How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Yep, looks like compress and contain are on the menu for Russia.  Not a bad strategy, worked in the Cold War.  Holds the fort down in Europe and then focus on the Pacific seems to be the play.  Oh and try and forget the MENA, it was all a bad dream.

Pretty much. As oil begins it's long slide the MENA will decline in proportion. The future will be in managing the externalities of population flow driven by climate change rather than attempting to provide local security in exchange for energy access. After that, the game is to maintain US power through containment and then population growth/immigration as current or potential competitors deny themselves access to it.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

Pretty much. As oil begins it's long slide the MENA will decline in proportion. The future will be in managing the externalities of population flow driven by climate change rather than attempting to provide local security in exchange for energy access. After that, the game is to maintain US power through containment and then population growth/immigration as current or potential competitors deny themselves access to it.

And you guys are going to endure growth through immigration?  Despite your history let's not pretend there isn't a dead cat stinking up the room.  Hell we are growing one too.  This entire grand strategy comes down to giving the globe a better choice as it comes under forcing pressures.  But what if it is not better?  Then what do we do?

[Battlefront.com]

Knock off the disrespectful and unproductive sniping.  It is not what this thread is about.

As for the ammunition shortage, let's keep in mind that Europe is still providing shells.  Including Soviet calibers.  Ukraine will not be left with zero new ammo because of the idiots in the Republican controlled House of Reps.  Will it lead to shortages and restricted options?  I don't see how it could not, though I don't know what percentage the US supplies these days.

Steve

[billbindc]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And you guys are going to endure growth through immigration?  Despite your history let's not pretend there isn't a dead cat stinking up the room.  Hell we are growing one too.  This entire grand strategy comes down to giving the globe a better choice as it comes under forcing pressures.  But what if it is not better?  Then what do we do?

American history is a long seesaw between influx because it's good for the economy and anti-immigrant reaction when earlier waves of immigrants try to pull the ladder up behind them. Treatment of immigrants in earlier American history has at times been far worse than we are seeing now and there is already pretty much a consensus in the business world that we need the labor and consumers want the lower prices. In short, this too shall pass. 

[Carolus]

An anecdote related to the mentioned ammo tightness.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

My sense is that there will be a sanctions regime on Russia more or less permanently at least when it comes to the US. It will not be as stringent as now but business as usual is done for a generation. The strategic implications of trade with Russia have been made quite clear to Europeans and Moscow doesn't have anything like Beijing's leverage. 

The US has shown its ability to maintain sanctions against specific countries for decades.  One reason it is politically difficult to scale back sanctions when there's no clear demonstration of real change.  See recent examples relating to Cuba and Iran. 

The US has the luxury of not being tied to Russia for energy security or for trade of manufactured goods.  The corporate interests that used to be on the ground in Russia (retail and food services in particular) have already written off doing business there.  The costs of getting back into those markets is substantial and highly risky, especially given Russia's uncertain near to mid term economic health.  In other words, McDonald's isn't headed back to Moscow any time soon.

As has been pointed out, countries can maintain their police state economies despite intense foreign sanctions.  The question is, and always has been, what the average Russian will tolerate.  The 1980s sense of never ending declining quality of life or the 1990s economic and crime free fall produced massive regime change, which means Russians have shown that there is limit to what they will tolerate.

I've long hoped that Russia's fear of returning to that level of economic and social dysfunction would result in a lower threshold for revolt.  Now I wounder if Putin's police state is more resilient to economic horrors than either the Soviet Union or the early post Soviet power structures.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

2 hours ago, Zeleban said:

And one more fact. I think you noticed that most Ukrainian soldiers at the front have an average age of about 40 years. Now there is a very active growing dissatisfaction among older soldiers that young people are not going to go to war. And in this they are absolutely right. Our youth are mentally much closer to Westerners than men 40-50 years old who were born and raised in the USSR. For them, Ukraine is a corrupt, backward state, for which it is not worth shedding their blood

Fortunately there are a lot of young people who do care, and are driving your whole drone industry, but the point stands, sadly.

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This entire grand strategy comes down to giving the globe a better choice as it comes under forcing pressures.  But what if it is not better?  Then what do we do?

Why do we need to offer the globe a better choice (the West, as opposed to China)? Can’t they figure it out for themselves? And if they can’t, and we can’t absorb them, what should we do? Should we annex them as territories and extend our rule of law there?

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

American history is a long seesaw between influx because it's good for the economy and anti-immigrant reaction when earlier waves of immigrants try to pull the ladder up behind them.

Absolutely. However, I think we need to consider what open borders means: If we let everybody come here that wanted to, well, I think we’d have a higher population than China or India. You can best that most of India and Nigeria would be here in a heartbeat. And we could feed them easily, maybe turn Central America and various other polities into national parks or something. But it would cost a lot of money.

I think the Democrats need to be honest about this, and say we want more people, and yes, the strain on the social system is worth it as we get new workers (what they’ll work on tbd); or just say it’s charity and it makes us feel good and you the people gotta pay for it. The Republicans also need to be honest about the fact that illegal immigration props up a lot of agriculture and the entire meatpacking industry, for starters.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Why do we need to offer the globe a better choice (the West, as opposed to China)? Can’t they figure it out for themselves? And if they can’t, and we can’t absorb them, what should we do? Should we annex them as territories and extend our rule of law there?

Ugh, c'mon be a little bit self aware here. What can you do?  What should you do?  LEAD!!  

The one thing that drives me crazy about Americans is this weird sense of "well of course".  Like it is so obvious. And then you get hurt when other people go "nope".  Nicest, most powerful...and sometimes dumbest Empire in history.

[billbindc]

39 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

I've long hoped that Russia's fear of returning to that level of economic and social dysfunction would result in a lower threshold for revolt.  Now I wounder if Putin's police state is more resilient to economic horrors than either the Soviet Union or the early post Soviet power structures.

Steve

The economic horrors of the Soviet state were far worse than any that Russia is dealing with now. But ironically to maintain things were they are the Putinist state is having to revert more and more to the Soviet ways of doing things. Will that lead to an outright collapse? No...or at least not for a while. But it certainly degrades the ability of Russia to compete, to fight to function. We are long war territory now...again. 

[The_Capt]

37 minutes ago, billbindc said:

American history is a long seesaw between influx because it's good for the economy and anti-immigrant reaction when earlier waves of immigrants try to pull the ladder up behind them. Treatment of immigrants in earlier American history has at times been far worse than we are seeing now and there is already pretty much a consensus in the business world that we need the labor and consumers want the lower prices. In short, this too shall pass. 

I gotta be honest. I am not sure if the US Empire as a grand social experiment is in an irretrievable decline or we are simply suffering some transient heartburn, like that last time in 1861.  I love the confidence but as an outsider I can see some deep flaws and rot in this whole thing that makes me nervous.  I am not sure "well it was worse before" is good enough for 2023, it sure was not good enough back then.

There seems to be two Americas- the Dream that points to global stability and cooperation, hope for us all.  And the Nightmare that sees the baggage and inequality drag it all down.  These are problems that I am not sure democracy can solve, in fact in some ways it is making it worse.

This war is another example.  As the Leader of the Free World, the US should be all over this thing.  This is a great historic moment to shine.  What do we get?  Weird mixed messages and dysfunction, that is making everyone nervous. 

So yes, there is a choice to be made. Nations and power blocks are already checking exits.  It is called Strategic Competition, not Strategic "Well-of-course-USA".  We need an "In It to Win It" vibe but honestly are not feeling it.  

[billbindc]

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ugh, c'mon be a little bit self aware here. What can you do?  What should you do?  LEAD!!  

The one thing that drives me crazy about Americans is this weird sense of "well of course".  Like it is so obvious. And then you get hurt when other people go "nope".  Nicest, most powerful...and sometimes dumbest Empire in history.

Why should we offer the world a better choice? 

Because it's good for us, good for the world and good for the survival of mankind. 

[billbindc]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

I gotta be honest. I am not sure if the US Empire as a grand social experiment is in an irretrievable decline or we are simply suffering some transient heartburn, like that last time in 1861.  I love the confidence but as an outsider I can see some deep flaws and rot in this whole thing that makes me nervous.  I am not sure "well it was worse before" is good enough for 2023, it sure was not good enough back then.

There seems to be two Americas- the Dream that points to global stability and cooperation, hope for us all.  And the Nightmare that sees the baggage and inequality drag it all down.  These are problems that I am not sure democracy can solve, in fact in some ways it is making it worse.

This war is another example.  As the Leader of the Free World, the US should be all over this thing.  This is a great historic moment to shine.  What do we get?  Weird mixed messages and dysfunction, that is making everyone nervous. 

So yes, there is a choice to be made. Nations and power blocks are already checking exits.  It is called Strategic Competition, not Strategic "Well-of-course-USA".  We need an "In It to Win It" vibe but honestly are not feeling it.  

I don't think any of this is new. As Churchill perhaps apocryphally put it..."Americans will always do the right thing after it's tried everything else". You only have to look at the lead up to the last global conflagration to see how the shameful dithering of American First can stultified American strategic thinking. 

America is a radical democracy born of conservative impulses with the original sin of slavery and an intense settle/conquest mentality. There will always be a push and pull between those tendencies that plays out in foreign policy. While I have strong concerns right now, I tend to think in the end we get where we need to be. And if not, I hope you'll sponsor my refugee application.

[Letter from Prague]

14 hours ago, Kinophile said:

But look at the spread. What a pointless waste of ammo. Woop di doo, harassing fire that serves nothing more than background noise. This is a dumb as many Russian efforts.

I'm thinking these Mad Max vehicles are probably not official army efforts, but some other group (like TD) being bored and coming up with "improvements".

Them doing it is a signal that they are not equipped well enough, sure (if every TD brigade had HIMARS with 10000 GMLRS assigned, they wouldn't need this) but it is a contrast to Russia where this kind of bull jury rigging seems to be the official approach.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

Why should we offer the world a better choice? 

Because it's good for us, good for the world and good for the survival of mankind. 

There, that is the belly fire we need.  

[LongLeftFlank]

On 11/26/2023 at 6:03 PM, LongLeftFlank said:

 

Thread: https://nitter.net/secretsqrl123/status/1728615103182897188#m

Analysis by Tatarigami's group (AKHZ is the coke plant)

Thread: https://nitter.net/Tatarigami_UA/status/1728171185790443845#m

Trading ground for blood... temporarily on the south face of Avdiivka salient? Euromaidan often reports through blue and gold tinted glasses, so season to taste.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/11/27/frontline-report-ukrainian-forces-tactically-withdraw-set-trap-for-advancing-russians/

There are still small forests full of Ukrainians in the north, vineyards turned into extensive trench networks, the “Tsarska Okhota” restaurant and fortifications around it, the hamlet in between, and the former air defense base that surround the vulnerable Russian bridgehead.

The situation around the “Tsarska Okhota” restaurant was quite simple – Russians conducted head-on assaults on Ukrainian fortifications with remotely-controlled machine guns and were destroyed by them. 

Sentry guns.... check.

Once Russian forces started entering the industrial zone, they realized that there are virtually no shelters left to hide and establish a permanent presence because they had destroyed it with artillery. Moreover, the Ukrainian special force hunted down the Russian artillery in the region... leaving the Russian vanguard with little fire support.

Topo

https://nitter.net/Pouletvolant3/status/1728698017497100555#m

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[LongLeftFlank]

Sorry squire....

Ask Charles to add 'splody ammo cookoffs to the ever lengthening CM3 queue.

41 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

 

He was a cruel man, but fair!

Breaking.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Harmon Rabb]

Remember this event? We now have official confirmations that Patriot missiles were indeed used inside Russia by Ukraine.

A lot of people suspected it, now we have official confirmation.

[kimbosbread]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

Why should we offer the world a better choice? 

Because it's good for us, good for the world and good for the survival of mankind. 

Ok, and what’s the choice we should offer them? Who is deciding what that choice is? And how will we get them to make the “correct” choice without military imposition? It’s not clear to me that the answer to any of these is clear cut (at least not like it is with Ukraine).

Climate change is the classic problem here. India has been running out of water for a long time; open trench irrigation is haram as hell with losing 50% of water to evaporation. Mexico and Egypt dealt with their water issues in the 70s and 80s IIRC, but India hasn’t. Seems like a pretty easy thing to deal with, but hasn’t happened to my knowledge. Do we just yell at Modi? Do we do it ourselves and consider it reparations for the Raj?

Or let’s say bad governments (or non functional, like Afghanistan) where the country has a high fertility rate and a religion that demonises birth control/abortions and not enough food. Do we send them to Europe? Do we just absorb refugees? Do we arm the military age refugees and make them change their government? Or do we do it ourselves? Or ideally, con the Chinese into doing it?

[LongLeftFlank]

No despair in this beauty.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the front, Pepe the Frog called, he wants his lips back.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Harmon Rabb]

6 hours ago, Zeleban said:

 

It looks like Ukraine will be left without ammunition this winter. I think there is no need to remind you of the consequences of this. Especially considering the ever-increasing onslaught of Russians in almost all directions

I like you Zeleban, but god I hope you are wrong and Mike Johnson is right in this case.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Ok, and what’s the choice we should offer them? Who is deciding what that choice is? And how will we get them to make the “correct” choice without military imposition? It’s not clear to me that the answer to any of these is clear cut (at least not like it is with Ukraine).

Climate change is the classic problem here. India has been running out of water for a long time; open trench irrigation is haram as hell with losing 50% of water to evaporation. Mexico and Egypt dealt with their water issues in the 70s and 80s IIRC, but India hasn’t. Seems like a pretty easy thing to deal with, but hasn’t happened to my knowledge. Do we just yell at Modi? Do we do it ourselves and consider it reparations for the Raj?

Or let’s say bad governments (or non functional, like Afghanistan) where the country has a high fertility rate and a religion that demonises birth control/abortions and not enough food. Do we send them to Europe? Do we just absorb refugees? Do we arm the military age refugees and make them change their government? Or do we do it ourselves? Or ideally, con the Chinese into doing it?

Yup, there's only so much the US can do even if it tries its hardest to lead through a combination of example and "other means" (coercion, incentives, partnerships, etc.).  The problem is that the US is not leading in a clear, consistent, or even smart way on things like climate change.  Roughly 1/2 the population doesn't believe it's real, thinks it's beyond our abilities, not affordable, and/or it should be left up to God.  Can't set a good example abroad until there's a good example being set at home that is consistent and maintainable.

Cripes, the US population can't even agree on torture being a bad thing.

Yet, someone has to try or we're collectively screwed.

Steve

[billbindc]

9 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Ok, and what’s the choice we should offer them? Who is deciding what that choice is? And how will we get them to make the “correct” choice without military imposition? It’s not clear to me that the answer to any of these is clear cut (at least not like it is with Ukraine).

Climate change is the classic problem here. India has been running out of water for a long time; open trench irrigation is haram as hell with losing 50% of water to evaporation. Mexico and Egypt dealt with their water issues in the 70s and 80s IIRC, but India hasn’t. Seems like a pretty easy thing to deal with, but hasn’t happened to my knowledge. Do we just yell at Modi? Do we do it ourselves and consider it reparations for the Raj?

Or let’s say bad governments (or non functional, like Afghanistan) where the country has a high fertility rate and a religion that demonises birth control/abortions and not enough food. Do we send them to Europe? Do we just absorb refugees? Do we arm the military age refugees and make them change their government? Or do we do it ourselves? Or ideally, con the Chinese into doing it?

I should think it's obvious. We offer democracy, choice and freedom. We offer a society where rule of law is negotiated with the vote, with compromise and tolerance. We refuse to let some wankery vision of blood and soil turn us into the busted flush every such state has become in modern history.

And to your specific examples, we don't try to sell some future-in-a-box messianic claptrap that promises to solve all ills. We simply do the best we can with tools we have available in the conditions that pertain when must needs.  

[acrashb]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yet, someone has to try or we're collectively screwed.

You may then enjoy this article from Human Progress:

How Dignity-First Development Can Spread Liberal Democracy Better - Human Progress

And for all of the numerous doomsayers here, with the exception of human freedom (which has taken a hit in the last decade or so, as measured by Freedom House), everything gets better all the time.  Just open your eyes to evidence vs. media trying to terrify you.  I suggest skimming the stats found in Human Progress.  While one should not expect results when bringing facts to a feelings fight - I think the people here can do better than that.

Edited November 27, 2023 by acrashb

[LongLeftFlank]

Positive development in the threatened northeast face of Avdiivka.

"Avoid losses?" Or "avoid further losses?" 

https://nitter.net/Pouletvolant3/status/1729083086472900816#m

Note what appears to be Russian air strikes.

Per Perun's latest, the Ivans are using air-delivered glide bombs to back and fill for their flagging artillery arm. All the more important in this case (if true), since Avdiivka is basically a suburb of Donetsk city. If they can't sustain artillery in volume up front here, they probably can't do it anywhere.

Edited November 27, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

Year end perspective on Bakhmut and the summer counter-offensive.  A bunch of pages ago I argued the same points, especially that Bakhmut is why Wagner is no longer Wagner:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-fight-bakhmut-russia-wagner-forces-costly-clearly-paid-off-2023-11&post-bottom-piano-recommendations

The two primary sources for this interview are both from ISW, so I'm not surprised I find myself in agreement with their conclusions

Steve