How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kraft]

10 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It seems Russians have now begun wearing Ukrainian uniforms or at least their colour of armbands in order to deceive the Ukrainians?

Just watched a video where a Russian soldier is able to run up to a foxhole with two Ukrainian soldiers and apparently demand that they surrender. They seem confused and one of them refuses to let go of his weapon. Then the Russian shoots both of them dead.

I dont think that is the case, atleast I didnt see any yellow armband on the Russian in that video. If you watch the full version that Russian is part of a group that flanked right behind the foxhole. In that group multiple Russians were wearing red armbands and their own camo.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Kraft

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, Kraft said:

I dont think that is the case, atleast I didnt see any yellow armband on the Russian in that video. If you watch the full version that Russian is part of a group that flanked right behind the foxhole. In that you can see multiple Russians wearing red armbands and their own camo.

Thanks, what is your take on what the video shows? Why are they not surrendering? It looks to me like the Russian has grabbed hold of the barrel of the guy's rifle, but it's pointing straight at him.. I'd think either he would try to fire, or he'd let go of the weapon?

[Kraft]

29 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Thanks, what is your take on what the video shows? Why are they not surrendering? It looks to me like the Russian has grabbed hold of the barrel of the guy's rifle, but it's pointing straight at him.. I'd think either he would try to fire, or he'd let go of the weapon?

They were confused and in shock, you can see another fallen UA soldier already laying between them. In the longer video there is another one a couple meters away. The one who is holding on to his rifle was not realizing that the guy with the weapon who jumped into their foxhole from behind is an enemy, he tells him multiple times that they are on the same side. The attacker realizes that once he figures it out it with the rifle in his hand it may not end well for him.

A ****ty situation all around, especially for the other one who raised his arms to surrender and was killed regardless. Both Soldiers have had their social identity revealed.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Kraft

[LongLeftFlank]

Another great thread from ChrisO, on Wagner and the MOD....

His prior thread

 

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Maciej Zwolinski]

11 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This is a very good point.  So this is part of strategic planning.  What are the globally available stocks of Soviet made equipment?  What kind of shape is Ukrainian in-country arms production?  If we are indeed headed for the bottom of the barrel, then a hard jump to western equipment is absolutely going to need to happen.  But that is a very large undertaking and not 40 Marders here, 50 Bradleys there and those freakin Leo2.  This is an entire fleet replacement, top to bottom done in phases. 

Yes, the UKR are scrapping the barrel. This has been the hottest topic among  Polish military experts for a couple of months, so in our corner of the woods this absolutely the consensus. I have heard estimates, that the worldwide sources of post-Soviet equipment will dry up by summer 2023 and the UKR military will have to switch entirely to Western equipment or they will face progressive ammunition shortages and throwing away vehicles for lack of spare parts. 

The current estimates of our experts are that UKR have around 350 thousand soldiers, out of which 200 thousand in land forces. 38 tank and mechanised brigades and 10 light infantry brigades. Not because Ukrainians consider light infantry to be at all desirable, but because they do not have the equipment to mechanise them. And formally they mobilised up to 750 thousand, but for the rest, they have only rifles, HMGs and mortars, so they are replacements/Home Guard.

Zaluzhny famously asked for 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs/APCs and 500 guns, which at 40 tanks per tank battalion and 80 APCs per mechanised battalion looks like 2 tank and 2 mech brigades +spares  https://www.economist.com/zaluzhny-transcript. And even then he was quickly corrected by Reznikov that this is too little.

So the answer to how Russia plans to wins this war is probably by exchanging UKR tanks, guns and APC for RUS in a war of attrition and then driving on to Kiev sometime next year in T-62 and T-55 taken from deep storage. Or before then, to enter into negotiations from a position of strength if UKR get tanks and IFVs from the West in numbers like 20 or 40 every couple of months and UKR leadership realising they are inevitably going to be ground down.

[LongLeftFlank]

Speaking of 'progressive ammunition shortages....

 

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

13 hours ago, Butschi said:

" That's still opportunistic and I think if it really was about actually getting Leos to Ukraine in numbers it your government would have made a combined statement with all countries willing to give their Leos to Ukraine. Still, like you say, kind of fair game, I guess.

No, it is the other way round. We physically do not have Leos to give to Ukraine in any real numbers. AFAIK we have about 250 Leos and we cannot give them up because there is very little left- we had 230 PT 91's but some have been transferred to the UKR already. We have given about 300 tanks to UKR alltogether. But all in all, there are 2000 Leo 2 somewhere in the World.

The 10 Leos pledged by Poland are a symbolic number, we are hoping to set the ball rolling and get other countries to join in. Or, not to mince words, to shame other countries into joining in. Like the US and FR did pledging the Brads and RC10 and finally getting FRG to chip in with the Marders. That may be magical thinking, but there is very little else that can be done. The only Western tanks which still exist in the number which could replace UKR losses of the Soviet stuff are Leos and Abrams.

[Beleg85]

3 hours ago, Kraft said:

The close proximity of Russian troops just walking down the street showing off the fallen UA soldiers. That area, at the time of the video, was not contested.

Whether these vehicles were destroyed prior by something else and not shown on propaganda drone video, possible, my point is not that this was an ambush but that this situation is not as stable as some people seem to think.

It rubs me the wrong way when the fighting there is being downplayed as unimportant tactical development, or that an imminent counter will kick Wagner right back out.., a lot of soldiers have died defending it and the videos yesterday were pretty gruesome.

Indicators that Soledar is mostly in Russian hands by that point- Lachowski also suggest UA may soon be forced to move into better positions:

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

Russian blogger Sasha Kots claims that UKR units are cut off inside Soledar

https://t.me/sashakots/38021

 

[Zeleban]

31 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Russian blogger Sasha Kots claims that UKR units are cut off inside Soledar

https://t.me/sashakots/38021

 

it happened the day before yesterday. Mashovets reported that the road supplying the troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Soledar was under fire control. Since then, as we see, the defense of Soledar continues to be held.

I want to remind the participants of this forum that every operation of the Russian Federation ends with a grandiose encirclement (According to propaganda)

Edited January 12, 2023 by Zeleban

[Taranis]

For History (12/22) :

 

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, Butschi said:

Everyone is entitled to a little rant every now and then. A few things you might consider, though.

Scholz was elected for precisely the things you accuse him of. His whole election campaign was built on him being Merkel 2.0, just more... unobtrusive. During the pandemic Merkel had shown a little too much... presence. And his opponent, Armin Laschet, was not much different only with different party colors. In summary, we didn't want a great leader. We voted for someone who doesn't bother us with politics but lets us sleep on. Just like the 16 years before.

And I doubt Merkel would have acted much differently. She didn't even go to the toilet without studying the latest poll on digestion before. 50% against giving Leos puts it too mildly: Only 38% are actually in favour. Now, that may not sit very well with anyone here but ironically this is the whole point of the West supporting Ukraine in this war. Having to accept that a majority of people has a different opinion than I have is what's democracy is about and isn't this all about defending western values?

Lastly, from what you write I'm not sure you actually want Scholz (or anyone else for that matter) to really be a great leader. A great leader would not look at polls or political pressure but instead go by what he believes in. Now I have no clue what that would actually be in Scholz' case but it might not be what you want. To me it looks like, and no offense intended, you don't want a leader but a figurehead for your ideas. Nothing wrong with that but it's a different thing.

I hear you.  To be clear,  I'm not seeking a Great Leader, with all its attendant slippery dangers, just someone with enough moral fortitude to take a stand and lead (not Capital L Lead) the EU wide conversation. Van Der Leyem is good and all but nothing happens without France, Germany and (now sometimes) UK. A figurehead like Leyen is useful but limited. 

That 50% against is not monolithic, polls are like sand dunes -  ever shifting,  rising,  fading. 

Sure Germans want a quieter, a less Out In Front leader, fine. But it's short term thinking, as public opinion usually is. Scholz should look past that,  with a vision that he unfortunately does not have. He's a man dominated by his place in the polls,  not in history. All he sees is the next vote,  not the next decade. He is absolutely not the man for the hour; he's just a plastic bag in wind, flapping around and making noise, blown in directions that he's incapable of controlling. His position has great potential power,  but he's a Lada engine hiding inside a BMW. 

His lack of PUSH is just maddening. Can you imagine what would have happened by now if he was as convicted as Biden, or as energetic as Johnson? .Johnson delighted in getting his grubby little hands on some historical relevance but still -  he led. Macron,  well -  Macron has yet to find a Photo Op Looking Presidential that he doesn't like. But still,  he's leading and pushing public opinion in a certain direction. Biden has limits but he is 101% clear on his moral duty to FU Putin's invasion.

My argument is that Scholz has that moral duty too,  because he's a leader on the damn continent where the invasion is actually happening. 

Now,  let's see you mix and match that many metaphors in one post! 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Kinophile

[Zeleban]

https://t.me/tpkr1775/17362

Russian publics are distributing a photo dated December 31 from a vocational school in Makeevka with occupying mobiles celebrating the New Year. Who in the last seconds of their lives were going to drink a toast "this year was difficult ... for the victory

[Zeleban]

The SBU detained a Russian agent - I wonder how he could hide for so long with such a pretense?)) This guy cooperated with the FSB via telegram and had the call sign "Shadow".

[billbindc]

 

The thick plottens.

[FancyCat]

 

 

[Huba]

The European Parliament will likely call on Scholz to create the Leopard consortium. Pressure is mounting, waiting for "Mr Chancellor, send out those tanks!" from Biden.

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Huba

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Well, in a democracy, I think it makes good sense for a politician to base decisions on polls. Maybe it looks like "weakness", but it's supposed to be a government based on the will of the people, after all.

Great leaders who go by what they believe in might not go in the right direction.

Biden. Not a Great Leader,  but leading the fight from a very clear ethical position. Believes in what he says and follows through.

Scholz is doing the same,  only what he believes in is domestic Peace In Our Time At Someone Else's Cost. 

I understand that Scholz is a creation of his system and is responding to what he believes the polls are saying. I'm not concerned about a semi-fascist or over strong leader arising or whatever, and reject the idea that even seeking a stronger leader is dangerous. A weak leader is just as dangerous. Neville Chamberlain, anyone? James Buchanan? Letting things slide and worsen without leading a way through is a deep failure of leadership.

Im saying that, in a uniquely horrible moment like this, a vacillating and regressive position like Scholz's is simply Not Good Enough. 

D-  from me. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Kinophile

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, Kinophile said:

Biden. Not a Great Leader,  but leading the fight from a very clear ethical position. 

I understand that Scholz is a creation of his system and is responding to what he believes to polls are saying. I'm not concerned about semi-fascist leader or whatever, and reject the idea that even seeking a stronger leader is dangerous. A weak leader is just as dangerous. Neville Chamberlain, anyone? James Buchanan? W

Im saying that, in a uniquely horrible moment like this, a vacillating and regressive position like Scholz's is simply Not Good Enough. 

 

Different cultural and political situations though, and both are mindful of their voter base. Biden can base his decisions on recent polls saying 65% of Americans support sending weapons to Ukraine, so it's a bit easier for him to be a strong, decisive leader.

[The_MonkeyKing]

https://warontherocks.com/episode/therussiacontingency/28081/where-russias-war-in-ukraine-is-going-part-1/

paywall podcast bulletpoints:
- transitional period and it is unclear where exactly it is heading
- not clear at all if RUS can restore offensive potential. What he sees in Bakhmut is not impressive at all from RUS
- UKR has only made modest incremental gains recently but this doesn't mean the next operational attack would not be successful 
- RUS transitioned to defensive
- biggest question what is going to be done with the rest of the mobilized force
- RUS in autumn downsized the front and probably doubled the force available. Now the have reserves, multiple lines..
- belarus based force is unknown in terms of combat readiness. Probably very much not ready
- western military district performance was historical underperformance compared to expectations. 
- southern and eastern military districts performed better.
- RUS military system was designed to mobilize before or at the start of the war. Mobilized were to buff up the professional units. Now it mobilized 8 months into the war, when force and equipment that was supposed to be buffed up was mostly out of action.
- regional volunteer battalions were a flop. They just ate up the resources from the actual mobilization in piece meal.
- now mobilized do not really have equipment or structures where to integrate to
- mobilization system was also the place where RUS has cut the most over the years. They themselves have stated in the past large scale land war is not something they are planning for.
- mobilization system was also probably most guilty of "readiness padding"
- about half of the initial mobilization force was used to stabilize the collapsing fronts
- Kharkiv operation was a great success thanks to too little RUS force and good UKR planning
- Kherson was difficult fight for both and RUS did succeed in the pullout. Everyway very different from Kharkiv.
- In Kherson RUS retreat was well planned and executed and also UKR force was probably worn and exhausted. 
- Kofman thinks Gerasimov&Shoigu are "an absolute joke in the Russian military"
- after Kharkiv Putin might have also realized the above point. And so Surovikin
- Surovikin had the idea to create more coherent military effort. It was clearly promised that Donbass would have been taken enabled by the Kherson retreat.
- Talk about internal power plays between Prigozhin + Kadyrov vs. Shoigu. Putin might also play these against each other.
- Arguments in media and analyst recently have brought up points: significant mobilization force buildup, new attack from Belarus, RUS regaining offensive potential. Mike and Dara are very sceptical of all of these. These arguments need concrete evidence, where is the material and human capital coming from for these?
- Will there be another mobilization? They suspect more of a dispeched and rolling approach in future.
- RUS are now thinking in terms of years. This is already a long war, even by historical scale. Also unclear will this war end or just have a pause and again a continuation war (that this war also sort of is for 2014). Plenty of historical examples.
- The RUS army is not anymore the same army as it was in 2021. So it is unfamiliar animal to all of us.
- RUS military is now living from its soviet legacy that it will never get back. They cannot rebuild the equipment or ammo they have inherited from the USSR.
- They are using up the military inheritance of the USSR. Inheritance of another power that will never come back.
- RUS military will become more of an european military after this war than not. Interims of potential.
- RUS can rebuild limited offensive potential but will be limited by ammunition and force quality.
- RUS military is fires and manpower driven military. Now it has gone from having fires and lacking manpower to lacking fires but having manpower.

[dan/california]

12 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Are these not just reinforcing deployments to NATO states?  I know we are up gunning in Latvia as well.  I have nothing on them becoming donations to the UA, but now that you mention it that probably has got Russia wondering as well.

As to how much support we need to keep pumping into the UA to keep it competitive. I think this is a dynamic metric.  We had a number for defensive operations but the UA has moved to offensive ops which is a different demand.  I am not sure an entire Bdes worth of equipment per month is sustainable, at least not western equipment.  I mean we did the math on the Ukrainian CHODs public big list and it included half of the US inventory of M777s.  Now beefing up Ukraine arms industry so it can produce a lot of vehicles is sounding more and more like a better idea.

Ammo not vehicles, but otherwise exactly what you asked for.

[Huba]

Thanks @The_MonkeyKing, that is A LOT of summary.

16 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

- RUS military is now living from its soviet legacy that it will never get back. They cannot rebuild the equipment or ammo they have inherited from the USSR.
- They are using up the military inheritance of the USSR. Inheritance of another power that will never come back.
- RUS military will become more of an european military after this war than not. Interims of potential.
- RUS can rebuild limited offensive potential but will be limited by ammunition and force quality.

This notion is absolutely central to any predictions of the future, and is not being stressed enough in my opinion. RU is eating up the reserves that took Soviet Union 40 years to build up, and there's no way to ever replenish them. When they loose in Ukraine they conventional forces will indeed be reduced to a much more manageable levels and they can't do anything to prevent this. This in itself is enough reason or US to continue it's support - bleeding the Russkies out is a not temporary, but permanent(ish) solution. When it's done, CEE will be able to pick it up from that point, and US can pivot to Asia with relative peace of mind.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Huba

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

I hear you.  To be clear,  I'm not seeking a Great Leader, with all its attendant slippery dangers, just someone with enough moral fortitude to take a stand and lead (not Capital L Lead) the EU wide conversation. Van Der Leyem is good and all but nothing happens without France, Germany and (now sometimes) UK. A figurehead like Leyen is useful but limited. 

That 50% against is not monolithic, polls are like sand dunes -  ever shifting,  rising,  fading. 

Sure Germans want a quieter, a less Out In Front leader, fine. But it's short term thinking, as public opinion usually is. Scholz should look past that,  with a vision that he unfortunately does not have. He's a man dominated by his place in the polls,  not in history. All he sees is the next vote,  not the next decade. He is absolutely not the man for the hour; he's just a plastic bag in wind, flapping around and making noise, blown in directions that he's incapable of controlling. His position has great potential power,  but he's a Lada engine hiding inside a BMW. 

His lack of PUSH is just maddening. Can you imagine what would have happened by now if he was as convicted as Biden, or as energetic as Johnson? .Johnson delighted in getting his grubby little hands on some historical relevance but still -  he led. Macron,  well -  Macron has yet to find a Photo Op Looking Presidential that he doesn't like. But still,  he's leading and pushing public opinion in a certain direction. Biden has limits but he is 101% clear on his moral duty to FU Putin's invasion.

My argument is that Scholz has that moral duty too,  because he's a leader on the damn continent where the invasion is actually happening. 

Now,  let's see you mix and match that many metaphors in one post! 

You are barking up the wrong tree. I'll be honest, I'm not 100% sure I'd put a sticker with Leos4Ukraine! on it onto my car. Depends on the color, I guess. Either way I could accept a decision by Scholz. What makes me mad is that he doesn't have the cojones to make a decision, explain it and stand by it. I could possibly respect it if he said "I have decided against giving tanks to Ukraine because I believe X". A great leader would absolutely do that, consequences be damned. That's what I meant when I said that you might not actually want Scholz to be a great leader.

Indeed, the man has no vision, at least none I'm aware of. In that, again, he is just copy & paste Merkel. We Germans seem to be very suspicious of politicians with a vision. Helmut Schmidt once said: "If you have visions, go see the doctor." And indeed, the last chancellor I remember who had one is Helmut Kohl. For all his flaws, and there were many, he at least had a clear vision for Europe. He'd have grabbed whatever French president was available at the moment and formulate a coherent and clear position for the EU. (One he what have bought with a lot of Deutsche Mark, I'm certain).

Bah, today I've defended Scholz and spoken positive of Kohl. I need to go and take a shower...

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Butschi

[Zeleban]

At 48 seconds of the video, an interesting example of the covert use of an 82 mm mortar. Perhaps the Wagner artillery support groups use this method.

[Taranis]

30 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

At 48 seconds of the video, an interesting example of the covert use of an 82 mm mortar. Perhaps the Wagner artillery support groups use this method.

Personally, I don't find it impressive at all (but still interesting). I don't see how they can set their sights properly while locked in a shelter. This would mean (which the video does not show) that the vegetation is removed during the adjustment and orientation and so are visible... And then, to carry out that, it is necessary to have a position already prepared, at the present time (UAV & Co), I do not see how the Ukrainians could not notice the preparation. At 2:49 watch how he pulls the trigger like crazy... If he does that for real, he'll shoot around the corners. I know it's training, but one of the lessons of this war is that you have to disperse the men and the means. There the guys learn to leave in column and to shoot in line... The necessary realistic conditions therefore leave something to be desired.