How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

We need some actual news, or the new game.....Maybe a tiny bone fragment about the new game?

[billbindc]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Don't I know it   The only thing that's saving the West is that China recognizes that it needs the West as much as the West needs China.  For now there's a sense that both China and the West appreciate the need to keep things (mostly) stable.  So in that sense, China isn't Russia.

Steve

It is well worth considering where we'd be on that score had Ukraine folded and Russia was able to quickly over run the country. Every calculation on Taiwan right now would be different.

[FancyCat]

56 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The general point I'm trying to get across is that looking back and saying "USA suxxxx!!!" or "the West betrayed Ukraine!!!!" or "Ukraine had it coming!!!" is absurd.

No one is saying the U.S sucks mind you. 

28 minutes ago, billbindc said:

It is well worth considering where we'd be on that score had Ukraine folded and Russia was able to quickly over run the country. Every calculation on Taiwan right now would be different.

Why I think the west screwed up, is that Putin figured he had a chance to do this. One thing to try 2014 again and seize the rest of the Donbas, but damn, he went for the whole goose. I am unsure if he’s rational still or gone wonky over Covid, but either way, he drove a nation to engage in a full scale war of conquest vs a country of 40 million. (Iraq is 40 million but we didn’t want to run it forever) you don’t undertake that scenario in isolation, or get your country to follow thru without some idea of the circumstances.

no doubt China was informed by Putin, they sure were gonna spend their time twisting the knife in the West once Ukraine fell, rhetorically and diplomatically. Would have been a powerful signal worldwide heralding western decline.

[JonS]

8 hours ago, holoween said:

Ive only seen them ask for actual tanks.

here's one example:

On 10/11/2022 at 1:29 PM, dan/california said:

So send a complete set of everything for a U.S. heavy brigade, and watch them smash the Russian army into kindling.

 

[FancyCat]

Not much new, but interesting tidbit, so far, the only long-range AD from the West to Ukraine, has been a sole Slovakian S-300 battery until now. According to article, the short-range Iranian ballistic missiles are impossible to shoot down with what Ukraine has existing for AD, (uh damn, that does not sound good at all) but Patriots have proven ability to shoot them down.

I will say while reactive measures in response to Russia have lots of positive benefits like making clear Putin is the aggressor, I'm going to assume that Russia can get and use these ballistic missiles before Ukraine can activate the Patriot systems, so Ukrainian civilians are gonna bear the brunt of these attacks, and they will cause significant pain for Ukraine, and Europe as Ukrainians need to flee, and infrastructure is destroyed. 

Tho this quote regarding the training time, hopefully this can be online sooner than later. 

https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-to-get-advanced-american-air-defenses-164807603.html

Quote

Teaching Ukrainian operators how to use Patriots could take several months, although Western trainers have remarked on the shallow learning curve eager Ukrainians have so far demonstrated when it comes to “absorbing” new military technology.

A U.S. Army officer familiar with the Pentagon’s security assistance to Ukraine told Yahoo News, speaking on the condition of anonymity: “In order to train Ukrainians on HIMARS, the U.S. had to teach a six-week period of instruction for the crew and seven-week period of instruction for dire direction (doing the calculations for the fire missions). The U.S. trained both in under three weeks due to the Ukrainians’ willingness to learn and work without rest. For Patriot training, which takes 16 to 20 weeks for the jobs required, the Ukrainians could learn in as soon as eight to 10 weeks, assuming training hasn’t already started.”

 

[LongLeftFlank]

21 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Russia tried to attack objects in Kyiv oblast and Kyiv with Shakheds. 13 UAVs shot down. One or two were shot down over Kyiv. Four buildings in Kyiv and one cottadge in Vyshneve town, western suburb of Kyiv got light damages from Shakeds fragments. No casualties.

This is third Shakheds salvo during about 10 days. First was directed on Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia, all 17 were shot down. The second launch was on Ochakiv, Mykolaiv and Odesa about week ago - 15 Shakheds. 10 were shot down, but 5 hit critical power objects in Odesa oblast, so Odesa city and most of Odesa oblast were without electricity and water supply for two days

well somebody is wrong then, @FancyCat

Edited December 15, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[dan/california]

49 minutes ago, JonS said:

here's one example:

 

I resemble that remark. 

[dan/california]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/14/opinion/ukraine-putin-russia.html

Kristof coming back to work after his unsuccessful political foray may be why times is doing better lately.

 

[NamEndedAllen]

10 hours ago, Kinophile said:

But... what if we like the strap?

 

 

_giggity

Sounds like a personal problem!

[NamEndedAllen]

10 hours ago, dan/california said:

Of course we could have started nine months ago, or eight years and nine months ago.

BadaBOOM!

[Zeleban]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Thank god Ukrainian political leadership more sense than whatever this forum thread is becoming.

At least we agree that Kuleba's Moans have a certain meaning, don't they?

[FancyCat]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

well somebody is wrong then, @FancyCat

Oh how I wish the Shakheds were the ballistic missiles (they are drones). The ballistic missiles Iran may send to Russia are the Fateh-110 missiles, and Zolfaghar. According to wiki, Fateh were used in the Iranian missile attacks on U.S bases in Iraq, which incidentally had no missile defense stationed so all hit. Zolfaghar may have been used in the missile attacks on Saudi oil facilities, which Patriot batteries defended well. 

Of course fingers crossed, that Ukraine's existing AD systems can shoot them down. But the statement on ballistic missiles seems sourced from Ukraine's Air Force itself. Hopefully they are lying. 

 

 

[Zeleban]

Video of the destruction of the T-90M tank with the help of the Stugna ATGM

[womble]

10 hours ago, poesel said:

Rheinmetall is doing quite well, and of course they can sell out-country. They just need a permit. But the wellbeing of Rheinmetall is not an important issue for the chancellor - weapons make only a tiny percentage of our exports.

Okay. You're failing in consistency here. You said that Olaf is pandering to the "all arms exports are bad" lobby by refusing Rheinmetall the export permit for the Marders, yet they've all the permits they need to export anywhere else other than Ukraine; they must have to be "doing quite well", because Germany certainly isn't buying lots of weapons off 'em for their own use. This leads me to believe that you're mistaken about the Chancellor's motives. He's being selective about to whom amongst Germany's putative allies and partners Rheinmetall can export, and Ukraine's not on the list for some reason.

The balance sheet of Rheinmetall, and the percentage of the exports isn't relevant to "Why not Ukraine?"

10 hours ago, poesel said:

What the fuss is about the Marders...I don't understand.

I've elided the tanks because that's a different question.

And "why Marders" isn't a question that's relevant to why Sholz won't let UKR buy stuff on the open market, either, which is why I left it aside in my original post. But since you brought it up:

Marders are at least as useful to the UKR AF as M113, if not more so. Everyone on the UKR list of friends, and UKR themselves seems happy that they have a few score (or is it up to a few hundred now?) Gavins. A few score Marders won't win the war, but would likely to save more than a few UKR troopers' lives. And the UKR have offered to pay market price for them, so it's not even like it's "more military aid", not that RUS propagandists would bother with such factual distinctions, but hey-ho. It's literally no skin off Germany's nose, indeed it's a financial plus (small in the GDP scheme of things, but so's any order Rheinmetall will fulfil in the next 12 months) and it's not up to the German Chancellor to question a customer's purchasing choices anyway.

Edited December 15, 2022 by womble
Typo

[Butschi]

11 minutes ago, womble said:

You're failing in consistency here. You said that Olaf is pandering to the "all arms exports are bad" lobby by refusing Rheinmetall the export permit for the Marders, yet they've all the permits they need to export anywhere else other than Ukraine; they must have to be "doing quite well", because Germany certainly isn't buying lots of weapons off 'em for their own use. This leads me to believe that you're mistaken about the Chancellor's motives. He's being selective about to whom amongst Germany's putative allies and partners Rheinmetall can export, and Ukraine's not on the list for some reason.

Yeah, "All arms exports are bad" is too strong a statement. Even SPD and Greens are ok with exporting arms to other NATO countries. Generally though this is not an open market because arms exports must be signed off by the government.

Exports to... less than democratic states have long been criticized and the current government had promised to decrease that. Not fueling an ongoing conflict with weapons exports is a longstanding tradition, too (although with enough profit and jobs on the line there has always been a way to get around that). The behavior by itself is rather consistent. You might ask why become consistent now of all times?

Here I somewhat disagree with @poesel I'm not sure that this is entirely a domestic thing (although it certainly is in parts). Many SPD members still cling to Ostpolitik, that (and here I contradict some forum members) was a success story under Willy Brandt and remembered as one of SPD's finest hours. (It is a different instance to what happened under Schroeder and more prominently Merkel. This was just "we don't care as long as it's good for our economy". It was not a continuation of Brandt's politics). Those SPD members don't want to totally tear down all the bridges to Russia and therefore may not want to tackle Russia to hard. Another point: Scholz may not be the most favorite chancellor ever but many Germans are (or say they are) quite afraid of WW3. They support Scholz' reluctance to provide tanks and IFVs. (That is purely domestic, if course).

[_Morpheus_]

 

[Yet]

corrosion warfare yay!

trench warfare booo!

anyone ideas how ukraine can turn the current trenchwarfare (like bakhmut) into a more favourable type of warfare/defence for Ukraine? 

maybe UA kills more in the current trench warfare, but it still is not favourable because RU can refill the ranks easy. In WW1 we had musterd gas and claykickers. We discussed winter and logistics being unfavourable to RU, but that out of the question: How could UA re-invent trench warfare (or current stalemate defence) to turn it incredibly more into their favour?

 

[Zeleban]

28 minutes ago, Yet said:

corrosion warfare yay!

trench warfare booo!

anyone ideas how ukraine can turn the current trenchwarfare (like bakhmut) into a more favourable type of warfare/defence for Ukraine? 

maybe UA kills more in the current trench warfare, but it still is not favourable because RU can refill the ranks easy. In WW1 we had musterd gas and claykickers. We discussed winter and logistics being unfavourable to RU, but that out of the question: How could UA re-invent trench warfare (or current stalemate defence) to turn it incredibly more into their favour?

 

Unfortunately, Russia finds an opportunity to replenish its losses and import high-tech spare parts for new equipment and ammunition into the country.

As the history of this war shows, the appearance on the battlefield of weapons with an increased range (as was the case with HIMARS, for example) can drastically worsen the position of Russian troops and lead to defeat on an operational-tactical scale

[Zeleban]

An interesting post about the reasons for the inefficiency of the Shtora-1 countermeasure system.

[Yet]

10 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Unfortunately, Russia finds an opportunity to replenish its losses and import high-tech spare parts for new equipment and ammunition into the country.

As the history of this war shows, the appearance on the battlefield of weapons with an increased range (as was the case with HIMARS, for example) can drastically worsen the position of Russian troops and lead to defeat on an operational-tactical scale

This suggests that just out of Himars range are a lot! of targets which (when destroyed) very drastically increases the situation on the battlefield.  Ofcourse there are nice targets out there, but I dont see how it drastically changes the type of warfare. otherwise, enlighten us what these targets are that is not just an incremental change. 

there must be other realistic (out of the box) options to get out of the trench-warfare.

 

[Zeleban]

11 minutes ago, Yet said:

This suggests that just out of Himars range are a lot! of targets which (when destroyed) very drastically increases the situation on the battlefield.  Ofcourse there are nice targets out there, but I dont see how it drastically changes the type of warfare. otherwise, enlighten us what these targets are that is not just an incremental change. 

there must be other realistic (out of the box) options to get out of the trench-warfare.

 

Warehouses and headquarters are destroyed, after which the Russian army gets a temporary knockout and the Ukrainian army has a window of opportunity to break through the Russian defense. After that, Russia withdraws warehouses and headquarters beyond the range of the new superweapon and a new expansion of the range of Ukrainian weapons is required.

If Ukraine, for example, receives ATACMS, the warehouses, headquarters and airfields will again be within the reach of Ukrainian troops, which will again sharply worsen the condition of Russian troops and again lead to defeat.

The days of glorious defeats of huge Russian columns are over, the war has changed a lot. Russia has shown the ability to adapt to new conditions. The only way for Ukraine to win this war is not to lose heart.

Whoever is able to take a hit gets a window of opportunity for success.

[Degsy]

An interview today with British Defence Minister Ben Wallace about continuing British support for Ukraine generally and about the British, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian joint fund of 600m Euros to buy eqpt or ammo. He's cagey about what weapons we're going to supply, "Russia would love to know what weapons we may or may not put into Ukraine", but unequivocal about the continuing support. And about Russian threats   - "...Russia can be angry all it likes but I've got friends and they haven't..."

Times Radio interview - Ben Wallace

[poesel]

3 hours ago, womble said:

Okay. You're failing in consistency here. You said that Olaf is pandering to the "all arms exports are bad" lobby by refusing Rheinmetall the export permit for the Marders, yet they've all the permits they need to export anywhere else other than Ukraine;

I haven't said that. Every weapons export needs a permit from the government. Hence, each weapons export is a political decision.

3 hours ago, womble said:

This leads me to believe that you're mistaken about the Chancellor's motives. He's being selective about to whom amongst Germany's putative allies and partners Rheinmetall can export, and Ukraine's not on the list for some reason.

Yes, and the reason is (mostly) domestic policy, not economic reason. That is my point.
Every so often, it comes up here that the behavior of the German government in this respect is market driven. It is not, the Russian market is dead for the foreseeable future.

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

Yeah, "All arms exports are bad" is too strong a statement. Even SPD and Greens are ok with exporting arms to other NATO countries.

The Greens are in majority FOR exports, while the SPD (the chancellors party) is in majority AGAINST weapons exports. (both parties (and a third, FDP, also pro-export) form the current government).

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

Here I somewhat disagree with @poesel I'm not sure that this is entirely a domestic thing (although it certainly is in parts)....

...Those SPD members don't want to totally tear down all the bridges to Russia and therefore may not want to tackle Russia to hard. Another point: Scholz may not be the most favorite chancellor ever but many Germans are (or say they are) quite afraid of WW3. They support Scholz' reluctance to provide tanks and IFVs. (That is purely domestic, if course).

Which proves my point Many people in Germany and especially many people in the SPD support the no-export course. That is the reason why we don't do it.

I don't have anything else to add to this point, so I'll shut up before I bore you to death with German Politik. I'll keep you informed if anything meaningful happens here.

 

[cesmonkey]

Another great interview:

 

[Taranis]

Lithuanian company warms up Ukrainians with old car parts

Quote

 

As winter approaches, and as temperatures drop, a Lithuanian company is turning used car parts into small stoves to warm Ukraine. This initiative is a boon for this country, where Russian strikes on the electricity infrastructure plunge the population into cold and darkness for hours.

The Kalvis company makes stoves from old wheel rims and sends them to civilians and soldiers in Ukraine. So far, the company has produced almost a hundred stoves, half of which are already in use in Ukraine, notably in Bakhmout or Izium, near the front line.

 

Source : Le Monde

Edited December 15, 2022 by Taranis