How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

50 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Strategy is not a choice between Good and Bad, it is a choice between Bad and Worse.  We are living Bad right now.  We are all looking for something other than Worse.

When trying to balance outcomes, worth to remember initiall options for Ukraine in this war. As much a tragedy as it is, we are still in one of best possible scenarios for them. Really scary alternative was urban and rural resistance on scale we didn't saw from WWII, with giant zachistki, real concentration camps and hundreds of thousands, if not milions of victims.

Right now it roughly looks like enlarged Winter War but with much better prospects on Ukrainian side, comparatively looking at it.

Interesting, tank is droned into oblivion by quadrocopter. Relatively rare sight.

They definitelly put their cards on small copters:

https://tvpworld.com/65946832/ukraine-plans-to-spend-usd-550-mln-on-military-drones-in-2023

One of newer devices. This is costly, but probably brutally effective:

 

[kevinkin]

If this damn war carries on for a couple of  years, is it heading toward a DMZ situation not unlike the one between NK and SK? While not modern industrial countries, both nations were decimated by the war. US strategic bombers famously had nothing left of value to strike in NK. The thing is, no country today is "backing" Russia like the Soviets backed NK. Russia has no proxies to rein in. Is Wagner a proxy? No. So I don't see a DMZ lasting too long and intense fighting will break out if NATO wavers in its commitments. Even if they don't, it's a very uneasy peace. I would be disappointed if the West doesn't have a timetable to avoid that. 

[FancyCat]

31 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Adding to what others have said already: Ukraine and the West are not the same thing. Yes, we are currently in this together but don't doubt for a moment that the West is there for its own reasons and our goals align only partially with those of Ukraine. Hell, our goals only partially align with our goals, so to speak. There are a number of outcomes that would work for the West but not for Ukraine.

Nasty truth: NATO doesn't need Ukraine and EU doesn't need Ukraine as a member. If a stable peace can somehow be ensured, that can be sold to the various electorates, the West will be ok with it.

My fear is a unstable peace. There is no guarantee a peace treaty without EU or NATO assurances will prevent further Russian meddling and attacks. 

As for the instability on Europe's eastern flank, you can hide behind the Mediterranean, but Ukraine does supply worldwide food supplies, and sits on land borders there, making it hard in the event of a future refugee crisis. 

As for NATO and EU continued support, Russia is betting on it waning, if Russia thinks it might fail, then its worth considering it as a possibility. 

[The_Capt]

15 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

(Page 1987. Last mention of the actual battlefield situation in this thread: page 1980).

UA may simply be in a defensive pause cuz regearing or cuz training or cuz mud or wev and then unleash their next stunning surprise. But an alternate thesis is that their best formations are getting badly hammered right now and cycling through. Even if Ivan is faring much worse.

Fine, yielding the ruins of Bakhmut is irrelevant to the strategic situation. But regardless of where the lines are drawn, thousands of Ukrainians are getting shot up. Meanwhile, the Russians still show no signs of running short of meat or firepower. Not June peak shell volumes, but hardly shell famine either.  No stream of surrenders of desperate, freezing mobiks.  In short, no real signs of Collapse, but disturbing glimpses of strain on the Ukraine side in spite of the veil of secrecy.

 

 

 

(this thread is worth a read. Defmon stays on top of the frontline situation)

....And last time I checked in mid Jan, Kreminna and Svatove were allegedly becoming untenable for Ivan. Not now, it seems. The UA has fallen back nearly to Torske.

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2023/01/27/i-have-now-been-in-three-wars/

The old snakeater's outfit looks like it's pulling from the woodlands as well.

****

Initiative has passed back to Moscow, it looks like to me. Both sides are fighting Russia's war right now. While on the static fronts (land bridge), Ivan just keeps on digging and mining, (I'd guess) planning  some kind of Zitadelle rematch to absorb  a straight punch by the Western heavies.

****

Here's Jack Watling in the Spectator (not gonna post the clickbaity German bashing headline, far too much of that here already). Here's the useful bit, the rest is the usual wailing about Western foot dragging:

Russia is currently at the nadir of its capabilities, fielding poorly trained troops with older and more varied equipment, and with shortages of munitions.

At the same time Russia has enough forces on the ground to mean that Ukraine can only make progress with a deliberate offensive.

Russia can also mobilise and train more personnel [than Ukraine].

Russia’s defence industry is also increasing production, so that if Ukraine does not retain the initiative, it will become progressively harder to liberate territory.  

Ok, so I guess it is time for another talk on this.  The main reason there has not been a lot of discussion on the progress of the war itself is because not a lot is happening - or wait, is it?  And being human means we simply cannot accept reality for what it is, we need to start reading meaning and implications at every shadow in the dark.

Nothing is happening because the UA has run out of steam.

Nothing is happening because the RA has rebuilt itself into a lurking monster that can freeze this conflict in place.

Nothing is happening because it is all a [insert boogie-man of you choice] - Belarusian Front re-opening is popular.

Or here is a crazy idea, maybe nothing is really happening because it is the middle of a wet muddy winter.  Or wait a minute, maybe something is happening - https://www.forbes.com/sites/katyasoldak/2023/01/23/monday-january-23-russias-war-on-ukraine-daily-news-and-information-from-ukraine/?sh=72a88a92ba69  but because of unrealistic expectations we think nothing is happening.  

In fact we have become so fixated on questionable criteria of success that the fact that the RA is bleeding out appears to be getting lost in the noise.  https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-5500-russians-killed-last-week-war-defense-ministry-1777316 (that is 1/3 of what they lost in Afghanistan in ten years).

Oh but we all know the mighty Russian bear can generate millions of troops - which it has not - and come crawling out of the snow to retake all of Ukraine and usher in a new era of Russian dominance. 

And then pundits - seriously who are these guys? Say things like "Ukraine can only make progress with a deliberate offensive."  Well no sh#t Sherlock, it is what they have been doing since last Sep.  In fact the only successful defence-only operation was arguably in Phase I when the RA over-reached and collapsed out of the North.  Every major UA success to date has been a period of heavy RA attrition/manipulation followed by deliberate offensive pressure - fast in Kharkiv, slow in Kherson - outcomes the same.

"Oh dear, oh dear, Russia is going to win the war."  Well Piglet, no Russia has already lost this one - we are only negotiating what that looks like here. (The_Capt's all war is negotiation has clearly fallen on deaf ears.) 

"But, but, Russia wins unless we take back every square inch of Ukraine in the next week."  Well, ok by that metric then I guess we have lost this one but that is a terrible metric.  "Russia wins if Ukrainians keep dying" - another bad metric because last I checked this is a war and people are going to die from it for decades - see UXOs and landmines.  "Russia wins if Russia is not a smoking collapsed ruin with Putin hanging upside down from a telephone pole" - ok, seriously?

The worst case right now is that the front does not move an inch.  The conflict is frozen in place, locked in Korean style.  The specter of Russia somehow turning those buckets of Chinese chips into a C4ISR enterprise that can achieve: information superiority; wage a SEAD campaign for the ages and somehow regain air superiority - and invent a CAS/AirLand doctrine while they are at it; then establish the operational pre-conditions they needed on 24 Feb - make Ukraine go dark - literally and information-wise, cripple transportation infra-structure, and paralyze political/military strategic decision making - is f*cking laughable.   I mean if the RA still has those rabbits in its hat I will be absolutely shocked and of course ask the obvious question - "what the hell were they waiting for to pull them out?"

So conflict frozen.  So What?  Russia has already failed on both its made up and real strategic objectives for this war.  The real ones are stuff like:

- Take full control of Ukraine, install puppet government and run the nation like Belarus.

- Shatter the western world through a display of Russian Imperial might and re-assert Russian hegemony.

- Render NATO irrelevant and neutered.  With no doubt a longer term campaign to push them out of the Baltics through subversive means.

- Simply wait for a few months before weak-kneed European resolve collapses and they all start to buy Russian gas again - renormalization, Russian supremacy in its neighborhood, western "rules-based-order" a burning wreck, and sit back and let the autocrat club rule the roost.

Ya so not only did none of that happen, in many instances the exact opposite happened.  So for all you students of history I think I am on pretty safe ground when I declare that this is what losing looks like.  If on the weigh scales of history Russia gets "blasted and shattered Donbas, complete with reconstruction bill", and "Cut off and highly vulnerable Crimea", and "Strategic land bridge to nowhere", I think we can bloody well live with it.  If we cannot and that is what breaks us, then we never deserved to be in charge in the first place.

Russia just burned down its own storefront.  It has isolated itself from it best customers.  Its reputation on the global stage is in shambles, re-normalization is a very far off dream.  It has been militarily crushed - I mean this is 1991 where Saddam drove the coalition into the sea type of thing - by all old metrics of warfare Ukraine should be in an occupied insurgency right now, the reality we are in should not have happened. Russian hard power credibility is a joke.  And it is extremely vulnerable to really weak negotiating conditions. 

Further NATO has not been this unified since the Cold War.  Western defence spending has been re-energized for a decade at least - I mean seriously Vlad, read the f#cking room, we were half-way to debilitating defence cuts in the post-pandemic economy but then you made your "genius" chess move.  Europe is actually agreeing with itself.   The US has finally found something they can agree on, mostly.  And most importantly, I think the West finally woke up from its "New World Order" hangover and realized that one has to actually keep fighting to stay on top.

And finally here is the thing....this entire affair is not over by a long shot.  We have not seen anything that suggests the UA has run out of gas.  We are pushing more and more offensive equipment at the UA, which suggests that they are lining up for another operational offensive.  The RA is still flopping around with leg-humping in the Donbas.  Spending thousands of lives for inches, just like they did last summer.  So before we declare this thing "over" why don't we just buckle in and show something that most people do not get in the least about warfare...steady patience.  Games and movies are terrible at teaching this because they are entertainment.  War is more often a slow and steady grinding business, until it is not.   

Edited January 31, 2023 by The_Capt

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, Butschi said:

While that is still a very plausible explanation, it could be that it was more about saving face than an actual fear of rebellion. If propaganda tells 24/7 that it is only a special military operation you can't very well call for mass mobilization. That would mean war and a war that isn't going all that well. I admit losing face may, for a dictator, be an actual danger that in the short or long run may lead to rebellion but it isn't the same as directly fearing that mobilization = rebellion because people don't want to be soldiers.

True, ego and performance art are factors here.  However, in a dictatorship those things are inherent parts of the power structure.  Historically speaking "losing face" generally isn't good for dictators' time in power.

What we have seen with the "stealth mobilization" is instructive, I think.  People being bribed or coerced at the individual level limits the potential blowback at the societal level.  I have been very impressed by how effective this method of raising new soldiers has been, even though I assumed it would happen.

The limited mobilization is, I think, definitely constrained by the fear of some sort of popular push back.  Putin has needed time to switch the population's mindset from "Special Military Operation" to "Great Patriotic War Part 2".  He's also needed time to get Russia's capacity to handle the change on the right track.  Despite the need to do it sooner, he's had to put it off.  Very dangerous considering Ukraine's increasing capabilities, but it doesn't seem like he had much choice.

Steve

[danfrodo]

9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, so I guess it is time for another talk on this.  The main reason there has not been a lot of discussion on the progress of the war itself is because not a lot is happening - or wait, is it?  And being human means we simply cannot accept reality for what it is, we need to start reading meaning and implications at every shadow in the dark.

Nothing is happening because the UA has run out of steam.

Nothing is happening because the RA has rebuilt itself into a lurking monster that can freeze this conflict in place.

Nothing is happening because it is all a [insert boogie-man of you choice] - Belarusian Front re-opening is popular.

Or here is a crazy idea, maybe nothing is really happening because it is the middle of a wet muddy winter.  Or wait a minute, maybe something is happening - https://www.forbes.com/sites/katyasoldak/2023/01/23/monday-january-23-russias-war-on-ukraine-daily-news-and-information-from-ukraine/?sh=72a88a92ba69  but because of unrealistic expectations we think nothing is happening.  

In fact we have become so fixated on questionable criteria of success that the fact that the RA is bleeding out appears to be getting lost in the noise.  https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-5500-russians-killed-last-week-war-defense-ministry-1777316 (that is 1/3 of what they lost in Afghanistan in ten years).

Oh but we all know the mighty Russian bear can generate millions of troops - which it has not - and come crawling out of the snow to retake all of Ukraine and usher in a new era of Russian dominance. 

And then pundits - seriously who are these guys? Say things like "Ukraine can only make progress with a deliberate offensive."  Well no sh#t Sherlock, it is what they have been doing since last Sep.  In fact the only successful defence-only operation was arguably in Phase I when the RA over-reached and collapsed out of the North.  Every major UA success to date has been a period of heavy RA attrition/manipulation followed by deliberate offensive pressure - fast in Kharkiv, slow in Kherson - outcomes the same.

"Oh dear, oh dear, Russia is going to win the war."  Well Piglet, no Russia has already lost this one - we are only negotiating what that looks like here. (The_Capt's all war is negotiation has clearly fallen on deaf ears.) 

"But, but, Russia wins unless we take back every square inch of Ukraine in the next week."  Well, ok by that metric then I guess we have lost this one but that is a terrible metric.  "Russia wins if Ukrainians keep dying" - another bad metric because last I checked this is a war and people are going to die from it for decades - see UXOs and landmines.  "Russia wins if Russia is not a smoking collapsed ruin with Putin hanging upside down from a telephone pole" - ok, seriously?

The worst case right now is that the front does not move and inch.  The conflict if frozen in place, locked in Korean style.  The specter of Russia somehow turning those buckets of Chinese chips into a C4ISR enterprise that can achieve: information superiority; wage a SEAD campaign for the ages and somehow regain air superiority - and invent a CAS/AirLand doctrine while they are at it; then establish the operational pre-conditions they needed on 24 Feb - make Ukraine go dark - literally and information-wise, cripple transportation infra-structure, and paralyze political/military strategic decision making - is f*cking laughable.   I mean if the RA still has those rabbits in its hat I will be absolutely shocked and of course ask the obvious question - "what the hell were they waiting for to pull them out?"

So conflict frozen.  So What?  Russia has already failed on both its made up and real strategic objectives for this war.  The real ones are stuff like:

- Take full control of Ukraine, install puppet government and run the nation like Belarus.

- Shatter the western world through a display of Russian Imperial might and re-assert Russian hegemony.

- Render NATO irrelevant and neutered.  With no doubt a longer term campaign to push them out of the Baltics through subversive means.

- Simply wait for a few months before weak-kneed European resolve collapses and they all start to buy Russian gas again - renormalization, Russian supremacy in its neighborhood, western "rules-based-order" a burning wreck, and sit back and let the autocrat club rule the roost.

Ya so not only did none of that happen, in many instances the exact opposite happened.  So for all you students of history I think I am on pretty safe ground when I declare that this is what losing looks like.  If on the weigh scales of history Russia gets "blasted and shattered Donbas, complete with reconstruction bill", and "Cut off and highly vulnerable Crimea", and "Strategic land bridge to nowhere", I think we can bloody well live with it.  If we cannot and that is what breaks us, then we never deserved to be in charge in the first place.

Russia just burned down its own storefront.  It has isolated itself from it best customers.  Its reputation on the global stage is in shambles, re-normalization is a very far off dream.  It has been militarily crushed - I mean this is 1991 where Saddam drove the coalition into the sea type of thing - by all old metrics of warfare Ukraine should be in an occupied insurgency right now, the reality we are in should not have happened. Russian hard power credibility is a joke.  And it is extremely vulnerable to really weak negotiating conditions. 

Further NATO has not been this unified since the Cold War.  Western defence spending has been re-energized for a decade at least - I mean seriously Vlad, read the f#cking room, we were half-way to debilitating defence cuts in the post-pandemic economy but then you made your "genius" chess move.  Europe is actually agreeing with itself.   The US has finally found something they can agree on, mostly.  And most importantly, I think the West finally woke up from its "New World Order" hangover and realized that one has to actually keep fighting to stay on top.

And finally here is the thing....this entire affair is not over by a long shot.  We have not seen anything that suggests the UA has run out of gas.  We are pushing more and more offensive equipment at the UA, which suggests that they are lining up for another operational offensive.  The RA is still flopping around with leg-humping in the Donbas.  Spending thousands of lives for inches, just like they did last summer.  So before we declare this thing "over" why don't we just buckle in and show something that most people do not get in the least about warfare...steady patience.  Games and movies are terrible at teaching this because they are entertainment.  War is more often a slow and steady grinding business, until it is not.   

This is why TheCapt gets paid the big bucks.  Or at least he should be paid big bucks.  Thanks for the hard slap / big picture reality check.  Basically what matters is where we are at the end of campaigning season this year, not whether RU gets a non-strategic little city it rubble-ized.  

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

So that is simply not true.

Now that part is true.

No, doesn’t really track.  Country went from zero to sixty in the 8 years after it lost a large chunk of Donbas and Crimea.  In fact where the lines on the map are finally drawn really are not critically linked to either security or economic recovery at this point in the war.

Seriously, you are painting this entire thing into a pretty bleak (and maximalist) corner with this line of thinking.  I would have hoped nearly 2000 pages of in depth discussion and counter-points would have done something but apparently we are still at “it is all about the map!”

So what are we going to do if Ukraine retakes all it wonderful land - filled with people who actively supported Russia by the way - and magically Russia does not cease to exist, nor does it recognize an end to the conflict?  A new more nationalist Russia with some other nut job in charge - they have more in the back- who refuses to accept the lot of the “poor downtrodden true-Russians in occupied Crimea and Donbas”?  Based on your absolutist criteria we basically have to win WW3 in order to fully secure Ukraine…pointe finale!

And here is why what you are pitching is such a bad idea.  If we ain’t absolutely winning…we are losing!  Like war is some sort of digital experience like being pregnant.  Based on your underlying strategic requirements as outlined by this narrative, the only way Ukraine and the West can win is through the complete destruction of Russia.  This is not only a terrible idea, it is a dangerous oversimplification of the situation.

I am glad to see we are still on schedule for our monthly “crisis of faith” because the war is not meeting these highly unrealistic goals and timelines.  Based on these metrics we may just have to accept the loss then, I think over on the MacGregor channel they are already talking about pushing Ukraine into negotiations.

Why don’t we just stick with the “a secure western facing free and sovereign Ukraine with a functioning democracy while well supported in economic recovery”.  And work backwards from that?  A lot of scenarios between here and there, and I am pretty sure the grown ups are working through them all.  

Strategy is not a choice between Good and Bad, it is a choice between Bad and Worse.  We are living Bad right now.  We are all looking for something other than Worse.

I'm skipping some of the things you stated, I just want to point out, if Russia were to cease all offensive operations, and simply stick to lobbing drones and missiles into Ukraine with a frozen frontline, unless Western aid were to actually give aid to and support Ukraine in striking back those missile sites, we could result in a situation where no peace treaty is possible, where simply Ukraine endures long range fire that makes economic recovery not really possible due to attacks on civilian and energy infrastructure. 

The 8 years from 2014 to now, never had a situation where Russia was lobbing missiles on Ukraine from Kharkiv to Lviv, it was strictly isolated to the Donbas, big difference than this current reality. Also, I didn't say Russia needs to be destroyed. I'm just pointing out LLF isn't outlandish in his more pessimistic idea that Russia is in a better position than previously. I'm just pointing out that Russia has multiple ways of getting out this conflict, in a way that results in a less than favorable position for Ukraine and the West.

As a goal of the invasion was to not only take Ukraine, but render the West ineffectual in responding, and signify Russia regaining prominence internationally. If he cannot take Ukraine, he needs to make sure the West and Ukraine don't come out positively at the least, to maintain his domestic and foreign legitimacy. That means, the more he loses or is rendered unable to affect the battlefield, he will strike at the West in hybrid form, and keep targeting Ukraine's infrastructure, to broadcast Russia's ability to damage. 

And yes, the West's goals and Ukraine's goals do not match, it is certainly part of Russian calculation that the West will give in, so we must factor that in regarding their intentions past peace. 

[_Morpheus_]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Adding to what others have said already: Ukraine and the West are not the same thing. Yes, we are currently in this together but don't doubt for a moment that the West is there for its own reasons and our goals align only partially with those of Ukraine. Hell, our goals only partially align with our goals, so to speak. There are a number of outcomes that would work for the West but not for Ukraine.

Nasty truth: NATO doesn't need Ukraine and EU doesn't need Ukraine as a member. If a stable peace can somehow be ensured, that can be sold to the various electorates, the West will be ok with it.

+1 to that. Actually I'm really interested how NATO/EU will evolve after this war.

It show that EU is not united as it suppose too, so `<replace with any non central European country> and the West are not the same thing`.
`Hell, our goals only partially align with our goals, so to speak` - Everybody has it's own interest and ambitions, so everybody has it's own goals . Hungary will be great example.

With the NATO is the same story - yes, Turkey, I'm looking at you 

<OFF-TOPIC>
For example: https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-olaf-scholz-calls-for-eu-expansion-military-autonomy/a-63452833
that doesn't much with what you said, but actually any EU country need `young and/or highly educated people`...
</OFF-TOPIC>

Edited January 31, 2023 by _Morpheus_

[Thomm]

57 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

The governments of Hungary and Austria never fail to disappoint since this war started.

Well, Austria is supposed to be neutral, isn't she.

Not that there are any weapons to send in the first place.

[Harmon Rabb]

37 minutes ago, Thomm said:

Well, Austria is supposed to be neutral, isn't she.

Not that there are any weapons to send in the first place.

I'll admit I don't know that much about the internal politics of Austria or the condition of its military. But if Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia can send weapons to help Ukraine, I know Hungary can help out. It is clear that the political will to send weapons is just not there in Budapest, but that is just saying the obvious.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I'm skipping some of the things you stated, I just want to point out, if Russia were to cease all offensive operations, and simply stick to lobbing drones and missiles into Ukraine with a frozen frontline, unless Western aid were to actually give aid to and support Ukraine in striking back those missile sites, we could result in a situation where no peace treaty is possible, where simply Ukraine endures long range fire that makes economic recovery not really possible due to attacks on civilian and energy infrastructure. 

The 8 years from 2014 to now, never had a situation where Russia was lobbing missiles on Ukraine from Kharkiv to Lviv, it was strictly isolated to the Donbas, big difference than this current reality. Also, I didn't say Russia needs to be destroyed. I'm just pointing out LLF isn't outlandish in his more pessimistic idea that Russia is in a better position than previously. I'm just pointing out that Russia has multiple ways of getting out this conflict, in a way that results in a less than favorable position for Ukraine and the West.

As a goal of the invasion was to not only take Ukraine, but render the West ineffectual in responding, and signify Russia regaining prominence internationally. If he cannot take Ukraine, he needs to make sure the West and Ukraine don't come out positively at the least, to maintain his domestic and foreign legitimacy. That means, the more he loses or is rendered unable to affect the battlefield, he will strike at the West in hybrid form, and keep targeting Ukraine's infrastructure, to broadcast Russia's ability to damage. 

And yes, the West's goals and Ukraine's goals do not match, it is certainly part of Russian calculation that the West will give in, so we must factor that in regarding their intentions past peace. 

Ok, so an "open wound" war.  Never ending struggle both above and below normal conflict thresholds.  There is at least one nation on the planet that has been living this way for decades and it has double the GDP of pre-war Ukraine and 1/4 the population with a whole lot less real estate - Israel.  

A long open wound war is not a iron-rule indicator of economic success of failure.  As to security, well frankly it becomes "risk-managed".  So for every missile Russia lobs in this scenario you point, it gets another day, month, year of sanctions and economic isolation.  Further, it reinforces western resolve to continue to pour in military and economic aid.  This missile theory sounds a lot like the bomber theories of WW2 - the resolve of people will break as the bomber always gets through.  Well it didn't and nations like Germany and Japan survived for years under a lot worse conditions than Russia can project on Ukraine - and they did not have the deep pockets of the western world.  So we AD Ukraine up into Iron Dome 4, we arm the ever lovin crap out of them and at some point those Russia missiles and their infrastructure are going to become legitimate military targets.  How does any of this make Russia's position any better?

Russia may pursue a "well I am going home but am going to lob missiles at you because I am a sad bitter loser", but it is going to cost them billions to do it.  It has a very low chance of breaking Ukrainian resolve, a low chance of breaking western resolve and in the end may reap more pain and loss on Russia.  This almost assumes Russia is not a rational actor in all this.

I actually think the root of all this is a fear of failing western resolve.  We pull back, pull out and simply accept Russian dominance in Ukraine.  Well I can't say it is not a possibility, but as this war draws on Ukraine is becoming too big to fail from a western perspective.  We have invested too much at some point and cutting losses becomes untenable.  I am not sure we are at that point, but we are a lot closer to it now then on 24 Feb.  Political theatre aside, the risks to our interests are simply becoming too high with a Russian win at this point.   

[Chibot Mk IX]

TASS: Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia to be main event in bilateral agenda for 2023 — MFA

other news agency seems to believe Xi's visit is very likely to happen 

Xi Jinping to visit Moscow likely around anniversary of Ukraine invasion

China Ministry of foreign affairs spokesman refuse to comment on this news report.

 

[Lethaface]

17 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

(Page 1987. Last mention of the actual battlefield situation in this thread: page 1980).

UA may simply be in a defensive pause cuz regearing or cuz training or cuz mud or wev and then unleash their next stunning surprise. But an alternate thesis is that their best formations are getting badly hammered right now and cycling through. Even if Ivan is faring much worse.

Fine, yielding the ruins of Bakhmut is irrelevant to the strategic situation. But regardless of where the lines are drawn, thousands of Ukrainians are getting shot up. Meanwhile, the Russians still show no signs of running short of meat or firepower. Not June peak shell volumes, but hardly shell famine either.  No stream of surrenders of desperate, freezing mobiks.  In short, no real signs of Collapse, but disturbing glimpses of strain on the Ukraine side in spite of the veil of secrecy.

 

 

 

(this thread is worth a read. Defmon stays on top of the frontline situation)

....And last time I checked in mid Jan, Kreminna and Svatove were allegedly becoming untenable for Ivan. Not now, it seems. The UA has fallen back nearly to Torske.

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2023/01/27/i-have-now-been-in-three-wars/

The old snakeater's outfit looks like it's pulling from the woodlands as well.

****

Initiative has passed back to Moscow, it looks like to me. Both sides are fighting Russia's war right now. While on the static fronts (land bridge), Ivan just keeps on digging and mining, (I'd guess) planning  some kind of Zitadelle rematch to absorb  a straight punch by the Western heavies.

****

Here's Jack Watling in the Spectator (not gonna post the clickbaity German bashing headline, far too much of that here already). Here's the useful bit, the rest is the usual wailing about Western foot dragging:

Russia is currently at the nadir of its capabilities, fielding poorly trained troops with older and more varied equipment, and with shortages of munitions.

At the same time Russia has enough forces on the ground to mean that Ukraine can only make progress with a deliberate offensive.

Russia can also mobilise and train more personnel [than Ukraine].

Russia’s defence industry is also increasing production, so that if Ukraine does not retain the initiative, it will become progressively harder to liberate territory.  

If that's all true, throwing more equipment at the problem (which seems to be a popular opinion) doesn't necessarily make things better. 
One could also question whether the initiative has really 'shifted' back to Russia. Russia has capabilities, which includes rounding up and sending a lot of 'meat' into Ukraine. Less than a year ago almost everybody assumed the combined quality and quantity of the meat, including their metal containers, was enough to overrun Ukraine without much issue. 

Within a year Ukraine has managed to contain the invasion and even push back almost all fronts. Most of the supposed fine cuts of meat have been expanded, including their shiny metal boxes, without much result to show for. Death and destruction yes, but Russia could do much of that without having anyone in Ukraine. 

Ukraine has not only fought back and beat back / contained the invasion; they have also become more successful in denying the death and destruction. Obviously the war also takes it toll on Ukraine, including it's armed forces. There is obviously a very 'difficult' read: ugly situation. 

I think 'deliberate' is a hollow word in this context, I know it's a military term but it's not like some of Ukraine's defensive/counter offensive operations weren't 'deliberate'. Taking back land on/in which Russia has been able to organize anything resembling some form of competent defense is of course different compared to many operations we have seen so far. Even in CM counter attacking an overextended formation is much more easy compared to taking good defensive terrain, even if the defenders are of poor quality. Especially if you can't level the whole place.

It's also not like 'we' haven't seen this coming. For example you have been talking about defensive hedgehogs with overlapping artillery since March probably ;-). Crimea/Donbass was always going to be a different ballpark. Not that I think it is bad to discuss this subject, but imo there is some form of unconscious defeatism in the unsatisfiable need for daily progress in the media. Not uncommon in the age of digital (social) media, one has to keep reporting progress every X instance or people start imagining all kinds of doom scenario's. We've seen that on this forum as well

Anyway imo full scale unlimited conventional wars between large nation states aren't over in a day. However Ukraine has already forced the war to become a limited war for Russia, although Russia isn't yet sure about the limits yet. It might end up with packing it's bag and calling it a day. They are rather stubborn though and have proven at least that. The question is obviously how long they continue hitting the wall, in theory the wall can give in as well. So far I didn't see much signs of the wall collapsing. 
We don't have all the information, but instead of imagining how the lack of news might be very bad news I'd prefer to the more 'relaxed' and imo wise principle of 'no news is good news'. Ukraine still beat back most of the operational endeavors Russia went on. Russia can only grind. That's the facts we have seen. Now our expectations might have been higher, but is that a sign of Ukraine losing? It might just be Ukraine needs more time to prepare for things they want to do, but obviously they aren't telling those things in public. 
Russia is still in loss aversion mode (instead of annexing Ukraine mode), so as long as Ukraine doesn't run out of will/soldiers/ammo/equipment and the front isn't collapsing I'd say Ukraine is good. 
The West / supporters of Ukraine just need to make sure they keep up the support while organizing it in an efficient/effective way. Talking a lot about it by politicians doesn't necessarily help imo. 'Geen woorden, maar daden.'

And if we want to know how effective employing a dozen variants of different tanks is, we can look at Germany in WW2 ;-). 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

And to add while I'm on a typing spree, I personally think it is not wise/good/healthy to intake the daily loss of life and destruction going on and phantom that into rational thoughts about the situation. Of course if one looks at all the hell going on everyday whole day, emotions start building. Send in the kitchen sink or better yet throw it at Russia is a normal emotion I guess, but not necessarily a realistic thought on the geopolitical spectrum. 
I for one need to take some breaks sometimes because of RL but also to prevent becoming too emotionally attached to whatever is going on at the front. Perhaps it's hard to say it, but it's not 'my war' as in I'm not fighting in it. I might have given some support, but that's not the same.

[Vet 0369]

14 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Nothing at all political intended, and unclear why you took it that way. I didn’t recall Clinton saying that. But I did recall Bush - following 9/11. I called it by his name for that reason. And because I am not clear whether that was an Executive Order and thus carried the weight of new law. Also, whether each of the preceding similar acts were one-off orders, or always came under a single past Executive Order that authorizes all such acts. Bush’s statement came across as broadly applicable policy, any time, anywhere. If that was just stating an earlier President’s Executive Order, thanks for the correction. The continuity of specific anti-terrorism approaches by each Admin isn’t always clear to the public. You may be better informed on all the layers and histories of current and past anti terrorism directives, so thanks again.if the referenced policy started earlier.  The policy itself was the point in the discussion.

 

My knowledge base and background is based on the fact that I worked for the U.S. Executive Branch for 22 years. My job was as a Senior Technical Writer for Policy and Regulations. Virtually everything I wrote had to be approved by our legal staff and published in the Federal Register.

“Congress passes laws. The Constitution states it’s the President’s job to “ensure those laws are faithfully executed.” So, Presidents often use Executive Orders to direct federal workers on how to enforce existing laws, sometimes changing direction during times of war or other emergencies.

Executive Orders do not create laws or give the President new powers.

“They are going back to the original documents, back to the statutes, back to the Constitution,” explained Gillespie. “Presidents can’t execute any laws that don’t already exist.””

In each “new” Administration, every Executive Order (E.O.) must by signed (reissued) by the new President or it no longer exists.

Bolding is mine. I hope this is seen as an attempt to educate, and not as derailing this topic. Nough said. I will not respond to this subject any further.

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

Adding to what others have said already: Ukraine and the West are not the same thing. Yes, we are currently in this together but don't doubt for a moment that the West is there for its own reasons and our goals align only partially with those of Ukraine. Hell, our goals only partially align with our goals, so to speak. There are a number of outcomes that would work for the West but not for Ukraine.

Nasty truth: NATO doesn't need Ukraine and EU doesn't need Ukraine as a member. If a stable peace can somehow be ensured, that can be sold to the various electorates, the West will be ok with it.

To add to that, Donbass and or Crimea aren't really important to NATO or EU as long as Ukraine continues to exist in it's current form.

[Harmon Rabb]

Girkin maintains his pessimistic predictions for Russia in this war.

[poesel]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

Nasty truth: NATO doesn't need Ukraine and EU doesn't need Ukraine as a member. If a stable peace can somehow be ensured, that can be sold to the various electorates, the West will be ok with it.

'doesn't need' in the sense of 'will cease to exist if not' - yes.
But it would be better if Ukraine joined NATO and EU (for different reasons and with some preconditions in both cases).

[poesel]

Btw, no comments on this?

I remember some other leader being scolded here for saying the same thing in more words. Or did Biden just misunderstand the question?

[The_MonkeyKing]

23 minutes ago, poesel said:

Btw, no comments on this?

I remember some other leader being scolded here for saying the same thing in more words. Or did Biden just misunderstand the question?

That sort of comment is not worth noticing. The lines has been so far that options are open but at the moment no decisions or actions on F-16. Identically to Abrams couple weeks ago, it was a "no" until it became a "yes".

relates:

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

3 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1620435396890099714?cxt=HHwWhIDU0Y7a-PwsAAAA

 

 

The governments of Hungary and Austria never fail to disappoint since this war started.

By the way last a checked Ukraine is on the European continent, but now I'm being nit picky. I know when people speak of Europe these days they often mean EU members.

 

 

 

Austria is doing quite well in terms of aid. They are just keeping to their neutrality so no weapons.

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

That sort of comment is not worth noticing. The lines has been so far that options are open but at the moment no decisions or actions on F-16. Identically to Abrams couple weeks ago, it was a "no" until it became a "yes".

relates:

 

Writing a nastygram to my Congresspeople about this right now. The way to win this war is to convince the Russians, from mobiks in the trenches, to the halls of the Kremlin that they have no hope getting any thing in Ukraine except full body bags. "Eventually" would have committed Biden to essentially nothing without giving Putin this lifeline.

The fact what Ukraine actually needs is every ATACM in inventory, and permission to use them on Russian logistics nodes a couple of hundred kilometers into Russia is a different issue.

[Harmon Rabb]

11 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Austria is doing quite well in terms of aid. They are just keeping to their neutrality so no weapons.

Thanks for the graph. Gotta love Estonia, wow.

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

My knowledge base and background is based on the fact that I worked for the U.S. Executive Branch for 22 years. My job was as a Senior Technical Writer for Policy and Regulations. Virtually everything I wrote had to be approved by our legal staff and published in the Federal Register.

“Congress passes laws. The Constitution states it’s the President’s job to “ensure those laws are faithfully executed.” So, Presidents often use Executive Orders to direct federal workers on how to enforce existing laws, sometimes changing direction during times of war or other emergencies.

Executive Orders do not create laws or give the President new powers.

“They are going back to the original documents, back to the statutes, back to the Constitution,” explained Gillespie. “Presidents can’t execute any laws that don’t already exist.””

In each “new” Administration, every Executive Order (E.O.) must by signed (reissued) by the new President or it no longer exists.

Bolding is mine. I hope this is seen as an attempt to educate, and not as derailing this topic. Nough said. I will not respond to this subject any further.

Thanks for your note. I appreciate it and your experience and service. Although we are veering off topic, Presidential Powers are relevant for Ukraine especially over the two years under USA divided government To clarify the formal nature of Presidential Executive Orders, here is the outline of their nature and authority for those who may not be familiar with the specifics of EOs. This isn’t politics! It is civics. While not legislation, they are binding on the government. Congress cannot easily remove them - by passing legislation. They are indeed powerful instruments of policy. Here is an excerpt, fuller details below:

“Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect”
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/

“An executive order is a signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. They are numbered consecutively, so executive orders may be referenced by their assigned number, or their topic. Other presidential documents are sometimes similar to executive orders in their format, formality, and issue, but have different purposes. Proclamations, which are also signed and numbered consecutively, communicate information on holidays, commemorations, federal observances, and trade. Administrative orders—e.g. memos, notices, letters, messages—are not numbered, but are still signed, and are used to manage administrative matters of the federal government. All three types of presidential documents—executive orders, proclamations, and certain administrative orders—are published in the Federal Register, the daily journal of the federal government that is published to inform the public about federal regulations and actions. They are also catalogued by the National Archives as official documents produced by the federal government. Both executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and other federal agencies.

Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect”

 

[Zeleban]

38 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Writing a nastygram to my Congresspeople about this right now. The way to win this war is to convince the Russians, from mobiks in the trenches, to the halls of the Kremlin that they have no hope getting any thing in Ukraine except full body bags. "Eventually" would have committed Biden to essentially nothing without giving Putin this lifeline.

The fact what Ukraine actually needs is every ATACM in inventory, and permission to use them on Russian logistics nodes a couple of hundred kilometers into Russia is a different issue.

Don't worry so much, maybe he meant that he would not send the F-16, but he would send the F-35