How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

27 minutes ago, Butschi said:

If that's your definition of a moron...

Now I have to defend US generals because you guys are too lazy to look up original sources? Really?

Yep that fits perfectly my definition of a moron! 

Same argumentation used as for not delivering tanks because the Orcs still have anti tank capabilities and tanks.

Quote

I mean, the Russians still possess some air defense capability.  They have air capability.  And the number of F-16s that would be provided may not be perfect for what's going on right now.  

But keep on defending these folks. It is your call.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, cesmonkey said:

After a massive artillery preparation, the enemy went on a breakthrough in the direction of the settlement Harvest to the right of Velikaya Novoselovka

Harvest = Urozhaine?

[TheVulture]

11 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Harvest = Urozhaine?

That was my guess - the name in the Russian text was Урожайное, which is likely to be the Russian version of Урожайне (Urozhaine)

[Butschi]

56 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Same argumentation used as for not delivering tanks because the Orcs still have anti tank capabilities and tanks.

Only, that's not what Gen. Sims argued. He was asked what new capabilities F-16s would add and how useful they would be. He answered that question, no more, no less. OBrien cut out one sentence of the answer to that specific question without context and said "Pentagon sais, conditions not ideal so we don't give F-16!". Which may or may not be what folks in Pentagon actually think but which most definitely was not what Gen. Sims said.

Btw. The "Kiev Independent" article, from which OBrien quoted (instead of making another click to the original source that was also provided in that article) also didn't interpret it that way.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Butschi

[Carolus]

Quote

U.S will buy retired MIM-23 Hawk anti-air system with missiles from Taiwan, and will refurbish then send to Ukraine. Taiwan has at least 13 batteries and 39 radars of this system. This news is on some of the biggest medias in Taiwan already.

The Taiwanese Hawk batteries were recently retired. They are claimed to be in good condition and were upgraded multiple times over the last decades. 

 

[DesertFox]

21 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Only, that's not what Gen. Sims argued. He was asked what new capabilities F-16s would add and how useful they would be. He answered that question, no more, no less. OBrien cut out one sentence of the answer to that specific question without context and said "Pentagon sais, conditions not ideal so we don't give F-16!". Which may or may not be what folks in Pentagon actually think but which most definitely was not what Gen. Sims said.

Btw. The "Kiev Independent" article, from which OBrien quoted (instead of making another click to the original source that was also provided in that article) also didn't interpret it that way.

Huh? This is exactly what he was asked, and this is what his answer was, see below or here:

Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II (USA), Director for Operations, J-3, The Joint Staff; Brigadier General Pat Ryder, Pentagon Press Secretary, Hold a Press Briefing > U.S. Department of Defense > Transcript

Out of context quotation? Certainly not. Now argue about O´Brien or Kiev Independant misunderstood something? I don´t think so. Anyways...your call...

Q:  Hi, Sir.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I wanted to ask you about the counter-offensive and -- since it is going a little slower than some may have liked, it seems like perhaps this might last longer as well.  And as we go into the fall, you look at new U.S. equipment that is potentially arriving -- the Abrams, for example, maybe even F-16s. Can you talk at all about what kind of capability those weapons would bring to the counteroffensive and how useful that would be?

GEN. SIMS:  Yes, sure, Ma'am.  Well, let me start with air.  We've said this for a while, you know, this -- the conditions on the environment certainly are changing over time.  But the conditions right now for the employment of the F-16s are probably not -- they're probably not ideal.  I mean, the Russians still possess some air defense capability.  They have air capability.  And the number of F-16s that would be provided may not be perfect for what's going on right now.  As the future changes, that certainly will dictate how that is employed.

In terms of the Abrams, you know, the Abrams will certainly make a difference on the battlefield.  I mean, we know it's an extraordinary tank.  And, you know, the training ongoing right now will make them, you know, I would think, extraordinarily good at employing them.  I can't tell you whether the offensive would still be going on by then or not, I just know that when the Abrams arrive, they'll be able to make a difference with Ukrainians.

[Butschi]

17 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Huh? This is exactly what he was asked, and this is what his answer was, see below or here:

Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II (USA), Director for Operations, J-3, The Joint Staff; Brigadier General Pat Ryder, Pentagon Press Secretary, Hold a Press Briefing > U.S. Department of Defense > Transcript

Out of context quotation? Certainly not. Now argue about O´Brien or Kiev Independant misunderstood something? I don´t think so. Anyways...your call...

Q:  Hi, Sir.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I wanted to ask you about the counter-offensive and -- since it is going a little slower than some may have liked, it seems like perhaps this might last longer as well.  And as we go into the fall, you look at new U.S. equipment that is potentially arriving -- the Abrams, for example, maybe even F-16s. Can you talk at all about what kind of capability those weapons would bring to the counteroffensive and how useful that would be?

GEN. SIMS:  Yes, sure, Ma'am.  Well, let me start with air.  We've said this for a while, you know, this -- the conditions on the environment certainly are changing over time.  But the conditions right now for the employment of the F-16s are probably not -- they're probably not ideal.  I mean, the Russians still possess some air defense capability.  They have air capability.  And the number of F-16s that would be provided may not be perfect for what's going on right now.  As the future changes, that certainly will dictate how that is employed.

In terms of the Abrams, you know, the Abrams will certainly make a difference on the battlefield.  I mean, we know it's an extraordinary tank.  And, you know, the training ongoing right now will make them, you know, I would think, extraordinarily good at employing them.  I can't tell you whether the offensive would still be going on by then or not, I just know that when the Abrams arrive, they'll be able to make a difference with Ukrainians.

Er... yes, thanks for re-quoting the exact passage I already quoted in my first answer to your original post. Now that we conveniently have the passage twice, would you kindly point me to where in that passage Gen. Sims was asked what the conditions for delivering F-16s are? Or where he answered that question? Or where he actually talked about delivering F-16s at all? I'll say it for the third time now: He was asked, and you even highlighted that part, about how useful F-16s would  be for the current offensive. He said conditions were probably not ideal right now given the limited number there would be at first and Russian AA capabilities. He did not say "and therefore, nope, dear Ukrainians, no F-16s."

This is simply another strawman argument, sorry to say.

[DesertFox]

20 minutes ago, Butschi said:

This is simply another strawman argument, sorry to say.

Nope it isn´t. You obviously were inconvenient with O´Brian quoting said general via Kiev Independant and making this remark:

I would be fascinated to see a war when the conditions for something were ‘ideal’. That’s a peculiar threshold. They key thing is can they help and the answer is yes https://t.co/VTM8nAyhsT

— Phillips P. OBrien (@PhillipsPOBrien) July 14, 2023

Quote

And that happens when you cut a small snippet of a quote and use it out of context to make your point.

Now tell me where O´Brian or the Kiev Independant misquoted said general.

[Carolus]

Gentlemen, if I may, I think the misunderstanding here is that Butschi thought that DesertFox understood "deployment" as delivery and thus was criticizing it that F-16 would not get delivered or would be delayed due to bad operational conditions, but DesertFox actually originally interpreted deployment as "usage / usefulness" and criticized that in war with a peer or near-peer, there is probably never an ideal situation to deploy any kind of equipment. 

[Kinophile]

11 hours ago, billbindc said:

it actually represents the kind of thing one would have seen in the medieval era with powerful nobles directly threatening the king, going out of favor, coming back in but ultimately not being severely punished for fairly violent chevauchée's aimed at the central power. 

This.  I've been working back in time for comparative analysis, as I don't believe the current power structures in modern Russia are actually modern. 

I had actually landed at the middle-late Byzantine Empire but your mention of chevauchees (a perfect word in itself, it's an excellent description of the Wagner March) leads me to France prior and during the Hundred years war.

The slow descent into constant violent negotiation between the Nobles and King,  with the King perceived as all-powerful to the hoi polloi but actually in hock to shifting alliances, has strong Russia 2023+ vibes. 

 

 

[kevinkin]

2 hours ago, Carolus said:

The Taiwanese Hawk batteries were recently retired.

Just read South Korea has retired some as well. Not sure how modernized. IDF still uses them?

Bit more from Wiki:

December 2022, Ukraine started to use the system to defend against the Russian invasion. Ukraine received its first HAWK missile systems from Spain on 3 December, 2022.[29] Spain pledged a total of six launchers to Ukraine, with the United States to provide refurbished missiles. [30][31][32] Western analysts put its accuracy at 85% chance of hitting a target.[29]

Edited July 14, 2023 by kevinkin

[Beleg85]

Close call on Ukrainian mavic, being cms away from hit by rocket (reportedly TOR):

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, and this is another example of why responding to things that are 1-2 days old without seeing where they wound up doesn't help keep the thread moving forward.  That particular conversation ran its course and did not need a revival.

Ok, but several users were still debating it hotly, so theme wasn't dead. Ok, anyway, agree it's better to push forward.

 

So, here a translation taken from one of Telegram channels regarding how wagnerites were quarelling with neighour units. Quite interesting how things were on the ground before the mutiny:

https://twitter.com/MarekMeissner/status/1679773210777190401

Extremely interesting dialogue caught on military TG, between two Russians:

"- They take toys  from the Wagners. They had a good stuff, many a brigade is not like that

- True. Because it was from the brigades

- How is it? did they steal?

- No, what for? They stole it once, when they laid their hands on the Luhansk and Donetsk artillery. But then nobody said anything, there was such a brothel [mess] that when Wagner came in it got better. Then it turned different -the people themselves went to them

- How did they simply pass to other unit?

- Normally. Do you know what that war with the 72nd brigade was about?

- Come on, food, ammo.

- **** no. it was about fact that the Wagners stole people from them. Because the command of 72 [brigade] are great gentlemen. They hadn't been on the line for weeks. Supply? Let the company commanders break their heads over it, not their business. Ammunition? If Moscow will give, it will be. Well, these poor guys were standing on the line, the ukrops were shelling them, and here next to them Wagner is standing and they have everything. At first they borrowed things from mercc, so later then they came from Utkin and said: >> do you want the same? then go to us << And so two companies from the 72nd escaped with their equipment. After a month a colonel arrives on the line and see his men are not there, Wagner is standing next. He sees that his people, yell his mouth on them and the Wagners say to him >> to go f..k himself<<. So he complained to the Syrian [probably the nickname of General Serowikina-] and he said to him >> How are you, colonel taking care of your own troops? << So command ****ed him over like a dog. This was the case with the Syrian.

After Moscow began to take command [probably Gerasimov and Shoigu-MM], it was less frequent, but they say that Prigozhin went to Moscow especially so as not to disturb those trooops that came over to him.

- You must have lost your mind. It's not allowed!

- F..k sake it is not allowed. They say you can't, but show me where it says you can't. With Tanks it was the same. When they went to Moscow, two companies of tankers went with them on their own. And the anti-aircraft guns, do you think they were all from them? F..k no.. And before that, near Sołedar near Bachmut, how was it? They come from the brigade command to the line, look, and here is their tank platoon with Wagner. >> What are you doing here? << And they said to him >> Major Kolcow gave the order that we are doing a joint operation with Wagner << . They tell us to connect to the headquarters: >> Give Kolcov << >> How to give him, when he died yesterday << . And f..k you know if he indeed gave this order or not, but Wagner says >> if you want to have the defense secured, give these tanks; so they went for the f..k [joined battle on their own] << . There was such a bardak [rus. term for complete mess] on the front that it was not known, not even who was in charge. Do you think that everything is in order there like yours? No f..k. Do you understand now why there are written orders and messengers being used now? Why orders from command are being coded now? It's not ukrops, but tool [to enforce] on lazy command, so that they don't sit behind the front, but stay at the front.

-It's true they're on the line more often now." I feel sorry for Wagner [  ]. When they were on the line, at least I knew that I had peace with my people, that they wouldn't throw us to plug the holes. They were telling the truth - they were like the SS."

Interesting view from trenches. As a bonus, reportedly fresh picture of Prig himself somewhere in the summer camp. To spoil the taste of your meal today...

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Beleg85

[billbindc]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure.  Unfortunately, when we communicate with each other the terms can be confusing when they don't really represent what happened.

Webster's defines a COUP as follows:

a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

In my view if that is what happened in Russia.  All evidence points to Putin having lost substantial power that he systematically accumulated over decades of ruthless exercise of power.  He doesn't need to be in a dungeon, hanging from a lamppost, or in exile somewhere for the definition to apply.  It just means that the power dynamic has been "decisively" altered, quite suddenly, with force, and likely by a small group.

This is not to say that it is over.  I agree that there's still a lot of negotiations going on, but it is clear that Putin's clan is not in a position to dictate the outcome.  We might even see a counter-coup, since those are pretty common.  Whatever the case may be, things could still change dramatically and on short notice.

If I had to place money on what happened, the three things I feel very sure of placing a bet on are:

1.  Prig was a tool, not the master mind, of the group that successfully challenged Putin's Power Vertical.

2.  Everybody is very sensitive to the potential (if not probable) catastrophe that might follow an overt change of power.  Nobody is likely to come out ahead in that scenario, so everybody from all sides has agreed to avoid going down that path.

3.  Putin has already saddled himself with the blame for the current state of Russia as a whole and various things specifically.  Those problems are massive and deeply difficult to solve.  Why on Earth would anybody want to be the one responsible for cleaning up all this mess?  Right, nobody

On this last point, when we started speculating back in March last year about who might replace Putin in a coup, many recognized that it would likely be a puppet of some sort and not a genuine replacement.  Those same people also thought Prig was not waiting in the wings to replace Putin as President.  What I don't think anybody envisioned was that the most likely replacement for Putin would be a neutered Putin.  Yet I think that's what we're seeing.

Going back to when Prig's attack was still fresh, I stated that one of the tests to see if Putin was indeed usurped would be if he doesn't run for reelection next year.  I'm still leaning towards that, but it could be that the power behind the throne would prefer Putin serve out another term.  Tough to say at this point as there's pros and cons to each possibility.

Yes, I think there's still a lot of details being worked out.  However, I think the framework has likely been established already and the details are just that.  Some of the details are known to us and it is possible to examine them and make educated guesses as to what the restructuring of power has in mind.

One thing is emerging that probably gives us some idea of how confident the new power in Moscow is about their overall position.  Prig was a tool to get them where they are today, yet Wagner is being dismantled.  If the new group were nervous about their position then you'd think the last thing they would do is make a repeat Prig adventure impossible.  Yet that seems to be what is happening. Ergo, the new power feels it is so thoroughly in control that a cohesive and armed Wagner is not necessary or perhaps more of a concern than Putin's backers.  Either way, someone's feeling very confident Putin isn't able to counter coup.

Steve

I should have said "coup d'etat". My bad. 

I would also say that I don't think there's a 'new power' or that one is in control. The folks who, by action or inaction, allowed Putin to be humiliated and see his aura demolished aren't completely unified over anything other than seeing Putin's power diluted. Many certainly don't want Prigozhin anywhere near power, they disagree over whether to stay in the Ukraine war, how to fight it if they do, they have their own economic interests, etc. Think of it as an awakening to the fact that if they choose as a group to not allow it, they don't necessarily have to abide by Putin's arbitration of their disputes or deposition of their positions. It's not some clique pulling the strings and skillfully managing the state from behind a curtain. It's a post struggle, temporary equilibrium with Putin trying (not so successfully) to reassert himself while the central contradictions that created that struggle remain essentially unfixed. Momentously and prosaically...a world of possibilities has been revealed. The next round of bad bounces, lucky breaks, trains to Finland Station will now ensue. 

[DesertFox]

10 minutes ago, Carolus said:

but DesertFox actually originally interpreted deployment as "usage / usefulness" and criticized that in war with a peer or near-peer, there is probably never an ideal situation to deploy any kind of equipment. 

I can clear that up easily:

O´Brians remark was right on spot in my book and I still think the general gave a moronic answer to the press question, because:

a) He didn´t answer the press question in the first place. See quotation above, question was about capability and usefullness of F-16s for Ukraine.

b) Instead he used the diplomatic lingo of conditions not being "ideal" - russian AD and Air capability and possible numbers of F-16s and said zero about the points asked. 

All else written by Butchi is his own interpretation what people might mean and what not. I won´t comment on that, because its pointless and leads nowhere.

[billbindc]

12 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

This.  I've been working back in time for comparative analysis, as I don't believe the current power structures in modern Russia are actually modern. 

I had actually landed at the middle-late Byzantine Empire but your mention of chevauchees (a perfect word in itself, it's an excellent description of the Wagner March) leads me to France prior and during the Hundred years war.

The slow descent into constant violent negotiation between the Nobles and King,  with the King perceived as all-powerful to the hoi polloi but actually in hock to shifting alliances, has strong Russia 2023+ vibes. 

 

 

The very great benefit of this space is (or can be!) that if you let it, it allows you to interrogate your own thinking on the subject of Ukraine and Russia. I had not considered that framework at all until I read Steve's post. 

[Lethaface]

On 7/13/2023 at 2:36 AM, The_Capt said:

Oh I think there are several dozen trillion reasons why this war is about the West:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-94-trillion-world-economy-in-one-chart/

I do not believe for an instant that the West was outside the Russian calculus for this war.  Russia did not need Ukraine to survive - politically or economically.  Putin’s regime has been shown to be robust so I doubt it was teetering in Feb 22.  So why then did Russia decide to invade Ukraine in the first place?  A whim?  There were definitely internal reasons but it would be very shortsighted not to see this entire war as a statement against Western world order - hell, Putin said so last Sep…it is not like it is a secret.

This is not about being all about the West, it is about great power competition.  Again if Ukraine were Uzbekistan we would not even be having this conversation.  And frankly before this war most people in the West could not find Ukraine on a map, let alone really care deeply about Ukrainian independence or democracy - we do not fight wars because they are righteous, we fight them because they are in our interests. And right now Ukrainians are fighting and dying for Western interests.  The second that our interest divide western support will dry up overnight.  

And frankly none of this is the failure point.  The failure will be losing interest after the war is over: “oh the NGOs are handling it”.  We can dump boatloads of weapons onto Ukraine but it won’t mean a thing if they do not have an economy after this is over.

In my perspective the West certainly plays a role in Russia's behavior, in several ways. But ultimately the power competition is for internal reasons; elements inside Russia want to show that Russia can compete with the big boys. Having a Ukraine (for historical reasons) which is moving towards the western hemisphere is a threat to the image they want to have. Ultimately it could be a threat to the Russian Federation, not only the current regime, because the people 'demand' change after seeing Ukraine developing and thriving with the other 'friend -group'.

But that doesn't mean the 'leading subject' of the war is the West, at least I think that's a fallacy.

Of course wars are fought because of interests. But Ukraine is fighting this war for THEIR interests, which may align with ours, but not primarily to serve our interests. That was the imo not subtle difference I was missing when people talk about they are fighting the war on our behalf.  

[Fenris]

More insights into RU conditions and morale. They're angry but are obviously still prepared to fight.

Quote

Russian occupiers from the 72nd Brigade are burying whatever is left of their comrades who were stuck in a Grad vehicle waiting for an order that never came, and condemn their leadership. The vehicle was destroyed with a precision Ukrainian strike. 72nd Brigade replaced Wagner units in Bakhmut.

 

 

[Howler]

12 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

Well then, it looks like you completely misread @panzermartin’s statement. Historically, Russia didn’t attack West unless they were attacked from the west.

This statement is incorrect unless one ignores a period of history spanning from the Russo-Swedish War (1554-1557) to the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). Russian monarchs were very much involved in the 'sport of kings'. Again, Repeating the word "Napoleon" ignores the 20 years of Russian provocation culminating in Napoleon's Russian Campaign of 1812.

But don't let facts get in your way and please continue the cherry pick historical events to suit your need to assure us of Russia's benign intentions.

[Audgisil]

You don't even have to go back that far in time to find when the Russians last looked West. A lot a Russians very conveniently like to forget that they started World War 2 on the same side with Germany. In September of 1939, they helped invade Poland. Two months later (and still allied with Germany), they started the Winter War with Finnland.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Audgisil

[DesertFox]

Robotyne...russian advance...

 

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1679856225855369222?s=20

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

This.  I've been working back in time for comparative analysis, as I don't believe the current power structures in modern Russia are actually modern. 

I had actually landed at the middle-late Byzantine Empire but your mention of chevauchees (a perfect word in itself, it's an excellent description of the Wagner March) leads me to France prior and during the Hundred years war.

"Byzantine" is the exact term that came to mind as well.  It's a common English stand-in for a complex system of competing power interests that on a good day keep a state functioning, but on a bad day tear it apart because it is overly complex and at has inherently competing agendas by those wielding higher levels of power. 

Ironically, the President of the United States has more direct authority over the running of his government than Putin does because the US system is official and governed by clearly defined rules (if they are unclear they eventually get clarified).  Putin's government, on the other hand, is a complex system of power structures that do not exist on paper but very much are a reality.  It's hard to take corrective action against something that theoretically doesn't exist

The US the President can get rid of heads of Cabinet and Agency positions pretty much on a whim (we saw a TON of this during the previous Admin).  Putin can't do this without risking some sort of challenge to his continued rule, which is what we are seeing play out now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Ok, but several users were still debating it hotly, so theme wasn't dead. Ok, anyway, agree it's better to push forward.

It was mostly a bunch of people pointing out the opinion of one person was significantly flawed, then that spawned an argument over how flawed it was.  It's the sort of thing that doesn't tend to have a neat ending, but it sure can keep going well beyond the point of usefulness.  See the posts that came up between your response and mine on this page

2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

So, here a translation taken from one of Telegram channels regarding how wagnerites were quarelling with neighour units. Quite interesting how things were on the ground before the mutiny:

If we take all of this second hand information as if it is 100% accurate, it is exactly as I expected it has always been.  Wagner is, inherently, a selfish organization and within the Russian system that means it steals from others to take care of its own.  Stealing takes many forms and we've seen lots of examples of that, though the details aren't really known to us.

As for the march on Moscow, it was clearly a collaboration between Wagner and regular Russian forces.  Anybody with any sense of how equipment is allocated could see that.  What this Telegram post gives us is some of the details of how it played out.

Whether the Telegram post is accurate or even partially correct, there's no way to know.  But nothing in there looks wrong, so given we don't have other sources of information we should treat it as possibly insightful.

Steve

[danfrodo]

Nice summary below of current situation on the front, a lot of info (ISW, etc) collected in one place.  What I liked best was UKR claiming 23 arty & 4 MLRS systems destroyed, plus 510 personnel.  Hopefully these numbers are accurate.  I am thinking the loss of arty systems is important but the arty crews are maybe more important, so also hoping the crews were also lost.  That's a skilled job, as TheCapt mentioned yesterday (I think) about how having lots of tubes (allegedly) is only one piece of the puzzle.

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/13/2180898/-Ukraine-Invasion-Day-506-counteroffensive-gains-in-3-sectors

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Audgisil said:

You don't even have to go back that far in time to find when the Russians last looked West. A lot a Russians very conveniently like to forget that they started World War 2 on the same side with Germany. In September of 1939, they helped invade Poland. Two months later (and still allied with Germany), they started the Winter War with Finnland.

Yup, we should give this a rest.  Anybody that thinks Russia is not interested in expanding westward really doesn't understand Russia or its history.  It would be in control of London if it had ever had the opportunity to do so.  In fact, some say it did (Google "Londongrad" and "Moscow-on-Thames" and see what comes up ).

So, at this point we're arguing how many angles can fit on the head of a pin.  Which isn't particularly useful to this discussion now that the basic premise has been firmly established.  Which is, Russia presents a direct threat to the west's control of its own territory.  Period.

Steve

 

[dan/california]

The fact that a woman made it through is obviously an awesome thing, but the important part is that Ukraine feels it has time and troops to run a seven month school. And they probably need a week or two to recover before they get sent to the front to help make sure every Russian on Ukrainian soil is a good Russian. Good Russians are important for the sunflower crop.