How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Letter from Prague]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Since @Zeleban answered to my post, you do realize you are saying that I am probably a pro-Russian Nazi? For me personally, that is really insulting. For the record, I never voted for those morons and I'm not going to. Zeleban at least had the decency to pose it as a question.

Btw. to win an election you don't need absolute majority. So, even if AfD wins the next election that doesn't mean they represent the majority of voters. They don't at the moment. Which means you are wrong even if you weren't talking about me specifically but about the average German.

I don't mean anyone specifically. But looking at elections predictions (shaky as they are) still says a lot about the pro-Russianess of it all. This is telling:

I am waiting for more predictions for elections in my country, I assume they will be no less horrible. We got like half a million Ukrainians more than we had before the war - which is a lot for 10 million country, though not that much compared to, say, Poland - but the populists and fascists are already using it heavily.

[Letter from Prague]

Now "nobody is pledging to give more tanks and IFVs to Ukraine" - I think that is probably fine, since they don't work now anyway. What should everyone be pledging? PGMs? Arty ammo? Drones?

Does Ukraine need to work on domestic ISR or can it rely on US/NATO keeping helping with that?

[Zeleban]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

Исправлено это для ва

Yes, but thanks to European petrodollars, this price is quite acceptable for Russia, isn’t it? The concept of “extortionate prices” is pure populism. There are acceptable prices and there are unacceptable prices.

1 hour ago, Tux said:

he point of the response you laughed off here was, I think, to ask what Ukraine's plan is?  For the first year or so, Ukraine were in panicky, dear-god-they're-invading-help-please-send-whatever-you-can mode.  Where is Ukraine now? 

 

Ukraine now has an almost completely destroyed infrastructure and industry. About a third of its small businesses have emigrated abroad. A significant part of its working population will be drafted into the army and will not be able to participate in industrial construction. The only source of income for Ukraine remains the export of grain, but one should not delude themselves about this source, since Ukraine’s neighbors, such as Poland or Slovakia, are actively working on it. to deprive Ukraine of this source of income.

Considering all of the above, answer, can Ukraine, without real and active help, plan its defense against the largest state in the world, more than 3 times larger than Ukraine in population? Do you have any recommendations for Ukraine?

1 hour ago, Tux said:

Perhaps if we knew more from Ukraine about what they are trying to do then we could all offer more insightful opinions as to how the US/EU could help.

There is no need to pretend, and Zelensky and Zaluzhny last year clearly said what Ukraine needs to win, but these requests were not even a third fulfilled.

1 hour ago, Tux said:

To be blunt, people in Western Europe don't give a solitary, flying **** about Russia.  They don't.  No-one talks about Russia, worries about Russia or even less considers Russia's strength when they go to the ballot box.  Ask people in the UK about Russia and they will talk about Salisbury, the World Cup and the ongoing war with Ukraine.  Some of them might remember 2014.  A few more will remember the Kursk tragedy because the Russians turned down British help to rescue the crew.  Beyond that it's probably all Yeltsin and pre-90s stuff.

Yes, yes, I know about the very frivolous attitude of Europeans towards the current situation in Europe, that’s why I’m trying to get through to you. We need to start preparing for war now so as not to be captured by the aggressor, as in 1940. Britain may also well find itself cut off from Europe, as it was in 1940, judging by the state of the Royal Armed Forces.

Edited January 5 by Zeleban

[cesmonkey]

 

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Yes, yes, I know about the very frivolous attitude of Europeans towards the current situation in Europe, that’s why I’m trying to get through to you. We need to start preparing for war now so as not to be captured by the aggressor, as in 1940. Britain may also well find itself cut off from Europe, as it was in 1940, judging by the state of the Royal Armed Forces.

here we go again.  Russian armies sweeping to the channel!  As soon as they can get passed Avdiivka.  Any day now, you just wait, then it's on to Paris via Kiev!!!

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, sburke said:

here we go again.  Russian armies sweeping to the channel!  As soon as they can get passed Avdiivka.  Any day now, you just wait, then it's on to Paris via Kiev!!!

It is thanks to this attitude of the Europeans that Russian troops will be able to break through to the channel.

 

Don't count on Ukraine being able to survive 2024. 

Today everything seems reliable, but in a short time the front may collapse and Russian troops will advance hundreds of kilometers, as on February 24, 2022. By the way, there was a similar situation near Balakleya. For many months the front line seemed motionless, but a few days later the Russian front collapsed.

Edited January 5 by Zeleban

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

It is thanks to this attitude of the Europeans that Russian troops will be able to break through to the channel

  yep any day now!

[Bearstronaut]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

It is thanks to this attitude of the Europeans that Russian troops will be able to break through to the channel

The French are a nuclear power. Even if all your doomsaying is correct and Europeans are woefully incapable of defeating the mighty Russian bear in a conventional conflict, there is no ****ing way the Russians are getting anywhere near the channel.

[Zeleban]

1 minute ago, Bearstronaut said:

The French are a nuclear power. Even if all your doomsaying is correct and Europeans are woefully incapable of defeating the mighty Russian bear in a conventional conflict, there is no ****ing way the Russians are getting anywhere near the channel.

The Russians are also a nuclear power. However, in comparison with the French, they have a significant advantage - they do not care about their losses, they do not care about their destroyed towns and their civilians. Russians are ready for nuclear war and want it, but Europe is not. In addition, Russia has the space to withstand nuclear strikes; its area is huge. And look at the density of cities in Europe - every nuclear strike will cause huge losses.

[keas66]

7 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

It is thanks to this attitude of the Europeans that Russian troops will be able to break through to the channel.

 

Don't count on Ukraine being able to survive 2024. 

Today everything seems reliable, but in a short time the front may collapse and Russian troops will advance hundreds of kilometers, as on February 24, 2022. By the way, there was a similar situation near Balakleya. For many months the front line seemed motionless, but a few days later the Russian front collapsed.

You are clearly either delusional or this is just a deliberate campaign of mis- information - I'll be blocking you going forwards .

[Bearstronaut]

4 minutes ago, keas66 said:

You are clearly either delusional or this is just a deliberate campaign of mis- information - I'll be blocking you going forwards .

I'm strongly leaning towards the latter. He seems mightily invested in pushing the "bow down before the might of the unstoppable Russian bear" line.

[Kraft]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Oh, ya that totally says that "Ukraine is totally cut off and will have to build its own tanks from here on out."  You know we should totally freak out now and point to every Russian leg twitch as a major victory, while screaming "Ukraine is doomed!!" From the heights of the thread.

So "yes" I am saying the US will backstop a Ukrainian MIC as it plans for a transition away from tactical handouts to long term strategic sustainment...just like they did in South Korea.  But hey you wanna be "soundbite panic guy" on the thread, go right ahead.  

Why do you feel to overexaggerate and mock what I am writing? Instead of replying to what I actually replied with?

As for what Mr Miller said, it is exactly the same as the article summed it up, unless I missed a keynote in your wall of text. 

Support is ending, build UA MIC - to make it brief.

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

That is all about pushing Congress to act.  Inside DC baseball, not a US intent to cut off all funding.

They've been saying "Congress needs to act" for the past quarter of a year. Doesnt make them act though does it? I am not knowledgable on internal US politics but I fail to see any other funding issue that has been in complete deadlock this long. To the contrary, a "shift" in "strategy" all of a sudden indicates to me the opposite of a positive resolution.

It also didnt adress any of the aforementioned issues with poofing an MIC into existance, protecting it and funding it within a country that is on life support financially and unable to fund any of this, ever, on its own. As long as the war is going on, economically, there can absolutely be no self sufficiency in which UA just buys stuff for fair market value (+massive risk premium) from its own pockets and keeps up to attrition.

 

Edited January 5 by Kraft

[Kraft]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

 

Double posted for some reason, please deleate.

Edited January 5 by Kraft

[Kraft]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

 

Tripple posted for some reason, please deleate

Edited January 5 by Kraft

[billbindc]

16 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

The Russians are also a nuclear power. However, in comparison with the French, they have a significant advantage - they do not care about their losses, they do not care about their destroyed towns and their civilians. Russians are ready for nuclear war and want it, but Europe is not. In addition, Russia has the space to withstand nuclear strikes; its area is huge. And look at the density of cities in Europe - every nuclear strike will cause huge losses.

Ah...the most pernicious Russian agitprop of all. 

A give that 9.9 on the Solovyov scale, at least.  

Edited January 5 by billbindc

[Twisk]

I do think this thread and tends to underestimate how important AFVs are and especially IFVs.

Yes, they are more easily seen on the modern battlefield and a lot of systems can kill them. However, western IFVs have way better crew survival rates. Ukrainian soldiers have repeatedly made comments to that effect. They seem critical in keeping the friendly frontline supplied and manned. They also seem critical in making attacks and raids on the near enemy frontline. And when they do have the opportunity to fire on the enemy they can often be devastating. I guess I've seen this thread drift increasingly against IFVs because of their inability to be used operationally in an effective manner but it seems to me that the result is missing the day-to-day tactical benefits of having access to them. They are not going to drastically change the operational/strategic situation but my sense is that they matter quite a bit for the average Ukrainian squad. And for Ukraine preserving manpower seems absolutely critical so if ~200 BFVs get supplied and burnt up to save some lives ~ even if it doesn't move the operational needle. That is important.


To reframe this a bit I think some of the discussion mixes up what would be useful in Ukraine's situation and spending priorities in western military industrial complexes. Operationally it looks like AFVs aren't making the big moves they used to, and that matters a lot if you are the U.S. military looking forward to the next 5-10 years. However, for Ukraine these vehicles exist today and provide a service even though they aren't the big movers they used to be. 



If I were to make a wishlist to Uncle Same for Ukraine it would be:

1. Long range PGMs (MLRS and so on)

2. short range PGMs (kamikaze drones and such)

3. Give everyone a Bradley

4. anything else

 

edit: @TheCaptain i guess cause we've talked about this a few times. Double edit trying to clean this up because I feel like my post is sort of messily organized.

Edited January 5 by Twisk

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, keas66 said:

You are clearly either delusional or this is just a deliberate campaign of mis- information - I'll be blocking you going forwards .

No need, I just banned Zeleban.  As much as it pained me to do so, it would pain me more to see him peddle pro-Russian and anti-Western propaganda out of frustration for how awful this war is on his nation and obviously his psyche.

I've given him far, far, far more latitude than I would any other poster because he does (or at least has) made plenty of positive contributions when he's not spending his energy spinning conspiracy theories and absolutely ignoring people trying to correct his astounding ignorance and outright false understandings of how things work in other people's countries.  The latter is something that really is disappointing. 

The benefit of this thread is we have intelligent, well informed, PRO-Ukrainian voices from all over the world offering up their time and energy to inform the rest of us about what is going on in their countries.  I pride myself on being a well informed global citizen, and yet I am not ashamed to say I learn things every single time I poke my head into this thread. 

I refuse to think ill of Zeleban.  The stress and worry that is swirling around him is nothing I would wish on anybody.  I am just sorry he's not taking advantage of the opportunity to learn from people and to counteract a lifetime of misinformation, disinformation, and misunderstandings about how life is outside of the ex-Soviet sphere:

The ban is for 2 weeks.  Provided he doesn't do something STUPID like try to duck the ban, he'll be back after then.  If there's no improvement then the ban becomes permanent.

Steve

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Even if placed underground, Russians would find a way to bomb these facilities.

 

Hmm? So? They've shot hundreds of missiles at Ukraine and yet BTR4s are still rolling out. 

Russia sees to be able to somewhat hit targets, IF they get through the UKR AD, IF they fire enough assets. They ruined a lot of UKRs black sea grain export infrastructure, but that was before the UKR AD was strengthened in the south and was all open, and the public and known. 

Rheinmetall AG is certainly unconvinced by the Russian threat. 

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

I'm strongly leaning towards the latter. He seems mightily invested in pushing the "bow down before the might of the unstoppable Russian bear" line.

I see it as desperation to try and get the West to wake up to the threat that a defeated Ukraine poses to the West.  Going over the top and into fantasy land, however, is counter productive amongst a crowd like this.  Especially because we ARE awake to the threat.  It's just we understand what the real threat is and what it isn't.

Russia continuing to exist in its current, or worse form, is like cancer for the rest of the civilized world. It might not kill you, but quality of life is certainly negatively affected.

Prior to this war I have been repeatedly and increasingly angered by the West's collective appeasement strategy with Putin.  It has been very much "let's not make a big deal out of X and maybe he'll stop doing bad things".  X being filled in with waging a war of aggression against a neighboring EU country, shooting down a plane carrying EU citizens (not that the others have no value, just making a stronger point), murdering people on EU territory in broad daylight, pissing all over diplomatic norms and international laws, using money to corrupt politics, using the West to launder money, engaging in genocide, periodically taking military actions that could provoke war, using refugees as a weapon, etc.  Not to mention giving the world reasons to be concerned about nuclear accidents, illicit sales of nuclear materials/technology, etc.

I mean, cripes, the list of things is so long!  Russia is a threat to the West.  This war was a wakeup call and I'm actually reasonably pleased with how the West has responded.  Imperfect as it is, Russia is being dealt with in a way it hasn't since it was formed out of the rotting corpse that was the Soviet Union.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Hmm? So? They've shot hundreds of missiles at Ukraine and yet BTR4s are still rolling out. 

Russia sees to be able to somewhat hit targets, IF they get through the UKR AD, IF they fire enough assets. They ruined a lot of UKRs black sea grain export infrastructure, but that was before the UKR AD was strengthened in the south and was all open, and the public and known. 

Rheinmetall AG is certainly unconvinced by the Russian threat. 

German managed to produce thousands of tanks despite the USAF and RAF literally razing entire cities to the ground.  Russia's campaign in Ukraine is more like German's bombings of London... more terror than practical.

Cripes, Russia has probably burned down more of its own factories due to "smoking accidents" then it has destroyed in 2 years of bombing Ukraine.  And Russia seems to still be able to produce plenty of stuff to burn down even more of its factories

Steve

[Letter from Prague]

15 minutes ago, Twisk said:

I do think this thread and tends to underestimate how important AFVs are and especially IFVs.

Yes, they are more easily seen on the modern battlefield and a lot of systems can kill them. However, western IFVs have way better crew survival rates. Ukrainian soldiers have repeatedly made comments to that effect. They seem critical in keeping the friendly frontline supplied and manned. They also seem critical in making attacks and raids on the near enemy frontline. And when they do have the opportunity to fire on the enemy they can often be devastating. I guess I've seen this thread drift increasingly against IFVs because of their inability to be used operationally in an effective manner but it seems to me that the result is missing the day-to-day tactical benefits of having access to them. They are not going to drastically change the operational/strategic situation but my sense is that they matter quite a bit for the average Ukrainian squad.

That is something I was thinking about as well. We talked about "the tank is dead" quite a bit, not not about whether IFVs are dead.

On one hand, a lot of the arguments stays - they are visible on the battlefield and expensive. And I can't compare logistical chain of an IFV to a tank. On the other hand, we keep talking about how infantry is important and how infantry is vulnerable to artilery and FPVs and this could help. And it seems the smaller autocannons are better fit for current war since the main tank killers are really ATGMs and tank on tank fighting is rare.

Maybe future IFVs would have feature to blend into the scenery when turned off or something, and serve as a mobile trench for people to hide, while being not more visible.

Or some kind of IFV / SHORAD hybrid, like Gepard that can fit people in this drone heavy world.

Those are probably stupid ideas.

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Why do you feel to overexaggerate and mock what I am writing? 

As for what Mr Miller said, it is exactly the same as the article summed it up, unless I missed a keynote in your wall of text. 

Support is ending, build UA MIC - to make it brief.

Because:

1.  It is misinformed and only half filled in, and

2.  Hyperbolic to the point of promoting panic.

If you had read that wall of text - it is the actual transcript from the State Dept press release and Q&A - Miller was not declaring "an end to all Ukrainian support except for MIC".  He was outlining a transition strategy and stressed that while the US wants Ukraine self-sufficient they were not ready yet...and Congress needs to step up.

You literally said:

5 hours ago, Kraft said:

Its a dumb talking point so their press conference is not just "youre on your own, but we support you in our hearts". 

And

4 hours ago, Kraft said:

Whether EU supports with EU MIC in Ukraine, or selling vehicles of EU MIC to Ukraine or just donating old hand-me-downs, I havent said, as my point below the article is, its up to EU now (in whatever capacity), as US is pulling out of this, regardless of Biden/Trump.

And

4 hours ago, Kraft said:

My original point below the article was about "UA MIC" replaycing ALL the stuff. That includes SAM launchers, HMMWVS, shells, and so on. Every day I see Fundraisers to buy used unarmored cars for frontline MedEvac! So clearly, whatever there is it is not enough, now US cuts support and UA should just magically poof underground mass facilities to replace it all.

So how exactly am I exaggerating or taking what you just said out of context?  None of what you said that I emboldened is remotely true.  In the actual transcript of the release, Miller did not even hint at any of this.  You read as far as "support won't be at same levels as 22-23" and ran around the thread like your hair was on fire. 

Look, I get the stress and situation - but here is an idea, maybe, just maybe, you actually do not understand US/western politics as well as you think you do.  Good news...there is an entire community of folks here who do.  So next time a Ukrainian newspaper declares "AN END TO ALL UKRIANIAN SUPPORT!!!"  Maybe come here and ask "hey guys what is this all about?"  As opposed to Chicken Little-ing all over the place and freaking the f#ck out. 

The talking head at State did not signal a complete end to US support.  Trust me, guys at his pay grade don't get to make that announcement.  He is signaling:

- Pressure being put on US Congress to sh#t or get off the pot on this because it is becoming un-funny.

- That the longer term strategy is not to keep pumping tactical aid endlessly into Ukraine for the next 10 years.  But instead create a sustainable longer term strategic solution.  This is something Putin should actually be worried about.  Tanks come and go, but business...now that is commitment. 

So if you honestly thought that the US was looking to push another $100B in tanks so the UA could somehow magically drive Russia off every inch of Ukraine soil...well, ya that ship has likely sailed.  But the leap from that to US cutting off all support and Russian Divisions in downtown Kyiv is a nonsense.  Amateurs talk stuff, professionals talk systems, masters talk options - the US is outlining strategic options spaces it wants to pursue...a long term construct for Ukrainian defence and security.  It is gradual and phases...gonna be a big ol reconstruction plan.

I get nervous in the service but seriously....   

[The_Capt]

25 minutes ago, Twisk said:

I do think this thread and tends to underestimate how important AFVs are and especially IFVs.

Yes, they are more easily seen on the modern battlefield and a lot of systems can kill them. However, western IFVs have way better crew survival rates. Ukrainian soldiers have repeatedly made comments to that effect. They seem critical in keeping the friendly frontline supplied and manned. They also seem critical in making attacks and raids on the near enemy frontline. And when they do have the opportunity to fire on the enemy they can often be devastating. I guess I've seen this thread drift increasingly against IFVs because of their inability to be used operationally in an effective manner but it seems to me that the result is missing the day-to-day tactical benefits of having access to them. They are not going to drastically change the operational/strategic situation but my sense is that they matter quite a bit for the average Ukrainian squad. And for Ukraine preserving manpower seems absolutely critical so if ~200 BFVs get supplied and burnt up to save some lives ~ even if it doesn't move the operational needle. That is important.


To reframe this a bit I think some of the discussion mixes up what would be useful in Ukraine's situation and spending priorities in western military industrial complexes. Operationally it looks like AFVs aren't making the big moves they used to, and that matters a lot if you are the U.S. military looking forward to the next 5-10 years. However, for Ukraine these vehicles exist today and provide a service even though they aren't the big movers they used to be. 



If I were to make a wishlist to Uncle Same for Ukraine it would be:

1. Long range PGMs (MLRS and so on)

2. short range PGMs (kamikaze drones and such)

3. Give everyone a Bradley

4. anything else

 

edit: @TheCaptain i guess cause we've talked about this a few times. Double edit trying to clean this up because I feel like my post is sort of messily organized.

Ok, lemme situate IFVs.  IFVs definitely still have a role in battlefield mobility and support.  So transport and direct fire support.  In many way I suspect they will outlive tanks in this regard.  They do provide protection and can move weight.  But like we have seen dozens of times now, they are also big and hot.  They get picked up and hit fairly far out.  Lighter armoured vehicles may be just as useful and a lot less expensive.

Where IFVs are not delivering is battlefield manoeuvre.  The ability to out-tempo an opponent positionally and through threat of firepower initiate a cascade failure as they try to keep up.  

So looking ahead, of course the UA should be kept afloat in IFVs, along with other armored mobility platforms.  The battlefield is a dangerous place and movement, at least near the FEBA is going to require them.  But massing them with tanks to try and break-in, through and out...well we spent a lot of ink on that topic.  Frankly I do not see it with the current paradigm.  Unless someone can really do Corrosive warfare up front, or we can get those damned UAS/ISR platforms out of the picture.

My tactical/operational support priorities:

- C4ISR, as much as we can and keep them plug directly into the architecture.

- Strike.  This has become a firepower war...one could argue it always was.  Here is PGM etc.

- Unmanned.  More, better and everywhere.  It may be the only path out of here.

- Denial systems.  Air and ground, the RA cannot regain operational manoeuvre or superiority.  AD, ATGM and mines would fall under this one.

- Infantry systems.  Infantry are holding this thing together on both sides.  Any advantages that we can give them is core. I prefer wheeled cheaper mobility but IFVs will have to be part of this package.

- Support, logistics and supply.

- The rest - Heavy expensive stuff should be last, not first off the plane right now.  

[Beleg85]

41 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Hmm? So? They've shot hundreds of missiles at Ukraine and yet BTR4s are still rolling out. 

Russia sees to be able to somewhat hit targets, IF they get through the UKR AD, IF they fire enough assets. They ruined a lot of UKRs black sea grain export infrastructure, but that was before the UKR AD was strengthened in the south and was all open, and the public and known. 

Rheinmetall AG is certainly unconvinced by the Russian threat. 

Yes and no. Production of shells of bigger calibres is different than vehicles- parts for latter latter can be produced independently and assembled partly manually even in medium-sized workshops. Shells needs compact production lines, especially when produced in mass needed in this war. Can they run and disperse production? They already try:

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_december_2023_global_security_army_industry/ukraine_plans_to_launch_mass_production_of_155mm_artillery_shells_in_2024.html

Speaking of which: note it will take several years before they manage to run this line, I assume it is because both costs and complexity and security reasons. AA cover is another issue: from what our experts say here, Ukrainians are already very short of certain types of missiles. Any bigger object to defend makes problems worse. So will they do? Most probably will try dispersed production; but beside smaller batches, they would need to rump up masive investments projects for it.

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I refuse to think ill of Zeleban.  The stress and worry that is swirling around him is nothing I would wish on anybody.  I am just sorry he's not taking advantage of the opportunity to learn from people and to counteract a lifetime of misinformation, disinformation, and misunderstandings about how life is outside of the ex-Soviet sphere:

The ban is for 2 weeks.  Provided he doesn't do something STUPID like try to duck the ban, he'll be back after then.  If there's no improvement then the ban becomes permanent.

Steve

He did spiced up discussion here, give him that.

Edited January 5 by Beleg85

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

I don't mean anyone specifically. But looking at elections predictions (shaky as they are) still says a lot about the pro-Russianess of it all. This is telling:

20%-30% for populist parties, while in itself bad enough, is 70%-80% not for populist parties. Moreover, 20%-30% support for the respective party doesn't directly translate into 20%-30% support for Russia. 

And so, whether you mean me directly or the average German or European, your statement "So the answer is probably yes" is wrong.

EDIT: Because "probably yes" implies that it is more like so than otherwise which is not the case at <30%.

Edited January 5 by Butschi