How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[mosuri]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

2 more Su34 plinked? 

If so, it's a good day today!

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Isn't that a general description of war? The question is just how many inches you get per death, right?

Well, this is the best Russia can come up with.  Because trying to measure how many angles fit on the head of a pin isn't something they can measure since they have no angles.

Steve

[Thomm]

Camera drone chasing a formula 1 car. Nice visuals and an interesting reference, IMHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pEqyr_uT-k

 

[JonS]

6 hours ago, Grigb said:

So, the ultimate decision rests with the heads of state.

Well, yes. Is there somewhere else you think it should rest?

[JonS]

7 hours ago, Grigb said:

So, if an unknown submarine (from RU) torpedoes US boat in Pacific Ocean will Germany gets involved or (given RU denial and US unwillingness to disclose intelligence sources publicly) just say it was probably China, so not our problem?

So, is this silly hypothetical sub from Russia, or is it unknown. Because right now all you have is Schrödinger's sub ... which might not even have been a sub, let alone a Russian one. And that isn't a good basis for anyone to be declaring war over.

Edited February 27 by JonS

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The aim here is not to become Lords of Marshlands, it is to threaten Russian LOCs in the entire sector.  This will force an RA response and reallocation of forces (in the biz we call this “seizing the initiative”) or risk having to pull out.  That is the value of this operation, not water buzzard nesting grounds.

Well put.  Yup, this is what lies behind my initial post... it's not about taking a lot of territory, it's about being a serious PITA in Russia's, er, A.  The terrain is well suited for this because isn't good attacking country.  Infiltration and defense, on the other hand, are way better here than the open fields Ukraine tried to fight for last summer.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The next question is “can they do it, light?”  Can they upscale Krynki but not run afoul of the dangers of mass in this war?  This we do not know.  Light has done some pretty amazing stuff in this war, but mostly on the defence.  We saw hints at Kharkiv as Light forces broke out, not heavy.  But I am still not sure if light infantry, precision fires and unmanned can actually pull off a series of sustained raids that create (as opposed to enable) operational effects leading to decisions.  All I can say is that if I wanted to try out that theory, I would pick the Kherson sector.

The way I envision it is significant number of separate platoon sized landings spread apart enough to thwart easy retaliation.  Distributed mass, as it seems we've taken to calling this strategy.

Each of these landings would be backed up by at least a company sized force.  The landings that seem to have the easiest time get their full company, the ones that don't withdraw and their company/s are redeployed to reinforce whichever ones are successful.

Once a new (small) bridgehead has been established the mission should be to slice the Hell out of Russia's LOCs.  This is one application of traditional maneuver warfare that I think is still possible.  I think back to what Ukraine did with its 2014 summer counter offensive where a tank and squad drove until it got stopped.  The Russians (sorry, I mean "Ukrainian Separatists".  No, really, I did mean that!) were too disorganized and surprised to act cohesively. 

There'd be more challenges for Ukraine this time around, but what it boils down to is that the Russian forces in this area haven't shown that they are the impressive types.  I have a gut feeling that they'd be prone to panic if they get reports of Ukrainians "everywhere" while at the same time artillery is pounding them into the ground.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

But as you say, we will have to wait and see.

Indeed.  I don't expect anything to start until the weather dries up, but things may already be in motion for something.

Steve

[poesel]

8 hours ago, Rokko said:

So basically what he is saying is:

1) GER will not get involved in the war directly under any circumstances.

 

Ach - how have I missed Germany bashing day. Seufz...

15 minutes ago, JonS said:

Well, yes. Is there somewhere else you think it should rest?

Actually, yes. The parliament. Which is, for historical reasons, the way it is in Germany. The government can only petition the parliament to go to war. You would need a two-thirds majority which the current government doesn't have. Then that needs to be approved by the second chamber, too.

We made quite sure one person cannot start a war from Germany again.

[Eddy]

33 minutes ago, squatter said:

Genuine question: why is RUS artillery more vulnerable supporting Kryki than any other sector of the front? 

If a SPG is firing 40km from the front, what makes one 40kms more dangerous than the next?

In my limited understanding, the terrain on the right bank (Kherson city bank) has a higher elevation than the left bank which, I think, results in an advantage for the Ukrainian arty firing from there (on top of the logistical reasons outlined by Steve).

[FancyCat]

Considering the artillery rationing ongoing, these talks of actions to drain Russian forces seems premature. Ukraine's ability to conduct these actions also relied on artillery, superior ISR to strike Russians as they attempted a advance.

The manufacturing power of Europe and America has so far been very disappointing. I hope to God that Europe does not delay in sourcing artillery shells worldwide. This is not the time for Europe to sit idly by. How is any country relying on Western security supposed to be pleased right now?

Hopefully the EU breakthrough on those Czech sourced shells is quick. One thing to note, U.S global transportation network was important in transferring equipment from worldwide to Ukraine, I hope UK can pick up the slack if U.S cannot handle transportation.

[dan/california]

 

[FancyCat]

https://www.ft.com/content/10df6f24-7ce6-407f-8509-76c65ec6e740

Quote

Germany’s deputy chancellor said there was “no chance” of sending ground troops to Ukraine and, in a rebuff to France, told Paris it should instead supply Kyiv with more weapons.

Scholz on Monday said his country might find itself “a participant in the war” if it sent the missiles. “German soldiers must at no point and in no place be linked to targets this [Taurus] system reaches,” Scholz said, neither on the ground in Ukraine, nor “in Germany either”.

In a thinly veiled barb at Germany, Macron pointed out that some allies kept saying “never” to tanks, fighter jets and long-range missiles for Ukraine and that two years ago, they offered to send “sleeping bags and helmets”.

.....I don't get it, if its so bad having German soldiers setting targets up for it, why not just give it to Ukraine with the training to use it? ****ing hell. incoherent. makes no sense. whats next, a german train carried the missile to the Polish-Ukrainian border, therefore, no missile for u (could describe all German aid to Ukraine, im surprised he let it get that far). Idiotic. Makes mockery of German support for Ukraine when Scholz acts like Ukrainians are barbarians who dont know how to program a missile, or cant be expected to align with German reluctance to strike Russia proper (when they have acted as such with other weapons), or even worse, scared of saying out loud that targeting of "supposedly" Ukrainian occupied territory in Crimea is a red line for Germany.....which is just bravo, just so on par, for 10 years of occupation to be enough to erase sovereignty. 

Can't wait for occupied Donbas to be the red line 10 years down the line, then occupied Ukraine another 10, then Baltics another 10. absolute idiot. The partitions of Poland took 23 years to pan out, im sure Putin is so glad Scholz and Germany are content with 10. 

[Butschi]

19 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

https://www.ft.com/content/10df6f24-7ce6-407f-8509-76c65ec6e740

.....I don't get it, if its so bad having German soldiers setting targets up for it, why not just give it to Ukraine with the training to use it? ****ing hell. incoherent. makes no sense. whats next, a german train carried the missile to the Polish-Ukrainian border, therefore, no missile for u (could describe all German aid to Ukraine, im surprised he let it get that far). Idiotic. Makes mockery of German support for Ukraine when Scholz acts like Ukrainians are barbarians who dont know how to program a missile, or cant be expected to align with German reluctance to strike Russia proper (when they have acted as such with other weapons), or even worse, scared of saying out loud that targeting of "supposedly" Ukrainian occupied territory in Crimea is a red line for Germany.....which is just bravo, just so on par, for 10 years of occupation to be enough to erase sovereignty. 

Can't wait for occupied Donbas to be the red line 10 years down the line, then occupied Ukraine another 10, then Baltics another 10. absolute idiot. The partitions of Poland took 23 years to pan out, im sure Putin is so glad Scholz and Germany are content with 10. 

 

1 hour ago, poesel said:

Ach - how have I missed Germany bashing day. Seufz...

My favorite day. Well, almost favorite day. That place is still reserved for Monday.

Edited February 27 by Butschi

[Rokko]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

Ach - how have I missed Germany bashing day. Seufz...

To me this is what his stance implies, please elaborate if you feel I am misrepresenting. A stance, which, by the way, the chancellor seems to hold in spite of a parliamentary resolution demanding the opposite (which is his right, but still). To be clear, I don't believe Scholz does not intend to not honor Germany's commitment to NATO in case of a full scale war with Russia, I just think his stance, or rather his justification for it, is dishonest. Anyways, now that he has strongly reaffirmed this stance multiple times it will probably be impossible for him to falter on this issue, so I'd expect Taurus to be off the table indefinitely.

To say something good about the guy as well, at the moment he seems to be the only world leader of country with sufficient economic power who is commited (in his own, flawed way) to supporting Ukraine militarily and long term and on a regular basis. Shells, guns, drones and AD are necessities for Ukraine right now, whereas long-range strike capabilities are more of a nice-to-have.

PS:

Being German myself I feel I have the right to bash all I want

Edited February 27 by Rokko

[Kraft]

Trying to find reason in these excuse arguments is an exercise in futility.

They shift over time as proven over and over again as the basis for these excuses erodes.

UA is perfectly able to handle the most complex machinery with little training very successfully.

 

It wont be said out loud but there is no will to give Ukraine the capabilities with which to inflict a massive defeat on the russians.

The (more western) allies have been doing everything to keep the status quo on the front to grind russia down, nothing more and nothing less.

A quick collapse leads to the potential for political issues and instability in russia that europe and usa dont want. In a quagmire, russia is contained and the problem is postponed.

But of course, the reason for only 31 Abrams in 2 years despite storages filled with hundreds of capable machines is, let me check my notes, that they sink in mud. Or was it that theres only so few trainers in the world that the capacity just isnt there? Or was it that their engines are so fuel hungry, the logistic would break down! So many issues.. heres a list! Somehow Iraq got 140, Saudis 373, Taiwan 108,  but thats on sand, it doesnt sink there. Lets not worry about it, did you hear we said we do everything it takes?* Now go fight in M113s from the Vietnam war while we dismantle a hundred Bradleys for scraps.

Edited February 27 by Kraft

[Zeleban]

Russian propagandist Romanov complains that despite Shoigu's statements that Krynki was captured by the Russians, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were able to advance in Krynki to the west towards the Cossack Camps and that there is a TOTAL concealment of information from the high command

[FancyCat]

It's the bridge. Better incoherent nonsense than acknowledging Ukraine should give up Crimea, that Crimea is Russia. 

How long should Mariupol be occupied before Scholz considers it Russian territory? Before he declines to ship German drones to attack it? Melitopol? Idiotic. We are dealing with a man who fancies himself in the mold of Peter the Great. Eating chunks of European territory is perfectly in line.

Quote

The head of the Russian occupation administration of Zaporizhja, Yevgeny Balitsky, admitted that Russia is massively deporting Ukrainians who do not support Russia. The official admitted that the Kremlin is carrying out ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories of Ukraine

 

 

 

Edited February 27 by FancyCat

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, squatter said:

My main point is/was that I disagree with yourself/Steve/others who believe an operationally/strategically significant cross-river operation could be possible this year, as I can't see that as leading to anything other than heavy Ukrainian losses and retreat (RUS Kherson situation in reverse).

And you are basing this on...?

The RUS situation at Kherson was having mech forces on the wrong side of a river with a single LOC, that got blown up.  Now, I think it is possible but will take a lot of force generation and support to do it.  And some of what we are talking about has never been tried before.  But at this point it may be time to try something new because simply sitting back and letting Russia slowly grind away does not seem like the better option.

Frankly, I assess that Ukraine has a lower bar to go over for this sort of sustained light effort at Kherson than to try to do heavy-mech breaches further up the line.  

[Butschi]

11 minutes ago, Rokko said:

To me this is what his stance implies, please elaborate if you feel I am misrepresenting. A stance, which, by the way, the chancellor seems to hold in spite of a parliamentary resolution demanding the opposite (which is his right, but still). To be clear, I don't believe Scholz does not intend to not honor Germany's commitment to NATO in case of a full scale war with Russia, I just think his stance, or rather his justification for it, is dishonest. Anyways, now that he has strongly reaffirmed this stance multiple times it will probably be impossible for him to falter on this issue, so I'd expect Taurus to be off the table indefinitely.

To say something good about the guy as well, at the moment he seems to be the only world leader of country with sufficient economic power who is commited (in his own, flawed way) to supporting Ukraine militarily and long term and on a regular basis. Shells, guns, drones and AD are necessities for Ukraine right now, whereas long-range strike capabilities are more of a nice-to-have.

PS:

Being German myself I feel I have the right to bash all I want

Scholz annoys me to no end and I definitely hate to feel I should defend the man. Why I do it in cases like this: I may not agree with Scholz on the details and reasons but it is absolutely our right to decide which weapons we want to send and especially which weapons we don't want to send. By extension, it's Scholz right to make that call as our elected chancellor. Acting as if any other nation would handle this differently is disingenuous. I mean, there are lots of countries that are selective in what they give to Ukraine, so calling out only Germany irritates me. I have to admit that Scholz is quite gifted in setting himself up as a target, though...

[FancyCat]

18 minutes ago, Butschi said:

 

My favorite day. Well, almost favorite day. That place is still reserved for Monday.

Rest assured, I have all the love for the German Greens, whom continue to advocate for arming Ukraine, including with missiles. And my "bashing"of Germany is with the understanding that accommodation of Putin and Russia is the wrong place for Scholz to be doing (and the wrong signal to be sent in the face of no Russian de-escalation), and yes, not giving missiles is accommodating Russia in the exact same way the arguments for artillery, tanks went and like the same arguments for artillery, tanks, the same result occurred that was Russia did nothing to Germany when the item was delivered and deployed.

While EU and NATO do the same merry-go-round it did on missiles, as it did on artillery, and planes, and anti-air systems, the same things that happened the last time, Ukrainians dying will continue like always to artillery rounds coming to the front via Crimea.

Is it really "Germany bashing" to ask Scholz not engage in months and months of same backpedalling, reluctance, and ultimate fold we have seen before?

[FancyCat]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I mean, there are lots of countries that are selective in what they give to Ukraine, so calling out only Germany irritates me.

I have made much ado about the lack of Bradley's, M1s from the U.S, much annoyance with France being unwilling to buy ammo worldwide for Ukraine. And etc. but as you so note, Scholz is unique in crafting positions that make it easy to hit. But, certainly there are pages of annoyance over the lack of U.S aid in the past. This is not limited to Germany in any sense.

[Battlefront.com]

30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Frankly, I assess that Ukraine has a lower bar to go over for this sort of sustained light effort at Kherson than to try to do heavy-mech breaches further up the line.  

This was the primary thought I had about the possibilities for the bridgehead.  Modest territorial ambitions = modest men, material, logistics, and time.  And once more ground is taken, it is the sort of ground that will be very hard for Russia to regain because to do that will take more than a modest effort.

I'm very sure something will happen with Krynky in 2024.  Maybe Ukraine will wait until Russia launches some sort of general offensive this summer.  Waiting until your enemy has committed is a time honored tradition because, if done right, can pay off handsomely.  Kharkiv was certainly made a lot easier by waiting for Russia to commit more forces to Kherson.

Steve

[Butschi]

19 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Is it really "Germany bashing" to ask Scholz not engage in months and months of same backpedalling, reluctance, and ultimate fold we have seen before?

I agree, that would be most annoying. Be careful what you wish for, though, he might just be consistent and stick with his "no". This time it does sound a little different.

[poesel]

While we talk about Krynky: what happened to traversing the former lake above the Kakhovka dam? Is it dry enough, or will it be impossible to cross for the next years? Or doesn't that make any sense to do anyway?

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, Thomm said:

Camera drone chasing a formula 1 car. Nice visuals and an interesting reference, IMHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pEqyr_uT-k

 

****ing hell. Imagine these on reaction standby, hitting anything approaching so goddamn fast. And they're only going to get faster.

Im impressed by the range - at that speed it went almost 6km. Doesn't sound much but they could probably get it out to 10-15km at 200-300kmh and hit a VIP in seconds of identification. Not just one, but a whole cheap flight of them.

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Thomm said:

Camera drone chasing a formula 1 car. Nice visuals and an interesting reference, IMHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pEqyr_uT-k

 

It is interesting to get a look at at what the state of the art is in drones, as opposed to what is in mass production. This is the kind of drone tech that could finish of manned helicopters among other things. Use a Baba Yaga drone deploy a line of them at the maximum possible depth behind enemy lines with an acoustic sensor that is tuned to rotor blades. When it hears the appropriate noise it comes out to say hello at maximum speed.

Edited February 27 by dan/california