How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I used the imminent retaking of Crimea as an example. There are things that even Russian propaganda can't spin into a victory. The established way of escalation during Cold War was between NATO and Warsaw Pact. Not in a proxy war or similar. Look at Korea where the US were also close to nuclear escalation.

Established norms are established thru past actions, and past actions between Russia, considered the heir of the Soviet Union and certainly the heir to the USSR's nuclear weapons, and the United States have strongly veered towards the non-usage of nuclear weapons in proxy conflicts. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, China, these are all norms established, that now influence Russia, NATO, and worldwide responses. Nuclear weapons have not been used once by any power, certainly not in proxy conflicts, and certainly not between nuclear and non-nuclear states, nuclear weapons have been clearly defined as only used in the defense of sovereign territory and only in the event of invasion that would overthrow the government of the nuclear armed state. 

Russia's justification of NATO encroachment as a nuclear valid threat rings hollow because FInland and Sweden are entering NATO without Russian military escalation. Russia's defense of Crimea with nuclear weapons is the defense of a internationally unrecognized annexation, also established as not valid. Theres a reason why the U.S publicizes its decline of providing ballistic missile ammo to Ukraine, ATACMS, part of it is adhering to norms established thru past crises. 

Again, Russia needs to climb up the established ladder. That means mobilization, mobilizing the nuclear forces, issuing advance clear warnings to NATO that it considers Crimea a red line, except everything shown so far indicates Putin is not willing, or cannot climb the escalation ladder even if he wanted to. Maybe internally, climbing that ladder gets him assassinated. 

You should realize, if a nuclear state normalizes the use of nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state, that annihilates the non-nuclear proliferation agreements and the spirit of those agreements. Those agreements safeguard the ability of nuclear states to remain on top by assuring non-nuclear states that nuclear weapons won't be used against them. 

[Beleg85]

32 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

And counter-battery work - 8 Russian Msta-B howitzers cought the fire in forests near Prydonetske village, 10 km SE from Izium

There are already legends circulating about 93rd Bgd. deployment in the wider Izium area. Boys are definitelly hitting Muscovites hard.

Some bad things happens right now directly in Donetck city...is that incendiary?Worth to observe, may be false flag.

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Beleg85

[Bulletpoint]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Certainly I expect the US (at least) has made it clear that even a single tac nuke in Ukraine would face a major response

Yes, but we've seen the US draw 'red lines' before, and not back them up.

Putin might still be rational, but there's no guarantee he will stay rational, and I think there's at least some risk that at some point, he'll use tactical nuclear weapons in a gamble that he will not trigger a full MAD response. The aim would not be to make Ukraine capitulate but to force an end to the war that leaves him in control of at least some gains and with enough prestige to remain in power.

Not saying that will be possible for him, but he might think it is. I hope not.

[FancyCat]

6 hours ago, panzermartin said:

 The ones that were claiming that Russians sold their fuel for vodka

They ran out of fuel on the way to Kiev. From Belarus. 

6 hours ago, panzermartin said:

The rules of this western dominated world are set by the most powerful. Russia is not there among them, it's actually the underdog. Their friends are Iran and North Korea ffs. Underdogs don't set the rules and don't have the initiative that's why I don't agree with the thought that Russia had some grande world domination plan apart from securing its national interests NEXT to its borders and in mostly russian dominated areas. We ll see how the energy powerplay will unfold, I think it's their only serious leverage, as their military is so backwards as you all agree. 

 

Clearly you haven't been listening to Russian media or government at all. The dominant thinking in the West, and certainly repeated by Russia forever was tanks rolling on Berlin if needed. Russia certainly hasn't been acting like a underdog or without initiative, not in 2014, not in 2018, not when it assassinated Russians throughout Europe, not when it came up to the beginning of this conflict most of all, Putin did not state in his speech before the war that his goal was to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine as a underdog. 

[dan/california]

55 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I get the sentiment but I think the danger is in another direction to be honest.  Putin cannot convince his people to do full mobilization, hence this “soft-opening” approach.  I am not sure they are willing to follow him into a certain inferno.  

The Russians also have to be worried about US ABM technology development, it spooked the crap out of them back in the late 80s and that was over 30 years ago.  They have to be wondering just how strong that hand is, or is not.  

So the old Capt has been going on about decisions and this is a Strange one - creating/making a decision from imagined conditions/stimuli.  Built on perception this space sees the Boogie man and drives off the road.  It is the land of Darwin awards and it has many champions in the pursuit of war.  So I am not saying that Russia cannot find itself down this dark road but it is more likely that someone bullets Putin before they do, if he ever did order it.

Far more dangerous is a fallen Russian without a safety net.  Fractured and possibly in a state of civil war, with about 6000 nuclear weapons rolling around the dance floor.  So I agree, we definitely are lovers in a dangerous time here, gas prices might be a quaint memory if this goes totally pear shaped.  Russia has ran into a house and set it on fire while nailing shut all the doors…and it is all our fault!  Which would be hilarious if they did not have nukes in the basement.

And even if Russia learns how to lose this thing, we still have the rise of China as it aims to re-wire global order, we will see if it can.  Oh and we can throw in a US which is frankly scaring the hell outta everyone and has been since about Jan 6th…I honestly hope it was just an anomaly and/or growing pain. Toss in climate change pressure etc…only thing missing are zombies, which at this point might be a stabilizing force.

Remember when we only had the pandemic to worry about?

The contest to make the 21st century come out better than the 20th can'y be won in Ukraine. But it can certainly be lost there. Ukraine winning is a precondition for any truly good outcomes.

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Continuing on with the Kadyrov watching, this is from ISW's 22nd of July report:

Something is changing in Chechnya, though it is unclear as to what that might be.  ISW puts forward the theory that Kadyrov is getting some pushback for the deployments and casualties.  Especially if the people are connecting the dots and realizing that their people are expected to die so ethnic Russians don't have to.  If correct, then it seems that there's trouble brewing in the regions it is leaning heavily on to provide cannon fodder. 

We've seen several examples of people expressing opposition to sending their people to Ukraine.  Buryatia and one of the Siberian Republics come to mine, but we also have issues with South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the mix too.  Oh, and Dagestan.  This is not a good sign for Putin generally, but the news that even Chechnya might be starting to waiver is really bad news.

There's another possibility to consider.  Kadyrov might want to keep the units close to home in case of either domestic unrest or something bigger out of Moscow.  Kadyrov runs a nearly parallel state within Russia, so if anybody other than Moscow is going to have a sense of how bad things are domestically it is likely to be Kadyrov.

Steve

Is Kadyrov playing offense or defense? It is quite possible he is feeling more pressure from within Chechnya and feels the need to keep more of his soldiers at home. It is also quite possible that he has information about the stability of the Russian Federation that the rest of us are not privy too, and he is preparing for civil war more or less. The tidbit a week or three ago about him wanting an s300/400 system for his own palace makes me wonder if it isn't the latter. There are not a lot of things in Chechnya that require an S400 to stop that Kadyrov doesn't control.

35 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

One shot - one kill. Dovhen'ke, Izium axis

 

Someone is listening to my endless rants about the efficiency of PGMs. 

[Der Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Some bad things happens right now directly in Donetck city...is that incendiary?Worth to observe, may be false flag.

These are 9M22S thermite incendiary munitions, fired by Grad MRLs. Russia used these in Syria and also in Ukraine. Not sure if any uses by the Ukrainian army have been documented so far.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Der Zeitgeist

[FancyCat]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, but we've seen the US draw 'red lines' before, and not back them up.

Putin might still be rational, but there's no guarantee he will stay rational, and I think there's at least some risk that at some point, he'll use tactical nuclear weapons in a gamble that he will not trigger a full MAD response. The aim would not be to make Ukraine capitulate but to force an end to the war that leaves him in control of at least some gains and with enough prestige to remain in power.

Not saying that will be possible for him, but he might think it is. I hope not.

Once you use a nuclear weapon against Ukraine, and you get Ukraine to surrender, does that not open the door to Russia simply threatening again to use nuclear weapons for whatever future goal they want in Ukraine? Yes, Ukraine could rely on the U.S and NATO giving it nuclear protection, but only as a NATO member state since only that assures full nuclear protection, except certainly Russia would ask for probably half or more of Ukraine in return for NATO membership for the remaining part, except giving up half the state would end Ukraine as a state. 

Its more likely that once Putin launches a nuke, Ukraine will keep fighting as the nuclear barrier is broken, and aside from attaining nuclear weapons, Ukraine will need to either fully surrender as a state or keep fighting despite the nuclear bombs falling. 

(not to even talk about NATO response, especially if you start lobbing multiple nukes on a non-nuclear country.....but essentially once you use a nuke against the opposing state, you normalize the use of it in the future, and so not only does the opposing side face full defeat, you bring clear implications for other nuclear states to be forced to use them potentially on non-nuclear states to force them to stay in non-nuclear status, or to force them to align with them, basically, its a huge can of worms. Huge.)

And like Steve has pointed out, there are clear lines of escalation to follow. They have not even climbed mobilization. Not even war declaration. Worrying about tactical nuclear escalation when Putin faces the defeat of his military right now, is just falling for his argument, except his argument is completely a bluff, when the reality is he worries more about mobilization ending his rule than NATO intervention, or Ukrainian victory. 

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

Lt. Col. Artem Kormilitsyn, commander of 1st Training Battalion (probably not acting position), 6th Guards Tank Regiment, 90th Guards Tank Division:

 

[FancyCat]

3 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

But Putin does not retreat. His soldierw do retreat once their situation gets to a place where thry see it as the only option - and when that happens Putin can choke to death with anger in his bunker but h's not goong to be able to do a thing about it.

So we better have answer to what escalations and further bull**** Putin will come with.

Putin does retreat tho. 2014, he withdrew from further offensive operations in Ukraine instead of toppling Maidan and restoring a pro-Russian government. Partly why the West was so critical of U.S intelligence stating a full conquest was going to occur, was it did not mesh at all with what the Russian government did in the past, or Putin's past actions. Putin's flexibility, despite arguably failing to restore a Pro-Russian government in 2014, was able to give Russia initiative to continue influencing Ukraine, Minsk, Minsk II, despite Ukraine seeking to grow closer to the EU, despite veering away from Europe, was able to make Europe ignore Ukraine, and keep going along with Russia largely till recently. 

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

If Putin can't call a mobilization for fear of the Russian people, there ain't no way he's dropping a nuke.

Remember nuclear escalation is very established due to the cold war. Mobilization is part of the ladder. Putin has not mobilized, seems to be absolutely fearful of mobilizing, the ladder is not being climbed.

This. The "Putin will always go maximal"  crowd has to account for the fact that Russia hasn't mobilized fully, hasn't hit hard near the Polish border supply lines, hasn't hit those ships congregating in the Sukhyi estuary, hasn't engaged in cyber attacks on the West, etc. We already have a lot of evidence that Russia will actually avoid maximal approaches when the power differential is unfavorable. When missiles are flying it's always possible that things could go off the rails but what's quite clear right now is that Russia does not want to face the full force of NATO.

Edited July 23, 2022 by billbindc

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, but we've seen the US draw 'red lines' before, and not back them up.

Putin might still be rational, but there's no guarantee he will stay rational, and I think there's at least some risk that at some point, he'll use tactical nuclear weapons in a gamble that he will not trigger a full MAD response. The aim would not be to make Ukraine capitulate but to force an end to the war that leaves him in control of at least some gains and with enough prestige to remain in power.

Not saying that will be possible for him, but he might think it is. I hope not.

Here's the problem with tactical nukes:

Say you nuke Kharkiv...and the Ukrainians still say "**** you, sovoks" and keep fighting.

You've just become the first nation to use nukes since WWII in a war of aggression. Your not-entirely-unfriendly trade partners India and China have been "no first use" states for half a century. There's every likelihood they will abandon you politically and end trading with you. The EU/US now have no compunction about a complete trade embargo if not an actual blockade and will ramp up conventional aid through the already high roof. 

For all of this you get a city you can't use and some local tactical gains. There's no calculation that makes it worthwhile if you don't believe the terror alone will get everyone to stop fighting you.

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

These are 9M22S thermite incendiary munitions, fired by Grad MRLs. Russia used these in Syria and also in Ukraine. Not sure if any uses by the Ukrainian army have been documented so far.

Ok, local channels seem busting with hypothesis. You are right, it's 9M22S. It seems it wasn't intercepted/malfunctioned but targeted at Donetsk exactly, coming from frontline along Avdiivka area. 90% sure Russian/LDPR work, even some locals do not seem to believe it was Ukrainian.

So...is it conected to today's Odessa airport? Or just RUS propaganda run out of fuel lately? Maybe Finkle's least likely 2nd cause of Odessa shelling (factions infighting within Russian military) is not that unthinkable and we are witnessing an justification for morning attack, all in all?

Still hard to believe, so probably it's another false flag for Russian domestic consumption that has no sense from Western perspective. Putin clearly does not want this grain deal to work.

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Beleg85

[cesmonkey]

Anyone know what the flight profile is for the rockets fired from the HIMARS systems?  Is that what makes them more difficult to intercept?  I'm sure that fast and relatively small also helps.

This article says:

https://kyivindependent.com/national/why-is-russia-so-vulnerable-to-himars-in-ukraine

Quote

But the problem is that HIMARS’ rockets are very hard to notice on time. 

HIMARS M30/M31 GMLRS rockets strike their targets at the speed of Mach 2.5, or nearly 3,062.6 kilometers per hour. Therefore, when they have to reach a target 80 kilometers away, they spend some 94 seconds in the air before they hit their target. But they also fly at altitudes far lower than any cruise or ballistic missile, giving Russian air defense little time to notice them and react.

Perhaps it's programmable?

https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/print/5692-lockheed-martin-s-guided-mlrs-rockets-successful-in-anti-jamming-tests
 

Quote

The first rocket employed the GMLRS “vertical trajectory shaping” software that allows the rocket to impact the target vertically, while the second incorporated the “nominal trajectory shaping” software, which allows for the standard ballistic trajectory flight pattern.

 

[Butschi]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Again, Russia needs to climb up the established ladder. That means mobilization, mobilizing the nuclear forces, issuing advance clear warnings to NATO that it considers Crimea a red line, except everything shown so far indicates Putin is not willing, or cannot climb the escalation ladder even if he wanted to. Maybe internally, climbing that ladder gets him assassinated. 

There is no law of nature that forces Russia to adhere to any established protocols. They canceled SALT 2, thus saying that they no longer feel bound by past agreements if they see no advantages in them. Also, this slow and defined escalation was NATO illusion. Warsaw Pact war plans are well documented and cleary show that they always intended to go nuclear without any prior warning from day one if ever the Cold War was going to go hot.

Obviously they don't go lightly about throwing nukes or others they would have done it already. That doesn't mean they can't get to a point where they see it as worth the price in the future. And why should they care about whether or not this normalizes the use of nuclear weapons? They have them, only states that don't would have to worry.

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, but we've seen the US draw 'red lines' before, and not back them up.

Putin might still be rational, but there's no guarantee he will stay rational, and I think there's at least some risk that at some point, he'll use tactical nuclear weapons in a gamble that he will not trigger a full MAD response. The aim would not be to make Ukraine capitulate but to force an end to the war that leaves him in control of at least some gains and with enough prestige to remain in power.

Not saying that will be possible for him, but he might think it is. I hope not.

The US really has to respond to a nuclear attack.

Post-Soviet Ukraine was born with the world's third largest nuclear arsenal.  They didn't have control over the launch/arming systems, but could have in a year or so.  Instead they voluntarily gave up the entire arsenal in return for assurances of security.  Failure to support Ukraine as much as possible (even now with conventional weapons) would basically toss out 50 years of work on non-proliferation. Not only would no state willingly disarm, but it will ensure a bunch of small (and less stable) states develop nuclear programs or work to buy nuclear weapons from other countries.  Letting even a tactical nuke go unanswered would make all that happen even faster, putting everyone on Earth at much higher risk overnight.  The current situation is already putting non-proliferation at risk - if Ukraine had kept and taken firing control of the nuclear weapons they inherited, none of this would be happening now.

[Calamine Waffles]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Putin does retreat tho. 2014, he withdrew from further offensive operations in Ukraine instead of toppling Maidan and restoring a pro-Russian government. Partly why the West was so critical of U.S intelligence stating a full conquest was going to occur, was it did not mesh at all with what the Russian government did in the past, or Putin's past actions. Putin's flexibility, despite arguably failing to restore a Pro-Russian government in 2014, was able to give Russia initiative to continue influencing Ukraine, Minsk, Minsk II, despite Ukraine seeking to grow closer to the EU, despite veering away from Europe, was able to make Europe ignore Ukraine, and keep going along with Russia largely till recently. 

He could quite easily declare "victory" now if he so wanted to and the Russian public would probably buy it. He's done so multiple times in Syria.

[Butschi]

4 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

But of course there's the question of Will. Could they make Ukraine surrender by nuclear terror bombing? Could they scare West with it to withdraw support? I have no idea. It would certainly make me more supportive and angry, but at this point anything Russia does will do that, probably.

Yeah, I was thinking of using tactical nukes for... well, tactical purposes, I guess. Off the top of my head there is no instance where terror bombing had the desired effect, right?

It didn't work for the Germans against the UK, it didn't work for the Allies against Germany. It didn't work in Korea. And that was a bombing campaign that was an order of magnitude worse than against Germany (25% of the North Korean civilians were killed I seem to remember). Failure against North Vietnam... has it been tried afterwards? There is Japan in WW2, of course, and the official narrative says that the two nukes ended the war. But nowadays at least some historians (including from the US, I'm not talking about Russian propaganda) say that the Japanese didn't care that much - in the sense that it didn't matter if the enemy can wipe out a city with one big bomb instead of thousands of smaller ones. (They claim it was actually the Russian invasion that made them surrender to the US because the Russians certainly would have deposed of the emporer). So, I don't think a terror bombing campaign would "help" the Russians in Ukraine. Boy, that sounds cynical... And who knows, learning from history is not for everyone.

Still, I was thinking about military use, where a big enough boom could certainly offset a lack of accuracy.

[Vet 0369]

On 7/20/2022 at 11:52 AM, sburke said:

For anyone who lives near enough to Quincy Mass.

Beauty From Ashes | The Sunflower of Peace Fashion Gala and Fundraiser - Beauty From Ashes (qgiv.com)

Thank you for posting the link. It’s about 23 miles south of me. Told my wife about it, but our State rate of COVID infections is rising, so probably not for us at our ages. We do have another UKR charity we support though.

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Calamine Waffles said:

He could quite easily declare "victory" now if he so wanted to and the Russian public would probably buy it. He's done so multiple times in Syria.

I would not be so sure. Syria was almost zero stakes, he could leave it by a whim and nobody would even notice in Russia. But here is different, he is already too deep into that swamp. You are right Russian subjects citizens would probably buy it (largely) but his power would not be stable anymore. And of course everything depends on question: what victory.

 

Worthy read from Timothy Snyder. @panzermartin may ba a good read for you, since you are clearly struggling whom to believe (not being personal here, I understand your urge to think critically); when comes to Belarus/Ukraine/Poland topics, Snyder is one of the best adressess you can find (less so on Russia, but still holds). His wife Marcy Shore also wrote great book about Maidan I cannot recommend enough, reconstructing mentallity of the Revolution of Dignity - good antidotum for "realist"/tankies guys who want us all think that every social movement is orchestrated by global powerhouses.

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Beleg85

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Calamine Waffles said:

He could quite easily declare "victory" now if he so wanted to and the Russian public would probably buy it. He's done so multiple times in Syria.

He could and most Russians probably wouldn't care.  His problem is that others vying for power would smell weakness and it is way too easy to undermine the "victory" claim.

[dan/california]

53 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

I would not be so sure. Syria was almost zero stakes, he could leave it by a whim and nobody would even notice in Russia. But here is different, he is already too deep into that swamp. You are right Russian subjects citizens would probably buy it (largely) but his power would not be stable anymore. And of course everything depends on question: what victory.

 

Worthy read from Timothy Snyder. @panzermartin may ba a good read for you, since you are clearly struggling whom to believe (not being personal here, I understand your urge to think critically); when comes to Belarus/Ukraine/Poland topics, Snyder is one of the best adressess you can find (less so on Russia, but still holds). His wife Marcy Shore also wrote great book about Maidan I cannot recommend enough, reconstructing mentallity of the Revolution of Dignity - good antidotum for "realist"/tankies guys who want us all think that every social movement is orchestrated by global powerhouses.

 

Great thread, worth the time.

 

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

There is no law of nature that forces Russia to adhere to any established protocols. They canceled SALT 2, thus saying that they no longer feel bound by past agreements if they see no advantages in them. Also, this slow and defined escalation was NATO illusion. Warsaw Pact war plans are well documented and cleary show that they always intended to go nuclear without any prior warning from day one if ever the Cold War was going to go hot.

Obviously they don't go lightly about throwing nukes or others they would have done it already. That doesn't mean they can't get to a point where they see it as worth the price in the future. And why should they care about whether or not this normalizes the use of nuclear weapons? They have them, only states that don't would have to worry.

Actually, that last bit isn't really true. The best and most efficient use of a nuclear capability is to make it impossible for any other country to contemplate attacking you. We can see that right now in that Russia is able to fight with the sure knowledge that 250,000 Finns aren't going to surge over the border and overwhelm Saint Petersburg and Moscow. If Russia uses a nuke, even 'tactically', it has dramatically raised the stakes and costs for the states they are in conflict with and thus the cost/benefit analysis of escalation and direct retaliation.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

 

[Butschi]

26 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Actually, that last bit isn't really true. The best and most efficient use of a nuclear capability is to make it impossible for any other country to contemplate attacking you. We can see that right now in that Russia is able to fight with the sure knowledge that 250,000 Finns aren't going to surge over the border and overwhelm Saint Petersburg and Moscow. If Russia uses a nuke, even 'tactically', it has dramatically raised the stakes and costs for the states they are in conflict with and thus the cost/benefit analysis of escalation and direct retaliation.  

Maybe I misread your post. Doesn't it support what I've said? Would the use of tactical nukes and thus the, by your words, raised stakes and costs make it more likely that the Finns that 250,000 Finns surge over the border? Wouldn't, on the contrary, the Finns now not only know of the threat but also see that Moscow is actually willing to use those nukes?

[billbindc]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

Maybe I misread your post. Doesn't it support what I've said? Would the use of tactical nukes and thus the, by your words, raised stakes and costs make it more likely that the Finns that 250,000 Finns surge over the border? Wouldn't, on the contrary, the Finns now not only know of the threat but also see that Moscow is actually willing to use those nukes?

Unused nukes are stabilizing because it's not worth it for adversaries to risk provoking their use. Using them has the opposite effect of constraining opponents because they were exercising escalation discipline and you went nuclear anyway.