How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

3 minutes ago, keas66 said:

You guys sound like you really are only a few steps away from splitting asunder if push came to shove . So much for European Unity ? . I hope at the Political level  at least there is a little more consensus .

It only shows that there is still a long way to go until we have something like a really "unified europe". On the other hand let´s be gratefull. In the not so distant past a lot of terrible wars were fought in central europe due to various reasons. Hopefully we are beyond that point and can focus on the one bad guy right now.

[Butschi]

19 minutes ago, keas66 said:

Dear me - all this squabbling between members from different European Counties really  highlights the  potentially fragmented  nature of the European Structure . You guys sound like you really are only a few steps away from splitting asunder if push came to shove . So much for European Unity ? . I hope at the Political level  at least there is a little more consensus .

Sharing a whole continent with only two other countries while having a population more than twice as large as the other two combined does tend to make life simpler. Although the other two might feel different about the situation.

The last two times we tried to make the political situation on the European continent simpler, the USA were instrumental in preventing that. Please make up your mind about what you want.

[Lethaface]

56 minutes ago, keas66 said:

Dear me - all this squabbling between members from different European Counties really  highlights the  potentially fragmented  nature of the European Structure . You guys sound like you really are only a few steps away from splitting asunder if push came to shove . So much for European Unity ? . I hope at the Political level  at least there is a little more consensus .

The funny thing is that the squabbling is mostly of political nature. When you travel/meet (reasonable) people in real life there is little difference. at least in my experience. 

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, keas66 said:

Dear me - all this squabbling between members from different European Counties really  highlights the  potentially fragmented  nature of the European Structure .

 

 

I already used the "I will take the Ring to Mordor!" meme last June. Plus ca freeking change....

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, FancyCat said:

I wouldn't say the naval or air forces haven't played their part, abit lacking.

The key part of your sentence is past tense.  I tried to phrase my point to summarize the whole war.  The contributions of Russia's air and naval forces were felt most in March 2022, didn't achieve all that much, then dwindled to ineffective.

6 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Certainly the naval economic blockade of the Ukrainian black sea ports is a big issue for Ukraine, and as long as they theoretically hold Crimea, either naval or air blockade can make transit for merchant vessels risky to say the least.

For sure, but that doesn't impact the war itself in much of any significant way.  Using Ukraine's ports was never really going to be an option as it just too easy to interdict shipping.  And when you have a single ship with 50 tanks in it, you can't afford to run the risk.

6 hours ago, FancyCat said:

During the first days of the war, Russia used their naval control to land forces west of Mariupol, and seized Berdyansk. Certainly Ukraine might have prevented a land bridge between the Donbas and Crimea longer had Russia been prevented from naval landings.

This I dispute (your second post seems to retract this too, so that's good!).  Russia's naval landings were inconsequential to the outcome.  They might have sped things up a little, but Ukraine's only hope of holding the south was keeping the land connection to Crimea sealed.  This was lost in the first day of the war, which is still the single most important defeat Ukraine suffered for the entire war.  Mariupol was doomed as soon as that happened.

Now, compare what little Russia's air and land forces did for this war with what they should have been able to do with all those resources.  It's completely out of balance.

5 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Wiki says Mariupol was encircled on March 1st so I suppose either Ukraine had nothing to counter the limited naval landings or Russian units simply sped into Berdyansk on land from the east.

This is correct.  Ukraine had far too few forces in the south for the size of what poured in over the land connection from Crimea.  Berdyansk was destined to fall as that section of the coastline was not within Ukraine's capabilities of holding.

Steve

[danfrodo]

Holy Moly, much ado about nothing overnight it seems.  Yes, we are all testy about holdup on tanks.  But it's only tanks and they won't be ready for a while.  Allies are giving mountains of good gear to UKR that is making a difference every day for nearly a year.  Do we want MBTs & bradleys ASAP? - yes.  Do we want ATACAMS?- yes.  Do we want NATO jets?- yes.  But only the ATACAMS would make a diff today, everything else has a long lead time.  And we also know that UKR crews are getting trained on Leo2s right now in Germany.

I wish we had started the tank & IFV stuff 6 months ago so we could be past all this noise.  But by the end of the year UKR will probably have a significant number of battalions equipped w NATO vehicles, some older, some newer.  This is all just news-cycle noise that won't last more than a few weeks.  Then we'll be surprised to see leopards (1s? 2s?) in UKR at some unknown training site and we'll say "how did that happen?"

[Battlefront.com]

Well, it seems I missed quite an interesting time over the last few hours.  I'm not going to take any action as it seems things have sorted itself out for the most part.  But I think it's safe to say this was not our finest hour or two in this thread.

23 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

The funny thing is that the squabbling is mostly of political nature. When you travel/meet (reasonable) people in real life there is little difference. at least in my experience. 

This is the same as it is in the US.  For those who do not live here, it is easy to not see how geographically divided the United States is.  Not only regions, but areas within.  This has always been the case, but it's certainly become more noticeable since the Internet came about.

Yet at the personal level, good people get along with other good people no matter where they come from.  Fortunately there are plenty of good people.

Steve

[Maciej Zwolinski]

20 hours ago, Jiggathebauce said:

I like that Lenin endorsed the right of self determination of the nations in the Russian sphere

This was disingenuous on Lenin's part. At one time he declared that (together with the promise of land for the peasants who worked on them) just to undermine the Whites, but the Bolsheviks fully intended to get all those countries (and more) back in a short time during world revolution (which did not pan out, however the subjugation of former Tzarist colonies did)

[Beleg85]

Ok, back to the topic:

You can't make this up...in St. Petersburg, a female head of financial department fell from the window. Spring cleaning probably. In February.

Here more: https://www.newsweek.com/marina-yankina-russian-defense-official-window-death-1781713

 

Also, there is announcment that separate Polish legion will be created by Kyiv. It should be 3rd unit of this type, not part of IL...strangely, they seem to be serving with Free Russia Legion, under direct command of Ukrainian MoD, performing reconaissance and special tasks.

https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/tylko-w-onecie/w-ukrainie-powstaje-pierwsza-polska-jednostka-specjalna/hynzfj8?utm_source=t.co_viasg_wiadomosci&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=leo_automatic&srcc=undefined&utm_v=2

Edited February 16, 2023 by Beleg85

[Maciej Zwolinski]

On 2/15/2023 at 1:08 PM, Butschi said:

You are contradicting yourself. I share your experience and I know a lot of people, who are not in it for getting rich and would be perfectly happy to continue the job as long as their needs are somehow cared for. You don't need capitalism for that.

How do you define capitalism? I define it as economy in which there is relative preponderance of free trade, i.e. most economic decisions are taken by private actors. The opposite of that, let us call it "socialism" is an economy where there is a relative preponderance of politics over free trade, i.e. relatively many economic decisions are taken by political bodies.

If that is the case, I am quite sure that capitalism is, if not absolutely necessary, then very helpful towards having ordinary peoples' needs cared for. Whenever politicians are the ones driving economy, then consumers' needs usually take the back seat to achieving various statistical metrics. In countries which have most socialism (as defined above) in their economy, it regresses further to something a medieval state or a despot would have: military and vanity infrastructure projects (ref. Soviet Union: Red Army, heavy industry to support Red Army, turning back rivers, putting dog & later man in space, etc.)

[Beleg85]

Also, quite interesting tactical development if true (note, Russians can also play disinfo game as to their intentions). It was long ago speculated, that Kremlin was displeased with performance of Russian Air Forces, just as its Navy: worth to read or autrotranslate, article is short:

 

If indeed they are so desparate, perhaps soon question of "Where is VKS (Russian Airforce) in this war" may be answered.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Beleg85

[BFCElvis]

46 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Well, it seems I missed quite an interesting time over the last few hours.  I'm not going to take any action as it seems things have sorted itself out for the most part.  But I think it's safe to say this was not our finest hour or two in this thread.

Steve

I've just been going through the mess that you're referring to. If it starts up again there will be vacations given. They may even end up being given to the wrong people, if I accidently take the posts out of context. Anyone who wants to avoid getting some time away should stay out of the mud. 

[Jiggathebauce]

25 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

How do you define capitalism? I define it as economy in which there is relative preponderance of free trade, i.e. most economic decisions are taken by private actors. The opposite of that, let us call it "socialism" is an economy where there is a relative preponderance of politics over free trade, i.e. relatively many economic decisions are taken by political bodies.

If that is the case, I am quite sure that capitalism is, if not absolutely necessary, then very helpful towards having ordinary peoples' needs cared for. Whenever politicians are the ones driving economy, then consumers' needs usually take the back seat to achieving various statistical metrics. In countries which have most socialism (as defined above) in their economy, it regresses further to something a medieval state or a despot would have: military and vanity infrastructure projects (ref. Soviet Union: Red Army, heavy industry to support Red Army, turning back rivers, putting dog & later man in space, etc.)

Gonna just say that while I disagree with your definitions and premise and would expound more on it, it's not relevant to the thread at this juncture. Back to the war....

[Battlefront.com]

28 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Also, quite interesting tactical development if true (note, Russians can also play disinfo game as to their intentions). It was long ago speculated, that Kremlin was displeased with perfomrance of Russian Air Forces, just as its Navy: worth to read or autrotranslate, article is short:

 

If indeed they are so desparate, perhaps soon question of "Where is VKS (Russian Airforce) in this war" may be answered.

That was an interesting read, thanks.

What I got from this is that there's two opinions out there.  The first is that Russia will continue to do what it has done simply because it isn't capable of doing more.  The second is that Russia has been harboring resources in order to save up for a "Bodenplatte" offensive where everything takes to the skies at once in support of a coordinated ground offensive.

I don't have an opinion as to what the Russians are planning on doing, but it would be new for them to engage in a large scale, high tempo use of air power.  It is extremely risky and, so far, they have been very risk adverse with aircraft.  For good reasons, too. 

Aircraft are expensive and time consuming to replace.  They are also one of the only tools Russia retains to deter NATO and other adversaries (or so they think, anyway!).  Each aircraft lost not only weakens what little deterrence they have left, but also gives Russia more bad PR.

If they put 100 platforms into the air at once, just think of how many might get downed.  Even 5 would be pretty horrible from a PR standpoint, but what if they lost 20 or 30?  It's theoretically possible that losses could be that high.  It would be an unmitigated disaster.

The other thing to wonder about is if the Russians think this sort of risk has the possibility of offering a decent reward.  If I were them I'd doubt it.  Russia's activities with air so far have not provided any signs that they are able to significantly impact Ukrainian ground forces' ability to fight.  Which means Russia would be more-or-less giving Ukraine all the opportunities to come out ahead.

My vote is they do "more of the same" vs. big air offensive.  That said, I wouldn't be too surprised to be wrong due to me underestimating how desperate Russia is at this point.

Steve

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is the same as it is in the US.  For those who do not live here, it is easy to not see how geographically divided the United States is.  Not only regions, but areas within.  This has always been the case, but it's certainly become more noticeable since the Internet came about.

Yet at the personal level, good people get along with other good people no matter where they come from.  Fortunately there are plenty of good people.

Steve

Indeed I have met plenty from all over the world :). 

[Beleg85]

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

That was an interesting read, thanks.

What I got from this is that there's two opinions out there.  The first is that Russia will continue to do what it has done simply because it isn't capable of doing more.  The second is that Russia has been harboring resources in order to save up for a "Bodenplatte" offensive where everything takes to the skies at once in support of a coordinated ground offensive.

I don't have an opinion as to what the Russians are planning on doing, but it would be new for them to engage in a large scale, high tempo use of air power.  It is extremely risky and, so far, they have been very risk adverse with aircraft.  For good reasons, too. 

Frankly, the article is amalgamate of conjectures rather than some solid facts. But topic is very valid indeed.

All of it is directly connected to the real state of Ukrainian air defences, of course. My personal choice is that Russians may intentionally pretend they will use large numbers of jets now in order to draw AFU AA cover away from the front.* I don't think they are that stupid to simply fly into Ukrainian airspace in mass and be picked one by one...this would leave them almost nude when comes to airpower, which is irreplacable asset for them, as you wrote- even Putin understand it. On the other hand, political pressure on muscovite skymarshalls to do something may be enormous.

* worth to share info that may rejoice wounded hearts of our German members. M.Lachowski reported from Bakhmut  that Ukrainians managed to roll in one or two sets of IRIS-T close to the city under cover of night. Local soldiers told him crews "shoot and scoot" several Russian airframes- two fighter jets, one helicopter and probably another SU-25. Dispatch was from circa 7 days ago. Moskals were reportedly terrified by the missile they cannot see and that can hit them out of the blue. Ukrainians prefered to attribute losses to Manpads, Buks and similar for some time, so katsaps would need to figure out how to adapt.

So that or similar actions by UA air defence (using valuable equipment that was nominally be used to protect the cities rather than fight at the front) may actually seriously put Russian air force out of balance, and create additional tensions between AirCommand and Kremlin.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Beleg85

[kevinkin]

17 hours ago, kevinkin said:

I have seen articles on the young workers innovating with UAVs. But can't remember any report on how the UA supplies its troops vs Russia.

Just when my curiosity is up, this out today:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-bought-all-the-gas-trucks-available-in-europe-to-keep-fueled

Despite massive Russian attacks against its power and fuel supply infrastructure, Ukraine claims it has actually increased its fuel reserves to the point of surplus thanks to the influx of imports and an innovative logistics operation using thousands of fuel trucks as mobile storage sites.

Ukraine began receiving large amounts of fuel in January from the U.S., and over the course of Russia's all-out invasion, purchased thousands of fuel tanker trucks to create a mobile storage system, said Serhiy Kuyun, director of the A-95 Consulting Group, a Ukrainian fuel market research firm.

"Revolutionary changes have taken place,” in the Ukrainian fuel supply chain, Kuyun told reporters Wednesday during a briefing at the Ukrainian Media Center. “There has never been this [American] fuel in Ukraine. There is also fuel from Taiwan, India, and the Netherlands.”

That's a change from before Moscow's full-on invasion, when Ukraine received the majority of its fuel from Russia and Belarus.

But beyond new sources of fuel, Ukraine has developed a mobile storage method that Kuyun claims defies Russian attempts to bomb its supplies out of existence.

Well there's part of the answer re: fuel anyway. I would imagine Ukraine had thought this through well before last February. Kudos. 

[Lethaface]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

That was an interesting read, thanks.

What I got from this is that there's two opinions out there.  The first is that Russia will continue to do what it has done simply because it isn't capable of doing more.  The second is that Russia has been harboring resources in order to save up for a "Bodenplatte" offensive where everything takes to the skies at once in support of a coordinated ground offensive.

I don't have an opinion as to what the Russians are planning on doing, but it would be new for them to engage in a large scale, high tempo use of air power.  It is extremely risky and, so far, they have been very risk adverse with aircraft.  For good reasons, too. 

Aircraft are expensive and time consuming to replace.  They are also one of the only tools Russia retains to deter NATO and other adversaries (or so they think, anyway!).  Each aircraft lost not only weakens what little deterrence they have left, but also gives Russia more bad PR.

If they put 100 platforms into the air at once, just think of how many might get downed.  Even 5 would be pretty horrible from a PR standpoint, but what if they lost 20 or 30?  It's theoretically possible that losses could be that high.  It would be an unmitigated disaster.

The other thing to wonder about is if the Russians think this sort of risk has the possibility of offering a decent reward.  If I were them I'd doubt it.  Russia's activities with air so far have not provided any signs that they are able to significantly impact Ukrainian ground forces' ability to fight.  Which means Russia would be more-or-less giving Ukraine all the opportunities to come out ahead.

My vote is they do "more of the same" vs. big air offensive.  That said, I wouldn't be too surprised to be wrong due to me underestimating how desperate Russia is at this point.

Steve

My view it's a bit of a double edged sword. If Russia goes for a massive air operation over Ukraine AD, there might be many (civilian) casualties and destruction. At the same time I'd too expect a large number of those airframes to get shot down, which would indeed be a big defeat for Russia, especially internally and for morale I guess. And would make it a one time effort.

I'd almost feel that I hope they try something like that (and see how it fails utterly), but the saying is be careful what you wish for.

Are the Patriot systems already operational? I haven't seen anything about that.

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, FancyCat said:

I wouldn't say the naval or air forces haven't played their part, abit lacking. Certainly the naval economic blockade of the Ukrainian black sea ports is a big issue for Ukraine, and as long as they theoretically hold Crimea, either naval or air blockade can make transit for merchant vessels risky to say the least.

During the first days of the war, Russia used their naval control to land forces west of Mariupol, and seized Berdyansk. Certainly Ukraine might have prevented a land bridge between the Donbas and Crimea longer had Russia been prevented from naval landings.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/russian-navy-carries-out-amphibious-assault-near-mariupol

 

If the role of both naval and air power is to decisively shape the operational environment in support of the land battle, and achieve or support political/strategic objectives then I would argue that the Russian Air Force and Navy have dramatically failed.

The contributions at the start of this thing were not decisive at all.  They did not compress Ukraine strategic options anywhere near the levels needed to change the outcome.  Sea Control has not been established - the sinking of a flagship highlighted that point, there now exists a condition of mutual Sea Denial.  For Ukraine this is acceptable given it has open land corridors, which are connected to open and safe seaports.  For Russia this is not acceptable as beyond some blocking and missile lobbing they cannot project power from the sea in any meaningful way (e.g. amphibious).

Air power has also been a nearly complete failure.  They have achieved a mutual Air Denial in this domain as well - which again, works for the Ukraine but as an invading power on the offence it has been pure poison for the RA.  Within strategic and operational strike I just went on at length at how this failed.  Until the Russian Air Force can establish a level of air superiority - now with UAS is impossible at certain altitudes, it is failing to do what it literally exists to do.

As to what they accomplished in the first month of the war, well war is not a sport. One does not get applause for “good attempts”.  You accomplish your mission or do not.  And both the Russian Navy and Air Force have definitively failed to do what they are designed to do in this war.

Now “why and how” they failed is the interesting question.  There is some “sucking” going on but I also suspect that they were completely unprepared for the environment they found themselves within.  If Ukraine had fought the war Russia wanted they may have even pulled it off.  But far too much shifted and like the RA both services completely failed to keep up.

[Bearstronaut]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is the same as it is in the US.  For those who do not live here, it is easy to not see how geographically divided the United States is.  Not only regions, but areas within.  This has always been the case, but it's certainly become more noticeable since the Internet came about.

Yet at the personal level, good people get along with other good people no matter where they come from.  Fortunately there are plenty of good people.

When I was stationed in South Korea I was amazed at the animosity between people from Jeolla and Gyeongsang provinces. It's like the north/south rivalry in the US but in a much smaller area and goes back over 1500 years to the Three Kingdom period. 

[The_Capt]

38 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The second is that Russia has been harboring resources in order to save up for a "Bodenplatte" offensive where everything takes to the skies at once in support of a coordinated ground offensive

This was (and is) an incredibly bad idea when your opponent continues to get more AD capability from the west.  In fact it is the entire problem with the “Russia has just been saving up” line of thought.  Those NASAMS (which are very likely in theatre and in operation : https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/us/politics/russia-ukraine-missiles-nasams.html) uses the AIM 120 AMRAAM which is a nightmare.  One does not wait until your opponent has these in their inventory, along with next-gen MANPADS.

The idea of holding back only works when your opponent is going to get worse in the future, not better…kinda like what the UA is doing right now.

[danfrodo]

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This was (and is) an incredibly bad idea when your opponent continues to get more AD capability from the west.  In fact it is the entire problem with the “Russia has just been saving up” line of thought.  Those NASAMS (which are very likely in theatre and in operation : https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/us/politics/russia-ukraine-missiles-nasams.html) uses the AIM 120 AMRAAM which is a nightmare.  One does not wait until your opponent has these in their inventory, along with next-gen MANPADS.

The idea of holding back only works when your opponent is going to get worse in the future, not better…kinda like what the UA is doing right now.

Maybe RU will try to overwhelm UKR AD.  Say they launch huge number of missiles & drones all timed to hit at same time, w aircraft coming in right on heels of this, while AD is already busy / reloading.  It's the kind of thing desperate team would do.  And this all gets to whether Putler is making decisions based on a feeling of desperation or out of clear sighted views to ongoing implications of his choices.  Plus there's the political part of Putler probably pounding on his air force commander to 'do something!'.

[Tux]

37 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Until the Russian Air Force can establish a level of air superiority - now with UAS is impossible at certain altitudes, it is failing to do what it literally exists to do.

I always thought (perhaps wrongly) that Russia intended to lean more on powerful operational-level SAM systems to provide air superiority, while aircraft were primarily supposed to do their best Il-2 impressions and act as an extra-intimidating supplement to the Army’s artillery.

If I’m right why do we think that’s failed? Off the top of my head I can’t think of too many confounding factors that Ukraine has been able to leverage against Russian S-400-type SAMs (notwithstanding what seemed like a sudden but fairly low-intensity campaign of HARMS use last summer).

If I’m wrong then the reasons for failure have pretty much already been covered and I am happy to stand corrected (and duly educated).

Edited February 16, 2023 by Tux
typo

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

Just when my curiosity is up, this out today:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-bought-all-the-gas-trucks-available-in-europe-to-keep-fueled

Despite massive Russian attacks against its power and fuel supply infrastructure, Ukraine claims it has actually increased its fuel reserves to the point of surplus thanks to the influx of imports and an innovative logistics operation using thousands of fuel trucks as mobile storage sites.

Ukraine began receiving large amounts of fuel in January from the U.S., and over the course of Russia's all-out invasion, purchased thousands of fuel tanker trucks to create a mobile storage system, said Serhiy Kuyun, director of the A-95 Consulting Group, a Ukrainian fuel market research firm.

"Revolutionary changes have taken place,” in the Ukrainian fuel supply chain, Kuyun told reporters Wednesday during a briefing at the Ukrainian Media Center. “There has never been this [American] fuel in Ukraine. There is also fuel from Taiwan, India, and the Netherlands.”

That's a change from before Moscow's full-on invasion, when Ukraine received the majority of its fuel from Russia and Belarus.

But beyond new sources of fuel, Ukraine has developed a mobile storage method that Kuyun claims defies Russian attempts to bomb its supplies out of existence.

Well there's part of the answer re: fuel anyway. I would imagine Ukraine had thought this through well before last February. Kudos. 

Now there is something.  I checked some stats and it seems the average load is around 30,000 liters of fuel, if you take the smaller and larger capacity rigs and split the difference.  Let's say they purchased 2000 trucks for this mobile reserve concept.  That is 60,000,000 liters of fuel that Russia can't strike with missiles and the supply is readily transportable to any place that needs it.  Be that a rural village or a frontline position.

Time for The_Capt to chime in with another missive on how Russia should not have started a war with people who are so damned clever

Steve

[Lethaface]

Some proof that this doesn't only feature in CM