How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

I think, counter-attack of UKR forces north from Bakhut was pure fantasy.

Yesterday evening "Madyar": "We have a lack of mortar bombs of all calibers from 60 to 120 mm, we have a lack of RPG-type weapon"

Morning news from one soldier from Bakhmut - "It became worse"

Morning Mashovets: "Looks like we will be forced to withdraw from Bakhmut"

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Haiduk

[Bulletpoint]

4 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I think, counter-attack of UKR forces north from Bakhut was pure fantasy.

Yesterday evening "Madyar": "We have a lack of mortar bombs of all calibers from 60 to 120 mm, we have a lack of RPG-type weapon"

Morning news from one soldier from Bakhmut - "It became worse"

Morning Mashovets: "Looks like we will be forced to withdraw from Bakhmut"

 

Yes, I thought it was odd when I read about an alleged UKR counterattack but there was nothing on the Deepstate map. Looks like it's the Russians who are currently breaking through west of Yahidne.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I had the same feeling about the raid itself.  They either had some reason to suspect the Wagnerites weren't armed all that heavily or they decided to make an extremely risky raid.  Given how poorly Wagner equips its cannon fodder, if UA determined this was a prisoner/mobik unit then they might have made some assumptions.

Actually, given that Wagner's favourite Sturmtrupp tactic is a raid by 4-8 man groups attacking from different directions under cover of equally small fire support elements armed with RPOs, AGS and machine guns, it stands to reason they will not have a robust AT armament with them. They cannot be simultaneously optimised for everything.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

4 hours ago, GAZ NZ said:

My auntie who was teaching English  in one of the African states for one of the big multi national companies prior to covid said the ports were completely run by the Russians and it was very corrupt

African state...port run by a Russian company...very corrupt. Yes, I imagine it would be.

[LongLeftFlank]

On 2/27/2023 at 8:01 AM, sburke said:

Russia stares into population abyss as Putin sends its young men to die (yahoo.com)

(I searched back a dozen pages to see if this was previously posted).

I love these kinds of infographics: rather than land area, each square is 15,000 Russian citizens. So the vast oblasts of Siberia show here as tiny, while metro Moscow and StP.....

For comparison (from Galeev), population growth in these oblasts... red means aging/ emigrating/ not breeding. Notice Ukraine also has a demographic problem....

****

1. So let's set aside the obvious item about Putin sending (rural) non-Slavs to die while sparing his metropolitan core base. Entirely true, but they haven't rebelled yet.

2. The above map shows 15,000 identified KIA. Actual KIA are thought to run about 10x. Let's assume regional distribution about the same (if the ID'ed are mainly officers, that may undercount non-Slavic areas). We also need to ignore non-Russians (conscripted Tajiks, Syrians).

3. So in the high casualty 'red' zones, that's 200-500 KIA out of 50,000 males (half). So up to 1% of all males in each oblast have been killed in the last year, with an additional c.2% disabled physically or mentally.

4.  Military aged males (say, age 18 - 52) are (eyeballing), about half that 50,000? keeping in mind that this is an all-Russia dataset.

5. So in the 'red' areas, that's up to 500 x 3 per 25,000 = 6%. In other words, about 1 male in every 20 in their economically productive/family years is effectively lost to the Rodina.

At 1 in 20, pretty much everyone in the red oblasts personally knows/of somebody in this group. 

Not a tipping point yet, as I'd guess everyone in these oblasts also knows of a man who has died/is nonfunctional from alcohol related causes. Also, some (20-40k?) of the dead are convicts, whom relatively few will miss.

6.  But once KIAs hit 300,000 (x 3 = 10-12%), pretty much everyone in these areas has lost someone dear to them. Do they rebel then?

Probably not, but at that point I suspect nobody is buying the cheery Great Russia Ultimate Victory line, or putting Z stickers on their cars.

(Yes, this math is crude. Have at it)

Edited February 28, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Bulletpoint]

42 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

 

 

It does seem like they started out with a decent surplus of young men though, so maybe this just balances the demographics.

I think I once read there's a theory that says if there are many more young men than young women, then that's a recipe for war.

[LongLeftFlank]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It does seem like they started out with a decent surplus of young men though

Hmm, where do you see that in this dataset?

...Unless 40 somethings are 'young' to you?

[TheVulture]

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Hmm, where do you see that in this dataset?

...Unless 40 somethings are 'young' to you?

In the 0-36 age range there is an excess of male over female in every age group, which I think is what Bulletpoint is referring to, not that there are more young people than older ones (which is obviously not the case). The common belief about a surplus of young men causing wars is about there being not enough women for all the men to have a partner, which supposedly causes social tension and is though to lead to more wars.

It's certainly a commonly believed bit of folk wisdom, although I don't know if there is strong evidence behind it. It might be just one of those things that 'everyone knows' that turns out not to be true.

[LongLeftFlank]

6 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

In the 0-36 age range there is an excess of male over female in every age group, which I think is what Bulletpoint is referring to, not that there are more young people than older ones (which is obviously not the case). The common belief about a surplus of young men causing wars is about there being not enough women for all the men to have a partner, which supposedly causes social tension and is though to lead to more wars.

It's certainly a commonly believed bit of folk wisdom, although I don't know if there is strong evidence behind it. It might be just one of those things that 'everyone knows' that turns out not to be true.

OK, yes, homo sapiens tends to breed about 102 boy babies per 100 girl babies.

But come on, nobody can seriously look at that curve and see ample surplus male human material for human wave assaults, sorry. This is a red herring (or blue herring lol).

Now THIS curve might argue that case. It's Syria, but probably reflects other poorer Muslim areas like Dagestan and Chechnya. And that's how Russia used to look.

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Butschi]

5 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

OK, yes, homo sapiens tends to breed about 102 boy babies per 100 girl babies.

But come on, nobody can seriously look at that curve and see ample surplus male human material for human wave assaults, sorry. This is a red herring (or blue herring lol).

He's right though, the surplus is marked on there plot and if you sum it up you will get several 100,000s aged 20-30, I think. It also looks like a bit more than the natural birth rate surplus. Chi-by-eye, though.

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

He's right though, the surplus is marked on there plot and if you sum it up you will get several 100,000s aged 20-30, I think. It also looks like a bit more than the natural birth rate surplus. Chi-by-eye, though.

OK, so by that logic China where the one child policy led to huge numbers of aborted girls and a huge surplus of men should be the angriest horniest country on earth.

OK, I think I'm done with this line of discussion.

[Butschi]

6 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

OK, so by that logic China where the one child policy led to huge numbers of aborted girls and a huge surplus of men should be the angriest horniest country on earth.

OK, I think I'm done with this line of discussion.

I only referred to the surplus. What you make of it is a different matter.

[Bulletpoint]

22 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But come on, nobody can seriously look at that curve and see ample surplus male human material for human wave assaults, sorry. This is a red herring (or blue herring lol).

I think the real red herring is thinking that the actual battlefield losses, bad as they are, will cause Russian population collapse. As the article also mentions, Russia's population has been declining and getting older for a very long time now.

As long as there's a surplus of young men in a country, removing some of them only changes who will get to have children, not how many offspring the population will get in total. That's influenced by a lot of other factors.

[Offshoot]

2 hours ago, Peregrine said:

My trip to Hobbiton is sounding a bit shaky. Sounds like they have an Orc problem too.

You'll be fine. I'm not far from Hobbiton and there are no orcs to report. I think someone has been looking in a palantir too long.

[billbindc]

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Back last year I was also concerned that Crimea could be a Russian “red-line” and the threat of losing it could lead to WMD escalation.  That 10km corridor is where it would likely happen.

But I am at the point where I think the Russian “red-line” is further back, likely Russian home soil itself.  My reasoning is that if Putin had the backing and internal justification for WMD release, he would have done it by now.  Russia has not demonstrated a lot of restraint in breaking LOAC so why have we not seen the use of chemical weapons in the attacks in the Donbas?  These were sold as make-or-break assaults and if Putin’s back is up against the wall here (and he could get away with it) we likely would have seen WMD use this winter.  We did not.

So this does not mean Russia will never use them but clearly the calculus has to be far more stark.  I also suspect Putin’s is concerned about western escalation and possible Chinese pressure in the event Russia goes this way. The WMD line clearly has a high bar in the Russia thinking.  Further if Crimea is choked out and simply folds like Kherson did, WMDs are likely not going to save them but could seriously unite the west further - even the most rabid pro-Russian shills are going to have a tough time of it if Putin’s goes in this direction.

I do agree that Russian redlines are not as close to likely possibilities as is often imagined but at the same time I think we should be wary of assuming they are set in stone. Russia losing Crimea in a maneuver battle might very possibly change the current calculus (reportedly from Putin himself) that nuclear weapons aren't worth because such a loss has existential meaning for the regime itself. That is why choking out the Crimea is such an attractive scenario. It's more efficient for Ukrainian resources, it very likely strains Russian logistics to the breaking point and it creates enormous dilemmas for Kremlin planners. Escalating to WMD in that scenario would simply exacerbate Russian problem. 

In short, we broadly agree.

[Kinophile]

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2023/02/27/western-artillery-is-light-years-better/

Scroll almost 2/3rds Down, he indicates 10 mins for fires support first shot time on target (correct phrase?). 

Seems long,  Esp compared to CMBS with its wizardlike 1min impact times for 155....? 

[Haiduk]

22 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2023/02/27/western-artillery-is-light-years-better/

Scroll almost 2/3rds Down, he indicates 10 mins for fires support first shot time on target (correct phrase?). 

Seems long,  Esp compared to CMBS with its wizardlike 1min impact times for 155....? 

All depends from level of support, communication capabilities, tasks priority etc. Also this guy says he transmitted data via phone. In theory, if unit has direct communication with artillery via PDA with Kropyva/Delta soft, ETA can be 1 min. And this situation also known. Of course, this is in emergency situationons, but it's possible.  

Edited February 28, 2023 by Haiduk

[billbindc]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

ISW's report has two points up top that we've been discussing here over the past couple of days:

Interestingly, ISW does not speculate as to the motivation behind Russia switching from a message of confidence in victory to attempting to convince Russians they are on the edge of annihilation.  I've said it already, but I will repeat it... things are much worse within Russia than it appears to us.  I'll elaborate.

Put has consistently lied to Russians as to how the war is going, saying everything is going fine when the exact opposite is true.  Now he is telling the Russians that this war could be the end of Russia as a nation state and as a culture.  The obvious motivation to switch the primary message (or emphasis, because he has hinted at this in the past) is to get the people so fearful that they will both sign up to fight and stay compliant for the sake of everything that is Russian.  Basically, he's going all Götterdämmerung.

This is very much a move of desperation IMHO.  Confidence that he can keep hoodwinking Russians about how things are (militarily, politically, and economically) seems to be very low, otherwise he'd keep the happy face message.  And if this strategy fails, what does he have left?  Nothing.  Which is why I think he's avoided this sort of thing until now.

In short... I think this is a very good thing to be seeing ahead of this...

Putin does appear to be, in part, preparing Russia for something really bad coming in a few months.  Loss of territory, more strikes on the homeland, lots of dead, more embarrassment in the skies, ships sunk... whatever the case might be, it appears Ukraine is preparing to do something big and Putin is concerned they could pull off enough of it to make the current happy face lies fail miserably.

Steve

This is what I was talking about above in regard to tells. Putin is already selling the apres moi, les deluge line to the Russian people. When he starts pushing that through Orban and Xi, start watching who does or doesn't show up on Russian media.

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, JonS said:

I mean ... is that really false framing? It probably was in the second half of Feb 2022, but now? Given how poorly things have gone, it's probably not unreasonable to see "Russia’s war in Ukraine as existential to the continued existence of the Russian Federation" now.

 

Yup, totally agree.  What I meant about "false framing" is that nobody in the West is deliberately seeking to break Russia up into pieces and dominate them like colonies with the intent of wiping all Russian cultural heritage (even the good bits) out of existence.  This is what Putin is trying to sell to the people.  This is false.  In fact, the West would much rather have Russia remain intact, just not with an autocratic expansionist government.  The West also has zero interest in wiping out Russian language and culture, previous mentioned violent bastard qualities excepted.

Steve

[danfrodo]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, like a U-joint on a drive shaft shattering while driving

Oh, you too, huh?  That happened on my old jeep once back in the day.  Easy to repair at least, once I got it home.  Recovery & logistics systems were in place so didn't have to abandon it to the russians.

[Harmon Rabb]

Why is it when I saw this guys name trend on Twitter today I knew it would be for something like this. Looks like praising Putin is the only way this has been can get his name in the news these days.

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Why is it when I saw this guys name trend on Twitter today I knew it would be for something like this. Looks like praising Putin is the only way this has been can get his name in the news these days.

Putin's trying hard to pass that thing across table w/o seagal breathing on him, totally freaked because seagal is leaning in.  I think he's holding his breath.

[Battlefront.com]

It is true, I think, that an excess of young males over females is considered a historically bad thing.  Whether it be nationally or in one's own home   And historically I think there is merit to the argument that excess males influences a tribe or state to become expansionist.  Especially in the days of hunter gatherers and feudal Europe.  Unhappy young males who aren't getting laid or having the means for upward mobility absolutely were major pressures.

This is not generally applicable to complex modern states, but I think in some environments it can still be an issue (especially when states are at their core tribal).  However, it's irrelevant to Russia.  Putin is waging war on Ukraine for reasons of pure power, though demographics does come into play because...

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think the real red herring is thinking that the actual battlefield losses, bad as they are, will cause Russian population collapse. As the article also mentions, Russia's population has been declining and getting older for a very long time now.

Putin's government has acknowledged this and determined it is a threat to national security, therefore the state has attempted to change the equation by incentivizing increased births through bribery.  What he has not done is try to make young Russians hopeful about the future, which understandably is a big part of the decision to have children.  In fact, you hear from ex-pat Russians that they explicitly removed their young children from Russia in order for them to grow up in a better environment.

Taking over Ukraine was no doubt a part of Putin's strategy to increase the white, Christian population within Russia.  The blatant kidnapping of Ukrainian children proves this.  Therefore, it is also probable that he has deliberately targeted the fast growing non-white, potentially non-Christian areas of Russia for disproportional sacrifice on the battlefield.  However, this is not about excess males.  If Putin could I am sure he would like to reduce the male population well below that of female.

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

As long as there's a surplus of young men in a country, removing some of them only changes who will get to have children, not how many offspring the population will get in total. That's influenced by a lot of other factors.

No, it changes way more than that.  Those surplus young men are more likely to serve in Russia's crappy military environment.  Removing them means he now has to incentivize family orientated men to become long term contractors.  This requires things like adequate base housing and services for children, something the Russians have been loath to do because it's expensive.  Therefore, reducing single males with nothing better to do with their lives than sign up for the Russian military is not a good thing.

Aside from that, there is the problem of Russia's aging workforce.  Those surplus males are needed to keep Russia's economy growing, or at least declining slower.  Removing them from the workforce is a bad idea.

Finally, I doubt Putin is thinking about the additional negatives that come from large numbers of mentally and/or physically traumatized males left on their own to sort things out.  Especially if they connect the dots to realize that the government is directly responsible for their trauma through incompetence and poor leadership.  PTSD is a serious problem even under the most optimal circumstances, and there's nothing optimal about this in Russia.

Steve

 

[kevinkin]

Breaking:

https://www.barrons.com/news/drone-crashes-near-moscow-civilian-infrastructure-likely-targeted-governor-a0d61277

Going for the jugular?

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-attacks-drones-e02372ef4b84fc3b4cf6afe8ed141a77

[Lethaface]

On 2/25/2023 at 4:18 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

Then the Anglosphere (US-Canada-Britain) sponsors a new 'Amber Alliance*' taking in Norway + Sweden + Finland + Baltics + Poland + Ukraine... keeping a seat warm for a free Belarus.

Pass the pickled herring....

* IIRC, amber was a key commodity traded down the Dnipr, from Neolithic times. @Beleg85?

 

Although I sort of fully agree on your China position, I don't know who has been passing around the 'koolaid' that central/south/west and parts of east Europe are married with China or Russia and will tear up their family/most important long term allies (EU/NATO). For what exactly?

Not that I even know what Koolaid tastes like so I might be missing something ;-).