How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

46 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

The way this is going, "fighting for it" is going to mean direct NATO involvement within the next 12-24 months, i.e. troops on the ground in Ukraine. 

For all countless money spent on this war and the claim that the Russian military is just a bunch of boobs, we're stuck now with a stalemate that has no end in sight and yes, a US government saying they're going to continue pouring funds into this latest foreign adventure, come hell or high water, and oh yeah, we're going to find Ukrainian pensions while we're at it. 

it is only just under 6 months since the Kharkiv offensive and it has been a muddy winter. Surely that doesn't equate to stalemate.  What gives?  The only way I see direct NATO involvement is if Russia does something truly incredibly epically stupid.... which isn't impossible, but also not likely.

[Kinophile]

And probably gonna be a VERY muddy spring. 

 

[Erwin]

We all hope that Ukraine would recover all its territory.  However, there has been a level of naive optimism akin to probably how the German High Command felt in the Summer of 1941.  Reality of how hard things are and how high are the stakes are now just starting to be appreciated.  Best said by WSJ:  "It has become clear in the past several weeks that the tectonic plates of global power are shifting. The autocratic alliance of China, Russia and Iran is signaling it’s no longer content to accept an indefinite standoff of competing ideologies and commercial interests as the status quo. They have decided to make Ukraine a singular test, which they believe the U.S., Europe and Asia’s democracies will fail."

 

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

Why you are flat wrong:

• We have spent $30 billion on this war so far, much of which is actually recycled back into the American economy.
• That's equivalent to something like 4% of our defense budget to cripple the biggest threat to the global political order in half a century or more.
• This war is less than a year old  and Russia has already lost about half of the territory it gained.  
• It isn't our "foreign adventure" it is Russia's...which has repeatedly said Moldova and the Baltics are next. Which means NATO...and we certainly intend on defending it hell or high water and obviously should.

Much of that $30B (and the many $Billions more committed) that will get recycled into the US economy was spent years ago (in the US) building stuff that we sent/are sending/will send.  Some of which was/is essentially retired and never going to be used again anyway - it's probably cheaper to ship it to Ukraine to get blown up and recycled there than to pay for disposal in the US. It's not like all the big defense companies just have parking lots and warehouses of materiel to send if we send truckloads of cash - we're sending it mostly from long since paid-for stock.  And then most of the rest of the military aid will get spent in the US, too, because where is the US going to buy high end US military equipment from other than the US MIC?  

The main actual cash outlays that go overseas are humanitarian aid and some fraction of the shipping cost.

[chrisl]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Some folks here may be reading this fairly anodyne communique (translated from Russian/Chinese) a little too closely and seeing what they want/fear to see.

That said, I have been worried from the beginning that Chinese support will allow Russia's 1940s dumb army to hold the field far longer and kill far more Ukrainians than it otherwise would.

Yeah, I'd wait to see what they actually send and shows up in Russian hands rather than listening to what they say.  Xi is at risk of taking over the Mutter Courage role by dealing equipment to both sides in return for cash or fossil fuels.  I'm not convinced he's as foolish as Putin, and he knows very well how much Chinese well-being (and thus willingness to tolerate his regime) comes from the west vs. from Russia.  So he may say a lot of things publicly that are politically expedient, but his actions are what's important.

[dan/california]

18 minutes ago, Erwin said:

We all hope that Ukraine would recover all its territory.  However, there has been a level of naive optimism akin to probably how the German High Command felt in the Summer of 1941.  Reality of how hard things are and how high are the stakes are now just starting to be appreciated.  Best said by WSJ:  "It has become clear in the past several weeks that the tectonic plates of global power are shifting. The autocratic alliance of China, Russia and Iran is signaling it’s no longer content to accept an indefinite standoff of competing ideologies and commercial interests as the status quo. They have decided to make Ukraine a singular test, which they believe the U.S., Europe and Asia’s democracies will fail."

 

And we should crush them there, and ask them if they find the experience instructive.

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The way this is going, "fighting for it" is going to mean direct NATO involvement within the next 12-24 months, i.e. troops on the ground in Ukraine. 

How so?  The way the war is going so far has shown no need for direct NATO involvement unless Putin is dumb enough to obligate a kinetic response.  And he's been very, very, very careful not to do that.

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

For all countless money spent on this war and the claim that the Russian military is just a bunch of boobs, we're stuck now with a stalemate that has no end in sight and yes, a US government saying they're going to continue pouring funds into this latest foreign adventure, come hell or high water, and oh yeah, we're going to find Ukrainian pensions while we're at it. 

Your assessment is an opinion, of course.  It's one that I think is contrary to the facts, but that's the way things go.

This "foreign adventure", as you call it, is probably the most important world event since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Yup, I rank this above 9/11.  So sure, let's sit it out and let Russia and China work together to change the world order.  I'm sure nothing bad will come from that, just like I'm sure if Hitler and Tojo were allowed to work together without the US "foreign adventure" the world would be a better place too.

I hear this "we can't chew gum and walk at same time argument" all the time when preconceived notions run into problems with reality.  There's a 130,000,000 million US citizens (40% of the population) and many trillions of Dollars in infrastructure at risk from rising sea levels, but by God we can't possibly do anything about that because the price of gas and eggs is already too high!  Or like the people in my town that said we shouldn't buy a new firetruck because we have some potholes that need fixing.  Nobody wants to pay for what it takes to address the problems we face in part because people are constantly mislead that there's viable options that avoid sacrifice.  Great talking points for populist politicians, not so great for public policy.

The US can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Hell, we have the resources and ability to walk, chew gum, and whistle at the same time.  But some think all we should try to do is crawl because everything else is scary difficult to do.

Short sighted thinking does not work towards a positive long term reality.  Quite the opposite.

Steve

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's a 130,000,000 million US citizens (40% of the population)

Steve

Damn there are more Americans than .. well anyone/everyone else?!  

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Kinophile said:

The converse of that might be fighting the Russians in the same way they fight, which negates any advantages and literally comes down to their level.

Ukraine has mainly done this at tactical levels (hard to fight NATO style with Soviet hardware) but the operational side seems to show more "westernization"...with the mentality above being the real strength. 

BTW,  is Detailed Command really a heresy if it's proven wrong with daily examples from an active Warzone? Heresies are essentially competing philosophirs, thought experiments with little grounding in reality. But we've seen actual Glorious Komrade Examples from the initial invasion itself of insanely exacting march orders with predictable Beautiful Results. 

So isn't suggesting DC as an alternative to MC and getting laughed out of the room is,  at this point, based on facts on the ground? The ZSU has a strong and instinctive MC mindset,  currently buried under some old Soviet skin but it's about to slough that off for good. 

 

So we do not, or at least should not plan for the last war.  If all we did was support concept based on what is happening on the ground “right now” we are programming in a progress-through-failure strategy.

The issue with Mission Command, for example, is that it is designed to empower those closest to then problem and having the most current information.  That has been the tactical level.  Problem is this that looking forward evidence is building that higher will in fact be better informed than tactical levels, may already be happening.  So while in Ukraine MC still appears to have advantages (and in reality all effective command is a combination of both), the underpinning of that advantage could be shifting.  If we treat MC as sacred, we may not see that shift until an opponent does it for us, which is an unacceptable risk.

We will see how warfare evolves based on this war but the second we get enamoured in our own methods, and see nothing but validation we are in trouble.  To my eyes Ukraine is definitely western leaning, but they are also making up new rules as they go, likely because their reality is forcing them to.  For example, a lot of talk on combined arms and failures by the RA; however, the UA has been exercising another version of combined arms employing alternate strategies…and they are working.

[FancyCat]

U.S strategy on Asia relies on encircling China with a ring of bases, allied states, and the ability to cut the sealanes.

How is this ring of allied states supposed to side with the U.S if we can't supply weapons and money to Ukraine for less than a year?

All this rhetoric focusing on China and asking for switching focus from Russia seems to ignore the fact that Putin and Xi are closely aligned! Weaken one and you weaken the other.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The way this is going, "fighting for it" is going to mean direct NATO involvement within the next 12-24 months, i.e. troops on the ground in Ukraine. 

For all countless money spent on this war and the claim that the Russian military is just a bunch of boobs, we're stuck now with a stalemate that has no end in sight and yes, a US government saying they're going to continue pouring funds into this latest foreign adventure, come hell or high water, and oh yeah, we're going to find Ukrainian pensions while we're at it. 

Ok, let’s say you are totally right.  The Col Macgregors of the world have got a bead on reality and we here are deluding ourselves (completely ignoring our track record to date).

The war unfolds as you outline above…so freakin what?  It will be a hard fight, so we should quit now?  We should quit now and hope that Russian and Chinese expansion stops somewhere “over there”?  Especially after we pulled off the field, tails tucked between legs.  Or maybe we should negotiate and hope they leave us alone?  What possible historical experience points to where backing away from an expansionist dictator is a good idea?  That somehow they take a foot off the gas when they win?

Seriously, who are the people who promote this?  They cannot be the children of the great generations who built this world. If they are they have forgotten what their grandparents and parents fought and sacrificed for.

Edited February 23, 2023 by The_Capt

[Aragorn2002]

5 hours ago, dan/california said:

Because Xi and Putin really want the same thing. Absolute totalitarian power for themselves, to be able to order executions on a whim. Everything Putin wants to do in Ukraine, Xi has already done in Xinjiang, among other places. The fact that aligning with Russia could not be less in the interest of the Chinese people matters less than nothing. It is all about maintaining the power and position of Xi, and the top tier of his faction of the CCCP. To change the Chinese calculus you must threaten the interest of those people. Which is why I think adult children of every Russian oligarch partying all over London, Ibiza, and other European playgrounds ought to be rounded up and sent home. Make it very clear it can happen to the children of the Chinese Elite currently installed in better colleges all over the U.S.. 

I would start by putting two on a plane to some airport Wagner controls, see what their dad says in his next show. Is that nice? No, but neither is trench warfare in Bakmuht. 

Well said!

[chuckdyke]

China plays for a Korean solution, and they gain prestige on the international stage. First both sides need to bleed a little more. In this coalition China plays the good guy Russians the bad. Right know they lose not much, apart from logistics.

[Aragorn2002]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The way this is going, "fighting for it" is going to mean direct NATO involvement within the next 12-24 months, i.e. troops on the ground in Ukraine. 

For all countless money spent on this war and the claim that the Russian military is just a bunch of boobs, we're stuck now with a stalemate that has no end in sight and yes, a US government saying they're going to continue pouring funds into this latest foreign adventure, come hell or high water, and oh yeah, we're going to find Ukrainian pensions while we're at it. 

So what would you suggest? 

[chuckdyke]

 

[dan/california]

22 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

So what would you suggest? 

I have suggested any number of times that the U.S. Air Force Start killing every Russian in Ukraine, and more to the point, every single logistics node. The_Capt says that letting Ukraine grind it out is the lower risk option, but if every single Vatnik had to start walking home because their was simply no food, no gas, and no bullets. they might reconsider their choices in life by the time they had swim/wade the third or fourth freezing river. The_Capt is probably right. But the balance is closer than most people think. 

I have been banging on for a while that Putin's cronies probably stole more money from the strategic rocket forces than anywhere else, simply because if they were ever ordered to fire them, they were all going to die, anyway. This would be exhibit A

 

Quote

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/politics/russia-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-test/index.html

Even a missile they actually wanted to launch for propaganda purposes failed. Biden probably laughed all the way back to Poland. I do wonder how many people that got an express ticket to Bakmuht?

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by dan/california

[Battlefront.com]

31 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We should quit now and hope that Russian and Chinese expansion stops somewhere “over there”?  Especially after we pulled off the field, tails tucked between legs.  Or maybe we should negotiate and hope they leave us alone?  What possible historical experience points to where backing away from an expansionist dictator is a good idea?  That somehow they take a foot off the gas when they win?

This, right here, is the biggest "say what now?" reaction I have every time I hear someone talking about this war as if the US has options to walk away AND retain its position in the world.  Historical analogies are often mushy and unclear, but the last couple hundred years about expansionist states is very clear.  The sooner they are challenged and the stronger they are opposed the better it is for everybody on the other side.  The opposite is also true.

We don't even have to look very far back into history.  Just look at 2008 when Russian invaded Georgia and ripped pieces away from it or 2014 when Russia started the current war with Ukraine.  A 2022 response to either of those would have probably headed off the full scale war we're in now.  Hell, there's even a chance that a strong reaction to Georgia would have led to Putin being toppled in 2011 (I don't want to get into my theories about that).

I get that Iraq and Afghanistan were bad policy and bad investments.  So what?  We all make bad purchase and investment decisions all the time in our personal lives.  Does that mean we refrain from engaging with the world again?  No, it means trying to be smarter about what we purchase and how we invest.  Which is why this war is such a clear cut "win" for US' strategic global interests. 

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I have suggested any number of times that the U.S. Air Force Start killing every Russian in Ukraine, and more to the point, every single logistics node. The_Capt says that letting Ukraine grind it out is the lower risk option, but if every single Vatnik had to start walking home because their was simply no food, no gas, and no bullets. they might reconsider their choices in like by the time they had swim/wade the third or fourth freezing river. The_Capt is probably right. But the balance is closer than most people think. 

I have been banging on for a while that Putin's cronies probably stole more money from the strategic rocket forces than anywhere else, simply because if they were ever ordered to fire them, they were all going to die, anyway. This would be exhibit A

 

Even a missile they actually wanted to launch for propaganda purposes failed. Biden probably laughed all the way back to Poland. I do wonder how many people that got an express ticket to Bakmuht?

 

My question was aimed at LukeF, but thanks for your interesting answer.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

My question was aimed at LukeF, but thanks for your interesting answer.

My answer was, too...

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

So we do not, or at least should not plan for the last war.  If all we did was support concept based on what is happening on the ground “right now” we are programming in a progress-through-failure strategy.

The issue with Mission Command, for example, is that it is designed to empower those closest to then problem and having the most current information.  That has been the tactical level.  Problem is this that looking forward evidence is building that higher will in fact be better informed than tactical levels, may already be happening.  So while in Ukraine MC still appears to have advantages (and in reality all effective command is a combination of both), the underpinning of that advantage could be shifting.  If we treat MC as sacred, we may not see that shift until an opponent does it for us, which is an unacceptable risk.

We will see how warfare evolves based on this war but the second we get enamoured in our own methods, and see nothing but validation we are in trouble.  To my eyes Ukraine is definitely western leaning, but they are also making up new rules as they go, likely because their reality is forcing them to.  For example, a lot of talk on combined arms and failures by the RA; however, the UA has been exercising another version of combined arms employing alternate strategies…and they are working.

Is there a subtler distinction between  DC and MC, but which goes to the core difference -  DC is pre-determinative,  dictating a distinct process towards an objective,  where as MC is adaptive to the reality of both the objective and the unknowns of how to get there?

Naturally you need a certain amount of both and as with all things there is danger in extremes of either one. Too much DC and you get the incessant useless assaults classic of the worst of Soviet approaches. Too much MC and your leading units can loose sight of the overall objective, to the failure of everything (IDF came close to that state a few times). 

Perhaps the question isn't which thought system is better but when and how to apply each in turn,  to what degree and for how long. 

ZSU seems to have a culture that is both highly reactive and very focussed on personal initiative. This has been suppressed by Soviet doctrine but is pushing through under the relentless pressure of battlefield experience. 

NATO,  for all the danger of Sacral Dogma Traps,  has an inherent emphasis on adaptive development. There will always be those in any institution who take a dogma and invest in it, blinding themselves to its weaknesses. There's no silver bullets in life,  to anything,  but it's easy for people to fool themselvess that they've found an ammo box stuffed with shiny hollow points. 

With the ZSU and NATO, it's possible that NATO will actually gain more from the interaction in the long run, in the subtle but inevitable refreshing of stagnant mentalities and crushing assumptions. 

What will the ZSU gain from NATO,  past large scale modern-day professionalization of their leadership corp? The ability to examine itself and adapt in ways that the AFRF are fundamentally incapable of?

While NATO struggled in Afghan, that was a mission totally beyond the structural scope or designed intent of the organization and its component militaries. After the initial defeat of the Taliban it became a purely political war, which always ****s with military adaptation.

With Ukraine its an existential war, with the absolute necessity of victory driving adaptation and exploration. 

For Russia,  this war is political so the AFRF does not feel the brutal need to adapt, like it did in WW2 (yes, yes, I'm conflatng SU and RF) so it will never truly change to meet its opponents morphing process. In many ways the AFRF are not just fighting the last war,  but will never not fight it.

The ZSU can not only adapt and feels the need to do so, but with NATO adjacent and part of its culture it will inevitably adapt in additional ways such that Russian MoD will not be able to conceptualize a coherent response. 

As these are strategic,  national level forces, once the ZSUs adaptability becomes enshrined in its institutional culture from top to bottom it will gain a permanent strategic advantage that Russia cannot and will not be able to track,  match or counter. 

But the ZSU needs NATO for that transformation to happen at speed, consistently and on a long term basis.

Any faltering in the process will give Russia the opportunity to apply such pressure that it forces the ZSU to again fight like Russia, which implies eventual defeat. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Kinophile

[chuckdyke]

Pretty advanced, I think the ERA turned into an after burner. Maybe I am wrong.

[Kinophile]

Article claims training on ATACAMS has already begun... (half way down) 

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3673603-serhiy-naiev-joint-forces-commander.html

[DesertFox]

Just now, Kinophile said:

Article claims training on ATACAMS has already begun... (half way down) 

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3673603-serhiy-naiev-joint-forces-commander.html

Good news if true. Makes a good pair of options with british storm shadow.

[Artkin]

Where are the mine plows? I haven't seen much of any during this war. After the first offensive failed the Russians should have ordered a whole bunch of them.

[DesertFox]