How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Taranis]

"Deux fuites signalées le 27 septembre" = Two leaks reported on September 27
"Une fuite signalée le 26 septembre" = One leak reported on September 26

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

This isn't a good argument imo. Europe should always choose it's energy strategy independently of the USA, especially given the interests USA itself has. Let's not forget everything which has happened before this war.

What his point is that the US advised STRONGLY against becoming reliant upon a resource coming from a primary adversary.  Over the years Germany's dependency grew and it's push back against dealing with Soviet and then Russian problems became more problematic.  So yeah, let's not forget what has happened before this war

 

3 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Becoming strategically dependant on the USA for gas isn't a good alternative now and especially not when the plans for the pipelines were developed.

Being strategically dependent upon the most reliable ally Germany has ever had was a worse alternative to being strategically dependent upon an expansionist dictatorship sitting in occupation of 1/3rd of its territory while at the same time aggressively threatening it with nuclear annihilation?

I'm confused by your logic!

3 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Now the way everything has materialized is certainly unfavorable towards the chosen strategy (probably relying on a single partner was stupid anyhow and why doesn't the EU does more collectively on this subject?).

Stupid is one word that comes to mind.

Steve

[Huba]

11 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Read your own post and decide who's ranting here. Would you like to read how anti-semetic and fascist pre-world war Poland was? No. So stop bashing the Germans. Leave the past alone.

We are not using that fact as an excuse to sit on our hands and be dragged by force into doing the right thing.
Germany has all the OKs/ encouragement from it's allies and partners to proceed with the AFVs. Nobody will be calling it names because of it, it will be praised - except by Russia. Russia most definitely will bring out all the Nazi analogies, but if that in itself is serious enough argument to back down to RU fascist demands, then perhaps my call for getting over the WWW2 trauma is somewhat deserved?

Oh, and also it was Panzermartinn who started the talk about DE past, not me, so perhaps go pick at him?

Edited September 27, 2022 by Huba

[danfrodo]

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

the US is largely OK with this lopsided security arrangement because, in the end, the US feels it comes out at least even if not ahead.

As a US taxpayer, I actually don't care about the cost.  The US defense budget is enormous and this is what it's meant to do.  How much of the material we've sent was actually new spending?  How much was stuff sitting around in warehouses?  So I'm glad to actually get existing, already paid for equipment into a real fight of good vs evil.  (and there really aren't many wars that are so obviously black & white as this one).  

Plus the US is getting excellent experience in logistics, ISR, planning.  And getting to test out various weapons systems, in real life.  

And the end of this will be a Russia that doesn't have the strength to threaten anyone in europe.  Though Kazahkstan, Georgia, et al, might be on the target list in a few years. 

THis is money very well spent.  The worst, most dangerous serial killing dictator of our times is being crushed -- and best of all he did it to himself!

[Aragorn2002]

6 minutes ago, Huba said:

We are not using that fact as an excuse to sit on our hands and be dragged by force into doing the right thing.
Germany has all the OKs/ encouragement from it's allies and partners to proceed with the AFVs. Nobody will be calling it names because of it, it will be praised - except by Russia. Russia most definitely will bring out all the Nazi analogies, but if that in itself is serious enough argument to back down to RU fascist demands, then perhaps my call for getting over the WWW2 trauma is somewhat deserved?

With that I agree, Huba, but mentioning the nazi victims is below the belt in this respect. I'm all in favor of sending everything we can and yes, depending on Russian energy was unbelievably stupid, but judge Germany on what it is now, not on what it has been or has done 80 years ago.

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[danfrodo]

Just now, Aragorn2002 said:

With that I agree, Huba, but mentioning the nazi victims is below the belt in this respect. I'm all in favor of sending everything we can and yes, depending on Russian energy was unbelievable stupid, but judge Germany on what it is now, not on what is has been.

I wonder if this looks different once the war is 'over', whatever that will mean.  Will Germany then be totally OK sending it's warehoused leo2's?   I've been trying to separate in my mind the various time scales of arming Ukraine.  Right now it needs tools it can use right now.  I call that the UKR army 2022

But what should UKR army look like by end of 2023?  That army will take a year of logistics & maintenence training to happen if it's going to have a whole new set of armored vehicles, airplanes, etc.  But all of those technical people are 100% busy right now.  So how does one start the new army while all the manpower is currently involved in an all consuming war?

Then we get into what the UKR army should look like by end of 2024, 2025.  One key aspect will be that it needs to be strong enough that Putin, even w a rebuilt army, couldn't possibly threaten Ukraine.  

[DerKommissar]

29 minutes ago, kraze said:

But in 1991 it was possible to finally end Russia - instead not only it wasn't ended - but even USA itself tried to keep USSR intact - and now we have a new Hitler screaming about restoring the imperial glory and avenging Russia.

The only good thing is that this Hitler is an absolutely atrocious clone that is too incompetent to become like his role model.

The next one may not be - if the mistake is repeated again. Empires have to end and this is the last one.

100% agreed. If the US installed a puppet regime in the chaos of '91, none of this would have happened.

If I had to guess why this wasn't done: less rogue states meant less demand for defense spending. It's only job security.

I hope this opportunity is not squandered, this time around.

[Huba]

14 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

With that I agree, Huba, but mentioning the nazi victims is below the belt in this respect. I'm all in favor of sending everything we can and yes, depending on Russian energy was unbelievable stupid, but judge Germany on what it is now, not on what is has been.

OK, it might've not been a perfect choice of words. My point (as answer to the original post) was that refusing help to a nation that was horribly victimized by Germany, quoting DE own trauma that arose from this victimization is really not a best line of argumentation, and quite (perhaps a bit too much) triggering. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Huba

[Aragorn2002]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

OK, it might've not been a perfect choice of words. My point (as answer to the original post) was that refusing help to a nation that was horribly victimized by Germany, quoting DE own trauma that arose from this victimization is really not a best line of argumentation, and I quite (perhaps a bit too much) triggering. 

Fair enough.

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

We also appear to be seeing the first large deployment of Mobiks.  These guys are going to surrender as quickly as they are encountered.  The more Russia puts into the area, the more prisoners we'll see.  I wonder if mass surrender events will cause Russia to rethink it's strategy or if that's already been baked into their planning.  Given how desperate and out of touch senior command is, I really don't know what to expect.

Steve

Maybe they are trying to overflow Ukraine / the EU with 'special refugees'?

[danfrodo]

25 minutes ago, Taranis said:

"Deux fuites signalées le 27 septembre" = Two leaks reported on September 27
"Une fuite signalée le 26 septembre" = One leak reported on September 26

 

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

It is quite likely from where I sit that the Russians did this themselves. Ukraine may seriously want them shut down but Zelensky would not risk creating an environmental disaster in Danish, German and Swedish waters. He would also not challenge their territorial sovereignty in so crude a way. Furthermore, the gas was barely flowing anyway. I have no inside knowledge but everything here points to Russia. With no gas flowing, the carrot wasn't getting them much so they decided to go all stick by destroying transfer capability completely. This has  bunch of knock on effects including showing will, making clear that Norwegian pipelines can be equally destroyed, ruining a potential carrot an anti-Putin faction could offer the West, etc.

A very stupid move of course, since at a stroke a lot of influential German manufacturers now have no reason at all to lobby for a softer policy. The possibility of Russian gas is likely now gone so cold turkey and a new energy dispensation is the only sensible policy. Typical Putin.

Dan, the above is my take. Three pages back already. Yikes.

[DerKommissar]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

I do not see Pootin as a rational actor. He seems to operate on emotional outbursts, rather than planning. Much like a spoiled kid that would rather break his toys, than let some one else play with them.

[Billy Ringo]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

Blame it on the US/NATO and claim that they've directly attacked Russian economic assets outside of the scope of Ukraine.  Couple that with the attacks on Russian soil, (newly acquired territories claimed this Friday), Putin can use both of these to justify whatever actions he determines is in HIS best interest.

Now, it's all BS.  But he's never been averse to making declarations and justifying terrible behavior based on BS in the past.  Just my opinion. 

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, Huba said:

OK, it might've not been a perfect choice of words. My point (as answer to the original post) was that refusing help to a nation that was horribly victimized by Germany, quoting DE own trauma that arose from this victimization is really not a best line of argumentation, and quite (perhaps a bit too much) triggering. 

are you neglecting your new bride?  Shame on you.

[Huba]

Just now, danfrodo said:

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

Make us all fight about it. We'll blame this on Russia of course, but perhaps it's greedy US who want's to sell us LNG? Or spiteful Ukrainians/ Poles who really want to stick it to the Germans? <put any conspiracy theory here>. Increasing the general level of fear in EU, also about possible future strikes on energy infrastructure. This is happening just days before RU annexes new territories, perhaps they count that it will affect West's response.
Also, the pipelines were useless already, why not use leverage them one last time? Not much to loose here.

[Battlefront.com]

Let's assume the Russians blew up NS1.  It is the most likely scenario, at the very least.  What sort of tea leaves does that provide for us to read?  Here's a stab at it.

It appears Putin is carrying out a "scorched earth" policy.  Which is something Russia has a LOT of historical experience with.  The scorched earth mentality is pretty straight forward... if it's not of use to us, and potentially useful to the enemy, then destroy it.  Do not take long term consequences into consideration.

As someone (billbindc) speculated a few pages ago, the destruction of the pipeline is likely to deny a power bloc within Russia an incentive to get rid of Putin.  "Well, if we just get rid of Putin then we can get gas money again" thinking has just suffered a major setback.  Couple this with the disproportionate targeted murders amongst the gas oligarchs and a pattern emerges.

The oil/gas guys are not necessarily a power bloc on their own, but they are a source of power that someone else can use to gain control over Russia.  It's exactly what Putin has done for 20+ years, so if anybody knows the importance of who the oil/gas guys ally with it's Putin.

The tea leaves here seem to hint that Putin has felt it's easier to attack the source of revenue/power for a rival bloc than to attack the bloc itself.  Killing oil/gas executives was a sign that they shouldn't be looking for new alliances.  Blowing up NS1 looks to be a move of desperation to ensure if Putin can't have the revenue then nobody will.

There's more.

Putin's KGB training and mindset is to view any one action as a source of multiple solutions or, at the very least, laying groundwork for them.  While I think internal power dynamics drove him to blow up NS1, I also think a secondary goal is to make sure Europe has no option but to suffer through the winter.  There's no chance the gas is coming on any time soon.  This sends a message to Europeans that Putin isn't afraid of harming Russia if it also means harming its enemies.  Overtones of the nuclear threats no doubt intended.

In short, Putin's message to internal foes is "no easy money if you depose me, so you might want to think again" and to external foes "I just blew up my own pipeline to stick it to you, what makes you think I won't use a nuke for the same reasons?"

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Maybe they are trying to overflow Ukraine / the EU with 'special refugees'?

Russia has used Syrian refugees as a weapon for more than 10 years now, so I wouldn't doubt it.  Plus, it is an easy way to export Russian influence.  As we've noted many times now, it seems the bulk of Russian expats maintain their loyalty to the concept of Russian greatness even though they themselves left Russia because they obviously didn't find it all that great.

Steve

[mosuri]

15 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

I am honestly puzzled by this. It removes Nordstream (both 1 and 2) from the table completely, so Russia can't anymore use those in the game for bargaining (as in remove sanctions / remove support to Ukraine and the spice will flow).

To me this seems to paint Vladimir Vladimirovich even more tightly in the corner. What's the upside for him?

Edit: was writing when Steve posted. Seems to be an awfully expensive way of making a f you statement (the external messaging Steve mentioned)

Edited September 27, 2022 by mosuri

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Let's assume the Russians blew up NS1.  It is the most likely scenario, at the very least.  What sort of tea leaves does that provide for us to read?  Here's a stab at it.

It appears Putin is carrying out a "scorched earth" policy.  Which is something Russia has a LOT of historical experience with.  The scorched earth mentality is pretty straight forward... if it's not of use to us, and potentially useful to the enemy, then destroy it.  Do not take long term consequences into consideration.

As someone (billbindc) speculated a few pages ago, the destruction of the pipeline is likely to deny a power bloc within Russia an incentive to get rid of Putin.  "Well, if we just get rid of Putin then we can get gas money again" thinking has just suffered a major setback.  Couple this with the disproportionate targeted murders amongst the gas oligarchs and a pattern emerges.

The oil/gas guys are not necessarily a power bloc on their own, but they are a source of power that someone else can use to gain control over Russia.  It's exactly what Putin has done for 20+ years, so if anybody knows the importance of who the oil/gas guys ally with it's Putin.

The tea leaves here seem to hint that Putin has felt it's easier to attack the source of revenue/power for a rival bloc than to attack the bloc itself.  Killing oil/gas executives was a sign that they shouldn't be looking for new alliances.  Blowing up NS1 looks to be a move of desperation to ensure if Putin can't have the revenue then nobody will.

There's more.

Putin's KGB training and mindset is to view any one action as a source of multiple solutions or, at the very least, laying groundwork for them.  While I think internal power dynamics drove him to blow up NS1, I also think a secondary goal is to make sure Europe has no option but to suffer through the winter.  There's no chance the gas is coming on any time soon.  This sends a message to Europeans that Putin isn't afraid of harming Russia if it also means harming its enemies.  Overtones of the nuclear threats no doubt intended.

In short, Putin's message to internal foes is "no easy money if you depose me, so you might want to think again" and to external foes "I just blew up my own pipeline to stick it to you, what makes you think I won't use a nuke for the same reasons?"

Steve

I agree all around (of course I do, you cited me!) but it should be noted how utterly obtuse this is in the longer run. Putin's whole strategy was to split support for Ukraine. That means getting Germany and France to start to oppose the war on the grounds that Europe needs the energy Russia provides. This may be a Pollyanna take from our perspective...but it's at least a strategy of sorts. By blowing up the pipeline, Putin has very effectively taken that issue out of Germany politics and EU politics in general. He's *further* unified his enemies. I can't say it makes me happier though. He's simply continuing to double down his bets with the nuclear option being the final set of chips.

[danfrodo]

12 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Dan, the above is my take. Three pages back already. Yikes.

thanks BillBindC, I saw that but was just looking for more input now that we've got more evidence it was done by Putin

 

[Grigb]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, I'm looking at this more from a planning standpoint than confirmed actions on the ground.  However, I think it's pretty clear that the push out of the bridgeheads has already started and the one north of Lyman is quickly developing into a major push.  Whether it goes straight east and south (very probable) or also north (logical) is what I'm less sure of.  I think it depends on what Ukraine has for forces and if Russia has managed to put anything but old men with rusty AKMs into the fight there.

Steve

Agree.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

I agree all around (of course I do, you cited me!) but it should be noted how utterly obtuse this is in the longer run. Putin's whole strategy was to split support for Ukraine. That means getting Germany and France to start to oppose the war on the grounds that Europe needs the energy Russia provides. This may be a Pollyanna take from our perspective...but it's at least a strategy of sorts. By blowing up the pipeline, Putin has very effectively taken that issue out of Germany politics and EU politics in general. He's *further* unified his enemies. I can't say it makes me happier though. He's simply continuing to double down his bets with the nuclear option being the final set of chips.

That's not completely true. There are still pipelines through Poland and Czechia/ Slovakia that connect RU with Western Europe. RU stopped moving any gas through them  some months ago, but there are still in operational condition. In the scenario you outlined, the gas would have to go through Polish territory. We wouldn't agree to that. Here's your major intra-EU conflict.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Huba

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

That's not completely true. There are still pipelines through Poland and Czechia/ Slovakia that connect RU with Western Europe. RU stopped moving any gas through them  some months ago, but there are still in operational condition. In the scenario you outlined, the gas would have to go through Polish territory. We wouldn't agree to that. Here's your major intra-EU conflict.

Germany is in no position to force Poland or anyone else to do it. The efficacy for Russia in Germany politics that they could quietly push German industry to make their case. That's at best, attenuated if not eliminated.

[keas66]

2 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Agree.

If I was going to be possibly concerned about the use of tactical nukes - it would seem like a major offensive push by Ukraine now around Lyman would be the place they would do it ? Stall the Offensive push  completely  in that Area .