How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Grigb]

Rybar posted a new update. And it is very interesting. He confirmed what we talked about previously

• UKR made successful attack toward Karpivka-Redkodub-Nove breaking through RU defenses [22/23-Sept]
• RU counter attacked re-capturing Karpivka and Nove [24-Sept]
• UKR left a force at Redkodub to defend against RU counter attack [24-Sept]
• But the large UKR mech force is moving North toward Borove-Svatove highway [24-Sept]

But the most interesting part is:

Quote

The Ukrainian command threw large forces of motorized infantry to further advance to the north and exit to the Svatovo -Borovoe highway.

In the event of the AFU's reaching Svatovo, the entire Liman grouping of allied forces will be in an operational encirclment.
With a simultaneous strike from the bridgehead at Kupyansk, the entire defense along the LPR border may collapse.

The command of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation throws reserves into battle in order to fix parts of the Ukrainian troops and reduce the pace of their advance, gaining time to create a solid line of defense and stabilize the situation at the front.

While I am not sure how capture of Borove-Svatove highway can affect RU units at Lyman, the whole situation smells like something we saw very recently. Do not want to hype but...

P.S. I do have one idea about the importance of the highway

• What's if road Lyman-Kremina is already cut by UKR forces or at least very dangerous to use by supply columns? UKR forces have been in the area for a sufficiently long time. In this case Lyman area is quietly supplied directly from Svatove.
• We know there is RU path through Nove-Makiivka-Svatove
• Also, there should be a path from Borove-Svatove highway down to Lyman as well.
• UKR already cut path at Nove 
• If UKR move to the highway they can cut path through highway.

[Grigb]

12 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

Meanwhile, is this new: 

 

 

Well, I believe Dmitri is missing important detail. Rybar did not say liberation/capture of Svatove. He said UKR exiting means approaching /reaching Svatove. 

[Butschi]

23 minutes ago, sburke said:

Because if we don't, we guarantee they will do so again.  In fact, we incentivize them to do so again.  There is no good logic NOT to do something.

But I didn't say we will do nothing. I said direct, i.e. military intervention. At a point where the other side already uses nukes. At a point where Russia has probably come to the conclusion it can't win a conventional war. Against Ukraine. A NATO intervention would leave Russia with even less options. If it couldn't stop Ukraine with conventional weapons it can't stop Ukraine + NATO. And Tac nukes won't stop NATO air power. That leaves Russia with the option to surrender or escalate further. Surrender is an option, sure, but what seems rational to us, by our metric, might not look the same by the metric employed by the Kremlin. So, if there is no surrender, that means Tac nukes against NATO ground forces. By your logic NATO could now back down even less then before. This would probably mean NATO tac nukes in return. Maybe this would stay regional but chances are that one side then goes to strategic nukes. It would even be more likely in case Russian tac nukes can't stop NATO. Boom. The logic for only air interventions is similar but without the tac nukes in between, I think.

Is my scenario unrealistic or do you actually think NATO would accept (not risk because at this point it would be more than a vague risk) nuclear war for making a statement?

Edited September 24, 2022 by Butschi

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

But I d didn't say we will do nothing. I daid direct, i.e. military intervention. At a point where the other side alreaday uses nukes. At a point where Russia has probably come to the conclusion it can't win a conventional war. Against Ukraine. A NATO intervention would leave Russia with even less options. If it couldn't stop Ukraine with conventional weapons it can't stop Ukraine + NATO. And Tac nukes won't stop NATO air power. That leaves Russia with the option to surrender or escalate further. Surrender is an option, sure, but what seems rational to us, by our metric, might not look the same by the metric employed by the Kremlin. So, if there is no surrender, that means Tac nukes against NATO ground forces. By your logic NATO could now back down even less then before. This would mean NATO tac nukes in return. Maybe this would stay regional but chances are that one side then goes to strategic nukes. Boom. The logic for only air interventions is similar but without the tac nukes in between, I think.

Is my scenario unrealistic or do you actually think NATO would accept (not risk because at this point it would be more than a vague risk) nuclear war for making a statement (that we don't accept others to use nukes)?

I have no idea, there really is a lot of pointless conjecture.  For all we know NATO may be reaching out directly to China to let them know Putin has to be reined in.  Suppose Xi gets on the phone and tells Putin, hey you use a nuke and our border is closed to Russia and Russian goods period, and we won't lift a finger to a NATO response.

All I know is we can't accept backing down as backing down means he knows he can do it again.  What kind of response NATO decides on is out of my realm of knowledge and likely anyone here as to NATO's full capabilities.

[OldSarge]

43 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

That is the question that has always been open, even during the depth of cold war: "If Russia nukes Berlin and whatever else, but not the US, will US retaliate or will they let it slide because otherwise their cities get nuked?"

It depends largely upon who is sitting in the Oval office. I think an unprovoked nuclear attack upon a densely populated city, regardless of nation, would be seen as a message of "we're next!". It would be a crossing of the Rubicon moment and no President would be able to ignore it and survive the political whirlwind.

 

Quote

Declassified documents from Warsaw pact plans from Poland show that Russia believed so, because it saw NATO as empire serving the US, not as pact of equals, and sacrificing colonies is to be expected. Meanwhile US would sometimes say "yes, we would launch everything" and sometimes "we're not telling" and I think there were some declassified documents as well but who knows if that was a psyop.

I recall that as Soviet propaganda, just like 'America will defend Europe to the last European', it is just so much claptrap. While the U.S. is an important member within NATO, NATO has its own governing body and each member has a voice in how it responds.

Edited September 24, 2022 by OldSarge
Added org chart

[Peregrine]

On 9/22/2022 at 6:38 AM, The_Capt said:

Well as a non-US or UK citizen who fought in Afghanistan I would encourage you to widen that aperture just a bit.  There were members from all across NATO on that mission and we all felt the loss when it went sideways.

 

This is a summary in an Australian military official document that describes the operations in Afghanistan. "NATO led the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force {ISAF) from August 2003 to December 2014. ISAF's mission was to enable the Afghan authorities and build the capacity of the Afghan national security forces to provide effective security, so as to ensure that Afghanistan would never again be a safe haven for terrorists. ISAF was NATO's longest and most challenging mission to date: at its height, the force was more than 130,000 strong with troops from 50 NATO and partner nations."

A lot of the civilized world owns a piece of the mess in Afghanistan.

EDIT - original post dropped the following which originally was longer but mainly the point addressing the general theme across the last few pages that NATO is somehow failing.

NATO - is not going anywhere. Prior to the Zelensky government Ukraine had a mess of governments that at different times were significantly to ultra corrupted by Russian influence. Add in corrupt influence of criminal gangs, aging Soviet military structure, a public/military service that is at different levels comprised plus voting irregularities. Does that sound like an EU or NATO member country?

NATOs little green men policy was response to Russia interfering in non-member states policy. You can't join NATO if your neighboring country has pinched a whole bunch of your territory and is shooting done airliners.

Anyone that thinks NATO is failing because Russia is still in Ukraine misunderstands that NATO is primarily a defensive pact and will not attack Russia unless a whole bunch of member states via the UN builds a coalition to do so.

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Peregrine

[BlackMoria]

Damn, there is still pearl clutching and hand wringing about Putin's nuclear threat after reading the past 4 page.   I view the issue very big picture and it is this.    The big wigs are not thinking about if Putin's red line is Crimea or whatever jigger is teasing his prostate up his *** will do it on any given day henceforth.   It is THE RED LINE that has existed for over 70 years.   The political, military and social costs of using a nuclear weapon since the two dropped against Japan has controlled the narrative - they are weapons too terrible to use, period... establishing THE RED LINE.   That red line was tested several times but managed to hold due to this...  once that red line is crossed, we are truly into the great unknown of what happens afterwards.  I am not just talking the effects and consequences of using the weapons themselves.  It is the real possibility that the red line get erased outright and then assuming we all somehow survive the war that initiated first release, then mushroom clouds become possible in the next conflict, if there is one, after that.  And so forth.

It is one of the reason THE RED LINE has endured until this day.  Cross the line and there is no going back.  And there may be no going forward either if nuclear release escalated to the BIG ONE. The war to end all wars.

Because of that very thing, military planners and leaders of countries right now have restless nights because to some of them, it is one second to midnight in there heads.   But one thing should be clear to them.  They HAVE to respond to THE RED LINE being crossed.  If there is no response or the response is insufficient, THE RED LINE is gone forever, to the peril of every one of us.  Every country with a nuke can coerce their neighbours at will and... well... say goodbye to the Rules Based Societies then.  It will be the Rule of the Strong.  You have no idea what anarchy is like until that occurs.

Which is why THE RED LINE must stand or we risk a second Dark Ages for all of us.  There will be a response to the crossing of THE RED LINE.  Putin knows this.   Because if the shoe was on foot and any nation did a nuke strike on Russians, Putin would respond.  Probably in kind but there would be a response.  And he knows the west will respond to him launching a nuke.   He just doesn't know what the response will be but there will be one.

For the west, the calculus is this.  When the rabid frothing Russian bear lunges across THE RED LINE, you need to put it down.  Hard.  Decisively.  No tut tut or eye rolling.  No pearl clutching or hand wringing.   The bear needs to go down....hard.

I think people in the halls of power in Russia understand this.   The naked man with nothing on but a set of cuffs from a torn shirt can't pull a magic card from those cuffs to respond to our response.  It has to be another nuke(s).  And the west will respond to that.  And that, my friends, is game over.  Probably for most of us.  

The russians know this.    Maybe send them a copy of War Games.  Annotate the spot in the film where the AI says..."Interesting game.  The only winning move is not to play."

 

[billbindc]

16 minutes ago, sburke said:

I have no idea, there really is a lot of pointless conjecture.  For all we know NATO may be reaching out directly to China to let them know Putin has to be reined in.  Suppose Xi gets on the phone and tells Putin, hey you use a nuke and our border is closed to Russia and Russian goods period, and we won't lift a finger to a NATO response.

All I know is we can't accept backing down as backing down means he knows he can do it again.  What kind of response NATO decides on is out of my realm of knowledge and likely anyone here as to NATO's full capabilities.

I suspect that Putin's latest round of meetings was him sounding out China and India on escalation (he has more options that just dropping a nuke) and getting pulled up very short by Xi and Modi. All while in the background the CTSO was falling apart. If I had to guess, the reaction from Modi was "What the f are you doing? Stop it!" and the PRC refused to agree to anything in support of escalation. Then they raced back to Xi and after Putin left the Minister of Foreign Affairs put out his statement of concern over the war. 

[chuckdyke]

Poor Russian tankers unlike the aircrews of the Russian Air Force they don't get parachutes when they eject with their fighting compartment 

Edited September 24, 2022 by chuckdyke

[akd]

Speaking of, much better quality:

 

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, BlackMoria said:

Damn, there is still pearl clutching and hand wringing about Putin's nuclear threat after reading the past 4 page.   I view the issue very big picture and it is this.    The big wigs are not thinking about if Putin's red line is Crimea or whatever jigger is teasing his prostate up his *** will do it on any given day henceforth.   It is THE RED LINE that has existed for over 70 years.   The political, military and social costs of using a nuclear weapon since the two dropped against Japan has controlled the narrative - they are weapons too terrible to use, period... establishing THE RED LINE.   That red line was tested several times but managed to hold due to this...  once that red line is crossed, we are truly into the great unknown of what happens afterwards.  I am not just talking the effects and consequences of using the weapons themselves.  It is the real possibility that the red line get erased outright and then assuming we all somehow survive the war that initiated first release, then mushroom clouds become possible in the next conflict, if there is one, after that.  And so forth.

It is one of the reason THE RED LINE has endured until this day.  Cross the line and there is no going back.  And there may be no going forward either if nuclear release escalated to the BIG ONE. The war to end all wars.

Because of that very thing, military planners and leaders of countries right now have restless nights because to some of them, it is one second to midnight in there heads.   But one thing should be clear to them.  They HAVE to respond to THE RED LINE being crossed.  If there is no response or the response is insufficient, THE RED LINE is gone forever, to the peril of every one of us.  Every country with a nuke can coerce their neighbours at will and... well... say goodbye to the Rules Based Societies then.  It will be the Rule of the Strong.  You have no idea what anarchy is like until that occurs.

Which is why THE RED LINE must stand or we risk a second Dark Ages for all of us.  There will be a response to the crossing of THE RED LINE.  Putin knows this.   Because if the shoe was on foot and any nation did a nuke strike on Russians, Putin would respond.  Probably in kind but there would be a response.  And he knows the west will respond to him launching a nuke.   He just doesn't know what the response will be but there will be one.

For the west, the calculus is this.  When the rabid frothing Russian bear lunges across THE RED LINE, you need to put it down.  Hard.  Decisively.  No tut tut or eye rolling.  No pearl clutching or hand wringing.   The bear needs to go down....hard.

I think people in the halls of power in Russia understand this.   The naked man with nothing on but a set of cuffs from a torn shirt can't pull a magic card from those cuffs to respond to our response.  It has to be another nuke(s).  And the west will respond to that.  And that, my friends, is game over.  Probably for most of us.  

The russians know this.    Maybe send them a copy of War Games.  Annotate the spot in the film where the AI says..."Interesting game.  The only winning move is not to play."

 

 

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

The obvious difference between Yugoslavia and Ukraine though is that Serbia had no way to retaliate. I can't imagine, NATO would have intervened had Serbia had nukes (and the means to deliver them to NATO members). Honestly, how come so many here are so conviced that NATO is going to intervene in case Russia uses nukes? I mean intervene beyond more sanctions and more weapons?

Really, I did ask the same question before in this thread but got nothing beyond non-proliferation and what people would like to see. Given that NATO right now does everything to not get involved directly, do you really believe that once Putin has demonstrated that he is not bluffing, that he is not just threatening but really willing to use nukes, that NATO goes "Oh well, now we actually know Putin is not bluffing we go all in and risk not just a regional nuclear escalation but a global one?". Talking about options, the only option remaining to Putin in case NATO intervenes directly and is not scared by tac nukes is strategic nukes.

In case someone is going to say: "But nuclear deterrence only works as long as you don't use your nukes." - That is only half the truth. Mutual Assured Destruction only works if the other side must be sure you are going to retaliate even if it means your own death, too.

As before, that's an honest question because I can't seem to grasp the logic here.

I am as least as guilty as anyone of pontificating on this. There is wide diversity of opinions. No one seems to be adjusting theirs much. Let's just hope a very great deal, dare I say pray even, that we don't have to learn the opinion of Biden, and NATO's general staff. I think we have talked it out.

Ukraine still needs a plan for winter socks, and IFVs. Maybe if enough of the Russian mobiks freeze to death this winter or go home with awful cold injuries the Russians army will just sort of dissolve, instead of testing the blaze of glory plan. Getting Ukraine enough help that they can make the Russians get out and try to soldier in the wet and cold is a critical part of making this happen. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by dan/california

[FancyCat]

Good to see this messaging is ongoing (been repeated over several days) and at the highest levels of state.

 

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Good to see this messaging is ongoing (been repeated over several days) and at the highest levels of state.

 

We need to be sure that he Ukrainians have plenty warm, dry , and well supplied POW space. Surely the U.S. Army has some kits in containers sitting around the desert somewhere. We might want to get those moving towards Poland if we haven't already. 

Unpleasant thought, the camps probably need air defence to make it harder for the Russian to hit them in the attempt to discourage surrenders. They Russians really are that awful.

[dan/california]

Ukraine is moving forward, and Russian planes are falling out of they sky. This is good.

[LongLeftFlank]

3 hours ago, dan/california said:

It might  be time for a whole thread on Taiwan...

Edit : Oh, and a game, did I mention that part.

Alakazam!!!!  But let's please leave that discussion over there.

A 

Edited September 25, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, billbindc said:

 

Per my earlier comments, here's Ireland going out of its way to force a public discussion on the idea of kicking Russia out of the UNSC. That's a *very* unusual sort of gesture from a country that's normally very cautious in foreign policy. 

The atrocities in Bucha etc,  Esp the children,  really helped turn the conversation from the Swiss type (we do nothing to get involved in anything) to WTF Are These Langers Doing,  We Cant Stay Silent. 

Irish neutrality is not based on cowardice or a desire to absent ourselves from the flow of world events and its dangers. After all, we have a steady and well regarded (albeit very limited capability) UN force. 

Instead it's based on:

(1) knowledge that in big events, its the little players that get destroyed fast and often suffer disproportionate losses compared to the big boys,

(2) no heavy industry, shp yard capacity or financial wherewithal for a proper navy.  We have a navy but it's not much more dangerous than US Coast guards,  and nowhere near as good as their cutters. 

(3) following from 1 & 2 above,  the sensible course is to stay out of the way of the bigger elephants, don't kick anyone's testicals and basically don't draw unwanted attention to yourself. We dont have the forces, terrain or socio-political capacity to resist an outright attack. Give us an insurgency, we'll make the 1916ers proud. But that implies a successful invasion... 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Once Russia nukes Ukraine, the only response... 

... is for Ukraine to say,  "And?" and keep on killing Ivans. 

No one here has talked about the UKR response. I personally highly doubt Ukraine will roll over and capitulate.  Theyll talk,  sure. But also, why should they?  Give in to one nuke and the ****ers will nuke you again when they want something and UKR  say No. Russian is a mafia and operates/thinks like one, so giving them what they want just emboldens them to grab even more. 

Ukraine has already suffered so much at the hands of Putin that, honestly, a nuke is just a different weapon.  The end result, as Putler has stated and kept to, is the erasure of Ukraine as a functional, independent nation.  That's what his army is attempting to do and a nuke is simply a continuance of that. 

Yes,  a nuke is a drastic escalation of weaponry, but Ukraine is already "in it" for keeps.  So **** it, nuke away. UKR will still keep killing Ivans. There's plenty of rocks in Ukrainian soil. 

There's a sociological threshold where the enemy's weaponry is truly irrelevant and the principle of resistance  is overwhelming. UKR crossed that lintel after Kyiv. 

The West worrying about nukes is cute. UKR has the measure of Ivan and will never, ever give in.

It just leads to even more killing and cruelty by those B#stards. 

So why bother. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

Our best hope on the nuke front is that Putin isn't using the same calculator that he used going into this war.  That one obviously needs new batteries.

The second best hope we have is that if Putin issues the order to detonate a nuke that it triggers a coup right there and then.

Third best hope is the nuke doesn't detonate.

I don't think there's much else in the mix right now.

From the little I know about nuclear deployment, it would take Russia longer and more hoops to get a tactical nuke sent on its way vs. ICBMs.  I'm thinking this because ICBMs are, theoretically, ready for launch at any time.  A tac nuke requires a system to get into position and the shell/missile to be transfered from a secured facility out to the launcher.  That takes time and more people.

Man it sucks to think about this stuff, however the fact that we keep coming back to it indicates that the general feeling here is that the end of the Putin regime is near.  Days or weeks, maybe a couple of months.  And so we're inevitably drawn to thinking about how things end.

Back to The_Capt's concern about Russia breaking up and 6000 nukes being handled by a lot of new people... that's a very serious long term scary thought.  But it is less scary than Putin, the guy who has controll of them right now, ordering one or more to be used.  I'd rather us not have to think about either scenario, but since we do I'm not sure which one is worse.

Steve

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

... is for Ukraine to say,  "And?" and keep on killing Ivans. 

No one here has talked about the UKR response. I personally highly doubt Ukraine will roll over and capitulate.  Theyll talk,  sure. But also, why should they?  Give in to one nuke and the ****ers will nuke you again when they want something and UKR  say No. Russian is a mafia and operates/thinks like one, so giving them what they want just emboldens them to grab even more. 

Ukraine has already suffered so much at the hands of Putin that, honestly, a nuke is just a different weapon.  The end result, as Putler has stated and kept to, is the erasure of Ukraine as a functional, independent nation.  That's what his army is attempting to do and a nuke is simply a continuance of that. 

Yes,  a nuke is a drastic escalation of weaponry, but Ukraine is already "in it" for keeps.  So **** it, nuke away. UKR will still keep killing Ivans. 

The West worrying about nukes is cute. UKR has the measure of Ivan and will never, ever give in.

It just leads to even more killing and cruelty by those Bastards. 

So why bother. 

I can think of several VERY unpleasant things the Ukrainians might do, I am going to carefully not write them down.

[Combatintman]

10 hours ago, sross112 said:

A technical question for our AA guys:

Will MANPADS be able to defeat these? They appear to be slow enough that they should be detectable and engageable by the time they get to their target. I believe (not an AA expert) that most MANPADs target the heat source. Would a little two cylinder gas engine like that have a significant enough heat signature for them to engage it? Do the more modern systems have optical targeting like the Javelin?

Then also, wouldn't these be super vulnerable to kinetic systems like Gephard or Tunguska? I know way, way, way back there was talk about AA Radars and how they weren't good for little drones because of the small size and low speed but these look bigger and should be trackable, right?

Thanks in advance for your wisdom and knowledge.

The Saudis have used AMRAAM to knock Iranian UAVs down fired by the Houthis in Yemen across the Saudi border.  In fact, such success with AMRAAM underpinned the argument for the US to continue selling AMRAAM to the Saudis.  Not a cheap solution for sure.

[Kinophile]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/24/world/europe/ukraine-south-kherson-russia.html

Pretty rough down there. I'm surprised at the quote that UKR artillery is not always prepping/suppressing defenses before/during an attack.  That seems... counterintuitive. 

[Battlefront.com]

"Funniest" mobilization video so far:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/xmu32l/second_army/

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/24/world/europe/ukraine-south-kherson-russia.html

Pretty rough down there. I'm surprised at the quote that UKR artillery is not always prepping/suppressing defenses before/during an attack.  That seems... counterintuitive. 

Not having read the article, there are times when you don't want to use artillery.  Namely, when you want to surprise the enemy.  Artillery fire on a specific position puts everybody in the sector on alert.

That said, this should be a carefully thought out part of a very well planned operation where the ground forces expect to overwhelm the defenses without the need for artillery.  Therefore, it's more likely that the article is talking about screwups.

Steve

[Combatintman]

7 hours ago, pavel.k said:

Frankly i have poor feeling about NATO. It behave or at least looks like a scared bunch of politicians.
NATO had a solid informations that Russia is going to invade Ukraine and yet it was declaring loudly no intervention. So it practically gave a green light to invasion. If it would demonstrate its power and will to fight, invasion would be probably canceled. They had several months to prepare for it.
And now they are just waiting for tactical nukes to be launched by Russians. And if it will happen (i really hope that not but current NATO attitude is raising probability every day), they will start to debate what to do...
Right now there should be flying B-52s and B-1s along the border from Baltics down to Turkey every day, SEAD strike packages should occasionally be locking SAM radars from behind the borders, NATO fleets cruising Turkey and Romanian waters in Black See and Ground forces beeing ready at borders to invade Belarus.
These should be the backdrops of the ongoing war in Ukraine. Russians would be scared to make any bad move, Russian population would have fear from NATO finally for true reasons.
Then i would be sure that NATO is able to protect Europe.  

My bold - not saying it has been happening every day but there have certainly been US bombers flying in that area and as to locking up air defence radars, that is considered a hostile act under various rules of engagement that I have seen.  I certainly recall UK aircraft flying legitimately with flight plans and permission from the owner of the Flight Information Region getting locked up by air defence radars in a country I served in once and when we reported it the lawyers were all over it like a rash and it resulted in a demarche to the country that owned those radars.  As a result, I am not sure fooling around with Russian AD radars by NATO assets is a good option.

Edited September 25, 2022 by Combatintman

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Combatintman said:

The Saudis have used AMRAAM to knock Iranian UAVs down fired by the Houthis in Yemen across the Saudi border.  In fact, such success with AMRAAM underpinned the argument for the US to continue selling AMRAAM to the Saudis.  Not a cheap solution for sure.

There is a reason every defense contractor worthy of the name working on laser systems frantically. It is the only way to kill the bleeping things at an affordable price.