How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Harmon Rabb]

56 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Russian social and official media use it as obvious proof that Ukrainian militaries are corrupted to the bone; I wouldn't be surprised if they purposfully shiped weapons captured in Ukraine with this very sole purpose in mind. If WSJ material about Iran planning whole thing in meetings in Lebanon is true (seems very likely) then question if - and when- Kremlin knew will start to pop up.

If Ukraine can provide proof that Russia directly supported Hamas during this attack, this could backfire on Moscow with a vengeance.

I would be interested to know what kind of "Western-made weapons" Ukraine is accused of providing. If we are talking about AR-15 style rifles and anti-tank weapons like AT4s. I would presume Hamas would have a much easier time procuring similar type weapons from Syria and Iran.

Very dangerous move by Russia if proven.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Agreed, but I am specifically talking about rail, not trying to interdict the 'last mile.'

It is simply bizarre to me that the Russians have been able to run steady rail shipments for hundreds of km, parallel to a hostile front since UA reclaimed the initiative last fall.

Millions of landmines and cement barriers, plus sustainment for 3 armies didn't just appear there; it was all carried. Mostly on trains.

If HIMARS couldn't reach, hit the bastards with something else: commandos/partisans on a one-way-trip if you have to. Sacrifice aircraft. Bridges, embankments, locomotives. They fix one, blow it again. Interdiction. That was much of the advantage of forcing Russia to defend this long 'land bridge'.

Can you cut supply off completely? Hell no. Can you substantially reduce the flows by forcing Ivan to run a Red Ball Express from Rostov or Kerch? I don't see why not.

What am I missing other than 'well shucks, they didn't do it, so there must be some reason'? Like what?

I can't figure this out either.  At least not specifically.

Kherson was a real surprise to me about how well Russia was able to work around probably the worst scenario imaginable for any nation, not to mention from a force with demonstrated difficulty working even normal logistics.  Eventually the restrictions Ukraine imposed became part of the reason why Russia had to withdraw, but it took a lot more time and effort than I ever thought it would.

The lesson I took away from Kherson is that Russia has the capacity to brute force their logistics in ways that are difficult to account for.  That's generally, but specifically?  I don't have a clue what the factors are or how much they might meaningfully contribute to enabling Russia to continue operations at scale.

For example, we know they are able to treat their soldiers as animals and still get them to behave, so did they cut way back on things like food and medicine so they could move more mines with their reduced capacity?  Is their relatively primitive methodologies (i.e. not palatalizing stuff) give them an edge in some way because any dope can lug crates of mines or drive a stolen civilian vehicle?  So on and so forth.

Steve

[dan/california]

9 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Very dangerous move by Russia if proven.

Putin is losing the war in Ukraine, not nearly fast enough, but he is losing it. He knows that if he starts a war with NATO that he will either lose much worse, or that unpleasant MAD thing will come into play. Still hard to sell that as a plan. I think he has instead consciously at least encouraged if not helped the Iranians to kick off a new mess in the Middle East in the attempt to somehow salvage something. The very large question is just how much of the Iranians shopping list has he supplied to convince them to go along.

Edited October 9, 2023 by dan/california

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

It is the declared goal of China, Russia and Iran to dissolve the "Western bloc" (no remotely comparable position exists in the West).

I never really bought into this in its entirety to be honest.  Iran is all death to the West and Great Satan.  While trying to create offset against Saudi Arabia and hold their own guts in.  Russia is...well who knows what Russia really wants?  Some weird sort of mash up between Czarist Empire and the USSR so they can be free to flex in their Near Abroad whenever the whim takes them. 

China is pretty complicated.  A lot of noise coming out of warhawk circles in the US that this entire thing is existential - I am not so sure.  China wants a New Deal, that much is clear, but it also likes western business/investment.  I am not convinced they want to break the West so much as bend it.  I do not think we are at "in order for us to survive, you cannot" situation with China.  They are still everyone's second largest trading partner.   Lot's of room for this whole intense negotiation/competition to go sideways but we are not there yet.  I have heard New Cold War for some time now, and even bought off on elements of it.  But I am not sure what we are heading into will look like that.  I think it will look much more like late 19th and early 20th century pre-WW1 Europe...but with nukes, and internet...cause we weren't crazy enough yet.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

I can't figure this out either.  At least not specifically.

Kherson was a real surprise to me about how well Russia was able to work around probably the worst scenario imaginable for any nation, not to mention from a force with demonstrated difficulty working even normal logistics.  Eventually the restrictions Ukraine imposed became part of the reason why Russia had to withdraw, but it took a lot more time and effort than I ever thought it would.

The lesson I took away from Kherson is that Russia has the capacity to brute force their logistics in ways that are difficult to account for.  That's generally, but specifically?  I don't have a clue what the factors are or how much they might meaningfully contribute to enabling Russia to continue operations at scale.

For example, we know they are able to treat their soldiers as animals and still get them to behave, so did they cut way back on things like food and medicine so they could move more mines with their reduced capacity?  Is their relatively primitive methodologies (i.e. not palatalizing stuff) give them an edge in some way because any dope can lug crates of mines or drive a stolen civilian vehicle?  So on and so forth.

Steve

I think it also proof that drones and missiles, at least in the quantities possessed by the Ukrainians still can't compensate for not having a real functioning air force. Two hundred JDAM-ERs in to the Russian back field every day would truly shatter their logistics. Ukraine just doesn't have the throw weight. It doesn't help that few if any of their long range systems can engage moving targets. One of the things they have not been able to do is launch a concerted campaign against Russian locomotives. I ideal world no Russian train would ever get to make a two way trip into Ukraine.

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think it will look much more like late 19th and early 20th century pre-WW1 Europe...but with nukes, and internet...cause we weren't crazy enough yet.

 Except that age of great power competition end rather unpleasantly. I think the reality of nearly absolute one man rule in so many countries also really increases the risk. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by dan/california

[LongLeftFlank]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has the capacity to brute force their logistics in ways that are difficult to account for. 

 

Well that's the thing; the Russians DO have rail logistics kinda figured out, rail is what has held Russia together since 1860.  And as you say, they just 'brute force' the rest, or make themselves do without.

...So why not beat the living hell out of that resource from the first day you possibly can?

Using that superior Western C4ISR that can, well, spot trains unerringly....

Edited October 9, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Tokmak probably isn't really closed for Russian logistics. If it were that simple it would have been done months ago, as you alluded to. One of the most pervasive myths in this war is that you can "close" a supply route with indirect fires. That's not how it works. Russian and Ukrainian forces are separated by only a few kilometers in most places yet those forces are resupplied. There is attrition, yes, but plenty gets through.

Well you can and you can't.  The UA definitely choked out the RA at Kharkiv and Kherson last year.  To the point they basically collapsed.  You can create so much friction that the operational system starts to fail.  But it very much matters what that operational system is doing.

So why is it not working now?  Well first off we really do not know if it is working or not.  We have seen heavy attrition of RA guns, I am going to assume ammo is getting hit too.  RA armor is nearly non-existent - re: reports of the RA using them as static pillbox guns.  And the RA is no where near demonstrated any operational offensive capability - that did not "just happen either".  I suspect a lot of the logistics attrition is keeping Russia on the defensive right now.

As to Defence, well the tyranny of force multiplication appear to be favoring the RA right now.  The one mistake the UA made, or maybe it was a forced error, was they let the RA have the initiative back last winter.  RA made a lot of noise at Bakhmut while Priggy - now singing with the Devils Choir - sent wave after wave of humans at the problem.  Meanwhile everyone was "LOLZing"  RA dragons teeth and obstacles in the center - silly Russians.  Well it looks like they took that time and mined everything that couldn't run away.

Force multiplication essentially changes the force ratios by virtue of offsets.  So the UA still needs to 3:1 (for arguments sake, let's not go down that road again) but the RA "1" is in reality fewer people and more mines.  Mines don't need breakfast, or medics, or letters from home - pretty stoic bunch.  This is what minefields and obstacles really do.  They create battlefield friction that changes the force-space equations between the attacker and defender.  And it would appear the RA has done this fairly successfully.  It also changes the logistical requirements so the RA does not really need trainloads and trainloads of supplies. 

They likely stockpiled too while everyone was making fun of their obstacles.  So choking out a small logistical requirement over a big piece of ground is pretty hard.   We don't see it but the UA has likely hammered the rail lines, transport nodes and the like.  But we are talking a few trucks to give hard rations and a bit of ammo to a bunch of poor losers living in holes, who are likely already standing on ammo crates.

So where do you go from here.  Well you keep going forward and hope the Russians run out of mines because mines don't move yet.  You also hope they run out of people to watch over those mines...very hard as precision is cutting both ways.  This is all attritional.  We are observing a massive experiment in corrosive warfare - are we a the limit of what it can do at this point in time? 

Or you open up a new offensive somewhere else where the RA is totally unprepared for it.    

Edited October 9, 2023 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Well that's the thing; the Russians DO have rail logistics kinda figured out, rail is what has held Russia together since 1860.  And as you say, they just 'brute force' the rest, or make themselves do without.

...So why not beat the living hell out of that resource from the first day you possibly can?

Using that superior Western C4ISR that can, well, spot trains unerringly....

See my post above.  The RA being forced onto the Defensive is not magically "happening" either.  I suspect the UA is hitting their logistics, but it is complicated.

[LongLeftFlank]

25 minutes ago, dan/california said:

It doesn't help that few if any of their long range systems can engage moving targets.

The Train, Burt Lancaster (1964)

Sure, but you don't need to hit the locomotives while they're moving. Cut a rail (or a trestle or an embankment) in front of them and even if they can stop in time, they will sit stock still for quite a bit.

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of Ukrainian officers who have noticed this. Just trying to better understand the 'why not'....

[TheVulture]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I never really bought into this in its entirety to be honest.  Iran is all death to the West and Great Satan.  While trying to create offset against Saudi Arabia and hold their own guts in.

A lot of western politicians greatly over-egg the whole "death to..." thing. It's a common rhetorical flourish in Iran, and if there's one thing that Iranian culture is known for it is over-the-top rhetorical flourishes. If you ever take a taxi in Tehran, and the driver say to you that you were such charming passengers that there is no fee for the taxi ride, he isn't being literal. It is just the first move in the game of tarouf where people try and out-do each other in comically over-the top generosity and politeness, before eventually settling the bill as expected. Very little in Iranian dialog is to be taken literally. 

So there are crowds on the streets (when the government asks for them) shouting "Death to America" sure, but during some economic protests there are also plenty of people shouting "Death to Hizbollah" (due to the amount of money Iran was spending on supporting Hizbollah and Syria, while economic conditions for normal Iranians were bad), and "Death to taxes" (and even "Death to traffic" due to congestion). It's just a colloquial phrase for expressing disapproval, not to be taken literally.

Of course, the Iranian leadership are not fluffy bunnies, and are quite willing to get thousands of people killed in pursuit of minor political aims. And they'll quite cheerfully export death and murder, and (like everyone else) do whatever they can to improve their military and access to the most powerful weapons they can. But honestly, they're not trying to destroy the west (or the world) in some apocalyptic frenzy. They are mostly trying to become the dominant regional power and defend their own security (remember the Iran-Iarq war?), whilst trying to navigate the millenium-plus old Sunni-Shia divide (which has given the Shia, understandably, a lot of sympathy for the underdog and the victims of a double-cross), and defend the Shia populations in other Arab countries.

Quote

China is pretty complicated.  A lot of noise coming out of warhawk circles in the US that this entire thing is existential - I am not so sure.  China wants a New Deal, that much is clear, but it also likes western business/investment.  I am not convinced they want to break the West so much as bend it.  I do not think we are at "in order for us to survive, you cannot" situation with China.  They are still everyone's second largest trading partner.   Lot's of room for this whole intense negotiation/competition to go sideways but we are not there yet.  I have heard New Cold War for some time now, and even bought off on elements of it.  But I am not sure what we are heading into will look like that.

China also ins't trying to usher in the apocalypse. Their primary goal is to not have their economy be subject to the whims of the US Navy. China depends on maritime trade from its east coast (despite the best efforts of the belt and road initiative to create alternative routes overland to Asia, Africa and Europe). And the reality is that that trade only exists at the forbearance of the US Navy. China doesn't want to have to depend on American good will for its prosperity. It wants to have a strong enough navy (or at least enough area denial capability) and enough control over the first island chain (Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia) that it is the power that gets to decide what can sail in the south China Sea, not the US. It wants to be able to guarantee its own naval trade access and coastal security. Of course, that pretty much guarantees conflict with the US, Japan, Taiwan if they try and push that capability (arguably Indonesia and the Philippines would be more amenable to political solutions in the event that the Chinese navy was genuinely competitive with the USN in deep water). 

Russia at the moment is the odd one out - they don't seem to have any rational goal that corresponds to reality in any meaningful way. They just want as much non-Russian territory under their control as possible to act as an expendable security buffer, but have chosen an approach that is achieving the opposite of that.

But these countries aren't working together to some common goal. They are each pursuing their own goals, and using 'friends of convenience' where it happens to align with their own goals.

Edited October 9, 2023 by TheVulture

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/09/briefing/hamas-israel-war.html

All these developments are signs that the world may have fallen into a new period of disarray. Countries — and political groups like Hamas — are willing to take big risks, rather than fearing that the consequences would be too dire.

 

This is what happened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it what just happened in Gaza. Both of these adventures have to be punished so severely that some level of deterrence is reestablished, or things are just goig to keep coming off the rails.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

13 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sure, but you don't need to hit the locomotives while they're moving. Cut a rail (or a trestle or an embankment) in front of them and even if they can stop in time, they will sit stock still for quite a bit.

Specialists in military aviation will invariably say that cutting rails via bombardment is wasteful. They are repaired too quickly and too cheaply to bother. And if you are so accurate that you can destroy a rail in front of a train, then you probably can hit a locomotive directly.

The only static railway targets worth taking down are apparently bridges.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

What am I missing other than 'well shucks, they didn't do it, so there must be some reason'? Like what?

Rail lines are easily and quickly repaired. It's an inefficient use of finite resources to hit an empty line just to put it out of order for a few hours.

The stuff traveling on those rail lines absolutely should be hit as often as possible, but we're talking about targets that are not static and are tens of kilometers behind enemy lines. ISR is spotty at best at those distances.

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

This is what happened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it what just happened in Gaza. Both of these adventures have to be punished so severely that some level of deterrence is reestablished, or things are just goig to keep coming off the rails.

Deep breaths, my friend.  Going to get worse before it gets better.  

[dan/california]

Just now, The_Capt said:

Deep breaths, my friend.  Going to get worse before it gets better.  

Oh I am absolutely certain of that. That is why My congressman is about to get ANOTHER letter about ammo production, among other things. 

[danfrodo]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Deep breaths, my friend.  Going to get worse before it gets better.  

This is the best post in a while.  It's gonna take a while.  And we don't need to get excited over every poll or pundit or opinion or conspiracy, these things come & go.  Eyes on the prize, on the longer term.  RU has survived the summer.  Disappointing for sure.  But to survive they burned up a lot of resources and further mortgaged the nation to this idiotic one-man war (meaning only Putin benefits from not stopping the war).  So UKR in good position and getting stronger while RU grows weaker -- at least that's what the preponderance of evidence shows.

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/israel-war-hamas-terrorism-ukraine-russia/675590/

There Are No Rules

States and quasi-states are using extreme, uninhibited violence against civilian populations.

By Anne Applebaum

 

 

 

[dan/california]

 

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The stuff traveling on those rail lines absolutely should be hit as often as possible, but we're talking about targets that are not static and are tens of kilometers behind enemy lines. ISR is spotty at best at those distances.

Rail should be trivial to hit with loitering munitions. This is literally the easiest target for an autonomous UAV to hit. Just follow the rail line, it’s not like it’s gonna move. Follow it till you find a locomotive, and boom.

[Letter from Prague]

8 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Rail should be trivial to hit with loitering munitions. This is literally the easiest target for an autonomous UAV to hit. Just follow the rail line, it’s not like it’s gonna move. Follow it till you find a locomotive, and boom.

I think that depends on range. I don't know how dense the traffic is, but the next locomotive might be 50 km away.

EDIT: I wonder if artillery deployed mines are precise enough to mine a rail track so the train explodes them. Or some drone that can land and explode on demand / when something hits it would work?

Sounds like pretty specialized piece of kit, compared to eye in the sky and ATAMCS to a bridge at the right moment.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Letter from Prague

[TheVulture]

5 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Rail should be trivial to hit with loitering munitions. This is literally the easiest target for an autonomous UAV to hit. Just follow the rail line, it’s not like it’s gonna move. Follow it till you find a locomotive, and boom.

Although on the other hand, it's also pretty easy for air defences: you don't even need to defend the whole line,  just the train, and the added weight of some air defence systems on a typical locomotive isn't going to be a significant additional load.

A better option might be to drop powerful anti-train mines randomly on the track.  Although as soon as that's a thing,  I imagine it would be pretty easy to think up effective countermeasures.

[Haiduk]

@The_Capt @Harmon Rabb

Russian TG of "Russia Today" media made disapointed post that Israel military representative rejected to confirm Russian claims about "Ukraine-supply weapon for Hamas"

Speaker of Israeli army rejected to comment using by Hamas a western weapon, being supplied to Ukraine. Our hostess several times repeated a question live with referenses on different sources, but Avikhai Edrai stood his ground: "I don't comment such fabrications and lies"

 

Russian milblogger Rudenko in own TG yesterday passed Russian T-90M, which made wonderful BOOM as Israeli Merkava, being hit by Hamas with UKR-suplied ATGM %)

Meanwhile "best" tanks in the world Hamas is burning out one by one. And they do this with Ukrainian weapon, which banderites sold them.

Not even GUR made a statement about Russian origins of western weapon in Hamas hands - UKR representative in UN Serhiy Kyslytsia officially said about this on USNC meeting. He warned Russian can use UKR defector Ruslan Syrovyi from State Border Guard - he turned out Russian agent. Also he told Russia on meeting of USNC in Friday can show staged video, how Ukraine handed over a weapon to Hamas

 https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3771911-russia-gave-weapons-to-hamas-to-spread-false-accusations-against-ukraine-kyslytsya.html (In English)

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Haiduk

[Vanir Ausf B]

7 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Rail should be trivial to hit with loitering munitions.

Range is a problem. Most loitering munitions have maybe 30-40 minutes of endurance tops, so most of your loiter time is spent traveling to the target area. If nothing's there you just crash. Also, EW becomes more of a problem the further you fly.

[Haiduk]

79th air-assault brigade destroyed Russian armored group, tried to attack their positions near Novomykhailivla village (10 km south from Maryinka). Two tanks and two BMPs were knoked out/ abandoned