How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

Just now, Beleg85 said:

Overall you may be right though, our minds still work too much in old paradigms of hightech manouvre warfare and not attritional mud-and-blood wrestling. Just if that is the case, worth to remember is that UA also have some breaking point, especially that this is different society than Russian one. It's one thing to loose  zeks or village boyz by thousands, other to suffer generational hole among civic elites. I don't know if you happen to watch for UA orbituaries from time to time (a lot of them fly on TG), but I assure you daily slaughter of many of Ukrainian brightest in some God-forgotten Bakhmut or unnamed field somewhere in Svatove is stunning. And many are still ranked as MIA, not officially recognized for weeks and months. This is generally sad characteristic of this war- Ukraine throws many of its post-Maidan elites into meatgrinder (non-elites too, btw.), while middle-class Russians are generally untouched by war. This will have an profound long-term effect on society.

Absolutely.  All war is sacrifice.  I use that term deliberately and it does not mean to simply be willing to "give something up".  Sacrifice actually means "to make holy" or "sacred".  This is a point Clausewitz completely missed.  War is extremely personal as we literally sacrifice people for something bigger.  The real question is just how much we believe in that "bigger" thing.  This is more than "cost", it is the fundamental changes that happen at both macro and micro cultural levels as a result of any war.

Ukraine is sacrificing - making holy costs - in defence of their ability to be free to chose their own future.  Russia is sacrificing - making unholy costs - in defence of some false vision/narrative being sold to them by a kleptocrate and his cronies to stay in power. Sacrifice negotiates with Certainty, now whose certainty is more righteous?

No society can withstand endless sacrifice without breaking.  However, when I see Ukrainian boys holding wooden rifles better than a lot of western soldiers, I can only see a society that has a pretty deep cultural zeitgeist right now - killing Russians.  The Ukraine that went into this war, will not be the one that comes out.  Russia and Putin have likely created a regional power pole in all this that will change the face of Eastern Europe, just to add to the bafflingly bad strategic outcomes they constructed in all this.   

However, after all that we are back to "when does it end?"  Well I think that is directly tied to the point when the Sacrifice gets close enough to the Certainty.  Kherson was painful.  There will be other operations that are just as painful.  Hell we may see a Ukrainian defeat before this is all over.  But to my mind, the average Russian's ability to "change the channel" is waning everyday - e.g. a lot of the middle-class Russian's left.  And the Russian Sacrifice-to-Certainty equation is very different then Ukraine's - time is not on Russia's side. 

This war will end when Ukraine and the West have won enough, and Russia has lost enough.  A lot of people post that "this war will end when Putin decides", or "it will end when Ukraine decides" - this is incorrect.  A war is a living breathing entity, it carries its own weight and influence.  History is filled with wars that should have stopped but didn't.  Or ones where the job was not finished but stopped anyway.  Wars have stopped on executive decision.  They have stopped on broader public decision.  They have also stopped because of weather events and eclipses.

In the end this war will end when it makes sense to end it. The "making sense" part is the hardest thing to determine as it is filled with relative rationality, emotion, power, culture, relationships and human failings/strengths.

Edited January 5, 2023 by The_Capt

[Kinophile]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Absolutely.  All war is sacrifice.  I use that term deliberately and it does not mean to simply be willing to "give something up".  Sacrifice actually means "to make holy" or "sacred".  This is a point Clausewitz completely missed.  War is extremely personal as we literally sacrifice people for something bigger.  The real question is just how much we believe in that "bigger" thing.  This is more than "cost", it is the fundamental changes that happen at both macro and micro cultural levels as a result of any war.

Ukraine is sacrificing - making holy costs - in defence of their ability to be free to chose their own future.  Russia is sacrificing - making unholy costs - in defence of some false vision/narrative being sold to them by a kleptocrate and his cronies to stay in power. Sacrifice negotiates with Certainty, now whose certainty is more righteous?

No society can withstand endless sacrifice without breaking.  However, when I see Ukrainian boys holding wooden rifles better than a lot of western soldiers, I can only see a society that has a pretty deep cultural zeitgeist right now - killing Russians.  The Ukraine that went into this war, will not be the one that comes out.  Russia and Putin have likely created a regional power pole in all this that will change the face of Eastern Europe, just to add to the bafflingly bad strategic outcomes they constructed in all this.   

However, after all that we are back to "when does it end?"  Well I think that is directly tied to the point when the Sacrifice gets close enough to the Certainty.  Kherson was painful.  There will be other operations that are just as painful.  Hell we may see a Ukrainian defeat before this is all over.  But to my mind, the average Russian's ability to "change the channel" is waning everyday - e.g. a lot of the middle-class Russian's left.  And the Russian Sacrifice-to-Certainty equation is very different then Ukraine's - time is not on Russia's side. 

This war will end when Ukraine and the West have won enough, and Russia has lost enough.  A lot of people post that "this war will end when Putin decides", or "it will end when Ukraine decides" - this is incorrect.  A war is a living breathing entity, it carries its own weight and influence.  History is filled with wars that should have stopped but didn't.  Or ones where the job was not finished but stopped anyway.  Wars have stopped on executive decision.  They have stopped on broader public decision.  They have also stopped because of weather events and eclipses.

In the end this war will end when it makes sense to end it. The "making sense" part is the hardest thing to determine as it is filled with relative rationality, emotion, power, culture, relationships and human failings/strengths.

Very nicely put. 

[Vet 0369]

11 hours ago, Taranis said:

Yes.

I think the more appropriate term is Cavalry Tank. Because it is the French doctrine that wants it.

It is therefore not an MBT because of its light weight, low armor and mobility. The MBT descending among other medium and heavy tanks, while AMX-10RC does not have the capacity to carry out frontal attacks at all. While a cavalry tank in French and British WWII concepts, are mobile vehicles that must achieve rapid surprise attacks and reconnaissance. What our good old cavalry did before tanks. To this, we must add the anti-tank capacity thanks to its powerful gun and there it comes more from the doctrines of in-depth defenses of the Germans.

Guys, we really need to use the term AMX-10RC ! AMX-10 is the tracked IFV on a completely different chassis.

Exactly! More to the point, if a formal, EU arms document excludes the requirement for tracks, than that should settle the argument. If it has a large main gum on a turret that revolves 360 degrees, then it is a tank regardless if it has wheels and can carry passengers inside. If we look at WWII, at the beginning of the war, some of the “tanks” of the belligerents didn’t even have a main gun, just machine guns (Pz2 IIRCj. Take for example the U.S. M-3/M-5 vs the M-4. To settle the argument, we really need a negotiated and accepted arms definition agreement that defines the features of a “tank” as was presented previously, not opinions. Remember the definition of an “opinion.”

[FancyCat]

 

[BlackMoria]

9 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Exactly! More to the point, if a formal, EU arms document excludes the requirement for tracks, than that should settle the argument. If it has a large main gum on a turret that revolves 360 degrees, then it is a tank regardless if it has wheels and can carry passengers inside. If we look at WWII, at the beginning of the war, some of the “tanks” of the belligerents didn’t even have a main gun, just machine guns (Pz2 IIRCj. Take for example the U.S. M-3/M-5 vs the M-4. To settle the argument, we really need a negotiated and accepted arms definition agreement that defines the features of a “tank” as was presented previously, not opinions. Remember the definition of an “opinion.”

Armor grognards....gahhh.  "Is it a tank or not a tank?"   You can call it 'Peaches' for all I care.   It is a light armored vehicle with a big horking gun on it that can kill russians.  Give it to the Ukrainians who have shown a talent for killing russians and let them kill more russians with it.   I don't give a damn whether it is considered a tank or not.   Sheesh...

Edited January 5, 2023 by BlackMoria

[Eddy]

My view: it's a tank. Unless it comes up against a T72/T90/T80, in which case it's not.

[The_MonkeyKing]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

Well, this leaving a pretty short list of stuff Ukraine has not gotten yet: western MBT, western airframes, large long range missiles.

Awesome to see this happenening. White house source:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/05/joint-press-statement-following-a-call-between-the-president-joe-biden-and-the-chancellor-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-olaf-scholz/

 

Meanwhile Putin trying oneway ceasefire and getting some mad burns from Biden:

 

 

[poesel]

Just to add this bit: Germany will deliver 'dozens' of Marders. No exact numbers, yet.

[The_MonkeyKing]

Marder-Scholz compilation:

 

[Vet 0369]

5 minutes ago, poesel said:

Just to add this bit: Germany will deliver 'dozens' of Marders. No exact numbers, yet.

Unfortunately, I have become accustomed th the German Government stating that they are going to do something, and then stating all kinds of excuses why they can’t do it now. 
 

I’ll wait until actions back up the promises.

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 minute ago, Vet 0369 said:

Unfortunately, I have become accustomed th the German Government stating that they are going to do something, and then stating all kinds of excuses why they can’t do it now. 
 

I’ll wait until actions back up the promises.

I don't think thye have walked back any of these types of specific promises? Yes, timetables have changed but not drastically.

and Germans have catched up pretty darn well. Also, their information strategy has been terrible. I think in general they have been well meaning fools and have learned a lot and are still learning.

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, they can escalate.  They absolutely have the capacity to do a lot more than they have, though their most effective tools (bribery and disinformation) have been significantly curtailed because of sanctions and awareness.

One thing the Eurasia Group didn't talk about is the "red lines" these sorts of nefarious activities have.  The Biden Admin, for example, made it very clear that cyber attacks on critical infrastructure would be considered an act of war.  Given that Russia often gets caught doing its higher profile activities, there is reason for the Russians to be concerned.  They also know that the US and its Allies have extremely powerful resources to devote to a retaliatory action, which means that the US doesn't have to invoke Article IV or unilaterally send over some B2s to whack targets.  Nope, the US could simply respond in kind but on a larger scale.  Russia should not be confident of what might happen in that situation.

In a sense, Russia's ability for causing problems all fit into the same category as nukes.  The capacity is there, but the ramifications of using that capacity may be catastrophic for Russia.  Since Russia, as a state, still operates as a rational actor that is at least concerned about picking fights it will likely lose, quite a bit of what the Eurasia Group fears might happen probably won't.  That said, it all hinges on Russia being a rational actor and I would agree that is not something we should count on as Russia grows more desperate.

Steve

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/stay-tuned-with-preet/id1265845136?i=1000592593141

A long and excellent PodCast with the head of the Eurasia group. Not just Ukraine, but a LOT about Ukraine. Note that it takes them about ten minutes to get to the Ukrainian section.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by dan/california

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

more bradley / AMXRC10 stuff, plus a tidbit about fight for island in the Dnipro at Kherson.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/5/2145481/-Ukraine-update-It-s-a-tank-No-it-s-not-Who-cares-Bradleys-and-AMX-10s-are-going-to-Ukraine

And some more confirmation bias for those of us who think RU is losing and UKR is winning:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/4/2145287/-Ukraine-update-Russia-is-losing-it-knows-it-s-losing-and-it-plans-to-keep-losing-Forever

 

 

Some of the text in the first article gives the impression that the author has had a bad experience playing CM with tanks against armored clown cars.

[Huba]

Wait, there's more!

Edit: and a more credible source:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-cleverly-ukraine-northern-ireland-protocol-b2256892.html

To be precise, he stated that:

Quote

“We will continue to speak with the Ukrainians about what they need for the next phase of their self-defence and we will continue working with our international partners about ensuring that we provide that.

“Tanks might well be part of that. Where they come from, which allies provide them, is something that of course we are working on in co-ordination with each other.

So it is unlikely he meant UK's own Challengers, as these are really too few in my opinion - but it seems that some western tanks are obviously being considered, and the allies are looking for a way to make it happen.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Huba

[The_MonkeyKing]

 

It is a party day!

Edited January 5, 2023 by The_MonkeyKing

[Zeleban]

I wonder if Britain still has Chieftain tanks?

[riptides]

ME thinks the Western Allies smell Putin blood in the water.

 

[Huba]

28 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Well, this leaving a pretty short list of stuff Ukraine has not gotten yet: western MBT, western airframes, large long range missiles.

As we just learned, MBTs might be crossed out of this list quite soon. Long range missiles can probably be supplied quite rapidly when the decision is made, it's just an ammunition for already deployed launchers. Which leaves aircraft - and quite likely Ukrainians are already being trained on them.
It really looks quite optimistic for OUR side

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

It is a party day!

Sweet!  Once the US announces a specific number, that means the deal is done.  Hell, sometimes it means they are already handed over to the Ukrainians

I wonder if any of the recent trainees of US mentors have been Brad crews.

Steve

[Twisk]

Talking of sacrifice I did a quick comparison of WW2 against Ukraine's current population deaths (hopefully my math is good).

Country of comparison | equivalent Ukrainian losses to match
- U.S. | 131.200 KIA
- U.K. | 385.400 KIA

All countries below this lost great than 1%

- Italy| 4.551.00 KIA
- Ger. | 3.378.400 KIA

- USSR | 5.330.000 KIA

 

========

Then using the death reports from Wiki and taking the highest reported for civilian and military.

Ukraine has lost 46.000 people. These numbers are likely inaccurate but if we increase it by 1/2 69.000.  If this loss rate continues for the next year Ukraine will be at 140.000 which is equivalent to the U.S. losses during WW2 of .5%

[The_MonkeyKing]

Great update on the war: https://warontherocks.com/2023/01/a-disquieting-winter-at-war-in-ukraine/

[Huba]

Also this:

 

[poesel]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

Unfortunately, I have become accustomed th the German Government stating that they are going to do something, and then stating all kinds of excuses why they can’t do it now.

Not correct. The German government has often said they may do something, but did nothing.
Whenever they said they will do THIS thing, they always did. No backpedaling in action, only in opinion.

100 Marders available, 40 go to Greece, 60 need to be refurbished. There's talk about rerouting some or all of the Greek Marders to Ukraine.

There is also the rumor about getting another 30 Gepards + ammo from 2 other nations. Hope that works out. As I understand this, this is in addition to the 7 Gepards that are currently refurbished.

The whole IFV deal seems to have been made just before Christmas with Biden, Macron & Scholz. Seems like Scholz didn't have a problem with being the last to make it public. Must be a first for a politician.

[The_MonkeyKing]

 

I guess something was agreed last year in the backrooms of NATO that things are going to change if the war still exists in 2023. So much going on again...

[Der Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, poesel said:

The whole IFV deal seems to have been made just before Christmas with Biden, Macron & Scholz. Seems like Scholz didn't have a problem with being the last to make it public. Must be a first for a politician.

It was essential to be the last. Like I said many times before: It's the fear of Alleingänge all the way down.