How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now, if Russia decides it is a good idea by attacking the US, there will be retaliation.

Russia has never stated that it was going to attack the United States. However, she constantly claims that she is ready to attack Europe

 

13 minutes ago, OBJ said:

There did not seem to be a lot of 'uncomfortableness' about supporting Ukraine in defense of it's sovereign territory.

On the contrary, recently we have seen significant “uncomfortability” for the United States in supporting Ukraine.

8 minutes ago, OBJ said:

The concern I am aware of is some US Allies worry a US president would hesitate to engage in a regional conflict if it could result in a nuclear attack on the US, hence S. Korean, even Japanese, recent interest in having their own deterrent nuclear forces.

The conflict between the US and Russia could easily turn nuclear. Therefore, the United States will not go to war with Russia, even if it attacks Europe

[OBJ]

I think you may not understand US politics too well. I am sure I do not understand yours and others like you in your part of Ukraine. I do not have the lived history and cultural context to do so.

I am also not sure you understand NATO and the treaty obligations each member has. There is no 'nuclear opt out clause' I am aware of.

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

The conflict between the US and Russia could easily turn nuclear. Therefore, the United States will not go to war with Russia, even if it attacks Europe

This is an opinion which, as a pretty well informed American, think is wrong.  It will be more problematic if we have the wrong leadership at the wrong time, but that leadership would likely find itself out of power pretty quickly if it didn't back up Europe.

And with that, I think we're all very tired of your highly negative, ill informed opinions that serve no purposes.  They distract us from analysis and discussing the world as it is, not as it is imagined to be.  Please stop pushing me towards giving you a break from this thread.  Because that's where things is headed.

Steve

[Sojourner]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

So no, there won't be Russians marching into NATO countries...  Russia is physically incapable of doing so. 

Got some sources to cite for this assertion?

I think Russia is quite capable of doing so, they may not get very far and would likely suffer astronomical losses, but could wreak some significant devastation in the process. Are they likely to? I doubt it.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

Actually, the “reluctance” you described above is a consequence of fear. Exactly the same reluctance may arise after Russia attacks other countries. This is why more and more countries are no longer believing in the United States. It is precisely because of this “reluctance”

Eric Hoffer put it best: 

"Propaganda doesn't deceive people; it merely helps them deceive themselves."

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

Got some sources to cite for this assertion?

I think Russia is quite capable of doing so, they may not get very far and would likely suffer astronomical losses, but could wreak some significant devastation in the process. Are they likely to? I doubt it.

In the still quite unlikely event of a total Russian victory in Ukraine, Moldova certainly gets absorbed and Russia starts putting pressure on the Baltic states immediately. Would it go beyond that? Not likely...but not far from a 10% chance it could. 

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

Got some sources to cite for this assertion?

I think Russia is quite capable of doing so, they may not get very far and would likely suffer astronomical losses, but could wreak some significant devastation in the process. Are they likely to? I doubt it.

Oh sure, of course they could move some troops over a border.  But with that low bar, Luxembourg could invade Germany. I think even the BW would fare pretty well in that match up

We should be focused on realistic scenarios.  There is no realistic scenario of Russia getting into Estonia in the near term.  I'd say there's not even a realistic scenario where they would even try. Even if Putin got himself a lobotomy I don't think he'd order such an attack.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Ukrainian MLRS "Vil'kha" have been struck Belogorod about hour or less ago. Russians claimed AD intercepted 20 missiles, but locals write after explosions the electricity and water were cut off in several districts. Reportedly there are wounded after impacts in residental areas.

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Briansk also under shelling. Reportedly "Kremniy" chip factory was hit and areas around

 

[poesel]

There had been some discussions in the papers here if Germany should have its own nukes. The question was what to do if the US withdraws its protection. The French don't want to share. I don't know what the UK's policy would be in that case. That leaves the rest of Europe without nuclear protection.
That discussion didn't create much political traction that I'm aware of. But that the question was even asked is really something new.

[Eddy]

19 minutes ago, billbindc said:

In the still quite unlikely event of a total Russian victory in Ukraine, Moldova certainly gets absorbed and Russia starts putting pressure on the Baltic states immediately. Would it go beyond that? Not likely...but not far from a 10% chance it could.

Seeing as though we are playing fantasy fleets (not you, others), could it not be Hungary and then Austria after Moldova, rather than the Baltics. After all Hungary is, erm, less robustly anti-Russian. and Austria is not in NATO. I mean if I was a delusional, socio-pathetic, fantasist autocrat that's maybe what I'd be be thinking. I'm not btw. Well at least not an autocrat.

[billbindc]

32 minutes ago, Eddy said:

Seeing as though we are playing fantasy fleets (not you, others), could it not be Hungary and then Austria after Moldova, rather than the Baltics. After all Hungary is, erm, less robustly anti-Russian. and Austria is not in NATO. I mean if I was a delusional, socio-pathetic, fantasist autocrat that's maybe what I'd be be thinking. I'm not btw. Well at least not an autocrat.

I doubt Putin would bother to invade states Russia has already suborned so thoroughly already. If NATO is on it's back foot, if say we have Trump in the WH who Putin believes might help bollix a response then the Baltic States are the place to try it. None of the three has a hinterland to retreat to, there are some significant Russian speaking minorities and most importantly it's sellable in Russia as part of the regathering of the empire. The idea would be a coup de main and then a threat to go nuclear if NATO tries a counteroffensive. 

I don't think it's incredibly likely but the mere prospect of such a move would certainly be the cudgel Moscow would wield to try and cow Talinn, Riga, etc. 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Sojourner said:

Got some sources to cite for this assertion?

I think Russia is quite capable of doing so, they may not get very far and would likely suffer astronomical losses, but could wreak some significant devastation in the process. Are they likely to? I doubt it.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

No military on earth can absorb those losses from op ready frontline forces and then bounce into another theatre against an opponent who has better C4ISR, AirPower, seapower and ground forces fighting a defensive battle.

Even if this thing stayed non-nuclear, a pan attack on the Baltics would take the gloves off any Western escalation restraint.  Russia would be open to strategic deep strikes directly into Russian territory.  The first thing that would be dismantled is Russian transportation infrastructure and logistics nodes (fuel supplies and rail would be big ones).  Then C4ISR (such as it is) and military installations/infrastructure.  Then probably industry.  I think we might actually see Cyber wake up and Russian banking - now isolated from the west - would be hit hard.  Along with telecommunications and power generation.

This would very likely not be a manned AC campaign, at least not initially.  We would be send cruise missiles and long range munitions to maul the Russian backfield before ground forces even got close to each other.  Without direct Chinese support - and China would likely stay out of this, Russia is in serious trouble before they even get a chance to get hit at the tactical or operational levels.  Then Russia would need to somehow deny their airspace but unlike Ukraine they are not denying it over a single narrow theatre.  They would need to deny it across all of western Russia.  That is a major bill that they may have been capable of back in Jan 22 but see: Oryx.

If Russia loses air denial and NATO establishes air superiority, Russian ground forces - now largely barely trained and equipped in Cold War era vehicles - would be massacred.  I suspect NATO would do more damage to the Baltic states killing Russia.

Russia could try and go nuclear but they know it is suicide see:  US nuclear trident.  So unless NATO physically invades Russia itself, and they won’t, this thing could be kept in a box….maybe.  

Three conditions would need to be met for a successful Russian invasion of the Baltic states:

1.  The war in Ukraine was won in a couple weeks back in 2022.

2.  NATO collapses and the Baltic states are left isolated, and

3.  Chinese support to Russia to create relative parity in some domains.

As they are now…not a chance.

Edited December 29, 2023 by The_Capt

[Carolus]

36 minutes ago, Eddy said:

Seeing as though we are playing fantasy fleets (not you, others), could it not be Hungary and then Austria after Moldova, rather than the Baltics. After all Hungary is, erm, less robustly anti-Russian. and Austria is not in NATO. I mean if I was a delusional, socio-pathetic, fantasist autocrat that's maybe what I'd be be thinking. I'm not btw. Well at least not an autocrat.

Eh, there wouldn't even be need of invasion. They would likely happily join a Russian bloc, along with Serbia, if Putin proposed it.

Austria didn't get even the weak denazification process Germany experienced after WW2. Its political institutions are weak and riddled with corruption, and half the population would gladly embrace the kind of reactionary conservativism Putin is preaching. If you go to a rural taverns in Austria, it is not unlikely to find SS and swastika flags hanging casually in the backrooms where the "local patrons" meet with local politicians, as of recently sometimes next to Russian flags. 

Orban has successfully removed democracy from Hungary. He would join without even blinking.

Serbia? Vucic, the current president, was a government minister while Serbia was still in the casual rape camp and ethnocide business. The average Serbian is filled with nationalist revanchism because "NATO attacked us for zero reason at all", "the genocide is a dirty lie but they deserved it" and "we must reunite Yugoslavia". Half of Bosnia is for Serbia basically what Donbas was for Russia, except with a far better point, because there are actually Serbs living there who threaten to genocide the other half of Bosnia every other month.  

Turkey might stay neutral or decide to join. Aggressive, religion-infused nationalism is rampant in the country, Erdogan has removed democratic institutions, and the economy is in the gutters. He might see an advantage in joining the "living piss-poor in dirt-huts but believing in the absolutely superiority of your nation" club of Putin. 

That attitude actually the big connecting factor between all these nations, even when we look at Trumpists in the US. An absolute belief in national superiority coupled with the absolute willingness to be pissed on by corrupt oligarchs. 

I foresee the "GDR separatists of Eastern Germany being liberated by Russia" as more likely than an attack on the Baltics. Russia already has its fingers dug in firmly in these countries, they just need to be connected by a land bridge.

Let's not forget, Russian nationalists don't think in "Ah, of we can't get Kiyv in 2026 we might as well give up". 

Even soft-spoken commenters on Russian politics like Vlad Vexler are very clear on this. "If we don't get Berlin in 2030, we try in 2035. If we don't get Berlin in 2035, we try in 2040...." The whole nation of Russia is building itself for a permanent conflict with the West through all means. Putin's brainwashed children will do it in 2100 and beyond. 

That doesn't mean that Russia will succeed, we just have to be real about their mentality and how many in the West would join them. Even a 5% separatist movement (completely realistic numbers in Austria or Germany, if they could get weapons) that locks shoulders with the Russian Army is a good way to massively disrupt a country.

[Battlefront.com]

49 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I doubt Putin would bother to invade states Russia has already suborned so thoroughly already.

For sure.  In fact, this is one of the primary reasons for Putin invading Ukraine.  After so many attempts to keep Ukraine from breaking out of Russia's orbit, the loss of Yanukovych was quite obviously assessed things had progressed too far.  If Ukrainians had buckled and left Yanukovych in power, it would not have invaded at that time.

Russia's loss of influence in countries border countries is IMHO the biggest loss of this war according to Putin's vision for a new Russian empire.

Steve

[sburke]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Three conditions would need to be met for a successful Russian invasion of the Baltic states:

1.  The New England Patriots winning the Superbowl this year.

2.  Elon Musk donating all his wealth to Wikipedia to insure free access to information for all

3.  Eric Trump becoming Daddy's favorite.

The first two maybe, but #3 will never happen!

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh sure, of course they could move some troops over a border.  But with that low bar, Luxembourg could invade Germany. I think even the BW would fare pretty well in that match up

We should be focused on realistic scenarios.  There is no realistic scenario of Russia getting into Estonia in the near term.  I'd say there's not even a realistic scenario where they would even try. Even if Putin got himself a lobotomy I don't think he'd order such an attack.

Steve

Significant Russian hybrid warfare in the Baltics, involving large Russian minority there is entirely possible, though, at least from point of view of Kremlin. There are some preliminary conditions for destabilization efforts there.

 

Also, still don't get what "dealing first with Ukraine" we discuss here actually means. It's largest European country, currently smeared in Russian (and own) blood up to the belt. Even if West make massive geopolitical and moral mistake of ditching them entirely and force to froze the conflict (hipothetically), Russia will need hundred of thousands of soldiers to keep an eye over their newly captured lands anyway. In fact they already recognized this need by their recent reforms of military districts. In that scenario, one of most positive for Kremlin, Ukraine still drains its military resources heavily and bounds most of effective muscovite force in the south. For years, decades perhaps they will be trapped with unresolved problem of smaller, but vengeful enemy watching for any sign of their weakness, like bloody honey badger half stuck with its teeth while gnawing your leg. Going head-on against NATO in such geopolitical conditions would be pure suicide.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Beleg85

[M.Herm]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure.  In fact, this is one of the primary reasons for Putin invading Ukraine.  After so many attempts to keep Ukraine from breaking out of Russia's orbit, the loss of Yanukovych was quite obviously assessed things had progressed too far.  If Ukrainians had buckled and left Yanukovych in power, it would not have invaded at that time.

Russia's loss of influence in countries border countries is IMHO the biggest loss of this war according to Putin's vision for a new Russian empire.

Steve

Yanukovych was elected. Thats democracy.

[billbindc]

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure.  In fact, this is one of the primary reasons for Putin invading Ukraine.  After so many attempts to keep Ukraine from breaking out of Russia's orbit, the loss of Yanukovych was quite obviously assessed things had progressed too far.  If Ukrainians had buckled and left Yanukovych in power, it would not have invaded at that time.

Russia's loss of influence in countries border countries is IMHO the biggest loss of this war according to Putin's vision for a new Russian empire.

Steve

Yep. Get's back to the point that Russia has already lost grievously in influence, demographics, economics, etc. Whatever the story of the day, that's the ultimate reality.

[Vet 0369]

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Wow.  So what I saw:

-  lead tank with rollers got hit by a mine (front driver side) but that did not look like a standard HE mine.  Might have been a shaped charge mine with a delay fuse.  Basically a clever mine fuse that waits a second after being triggered by a roller so it goes off under the vehicle.  Saw a lot of orange/molten which looks more like a shaped charge.

- Rear vehicles got taken out by direct fire systems, likely ATGMs but hard to see.  Assuming ones in the middle also got picked off.  You can see some sort of heavy direct fire tracer flying past.

Classic ambush tactic; take out the point and I’ve tail so the main body is trapped in the kill zone. The tactic is very useful in a number of different scenarios, and has need used on formations since WWII.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

No military on earth can absorb those losses from op ready frontline forces and then bounce into another theatre against an opponent who has better C4ISR, AirPower, seapower and ground forces fighting a defensive battle.

Even if this thing stayed non-nuclear, a pan attack on the Baltics would take the gloves off any Western escalation restraint.  Russia would be open to strategic deep strikes directly into Russian territory.  The first thing that would be dismantled is Russian transportation infrastructure and logistics nodes (fuel supplies and rail would be big ones).  Then C4ISR (such as it is) and military installations/infrastructure.  Then probably industry.  I think we might actually see Cyber wake up and Russian banking - now isolated from the west - would be hit hard.  Along with telecommunications and power generation.

This would very likely not be a manned AC campaign, at least not initially.  We would be send cruise missiles and long range munitions to maul the Russian backfield before ground forces even got close to each other.  Without direct Chinese support - and China would likely stay out of this, Russia is in serious trouble before they even get a chance to get hit at the tactical or operational levels.  Then Russia would need to somehow deny their airspace but unlike Ukraine they are not denying it over a single narrow theatre.  They would need to deny it across all of western Russia.  That is a major bill that they may have been capable of back in Jan 22 but see: Oryx.

If Russia loses air denial and NATO establishes air superiority, Russian ground forces - now largely barely trained and equipped in Cold War era vehicles - would be massacred.  I suspect NATO would do more damage to the Baltic states killing Russia.

Russia could try and go nuclear but they know it is suicide see:  US nuclear trident.  So unless NATO physically invades Russia itself, and they won’t, this thing could be kept in a box….maybe.  

Three conditions would need to be met for a successful Russian invasion of the Baltic states:

1.  The war in Ukraine was won in a couple weeks back in 2022.

2.  NATO collapses and the Baltic states are left isolated, and

3.  Chinese support to Russia to create relative parity in some domains.

As they are now…not a chance.

 

46 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Yep. Get's back to the point that Russia has already lost grievously in influence, demographics, economics, etc. Whatever the story of the day, that's the ultimate reality.

So we agree Russia has extraordinarily little on its escalation ladder that does not include WMD, and their new Chinese owners seem rather down on using those. So why not give Ukraine the hundreds of of older ATACMS, and other long range strike options to simply kill everything in the land bridge and northern Crimea with more military significance than a Bukhanka van full of drugged out mobiks?

[kimbosbread]

3 hours ago, poesel said:

There had been some discussions in the papers here if Germany should have its own nukes. The question was what to do if the US withdraws its protection. The French don't want to share. I don't know what the UK's policy would be in that case. That leaves the rest of Europe without nuclear protection.

Time to submit to Swiss hegemony, methinks. Switzerland makes better planes, guns, wine, cheese and pretty much everything else compared to Germany.

EDIT: I bet the Swiss could put together nuclear weapons in half the time the Germans could.

Edited December 30, 2023 by kimbosbread

[Vet 0369]

9 hours ago, OBJ said:

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.”

 

Hmmmm! If NATO collectively declared an Article 5, and a United response, would Turkey open the straits to NATO vessels to passage into the Black Sea?

[Vet 0369]

5 hours ago, OBJ said:

I think you may not understand US politics too well. I am sure I do not understand yours and others like you in your part of Ukraine. I do not have the lived history and cultural context to do so.

I am also not sure you understand NATO and the treaty obligations each member has. There is no 'nuclear opt out clause' I am aware of.

Well, to be fair, the U.S. did sign a treaty (George W. Bush) with Ukraine to protect them from foreign invasion after they destroyed their nukes after the dissolution of the USSR (or CCCP). Did the U.S. intervene with the Russian invasion of Crimea and other Ukrainian regions? NO! So, why would Ukraine or Ukrainians trust in anything the U.S. says, especially when the individual who made the decision on what to do, or more important, what NOT to do, was the Vice President of the U.S, and is now the President of the U.S. named Joe Biden!

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, M.Herm said:

Yanukovych was elected. Thats democracy.

So was Adolf Hitler! So, are you saying that it was wrong for his Generals to try to remove him from office with a bomb?