How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm not sure this is the way for China to take back Siberia.
 

Quote

Antony Blinken, US secretary of state, used meetings with EU and Nato foreign ministers this week to warn Beijing was assisting Moscow “at a concerning scale”, and providing “tools, inputs and technical expertise”, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

“The warnings were explicit,” the person said. “There has been a shift and it was felt in the room . . . this was a new development. It was very striking.”

Speaking before the call, a senior US official said Washington had seen China “start to help to rebuild Russia’s defence industrial base, essentially backfilling the trade from European partners”. One person familiar with the situation said the Biden administration was particularly concerned about the provision of propellant for missiles.

https://www.ft.com/content/ba524406-ee6c-4c39-9ac2-110a2549569a

 

Edited April 5 by Vanir Ausf B

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

As became knowingly this was Tsar-EW-tank,

Looks more like Gypsy King.

Very interesting occurence anyway. Similar armoured charges from Chasiv Yar are also quite impressive... they are reminescent of Vuhledar.

 

Meanwhile, another country is slipping slowly off Russin hands:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-launch-new-e270-million-plan-bring-armenia-fold-russia/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter

[NamEndedAllen]

17 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

All fair points. I certainly agree that an army in an existential conflict cannot afford to be as picky as its peacetime counterpart. We can probably largely reconcile the two viewpoints by saying that in wartime the goalposts don't go away, but they may be moved quite a bit. I wouldn't set those concerns aside completely, but the bar for "as long as they don't cause trouble within the ranks" might look a bit different for the duration.

To draw a non-political comparison / example: Flight safety doesn't go out the window in wartime, it is as important as ever, but operating minima and procedures have to be adjusted for operational necessity. Much of the extreme low flying by the Ukrainian Air Force we've seen videos of in this thread would be unacceptable in peacetime even on an approved low level practice route. Down the side of a highway with oncoming civilian vehicle traffic, it would be a court martial waiting to happen. But right now it's presumably preventing more losses from enemy fire than it's causing from controlled flight into terrain, so the tradeoff is acceptable.

Facing death has a way of changing a person.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

And the lead tank was basically screaming "shoot me first! shoot me first!" on every frequency.  Anything using its radio for target homing instead of communication will make a beeline toward it.  So if it wasn't an optical/AI drone, it could have been an anti-radiation drone.

And even if a drone did not get it the EW beast is going to be the prime target for ATGMs.  I see no way to wrap enough around or on tanks to really get what we need out of them anymore.  Sniping, glorified infantry guns and indirect fire seem to be how they are being employed in this war.  No one has been able to mass them and use them for manoeuvre, breakout or breakthrough.  This means that one of the pillars of the combat arms is essentially been broken.  Air denial means air-land is also out.

I simply cannot see how a US or western ground force is going to far any better against an opponent armed with thousands of drones. Especially if they have fully autonomous capabilities.  I suspect we will create drone swarms to kill their drone swarms so our mech and armor can do their thing.  Until someone figures out that if we have defeated their drone swarms, why not just send in more swarms to kill them too.  I don’t think heavy is going to die because they can die or war is lethal.  I think it will die because we are seeing the beginnings of something that can get the job done faster and better.

[Kinophile]

36 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And even if a drone did not get it the EW beast is going to be the prime target for ATGMs.  I see no way to wrap enough around or on tanks to really get what we need out of them anymore.  Sniping, glorified infantry guns and indirect fire seem to be how they are being employed in this war.  No one has been able to mass them and use them for manoeuvre, breakout or breakthrough.  This means that one of the pillars of the combat arms is essentially been broken.  Air denial means air-land is also out.

I simply cannot see how a US or western ground force is going to far any better against an opponent armed with thousands of drones. Especially if they have fully autonomous capabilities.  I suspect we will create drone swarms to kill their drone swarms so our mech and armor can do their thing.  Until someone figures out that if we have defeated their drone swarms, why not just send in more swarms to kill them too.  I don’t think heavy is going to die because they can die or war is lethal.  I think it will die because we are seeing the beginnings of something that can get the job done faster and better.

Within reason there are only two players in this fight who are actually implementing battlefield developments.

Even Western weapons are only provided as-is, with the ZSU doing the additional original work in implementation.

WRT Drones Russia is really only a copycat of UKR cutting edge TTP. 

[chris talpas]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Any aircraft Russia loses are good to see, but Tu-95MS are the real prize.  A quick search shows that Russia may have as few as 60 of these in total.  They probably have some older mothballed airframes they can put back into service, but even 2 or 3 represents a statistically meaningful decrease in readiness levels.

Steve

They are important indeed since they are a heavy bomber able to carry a significant missile payload. Essentially their B52 equivalent.  
Smart strategy that pushes back their safe basing.  Wonder if the AWACS take down was preparation for this increased drone warfare?

 

[chris talpas]

2 hours ago, chrisl said:

And the lead tank was basically screaming "shoot me first! shoot me first!" on every frequency.  Anything using its radio for target homing instead of communication will make a beeline toward it.  So if it wasn't an optical/AI drone, it could have been an anti-radiation drone.

The rate  drone warfare is evolving is astounding.  Who was seriously envisioning the variety of offensive capabilities that exist today?

And it continues to evolve…

 

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

Within reason there are only two players in this fight who are actually implementing battlefield developments.

Even Western weapons are only provided as-is, with the ZSU doing the additional original work in implementation.

WRT Drones Russia is really only a copycat of UKR cutting edge TTP. 

We're at the very, very beginning.  As far as I've seen so far, both sides are doing all this with a very conventional sensor set (Vis/IR cameras and GPS, mostly) and and haven't really ventured into RF or chemotaxis.  And we've seen only tiny bits of autonomy where it looks like it's "last 100 meters" kind of autonomy, more than "deny this volume indefinitely".  There have been a few US/European demos of RF-chasing drones.  Once those sensors and autonomy get more widely distributed it's going to be massive swarms of drones against drones.  

 

[dan/california]

The Baba Yaga octocopters are just lightly modified agricultural drones. The Ukrainians have taken out entire battalions with them, cumulatively. Virtually all the FPV drones are the 21st century equivalent of a 32 Chevy hopped up to run moonshine, it can barely be called engineering. They have accounted for several motor rifle division worth of vehicles at this point. Whoever gets purpose built semi autonomous drones drones to the battlefield first in quantity is going to win this war. That is if all those drones do is make decently packaged, halfway thought out, versions of things somebody, somewhere, can already do. If they think of even one or two new tricks along the way....

[Offshoot]

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

As far as I've seen so far, both sides are doing all this with a very conventional sensor set (Vis/IR cameras and GPS, mostly) and and haven't really ventured into RF or chemotaxis.

 

I just looked on AliExpress and ethanol detector boards can be had for a few dollars a piece. Sensors for methanol and antifreeze might be a bit more expensive.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

I just looked on AliExpress and ethanol detector boards can be had for a few dollars a piece. Sensors for methanol and antifreeze might be a bit more expensive.

Do they have a vodka detector board?  Because I would think that would be quite useful!

Steve

[Offshoot]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Do they have a vodka detector board?  Because I would think that would be quite useful!

Steve

Vodka is just ethanol plus water, so yes

[LongLeftFlank]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

WRT Drones Russia is really only a copycat of UKR cutting edge TTP. 

 

(source: The trained agent controlled an off-the-shelf Robotis OP3 humanoid robot, which costs around $14,000)

(Robots are 20" tall. Some assembly required. Batteries not included)

Edited April 6 by LongLeftFlank

[dan/california]

 

[dan/california]

Bleep me I hope he is wrong.

[cesmonkey]

An update for Ukrainian commander Oleksandr Syrskyi:
https://t.me/osirskiy/645
 

Quote

The situation in the area of the operation of the Defense Forces of Ukraine remains difficult.
The enemy, using air superiority, missiles and artillery ammunition, is trying to achieve its goal of entering the administrative border of the Donetsk region.

The enemy continues offensive operations day and night, using assault groups with the support of armored vehicles.
In separate directions, he tries to conduct assaults on foot, in waves, from a platoon to a company, sometimes a battalion.

A particularly difficult situation has developed in the Bakhmut direction in the areas east of Chasovoy Yar and Klishchiivka; on Avdiivskyi - in the districts of Berdychiv, Orlivka, Vodyanyi, Pervomaiskyi; on Novopavlivskyi - in the Novomykhailivka district.

Today, the fiercest battles continue in the areas of Pervomaiskyi and Vodyanyi, as well as east of Chasovoy Yar, where the enemy is trying to break through the defenses of our troops.
Chasiv Yar remains under our control, all enemy attempts to break through to the settlement have failed.

The situation also remains tense on the Lyman, Orikhov and Kherson directions.
Thus, in the Lyman direction, the enemy is conducting local offensive actions in the areas of Bilogorivka and Vesely; on Orihivskyi - in the Robotyne and Verbovoy districts with the aim of restoring the lost position; on Khersonsky - is trying to dislodge our troops from the bridgehead on the left bank of the Dnipro River in the Krynka region.
But there is no success in these directions.

At the same time, we have some tactical success in the Kupyansk and Lymansk directions.

The defense forces continue to firmly hold the occupied lines and positions, exhaust the enemy, inflict significant losses in personnel, weapons and military equipment.

 

[The_Capt]

11 hours ago, chrisl said:

We're at the very, very beginning.  As far as I've seen so far, both sides are doing all this with a very conventional sensor set (Vis/IR cameras and GPS, mostly) and and haven't really ventured into RF or chemotaxis.  And we've seen only tiny bits of autonomy where it looks like it's "last 100 meters" kind of autonomy, more than "deny this volume indefinitely".  There have been a few US/European demos of RF-chasing drones.  Once those sensors and autonomy get more widely distributed it's going to be massive swarms of drones against drones.  

 

It has been remarkable to watched unmanned systems evolve in this war.  We started with them being employed as mass ISR, which frankly would have been enough to move the needle.  Then the days of gravity dropped mortars and ICMs. Then the wave of FPVs, to the point they are beginning to rival indirect fires. UGVs have made an early appearance. And now the possible emergence of full autonomy.  All in two short years.

We may see anti-drone drones used at scale before this is over. Swarms of fully autonomous anti-radiation UAS could be a game changer.  Ukraine stood up a separate Unmanned Service as a result of this war and it will be interesting to see if any western militaries follow suite.

I suspect we are seeing a greater emergence of what Information Age warfare really means and it will change this terrible business in ways that we probably can barely imagine.  

[Bannon]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 

I suspect we are seeing a greater emergence of what Information Age warfare really means and it will change this terrible business in ways that we probably can barely imagine.  

How to fold this into a game that is somewhat realistic yet fun to play will be a challenge. 

[ASL Veteran]

7 hours ago, dan/california said:

Bleep me I hope he is wrong.

A few days ago I read somewhere that Speaker Johnson intends to bring the Ukraine / Israel / Taiwan aide package to a vote when congress returns.  I haven't heard that any of the Republicans that supported removing the previous speaker would support MTG's move to vacate the current speaker.  However, the main reason the previous Speaker was ousted was because Democrats supported the Republicans who voted to vacate.  In theory MTG's out on an island and irrelevant so she wouldn't matter if Speaker Johnson could rely on Democrats not supporting MTG because she doesn't have enough (or maybe any) support from other Republicans.  However, one can't really expect that Democrats wouldn't vote in favor of vacating the position since - well why not?  Also, maybe Hakeem Jefferies can become the Speaker?

So the bottom line seems to be - if one Republican (MTG) moves to vacate the Speaker position and every Democrat votes in favor of that then Johnson would not survive and there is absolutely no incentive for Democrats to support Johnson.  The only way the aid package can move forward is if Johnson can convince MTG that bringing the package to a vote would either be in her best interests or that Republicans would benefit in general.  Without Democrats though MTG would be irrelevant.  There should be some special elections coming up for all the Republicans who essentially quit (angry about the removal of the previous Speaker) and reduced the size of the majority.  If they retain those seats (I don't think any of those seats are projected to flip for any reason) then maybe the majority can be restored sufficiently such that MTG can't vacate the Speaker position with just herself and Democrats, but that wouldn't be until June I think.  

I haven't been paying super close attention to political maneuvering though so I might not be 100% accurate on this.

[hcrof]

Quality content as always from Anders Puck Nielsen

[Maciej Zwolinski]

11 hours ago, Offshoot said:

I just looked on AliExpress and ethanol detector boards can be had for a few dollars a piece. Sensors for methanol and antifreeze might be a bit more expensive.

A drone homing in on ethanol in exhaled air practically guarantees a hit on Russian soldier.

[billbindc]

China edging towards more direct involvement in Ukraine…and may explain Russian staying power to some extent: https://www.ft.com/content/ba524406-ee6c-4c39-9ac2-110a2549569a

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, billbindc said:

China edging towards more direct involvement in Ukraine…and may explain Russian staying power to some extent: https://www.ft.com/content/ba524406-ee6c-4c39-9ac2-110a2549569a

China is in a weird spot.  They need Russia weak and dependent so they continue to have access to cheap energy (and maybe the odd land grab).  But they do not want Russia to totally win, it would 1) really set off the US and West, and 2) A re-energized Russia doesn’t sell cheap energy as easily.  And then they do not want Russia to completely fail and fall apart - see access to cheap energy.

They are kinda threading a strategic needle like we are, but from the other direction.  If they had to accept “less” from their perspective it is likely a Russian short win the West signs off on.  They avoid economic punishment from the West and still have a shot to access cheap energy because a Russian short win would likely still see the West no longer buying said cheap energy.

Whereas the West likely wants a Ukrainian short-win.  Russia taught a visible lesson and still in penalty box.  But in a slow decline, not a full on freefall. And China’s problem in the longer term.

[billbindc]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

China is in a weird spot.  They need Russia weak and dependent so they continue to have access to cheap energy (and maybe the odd land grab).  But they do not want Russia to totally win, it would 1) really set off the US and West, and 2) A re-energized Russia doesn’t sell cheap energy as easily.  And then they do not want Russia to completely fail and fall apart - see access to cheap energy.

They are kinda threading a strategic needle like we are, but from the other direction.  If they had to accept “less” from their perspective it is likely a Russian short win the West signs off on.  They avoid economic punishment from the West and still have a shot to access cheap energy because a Russian short win would likely still see the West no longer buying said cheap energy.

Whereas the West likely wants a Ukrainian short-win.  Russia taught a visible lesson and still in penalty box.  But in a slow decline, not a full on freefall. And China’s problem in the longer term.

I had intended originally to add the observation that it's possible to over read Chinese intentions from news like this. Xi certainly bestrides the landscape in China but it's a huge economy with a long border with Russia. Chinese companies that are seeing complications in EU/US trade are going to be sorely tempted to make it up on the very favorable terms Russia will give. Even Xi has limits on how much of this he can control. 

All of that said, your point about the moderate aims of China and the US is spot on. An entirely collapsed Russia is as big a danger as the sclerotic revanchist Russia of the moment is and both powers know it.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

A few days ago I read somewhere that Speaker Johnson intends to bring the Ukraine / Israel / Taiwan aide package to a vote when congress returns.  I haven't heard that any of the Republicans that supported removing the previous speaker would support MTG's move to vacate the current speaker.  However, the main reason the previous Speaker was ousted was because Democrats supported the Republicans who voted to vacate.  In theory MTG's out on an island and irrelevant so she wouldn't matter if Speaker Johnson could rely on Democrats not supporting MTG because she doesn't have enough (or maybe any) support from other Republicans.  However, one can't really expect that Democrats wouldn't vote in favor of vacating the position since - well why not?  Also, maybe Hakeem Jefferies can become the Speaker?

So the bottom line seems to be - if one Republican (MTG) moves to vacate the Speaker position and every Democrat votes in favor of that then Johnson would not survive and there is absolutely no incentive for Democrats to support Johnson.  The only way the aid package can move forward is if Johnson can convince MTG that bringing the package to a vote would either be in her best interests or that Republicans would benefit in general.  Without Democrats though MTG would be irrelevant.  There should be some special elections coming up for all the Republicans who essentially quit (angry about the removal of the previous Speaker) and reduced the size of the majority.  If they retain those seats (I don't think any of those seats are projected to flip for any reason) then maybe the majority can be restored sufficiently such that MTG can't vacate the Speaker position with just herself and Democrats, but that wouldn't be until June I think.  

I haven't been paying super close attention to political maneuvering though so I might not be 100% accurate on this.

Johnson is in a tough spot, for sure.  But leaders are supposed to up for the challenge of, er, leading.  McCarthy flubbed up badly and Johnson hasn't shown much improvement.  Except, he seems far more aware of his own limitations than McCarthy and that's possibly a good thing regarding Ukraine support.

The way I see it, there is NO avoiding a leadership challenge at this point. It's pretty much assured no matter what Johnson does.  His options appear to be:

Option 1 = do nothing to support Ukraine, continue to piss off a very large % of the House and Senate GOP.  I think it is likely he's been warned that no vote on Ukraine soon means a call for new leadership (it's not just the wingnuts that can make this happen).  It seems that Johnson has determined doing nothing is not viable, so this one appears to be off the table.

Option 2 = put forward a weak Ukraine bill, have a wingnut call for leadership change, and have 100% of the Democrats vote for for Jeffries.  There is a fairly good chance this might mean the next Speaker is a Democrat.

Option 3 = put forward a decent Ukraine bill, get assurances from at least a handful of Democrats that they will not vote for Jeffries ("present" is acceptable), have a wingnut call for leadership change, go into leadership chaos like McCarthy, have nothing else get done, and likely wind up losing as happened to McCarthy.

Option 4 = put forward a solid Ukraine bill, get assurances from a large number of Democrats to vote "present", have a wingnut call for leadership change, avoid the McCarthy chaos, and retain his Speakership.

The logical option is #4 because it is the best for Johnson and the GOP generally (nothing would be worse than Jeffries getting to Speaker).  He'd probably only need 30 or so Dems to vote "present" for him to win a quick reappointment.  From the Democrat's side, they get something they really want (Ukraine), they avoid something they really don't want (chaos in the House), they remind everybody how weak the GOP is going into the next election cycle.

I view #4 as a win-win for both parties and the majority of members, but that option was available to McCarthy and he chose chaos and dismissal instead.  So... like Putin, Johnson has bad choices in front of him and there's no reason to think he'll favor the best of them.

Steve