How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

We have to keep in mind that the timing of the war was in the context of how Putin thought it was going to play out.  The two overriding concepts he had was a) it will be over in 2 weeks and b) nobody is going to make a big deal out of it.  If those two things were true, then the timing really wouldn't matter at all.  On the contrary, if Putin understood Russia's weakening standing in the world and that NATO was likely about to become stronger, then attacking ASAP makes a lot of sense.

Putin's decision to invade Ukraine even though the US made his intentions public, and rallied support against Russia, also makes sense given his obsession with wiping Ukraine off the map.  He would likely never have a better opportunity than he had in hand right then.

This also explains why Putin had no Plan B.  There was never a possibility of there being one.  Which is why Russia is still operating with a slightly modified Plan A.

Steve

It's important to remember when looking at the timing that Putin had decided to take this step sometime before April of 2021...which is when the Biden administration began telling allies it was coming. They weren't saying 'if' at that point, they were saying 'when' and they had it down almost to the date (they were talking about the effect of the Olympics on Putin's process already).

What had happened by April of that year? Merkel and the Christian Democrats were out, Navalny had been arrested in concert with increased repression in Russia, the US had announced it was going to go ahead with the Afghanistan pullout and of course there had just been an attempted coup in the United States. 

The why of the invasion was obviously an revanchist political obsession. The what went wrong of the invasion was obviously the result of a world class intelligence and military miscalculation. The when? Pretty clearly Putin looked at what he was seeing and imagined that there wasn't going to be a better time to take the chance. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by billbindc

[billbindc]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Thanks guys.  Guess who got tagged to do a Future of Joint Warfare piece at work?  Yep, the guy who won't shut up about it.  If Steve was particularly profit driven he would charge a membership fee for this thread.

I assume you've read Watling's new book? Amazing. He'll be at Wilson Center on Wednesday for any DC area grogs: 

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/arms-future-book-launch-dr-jack-watling

[dan/california]

4 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Indeed. I don't dislike Biden, but for Heaven's sake, wasn't there a younger, more mobile candidate in that huge country? And a colored lady as vice president. No problem in most Western European countries, but how many Americans will NOT vote for her, because she's black AND a woman? Sounds like a recipy for disaster to me.

Personally I will vote for a certain smart lady from Turkish-Kurdish origin in the next elections in the Netherlands (there's a good chance she will be the next prime minister of the Netherlands, as candidate for the VVD, which is a centre right liberal political party), but I doubt she would stand a chance in the US.

There are five driving factors in U.S. politics right now. The first is that the balance is is close to even between the parties.  The second is the coalitions are extremely locked in, very few people actually switch sides from election to election. The winner is determined by marginal turnout differential, not anybody switching sides. Third, as The_Capt detailed exquisitely yesterday, being able to pick your own social media effectively becomes the ability to pick your own facts/reality which makes side switching even less likely. Fourth is that less locked in, less motivated voters who matter enormously at the margin just don't pay much attention to politics at all, which makes them unpredictable. Fifth and last is that the recent Supreme court decision to rip open an abortion debate most of the country thought was settled has confounded most of the first four things I just wrote. The many trillion dollar question is by how much?

Obviously i am trying to jam a book into a paragraph here, I hope it is somewhat useful.

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I assume you've read Watling's new book? Amazing. He'll be at Wilson Center on Wednesday for any DC area grogs: 

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/arms-future-book-launch-dr-jack-watling

Well I will now!  Gotta be honest was on a whole separate journey - and my reward for completion was...more work!

[dan/california]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Thanks guys.  Guess who got tagged to do a Future of Joint Warfare piece at work?  Yep, the guy who won't shut up about it.  If Steve was particularly profit driven he would charge a membership fee for this thread.

No good deed goes unpunished, my vote for a title would be that "Our Robots Need Maximum Jointness.". Edit: Only sort of kidding.

15 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I assume you've read Watling's new book? Amazing. He'll be at Wilson Center on Wednesday for any DC area grogs: 

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/arms-future-book-launch-dr-jack-watling

Thank you for reminding me that this is actually out.

Edited October 6, 2023 by dan/california

[Teufel]

36 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

My dad told me sometimes Russians don't tell the truth. 

 

32 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

My dad told me for Russians lying is as naturally as breathing. It sounds like we both had a wise father.

Sounds like the two of you might be related or something!

[Aragorn2002]

2 minutes ago, Teufel said:

 

Sounds like the two of you might be related or something!

We are. By dutch common sense.

[chuckdyke]

18 minutes ago, Teufel said:

Sounds like the two of you might be related or something!

Met de klompen aanvoelen. With your clogs you will sense it. Hard to translate these.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Teufel said:

Are you suggesting Putin is not telling the truth?!

Heh.  Well, I for one think it's entirely possible that the cocaine, drinking, and weaponry is true.  It's been a while since we were reminded of Russian politicians snorting cocaine off the backs of hookers, so it is totally believable to me.  But it had nothing to do with the plane being downed, of course.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Quick call for assistance from the community - in the massive stream of videos and link being posted on this monster thread, there was one that showed a UA company/bn attack from planning to execution - drones being used while HQ is directing.  Can someone re-post that link for me as a favour because I have no idea how to find it in the stream.  It was maybe last month, or even Aug?  Doesn't matter really, just need one of UA doing a deliberate attack and how they are doing tactical C2.

Please and thank you.

Crap, I know the exact video you are looking for!  I'm pretty sure I posted it.  I remember you getting all giddy about it   I've done some searches but can't seem to find a word combination that doesn't get me 40,000+ hits.  Grr.

I think it was a lot longer ago than you're imagining.

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

37 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Met de klompen aanvoelen. With your clogs you will sense it. Hard to translate these.

I feel it in my water.

[kimbosbread]

6 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Indeed. I don't dislike Biden, but for Heaven's sake, wasn't there a younger, more mobile candidate in that huge country?

Restricting myself just to the Democrats, sure, there are much younger options like Mayor Pete, who everybody was very excited about purely because of youngness + gayness. Turns out to be completely ineffective as a transportation secretary, completely out to lunch (what shipping crisis). Unfortunately a lot of the young folks have serious baggage, are seen as dumb or ineffective, or both. And there’s another problem: Can the democrats nominate anybody but a minority female, Biden excepted?

There’s an argument I’m sympathetic too that we should cryo-preserve Biden for lack of a better option, keep him as a our dear leader and simply keep pushing decision making down a rung or too. Maybe wait a decade or two and see if the idiocy dies down and we can revisit the issue?

6 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

And a colored lady as vice president. No problem in most Western European countries, but how many Americans will NOT vote for her, because she's black AND a woman?

I think most people would for a decent female minority candidate. Kamala’s problem is everybody hates her, including her own party. People were begging Colin Powell to run in 90s, and this idea had widespread support on the right. Color is way less important now than then; there are a few ultraconservative minorities in various state governments that have rabid support from the right. Tons of minority Republicans too. Remember, Trump got 50% of the male black vote.

And dude, black is not the preferred nomenclature. BIPOC, please.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

The why of the invasion was obviously an revanchist political obsession. The what went wrong of the invasion was obviously the result of a world class intelligence and military miscalculation. The when? Pretty clearly Putin looked at what he was seeing and imagined that there wasn't going to be a better time to take the chance. 

Exactly this.  Lots of reasons for launching the war, but the timing was chosen because a) other options had failed and b) conditions were getting worse.

It should be remembered that during summer 2020 (IIRC) Putin started yammering about Minsk 2 after not making much out of it for a while.  I know I wasn't the only one to raise an eyebrow at the time and wondered what Putin was up to.  It seems this was his last attempt at getting what he wanted without having to launch a full war.  He got exactly ZERO traction from his attempts and that appears to have set in motion the war planning.

As an aside, I did a quick search to see if I could find any analysis at the time Putin was pushing this and didn't.  What I did find was an article on Ron Paul's website from last spring that reminds me how deep in bed he is with Putinism.  The article was the usual claptrap about NATO being at fault and Putin had no choice but to launch the war.  Grr.  It also reminded me that the easiest way to spot a Russian propaganda/disinformation piece is to see the 2014 Donbas described as a "civil war".  If you see that, you know you're reading something coming out of Moscow.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Restricting myself just to the Democrats, sure, there are much younger options like Mayor Pete, who everybody was very excited about purely because of youngness + gayness. Turns out to be completely ineffective as a transportation secretary, completely out to lunch (what shipping crisis). Unfortunately a lot of the young folks have serious baggage, are seen as dumb or ineffective, or both. And there’s another problem: Can the democrats nominate anybody but a minority female, Biden excepted?

There’s an argument I’m sympathetic too that we should cryo-preserve Biden for lack of a better option, keep him as a our dear leader and simply keep pushing decision making down a rung or too. Maybe wait a decade or two and see if the idiocy dies down and we can revisit the issue?

I think most people would for a decent female minority candidate. Kamala’s problem is everybody hates her, including her own party. People were begging Colin Powell to run in 90s, and this idea had widespread support on the right. Color is way less important now than then; there are a few ultraconservative minorities in various state governments that have rabid support from the right. Tons of minority Republicans too. Remember, Trump got 50% of the male black vote.

And dude, black is not the preferred nomenclature. BIPOC, please.

The real problem with younger people is the lack of broad life experiences needed to truly understand how to get the job done.  Older politicians have more likely experienced a broader range of governance responsibilities.  Which is why it is really dumb to expect people who win popularity contests to be effective leaders.  Especially young ones who have the misguided belief that energy = productivity.

Steve

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Thanks guys.  Guess who got tagged to do a Future of Joint Warfare piece at work?  Yep, the guy who won't shut up about it.  If Steve was particularly profit driven he would charge a membership fee for this thread.

Just make sure there's an entire slide on Spider-Legged, Heat Sensing Anti Personnel Mines

[Harmon Rabb]

Waiting for more details myself, but if confirmed this feels like Groundhog Day.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The real problem with younger people is the lack of broad life experiences needed to truly understand how to get the job done.  Older politicians have more likely experienced a broader range of governance responsibilities.  Which is why it is really dumb to expect people who win popularity contests to be effective leaders.  Especially young ones who have the misguided belief that energy = productivity.

Steve

To a very large extent the job of being running anything bigger than a medium sized company, much less something as complicated as the U.S. government, is to present well, hire well, and pray you handle the curve balls well. Biden has has handled the hiring, and the curveballs as well as anyone could have, over all. He has been a little weak on the presentation side, but I am hoping he he hits a better stride as the general election effectively starts six months early. 

A lot of leaders at of all ages, and in a great many fields make the fundamental energy=productivity mistake. The one I understand the least is Wall Streets obsession with working beyond crazy hours. People just don't make good decisions at the end of eighty or ninety hour weeks. Soldiers wind up doing it because war is an endurance sport, and nobody ever starts with enough of anything. For a more or less steady state business though it has always struck me as just completely nuts.

Edited October 6, 2023 by dan/california

[Lethaface]

FWIW a foresight of possible scenario's with regards to the end of the war and or Putin, aimed at policy makers:

https://www.clingendael.org/publication/after-putin-deluge

The whole article is free to download as a pdf. 

Not necessarily new/groundbreaking stuff but a nice collection imo. Extract from the extract:

"To help policymakers prepare for what might lie ahead, this report draws up a model consisting of 35 variables that will together shape Russia’s future – based on an extensive literature review and scenario workshop with Dutch and international experts. It then builds on this model to construct a scenario framework for the next five years. These scenarios take into account (1) to what extent the Russian regime could change or persist, (2) to what extent this would be accompanied by large-scale instability and violence, and (3) to what extent a future Russian government would pursue confrontation or rapprochement with the West. The report then puts forward six scenarios based on these variables and presuppositions

1. Reluctant reconciliation. After Russia has lost the war in Ukraine, various groups in the Russian elite join forces to oust Putin in a ‘palace coup’. The new president strikes a deal with the West, makes Putin and his loyalists a scapegoat, and enacts limited democratic and economic reforms.

2. China’s propped-up proxy. The war grinds on for years and no end is in sight. Putin is forced to step down due to mismanagement, but the regime itself prevails and a successor eventually secures political and financial backing from Beijing. Russia becomes fully dependent on China.

3. The Empire strikes back. After Western support for Ukraine dwindles, Russia decisively wins the war. Putin’s popularity surges and he is stronger in power than ever before. Russia has international partners that help it keep its economy going, while the West loses its unity.

4. Neo-Stalinist fortress Russia. Putin has made Russia a global pariah state. China, India and others abandon their tacit support and Russia is forced to become almost entirely self-sufficient. The regime continues its reign through brutal repression and propaganda. 2 After Putin, the deluge? | Clingendael Report, October 2023

5. The Wild East. After continued humiliation and a defeat on the battlefield, Putin’s regime loses legitimacy, withdraws from the south and east of Ukraine, and Russia begins to implode. Russia descends into organised chaos with high levels of criminality reminiscent of the early 1990s.

6. Dissolution without a nuclear solution. A catastrophic military defeat leads to the implosion of the Russian Federation, after which regional warlords seize nuclear assets to deter the rump state Muscovy. While some entities are recognised by China or other powers, Muscovy remains revisionist and deeply hostile towards the West"

Edited October 6, 2023 by Lethaface

[Harmon Rabb]

 

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

And dude, black is not the preferred nomenclature. BIPOC, please.

Dude, please...

[Harmon Rabb]

I try to not post much Russian propaganda anymore, but this was too much. British PMCs are now apparently involved in selling children to the Coca-Cola company. This garbage coming from someone who's president is wanted by the ICC for kidnapping Ukrainian children. 

Q-Anon level drivel.

[dan/california]

48 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

FWIW a foresight of possible scenario's with regards to the end of the war and or Putin, aimed at policy makers:

https://www.clingendael.org/publication/after-putin-deluge

The whole article is free to download as a pdf. 

Not necessarily new/groundbreaking stuff but a nice collection imo. Extract from the extract:

"To help policymakers prepare for what might lie ahead, this report draws up a model consisting of 35 variables that will together shape Russia’s future – based on an extensive literature review and scenario workshop with Dutch and international experts. It then builds on this model to construct a scenario framework for the next five years. These scenarios take into account (1) to what extent the Russian regime could change or persist, (2) to what extent this would be accompanied by large-scale instability and violence, and (3) to what extent a future Russian government would pursue confrontation or rapprochement with the West. The report then puts forward six scenarios based on these variables and presuppositions

1. Reluctant reconciliation. After Russia has lost the war in Ukraine, various groups in the Russian elite join forces to oust Putin in a ‘palace coup’. The new president strikes a deal with the West, makes Putin and his loyalists a scapegoat, and enacts limited democratic and economic reforms.

2. China’s propped-up proxy. The war grinds on for years and no end is in sight. Putin is forced to step down due to mismanagement, but the regime itself prevails and a successor eventually secures political and financial backing from Beijing. Russia becomes fully dependent on China.

3. The Empire strikes back. After Western support for Ukraine dwindles, Russia decisively wins the war. Putin’s popularity surges and he is stronger in power than ever before. Russia has international partners that help it keep its economy going, while the West loses its unity.

4. Neo-Stalinist fortress Russia. Putin has made Russia a global pariah state. China, India and others abandon their tacit support and Russia is forced to become almost entirely self-sufficient. The regime continues its reign through brutal repression and propaganda. 2 After Putin, the deluge? | Clingendael Report, October 2023

5. The Wild East. After continued humiliation and a defeat on the battlefield, Putin’s regime loses legitimacy, withdraws from the south and east of Ukraine, and Russia begins to implode. Russia descends into organised chaos with high levels of criminality reminiscent of the early 1990s.

6. Dissolution without a nuclear solution. A catastrophic military defeat leads to the implosion of the Russian Federation, after which regional warlords seize nuclear assets to deter the rump state Muscovy. While some entities are recognised by China or other powers, Muscovy remains revisionist and deeply hostile towards the West"

The notable part is that maybe one of these implies Russia will not be hell on earth to live in for the next fifty or a hundred years. Any rational person still in Moscow would be buying a plane ticket before he finished the summary.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

6. Dissolution without a nuclear solution. A catastrophic military defeat leads to the implosion of the Russian Federation, after which regional warlords seize nuclear assets to deter the rump state Muscovy. While some entities are recognised by China or other powers, Muscovy remains revisionist and deeply hostile towards the West"

Is there any meaningful unclassified information about Russian permissive action links? How hard would it be for the new warlord of greater Perm to actually use an intact weapon? Instead of having pull three or four of them apart to rig up a crude Hiroshima type bomb? This might be a really important question.

Edited October 6, 2023 by dan/california

[kluge]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Quick call for assistance from the community - in the massive stream of videos and link being posted on this monster thread, there was one that showed a UA company/bn attack from planning to execution - drones being used while HQ is directing.  Can someone re-post that link for me as a favour because I have no idea how to find it in the stream.  It was maybe last month, or even Aug?  Doesn't matter really, just need one of UA doing a deliberate attack and how they are doing tactical C2.

Please and thank you.

A bit older, the "battle of the T" series came with a fairly useful AAR video: (I can't get the original to load for some reason but it's reposted in a few locations). Commander used the drone to direct the risky tank maneuver.

 

[Harmon Rabb]

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Harmon Rabb