How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

POV: russian mobik riding on tanks through forest. Night is dark and full of DPCIM.

 

Like we needed more evidence of Ukraine's ISR and artillery prowess.  To hit a moving tank in the woods in low light conditions requires constant ISR and expert estimations where to land the round.  Dumb luck doesn't produce this sort of result.  Sounds like at least 1 or 2 tank riders got some form of wound and had to bail out ahead of wherever they were going.

Steve

[OBJ]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Hey look at that.  So maybe we double down on what works and not what is getting blown up six clicks from the front line? This situation is only going to get worse with drone numbers soaring.  The real question is whether or not someone can translate drone superiority into offensive success.  I am thinking the first side that can kill anything and everything in a 20km deep box and simply walk forward is going to win.

So, three, widely divergent, thoughts

1. If drone swarm = WMD = kill anything and everything in a 20km deep box = breach in enemy defenses, the breach still has to be exploited to be meaningful.  Not sure we have worked out what a sustainable exploitation looks like yet.

2. Do the Ukrainians have any strategic maneuver options that would preclude the need for a frontal assault to breach in depth and exploit?

3. What happens when the Ukrainians are successful and do have the Russians falling back on themselves, and Putin escalates to tac nukes to restore the situation?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/catastrophic-success-what-if-the-ukrainian-counteroffensive-achieves-more-than-expected/

to quote LLF

'and discuss'

 

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, OBJ said:

So, three, widely divergent, thoughts

1. If drone swarm = WMD = kill anything and everything in a 20km deep box = breach in enemy defenses, the breach still has to be exploited to be meaningful.  Not sure we have worked out what a sustainable exploitation looks like yet.

2. Do the Ukrainians have any strategic maneuver options that would preclude the need for a frontal assault to breach in depth and exploit?

3. What happens when the Ukrainians are successful and do have the Russians falling back on themselves, and Putin escalates to tac nukes to restore the situation?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/catastrophic-success-what-if-the-ukrainian-counteroffensive-achieves-more-than-expected/

to quote LLF

'and discuss'

 

1.  No idea...off the map there.  Essentially that 20km box would have to be able to move...and no one has ever done that with UAS before.  I think there are principles in air warfare but they would need to be re-thought.

2.  Nope.  At least no conventional ones.  We walked through them awhile back:

- Deep flanking through Russian territory to the East.

- Shallow flanking through Russian territory to the East.

- Dnipro crossing operation (which they tried at small scale)

- Amphib op in Crimea

Frankly the drone solution is looking much better than any of these. Subversive warfare is an options - a human dimension flanking, but those are damned tricky and long lead times to set up.

3.  Been around the WMD tree more than once as well.  If Putin is going to do it, it will be at the bottleneck of the Crimea - it is the one place tac nukes may work.  This would be a major escalation, getting near to the last ladder rung Russia has.  Bottom line is that we are not sure.  I think it could give the west some permissions to escalate on their own - bye bye Black Sea Fleet.  Or it could stop this whole thing in its tracks as no one wants to go too far down that road.

Main question on tac nukes or chemical is whether they would even work.  They were designed to stop or blow through heavy formations in western Europe, not highly dispersed drone swarms.

[billbindc]

40 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

3.  Been around the WMD tree more than once as well.  If Putin is going to do it, it will be at the bottleneck of the Crimea - it is the one place tac nukes may work.  This would be a major escalation, getting near to the last ladder rung Russia has.  Bottom line is that we are not sure.  I think it could give the west some permissions to escalate on their own - bye bye Black Sea Fleet.  Or it could stop this whole thing in its tracks as no one wants to go too far down that road.

Main question on tac nukes or chemical is whether they would even work.  They were designed to stop or blow through heavy formations in western Europe, not highly dispersed drone swarms.

The politics of the moment would have a heavy influence on the reaction but the potential use of tactical nukes is now farther away than it was a year ago even in the event of a Ukrainian breakthrough. 

1. It's become clear that no deep penetration offensive is going to go that far. The Crimean chokepoint is looking a lot less fragile than it did then and the defensive military realities you describe above have fully sunk into the consciousness of both sides. In short, the military efficacy of tactical nukes hasn't increased while conventional defenses have. 

2. The political effects remain as significant now as they were a year ago while Russia's economic situation continues to erode. India, China, Brazil, etc all remain no first use states and all of them want some sort of end to this war. Russia going nuclear, even as a demonstration would explode American and EU military preparations and guarantee blockades or military actions that would choke off Russian oil (as one example) entirely. 

It has been demonstrated numerous times that Russia is quite willing to swagger on this subject. There's zero evidence of potential use and no scenario in which a benefit accrues to Moscow.  

[OBJ]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

1.  No idea...off the map there.  Essentially that 20km box would have to be able to move...and no one has ever done that with UAS before.  I think there are principles in air warfare but they would need to be re-thought.

2.  Nope.  At least no conventional ones.  We walked through them awhile back:

- Deep flanking through Russian territory to the East.

- Shallow flanking through Russian territory to the East.

- Dnipro crossing operation (which they tried at small scale)

- Amphib op in Crimea

Frankly the drone solution is looking much better than any of these. Subversive warfare is an options - a human dimension flanking, but those are damned tricky and long lead times to set up.

3.  Been around the WMD tree more than once as well.  If Putin is going to do it, it will be at the bottleneck of the Crimea - it is the one place tac nukes may work.  This would be a major escalation, getting near to the last ladder rung Russia has.  Bottom line is that we are not sure.  I think it could give the west some permissions to escalate on their own - bye bye Black Sea Fleet.  Or it could stop this whole thing in its tracks as no one wants to go too far down that road.

Main question on tac nukes or chemical is whether they would even work.  They were designed to stop or blow through heavy formations in western Europe, not highly dispersed drone swarms.

Thanks

2. Drone solution I think puts us back to #1.

3. Tac Nuke, yeah, consensus now seems use would be to prevent RA route. Other hand, lots of Russian doctrine on Tac Nukes use in CW breakthrough operations. EMP effect on drones needs accounting for, especially when RA knows it's coming and protects theirs just prior to strike, sudden clearing/absence of RA drones definitely a UA CCIR.

My emphasis added in extract below.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12088.9?seq=8

"The bad news is that, as the BASIC Trident Commission report
made clear, the Russian government sees TNWs as
playing a major role in conflict management and de-
escalation under certain circumstances. At the same
time, it seems to believe that, in the absence of effec-
tive conventional forces, low-yield nuclear weapons
with special effects can be used to disrupt precision-
strike attacks and de-escalate a local war before it can
become a general war leading to the use of strategic
nuclear forces. 

Edited January 10 by OBJ

[Vanir Ausf B]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The real question is whether or not someone can translate drone superiority into offensive success.  I am thinking the first side that can kill anything and everything in a 20km deep box and simply walk forward is going to win.

That's going to make for some boring war games in the future.

But we'll always have CMCW.

[Haiduk]

22 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That's going to make for some boring war games in the future.

But we'll always have CMCW.

I think hypothetical CMBS 2.0 already will be. With such ruling of artillery and all-watching drones any tactical engages will be not enough interest for playing. If not to make this on opeartive level, influencing on tactical clashes

[dan/california]

It really is settling into a replay of the Western front in WW1.

[OBJ]

37 minutes ago, dan/california said:

It really is settling into a replay of the Western front in WW1.

In the short term, until the West, hopefully, figures out how to break the stalemate/restore mobility to the battle field, I hope so.

Below is proof if you look on the internet you will find, well, anything you look for 
This find was serendipitous, would welcome our UK brethren's opinion on 'The Telegraph's' credibility. I get they are conservative, but are they balanced and realistic conservative, or Chicken Little conservative?

Putin may be about to launch an apocalyptic assault (msn.com)

"In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack. Given the infamous failure of Obama’s “red line” in Syria, and the reluctance of the West to fully commit to defending Ukraine, Putin might think this is a gamble worth taking."

"The drift towards militarization of the Russian state and the surging calls for a greater offensive must serve as a warning that the West needs to wake up before he acts. We must fully support and arm Ukraine. If we don’t, as predicted by the Polish Chief of Security, NATO will be at war with Moscow within a few years."

 

Edited January 10 by OBJ

[Blazing 88's]

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That's going to make for some boring war games in the future....

Couldn't agree more.

This is a good time for my sig to pop up!! 

Edited January 10 by Blazing 88's

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, OBJ said:

Thanks

2. Drone solution I think puts us back to #1.

3. Tac Nuke, yeah, consensus now seems use would be to prevent RA route. Other hand, lots of Russian doctrine on Tac Nukes use in CW breakthrough operations. EMP effect on drones needs accounting for, especially when RA knows it's coming and protects theirs just prior to strike, sudden clearing/absence of RA drones definitely a UA CCIR.

My emphasis added in extract below.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12088.9?seq=8

"The bad news is that, as the BASIC Trident Commission report
made clear, the Russian government sees TNWs as
playing a major role in conflict management and de-
escalation under certain circumstances. At the same
time, it seems to believe that, in the absence of effec-
tive conventional forces, low-yield nuclear weapons
with special effects can be used to disrupt precision-
strike attacks and de-escalate a local war before it can
become a general war leading to the use of strategic
nuclear forces. 

I gotta be honest the only way I see Russia going tactical nuclear is as a final warning shot.  Putin would not play that last card unless he was out of all other options.  I picked Crimea because if he was at risk of losing there it might just be the end of him and his cronies.  So a few low yield nuclear burps, especially if they were on Crimean soil, would start to make sense.  If Russia fired off tac nukes in a big ol empty field in Crimea I am not so sure the West would be ready to go all the way.  They would ramp up pressure but I think we might see a split in western resolve.

Regardless as billindc noted, there are all sorts of conventional options.  I suspect Russia has already mined the crap out of fallback positions and then positions after that.  They know 1) mines and their current system work, and 2) they work well enough that they do not require deeper mobilization to defend.  

And while Russia may have a thousand problems, landmines are not one of them:

https://kyivindependent.com/russias-landmines-are-highly-advanced-and-increasingly-difficult-to-clear/

That is 26 million in stocks at the start of the war and a landmine is very easy to manufacture.  So we are back to killing anything covering those landmines.  In fact the nation in a military position to need tac nukes is Ukraine, in order to try and blow open an offensive corridor but that is very much a non-starter. (and before anyone jumps on the 90s and Budapest Memo, Ukraine never had tac nukes)

Edited January 10 by The_Capt

[sburke]

1 hour ago, OBJ said:

In the short term, until the West, hopefully, figures out how to break the stalemate/restore mobility to the battle field, I hope so.

Below is proof if you look on the internet you will find, well, anything you look for 
This find was serendipitous, would welcome our UK brethren's opinion on 'The Telegraph's' credibility. I get they are conservative, but are they balanced and realistic conservative, or Chicken Little conservative?

Putin may be about to launch an apocalyptic assault (msn.com)

"In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack. Given the infamous failure of Obama’s “red line” in Syria, and the reluctance of the West to fully commit to defending Ukraine, Putin might think this is a gamble worth taking."

"The drift towards militarization of the Russian state and the surging calls for a greater offensive must serve as a warning that the West needs to wake up before he acts. We must fully support and arm Ukraine. If we don’t, as predicted by the Polish Chief of Security, NATO will be at war with Moscow within a few years."

 

I can't speak to the telegraph, but the author Hamish de Bretton-Gordon seems to have a decent background.

Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon OBE (born September 1963) is a chemical weapons expert and was a director of SecureBio Limited until its dissolution on 17 August 2017.[1] He was formerly a British Army officer for 23 years and commanding officer of the UK's Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment and NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion.[2] He is a visiting lecturer in disaster management at Bournemouth University.[3] He attended Tonbridge School and has a degree in agriculture from the University of Reading (1987).[citation needed] He has commented on chemical and biological weapons for the BBC,[4] ABC[5] and The Guardian.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon - Wikipedia

Below is an article from May of last year. He is pretty solid on Russia's future.

Quote

 

But I think once this conflict is over, Russia is going to become more irrelevant. And I say that because economically, apart from their fuel, they are of no great interest. I think Putin has destroyed their military in the Ukraine fight, and now that NATO has been strengthened with Finland, probably Sweden fairly soon, and probably Ukraine too, the threat of Russia is minimized. And again, I don't think the nuclear issue is a huge issue. I don't see the nuclear [issue] becoming a problem. I'm more worried about North Korea's nuclear weapons than I am about Russia's nuclear weapons.

I think, actually, as soon as this war is over, Russia will become more and more irrelevant. The world will want its gas and oil, but we are rapidly weaning ourselves off that. It's a huge worry at the moment, which is why people like myself want this over as soon as possible, so that we can concentrate and get back to more savory things.

 

'Human Flesh, It Cannot Survive': Russian Infantry 'No Match For Western Weapons,' British Analyst Says (rferl.org)

[dan/california]

16 minutes ago, sburke said:

I can't speak to the telegraph, but the author Hamish de Bretton-Gordon seems to have a decent background.

Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon OBE (born September 1963) is a chemical weapons expert and was a director of SecureBio Limited until its dissolution on 17 August 2017.[1] He was formerly a British Army officer for 23 years and commanding officer of the UK's Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment and NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion.[2] He is a visiting lecturer in disaster management at Bournemouth University.[3] He attended Tonbridge School and has a degree in agriculture from the University of Reading (1987).[citation needed] He has commented on chemical and biological weapons for the BBC,[4] ABC[5] and The Guardian.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon - Wikipedia

Below is an article from May of last year. He is pretty solid on Russia's future.

'Human Flesh, It Cannot Survive': Russian Infantry 'No Match For Western Weapons,' British Analyst Says (rferl.org)

I listen to "Ukraine the Latest" pretty religiously. It is the best daily podcast about Ukraine. They give a very just the facts rundown of what is happening on the battlefield, and very strong political/opinion support for Ukraine. Some of the Telegraph's other stuff can very Fox Newsy, but on Ukraine they are quite solid.

[Bulletpoint]

23 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I listen to "Ukraine the Latest" pretty religiously. It is the best daily podcast about Ukraine. They give a very just the facts rundown of what is happening on the battlefield, and very strong political/opinion support for Ukraine. Some of the Telegraph's other stuff can very Fox Newsy, but on Ukraine they are quite solid.

I'm also a regular listener. Most of it seems valid enough, but they are definitely very pro-Ukraine, to the point of the presenters sometimes going on little anti-Russia rants or using heavy doses of sarcasm.

I've begun to suspect the podcast series of being a "grey propaganda" channel. Not really lying, but presenting the news with a strong slant in order to promote one side's narrative.

This would also help explain why they keep asking listeners to write in, with a special interest in finding out where people are listening from around the world.

Adding to my suspicion, the Telegraph has a bit of a history of being paid to run propaganda, but it used to be for the other side - Russia, China, and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph#Accusation_of_news_coverage_influence_by_advertisers

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

They would ramp up pressure but I think we might see a split in western resolve.

My guesstimate, too. At the beginning of the war, the fear of nuclear escalation was rather strong in Western Europe. Remember, this is why ostensibly - and probably partially in truth - we made those incremental steps in weapon deliveries. By now, we all have pretty much settled in the thought that Russia is not going to escalate as long as we don't interfere directly, I think. We had a lot of discussions about whether a nuclear red (or luminous green?) line even exists. Tac nukes could very well roll this status quo back.

[Bulletpoint]

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

At the beginning of the war, the fear of nuclear escalation was rather strong in Western Europe. Remember, this is why ostensibly - and probably partially in truth - we made those incremental steps in weapon deliveries. By now, we all have pretty much settled in the thought that Russia is not going to escalate as long as we don't interfere directly, I think.

I think it's not really about whether we interfere directly, but that we stopped fearing nuclear escalation the moment the Ukrainian offensive failed. If Ukraine had been marching on Crimea by now, or seriously threatened the "republics", there would have been serious escalation fears.

[OBJ]

@The_Capt and @billbindc thank you both, all of us looking at the apparent deadlock, I was more thinking if there was a nation to use tac nukes to blow open an offensive corridor(s) intent on decisively restoring battlefield mobility, it would be Russia. I am not sure the West has prepared to effectively counter were this to occur. Like you, I doubt the western response would be escalation to total nuclear war.

Thanks also @sburke @dan/california @Bulletpoint and @Butschi for perspective on the author and 'The Telegraph.' If the author of The Telegraph article I read/cited is the Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon OBE, he may have changed his tune since last May on the likelihood of RA use of tac nukes in the offensive. The article I cited was just posted. 

"There are now rumblings in Moscow that a decisive offensive to turn the tides of the war squarely in Russia’s favour may soon be underway."

The problem is that according to the Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank, the Russian military is likely unable to “conduct an operation to seize significant territory in Kharkiv Oblast in the near term”

This does not mean that such an assault is impossible. It simply means that it would require weapons on the battlefield we have yet to see. In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack. 

[The_Capt]

40 minutes ago, OBJ said:

I was more thinking if there was a nation to use tac nukes to blow open an offensive corridor(s) intent on decisively restoring battlefield mobility, it would be Russia. I am not sure the West has prepared to effectively counter were this to occur. Like you, I doubt the western response would be escalation to total nuclear war.

Ah, well if Russia was inclined to take this step they likely would have already pulled that trigger.  Western escalation need not be nuclear in this scenario.  Russia is a really big nation with a lot of vulnerabilities.  They stand to lose more than they gain if they are the first to lob tac nukes around.  

A tac nuke might create an opening but then Russia would need to be able to exploit it.  They would be facing the same problems they had at the beginning of this thing but now with the western world taking gloves off.  As a min western support in targeting anything that remotely resembled a tac nuke would be on the table.  The inhibitions to strike into Russia itself would also likely be gone.  The reality is that the West has escalation dominance here.  They do because they have other options.  Russia is pretty much exhausted theirs beyond tac nukes followed by strategic…that is binary with not much in between.

Finally, why would Putin need to take these risks?  He is already in a position where he can declare that he has won this war…hell a lot of people agree with him.  He can point to that strategic corridor and the 7% more Ukraine they hold and declare it the greatest Russian victory since WW2.  So why take all that risk using nukes when they might not work and really won’t gain him more than he already has?

All Putin need do now is sit back and wait.  Order some useless and costly tactical offensive to take slag heaps and towns of no military significance.  He will drag this thing out hoping that the West will lose interest.  If he starts lobbing nukes things will go in the exact opposite direction.

[cesmonkey]

I had to take a look at this article referenced in ISW's update:

Breton aims for ‘huge’ €100B defense fund
https://www.politico.eu/article/thierry-breton-edip-sending-1-million-shells-to-ukraine/

 

The article quotes him as saying:

Quote

"We are only the European Commission," he cautioned, but stressed it is "absolutely" possible to reach the million shell goal by March or April.

Breton also said that the EU can be on a par with Russia in terms of producing weapons within 18 months to two years, saying it is "extremely important" for the EU to "have the same capacity.”

I think his comments are somewhere in this YouTube video, but I wasn't patient enough to find it:

 

[OBJ]

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ah, well if Russia was inclined to take this step they likely would have already pulled that trigger.  Western escalation need not be nuclear in this scenario.  Russia is a really big nation with a lot of vulnerabilities.  They stand to lose more than they gain if they are the first to lob tac nukes around.  

A tac nuke might create an opening but then Russia would need to be able to exploit it.  They would be facing the same problems they had at the beginning of this thing but now with the western world taking gloves off.  As a min western support in targeting anything that remotely resembled a tac nuke would be on the table.  The inhibitions to strike into Russia itself would also likely be gone.  The reality is that the West has escalation dominance here.  They do because they have other options.  Russia is pretty much exhausted theirs beyond tac nukes followed by strategic…that is binary with not much in between.

Finally, why would Putin need to take these risks?  He is already in a position where he can declare that he has won this war…hell a lot of people agree with him.  He can point to that strategic corridor and the 7% more Ukraine they hold and declare it the greatest Russian victory since WW2.  So why take all that risk using nukes when they might not work and really won’t gain him more than he already has?

All Putin need do now is sit back and wait.  Order some useless and costly tactical offensive to take slag heaps and towns of no military significance.  He will drag this thing out hoping that the West will lose interest.  If he starts lobbing nukes things will go in the exact opposite direction.

To be very clear, I hope nothing goes nuclear. I don't want anything to go nuclear. My service conditioned me to abhor that possibility, but also not to discount its use by the Russians, and to be prepared in the event the Russians exercised the option.

If the author of the article is credible, and based on research by folks here, he seems to be, his opinion is internal pressure on Putin to order a 'decisive offensive' based on perceived waning western will and window of opportunity created by the distraction western elections cause, could drive use of tac nukes to break the stalemate, create the breakthrough, exploited by conventional mechanized forces.

We here have spent a fair amount of time on how to break the stalemate and it seems reasonable to:

1. assume this is only a Russian option

2. make our own assessment of how feasible a Russian breakthrough is with this method and Russia's ability to exploit any breakthrough

So, for the sake of discussion,

1. Do we here believe Russian conventional forces attrition has been significant enough they could not muster conventional exploitation forces or can not build up such a force by May 2024?
2. If we believe the Russians can build up such forces what do we believe we know about Ukraine's reserves to blunt and contain a breakthrough? 
3. What do we believe the nature and timing would be of any Western response directly impacting either or both the Russian breakthrough and Ukrainian attempts to contain the breakthrough?

Thanks to @The_Capt @billbindc @sburke @dan/california @Bulletpoint @Butschi and now @cesmonkey for chiming in so far. ...and yes, I agree, at CM level, a tac nuke supported breakthrough would make for a very boring wargame, assuming no further nuke use, exploitation and containment maybe less so.

Reference:

Putin may be about to launch an apocalyptic assault (msn.com)

"There are now rumblings in Moscow that a decisive offensive to turn the tides of the war squarely in Russia’s favour may soon be underway."

The problem is that according to the Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank, the Russian military is likely unable to “conduct an operation to seize significant territory in Kharkiv Oblast in the near term”

This does not mean that such an assault is impossible. It simply means that it would require weapons on the battlefield we have yet to see. In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack. Given the infamous failure of Obama’s “red line” in Syria, and the reluctance of the West to fully commit to defending Ukraine, Putin might think this is a gamble worth taking."

"The drift towards militarization of the Russian state and the surging calls for a greater offensive must serve as a warning that the West needs to wake up before he acts. We must fully support and arm Ukraine. If we don’t, as predicted by the Polish Chief of Security, NATO will be at war with Moscow within a few years."

Edited January 11 by OBJ

[Bulletpoint]

14 minutes ago, OBJ said:

To be very clear, I hope nothing goes nuclear. I don't want anything to go nuclear. My service conditioned me to both abhor that possibility, but also not to discount its use by the Russians, and to be prepared in the event the Russians exercised the option.

If the author of the article is credible, and based on research by folks here, he seems to be, his opinion is internal pressure on Putin to order a 'decisive offensive' based on perceived waning western will and window of opportunity the distraction western elections cause, drives use of tac nukes to break the stalemate, create the breakthrough, exploited by conventional mechanized forces.

We here have spent a fair amount of time on how to break the stalemate and it seems reasonable to:

1. assume this is only a Russian option

2. make our own assessment of how feasible a Russian breakthrough is with this method and Russia's ability to exploit the breakthrough

So, for the sake of discussion,

1. Do we here believe Russian conventional forces attrition has been significant enough they could not muster conventional exploitation forces or can not build up such a force by May 2024?
2. If we believe the Russians can build up such forces what do we believe we know about Ukraine's reserves to blunt and contain a breakthrough? 
3. What do we believe the nature and timing would be of any Western response directly impacting either or both the Russian breakthrough and Ukrainian attempts to contain the breakthrough?

Thanks to @The_Capt @billbindc @sburke @dan/california @Bulletpoint @Butschi and now @cesmonkey for chiming in so far. ...and yes, I agree, at CM level, a tac nuke supported breakthrough would make for a very boring wargame, assuming no further nuke use, exploitation and containment maybe less so.

Reference:

Putin may be about to launch an apocalyptic assault (msn.com)

"There are now rumblings in Moscow that a decisive offensive to turn the tides of the war squarely in Russia’s favour may soon be underway."

The problem is that according to the Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank, the Russian military is likely unable to “conduct an operation to seize significant territory in Kharkiv Oblast in the near term”

This does not mean that such an assault is impossible. It simply means that it would require weapons on the battlefield we have yet to see. In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack. Given the infamous failure of Obama’s “red line” in Syria, and the reluctance of the West to fully commit to defending Ukraine, Putin might think this is a gamble worth taking."

"The drift towards militarization of the Russian state and the surging calls for a greater offensive must serve as a warning that the West needs to wake up before he acts. We must fully support and arm Ukraine. If we don’t, as predicted by the Polish Chief of Security, NATO will be at war with Moscow within a few years."

"This does not mean that such an assault is impossible. It simply means that it would require weapons on the battlefield we have yet to see. In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack".

Funny how a guy who specialises in chemical and biological weapons predicts an attack by chemical or biological weapons. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I think he's either a Cold War fossil who is unable to realise that the world has changed since he was in the army in the 1980s, or maybe he's paid or instructed by someone to play scaremonger in order to put pressure on the Western public and politicians to provide more aid to Ukraine. Because his scenario seems to make no sense to me.

His piece seems to rest on the assumption that just because some ultra-nationalists in Moscow want a grand offensive, Putin somehow has to deliver that. But Putin doesn't need to take the whole of Ukraine to declare victory. He just has to keep what he has taken.

Also, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon seems to think that you could just use a couple of tactical nukes to "blow a hole" in the front line and then "exploit by mechanised formations". That's Cold War stuff and not how it works now in an age of ATGMs and drones everywhere. You don't just pop a small hole in the front and then race to Kyiv. Especially not now that Russia's mechanised formations have been ground down.

If Putin wanted to use nukes, he would have to nuke the entire front line, burning up most of the Ukrainian Army. And even then, those Russian columns would get mauled by Nato conventional airstrikes inside Ukraine within a couple of days. And then what?

[OBJ]

Hey, I resemble that remark, "a Cold War fossil who is unable to realize that the world has changed since he was in the army in the 1980s"

well, maybe not the part about not realizing the world has changed...

Appreciate the perspective, assume others will be along soon.

Edited January 11 by OBJ

[Bulletpoint]

7 minutes ago, OBJ said:

Hey, I resemble that remark, "a Cold War fossil who is unable to realize that the world has changed since he was in the army in the 1980s"

well, maybe not the part about not realizing the world has changed...

That was the important part

[OBJ]

I do think this is a possibility, "maybe he's paid or instructed by someone to play scaremonger in order to put pressure on the Western public and politicians to provide more aid to Ukraine," based on what others have found of his past offerings, @cesmonkey most recently

I am however, still interested in this group's assessment of the viability of using tac nukes to create a breakthrough and Russia's ability to exploit it to strategic advantage. Respect @Bulletpoint you came down on the side of 'No.'

Edited January 11 by OBJ

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, OBJ said:

I am however, still interested in this group's assessment of the viability if using tac nukes to create a breakthrough. Respect @Bulletpoint you came down on the side of 'No.'

Just to clarify, I definitely think it would be possible to use a limited number of tactical nuclear weapons to vapourise a section of the front big enough to drive through, but I do not think it would be viable for the current Russian Army to then exploit that breakthrough in any meaningful way. And I do not think Putin is desperate.

Edited January 11 by Bulletpoint