How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

ISW states pretty emphatically that Gerasimov had already left the HQ when it was hit, so injuries to him are not accurate.

It seems the other general that might have been killed or wounded is Colonel General Evgeniy Ustinov, who is Chief of Staff for the VDV.

Steve

[Fenris]

I didn't know about this, is this true?

 

[sross112]

1 minute ago, Fenris said:

I didn't know about this, is this true?

 

I believe someone linked the news article to it earlier today. The way he explained it was to give a good red line and give the option for response, not a required response. I think it is a good signal to Putin on WMD usage.

[sross112]

As for May 9th, I'm betting there won't be a declaration of war. Definitely not against NATO. A lot of sabre rattling and other verbal vomit but nothing above that. We all know what happens if he declares on NATO and I can't imagine he and his cronies don't have a pretty good idea after watching his special operation unfold. I doubt he'll declare war on Ukraine as others pointed out that gives a green light to anything inside Russia that Ukraine wants to hit. With the gradual ramping up of western weapons systems the Kremlin has to realize that wouldn't be a good choice.

What I think we will see is the declaration of acceptance to the separatists states. They will try to say those are now part of Russia and hang on to what they have. Probably Transnistria too. By doing that it legally allows the usage of conscripts to defend it as it is now part of Russia and no longer an expeditionary campaign. Then they can expand the conscription to whatever number they think they need and fill their billets that way. This is the way they can get around having to declare war to call up the reserves.

Declaring any type of war doesn't solve any problems and only adds more to the ones they already have. They absolutely have to call up reserves or use conscripts. The peace time RA wasn't fully manned by contract soldiers so they had a problem recruiting before they were being sent to their deaths. Once the whole special operation kicked off they still didn't have lines out the doors of recruiting stations to serve the mother land. Now after over 2 months it is only worse. The young Russians know what is going on. They are seeing the same internet we are and they don't want any part of it. Those that did already joined and are probably wishing they hadn't.

With that in mind even the conscription could get crazy with draft dodgers hiding out or running for the border. How many do you think will show up knowing they are destined to die in Ukraine? 

[sburke]

24 minutes ago, Fenris said:

I didn't know about this, is this true?

 

yes

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Sunday introduced an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) resolution that, if passed, would authorize President Biden to utilize U.S. forces to defend Ukraine if Russia uses chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against its neighbor.

Kinzinger announced the joint resolution during an interview with moderator Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Asked if he thought it was too soon to be discussing potential use of force in Ukraine, Kinzinger said, “No, I don’t.”

“I don’t think we need to be using force in Ukraine right now. I just introduced an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force, giving the president basically congressional leverage for permission to use it if WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], nuclear, biological or chemical are used in Ukraine,” Kinzinger said.

The congressman said the AUMF would give Biden leverage, adding that the resolution could serve as a deterrent to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Doesn’t compel the president to do it. It just says, if it is used, he has that leverage. It gives him, you know, a better flexibility, but also it is a deterrent to Vladimir Putin,” Kinzinger said.

Kinzinger introduces AUMF to defend Ukraine if Russia uses chemical, biological, nuclear weapons (msn.com)

[akd]

More excellent Ukrainian artillery work. The burst that sets off the the TOS-1A rockets is just *chef’s kiss*:

 

[Fenris]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

yes

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Sunday introduced an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) resolution that, if passed, would authorize President Biden to utilize U.S. forces to defend Ukraine if Russia uses chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against its neighbor.

Kinzinger announced the joint resolution during an interview with moderator Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Asked if he thought it was too soon to be discussing potential use of force in Ukraine, Kinzinger said, “No, I don’t.”

“I don’t think we need to be using force in Ukraine right now. I just introduced an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force, giving the president basically congressional leverage for permission to use it if WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], nuclear, biological or chemical are used in Ukraine,” Kinzinger said.

The congressman said the AUMF would give Biden leverage, adding that the resolution could serve as a deterrent to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Doesn’t compel the president to do it. It just says, if it is used, he has that leverage. It gives him, you know, a better flexibility, but also it is a deterrent to Vladimir Putin,” Kinzinger said.

Kinzinger introduces AUMF to defend Ukraine if Russia uses chemical, biological, nuclear weapons (msn.com)

 

I see, I now know what AUMF means.  Thanks

[The Steppenwulf]

Going back half a dozen pages, there was a discussion about options open to Russia now, which seemed to be restricted to basically two. The only realistic one of the two, proposed by Steve, was (ultimately) the bullet for Putin. Whilst I agree with this (I posted a couple of hundred pages back that this conflict would result in a 'pressure cooker' effect, where Putin runs out of road and the only thing that can change the situation is Putin's removal), there is however a third option, which I think would find the release valve and call time on 'Mexican stand-off'... on terms that might even be agreeable with Putin.

This is if Putin himself proposes to stand down in favour of a certain Dimitry Medvedev.

I find this course plausible since I think it allows Putin to bow out without disgrace (certainly avoids a 'meeting with a lamp-post noose') and might open the road for a complete reset on all issues, starting with negotiations and a far more amenable RF approach, underscored by most RF concessions on the table for discussion. 

Of course the regime won't have changed but with Putin removed completely from the picture it would genuinely represent a step-change in everyone's eyes.   

I think this is possible because Medvedev has the experience and the expertise to navigate Russia out of this mess, is highly respected by Putin (tipped as his protege 15 years ago) and has the respect of the West as an international operator and recognised as 'a man the west can do business with'. Putting Medvedev in power in place of Putin gives Russia all the tools to dig itself out of its current crisis and arrests the long term economic problems that Russia faces if it continues down its current path pursuing pariah status.

Goes without saying that the only condition of Putin's retirement would be no extradition of any Russians for war crimes. Hard pill to swallow for anyone hoping that Putin could face trial in the Hague, but it might be the only demand the west would have to give way on.

Given the mess that Russia is now in, this might be the only sensible option open to Putin, if he wants to save his own neck and still retain some sort of favourable legacy, certainly not one that is 'the leader who led Russia into the abyss'.
As for Medvedev, he's well understood to be a (compliant and patient) leader in waiting - he'll be taking over when Putin croaks anyhow.

I don't know, anymore than anyone else, what's in Putin's mind, but I do think he must be aware historically how authoritarian regimes frequently end when they find themselves in this sort of corner, and it equally must be dawning on him that this is quickly becoming a bad situation for the RF on all other levels, and perhaps existential for himself. Standing down, with the current regime otherwise intact, is the least worst option open to Putin. It might just be matter of time before he takes it.

[sburke]

7 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Going back half a dozen pages, there was a discussion about options open to Russia now, which seemed to be restricted to basically two. The only realistic one of the two, proposed by Steve, was (ultimately) the bullet for Putin. Whilst I agree with this (I posted a couple of hundred pages back that this conflict would result in a 'pressure cooker' effect, where Putin runs out of road and the only thing that can change the situation is Putin's removal), there is however a third option, which I think would find the release valve and call time on 'Mexican stand-off'... on terms that might even be agreeable with Putin.

This is if Putin himself proposes to stand down in favour of a certain Dimitry Medvedev.

I find this course plausible since I think it allows Putin to bow out without disgrace (certainly avoids a 'meeting with a lamp-post noose') and might open the road for a complete reset on all issues, starting with negotiations and a far more amenable RF approach, underscored by most RF concessions on the table for discussion. 

Of course the regime won't have changed but with Putin removed completely from the picture it would genuinely represent a step-change in everyone's eyes.   
 

Nah Medvedev would just be a figure head if Putin is still around and western sanctions and the knock-on effects from Russian default are still going to hammer Russia.  Putin has basically brought about Russia's demise.  The Russian military has been gutted, the economy is a shambles for many many years to come and Europe is weaning itself off Russian oil.

I also think we are way past the idea of a "reset".  That has been western strategy for too many years and the result is the current war.  I have no idea who will be negotiating Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, but someone will.  The sanctions won't be part of that deal, that will simply be the result of Russian military realizing it can't stay.

The overall relation of the west has more to do with Russian accountability for the atrocities it has committed and reparations for the damage done to Ukraine.  The foreign reserves held in the west along with the oligarch property will likely all go to a rebuilding fund for Ukraine.  Putin's removal or not is an internal Russian issue.  Regardless of it I don't think the west is going to say "yeah Putin is responsible for it all so as long as he's gone.. ".  This is a systemic Russian problem, not just one leader.

Just like the allies would not have accepted anything but unconditional surrender from Germany.

[BeondTheGrave]

4 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

This is if Putin himself proposes to stand down in favour of a certain Dimitry Medvedev.

There is no graceful exit for Putin, as much as we wish for there to be one. Russia is a dictatorship. There are only two ways Putin will give up power, if he dies or if he is driven to flight with only what he can carry. In the case of death, the goal is to go out like Stalin not like Nicholas. In the case of flight, well thats always a bad option. 

Putin will not step down. Nobody will ask him to step down. And if they do Putin will try to kill them as a warning to all others who think the same. This is the way of dictatorships. If there was some regular and formalized way to replace the man at the top when he failed it wouldn't be a dictatorship. Putin's sales pitch has always been 'I alone can fix it.' 

Just some food for thought, here is some basic napkin math of Russian leaders since 1900.

Nicholas II -Abdicated in 1916 in favor the of provisional government, was murdered in less than two years.

Alexander Kerensky-Driven to flight in 1917. Died in exile.

Lenin- Relinquished power in 1922 due to a serious stroke, died in 1924. 

Stalin-Died in 1953 quietly in bed (or perhaps face down in a pool of his own piss, depending on when and how you think he actually died)

Khrushchev- Kicked out in 1964, died in some disgrace in 1971 in Moscow

Brezhnev- Suffered a serious stroke in 1975, replaced by a shadow cabinet. Died quietly in 1982. 

Adropov-Died in office in 1984

Grobechev-Blew the whole thing up, is still alive but lives abroad. Hated in Russia.

Yeltsin- Tried to fix things, didnt, lives mostly abroad. 

Putin- Well see. 

Nicholas took throne in 1894. Since then, theres been a strong message. Either you die in office or bad things happen to you. Khrushchev is one counter example, but his successors hated him. He was basically a political pariah. He was mostly allowed to remain in Moscow at the edges of power because he himself had shown restraint dealing with Beria et al in the 1950s. But thats not an example of success, especially for Putin. Lenin/Brezhnev is an interesting second counter example. Its important to remember thought that after their strokes, both men were essentially incapable of leading. Lenin had a strong mind till pretty much the end, but Brezhnev was never a strong leader and whether he was in charge or in bed didn't make much difference. You could make a strong argument though that both men's death's signaled tremendous turbulence for the USSR. 

If youre Putin, I dont think you really want to step down. You dont want to give up to the hardliners because you may end up like Khrushchev. Exiled, out of power, and on a meager pension. And you dont want to give in to the leftwing democrats because at best youll end up living abroad as a pariah like Gorbechev, at worst youll end up gunned down in a basement in Yekaterinburg like the Tsar. Russia is not kind to its failures. 

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

ISW states pretty emphatically that Gerasimov had already left the HQ when it was hit, so injuries to him are not accurate.

It seems the other general that might have been killed or wounded is Colonel General Evgeniy Ustinov, who is Chief of Staff for the VDV.

Steve

The key thing to note is that Gerasimov felt like he needed to be there in the first place. Equivalent to Mike Mullen coming down to personally supervise retaking Fallujah. 

[billbindc]

34 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Going back half a dozen pages, there was a discussion about options open to Russia now, which seemed to be restricted to basically two. The only realistic one of the two, proposed by Steve, was (ultimately) the bullet for Putin. Whilst I agree with this (I posted a couple of hundred pages back that this conflict would result in a 'pressure cooker' effect, where Putin runs out of road and the only thing that can change the situation is Putin's removal), there is however a third option, which I think would find the release valve and call time on 'Mexican stand-off'... on terms that might even be agreeable with Putin.

This is if Putin himself proposes to stand down in favour of a certain Dimitry Medvedev.

I find this course plausible since I think it allows Putin to bow out without disgrace (certainly avoids a 'meeting with a lamp-post noose') and might open the road for a complete reset on all issues, starting with negotiations and a far more amenable RF approach, underscored by most RF concessions on the table for discussion. 

Of course the regime won't have changed but with Putin removed completely from the picture it would genuinely represent a step-change in everyone's eyes.   

I think this is possible because Medvedev has the experience and the expertise to navigate Russia out of this mess, is highly respected by Putin (tipped as his protege 15 years ago) and has the respect of the West as an international operator and recognised as 'a man the west can do business with'. Putting Medvedev in power in place of Putin gives Russia all the tools to dig itself out of its current crisis and arrests the long term economic problems that Russia faces if it continues down its current path pursuing pariah status.

Goes without saying that the only condition of Putin's retirement would be no extradition of any Russians for war crimes. Hard pill to swallow for anyone hoping that Putin could face trial in the Hague, but it might be the only demand the west would have to give way on.

Given the mess that Russia is now in, this might be the only sensible option open to Putin, if he wants to save his own neck and still retain some sort of favourable legacy, certainly not one that is 'the leader who led Russia into the abyss'.
As for Medvedev, he's well understood to be a (compliant and patient) leader in waiting - he'll be taking over when Putin croaks anyhow.

I don't know, anymore than anyone else, what's in Putin's mind, but I do think he must be aware historically how authoritarian regimes frequently end when they find themselves in this sort of corner, and it equally must be dawning on him that this is quickly becoming a bad situation for the RF on all other levels, and perhaps existential for himself. Standing down, with the current regime otherwise intact, is the least worst option open to Putin. It might just be matter of time before he takes it.

I wouldn't put much stock in Medvedev. He's been trying to stay relevant by out blithering the blithering idiots on Russian state tv, his constituency was always solely Putin and the source of his power, such as it was, was always from servicing that constituency. He's a cipher, not an operator. If we all make it to a post-Putin world, I'm betting on a return of one of the semi-disgraced. Vladislav Surkov or Sergei Ivanov were smarter guys who ran afoul of the boss...probably simply because they both plausibly looked like they could take over someday. 

 

https://www.rferl.org/a/medvedev-liberal-to-bellicose/31818941.html#:~:text=Medvedev%2C who owes his political,sense in negotiating with them.

[LongLeftFlank]

23 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, absolutely.  But this might not have been an HQ.  Could just be like this famous example out of Normandy where a whole bunch of SS officers (Leibstandarte or Das Reich, I forget which) gathered together in something like a farmhouse.  Somehow the US found out about it and killed them with an artillery strike.  No big elaborate HQ, just a spot for some brass to look at a map.  After that the SS were rather paranoid about gathering together.

Anyway, my point here is that the Ukrainians seemed to have some intel about where the enemy was going to be.  It sounds just like a senior Russian officer to want to meet in a big house rather than a cramped command vehicle.

Steve

 

Forêt de Grémecey, Lorraine, 30 Sep 1944

The officers had just gathered in the building which housed the command post when shellfire struck in the yard where the aides and orderlies were waiting. Several in the yard were killed or wounded, including some who had been with [XII Corps Commander] General Eddy since his days in North Africa. The officers in the building gave what help they could, then returned to a consideration of the problem at hand...

What now passed between General Eddy and others in the command post is not clear. Eddy polled each of the [35th ID] regimental commanders present; they seemed to have agreed that further German infiltration could not be halted....

[Patton] found that Eddy had ordered two regiments... to withdraw. [He drove posthaste to the 6th Armored Division HQ] and told all three generals, Eddy, Baade and Grow, that "I was disgusted with them." 

He wanted the 6th to counterattack in the morning.... He also ordered the generals involved to lead their troops personally "to make up for their shortcomings." Baade was to go to the front. Grow was to retake the woods or "not come back."

"After I got through cussing them ouut, I told them the same thing I told Truscott in Sicily, namely, 'now I will go home as I know you will win.' I feel they will. If I stayed, it would show lack of confidence."

Edited May 2, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

Sburke hit it correctly when he said that this thing has gone WAY BEYOND backing off.  And why focus only on Putin for war crimes?  Who here thinks just one guy is responsible for all of this?  They're going to want to see a lot of military heads on a platter.  Kadyrov's too if there are atrocities specifically linked to his forces (which I am sure there is).  Then there's going to be field commanders, junior officers, and individual soldiers galore.  Well, galore minus all that died after their crimes.

This is what is going to be demanded of Russia and Russia will have a difficult time getting anywhere with the international community if it doesn't hand people over.

Medvedev served as a stand in for Putin, so he's a non-starter.

Nope, I don't see any way of this ending except for the two scenarios I mentioned; Putin deposed (most likely dead) or Piranha State (aka Europe's North Korea).

Steve

[FancyCat]

Certainly that is one reason for the bridge to Crimea to stay upright, to facilitate the movement of Russians back into Russia than trapped on Crimea. I suspect one of the reasons why Ukraine isn't too intent on surrounding Russian units or pushing into Russian controlled urban regions and risking urban combat is seeking to minimize both their own casualties, civilians, and to maximize the potential for Russians to cut and run. 

With the way the SBU seems on top of pursuing Russian operations, I do feel like sooner or later some of these war criminals are going to reappear in Ukraine after the war despite being in Russia. 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

If we all make it to a post-Putin world, I'm betting on a return of one of the semi-disgraced. Vladislav Surkov

Ooooo... I don't think the West would be too happy with that guy.  He is, after all, in no small way thought to be responsible for the 2014 "Novorossiya" nonsense that technically started the war we are in now.  He's been rumored to have done all kinds of things since then that Ukraine would find impossible to ignore.  And that bring up an interesting point... I think many powerful Western countries are going to seek Ukraine's blessing for whatever comes next for Russia.  If Ukraine says "yes, we can accept that" then things move forward.  If they instead say "no, that's someone we want to see extradited to Kyiv of The Hague" then I don't see it being an acceptable Putin replacement.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Certainly that is one reason for the bridge to Crimea to stay upright, to facilitate the movement of Russians back into Russia than trapped on Crimea. I

I agree.  The leadership elements will likely escape to Russia by boat or plane even if the bridge is knocked out, leaving a whole bunch of Russian citizens who illegally occupied housing in Crimea.  That would be a lot of mess to sort out, so better to just let them leave and get a fresh start. 

A similar thing will happen when the Donbas looks to switch back to Ukrainian control either through military action or through negotiations.  The hordes of criminals, Ukrainian and Russian, will slip over the border into Russia leaving Ukraine a lot less trouble makers and criminals to deal with.  Ironically, Russia is going to have a whole bunch of displaced organized crime and petty criminals to deal with.

Steve

[FancyCat]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think many powerful Western countries are going to seek Ukraine's blessing for whatever comes next for Russia.  If Ukraine says "yes, we can accept that" then things move forward. 

You have a much higher opinion of western states than I do, certainly Poland, the Baltics, Finland, will hold and follow Ukraine's wishes, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy? Nah, Ukraine will certainly have to do work to keep them toeing their line, and they will definitely want to make peace with Russia sooner than Ukraine. 

Britain will reflexively counter on the side of Ukraine since you know counterbalance in Europe, the U.S will probably lean more towards EE and Ukraine, but certainly it won't be a united front. 

[Machor]

1 hour ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Yeltsin- Tried to fix things, didnt, lives mostly abroad.

Yeltsin is long dead (2007).

FWIW:

"Bill Clinton claimed that on a 1995 visit to Washington, Yeltsin was found on Pennsylvania Avenue, drunk, in his underwear and trying to hail a taxi cab in order to find pizza."

[Machor]

6 hours ago, Haiduk said:

cossacks (most of them just clowns in WWI style uniform, but they aren't infantil millenials)

Cossacks can give infantile millennials a run for their money: 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

This is now a few days stale and tells us what we here already know, but fwiw...

https://turcopolier.com/igor-ivanovich-strelkov-ttg/

The general conclusion in unfortunately not joyful – the expected (by the enemy) offensive of the Russian group to encircle the Donetsk group of Ukrainian armed forces met fierce resistance and will most likely not lead to a complete encirclement and destruction of the enemy group (unless 2-3 tank corps “fall from the sky” to urgently break through the frontline and link up deep in the UAF rears). The “Cannae” certainly did’t happen.

[billbindc]

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ooooo... I don't think the West would be too happy with that guy.  He is, after all, in no small way thought to be responsible for the 2014 "Novorossiya" nonsense that technically started the war we are in now.  He's been rumored to have done all kinds of things since then that Ukraine would find impossible to ignore.  And that bring up an interesting point... I think many powerful Western countries are going to seek Ukraine's blessing for whatever comes next for Russia.  If Ukraine says "yes, we can accept that" then things move forward.  If they instead say "no, that's someone we want to see extradited to Kyiv of The Hague" then I don't see it being an acceptable Putin replacement.

Steve

I think the most pressing issue for that moment will be "who can we deal with that can actual deliver on an agreement." It's going to have to be someone with ties to Putin's Kremlin who knows how to operate in that space but also someone who has been off the board for a while. I could easily see one of that type coming back, Deng Xiaoping style.

[chrisl]

Apparently the regional government thinks that the bridge was sabotaged: AP report

It could be that someone heard the noise when it fell and thought it was an explosion, but I tend to agree with the comments so far that it looks more like bad engineering and neglect, without any real indications of pyrotechnics.  Maybe somebody used a couple of $50 bottle jacks from Harbor Freight to push the bridge off its pier.

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

24 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Apparently the regional government thinks that the bridge was sabotaged: AP report

It could be that someone heard the noise when it fell and thought it was an explosion, but I tend to agree with the comments so far that it looks more like bad engineering and neglect, without any real indications of pyrotechnics.  Maybe somebody used a couple of $50 bottle jacks from Harbor Freight to push the bridge off its pier.

At first there was a reluctance to assign blame to Ukraine because it shows the country to be weak in defending its borders.  However, if Putin is angling for a story about how mobilization is needed, then blaming regular infrastructure failures is a win-win for them.  Now 70 years of neglect is Ukraine's fault, not Putin's.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

You have a much higher opinion of western states than I do, certainly Poland, the Baltics, Finland, will hold and follow Ukraine's wishes, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy? Nah, Ukraine will certainly have to do work to keep them toeing their line, and they will definitely want to make peace with Russia sooner than Ukraine. 

Britain will reflexively counter on the side of Ukraine since you know counterbalance in Europe, the U.S will probably lean more towards EE and Ukraine, but certainly it won't be a united front. 

A united front is what they'll start out with.  Will cracks emerge if there is a sharp disagreement?  Perhaps, but I don't now how well a "it's OK to go back to business with Russia even though everybody that borders Russia says the new guy is as bad as the old guy".  It will only start to get dicey for Ukraine if they are being perceived as being unreasonable towards whomever comes after Putin.

It seems that most of Europe has come to the conclusion that decades of ignoring Russia's aggression ultimately wasn't a good idea.  I don't know how many European nations will go along with something that doesn't really hold out much hope of improvement.

Steve