How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

UKR drone takes abandoned Russian PKM MG and delivers it to UKR positions

 

[Haiduk]

Russians claimed advance in eastern part of Chasiv Yar ("Canal" microdistrict)

 

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, keas66 said:

The Ukrainians said  were making use of 120mm Mortar  through most of the work on the trenches . The commentary was directly referring to that and you could see several strikes on the Russians in the Trenches

Even better, 120mm being guided by ISR drone.  Those RA troops were screwed.

[Haiduk]

Interesting informatrion about quality of new Russian 9M337 missiles "Sosna-R" for Strela-10 and Tunguska SAMs and "Sosna-RA" towed AA complex. Author claimed, unlike 9M333, previous upgrade of old Soviet 9M37 missiles, these 9M337 are incapable to fight with UKR fixed-wing UAVs. He says three units, launching these missiles didn't shoot down any UAVs. He complains 9M333 could be effective against winged UAVs, but had insufficient range.

9M337 has extended range - from 1,3 to 8 km (9M37/9M333 had 5 km) and heaviest warhead 5 kg against 3 kg in 9M37 (9M333 also has 5kg warhead)

PS. 9M337 was deleoped exactly for Tunguska and Sosna-RA complexes, but maybe it was fitted to Strela-10 too.

Confirmation of his words was a post of UKR air-reckon serviceman, who works with UKR "Valkiriya" drone. Unlikely, I can't find it now. He says this drone is very hard target for SHORAD SAMs and issued a video how two missiles of Strela-10 passed near his drone, not hurting it.  

Edited June 8 by Haiduk

[danfrodo]

UKR counterattacks on one of the kharkiv fronts.  What I found most interesting is his claim that RU units were refusing to attack and some mutinies due to the slaughter they were being sent into.  Maybe this kharkiv offensive hurt UKR by stretching them, but those UKR units will still be available going forward.  RU is stretching UKR by getting their own units destroyed.  There's only a few ways this war can end soon, Putin death, Putin overthrow, and military mutiny.  At some point I hope more & more of these guys decide to kill the masters and that sentiment spreads.

 

[Haiduk]

Russians moved all LLS from Novoirossiysk to Azov Sea, three small missile corvettes in coverage

Recently all large ships abandoned Novorossiysk base and sailed to open sea, probably they expected mass naval UAVs attack or even missiles strike - several days ago Russians wrote that first time UKR Neptune missile struck the coast in Rostov-on-Don oblast (so this is Azov sea). No reports about consequences.

[Haiduk]

Despite "Birds of Magyar" were moved to Kharkiv oblast, the number of drones over left bank of Kherson oblast didn't become lesser. TG Rogozin complains:

And here the part of Krynky village, were clashes took place more than half year - it completely grounded. The same picture in Robotytne - the soldier from there told on th eplace of the village is just a plain. 

Reportedly Russians inspired that "Birds of Magyar" leaved this direction tried to intensify attacks on new positions of UKR marines in other part of Krynky, but result was directly opposite - zone of UKR control expanded more toward Kozachi Laheri villalge

Edited June 8 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Reportely most personnel of this unit are from France

 

[Haiduk]

First appearance of Italian VCC-2 APCs (local version of M113A1). First 10 after repair and some upgrade works by "Ukrainska bronetechinka" company was handed over to "Liut' " National Police assult brigade. Total Italy had 1160 VCC-2

 

Edited June 8 by Haiduk

[kimbosbread]

I wonder if UAVs could operate purely on gliding/air currents for long endurance. Think a very low observable sailplane.

The greatest country of all time, meanwhile is doing this UUV apparently: https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2024-05-01. This would be absolutely wicked for your underwater smart mines.

[FancyCat]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So that is how you are translating Macron’s position?  That France is so invested in Ukraine that it is willing to risk nuclear war and direct French involvement in this war rather than let Ukraine fall?

Well first off that is simply not true. Macron, who btw in a liberal democracy does not represent all French people everywhere, is proposing we take another rung up an escalation ladder to shore up Ukraine and demonstrate resolve.  If he were so invested in Ukraine to the point that this war is indeed existential to France then we would likely be seeing French formations in Ukrainian already. 

This war definitely has an impact on European security.  In fact it is pretty clear that European security has already been destabilized by Russia violation of international order.  However, your argument is also sucking and blowing at the same time.  You argue that Russia winning in Ukraine is existential, but that threat will somehow fracture the alliances designed to counter that threat.  That is not how things work.  Russia success, which frankly is a pretty long shot, would drive nations together within NATO because of the increasing insecurity, not pull them apart.  We have seen this effect already with Sweden and Finland.

Further Macron is not right - you are immediately saying that he is because it supports your position (somewhat).  Nor are his motives pure.  Macron is playing the French power card for domestic consumption.  He is making a move to be seen as a leader within Europe in this perpetual echo of the 20th century.  He is using this war as an opportunity.  Again of France was truly “all in” then as a free nation, there would already be French troops in Ukraine in force.  Macron is posturing and signaling to effect.

The fact that you somehow translate this as “Hey France is ok with nuclear brinksmanship over Ukraine” really demonstrates where your thinking is at in this matter.  You are free to have and express your opinion but my position is that you are wrong.  Ukraine is very important.  The West still has escalation room and may use it.  But we are not going to risk a full on direct war with Russia over Ukraine without a concomitant direct attack by Russia on NATO.  We already did WW1 - where the world got pulled into a conflagration over a small power - in the nuclear age this is not an option.

Macron is free to posture and even escalate unilaterally.  But Ukraine does not pose an existential threat to either Europe or NATO, no matter what rhetoric is employed.  In fact the existential threat Macron refers to is a loss of security guarantees from the US, which is a whole other thing.  The threat is a global power vacuum if the US contracts due to domestic politics - the leading Republican candidate is a convicted criminal FFS. This entire thing is no longer even about Ukraine, it is about European security in a post-US world. That is a much larger problem that a glorious victory in Ukraine will not solve, but a defeat may create a forcing function.

I think your moving the goalposts. You asserted that no European state was willing to engage in escalation, and therefore NATO as a whole is not willing to prevent the fall of Ukraine, I've clearly pointed out to you that France is willing and signalling to Russia it considers Ukraine's fall to be unacceptable. That it's a slow small step up the ladder and not "french formations attacking Russian formations" off bat, I dunno how that defends your position that Ukraine isn't worth it to NATO to fall, aren't you the one worried about nuclear escalation and it tipping off uncontrollably? Should not Macron being all-controlled and small steps be perfectly in line with escalation management?

Considering French position was for deferrence to Russia until recently, and that it was a position that persisted well into the invasion, it seems pretty natural that as France shifts it's positioning, it does so slowly and with ability for Russia to signal de-escalation on their part in response.

Regarding Macron's domestic position...so what? We regard Russia and Putin's position internally as essential for understanding their escalation management, the same applies to Macron, Europe.

As for "Hey France is ok with nuclear brinksmanship over Ukraine", that's not my position, that's the Russian position.

"Macron is free to posture and even escalate unilaterally.  But Ukraine does not pose an existential threat to either Europe or NATO, no matter what rhetoric is employed." Russian viewpoint or better to say symbolic of Russian hope that will result in Russian signalling paving the way for great power negotiation. What is there to say in response? Nothing, you clearly think it's empty rhetoric on Macron's part. We shall have to see how the military trainers in Ukraine pans out. Russia definitely has the ability to both target them specifically and not target them specifically, I think Macron might be calling Putin's bluff regarding targeting them.

Edited June 8 by FancyCat

[The_Capt]

14 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I dunno how that defends your position that Ukraine isn't worth it to NATO to fall, aren't you the one worried about nuclear escalation and it tipping off uncontrollably? Should not Macron being all-controlled and small steps be perfectly in line with escalation management?

 

This right here.  You (and a few others) have framed this war in absolutist terms, early from the outset.  So if I hold that Ukraine is not worth a global nuclear war, this somehow means my position is that “Ukraine isn’t worth it to NATO to fall”.  Before I expressed frustration with Ukrainian Western bashing and was accused of promoting genocide.

Pure and utter BS.  You and others are substituting thought and analysis with dogma.  You over inflate this war to the point that there is no room for negotiation.  And then swing that stick around like a zealot.

My position was never that “Ukraine is not worth it to NATO.”  Considering the expense NATO nations are going to keep Ukraine in this war that statement is patently false and you should apologize for trying to assign it to me.  My position is that Ukraine is not worth uncontrolled nuclear escalation and here NATO very much agrees with me.  In fact nothing in France’s position reflects a shift towards this either.  However, to you, the US being nervous about Ukrainian strikes in Russia…on Russian nuclear infrastructure no less, is somehow “weak tea.”  You have lost the ability to see this war objectively - this much is very clear.

And now you appear to be supporting French incremental escalation, but for pages have been foot stamping against US incrementalism along the exact same lines.  Macron may be embarking on ramping up pressure, so is the US in green lighting strikes into Russia - this proves my point not whatever yours is (which frankly is not clear).

25 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I think your moving the goalposts. You asserted that no European state was willing to engage in escalation, and therefore NATO as a whole is not willing to prevent the fall of Ukraine

And here again.  We have already seen escalations - hell Baltic states are talking about troops on the ground in Western Ukraine. Nor have I ever said further escalation is off the table.  Your inability to see the difference between incremental escalation and dangerous reckless escalation is frankly astounding.  You have made the leap between Ukraine striking Russian nuclear tripwire infrastructure, and Macron threatening to send in trainers and support.  I would say you have lost the bubble but you are clearly inside one.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Reportely most personnel of this unit are from France

 

Barbed wire and finishing off shots on dead? Russians.  Two things we don't see very often.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

46 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Your inability to see the difference between incremental escalation and dangerous reckless escalation is frankly astounding.

And it's also extremely tiring and boring.

Is there a risk of Russia using some form of nuke, especially tact nukes?  Yes.  Anybody that says there isn't should quit posting about this topic because it's a clear indication of either a) ignorance or b) lack of intelligence.  Either way, not  productive discussion to have.

Can Europe and NATO survive if Ukraine completely surrenders to Russia?  Yes.  Anybody that says there isn't should quit posting about this topic because it's a clear indication of either a) ignorance or b) lack of intelligence.  Either way, not a productive discussion to have.

Would Europe and NATO be better of with Ukraine a free an independent state?  Absolutely.

Would Europe, NATO, and Ukraine be better off in the near term with a messy collapse of Russia?  Open question.  A fair assessment of the chances of it being worse vs. better should arrive at the conclusion that there's more chances of things being worse than better.  Long term is a totally different question and way too difficult to gauge, provided nuclear weapons use is avoided.

The question, therefore, is how do we support Ukraine to the maximum extent possible without provoking either a nuclear war or a chaotic collapse of the Russian Federation.  Because it is highly unlikely either of those situations will benefit Ukraine, the EU, NATO, the US, and lots more.

 

Regarding Macron.  Just because a national leader says this is "the right thing to do" doesn't automatically mean that it is.  Because if you ascribe to that sort of thinking, then the US withdrawing from NATO appears to be "the right thing to do" if Trump is elected.  Or Orban's idea of suckling off the Kremlin is "the right thing to do".

Macron MIGHT be onto something good just as Trump and Orban MIGHT be onto something good.

Steve

[Eddy]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Reportely most personnel of this unit are from France

 

Maybe it's just me but at the 40 second mark I swear I can hear one of them saying 'Get down' in a northern English or soft Scottish accent. 

 

[dan/california]

 

The all seeing eye works all day every day. A smart vatnik would stay home...

Quote

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/DroneCombat/comments/1dayr16/ukraines_security_services_sbu_posted_a_video/

Ukraine's Security Services (SBU) posted a video compilation of recent drone work against Russian military assets, destroying a long list of targets including: tanks, enemy infantry, air defense, armored vehicles, etc. [See comments for list] Published June 8, 2024

 

Edited June 8 by dan/california

[dan/california]

https://www.threads.net/?xmt=AQGzUnm85Mo6Fx_WE7Y194FFlm7Jrqe_ZS6tZG3V3_OiZgM

24hoursukrainenew

1h

about an hour ago

 

Victoria shared pictures for the first anniversary of her marriage. However, only she herself is on them, her husband was killed by the russians.They got married in May 2023, but the celebration was postponed for a year due to the counter offensive.But in November 2023, Vladyslav died during the fighting in Donetsk region.

[Butschi]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Nor are his motives pure.  Macron is playing the French power card for domestic consumption.  He is making a move to be seen as a leader within Europe in this perpetual echo of the 20th century.  He is using this war as an opportunity.  Again of France was truly “all in” then as a free nation, there would already be French troops in Ukraine in force.  Macron is posturing and signaling to effect.

This. The way some here have started treating Macron as the Second Coming always makes me raise an eyebrow. Remember that Macron was called out for not doing his part - by Scholz no less. And for good reason, French aid to Ukraine is nowhere near what others have given, neither in relative not absolute terms. It is very clear that this is about France's position, power and influence in the EU and NATO and probably related to upcoming elections.

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/08/world/asia/ukraine-soldiers-energy-drinks.html

Energy Drinks Boost Ukraine’s Soldiers, and Its Economy

Cans packed with caffeine and branded with patriotic machismo have become an essential antidote to the stresses of war.

 

Military health food...

[Battlefront.com]

Here's a thought I don't think we've covered yet.

Would Russia have been able to build the southern defensive line it did with Ukraine's current (and future) drone capabilities?  I'm thinking about spotting minefields being constructed and having the ability to interdict.  At the very least complicating and slowing down Russia's construction.

Thoughts?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Butschi said:

This. The way some here have started treating Macron as the Second Coming always makes me raise an eyebrow. Remember that Macron was called out for not doing his part - by Scholz no less. And for good reason, French aid to Ukraine is nowhere near what others have given, neither in relative not absolute terms. It is very clear that this is about France's position, power and influence in the EU and NATO and probably related to upcoming elections.

That and let's not forget that Scholz said all kinds of "right things" and yet dragged his heals doing them.

It's good to hear Macron saying better things now, but it has to be kept in context of his previous positions and the shocking theory that politicians sometimes say one thing and do something else.

Steve

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, Butschi said:

This. The way some here have started treating Macron as the Second Coming always makes me raise an eyebrow. Remember that Macron was called out for not doing his part - by Scholz no less. And for good reason, French aid to Ukraine is nowhere near what others have given, neither in relative not absolute terms. It is very clear that this is about France's position, power and influence in the EU and NATO and probably related to upcoming elections.

Macron is a French politician, fill in your joke of choice here, but I still like it a lot better when is per-formatively amping support for Ukraine than when he is per-formatively licking Putin's boots. I take both poses with an entire shaker of salt, but the latter one still taste better.

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's a thought I don't think we've covered yet.

Would Russia have been able to build the southern defensive line it did with Ukraine's current (and future) drone capabilities?  I'm thinking about spotting minefields being constructed and having the ability to interdict.  At the very least complicating and slowing down Russia's construction.

Thoughts?

Steve

No way, the Ukrainians have so many drones up now that they are blitzing random civilian dump trucks across the border from Kharkiv. I assume these got targeted because the drones were about out battery, but still...

Quote

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/DroneCombat/comments/1db7qom/anonymous_partisans_used_fpv_strike_drones_to_hit/

Anonymous partisans used FPV strike drones to hit vehicles in a Russian military construction site over the UA-RU border in the Bryansk region (Russia). Published June 8, 2024

 

Imagine what is landing on REAL targets.

[The_Capt]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's a thought I don't think we've covered yet.

Would Russia have been able to build the southern defensive line it did with Ukraine's current (and future) drone capabilities?  I'm thinking about spotting minefields being constructed and having the ability to interdict.  At the very least complicating and slowing down Russia's construction.

Thoughts?

Steve

My guess is yes, but those minefields would have been much further south.  Recall that the UA could see those minefields being built - we could too for that matter.  The problem was ranges involved.  The UA had HIMARS and were hitting logistics nodes but could not strike every truck on the frontage.  If Ukraine had the drone force it has now it likely could have stopped that work but drones still have limited range (about 10kms from what I can tell).  So those mine belts may have been 20-30 kms further south in safe areas.

Unless…and here is another interesting question - could the UA have kept up the momentum in fall of ‘22 if they had the drone force they have now and swept the RA much further to the south?

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

And it's also extremely tiring and boring.

Is there a risk of Russia using some form of nuke, especially tact nukes?  Yes.  Anybody that says there isn't should quit posting about this topic because it's a clear indication of either a) ignorance or b) lack of intelligence.  Either way, not  productive discussion to have.

Can Europe and NATO survive if Ukraine completely surrenders to Russia?  Yes.  Anybody that says there isn't should quit posting about this topic because it's a clear indication of either a) ignorance or b) lack of intelligence.  Either way, not a productive discussion to have.

Would Europe and NATO be better of with Ukraine a free an independent state?  Absolutely.

Would Europe, NATO, and Ukraine be better off in the near term with a messy collapse of Russia?  Open question.  A fair assessment of the chances of it being worse vs. better should arrive at the conclusion that there's more chances of things being worse than better.  Long term is a totally different question and way too difficult to gauge, provided nuclear weapons use is avoided.

The question, therefore, is how do we support Ukraine to the maximum extent possible without provoking either a nuclear war or a chaotic collapse of the Russian Federation.  Because it is highly unlikely either of those situations will benefit Ukraine, the EU, NATO, the US, and lots more.

 

Regarding Macron.  Just because a national leader says this is "the right thing to do" doesn't automatically mean that it is.  Because if you ascribe to that sort of thinking, then the US withdrawing from NATO appears to be "the right thing to do" if Trump is elected.  Or Orban's idea of suckling off the Kremlin is "the right thing to do".

Macron MIGHT be onto something good just as Trump and Orban MIGHT be onto something good.

Steve

Worth pointing out that we actually know Russia seriously considered using nuclear weapons: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/us/politics/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html

And we know that the US got India and China to help forestall it: 

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-asked-non-allies-prevent-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-report-2024-3?op=1

So, while I do not in any way get the vapors about escalation, it's clearly a real and extremely dangerous possibility and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8 by billbindc