How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

Democrats fully intend to forestall any attempt to overthrow Johnson...if he puts through a Ukraine bill. There will be enough Republicans to go along and make it happen. In fact, only three or four would do.

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, billbindc said:

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.

Yes, but the problem for both is that the longer and harder Putin pushes Russia, the greater the risk of some adverse internal Russian situation (could be short of a full collapse).  Which means both the West and China want this thing to end ASAP.  However, there seems to be incompatible goals and that means Putin is steering the ship nobody wants to be at sea in the first place.

I would think China has more reason to compromise than the West.  China not only has to worry about an unstable Russia, but it also has to worry about the West doing harm to the Chinese economy that can't be made good on elsewhere.  It is also not in China's best interests to have the West continue to ramp up military production capacity and rethink how to fight the next war.  Worse, any economic rift with the West encourages the West to establish new economic relationships foreign (Vietnam, India, etc.) or at domestic.  Once those relationships are established, it's business China isn't likely going to get back any time soon.

The West, on the other hand, only has the Russian stability issue as a prime concern.  Hence why I think China has more reason to compromise than China.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Democrats fully intend to forestall any attempt to overthrow Johnson...if he puts through a Ukraine bill. There will be enough Republicans to go along and make it happen. In fact, only three or four would do.

Yeah, the 30ish number would be pretty much an overkill lockdown on reelection.  That would insulate him from a larger Freedom Caucus defection.  Since those members have shown that they aren't as unified as they once were, if I were Johnson I'd be looking for more than a handful of Democrats to pledge a "present" vote (obviously NONE will vote for Johnson EVER).

For those not familiar with the significance of voting "present", here's a quick recap.

The Speaker is elected by the majority of the members that show up to vote that day (provided they have a quorum).  A vote of "present" takes that person out of the entire equation.  1 person voting "present" is the same as that person staying home and munching on popcorn.  The GOP has only a 2 seat majority, which means they have almost no room for error.  However, if Democrats vote "present" that effectively increases the GOP majority PROVIDED they all vote as a block for one candidate.  They do not have to.

Here's a scenario.  On the day of a leadership vote 100% of all House members show up.  The vote goes forward with Dems sticking together and 100% voting for their leader; Jeffries.  If 3 GOP members vote "present" or for another candidate, then Jeffries becomes the new Speaker.  On the other hand, if in this situation 2 Dems agree to vote "present" then Johnson stays on as Speaker.

This is why the only viable path for Johnson to keep is seat is to either not have a challenge at all (seems unlikely) or to give the Dems enough to be assured of sufficient "present" votes.

Steve

[dan/california]

39 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

 

34 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Democrats fully intend to forestall any attempt to overthrow Johnson...if he puts through a Ukraine bill. There will be enough Republicans to go along and make it happen. In fact, only three or four would do.

 

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, the 30ish number would be pretty much an overkill lockdown on reelection.  That would insulate him from a larger Freedom Caucus defection.  Since those members have shown that they aren't as unified as they once were, if I were Johnson I'd be looking for more than a handful of Democrats to pledge a "present" vote (obviously NONE will vote for Johnson EVER).

For those not familiar with the significance of voting "present", here's a quick recap.

The Speaker is elected by the majority of the members that show up to vote that day (provided they have a quorum).  A vote of "present" takes that person out of the entire equation.  1 person voting "present" is the same as that person staying home and munching on popcorn.  The GOP has only a 2 seat majority, which means they have almost no room for error.  However, if Democrats vote "present" that effectively increases the GOP majority PROVIDED they all vote as a block for one candidate.  They do not have to.

Here's a scenario.  On the day of a leadership vote 100% of all House members show up.  The vote goes forward with Dems sticking together and 100% voting for their leader; Jeffries.  If 3 GOP members vote "present" or for another candidate, then Jeffries becomes the new Speaker.  On the other hand, if in this situation 2 Dems agree to vote "present" then Johnson stays on as Speaker.

This is why the only viable path for Johnson to keep is seat is to either not have a challenge at all (seems unlikely) or to give the Dems enough to be assured of sufficient "present" votes.

Steve

Everything Steve and Bill have said above is is correct, but there is one or two more layers to it that is worth keeping in mind. Johnson understands that whatever happens in the next ~nine months, he is very unlikely to be the Speaker in the next Congress. The second issue is that according to all publicly available information Johnson is flat broke, or near as makes no matter. By broke I mean his financial declarations when he ascended to the Speakership showed a negative net worth, and only a few thousand dollars cash on hand. Throw in four kids and he has been on the ragged edge of bankruptcy for forever.

I detail all this because it has a huge bearing on his current choices regarding Ukraine and the Speakership. The best choice for absolutely every one else is bad for Johnsons post Speakership career. If he does the right thing for Ukraine and the rest of the civilized world he greatly hurts his access to the wing nut welfare system that supports the right wing talking heads. Since his entire record in congress before the last year indicates he is an apparently sincere religious conservative with extreme views on abortion, among other things. He isn't going to get a job with MSNBC or one of the Centrist think tanks. I have no idea how he squares this circle.

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/opinion/ukraine-aid-congress.html

Allowing Russia to impose its will on Ukraine would be a devastating blow to America’s credibility and leadership — fulfilling one of Mr. Putin’s long-term goals. That, in turn, would risk encouraging him to test waters further afield, whether in the Baltic States, in western Europe or to the south, and would signal to Xi Jinping that China, too, can throw its weight around.

 

NYT editorial page having an attack of sense.

[dan/california]

1 hour 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 agree with this as far as it goes, but I think a great many people over estimate the predictability of the whole situation. There are nine different ways this whole thing could just BREAK. Jake Sullivan thinks he is acting in a way that decreases that risk, I am strongly of the opinion that he is mostly increasing the risk it breaks the wrong way. 

The chance to tie this thing up in a neat knot and pretend it never happened disappeared in April or May of 2022, after two years of ever increasing commitment of lives and treasure by everyone involved, someone is going lose. 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/positional-warfare-alexander-svechin’s-strategy

Introduction

Discussions of the character of the Russian war in Ukraine have increasingly adopted terms such as “stalemate” and “attritional” to describe the state of the conflict. Both terms draw parallels with the Western Front of the First World War that are not wholly inaccurate but that can be misleading if taken too far. The current Russian war in Ukraine is certainly not stalemated in the sense of having reached a point where neither side can make further progress. Nor is it, properly speaking, attritional. An attritional war is one in which attrition itself is the victory mechanism — that is, one side aims to win by wearing the other down through losses. The Germans indeed pursued an explicitly attritional campaign in the 1916 Battle of Verdun. But neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians are currently seeking to win by imposing greater losses on the adversary. They are, rather, engaged in a kind of war best described as “positional.” Positional war is characterized by relatively static frontlines and regular combat that produces little movement, but the aim of such combat is generally either to create forward progress through steady if small advances or to create conditions to restore maneuver to the battlefield. This essay explores one of the most detailed considerations of positional warfare, offered by Soviet military theorist Alexander Svechin in his 1926 work, Strategy — a work that has influenced the Soviet, Russian, and Ukrainian militaries. It offers an important corrective to our understanding of the current conflict and its likely trajectories.

 

Has this been posted already?

Edited April 6 by dan/california

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, but the problem for both is that the longer and harder Putin pushes Russia, the greater the risk of some adverse internal Russian situation (could be short of a full collapse).  Which means both the West and China want this thing to end ASAP.  However, there seems to be incompatible goals and that means Putin is steering the ship nobody wants to be at sea in the first place.

I would think China has more reason to compromise than the West.  China not only has to worry about an unstable Russia, but it also has to worry about the West doing harm to the Chinese economy that can't be made good on elsewhere.  It is also not in China's best interests to have the West continue to ramp up military production capacity and rethink how to fight the next war.  Worse, any economic rift with the West encourages the West to establish new economic relationships foreign (Vietnam, India, etc.) or at domestic.  Once those relationships are established, it's business China isn't likely going to get back any time soon.

The West, on the other hand, only has the Russian stability issue as a prime concern.  Hence why I think China has more reason to compromise than China.

Steve

I really do not think the US or China are in a good position for a major economic war at this point.  Both are in post-COVID recovery.  I think China can push...but just enough.  Same goes for the US but maybe can push a little bit harder.

As to NATO/western arming up and re-thinking...too late. I think this is why China is actually internally PO'd at Putin for starting all this, and then getting bogged down.  Of course us re-arming is going to mean buying more stuff from the Chinese (like steel).  

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

Has this been posted already?

I think we can safely say that there are elements of attritional strategies at play by this point.  Definitely from what we can see of Russian operations.  Positional warfare still aims to create asymmetry of options by incremental positional advantage.  We actually are not really seeing this.  We see lots of bites and nips but no one is really seeming to pursue positional advantage.  The closest to this finer point may be at Kherson and those UA bridgeheads.

I think we are still seeing a theme of corrosive warfare to be honest.  Both sides are trying to attrit in depth, rapidly.  Aiming for a systemic collapse that will create opportunity for manoeuvre.  The Russian appear to be doing this less well because they lack C4ISR advantage, but they are still doing it. 

 

[NamEndedAllen]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Not really in play:

Several Dems, including Jamie Rankin, and several others have publicly pledged to support Johnson and NOT vote for their own Jeffries. This is extraordinary only in these times when Party and self interest practically always “trump” the Oath, the Constitution and the best interests of the USA  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-democrats-offer-protect-republican-johnson-ukraine-aid-2024-03-22/

Similar but more general declarations from moderate Democrats go back to January of this year.

[Joe982]

4 hours 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

Pay wall. What does the article say?

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Not really in play:

Several Dems, including Jamie Rankin, and several others have publicly pledged to support Johnson and NOT vote for their own Jeffries. This is extraordinary only in these times when Party and self interest practically always “trump” the Oath, the Constitution and the best interests of the USA  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-democrats-offer-protect-republican-johnson-ukraine-aid-2024-03-22/

Similar but more general declarations from moderate Democrats go back to January of this year.

Pledges of support are conditional to the circumstances when they were made.  If Johnson doesn't make a serious Ukraine proposal, my guess is that pledge is off.  "I pledge to support you if you give me a car" sounds strong, until the guy making the pledge gets a Matchbox car.

[follow up] note that Rankin is talking about the "stalled bill", which would be Option 3 or Option 4 in my list.  Option 2 is something like Johnson saying "we're going to have a vote on a bill to send Ukraine teddy bears, but only on loan".  Rankin is perfectly justified to say "that's not the stalled bill, so I'm putting my vote in for Jeffries.

Steve

[Beleg85]

Just interesting article in english about lives on the frontline, from 93rd.

https://www.slidstvo.info/english-stories/dad-are-you-still-alive-there-how-infantry-enters-positions-near-chasiv-yar/

There are other articles and videos with eng subtitles on this website, may be worth a look.

[Offshoot]

Is this normal? In both instances it looks like over 20 personnel disembark from a single vehicle. I didn't know you could even fit that many on a tank. From recent videos the Russians have lost a lot of equipment over the past weeks, so are men plentiful but vehicles not so much now?

 

[LongLeftFlank]

4 hours ago, Joe982 said:

Pay wall. What does the article say?

https://archive.is/cvVoD

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Offshoot said:

Is this normal? In both instances it looks like over 20 personnel disembark from a single vehicle. I didn't know you could even fit that many on a tank. From recent videos the Russians have lost a lot of equipment over the past weeks, so are men plentiful but vehicles not so much now?

 

It looks like they have the armored clown car bug from CM:BO.  

Please fix or do somefink!

[Battlefront.com]

49 minutes ago, chrisl said:

It looks like they have the armored clown car bug from CM:BO.  

Please fix or do somefink!

Ugh, tell me about it.  We have always known tanks can physically carry this many men on them.  Long ago people would show us a couple of famous pictures of Shermans with a couple of Squads on it and say "see! I should be able to do that!".  However, the pictures and other evidence suggests this was only done in the safety of the rear.  Nobody tried this right up to the trenches of the other.  Though I suppose if Russian tanks had more room on their decks they very well might have.

Steve

[Fenris]

Are they running low on BMPs I wonder or perhaps they feel the BMP isn't up to the task any longer.

Putting all your eggs in one basket says to me those units are missing something (including common sense).

 

Edited April 7 by Fenris
spelling

[Sgt Joch]

article on the War Zone showing no damage at Russian airbase despite claim by UKR of 6 AC destroyed/8 damaged.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/no-major-damage-seen-at-russian-air-base-after-drone-attack

Just shows again that we should always be sceptical of claims until they are verified.

[alison]

23 hours ago, Bannon said:

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

This is something I am really interested to see and have been thinking about a lot.

I think the strategic level games will remain fairly similar, although the fun challenge remains. For instance something like Afghanistan '11 incorporated a hearts and minds mechanic, but we now know how successful that wasn't in reality. If we see "Ukraine '24" as a proxy war between Russia and "the west", then the strategic-level elements are going to need to be even more macro, with additional "undermining democracy and eroding support" mechanics that target people in a whole nother hemisphere. This might make for a good grand strategy game but it feels a little depressing as a wargame, because it's a random factor whose outcome can't be linked to the decisions the player is making as a general in the theater.

On the tactical level you could argue that real-world technology is finally catching up to what gamers have been privilege to since the beginning - a magical eye-in-the-sky view of the battlefield, a perfect memory of every unit that allowed themselves to be seen, an ability to target specific "squares" with indirect fire even when there isn't a spotter on the ground... But right now with the relatively static front lines it seems like there isn't really any "fun" stuff to sim. Even if it was a drone-based sim, having a scenario where your start and end positions are exactly the same but one side just lost a bit less hardware than the other doesn't really feel like a win, regardless of what impact it might have in the longer arc of the war.

Perhaps a more interesting tactical level sim at the current level of drone warfare would be deep strike ops. Something structured like Phantom Doctrine but with drones sinking ships or bombing oil refineries instead of human spies infiltrating buildings. I guess it's easier to come up with a game-like structure when there is a clear success condition. We might have to wait till the end of this war to understand what that could look like in a CM-style infantry/ground tactics sim.

Edited April 7 by alison
tidy

[Letter from Prague]

With no way out of a worsening war, Zelensky’s options look bad or worse

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/06/ukraine-war-zelensky-options/

Where are these articles coming from? Is the war worsening? In what way?

[chris talpas]

Very timely in light of recent discussion on drone technology 

 

[Holien]

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

In what way?

Soldiers would be the top of the list. I can see an argument that they have less available than they had.

Maybe better trained less soldiers are enough with better drones.

I guess we will find out this year...

Ammo is another concern but that again is potentially fixed but not ideal so worse than last year.

I think that Ukraine will hold, but compared to the optimism we had last year we could say they are in a slightly worse position? 

[Haiduk]

On 4/6/2024 at 5:28 AM, dan/california said:

The Baba Yaga octocopters are just lightly modified agricultural drones.

Not certainly in that way. "Baba Yaga" is a common name, given by Russians to the couple of heavy hexa- and octocopter drones. Some of them are really modified agricultural drones, but R18 was designed from the beginning as combat drone. 

[Haiduk]

UKR helicopter landing in Kozinka, Belgoprod oblast in March, filmed by Russian drone. Alas, writing "Border guard from the hell" (TG name) in the center of screen often hides helicopters.