How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

Been thinking along those lines since the failure of Russia's Operation B&B aka Bumbling Blitzkrieg. So while we can use public info to get a handle on #1 (military) and use ISR and precise messaging to all parties to minimize #2, #3 (the brass ring) is hard for us to get a handle on because a lot may come about via cloak and dagger. Yet, we can witness a societal decline brought about by international actions like sanctions etc. unless Russia becomes a hermit nation.

Yup.  This is why I made the separate post about Ukraine should probably forget all about the long term need (not want, NEED) to have Russia transformed into a non-aggressive nation.  This will hopefully come about over time.  Russia is out of the war making business for at least 5 years, probably more like 10, even if it spent all its resources on restoring itself to where it was in February.  Which, as we've seen, wasn't so great.

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

Would pay good money to sit in on CIA meetings re: all this.  

If you manage to get in there, please save me a seat

Steve

[Zeleban]

17 minutes ago, RandomCommenter said:

Maybe someone on here with Russian can confirm this but apparently this video shows two comedians calling up Nikolei Peskov (Dmitry Peskov's son) pretending to draft him. And he drops the "do you know who my father is" within 10 seconds. So looks like the Russian elite don't want to send their boys off to Ukraine.

 

And I had to share this insight into the quality of troops being rounded up by the Russians.

 

 

Not certainly in that way. He gently hints at his last name and says that it would not be right for him to appear at the military registration and enlistment office and that he will resolve this issue at a different level. He also directly refused to go to fight in Ukraine.

[billbindc]

 

Perusing the multiple reports out of Russia since the announcement of mobilization and the clearest conclusion one can come to is that these people are going to get absolutely slaughtered on the modern battlefield.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, RandomCommenter said:

I just don't think that fear of goal 2 should prevent us from pursuing goal 1. Where and when do we call the bluff? I mean if they declare Warsaw to be a part of Russia and say they will use nukes if we disagree do we bow to that?

Each situation has to be examined on its own and "bluff" assessed.  Russia has threatened the use of nukes a lot, especially lately.  No need to pay too much attention to the vast majority of them.  But... I do think Russia would toss a nuke or two at whomever tried to drive to Moscow, don't you think?  I think.  Russia has said that Crimea is at that level of importance to it and everything I know about Russia indicates that this is not a bluff. 

We get into the standard A=B, B=C, therefore A=C type deductive logic.

Russia will nuke anybody taking Russian soil
Russia considers Crimea its soil
Therefore, Russia will nuke anybody trying to take Crimea

I do not think the same conditions exist for other Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia.  The sham referendums are most likely there to allow for the deployment of conscripts, not to put it under their nuclear umbrella.  Though I do not rule it out.

We have to remember that the RU Nats are inherently mentally unstable.  They are, to use the most overused word in English these days... insane.  If Ukraine starts to attack into Crimea, Russia's conventional options are not sufficient to stop it, and Putin doesn't use a nuke... coup attempt and, even if unsuccessful, nuke gets dropped somewhere.

How likely a scenario is this?  I don't have any clue, but it is much greater than 0.0% for sure.    Even 10% is frighteningly high because the ramifications are so massive if it should happen.

As I've been saying... Ukraine does not need to retake Crimea any time soon.  It is a "would be nice to have" outcome from this war, but it isn't essential.  The Ukrainian state can function fine without it, especially if life there is miserable (no Kerch bridge, no water from the Dnepr, no maritime trade, no viable Sevastopol base, etc.).  Under those circumstances, the Russian Crimean authority might find it is the one that has to deal with an active partisan movement, not Ukraine.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Not certainly in that way. He gently hints at his last name and says that it would not be right for him to appear at the military registration and enlistment office and that he will resolve this issue at a different level. He also directly refused to go to fight in Ukraine.

So a more carefully chosen form of "I don't have to follow the rules because my daddy will make this go away".  Not that anybody here is surprised

That was a great prank to pull.  Thumbs up to the guys who did it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Perusing the multiple reports out of Russia since the announcement of mobilization and the clearest conclusion one can come to is that these people are going to get absolutely slaughtered on the modern battlefield.

I think a good many of them are going to get slaughtered before they get to the battlefield.  This is going to be the epic mess for Russia we predicted it would be, of that I am 100% sure.

Steve

[DesertFox]

48 minutes ago, mosuri said:

I had to read this a couple of times

Yeah they made a complete turnaround within 100 years. From A7V in 1918 to Leopard II A7V in 2019 

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As I've been saying... Ukraine does not need to retake Crimea any time soon.  It is a "would be nice to have" outcome from this war, but it isn't essential.  The Ukrainian state can function fine without it, especially if life there is miserable (no Kerch bridge, no water from the Dnepr, no maritime trade, no viable Sevastopol base, etc.).  Under those circumstances, the Russian Crimean authority might find it is the one that has to deal with an active partisan movement, not Ukraine.

Steve

This last bit nails something you don't hear a lot about. Crimea in a post war scenario in which Ukraine comes out on top is more of an albatross to Russia than an asset. It will not have water, it will not have much of an economic use and it will be easily hit with ranged precision weaponry whenever Kyiv needs to...which obviates a large percentage of its military value. It will simply be another failing region in a largely failing state.

[acrashb]

1 minute ago, RandomCommenter said:

Summary by ACB: "Crimea is whose?"

 

Crimea, like any other piece of land, belongs to "those who reside there", not based on any written constitutions (which in theory codify both natural principles and operations / administration to enact those principles) but on the overall natural principle of self-determination.

This has been discussed; some more perspective and addressing of topics below.

In Canada, Quebec (a large province) has had two referenda on separation.  The last one - 1995 - was on the brink of success, and as a result there is now a federal law on the conditions for separation, called the "Clarity Act".  

What about the portions of a province that don't want to secede?  For example, in Quebec there are many regions / enclaves who wish to remain in Canada - mostly Anglo, but not all.  What about the various indigenous groups, most governed by the Indian Act, that prefer to be part of Canada vs. part of Quebec?  

What about the people who have been run out of the province?  Various pieces of legislation have pushed mostly-Anglos out of Quebec for about fifty years (I don't have a reference for that, but I recall kids in high school who exited with their families as a result of concern about their social and economic future).  Should they get a say in the next referendum, if there is one?

Why do lines on a map matter?  Because they set boundaries for social, economic and legal systems and opportunities, and strategic risks and opportunities.  They matter a lot.  If an American crosses the border to Canada with a restricted (in Canada) firearm (and no paperwork), serious consequences.  If a Canadian lands in Singapore with a joint - very serious consequences.

Applying this to Crimea / Donbas:

• most importantly and differently from the Quebec example, they were taken forcibly and recently by a foreign state, so they should be returned "to" the original government to prevent the moral hazard where, in future, other states nibble provinces from each other.  If something is successful, it will be repeated. Having said that, the costs and risks of returning them to Ukraine will be and are being weighed against the moral hazard issue by Ukraine and its supporters.  The Ukraine government's maximalist position of all of the Donbas and Crimea is either a firm position or setting a stance for eventual negotiation - no way to tell.
• once returned: do the people in those regions want to be part of Ukraine?  If after a few years of stabilization, rebuilding, return of kidnapped and displaced persons, purging of RU agents and land occupiers (people who moved on to stolen land vs. purchased a nice house voluntarily on the market), there is overwhelming support for separation, what then?  The two basic alternatives are the use of force, which always results in insurgency and civil war, or a negotiated handshake and well-wishes with post-separation cultural, political and economic ties maintained.  On the first, perhaps civil war / insurgency is worth it in return for keeping the Russian Armed Forces physically further away from the rest of Ukraine - or not.  On the second (and the first ,for that matter), for the minority who wish to remain "in" Ukraine - sucks to be you, see the Quebec example above.  

So there is no simple answer, and no risk-free way forward.  I'm on the "return them and them sort it out in a few years" camp because on balance, I think that that minimizes total (present, near-future and mid-term future) risk and maximizes 'fairness', which means different things to different people but unites the people (not governments) of the West. "Fair" and "realpolitik" are not always the same thing - when in conflict, choose realpolitik and try to turn it into fair later, but fair should weigh in.

One issue that hangs over all of this is the Western idea that every problem can have a good solution with sufficient good will and energy applied to same.  History, the present, and common sense tells us that not all problems have a solution that rises above neutral.  The current problem has, I think, at best a neutral outcome and likely only choices between bad, really bad, disastrously bad, and catastrophically bad.  Or, between ungood and double-plus ungood.

Going back to uncertainty, the Russian state could suffer a near-term peripheral collapse which would change the calculus entirely - my prediction on this is early 2026.  But it could be earlier, later, or not at all.

Someone - possibly the_capt - said that one good alternative is to leave the post 2014 borders, wait for Russian  to collapse and / or to abuse and neglect Donbas / Crimea and then try to re-unite them with Ukraine.  Not a bad idea - but strike while the iron is hot, and if not hot enough now, then make it hot by striking.  If we wait, apathy and inertia set in and the status quo gets entrenched - and Russia will never respect the will of the regions, so if in future they wish to re-unite it will be bloody regardless.

I get more "likes" from memes than from determined typing, so here is a meme  :

 

 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

33 minutes ago, acrashb said:

In Canada, Quebec (a large province)....

 

 

[throws back head and laughs insanely, like Bugs Bunny]

[womble]

The biggest thing in Crimea of material/military worth to the Russians is the military port of Sevastopol. The rest of its resources are "notional" (offshore, strategic-positional, psychological etc) or there largely in support/defence of the port (airbases and other ancilliary installations). Once the land corridor goes away, the water gets shut down to 3l/pax (Ukraine aren't monsters, and there are some potential UKR citizens living there that they don't want to kill anyway; they won't start off by killing the inhabitants with thirst) a day, and the Kerch rail link goes away and stays down, HIMARS will be in easy range of all port facilities. So they can be wrecked beyond utility and kept that way (or quickly reduced if they're allowed to be restored under some peace deal but later become a threat). Any vessels attempting to use Crimean port facilities will be vulnerable to similar interdiction.

Will Russia really want to keep it, and will anyone actually want to stay who isn't culturally tied to that land? The road bridge can stay...

Edited September 23, 2022 by womble
Punctuation

[Artkin]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Say out of 2000 Leo2's they somehow can spare 500. 

Bund-es-wehr

[LongLeftFlank]

53 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

"I don't have to follow the rules because my daddy will make this go away".  Not that anybody here is surprised

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

48 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Someone - possibly the_capt - said that one good alternative is to leave the post 2014 borders, wait for Russian  to collapse and / or to abuse and neglect Donbas / Crimea and then try to re-unite them with Ukraine.  Not a bad idea - but strike while the iron is hot, and if not hot enough now, then make it hot by striking.  If we wait, apathy and inertia set in and the status quo gets entrenched - and Russia will never respect the will of the regions, so if in future they wish to re-unite it will be bloody regardless.

I think the "strike while the iron is hot" saying is not the best one.  I think a better one is something like the old US wine slogan of "we will sell no wine before its time":

Several of us keep coming back to the same point over and over again... the Donbas and the Crimea are net drains on national coffers.  This was true BEFORE 2014 and it is even truer today now that they have been plundered and/or physically destroyed.  Therefore, from a pure economic standpoint letting Russia keep them for now means Russia is saddled with money sucking provinces when Russia is economically weaker than it has been since the 1990s. 

Russia's strained economic resources means its spending on basic governmental services will be rationed in the coming years.  Who thinks Russia is going to prioritize Donetsk over Kursk or Belgorod?  They barely think Ukrainians are Human Beings, even if they love Russia, so they'll be towards the bottom of the list, not the top.  Crimea?  Maybe higher up, but still it will be the usual Russian smoke and mirrors thing where they build something new and shiny while everybody is eats moldy cabbage 3 meals a day.

Life in these occupied regions will be progressively more unpleasant every day Russia continues to administer them.  Not only the economic realities, but also the naked brutality of a less and less restrained autocratic government.  I feel very, very, very bad for the people there... however maybe that is the only way for them to abandon the notion that everything is better if they are part of Russia.

At some point Russia will either lose interest in keeping these territories or there will be a breakup and the choice removed from the Kremlin.  Having Ukraine standing by to take them back into Ukraine, perhaps even through military means, isn't a bad plan.  In fact, it is a very smart one.

Steve

[Kinophile]

On 9/22/2022 at 12:33 PM, Haiduk said:

[...]

I read some hints from our soldiers, that during Balakliya operation our SOF not only disrupted C&C, attacking of comm lines and HQs, but also they captured some important representative of Russian authorities as well as many HQ officers. And maybe this made Putin more accomodating

I missed this, way earlier. That kind of decapitation ops are something that UKR seems to have really excelled at, and RUS utterly failed, and I assume was a significant contributing reason for the eruption into flight of the Russian defense.

I'm certain that the ISR provided to UKR, their own HUMINT sources and the RUS C&Cs lack of proper OpSec helps locate and track the various HQs, but still actually carrying out and succeeding at the decaps is a tall order and truly elite level.

Slava Ukraina!

Edited September 23, 2022 by Kinophile

[womble]

4 hours ago, kevinkin said:

OK, I see what you mean. Should the figure below be used moving forward? Hard to tell exactly.

"As told representative of General Staff average rate of KiA usually not exceed 30-50 for a day."

The General Staff numbers do seem to be broadly reliable; the larger number* was their count, too, back in the beginning of "Phase 2". On the whole, the UKR General Staff seem to have an (understandable, sensible) aversion to being outed as propagandising hyperbolists, and recognise that they would probably get found out by "them as matter" if they told porky pies**, and this would hurt their cause. So they tend to stick fairly closely to the facts as they can discern them. Or so it seems. They have admitted error, in the past, too, which adds credibility.

Haiduk has confidence in their assertions, anyway, and his assessments carry some weight of prior accuracy.

* Which has been misused by people with agendas, recently.

** Cockney rhyming slang: pork pie - lie.

[Artkin]

Yeah Russia's sea and air lift capabilities are a mere fraction of what they were in the 90s. Their ability to wage war in the first place is extremely limited. Their only way to put forces where they need to be is by using the ground, roads, or rail. 

[danfrodo]

18 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

the battlefield has a big vote

The above kinda says it all.  Crimea and even DNR/LPR probably only get taken back if there's RU political collapse/regime change.  Crimea would be very hard to take if even marginally defended.  Ask Manstein.

Geeez, I have a travel day and all hell breaks loose.  Someone goes after TheCapt?  That's like heckling Santa Claus!  I am honored if he even deigns my words to be worthy of his derision.  

Mobilization:  I think it's important to remember that this is a mix of reality and theater/reality show.  And it's being done w the level of competence we would expect from Putin's Russia.  It'll be interesting to see how these troops are used.  They will be ridiculously brittle.  If used to fill up existing units, they could actually make those units more brittle.  And what does this totally disorganized mess look like going forward?  Will there be food when they arrive at their initial barracks, let alone uniforms, boots, weapons?  This is a whole bunch of very mutinous looking mobs.  I wouldn't want to be the gung-ho NCO in charge of one of these once they are armed. 

LLF:  He's fun and whether one agrees or disagrees w him he makes the forum richer.  

I just spent way too much work time getting caught up w hundreds of posts, mostly very good, now I'll have to work straight through lunch to end of day to get caught up.  Thanks for that, y'all.  

 

[RandomCommenter]

51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Each situation has to be examined on its own and "bluff" assessed.  Russia has threatened the use of nukes a lot, especially lately.  No need to pay too much attention to the vast majority of them.  But... I do think Russia would toss a nuke or two at whomever tried to drive to Moscow, don't you think?  I think.  Russia has said that Crimea is at that level of importance to it and everything I know about Russia indicates that this is not a bluff. 

I think we are agreed that a drive to Moscow risks nuclear war.

Where we disagree is whether or not Ukraine retaking Crimea risks nuclear war.

And I agree that we are dealing with insane people and that the cost of assuming something that just ain't so is very high. Nobody wants mushroom clouds.

We have discussed Russia's threshold for nuclear weapons before. Perun put out a good video on this months ago.

He mentions here four reasons the Russians say they will use nuclear weapons:

Now will the loss of Crimea put "the very existence of the state" in jeopardy. Clearly no. Although it may well put the existence of the current regime in jeopardy.

To me, this is Ukraine's best chance it will ever have to get Crimea back. Once the Russian army is defeated and Ukraine will have lots of Western kit and mobilized troops the balance of power will be very favorable to Ukraine.

And if we say that no, they cannot get Crimea back because of some sham poll done eight years ago, well, that is an argument for the Republic of Kherson being an indivisible part of Russia (I know we have not got the count yet from the "referenda" taking place today but I think we can guess what the outcome will be).

I think acrashb has a good post directly above talking about Quebec. Now if somebody wants to say, OK, we agree that we will have a referendum on whether Crimea secedes from Ukraine or rejoins Russia in say 25 years time, I would be OK with that. But to do a referendum now? After the Russians moved people in and Ukrainians left and the Tartars get chewed up on the front lines as a modern form of ethnic cleansing? No. 

Why is it important to regain Crimea? Because then Ukraine will control the Black Sea. A Russian fleet in Sevastopol is an ongoing threat to Odesa not to mention Mariupol / Berdyansk / Melitopol / Kherson. And the end state here is Ukraine in NATO. And NATO does not admit members with border disputes. So this needs to be resolved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sburke]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think the "strike while the iron is hot" saying is not the best one.  I think a better one is something like the old US wine slogan of "we will sell no wine before its time":

 

Steve

holy crap - that winery is where my wife and I had our wedding ceremony

The Mountain Winery

 

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, womble said:

The biggest thing in Crimea of material/military worth to the Russians is the military port of Sevastopol. The rest of its resources are "notional" (offshore, strategic-positional, psychological etc) or there largely in support/defence of the port (airbases and other ancilliary installations). Once the land corridor goes away, the water gets shut down to 3l/pax (Ukraine aren't monsters, and there are some potential UKR citizens living there that they don't want to kill anyway; they won't start off by killing the inhabitants with thirst) a day, and the Kerch rail link goes away and stays down, HIMARS will be in easy range of all port facilities. So they can be wrecked beyond utility and kept that way (or quickly reduced if they're allowed to be restored under some peace deal but later become a threat). Any vessels attempting to use Crimean port facilities will be vulnerable to similar interdiction.

Will Russia really want to keep it, and will anyone actually want to stay who isn't culturally tied to that land? The road bridge can stay...

Even if Ukraine doesn't destroy Kerch, Russia's ability to project power from Sevastopol is now zero.  I think you are correct to remind people of this.

Going forward the only military value Crimea provides to Russia is highly dependent on what Ukraine allows it to do.  For example, if there's a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, Russia would know that the minute it started some new form of aggression that Ukraine could counter it within hours.  Russia already knows this to be true, which is why there's no Russian naval activities west of Crimea and its aircraft largely relocated to mainland Russia.

Crimea is now, and forever more, of little real military value for Russian imperialist policies.

Steve

[acrashb]

14 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

[throws back head and laughs insanely, like Bugs Bunny]

Your ability to rapidly find relevant, but highly-obscure video 'memes' is - both awesome and disturbing.

[Aragorn2002]

4 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Opposition motions rarely advance. 

Still interesting indication that the subject is still not set in stone.

If the majority of EU countries all give a portion of their Leopard 2 fleet Ukraine could get a significant amount. +100 easily.

Even Germany has enough to chip in. Especially German defense industry. At least in logistical and maintenance portion of the "deal". 

And to be realistic Germany can afford to give away even 75% of their MBTs. Who exactly would be attacking Germany? The tanks would go towards reducing the only military threat mainland Europe has, Russia. The Russian threat will be reduced close to zero for years to come. Germany has time to rebuild (or buy Abrams).

EDIT: I think even us Finns could give half(100pcs) of our Leopards. Exactly because of the reduced threat from Russia and now the added security of NATO.

I tend to agree. We will have to go all in. Taking risks. We'll never get the chance to make the Russians bleed like this again. Ukraine MUST be victorious. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, mosuri said:

I had to read this a couple of times

They are really scraping the barrel!

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

All Russians are Orcs. There you go and no, don't mention it, it was a pleasure.

 

What about Prussians?

Only a letter difference.