How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

A note on the hitting with the enemy as hard as possible, Ukraine seems intent on a situation where Russia withdraws it's personnel but must give up it's vehicles and everything else. That's a pretty good deal, probably a amazing deal.

In that sense, the death or capture of the Russian forces on the wrong side of the river, is less important than the seizure of that land according to Ukraine's actions.

At the end of the day, Ukraine needs the land and civilians back, not the dead or surrendered Russian soldiers to be victorious. The destruction or capture of Russian equipment is more important than even killing them.

[FancyCat]

Truly, the Eastern European alliance will rival France-Germany once Ukraine gets in the EU and with UK and USA in defense related matters, a impenetrable eastern flank of the EU will be formed defense wise.

France and Germany have completely screwed up. Whatever benefit isolating Poland will be cancelled out by this strong showing for Ukraine. Only positive is that French-German financial support bulwarks Ukraine and it would be inconsiderate to not recognize that this financial support is the only thing keeping Ukraine from a collapsing home front due to bad economic conditions.

On one hand, the lack of military aid to bring Ukraine to victory is extremely a negative factor, on the other, their willingness to not toss Ukraine into complete economic destruction and pave the way for easier Russian conquest I suppose does need to be considered. (Yes, the country can fight on with collapsing economy and lack of money but no? A country suffering food shortages, lack of energy, unable to rebuild due to lack of money importing, I think it's important for the defenders of Ukraine to know the home front is in decent condition, in the same way that millions of Ukrainians are out of harm's way in the rest of Europe, the ability of the Ukrainian state to operate in the non-frontlines is essential to maintaining morale and retaining unity)

Certainly if Ukraine had been abandoned by Europe, the struggle would be much harder on the rest of Ukraine so in that sense, the support from the EU is essential in maintaining the home front.

Can our Ukrainian friends provide info on how the home front is? I recall in the Balkans, how war causes hardship even in non frontline areas due to rise in prices, the shortages, stuff like that, economic hardship and collapse, my impression of Ukraine, I'm not seeing a lot to indicate extreme pressures akin to the Balkans in the 90s. It helps of course most of Ukraine is not in the frontline anymore, and Ukraine is a exporter of food, but my impression is EU support is keeping Ukraine in a situation better than most countries facing total war no?

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Ultradave said:

That "group" in the House seems to have one purpose in life. Make as much noise as possible and vote against EVERYTHING, no matter what the subject, no matter how beneficial it might be.

Dave

Yup.  As I stated when the Ukraine bill came up, at the local level we have a fair number of people that vote NO on every municipal budget item, including accepting REVENUE from State and Federal sources. Yup, the complain about their property taxes in loud angry voices, but then vote against receiving money to offset them.  These are not deep thinkers, that's for sure

Anyway, I think we've done what we need to do to reassure those not familiar with the US political system that they shouldn't worry about US support for Ukraine.  It's rock solid.

Steve

[FancyCat]

The last war in Europe was in the 90s, the Balkan conflicts, different populations, different realities, but my impression is certainly European support for Ukraine is certainly outclassing any support for Balkans, military or otherwise aid to civilians, etc.

Obviously of course, things have changed, with Eastern Europe having functioning economies, but it is notable no? That the support to Ukraine is this weighty?

I wonder if the experts in predicting the Russia vs Ukraine conflict, are relying on factors that may not be coming true in reality? Certainly, say we placed Ukraine vs Russia and cut out the rest of the world, instant Ukrainian defeat, or such a destruction and grind down of Ukraine by Russia that the military collapse appears in due time simply from the destruction of the home front and hardship of civilians and the resulting inability for the military to operate on top.

Both in a psychological and material sense, the support that the West provides Ukraine is very important. No doubt Ukraine would fight with or without European support but with it, certainly the bombastic assertions of the Ukrainian government in seeking the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukraine as conditions for a ceasefire are closer to reality than dreaming.

Edit: I think despite it being not enough, and being too slow, that it's important to recognize that this aid is a game changer, that it is unique, that it marks significantly important milestones in the European project and Western unity.

Edited July 28, 2022 by FancyCat

[dan/california]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/27/ukraine-win-war-us-stronger-weapons-russia/

What he said!

[Battlefront.com]

About Crimea...

Although Grigb is correct that Russia doesn't care one iota about the people living there (even the Russians who moved in after 2014), it does care about prestige, denying it to Ukraine, and Sevastopol.  This is why Russia chose to annex Crimea instead of having a fake independent state like with Luhansk and Donetsk.  Russia will fight hard to keep it for those reasons alone.  Other Ukrainian territory is much less meaningful and therefore the degree of fight over them less.

Any thought of Ukraine militarily taking Crimea should be written down on a piece of paper, crumpled up, thrown over your shoulder (preferably into a fire of some sort), and forgotten about.  It will not happen.  Not even if the Russian Federation collapses.

The alternatives to a military solution are few, but they do exist.  The most obvious is to have it be part of peace negotiations with a collapsed or desperately weak Russia looking to end the war.  Even then I think Russia would not accept an outright handover to Ukraine because of the humiliation factor.  Some sort of return to the way things were before 2014 might be as far as Russia would go.

Ukraine does have the option of cutting off water, electricity, and trade to Crimea.  This would be horrible for the people who live there, many of which want to return to Ukrainian rule.  Opinions might change if Ukraine is seen as subjecting them to collective punishment.  At least before the war that would be the case.  Now there is an actual war perhaps they will cut Ukraine more slack.  It is hard to say, therefore Ukraine needs to think long and hard before it does something.

In my view the best way for Ukraine to get back Crimea is to:

1. push Russia back to at least the pre-February 2022 boundaries
2. destroy the Kerch bridge
3. make it clear to Crimea that Kiev controls their destiny, not Moscow
4. send in "Little Green Men" to create conditions for a reverse of what Russia did in 2014
5. when the timing is right, have a legitimate referendum that gives the Crimeans a choice between a semi-autonomous province of Ukraine or full reunification with Ukraine.  The difference being that a semi-autonomous province gets less resources from Kiev and say in Ukrainian politics, but more local control.

This is vastly more realistic than a military assault on Crimea, however there is a scenario where Russia is so weak from civil war that Ukraine can basically walk in and take Crimea back without much of a fight.  I still think a slower process is better.

Steve

[danfrodo]

xxxxxx

Edited July 28, 2022 by danfrodo
deleted

[FancyCat]

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

About Crimea...

Although Grigb is correct that Russia doesn't care one iota about the people living there (even the Russians who moved in after 2014), it does care about prestige, denying it to Ukraine, and Sevastopol.  This is why Russia chose to annex Crimea instead of having a fake independent state like with Luhansk and Donetsk.  Russia will fight hard to keep it for those reasons alone.  Other Ukrainian territory is much less meaningful and therefore the degree of fight over them less.

Any thought of Ukraine militarily taking Crimea should be written down on a piece of paper, crumpled up, thrown over your shoulder (preferably into a fire of some sort), and forgotten about.  It will not happen.  Not even if the Russian Federation collapses.

The alternatives to a military solution are few, but they do exist.  The most obvious is to have it be part of peace negotiations with a collapsed or desperately weak Russia looking to end the war.  Even then I think Russia would not accept an outright handover to Ukraine because of the humiliation factor.  Some sort of return to the way things were before 2014 might be as far as Russia would go.

Ukraine does have the option of cutting off water, electricity, and trade to Crimea.  This would be horrible for the people who live there, many of which want to return to Ukrainian rule.  Opinions might change if Ukraine is seen as subjecting them to collective punishment.  At least before the war that would be the case.  Now there is an actual war perhaps they will cut Ukraine more slack.  It is hard to say, therefore Ukraine needs to think long and hard before it does something.

In my view the best way for Ukraine to get back Crimea is to:

1. push Russia back to at least the pre-February 2022 boundaries
2. destroy the Kerch bridge
3. make it clear to Crimea that Kiev controls their destiny, not Moscow
4. send in "Little Green Men" to create conditions for a reverse of what Russia did in 2014
5. when the timing is right, have a legitimate referendum that gives the Crimeans a choice between a semi-autonomous province of Ukraine or full reunification with Ukraine.  The difference being that a semi-autonomous province gets less resources from Kiev and say in Ukrainian politics, but more local control.

This is vastly more realistic than a military assault on Crimea, however there is a scenario where Russia is so weak from civil war that Ukraine can basically walk in and take Crimea back without much of a fight.  I still think a slower process is better.

Steve

Ukraine will retake the Donbas before Crimea. It is important to note, while Crimea is more important than the Donbas puppet republics, those republics and Crimea are such high levels of prestige that Russia losing the republics will hurt just as badly as Crimea.

I've emphasized that Russia's narrative in Ukraine relies on holding Kherson. Once they lose Kherson, Putin must mobilize or the Russian people are going to start asking, "if we are losing, why aren't we going all out to win?" If he does not mobilize, he has to some way turn the remaining occupied territory into a stalemate and force a ceasefire, stalemate and ceasefire he might get away with some excuses.

If Ukraine can illustrate the ability to launch a offensive and take Kherson, I see no reason why offensives into the rest of the occupied territories isn't possible. Without mobilization Russia does not have the ability to hold any Ukrainian territory.

At some point, mobilization will be too late. There is a possibility it's too late already. Ukraine will be able to reach and conquer the puppet republics.

If Putin cannot mobilize, and save Kherson, unless he's absolutely stupid and getting the most misleading information from his military, mobilization to save the puppet republics won't make it in time to stop Ukraine. That he seems absolutely terrified of telling Russians it's time for
mobilization, indicates that the support for dying in Ukraine, hell dying for the puppet republics is paper thin.

Therefore, I'm gonna disagree with you on speed, and on the feasibility of taking Crimea. If Ukraine retakes the puppet republics, then the Ukrainian military is probably sufficient to invade Crimea. If Ukraine takes the republics, the Russian military does not have the ability to defend Crimea. If Ukraine takes Kherson and Putin does not mobilize, unless he's just getting the most incompetent advice from the General Staff, he's more afraid of mobilization than the loss of the Donbas republics.

At that point, with no mobilization, the impending loss of the Donbas republics means the circular firing squad starts getting into motion in Moscow. If I were Ukraine, I would rush into Crimea and retake it while Putin and the rest of the Russian government fight over the blame and control of pro-war Russia. Let time pass, Russia will sort out it's internal problems and reinforce Crimea and status quo will entrench.

No, even if it hurts, the best chance for Ukraine to retake Crimea is militarily, and quickly before Russia can sort itself out.

If Russia mobilizes, the equation changes but mobilization takes time to occur and so that window gets smaller depending on how Ukraine does on the offensive.

Edited July 28, 2022 by FancyCat

[akd]

My guess is someone dropped a cigarette before they ran for cover:

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by akd

[FancyCat]

Something to emphasize, if Ukraine reaches the point where it can launch offensives, and can therefore end the puppet republics, Ukraine must do so even if the loss of Russian prestige causes Russian escalation and intense actions against Ukraine? Why? Because as long as Ukraine claims the republics territory, and as long as they exist, Russia will hold a powerful card to interfere in the affairs of the Ukrainian state. Why it didn't annex the republics is in contrast to Crimea, Russia has no use for the republics being part of Russia, their goal is for these republics to drag Ukraine down and provide justification for Russian intervention in Ukraine. Removing them removes the cancer of Russia from Ukraine.

[BFCElvis]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

Yeah, US aid to Ukraine is not under any threat no matter who wins congress.  Even if, in a couple years, the Putin-loving Trump won again he'd have a very hard time going against massive bipartisan public & congressional opinion on this.  So my thanks to all those in congress of both parties who have chosen to do the right thing!  There's 435 members of the house of representatives.  20 crackpots voted no.  F them, they are up for election every 2 years and hopefully they are pushed out.  Though with some nice benefits -- one 2 year term in the house gives you gold-plated govt-paid health insurance for life -- no one else in america gets free, guaranteed healthcare coverage that good for life, not even veterans.

A little more than needed. Throttle back, please.

[Vet 0369]

On 7/27/2022 at 1:53 AM, dan/california said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/opinion/ukraine-russia-us-diplomacy.html

 

It is stunning that two major figures in the national security establishment can publish something this bad. Doubly so when we are on the verge of sending home the army that has been the bogey man of the last 80 years in little tiny broken pieces. 

Couldn’t read The NY Times OpEd you attached. It’s behind a paywall.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Vet 0369
Typo

[Haiduk]

Not only famous night bombers R18 octocopters, equipped with RKG-1600 HEAT bombs now can hunt for Russian armor.

UKR became use M430A1/M433 HEDP dual purpose grenades, equipping with them small DJI/AUTEL drones. In this case you can receive more chiaper solution then "specialized" bombers like DJI Martice 300 and R18

DJI Matrice 300 with revolver-type bomb-dropping device. The drone equipped with usual VOG-17, but I think HEDP version is coming soon. 

 

HEDP grenade can penetrate up to 63 (M433) - 76 mm (M430A1) of armor - ideally for dropping it on engine compartment. 

Russian T-80BV - got HEDP to engine, but likely just damaged 

This T-80BV(M?) was not so lucky

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Not going to try finding the full version of this video because of how barbaric it sounds.

As repulsive as this video sounds I'm not even surprised anymore, given all the other war crimes we have heard of by now.

[MSBoxer]

5 hours ago, Ultradave said:

While that is true many times, for this bill this was not the case at all. (and also for several other recent bills). I read the bill to see if there was some reason they might have voted against it. It's just a few pages and deals only with human trafficking prevention and survivor support. That's it. It really is that simple.

Dave

I have not had time to read the bill, so was unsure.  Just wanted to point out some the games that are played.  I am not surprised that this group voted against.

[acrashb]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

I wouldn't put it in such absolute terms because winning a battle does not automatically win the war. Destroying your enemy's capability to fight the next battle is a valid goal, too.

In this case I propose

a) that "winning" was defined to narrowly if we focus on a battle and not the war; and

b) we don't have to fight to destroy the enemies' capability to fight.  First, capability is only one part it - there is Will and Energy and one more to be affected (see the_capt) as well.  Further, capability can be degraded by non-kinetic methods, like comprehensive sanctions, as we are seeing in real-time right now.

In the case of the current war, if RA retreats from Kherson in a disorderly manner and without bridging assets, they will leave their heavy equipment and vehicles behind.  Pretty destruction of capability there, with little or no fighting, which would be a great outcome.  And it would seriously affect Will for the next fight.

3 hours ago, Huba said:

Unfortunately this isn't always true.

If fighting is an objective, I propose that the objective is actually an method layer on one or more underpinning objectives. 

In the Bismark case the underpinning objective was unification - the chosen method.  It would have been better if unification could have been achieved without fighting (not say it could have been, I don't know, just that any possible alternative would have been better). 

In the bar/street fighter example, sure, some guys (usually guys) just plain like fighting because of some underpinning objective (e.g., adrenaline rush, dominance over others, etc.) So what do get from fighting and how could they get that without actually fighting?  That would be better.  I brought street fighting in, so I guess you can comment on it, I should have stuck to warfare and policy

Sometimes war is necessary (see the French vis-a-vis Bismark) but winning without fighting is better - if it is possible.  

I made a fairly absolute statement and am being called on it.  Fair enough.  Even if someone develops a corner case where the statement is incorrect, I'm pretty comfortable with it as close-enough-to-absolute and invariably good guidance.

 

[Zeleban]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Действительно, восточноевропейский альянс будет конкурировать с Францией-Германией, как только Украина войдет в ЕС, а с Великобританией и США в оборонных вопросах будет сформирован неприступный восточный фланг ЕС в плане обороны.

Франция и Германия полностью облажались. Любая выгода, изолирующая Польшу, будет сведена на нет этим сильным выступлением для Украины. Единственным положительным моментом является то, что французско-немецкая финансовая поддержка поддерживает Украину, и было бы неосмотрительно не признать, что эта финансовая поддержка — единственное, что удерживает Украину от краха в тылу из-за плохих экономических условий.

С одной стороны, отсутствие военной помощи, чтобы привести Украину к победе, является крайне негативным фактором, с другой, их готовность не ввергать Украину в полное экономическое разрушение и не прокладывать путь для более легкого российского завоевания, я полагаю, действительно нуждается в рассмотрении. (Да, страна может бороться с разваливающейся экономикой и безденежьем, но нет? Страна, страдающая от нехватки продовольствия, нехватки энергии, неспособная восстановиться из-за отсутствия импортных денег, я думаю, что защитникам Украины важно знать тыл находится в приличном состоянии, точно так же, как миллионы украинцев находятся вне опасности в остальной Европе, способность украинского государства действовать вне линии фронта необходима для поддержания морального духа и сохранения единства)

Конечно, если бы Украина была брошена Европой, борьба с остальной Украиной была бы намного тяжелее, поэтому в этом смысле поддержка ЕС необходима для сохранения тыла.

Наши украинские друзья могут предоставить информацию о том, как обстоят дела в тылу? Я помню на Балканах, как война вызывает трудности даже в неприфронтовых районах из-за роста цен, дефицита и тому подобного, экономических трудностей и коллапса, мое впечатление об Украине, я не вижу многого, что указывало бы на чрезвычайное давление, подобное на Балканы в 90-е гг. Это помогает, конечно, большая часть Украины больше не находится на передовой, и Украина является экспортером продуктов питания, но у меня сложилось впечатление, что поддержка ЕС держит Украину в лучшем положении, чем большинство стран, столкнувшихся с тотальной войной, не так ли?

 

In general, the situation is quite tense, food and fuel prices are constantly rising. In the first months of the war, our government kept the value of the national currency against the US dollar. But in the last month, the hryvnia was released into free fall and declared that the old prices for the dollar would no longer exist. Prices for literally all groups of goods began to rise noticeably.

Despite all this, the mood of the people is quite calm. I expected that during the war it would be much harder in the rear. So thanks to our Western allies for economic assistance

[Haiduk]

Russians issued a video how their loiterng munition is desrtoying UKR transmitting module for Bayraktar in Kherson oblast. This is not control station, but the module which allows to expand operational area

Russians used in this strike upgraded loitering munition Lantset, but I can't find it real name. This type with one big wing instead pairs of X-wings in Lantset-1 (1 kg HE) and Lantset-3 (3 kg HE) was spotted in first time in Syria in 2021. Reportedly it can carry more heavy warhead. Usual Lantsets can fly aboput 30 minutes on the range 40 km

 

 

[Billy Ringo]

21 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Not going to try finding the full version of this video because of how barbaric it sounds.

As repulsive as this video sounds I'm not even surprised anymore, given all the other war crimes we have heard of by now.

This is why the Ukrainians shouldn't or won't let any Russian walk away from Kherson or anywhere else. 

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Grigb said:

Strom is brewing - Girkin in VK reposted request for help from Syktyvkar (Komi Republic) locals.

Extremists are, by their very nature, intellectually inconsistent.  In reposting this appeal, Girkin is endorsing the notion that for the State to succeed it needs to be fair and just with its people.  He's said the same thing directly in some of his other postings.  And yet, when it comes down to it he openly advocates for an authoritarian system that will not be fair and just with its people.  It simply isn't compatible.

It's like the warped mentality of people in democracies who endlessly complain about corrupt, ineffectual, and repressive government then put all of their support behind autocratic movements which are clearly corrupt, ineffectual, and advocating repression even BEFORE they get into power. Yet they defend such people tooth and nail, rejecting all emperical and historic evidence that they are going to get the exact opposite of what they claim the want.

5 hours ago, Grigb said:

I call RU Pressure Cooker. Others call RU a rock, it cracks imperceptibly, in small cracks, without sound, but one day it just collapses.

P.S. Girkin in VK started to name names apart from Shoigu - he named Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Alexey Krivoruchko who is responsible for many areas where RU army failed miserably.

 Well, even if there is no Prags among RU military soon there will be - you can negotiate with Doves/Liberals. 

Yes, this is another thing that also escapes the Ultranat thinking.  They don't want their form of government to "compromise" with the other side, but fail to consider that it is inevitable that at some point they will be on the other side.

Steve

[Endyamon]

Sorry for the little off-topic

I was only wondering why in all video where RU tanks are destroyed, those tanks are (most of the time) alone, sitting there with zero crew members around or infantry. Does anyone knows why? I mean, I'm not an amateur, but not an expert at all in "war videogames", but I find these situations of lone tanks really dumb. Is there any chance that those thanks are abandoned? I mean, I know that RU army is really really dumb, but I find amazing if they are really SO doumb

[Haiduk]

1 minute ago, Endyamon said:

Sorry for the little off-topic

I was only wondering why in all video where RU tanks are destroyed, those tanks are (most of the time) alone, sitting there with zero crew members around or infantry. Does anyone knows why? I mean, I'm not an amateur, but not an expert at all in "war videogames", but I find these situations of lone tanks really dumb. Is there any chance that those thanks are abandoned? I mean, I know that RU army is really really dumb, but I find amazing if they are really SO doumb

Neither Russians nor Ukrainan units don't fihgt 24/7 and don't sit in own armor 24/7 watching around through the sights, like in the games. Especially if this is not "zero line". The crew can rest in shelter or in the house nearby and in this time something falls from the sky

[Battlefront.com]

45 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

HEDP grenade can penetrate up to 63 (M433) - 76 mm (M430A1) of armor - ideally for dropping it on engine compartment. 

Russian T-80BV - got HEDP to engine, but likely just damaged 

....

This T-80BV(M?) was not so lucky

Both looked like they weren't crewed at the time as nobody bailed out or in any other way react, even though the first bombs obviously didn't score kill hits the first time.  Curious.

Steve

[danfrodo]

55 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

A little more than needed. Throttle back, please.

roger that, deleted

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Endyamon said:

Sorry for the little off-topic

I was only wondering why in all video where RU tanks are destroyed, those tanks are (most of the time) alone, sitting there with zero crew members around or infantry. Does anyone knows why? I mean, I'm not an amateur, but not an expert at all in "war videogames", but I find these situations of lone tanks really dumb. Is there any chance that those thanks are abandoned? I mean, I know that RU army is really really dumb, but I find amazing if they are really SO doumb

Heh... I didn't see your post until I just posted the same thing about the T-80s   Here's my guess...

We do see plenty of videos of AFVs being blown up with crews in or around them.  There was one posted a couple of pages ago where a crew member crawled under the tank for protection just before it catastrophically exploded.  However, I am also noticing a lot of "abandoned" vehicles being blown up by improvised drone bombers.

My guess is that when the vehicles are parked for any length of time the crews make sure they are nowhere near them due to the risk of sudden destruction without either warning or possibility of escape.  I'm guessing this because that's what I would do.

Steve