How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

And then what? He emerges, 73 years old, to a nuclear wasteland?

But man, did he show us!

Seriously, that is what bothers me most about this discussion. Many here still think that Putin has to act according to some rationale that we would employ. We know that is not the case because by any metric that makes sense to us Westerners Putin shouldn't have started this war in the first place.

No, the only ones to whom Putin's and his Cronies' decisions have to make sense is themselves.

For all we know Putin has been dreaming about turning half the world into a nuclear wasteland and is only waiting for an adequately glorious excuse to make that happen. Maybe he is a fan of Metro 2033.

[Bulletpoint]

9 minutes ago, womble said:

No. He dies in his bed surrounded by [pecadilloes] before he's 73. Old. Dying. Those are the important bits. Nothing to lose that he can't bear to see the back of. Which is where he'll be if his regime is crumbling.

Sure, his bodyguards/concubines in the bunker might murder him when they realise he burnt the world down for his own funeral and wasn't ever planning even to be there, but hey, he's going to swing from a lamp post if he doesn't, so why not push the button out of spite?

I don't think he's that kind of dictator. If he merely wanted to enjoy pleasures, he had more than enough opportunity to do that already without this whole war.

I think he actually cares about Russia in the same twisted way Hitler cared about Germany. He doesn't care about Russian people, but he does care about Russia as a nationalistic ideal and his own glorious role in restoring that.

He knows nuclear war would mean the end of Russia as any kind of world power.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Seriously, that is what bothers me most about this discussion. Many here still think that Putin has to act according to some rationale that we would employ. We know that is not the case because by any metric that makes sense to us Westerners Putin shouldn't have started this war in the first place.

No, the only ones to whom Putin's and his Cronies' decisions have to make sense is themselves.

For all we know Putin has been dreaming about turning half the world into a nuclear wasteland

I don't think Putin has to act by any rationale, but I do think that if he was dreaming of nuclear war, he would have attacked Poland, not Ukraine.

And even in Ukraine he could have done many more things to escalate.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[FancyCat]

If we recall at the beginning of the invasion, rumors of division and opposition to the invasion and by prowar hawks in the Russian government were present. This alongside other ideas of controlled opposition like anti war Russians who conveniently don't support sanctions are a way of giving false hope to the west, discouraging any actions like increasing aid to Ukraine in a bid to not empower hawks in Russia.

Something to consider in light of Putin doubling down, and having carried out mobilization successfully.

[womble]

Just now, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think he's that kind of dictator. If he merely wanted to enjoy pleasures, he had more than enough opportunity to do that already without this whole war.

I think he actually cares about Russia in the same way Hitler cared about Germany. He doesn't care about actual Russian people, but he does care about Russia as a nationalistic ideal and his own glorious role in restoring that.

He knows nuclear war would mean the end of Russia as any kind of world power.

And yet he's carrying on with his current course of action, which, by our metrics, is also dooming Russia as any kind of a world power. An inglorious end is coming. He wouldn't be the first megalomaniac to think that his followers' fiery death would be the best thing for them, to avoid the ignominy of becoming "just another kind of World Citizen".

No, swimming in a champagne pool and wrestling (carefully parametered) robot polar bears isn't his first goal, but it might be what he settles for. Or maybe he thinks he's the Actual Russian Orthodox Messiah, and he actually thinks that after those two years he'll lead Russia's rise from the ashes to global primacy. After all, who's going to be there to stop him, the Superman?

[womble]

4 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think Putin has to act by any rationale, but I do think that if he was dreaming of nuclear war, he would have attacked Poland, not Ukraine.

Nuclear war is not his preferred outcome. It just might be less unpalatable to him than it is to you and me, since we:

1. expect to live a fair few years longer yet[
2. don't have a luxurious bolthole in which to spend our dying days.

[FancyCat]

I wouldn't say the war does not make sense. It does, it's just Putin underestimated Ukraine.

[billbindc]

On the aid to Ukraine question, pro or con, it would be a lot more illuminating if every reaction was informed by the idea that both sides have their interests, their domestic politics and nothing close to complete information. 

To Haiduk, et alia...it's worth remembering that the US POTUS cannot act with complete freedom given the wider security responsibilities the US must fulfill and the domestic political landscape he must navigate here. That is assuredly frustrating for you given that you are in an existential knife fight but it's worth remembering that snarling at the hand that's feeding you ISR, weapons and supplies is unlikely to get you more...rather it's going to empower politicians here who want to give you less. Biden went way out on a limb to help Ukraine...to abuse another metaphor...don't help his enemies cut the branch. 

To the idea that primarily US and Western weaknesses and failures led to this war...sorry but that's just not on. Ukraine has its own domestic conditions that contributed and a geopolitical situation/history that is/was far more important. US power has limits and Ukraine had a difficult situation that had to become so regionally serious that the POTUS had to take a huge risk in extending it. Is that unfair, bitter and enraging? Of course. But to act as if Obama or Bush had a magic want to solve it is absurd. The US public wasn't remotely ready to go even part way to war over the Donbas/Crimea.

Do yourselves a favor and don't imagine for a second that "USA sucks!" is going to get you a single bullet or boot. It will do the opposite as we have plenty of politicians here who will use it in next year's budget fights.

[womble]

Just now, FancyCat said:

I wouldn't say the war does not make sense. It does, it's just Putin underestimated Ukraine.

And that is as plain as the nose on Ronald Macdonald's face. So why is he continuing his doomed actions? Because that makes no sense either.

[JonS]

2 hours ago, holoween said:

Yea ill call bs on that.
At least on a Leo2 teaching a crew the essentials of using and maintaining the tank takes maybe a week.
And even if were talking full training were way below your mark. It takes 3 weeks to train a driver fully.
For gunner/loader it takes 6 weeks max. 
And for the tc getting proficient at their station shouldnt take more than a week with the overall training time just being determined by how much tactics they have to be tought.

Higher level maintenance obviously takes longer but that doesnt really matter much since you can simply do it like its currently done with western systems. ship them back and have proper repair shops outside ukraine.

Certifying 16th Air Assault Bde took the British Army about 18 months from formation, IIRC, and all /they/ had to do was successfully apply gravity then walk around a bit.

And that was with fully trained and manned component battalions, and it's 'only' a bde. Certifying a div takes much longer.

To put that metaphorically: I learned how to use a keyboard several decades ago. By your logic I must therefore have written several best selling novels, prize winning poetry, a couple of chart topping songs, and a few movies when I had a bit of down time. And yet, weirdly, I haven't. 

I must just need a better keyboard.

Edited December 14, 2022 by JonS

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, womble said:

And that is as plain as the nose on Ronald Macdonald's face. So why is he continuing his doomed actions? Because that makes no sense either.

Because he's personally in too deep now, like Adolf was back then.

And Russia might still 'win'. Not by taking all of Ukraine, but by keeping what they took in the east, linking Russia with Crimea.

And by outlasting western support for Ukraine.

[FancyCat]

6 minutes ago, billbindc said:

On the aid to Ukraine question, pro or con, it would be a lot more illuminating if every reaction was informed by the idea that both sides have their interests, their domestic politics and nothing close to complete information. 

To Haiduk, et alia...it's worth remembering that the US POTUS cannot act with complete freedom given the wider security responsibilities the US must fulfill and the domestic political landscape he must navigate here. That is assuredly frustrating for you given that you are in an existential knife fight but it's worth remembering that snarling at the hand that's feeding you ISR, weapons and supplies is unlikely to get you more...rather it's going to empower politicians here who want to give you less. Biden went way out on a limb to help Ukraine...to abuse another metaphor...don't help his enemies cut the branch. 

To the idea that primarily US and Western weaknesses and failures led to this war...sorry but that's just not on. Ukraine has its own domestic conditions that contributed and a geopolitical situation/history that is/was far more important. US power has limits and Ukraine had a difficult situation that had to become so regionally serious that the POTUS had to take a huge risk in extending it. Is that unfair, bitter and enraging? Of course. But to act as if Obama or Bush had a magic want to solve it is absurd. The US public wasn't remotely ready to go even part way to war over the Donbas/Crimea.

Do yourselves a favor and don't imagine for a second that "USA sucks!" is going to get you a single bullet or boot. It will do the opposite as we have plenty of politicians here who will use it in next year's budget fights.

We need to go back to 2014 and the collective decision of the West to accommodate Putin, not supply weapons to Ukraine, not insist on damaging sanctions to Russia (French and German weapon exports to Russia persisted till the invasion) and to treat Putin like his invasion was no biggie. That failure to treat the first invasion directly contributed to Putin feeling like Ukraine was his and Russia's to do as they wished.

6 minutes ago, womble said:

And that is as plain as the nose on Ronald Macdonald's face. So why is he continuing his doomed actions? Because that makes no sense either.

Cause he thinks the West is gonna fold up like a paper napkin. Actions like not providing Western tanks, not escalating aid in response to his escalations only reinforce this.

Tho, the Patriot missile systems and medium range AD systems are very useful and a proper response to Putin so let's see.

[Bulletpoint]

Changing the topic from the strategic to the tactical, what is the general opinion on Ukraine's ability to conduct a proper offensive this winter?

From my limited perspective, it seems to me that the previous territory gains were mostly caused by the Russians retreating - sometimes badly - rather than Ukraine pushing them back.

[Beleg85]

One of the reasons why Waganerites are building their own defensive line can be...because it is good way to spend some money:

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Beleg85

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

And then what? He emerges, 73 years old, to a nuclear wasteland?

Ahah, yes but it'll still be a Russian nuclear wasteland...

[cesmonkey]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

So, we have a right not to ASK support, but to DEMAND. From you, guarantors of our sovereignty, who gave us toilet paper of Budapesht Memorandum in exchange on our disarming. 

Tragically, for Ukraine, they shouldn't have trusted that we (America) felt bound by the Budapest Memorandum.  In hindsight, they should have insisted that the U.S. Senate ratify a treaty with real obligations before they gave up their nuclear weapons.

Here's what Wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Analysis

Quote

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[1][46] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[45] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[46] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[47] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[48] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[21]

 

[Kinophile]

12 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Changing the topic from the strategic to the tactical, what is the general opinion on Ukraine's ability to conduct a proper offensive this winter?

From my limited perspective, it seems to me that the previous territory gains were mostly caused by the Russians retreating - sometimes badly - rather than Ukraine pushing them back.

A good place to start is Perun on youtube.

I'd posit its already in motion around Kremina-Svatove, plus long-range/SOF ****ery has already begun in Zaporizhia,.

Plus, it was the Ukrainian pushing that caused those retreats, no? Not just on the ground but the HIMARS et al having great fun with Ivan's logisitics/corruption train. HIMARS is now even more expanded, UKR field artillery is making superb use of 777s and they seem to have rebuilt and expanded their indigenous ballistic/cruise missile industry. NATO/EU has already provided sufficient winter gear and there is steady supply of NATO trained reinforcements. Theres a decent IFC/AFV pool, that certainly needs more western vehicles, but its still a properly mechanised and winter-ready force.

So, long answer short - 

Yes.

[Kinophile]

48 minutes ago, JonS said:

Certifying 16th Air Assault Bde took the British Army about 18 months from formation, IIRC, and all /they/ had to do was successfully apply gravity then walk around a bit.

And that was with fully trained and manned component battalions, and it's 'only' a bde. Certifying a div takes much longer.

Also, teaching a crew within an existing organization will natrually be reasonably short. Standing up an entire Leo2 div with all supporting trains is a different beast, I'd wager...

[billbindc]

42 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

We need to go back to 2014 and the collective decision of the West to accommodate Putin, not supply weapons to Ukraine, not insist on damaging sanctions to Russia (French and German weapon exports to Russia persisted till the invasion) and to treat Putin like his invasion was no biggie. That failure to treat the first invasion directly contributed to Putin feeling like Ukraine was his and Russia's to do as they wished.

Cause he thinks the West is gonna fold up like a paper napkin. Actions like not providing Western tanks, not escalating aid in response to his escalations only reinforce this.

Tho, the Patriot missile systems and medium range AD systems are very useful and a proper response to Putin so let's see.

To pretend that the collective West faced an easy decision in 2014 is as absurd as pretending that the collective West handled it perfectly. It's also simply not true that Putin thought the West was a paper napkin, tiger or any other flimsy metaphor. Every step he took was correctly calculated until last February to approach the line that might trigger a strong US/EU response but not cross it. Then, quite obviously, he did. It's not *our* miscalculation that led to Russia invading Ukraine...it was Putin's. And it's worth noting...between Western actions and sanctions...Russia's geopolitical situation was *declining* steadily before he made the decision to invade. That's *why* he did it. 

 

 

[womble]

55 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Because he's personally in too deep now, like Adolf was back then.

And Russia might still 'win'. Not by taking all of Ukraine, but by keeping what they took in the east, linking Russia with Crimea.

And by outlasting western support for Ukraine.

And since you're arguing in circles now, that'll be where I bow.

[JonS]

4 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Also, teaching a crew within an existing organization will natrually be reasonably short. Standing up an entire Leo2 div with all supporting trains is a different beast, I'd wager...

Yup. I think several people in this thread believe that real force generation works like the CM editor - two clicks and your light infantry company is now an armoured battalion. One more click and they're now a US Army heavy bde.

[womble]

27 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

Tragically, for Ukraine, they shouldn't have trusted that we (America) felt bound by the Budapest Memorandum.  In hindsight, they should have insisted that the U.S. Senate ratify a treaty with real obligations before they gave up their nuclear weapons.

Wasn't really a matter of trust. If Ukraine could've gotten guarantees out of the West (specifically USA, really), they would've, I'm sure. But "Assurances" are as far as they managed to push it, and they are accepted diplospeak for "We won't infringe on your sovereignty, and it'll take something additional for us to intervene if someone else does," and Ukraine's diplomats knew that, hence so should their subsequent governments. Decisions should have been, and I'm pretty sure were, made bearing that reality in mind, rather than hoping that the USA "meant 'guarantee'".

That said, I firmly believe that it is in the interests of the entire world for this assault by Russia on the prevailing order of things to fail, and am very pleased that this realpolitik seems, for once, to align with the moral imperative to drive out the invader.

[NamEndedAllen]

4 hours ago, Baneman said:

To be fair, in 10+ months, Haiduk has almost never "bubbled over", I think we could cut him (and others) a wee bit more slack. 

 

4 hours ago, Baneman said:

Really, we should all do that with each other - sure we all have different opinions and that can lead to arguing, but we're all on the same side, so we should take a few deep breaths and try not to get irked at disagreement, rather than reaching for the ignore button. 

 

Absolutely the most important post here. Your words should be quoted at the top of every page of the forum! We humans are so good at getting irked with one another. We can turn on each other and face off over the slightest matter - at a moment’s notice. Many a useful Internet forum has gone up in flames and turned to ashes. Fortunately, Steve and Elvis are crack moderators and keep the pot from boiling over. But really, we ought not to need Daddy and his threat of the strap.

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, womble said:

Wasn't really a matter of trust. If Ukraine could've gotten guarantees out of the West (specifically USA, really), they would've, I'm sure. But "Assurances" are as far as they managed to push it, and they are accepted diplospeak for "We won't infringe on your sovereignty, and it'll take something additional for us to intervene if someone else does," and Ukraine's diplomats knew that, hence so should their subsequent governments. Decisions should have been, and I'm pretty sure were, made bearing that reality in mind, rather than hoping that the USA "meant 'guarantee'".

That said, I firmly believe that it is in the interests of the entire world for this assault by Russia on the prevailing order of things to fail, and am very pleased that this realpolitik seems, for once, to align with the moral imperative to drive out the invader.

It's worth remembering what the Budapest Memorandum actually said...and that not just the US but Japan, Great Britain and China all also signed on: 

1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Counsel action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

Lots of claims made about it seem to be based on the idea it contained an Article 5-like provision. It did not, and nobody in Ukraine who worked on the deal thought it did.

 

 

 

[dan/california]

33 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

A good place to start is Perun on youtube.

I'd posit its already in motion around Kremina-Svatove, plus long-range/SOF ****ery has already begun in Zaporizhia,.

Plus, it was the Ukrainian pushing that caused those retreats, no? Not just on the ground but the HIMARS et al having great fun with Ivan's logisitics/corruption train. HIMARS is now even more expanded, UKR field artillery is making superb use of 777s and they seem to have rebuilt and expanded their indigenous ballistic/cruise missile industry. NATO/EU has already provided sufficient winter gear and there is steady supply of NATO trained reinforcements. Theres a decent IFC/AFV pool, that certainly needs more western vehicles, but its still a properly mechanised and winter-ready force.

So, long answer short - 

Yes.

Yes, but is has to freeze first. The same warm winter that is bleeping up Putin's strategy of freezing Europe into submission is drowning any real offensives in mud at the moment. The Ukrainians are just waiting on the weather.