How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

Ecuador and The US concluded an agreement on the exchange of Soviet weapons worth $200 million for modern equipment. The deal should be completed by the end of this month. Ecuador doesn't know for which purpose the US is receiving them.. could be Ukraine.

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

Ecuador has some Soviet manpads and light AA. Nice to have, but nothing fancy. But why is the west not doing that more often? Should be quite some kit floating around.

Because we (the ones in charge at least) don't really want Ukraine to win, at least not too much and too fast. So we are going to continue to drip-feed supplies little by little, just enough to keep them fighting.

Edited January 12 by Bulletpoint

[keas66]

49 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Because we (the ones in charge at least) don't really want Ukraine to win, at least not too much and too fast. So we are going to continue to drip-feed supplies little by little, just enough to keep them fighting.

That's your "Occam's Razor"  interpretation of this ?

[MikeyD]

Ukraine needs spare parts. US is finding them spare parts.

[Sojourner]

Anybody know what Zelensky is talking about, is he trolling or smoking crack?

At a press conference in Latvia on January 11 he said,

"Partners have provided us with some long-range weapons," he said, according to a translation by Ukrainian news outlet RBC. "I won't say what, but our partners will understand.

"With it, we destroyed 26 helicopters in a day, and 12 planes that took off and attacked with missiles, against which these systems were working. We destroyed 12 at once."

Two Dozen Russian Helicopters Downed in One Day with 'Secret Weapon'—Kyiv (msn.com)

[Offshoot]

Because it is so rare, some armour v. armour, with a Bradley bullying a T-90M.

 

[alison]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Because we (the ones in charge at least) don't really want Ukraine to win, at least not too much and too fast. So we are going to continue to drip-feed supplies little by little, just enough to keep them fighting.

I am really tired of the idea that there is a mysterious cabal of crypto hawks who somehow have the power to influence defense decisions in dozens of countries around the world and are dedicated to ensuring the war in Ukraine never ends. If anything, people in democratic countries have shown time and again that they do not want war, and even when a war does spark off, they certainly don't want long ones. War is not popular with the people. No politicians are running on a platform of "let's keep everyone at war". On the contrary!

Obviously not all decisions made by the government are communicated in detail to the people, but the whole point of democracy is that there is freedom of debate and eventual transparency. There are plenty of anti-war politicians around the world who have an interest in exposing a forever war conspiracy, and yet no evidence has been exposed. So why keep suggesting it exists?

It's true that a handful of actors here and there have an interest in dragging wars out for economic reasons, or believe it might be advantageous for geopolitical reasons, but they are far from "the ones in charge", and their position is not widely popular. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that warfare has changed in a way that it is no longer easy to deal out crushing victories against near-peer adversaries. Perhaps it never was.

[dan/california]

Just nuts!

[JonS]

6 hours ago, alison said:

is no longer easy to deal out crushing victories against near-peer adversaries. Perhaps it never was.

"near-peer" would tend to imply that, yes.

If you can deal a crushing defeat easily, can they really be said to be 'near-peer'?

[billbindc]

6 hours ago, alison said:

I am really tired of the idea that there is a mysterious cabal of crypto hawks who somehow have the power to influence defense decisions in dozens of countries around the world and are dedicated to ensuring the war in Ukraine never ends. If anything, people in democratic countries have shown time and again that they do not want war, and even when a war does spark off, they certainly don't want long ones. War is not popular with the people. No politicians are running on a platform of "let's keep everyone at war". On the contrary!

Obviously not all decisions made by the government are communicated in detail to the people, but the whole point of democracy is that there is freedom of debate and eventual transparency. There are plenty of anti-war politicians around the world who have an interest in exposing a forever war conspiracy, and yet no evidence has been exposed. So why keep suggesting it exists?

It's true that a handful of actors here and there have an interest in dragging wars out for economic reasons, or believe it might be advantageous for geopolitical reasons, but they are far from "the ones in charge", and their position is not widely popular. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that warfare has changed in a way that it is no longer easy to deal out crushing victories against near-peer adversaries. Perhaps it never was.

That the British government couldn't keep a fairly simple strike on the Houthi's secret for another 6 hours is a fair indication of how badly governments in general are at hiding important information. If there was a real cabal interested in dragging out the war in Ukraine we'd have known about it sometime in late March of '22. 

[alison]

33 minutes ago, JonS said:

If you can deal a crushing defeat easily, can they really be said to be 'near-peer'?

Touché.

Perhaps this is a long war simply because both sides have access to fairly similar kit and neither side wants to give up yet.

[sburke]

The Russians Around Krynky Counted On Storm-Z Units To Absorb Ukrainian Fire. But Now The Storm-Z Troops Are All Dead. (msn.com)

Quote

 

Three months after Ukrainian marines motored across the Dnipro River and seized a bridgehead on the otherwise Russian-controlled left bank, the Russians still haven’t been able to dislodge the marines.

And if anything, Russian fortunes around the bridgehead in Krynky might get worse. According to Nataliya Gumenyuk, spokesperson for Ukraine’s southern command, the poorly-trained, lightly-equipped “Storm-Z” assault troopers Russian commanders were counting on to break through Ukrainian defenses in Krynky mostly are dead, wounded or captured.

 

Quote

With the Z-Storm troopers dead or in the hospital, the Russian forces on the left bank—a mix of marines, paratroopers and army mechanized troops—can’t just throw meat at the Ukrainians bridgehead. Unless, of course, they opt to be the meat.

“Because of this, they have moral and psychological disorders in their units and disputes of various kinds,” Gumenyuk said. “There is a greater concentration of marines and paratroopers. And they consider themselves elite and [don’t] go on such assaults they don't want to.”

If Gumenyuk is correct, Russian command and control is fraying around Krynky. “There is a lot of confusion in the leadership of the Dnipro group.”

Gumenyuk isn’t alone in her assessment. The Russian command crisis on the left bank was evident as long ago as early December, according to one Russian paratrooper. “The senior command is unable to find a common language with some units,” they wrote at the time.

If Russian commanders around Krynky couldn’t control their forces before the bullet-sponge Storm-Z units got wiped out, imagine their struggle now that better-trained troops have to start soaking up Ukrainian fire.

 

Wonder if that is the new Russian Army slogan - "be the meat".

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, alison said:

I am really tired of the idea that there is a mysterious cabal of crypto hawks who somehow have the power to influence defense decisions in dozens of countries around the world and are dedicated to ensuring the war in Ukraine never ends. If anything, people in democratic countries have shown time and again that they do not want war, and even when a war does spark off, they certainly don't want long ones. War is not popular with the people. No politicians are running on a platform of "let's keep everyone at war". On the contrary!

Obviously not all decisions made by the government are communicated in detail to the people, but the whole point of democracy is that there is freedom of debate and eventual transparency. There are plenty of anti-war politicians around the world who have an interest in exposing a forever war conspiracy, and yet no evidence has been exposed. So why keep suggesting it exists?

It's true that a handful of actors here and there have an interest in dragging wars out for economic reasons, or believe it might be advantageous for geopolitical reasons, but they are far from "the ones in charge", and their position is not widely popular. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that warfare has changed in a way that it is no longer easy to deal out crushing victories against near-peer adversaries. Perhaps it never was.

You missed the point of my post. I am not saying there is some dark and secret conspiracy for a forever war in Ukraine.

I am saying that I think Western leaders probably say quite different things in public than they say at high-level meetings. And they think different things than they say even there. That is not a conspiracy, that's politics.

The goal is not to keep the war in Ukraine going forever. But the primary war aim is not that Ukraine wins this war or takes back all territory. That's also an aim, but it's secondary.

I think that the reason we see so slow drip-feeing of assistance is that the primary Western goal is to avoid escalation, and not only on the battlefield, but also to avoid a chaotic collapse of Russia.

The real goal would be to keep Russia intact but to effect regime change. And for that to happen, Russia has to be worn down, not crushed by a sudden shock on the battlefield.

The average Russian has to be made well and truly sick of this war, and responsibility has to be eventually placed on Putin. I think that's the actual US (and therefore Nato) plan.

[alison]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

You missed the point of my post. I am not saying there is some dark and secret conspiracy for a forever war in Ukraine.

I think we agree more than we disagree, so my apologies for misinterpreting your post. Western leaders have been clear from the beginning that they aim to avoid major escalation, so that aspect of their response should not surprise anyone.

That said, although I know it's been a recurring topic on this thread, I don't think many - if any - governments are cynically using this war to affect regime change in Moscow. It seems to me there would be more effective ways to do this than try to keep a war going outside Russia's borders for some indeterminate period of time that overlaps major elections in countries whose opposition candidates are all too happy to use "let's stop wasting money on foreign wars" as a campaign talking point.

Perhaps I am just a bit in the weeds right now, since today was election day. I'll pipe down and get back to reading about drone warfare.

Edited January 13 by alison
typo

[Seedorf81]

9 hours ago, Offshoot said:

Because it is so rare, some armour v. armour, with a Bradley bullying a T-90M.

 

Best "Shoot and scoot"-example I ever saw, and boy, that Bradley commander has HUGE balls!

[Battlefront.com]

15 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

Saw this linked on defence-blog.com

 

And this is why I keep harping on the fact that large crewed AFVs are going to be a thing of the past.  Look at how small this vehicle is and note how much damage at range it can dish out.  Why risk even a Humvee equivalent for a job like this?

Steve

[Haiduk]

Newest Russian RB-109A "Bylina" EW automatical control center was destroyed near Donetsk airport. This system was adopted in 2018, but only since October 2023 have been deploying in mass into EW brigades. RB-109A can conduct ELINT on the depth up to 800 km in the rear of the enemy terrtory and airspace (if it has clear rafion horizon and other conditions) and unveal enemy radioelectronic assets signals. Furter it automatically create a map of signal activity and automatically switches on for supressing proper EW asset, pluggeed to RB-109A control lines. System also shows own EW field cover zones in multiple ranges, so it useful thing for coordination of EW assets in the single field, reducing the risk of "friendly supressing" and increasing effectiveness of brigade's assets work. In present time next EW systems can be integrated to RB-109A: Krasukha-2O, Krasukha-S4, R-330Zh Zhytel', R-330M1P Diabazol, Palantin

 

Edited January 13 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

One more brigade got Sweden CV90. Before this we have 50 CV90 in 21st mech.brigade and at least one battlion of 93rd mech.brigade. Now these vehicles have appeared in 14th mech.brigade

On the video is a rare example of CV90 work - after UKR tank shot out Russian trench at point blank range, IFV disembarked a squad for cleaning the trench. This is Kupiansk direction

 

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

One more brigade got Sweden CV90. Before this we have 50 CV90 in 21st mech.brigade and at least one battlion of 93rd mech.brigade. Now these vehicles have appeared in 14th mech.brigade

On the video is a rare example of CV90 work - after UKR tank shot out Russian trench at point blank range, IFV disembarked a squad for cleaning the trench. This is Kupiansk direction

 

What is going on with fire support being 12 feet from the objective?  We have seen other videos like this.  The few times AFVs get involved it is at point blank range.  Those guns can reach out kms, why bring them in so close?

[Beleg85]

Russians getting better at reconstructing Mordor...

This giant fire is in Wildberries warehouse near Petersburg. What is peculiar is there are rumours it was set on fire by disgruntled workers (these places are often used as recruiting pools for war, including foreign nationals from Central Asia).

 

 

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

What is going on with fire support being 12 feet from the objective?  We have seen other videos like this.  The few times AFVs get involved it is at point blank range.  Those guns can reach out kms, why bring them in so close?

Often both sides have on position too few infantry (Russians, especially Z-stormers often havn't ATGMs and even enough number of RPGs) to supress it with artillery and mortar fire, wasting the valuable ammo, so better to move small armor group in flank of trench and supress the enemy with point blank fire. Combining with FPV strikes is possible if they avaiable. And then unleash infantry from "combat taxi". I bet Russian had on this position 3-4 men. 

Edited January 13 by Haiduk

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Often both sides have on position too few infantry (Russians, especially Z-stormers often havn't ATGMs and even enough number of RPGs) to supress it with artillery and mortar fire, wasting the valuable ammo, so better to move small armor group in flank of trench and supress the enemy with point blank fire. Combining with FPV strikes is possible if they avaiable. And then unleash infantry from "combat taxi". I bet Russian had on this position 3-4 men. 

Ok, that makes a kinda sense.  So where is the RA artillery and ISR?  A tank and a CV90 to clear a trench of 3-4 Russians is a pretty big force, and a big target.  

[pintere]

14 hours ago, Offshoot said:

Because it is so rare, some armour v. armour, with a Bradley bullying a T-90M.

 

An older model of Bradley besting the Russians’ most modern MBT. Let that be another nail in the coffin for the myth of Russian technical superiority.

Also… Steve, is there a chance we’ll see a patch in the future where you can damage a tank in such a way that the turret will be locked in a non-stop spin?

[Hapless]

Reputed reasoning for that chunky fire in St. Petersburg: the company has been forcing employees to join up and the employees have had enough.

This sounds so amazingly corrosive, in so many ways.

[Haiduk]

Youtube video on normal speed of two Bradleys and T-90M engagement with English comment 

Just on 2:01 author mistakingly says "T-90M is detonating", but in comments other people write this were smoke screen charges, shot by tank.

 

After Russian tank has stopped on obstacle it was finished with FPV - Russian crew abandoned the tank (at the second half of video)

 

Edited January 13 by Haiduk

[OBJ]

8 hours ago, JonS said:

"near-peer" would tend to imply that, yes.

If you can deal a crushing defeat easily, can they really be said to be 'near-peer'?

Actually, in Alison's defense, still within recent memory, large scale conventional warfare, there was France 1940, Barbarossa Jun-Jul, more recently and much more limited, Nagorno-Karabakh. So conflict between 'peers' does offer examples of overwhelming defeat of one side by the other.

I have also hard time thinking of Ukraine and Russia as peers.

...and I'm with @alison on this one,
"I am really tired of the idea that there is a mysterious cabal of crypto hawks who somehow have the power to influence defense decisions in dozens of countries around the world and are dedicated to ensuring the war in Ukraine never ends."

Sorry @Bulletpoint just my opinion, which comes as standard issue to all of us, I can't see this happening, "The average Russian has to be made well and truly sick of this war, and responsibility has to be eventually placed on Putin. I think that's the actual US (and therefore Nato) plan." I think you were closer to the mark with, "I think that the reason we see so slow drip-feeing of assistance is that the primary Western goal is to avoid escalation, and not only on the battlefield, but also to avoid a chaotic collapse of Russia."