How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Yet]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

 Who are we to tell them what they can or can not do on their own territory while fighting against a genocidal enemy?  

Im a bit confused here. 

Do you mean that the west should have no say in how Ukr fights on its own territory if they want to keep the support going? If they gear up in nazi uniforms and badges? to use napalm, chemical bombs and to torture? and sending ears of RU soldiers by post to their mothers?

So yea, we (the west) are supporting the Ukr army, but not without boundaries. Where those boundaries are exactly is part of this political discussion, where there has to be a balance between nastyness and merit. Too much nasty for little merit = nogo. International conventions and treaties help to determine where the black and gray zones are for the west and for Ukr (in peacetime). APmines, cluster ammunition are somewhere in the gray zone. not clearly black (rape, nazi uniforms, chemical attacks) not clearly white (guns, infrared, kevlar, AA-defense). We discuss here if APmines and cluster ammunition are lightgray or darkgray, just as the politicians, armies, intelligence services and ngo's do. It seems your opinion is lightgray, others might say darkgray. We discussed 800 pages ago that its easy/very possible in war to slide of in morality to a place that you dread. The west helps Ukrain to keep the moral high ground and not only win, but to win with pride, both now and when you read the historybooks in 50 years.

 So yes. We (the west) help Ukr with aid and to discuss the gray zone of morality. Also on their own soil against a genocidal enemy.  Both for Ukrs future and for internal (Western) consumption to sell the aid packages politically to the voters). 

 

[Tux]

Re: DPICM, I don’t think anyone is arguing that Ukraine shouldn’t have the last say on which weapons they do or don’t ask for while fighting their own existential war. However neither do I think that the fact they are under such colossal stress at the moment necessarily makes their judgement they only thing that should be considered.

JonS and others are correct here in that use of DPICM by Ukraine will almost certainly come at the cost of more civilian injuries/fatalities post-war.  The Ukrainians will know that just as well as anyone else and they may have all the practical reasons they need to justify using them anyway. That’s fine. However it means that the discussion around that risk kind of isn’t between Ukraine and ‘the West’.  It’s between Ukraine today and Ukraine post-war.

Given what we know about the merits of humans making short-term decisions under extreme stress and at the expense of longer-term considerations; given that the war probably isn’t actually existential any more; and given that a better, freer post-war Ukraine is actually what Ukraine are therefore now fighting for, I think there’s a good argument that sober, well-meaning advice from allies who have the luxury of looking more clearly (or at least from a different perspective) at the long term is extremely valuable. 
 

That’s not to prejudice what Ukraine should decide. It’s not to say that it shouldn’t be their call. It’s just to say that, like points raised by Human Rights Watch, at some point post-war Ukrainians will probably appreciate that such advice was at least taken into account.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Tux
Typo

[kevinkin]

Appears to be movement on this issue with some kind of announcement today:

https://news.yahoo.com/us-plans-send-controversial-cluster-122914921.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

[Taranis]

18 minutes ago, Carolus said:

 

This French-speaking Twitter person claims to have spotted "Griffon" APCs from France in Ukraine. 

The significance is that these are brand new, entered service in 2022, and so far unannounced(?).

Wheeled, entry/exit by ramp, driver, co-driver + 8 passengers in the back.

 

Actually, I haven't any confirmation about that.
In backgrounds are French Army vehicles so not really a proof....

[kevinkin]

Redoing backward thinking with some forward thinking:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-attacks-on-russia-us-army-command-post-vulnerability-2023-7

If the US work force is moving to remote operations, military command does not have to commute to large hubs to get the job done. I think it's about power generation in the field, its storage and reliable comms.

[kevinkin]

Don't these idiots have a war to fight somewhere:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/07/07/russian-jets-harass-us-drones-over-syria-for-second-time-in-24-hours/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

What are they trying to prove, Russia is a global power and can fight with an expeditionary force by picking on drones?

[Jr Buck Private]

Since Ukraine has started their offensive does anybody know what their casualty rates have been?   I'm hoping they are well below the norm as far as what an attacking force normally suffers.   The Bradley's and other western fighting vehicles have definitely helped out.  My gut feeling is that they are better than expected, but of course Ukraine hasn't really gone "balls out" yet either.

[cesmonkey]

35 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Don't these idiots have a war to fight somewhere:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/07/07/russian-jets-harass-us-drones-over-syria-for-second-time-in-24-hours/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

What are they trying to prove, Russia is a global power and can fight with an expeditionary force by picking on drones?

Ah ... but in this case, Russia claims it is adhering to International Law while the U.S. is not. (Add your own feeling of irony here.)

 

[cesmonkey]

59 minutes ago, Tux said:

Re: DPICM, I don’t think anyone is arguing that Ukraine shouldn’t have the last say on which weapons they do or don’t ask for while fighting their own existential war. However neither do I think that the fact they are under such colossal stress at the moment necessarily makes their judgement they only thing that should be considered.

JonS and others are correct here in that use of DPICM by Ukraine will almost certainly come at the cost of more civilian injuries/fatalities post-war.  The Ukrainians will know that just as well as anyone else and they may have all the practical reasons they need to justify using them anyway. That’s fine. However it means that the discussion around that risk kind of isn’t between Ukraine and ‘the West’.  It’s between Ukraine today and Ukraine post-war.

Given what we know about the merits of humans making short-term decisions under extreme stress and at the expense of longer-term considerations; given that the war probably isn’t actually existential any more; and given that a better, freer post-war Ukraine is actually what Ukraine are therefore now fighting for, I think there’s a good argument that sober, well-meaning advice from allies who have the luxury of looking more clearly (or at least from a different perspective) at the long term is extremely valuable. 
 

That’s not to prejudice what Ukraine should decide. It’s not to say that it shouldn’t be their call. It’s just to say that, like points raised by Human Rights Watch, at some point post-war Ukrainians will probably appreciate that such advice was at least taken into account.

More irony, today ... Russia is now suddenly concerned about the harmful effects to Ukrainian civilians that would be caused by supplying cluster munitions to Ukraine.

https://tass.ru/politika/18217343

Quote

The Russian ambassador drew attention to the fact that cluster bombs are deadly, unguided and indiscriminate weapons with an area of destruction up to five times larger than that of conventional projectiles. They pose a particular danger to the civilian population, and the West is well aware of this, since the Americans themselves used these weapons during the wars in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. "The consequences were so shocking that even the Western press was indignant. But the self-named "leaders of the free world" did not care about the murdered women, children and the elderly in countries outside the "golden billion," the diplomat said.

https://t.me/rybar/49443

Quote

The United States has extensive experience with cluster munitions in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, Afghanistan , Iraq , and coalition forces during Operation Desert Storm, and in Yugoslavia . Now Ukraine risks repeating the fate of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, where the battlefields of the past are still strewn with unexploded submunitions that still continue to kill people.

 

[Beleg85]

5 hours ago, Butschi said:

If, as you seen to imply, Ukraine should always get to decide, because they know better anyway, then, consequently, we should just open our arsenals (and bank accounts) and tell Ukraine "help yourself". I know that is what some here have been suggesting since the war started but the larger consensus seems to be that it was, by and large, a wise decision to withhold some weapons and generally escalate slowly.

So, I'm not going into possible moral issues with DPICM. I'll just say: Wether or not we give certain weapons to Ukraine has consequences and either way some responsibility falls back on us. So IMO we have the right or even the duty to tell Ukraine if we think something is a bad idea or even to say we want no part in this.

But maybe this boils down to the old question "If I have someone a gun (or refuse to), am I responsible for what happens afterwards?"

They do stop a lot of weapons despite Ukraine literally begging for them. This restrain was not always wise or based on purely objective factors.

Frankly this entire moral side of Cluster Munitions debate seems a little artificially puffed in current context. If this would be new thing on battlefields of this war- you would be entirely right. But these weapons, of much worse Soviet sort, were already being used by both sides in copious quantities, especially Russians. So we just replenish their stock they run out, with something of much better quality (and probably way less duds and danger for future). Just like we do with AA defence and artillery. Pragmatic military logic.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Beleg85

[kevinkin]

9 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

I frankly don't get why people are so much into entire moral side of Cluster Munitions debate.

Wouldn't there be a way to track where these are used within Ukraine in 2023? Unlike "Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, Afghanistan , Iraq , and coalition forces during Operation Desert Storm, and in Yugoslavia" the west has an intense interest in rebuilding all that was Ukraine. I would place this on the growing to do list when rebuilding starts in earnest. I pretty confident there will be able to an engineering solution. Unfortunately much of the borderland will be a no go for a long time even if clusters were off the table. 

[cesmonkey]

21 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

They do stop a lot of weapons despite Ukraine literally begging for them.

I frankly don't get why people are so much into entire moral side of Cluster Munitions debate. If this would be new thing on battlefields of this war- you would be entirely right. But these weapons, of much worse Soviet sort, were already being used by both sides in copious quantities, especially Russians. So we just replenish their stock they run out, with something of much better quality (and probably way less duds and danhger for future). Just like we do with AA defence and artillery. Pragmatic military logic.

I suppose other allies could chose to follow the American lead by providing cluster munitions to Ukraine as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition#Countries_with_stocks
 

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, Butschi said:

If, as you seen to imply, Ukraine should always get to decide, because they know better anyway, then, consequently, we should just open our arsenals (and bank accounts) and tell Ukraine "help yourself". I know that is what some here have been suggesting since the war started but the larger consensus seems to be that it was, by and large, a wise decision to withhold some weapons and generally escalate slowly.

By and large it is a wise decision, but it is also a stupid one at the same time if the West really is concerned with Human life and suffering.  Because the West could end this war tomorrow if it wanted to through taking direct action, perhaps short of firing a shot (e.g. militarily blockading Russian ports as it has done to Ukraine, escorting grain shipments, etc.). 

If the West is going to be hypocritical about the value of saving Human life, choosing to not act to save it, then it has already fundamentally compromised its moral authority.  By contrast, Ukraine is doing everything it possibly can to save lives and end the suffering of millions of people, including those who depend upon its grain to stay alive.  While I don't think we should give Ukraine anything they ask for (e.g. nukes), I do think we should give them anything reasonable that doesn't risk over escalating the war.  DPICM fits that description.

4 hours ago, Butschi said:

So, I'm not going into possible moral issues with DPICM. I'll just say: Wether or not we give certain weapons to Ukraine has consequences and either way some responsibility falls back on us. So IMO we have the right or even the duty to tell Ukraine if we think something is a bad idea or even to say we want no part in this.

Ivory Tower Thinking™.  By that logic we shouldn't have given them anything because by supporting Ukraine we extend the war.  This is, in fact, the Russian promoted point of view that many right wingers in the West openly push.

4 hours ago, Butschi said:

But maybe this boils down to the old question "If I have someone a gun (or refuse to), am I responsible for what happens afterwards?"

Sure, including the bad things that happen because you did NOT give the person the gun.  If you are going to argue morality, you had better be prepared to accept the moral responsibility for what happens if you don't act.  The West is already collectively morally responsible for this war starting in the first place IMHO by wimping out and pandering to Russian bullying and bribery for decades.  The West is on extremely shaky moral ground already and by providing Ukraine support in this war it is basically buying back its moral integrity.  Hesitating to fulfill reasonable requests, such as outdated tanks by the German government and ammo by the Swiss (for example), is counter productive from a moral standpoint.

Maciej put it really well.  This should be the standard that applies...

4 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Their people, their land, their war, their choice. Either the West supports UKR or tries to play out some internal policy issues having this war as the background.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

Agree on the whole “waaaaa but cluster munitions” if we’re not gonna provide ways to win the war faster (and save far more lives this way).

Slightly off topic, but it reminds me of how Europe’s first instinct with LLMs is to worry and regulate, whereas the US as usual is going all in. And then in 10 years Europe will wonder why the still don’t have a modern software industry.

EDIT: The Ariane program is another case of this where it’s head in sand, waah, and now 20y behind Spacex. At a certain point you can no longer get in front of the problem. Shame if that happened with Ukraine.

EDIT2: Presumably Europe knows that the victim of a less than total victory for Ukraine is nuclear non proliferation, which is a much bigger “waaaahhhhhh” than cluster munitions.

Edited July 7, 2023 by kimbosbread

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Frankly this entire moral side of Cluster Munitions debate seems a little artificially puffed in current context. If this would be new thing on battlefields of this war- you would be entirely right. But these weapons, of much worse Soviet sort, were already being used by both sides in copious quantities, especially Russians.

The_Capt pointed out the other day that pretty much all of Eastern Ukraine is going to have to be demined anyway because Russia has put 100s of thousands of non-self destructive mines into use, not to mention cluster munitions.  The amount of dud DPICM munitions that Ukraine may add to the mix will be like tossing a cup of tap water into the ocean.  Theoretically it makes sea level rise worse, but in reality it does nothing of the sort.  And it certainly doesn't make the person with the cup of water equally responsible for sea level rise as the burning of carbon fuels. 

Russia started this war, Russia has been using mines and cluster munitions in unparalleled quantities on Ukraine's soil, therefore ultimately every Human suffering from this war has only Russia to blame for what is going on and, to a lessor extent, the West for enabling Russia to do what it has done.

Now, having said all of this, if Ukraine's military could not make a cohesive argument to US military officials about why it needs DPICM to win this war, then I would be more hesitant to give it to them.  However, the use case is pretty obvious to us armchair generals so I'm sure Ukraine has made a strong MILITARY case for them.

Steve

[The_Capt]

5 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

In legal theory, there is a strong argument that what we traditionally call international law is actually not law, given the absence of anything resembling a sovereign imposing and enforcing the rules. So you can also put the word "law" in quotes. That level of objectivity is indeed low (no pun intended). 

Well the idea is that the international community would enforce the law, hence all the fuss about Ch 6 & 7 etc.  Of course this all falls apart when someone gets a veto and can play exceptionalism cards.  But it is what we have, otherwise it is anarchy of states and rule of the gun, and if everyone is getting upset over cluster munitions just wait and see that happens when we all decide to go all Genghis Khan. 

[FancyCat]

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well the idea is that the international community would enforce the law, hence all the fuss about Ch 6 & 7 etc.  Of course this all falls apart when someone gets a veto and can play exceptionalism cards.  But it is what we have, otherwise it is anarchy of states and rule of the gun, and if everyone is getting upset over cluster munitions just wait and see that happens when we all decide to go all Genghis Khan. 

Has anybody here really noted the lack of anything coming out of the UN about this war?  Especially lately.

One of the things this war has done is shown how completely useless the UN is for resolving significant conflicts between nations.  Whatever pretense it once had about being a legal and/or moral governing body is effectively dead.  There is no sheriff in town.

Steve

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, cesmonkey said:

I suppose other allies could chose to follow the American lead by providing cluster munitions to Ukraine as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition#Countries_with_stocks

Worth to add this is nothing new, except now USA doing it- there are solid rumours we already gave some munitions of this type in various configurations to Ukraine quite early in the conflict, just as quite probably several other Western countries (heard something about Slovakia,too, though I cannot vouch for it). Stocks weren't big in PL, but their existence was something of an open secret topic here. So I hope they are now being utilized in best possible way...

Edited July 7, 2023 by Beleg85

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

That, right there, is one of the best takedowns of a flawed argument I've seen in a while. 

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

2 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

comments from yesterday: 

• The Offensive clearly progressing slower than expected. This is stated also by the Ukrainian president.
• the initial assaults failed to achieve their objectives. For example, creating conditions to commit reserves to breach the main lines and exploit
• now we are in an attritional phase and we are likely to see alternating phases of attrition and attempts to advance, enabled by the attrition.
• both sides use artillery decisively and then exploit
  • artillery ammunition as "the sand it the hourglass".
  • it is significant how much artillery ammo Ukrainian use to achieve any given goal
• artillery production rates are going to become more and more important
  • seems like this is going to towards equality between the sides in the long run

To add, later in the Q&A section:

Kofman states provision of cluster munitions is the single most decisive thing the US can do in the short term and will have a significant effect on the battlefield. 

It is not necessary to take the efficiency of the DPICM into account for their significance. The significance comes from the million(s) of new shells being available for the Ukrainians. This takes them off from the "shell hourglass" and enables Ukraine to approach these offensives with more freedom.

Of course, he included a snarky comment on how Europe was the main obstacle to this provision and also the main reason for the need to make this provision, given the Europeans made the needed artillery production decisions only 13 months into this war.

[sburke]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Has anybody here really noted the lack of anything coming out of the UN about this war?  Especially lately.

One of the things this war has done is shown how completely useless the UN is for resolving significant conflicts between nations.  Whatever pretense it once had about being a legal and/or moral governing body is effectively dead.  There is no sheriff in town.

Steve

well to be honest, expecting that much from the UN isn't reality.  It has no enforcement capability even if it had a unified will.  Generally, when it comes to general Assembly votes, Ukraine has been on the moral high ground.  There are parts of the UN that do good work. resolving military conflicts however is never going to be their strong suit.  It is a voluntary organization with member nations choosing when to comply or even participate depending on their agreement or not with any particular resolution.  Every nation including the US plays that way.  The US particularly with the purse strings.  We really need that secret world order that is supposed to be running things,

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

comments from yesterday: 

• The Offensive clearly progressing slower than expected. This is stated also by the Ukrainian president.
• the initial assaults failed to achieve their objectives. For example, creating conditions to commit reserves to breach the main lines and exploit
• now we are in an attritional phase and we are likely to see alternating phases of attrition and attempts to advance, enabled by the attrition.
• both sides use artillery decisively and then exploit
  • artillery ammunition as "the sand it the hourglass".
  • it is significant how much artillery ammo Ukrainian use to achieve any given goal
• artillery production rates are going to become more and more important
  • seems like this is going to towards equality between the sides in the long run

Most of this looks correct to me.  The one thing I'd quibble with is singling out artillery ammunition as "the sand in the hourglass".  For sure it is, but it isn't the only one.  Picture several hourglasses turned upside down.  The first one to run out effectively ends the counter offensive.  One of those hourglasses is Russian manpower, another one is Russian artillery systems, yet another is Russian logistics, still another is Russia's internal stability.

Our problem is we don't know how much sand is left in any of them, but we do have a sense of how much is left in the artillery munitions supply hourglass.  Therefore, they (and us here) are focusing on it more than the others.

The truth is that Ukraine could be down to its last artillery round and they could still win if it turns out that the one they fired off before that destroyed Russia's last artillery piece.  Or Russia collapses.  That sort of thing.

Russia's entire wartime strategy since the failures in March 2022 has been to outlast Ukraine.  I don't think that is practical now.  Ukraine has options for keeping this war going even if there is stalemate in the south, Russia has no active options to end the fighting.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

well to be honest, expecting that much from the UN isn't reality.  It has no enforcement capability even if it had a unified will.  Generally, when it comes to general Assembly votes, Ukraine has been on the moral high ground.  There are parts of the UN that do good work. resolving military conflicts however is never going to be their strong suit.  It is a voluntary organization with member nations choosing when to comply or even participate depending on their agreement or not with any particular resolution.  Every nation including the US plays that way.  The US particularly with the purse strings.  We really need that secret world order that is supposed to be running things,

Oh for sure.  The UN didn't do anything about the war since 2014, so expectations that it would do anything now would be foolish.  However, the UN has always tried to explain away its ineffectiveness for not policing relatively small scale conflicts that most people in the world didn't even know were going on.  Now the world faces a conflict that has the potential to end all life on Earth and yet it is doing absolutely f'all about it.

If I were the enlightened dictator of the US I would withdraw all funding from the UN, kick it out of NYC, and set up a new world wide organization that was truly designed to function as a governing body to moderate and regulate global affairs.  And I would make the US have no outsized say in how it is run.  As enlightened dictator I would understand that a smoother running world is good for my country's self interests.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Most of this looks correct to me.  The one thing I'd quibble with is singling out artillery ammunition as "the sand in the hourglass".  For sure it is, but it isn't the only one.  Picture several hourglasses turned upside down.  The first one to run out effectively ends the counter offensive.  One of those hourglasses is Russian manpower, another one is Russian artillery systems, yet another is Russian logistics, still another is Russia's internal stability.

Our problem is we don't know how much sand is left in any of them, but we do have a sense of how much is left in the artillery munitions supply hourglass.  Therefore, they (and us here) are focusing on it more than the others.

You zoomed out there quite a bit, hah

I toke that as meaning the likely first hourglass to run out on the Ukrainian offensive potential.

 

There was also discussion on the "zoomed out" level like the economy likely limiting military decisions on mobilizations. For example, if Russians mobilize 500k to extend warfighting potential for another year this might cause such a shock on the economic level that on the whole Russia's warfighting potential shortens/shrinks. 

These sorts of long wars come to attrition and on the most "zoomed out" level we have to start comparing the GDP and population bases of the sides. And that comes to about 100:1 against Russia...