How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

 

This was my suspicion of why 3rd Assault Brigade was moved into position.  110th needed to be withdrawn no matter what, but replacing its forward positions would be extremely costly given the ongoing offensive activities and dangerous supply routes.  Much better to withdraw the 110th completely and use the 3rd to form a new defensive line.

Let's see if that's what's happening, but militarily it makes the most sense.

Steve

[cesmonkey]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

Yup never underestimate the excitability of selfish fools. WH doesn't seem particularly "angry". Definitely a plus in the Russia = Bad narrative. 

I don't get your point. Mike Turner is the head of the House Intelligence Committee and a firm supporter of more aid for Ukraine.

Is it not unreasonable for him to ask the WH to declassify a new threat to American security if most members of Congress will already know about it?
 

 

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I don't get your point. Mike Turner is the head of the House Intelligence Committee and a firm supporter of more aid for Ukraine.

Is it not unreasonable for him to ask the WH to declassify a new threat to American security if most members of Congress will already know about it?
 

 

The issue is that he unilaterally made an announcement without the usual joint statement with the senior Dem on the committee nor with any apparent notice to the WH.  What this says to me is that he wanted to further support for Ukraine without being branded a "traitor" by other Republicans and Trump.  He even may have received a nudge-nudge-wink-wink from either his Dem counterpart or the WH, saying they would do their part to act wounded.

This is not a conspiracy theory, just a reminder that much of what goes on in DC is often more deliberate than it seems.  It's more likely there is something else underneath this than not.

Steve

[billbindc]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The issue is that he unilaterally made an announcement without the usual joint statement with the senior Dem on the committee nor with any apparent notice to the WH.  What this says to me is that he wanted to further support for Ukraine without being branded a "traitor" by other Republicans and Trump.  He even may have received a nudge-nudge-wink-wink from either his Dem counterpart or the WH, saying they would do their part to act wounded.

This is not a conspiracy theory, just a reminder that much of what goes on in DC is often more deliberate than it seems.  It's more likely there is something else underneath this than not.

Steve

It's weird to the point where I don't see the WH being involved. Turner obviously wants to put heat on the America Firsters but at the same time he positioned it as if the administration was asleep at the switch. Seems like too-many-dimensional chess to be a thought out move.

[Rokko]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

This was my suspicion of why 3rd Assault Brigade was moved into position.  110th needed to be withdrawn no matter what, but replacing its forward positions would be extremely costly given the ongoing offensive activities and dangerous supply routes.  Much better to withdraw the 110th completely and use the 3rd to form a new defensive line.

Let's see if that's what's happening, but militarily it makes the most sense.

Steve

To me this looks more like desparation than sound military logic. Why throw a specialist assault unit into the fray after only a couple months rest to fend off long looming disaster at the last moment (and lose the fortress in the process), why throw in the 47th (basically already spent) right after the failed counter-offensive, why is a single brigade (110th) required to hold out in Avdiivka for 1.5yrs of war and 4 months of sustained assaults? If things were okayish, the 110th would have been pulled back sometime in October, replaced by the 111th and maybe later bolstered by the 112th (or whatever), both rested and fresh from the Belorussian border. Instead, UKR is force to pull one act of desparation after another. It almost looks as if they just don't have any strategic reserves, at all.

The underlying issue, at least to me, seems to be that RU has been running circles around UKR in terms of force generation for basically all of 2023 and ongoing. They may use these forces inefficently, but are able have brigade after brigade mauled while storming some fortress town, while UKR is forced to send the same couple of fire brigade units from hot spot to hot spot. The fact that UKR is basically cut off from foreign assistance and is likely going to be for the foreseeable future does not help in this matter, but their force generation issues seem to be a largely internal problem.

[hcrof]

11 minutes ago, Rokko said:

To me this looks more like desparation than sound military logic. Why throw a specialist assault unit into the fray after only a couple months rest to fend off long looming disaster at the last moment (and lose the fortress in the process), why throw in the 47th (basically already spent) right after the failed counter-offensive, why is a single brigade (110th) required to hold out in Avdiivka for 1.5yrs of war and 4 months of sustained assaults? If things were okayish, the 110th would have been pulled back sometime in October, replaced by the 111th and maybe later bolstered by the 112th (or whatever), both rested and fresh from the Belorussian border. Instead, UKR is force to pull one act of desparation after another. It almost looks as if they just don't have any strategic reserves, at all.

The underlying issue, at least to me, seems to be that RU has been running circles around UKR in terms of force generation for basically all of 2023 and ongoing. They may use these forces inefficently, but are able have brigade after brigade mauled while storming some fortress town, while UKR is forced to send the same couple of fire brigade units from hot spot to hot spot. The fact that UKR is basically cut off from foreign assistance and is likely going to be for the foreseeable future does not help in this matter, but their force generation issues seem to be a largely internal problem.

I think the problem here is that 2 years into the war Ukraine still only has a handful of brigades who actually fight. The line units and TD formations have not been developed into fighting units and trusted with hot areas of the front. 

I wonder if our Ukrainian friends can confirm my my suspicions? And if this is the case, why? 

[Holien]

11 minutes ago, Rokko said:

fact that UKR is basically cut off from foreign assistance and is likely going to be for the foreseeable future does not help in this matter

Hmm that's a fact huh? What about Europe, Australia we've cut them off?

 

13 minutes ago, Rokko said:

RU has been running circles around UKR in terms of force generation

Ahhh Russia recruitment from Africa and Nepal is running rings around Ukraine, nice to know...

[Holien]

Ukraine has recognized it needs a reorganization and perhaps it could have been started earlier but hindsight is always a wonderful thing....

We have seen they are looking at changing things let's see how it pans out....

[Rokko]

9 minutes ago, Holien said:

Hmm that's a fact huh? What about Europe, Australia we've cut them off?

In the case of Europe I'd say UKR is cut off not due to political will (or lack thereof), but lack of means. The last aid package from Germany mentioned 2500 artillery shells. That's one day of firing and this was a couple of weeks back. And last time I checked, UKR seems to be losing around 3 artillery guns, self-propelled and otherwise, every other week. Europe can't replace those. Shell production will eventually reach useful levels (although we don't know how many of those will actually end up in UKR hands), but I am afraid they will have run out of guns at that point.

 

9 minutes ago, Holien said:

Ahhh Russia recruitment from Africa and Nepal is running rings around Ukraine, nice to know...

From what we know, Russia is recruiting 20k (GUR estimate) to 35k (Medvedev bragging) men per month. Their losses are obviously high, but I'd guess given these numbers they are ultimately sustainable, not so for UKR it seems. And how many brigades were they able to smash against Avdiivka, one after the other? If they can keep this up, they'll whittle UKR down eventually this way, if they don't get a grip on their own issues.

Edited February 15 by Rokko

[The_Capt]

32 minutes ago, Rokko said:

In the case of Europe I'd say UKR is cut off not due to political will (or lack thereof), but lack of means. The last aid package from Germany mentioned 2500 artillery shells. That's one day of firing and this was a couple of weeks back. And last time I checked, UKR seems to be losing around 3 artillery guns, self-propelled and otherwise, every other week. Europe can't replace those. Shell production will eventually reach useful levels (although we don't know how many of those will actually end up in UKR hands), but I am afraid they will have run out of guns at that point.

 

From what we know, Russia is recruiting 20k (GUR estimate) to 35k (Medvedev bragging) men per month. Their losses are obviously high, but I'd guess given these numbers they are ultimately sustainable, not so for UKR it seems. And how many brigades were they able to smash against Avdiivka, one after the other? If they can keep this up, they'll whittle UKR down eventually this way, if they don't get a grip on their own issues.

I think what is missing from your theory is the issue of actual UA losses.  As you note, the 110th has remained at Adiivka for  "1.5yrs of war and 4 months of sustained assaults." before they need to be reinforced or rotated out.  While at the same time, RA units on almost continual rotations would suggest very skewed lass ratios in UAs favour.

Without a real sense of Ukrainian losses it is very hard to make a force generation assessment.  And then there is a the qualitative aspect - something also missing from your theory.  Russia might be able to take 20k civilians and stick old rifles in their hands, but these are not trained infantry.  We do know that European and Western run Force generation continues and they are focused on solid basic infantry training.  So if the UA is producing 5k trained infantry, while the RA is pushing out 20k meat waves, we are back to losses and who those losses are made up of.

One thing we can see, is the fact that the front lines move extremely slowly and at great cost.  Further, the odds of an RA breakout, and making real operational gains, remains low...lowering with every loss of equipment wasted on these attacks.  The Russian theory is that they can keep sending low-quality troops to die, while inflicting just enough attrition on the UA to tip the balance (this is not a new strategy).  We really are not sure what the UA theory is, but it appears to stay and hold onto areas the RA really want in order to inflict a level of casualties that is not sustainable from a Russian point of view.

I do not think we are in a position to be able to definitively point at either theory as right or wrong at this point.  What is odd is that even as the UA are running out of artillery, the RA has not suddenly made great advances at lower costs.  Now if the RA assembles a real manoeuvre formation and manages to punch through the UA line we could start making some deductions.  But last I heard, the UA can plant mines too.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Rokko said:

To me this looks more like desparation than sound military logic.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 

Taking realistic, deliberate actions to extricate a weak front before it collapses is sound military logic.  Continuing to hold beyond capabilities is poor military logic unless there's an even bigger concern that is in the mix.

Ukraine has known for some time now that if Russia really wants to take Avdiivka then it can.  All Ukraine could do is make sure that price was stupidly high for Russia.  There was also a non-zero chance that Russia would call off the attack due to that price.

1 hour ago, Rokko said:

 If things were okayish, the 110th would have been pulled back sometime in October, replaced by the 111th and maybe later bolstered by the 112th (or whatever), both rested and fresh from the Belorussian border. Instead, UKR is force to pull one act of desparation after another.

Withdrawals are extremely dangerous and require a lot of skill.  Using one of their best units to achieve withdrawal is extremely smart, not desperate.

1 hour ago, Rokko said:

It almost looks as if they just don't have any strategic reserves, at all.

That's because they don't.  They threw everything they had into the summer offensive.

1 hour ago, Rokko said:

The underlying issue, at least to me, seems to be that RU has been running circles around UKR in terms of force generation for basically all of 2023 and ongoing. They may use these forces inefficently, but are able have brigade after brigade mauled while storming some fortress town, while UKR is forced to send the same couple of fire brigade units from hot spot to hot spot. The fact that UKR is basically cut off from foreign assistance and is likely going to be for the foreseeable future does not help in this matter, but their force generation issues seem to be a largely internal problem.

Yes, Russia's ability to bribe people into dying for no reason is impressive.

Steve

[Centurian52]

As far as Russian force generation, I heard they probably had a bit over 600 thousand troops in Ukraine as of December 2023.

That comes initially from a statement from Putin asserting they had 617 thousand troops in Ukraine, which is not a reliable source. But it was apparently backed up by a Ukrainian intelligence estimate that there were around 600 thousand Russian troops in Ukraine. Based on ISW reporting it sounds like the main Russian recruitment strategy is to offer large financial incentives, which are very appealing to the poorer sectors of Russian society. That means when the Russians start running low on money they'll need to find a new recruitment strategy. They certainly will not be able to leverage their larger population, which people seem to be inexplicably making a big deal about.

So their recruitment efforts over the course of 2023 seem to have been just about enough to replace losses, plus a bit to slowly increase the overall force size (I think they had something like 500k at the beginning of 2023?).

Ukraine apparently had around a million troops in uniform at the beginning of 2023, and apparently similarly mostly just replaced losses throughout 2023 with current numbers apparently being around 1.1 million.

As far as casualties, I'm not sure if I can trust the absolute numbers provided by third party estimates. But whenever third parties use the same methodology to estimate both Ukrainian and Russian casualties the Russian casualties usually seem to be between 1.5 and 2.2 times higher than Ukrainian casualties. From what I'm hearing the actual fighting on the ground is pretty even, and the likely higher Russian casualties is probably a reflection of the fact that they have generally been on the offensive, and they have generally been more willing to continue pressing costly offensives.

Edited February 15 by Centurian52

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

As far as Russian force generation, I heard they probably had a bit over 600 thousand troops in Ukraine as of December 2023.

That comes initially from a statement from Putin asserting they had 617 thousand troops in Ukraine, which is not a reliable source. But it was apparently backed up by a Ukrainian intelligence estimate that there were around 600 thousand Russian troops in Ukraine. Based on ISW reporting it sounds like the main Russian recruitment strategy is to offer large financial incentives, which are very appealing to the poorer sectors of Russian society. That means when the Russians start running low on money they'll need to find a new recruitment strategy. They certainly will not be able to leverage their larger population, which people seem to be inexplicably making a big deal about.

So their recruitment efforts over the course of 2023 seem to have been just about enough to replace losses, plus a bit to slowly increase the overall force size (I think they had something like 500k at the beginning of 2023?).

Ukraine apparently had around a million troops in uniform at the beginning of 2023, and apparently similarly mostly just replaced losses throughout 2023 with current numbers apparently being around 1.1 million.

As far as casualties, I'm not sure if I can trust the absolute numbers provided by third party estimates. But whenever third parties use the same methodology to estimate both Ukrainian and Russian casualties the Russian casualties usually seem to be between 1.5 and 2.2 times higher than Ukrainian casualties. From what I'm hearing the actual fighting on the ground is pretty even, and the likely higher Russian casualties is probably a reflection of the fact that they have generally been on the offensive, and they have generally been more willing to continue pressing costly offensives.

Another tidbit we've learned is that Russia refuses to let the soldiers mobilized in 2022 be released from duty.  If they did that, whatever amount that's survived to this point would need replacing.  Who knows what that number is, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was 100,000.  At a regeneration rate of 20k per month, that's 5 months supply.  That's a lot.

Steve

[dan/california]

4 hours ago, OBJ said:

Sorry, know this takes discussion in a new direction that is way above the CM level, still, Nukes in space, Trump NATO fallout.
Direct relevance to this thread, would Putin attack Ukraine or any NATO country in the future if the country being attacked had nuclear weapons? Apparently the Germans are asking this question for themselves. EU disunity and German unification agreements are listed as the current biggest obstacles. 

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-rethinks-bundeswehr-and-deterrence/a-68248353

As US resolve and reliability come into ever greater question, the thinking here appears to be if Iran and North Korea can/do have them, Israel, India and Pakistan do have them, why not the rest of the west, nuclear proliferation being the new deterrence? Note South Korea and Japan are asking this question also, albeit re deterring China/North Korea. 

Article also includes interesting chart on NATO defense spending 2014-2022 compared to 2023 by country.

Very interested in all opinions, but especially those in European countries.

The nonproliferation treaty died when we didn't send Ukraine enough support in the first year. Trump's recent ranting is just nail gunning the coffin shut like a carpenter who took a bunch more meth to make it to work on Monday after an all weekend bender.

4 hours ago, OBJ said:

re naval drones, US 'Replicator' initiative. 'Hellscape' thinking sounds encouraging.

https://news.usni.org/2024/02/14/navy-will-stand-up-lethal-drone-unit-later-this-year-first-replicator-usvs-picked

"The second squadron will focus on small USVs, building on the medium and large USVs that the Unmanned Surface Vessel Division ONE (USVDIV-1) has been experimenting with for the last two years, USNI News understands.

Last year, the Navy experimented with its medium and large USVs to operationalize test platforms with real units as the Pacific Fleet refines concepts for using unmanned systems.

Those concepts are set to inform the emerging “hellscape” concept that would use swarms of unmanned platforms to thwart a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, USNI News previously reported."

Always good to see and indication the Pentagon is paying attention to what is happening in Ukraine.

 

Quote

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2015/march/the-secret-to-the-worlds-most-silent-submarine

Sweden seems to be the world leader in conventionally powered submarines, a version of this system on a USV that could submerge for the last ~ten kilometers of its attack run would have ships breaking in half from 500kg warheads going off under their keels with no idea what had killed them.

 

[Beleg85]

Ukrainians reportedly left "Zenith" in the south (position as held for 1,5 year), but rather without fight. There are various news as to state of Ukrainian forces in what appears to be a cauldron around southern part of the town being closed fast. Some people seem to be panicking a little bit, but it seems situation is very difficult, with one-two field roads as avenues of escape. They are withdrawing but Russian pressure on the flanks is rising.

[Kraft]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Another tidbit we've learned is that Russia refuses to let the soldiers mobilized in 2022 be released from duty

This is not generally true, I know mobiks who returned out of combat service and not because they are missing a leg.

Edited February 15 by Kraft

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... didn't take long for some GOP members to realize the "national security threat" statement by Turner was intended to tip the balance towards Ukraine funding:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4470100-turner-accused-of-reckless-disregard-as-gop-colleague-asks-for-formal-inquiry/

Steve

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

Congress is adjourning until 2/28 and will come back to schedule that compacts two crucial budget votes into the first two weeks. The sudden adjournment is telling...in that moving it forward seems clearly designed to avoid a discharge petition. 

The story here isn't the self fools...it's that the Speaker of the House is clearly going to avoid giving Ukraine aid at all costs. 

The Democrats have to keep the pressure up. There need to be people flying all over the country if that is what takes to get. the discharge petition done. If the petition is impossible then

 

5 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/14/joe-biden-could-send-millions-of-artillery-shells-to-ukraine-for-free-tomorrow-and-its-perfectly-legal/?sh=539a38ba20c7

"The law caps annual transfers of so-called “excess defense articles” at a total value of $500 million a year. But the same law doesn’t dictate how much value the president assigns to a particular weapon. He in theory could price an item at zero dollars."

"Biden only rarely has used his EDA authority for Ukraine. And where he has used it, lately it’s been a part of complex “ring-trades” where the U.S. government gives excess weapons to third countries—Ecuador and Greece, to name two—then encourages those same countries directly or indirectly to give to Ukraine some of their own surplus weapons."

"Why Biden hasn’t already put in motion this plan is unclear. It’s possible—likely, even—he prefers to hold out for $60 billion in fresh funding, which gives him more options for buying, or even developing from scratch, a wide array of weapons for Ukraine.

But once Biden decides, as many other observers already have decided, that Russia-aligned Republicans never will approve more money for Ukraine, he could lean on his EDA authority—and speed millions of shells to Ukraine’s starving batteries."

They need to do THIS before Ukraine's military position is unsalvageable, not after.

[Kraft]

5 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Ukrainians reportedly left "Zenith" in the south (position as held for 1,5 year), but rather without fight. There are various news as to state of Ukrainian forces in what appears to be a cauldron around southern part of the town being closed fast. Some people seem to be panicking a little bit, but it seems situation is very difficult, with one-two field roads as avenues of escape. They are withdrawing but Russian pressure on the flanks is rising.

The more threatening is the push from the north, which is about to cut off the escape road. Current ground conditions arent ideal to move through the fields

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Kraft said:

This is not generally true, I know mobiks who returned out of combat service and not because they are missing a leg.

The reporting is that Russia is applying tricks and pressure to keep the majority.  A couple of weeks ago there was a wives' protest about this issue.

We've seen this done in the past.  The contractors who initially went into Ukraine were subjected to similar pressure, sometimes outright criminal actions, to keep them in uniform.  Some were put into holes so they could reconsider their decisions to leave.

Steve

[Grigb]

17 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 And then there is a the qualitative aspect - something also missing from your theory.  Russia might be able to take 20k civilians and stick old rifles in their hands, but these are not trained infantry.  We do know that European and Western run Force generation continues and they are focused on solid basic infantry training.  So if the UA is producing 5k trained infantry, while the RA is pushing out 20k meat waves, we are back to losses and who those losses are made up of.

Regarding quality of RU infantry 

Quote

The Russian member of the [Krasnoyarsk city] parliament stated that during the last year, mostly alcoholics, homeless people, whips, and prisoners have become contract soldiers.

Vyacheslav Dyukov, Deputy: Over the past year, largely alcoholics, homeless, whipped, and prisoners have become contract soldiers. The Center and Zheleznodorozhny districts are old central districts with fewer such groups than the rest of the city.

I have heard the same thing from my local contacts from different part of RU.

 

17 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

... We really are not sure what the UA theory is, but it appears to stay and hold onto areas the RA really want in order to inflict a level of casualties that is not sustainable from a Russian point of view.

From various UKR comments pre-war Strategic intent of UKR General Staff was to attrit the RU army to the point where it no longer functions as a cohesive modern fighting force. Interestingly, it was planned to be accomplished not via sheer manpower losses (since RU can replace cannon fodder), but by attrition of officers, specialists, modern equipment, and weaponry.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The issue is that he unilaterally made an announcement without the usual joint statement with the senior Dem on the committee nor with any apparent notice to the WH.  What this says to me is that he wanted to further support for Ukraine without being branded a "traitor" by other Republicans and Trump.  He even may have received a nudge-nudge-wink-wink from either his Dem counterpart or the WH, saying they would do their part to act wounded.

This is not a conspiracy theory, just a reminder that much of what goes on in DC is often more deliberate than it seems.  It's more likely there is something else underneath this than not.

Steve

Exactly what I was mumbling about.

Edited February 15 by Kinophile

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Grigb said:

From various UKR comments pre-war Strategic intent of UKR General Staff was to attrit the RU army to the point where it no longer functions as a cohesive modern fighting force. Interestingly, it was planned to be accomplished not via sheer manpower losses (since RU can replace cannon fodder), but by attrition of officers, specialists, modern equipment, and weaponry.

Yes, that tracks entirely.  It isn't about meat waves, it is everything in behind supporting those waves that is getting hit as well.  That is stuff one cannot replace in a couple weeks of training or production.

[The_Capt]

30 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

As far as Russian force generation, I heard they probably had a bit over 600 thousand troops in Ukraine as of December 2023.

From where?  That number sounds high.  Ukraine says 450k

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-war-latest-ukraine-to-focus-on-domestic-arms-production-in-2024/

I am inclined to believe them over Putin.

[Kinophile]

8 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Regarding quality of RU infantry 

I have heard the same thing from my local contacts from different part of RU.

The Russian member of the [Krasnoyarsk city] parliament stated that during the last year, mostly alcoholics, homeless people, whips, and prisoners have become contract soldiers.

Vyacheslav Dyukov, Deputy: Over the past year, largely alcoholics, homeless, whipped, and prisoners have become contract soldiers. The Center and Zheleznodorozhny districts are old central districts with fewer such groups than the rest of the city.

"Whipped" = losers? unemployed?