How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Jammason]

4 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Everything said here is either wrong or an outright lie.

I'm here to be educated, so please elaborate. Note most of this is opinion, so it feels odd to be accused of lying. I'm also not sure "everything is wrong". To summarize:

• Russia's losses have been great
• They (Russia) are slowly taking/destroying the Donbas
• Sanctions can be skirted
• Trump presidency isn't out of the question and would be a good thing for Russia
• NATO is unlikely to let UKR in while they are in an active war with Russia
• Russia appears to be in this for the long haul

If that's *all* wrong, please, do tell.

[The_MonkeyKing]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thank you for the info.  I had guessed this was the situation.  Current squad size is 9 (2 + 7) because that's what fits into Soviet APC/IFV.  Increasing the DISMOUNT element to 9 is impossible if the vehicles are still in the mix, therefore I concluded they increased the DISMOUNT size for units without vehicles.  That keeps the size of the squad 9, but now it is 2+7 for units with vehicles and 0+9 for those without armored vehicles.

Steve

Oversized squads are a thing in wartime. People are unavailable for number of reasons, illness, wounded, dead, leave...

If by some miracle the whole unit is so full strength there is no room for everyone I am sure there are options. Like some stay back at base and reinforce the losses after that op.

[kraze]

1 hour ago, Jammason said:

Sobering evidence that Russia does not actually "suck at war". Yes, their losses have been great (they don't seem to care), but they are replenishing BTGs faster than UKR (see comparison in the clip). They're slowly taking/destroying the Donbas, which seems to represent the lion's share of Ukrainian GDP (80-90%). This will either become an RU prize or will be denied to Ukraine via destruction. Neither outcome bodes well for the blue and yellow economy.

I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I still see the outcome as a toss-up. Sanctions can be skirted, notably with the help of the two most populous countries in the world that benefit from cheap Russian hydrocarbons. Another Trump presidency is also not out of the question, which would likely result in significant sanction reductions--or worse.

As I noted earlier, the way to ensure Ukraine never joins NATO is for Russia to simply keep attacking them (NATO is unlikely to sign up for an automatic Article 5 trigger). This might just be a couple of missiles per week, an amount easily within the in-country production capabilities of the 6-12 different RU companies that make them; stockpile depletion need not factor in.

I see Russia's commitment here lasting at least as long as their efforts in Afghanistan, more probably as long as that of the US there. I doubt a changing of the guard at the Kremlin will change their resolve any more than the replacement of Boris Johnson will change that of the UK.

This is one of those situations where I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Whole Donetsk and Luganks oblasts barely contributed to 15% GDP and that was before the invasion. The actual invasion of 2014. Since then their contribution to GDP was even smaller.

Russians have been creeping to Kyiv too, taking much more land than they took in the Donbas region this time. If they will keep "winning" like they "won" at Siverodonetsk and Lysychansk - they soon will either have nothing to "win" with, or will have to resort to asking China to give them their T55s and T62s back. Because they already lost nearly 50% of their whole tank force they have in their country.

Edited July 9, 2022 by kraze

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Jammason said:

Sobering evidence that Russia does not actually "suck at war". Yes, their losses have been great (they don't seem to care), but they are replenishing BTGs faster than UKR (see comparison in the clip). They're slowly taking/destroying the Donbas, which seems to represent the lion's share of Ukrainian GDP (80-90%). This will either become an RU prize or will be denied to Ukraine via destruction. Neither outcome bodes well for the blue and yellow economy.

I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I still see the outcome as a toss-up. Sanctions can be skirted, notably with the help of the two most populous countries in the world that benefit from cheap Russian hydrocarbons. Another Trump presidency is also not out of the question, which would likely result in significant sanction reductions--or worse.

As I noted earlier, the way to ensure Ukraine never joins NATO is for Russia to simply keep attacking them (NATO is unlikely to sign up for an automatic Article 5 trigger). This might just be a couple of missiles per week, an amount easily within the in-country production capabilities of the 6-12 different RU companies that make them; stockpile depletion need not factor in.

I see Russia's commitment here lasting at least as long as their efforts in Afghanistan, more probably as long as that of the US there. I doubt a changing of the guard at the Kremlin will change their resolve any more than the replacement of Boris Johnson will change that of the UK.

This is one of those situations where I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Replenishing BTG with what?  A qualitative assessment is missing.

Re: GDP by region, not even close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GRP

Donbas in its entirety is about 6 percent of Ukrainian GDP.  Even throwing in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia that number jumps up to about 9 percent. If Russia could take Dnipropetrovsk, which they have been pushed out of, they would jump to about 20 percent but the odds of doing that are just about zero as of today.

It isn’t a question of “popular”, it is a question of facts.  As to the rest, sanctions and US presidents - well we will see but time is not on Russia’s side in any of this, and they are slowing down, not speeding up.  Once again, Russia does not say when this will end, Ukraine and the West does.

[hcrof]

3 minutes ago, Jammason said:

I'm here to be educated, so please elaborate. Note most of this is opinion, so it feels odd to be accused of lying. I'm also not sure "everything is wrong". To summarize:

• Russia's losses have been great
• They (Russia) are slowly taking/destroying the Donbas
• Sanctions can be skirted
• Trump presidency isn't out of the question and would be a good thing for Russia
• NATO is unlikely to let UKR in while they are in an active war with Russia
• Russia appears to be in this for the long haul

If that's *all* wrong, please, do tell.

I would love to see the source of the claim that the donbas contributes 80-90% of Ukraine GDP - what about all the cities of the west, including the capital, where the vast majority of Ukrainian people live?

 

[Grigb]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Current squad size is 9 (2 + 7) because that's what fits into Soviet APC/IFV. 

According to what I know the current squad bmp-2 squad size is 2 + 6 = 8

1. BMP gunner
2. Driver
3. Commander
4. Machine gunner
5. RPG gunner
6. RPG assistant
7. Senior rifleman
8. Rifleman

When mounted squad should occupy 3 crew seats + 5 dismounts seats.

 

[akd]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

PS. Information about increasing the squads from 7 to 9 can be about theese volunteer units, which can havn't armored transport but just tank company. Then really instead gunner and driver squads can get two additional riflemens. The same thing was in UKR motorized infantry squads in 2015-2019, which unlike mechanized had only trucks, but had also additional rifleman and 30 men in platoon instead 27 in mech. Then, when motorized units got BRDM-2L their squads also became 7-men

Possible example:

 

[Haiduk]

42 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Then Bayractar uses Canadian optics capable of seeing up to 50 km (depending on weather - in the begging of SMO UKR side had issues due to bad weather).

This is true. Bayraktars can effectively work only in clear sky or below the clouds. UKR UAV Horlytsia, designed by Antonov with equipment which can operate above the clouds, stuck in testing phase 

[Haiduk]

3 minutes ago, Grigb said:

According to what I know the current squad bmp-2 squad size is 2 + 6 = 8

Captured documents showed reduced squads to 7 men. The same in Ukarine since 2019

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Jammason said:

Sobering evidence that Russia does not actually "suck at war". Yes, their losses have been great (they don't seem to care), but they are replenishing BTGs faster than UKR (see comparison in the clip). They're slowly taking/destroying the Donbas, which seems to represent the lion's share of Ukrainian GDP (80-90%). This will either become an RU prize or will be denied to Ukraine via destruction. Neither outcome bodes well for the blue and yellow economy.

I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I still see the outcome as a toss-up. Sanctions can be skirted, notably with the help of the two most populous countries in the world that benefit from cheap Russian hydrocarbons. Another Trump presidency is also not out of the question, which would likely result in significant sanction reductions--or worse.

As I noted earlier, the way to ensure Ukraine never joins NATO is for Russia to simply keep attacking them (NATO is unlikely to sign up for an automatic Article 5 trigger). This might just be a couple of missiles per week, an amount easily within the in-country production capabilities of the 6-12 different RU companies that make them; stockpile depletion need not factor in.

I see Russia's commitment here lasting at least as long as their efforts in Afghanistan, more probably as long as that of the US there. I doubt a changing of the guard at the Kremlin will change their resolve any more than the replacement of Boris Johnson will change that of the UK.

This is one of those situations where I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Important to note that statement about Donbas being such and such of Ukrainian GDP is most likely incorrect. China and I assume the other country is India? While both are happy to purchase Russian resources, their response to supporting Russia otherwise has been tepid at best, useless at worse. The problem is, it looks like China, despite being supportive of Russia undertaking this war, was not expecting 1. Western resolve to be this firm. 2. Ukrainian resolve to not break. 3. Russia to get bogged down in a conflict absolutely unbecoming of its prior invasion supposed military strength. 
Before the invasion, the popular refrain was Russian tanks to Berlin. The failure of Russia to destroy the Ukrainian Air Force, destroy Ukrainian infrastructure, supply their armies enough to push into Kiev, and this months long slog in the Donbas more akin to the western front of WWI is entirely unbecoming of Russia’s supposed military prowess before the invasion. Prowess Russia itself asserted was true. Therefore, to say Russia sucks at war is 100% true.

When comparing the Effort to control Afghanistan with Ukraine, it would be potent to remember Russia does not equal the Soviet Union, and obviously the USSR included Ukraine. To conflate the Soviet Union capabilities, with Russian capabilities is frankly probably why Russia, and the world has underestimated Ukraine so much and overrated Russia. So much of Soviet strength and power was from her other republics other than Russia, and Ukraine was a essential part of that strength. Without Ukraine, Russia cannot be a Great Power, I believe Putin stated that? Whoever stated that, I think it’s completely true. 

[Grigb]

11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I assume the leadership of the republics has been purged sufficiently that any idea of a top down led attempt to bring the republics out of the war and spare further losses and damage is impossible?

Yes. Anyone sufficiently independent from Moscow was given a ride in elevator (reference to Motorola death)

 

11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

This idea of using the republics population instead of Russia, speaks a lot to the infeasibility of seeking a peace without the expulsion of Russia from all of Ukraine. A peace where Russia can regroup, rearm, purge and turn the 2022 occupied territories into more bodies for Russia to use against Ukraine, to burn Ukraine into ash, is plainly unacceptable for Ukraine, and should made clear to all proponents of ceasefire, peace, and nonintervention in Ukraine. 

That's why everybody with sufficient knowledge of RU was telling from the beginning RU defeat is the only feasible outcome.

[The_Capt]

16 hours ago, Jammason said:

I'm here to be educated, so please elaborate. Note most of this is opinion, so it feels odd to be accused of lying. I'm also not sure "everything is wrong". To summarize:

• Russia's losses have been great
• They (Russia) are slowly taking/destroying the Donbas
• Sanctions can be skirted
• Trump presidency isn't out of the question and would be a good thing for Russia
• NATO is unlikely to let UKR in while they are in an active war with Russia
• Russia appears to be in this for the long haul

If that's *all* wrong, please, do tell.

It is not all wrong, it is missing some context.  Russians are slowly taking the Donbas, however, they are doing it too slowly to break through and threaten deeper centres of gravity.  As such Donbas is neither operationally nor military strategically decisive (in any sense beside possible negative decision impact in the Wests resolve).

Sanctions can be skirted but 1) doing so exposes Russia to exploitation as the weaker trading partner and 2) no where near enough to stop the damage (I believe Perun did a pretty good analysis of this on YouTube).

US President - we have covered here before, US president is impactful but he/she does not rule the planet.  It is highly doubtful that Trump himself or someone like him would withdraw all support at this point, the Lend Lease is an act that has already been passed.  And then Europe with roughly $18T GDP may have to step up harder but we are not talking wholesale US withdrawal.  Same with NATO, too much to lose in influence and arms sales at this point.  The next US president will dance to the same war drums, but may have a slightly different beat.  But this is a wildcard, so ok put that one in the “unknown” column.

Ukraine in NATO, at this point I don’t think it really matters. The UA is better armed and trained with western weapons than some NATO founding states (Canada, anyone?).  Further we are pumping so much ISR support into Ukraine, they may as well be freakin 5EYES.

I think Putin and his cronies are definitely in for the long haul.  And I think that a healthy slice of Russia may also be “all in” but how long and how firm is that support as the casualties stack up?  Russia has not mobilized for a reason, in fact they have basically tied themselves in knots to sustain forces and avoid mobilization…why?  Likely because a large slice of Russia is not “all in”.  Russia is running out of time but we won’t know when, or if, until we see Russia no longer able to conduct offensive operations.

We can and have gone on at length at the issues with the RA and whether or not they are going to have a systemic collapse, again.  Steve definitely has some informed strong opinion that they will.  I think they are very brittle right now and have devolved in the type of operational warfare being conducted as a result of qualitative erosion.  This is a symptom of a war machine in trouble and still unable to establish anything near operational superiority.  We spoke on how HIMARs are the last puzzle piece of a system that is currently delivering significant effects without any Russian counter-part.  The trend of UA deep strike is definitely going upward, which may force the RA to devolve further.

But hey, keep asking questions and validate, validate and validate all sources…even this one. 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by The_Capt

[Calamine Waffles]

*Some* sanctions can be skirted, but the bans on high technology imports that Russia really desires from Europe and the West will probably never be lifted or overcome. Not even after Russia is defeated in Ukraine.
 

Quote

This might just be a couple of missiles per week, an amount easily within the in-country production capabilities of the 6-12 different RU companies that make them; stockpile depletion need not factor in.

If by "6-12" you mean 2 (Almaz-Antey and Votsinsk), then go ahead.

As for the Donbas and Ukraine's economy, I'll just leave this here (from Osprey's Elite series: Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine)

Edited July 9, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[Grigb]

15 minutes ago, Jammason said:

I'm here to be educated, so please elaborate.

I am putting here a lot of information about the real RU state. Yet you seem to be missing even my today's posts. For example, quote from RU fighter who is fighting there about how incompetent RU generals and government are losing the war and RU state.

So, I suggest - go to my profile, read all my posts (most of them are about RU state). After that If you will need additional clarification create a separate topic and I will gladly help you. We will be able to talk freely there, comrade.  

[Jammason]

34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Re: GDP by region, not even close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GRP

Donbas in its entirety is about 6 percent of Ukrainian GDP.  Even throwing in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia that number jumps up to about 9 percent. If Russia could take Dnipropetrovsk, which they have been pushed out of, they would jump to about 20 percent but the odds of doing that are just about zero as of today.

It isn’t a question of “popular”, it is a question of facts.  As to the rest, sanctions and US presidents - well we will see but time is not on Russia’s side in any of this, and they are slowing down, not speeding up.  Once again, Russia does not say when this will end, Ukraine and the West does.

 

33 minutes ago, hcrof said:

I would love to see the source of the claim that the donbas contributes 80-90% of Ukraine GDP - what about all the cities of the west, including the capital, where the vast majority of Ukrainian people live?

 

My numbers come from the video starting at the 14:10 mark: “the 20-24% [of the land occupied by Russia] is 80% of the value of the Ukrainian side. And if the Russians manage to occupy Odessa, too, this number jumps to 90%”. Clearly, I mis-interpreted the number. I’m not sure even now what he means, but perhaps it is: the Russians currently occupy land that is 80% of the [GDP] value of land occupied by Ukraine, which would imply he believes it is 80/(100+80) = 44.4% of GDP. So, I definitely got this wrong. Mea culpa. However, this land is still oil & wheat farm rich, so the broader point that it is a jewel to be captured by Russia or denied Ukraine (via destruction) still stands, I would think.

[Eddy]

2 minutes ago, Jammason said:

My numbers come from the video starting at the 14:10 mark: “the 20-24% [of the land occupied by Russia] is 80% of the value of the Ukrainian side. And if the Russians manage to occupy Odessa, too, this number jumps to 90%”. Clearly, I mis-interpreted the number. I’m not sure even now what he means, but perhaps it is: the Russians currently occupy land that is 80% of the [GDP] value of land occupied by Ukraine, which would imply he believes it is 80/(100+80) = 44.4% of GDP. So, I definitely got this wrong. Mea culpa. However, this land is still oil & wheat farm rich, so the broader point that it is a jewel to be captured by Russia or denied Ukraine (via destruction) still stands, I would think.

To be fair, the Colonel said 80-90% of "Added Value" which is not a macro economic term so I understand the confusion. I don't think he understood what he was saying either. He may as well have said 80-90% of the smell of purple.

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, Jammason said:

 

My numbers come from the video starting at the 14:10 mark: “the 20-24% [of the land occupied by Russia] is 80% of the value of the Ukrainian side. And if the Russians manage to occupy Odessa, too, this number jumps to 90%”. Clearly, I mis-interpreted the number. I’m not sure even now what he means, but perhaps it is: the Russians currently occupy land that is 80% of the [GDP] value of land occupied by Ukraine, which would imply he believes it is 80/(100+80) = 44.4% of GDP. So, I definitely got this wrong. Mea culpa. However, this land is still oil & wheat farm rich, so the broader point that it is a jewel to be captured by Russia or denied Ukraine (via destruction) still stands, I would think.

Further to this Russian jewel grabbing theory, like the oil and gas grabbing theory…the math does not add up.  My bet is Russia may be somewhere north of 10% Ukrainian annual GDP (125B) in occupied territories (Kyiv is something like 25% of the whole nation but they “feinted” away that) but that is pre-war.  People have left these regions and the Russians have blown up a whole lotta infrastructure.  The cost to get the regions Russia has taken back up to pre-war GDP and re-wired to get around sanctions will cost billions and won’t see returns for years….time and money Russia does not have a lot in excess.  [seriously do DNR and LNR honestly think Russia is going to pony up to repair the Donbas?]

The West on the other hand had better have a Marshal Plan 2.0 in the chamber (looking at you EU) or there will be no point in supporting Ukraine now.

[Cederic]

25 minutes ago, Eddy said:

To be fair, the Colonel said 80-90% of "Added Value" which is not a macro economic term so I understand the confusion. I don't think he understood what he was saying either. He may as well have said 80-90% of the smell of purple.

Added value to what/who?

If they mean access to the natural resources - including oil, gas and coal - then that 80-90% could well be right.

Russia don't care about the Ukrainians and don't care about building them a sustainable economy. They want the raw resources underneath and the ports on the Black Sea.

[Butschi]

28 minutes ago, Grigb said:

I am putting here a lot of information about the real RU state. Yet you seem to be missing even my today's posts. For example, quote from RU fighter who is fighting there about how incompetent RU generals and government are losing the war and RU state.

So, I suggest - go to my profile, read all my posts (most of them are about RU state). After that If you will need additional clarification create a separate topic and I will gladly help you. We will be able to talk freely there, comrade.  

Now, now, you are aware that your frequency of posting is high enough to saturate the average forum reader's capacity, right?

[Huba]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The West on the other hand had better have a Marshal Plan 2.0 in the chamber (looking at you EU) or there will be no point in supporting Ukraine now. 

Well, that is already being discussed. Some countries are already working in legislation that will allow use of confiscated RU assets for that purpose. 

 

[Artkin]

38 minutes ago, Jammason said:

My numbers come from the video starting at the 14:10 mark:

I believe the numbers were 80% oil production or extraction or whatever from the Luhansk and Donbass regions. There were also other parts included in that I believe.

And the second % was of grain production. The area around and NE of Odessa (pretty much around the Dniepr) produces a lot of grain.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Artkin

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I believe the numbers were 80% oil production or extraction or whatever from the Luhansk and Donbass regions. There were also other parts included in that I believe.

And the second % was of grain production. The area around and NE of Odessa (pretty much around the Dniepr) produces a lot of grain.

Reportedly there are also huge, yet undeveloped gas fields in Ukraine, the size of Norwegian ones and concentrated in the RU controlled refions and under Black Sea around Crimea. For that, 90% RU control sounds about right. Still, control of these is hardly the main RU war aim. 

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

Everything said here is either wrong or an outright lie.

besides that he also left out one other major item.  The weapons the West is providing will allow Ukraine to make a strategic decision to expand the war.  Hurling an occasional rocket at Ukraine by Russia could easily result in Ukraine targeting facilities in Russia proper on a regular basis.  It remains to be seen how much resolve Russians have if Ukraine starts hitting back at Russian infrastructure, like that bridge.

[Artkin]

6 minutes ago, Huba said:

Reportedly there are also huge, yet undeveloped gas fields in Ukraine, the size of Norwegian ones and concentrated in the RU controlled refions and under Black Sea around Crimea. For that, 90% RU control sounds about right. Still, control of these is hardly the main RU war aim. 

A RAND document from April 11th agrees with you.

"Ukraine does indeed control Europe's second-largest known reserves of natural gas, almost 80 percent of which are located east of the Dnipro River."

https://www.rand.org/blog/2022/04/russia-does-not-seem-to-be-after-ukraines-gas-reserves.html

[Butschi]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

Well, that is already being discussed. Some countries are already working in legislation that will allow use of confiscated RU assets for that purpose. 

 

Well, that would be a start. Any idea how much that would be?

Currently everyone says there has to be a kind of Marshall Plan for Ukraine but no one really says how that could look. I have given this some thought and I don't really see it happening. I mean, the usual development aid won't cut it. Ukraine in the EU will not really help all that much, either. I doubt the net payers will want to significantly increase their payments and so it will just be less money for each net receiver. So the money for rebuilding has to come from somewhere else than the regular EU budget. More EU bonds? Maybe... but not likely. With Covid and the war analysts are seeing a recession coming on the horizon, so with the rising inflation, at least when I think of my fellow countrymen, paying significantly (i.e. not 500 millions here and there) to rebuild Ukraine after we aid them in the war and suffered for it (yeah, I know how this sounds, I'm just trying to read the mood here)... Sounds like a good way to lose the next election - not only in Germany and no one wants to see a stronger AfD in Germany, Marine Le Pen in power in France, more Orban, hey is Berlusconi still around?

So, if we could somehow make the Russians pay for what damage they do... would be a good thing. On a more pessimistic note: Last time I checked, though that was a few months ago, Germany was unable to confiscate real estate owned by Russian oligarchs because... well there is no real register in which to look up what real estate is owned by whom. Germany, paradise for money launderers...