How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Thomm]

Does DPICM work against an entrenched enemy in CM?

[Tux]

38 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Western European Countries surrendered to the Germans inside weeks. France was the longest. If they had put up a fight like Ukraine does now World War 2 would have ended in 1942. You win wars by not being nice to your enemies. 

Is your argument that Western European nations in World War 2 were simply too nice to fight against the Germans and that their more-or-less united stance against the use of DPICM today is a further display of the same 'lack or moral fibre'?

Really?

Is it just for convenience that you omit the fact that the only nation to fight Nazi Germany for the entirety of the war was Western European, as well as the fact that the same Germany that most of Western Europe simply 'couldn't bring themselves to fight against' now also opposes the use of DPICM?  Not to mention anything of the myriad nuanced reasons behind individual nations' reasons for surrender in 1939/40 (hint: none of them surrendered because fighting the invaders 'wouldn't be nice').

Sorry mate, some of your points are useful but this is the closest to trash you've posted for a while.

Imo.

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Tux
extra incredulity

[Tux]

I am sorely tempted to buy CMCW just to find out!

(Only reason I haven't got it yet is for lack of time to play)

[Tux]

18 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

I think the question of morality should come up later when the west attempts to fund their replacement.

I agree this will be interesting.  Will the US produce replacement DPICM or pivot towards 'pure' dumb rounds and PGM?

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

4: Ukraine is likely expecting that the cost of demining the cluster UXOs will be rolled into the rebuilding aid packages they will almost certainly receive after the war. So the cost/benefit calculation assumes someone else will pay the costs. Always an attractive proposition.

I am sure that Ukrainian's decisions what weapons to use are based on what will allow them to be safe from death/enslavement the quickest, rather than who will pay for cleanup. Especially in light of the fact, that they were running out of other ammunition. Your argument was frankly bizarre.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm a bit puzzled about how you got that out of my post.

It would be the part when you stepped on the slippery slope of seeming to suggest that an older persons life was worth less than a young persons life.  I don't even disagree but is opens up a major hypocrisy hole in the position of the "think of the children!" side.  If the value of life is indeed transactional in nature (e.g. old people are going to die soon anyway) then that universal principle applies across the board.  The loss of children itself become transactional as well = relative morality.

In reality landmines, napalm, cluster munitions and fully autonomous "killbots" are less about the cost/danger/morality of warfare, and more about political power.   If it were about existential danger of weapons in warfare then we would have banned all nuclear weapons years ago.  There is even a treaty from 2017 but as you will notice even though 92 states signed on there is a whole lot of cricket sounds coming out of the Western world on this one.

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

https://www.icanw.org/signature_and_ratification_status

I am pretty cynical about all this considering that the real existential threat to human survival - and yes that would be all the children - cannot get traction from anyone but the global South/3rd world.  Maybe this is a work in progress so starting small is the plan but considering our current situation the entire thing really feels hollow.  The landmine and cluster munitions treaty did exactly zero to prevent the Russian invasion, nor did it stop Russia for a millisecond in using these weapons with wanton abandon.  This should be a big hint that soft power/collectivism/whatever-the-hell-they-go-on-about is not a real thing without hard power to actually back up enforcement because people are the worst.  Our better angels have pointy tales and horns and no amount of pontificating or posturing is going to change that.  And here is the rub and why this whole thing is likely really upsetting so many in the liberal humanism/human security camp - if we were in Ukraine's position how long would our moral high ground be sustained? 

Maybe, just maybe, our righteous (and preachy) house is built on sand in the face of the old red gods.  We have just been rich enough and safe enough, for long enough to forget this.

[DesertFox]

2 hours ago, DesertFox said:

Dunno if you read the same post as I did.  It means that NATO countries agreed to accept Ukraine into the alliance under a simplified procedure - without fulfilling the membership action plan. The terms are still not named, but, most likely, Ukraine will join NATO after the end of the war.

Follow up on Kulebas post this morning. Apparently Zelensky will go to Vilnius. He wont go for nothin, will he?

 

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1678381998572797952?s=20

[DesertFox]

Bakhmut seems to turn into a shooting gallery now. Waiting for the meltdown on telegram...

 

https://twitter.com/SarahAshtonLV/status/1678382917242744839?s=20

[Maciej Zwolinski]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Maybe, just maybe, our righteous (and preachy) house is built on sand in the face of the old red gods.  We have just been rich enough and safe enough, for long enough to forget this.

That is one reason why the Baltics and Central Europeans opinions often are different than the old NATO countries. We have barely rented a bedsit in that house 30 years ago.

[Tux]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And here is the rub and why this whole thing is likely really upsetting so many in the liberal humanism/human security camp - if we were in Ukraine's position how long would our moral high ground be sustained? 

Maybe, just maybe, our righteous (and preachy) house is built on sand in the face of the old red gods.  We have just been rich enough and safe enough, for long enough to forget this.

Of course our house is built on sand as you describe.  That's why we have to fight to preserve it.  The morals that our 'preachy' house is made of aren't supposed to make life easy; they are the best ideas we can come up with to allow us to play at judging 'right' from 'wrong'.  They are there to keep the old red gods out for as long as possible because history and experience tells us that things do not go well when you give up, let your guard down and let those gods run riot.

I, for one, am comfortable with the fact that our collective morality (insofar as one exists) is highly variable between individuals, populations and over time and in different circumstances.  That doesn't change the rationale for an anti- or reluctantly-pro DPICM stance vis-a-vis this war.

I feel like we are better than this.  We credit our 'pro-DPICM' contingent with not being mindless, bloodthirsty animals who couldn't care less about collateral damage as long as more Russians are killed.  I hope we can credit our 'anti-DPICM' crowd with not being weak, self-righteous pearl-clutchers who don't know they were born.

[Tux]

2 hours ago, DesertFox said:

Dunno if you read the same post as I did.  It means that NATO countries agreed to accept Ukraine into the alliance under a simplified procedure - without fulfilling the membership action plan. The terms are still not named, but, most likely, Ukraine will join NATO after the end of the war.

Yes, I understand.  I'm not sure if our wires got crossed somewhere but surely anything which makes it even more probable that Ukraine will join NATO post-war (than it already was, I mean) ratchets up the imperative in Russian thinking to hold on to something at the end of this war?

Having said that maybe it's beyond the point of making any difference.  Even if Russia evacuated southern Ukraine now and triply-reinforced Crimea before suing for peace I'm not sure it would succeed.

[DesertFox]

1 minute ago, Tux said:

Yes, I understand.  I'm not sure if our wires got crossed somewhere but surely anything which makes it even more probable that Ukraine will join NATO post-war (than it already was, I mean) ratchets up the imperative in Russian thinking to hold on to something at the end of this war?

Having said that maybe it's beyond the point of making any difference.  Even if Russia evacuated southern Ukraine now and triply-reinforced Crimea before suing for peace I'm not sure it would succeed.

OK I guess I see what you are on about. Yes, once all russians are driven from ukrainian soil, the theoretical possibility exists that the Kremlin (Putin will long be gone by that date, IMHO) is not willing to end hostilities. I frankly dont know what will happen then. There are a few possibilities, but IMHO its pointless to speculate about that at this point. 

[Fenris]

Quote

Akhmat special forces have been sent to the Bakhmut direction to reinforce currently deployed Russian units and maintain the defense. Russian channels acknowledge the situation is problematic and that the AFU is advancing on multiple directions around the city.

Weren't these guys being sent to the Zaporizhia front as well? A week or two ago?

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1678304702209851393

[Splinty]

At this point I don't even consider the UXO DPICM situation worthy of argument. Very little, if any DPICM or general purpose cluster munitions are going to be used anywhere that Russia hasn't already placed hundreds if not thousands of AT and AP mines. Areas that will have to be demined post war ANYWAYS. Whatever unexploded DPICM remains will just be another part of the clean up.

[Tux]

21 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

That is one reason why the Baltics and Central Europeans opinions often are different than the old NATO countries. We have barely rented a bedsit in that house 30 years ago.

Please remember that the positions taken by those 'old NATO countries' were taken because they are aware of what happens in their absence.  I don't buy this whole 'goldfish' theory of Western European social and military policy, any more than I do the implication that only those who were most recently traumatised can 'think straight enough' to opine on the morality of war.

For right or wrong, experienced countries made informed decisions about the shade of grey they wanted to implement.  By all means choose your own shade but then stop calling everything else black.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Tux said:

I, for one, am comfortable with the fact that our collective morality (insofar as one exists) is highly variable between individuals, populations and over time and in different circumstances.  That doesn't change the rationale for an anti- or reluctantly-pro DPICM stance vis-a-vis this war.

I feel like we are better than this.  We credit our 'pro-DPICM' contingent with not being mindless, bloodthirsty animals who couldn't care less about collateral damage as long as more Russians are killed.  I hope we can credit our 'anti-DPICM' crowd with not being weak, self-righteous pearl-clutchers who don't know they were born

Well it kinda does change the rationale.  The fact that you are seeing this as a hard "pro" or "against" DPICM situation is evidence that this entire thing has been hijacked by slippery principle as opposed to reality.  I for one am highly against the use of DPICM in urban areas on a low-level conflict/counter insurgency, such as Southern Lebanon.  I am, however, for their legal use in Southern Ukraine when the UA is running out of ammunition and needs to sustain an offensive to keep momentum or risk stalling out into a frozen conflict.  See that?  I can actually have two opposed opinions on the use of these weapons based on context.  Anyone who is able to do that is living in the real world as we try and balance the hope and desperation.

If, however, one stands on principle regardless of context, then they are "pearl clutching" and being self-righteous in my opinion.  Tossing around "but the children!" arguments that lead to hypocritical cul de sacs is just as bad as blood thirsty genocidal sentiments we have also clamped down on.  Of course being someone who has had spent their adult life going out into the world and dealing with the worst while 99.9% of my home population is more worried about whether Taylor Swift is going to do a concert in Toronto has likely jaded me somewhat.

[Tux]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well it kinda does change the rationale.  The fact that you are seeing this as a hard "pro" or "against" DPICM situation is evidence that this entire thing has been hijacked by slippery principle as opposed to reality.

Ok, well if you think I see this as a hard "pro" or "against" situation then the whole point of several of my recent posts has been totally lost.  The inverted commas I used in the post you quoted were the only defence I put in that sentence to defend against such an impression.  I guess that's on me.

Quote

I for one am highly against the use of DPICM in urban areas on a low-level conflict/counter insurgency, such as Southern Lebanon.  I am, however, for their legal use in Southern Ukraine when the UA is running out of ammunition and needs to sustain an offensive to keep momentum or risk stalling out into a frozen conflict.

I totally agree.  As I have tried to say, my particular shade of grey is nudged into the 'pro-DPICM' half of the spectrum (there I go 'making it a binary' again...) in this instance by the lack of alternative solutions to Ukraine's ammunition shortage.

Quote

If, however, one stands on principle regardless of context, then they are "pearl clutching" and being self-righteous in my opinion.  Tossing around "but the children!" arguments that lead to hypocritical cul de sacs is just as bad as blood thirsty genocidal sentiments we have also clamped down on.

To my eyes the only arguments based on principle, such as you describe, have been written to counter similarly binary points raised on 'the other side'.  In other words they are there to redress the balance and ensure the discussion doesn't just discard principle altogether.  For what it's worth I can see how that could come across as somewhat patronising or 'preachy' to someone with your background.  However I don't think I have seen a single person argue that their principles should actually over-ride all other considerations.  In fact, have we seen a single opinion yet from someone firmly against DPICM use in the current situation?  If we have I think I missed it...

Quote

Of course being someone who has had spent their adult life going out into the world and dealing with the worst while 99.9% of my home population is more worried about whether Taylor Swift is going to do a concert in Toronto has likely jaded me somewhat.

Understood, and I don't just mean the self-deprecating part.  I always look forward to reading your informed opinions and explanations on this thread.  They are among the ones that do 'move the dial'.

I'm going to step back and get some work done now, anyway.  I think my posts are starting to rock the boat more than stabilise it and I want to let some of more up-to-date posts get some air.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Tux
There's always a typo...

[Sarjen]

regarding DPICM: we should put our ethical principles behind the needs of Ukraine, which follows a higher legal and moral imperative (defense against a war of aggression contrary to international law). One can remain of different opinion but ethics are nice to have when you are not bound to be eradicated by Russia. 

[Carolus]

Rheinmetal wants to "open" a tank factory in Ukraine in 3 months, aiming for an eventual production capacity of 400 vehicles per year (likely the new Panther, and maybe Boxer). It will be located in Western Ukraine.

I don't know if "opening" means that they will start building the foundations of the factory hall or something else. 

I cannot imagine that they would be actually operationally capable to start production at that point in time. Machinery, mechanics, engineers, workers and all that would have to be in place by that point and would already need to have their contracts in their hands right now more or less.

Regardless, the CEO of Rheinmetal said, when asked about potential risks, that the company would provide their own air defense cannons to protect the property, which strikes me as very cyberpunk unless he means that they will be manned by personnel of the Ukrainian Army.

Additional point: I would be surprised if these guys wouldn't be able to provide spare parts or maintenance for other Rheinmetal vehicles and equipment, just in case "someone" drives into their backyard with it and "asks for a hand" once the whole thing is set up.

Edit: Okay upon further reading, the first target will be maintenance for Fuchs vehicles, working together with Ukroboronprom.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Carolus
typos, clarification

[Carolus]

https://kyivindependent.com/minister-factory-to-produce-bayraktar-drones-under-construction-in-ukraine/

Another military-industrial news nugget: 

Company Bayraktar will open a drone factory in Ukraine.

How weird that a country so brutalised by Russia can still attract such investments. And a hopeful sign.

If the Western governments fail Ukraine with actual arms production, the almighty Eurodollar and Western arms companies will save us if only the money pipeline doesn't stop. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Carolus

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Tux said:

To my eyes the only arguments based on principle, such as you describe, have been written to counter similarly binary points raised on 'the other side'.  In other words they are there to redress the balance and ensure the discussion doesn't just discard principle altogether.  For what it's worth I can see how that could come across as somewhat patronising or 'preachy' to someone with your background.  However I don't think I have seen a single person argue that their principles should actually over-ride all other considerations.  In fact, have we seen a single opinion yet from someone firmly against DPICM use in the current situation?  If we have I think I missed it...

Do not get me wrong - the discussion on this forum has been positively scholarly and gentile compared to other corners of the internet right now.  I think we have some leanings among the group, some stronger than others.  I do tend to want to ensure that any discussion around stuff like this be given the broadest treatment possible.  So for example if we are going to start doing maths, let's do all the maths.  If we are going to argue for human security issues, lets call spades, 'spades' and underline the inconsistencies.  You will remember that I was just as hard on the whole warcrimes discussions that hijacked us last year.

The "firmly against DPICM" has not occurred here, it occurred places like my own government.  I am just not a fan of it taking root here without being challenged anymore than the even more distasteful topics we have had to cover.  I am firmly in JonS's camp on "why dumb DPICM, when we have HE PGM?"  Further, I am also in the "PGM DPICM with a 100% (or at least comparable to dumb HE) dud rates" camp.  The issue is that context appears to have changed and we should change with it.  When I start to hear "DPICM bad no matter what because it makes baby Jesus (or certain Canadian political parties) cry", that would be when I start to push back and call out hypocrisy when I see it.  There are weapons that should (and are) universally outlawed - chemical, biological and nuclear/radiation are at the top of that list.  

Finally my own biases are showing when I hear from preachy political parties that basically did nothing to deter Russia from this war, even after 2014, beyond harsh language and finger waving.  "But now that Ukraine is using cluster munitions well we had better speak up!"  How about we worry less about which munitions are being employed in a war and work harder on stopping the wars before they start in the first place?  Perhaps that is my preachy windmill on a hill of sand to tilt at.

[akd]

Remote mining by drone:

 

[Butschi]

9 minutes ago, Sarjen said:

regarding DPICM: we should put our ethical principles behind the needs of Ukraine, which follows a higher legal and moral imperative (defense against a war of aggression contrary to international law). One can remain of different opinion but ethics are nice to have when you are not bound to be eradicated by Russia. 

(Note to all: Not specific to DPICM, so don't give me "we are taking about cluster munitions not nerve gas" again. Also, you may note that I don't argue for or against DPICM, just that I find "shut up, Ukrainians know best" somewhat undercomplex.)

I think ethics are never only "nice to have". This is the old "the end justifies the means" and "you have to become your enemy in order to defeat him". Be that as it may, it's Ukraine repeatedly telling us that they don't "merely" fight for themselves but also for Western values. Now, I've been critical about what these values are in reality on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, that means they themselves say ethics (which, I think, are part of these values) are more than just "nice to have".

Anyway, we (the West) shouldn't dismiss ethics when they are inconvenient. We often do and that is bad enough because the more we do this the more we give our favourite autocracies ammunition to justify throwing things like human rights over board.

That said, "ethics" doesn't mean being an angle. It can mean weighing all options and arriving at the conclusion that they are all bad and one is just the least bad.

[Butschi]

25 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am just not a fan of it taking root here without being challenged anymore than the even more distasteful topics we have had to cover. 

Challenging even the most well meaning opinion is never wrong.

[Battlefront.com]

9 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

Instead of being upset, you should be smug and pour yourself a nice scotch!

It's tempting, but it's not in my nature.  I'm fine with calling out things in a factual way, including saying "see, I told you so", but I am not fine with institutions and populations being advised by people that claim detailed knowledge of a subject that they clearly aren't grasping at a fundamental level. 

Every single Russia/Kremlin "expert" should have been at least speculating that something else was going on within the Kremlin because that is ALWAYS what is happening.  Yet the prevailing message from the experts was "everything is exactly as the Kremlin says it is.  No need to wonder how that happened because Prig was obviously too weak".  Further, we had experts stating that this was an isolated "mutiny", not a challenge to Putin's political power.

We here don't have significant influence, the experts do.  It's problematic when the ones who are correct aren't being listened to and the ones who are wrong are.  I can only hope that the intelligence agencies have enough information to make more accurate assessments of what is really going on.

Steve