How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Maciej Zwolinski]

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

There is no “brotherhood of Islam” in the Stans (or really anywhere else for that matter…Palestine…anyone, anyone?), any more than there is a brotherhood of Christianity.  If China “pays and plays” them off deep clan and tribal schisms then China is likely to be successful much like every other colonial power in history.

At the risk of going one more step off-topic, why did US not succeed with that strategy in the most recent Afghanistan war? This is not a rhetorical question nor sarcasm, I am honestly curious. Afghanis seem to be very happy fighting among themselves, there should have been plenty of opportunity to play them off against one another.

[Lethaface]

8 hours ago, dan/california said:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/sikorsky-formally-protesting-armys-black-hawk-replacement-choice

Army trying to move ahead with next generation vertical lift. My question is should all that money be spent on drones? I am profoundly unconvinced helicopters are viable gong forward. Really curious about peoples people opinions?

So how are you going to lift stuff / people? If you make the heli unmanned its a 'drone'. 

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Whoa! Three loud explosions like rolling thunder. Maybe impacts in SE part of Kyiv, but I don't see a smoke.

Stay safe (hopefully)!

[The_MonkeyKing]

Finland driving Europe wide initiative to get Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Idea is if everyone gives even 5-10% of their leo2 to Ukraine it would add up to hundreds. With some swapping you could also narrow it to only 1-2 variants of leo2.

 

[Huba]

8 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Finland driving Europe wide initiative to get Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Idea is if everyone gives even 5-10% of their leo2 to Ukraine it would add up to hundreds. With some swapping you could also narrow it to only 1-2 variants of leo2.

 

Heard about that, but the available articles mentioned that it is only a proposal from some MPs, not an official proposal of FIN government. Am I right?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

At the risk of going one more step off-topic, why did US not succeed with that strategy in the most recent Afghanistan war? This is not a rhetorical question nor sarcasm, I am honestly curious. Afghanis seem to be very happy fighting among themselves, there should have been plenty of opportunity to play them off against one another.

The aim of the mission was to set the conditions for long term democracy and stability, not colonization.  Aggravating internal divisions violently really was not a viable option. We did this in the initial invasion with the Northern Alliance but when the mission shifted to nation building there was a different playbook.

That, and the reality that Afghans could agree in large groups that we were the problem because we sided with another group in power who clearly did not have the best interest of all Afghans in mind, and instead stole everything they could and bolted as soon as western support was pulled.

In simpler terms, we lost in Afghanistan because we supported the losing side with an unworkable overall strategy. Getting Afghans to kill each other better would have been politically untenable back home and likely would have made things worse on the ground.

As it relates to this war, although very different circumstances the spectre of previous debacles hangs in the mind of the entire western world.  Ukraine needs to be nearly spotless in it prosecution of this war, which is frankly almost impossible in any war, or it risks being painted with the “propping up another corrupt losing side” brush.

Zelensky has played this brilliantly so far by shifting and sustaining a narrative of “front edge of freedom”. Ukraine is demonstrating that it is a modern western nation at heart in how it fights, from the treatment of PoWs to targeting.  “One of us, fighting for democratic survival.” is about as good as it gets for a strategic narrative and one we never saw in Afghanistan.

Edited December 29, 2022 by The_Capt

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

69 missiles were launched, 54 shot down. S-300 also were used, but they are not in the list

78%. Up from average of 70-73%. Large scale attack might have helped, with increased quantity of targets?

One of the Kyiv civs wounded is a 14 yr old girl. I always think of my little wan and how heartbroken I'd feel if she was hurt, lost a leg, etc horrible stuff. How scared that little thing must be, how shaken.

I Also think  about how mother****ing ENRAGED I'd become. Uncompromisingly murderous to every Russian invader, no exceptions.

So yah, there's no "just peace", there's just GTFO NOW.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Kinophile

[kevinkin]

Lots of stories on Kreminna this morning. You can almost taste a shift in initiative going on. 

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-kreminna-battle-recapture-russia-supply-lines/32197165.html

A while back the ISW said of the RA:
This composite force grouping suggests that Russian forces are pulling troops from various points throughout the theater to fill holes in the Svatove-Kreminna line and compensate for the continued degradation of conventional units - December 26.

And to the south:
the Russian offensive against Bakhmut is likely culminating as ISW forecasted on December 27.[1] US military doctrine defines culmination as the "point at which a force no longer has the capability to continue its form of operations, offense or defense,” and “when a force cannot continue the attack and must assume a defensive posture or execute an operational pause.”[2] If Russian forces in Bakhmut have indeed culminated, they may nevertheless continue to attack aggressively. Culminated Russian forces may continue to conduct ineffective squad-sized assaults against Bakhmut, though these assaults would be very unlikely to make operationally significant gains.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-28

This may not crack the front wide open, but maybe sow further doubts in the minds RA grunts.  

I read Wagner is attacking Bakhmut so Prigozhin can show up his "buddies" where in-fighting is more important than sound military thinking. 

https://www.newsweek.com/bakhmut-battle-wagner-group-heavy-losses-isw-1770075

What a way to lose a war. 

[Beleg85]

https://wartranslated.com/interviewkaraya/

Interview with famous pilot.

[Bulletpoint]

Putin's feared gas weapon turned out to be a weak fart.

But even after watching this video, I am not sure how it was possible to replace so much Russian gas so quickly.

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Heard about that, but the available articles mentioned that it is only a proposal from some MPs, not an official proposal of FIN government. Am I right?

It is coming out of the members of The Finnish Defence Committee (Finnish govermental organisation).

Not to go in detail here but it has the blessing of the Defence Committee and by extension also the blessing of the Finnish foreing policy leaders.

It is a softer aproach like often countries use "less important" officials or govermental organisations to "feel the ground" with new ideas.

[Taranis]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The aim of the mission was to set the conditions for long term democracy and stability, not colonization.  Aggravating internal divisions violently really was not a viable option. We did this in the initial invasion with the Northern Alliance but when the mission shifted to nation building there was a different playbook.

That, and the reality that Afghans could agree in large groups that we were the problem because we sided with another group in power who clearly did not have the best interest of all Afghans in mind, and instead stole everything they could and bolted as soon as western support was pulled.

In simpler terms, we lost in Afghanistan because we supported the losing side with an unworkable overall strategy. Getting Afghans to kill each other better would have been politically untenable back home and likely would have made things worse on the ground.

As it relates to this war, although very different circumstances the spectre of previous debacles hangs in the mind of the entire western world.  Ukraine needs to be nearly spotless in it prosecution of this war, which is frankly almost impossible in any war, or it risks being painted with the “propping up another corrupt losing side” brush.

Zelensky has played this brilliantly so far by shifting and sustaining a narrative of “front edge of freedom”. Ukraine is demonstrating that it is a modern western nation at heart in how it fights, from the treatment of PoWs to targeting.  “One of us, fighting for democratic survival.” is about as good as it gets for a strategic narrative and one we never saw in Afghanistan.

I couldn't have said it better 

[LongLeftFlank]

25 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The aim of the mission was to set the conditions for long term democracy and stability, not colonization.  Aggravating internal divisions violently really was not a viable option. We did this in the initial invasion with the Northern Alliance but when the mission shifted to nation building there was a different playbook.

That, and the reality that Afghans could agree in large groups that we were the problem because we sided with another group in power who clearly did not have the best interest of all Afghans in mind, and instead stole everything they could and bolted as soon as western support was pulled.

In simpler terms, we lost in Afghanistan because we supported the losing side with an unworkable overall strategy. Getting Afghans to kill each other better would have been politically untenable back home and likely would have made things worse on the ground.

As it relates to this war, although very different circumstances the spectre of previous debacles hangs in the mind of the entire western world.  Ukraine needs to be nearly spotless in it prosecution of this war, which is frankly almost impossible in any war, or it risks being painted with the “propping up another corrupt losing side” brush.

Zelensky has played this brilliantly so far by shifting and sustaining a narrative of “front edge of freedom”. Ukraine is demonstrating that it is a modern western nation at heart in how it fights, from the treatment of PoWs to targeting.  “One of us, fighting for democratic survival.” is about as good as it gets for a strategic narrative and one we never saw in Afghanistan.

So long ago, I asked a buddy of mine who spent time 'left of the Khyber' in the 80s 'what is the main export of Afghanistan?'.  His reply: 'Wide-assed goats.'

...And for all the ZeroHedge CTs about 'Gold in them thar hills', that's basically the reality today. Largely owing to the sheer o'nriness of the people, who don't permit systematic prospecting still less mining infra development, there are no viable resources there for foreigners to dig up and cart away.

Ergo, unlike Siberia (or Arabia) there's no stable income stream for local leaders to extort a handsome rake off of, in return for providing security.

If Chinese discovered the world's largest chromite deposit or wev there tomorrow, things would change reeeeal fast, even in the Pashto heartlands.

That was the real opp the Allies blew in A'stan, IMHO.  Or maybe there really is nothing much up there but rocks and nervous goats.

The Himalayas are geologically frustrating for miners, with some exceptions that are small scale. The dumbed down version is, you need volcanic fissures to create large veins of ore (compare New Guinea or Chile or the Rockies) and then those veins can't get all smashed into bits later on.  Here you have India smashing into Asia (the Deccan traps are farther south), which is fine for creating gemstones but not so much for metals.  And forget hydrocarbons, except in the drainage basins.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

That, and the reality that Afghans could agree in large groups that we were the problem because we sided with another group in power who clearly did not have the best interest of all Afghans in mind, and instead stole everything they could and bolted as soon as western support was pulled.

Thank you.

Just one more question, if I may, how would you define the "another group in power" that the US sided with? I do remember the initial cooperation with the Northern Alliance (I recall pictures of Tajik militants dressed up like the late Shah Massoud), but then it got too confusing.

[Taranis]

Belarus claims Ukrainian missile crashed on its soil

Quote

 

"Today, between 10 and 11 a.m., a Ukrainian S-300 missile fell on the territory of Belarus ," the Belarusian defense ministry said on Telegram .

This is the first such incident reported by Minsk since the start of the Russian offensive in Ukraine more than ten months ago, when Belarus serves as a rear base for Moscow's forces.

A team of officers and investigators are currently working on the site to determine the causes of the fall of the machine. Belarusian authorities say they are considering two scenarios: either the missile deviated from its trajectory, mistakenly falling in Belarus, a scenario similar to the "recent incident in Poland" , or it was shot down by the Belarusian anti-aircraft defense.

No information on possible victims has yet been communicated.

In November, the fall of a missile, which killed two people, on a Polish village raised fears of a major escalation and the direct involvement of NATO in the conflict in Ukraine, because Poland is protected by a commitment of collective defense of the Atlantic Alliance. Ukraine had accused Russia, but according to the West and Moscow, the missile in question a priori came from a Ukrainian anti-aircraft defense system that had deviated from its trajectory.

 

Source : Le Monde

[Maciej Zwolinski]

9 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...And for all the ZeroHedge CTs about 'Gold in them thar hills', that's basically the reality today. Largely owing to the sheer o'nriness of the people, who don't permit systematic prospecting still less mining infra development, there are no viable resources there for foreigners to dig up and cart away.

Ergo, unlike Siberia (or Arabia) there's no stable income stream for local leaders to extort a handsome rake off of, in return for providing security.

That's a very interesting point. 

However, I do not follow part of the argument. Why absence of deposits or other local sources of income prevented the government supported by the US from controlling the country? I do not get the connection, sorry.

 

[kevinkin]

Chalk this one up to "it's about time".

https://apnews.com/article/technology-politics-russia-ukraine-war-government-515d68aa0d0460dd07b8797dd063cd6c?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7djo

But should we fear these get into the hands of someone near a commercial flight line? Do major airports jam these things?

 

[The_Capt]

24 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Thank you.

Just one more question, if I may, how would you define the "another group in power" that the US sided with? I do remember the initial cooperation with the Northern Alliance (I recall pictures of Tajik militants dressed up like the late Shah Massoud), but then it got too confusing.

President Karzai (president from 02-14) was the figurehead of a group of Afghans, largely coming out of one tribal group - the Popalzai, but to pin this on one tribal group is an oversimplification.  Regardless this group was largely centred on the Northern Alliance leadership who promptly labeled anyone they had a grudge with or saw as a threat to their position as “Taliban” and we obliged them through all sorts of military actions which actually alienated large swaths of the population. We also sent them boatloads of money which was largely stolen.

Example - poppy field eradication.  In Kandahar we were told to burn “those fields” but not to touch the ones belonging to his brother Wali, a guy so incredibly corrupt you could see his palace from the PRT while his people starved - they finally clipped him in ‘11.  So this power block of “guys who lost to the original TB in the 90s” did not really endear themselves to Afghans writ large, nor did they have any interest in actual democracy while we poured blood and treasure into the mess because…well 9/11 really.

It was a lot like South Vietnam but dustier.

If you want the real inside scoop on the last ten years ask @Combatintman, he has likely forgotten more about the inner workings of that country than anyone talking on TV will ever know.

Edited December 29, 2022 by The_Capt

[womble]

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

President Karzai (president from 02-14) was the figurehead of a group of Afghans, largely coming out of one tribal group - the Popalzai, but to pin this on one tribal group is an oversimplification.  Regardless this group was largely centred on the Northern Alliance leadership who promptly labeled anyone they had a grudge with or saw as a threat to their position as “Taliban” and we obliged them through all sorts of military actions which actually alienated large swaths of the population. We also sent them boatloads of money which was largely stolen.

Can that be chalked up to an intel/information failure? How did the Western Powers fall for the Karzai regime's corrupt power games? Is there anything that can be learned from that mistake which can be applied to how we help Ukraine shed the Soviet/mafia mindset?

Edit: And has that been learned, by the current Powers-That-Be?

Edited December 29, 2022 by womble
Afterthought

[Combatintman]

4 minutes ago, womble said:

Can that be chalked up to an intel/information failure? How did the Western Powers fall for the Karzai regime's corrupt power games? Is there anything that can be learned from that mistake which can be applied to how we help Ukraine shed the Soviet/mafia mindset?

Edit: And has that been learned, by the current Powers-That-Be?

Nobody fell for it - it is just so ingrained that it kept getting put in the 'too difficult basket.'  I remember a briefing in 2019 at the US Embassy given by the US Ambassador who said flat out, the biggest threat in this country other than the insurgency is corruption.  Personally, and to link it back to the thread, it was probably the number one threat because it completely undermined the ANDSF's capability among other things - we can see the same effects on the Russian military.  To give you an example of the sheer grasping greed, when COVID hit in 2020 there was reporting of about 20 officials at various levels in the Ministry of Public Health being lifted for having misappropriated ventilators donated by the international community and flogging them off in Pakistan at great personal enrichment.  

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

That's a very interesting point. 

However, I do not follow part of the argument. Why absence of deposits or other local sources of income prevented the government supported by the US from controlling the country? I do not get the connection, sorry.

 

It wouldn't have been an outsider's choice at all, still less the people's (whoever they are).  It would have been whatever group of armed strongmen could enforce the bargain of local security on everyone else in return for a boatload of royalties. But there would at least be some kind of actual economy functioning (as well as some infra), as opposed to foreign aid trying to subsidize castles in the air that nobody in power there wants.

Look at the Congo; it still barely functions as a society. Every terrible thing that happens to humans happens in spades there (Ebola to cannibalism, you name it). And yet it's been cranking out cobalt and countless other crucial metals nonstop ever since the Belgians left.

The spice must flow....

Edited December 29, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[womble]

59 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Nobody fell for it - it is just so ingrained that it kept getting put in the 'too difficult basket.'  I remember a briefing in 2019 at the US Embassy given by the US Ambassador who said flat out, the biggest threat in this country other than the insurgency is corruption.  Personally, and to link it back to the thread, it was probably the number one threat because it completely undermined the ANDSF's capability among other things - we can see the same effects on the Russian military.  To give you an example of the sheer grasping greed, when COVID hit in 2020 there was reporting of about 20 officials at various levels in the Ministry of Public Health being lifted for having misappropriated ventilators donated by the international community and flogging them off in Pakistan at great personal enrichment.  

"Material" corruption, the diversion of hard resources and currency, I can see as being put in the "too hard" pile, to be dealt with in a long term (possibly pie in the sky, but still well-intentioned) future. I'm thinking of the "targeting decisions", for both aid and military action: what was it that kept the West doing things that pissed off everyone-but-the-Government's-Cronies? Why did they keep on "...oblig[ing] them through all sorts of military actions which actually alienated large swaths of the population..." as The_Capt puts it? Did we just not have the intel to realise we were being played, or was it just politically impossible to either refuse the regime's priorities? And if the latter, how come the fact of this couldn't be used to support earlier extrication from an untenable, unpopular, unprofitable (in any sense) situation?

Is there any danger of this vicious circle arising in Ukraine? I get the sense that there isn't; Zelensky's regime isn't going to be turning HIMARS on different sectors of Ukraine's population in the same way that the Afghan regime used Western assets to settle scores and command dominance (like the crop burning example).

 

[poesel]

3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Finland driving Europe wide initiative to get Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Idea is if everyone gives even 5-10% of their leo2 to Ukraine it would add up to hundreds.

That is an excellent idea and initiative! The only way to get Germany to send tanks is if everyone does it. Get a few countries to publicly state that they would send Leos if Germany allows it. Then the **** hits the fan in German inner politics, as this is the excuse by Scholz not to send them. The pro-tankers in the coalition will be all for it, and I can't see a way out of it.

 

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

But even after watching this video, I am not sure how it was possible to replace so much Russian gas so quickly.

Easy answer: money.
Or a bit more explicit: lesser availability with continuing demand led to higher prices, which made it economical to use sources that previous were too expensive.

[Huba]

Here's an article about the infighting in RU power circles, and possible post-Putin scenarios. Not much that wasn't said here previously, but a nice summary nonetheless. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-kremlin-infighting-spills-into-the-open/

[Battlefront.com]

48 minutes ago, womble said:

Is there any danger of this vicious circle arising in Ukraine? I get the sense that there isn't; Zelensky's regime isn't going to be turning HIMARS on different sectors of Ukraine's population in the same way that the Afghan regime used Western assets to settle scores and command dominance (like the crop burning example).

There is no explicit internal military threat in Ukraine for one very simple reason... Ukraine has a sense of national identity.  And it has gotten EXCEPTIONALLY stronger since 2014 and crazy stronger since this war started.  Ukrainians will quibble with each other based on various historical circumstances (geography, accents, the usual stuff), but no Ukrainian of any significance will even think of going to war against other Ukrainians.  Afghanistan?  Exactly the opposite.

The cruder way it's thought of is nationalism vs tribalism.  Nationalism has a raft of problems, but compared to tribalism it is a walk in the park.

So, back to the original question about the Stans and eastern provinces of China.  China will attempt to do 20th Century colonialism, not 18th and 19th Century style.  What is the difference?  No boots on the ground engaged in active exploitation.  China will corrupt who they need to corrupt to get what they want.  If the local powers they've paid off are competent, they will spread just enough wealth around to keep people quiet enough and crack the heads of those who "don't get with the program". 

This is what Kadyrov does in Chechnya.  Moscow pays Kadyrov to keep things quiet, Kadyrov spreads some of that money around to give the appearance of making people's lives better, and ruthlessly deals with anybody who questions any part of the arrangement.  It works and it works well when the one at the top has enough connections to make the system function.

China has the advantage that Russia is already a massive corrupt and ruthlessly suppressed society.  There is already a hierarchy it can ring up on the phone and cut a deal with.  Even if Russia holds itself together on paper, I expect over time China will defacto control large parts of the Russian periphery because the money flowing out of Moscow will continue to taper off and be replaced by Chinese money.  For those in control, money is all that matters.

Steve