How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is right where we started this stupid war.  From the start (or in my case, years before the start) the options for Russia under Putin were:

1. continue on its long and slow decline of empire, at home and abroad, until the current regime system collapsed in some way.  Could happen under Putin, could happen under his successor, but it would eventually happen.
2. try to reverse the decline using the tools that the regime has on hand and is also willing to use.  Increasingly only military aggression fits that definition.

Obviously Putin chose to use military force against Ukraine.  As has been stated since the beginning of this nasty war, there is no realistic way of this changing Russia's fate because it is in decline for reasons that have little to do with territorial, resource, or even demographic reasons.  Russia is failing because it isn't structured for success.

Previous posters have characterized Russia's problematic decision making very well.  LLF's detailing of Russia's "alternative facts" is spot on.  For more than a decade the real solutions for Russia's ills have been clear, but all of them require becoming a less autocratic and kleptocratic state.  Difficult to do even when there is a will for it, impossible when there is none.  There is none, so all of the ways Russia could avoid collapse have been ruled out as unacceptable to the decision makers.

The regime no doubt understands that they have lost far more than they can gain through negotiations.  Which makes them very reluctant to concede anything, because whatever they concede comes on top of all the other problems they have created for themselves which are outside of the scope of a peace deal. 

Russia's leadership is stuck.  They know they are stuck.  They don't know how to get unstuck, so they are going to continue with their fantasy maximalist demands.  Even if they concede something on paper, they won't honor it.  Ukraine knows this better than anybody, so their incentives to engage with Russia in diplomacy is zero.

Let's also not forget that Putin learned a lesson from Minsk II, which is "two can play the game".  Russia thought it could use false diplomacy to get what it wanted, but Ukraine did exactly the same thing.  Hence the frozen conflict which did not work to Russia's advantage (hence this war).  So I'm not sure Putin is even interested in a false peace deal.  His insistence on maximalist demands seems to indicate this is the case.

Steve

 

In 1994, Sergei Yushenkov was telling people in the diplomatic community that Russia was entering what he called its "Weimar" period. He was subsequently assassinated for, inter alia, investigating the apartment bombings that solidified Putin's power and preparing to run in 2003's national elections with the Liberal Party. All of this is to say that Russia had an opportunity and a choice that was squandered/made two decades ago. The machine will run until it breaks...whether that's in Melitopol or Tartu.  

Edited September 5, 2023 by billbindc

[Haiduk]

Russian milblogger "Thirteen" has recorded audio message, where he blamed Russian command that they don't carry on about evecuation or exchange of fallen Russian soldiers from 247th air-assault regiment of 7th air-assault division. He told only for one day near Staromajorske 49 paratroopers were killed. He also says Russian command became to pursuit him for his activity in this direction, so if somethg happen with him, this will be his foes among HQs

 

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, BlackMoria said:

Speaking as a retired artillery officer....three other reasons to explain this:

1. They have insufficient radios and field phones to communicate with the battery command post.  

2.  The clearing in the trees is too small for proper dispersion of the guns.  Knowing that drones are sweeping treelines for targets, the russians may have chanced putting these guns into a small clearing in the middle of a forest with a trail going into the clearing for the tow vehicles.

3. They lack fire control calculators/computers to calculate fire patterns like converge, linear, etc.   The spacing looks about right for just doing a common bearing and range shoot to all guns and the spacing of the guns is about right for overlapping lethal burst patterns.

#2, not enough room, is a very common reason for me to accept more relaxed spacing in Combat Mission. Those guns look like they are as spread out as they can be given the size of the clearing.

I try to maintain fairly doctrinal spacings as much as I can (50 meters for Soviet and German vehicles, 75 yards (~70 meters) for American vehicles, and haven't gotten around to British doctrine yet). But a lot of the time there just isn't enough room for proper spacing (and sometimes there's an abundance of room and I spread out considerably more than 50 or 70 meters (in practice I think I follow the rule "fill the available space" more often than any set interval)).

[Haiduk]

Russian TG

Situation in Klishchiivka is lousy, reported from frontline.

Details will be further

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, holoween said:

Or to put it simply: Whoever has more firepower measured by effect on target wins.

That would seem to get at the heart of the mass vs precision debate. 10 guns each with a 10% chance of hitting their target (mass) and one gun with a 100% chance of hitting the target (precision) would both seem to have a pretty similar effect on the target. 10 guns, each with a 100% chance of hitting their target (massed precision) will have a much greater effect on the target. 

[Haiduk]

Some videos from Kreminna sector

Russian ammo dump turned to fireball (video and twitter account claims this is Zaporizhzhia ob;ast, but this is not true)

12th National Guard "Azov" brigade in action on Dibrova direction. Assault of Russian positions. "Azov" commader "Redis" told this local operation could push Russians on 400 m in depth and on 500 m of wide. Russian losses 13 kileld, 12 wounded, 2 captured.

PS. It's painful to see that glorious brigade uses old BTR-70...

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

Finally, the curse is probabilistic in nature. There is no rule stating that a non-democratic country which discovers large resource deposits can't build a thriving economy. It's just less likely to build a thriving economy.

Look at some of the oil rich countries in the Middle East as examples of this.  They are definitely not free and open societies, but they have some measure of the rule of law.  Their economies for decades have been almost entirely dependent upon oil extraction until very recently.  There's a real understanding amongst these nations that having the entire nation's economy be based on a rapidly depleting resource that is also under pressure to be abandoned isn't a very good idea.  I have no idea which of these countries, if any, will manage to diversify enough ahead of time to avoid massive economic pain, but I will give them credit for trying.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

The real advantage of the rifled gun is that it makes it possible to fire HESH effectively. Which is why it's puzzling that the Ukrainians apparently aren't receiving HESH ammunition. A Challenger 2 without HESH seems to be missing the point. Retaining a rifled gun into the modern day was a serious design compromise that the British army made specifically because they believed HESH was worth it. HESH (while not effective against modern MBTs) is a fantastic anti-personnel, anti-bunker, and anti-light vehicle round.

I think the issue is that the supply is constrained. The UK seems to retain small stockpiles of most munitions and IIRC has not procured 120mm HESH rounds since the 2000s. The are no NATO allies to fall back on either.

[Battlefront.com]

52 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Oil/gas being the thumb on the scale that tipped Russia into a mafia state? It’s plasuible, but I don’t buy it, but if you have a source for this I’d love to read it because it never come up as an example when I was studying natural resource economics in college in the early 2000s.

I don’t buy it because Russia was already a decaying mafia state, where anything that was nailed down would be stolen, by anybody with the opportunity (see the 90s, for everything). Their culture was absolutely not conducive to transitioning into a western democracy. Plus everybody who valued hard work and wanted democracy left as fast as they could once the curtain fell.

No sources, just observations.

For sure the Russian state started out being a mafia state since that was, in effect, what the late Soviet state had turned into.  Given this and Russia's lack of experience with representational government, it was most likely going to go down hill the way it did.  However, easily exploitable natural resources created the opportunities for very small numbers of people to call the shots.  And then Putin decided to make it even smaller by eliminating those people and taking the resources for himself and his appointees that he could control. 

Without the abundance of easily exploitable natural resources, chief among them oil/gas, the Putin regime would not have been able to build up its power at home or abroad.  It would not have been able to buy off Europe every time it wanted to do something nefarious.  It certainly wouldn't have had the financial resources to build a large conventional military while also (until recently) keeping the populace from turning on him.

And that is my point.  Kleptocratic states can not exist unless there is something easy to steal.  The only easy thing to steal is natural resources.  Ergo, no natural resources no kleptocratic states.

Steve

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, kevinkin said:

I agree completely. Only the USA can unilaterally end this nightmare. Everyone else are back benchers. But seriously, NATO is an impotent part of defeating Russian just from a logistic POV. 

The US couldn't unilaterally end the war. Ukraine would keep fighting, just less effectively, even if the US withdrew all support overnight (Ukraine is a sovereign country that does not answer to Washington). I really don't think there is any party that can unilaterally end the war (except Russia obviously, but they won't).

Besides, attempting to negotiate a ceasefire now would not end the nightmare, only put it on pause for a few years. The Ukrainians know that. A ceasefire now would mean the next generation of Ukrainians will have to endure even more suffering. We don't want the nightmare to just get put on pause for a few years. We want it to completely end. And the only way to end it is to see it through.

[kevinkin]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think it is likely we are in agreement that there are worse things than this conventional war that Ukraine needs to be concerned about.

Thank you for the well written essay. It establishes a position from which we can all calibrate from. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by kevinkin

[FancyCat]

Totally sounds like a leader recognizing the only way forward now for Russia and Ukraine is negotiations. 

Quote

Putin today: "The Western masters placed an ethnic Jew, a person with Jewish roots, at the head of Ukraine and this is how, in my opinion, they cover up the anti-human essence that is the foundation of the modern Ukrainian state." Putin forced me out of my country and put me on the federal wanted list in Russia, but I feel embarrassed for him. And I feel embarrassed that we Russians allowed such a scum to take power.

 

 

[kevinkin]

5 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

The US couldn't unilaterally end the war. Ukraine would keep fighting, just less effectively, even if the US withdrew all support overnight (Ukraine is a sovereign country that does not answer to Washington). I really don't think there is any party that can unilaterally end the war (except Russia obviously, but they won't).

Besides, attempting to negotiate a ceasefire now would not end the nightmare, only put it on pause for a few years. The Ukrainians know that. A ceasefire now would mean the next generation of Ukrainians will have to endure even more suffering. We don't want the nightmare to just get put on pause for a few years. We want it to completely end. And the only way to end it is to see it through.

That depends on the end game one imagines. The US could end this tomorrow. Sure, the "war" might go on for years. We are in a constant state war all the time. Good vs Evil ... However, I am very concerned the US is not putting any skin in the game, printing money and letting Ukraine fight on its own with two hands tied behind their backs. Imagine if the US announced I no fly zone over Ukraine and the strategic message that would send. And take it from there. 

[Centurian52]

2 hours ago, Eddy said:

I could hide behind that I used the words 'perhaps' but in all honesty I did not know any of that, so thanks for replying. Explains one of the reasons why Chally 3 will be smooth bore I suppose

And in all honesty it was pure coincidence that I quoted your comment anyway. I remembered that I had some points to make on the Challenger, so I backtracked until I started seeing some of the comments on the Challenger that I meant to reply to. Yours just happened to be the one I spotted first.

[BlackMoria]

Interesting video on Russia's response to China claiming some Russian islands on China's new map.

 

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Just leaving this here for any forum member or lurker who wants to help out.

libertyukraine.org

[kevinkin]

When was that last time the POTUS met with Putin? Or spoke on the hot line?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/biden-putin-summit-live-updates/?id=78286684

This didn't go as planned given what we are discussing. Note: I am not pinning this on the current POTUS nor making a political statement. Just asking the strategic question. 

[Seedorf81]

4 hours ago, kevinkin said:

I do know. But that would a subject of different thread. I live an breath these issues. Once the Sudanese debacle intersects with the Ukraine debacle maybe we can all solve the problems together. And hold hands. 

Yeah, wouldn't be very wise to say something else.

For someone who "lives and breaths these issues", you have a pretty uncompromising attitude.

All the persons I met in my life that I know to be considerate and/or compassionate, and who have a reasonable amount of empathy, are usually not belligerent at all. They are full of doubts, do not want to hurt other people, refrain from aggression and sometimes even from assertiveness. They think and learn, wonder and discuss. And doubt again.

I like those people. We need those people. They are the ones that can bring us better times. Not the spitefull or aggressive ones, not the ones with the big ego's or the oh so confident ones.

To me, you do not seem to be a doubter. And where I totally understand the rage, anger and bloodlust from the Ukrainians, I have a bit more difficulty with your "assertive" way of posting. You are, according to your profile, in the USA, so not directly involved in the war, but your posts sometimes give the impression that you are on the frontlines.

In more than 12 years on the Battlefront-forums I only used my ignore button once, because I think people should be able to say what they want. But even after Battlefront-Steve asked you very polite to be just a little bit more agreeable, I do not see a nicer KevinK.

I don't like myself for it, but your posts seem to keep on triggering some sort of annoyance with me, so I am gonna use the ignore-button for now.

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Seedorf81

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

PS. It's painful to see that glorious brigade uses old BTR-70...

A BTR-70 is still better than an M113.

I'm playing Combat Mission: Cold War right now, and I think I've built out something of a hierarchy for infantry carriers. Any other IFV is better than a BMP-1. Any IFV, BMP-1 included, is better than any APC. Anything with an enclosed turret, BTRs included, is better than an M113. Anything with armor and room for dismounts, M113 included, is better than nothing.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Centurian52

[kevinkin]

3 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

All the persons I met in my life that I know to be considerate and/or compassionate, and who have a reasonable amount of empathy, are usually not belligerent at all. They are full of doubts, do not want to hurt other people, refrain from aggression and sometimes even from assertiveness. They think and learn, wonder and discuss. And doubt again.

But they have opinions and skills that actually might save your life one day. 

[Seedorf81]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Totally sounds like a leader recognizing the only way forward now for Russia and Ukraine is negotiations. 

 

 

I'm 61 years old, thought I had seen it all, heard it all, but this shocks me to the bone.

I really thought: "This has to be a joke! Nobody can be such an ignorant idiot."

WOW.

[Teufel]

As Haiduk already has covered all the bases today I can just add this video to cap off todays updates.

Vodka, Lada and Russians being Russians.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Teufel

[FancyCat]

4 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

When was that last time the POTUS met with Putin? Or spoke on the hot line?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/biden-putin-summit-live-updates/?id=78286684

This didn't go as planned given what we are discussing. Note: I am not pinning this on the current POTUS nor making a political statement. Just asking the strategic question. 

You do know there is a certain perception that occurs around diplomacy right? Things like the way someone acts, how eager is so and so to talk, not to mention the undercurrent of diplomatic nuance, and how interactions can affect the different domestic and international actors watching the same diplomacy occur, it is not as simple as Biden ringing up Putin to give him so and so a piece of his mind, or whatever. 

Putin and the Russian government, when Western countries were discussing aid to Ukraine on the order of equipment of raising intensity, artillery, missiles, aircraft, you'll find cautious leaders like Macron, Scholz, cautioning to seek diplomacy, or non-escalation, Russia and Putin, should have indicated openness to talks, instead I recall in the Winter or Spring, Macron basically said that their overtures to Russia had gone unanswered, that the Russian government was doubling down on Ukraine, and that therefore France would be all in on supporting Ukraine. 

Biden asking to phone to Putin, would invite a lot of scrutiny, as again, there are ways for the U.S government to inquire about Russia's willingness to come to the table, and so whether or not Putin is eager to talk or not, Russia gets the domestic and international ammo to portray disruption in the Western consensus on support for Ukraine, get to sow opposition to supporting Ukraine, etc. 

So the strategic question isn't so much wheres the talking, its what are the conditions for the talking, and right now, both Russia and Ukraine have indicated positions far away from stances that may allow this talking. And the U.S has firmly placed itself on the side of 1. Ukraine gets full say in how long to wage war, 2. Russia must get out of Ukraine. 

So say you want Biden to talk to Putin, aside from the fact that Biden may get refused, and Russia gets to say that the U.S is cracking under pressure, what is there to say to Putin? And from what I've heard publicly from Biden and co, all options involving U.S or NATO intervention in Ukraine with boots or aircraft is off the table. So unless you think Biden should in a phone call threaten NATO intervention and risk Putin either calling his bluff or Biden looking humiliated by his words being false, you want high level talks to occur to do what exactly?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Totally sounds like a leader recognizing the only way forward now for Russia and Ukraine is negotiations.

Oh boy.  Even for Vlad this is a low point.  He's really trying to remove the ambiguity, isn't he?  Unfortunately, many of those in the West who oppose supporting Ukraine won't have a problem with this.  Many actually agree with it, some even publicly (i.e. the neonazis).  Which just makes the real motivations behind the opposition to helping Ukraine all the more clearer.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, FancyCat said:

So say you want Biden to talk to Putin, aside from the fact that Biden may get refused, and Russia gets to say that the U.S is cracking under pressure, what is there to say to Putin?

Absolutely nothing.  If Macron and Scholz couldn't get anywhere with Putin, people that Putin said he likes, then there's zero chance of anything happening with Biden, someone he does not like.

As you said, Biden even ATTEMPTING to talk with Putin directly would be a diplomatic disaster in the making.

Steve