How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Nope, but Russian TG channels wrote about it. It was perhaps not the only one:

 

Thanks. Maybe Putin is starting to get worried Ukraine might be thinking of targeting him personally?

[Der Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Nope, but Russian TG channels wrote about it. It was perhaps not the only one:

 

I wonder what that does to real estate prices... 

[MSBoxer]

7 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Seems like a stunt to make folks in RU think they are actually under threat by UKR, to make RU folks think this war is existential to RU survival.  How absurd.

Or, and this scares me, are they planning on doing something incredibly stupid and believe that action will cross a line that could result in the west providing Ukraine with weapons that could actually reach Moscow?

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

I don't, I was referring to all of the statements reporting they could only do one late last summer. There was a ton of stuff that said Ukraine couldn't do Kherson and something else at the same time. All evidence is that the Russians bought it, and Kharkiv was grossly undermanned and resourced when the Ukrainians took it back.

Hmmm there's more layers to the RUS posture on Kharkiv than Silly Ivan Bought The Lie. 

[cesmonkey]

Former U.S. generals that say the U.S should be willing to ship Abrams tanks to Ukraine:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/politics/us-ukraine-tanks
 

Quote

Retired Army Gen. Robert Abrams – the former commander of US Forces Korea whose father was the namesake for the tank – told CNN that “the longer we delay a decision, and the longer we slow-roll this, we’re taking away valuable time.”

“If in the end, five months from now we say, ‘Okay fine, we’re going to give them some M1 tanks, choose your variety’ – we’ve just lost five months of prep time. So the politics decision actually has to come sooner rather than later,” he said.

 

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:

Or, and this scares me, are they planning on doing something incredibly stupid and believe that action will cross a line that could result in the west providing Ukraine with weapons that could actually reach Moscow?

Something the West flat out won't do. If you're doing that then do it yourself, do it right and make sure you've enough shovels and flamethrowers for all the dead at home afterwards. 

If the West are angry enough to do that (give LRM Ukraine)  then a few Pantsirs won't do squat to stop whatever NATO slams Moscow with. 

Its a dead end speculation, it only ends one way -  everyone dies. 

 

[Beleg85]

13 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Seems like a stunt to make folks in RU think they are actually under threat by UKR, to make RU folks think this war is existential to RU survival.  How absurd.

Not necessarly, they may be genuinly scared what Ukraine has for them. All we know about current Russian AR defence is that it is much underprepared for small, low-altitude flying things that could potentially hit into Gerasimov window. There is also valid danger of local copters with some explosive device.

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Something the West flat out won't do. If you're doing that then do it yourself, do it right and make sure you've enough shovels and flamethrowers for all the dead at home afterwards. 

If the West are angry enough to do that (give LRM Ukraine)  then a few Pantsirs won't do squat to stop whatever NATO slams Moscow with. 

Its a dead end speculation, it only ends one way -  everyone dies. 

 

There are other things that could fly to Moscow than nuclear weapons.

Putin probably didn't like the attacks on his airfields inside Russia. And the incompetence of the AA defence.

Maybe he thinks the US could provide some accurate missiles with his name on them and also provide accurate intel on his whereabouts?

[Zeleban]

10 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Not necessarly, they may be genuinly scared what Ukraine has for them. All we know about current Russian AR defence is that it is much underprepared for small, low-altitude flying things that could potentially hit into Gerasimov window. There is also valid danger of local copters with some explosive device.

I wonder how they are going to reload it. To recharge, you need a special transport-charging machine. Without it, it is impossible to reload a 30 mm cannon with several thousand shells.

 

In a word, everything is done in the Russian style

[Der Zeitgeist]

28 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:

Or, and this scares me, are they planning on doing something incredibly stupid and believe that action will cross a line that could result in the west providing Ukraine with weapons that could actually reach Moscow?

The most plausible thing for Russia to shake things up would probably be launching a dozen or so missiles at Rzeszów airbase and see if NATO dares responding in kind. 

[billbindc]

28 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Hmmm there's more layers to the RUS posture on Kharkiv than Silly Ivan Bought The Lie. 

Starting with an inability to walk and chew gum logistically.

[holoween]

On 1/18/2023 at 4:47 PM, The_Capt said:

Ok, let's really get into this because I am seeing the fundamental flaw coming out of the "everything is just fine" camp.  The argument, largely coming out of professional military armored circles or those who really love tanks, is pretty much the same.  It posits that:

- Both sides in Ukraine are "doing it wrong".

- "Russia sux"

- "If they all fought like we do, it would all be over by now."   Meaning the conventional combined arms doctrine in context of some form of manoeuvre warfare and AirlLand battle.

- "APS will save us!"

 The UA, who have demonstrated an amazing ability to learn on this battlefield and in many way are ahead of any western doctrine are "doing it wrong."  I propose that they are doing it exactly right for wherever warfare is heading and the fact that they are winning is clear evidence. 

Do you like arguing strawmen or do you simply not read what i write?

To requote myself

On 1/18/2023 at 12:30 AM, holoween said:

If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.

 

To clarify my overall position. I think this war is the best study case for a peer war in the near future and wed be well served carefully analyzing it and taking its lessons to heart.

 

And in regards to AFVs there are 2 overarching lessons learned

1. AFVs are vulnerable

2. AFVs are essential for offensive operations

The first lesson learned really doesnt need further explaination just look at the losses

The second one aparently does need so lets deal with that.

 

The core issue starts at another lesson this war reemphasises namely determined infantry cannot be shot off an objective with firepower alone. You can cause casualties but you still need to clear it with your own infantry. This point i dont think i need to elaborate on.

The next iussue is that infantry has difficulty gettin onto an objective using its own firepower and artillery only slightly changes that. This difficulty increases and decreasess with force density. Just compare the charkiv to the kherson offensive. Or if you want to experience it yourself atka a random cm map and fight a series of attacks starting at tiny size and eventually going to huge.

What tanks do is provide the firepower to get infantry onto an objective. They also provide supression via the threat of applying their firepower but thats a secondary effect they share with several other weapons systems. Their morale effect obviously decreases with at weapons available for the oponent but if they dont have any that can on its own win the fight.

This is the core reason why tanks exist now for over 100 years and are quite likely to continue existing for quite some time. Id love to see your argument for how this is weird twisted logic and what your suggested replacement is and please tell ukraine aswell because right now theyre still asking for tanks.

 

Im not going in detail over the rest of the post because it basically boils down to whatever you can think of to kill the tank it usually kills infantry easier and at greater rate, AFVs evolve with the threats, Soldiers dont.

 

[Kraft]

Quote

"Several countries will announce the supply of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine on Friday at a meeting of the Contact Group for Support to Ukraine at the German Ramstein Air Base, - Reuters, citing the Lithuanian Defense Minister.

"Some of the countries will definitely send Leopard tanks to Ukraine, that's for sure," Arvydas Anusauskas said.

According to Anusauskas, the total number of armored vehicles promised in Ramstein will be in the hundreds."

 

Taken from TG, I couldnt find the actual source yet so take it with a spoon of salt.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Kraft

[FancyCat]

 

[Blazing 88's]

21 minutes ago, holoween said:

Do you like arguing strawmen or do you simply not read what i write?

To requote myself

 

To clarify my overall position. I think this war is the best study case for a peer war in the near future and wed be well served carefully analyzing it and taking its lessons to heart.

 

And in regards to AFVs there are 2 overarching lessons learned

1. AFVs are vulnerable

2. AFVs are essential for offensive operations

The first lesson learned really doesnt need further explaination just look at the losses

The second one aparently does need so lets deal with that.

 

The core issue starts at another lesson this war reemphasises namely determined infantry cannot be shot off an objective with firepower alone. You can cause casualties but you still need to clear it with your own infantry. This point i dont think i need to elaborate on.

The next iussue is that infantry has difficulty gettin onto an objective using its own firepower and artillery only slightly changes that. This difficulty increases and decreasess with force density. Just compare the charkiv to the kherson offensive. Or if you want to experience it yourself atka a random cm map and fight a series of attacks starting at tiny size and eventually going to huge.

What tanks do is provide the firepower to get infantry onto an objective. They also provide supression via the threat of applying their firepower but thats a secondary effect they share with several other weapons systems. Their morale effect obviously decreases with at weapons available for the oponent but if they dont have any that can on its own win the fight.

This is the core reason why tanks exist now for over 100 years and are quite likely to continue existing for quite some time. Id love to see your argument for how this is weird twisted logic and what your suggested replacement is and please tell ukraine aswell because right now theyre still asking for tanks.

 

Im not going in detail over the rest of the post because it basically boils down to whatever you can think of to kill the tank it usually kills infantry easier and at greater rate, AFVs evolve with the threats, Soldiers dont.

 

+1. Out of the up vote option.

[Astrophel]

1 hour ago, MSBoxer said:

Or, and this scares me, are they planning on doing something incredibly stupid and believe that action will cross a line that could result in the west providing Ukraine with weapons that could actually reach Moscow?

Still struggling to understand why russia is fighting so hard (with mostly mercenaries) in Soledar/Bakhmut.  More and more Ukrainian resources are being sucked in too - with the plan that keeping on killing russians while withdrawing slowly is just fine.  Meanwhile the whole area is looking like a target for a nuke.  I am sure russia does not care about the wagnerian prisoners.  Perhaps the trigger might be the German decision to send Leopards - there are back channels we have no knowledge of - and for sure there has been a clear threat made in the direction of Germany behind the scenes, and by extension the US.  

Mounting missiles in Moscow would support the narrative to the russian people that the war is getting very serious and more mobilisation is urgently needed.

It is indeed looking scary.  Glad I'm not having to make the tough calls on high level.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Astrophel

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

There are other things that could fly to Moscow than nuclear weapons.

Putin probably didn't like the attacks on his airfields inside Russia. And the incompetence of the AA defence.

Maybe he thinks the US could provide some accurate missiles with his name on them and also provide accurate intel on his whereabouts?

Russia doesnt have to be hit by Nukes to actually use nukes. Itlll use nukes in conventional situations, when hit by conventional munitions. Non-nuclear missile attacks on Moscow are absolutely within that wheelhouse. So my point is not that the West would strike with Nukes, but that any strike that physically threatens the Rus government will be responded to with nukes. Its literally stated right there in their published doctrine.

If Ukraine fires missiles or uses suicide drones at Putin personally then they are seriously risking a nuclear strike, and to be honest, a justified one. We hate Putin but he's still the Russian Head of State. You launch a strike on him, all youre doing is risking everyone in your country. Ukraine MOD isnt stupid.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Kinophile

[FancyCat]

 

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Russia doesnt have to be hit by Nukes to actually use nukes. Itlll use nukes in conventional situations, when hit by conventional munitions. Non-nuclear missile attacks on Moscow are absolutely within that wheelhouse. So my point is not that the West would strike with Nukes, but that any strike that physically threatens the Rus government will be responded to with nukes. Its literally stated right there in their published doctrine.

If Ukraine fires missiles or uses suicide drones at Putin personally then they are seriously risking a nuclear strike, and to be honest, a justified one. We hate Putin but he's still the Russian Head of State. You launch a strike on him, all youre doing is risking everyone in your country. Ukraine MOD isnt stupid.

My point was more that Putin might be afraid that they would try anyway.

[Huba]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

There are other things that could fly to Moscow than nuclear weapons.

Putin probably didn't like the attacks on his airfields inside Russia. And the incompetence of the AA defence.

Maybe he thinks the US could provide some accurate missiles with his name on them and also provide accurate intel on his whereabouts?

I read somewhere that the reason are the new 1000km ranged Ukrainian Shahed analogs that they supposedly just finished testing and are about to mass produce.
IMO something hitting Moscow will happen at one point, though it won't be anything West produced. But as a bargaining chip for future negotiations it makes a lot of sense.

[Zeleban]

10 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

Yes, I must say, this is a pretty handy thing with a lot of nice bonuses.

[dan/california]

 

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

“I don’t think the Germans have any intention of attacking us. Do you?”

- Neville Chamberlain

This was at an inspection of the BEF in France in December, 1939. 

This is it really, history's verdict is that he blew it utterly. 

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

Bad example because that was actually true! Hitler really thought France and UK would not go to war for Poland and he absolutely wanted  to avoid a war with UK because they were Aryans, too, or some such. 

Except see above...

 

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Fear of losing their power / position. 

The more and closer I've worked with ministries, the more it has become clear that their usual modus operandi is 'protect the minister from falling'. At least the higher ups. Because of this Ministries are by definition the most untrustworthy organizations that exist.
If the political reality changes, they will throw anyone under the bus without a second thought.
Anything which could result in uncomfortable questions in parliament are addressed in such a way that, should a parliamentary inquiry ever be held, the responsible minister/secretaries can't be blamed for something they did (wrong).
So instead of actually deciding or doing something about a problem, they instigate 'investigative enquiries' to shine more light on the matter (i.e. send money to the consulting firms). Which take ages and then lead to new discussions and the process repeats itself. 'Business case', 'quickscan' , memo's and whatever vehicle they can imagine will be put in front of this cart.

These political games are very hard to identify / cut through from outside. The only thing which works to stop this risk management fiasco of 'getting nothing done' is ensuring that the risk of doing nothing become greater than doing something. That's often easier said then done and can obviously backfire in another direction.

So without being on the privy side of what's happening inside the German goverment, this smells like the usual suspect imo.

We may just be unable to figure out the psychology of the current German government from the outside looking in. What Scholz is doing makes no sense to us, and clearly on some level it makes sense to him. But he is also at grave risk of his name being cited next to Chamberlain's for the next two hundred years. And he won't look any better when every single telling starts "despite the example of Chamberlin's epic failure". It is his right not to care, I guess.

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

Hmmm there's more layers to the RUS posture on Kharkiv than Silly Ivan Bought The Lie. 

Of course, but I think buying the lie made all of them worse. The Russians weren't just not ready in Kharkiv, they were not even trying. This was reflected rather clearly in their performance, or rather non performance. Can't prove this of course, until it is all over and both sides talk about what happened more openly after the war. But that is true of a LOT of what we discuss here.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by dan/california

[Huba]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not seeing it on that video though? There's a crane hoisting something, but it's not visible.

Here's a zoomed-in vid:

And picture of Pantsir on another building, with distinct Flakturm feel. I was mistaken regarding apartment blocks, these are reportedly all on public buildings, a much more sensible approach.

[JonS]

42 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

Lol

"Vladimir, we will be /very/ disappointed if you incinerated the world. Ok? No incinerations."

I'm sure that will moderate his behaviour.

[danfrodo]

Piling on w the weapons-to-Ukraine theme w summary below.  This person seems to not be a fan of Sholz prevaricating whilst Ukrainians burn.  I forgot that CV90s have nasty 40mm gun in some versions -- that would be great infantry support.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/19/2148049/-Ukraine-update-Western-nations-are-still-playing-games-Ukraine-is-still-paying-the-price

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by danfrodo
typo