How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[OBJ]

37 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

Dumb questions for you military experts:

1) It appears from my own rumour mill that there is a lot of money washing around to buy msm journalists and influencers.  None coming my way so far.  Anybody have the same inputs?

2) And now a really stupid question.  I had a christmas dinner with a marine who is just back from parachute training in Arizona - because the weather is optimal for training apparently.  I thought "why not parachute over the mines"??. I said it was a stupid question but I would love to know the answer?

Hi @Astrophel

I can't talk to #1, good luck

#2 requires airlift to get over the drop zone, and I think most folks think the paratroop carrier would not survive to get over the drop zone.

The idea of moving via air over the minefield using current or near future technology has gotten a lot of discussion here, proven jet packs and heavy lift drones carrying single troopers being part of the discussion (flying low enough not to be engaged by the systems that would take our paratroop carriers). Those conversations also included discussion on how to solve all the other parts of the problem of fully penetrating to breakout of modern defense in depth.

Edited December 27, 2023 by OBJ

[Letter from Prague]

I mean, NATO counts on getting air supremacy in any possible conflict, and they also seem to have no plans on how to get over huge minefields. Maybe there is a synergy - with air supremacy, you can drop paratroopers after all.

(I am joking.)

 

[Ultradave]

Any large scale paradrop these days requires much more complete local air superiority than used to be the case to have a chance of success. And the term local is much broader than say, 30 years ago during the Cold War. 

1) You have to have enough fighter support to prevent enemy fighters from breaking through to your transport planes.

2) You have to suppress local AA defenses. Even in the Cold War period extensive deployment of MANPADS was just beginning. 

3) You have to suppress long range AA missile systems. That means a *huge* effort at SEAD in advance of the airdrop, due to the long range of many of today's AA missiles. 

Neither Ukraine or Russia have the assets to do this right now, especially Ukraine, but I seriously doubt Russia can do it either. My opinion is that the US would have a very difficult time of it if we were fighting in that theatre. 

Dave

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, poesel said:

Worst case scenario is that Russia falls apart, and the nukes end up in the hand of criminals (who know how to use them).

Apart from that, any coup would weaken Russia in some way, even if not successful (see Prig). Which would be a good thing.

A group of people who could pull it off and have a reason to do so do not currently exist in Russia. If they existed, we would have a coup.

Agreed.

There's also been a shift in thinking, at least on my part.  For the first 1-2 years of the war there was some hope that Putin would feel obligated to end the war on terms that Ukraine could temporarily live with.  This would keep Russia weak, but not necessarily to the point of being a "failed state with nukes".  But now... I think a Russian breakup is in the best long term interests of the world (and, ironically Russians), so the sooner it happens the better.

Steve

[Haiduk]

3 hours ago, Sojourner said:

Second ship was old training ship UTS-150, Russian media reported it is partially flooded, which I take to mean the masts are sticking out of the water.

https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/strike-on-feodosia-media-identified-another-1703632350.html

 

Interesting, this UTS-150 trainig vessel, belonged to 50th group of supply ships of Feodosia base, had long story. In past she was one of project 254 minesweepers (NATO code T43), developed in 1946. Pr.254 was most mass produced minesweeper in the world - total 295 ships were built  

This ship was built in Kerch shipyard in 1952 as T-79 minesweeper and served until 1965, when was reclassified into experimental vessel OS-5. Since 1976 became reconstructed into training vessel UTS-150. In 1997 after agreement about Black Sea Fleet dividing, UTS-150 passed to Russia. Two her sisterships were handed over to Ukrainian naval forces, but both were decomissioned in 1999-2000.

  

Edited December 27, 2023 by Haiduk

[OBJ]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Agreed.

There's also been a shift in thinking, at least on my part.  For the first 1-2 years of the war there was some hope that Putin would feel obligated to end the war on terms that Ukraine could temporarily live with.  This would keep Russia weak, but not necessarily to the point of being a "failed state with nukes".  But now... I think a Russian breakup is in the best long term interests of the world (and, ironically Russians), so the sooner it happens the better.

Steve

OK, one major value of the forum is seeing issues from new perspectives. I misremembered, thought the coup sense was 'be careful what you wish for.' I also was not at a coup leading to the breakup of Russia would be a good thing.

So searching for a current perspective on a coup, there is the below sample. I hope I am not wrong but assume these sources are credible even with their western political bias.

My synthesizing leads me to, Putin's vulnerable to this day and a coup is still quite possible, with the probability going up the longer there is stalemate and heavy Russian losses in Ukraine. None of what I found predicted the Russian state would breakup, just be led by someone else, perhaps more inimical to the West than Putin. But again, that maybe a function of my 'search bias.'

Is there a way for us all to get more factually grounded on this topic, likelihood of coup and outcome if there is one?

https://nypost.com/2023/12/23/news/former-cia-agent-predicts-russian-president-vladimir-putin-is-about-to-be-toppled/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/07/russian-ponomarev-putin-coup-ilya-ponomarev/

https://time.com/6284209/after-vladimir-putins-rule-in-russia/

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-putin-could-toppled-coup-former-intelligence-officers-russia-ukraine-2023-5

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Recent-Publications/Display/Article/3508732/would-a-russian-coup-solve-anything/

[Battlefront.com]

36 minutes ago, OBJ said:

OK, one major value of the forum is seeing issues from new perspectives. I misremembered, thought the coup sense was 'be careful what you wish for.' I also was not at a coup leading to the breakup of Russia would be a good thing.

You remembered this correctly for sure.  I was certainly one of the voices urging caution.  Well, except for the very beginning when a coup would likely have resulted in more moderates in power.  Then there was a long period where the ultra-nationalists would likely have taken over and that could have been worse for Ukraine.

But now, I think all possible better scenarios we could have realistically hoped for have died.  Now we're looking at a Russia that is solidly out to reestablish the old imperial/Soviet order.  That's not something the world should tolerate.

The plus side, though, is whomever replaces Putin is likely to be far less skilled at keeping the government functioning.  Which will mean, at the least, a quicker path to state collapse.  Which then puts us into a scenario where a breakup becomes more likely than not.

I think Russia breaking up is inevitable.  It's more inevitable than a positive coup.  Because of that, probably the sooner the breakup happens the better.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

5 hours ago, Astrophel said:

I had a christmas dinner with a marine who is just back from parachute training in Arizona - because the weather is optimal for training apparently.  I thought "why not parachute over the mines"??. I said it was a stupid question but I would love to know the answer?

The way I read your question was not suggesting an old fashioned paradrop, but rather:  could steerable parachutes/ paragliders be a 'poor mans jetpack'? allowing commandos to silently cross minefields and other obstacles at night to neutralise the overwatch -- 'vertical infiltration' if you will. Assuming they didn't get spotted and shot down.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Assuming they didn't get spotted and shot down.

Well, they will and they will, modern tactical ISR being what it is 

[danfrodo]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think Russia breaking up is inevitable.  It's more inevitable than a positive coup.  Because of that, probably the sooner the breakup happens the better.

I've been leaning this way for a long time.  General opinion on forum seemed to be that things would be worse, not better, for the world.  But right now we have a megalomaniac who is so 18th-century land crazy that he is willing to destroy his own economy, tries to sabotage the world economy, is constantly trying to undermine every democracy, is a serial mass murderer, child kidnapper, and threatens every country in Europe w attack, including nukes.  I am firmly in the camp of "I'll take my chances with RU coup/breakup".

[OBJ]

55 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I've been leaning this way for a long time.  General opinion on forum seemed to be that things would be worse, not better, for the world.  But right now we have a megalomaniac who is so 18th-century land crazy that he is willing to destroy his own economy, tries to sabotage the world economy, is constantly trying to undermine every democracy, is a serial mass murderer, child kidnapper, and threatens every country in Europe w attack, including nukes.  I am firmly in the camp of "I'll take my chances with RU coup/breakup".

Thanks Dan and Steve,

So, because I don't know, what would Russia breakup into? What new entities with what geographic boundaries would emerge. Who would lead each? What would each's legacy nuclear capability be?

Are we thinking another Russian revolution followed by another Russian civil war? Apologies to Colin Powell's legacy, I think he said during the 1991 August coup something like, 'I'm not worried about the Russian revolution. I am worried about the next one.' Is this the 'next one' we're worried about?

 

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, OBJ said:

Thanks Dan and Steve,

So, because I don't know, what would Russia breakup into? What new entities with what geographic boundaries would emerge. Who would lead each? What would each's legacy nuclear capability be?

Are we thinking another Russian revolution followed by another Russian civil war? Apologies to Colin Powell's legacy, I think he said during the 1991 August coup something like, 'I'm not worried about the Russian revolution. I am worried about the next one.' Is this the 'next one' we're worried about?

 

I would be *very* hesitant to imagine that the Russian state will break up in a formal way. Marginal parts of it, such as Chechnya might go but even then, it's far more likely that some sort of unspoken palatinate develops. The Russian state inhabits a number of tough neighborhoods along its extensive borderlands and the folks there are unlikely to prefer being under the tutelage of a Chinese/Kazakh/Turkish/etc local hegemon. If forging out on their own had been viable economically, strategically, militarily, they would likely have done it in 1990 to 1991. 

Russia seems alot more like a mid to late Ottoman state. It will persist in a slow decline.

[cesmonkey]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3627179/biden-administration-announces-new-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

Quote

The capabilities in this much-needed package, valued at up to $250 million, include: 

Additional munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
Stinger anti-aircraft missiles;
Air defense system components;
Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
155mm and 105mm artillery rounds; 
Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
Javelin and AT-4 anti-armor systems;
More than 15 million rounds of small arms ammunition; 
Demolitions munitions for obstacle clearing; 
Spare parts, medical equipment, maintenance, and other ancillary equipment. 

 

[Vet 0369]

22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Like you said, the Patriot can be moved very easily.  It could already be redeployed already, so not a problem for Ukraine to have it in place for some other threat coming up.

Steve

If AFU didn’t redeploy the Patriots IMMEDIATELY after use, they would stand a high risk of drones locating them and taking them out, so I’m pretty sure that’s what they did.

[The_Capt]

38 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I would be *very* hesitant to imagine that the Russian state will break up in a formal way. Marginal parts of it, such as Chechnya might go but even then, it's far more likely that some sort of unspoken palatinate develops. The Russian state inhabits a number of tough neighborhoods along its extensive borderlands and the folks there are unlikely to prefer being under the tutelage of a Chinese/Kazakh/Turkish/etc local hegemon. If forging out on their own had been viable economically, strategically, militarily, they would likely have done it in 1990 to 1991. 

Russia seems alot more like a mid to late Ottoman state. It will persist in a slow decline.

And I am just fine with that.  We have never had a nuclear nation lose centralized control and break up into sub-state structures.  The USSR collapsed into pre-existing states and Russia was able to keep control of those weapons, although it was touch and go for a bit.

A Russian coup that replaces the current regime with one that can exert central control is also fine.  So long as whoever takes over can have clean enough hands for us to live with.

A full scale free fall collapse has “worse” written all over it.  Take the strategic nukes out of the equation, maybe those can still be gripped.  But the tactical, chem and bio weapons are going to much harder to contain.  Most likely they would get used in whatever internal conflict/civil war that happens in Russia, however the risk of them falling into any number of non-state hands is simply too damned high.  They could be employed in Ukraine or any number of places to effect resulting in tens possibly hundreds of thousands dead.

A Russia slow collapse is manageable.  They will cough and clutter along as a Chinese satellite and eventually simply dissolve.  A fast one could be unmanageable, and I am sorry but not even Ukraine is worth that level of risk - especially when the hurt could come back on Ukraine even worse than they have now.

I guess if someone is going to start advocating for a quick Russian collapse then my question is “what is the stabilization plan”?  How do you explain away 6000 nuclear weapons?  Russia under Putin is contained.  I know it does not feel that way but Russia is not in the Baltics or any other NATO nation.  Some nuclear empowered warlord might not “get it”.

[Sojourner]

Looks as if Lukashenko may not be long for this world...

 

[dan/california]

 

2 hours ago, Sojourner said:

Looks as if Lukashenko may not be long for this world...

 

Lukashenko is harder to kill than a cockroach, and this seems like just about the worst possible moment for Putin to do something that might cause Belarus to get lively all of a sudden. He does NOT have a division or two to spare to put out a fire in Minsk.

[Letter from Prague]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

And I am just fine with that.  We have never had a nuclear nation lose centralized control and break up into sub-state structures.  The USSR collapsed into pre-existing states and Russia was able to keep control of those weapons, although it was touch and go for a bit.

A Russian coup that replaces the current regime with one that can exert central control is also fine.  So long as whoever takes over can have clean enough hands for us to live with.

A full scale free fall collapse has “worse” written all over it.  Take the strategic nukes out of the equation, maybe those can still be gripped.  But the tactical, chem and bio weapons are going to much harder to contain.  Most likely they would get used in whatever internal conflict/civil war that happens in Russia, however the risk of them falling into any number of non-state hands is simply too damned high.  They could be employed in Ukraine or any number of places to effect resulting in tens possibly hundreds of thousands dead.

A Russia slow collapse is manageable.  They will cough and clutter along as a Chinese satellite and eventually simply dissolve.  A fast one could be unmanageable, and I am sorry but not even Ukraine is worth that level of risk - especially when the hurt could come back on Ukraine even worse than they have now.

I guess if someone is going to start advocating for a quick Russian collapse then my question is “what is the stabilization plan”?  How do you explain away 6000 nuclear weapons?  Russia under Putin is contained.  I know it does not feel that way but Russia is not in the Baltics or any other NATO nation.  Some nuclear empowered warlord might not “get it”.

I'm less concerned about Warlord of Novosibirks having a few nukes, and more about Iran and by connection Hamas and Islamic State having them. The incentives to their uses are pretty different.

[Sgt Joch]

Quote

The Biden Administration Is Quietly Shifting Its Strategy in Ukraine.

...

Some analysts believe that is code for: Get ready to declare a partial victory and find a way to at least a truce or ceasefire with Moscow, one that would leave Ukraine partially divided.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211

Biden admin getting ready to bail?

[Grossman]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You remembered this correctly for sure.  I was certainly one of the voices urging caution.  Well, except for the very beginning when a coup would likely have resulted in more moderates in power.  Then there was a long period where the ultra-nationalists would likely have taken over and that could have been worse for Ukraine.

But now, I think all possible better scenarios we could have realistically hoped for have died.  Now we're looking at a Russia that is solidly out to reestablish the old imperial/Soviet order.  That's not something the world should tolerate.

The plus side, though, is whomever replaces Putin is likely to be far less skilled at keeping the government functioning.  Which will mean, at the least, a quicker path to state collapse.  Which then puts us into a scenario where a breakup becomes more likely than not.

I think Russia breaking up is inevitable.  It's more inevitable than a positive coup.  Because of that, probably the sooner the breakup happens the better.

Steve

It would only happen if the US stays the course. It is unbelievable the Republicans are playing such games on funding

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

I'm less concerned about Warlord of Novosibirks having a few nukes, and more about Iran and by connection Hamas and Islamic State having them. The incentives to their uses are pretty different.

And what would be stopping Warlord of Novosibirks from selling a few nukes to Hamas or ISIL if there is no Russian state?  The one thing all states agree on is that non-state actors do not get WMDs - not even NK has broken that one.  If Russia falls uncontrollably apart and those weapons fall into non-state hands the entire world has got a major problem.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211

Biden admin getting ready to bail?

Well with the Republicans blocking aid in Congress, not sure what Plan B would be other than to try and tie this thing off.  Biden admin isn’t bailing, US Congress looks like it is.

[Beleg85]

Russian armoured column meeting their fate near Sinkivka. Note scale of previous losses lying on the ground. Work of 14th and 30th Brigades.

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Grossman said:

It would only happen if the US stays the course.

Russia's collapse is really about the march of time against an autocratic state more than it is external stressors.  Russia has been kicking so many cans down the road for so long that it's only a matter of time before they can't do it any longer.  We saw that in 1991, we saw it in 1993, we saw it again with the two wars in the Caucuses.  For a while Putin created a system that showed promise of keeping things going for a long time, but like so many before him that eroded into power for the sake of power.  That is inherently unstable.  The war in Ukraine has further stressed and destabilized the regime, but the war is the result of those stressors not the cause of them.  So if the war goes away, the stress remains and it remains at a much higher level than it started at in 2022.

I agree with billbindc that the most likely scenario for Russia is a reshuffling of regional power where most of Russia stays together but with less central control and exploitation.  Regions will keep more of the gains from natural resources, have more say in national policy, closer relations with China, etc.  This would be a good thing if the regional governments were not as corrupt and autocratic as the center, but that's the likely outcome.  Confederations don't tend to last, so I wouldn't think this will last either.

It won't likely be bloodless either.  It's pretty clear that Chechnya, at a minimum, will break away completely.  At least in all but name.  Whether this will trigger a third Chechen war or not depends a lot on the circumstances, but Moscow's inclination is to not let Chechnya go quietly.  I would expect violence there, however if Moscow has chewed up its ability to grab the weak and the poor for cannon fodder there's a possibility that they won't be able to do it (either at the start or after a short conflict).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Russian armoured column meeting their fate near Sinkivka. Note scale of previous losses lying on the ground. Work of 14th and 30th Brigades.

 

As if we need more evidence that mechanized breaching is no longer practical, may I present to you Exhibit R, or is it S?  I'm losing track

The jump cuts in this one are, as always, unfortunate as it limits our understanding of the specifics of what happened.  The end result, however, is pretty clear that the two tanks and two BMPs that started the attack run didn't make it.  And inconceivably a third BMP came into the mix after the column was already destroyed, accomplishing nothing but adding to the losses.

There is also evidence of a similar sized attack that had previously been destroyed, probably bumbling around in mines.

I suspect some of the vehicles were destroyed by ATMGs instead of mines, but it is difficult to know for sure.

Steve