How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The editor wouldn't let me select and delete it, no clue why. I will attempt to be more careful about not doing it in the first place.

You have to place the cursor at the beginning of your text that follows and then hit delete.  Alternatively you can use the Source button and edit the HTML.  Delete the whole section that holds the URL and it should work.

18 minutes ago, dan/california said:

On a related issue that may just be some quirk of my computer, does anyone else sometimes have to reload the last page of the thread more than once to get everything to show up in correct chronological order? 

Well established bug with the Forum.  I don't know what causes it to happen, but a simple Refresh fixes it.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

That was an AWESOME summary of where things are now and how we got to this point.  The fact that I've been saying the exact same things since 2014 doesn't make me biased

There's so much good stuff in this summary that pointing out the highlights would be almost as long as the document itself.  However, two particular points raised have consistently and continually been under discussed since the war started.

1. Contrary to the pervading believe that Russia came away the clear winner in 2015, in reality a combination of Ukrainian and Western resolve thwarted Russia achieving its war aims.  A big component of that was military.
2. There is no "off ramp" to end this war diplomatically because anything less than what Putin is after (i.e. the total absorption of Ukraine) is unacceptable to him because he sees this as do-or-die for the Russia he envisions.

These two things are intricately related.  Putin temporarily backed off the brute force option for Ukraine in 2015-2020 because he viewed it as too expensive and risky.  This was the direct result of Ukraine's ability to defend itself and the West's stronger than expected resolve to oppose Russia's expansion.

Faced with an obviously "expensive" means of getting what he wanted, Putin shifted back to attempting to control Ukraine through a combination of non-kinetic means as had been the case prior to 2014.  By 2019 or 2020 he came to understand that nothing short of brute force was going to work, and so we have this war.

The key to understanding why Putin will never back down is understanding that he views taking Ukraine as a necessary for Russia's survival and that he's confirmed that there is no other way to achieve domination of Ukraine except through war.

This is why we need Putin's regime to collapse in order for there to be any hope of this war ending.  Collapse is frightening for a variety of reasons we've discussed here, but it seems the only solution to this war and the larger issues of world order.

I no longer believe it is possible to end this war by crippling Russia with Putin still in power.  If it was possible it would have happened already.  Therefore, I think it is not only time for the West to provide the last bits of military aid it's been holding back, but I it also should do whatever it can to bring about the collapse of Putin's regime.  Collapse is inevitable sooner rather than later, so might as well have it sooner.

Steve

I still do not see the forcing function.  Subversive campaigns can take a decade or more.  How long did Russia play silly buggers in Ukraine before 2014?  I think it is pretty obvious that he tried because he thought he could pull it off.  The plan was to hold Kyiv, install some puppet, leave some occupation support and a helluva lot of security forces to solidify control (see that RUSI reports on Russian unconventional warfare, the level and detail of planning is staggering).  The West would make quacking noises and toss on a few more sanctions at oligarchs but was too addicted to cheap energy to really unify.  It would all settle down and Russia would really be no worse off than they were in 2015.

Ok, but why Feb 22?  Worst time of year weather wise.  No crisis in the Kremlin - that we know about.  No looming NATO entry - hell the vast majority of westerners were entirely consumed by the pandemic.  You got a Rules Based Order guy in the White House.  I mean Jan 6th 2021, sure makes a lot of sense.  2022?  The smoke had cleared and the US actually had a moment to breathe.

It is the timing that gets me.  Putin could have waited another 24 months and hit in the middle of the US election.  NATO and the rest of the west would have been left wondering who to bet on.  You do this special operation in Nov or Oct and Europe would have had a whole winter needing more gas.

I get the motive, it is the opportunity space that really does not line up for me.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry, I couldn't find who originally posted this article on the failure to defend the south in the opening phase of the war.  Whoever did it, thanks!  Here's the link:

https://www-pravda-com-ua.translate.goog/articles/2023/09/18/7420200/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pl&_x_tr_pto=wapp

After reading this I'm pretty well convinced that there was no "treason" that caused the Ukrainian defenses in the south to be so ineffective.  Instead, it was a combination of rather bland reasons that combined to make things fall apart so quickly.  I recommend reading this, but for those who want to skip the details here's the meat of it:

1. the Ukrainian battle plan was useless because it was based on 4x Brigades being allocated to the area, but at the start there wasn't even 1x full Brigade and even that wasn't fully combat ready. Some 1500 forces in various states of readiness to guard the entire south!
2. more resources were not available because Ukraine was obligated to defend the entire border with what was effectively a peacetime force.  They had to prioritize and so the north got the bulk of the resources.  The former ATO was not stripped of forces to guard the south.  Mobilization based on a possibility of war wasn't practical either.
3. building fortifications costs a lot of money and it also requires seizing private property.  Kherson was not designated a combat zone prior to the war so it was not resourced for defense due to the mundane problems of maintaining long term readiness.  This meant no fortifications, minefields, or even bridges being rigged for demolition.  In fact, in 2018 some bridges had their explosives removed because it was too expensive to maintain them in that state.  Which meant that by the time the Russian offensive became likely there wasn't the time to mine bridges.  After the war started some key bridges were hastily rigged, but they were far to the rear of the starting line.
4. Russia cleverly set up the war with so many points of confusion that it wasn't immediately clear that the invasion was happening even when shots were fired.  Creating confusion and uncertainty is one of the few things Russians do well.
5. the Russians hit this area with perhaps 20x as many ground forces as Ukraine had, plus it had massive amounts of artillery and aviation at its disposal that Ukraine couldn't hope to counter.  EW might have also been a factor as Ukraine lost normal military coms right away.
6. after the Russians broke out of Crimea there was basically nothing that could be done given all of the above.

Steve

[FancyCat]

The Russians really are something. I expect pressure campaigns on Biden and Scholz to rise and perhaps finally allow ATACMS and Taurus to be sent to Ukraine. Tho I wonder if Biden is holding them back to threaten Russia with them as retaliation for targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure this winter.

Quote

Every time Russia strikes civilians & breaks international law by targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine there needs to be a response. We did that with Starstreak and Storm Shadow. Germany should now send their Taurus missile systems to Ukraine and join the UK and France.

 

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It is the timing that gets me.  Putin could have waited another 24 months and hit in the middle of the US election.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because it was gnawing at me while reading the ISW report.  We've certainly discussed it at length here, but in this area the report was decidedly short on details.  It just summed it up as "Putin saw the opportunity to strike".

I'm still of the opinion that the specific timing was some combination of the following:

1. hubris.  Because Putin presumed Ukraine wouldn't resist there was no need to be concerned about the campaign weather.  We also have evidence that he intended the war to start a month earlier but the US leadership spilling the beans caused Putin to put it off.
2. internal politics.  I strongly suspect there was some pressure building up that Putin needed to get on top of and waiting another 1-2 years wasn't viable.
3. health.  There's a very real possibility that Putin thought he didn't have time due to some sort of health crisis.  Either he'd be dead, ousted, or not physically strong enough to push this through.  When you're an egomaniac, it really is all about you!

Steve

[FancyCat]

Ukrainian presidential election was supposed to be in March 2024. Invasion in 2022, consolidation in 23, legitimacy in 2024. 2024, Russia on the up, Trump runs a easy campaign into office on the back of failing Biden including in Ukraine, Putin gets another 4 years to take advantage of American chaos.

[Tux]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

We also have evidence that he intended the war to start a month earlier but the US leadership spilling the beans caused Putin to put it off.

The Beijing Winter Olympics didn’t finish until 20th Feb, either.  I remember at the time reading that Xi had not been amused by the way Russia’s Georgian adventure overshadowed the opening of Beijing’s 2008 Summer Olympics and so he may have played a part in Putin delaying the 2022 invasion.

Can’t say I’ve managed to find a reliable source for that, though.

[Harmon Rabb]

Meanwhile in Bizarro World or is that Russian World? Same thing really these days.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[Letter from Prague]

I think as for "why not earlier", if I remember correctly, some of the documents suggested they wanted to do this on 2020 while Trump was still in power, but the pandemic threw them off. Then suddenly Trump lost the second term and white house was full of familiar faces.

As for "why not wait a little more", no idea. My best guess is that Putin was born in 1952 and his age starting with 7 was the symbolic thing that made him go "wait if I want to have greater empire as my legacy, I need to do it soon".

[Harmon Rabb]

Update regarding air defence pledges.

[Kinophile]

 

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Going by that description it sounds like Prigozhin was living the Scarface lifestyle, complete with a lot of "blow" in his office.

I mean it could be true but Putin, seems to have a tendency of calling people who he does not like drug addicts.

Edit: Some new footage of the AFU from Crimea.

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[Battlefront.com]

46 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Ukrainian presidential election was supposed to be in March 2024. Invasion in 2022, consolidation in 23, legitimacy in 2024. 2024, Russia on the up, Trump runs a easy campaign into office on the back of failing Biden including in Ukraine, Putin gets another 4 years to take advantage of American chaos.

There was definitely speculation that Trump getting booted from office was part of Putin's calculation that non-kinetic solutions weren't going to work.  With Trump in office for another 4 years NATO might have been wrecked.  With Biden (or pretty much anybody else) it was likely to regain some of the strength Trump had taken from it.  Better to strike while the alliance is at its weakest point ever vs. waiting and having it be stronger..

29 minutes ago, Tux said:

The Beijing Winter Olympics didn’t finish until 20th Feb, either.  I remember at the time reading that Xi had not been amused by the way Russia’s Georgian adventure overshadowed the opening of Beijing’s 2008 Summer Olympics and so he may have played a part in Putin delaying the 2022 invasion.

Can’t say I’ve managed to find a reliable source for that, though.

Forgot about this one.  Yeah, Putin flew to Beijing to get Xi's approval, but that happened on Feb 4th.  Putin waited to invade Ukraine in 2014 until after Sochi, so no doubt Xi had a strong opinion about Putin starting while the Olympics were still going.

However, the original start date was likely sometime in January, so if true the war was already delayed.  The speculation was Putin thought launching a war exactly when the US said it would wasn't really a good idea.  Instead, try to sow doubt by not attacking on cue. 

22 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

I think as for "why not earlier", if I remember correctly, some of the documents suggested they wanted to do this on 2020 while Trump was still in power, but the pandemic threw them off. Then suddenly Trump lost the second term and white house was full of familiar faces.

When Trump lost the election there was likely incentives to attack sooner rather than later (see above).  From the little we know they always planned on a 1+ year preparation time.  As much as they underestimated Ukraine's military capabilities and overestimated their own, it seems they at least figured out that an improvised plan done on short notice wasn't likely to succeed.

The pandemic might have pushed things a little, but there are no indications that Putin had yet given up on non-kinetic options until either late 2019 or very early 2020.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

Speaking of Russian and Chinese relations, Russia has bumped up its price for electricity exports to China and China isn't going along with it (for now):

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-china-electricity-inter-rao-price-increase-1831646

Steve

[Beleg85]

Russian precision strike on gathering of Ukrainian infantry, well beyond the frontline.

 

[Battlefront.com]

An interesting OpEd suggesting that Putin may not be as sure about his continued reign as we might think:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4240239-putin-panics/

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Russian precision strike on gathering of Ukrainian infantry, well beyond the frontline.

 

Yesh.  Seems pretty obvious there were casualties, from concussions at least, but I think they got lucky.  See the pickup truck next to the soldiers in the beginning?  It isn't there right after the attack, which indicates it was able to drive away.  If a soft skinned truck survived the strike then hopefully most of the soldiers did as well.  Impossible to tell how many in the post-strike shot are wounded and how many are attending the wounded.

Steve

[Beleg85]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yesh.  Seems pretty obvious there were casualties, from concussions at least, but I think they got lucky.  See the pickup truck next to the soldiers in the beginning?  It isn't there right after the attack, which indicates it was able to drive away.  If a soft skinned truck survived the strike then hopefully most of the soldiers did as well.  Impossible to tell how many in the post-strike shot are wounded and how many are attending the wounded.

Steve

Good catch. However, if they were targeted by artillery, the most obvious reaction would be to scatter into the woods. Thus I think many of the soldiers lying there in the open after the strike may be wounded or dead.

[NamEndedAllen]

21 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Once a week on Fox News one Democrat and one Republican come on Bret Baier's show and discuss bi-partisan legislation (or some issue) they are working on together.

This a perfectly reasonable assertion. The problem is the lack of numerical analysis attached to it and similar hopeful assertions and opinions about “lots of moderates” (not equal but applies with some differences in numbers/districts to the other side). In fact, very little ever comes of these tv exercises. Largely because so few members from the total Congress are involved. Whether we like it or not and despite our preferences, the bell curve or bulk of both parties’ self-identified voters have steadily moved towards their farther extreme ends. Not AT the ends but well removed from the moderate near center, whether right or left. As policy analysts (and Miles Davis) often say, So What?

Well, you can’t run for office as in the old days, appealing to the large moderate majorities of both parties and their overlap in the center. Back then, you could ONLY get elected that way. No John Bircher types could win from the extremes. Nowadays, you generally win with a majority of the isolated new centers of gravity that overlaps with the extreme end of your Party. And in some infamous instances, even the extremists can win. All exacerbated further by gerrymandering. Evidence? Look at the district maps for how many district seats are non-competitive. One study says SIX PERCENT. Of Congress! https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/02/17/just-6-us-house-seats-expected-be-competitive-thanks-rigged-maps  Another study suggested a few more, just 35 seats are competitive. 

The upshot? Hardly any House District candidates can or will appeal to the other party’s “moderate” voters if they want to be elected. They shape their appeals to their own bases. Those bases are firmly far from the overall center. Like it or not, wishful optimism aside, this shift and the related increase of extreme gerrymandering are the facts of the USA House of Representatives.
 

[dan/california]

38 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Russian precision strike on gathering of Ukrainian infantry, well beyond the frontline.

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/04/13/army-short-range-air-defense-laser-prototypes-take-down-drones-at-yuma/

 

“When they got out on the range, they were knocking targets out of the sky, Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 [unmanned aircraft systems],” Lt. Gen. Robert Rasch said told Defense News in an interview. “Very, very effective.”

 

If these laser systems work? They should rolling out of the factory, and on to a plane headed for Ukraine. Whatever level of deep strike the Russians have seems to be based on drone reconnaissance. These systems seem to kill drones rather well, SO SEND THEM.

Edited October 5, 2023 by dan/california

[Jiggathebauce]

1 hour ago, NamEndedAllen said:

 

The upshot? Hardly any House District candidates can or will appeal to the other party’s “moderate” voters if they want to be elected. They shape their appeals to their own bases. Those bases are firmly far from the overall center. .
 

This is definitely true in republican districts, but I hardly think this is the case in blue. With the exception of the Squad, the Dems primarily cater to a centrist constituency of wealthy 'Not In My Backyard" liberals, business and real estate interests. For Examples, see Kristen Synema, Eric Adams, Bloomberg etc. In senate races against Republicans, they run democratic candidates who can best be described as Bush senior/Reagan era conservatives to try to capture the vote of this unicorn 'reasonable moderate republican' who would be willing to back a conservative Dem over a Republican. With predictable results. The one exception where that has worked is Manchin.

Anyone who identifies with the left can tell you that we are NOT the democratic base. Lol. The DNC and liberals basically tell us to shut up and vote for them because we have no other choice.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Jiggathebauce
Clarity

[cesmonkey]

Some thoughts from members of Congress:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4239877-kinzinger-predicts-jordan-will-be-next-speaker/
 

Quote

A staunch supporter of Ukraine, he expressed concern in the interview that whoever becomes Speaker next will have to yield to hard-liners on “extreme demands,” including no Ukraine aid. 

“I think it’s important for five or 10 members of the House of the Republicans to refuse to vote for anybody that won’t bring Ukraine to the floor for an up or down vote,” Kinzinger said. “Will they do that? Probably not. They should.”

 

 

 

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I still do not see the forcing function.  Subversive campaigns can take a decade or more.  How long did Russia play silly buggers in Ukraine before 2014?  I think it is pretty obvious that he tried because he thought he could pull it off.  The plan was to hold Kyiv, install some puppet, leave some occupation support and a helluva lot of security forces to solidify control (see that RUSI reports on Russian unconventional warfare, the level and detail of planning is staggering).  The West would make quacking noises and toss on a few more sanctions at oligarchs but was too addicted to cheap energy to really unify.  It would all settle down and Russia would really be no worse off than they were in 2015.

Ok, but why Feb 22?  Worst time of year weather wise.  No crisis in the Kremlin - that we know about.  No looming NATO entry - hell the vast majority of westerners were entirely consumed by the pandemic.  You got a Rules Based Order guy in the White House.  I mean Jan 6th 2021, sure makes a lot of sense.  2022?  The smoke had cleared and the US actually had a moment to breathe.

It is the timing that gets me.  Putin could have waited another 24 months and hit in the middle of the US election.  NATO and the rest of the west would have been left wondering who to bet on.  You do this special operation in Nov or Oct and Europe would have had a whole winter needing more gas.

I get the motive, it is the opportunity space that really does not line up for me.

It was a bad plan in a great many ways, to many axis of attack, no unified command, not nearly enough men or supplies if real resistance was encountered. The fact that the timing was lousy is just one more bad choice in a hole catalogue of them. The whole mess assumed an at least semi successful coup, that never really came close to starting, much less succeeding. Putin rolled the tanks anyway, and here we are. 

Even the initial success in the the south didn't accomplish nearly what it should have because their just weren't enough troops to from a decently manned continuous front and follow up on the initial victories.

There was also a self licking ice dream cone of intelligence failures. We were reading the Russians mail in real time, the Russians thought they would on Kyiv in three days, a week in the worst case scenario. Western intelligence agencies broadcast the Russian plan far and wide, but they basically agreed Ukraine would fall almost instantly. So Putin's senior people went back to him and said, "Boss, even the CIA thinks our plan will work". It didn't...

[Tux]

7 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:

This is definitely true in republican districts, but I hardly think this is the case in blue. With the exception of the Squad, the Dems primarily cater to a centrist constituency of wealthy 'Not In My Backyard" liberals, business and real estate interests. For Examples, see Kristen Synema, Eric Adams, Bloomberg etc. In senate races against Republicans, they run democratic candidates who can best be described as Bush era Republicans to try to capture the vote of this unicorn 'reasonable moderate republican' who would be willing to back a conservative Dem over a Republican. With predictable results. The one exception where that has worked is Manchin.

Anyone who identifies with the left can tell you that we are NOT the democratic base. Lol. The DNC and liberals basically tell us to shut up and vote for them because we have no other choice.

I’m not going to get too involved in the US political discussion but I will say it’s hard for me not to laugh every time I hear American people refer to “the far left” of the American political establishment.  I’m sorry but by the standards I’m familiar with American politics really doesn’t have a left wing to speak of.  From an external point of view American politics starts about as far to the right as exists in any western country and finishes with “the squad” somewhere around what would be considered the centre or maybe centre-left anywhere in Europe.

Are attempts to appeal to the US “centre” maybe failing because the political “centre” has in fact drifted so far to the right?

[dan/california]

16 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

Some thoughts from members of Congress:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4239877-kinzinger-predicts-jordan-will-be-next-speaker/
 

 

 

 

Unless people start putting up confirmed lists of supporters, we will have know idea until next week. Someone basically has to round up all but ~5 republicans, or get some Democratic support. No R is going to ask for democratic support unless he has exhausted all of his other options.

Edit: There are approximately fifteen Rs who are from districts Biden won and is quite likely to win again. They can't vote for Gym Jordan, and be back for the next Congress, and I think most of them know that. To repeat, we have no clue...

Edited October 5, 2023 by dan/california