How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Lethaface]

16 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

No worries, I've just cracked the lid on a (thread relevant) topic that will win me my To The Right of Atilla the Hun wolfsangel once and for all. But that's for another day.

Face tattoo?

[sburke]

Ukrainian collaborators who sided with Russian occupation were given top jobs and fancy titles. Now they're being hunted down. (msn.com)

[LongLeftFlank]

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

You should put that on a T Shirt.

 

 

Catch up with today's new forum vibe, Daddy-o. We're all groovy now.

Edited September 23, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[The_Capt]

3 hours 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.

 

 

 

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Catch up with today's new forum vibe, Daddy-o. We're all groovy now.

Geez, trying to.  Groovy or not, that line is a classic, sig worthy.

[Chibot Mk IX]

54 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I am coming around to your way of thinking on Kherson.  There's a lot of RU packed in there and they've had time to set up defenses.  This could take a while, unfortunately.  This kessel is such a  wildcard in what happens for Putin.  If it did collapse w huge RU prisoner loss, could Putin survive that?  

Well, I bet this one is a mixture of Normandy and Tunisia campaign. Two months of bloody grinding and attrition then the defense line shattered. Then just like the Tunisia campaign, all the reinforcements sent across the Dnieper river, hoping to stabilize the theater, are become POWs.   

Putin has his 7.20 waiting for him.

[acrashb]

2 hours ago, womble said:

The biggest thing in Crimea of material/military worth to the Russians is the military port of Sevastopol.

Agreed - why not provide a 100-year lease for them to save face?  And put the tonnage / weaponry / inspection clauses in the fine print.

1 hour 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":

As often, a lot to unpack in your post.

What if the time is now?  Will the Crimea issue age like a fine wine, or like Thunderbird? 

"the Donbas and the Crimea are net drains on national coffers [...] 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. "

Agreed, while adding that economics are only part of it.  The two extra parts are a) the national mythos of Sevastopol - the_capt said that losing Sevastopol would be felt in Russia something like losing Norfolk (I think he said that) b) Crimea loss creates another chokepoint - Kerch strait - blocking Russia from blue water.  A historic strategic problem for Russia has been the potential for landlock.  So I don't think they will lose interest over time - which supports the the Thunderbird theory.

"Who thinks Russia is going to prioritize Donetsk over Kursk or Belgorod?  [...] 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."

Agreed, and this supports the fine-wine theory.  

"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. "

Fine wine vs. Thunderbird vs. taking a baseball bat to the wine rack.  

For strategic and emotional, not economic, reasons I don't see the interest waning - see my previous comment(s) on Sevastopol.  If Russia was all realpolitik they would still want Crimea, and when you layer in the emotional parts, I don't think they'll let go.

"Having Ukraine standing by to take them back into Ukraine, perhaps even through military means, isn't a bad plan"

They're kind of standing by right now... the necessary military supports may not exist in future, for example Western ISR is impossible for them to replicate and easy to take away.  As Ukraine could readily be painted as the aggressor, Western politicians could be under tremendous pressure to de-support.

1 hour ago, RandomCommenter said:

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

[...]

[...]

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. 

1) agreed re: doctrine; Steve and others are concerned about doctrinal goal-post moving.  It's not likely, but not impossible.

2) first, thanks.  Second, fully agreed about not right now on referendum - I figure about five years, not 25, but that's partly driven by the populace.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

That leaves non-military (emotional and strategic) value, which I think looms large.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ack!  That's you using your logic, not Russian nationalist logic.  This is a very dangerous mistake to make! [...] The RU Nats are not sane.  They are fanatics and they have attached way more importance to Crimea than objectively they should. 

[...]

However, we do know that in 2014 a significant portion of Crimea actively supported becoming a part of Russia.  The estimate is about 60%.  My guess is that every year that has gone by that number has either stagnated or gone down. 

Too much to unpack, so I'll address just the above. 

First part - do the RU Nats get more, or less, sane post-conflict?  If more sane, it's fine wine time.  If less, it's Thunderbird time.
Given that Russia has already lost and will lose more, I think they'll get less sane.  Thunderbird!

The second part is Crimean populace support for Russian vs. Ukraine nationality.  That's the big question - which I propose to answer post-Ukraine re-uniting / post-Ukraine-driven reconstruction.

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...Perhaps I can get Poilievre to add that to the Tory platform, as an overseas voter.

He might.  No more outside-the-box than crypto currency in RRSPs (retirement funds, for our non-Canadian friends) - and I say that as someone who voted for him in the leadership contest  

Edited September 23, 2022 by acrashb

[Cederic]

1 hour 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":

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

That analysis is inherently flawed. You're using logic and rationality, and the decision on Crimea must include emotion.

Even using logic, the continued genocide of Crimean natives can not be rewarded by going, "Oh, well, only Russians left there anyway, you can have it." That leads to more genocide.

Zelenskyy's already said any peace agreement must go to a national vote. If I was Ukrainian any peace deal must include the return to pre-2014 borders or I'd vote no. I'd see it as existential, for my country and, as a result, for me as an individual.

[Aragorn2002]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

You should put that on a T Shirt.

It's already in our family coat of arms. A t-shirt would make it cheap. 

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, acrashb said:

He might.  No more outside-the-box than crypto currency in RRSPs (retirement funds, for our non-Canadian friends) - and I say that as someone who voted for him the the leadership contest  

(Charest, but I'm nostalgic). Hey, the way global currencies are plunging against the 'cleanest dirty shirt' (USD), the cryptonomicons could have a point.... but sorry, OT. Someone might meme me.

[Taranis]

"Several hundred demonstrators gathered Friday, September 23 in Saint Petersburg in support of the "referendums" of annexation to Russia of four Ukrainian regions. OLGA MALTSEVA / AFP"
*Not many men... I think the ones in the photos are not the mobilized ones... 


"A destroyed Russian tank, near the village of Dolyna, in the Kharkiv region, on September 23, 2022. GLEB GARANICH / REUTERS"
* T-72(B3?). Note the mortar shell on the right, (and the tractor towing UAZ, on the left )

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, Cederic said:

That analysis is inherently flawed. You're using logic and rationality, and the decision on Crimea must include emotion.

What I've seen going on here is that emotional arguments are being disguised as rational ones.  That is a mistake.  If one doesn't separate the rational from the emotional, then there's nothing to guide the emotions.  That rarely ends well.

So, if you see logical flaws in my logical assessments, do poke holes in it.

BTW, I am the one saying that there's a huge emotional factor in it.  Namely, Russians having something that isn't theirs, isn't useful, and yet might be worth using a nuke to keep.  That is emotional and that's what we need to be wary of.

Just now, Cederic said:

Even using logic, the continued genocide of Crimean natives can not be rewarded by going, "Oh, well, only Russians left there anyway, you can have it." That leads to more genocide.

As I said, this is a separate issue and it definitely is an important one to consider.

Just now, Cederic said:

Zelenskyy's already said any peace agreement must go to a national vote. If I was Ukrainian any peace deal must include the return to pre-2014 borders or I'd vote no. I'd see it as existential, for my country and, as a result, for me as an individual.

Zelensky has a LOT of clout.  If there is a logical reason to do X and it also eventually leads to Y, I think he can sell it to people.

Steve

[mosuri]

1 hour ago, womble said:

"Logically", they'd be "Porcs", wouldn't they? Think the French would've had an easier time in '70 if that had truly been the case.

 

Obviously porcs, how else to explain nazi swine?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b9CStCYZJs&t=4s

[acrashb]

24 minutes ago, sburke said:

Ukrainian collaborators who sided with Russian occupation were given top jobs and fancy titles. Now they're being hunted down. (msn.com)

Three cheers. They're no better than Quislings. Many served Ukraine originally - making them no better than Benedict Arnolds.

[acrashb]

6 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

 Someone might meme me.

Unlikely.

[Cederic]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

might be worth using a nuke to keep

This is where logic overrides emotion.

Nukes are scary. Nobody wants to be nuked.

Letting someone use the threat of nuking you to let them take away your country and torture/rape/murder your citizens logically leads to them picking up the next bit of your country, then the next.. you lose your country, its citizens suffer, and all you've achieved is not getting nuked.

I'd rather risk the serious escalation. If I'm going to die to Russians it'll be fighting them, not kneeling with my hands tied behind me screaming in agony from a crushed testicle. Dying to nuclear weapons or an artillery shell is a risk I'd rather take.

[Chibot Mk IX]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Every single RU AA position is under the Argus Eye, zeroed, in the crosshairs.  Their heavy guns, similarly.

You heard it here first:  air power has been MIA in this war, but just because the Russians couldn't pull it off, it doesn't mean it's gone for good.

I agree with ya. To keep this kind of cross country maneuver safe, UA needs to weaken Russian Artilleries. 

Eyes, ears and teeth. The breakthrough area (Barvinok-Bohorodychne) is way too close to Russian stronghold, it is very hard to blind their eyes , deafen their ears, so let's knock out their teeth. 

One more month of attrition....

[The_Capt]

5 hours ago, FancyCat said:

There are pro-Ukrainian Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians. As for Crimea, there will be a crisis but I'm not sure it would be a risk to Ukraine's PR. As we have seen, Ukraine holds the majority of sympathy, especially in the West who will be mainly providing funds. Germany is a bad example, resistance collapsed after the surrender. I'm sure there will be some sort of insurgency, but clampdown of the border should keep it down. Is this a ethnic war? More a imperial/colonialist war i think. 

Look, we are going to have to agree to disagree here.  You once called my experience into question so let me fill you in a bit - I have personally been on the ground in one civil war and an insurgency.  You are really underplaying a lot of really complex factors here, for example:

“I’m sure there will be some sort of insurgency, but a clampdown of the border should keep it down.”  This tells me that you have zero idea how insurgencies actually work and frankly you are making some extremely dangerous deductions from that.

It appears that you have a firm conclusion and you are wrapping reality around it - this has been a serious strategic error in the past - see Iraq 2003.  

Insurgencies are about an idea.  An idea by a sub-section of a population that things need to be different.  When you are combating one, you are combating that idea.  As you have noted and I do not think anyone can deny, the idea of being “not Ukraine” exists within these regions to a statistically significant level.  Further, these factions have demonstrated that they will act on that idea, clearly.  

So assuming you can “clampdown” on hundreds of kms of coastline in Crimea, and along the Russia  border in Crimea - perhaps by “building a wall”?  You have done nothing, nor have you suggested anything to actually combat the idea of an insurgency- one you admit is likely.  You are glossing over some enormously difficult, some say unsolvable problems, all in pursuit of a nice clean end-state.

”I am not sure it will be a risk to Ukraine’s PR”.  Seriously?  So Ukraine has to deal with two likely insurgencies deeply embedded within two separate regions.  Two insurgencies that you, and others fully admit cannot be solved through democratic process.  So we are at FID.  So how is your history?  Now find me a counter-insurgency, or god help us, civil war, that was nice and clean.  And we are talking years here, maybe decades - the same decade Ukraine is reliant on western reconstruction money.  You think the first collateral damage, or unrighteous shoot isn’t going to wind up on the internet as Macgregor makes as much hay about it within political circles?  One soldier screw up caught on camera and you are talking narrative risk - especially as you are also prescribing restrictions on democratic freedoms.  Even if those reasons are legitimate, it will get lost in the political churn.

I get the point but in the business we call this exposure.  And Ukraine’s exposure in these regions is too high in my estimation.  Beyond the spectre of nuclear weapons, the post-conflict risks are very high as there are all the ingredients for some really dark roads.

Solutions that may actually work:

- kick it over to international community.  Let the UN deal with these open sores and in a generation or two you may have re-integration.

- Let Russia have them and then build a shining city on a hill and attack the idea that life in Russia is better than in a new Ukraine - money and personal interest matter.  Russia is going to botch the job anyway, they are being set up for economic collapse.  Attraction back into Ukraine is a powerful tool, and a win-win if you tie it to democratic freedoms.  In a few years you will likely have them begging to re-enter into the Ukrainian union.

Key attribute here is patience.  Even in the face of atrocity and injustice.  Play it right and you can come out on top without risking WW3 and/or a weeping open sore that covers you in sh#t while you are trying to rebuild a nation.

 

[The_Capt]

20 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

It's already in our family coat of arms. A t-shirt would make it cheap. 

LOL!  I was going to go that way but thought it too below the belt - that is outstanding.

[The_Capt]

29 minutes ago, acrashb said:

a) the national mythos of Sevastopol - the_capt said that losing Sevastopol would be felt in Russia something like losing Norfolk (I think he said that)

I did:

“Strategic value[edit]

The Port of Sevastopol is considered a key hold^{[clarification needed]} for maritime routes between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, and, therefore, the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The port is one of the few warm deepwater ports available to Russia in the Black Sea. Russia leased the port from Ukraine, until its annexation in 2014. Access to the port is considered one of the main factors that sparked the 2014 Crimean crisis between Ukraine and Russia, and Russia's subsequent military intervention on Crimea.” (Wikipedia)

Now whether or not that is true really depends on how the Russians view it and whether it is a deal breaker.  I am pretty confident Russian nationalist will play it up as such.

 

[womble]

9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Now whether or not that is true really depends on how the Russians view it and whether it is a deal breaker.  I am pretty confident Russian nationalist will play it up as such.

If RuNats turn out to be the winners in the succession contest (without actually tipping the RUF over into full-blown civil war), Ukraine's options for negotiation through superior firepower become reduced compared to "other options". With the Nats' level of ideological commitment to preserving the trappings of Empire, just turning Sevastopol naval base into cratered rubble won't persuade them there's no point trying to hang on to it, whereas a more lucre-focused "new Kleptoczar" might prefer to walk away from the devastaion.

As ever, Ukraine's options are going to depend at least to some extent on what future mischief the kleptocrats and nazis manage to inflict on Mother Russia.

[poesel]

Isn't there an IFV 'between' the M113 and the Marder? We first send that and then the Marder. Frog -> Boil...

And the Leopard I is just a year younger than a T-64. Hardly a modern tank, and also much lighter. You could even brand it as 'light tank' by modern standards wrt to gun and armor. Not really an escalation.

Also, this stuff is mothballed anyway, so no drain on the Bundeswehr.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, poesel said:

Isn't there an IFV 'between' the M113 and the Marder? We first send that and then the Marder. Frog -> Boil...

And the Leopard I is just a year younger than a T-64. Hardly a modern tank, and also much lighter. You could even brand it as 'light tank' by modern standards wrt to gun and armor. Not really an escalation.

Also, this stuff is mothballed anyway, so no drain on the Bundeswehr.

There are hundreds of AMX-10P in FR storage, but we really shouldn't do that to the UA, they have enough problems already. 

[Haiduk]

8 hours ago, kevinkin said:

OK this figure jives with the other guy's and I guess is elevated due to offensive ops. However, increased causalities as the result of a storage of a single caliber of shell is puzzling even though the 152 is very commonly used. Sounds like the offensive was time sensitive and Ukraine needed to accept losses to take advantage of the situation on the ground as presented by western ISR to be damned with ammo deliveries. Would like to understand why this shortage took place, do you have a reference? 

8 years of war (despite Minsk agreements artillery of both sides worked anyway) and explosions on several arsenals significantly decreased some types of 152 mm shells. But high intensivity warfare just ate 152 mm stocks. Looks like our command considered that strong defensive lines on Donbas, will get opportunity to our troops to dalay enemy advance even with minimal support of artillery, which was need in other places. Unlike Russia we have only six artillery brigades (+ two from Reserve Corps) on all length of the front. But after Popasna falling, Russians organized several offensive attempts on Donbas, using masses of artillery and assault infantry, while on other sections of frontline situation was enough stable. In this period, we have situation, when 152 mm were significantly exhausted, but 155 mm just became appear. This gap matched with Russian pressure on Donbas and, alas, problems in command of this directions. We got significant losses on Donbas due to iron rains from the sky, HQ planning, intel, logystic mistakes, lack of supporting artillery and unmotivated troops, which were abandoning positions. Though, if we take Izium direction - where Russian artillery had the same advantage, and Russian forces were even more larger and wasn't heavy fortified positions in industrial zones liike on Donbas, Russians hadn't such success.   

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

There are hundreds of AMX-10P in FR storage, but we really shouldn't do that to the UA, they have enough problems already. 

Indeed. We should send state of the art equipment, not outdated stuff.