How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[poesel]

45 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Are those Leopards among the 135 Leopard 1s that Oryx lists as already pledged?

No. The 135 come from Danish, Belgian & German stock IIRC. Those Italian would be on top.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Not as exciting as a sub but more news from the Black Sea.

First the Moskva, now this mighty vessel.

A few more such victories, and the war will be over before Christmas.

[Letter from Prague]

2 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

Rybar posted that they confirmed this other post from Battle Sailor:
https://t.me/BattleSailor13/6676
 

 

Can this guy start running with Strava on, maybe?

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.threads.net/@maks_23_ua/post/CxIt010KuOX

Journalist: Will we win? Shoigu:

 

Not sure if this is real, I suspect the Czar will not be happy with him if it is. It is a video BTW.

[A Canadian Cat]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

Not sure if this is real

If it is not it's just the one of hundreds of deep fakes I would make

[Harmon Rabb]

[Battlefront.com]

Ooo... finally, some significant strikes on Sevastopol.  Obviously Ukraine wanted to do this from the start of the war, but only now is able to pull it off successfully at this scale.

As others have already noted, this was a STRATEGIC strike with the following implications:

1. the most important thing now is Russia having to make a decision about keeping ships in Sevastopol harbor.  It really doesn't have good options for moving them, which is why they are still there despite the well known growing risks.  Now?  If they decide to keep them in Sevastopol they are effectively writing them off, so it would seem they have no choice but to move them.
2. no matter what Russia does the dry dock facility is out of service for quite a while.  They could rebuild it, but see point one above.  Logically there is little incentive for them to rebuild it even if they are desperate for more dry dock capacity.
3. any further significant damage to large Russian ships may not be repairable simply because there's no place to repair them.
4. another of Russia's few transport ships in the Black Sea is gone.  These are critically important any time Ukraine constrains travel in/out of Crimea.  Not just through Kerch, but also through to the mainland as the ships can go to Berdyansk.  In fact, they seem to be doing that routinely already.
5. the loss of the Rostov represents a 25% reduction in submarine Kaliber missile capacity in the Black Sea.  However, a quick check of sources says that of the 4 in the Black Sea, only 3 were active.  Assuming the inactive one was the Rostov, then short term there is no reduction in launch capacity.  Obviously the damage likely means the sub will not return to service any time soon, if ever which ensures that capacity is permanently reduced.
6. the Rostov was one of Russia's newer naval vessels, which makes the accounting loss more painful to the Russian government.  It's one thing to lose a rusting Soviet hold over, like the Muskva, it is another thing entirely to lose a top of the line new production vessel.
7. propaganda value is, obviously, quite nice for Ukraine!

All in all, a good day for Ukraine

About Musk.  Since the US is not at war with Russia there are only limited direct actions the US Gov't can take to get Musk to stop helping Russia.  Violations of the StarLink contract is likely toothless because Musk can always threaten to pull the plug on it.  Such are the major downsides of attempting to conduct a public-private partnership.  Free enterprise is what it is.

The only real option is to have the US military deploy its own system, which of course will take a long time to do.

Indirectly, however, there are options galore.  In bidding on projects, SpaceX might now be faced with new requirements that it didn't previously have.  Specifically massive financial and even criminal penalties for not providing the services agreed to.  Once bitten, twice shy!  If Musk interferes with the contract negotiations, the Board and shareholders would likely have grounds to sue him if he screwed up a contract because of his antics.

Anyway, this bit is going a bit off topic.  The short of it is the US government put itself into this position by relying on someone who isn't reliable.  What it can do about that now is unclear, but likely not a lot in the short term.  Long term, though, there's a lot that can be learned from this experience and applied to future situations.

Steve

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ooo... finally, some significant strikes on Sevastopol.  Obviously Ukraine wanted to do this from the start of the war, but only now is able to pull it off successfully at this scale.

As others have already noted, this was a STRATEGIC strike with the following implications:

1. the most important thing now is Russia having to make a decision about keeping ships in Sevastopol harbor.  It really doesn't have good options for moving them, which is why they are still there despite the well known growing risks.  Now?  If they decide to keep them in Sevastopol they are effectively writing them off, so it would seem they have no choice but to move them.
2. no matter what Russia does the dry dock facility is out of service for quite a while.  They could rebuild it, but see point one above.  Logically there is little incentive for them to rebuild it even if they are desperate for more dry dock capacity.
3. any further significant damage to large Russian ships may not be repairable simply because there's no place to repair them.
4. another of Russia's few transport ships in the Black Sea is gone.  These are critically important any time Ukraine constrains travel in/out of Crimea.  Not just through Kerch, but also through to the mainland as the ships can go to Berdyansk.  In fact, they seem to be doing that routinely already.
5. the loss of the Rostov represents a 25% reduction in submarine Kaliber missile capacity in the Black Sea.  However, a quick check of sources says that of the 4 in the Black Sea, only 3 were active.  Assuming the inactive one was the Rostov, then short term there is no reduction in launch capacity.  Obviously the damage likely means the sub will not return to service any time soon, if ever which ensures that capacity is permanently reduced.
6. the Rostov was one of Russia's newer naval vessels, which makes the accounting loss more painful to the Russian government.  It's one thing to lose a rusting Soviet hold over, like the Muskva, it is another thing entirely to lose a top of the line new production vessel.
7. propaganda value is, obviously, quite nice for Ukraine!

All in all, a good day for Ukraine

About Musk.  Since the US is not at war with Russia there are only limited direct actions the US Gov't can take to get Musk to stop helping Russia.  Violations of the StarLink contract is likely toothless because Musk can always threaten to pull the plug on it.  Such are the major downsides of attempting to conduct a public-private partnership.  Free enterprise is what it is.

The only real option is to have the US military deploy its own system, which of course will take a long time to do.

Indirectly, however, there are options galore.  In bidding on projects, SpaceX might now be faced with new requirements that it didn't previously have.  Specifically massive financial and even criminal penalties for not providing the services agreed to.  Once bitten, twice shy!  If Musk interferes with the contract negotiations, the Board and shareholders would likely have grounds to sue him if he screwed up a contract because of his antics.

Anyway, this bit is going a bit off topic.  The short of it is the US government put itself into this position by relying on someone who isn't reliable.  What it can do about that now is unclear, but likely not a lot in the short term.  Long term, though, there's a lot that can be learned from this experience and applied to future situations.

Steve

A major strategic implication is on escalation.  Recall at the beginning of this war there was a lot of concern about a Russian “red line”.  Putin dropped all sorts of threats and the info-sphere lit up.  We continually see Ukraine strike deeper, higher and harder into Russian territories - Crimea definitely counts in Russian books.

The question now is “ok, so where is the Russian red line?”  Some will say “there isn’t one”.  I do not believe that, however, it is clear that it is also not hair trigger either.  This speaks to the myth of Russian escalation dominance.  They do not own the ladder, we do.  

Now a concern is narrative and tipping points.  My sense is that Putin et al are really crisis managing right now.  Playing all sides as best they can.  To some the loss of these two ships in a high profile strike is a catastrophic loss.  To others it is justification that Russia is indeed standing on its own against NATO and the US.  How these strikes are playing out inside Russia is definitely something worth watching out for.  Second is tipping points.  I do not get the sense that “clear strategy” is on the menu at the Kremlin right now.  So if there is a red line it is probably blurring and moves around.  It is also likely very relative.  Hit another 5 ships, no problem…hit the 6th and hell breaks loose because…Russia.

And then there is a solid theory that Russia has run out of escalation room.  They have fired all the missiles.  They have blown all the dams.  Nuclear power plants are all upwind.  WMDs are a non-starter unless they want WW3.  What is really left in the chamber?  Mobilization?  Maybe but it would have to be national…all industry and manpower.  That is a big step and they have shown no indications of doing it, let alone being able to do it under the current conditions. What can Russia do now except make quacking noises and lob more missiles at apartment buildings?   Plant more mines?

This whole thing has a boiling frog strategy feel to it.  

[Letter from Prague]

I think it's really smart to do it now. If they did something like this right after the F-16s arrived, it would be very easy to claim it's West fault, etc. Right now, not really. And at the same time it makes the F-16s more of a threat - "look what we did with like three Su-24s, once we have F-16, we can do things like this every day".

[Lethaface]

34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

What can Russia do now except make quacking noises and lob more missiles at apartment buildings?   Plant more mines?

Make do with less?

It is fortunate though that because of the Bosporus thing they can't really reinforce the Black Sea fleet. I don't think we're there yet, but they can't keep losing ships indefinitely before they will have issues with enforcing the blockade and or protect their shipping around the black sea area. 

So indeed a strategic strike imo, a welcome one too, but not directly tipping any scales in my understanding.

[Battlefront.com]

34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The question now is “ok, so where is the Russian red line?”  Some will say “there isn’t one”.  I do not believe that, however, it is clear that it is also not hair trigger either.  This speaks to the myth of Russian escalation dominance.  They do not own the ladder, we do.  

This is exactly the point that so many have missed about escalation.  Two can play that game and each has just as much difficulty responding as the other when there isn't obvious, low risk means of retaliating.

At what point does Putin say "well, that does it!  Time to let the nukes fly!".  Over the loss of a couple of ships?  Yeah, I don't see that working.  Ukraine putting a couple of drones right into the heart of the Kremlin and taking out critical cultural heritage items?  Well, maybe.  But even then, if Putin and senior leadership understand that they'll likely lose everything else by going nuclear... maybe not even that.

I don't think Russia has been operating with anything we'd recognize as a solid strategic plan for this war.  Which, of course, is Putin's general way of operating in part because it makes it very hard to predict what comes next.

Russia is pretty clever at finding ways to escalate.  However, they've been doing that hard since the early 2010s with ever lessening effect, especially after 2015.  Since this war started it was cut off from so many of its traditional tools and it's shown.  In fact, other than Russia cancelling the grain deal I can't think of anything escalatory of any significance.  And even that wasn't very successful, in fact it probably was counter productive for Russia's larger goals.

Steve

[Centurian52]

25 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Make do with less?

I think he meant what can they do as far as escalation. And I think when it comes to escalation the only things they can do are exactly what The_Capt said. They can mobilize, and they can go nuclear. I think mobilization (at least another partial mobilization, if not full mobilization) is only a matter of time regardless what the west does, simply because they will eventually have no choice. So it's not really a viable "we'll do this in response to something you do" sort of escalation. And going nuclear means WW3 by definition, which they definitely don't want any more than we do, so it's not really credible. So I think the reality is that they have precisely zero escalation options.

[kimbosbread]

10 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I think he meant what can they do as far as escalation. And I think when it comes to escalation the only things they can do are exactly what The_Capt said. They can mobilize, and they can go nuclear.

Meh there’s also a good chance of another coup

EDIT: When we think of escalation, we have to think of the different factions in Russia and how they respond both internally and externally. There might be a few people left who are not down with being Best Korea 2.0.

Edited September 13, 2023 by kimbosbread

[Letter from Prague]

2 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Meh there’s also a good chance of another coup

One thing Russia can definitely do (and seems to be doing right now) is to increase the political and disinfo pressure. Like there might also be another January 6th in US, and we're also losing Slovakia for the foreseeable future.

See also:

Russia’s Putin praises Elon Musk as an ‘outstanding person’ and ‘talented businessman’

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/12/russias-vladimir-putin-praises-elon-musk-as-an-outstanding-person.html

[sross112]

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

A major strategic implication is on escalation.  Recall at the beginning of this war there was a lot of concern about a Russian “red line”.  Putin dropped all sorts of threats and the info-sphere lit up.  We continually see Ukraine strike deeper, higher and harder into Russian territories - Crimea definitely counts in Russian books.

The question now is “ok, so where is the Russian red line?”  Some will say “there isn’t one”.  I do not believe that, however, it is clear that it is also not hair trigger either.  This speaks to the myth of Russian escalation dominance.  They do not own the ladder, we do.

When it comes to escalation, other than WMDs, I agree that militarily they are pretty much out of options. Same goes for political as they have been cut off from most of the world. What about economic? Their economy is already on a downward spiral so they really don't have anything to lose and could really damage the global economy by cutting exports. They wouldn't even have to turn off the taps on their energy products. Nickel, copper, iron, steel, aluminum, grain, etc. Economic pressure = political pressure, might be the only thing a lot of countries would listen to. Would also give their supporters around the globe a nice soap box to stand on and shout their opposition to continuing to support Ukraine.

Would the ruling faction be able to weather such a thing? Probably. As we've discussed there isn't much of an opposition movement and the "Woe is me" Russian culture would just add it to their list of woes. Their income wouldn't be affected too much as long as they kept the gas flowing. Sure would screw up a lot of supply chains and ratchet prices way up around the world.

[dan/california]

6 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Then the question arises, does US government has some means to cut this behaviour? It doesn't seem like visits of guys in suits from some agency makes particular impression on him, nor (highly probable) personal phone calls from top officials. He likes it or not, his company is vital military asset now, and if Musk still  switch off his stations or change their power to influence outcome, then it is virtually a sabotage. Isn't something in US law toolbox to curb his messianism a little on this particular issue?

 

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is exactly the point that so many have missed about escalation.  Two can play that game and each has just as much difficulty responding as the other when there isn't obvious, low risk means of retaliating.

At what point does Putin say "well, that does it!  Time to let the nukes fly!".  Over the loss of a couple of ships?  Yeah, I don't see that working.  Ukraine putting a couple of drones right into the heart of the Kremlin and taking out critical cultural heritage items?  Well, maybe.  But even then, if Putin and senior leadership understand that they'll likely lose everything else by going nuclear... maybe not even that.

I don't think Russia has been operating with anything we'd recognize as a solid strategic plan for this war.  Which, of course, is Putin's general way of operating in part because it makes it very hard to predict what comes next.

Russia is pretty clever at finding ways to escalate.  However, they've been doing that hard since the early 2010s with ever lessening effect, especially after 2015.  Since this war started it was cut off from so many of its traditional tools and it's shown.  In fact, other than Russia cancelling the grain deal I can't think of anything escalatory of any significance.  And even that wasn't very successful, in fact it probably was counter productive for Russia's larger goals.

Steve

Their really is an argument to simply buy him out of SpaceX. If he won't talk sense on the price, just figure out a legal way to jam it through. The are some fairly draconian last resort laws on the books for circumstances like these. Obviously there is some political cost to this, but as the man just goes on high diving in an empty pool there just won't be any choice. He built one the most militarily significant technologies of the this century, and he is being EXTREMELY irresponsible with it.

Russia doesn't have a meaningful escalation strategy that doesn't pull NATO in. What is has is an exhaustion strategy, if it has a strategy at all. They are simply saying we can stand this awful mess longer than you can. We have to prove them wrong.

Edited September 13, 2023 by dan/california

[Kinophile]

https://ts2.shop/en/posts/army-unveils-drone-that-fires-laser-guided-missiles-and-can-fit-in-a-car-boot

There's a steady beat of future-looking news from British defence establishment/MoD.  I assume geo proximity and direct involvement in UKR are playing a role. 

[Lethaface]

23 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I think he meant what can they do as far as escalation. And I think when it comes to escalation the only things they can do are exactly what The_Capt said. They can mobilize, and they can go nuclear. I think mobilization (at least another partial mobilization, if not full mobilization) is only a matter of time regardless what the west does, simply because they will eventually have no choice. So it's not really a viable "we'll do this in response to something you do" sort of escalation. And going nuclear means WW3 by definition, which they definitely don't want any more than we do, so it's not really credible. So I think the reality is that they have precisely zero escalation options.

Oh I agree on the escalation subject, although that front didn't necessarily change today because Musk did previously proclaim to have stopped WW3 before by preventing a similar strike in the past. 

However I guess my point was more on the side of do they really need to specifically escalate after this incident? 

 

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Brutal. Missile hit Minsk directly midship?

Anyway, they should perhaps now change "Kilo" class to "Interceptor"...

[Centurian52]

9 minutes ago, sross112 said:

When it comes to escalation, other than WMDs, I agree that militarily they are pretty much out of options. Same goes for political as they have been cut off from most of the world. What about economic? Their economy is already on a downward spiral so they really don't have anything to lose and could really damage the global economy by cutting exports. They wouldn't even have to turn off the taps on their energy products. Nickel, copper, iron, steel, aluminum, grain, etc. Economic pressure = political pressure, might be the only thing a lot of countries would listen to. Would also give their supporters around the globe a nice soap box to stand on and shout their opposition to continuing to support Ukraine.

Would the ruling faction be able to weather such a thing? Probably. As we've discussed there isn't much of an opposition movement and the "Woe is me" Russian culture would just add it to their list of woes. Their income wouldn't be affected too much as long as they kept the gas flowing. Sure would screw up a lot of supply chains and ratchet prices way up around the world.

I don't think economic blackmail would be particularly effective. They already tried withholding gas in the winter of 2022/2023, and it didn't work. For all the natural resources they have to sell, the outside world just isn't as dependent on Russia as Russia is on the outside world (and the countries that buy the most Russian resources aren't the ones that Russia would want to escalate against). While the Russian economy is in a downward spiral, there isn't really any such thing as rock bottom (at least until we're talking about going back to the literal stone age). So they can still do more harm to themselves than they do to anyone else. However far their economy is on track to crash, it is always possible for it to crash further. However bad things are likely do get for Russia if they don't completely cut off exports, they will be tangibly worse if they do cut off exports. There is a big difference between their economy crashing back to the 19th century C.E. and it crashing back to the 19th century B.C.E.

[kimbosbread]

25 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Their really is an argument to simply buy him out of SpaceX. If he won't talk sense on the price, just figure out a legal way to jam it through. The are some fairly draconian last resort laws on the books for circumstances like these. Obviously there is some political cost to this, but as the man just goes on high diving in an empty pool there just won't be any choice. He built one the most militarily significant technologies of the this century, and he is being EXTREMELY irresponsible with it.

If this happens, I can see all the brainpower leaving the company. People aren’t going to work 100 hours a week years on end for some gov + defence partnership, especially with no mars dream. That’ll be it for any major spaceflight advancements for a long time. I think the US government realizes that, and Musk knows this, hence Starshield.

EDIT: And the whole point of money for Musk is that mars dream. It’s not like he needs more money, it’s all for that ridiculous goal.

Edited September 13, 2023 by kimbosbread

[dan/california]

16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

https://ts2.shop/en/posts/army-unveils-drone-that-fires-laser-guided-missiles-and-can-fit-in-a-car-boot

There's a steady beat of future-looking news from British defence establishment/MoD.  I assume geo proximity and direct involvement in UKR are playing a role. 

 

Quote

The British-made Hydra 400 will be a highlight of the DSEI arms fair in London. It is scheduled to undergo testing later this year during a major military exercise, following the successful use of similar weapons in Ukraine. However, there are concerns that bureaucratic processes in the UK could delay the clearance for the Hydra 400 to fire Brimstone missiles on UK ranges for up to five years.

Ukraine has a solution for that problem, in fact they have a through end to end test in mind. Also exhibit A on why manned helicopters are done, or should be.

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

If this happens, I can see all the brainpower leaving the company. People aren’t going to work 100 hours a week years on end for some gov + defence partnership, especially with no mars dream. That’ll be it for any major spaceflight advancements for a long time. I think the US government realizes that, and Musk knows this, hence Starshield.

I disagree on that one. Among other things 99% of the people there that matter can do math, and understand that the Mars thing is a centuries long project at best. My guess is that most of them would be delighted to work for a someone that is less erratic. 

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I disagree on that one. Among other things 99% of the people there that matter can do math, and understand that the Mars thing is a centuries long project at best. My guess is that most of them would be delighted to work for a someone that is less erratic. 

There is almost no precedent for the US government "nationalizing" a private company since, probably, WW2.  I'd have to research if that even happened then.  Nationalizing resources?  Yes, but off the top of my head I can't think of nationalizing private corporations (though it would not surprise me if it did to some extent).  I don't think there's anybody in Washington that has any appetite for being the first.

Now, what the government DOES have some, in fact a lot, of history with is regulating with a purpose.  Laws could be passed that stated that any space based communications company must agree to certain conditions in order to receive launch permission.  Such laws already exist for anything with military capabilities (we discussed this a million pages ago in some detail), so for sure creating new regulatory conditions is absolutely doable.  Theoretically.  Politically?  We might not have a functioning government in couple of weeks because a handful of extremist lawmakers.  Increasing regulations is generally frowned upon by the GOP out of knee-jerk habit, but going after a MAGA folk hero?  Dead on arrival for sure.

That said, no small part of Musk's workforce skews left on the political spectrum.  So does Musk's primary customer base.  It takes a lot to get someone to give up a good paying job or to not buying something they think is super sweet, but as other job openings and products come onto market it is indeed possible that a Tesla might be the next My Pillow

Steve

[Eddy]

I heard somewhere recently that the US DOD had signed contracts with Starlink some time this year for them to provide this service to Ukraine. I can't remember where (so can't provide a link) but it was definitely since the excerpt from the book was published. Is that not true, does anyone know? Or did I misunderstand what the contracts were for?

Edited September 13, 2023 by Eddy