How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

4 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

5. Stop acting as if we have a choice in the matter.

There is always a choice.

[Grigb]

6 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

My explanation would be Ukrainians kept light forces in Avdiivka simply cause of potent fortifications that multiplied their value- there was no need to put more mechanized units in forming cauldron. There were some tank reinforcements stationed near by from strategic reserve, btw. but they decided to use 3rd Brigade on mostly light vehicles to secure corridor. Makes sense.

The thing is Lastochkino was not inside of the cauldron. Still no Bradley or Abrams came to counter attack RU push over open field toward Lastockino. But we do know that Bradleys operate even inside village type areas (T-90 incident). UKR command made conscious decision not to involve mech units even when it was military sensible.

Mech counterattack at that precise moment would undoubtedly stabilize the entire situation and most likely prolonged Avdiivka defense. Either UKR command is stupid, or they were concerned with something else. 

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

There is always a choice.

In your head yes. But this idea will leave your head as soon as RU soldier hits you in the head with buttstock on your way to the torture or execution chamber. 

[Grigb]

Murz is seriously upset now.

Quote

You posted my words that "soon mobiks will be ordered into battle with shovel handles [only] ." In the soldier's appeal, which the military prosecutor's office did NOT ACCEPT in January of this year (although they did not have a right to reject it), it says among other things:

"Since 01/19/2023, from the moment of arrival in the SMO zone, to the present day, our battalion has not had a single AGS or mortar to carry out effective offensive actions."

In principle, half of the road to shovel handles has been passed. Don't you think so? The [RU] infantry does not even have the minimum that it was supposed to have during the years of the Great Patriotic War - [It does not have TOE complement of 82mm] mortars.

Military production - Russia is winning that part.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

5 "claimed"

But yeah, someting is up. Ukraine surging air defence after Russia has started surgeing its air power.

Can't all be friendly fire either, which is the go-to answer for how Russian planes fall out of the sky without giving Ukraine credit for it.

Steve

[cesmonkey]

 

[cesmonkey]

Quote

If Congress approves more funding for Ukraine, the U.S. could include the long-range ATACMS in one of the first packages of military aid paid for with that money, according to the two U.S. officials. The U.S. also has ammunition and artillery ready to send to Ukraine immediately if the funding is approved, the officials added.

The officials did not rule out asking allies to provide the missiles to Ukraine, as well, and replenishing their ATACM stockpiles.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

[Battlefront.com]

24 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Murz is seriously upset now.

Military production - Russia is winning that part.

A few pages ago I said it appears that Russia has come up with what it needs to arm the meat waves with something other than 1940s era weapons.  If I was making a more detailed statement I would have limited the comments to small arms and grenades.  This is all meat waves need to perform their function and training them to use anything more complicated than that takes time.  This is what I was getting at where it seems Russia has adjusted its overall strategy to incorporate the shortages of time and materials needed to employ infantry support weapons.

Russia is largely able to pull this off because it is on the offensive.  AGS, HMGs, light mortars, etc. are critical for defensive ops, not critical for rushing a bunch of infantry 100s of meters to a trench and (if they survive the journey) dropping them off.  However, on the defense the enemy comes to you and if you can't reach out and stop them then you give the attacker a huge advantage.

This strategy Russia built is a house of cards built on the presumption that there's an endless supply of meat to keep the offensive strategy going.  So far they've been able to do it, contrary to predictions here and even recent historical precedent (Afghanistan and 1st Chechen War).  But if they do start to run out of volunteers, then their strategy is doomed without a mass mobilization.

As I've said since my second or first post to this thread... it's all about killing Russians in large numbers as quickly as possible.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Grigb said:

A bit of Murz hysterics (he was talking to close friend)

Quote

(old friend's name), copters are guys' lives. The Ministry of Defense is decreasing purchases. Putin is being lied to that [RU MOD] have everything. People are dying. Constantly. Massively. UKR [drones] are in the air. Everywhere and always.

Avdiivka - 16,000 of our 200 [dead]. Sixteen ****ing thousand. [that's RU losses in] Afghanistan in ten years. Four months of terrible ****ing meat [assaults] with columns of burnt vehicles.

You don't see this on TV, because Gusinsky [Eyltsin era RU media magnate] is in Spain, NTV [previously opposition TV channel owned by Gusinsky] does not exists any more, Tanya Masyuk (here I ****ed up, she's Lena) [infamous opposition reporter] can't interview the UAV operator of the AFU, who just killed another Russian soldier with a [cheap] copter just for 40,000 rubles [423 USD], who is glad he did it and will do it again now. [Murz basically argues that Ru Nats back home are unable to comprehend harsh reality because there is no longer opposition television to present them the inconvenient truth from the perspective of the RU enemy.] 

Expand  

The Russian celebration of Avdiivka's capture is in full swing.

I find it interesting, and quite amusing, that Murz is freaking out about the losses for this one battle without putting it into the context of the entire war.  Or at a minimum Bakhmut, which likely had losses 2x as high.  He's obviously not stupid nor ignorant of the costs of this war, he's obviously upset about them, yet... he's not making fairly obvious points.  Is he afraid that connecting too many dots might get him a cell next to Girkin?

Steve

[Kinophile]

6 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I am hoping for that as well, but I am not sure how this could happen.

Russian glide bombs are tossed from the distance of 50 km to front line on the Russian side. AFAIK Su 34 (and as of late also Su 24 unfortunately) approach high and fast from a direction roughly perpendicular to the frontline and at the furthest possible distance, they make the toss - pull up and release the bomb. Then they immediately reverse direction and head for home. Apart from the height and distance being higher, the technique is roughly similar to Russian helicopters tossing unguided rockets. 

This means, that in order to counter those attacks Ukrainian aircraft would have to be able to reliably shoot down Su 34 and Su 24 on their approach flight to the bomb release point (say 70 km behind the front on the Russian side?). Assuming the Ukrainian aircraft are F-16 with AIM 120 C they theoretically could do it, the missiles having a 100 km. range. However, F-16 would be fighting from big positional disadvantage. In order to hide from RUS SAMs and air-to-air patrols, the F-16s would probably be approaching very low. Therefore, once they release the missiles they would be firing from low up, at targets first fast approaching and then fast egressing, close to the far end of AMRAAM maximum range, from the frontal aspect of the target and then in a stern chase.  Would this scenario still yield a significant enough probability of kill? I do not know, but there are a lot of factors decreasing it compared to the theoretical optimum.

While doing this, Russian air to air patrols are a non-trivial risk factor, even now from time to time they account for Ukrainian aircraft with the R 37s. Also, while trying to hit Russians 70 km on the other side of the front, the Ukrainian F16 would have to pop up in Russian SAM envelope. In light of those risks, I do not think Ukrainians would be willing to risk their few precious F-16 if the probability of killing the glide bomb carriers is low. So I am afraid that your scenario might not happen in real life. But maybe I am wrong somewhere in this reasoning, or the Ukrainians surprise me with something. Hopefully they will. 

If there's one thing I associate with the UKR Air Force and AD forces, it's extremely calculated high-end ballsiness. Their operational and tactical aggressiveness has been in stark contrast to the RuAF. 

I'm Not saying they'll blindly attack or that the RuAF are child-murdering cowards (no wait, they are) but that with UKR every time they're given good systems they always push the capabilities to the max, and use them in ways Western forces don't even imagine, combine them in novel ways with other, compounding systems. They're not magicians but they are inventive as hell. 

You've described the problem but I highly doubt the UKRAF will let that sit. 

Edited February 19 by Kinophile

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

In your head yes. But this idea will leave your head as soon as RU soldier hits you in the head with buttstock on your way to the torture or execution chamber. 

Your refreshingly belligerent way of communicating never fails to amaze me.

For your education: It was part of a quote. The full one goes like this, I think:

Quote

There are always choices. But sometimes there are no good ones.

 

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

There is always a choice.

Not if you want to keep your honor, freedom and self respect. 

[Aragorn2002]

30 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Your refreshingly belligerent way of communicating never fails to amaze me.

For your education: It was part of a quote. The full one goes like this, I think:

 

But he ain't wrong, is he?

Playing with semantics  can be irritating, so you've asked for it.

 

Edited February 19 by Aragorn2002

[Aragorn2002]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Guess who said this. World War 2 was just finished. "I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them... the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks."

Patton?

Love that guy.

Edited February 19 by Aragorn2002

[Grigb]

49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I find it interesting, and quite amusing, that Murz is freaking out about the losses for this one battle without putting it into the context of the entire war.  Or at a minimum Bakhmut, which likely had losses 2x as high.  He's obviously not stupid nor ignorant of the costs of this war, he's obviously upset about them, yet... he's not making fairly obvious points.  Is he afraid that connecting too many dots might get him a cell next to Girkin?

Steve

It looks like some time ago he had a friendly talk with the same folks with whom Girkin spoke before moving to the jail. He has recently been avoiding writing negative posts regarding RU MOD. So, he is definitely conscious of the danger. But Avdiivka's victory seems to have pushed him out of allowed boundaries (but not too far yet).

[Butschi]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Depends on how realistic one's thinking was heading into 2023.  It would have been nice if Ukraine had a better year, but it is still keeping up the fight and that is the most important thing beyond this or that battle.  And from a military basis, Ukraine kicked a lot of *** in 2023 despite not retaking much territory.  Normandy looked pretty bad for the Allies for quite a while before it wasn't.

I mean, I think it must have been a letdown. I expected much less because I'd been on the sceptical side. I'd like to say "told you so" but that would be claiming I was sceptical from superior reasoning or something and not just because of my nature and education.

A little caution with Normandy comparison, though: It really cuts both ways, I think.

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, the calculations for victory/defeat have not been finalized yet.  That's true for any war that hasn't concluded, why should this one be different?  However, we already know that Russia has lost this war according to any reasonable objective assessment and absolutely according to Russia's own stated objectives.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Trying a potentially flawed WW2 comparison myself: France and UK declared war on Germany because they had guaranteed Poland's freedom. If you go by stated wargoals at the beginning of a war, and look at them a year into the war, both countries failed miserably. Poland was occupied, France had surrendered and the UK had to leave all their heavy equipment in Dunkirk. But as you say yourself, the calculations for victory/defeat are finalized later and at least UK is generally considered to be part of the winning team (France was more of a political decision, I think?)

I'm not arguing at all the point that so far Russia mainly managed to royally f*ck up the initial invasion and afterwards to not get steamrolled out of Ukraine. But there are still enough possible scenarios which could be counted as a draw or even a not so glorious victory for Russia. Putin could certainly spin it that way but I think that even quite a few of us here would grudgingly acknowledge a scenario where Ukraine has to retreat behind the Dnipro because the West stopped supporting them (easy to imagine if Trump gets elected), does not get admitted into NATO and EU, has much of its population scattered throughout the world, etc. a minor victory for Russia in the long run.

At the end of the day that is rather moot, too, I think, because this is not a game where all players agree on a set of rules and goals by which victory is measured before the match. The parties involved will make up the rules as they go.

Ah sorry, everyone, it's my gloomy day, I suppose.

[Battlefront.com]

34 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Your refreshingly belligerent way of communicating never fails to amaze me.

For your education: It was part of a quote. The full one goes like this, I think:

 

You are correct, that option exists and we see the right wing politics embracing this fully in the US and other countries.  The rank and file keep being told that they have the choice to do nothing *and* not suffer ramifications.  Grigb is saying that if the objective is to be left alone, then there is no choice but to act.  Which is the thing isolationists and pacifists have great difficulty reconciling.

Steve

[Ales Dvorak]

2 hours ago, Grigb said:

In other news - Whoever blew Nost Stream up very conveniently (for RU) left one pipeline undamaged and ready to work.

And?

[Harmon Rabb]

Gonna wait for more information and keep an eye out regarding this story. Lots of mixed reports right now.

HUR Confirms Death of Russian Helicopter Pilot Who Defected to Ukraine With Mi-8 (KyivPost)

Edit: The KyivPost says that his death is confirmed. Looks like the covert war inside the European Union continues.

Here's hoping General Budanov can retaliate. We have already seen RU pilots assassinated inside Russia itself.

 

Edited February 19 by Harmon Rabb

[Butschi]

10 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Not if you want to keep your honor, freedom and self respect. 

 

10 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Playing with semantics  can be irritating, so you've asked for it.

But to value honor, freedom and self respect higher than peace and your life is in itself already a choice you've made and a choice that was made many times throughout history (with both outcomes).

That is not semantics. It makes all the difference in the world to make that choice deliberately or be forced to.

[Aragorn2002]

7 minutes ago, Butschi said:

 

But to value honor, freedom and self respect higher than peace and your life is in itself already a choice you've made and a choice that was made many times throughout history (with both outcomes).

That is not semantics. It makes all the difference in the world to make that choice deliberately or be forced to.

Peace can only exist when there is honor, freedom and self respect. If they  are missing there ain't no peace.

If there ever was a reason to prepare for war, it's now.

 

Edited February 19 by Aragorn2002

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Patton?

I with good ol' Aragorn on this.  Guessing Patton.

Good posts (my) overnight.  5 planes in a week.  That's some good news.  Andiivka lost, but it was a pile of rubble anyway.  And as was pointed out, cost a division.  Yes, can be replaced, but it's still a division off the chessboard.  W replacements there could've been two divisions.  but there's just one, again.  

Steve made good point that I've been thinking about lately.  Headlines in the media are a very bad way to judge things.  And those headlines will say things like "Andiivka falls, can weary UKR fight on?" or some such.  I am sure similar headlines we're there for Normandy, as Steve said.  Same for N Afrika - El Alamein retreat by the brits, without realizing Rommel had an already unsustainable supply line that had just gotten ~600km longer.  The underlying big picture of the war did not change w Andiivka, despite the pants-wetting we will see from the press and some folks.  UKR can fight on, and at some point something breaks enough for one side that they negotiate and end to active hostilities.  but we're not even close to breaking for UKR, sadly for certain Putin-funded US House members.

 

[Butschi]

4 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Peace can only exist when there is honor, freedom and self respect. If they  are missing there ain't 

Vichy France would like a word with you.

[Carolus]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Vichy France would like a word with you.

The collaborator regime? Which was neither free nor honorable?

I am not even sure they had much self-respect.

Surely, you jest.

Edited February 19 by Carolus

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I mean, I think it must have been a letdown.

Sure, I was hoping they would make it to Tokmak at least.  I thought that was a realistic possibility, but Russian defenses were too strong *AND* (this is the important part) Russia was able/willing to burn up the remaining relatively competent forces it had to hold ground.  Notice we've not seen much in the way of VDV and Spetsnaz going on the attack for many months now.

I am disappointed that Ukraine did not achieve more and that what it did achieve cost it so much.  But I am not "letdown" by the end result.  This is war and setbacks MUST be expected.

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Trying a potentially flawed WW2 comparison myself: France and UK declared war on Germany because they had guaranteed Poland's freedom. If you go by stated wargoals at the beginning of a war, and look at them a year into the war, both countries failed miserably. Poland was occupied, France had surrendered and the UK had to leave all their heavy equipment in Dunkirk. But as you say yourself, the calculations for victory/defeat are finalized later and at least UK is generally considered to be part of the winning team (France was more of a political decision, I think?)

Using your analogy, and putting aside the fact that neither France nor the UK did almost nothing to help Poland, Germany was the "winner".  And yet less than 6 years later it was a smoking shell occupied and permanently dismembered from its prewar territory.  It not only lost the Polish lands it stole from first Poland and then the Soviet Union, but it lost East Prussia and a great deal of other territory it had for hundreds of years.

So... did the UK and France "win" the war in 1939?  No.  And neither did Germany.  The short term results didn't matter to either side in the end because the war did not stop there.

Another analogy is someone robbing a bank and escaping with large amounts of cash.  Did the robber "win"?  Sure looks like it until the SWAT team raids his house and in the process shoots him dead.  Can't spend money if you're dead, so what was that "win" worth?

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I'm not arguing at all the point that so far Russia mainly managed to royally f*ck up the initial invasion and afterwards to not get steamrolled out of Ukraine. But there are still enough possible scenarios which could be counted as a draw or even a not so glorious victory for Russia. Putin could certainly spin it that way but I think that even quite a few of us here would grudgingly acknowledge a scenario where Ukraine has to retreat behind the Dnipro because the West stopped supporting them (easy to imagine if Trump gets elected), does not get admitted into NATO and EU, has much of its population scattered throughout the world, etc. a minor victory for Russia in the long run.

At the end of the day that is rather moot, too, I think, because this is not a game where all players agree on a set of rules and goals by which victory is measured before the match. The parties involved will make up the rules as they go.

Ah sorry, everyone, it's my gloomy day, I suppose.

Russia has lost this war by all standards, including Russia's own.  That's the only thing that's certain about this whole tragic event.  As I said, Russia is continuing on because it's lost so much already that it feels it has to fight its way to a better conclusion than it would have today. 

Russia is no different than an incompetent gambler that has already lost all his cash, his car, and his house looking at his options and deciding that putting another bet on a horse or a hand of cards is the way out of the mess he created for himself.  It's logical and perhaps the only option of improving his situation, but it's not very realistic.  It's also not smart.

This is why the West tried SO VERY HARD to give Putin "off ramps" at the beginning of the war.  They offered him something better than what he was headed for, but he was delusional about his chances of getting a better outcome by keeping the war going.  And so the war continues.

Steve