How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

In  case of German tanks and IFVs, the reluctance to see them fight Russians in Ukraine AGAIN is understandable, if maybe a bit silly for outside observer. And there are no non-German AFVs in Europe available in reasonable numbers, except M113s which are arriving in considerable numbers already. 

The escalation narrative is almost dead at this point I think, hence Macron's remark about fighter aircraft not being on the table was strange to me, especially considering that Soviet aircraft were delivered already. 

Absolutely agree. Everything is on the table, as far as I'm concerned against an evil, ruthless opponent as the Russians. Europe can do without Russian energy if it really makes an effort. Too ridiculous for words sending arms to fight the Russians while partly financing their aggression. 

[Taranis]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

In  case of German tanks and IFVs, the reluctance to see them fight Russians in Ukraine AGAIN is understandable, if maybe a bit silly for outside observer. And there are no non-German AFVs in Europe available in reasonable numbers, except M113s which are arriving in considerable numbers already. 

The escalation narrative is almost dead at this point I think, hence Macron's remark about fighter aircraft not being on the table was strange to me, especially considering that Soviet aircraft were delivered already. 

Unless they are smart guys and they say they don't give planes but send them in parts etc. At the beginning, France acted as if it didn't give much, but we ended up discovering that there were MILANs in particular, then CAESARs, etc. Even if for the latter their delivery was very publicized (I think it was a good advertisement for the sale of French weapons) but initially the quantities etc were more vague.

[Aragorn2002]

24 minutes ago, Taranis said:

Unless they are smart guys and they say they don't give planes but send them in parts etc. At the beginning, France acted as if it didn't give much, but we ended up discovering that there were MILANs in particular, then CAESARs, etc. Even if for the latter their delivery was very publicized (I think it was a good advertisement for the sale of French weapons) but initially the quantities etc were more vague.

Don't forget the EU is financially compensating European countries who send arms to Ukraine. So in the end every gun, tank or shovel that is send is paid for by the EU, not individual countries. In that respect it's quite profitable to get rid of one's older military equipment too.

As important as the US support is, especially at the moment, it's Europe that will bear the financial burden of this war and what come with and after it. And you know what? We fully deserve that. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Beleg85]

Ok, new Putin speech was terrible even according to his own standards. Guy is like living in his own head and rewatching late Michalkov movies again and again.

- End of unipolar order, just in case anybody have any doubts.

- US bad bad bad, did not want to share influencewith dignified Russia

- Russia defended its economy and showed it will not go quietly into that good night.

-Taliban delegates were smiling

 

And this man takes decisions regarding this war.

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Ok, new Putin speech was terrible even according to his own standards. Guy is like living in his own head and rewatching late Michalkov movies again and again.

- End of unipolar order, just in case anybody have any doubts.

- US bad bad bad, did not want to share influencewith dignified Russia

- Russia defended its economy and showed it will not go quietly into that good night.

-Taliban delegates were smiling

 

And this man takes decisions regarding this war.

He showed concern for those poor Westerners who can't pay their energy bills anymore. That was nice of him...

[Beleg85]

Just now, Aragorn2002 said:

He showed concern for those poor Westerners who can't pay their energy bills anymore. That was nice of him...

It's getting better- EU is american colony and puppets of global finance (these tanks and howitzers did him some more pain than he likes to admit...).

A lot of speech was directed to already rogue countries dependent on Russia.

 

Oh, and on different part of InfoFront- Snowden again activated himself on twitter and is truly shocked by Assange extradition. No word about Ukraine for 3 months, of course.

[kraze]

4 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

He showed concern for those poor Westerners who can't pay their energy bills anymore. That was nice of him...

Good for him that russians don't have those, half of the country doesn't have an access to gas they themselves extract.

 

[Taranis]

23 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Don't forget the EU is financially compensating European countries who send arms to Ukraine. So in the end every gun, tank or shovel that is send is paid for by the EU, not individual countries. In that respect it's quite profitable to get rid of one's older military equipment too.

As important as the US support is, especially at the moment, it's Europe that will bear the financial burden of this war and what come with and after it. And you know what? We fully deserve that. 

I was unaware and forgot about this device. Thanks

[Aragorn2002]

1 minute ago, Beleg85 said:

It's getting better- EU is american colony and puppets of global finance (these tanks and howitzers did him some more pain than he likes to admit...).

A lot of speech was directed to already rogue countries dependent on Russia.

 

Oh, and on different part of InfoFront- Snowden again activated himself on twitter and is truly shocked by Assange extradition. No word about Ukraine for 3 months, of course.

Always had the impression Snowden is just a vulgar Russian spy.

[Harmon Rabb]

9 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Ok, new Putin speech was terrible even according to his own standards. Guy is like living in his own head and rewatching late Michalkov movies again and again.

- End of unipolar order, just in case anybody have any doubts.

- US bad bad bad, did not want to share influencewith dignified Russia

- Russia defended its economy and showed it will not go quietly into that good night.

-Taliban delegates were smiling

 

And this man takes decisions regarding this war.

 Judging by your description I'm sure Alexander Dugin is loving every second of this speech.

[Aragorn2002]

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

Good for him that russians don't have those, half of the country doesn't have an access to gas they themselves extract.

 

Yeah, I remembered your post about that, while writing mine.

[The_Capt]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, that's a key part of the reason the professionals largely missed the boat.

I agree with the thinking that you should prepare to fight the worst case scenario and hope that it doesn't happen.  However, it seems that the professional analysts think that's ALL they need to do.  I disagree.  They should game out various different scenarios with various different assumptions, examine the results, and design responses that are appropriate for each.

For example, when this war started analysts should have seen in the first few days (as I did) that Russia's fighting performance was crap, it's logistics were crap, it's air support crap, etc.  There should have been some past study that would fit the reality more closely than the flawed analysis that Russia was going to win this in a few days.  If such a study had existed, analysts could have dusted it off and said "OK, it looks like Russia went the stupid route.  Here's how we think it will play out".  Political and military leadership would be apprised of the change in assessment, which would have allowed them to adjust their responses accordingly. 

Instead we had shell shocked analysts doggedly telling us that Russia was on the cusp of winning, their best forces are not yet committed, the airforce is holding back for some reason, etc.  This insistence on keeping Russia up on a pedestal cost Ukraine lives and retarded the West's initial response.

So by all means game out the worst case, but game out other cases and be prepared to switch gears to evaluate the enemy's actions instead of fantasizing about what could have been.

Steve

So there is: what happened, what is happening and what will happen.  Everyone is interested in the last one and never spend enough time on the first two.  In reality good analysis should focus primarily on the first two and they are incredibly hard enough to get right. 

Resolution gets exponentially worse as you move left to right on this components - this is why right now we can only really make lo-resolution predictions.  We can say "Normalization between Russia and the West will likely take a generation after this war" with a level of confidence but we cannot say exactly when the RA is going to collapse.

The problem with a war, particularly one like this is that all analysts have are assumptions at the beginning of it.  These assumptions become the foundational what happened that they build their entire framework upon.  Then they tend to ignore counter-factuals as outliers and select information that supports their framework - I lost count how many times in Mar I heard "Ukrainians are putting up a spirited defence but this war is still going to end in Russian victory".  That is human nature, but one has to be aware it is happening.

The other problem I have seen in this war's analysis is a serious lack of expertise in those holding the microphones.  I have seen the gambit of western GOs, some with pretty impressive resumes, on mainstream news and then the slick haired "combat bros" who served in the SEALs/Green Berets/Marine Recon/Rangers pushing their "analysis" via social media.  The reality is that as legitimate as these people are, or are not, none of them have a clue about what they are talking about - none of us really do.  Why?  Because the people who actually would recognize this type of war, and they would even find some aspects very odd, are in their 80s-90s.  Even those are mostly in-the-trenches-soldiers because all of the more senior leadership from WW2 and Korea died years ago.  I don't care if you were a 4 star general at the tip of the spear in Iraq, or a Navy SEAL who shot OBL in the forehead - none of us have ever been in a war of this level of peer-intensity.  The last European industrial war was really Yugoslavia and it never got to this level of intensity - in fact I am stretching to find an outlier war of this intensity and duration in a standup peer-on-peer fight since Korea.

Finally, analysts are a social group whether they want to admit it or not.  As such, a lot of normalization and peer-pressure occurs that naturally suppresses outliers.  Steve would have been laughed out of the room of "serious military analysts" in early Feb, written off as some amateur enthusiast who clearly did not understand the deeper nuances of modern warfare.  The mainstream analysts are trapped in the same box as those they analyze for and outliers get filtered out all the time.  This creates a self-reinforcing loop of agreement as everyone references each other as the "collective expertise".  This forms an incredibly powerful collective "norm" where advising power as on outlier is very risky because the first hand raised is going to say "well that is not what I heard from {insert pundit rock-star of the day}".

 

[DesertFox]

36 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Same as all heavy tanks can the local infrastructure cope? 50 tons is about the cutoff point. Main bridges are obvious targets if you don't have air superiority. 

That is one important consideration for usage in ukraine. AFAIK most bridges there allow 40 metric tons maximum. That is one of the reasons why Leo2A4 (55 metric tons) and M1A1 (57 metric tons) and even newer (and heavier) western tanks don´t make much sense, unless NATO runs out of T-72s which can be sent. Also it is not only about the tanks and the to be trained crews (6 weeks minimum is my guess), you need a whole newly established supply and logistic chain to keep those western MBTs working. As long as there are T72s available, I think they are the better solution to the existing problem.

[keas66]

3 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Always had the impression Snowden is just a vulgar Russian spy.

I had the impression both Snowden and Assange were both in that camp from the get go  . At the very least receiving monetary aid   , info dumps and shelter  .

Edited June 17, 2022 by keas66

[RockinHarry]

While speaking of "Gepard" AA. Wondering what happened with german "Roland" system AA vehicles. Would they be still considered effective? Wiki says there´re 258 in german army and then decomissioned in 2005. Does that mean scrapped, mothballed or sold? Little to be found about them.

[Bearstronaut]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

in fact I am stretching to find an outlier war of this intensity and duration in a standup peer-on-peer fight since Korea.

 

 

Iran-Iraq War?

[Artkin]

Lol so now Ukraine uses Bayraktar over the sea? I assume this is out of range for any ground based EW. I also assume the RF ships don't have as much of a or any drone-based EW suite. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Artkin

[Aragorn2002]

7 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

Iran-Iraq War?

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Not the same kind of conflict, but similarities.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Aragorn2002]

9 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

While speaking of "Gepard" AA. Wondering what happened with german "Roland" system AA vehicles. Would they be still considered effective? Wiki says there´re 258 in german army and then decomissioned in 2005. Does that mean scrapped, mothballed or sold? Little to be found about them.

Partly still in use, I think.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/gepard/

The Gepards is still effective against both. Not state of the art ofcourse, but still lethal against low flying jets and helis and yes ground targets. It is a stop gap, but not one to be underestimated.

 

Kinda off topic, but I've been noticing with a lot of the videos posted here how the AI voice overs are getting scary good.  The intonations are getting much better.  This one was a little too "excited" at times, but the thing that gave it away is saying "mmm mmm" (long) instead of either "millimeter" or "mm" (short) and saying "Jepard" (soft G) instead of with a hard G.  Trying to figure out which words should be pronounced according to different languages is a huge problem, for sure.

Anyway, just thought I'm mention this because some of you might be like me in that I'd not listened to a lot of AI voice overs until the war started.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, and about the "loath to revisit assumptions" part in the above quote.  A couple of weeks into the war a professional group did a wargame that showed Russia winning after initially being stalled.  They published the results a couple of days after Russia retreated from the north.  The wargame showed Russia taking Kyiv.  Someone seems to have been loath to change modeling assumptions.

LOL and a bit of lack of awareness there too: They released a war-game showing the Russian Army taking Kyiv after all forces anywhere near Kyiv were withdrawn in defeat. Massive Ooops there.

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

That's where I am too.  I worry that for all our confident theorising, the front 'freezes' along the Dnepr land corridor and Sievertsi Donets (yes, no doubt the Russians will eventually vacate Kherson and east of Kharkiv). Ivan will dig in, revert to 1980s tech and mine the sh%t out of everything. So by fall, the sheer human cost of retaking the lost lands becomes higher than even the hardest line Ukrainians can stomach. While Putin manages to keep the lid on far longer than any non-Russian could possibly imagine.

Yeah I'm worried this will stall out too. I don't doubt that the Russian Army is battered and in terrible shape but they can sit around for a long time if they are not challenged hard enough. To actually collapse they need some strong actions to push them over.

 

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I could absolutely be wrong, sure and the Russian collapse could be sudden, and astonishingly rapid. I absolutely hope so.

Same. Maybe if / once the Ukrainian Army can force an artillery advantage they can use that to produce more opportunities to push the Russian Army house of cards over.

[panzermartin]

59 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

And you know what? We fully deserve that

EU citizens will have to pay for the mess that will follow. Why do we deserve this. 

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, keas66 said:

I had the impression both Snowden and Assange were both in that camp from the get go  . At the very least receiving monetary aid   , info dumps and shelter  .

My conclusion way back, yet to be disrupted, was that Snowden was a "useful idiot" who really thought he was doing the right thing.  There was another infamous case of this back in the Cold War which turned into a really good movie "Falcon and the Snowman".  Assange was at the very least a useful idiot, but I suspect was on the payroll.

In any case, both were functioning assets of the Russian foreign intelligence system.

For those who are defensive about this because of the whole 2015 election, please note that I was convinced of this well before then.  The 2015 election only reinforced those conclusions, as did subsequent findings out of the US and other Intel services shortly after.

Steve

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

We must be careful about Ukrainian numbers. I saw someone tweet that some of the spouted wounded/Kia numbers didn't make sense. Ukraine has a balancing act to walk, early-war, they needed to demonstrate the ability to survive and wage successful attacks on Russia, now they need to emphasize without further Western aid, they risk causing prolonged conflict, and part of emphasizing the need is illustrating significant damage to Ukrainian forces. Not to say that Ukraine isn't suffering heavily in numbers but independent verification is hard and Ukraine has goals that may prioritize a small fib over the truth.

The other thing we need to be careful of is seeing this through our own lenses.  I have no doubt the Ukrainian government published these dramatic numbers in order to reinforce their very real continued need for support; however, they may have misjudged the western reaction because we see this war through a very different lens.

The West has been human security focused for about 30 years - and this does not matter which side of the political house you are within - it is the natural evolution of highly powerful (and entitled) societies, to value the security of the person as the highest priority.  And even though human security is a key consideration within this war (e.g. war crimes, displacement, food security) it is not the key consideration.  [Oh dear, I can hear the collective shudder in some circles.]  Definitely for the Ukraine, and in a lot of way for the West this war is about collective existence and is therefore existential collective security focused in nature. 

We must avoid our own Western baggage with respect to casualties and war because the framework we use to make those assessments does not apply here.  This is the Old Red God - many hoped had fallen asleep forever, which was naïve wishful thinking.  He has woken up groggy and angry and decided on the old-school option to shake out the cobwebs.  Ukrainians taking 500 causalities per day may seem shocking when looking through a human security lens, which we then project into "Ukraine is losing...human tragedy...they should negotiate!  However, in the annals of warfare this is solid 5/10 of intensity (e.g Jul 1st 1916 - 57k UK casualties and on average 6k per day in WWI -  http://www.100letprve.si/en/world_war_1/casualties/index.html).  

Existential wars are on an entirely different level and as such we should not focus on "500 casualties per day" but instead on what those 500 troops are buying for their side.  Is Ukraine upside down in expenditure of people for what it is gaining losing...based on Russian speed of advance I have to go with a "no".  Now, Russia is likely losing more than 500 per day on the basis that it is still the attacker - is it upside down on its cost-to-benefits?  Much more likely.  And why it is trying desperately to have a lot of other people doing the dying besides actual Russian's right now.  Russian is losing at the same or worst rate and gaining literally feet of ground of seriously questionable operational value. 

Finally back to a central premise of mine - who is spending lives for options right now?  Who's option spaces remain sustained or expanding while the other side is in a losing equation?  The calculus of an existential war is absent of drama.  I have seen a lot of western media playing up the human drama in this war and it is counter-productive.  We can unpack the drama of this war for decades after it is over - this is about colder harder metrics where the value of a human life is only relative to what it is doing to your opponent.  What is chilling about all this is that this is one thing the Russian's already know, and we are just finding out.  Anyone think that Putin is having trouble sleeping at night right now?  If he is, it is not over the "good boys lost at Severodonetsk". 

We need to accept and understand that we, the West, are invested in killing Russians right now...in fact we are part of the kill-chain to do so and we cannot rationalize our way out of it.  We also need to become more cold blooded and objective focused and a less human security focused (obviously within reason) because the cost of this war is already high.  If we want to ensure that the 500 teenagers who die/hurt today did so for a good reason then it is on us to finish this thing on our terms, definitively.   

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by The_Capt