How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[pintere]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

The driver says it would be effective in tank battles but that isn't the environment they are fighting in.

The same could probably be said of most MBTs used in this war. If tanks are going to continue as a viable weapon system at all then they’re going to have to evolve.

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, pintere said:

The same could probably be said of most MBTs used in this war. If tanks are going to continue as a viable weapon system at all then they’re going to have to evolve.

The largest land war in Europe since WW2 and “that isn’t the environment they are fighting in” for tanks is probably a really big hint that things have shifted dramatically.

Harped on this before, this is much bigger than tanks.  The entire mechanized system is looking at an evolutionary challenge in the next ten years.

[danfrodo]

A few good bits here today.  Videos showing RU dead and destroyed.  

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/5/7/2239426/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Ukraine-arrests-two-colonels-in-plot-to-kill-Zelensky?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

So there's been posts that RU is running out of tubes/arty systems, yet they seem to still be firing, a lot.  RU losing tanks & IFVs at a shocking pace, but they still keep coming.  Personnel loses are shocking, even if we cut UKR reports by 1/2, yet they keep coming.  I can see how RU won't run out of meat, but the other stuff seems in endless supply, though of dwindling quality.  

So what is Putin actually up to?  He's taking massive losses to gain small amounts of ground.  Does he think UKR will actually buckle?  Or is he simply and cynically getting every hectare he can because he just doesn't care about cost?  He's burning up a lot of resources and so it would seem he has zero fear of UKR exploiting his depletion of forces.   Meanwhile, I suppose he's hoping somehow UKR or the west loses the will to continue and seeks a bad settlement.  But at the same time his own infrastruture is starting to take a beating.  This is classic, where the dictator starts war and then just keeps doubling down no matter the cost to the country.

Meanwhile, we wait until probably summer of 2025 for UKR to be able to somehow challenge this on the battlefield?  

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The largest land war in Europe since WW2 and “that isn’t the environment they are fighting in” for tanks is probably a really big hint that things have shifted dramatically.

Harped on this before, this is much bigger than tanks.  The entire mechanized system is looking at an evolutionary challenge in the next ten years.

I think you meant the last ten months. There already a 10k zone to either side of the line that is all but vehicle free, unless you count the burned out wrecks.

[FancyCat]

Entirely unserious. No wonder Macron is getting more heated rhetorically, at some point this becomes meaningless.

Quote

Nuclear signalling loses all credibility when it is 1) used repetitively with no follow-through; 2) bandied in a blatantly flippant manner (F-16s have been flying around for yrs fm the high North (Norway) to the Baltics (NATO policing) to (an F16 shot down a Sukhoi in 2015)

Quoting: The Kremlin is extremely loud today, Russia will treat F-16 multi-role fighter jets operated by Ukraine as nuclear-capable assets.   "We cannot ignore the fact that these planes are dual-purpose platforms that can be used both for nuclear and non-nuclear tasks … No matter what modification of the aircraft will be supplied [to Ukraine] we will treat them as nuclear-capable and we will consider this step of the United States and NATO as a purposeful provocation," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.  The ministry further warned Ukraine and its allies for “reckless steps”.   "The regime in Kyiv and its Western sponsors should realize that their reckless steps are bringing the situation closer to the point where it will attain ‘critical mass’ and explode," the ministry said.

 

[Sojourner]

F16 as seen from cabin of TU95 caught violating Alaskan ADIZ a few days ago.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-f-16-intercepts-russian-bombers-near-alaska-tensions-cool/ar-BB1lQWSe

 

ETA: Or maybe not, article has contradictory statements from NORAD. Cool video though.

Edited May 8 by Sojourner

[Harmon Rabb]

29 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Entirely unserious. No wonder Macron is getting more heated rhetorically, at some point this becomes meaningless.

 

Fun fact: you can also use a Mig-21 to drop a nuke.

Of course Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons of any kind due to that Memorandum which they signed in 1994.

Don't know about everyone else but I'm at the point when I hear those silly Moscovites employ this kind of ridiculous rhetoric regarding a specific system, I'm less worried and more convinced that we are doing something right.

Just shows that they are worried about the introduction of F-16s to the battlefield.

 

[dan/california]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lawfare-podcast/id498897343?i=1000654849166

An entire episode on war gaming for policy and academic analysis.

[billbindc]

12 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Russia using the provision of depleted uranium ammunition as a reason for their tactical nuclear weapons drills in response is quite the stretch, eh? 

Dave

Whatever reasons the Russians give are as a rule bogus. But there was some panic in the Kremlin and Western intelligence and diplomatic sources picked it up. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lawfare-podcast/id498897343?i=1000654849166

An entire episode on war gaming for policy and academic analysis.

You probably meant this one.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lawfare-daily-wargamings-past-present-and-future/id498897343?i=1000654785187

It's also on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNGILr7vIFM

 

Edited May 8 by Vanir Ausf B

[dan/california]

20 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

You probably meant this one.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lawfare-daily-wargamings-past-present-and-future/id498897343?i=1000654785187

It's also on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNGILr7vIFM

 

apologies if I cut and pasted that wrong...

[Carolus]

Girkin is being accused of treason in Russia.

 

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

7 hours ago, dan/california said:

I think you meant the last ten months. There already a 10k zone to either side of the line that is all but vehicle free, unless you count the burned out wrecks.

And on the Russian side, some (barely) mobile barns accompanied by bikers. Proper Mad Max style.

[paxromana]

42 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Girkin is being accused of treason in Russia.

Comedy Gold!

As Ye Sow. so shall Ye Reap!

[Maciej Zwolinski]

7 hours ago, danfrodo said:

So what is Putin actually up to?  He's taking massive losses to gain small amounts of ground.  Does he think UKR will actually buckle?  Or is he simply and cynically getting every hectare he can because he just doesn't care about cost? 

OK, my answer to the question "what is Putin actually up to?" (which should be read with a massive dose of skepticism, as it involves making a theory of mind of man having massively more information and usually thinking in massively different way than I; i.e., a wild guess)

1. Putin thinks the war will end through Donald Trump becoming the President of the US and successfully implementing his plan to pressure Ukraine politically into armistice on the basis of status quo in early 2025.

2. Therefore, the war has a probable end date in early 2025 which is based  on external political considerations and not dependent on any actions of Ukraine or Russia. All territorial gains must occur in 2024 and on the other hand, the risk of all losses is also limited in time to 2024. Timeline after early 2025 does not matter much - Russia is not worried about NATO or the Ukraine rekindling the conflict at any reasonable time after 2024, and even if its army is generally wrecked, it thinks it will always be beenough to defend the armistice line (even provided that NATO and the UKR muster political will sufficient to even think of restarting the war). 

3. Therefore Russian army is going all in to maximise territorial gains in 2024, particularly in the Donbass area which Russia claims to be its own, but has not conquered it yet. If they are successful in Donbas or if they statemate in Donbass, they may try to do the same thing in the Zaporozhie area. They do not care about the losses, they do not care about the war materiel stocks (they know they won't be attacked) and they do not care that much about their economy either, which they think will somehow limp through the rest of 2024 anyway, and Russians will start rebuilding it in from 2025.

 

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

OK, my answer to the question "what is Putin actually up to?" (which should be read with a massive dose of skepticism, as it involves making a theory of mind of man having massively more information and usually thinking in massively different way than I; i.e., a wild guess)

1. Putin thinks the war will end through Donald Trump becoming the President of the US and successfully implementing his plan to pressure Ukraine politically into armistice on the basis of status quo in early 2025.

2. Therefore, the war has a probable end date in early 2025 which is based  on external political considerations and not dependent on any actions of Ukraine or Russia. All territorial gains must occur in 2024 and on the other hand, the risk of all losses is also limited in time to 2024. Timeline after early 2025 does not matter much - Russia is not worried about NATO or the Ukraine rekindling the conflict at any reasonable time after 2024, and even if its army is generally wrecked, it thinks it will always be beenough to defend the armistice line (even provided that NATO and the UKR muster political will sufficient to even think of restarting the war). 

3. Therefore Russian army is going all in to maximise territorial gains in 2024, particularly in the Donbass area which Russia claims to be its own, but has not conquered it yet. If they are successful in Donbas or if they statemate in Donbass, they may try to do the same thing in the Zaporozhie area. They do not care about the losses, they do not care about the war materiel stocks (they know they won't be attacked) and they do not care that much about their economy either, which they think will somehow limp through the rest of 2024 anyway, and Russians will start rebuilding it in from 2025.

 

This sounds about right.  The reality though is that this is a poor strategy in many ways.  This is betting a lot on a single highly chaotic horse.  Not only does a Trump admin need to sign off on forcing Ukraine into a disadvantaged peace, it needs to begin renormalization with Russia under a Putin regime - this may or may not happen.  And even if it does, the EU still gets a vote.  The EU has already pulled away from Russian energy (at least directly) and no western company is going to be eager to jump back into Russia after watching what happened to companies stuck holding the bag back in ‘22.  And forget about loans to Russia from the West, or possibly anyone else for that matter.

So Russia’s military and economy are seriously degraded from ‘22 levels and they may very well remain isolated. That is not a good start point for planning a second invasion in 4-8 years.  An invasion would need to be after Trump leaves office otherwise Putin risks making him look like a weak chump who got duped, and Putin definitely does not want to do that.  So Russia winds up in an overall weaker and more vulnerable position post-war while gaining literally meters of blasted wasteland that have no real strategic significance.

This could very well be the beginning of a slow motion Russian collapse in the making…and this is Putin’s best scenario.  In reality Russia and Putin are the ones running out of time.  Most assessments put a 2026 best before date for Russia before things start to really fall apart.  So what happens if Biden wins?  What happens if Trump decides he can make a better deal elsewhere?  Basically this reduces Russian option spaces down to a singularity, which historically is never a good thing.

[cesmonkey]

 

[alison]

That podcast on wargaming was interesting, and it reminded me of a wargame we played in highschool sometime in the late 80s/early 90s. It was a mandatory part of the curriculum and took about a half day if I recall. A huge map of the world was pasted onto the assembly room floor and students were randomly grouped into different countries with different resources and requirements. We had to self-organize to elect leaders (or not), make alliances with other countries (or not), then declare the actions we would take to try to satisfy the requirements of our population - attack, trade, build and so forth. It was similar to Diplomacy.

Anyway, the gimmick was that after a certain number of turns we all reflected on the state of the world, which had by that point deteriorated into exactly the sort of clusterfunk you would expect if you had random highschoolers try their hand at managing global affairs. Then the organizers dropped a huge vat of beads onto the floor where each bead was allegedly the size of the blast radius of large nuclear warhead - one bead for every active warhead at the time. And then we were made to clean them all up, soberly contemplating this worst possible outcome.

I assume this was less of a tool for research and more a tool for education - or propaganda, depending on your perspective - but the impact was real. I was often surprised to hear kids growing up just a few years after me didn't go through these sorts of activities. I think about this when each round of Russian propaganda comes through about how "this time, the nukes really could fly!", and I wonder how hollow that sounds to people who didn't grow up in a Cold War context. "Nukes? Okay, boomer." I doubt it's as visceral to people who grew up with the Global War on Terror as "their" war.

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

6 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Putin thinks the war will end through Donald Trump becoming the President of the US and successfully implementing his plan to pressure Ukraine politically into armistice on the basis of status quo in early 2025.

...

This sounds about right.

Yeah it does.

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

An invasion would need to be after Trump leaves office otherwise Putin risks making him look like a weak chump who got duped, and Putin definitely does not want to do that.

I seriously doubt that Putin gives a rats *** about how Trump looks. The fact is he will need at least 4 years (really more as you point out) to even begin to contemplate mounting a new invasion.

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

And even if it does, the EU still gets a vote

Indeed. Even a lower level of support from the EU would mean trouble for a weaker RA. As several people have pointed out Ukrainians would still fight on their own even. Clearly the less support the harder it gets but even with Putin's collapsed options it looks pretty bleak for his success.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This sounds about right.  The reality though is that this is a poor strategy in many ways. 

True, but Putin doesn't have a bag of tricks to reach into that may hold out something better.  Instead, he's holding a bag of poo.

In fact, Putin has had f'all proactive options since mid 2022 and he's played out all of them.  The only one that's had any degree of success is continuing to attack Ukraine.  And by success I mean it hasn't definitively failed (like his energy leverage, buying off EU countries, etc.).

Clearly the best scenario for Putin is a Trump administration.  It's certainly imperfect, but as we've just seen the US' aid packages (not just military) are critical to Ukraine's war effort.  Given how absolutely terribly bad the war is going for Russia, any improvement is better than none.

But the reality is that Trump will also piss off and screw up good relations with Europe.  He did in his first admin and he has loudly proclaimed policies that will make a second admin destroy things instead of just damage.  This is good for Russia in many ways (which is why Trump is Putin's best hope), but Trump's hostility to NATO/Europe will most likely mean Europe further taking responsibility for its own security.  This is a good thing for Europe, which by extension means a bad thing for Russia.

Politically, I don't see Europe being supportive of a Trump admin's insistence on Ukraine becoming a vassal state of Russia.  And as we saw in Trump's first admin, he'll have some of the most incompetent and discredited people coming up with and executing diplomacy.  The chances of Trump's people persuading Europe to throw Ukraine under the bus is very low IMHO.  I'd say there's a greater chance that Europe would instead look to score points by telling America to piss off and let adults handle the situation.

There should be some faith that Europe can keep Ukraine fighting against Russia for quite some time, even if it is grinding static warfare.

As for normalization of economic and political relations with Russia, let's remember that Europe is Russia's biggest customer base and they aren't going to restart good relations with Putin.   I don't see it happening in the US either, even if Trump wins the Presidency because Congress ultimately has the say on most of that because it's their legislation that is doing most of the damage to Russia.  I don't see Trump being able to pressure 1/2 of Congress to undo what it has done EVEN IF the Republicans wind up controlling both the Senate and House.  The GOP is massively dysfunctional and they aren't likely to have enough margin for error when it comes to votes like this.

The short of this is, even if Trump gets into office and does everything that he is expected to do, I'm sure it will make a positive difference for Russia.  However, I don't think Ukraine surrendering is assured and normalization with Russia is unlikely to happen at all.  So I expect even with Trump in office that the war will continue into 2025.

Steve

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat said:

I seriously doubt that Putin gives a rats *** about how Trump looks. The fact is he will need at least 4 years (really more as you point out) to even begin to contemplate mounting a new invasion.

Consistent elements about Trump:

- Needs to look like a "winner" at all times.

- Control freak.

- Onion skin ego.

Putin had better damned well care about how Trump looks because his entire freakin plan is resting on Trump as president actually moving in directions that support Russian interests.  If Trump makes a deal and then gets screwed by Putin, I will put money on the bar that the outcome will not go well for Russia.  

[A Canadian Cat]

45 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Putin had better damned well care about how Trump looks because his entire freakin plan is resting on Trump as president actually moving in directions that support Russian interests

OK perhaps but I don't he needs that. 

There is one other thing that is consistent about Trump though:

- is an incompetent manager and has even lower skilled people surrounding him.

This means that if Putin decides to make a move he kinda doesn't care if he annoys Trump because he's all bluster. Plus, see ego line above, a little BS and platitudes his way would probably be enough to keep Trump feeling like a winner and Putin gets to do what he wants anyway. Look at some of the interactions between them in the past. Putin utterly embarrassed him and he didn't even notice (I'm thinking Helsinki). Trump then spend the week talking about how great Putin was. Any other leader would have noticed the slight and been pissed.

It is likely not relevant though because it will take Putin longer than four years to get his army's **** together. Unless.....

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat said:

OK perhaps but I don't he needs that. 

There is one other thing that is consistent about Trump though:

- is an incompetent manager and has even lower skilled people surrounding him.

This means that if Putin decides to make a move he kinda doesn't care if he annoys Trump because he's all bluster. Plus, see ego line above, a little BS and platitudes his way would probably be enough to keep Trump feeling like a winner and Putin gets to do what he wants anyway. Look at some of the interactions between them in the past. Putin utterly embarrassed him and he didn't even notice (I'm thinking Helsinki). Trump then spend the week talking about how great Putin was. Any other leader would have noticed the slight and been pissed.

It is likely not relevant though because it will take Putin longer than four years to get his army's **** together. Unless.....

I dunno, maybe.  I think Trump learned a lot from the pandemic, it basically killed his second term.  Public screw ups one cannot blame on someone else easily, stick.  I am sure Putin is confident he can handle Trump but the stakes are extremely high if he gets it wrong.

Putin's best bet is that Trump is so focused on revenge and retaliation which will result in a tidal wave of law suites and counter-suits, the US becomes even more dysfunctional.  We are likely to lose the US as a global leader because it is all caught up in its own sh#t.  

We can definitely agree that Russia will be in no position to take on NATO - even a reduced NATO in less than 5-10 years.  Hell, if we are smart we keep piling onto Ukraine an bolster them to a deterrence via denial situation.

[Probus]

17 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Meanwhile, I suppose he's hoping somehow UKR or the west loses the will to continue and seeks a bad settlement.

This has to be Putin's plan and call it a victory.

[Probus]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Clearly the best scenario for Putin is a Trump administration.  It's certainly imperfect, but as we've just seen the US' aid packages (not just military) are critical to Ukraine's war effort.  Given how absolutely terribly bad the war is going for Russia, any improvement is better than none.

Trump is a loose cannon that can't keep his mouth shut, that's for sure.  But putting on my magic thinking cap, I'll bet dollars to donuts that if Trump gets elected he will do a 180 on support for Ukraine.  He is only against the war right now I'll bet because the current administration is for supporting Ukraine and it gives him talking points.  If Biden were to have been more isolationist, Trump would have lambasted him for it. But that's politics.

War, unfortunately, is big business and Trump, if nothing else, is a businessman.  Now that NATO is starting to pull their own weight, as you say, he'll take credit for that too.