How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Boche]

18 hours ago, Machor said:

An insight

Interesting expenditure statistics for the US:

The expenditure comparison for VII corps between WW2 and Desert Storm is insane.  331 days vs 4...wow.

[Vacillator]

18 minutes ago, Cederic said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61461805  has a number of worrying elements in today's updates from Mariupol.

Specifically the Russian court case to declare the Azov Battalion a terrorist organisation, the refusal to confirm that the people extracted to Russia will be treated as POWs and not war criminals, and "Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the Russian State Duma, said those evacuated should not be subject to exchange and should instead be brought to justice"

I fear it's inevitable that the defenders of Azovstal are going to be tortured and likely murdered following show trials with predetermined outcomes

I hope not but I think we probably all thought about this.  If it does happen, it will not do Russia any good in the long term.

[billbindc]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

It seems withdrawing from the world further is intended to send the message to Russians that withdrawing from international organizations makes them weaker and Russia stronger.  Obviously this isn't true, but then again we're not his audience.

Steve

It is also very important to remember how central state action is to state propaganda in Russia. Putin's strongman image is inextricably tied to the idea that he gets things done. Each phase of action is then dutifully trotted out in the approved form by state media (which is now virtually all of it) with appropriate glorification of the chief. In the current situation, it's pretty clear to everyone that the chief muffed the war in Ukraine. It's also clear that he's up to his elbows in the actual day to day disasters that are filtering their way by word of mouth and VPN to the average person on the street. 

So what's a propaganda chief to do? Well, the reaction is often to scramble for actions that are achievable and glorify them.  In this case, the Russian state has begun to comprehend how solidly the world is against it and so are attempting to make a virtue out of the the shambles. "You think we don't belong in the G7? Then **** you, we are quitting the WHO!" It's idiotic in the long run but there's a certain logic to it immediately. Besides, Putin knows that any real return to all of these venues entail him taking up residence in hell or the Hague and he has a regime to buttress today.

 

[womble]

22 minutes ago, z1812 said:

As carried by the New York Times. An interesting article.

https://asiatimes.com/2022/05/ny-times-shifts-pro-war-narrative/

That isn't "carried by the NYT". That's the Asia Times "quoting" the NYT. And I trust the Asia Times "quoting" about as far as I could spit Vladimir Putin.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Putin's strongman image is inextricably tied to the idea that he gets things done.

Yup, which is so few autocratic leaders manage to stay in power.  Eventually their rhetoric about what they say they can do runs into serious reality problems with what they actually can do.

Steve

[Haiduk]

The summer is coming. More MIA for Russians. They often don't take back bodies of own KIA. In combat zone it's no time to evacuate them to our rear. So, that the bodies don't stink around, they will be burried as quick as possible in namless graves. It's good for their families, if our soldiers found their documents.  Four Russians were burried here.

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Haiduk

[dan/california]

15 minutes ago, Boche said:

The expenditure comparison for VII corps between WW2 and Desert Storm is insane.  331 days vs 4...wow.

~54 times the ammo tonnage per day, pretty much explains why the Iraqi army just went away.

[Haiduk]

Crossing to hell

Composed panorama from many fragments of UAV filming, but it does not include last 7 tanks sunked by Russians in finale. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

57 minutes ago, womble said:

That isn't "carried by the NYT". That's the Asia Times "quoting" the NYT. And I trust the Asia Times "quoting" about as far as I could spit Vladimir Putin.

Yeah, that was a major distortion of what the NY Times article was about.  The article was getting into the details of how difficult this war is for Ukraine, which is not at all inconsistent with its other reporting.  The article also talks about how badly the war is going for Russia.

The obvious distortion of the NY Times article is obviously done deliberately by someone who is pro-Putin.  For example this gem...

Quote

Here it reminds us that the first shots in this war were not fired on February 24, as the narrative goes, but eight long years ago in the Donbas. It is a jolting reminder for those who base their support for the war on “who fired the first shot,” that their “moral” view has a considerable blind spot.

Er... Russia fired the first shot 8 years ago and on February 24th, so....

I skipped through most of the drivel that followed to look at the end:

Quote

It appears some in the foreign-policy elite and other precincts of the Deep State have seen the looming disaster for the proxy war on Russia being waged by Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken and the rest of the neocon cabal. The prospect of nuclear holocaust lying at the end of this road may be enough to rouse them from their exceptionalist torpor.

"Deep State" and "neocon" and "Victoria Nuland" all in one paragraph.  Yup, that pretty much ties things up in a bow.

I decided to waste a few minutes of my life to see where this author is coming from.  I checked out one of the publications he cited as running his articles, including this one, and it turns out it is an "alt-left" site that is considered to be a Russian propaganda mouthpiece:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CounterPunch

Steve

[Artkin]

17 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Crossing to hell

Composed panorama from many fragments of UAV filming, but it does not include last 7 tanks sunked by Russians in finale. 

So the Ukrainians waited for them to cross before annihilating them? That's an incredible amount of destruction

[sross112]

1 minute ago, Artkin said:

So the Ukrainians waited for them to cross before annihilating them? That's an incredible amount of destruction

I think the long view with losses on both sides of the road is from the approach side of the Russians. Then where they are bunched up on the waterline and inland is what was hit after crossing. Pretty destructive, but doesn't even include the forces that pushed further inland and eventually had to retreat back. So who knows what other losses were sustained in that fighting plus the seven abandoned tanks during the retreat crossing. Personally I think most of the loss estimates for this debacle are probably on the low end once you factor everything outside of the immediate crossing zone in.

[Artkin]

It just seems everything was facing the opposite direction 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Artkin

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Crossing to hell

Composed panorama from many fragments of UAV filming, but it does not include last 7 tanks sunked by Russians in finale. 

Cool!  I was going to get around to do things, but someone did it for me.  Nice

It's difficult to say whether the majority of these vehicles were hiding under tree cover when artillery hit them or if they were on the road and either tried to get off it or were dragged there to keep the path clear for the others.  My guess is it's a mix.

Here's another overhead shot, without annotations.  This was taken just before the final retreat of Russian forces (i.e. no tanks sunk in the river).  Another shot from this drone shows a shell landing in the water.

Steve

[z1812]

Here you are. The original article from the New York Times.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/29/briefing/the-week-the-war-shifted.html

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, sross112 said:

I think the long view with losses on both sides of the road is from the approach side of the Russians. Then where they are bunched up on the waterline and inland is what was hit after crossing. Pretty destructive, but doesn't even include the forces that pushed further inland and eventually had to retreat back. So who knows what other losses were sustained in that fighting plus the seven abandoned tanks during the retreat crossing. Personally I think most of the loss estimates for this debacle are probably on the low end once you factor everything outside of the immediate crossing zone in.

The picture I just posted is properly orientated with north at the top.  West side of the river is Russian territory, east is Ukrainian.  The majority of the destroyed vehicles are on the eastern side.  At least some of the destroyed vehicles on the western (approach) road appear to be engineering vehicles related to the bridging itself.

It seems the 8 T-72s that were deliberately sunk were the last of the rearguard force.  Here's an image that puts it all into context.  You can see the bridge and smoke.  This appears to be after the second bridge was put down but before it was sunk.

Steve

[cesmonkey]

45 minutes ago, womble said:

That isn't "carried by the NYT". That's the Asia Times "quoting" the NYT. And I trust the Asia Times "quoting" about as far as I could spit Vladimir Putin.

However, if you have been reading the opinion pieces from the NYT and The Washington Post lately, you can't help notice that they are increasingly expressing their worries about the actions of the West in support of Ukraine and/or the defeat of Putin risking a nuclear war.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/11/ukraine-war-expansion-risks-nuclear/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/14/opinion/ukraine-russia-putin-biden.html
 

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

However, if you have been reading the opinion pieces from the NYT and The Washington Post lately, you can't help notice that they are increasingly expressing their worries about the actions of the West in support of Ukraine and/or the defeat of Putin risking a nuclear war.

This is typical of both publications.  Their OpEd (both of which is what you cited) contributors tend to skew left day in and out, though they have a lot of middle and even moderate right contributors.  Left is inherently cautious about war and very cautious, even paranoid, about nuclear war.  It is exactly these voices that have allowed the policy of appeasement to proceed almost unscathed over the past 8 years in particular. 

Stereotyping for a bit... the right wanted appeasement so it could make money, the left wanted appeasement because it's better than war.  When both the right and the left support a common policy, regardless of how they got there, it's pretty much a given it will be the dominant position for their government.  Which is why Russia has funded both right and left influencers.  Both work towards supporting Russia's aims even if they are clueless about it.

Steve

[sburke]

25 minutes ago, z1812 said:

Here you are. The original article from the New York Times.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/29/briefing/the-week-the-war-shifted.html

that is 3 weeks old now.  An eternity in this forum.  

[Huba]

That is interesting. A wild guess, but maybe they traded the Azovstal defenders for allowing Russians to reinforce the Black Sea Fleet through Dardanelles? (in comment it says that frigate is actually moving through the straits).

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Huba

[billbindc]

39 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is typical of both publications.  Their OpEd (both of which is what you cited) contributors tend to skew left day in and out, though they have a lot of middle and even moderate right contributors.  Left is inherently cautious about war and very cautious, even paranoid, about nuclear war.  It is exactly these voices that have allowed the policy of appeasement to proceed almost unscathed over the past 8 years in particular. 

Stereotyping for a bit... the right wanted appeasement so it could make money, the left wanted appeasement because it's better than war.  When both the right and the left support a common policy, regardless of how they got there, it's pretty much a given it will be the dominant position for their government.  Which is why Russia has funded both right and left influencers.  Both work towards supporting Russia's aims even if they are clueless about it.

Steve

What's interesting about the cesmonkey links is that the commentators run from Ross Douthat to a CATO guy to a woman from Brookings...who has a solid history of being on the alarmist side of nuclear weapons use (one prominent article "Would China Use Nuclear Weapons In A War With The US"). You can find folks across the spectrum politically who tend to take that view and the more I've seen of them the more I think their view is set by a basic affinity for a pessimistic approach on the topic. They expect what their basic affinity suggests.

The problem is that their analysis depends on something essentially unknowable (a; is Vladimir Putin so irrational that he doesn't see or care that Russia itself would be destroyed in a general nuclear exchange b; is Vladimir Putin so irrational he cannot see that a smaller use of nuclear weapons doesn't change the trajectory of the war and instead will simply make that trajectory lower and longer?) while what we do know points in the other direction (as in, Russia verbally rattling the sabre and then carefully leaving their readiness state exactly where it was). 

[Battlefront.com]

Ammo handler of some type made quite the explosion.  You can see a piece of the top (engine cover?) fly high and far:

 

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, billbindc said:

What's interesting about the cesmonkey links is that the commentators run from Ross Douthat to a CATO guy to a woman from Brookings...who has a solid history of being on the alarmist side of nuclear weapons use (one prominent article "Would China Use Nuclear Weapons In A War With The US"). You can find folks across the spectrum politically who tend to take that view and the more I've seen of them the more I think their view is set by a basic affinity for a pessimistic approach on the topic. They expect what their basic affinity suggests.

The problem is that their analysis depends on something essentially unknowable (a; is Vladimir Putin so irrational that he doesn't see or care that Russia itself would be destroyed in a general nuclear exchange b; is Vladimir Putin so irrational he cannot see that a smaller use of nuclear weapons doesn't change the trajectory of the war and instead will simply make that trajectory lower and longer?) while what we do know points in the other direction (as in, Russia verbally rattling the sabre and then carefully leaving their readiness state exactly where it was). 

Yes, and I think only someone who is insane would NOT be concerned about the chances of provoking Putin into using nukes.  In that regard I agree with all of these OpEd people worried that we could push things too far.  However, there is no definite line to not cross.  Listening to Putin is pointless because according to his past rhetoric kicking Russia out of SWIFT would provoke a nuclear war.  He is the boy who cried wolf way too many times and the West took him seriously far too many times for far too long.

The only way to fight back against Putin without getting into a nuclear war is to do a very thoughtful reading of tea leaves, combine it with options, and make the best calls we can in a timely fashion.

For example, I am still of the opinion that directly engaging Russian military forces with NATO assets risks a nuclear war.  Therefore, proactively attacking Russia is a no-no in my view.  However, if Russia openly attacked a NATO country or military force, then I'd say we must accept the risk and do a limited military response.  Escalating to meet Russian escalation is dangerous, but not escalating when there is a clear need is also dangerous.

Overall I think the West is doing almost as much as it can.  And because Ukraine is dying for this cause, I think the West has a moral obligation to not only fund its war but also to fund its rebuilding after the war is over.  At present, we are in Ukraine's debt and we should not think of it any other way.

Steve

[dan/california]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Overall I think the West is doing almost as much as it can.  And because Ukraine is dying for this cause, I think the West has a moral obligation to not only fund its war but also to fund its rebuilding after the war is over.  At present, we are in Ukraine's debt and we should not think of it any other way.

Well said, and we shouldn't bleep off with low interest loans and financial annoyances, either. They need EU membership, and actual cash at the fastest rate they can absorb it. If the bureaucrats absolutely have to bleep around with the actual membership, they should have absolutely duty and tariff free access in the meantime. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by dan/california
dropped a word, again

[sburke]

51 minutes ago, Huba said:

That is interesting. A wild guess, but maybe they traded the Azovstal defenders for allowing Russians to reinforce the Black Sea Fleet through Dardanelles? (in comment it says that frigate is actually moving through the straits).

 

No way.  The Montreux convention is a dead stop with multiple parties.  I don't think there would be any way anyone is going to allow for it to be compromised.  If she is based in the Black Sea fleet however  think she is allowed to return to port.

24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ammo handler of some type made quite the explosion.  You can see a piece of the top (engine cover?) fly high and far:

 

disqualified.  Only turrets can be entered in this competition.

Edited May 17, 2022 by sburke

[billbindc]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, and I think only someone who is insane would NOT be concerned about the chances of provoking Putin into using nukes.  In that regard I agree with all of these OpEd people worried that we could push things too far.  However, there is no definite line to not cross.  Listening to Putin is pointless because according to his past rhetoric kicking Russia out of SWIFT would provoke a nuclear war.  He is the boy who cried wolf way too many times and the West took him seriously far too many times for far too long.

The only way to fight back against Putin without getting into a nuclear war is to do a very thoughtful reading of tea leaves, combine it with options, and make the best calls we can in a timely fashion.

For example, I am still of the opinion that directly engaging Russian military forces with NATO assets risks a nuclear war.  Therefore, proactively attacking Russia is a no-no in my view.  However, if Russia openly attacked a NATO country or military force, then I'd say we must accept the risk and do a limited military response.  Escalating to meet Russian escalation is dangerous, but not escalating when there is a clear need is also dangerous.

Overall I think the West is doing almost as much as it can.  And because Ukraine is dying for this cause, I think the West has a moral obligation to not only fund its war but also to fund its rebuilding after the war is over.  At present, we are in Ukraine's debt and we should not think of it any other way.

Steve

Exactly. Reactions to Russian aggression need to be carefully calibrated to minimize the possibility of nuclear war without ceding regional or global interests to nuclear threats. From the facts on the ground that I can see, it's obvious that Russian leadership has been more cognizant of the weak state of its conventional forces than we realized and so has used it as a crutch to threaten into being outcomes it preferred without any real planning or announced doctrine that it would ever do otherwise except to avert the military collapse of the state. Until that changes, I think we can sleep easier at night.