How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, pintere said:

Good to see Israel doing it‘s part as well! 

Found a pretty recent article talking about how Israel factors into this war. Apparently they might be pretty similar to Bulgaria in that they’re doing more for Ukraine than most folks realize.

https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-polytics/3661175-israel-supports-ukraine-more-than-is-known-ambassador.html

I really don't look at this as a positive. 

If Israel is attacking Iranian bases within Iran proper and not its proxy militias etc in Iraq/Syria then that is a straight up act of war, especially if significant (ie news worthy) amounts of Iranian personnel are killed. 

While that may in one theory cause Iran to focus its RUS efforts back on the Middle East, it adds to distractions for the US. Plus it could be a byproduct of the war,  with those implications for the expansion of state v state violence. 

[kevinkin]

2 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

such things can be considered by the USA’s Pentagon to be an Act of War.

The thing that complicates matters is that darn plausible deniability thing. Or attacks that just border on calamities. 9-11 with a dirty bomb - that sort of thing. But you are right to point out that it's not just WMD that trigger claims of an act of war. A lot of people are concerned about where the fentanyl is coming from. But let's not go there except to say if it starts leaking into the consumer product supply chain it will make the Tylenol tampering look very lame in retrospect and some entity would have to go down in response. 

[FancyCat]

 

[Kinophile]

If I was a UKR spook looking to **** with Little Goat Man's head, this avenue is something I'd expand and support. 

Like all autocrats,  Kadyrov seems secure and solid, until he's not. They have large military apparatus out of emotional,  political fear, not of logical military necessity. Ironically,  the fear is very realistic in its articulation of the personal dangers but then tends to distort the analysis, corrupt solutions and inflate their reactions to perceived threats. 

Stir up enough  trouble at home and Kadyrov is guaranteed to pull forces back. 

Of course,  the question is How.... 

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, Kinophile said:

I really don't look at this as a positive. 

If Israel is attacking Iranian bases within Iran proper and not its proxy militias etc in Iraq/Syria then that is a straight up act of war, especially if significant (ie news worthy) amounts of Iranian personnel are killed. 

Which Israel has done quite a few times to both Syria and Iran over the past decades.  However, the ones I can think of (generally) were done in retaliation for something fairly specific done against them.  Speculation is that this particular attack was due to Iranian threats made about its nuclear weapons program.  The base struck enriches uranium.

7 hours ago, Kinophile said:

While that may in one theory cause Iran to focus its RUS efforts back on the Middle East, it adds to distractions for the US. Plus it could be a byproduct of the war,  with those implications for the expansion of state v state violence. 

Agreed.  Unfortunately, with the new Israeli government conflict is pretty much assured as confrontation and violent action are part of the coalition's core and common belief system.  Therefore, it is likely this is just the beginning.

As I said, the one positive for Ukraine is that a distracted Iran is a less effective Russian partner.

Steve

[Seminole]

14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukraine continues to innovate its approach to warfare.  This time by pressing the ICC to declare certain Russian cyber attacks as War Crimes:

I'm in favor of it.  I also think far clearer rules should be laid out for discouraging and punishing cyber attacks generally. For example, when a non-state actor has conducted a cyber attack there should be a choice for the nation hosting the attacker; hand them over or accept legal responsibility for the actor's actions.

Steve

Would you classify Stuxnet as a ‘war crime’?

 

Or do you expect US-Israeli cyber attacks get a pass in the ‘rules based order’?

[kevinkin]

2x

Edited January 29, 2023 by kevinkin

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, kevinkin said:

The thing that complicates matters is that darn plausible deniability thing.

Yup, which is why there has to be a component of holding the host nation responsible.  Similar to how the Taliban were held accountable for Al Qaeda's actions.  Plausible deniability only works if it is allowed to.

6 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Or attacks that just border on calamities. 9-11 with a dirty bomb - that sort of thing. But you are right to point out that it's not just WMD that trigger claims of an act of war.

What to do about crossing a line, however, is much trickier.  A dirty bomb would clearly cross the line, however there's a huge difference if the nation behind/supporting it has nuclear weapons vs. a militarily weak nation without them.  Which is why Russia has been allowed to brazenly murder people on NATO soil without meaningful punishment.  Act of war?  You bet.  Enough of a reason to go to war?  Nope.

My criticism of the West's collective approach to Russia, but also others, is that it seems to be binary.  Either doing something massive or nothing.  Russia's assassinations on foreign soil were met with nothing (effectively anyway).  That should not be policy.  What specifically could have been done?  I don't know, but doing nothing is equal to appeasement.  Autocrats love appeasement for good reason.

6 hours ago, kevinkin said:

A lot of people are concerned about where the fentanyl is coming from. But let's not go there except to say if it starts leaking into the consumer product supply chain it will make the Tylenol tampering look very lame in retrospect and some entity would have to go down in response. 

Russia and Belarus deliberately used Syrian refugees as weapons, as did the Russians with Libyans  Much harder to draw a hard line compared to a Russian bomber dropping a payload on friendly soil, but it amounts to the same thing in the end. 

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Would you classify Stuxnet as a ‘war crime’?

No, because it wasn't targeted at civilian infrastructure.  That is Ukraine's argument about Russia's attacks.  Specifically, the cyber attacks are in conjunction with military attacks which are definitely considered a war crime.  Therefore, it is fairly reasonable to say something that is part of a war crime is a war crime.

As for Israel and Iran's behavior towards each other, they are effectively are at war with each other already. 

6 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Or do you expect US-Israeli cyber attacks get a pass in the ‘rules based order’?

The problem is there is no "rules based order" when it comes to cyber attacks.  At least one that isn't clearly established under international law.

Steve

[kevinkin]

6 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Would you classify Stuxnet as a ‘war crime’?

 

Or do you expect US-Israeli cyber attacks get a pass in the ‘rules based order’?

Perhaps, but a kinder gentler war crime seeing only the enrichment apparatuses were targeted and few (if any) people were hurt. And life went on in Iran. Probably best for the average Iranian that its leaders don't get a WMD anyway.  

[holoween]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, because it wasn't targeted at civilian infrastructure.

Ok so uranuim enrichment is now a military installation?
Just wondering about the actual distinction you want to make because once you open up from only uniformed soldiers being military targets you quickly run into a slippery slope where eventually your oponents population is a military target because they could contribute to a war effort.

[Kinophile]

Relevant here as supposedly the factories/workshops provided Drones to Russia. 

 

[kevinkin]

9 minutes ago, holoween said:

Ok so uranuim enrichment is now a military installation?

It can be, and that's enough for most of the world to make sure Iran's enrichment does not produce weapons grade purity. The vast amount of Iran's electric power comes from fossil fuel. I doubt the Mullahs have gone green all of a sudden.  

[Harmon Rabb]

 

[holoween]

30 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

It can be, and that's enough for most of the world to make sure Iran's enrichment does not produce weapons grade purity. The vast amount of Iran's electric power comes from fossil fuel. I doubt the Mullahs have gone green all of a sudden.  

Every simgle civilian can be conscripted into an army so therefore its ok to kill civilians.

That is the "it can be" argument at its final form. Everyone agrees its an aweful idea so therefore where is the line.

[billbindc]

15 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

About recent rant between Girkin and Prigozhin. Interesting, as it shows rifts within apparatus and nationalists inside Russia:

 

Totally on point from Galeotti...as usual and he gets at a point I've tried to make here before: Prigozhin is *given* resources but he doesn't *control* resources. He's a temporarily useful and easily expendable tool. The MOD and FSB are able to protect Girkin despite his strident critiques of even Putin himself.  

[Haiduk]

On 1/28/2023 at 8:16 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Perhaps not following the plan?  Not sure about that, but it did sound like they decided to drive in at top speed and take the positions by storm instead of making sure their flanks were secure.

According to their words, their company acted due to the plan and even more - they completed own objectives in two hours instead a day according the plan. But their neighbours on flanks had some problems and couldn't advance so far like the center. Central company stopped on reached lines, expecting flank units arriving, but instead them got enemy counter-attack and encirclement. 

[SteelRain]

The terminator is back to fight another propagandabattle vs nothing. For a vehicle that entered service in 2021 it looks pretty rusty and worn-out.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/10nkrp5/operation_of_a_russian_tank_support_fighting/

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by SteelRain

[kevinkin]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

Every simgle civilian can be conscripted into an army so therefore its ok to kill civilians.

That is the "it can be" argument at its final form. Everyone agrees its an aweful idea so therefore where is the line.

Not aware of any civilians being killed by Stuxnet. In fact, the preemptive cyber attack may have helped millions. And many Iranians. We we never know. 

[Haiduk]

UKR "DIY-Lancets" commercial FPV-drones with attached PG-7 HEAT projectiles

And example of work against Russian BMP-3 (operator from National Guard "Omega" special forces brigade)

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

28 minutes ago, SteelRain said:

The terminator is back to fight another propagandabattle vs nothing. For a vehicle that entered service in 2021 it looks pretty rusty and worn-out.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/10nkrp5/operation_of_a_russian_tank_support_fighting/

 

Looks like they just stuck the new turret on an old T-72 hull... without bothering to refurbish it first.

At that rate of fire they would need resupply in about.. oh another 30 seconds of firing... there is probably one minute of firing in that two minute video... and it only carries 1.5 minutes of ammo for those twin 30s. Typical Russian design... prioritizing mass over precision.

Bil

Edited January 29, 2023 by Bil Hardenberger

[sburke]

any word on a BDA for this strike?

Ukraine hits concentration of Russian troops at railway station in occupied Ilovaysk (yahoo.com)

 

The invaders’ authorities claimed the station was attacked with multiple rocket launchers by the Ukrainian side. They also confirmed that the railway infrastructure was damaged, but they gave no information about the number of casualties in the attack.

Ukrainian officer and blogger, Anatoliy Shtefan, shared on Telegram the Russian reports about the strike. In particular, they wrote that military equipment and personnel were being unloaded at the moment of attack.

Edited January 29, 2023 by sburke

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

Every simgle civilian can be conscripted into an army so therefore its ok to kill civilians.

That is the "it can be" argument at its final form. Everyone agrees its an aweful idea so therefore where is the line.

Guys there is this thing called the internet, and it literally has hundreds of pages on what is, and is not a legitimate military target.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml

The original point being made was that if one employs cyber effects in support of a kinetic strike against illegal targets (eg an apartment building) then those cyber activities are also implicated in a legal sense.

[Lethaface]

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I think Iran is Shiite.

 

Apart from that misinformed qualification, I tend to agree that Israel is the usual suspect. In this case I'd say well done, although I'm no fan of the usual behavior of the government of Israel especially now there's some regime which has more in common with Taliban than 'the West' in several area's. But that's off topic  

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, holoween said:

Ok so uranuim enrichment is now a military installation?
Just wondering about the actual distinction you want to make because once you open up from only uniformed soldiers being military targets you quickly run into a slippery slope where eventually your oponents population is a military target because they could contribute to a war effort.

What I understood is that they struck a drone factory. But haven't really dug deep it's Sunday so I had to show up at some football field for 90min + 3rd half