How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sross112]

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

None of what is listed here is guaranteed:

- The EU may look to the US to foot a significant portion of the reconstruction bill.  Plus the US is going to want a piece of that anyway - infrastructure equals influence.

- LNG/Energy.  Ok, Europe could also accelerate away from LNG to either renewables or coal, likely both.  Weaning them off cheap Russian LNG does not automatically equate to "buying American" with its shipping cost overhead etc.

- NATO - definitely going to get some momentum, but that is likely going to be a drain as demand goes up and every nation tries to do it as cheaply as possible, leaving hidden expansion costs to, yep the US as usual.

- China.  Don't get me started.  They have been sitting back and reaping intel rewards and LLs this whole war, plus they are likely to get access to the all that Russian cheap LNG, from a strong negotiation position. As we polarize up, the vacuum created by the collapse of the Russian Arms industry is more likely to get picked up by China.

Seriously, does anyone in that club look like they are going to cozy up to US arms imports?  India is the swing state; however, this war has rattled them energy wise as well.  I am not sure where Indian-Western relationships are going to go after this war.  This has been a major disruption.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/business/russia-oil-china-india-ukraine-war.html

https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/04/indian-foreign-policy-and-the-russian-ukrainian-war/

We can probably count on India continuing to backstop Russia as a minimum, they will just get everything cheaper from here on out.

Good post.

- Reconstruction: When looking at reconstruction costs I believe the US, UK, FR, well all the major players except Germany will have to take care of the lion's share. The German economy being tied so tightly to Russian gas that is now gone is going to hurt it a lot. Increased prices to replace, maybe not enough to completely replace, etc will make them unable to be the economic pillar of the EU and they won't be able to contribute nearly as much as they would have prior to all this. That will put the costs on those countries that won't be affected as badly by the energy problems. 

- LNG/Energy: Kind of goes along with the first part but the LNG crisis will be temporary for Germany. The substitution with coal and green will help on the power side but they need the LNG for its industrial uses. I doubt that North America will be the long term solution, it will be the stop gap until they can source more from existing fields around Europe and probably Ukraine after this is over. It will be a tough few years for German industry but in the end they will come back. 

- NATO: I know several countries have promised to increase their military budgets and enlarge their militaries, but that was right away after the invasion. Take Germany for instance. Right away they panic and put out how they are going to significantly increase their budget and size of the military. I think this was a parallel thought for them since they also thought Ukraine would fold fast and lose. I don't think Germany is stupid and they saw that if Russia succeeded in Ukraine it was only a matter of time before they pushed further. Therefore they looked at their military and thought they needed to do something drastic right away as a security measure as well as a signal to Russia that Europe would fight if pushed. Now that has somewhat changed as Ukraine isn't folding and will most likely end up kicking Russia out while at the same time destroying the RA. If the RA is mauled and takes a decade or more to rebuild it isn't a threat to Europe so most likely we won't see the big increases right away that have been proposed. Europe will see that the bear isn't a big threat right away and that they have time to react so a lot of the increases will be scaled back. Germany especially, as their economy takes a big hit for awhile they will want that money for internal social uses instead. Poland on the other hand I'm beginning to wonder if they don't have plans to conquer Russia after Ukraine beats them down. 500 HIMARs? Heck, long term the best option for Germany might be to totally get rid of its military and use its defense budget to prop up the Balts, Polish and Ukraine forces. Those backed by the US ISR and air will easily keep Europe safe from Russia for at least a few decades.

- Arms Industries: India is to Russian arms what Germany was to Russian gas. India has been moving towards building up their own arms industries and slowly weaning itself away from Russia but I expect that will accelerate now. Russia isn't going to have much to sell for a long time and a lot of what they were selling is now shown to be not as good as advertised. I think China might be able to step in and fill a lot of gaps as they will be able to provide the cheaper stuff like Russia did but I really expect Europe to have a significant increase in arms exports to fill the void in the markets. The big advantage that China probably has is that its equipment is probably the closest to the Russian variants and so the training and logistics for existing stocks in other nations would most likely need less change than switching to one of the other vendors. There are some rising competitors, South Korea sticks out, that we might see more customers switching to over the next few years as well. The richer customers might look to the US but I doubt they will pick up much business.

[Artkin]

India already has a ton of US made gear already. And 6 Billion USD? Meh! We could cut 30x that and still be the most competitive in the world. That is before China's cheaper labor catches up.

Interestingly India plans to dump Russia:

https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/helping-india-replace-russia-in-the-value-arms-market/

"

Currently, India lacks the financial and manufacturing capacity to kickstart its indigenous defense manufacturing. The “Make in India, Make for the World” initiative launched in 2020 seeks to revive industrial heavy manufacturing by attracting domestic and foreign investments, deregulating and de-licensing industrial processes, and providing government assistance to manufacturers.

In the defense sector, this initiative seeks to stop imports of defense systems such as artillery, missile destroyers, tank engines, and surface-to-air missiles by 2022. The effort to increase cash flow to domestic manufacturing resulted in import bans on entire weapons systems. To prevent import curbs from harming India’s ability to produce competitive quality weapons, however the Defense Production and Export Promotion Policy also created a Technology Assessment Cell, which will add flexibility to import restrictions. In short, India has already taken several steps to encourage domestic defense manufacturing."

 

Further, from the link "Imports of defense systems":

"India’s defence exports have recorded nearly a six-fold increase between 2017 and 2021, growing from ₹1,520 crore to ₹8,435 crore"

That's $187,950,000 to just over $1,000,000,000.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Artkin

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Grigb said:

And right on time

"I would like to see a man very similar to Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin as the Minister of Defense. "

Many months ago when we first started talking about Putin's replacement there were a number of conditions we agreed were necessary for this to happen.  One of which was a solid candidate for replacing him.  Prigozhin's name was raised as just such a possibility.  Now we're seeing his name quickly gaining attention.  This is not a coincidence.

In some ways Prigozhin taking over might be the best way for Putin to retire instead of having a heart attack.  My guess is Prigozhin would be able to convince Putin to step down "for health reasons".  From what I can tell there is trust between the two and Putin might be able to see that his position is untenable.  Maybe. 

The larger plan would be to have Putin step down, the constitutional successor stand in as a figurehead, and either call for early elections (Duma would need to stamp that) or wait until the 2024 date to come up.  Prigozhin could spend that time shoring up his base of support ahead of taking power in the open.

Steve

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, Artkin said:

India already has a ton of US made gear already. And 6 Billion USD? Meh! We could cut 30x that and still be the most competitive in the world. That is before China's cheaper labor catches up.

Interestingly India plans to dump Russia:

https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/helping-india-replace-russia-in-the-value-arms-market/

"

Currently, India lacks the financial and manufacturing capacity to kickstart its indigenous defense manufacturing. The “Make in India, Make for the World” initiative launched in 2020 seeks to revive industrial heavy manufacturing by attracting domestic and foreign investments, deregulating and de-licensing industrial processes, and providing government assistance to manufacturers.

In the defense sector, this initiative seeks to stop imports of defense systems such as artillery, missile destroyers, tank engines, and surface-to-air missiles by 2022. The effort to increase cash flow to domestic manufacturing resulted in import bans on entire weapons systems. To prevent import curbs from harming India’s ability to produce competitive quality weapons, however the Defense Production and Export Promotion Policy also created a Technology Assessment Cell, which will add flexibility to import restrictions. In short, India has already taken several steps to encourage domestic defense manufacturing."

One of my major projects in the last couple years before I retired was to deploy a VoIP network in India.  What a clusterfk. It was the WORST place I have had to work with, and I've done some 55 countries.  Nothing compared to the amount of pure bureaucratic under the table financial shenanigans and that includes having done China, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan.  I wouldn't hold out much hope for India unless their defense industry makes sure they don't copy their telecom industry.

I had to do 2 trips for face-to-face meetings because our consultants couldn't be sure what the gov't regulations would or wouldn't allow. 

[Artkin]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

One of my major projects in the last couple years before I retired was to deploy a VoIP network in India.  What a clusterfk. It was the WORST place I have had to work with, and I've done some 55 countries.  Nothing compared to the amount of pure bureaucratic under the table financial shenanigans and that includes having done China, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan.  I wouldn't hold out much hope for India unless their defense industry makes sure they don't copy their telecom industry.

I had to do 2 trips for face-to-face meetings because our consultants couldn't be sure what the gov't regulations would or wouldn't allow. 

Thanks for the insight, I'm not surprised.

India seems like a very fast paced environment with the extreme population density they have to suffer with.

It appears for sure they have ditched reliance from Russia and have instead decided to buy from the west.

They have AH-64E!

C130, the Air force's light workhorse airlifter. They had 6, but one crashed. If that seems small, their Il-76 fleet was only 17 in 2010. Apparently the Indian Air Force uses Boeing 737s too, maybe just for personnel.

and they are buying C17, Air force's medium workhorse airlifter.

 

It appears that they are in the process of slowly modernizing their kit. The transport planes are a good sell. I'm sure they're super reliable.

[Huba]

17 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Poland on the other hand I'm beginning to wonder if they don't have plans to conquer Russia after Ukraine beats them down. 500 HIMARs? Heck, long term the best option for Germany might be to totally get rid of its military and use its defense budget to prop up the Balts, Polish and Ukraine forces. Those backed by the US ISR and air will easily keep Europe safe from Russia for at least a few decades.

While we are getting really serious about defence, and kick-started a lot of major rearmament programs, we can't print dollars on a whim. Our MoD issued a Letter of Request for 500 HIMARS, but I believe that US answer was "LOL", or something along these lines.
We ordered a battalion of these few years ago, and it is to be delivered soon. Another order might follow, but for a few battalion at most. We are in talks with ROK about K239, which would complement HIMARS, and fire rockets/ missiles that we would be allowed to produce locally, on Korean license - no such perspective with GMLRS/ PrSM.

[A Canadian Cat]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

That would be a mistake.  While there is zero doubt that Ukraine has the right to return the borders to their pre 2014 war state,

Agreed

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

there are peculiarities to both LPR, DPR, and Crimea that might mean different approaches. 

Sure. But that's for Ukraine to decide.

If this were 2010 and the Ukrainian army were to move in strength against the dombas "break away" regions I would have supported it then and I would still. I realize that back then they would not have the same international support they have now. I get that. What I'm saying is they do have that support now and I think they still would.

Of course you are right there are other considerations and the best move might not be straight up military.

 

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Crimea is the big one.  Unlike ALL other territory Russia has seized, directly or through proxy, Crimea is considered a part of Russia by Russians.  They considered it that way even before they seized it. 

TFB IMHO

 

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This introduces variables that do not exist for any other piece of territory Russia holds.  Bounding into Crimea militarily without thinking all this through would be a very bad idea.  Very.

I don't agree. If the Russian army continues to collapse it could very well be the only time in the foreseeable future to get Crimea back.

 

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It could be that Ukraine takes a wait and see approach with Crimea.  If we're so sure Russia is going to collapse, might it not be better to strike during that period of crisis instead of before?  Maybe a concentrated PSYOPS campaign against Russians in Crimea could cause things to deteriorate even further by getting them to leave.  Or maybe Ukraine's military is freed up from every place else and can apply so much threat/pressure that there's some genuine interest for compromise by the Crimeans themselves?

Possibly but there are a lot of possible scenarios that don't go Ukraine's way if they take that approach. They could following a general collapse roll in and take over or push a little harder and take over. Then they could make all the deals and motivation they want to win the hearts and minds. Position is 9/10s of the law - seems like Russia lives by this so back at ya.

 

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

  This isn't even touching the option of destroying the Kerch bridge and making Crimea ungovernable.

Yikes why would destroying the bridge be any different than taking Crimea back? Seems like a distinction without a difference. Other than who governs Crimea

 

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

A few pages ago I put forward a theory that Ukraine might be better off peeling LPR away from Russia in exchange for some sort of enhanced autonomous rule.  No need to fight for the terrain, Russia gets a huge black eye (perhaps causing collapse in the Kremlin), and Ukraine isn't the one directly responsible for the continued misery of the people of Luhansk.  Then just wait for the inevitable time when LPR will want to renegotiate by giving up more of its autonomy in exchange for something like international redevelopment money.

I even agree that's a good idea.

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Similar possibility with DPR, though I get the sense that they could strike a better deal than LPR, so maybe the best thing to do is just let it collapse along with Russia and see what comes of that.

I agree that's a good idea too.

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

All of these concepts are not applicable to the land seized since February. 

Yep

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's far more straight forward, therefore concentrate on retaking that ground now and see how conditions might become more favorable as time goes on.

I would let the Ukrainian government decide but I agree your proposed strategies have a lot of merit.

I would recommend starting with some hard shoving to see how sturdy the three stolen areas really are on their own. I would do that while general battles are still on going - in other words not just stop at the 2014 borders. Even if I wanted to avoid the problems you cite with retaking the breakaway places fully by force. If the fall over - great. If they don't but you still hold more territory than they used to have - also great makes the negotiations easier.

One thing I think we should avoid in the West is getting all dictatorial with the Ukrainian government over where and when to stop. I'm not even supportive of restricting weapons use to the Russian border. If the Russian army is grouping inside Russia that is a legitimate target and we should not be holding anyone back from smacking them.

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Grigb said:

And right on time

 

The Czar is dead, Long live the Czar. That man is headed for a crown or a window at about Mach 1.5, with the throttles hammered all the way to the stops, and the afterburner flames visible from space. Does he have any competent adult sons or sons in law? I would like to familiarize myself with the new dynasty. Not really joking...

[The_MonkeyKing]

21 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Good pic. Accurate hit by the Russians. I am sure the keep hitting until they get the results they are after.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by The_MonkeyKing

[Battlefront.com]

23 minutes ago, IanL said:

Agreed

Sure. But that's for Ukraine to decide.

Absolutely.  My thoughts were from the Ukrainian perspective, nobody else's.

23 minutes ago, IanL said:

If this were 2010 and the Ukrainian army were to move in strength against the dombas "break away" regions I would have supported it then and I would still. I realize that back then they would not have the same international support they have now. I get that. What I'm saying is they do have that support now and I think they still would.

Of course you are right there are other considerations and the best move might not be straight up military.

Yes, that is my primary point.  Ukraine could just go balls-to-the-wall offensive to retake Luhansk, but maybe that isn't the best approach.  I was more-or-less trying to sketch out what some of those thoughts might be.  Ukraine has demonstrated a lot of smarts so I'm not concerned about their decision making.

23 minutes ago, IanL said:

TFB IMHO

Ultimately, yes.  But not taking your enemy's motivations and culture into account is dumb.  Sun Tzu said as much   So yes, whatever Ukraine decides to do should not be influenced on what Russia wants in-and-of-itself, but how Russian thinks about this and what it's limitations are might be leveraged for maximum gain.

23 minutes ago, IanL said:

I don't agree. If the Russian army continues to collapse it could very well be the only time in the foreseeable future to get Crimea back.

For sure.  I'm saying that I wouldn't plan on diverting resources away from retaking the post-February territory for Crimea right now.  Go for the "easy" stuff now and that might in turn make the "hard" stuff less difficult.  Could even solve itself for all we know.

23 minutes ago, IanL said:

Yikes why would destroying the bridge be any different than taking Crimea back? Seems like a distinction without a difference. Other than who governs Crimea

Russia controlled Crimea for almost 5 years without the bridge, it might be worth seeing how well Russia can handle its loss given larger problems Russia is experiencing.

23 minutes ago, IanL said:

I would let the Ukrainian government decide but I agree your proposed strategies have a lot of merit.

I would recommend starting with some hard shoving to see how sturdy the three stolen areas really are on their own. I would do that while general battles are still on going - in other words not just stop at the 2014 borders. Even if I wanted to avoid the problems you cite with retaking the breakaway places fully by force. If the fall over - great. If they don't but you still hold more territory than they used to have - also great makes the negotiations easier.

One thing I think we should avoid in the West is getting all dictatorial with the Ukrainian government over where and when to stop. I'm not even supportive of restricting weapons use to the Russian border. If the Russian army is grouping inside Russia that is a legitimate target and we should not be holding anyone back from smacking them.

Contingency plans are always a good thing.  Ukraine should also be ready to do whatever is necessary to leverage unexpected opportunities.  For example, starting discussions with LPR (if feasible) and encourage them to think they might benefit from ditching Russia.  If Russia does something to really piss them off, then perhaps they'll call Kyiv to hear more about the offer. 

The point here is that for the recently stolen territory the answer is pretty straight forward... take it back militarily.  For the other three spots?  Could be the same for all three, could be something entirely different for each.  Ukraine has many paths to restoring it's 2014 territory and military force is just one of them.

Steve

[dan/california]

37 minutes ago, Artkin said:

India already has a ton of US made gear already. And 6 Billion USD? Meh! We could cut 30x that and still be the most competitive in the world. That is before China's cheaper labor catches up.

Interestingly India plans to dump Russia:

https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/helping-india-replace-russia-in-the-value-arms-market/

"

Currently, India lacks the financial and manufacturing capacity to kickstart its indigenous defense manufacturing. The “Make in India, Make for the World” initiative launched in 2020 seeks to revive industrial heavy manufacturing by attracting domestic and foreign investments, deregulating and de-licensing industrial processes, and providing government assistance to manufacturers.

In the defense sector, this initiative seeks to stop imports of defense systems such as artillery, missile destroyers, tank engines, and surface-to-air missiles by 2022. The effort to increase cash flow to domestic manufacturing resulted in import bans on entire weapons systems. To prevent import curbs from harming India’s ability to produce competitive quality weapons, however the Defense Production and Export Promotion Policy also created a Technology Assessment Cell, which will add flexibility to import restrictions. In short, India has already taken several steps to encourage domestic defense manufacturing."

 

Further, from the link "Imports of defense systems":

"India’s defence exports have recorded nearly a six-fold increase between 2017 and 2021, growing from ₹1,520 crore to ₹8,435 crore"

That's $187,950,000 to just over $1,000,000,000.

 

28 minutes ago, sburke said:

One of my major projects in the last couple years before I retired was to deploy a VoIP network in India.  What a clusterfk. It was the WORST place I have had to work with, and I've done some 55 countries.  Nothing compared to the amount of pure bureaucratic under the table financial shenanigans and that includes having done China, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan.  I wouldn't hold out much hope for India unless their defense industry makes sure they don't copy their telecom industry.

I had to do 2 trips for face-to-face meetings because our consultants couldn't be sure what the gov't regulations would or wouldn't allow. 

The Indian government seems to combine the worst characteristics of third world corruption and U.S. style democratic sclerosis. There are zillion interest groups that have to bought off publicly, AND another zillion bureaucrats who need their palms greased, to do anything at all. So the default position is to do nothing, ever. Modi seems to have made this much worse, outside of a showcase project or two, and added a nice dose of religious extremism. Not sure where it goes from here, but not hopeful. 

As far as their defense industry goes, depending on Russia for weapons to fight China, or Chinese proxies with seems unwise. See above for why i don't expect them to arrive at a good solution.

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

well, at least US has managed to move its goals this far.

[The_Capt]

55 minutes ago, billbindc said:

On reconstruction and arms costs, I think we are very likely to see that age old American tradition of aid given that must be paid to American firms with profits mostly heading right back to the US. So, sure...it's a "cost" up front but it's less of one than meets the eye and again, the political and strategic benefits are obvious.

On China, I certainly agree that they are picking up lots of intel. At the same time, they are realizing both the enormity of any attempt on Taiwan while those nations disinclined to accept that proposition are seeing how it can be done successfully. I think this is particularly interesting in that context:  https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3156126/gray-dragons-assessing-chinas-senior-military-leadership/

And then there is the long term service contracts.  I totally get the narrative from a euro-centric POV; however, the reality of the US enterprise, it genius in fact, is to take the 19th century UK model and make it more inclusive.  Having dealt with US military my entire career and worked with people in trade and diplomacy who have also worked with the US very closely, the genius of the US system is that it really plays "win-win+" as brilliantly as any empire in history (I think they stole some from the Roman Empire as well).

By win-win+, I mean the US are masters of going into a nation and creating win-win opportunity, and then they leave a nice little margin for themselves to keep ahead, just enough.  The US track record is not perfect, and people/corporations who have exploited this have been caught out and anti-US crowds have built an entire mythology around it.  However, on the whole and in sum, this strategy has worked brilliantly.  So take Ukraine.  US goes in and funds $50B worth of infrastructure/reconstruction - some people will go "$50B!?  WTF, what about my XYZ?!  Damned government!"  Well as you say, most of that will be with US-heavy companies, but there will be spin of long term service and maint contracts that will go to local-US hybrids.  Ukraine gets new infrastructure and a foundation for long term growth, likely linked back to the US, there are obvious diplomatic pluses, the list goes on.  Win-win+.

China has been trying to emulate this strategy around the world but I think China is too xenophobic to make it work, frankly.  However, I think a major downside from this war is not the conventional deterrence vs China re: Taiwan, it is going to be a doubling down on unrestricted warfare/systems warfare to which we in the west are particularly vulnerable. 

[dan/california]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/15/world/ukraine-russia-war

As previously discussed, I don't think the public statements from a meeting between two near absolute autocrats mean much. However to the extent it is worth bothering to read the tea leaves from this one I get the distinct impression the Xi told Putin he was making the "Association of Evil Empires" look bad and weak at the same time. Xi seems less than pleased with this situation. I was really Expecting Xi to provide a bit more support in public regardless of the private telling off, this might actually mean something.

[Artkin]

Remember the last time the two met up for the 2022 winter olympics the war started!

What an absolute twist from 1945. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Artkin

[FancyCat]

Regarding the reluctance on long range missiles for Ukraine, I saw a comment on /r/credibledefense that made a decent point, anything the U.S provides sets a precedent for future proxy conflicts. Now yes, the USSR provided nuclear weapons capability to Castro (sorta) but the point still stands, any capability provided by the U.S will be viewed in the frame of escalation by others in the future.

In that sense, the U.S is keen to emphasize that it will stand by the pledge to not damage Russia on its side of the border. And obviously Ukraine has shown itself to be quite obeying to U.S requests, it's not the U.S government that almost got overthrown in Kiev a few months ago.

[FancyCat]

India will not exactly get closer to the U.S, other western powers like France, or maybe South Korea exist without U.S baggage.

[A Canadian Cat]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Absolutely.  My thoughts were from the Ukrainian perspective, nobody else's.

Yes, that is my primary point.  Ukraine could just go balls-to-the-wall offensive to retake Luhansk, but maybe that isn't the best approach.  I was more-or-less trying to sketch out what some of those thoughts might be.  Ukraine has demonstrated a lot of smarts so I'm not concerned about their decision making.

Fair enough - not much daylight between us if any really.

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure.  I'm saying that I wouldn't plan on diverting resources away from retaking the post-February territory for Crimea right now.  Go for the "easy" stuff now and that might in turn make the "hard" stuff less difficult.  Could even solve itself for all we know.

True and I agree with the exception that there should be no special "do not cross" treatment of the previous lines. I think they should take what they can get. I do agree with focusing on the easier parts first.

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia controlled Crimea for almost 5 years without the bridge, it might be worth seeing how well Russia can handle its loss given larger problems Russia is experiencing.

Except destroying the bridge would mean keeping it that way which would mean blasting any attempt to fix it. That's the part I view as what's the difference between that and straight up moving back into Crimea - it keeps the war going - longer if you have to knock down a bridge a few times a year.

Not to mention that destroying that bridge now is one thing but destroying the repairs after two years of relative peace is another. I guess my fear is that if Ukraine doesn't keep going now and finish the job they might not get another chance. After all there is still a possibility that Russia remains intact and governed by someone who doesn't want to give anything back to Ukraine.

But hey like we said the Ukrainians are the ones that get to decide. And the good part (no great part) is they seem to be well on their way to the point where they get to consider these issues an make that decision.

[danfrodo]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukraine should also be ready to do whatever is necessary to leverage unexpected opportunities.  For example, starting discussions with LPR (if feasible) and encourage them to think they might benefit from ditching Russia

It doesn't necessarily need to be any kind of serious discussion on UKR end, it just needs to look like that -- to Putin!  He's paranoid and if he thinks Luhansk/Donetsk is gonna jump, whether true or not, he might move a bunch of forces there, hopefully from Meliopol-Mariupol front.  Creating fear and uncertainty behind Putin's lines is a good move in general.

[dan/california]

35 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Absolutely.  My thoughts were from the Ukrainian perspective, nobody else's.

Yes, that is my primary point.  Ukraine could just go balls-to-the-wall offensive to retake Luhansk, but maybe that isn't the best approach.  I was more-or-less trying to sketch out what some of those thoughts might be.  Ukraine has demonstrated a lot of smarts so I'm not concerned about their decision making.

Ultimately, yes.  But not taking your enemy's motivations and culture into account is dumb.  Sun Tzu said as much   So yes, whatever Ukraine decides to do should not be influenced on what Russia wants in-and-of-itself, but how Russian thinks about this and what it's limitations are might be leveraged for maximum gain.

For sure.  I'm saying that I wouldn't plan on diverting resources away from retaking the post-February territory for Crimea right now.  Go for the "easy" stuff now and that might in turn make the "hard" stuff less difficult.  Could even solve itself for all we know.

Russia controlled Crimea for almost 5 years without the bridge, it might be worth seeing how well Russia can handle its loss given larger problems Russia is experiencing.

Contingency plans are always a good thing.  Ukraine should also be ready to do whatever is necessary to leverage unexpected opportunities.  For example, starting discussions with LPR (if feasible) and encourage them to think they might benefit from ditching Russia.  If Russia does something to really piss them off, then perhaps they'll call Kyiv to hear more about the offer. 

The point here is that for the recently stolen territory the answer is pretty straight forward... take it back militarily.  For the other three spots?  Could be the same for all three, could be something entirely different for each.  Ukraine has many paths to restoring it's 2014 territory and military force is just one of them.

Steve

There is a very strong real politik  argument that Ukraine should quit at the 2014 borders in return for EU. NATO, Reparations and so on. It would be a much more unified country, and far easier to govern well. I advanced that argument about twelve hundred pages ago in this thread. For better or worse, I don't think that is a sustainable political position in Ukraine anymore if the military conquest of the territory seized in 2014 is possible. Retaking Crimea and the L/DPR outright make Ukrainian victory undeniable, after the blood price they have paid they want that VERY badly. And we don't know if the Russian military collapse can be halted once it really gets going. Results from Kharkiv imply the only limit on Ukrainian exploitation once they get a breakthrough is their own logistics. It one thing to wage a grinding street by street house by house fight for Luhansk. It is quite another to seize it by a coup de main in a weekend and send the worst actors over the Russian border, or face down into a ditch, in an assisted panic before any silly legalisms have to be observed.

Edited September 15, 2022 by dan/california

[FancyCat]

I highly, highly doubt autonomy will be granted to the Donbas, nothing will be given that provides cover to separatist claims of special status to the Donbas or minority rights of Russians.

Crimea is more likely but I'm pretty doubtful there as well.

And I fully doubt Ukraine will allow a special carve out for the Donbas like a ceasefire for extended negotiations, nothing will be done to legitimatize the separatists, mark my words.

Sure, Ukraine may find the cost in blood to be hard. But it would be even more costly to allow the Donbas the special status now that one day Russia will take advantage of to meddle in Ukraine once again.

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, IanL said:

I guess my fear is that if Ukraine doesn't keep going now and finish the job they might not get another chance.

The question I have is what does "finish the job" mean?  All of Feb24 land + Donbas + Crimea?  I think finish the job is "get as much as possible before exhaustion forces you to the table".  But "as much as possible" starts w asking where is opportunity.  I'd say the Kharkiv front success was based as much on RU local weakness as it was to UKR strength.  But that's what being smart militarily often means  -- exploiting enemy weakness and stupidity.  So where is the next target of opportunity outside of Kherson?   And how can UKR exploit Putin's stupidity to get RU troops moved around in an advantageous manner?

[DesertFox]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

Well, it is a deception attempt to get off the hook from the MBT debate.

Ukraine. German MPs call on the government to increase military aid to Ukraine, including the supply of Leopard 2 tanks and Marder vehicles - Polish News

Pressure on Scholz seems to be increasing to deliver MBTs. In an interview with BILD, Ursula von der Leyen (Head of EU) said the following:

„Wenn sie sagen, sie brauchen Kampfpanzer, dann sollten wir das ernst nehmen und ihnen das liefern“

Translation: "If they say they need main battle tanks, then we should take it seriously and deliver those to them"

Interview between Paul Ronzheimer and von der Leyen here:

Ursula von der Leyen im BILD-Interview: EU-Chefin fordert Kampfpanzer für die Ukraine | Politik | BILD.de

[FancyCat]

Pre-invasion, sure, Minsk, etc. Post-invasion? Hell no. Not after Russia tried to pull off a Kharkiv and Kherson republic. In trying to seize Ukrainian territory beyond the Donbas, Russia has basically sentenced the Donbas to the position of removing special status by Ukraine in my opinion. Nothing can be allowed to let Russia one day to justify sticking it's claws in Ukrainian affairs.

And most certainly that will occur one day in the future, far it may be.

[sross112]

1 minute ago, FancyCat said:

I highly, highly doubt autonomy will be granted to the Donbas, nothing will be given that provides cover to separatist claims of special status to the Donbas or minority rights of Russians.

Crimea is more likely but I'm pretty doubtful there as well.

And I fully doubt Ukraine will allow a special carve out for the Donbas like a ceasefire for extended negotiations, nothing will be done to legitimatize the separatists, mark my words.

Sure, Ukraine may find the cost in blood to be hard. But it would be even more costly to allow the Donbas the special status now that one day Russia will take advantage of to meddle in Ukraine once again.

Agree. It would actually just put them back in the same position they were in at the beginning if they don't lance the boils of DPR and Crimea. The pain in the butt and cost to quell the separatists is probably the smaller bill to pay than to let them stand and wait for the next round of Russian BS.

My prediction is that the fighting won't be that hard once the RA truly collapses. The separatists were only able to hang on due to Russian support and once the dominoes start that support will vanish. Once the support vanishes my bet is that a lot of the separatists vanish as well. There will be the hard core hold outs that will have to be taken out but a lot of them are opportunists that will migrate when they see their opportunities vanish back to Russia.

The same is probably very true for Crimea. Yes, politically it will always be a thorn if Russia thinks it is "theirs". However, if the RA collapses and the UA is bearing down Ukraine should leave the bridge open for as many rats to scamper back across that want to. Once there is a victory for Ukraine and they've pushed back to their borders there will be no second chance at their infiltration games that started all this. With those off the table the only thing left is another outright invasion. It will be a long time before they have the strength to do it again and by that time I would hope that Ukraine is firmly entrenched in the EU, hopefully a member of NATO and has their military completely switched over to western weapons. This makes a new Cold War scenario where the Russians can be as mad as they want but they don't have the ability to do anything about it.