How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

7 hours ago, billbindc said:

Kadyrov is apparently furious about the whole thing and publicly swatted Prigozhin for complaining. He clearly is unwilling.

I would be highly,  extremely suspicious of anything these two weasels say.  It's all, all of it,  for domestic show and absolutely should not be taken at face value or repeated as-is. 

[billbindc]

20 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I would be highly,  extremely suspicious of anything these two weasels say.  It's all, all of it,  for domestic show and absolutely should not be taken at face value or repeated as-is. 

Agreed. But it’s a reflection, however distorted, of what is going on behind the scenes and there are some core realities…such as the political dangers for Kadyrov if he were actually to take up Bakhmut’s defense…that we can parse. It’s also clear that Putin and maneuvering in his shadow is at the core of this episode.

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by billbindc

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I recall a video posted to the CMBS board before this war of Russian (proxies) in Donbas firing off round-after-round of AT-4(5?), aiming at God-knows what, as a kind of ersatz artillery. Missiles they probably would like to have in their inventory today.

There was a drone bomber video posted not too long ago that showed a Russian ATGM position (AT4 or 5) with about a dozen spent tubes.  Highly unlikely he shot at a dozen things worth a missile.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Agreed. But it’s a reflection, however distorted, of what is going on behind the scenes and there are some core realities…such as the political dangers for Kadyrov if he were actually to take up Bakhmut’s defense…that we can parse. It’s also clear that Putin and maneuvering in his shadow is at the core of this episode.

 

This is correct.  During the Cold War there were entire rooms full of CIA analysts trying to figure out what was going on based on information which they viewed as suspect, if not outright ridiculous.  The theory then, as now, is that however distorted a message might be, there is some truth behind it.  Somewhere.

There is something significant going on right now.  Not entirely clear where it will end up, but seeing Kadyrov dragged into it does indicate there's a new angle to the Bakhmut mess.

Steve

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, akd said:

One man army:

https://twitter.com/PaulJawin/status/1654887568813506561?s=20

 

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Bakhmut. Not a cinema war and price of our peaceful life in rear. Somebody wrote in comments this guy was killed later...

 

Ukraine is winning for a lot of reasons, but sheer off the scale courage is surely towards the top of the list.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, akd said:

Doubts raised by Haiduk aside, production of BMP-3 could be the same or less as previous years, but deliveries to Army increased because they are taking over export production for domestic delivery (and likely dooming their future export industry to ruin in the process).

Yup.

There's many reasons to dismiss the assessment that Russia is better positioned to rebuild than we might think.  The "slight of hand" math AKD mentioned was one that instantly came to mind.  It's not just limited to the BMP-3, there's been documentation of this across all exports.  Here's a report specifying S-400 and aircraft that Russia has failed to deliver to India:

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/russia-cannot-meet-arms-delivery-commitments-because-war-indian-air-force-says-2023-03-23/

I've seen other reports of problems getting parts out of Russia for systems already delivered.

Aside from Russia cannibalizing its exports to free up capacity for this war, there's a lot easier way to think about this that requires NO analysis of Russian military output.  So here goes...

Russia has expended a very large portion of its surviving Soviet stockpiles and more modern production.  Decades worth of cumulative production is gone.  How on Earth does anybody think that Russia can replace all of that production in a short period of time at all, not to mention while under sanctions and an economy teetering on collapse?  It makes no sense at all.  It's the equivalent of saying someone going to Las Vegas and losing 20 years of savings can be back to where he was by putting in some overtime at the office this year.  Sorry, no.

Steve

[Kinophile]

49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 It's the equivalent of saying someone going to Las Vegas and losing 20 years of savings can be back to where he was by putting in some overtime at the office this year.  Sorry, no.

Steve

That is an excellent analogy. 

[chris talpas]

4 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Thoughts about this?

 

I think it means we should be getting serious and ramping up production of our own war stocks lest we find ourselves in a similar situation.

As a Canadian, I only wish our government took this seriously and started boosting defence spending.  Things like mechanized artillery and air defence units are no brainers .  

[DesertFox]

5 minutes ago, chris talpas said:

I think it means we should be getting serious and ramping up production of our own war stocks lest we find ourselves in a similar situation. 

Reagan had a point back then...

‘We win, they lose’
Ronald Reagan made it his driving mission not to appease and accommodate the USSR (now Russia and/or China), but to defeat it.

Still today, as valid as back then.

Reagan’s Berlin Wall strategy was simple and could work today: ‘We win, they lose’ (dallasnews.com)

[MikeyD]

The original concept behind NATO was that no one nation would have everything to successfully prosecute a major war but the combined forces would be able to get the job done. It was supposed to promote solidarity while at the same time discouraging disputes between member states. 74 years since NATO's founding and Germany hasn't tried to invade France yet. That's something of a record, isn't it? 

Edited May 7, 2023 by MikeyD

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is correct.  During the Cold War there were entire rooms full of CIA analysts trying to figure out what was going on based on information which they viewed as suspect, if not outright ridiculous.  The theory then, as now, is that however distorted a message might be, there is some truth behind it.  Somewhere.

There is something significant going on right now.  Not entirely clear where it will end up, but seeing Kadyrov dragged into it does indicate there's a new angle to the Bakhmut mess.

Steve

Having been around for the era of Sovietology...when knowing who stood where at the Victory Day parade in relationship to the General Secretary was a key piece of information...this is exactly how I see it. 

[FancyCat]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

How on Earth does anybody think that Russia can replace all of that production in a short period of time at all, not to mention while under sanctions and an economy teetering on collapse?  It makes no sense at all.

My concern isn't about a future NATO vs Russia conflict tho, that the Soviet Union had amassed this production for decades for, its about the concern of Russia out producing Ukraine enough to produce a outcome of stalemate that may be enough for China to opt to support with their actual massive production capacity in the event of a prolonged conflict.

Realistically Russia does not need to prepare for NATO, not in the short or middle term, but focus on defeating Ukraine, with all the limitations and liabilities of Western support to Ukraine. 

[kevinkin]

https://news.yahoo.com/turkeys-kilicdaroglu-exits-erodogans-shadow-061337781.html

Erdogan out. 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

My concern isn't about a future NATO vs Russia conflict tho, that the Soviet Union had amassed this production for decades for, its about the concern of Russia out producing Ukraine enough to produce a outcome of stalemate that may be enough for China to opt to support with their actual massive production capacity in the event of a prolonged conflict.

Realistically Russia does not need to prepare for NATO, not in the short or middle term, but focus on defeating Ukraine, with all the limitations and liabilities of Western support to Ukraine. 

Right, but the West is providing Ukraine with most of its combat power.  The combined industrial output of the West dwarfs that of Russia AND that's just on quantity.  Quality makes it vastly worse for Russia.

Let's say that Russia fully cranked up can make (totally inventing numbers here) 100 tanks, 25 aircraft, 1000 ATGM rockets, and 1m rounds of artillery ammo each year.  Let's also say that the West can donate half of that to Ukraine, but a significant amount of the artillery is PGMs and all of the rest of the stuff is superior to Russia's.  Which side would you bet on given the course of this war so far?

The point here is that Russia had a stupidly huge advantage over Ukraine in every single category of military capacity at the start of this war.  They lost almost all of it and whatever they are able to replace with new production is inferior to what was previously lost.  Sure, a BMP3 is superior to a BMP1, but it is inferior to the BMP3s already in the fight and those are being lost faster than they can be replaced.

Again, the notion that Russia can fix this problem is unsupported by any reasonable assessment of the facts.  However, if Western support weakens to the extent that new Russian production (with possible help from China) is able to keep up with losses, while also inflicting losses on Ukraine, then there could be problems.  But even then my money is still on Ukraine winning this regardless.  I have been saying since before this war started that a frozen conflict, with no shooting, is not something Russia can sustain long term.  The regime will not survive a weakened and humiliated state indefinitely.  For sure it won't survive Putin's departure, which even without a push from someone could happen at any minute because mortality ends whenever it ends.

Steve

[kevinkin]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Let's also say that the West can donate half of that to Ukraine, but a significant amount of the artillery is PGMs and all of the rest of the stuff is superior to Russia's.  Which side would you bet on given the course of this war so far?

That's just math and not geostrategy or geopolitics. Are we treating the landscape of this war as if if were a checker board? This war will not be decided by incoming and outgoing bombs; but by fallible humans at the top who decide where best to place their resources. The destiny of Ukraine and Russa is outside their own control. They are not checker pieces, but pawns in what has developed into a global proxy war that involves so much more than kinetic warfare. Realignment of supply chains; feeding the southern hemisphere; keeping the US military complex fed. Its amazing what societies will do when sanctions get in the way. And your Georgetown rent goes up. Gun to my head; India comes out on top if we could fast forward 7 years. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by kevinkin

[womble]

30 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Gun to my head; India comes out on top if we could fast forward 7 years. 

India? On top of what? Where? And whom? In 7 years? Please show your working; I've obviously missed a lot.

[kevinkin]

Demographics. 

[chrisl]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Right, but the West is providing Ukraine with most of its combat power.  The combined industrial output of the West dwarfs that of Russia AND that's just on quantity.  Quality makes it vastly worse for Russia.

Let's say that Russia fully cranked up can make (totally inventing numbers here) 100 tanks, 25 aircraft, 1000 ATGM rockets, and 1m rounds of artillery ammo each year.  Let's also say that the West can donate half of that to Ukraine, but a significant amount of the artillery is PGMs and all of the rest of the stuff is superior to Russia's.  Which side would you bet on given the course of this war so far?

The point here is that Russia had a stupidly huge advantage over Ukraine in every single category of military capacity at the start of this war.  They lost almost all of it and whatever they are able to replace with new production is inferior to what was previously lost.  Sure, a BMP3 is superior to a BMP1, but it is inferior to the BMP3s already in the fight and those are being lost faster than they can be replaced.

Again, the notion that Russia can fix this problem is unsupported by any reasonable assessment of the facts.  However, if Western support weakens to the extent that new Russian production (with possible help from China) is able to keep up with losses, while also inflicting losses on Ukraine, then there could be problems.  But even then my money is still on Ukraine winning this regardless.  I have been saying since before this war started that a frozen conflict, with no shooting, is not something Russia can sustain long term.  The regime will not survive a weakened and humiliated state indefinitely.  For sure it won't survive Putin's departure, which even without a push from someone could happen at any minute because mortality ends whenever it ends.

Steve

The Russian annual military budget is equal to about one year of Lockheed revenue.  And Lockheed is just one of many large companies in the western MIC.

Before, and running up to the war, the counterargument was always "but the Russian salaries are lower, so they have much greater purchasing power".  Between the corruption and the poor quality (and often quantity) of equipment and maintenance, I think we've seen that that's not a very good counter. If you're talking only ballistic artillery shells and tank chassis there might be some validity (but the corruption really cuts into that), but if you're talking about combat effectiveness, there's a lot that no number of rubles can buy for Russia.

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

That's just math and not geostrategy or geopolitics. Are we treating the landscape of this war as if if were a checker board? This war will not be decided by incoming and outgoing bombs; but by fallible humans at the top who decide where best to place their resources. The destiny of Ukraine and Russa is outside their own control. They are not checker pieces, but pawns in what has developed into a global proxy war that involves so much more than kinetic warfare. Realignment of supply chains; feeding the southern hemisphere; keeping the US military complex fed. Its amazing what societies will do when sanctions get in the way. And your Georgetown rent goes up. Gun to my head; India comes out on top if we could fast forward 7 years. 

Sure, ultimately it will be decided by politicians, probably mostly within Russia on when they decide they've had enough.  But a lot of bombs going in the direction of their forces in Ukraine can help them come to a better decision faster. The dollar value of stuff that the US is sending to Ukraine is small on the scale of the defense budget, and a lot of it was paid for long ago. For the US MIC it's a chance to clear out the old storage and sell new blingy stuff to both stockpile and test in Ukraine.

And unless Xi decides he absolutely has to have Taiwan, China comes out ahead of India.

[womble]

2 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Demographics. 

Love the detail. Thanks for enlightening me. Were you marked out of half in all your maths tests?[/sarcasm]

It's obvious that Russia is in the toilet, demographics wise, and China will certainly have problems. India's demographics problem is more that they're just going to have more poor people. Yay! They win the population game! Are you saying this will instantly (7 years is an eyeblink) turn India into the largest world economy? The strongest military force?  What are you saying India will parlay its young potential workforce into? Other than malcontents being played off against each other in religious and ethnic power games so that (like everywhere else) the 1% can live like rajahs?

[Pete Wenman]

And to lighten the mood

 

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Pete Wenman

[poesel]

10 hours ago, MikeyD said:

...74 years since NATO's founding and Germany hasn't tried to invade France yet. That's something of a record, isn't it? 

Hey - 2 of the last 3 wars were declared by the French! And don't ask about the time before that...

Germany always gets the blame...

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Demographics. 

Who's viewing the world through math now? 

Your thought journey is zigzagging all over the shop.. 

You note that the war will be decided by humans at the top,  not numbers. Definitely a lot of truth to that. But then you say that Russia (Russia)  is a pawn of someone else. Who,  the intergalactic lizard people?

Then you say India will come out on top,  because...numbers! Ignoring the huge structural problems that India faces, and we could easily point to just physical infrastructure as an example,  who does India come out on top of? Ze Germans? And in what spheres of human activity? Android apps? 

[edit] Just saw Womble's now; I don't like online pile-ons so I'm going to leave this. Not casting shade on M. Womble,  just that he's already engaged. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Kinophile

[Artkin]

6 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Who's viewing the world through math now? 

Your thought journey is zigzagging all over the shop.. 

You note that the war will be decided by humans at the top,  not numbers. Definitely a lot of truth to that. But then you say that Russia (Russia)  is a pawn of someone else. Who,  the intergalactic lizard people?

Then you say India will come out on top,  because...numbers! Ignoring the huge structural problems that India faces, and we could easily point to just physical infrastructure as an example,  who does India come out on top of? Ze Germans? And in what spheres of human activity? Android apps? 

Well India is poised to overtake China in population soon if not already.

[chuckdyke]

See how long this video lasts.