How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

57 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If X is important for winning the war, then losing X means you're less likely to win.  So yeah, irreconcilability matters even if we don't yet know how much

I have to disagree here because I don't think this is true in such an absolute sense. Generally saying no matter what you achieve by using X, if you lose X in the process you are less likely to win can't be true. War fundamentally means spending lifes and equipment in order to achieve goals. X may be important to win the war but that doesn't mean X necessarily has to survive the war as long as it fulfills its role. This is trivially true if e.g. X is missiles. If they knock out their intended targets but can't be replaced in this war then of course it would be better if it was possible to use them a second time but that doesn't make it less likely to win the war, right? Or, in the cold war logic, expending first echelon units was acceptable for the Soviets if they managed to break through the enemy lines so the gap could be exploited by second echelon units.

57 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You are also missing a critical point here.  In Russia's mind the Ukraine operation is a BATTLE in a larger WAR with the West.  Putin's regime believes, to its core, that losing Ukraine means losing that larger war with the West.  So what happens if does the classic "won the battle, lost the war" outcome?

Exactly. And of course an air force would be critical in order to win a larger war against the West. But by your own words, in order to not lose the larger war with the west, they cannot lose the war in Ukraine. Conversely, if they expend their air force now and win Ukraine, they have time to lick their wounds and rebuild. After all it is unlikely NATO is going to invade Russia in the meantime. It's all a matter of whether the calculus works out for them - aren't the Russians still very much influenced by Soviet doctrine? For them it was always a cold and cynical game of numbers.

Now, whether the numbers do or do not work out for Russia, is a different question to which I don't claim to know the answer.

Edited February 29 by Butschi

[Letter from Prague]

I think even with just 5 confirmed, we can count this as Sukhoi February.

(Sukhoi mans dry).

[Twisk]

All hardware is made to be used but certain equipment is so costly that losing it will impact military power for years and years afterwards. I think it matters a lot if the war is existential or not and my impression is that this war isn't for Russia. Like its one thing for the U.S. to lose a third of its aircraft fighting the Soviet Union in a Cold War gone hot scenario but its an entirely different thing if the U.S. lost a third of its aircraft invading Grenada.


A different way to think about it is the opportunity cost. What is Russia trading these aircraft for and are they going to lose the ability to interact with their near-abroad in ways that matters to them in the future because of it?

[Butschi]

20 minutes ago, Twisk said:

I think it matters a lot if the war is existential or not

Of course. And we all do have the feeling that this war is rather existential for Putin.

[cesmonkey]

 

[masc]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

 

I'm only 35 minutes into the 3 hour! interview so hopefully it gets better but so far its pretty standard Tucker. Implying that it isn't out of the question that the US or a western power assassinated Navalny because it would help their side of the war, complaining that his lawyers told him he could be in breach of sanctions for going to Russia if the Biden administration didn't like his interview questions, that the US sanctions of Russia is actually really hurting the US economy and most Americans don't realize it (this one is new and I want to hear the reasoning), that the western governments telling their people that Ukraine will win is lying to them about the whole situation because Russia is bigger population-wise and out produces the west in shells 7 to 1 (sourced from NYT but a stupid conclusion to draw about the outcome of the war just from that), the Biden admin sending Boris Johnson to Kyiv in the first 6 months to torpedo negotiations so the war can continue and they can keep making money off it, etc. Well actually not et cetera that's all the main points so far, I think.

 

It was funny when he brought up visiting an old (American) friend who lives in Moscow with his family he was told Russia is good but don't get into politics. Very on-the-nose statement about the social contract I've read about that exists between Putin and the Russian people: you don't get into politics and I'll improve your standard of living.

 

Hopefully it gets better in the remaining 2.5 hours but I figured I'd share that stuff as a warning for anyone with a low tolerance for BS. Oh and it's Lex Fridman's podcast on youtube for anyone who wants the full thing.

[cesmonkey]

The new Ukrainian commander, Syrskyi, seems to be putting on frequent updates on his tasks on his telegram channel:

Here's the latest:
https://t.me/osirskiy/607
 

Quote

I continue to work in the military units that maintain the defense in the Avdiiv and Kurakhiv directions. Our brigades are fighting fierce battles with the overwhelming forces of the enemy. The enemy is suffering significant losses in manpower and equipment.

When working with brigade commanders, I pay the main attention to how the work at the control points is organized in relation to enemy fire damage, to the timeliness and adequacy of the decisions made in accordance with the situation, and to maintaining constant interaction between units and units.

Glory to our soldiers

 

[Kinophile]

Zelensky is sticking by 13... Still, some proofs would be preferred. 

 

[JonS]

4 hours ago, masc said:

US sanctions of Russia is actually really hurting the US economy and most Americans don't realize it (this one is new and I want to hear the reasoning)

That bit is pretty uncontroversial; imposing a sanctions regime means that theoretically no goods or services or money goes in to the target country and nothing (again, ideally) comes out. So the US loses a market for its exports, and also loses a source of cheap or otherwise desirable imports. That's at the very least disruptive, and likely to cause at least some damage in terms of missed opportunities. For example, take the economic pain and disruption a couple of winters ago when Germany abruptly stopped importing Russian gas.

The gamble/assumption is that "your" economy can handle the disruption, and "theirs" cannot.

Now, whether that is "really" hurting the US economy ... well, I mean, it's Swanson McNear. He couldn't tell you the current weather or the time right now without putting some dishonest spin on it.

"Sure, it's sunny outside but it's going to rain this afternoon because Biden is old" or "it's just turned 11am but in only a few weeks it'll be midday - lunchtime! - when the Democrat's con of daylight savings starts! Having lunch while it's still the morning makes no sense!"

Edited February 29 by JonS

[Kinophile]

Australia as a potential source of Abrams? 

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/ukraine-asks-australia-for-tanks-transport-vehicles-new-authorities/

Edited February 29 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

Omnomnomnom

[Kinophile]

The house-cleaning continues. 

 

[Twisk]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Of course. And we all do have the feeling that this war is rather existential for Putin.

Yea and I think that is the natural tension between Putin and Russia. For Putin this is an existential war but for Russia its not and there is tension in that. Its why Putin is able to burn strategic and long term assets but can't mobilize Russia into a total war footing.

Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin in many ways but not all the ways. And we also have that tension in our own discussions here to an extent.

[Kraft]

3 hours ago, Zeleban said:

 

It became apparent to Tucker that he cannot redeem ruble checks for USD

wonder why he would say that though, maybe he smelled the wind and noticed few people bought or cared about putins bs.

Cant blame them, excited to be outraged at globohomos and all you get is a biased history lecture

Edited February 29 by Kraft

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ukraine-the-latest/id1612424182?i=1000647562501

The best episode of Ukraine Today in weeks.

 

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

Australia as a potential source of Abrams? 

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/ukraine-asks-australia-for-tanks-transport-vehicles-new-authorities/

Aren't the aussie Abrams just leased from the US?

Edit: apparently not, they were purchased. Huh. Still, they'll need US approval before they can be handed over to a third party.

Edited February 29 by JonS

[sburke]

2 hours ago, masc said:

I'm only 35 minutes into the 3 hour! 

You know that is 3 hours of your life you will never get back?  Just thinking you could better spend that time on almost anything else.

[masc]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

You know that is 3 hours of your life you will never get back?  Just thinking you could better spend that time on almost anything else.

Listening to it in the background while working at least lets me tell myself I'm getting paid to listen to it.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

I have to disagree here because I don't think this is true in such an absolute sense. Generally saying no matter what you achieve by using X, if you lose X in the process you are less likely to win can't be true.

The more you rely upon something to achieve a goal, the less likely you will achieve that goal if you lack that something.  This is irrefutable logic, so I have no idea why you're trying to debate it. 

Think of going to a casino.  You have to put in money to play and losing some doesn't mean you won't come out ahead in the end.  However, as your money dwindles the chances of coming out ahead are reduced because that's just the way probability works.

Does Russia losing its entire airforce mean it can not force Ukraine to surrender?  NO.  But since Russia is relying upon that airforce, more and more apparently, to get Ukraine to surrender, losing aircraft faster than they can be replaced means if the war goes on long enough Russia won't be getting the same impact from it as it is now.

Again, this is fundamental, well proven logic.  It really isn't up for debate.  Will it affect Russia's ability to project power abroad for many years to come?  Much less debate there as the capability is based on numbers and the numbers are going to be far lower in the near future than in the near past.  Whether Ukraine shooting down 10 planes this month (or whatever it is) will affect the outcome of the war is definitely up for debate.

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

Exactly. And of course an air force would be critical in order to win a larger war against the West. But by your own words, in order to not lose the larger war with the west, they cannot lose the war in Ukraine. Conversely, if they expend their air force now and win Ukraine, they have time to lick their wounds and rebuild.

Yes, absolutely.  This explains why Putin is willing to risk everything now.  However, it is pretty clear Russia will be a hollowed out shell for a decade or more after this war is ended.  That's really not favorable to winning a long term "war" with the West.

Steve

[FancyCat]

The capacity for winning cold war 2.0 will be waged via hybrid war. Putin understands, is betting on NATO being worried of the Russian nuclear threat to escalate. Sure, air force is important but what's even more important is winning in Ukraine, for winning in Ukraine guaranteeds the existence of the image of the Russian war machine and that propaganda is a essential part of any future hybrid conflict Russia wants to wage.

And sure hallowed out shell for a decade, but the thought that will be in their minds, they will have Ukraine back, and like the Russian imperialists they are,

Quote by Zbigniew Brzezińsk,

Quote

It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire

The post-Soviet inheritance Russia is losing in Ukraine, cannot be replaced by Russia alone, but this inheritance was made by Ukraine also, so without Ukraine, Russia will never be great, with Ukraine, it will have the potential if not the essential ingredient for the restoration for the Russian Empire.

[Fenris]

Clown show. 

Quote

Sochi. The Pantsir S-1 air defense missile system did not fit into the turn.

 

 

Edited February 29 by Fenris
Found unrestricted version

[MikeyD]

So Putin talks about 'DeNazification' and Tucker's response was 'Hey, I take that personally!'

Edited February 29 by MikeyD

[panzermartin]

Could the sudden surge of Su 34s losses mean that a few F16s are already operating incognito with long range missiles. (Or Russians are more and more aggressive with the airforce and pushing forward less carefully). 

I'm not sure though Russians are facing an airforce elimination problem. Because the X factor (monthly losses) is not sure to continue at that rate. They could also invest more in older types like Su 24s for lobing bombs until they figure out what is going on. Strange why they use and keep losing their more advanced planes for primitive ground attack roles, with old refurbished gliding FABs. 

 

[Sequoia]

Russia is the world's biggest country in size and 9th in population. It had and has all the potential to be a great country- one of the world's greatest. 

A one paragraph (and therefore over-simplified) version of why it I think it made the wrong choices was there was too much corruption in its leadership, and its population had never known anything else. And its leadership was butt-hurt by not being giving the respect they thought they deserved being a superpower that "voluntarily" disbanded, but "merely" that of other major European powers such as Germany or France.

  

[Sequoia]

In a way I can't say I blame the "Internationalist" such as Merkel and Clinton, and even George (I have seen his soul through his eyes ) W. for the idea that bringing China and Russia fully into the world markets would convince them that there's more money to be made that way than in conquest. First of all it's true. The status quo coalition the Captain talked about a few pages back, was making most countries rich. Yes, some countries slower than others, as some were at the trickle-down end of it all. And again, corruption in many countries ensured only a small percentage of the population were benefiting in others. But overall the system worked about as well as could be found in history. Integrating China and Russia into the status que coalition seemed logical. 

The flaw I think is dictators are never content with cooperation. The world is always a zero sum game for them. Putin in particular had fantasies about righting wrongs and Russian natural rights to certain lands as part of its Empire that Western leaders missed picking up on.