How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Bulletpoint]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

“Such term does not include the following: (i) Wholly inert items. (ii) Improvised explosive devices.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-359415543-428117826&term_occur=5&term_src=

 

You are linking to the US Title 10 which concerns the US military but which has nothing to do with international treaties that the US has not signed, such as the Ottawa Treaty.

 

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So you have an broad treaty interpretation legal blog site making an argument to try and roll them into the definition.  They are taking the broadest definition  of munition, which Cornell law (of all places) does not agree with and many nations within the treaty will likely play with when under the same position as Ukraine.

I linked to the Red Cross because their legal advisers made a good overview page of the issue.

But here's the actual text from the Meeting of the States Parties of the mine-ban convention. In 2018, they wrote that:

"the definition contained in Article 2.1 makes no distinction between an anti-personnel mine that has been “manufactured” and one that has been "improvised", since negotiators aimed for an effect-based definition."

https://new.apminebanconvention.org/fileadmin/_APMBC-DOCUMENTS/Meetings/2022/IM22-5-Panel-MakingEveryEffortCount-Reflections-17MSP.pdf

This is the official position of the countries that voluntarily have joined the landmine treaty. It's their treaty, so their definitions.

An improvised explosive device or an explosive boobytrap fall under the landmine convention, and that means States Parties may not use them under any circumstances, not even while being invaded by Russia.

Whether they do or not is another matter - Ukraine has about 3.5 million old Soviet landmines in stockpile. But there have not been any reports of Ukrainian use as of yet, and they would be in breach of the Ottawa Treaty if they did.

[Artkin]

7 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Incredibly risky combat medics evacuate a wounded man under fire from "grads"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Artkin]

51 minutes ago, Cogust said:

https://en.zona.media/article/2022/10/01/russiandraft

One newly mobilized Russian shares his experience, he is not impressed with the amount of training or the equipment issued.

If these guys arent given adequate winter equipment they won't only lose limbs or even freeze to death. They will probably use fires to stay warm, at least the most of them. Even the cheap commercially available Chinese-made thermals, or NVG thermal attachments, or even NVG's will pick up this thermal signature like it's the only thing on the battlefield.

The Russians are truly screwed if they can't equip with winter clothing. The technology is just too advanced, and cheap nowadays. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that there will be a significantly higher rate of target acquisition and destruction of RU forces by well equipped light combat patrols with simple thermal optics.

Camps will be located, hit with artillery, rinse and repeat.

The winter is brutal, it cannot be explained. If you spend time in the mountains you will know what I mean.

[Zeleban]

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

On current trend Russia will be lucky to be holding anything except Crimea by Christmas. The most likely change to that trend is that the Russia collapses faster, and they are back to Crimea only by thanksgiving. If the Russians throw a nuke then it is a completely different discussion, but Russia isn't going to win anything. There remains a very large question about what the rest of us lose.

Don't think ahead. The war is not over yet. Don't forget about significant human resources. Of course, all these funny alcoholics can do little on the battlefield. But they may well pull over part of the forces of Ukraine on the border with Belarus, for example, in the Kyiv Rivne or Volyn region. I am sure this may affect the offensive potential of Ukraine and delay the liberation of Ukrainian lands.

[kraze]

2 hours ago, poesel said:

I don't think Navalny is still alive because of Putin. Just the contrary: he is alive because he is the only Putin alternative that can be sold to the west. My guess is that non-Putin groups hold their hand over him so that he can be useful later.

I’m not having illusions about Navalny himself. He is a politician and as thus opportunistic. If he is the way out of this, so be it. Let him be judged by his actions.

Or is there a (better & realistic) alternative?

Is what I mean. He most likely has protection from some group near putin.

Russia is an empire. Throne can only be held by an emperor. An emperor can't be democratic or liberal by definition so in this regard it's hard to know what alternative can even be considered better. Whoever replaces putin will need to keep waging expansionist wars to keep an empire together.

 

[Huba]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1840834,33.7635943,3a,60y,21.09h,83.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so5fdfTM3TMWWoR08UNG79Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4

(view towards Dudchany)

That's not a bridge. Looks more like an earthen dam (what's the English word?). Can still be blown up, but likely much easier to repair than a bridge.
Also looks not too difficult to circumvent.

I guess that won't hold the UAF up for much.

That would be really great news. I doubt UA is able to collapse the whole RU grouping at one go anyway. Russians blowing up the causeway means they are pushed from Dudchany and won't counterattack along the road. Ukrainians can focus on attacking westward towards Davidyv Brid and reducing the whole northern salient. After this is done, Russian positions to the south will become untenable anyway, as UA will be able to pound the whole area with 155mm. Fingers crossed that this news are confirmed.

[The_Capt]

18 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

You are linking to the US Title 10 which concerns the US military but which has nothing to do with international treaties that the US has not signed, such as the Ottawa Treaty.

 

I linked to the Red Cross because their legal advisers made a good overview page of the issue.

But here's the actual text from the Meeting of the States Parties of the mine-ban convention. In 2018, they wrote that:

"the definition contained in Article 2.1 makes no distinction between an anti-personnel mine that has been “manufactured” and one that has been "improvised", since negotiators aimed for an effect-based definition."

https://new.apminebanconvention.org/fileadmin/_APMBC-DOCUMENTS/Meetings/2022/IM22-5-Panel-MakingEveryEffortCount-Reflections-17MSP.pdf

This is the official position of the countries that voluntarily have joined the landmine treaty. It's their treaty, so their definitions.

An improvised explosive device or an explosive boobytrap fall under the landmine convention, and that means States Parties may not use them under any circumstances, not even while being invaded by Russia.

Whether they do or not is another matter - Ukraine has about 3.5 million old Soviet landmines in stockpile. But there have not been any reports of Ukrainian use as of yet, and they would be in breach of the Ottawa Treaty if they did.

C’mon, you are cherry picking here.  This is a follow-on committee meeting for clarification, not an amendment to the treaty itself.  Specifically it was addressing Articles 5 & 7 (clearing mined areas and transparency, which are linked to funding).  

It specifically states “ Hence, States Parties affected by the latter type of anti-personnel mines must address them as part of their overall implementation challenge under the Convention including, in the fulfilment of Article 5 and Article 7 (transparency measures) commitments.“ Addressing as part of “implementation challenge” carries no weight as how a nation addresses is them up to them.

Within the treaty itself, not a committee meeting translation, the term “munition” is undefined, which is code for “states go define it for yourself”.  States so not rely on the Ottawa Treaty to do it for them.  There is precedent for this within Civil Aviation already:

“Article 35 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation states:

“(a) No Munitions of War or implements of war may be carried in or above the territory of a State in aircraft engaged in international navigation, except by permission of such State. Each State shall determine by regulations what constitutes Munitions of War or implements of war for the purposes of this Article, giving due consideration, for the purposes of uniformity, to such recommendations as the International Civil Aviation Organization may from time to time make”

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/reference-centre/advisory-circulars/advisory-circular-ac-no-600-009

So you want to tell me that anyone is going to make a fuss if Ukrainian resistance is employing IEDs near Melitopol right now?  All Ukraine need to do is adopt their own definition of “munition” - the US one looks pretty decent, and they have an easy out.

Finally, the entire treaty leaves enforcement up to signatory states themselves in Article 9.  Ukraine could impose a 5$ fine for violations within its borders right now and be well within the thing.

The treaty clearly puts the impetus on the signatory states and has no real teeth beyond peer pressure.  Ukrainian law is what matters here and I am pretty sure considering they are being invaded by someone waving tac nukes around that their law is pretty forgiving right now.

 

 

[sburke]

37 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Don't think ahead. The war is not over yet. Don't forget about significant human resources. Of course, all these funny alcoholics can do little on the battlefield. But they may well pull over part of the forces of Ukraine on the border with Belarus, for example, in the Kyiv Rivne or Volyn region. I am sure this may affect the offensive potential of Ukraine and delay the liberation of Ukrainian lands.

lol really?  Russia is already throwing these stupid poor sots into the meat grinder.  They aren't really going to affect any operational decisions by Ukraine.  Granted not in significant numbers yet but that's largely because Russian logistics and the whole mobilization process is a train wreck.  The only thing these "significant human resources" are going to accomplish is complicating the mess Russia already has in their rear areas and possibly creating more work for Ukrainian casualty collection teams and POW management.  They are unable to project any combat power onto the battlefield in the state Russia is sending them.

 

Just take a couple minutes and think about this.  The existing Russian officer corp has been shredded over the past 8 months.  We cn see that periodically where junior officers are leading larger combat formations because there are no higher-ranking officers left.  The training forces have already been thrown into combat so there isn't anyone left to train these guys much less their officers.  So this mobilized mob is going to be tossed in either as ineffective formations or penny packeted to units as complete untrained strangers.  How long do you think they will last in combat?

Edited October 3, 2022 by sburke

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

lol really?  Russia is already throwing these stupid poor sots into the meat grinder.  They aren't really going to affect any operational decisions by Ukraine.  Granted not in significant numbers yet but that's largely because Russian logistics and the whole mobilization process is a train wreck.  The only thing these "significant human resources" are going to accomplish is complicating the mess Russia already has in their rear areas and possibly creating more work for Ukrainian casualty collection teams and POW management.  They are unable to project any combat power onto the battlefield in the state Russia is sending them.

Don't think ahead. The war is not over yet.

[Vet 0369]

5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The Soviet Union never vetoed the United Nation forces in the Korean War. Asian people have a long memory. 

The only reason they didn’t veto the UN forces in Korea, was because the resolution was presented and voted on after the Soviet Ambassador had left the room for some reason. The Soviet or Russian Ambassador has never let that occur again. I suspect the Ambassador has been told that he is to soil himself rather than ever leave the room again.

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Don't think ahead. The war is not over yet.

you were the one who said all these human resources so obviously you are thinking something beyond what we are currently seeing.  What it is you are thinking I don't understand but clearly you aren't taking your own advice.

[sburke]

Did Kadyrov's sons say something to piss him off?

Kadyrov to send three of his sons, minors, to Ukrainian frontline (msn.com)

[Zeleban]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

you were the one who said all these human resources so obviously you are thinking something beyond what we are currently seeing.  What it is you are thinking I don't understand but clearly you aren't taking your own advice.

I just think that Russia can still win. I do not see a way to quickly return the territories of Ukraine. And in a protracted war, various things can happen that will give Russia the opportunity to take a breath, take into account mistakes, gather strength and end Ukraine. Of course, some factors must coincide for this. But the danger to the existence of Ukraine has not gone away. History knows when events turned upside down literally overnight.

[acrashb]

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Finally, the entire treaty leaves enforcement up to signatory states themselves in Article 9.

I believe article 9 is: "‘all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures, including the imposition of penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control’"

That is a masterclass in weasel words, essentially turning the Ottawa treaty into a virtue-signaling exercise; and apparently there are more AP landmines in the soil today than before the treaty, so the effect of it is at best limited.

I think the US position on the whole things has merit.  From Wikipedia:
"the position of the United States is that the inhumane nature of landmines stems not from whether they are anti-personnel as opposed to antivehicle but from their persistence. The United States has unilaterally committed to never using persistent landmines of any kind, whether anti-personnel or anti-vehicle, which they say is a more comprehensive humanitarian measure than the Ottawa Convention. All US landmines now self-destruct in two days or less, in most cases four hours. While the self-destruct mechanism has never failed in more than 65,000 random tests, if self-destruct were to fail the mine will self-deactivate because its battery will run down in two weeks or less. That compares with persistent anti-vehicle mines which remain lethal for about 30 years and are legal under the Ottawa Convention."

 

50 minutes ago, Artkin said:

The winter is brutal, it cannot be explained. If you spend time in the mountains you will know what I mean.

I don't know about Ukranian winters; but from survival training in Canadian winters (and not on unusually cold days) you can get by with improvised shelters if you know how to build them and have supplies (including snow) around.  If not, you need fire, as you stated.

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

Did Kadyrov's sons say something to piss him off?

Maybe they wanted to learn how to sing.

At least this way they get to die heroically.

 

[Zeleban]

 

Content to divert some of the controversy. The sexual relationship of two Russian soldiers went a little wrong

[Butschi]

54 minutes ago, mosuri said:

You could say the same about Petrograd. After Estonia joined the distance from NATO to there is short. But isn't this something of a red herring? In case of the big one ICBMs don't mind a few hundred kilometers here or there. And I don't think NATO has any incentive to attack either city in any other scenario.

Many countries have their capitals close to international borders. No need to be particularly paranoid about that, if you have good neighbors.

A short time of flight is an advantage in a nuclear exchange as it shortens the time to react. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a Cuban missile crisis. How much of a difference it makes - I don't know.

I said nothing about any incentives for NATO to exploit that advantage of the need for paranoia.

1 hour ago, mosuri said:

Re the missile shield, not that I follow these matter in detail but AIUI those Russian missiles that target US would fly over the pole mostly, so for any missile shield in Ukraine it would make sense to protect Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Which I can't see as a bad thing.

Yes, but the same is true for Poland. I remember that back in the argument was that the missile shield was too protect (at least among others) against Iran. Ukraine would be well placed for that, I think?

 

[Bulletpoint]

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Within the treaty itself, not a committee meeting translation, the term “munition” is undefined, which is code for “states go define it for yourself”.  States so not rely on the Ottawa Treaty to do it for them. 

Again quoting the Red Cross legal page:

"Further to this, there is agreement amongst States Parties that the Convention and its obligations apply to both improvised and manufactured anti-personnel mines alike. In negotiating the Convention, a proposal to amend the text so as to explicitly proscribe the improvisation of explosive devices for use as anti-personnel mines was rejected by States, considering these weapons to already be covered by the definition of anti-personnel mines".

The reference given is:

S. Maslen, The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 118.

So what we are left with is, again, that IEDs and boobytraps are also considered to be prohibited by this Convention.

Whether soldiers on the battlefield also observe the convention, and whether Ukraine punishes them for it or not, is another discussion entirely.

If Ukraine saw the need to use AP mines, they could simply announce that they were leaving the treaty instead of trying to play definition games.

Claiming that a booby trap is not a landmine is a bit like declaring that a war is not a war but just a "special military operation".

[Artkin]

11 minutes ago, acrashb said:

I don't know about Ukranian winters; but from survival training in Canadian winters (and not on unusually cold days) you can get by with improvised shelters if you know how to build them and have supplies (including snow) around.  If not, you need fire, as you stated.

Canadian winters are probably very close to Ukrainian in most spots (i.e. heavily forested areas like along the Oskil river). In places like Kherson, it's probably hell on earth, considering you have wide open fields begging for the wind to rush into it, from the Black Sea.

I do have to ask, what were you wearing on your feet? You can get by with a wool overcoat, but you will have to warm your feet at some point. That means removing your cold, hard leather boots and warming them in a blanket, or creating some source of heat. From the article stated above, soldiers received a winter "uniform" (Overwhites?), a wool overcoat, and a pair of boots. The rest they had to buy themselves. The boots specifically were acknowledged to be very old, dried out leather (boots falling apart by the 2nd day) and covered in moss. If the Russians are having trouble supplying the basic leather boot, then what do they plan on wearing in the field on their feet? Movement will be limited by the clothing you are wearing, even a couple hours of exposure can be life threatening. The fights will be won here by the individual solder's equipment, and how able they are to spot enemies and get fire support on their immobile positions. 

 

They will be limited by their kit, they won't be able to attack except by well equipped specialized units. These guys will have frostbitten feet fighting inbetween fields. Or they will die in their trenches. I can't see another alternative. Anything that emits the slightest of a thermal signature in the freezing woods will be visible for many miles for anyone with a pair of cheap thermals or hybrid night vision.

The cheap PASSIVE thermals have a mode where they use a computer's AI to differentiate between large thermal differences. So, the small time soldier can easily be carrying around this $1,500 piece of kit to extreme effectiveness.

I have seen videos of the Donetsk winter battles, but I think since Ukraine is being fed all this kit, things will be much different this time.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Artkin

[acrashb]

7 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

And in a protracted war, various things can happen that will give Russia the opportunity to take a breath, take into account mistakes, gather strength and end Ukraine.

Every time they take a breath they face the ongoing boa constrictor of sanctions, the destruction of decades of accumulated war materiel, destruction of essentially all of the trained / experienced military-aged male resources, the destruction and dispersal of their cadre, internal political tension, dissention in the republics at the edge of the Russian federation, ongoing grotesque levels of corruption (e.g., the 1.5M winter uniforms soon to be found on eBay), etc.  

Regarding taking into account mistakes, they learn operationally, but slowly (e.g., the slow dispersal of munitions depots once HIMARS started working).  The RA and their society is not built to be a learning organization.

Time is against Russia.  

[Elmar Bijlsma]

1 hour ago, Cogust said:

https://en.zona.media/article/2022/10/01/russiandraft

One newly mobilized Russian shares his experience, he is not impressed with the amount of training or the equipment issued.

This reads like mobilization, Elbonia style.

For those that don't know. YT channels like Forgotten Weapons and The Chieftain have this fictional country Elbonia as a meme. The idea is to sabotage the Elbonian military by giving it gear that on surface level looks useable but actually is a liability.

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, acrashb said:

That is a masterclass in weasel words, essentially turning the Ottawa treaty into a virtue-signaling exercise; and apparently there are more AP landmines in the soil today than before the treaty, so the effect of it is at best limited.

This is not correct though. Land mine production and use has been very limited since the convention entered into force, even by those countries that did not sign it.

Countries in the treaty have been clearing millions of mines and destroying even more from their stockpiles.

So while it's a voluntary treaty and there's no world police to force countries to do anything, it's not a toothless treaty.

However, the use of IEDs and boobytraps by non-state actors has increased in recent years.

[sburke]

29 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I just think that Russia can still win. I do not see a way to quickly return the territories of Ukraine. And in a protracted war, various things can happen that will give Russia the opportunity to take a breath, take into account mistakes, gather strength and end Ukraine. Of course, some factors must coincide for this. But the danger to the existence of Ukraine has not gone away. History knows when events turned upside down literally overnight.

well not sure what you're seeing but in my perspective Russia has already lost.

1.  Russia's best troops have been mauled.  The semi trained troops they had have been worn down over 8 months and are mostly combat ineffective now.  The mobilization can't answer how these new conscripts are going to be prepared for a horrendous battle situation and who would even command them.  The combat power ratio between Ukraine and Russia continues to tilt in Ukraine's favor with nothing on the horizon to reverse that trend.  If anything, it is accelerating in Ukraine's favor.

2. Economically Russia is raiding its intellectual base to feed this war at the expense of long-term industrial impact.  Personnel who took a decade or more to train are being turned into cannon fodder.

3. Politically Russia is now an embarrassment for their main ally China.  On the world stage in both soft power and respect for its military might, Russia is about the lowest point since probably 1905.

I think you have bought way too much of the Russian myth.  Russia does not "account mistakes" there is no self-critical righting of the ship.  That isn't the way things work in an autocracy.

Edited October 3, 2022 by sburke

[acrashb]

7 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I do have to ask, what were you wearing on your feet? You can get by with a wool overcoat, but you will have to warm your feet at some point.

As best I can recall - it was a long time ago - looked something like this.  Simulated unplanned survival (not full ECWCS gear, and it was before then anyway):

 

Back to my comment about "you can get by with improvised shelters if you know how to build them and have supplies" - the mobiks will not know how.  "get by" wasn't meant as "living in the field", it's surviving long enough for your SOS stamped in the snow to be seen by search and rescue aircraft.

And yes, feet need to be warmed in the improvised shelter(s).  Back to your comments about IR, fire is best.

So we are overall in agreement. Lots of frostbite and hypothermia on the way.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Claiming that a booby trap is not a landmine is a bit like declaring that a war is not a war but just a "special military operation".

Bullsh#t.  Military doctrine and NATO Stanags both treat them differently - there are two completely different recording documents and procedures.  The CCW at Geneva, the actual international law, treats them differently - different legal restrictions.  And the use of non-explosive boobytraps, which pre-dates written history is well outside the convention.

Just because the treaty writers made sweeping definitions resting on sand and weasel words does not clarify anything.  The Geneva convention is very clear on the term boobytrap vs land mine.  You may have overlooked it on the ICRC webpage:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C247A97A7ABA5900C12563FB00611D94
 

It also has a definition for “other devices”which encompass IEDs.

The treaty itself is the legally binding document.  A committee meeting opinion, or legal opinion by the Red Cross legal are just those, opinions…good for them.  The treaty itself has holes one could drive a truck through, but people wanted to feel good and keep trying to make it more than it is.

I have heard more nonsense attributed to the Ottawa Treaty than I can recall, largely by enthusiastic amateurs.  Some actually believe it is a warcrime to employ AP mines (it isn’t).  The treaty itself was conducted outside of the CCW, largely by political operators (and it shows).  It is not airtight, binding or clear.  In the end it is left up to a state to determine what a “munition” is or is not, which is key to defining “mine”, which is central to the definition of “land mine”.

People can spin it however they want but I have to ask why did not the Ottawa Treaty define them beyond “well we all know what they mean”?  Even when they used the CCW definition for “mine” verbatim.  Answer: because they could only sell the largely symbolic treaty they had.

[sburke]

8 minutes ago, Elmar Bijlsma said:

This reads like mobilization, Elbonia style.

For those that don't know. YT channels like Forgotten Weapons and The Chieftain have this fictional country Elbonia as a meme. The idea is to sabotage the Elbonian military by giving it gear that on surface level looks useable but actually is a liability.

I think that is actually from Dilbert

 

Elbonia | Dilbert Wiki | Fandom

Elbonia is an impoverished Eastern European country in the Dilbert universe. In the comic strip, and originally in the TV show, its major commerce was mud. There are also mentions of a currency called the Eye-Crud. Path-E-Tech Management often outsources work there, and has a factory for their subsidiary ElboCo.