How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[A Canadian Cat]

I just finished listening to a long interview with Andrei Kozyrev, Russia’s first foreign minister from 1990-1996. He was pretty interesting to listen to. Two things that he said are interesting to mention:

1. He actually ordered his staff to search the archives from the previous years looking for any evidence for an agreement or treaty or even a discussion about an agreement or treaty with NATO to prevent or restrict its expansion.
   
   No surprise to anyone here, there were none. At the time it was just not seen as a pressing issue to discuss. The story that one existed is made up out of whole cloth. But we knew that.
   
   I know that's boring I just thought it was interesting hearing from an insider.
    
2. He said the West is needlessly tying itself in knots over escalation. Not pushing hard and committing to promises risks escalation. Giving Ukraine what it needs does not. I'm not sure how perfect his analysis of that is but I have to respect his point at least some what.
   
   He said we should not back Ukraine for as long as it takes to win but instead back them so they win as soon as possible! It was a super line. His point is that Putin wants the war to drag on and for Western support to waver. Instead we should get more weapons systems in their hands faster and push harder to give the Ukrainians everything they want and need to get this job done as quick as possible.

You can listen to the interview here:

https://www.aei.org/podcast/the-insiders-perspective-with-minister-andrei-kozyrev/

Edited October 3, 2023 by IanL
comma

[The_Capt]

33 minutes ago, IanL said:

I just finished listening to a long interview with Andrei Kozyrev, Russia’s first foreign minister from 1990-1996. He was pretty interesting to listen to. Two things that he said are interesting to mention:

1. He actually ordered his staff to search the archives from the previous years looking for any evidence for an agreement or treaty or even a discussion about an agreement or treaty with NATO to prevent or restrict its expansion.
   
   No surprise to anyone here there were none. At the time it was just not seen as a pressing issue to discuss. The story that one existed is made up out of whole cloth. But we knew that.
   
   I know that's boring I just thought it was interesting hearing from an insider.
    
2. He said the West is needlessly tying itself in knots over escalation. Not pushing hard and committing to promises risks escalation. Giving Ukraine what it needs does not. I'm not sure how perfect his analysis of that is but I have to respect his point at least some what.
   
   He said we should not back Ukraine for as long as it takes to win but instead back them so they win as soon as possible! It was a super line. His point is that Putin wants the war to drag on and for Western support to waver. Instead we should get more weapons systems in their hands faster and push harder to give the Ukrainians everything they want and need to get this job done as quick as possible.

You can listen to the interview here:

https://www.aei.org/podcast/the-insiders-perspective-with-minister-andrei-kozyrev/

I find a lot of this sort of analysis wrt escalation as "easy to say, very hard to do."  I do not think people fully understand what is at risk in widening this conflict.  The standard justifications are:

- Russia will never go nuclear.

- Russia will back down - they are full of BS.

- We got all the guns, what are they going to do?

Ok, I will buy the first one for arguments sake.  A functioning Russia will very likely not use the nuclear option unless we are talking foreign troops invading Russia itself. (a broken Russia is another story)  Russia may even back down.  They definitely talk a good game but so far those red lines have been pretty mobile.  And we do have a lot of military power within NATO...but herein lies the rub.  It only works if it is unified.

Professionally speaking, the single largest risk of escalation with Russia is a Russian response - controlled or otherwise - that triggers a NATO Ch 5.  We have already had errant missiles in Poland that became Ukrainian ones pretty damned quick.  If Russia starts lobbing them at a NATO nation in response to significant escalation within Russia...what happens?

Well, we essentially move to a NATO Ch 5 escalation, which will get out of hand pretty quick.  Or more likely, NATO falls apart.  An Article 5 could actually break NATO.  It could nations deciding that maybe Poland, or Estonia, or Latvia are not worth dying for.  We have had a single Article 5 declaration in the history of the alliance - 9/11.

 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#:~:text=NATO invoked Article 5 for,the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

And most of this was intelligence sharing and overflights/port usage permissions.  NATO stayed out of Iraq in '03 completely, GWOT as a concept was not sold in its entirety in the least - even given 9/11.  ISAF in Afghanistan did not come into play until much later in that war, and a lot of NATO nations kept their forces out of combat...and that was the Taliban FFS.

I am betting that those in power have already done this calculus and know exactly how vulnerable the alliance is right now.  A lot of people on this board have been asking "well why don' they just do X?"  "It about ATACMS stupid!"  Well it is likely because they know what is actually at risk and a lot of these capabilities are just not worth those risks...at this time.  In fact a lot of those capabilities value right now is as a threat to Russia as opposed to actual use.

This war is not simple, and there are no simple solutions.  If anyone starts believing that there are you are likely missing something.

[A Canadian Cat]

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I find a lot of this sort of analysis wrt escalation as "easy to say, very hard to do."  I do not think people fully understand what is at risk in widening this conflict.  The standard justifications are:

- Russia will never go nuclear.

- Russia will back down - they are full of BS.

- We got all the guns, what are they going to do?

Fair enough and valid concerns and good analysis as usual. Andrei Kozyrev was at the head the foreign office of Russia before Putin came to power but he certainly has some creds on how the Kremlin works and what its likely reactions would be. His opinion is the West has been too cautious and could have moved faster. He is speaking from his view of how the Russian government would have reacted / not reacted. Obviously there are other things to consider.

[Tux]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Most international law on warcrimes were written after WW2 because everyone was doing them.  WW2 was an example of what a total war looked like when everyone sat around after WW1 and did nothing.  So we decided that was a bad thing and passed a whole bunch of laws to prevent it from happening again.

Thank you for reminding us all of this again.  I have to revisit this so often in 'real life' discussions about the war.  I think the assumption has crept in to the public sub-conscience that rules of war and weapons treaties, etc., were dreamt up by bleeding-heart, liberal wokerati in order to stop those good old warfighters from doing their jobs.  The rules (and weapon-restriction treaties) were written by the people who had experience of war without them and fully understood the consequences.

Also, this:

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Professionally speaking, the single largest risk of escalation with Russia is a Russian response - controlled or otherwise - that triggers a NATO Ch 5.  We have already had errant missiles in Poland that became Ukrainian ones pretty damned quick.  If Russia starts lobbing them at a NATO nation in response to significant escalation within Russia...what happens?

Well, we essentially move to a NATO Ch 5 escalation, which will get out of hand pretty quick.  Or more likely, NATO falls apart.  An Article 5 could actually break NATO.

Absolutely (yet another) part of the importance of "avoiding escalation" is that we must be able to convince ourselves that, if Russia does eventually respond as above, it wasn't our fault.  In that case it's far more likely that more member states will rally to an Article 5 call.  Support has to be provided to Ukraine as carefully as the most cautious country you want to keep on-side wants it to be.

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I find a lot of this sort of analysis wrt escalation as "easy to say, very hard to do."  I do not think people fully understand what is at risk in widening this conflict.  The standard justifications are:

- Russia will never go nuclear.

- Russia will back down - they are full of BS.

- We got all the guns, what are they going to do?

Ok, I will buy the first one for arguments sake.  A functioning Russia will very likely not use the nuclear option unless we are talking foreign troops invading Russia itself. (a broken Russia is another story)  Russia may even back down.  They definitely talk a good game but so far those red lines have been pretty mobile.  And we do have a lot of military power within NATO...but herein lies the rub.  It only works if it is unified.

Professionally speaking, the single largest risk of escalation with Russia is a Russian response - controlled or otherwise - that triggers a NATO Ch 5.  We have already had errant missiles in Poland that became Ukrainian ones pretty damned quick.  If Russia starts lobbing them at a NATO nation in response to significant escalation within Russia...what happens?

Well, we essentially move to a NATO Ch 5 escalation, which will get out of hand pretty quick.  Or more likely, NATO falls apart.  An Article 5 could actually break NATO.  It could nations deciding that maybe Poland, or Estonia, or Latvia are not worth dying for.  We have had a single Article 5 declaration in the history of the alliance - 9/11.

 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#:~:text=NATO invoked Article 5 for,the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

And most of this was intelligence sharing and overflights/port usage permissions.  NATO stayed out of Iraq in '03 completely, GWOT as a concept was not sold in its entirety in the least - even given 9/11.  ISAF in Afghanistan did not come into play until much later in that war, and a lot of NATO nations kept their forces out of combat...and that was the Taliban FFS.

I am betting that those in power have already done this calculus and know exactly how vulnerable the alliance is right now.  A lot of people on this board have been asking "well why don' they just do X?"  "It about ATACMS stupid!"  Well it is likely because they know what is actually at risk and a lot of these capabilities are just not worth those risks...at this time.  In fact a lot of those capabilities value right now is as a threat to Russia as opposed to actual use.

This war is not simple, and there are no simple solutions.  If anyone starts believing that there are you are likely missing something.

I am not saying you are wrong about any of this, but I think you just told Poland to start a covert nuclear weapons program if they haven't already done so. 

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I am not saying you are wrong about any of this, but I think you just told Poland to start a covert nuclear weapons program if they haven't already done so. 

Going to speak out of school a bit - I have other jobs than just military faculty at a staff college.  I few years I came out of some higher level meetings with my boss - she is a simply brilliant civilian international lawyer type who is destine to run this country one day.  She had just got into her new job in our outfit so we were still getting to know each other.

The topic of discussion is not for here but it centered on how dangerous the world was becoming and how antiquated our Canadian theories of how it all worked were in the face of it.  Me and another military guy in the shop were going round and round on the unsolvable riddle that is Canadian Defence and Security.

Our boss broke in and said straight-faced "We should think about a strategic nuclear weapon program."  I think I peed my pants a little bit.

The old rules are buckling.  New ones will be needed.  The use of hard power, military power, as an extension of diplomacy is back on the menu, and that is not a vegan dish. 

[cesmonkey]

Good news, or has this always been the case?
once President Biden gives his assent

 

[Letter from Prague]

I mean its missiles, they are supposed to go fast 

edit: sorry

Edited October 3, 2023 by Letter from Prague

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Rokko said:

Somewhat ironic.

Killing civilians: Highly illegal

Killing all the civilians: Well, that's a legal grey area.

 

Something else I saw yesterday:

Ukrainian soldier cuts DPICM shell open to extract the bomblets. Might mean nothing, but might also hint at a certain dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of cluster munitions. In any case, I hope the soldier in question consulted with tech support before carrying out the procedure.

The on the other hand of the way you put though, is that these bomblets are extraordinarily effective little tools for killing Russians, and it just happens to be extremely efficient to deliver some of them in a different way.  Most of the drones used in this war are still wonky adaptations of civilian tech, with whatever explosives happened to be available. It just so happens that DPICM bomblets are the right size, and probably have suitable, or at least easily adaptable fusing. 

Quote

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-seeks-us-cluster-bombs-adapt-drone-use-lawmakers-2023-03-06/

Ukraine is seeking the MK-20, an air-delivered cluster bomb, to release its individual explosives from drones, 

 

It just happens to be the best short term solution on offer. We still haven't seen new from ground up military drones in real numbers for a lot of roles. I expect that is coming quickly, and the side that brings it to the fight first is going to have a large advantage.

 

[Haiduk]

20 hours ago, Jiggathebauce said:

for one it reads like praise  of Putin  right up until 2014.

This is not praise, but objective reality if we compare Russia in mid of 90th and Russia in 2013. Putin and his oligarchs took full advantage in situation that has developed (high prices on oil and gas, indecisiveness and softness of West, "real politic" etc). And yes, this is feature of "strong people" - to be able to use a situation. Yes, they accumulated fabuloes profits for own clanes, when many of their compatriots never had normal toilets, but they really raised Russia in world policy, economy and military. But then 2014 came and all turned out like in Russian "Fairytale about fisher and Golden Fish".

20 hours ago, Jiggathebauce said:

I see from your response our difference in fundamental ideas. You seem to take it as a given that these strong elites  are justified to exist and are the reason for good times.

Way of countries, their development and place in world order depend of ruling elites capabilities. So it was, so it is, so it will. "Democracy" indeed is a just a opportunity to raise up one of several elites, backing with some financial-industrial groups. Citizens can only guard "social agreement" between ruling elite and them (if level of the civil society allows to do this) and gradually decade by decade "nurture" their elites that they took carry properly of internal development.    

[Haiduk]

FSB detained 65-year aviation technecian of Chkalovskiy airfield, who could carry HE inside airfield and put it in several aircraft. As result on 20th of September IL-18D, An-148 and Mi-28N were damaged. Chkalovskiy is airfield near Moscow, were special purpose transport aviation deployed ("salons" for militray top-brass). At the interrogfation FSB forced him to recognize he was enlisted by Ukrainian special services for diversion. But this man insisted he did this on his own mind, because he was strictly against the war. As result FSB now try to appoint psychiatric examinatin to "recognize" him "abnormal" to put in psychiatric clinic (known "punitive psychiatry" of late USSR times)

   

Edited October 3, 2023 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

This is not praise, but objective reality if we compare Russia in mid of 90th and Russia in 2013.

Absolutely correct. 

Putin did such a good job at reestablishing order (crime was out of control in the 1990s) and raising living standards that people in other countries, in particular Ukraine, looked to Russia as a better alternative to their own country.  We clearly saw this just after Russia occupied Crimea.  Many citizens said "who cares if we were invaded, we're going to get better jobs and less corruption than what we have." Of course this was all untrue, but Russian propaganda plus personal experiences led people to believe this.

The truth is that Putin made the biggest improvements in the early 2000s and then it slowed.  Too much money was being siphoned from the Russian treasury and corruption was making it difficult to keep the economy growing.  As a result, in 2011 there was a very strong political challenge to Putin's control which resulted in more obvious vote fraud and increasing amounts of repression.  Every year since things have gotten worse, slower at first and more rapidly in recent years.

The 2014 war in Ukraine was in part due to this dynamic.  The 2022 war in Ukraine is also tied to Russia's domestic problems.  In short, Russia factually became a better place under Putin relative to what things were like before.  This lasted for only a short period of time before it started to slow and then slide backwards.  This war is part of Putin's effort to find ways around his failures.

Steve

[Haiduk]

UKR forces probably 1-2 days ago expanded grey zone in front of Novoprokopivka, pushing Russians south-west

Edited October 3, 2023 by Haiduk

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's an anonymous source so caveat emptor, but the UK may be nearly tapped out on weapons for Ukraine, at least from UK stocks.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/02/britain-run-out-of-arms-send-to-ukraine-says-military-chief/

Quote

“We’ve given away just about as much as we can afford,” they added.

“We will continue to source equipment to provide for Ukraine, but what they need now is things like air defence assets and artillery ammunition and we’ve run dry on all that.”

“The Challenger 2s that we have will become Challenger 3. We need them to upgrade them to become Challenger 3. Every tank we give away is one less that we have.”

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Vanir Ausf B

[Ultradave]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Our boss broke in and said straight-faced "We should think about a strategic nuclear weapon program."  I think I peed my pants a little bit.

Well, with CANDU reactors, the nuclear material is not an issue, other than the NPT of course, and all the safeguards agreements and monitoring that have been agreed to.  

Dave

Edited October 3, 2023 by Ultradave

[Haiduk]

Russians activated again near Donetsk in Maryinka and Avdiivka area

Here result if their attempt to advance toward Novomykhailivka, south from Maryinka.

[Sekai]

56 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

“We’ve given away just about as much as we can afford,” they added.

“We will continue to source equipment to provide for Ukraine, but what they need now is things like air defence assets and artillery ammunition and we’ve run dry on all that.”

What's going on with UK's artillery ammo production? Are they still sleeping on this after nearly 2 years of war?

[Carolus]

30 minutes ago, Sekai said:

What's going on with UK's artillery ammo production? Are they still sleeping on this after nearly 2 years of war?

Almost everyone is sleeping on this.

The USA made the biggest strides towards production expansion of 155mm.

Rheinmetall in Germany has usable capacity and expanded in anticipation of orders for 155mm, but the German government isn't ordering much because Germans have a new god, and that god is named "balanced budget" and they will worship that god no matter what crises rage outside the temple.

Bulgaria and Romania are happily working their soviet-era plants for 152mm, though.

And while we all love the big guns, I hope no one forgets 120mm and 80mm mortar rounds, because these humble tubes are putting in a lot of work too.

The only thing the West seems to have really plenty of is small arms and small arms ammo.

[hcrof]

37 minutes ago, Sekai said:

What's going on with UK's artillery ammo production? Are they still sleeping on this after nearly 2 years of war?

https://des.mod.uk/des-places-new-order-to-increase-155mm-shells-stockpile-for-british-army/#:~:text=The new ammunition orders have,Armed Forces up to 2037.

My understanding is that they are working on it but it will take a few years to really ramp up. BAE systems have invented a new method of 155mm production which is cheaper and faster to produce than before too:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/bae-systems-ngaa-future-artillery-munitions-better-performances-maximum-flexibility-easy-to-produce-at-lower-costs

[Haiduk]

It's claimed "UKR units, breaching defense of 56th air-assault regiment of 7th air-assault division and mop-up their positions near Verbove"

As for me enough bright green as for October (or too saturated video)... Though we have very warn autumn, there was sun and +22C (71.6F) today. 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Haiduk

[cyrano01]

8 hours ago, Rokko said:

Somewhat ironic.

Killing civilians: Highly illegal

Killing all the civilians: Well, that's a legal grey area.

 

Sounds about right. Summed up to me in a 1980s tea-break discussion at a UK defence establishment, with an RAF Tornado pilot (whose role could have included delivery of the proverbial bucket of instant sunshine):

 

'You have to realise, Cyrano, that wholesale slaughter (of civillians) is part of the day job but retail is completely out of the question.'

Edited October 3, 2023 by cyrano01

[poesel]

27 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Rheinmetall in Germany has usable capacity and expanded in anticipation of orders for 155mm, but the German government isn't ordering much because Germans have a new god, and that god is named "balanced budget" and they will worship that god no matter what crises rage outside the temple.

That is not a new god - it is one of old with a lot of power...

But the ministry of defense is currently a bit exempt from this due to special circumstances. It is now in the hands of bureaucracy. A force even greater than that of gods.
(man, I wish Neil Gaiman would write 'German Gods'. That would be so much not fun)

[Holien]

On 10/2/2023 at 12:36 AM, billbindc said:

But the dance next month will be defined by the realization among the (too-conservative-for-me but) generally sane majority of Republicans in the House that to retain some semblance of order in the House they have to keep McCarthy and to keep McCarthy they need Democratic votes to stifle their own bomb throwers. There's already talk on the Hill among Republicans to cooperate with Democrats to change the rule so that motions to vacate will be nullified. With a half decent bounce or two, things are about to get a lot less crazy in the House. 

Hmmmm this didn't age too well. I will await my morning coffee to see where the clown show goes next. (BTW the UK clown show is also in full swing...)

Bill give me some hope that the numpties have a plan...

Please....

Night Night

[Harmon Rabb]

Russia Accidentally Reveals Addresses of Putin's Secret Service (Newsweek)

Quote

Russian authorities accidentally revealed the addresses of the country's secret military buildings, institutions, and spy homes, in Moscow and in St. Petersburg, an investigative site found.

The Dossier Center, a project launched by Russian opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky, found the addresses listed in a 434-page document titled "Special Group", which was published on the Moscow City Hall website. The document listed properties where there must be "no blackouts."

The list reportedly included a range of top-secret government facilities, homes belonging to GRU (the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) officers and President Vladimir Putin's secret service, an ammunition depot, and more.

Looks like General Budanov may have some more reading to do.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[dan/california]

50 minutes ago, hcrof said:

My understanding is that they are working on it but it will take a few years to really ramp up. BAE systems have invented a new method of 155mm production which is cheaper and faster to produce than before too:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/bae-systems-ngaa-future-artillery-munitions-better-performances-maximum-flexibility-easy-to-produce-at-lower-costs

Really interesting article, they are bringing in a bunch of modern production techniques.

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by dan/california