How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, dan/california said:

I think he is saying it take a Senate vote to let Ukraine into NATO. It is an amendment of the treaty that requires ratification.

I guess it would, and I hope that would get enough votes despite the high hurdle. But I was referring to any *new* treaties, not NATO.. Because someone suggested that a new military alliance could be formed to guarantee Ukraine against yet another Russian invasion. I think that’s unlikely. . 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://time.com/6258132/what-the-west-must-help-ukraine-win-war/

Written ISW, and simply outstanding. Of course we expect that from them at this point.

Extremely short version of a very long essay:

Western support of Ukraine must be redoubled, and locked in for the long term so Ukraine can go on the offensive and WIN this bleeping thing. All the other options are degrees of horrible.

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Well yeah! That’s the point in this little series, along with dealing from a position of strength. Any military guarantees for Ukraine following some sort of negotiated end of the war better be in addition to Ukraine owning a position of inescapable strength: significant battlefield defeats of the Russians. NATO membership is the ideal guarantee, but China’s “peace plan” is unlikely to see Russia willing to accept Ukraine in NATO.  Not to mention the complete withdrawal from Ukraine. Both would mean a total Russian defeat, even with the sanctions lifted. So instead of NATO membership someone suggested a new, smaller military alliance could make guarantees to protect Ukraine. That’s why it’s important to understand how the USA actually makes treaties, and its very high bar and lengthy process.  

Regardless of all this, I think many here are skeptical of any real juice behind China’s attempt to score international points. AFAIK,  they’re amateurs in brokering peace. My hopes are pinned on Ukraine with the Western Allies assistance forcing Russia out of the war by inflicting significant defeats on the battlefield. Then come peace agreements, and NATO membership. Not by China weaseling some sort of shaky agreement during a stalemate that let’s Russia start this cycle all over again. All that is a different discussion.

well heck, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states could form their own alliance.  At the rate Russia is trashing their military Lux. could take them on.  Maybe even do it with Finland and Sweden if Turkey continues goofing around.

[NamEndedAllen]

3 minutes ago, sburke said:

well heck, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states could form their own alliance.  At the rate Russia is trashing their military Lux. could take them on.

Yes! Especially if Ukraine after thrashes what’s left down to a pathetic grubby stub. So let’s have the West get on with whatever arms and training it takes, and quickly! Not China slithering around the edges.

Edited February 26, 2023 by NamEndedAllen

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Yes! Especially if Ukraine after thrashes what’s left down to a pathetic grubby stub. So let’s have the West get on with whatever arms and training it takes, and quickly! Not China slithering around the edges.

ATACMS should have been there months ago. They should sure as bleep be there Monday morning.

[DesertFox]

 

 

[dan/california]

They make thru winter with flying colors, fuel storage still half full, and THEN they want to surrender?

And yes I got this from Desert Fox's post above,but I thought it was clearer to repost the original tweet.

 

[NamEndedAllen]

Well here is a timely, if somewhat disappointing update on NATO and Ukraine, from today’s ISW:

Deleted most - DesertFox  just posted the link. But the explanation does seem important and troubling. 

“The Wall Street Journal noted that these officials expressed reservations about the West’s ability to sustain a prolonged war effort, the high casualty count that Ukraine would sustain in such a prolonged war, and Ukrainian forces’ ability to completely recapture long-occupied territories like Crimea, however. The Wall Street Journal contrasted these officials’ private reservations with US President Joe Biden’s public statements of support—which did not mention peace negotiations—and with Central and Eastern European leaders’ concerns that premature peace negotiations would encourage further Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is willing to compromise on his stated maximalist goals, which include Ukraine’s “neutrality” and demilitarization—as well as de facto regime change in Kyiv, as ISW has consistently reported”

 

These officials appear to be leaning towards @The_Capt’s ending scenario of territorial concessions by Ukraine due in part to the steep costs of liberating Crimea and the Donbas, and that Western pockets and willingness are not infinite. Iirc, he stipulates granting Russia relief by lifting sanctions, but requiring reparations. Possibly some sort of liminal status of the conquered territories annexed by Russia. Have to say, this all feels pretty murky for Ukraine to accept, unless they find out for themselves that they just can’t get to the finish line.

Edited February 26, 2023 by NamEndedAllen

[DesertFox]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

They make thru winter with flying colors, fuel storage still half full, and THEN they want to surrender?

And yes I got this from Desert Fox's post above,but I thought it was clearer to repost the original tweet.

 

I doubt the UK is in with that. For France and Germany I fully believe it. They are after cheap russian Gas and Uranium.

[NamEndedAllen]

Biden AND DNR puppet both reject China’s plan. Also from today’s ISW:

US President Joe Biden rejected China’s 12-point peace plan as Russian sources continue to capitalize on the announcement of the plan to vilify the West and Ukraine. Biden stated that the Chinese peace plan is only beneficial for Russia and that it would make no sense for China to participate in negotiations on the war in Ukraine.[7] Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) head Denis Pushilin argued that China’s peace plan is a fundamentally different approach to the war in Ukraine from the West’s as the West demands the fulfillment of preconditions while exacerbating the conflict through supporting Ukraine.[8] Pushilin nevertheless also rejected the Chinese plan because it would prevent Russia from achieving its maximalist goals in Ukraine.[9]  Russian officials and propagandists continue to assert that Western aid that helps Ukraine resist Russia’s illegal invasion protracts the war and to ignore the role that Russia’s determined pursuit of its maximalist aims plays in prolonging the conflict. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-25-2023

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Well here is a timely, if somewhat disappointing update on NATO and Ukraine, from today’s ISW:

“UK, French, and German officials are reportedly preparing a NATO-Ukraine pact that falls far short of the protections Ukraine would receive from NATO membership and appears to reflect a desire to press Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on unfavorable terms.[1] The Wall Street Journal reported that the exact provisions of the pact are undecided, but the officials indicated that the pact will provide advanced military equipment, arms, and ammunition to Ukraine, but not Article V protection or a commitment to station NATO forces in Ukraine—falling short of Ukraine’s aspirations for full NATO membership. The officials stated that the pact aims to provision Ukraine so that Ukrainian forces can conduct a counteroffensive that brings Russia to the negotiating table and deter any future Russian aggression. The Wall Street Journal noted that these officials expressed reservations about the West’s ability to sustain a prolonged war effort, the high casualty count that Ukraine would sustain in such a prolonged war, and Ukrainian forces’ ability to completely recapture long-occupied territories like Crimea, however. The Wall Street Journal contrasted these officials’ private reservations with US President Joe Biden’s public statements of support—which did not mention peace negotiations—and with Central and Eastern European leaders’ concerns that premature peace negotiations would encourage further Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is willing to compromise on his stated maximalist goals, which include Ukraine’s “neutrality” and demilitarization—as well as de facto regime change in Kyiv, as ISW has consistently reported.”    https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-25-2023

 

I wonder if the WSJ has disgruntled "source" that is pushing a pro Russian line for whatever reason? I mean Tucker Carlson works for the same boss. 

 

[The_Capt]

41 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

Written ISW, and simply outstanding. Of course we expect that from them at this point.

Extremely short version of a very long essay:

Western support of Ukraine must be redoubled, and locked in for the long term so Ukraine can go on the offensive and WIN this bleeping thing. All the other options are degrees of horrible.

I read the long piece on the Time site, gotta say I do not really agree with it in its entirety.  Now before anyone jumps on that, I absolutely think Ukraine needs to be supported in this war and more so after it, but the laying down maximalist lines in the sand within the article really glosses over some important issues, many of which we have discussed here:

- Russia has already lost this war.  Even if they somehow managed to retake all of Ukraine and made it a proxy, the damage is done.  NATO is going to be funded, united and basically hauling in all takers (eg Sweden and Finland).  Russia’s strategic position is much weaker and is not likely to recover soon.  The odds of Russia actually retaking Ukraine are about zero, but even if they did the costs far outstrip any gains they may have made within their near abroad - even the most ardent Russian nationalist will be able to do the math in a few years, and then the Russian power regime has got a new set of problems.

- Driving Russia from Ukraine - even pre- 2014 lines, will not stop Russia from lining back up on this and trying a round 2.  Nor will it stop both kinetic and subversive attacks in Ukraine itself.  There are only really two ways to secure Ukraine indefinitely by this point, the complete defeat of Russia within Russia itself - so regime change and very possibly civil war, which is very bad.  Or a deterrence guarantor that creates a line Russia will not cross.  Right now that can come from two sources: NATO or China, and I do not trust China.  So until Ukraine has Ch 5 in it pocket, the actual stop lines on the ground do not matter so much.  

- We have been around the horn on this, but guys let’s be up front and admit the ugly truth - there are a lot of people in Donbas and Crimea who are not onside “standing with Ukraine” and likely will not simply say “okydoky, new guys in charge”.  Insurgencies have been sparked up for less.  Ukraine will need to somehow integrate and enfranchise entire populations, many of whom took up arms against them.  As our Ukrainian posters have pointed out, this is a very complex space and opinion’s definitely vary, but nothing could derail Ukraine’s entry into those security guarantees in point #2 faster than a dirty counterinsurgency blowing up all over the internet - and take it for one who knows, every counterinsurgency is dirty.

So as we get back to 23 Feb 22 lines - an absolute must because Russia cannot gain one inch from this illegal war, there is going to have to be some careful consideration of just where the line actually is, or is not.  Is this war worth extending another 2-3 years to retake territory whose people hate your guts?  How do you plan to address them and this, because hoping they simply are going to stay home is pretty weak given just how many took up arms with the RA (granted many against their own wills).

Militarily I can see a path where Ukraine takes back both Crimea and Donbas, but it is long and bloody unless the RA suffered strategic collapse.  So we definitely should be doing and supporting that as hard as possible, however, as to longer objectives I think there is still a lot of TBD out there.

Finally I disagree with the authors statement that “Russia not winning does not equate to Ukraine winning”.  Sure it does, it is called “strategic denial” and it has a pretty long history - Mao wrote an entire doctrine that pivots off the idea. Especially if Russia exhausts itself in the process.

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

These officials appear to be leaning towards @The_Capt’s ending scenario of territorial concessions by Ukraine due in part to the steep costs of liberating Crimea and the Donbas, and that Western pockets and willingness are not infinite.

Easy now, do not attach my ownership to this one.  It is one scenario out of many that I have no doubt some western politicians will push for.  I personally do not see anything good about Russia gaining a single acre from pre 23 Feb 22 lines.  They must not gain from this war - a post 2014 status quo may have to be what we live with, it ain’t great but see my other post as the other outcomes can get pretty stark.  

All war is negotiation.

Oh, and for the record I also do not think the UA is spent yet.  I am not sure why we think we are at the “need to negotiate” point (we heard this before).  The UA needs to be given at least one more major operational level offensive.

Edited February 26, 2023 by The_Capt

[Kinophile]

49 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Well here is a timely, if somewhat disappointing update on NATO and Ukraine, from today’s ISW:

Deleted most - DesertFox  just posted the link. But the explanation does seem important and troubling. 

“The Wall Street Journal noted that these officials expressed reservations about the West’s ability to sustain a prolonged war effort, the high casualty count that Ukraine would sustain in such a prolonged war, and Ukrainian forces’ ability to completely recapture long-occupied territories like Crimea, however. The Wall Street Journal contrasted these officials’ private reservations with US President Joe Biden’s public statements of support—which did not mention peace negotiations—and with Central and Eastern European leaders’ concerns that premature peace negotiations would encourage further Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is willing to compromise on his stated maximalist goals, which include Ukraine’s “neutrality” and demilitarization—as well as de facto regime change in Kyiv, as ISW has consistently reported”

 

These officials appear to be leaning towards @The_Capt’s ending scenario of territorial concessions by Ukraine due in part to the steep costs of liberating Crimea and the Donbas, and that Western pockets and willingness are not infinite. Iirc, he stipulates granting Russia relief by lifting sanctions, but requiring reparations. Possibly some sort of liminal status of the conquered territories annexed by Russia. Have to say, this all feels pretty murky for Ukraine to accept, unless they find out for themselves that they just can’t get to the finish line.

Their concerns are nice and all, but there's a popular referendum in Ukraine  to thread before acceptance of any peace deal. 

[dan/california]

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Easy now, do not attach my ownership to this one.  It is one scenario out of many that I have no doubt some western politicians will push for.  I personally do not see anything good about Russia gaining a single acre from pre 23 Feb 22 lines.  They must not gain from this war - a post 2014 status quo may have to be what we live with, it ain’t great but see my other post as the other outcomes can get pretty stark.  

All war is negotiation.

Full NATO membership, Full EU membership, on the same day, at the same table, where Ukraine signs peace on 2/24 lines. That is how Zelensky can actually sell it politically. So Bundeskanzler, Germany wants to get back to making money? Sign right here...

Edit: and the bits they don't get back are Russian ,full stop. None of this autonomous semi whatever B.S. It is Ukraine on one side of the line, Russia on the other, and an article 5 problem if they fire one single 152mm shell.

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by dan/california

[FancyCat]

It’s still winter. The mud has grounded all of Ukraine. New tiers of aid have not arrived. I’ve certainly argued the current discussion plenty, but I think it’s quite too soon to reopen it, as winter is ongoing since the last.

[JonS]

What happened to those "forest fire" satellite(?) maps that showed artillery activity? I haven't seen one in months.

Edited February 26, 2023 by JonS

[dan/california]

Just now, JonS said:

What happened to those "forest fire" satellite(?) maps that showed artilkeryactivity? I havent seen one in months.

Wondering about that too? Could it be as simple as them not working on cold wet ground?

[chrisl]

27 minutes ago, JonS said:

What happened to those "forest fire" satellite(?) maps that showed artilkeryactivity? I havent seen one in months.

 

25 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Wondering about that too? Could it be as simple as them not working on cold wet ground?

They're still out there. (the pasted link doesn't retain the street map setting, so you should toggle that on).  There's one little red dot on Bakhmut.

The cold wet ground in itself shouldn't be a problem - they're just looking for emission in certain wavelengths, and with cold wet ground the contrast between hot spots and background should be better.  I haven't looked into the details, but they probably aren't really sensitive to the individual shells so much as the aftereffects, like things burning.  With fewer buildings left to burn in the heavily fought over areas, and the terrain being wet and/or frozen there's probably not a lot of brush burning, either.  Get an ammo dump burning and that ought to show up.

edit: Bellingcat has a fairly long article on using the FIRMS maps to look for artillery attacks.  I suspect if you download the raw data you may also be able to tease out some smaller/shorter duration hot spots.  It may need to be combined with data from other satellites to be effective at the small stuff.

Edited February 26, 2023 by chrisl

[dan/california]

So FIRMS will start to show good data just about the time the ground id ready for Ukraine to go on the offensive?

 

[chrisl]

9 minutes ago, dan/california said:

So FIRMS will start to show good data just about the time the ground id ready for Ukraine to go on the offensive?

 

Or if they set a lot of T-72s on fire.

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Or if they set a lot of T-72s on fire.

 A truly lovely thought...

 

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Easy now, do not attach my ownership to this one.  It is one scenario out of many that I have no doubt some western politicians will push for.  I personally do not see anything good about Russia gaining a single acre from pre 23 Feb 22 lines.  They must not gain from this war - a post 2014 status quo may have to be what we live with, it ain’t great but see my other post as the other outcomes can get pretty stark.  

All war is negotiation.

Oh, and for the record I also do not think the UA is spent yet.  I am not sure why we think we are at the “need to negotiate” point (we heard this before).  The UA needs to be given at least one more major operational level offensive.

Understood! I just recall your outlining a similar scenario (not your endorsement of it as the only possibility), along with cautions about taking back all the post 2014 oblasts, and stressing the importance of negotiation for ending the war. Well short of a dangerous collapse of Russia into several warlord-ish states, with nukes.

Whoever these NATO officials are, they seem to be saying we are with you for *just* one more major offensive. Not your wise “at least” one more. And oh, no NATO membership. My concern is how dangerous it is to tell Ukraine - and Russia! - that Ukraine MUST win this next offensive, big time. Fire all the guns at once, roll the dice NOW. Good luck, because that’s all of your country that you’re going to get back. Even if it doesn’t turn out all that well. Because “we” are done.  A message like that is dangerous before the spice, er, major new NATO type weapon systems are REALLY flowing in. Fully trained up-gunned brigades and support systems, much better air defenses.. Let alone what so many wise heads from Western militaries are saying to also supply - as many here have urged. Bottom line, it does matter what Ukraine says. And any peace plan has to be voted on by the citizens of Ukraine. 

Lastly, given President Biden’s near simultaneous and opposite public statements to these officials…well, it smacks of a possible crack in the house’s foundation. We do not want that. But Russia and China do. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by NamEndedAllen

[dan/california]

21 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Understood! I just recall your outlining a similar scenario (not your endorsement of it as the only possibility), along with cautions about taking back all the post 2014 oblasts, and stressing the importance of negotiation for ending the war. Well short of a dangerous collapse of Russia into several warlord-ish states, with nukes.

Whoever these NATO officials are, they seem to be saying we are with you for *just* one more major offensive. Not your wise “at least” one more. And oh, no NATO membership. My concern is how dangerous it is to tell Ukraine - and Russia! - that Ukraine MUST win this next offensive, big time. Fire all the guns at once, roll the dice NOW. Good luck, because that’s all of your country that you’re going to get back. Even if it doesn’t turn out all that well. Because “we” are done.  A message like that is dangerous before the spice, er, major new NATO type weapon systems are REALLY flowing in. Fully trained up-gunned brigades and support systems, much better air defenses.. Let alone what so many wise heads from Western militaries are saying to also supply - as many here have urged. Bottom line, it does matter what Ukraine says. And any peace plan has to be voted on by the citizens of Ukraine. 

Lastly, given President Biden’s near simultaneous and opposite public statements to these officials…well, it smacks of a possible crack in the house’s foundation. We do not want that. But Russia and China do. 

The POTUS is speaking in public, with the cameras running. The other side is in the land of the anonymous source. It isn't quite time to panic yet.

[sburke]

Putin’s Favorite Neighbor Is Caving to the Kremlin (yahoo.com)