How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

My point being the entire shtick is more political theatre than a declaration that a potential future US president planning to abandon article 5.

Political theatre for voters, and for the other NATO partners, crude commercial negotiation tactics called BATNA bashing. "I will show you how ****ed you are if you do not agree to my terms".  Not a good tool for complex international relations.

[The_Capt]

22 minutes ago, Kraft said:

But he did that in Afghanistan and his base loved him for it. I am sure putin would encourage redeployment early enough to avoid awkward situations. 

Putin would likely stay local and limited in scope, not try to reach Berlin, so it would be fairly easy for the commander in chief to avoid having troops in that area, long enough for facts to be made.

No he didn’t.  In fact he was to afraid to be seen as “afraid” and Biden had to do it.  And then he derided Biden for making the hard decision.  It is political theatre.

[Kraft]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

No he didn’t.  In fact he was to afraid to be seen as “afraid” and Biden had to do it.  And then he derided Biden for making the hard decision.  It is political theatre.

From 13000 to 2500 soldiers stationed when Biden took over, according to wikipedia.

Edited February 11 by Kraft

[The_Capt]

Follow up on urban warfare conversation:

https://wavellroom.com/2023/04/28/urban-is-not-exceptional-a-response/

What I am really interested in is whether whatever is happening in warfare re: defensive primacy is showing indications in urban warfare as well.  Of course I missed another big one from this war, Kyiv:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022)

Inconclusive but we can make some safe assumptions that attacker losses were higher (likely much higher) than defenders.  My sense is that urban warfare is not only slower, it has higher intensity and therefore much less tolerance for mistakes.  In a quick historical review when defenders lose, they lose very badly.  And when attackers screw up they get mailed mercilessly.  Even when done right urban combat is intense in resources, time being a major one.

I do not think urban warfare “is just another operation”.  It is a specialized terrain that takes unique equipment, tactics, training and planning considerations.   I find contradictions in the “it is not special” camp:

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-2023-urban-warfare-experts-christmas-wish-list/

The authors declare that we need to stop thinking about urban warfare as a “special environment” and then advocate for a NATO Center of Excellence on Urban Warfare.

Two things do ring true in all this:1) likelihood of urban warfare is going up do in large part to massive increases in urban terrain worldwide and 2) whatever is driving shifts in open warfare will very likely have direct impacts on urban warfare as well.

[FancyCat]

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well first off, they are already there:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

So he would have to pull them out - which looks a lot like running away and one thing Poppa T does not like is looking weak and scared.  And as soon as the shooting starts and the US takes casualties the whole discussion becomes moot - PAX Americana and all that.

Well that’s where Putin’s long winded interview comes in, which is a framing shifting narrative to slowly move the American voter away from seeing NATO as an inherent structure of American dominance to one of American overextension and waste in Russian sphere of influence.

Trump’s framing of the 2% gdp target is just one part of it. He’s long voiced disappointment and discontent with insufficient “protection money” attained from Europe. (At the end of the day, he has shown all the hallmarks of a dictator who believes the government serves at his word and its resources his to allocate and enjoy)I think this is actually something Putin with his mafia like structure of Russian government would be intimately familiar with and able to exploit and manage vs Trump. We have seen how this occurred via Ukraine, Trump seeking political dirt on Biden and leveraging aid to Ukraine for it. 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Kraft said:

From 13000 to 2500 soldiers stationed when Biden took over, according to wikipedia.

Afghanistan is a perfect example of what I am talking about - political jerking off:

https://apnews.com/united-states-government-fd2ec2085b0b4fd3ae0a3b03c6de9478#

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/US-Withdrawal-from-Afghanistan.pdf

Obama slashed US troop presence from 100k in 2010 to 10k in 2015 - the war was basically over by 2016 but he could not finish the job.  

Trump gets in and initially increases troop strength  back up to 14k so he could be seen as doing the “art of the deal” with the Taliban - who sat back and rolled their eyes the whole time.  And then drew down to 2500 by 2021 - which left him the option to declare “peace with honour” in a second term or stick Biden with the job and use it as an attack vector.  Which is exactly what he did.

So you see my point - the whole thing is a game for domestic US consumption.  Not some deep foreign policy or strategy.  Trump is a master at getting nothing done and blaming someone else.  Major muscle movement in Europe will only come if he can look good doing it.  Some sort of rapprochement with Putin angle, but of course even he is not dumb enough to trust Putin now.

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Well that’s where Putin’s long winded interview comes in, which is a framing shifting narrative to slowly move the American voter away from seeing NATO as an inherent structure of American dominance to one of American overextension and waste in Russian sphere of influence.

Trump’s framing of the 2% gdp target is just one part of it. He’s long voiced disappointment and discontent with insufficient “protection money” attained from Europe. (At the end of the day, he has shown all the hallmarks of a dictator who believes the government serves at his word and its resources his to allocate and enjoy)I think this is actually something Putin with his mafia like structure of Russian government would be intimately familiar with and able to exploit and manage vs Trump. We have seen how this occurred via Ukraine, Trump seeking political dirt on Biden and leveraging aid to Ukraine for it. 

I am sure the average political voter did not get that from a history lesson by a 70 year old Russian autocrat.  There are two levels here in US politics - the theatre and reality.  There is always tension between the two.  Trump is going to make big shows but cannot change reality.  He keeps power by playing a shell game between the two with a base far too ignorant to see it.

We know this.  All his bombastic statements and turbulence of his first term basically went nowhere.  The system absorbed most of it.  Executive orders were overturned etc.  The real damage he did was internal.  Damage to US democracy.  He was so desperate to stay in power that he incited illegal violent action.  He eroded the faith in US democracy.  Everything outside of that is a sideshow…that goes back to that.  So, sure he will play around with Putin to be contrary.  He will make noise, just like last time, but in the end even he sees reality.  Reality is Russia is dangerous and he will see opportunity to leverage the fear of thst danger for political gains.  He will talk big, do symbolic crap but will avoid hard decisions at all costs.

[FancyCat]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Some sort of rapprochement with Putin angle, but of course even he is not dumb enough to trust Putin now.

Russian bot armies, funding, and connections with Trump campaign officials would suggest more that Trump will be indebted to Putin if he wins 2024 and while he is a terrible debtor, we are certainly past rapprochement and into deal making territory. 

[omae2]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Well first off, they are already there:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

So he would have to pull them out - which looks a lot like running away and one thing Poppa T does not like is looking weak and scared.  And as soon as the shooting starts and the US takes casualties the whole discussion becomes moot - PAX Americana and all that.

Nah it will not. If Trump get elected he can delay decision makings and troop deployment enough to get Europe tangled in a war alone. I don't understand how an idiot like Trump can compete in the race to white house but i'm not American.

The whole russian strategy is to isolate the USA, and i cant understand how are they that successful with it. It almost feel like you guys wanna lose the next major conflict of the human history.

NATO is a sheet of paper only held together by trust. If you guys betray that trust than you global hegemony will be lost. As soon as peoples around the world get a whiff of cowardliness from the USA they gonna look for other partners. Everything that makes you live on the level of standards that you accustomed is based on your country's hegemony. Once things go down they go down quick.
 

I don't know what you guys doing on the other side of the sea but everything seems messier by the week.

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, Zeleban said:

 

Offensive? Through what means? Ukraine now receives only about 10% of the aid it received last year. And that help turned out to be insufficient for the offensive. Everyone is well aware of this, especially the generals. Currently, the front line is held only by FPV. And as we see near Avdeevka, as soon as the weather does not allow the effective use of FPV, the Russians manage to break through the front.

I'm not saying the offensive will be successful, only that I think an offensive will be ordered.

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Well first off, they are already there:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

So he would have to pull them out - which looks a lot like running away and one thing Poppa T does not like is looking weak and scared.  And as soon as the shooting starts and the US takes casualties the whole discussion becomes moot - PAX Americana and all that.

Not to be a party pooper, but that is absolutely not the case with the Trump base.

As soon as US troops took casualties in the Middle East lately, the MAGA sentiment was "why are we there in the first place? These troops should be used to guard the Mexican border."

It will be the same when US troops in the baltics get attacked by Russians.

"Why are we stationed in lands that we have no association with? In opposition to peaceful and smart Putin?" 

Pulling out will not be seen as weak, but as putting America first.

That does not mean I believe that the US will definitely abandon NATO.

But the idea of Pax Americana is now seen as a waste of tax money -that is the pure and utter conviction of the Trump base. And the other Republicans will go along with it, because they realise what a loyal voting base you can get if you just tell them what they want to hear. You can have a rape video with an underage girl get leaked on the internet and the Trump base would defend you and call you a second coming of Christ, with the video being doctored by Banderists in Ukraine.

Edited February 11 by Carolus

[Kinophile]

34 minutes ago, omae2 said:

Nah it will not. If Trump get elected he can delay decision makings and troop deployment enough to get Europe tangled in a war alone. I don't understand how an idiot like Trump can compete in the race to white house but i'm not American.

The whole russian strategy is to isolate the USA, and i cant understand how are they that successful with it. It almost feel like you guys wanna lose the next major conflict of the human history.

NATO is a sheet of paper only held together by trust. If you guys betray that trust than you global hegemony will be lost. As soon as peoples around the world get a whiff of cowardliness from the USA they gonna look for other partners. Everything that makes you live on the level of standards that you accustomed is based on your country's hegemony. Once things go down they go down quick.
 

I don't know what you guys doing on the other side of the sea but everything seems messier by the week.

The "you guys" repetition is a oh so subtle attempt at triggering, as you well know. 

Isnt there a bridge you should be under? 

[Kraft]

CNN claims as many as 15000 Nepalis joined the russian army

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/10/asia/nepal-fighters-russia-ukraine-families-intl-cmd/index.html

 

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... please stop with the deep dive and debate about previous wars.  As can be seen in the last 6 or so pages, it will overwhelm the topic of this thread.  I've already asked once to move away from this, now I am going to be more insistent. 

As interesting as these discussions are, they aren't directly relevant and are very distracting.  Normally when I log on in the morning and see 40+ post waiting for me I think "Ukraine just nailed something high value!", but this morning it was "debating wars that happened 80-100 years ago".

Thanks,

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/02/10/syrskyi-in-zaluzhnyi-out-what-to-expect-from-ukraines-army-reshuffle/

 

 

[omae2]

26 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

The "you guys" repetition is a oh so subtle attempt at triggering, as you well know. 

Isnt there a bridge you should be under? 

Can you elaborate please cause i have no clue what you talking about nor about the triggering nor about the bridge i should be under. You can do it by pm cause its seems to me that these are some sort of insults that meant to derail the discussion so we should not bother others with our irrelevant dispute.

[Battlefront.com]

57 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm not saying the offensive will be successful, only that I think an offensive will be ordered.

Will Ukraine try for a limited counter attack in a place that seems to offer an opportunity?  Sure, if that opportunity comes about.  However, all indications are there will be no large scale offensive because both military and political realities only support that as the best course of action.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

48 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Not to be a party pooper, but that is absolutely not the case with the Trump base.

As soon as US troops took casualties in the Middle East lately, the MAGA sentiment was "why are we there in the first place? These troops should be used to guard the Mexican border."

It will be the same when US troops in the baltics get attacked by Russians.

"Why are we stationed in lands that we have no association with? In opposition to peaceful and smart Putin?" 

Pulling out will not be seen as weak, but as putting America first.

That does not mean I believe that the US will definitely abandon NATO.

But the idea of Pax Americana is now seen as a waste of tax money -that is the pure and utter conviction of the Trump base. And the other Republicans will go along with it, because they realise what a loyal voting base you can get if you just tell them what they want to hear. You can have a rape video with an underage girl get leaked on the internet and the Trump base would defend you and call you a second coming of Christ, with the video being doctored by Banderists in Ukraine.

We must not think of Trump's base of support, or even the MAGA movement itself, as a monolithic bloc representing about 50% of the US population.  It absolutely is not.  The extreme MAGA supporters, who believe everything Trump says and nothing else, is quite small.  Some estimates put it as low as 5%, but I'm more comfortable with the higher 15%.  Which means 30% of the GOP rejects reality.

The challenge for Trump is that he needs every single one of his supporters to be behind him 100% something in order for it to be successful.  His first term in office did not demonstrate a level of competency to do that very often.  He repeatedly showed an inability to focus or communicate a practical course of action to even his base.  He wants easy talking points to raise money off of, not real substantive change.

This is not to say that he can't cause massive damage to the US/NATO alliance.  He absolutely can and in fact already did that.  He absolutely can harm US military commitments elsewhere, such as Syria, South Korea, and the big one... Afghanistan.  But destroy what is at the heart of NATO?  I don't think that is likely.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

We must not think of Trump's base of support, or even the MAGA movement itself, as a monolithic bloc representing about 50% of the US population.  It absolutely is not.  The extreme MAGA supporters, who believe everything Trump says and nothing else, is quite small.  Some estimates put it as low as 5%, but I'm more comfortable with the higher 15%.  Which means 30% of the GOP rejects reality.

Just as important are the swing state voters, who in previous years voted for Bush and Obama and Trump and Biden. They have real domestic concerns- inflation, crime and the border- that are basically not being answered. These voters aren’t zealots, but they are unhappy.

Real income across most swing states is down compared to 2020, which is what would worry me most if I was Biden’s campaign team: https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/economics-is-pushing-us-swing-voters-pick-trump-2024-01-16/

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Didn’t the US pass a law where a president cannot unilaterally pull out of NATO or somesuch?  Oh ya, here it is:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/congress-trump-proofs-nato-1.7059768#:~:text=It says no president shall,spelled out in the bill.

 

Yes. But a President could simply refuse to order the military to react to Russian aggression which Trump would certainly do. On paper, we would still be in NATO. In effect we would be out.

[Battlefront.com]

41 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Yes. But a President could simply refuse to order the military to react to Russian aggression which Trump would certainly do. On paper, we would still be in NATO. In effect we would be out.

And any challenges to Trump's decisions, or lack thereof, would have to be settled in court.  That could take weeks, at best, years at worst.  And even then all Trump would have to do is continue to stonewall whatever he was obligated by the courts to do.  More time lost.

And throughout this there would likely be an impeachment process started.  If the Republicans hold the House that would be unlikely to happen.  Which would mean more court battles.

To put it another way... the damage Trump can do to US foreign and military policy is nearly endless, the ability to correct for it is very limited while he is in office.

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And any challenges to Trump's decisions, or lack thereof, would have to be settled in court.  That could take weeks, at best, years at worst.  And even then all Trump would have to do is continue to stonewall whatever he was obligated by the courts to do.  More time lost.

And throughout this there would likely be an impeachment process started.  If the Republicans hold the House that would be unlikely to happen.  Which would mean more court battles.

To put it another way... the damage Trump can do to US foreign and military policy is nearly endless, the ability to correct for it is very limited while he is in office.

Steve

All in all no matter how you look at it a very bad and worrying situation to face the coming difficulties or even another world conflict. 

[Haiduk]

Acoording to updated information UKR Su-25, lost on 7th of Feb was shot down on 17th minutes of flight by R-37 long-range AA missle, likely from Su-35. This missile has 200 km of range and speed 6M . Other carriers of this missile are Su-27 and MiG-31BM  

For the lost pilot Vladislav Rykov ("Magic"), this was 385th combat flight.

Edited February 11 by Haiduk

[Zeleban]

 

Good news. Hero of Ukraine Colonel Sukharevsky has been appointed Deputy Commander-in-Chief for the use of unmanned systems. He is known among the troops on the positive side as the commander of one of the best and most effective brigades - the 59th Motorized Infantry Brigade. All the drone related bloggers claim that this will definitely improve the efficiency of using drones. In the general photo he is on the far left

[Haiduk]

Russian TG rejected yesterday claims of other Russian TGs about capturing of transport depo in northern part of Avdiivka and approaching to railway station. Westren OSINTers give next sitaution for yesterday

General Tarnasvskiy claimed about reserve units invilved in the battle. Unknown is this 3rd assault brigade or not.  Commander of 47th mech.brigade Dmytro Riumshyn told Russians now assault with small groups, sometimes applying armored vehicles.