How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[NamEndedAllen]

Some rumblings and background. 
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-zelenskyy-war-military-law/

[Lethaface]

26 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Perhaps Western countries are aware of the loss ratio. Sending equipment to an obviously losing country does not make any sense. Simple and pragmatic solution

Even if it would be a 1:1 ratio over all of Bakhmut the last 5 months (which I seriously doubt), that still doesn't mean Ukraine will be losing the war. Wars are hell and costly especially WW1 style. I'm not so pessimistic.
Of course it is easy to talk from safe chair. FWIW there is quite some support going on, although obviously when you are in the 'hard place' it can never be (fast) enough

[Zeleban]

40 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

that about 3500 killed UKR soldiers will be approx in the frame 1:1.

 

Thus, if in December 2022 (during a calmer period of this life) 3,500 Ukrainian soldiers were lost in the battle for Bakhmut. Can we assume that by February 2023, when the nature of the fighting became much more fierce than in December, we lost three times more people - about 10,000 soldiers, that is, about 3 mechanized brigades? Something is definitely not right here. If this were true, we would simply drown in the panic messages of our soldiers from the front.

[dan/california]

We just aren't going to have a good understanding of Ukrainian casualties until this is over. 

11 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Thus, if in December 2022 (during a calmer period of this life) 3,500 Ukrainian soldiers were lost in the battle for Bakhmut. Can we assume that by February 2023, when the nature of the fighting became much more fierce than in December, we lost three times more people - about 10,000 soldiers, that is, about 3 mechanized brigades? Something is definitely not right here. If this were true, we would simply drown in the panic messages of our soldiers from the front.

In the mean time we get huge distortions in both directions due to the political, and military, needs of the moment.

Edit: Every single loss hurts, every single one is Putin's fault, and Russia's.

Edited February 10, 2023 by dan/california

[Lethaface]

12 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Thus, if in December 2022 (during a calmer period of this life) 3,500 Ukrainian soldiers were lost in the battle for Bakhmut. Can we assume that by February 2023, when the nature of the fighting became much more fierce than in December, we lost three times more people - about 10,000 soldiers, that is, about 3 mechanized brigades? Something is definitely not right here. If this were true, we would simply drown in the panic messages of our soldiers from the front.

Maybe for the best to not think about it too much . I don't know what is true but the truth might not be 'nice'. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Lethaface

[Seminole]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

I can look at a map and say that Ukraine in NATO doesn't hurt Russia's strategic defense much at all.

Then I'd have to say you suck at strategic assessment.

I don't know if George Kennan is considered a 'neo-tankie', but his commentary a quarter century ago has proven downright clairvoyant:

 

perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.

Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Maybe for the best to not think about it too much . I don't know what is true but the truth might not be 'nice'. 

At least the truth should be logical

[FancyCat]

2 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Then I'd have to say you suck at strategic assessment.

I don't know if George Kennan is considered a 'neo-tankie', but his commentary a quarter century ago has proven downright clairvoyant:

 

perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.

Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

From the same link, 

Quote

Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?

Russians are little impressed with American assurances that it reflects no hostile intentions. They would see their prestige (always uppermost in the Russian mind) and their security interests as adversely affected.

At the end of the day, Russia's prestige is based on its domination of its neighbors. The First, Second Chechen Wars, the Invasion of Georgia, and 2014 Ukraine only reinforce this point. 

 

[Bearstronaut]

5 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Then I'd have to say you suck at strategic assessment.

I don't know if George Kennan is considered a 'neo-tankie', but his commentary a quarter century ago has proven downright clairvoyant:

 

perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.

Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

Oh noes! What if we offend the Russians? Interesting that you don't ask how the Poles felt about NATO expansion. How the Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Czechs, etc...  felt about it. The Russians are just pissy that NATO has stymied their attempt at restoring the Russian Empire. 

[Lethaface]

Just now, Zeleban said:

At least the truth should be logical

But not necessarily fair or just.
While this is going on about 1000km (my guess) to the south of all the destruction in Ukraine now 25000 people died in an earthquake. We are still humans, such numbers of death are presented as statistics but nobody can imagine the loss of life of all these people individually in a mentally healthy way. Sometimes it can be good to step away a bit from studying all the death and destruction, if you are able at least. I sure need to.

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Then I'd have to say you suck at strategic assessment.

I don't know if George Kennan is considered a 'neo-tankie', but his commentary a quarter century ago has proven downright clairvoyant:

 

perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.

Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

Just quoting people from 14 or 25 years ago isn't an argument, it's basically just an assertion.

And Kennan wasn't always right, just as I demonstrated above in regard to Burns. Yes he was a highly influential voice in shaping containment...but a touchy one who was constantly feeling slighted about his position and what he perceived as the tendency of various administrations to ignore his wisdom. That led him to be pretty reflexively oppositional and it shows above. He also does two things that Westerners often do in their orientalist way in regard to Russia; he attributes pretty much zero agency to the Russians themselves and he believes Russian truculence derives from fear of us rather than anger at what they perceive to be a world that does not give them their due.

And yes...you can see how Kennan would find some emotional resonance in that.

As to strategic assessment...give me a list of practical, realistic examples in which Ukraine being in NATO would undermine Russian security. And no, a "NATO invasion to the Urals" an acceptably serious response.

[The_Capt]

51 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Some rumblings and background. 
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-zelenskyy-war-military-law/

Desertion = 10 years !?

We have "life" on the books:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-11.html#:~:text=Conviction of Cognate Offence&text=133 (1) A person charged,of being absent without leave.&text=(2) A person charged with,of being absent without leave.

Edited February 10, 2023 by The_Capt

[Zeleban]

1 minute ago, Lethaface said:

But not necessarily fair or just.
While this is going on about 1000km (my guess) to the south of all the destruction in Ukraine now 25000 people died in an earthquake. We are still humans, such numbers of death are presented as statistics but nobody can imagine the loss of life of all these people individually in a mentally healthy way. Sometimes it can be good to step away a bit from studying all the death and destruction, if you are able at least. I sure need to.

You are talking about civilians who did not expect anything, who died in an instant in their homes from an element that is much more powerful than any existing weapon. And I'm talking about professional soldiers who are in the fortifications and expect the onset, these numbers cannot be comparable, the deaths of unprepared people are always much higher

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Look at this. Colorized cadres of Hiroshima? No. This is small town Maryinka with pre-war population about 9500 people not ofrtwn appears in news like Bakhmut. Russians/DPR for year of fierce clashes could take only eastern half of town and fights for the center are continuing to this day. DPR milbloggers in rage curse Russian command, which has been killing their army in Mariupol and Maryinka and now do the same around Avdiivka

  

 

 

I actually posted a video from there some tens of pages ago. Was shocked to see the level of destruction.

[The_Capt]

18 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Then I'd have to say you suck at strategic assessment.

I don't know if George Kennan is considered a 'neo-tankie', but his commentary a quarter century ago has proven downright clairvoyant:

 

perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.

Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

Little harsh.  I guess my question is "what would have happened if we had not pulled the Baltics and Eastern European nations into NATO?"  I mean the strategy above basically relies on Russia not freaking out and spontaneously "inflaming anti-Western and militaristic tendencies", and I gotta be honest Russia does not have a good track record in that regard.

On the flip side there is the question of "When is containment become smothering?" But Russia was not "smothered".  Didn't we just get lectures on how powerful and resilient the Russian economy was/is?  I mean apparently they were rich and powerful to the point that western sanctions do not matter...not sure how this translates to "smothering".

There is a lot that does not add up in the whole "Just Leave Britney..er Russia alone!!" narrative.  The biggest is the assumption that by doing so Russia would reciprocate.   

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

You are talking about civilians who did not expect anything, who died in an instant in their homes from an element that is much more powerful than any existing weapon. And I'm talking about professional soldiers who are in the fortifications and expect the onset, these numbers cannot be comparable, the deaths of unprepared people are always much higher

Of course it is different. Maybe I just don't like to say to someone from Ukraine that casualties might be very high and continue to be like that for some time. But that doesn't mean you're losing the war. At least for whatever my 0,02ct are worth 

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

 

No, the loss ratio of 1:1 means that we are losing this war and no NATO help will save us

I wrote about cryings of DPR orcs about their losses, the price of which is buying success of Wagners. Girkin write about Vuhledar disaster. So if we have 1:1 around Bakhmut, we have 5/7/10:1 from Krasnohorivka -Avdiivka  to Vuhledar and this maintain proper average ratio

But anyway, since Russia throws in the battle more and more meat, probability of knife-range fights growing up sharply and this will lead to growing our losses. New mass wave of mobilisation in Ukraine not only for "offensive reserves". Several days ago I've seen a photo of one soldier "Our company is entering to Donbas" - 43 men on the photo, including photographer. Less the half from shtat.

[dan/california]

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Little harsh.  I guess my question is "what would have happened if we had not pulled the Baltics and Eastern European nations into NATO?"  I mean the strategy above basically relies on Russia not freaking out and spontaneously "inflaming anti-Western and militaristic tendencies", and I gotta be honest Russia does not have a good track record in that regard.

On the flip side there is the question of "When is containment become smothering?" But Russia was not "smothered".  Didn't we just get lectures on how powerful and resilient the Russian economy was/is?  I mean apparently they were rich and powerful to the point that western sanctions do not matter...not sure how this translates to "smothering".

There is a lot that does not add up in the whole "Just Leave Britney..er Russia alone!!" narrative.  The biggest is the assumption that by doing so Russia would reciprocate.   

The West spent thirty years trying to ignore Russia, make money, and indulge in our own vast stew of disagreements. Putin has forced us to pay attention. He will regret that.

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by dan/california

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Seminole said:

Then I'd have to say you suck at strategic assessment.

I don't know if George Kennan is considered a 'neo-tankie', but his commentary a quarter century ago has proven downright clairvoyant:

 

perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.

Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

What utter total Tosh. Again,  yet again it's trotted out as a rationale for why Russia is "justifiably" aggressive. See look at a map,  look at the territory of NATO expanding inexorably eastward! What Russian leader wouldn't feel nervous and push back? All that blue! 

All that does is throw Eastern Europe to the Russian bear -  "Good luck, hope not too many of you die! Surrender quickly, that'll help."

And, as always - All those countries asked to join,  and the ones that didn't got invaded by NA- wait no. 

By Russia. 

Your logic is ***-backward,  literally.  CEE countries applied to NATO out of fear of being invaded and everything since has Proven. Them.  Right. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Kinophile

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I wrote about cryings of DPR orcs about their losses, the price of which is buying success of Wagners. Girkin write about Vuhledar disaster. So if we have 1:1 around Bakhmut, we have 5/7/10:1 from Krasnohorivka -Avdiivka  to Vuhledar and this maintain proper average ratio

But anyway, since Russia throws in the battle more and more meat, probability of knife-range fights growing up sharply and this will lead to growing our losses. New mass wave of mobilisation in Ukraine not only for "offensive reserves". Several days ago I've seen a photo of one soldier "Our company is entering to Donbas" - 43 men on the photo, including photographer. Less the half from shtat.

The missile attacks this afternoon seemed to be mostly neutralized from the news reports. Is that true?
I didn't see any reports of more missile attacks going on after. Was this the opening of 'Gerasimov' offensive? Just curious what you think.
 

[Haiduk]

56 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Thus, if in December 2022 (during a calmer period of this life) 3,500 Ukrainian soldiers were lost in the battle for Bakhmut.

No, she meant not IN December, but Since battle for Bakhmut has started. This is for three months, not for Dec. About 1:1 losses, author meant probably situation from Dec-Jan

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

The missile attacks this afternoon seemed to be mostly neutralized from the news reports. Is that true?
I didn't see any reports of more missile attacks going on after. Was this the opening of 'Gerasimov' offensive? Just curious what you think.
 

Literally half an hour ago there was an attack by Shahid drones - a small number

[dan/california]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/world/asia/china-spy-balloon.html

I suspect the spy balloon is less the cause of U.S. China problems than symptom of them. Relations are not happy and getting worse as Billbindc has alluded recently.

[danfrodo]

15 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I wrote about cryings of DPR orcs about their losses, the price of which is buying success of Wagners. Girkin write about Vuhledar disaster. So if we have 1:1 around Bakhmut, we have 5/7/10:1 from Krasnohorivka -Avdiivka  to Vuhledar and this maintain proper average ratio

But anyway, since Russia throws in the battle more and more meat, probability of knife-range fights growing up sharply and this will lead to growing our losses. New mass wave of mobilisation in Ukraine not only for "offensive reserves". Several days ago I've seen a photo of one soldier "Our company is entering to Donbas" - 43 men on the photo, including photographer. Less the half from shtat.

I find 1:1 at Bakhmut very very very hard to believe.  Locally it may look that way to a medic or soldier in a trench.  But that's missing the huge number of zergs that died before they ever got to the soldier in the trench.  Because UKR lines are mostly static or falling back, how would any soldier know how many zergs are dead in the fields and tree lines out there from UKR artillery?  RU attacking mostly in the open and we think the guys in the trenches are the same amount?

[Haiduk]

13 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

The missile attacks this afternoon seemed to be mostly neutralized from the news reports. Is that true?
I didn't see any reports of more missile attacks going on after. Was this the opening of 'Gerasimov' offensive? Just curious what you think.
 

Reportedly 10 missiles were shot down near Kyiv and over the city, but I didn't hear explosions. Alas, 10 missiles hit own targets in other parts of Ukraine, so three blocs on nuclear plants turned off. In our district now electricity is emergency cut off. And we have air raid alarm again - Shakheds are coming.

Today's attack was some unusual. First wave in the night - Shakheds + Tu-22 with false launches + Kalibrs from sea. Russians probably tracked radar and SAM positions. Then at the morning Tu-95 and ships launched missiles. To the end of attack Shakeds appeared again. Now they again launched Shakheds. Kyiv oblast already engaged them

Edited February 10, 2023 by Haiduk