How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[OBJ]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

NATO is actually quite ready to fight to the degree it is necessary to defend itself.  The US could do this for all of NATO on its own largely because Russia has lost so much capacity and progressively stripped it's defenses along the Ukraine front.  That and it's pretty clear Russian tech has not trumped NATO's readily available weaponry.  The BW doesn't need to do anything but provide ground based logistics, which it is capable of doing.

The main issue is not wanting to fight.  That is political, not military.

Yup.  Which is why many historians think the dumbest thing Hitler ever did was declare war on the US.  The population was predisposed to responding to Pearl Harbor by going to war with Japan only.  Obviously Americans' opinion changed when Hitler declared war.

Steve

Thanks Steve,

Yes, I agree NATO would defend itself if attacked.

To me, the question is more, if attacked, what means would NATO have to prosecute the war and how would the war be prosecuted? What else would be going on around the world when NATO was attacked? What would Xi's reaction be when things start going south for Putin?

From below, 'to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area,' is pretty broad, for me it's capability limited in the full range from just push them back to the NATO borders and ask for an armistice, or, not just regime change in Moscow, but full on cultural replacement of centuries of traditional authoritarian rule with democratic institutions, ala Germany and Japan circa 1945-on.

The UN's ability to provide collective security in this case would seem more limited than usual given permanent security council members would be attacking each other.

Article 5

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

 

[Zeleban]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Russia will need a decade at least to rebuild what it had on 01 Jan 22, assuming it can even do it under enduring sanctions.  So you are pushing disinformation about Russian superiority, western inferiority and Ukrainian impending defeat...with friends like these....

In the event of the fall of Ukraine, Russia will have hundreds of thousands of well-trained and combat-experienced fighters - former soldiers of the Ukrainian army.

15 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

No, thanks, we have bad experiences here in the past of charging alone in helpless wars

It’s not true, you then had loyal allies in France and Great Britain

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

How long will it take Russian mechanized columns to cross the territory of Estonia? 

Going by how long it has taken them to seize Kiev, I'd have to go with forever.

Edited December 29, 2023 by sburke

[Bearstronaut]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

History shows us examples of direct military confrontation being ignored until the political will evolved to support broad military action.  The best example of this is WW2.  As I said, the US only got into the war with Germany because Hitler declared war on the US.  Before that, however, the US was suffering losses of personnel and ships to German U-Boats.  The public's opinion, up until then was, that this was just the cost of doing business in a war zone.  FDR failed to use this to shift the public to shift into a war mindset.  I don't remember what the losses were, but it included US Coast Guard vessels and personnel, who are the equivalent of US Navy.

Compare a US Coast Guard cutter sitting on the bottom of the ocean, along with lives lost, with a couple of errant drones in the woods.  That should provide some perspective.

Steve

The USS Kearny, a Gleaves-class destroyer, was torpedoed on 17 October 1941 and suffered 11 crew KIA. The USS Reuben James, a Clemson-class destroyer, was torpedoed and sunk on 31 October 1941 with a loss of 100 of her crew.

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The Russia military is broken as far as great power projection and will remain so for some time to come.  Right now it cannot gain ground against a minor regional power who was not supposed to last 2 weeks let alone 2 years. 

This is not true, at the moment Russia is keeping most of the world in fear. How can Russia be called a secondary state after this?

[Beleg85]

12 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

It’s not true, you then had loyal allies in France and Great Britain

Oh boy, let's say I won't open another historical topic here about wwii or deeeper past. Let's say we know perfectly well how vae victis taste.

 

The point is you did very wide ranging claims about supposed ill-will, without any data about actual Air Defences in our border area. We are not at war nor want to be in one until actually attacked.

That being said, let's see if NATO will take this into consideration; perhaps they will and we will not notice it for long time.

 

Zelensky visitng troops in Avdiivka:

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Beleg85

[danfrodo]

46 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

There's a pretty big difference between a combined arms assault into Estonia and an errant missile crossing into Polish airspace my dude.

Thanks for saying this, I was going thru the posts from my overnight and waiting for someone to point this out.  The last thing RU needs is getting NATO countries angrier by killing some Poles or any other NATO citizens.  Stupidest thing that Putin could do, I'd say -- oh, wait, we're talking about Putin, so sure, he might do that.  But seriously why would this be on purpose?  What positive outcome for RU would be possible?

[Chibot Mk IX]

20 hours ago, Probus said:

This is probably a stupid question but here goes:

Why aren't either side using vast amounts of smoke ammunition to fool these less expensive drones during operations?  I've not seen (hardly) any action where smoke rounds/dischargers were used.  They could even make a smoke round that hangs in the air just above the troops to bork drones.

I asked a similar question back in March

 

 

During the summer campaign we occasionally see the UKR force use smoke to cover their flank 

But, there is no way you can find enough smoke ammunition to cover the operation from drones all the way beginning from assemble point to the jump out point then to contact point 

 

 

 

[sburke]

9 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

In the event of the fall of Ukraine, Russia will have hundreds of thousands of well-trained and combat-experienced fighters - former soldiers of the Ukrainian army.

So all these UA soldiers armed by Russia are just gonna say, well okay you want us to attack Estonia?  Hundreds of thousands of them? Sure. 

Can you send me some of whatever you are smoking?  I just signed up for this year's subscription of Dave's Picks Grateful dead releases and could use some to go with it.

[Lethaface]

55 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Only against an enemy ready for defense (including morally) and entrenched.

Let me remind you that the depth of penetration of mechanized columns deep into Ukraine at the beginning of the war amounted to tens of kilometers per day (in areas not ready for defense). 

But what about working in a team, negotiations among alliance members, etc.?

 

And by the way, no one is saying that Russia needs to fight a war on two fronts. This can be implemented immediately after the defeat of Ukraine

What units / troop concentrations does Russia have along the border of Estonia? 200-300k with armor, artillery park, etc?

Like before 22 these will be detected. On top of that, there are actual NATO forward detachments in Estonia. No shocking numbers, but IIRC they have been enlarged since 22 and now amount to a couple of thousand troops (again iirc) and also include airforces. 

Russia invading and coming into contact with NATO troops inside  NATO land WILL actually directly invoke a larger war and response, among which the Very High readiness taskforce and air force / standoff. The articles involved will be more of a formality in such a case.

A couple of missiles (accidentally) landing on NATO terrain, not striking military installations or critical infrastructure, aren't the same.

That doesn't mean we or NATO should be smoking big sticks believing all will be alright because the stuff is good

Vigilance is good, overreacting isn't helpful.

 

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

This is not true, at the moment Russia is keeping most of the world in fear. How can Russia be called a secondary state after this?

You are confusing political will and military capacity.  The West does not currently have the political will to destroy Russia, but it absolutely has the military capacity to do so.  Which means that if the political equation shifts, the military options are already in place.  Russia is not militarily capable of defending itself against even a small scale NATO response.

Steve

[photon]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia is not militarily capable of defending itself against even a small scale NATO response.

Except with a nuclear exchange (probably?).

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

So all these UA soldiers armed by Russia are just gonna say, well okay you want us to attack Estonia?  Hundreds of thousands of them? Sure

Yes, this is exactly what thousands of Chechen fighters did after the defeat from Russia, despite all the atrocities that Russia committed on the territory of Chechnya. Putin will have many ways to do this. However, one of the most important is money. If you cannot feed your family in a dilapidated and plundered country, then you will gladly go to war even to the ends of the earth against anyone. This is exactly what thousands of Russian volunteers do today when they join the Russian army.

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, photon said:

Except with a nuclear exchange (probably?).

Er, yeah.  I meant to say "conventional".  But let's not stray back into the nuclear options discussion.  It always winds up in exactly the same place... nobody wants it to go there, including Russia.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, Zeleban said:

Yes, this is exactly what thousands of Chechen fighters did after the defeat from Russia, despite all the atrocities that Russia committed on the territory of Chechnya. Putin will have many ways to do this. However, one of the most important is money. If you cannot feed your family in a dilapidated and plundered country, then you will gladly go to war even to the ends of the earth against anyone. This is exactly what thousands of Russian volunteers do today when they join the Russian army.

Don't sell your entire country short.  There is no indication that they would join up with Russia.  In fact, there is no indication that Ukraine would ever surrender as a sovereign state.

You really do need to take a break from this because you're swimming in a pool of unreality that isn't healthy either for you and certainly not for this thread.

Steve

[Zeleban]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

You really do need to take a break from this because you're swimming in a pool of unreality that isn't healthy either for you and certainly not for this thread.

This is a very real development of events in the event of the fall of Ukraine

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

This is a very real development of events in the event of the fall of Ukraine

and that is highly unlikely.  The worst case event for Ukraine right now is a stalemate, not a collapse.

And no, it isn't a very real development.  It is just you are hyperventilating.  Calm down.

[Eddy]

47 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

If anybody likes statistics:

I do actually. Thanks for posting this. Good to actually get some numbers.

Very roughly because the chart is actually quite hard to read and the dates don't precisely match but:

1. 11/09/22 -> 29/12/2022 => 719 missiles fired, 452 intercepted, interception percentage = ~62%

2. 06/09/23 -> 29/12/2023 => 301 missiles fired, 218 intercepted, interception percentage = ~72%

So a clear reduction in missiles fired (42% of last years number)and an increase in the interception percentage over very nearly the same period of time. 

NB: Chart does not include Shaheds

Edited December 29, 2023 by Eddy

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

How long will it take Russian mechanized columns to cross the territory of Estonia?

A very long time, based on their performance in Ukraine.

[Beleg85]

9 minutes ago, Eddy said:

I do actually. Thanks for posting this. Good to actually get some numbers.

Very roughly because the chart is actually quite hard to read and the dates don't precisely match but:

1. 11/09/22 -> 29/12/2022 => 719 missiles fired, 452 intercepted, interception percentage = ~62%

2. 06/09/23 -> 29/12/2023 => 301 missiles fired, 218 intercepted, interception percentage = ~72%

So a clear reduction in missiles fired (42% of last years number)and an increase in the interception percentage over very nearly the same period of time. 

NB: Chart does not include Shaheds

Yeah, I just wanted to write about drones but you are right about Shaheds.

There are two crucial questions here that are ongoing:

1. What is actual Russian industrail capacity (yeah, I know, rhetorical as for now)

2. What about military targets of newest attack. There are true barbarians sitting at Kremlin, but I am pretty sure they didn't mount this attack to target civilian targets specifically only. Since some of big missiles come through, it is likely Ukraine military did suffered some losses today.

 

WH statement, just for archive:

 

[keas66]

49 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

This is not true, at the moment Russia is keeping most of the world in fear. How can Russia be called a secondary state after this?

You either need to  stop posting while in this  mood of black despair you seem to be in - it really does not help I think  or  as has previously been suggested , maybe you are posting these defeatist  subjects and questions deliberately ?

[Eddy]

34 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Yeah, I just wanted to write about drones but you are right about Shaheds.

There are two crucial questions here that are ongoing:

1. What is actual Russian industrail capacity (yeah, I know, rhetorical as for now)

2. What about military targets of newest attack. There are true barbarians sitting at Kremlin, but I am pretty sure they didn't mount this attack to target civilian targets specifically only. Since some of big missiles come through, it is likely Ukraine military did suffered some losses today.

1. Don't know although almost certain it's not zero

2. Don't know. Maybe the Ukrainian lads can help

Also this article ( Russia Launches Biggest Long-Range Attack Since Start Of War (thedrive.com) ) makes the point that

Quote

Somewhat surprisingly, the raid didn’t appear to involve any ship- or submarine-launched Kalibr cruise missiles, with Russian long-range bombers bearing the brunt of the operation.

What, if anything, does that signify? Saving them up for another day, difficulty producing them or delivery aircraft being used for something else?

Answer: Don't know

[Haiduk]

If this letter of BSF Command to Novocherkassk city admimnistration is true, it says 74 sailors were killed and 27 wounded (I suppose this is not only LLS "Novocherkassk" crew) after strike on the ship

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Haiduk

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

This is not true, at the moment Russia is keeping most of the world in fear. How can Russia be called a secondary state after this?

Because their sustainable military budget is maybe 1.5x the budget of the University of California.  Not the state of California, just the larger of the three state university systems.  

The Russian navy isn't doing particularly well against a country that has no navy.

The Russian army is stalled out with what it's currently holding against, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a country that was expected to last a week at most.  It's closing on 2 years, and they've pissed away the better part of 50 years of soviet production.

Russia has no tech industry and depends on China for any tech.  Russia is a tiny customer to China compared to the west.

The main thing that keeps Russia on the world stage is the leftover nukes from the USSR.  I don't think anybody really expects that Russia would use them unless directly attacked by an overwhelming force, but if Russia collapses in a chaotic way those nukes could get scattered to a lot of places that we would be a lot less happy to have them.

Russia needs to lose badly in Ukraine, but not collapse internally to the extent that nuclear materials get scattered around willy nilly.  The west needs to support Ukraine in winning for the same non-proliferation reasons that they want to avoid Russian collapse: we promised protection in return for giving up the legacy nukes.  Ukraine gained independence as the 3rd largest possessor of nuclear weapons on the planet and gave them up voluntarily.  If you still had them, none of this would be happening now, and every little state with nuclear aspirations is watching closely.  If we abandon you there will be a mad rush of nuclear proliferation among much less stable countries.

[OBJ]

14 minutes ago, chrisl said:

The west needs to support Ukraine in winning for the same non-proliferation reasons that they want to avoid Russian collapse: we promised protection in return for giving up the legacy nukes.  Ukraine gained independence as the 3rd largest possessor of nuclear weapons on the planet and gave them up voluntarily.  If you still had them, none of this would be happening now, and every little state with nuclear aspirations is watching closely.  If we abandon you there will be a mad rush of nuclear proliferation among much less stable countries.

Agree @chrisl apologies, my bold and underlining of your post, apologies if previously posted.

I think the move towards more nuclear proliferation is already happening. Last I heard estimates were Iran could put nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles in months, not years. Within democratic alliances:

https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-south-korea-nuclear-arms-race-543e85e5e6832c50ba9dc26a91ef071b

"Frequent polls show a strong majority of South Koreans — between 70% and 80% in some surveys — support their nation acquiring atomic weapons or urging Washington to bring back the tactical nuclear weapons it removed from the South in the early 1990s.

It reflects a surprising erosion of trust between nations that like to call their alliance an unshakable cornerstone of America’s military presence in the region.

“I think one day they can abandon us and go their own way if that better serves their national interests,” Kim Bang-rak, a 76-year-old security guard in Seoul, said of the United States. “If North Korea bombs us, we should bomb them equally in retaliation, so it would be better for us to have nukes.”