How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

28 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

There will be books written about this topic undoubtedly, so I wouldn't judge too harsh yet- we know very little what was happening in cabinets during last two years, and little on how Russia and US reacted to each other. For now we don't know what US government believed to be frank, and how much of weapon delivery lag was done byother factors like too stiff roadmap, boiling frog strategies, general "overthinking" entire issue, extreme internal political pressures (a fact Musk must not take into account in his company) nor sole fact that leading a country, especially superpower, burdens you with devilish sense of responsibility that Musk does not have slightest idea about. I don't see a lot of sense in comparing a job as some CEO and leader of any state either. If so, recognized political organizations should behave much more cautiously than business companies; they have so much more to loose. Unless one is Russia, of course.

The problem with Musk is what Steve said- he jumped the line of his competence. Smart, responsible person knows limits of his power- this guy does not.

Also I don't buy this "end of the world" explanation for a moment- Musk is not stupid. Care for his satellites and, less romantically, factories in China that other users put forward seem like much better explanations.

There are whole layers of the process of weapon systems delivery that are happening below the surface not least navigating the differing stances of NATO countries, procurement, domestic American politics, logistics, capability and the negotiated behavior of China in avoiding any wholesale materiel support to Russia from that quarter. In addition, the United States had to make on-the-fly assessments of likely Russian reactions during a hot war. As you pointed out, we really don't know what was happening...but one thing you can be sure of is that close calls btw NATO and Russia happened for more often in the first year of the war than is currently public. 

If Musk were part of or even attempting to approach the issue in that way, he would deserve some leeway. But we know that's not what happened. We know that he took a call from the Russian Ambassador to the US, listened to a line of propaganda clearly designed to foil Ukrainian operations he was already supporting with Starlink and chose to aid the Russians in that effort. He has told three different versions of the story just this week. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Musk's response was "I'll sell you something that you can use unless I unilaterally determine that I don't want you to do it.  I won't tell you when or where I'll cut your service.  It's really up to me. "

My understanding of the facts is different - as far as I know, he was asked to specifically extend the Starlink coverage to the shores of Crimea, over and beyond the usual StarLink range, specifically to allow Ukrainian USVs to make the attack. I think it is a significant difference. In particular, it would not be some kind of unfair restriction on the service which the Ukrainians would have had the legitimate expectation to cover a broader area. To the contrary, it would be specifically aiding and abetting Ukrainians in their attack. 

 

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What will Russia do if they don't like what Starlink is doing?  Attack Texas?  Send out an assassin?  Whatever it is, guess who winds up defending Musk or his companies?  The US Government.

Again, my understanding of the situation differs in one significant detail. AFAIK he was approached by the Ukrainians and not the US governement. Were I in the shoes of Musk, I would not be sure of the support of US governement if he went it alone with the Ukrainians - he could be hung out to dry. Once the US Governement bought Starlinks from him, and it was clearly the US decision, not Musks freebooting initiative, the coverage was extended. Assuming these were the facts, I could not fault the man. I would not have the courage to do anything else than wait until I am sure of the political backing of the state.

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Then there's the underlying concept here.  The Western countries are, for the most part, GIVING Ukraine the means to fight.  There is no profit to be had from this.  Musk, on the other hand, is doing this to make a profit.

If that was the whole truth, the entire criticism of Musk would be wholly void. Were he in just for the profit, then clearly incurring any (even minute) risk of Russian retaliation for the small increase of revenue arising from the additional service fees caused by the use of Starlinks by Ukrainian UCVs over the sea to Crimea would be completely unjustified. Telling the Ukrainians to f.o. would be the only sensible business decision and his shareholders should keep thanking him all  the way to the bank.

Somehow, I think it is not only that. I am sure the motivation to let Ukrainians use StarLinks is more political, and the fee aspect is e more intended to cover some of the costs.

 

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

he is a private person after all.

The question is- Is he still? Taking into context of current war?

Well, it is very probable now that his own neurosis could cost civilian lives on the ground. Doesn't sound very private to me.

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I do not get this. What action of Musk you describe by the phrase "jumped the line of his competence"? Was that his lack of agreement to extend StarLink to the shores of Crimea at the request of the Ukrainians?  I mean, what other person would have that competence?

Well, at least that is how Musk himself present his facts...I am not sure if I believe him frankly on that matter. But overal- yes, among others we are talking about competences in spheres he has no authority (and often recognition). We are in the world of real brutal poltics here, where action and inaction equally can lead to bodies being torn apart. Not far from the kind of dillemas known to generals in their command posts... This is simply not his league.*

Add to that well- known, and very carefree attitude to historical facts regarding this war, with taking radical positions up to spreading Russians narratives publically- this can also have not-small weight, considering his wide fanbase. He was never neutral about political issues and has visible problems with balancing his views.

*Of course there is an irony in fact that others, perhaps much worse business leaders simply stay away from politics and nobody has any problems with them being silent on Russian aggression. But again, repsonsibility goes in package with the fact you now decide about human lives. He decided to help UA early on- good for him. But it's like with helping drowining guy: one cannot stop halfway and simply loose interest. There is not private here, there is political all the way along with everything that is connected to this war.

Btw. similar charges go with Pope Francis, albeit in very different form.

48 minutes ago, billbindc said:

If Musk were part of or even attempting to approach the issue in that way, he would deserve some leeway. But we know that's not what happened. We know that he took a call from the Russian Ambassador to the US, listened to a line of propaganda clearly designed to foil Ukrainian operations he was already supporting with Starlink and chose to aid the Russians in that effort. He has told three different versions of the story just this week. 

Yup, this is the point. What if similar situation would happen if conflict would involve less-than-official but real warfare on behalf of US soldiers, being put to danger by his actions? Would Musk still could duck under his private status and apparent psychical quirkiness?

I think America should seriously rethnik the way public sphere cooperates with private business, when it overlaps with actual strategic interests. And of course it is very difficult task in a world so obsessively glaring into future technologies.

 

Ok let's close this Musk debate perhaps and once more look at those beautiful burnout wrecks in Sevastopol.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Beleg85

[chuckdyke]

Hard to believe the US Armed forces don't have something like Starlink to aid the Ukraine. Private business is in it for the revenue. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I can separate the man from the accomplishments just fine.

Steve

That is not exactly my point. My point exactly is separating faults of the man in one area from his presumed faults in another area, which upon further investigation, may not turn out not to be faults at all. This is a genuinely difficult question for humans. I know Musk is intensely disliked by some for his position in internal US politics, and overcoming this so as not to apply a negative bias and presumption of bad faith to other areas of his activity could be genuinely difficult.

I am not involved emotionally in US politics, am a happy user of Twitter and willing to extend a presumption of good faith to Musk - from which perspective I find the depth of negative opinions of Musk in his actions over StarLink to be difficult to justify. The possible explanation is a spill over of negative emotion from his other activities, which is understandable, but still not exactly good thinking

[MikeyD]

In the words of Maya Angelou, "When someone really shows you and tells you who they are, take them at their word."

[masc]

 

Besides being a great daily weekday podcast on the war, today's episode featured an interview with the lead of the Russia/Ukraine team at the Institute for the Study of War. He talks about things such as how their day to day job is, sourcing and how that works, and some of his takes and conclusions about the war and its direction (and a couple wrong ones they had in the past).

 

Interview starts around 26:40.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

That is not exactly my point. My point exactly is separating faults of the man in one area from his presumed faults in another area, which upon further investigation, may not turn out not to be faults at all. This is a genuinely difficult question for humans. I know Musk is intensely disliked by some for his position in internal US politics, and overcoming this so as not to apply a negative bias and presumption of bad faith to other areas of his activity could be genuinely difficult.

I am not involved emotionally in US politics, am a happy user of Twitter and willing to extend a presumption of good faith to Musk - from which perspective I find the depth of negative opinions of Musk in his actions over StarLink to be difficult to justify. The possible explanation is a spill over of negative emotion from his other activities, which is understandable, but still not exactly good thinking

Which gets back to my point that you have to judge someone for the totality of what they do, not just one thing.  If he wasn't doing a bunch of other things that fit into the same category of what went on with StarLink, then I'd have more sympathy.  But as I said at the outset of this waaaaay off topic discussion, it is not.  He is peddling Russian pushed narratives and conspiracy theories, openly endorsing fringe politicians (who also support Russia's line), and himself has stated very clearly what he has done.  We also have the mysteriously timed service outage yesterday when Ukraine was launching the attack on Sevastopol.  His manic/crazy handling of Twitter gives me plenty of reasons to question where he is headed mentally.

You can continue giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, as I once did.  That's up to you.  Me?  As the saying goes, "I've seen this movie before".  I don't know if he is going to go full on Howard Hughes, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Hard to believe the US Armed forces don't have something like Starlink to aid the Ukraine. Private business is in it for the revenue. 

I mean they do, but they’d rather not have it used against Russia. Starlink is a convenient fig leaf, as has earlier been pointed out.

[Battlefront.com]

I've been thinking of something for a few days, but this quote triggered me to post it.  This is from today's ISW report:

Quote

Russian officials largely did not address the strike, while select Russian ultranationalists responded with predictable outrage. Crimean occupation officials claimed that the strikes damaged residential buildings and injured several dozen people, although they did not say whether the injured were Russian military personnel.[7] Prominent Kremlin propagandist Vladimir Solovyov expressed deep anger at the strike and called for retaliatory strikes on Western facilities that produced the alleged missiles that Ukraine used in the strike.[8] Solovyov’s call for escalation with the West is boilerplate rhetoric for his domestic audience but is not reflective of any actual Kremlin position on the matter. Russian milbloggers expressed concerns that the Ukrainian strike portends an intensification of Ukraine’s interdiction campaign targeting occupied Crimea.[9] One milblogger argued that Russian forces are unable to strike Ukrainian airfields at scale and that Russian military inaction allowed Ukrainian forces to sufficiently strengthen airfields against Russian strikes.[10]

We talk about the issues with NATO going up against Russia and how PGMs would play into it.  We've also talked about all the things that the West over and under estimated prior to this war and during.  Well, one thing that the West underestimated is how effective it's long range PGMs are against Russian defenses, while at the same time overestimating how effective Russia's long range PGMs are.  When Ukraine wants a Russian ship hundreds of KMs away to go BOOM it can do it.  When Russia wants to hit something of value in Ukraine, it has to make do with hitting whatever is somewhere near where they though there was something to target.  And even then, with whatever doesn't get shot down.

So, what we've learned is that Russian air defenses are not very good against the threats it faces.  Ukraine's slapped together, hodgepodge air defenses are superior even though they are being asked to do a lot more than Russia's.  If NATO were to go to war with Russia tomorrow, any fixed target of any significant value could be eliminated within hours or days of hostilities.  Russian retaliatory capabilities aren't impressive, so it's fair to say Russia would not be able to reciprocate.

Steve

 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

I mean they do, but they’d rather not have it used against Russia. Starlink is a convenient fig leaf, as has earlier been pointed out.

Yes, I guess as much, they don't have the same relation as with proper NATO countries. Or something like the ANZUS treaty. 

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

I mean they do, but they’d rather not have it used against Russia. Starlink is a convenient fig leaf, as has earlier been pointed out.

Actually, I'm not sure the US military has something to handle the amount and variety of communications traffic that Ukraine needs.  Maybe it does, but I seem to recall some report a while ago (maybe before the war started) that questioned its capacity.  It wouldn't surprise me if there was at least some truth to it.

Steve

[danfrodo]

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which gets back to my point that you have to judge someone for the totality of what they do, not just one thing.  If he wasn't doing a bunch of other things that fit into the same category of what went on with StarLink, then I'd have more sympathy.  But as I said at the outset of this waaaaay off topic discussion, it is not.  He is peddling Russian pushed narratives and conspiracy theories, openly endorsing fringe politicians (who also support Russia's line), and himself has stated very clearly what he has done.  We also have the mysteriously timed service outage yesterday when Ukraine was launching the attack on Sevastopol.  His manic/crazy handling of Twitter gives me plenty of reasons to question where he is headed mentally.

You can continue giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, as I once did.  That's up to you.  Me?  As the saying goes, "I've seen this movie before".  I don't know if he is going to go full on Howard Hughes, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Steve

'zactly!

Meanwhile, I suspect we're about to see Putin fire every missile & drone on hand at UKR cities to respond to the naval humiliation.  Like usual.

[Kinophile]

 

 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

So, what we've learned is that Russian air defenses are not very good against the threats it faces.

What air defenses? ;D

Apperently, there's less and less of them. BBC was pretty quick to report the local (my hometown) events, so you may wanna check that out.

No air raid warnings, no nothing. Nothing is happening, as always. Just bavovna and smoke. Even the announcer at the train station skips the usual "be observant and careful, careful and observant" this morning. How come, I wonder?

 

ps: I'm okay, and the windows are fine, for now.

[Battlefront.com]

43 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

 

 

Interesting that two other ships might have been damaged.  Could be smaller vessels, I suppose.

Assuming that Russia did, in fact, intercept some of the incoming threats (drones, missiles, whatever), then I wonder what would have happened if everything hit.  Did they double up on a few targets, or did they spread things out to hit other areas?  This is not idle curiosity, rather I'm trying to picture what Ukraine might do next based on this attack. 

Related to my post above about capabilities, Ukraine learned lessons that it likely can use to improve its next attack.  Russia learned lessons too, but I'm not sure whatever they learned is practical for them to make improvements.  Boiled down:

Ukraine = we learned we can blow stuff up and Russia couldn't stop it!

Russia = we learned Ukraine can blow stuff up and we couldn't stop it!

Steve

[chuckdyke]

Submarine destroyed a drone by blocking its trajectory to more for the enemy valuable targets. Pity I can't watch Russian news. 

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've been thinking of something for a few days, but this quote triggered me to post it.  This is from today's ISW report:

We talk about the issues with NATO going up against Russia and how PGMs would play into it.  We've also talked about all the things that the West over and under estimated prior to this war and during.  Well, one thing that the West underestimated is how effective it's long range PGMs are against Russian defenses, while at the same time overestimating how effective Russia's long range PGMs are.  When Ukraine wants a Russian ship hundreds of KMs away to go BOOM it can do it.  When Russia wants to hit something of value in Ukraine, it has to make do with hitting whatever is somewhere near where they though there was something to target.  And even then, with whatever doesn't get shot down.

So, what we've learned is that Russian air defenses are not very good against the threats it faces.  Ukraine's slapped together, hodgepodge air defenses are superior even though they are being asked to do a lot more than Russia's.  If NATO were to go to war with Russia tomorrow, any fixed target of any significant value could be eliminated within hours or days of hostilities.  Russian retaliatory capabilities aren't impressive, so it's fair to say Russia would not be able to reciprocate.

Steve

 

 

Indeed, Ukraine seems to be using Russian SAM sites as chew toys. The next big show will be a bunch of those tower mounted Pantsir systems going boom spectacularly. They are completely fixed targets, they will get got, for the propaganda value if nothing else.

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, L0ckAndL0ad said:

What air defenses? ;D

Apperently, there's less and less of them. BBC was pretty quick to report the local (my hometown) events, so you may wanna check that out.

No air raid warnings, no nothing. Nothing is happening, as always. Just bavovna and smoke. Even the announcer at the train station skips the usual "be observant and careful, careful and observant" this morning. How come, I wonder?

 

ps: I'm okay, and the windows are fine, for now.

Good to hear from you and I'm glad you still have windows.

Since this war started Russia has been losing air defense systems on a regular basis.  They have a lot of area to cover given what Ukraine has at its disposal.  However, for sure they are concentrating defenses on a few key places in order to reduce the chances of Ukraine landing solid hits.  For sure Sevastopol is one of those locations.  And yet, Ukraine was able to smash it pretty hard.  Contrast this with Ukraine's success at defending its large territory relative to how much Russia has thrown at it.  There's a pretty big contrast to be made.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Here's Rybar's take on the strikes:

What I "learned" from this is that Ukraine damaged two ships in Sevastopol and continues to terrorize civilian areas with attacks on housing and kindergartens.  Russian forces have the upper hand in Klishchiivka and repulsed Ukrainian attacks everywhere.  There was no fighting in the Robotnye/Verbove area because it wasn't mentioned at all.

Yup, that's some good reporting!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

Indeed, Ukraine seems to be using Russian SAM sites as chew toys. The next big show will be a bunch of those tower mounted Pantsir systems going boom spectacularly. They are completely fixed targets, they will get got, for the propaganda value if nothing else.

NOTE that I edited your post to show what I believe you were trying to link to.  What you actually linked to was the entire Twitter feed, which was a bit long

Steve

[dan/california]

56 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

NOTE that I edited your post to show what I believe you were trying to link to.  What you actually linked to was the entire Twitter feed, which was a bit long

Steve

ten thousand apologies, 

[cesmonkey]

A somewhat sobering update from the Ukrainian Konstantin Mashovets. Here is an excerpt:
https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/1208
 

Quote

Thus, it becomes obvious that after breaking through the first position of the main line of their defense between the villages of Novoprokopovka - the village of Verbovoye, the enemy command obviously seeks to “restore the lost position” through preparations. organizing and conducting a whole series of counterattacks on the flanks of the advancing tactical group of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Therefore, the general situation in the offensive zone of Ukrainian troops in the Tokmak direction is quite complex. Both sides suffered significant losses in the battles for the first position of the main line of defense. The level of combat effectiveness of the forward units of both sides decreased significantly.

 

[cesmonkey]

Big numbers today for artillery destroyed:

[beardiebloke]

2 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

Big numbers today for artillery destroyed:

And for drones too when you look at daily number as a percentage of the total!  Which just makes the remaining artillery pieces less effective if it carries on.