How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

10 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

Yes, the Russians can "easily absorb, replace and respond to" whatever Ukrainian does in Africa.

But in pre D-Day WW2 The Germans "could easily absorb, replace and respond to" whatever the British commando's did on occupied European soil. Lofoten, Dieppe, recon-raids, St. Nazaire, Lorient. (Oh, look at that! Wikipedia even has this, wow):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commando_raids_on_the_Atlantic_Wall

Do you think those raids were useless, too? If not, where is the difference between those and the Ukranian Africa-actions?

Well, to start - a lot of those were shaping/recon ops for a massive amphibious invasion and follow-on ground war. Dieppe was in many ways a test, a bloody one but that directly informed later ops to huge allied benefit. Every SOF operation did something useful, with varying results. Some were hugely important but relatively tiny - eg the sinking of a ferry carrying German (well, Norwegian  ) heavy water before it could be used for an atomic bomb. See, I can read Wikipedia; well really, I read actual books about this stuff about three decades ago and ever since.

So no, I don't consider any of them useless, but I'll posit your comparison is.

A better comparison might be the German effort in North Africa, where the front was existential for the Brits but strategically opportunistic for the Nazis. There SOF raids had actual impact, outsized for the forces involved and were very difficult for the the Afrika Korps to defend against.

But that flips the analysis backwards, as it's Ukraine opportunistically and with low investment attacking a strategic Russian priority. 

I was initially skeptical that what Ukraine has going on in Africa is having a strategic military effect; but I noted ref Russian elites being sensitive to effects from Africa and as @The_Capt has pointed out much more clearly, its more likely a geopolitical signalling effort, with effects that are currently unseeable at our worms-eye level.

Using this framework also negates the WW2 Western Europe comparison and North Africa and re-proves the point that we've run into many times in this thread - WW2 is not a good comparative starting point to this war.

But hey, you've discovered how to post a wikipedia link. Good for you.

[kimbosbread]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So random violence against women without a political objective could be a VEO if it was organized like INCELs (I really don’t know if these clowns have a political agenda). would likely fail to meet the definition of terrorism.

I was think more of large social media corporations like the ones I’ve worked at, honestly.

Does it count as violence if it’s dressed up as the classic attention seeking game where you try to show everybody you are living that perfect Barbie life?

[Kinophile]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

See, I think we just answered the question right there.  So if UKR SOF - along with a little help from USSOCOM - starts messing around in the backfield it could be signaling a few of those elites or putting pressure on them.  The problem with SOF operations is that they are both macro and micro at the same time.  They aim to deliver strategic effect but very often indirectly (or inductively) by targeting small.  Kill OBL - had zero to do with AQ ability to wage a terror campaign, but it sent a message to both AQ, the Arab world (and Pakistan) and the western public.

These things tend to have connections and nexus (nexi?) that are hard to see unless one is in the actual box.  This looks like an executive action, which is wrapped way up into the intelligence communities.  UKR SOF clipping Wagner in Africa is not about Africa in the least.  I suspect it is about power plays and signaling in the Russian backfield.

Re: Hollywood - it really was not a personal shot.  Hollywood's promotion of SOF has been going on for decades - and often supported by the US military.  It promotes stereo types and global power projection (myths and realities) as an extension of a US narrative - both internal and external.  The problem with it is that most SOF actions look nothing like what Hollywood portrays.  Some do, but they are less common than people know.  Most SOF actions are done in the background as strategic shaping or communication...and that is what this looks like to me.

nexuses, but it just sounds nasty.

Copy you, all points.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

I was think more of large social media corporations like the ones I’ve worked at, honestly.

Does it count as violence if it’s dressed up as the classic attention seeking game where you try to show everybody you are living that perfect Barbie life?

Not under the VEO or CT legal definitions, but maybe it should be.  No, that sounds like just good ol exploitation for money.  Maybe more in the TN/RCO (Trans National-Regional Criminal Organizations...we have acronyms for everything).

[Seedorf81]

1 minute ago, Kinophile said:

Well, to start - a lot of those were shaping/recon ops for a massive amphibious invasion and follow-on ground war. Dieppe was in many ways a test, a bloody one but that directly informed later ops to huge allied benefit. Every SOF operation did something useful, with varying results. Some were hugely important but relatively tiny - eg the sinking of a ferry carrying German (well, Norwegian  ) heavy water before it could be used for an atomic bomb. See, I can read Wikipedia; well really, I read actual books about this stuff about three decades ago and ever since.

So no, I don't consider any of them useless, but I'll posit your comparison is.

A better comparison might be the German effort in North Africa, where the front was existential for the Brits but strategically opportunistic for the Nazis. There SOF raids had actual impact, outsized for the forces involved and were very difficult for the the Afrika Korps to defend against.

But that flips the analysis backwards, as it's Ukraine opportunistically and with low investment attacking a strategic Russian priority. 

I was initially skeptical that what Ukraine has going on in Africa is having a strategic military effect; but I noted ref Russian elites being sensitive to effects from Africa and as @The_Capt has pointed out much more clearly, its more likely a geopolitical signalling effort, with effects that are currently unseeable at our worms-eye level.

Using this framework also negates the WW2 Western Europe comparison and North Africa and re-proves the point that we've run into many times in this thread - WW2 is not a good comparative starting point to this war.

But hey, you've discovered how to post a wikipedia link. Good for you.

I am really sorry that I offended you with what from my viewpoint is a real misunderstanding. I was trying to remember one of the places from a famous commando-raid, couldn't rembember it, and only then I realised that maybe Wikipedia could provide the answer. I typed "canoes", "commandoraid" and "WW2"in the search-window and immediately the page I mentioned popped up. Which I never expected, so I was genuinly utterly surprised about that Wikipedia-page. Reading my post back, I can see now that you may have thought that I was condescending at your expense.

I WAS NOT.

But still my apologies for leaving room for misinterpretation of my posting.

[The_Capt]

20 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Well, to start - a lot of those were shaping/recon ops for a massive amphibious invasion and follow-on ground war. Dieppe was in many ways a test, a bloody one but that directly informed later ops to huge allied benefit. Every SOF operation did something useful, with varying results. Some were hugely important but relatively tiny - eg the sinking of a ferry carrying German (well, Norwegian  ) heavy water before it could be used for an atomic bomb. See, I can read Wikipedia; well really, I read actual books about this stuff about three decades ago and ever since.

So no, I don't consider any of them useless, but I'll posit your comparison is.

A better comparison might be the German effort in North Africa, where the front was existential for the Brits but strategically opportunistic for the Nazis. There SOF raids had actual impact, outsized for the forces involved and were very difficult for the the Afrika Korps to defend against.

But that flips the analysis backwards, as it's Ukraine opportunistically and with low investment attacking a strategic Russian priority. 

I was initially skeptical that what Ukraine has going on in Africa is having a strategic military effect; but I noted ref Russian elites being sensitive to effects from Africa and as @The_Capt has pointed out much more clearly, its more likely a geopolitical signalling effort, with effects that are currently unseeable at our worms-eye level.

Using this framework also negates the WW2 Western Europe comparison and North Africa and re-proves the point that we've run into many times in this thread - WW2 is not a good comparative starting point to this war.

But hey, you've discovered how to post a wikipedia link. Good for you.

So SOF's main role is not creating "positive" strategic decision.  It may enable it - which is exactly what shaping for D-Day would have been.

What SOF does far more often is create "negative decision" a strategic level.  The "setting Europe alight" was really all about un-deciding the security of German occupation.  Undeciding it in the minds of the Allies (particularly the English public after Dunkirk, and the US).  Undeciding it in the minds of the populations in the occupied territories.  And undeciding it in the minds of the Germans themselves.

All of that add up.  The overall strategic result is a lot of inductive action pressure on the Germans. to try and re-decide May-Jun 1940 all over again.  That cost a lot of resources and heartburn.  Undeciding can be incredibly powerful...like 9/11 powerful.  That was a classic negative decision if there ever was one.  As terrible as four airplanes and the damage they did were, they were never existential to the US on any metric.  What they did was undecide US power and security.  The inductive reaction was what we have lived over the last 20 years and shaped the world as it is today.

The single hardest thing with respect to SOF (or SOF-like) is trying to create a theory of cause and effect.  These actions can either go nowhere and fall flat.  Or create run away phenomenon and result in 2nd and 3rd order effects that can violate international laws and create blowback costs far higher than any gains.  This is not work one simply picks up through a lot of pushups.  It is a profession in its own right.

The arguments for and against SOF are legion and go as far back as civilization warfare. 

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Seedorf81 said:

I am really sorry that I offended you with what from my viewpoint is a real misunderstanding. I was trying to remember one of the places from a famous commando-raid, couldn't rembember it, and only then I realised that maybe Wikipedia could provide the answer. I typed "canoes", "commandoraid" and "WW2"in the search-window and immediately the page I mentioned popped up. Which I never expected, so I was genuinly utterly surprised about that Wikipedia-page. Reading my post back, I can see now that you may have thought that I was condescending at your expense.

I WAS NOT.

But still my apologies for leaving room for misinterpretation of my posting.

Yeah, "wow" can be a easily misread as sarcasm, but I Guess I've mentally shaved the guard off my triggers this morning. Damn, Mexico was supposed to relax me! 

All good my friend

[akd]

3 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

An impressive tank kill:

 

Looks like TOS-1A, not tank.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, akd said:

Looks like TOS-1A, not tank.

Good lord what did they hit it with? TOS would definitely make more sense based on that secondary explosion.

[Kinophile]

7 minutes ago, akd said:

Looks like TOS-1A, not tank.

I think you're right; at 31/32 you can clearly see the turret, no barrel, plus the explosion is very broad and extremely large, versus the more vertical classic T72/90 boom. Theres an IFV (BMP?) just in front of it and to left, I think that blows up too.

Also, at 00:35 on right hand frame you can see what could be the launcher box itself cartwheeling through the air.

Edited January 8 by Kinophile

[Splinty]

6 minutes ago, akd said:

Looks like TOS-1A, not tank.

My thoughts exactly.

[JonS]

7 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

the explosion is very broad and extremely large, versus the more vertical classic T72/90 boom.

Tank explosion grogs /rolleyes

(Tank explosion connoisseurs?)

You remind me of this

https://xkcd.com/2535

Edited January 8 by JonS

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, JonS said:

Tank explosion grogs /rolleyes

(Tank explosion connoisseurs?)

You remind me of this

https://xkcd.com/2535

lol

Havent read XKCD in ages, damn you now I'm constantly clicking next

[JonS]

It's part of my morning routine  with coffee. Don't forget the mouseovers.

[G.I. Joe]

On 1/7/2024 at 10:57 AM, sburke said:

I mean hell look at the comparison in carrier fleets between Japan and the US and that was the secondary theater as far as the democracies were concerned.

Secondary as far as the democracies as a whole were concerned, but I think it's fair to say the PTO was the de facto primary theater for the US Navy and Marines (as well as Australia and New Zealand, of course).

[Beleg85]

4 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Russian aggressive expansion into Africa forced France to withdraw from countries (CAR, Burkina-Faco, Mal) with strategical resources - uran, gold, etc. China is also rapidly expanding own influence on this continent, when European countries weaken under bla-bla-bla of "colonizers legacy". So, who knows, if EU afraid to fight and just avoid this, maybe Ukraine will di this work...

Of all Western major powers, France is by far most assertive when comes to actually puting their boots on the ground when necessary to defend its interests - scale of recent operations in North Africa was impressive. I doubt that progressive, "omg opressive colonizers are back!" part of public opinion plays any role in their withdrawal. Frenchmen + several African allies simply can't be policemen in whole Maghreb, it's unsustainable in diplomatic, economical and military terms for Paris. There is new, free market of security services for African warlords and they choose cheaper option, which currently means Wagner. Elysee cannot keep their tropps against will of local political elites; anticolonial sentiments are not deciding factor- potentiall costs for FRA are. And we see effects of this process  in recent rising of islamists in Maghreb.

But yeah, Ukrainian half-ally, half-mercenary organization seems like interestng counter to muscovites in this new reality. Still, it's too early to tell.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

Don't forget the mouseovers.

Yeesh, dude...what a man does in the privacy of his own home...I draw the line at small rodents though.

[JonS]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Yeesh, dude...what a man does in the privacy of his own home...I draw the line at small rodents though.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/08/welsh-tidy-mouse-tidying-for-fun-scientists-builth-wells?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[JonS]

3 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

PTO was the de facto primary theater for ... New Zealand, of course).

Weirdly, it wasn't. NZ drew down its ground forces in the Pacific in order to sustain The Div in Italy. Plus of course the massive commitment to the RAF in Britain (across all the Commands). I'm not sure where the weight of the Navy was - that might've been the Pacific.

Despite the way MacArthur screwed them over, I think the Aussies played the long game much better there.

Edited January 8 by JonS

[Carolus]

 

The jet shaheds have arrived in Ukraine.

[Offshoot]

6 hours ago, Kinophile said:

To actually have an effect in Africa Ukraine would need to drastically ramp up its involvement, at an inevitable cost to the homeland war. 

It could also ramp up the involvement of local forces via recruiting and training. It's apparent that not everyone in Africa is happy with Wagner's presence and some locals were already fighting them. If Ukraine could enlarge and improve those forces, they could become a bigger problem for Russia.

[dan/california]

5 hours ago, Kinophile said:

To clarify Russia caring - I mean that whatever Ukraine does in Africa, the Russian operation can (comparatively)  easily absorb, replace and respond to. If Ukraine does become distracting it won't be hard for the Ivans to focus and overwhelm them, or at the very least buffer them back. UKR would need a lot of US support to counter that, but US domestic politics has no taste for getting involved in Africa. 

The Africa theatre is perhaps an inverse of the European one - its financially existential for the Russian elite (as a fresh source of money/power)  but for Ukraine its an opportunistic expeditionary AO. The signalling to Western partners (as opposed to actually giving Russia pause - to and what would that look like? ) definitely rings true, with some caveats. 

Ref Hollywood, sure I'm probably jumping the gun a bit. Plus no breakfast yet!  Anytime I post here its fundamentally out of curiosity - how accurate is this? How well do I understand that,  if at all? What is happening here Etc. Possibly it was Pre-emptive push back to avoid my delicates getting whapped.... 

 

I have to quibble with this one. Sudan is in the midst of a full blown cicvil war. It isn't getting any press because both sides are awful and the humanitarian situation is hopeless, but is nevertheless the case. The fact that Ukraine is providing some competent help to the side that seems to be winning is actually a pretty big deal. If Russia wants send its proxies on the other side more help all of it comes from a set of resources that could otherwise be directed at Ukraine. Furthermore since Ukraine has picked the side that actually wants to fight, Russia would have to send in a great deal more assistance than Ukraine is providing in order to move the needle back the other way. Losing in Sudan would make all of Russias other recent gains in Africa a lot more tenuous. In the cold math of war I think it is a net benefit for Ukraine.

[billbindc]

12 hours ago, Carolus said:

Oh, there were pro-German head of states and 20% to 30% of elected legislative members were stoutly pro-German among many countries of the Allies? Because that is roughly where we are now. 

If that was the case, I really need to read more about the period.

 

I agree. 

But isn't that why the main strategy of Russia and China is to make sure the population does not activate?

How would you judge the situation so far? Does the US and EU population strike you as aroused to stand up for democracy while people are being killed daily solely because they wanted to be their friends and allies? 

Since people seemed to agree lately that a nuclear power which calls the Western World its sworn enemy is absolutely no worry for the vast majority of the Western population and plays no role for their elections, it seems that the answer is no, right?

I would very strongly suggest reading up on the February insurrection in Paris of 1934 or Troublesome Young Men by Lynn Olson just for a quick starter. Britain was ruled by appeasers who frankly admired the fascists for their anti-Bolshevism and that was pretty universally true of the right in France as well.

In other news, the view of this war from the other side isn't particularly rosy either:  

https://www.thedailybeast.com/shocking-reality-of-ukraine-blowback-hammers-putin-at-home

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/putins-unsustainable-spending-spree

 

[LongLeftFlank]

15 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

It’s kinda true, but not completely. They can definitely build more ships, and ammunition, but the tough stuff- jet engines, turbines, rockets, that they can’t do as fast or well. China is rightfully freaking out over SpaceX, which launched 80% of the world’s mass to orbit in 2023. And they can’t build jet engines that last that long, still. And all the chips… that’s basically tech from Lawrence Livermore we sold to the lowest bidder (the Dutch) who then build machines for Taiwan.

China wants to pretend they can do expeditionary military ****, but that’s really only in the domain of the US at this point (maybe UK 30+ years ago). When you have to move forces across large bodies of water but not too large, it’s a different ballgame, and it’s even more unkind than the whole ISR across minefields thing where at least there are some trees to hide.

Also, the problem with real estate in China is it is where people park savings, and local goverments make money by selling land. It’s a whole different ball game than our mess.

Thanks to you and the other commenters here.

While an admirer of Chinese civilisation (and food and women) since uni, I have been a China skeptic since the mid-2000s, for many of the same reasons you guys cite here.

But like Jim Chanos, I finally have to capitulate and admit that, whatever the flaws, wastage and corruption associated with CPC rule, the cult of Great Helmsman Xi, Han supremacist repression at home, harsh mercantilism and sharp dealing abroad, real estate binging, countless infra white elephants, manufacturing overcapacity and all that...

... China is now a behemoth at making and pushing out stuff on demand, the likes of which the world hasn't seen since Colt's weapons wowed the smug Europeans at the 1851 Crystal Palace.

And that sheer capacity, while it isn't all-powerful, is a macro reality we need to factor into everything now, especially since we cannot at present collectively summon the will to match it.

Hence my raising it on this thread.  I truly hope that the Russians boll%x it up again (whatever It turns out to be), and that the Ukrainian heroes don't end up as the martyred canaries in our coal mine. They have earned better from us.

[dan/california]