How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

2 minutes ago, Jr Buck Private said:

This Urkaine NATO membership will be an interesting topic going forward if there's ever some serious attempt at a negotiated peace.   Putin has to have some face saving victory.   Ukraine not being admitted into NATO would be one of the west's best bargaining chips.   Most of us want Ukraine in NATO after the war, but either way Ukraine comes out of this armed to the teeth with an experienced army.   I doubt the Russians would try to invade them anytime soon as it will take a decade to rebuild their armed forces.

As far as ATACMS.   Is it correct to assume that the Russians have enough air defenses around the Kerch bridge to stop them from getting through?   I was hoping that bridge would soon be toast.

 

Zelensky is demanding the impossible when asking for a promise about future NATO membership at this moment. It will only give fuel to the Russian propaganda machine. Zelensky knows that, but putting the West under unreasonable pressure, will make them more willing to give him more and heavier weapons. Be unreasonable and ask for the impossible and see what it will get you. Same as Erdogan does actually and it also works for him.

 

[kraze]

43 minutes ago, Butschi said:

To be fair, @panzermartin specifically mentioned Western Europe. None of those countries are in western Europe.

Again, there is enough to discuss that people actually post, so can we all please reduce the number of strawmen a bit? They are multiplying like rabbits of late.

Western Europe should exhale with ease then because historically Russia had trouble reaching any of it.

[MSBoxer]

38 minutes ago, Jr Buck Private said:

As far as ATACMS.   Is it correct to assume that the Russians have enough air defenses around the Kerch bridge to stop them from getting through?   I was hoping that bridge would soon be toast.

I would think a coordinated ATACMS/Storm Shadow attack would seriously tax any air defense with radically different attack profiles and increase likelihood of success.

Similar to the US at Midway,  although it was unplanned.  Get the defenders to focus on one attack vector and hit them from another.  In this case I would reverse and get the eyes up with ATACMS then hit them low with shadows.

It would be expensive, but soooo worth it.

Edited July 12, 2023 by MSBoxer

[Aragorn2002]

13 minutes ago, kraze said:

Western Europe should exhale with ease then because historically Russia had trouble reaching any of it.

The Russians are causing the West FAR more damage and trouble than most people realize. They do everything in their power to undermine our institutions, ideals and politicians. It has always been that way, also after the Cold war. They are our most dangerous enemy. And yeah, able and willing to blackmail us with their nuclear arsenal. 

As long as Russia exists, nobody can exhale with ease. That's what's at stake here, once and for all weaken them beyond recognition, so they can't even threaten their own people anymore.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Aragorn2002

[kevinkin]

33 minutes ago, Jr Buck Private said:

As far as ATACMS.   Is it correct to assume that the Russians have enough air defenses around the Kerch bridge to stop them from getting through?   I was hoping that bridge would soon be toast.

We can assume there is enough hardware with the capability of stopping ATACMS. But that is not the entire story. First it only takes 1-2 to get through, so the Russian crews have to be almost perfect. It would also depend on the number and timing of the incoming missiles and any distracting tactics the UA might come up with. So, the Kerch bridge would be vulnerable to a determined attack. It would be a nail biter for well trained and motivated air defense crews. Everything has to work out as planned. And who knows how good the Russia crews are when the pressure is on defending Putin's bridge. There are automated parts to the system. But they can fail in Russian hands. 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Please read again my post. "Went deeper in Western Europe". That's quite different than a war on their western border. 

Russia conducted a biological weapons attack on UK soil, it interferes with elections as far away as the United states, and murders people whenever and wherever it feels like.  The countries in NATO have to be ready to fight in the east, which means dedicating financial and industrial resources to be ready "just in case".  And don't even get me started about how much Russian money is used to gain advantages abroad through corruption.

I dunno what map you are using, but to me London and Washington DC are considerably west of Warsaw.

You need to expand the scope of what sort of immediate threat Russia poses to countries that it does not necessarily border.

As others have already pointed out, there's also a historical lesson to be learned.  Which is, Russia's history has been a cycle of being too weak to bother powerful neighbors until it isn't, then becoming weak again, then working hard to be a threat, etc.

We are in a cycle of ensuring Russia is weak again.  That is in everybody's interests except for the ruling elite in Russia.  We need to do our part to ensure it happens and then prepare for the next cycle when action is needed again.

Steve

[fireship4]

37 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

The Russians are causing the West FAR more damage and trouble than most people realize.

Yes I get the feeling if and when their systems of destabilisation break down, things across the West might start to work a little better.  On the other hand, constant stresses and criticism do encourage us to firm up our ideals and seek workable answers to difficult questions and social conflicts.

EDIT: Although China is a bigger threat in other ways, I don't feel they would have the same effect in the propaganda sphere, off the top of my head it would be more about building relationships and economic leverage/bribery.

Edited July 12, 2023 by fireship4

[kimbosbread]

4 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

For what it is worth, I do not exactly understand why countries in Europe further to the West are not worried more. We are the next border after Ukraine, but the Netherlands are not exactly on the far side of the Moon either. 

Because they have given up on military matters, care more about money than Eastern Europe, and are basically paralyzed between France’s dreams of greatness and German malaise. Unfortunately, they feel the same way about China, and have a similar lack of ability to make a difference there even if they cared.

21 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

The Russians are causing the West FAR more damage and trouble than most people realize. They do everything in their power to undermine our institutions, ideals and politicians. It has always been that way, also after the Cold war. They are our most dangerous enemy. And yeah, able and willing to blackmail us with their nuclear arsenal.

Eh, I’ll take China for $200. This whole thing is about deterring China. Sure, the US cares about Ukraine, and we’ve been helping for a while, but you gotta remember how much of the aid we’ve sent between 2014-2022 was lost to corruption (80% was the number I heard from military people I trust), so there’s an element of rebuilding trust, but Ukraine vs Russia in an guerilla war that makes Afghanistan look quaint would crush Russia too, in the long run. However, a more immediate response is required in order to stave off an invasion of Taiwan in 2025 or 2027.

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

To be fair, @panzermartin specifically mentioned Western Europe. None of those countries are in western Europe.

Again, there is enough to discuss that people actually post, so can we all please reduce the number of strawmen a bit? They are multiplying like rabbits of late.

Fine not in Western Europe but they certainly would have been next. The point is that even peaceful and neutral countries are subject to random invasion by the Soviet Union. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Artkin

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

The Russians are causing the West FAR more damage and trouble than most people realize. They do everything in their power to undermine our institutions, ideals and politicians. It has always been that way, also after the Cold war. They are our most dangerous enemy. And yeah, able and willing to blackmail us with their nuclear arsenal. 

As long as Russia exists, nobody can exhale with ease. That's what's at stake here, once and for all weaken them beyond recognition, so they can't even threaten their own people anymore.

This would be the part about how this war is about a lot more than Ukraine trying to defend itself.  To be entirely brutal (yet accurate), this was became a major opportunity after about Apr 23.  An opportunity to knock Russia back in line with the international community and a global status quo that has endured for about 30+ years.  Russia was dumb enough and ill-prepared enough so the West scrambled for the chance at a nasty proxy war that 1) would not lead directly to NATO being pulled in/WW3, 2) could be contained to Ukraine and not blow up and out from there, 3) shore up NATO in both membership and funding, 4) result in regime change in Russia that we could do business with but not risk security everywhere, and 5) did not turn Russia into a complete freefall.  Not a great or easy opportunity but there it is.  The other option was to simply let it happen but that was simply letting things slide too far.

This is why we are doubling down on Ukraine - intersection strategic interests.  Not because we like them so much, or really care about their suffering.  There are lists of nations who were (and are) burning right now that we averted eyes and changed the channel.  There are conflicts that we stayed out of that were worse than Ukraine but that happened on the periphery.  Russia in Ukraine is right smack dab in the wheelhouse of challenging how we thought the world works.  We thought that nation states negotiating with war was over.  Intra-state and non-state, sure and nasty business "over there".  To have an international great power go "nope, we like the way of the gun and there is nothing you can do about it" risks the entire scheme.

So, no, we are not sending billions in military support or opening up our entire ISR architecture to Ukraine because it is the right thing to do in defending "the little guy".  Politicians are going to spin it that way because people buy it.  But this is harsh calculus time - we defend the scheme or risk it failing entirely.  Ukraine was the opportunity of a generation to have a war with Russia without really having a war.  Don't believe me, if Azerbaijan invades  Armenia again does anyone think they are going to see this sort of heat and light?  Why?  Because the rules based order can tolerate small side powers scrapping away, but one of the big boys...nope. 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Hapless said:

It would make defence more complex for the Russians- for example:

ATACMs flies on a ballistic trajectory while Storm Shadow is a cruise missile, so one of each fired at the same target presents two different air defence problems at the same time (fast but telegraphed ATACMs vs slower but stealthier Storm Shadow). Mix in decoys, Storm Shadows changing direction etc and things can get real confusing real fast.

This might prompt the Russians to concentrate more air defence on more important targets, leaving other (still important) targets less well defended.

There's also the EW game- the Russians are inevitably going to get their hands on some kind of salvageable internals from whatever weapons are used, at which point they can dig into the systems and figure out how they can jam or spoof them. They've already apparently gotten hold of a Storm Shadow, so from here on out there's a possibility that Storm Shadow strikes can be degraded by EW effects.

Having more different types of weapons in the mix keeps things fresh (as it were), so there's always something up Ukraine's sleeve that the Russians haven't developed a counter to yet. At the same time, depending on the specifics, even if the Russians have worked out how to jam ATACMs and Storm Shadow, they might not be able to jam both at the same time because EW cna be finicky, or if they can, they might need more rare, expensive EW assets concentrated to do so.

Stuff like that.

Exactly.  A few other things I brought up the last time this was discussed plus a few more...

1.  Ukraine has a limited number of platforms to launch Storm Shadow (and similar) attacks, which means they are limited in how many attacks can be performed within a certain given time

2.  Platforms needed for Storm Shadow type weapons requires a fairly large logistical effort because anything aircraft related does

3.  In theory Russia has many options that could, but obviously hasn't, disrupt Ukraine's ability to use its aircraft as launch platforms

4.  Storm Shadows are not great for targets of opportunity that have a short targeting window.  With limited platforms it's impossible to have a 24/7 response on standby.

5.  Because the Ukrainian airforce is unlikely to dramatically expand it's capabilities nor change its behavior, Russia can tailor it's responses to Storm Shadow based on more-or-less the current level of activity being conducted in the current way.

ATACMS significantly changes all of this for the better.

Think of it another way... there's little difference in a 155mm shell landing on a target when it is fired by a towed gun vs. a self propelled one.  Same range, same basic effect.  Yet there's a host of reasons why a nation wants, and in fact needs, both.  Therefore, range is obviously only one factor in determining what a weapon system brings to the fight.  In the case of ATACMS the range *is* important, but so are many other factors that come with it.  Storm Shadow is a great compliment to it, not a substitute for it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This would be the part about how this war is about a lot more than Ukraine trying to defend itself.  To be entirely brutal (yet accurate), this was became a major opportunity after about Apr 23.  An opportunity to knock Russia back in line with the international community and a global status quo that has endured for about 30+ years.  Russia was dumb enough and ill-prepared enough so the West scrambled for the chance at a nasty proxy war that 1) would not lead directly to NATO being pulled in/WW3, 2) could be contained to Ukraine and not blow up and out from there, 3) shore up NATO in both membership and funding, 4) result in regime change in Russia that we could do business with but not risk security everywhere, and 5) did not turn Russia into a complete freefall.  Not a great or easy opportunity but there it is.  The other option was to simply let it happen but that was simply letting things slide too far.

This is why we are doubling down on Ukraine - intersection strategic interests.  Not because we like them so much, or really care about their suffering.  There are lists of nations who were (and are) burning right now that we averted eyes and changed the channel.  There are conflicts that we stayed out of that were worse than Ukraine but that happened on the periphery.  Russia in Ukraine is right smack dab in the wheelhouse of challenging how we thought the world works.  We thought that nation states negotiating with war was over.  Intra-state and non-state, sure and nasty business "over there".  To have an international great power go "nope, we like the way of the gun and there is nothing you can do about it" risks the entire scheme.

So, no, we are not sending billions in military support or opening up our entire ISR architecture to Ukraine because it is the right thing to do in defending "the little guy".  Politicians are going to spin it that way because people buy it.  But this is harsh calculus time - we defend the scheme or risk it failing entirely.  Ukraine was the opportunity of a generation to have a war with Russia without really having a war.  Don't believe me, if Azerbaijan invades  Armenia again does anyone think they are going to see this sort of heat and light?  Why?  Because the rules based order can tolerate small side powers scrapping away, but one of the big boys...nope. 

There's another major issue in play right now, which is that prior to Putin launching this war there was a massive disagreement amongst NATO and its allies about how to deal with increasing Russian aggression and destabilization efforts.  For the most part *ALL* nations found it expedient to largely not respond to things like state sponsored acts of murder and terrorism being committed on its territory.  It largely didn't respond to its diplomats being harassed and even physically harmed.  It didn't do anything significant about a raft of coup plots (including one in a NATO country, BTW) and election interference.  State sponsored corruption never had a serious chance of being challenged.  Russian efforts to undermine peace and stability in the Middle East was not seriously confronted.  Not to mention a war being conducted directly on the border of its territory for 8 years.  Etc.

This war gave NATO and its allies a chance to act in unison instead of continuing to debate and delay the inevitable.  This is an opportunity that Russia had expected would be squandered.  He was wrong, but it will only be meaningful if the collective action holds.  Which is why Ukraine must be supported fully and thoroughly.

While it might be that politicians in NATO and its allies are "using" Ukraine as a tool, there is a genuine emotional interest to help them.  That is genuine.  But if strategic interests were not in alignment, it would not be enough to act so strongly (or at all, a pessimist could say)

Steve

[Astrophel]

No, Netherlands is not on "the far side of the moon".  This repeated dig at Netherlands seems quite uncalled for.  Netherlands support to Ukraine was immediate despite a large part of the population not being able to find Ukraine on a map.  After MH17 Netherlands has no illusions about modern russia.  MH17 was a deliberate act of war directed at Dutch people by russians.  Netherlands was immediately supportive of Ukraine in the current war.

Threats from Moscow were directed very early to Netherlands and the Port of Rotterdam in particular.  The nuclear hawks in Moscow were prominent.  The Dutch Government communicated a clear message that Patriot systems were on full alert and that Netherlands would not be intimidated.  The Dutch resolve has not faltered as far as I can see.  Netherlands is hosting more refugees than UK and is playing its part with provision of military and financial aid, as well as performing a vital logistics function.  Netherlands was one of the first if not the first to promise F16s.

Please let us resist the temptation to imagine fault lines in the Nato alliance.  When it comes to a russian threat to destroy the port of Rotterdam then believe me Netherlands is as much in the front line as Warsaw.

[danfrodo]

Good discussion today, thanks all.  PanzerMartin made a relatively valid point and the other folks reminded him of the very aggressive moves RU made outside of the two big historical RU 'counter' moves into 'western' europe.  I don't think y'all need to argue, everyone made interesting points it seemed to me. 

So no news from the front it seems?  RU situation around Bakhmut deteriorating.  I am happy about this but it doesn't get us a lot closer to ending the war the way the land bridge attacks could.  I know the Bakhmut fight is drawing in RU reserves at least.  And of course there's talk of big RU push on Kupyansk front.  Hopefully that just leads to lots of RU losses for nothing, but will force UKR to commit precious artillery to that area.

UKR troops grinding through treeline after treeline, it's like bocage fight.  I keep wanting to get news of more platoon & company level RU breakdowns.  Maybe this week we'll start seeing more cracks. 

Well, I've got the week off & there's some other russians that need a good solid whuppin', circa 1944.  Unfortunately they have plans made by GeorgeMC, not Putin, so it's a tough fight. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

No, Netherlands is not on "the far side of the moon".  This repeated dig at Netherlands seems quite uncalled for.  Netherlands support to Ukraine was immediate despite a large part of the population not being able to find Ukraine on a map.  After MH17 Netherlands has no illusions about modern russia.  MH17 was a deliberate act of war directed at Dutch people by russians.  Netherlands was immediately supportive of Ukraine in the current war.

Threats from Moscow were directed very early to Netherlands and the Port of Rotterdam in particular.  The nuclear hawks in Moscow were prominent.  The Dutch Government communicated a clear message that Patriot systems were on full alert and that Netherlands would not be intimidated.  The Dutch resolve has not faltered as far as I can see.  Netherlands is hosting more refugees than UK and is playing its part with provision of military and financial aid, as well as performing a vital logistics function.  Netherlands was one of the first if not the first to promise F16s.

Please let us resist the temptation to imagine fault lines in the Nato alliance.  When it comes to a russian threat to destroy the port of Rotterdam then believe me Netherlands is as much in the front line as Warsaw.

Thanks for the reminder of MH-17.  Russia is so horrible that it's easy to make a list of its crimes, but it's tricky keep that list short.

Steve

[Jr Buck Private]

58 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

We can assume there is enough hardware with the capability of stopping ATACMS. But that is not the entire story. First it only takes 1-2 to get through, so the Russian crews have to be almost perfect. It would also depend on the number and timing of the incoming missiles and any distracting tactics the UA might come up with. So, the Kerch bridge would be vulnerable to a determined attack. It would be a nail biter for well trained and motivated air defense crews. Everything has to work out as planned. And who knows how good the Russia crews are when the pressure is on defending Putin's bridge. There are automated parts to the system. But they can fail in Russian hands. 

I guess that's where the strategy of dropping bottles of vodka on the enemy pre-attack might come in handy.   

[Battlefront.com]

One way to deal with the problem of pardoned Wagner prisoners committing new crimes is to cover it up so nobody questions the wisdom of letting them out in the first place:

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/07/11/old-habits

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

50 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

Yes I get the feeling if and when their systems of destabilisation break down, things across the West might start to work a little better.  On the other hand, constant stresses and criticism do encourage us to firm up our ideals and seek workable answers to difficult questions and social conflicts.

EDIT: Although China is a bigger threat in other ways, I don't feel they would have the same effect in the propaganda sphere, off the top of my head it would be more about building relationships and economic leverage/bribery.

I agree. In the long term China is even more dangerous and it would be wrong to think of that threat as far from our bed and mainly aimed at Taiwan. Personally I feel NATO has to consider this very catefully, especially by building stronger navy and air forces. And reducing Chinese influence weherever we can.

[Aragorn2002]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks for the reminder of MH-17.  Russia is so horrible that it's easy to make a list of its crimes, but it's tricky keep that list short.

Steve

That and all that you said in your last couple of posts.

[Aragorn2002]

Quote from BBC

"UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says "people want to see gratitude" from Ukraine, in relation to Western aid

He said he told the Ukraine government last year that "we're not Amazon" after a weapons request

He was speaking after President Zelensky criticised Nato for delays in making Ukraine a member"

Hell, yes. Zelensky really went too far this time. "Weak and absurd" what was he thinking?

Edited July 12, 2023 by Aragorn2002

[RandomCommenter]

2 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Quote from BBC

"UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says "people want to see gratitude" from Ukraine, in relation to Western aid

He said he told the Ukraine government last year that "we're not Amazon" after a weapons request

He was speaking after President Zelensky criticised Nato for delays in making Ukraine a member"

Hell, yes. Zelensky really went too far this time. 

He is the one Tory I have time for.

[cesmonkey]

 

[TheVulture]

7 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Quote from BBC

"UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says "people want to see gratitude" from Ukraine, in relation to Western aid

He said he told the Ukraine government last year that "we're not Amazon" after a weapons request

He was speaking after President Zelensky criticised Nato for delays in making Ukraine a member"

Hell, yes. Zelensky really went too far this time. "Weak and absurd" what was he thinking?

I'm not the biggest fan of Ben Wallace (although he's one of the better of the Tory party), but on this I think the quote being thrown everywhere rather misrepresents what he said - it's rather more in line with what people on this thread have said that Ukraine can't take western support for granted in the sense that they need to be politically savvy about how public statements can sound to the western public. I.e. don't say stuff and present an attitude that is going to give leverage to the political factions that are rather more pro-Russian. Quoting a BBC article:

 

Ben Wallace's comments in full

More now on the latest comments from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.

In his briefing with reporters, he said that Ukraine had to remember it was asking countries to give up their own stocks of weapons.

“There is a slight word of caution which is, whether we like it or not, people want to see gratitude,” he said. “My counsel to the Ukrainians is sometimes, look, you are persuading countries to give up their own stocks.

"And yes, the war is a noble war and yes, we see it as you doing a war not just for yourselves but also our freedoms. But sometimes you have got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America [US Congress].

"You have got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that it is worth it, it’s worthwhile and they are getting something for it. That’s just the reality of it.”

He said there would sometimes be "grumbles" from US lawmakers, but he insisted that Ukraine would join Nato.

“The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in Nato.

"You have heard the [UK] prime minister say Ukraine belongs in Nato and the word 'belongs' implies it's fate, implies it’s going to happen.”

[CAZmaj]

12 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

It's pretty easy if your browser is Google Chrome. Just click the left mouse button and select the "Translate to ...", where ... is English for me.

And then you can click the checkbox to always translate Russian or Ukrainian or whatever language is detects on the current page.

Apologies for somewhat unrelated question but how do you do that in WhatsApp?

[sburke]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Because the rules based order can tolerate small side powers scrapping away, but one of the big boys...nope. 

I think that is only part of the calculus.  China invading Vietnam didn't generate this kind of response.

other factors

1.  It is Europe.  Too close to home for NATO

2. It's impact strategically is much more important to the US and NATO than the consequences of a war in SE Asia.

3.  The Ukrainian victory at Maidan and continuing to hold out against Russian aggression was a cause the west could support.

4.  The long term goal of fostering democracy in Ukraine did not have a counter part in Vietnam.

 

If this had been Russia invading Belarus I don't think there would have been the same western response.  The Ukrainians themselves set the conditions that made this a viable option for the west.