How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Er, distances on the globe are not affected by Russian propaganda. Unless google map is wrong, the shortest distance from Ukraine to Moscow is around 275 miles, Latvia to Moscow is 360 miles.

450 and 590 km. Hmm ... 150 km is obviously a decisive distance for strategic nuclear missiles

 

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

True but it can restrict Russian access to the black sea, especially if it controls Crimea.

The control of the Crimea does not affect the control of the Black Sea. As before, Turkey controls it

 

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Which of those weapons were tested in any near-peer conflict?

Hmmm, what about "desert storm"? (Hymars? - the answer is positive, M113 - too. MRAP was not created for a big war. It turns out that the United States started this war to test javelins and howitzers. Finally, I understood everything, thank you)

 

11 minutes ago, Butschi said:

How so?

Obviously, when one of the dominant states in the region dies, the second one becomes stronger.

 

14 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Gas from Norway will be delivered via pipeline. But a number of LNG terminals are being constructed in addition. Norway can't replace all Russian gas in the EU. If the additional gas will come from the US will be determined by the market but the chances have certainly increased.

 

So right now it's all just speculation.

 

15 minutes ago, Butschi said:

But it doesn't matter what they want to do. They just don't have the means to.

After defeating Ukraine, they will have enough time to build up strength. After all, the rest will be afraid to oppose anything to them. After the collapse of Russia in 1917, the USSR was a pitiful sight. And look what he became by the 1940s. Western countries supplied them with technology and industrial equipment without any problems. Despite the fact that the USSR declared the destruction of the West as the main goal. It will be the same in our time.

[The_MonkeyKing]

If somebody told me a week ago Ukraine was going to make +20km advances in Kherson in 24h I would not have believed them.

[panzermartin]

8 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

After the collapse of Russia in 1917, the USSR was a pitiful sight. And look what he became by the 1940s.

The USSR became what it became because Hitler waged a total war of annihilation on them. A lazy, incompetent and backwards military that couldn't find its way in the Lapland forests and was humiliated, was forcibly transformed to a fearful giant army to cope with an existential threat. It remains to be seen if Russia will transform under this new threat or they will collapse. I see no signs of the first to be honest... 

 

[dan/california]

5 hours ago, Zeleban said:

According to Russian propagandists. Ukraine successfully uses the tactics of small mobile groups in jeeps to operate behind Russian lines

One of the facts of modern war that Ukraine has reinforced is the difficulty of holding truly hostile territory where you can only patrol in platoon size units. This one of the things that sunk the U.S. in Afghanistan as well. If every look out post and dirt crossroads requires a platoon to sized unit there are not enough troops on earth to hold down a significant area. The AFU can cheerfully operate its recon forces in two jeep sections, and they can get a hot meal at any farmstead the Russians haven't destroyed. The difference in the two armies situation in the recon fight is hard to overstate.

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

 

Consultations are are going to be ongoing for a few weeks. I expect something TRULY bizarre on the propaganda front here.

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, Zeleban said:

LPR soldiers are looking for a cache of drugs. This is a popular way to sell drugs without the risk of being caught by the police. The drug dealer leaves drugs in the cache and, after receiving the money to the account, gives the drug addict the coordinates of the cache. In this video, the operator threatens to call the police and the drug addicts run away.

I guess if I were an LPR soldier, I'd be looking for some chemical escape too.

[Butschi]

29 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

The control of the Crimea does not affect the control of the Black Sea. As before, Turkey controls it

I see what you mean. Turkey certainly controls access to and from the Mediterranean to the black sea. But I think Crimea dominates the northern part of the black sea, the part that Russia can reach by land. So in case Turkey has some extra wishes again, it will have less potential to blackmail the rest of NATO, no?

 

29 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

48 minutes ago, Butschi said:

 

Obviousy, when one of the dominant states in the region dies, the second one becomes stronger.

Hm, yes and no, I guess. I mean it would leave a power vacuum but by whom it will be filled is by no means certain. China has power in other areas than Russia. And one wannabe superpower less to deal with makes it easier for the US to focus on China, I'd say.

29 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

So right now it's all just speculation.

Yes, well that's true. But making prophecies is always complicated, especially when they are about the future, as a colleague of mine looks to say.

29 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

After defeating Ukraine,

But do you believe they can? The consensus here, I think, is that at best they can avoid a total defeat but winning is outside their capabilities.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Butschi

[Zeleban]

6 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

The USSR became what it became because Hitler waged a total war of annihilation on them. A lazy, incompetent and backwards military that couldn't find its way in the Lapland forests and was humiliated, was forcibly transformed to a fearful giant army to cope with an existential threat. It remains to be seen if Russia will transform under this new threat or they will collapse. I see no signs of the first to be honest... 

 

If Ukraine wins, it will definitely not collapse.

In 1940, the USSR had over 15,000 tanks (11,000 T-26s and 4,500 BTs, not counting earlier models). More than all the countries of Europe and perhaps America combined.

Well, let's not forget that an adequate assessment of one's strengths and a Russian assessment of one's strengths are two different things.

[The_MonkeyKing]

 

Well, I guess that settles the extend of the current advance

EDIT: It is an earth dam with a road on top of it (definitely can be blown up also) Would cause a couple kilometer detour for the Ukrainians.

Edited October 3, 2022 by The_MonkeyKing

[The_MonkeyKing]

Any opinions is the Russian Kherson bridgehead viable without the Northern part? If you give benefit of the doubt to Russian military capabilities in the region.

[TheVulture]

Video of Borova apparently being back in Ukrainian hands, which I believe was the last major settlement / crossing point on the Oskil that was still contested.

https://t.me/hueviykharkov/82348

I'm guessing that this means that the Russians have more of less given up on trying to hold the ground between the Oskil and Zherebets rivers.

Edited October 3, 2022 by TheVulture

[Cogust]

https://en.zona.media/article/2022/10/01/russiandraft

One newly mobilized Russian shares his experience, he is not impressed with the amount of training or the equipment issued.

[Zeleban]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I see what you mean. Turkey certainly controls access to and from the Mediterranean to the black sea. But I think Crimea dominates the northern part of the black sea, the part that Russia can reach by land. So in case Turkey has some extra wishes again, it will have less potential to blackmail the rest of NATO, no?

If desired, Turkey could easily cut off Russia's oxygen in the Black Sea. Russia does not currently dominate the Black Sea. In addition to Ukraine, there are such NATO countries as Romania and Bulgaria. There is no point in unleashing a war to strengthen NATO in the Black Sea. It is enough to strengthen Romania and Bulgaria. The only possibility for Turkey to blackmail Europe is the lack of political will in Europe itself.

10 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Hm, yes and no, I guess. I mean it would leave a power vacuum but by whom it will be filled is by no means certain. China has power in other areas than Russia. And one wannabe superpower less to deal with makes it easier for the US to focus on China, I'd say.

America has never concentrated its efforts on Russia. Russia was absolutely uninteresting for her. What examples of the concentration of America's efforts in Russia do you know? (before the start of the war in Europe, of course)

 

12 minutes ago, Butschi said:

But do you believe they can? The consensus here, I think, is that at best they can avoid a total defeat but winning is outside their capabilities.

Victory is a very arbitrary concept. For some, victory is the defense of their capital from invasion. For some, victory is the annexation of several regions of another country and forcing this country to negotiate. And yes, I am sure that in the event of mistakes by our command, defeat is very likely and no Western superweapon will help. The war is not over yet.

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

 

IEDs do not fall outside the definition of "munitions", and that is not semantics, but pretty important, because it means they are indeed prohibited by the Ottawa Treaty - if they are victim activated. And this is also what we call (explosive) booby-traps.

This text goes into a lot more detail:

https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2019/09/17/ieds-mine-ban-convention/

 

 

“Such term does not include the following: (i) Wholly inert items. (ii) Improvised explosive devices.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-359415543-428117826&term_occur=5&term_src=

So you have an broad treaty interpretation legal blog site making an argument to try and roll them into the definition.  They are taking the broadest definition  of munition, which Cornell law (of all places) does not agree with and many nations within the treaty will likely play with when under the same position as Ukraine.

By the definition you have cited those Molotovs fall under the definition.  Go check dictionaries and you get mostly “military weapons and supplies”, so by that I could rig up an IED with all civilian components and am outside the treaty. And the there is the nasty non-explosive boobytraps etc.

Look the Ottawa Treaty was great, got a lot of traction back in the 90s and did move the needle on state manufactured AP land mines, trying to extend that into broader definitions goes no where fast.  Any nation in Ukraines position could easily walk around the edges and no one is going to call them on it.  Hell Ukraine could pull out of the treaty and I doubt it would even cause too much of a stir so long as they stay in line with the Geneva conventions - but why take the risk?  AP mines would not yield the battlefield effects they needed on the defence given the massive frontages, so why even risk it for something that might, at best, be a nuisance to the Russians?   

 

[poesel]

14 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

Well, I guess that settles the extend of the current advance

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1840834,33.7635943,3a,60y,21.09h,83.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so5fdfTM3TMWWoR08UNG79Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4

(view towards Dudchany)

That's not a bridge. Looks more like an earthen dam (what's the English word?). Can still be blown up, but likely much easier to repair than a bridge.
Also looks not too difficult to circumvent.

I guess that won't hold the UAF up for much.

[LongLeftFlank]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Sorry, the Rottie tweet doesn't come without the boring cat tweet.... 

 

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 minute ago, poesel said:

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1840834,33.7635943,3a,60y,21.09h,83.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so5fdfTM3TMWWoR08UNG79Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4

(view towards Dudchany)

That's not a bridge. Looks more like an earthen dam (what's the English word?). Can still be blown up, but likely much easier to repair than a bridge.
Also looks not too difficult to circumvent.

I guess that won't hold the UAF up for much.

Yeah, if the report is true this is more of an abandonment of positions than setting up defense.

Defense setup there would keep the "dam" unblown until the positions would have to be abandoned. f for nothing else, to keep the reservoir full and extending the water obstacle. Nothing less than a battlemech could cross that thing under fire.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

8 minutes ago, poesel said:

 

That's not a bridge. Looks more like an earthen dam (what's the English word?).

Causeway?

[Zeleban]

Well, you say that Russia is not capable of simulating a victory. Yes, easily.

Most of the population does not care about the actual state of affairs on the battlefield. What they declare a victory, they will consider a victory. Until 1991, Russia's defeat at the Battle of Borodino was considered a victory, since Napoleon's army failed to destroy the Russian army in this battle. While the French believe that the victory in this battle was theirs, since the battlefield was left behind them. Everything depends on the initially declared goals of each side, and Russia has not yet declared any clear goals. The easier it will be for the Russians to come up with a victory for history textbooks

[Ultradave]

4 hours ago, Holien said:

Has anyone seen a good resource on what Russia can field tactically and what skill level is required for it's use?

I am wondering

1. If they have the right skill level currently available as they seem to have sent any tom dick or harry to the front line and those troops might no longer be available.
    
2. How old is the tech and has it been maintained and how easy it is to keep it viable?
    
3. The vehicles needed are they specialist ones and would we note it on the battlefield?
    
4. What sort of ranges for the tac stuff?

I assume you are talking about tactical nuclear weapons here.

1. I would assume they would have the skills. Short and medium range missile units are most likely better trained, manned and are not used for cannon fodder on the front lines. There is not too much more to firing off a tactical nuclear weapon than a conventional one, once the release authorization is received. In fact, there isn't the time pressure to calculate data. It's slow and carefully checked. Same with "setting" the warhead.

2. Depends. Tactical nuclear weapons are low yield (everything is relative) compared to ICBM warheads. As such the warheads are of a simpler design and require little in the way of maintenance. Even old weapons should still work. 

3. Artillery: the US doesn't have any more and haven't for quite a while, but the Russians may. Same range as the artillery they are fired from, in their case, most likely 152mm. A 122 wouldn't have a big enough warhead size to fit a nuclear charge, kind of like a 105 for us. Also, you don't want to be that close.  Rocket artillery also - a nuclear warhead can fit rocket artillery warheads.The US used to have 155mm and 203mm nuclear artillery shells. Simple design, pretty much foolproof. Bombs are considered tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons. You need jets that are nuclear capable. You'd want to be sure that you have local air superiority to use one. Then there are IRBMs (Intermediate Range Nuclear Weapons). We foolishly withdrew from the treaty because of accusations of cheating by Russia, and their complaints that the proposed Bush era BMD for Europe could also be used for IRBMs. This was correct and was fixed during Obama's administration. As for Russia's cheating, some certainly was. Some was a debatable or semantics. In any case, the US withdrew from the treaty rather than try harder to fix the issues. Russia's Iskander missiles are nuclear capable and pretty long ranged, and pretty new and shiny. No need to be up close and personal.

4. Kind of covered by the above - there's a wide variety.

5. (added by me). We don't really have a good handle on exactly how many and what types of tactical nuclear weapons Russia has. They aren't covered by a treaty. Back when GHW Bush was president he unilaterally eliminated our tactical nuclear weapons, and the Russians followed suit because they are destabilizing and both sides realized that getting rid of them was a really good idea. However that was quite a while ago now. Many were destroyed/dismantled, and many are in storage, just not deployed, (we think) and we don't have visibility into what they may have been doing since then with new or updated/replacement weapons, like we do with strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems, which are covered by extensive verification as part of the treaty terms. 

 

 

[Butschi]

6 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

If desired, Turkey could easily cut off Russia's oxygen in the Black Sea. Russia does not currently dominate the Black Sea. In addition to Ukraine, there are such NATO countries as Romania and Bulgaria. There is no point in unleashing a war to strengthen NATO in the Black Sea. It is enough to strengthen Romania and Bulgaria. The only possibility for Turkey to blackmail Europe is the lack of political will in Europe itself.

I said blackmail NATO (like blocking Sweden and Finland from becoming members) not Europe. Also, the initial question was if NATO and by extension the US benefits. Russia started the war (but to whom am I telling that?) but getting rid of the black sea fleets home base and further restricting Russias ability to maneuver in the black sea would be beneficial, I think. Of course you are right otherwise.

 

13 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

30 minutes ago, Butschi said:

 

America has never concentrated its efforts on Russia. Russia was absolutely uninteresting for her. What examples of the concentration of America's efforts in Russia do you know? (before the start of the war in Europe, of course)

Not since 1991, I think. But it seems to me that Russia has increasingly become a distraction to the US we want to focus on China. But maybe someone with mote expertise in US geostrategical planning can come in on that?

17 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

34 minutes ago, Butschi said:

 

Victory is a very arbitrary concept. For some, victory is the defense of their capital from invasion. For some, victory is the annexation of several regions of another country and forcing this country to negotiate. And yes, I am sure that in the event of mistakes by our command, defeat is very likely and no Western superweapon will help. The war is not over yet.

Certainly good to remain cautious. I personally see no way they can win in the sense that they can take and hold territory. They probably can make a Ukrainian victory costly and very nasty. And of course they can press that big red button and make everyone lose.

No, I was referring to their ability to threaten NATO, the Baltics for instance. Will they be able to rebuild? Yes, of course, eventually. Short of genocide there isn't much anyone can do to prevent that. But who knows how long it will take and what other worries the world (and Russia!) may have by then?

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Certainly good to remain cautious. I personally see no way they can win in the sense that they can take and hold territory. They probably can make a Ukrainian victory costly and very nasty. And of course they can press that big red button and make everyone lose.

No, I was referring to their ability to threaten NATO, the Baltics for instance. Will they be able to rebuild? Yes, of course, eventually. Short of genocide there isn't much anyone can do to prevent that. But who knows how long it will take and what other worries the world (and Russia!) may have by then?

As always, the world will have many worries, money will be scarce as always. Therefore, the world will gladly offer modern technologies in exchange for the resources it needs.

It doesn't take much for Russia to win, to force Ukraine to the negotiating table while maintaining territorial gains. Most of the Kherson and Luhansk regions, as well as a significant part of the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions and, of course, the Crimea. For a Russian layman, these are significant achievements, especially against the backdrop of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

[Zeleban]

Incredibly risky combat medics evacuate a wounded man under fire from "grads"

[mosuri]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

 

* Said NATO member at the southern flank of Russia, with (I think?) shortest range to Moscow so far. With all the geostrategical benefits this position brings.

* Another good position for a missile shield?

 

You could say the same about Petrograd. After Estonia joined the distance from NATO to there is short. But isn't this something of a red herring? In case of the big one ICBMs don't mind a few hundred kilometers here or there. And I don't think NATO has any incentive to attack either city in any other scenario.

Many countries have their capitals close to international borders. No need to be particularly paranoid about that, if you have good neighbors.

Re the missile shield, not that I follow these matter in detail but AIUI those Russian missiles that target US would fly over the pole mostly, so for any missile shield in Ukraine it would make sense to protect Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Which I can't see as a bad thing.

 

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

It doesn't take much for Russia to win, to force Ukraine to the negotiating table while maintaining territorial gains. Most of the Kherson and Luhansk regions, as well as a significant part of the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions and, of course, the Crimea. For a Russian layman, these are significant achievements, especially against the backdrop of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

I'm confused.  We are watching the Russian position at Kherson start to collapse while around Kharkhiv the only thing it seems that will stop the AFU is outrunning their logistical lines.

So what is it Russia is going to do in order to achieve "it doesn't take much for Russia to win, to force Ukraine to the negotiating table".

Ukraine has already said they are not interested in any negotiations as long as Putin is in power.

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

As always, the world will have many worries, money will be scarce as always. Therefore, the world will gladly offer modern technologies in exchange for the resources it needs.

It doesn't take much for Russia to win, to force Ukraine to the negotiating table while maintaining territorial gains. Most of the Kherson and Luhansk regions, as well as a significant part of the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions and, of course, the Crimea. For a Russian layman, these are significant achievements, especially against the backdrop of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

On current trend Russia will be lucky to be holding anything except Crimea by Christmas. The most likely change to that trend is that the Russia collapses faster, and they are back to Crimea only by thanksgiving. If the Russians throw a nuke then it is a completely different discussion, but Russia isn't going to win anything. There remains a very large question about what the rest of us lose.

Edited October 3, 2022 by dan/california