How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

8 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

Too bad the schools have largely resegregated themselves, but yeah, nice try.

Yes, I have an annoying tendency to reedit my posts, but you will find I broadly agree with you.

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

not be used as a "shock troop"

Even their airborne "shock troops" not all equipped with BMD-4M/BTR-MDM, still using old BMD-2/BTR-D

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Progressive nibbling, even if it eventually frees Kherson and perhaps even Izium, is simply playing Russia's (new) game at this point. Permanent loss of the land bridge makes Russia master of the Black Sea and creates a long front within range of major Ukrainian population centers and allows them to reinvade in the future.

This is flawed thinking from a military standpoint.  Look at any largely static front in any war and you could come to the same conclusions.  For example, the Normandy bridgehead expanded then ground to a halt.  The Allies made only incremental gains at great cost.  At the time one could have said that it wasn't good enough and that Hitler was going to win because there wasn't some big breakthrough.  But in reality, those battles caused the Germans a lot of casualties they could not afford to take at a time when they were under pressure on two other fronts, especially the Eastern Front.  Then one day, the Germans could no longer contain the Allies in the West and within a very short time all of France was liberated and a few months after that so was Nazi Germany.

I've said this since the first few days of the war.  All Ukraine needs to do retain the ability to kill Russians and it will win this war.  The speed at which it kills them determines how long the war will last.  But the end is predetermined by Russia's inability to keep what it took if Ukraine remains committed to taking it back.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

All Ukraine needs to do retain the ability to kill Russians and it will win this war.

And Steve, I agree 110% with that one liner! If there's a single 'bullet' that describes this entire thread, that is it!

But if they are going roughly 1 to 1 for an extended duration, and without defeating the army in open battle, of a country 2.5 times their size, that does NOT work.

Like all historical comparisons, the Normandy analogy is imperfect.

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[chuckdyke]

Normandy succeeded because of its air superiority over Western Europe. You need it over the Ukraine too to silence the Russian artillery. 

[Haiduk]

48 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Very alarming figures coming out of Ukrainian military(notice, this is full attention from all sources):

 

I wrote about this yesterday. Key words here "That is mathematical estimations we can make". Our officials either don't want to think by own heads what they say and how their words can be interpreted or this is government "victim position" for pressure on West.  

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Haiduk said:

Even their airborne "shock troops" not all equipped with BMD-4M/BTR-MDM, still using old BMD-2/BTR-D

Yup, and this is one of the major failings of Western analysts before this war started. Over and over and over again you see them talk about how the Russian military has "modernized" and yet the evidence is clear that they had not done so.  Had Russia modernized SOME forces?  Yes.  But the military as a whole?  Absolutely not.  This matters a lot when looking at the proposed use of Russia's military.  Military analysts didn't seem to think it mattered at all.  And they were obviously very wrong.

Steve

[Beleg85]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Once Belarus became a defacto extension of Russian territory in 2021, the ability to launch a regime change invasion of Ukraine became logistically easier to do. 

I am sure Belarus made it clear they would not participate in the initial invasion, which Putin probably agreed to because he didn't think they would be needed.  Later, when the war decidedly didn't go Putin's way, it seems equally clear that Russia pressured Belarus to attack.  However, it seems Putin was convinced that if he forced the issue then there might be a revolt by the Belarus armed forces and/or a civilian uprising.  Russia could not handle that and the war in Ukraine, so Putin backed down.

And so there we have it.  War was going to happen anyway, sooner probably than later, but the problems in Belarus both accelerated the "need" for war in Ukraine as well as providing a base to make the invasion more viable.

Steve

This is probbaly very accurate depiction of things. It's worth to note in this context that already 2 months ago there were reports of Russian officers (or Russian-minded Belarusians, even retired SU career offcers back in service) taking care of Belarusian units, and we see unprecedented scale of manouvers, security checks and troops moving around.

Right now analysts dealing with Belarus speculate Lukashenko is desparately trying to fight for his own loyal cadre to be kept in charge of his own forces. Thus his strange and erratic messaging last months.

 

Also it's more and more obvious to me that Kazakhstan expedition -that so many Central Asian analysts tried to explain in geopolitical terms, even talking about New Silk Road- was actually giant cope cage for Putin to give him extra conviction about resiliance of his VDV troops in taking airport, riding downtown and shooting surprised crowds. One piece of self-confirmation machine that spinned acording to wishes of the Czar.

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Beleg85

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, Haiduk said:

Even their airborne "shock troops" not all equipped with BMD-4M/BTR-MDM, still using old BMD-2/BTR-D

Age is not a problem. Problem is the recoilless gun. BMD-2 has 30mm gun which is considered far superior to recoilless gun. Valid comparison would be units equipped by BMD-1.

 

[chris talpas]

Silencing or at least severely attriting Russian artillery is key.  Other armoured vehicles can be dealt with via atgms.  Hope the additional longer ranged western weapon systems can make the difference.

 

[Haiduk]

6 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Age is not a problem. Problem is the recoilless gun. BMD-2 has 30mm gun which is considered far superior to recoilless gun. Valid comparison would be units equipped by BMD-1.

 

Except 30 mm gun this is the same BMD-1 with all problems of "almost one-off vehcile". Russians during upgrading works after 2008 just mounted turrets of decomissioned BMD-2 on relatively new hulls of BMD-1 and changed radio and NV capabilities. 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

And Steve, I agree 110% with that one liner! If there's a single 'bullet' that describes this entire thread, that is it!

But if they are going roughly 1 to 1 for an extended duration, and without defeating the army in open battle, of a country 2.5 times their size, that does NOT work.

Sure it does.  Population size doesn't matter when the will, or in some cases ability, is no longer sufficient to wage war.  And to illustrate that...

14 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Like all historical comparisons, the Normandy analogy is imperfect.

Absolutely.  So here's another one... Afghanistan under ISAF.  The United States had a population advantage over Afghanistan 10:1.  Add in all the European country's populations plus the populations of the other contributors (including, it should be said, Ukraine), and the ratio is something like 30:1.  And guess what?  ISAF had to pull out and Afghanistan reverted to Taliban control as it was in 2001 when the war started.

OK, a 30:1 population ratio didn't make a difference in this case, so why should Russia's paltry 2.5:1 advantage over Ukraine be all doom and gloom?

The key point here is that Russia's population advantage only matters if Russia is both willing and able to continue the war to a point in which Ukraine gives up and hostilities end.  Which is why I say that as long as Ukraine retains both the capability and will to kill Russians, Russia will lose.  The rate at which Ukraine kills Russians only determines the speed at which Russia is defeated.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, and already discussed   It seems this is part of a coordinated Ukrainian PR offensive to hurry up Western aid (generally) and to get heavy equipment (specifically).  The figures are likely truthful, but not necessarily in context.

Steve

11 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I wrote about this yesterday. Key words here "That is mathematical estimations we can make". Our officials either don't want to think by own heads what they say and how their words can be interpreted or this is government "victim position" for pressure on West.  

aa, I missed that. Good reads

[FancyCat]

Retaking Kherson is by no means a nibble. It is essential for Russia to retain Kherson in order for Putin to give the impression that Russia has gained from starting the war. If Russia does a stalemate, that somehow allows Kherson to fall, Putin will not fare well domestically. Imo, if stalemate was sufficient for Putin to declare victory and walk away, he would have attempted it by now, but he has not.

Edited June 18, 2022 by FancyCat

[Grigb]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Back to the pondering of the "why Putin did this war now" question.

Let's put aside the possibility that the timing was mostly due to Putin's health and/or sense of mortality.  I personally think this was a huge factor in all of this, perhaps THE deciding factor, but even without it I think this war was going to happen anyway.  Therefore, it's not wrong to put it aside and look at the rest of the picture because it is still relevant.

I believe we are missing Crimea water problem. The Invasion of 2014 was not as successful as it might seem. RU failed to capture the land bridge and thus failed to ensure water supply to Crimea. The result was ecological catastrophe in slow motion.

So, Putin had very real pressure to start a war with Ukraine as soon as possible to capture at least enough UKR land to ensure water supply. And if you are going to war why not to try to capture whole things? Military reports they can defeat UKR resistance in couple of days. So, all out war for quick regime change is better than limited invasion with unclear exist strategy. 

[Huba]

Dutch PM on the support to Ukraine @Aragorn2002

 

[Letter from Prague]

Here's a video I don't think I've seen in this thread: 

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/veykmu/ukraine_korean_navy_seal_ken_rhee_and_team/

Those are some very calm people, given the situation.

[FancyCat]

9 minutes ago, Grigb said:

I believe we are missing Crimea water problem. The Invasion of 2014 was not as successful as it might seem. RU failed to capture the land bridge and thus failed to ensure water supply to Crimea. The result was ecological catastrophe in slow motion.

So, Putin had very real pressure to start a war with Ukraine as soon as possible to capture at least enough UKR land to ensure water supply. And if you are going to war why not to try to capture whole things? Military reports they can defeat UKR resistance in couple of days. So, all out war for quick regime change is better than limited invasion with unclear exist strategy. 

Extremely good point, I can't see a scenario where Kherson is retaken, and the water supply not threatened for Crimea.

It is essential to see that Russia is inflicting major damage on its own armed forces pushing offensives for political purposes, such as the complete conquest of Kherson oblast, a precondition so far for legal annexation into Russia. Same applies to the other contested oblasts. If stalemate was a acceptable goal for Putin to pursue, it plays that he would have stopped offensives and played for much less bleeding of his own troops and pursue diplomatic outreach while bleeding the Ukrainians much worse than presently.

That he pushes for these offensives indicates that stalemate is unacceptable for Russia.

A scenario where Putin touts the conquest of Kherson and then loses it and must state he has only brought stalemate in return for economic hardships unseen since the 90s?

No, no Kherson is not a nibble. If Ukraine can take Kherson, Ukraine has the ability to launch and defeat Russia in pitched battle, as Russia cannot lose Kherson and still claim victory.

[Grigb]

Just now, FancyCat said:

No, no Kherson is not a nibble. If Ukraine can take Kherson, Ukraine has the ability to launch and defeat Russia in pitched battle, as Russia cannot lose Kherson and still claim victory.

Yes, I believe the same. Crimea is like crown jewel of Putin Imperial legacy. Even ecological catastrophe or even just threat of it will destroy Putin as Imperial Builder. I my humble opinion UKR can just cut off Crimea, destroy the bridge and do nothing until RU collapses into internal struggle. Then simply follow retreating RU forces and liberate everything.

The only problem would be time given to nationals > increased pressure to use the Red button.

[Haiduk]

Ukrainian resistance in Kherson сonducted attempt on mayor of State penitetniary service Yevhen Sobolev, the chief of local correctional facility №90. He betrayed Ukraine and of own free will maintained deployment and food supply for occupation forces. IED was placed on the tree and activated, when the traitor drove in the car nearby. Despite on recently claims of Sobolev's death, he just got heavy injuries of legs (some sources say about amputation). His driver wasn't injured

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Haiduk

[LongLeftFlank]

39 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Yes, I believe the same. Crimea is like crown jewel of Putin Imperial legacy. Even ecological catastrophe or even just threat of it will destroy Putin as Imperial Builder. I my humble opinion UKR can just cut off Crimea, destroy the bridge and do nothing until RU collapses into internal struggle. Then simply follow retreating RU forces and liberate everything.

The only problem would be time given to nationals > increased pressure to use the Red button.

But retaking the north bank of the Dnipr is a long way away from retaking the land bridge.

And it's not about what we think, it's what Putin can get away with forcing Russia to think.

.... So restating my prior case, if the liberation of Kherson (north bank of Dnipr) does not come with the effective destruction of the Russian armies currently occupying it, it is tragically NOT decisive, at least not by metrics that matter in terms of Russian regime change (and reinvention of Russia on more constructive terms for its own people, not to mention its neighbours and human civilisation in general).

....While if it does include decisive defeats of the Russian armies, then by definition the door is open to the restoration of the 2014, and perhaps the 2002 frontiers. In effect, the UA has cracked the code, as the Americans did in Normandy and elsewhere.

But nobody has shown me a convincing path to that yet.

[YouWillOwnNothing]

On 6/17/2022 at 12:17 PM, Offshoot said:

Is this the same Alexander Mercouris who was disbarred by the Bar Standards Board in 2012? If so, he sounds like someone you can really trust for some "realism" - https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/disciplinary_finding/76984.html

Edit: I should have noted that in another Youtube video he is described as "a former London lawyer".

Did I recommend to buy a used car from him?

I reminds me about a Nazi, refusing to look at a calculation presented by Einstein, because it was from a jew.

 

Additionally I find it extremely strange, to argue about a logical assessment or calculation, if it could be BELIEVED, as if it was not a matter of presented facts and true or false assumptions.

Attacking the messenger is not making the arguments and facts go away.

 

The next day Mercouris did another excellent analysis on the readouts of the Putin - Xi call:

 

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

editor stuff.

 

5 minutes ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:

Did I recommend to buy a used car from him?

I reminds me about a Nazi, refusing to look at a calculation presented by Einstein, because it was from a jew.

 

Additionally I find it extremely strange, to argue about a logical assessment or calculation, if it could be BELIEVED, as if it was not a matter of presented facts and true or false assumptions.

Attacking the messenger is not making the arguments and facts go away.

 

The next day Mercouris did another excellent analysis on the readouts of the Putin - Xi call:

 

Dude, you have four posts on here? and to dignify your track record with the term 'drive by spamming/trolling' is a severe insult to spammers/trolls.

Articulate actual arguments here, or just bugger off.

Edited June 18, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Haiduk]

Oleksiy Danilov, the secreter of National Security council, criticized words about UKR army losses and huge need in equipment of Mykaylo Podoliak from President's Administration and David Arakhamiya, the head of parliament fraction of "People's servant" party and the head of negotiation group with Russia:

"I want to appeal again to our doers, who claim, that we have daily losses in 200, 300 KIA on frontline. Somebody even claimed about 1000... They havn't any opportunity to get such information. This can't be jungled. This is not skittles and not circus. 

I don't understand, why he (Podoliak) makes theese statements. Is he General Staff representative? I have seen him only on the stumps of Yanukovich. Since when he became voice of army? This things have to voice-over only Zaluzhnyi, Shaptala (chief of General Saff) and Reznikov"

There is need to say Danilov is antagonist of all former Yabukovich's "Party of regions" members, which enough number came to the team of Zelenskyi.

Edited June 18, 2022 by Haiduk

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:

Did I recommend to buy a used car from him?

You do recommend to buy his lies, comrade.

 

1 minute ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:

I reminds me about a Nazi, refusing to look at a calculation presented by Einstein, because it was from a jew.

And your talking point about Nazi reminds me about Olginka building, comrade.

 

6 minutes ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:

Additionally I find it extremely strange, to argue about a logical assessment or calculation, if it could be BELIEVED, as if it was not a matter of presented facts and true or false assumptions.

Comrade, your masters' tactics of using useful idiots to throw in RU propaganda as if it is not coming directly from RU is well known. 

His talking point were already discussed and disproven. Notably by your own side, comrade