How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

Just now, dan/california said:

This is the complication with the idea of beating Russia slowly, in a way that doesn't cause it to collapse. The entire system has rebuilt itself to commit to this war. There is zero chance of a course change with Putin in power, and very little chance of one if the is wider regime continuity when Putin leaves. So this is going to go on until Russia obliterates its capacity to function as a coherent state. 

 

Fine with that, so long as it gets dragged out.  We got incredibly lucky back in 89-91.  The Soviet Union folded up quickly but did so into pre-existing states.  Where there was no coherent pre-existing state we got war (see Yugoslavia).  A Russian collapse does not have that safety net, so it needs to be gradual. A fast boil collapse has every chance of having very bad things happen, and (frankly bafflingly ignored by some on this forum) in the modern age bad things do not stay neatly within lines on maps.

[Letter from Prague]

You always say that like we don't know. We do know that supporting Ukraine means Russia possibly falling apart.

It's just that the alternative is genocide of Ukraine and destruction of Western World Order with all that entails - destruction of NATO, end of EU, emboldened Russia continuing with this in further places, global semiconductor supply going poof with Taiwan, etc.

 

Edit: I think it includes total destruction of the Western Nations as Democracies/Republics, because the Western public is pretty engaged and what would be the impact of turning blind eye to Russias monstrosities on the voters?

Edited June 2 by Letter from Prague

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Fine with that, so long as it gets dragged out.  We got incredibly lucky back in 89-91.  The Soviet Union folded up quickly but did so into pre-existing states.  Where there was no coherent pre-existing state we got war (see Yugoslavia).

We also got quite a few wars because some people were never happy being a part of the pre-existing sate to start with and wanted out, but weren't allowed to leave (e.g. Chechnya).  Other pre-existing states didn't agree with the territorial boundaries and that got us numerous wars, some of which are still active today (e.g. Armenia and Azerbaijan). 

It is pretty clear that the elites in Russia believe that their state should be larger, not smaller.  The central authority will likely violently oppose anybody trying to leave Russia.  They will also likely oppose breaking up the "power vertical" and devolving authority more locally, though they may be forced to accept it as an interim solution with plans to claw it back over time (as Putin did).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

You always say that like we don't know. We do know that supporting Ukraine means Russia possibly falling apart.

It's just that the alternative is genocide of Ukraine and destruction of Western World Order with all that entails - destruction of NATO, end of EU, emboldened Russia continuing with this in further places, global semiconductor supply going poof with Taiwan, etc.

This is bad logic.  You are assuming the world is black and white... either Russian remains intact and Ukraine is wiped out *OR* Russia is forced to collapse and Ukraine (and everybody else) is saved.

We've been over this hundreds of times.  This is a dangerously wrong way to look at the situation in front of us.

The goals of the West should be to get Russia out of Ukraine, have Russia ostracized until it makes amends, and ensure Russia can't attack its neighbors.  This MIGHT only be achievable if Russia collapses, however collapse brings with it very undesirable things which MIGHT be worse than the status quo.  Even for Ukraine.  Therefore, the West should be trying to avoid pushing Russia into collapse while focusing on its goals.  If collapse happens as a necessary byproduct, I say "so be it".  But it shouldn't be ensuring we go down that path.

Steve

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-moscows-shadows/id1510124746?i=1000657553235

Galliotti checks in on the very things we are discussing.

Edited June 2 by dan/california

[The_Capt]

14 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

You always say that like we don't know. We do know that supporting Ukraine means Russia possibly falling apart.

It's just that the alternative is genocide of Ukraine and destruction of Western World Order with all that entails - destruction of NATO, end of EU, emboldened Russia continuing with this in further places, global semiconductor supply going poof with Taiwan, etc.

 

Edit: I think it includes total destruction of the Western Nations as Democracies/Republics, because the Western public is pretty engaged and what would be the impact of turning blind eye to Russias monstrosities on the voters?

I disagree.  Ukrainian genocide is a given.  In ‘22 it would have likely been cultural with a dose of brutal oppression.  After the last two years, I do not want to think about the level of vengeance that would be visited upon the Ukrainian people if Russia somehow prevailed.

As to Western collapse…nonsense.  You have pinned NATO, EU and Chinese expansion on this one war.  To the point the entire western world depends upon it.  This is simply not true.  First off, we could win this war and still see NATO and EU fold up, they were under intense political pressure before this war even started.  I think it more likely we will see western powers rally closer together in an Ukraine losing situation.  Some may decide to jump but a dangerous Russia and China are a “united we stand” mechanism, not an “every one for themselves”…and I will raise you Sweden and Finland to prove it.

As to the “Fall of Western Democracies” if we lose in Ukraine…again utter nonsense. Western voters are not absorbed by this war. In fact western ennui and apathy is the major challenge in keeping up political support for this war.  If Ukraine falls and bad things happen, western powers will embrace refugees (for awhile) and quickly change the channel, like we have for a long list of “troubles over there” for the last thirty years. Western democracies are more likely to tear themselves apart over a myriad of internal issues than a war most North Americans can’t find on a map.

Oversubscribing this war is bad as undersubscribing.  Because if you are framing this war as existential for the entire western world well then risking a full on Russian collapse or even nuclear war makes perfect sense…but it is factually wrong.

So, you may “know” but you clearly do not understand.

[Letter from Prague]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is bad logic.  You are assuming the world is black and white... either Russian remains intact and Ukraine is wiped out *OR* Russia is forced to collapse and Ukraine (and everybody else) is saved.

We've been over this hundreds of times.  This is a dangerously wrong way to look at the situation in front of us.

The goals of the West should be to get Russia out of Ukraine, have Russia ostracized until it makes amends, and ensure Russia can't attack its neighbors.  This MIGHT only be achievable if Russia collapses, however collapse brings with it very undesirable things which MIGHT be worse than the status quo.  Even for Ukraine.  Therefore, the West should be trying to avoid pushing Russia into collapse while focusing on its goals.  If collapse happens as a necessary byproduct, I say "so be it".  But it shouldn't be ensuring we go down that path.

Steve

I don't think the world is black and white - I think Putin is putting a lot of effort into making Russia black and white. The_Capt is perfectly right about how it is personal - and the Russian regime is doing a lot to make it that way and more. Russian regime is doing what it can to narrow the gap between victory and collapse - whether because they know or whether they're just so disfunctional I do not know.

In the end what I was trying to say was exactly your "so be it" paragraph. It is good to be wary of Russia collapsing and if it can be avoided then good (says my rational brain, my emotional brain says burn it down), but if they manipulate the situation into "let us win or we collapse and you'll have to deal with it", that should not be a reason to let them win, because that is eve worse.

[mosuri]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is bad logic.  You are assuming the world is black and white... either Russian remains intact and Ukraine is wiped out *OR* Russia is forced to collapse and Ukraine (and everybody else) is saved.

We've been over this hundreds of times.  This is a dangerously wrong way to look at the situation in front of us.

The goals of the West should be to get Russia out of Ukraine, have Russia ostracized until it makes amends, and ensure Russia can't attack its neighbors.  This MIGHT only be achievable if Russia collapses, however collapse brings with it very undesirable things which MIGHT be worse than the status quo.  Even for Ukraine.  Therefore, the West should be trying to avoid pushing Russia into collapse while focusing on its goals.  If collapse happens as a necessary byproduct, I say "so be it".  But it shouldn't be ensuring we go down that path.

Steve

I fully agree that the collapse path is "here be dragons" territory. But at the same time I fear that a non-collapse end to the war -- whereever in the spectrum of possibilities it will be -- will just result in a couple decades of interim peace. With the Germans it took a victory parade in Berlin to convince them that invading your neighbours was not a great idea -- before that it was all stab in the back, spineless politicians selling the country and stories for 20 years until they went for round #2.

I don't know what else would convince russians that having the larges country in the world should be enough for them already, so we probably have to settle for the least bad options. A new iron curtain is rather better than suddenly finding new sources of trinitite (being a cold war teenager I recall those horror scenarios well enough).

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is bad logic.  You are assuming the world is black and white... either Russian remains intact and Ukraine is wiped out *OR* Russia is forced to collapse and Ukraine (and everybody else) is saved.

We've been over this hundreds of times.  This is a dangerously wrong way to look at the situation in front of us.

The goals of the West should be to get Russia out of Ukraine, have Russia ostracized until it makes amends, and ensure Russia can't attack its neighbors.  This MIGHT only be achievable if Russia collapses, however collapse brings with it very undesirable things which MIGHT be worse than the status quo.  Even for Ukraine.  Therefore, the West should be trying to avoid pushing Russia into collapse while focusing on its goals.  If collapse happens as a necessary byproduct, I say "so be it".  But it shouldn't be ensuring we go down that path.

Steve

I swear to God, the Ukraine or Death extreme thinking is as bad as pro-Russian narratives for providing insights. The Ukraine is Always Right and Total Victory or the West will Fall narratives are dangerously delusional.  It traps us into a forever war with zero negotiation room or off ramps.  Honestly if this was the case, a fast first nuclear strike on Russia makes the most sense…and worse some of these extreme views might actually be on side with this.

There are days where I wonder if there is any sane ground left. We have diplomats and politicians treating this like an upgunned trade dispute. Russians thinking it is 1905 and time for Imperial ambitions, quoting doctrines centuries old as justification for gross violations. Pro-Ukrainian extremes that if Russia does not lose this war unconditionally all Western democracies will collapse into anarchy and we should be ready to risk full on nuclear war.

And we are a moderate forum by any metrics.

[The_Capt]

Just now, mosuri said:

I fully agree that the collapse path is "here be dragons" territory. But at the same time I fear that a non-collapse end to the war -- whereever in the spectrum of possibilities it will be -- will just result in a couple decades of interim peace. With the Germans it took a victory parade in Berlin to convince them that invading your neighbours was not a great idea -- before that it was all stab in the back, spineless politicians selling the country and stories for 20 years until they went for round #2.

I don't know what else would convince russians that having the larges country in the world should be enough for them already, so we probably have to settle for the least bad options. A new iron curtain is rather better than suddenly finding new sources of trinitite (being a cold war teenager I recall those horror scenarios well enough).

Exactly why we should pursue it. Two decades where we can buy time and hope something shifts.  Good strategy is always about keeping as many options open for as long as possible.  You point to 1918 Germany, I point to 1952 Korea.  We can risk manage a frozen conflict and slowly dying Russia.  We cannot risk manage rapid shifts and movements.  20 years is long enough to pull Ukrainian into NATO and make it freakin Poland, complete with NATO forces on the ground.  This war would not have happened at all had we done this in 2015.  The lesson here is to not waste strategic pauses.

[danfrodo]

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It is pretty clear that the elites in Russia believe that their state should be larger, not smaller.  The central authority will likely violently oppose anybody trying to leave Russia.  They will also likely oppose breaking up the "power vertical" and devolving authority more locally, though they may be forced to accept it as an interim solution with plans to claw it back over time (as Putin did).

I am not so sure the elites in RU really want a larger state more than they just want to stay rich and powerful.  And I bet a majority of them don't give a damn about UKR or the baltics more than they care about making money.  There's plenty of money to be made in a dictatorial petro-state like RU with a pretty good internal security apparatus.   This war has been a disaster for the oligarchs.  Some have suffered greviously, even losing their mega-yachts!  

[LongLeftFlank]

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is bad logic.  You are assuming the world is black and white... either Russian remains intact and Ukraine is wiped out *OR* Russia is forced to collapse and Ukraine (and everybody else) is saved.

Umm, except @Letter from Prague didn't present that stark binary at all, so it's your logic that is faulty in this case. Please go back and reread.

What he did say is entirely correct: backing and arming Ukraine's ongoing evisceration of the Red Army DOES carry a risk of creating a broad collapse in Russia. Just how it is. 

...I'd also observe that LfP's English is many orders of magnitude better than our Czech. We are lucky to have his commentary.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Umm, except @Letter from Prague didn't present that stark binary at all, so it's your logic that is faulty in this case. Please go back and reread.

What he did say is entirely correct: backing and arming Ukraine's ongoing evisceration of the Red Army DOES carry a risk of creating a broad collapse in Russia. Just how it is. 

...I'd also observe that LfP's English is many orders of magnitude better than our Czech. We are lucky to have his commentary.

Sure, and he cleared up my misinterpretation of his words before you wrote this.  So all good

The problem is even in this thread people who do think B&W, that *any* caution on the part of the West is equivalent to surrender/appeasement.  That's not true.  The West is already pursuing a very risky strategy as it is.  If someone doesn't understand what I'm talking about, revisit how 2014/2015 was handled.  That was a risk averse strategy and, not surprisingly, it failed.  If the West were interested in going the safe road we would have seen a similar approach, but we have not.

We should be debating how much to push and how fast, not if.

Steve

[Haiduk]

First appearance of Russian wheeled SP-howitzer 2S34 "Malva". The photo made in Kharkiv oblast

2S34 is equivalent of tracked 2S19 "Msta-S", having the same barrel, so has the same maximum range 24,5 km and the same ammunition

"Malva" has been developing since 2019, in 2022 it was under tests. Since October of 2023 first serial howitzers went to the troops 

  

Edited June 2 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

First appearance of Russian wheeled SP-howitzer 2S34 "Malva". The photo made in Kharkiv oblast

2S34 is equivalent of tracked 2S19 "Msta-S", having the same barrel, so has the same maximum range 24,5 km and the same ammunition

"Malva" has been developing since 2019, in 2022 it was under tests. Since October of 2023 first serial howitzers went to the troops 

  

And a new category in Oryx is opened and waiting for its first entry   I expect Ukraine GUR will be looking forward to helping that happen.

Steve

[FancyCat]

 

Quote

We found out why Russia and China can't agree on the Power of Siberia-2 gas pipeline. China wants to pay close to the subsidized Russian domestic price and will only commit to buying a fraction of capacity: with@NastyaStognei @HenryJFoy @leahyjoseph

Putin had three big asks from Xi in Beijing:

– Power of Siberia-2, which Gazprom needs to replace lost European exports

– more Chinese banking in Russia despite possible US sanctions

– for China to skip Ukraine's peace summit

He only got the last one.

 

[zinz]

22 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

https://archive.is/2024.06.02-202639/https://www.ft.com/content/f7a34e3e-bce9-4db9-ac49-a092f382c526

Readable version 

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Not surprised.  This is how things have gone right from the start when Russian and China signed the agreement in 2014 after Russia was hit with sanctions for invading Ukraine.  IIRC at the time the Chinese strongarmed the Russians into being responsible for about 3/4 of the construction cost *and* financing their costs from Chinese sources which, of course, benefited Chinese lenders instead of Russian.  On top of that, Russia agreed to a price that was roughly equivalent to what Germany was paying at the time despite the much higher cost of providing the gas.  This was a pretty slick move and it showed how desperate Russia was to get more Chinese business.

Out of curiosity I just poked around and found some good reasons for China playing hardball on the price, aside from Russia's weak negotiating position.

https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-is-rightly-dragging-its-feet-on-russias-power-of-siberia-2-pipeline/

The two big ones cited here is that China is getting gas pretty cheap from three former Soviet Republics and not wanting to get too tied down to more fossil fuel obligations.  While gas is better than coal, China is pursuing renewables as their ultimate energy goal.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

Feel like this is relevant to the topic on hand. It does truly baffle me how the Russians are putting up with such reckless, casual waste of life on a continued basis. I know states and peoples are quite resilient when it comes down to this, but there surely has to be a point where it all starts to catch up and create real pressure. 

Losing half a company in a single action is utter insanity. 

[poesel]

If this drone's prototype had been shown here, it would have been dismissed as not good enough because it is prone to easily get stuck in terrain. But sometimes something is enough, even if it only works in favorable circumstances.

Ukrainian ground kamikaze drone blows up Russian dugout.

 

 

[Kraft]

"destroying russian vehicles doesnt matter"

 

the new drone proof Z-Sturm assault chicken cages. 

Edited June 2 by Kraft

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Feel like this is relevant to the topic on hand. It does truly baffle me how the Russians are putting up with such reckless, casual waste of life on a continued basis. I know states and peoples are quite resilient when it comes down to this, but there surely has to be a point where it all starts to catch up and create real pressure. 

Losing half a company in a single action is utter insanity. 

I have been asking myself how on earth the RA is holding itself together for about 6 months now.  The first year, ok, any military has built in resilience.  That winter offensive in ‘23, pretty horrendous but “crazy F’n Russians”.  But the fall-winter offensive this last year…?  I have no idea how a military holds itself together after these kind of losses. Not just the dead soldiers but we are talking NCOs and officers too.  Granted the RA never really made any significant gains but still, all these losses in people and equipment have to add up eventually.  Every human organization has a breaking point and cannot sustain attrition forever.  I can say that I am confident that whatever military the RA is now, it is a shadow of the one that crossed the borders in ‘22.  All of the peacetime qualified crews, technicians and specialists have to be so severely attrited by now that all the RA can do is “meat offensives.”  Or dig in and hold on.  The professional RA has been shattered in this war.

[FancyCat]

Its tough going for both sides. Glide bombs still rain on Kharkiv, despite the lesser restrictions, according to the article, the airfields where the bombers take off and fire them off, are off limits, located in Voronezhv. i pulled some paragraphs. 

Quote

The White House this week said it moved at “lightning speed” to allow Kyiv to use U.S. weaponry to strike limited targets inside Russia, just 17 days after Ukraine came begging for the capability. But for Ukrainians who have weathered a punishing Russian assault on the northeast Kharkiv region, those 17 days of waiting are emblematic of a White House that has lagged repeatedly behind battlefield developments at the cost of Ukrainian lives.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered measured appreciation on Friday after Biden changed course on the weapons limits. For front-line soldiers, though, the gap between May 13, when Ukraine formally requested the change, and May 30, when U.S. officials gave the green light, was a bitter stretch of some of the most brutal attacks in the two-year-old war.

The assault on Kharkiv, located just 25 miles from the Russian border, and the region around it, was designed with Moscow’s understanding that U.S. restrictions limited Ukraine’s ability to strike back, Ukrainian military officials say. Thousands fled their homes as the Kremlin took advantage of being able to hit Ukrainian territory from the Russian side of the border, having spent months building up forces there with relative impunity.

Kyiv chose not to push to change the rules of engagement — even as U.S. officials also watched the situation on the ground with alarm. In March, national security adviser Jake Sullivan flew to Kyiv and urged Ukrainian officials to build defensive positions along the border near Kharkiv. But as troops tried to dig trenches and fortifications, Russian artillery hammered the area, making it impossible to move in earth-moving equipment. Soldiers had to dig with shovels at night.

In mid-April, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin grew concerned that the Russians could capture Kharkiv, and he began sounding warnings about a potential assault on the city, a defense official said, speaking like others on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal discussions.

Denys Yaroslavsky, commander of a reconnaissance battalion in Ukraine’s 57th Brigade, entered the border town of Vovchansk on May 2, accompanied by four battalions of exhausted troops. Fresh from the battlefield in a different northeastern city, they soon realized their new positions were the first line of defense — and that only 200 troops were already stationed in the town.

When Russian forces pushed in just over a week later, he said, “we lost almost the entire battalion.”

From just over the border, Russia launched nonstop glide bombs and artillery attacks against the Ukrainians. The losses they endured, he said, would have been avoidable if Ukraine had been able to strike into Russia with U.S. equipment, a long-standing desire on Kyiv’s part.

Yaroslavsky and his reconnaissance battalion were hunkered down in Vovchansk just hoping to survive. That day, he said, his troops weathered an “insane” number of glide bomb strikes — more than 40 in 24 hours.

Kozhemyako, the founder of Khartia, also said his troops had suffered punishing hits as Washington deliberated the policy shift. Over the past 20 days, he said, they have come under 250 glide bomb strikes, attacks so powerful that even those who are not badly wounded or killed are often traumatized and concussed by the shock waves. After the airstrikes, Russian ground troops then storm their positions, he said.

He noted the irony that among the weapons that Washington has now allowed the Ukrainians to use across the border is HIMARS, a rocket system that has fallen prey to Russian electronic jamming. To make a real difference, Kozhemyako said, they need Washington to approve using everything they have.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/06/01/us-ukraine-weapons-kharkiv-biden/

 

[Fenris]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I have been asking myself how on earth the RA is holding itself together for about 6 months now.  The first year, ok, any military has built in resilience.  That winter offensive in ‘23, pretty horrendous but “crazy F’n Russians”.  But the fall-winter offensive this last year…?  I have no idea how a military holds itself together after these kind of losses. Not just the dead soldiers but we are talking NCOs and officers too.  Granted the RA never really made any significant gains but still, all these losses in people and equipment have to add up eventually.  Every human organization has a breaking point and cannot sustain attrition forever.  I can say that I am confident that whatever military the RA is now, it is a shadow of the one that crossed the borders in ‘22.  All of the peacetime qualified crews, technicians and specialists have to be so severely attrited by now that all the RA can do is “meat offensives.”  Or dig in and hold on.  The professional RA has been shattered in this war.

When we saw this kind of thing at the start of the war on the UKR side it was understood they were using anything they had that could shoot.  The more we see of it coming from RU sources the more it indicates to me that their losses are biting.  As to personnel, I too have been wondering for a long time how they do it.

 

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, Fenris said:

When we saw this kind of thing at the start of the war on the UKR side it was understood they were using anything they had that could shoot.  The more we see of it coming from RU sources the more it indicates to me that their losses are biting.  As to personnel, I too have been wondering for a long time how they do it.

 

The way that mount is vibrating the CEP must be the best part of a kilometer.