How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Taranis]

11 minutes ago, sross112 said:

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

 

Absolutely. Just one example: invading Ukraine, telling yourself that it will be completed in 3 days and that everyone will welcome them with open arms as they kill young Ukrainian soldiers in the Donbass since 2014... Really need to abuse strippers and cock rails

[Thomm]

8 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

TiR. 

Sorry, what does that mean?

[Ts4EVER]

10 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Russian Maginot line

Have they heard of zig-zagging trenches?

[Kinophile]

This is Russia. 

Like from Blood Diamond:

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

Have they heard of zig-zagging trenches?

I know,  right!? But those must be for something else... Right? 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Kinophile

[BlackMoria]

2 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

Have they heard of zig-zagging trenches?

Idiots... there is a very good reason to zig zag trenches.  it is so that some bastage with a MG does not jump into the trench and strafes the entire length of your trench.  And various other weapons that punch holes in your people.   

[FancyCat]

 

 

[hcrof]

17 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

Have they heard of zig-zagging trenches?

I believe that is an anti tank ditch, not a trench

[Kinophile]

(deleted.  Funny but wrong) 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Kinophile

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

 

Well, here we are. Now Putin will be in contact with the outside world through Elon Musk

[FancyCat]

Why is the CEO of SpaceX talking directly to Putin? A defense contractor....

[Probus]

36 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Russian Maginot line

Static defenses?  Really? Has Russia not learned anything in the last 80+ years?

[Bulletpoint]

41 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Russian Maginot line

It's like Russia is determined to re-enact a miniature version of WW2, complete with massacres, terror bombings of the civilian population, stubborn hopeless frontal infantry assaults, triumphantly annexing territories, V-1 Flying Bomb Iranian suicide drones, and now this chain of triangular white tank traps that also looks like something from an old documentary.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[BlackMoria]

What is old is new again, I think the saying is.   Russia does love kicking it old school.  Except old school in the 21st century doesn't work.

[Tux]

47 minutes ago, billbindc said:

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.

Are we sure about 1.?  Do we need to be careful about what we define as a ‘win’?  Because the definition can and does change - he has already redefined it several times in this war.  I mean I suppose he’s still trying to ‘win’ in the sense that he’s trying not to lose too hard…  But I think at this point he may realise that staying alive and in power is the biggest ‘win’ still available to him.

To my mind, if he has redefined ‘winning’ in that way then the answer to 2. may, in certain circumstances, have become “yes”.

3. If NATO used dirty tricks to win, then maybe?  Is a long shot but he’s already lost, right?  So *if* he realises that then the only choices he may have left are how to lose and who to.

4., 5.: being seen to *make* NATO enter the war with boots on the ground wouldn’t work.  That would rightly be seen as his own foolish fault.  NATO jumping in out of hatred for Russia, travelling to ‘Russian lands’ and going for the throat of a ‘distracted’ Russian armed forces however… that’s the stuff an oppression myth can feed off.

I’m very aware I don’t (and can’t) have all the information needed to really make a case for this and I’m not sure whether I believe it myself.  I just see so many people professing confusion at Russian actions that I can’t help thinking there might be another angle.

 

 

[Tux]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

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.

I’d argue this is already where things are headed, to be fair.  Something needs to change the narrative somehow if it’s to be avoided. 

[Taranis]

France strengthens its defensive capabilities on the eastern flank of Europe

Quote

French Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced that France will deploy "a reinforced company of armored infantry fighting vehicles (VBCI) to Romania, as well as a squadron of Leclerc tanks", as part of its mission with the NATO on the eastern flank of Europe, "in view of the violence" of the war in Ukraine.

The minister spoke on behalf of the President of the Republic, who made this decision Monday evening during the defense council held at the Elysée, on the sidelines of a hearing in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Senate on Tuesday.

"We will continue to strengthen our defense posture in Lithuania", with the deployment of Rafale aircraft but also by sending "a light squadron company**" to Latvia by November, he added.

** ? Tigre helicopters ?

Some comments from this tweet...  The kind of people who don't understand anything... Who doesn't know what NATO is and who believes Putin's lies... 

"Since we already don't have much in France, at this rate it will soon be nothing on our territory!!! As for the usefulness of your gesticulations could you explain them to me???"

"and negotiations? rather than weapons and money "

"There will not be much left in France but fortunately, there is NATO ^^"

Edited October 11, 2022 by Taranis

[sburke]

G-7 Leaders Pledge to Support Ukraine ‘for as Long as It Takes’ (msn.com)

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, Tux said:

Are we sure about 1.?  

I think the conversation he had with Musk confirms this pretty tightly.  All along Putin has had opportunities to walk away with something, but that something was not what he wanted so he kept the war going.  Each passing day his ability to negotiate gets weaker and yet he's still only interested in maximum rewards from this war.

That said, your original question was not dumb or even outlandish.  It is something we've discussed here a few times, in fact.  But Putin's behavior clearly shows that he's not interested in accepting anything other than what he set out to get when he started this murderous war.  Now that he's spilled so much blood, treasure, and prestige over a hideous war that Russia can't win, it seems he's "all in" because anything less than that is lead heart attack.

There's another reason why Putin wouldn't want to use NATO as an excuse, though it has been morphing as the war goes on.  That is for 20+ years he told the Russian people that NATO was afraid of Russia, that Russia was superior to NATO, and that all the money spent on the military was a good investment in Russian greatness.  To provoke NATO into wiping out the rest of Russia's military within a couple of days/weeks would undermine decades of messaging.  That would surely be problematic for his regime.  Though, as I said, this has been changing in recent months as Russia has used NATO support as an excuse for not beating the snot out of the Ukrainians.  But it is a slow and very carefully crafted message that Russian public doesn't seem able to grasp the significance of.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

About Russia's new defenses, I find this rather humorous.  Not just because of how pointless it is, but because of the mixed message it sends to the Russian people.  "We are glorious and thanks to mobilization we will annihilate the subhumans!  But we're going to do it from trenches as we retreat from their attacks".  I honestly don't think the average Russian can process this sort of information correctly, therefore I don't think they'll understand my snickering.

Also, I wonder if these are being made on Russian soil and not Ukrainian.  If I were Russia, that's what I'd be focused on.

As for zig-zagging trenches, anybody who has bought trenches in Combat Mission knows you have to purchase 2-3 times as many to do proper zig-zagging than doing straight.  Russians are not only cheap bastards, but they also are kinda in a rush.  You know, because the Ukrainians aren't sitting still!

Steve

[keas66]

22 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's like Russia is determined to re-enact a miniature version of WW2, complete with massacres, terror bombings of the civilian population, stubborn hopeless frontal infantry assaults, triumphantly annexing territories, V-1 Flying Bomb Iranian suicide drones, and now this chain of triangular white tank traps that also looks like something from an old documentary.

I am curious though - I would have expected a modern  armored force  with appropriate engineering assets attached  would  treat such defensive works as a minor  blockage only .  It seems like a utter waste of time  - or maybe not ?

[hcrof]

2 minutes ago, keas66 said:

I am curious though - I would have expected a modern  armored force  with appropriate engineering assets attached  would  treat such defensive works as a minor  blockage only .  It seems like a utter waste of time  - or maybe not ?

I think the point is that you need engineering equipment to breach these defenses, so they would be effective against the "dagger" style raids the UA is using. A prepared attack with engineering assets is easier to spot and disrupt with artillery so in principle I think these defenses can be effective.

[billbindc]

14 minutes ago, Tux said:

Are we sure about 1.?  Do we need to be careful about what we define as a ‘win’?  Because the definition can and does change - he has already redefined it several times in this war.  I mean I suppose he’s still trying to ‘win’ in the sense that he’s trying not to lose too hard…  But I think at this point he may realise that staying alive and in power is the biggest ‘win’ still available to him.

To my mind, if he has redefined ‘winning’ in that way then the answer to 2. may, in certain circumstances, have become “yes”.

3. If NATO used dirty tricks to win, then maybe?  Is a long shot but he’s already lost, right?  So *if* he realises that then the only choices he may have left are how to lose and who to.

4., 5.: being seen to *make* NATO enter the war with boots on the ground wouldn’t work.  That would rightly be seen as his own foolish fault.  NATO jumping in out of hatred for Russia, travelling to ‘Russian lands’ and going for the throat of a ‘distracted’ Russian armed forces however… that’s the stuff an oppression myth can feed off.

I’m very aware I don’t (and can’t) have all the information needed to really make a case for this and I’m not sure whether I believe it myself.  I just see so many people professing confusion at Russian actions that I can’t help thinking there might be another angle.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure about 1. What's happened is that Putin recognized that his Plan A was badly fit to purpose and needed be revised...for now. He then pulled back from Kyiv and he tried to envelope the rest of Luhansk and Donetsk. With Kherson, Zaporzhzhia, Donetsk and Lugansk in hand, he would have then been able to call a ceasefire, freeze the conflict and reload for another try later. That was sellable to his regime supporters. Ukraine blew that up by putting Kherson under pressure and then taking back 10,000+ sq km's of territory. Worse, Ukraine demonstrated that a frozen conflict actually goes their way because the war as it currently stands will lead to a successive series of territory losses for Moscow. Putin cannot accept that state of things without ultimately losing his head/position. Hence the recourse to nuclear threats. He's still trying to get back to a ceasefire that will let him out of the box he's in. 

Also, from the Russian perspective NATO is already in the war by proxy. If it were easy for Putin to lay off the problem on NATO intervention then why hasn't he already? Because he can't.

 

[dan/california]

 

 

8 hours ago, poesel said:

'hundreds' protesting in a democracy of 80 millions is basically nothing. About 10% of the population adhere to far right ideas which, in Germany, include Nazis, Pro-Russians, Anti-Vaxxers, Qanon and the like. That is a potential group of 8 million people.
It would be a noticeable movement with 5 digit protestors and I would worry with 6 digits.

TL;DR: there are idiots everywhere

In a way, yes. 'Unwilling' may be a bit harsh. I'd go for 'has not realized it is war'

No, sorry, but that is really wrong. Again, speaking for Germany, this is a minority of about 15% (10% extreme right, 5% extreme left).

Of course, no one is happy about energy cost, but a discussion about stopping help for Ukraine to fix that issue simply does not exist.

The one and only reason we do not send more weapons, is fear of WWIII (don't discuss that with me...)

The GDR was occupied by the Russians and every mayor decision had to go through them. But for most of the part, the East-Germans did the occupation unto themselves (and effectively, of course...). I guess, very generally, the Russians were the least hated in the GDR of all East-Block countries.

A lot more changed in West-Germany after the 3rd Reich than did in the East. That difference is still very visible after 30 years.

How much of the pro Russian faction is of Russian descent, more or less? I have vague recollection that a fair number of Volga Germans came back to Germany after WW2, and their loyalties uhm complicated?

 

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

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.

 

My working theory for a while now has been that almost everything ruzzia is doing in Ukraine is more about factional competition for advantage in the "After Putin" moment. More specifically there is a contest to blame the complete and epic failure in Ukraine on any faction but yours. I think Wagner's more or less suicidal obsession with taking Bakmuht is exhibit A, but there are a lot of others. Holding kherson until the army cracks somewhere else might be another. Clearly the recent missile blitz is mostly for internal consumption, as opposed to any rational attempt to win the war. Any concept of unified military command, and effort seems to be a joke.

58 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Well, wow, they still have ammunition

Perhaps a worthwhile target is in port in Berdyansk?

48 minutes ago, keas66 said:

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 .

 

 

He might be a great deal less arrogant if the Defense Production Act was applied with great vigor to say, half his assets?

15 minutes ago, Probus said:

Static defenses?  Really? Has Russia not learned anything in the last 80+ years?

It is all about the appearance of doing SOMETHING after they got their heads handed to them in Kharkiv, where they clearly were not doing anything. Well, unless drinking, looting, raping , and murdering count, they did a lot of those.

[mosuri]

3 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

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

Normal kremlinite bilge. A while ago another lovely person wrote that since peaceful ways have not cured Finland's and Estonia's russophobia, military means must be used instead. Impeccable logic.