How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

And so it begins.  The first knock-down fight in the US Congress over Ukraine funding is about to start:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4172076-conservatives-set-to-battle-over-ukraine-funding/

For the sake of non-US posters here, I am going to describe what the situation is without inserting my personal political beliefs.  I ask that any responses to this be without political commentary.  There is absolutely no need for it and I'm going to be disappointed with anybody who can not refrain from "putting a sock in it" and keeping this thread from going off the rails.

So, on the assumption that this crowd is both mature enough and interested enough in sticking to a fact based discussion...

This is something that many people, including Americans, do not appreciate about the US political system.  If the leader of a chamber doesn't want to take up legislation proposed by the other (or the President), things instantly become very, very messy.  It doesn't matter if the overwhelming majority of the chamber (all parties) would vote in favor of it, the leader doesn't have to do anything to make a vote happen. 

This is especially true of the Republican House which has, for several decades, refused to bring forward legislation for a vote if it can't be passed by Republicans alone.  Meaning, if the Republican caucus in the House is 50.00001% not in favor of something, no vote will be called EVEN IF the Democrats and Independents are 100% in favor of it.  Actually, especially if they are 100% in favor of it (no Republican leadership would survive such an event).  But lately, due to the internal instability of the Republican party generally, and the House caucus specifically, it doesn't even get to that point. 

The leadership is vulnerable to being voted out and so all it takes is a solid minority to be opposed to something and the leadership buckles in order to stay in its positions.  At the moment there's about 70 (32% of total) House Republicans that are on the record of not being in favor of sending more aid to Ukraine.  Of that, a sizeable chunk (unknown, but likely 20%+ of total) are predisposed to threatening to seek new leadership over this and other issues.  The last leadership election was the most contentious and prolonged in US history, something that the current leadership is well aware of.

The bottomline here is that the Republican House leadership is in a bind.  They either do what the minority of their party wants or get tossed out of their leadership positions.  This effectively means about 10% of the membership of Congress control national policy.  The Founding Fathers referred to it as the "tyranny of the minority" and they tried to ensure it didn't happen.  Obviously there's a few checks and balances missing in order to do that.

Nobody knows what is going to happen next, but whatever it is won't be as beneficial to Ukraine as it has been before.  This was predicted as soon as the Republicans took over the previous session (the one that was about to end) in both House and Senate worked together across party lines to buy Ukraine some time.  That time, unfortunately, has run out.

Steve

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And so it begins.  The first knock-down fight in the US Congress over Ukraine funding is about to start:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4172076-conservatives-set-to-battle-over-ukraine-funding/

For the sake of non-US posters here, I am going to describe what the situation is without inserting my personal political beliefs.  I ask that any responses to this be without political commentary.  There is absolutely no need for it and I'm going to be disappointed with anybody who can not refrain from "putting a sock in it" and keeping this thread from going off the rails.

So, on the assumption that this crowd is both mature enough and interested enough in sticking to a fact based discussion...

This is something that many people, including Americans, do not appreciate about the US political system.  If the leader of a chamber doesn't want to take up legislation proposed by the other (or the President), things instantly become very, very messy.  It doesn't matter if the overwhelming majority of the chamber (all parties) would vote in favor of it, the leader doesn't have to do anything to make a vote happen. 

This is especially true of the Republican House which has, for several decades, refused to bring forward legislation for a vote if it can't be passed by Republicans alone.  Meaning, if the Republican caucus in the House is 50.00001% not in favor of something, no vote will be called EVEN IF the Democrats and Independents are 100% in favor of it.  Actually, especially if they are 100% in favor of it (no Republican leadership would survive such an event).  But lately, due to the internal instability of the Republican party generally, and the House caucus specifically, it doesn't even get to that point. 

The leadership is vulnerable to being voted out and so all it takes is a solid minority to be opposed to something and the leadership buckles in order to stay in its positions.  At the moment there's about 70 (32% of total) House Republicans that are on the record of not being in favor of sending more aid to Ukraine.  Of that, a sizeable chunk (unknown, but likely 20%+ of total) are predisposed to threatening to seek new leadership over this and other issues.  The last leadership election was the most contentious and prolonged in US history, something that the current leadership is well aware of.

The bottomline here is that the Republican House leadership is in a bind.  They either do what the minority of their party wants or get tossed out of their leadership positions.  This effectively means about 10% of the membership of Congress control national policy.  The Founding Fathers referred to it as the "tyranny of the minority" and they tried to ensure it didn't happen.  Obviously there's a few checks and balances missing in order to do that.

Steve

Steve, question on process.  What latitude does the President as Commander-and-Chief have to take extant defence funding and shift it over to military aid?  I have seen us play that shell game during Afghanistan (it is how we got the Leo 2s).

[Vanir Ausf B]

Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante tells a defense industry conference that "I think a protracted conflict scenario...[is] not one that we have fully fleshed out the way we probably should have in terms of our budget planning."

https://twitter.com/paulmcleary/status/1696250321553473585

 

[Ultradave]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

They either do what the minority of their party wants or get tossed out of their leadership positions.  This effectively means about 10% of the membership of Congress control national policy. 

One thing I could add to this. That 10% may (or will) force the leadership to propose a vote to cease aid to Ukraine, but it will not pass either the House or Senate, based on current feelings among Representatives and Senators. There currently are more than enough to support aid to Ukraine, with supporters coming from both parties. That could also lead the 10% to force a leadership battle, even though they did what the 10% wanted, but it failed (the reasoning being the leadership cannot lead).

Democracy can be very messy 

Dave 

[The_MonkeyKing]

35 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And so it begins.  The first knock-down fight in the US Congress over Ukraine funding is about to start:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4172076-conservatives-set-to-battle-over-ukraine-funding/

For the sake of non-US posters here, I am going to describe what the situation is without inserting my personal political beliefs.  I ask that any responses to this be without political commentary.  There is absolutely no need for it and I'm going to be disappointed with anybody who can not refrain from "putting a sock in it" and keeping this thread from going off the rails.

So, on the assumption that this crowd is both mature enough and interested enough in sticking to a fact based discussion...

This is something that many people, including Americans, do not appreciate about the US political system.  If the leader of a chamber doesn't want to take up legislation proposed by the other (or the President), things instantly become very, very messy.  It doesn't matter if the overwhelming majority of the chamber (all parties) would vote in favor of it, the leader doesn't have to do anything to make a vote happen. 

This is especially true of the Republican House which has, for several decades, refused to bring forward legislation for a vote if it can't be passed by Republicans alone.  Meaning, if the Republican caucus in the House is 50.00001% not in favor of something, no vote will be called EVEN IF the Democrats and Independents are 100% in favor of it.  Actually, especially if they are 100% in favor of it (no Republican leadership would survive such an event).  But lately, due to the internal instability of the Republican party generally, and the House caucus specifically, it doesn't even get to that point. 

The leadership is vulnerable to being voted out and so all it takes is a solid minority to be opposed to something and the leadership buckles in order to stay in its positions.  At the moment there's about 70 (32% of total) House Republicans that are on the record of not being in favor of sending more aid to Ukraine.  Of that, a sizeable chunk (unknown, but likely 20%+ of total) are predisposed to threatening to seek new leadership over this and other issues.  The last leadership election was the most contentious and prolonged in US history, something that the current leadership is well aware of.

The bottomline here is that the Republican House leadership is in a bind.  They either do what the minority of their party wants or get tossed out of their leadership positions.  This effectively means about 10% of the membership of Congress control national policy.  The Founding Fathers referred to it as the "tyranny of the minority" and they tried to ensure it didn't happen.  Obviously there's a few checks and balances missing in order to do that.

Nobody knows what is going to happen next, but whatever it is won't be as beneficial to Ukraine as it has been before.  This was predicted as soon as the Republicans took over the previous session (the one that was about to end) in both House and Senate worked together across party lines to buy Ukraine some time.  That time, unfortunately, has run out.

Steve

There are ways if there is will.

Example that lend lease act that was passed for Ukraine.

I am sure there are also many many other more "creative" ways like black budgets.

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's three reasons they are MOSTLY kept away from the fighting.  The first is that technically they are for internal security as they are part of Rosviguardia.  Second, occupying foreign land always requires security forces, so keeping them in the rear serves a definite purpose which also is in keeping with Rosviguardia duties.  Third, Kadyrov and Putin know the paper tigers will get slaughtered just like everybody else if they go to the front.  That would not be good for either leader politically, so with few exceptions they are kept out of harm's way.

Their use as barrier troops is also a fact, however this isn't a distinctive role as regular Russian army forces are also used for that task as well as other tasks.

The one general exception to Kadyrov's forces staying out of the front is the Akhmat units (IIRC theoretically a brigade).  They have occasionally done some actual fighting and are promoted by Russians as an "elite" force.  Yet these are they guys that keep getting shuffled further south as Ukraine advances.  Hence my crack at them.

Steve

Worth to note that Kadyrov visibly long ago lost his stomach to fighting in this war- his videos appear rarer, he seems rather tired and fat as hell. Even after Prig death there was relatively little reaction from him.

Chechens do not like prolonged conflicts with meatgrinding inside; if it was up to him alone, he would probably negotiate with Ukraine long time ago.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Beleg85

[dan/california]

 

[dan/california]

Should have combined these, sorry. It really looks like the Ukrainians are pushing southeast from their current position around Robotyne, and hill 163. They may think there is a weaker spot there, or really want to widen their existing salient. It seems like they deep enough into the Russian lines to put pressure on the supplies and support units of the Russiansnhold the shoulder of their position.

[sburke]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The bottom line here is that the Republican House leadership is in a bind.  They either do what the minority of their party wants or get tossed out of their leadership positions.  This effectively means about 10% of the membership of Congress control national policy.  The Founding Fathers referred to it as the "tyranny of the minority" and they tried to ensure it didn't happen.  Obviously there's a few checks and balances missing in order to do that.

Steve

About the only thing I can say is buckle up.  Sept is gonna likely be the craziest month we have ever seen in our Gov't.

[Haiduk]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nobody knows what is going to happen next, but whatever it is won't be as beneficial to Ukraine as it has been before.  This was predicted as soon as the Republicans took over the previous session (the one that was about to end) in both House and Senate worked together across party lines to buy Ukraine some time.  That time, unfortunately, has run out.

Can President in case of ceasing of aid activate the aid by lend-lease? 

[Haiduk]

Some of cooked value Russian equipment

Next R-330Zh Zhytel GPS/GSM/SatCom jammer was hit in 5 km SE from Verbove

9S36M target aquisition and detection radar of Buk M2/M3 complexes. Though, I doubt this is first destroyed, recently I've seen a video, where such thing was shelled

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Haiduk

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Steve, question on process.  What latitude does the President as Commander-and-Chief have to take extant defence funding and shift it over to military aid?  I have seen us play that shell game during Afghanistan (it is how we got the Leo 2s).

There are ways but there are limits. Add in that it is and will be a febrile atmosphere with an appetite in many quarters to scream "corruption" and call for impeachment at pretty much any old opportunity and such efforts will be complicated. 

The bottom line is that Ukrainian aid is a no brainer but domestic politics weighs heavily on it.

[Haiduk]

Unit of 3rd assault brigade had a drone, Russians - no. Their "foot recon in force without relying on drone" finised predictably

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Haiduk

[Vet 0369]

17 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

 

 

The Chinese will have well over 400  PLAN ships at their disposal (and hundreds or thousands of “civilian” ships if needed) if they decide to get froggy, and we can assume at least some of their equipment is good, and the operators are competent. And the mainland has lots of missiles and rockets, and can manufacture more in a hurry. That’s the competition. There is a good chance the Chinese can sink any USN assets close to Taiwan other than submarines very quickly. How do you combat this?

155mm artillery, even guided doesn’t have the range needed, and requires trained operators. Smarter munitions require less operator training, and less ammunition to hit a target at longer distances, in theory. Of course, when all your radar and satellites are down, how do you find your targets? Probably small cheapo reconnaissance drones.

The marines need lots of heavy missiles, but also smaller cheaper stuff. A number of pages back I suggested a poverty cruise missile with a thermobaric warhead to punch into the bridge of funnel of a smaller ship. Something you can buy for less than $100k, vs $5+m or whatever tomahawks cost nowadays. Ukaine’s concept is complimentary: A jetski full of HE. Super cheap, long range, and if these things carry a few hundred kilos of HE, that’s enough to wreck most ships. The US military is obsessed with expensive fancy weaponry. I wish there would be the OPFOR version of procurement to fight against this.

EDIT: And none of this takes into account re-supply across the Pacific, which will be challenging. 13 tomahawks won’t make a difference. 500 sea baby’s will.

Well, since the powers that be haven’t sought to include me in their strategic planning operation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff Orr the Headquarters of the Marine Corps, the only thing that I KNOW is that there is TALK of supplying the Marines with Tomahawks. As far as we know, this could be anything from a Navy/Marine Corps ploy to get more funding from The Congress, to a disinformation campaign to induce the Chinese to think long and hard about how they would proceed in the South China Sea.

Since I don’t KNOW anything more, and have already expressed my “opinion,” this will be the last post I make on this subject until something changes.

[cesmonkey]

43 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Can President in case of ceasing of aid activate the aid by lend-lease? 

Likely not, the authority to do this expires at the end of the fiscal 2023 budget year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022

[cesmonkey]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3509116/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
 

Quote

The capabilities in this package, valued at up to $250 million, include:

AIM-9M missiles for air defense;
Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
155mm and 105mm artillery rounds;
Mine clearing equipment;
Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
Javelin and other anti-armor systems and rockets;
Hydra-70 Rockets;
Over 3 million rounds of small arms ammunition;
Armored medical treatment vehicles and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ambulances;
Demolitions munitions for obstacle clearing; and
Spare parts, maintenance, and other field equipment.
 

 

[Vet 0369]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think anyone considers the Tuvans to be ethnic Russians either.

The question was about whether the Kadyrovites are held back for prestige reasons as "TikTok soldiers" or because they make for very effective blocking troops.

For whatever reason. Ethnicity being one possibility.

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an “ethnic” Russian or an “ethnic” Ukrainian or an “ethnic” Pole, or an “ethnic” anything for that matter. Everyone’s DNA is so diversified, that all you can tell is that the largest part is from a “generally current” population.

A much better LABEL would be “cultural” instead of “ethnic.”

[Vet 0369]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Steve, question on process.  What latitude does the President as Commander-and-Chief have to take extant defence funding and shift it over to military aid?  I have seen us play that shell game during Afghanistan (it is how we got the Leo 2s).

Based on my experience as an Executive Branch Federal Employee, basically the only way that Congress can guarantee that the funds are spent as appropriated, is to “earmark” the funding for a specific program/purpose. For example, in once read an FAA Reauthorization Act (it had to be done every two years if I remember correctly), in which Congress specified that a certain amount of the monies must be used to hire x number of Flight Standards Inspectors. That was to prevent funds being siphoned off and diverted to other programs within the FAA.

[Centurian52]

5 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

A much better LABEL would be “cultural” instead of “ethnic.”

Frankly most of what actually distinguishes ethnic groups these days has far more to do with culture than genes. There is certainly an implication that it has something to do with genes, but that's probably just residual 19th century and earlier racism (there was a time when "nation" and "race" were very closely linked concepts). 

Ethnic Russians are simply those Russians that the Russians consider to be the most Russian. I believe the highest concentrations of ethnic Russians are around Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Non-ethnic Russians would be those Russians who have some lingering cultural memory of having been conquered or otherwise subdued by Russia.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

There are ways but there are limits. Add in that it is and will be a febrile atmosphere with an appetite in many quarters to scream "corruption" and call for impeachment at pretty much any old opportunity and such efforts will be complicated. 

The bottom line is that Ukrainian aid is a no brainer but domestic politics weighs heavily on it.

Wow, way to make it all about you.  Pretty sure people had the same complaint about the Roman Empire.

[dan/california]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Steve, question on process.  What latitude does the President as Commander-and-Chief have to take extant defence funding and shift it over to military aid?  I have seen us play that shell game during Afghanistan (it is how we got the Leo 2s).

 

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Can President in case of ceasing of aid activate the aid by lend-lease? 

The great fiddle if they want to use it ruthlessly is what stuff is valued at. They have already adjusted this once. The President/Pentagon COULD start valuing Bradley's at a dollar a peice, and 155 mm shells at ten a penny. I mean it is a transparent dodge, but it might take a LONG time for that to be adjudicated in a way that prevented them from doing it. It would certainly create a longterm legal and political fur ball, but that just seems to be a permanent U.S. institution at this point.

Edited August 29, 2023 by dan/california

[Bulletpoint]

52 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an “ethnic” Russian or an “ethnic” Ukrainian or an “ethnic” Pole, or an “ethnic” anything for that matter. Everyone’s DNA is so diversified, that all you can tell is that the largest part is from a “generally current” population.

A much better LABEL would be “cultural” instead of “ethnic.”

I don't know how you define ethnicity in the USA.

Personally, I'm going by this definition:

 

Ethnicity

a large group of people with a shared culture, language, history, set of traditions, etc., or the fact of belonging to one of these groups

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ethnicity

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Bulletpoint

[Haiduk]

Video of interception of Russian Orlan UAV by MiG-29 with AA missile. The pilot of this jet was Andriy Pil'shchikov ("Juice"). He was buried today. He had a rank of captain and had been flying on MiG-29 since 2016. Since Feb 24 he had about 500 hours of combat flights. 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Haiduk

[billbindc]

43 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Wow, way to make it all about you.  Pretty sure people had the same complaint about the Roman Empire.

Heh. 

Guilty as charged.

[Haiduk]

Small "nuke" after FPV drone of 14th mech.brigade hit Russian Msta-S. Location - near Sofiivka village, Luhask oblast, Kupiansk direction

Russian offensive on Kupiansk still bogging, though many experts say main goal was not new contact line along Oskol river (but desired), but to force Ukrainian command to move reserves here, which could be involved on the south or in some other place. Partially they could achieve this

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Haiduk