to free up better units for more active areas
• There's been a fair bit of Russian towed artillery seen as well, so  it is at least providing symmetric capability
• Some fronts, like most of the Donetsk-Luhanks 2014 front line has barely moved so far in the war (despite multiple attacks), so immobile artillery in those heavily fortified lines would still be pretty useful.

[Huba]

9 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Only one who has any stockpiles to give is the USA. And this a European crisis... (Europe has mixed will and total lack of ability to give without disarming itself)

I am surprised that the US is giving even this much.

I would like to see some form of euro-US lend-lease. Euro financing and organization US origin weaponry to Ukrainians. This is not USA's business, this is Europe's business. Very strange situation USA leading the biggest security crisis in Europe since the WWII. And also going way further than Europe in its support.

On the other hand, USA reasserts itself as the leader of the Free World this way. After the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan, your political position should improve greatly for relatively small cost. Alternative is decline into the "Multipolar World", a goal expressed explicitly by Putin.

Plus I'm sure there are still many Cold Warriors who are just dying to see all this 80s' vintage equipment have a go at the Russkies, last chapter in 70 years of rivalry.

I agree though, that Europe should pay most of cost of this war. Keep in mind that there are many costs, like refugees etc that is being covered by EU exclusively, and so probably will be the rebuilding of Ukraine after the war. You guys do what you do best - get the weapons there

Edited April 19, 2022 by Huba

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

This is not USA's business,

 

[slysniper]

56 minutes ago, c3k said:

Re: The West supplying armaments to Ukraine.

I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that thus far only old stock is being considered (some exceptions, like ATGMs, LAWs, and Switchblades).  Those modern ATGMs are all useful for stopping active Russian movements, but not so much for rooting the Russians out of Ukraine.

Towed artillery does not seem to have a place on this battlefield. Yet, that's what the US is providing.

Old tanks? I understand the argument about training and support and timeliness. However, this war will not be a 6-week war (already past that), or a 12-week war. It is a war that will not stop until one side or both sides lose the will to continue it. Does anyone see Ukraine being satisfied with a solution less than 100% victory?  How about Putin? 

How long has the 2014 battle lasted? Yep...since 2014.

Planning NOW for the long term will ensure success at the soonest possible time. Pumas, CV90s, Leo 2s, Abrams, PzH2000, M109s, Patriots, MLRS, etc, need to be provided. Lend lease is a great model. 

Stopping the Russian advance is one thing. Pushing them back off of Ukraine's territory is a another.

Very good points.

I agree that is what is needed.

But, do you really think any of that would ever be given, The odds of that happening is likely slime to none.

Ukraine will not be given those type of assets. 

So all they can do is grind Russian forces that are there on their lands. and It appears they can do that for as long as needed. 

So I see major operations coming to a end at some point this year and then that prolonged  grind that has happened in most conflicts in recent history.

 

[Huba]

Just now, slysniper said:

Very good points.

I agree that is what is needed.

But, do you really think any of that would ever be given, The odds of that happening is likely slime to none.

Ukraine will not be given those type of assets. 

So all they can do is grind Russian forces that are there on their lands. and It appears they can do that for as long as needed. 

So I see major operations coming to a end at some point this year and then that prolonged  grind that has happened in most conflicts in recent history.

 

Why wouldn't those assets be given to Ukraine exactly? What is stopping us ( especially US)?

[Haiduk]

Slovakian artist Rado Javor, illustrator of Total War games series issiued two new artworks about the war in Ukraine. Recently he has drew series "seasons in Ukraine" about war of 2014-2015.

Seasons:

Spring in Ukraine (fighting around Sloviansk)

Summer in Ukraine (Ukrainian July offensive)

Autumn in Ukraine

Winter in Ukraine (Donetsk airport)

Also two other artworks

Sunflower fields (tank ram of sen.lt Abramovych 12th of August 2014)

Winter war (campaign of winter 2015)

And new arts:

The general

Moskva

More his arts on history, military, game, sci-fi tematics you can find here: https://www.deviantart.com/radojavor

Edited April 19, 2022 by Haiduk

[Huba]

Go Netherlands!

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

16 minutes ago, Huba said:

Why wouldn't those assets be given to Ukraine exactly? What is stopping us ( especially US)?

Good question.

Many answers: escalation fear(s), European will, practical challenges, helping "just enough" has advantages 

[The_MonkeyKing]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

Go Netherlands!

 

M113, bushmaster?

[Commanderski]

Ukrainian Forces Shoot Down $15 Million Russian Chopper With The Help Of A Missile System Worth Only '$100'

Ukrainian troops downed a $15 million Russian Ka-52 helicopter by using an air defence missile system worth a fraction of the cost. According to reports, the Ukrainian military unit Operational Command 'East' took to its Facebook page to share the news about the helicopter crash that took place in the Kharkiv region. 

As per the post, the unit used an 'Igla' - a portable surface-to-air missing (SAM) system that was developed by the Soviet Union, and only costs $100. The post also mocked that using a 'Stinger', which is worth approximately $120,000, would have been a waste.

https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/social-relevance/ukrainian-troops-destroy-15-million-dollar-russian-helicopter-with-100-dollar-missile-567331.html

[Huba]

10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Good question.

Many answers: escalation fear(s), European will, practical challenges, helping "just enough" has advantages 

The first two are going out the window at an increasing pace. The third can be overcome for sure given time, money and will.

The last is the real problem really. With experience of Vietnam US should be wary of helping "just enough". With sufficient help, Ukraine case might be a resounding success in US foreign policy making I think, the biggest in few decades at least.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Huba

[Kinophile]

Can you imagine the slaughter a UA army equipped with Pzh2000 couple with drones would inflict?

M1A3s are very expensive to maintain, in many and varied ways. 

Leo2 (3?)s could be a better solve - tie Germany to Ukraine, spares etc all on same continent, commonality of training regimens, exercises etc. 

Leo 1s are a waste of time and effort. Why give them barely equivalent tech? They need to overmatch Russia, not barely meet.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Kinophile

[Huba]

No Leo2 to spare in meaningful numbers.

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Leo 1s are a waste of time and effort.

True they were on par with the M60 and the Centurion and were lighter. Designed to be superior to the T54-T55 I give them an even change against the T62.  

[Bulletpoint]

26 minutes ago, Commanderski said:

Ukrainian Forces Shoot Down $15 Million Russian Chopper With The Help Of A Missile System Worth Only '$100'

Ukrainian troops downed a $15 million Russian Ka-52 helicopter by using an air defence missile system worth a fraction of the cost. According to reports, the Ukrainian military unit Operational Command 'East' took to its Facebook page to share the news about the helicopter crash that took place in the Kharkiv region. 

As per the post, the unit used an 'Igla' - a portable surface-to-air missing (SAM) system that was developed by the Soviet Union, and only costs $100. The post also mocked that using a 'Stinger', which is worth approximately $120,000, would have been a waste.

https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/social-relevance/ukrainian-troops-destroy-15-million-dollar-russian-helicopter-with-100-dollar-missile-567331.html

 

Wikipedia article on the Igla:

In 2003 the unit cost was approximately US$60,000–80,000.

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[Kinophile]

@chuckdyke So Leo 1s, they're barely enough, if the RUS bring  T62s. A tank from the sixties. Literally sixty years old base tech.

Thats bananas. Why give them a tank that can't even match the T72? That's already the bind they're in! They need to be a gen equal or ahead. At the moment they're maybe half a gen behind but that won't cut it, time and R&D march on.

If Leo 2s aren't available then m1s for sure. Poland having them is a huge plus, and the UA is not the useless Iraqi Army. And they sure as hell aren't gonna let them sit idle.

UKR Abrams would kick the **** out of the Armata. That single drivable one they have doing loop pasts in front of Putin's window, I mean.

We all know what Abrams do to 72s.

 

NOMNOMNOMNOMNOM

Edited April 19, 2022 by Kinophile