How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Carolus]

 

This is how to make the Russian supply situation even tighter - even though these attacks are still just needle pricks.

Russia would not be able to keep up with a sustained campaign against its energy infrastructure. Repairs for these things are really expensive and also dependant on foreign parts to a good degree (now if these sanctions were a bit tighter...)

 

[poesel]

43 minutes ago, Carolus said:

 

This is how to make the Russian supply situation even tighter - even though these attacks are still just needle pricks.

Russia would not be able to keep up with a sustained campaign against its energy infrastructure. Repairs for these things are really expensive and also dependant on foreign parts to a good degree (now if these sanctions were a bit tighter...)

 

This seems to be another example of the fixed wing bomber drone in action.

I'm really wondering how autonomous it is. Such a target seems to be comparably easy to detect by AI vision software (known location, unique shape, good contrast).

OTOH, I have no idea how much EW is active in Belgorod. So autonomy may not be necessary.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Aphorisms, especially Taleb's, should never be taken as literal ironclad truths, but there's often something worthy in them....

https://nitter.net/nntaleb/status/1712591137951645880#m

Peace is an urban, city-state thing reached through (non-zero sum) commercial interractions, not signatures at the top. Commerce breeds tolerance. #Phoenicians #Dubai #Singapore

War is a peasant-driven zero-sum thing w/closed-minded Muzhiks hungry for territory.

City states & federations like peace & commerce.

Large countries with centralized national identities are designed by war and conquest, and for war and conquest.

***

Back OT, infrared imagery linked by "Special Kherson Cat" show the mindboggling density of minefields on the Zaprozhe front (EDIT: If I understand SKC correctly, this may actually be a Ukrainian minefield near Verbove)

https://t.me/ukrbavovna/11133

Edited October 15, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Peace is an urban, city-state thing reached through (non-zero sum) commercial interractions, not signatures at the top. Commerce breeds tolerance. #Phoenicians #Dubai #Singapore

War is a peasant-driven zero-sum thing w/closed-minded Muzhiks hungry for territory.

City states & federations like peace & commerce.

Large countries with centralized national identities are designed by war and conquest, and for war and conquest.

 

Well the Peloponnesian War kinda stands as a counterpoint.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

Punic Wars don’t really fit either.  Neither Rome or Carthage were really “Large countries with centralized identities” in the modern sense.

In fact the entire theory kind of falls apart in the face of history.  Large urban areas have been seats of power that rural “peasants” are forced to feed.  Those seats of power have pretty much started most wars, at least external inter-collective wars.  I mean farmers in France did not start WW1, nor did they set the conditions for it.  Government in Paris did.  To think that serfs in Imperial Russia had a vote in that country’s entry into WW1 is silly.  In fact their “vote” was cast in 1917 to leave that war and embrace revolution.

In fact the more one thinks about it, the less sense it actually makes.  Commerce does not breed tolerance, it breeds dependence, which can turn ugly and be seen as a threat - See US/China relations.  There are so many historical counter-factuals to that position it is not really even worth following up.

This is just terrible deductive reasoning in action.  A thesis framework never really tested.  Just posted it online as hard truth.  I really liked Black Swan and AntiFragile but Taleb needs to stay in his lane - gifted mathematician, not a student of war.

Edited October 15, 2023 by The_Capt

[Undaunted]

Not sure if this has been discussed.

In Ukraine:

Oct 6: Russian began bombarding the Avdiivka area.

Oct 10: Russian started major ground attack around Avdiivka.

In the Middle-East:

Oct 2: Allegedly at a Beirut meeting Iran  gave Hamas the green light launch attack on Israel, according to WSJ and other news outlets.

Oct 7: Hamas attacked Israel

If both of these were carefully planned offensives, their timing seems too much to be a coincidence, and begs the questions

- Did Hamas knew the Russian plan, and vice versa?
- Were they meant to be simultaneous to amplify their morale impact, to overwhelm Western reaction, and/or to achieve other effects?
- Was one of them meant to be a diversionary attack for the other?
- Or was one side just wanted take advantage of the chaos it think the other offensive would create?
- For Hamas, their attack was certainly special enough for them to seek external coordination or special timing, but for Russian, was the Avdiivka offensive special enough?

This is all conjecture, but I think it is interesting to think about.

[Hapless]

Now this is a solid demonstrator for the advantages of cluster munitions over conventional.

 

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Undaunted said:

This is all conjecture, but I think it is interesting to think about.

Ugh, can we not.  Unless we can see some hard evidence that links these two events, then we are basically in “bio-lab” territory.

A tactical counter offensive in Ukraine somehow linked to the largest terror attack in Israel’s history (might largest since 9/11) is just too much of a stretch with what we do know.  It opens up the door to all sorts of pro-Russian, or pro-Ukrainian conspiracy theories that have no grounding in facts.  

[LongLeftFlank]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well the Peloponnesian War kinda stands as a counterpoint.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

Punic Wars don’t really fit either.  Neither Rome or Carthage were really “Large countries with centralized identities” in the modern sense.

In fact the entire theory kind of falls apart in the face of history.  Large urban areas have been seats of power that rural “peasants” are forced to feed.  Those seats of power have pretty much started most wars, at least external inter-collective wars.  I mean farmers in France did not start WW1, nor did they set the conditions for it.  Government in Paris did.  To think that serfs in Imperial Russia had a vote in that countries entry into WW1 is silly.  In fact their “vote” was cast in 1917 to leave that war and embrace revolution.

In fact the more one thinks about it, the less sense it actually makes.  Commerce does not breed tolerance, it breeds dependence, which can turn ugly and be seen as a threat - See US/China relations.  There are so many historical counter-factuals to that position it is not really even worth following up.

This is just terrible deductive reasoning in action.  A thesis framework never really tested.  Just posted it online as hard truth.  I really liked Black Swan and AntiFragile but Taleb needs to stay in his lane - gifted mathematician, not a student of war.

Interesting. Of course, one could argue in turn that the political power of the Athenian oligarchs as well as the Roman Senate (don't know about the Phoenicians) was actually rooted in rural landholdings (worked by slaves), not so much in burghers.

In contrast, 'mercantile' powers like the Venetian Republic or the Dutch Republic derived their political power from gains from trade (backstopped by naval power).

While Great Britain later overtook all its rivals by combining elements of both military rural aristocracy and mercantile savvy.

.... But sure, this topic goes down an OT rabbit hole fairly fast. I might not be so quick to dismiss Taleb's nugget out of hand though.

Tying it back to Ukraine topic, I was thinking about Putin's roots in the St Petersburg mobbed-up political machine, and how the oligarchies in Russia (and also in Ukraine, at least until lately) reflect competing extractive and mercantile interests, and metropoles.

[billbindc]

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not surprising, Ukraine saw the Avdiivka attack coming.  Russian OPSEC for an operation on this scale would be difficult to maintain:

The part I like about this is that Ukraine saw it coming and, apparently, did very little to prepare for it. Yes, I'm sure they moved some extra artillery and munitions into place, probably beefed up ISR, etc. but not much more than that.  Seems Ukraine said "toss a few extra mines out front and that should do it".  They had that little regard for Russian capabilities. 

This really is a significant event.  Ukraine largely defeated the Russian winter offensive with already deployed forces, so this has been done before.  However, this time the Russians tried for a more concentrated, precise offensive with significant investments in armor, artillery, and air... yet Ukraine still defeated it largely with its standing forces. 

Compare this to what happens when Ukraine goes on the offensive.  Russian lines crack and additional units have to be rushed into place to prevent a breakthrough.  Even in the most heavily reinforced positions the world has seen since WW2.  Ukraine's offensives are slowed down and stalled out, but not with existing forces and not without heaps of losses.

Very stark comparison.

Steve

This. 

While we are all watching (with disappointment so far) the Zaporizhzhia offensive, the Russian army has already wound down the offensive at Avdiivka and removed the majority of it's fleet out of an untenable situation in Sevastopol. In other words, Russia has essentially given up on the possibility of a strategic offensive by land and has lost their most important naval asset in the Black Sea besides the fleet itself. A big deal.

[The_Capt]

Just now, LongLeftFlank said:

Interesting. Of course, one could argue in turn that the political power of the Athenian oligarchs as well as the Roman Senate (don't know about the Phoenicians) was actually rooted in rural landholdings (worked by slaves), not so much in burghers.

C’mon, seriously?!  So those rural slaves had influence on their masters decisions on going to war?  Just because a bunch of rich guys own country estates does not make a direct link to dirt farmers working those lands and foreign policy.

3 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

In contrast, 'mercantile' powers like the Venetian Republic or the Dutch Republic derived their political power from gains from trade (backstopped by naval power).

Well before we embrace the “benign mercantile empires”: https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0145

They were backstopped by taking indigenous peoples and making them free labour.

War is not the fault of any one sector or level of human society.  Any cursory review of its history shows this clearly.  The “peaceful, noble savage bunch” say it was all “big city’s” fault.  Now Taleb is going the other way and trying to blame “peasants”.  Big money of course is the only way to go because lord knows we never went to war over money.

Humans go to war because it is baked into the species.  We have done it since the Dawn of our history and consistently found reasons to do it, even when it made no sense.  Trying to blame it on a section of society is the weak thinking.

[billbindc]

35 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ugh, can we not.  Unless we can see some hard evidence that links these two events, then we are basically in “bio-lab” territory.

A tactical counter offensive in Ukraine somehow linked to the largest terror attack in Israel’s history (might largest since 9/11) is just too much of a stretch with what we do know.  It opens up the door to all sorts of pro-Russian, or pro-Ukrainian conspiracy theories that have no grounding in facts.  

Two operations highly dependent on operational security. Both against opponents with strong skills in intelligence, ISR, sigint. Both from regimes notorious for their implacable cultures of control and suspicion of outsiders. 

No. Categorically.

[billbindc]

32 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Interesting. Of course, one could argue in turn that the political power of the Athenian oligarchs as well as the Roman Senate (don't know about the Phoenicians) was actually rooted in rural landholdings (worked by slaves), not so much in burghers.

In contrast, 'mercantile' powers like the Venetian Republic or the Dutch Republic derived their political power from gains from trade (backstopped by naval power).

While Great Britain later overtook all its rivals by combining elements of both military rural aristocracy and mercantile savvy.

.... But sure, this topic goes down an OT rabbit hole fairly fast. I might not be so quick to dismiss Taleb's nugget out of hand though.

Tying it back to Ukraine topic, I was thinking about Putin's roots in the St Petersburg mobbed-up political machine, and how the oligarchies in Russia (and also in Ukraine, at least until lately) reflect competing extractive and mercantile interests, and metropoles.

The motte was a bad argument. The bailey here is just redefining the motte.

[LongLeftFlank]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The motte was a bad argument. The bailey here is just redefining the motte.

Fair enough, and I'm really not inclined to counterargue in the smashmouth Taleb style either. Plus, OT.

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Undaunted said:

Not sure if this has been discussed.

In Ukraine:

Oct 6: Russian began bombarding the Avdiivka area.

Oct 10: Russian started major ground attack around Avdiivka.

In the Middle-East:

Oct 2: Allegedly at a Beirut meeting Iran  gave Hamas the green light launch attack on Israel, according to WSJ and other news outlets.

Oct 7: Hamas attacked Israel

If both of these were carefully planned offensives, their timing seems too much to be a coincidence, and begs the questions

- Did Hamas knew the Russian plan, and vice versa?
- Were they meant to be simultaneous to amplify their morale impact, to overwhelm Western reaction, and/or to achieve other effects?
- Was one of them meant to be a diversionary attack for the other?
- Or was one side just wanted take advantage of the chaos it think the other offensive would create?
- For Hamas, their attack was certainly special enough for them to seek external coordination or special timing, but for Russian, was the Avdiivka offensive special enough?

This is all conjecture, but I think it is interesting to think about.

Some Russian TGs wrote offensive (Avdiivka and Kupiansk) were planned on September, but by unknown reason terms were shifted almost on a month. According to UKR sources one of reasons was 20 Shtorm Z convict assault battalions didn't acomplish own training and armig for time X.  

Edited October 15, 2023 by Haiduk

[Sojourner]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

the Russian army has already wound down the offensive at Avdiivka

I'm curious why you say that. I thought the same thing but then I saw this report in Reuters...

"KYIV, Oct 14 (Reuters) - Russia's military pressed on with fierce assaults on the eastern Ukrainian town of Avdiivka on Saturday, with shelling so fierce that emergency crews were unable to recover the dead from wrecked buildings, the town's top administrative official said."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/top-ukraine-general-says-fighting-northeast-has-significantly-worsened-2023-10-14/

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Ugh, can we not.  Unless we can see some hard evidence that links these two events, then we are basically in “bio-lab” territory.

A tactical counter offensive in Ukraine somehow linked to the largest terror attack in Israel’s history (might largest since 9/11) is just too much of a stretch with what we do know.  It opens up the door to all sorts of pro-Russian, or pro-Ukrainian conspiracy theories that have no grounding in facts.  

This is really irking me right now.  First we  see the nonsense that Ukraine war & terrorist attacks by Hamas are somehow part of some scheme, which is of course true because .....they are contemporary in time?????

I see idiotic, imbecilic new narrative being built where somehow aid to Israel precludes aid to Ukraine.  Israel already has 10,000X the military power of Hamas.  Maybe they'll need to be back stopped on shells, but not at anything close to the level that UKR goes through.  Could people just use their damn brains and not just swallow these obviously absurd narratives without question?  Jesus, this is infuriating.  It's like watching the pied piper hypnotize children.

[Seedorf81]

On 10/14/2023 at 4:49 PM, danfrodo said:

Incredible UKR combat video here.  Video bounces between trench fighting and the drone above watching it all.  Confusion amid fighting in the trench maze, particularly on RU soldiers who seem to have less situational awareness.  Especially when they come flying out from dugouts trying to escape.  Some shooting just a couple meters apart.  From above, we get the big picture while the guys on the ground only see what's right in front of them.  

 

Something I've been wondering for months, and this video triggered my question:

Why didn't the Russian clear at least parts of these wooded area's? It has been my understanding that trenches need, or at least benefit from, a clear field of fire.

The Russians have been in those positions for months now, and they must have had the time and gear to clear let's say at least 10 meters of shrubbery/trees/bushes. (Even basic entrenching tools could do most of it.)

Nearly every video of combat in those small stretches of woodland shows that Ukrainians can approach the trenches with relative ease, because visibility from the trenches is (partially) blocked by the formentioned shrubbery/trees/bushes.

Am I missing something? Is there a reason, except for laziness or incompetence, that the Russian do not clear their surroundings? I mean, wouldn't it be much more difficult for the Ukrainians if they had to cross at least 10 meters of open terrain?

 

[Letter from Prague]

And now for something completely different: Disney-musical of Prighozin's mutiny

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/177vgtq/the_kremlin_presents_a_rumor_in_rostovondon/

 

[Aragorn2002]

7 hours ago, paxromana said:

Get shot down only slightly less easily?

I thought we'd agreed that Attack Helicopters ... indeed, any Helicopter near the front ... was now more a liability than an asset?

For the moment. But after the delivery of F-16s and more AA weapons, in short after Ukraine is master in it's own skies again, it can be a VERY useful asset. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Aragorn2002

[Vet 0369]

10 hours ago, kluge said:

Additionally an underwater explosion will generate a bubble as it pushes water outwards. The bubble eventually collapses, and as it does so the water that takes up the space no longer supports the ship. In certain scenarios where a ship is heavy enough and there is a large enough bubble, the ship will bend as the bubble collapses. This is referred to as "breaking the back" of a ship. The impact of this is somewhat mythologized and often gets blown out of proportion, but is nonetheless noteworthy because at the end of the day it's extra stress on a ship that wouldn't be produced with an above water explosion.

This is exactly how the ARA General Belgrano (Argentine Cruiser) was sunk by the HMS Conquerer (UK Submarine) during the Falklands (Malvinas) war. The Conquerer detonated a torpedo under the keel of the General Belgrano and broke its back. There were more than 1300 sailors on the Cruiser when she sank.

[Haiduk]

53 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

Something I've been wondering for months, and this video triggered my question:

Why didn't the Russian clear at least parts of these wooded area's? It has been my understanding that trenches need, or at least benefit from, a clear field of fire.

The Russians have been in those positions for months now, and they must have had the time and gear to clear let's say at least 10 meters of shrubbery/trees/bushes. (Even basic entrenching tools could do most of it.)

Nearly every video of combat in those small stretches of woodland shows that Ukrainians can approach the trenches with relative ease, because visibility from the trenches is (partially) blocked by the formentioned shrubbery/trees/bushes.

Am I missing something? Is there a reason, except for laziness or incompetence, that the Russian do not clear their surroundings? I mean, wouldn't it be much more difficult for the Ukrainians if they had to cross at least 10 meters of open terrain?

 

It can be two main reasons:

- laziness

- masking reasons. If you clear on 10 m around own trenches all vegetation, it just makes only easier unvealing of positions by UAVs. 

About UKR approaching - this is game for both. UKR soldier also has blocked LOS - you could see often in such videos, how UKR soldiers got sudden contact from knife range. Also piles of bushes and fallen branches makes fast advance too hard.  

Edited October 15, 2023 by Haiduk

[Ultradave]

3 hours ago, Undaunted said:

- Did Hamas knew the Russian plan, and vice versa?
- Were they meant to be simultaneous to amplify their morale impact, to overwhelm Western reaction, and/or to achieve other effects?
- Was one of them meant to be a diversionary attack for the other?

Pretty dumb plan then, because a limited Russian counterattack that got absolutely NO coverage anywhere except obscure sites that chronicle day-to-day Ukraine activity (I include this forum in that description), compared to a horrendous terror attack that outraged the entire world, with a couple of notable exceptions. 

I'm not buying it. They are not even remotely close in impact, making it not a diversion, not a multiplier, not really anything.

Dave

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Interesting. Of course, one could argue in turn that the political power of the Athenian oligarchs as well as the Roman Senate (don't know about the Phoenicians) was actually rooted in rural landholdings (worked by slaves), not so much in burghers.

Rural landholdings have never and will never equal the raw wealth generation of external trade. They provide source for ET and some demand,  but if there's any kind of external trading then farming takes a back seat. 

Every ruling class always takes control (direct or indirect) of the food production network, but to stay there and to expand they need external trade.

I think Farms beget towns, but Trade begets empires.

[cesmonkey]

8 hours ago, paxromana said:

Get shot down only slightly less easily?

I thought we'd agreed that Attack Helicopters ... indeed, any Helicopter near the front ... was now more a liability than an asset?

Were you following the events this summer in Ukraine's counter-offensive?

If Ukraine had helicopters equipped with long-range hellfire missiles, they could also do what the Russians have been doing to Ukraine's armored assaults.

https://static.rusi.org/Stormbreak-Special-Report-web-final_0.pdf
 

Quote

The use of attack aviation has posed a consistent challenge for Ukrainian forces
throughout the counteroffensive. The foremost threat comes from Ka-52 Alligators
firing Vikhr and Ataka ATGMs. However, the Russians have also begun mounting
Ataka on Mi-35Ms, which also engage in area-effect strikes utilising salvos of
lofted S-8 rockets. Aviation strikes are launched from a depth of approximately
8–10 kilometres from the target. Ukrainian forces note that the presence of
attack aviation is often heralded by the lifting of GPS jamming among Russian
formations, reflecting the need for precise navigation in order to coordinate
strikes, given that both armies are using many of the same platforms. Russian
helicopter groups are also often flying with an EW-equipped helicopter for
defensive purposes, equipped with directional pods aimed at targeting radar.
The Russians are having to keep helicopters relatively close to the front, making
their forward arming and refuelling points and other infrastructure vulnerable.
Nevertheless, shortage of Ukrainian tactical air defence, the low altitude
maintained by these assets, and the limited period during which they are in the
hover to deliver effects all make countering attack aviation difficult.

 

[cyrano01]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

This is exactly how the ARA General Belgrano (Argentine Cruiser) was sunk by the HMS Conquerer (UK Submarine) during the Falklands (Malvinas) war. The Conquerer detonated a torpedo under the keel of the General Belgrano and broke its back. There were more than 1300 sailors on the Cruiser when she sank.

Totally OT I fear but I have a feeling that the two torpedo hits on the Belgrano  were both direct hits. The MKVIII torpedo was essentially a pre-WW2 vintage design.