How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[cesmonkey]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3787579/biden-administration-announces-new-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

Quote

The capabilities in this announcement include:

• Ammunition for HIMARS;
• 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds;
• 60mm mortar rounds;
• Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
• Javelin and AT-4 anti-armor systems;
• Precision aerial munitions;
• Small arms and additional rounds of small arms ammunition and grenades;
• Demolitions munitions;
• Anti-armor mines;
• Tactical vehicles to recover equipment;
• Helmets, body armor, and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment; and
• Spare parts, maintenance, and other ancillary equipment.

 

[Harmon Rabb]

FriendlyKozak makes a good point in his humorous style.

Kinda amusing how the same officials inside the Kremlin which were so proud of Crimea being supposedly being legally a part of Russia, seem to be forgetting that part of their narrative. Now that it looks like we may give Ukraine the ability to target the Russian military inside Russia.

I don't want to count any chickens before they hatch, but my gut feeling says we will see the Ukrainian military target the Russian military inside Russia with ATACMS and other western made weapons in the future.

Edit: Good stuff Germany!

 

 

Edited May 24 by Harmon Rabb

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, Eddy said:

The Ukrainian Foreign Minister states that the Russian 'ceasefire' thing is purely to derail Ukraine's peace summit. 

Kuleba: Putin wants to derail Ukraine's peace summit by claiming 'readiness for ceasefire' (kyivindependent.com)

I suppose it's the safest/default view for the Ukrainian govt. to take whether they believe it or not. 

It might work.  This “peace summit” really reads like a push to have allies sign onto an “unconditional Russian surrender” situation. I am not sure the allies think that is realistic or are on board for another 10-20 year war.  I think we all know Russia is full of it, but it may provide an opportunity to Korean Peninsula this thing leaving Russia to become the new NK - bat sh#t crazy but contained.

[The_Capt]

And to resurrect the autonomous debate:

Seriously, spend some time on this channel…holy crap this technology is a lot further along then I thought.

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And to resurrect the autonomous debate:

Seriously, spend some time on this channel…holy crap this technology is a lot further along then I thought.

It has in fact all but arrived. Something almost exactly like this is going have an RPG warhead strapped to it and be told to go hunting literally any day now. Imagine Baba Yaga type mother ships releasing them ten at a time.

How long before an ATACMs class missile can deploy say ~50 of them? You would probably need a braking parachute on the warhead before they dispensed but there isn't anything impossible about that. 

[dan/california]

 

[Battlefront.com]

35 minutes ago, Eddy said:

The Ukrainian Foreign Minister states that the Russian 'ceasefire' thing is purely to derail Ukraine's peace summit. 

Kuleba: Putin wants to derail Ukraine's peace summit by claiming 'readiness for ceasefire' (kyivindependent.com)

I suppose it's the safest/default view for the Ukrainian govt. to take whether they believe it or not. 

I think people are missing the point.  Of course Putin is trying to screw up something that isn't coming out of Moscow on Moscow terms.  That's like saying "it's cold outside" while standing at the South or North Pole.

Every time Putin has put out messaging to undercut some negotiations (2014 through to today) he's done so by stating, in simple terms, "I am willing to negotiate what is mine and what is yours.  And what is yours is mine" (as someone recently put it).

When more came out about Russian conditions for a ceasefire, it was clear that Putin was trying to get Ukraine to give it some of its initial strategic war aims, such as demilitarization or Ukraine never becoming part of NATO.  This sort of crap wasn't always floated initially, but it came out soon after.

The lat time I could find that ceasefire talks got this much attention was late December 2023:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-war-cease-fire.html

Those went nowhere, of course.

So it remains to be seen if this latest trial balloon/distraction/sabotage is like the previous ones or different.  This one feels different, but thinking about it more it's too soon to say either way.

Steve

[Eddy]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This one feels different, but thinking about it more it's too soon to say either way.

It does feel different though, doesn't it. And I can't put my finger on why. After all it's not the first time Russia has pushed hard for negligible gains in a seemingly operationally insignificant area of the front. 

The trouble is, I'm that concerned about confirmation bias that the whole Russian army could collapse, Putin falls out of a window and the Dali Lama takes over, and I'd still be thinking 'need more evidence'.

[FancyCat]

Quote

Ukraine destroying Russia’s ICBM early warning radar at Armavir - which can also detect ATACMs in Kherson & Crimea - apparently happened last month. The hand wringing by certain people about the consequences of this action probably need to step back and rethink

Fightbomber apparently states that this occurred on April 21 and he himself noted the attack when it occurred. We can safely assume no red line crossed if Blinken's visit resulted in him being okay with western weapons being used in Russia.

 

[FancyCat]

Analyst for Carnegie Russia suggests Putin is asking for ceasefire negotiations along the very generous lines of.....having Zelensky removed first.

Evident that Russia still refuses to negotiate with Ukraine (calling a government illegally in power is hardly good starting point for ceasefire), opting to seek great power negotiations with the West regarding Ukraine (positions the West has stated are impossible, they regard negotiations must be primarily Ukraine v Russia) and still regards Ukraine has puppet of the West. No, I think we can safely say there is no weakening of Russian position.

Quote

#Putin has claimed for the second time in a week that #Zelensky is illegitimate. In the latest December issue of the R.Politik bulletin (which is free, by the way, so feel free to check it out), I wrote that the Kremlin is signaling to the West that #Zelensky needs to be removed, as Moscow views him as an obstacle to negotiations.  Judging by Putin’s recent comments, they are meticulously studying Ukrainian constitutional law in the presidential administration and even suggesting ways to remove the Ukrainian president—mentioning the Constitutional Court and various options in the constitution.  It seems there might be even a candidate to replace #Zelensky—#Yanukovych, who is in Minsk with #Putin. However, this still seems rather caricature-like, though it’s becoming harder to be surprised after Belousov became the defense minister.

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Totally agree with Stoltenberg here.

[Eddy]

Article in the WarZone about the strike on the early warning radar

Strike On Russian Strategic Early Warning Radar Site Is A Big Deal (twz.com)

Quote

The date the Planet Labs image was taken also aligns with initial reports that the attacks on Armavir occurred sometime between May 22 and May 23.

The article goes on to discuss whether the radar was any good or not at tracking ATACMS, hence whether there was justification or not.     

[keas66]

I'm still not seeing any proof that the damage to these  installations was carried out by the Ukrainains ...

[FancyCat]

Maybe FighterBomber is confusing the strike with the one on April 17 in Moldova. Tho, hey, that strike did occur without pushback either. The guy below I'm assuming is pulling the images directly from Planet as he's from Radio Free Europe.

Quote

Aftermath of the alleged Ukrainian UAV attack on the ballistic missile early warning radar in Armavir, Russia, as seen in a @planet satellite image captured yesterday, May 23rd, soon after the attack.

The Russian Fighterbomber TG channel claims that the attack took place around April 21, not yesterday. I wonder why they didn't clean up the mess then - they’ve had plenty of time. Sadly, I can't support or debunk this claim with satellite imagery.

 

[Centurian52]

7 minutes ago, keas66 said:

I'm still not seeing any proof that the damage to these  installations was carried out by the Ukrainains ...

You mean the damage to the early warning radar, or some other installation? I believe you have the burden of proof backwards. I think, far from needing proof that it was the Ukrainians, we would need some significant reason to doubt that it was the Ukrainians. It's a legitimate military target that they have the means to strike, and no one else is at war with Russia, so it would be very surprising if it was someone other than the Ukrainians.

[keas66]

6 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

You mean the damage to the early warning radar, or some other installation? I believe you have the burden of proof backwards. I think, far from needing proof that it was the Ukrainians, we would need some significant reason to doubt that it was the Ukrainians. It's a legitimate military target that they have the means to strike, and no one else is at war with Russia, so it would be very surprising if it was someone other than the Ukrainians.

Not when it suites Russia's purposes to play up a strike on their Nuclear Deterrence Capabilities - When thats the case I would not believe a word any Russian  source  said on the subject .

[FancyCat]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

It really does matter if it was dual purpose.  The US and West are not going to support a partner who actively targets Russia’s nuclear architecture.

It does matter tho, Russian dual purpose equipment has been used to severely strike significant targets and under take important Russian actions to influence the war in Ukraine. It's also notable to note the degrees of escalation occurring by Ukraine, Russian nuclear capable bombers, Russian warships including submarine and submarine tender capability, now Russian radar sites in both Moldavia and southern Russia. Clearly Ukraine has been operating cautiously with planned step downs and increasing attacks accordingly due to push back or lack thereof.

Again, if Russia really is terrified of NATO moving to end the Russian regime, they wouldn't be stripping forces facing NATO including their air defense guarding against Finland and the Baltics, nor stripping the units in Kalinagrad.

If Russia is terrified of escalation and needs to warn NATO to back down, as it feels cornered why is Russia still undertaking measures to indicate maximalist aims and positions and not attempting to utilize the positions offered by the West in late 2022? If they wanna downgrade the temp, launching offensives in regions quiet since 2022 is the opposite, declaring Zelensky is illegitimate is also not seeking de-escalation.

I'm fact the measures taken indicate Russia is seeking hard line long term war in Ukraine. In these conditions, striking targets in Russia, is unavoidable.

[FancyCat]

the strike on April 17 was against a 29B6 Container radar but it arguably has more dual use value than the one struck supposedly on May 23, monitoring supposedly deep into Europe and Western Ukraine. I dunno if Russia wanted to make it a red line, but I suppose their quiet response last month is opening the flood gates.

[kimbosbread]

Interestingly enough, that big Radat appears to be pointed to the Middle East, not Europe. Any implications of that?

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1793943806808862877/photo/3

[Battlefront.com]

Here's my take on it.

1.  Ukraine has so far been very careful to not create tension with its Western partners

2.  Ukraine has so far only shown interest in targets that have a direct tie to this war, not some other war

3.  Ukraine has so far show incredible well thought out strikes that are part of larger campaigns

4.  Ukraine has so far done things that make the history books by being smart, not by being dumb

Speaking of the burden of proof, I would say the burden is on this being a bad idea that the West is not happy about rather than the other way around.

I would not be half surprised if the US was the one that suggested this as a target, even if with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink. 

"Hey US, we want to do X to Y by doing Z.  What do you think?"

"Well, we can't provide you with any direct assistance or targeting information.  In fact, your idea is really bad because this radar station over here (consults open source Google image) would spot you long before you got to your target.  So absolutely don't do your attack because of this radar.  I mean, seriously, this radar installation would be very problematic for you"

Steve

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

It does matter tho, Russian dual purpose equipment has been used to severely strike significant targets and under take important Russian actions to influence the war in Ukraine. It's also notable to note the degrees of escalation occurring by Ukraine, Russian nuclear capable bombers, Russian warships including submarine and submarine tender capability, now Russian radar sites in both Moldavia and southern Russia. Clearly Ukraine has been operating cautiously with planned step downs and increasing attacks accordingly due to push back or lack thereof.

Again, if Russia really is terrified of NATO moving to end the Russian regime, they wouldn't be stripping forces facing NATO including their air defense guarding against Finland and the Baltics, nor stripping the units in Kalinagrad.

If Russia is terrified of escalation and needs to warn NATO to back down, as it feels cornered why is Russia still undertaking measures to indicate maximalist aims and positions and not attempting to utilize the positions offered by the West in late 2022? If they wanna downgrade the temp, launching offensives in regions quiet since 2022 is the opposite, declaring Zelensky is illegitimate is also not seeking de-escalation.

I'm fact the measures taken indicate Russia is seeking hard line long term war in Ukraine. In these conditions, striking targets in Russia, is unavoidable.

You really do not understand the risks or dynamic here do you?  So the entire nuclear equation is designed around mutual deterrence through mutual destruction.  In order to sustain mutual deterrence one needs to have full and open visibility of all the facts surrounding that situation.  Fog, false signals and  blind spots create uncertainty in that mutual assurance/deterrence is always unacceptable.  Why?  Because these are human systems and errors are going to happen naturally, we do not need to add to these error probabilities when the stakes are this high.

Attacks on Russia’s nuclear architecture - in this case, their detection tripwires - create uncertainty in the one arena which we cannot have it.  So we don’t care if the Russians are using them as dual use because…and try to follow me here…Ukraine is important, but it is not that important.  Your problem has been that for some time now you have lost objectivity on this whole war to the point that the ends are justified by pretty much any way and means.  You have demonstrated this on many occasions and expressed vigorously your frustrations.  I can sympathize but in this case, you, and any whom may be tempted to go down the same path are very wrong.  The deliberate calculated release of nuclear weapons is very low.  The accidental or uncontrolled release is low but can change very quickly.  We have enough examples of this during the Cold War.  

To your point on Russia  “troop stripping”; this makes the situation worse.  It means Russia is likely down to nuclear deterrence as the sole means of guaranteeing their security…and now Ukraine is hammering their tripwire…that is a phenomenally bad idea.

So, no, it does not matter in the larger strategic equation if these were dual use. It may matter to Ukraine, and even this war, but in the larger picture of global security those radars are as sacrosanct as our own North Warning Systems under NORAD. The West will not support any playing around in this field. They will likely let Kyiv fall first.  So if Ukraine wants support for deep strikes into Russian, of which many are merited…I think we are at that point, strikes on Russian nuclear architecture are off the table entirely even if they are dual purpose.  Agree with me or not.  Stamp your feet and call the US and NATO “cowards” but there is an entire defence and security world out there that no one under the age of 40 really understands.  It faded into the background over the last 30 years, to the point an entire generation of policy makers, diplomats and academics have grown up thinking that it was all over.

It is not.  It never was.  The nature of warfare changed in 1945, not the character, the very nature of it.  Learn to live with it because what comes next is going to make this entire war look quaint, and it will be ruled by this harsh calculus.

Edited May 25 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's my take on it.

1.  Ukraine has so far been very careful to not create tension with its Western partners

2.  Ukraine has so far only shown interest in targets that have a direct tie to this war, not some other war

3.  Ukraine has so far show incredible well thought out strikes that are part of larger campaigns

4.  Ukraine has so far done things that make the history books by being smart, not by being dumb

Speaking of the burden of proof, I would say the burden is on this being a bad idea that the West is not happy about rather than the other way around.

I would not be half surprised if the US was the one that suggested this as a target, even if with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink. 

"Hey US, we want to do X to Y by doing Z.  What do you think?"

"Well, we can't provide you with any direct assistance or targeting information.  In fact, your idea is really bad because this radar station over here (consults open source Google image) would spot you long before you got to your target.  So absolutely don't do your attack because of this radar.  I mean, seriously, this radar installation would be very problematic for you"

Steve

There is no way the US green lit a strike on Russian strategic deterrence architecture.  Unless this was a whoopsie, and if it was it was a really big one.  No responsible (or sane) strike authority is going to sign off on this, any more than a Russian commander or politician is going to green light strikes on our own NORAD architecture.

[billbindc]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I would not be half surprised if the US was the one that suggested this as a target, even if with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink. 

"Hey US, we want to do X to Y by doing Z.  What do you think?"

"Well, we can't provide you with any direct assistance or targeting information.  In fact, your idea is really bad because this radar station over here (consults open source Google image) would spot you long before you got to your target.  So absolutely don't do your attack because of this radar.  I mean, seriously, this radar installation would be very problematic for you"

Steve

I would be absolutely flabbergasted if this idea came from the US. 

Edited May 25 by billbindc

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

You really do not understand the risks or dynamic here do you? 

Biden and Co have not acted anywhere near being too rash or misplaying on escalation in regards to Ukraine and Russia the entire invasion, many times to my annoyance. If Blinken goes to Kiyv after Ukraine destroyed that radar and comes back and says Western weapons should be used in Russia, I'm certainly not going to worry about escalation, not with this administration's record on Ukraine.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

There is no way the US green lit a strike on Russian strategic deterrence architecture.  Unless this was a whoopsie, and if it was it was a really big one.  No responsible (or sane) strike authority is going to sign off on this, any more than a Russian commander or politician is going to green light strikes on our own NORAD architecture.

Which brigs me back to at least the possibility the Russians did this themselves in the attempt to create diplomatic leverage. And whether or not the U.S. three letter agencies know better may not matter. The whole thing might be an information op aimed at places like Brazil and Indonesia to help ensure they stay on the sidelines, or undermine Ukraine at the U.N.. 

Something we are not very good at is keeping up with the state of the propaganda  war outside of European, and English speaking, media and diplomatic environments. 

Edited May 25 by dan/california