How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

Putin's peace proposal trial balloon via what is normally a TV lunatic:  F that, it's so absurd.  There is nothing for UKR to agree to even if they wanted to, which they don't.  Putin will agree to pay and never pay, or try to pay w worthless rubles his treasury prints up for just this purpose.  He certainly can't come up with hundreds of billions of $.  His economy is a wreck and he's lost much of RU's economically vibrant workers.  He could promise 10 years of free oil but he'd never deliver.  What could UKR do if he made a deal and didn't deliver?  NOTHING -- outside of starting a new war.  To summarize, this is ridiculous.

Edited March 27, 2023 by danfrodo

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, akd said:

 

 

That is the biggest attack in a long time that I've seen footage of.

For sure they had 1x mine clearing tank, 2x supporting tanks, 1x BMP, and 1x something else (too obscured by smoke to tell).  Mine clearer was hit by ATMG and aside from the infantry hit by the bombers at the beginning there looks to be at least one casualty next to the BMP.  Judging by the amount of smoke they've popped and putting out from the engines... they figured the attack isn't going well.

In the first two scenes there's a large number of AT mines on top of the ground.  Hastily deployed by Ukraine or are the Russians in the midst of trying to bury them?

I think the first two parts of the video show how useful those 6 and 8 bomb bombers could be.  At two drops per drone there's not much that can be done against a larger attack, but a couple of drones armed with 6 or 8 bombs... that has the potential to stop a company sized attack.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

40 minutes ago, Huba said:

If we, as the collective West are up to supporting Ukraine till it achieves all it's military goals, then I absolutely agree we should, and this is would be the best outcome of the situation I could imagine. But if we're. not up to it, and the peace will be forced upon Ukrainians at some point (perhaps autumn 2023)l, Simoyan's initial terms sound not that bad, despite it's XIX century reasoning.

I agree that Simoyan's concept is the most practical, least insane idea to come out of Russia's propaganda outlets so far.  However, that's not saying much since the bar is set so low.

The primary problem with Russia settling this war is that I don't see any way it will happen without Russia a) admitting it started the war without provocation, b) handing over various war criminals (from lowly soldiers to high ranking officials), and c) paying trillions of USD in reparations.  Note I didn't even mention territory or future security guarrantees for Ukraine.  Why bother when there's mandatory conditions which Russia will never agree to?

I just watched the History of the World Part 2 on Hulu.  It was so-so, but there was some good stuff.  One of the skits portrayed the Oslo Accords being settled with everybody agreeing to all the difficult stuff.  They are about to sign when it is suggested that they have one last thing to do... agree on who invented hummus.  This then led to heated arguments and the whole deal was about to fall apart when the facilitator said he was just kidding.

The relevance here is that all parties can get down and agree to do a hundred different complex and difficult things, but unless Russia owns up to what it has done, I don't see anything comprehensive and long term getting signed.

At best we might arrive at some sort of ceasefire which then drags out until something else comes around, similar to Minsk II.  Nobody wants that, not even the Russians.

This is why Ukraine has to deliver a pretty damned good blow this year.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

9 hours ago, akd said:

 

 

Big oof on the tank firing the main gun over his own infantry. They cannot have enjoyed that.

[Fenris]

I was thinking this last week with the various trench actions that had been uploaded.  I've heard/read gas weapons can be particularly difficult to manage so not sure if ideal for the close in stuff posted recently.

 

[kevinkin]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The primary problem with Russia settling this war is that I don't see any way it will happen without Russia a) admitting it started the war without provocation, b) handing over various war criminals (from lowly soldiers to high ranking officials), and c) paying trillions of USD in reparations.  Note I didn't even mention territory or future security guarrantees for Ukraine.  Why bother when there's mandatory conditions which Russia will never agree to?

I agree which produces a touchy situation when a state with WMD does not know it's been defeated and can't afford to admit it for various reasons. So even if they gave up everything gained and stopped the intense combat with their tail between their legs, the "war" will go on indefinitely. Enter Russia proper and those tac nukes might not be so hypothetical. But as long as Ukraine can start to rebuild under a restless "ceasefire", that maybe all that can be done for now. A big blow this campaigning season should hasten this state of affairs. But the Xi visit might be just enough cover for the Russian elites. The rest of the population has no need to rise up since China sort of has their backs. A lifeline just strong enough to keep Russia afloat and used as marionet strings. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by kevinkin

[Kinophile]

9 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Personally I was unimpressed with that article. It's an intel officers view, but it's limited by his prior experience and personal biases (aren't all opinions, including mine). 

But he really gives Putin the benefit of the doubt. He fails to note how much Putin has backed himself in a maximallist corner, politically, and how much capital has been invested not just in the situation as-is but going forward.  He seems to view Putin's international behaviour separate from his domestic situation and internal power balancing.  On here we've often noted how so many of Putin's actions are internationally counter-productive yet maje sense domestically. 

This paragraph sums up the authors stumbling blocks, for me:

1. We're way past the point of Putin accepting any sort of blame,  guilt,  responsibility,  etc,  either personally or as "Russia". Putin has made Concessions for Peace not just anathema or even heresy,  they're worse -  a threat to his legitimacy. 

2. He's been risking that since 3 days in and hasn't budged an imperial inch. 

Also, UKR opinion and the trauma of the society seems irrelevant to this guy.  Not even a radar blip. Which begs the question,  does he really have a clue a out how Ukraine would negotiate? Because it sure as hell won't be done Mano e Mano  between Zelensky and Putin. 

Zelensky can only negotiate with Putin from a position of MAXIMUM Strength, not just from a weakened Russian Army. 

Nothing half-done wil do. The ZSU's Summer Offensive (I'm doubtful of a prong one) must either reconconquer the Donbass OR Crimea OR crush the AFRF to a point where the loss of either/both Ext year is blatantly inevitable. 

Anything less than an unbeatable ZSU overmatch in capablities, capacity and momentum will only invite Putin to "stay the course" and "outlast the West".  His own danger must be imminent and unavoidable for him to show any flexibility. 

Im on the same page as ISW, always a good place to be.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-26-2023

"A negotiated settlement may therefore be unattainable because Putin will not accept the reality that he cannot actually conquer Ukraine".

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

I agree which produces a touchy situation when a state with WMD does not know it's been defeated and can't afford to admit it for various reasons. So even if they gave up everything gained and stopped the intense combat with their tail between their legs, the "war" will go on indefinitely. Enter Russia proper and those tac nukes might not be so hypothetical.

I can't envision is any scenario where Putin or his successor admits that the whole thing was Russia's fault and that they should pay damages for it.  What I can envision is a scenario where Russia says "OK, we cry uncle.  Let's stop the fighting without preconditions and figure things out at a later date".  Ukraine will likely reject such an offer unless the military situation for it is dire.  Russia dropping some tac nukes falls under that category, as unlikely as I think that might be.

Ukraine is not stupid.  A frozen conflict, where Russia doesn't own this whole mess, is not a long term solution to the underlying problem.  Having NATO take Ukraine under its wing and the West help rebuild the unoccupied areas might change that equation.

2 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

But as long as Ukraine can start to rebuild under a restless "ceasefire", that maybe all that can be done for now. iA big blow this campaigning season should hasten this state of affairs. But the Xi visit might be just enough cover for the Russian elites. The rest of the population has no need to rise up since China sort of has their backs. 

For now, maybe.  Again, it really depends on what Ukraine is able to do this campaign season.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Here's a loss for Russia that is a gain for the rest of the world... Dmitry Mikhailovich Lisitsky, one of the butchers of Ilovaisk, just got himself killed in Ukraine:

https://topcargo200.com/701/

Steve

[Kinophile]

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's a loss for Russia that is a gain for the rest of the world... Dmitry Mikhailovich Lisitsky, one of the butchers of Ilovaisk, just got himself killed in Ukraine:

https://topcargo200.com/701/

Steve

That's a good site. Man, the War Criminals part is hard to go through. 

[chuckdyke]

Drone Drop Of The Day.

 

 

[kevinkin]

Someone tries to explain a recent curiosity:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nicholas-goldberg-democrats-flip-red-republicans-flip-blue-on-one-major-issue-is-it-permanent/ar-AA197EKM

But does not get too far unless it's a simple as:

“The pendulum is swinging, but I’m not sure we have clarity on how far it’s swinging or exactly in what direction,” said Andrew Bacevich, chairman of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Bacevich’s position is that there’s not that much difference between the parties in any case. He argues that the party in power — whichever it is — tends to emphasize the importance of strong American leadership and the minority party generally shows more sensitivity to risks, costs and tradeoffs.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, doubts we're seeing a true realignment. He argues that plenty of progressive Democrats are unenthusiastic about our involvement in Ukraine. And while it’s true that GOP voters are growing more skeptical of a muscular foreign policy, he’s not sure it’ll last.

That may be true under normal situations. But with a war going on killing so many, and in the news every day, who ever controlled the US executive branch (i.e. armed forces and foreign policy) would have to step up and support Ukraine. Any flip has to be interpreted in light of the current extraordinary circumstances. The party out of the executive, will always question the administration on every issue. Even if they can hardly do so with a straight face. If this were not a blood curdling war, the difference between parties would be greater, but where they fall still depends on who holds executive power. 

 

[The_Capt]

17 hours ago, Huba said:

The Orange One says that if elected president, he would end the war in Ukrainein 24h, but apparently by” ending” he means „winning”.  He still scares the Bejezus out of me.

 

Pro:  At least we seem to be agreeing that Russian defeat is the strategic objective.  And we have the escalation advantage here.

Con.  Beyond the somewhat challenging scenario in manufacturing Chinese attribution for airstrikes in the Russian west, blabbing the plan all over Texas is sub-optimal.

[The_Capt]

On 3/26/2023 at 8:59 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting OpEd from a very accomplished CIA officer. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3916787-friendship-means-telling-hard-truths-about-the-endgame-in-ukraine/

The short take on it is to advise Zelensky that he should negotiate concessions on the Donbas and Crimea so that the war can end ASAP.  Reason being that from this guy's perspective there's little chance Ukraine can take back those territories on its own and that the US' willingness to keep Ukraine supplied indefinitely is unrealistic.

Note that this guy is also making the case that defending Ukraine is a vital US interest.  In fact, that's why he is making this argument.  Negotiate while in a position of strength, so to speak.  He even advocates for Ukraine to be brought into NATO in some way that contractually obligates defending Ukraine in the event of another Russian attack.  That's not really a bad outcome for Ukraine, especially if Donbas and Crimea are outside of its reach (not to mention several of us here argue it could weaken Ukraine long term even if taken bloodlessly).

Aside from the probability that Putin isn't showing any signs of wanting to negotiate, we really don't know how much Ukraine can do militarily this year.  This is why I am thinking that Ukraine either has to do something spectacular this year or it will have to either go back to a frozen conflict mentality or it will have to negotiate.  I still lean towards thinking Ukraine will do something spectacular, but I have to concede it might not be possible this year.

Steve

1.  The author is an intel guy, which should make one’s skin crawl a bit, and these guys have a somewhat “different” view of the world at some pretty fundamental levels.

2. He is not wrong, but he is also not right either.  Military the question on the table is one of culmination.  Has the UA culminated?  Has the RA culminated.  These are the driving factors of the ongoing negotiation space of this war.  

3.  Unlike the environment this guy has been operating for his entire career, military power is dominant within context of this conflict.  So somewhat slimy back door “good enough” deals are not how the game is played.  Things are more stark than that.  All war is personal on a massive scale and this one is very personal to both Ukrainians and Russians.  So half measures are getting harder and harder to  pitch.

4.  There will need to be a hard “friendship” conversation in the future but it is not the right time.  Why?  Because if it happened now both sides would be left with wondering “what if” which will lead directly to the next war, one way or the other.  A clearer end state likely needs to be established.  It is obvious that the UA is not done yet.  The list of equipment being pulled in is looking very offensive-y (assault engineering).  So they are looking to keep going.

5.  Russia is still getting weaker not stronger, Ukraine is going the other way.  The argument that “Ukraine is as strong as it is going to get” does not track.  Until the UA and western support culminates the actual negotiation strength remains in the wind. 

6.  The only thing about this guy’s narrative that makes sense and he does not say is to try and engineer are soft defeat for Russia in order to avoid worse.  Again, I am not sure we are there yet - Russian infamous resilience may work for us on that one - or that it may not even be possible given the political situation.

7.  The hard friendship discussion will center around Donbas I suspect, maybe Crimea.  But it will happen after culmination, not before it.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by The_Capt

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

Someone tries to explain a recent curiosity:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nicholas-goldberg-democrats-flip-red-republicans-flip-blue-on-one-major-issue-is-it-permanent/ar-AA197EKM

But does not get too far unless it's a simple as:

“The pendulum is swinging, but I’m not sure we have clarity on how far it’s swinging or exactly in what direction,” said Andrew Bacevich, chairman of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Bacevich’s position is that there’s not that much difference between the parties in any case. He argues that the party in power — whichever it is — tends to emphasize the importance of strong American leadership and the minority party generally shows more sensitivity to risks, costs and tradeoffs.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, doubts we're seeing a true realignment. He argues that plenty of progressive Democrats are unenthusiastic about our involvement in Ukraine. And while it’s true that GOP voters are growing more skeptical of a muscular foreign policy, he’s not sure it’ll last.

That may be true under normal situations. But with a war going on killing so many, and in the news every day, who ever controlled the US executive branch (i.e. armed forces and foreign policy) would have to step up and support Ukraine. Any flip has to be interpreted in light of the current extraordinary circumstances. The party out of the executive, will always question the administration on every issue. Even if they can hardly do so with a straight face. If this were not a blood curdling war, the difference between parties would be greater, but where they fall still depends on who holds executive power. 

 

With all due respect to Haass...he clearly isn't talking to a lot of progressive Democrats if he thinks they are unenthusiastic about supporting Ukraine. And in general, the analysis is bad as it treats the issue in political terms as zero sum...in other words, that what Democrats/Republicans will necessarily feel about an issue is only in relation to what their partisan opponents do. That's an understandable take given our recent polarization but simply wrong.

Outside of the extremists, most voter have particular cultural/political/self interested reasons for leaning a particular way. Many Republicans are strongly committed to American hegemony. That Russia is self evidently challenging it leads them to be sympathetic to countering Putin. Many Democrats are strongly committed to what they see as a values based foreign policy. An unprovoked invasion, Bucha and all the rest have cemented their support for the war. And underlying virtually all of mainstream American political thinking on foreign policy is the experience of the 1930's and 40's. Quite literally 75% of Americans think we are doing enough or not enough to help Ukraine, Less than a quarter think too much. 

[billbindc]

46 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Pro:  At least we seem to be agreeing that Russian defeat is the strategic objective.  And we have the escalation advantage here.

Con.  Beyond the somewhat challenging scenario in manufacturing Chinese attribution for airstrikes in the Russian west, blabbing the plan all over Texas is sub-optimal.

Make no mistake...Trump will end support for Ukraine and NATO the minute returns to the White House...God forbid.

[cesmonkey]

11 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Make no mistake...Trump will end support for Ukraine and NATO the minute returns to the White House...God forbid.

I disagree. NOBODY can predict what Trump would do w.r.t. to Ukraine if he would return to the White House.

[danfrodo]

15 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I disagree. NOBODY can predict what Trump would do w.r.t. to Ukraine if he would return to the White House.

I think it's very clear that under Trump the support would stay the same.  It would just go to the other side in the conflict.

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Make no mistake...Trump will end support for Ukraine and NATO the minute returns to the White House...God forbid.

I agree with Bill.

13 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I disagree. NOBODY can predict what Trump would do w.r.t. to Ukraine if he would return to the White House.

But even if cesmonkey is correct, admitting that Trump's Ukraine policy is completely unknowable, because he makes it up all over again after breakfast every day, is not exactly an endorsement of his candidacy. 

[Battlefront.com]

23 minutes ago, billbindc said:

With all due respect to Haass...he clearly isn't talking to a lot of progressive Democrats if he thinks they are unenthusiastic about supporting Ukraine.

For sure.  The ones I know of personally, the ones who put Black Lives Matter support signs on their lawns and fly Rainbow flags despite being outnumbered 3:1 by conservative neighbors, also fly Ukrainian flags.  In fact, I have met absolutely nobody on that side of the spectrum that thinks the US should be doing less to support Ukraine.  Not a single one.  Yet I'm pretty sure 100% of them were against the Iraq War and dragging out Afghanistan.  And don't even get the over 60 group talking about Vietnam

As for all the right leaning people I know, the majority believe we are doing the right thing in Ukraine, even if they can't resist throwing a bomb or two in Biden's direction.  However, the more they buy into MAGA, Q-Anon, Infowars, etc. the less likely they are to support Ukraine because they are severely misinformed by people making money off of misinforming them.  Which can be said about a wide range of topics.  The most reasonable line of opposition against supporting Ukraine is that we should be 100% focused on China because our great nation can apparently either chew gum or walk, not both at the same time.

Again, this is speaking from my own personal experiences with actual Human beings that I interact with.  Fortunately, the national polling seems to find a similar trend across the country.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I disagree. NOBODY can predict what Trump would do w.r.t. to Ukraine if he would return to the White House.

I agree that nobody can predict the details of what Trump would do as he has no history of making plans or sticking to them.  Which was a universal criticism of his 4 years of office, including from the people he hand picked to implement policy.  So on that count I agree with you that since Trump himself has no solid concept of what he'd do, neither can we.

However, we can be very sure that he would pursue a course of action that would undermine NATO and the support of Ukraine in any way open to him, including poisoning personal relationships and straight forward neglect.  There would be no proactive, positive moves to support Ukraine unless someone he appointed did it without his knowledge and hoped he wouldn't notice.  US leadership is required to provide Ukraine all the support it needs and leadership of this nature is not something Trump would do.

Contrast this with DeSantis if he becomes President.  I do not envision much enthusiastic leadership out of him to support Ukraine, but I'm not convinced he would deliberately sabotage it as Trump would.  Unlike Trump, DeSantis has no foreign policy track record to examine for clues.

Contrast this with Pence.  Should he become President we'd likely see a very close continuation of Biden's policies.

Steve

[billbindc]

45 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I disagree. NOBODY can predict what Trump would do w.r.t. to Ukraine if he would return to the White House.

Trump has routinely and publicly said the US gets a bad deal out of NATO and was privately planning, according to numerous people in his administration, on pulling out if he won reelection. Not to coin a phrase but you should believe people when they repeatedly tell you what they plan to do. 

[RandomCommenter]

Speaking of negotiation options and culmination, I found this one of the better blog posts out there on the topic.

 

https://samf.substack.com/p/still-bakhmut?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

 

[kevinkin]

58 minutes ago, billbindc said:

most voter

To clarify, I was referring to politicians and their party's tactics to gain or retain power. Not voters. Voters don't play those games and are not always as short sighted. Like you said they do have "cultural/political/self interested reasons for leaning a particular way." But politicians only pay attention if it will help them on election day. So it's only in unusual circumstances that they agree on anything. This is basic differentiation of one product vs another. They feel there is no reason for a 2 party adversarial system if both sides play nice most of the time. The problem is that as they huff and puff many cans get kicked down the road only to resurface every 2 years. 

[Ultradave]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure.  The ones I know of personally, the ones who put Black Lives Matter support signs on their lawns and fly Rainbow flags despite being outnumbered 3:1 by conservative neighbors, also fly Ukrainian flags.  In fact, I have met absolutely nobody on that side of the spectrum that thinks the US should be doing less to support Ukraine.  Not a single one.  Yet I'm pretty sure 100% of them were against the Iraq War and dragging out Afghanistan.  And don't even get the over 60 group talking about Vietnam

Sounds just like me and my wife (age 66 and 68 respectively), although no signs. The thoughts are there though.

Dave