How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

P8A was ding circles over coasts of Romania late in night. Coincidence?

 

[Kraft]

2 hours ago, zinz said:

https://mastodon.social/@ragnarbjartur@masto.ai/112041991563168020

Well as reported by Ukraine. But Russian advances are not cheap for the Russians. 

The important part is the loss ratio, which at 2.2 while purely on defense is far too low. Not just to attrit russia, but to not be attrited.

Not just in vehicles, but FPV strikes are even worse, russia has near parity, but X times the amount of troops on the line to absorb the losses.

With every day russia becomes more dominant in the force equation, and the rate at which the front moves increases.

Current developments in Orlivka will expadite it

Edited March 5 by Kraft

[The_Capt]

48 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Yeah, but also record deliveries of equipment. 

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024
"This has led to significant increases in production output. For example, Russia is delivering approximately 1,500 tanks to its forces per year along with approximately 3,000 armoured fighting vehicles of various types."

Generally expected to match the loss rates this year.

C’mon cite the whole analysis:

Despite these achievements, Russia faces significant limitations in the longevity and reliability of its industrial output. Of the tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, for example, approximately 80% are not new production but are instead refurbished and modernised from Russian war stocks. The number of systems held in storage means that while Russia can maintain a consistent output through 2024, it will begin to find that vehicles require deeper refurbishment through 2025, and by 2026 it will have exhausted most of the available stocks. As the number of refurbished vehicles goes down, industrial capacity can go into making new platforms, but this will necessarily mean a significant decrease in vehicles delivered to the military.

 

[Carolus]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The number of systems held in storage means that while Russia can maintain a consistent output through 2024, it will begin to find that vehicles require deeper refurbishment through 2025, and by 2026 it will have exhausted most of the available stocks.

Russia's war is largely dependent on reserves, both the vast soviet arsenals of iron and rust, and on financial reserves which prop up the economy as a whole.

I am petty sure that trying to avoid thinking about the question "what happens when we run out?" is one of the major reasons for vodka consumption in the regime's ranks.

The West has to keep Ukraine breathing until 2026. 

Isn't it interesting how Western development and Russian development is diametrically opposed?

By the time the Russians run dry, the European defense industry will only just have started to rock and roll.

The question is how to bridge the time until then.

Edited March 5 by Carolus

[Haiduk]

"Sergey Kotov" according to interceptions of radiochat was attacked by 5 drones. Together with a ship Russians lost her onboard helicopter Ka-29

And again Budanov developed own sense of humor. Soviet rear-admiral Sergey Kotov has died in 1999 in Ukrainian Feodosia. Near Feodosia reportedly the ship "Sergey Kotov" was sunk

 

[Haiduk]

This night UKR drones struck Russian oil base in Belgorod oblast. Initailly local authorities reported one fuel tank is burning, but later local media already told about three fuel tanks in fire

 

[Haiduk]

3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Yeah! Here is the vid

Background sound is old Norvegian folk song in version of Ukrainian medieval-folk group "Spiritual Seasons", who often played on our re-enactments events ) 

[Letter from Prague]

22 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Russia's war is largely dependent on reserves, both the vast soviet arsenals of iron and rust, and on financial reserves which prop up the economy as a whole.

I am petty sure that trying to avoid thinking about the question "what happens when we run out?" is one of the major reasons for vodka consumption in the regime's ranks.

The West has to keep Ukraine breathing until 2026.

I think the specific timing will depend on how successful the Ukrainian strategic strike campaign will go. Every factory, refinery and gas terminal out of commission shortens the Russian lifeline.

[Haiduk]

Russian trainig center for foreign merceneries. Instructor says "well, we have here Nepaleses, Vietnameses, negros..."

 

[squatter]

On 3/3/2024 at 9:57 PM, The_Capt said:

Let’s say “Ok, you guys are right. Ukraine is out of options here. There are no viable way for Ukraine to continue to prosecute this war.”  Ok, so what?  What would peace negotiations look like?  How exactly do you guys see these “peace negotiations” happening.  Every time I ask this question I get some hand waving but no one has yet to unpack just how any peace negotiations could end up in anything but weakened western influence and a more vulnerable Ukraine that Russia is going to exploit.  What peace negotiation, that Russia is going to accept - while, as we are continually reminded, Russia is still capable of waging offensives to take ground?  What possible leverage does the west or Ukraine have in guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and security.  Is Russia going to offer reparations?  How about war crimes prosecution?  Is Russia going to give up an inch of ground it has taken?  Are they going to push for recognition of Crimea and Donbas as Russian provinces.

I'll take you up on this. 

I firmly believe it's within the power of the USA to end this war pretty much immediately (setting aside the madhouse of US domestic politics.)

I believe Putin has been desperate to freeze this conflict pretty much ever since the Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives raised the specter of total Russian defeat.

For me, the USA has to threaten Putin with massive upscale of support to Ukraine - F16s, more himars/glsdbs/sams/amraams etc - if he doesn't come to the table. The kind of levels of support that would empower Ukraine to attrite RUS forces to such a level that will terrify Putin and his commanders. I believe Putin would take this chance. Once ceasefire is achieved, the West begins process of arming Ukraine to the point that Russian re-opening hostilities would be insane. 

In negotiations, West agrees not to take Ukraine into NATO, but accepts into EU, and makes concrete security guarantees to in any case. UN peacekeepers in along border. Russia gets symbolic non-NATO status for Ukraine. No future invasion of Ukraine for Russia.

As for territory - Ukraine will have to accept some loss. Crimea for sure. Perhaps return to 2022 borders, with landbridge as demilitarised zone. This is difficult to accept for Ukraine obviously, but as of 2014, I don't Ukraine was ever going to get Crimea back. 

Continued sanctions and pressure on Russia to give up Putin for war crimes tribunal but he'll probably die before that happened I would guess. Reparations claims to go to international arbitration etc (obviously Russia owes immense reparations to Ukraine, but will that ever materialise under whichever circumstances this conflict ends, who knows?)

So while there will have to be difficult concessions made in negotiation, just like in Gaza, I believe the USA has the power to end this conflict whenever it sees fit. 

[The_Capt]

57 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Russia's war is largely dependent on reserves, both the vast soviet arsenals of iron and rust, and on financial reserves which prop up the economy as a whole.

I am petty sure that trying to avoid thinking about the question "what happens when we run out?" is one of the major reasons for vodka consumption in the regime's ranks.

The West has to keep Ukraine breathing until 2026. 

Isn't it interesting how Western development and Russian development is diametrically opposed?

By the time the Russians run dry, the European defense industry will only just have started to rock and roll.

The question is how to bridge the time until then.

I have to admit, one thing that did make me nervous in the second year of this war is a complete lack of a coherent western strategy with respect to this war.  We throw stuff at Ukraine until their military looks like a traveling circus.  We have never articulated strategic objectives nor really outlined how we intend to achieve them.  And we definitely do not have a coherent 2-4 year plan on how to outlast Russia.  I suspect we applied western lenses (again) to last years summer offensive and assumed victory.  This makes me very nervous for post-war reconstruction, which may very well be just as messy and ad hoc.

This whole thing feels very “making it up as we go along” and we need to change that.

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

C’mon cite the whole analysis:

Despite these achievements, Russia faces significant limitations in the longevity and reliability of its industrial output. Of the tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, for example, approximately 80% are not new production but are instead refurbished and modernised from Russian war stocks. The number of systems held in storage means that while Russia can maintain a consistent output through 2024, it will begin to find that vehicles require deeper refurbishment through 2025, and by 2026 it will have exhausted most of the available stocks. As the number of refurbished vehicles goes down, industrial capacity can go into making new platforms, but this will necessarily mean a significant decrease in vehicles delivered to the military.

 

And that is why I was very careful not to use world "new". 

In past posts I have quoted that article extensively. 

For the end result now and this year, doesn't matter whether the equipment is "refurbished". Then when we zoom out to strategic level and long term planning it does matter because the stockpiles are going to run dry in the coming years.

[The_Capt]

35 minutes ago, squatter said:

I'll take you up on this. 

I firmly believe it's within the power of the USA to end this war pretty much immediately (setting aside the madhouse of US domestic politics.)

I believe Putin has been desperate to freeze this conflict pretty much ever since the Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives raised the specter of total Russian defeat.

For me, the USA has to threaten Putin with massive upscale of support to Ukraine - F16s, more himars/glsdbs/sams/amraams etc - if he doesn't come to the table. The kind of levels of support that would empower Ukraine to attrite RUS forces to such a level that will terrify Putin and his commanders. I believe Putin would take this chance. Once ceasefire is achieved, the West begins process of arming Ukraine to the point that Russian re-opening hostilities would be insane. 

In negotiations, West agrees not to take Ukraine into NATO, but accepts into EU, and makes concrete security guarantees to in any case. UN peacekeepers in along border. Russia gets symbolic non-NATO status for Ukraine. No future invasion of Ukraine for Russia.

As for territory - Ukraine will have to accept some loss. Crimea for sure. Perhaps return to 2022 borders, with landbridge as demilitarised zone. This is difficult to accept for Ukraine obviously, but as of 2014, I don't Ukraine was ever going to get Crimea back. 

Continued sanctions and pressure on Russia to give up Putin for war crimes tribunal but he'll probably die before that happened I would guess. Reparations claims to go to international arbitration etc (obviously Russia owes immense reparations to Ukraine, but will that ever materialise under whichever circumstances this conflict ends, who knows?)

So while there will have to be difficult concessions made in negotiation, just like in Gaza, I believe the USA has the power to end this conflict whenever it sees fit. 

Ok, well now we know which camp you are in, and it definitely is not the "liberal peacenik" one.  Hmm, and I wonder which presidential candidate should be best qualified to flex this immense political power and which one is "weak and indecisive"?

Regardless, we are talking about negotiating from a position of strength here, which runs directly counter to your original position of "Ukraine is out of all options, therefore should sue for peace."  In fact you have been arguing vehemently that there are no military solutions left...and now you want to make some?

But, ok, lets put that all aside.  So if the US is going to "threaten" it must be ready to follow through.  What you are proposing is on an entire different scale than the support we have seen.  First problem will be getting the US political machine to agree to these levels of spending, and very fast spending - cries of oversight and corruption will ring.  Next problem is putting the UA in a position where they can actually absorb, integrate and operationalize these levels of support; not insurmountable but no small challenge.

Next, Ukraine will need to demonstrate military victory on the battlefield.  One cannot simply "threaten" with the Russians, we tried that.  One has to demonstrate.  So we are back to creating viable military options.

And then there is this part: "In negotiations, West agrees not to take Ukraine into NATO, but accepts into EU, and makes concrete security guarantees to in any case. UN peacekeepers in along border. Russia gets symbolic non-NATO status for Ukraine. No future invasion of Ukraine for Russia."

That is weak.  EU is an economic and diplomatic union, not a military one.  UN peacekeepers is actually an idea I have floated but one would definitely need a new Russian regime to even get Russia in the room to negotiate.  Ukraine outside of NATO would need binding security bi-lats with western troops in Ukraine a la South Korea as a minimum.  I think Ukraine outside of NATO leaves too many dangerous mouseholes open - this is why Finland and Sweden jumped in.  NATO is the one thing that appears to deter Putin and Russia and I suspect it will be the only way to actually secure Ukraine in the long term.

You are also pretty weak on reparations and war crimes.  Maybe it is the medium but your position kind of feels "oh well...watcha gonna do?"  There can be no road to renormalization with Russia without these conditions being met, that much must be clear.  If we go soft on this, certain political parties will try and weasel back to "business as usual". 

The only way the US can use its power, short of an all out war, is to push support into Ukraine in order to sustain resistance until Russia falters - we can definitely agree on this.  The idea that "this is easy" and "could be done tomorrow" is dangerously amateur and short-sighted thinking, currently being expressed by some sectors of the US political landscape...and not new to this board. 

Russia must be in forced into a position of "had enough?"  and not "hey can you please?"  At least under this regime.  This cannot be done "overnight" or "easily" under the current constraints.  This is in fact threading a pretty tough needle.  Too much and one faces uncontrolled escalation, or a full on Russian collapse...both of which are worse that this current war.  Too little and things drag on too long and western resolve and attention slips again.  This is a tricky and challenging situation in that the US cannot employ its immense power to the fullest without making thing worse both internally or externally.  This is also a pretty high stakes proxy war that must; stay limited and result in the slow death of the Putin regime and doctrine, create a secure and stable Ukraine, and somehow set the conditions for future broader regional stability.  This is not a "deal" one can make in a weekend. 

 

Edited March 5 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

18 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

And that is why I was very careful not to use world "new". 

In past posts I have quoted that article extensively. 

For the end result now and this year, doesn't matter whether the equipment is "refurbished". Then when we zoom out to strategic level and long term planning it does matter because the stockpiles are going to run dry in the coming years.

I actually think it matters quite a bit to be honest.  It matters to quality.  T90s are not surviving on this battlefield...how do we think T55s are going to do?  Under the sanctions and pressure how well are those "refurbishments" going?  Russian's are masters of "rolling out the numbers" but quality matters.

I think the route to victory is clear to be honest. This and other analysis (by Rand) agree that Russia has until about 2026 until they start to hit production breaking points.  So we keep Ukraine in the game for another 2 years.  If we get lucky, Russia has operational collapses and Ukraine can retake ground.  If this war remains a grinding mess, well we make sure we can outlast.

The direction of Russian quality is going the right way...downward.

 

[Kinophile]

31 minutes ago, squatter said:

I'll take you up on this. 

I firmly believe it's within the power of the USA to end this war pretty much immediately (setting aside the madhouse of US domestic politics.)

That's a ridiculously large caveat and exactly the kind of handwaving Der Kapitan is describing. 

It's completely unrealistic to describe any peace process that does try to take into account US political dynamics. 

Everything following after that caveat, and no matter how sensible in isolation, is simply wishing for unicorns. It's not analysis, it's "I think". 

 

[squatter]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, well now we know which camp you are in, and it definitely is not the "liberal peacenik" one.  Hmm, and I wonder which presidential candidate should be best qualified to flex this immense political power and which one is "weak and indecisive"?

It's amazing how confident you are in assessments of others character/motivation/psychology that are so hugely wide of the mark. I am from the UK, vote left-leaning and utterly despise Trump. 

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I actually think it matters quite a bit to be honest.  It matters to quality.  T90s are not surviving on this battlefield...how do we think T55s are going to do?  Under the sanctions and pressure how well are those "refurbishments" going?  Russian's are masters of "rolling out the numbers" but quality matters.

I think the route to victory is clear to be honest. This and other analysis (by Rand) agree that Russia has until about 2026 until they start to hit production breaking points.  So we keep Ukraine in the game for another 2 years.  If we get lucky, Russia has operational collapses and Ukraine can retake ground.  If this war remains a grinding mess, well we make sure we can outlast.

The direction of Russian quality is going the right way...downward.

 

Yeah, I agree.

Even with refurbishments the quality problem is not yet materializing on lets say "to a critical" extent. T-80BV and T-72 2000's models keep coming. By many estimates (including "perun"), the cases of T-55 and T-62 have been because of totally different production, warehouse and ammo "pipelines" for these being fast and available. 

We shall see when Russia starts choking here. Next year by most estimates. 

https://twitter.com/verekerrichard1

 

[hcrof]

44 minutes ago, squatter said:

I'll take you up on this. 

I firmly believe it's within the power of the USA to end this war pretty much immediately (setting aside the madhouse of US domestic politics.)

I believe Putin has been desperate to freeze this conflict pretty much ever since the Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives raised the specter of total Russian defeat.

For me, the USA has to threaten Putin with massive upscale of support to Ukraine - F16s, more himars/glsdbs/sams/amraams etc - if he doesn't come to the table. The kind of levels of support that would empower Ukraine to attrite RUS forces to such a level that will terrify Putin and his commanders. I believe Putin would take this chance. Once ceasefire is achieved, the West begins process of arming Ukraine to the point that Russian re-opening hostilities would be insane. 

In negotiations, West agrees not to take Ukraine into NATO, but accepts into EU, and makes concrete security guarantees to in any case. UN peacekeepers in along border. Russia gets symbolic non-NATO status for Ukraine. No future invasion of Ukraine for Russia.

As for territory - Ukraine will have to accept some loss. Crimea for sure. Perhaps return to 2022 borders, with landbridge as demilitarised zone. This is difficult to accept for Ukraine obviously, but as of 2014, I don't Ukraine was ever going to get Crimea back. 

Continued sanctions and pressure on Russia to give up Putin for war crimes tribunal but he'll probably die before that happened I would guess. Reparations claims to go to international arbitration etc (obviously Russia owes immense reparations to Ukraine, but will that ever materialise under whichever circumstances this conflict ends, who knows?)

So while there will have to be difficult concessions made in negotiation, just like in Gaza, I believe the USA has the power to end this conflict whenever it sees fit. 

So I don't want to dogpile this, and to be honest what you said sounds good in theory. Having said that, US threats would have little credibility right now, large deliveries would have to be made. On top of that, those deliveries would likely not include large numbers of 155 shells since the whole world is running short of those at the moment. 

So that puts us in the position that the US government has finally mobilised to help Ukraine, so expectations are going to rise again - why not take another shot at victory? Maybe because they don't have the shells - well at that point the threat is not looking so bad for Russia after all so they continue, at least to get a better negotiating position. 

The sorts of coercive diplomacy that works on small, isolated countries does not work on a conflict of this scale and commitment. Both side are in too deep to back off now. 

[hcrof]

Just now, The_MonkeyKing said:

Yeah, I agree.

Even with refurbishments the quality problem is not yet materializing on lets say "to a critical" extent. T-80BV and T-72 2000's models keep coming. By many estimates (including "perun"), the cases of T-55 and T-62 have been because of totally different production, warehouse and ammo "pipelines" for these being fast and available. 

We shall see when Russia starts choking here. Next year by most estimates. 

https://twitter.com/verekerrichard1

 

I seem to remember from peruns last video he focussed more on artillery. Russian artillery quality is degrading from mostly SPG to older towed guns and they are beginning to run low on barrels. There are still loads of towed guns in store but many of them are very old indeed and can't take modern ammunition or are limited to 12km max range (dangerously close to the front line for a relatively immobile system and very vulnerable to drones). 

[squatter]

14 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

That's a ridiculously large caveat and exactly the kind of handwaving Der Kapitan is describing. 

It's completely unrealistic to describe any peace process that does try to take into account US political dynamics. 

Everything following after that caveat, and no matter how sensible in isolation, is simply wishing for unicorns. It's not analysis, it's "I think". 

You are absolutely right, I posted what I think could lead to an end to the war and negotiations.

It's called an opinion. Much of human interaction and discourse consists of them. 

I won't post what I think WILL happen, because that's completely outwith of my powers to predict. Who knows wtf state the USA will be in this time in 12 months. 

[The_Capt]

21 minutes ago, squatter said:

It's amazing how confident you are in assessments of others character/motivation/psychology that are so hugely wide of the mark. I am from the UK, vote left-leaning and utterly despise Trump. 

 

Well you might want to sit down and have a conversation with yourself then because these are the exact same lines being used in the MAGA camp right now = "easy button of US power", "vague hand waving on details" and obstinate belief that there is an easy solution in face of obvious counter-facts.  Oh, and let's not forget the obstinate refusal to see any viable solution other than your own because of "what you think".  FFS we just had FlimFlam or whatever in here doing pretty much exactly what you are.

Look, maybe you are who you say you are and this whole thing is a big miscommunication, but your timing and profile are highly suspicious.  You posted once back in 2013 and then disappear for 11 years, only to come back on this specific thread espousing a lot of the same lines we have heard from the US political far right...just after Adiivka.  Your problem space is straight out of the MacGregor school of analysis and your solutions are pull straight from the MAGA camp.

Whatever, fine.  You have clearly expressed your opinion and now we all know it.  

 

 

Edited March 5 by The_Capt

[Kinophile]

...For now. 

 

[The_Capt]

14 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Yeah, I agree.

Even with refurbishments the quality problem is not yet materializing on lets say "to a critical" extent. T-80BV and T-72 2000's models keep coming. By many estimates (including "perun"), the cases of T-55 and T-62 have been because of totally different production, warehouse and ammo "pipelines" for these being fast and available. 

We shall see when Russia starts choking here. Next year by most estimates. 

https://twitter.com/verekerrichard1

 

What I really want to know is the quality of those T72s and T80s.  Pushing a newer model out the door does not mean its internals are functioning as designed.  I am assuming western intelligence is chasing after this stuff and the real answer is likely classified for now.  But these are the types of indicators one watches out for - stuff like older sights, cheaper electronics and other corner cutting.

We wrestle a lot with the actual state of the Russian military and that is hard only being able to see from this altitude.

[The_Capt]

Just now, Kinophile said:

...For now. 

 

The grey ones are Priggy's Fleet...singing in the Pandemonium Choir.

[buena]

1 hour ago, squatter said:

In negotiations, West agrees not to take Ukraine into NATO, but accepts into EU, and makes concrete security guarantees to in any case. UN peacekeepers in along border. Russia gets symbolic non-NATO status for Ukraine. No future invasion of Ukraine for Russia.

 

I believe you when you say you're from the UK beacuse you have no idea how the EU works