How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Bearstronaut]

10 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Care to elaborate?

Clare Daly is an Irish member of the European parliament who is pretty much a tankie.

[cesmonkey]

double post.

Edited June 15, 2023 by cesmonkey
deleted

[dan/california]

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

A classic example of Russian "doublethink" in action. 

"Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.^[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

George Orwell might have understood this sort of thing better than any academic thinker on the planet.  And he did it in the 1940s, without the benefit of decades of Cold War examples to draw from.

Steve

What Orwell understood, and and how early he understood it is truly breathtaking.

10 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Care to elaborate?

 

Quote

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/im-not-a-putin-puppet-irish-mep-clare-daly-claims-she-has-been-mischievously-misrepresented/41875289.html

Above article is a nice little starter on her, she is quite special. Her standard rant has about a quarter of degree of separation from Tucker at his worst.

[cesmonkey]

4 hours ago, benpark said:

This remote deminer is the only thing I've found that looks beyond a prototype, which could be in some form of production beyond what is seen in the attached press images:

https://www.military.com/equipment/m160-remote-controlled-mine-clearance-system

Following up on that, from this page:
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/cs-css-m160-robotic-mine-flail/

The contractor is a Croatian company and looks like they already gave 8 of one of their systems to Ukraine:
https://dok-ing.hr/news/donation-of-dok-ing-deming-robotic-systems-for-ukraine/

I'm not sure that it's suitable for combat conditions.

[Butschi]

12 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Biden needs to make VERY clear that if they blow the plant every NATO plane in Europe joins the war in about two hours, and they are going to do their level best to kill every Russian soldier in Ukraine. The next stupidity gets the entire Russian navy sunk.

I'm certain there would be a strong reaction but keep in mind that all Biden can do is order US planes to intervene. He can try to form some sort of coalition but he has no authority to command other NATO partners' air forces. Even if NATO was to somehow construct a case for article 5 here, that would still have to be ratified by every member. Which is... unlikely to happen.

So, I guess that is hard to make clear for Biden.

[Bearstronaut]

Just now, Butschi said:

I'm certain there would be a strong reaction but keep in mind that all Biden can do is order US planes to intervene. He can try to form some sort of coalition but he has no authority to command other NATO partners' air forces. Even if NATO was to somehow construct a case for article 5 here, that would still have to be ratified by every member. Which is... unlikely to happen.

So, I guess that is hard to make clear for Biden.

I'm sure he'd have no problem convincing the Poles at the very least.

[Kinophile]

30 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The crazy Irish woman who carries water for Putin must have lost her mind.

She's such an embarrassment. Generally we don't care too much about the EU elections, so it's a low threshold for any complete gobsh*te to get elected, by fellow traveller dipsh*ts. 

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

I'm sure he'd have no problem convincing the Poles at the very least.

I would give decent odds that the Poles would suit Up every soldier they can find a MOPP suit for and send then east as fast as they possibly could.

Edit: If I may attempt the to channel The_Capt, the best course of action would be to offer the commander at the plant a stupendous bribe, and be very industrious about getting his family out of Russia. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by dan/california

[Butschi]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Above article is a nice little starter on her, she is quite special. Her standard rant has about a quarter of degree of separation from Tucker at his worst.

Thanks. Well, if all people who don't share my opinion were crazy, the mental asylums would be full, though, I'm afraid.

On a serious note: At least in Germany politicians are "promoted to Brussels" when a party no longer wants them around but can't just sack them for the merits they earned. So, even for politicians it's not always the best of the best who go there...

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

Thanks. Well, if all people who don't share my opinion were crazy, the mental asylums would be full, though, I'm afraid.

On a serious note: At least in Germany politicians are "promoted to Brussels" when a party no longer wants them around but can't just sack them for the merits they earned. So, even for politicians it's not always the best of the best who go there...

It is a classic case of an institution that doesn't matter, until it does.

[dan/california]

17 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Starting to sound like Russian prime time TV in here...

This whole war happened because of unclear communication, and Putin thought he could get away with it. The red line around that nuke plant needs to be visible from nearby star systems.

Edited June 15, 2023 by dan/california

[Centurian52]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The European powers did the exact same thing after observing the US Civil War (except it was "America Sux") which led to that little whoopsie we call WWI.

Gonna have to put on my historical nitpicker hat here. The European powers closely examined the US Civil War (I have a whole book somewhere on tactical development in the British army as a result of the US Civil War (there certainly was a lot of "America Sux" at the beginning of the war, which petered out as the war progressed)). They also had multiple, far more relevant, conflicts to examine between the US Civil War and WW1. There was the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian war, the two Boar wars, the Russo-Japanese war, and many others that I skipped for brevity. The devastation of WW1 had nothing to do with failing to pay attention to recent wars.

In fact much of the devastation can be chalked up to overlearning the wrong lessons from some of those wars, rather than failing to learn any lessons. One of the French lessons from the Franco-Prussian war was to re-emphasize shock, as opposed to firepower (there was a feeling that the previous emphasis on firepower and entrenchment made units hesitant to attack), leading to masses of French infantry being cut down in 1914. Among the lessons that many armies took from the Russo-Japanese war was that a high degree of tenacity and casualty tolerance was necessary to overcome modern firepower. Which resulted in masses of unnecessary casualties in battles that were pressed long after they should have been abandoned in 1915 and 1916.

And often the correct lessons were learned, but with spotty implementation. Most people had figured out that it was better to abandon the old close order formations in favor of fighting in a single rank in extended order (basically, make the skirmish line the default battle formation), although there were ongoing arguments about that right up until the early battles of 1914, with some units being brutally punished for going into battle in close order formations (I believe the French in particular had a fondness for close order formations, which they quickly abandoned after a few battles). The British had figured out that cavalry would mostly be acting as mounted infantry from here on out, and there were fierce debates about whether the cavalry should even retain their sabers at all (the Russians apparently had the opposite viewpoint, and tried to use their cavalry primarily for traditional charges, while most armies fell somewhere in between the British and the Russian viewpoint on cavalry (as it turned out, British cavalry were probably the most effective cavalry of any army in 1914)).

I'd say that most of the obvious lessons had been learned reasonably well by 1914. What remained to be learned from 1914-1918 were the smaller and far less obvious details. Things such as how much artillery ammunition is needed in modern war, how to maintain command and control on a highly dispersed battlefield before the invention of man-portable radios, how to improve coordination between the infantry and the artillery, how best to employ artillery against dug in positions, etc...

My takeaway from studying tactical development in the late 19th century and early 20th century was not that officers of the time weren't paying attention. It was that deriving correct lessons from ongoing developments, and then applying those lessons to sound changes in doctrine and force structure, is exceptionally difficult.

[billbindc]

39 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Not to beat the dead horse of “Underestimating Russia”, but I have several friends who are well-informed and intelligent who work or have worked in national security related fields, who still can’t reconcile Russia’s performance with the model they have in their heads. They keep on saying “there has to be some cunning plan” or “they have to have reserves” or a resigned sigh and reach for the scotch. 

Same here and it’s very common. Folks have to realize that analysts of any flavor are in effect making public predictions (within their field) upon which their reputation is felt to rest. The ones that develop a well known reputation tend to be the ones who most categorically take a position. When that position turns out to be wrong, it can be *very* hard to step off that ladder. Charap, Mearsheimer, et al are the most prominent examples but there are plenty more where they came from. So, rather than pro-Ukranian copium, what you often see is an extreme hesitancy to accept that no, actually, the Russians *do not* have anything up their sleeve. That population and the number of tanks *do not* actually decide a conflict. 

This is not just a problem with professional analysts. It is *very* common in natsec journalists too. I have had several conversations where nuclear weapons are understood to be virtually magical weapons in the Russian arsenal that would end the war in Moscow’s favor immediately. 

The larger point…there’s a lot of copium out there. It goes in both directions. 

[cesmonkey]

Who would have thunk it?
 

 

[Vet 0369]

On 6/14/2023 at 12:40 PM, Centurian52 said:

Where are you getting that number from? I specifically remember having it drilled into my head in the Army that the max effective range of the M16 is 500 meters (550 yards), though we only trained for up to 300 meters because almost all combat was expected to take place within 300 meters. IIRC pretty much every rifle which uses iron sights maxes out at around 500 meters, because that is roughly the maximum distance that a human eye can resolve a human sized object.

Three hundred forty meters was the max effective range that I was quoted the first time I qualified with the M16A1 in 1978. We qualified on a range with “known distance” (KD) targets. We qualified with open sights (“short and long range” rear aperture “flip sights,” and that stupid adjustable front post that you had to adjust with the point of a 5.56 round) no one had access to “optics” in those days except snipers, which could explain the difference between the two “max effective” ranges. The only rifle I qualified with from 1969 until that time was the M14, and I must say that I actually qualified with a higher M16 score (High Expert 240 out of a possible 250) than I ever did with an M14.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 6/13/2023 at 12:43 PM, The_Capt said:

To answer your question more directly -  do not think such a system has been invented yet, at least not for this sort of combat environment. 

I saw something like that at Can Sec this year. I am pretty sure it was a version of this: https://generaldynamics.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/TRX-Datasheet.pdf

They had the one with the guns and AA missiles on it in their booth but while I was waiting for coffee I saw the slide show playing and they do have a mine clearing version.

[sburke]

34 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Any news from Belgorod? I haven't heard anything for a long time now. Nothing on ISW either. Maybe the special distraction operation has ended now that the main offensive has begun?

‘More where that came from’ — Freedom of Russia Legion shows off raid near Belgorod, announces new missions (yahoo.com)

Russian volunteers announced another raid in Belgorod Oblast on June 1. On June 4, they again stated that they were engaging in battles in the suburbs of Shebekino in Belgorod Oblast. On June 7, the RVC fighters reported that they had completely controlled the Russian village of Nova Tavolzhanka for a week.

[Bulletpoint]

Just now, sburke said:

‘More where that came from’ — Freedom of Russia Legion shows off raid near Belgorod, announces new missions (yahoo.com)

Russian volunteers announced another raid in Belgorod Oblast on June 1. On June 4, they again stated that they were engaging in battles in the suburbs of Shebekino in Belgorod Oblast. On June 7, the RVC fighters reported that they had completely controlled the Russian village of Nova Tavolzhanka for a week.

Thanks, but that's the latest development I heard about as well. It's been a week since then. The media focus has shifted to southern Ukraine now, just wondering if there's anything still going on in Belgorod...

[cesmonkey]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

Some pointers from Millie:

• combined 60 000 Ukrainians trained in the west so far
• 6 000 Ukrainians in training in the West at this moment
• The USA has trained a combined 60 000 Ukrainians in maneuver combined arms operations
• This includes 12 maneuver combined arms "Battalion tactical groups" including their entire staff
• at this moment three battalions are in training by the USA

I noticed they tried to avoid the topic of F-16s until specifically asked.

[Centurian52]

15 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Three hundred forty meters was the max effective range that I was quoted the first time I qualified with the M16A1 in 1978. We qualified on a range with “known distance” (KD) targets. We qualified with open sights (“short and long range” rear aperture “flip sights,” and that stupid adjustable front post that you had to adjust with the point of a 5.56 round) no one had access to “optics” in those days except snipers, which could explain the difference between the two “max effective” ranges. The only rifle I qualified with from 1969 until that time was the M14, and I must say that I actually qualified with a higher M16 score (High Expert 240 out of a possible 250) than I ever did with an M14.

That's interesting. I'm not sure why they told you a different number than they told me. Either the M16s got better (difference between the A1 and A2?) or they had more experience over the decades to make a more accurate estimate of its effective range. I doubt it has anything to do with optics. Optics could extend the effective range of a rifle beyond 500 meters. Its the limitations of the human eyeball that caps the effective range of any rifle with iron sights at 500 meters. Optics couldn't explain why they were giving you an effective range of less than 500 meters.

I was firing the M16A2 with iron sights (no optics) from 2012-2018. Most of the Army had moved on to the M4 before I even joined, but I was in a signal unit so I guess there was no rush to get us M4s.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Centurian52

[danfrodo]

@Taranis  above says UKR took the very important heights overlooking Bakhmut.  Gonna be hell to pay for anyone down below.  This is excellent news.  What if the first RU collapse was actually in Bakhmut sector?  Wouldn't lead to anything strategically significant but would get back everything RU fought at great cost for many months to get.  At least it would be great for UKR morale and terrible for RU morale.

[danfrodo]

I just read that UKR putting more of it's elite units onto the 'novo' offensive area.  This one leads toward Mariupol.  Here on the forum it was generally thought that an offensive like this leaves two exposed flanks while moving along the Dnieper only leaves one.  But Mariupol direction does have the advantage, if successful, of cutting off the entire land bridge at once from eastern supply lines.  This line of advance is less well defended, though RU reinforcements would be on interior lines from both sides.

Not saying this push is going to happen, but it is on the table of options. 

If I were one of those billionaire guys I would give UKR $100M just to sit in the general staff planning meetings, even if it meant I couldn't have any contact w outside world for a month or two.

[Bulletpoint]

5 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

What if the first RU collapse was actually in Bakhmut sector?  Wouldn't lead to anything strategically significant but would get back everything RU fought at great cost for many months to get.  At least it would be great for UKR morale and terrible for RU morale.

It would be a massive propaganda win for Ukraine and a blow to Russian morale that even the most hardline supporters would find difficult to explain. Also, it would boost Prigozhyn.

But I don't think Ukraine is actually trying to retake Bakhmut at this point. The important thing is to make it look like they are, and keep applying pressure.

Russia definitely doesn't want to lose the city again, so they will have to keep a lot of forces there to prevent it, which removes them from the counteroffensive area.

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

A classic example of Russian "doublethink" in action. 

"Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.^[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

George Orwell might have understood this sort of thing better than any academic thinker on the planet.  And he did it in the 1940s, without the benefit of decades of Cold War examples to draw from.

Steve

He did have some close encounters with the Soviet apparatchik and their influence in '39 in Spain though.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

Not to beat the dead horse of “Underestimating Russia”, but I have several friends who are well-informed and intelligent who work or have worked in national security related fields, who still can’t reconcile Russia’s performance with the model they have in their heads. They keep on saying “there has to be some cunning plan” or “they have to have reserves” or a resigned sigh and reach for the scotch. 

Well, your friends are not alone.  What few understood before this war was the difference between a Russia that focuses on manipulation and one that is at war.  Russia was very competent and capable of creating chaos externally, but a huge reason for this was complacency and (at times) complicity.  It is now clear that people mistook playground bullying with strategic genius.

Steve