How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[BlackMoria]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

Why would you emplace three guns that close together? Only thing I can come up with is that they only had one minimally competent artillerymen for all three guns?

Speaking as a retired artillery officer....three other reasons to explain this:

1. They have insufficient radios and field phones to communicate with the battery command post.  

2.  The clearing in the trees is too small for proper dispersion of the guns.  Knowing that drones are sweeping treelines for targets, the russians may have chanced putting these guns into a small clearing in the middle of a forest with a trail going into the clearing for the tow vehicles.

3. They lack fire control calculators/computers to calculate fire patterns like converge, linear, etc.   The spacing looks about right for just doing a common bearing and range shoot to all guns and the spacing of the guns is about right for overlapping lethal burst patterns.

Edited September 5, 2023 by BlackMoria

[riptides]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Ah my robot of the "deep state" (insert sarcastic and friendly smirking looking emoji here), I am a strong believer that "speed matters".  A long slow fading of Russia is very different than a sudden snap.  Human collectives can endure a lot so long as they are eased into it.  A sudden shock can create very different effects.  I think for right now the option where Russia enters into a sort of state-palliative care is a given and we are embracing the oldest strategy known to mankind: hope.

A well written response, just saying.

They (the Russians) embrace - false hope.

[kevinkin]

5 hours ago, Butschi said:

preaching

So how would NATO win the war and stop the killing? The current approach might, but with a huge human cost. There are other ways to defeat Putin. Watching videos of soldiers being blown up is not productive. It does not advance the conversation. Very few people on planet Earth know a war of this scale is going on. We care. Too few don't. They are oblivious.

[kevinkin]

7 minutes ago, riptides said:

They (the Russians) embrace - false hope.

One could argue Russia has been in this state for generations. Yet, they still exist. I sure a house fly has some form of hope until they are squashed. 

[Butschi]

13 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

So how would NATO win the war and stop the killing?

How does repeatedly directing your demands at us instead of your government win the war?

And what has NATO got to do with it? NATO is a defensive alliance. By international law every country has the right to support the defender in a war of aggression. You don't need NATO, you need to convince your government.

[paxromana]

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/why-ukraine-s-new-strike-strategy-has-putin-on-the-run-20230904-p5e1u4.html

New article by Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan (retired) on the progress of the war.

The Sydney Morning Herald is behind a paywall, but, unless they have changed it recently, you get, IIRC, 10 free articles a month.

It is in agreement with much of what many here have been saying.

Edited September 5, 2023 by paxromana

[holoween]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

I think it was the Cap'n who said

"Precision beats mass, mass precision beats everything."

Mass precision atm is a mix of very cheap and very expensive. The West has the expensive, Ukraine has invented the cheap. Both seem to compliment each other. China can give Russia only the cheap precision. The expensive precision seems to stay a trump card (but a trump card alone does not win a game, you need a good hand to accompany it).

Or to put it simply: Whoever has more firepower measured by effect on target wins.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

When you look at the conditions and imperatives even a Russian 'win' at this point would entail, breaking themselves on this rock looks inevitable. Moscow would have successfully and painfully executed an anschluss only to buy themselves an Afghanistan and a political milieu demanding more of the same against....NATO. 

This is right where we started this stupid war.  From the start (or in my case, years before the start) the options for Russia under Putin were:

1. continue on its long and slow decline of empire, at home and abroad, until the current regime system collapsed in some way.  Could happen under Putin, could happen under his successor, but it would eventually happen.
2. try to reverse the decline using the tools that the regime has on hand and is also willing to use.  Increasingly only military aggression fits that definition.

Obviously Putin chose to use military force against Ukraine.  As has been stated since the beginning of this nasty war, there is no realistic way of this changing Russia's fate because it is in decline for reasons that have little to do with territorial, resource, or even demographic reasons.  Russia is failing because it isn't structured for success.

Previous posters have characterized Russia's problematic decision making very well.  LLF's detailing of Russia's "alternative facts" is spot on.  For more than a decade the real solutions for Russia's ills have been clear, but all of them require becoming a less autocratic and kleptocratic state.  Difficult to do even when there is a will for it, impossible when there is none.  There is none, so all of the ways Russia could avoid collapse have been ruled out as unacceptable to the decision makers.

The regime no doubt understands that they have lost far more than they can gain through negotiations.  Which makes them very reluctant to concede anything, because whatever they concede comes on top of all the other problems they have created for themselves which are outside of the scope of a peace deal. 

Russia's leadership is stuck.  They know they are stuck.  They don't know how to get unstuck, so they are going to continue with their fantasy maximalist demands.  Even if they concede something on paper, they won't honor it.  Ukraine knows this better than anybody, so their incentives to engage with Russia in diplomacy is zero.

Let's also not forget that Putin learned a lesson from Minsk II, which is "two can play the game".  Russia thought it could use false diplomacy to get what it wanted, but Ukraine did exactly the same thing.  Hence the frozen conflict which did not work to Russia's advantage (hence this war).  So I'm not sure Putin is even interested in a false peace deal.  His insistence on maximalist demands seems to indicate this is the case.

Steve

[kevinkin]

2 minutes ago, Butschi said:

How does repeatedly directing your demands at us instead of your government win the war?

And what has NATO got to do with it? NATO is a defensive alliance. By international law every country has the right to support the defender in a war of aggression. You don't need NATO, you need to convince your government.

I agree completely. Only the USA can unilaterally end this nightmare. Everyone else are back benchers. But seriously, NATO is an impotent part of defeating Russian just from a logistic POV. 

[Kinophile]

@Bulletpoint I don't think ZSU is attackinb because they finally responded to Western pressure.  That's a bit cart-before-the-horse, I suspect.

They're attacking now,  in large and growing force because they physically can. 

They've finally cut through the first line and by some accounts are already inside the 2nd line,  in parts. 

I highly doubt they were going to anything but attack further after grinding out such a breakthrough. Western pressure or no. 

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

So how would NATO win the war and stop the killing? The current approach might, but with a huge human cost. There are other ways to defeat Putin. Watching videos of soldiers being blown up is not productive. It does not advance the conversation. Very few people on planet Earth know a war of this scale is going on. We care. Too few don't. They are oblivious.

None of us have any influence on policy, so by that definition why are any of us discussing this war?  The reason is because we're trying to understand the world as it is, not kidding ourselves that we have any influence on its resolution.  Gaining knowledge is not something to be scoffed at just because it isn't practical to use.  And in my case, it is practical because if I don't understand warfare it's pretty much assured I won't design simulations that adequately portray it.

Getting NATO directly involved is never going to happen short of Russia doing something supremely stupid and (probably) very deliberate. 

The US can not change that dynamic, especially now that the GOP is gaining strength to appease Putin instead of confront him.  Biden could, and should, do a better job explaining why this war matters and freeing up the few remaining assets we are withholding from Ukraine (it really is a small list at this point, ATACMS being at the top of it).  But all that will do is keep the resolve of those who are already subject to reason.  The ones opposing support for Ukraine are, as Isolationists and appeasers always are, beyond the ability to reason with.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

@Bulletpoint I don't think ZSU is attackinb because they finally responded to Western pressure.  That's a bit cart-before-the-horse, I suspect.

They're attacking now,  in large and growing force because they physically can. 

They've finally cut through the first line and by some accounts are already inside the 2nd line,  in parts. 

I highly doubt they were going to anything but attack further after grinding out such a breakthrough. Western pressure or no. 

Correct.  Ukraine has been holding back forces because committing them too soon would reduce their effectiveness for the next phase.  In fact, Ukraine has already (apparently) had to commit more of their force to clearing the way to the main line than it had intended. 

The big lesson with Kharkiv is that if you want to keep going with an offensive, you need fresh forces in place before the offensive starts.  If Ukraine had a couple of brigades in reserve, I think most of northern Luhansk would be in Ukraine's hands right now.  As it was, the forces that broke through and did the initial exploitation were exhausted by it and so Russia was able to solidify the lines where they are now.

Steve

[kevinkin]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukraine knows this better than anybody, so their incentives to engage with Russia in diplomacy is zero.

Endless war? Titrate combat losses to a nation's birth rate? What a cruel solution. Not happening. There are too many brave people willing to end this war on western terms. It just takes leadership. 

[Bulletpoint]

25 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

@Bulletpoint I don't think ZSU is attackinb because they finally responded to Western pressure.  That's a bit cart-before-the-horse, I suspect.

They're attacking now,  in large and growing force because they physically can. 

They've finally cut through the first line and by some accounts are already inside the 2nd line,  in parts. 

I highly doubt they were going to anything but attack further after grinding out such a breakthrough. Western pressure or no. 

I hope you are right.

Someone else said they were winning the artillery war. If that's true, then they should be in Tokmak soon.

[kevinkin]

46 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The ones opposing support for Ukraine are, as Isolationists and appeasers always are, beyond the ability to reason with.

Well, that's one POV anyway. Some Isolationists and appeasers are nice people with just another way to get rich and laid. Isn't that what life is about? But I do agree, we have no influence on policy and discussing all these things is in some way comforting even if it evolves death and destruction. Let's all take a deep breath and analyze. Diplomacy is off the table now. But does anyone think it's not going part of the end game?  

Edited September 5, 2023 by kevinkin

[Centurian52]

On 9/3/2023 at 3:03 PM, sburke said:

Russia's massive brain drain is ravaging the economy - these stunning figures show why it will soon be smaller than Indonesia's (yahoo.com)

Since Vladimir Putin launched the invasion in February 2022, emigration out of Russia has exploded, with some estimates putting the exodus at 1 million people. A recent analysis from the policy platform Re: Russia narrowed the number to 817,000-922,000.

That's contributed to a record labor shortage, with 42% of industrial firms unable to find enough workers in July, up from 35% in April.

The composition of Russia's exodus also points to the best and brightest fleeing the country. While a barrage of Western sanctions incentivized many to leave for economic reasons, others fled to avoid military service, skewing the numbers toward younger Russians.

Workers under the age of 35 now account for less than 30% of the labor force, the lowest on record going back 20 years.

And according to a report from the French Institute of International Relations, 86% of those who have left Russia are under the age of 45, and 80% have a college education. At least 100,000 IT professionals moved out of Russia in 2022, a Kremlin official estimated last year.

In addition, data also suggest the Russians who fled were significantly wealthier, as nearly 11.5% of personal savings that were in Russian banks at the end of 2021 were were transferred abroad in 2022, amounting to about 4 trillion rubles ($41.5 billion).

A shrinking population of skilled professionals bodes ill for the Russian economy. When highly skilled workers leave, economic opportunities depart with them, which will bring Russia's living standards to the level of other former Soviet states, the Atlantic Council said in a report.

Without migration to fill the labor gap, and paired with declining birth rates, the Russian economy is expected to shrink.

In fact, the Atlantic Council estimated that Russia's GDP, as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), will fall behind Indonesia's in 2026, nearly two years earlier than would've been the case had Putin not launched his war on Ukraine. By then, they will switch places as the world's sixth and seventh largest economies by PPP.

 

I never cease to be amazed at how completely ****ed the Russian economy is. They really don't have any long term prospects. The exodus of younger generations is only going to exacerbate issues around their already aging population, just as Social Security issues are set to come to a head.

Unfortunately battlefields operate on shorter timescales than economies. It could take years for the failing Russian economy to precipitate a battlefield collapse. Battlefield expenses are probably going to accelerate their economic collapse to a greater degree than their economic collapse will influence a battlefield collapse.

[Battlefront.com]

32 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Endless war? Titrate combat losses to a nation's birth rate? What a cruel solution. Not happening. There are too many brave people willing to end this war on western terms. It just takes leadership. 

You keep conflating Ukraine's position with that of the West.  Ukraine is the one that has no incentive to settle this diplomatically, not the West.  The reason is that Russia has zero track record of living up to its agreements, which itself would be favorable to Russia otherwise Russia won't agree. 

The West has almost no leverage over because almost everything that the West can be doing it already is doing.  And the few things it isn't doing won't likely change the equation in any significant way.  Russia knows this.

The only thing the West could proactively do is start a shooting war with Russia.  That is a non-option as that risks WW3 and there are exceptionally few who would support taking that risk. 

16 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Well, that's one POV anyway. Some Isolationists and appeasers are nice people with just another way to get rich and laid. Isn't that what life is about?

The motivations behind the isolationists and appeasers is not relevant.  What is relevant is how much sway they have over policy and, at the moment in the US, their influence is rising.

16 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

But I do agree, we have no influence on policy and discussing all these things is in some way comforting even if it evolves death and destruction. Let's all take a deep breath and analyze. Diplomacy is off the table now. But does anyone thing it's not going part of the end game?  

We've had this discussion hundreds of times here, bringing in all kinds of outside analysis in the process.  The short answer is nobody can see a clear path to this war ending and therefore how it will end.

The consensus of long time Russia watchers (such as myself) is that it won't end until Russia collapses as a state.  Starting the war was a move of desperation to start with and giving up on it means (at a minimum) regime change.  As LLF quite rightly outlined a few pages ago, this has caused Russian leadership to invent fantasy alternatives to give them incentives to keep on fighting.  They are all demonstrably false, but they like them better than reality and so for them it is reality.

Steve

 

[Centurian52]

On 9/4/2023 at 2:18 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Once the cluster munitions have been provided, they will also be used in areas where the Russians have not planted mines. Villages, orchards, rear areas, artillery positions, etc.

Officially, there is a promise that they will note and log all areas they hit with these things, but experience from Iraq shows that doesn't happen in practice.

You can look at all this and say "Ok, but they still need these weapons because they absolutely need to win the war", and that's a perfectly fine argument.

Just don't say that the article is based on misconceptions, because it does address both of those points (already existing massive Russian minefields and cluster use, as wel as lack of conventional shells) towards the end.

The article is not based on the opinion of some random journalist with soft liberal sensitivities, but on interviews with actual US combat veterans.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Ukrainians are using the cluster munitions on their own territory. They aren't littering someone else's country with unexploded submunitions. They are the ones who will be bearing the cost of the UXO problem. The fact that they are using cluster munitions anyway demonstrates that they believe that is a cost worth bearing.

[kevinkin]

22 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

It could take years for the failing Russian economy to precipitate a battlefield collapse.

Agree. But don't forget the huge amount of natural resources Russia has. Very similar to Canada. The geography is almost the same. So the only way to get rid of current Russia is a quick defeat. Otherwise our grand kids will be speaking on the same topic while we are all pushing up daisies. 

[dan/california]

20 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I never cease to be amazed at how completely ****ed the Russian economy is. They really don't have any long term prospects. The exodus of younger generations is only going to exacerbate issues around their already aging population, just as Social Security issues are set to come to a head.

Unfortunately battlefields operate on shorter timescales than economies. It could take years for the failing Russian economy to precipitate a battlefield collapse. Battlefield expenses are probably going to accelerate their economic collapse to a greater degree than their economic collapse will influence a battlefield collapse.

The West has a truly golden chance to do well while doing good. All of our major competitors/problems/enemies except Chine are pure gas station economies. Hydrocarbons ARE their economy, and among many other bad things funds the suppression of their own people. A real push, and Biden is trying, to combine mileage standards and electrification of transportation is the single best geopolitical move we have. Whatever reduction in Global warming that gets us is a pure bonus.

[Centurian52]

1 minute ago, kevinkin said:

Agree. But don't forget the huge amount of natural resources Russia has. Very similar to Canada. The geography is almost the same. So the only way to get rid of current Russia is a quick defeat. Otherwise our grand kids will be speaking on the same topic while we are all pushing up daisies. 

Natural resources count for less than you'd think (this isn't Hearts of Iron). It is very easy for a country which is rich in natural resources to still be militarily and economically weak. Just look at North Korea.

In fact there is evidence that natural resources can even hold a non-democratic economy back, since they provide a means for an autocrat to fund their regime without having to actually develop their economy.

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

The thing to keep in mind is that the Ukrainians are using the cluster munitions on their own territory. They aren't littering someone else's country with unexploded submunitions. They are the ones who will be bearing the cost of the UXO problem. The fact that they are using cluster munitions anyway demonstrates that they believe that is a cost worth bearing.

Yes, that is well understood.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, BlackMoria said:

Speaking as a retired artillery officer....three other reasons to explain this:

1. They have insufficient radios and field phones to communicate with the battery command post.  

2.  The clearing in the trees is too small for proper dispersion of the guns.  Knowing that drones are sweeping treelines for targets, the russians may have chanced putting these guns into a small clearing in the middle of a forest with a trail going into the clearing for the tow vehicles.

3. They lack fire control calculators/computers to calculate fire patterns like converge, linear, etc.   The spacing looks about right for just doing a common bearing and range shoot to all guns and the spacing of the guns is about right for overlapping lethal burst patterns.

I greatly appreciate the response from a professional artillery officer. At least two out of three of these reasons, though, get at the same fundamental issue for the Russians I was speculating about. They are desperately on the enablers, and the enablers for the enablers, to conduct the artillery fight competently. Hopefully that is going to result in them losing the artillery battle in an accelerating way where fewer and fewer Russian guns get hammered ever harder and ever more quickly, even as Ukraine has more fire support capacity to support units on the offensive.

Edited September 5, 2023 by dan/california

[kevinkin]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You keep conflating Ukraine's position with that of the West.  Ukraine is the one that has no incentive to settle this diplomatically, not the West.  The reason is that Russia has zero track record of living up to its agreements, which itself would be favorable to Russia otherwise Russia won't agree. 

The West has almost no leverage over because almost everything that the West can be doing it already is doing.  And the few things it isn't doing won't likely change the equation in any significant way.  Russia knows this.

The only thing the West could proactively do is start a shooting war with Russia.  That is a non-option as that risks WW3 and there are exceptionally few who would support taking that risk. 

So, based on that logic, the natural course of events would have Ukraine would become part of Russia since:

"The West has almost no leverage over because almost everything that the West can be doing it already is doing.  And the few things it isn't doing won't likely change the equation in any significant way.  Russia knows this."

This comes across as defeatist. Maybe I misunderstand. I am more optimistic than that. Steve, we are all frustrated pissed off and otherwise exhausted by this war and those emotions play into Putin's hands. I can't imagine what a mom in Ukraine is going through. 

I don't come to the community to fight. I come to think. Disagreement is good as long as it does not turn into a all out food fight where no learning can take place. You do a good job preventing that. Cheers. 

[acrashb]

Something not much discussed in the giga-thread:

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/09/05/inside-ukraines-assassination-programme

“Any person who betrays Ukraine, shoots at Ukrainians or fires missiles on Ukrainians should understand that they are being watched and will be brought to justice,”

"If you are asking about [creating a version of] Mossad…We don’t need to. It already exists."

Behind a paywall.  You can easily get around it, or just pay for a great subscription.  Best global news organ in the world.

Various war criminals may not need to worry about the ICC so much as SBU and HUR.