How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

19 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I don't think me being German has much to do with it.

"Everyone in Eastern Europe knew" is an extremely bold statement. "Suspected" or "feared" is probably much closer to the truth. "just a matter of time" is also not the same as "soon" or "in February". The other day I read a comment from a Hungarian colleague (last time I looked Hungary was still Eastern Europe) wo didn't care about Russia and Ukraine at all and just wanted to be left alone and mind his own business. So "everyone" is also not true.

Now, don't get me wrong, I freely admit that the Eastern Europeans were always much more wary about Russia and warned us about too close ties and that Russia wasn't done escalating - and they were right. I personally just find it non-credible that in hindsight now everyone and their dog claim to have known what was going to happen.

That is fairly balanced opinion and probably close to truth. Just the scale of emotions associated with Russia is so vastly different in our countries that it makes Eastern Europeans (+ Finns) white hot (ok, Finns never get hot, red or white  ) when they hear calls again and again to being "rational" about Putin. Germans specifically still probably underestimate how much credibility they lost in CEE because of scholzing; this thorn in relations will last for decade if not longer.

The learning curve for parts of western business/political elites is steep, they visibly don't like it and need constant beating with stick by US/CEE and own public opinion. Ofc Orban and Erdogan are another matter on their own.

https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1559718565808185344

Another short thread from Ryan.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Beleg85

[billbindc]

6 hours ago, Butschi said:

Do they provide actual proof or is it just a claim after the fact?

It is sad if the CIA or whoever had real proof and nobody believed them but I have to admit I highly doubt everything that comes from a US government saying we know X because of intelligence agency Y. In the past we have been lied to in this way just a little bit too often.

Also, according to members of the former German government not even the Ukrainians believed in a full scale invasion.

The US didn’t have “proof” because that’s not the way it works. It had strong intelligence from many sources within the Russian military and government pointing in that direction while the shambolic nature of the preparation gave naysayers something to point to if they were so inclined. I get it…the Iraq War was just one of the times where the US pushed something that turned out to be wrong and it is reasonable for other nations to be skeptical. This was not one of those times. The troop deployments were there to see. The statements by the Russian government on where their thinking was vis a vis a continued Ukrainian state were clear. France and Germany simply didn’t want to believe it because they didn’t like what they were hearing. That’s ok too! But the Biden team got it right and deserve every bit of credit for how they prepped the diplomatic ground and provided (and continue to provide) materiel support.

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

I think this is just you being German. Everyone in Eastern Europe knew Russian attack is just a matter of time. 2008, 2014, of course they were going to continue.

 

I am not offended or challenging your statement, but I am curious what you meant by it? What about being German would cause someone to not believe an attack was imminent? 

[Battlefront.com]

If one goes back to the beginning of this thread (2 weeks before the invasion) you can see some pretty good discussions about the mindset at the time.  If you look at sections of the thread soon after the invasion you can see even more assessment of per-war thinking.  I'll summarize what I saw at that time as someone who a) knew Russia would attack eventually and b) had a very low opinion of Russia's ability to pull it off.

I think it is fair to say that most people looked at the Russian buildup with skepticism.  Russia has done these sorts of buildups several times now for the usual reasons of bullying neighbors into doing what they want "or else", while at the same time claiming people are overreacting to "exercises".  However, such "exercises" were also used as cover for the forces that eventually invaded in June, July, and especially August of 2014.  Creating uncertainty in the minds of Russia's enemies was also a big part of the regularity of the buildups.

However, by January it was pretty clear to us open source people that this time was different.  The scale of the deployments was very different.  Very expensive as well.  Anybody with a decent understanding of Russia knew at this point that something was going to happen.  The political rhetoric out of both DLPR and the Duma was different.  There were some traditional Russian "playbook" elements missing (see comment below), but for the most part the question being asked wasn't "will Russia invade?" but rather "how will it invade?"

Many people, such as myself, thought that Russia would declare the Donbas a part of Russia and then push forces into the region to expand the territory outward.  No ground attack on Kiev, no fantasy attack towards Odessa, MAYBE securing a land bridge to Crimea (I'd have put that as medium probability at the time).  Russian skeptics like me thought t would be a limited attack simply because anything more than that was outside of Russia's capability to pull off.  Others thought it would be limited just because that's what Russia normally does (i.e. avoiding large scale, hard to exit warfare).  The common element was thinking a full scale invasion of Ukraine was not in Russia's best interests.  Obviously all of us were correct it was a mistake to do a full invasion, but all of us were also wrong that Russia was smart enough to know it.  Much of the discussion in February was trying to figure out why Russia made a different calculation for its chances of success.

The bulk of people out there didn't understand what was going on so they either denied it was going to happen, and that Biden was being "hysterical" (Russian useful idiots played this up big time, especially in the US), or just didn't think they needed to care about it. 

To help address this, and to pressure governments in denial, the Biden admin made the unprecedented move of revealing the intel it had at a high level.  This threw Russia's gameplan off big time and probably explains why their usual buildup of propaganda and false flag stuff was held until a couple of days before the invasion instead of the usual weeks or months.  This did have the effect of further confusing Russian experts who were using these things as a final indicator.  I include myself.  It wasn't until these things kicked in (somewhere around Feb 20/21) that I personally became 100% convinced the war was days away.  I still didn't think they would be dumb enough to invade on that scale, but I now thought it was a possibility.

Governments, on the other hand, were a different matter.  Of course the US did not show the public it's detailed intelligence, but it SURE AS HELL DID show it to France, Germany, and others of NATO.  The victims of Soviet/Russian aggression seem to have been more receptive.  The Balkans definitely were, so was Poland.  But the further west you went, the less likely there was buy-in.  They should have known better, full stop no excuses. 

As February came closer and closer it seems even Germany and France were willing to admit there was a possibility the US was correct.  No matter how reluctant some nations were to admit they might be wrong, contingency plans were made and agreed to by the NATO governments.  France tried to play the Good Cop role with Germany, and Russia obviously lied to their faces.  That likely helped with switching gears when the invasion started.

I think Germany and France got themselves reluctantly boxed into some serious sanctions commitments.  They signed off on things they didn't think would ever be needed in order to appease the US, Baltics, Poland, and others who weren't drinking the Russian Kool-Aid.  Then when the invasion happened they had to follow through if for no other reason than to save face.  They probably hoped the war would be short and they could weasel out of their sanctions commitments and get back to soaking up Russian energy and money just like the good old days.  Except Ukraine didn't comply with this request and here we are today.

The bottom line -> anybody who didn't see the Russian invasion coming was either ignorant or in denial.  The evidence was there even for us open source types.  The evidence for governments was absolutely detailed.  Whatever credibility problems the US intel community might have, going forward it now has credibility and its previous doubters do not.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I am not offended or challenging your statement, but I am curious what you meant by it? What about being German would cause someone to not believe an attack was imminent? 

Denial works this way.  A Russian invasion was going to force Germany to choose between it's friends and allies or cheap energy to fuel its economy.  It knew damned well it couldn't have both like it did in 2008 and 2014.

Put another way, admitting that Russia was going to invade Ukraine basically meant acknowledging that the German economy would suffer several years of problems.

Steve

[kraze]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

It's easy to say that in hindsight, I doubt many would have bet money on it before.

Nah, everything was literally in the open for nearly a year at least. But people, who screamed on top of their lungs that Russia is going to invade soon were laughed at and had buckets of **** poured on them on TV. Intelligence officers daring to claim that invasion is happening soon were fired. It was a literal Don't Look Up for a year.

When that movie came out - it was extremely painful to watch and we still had two months to go.

Edited August 17, 2022 by kraze

[Billy Ringo]

2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/16/creating-chaos-zelenskiys-adviser-outlines-ukraines-military-strategy

Interesting link to interview with Podolyak about Ukrainian aims in this phase of the war.

 

From the article:  “Russian ears only open up when there is a giant military bat hitting the Russian head,” he said.

Truth.

One perpetual question I have is: Who is really calling the shots for the US response and strategy for Ukraine?

I am not a Biden fan, can't stand him or what he stands for.  But I have been very impressed with the overall strategy and support for Ukraine.  So he gets the credit as the man at the top regardless of who/whom is delivering the goods.

But who and or what group is driving the US strategy?  What to send, when to send it, how to send it, how to manage the press and public opinion, work directly with the Ukrainian government and their military, work directly with other countries, etc.   Is it Biden? Is it his cabinet?  One particular group or team in his administration? State Department?  Is it the US military? Some combination of Senators and Congress?  Who is coordinating the strategic efforts across the US players?

Would love to hear other's opinions and insight as to who is running the show for the US?

Thanks in advance.

[BlackMoria]

24 minutes ago, kraze said:

Nah, everything was literally in the open for nearly a year at least. But people, who screamed on top of their lungs that Russia is going to invade soon were laughed at and had buckets of **** poured on them on TV. Intelligence officers daring to claim that invasion is happening soon were fired. It was a literal Don't Look Up for a year.

When that movie came out - it was extremely painful to watch and we still had two months to go.

Reminding me of this guy....

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

I'm not saying Biden didn't know or believe in an actual invasion but the fact that he announced it to the world is not a proof that he did. It could also have been a bluff to discourage Putin from trying anything more aggressive.

Btw. Scholz also claims to have known already back in winter(?) 2021 and prepared accordingly. 

What did he do? Chop some extra firewood?

[Aragorn2002]

3 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/16/creating-chaos-zelenskiys-adviser-outlines-ukraines-military-strategy

Interesting link to interview with Podolyak about Ukrainian aims in this phase of the war.

Oh, plenty of people did, boths experts and commoners. Even some politicians here and there. NATO was preparing contingency plans long before. But most governments were mainly in "OMG I can't believe it" mode.

I would like to think this will be lesson for the future, but knowing how Europeans are unaccustomed to cope with the danger of massive violence I would be pessimistic. It's easier to deny reality or push responsibility for the bloodshed on locals and their "strange ways" (in this case Ukrainians).

One simple rule. When dealing with Russians, always expect the worst. Can't go wrong with that.

[danfrodo]

34 minutes ago, Billy Ringo said:

From the article:  “Russian ears only open up when there is a giant military bat hitting the Russian head,” he said.

Truth.

One perpetual question I have is: Who is really calling the shots for the US response and strategy for Ukraine?

I am not a Biden fan, can't stand him or what he stands for.  But I have been very impressed with the overall strategy and support for Ukraine.  So he gets the credit as the man at the top regardless of who/whom is delivering the goods.

But who and or what group is driving the US strategy?  What to send, when to send it, how to send it, how to manage the press and public opinion, work directly with the Ukrainian government and their military, work directly with other countries, etc.   Is it Biden? Is it his cabinet?  One particular group or team in his administration? State Department?  Is it the US military? Some combination of Senators and Congress?  Who is coordinating the strategic efforts across the US players?

Would love to hear other's opinions and insight as to who is running the show for the US?

Thanks in advance.

Maybe the US decision making is being done in a competent way w set of experts debating options toward a specific goal -- supporting UKR and defeating RU while not widening the war.  There's a set of folks (joint chiefs, defense chief, state chief) that take in all this and come up w a joint recommendation, laying out pros & cons, for which Biden signs off w or w/o some additions/subtractions.  Basic organizational competence is a mystery?  This level of organized support doesn't happen by accident.  It's the outcome of competent, professional management.

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by danfrodo
edit

[akd]

40mm hole in one:

 

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, akd said:

40mm hole in one:

 

Now that is efficiency.  Multi-million dollar tank destroyed by $100 munition dropped by drone that cost a few thousand dollars and survives the encounter to drop more cheap things on expensive things.  That is beeeeyuuuuteeeeful.

[sburke]

46 minutes ago, Billy Ringo said:

From the article:  “Russian ears only open up when there is a giant military bat hitting the Russian head,” he said.

Truth.

One perpetual question I have is: Who is really calling the shots for the US response and strategy for Ukraine?

I am not a Biden fan, can't stand him or what he stands for.  But I have been very impressed with the overall strategy and support for Ukraine.  So he gets the credit as the man at the top regardless of who/whom is delivering the goods.

But who and or what group is driving the US strategy?  What to send, when to send it, how to send it, how to manage the press and public opinion, work directly with the Ukrainian government and their military, work directly with other countries, etc.   Is it Biden? Is it his cabinet?  One particular group or team in his administration? State Department?  Is it the US military? Some combination of Senators and Congress?  Who is coordinating the strategic efforts across the US players?

Would love to hear other's opinions and insight as to who is running the show for the US?

Thanks in advance.

It's me.  I've been holding off saying anything just because then I'll get all sorts of pressure from everyone with an opinion on how it should be done.  Hold on a minute, phone ringing off the hook..... 

Hi Joe.  What?  Just send the f'n rockets already will ya? 

Sorry I'm back anyway where was I?

Seriously, there isn't a single person.  There are entire communities, military, intel, state. etc  Where I give Biden credit is

1. He's listening to his experts

2.He's following through and doing his portion of the job

3.He isn't grandstanding for points.  Just slow and steady and doing what smarter people are telling him we need to do.

The issues pointed out earlier about mistrust of intel is based on situations where our politicians wanted to do something and didn't want to listen to anything counter.  That's where you get into trouble trying to justify what you've already decided to do.

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Reminds me of this quote by Ronald Reagan. “Surround yourself with great people; delegate authority; get out of the way”

 

[sburke]

Russian response to surgical strikes on military targets by Ukraine - more terror bombing.  Just one more indicator of how Russia just doesn't know how to fight this war.

Russia Strikes Ukrainian Ports After Crimea Blasts (msn.com)

[riptides]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

..... Hold on a minute, phone ringing off the hook..... 

Hi Joe.  What?  Just send the f'n rockets already will ya? 

Sorry I'm back anyway where was I?

......

Good thing we have discussion boards.... I did NOT say send rockets, I said send the dockets. We have to keep up with logistics and I need paper supporting those efforts.

 

On a more serious side, I am sure the military has this scenario played out in spades over the years. The slow roll of aggression in different parts of the world. The think tanks whole reason for being.

 

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

 

 

[DesertFox]

Just now, sburke said:

Russian response to surgical strikes on military targets by Ukraine - more terror bombing.  Just one more indicator of how Russia just doesn't know how to fight this war.

Russia Strikes Ukrainian Ports After Crimea Blasts (msn.com)

The question I wonder is, why don´t they use those rockets to strike at military targets? Is their INTEL really that bad that they can´t identify any or do they simply think strikes at civilian dwellings produces pictures for propanganda they can use internally to support their rotten political system?

[akd]

Longer version confirms T-72B3M destroyed and also shows T-72B3 indecisively attacked:

Edited August 17, 2022 by akd

[Beleg85]

10 minutes ago, akd said:

Longer version confirms T-72B3M destroyed and also shows T-72B3 indecisively attacked:

Finally some good music in those videos. I think I hear a song by 'Rome" or "New Model Army".

 

Ok, this is instant classic by OBrien regarding common trends in International Relations theory. It alligns nicely with the thing we discussed before: there are plenty of important and (nominally) smart people in the West who really stubbornly try not to see elephant in the room, even when they are crashed by its giant ass and constantly rubbed by elephant's trunk at their face. Their perception of reality is simply unable to grasp the twists of fate.

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

I'm not saying Biden didn't know or believe in an actual invasion but the fact that he announced it to the world is not a proof that he did. It could also have been a bluff to discourage Putin from trying anything more aggressive.

Btw. Scholz also claims to have known already back in winter(?) 2021 and prepared accordingly. 

The proof that Biden new and believed is the Afghanistan exit. I have zero inside knowledge on this, but I am convinced knowing about Russias plans for Ukraine are why Biden got out of Afghanistan so abruptly. We just would not have been ale to respond the same way with the Taliban suddenly being flooded with Russian kit.

[danfrodo]

13 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The proof that Biden new and believed is the Afghanistan exit. I have zero inside knowledge on this, but I am convinced knowing about Russias plans for Ukraine are why Biden got out of Afghanistan so abruptly. We just would not have been ale to respond the same way with the Taliban suddenly being flooded with Russian kit.

Maybe true, maybe not.  Interesting possibility, though.  For now I am sticking w my current afghan belief:  Biden knew it for what it was, a lost cause that was getting increasingly ridiculous (arms being sold/given to enemy, deals by local commanders w enemy, etc).  And I'll also take him at his word that he wasn't 'going to kick this can down the road to the next president' (paraphrase). 

Either way, he did lead the call that "crazy f-ing Putin is actually going to attack you at any moment, get your s-t together ASAP!"

And now we have the world's biggest trouble maker drowning in an endless war that is destroying his military & his economy while making him an international pariah -- so he's basically destroying his own power.  I do so love this aspect of it.  Even many of the IT hackers he needs to do cyber war have realized they are better off working for the west and have fled.  You couldn't make this stuff up it's so amazing.  

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Billy Ringo said:

One perpetual question I have is: Who is really calling the shots for the US response and strategy for Ukraine?

I am not a Biden fan, can't stand him or what he stands for.  But I have been very impressed with the overall strategy and support for Ukraine.  So he gets the credit as the man at the top regardless of who/whom is delivering the goods.

But who and or what group is driving the US strategy?  What to send, when to send it, how to send it, how to manage the press and public opinion, work directly with the Ukrainian government and their military, work directly with other countries, etc.   Is it Biden? Is it his cabinet?  One particular group or team in his administration? State Department?  Is it the US military? Some combination of Senators and Congress?  Who is coordinating the strategic efforts across the US players?

Would love to hear other's opinions and insight as to who is running the show for the US?

Thanks in advance.

On one hand, I think I see what your asking, who are the people most strongly pushing for Ukraine aid and assistance and who is more cautious in regards to supplying Ukraine, and is a tempering voice on high level discussions on Ukraine, on the other hand, the way you are framing it, makes it seem that Ukraine aid is more of a pet project, a operation that certain sections of the government can opt out of providing support or can drag their heels if not comfortable with the state of policy on Ukraine.

Which is certainly valid, but something to emphasize, the U.S government has been acting with precision and clarity on Ukraine. Whatever Biden and co's failings, they have enabled a U.S government response that is not piecemeal or unfocused, where confusion can reign and people can drag their feet.

With that out of the way, let's talk about various factions in the U.S government that will influence Joe Biden who is shot caller. I have not seen anything to suggest that the one who signs off on Ukraine decisions is someone other than him so I'll stick to him being the shot caller.

We know that there are cautious/pro-peace/timid factions in the White House, I believe National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is part of and the most prominent member considered timid on Ukraine. We know there are more pro-Ukraine individuals pushing for more aid to Ukraine, my impression is the Joint Chiefs and more broadly, the U.S military is most in favor of this.

Something else to bring up, Ukraine has done amazing in ensuring U.S strategy is what it is. Had Ukraine been less able to defend it's territory, or manage worldwide perception of Ukraine's struggle, you would see more cracks in the U.S response, that you do not, is a testament to the Ukrainian resolve and intelligence on fighting this war.

Another thing to look at, is Russia's current outlook and strategy for fighting this conflict has essentially shut down more timid policy influencers and has strengthen U.S clarity of response. By continuing maximalist goals in Ukraine with seemingly no attempt at creating doubt at Russian goals and strategy in Ukraine, they have stopped making cracks in the U.S response. Russia has not given any meat to more cautious people in the U.S to say, "Russia is backing down, let's give our own backing down responses to hopefully facilitate mutual de-escalation." Things like advancing towards a annexation of Ukrainian territory are maximalist goals that make it impossible basically for the U.S to initiate de-escalation.

[Butschi]

17 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The proof that Biden new and believed is the Afghanistan exit. I have zero inside knowledge on this, but I am convinced knowing about Russias plans for Ukraine are why Biden got out of Afghanistan so abruptly. We just would not have been ale to respond the same way with the Taliban suddenly being flooded with Russian kit.

While not implausible, that too is no proof. Maybe total coincidence and he would have pulled out of Afghanistan no matter what. I don't want to belittle what he has accomplished, he did a great job, as far as I am concerned abd for the end result it doesn't matter for which reasons he did what. I'm just curious if he had real proof, like intercepted orders, war plans, you name it or if he just bluffed. Both interesting in its own way.

[dan/california]

58 minutes ago, akd said:

Longer version confirms T-72B3M destroyed and also shows T-72B3 indecisively attacked:

If even one attack in twenty actually kills a vehicle, or a soldier it is a huge success in the cold math of war, triply so when you consider the harassment  value.

 

That photoshop of the Chinese robot dog they stuffed into lycra is absolutely hilarious. The only thing better would be a spy subbing in a live rocket to really spice up the vaporware expo.