How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

42 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Finally, the Ukrainians do not have a fundamental problem with keeping the VKS in check. On the other hand, they have a huge problem with Russian artillery guided by drones. Drones like the Orlan-10 are small, easy to "print" in bulk, and hard to counter. In fact, there is now no single system that can effectively counter them, if we take into account the economic factor and the high cost of each shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile, which costs about ten times as much as a single Orlan-10. In combination with a large concentration of MSTA-S self-propelled howitzers of 152 millimeters, not to mention BM-27 and BM-30 rocket launchers just behind the front line, they literally grind whole battalions of the Ukrainian army to dust. This is the main factor why Ukraine is still so far from winning this war. It needs weapons that will inflict similar losses on the Russians.

Every single prototype anti drone system needs to be on the Ukrainian front lines. It is THE thing that can move the needle the fastest. Teach teach the contractor reps some Ukrainian profanity, overpay them, and get these systems forward, TODAY.

 

Edit: it is a massive indictment of the U.S. media ecosystem that this had to be published in a Czech publication, instead of very major U.S. outlet.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by dan/california
spelling

[FancyCat]

40 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Originally I just wanted to know whether Biden actually had proof beforehand, bluffed or just made a lucky prediction.

Well the U.S warned Ukraine about a airborne landing operation with the intent to seize the Kiev airport intact, plus special operations teams to hunt and kill the Ukrainian leadership, in January according to the article, I don't see why Russia would want to kill the Ukrainian leadership if the objective is to simply take the Donbas, and a landing force at a airfield requires a larger offensive to open up supply lines to Kiev as well. 

The U.S also disclosed prior to the invasion, (actually disclosed, I remember pointing it out pre-invasion on other online forum locations) plans for cleansing the occupied regions of Pro-Ukrainian civil society, government and other important figures, and that applied country-wide, so again, indicating annexation of most or all of the country. 

As for Ukraine's leadership and much of the country not believing in a full scale invasion....well i dare say part of the reason for the destruction of Russian-Ukrainian relations and rabid anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine has to do with the full scale invasion occurring and willingness on the part of Russians to let (or support) Ukraine be turned into a puppet state and puppet people. A betrayal of what was familiar relations that many Ukrainians had still subscribed to somewhat till recently. 

And in regards to not believing, not believing is different than preparing, and we know that Ukraine did prepare, whatever Zelensky and co's sentiments on it actually occurring. 

 

[Calamine Waffles]

30 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Every single prototype anti drone system needs to be on the Ukrainian front lines. It is THE thing that can move the needle the fastest. Teach teach the contractor reps some Ukrainian profanity, overpay them, and get these systems forward, TODAY.

I think an anti-drone Switchblade type loitering munition would be acceptable if it can be done cheaply.

Quote

Edit: it is a massive indictment of the U.S. media ecosystem that this had to be published in a Czech publication, instead of very major U.S. outlet.

Cooper is based in Austria and he's, errr, not terribly fond of the US media.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[LongLeftFlank]

None of the above assessments of US decisionmaking are contradictory IMHO.

It is pretty obvious to me that Mr. Biden (like Reagan as of 1984 or so) suffers senile dementia, and it is progressing, with good days and bad days, as we see pretty much every second time Joe speaks off the cuff. Nor was he an especially brilliant man when he was in his prime; let's not fool ourselves about this. Although there are many different kinds of 'smart' in this world....

But like most folks in such cases, Biden falls back on the effective habits of a lifetime (40 years in public service), plus the advice of trusted persons like his wife and longtime staff.  I won't claim he's a rubber stamp, but he knows how to 'listen' for the consensus and declare the decision, without necessarily grasping details, or contributing much in the way of synthesis or critique. Hence the comfortable armchairs around the fireplace for him and Kamala, not a conference table or the War Room..... 

Anywah, JRB makes a perfectly adequate figurehead for the permanent policy establishment (the MIC, the Swamp, whatever you are inclined to call it). This is the (very much bipartisan) group whose performance is being praised here. And in time of war, that's how it ought to be.

....Would I personally wish to be governed permanently by such an unelected permanent establishment? No! A mandarinate has its own flaws, not least that it governs for its own convenience, not that of the people, even when not overtly venal.  However, in time of war, such a  structure makes eminent sense, and we're all seeing it at work.

One expat Canuck's opinion....

[MikeyD]

Nonsense.

[LongLeftFlank]

40 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Nonsense.

Oh that's right, how silly of me. Biden is King Solomon and Thufir Hawat all rolled into one, and his Cabinet sits at his feet, dutifully scribing his analysis and making his sacred Word flesh.

What's your take on it, since you clearly know him intimately, or have access to the Oval Office? In more than one word, since Nonsense is not in fact self evident.

[Gpig]

Mind the verge, lads.

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, Cederic said:

The occupant of the Oval Office can't walk out of a room with assistance. Please stop pretending he even knows what's happening in Ukraine. He can't read a teleprompter properly, can't answer unscripted questions and keeps getting sent home to keep him out of the way.

If you want to thank the current US Government for their stance and actions on Ukraine, find the people making the decisions and telling Biden what to say, and thank them.

Sorry but the Afghan withdrawal was not controlled, was not properly planned, was not properly communicated to US allies and was as a result an unmitigated disaster. Yes, that failure absolutely did encourage Putin in thinking the US was weak and lacking in leadership, and yes, that has cost Ukraine dearly. A year later and the only winners are the US arms manufacturers, who got replace $80bn of equipment abandoned to terrorists, and as a result get massive sales to countries supporting Ukraine.

Biden? Does anybody anywhere on the planet seriously think he's currently compos mentis?

If you actually think that American allies would commit the way they have to supporting Ukraine to the degree they have without the assurance that the US President is fully committed and able then boy do I have some Crimean time shares to sell you. 

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

But this is exactly the point: You didn't know before the actual invasion. You suspected that something was going to happen. This is what a major part of the discussion has been revolving around over the last few pages. Most people didn't know but nowadays everyone claims that everyone knew. Except the French and the Germans, of course, who were afraid of the consequences for their economy and denied to see what everyone saw.

I mention denial because contrary to your usually brilliant analyses, I think this part about German psychology was slightly oversimplified. Of course there is this element and it is especially strong in the boomer+ generation, a phenomenon similar to denial of climate change. But there is more. As I said before, we are quite sceptical of things a US government claims on the basis of some intelligence agency. Shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice. Moreover, just an example, criticism about Nord Stream 2 from the US was, shall we say, less than genuine. It was all too clear that the Trump administration didn't care about Germany being overly dependent on Russia. They wanted to sell their own LNG. And the Polish government, to name just one, was also more interested in discrediting Getmany than reducing the Russian black mailing capacity. Other things: The SPD, while indeed having had too close connections to Putin also had a long tradition in negotiating with Russia - which did a lot to relax the situation during the Cold War. In didn't work this time, oh well.

When talking about people who suffered under Soviet rule, many seem to forget that Eastern Germany (aka former GDR) was no less under Soviet rule. Strangely though, support for Putin is especially strong in Eastern Germany. So there has to be more to it that just having suffered from the Soviets.

Anyway, sorry for the confusing mix of different topic in slightly "rant-ish" tone. Originally I just wanted to know whether Biden actually had proof beforehand, bluffed or just made a lucky prediction.

Your first graf repeats the same error you made earlier. Nobody is claiming that they had complete certainty of the invasion because nobody could until one person, Putin, made the final decision and set the Russian armed forces in motion. If you read the Washington Post tic tock on the run up to the invasion, it’s very clear that the Biden administration thought it highly likely and jawboned/planned/armed accordingly. That’s not “suspected something was going to happen”. That’s intelligence gathering, analysis and action. Thus, it wasn’t a case of “fool me once, shame on me”. It was a case of “you fooled me once, now I’m going to fool myself”.

[danfrodo]

Anyone got any news from the front today?  Other than more RU rockets being used as terror weapons on congested cities?

[billbindc]

20 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Oh that's right, how silly of me. Biden is King Solomon and Thufir Hawat all rolled into one, and his Cabinet sits at his feet, dutifully scribing his analysis and making his sacred Word flesh.

What's your take on it, since you clearly know him intimately, or have access to the Oval Office? In more than one word, since Nonsense is not in fact self evident.

Rather than ‘nonsense’, perhaps a more useful way to prove the point would be to note that what the Biden administration is doing very strongly projects very specific policies that are very particular to Biden over his political history…and often very much not what the ‘permanent establishment’ often prefers. Afghanistan is one very salient example but there are others. That simply doesn’t happen in a caretaker administration.

[FancyCat]

Final point on Afghanistan, Biden was strongly opposed by many top brass in the military to retain a token force in Afghanistan. Despite a firestorm of negative news coverage and a drop in opinion polling that occurred at the time of the withdrawal, that has seen persistent underwater marks since then, my belief he is of sound mind, I think I can propose that the decision being made to leave illustrates his ability to not be senile, nor be controlled by other interests, especially when it was a unpopular one opposed by many, that continues to drag on his polling today.

Why I see his decision as not being inept, I mean I already laid it out, by the time a peace deal was signed by the prior administration, Afghanistan's security situation was not good whatsoever. By 2020, horrid.

For Biden to betray the agreement, with the little remaining U.S forces on hand in 2020, would have probably caused a full scale Taliban offensive to begin, at the least requiring intensive U.S air support to maintain what the government held and I don't bet against the fall of major cities anyhow, and so instead of a quiet withdrawal from Kabul with the Taliban looking onward, we could have had a much more hostile retreat with the Taliban nipping at our forces and again, the force needed to secure a withdrawal and evecuation of civilians requires much more forces than the original remaining drawdown amount. 

The idea that the Afghan government and military would somehow give their lives for a U.S withdrawal, is ridiculous as well. Once that deal was signed, it was over. You can't sign away your allies and expect them to carry water so you can leave and the amount of Afghan troops needed to defend Kabul or any other major city, that amount does not match the numbers able for them to board the last plane to leave.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491

Edit, On that note, if we want another example of a military making the wrong decisions aside from Russia, the American generals arguing for a token force in Afghanistan is a great example. Either they would have been forced to pull out, or as some news speculated, part of Biden's refusal to entertain a token force was the likelihood of it being a tripwire designed to increase American forces. Obviously a few thousand is not enough to hold and when down the line, the Joint Chiefs lay out the dismal situation, with a evacuation more akin to Durkirk, or the option of increasing force and prevent utter humiliation, I'm sure Biden would have felt tricked.

Edited August 18, 2022 by FancyCat

[Calamine Waffles]

3 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Rather than ‘nonsense’, perhaps a more useful way to prove the point would be to note that what the Biden administration is doing very strongly projects very specific policies that are very particular to Biden over his political history…and often very much not what the ‘permanent establishment’ often prefers. Afghanistan is one very salient example but there are others. That simply doesn’t happen in a caretaker administration.

Or, you know, he could just be a normal 79 year old man who's clearly slower and not as sharp as he used to be, but is not "non compos mentis". Honestly, it reminds me of all that speculation that Putin has Parkinson's/cancer and is going to die soon, that's why he chose to invade Ukraine now.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

But this is exactly the point: You didn't know before the actual invasion. You suspected that something was going to happen.

Yes, and I did this with absolutely no classified intelligence briefings. 

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

This is what a major part of the discussion has been revolving around over the last few pages. Most people didn't know but nowadays everyone claims that everyone knew. Except the French and the Germans, of course, who were afraid of the consequences for their economy and denied to see what everyone saw.

Are you talking about people or the governments that represent them?  Because there's a big difference between the two.  The people who lead our collective nations were given the evidence.  Some believed it, some dismissed it.

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

I mention denial because contrary to your usually brilliant analyses, I think this part about German psychology was slightly oversimplified. Of course there is this element and it is especially strong in the boomer+ generation, a phenomenon similar to denial of climate change. But there is more. As I said before, we are quite sceptical of things a US government claims on the basis of some intelligence agency. Shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice.

Skepticism is fine.  It is good, in fact.  However, dismissing the array of intel the US made available to its allies because of something done nearly 20 years ago by a completely different administration is... smart?  No, it's incredibly stupid.  And it seems that even the most skeptical governments were won over by the evidence, they just didn't say so publicly.

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

Moreover, just an example, criticism about Nord Stream 2 from the US was, shall we say, less than genuine. It was all too clear that the Trump administration didn't care about Germany being overly dependent on Russia. They wanted to sell their own LNG. And the Polish government, to name just one, was also more interested in discrediting Getmany than reducing the Russian black mailing capacity. Other things: The SPD, while indeed having had too close connections to Putin also had a long tradition in negotiating with Russia - which did a lot to relax the situation during the Cold War. In didn't work this time, oh well.

Sure, politics is rarely only about the thing being discussed and all nations seek to gain advantage (or minimize disadvantage) in their dealings with each other.  Germany is no different.

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

When talking about people who suffered under Soviet rule, many seem to forget that Eastern Germany (aka former GDR) was no less under Soviet rule. Strangely though, support for Putin is especially strong in Eastern Germany. So there has to be more to it that just having suffered from the Soviets.

Oh, I haven't forgotten.  What you don't seem to appreciate is that there is more than one thing going on here.  There is the memories of being ruled by a corrupt and brutal foreign power.  Especially the Baltics for obvious reasons.  Although the populations are aging out, there's still a large percentage of the population that lived through it.  Only small segments think "life was better back in the old days", just like all societies for probably 10s of thousands of years.

Separate from this is the admiration and worshiping of Putin.  This is not unique to the former DDR.  It exists in all European countries, including those which never were under Soviet rule.  It also exists in countries outside of Europe.  The US, for example, still has a strong pro-Putin cult amongst the political right.  They are much quieter about it now than they were before, but it still exists.  This problem is one of the political right discovering they could openly worship Putin whereas they could not openly worship Hitler.  And when Putin is gone the extreme right will latch onto some other dictator as a role model for their causes.  Orban seems to be the most immediate substitute now that "cancel culture" has made Putin out to be such a bad man.

This should not be surprising either.  As Hitler was stomping around Europe there were plenty in the Allied countries that were openly support of him.  After the war these same people continued worshiping him quietly or openly, usually by making the Nazis seem better than they were.  You know, denying the Holocaust, painting them as the protectors from Communism, and any number of convoluted "alternate facts".  This worshiping continues to this day, including in countries that were ravaged by the Nazis.  Just look at the neo-Nazi movement in Russia and how that is playing out in Ukraine.

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

Anyway, sorry for the confusing mix of different topic in slightly "rant-ish" tone. Originally I just wanted to know whether Biden actually had proof beforehand, bluffed or just made a lucky prediction.

You could try reading up on what happened.  There's plenty of information out there that definitively answers the question you have.  The US had exceptionally good intel, including the battle plans and Russia's plans, false flag attacks, and specific "kill lists" of people the Russian government wanted dead.  This was not a lucky prediction.  The Washington Post article just linked to is just the latest.

Steve

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Or, you know, he could just be a normal 79 year old man who's clearly slower and not as sharp as he used to be, but is not "non compos mentis". Honestly, it reminds me of all that speculation that Putin has Parkinson's/cancer and is going to die soon, that's why he chose to invade Ukraine now.

So now not non compos mentis? Ok then….

[Calamine Waffles]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

So now not non compos mentis? Ok then….

I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I agree with you that Biden is not just a "placeholder" and is an active participant in formulating this administration's policy.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Your first graf repeats the same error you made earlier. Nobody is claiming that they had complete certainty of the invasion because nobody could until one person, Putin, made the final decision and set the Russian armed forces in motion. If you read the Washington Post tic tock on the run up to the invasion, it’s very clear that the Biden administration thought it highly likely and jawboned/planned/armed accordingly. That’s not “suspected something was going to happen”. That’s intelligence gathering, analysis and action. Thus, it wasn’t a case of “fool me once, shame on me”. It was a case of “you fooled me once, now I’m going to fool myself”.

Let's also keep in mind that for months the Biden admin's various officials speaking to the public very, very, very clearly said that they didn't think Putin had given the order to do the invasion.  They simply said all the pieces were there and that meant all that was needed was Putin's say-so.  That should have been very troubling to anybody looking at the intel because nobody should have been comfortable with it being so close to happening.

In fact, the US was very specific about what they thought needed to be done about this POSSIBILITY.  And that was to prepare for it and do everything possible to dissuade Putin from pulling the trigger.  Right up until the last week or two there was still some hope that a combination of actions by the West would convince Putin to back down.  It didn't work, but it was absolutely correct to give it a try.

Steve

[Calamine Waffles]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, and I did this with absolutely no classified intelligence briefings. 

Are you talking about people or the governments that represent them?  Because there's a big difference between the two.  The people who lead our collective nations were given the evidence.  Some believed it, some dismissed it.

Skepticism is fine.  It is good, in fact.  However, dismissing the array of intel the US made available to its allies because of something done nearly 20 years ago by a completely different administration is... smart?  No, it's incredibly stupid.  And it seems that even the most skeptical governments were won over by the evidence, they just didn't say so publicly.

Sure, politics is rarely only about the thing being discussed and all nations seek to gain advantage (or minimize disadvantage) in their dealings with each other.  Germany is no different.

Oh, I haven't forgotten.  What you don't seem to appreciate is that there is more than one thing going on here.  There is the memories of being ruled by a corrupt and brutal foreign power.  Especially the Baltics for obvious reasons.  Although the populations are aging out, there's still a large percentage of the population that lived through it.  Only small segments think "life was better back in the old days", just like all societies for probably 10s of thousands of years.

Separate from this is the admiration and worshiping of Putin.  This is not unique to the former DDR.  It exists in all European countries, including those which never were under Soviet rule.  It also exists in countries outside of Europe.  The US, for example, still has a strong pro-Putin cult amongst the political right.  They are much quieter about it now than they were before, but it still exists.  This problem is one of the political right discovering they could openly worship Putin whereas they could not openly worship Hitler.  And when Putin is gone the extreme right will latch onto some other dictator as a role model for their causes.  Orban seems to be the most immediate substitute now that "cancel culture" has made Putin out to be such a bad man.

This should not be surprising either.  As Hitler was stomping around Europe there were plenty in the Allied countries that were openly support of him.  After the war these same people continued worshiping him quietly or openly, usually by making the Nazis seem better than they were.  You know, denying the Holocaust, painting them as the protectors from Communism, and any number of convoluted "alternate facts".  This worshiping continues to this day, including in countries that were ravaged by the Nazis.  Just look at the neo-Nazi movement in Russia and how that is playing out in Ukraine.

You could try reading up on what happened.  There's plenty of information out there that definitively answers the question you have.  The US had exceptionally good intel, including the battle plans and Russia's plans, false flag attacks, and specific "kill lists" of people the Russian government wanted dead.  This was not a lucky prediction.  The Washington Post article just linked to is just the latest.

Steve

Also re: US intelligence, the fundamental fact is that not all US allies are equal when it comes to access to intelligence. There's the Five Eyes tier (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) where pretty much everything is shared and then there's the "other" NATO ally tier (Germany, Italy, France, Poland, etc.).

Edited August 18, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Final point on Afghanistan, Biden was strongly opposed by many top brass in the military to retain a token force in Afghanistan. Despite a firestorm of negative news coverage and a drop in opinion polling that occurred at the time of the withdrawal, that has seen persistent underwater marks since then, my belief he is of sound mind, I think I can propose that the decision being made to leave illustrates his ability to not be senile, nor be controlled by other interests, especially when it was a unpopular one opposed by many, that continues to drag on his polling today.

Why I see his decision as not being inept, I mean I already laid it out, by the time a peace deal was signed by the prior administration, Afghanistan's security situation was not good whatsoever. By 2020, horrid.

For Biden to betray the agreement, with the little remaining U.S forces on hand in 2020, would have probably caused a full scale Taliban offensive to begin, at the least requiring intensive U.S air support to maintain what the government held and I don't bet against the fall of major cities anyhow, and so instead of a quiet withdrawal from Kabul with the Taliban looking onward, we could have had a much more hostile retreat with the Taliban nipping at our forces and again, the force needed to secure a withdrawal and evecuation of civilians requires much more forces than the original remaining drawdown amount. 

The idea that the Afghan government and military would somehow give their lives for a U.S withdrawal, is ridiculous as well. Once that deal was signed, it was over. You can't sign away your allies and expect them to carry water so you can leave and the amount of Afghan troops needed to defend Kabul or any other major city, that amount does not match the numbers able for them to board the last plane to leave.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491

 

There was never a realistic plan to "win" the war in Afghanistan.  Not in 2001, not in 2021.  Although I can think of several plans that could have had more degrees of "success", in the end I don't think it would wind up as anything other than a mess with hundreds of thousands of people dead.  There was no military solution that would have worked.  Certainly none of the ones tried worked.

This is relevant to the war in Ukraine because Russia is faced with the same sort of reality.  There was no plan on Earth that would have likely given Russia a "win" in Ukraine according to its definition.  The war was lost 6 months ago and there is no military solution available to reverse the situation.  There's also no diplomatic solution as Russia's stated goals for this war are diametrically opposed to Ukraine's goals for continuing it.

The difference is that Putin doesn't have the luxury of kicking the can down the road to his successor.  The US and its ISAF allies could have kept the war in Afghanistan going indefinitely from an economic and military standpoint.  What it couldn't do was keep it going for much longer politically.  Russia, on the other hand, has more leeway on the political side (i.e. it controls its population, not the other way around), but economically and militarily it is already beyond its carrying capacity.

The other difference is that for all its hype, Afghanistan was never seen as a threat to the United States as a country or a culture.  A threat to life and property?  Yes, but that's not the same thing.  Russia, on the other hand, convinced a large chunk of its population that the existence of Russia as a nation and as a culture will disappear unless Ukraine is destroyed.  That's not something that can be easily backed out of, especially with such an incredibly high price for the war thus far.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Also re: US intelligence, the fundamental fact is that not all US allies are equal when it comes to access to intelligence. There's the Five Eyes tier (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) where pretty much everything is shared and then there's the "other" NATO ally tier (Germany, Italy, France, Poland, etc.).

Correct, which is why the Biden Admin ordered that certain normal barriers to sharing be lowered.  There was some (considerable?) resistance to this within the US intel community, but they complied because that is what they are obligated to do when the President gives the order.

This was no "yellow cake" situation.  The US shared raw intelligence without the political filters EXPRESSLY BECAUSE they knew of the mistrust that resulted from the Bush Admin's gross distortion of the threat Iraq posed.

Let me emphasize that point for Butschi.  The US openly acknowledged there was a trust issue with its claims and took very explicit steps to reassure Europe (generally) that this was not some sort of political hack job.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The news from the front for the last two days hasn't been very different than the previous couple of days.  Here is my summary of the last few ISW reports:

By and large the Kharkiv front is fairly quiet, the Izyum area has some local Russian attacks, and Bakhmut is the main focal point in the central Donbas area with regular ground attacks.  None of these have worked out well for Russia, with almost nothing to show for their efforts but more scattered debris and bodies left behind from failed attacks.

Around Donetsk City the Russians have made "limited" progress north and south of the city.  The usual high cost for a little bit of ground sort of gains.

Russians continue to try and do something to improve their positions in Kherson, specifically counter attacks in the northern sector.  They haven't produced anything other than losses for the Russians.

There were more deep strikes by Ukraine, ranging from the big hits in northern Crimea (already discussed here) to tactical ammo dumps getting blown to some rail disruption from partisan activity.

The most interesting report is that it appears Russia is repositioning its reserves towards the western portion of the Zaporizhia-Donetsk line.  Meaning, instead of reinforcing the fighting going on around Donetsk City from the south, they are instead beefing up forces near the Dnepr.  Most likely because they are expecting Ukrainian forces mounting attacks against that section of front fairly soon.

There was also a command change in Crimea.  The head of the Black Sea Fleet was removed and replaced with a more junior ranked commander.  Specifically, Admiral Igor Osipov is out and Vice Admiral Viktor Sokolov is in.  Interestingly, it was rumored that Osipov was sacked after the Moskva was sunk.  IIRC it was backed up by some unusual escorting of him to a plane to Moscow.  Seems he managed to keep his job for a bit, but the recent attacks changed the situation.

Steve

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Calamine Waffles said:

I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I agree with you that Biden is not just a "placeholder" and is an active participant in formulating this administration's policy.

Mea culpa.

[Calamine Waffles]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The most interesting report is that it appears Russia is repositioning its reserves towards the western portion of the Zaporizhia-Donetsk line.  Meaning, instead of reinforcing the fighting going on around Donetsk City from the south, they are instead beefing up forces near the Dnepr.  Most likely because they are expecting Ukrainian forces mounting attacks against that section of front fairly soon.

Steve

There's some speculation they might attempt an offensive towards Zaporizhzhia to try and force Ukraine to divert forces away from Kherson and regain momentum.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Correct, which is why the Biden Admin ordered that certain normal barriers to sharing be lowered.  There was some (considerable?) resistance to this within the US intel community, but they complied because that is what they are obligated to do when the President gives the order.

This was no "yellow cake" situation.  The US shared raw intelligence without the political filters EXPRESSLY BECAUSE they knew of the mistrust that resulted from the Bush Admin's gross distortion of the threat Iraq posed.

Let me emphasize that point for Butschi.  The US openly acknowledged there was a trust issue with its claims and took very explicit steps to reassure Europe (generally) that this was not some sort of political hack job.

Steve

Steve, you really need a like button.

[Blazing 88's]

6 hours ago, Cederic said:

...Biden? Does anybody anywhere on the planet seriously think he's currently compos mentis?

More so compared to that orange f'n blathering, BS spitting pumpkin that wants to get back in again. Surely my friends down south of me are not that dumb again? Good God I hope they aren't.

Sorry, back to what really matters in the thread, Ukraine.

[LukeFF]

14 minutes ago, Blazing 88's said:

More so compared to that orange f'n blathering, BS spitting pumpkin that wants to get back in again. Surely my friends down south of me are not that dumb again? Good God I hope they aren't.

Sorry, back to what really matters in the thread, Ukraine.

Brilliant idea! This thread the last couple of pages has been a bunch of boring back and forth about Afghanistan, etc., and then of course you had to get one more dig into Trump (sounding like a child at that), because hey, we're already off-topic, right?

And now I know why I spend less and less time in this topic.

Edited August 18, 2022 by LukeFF