How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

Today's statistic on 13:30  - 20 missiles shot down from 28 launched and 13 Shakheds. Alas< again several missiles could hit targets in western Ukraine. Two Shakheds hit thermal plant in Vinnytsia oblast, which was damaged yesterday by missiles. The strike injured 6 men of repair team

[Battlefront.com]

40 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

And here is another possible reason. As we have speculated before, Russia is lack of training facilities and instructors to handle large number of mobilized troops. So, RU needs to send them to Belarus and utilize the training facilities there. 

 

That is the most obvious reason for it, for sure.  ISW believes this too.  It also makes sense for Putin and Lukashenko to make it seem like something more because it helps both in several ways.

These guys would get shredded by whatever the Ukrainian equivalent of the Girl Scouts is.  However, they are a distraction and any distraction, no matter how small, works to Russia's favor.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Zelenskiy: according to UKR intelligence, Russia ordered in Iran 2400 Shakhed drones

Danilov: Iran couldn't produce own drones itself. We investigate remains of shot-down Shakeds and see, that their manufacturing became possible because Iran could buy electronic components of some leading industrial countries, buypassing sanctions. 

I think, some companies tensed up...

Edited October 11, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Wasn't that argument based on the assumption of at least medium Russian competence and a low level of Western support?

Partly.  But even after it was clear that Russian competence was as bad as their equipment we still saw lots and lots and lots of people (informed and uninformed) saying that Russia would win this because it is so much bigger than Ukraine.  "They have X million more men, Y thousands more tanks, etc.".

These arguments were extensions of prewar mistakes of focusing too much on quantity and not enough on quality.  They did not understand the dynamics of combat attrition, the degree of corruption in Russia, the amount of damage corruption can do, the lack of professionalism within Russia's military, Putin's constraints on mobilization, etc.

Combat Mission teaches us that quantity can win over quality, but only when the gap between the two is not large and other conditions are favorable.  The quality gap between Russian and Ukrainian forces, even with minimal Western weaponry, was just too big for Russia to overcome.

A good example of this is 10x Russian T-72B3 attacking a Ukrainian position without any tanks.  Someone who doesn't understand how war works at the tactical level would probably conclude "well, Ukraine will lose this battle big time".  For veteran Combat Mission players the answer should be "I don't have enough information.  What's the terrain?  Time of day?  How many Javelins and NLAWs do the Ukrainians have?  Do the Russians have any infantry?  Are the Russians fighting with crews that were put together yesterday, or were these guys all from the same prewar units?"

These questions are raised because THEY MATTER.  Here's how the battle might have gone:

The 10 Russian tanks incompetently lumber forward because nobody knows each other and they are uncertain as to what their mission is.  They don't have supporting infantry.  The terrain requires them to advance over 1000m of open ground, which is too far away to spot soldiers hiding in the woods bordering the field.  And because Russians' suck at war, they haven't done adequate recon of the area.  The tanks get out into the field and 2 Javelins are let loose and 2 T-72s enter the turret throwing olympics.  The remaining 8 tanks pop smoke and withdraw in a haste.

Later that afternoon 8 tanks, maybe this time with 2x IFVs and infantry, try again.  2 more tanks dead, a bunch of infantry pinned down for a while, tanks withdraw with the IFVs, infantry withdraws leaving behind some dead and wounded.  Now Russia has an even smaller force to use for the next battle.

 

This is what people like Kofman didn't take into consideration when evaluating Russia's ability to win a war against Ukraine.  Numbers of things matter, but how they are used and whom they are used against is more important.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, targo said:

Long time player / lurker -

Thanks for taking the time to de-lurk

4 hours ago, targo said:

I watch SubBrief religiously on youtube, Aaron is a former submariner who has great knowledge about Navy matters - seems to think it was a barge with explosives. Nothing definitive here of course, and he probably has an ingrained bias towards a Naval explanation - but something more to throw into the pot:

(from comments: "it has been a long time but here is my take, the explosion was low yield , think ammonium nitrate-fuel oil (AN-FO). It is designed to push up rather than fragment the bridge, Lifting the section off of its supports. this explains the lack of visible damage, the burn on the top was the truck laden with ordinance.or something with bang potential and was a secondary , this explains the guard rails, large sparklers ect."

 

At least this guy tries to explain away some of the counter evidence, but it still doesn't work

First, as incompetent as I believe the Russians to be (and whatever incompetent is, Russia is too incompetent to be even that good!) I don't think they would have let a barge anywhere near the bridge.  Way too big, way too slow, going way too long a distance, for way too long.  So I reject even the basic premise based on that alone.

However, the rest of his arguments are also suspect.  Sorry, explosions leave marks.  That's the nature of fire, plain and simple.  Second, while I think it's entirely plausible for a truck to be coincidentally in a spot where a missile strikes, I think it's against the odds too much to think that the truck would also happen to be carrying a large amount of explosives.  Even if we allow for the possibility, the truck would have slid off the deck and into the water without detonating.

Nope, this is someone who is too enamored with his own knowledge to be thinking clearly about this.  He's a navy guy so he WANTS it to be naval based because otherwise he can't comment on it for YouTube clicks.

Steve

[OldSarge]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

It's actually nice they don't even pretend to be civilized. Makes things easier.

That is an insane level of crazy, but seems to be in step with the online nonsense coming from that side. These idiots don't realize they're making it quite clear there isn't any moral ambiguity in this fight - and they're on the wrong side.

[LongLeftFlank]

That shmuck better sleep in a different place every night.

Also, counterfires.

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[keas66]

12 minutes ago, OldSarge said:

That is an insane level of crazy, but seems to be in step with the online nonsense coming from that side. These idiots don't realize they're making it quite clear there isn't any moral ambiguity in this fight - and they're on the wrong side.

Pretty much - Folks like this should be on a targeted list for  cleanup and I imagine the Ukrainians  will take the shot when they have it .

[Tux]

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.

While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:

Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?

If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?

It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 

I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.

I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

[danfrodo]

8 minutes ago, Tux said:

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.

While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:

Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?

If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?

It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 

I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.

I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

Interesting idea.  Putin using NATO escalation as excuse to withdraw.  Out of the box thinking, for sure, but Putin is in a complete bind, and desperate times generate desperate plans.  This has me realizing I need to stop thinking about what I would do in Putin's shoes and be open to what that 'genius' might come up with that no one expects.

[Tux]

3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

This has me realizing I need to stop thinking about what I would do in Putin's shoes and be open to what that 'genius' might come up with that no one expects.

I mean, we all know that Putin couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, right?  I learned a long time ago (mostly from discussions on this forum, to be honest!) to look at basically everything Putin does through the lens of Russian internal politics because that is where his power comes from and therefore where all of his motivations are rooted.  That is the only stage on which his moves need to make any sort of sense.

[akd]

20 minutes ago, Tux said:

sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member

Just to note: this was determined to be a on-shore fault that was rectified.

[Tux]

Noted, thanks AKD.

[sburke]

UN General Assembly rejects secret ballot proposed by Russia on Ukraine annexations (msn.com)

[Bulletpoint]

39 minutes ago, Tux said:

can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?

Yes, Putin could say all that, but what kind of leader would that make him? A complete fool leading his country not to glory but to complete ruin - not only militarily but also economically in the years to come, as sanctions will not be lifted as long as he is in power.

[kevinkin]

40 minutes ago, Tux said:

Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?

NATO is already in the war via the tremendous amount of support its members have given to Ukraine's defense. There can be little doubt NATO's efforts have killed Russians on the battlefield. NATO sees that Russia is on the run and wants to manage the endgame and get them out of Ukraine. I hope that's as quick as possible at a minimum cost to Ukraine. Should NATO add direct air and ground support to get that done? Probably not. Other than WMD, instigating that type of NATO escalation is out of Putin's hands. And I don't think he wants to be on the receiving end. But irrational leaders do irrational things. Including trying to save their butts in whatever way necessary.

[riptides]

19 minutes ago, akd said:

Just to note: this was determined to be a on-shore fault that was rectified.

The rate that misinformation flows can and may be the downfall of mankind. For a few clicks we are but doomed comes to mind.

[chrisl]

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks for taking the time to de-lurk

At least this guy tries to explain away some of the counter evidence, but it still doesn't work

First, as incompetent as I believe the Russians to be (and whatever incompetent is, Russia is too incompetent to be even that good!) I don't think they would have let a barge anywhere near the bridge.  Way too big, way too slow, going way too long a distance, for way too long.  So I reject even the basic premise based on that alone.

However, the rest of his arguments are also suspect.  Sorry, explosions leave marks.  That's the nature of fire, plain and simple.  Second, while I think it's entirely plausible for a truck to be coincidentally in a spot where a missile strikes, I think it's against the odds too much to think that the truck would also happen to be carrying a large amount of explosives.  Even if we allow for the possibility, the truck would have slid off the deck and into the water without detonating.

Nope, this is someone who is too enamored with his own knowledge to be thinking clearly about this.  He's a navy guy so he WANTS it to be naval based because otherwise he can't comment on it for YouTube clicks.

Steve

The Kerch straight also has a max depth of less than 20 m (at the Black Sea entrance), and depth of 10 m at the Azov entrance, with a lot of it less than 6 m deep.  So nobody is sneaking a big sub underneath.  From the way the road is sitting it doesn't look like the water is very deep under the part that blew.  It's hard to find depth maps online in a minute or less, but there's a really old British map that shows a long shallow spit under the route where they built the bridge.  That would also partly explain why they built the bridge on the long route that they did. They have to dredge the ship channel regularly and the depth will change fast as you get outside the channel.

[billbindc]

47 minutes ago, Tux said:

Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?

I break it down this this way: 

1. Is he still trying to win? (Yes)

2. Does a NATO entry help him win? (No)

3. If NATO enters and he loses, does that let him off the hook domestically? (No)

4. If he wanted NATO in would he have done so already? (Yes)

5. Would it be easy to bring NATO in? (Very)

Until the answer to questions 1 or 2 start to change, you can bet he's not looking for NATO entry.

[sross112]

25 minutes ago, Tux said:

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.

While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:

Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?

If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?

It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 

I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.

I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

There was talk on this sort of angle I think during the Kharkov counter offensive when the Russian state media was reporting that all the troops pushing back the RA were Poles and African Americans. It was deemed that due to their rhetoric of dehumanizing the Ukrainians and painting them to be so inferior that the RA couldn't possibly be getting whooped by them. So every setback has to come from the big evil west. 

I agree that when looking at what Putin or any in the Kremlin do it is always heavily slanted towards internal perception and not external perception. Of course through their propaganda and rhetoric they have painted themselves into this corner. Right now defeat by Ukraine makes them pick which big lie they want to admit to their people; a) the RA isn't the number 2 army in the world to be feared by all or b) the Ukrainians are actually smart, fierce and stubborn. They have said many times in their media how they are fighting the whole world and I think that plays to your point of somehow being able to be defeated and stay in power. Right now that probably doesn't work due to their lies so they need to have something to feed their narrative.

You could almost look at the nuclear sabre rattling the same. Putin actually does the threatening and then if the west responds by putting their nuclear forces on high alert Putin can respond with fist shaking and speeches. Then in the end he can tell his people that he backed down because he loves them and didn't want them to die. He did it for them and he had to pull out the RA and put his nuclear toys away to preserve his people. They would have won if weren't for the evil west.

The Kremlin is really in between a rock and a hard place but they have put themselves there. I have found it really hard to wrap my mind around a lot of what they say and do but after looking at it from the position that they have put themselves in it is always a choice between bad and worse. Each decision they make is going to either fire up Ukraine and its supporters in the west or fire up internal forces. Each time they go with fire up the external (bad) instead of internal (worse). This latest missile campaign is a good example. Chucking a bunch of missiles at civilian targets shows strength to the Russian people, force escalation to the Nats and revenge to the MOD, but it shows a terroristic regime to the rest of the world. Which solidifies Ukrainian resolve, increases military support and further isolates diplomatically. But if the Kremlin does nothing the internal pressures mount, and that is more dangerous to their power than anything else. 

So your theory is a good one that does allow the Kremlin to stay in power and blame defeat on the evil west. I'm not sure though how that could work out without a very direct Article 5 type situation. They can try to bait NATO into attacking on these smaller actions of cutting cables and pipelines and we will probably see an increase in terrorist type attacks on infrastructure in Europe if they are truly going to pursue this angle. Enough of that sort of stuff may do it but NATO has shown good restraint and instead of responding directly to Russia they respond by increasing Ukraine's capabilities and tightening the sanctions. I don't think NATO will take the bait unless Russia starts chucking missiles into Poland or something on that level, clear Article 5 stuff. And I don't think they can do that because it destroys their excuse narrative of a NATO trap. 

But who knows, Russian logic escapes me a lot of the time so anything is possible.

 

[Zeleban]

Well, wow, they still have ammunition

[Zeleban]

Russian Maginot line

Edited October 11, 2022 by Zeleban

[Kinophile]

9 hours ago, Thomm said:

I am still scratching my head: Is it considered normal these days to provide the opponent with detailed battle damage assessment via social media?!

 

TiR. 

[Taranis]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.

While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:

Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?

If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?

It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 

I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.

I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

Welcome back !

Personally, I think that all this corresponds to an act of desperation by Putin who tries by all means to weaken the Western aids which are hurting him very much. Its aim is to scare the West by saying that it is not that weak and that it can strike where it wants despite a complete bog down in Ukraine. He also seeks to touch and frighten Western public opinion by scaring them with a possible war.

After all we Europeans are still traumatized by the two previous major conflicts (WW1 and WW2, not to mention the Thirty Years War etc). For example, the attacks in France on November 13th 2015 were a real shock here. People finally realized that France was at war with Terrorism. Deaths in OPEX (External Military Operations) being generally nothing more than miscellaneous facts.

The goal is also domestic as you have well noticed to show them that Putin and Russia are determined, "powerful" and that they can stand up to whoever they want. But like the majority on this forum, I don't think he is looking for an open conflict with NATO as some have clearly indicated here because it would be a total defeat for him. And then after all, it would bring nothing more domestically because according to their propaganda they are already at an unofficial war with NATO "which is sending its mercenaries" and would already allow it to use this excuse for a withdrawal without taking the risk of real commitment.

[keas66]

I can't even imagine the arrogance of the guy  - that he thinks he can just directly talk with Putin and actually achieve anything ? Mind Boggling .