How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

They are investing political capital and risk.  Seriously, what are they teaching these days.  China swinging support for Russia could very well cost them a lot in the end.  It might shake fence sitters to act (of which my own nation is member), it may create more unity and resolve in the west to actually stand up and do something.

Beyond that, they are risking dependence on all that cheap oil, which is all pointing westward right now, so the infrastructure bill is not going to be small to get it all going east...let's start with that.  Then say they get their hands on that sweet dino-juice and start to expand on that energy...it is still under the feet of a highly unstable nation with an epic insecurity complex.

I am not sure what they teach in university these days but the reality is that nothing is for free.  China is going to have to invest heavily in propping Russia up and it extends well beyond this war.  Frankly making Russia their problem is a great idea for the west but I am not sure it is going to stick.

Uh, I dunno...gas prices maybe.

 https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato

https://www.thestar.com/politics/2022/04/09/mackay-recalls-the-french-german-nato-no-to-ukraine-that-zelenskyy-denounced.html?rf

I am not dodging the question, I am supremely bored by it.  It is the same finger pointing and dithering that got us here in the first place.  You have just conducted one of those drive bys I was talking about earlier - "Here is what a poll said (no link or sources) and here is what I think, so there".  

Now as to dodging questions, why don't you answer this one: what possible proof do you have that Russia would have played by the rules and not invaded Ukraine, or anywhere in Eastern Europe for that matter?  What indication from going all the way back to 2008 did Russia give that would indicate they could be a trustworthy player in this game and would operate in good faith.

I call BS.  The Germans and French were not blocking Ukraine "for the peace of all mankind", they were worried about the fact they we literally neck deep in Russian energy dependency (there is that investment risk thing again) and were more likely worried about the impact pulling Ukraine into NATO would have on that, than any high handed morale "let's not start a war" nonsense.

(Did not age well, man did they read this one wrong - but numbers do not lie)  https://energytransition.org/2014/03/closer-look-at-german-energy-dependence-on-russia/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-eus-energy-dependency/

So if you want to do revisionist history and try and say "Germany and France opted for peace, and not gas, back in '08, and 14 and in pre-invasion 22" well over you to actually use an internet search engine and prove it.

We don't pay you to banter w the likes of Seminole.  Now get back to work!

[The_Capt]

Just now, danfrodo said:

We don't pay you to banter w the likes of Seminole.  Now get back to work!

S'ok, keep my loose for the real stuff when it comes a long.  I expect the balloon will go up soon, so we will have a lot to talk about then.

[Battlefront.com]

We have had the pro-Russian "it's all NATO's fault" argument since 2013.  It has been so thoroughly debunked, time and time again, that I really don't see any point in having us distracted by it any more than I want to have us debate the shape of the Earth or whether the sun revolves around the Earth.

Anybody that tries to distract us from discussing reality with this particular Russian talking point is going to get a 2 week vacation from here.  Hopefully that amount of time will be sufficient to read even one decent book on Russian history.  Because that's all it would take to understand that Russia's desire to dominate Ukraine existed a couple hundred years before NATO came into being.

Steve

[JonS]

37 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

Yesterday's announcement:

DOD Announces Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3334472/dod-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

 

 

A lot of engineering and log equipment there. We are well past "surviving" and are now deep into "sustaining" and moving into "advancing", in terms of capabilities being provided.

[DesertFox]

2 minutes ago, JonS said:

A lot of engineering and log equipment there. We are well past "surviving" and are now deep into "sustaining" and moving into "advancing", in terms of capabilities being provided.

Yep! Engineering stuff to breach obstacles. Thermals and Optics stuff. HIMARS and HARMs, etc. Very important.

 

 

[Haiduk]

18 hours ago, JonS said:

If, on the other hand, they drove between CP and the gun then all bets are off, but I think driving is unlikely given the radios being used – those small handhelds don’t have great ranges, especially in trees.

Commander used Motorola DP4400 or 4800. It has 5-7 km of range. This is most used radio in UKR army. 

[DesertFox]

 

 

[Haiduk]

9 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

Guys form Bakhmut write about completely other things - Russians in contray after some reducing of intensivity of assaults, in past day sharply increased number of assaults - as if they have thrown all available reserves to breakthrough defense. 

The dynamic of number of attacks for March (for all frontline), according to General Staff info

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Haiduk

[DesertFox]

3 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Guys form Bakhmut write about completely other things - Russians in contray after some reducing of intensivity of assaults, in past day sharply increased number of assaults - as if they have thrown all available reserves to breakthrough defense. 

The dynamic of number of attacks for March, according to General Staff info

 

Well the official @GeneralStaffUA account wont post bad news, will they? As usual grains of salt are necessary with official government accounts.

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Beyond that, they are risking dependence on all that cheap oil, which is all pointing westward right now, so the infrastructure bill is not going to be small to get it all going east...let's start with that.  Then say they get their hands on that sweet dino-juice and start to expand on that energy...it is still under the feet of a highly unstable nation with an epic insecurity complex.

On topic about what China's access to Russian resources... it's going to have access to them no matter what because Russia has pissed off most of its traditional customer base.  China could sit back and do NOTHING to help Russia and Russia would still sell it's resources cheap to anybody willing to pay for them.

Another thing that gets lost by people thinking there is an easy boon for China... as has been pointed out over and over and over again by people who understand how Russia's means of delivering its petroleum products., there is no low cost way for Russia to get stuff to China in bulk because of the difficult terrain.  That and it's current infrastructure is all aimed westward.  So if China is going to crank up the influx of oil products from Russia, someone will have to invest billions into infrastructure.  Based on Russia's deals with China back in 2014-2015 timeframe, China has insisted that Russia foot the bill.

And where Russia will get all the petroleum extraction equipment it needs to do all this is also unknown.  It pretty much outsourced that to Western companies that all pulled out of Russia.

Steve

[DesertFox]

In case you wonder why german government is behaving the way it does. Here might be a hint by FT. Grain of Salt necessary of course:

Quote

All this suggests two things. Germany’s vulnerability to economic corruption is systemic. And that is a security risk — not just to Europe, but to the western alliance. Germany needs a parliamentary commission of inquiry. It is time for a comprehensive reckoning.

A reckoning on Germany’s Russia policy is long overdue | Financial Times (ft.com)

[Haiduk]

@sburke

3rd rank captain (=major, retired) Dmitriy Akimov, former chief of chemical and nuclear safety on K-244 and other nuclear submarines of Northern Fleet. Retired in 2005. Was mobilized in October. Was killed in Luhansk oblast in March 2023

   

 

[Haiduk]

10 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Well the official @GeneralStaffUA account wont post bad news, will they?

Official news from official military sources during the war in any country is enough... official %) General Staff recognized lossing of Soledar since two weeks as it happened. And according to GS info we already downed half or Russian combat aviation %) So, I just take a note of their reports, but more eloquently about situation speak changes on DeepState map

[Seminole]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

I just…. Without addressing the rest of your post do you actually live in a world where Russia is justified in doing either of those things?  Like, really?  I’m honestly fascinated to know. 

No, 'justified' isn't the word I'd use.  

No more 'justified' than JFK would have been invading Cuba because of the perceived threat of Soviet weapons closer to our border.

But a decision by Khrushchev to not provoke an invasion by JFK was the better outcome, wasn't it?  Irrespective of how 'justified' one thinks JFK was in imposing a 'quarantine' on the high seas.

I'm still struck by how quickly the conventional wisdom about Russia's concerns regarding Ukraine and NATO went from editorials published by the likes of the Council on Foreign Relations to 'Putin propaganda', or some other dismissive descriptor, suggesting it was never real.  Do people think Ambassador (now CIA Director) Burns was just carrying water for Putin in the cable that Wikileaks leaked?

 

[Kinophile]

56 minutes ago, JonS said:

A lot of engineering and log equipment there. We are well past "surviving" and are now deep into "sustaining" and moving into "advancing", in terms of capabilities being provided.

Those BIG FAT fuel tankers too. 

 

[DesertFox]

Some thoughts on the chinese russian summit:

 

 

[JonS]

18 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Those BIG FAT fuel tankers too. 

 

That would be log equipment, yes

[danfrodo]

21 minutes ago, Seminole said:

No, 'justified' isn't the word I'd use.  

No more 'justified' than JFK would have been invading Cuba because of the perceived threat of Soviet weapons closer to our border.

But a decision by Khrushchev to not provoke an invasion by JFK was the better outcome, wasn't it?  Irrespective of how 'justified' one thinks JFK was in imposing a 'quarantine' on the high seas.

I'm still struck by how quickly the conventional wisdom about Russia's concerns regarding Ukraine and NATO went from editorials published by the likes of the Council on Foreign Relations to 'Putin propaganda', or some other dismissive descriptor, suggesting it was never real.  Do people think Ambassador (now CIA Director) Burns was just carrying water for Putin in the cable that Wikileaks leaked?

 

Talking about 'russia's concerns' is not the same thing as saying these are 'russia's righteous justifications' for invading other countries, or even for RU telling other countries what they can and can't do.  Russia has concerns that the US & EU exist outside of a global Russian empire.  That don't mean we gotta kneel to them.

Where's that block button? I haven't used it in a while but am feeling the need.

[danfrodo]

By the way, new Perun video excellent so far, I watched first half on lunch break today while riding my trusty steed (nordic track).  The best bit was when he showed the map of owned territory at Dec 1st vs now.  When shown at the scale of all of Ukraine you can't even tell where RU gained territory unless you have a magnifying glass and know exactly where to look.  Good for keeping perspective about the last 3 months of fighting.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Interesting article on Ukraine's UAV program.

_________

Mykhailo Fedorov, the 32-year-old deputy prime minister responsible for both Ukraine’s drone programme and its digital transformation, says the turning-point may be coming faster than people think. A number of changes are about to make a big impact, he says. The army has completed a big restructuring, establishing 60 new attack-drone squadrons, at least one in every brigade, with separate staff and commanders. This is the first reform of its kind anywhere in the world. Ukraine’s military doctrine has been updated to include (classified) guidelines on drone use. The defence ministry has created a new board to co-ordinate the work of drone producers. There has been a drive to deregulate: removing import and certification barriers. And this month is marked by the launch of a new military “cluster” venture designed to link Ukrainian military tech with international companies and capital.

A defence-industry insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirms that the army is due to gain “significant and high-tech capacity” in the coming weeks and months. That said, it will still struggle against the Russians, he cautions.

Only a few military systems can perform well. “The Russians are very, very good at what they do,” the industry source says. “They are performing black magic in electromagnetic defence. They can jam frequencies, spoof GPS, send a drone to the wrong altitude so that it simply drops out of the sky.” The threat from ground-based air defences means that Ukrainian reconnaissance drones struggle to see more than 15km behind Russian lines, says one expert with recent experience of observing drone operations.

At an early stage the Ukrainians appeared to pin hopes for controlling drones behind Russian lines on Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites, which work at frequencies and in numbers that Russian systems struggle to jam. A naval-drone attack on Russia’s Black Sea fleet in October reportedly made good use of this gap. But Mr Musk, apparently worried about the escalatory effect of such moves, has stepped in where Russian technology proved unable to. Starlink now uses geofencing to block the use of its terminals—not only above Russian-occupied territory inside Ukraine, but also, according to a Ukrainian military intelligence source, over water and when the receiver is moving at speeds above 100km per hour. “You put it on a boat at sea and it will simply stop working,” he says. So Ukraine’s drone developers now use a range of other, more expensive communication systems, with multiple systems often on the same vehicle. The success of the attack on February 28th in getting so close to Moscow suggests that Ukraine may be getting close to a solution that works.

_________

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/20/ukraine-is-betting-on-drones-to-strike-deep-into-russia

[DesertFox]

ROFL! Yeah I´m pretty sure the orcs on the ground will kinda react if they have the pleasure to meet a DU-APFSDS-T round knocking at their turret. But maybe PooTin means something else...

 

 

[chuckdyke]

Trenches are like killing zones in this war. Too long Imo.

 

[womble]

44 minutes ago, Seminole said:

I'm still struck by how quickly the conventional wisdom about Russia's concerns regarding Ukraine and NATO went from editorials published by the likes of the Council on Foreign Relations to 'Putin propaganda', or some other dismissive descriptor, suggesting it was never real.  Do people think Ambassador (now CIA Director) Burns was just carrying water for Putin in the cable that Wikileaks leaked?

 

Some people swallowed Russia's propaganda whole without thinking about the actual situation on the ground. There has never been any actual basis for Russian "fear of NATO". It's always been, y'know, Unthinkable that the West could achieve anything by attacking Russia, and Russia has always known this. The "Scary NATO neighbour" trope has always been two things:

Pimarily, it's a propaganda act for internal consumption. It wouldn't fly if there wasn't near total State control of the media, so that the actuality never reaches the ears of the populace.

Its secondary purpose is a fig leaf for Imperialist ambitions in its "near abroad". It's a crummy excuse tailored for people who don't get that the tree of freedom sometimes needs some watering with the blood of freedom fighters to blurt out and assuage their lack of conviction.

Even the Internet doesn't change that dynamic, because the Russians read what's on the Internet through a filter of the propaganda they get fed. The older generation was brainwashed by the Soviet totalitarian state, then there was a Wild West period of what? a decade? when free media had a chance to get their feet under them but the State media was still peddling the xenophobia, and since Putin got his stranglehold on power, that potential for presenting countervailing opinion has been smothered. There is a new generation of Russian kids newly come, or coming to adulthood who haven't experienced anything but an autocrat's echo chamber.

[FancyCat]

3 hours ago, Seminole said:

Russia sought a UN registered treaty to turn Ukraine into a neutral akin to Cold War Austria.  We told'em to pound sand, so they pounded Ukraine instead.

Hoo boy, in December 2021, not only did Russia sought to turn Ukraine neutral, they drafted a treaty that:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/12/21/russias-draft-agreements-with-nato-and-the-united-states-intended-for-rejection/

1. No NATO membership for Ukraine. So indeed you are correct, a legal binding treaty "designed to protect Russia"

But guess what, let's look at the rest of the draft treaty you assert the West, NATO, Biden and etc chose to ignore instead of "peace".

2. Withdrawal of NATO forces from points 1997 onwards. As the link shows, this was agreed and obeyed by NATO until the occupation of Crimea. So tough luck Putin, and certainly Seminole you should lay out why NATO should agree to a concession to Russia for invading her neighbors.

As Brookings points out, where's the safety mechanisms for the Baltics, Poland from aggressive Russian deployments on their borders?

So no, the draft Russian treaties were not merely to turn Ukraine neutral, they are designed to handicap the defense of Eastern European NATO states and impose a new security order at the expense of Eastern Europe. Do explain what is reasonable about this.

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Seminole said:

I'm still struck by how quickly the conventional wisdom about Russia's concerns regarding Ukraine and NATO went from editorials published by the likes of the Council on Foreign Relations to 'Putin propaganda', or some other dismissive descriptor, suggesting it was never real.  Do people think Ambassador (now CIA Director) Burns was just carrying water for Putin in the cable that Wikileaks leaked?

This is why I'm going to ban you if you keep it up.  You have such a fundamental flawed understanding of this topic it's so tempting to respond to it.  Again.  For the 100th time. 

Russia is an imperialist and aggressive state.  Nobody would feel the need to join NATO if it weren't the case.  If Russia feels threatened by its victims seeking protection from genocide, boo-hoo for Putin.

To Seminole... you are dangerously close to troll status.  You have consistently demonstrated that your primary purpose here is to disrupt the discussion here.  No doubt because you think you're right and everybody else is wrong, but I have had enough of this.  I am giving you your final warning.  Next time you do a drive-by bomb toss I'm probably just going to ban you completely.  Your track record here with pro-Russian whataboutisms is that bad.

To the rest of you... DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.  We know he's wrong because we've had this discussion so many times already.  We also know, based on his previous derailments, not interested in engaging in a real debate.  So please don't respond to him any more.

Steve