How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Probus]

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-29

My vote is we get back to socks, Dan!

Edited September 30, 2022 by Probus

[FancyCat]

19 minutes ago, dan/california said:

We should get back to socks, IFVs, and the encirclement of Lyman, if we can.

 

There is very little point in discussing post-war, much less impossible scenarios. (Tbh I'm more concerned about the nuke threat)

I don't even think Putin will fall due to losing in Ukraine much less collapse of the country due to defeat.

What is BARS-13? Why is it called the Russian Legion in a army of a majority Russian? Has anyone actually been able to figure out if there is a defense line in Svatove? I know we know Ukraine was supposedly pushing units to Zaporizhia Oblast but it's strange how the same leaking of info isn't occurring in Lugansk oblast.

Edited September 30, 2022 by FancyCat

[NamEndedAllen]

4 hours ago, asurob said:

Negative.  If Russia goes nuclear, then bank on Russia being sans an air force or navy within hours after that.  If Vlad tosses one, things will get interesting quickly.  Unlike Vladimir's red lines, the west and NATO don't make false threats.  

We all may end up losing in this, but Putin most certainly will be the first loser

And that = 0 winners. Bad game! Disheartening to see a growing tendency to embrace the Russian doctrine of winnable nuclear war. If it can reasonably be termed “winnable”. Too many players with too many very bad toys, and too many unknowns at least on the Russian side.

This is why unpopular as the cautions by some here may be, the Allies have only proceeded up to the leading edge of caution.  But not leaping over the edge with both feet -  right into the cow plop. 

[BletchleyGeek]

7 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

What is BARS-13? Why is it called the Russian Legion in a army of a majority Russian? Has anyone actually been able to figure out if there is a defense line in Svatove? I know we know Ukraine was supposedly pushing units to Zaporizhia Oblast but it's strange how the same leaking of info isn't occurring in Lugansk oblast.

Those are all great questions: I am also wondering if there is any substance to the rumours about fresh Russian mobilized personnel being already fed into the Battle of Lyman in the style of "let's try to overrun the other guys without suppressing their defensive fires".

[dan/california]

From ISW

" Ukrainian military officials noted that Russian forces have already committed mobilized men to Kharkiv Oblast who have since told the Ukrainian forces that they did not receive any training prior to their deployment around September 15.[7]"

They are doing something with them to get at least small numbers of them captured. I would assume they were not all that lucky.

[NamEndedAllen]

57 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I think the obvious response to a single tactical nuke is to cruise missile (conventional, obviously) the two hundred most valuable Russian targets in Ukraine, AND sink the Black sea fleet. Among other things letting the Russians get away with it just throws nuclear nonproliferation in the trash. Japan, South Korea, and ten plus other countries would be nuclear powers in six months or a year, another twenty or thirty would be along as fast as they could. I don't. think that does much for civilization's long term odds, or even the medium term ones for that matter. This was brought up less than a week, and an approximate infinity of pages ago. 

Yes, certainly along those lines of a *conventional* body blow that we are certainly capable of delivering with truly catastrophic impact. Responding with one nuke only leads to *somebody* in the Kremlin tossing three nukes, and then and then and then. So, no. The most likely response  (although WE certainly don’t know for sure!) is not recklessly tossing nukes around at a guy with thousands of them in his pocket.

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

We should get back to socks, IFVs, and the encirclement of Lyman, if we can.

 

Indeed! What the forum has done best all these pages. And so valuably.

Predicting how this war will end, let alone what happens in Russia however it ends…pretty shaky branches.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Bearstronaut said:

Major Henry is a trans woman and made headlines 7-8 years ago as being the first openly transgender active duty officer. According to the reports on her arrest, she told the undercover FBI agent that she wanted to join the Russian army after the invasion. Russian society is not known for being very tolerant to the LGBT community so I have no idea what the hell she was thinking.

I've met a lot of US military officers over the years.  I've read, listened, and watched many more.  I'm usually overly impressed with their intelligence, professionalism, and dedication to duty.  I do think that we get the best of the best into uniform and promoted up the ranks. 

And then I see something like this and I wonder HOW THE F did this person make it to a significant rank and not get drummed out of service before causing harm.  And before anybody tries to even THINK of pinning this on being transgender, all I have to do is point to January 6th's list of retired US officers that took part to prove that there's more to it than not.  Or a certain retired general that is a Q-Anon type running for higher office.  Or the ongoing and seemingly never ending "Fat Leonard" scandal.

Speaking of which, I just learned they caught Fat Leonard last week in Venezuela (yeah, we got help from them!  Crazy!) trying to escape to... guess where... Russia.  There's going to be more than a few movies made about this whole thing, especially with the escape in the plot:

https://www.foxla.com/news/navy-contractor-fat-leonard-bribery-scandal-russia

I just don't get it.  The recent move to purge the US military of white supremacists was dumb.  They should have said the effort is to get mentally ill officers out of uniform and into treatment for whatever ills they have.  The white supremacists would likely get caught in that net anyway.

Grr.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

5 hours ago, billbindc said:

Absolutely superb analysis. If we survive the next 18 months his book is going to be great:

https://ogs-and-ofzs.ghost.io/empire-of-austerity/

Apologies if he's a friend of yours, but this kind of stuff, however intelligent and erudite, is why I avoid 'political science' (and 'social sciences' in general). And that's in spite of IR being my undergrad major (actually it was sports, with a minor in drinking).

1.  'integrate' various (ideologically constructed) interpretations of historical events, with data, preferably drawing connections nobody has thought of before. Novelty value is important.

2. 'synthesize' -- and publish and promote! -- an explanatory/predictive framework that, well, explains and predicts. Until it doesn't.

3. To me, it all amounts to Eisenhower's famous dictum:  plans are worthless, planning is everything.

....Which is to say that any 'framework' or thesis will almost surely be pants, because reasons (confounding variables) which only become crystal clear in hindsight. 

But by doing the exercise, you may know which levers to pull first and hardest, as you scramble to adapt to emerging reality.

4.  However, in practice academics and think-tankers don't really get to pull those levers. Even when they do get to sit at the grown-ups' table (McNamara, Kissinger, Rumsfeld) they merely clamour for the occasional attention of those who do.

And, on the consultant pattern, they are usually asked to provide a retroactive paper trail for what the Decider's gut feeling and experience is already telling them to do. There is no tabula rasa.

One cynical old guy's opinion. YMMV.  And yes, I did read it through closely, and was going to quote a few bits, but realised the entire approach was... well, what I just wrote above.

Edited September 30, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Indeed! What the forum has done best all these pages. And so valuably.

Predicting how this war will end, let alone what happens in Russia however it ends…pretty shaky branches.

I hope we can move on from it too.  I'll ATTEMPT to close off this discussion by stating things a little differently than we've seen so far...

The current goal is to end the war, hold Russia accountable, and ensure that Russia does not want to go down this path ever again.  I don't think there's a single person here that disagrees with this goal. 

I think we can also all agree that a related goal is to have Ukraine be a happy, safe, and independent state free of Russian aggression.

People who think that destroying the planet and ending Humanity as we know it because of Vladimir Putin really, really, REALLY need to step away from this and/or seek therapy.  At best it is an extremely emotional response to a situation that calls for rational thought.  At worst it is something that is need of professional help.

If Putin uses a nuke there are so many non-nuclear responses that can be employed to achieve the two aforementioned goals.  Not laying the planet waste for a million years is absolutely not one of them.  We've gone over several options that do not equate to giving into Russia or risking our planet being uninhabitable.

My favorite option is broadcasting a message into Russia using all means of hacking available to tell the Russians that they have X amount of time to surrender unconditionally or Russia will cease to exist as a nation state.  There's enough unrest bubbling up already that I think it is more than likely that Putin would be deposed (dead) pretty quickly.  The West no doubt could help make that happen if asked.

As the deadline is ticking down, every single Russian military asset of any strategic capability will be located and tracked.  If the deadline passes without Putin being deposed, or there's another tac nuke detonated, then every single one of those targets would be destroyed within a few days.  Period. 

If that doesn't do it, then we're in a real mess because Western nukes would likely have to be used.  And I don't think that ends well.  Least of all for Ukraine.  Which, supposedly, is what we're all so very concerned about, right?

 

I can ensure what I just said is the last of this discussion by granting vacations to people who insist on keeping it going in the way it has for the past few pages.  Please, don't make me do that.

Steve

[billbindc]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Apologies if he's a friend of yours, but this kind of stuff, however intelligent and erudite, is why I avoid 'political science' (and 'social sciences' in general). And that's in spite of IR being my undergrad major (actually it was sports, with a minor in drinking).

1.  'integrate' various (ideologically constructed) interpretations of historical events, with data, preferably drawing connections nobody has thought of before. Novelty value is important.

2. 'synthesize' -- and publish and promote! -- an explanatory/predictive framework that, well, explains and predicts. Until it doesn't.

3. To me, it all amounts to Eisenhower's famous dictum:  plans are worthless, planning is everything.

....Which is to say that any 'framework' or thesis will almost surely be pants, because reasons (confounding variables) which only become crystal clear in hindsight. 

But by doing the exercise, you may know which levers to pull first and hardest, as you scramble to adapt to emerging reality.

4.  However, in practice academics and think-tankers don't really get to pull those levers. Even when they do get to sit at the grown-ups' table (McNamara, Kissinger, Rumsfeld) they merely clamour for the occasional attention of those who do.

And, on the consultant pattern, they are usually asked to provide a retroactive paper trail for what the Decider's gut feeling and experience is already telling them to do. There is no tabula rasa.

One cynical old guy's opinion. YMMV.  And yes, I did read it through closely, and was going to quote a few bits, but realised the entire approach was... well, what I just wrote above.

Not a friend and I do appreciate your contempt for a certain kind of think tanker apparatcik. But I think he's really on to something about the choices and mistakes of the Russian elite. We can read his book when it comes out and see if "pants" is the right term. 

Fiona Hill is, here, quite on point: 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/what-if-were-already-fighting-the-third-world-war-with-russia?mbid=social_twitter&utm_brand=tny&utm_source=twitter&utm_social-type=owned&utm_medium=social

 

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

Don't know a definitive history or how useful they are but both our biggest telcos have offered civilian satellite phones for at least 20 years.

We had an emergency device the idea is if you push a button every airline flying over Australia picks up the emergency signal to get you out of trouble. The satellite phone has indeed been around for a long time. This thing is I think one step up. 

[Battlefront.com]

Onto happier thoughts... Lyman!

Catching up on the more interesting revelations in the past few pages, it seems the end game might come as soon as tomorrow.  Let's say there are 4000 forces there right now.  Here's how I see the Lyman Pocket™ playing out:

Roughly 2000 will attempt to flee.  Perhaps a little at first, but it will gain momentum VERY quickly.  Once they make a decision to flee they will be predisposed to surrendering if they find they can't retreat to safety.

Roughly 1000 will put up a little bit of a fight until they get the sense they are doomed.  This group will likely be obligated to surrender or die as they probably missed their chance to retreat.

Roughly 1000 will hedge their bets and try fighting it out and eventually wind up dying or surrendering.  Retreating won't be an option for them.

In the end I predict at least 25% of the forces will become casualties before this battle is concluded.

What do others think?

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

Onto happier thoughts... Lyman!

Catching up on the more interesting revelations in the past few pages, it seems the end game might come as soon as tomorrow.  Let's say there are 4000 forces there right now.  Here's how I see the Lyman Pocket™ playing out:

Roughly 2000 will attempt to flee.  Perhaps a little at first, but it will gain momentum VERY quickly.  Once they make a decision to flee they will be predisposed to surrendering if they find they can't retreat to safety.

Roughly 1000 will put up a little bit of a fight until they get the sense they are doomed.  This group will likely be obligated to surrender or die as they probably missed their chance to retreat.

Roughly 1000 will hedge their bets and try fighting it out and eventually wind up dying or surrendering.  Retreating won't be an option for them.

In the end I predict at least 25% of the forces will become casualties before this battle is concluded.

What do others think?

Steve

Hot take:  Less Falaise, more Korsun!

(i.e.  don't let these combat veterans escape the trap and become cadres to train the mobiks).

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Not a friend and I do appreciate your contempt for a certain kind of think tanker apparatcik. But I think he's really on to something about the choices and mistakes of the Russian elite. We can read his book when it comes out and see if "pants" is the right term. 

Fiona Hill is, here, quite on point: 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/what-if-were-already-fighting-the-third-world-war-with-russia?mbid=social_twitter&utm_brand=tny&utm_source=twitter&utm_social-type=owned&utm_medium=social

 

It's not contempt, not at all, sorry if it comes off that way. I should probably have been an academic too.  (And here I am spending my nonwork time on bloody wargaming boards for 25+ years, so I don't mind intellectual rabbit holes or overthought puzzles).

....It's just a realisation as I go through life that (respecting Steve's admonition, I shall not post the relevant Dilbert cartoon) 'intelligence has far less practical application than you'd think.'

[FancyCat]

Not sure if it was linked here before. It's pretty likely that NATO will pursue a conventional military response to any nuclear weapons use by Russia, unless it were some sort of all out attack and therefore MAD would be in play. Otherwise, as I see it, we would want nuclear use to be as reduced as possible, even if Russia were to launch a tactical nuke or two, our effort would be to simply punish Russia for the use of them, not normalize their use further. A big question would be whether we would target Russian nuclear launch facilities, but I think not since MAD would go into play, nor would we target command centers in Moscow either. Maybe, as mentioned previously, wiping out the Russian Black Sea Fleet, imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, or some other manner where NATO missiles and aircraft would pave the way for the victory of Ukrainian forces in all of Ukraine is on the table. 

In that sense, while Putin sought to use a tactical nuke to end or bring the conflict closer to a goal he would find amendable, the West's response would be to punish him with the inability to accomplish that goal, in a very quick and decisive manner if possible. 

 

It has occurred to me, with how U.S intelligence was showing the ability to read deep into Russian communications and get info from inside the highest levels of government, if Russia was the state behind the NS1 and NS2 destruction, did the U.S find out before it happened? 

The interesting thing is the pipelines were stuck in the EEZ of Denmark and Sweden, but i believe EEZs aren't considered full sovereign territory. I believe NS1 and NS2 are considered owned by Russia? Or at least majority owned by Russia. Had the attack been known to NATO, could NATO really interfere and stop the sabotage? Could Russia simply claim it was investigating their own pipelines? 

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

ISW's report for today is out on time again!  Yea

As usual, we've discussed everything covered in the report, but there are details in there worth reading.  One of them is that Putin and senior officials have engaged in the usual response to public outrage... claim they sympathize, are taking corrective actions, and the problems are taken care of.  In reality, however, there's no change.

ISW's primary thesis is Putin has bypassed the MoD to directly provide frontline commands with warm bodies.  This is quite probably what is going on.  However, it is also possible that systemic and ineffective chain of command is resulting in the lowest level authorities prioritizing achieving their quotas as quickly and lazily as possible (as well as earning money from dodgers). 

For all we know Putin is desperately screaming at senior staff to fix this problem before it gets out of control, but the system for imposing order is so dysfunctional that there's just no ability for corrective action.  Leaving Putin with a choice of ending mobilization prematurely, with all that entails, or allowing it to continue as is and  gamble that he can get enough bodies to the front before experiencing overtly threatening blowback from the civilian population.

This is Russia, so it's hard to know if what we're seeing is deliberate indifference to life and reason or just gross incompetence (and an indifference to life and reason).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Not sure if it was linked here before. It's pretty likely that NATO will pursue a conventional military response to any nuclear weapons use by Russia, unless it were some sort of all out attack and therefore MAD would be in play.

Since that is both the appropriate and rational response, it is not unexpected.  Still, it is reassuring to see more evidence that the West is preparing for a nuke well ahead of time.  We won't see much of the preparations for it, but then again we didn't see most of the preparations ahead of February 23rd and there certainly was a response!  I'm angling for "understatement of the year" award

5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

It has occurred to me, with how U.S intelligence was showing the ability to read deep into Russian communications and get info from inside the highest levels of government, if Russia was the state behind the NS1 and NS2 destruction, did the U.S find out before it happened?

It is quite possible.  Perhaps even probable.  And not doing anything about it (Russian owns it and the waters aren't overtly sovereign) would be the only correct move to make, so it's consistent with how things played out.

5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

This is one of the few pieces of Russian military equipment that I find worthy of being impressed with.  It seems to do a very important job very well.

Steve

[sburke]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is Russia, so it's hard to know if what we're seeing is deliberate indifference to life and reason or just gross incompetence (and an indifference to life and reason).

Steve

I'd go with both.  well, I guess that was your second option.  Personally, I think Russia is so dysfunctional that there is no "reining things in".  They might punish a few as examples but I'd bet the others will just say "stupid idiot went and got caught".  Criminals are like that.  They always assume the other guy got caught because he was stupid and somehow think they won't.

It is an opportunity moment for bribes or theft and also insure there are bodies to be sent to the front so these guys don't go to the front.

I'd bet they also think the leadership is just saying what folks want to hear as they KNOW they don't really care, so it is just all noise and keep at it boys!

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Those are all great questions: I am also wondering if there is any substance to the rumours about fresh Russian mobilized personnel being already fed into the Battle of Lyman in the style of "let's try to overrun the other guys without suppressing their defensive fires".

I did just hear a credible verbal report, that the Russians have done something close this on the Northern side of the Kupiansk Salient on the south side of Oskil. The Russians are apparently throwing infantry at the Ukrainians virtually unsupported. These are some the better Ukrainian units and it is going about as well as you would expect.

 

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

The Russians are apparently throwing infantry at the Ukrainians virtually unsupported.

A little like an AI attack?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I did just hear a credible verbal report, that the Russians have done something close this on the Northern side of the Kupiansk Salient on the south side of Oskil. The Russians are apparently throwing infantry at the Ukrainians virtually unsupported. These are some the better Ukrainian units and it is going about as well as you would expect.

 

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

A little like an AI attack?

sort of but with no "I"

To butcher a sports phrase.  There is no "I" in cannon fodder

Edited September 30, 2022 by sburke

[sburke]

Russian-Installed Official's Car Blown up in Ukraine Attack (msn.com)

[Battlefront.com]

Probably behind its paywall, NY Times article discussing proposals for a new US military "command" to oversee all things Ukraine and, by definition, Russia.  For those who don't know much about how the US military hierarchy works, this is a big deal.  The US does not create Commands very often and they tend to stick around for very long periods of time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/us/politics/pentagon-command-ukraine.html

Another NY Times article from a couple of days ago talks about a recent meeting in Brussels to sort out war production strategies to ensure there's enough boom-sticks to go around to keep Russia outclassed for decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/us/politics/ukraine-weapons-nato.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

No signs of weakening resolve in the West.  Quite the opposite.  We're seeing institutional changes to confront Russia directly for years if need be.

Steve