How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

6 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

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. . 

It would be incredibly stupid as well.

[Aragorn2002]

39 minutes ago, sburke said:

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

I'm pretty sure the annexation of Belarussia is part of Putin's 'Master plan' to restore the Soviet borders. It's inevitable and there's little we can do about it. One can even ask whether it hasn't happened already. All the more reasons to send Ukraine all the help we can miss. And more.

[Holien]

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64774717

New postage stamps available in Ukraine. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Holien

[Letter from Prague]

The reasons people are talking about new alliance is the unwillingness of certain NATO members.

Nobody doubts the willingness of Uncle Sam to blow up **** with the current government, but long term US is one election away from withdrawing from NATO (Trump already almost tried). Then you have Turkey, which is unpredictable and Hungary which is outright traitorous. But most importantly, France and Germany are treating their eastern neighbours as colonies and are never going to be willing to protect them.

That is also why idea of "EU army" some people are talking is ridiculous, when Germans would be fine with having Russian border near Dresden and shrug at millions of murdered and enslaved people, as long as the gas keeps flowing and the French care more about "not humiliating Putin" than Russian war crimes.

(Honestly, I think Russia is behind the "we can't trust US and NATO let's build EU Army!" because of how stupid that idea is.)

Various alliances included Czechoslovakia and Poland before WW2 too, with one outright betrayed and the other betrayed in practice.

That is why people are talking about new possible alliance of Baltics, Finland, Poland and Ukraine because they realize Germany and France would sacrifice them in a blink of an eye.

EDIT: is it a good idea? Of course not! But it might be the only option in town in a few years.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Letter from Prague

[holoween]

44 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

 But most importantly, France and Germany are treating their eastern neighbours as colonies and are never going to be willing to protect them.

That is also why idea of "EU army" some people are talking is ridiculous, when Germans would be fine with having Russian border near Dresden and shrug at millions of murdered and enslaved people, as long as the gas keeps flowing and the French care more about "not humiliating Putin" than Russian war crimes.

Im sorry what?

What exactly gave you that idea? Germany being unwilling to defend eastern europe doesnt mesh with the fact there are literally german troops in Lituania to defend them.

And germany stopped their gas imports from russia 100% while poland is still buying oil from them.

[BletchleyGeek]

I am finding this gentleman's tactical analysis to be a must read

in the comments he foresee that these adaptations won't be very successful (?) in light of the top-down approach that dominates the Russian Army.

I think this links up nicely the ongoing conversation about the duality of mission and direct command with a case study that is quite fresh. In this case, DC is needed to allocate the resources (manpower, supporting arms) that make up these units. Obviously, MC kicks in when these formations are set in motion (much like a robot but made by people and "dumb" vehicles and weapons) and they need to handle whatever contingencies follow from engaging the enemy (e.g. interesting to see the allocation of a demining vehicle).

This is an example of adaptation rather than devolution. It's not clear though that they can  implement it well due to materiel and personnel issues. But clearly there is someone, somewhere with both brains and time to come up with ideas...

 

 

[kraze]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I'm pretty sure the annexation of Belarussia is part of Putin's 'Master plan' to restore the Soviet borders. It's inevitable and there's little we can do about it. One can even ask whether it hasn't happened already. All the more reasons to send Ukraine all the help we can miss. And more.

The question is why should somebody do anything about Belarus? It was their choice to become a russian ally, they picked their side, they helped russians cause a lot of warcrimes and still very actively do - so that path has its consequences.

Just like Ukraine made a bunch of dumb civilizational choices since 1991, we now pay for this in blood sadly, but we do make a different choice now and it counts now - if a little too late.

West should concentrate on people who want to be with the West and stop trying to "save" people who are anti-West. Anything like that should be a result of people's choice, not trying to "white horse" it on them, even if you think you are doing a good thing. Extra 10 years in Afghanistan were a lesson in just that.

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I am finding this gentleman's tactical analysis to be a must read

in the comments he foresee that these adaptations won't be very successful (?) in light of the top-down approach that dominates the Russian Army.

I think this links up nicely the ongoing conversation about the duality of mission and direct command with a case study that is quite fresh. In this case, DC is needed to allocate the resources (manpower, supporting arms) that make up these units. Obviously, MC kicks in when these formations are set in motion (much like a robot but made by people and "dumb" vehicles and weapons) and they need to handle whatever contingencies follow from engaging the enemy (e.g. interesting to see the allocation of a demining vehicle).

This is an example of adaptation rather than devolution. It's not clear though that they can  implement it well due to materiel and personnel issues. But clearly there is someone, somewhere with both brains and time to come up with ideas...

 

 

Good stuff, cheers. This looks like that 'belly formation' UkraineVolunteer is describing in his latest post.  Except in that case, the Russians don't have a firm fix on the Ukrainian defensive scheme in the woodlands.  And they can't neutralise the UA artillery.

Author reply to a comment on the thread:

As far as I know 1st and 2nd corps, VDV, and some motor rifle brigades are doing this. They usually just form few of these "assault units" within the brigade/regiment. The quality and longevity really depends on the unit, but overall it's not great

Edited February 26, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

The reasons people are talking about new alliance is the unwillingness of certain NATO members.

Nobody doubts the willingness of Uncle Sam to blow up **** with the current government, but long term US is one election away from withdrawing from NATO (Trump already almost tried). Then you have Turkey, which is unpredictable and Hungary which is outright traitorous. But most importantly, France and Germany are treating their eastern neighbours as colonies and are never going to be willing to protect them.

That is also why idea of "EU army" some people are talking is ridiculous, when Germans would be fine with having Russian border near Dresden and shrug at millions of murdered and enslaved people, as long as the gas keeps flowing and the French care more about "not humiliating Putin" than Russian war crimes.

(Honestly, I think Russia is behind the "we can't trust US and NATO let's build EU Army!" because of how stupid that idea is.)

Various alliances included Czechoslovakia and Poland before WW2 too, with one outright betrayed and the other betrayed in practice.

That is why people are talking about new possible alliance of Baltics, Finland, Poland and Ukraine because they realize Germany and France would sacrifice them in a blink of an eye.

EDIT: is it a good idea? Of course not! But it might be the only option in town in a few years.

This is probably one of the most ignorant and nonsensical posts in this whole thread 

[womble]

19 minutes ago, kraze said:

West should concentrate on people who want to be with the West and stop trying to "save" people who are anti-West. Anything like that should be a result of people's choice, not trying to "white horse" it on them, even if you think you are doing a good thing. Extra 10 years in Afghanistan were a lesson in just that.

I don't disagree much here. I'm interested as to what you and other Ukrainians here think the logical progression of that approach looks like when applied to the Donbas and Crimea, should Ukraine actually achieve full reintegration of her internationally recognised borders. Some might say they're not worth getting back, being "poison pills" of resentment and resistance to Ukraine's full alignment with the Western Order. Others might have a more optimistic view that the hardcore anti-Kyiv element are mostly dead on the front lines, and the "don't care" brigade is worth including in the next Ukrainian census.

What are your thoughts, as citizens who'll get a vote when Zelensky eventually comes back from the negotiating table with a proposed settlement?

[LongLeftFlank]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

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

OK, I am now picturing General Secretary Lugnuts putting a bandage on his head and bringing to life the full glorious spectacle of 'Gumby Theatre'!

 

[chuckdyke]

Russians won't reach Kiev and the Ukraine won't reach Moscow. This is what is required to get rid of Russian imperial ambitions. They can kick Russia at present they may even establish the 2014 borders, but they don't get rid of them. 

[DesertFox]

3) and this is not getting enough attention. Democratic Party support for Ukraine is extremely high--one of the highest Ive ever seen for a non-US declared war. Too much attention is being paid to GOP doubts--the Dems are rock solid.

 

 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Tire grog extraordinaire Trent T writes an interesting thread on (absent) Russian logistics.  Here's the punchline, may be a little OTT but I know little about this area.

Kill all the trucks!

***

OTOH, Philips O'Brien seems to support his thesis....

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/russia-ukraine-war-one-year-national-identity/673192/

By overlooking Russia’s systemic weaknesses, Western analysts helped create the mess that democratic nations find themselves in today.... The presumption, based on weaponry counts, that Ukraine was far too weak to resist Russia in open combat delayed the provision of significant military aid. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Butschi]

3 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

The reasons people are talking about new alliance is the unwillingness of certain NATO members.

Nobody doubts the willingness of Uncle Sam to blow up **** with the current government, but long term US is one election away from withdrawing from NATO (Trump already almost tried). Then you have Turkey, which is unpredictable and Hungary which is outright traitorous. But most importantly, France and Germany are treating their eastern neighbours as colonies and are never going to be willing to protect them.

That is also why idea of "EU army" some people are talking is ridiculous, when Germans would be fine with having Russian border near Dresden and shrug at millions of murdered and enslaved people, as long as the gas keeps flowing and the French care more about "not humiliating Putin" than Russian war crimes.

(Honestly, I think Russia is behind the "we can't trust US and NATO let's build EU Army!" because of how stupid that idea is.)

Various alliances included Czechoslovakia and Poland before WW2 too, with one outright betrayed and the other betrayed in practice.

That is why people are talking about new possible alliance of Baltics, Finland, Poland and Ukraine because they realize Germany and France would sacrifice them in a blink of an eye.

EDIT: is it a good idea? Of course not! But it might be the only option in town in a few years.

I'm trying hard to not make this reply inflammatory which isn't easy given that your post borders on being insulting.

I'd advise you to first check the facts: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_207051.htm

Quote

Germany, which leads the NATO battlegroup in Lithuania, already has some 1,500 soldiers in the country.

The contribution is a significant portion of our available mechanized equipment, btw. France also leads one of the NATO battlegroups in Eastern Europe.

And I can assure you, while there was a lot of discussion about sanctions and military aid for Ukraine, in Germany there is no discussion worth the name about being in NATO or honoring the treaty if push comes to shove. Even "Die Linke", who in previous years advertised leaving NATO (and didn't get elected for it) is remarkably quiet in that regard at the moment. (Ignore Sahra Wagenknecht, she somehow seems to have lost it).

From a (West) German perspective I can say that we were some 45 years designated ground zero in case of Cold War going hot. The current Russia is but a shadow of the Soviet Union plus the Warsaw Pact countries. So tell us about being at the NATO frontline... Eastern Europe then was on the other side of the iron curtain. Would have been terribly easy to say afterwards "we don't trust our new neighbors, we don't want them in NATO." We didn't.

Now, I'll admit that's no guarantee. But you will never get that. Just as the other NATO members have no guarantee that the Eastern Europeans are equally enthusiastic when it's not Russia we are talking about but some other (as of now hypothetical) foe that comes knocking at the western or southern border.

So far NATO was never under attack (if we don't count Afghanistan - but if we do, Germany answered the call, btw). So don't pretend you know who would or wouldn't honor the treaty. At this point Poland or Estonia are just as hypothetical as the US, Germany or France especially in a case where they aren't threatened directly.

Edit:

Quote

(Honestly, I think Russia is behind the "we can't trust US and NATO let's build EU Army!" because of how stupid that idea is.)

And honestly, I think Russia is behind this "Germany and France won't defend Eastern Europe" because of... 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Butschi

[DesertFox]

35 minutes ago, Butschi said:

And honestly, I think Russia is behind this "Germany and France won't defend Eastern Europe" because of... 

Yep, that would make sense. Cui bono. It is in Russias best interest to plant the seed of mistrust amongst europeans.

[BletchleyGeek]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

As far as I know 1st and 2nd corps, VDV, and some motor rifle brigades are doing this. They usually just form few of these "assault units" within the brigade/regiment. The quality and longevity really depends on the unit, but overall it's not great

I missed that remark, thanks @LongLeftFlank. Seems that division-sized formations are coming on top as the most viable ones.

[Beleg85]

Bakhmut: Ukrainians are making short counterattacks in the north (they managed to hold last line of hills through the night) and south (fights for Krasne are again in the way). 17th. Armoured and 46th Brig. attacked in the north and pushed katsaps up to Jahidne.A lot of casualties again on both sides, but Russians are clearly crawling forward in several places.

Interesting movie showing heavy conditions in the city- unfortuntelly only in Ukrainian, but worth to watch for combat footage.

4 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

This is an example of adaptation rather than devolution. It's not clear though that they can  implement it well due to materiel and personnel issues. But clearly there is someone, somewhere with both brains and time to come up with ideas...

Excellent material. Author himself described it  as orientantional rather than fixed organizational measure- Russians are experimenting in a way that is becoming similar to various assaults groups in WWI. Bomber section, Lewis section, bayonets etc. Note how small "assault platoon" is- only 12-15 people, they clearly (but probably temporarly) left template based on squads fit in APC/IFV.

It's curious if this pattern is indeed ppular among the frontline troops or just an example of local adaptation.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Beleg85

[Beleg85]

Also, Bakhmut from the pespective- city is being systematically destroyed, it's half wreck at that point.

 

[panzermartin]

4 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I am finding this gentleman's tactical analysis to be a must read

in the comments he foresee that these adaptations won't be very successful (?) in light of the top-down approach that dominates the Russian Army.

I think this links up nicely the ongoing conversation about the duality of mission and direct command with a case study that is quite fresh. In this case, DC is needed to allocate the resources (manpower, supporting arms) that make up these units. Obviously, MC kicks in when these formations are set in motion (much like a robot but made by people and "dumb" vehicles and weapons) and they need to handle whatever contingencies follow from engaging the enemy (e.g. interesting to see the allocation of a demining vehicle).

This is an example of adaptation rather than devolution. It's not clear though that they can  implement it well due to materiel and personnel issues. But clearly there is someone, somewhere with both brains and time to come up with ideas...

 

 

Very interesting, and useful for future CMBS expansions. (Although who knows what will be the shape of tactical groups after a year or so) . 

Edited February 26, 2023 by panzermartin

[Haiduk]

On 2/25/2023 at 2:21 PM, Pete Wenman said:

 

Within an article confirming Spartan APC's being handed over to the 127th Brigade - a territorial unit

 

https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/harkivsku-tro-ozbroyily-bronemashynamy-spartan/

P

We have 31 nominal TD brigades with 178 potentially active TD-battalions. Usually each oblast has one TD brigade, but some have two and even three. Each brigade can have different number of battalions, depending on number of population in oblast and administrative structure, so in the brigade can be and four battalions, and six, and even eleven. So in order to supply each battalion with tank platoon and full-strenghth mech.company we need to find somewhere  534 tanks and 1780 armored vehciles. Even if in frist stage we should equip those battalions, who really were spotted  in the fight - let it will 50 %, that number of equipment anyway still enormous, when mech.brigades have a lack of APC/IFVs.

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I am finding this gentleman's tactical analysis to be a must read

in the comments he foresee that these adaptations won't be very successful (?) in light of the top-down approach that dominates the Russian Army.

I think this links up nicely the ongoing conversation about the duality of mission and direct command with a case study that is quite fresh. In this case, DC is needed to allocate the resources (manpower, supporting arms) that make up these units. Obviously, MC kicks in when these formations are set in motion (much like a robot but made by people and "dumb" vehicles and weapons) and they need to handle whatever contingencies follow from engaging the enemy (e.g. interesting to see the allocation of a demining vehicle).

This is an example of adaptation rather than devolution. It's not clear though that they can  implement it well due to materiel and personnel issues. But clearly there is someone, somewhere with both brains and time to come up with ideas...

 

 

So why not just picket and bypass a hard point in a forest?  Cut it off and hammer with arty?  Why go through the very expensive action of clearing? And if you are, why do a frontal?

Assaults are normally conducted on long defensive lines (I.e, break in battle) based on these graphics the RA is planning to conduct these everywhere?

Biggest problem isn’t C2, it is Visibility. UA defenders are going to be able to see whatever this is from space, along with its logistics train.  12 flamethrowers going off are going to look like the Pink Floyd show on thermals.  With this sort of visibility, attacking where the enemy “is”, is not a good idea unless you have completely isolated them from their own support.  I mean this would work if it were plugged into a massive deep strike architecture - mass beats isolation.

I mean “ok”, a little frontal and attritional for my tastes - really light on armour, which is interesting.  But my first question was “where is the rest of it?”  To make this thing one is going to need a lot of formation level support and last I checked the Russkies were a little light on that.  Decentralization of guns is also kinda weird, but makes sense in a Russian context I guess?  I mean how do they swing indirect fire support?

It really looks like straight up firepower-centric warfare, which makes sense from a Russian point of view.  Biggest question of all “is it actually working”, and considering that we are still talking about the imminent fall of Bakhmut, I am betting “not enough”?

Edited February 26, 2023 by The_Capt

[DesertFox]

How much "elite" can a brigade still be, after it was reformed for the third time?

"The 155th brigade already had to be restaffed three times. The first time after Irpin and Bucha; the second time they were defeated near Donetsk. Now almost the entire brigade has already been destroyed near Vuhledar,"Colonel Dmytrashkovsky told Politico.

 

 

[kevinkin]

6 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I am finding this gentleman's tactical analysis to be a must read

Twelve flamethrowers; I guess if you are short on ammo just go online: https://throwflame.com/

"Assault Detachment", I would call them the flaming a-holes. 

Interesting read thanks. Might have to sandbox that formation for ****s and giggles. 

[Haiduk]

@sburke

Major Akeksey Mishyn, probably some logistic unit, was killed on 15th Jan

Major Viktor Shtern, some naval infantry unit, was killed on 9th of June

Major of FSB Alan Saitov, unit and data of death unknown, probably 24th of Feb 2023