How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[fireship4]

From the article:

Quote

In March, Ukrainian forces said Maj Gen Vitaly Gerasimov had been killed outside the country's second city of Kharkiv. However, on 23 May Russian state media said he had been awarded a state honour and dismissed reports of his death.

 

[Sequoia]

15 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

The problem with a NATO type mutual defense bloc in the Indo-Pacific region is that the Indo-Pacific region is a lot more heterogeneous and less integrated than Europe + North America is. Many of these nations have very different and often competing strategic interests, and some (Japan and Korea) still bear significant historical grudges.

True, but Greece and Turkey do too, not to mention everyone having made up with Germany. 

 

Opps, ninja'd on that quite some time ago I see now.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Sequoia
ps

[FancyCat]

While it would have been nice for Ukraine to retake the entire city, Russia rushing in reinforcements and turning it into Mariupol 2.0 where they have to grind themselves down in urban combat probably serves just as well.

[Twisk]

Many pages past I saw comments about modern societies not prepared for high combat losses, and I would push back some. Many societies in history are not prepared for high losses, but can push through when the time comes.

United Kingdom lost only 85,000 war losses in 113 years of empire. Biggest loss is 22,000 in Cirmean War. Why would U.K. be prepared for for 900,000 deaths in World War 1? Is similar when look at U.S. why would nation be prepared for 1,00,000 losses in Civil War when before only maybe 100,000 losses in last 90 years?

I think some comments of people being prepared for losses leans too much on an idea of modern decadence, but I wonder if any British citizen would have been prepared in 1910 for the casualties rolls of 1916.
 

 

[SeinfeldRules]

I don’t think Russia intends to turn Severodonetsk into Mariupol, they have a much better way to take the city by threatening the roads and forcing the units to withdraw. The fact that we’re seeing such dramatic swings in control in a matter of days leads me to believe both sides only have a limited “crust” of forces fighting for the city, trying to gain and maintain contact but not necessarily committing to digging in and holding. Yesterday the Russians were pushed back to their original defensive lines and now today the Ukrainians seem to have retreated back to the industrial area. Both sides need to contest the city in some way to prevent the reinforcement of other areas but I don’t think we’ll be seeing Mariupol levels of urban combat.

[sburke]

34 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

From the article:

 

a couple are contested   Wiki lists 3 as still being alive

List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

Gerasimov being alive is cited because he got a medal, but nothing as far as I know other than that.  If he is still alive... what is he doing?  Not sure the supposed medal award trumps Bellingcat.

Gerasimov was claimed by Ukrainian authorities to have been killed during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on 7 March 2022 near Kharkiv, along with several other senior Russian officials.[2][8][9] This was not confirmed by CNN or US officials.[10] The Netherlands-based open-source intelligence (OSINT) fact-checking group Bellingcat said it had confirmed the death by accessing a Ukrainian intercept of Russian communications, as well as by means of "a Russian source".[9][11] The Guardian newspaper reported on 8 March that the Ukrainian defence department "broadcast what it claimed was a conversation between two Russian FSB officers discussing the death and complaining that their secure communications were no longer functioning inside Ukraine".[6] Gerasimov was confirmed to be in fact alive when he was awarded the Order of Alexander Nevsky on 23 May

 

[G.I. Joe]

11 minutes ago, Twisk said:

Many pages past I saw comments about modern societies not prepared for high combat losses, and I would push back some. Many societies in history are not prepared for high losses, but can push through when the time comes.

United Kingdom lost only 85,000 war losses in 113 years of empire. Biggest loss is 22,000 in Cirmean War. Why would U.K. be prepared for for 900,000 deaths in World War 1? Is similar when look at U.S. why would nation be prepared for 1,00,000 losses in Civil War when before only maybe 100,000 losses in last 90 years?

I think some comments of people being prepared for losses leans too much on an idea of modern decadence, but I wonder if any British citizen would have been prepared in 1910 for the casualties rolls of 1916.
 

 

Welcome aboard, Twisk! Always good to have someone new in the conversation.

I think it's partially a matter of definitions. The casualty-aversity discussion usually seems to be framed in terms of "modern" starting between the World Wars, if not later.

As for the "modern decadence" issue, I think most of us probably see the emphasis on limiting casualties as a feature, not a bug, of modernity... certainly on balance. Aversion to casualties is not inherently the same thing as a lack of resolve.

[sross112]

1 minute ago, G.I. Joe said:

Welcome aboard, Twisk! Always good to have someone new in the conversation.

I think it's partially a matter of definitions. The casualty-aversity discussion usually seems to be framed in terms of "modern" starting between the World Wars, if not later.

As for the "modern decadence" issue, I think most of us probably see the emphasis on limiting casualties as a feature, not a bug, of modernity... certainly on balance. Aversion to casualties is not inherently the same thing as a lack of resolve.

Agree. Just because a society or country is casualty averse or conscious doesn't mean that it is not willing to sacrifice for the right reasons. Ukraine is a good example of this. They have suffered 10's of thousands of casualties and are willing to pay the bill until Russia is out of Ukraine. On the flip side, they had UA troops in Iraq for several years and I'm sure the public would have reacted way differently to the same butcher's bill if it came out of there. 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Nope, he'll send a body double, deep fake his face on and meet with that worker/wounded soldier a third time.

Imagine you are already crucified. Do not move.

[Taranis]

 

[G.I. Joe]

37 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Agree. Just because a society or country is casualty averse or conscious doesn't mean that it is not willing to sacrifice for the right reasons. Ukraine is a good example of this. They have suffered 10's of thousands of casualties and are willing to pay the bill until Russia is out of Ukraine. On the flip side, they had UA troops in Iraq for several years and I'm sure the public would have reacted way differently to the same butcher's bill if it came out of there. 

 

Definitely...and even in a war of national survival against a ruthless opponent, Ukraine is still obviously taking due diligence to limit friendly casualties for both ethical and practical reasons.

[panzermartin]

1 hour ago, Twisk said:

Many pages past I saw comments about modern societies not prepared for high combat losses, and I would push back some. Many societies in history are not prepared for high losses, but can push through when the time comes.

United Kingdom lost only 85,000 war losses in 113 years of empire. Biggest loss is 22,000 in Cirmean War. Why would U.K. be prepared for for 900,000 deaths in World War 1? Is similar when look at U.S. why would nation be prepared for 1,00,000 losses in Civil War when before only maybe 100,000 losses in last 90 years?

I think some comments of people being prepared for losses leans too much on an idea of modern decadence, but I wonder if any British citizen would have been prepared in 1910 for the casualties rolls of 1916.
 

 

There were older times when human life didn't have that much value. People were used to death. Many newborns didn't make it, common illness could kill, and in general life was much more miserable for the common folk. Societies were living in the darkness of religion and analphabetism. One could easily sacrifice himself for the glory of the king, the emperor, the Imam or just for a day's ration. 

While this also happens today as we can see, we have progressed and at least in the civilized World we protect even the most weak among us, the campaign against covid and the titanic struggle to save people was a prime reminder that we are not in 1917 anymore. 

I'm not sure we are ready to give back so easily, what we earned with blood and hundreds of years of social struggle. It will be a huge setback in human history and there is nothing glorious about it . I'm not even sure if even fighting Russia is worth this. 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by panzermartin

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Twisk said:

Many pages past I saw comments about modern societies not prepared for high combat losses, and I would push back some. Many societies in history are not prepared for high losses, but can push through when the time comes.

United Kingdom lost only 85,000 war losses in 113 years of empire. Biggest loss is 22,000 in Cirmean War. Why would U.K. be prepared for for 900,000 deaths in World War 1? Is similar when look at U.S. why would nation be prepared for 1,00,000 losses in Civil War when before only maybe 100,000 losses in last 90 years?

I think some comments of people being prepared for losses leans too much on an idea of modern decadence, but I wonder if any British citizen would have been prepared in 1910 for the casualties rolls of 1916.
 

 

First, my customary acknowledgement of a new poster and thanks for making a contribution.  Welcome!

You are very much correct about not knowing what a nation will accept for losses until that moment arrives.  Certainly Hitler and his advisors, military and sycophants alike, didn't expect the US to put up with large casualty counts.  They viewed the US as "soft" and the early performance in North Africa seemed to confirm their perception.  Oh boy did they call that one wrong

That being said, Western societies are very different than they were in the early 20th Century.  Large scale warfare has not happened since the end of WW2 for most nations.  Even for the US this is true, unless one argues that the Korean War is more like WW2 than Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan (I wouldn't argue that).  Conscription has also been done away with in most Western countries, which underscores societies' move away from warfare of the masses.

There are certainly scenarios that I think would cause contemporary Western societies to willingly put up with losing tens of thousands of soldiers on the battlefield, but not many.  Society would likely try to compromise its way out of such a conflict.  Certainly right now there's a strong minority that feels even sending weapons is too much burden to shoulder.  In fact, the previous US Admin, for the very first time since NATO's founding, introduced doubt that the US would comply with its Article 4 or 5 obligations if invoked by a NATO member.  In that light, let's not forget that the US tried to stay out of WW2 and only got into it because Japan attacked and Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on the US.

My point here is that it is fair to question how willing the West is to engage in large scale warfare that involves very large casualties.

Steve

[sburke]

Russia Rattles Sabre in Pacific With Large Warship and Aircraft Exercises (msn.com)

I don't think anyone will look at Russian military exercises again in the same way....

 

 

As to casualties and the west.  Part of the problem in determining the willingness to sacrifice is dependent on the actual conflict.  A lot of the risk aversion talk stems directly from Vietnam.  The problem there is complicated.  US administrations were never honest with our populace.  From the very beginning we presented dishonest and inaccurate information as to the conflict both why we were there and the actual conditions on the ground.  Add to that the discrepancies as to who we sent and the political conditions at home and you have the basis for an utter fustercluck.  The next major engagement is Iraq and again you have a level of dishonesty in the rationale to go to war and the conditions on the ground.

In Ukraine you are seeing a people who feel they actually can trust what they are hearing and a cause they absolutely want to fight for.  My own feeling is that given those conditions you'd see a stronger level of commitment in any of the western nations.

 

[hcrof]

35 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

There were older times when human life didn't have that much value. People were used to death. Many newborns didn't make it, common illness could kill, and in general life was much more miserable for the common folk. Societies were living in the darkness of religion and analphabetism. One could easily sacrifice himself for the glory of the king, the emperor, the Imam or just for a day's ration.

On this point, life may have been cheaper in the old days but before the French Revolution noone would sacrifice themselves for the glory of some abstract ideal like a king - soldiers were strictly mercenary. 

The idea of sacrificing yourself for any entity larger than your own village or town is a very modern thing and in this era of mass media and competing ideologies (yep we are back there again) I would say it's not dead yet.

Edit: I forgot about the Muslim conquests but it's almost the exception that proves the rule.

Edited June 6, 2022 by hcrof
Religion

[dan/california]

9 minutes ago, sburke said:

don't think anyone will look at Russian military exercises again in the same way....

To be fair, I am sure some of those ships are actually turning on radars for the first time in decades. They might even learn to read the displays.   

[Cederic]

18 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

The problem with a NATO type mutual defense bloc in the Indo-Pacific region is that the Indo-Pacific region is a lot more heterogeneous and less integrated than Europe + North America is. Many of these nations have very different and often competing strategic interests, and some (Japan and Korea) still bear significant historical grudges.

Clearly you haven't seen how the British view the French and the Germans, how they view each other, how everybody views Turkey, how Turkey view the Greeks or - the elephant in the room - how the European giant known as Russia gets on with, well, the rest of the continent.

On the whole 'How about we all agree not to let China invade us' doesn't feel an insurmountable challenge.

 

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

There is the ANZUS treaty that stands for Australia, New Zealand, US.

Although there doesn't appear to be a formal treaty in place, it's almost impossible that someone could attack Australia or New Zealand without the UK getting involved.

They've supported us in too many wars for the British public to allow us to abandon them, even if the Government wanted to.

 

[Huba]

I'd really like to hear some details, but otherwise great news!

 

[Harmon Rabb]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

To be fair, I am sure some of those ships are actually turning on radars for the first time in decades. They might even learn to read the displays.   

The Russian sailors in the Pacific are probably secretly happy that the Turks closed off the Black Sea to the rest of the ships in the Russian navy.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Harmon Rabb

[Cederic]

7 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Another good map by a French military analyst (and some sobering commentary for those 'preannouncing another Russian rout).

 

 

That 1:7 or 1:8 doesn't sound likely for the combat forces, although "the Ukrainian president added that defending forces there were outnumbered: "There are more of them and they are stronger," he said of the Russian side."

-- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61711028

Which suggests one of two things: Either Ukraine are under-reporting their strength to attract a Russian force into a bloodbath, with the withdrawal to the industrial area a feint, or they're fighting there for much the same reason as Mariupol: buying time for Ukrainian forces to strengthen elsewhere.

Zelenskyy's visit the other side of the river (which I do believe) does suggest that one way or the other, this is a surprisingly key battle in the war. I think that either the Russians suffer a war losing defeat in Severodonetsk or they commit so many forces that they lose ground (and the war with it) on other fronts.

The alternative is that they overwhelm the defence, stream across the river and rush headlong into the less defended areas of Ukraine. No, that doesn't feel credible to me either.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Cederic
(removing white space)

[Calamine Waffles]

3 hours ago, Sequoia said:

True, but Greece and Turkey do too, not to mention everyone having made up with Germany. 

 

Opps, ninja'd on that quite some time ago I see now.

Germany is a bit different because they went through the actual "de-Nazification", which Japan never really did. That's why they still have a fairly strong ultra-nationalist element in their politics.

Quote

Clearly you haven't seen how the British view the French and the Germans, how they view each other, how everybody views Turkey, how Turkey view the Greeks or - the elephant in the room - how the European giant known as Russia gets on with, well, the rest of the continent.

That's cute, but the British didn't occupy and subjugate France or Germany with anywhere near the same level of brutality that Japan did to Korea. Also, many of these wounds are still quite fresh in the region.

You have a point re: Turkey and Greece, but Greece is a relatively minor partner in NATO. On the other hand, Japan and Korea would be two of the most important partners in any would-be Indo-Pacific Mutual Defence Bloc.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[Centurian52]

On 5/31/2022 at 10:29 PM, dan/california said:

So we do we think that is half? a third? a quarter? of the Russians casualties?

That is pretty low. I figured the Russians as losing ~300-350 soldiers per day. I based that on an extrapolation from casualty figures the Russians released in the first month of the war, from which I guessed that the Russians (as in the Russian side, so Russians + L/DPR + paramilitary groups fighting for the Russians) were taking ~10,000 casualties a month. Assuming 200,000 soldiers on the Russian side that's a proportional casualty rate of about 150-175 casualties per day per 100,000 troops. If that guesswork is about right that means that the proportional Russian casualty right is about on par with historical casualty rates in high intensity warfare. I spent several hours working out proportional casualty rates for various campaigns based on information on Wikipedia, but the text document I made with the exact figures is back home and I'm typing from work, so these are approximate figures. In Poland the Germans took about 80 casualties per day per 100,000 troops, in Barbarossa 160 casualties per day per 100,000, at the Somme the Germans took about 300+ casualties per day per 100,000 troops while the Entente took about 175 casualties per day per 100,000 (similar total casualties divided between more troops). At Kursk the Soviets took 650 about casualties per day per 100,000 to the Germans 350 casualties per day per 100,000, and in Sicily the Allies too about 130 casualties per day per 100,000 troops. So the low end of normal seems to be about 80 casualties per day per 100,000 and the high end of normal seems to be about 400 casualties per day per 100,000 (there were several more battles that I didn't list here with casualties in the range of 300-400 per day per 100,000, while the 600+ the Soviets took at Kursk didn't recur much in the battles I looked at). "disaster" casualty rates seem to be about 1000+ per day per 100,000, with the Soviets taking over 1,200 casualties per day per 100,000 in Barbarossa and the Allies taking over 1,400 casualties per day per 100,000 in France 1940 (I wish I had that text document with the exact numbers in front of me). On the extreme low end the Coalition in Desert Storm took around 23 casualties per day per 100,000 troops and on the extreme high end the Iraqis in Desert Storm took 5,000+ casualties per day per 100,000 troops (very rough estimate).

So the estimated Russian casualty rate seems to be about the middle of normal for a high intensity war. If the Ukrainians are taking 60-100 casualties per day, total, with a frontline strength of ~200,000, then they are taking ~30-50 casualties per day per 100,000 troops. That is shockingly low for a high intensity war. That is especially shocking if, while they are taking these low casualties, the Russians are taking "normal" casualties for a high intensity war. Either I have overestimated the Russian casualty rate, Zelensky has underestimated the Ukrainian casualty rate, or the Ukrainians are absolutely slaughtering the Russians at a rate somewhere between 3:1 and 5:1.

edit: So the Ukrainian casualty figure of 60-100 per day is apparently KIA, not all casualties. And considering that KIA are generally a third or a quarter of all casualties, that means the full casualty rate is probably somewhere between 180-400 casualties per day (or 90-200 casualties per day per 100,000 troops), which puts it roughly on par with the estimated Russian casualty rate.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Centurian52

[FancyCat]

Kamil Galeev has a interesting point regarding Putin and discontent in Russian society. Dunno if it pans out but hey, I'll trust Kamil on it. 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1533868061014511621.html

 

 

[Centurian52]

On 5/31/2022 at 11:00 PM, dan/california said:

It is KIA sadly, with several hundred wounded

Ah, ok. And considering that KIA generally make up a third or less of all casualties, it looks like Ukrainian casualties may actually be about on par with Russian casualties.

[JonS]

47 minutes ago, Cederic said:

it's almost impossible that someone could attack Australia or New Zealand without the UK getting involved.

Lol. Rightoh then.