How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

11 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Is Stoltenberg admitting that Ukraine must give away territory for peace, for the first time? 

He's not saying they should do that. To me it sounds that the price for peace can also be too high. I like Stoltenberg, but he's not always clear in his statements. We also don't know the exact context of his statement.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[LongLeftFlank]

My two cents on restoring the 2002 borders is as follows:

Ukraine MUST find a way to defeat the Russian army decisively in a general offensive and rapidly retake the following strategically key occupied territories, in order of criticality, but ALL critical:

a.  Everything north of the Dnieper (Kherson)

b.  Kharkiv east + Izyum at least as far as Oskil reservoir.

c.  The entire 'land bridge' area and Azov coastline, from Perekop isthmus to Melitopol and Berdinansk. Mariupol is symbolic, but no strategic IMHO.

If the war 'freezes' with any of these territories still in Russian hands, I think a rematch (by which I mean an eventual reinvasion by Russia) is inevitable. Which is a Russian win, unfortunately, by the deranged logic of fascist Russia.

2.  I don't believe Russia or Putin's clique 'collapses' unless its army is decisively defeated in the field.

By which I mean frontline CA formations actually destroyed, others retreating in disorder, and thousands of new prisoners calling their mums. Killing more militiamen and Ossetians doesn't cut it.

3. So assuming the UA can do what is required to accomplish points 1 and 2, they can pretty much walk into Donetsk city. Lukhansk, surrounded by Russia on 3 sides could be a lot tougher; a siege would possibly be required.

... I just can't see the UA retaking Crimea though, barring a very large and visible popular uprising in their favour, which seems very doubtful to me. I believe most Crimean residents (Tatars are only a small minority now) preferred to rejoin Russia in 2014. They may be less keen on it postwar, but not to the point of fighting to join Ukraine.  A large ethnic cleansing would occur, and that would create its own scars and badly tarnish the Ukrainian victory.

[Huba]

8 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Is Stoltenberg admitting that Ukraine must give away territory for peace, for the first time? 

Nah, he didn't say anything of the kind. Message is still more or less: we are supporting Ukraine militarily so when negotiations start they will be in good position. He also mentioned sacrificing democracy and sovereignty, but it sounded like he's talking about stuff that is not up for negotiations.

Edit: @Aragorn2002 beat me to it.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Huba

[Aragorn2002]

6 minutes ago, Huba said:

Nah, he didn't say anything of the kind. Message is still more or less: we are supporting Ukraine militarily so when negotiations start they will be in good position. He also mentioned sacrificing democracy and sovereignty, but it sounded like he's talking about stuff that is not up for negotiations.

Edit: @Aragorn2002 beat me to it.

Rewarding those bastards with another piece of Ukrainian territory would be SO wrong.

As long as Ukraine is determined to fight we should support them in that and not talk about peace.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

... I just can't see the UA retaking Crimea though, barring a very large and visible popular uprising in their favour, which seems very doubtful to me. I believe most Crimean residents (Tatars are only a small minority now) preferred to rejoin Russia in 2014. They may be less keen on it postwar, but not to the point of fighting to join Ukraine.  A large ethnic cleansing would occur, and that would create its own scars and badly tarnish the Ukrainian victory.

In "referendum", they were asked if they want to be independent or join Russia, remaining UA wasn't an option. If re-taking Crimea was an option militarily, I'd leave Sevastopol  to the RU, it's already half of Russian population out of the way. What is important is the western shore and Kerch. Leaving RU in a geostrategic position where they can again stop UA sea trade in a whim does not sound like a reasonable thing to do, considering what's happening now.

[chuckdyke]

There are always ambit claims and counter claims. 

[sawomi]

Ukraine 

31 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

...nobody from our serious historians doubt that "Ukraine" is derived from Ancient Rus word "oukrayina, ukrayina" - "frontier, border land". There is nothing splended in this derivation. This is just objective fact. First mention of word "ukrayina" we can find in Ipatyevska chronicle under 1187 year, but this name related to Pereyaslav Principality. Pereyaslav - the town in nowadays Kyiv oblast, which in that times, was a center of separate principality, which was real frontier with Wild Steppe and nomad tribes. 

When modern Ukrainian lands in 14th century became a part of Great Lituanian Principality, already Lithuaninan rulers named old Rus lans as "ukrayina" - "Kyivan ukrayina", "Volynian ukrayina" etc, with the same sense - "frontier lands". Further theese names often mentioned in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealthm. Active mastering of Wild Steppe in 16th century and rising of Cossacks gradually has been fixed "ukrayina" for lands on left bank of Dnieper with Kyiv and Cherkasy regions, and since the mid of 17th century this name was extended on whole Cossak-controlled territory.  

It seems to mean, what in German is a 'Mark', like "Mark Brandenburg". The equivalent English term would be a 'march'.

-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_(territory)

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

In "referendum", they were asked if they want to be independent or join Russia, remaining UA wasn't an option. If re-taking Crimea was an option militarily, I'd leave Sevastopol  to the RU, it's already half of Russian population out of the way. What is important is the western shore and Kerch. Leaving RU in a geostrategic position where they can again stop UA sea trade in a whim does not sound like a reasonable thing to do, considering what's happening now.

Perhaps. Looking ahead, I suppose once whole Russian regiments are being destroyed, with the rest scrambling to vacate large chunks of territory, and that disaster can no longer be hidden, then Russia itself falls into disorder. 

...Especially since Belarus also likely goes wobbly on Moscow (Lukashenko is a thug but he also isn't as dumb as he looks, he could well flip!).

So who the heck knows what happens then?

But I feel this is counting our chickens a bit....

[Huba]

Sure, it's all in the realm of wishing instead of being in a position to actually get. Return to February borders + NATO membership would be just as good, if not better due to less problems on the "reoccupied" territories (again, thinking out loudly on the practical side, up to UA to decide). Maximalist victory that pushes RU over the edge is a very attractive perspective though, not for the sake of UA only, but all the other nations under their yoke.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Huba

[panzermartin]

25 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

My two cents on restoring the 2002 borders is as follows:

Ukraine MUST find a way to defeat the Russian army decisively in a general offensive and rapidly retake the following strategically key occupied territories, in order of criticality, but ALL critical:

a.  Everything north of the Dnieper (Kherson)

b.  Kharkiv east + Izyum at least as far as Oskil reservoir.

c.  The entire 'land bridge' area and Azov coastline

 

How is this offensive and siege possible, (especially in a rapid way), when Ukraine is disadvantage in mechanized, artillery and air assets? 

 

[billbindc]

Note: the clear evidence that one side is losing doesn't necessarily mean that the other side recognizes that it is winning.

[Aragorn2002]

18 minutes ago, Huba said:

Sure, it's all in the realm of wishing instead of being in a position to actually get. Return to February borders + NATO membership would be just as good, if not better due to less problems on the "reoccupied" territories (again, thinking out loudly on the practical side, up to UA to decide). Maximalist victory that pushes RU over the edge is a very attractive perspective though, not for the sake of UA only, but all the other nations under their yoke.

Agreed. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rid of the Russian menace once and for all. That's why we must send all weapons we can, even if that means we won't have much left to defend ourselves with. In that respect I've changed my mind. 

[Huba]

32 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Agreed. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rid of the Russian menace once and for all. That's why we must send all weapons we can, even if that means we won't have much left to defend ourselves with. In that respect I've changed my mind. 

I hope that after this week the direction we're heading will be a bit clearer - NATO Defense Ministers next meeting in Wednesday, Draghi, Macron and Scholz in Kyiv on Thursday, and European Commision to give opinion on EU candidate status on Friday.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Huba

[Vanir Ausf B]

15 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rid of the Russian menace once and for all. That's why we must send all weapons we can, even if that means we won't have much left to defend ourselves with.

Xi Jinping says:

 

[Aragorn2002]

3 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Xi Jinping says:

 

That or let Putin come off easily and let him continue his evil deeds again as soon as he sees fit?

[rocketman]

19 minutes ago, Huba said:

I hope that after this week the direction we're heading will be a bit clearer - NATO Defense Ministers next meeting in Wednesday, Draghi, Macron and Scholz in Kyiv on Thursday, and European Commision to give opinion on EU candidate status on Friday.

 

When they visit, Zelensky should ask Herr Scholtz for a few of these

 

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, rocketman said:

When they visit, Zelensky should ask Herr Scholtz for a few of these

 

Pff, Panther... Nothing short of Koening Tiger will cut it  

Oh, and some RUMINT. Apparently Polish PT-91 fleet is being abandoned near UA border and in risk of somebody stealing it in upcoming days. Polish tankers are to start training on M1s from US "advanced stockpile". More details to be known after NATO MoDs convention.

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, poesel said:

I would like to ask @Haiduk about how the Ukrainians feel about those territories? Is this something that they would give away and be content with it?

Ukrainian society will curse and even overthrow anybody, who will agree to trade our lands for peace.  

There is no matter about relatively big part of Russia-TV zombified unloyal population, which wanted of Russia coming. Most of them will never rise a weapon by own will, because their passive soviet mentality.

Westerners always have rational point of view, which mixed with modern pacifism of many intellectuals. So, from here all this  messages to our government and president - "we support you, of course, but Russia is stronger and bigger anyway, your desperate resistance only caused new and new deaths and destructions. You have to save a lives first of all and stop the war. Rest can be resolved by negotiations ... Somewhere. And we want to trade with Russia - huge market, but your foolish resistance is just spoiling our idyll"

But for us, slavs, the question of "land of our fathers" will be always irrationally sacred. We can lost lands only after military defeat or betrayal of our leaders, but even in this case we will fight back early or later. 

All, who  incline our country to peace with concessions just don't understand, that this only  approve Russia in it neo-imperial ambitions. And through several years they again will come to "liberate" other Ukrainian territories. And not only Ukrainian. I bet if Russia invade to Baltic states, there will be discussions around "5th article" and many continental European countries will be search ways to avoid direct involvement. 

So, now the West has a chance to finish off with rashism, neo-imperialism and revanchism by our hands and our blood. We have 600-year experience of wars with Moskovia, so nobody can do it better. So, just give more weapon and ammunition and we will drive aspen  stake in the heart of neoSoviet walking dead, risen from own grave. All other hints about peace, "not humilitate Russia" summon question is really western world based on own claimed values, or this is just beautiful hypocritical words, which cover ugly face of rationalism, real politic and business as usual

Edited June 13, 2022 by Haiduk

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

How is this offensive and siege possible, (especially in a rapid way), when Ukraine is disadvantage in mechanized, artillery and air assets? 

 

The presumption is that UA will achieve superiority in 2 of those 3 areas (air hasn't showed itself as decisive in this war) as it builds up and the battered and undermanned Russian army declines.

So far though, they haven't yet conducted a successful combined arms attack above a 2-3 day 2 battalion scale attack achieving local penetrations only and still leg infantry heavy. They have tried and failed at least once. Hoping we will see an example soon, perhaps west of Izium, although that seems to be forest fighting, yet again.

In open country, combined arms is essential to break in to a defensive line, break up and destroy a regular enemy formation.

P.S.  I continue to insist on the 'rapid' (or 'early') part because as the Russians dig in and sow millions of mines, it will be terribly costly to achieve those break ins. The Verdun shoe will be on the other foot then, I fear.  Western military thinkers love their big systematic OVERLORD buildups, but there is such a thing as waiting too long.

Edited June 13, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[dan/california]

7 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

And every 3rd battalion needs it's cadre and equipment. More or less the same mistake the Germans did make on divisional level. Raising new Panzer brigades and divisions, instead of keep the already existing, seasoned units at strength. Looks great on paper, but....

On the other hand, it could be another step for the Russians to total mobilisation.

 

It actually disrupts a larger mobilization to commit the third battalions to Ukraine. They are basically the training infrastructure of the Russian army. The process of reconstituting that from scratch would be enormous, and more importantly SLOW.

6 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

Definitely. It's probably safe to say the USN hasn't had a true peer-level opponent since the Battle of the Philippine Sea...Leyte Gulf at the very latest, but earlier on as far back as 1943 would probably be a stronger case. And, with the greatest possible respect to the Royal Navy, no true peer-level ally since at least the late Fifties...

It has not, but in the next ~15 years there is a real risk of getting caught on the wrong side of a technological transformation. I not sure big ships are still a thing as missiles and drones get smarter.

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Time lapse. It's been a long 6 weeks. 

And as a number of folks have observed here, while the artillery crapstorm intensifies, all the actual Russian advances seem to be petering out, including the Popasna break-in.

The only meaningful advance is halfway between Izyum and Sloviansk, at least 5 weeks behind schedule now thanks to the Dovhenke hedgehog. And even that doesn't seem to be curdling much Ukrainian beer.

So shelling seems to be all they've got at this point? hence my focus on it today (educating myself though I hope others find it interesting).

The Donbas is important only as long as Ukraine can inflict more damage than it is taking. Keeping the UKR forces as a viable field army and making the Russians bleed is all that matters. The donor conference this week needs to come through.

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

My two cents on restoring the 2002 borders is as follows:

Ukraine MUST find a way to defeat the Russian army decisively in a general offensive and rapidly retake the following strategically key occupied territories, in order of criticality, but ALL critical:

a.  Everything north of the Dnieper (Kherson)

b.  Kharkiv east + Izyum at least as far as Oskil reservoir.

c.  The entire 'land bridge' area and Azov coastline, from Perekop isthmus to Melitopol and Berdinansk. Mariupol is symbolic, but no strategic IMHO.

If the war 'freezes' with any of these territories still in Russian hands, I think a rematch (by which I mean an eventual reinvasion by Russia) is inevitable. Which is a Russian win, unfortunately, by the deranged logic of fascist Russia.

2.  I don't believe Russia or Putin's clique 'collapses' unless its army is decisively defeated in the field.

By which I mean frontline CA formations actually destroyed, others retreating in disorder, and thousands of new prisoners calling their mums. Killing more militiamen and Ossetians doesn't cut it.

3. So assuming the UA can do what is required to accomplish points 1 and 2, they can pretty much walk into Donetsk city. Lukhansk, surrounded by Russia on 3 sides could be a lot tougher; a siege would possibly be required.

... I just can't see the UA retaking Crimea though, barring a very large and visible popular uprising in their favour, which seems very doubtful to me. I believe most Crimean residents (Tatars are only a small minority now) preferred to rejoin Russia in 2014. They may be less keen on it postwar, but not to the point of fighting to join Ukraine.  A large ethnic cleansing would occur, and that would create its own scars and badly tarnish the Ukrainian victory.

99% agree, but what does a Donetsk City that absolutely hates them gain Ukraine? They deserve to be part of Russia, worst punishment available.

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Sure, it's all in the realm of wishing instead of being in a position to actually get. Return to February borders + NATO membership would be just as good, if not better due to less problems on the "reoccupied" territories (again, thinking out loudly on the practical side, up to UA to decide). Maximalist victory that pushes RU over the edge is a very attractive perspective though, not for the sake of UA only, but all the other nations under their yoke.

Yeah, it is going to be a long bloody summer first, at best.

46 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Agreed. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rid of the Russian menace once and for all. That's why we must send all weapons we can, even if that means we won't have much left to defend ourselves with. In that respect I've changed my mind. 

Every single piece of hardware in Europe, and 75% of U.S. capability needs to be on it way to Ukraine, or Taiwan RIGHT NOW. There is not and will not be crisis somewhere else that can't be "contained" for a year two if it comes down to it.

Edited June 13, 2022 by dan/california

[Aragorn2002]

10 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Ukrainian society will curse and even overthrow anybody, who will agree to trade our lands for peace.  

There is no matter about relatively big part of Russia-TV zombified unloyal population, which wanted of Russia coming. Most of them will never rise a weapon by own will, because their passive soviet mentality.

Westerners always have rational point of view, which mixed with modern pacifism of many intellectuals. So, from here all this  messages to our government and president - "we support you, of course, but Russia is stronger and bigger anyway, your desperate resistance only caused new and new deaths and destructions. You have to save a lives first of all and stop the war. Rest can be resolved by negotiations ... Somewhere. And we want to trade with Russia - huge market, but your foolish resistance is just spoiling our idyll"

But for us, slavs, the question of "land of our fathers" will be always irrationally sacred. We can lost lands only after military defeat or betrayal of our leaders, but even in this case we will fight back early or later. 

All, who  incline our country to peace with concessions just don't understand, that this only  approve Russia in it neo-imperial ambitions. And through several years they again will come to "liberate" other Ukrainian territories. And not only Ukrainian. I bet if Russia invade to Baltic states, there will be discussions around "5th article" and many continental European countries will be search ways to avoid direct involvement. 

So, now the West has a chance to finish off with rashism, neo-imperialism and revanchism by our hands and our blood. We have 600-year experience of wars with Moskovia, so nobody can do it better. So, just give more weapon and ammunition and we will drive aspen  stake in the heart of neoSoviet walking dead, risen from own grave. All other hints about peace, "not humilitate Russia" summon question is really western world based on own claimed values, or this is just beautiful hypocritical words, which cover ugly face of rationalism, real politic and business as usual

Well said, Haiduk!

[The_Capt]

23 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

But for us, slavs, the question of "land of our fathers" will be always irrationally sacred

That is powerful stuff.  This is where Clausewitz breaks down - when government and the military become extensions of the people, a war of the people cannot ignore the deeply cultural and personal factors that drive the conflict itself well beyond a simple "rational extension of policy".

We in the West are trying to apply this lens of "rationality" in some circles; however, in doing so we create blind spots.  

Edited June 13, 2022 by The_Capt

[Huba]

18 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Ukrainian society will curse and even overthrow anybody, who will agree to trade our lands for peace.  

There is no matter about relatively big part of Russia-TV zombified unloyal population, which wanted of Russia coming. Most of them will never rise a weapon by own will, because their passive soviet mentality.

Westerners always have rational point of view, which mixed with modern pacifism of many intellectuals. So, from here all this  messages to our government and president - "we support you, of course, but Russia is stronger and bigger anyway, your desperate resistance only caused new and new deaths and destructions. You have to save a lives first of all and stop the war. Rest can be resolved by negotiations ... Somewhere. And we want to trade with Russia - huge market, but your foolish resistance is just spoiling our idyll"

But for us, slavs, the question of "land of our fathers" will be always irrationally sacred. We can lost lands only after military defeat or betrayal of our leaders, but even in this case we will fight back early or later. 

All, who  incline our country to peace with concessions just don't understand, that this only  approve Russia in it neo-imperial ambitions. And through several years they again will come to "liberate" other Ukrainian territories. And not only Ukrainian. I bet if Russia invade to Baltic states, there will be discussions around "5th article" and many continental European countries will be search ways to avoid direct involvement. 

So, now the West has a chance to finish off with rashism, neo-imperialism and revanchism by our hands and our blood. We have 600-year experience of wars with Moskovia, so nobody can do it better. So, just give more weapon and ammunition and we will drive aspen  stake in the heart of neoSoviet walking dead, risen from own grave. All other hints about peace, "not humilitate Russia" summon question is really western world based on own claimed values, or this is just beautiful hypocritical words, which cover ugly face of rationalism, real politic and business as usual

So assuming Ukraine is able to militarily regain all the pre-February territories (which I really wish you!), how do you imagine incorporating those back to the core? Crimea is full of ethnic Russians at the moment as far as I can tell, and people from LDPR, while probably disenchanted by Russia, are more or less willingly actively fighting you at the moment. I imagine there will be A LOT of bad blood between you. I assume that has to be discussed a lot in Ukraine, so what are your takes on it?

[LongLeftFlank]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

99% agree, but what does a Donetsk City that absolutely hate them gain Ukraine? They deserve to be part of Russia, worst punishment available

Yeah, it is going to be a long bloody summer first, at best.

There's a lot more there than just coal. Essential to Ukraine's future prosperity, and worth many thousands of additional Ukrainians dead to secure? Perhaps not, but that's not our call.

But from a purely military perspective, I'd sooner hold as much of the Azov coasline as possible, for the next decade at least....

[danfrodo]

Great posts all, thx.  I am caught w the overnight stuff.  I only have a couple things to add

1.  As far as 'land for peace' goes, it's waaaaay too early for us to know how things will shake out.  RU military collapse, overthrow of Putin, etc, all of these could occur.  Why would UKR agree to Crimea or LPR/DPR trades when there might come a time when they can walk in?  If the price for getting these lands back becomes too high, maybe they'll make that trade but it's much too early to decide any of that.  Trading away something you can never get anyway is not a happy thing but at least it's a leverage point. 

2. as per The Capt, Severodonetsk city is really militarily stupid for the russians.  It's only value is in face-saving measure for Putin who can play it as final victory and then go on the peace offensive, which will be utterly sickening.

This whole war has reached such insanity of pointless death, destructive, theft, and impoverishment that it just boggles my mind.  Here we are in 21st century yet one single psychopath does all this, simply for his own personal profit.  Unbelievable. 

Maybe UKR will, in the end, have to settle for the Feb22 boundaries.  But I think we all (UKR and its allies) need to do everything possible ensure that Putin does not profit from this misadventure.