How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Ukraine might be gung-ho, but they are still dependent on aid from their Western allies. Europe and USA could let Zelensky know that he had to back down.

They know full well that tactical nukes will be a gamechanger. It is like the Battle of Britain. An Me 109 and a Spitfire fly straight at each other. Each pilot knows if he lifts the other fires at his belly. Only one thing they can do, call putins bluff and go back to Mutual Assured Destruction AKA MAD. 

[chuckdyke]

Common Sense.

 

[Bulletpoint]

24 minutes ago, kraze said:

And then enjoy watching putin's nuclear ultimatum about Baltic states in 5 years.

And Chinese nuclear ultimatum about Taiwan in 2023.

And DPRK nuclear ultimatum about South Korea.

 

And the end of NATO.

Not the end of NATO, because Ukraine is not part of NATO, as I am sure you know. But the Baltic states are. So the situation is different.

And for the other ultimatums, China has too much to lose in order to make such a threat. Putin doesn't have much left to lose at all.

North Korea has a limited amount of nuclear weapons and limited missile technology, so it's not the same as Russia.

 

[Zeleban]

14 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not the end of NATO, because Ukraine is not part of NATO, as I am sure you know. But the Baltic states are. So the situation is different.

And for the other ultimatums, China has too much to lose in order to make such a threat. Putin doesn't have much left to lose at all.

North Korea has a limited amount of nuclear weapons and limited missile technology, so it's not the same as Russia.

 

Yes, but it doesn't take a lot of nuclear weapons to blackmail. You need to understand that Putin's main and most effective weapon is not nuclear missiles, but the most ordinary fear. Thanks to fear, he is in power for a long time. Based on fear, he assumed the success of the invasion of Ukraine. With the help of fear, he will carry out his further expansion, if successful in Ukraine.

[womble]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Ukraine might be gung-ho, but they are still dependent on aid from their Western allies. Europe and USA could let Zelensky know that he had to back down. The war would end with an unease armistice, not a peace settlement, and Putin would get his off ramp.

The war would also end with the threat of nuclear weapon use having been legitimised as a means to back up aggressive, atrocity-laden imperialism. This is not a desirable outcome. I think the West will react differently to how you imagine.

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Yes, but it doesn't take a lot of nuclear weapons to blackmail. You need to understand that Putin's main and most effective weapon is not nuclear missiles, but the most ordinary fear. Thanks to fear, he is in power for a long time. Based on fear, he assumed the success of the invasion of Ukraine. With the help of fear, he will carry out his further expansion, if successful in Ukraine.

Yes, but that fear is not based on nothing. Armed robbers also rely on fear in order to make you give up your wallet. Maybe the guy's gun is not loaded, but you give him your money anyway, because risking a bit of money is better than risking your life.

In case of Putin, his gun IS loaded, no matter whether we like it or not. People like him shouldn't exist, but they do.

[Bulletpoint]

10 minutes ago, womble said:

The war would also end with the threat of nuclear weapon use having been legitimised as a means to back up aggressive, atrocity-laden imperialism. This is not a desirable outcome. I think the West will react differently to how you imagine.

It's not really about whether it legitimises it - that's a theoretical discussion. Aggressive imperialism is not morally legitimate, nuclear weapons or not.

The thing we need to decide on is whether we want to risk a global nuclear war over some small regions of Ukraine that most people until recently had not even heard about. Regions with a large Russian speaking population.

I think most people in the West, including our politicians, would say it's not worth it. Especially when Russia can be crushed economically and Putin might get removed from power anyway. And in any case won't live much longer.

[The_Capt]

So since it is Nuclear Terror Week here on the old forum:

I still think likelihood is low to be honest, but we cannot say "zero" - which is disconcerting.  IF the Russians actually go down this road (and it is a big IF):

In and around here is where it is most likely to happen.  From a military operations point of view, attacking out of or into the Crimea under resistance is not nice:

You basically have a 10 km land bottleneck hemmed in by the Black Sea and those significant water features to the east.  A bottleneck of concentrated force is what tactical nuclear weapons were designed for.  This is also right on the Crimean border and has low population density.

Although, I have to be honest, I am not sure Russia needs to use nuclear weapons and take the associated risks here.  Conventionally they could simply mine the ever-living crap out of this area and pour conscripts into it.  The UA could try amphib ops (and these water features would need that) but the level of risk and preparation is driven up significantly; however, they really risk military disaster or being bled white.

I guess this will be a key indicator of a lot of things, if/when the UA get to this point.  A major campaign decision point.

[womble]

20 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not the end of NATO, because Ukraine is not part of NATO, as I am sure you know. But the Baltic states are. So the situation is different.

And for the other ultimatums, China has too much to lose in order to make such a threat. Putin doesn't have much left to lose at all.

North Korea has a limited amount of nuclear weapons and limited missile technology, so it's not the same as Russia.

 

How much Putin has to lose is not particularly relevant to how allowing the threat of nukes to be an automatic argument-winner is a bad idea for everyone else. Ukraine won't back down, because letting the Russians win "because nukes" means that, in the long run, Ukraine the Nation is dead anyway. Doesn't matter what their allies threaten to withdraw, in the way of support, they can't afford to let Russia off the hook; it's existential.

It'd be the end of NATO because the nuclear trump card would make NATO's existence pointless unless they were willing to answer nuke with nuke.

China has too much to lose to even start thinking seriously about jumping the Taiwan Strait in the first place, let alone threatening nukes. All that noise is for internal consumption.

North Korea can still eradicate millions of people (if it can do *anything* nuclear-weapon-wise, and even if it just opens up with its conventional weapons; Seoul is *right there*. Its threat, if nuclear-armed, is comparable to the threat of tac-nukes in UKR. At least.

Kashmir. Pakistan and India both have nukes, I gather. Does that need any precedent of nuclear threats being the argument-ender in aggressive wars?

[Zeleban]

5 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, but that fear is not based on nothing. Armed robbers also rely on fear in order to make you give up your wallet. Maybe the guy's gun is not loaded, but you give him your money anyway, because risking a bit of money is better than risking your life.

In case of Putin, his gun IS loaded, no matter whether we like it or not. People like him shouldn't exist, but they do.

That's right, enough of one cartridge. That is why, if the robbery is successful, the number of robbers will grow; more recently, North Korea and Iran have joined the club of nuclear states. How about the fact that the Taliban will see in nuclear weapons the possibility of defeating the targets? I am sure if the West allows itself to be intimidated and shows weakness, the enemies will immediately use every opportunity to strike at the weak point of the West (in fear)

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, womble said:

How much Putin has to lose is not particularly relevant to how allowing the threat of nukes to be an automatic argument-winner is a bad idea for everyone else. Ukraine won't back down, because letting the Russians win "because nukes" means that, in the long run, Ukraine the Nation is dead anyway. Doesn't matter what their allies threaten to withdraw, in the way of support, they can't afford to let Russia off the hook; it's existential.

It'd be the end of NATO because the nuclear trump card would make NATO's existence pointless unless they were willing to answer nuke with nuke.

 

No, Ukraine would not be dead as a nation even if they had to let go of the east, because the rest of the country would be made a NATO member state.

NATOs existance would not be made pointless, because NATO is officially not even in this war. If Russia attacked a member state and NATO did nothing, then yes. End of NATO. But that's not where we are now.

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

 

No, Ukraine would not be dead as a nation even if they had to let go of the east, because the rest of the country would be made a NATO member state.

NATOs existance would not be made pointless, because NATO is officially not even in this war. If Russia attacked a member state and NATO did nothing, then yes. End of NATO. But that's not where we are now.

That is, in your opinion, is it worth waiting for an attack on a NATO country?

[Bulletpoint]

Just now, Zeleban said:

That is, in your opinion, is it worth waiting for an attack on a NATO country?

I believe Putin would never have attacked Ukraine if it had been member of NATO.

[Zeleban]

5 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I believe Putin would never have attacked Ukraine if it had been member of NATO.

 

Most in this forum were sure that Putin would not attack Ukraine. After all, he is a master of non-standard moves.

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

 

Most in this forum were sure that Putin would not attack Ukraine. After all, he is a master of non-standard moves.

I'll be the first to admit that I was one of the people who believed he would not attack.

[Grigb]

10 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Looks like Lyman is surrounded, or at least outflanked and untenable. UA about to take another bite off the elephant and move up to the next river line. Liberate Rubizhhne by October? 

 

Bring in some more (gently used) Russian guns, by all means. If nothing else, decoys until the Saheed problem can be solved.

Update on the story. Looks like UKR initial attack on 22-Sept was bigger than we thought - they captured all there villages. But units of RU 20 CAA counter attacked today and RU claims they captured to villages. 

Let's look at the map (I am testing a new way to annotate it)

1. On 22-Sept UKR counter attacked probably from Lozove direction
2. By 23-Sept they captured Karpivka, Redkodub an Nove.
3. 24-Sept 20 CAA having order No step Back counter-attacked and according to Ru claims recaptured Karpivka and Nove
4. 24-Sept according to RU claim part of UKR forces stayed in Redkodub to defend it and part went North. I suspect that UKR are actually advancing toward Makiivka.

[riptides]

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

....

What this indicates is that the initial batch of mobilized men will be even less militarily useful than we speculated.  I think Combat Mission might need some training level lower than Conscript.  I'm not really kidding.

Steve

Mobilist.

In the game until you have contact, you would have to respect what you are about to get into. 

You should make it happen.

 

[Grigb]

22 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

@Grigb this is the paper I mentioned I am writing on comparing the T-64BV 2017 and T-72B3M (2016): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DBBz-3MkZUoBLnvRX8qyFtMZmn8rKslAsgG4-8_Y1SM/edit
 

I need to update it to add more information about tank combat in Ukraine that has occurred since the Kyiv withdrawal in April (such as the information from Shawshank Redemption's channel and the interview with Roman Bahaiev etc.), but I'd welcome your feedback (and that of anyone else knowledgeable about Ukrainian and Russian armour).

Do not think I can be usefull regarding this particular topic, but I will have a look. 

[Calamine Waffles]

5 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Do not think I can be usefull regarding this particular topic, but I will have a look. 

Well, if you see anything glaringly wrong I would always appreciate the correction.

[keas66]

45 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So since it is Nuclear Terror Week here on the old forum:

I still think likelihood is low to be honest, but we cannot say "zero" - which is disconcerting.  IF the Russians actually go down this road (and it is a big IF):

In and around here is where it is most likely to happen.  From a military operations point of view, attacking out of or into the Crimea under resistance is not nice:

You basically have a 10 km land bottleneck hemmed in by the Black Sea and those significant water features to the east.  A bottleneck of concentrated force is what tactical nuclear weapons were designed for.  This is also right on the Crimean border and has low population density.

Although, I have to be honest, I am not sure Russia needs to use nuclear weapons and take the associated risks here.  Conventionally they could simply mine the ever-living crap out of this area and pour conscripts into it.  The UA could try amphib ops (and these water features would need that) but the level of risk and preparation is driven up significantly; however, they really risk military disaster or being bled white.

I guess this will be a key indicator of a lot of things, if/when the UA get to this point.  A major campaign decision point.

Doesn't All of Crimea's Water come in through this area ?

Wouldn't an attack at this point essentially make Crimea  uninhabitable ?

[kraze]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not the end of NATO, because Ukraine is not part of NATO, as I am sure you know. But the Baltic states are. So the situation is different.

And for the other ultimatums, China has too much to lose in order to make such a threat. Putin doesn't have much left to lose at all.

North Korea has a limited amount of nuclear weapons and limited missile technology, so it's not the same as Russia.

 

Of course Ukraine isn't a part of NATO - but if the West, as you say, pushes for giving territories to Russia in exchange for no nuclear attack - then it's a huge signal it's OK for the West to give away Baltics too. And why not? I mean "Russia will just occupy Ukraine and then they will be happy and stop. After all they just want their 'slavic union' and that's it." quickly transforms into "Russia will just occupy Baltics and then they will stop. After all USSR borders is all they want. So why not sacrifice 5% of EU to save 95%?" - once Russia threatens everyone with a nuclear holocaust over some "minor" Eastern Euro territories. It's like negotiating with terrorists instead of killing them: if nuclear threat works once - it will work ALWAYS. And then it's the end of NATO.

And afterwards what exactly will China lose? Nothing. After all no nuclear war happens. "Taiwan is just an island in the middle of nowhere, it's not like China will not keep trading with us. So your NVidia's GPU label will say "made in China" and not "made in Taiwan" - who cares? We made sure you aren't dying to radiation - be grateful for that"

And then you have DPRK. "One nuclear weapon is enough to open pandora's box. So maybe South Korea will find a way out on their own?"

Oh and you need not worry about DPRK not having enough nuclear weapons. They all get theirs from Russia anyway.

Edited September 24, 2022 by kraze

[Bulletpoint]

14 minutes ago, kraze said:

Of course Ukraine isn't a part of NATO - but if the West, as you say, pushes for giving territories to Russia in exchange for no nuclear attack - then it's a huge signal it's OK for the West to give away Baltics too. And why not? I mean "Russia will just occupy Ukraine and then they will be happy and stop. After all they just want their 'slavic union' and that's it." quickly transforms into "Russia will just occupy Baltics and then they will stop. After all USSR borders is all they want. So why not sacrifice 5% of EU to save 95%?" - once Russia threatens everyone with a nuclear holocaust over some "minor" Eastern Euro territories. It's like negotiating with terrorists instead of killing them: if nuclear threat works once - it will work ALWAYS. And then it's the end of NATO.

And afterwards what exactly will China lose? Nothing. After all no nuclear war happens. "Taiwan is just an island in the middle of nowhere, it's not like China will not keep trading with us. So your NVidia's GPU label will say "made in China" and not "made in Taiwan" - who cares? We made sure you aren't dying to radiation - be grateful for that"

And then you have DPRK. "One nuclear weapon is enough to open pandora's box. So maybe South Korea will find a way out on their own?"

Oh and you need not worry about DPRK not having enough nuclear weapons. They all get theirs from Russia anyway.

 

I just wrote a long reply that my computer then deleted because I pressed the wrong key. So instead of typing it all out again, I'll just say that we have different perspectives on this.

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, keas66 said:

Doesn't All of Crimea's Water come in through this area ?

Wouldn't an attack at this point essentially make Crimea  uninhabitable ?

Not as far as I can tell.  Crimea's water came from the North Crimea canal, which Ukraine cut back in 2014. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal) so they have local reservoirs and it looks like Russia had to ship it in, which caused problems:  https://www.ft.com/content/5eda71fc-d678-41cd-ac5a-d7f324e19441

An exchange here, be it conventional or nuclear will not really make a difference to Russia, or Crimea if Ukraine controls their water supply from the north.  Bu the time the UA got to this point, they would already be cut off.  As to "uninhabitable", well that figured out how to live with it for 8 years, so no I do not think that is a risk.

[sburke]

Really? We are back to the nuclear panic?  Russia using nukes guarantees only one thing. Russia becomes a pariah state and we go way beyond sanctions.  It may alter the timeline of Russian defeat but if anyone thinks Russia is somehow gonna hobble along after I’d think again. 

[Kraft]

Lets not reheat the nuke topic please. 

Nukes wont win the war and the West will be forced to act in a way that makes Putin pay a far greater price.

They have been used as a threat since before the war and will be used many more times as threat so lets not jump too far out of the what-if window.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Kraft