How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

Hmm...not very reliable source, but Ukrainians clearly like to spread some panic before Putin will crown himself again.

 

[FancyCat]

The gas pipelines flowing across Ukraine and Russia have transit fees that are paid to Ukraine. As long as Russia pays, no need to destroy them.

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/14/johnson-ukraine-aid-00146858

T

Speaker Mike Johnson is running out of time to solve his Ukraine aid problem — with pressure mounting inside the Capitol and around the world.

If the speaker doesn’t quickly embrace a plan to approve long-stalled foreign assistance, lawmakers in his own party could force his hand by aligning with Democrats on maneuvers that would steer aid bills around him. But whatever plan Johnson does embrace will almost surely cost him with his deeply fractured GOP conference, whose tenuous two-vote majority is already requiring him to rely on Democratic votes to pass most major legislation.

 

 

[Offshoot]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Problems in a medical system could be from many causes.  The “Soviet legacy” has become an easy-button for western analysts to explain pretty much everything.

The article I linked to about the Ukrainian medical system was written by Ukrainians, based on interviews with Ukrainians, and published by a Ukrainian media outlet.

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The Soviet medical system, for example, had its strengths and weaknesses but there was nothing inherently “wrong” with it (for example the Soviet Union had lower doctor to patient ratios than the US).  It was designed for a different baseline, much like pretty much everything else in the Soviet system.  The Soviet system was by-design aimed at supporting mass.  So failures in the current UA system buckling under the weight of casualties cannot all be thrown at the feet of Soviet legacy, when that legacy was designed specifically not to buckle under massive casualties.

We shouldn't confuse the Soviet civilian medical system with the military one. And we shouldn't assume that design and application are the same things. The main aspect of the article, however, isn't that the soldiers aren't getting treated but that they aren't getting discharged or paid due compensation as a result of bureaucracy, corruption, and inefficiency. It is easy for the system not to buckle under massive casualties when it denies those casualties exist in the first place. We have also heard plenty of first hand reports by Russian personnel about how they receive no treatment for wounds and are thrown back into the fight.

Edited March 14 by Offshoot

[Battlefront.com]

42 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

 

This is the tangible result of the Discharge Petition.  Republicans who are sick of Johnson's BS are no doubt privately telling he either has a choice to make.  If he makes the right choice, which is to stop listening to Trump and his acolytes and move legislation forward, then they won't sign the Discharge Petition.  If he doesn't, then they'll sign, humiliate Johnson, and sink the GOP further into it's already bad spot ahead of the 2024 elections.

It is no coincidence that I've started seeing renewed chatter about changing the threshold rules about calling for leadership change.  Because either way, someone is going to call for his head on a platter.  Currently it takes only one such call to have things go into leadership chaos again.

Steve

[Kinophile]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Huh?  The same legacy system that has kept Russia in this war far longer than they should have.  There is nothing militarily wrong with the Soviet system for the time it was in.  In fact a modernized Soviet system might just be better at modern warfare than the western one - massed precision, for example.

The Soviet military system demonstrated its full potential at the end of WW2 and frankly was highly effective until about the mid-80s.  If modernized there is no proof it could not be highly effective again.  We have a tendency to blame every failure on this “Soviet legacy” without really understanding what that military was, or was not.  The Soviet system had very high resilience, which the RA is demonstrating pretty much on a daily basis.  It also could marshal and project mass like no one’s business.  Problem is that the mass was “dumb” - and frankly I am not sure it was as dumb as we believed.

Problems in a medical system could be from many causes.  The “Soviet legacy” has become an easy-button for western analysts to explain pretty much everything.  

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00039R000100110060-3.pdf

https://www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/mq/volume-40/issue-04/40-4-Highlights-of-Soviet-Health-Services.pdf

The Soviet medical system, for example, had its strengths and weaknesses but there was nothing inherently “wrong” with it (for example the Soviet Union had lower doctor to patient ratios than the US).  It was designed for a different baseline, much like pretty much everything else in the Soviet system.  The Soviet system was by-design aimed at supporting mass.  So failures in the current UA system buckling under the weight of casualties cannot all be thrown at the feet of Soviet legacy, when that legacy was designed specifically not to buckle under massive casualties.

 

 

That's not entirely correct.

It kept in the war - backed up by a brutally intolerant and uncaring political system but which even that monster is worried of mobilization. 

Ukraines legacy Soviet system is not back stopped by such a system, and it's arguably very vulnerable because it won't go to the same merciless extremes. 

It's the wrong military formatting for a democracy, as it's fundamentals are predicated on an authoritarian system. 

 

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Huh?  The same legacy system that has kept Russia in this war far longer than they should have.  There is nothing militarily wrong with the Soviet system for the time it was in.  In fact a modernized Soviet system might just be better at modern warfare than the western one - massed precision, for example.

The Soviet military system demonstrated its full potential at the end of WW2 and frankly was highly effective until about the mid-80s.  If modernized there is no proof it could not be highly effective again.  We have a tendency to blame every failure on this “Soviet legacy” without really understanding what that military was, or was not.    Problem is that the mass was “dumb” - and frankly I am not sure it was as dumb as we believed.

Problems in a medical system could be from many causes.  The “Soviet legacy” has become an easy-button for western analysts to explain pretty much everything.  

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00039R000100110060-3.pdf

https://www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/mq/volume-40/issue-04/40-4-Highlights-of-Soviet-Health-Services.pdf

The Soviet medical system, for example, had its strengths and weaknesses but there was nothing inherently “wrong” with it (for example the Soviet Union had lower doctor to patient ratios than the US).  It was designed for a different baseline, much like pretty much everything else in the Soviet system.  The Soviet system was by-design aimed at supporting mass.  So failures in the current UA system buckling under the weight of casualties cannot all be thrown at the feet of Soviet legacy, when that legacy was designed specifically not to buckle under massive casualties.

 

 

That's not entirely correct, to my mind, but probably my point/idea wasn't completed. 

Its kept it in the war - but backed up by a brutally intolerant and uncaring political system - but even that monster is worried of mobilization. 

Ukraines legacy Soviet system is not back stopped by such a system, and it's arguably vulnerable because it won't go to the same merciless extremes. 

It's the wrong military formatting for a democracy, as it's fundamentals are predicated on an authoritarian system to enforce certain principles (Eg 

Russia's military works for it because it's willing to do the crazy stuff to make that crazy military work. You can have a military system that works but it has to be backed up by a system that gives it what it needs. I'm not convinced that Ukrainian democracy can treat its people in the same fashion as the CCCP. 

Quote

The Soviet system had very high resilience, which the RA is demonstrating pretty much on a daily basis. It also could marshal and project mass like no one’s business.

I'm not convinced that the Soviet system did something fundamentally new in this respect - are these not traits and effects that Russia has demonstrated for generations? Eg the Russian Army surprising Imperial German with both the scale and speed of its WW1 mobilization - and later its ability to keep going despite horrific losses? 

Edited March 14 by Kinophile

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Hmm...not very reliable source, but Ukrainians clearly like to spread some panic before Putin will crown himself again.

 

Our side keeps tough OPSEC, but relying on Russian TG posts, looks like UKR forces are providing large-scale offensive operation (yes, including helicopter landing) and this is not only free-Russia units. Russians report about heavy clashes and combined arms operation of Ukrainian side. Some their TG writes about complete fail of UKR afforts, but other not so optimistic, so it's hard to say about real situation

On this video claimed Russian soldiers surrender to free-Russia troops on southern outskirt of Spodaryushino village.

Allegedle place of helicopter landing in Kozinka, Belgorod oblast - 2 km from village center.

Belgorod is under continous MLRS and drone strikes. At least two citizens were killed. Free-Russia forces repeated today own call to civilans about immediate evacuation

Sounds of MLRS impacts in the city

Russians in own turn heavy attacked Sumy oblast with KABs and hit many cell-towers and TV transmitetrs. Also one bridge was destroyed through Vorskla river in Velyka Pysarivka village

Free-Russia troops annonced humanitarian corridor this night for border areas in Kursk and Belgorod oblasts, after this since 15th of March large-scale strikes will be started on military objects in vicinity of settlements in this area - Tyotkino - Grauvoron - Shebekino - Urazovo. There were several videos how  

 

Russian settlers flee on foot or by cars from Graivoron to Belgorod from combat zone. Feel taste of war, you, who joyfully exclaimed, when missiles and MLRS from Belgorod oblast hit Kharkiv.

 

Edited March 14 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Napoleon spirit inside Macron? )

Reportedly Macron ordered to deploy French troops on the border with so-called Transnistria and in Odesa. This can release some UKR troops from rear areas

"We have been negotiating as we could, but nothing to discuss with them. Ukraine must win. French troops will be in Ukraine. No more red lines. I'm president of France and I decide!"

Viva la France!

PS. I can't find these speech in original, but it shares by many UKR socal media. Maybe PsyOps, but somesing really happened 

 

    

Edited March 14 by Haiduk

[FancyCat]

Macron with the right idea. After months and months of Russia not de-escalating, its time for the West to up the ante. Clearly Russia has decided to opt for rhetoric of "existential" for Ukraine to fall, it is past time for Europe to recognize that should Ukraine fall, the door is opened to a age of conflict threatening the rest of Europe, and better to slam the door closed in Ukraine then in the Baltics. 

Shut it down in Ukraine or in the next 20 years we will have a renewed Russian Empire chomping at the rest of Eastern Europe. 

Quote

In a live interview on French Television President Emmanuel Macron explained the situation in Ukraine to the French people. “We will no longer have security” in Europe if Russia “wins” in Ukraine, he stated. “Our responsibility is to be strong for peace." “For 10 years, Russia has launched a war of aggression against Ukraine,” explains the head of state, adding that Europe has “done everything” for peace. The Moscow regime decided “on its own” to launch “a complete war,” he continues. “We have one objective: Russia cannot and must not win this war,” launched Emmanuel Macron. “If Russia wins this war, Europe's credibility would be reduced to zero." “Do you think that the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Estonians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians could remain in peace for a second [in the event of a Russian victory in Ukraine]?, asks Emmanuel Macron. "We will no longer have security” in Europe if Russia “wins” in Ukraine. “The security of Europe and the security of the French are at stake there [in Ukraine]" “To have peace in Ukraine, you must not be weak” "If things escalate, it would be Russia's responsibility."  “The President of the [French] Republic is in charge of national defense,” said the head of state, asked about the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, describing the conflict in Ukraine as an “existential war”. He repeats once again not to “exclude anything”, even if “we are not in this situation today.” "If things should degenerate, it would once again only be Russia’s responsibility.”

 

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Offshoot said:

The article I linked to about the Ukrainian medical system was written by Ukrainians, based on interviews with Ukrainians, and published by a Ukrainian media outlet.

We shouldn't confuse the Soviet civilian medical system with the military one. And we shouldn't assume that design and application are the same things. The main aspect of the article, however, isn't that the soldiers aren't getting treated but that they aren't getting discharged or paid due compensation as a result of bureaucracy, corruption, and inefficiency. It is easy for the system not to buckle under massive casualties when it denies those casualties exist in the first place. We have also heard plenty of first hand reports by Russian personnel about how they receive no treatment for wounds and are thrown back into the fight.

I have no argument on either the Ukrainian or Russian military medical system shortfalls.  I do have a problem with hitting the "Soviet legacy" button too often.  Hell the rampant corruption within that system may even apply; however, we (or they or whoever offers this analysis) have been far too quick to assign too many problems to "Soviet legacy" in my opinion.  This makes for weak analysis as we basically now have an iron clad assumption and do not need analysis anymore.

The Russian medical system is failing because a lot of their sustainment systems are failing.  They were never designed for the war they got.  In fact if Russia did have the Soviet era military medical system, they likely would be in far better shape.

 

[poesel]

I love the simple design. If this trend to unmanned continues, no one will be able to cross the front line anymore and the fighting will take place remotely in the hinterland.

 

 

Tests of Ukrainian mine laying drone equipped with 15 TM-62 anti tank mines

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

That's not entirely correct, to my mind, but probably my point/idea wasn't completed. 

Its kept it in the war - but backed up by a brutally intolerant and uncaring political system - but even that monster is worried of mobilization. 

Ukraines legacy Soviet system is not back stopped by such a system, and it's arguably vulnerable because it won't go to the same merciless extremes. 

It's the wrong military formatting for a democracy, as it's fundamentals are predicated on an authoritarian system to enforce certain principles (Eg 

Russia's military works for it because it's willing to do the crazy stuff to make that crazy military work. You can have a military system that works but it has to be backed up by a system that gives it what it needs. I'm not convinced that Ukrainian democracy can treat its people in the same fashion as the CCCP. 

I'm not convinced that the Soviet system did something fundamentally new in this respect - are these not traits and effects that Russia has demonstrated for generations? Eg the Russian Army surprising Imperial German with both the scale and speed of its WW1 mobilization - and later its ability to keep going despite horrific losses? 

I think you are mixing a lot of themes here to the detriment of objective analysis.  The Soviet system was designed to create as much mass as possible and project it at an opponent.  It may appear "cruel and uncaring" but in reality it was built on the brutal lessons of the Eastern Front and how a quick violent short war was far better than a drawn out one.

We vie for the same aspiration of short wars, we simply lean on technology instead of human capital.  And frankly we have no real proof either system is truly superior.

The Soviet system is a poorer fit for modern democracies; however, before we sit too high on that horse, lets not forget democracies fought in WW1 too, and were very able to throw human capital at a problem at great loss.

The reality is that there is nothing inherently "wrong" or "evil" about the Soviet military system - talking political ideology out of the equation - so long as one asks that system to do what it was designed to do.  The exact same thing goes for the Western military system.  In this war, both sides have tried the western approach...and it did not work.  Now they are in a grinding war of attrition for which the western systems is also a very bad fit.

Nor is there proof that democracies can't do attrition either.  We have proven that we are very capable at spending a lot of lives to win.  What I oppose is this reoccurring narrative that somehow all the problems all sides are having are "Soviet legacy" and any successes are somehow western modernization; this is simply not proven by what we have seen.

Russia has fallen back onto a more Soviet-like approach to force generation and employment...and clearly it is working for them.  They are able to hold ground and even conduct tactical advances even with appalling losses.  The UA is moving much farther to the western doctrine, and frankly some of it is working for them too.  They are able to hold, strike deep and have very high precision.  

The weaknesses of either system are also on display for all to see as well.  For the Soviet system it is rigidity and logistical weight, which is untenable on the modern battlefield.  For the Western system it is the serious lack of depth and capacity.

I suspect that each side is evolving to some sort of hybrid, or at least trying to.  Either way, it does us little good to point at every problem and go "difficulty upscaling due to Soviet legacy"  which frankly does not even make sense based on what Soviet legacy really was.

As to that last part I highlighted - well yes and no.  The Mongols created smart fast mass and took over half the planet, so not entire a new idea.  The Soviet system could generate modern mech and armor forces like no one else.  Their operational art was very advanced on how to employ that mass.  In many ways they really are a defining school of modern warfare, the counter-point to the western schools.  We have no actual war to try and decide which system was better to worse to be honest.  The Gulf War was the closest but it really was a poor analogue.  This war has shadows of the Soviet system but overlapped with other schools.

[FancyCat]

Quote

"If Russia wins this war, Europe's credibility will be reduced to zero," says Emmanuel Macron on the subject of Ukraine

"Our nuclear capacity gives us security": Emmanuel Macron responds to the nuclear threat brandished by Putin

 

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

I love the simple design. If this trend to unmanned continues, no one will be able to cross the front line anymore and the fighting will take place remotely in the hinterland.

What I want is mines with glide kits. Forget remote mining- imagine you want a minefield somewhere and you literally just specify the gps coordinates.

Or maybe these soviet mines can be retrofitted as a kind of one wheel, so they can just roll their way over to wherever they need to be.

[Carolus]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Napoleon spirit inside Macron? )

Reportedly Macron ordered to deploy French troops on the border with so-called Transnistria and in Odesa. This can release some UKR troops from rear areas

"We have been negotiating as we could, but nothing to discuss with them. Ukraine must win. French troops will be in Ukraine. No more red lines. I'm president of France and I decide!"

Viva la France!

PS. I can't find these speech in original, but it shares by many UKR socal media. Maybe PsyOps, but somesing really happened 

 

    

Afraid to put a bit of a dampener on this.

Macron did say again that troops on the ground in Ukraine, in some capacity, should not be impossible. He also said that France will step in to make sure that Russia cannot win if needs be.

But he also said that the time for doing something like that "is not today".

And the French troops in Romania arrived for regularly scheduled NATO training. There is no unusual troop movement there. 

As far as I have seen from some French commenters, this speech was mostly aimed at a domestic audience and is part of Macron's re-election campaign.

Still, the rethoric is new and has been coming too consistently for too long to be just a gaffe. It may be part of a new consciousness for Cold War acting, giving Russia messages to think about.

Edited March 14 by Carolus

[Anon052]

18 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Afraid to put a bit of a dampener on this.

Macron did say again that troops on the ground in Ukraine, in some capacity, should not be impossible. He also said that France will step in to make sure that Russia cannot win if needs be.

But he also said that the time for doing something like that "is not today".

And the French troops in Romania arrived for regularly scheduled NATO training. There is no unusual troop movement there. 

As far as I have seen from some French commenters, this speech was mostly aimed at a domestic audience and is part of Macron's re-election campaign.

Still, the rethoric is new and has been coming too consistently for too long to be just a gaffe. It may be part of a new consciousness for Cold War acting, giving Russia messages to think about.

Macron can't be re-lected. He is in his second term and in France there is a two-term limit. And the presidental elections are three years away....so this makes the rest of this analysis questionable.

Edited March 14 by Anon052

[Kinophile]

 

 

[Kinophile]

 

 

[Kinophile]

 

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

24 minutes ago, Anon052 said:

Macron can't be re-lected. He is in his second term and in France there is a two-term limit.....so this makes the rest of this analysis questionable.

It's the EU elections in June. Macron isn't a candidate but his party has candidates and they are trailing in the polls.

[Kinophile]

 

[Kinophile]

 

 

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

What I want is mines with glide kits. Forget remote mining- imagine you want a minefield somewhere and you literally just specify the gps coordinates.

Or maybe these soviet mines can be retrofitted as a kind of one wheel, so they can just roll their way over to wherever they need to be.

There are a number of MLRS and artillery delivered mining systems now, and we have seen individual mines delivered by drones. Given the sheer size of something like the standard Soviet antitank mine I think it would take a fairly large glider/parachute to deliver it. I think The_Capt's vision of them marching the last kilometer on insectoid legs, and then looking for just the right clump of weeds to hide under is more doable.

My new rule of modern warfare is never do anything with an expensive airplane, if it can be done with a cheap pick up truck.

[cesmonkey]

17 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

 

 

You can Google translate the auto-generated YouTube transcript of the video, if you like. (It's a back-and-forth conversation with the interviewers. Some interesting tidbits here and there, but nothing I think worth mentioning here.)