How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Would the Russians have crushed Ukraine in less than a week, of hard fighting. I belive the respect for the Russian army, Would still be strong. But after this? The Russian Bear, became the Russian Lamb. And I do belive, that no one in any western Army, still have the same respect for the Russian Army anymore! 

Yup.  Even the hold outs in the first couple of weeks ("Russia is holding back its best forces", "Russia hasn't even started to fight yet", "Putin has something up his sleeve", etc.) seem to have given up trying to defend their flawed pre-war assessment of Russian strength.

11 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

I mean, even the kontraktnikis (the proffesional soldiers), Was drunk, high, or just deserted their vehicles. Even the so called elite of the Russian armed forces, the VDV. Showed themself, to be of no other use. Than to be blown up, and then move back in bad shape, to safe areas!

But what the Russians showed. Is why it´s so utterly important, to never, ever. Let these Drunks, Junkies, and criminals. Ever to be within your borders! Becouse they do the only thing they can there! Murder Civilians, rape Civilians, get drunk, get high, and die!  

And a second and third Yup.

I think I made similar comments about this new perception reality in the first couple days of the war.  [edit - not hard for me to find.  Here's one from the first week of the war]

All Russia has done since then is transformed the PR reality from "credible threat to democracy", to "paper tiger", to "fascist criminal hoard that must be eradicated".

Way to go Vladimir!

Steve

[Der Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, riptides said:

Supremely and utterly disappointed by the Chancellor's announcement.

One has to wonder now about Germany as leadership player in the EU.

War is on their neighborhood.

 

Now we have our right-wing AfD applauding the chancellor for standing up to the warmongers. Nice work, Olaf. 

 

[db_zero]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is where db_zero and I agree.  There is a line and it is very dangerous to cross it.  Knowing exactly where the line is, of course, is the problem.  But I think it's safe to say direct NATO attacks on Russian forces is absolutely over the line.  Tempting Russia to use nukes is dumb.  Really, really, really dumb.  So NATO attacks on Russian forces is a really dumb.

The difference between sending Leos or Abrams, however, is likely nowhere near the line.  So I don't think it's dumb to provide Ukraine with Abrams.  Just as long as it is understood their chances of being useful in this war is near zero.  The war should be decided long before the first one could practically go into combat.

Steve

 

We have a difference of opinion here. I would like to see M1s sent, but I'm leery of what the outcome could be. As much as I would love to see M1s utterly crushing the Russian army with M1's, how Putin would react is open to question and once the nuclear rubicon is crossed there is no going back.

As painful and costly it is to watch a slow bleed out has a twisted logic of its own.

We're dealing with Putin who is paranoid. Its one thing to have your army stopped with defensively oriented weapons.

Its another if they are suddenly armed with offensively oriented weapons that suddenly crush your army and in your mind can then switch to an offensive mode and retake the entire Donbass and Crimea and possibly invade Russia itself.

We may say we would never permit that to happen, but to a paranoid dictator and people that have been invaded many times it may be seen differently. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by db_zero

[MikeyD]

We're not getting many up-to-the-minute reports on the war today. That may have to do with OPSEC. It also reminds me of how most of the photos we have of the Battle of the Bulge were taken either in the final days or afterward. Because in the middle of the battle people have other things to think about.

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Now we have our right-wing AfD applauding the chancellor for standing up to the warmongers. Nice work, Olaf. 

If I ever had the AfD applaud anything I said, I'd question ever saying anything again. I love having common ground with a wide range of people, but having common ground with Fascist wannabees on critical foreign policy isn't something I'd be comfortable with.

Steve

[Vet 0369]

5 hours ago, Huba said:

Keep in mind that there are many costs, like refugees etc that is being covered by EU exclusively, … after the war.

Refugees aren’t “exclusively” covered by the EU. Yes, most are, but there are thousands of Ukrainian refugees coming into the U.S. by way of our southern border with Mexico.

[Huba]

Coming to think of that, if Scholz is  willing to pay for replacing Polish PT-91s with M1s from existing US stocks, we will be all for it. This would actually help the cause substantially. Same could be offered to the Czechs and other operators of upgraded T-72s. We'd like to hear a concrete proposition and not this vague blabbering.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Vet 0369 said:

Refugees aren’t “exclusively” covered by the EU. Yes, most are, but there are thousands of Ukrainian refugees coming into the U.S. by way of our southern border with Mexico.

We have 2 million in Poland. On this field US involvement is and will remain negligible.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Huba

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, db_zero said:

We have a difference of opinion here. I would like to see M1s sent, but I'm leery of what the outcome could be. As much as I would love to see M1s utterly crushing the Russian army with M1's, how Putin would react is open to question and once the nuclear rubicon is crossed there is no going back.

We already crossed the Rubicon you are concerned about.  Putin put up quite a fuss about Javelins and "offensive weapons", and yet there they are... in Ukraine killing Russian tanks.  I don't see any difference between Javelin and Abrams, except that Javelin is already there killing Russians and Abrams are minimum 6 months away from doing that even if the war is still going.

2 minutes ago, db_zero said:

As painful and costly it is to watch a slow bleed out has a twisted logic of its own.

I agree the slow bleed out is likely what we have to be satisfied with because ending this war quickly means direct NATO attacks on Russian forces.  That is an obvious provocation of nuclear war, so sow bleed it needs to be.

But we can help Ukraine bleed out the Russian war machine with words, sticks, or things that kill.  I'm all for the latter.

Steve

[DesertFox]

10 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Now we have our right-wing AfD applauding the chancellor for standing up to the warmongers. Nice work, Olaf. 

 

Yep the Putin friends are strong within both AfD and SPD. Good that the other NATO members also see that behaviour and make their conclusions.

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, DesertFox said:

Yep the Putin friends are strong within both AfD and SPD. Good that the other NATO members also see that behaviour and make their conclusions.

Interesting to contemplate that Russia is not the only nation that's going to come out of this war with big PR problems to get rid of.  Germany, after it's initial strong showing, is not looking so good right now.  It had a prime opportunity to reframe that view today and it looks to have blown it.  It will be interesting to see if the next major statement from the German government shows any signs of shifting to a less self centered position.

Steve

[riptides]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

....

All Russia has done since then is transformed the PR reality from "credible threat to democracy", to "paper tiger", to "fascist criminal hoard that must be eradicated".

Way to go Vladimir!

Steve

Now the issue should be foresight into the reality of "eradication of the fascist criminal hoard".

Someone or some think tank has got to be running numbers on the cost of the war in terms of the global economy for the next 5 to 20 years if the hoard continues to exist.

Obviously human lives matter little to many nations not shedding blood in Ukraine, else the hoard would not continuing their offensives. But what of the cost of not getting involved more directly? I think we are looking at a global reset in economies for the next 5-20 years, easy, and not for the better, with Ukraine fighting alone.

We cannot have business as usual after this, it is time to test the "red lines".

[Vet 0369]

6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

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. 

The “red line” was created by “politically astute” advisors who were terrified that China would enter from the north. The were apparently oblivious to the fact that only about 100 years before, the Vietnamese had ejected the Chinese occupiers after 1,000 years of occupation from the first time they asked the Chinese to help. While it was a possibility, I seriously doubt that they would asked for their “help” again.

[billbindc]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is where db_zero and I agree.  There is a line and it is very dangerous to cross it.  Knowing exactly where the line is, of course, is the problem.  But I think it's safe to say direct NATO attacks on Russian forces is absolutely over the line.  Tempting Russia to use nukes is dumb.  Really, really, really dumb.  So NATO attacks on Russian forces is a really dumb.

The difference between sending Leos or Abrams, however, is likely nowhere near the line.  So I don't think it's dumb to provide Ukraine with Abrams.  Just as long as it is understood their chances of being useful in this war is near zero.  The war should be decided long before the first one could practically go into combat.

Steve

 

What to send and when is a pretty complex question and goes way beyond defensive/offensive, logistical challenges, training, etc. For instance, some systems that don't feel at all like a red line item while Moscow still thinks it can win are going to look quite differently to the Kremlin when/if it's clear it's about to lose. Other systems are pretty obviously not going to be delivered but act as demonstrations signaling restraint by the West to both Russia and China. For that matter, the way China delivered Serbia weapons recently was almost certainly a messaging exercise in addition to the early fulfillment of a contract and that message wasn't just to the EU/US in the light of the fact that there's no evidence yet of military aid from Beijing to Moscow. Was it the Capt that said "war is communication" somewhere above? Well, there's a lot of that going on right now and so far it has pretty successfully kept the war from spreading further. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

The “red line” was created by “politically astute” advisors who were terrified that China would enter from the north. The were apparently oblivious to the fact that only about 100 years before, the Vietnamese had ejected the Chinese occupiers after 1,000 years of occupation from the first time they asked the Chinese to help. While it was a possibility, I seriously doubt that they would asked for their “help” again.

Yeah, especially because only a few years later China and Vietnam got into a shooting match that wound up with thousands of dead on both sides:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

It's easy to dismiss this sort of thing as "hindsight", but I think it is more akin to experts saying "nobody had any idea Russia was so incompetent until now".  Or my favorite, "nobody could have foreseen the financial crisis of 2008".  Bullocks.

Steve

[Taranis]

26 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Now we have our right-wing AfD applauding the chancellor for standing up to the warmongers. Nice work, Olaf. 

 

I understand you... We have the same in France... All this will give a very bad image of our countries and ridicule ourselves

[billbindc]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup.  Even the hold outs in the first couple of weeks ("Russia is holding back its best forces", "Russia hasn't even started to fight yet", "Putin has something up his sleeve", etc.) seem to have given up trying to defend their flawed pre-war assessment of Russian strength.

One big caveat to this is in the DC media. You would be surprised at how firmly some of the best informed are stuck on the idea that Vladi has a big, rapey, rabbit to pull out of his military hat. 

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, billbindc said:

What to send and when is a pretty complex question and goes way beyond defensive/offensive, logistical challenges, training, etc. For instance, some systems that don't feel at all like a red line item while Moscow still thinks it can win are going to look quite differently to the Kremlin when/if it's clear it's about to lose. Other systems are pretty obviously not going to be delivered but act as demonstrations signaling restraint by the West to both Russia and China. For that matter, the way China delivered Serbia weapons recently was almost certainly a messaging exercise in addition to the early fulfillment of a contract and that message wasn't just to the EU/US in the light of the fact that there's no evidence yet of military aid from Beijing to Moscow. Was it the Capt that said "war is communication" somewhere above? Well, there's a lot of that going on right now and so far it has pretty successfully kept the war from spreading further. 

Yup, which is why I was, and still totally am, in support of the US saying before the war started "we're not going to send troops to Ukraine".  There was no credible path to sending troops there anyway, so why not just say it?  Saying it denies Russia a talking point and (internally) gives it some reassurances that the basic rules of Cold War proxy fights hasn't changed.

Steve

[dan/california]

Another example of very well targeted artillery being not being instantly fatal, no clue how many didn't make it out. But a bunch of them had time to decide the building was a bad bet and make it to the trees. Although one guy got hit by something else, or busted his ankle crossing the railroad tracks. Video ends with him pretty clearly regretting his choices in life.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, billbindc said:

One big caveat to this is in the DC media. You would be surprised at how firmly some of the best informed are stuck on the idea that Vladi has a big, rapey, rabbit to pull out of his military hat. 

Still?  Sheesh.  Well, at least they aren't out there on CNN flapping their gums as much as they previously have been.  Either that or CNN figured out they weren't talking to the right people.

Steve

[Taranis]

22 minutes ago, Huba said:

We have 2 million in Poland. On this field US involvement is and will remain negligible.

True ! 

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

Bloody hell that's a fast rocket. Sorry but CMBS stuff seems a little slow in comparison. Is this the Spanish ATGM?

Yes, this is Matador

Edited April 19, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

Another example of very well targeted artillery being not being instantly fatal, no clue how many didn't make it out. But a bunch of them had time to decide the building was a bad bet and make it to the trees. Although one guy got hit by something else, or busted his ankle crossing the railroad tracks. Video ends with him pretty clearly regretting his choices in life.

Getting back to our earlier discussion about artillery accuracy, we don't know how many rounds were fired at that building, but we see 4 shells with 2 direct hits. Back in the old days it would have been very difficult to achieve that sort of result simply because getting the intel and exact position wouldn't have been easy.

Steve

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, especially because only a few years later China and Vietnam got into a shooting match that wound up with thousands of dead on both sides:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

It's easy to dismiss this sort of thing as "hindsight", but I think it is more akin to experts saying "nobody had any idea Russia was so incompetent until now".  Or my favorite, "nobody could have foreseen the financial crisis of 2008".  Bullocks.

Steve

I know those hills in Northern Vietnam. Always take the redline option there. Seriously. 

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Still?  Sheesh.  Well, at least they aren't out there on CNN flapping their gums as much as they previously have been.  Either that or CNN figured out they weren't talking to the right people.

Steve

We are talking about very well informed and sharp folks and you see them out there from time to time. Their bias is that they have perforce spent years working the Kremlin, the oligarchs, the FSB. Clearly in this instance all three of those verticals were themselves completely wrong about what was happening with the Russian Army and very few really knew clearly what was happening around Putin. Yet those groups were often the best sources last year and the year before. It's going to take time for habits of reporting to adjust.

[Vet 0369]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, especially because only a few years later China and Vietnam got into a shooting match that wound up with thousands of dead on both sides:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

It's easy to dismiss this sort of thing as "hindsight", but I think it is more akin to experts saying "nobody had any idea Russia was so incompetent until now".  Or my favorite, "nobody could have foreseen the financial crisis of 2008".  Bullocks.

Steve

Not too stray OT, but the war in Viet Nam was also being run by the politicians instead of military commanders, with the politicians looking more at “poll numbers” than actual objectives. Most people don’t know that the FIRST country to recognize North Viet Nam was the U.S. North Viet Nam lived up to it’s obligation to hold free elections, but South Viet Nam didn’t. After the Viet Cong began fighting the South as a result of the South’s Government reneging on the agreement, the U.S. got involved because of the Politicians rabid fear of Communism and the “Domino Theory.” It was a debacle from the start, and the U.S. should have just stayed out of it.