How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[poesel]

If I add 'Ukraine has long range weapons' and 'don't hit oil before the election' together, I would like to put some money on spiking oil prices on November 6th. No matter how the vote goes, this is the day the Russian oil industry will go down the drain. IMHO...

[Ultradave]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

It is worse than this re: Trump in White House.  If Trump somehow takes the presidency (from a prison cell...seriously best sitcom ever) he can also order all US military support to pull back.  This will include operational and strategic C4ISR.  This would have a potentially drastic effect on the battlefield as Russia would be on an equal or better C4ISR footing than Ukraine.  At that point the entire framework of this war shifts away from precision and back to mass.  More simply put, tanks may start to work again.

This makes the next moves for Ukraine very high stakes.  Go on defence and make the surge in support try to outlast Russian reserves.  Or bulk up and roll the dice one more time on an operational offensive.  If the offensive succeeds it may create enough momentum that even Trump could not stand in the way.  If it fails, further US Ukrainian support could very well be doomed even if Biden retains the White House.

So, definitely, this war needs an offset strategy.  And to my eyes that is the EU and NATO.

Worse than that, he could also immediately withdraw from NATO. Based on past statements, I think he'd have to be convinced to remain in NATO. I'm not sure who would be trying to do the convincing though. 

Dave

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Worse than that, he could also immediately withdraw from NATO. Based on past statements, I think he'd have to be convinced to remain in NATO. I'm not sure who would be trying to do the convincing though. 

Dave

I am kinda skeptical on this point to be honest. I think we could definitely see a draw back and cold shouldering but NATO is the largest military markets on the planet.  If the US pulls out completely then NATO STANAGs die then and there.  This could see nations go elsewhere for military spending because they are no longer locked into a US driven NATO standard.

Of course given the levels of rhetoric over good sense we saw last time, I could also very well be totally wrong.

[Yet]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am kinda skeptical on this point to be honest. I think we could definitely see a draw back and cold shouldering but NATO is the largest military markets on the planet.  If the US pulls out completely then NATO STANAGs die then and there.  This could see nations go elsewhere for military spending because they are no longer locked into a US driven NATO standard.

Of course given the levels of rhetoric over good sense we saw last time, I could also very well be totally wrong.

US leaving Nato is MEGFTFT, not MAGA 

(MEGFTFT = make europe great for the first time)

[Lieutenant Ash]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

More and more curiosities start to appear in last weeks...

 

Who stole my barn? Anyway the french got there first

[Eddy]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

Worse than that, he could also immediately withdraw from NATO. Based on past statements, I think he'd have to be convinced to remain in NATO. I'm not sure who would be trying to do the convincing though. 

Dave

The US Congress added an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act requiring consent from 2/3rds of the Senators or an Act of Congress in order to leave NATO ( Congress passes bill to prevent the president from leaving NATO without approval (msn.com) 

A President could sort of leave by not co-operating, I suppose.  

[Vet 0369]

On 4/23/2024 at 10:15 PM, Sojourner said:

I really wish they wouldn't do that. The only one that needs to be informed is Syrskyi. Let the Russians find out the hard way. I understand "public right to know", but there's no need to get into specifics. FFS stuff from WWII was kept secret for 50 years in the US, long after it was obsolete and of no intelligence value.

The administration had to publish that so it has “plausible deniability” when Ukrain does use them on targets in Russia proper. That way the administration can say “Hey, we told Ukraine the ATACMS were only for use within sovereign Ukrainian territories.”

[Vet 0369]

On 4/24/2024 at 2:06 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Sadly, the caveat "for now" has to be kept in mind.

OK, so aid will start flowing to Ukraine on Wednesday of this week.  I've seen some reporting out there claiming the stuff won't get into Ukraine's hands for weeks or months.  Poppycock   That wasn't true even when Russia was in its initial attack phase.  Stuff started showing up RIGHT AWAY and that was all improvised.  So no way is that going to happen this time around.

The most important thing the US has to send Ukraine are replacement AD missiles.  There are only a few points for these to head to and the logistics hurdles between them are VERY small.  At lest for an immediate influx.  I'm guessing by this weekend Ukraine's AD forces will already have an improved situation.

Artillery shells isn't quite as easy.  To move hundreds of thousands of shells into the frontlines will take time.  Fortunately, they don't need hundreds of thousands of shells to start making a difference.  Even getting a few thousand to a couple of key places could make a big difference.  And that's the sort of thing that could happen within days.

HIMARS type artillery is more like the AD stuff.  Ukraine only has a few of these systems and the number of missiles they need to increase their impact on the battlefield is very small.  Especially if the first ones they receive have a 300km range.  As I suggested a few pages ago, this allows Ukraine to effectively put its HIMARS systems out of harm's way while still being able to hit any target within Ukraine's borders.  Popping them off at the Kerch Bridge wouldn't be my top priority right now because the real threat is coming in the Donbas which doesn't use the bridge at all.

To summarize... more Russian things go boom within days, not weeks or months.

Steve

I expect that all of the munitions and equipment was “prepositioned weeks ago.

[Vet 0369]

On 4/24/2024 at 2:18 PM, The_Capt said:

Seriously this Kerch Bridge lust has to stop.  Taking it out will be an annoyance and likely be spun as some sort of humanitarian disaster.  It is not a war winner.

So the primary difference between HIMARs and long range drones is that there is no real defence against HIMARs once fired.  They can try GPS jamming but all those advanced ATACMs come with inertial guidance for the last mile.  If you point an ATAMCs at something it is going to die.  So if the UA were to take 25-50 ATACMs and decide to conduct a strategic strike campaign on the oil and gas infra in range…and then layered drones on top of this…they could severely damage the Russian energy industry.  And do it at a rate that Russia could not keep up with.

My guess is the US sees this as an escalation too far as it may trigger bad things we do not want.  So these systems will likely be pointed at hard military targets…like airfields and C2….maybe rail/tn.  The ‘so what’ is that the US has likely crossed a rubicon of providing targeting support directly into Russia.  They may have before but when those ATACMs start to fly it will be undeniable.

Edit: well that did not take long https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ukraine-uses-long-range-missiles-secretly-provided-by-u-s-to-hit-russian-held-areas-officials-say-1.6860160

I suspect that Ukraine has already balanced the military value of interrupting supply by way of the bridge vs creating the Sun Tzu “Cornered Rat” result of taking it out. One also has to consider the civilian population in Crimea that has remained loyal to Ukraine.

[Nastypastie]

There's a new Kraut. He makes the case that in about the only way is the term Eastern Europe still relevant, is that it defines a bunch of people who really are not a fan of Russians (or imperialism).

 

[danfrodo]

4 hours ago, Jiggathebauce said:

If trump were to become president again, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we have a thread talking about how hot Europe is going to get - because the MAGA regime will shift to cold war against 'satanic woke europe', withdraw from NATO, and threaten to INVADE Ukraine and help our Russian allies in Christendom

I think first we'd want to invade Canada & dethrone the woke socialists in Ottawa.   "First we take Hull, then we take Berlin!" as the old song goes.  

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Worse than that, he could also immediately withdraw from NATO. Based on past statements, I think he'd have to be convinced to remain in NATO. I'm not sure who would be trying to do the convincing though. 

Dave

Actually, I’m not so sure about that. His threats to withdraw from NATO when he was President, were. Based on an actual desire of a population of Americans that “some” members of NATO weren’t fulfilling their commitments. That was actually true, and those members began fulfilling their commitments. Why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office to attack Ukraine? I think it was because he was unsure of how Trump would respond, and thought Trump’s successor wouldn’t do anything, exactly how he handled the invasion of Crimea and the succession of the Ukraine provinces.

[JonS]

42 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Based on an actual desire of a population of Americans that “some” members of NATO weren’t fulfilling their commitments. That was actually true

 

The 'desire' (or belief) in the more clownish part of the electorate may have been true, but the "lack of commitment" in Europe was not.

 

[FancyCat]

Being one of those who has warned of long term conflict not being instantly favorable to Ukraine and the West, it's always important to remind myself that Russian perspective is focused on portraying futility in opposing Russia, aimed at western audiences and Ukraine itself. (At least that's what I think) Actions like these piecemeal attacks, mounting losses, a focus on offensive vs defensive, but in a way that is wasteful and at opposition to the conception of modern warfare, signals to me that Russia is hoping on diluting Ukrainian and Western will, trading its personnel and equipment on the hope that either Ukraine breaks or the West breaks. Is Russia that changed from 40 years ago in the Soviet-Afghan War that it can continue to blink with no emotion at its losses in Ukraine? Certainly it is entirely in Russian advantage that Russia is mindlessly sending its forces to death, that it's supply is endless, and its will concrete.

But is it true?

In my opinion, Ukraine needs to focus on stabilizing it's front, and conduct signalling to both the Russian public, and internationally, that Russian advances have halted and will not occur, and will be a high tally for every attempt.

Currently, despite these high losses Russia has convinced its public, and onlookers that advancing will be worth it. Ukraine must shatter that image, same as it shattered the images of Russia pre-invasion.

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

In my opinion, Ukraine needs to focus on stabilizing it's front, and conduct signalling to both the Russian public, and internationally, that Russian advances have halted and will not occur, and will be a high tally for every attempt.

Currently, despite these high losses Russia has convinced its public, and onlookers that advancing will be worth it. Ukraine must shatter that image, same as it shattered the images of Russia pre-invasion.

I think Ukraine has already done this.  There is an army's worth of scrap metal all over south-eastern Ukraine right now and at least 50k dead (likely more) and times 3-4 wounded.

You know what would demonstrate the futility of the Russian cause even better...another RA operational collapse.

[Sequoia]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

Actually, I’m not so sure about that. His threats to withdraw from NATO when he was President, were. Based on an actual desire of a population of Americans that “some” members of NATO weren’t fulfilling their commitments. That was actually true, and those members began fulfilling their commitments. Why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office to attack Ukraine? I think it was because he was unsure of how Trump would respond, and thought Trump’s successor wouldn’t do anything, exactly how he handled the invasion of Crimea and the succession of the Ukraine provinces.

Hasn't this theory been discussed to death already in this thread like two years ago?

[FancyCat]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

I think Ukraine has already done this.  There is an army's worth of scrap metal all over south-eastern Ukraine right now and at least 50k dead (likely more) and times 3-4 wounded.

You know what would demonstrate the futility of the Russian cause even better...another RA operational collapse.

And yet the narrative in Russia and the West is that Russia is advancing, a slow grind, but one that one could argue will result in breakthrough and collapse of the Ukrainian army. Certainly reviewing Russian news, where they were touting the hold up of aid to Ukraine via the U.S until just now, is part of the narrative that it is signalling to its domestic and international audience that dividends will occur with this costly advance, that the West and Ukraine is close to giving up. It is essential that Ukraine and the West defeats this narrative, both to ensure that Western audiences and elites are not convinced of the futility of further aid, and to spur further cracks in Russia.

Continued, loud, assertive Western support to Ukraine is essential, the kind vocalized by Macron recently.

But just to emphasize, I'm not saying focus on the bridge solely, but it takes time for a Russian operational collapse, and we don't exactly know what Ukraine has in terms of ability to immediately make that happen. But a bridge that symbolizes Putin's regime and Russia's connection to Crimea is a good way of telling the Russian civilian the war is not going well. And certainly one that won't potentially backfire on Ukraine and the West like targeting economic targets like oil and gas before the American election. (I believe analysis is finding that targets are being struck that focus on domestic consumption and not exports that might more severely drive up prices) and certainly not of the civilian harming, war crime potential. (In fact the first bridge attack probably acts like a way of defusing potential war crime objections in that Ukraine has been able to explain itself and gained western acceptance via normalization)

Again I'm not saying focus on the bridge. I'm just saying that I'm not going to be surprised if Ukraine sends a ATACMS against it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

27 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 I'm just saying that I'm not going to be surprised if Ukraine sends a ATACMS against it.

I would, and I'm pretty sure the Pentagon would be as well.

[ASL Veteran]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I am kinda skeptical on this point to be honest. I think we could definitely see a draw back and cold shouldering but NATO is the largest military markets on the planet.  If the US pulls out completely then NATO STANAGs die then and there.  This could see nations go elsewhere for military spending because they are no longer locked into a US driven NATO standard.

Of course given the levels of rhetoric over good sense we saw last time, I could also very well be totally wrong.

I mean, really Canada has already basically withdrawn from NATO hasn't it?  Can you be considered a serious NATO member when your government says that not only will they not spend 2% on defense but they will never spend 2%.

 

[Sequoia]

Agreed Canada and most other NATO members could and should do more. But these guys below should show that Canada indeed was and is part of NATO.

 

Fallen Canadian Armed Forces Members - Canada in Afghanistan - Canadian Armed Forces - History - Remembrance - Veterans Affairs Canada

[chuckdyke]

Where is it written that NATO countries must support nonmembers? AS far as I can tell they must only support each other in case a member is attacked. Governments which had an open checkbook are already voted out of office. That is the crux of the matter, that some governments cut back on spending. 

Edited April 26 by chuckdyke

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, ASL Veteran said:

I mean, really Canada has already basically withdrawn from NATO hasn't it?  Can you be considered a serious NATO member when your government says that not only will they not spend 2% on defense but they will never spend 2%.

 

Meh, the 2% thing is a weak metric and everyone knows it.  I mean it is better than nothing but it is not a measure of effectiveness nor contribution.  Greece is spending nearly 4% GDP - which is essentially an extension of workfare.  When was the last time Greece led a multinational brigade in Latvia or took an entire operational province on in Afghanistan?  Cynically 2% GDP is designed to drive NATO members to buy into American defence industry either directly or indirectly as opposed to really measure effectiveness.  

The reality does not often match the theatre.  But we will bow and scrap. Roll in Coast Guard and VA funding and other creative accounting until the heat gets turned off.  The US on the other hand cannot walk away from its position as a leader of the free world and expect everyone to forget it.

[sross112]

The way I read the NATO stuff with Trump was that it was all about the money. That's how I read almost everything that he did and does. Now. I am not a fan. I know that many of you will be tempted to call me names or belittle me in some manner, but I'm going to make an observation anyway. There might be more availability of weapons and equipment under him, as he would likely see it as some sort of US MIC super Walmart. No doubt there will probably be an end to aid packages, but there is a good chance of actual investment into production and sales. As long as someone else was paying the tab, he could yell from the podium that he "fixed it" and that it was a "win" for his constituents, the tax payer, and the economy. It would certainly be a win for Ukraine if everything was for sale and it sure might be, as I believe he is very myopic when it comes to foreign policy and security.  

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/why-you-cant-be-iran-hawk-and-russia-dove

A Russian victory is an Iranian victory. Moscow and Tehran have formed a military bloc with the aim of defeating the United States and its allies in the Middle East, Europe, and around the world. Russian and Iranian military forces have been fighting alongside one another in Syria for nearly a decade. The Russians have given Iran advanced air defenses and access to other military technologies and techniques, in addition to a front-row seat observing their efforts to defeat American and NATO missile defenses in Ukraine.[1] The Iranians in turn have given the Russians drones and access to drone technologies, including assisting with the construction of a massive factory to turn out thousands of Iranian drones in Russia.[2] Further Russian support to Iran has been limited in part because of the setbacks Russia has suffered in Ukraine. A victorious Russia will be free to give Iran the advanced aircraft and missile technologies Tehran has long sought.[3] If Russia gains control of Ukraine’s resources, as it seeks to do, it will be able to rebuild its own military and help Iran at the same time. Those concerned with the growth of Iran’s military power, ambitions, and aggression in the Middle East must recognize the degree to which Iran’s fortunes rise and fall with Russia’s.

 

ISW doing great stuff, as always.

[billbindc]

5 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

Actually, I’m not so sure about that. His threats to withdraw from NATO when he was President, were. Based on an actual desire of a population of Americans that “some” members of NATO weren’t fulfilling their commitments. That was actually true, and those members began fulfilling their commitments. Why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office to attack Ukraine? I think it was because he was unsure of how Trump would respond, and thought Trump’s successor wouldn’t do anything, exactly how he handled the invasion of Crimea and the succession of the Ukraine provinces.

To restate the points I made earlier in this thread:

Bolton and others have said directly that Trump had planned to pull out of NATO in a second term and there is no evidence that he now intends the contrary. Trump has also quite publicly rejected the Pentagon’s top generals who restrained him from this direction in the first term and there is no constituency in Trump world that has a stake in European stability. Quite the opposite, in fact, as they can anticipate making enormous amounts of money off of the Russian oligarchy should the US swing into acquiescence to a Russian dominated Eastern Europe. Don’t kid yourself. If he wins, NATO is very likely to die.

It is also a canard that Putin was holding back on Ukraine before Trump left office. The reality is that Putin’s regime was involved in a full court press to pressure Ukraine into subservience with the willing assistance of political appointees in the White House. Russia hasn’t gone to war because Putin didn’t think he needed to and clearly the Russian government expected Trump to win a second term. War was decided when it became clear that Biden had won and the immediate focus of American power was going to be on containing Moscow. Putin’s clique imagined that the US was still too shaken politically from the previous four years and too involved in Afghanistan to reorient rapidly while the Ukrainian military wouldn’t be able to put up significant resistance. Virtually wrong on all counts.