How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

War translated doing great work! So is Zeleban! Many thanks!

 

[Zeleban]

Very accurate, but instead of the Russian opposition, it is worth noting the explicit and hidden pro-Russian parties of the West

[Zeleban]

https://t.me/tpkr1775/18465

A young journalist came to Bakhmut to take an interview. The video contains a cut of her reactions to shell explosions. Also noteworthy is the reaction to the explosions of local and military personnel next to it. At the end, the operator praises her courage and says that not all reporters risk going to Bakhmut

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Khalerick said:

 

They're one and the same topic, really. Russia's ability wage war is entirely dependent on its economy and safeguarding its population from hits against said economy. But Russia's economy is not suffering. It has barely contracted and the IMF even foresees it growing in 2023. All the lost slack of trade with Europe was simply picked up by everyone else. We already know what economic rifts and disasters look like with Russia because we saw it in 2014 but we are not seeing it now. Now we are also seeing a coalescing of non-West economic powers in increasing antagonism toward the West itself.

 

I think we kind of beat the Russian economy to death a few pages back.  I am not so confident that they can come out of this better than they went in - the material costs of waging this war alone are significant.

And the full effect of sanctions, energy price caps etc have not fully set it.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/01/31/imf-improves-economic-forecast-for-the-eurozone-and-russia-amid-energy-crisis-and-raging-w

And as with everything economic, it really depends who you ask.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/russias-more-gradual-economic-contraction-extend-into-2023-2022-12-02/

https://blog.oxfordeconomics.com/content/a-darker-economic-scenario-from-russias-war

The answer is simply - keep at them, pressure those doing business with Russian anyway we can and make Russia’s economic life as difficult as possible.  

 

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

What? A new Perun PowerPoint video drops and no one mentions it? I'll fix that.

 

[Kraft]

4 hours ago, poesel said:

Does Ukraine still let POWs call their relatives?
I always thought that this is a very, very good way to bring the war 'home'.

Apart from that, I guess it is difficult to get through to the ordinary Russians. Those who wanted to know, know already. Those who have fallen for the propaganda are unreachable.

I dont think Ive seen a single video call video where the parents are upset or worried.

Its so awkward and weird when they straight up dont care.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

"QUICK THREAD on the Russian take of where UAVs and drones are today for both Russian and Ukrainian militaries - from a pro-Kremlin Telegram channel - main points below:

• A year in, both us (Russians) and the adversary (Ukrainians) "moved to the next class." Commercial "flying binoculars" have become the de facto standard across the front lines, and the means of combating them/protection against them are already rapidly developing.
• The number of competent drone pilots is already in the thousands, and this is now the order of things. However, now both sides are on the threshold of the next "phase transition", and there is a kind of speed race going on now.
• For reconnaissance, VTOL drones have become the most promising factor, combining the advantages of a copter and an airplane: vertical takeoff and landing anywhere, with the ability to hover over an object, and can spend much more time in the air than quadcopters.
• The VTOL flight range is at the level of long-range artillery, and if we add the ability to select frequency ranges that adversary EW systems are not trained to work with... Now Ukrainians are buying hundreds of VTOLs...and we too are doing something (about it)
• Standard quadcopters, meanwhile, are being used more and more for dropping munitions. Accordingly, this ability is being improved, experiments with carrying capacity are underway, and the pilot skills are growing. But still: drone quantity plays a big role.
• The munitions drop is effective when there are lots of drones. Some may grumble that this is irrational - the drone is not cheap, the chances of losing it are high, and the payload is small - nevertheless, the massed accuracy it provides trumps all these disadvantages.
• Nevertheless, the strike drone of the very near future is still a disposable kamikaze drone (loitering munition), controlled by a sufficiently trained pilot in FPV mode (that is, through goggles). If we had such drones in service today we would not have to attack entire buildings with artillery in order to suppress one firing point. It would be enough to find this target with a scout drone and send (a kamikaze UAV) there that is capable of flying through the window.
• In the near future, this (kamikaze drone) will become the standard means of operation for assault units. And if an ordinary recon drone gives only the advantage of awareness, then such a kamikaze drone is already a revolution in tactics, comparable to the Maxim machine gun.
• In fact, this is a flying munition capable of flying in any arbitrarily way, flying even into the windows. In principle, this is a way out of the current "positional impasse"; the only question, as always, is the speed of development and mass application.

https://twitter.com/SamBendett/status/1622270288003055616

 

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Just to add to the topic of Russian resistance to casualties- a lot of it depends on two factors that may be even more important than numbers themselves: tempo of receiving them and status of the infosphere.

Yes, this is also something I've been harping on since the beginning of the war.  There is a big difference between 100,000 casualties over 6 months vs. 100,000 over 1-2 months.  Especially if those casualties are mobiks.

I had HOPED that the tens of thousands of casualties Russia suffered in the first few months of the war would have a bigger impact than they did.  From we can tell the people predisposed to active opposition to Putin were either rounded up or were scared into silence.  The bigger impact was 1+ million young Russian men leaving Russia before they got mobilized.  Beyond that?  Nothing immediate.

Aside from all the usual Russian reasons that these shocking casualties didn't do much to shake public support (censorship, brutality, generations of brainwashing, etc.) the initial casualties were supposedly contractors.  "Hey, they signed up for it so that's their problem".  The instances of conscripts being used in Ukraine did fire up some amount of opposition precisely because "Hey, they did not sign up for it so that's your problem".  Russia has also slow walked death announcements over many months so they don't all hit at once, which helped reduce the true picture of mass casualties.  The partial mobilization's large casualties were hidden in similar ways as well as disproportionally grabbing men from poor and rural areas that won't be noticed by the urban areas which could cause Putin problems.

There's a lot of nuances to this, but it boils down to Russia being able to fairly effectively keep the scale of losses quiet.

4 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

About propaganda part...well, I am trying to keep an eye of this segment and various shapes in took during this year, and I am rather concerned- especially by what is going with minors. Perhaps out of necessity caused by tsar blunder, but state heavily militarized and nationalized almost every public message, and a lot of private communications too. Now there is still enough opportunistic Russians to not believe in it, but as time will go by (would expected like 5-10 years) new, genuinly fascisized generation will eventually grow up. These will collectivelly be idealists of worst kind, quite similar to hitlerjugend. They will not have occassion to fight in this war, but will remain revanchist for years/decades to come. Perhaps Putin even already envisions this "long-term solution" for Ukraine; if not this war, there will be next over the corner.

Yes, this is a major concern and yet another reason why simply removing Putin doesn't solve anything.

4 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Also, 100k KIA/serious WIA mobiks a month would be very high figure.

For sure.  The context, though, is scaling up Wagner's tactics.  We have no reliable numbers, but I have seen from the Russian side some estimates that 40,000 have been killed fighting in the Bakhmut area since November/December.  That's a rate of something like 20,000 per month.  If we presume Russia doubles the size of its land forces and tries at least one other Bakhmut sized Human Wave battle, this could mean 40,000 per month on top of normal casualty rates.  That would be 100,000 in a couple of months as I suggested.

4 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

So yeah, anyway, a pile of bodies awaits us. 2023 may be even worse than previous year in this regard.

Yes, I think we can count on that.

Steve

[FancyCat]

 

[FlemFire]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I think we kind of beat the Russian economy to death a few pages back.  I am not so confident that they can come out of this better than they went in - the material costs of waging this war alone are significant.

And the full effect of sanctions, energy price caps etc have not fully set it.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/01/31/imf-improves-economic-forecast-for-the-eurozone-and-russia-amid-energy-crisis-and-raging-w

And as with everything economic, it really depends who you ask.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/russias-more-gradual-economic-contraction-extend-into-2023-2022-12-02/

https://blog.oxfordeconomics.com/content/a-darker-economic-scenario-from-russias-war

The answer is simply - keep at them, pressure those doing business with Russian anyway we can and make Russia’s economic life as difficult as possible.  

 

 

 

Full effects in 2014 were readily apparent. Now that anti-Russian rhetoric is insanely high to the point people are deploying scientific racism, you're not going to find very many straight shooters on the subject. If you're running into weasel words and the like for 2022/2023, it means it's not working as intended. The reality is Russia learned from 2014 and has positioned safeguards against another version of it. I mean the sanctions right now from the West make 2014 look like a little firecracker so the fact there's any discussion at all is a very bad sign. And I'm not sure how you pressure anyone to do anything. India and China are not going to blink. BRICS smell blood in the water. OPEC nations already sided with Russia. The USA can't endanger its relationship with USD/oil. Most other nations were subjugated by Europeans and these nations love watching the Euros suicide their economies. Most are not going to give up economic benefits on account of some Euro war that has nothing to do with them. Would you be fine eating economic bullets on account of Somalis/Ethiopians? Didn't think so. This is why I have become greatly concerned that people are attaching so much national prestige to the winning of this war. You leave yourself two options when you start losing: ratchet up the intensity (risk WWIII), or you step back and take a big splattering of egg on the face and lose a ton of credibility. This applies to the other side as well. The more Russia dumps into the conflict, the less likely they are to negotiate. Wise statesmen and observers were calling for peace negotiations when that initial thrust got turned back. Now it looks like Russians are going on the offensive and the ball is in their hands again.

 

Also, just look at the long game for a moment. Russia is run by a dictator. Remember Iraq? Sanctioned, starved, and bombed. Even a defanged Saddam Hussein managed to keep power despite all those pressures and being in a terribly weak position. So long as Putin exists, Russia can and will outlast the democratic West. A dictator can make his people suffer as much as he wants them to. You can't get that out of the West when people start protesting and demanding peace. 

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

Full effects in 2014 were readily apparent. Now that anti-Russian rhetoric is insanely high to the point people are deploying scientific racism, you're not going to find very many straight shooters on the subject. If you're running into weasel words and the like for 2022/2023, it means it's not working as intended. The reality is Russia learned from 2014 and has positioned safeguards against another version of it. I mean the sanctions right now from the West make 2014 look like a little firecracker so the fact there's any discussion at all is a very bad sign. And I'm not sure how you pressure anyone to do anything. India and China are not going to blink. BRICS smell blood in the water. OPEC nations already sided with Russia. The USA can't endanger its relationship with USD/oil. Most other nations were subjugated by Europeans and these nations love watching the Euros suicide their economies. Most are not going to give up economic benefits on account of some Euro war that has nothing to do with them. Would you be fine eating economic bullets on account of Somalis/Ethiopians? Didn't think so. This is why I have become greatly concerned that people are attaching so much national prestige to the winning of this war. You leave yourself two options when you start losing: ratchet up the intensity (risk WWIII), or you step back and take a big splattering of egg on the face and lose a ton of credibility. This applies to the other side as well. The more Russia dumps into the conflict, the less likely they are to negotiate. Wise statesmen and observers were calling for peace negotiations when that initial thrust got turned back. Now it looks like Russians are going on the offensive and the ball is in their hands again.

 

Also, just look at the long game for a moment. Russia is run by a dictator. Remember Iraq? Sanctioned, starved, and bombed. Even a defanged Saddam Hussein managed to keep power despite all those pressures and being in a terribly weak position. So long as Putin exists, Russia can and will outlast the democratic West. A dictator can make his people suffer as much as he wants them to. You can't get that out of the West when people start protesting and demanding peace. 

Saddam didn't have to fight what is rapidly becoming a full up NATO army, and come up with half a million shells a month just to lose slowly. Bankruptcies , and regime disintegrations happen very slowly, then all at once.

[Battlefront.com]

The interview with Girkin (a few posts above) is interesting as always.  He has been pretty much spot on accurate with his assessment of Russia's capabilities since the start of the war.  At some point he might start lying in order to obscure real improvements, but I think for now we have to presume he's a) not promoting disinformation and b) that his sense of Russian capabilities is reasonable.

In this particular interview he stated, VERY clearly, that Russia has figured out how to hold a defensive line and conduct occasional small scale offensive actions.  What he is concerned about is Russia engaging in a large scale offensive because he doubts its abilities to do anything offensive beyond selective tactical actions. His reasoning is that Russia lacks "everything" to make this successful.  He covered some specifics; morale, leadership, training, and ammo.  Interestingly he did not specifically mention equipment.

Coupled with Russia's deficiencies, he stated very clearly that Ukraine is pretty much able to do what it wants to behind the front.  Whether it be rotating or redeploying, he pointed out there's no air interdiction and artillery is only effective if a drone happens to spot something in a place where artillery can be used effectively.  Nothing comprehensive.

In his view the Russian military leadership would be "daft" to launch a strategic offensive.  Yet it does look like they are building up for one and probably have to try at the very least for political reasons.

To summarize... Girkin thinks Russia should not launch a strategic offensive this year because it is likely to fail.  Presuming he's still speaking honestly, this is good to hear.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Also, just look at the long game for a moment. Russia is run by a dictator. Remember Iraq? Sanctioned, starved, and bombed. Even a defanged Saddam Hussein managed to keep power despite all those pressures and being in a terribly weak position. So long as Putin exists, Russia can and will outlast the democratic West. A dictator can make his people suffer as much as he wants them to. You can't get that out of the West when people start protesting and demanding peace. 

Saddam's Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba have all endured prolonged and harsh sanctions.  True.  However, none of them were/are fighting and losing a resource draining conflict that the regime itself says is necessary for its survival.

Steve

[billbindc]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The interview with Girkin (a few posts above) is interesting as always.  He has been pretty much spot on accurate with his assessment of Russia's capabilities since the start of the war.  At some point he might start lying in order to obscure real improvements, but I think for now we have to presume he's a) not promoting disinformation and b) that his sense of Russian capabilities is reasonable.

In this particular interview he stated, VERY clearly, that Russia has figured out how to hold a defensive line and conduct occasional small scale offensive actions.  What he is concerned about is Russia engaging in a large scale offensive because he doubts its abilities to do anything offensive beyond selective tactical actions. His reasoning is that Russia lacks "everything" to make this successful.  He covered some specifics; morale, leadership, training, and ammo.  Interestingly he did not specifically mention equipment.

Coupled with Russia's deficiencies, he stated very clearly that Ukraine is pretty much able to do what it wants to behind the front.  Whether it be rotating or redeploying, he pointed out there's no air interdiction and artillery is only effective if a drone happens to spot something in a place where artillery can be used effectively.  Nothing comprehensive.

In his view the Russian military leadership would be "daft" to launch a strategic offensive.  Yet it does look like they are building up for one and probably have to try at the very least for political reasons.

To summarize... Girkin thinks Russia should not launch a strategic offensive this year because it is likely to fail.  Presuming he's still speaking honestly, this is good to hear.

Steve

It’s becoming clearer that a Russian offensive is coming.The UA is warning about it…with a literal timeline and Girkin is having a public meltdown about it. And Russia is selling down its yuan reserves in order to stay afloat while now even the regular RA is emptying the prisons for warm bodies. 

It simply reeks of 1917.

PS: Part of me thinks that the offensive started 2 weeks ago and we sort of didn’t notice. Girkin’s critiques are quite specific.

Edited February 5, 2023 by billbindc

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky_offensive

Nothing will get the government changed faster than an offensive that fails horribly.

 

[kevinkin]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To summarize... Girkin thinks Russia should not launch a strategic offensive this year because it is likely to fail. 

No military commander would recommend a RA offensive anytime soon. We discussed that internal politics might force the military to do so. The compromise might be an attack (not a general offensive) to gain something tangible thereby appeasing the hawks and giving the Russian public something to hang their babushkas on. So when the attack comes I will be thinking of meeting statements: 

Eisenhower arrived at Verdun, ac­cording to one observer, “looking grave, almost ashen.” The meeting took place in a dismal room of a French barracks in which very little warmth emanated from a pot-bellied stove. The atmosphere was equally grim despite Eisenhower ‘s frag­ile attempt at levity when he opened by saying: “The present situation is to be re­garded as one of opportunity for us and not of disaster. There will be only cheer­ful faces at this conference table.” The smiles seemed forced. Patton immedi­ately chimed in: “Hell, let’s have the guts to let the sons of bitches go all the way to Paris. Then we’ll really cut ’em up and chew ’em up.”

Edited February 5, 2023 by kevinkin

[danfrodo]

8 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

No military commander would recommend a RA offensive anytime soon. We discussed that internal politics might force the military to do so. The compromise might be an attack (not a general offensive) to gain something tangible thereby appeasing the hawks and giving the Russian public something to hang their babushkas on. So when the attack comes I will be thinking of meeting statements: 

Eisenhower arrived at Verdun, ac­cording to one observer, “looking grave, almost ashen.” The meeting took place in a dismal room of a French barracks in which very little warmth emanated from a pot-bellied stove. The atmosphere was equally grim despite Eisenhower ‘s frag­ile attempt at levity when he opened by saying: “The present situation is to be re­garded as one of opportunity for us and not of disaster. There will be only cheer­ful faces at this conference table.” The smiles seemed forced. Patton immedi­ately chimed in: “Hell, let’s have the guts to let the sons of bitches go all the way to Paris. Then we’ll really cut ’em up and chew ’em up.”

While we're on battle of the bulge analogies.....  Once the initial shock was over american commanders were pretty happy to have the germans out of their holes and out in the open.  US command was concerned over having to grind through german defenses w huge allied casualties.  The germans fortunately denuded their lines in a ridiculous escapade that didn't have one chance in a million of success. 

And maybe that's where UKR is at in its thinking.  Every RU soldier killed at bakhmut won't be available later.  Yes, RU can 'make up' for losses but they still have 40,000 less men than they did before bakhmut offensives.  And that means less rifles in trenches that UKR will face at some point.

Having said that, UKR still knows it will be bloody and needs every gun, shell, and armored firepower platform it can get to keep UKR casualties to a minimum while inflicting the maximum.

[FlemFire]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Saddam's Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba have all endured prolonged and harsh sanctions.  True.  However, none of them were/are fighting and losing a resource draining conflict that the regime itself says is necessary for its survival.

Steve

Saddam fought one vs. Iran for years. Then got wiped out by the West. Then got sanctioned. Then virtually lost his northern territories to the Kurds. Modern nation states have vast resources and are not easily broken. People on this board who know the world wars should understand this very well when you see the depths to which countries like Germany, Russia, and Japan went. I don't see Russian civilians dying. I don't see Russian cities getting bombed. Russian factories are untouched. We're talking about intangible economic strain via pressure on consumer goods. The slack was picked up elsewhere.

 

 

28 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Saddam didn't have to fight what is rapidly becoming a full up NATO army, and come up with half a million shells a month just to lose slowly. Bankruptcies , and regime disintegrations happen very slowly, then all at once.

Saddam suffered far worse than Russia right now and he survived. He didn't collapse, either. Americans kicked his door in and hanged him. That was that. It's actually the main reason I drew up Saddam in the first place -- he didn't just face sanctions, he faced the physical dismantling of his army and severe losses of prestige.

Also, a full up Western anything is not the West, btw. Don't get it twisted on how armies fight and win. If you swapped the American military tech with Russia's, USA would still demolish the Russkies because things like training, discipline, communication, cohesion, etc. matter far more than tech specs. Putting Western tech in someone's hands hasn't been a magic bullet. Ever.

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure.  The context, though, is scaling up Wagner's tactics.  We have no reliable numbers, but I have seen from the Russian side some estimates that 40,000 have been killed fighting in the Bakhmut area since November/December.  That's a rate of something like 20,000 per month.  If we presume Russia doubles the size of its land forces and tries at least one other Bakhmut sized Human Wave battle, this could mean 40,000 per month on top of normal casualty rates.  That would be 100,000 in a couple of months as I suggested.

Situation with Bakhmut may be special, though. Urban terrain prepared for defence, operation proceded by months of shaping operations (Russian style, of course...which means over mass of own bodies before the even reached outskirts) and goal based on personal ambition, done by very peculiar military group. Is it model for similar operations, or maybe Muscovites have something different in mind now? Hard to tell. Perhaps numbers from other fronts, incurred by regulars would tell us more about character of future Russian attacks and expected scale of casualties. Svatove-Kreminna axis was for example in the shadow of meatgrinder in the south, but some preliminary, anecdotal info from volunteer/reporters there talks about more even fights and similar ratio of casualties between both armies. Occassionaly, Ukrainian lossess may even be higher there.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/268bd522-4794-4f3d-895f-f58a55536af9

According to this interview with Budanov, moskals have 326k soldiers in Ukraine, about half of them being decently prepared autumn conscripts. He is also right that this time factor of surprise is out; both sides know roughly what to expect from each other.

Btw. previous gossips are now confirmed. Kiryl Budanov will become new Minister of Defence. He is very young, but very posh and with good contacts in the West; some say he was groomed by Americans from the start. Rheznikov will be moved to head of industry. Not a great scandal and pretty civilized ending.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Beleg85

[The_Capt]

37 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

Full effects in 2014 were readily apparent. Now that anti-Russian rhetoric is insanely high to the point people are deploying scientific racism, you're not going to find very many straight shooters on the subject. If you're running into weasel words and the like for 2022/2023, it means it's not working as intended. The reality is Russia learned from 2014 and has positioned safeguards against another version of it. I mean the sanctions right now from the West make 2014 look like a little firecracker so the fact there's any discussion at all is a very bad sign. And I'm not sure how you pressure anyone to do anything. India and China are not going to blink. BRICS smell blood in the water. OPEC nations already sided with Russia. The USA can't endanger its relationship with USD/oil. Most other nations were subjugated by Europeans and these nations love watching the Euros suicide their economies. Most are not going to give up economic benefits on account of some Euro war that has nothing to do with them. Would you be fine eating economic bullets on account of Somalis/Ethiopians? Didn't think so. This is why I have become greatly concerned that people are attaching so much national prestige to the winning of this war. You leave yourself two options when you start losing: ratchet up the intensity (risk WWIII), or you step back and take a big splattering of egg on the face and lose a ton of credibility. This applies to the other side as well. The more Russia dumps into the conflict, the less likely they are to negotiate. Wise statesmen and observers were calling for peace negotiations when that initial thrust got turned back. Now it looks like Russians are going on the offensive and the ball is in their hands again.

 

Also, just look at the long game for a moment. Russia is run by a dictator. Remember Iraq? Sanctioned, starved, and bombed. Even a defanged Saddam Hussein managed to keep power despite all those pressures and being in a terribly weak position. So long as Putin exists, Russia can and will outlast the democratic West. A dictator can make his people suffer as much as he wants them to. You can't get that out of the West when people start protesting and demanding peace. 

So Russias economy is airtight and bulletproof, and Putin as glorious leader/dictator for life can demand his people die in the millions for him?

I mean that is where this line of thinking is carrying.  We as weak western democracies cannot possibly impose enough pressure, nor will our willpower survive as long as a dictatorship because our system is inherently weaker.

I am sorry but I am not buying any of these points and nor does history bear them out.  Sure Russia has put in fallbacks and economic bastions, but how long can they last?  Every dictator you mention had a very different economic system to sustain their society.  Russia will need to re-wire theirs (already have) in order to make this work in the long term.  We have posted a plethora of charts and graphs on how the Russian economy has taken sever hits and has had to prop up its currency and system in many dangerous ways.  Now the IMF makes a two year prediction in the middle of a shooting war and we leap to “negotiate!”…?

Economic systems take time to shift - in 2014 it wasn’t like the sanctions were felt over a weekend.  In fact it took 2 years to see full effects on GDP, maxed out in 2016.

https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp

And then recovered but never back to 2014 levels.

Yes, let’s look at the long game for a minute.  If Russia gets away with this stunt and we blink, then we are back to anarchy of states.  China, Russia or whoever is aligned with them are going to be able to fall back on Rule of the Gun.  If we didn’t stick it out in Ukraine then why should we in Taiwan?

We built the system.  If we want to keep it, we have to be willing to fight for it.  Russia is not a bunch of extremist yahoos, it is a global power that went “ya, whacha gonna do about it?”  So we either push it back in line or the whole drug deal starts to unravel. This is not about national identity, it is about a global order (warts and all) that put us all on top.  We defend it or lose it.

This war is a test of western will and resolve as much as it is for Ukraine or Russia.  Dictatorships are notoriously fragile, normally collapsing with the death of the dictator.  A few have bucked the trend - North Korea, but that freaky state is a whole thing on its own.  Russia is a modern and developed nation, with a capitalistic economy.  It does not get to illegally invade another nation and get away with it.  And if we tap out, we’ll what happens next is all on us.

Can they be beat?  They already have been.  Someone (other than Macgregor) paint me a scenario where Russian strategic aims are accomplished.  We can construct a new Iron Curtain if we have to, hell we split Germany in half and pulled its western side into NATO.  Europe is weaning off Russian energy, that is going to have effects that last a generation.  Russia has not regained operational offensive initiative, they are doing the same tactical pecking they have been doing for months.  And even if they did retake the initiative, how long can they hold onto it?

No, our main threat is western attention spans.  We are used to everything being fast, especially our “real” wars - the low level stuff we can always change the channel on.  So now that we are in a real test of resolve we either buckle down and finish this thing, or not.

[Beleg85]

https://twitter.com/SomeGumul/status/1622322749099188226

Russian clip from Krasna Hora (almost captured by now, judging by reports), where they apparently surprised Ukrainian squad in one of the buildings. 8 bodies, two of whom seems to be murdered after surrender (link to telegram in tweet; beware, graphic).

[FlemFire]

19 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Situation with Bakhmut may be special, though. Urban terrain prepared for defence, proceded by months of shaping operations (Russian style, of course...) and work based on personal ambition done by very peculiar military group. Is it model for similar operations, or maybe Muscovites have something different in mind now? Hard to tell. Perhaps casualties on other fronts, incurred by regulars would tell us more about character of future Russian attacks and expected scale of casualties.

https://www.ft.com/content/268bd522-4794-4f3d-895f-f58a55536af9

 

Btw. previous gossips are now confirmed. Kiryl Budanov will become new Minister of Defence. He is very young, but very posh and with good contacts in the West; some say he was groomed by Americans from the start. Rheznikov will be moved to head of industry. Not a great scandal and pretty civilized ending.

Ukrainians should not be engaging Russians in static warfare. Sitting around in static lines while artillery has a field day? Uhhh... Russian military doctrine will happily oblige. Contrast that to the maneuver warfare seen in early/mid-2022 where Russians bumble about incompetently getting shot in the back. Why would you allow the Russians to shell and bomb you to dust? I legitimately don't get it.

This is why I have believed since the moment I saw it that these rumors of Russians running out of shells/missiles had to have been Russian disinformation. Who else would have to gain from such rumors? It's the sort of chatter that might convince people to sit places like Bakhmut thinking the Russians are going dry. Except they're not. Except they keep dropping 10-20,000 shells a day. A 122mm/152mm shell is about the cheapest item you can make. 1/5th of Russia's manufacturing employment is in the arms industry. What do people think these guys are doing all day? Seriously.

Just now, The_Capt said:

So Russias economy is airtight and bulletproof, and Putin as glorious leader/dictator for life can demand his people die in the millions for him?

I mean that is where this line of thinking is carrying.  We as weak western democracies cannot possibly impose enough pressure, nor will our willpower survive as long as a dictatorship because our system is inherently weaker.

I am sorry but I am not buying any of these points and nor does history bear them out.  Sure Russia has put in fallbacks and economic bastions, but how long can they last?  Every dictator you mention had a very different economic system to sustain their society.  Russia will need to re-wire theirs (already have) in order to make this work in the long term.  We have posted a plethora of charts and graphs on how the Russian economy has taken sever hits and has had to prop up its currency and system in many dangerous ways.  Now the IMF makes a two year prediction in the middle of a shooting war and we leap to “negotiate!”…?

Economic systems take time to shift - in 2014 it wasn’t like the sanctions were felt over a weekend.  In fact it took 2 years to see full effects on GDP, maxed out in 2016.

https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp

And then recovered but never back to 2014 levels.

Yes, let’s look at the long game for a minute.  If Russia gets away with this stunt and we blink, then we are back to anarchy of states.  China, Russia or whoever is aligned with them are going to be able to fall back on Rule of the Gun.  If we didn’t stick it out in Ukraine then why should we in Taiwan?

We built the system.  If we want to keep it, we have to be willing to fight for it.  Russia is not a bunch of extremist yahoos, it is a global power that went “ya, whacha gonna do about it?”  So we either push it back in line or the whole drug deal starts to unravel. This is not about national identity, it is about a global order (warts and all) that put us all on top.  We defend it or lose it.

This war is a test of western will and resolve as much as it is for Ukraine or Russia.  Dictatorships are notoriously fragile, normally collapsing with the death of the dictator.  A few have bucked the trend - North Korea, but that freaky state is a whole thing on its own.  Russia is a modern and developed nation, with a capitalistic economy.  It does not get to illegally invade another nation and get away with it.  And if we tap out, we’ll what happens next is all on us.

Can they be beat?  They already have been.  Someone (other than Macgregor) paint me a scenario where Russian strategic aims are accomplished.  We can construct a new Iron Curtain if we have to, hell we split Germany in half and pulled its western side into NATO.  Europe is weaning off Russian energy, that is going to have effects that last a generation.  Russia has not regained operational offensive initiative, they are doing the same tactical pecking they have been doing for months.  And even if they did retake the initiative, how long can they hold onto it?

No, our main threat is western attention spans.  We are used to everything being fast, especially our “real” wars - the low level stuff we can always change the channel on.  So now that we are in a real test of resolve we either buckle down and finish this thing, or not.

Russian GDP contracted immediately due to the sanctions in 2014. It was a clear and obvious economic shock. Tomato, tomatoe. As for the rest, I'm glad you at least admit World War III is on the table. As you say, the economic balances are endangered and that entails quite a lot. Did it have to be that way? No, I don't think so. That's the point of disagreement, really. I'm personally far more worried about the West shooting itself in the foot in concern with the global markets than I am with Russia and Ukraine. My consideration here was to kill as many Russians as possible, sanction them into a black hole, and then call for peace. As you say, it's a message in general to the rest of the world. The idea that Ukraine would militarily push Russia out has never been a viable conclusion to the conflict for me.

As for what Russia does now... why would they change? If Ukrainians want to run bodies into bombardments, why would Russia not oblige? You said it yourself, the West perceives war in video game-like ways where things are resolved quickly. But I don't think you yourself are entirely divorced from this perception if you see anything wrong with what Russia is doing; as you say, "doing the same thing they've been doing for months." What is that, again? Throwing cheap mercenaries in exchange for bombing Ukrainian positions on the daily? Has it not already been established that Putin and the rest of his population could not care less about the soldiers he's tossing into the grinder? Do Ukrainians feel the same about their own conscripts? I doubt it. And I doubt that the side who has taken the high grounds, has vastly far more fire superiority, and is the one who dictates the battles is the one losing more people right now. I don't think Russia is running out of shells anytime soon. I think 1/5th of Russia's manufacturing jobs are in the arms industry and they now have had 1-full year of insight to see where to assign throughputs. Do I need to explain that 122mm/152mm shells are extremely cheap to make?

As for strategic aims... I'm not sure if people in here just don't understand reality or what. Russia occupies 1/5th of Ukraine. They now have access to the shale reserves cutting northwest. They have ensured the safeguarding of natural gas in Crimea and the waters around it. They now have in the ballpark of 8-10m more people behind their borders. I think their strategic aim of couping Kiev failed. That's pretty obvious. They have humiliated themselves in the eyes of the West. That's obvious, but that was already obvious so I'm not sure much has changed there. Beyond all that, I actually wouldn't assume what their objectives are. I never believed they wanted to 'conquer' Ukraine, but I do think they tried to setup a pro-Russian government. I honestly think that's off the table for them, but it would mean another objective would come in. I don't know what that would be. My assumption is they want to fill out the oblasts entirely and then sit on those terrains. I also think they're possibly timid to re-engage in maneuver warfare because they plainly suck at it and are equally fearful of another retreating embarrassment. I do think if Russia wants to sit in trenches and lob bombs they can do that until the end of time.

[billbindc]

"As for what Russia does now... why would they change? If Ukrainians want to run bodies into bombardments, why would Russia not oblige?"

I'm fairly sure we aren't watching the same war.

[Beleg85]

4 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Ukrainians should not be engaging Russians in static warfare. Sitting around in static lines while artillery has a field day? Uhhh... Russian military doctrine will happily oblige. Contrast that to the maneuver warfare seen in early/mid-2022 where Russians bumble about incompetently getting shot in the back. Why would you allow the Russians to shell and bomb you to dust? I legitimately don't get it.

They don't have choice, we are long past muscovite armour columns happily penetratng hundreds of kms into enemy territory to "f..k around and find out". Fights in the north are often more manouver in character than those in the south- as much as they can be under conditions, i.e. both sides try to move frontline. The problem is Russians are not that stupid anymore, fight methodically and have much more resources at hand now. They stemmed Kreminna advances and even coutnerattacked effectively.

[FlemFire]

7 minutes ago, billbindc said:

"As for what Russia does now... why would they change? If Ukrainians want to run bodies into bombardments, why would Russia not oblige?"

I'm fairly sure we aren't watching the same war.

I don't watch wars. I study them. 

Remove the names and characteristics. Look at it objectively. Your opponent has fire superiority. They have the high ground. They have excellent fire-control. Their military doctrine is based around artillery. You see this and you wish to stand ground? You see this and you think you're the one winning the loss-rate ratios?

 

1 minute ago, Beleg85 said:

They don't have choice, we are long past muscovite armour columns happily penetratng hundreds of kms into enemy territory to "f..k around and find out". Fights in the north are often more manouver in character than those in the south- as much as they can be under conditions, i.e. both sides try to move frontline. The problem is Russians are not that stupid anymore, fight methodically and have much more resources at hand now. They stemmed Kreminna advances and even coutnerattacked effectively.

They do have a choice. The choice is to give up ground to reacquire tactical advantages elsewhere. It becomes politically untenable to do that when you turn places like Bakhmut into your personal Stalingrads. Hence why politics should stay the hell out of military affairs. My belief is that the Ukrainians were dogwalked into this by the American generals' advice. It sorta makes sense, as American generals are all incompetent stooges completely invulnerable from accountability while they operate with one foot out the door to Boeing, GD, Lockheed, etc.